Q 4 Steve Grenard: Which mediums are "valid"? Did Schwartz fail?

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

On your now defunct SurvivalScience.org-board, you had this to say about the validity of various mediums:

"I accept the validity of JE, Susan Northrop, Laurie Campbell, Anne Gehman, George Anderson as well as others you have never heard of whom I had the occasion to interview/test exactly because they were tested. While I can't go into details, I do not accept the validity of every medium who claims to do what these do and recently arranged for someone to visit a high profile physical medium overseas. Based on the report, I concluded this person was associated with others who may be fraudulent and I reported this to other investigators closer to this person for follow up and possible confirmation. The medium with whom the appointment was made did NOT show up and a substitute was sent. I remain skeptical until I have sufficient evidence otherwise., whether obtained personally or by investigators I know and trust. As you are fully aware, SB was not tested by Schwartz et al or by any other investigator up to the present time, nor has she responded to the offer she accepted (although I still think it was a bad deal for reasons stated previously) to demonstrate her abilities while attempting to falsify Randi's generalization hypothesis with a statistically insignificant number of non-target sitters."
SurvivalScience.org, "Validity of Mediumship", 04-16-2002 06:44 PM

Now, you have apparently come to the realization that John Edward (JE) is not a real medium, but a fake. However, you expressed belief in JE being a real medium because of him being tested by Schwartz.

Since you have changed your mind, do you now question the experiments done by Schwartz? I cannot really see how you can reconcile a belief that Schwartz has tested these mediums scientifically (and found evidence - however flimsy it might be), with a clear statement that JE is a fake.

If JE is a fake, what does that say about Schwartz' experiments?

[CFLarsen]

Bump for Steve.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.
Source (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29034&perpage=40&highlight=reading&pagenumber=3)

[Jeff Corey]

bump

[SteveGrenard]

r
Thread


CFLarsen
10-28-2003 05:37 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


CFLarsen
11-02-2003 12:02 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


CFLarsen
11-02-2003 12:13 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2790

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
CFLarsen
10-28-2003 05:37 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


CFLarsen
11-02-2003 12:02 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


CFLarsen
11-02-2003 12:13 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]
Bummer. Here, let me help you out:
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Steve,

On your now defunct SurvivalScience.org-board, you had this to say about the validity of various mediums:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I accept the validity of JE, Susan Northrop, Laurie Campbell, Anne Gehman, George Anderson as well as others you have never heard of whom I had the occasion to interview/test exactly because they were tested. While I can't go into details, I do not accept the validity of every medium who claims to do what these do and recently arranged for someone to visit a high profile physical medium overseas. Based on the report, I concluded this person was associated with others who may be fraudulent and I reported this to other investigators closer to this person for follow up and possible confirmation. The medium with whom the appointment was made did NOT show up and a substitute was sent. I remain skeptical until I have sufficient evidence otherwise., whether obtained personally or by investigators I know and trust. As you are fully aware, SB was not tested by Schwartz et al or by any other investigator up to the present time, nor has she responded to the offer she accepted (although I still think it was a bad deal for reasons stated previously) to demonstrate her abilities while attempting to falsify Randi's generalization hypothesis with a statistically insignificant number of non-target sitters."
SurvivalScience.org, "Validity of Mediumship", 04-16-2002 06:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, you have apparently come to the realization that John Edward (JE) is not a real medium, but a fake. However, you expressed belief in JE being a real medium because of him being tested by Schwartz.

Since you have changed your mind, do you now question the experiments done by Schwartz? I cannot really see how you can reconcile a belief that Schwartz has tested these mediums scientifically (and found evidence - however flimsy it might be), with a clear statement that JE is a fake.

If JE is a fake, what does that say about Schwartz' experiments?[/b]

[NoZed Avenger]

Vort, you are a treasure.


. . . AND the fastest member of the Science Ninja Team (tm).


N/A

[SteveGrenard]

Fair enough Vorticity if you are interested in these questions:

Q: Now, you have apparently come to the realization that John Edward (JE) is not a real medium, but a fake.

Response: I have said that on LKL while doing telephone readings he was cold reading. This does not mean that in other environments and circumstances he is, per se, a fake. I pointed to the reasons why.


Q: However, you expressed belief in JE being a real medium because of him being tested by Schwartz.

Response: I accept the validity of Schwartz' study with all 5 mediums based on the %accuracy, the fact that the mediums and sitters were assigned by lots drawn randomly, that they were anonymous to the mediums and that significant information was returned in the absence of opportunities for cold reading (no responses from sitters; no questions asked); warm reading (the sitters could not be seen) and hot reading (the sitters were unknown to the mediums-see above).


Q: Since you have changed your mind, do you now question the experiments done by Schwartz?

Response: The trials done by Schwartz and his team members in front of a television crew were as good as they could have been and based on the above, I accept their validity.


Q: I cannot really see how you can reconcile a belief that Schwartz has tested these mediums scientifically (and found evidence - however flimsy it might be), with a clear statement that JE is a fake.

Response: Schwartz has done what many others have done before him but he did it on television. This is the rub for cynics. Reading people for 30 seconds to a minute over the telephone on LKL has consistently proven to be a poor environment for which any psychic (including JE) can perform. I even think that doing so in front of a studio audience of 200 such as on Crossing Over is similarly open to complaint. I do not base the totality of my opinions regarding JE on these alone and have always said so. JE clearly fell prey to the need to ask questions of his callers even though at the outset he cautioned them not to give him the very information he later was caught asking. I do not realize if he knew he was doing this but he was unbelievably naive if he thought just about everyone watching would not notice it -- altho apparently some did not.

I base my rationale also on my personal experience with a medium where no information was asked whatsoever or given for over 2 hours in a one on one environment. I was not shrouded from view, however.

Q: If JE is a fake, what does that say about Schwartz' experiments?

Response: Nothing unless you can provide direct, unequivocal beyond a reasonable doubt evidence they were fraudulent. Ed's assertion that Schwartz was a fraud ergo includes Linda Ellerbee, her producer, directors, camera crew, film editors, Schwartz's research assistants, the oversight committee of the University of Arizona and a plethora of others. While Ed may be stupid enough to libel all these people and you may do likewise, I do not. The experiments were done properly and had James Randi continued negotiating with Schwartz over the circumstances of their release we would know that as well from his corner. Randi suddenly woke up to this fact and I suggest this was a significant part of his true rationale for terminating dialogue with Schwartz. Randi was after white crows he knew in advance were phonies or whose performance could be manipulated by statistically insignificant, singular foibles .... so I should call them white pigeons. SB was clearly such a pigeon. That Randi persists on occasion of continuing to accuse Schwartz of backing out is laughable in the presence of documented evidence, in Randi's own words, that it was he who absconded.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Fair enough Vorticity if you are interested in these questions:

If you think it is "fair", why don't you just take me off "ignore"? People might think you don't like me as a person, instead of not liking my argumentation....

(Now, there's a point I'd like you to address :D)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Q: Now, you have apparently come to the realization that John Edward (JE) is not a real medium, but a fake.

Response: I have said that on LKL while doing telephone readings he was cold reading. This does not mean that in other environments and circumstances he is, per se, a fake. I pointed to the reasons why.

Whoa, just a second! Why is it not evidence that JE is just a cold reader, when all he does on LKL is cold reading? Are you going to completely ignore that JE does not control his environment on LKL, but on his show, he does?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Q: However, you expressed belief in JE being a real medium because of him being tested by Schwartz.

Response: I accept the validity of Schwartz' study with all 5 mediums based on the %accuracy, the fact that the mediums and sitters were assigned by lots drawn randomly, that they were anonymous to the mediums and that significant information was returned in the absence of opportunities for cold reading (no responses from sitters; no questions asked); warm reading (the sitters could not be seen) and hot reading (the sitters were unknown to the mediums-see above).

Steve, listen, OK? The mediums had contact with the sitters before the readings. The mediums f*cking knew the sitters. One of the sitters was Schwartz himself! There were so many leaks, that the whole experiment should not be called the "Arizona Experiment" but the "Colander Experiment"!!

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Q: Since you have changed your mind, do you now question the experiments done by Schwartz?

Response: The trials done by Schwartz and his team members in front of a television crew were as good as they could have been and based on the above, I accept their validity.

Then you are a gullible fool, seduced by an academic degree (not your own, though). Or, an outright fraud.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Q: I cannot really see how you can reconcile a belief that Schwartz has tested these mediums scientifically (and found evidence - however flimsy it might be), with a clear statement that JE is a fake.

Response: Schwartz has done what many others have done before him but he did it on television. This is the rub for cynics.

Huh? What are you talking about? Is a TV show now showing reality?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reading people for 30 seconds to a minute over the telephone on LKL has consistently proven to be a poor environment for which any psychic (including JE) can perform. I even think that doing so in front of a studio audience of 200 such as on Crossing Over is similarly open to complaint.

Why is it "poor"? We know that JE performs worse - even abysmal - when he does not control his environment.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I do not base the totality of my opinions regarding JE on these alone and have always said so.

Really? Where?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
JE clearly fell prey to the need to ask questions of his callers even though at the outset he cautioned them not to give him the very information he later was caught asking. I do not realize if he knew he was doing this but he was unbelievably naive if he thought just about everyone watching would not notice it -- altho apparently some did not.

Hey, he's been on LKL many times, he should know by now.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I base my rationale also on my personal experience with a medium where no information was asked whatsoever or given for over 2 hours in a one on one environment. I was not shrouded from view, however.

Your assessment that JE is a real medium has nothing to do with your experience with another medium. You are wildly contradicting yourself here: First, you say that we cannot weigh one medium against another. Now, you are saying that we can.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Q: If JE is a fake, what does that say about Schwartz' experiments?

Response: Nothing unless you can provide direct, unequivocal beyond a reasonable doubt evidence they were fraudulent.

Steve, get real. Schwartz' experiments would be thrown out of a high school science project competition. Are you saying that there are no serious flaws with Schwartz' experimental setup?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ed's assertion that Schwartz was a fraud ergo includes Linda Ellerbee, her producer, directors, camera crew, film editors, Schwartz's research assistants, the oversight committee of the University of Arizona and a plethora of others. While Ed may be stupid enough to libel all these people and you may do likewise, I do not.

Ask Ed about that. That has nothing to do with my question. You are changing the subject here.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The experiments were done properly and had James Randi continued negotiating with Schwartz over the circumstances of their release we would know that as well from his corner. Randi suddenly woke up to this fact and I suggest this was a significant part of his true rationale for terminating dialogue with Schwartz. Randi was after white crows he knew in advance were phonies or whose performance could be manipulated by statistically insignificant, singular foibles .... so I should call them white pigeons. SB was clearly such a pigeon. That Randi persists on occasion of continuing to accuse Schwartz of backing out is laughable in the presence of documented evidence, in Randi's own words, that it was he who absconded.

Again, completely irrelevant. I asked you what it said about Schwartz' experiments, not about Randi's role in this.

Steve, you are - once again - fumbling for a reply. You try, you fail.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...The experiments were done properly and had James Randi continued negotiating with Schwartz over the circumstances of their release we would know that as well from his corner. Randi suddenly woke up to this fact and I suggest this was a significant part of his true rationale for terminating dialogue with Schwartz.
The so called experiments have been criticized in Skeptical Inquirer and elsewhere.
And your speculation about the cause or causes of the termination of the dialog between Randi and Schwartz is without any basis in fact.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ed's assertion that Schwartz was a fraud ergo includes Linda Ellerbee, her producer, directors, camera crew, film editors, Schwartz's research assistants, the oversight committee of the University of Arizona and a plethora of others. While Ed may be stupid enough to libel all these people and you may do likewise, I do not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask Ed about that. That has nothing to do with my question. You are changing the subject here.



[b]This, Steve, is completely out in left field.

Are you going to sit there and state that a TV production crew on an ENTERTAINMENT SHOW has any credibility whatsoever?

Is that what you are saying?

[SteveGrenard]

Ed: Go back and read what I said. You are selectively leaving out members of the set.

[Ed]

Who knows about the research assistants. You expect them to take an elevated view against their employer? Do they even know any better? As far as the University goes. Think back to Tim Leary. Know how long it took Harvard to trashcan him? And since when do administrators at Universities play Rambo?

Back to the TV group... Answer my question.

[SteveGrenard]

I did. My answer stands. I frankly dont give a damn what you think about it.
You wish to call Schwartz and his team a fraud that's your perogrative. Whether it is a true statement is not for me to discuss here. It will be decided elsewhere I am sure.

And by the way, since these were Larsen's questions, I will not discuss them further through proxies nor will I answer any more through proxies.

Larsen is on permanent ignore because his questions are designed as trolling instruments and forms of flame. He has harassed me and others and uses you, TLN and otrhers to do so far too much already. SO, Ed, you too are my ignore list on advice of ...never mind.
You just are.

[Yahweh]

http://216.218.248.155/datastore/d3/2c/b/d32c75105c00474d7d333f1a7092a61a.jpg

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ed:... You are selectively leaving out members of the set.
Maybe it was a null set?
Or is that the null hypothesis?

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I did. My answer stands. I frankly dont give a damn what you think about it.
You wish to call Schwartz and his team a fraud that's your perogrative. Whether it is a true statement is not for me to discuss here. It will be decided elsewhere I am sure.

And by the way, since these were Larsen's questions, I will not discuss them further through proxies nor will I answer any more through proxies.

Larsen is on permanent ignore because his questions are designed as trolling instruments and forms of flame. He has harassed me and others and uses you, TLN and otrhers to do so far too much already. SO, Ed, you too are my ignore list on advice of ...never mind.
You just are.

You are such a transparent idiot.

[The Mighty Thor]

I don't think Steve can answer these questions and remain consistent. And he cannot reply to scrutiny of the inconsistent answers he does give. He must know he is in a corner, and his ignoring of Larsen is just a copout to avoid admitting he is wrong.

malc

[SteveGrenard]

Except I have been ignoring Larsen for about 5 months now ...... and longer than that in some cases. Larsen and at least one or two of his "pals" has been cyber stalking and harassing me and several others for over a year. You shouldnt speak of that of which you know nothing......

He is on permanent ignore and no goading by you as his instrument will do anything to change that. So save your electrons for something worthhwile and don't join his little cabal. Wait till the book comes out. Every harassing post he has ever made has been preserved.

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: Larsen and at least one or two of his "pals" has been cyber stalking and harassing me and several others for over a year. You shouldnt speak of that of which you know nothing...... Nice spin doctoring, Steve. You refuse to answer legitimate (albeit embarassing) questions and instead falsely accuse him of "stalking" and "harassing". You don't really have much credibility left on this board, you know.

... Wait till the book comes out. Every harassing post he has ever made has been preserved.Oh my - a book. Will this "book" be coming out in the same timely manner as the lawsuits you threatened? I won't be holding my breath.

BTW, how have you managed to preserve his posts if he has been on your ignore list for the past five months? Is this some new paranormal ability previously unheard of?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And by the way, since these were Larsen's questions, I will not discuss them further through proxies nor will I answer any more through proxies.

But you feel quite comfortable discussing both Schwartz' and Keen's points through proxy (yourself)?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Larsen is on permanent ignore because his questions are designed as trolling instruments and forms of flame. He has harassed me and others and uses you, TLN and otrhers to do so far too much already. SO, Ed, you too are my ignore list on advice of ...never mind. You just are.

Always pointing to the shadows for support. Thus is the way of cowards.

If I have "harrassed" you, then you should report me to the moderators.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Except I have been ignoring Larsen for about 5 months now ...... and longer than that in some cases. Larsen and at least one or two of his "pals" has been cyber stalking and harassing me and several others for over a year. You shouldnt speak of that of which you know nothing......

Cyberstalking is a serious offense, Steve. I have to insist that you contact the proper authorities, so we can have it stopped. Or, on the other hand, see if it really is cyberstalking.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He is on permanent ignore and no goading by you as his instrument will do anything to change that. So save your electrons for something worthhwile and don't join his little cabal. Wait till the book comes out. Every harassing post he has ever made has been preserved.

Oooh, a book? I'm flattered! I'm honored! I can't wait to read that. If you need any quotes, I have a lot for you. From you.

A book. Gee golly whiz! First a lawsuit, now a book.... Talkshow Circuit, here I come!!!

(sound of phone ringing)

Secretary: "Mr. Larsen, the President on line 2"

Me: "Sorry, tell him to wait. Oprah's on line 1...."

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Larsen is on permanent ignore because his questions are designed as trolling instruments and forms of flame. He has harassed me and others and uses you, TLN and otrhers to do so far too much already. SO, Ed, you too are my ignore list on advice of ...never mind.
You just are.

Steve, you're going to be left debating with yourself soon.
Well, maybe with Luci.

Luci: Excellent point Steve.
Steve: Thank you Luci, likewise.
Luci: Oh no, thank you.
Steve: No, thank you.
Luci: No, thank you.
Steve: No, thank you.
(repeat...)

[renata]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Steve, you're going to be left debating with yourself soon.
Well, maybe with Luci.

Luci: Excellent point Steve.
Steve: Thank you Luci, likewise.
Luci: Oh no, thank you.
Steve: No, thank you.
Luci: No, thank you.
Steve: No, thank you.
(repeat...)

:D :D :D

Someone correct me if I am wrong in any details here. Steve was a moderator (owner?) or survival science message board, where he banned many skeptics. He was a science moderator of Friends of JE message board where the owners banned some skeptics. He came here, and complained about skeptics to the moderators, several times, who did not take action against those skeptics. He then talked about suppression of free speech and something about board moderators being in collusion with these skeptics. Now several skeptics are on ignore. Any questions whatsoever these skeptics would ask are deemed ignorable, and people who would deliver those questions are worthy of being ignored. I guess it means if other people came up with the same questions by themselves, the questions would still be ignored.

This is like a mini survival science board Steve is building for himself, right here :)

[CFLarsen]

renata,

Steve owned the SurvivalScience board. He banned many members, 27 on one occasion (known as "The Purge of '02"). The SS-board (and you may think what you want to think here, yes) was registered by Pam Blizzard, owner of the Friends of JE-board.

Apparently, Steve and Pam later fell out of...touch.

You are quite right, though: Steve wants desperately to control what is said. He can't, so he imagines conspiracies everywhere.

[The Mighty Thor]

Steve, you're going to be left debating with yourself soon. Well, maybe with Luci.

Yes, and Steve will claim he won a great victory over the sceptics.

But if anyone asks, he won't admit that he had to put all the challenging skeptics on ignore, ignored others when cornered, and convinced no-one but fellow believers that didn't need any convincing.

BTW, who 'owns' material posted here? Can peoples' direct quotes be used for a book?

If Steve really is planning some kind of book, it would help explain his intransigence and dogged refusal to face the questions he finds difficult. It adds credence to what most here have perceived as an agenda he has. What is that agenda, Steve?

And, Steve, I have read every thread you have been involved in since I joined. I was one of the supposed silent majority you assumed would support you in another thread that you abandoned as per your usual m.o. The majority support turned out to be as nonexistent as evidence for the paranormal.

Your tactics are ALWAYS the same when you are cornered. You provoke with ad homs, then use the rebuttal as an excuse to put your questioner on ignore.

It is a stupid, dishonest, and childish tactic, Steve. (See! You've got me doing it now.)

What, really, do you think you are achieving here? How many posters have ever agreed with you, except the few ardent believers who like to claim they are the true sceptics by some kind of convaluted 'the Devil has all the good music' type of intellectual gymnastics?

Name one sceptic that you have 'converted' Steve?

malc