Split: "woo woo" is performance art?

[Locknar]

Split from another thread, it is has been suggested that "woo woo" is performance art. See below:

Here is my commentary:
Jim is an entertainer, pure and simple. It is what he claims.
If you point out he claims to talk to the dead, you are quoting a crafted character.
In the arena of mystery entertainment, the envelope has always been pushed with regard to claims of paranormal or supernatural, and especially lies (scriptwriting). There is nothing new here. He is playing his role well, and has attempted to capitalize on opportunities made available to him AND opportunities he creates. Does he lie? Well, of course - in the same way that every actor in every movie, play or TV show does.

But there is a sometimes subtle, and sometimes egregious difference with Jim's role-playing: he plays to the choir. Though I suspect his ultimate goal is to win the favor of the general public with his art and marketing, he enjoys plying his art to his fellows. Imagine the actor that continues his role to colleagues, even after hours. Imagine never dropping character even with collaborators, confederates and confidants. This is where Jim takes it. To his character, we are largely a group of participants in the construct taking place in his mind. He toys with us, and delights in letting us know he is toying with us.

So to some extent, we are all willing and unwilling participants, by virtue of being actors in his play, as I am doing right now. To those that only read, you are the readers of the novel, the viewer of painting that started in Jim Callahan's mind and is being played out on several channels all at once: by video, by audio, by written word, by living.

I raise my wine (or gin) glass to the sometimes brilliant and many times nonsensical Jim Callahan and to all the characters he's spawned, but I withhold my further judgement until I see if his story has a point besides ego and one man's art. Some of his posts give testimony to his having a general sense of compassion, deeper thinking, daring, and conscience. I can't help but wonder if sometimes, during moments of quiet, he doesn't question whether the hint of mean-spiritedness in some of this posts, or the "most all others are foolish but me" tone that he tries to project, or the just plain silliness of some of his proclamations (the ones where he intends controversy), will give way to marked wisdom and maturity reflected in his art.

Upon reading another of Jim's controversial stands, will we one day say "Oh, jeez, he's just yanking our chain again"....
Who will tire first - the unwilling participants or Jim?
For my taste, his art has to grow for me to continue having interest. I'd like to see what he does when he is not mocking or pointing his finger.

BOLD added by Locknar


It seem there is at least one forum member that agrees:

Bravo fakejakesnake!

So refreshing to read a post from someone with his eyes open instead of one of these poor old hacks in their skeptic stupor.

You will know them usually bye number of posts they have. Once they hit 4 figures, forget it. The disease has done its damage.

Justifying fraud as "performance art" (to paraphrase) is intellectually dishonest, and flat wrong.

When one sees a play, movie, TV show, magic show, etc. it is understood you are being entertained...there is no claim of reality made.

"Woo woo" frauds such as Jim Callahan, SB, and others is just that - fraud. There is no claim, or established premise, that their "performance" is for entertainment only. Rather, these frauds proclaim legitimate, actual paranormal ability. In short, these frauds charge consumers for a service they can not provide...as they have no paranormal ability.

[volatile]

Split from another thread, it is has been suggested that "woo woo" is performance art.

Oh, it can be. Well, if not performance art exactly, legitimate performers can justifiably use a cloak of woo for their own ends. Derren Brown is one performer who springs to mind. Another is Shirley Ghostman (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/12/high-spirits-with-sh.html).

It's not a simple matter of whether or not someone is referring to "woo" in the course of their act. Context is very important. Whether Callahan has the right context or not is another question entirely.

[Locknar]

Oh, it can be. Well, if not performance art exactly, legitimate performers can justifiably use a cloak of woo for their own ends. Derren Brown is one performer who springs to mind. Another is Shirley Ghostman (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/12/high-spirits-with-sh.html).

It's not a simple matter of whether or not someone is referring to "woo" in the course of their act. Context is very important. Whether Callahan has the right context or not is another question entirely.It is not a matter of referring to "woo". I have no issue/problem with "woo woo" when it is clear it is for entertainment purposes only.

However, when folks like SB, Jim, etc. proclaim and/or offer paranormal ability as a legitimate service, without any credible factual basis - that is fraud.

[volatile]

It is not a matter of referring to "woo". I have no issue/problem with "woo woo" when it is clear it is for entertainment purposes only.

However, when folks like SB, Jim, etc. proclaim and/or offer paranormal ability as a legitimate service, without any credible factual basis - that is fraud.

I agree - but where do you stand on someone like Marc Wootan, who plays Shirley Ghostman a legitimate psychic (in the same way Sacha Baron-Cohen plays Borat as a legitimate news reporter from Kazakhstan)? The 'performance art' of Wooton's performance is that those with whom he is interacting, be they members of the public, 'fellow' psychics or whoever (and he fooled some prominent sceptics (http://fooled%20some%20prominent%20sceptics)) don't know he's spoofing. Or the Derren Brown shows where he pretended to believers that he was psycic / had seen aliens etc?

Now, I don't for a second want to suggest that Callahan is in the same context, but well - we can't make blanekt calls on this.

If you want to talk about perfomance art specificially (rather than the Derren Brown or Marc Wooton modes of entertainment), it's also very possible to engage in that with which one disagrees in order to critique it - take, for example, Santiago Sierra's performance pieces, which are, in some senses, guilty of producing the same kinds of things he intends his work to criticise. Again, it's not a direct comparison with Callahan, because Sierra, like Brown and Wooton, is fairly open about his aims and objectives; indeed, al three need to be, really, for their aims and objectives to even be clear.

I guess what I'm realy trying to say is that if Jim Callahan is a performance artist, he's a really poor one, but that this fact alone does not damn the entire practice of assuming a seemingly woo position for the purposes of entertainment or social comment.

[Locknar]

I guess what I'm realy trying to say is that if Jim Callahan is a performance artist, he's a really poor one, but that this fact alone does not damn the entire practice of assuming a seemingly woo position for the purposes of entertainment or social comment.
To assume a seemingly woo position for entertainment or social comment is one thing.

To do so for the purpose of defrauding people by offering a service that does not exist is something completely different. SB, Callahan, and a gaggle of others fall into this category.

[volatile]

To assume a seemingly woo position for entertainment or social comment is one thing.

To do so for the purpose of defrauding people by offering a service that does not exist is something completely different. SB, Callahan, and a gaggle of others fall into this category.

But how do you know which category they fall into until they reveal themselves (or fail to do so)? If Callahan did as the poster you quoted in the OP suggests he will do and come out and admit that the whole persona was a ruse, all the monies he took from people will be returned and the whole thing was an exercise in exposing how easily people get fooled, wouldn't your opinion change? Just slightly?

This is precisely what Derren Brown did in the System, where he took cash from gullible members of the public, though he did return it afterwards. The TV show "The Real Hustle" is an even better example - in it, a team of fraudsters actually steal money from companies or members of the public in order to explain to them, and the audience, how one can protect oneself from crime. These guys, for the purposes of entertainment and public service (of sorts), engage in actual fraud, only to return the cash later. How does that fit into your criticism of JC?

As I said, I agree with you that the likelihood of this actually happening is very, very slim. But you cannot dismiss it out of hand. I'm not defending JC, or SB, or any of the others. Don't get me wrong. I'm just pointing out that even if "these frauds proclaim legitimate, actual paranormal ability", that in and of itself is not sufficient to discount the possibility of spoof for entertainment or critical purposes (or, as in Brown's case, both). Sometimes the proclamation of legitimate powers is a core part of the premise of the "performance art" (or whatever you want to call it).

In essence, I strongly disagree with your assertion that "Justifying fraud as "performance art" (to paraphrase) is intellectually dishonest, and flat wrong".

[Locknar]

But how do you know which category they fall into until they reveal themselves (or fail to do so)?

<snip>

I'd say off hand that is not relevant. It is a "fee for service" model...so what are you (for example), the consumer, paying for? To be entertained or for a service?


In essence, I strongly disagree with your assertion that "Justifying fraud as "performance art" (to paraphrase) is intellectually dishonest, and flat wrong".
Fair enough....

In that context, I advertise that I am a builder and have references from "Billy", "Fred", "The Johnson Family" all proclaiming what a great job I've done for them on houses I have built.

You end up hiring me to build your house & pay me up front.

After a month I deliver a picture of a house and proclaim "I was making a statement on how foolish people are for not checking references more throughly, its 'performance art'...I'm not really a builder at all."

You are arguing esentially "no harm no foul" because in the end I came forward?

[volatile]

I'd say off hand that is not relevant. It is a "fee for service" model...so what are you (for example), the consumer, paying for? To be entertained or for a service?

Is that distinction important? I mean, do the expectations of the client necessarily need to match the aims of the service provider in this context? What about undercover journalists who take jobs in companies only to expose them? Or "undercover" comics like Sacha Baron Cohen, even? The misrepresentation is crucial for the entertainment or the critical point to be made, and often it can go on for months or even years.

I'm not so sure the distinction you're making is one that is the most useful - and, in fact, it seems that our culture is actually quite happy for media organisations, in particular, to subvert the usual norms of exchange in order to make an entertaining or critical piece of television (or press).

In that context, I advertise that I am a builder and have references from "Billy", "Fred", "The Johnson Family" all proclaiming what a great job I've done for them on houses I have built.

You end up hiring me to build your house & pay me up front.

After a month I deliver a picture of a house and proclaim "I was making a statement on how foolish people are for not checking references more throughly, its 'performance art'...I'm not really a builder at all."

You are arguing esentially "no harm no foul" because in the end I came forward?

Well, isn't that almost exactly what happens on shows like "The Real Hustle", and what Derren Brown did on The System? If you give me my money back, maybe that was a lesson well learned? It might not be "no foul", so much, but it certainly would be "no harm".

It's a tricky area, I think, and one which is slightly beyond any hard-and-fast condemnation. Each case must be taken on its own merits, and as such the point you make in the OP is slightly too strong.

[Rasmus]

Well, isn't that almost exactly what happens on shows like "The Real Hustle", and what Derren Brown did on The System? If you give me my money back, maybe that was a lesson well learned? It might not be "no foul", so much, but it certainly would be "no harm".

No harm?

At the end, I'd have lost interest on my money and I have no new place to live. I might not have the old place any more depending on how the "lesson" was timed.

I might have lost money whilst liquidising it.

etc. pp.

Sylvia Brown is doing harm. That harm will not go away, if after decades, she decides to return the money she made from her con-show.

How many people do you have to lie to, and for how many years, in order to make a point?

And as to some of your examples: It's one thing to harm an entity that you are exposing if you think that what they do is wrong. But SB is harming her customers - without her, there would be nothing to be exposed.

[volatile]

Sylvia Brown is doing harm. That harm will not go away, if after decades, she decides to return the money she made from her con-show.

How many people do you have to lie to, and for how many years, in order to make a point?

Well, I guess that's an important question. I agree with you that she's doing harm - but the fundamental question on exactly what harm she's doing and whether that harm would, or would not, be mitigated by an admission that it was all some kind of grand social experiment is not a simple one, I'm afraid, even if we would like it to be.

And as to some of your examples: It's one thing to harm an entity that you are exposing if you think that what they do is wrong. But SB is harming her customers - without her, there would be nothing to be exposed.

What about "The Real Hustle", where real people really do believe, for a few minutes at least, that they have been conned? Or shows that are rather obviously more cruel - something like Candid Camera, where people believe that their car has been crushed or something? The false presentation of one thing as another for the purposes of art or journalism is a legitimate practice that is often praised and, actually, is often necessary. So where do we draw the line about what is, and what is not, acceptable? I don't think we can do it in advance, and we certainly cannot make blanket statements that it is always wrong.

As I said, I agree that SB is harming her customers. But the OP was about "presenting fraud as performance art", which I do not believe is, as Locknar stated, so easily dismissed as wrong.

[Locknar]

Is that distinction important? Yes


I mean, do the expectations of the client necessarily need to match the aims of the service provider in this context? Yes.

If you advertise yourself as a CPA, lawyer, medical doctor, etc. then I'd argue the service you provide would be in-line with "as advertised" and you'd have the education/training to back it all up.


What about undercover journalists who take jobs in companies only to expose them?Ok...what about them? There is a entire slew of legal issues that go along with those kind of events, that rattle around in the courts for years afterward.

That aside, there still some level of "service meeting expatiation". A journalist wants to do a undercover story on a auto break repair service/shop. I'm gonna bet he gets training/certified on how to replace breaks before going undercover as a mechanic there, or takes some other non-skill specific position there.

Though following the logic you've presented...maybe not? The reporter gets hired, does break repairs (with no training/certification) and exposes the shop for fraud. Never mind the folks who crashed and where injured due to faulty break service...it was in the name of "under cover" work so its all ok.

Or "undercover" comics like Sacha Baron Cohen, even? The misrepresentation is crucial for the entertainment or the critical point to be made, and often it can go on for months or even years.In that context, then nobody could ever be charge with fraud...if in the end you give them a "get out of jail card" if they proclaim it was all in the name of comedy, performance art, social statements, etc.

Using that logic, SB (for example) could just be making the biggest prank of all time?

No problem because the day she announces on Montel's new show "It's all been a big joke", the studio audience will have a good laugh right before the comercial break.


Well, isn't that almost exactly what happens on shows like "The Real Hustle", and what Derren Brown did on The System? If you give me my money back, maybe that was a lesson well learned? It might not be "no foul", so much, but it certainly would be "no harm".Who said anything about giving your money back? After all...what I did (continuing the builder example) was make a "performance art" statement. Sure...you thought you were buying a house, but what you really paid me for was "performance art"...you simply didn't realize it at the time.

After all, you've suggested the expectations of the client do not necessarily need to match the aims of the service provider right. So no harm and thanks for the cash.


It's a tricky area, I think, and one which is slightly beyond any hard-and-fast condemnation. Each case must be taken on its own merits, and as such the point you make in the OP is slightly too strong.I don't see it as a tricky area at all.

[Locknar]

What about "The Real Hustle", where real people really do believe, for a few minutes at least, that they have been conned? Or shows that are rather obviously more cruel - something like Candid Camera, where people believe that their car has been crushed or something? The false presentation of one thing as another for the purposes of art or journalism is a legitimate practice that is often praised and, actually, is often necessary. So where do we draw the line about what is, and what is not, acceptable? I don't think we can do it in advance, and we certainly cannot make blanket statements that it is always wrong.You've left out one important element...they are real people who have signed off on release forms and/or been otherwise compensated after the fact.

No release form...the segment never sees the light of day (unless peoples faces are blurred out, voices covered over, etc.)

[volatile]

You've left out one important element...they are real people who have signed off on release forms and/or been otherwise compensated after the fact.

No release form...the segment never sees the light of day (unless peoples faces are blurred out, voices covered over, etc.)

In the US, maybe. This is certainly not true in the UK. Otherwise, how could shows which expose cowboy builders and rip-off car salesmen ever be shown on TV? In the UK, at least, you have very little rights on how and when and where your image is publicised.

And of course, any consent that is obtained is obtained after the "fraud" has be perpetrated, and after the "fraudster" has revealed themselves and the nature of the scam.

What are your thoughts on something like Candid Camera or The Real Hustle? Is the "harm" justifiable because it only lasts a few minutes?

[fakejakesnake]

I don't see the comparison between SB and Jim Callahan. I've always known Jim was an entertainer, and his advertisements appear to say the same. Is there somewhere or sometime that he has taken money under the guise of real paranormal abilities? I think this distinction is important when motive, fraud and the definition of performance art is being discussed.

I would say extending his audience to these forums was immature, but not fraud. He asked for no money, and I think he only hoped for - or expected - reaction. Nothing more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it, and it wasn't altogether that enjoyable as art, but was it fraud?

I think he is performance art in the spirit of Borat or Kaufman. Just done badly and sometimes from a place of personal conflicts. For me, it is the latter part that overshadows his attempts at art and becomes tiring.

[Locknar]

In the US, maybe. This is certainly not true in the UK. Otherwise, how could shows which expose cowboy builders and rip-off car salesmen ever be shown on TV? In the UK, at least, you have very little rights on how and when and where your image is publicised.

And of course, any consent that is obtained is obtained after the "fraud" has be perpetrated, and after the "fraudster" has revealed themselves and the nature of the scam.

What are your thoughts on something like Candid Camera or The Real Hustle? Is the "harm" justifiable because it only lasts a few minutes?
To clarify, my comments on signed release forms/compensation applied to shows like "Candid Camera".

On the expose type shows, there are typically legal issues behind the scenes, and in the US air either after criminal proceedings or with a "innocent until proven guilty" disclaimer.

For example...the show "To Catch a Predator"; they never once say "This guy is so guilty!" They show the clip in the name of news, after resolving (or dealing with) legal issues, and let it stand on its own merit (ie. the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect).

[Azrael 5]

If you Google "Jim Callahan",the second result is subtitled "stupid performance".

No fooling Google. :)

[Rasmus]

Well, I guess that's an important question. I agree with you that she's doing harm - but the fundamental question on exactly what harm she's doing and whether that harm would, or would not, be mitigated by an admission that it was all some kind of grand social experiment is not a simple one, I'm afraid, even if we would like it to be.

People have wasted hundreds if not thousands of dollars on her advice. AFAIK she gives medical advice and certainly advice on important and life-changing decisions people intend to make.

I am certain that "Just kidding folks!" is not going to make that all better. I am equally certain this harm goes way beyond the money spend, just that I am certain that she is not even in a position to repay what she'd owe.

What about "The Real Hustle", where real people really do believe, for a few minutes at least, that they have been conned?

I think "a few minutes" is an important factor. There is no harm done in those cases, other than that people have lost a little time.

Or shows that are rather obviously more cruel - something like Candid Camera, where people believe that their car has been crushed or something?

I've seen episodes where the car has been crushed - the people got a replacement. I'd keep the new car and take you to court if you did that sort of thing to me. (Unless a lawyer advised me that I couldn't keep the new car if I did that...)

Depending on how this is played out, it can cause a lot of harm. What if it's a rental car, or one I borrowed? What if there was something important in the car that got damaged? And "important" isn't the same thing as just "valuable", either.)

The false presentation of one thing as another for the purposes of art or journalism is a legitimate practice that is often praised and, actually, is often necessary. So where do we draw the line about what is, and what is not, acceptable?

As far as I am concerned: Anywhere that places the likes of Sylvia Brown on the far side and a good bit away from the line or any resulting grey areas.

Just because there may be grey areas doesn't mean that we can't also have patches that are plain black and white.

I don't think we can do it in advance, and we certainly cannot make blanket statements that it is always wrong.

I think we can. I think that whatever Sylvia Brown may proclaim about her "art" in the future will not excuse what she did.

No, it might not always be wrong - but it should be immediately clear before there's much time for an argument to develop...

As I said, I agree that SB is harming her customers. But the OP was about "presenting fraud as performance art", which I do not believe is, as Locknar stated, so easily dismissed as wrong.

No, certainly not always. But that doesn't mean I have to live a life full of doubt :)

[arthwollipot]

He asked for no money...Beg to differ. He did ask for money - a million dollars in fact. He said, basically, "what I am going to do is real, and Randi's going to give me a million dollars."

I agree on the blurred like between performance art and the "real" woo. I think that the important factor is intent. Callahan's intent was to win the million dollars from Randi by doing a magic trick as opposed to winning the million dollars by demonstrating a genuine paranormal ability.

If he'd had a genuine paranormal ability, there would have been no problem. He would have agreed to the protocol that was suggested months ago and passed the preliminary test. By now he'd be well on the way to the final test and the million.

As to the blurry dividing line, I'd like to canvas some opinions. I think that someone who genuinely believes that they have paranormal powers are not committing fraud by taking someone else's money. I think they could still be convicted of a lesser offence - false advertising or something - but to me, the word fraud implies a deliberate effort to deceive. What do others think? And in fact, what's the legal definition? Can I be convicted of fraud if I genuinely believe that I'm providing a legitimate service? Or am I just being naively optimistic?

[Jim Callahan]

Not sure what this thread/topic is to prove.

I am very upfront about what I do.

-Jim

[Locknar]

Not sure what this thread/topic is to prove.

I am very upfront about what I do.

-Jim
Specific to you, from your website
I create what could be called paranormal events in an entertainment venue.
What exactly does this mean? Your use of could is typical "woo woo" wiggle talk...but you knew this.

Truth be told, your quote could be re-written as "I create would could be called coffee in an entertainment venue".

Either you claim to have some type of paranormal ability..or you don't.

Pretty straight forward, yes or no type question...so which is it?

[fakejakesnake]

We are trying to prove nothing. We are discussing.

I think you are upfront about your goal of entertainment. As I mentioned, the line gets blurred when hopeful colleagues become unwilling audiences for your tests and presentations.

Because this has always been important to you, would you be willing to share with us what you've learned so far about expanding the arena of the audience to include the unwilling?

[Locknar]

I think you are upfront about your goal of entertainment. As I mentioned, the line gets blurred when hopeful colleagues become unwilling audiences for your tests and presentations.

In terms of entertainment yes, in terms of "what" no. If you want to see a magic show, for example...you'd go to a show proclaiming to be such. You'd probably be disappointed if the show turned out to be a poetry reading...perhaps to the point of claiming fraud.

In Jim's case...yes, he is very clear it is for entertainment. The issue is, what type of entertainment. On this he is very vauge, uses wiggle words (as noted above), etc.

In the end...are folks paying (in Jim's case) to see a magic act, or something paranormal?

[Locknar]

Bump...so Jim can eaisly find it.

[kitakaze]

Apologies if this should be in Jim's MDC thread but I was hoping Jim could clarify how one can die but no be dead.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Split from another thread, it is has been suggested that "woo woo" is performance art. See below:



It seem there is at least one forum member that agrees:



Justifying fraud as "performance art" (to paraphrase) is intellectually dishonest, and flat wrong.

When one sees a play, movie, TV show, magic show, etc. it is understood you are being entertained...there is no claim of reality made.

"Woo woo" frauds such as Jim Callahan, SB, and others is just that - fraud. There is no claim, or established premise, that their "performance" is for entertainment only. Rather, these frauds proclaim legitimate, actual paranormal ability. In short, these frauds charge consumers for a service they can not provide...as they have no paranormal ability.

Actually, what Jim does is even more dishonest for he's not interested in making a specific claim. His "joke" is all about moving the goalpost between "illusionist" and "paranormal" by creating a word that does not define which of the two he is. We all know what this word is, of course.

[geni]

The performance art excuse is probably not in very good shape in the UK right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(loyalist_paramilitary)#Stormont_arr est

[Azrael 5]

From Jim's updated website it seems clear he is stating he does in fact carry out legitimate paranormal acts.
According to his FAQ answers at least.
http://www.jimclass.com/FAQS.htm#Seance


Jim Callahan performed the first national test of the I.S.P. on NBC's primetime television show Phenomenon. on October 31st 2007,
He successfully linked himself to Raymond Hill a man who died in 1980 on live television.

[Moochie]

<snip>


"Woo woo" frauds such as Jim Callahan, SB, and others is just that - fraud. There is no claim, or established premise, that their "performance" is for entertainment only. Rather, these frauds proclaim legitimate, actual paranormal ability. In short, these frauds charge consumers for a service they can not provide...as they have no paranormal ability.

I've got to say, I'm 50-50 on the matter. I mean, most if not all here know and understand what fraud is (I hope!). My question is, once the information is out there, is it our job, yours or mine, to save people from themselves? If so, how far do we take this "errand of mercy"? Lock the fools up until they acknowledge that, "Yes! I know Jim Callahan/Sylvia Browne/John Edward are frauds!"?


M.

[fakejakesnake]

From Jim's updated website it seems clear he is stating he does in fact carry out legitimate paranormal acts.

To be fair, on the opening page of his site, in a fairly large font size, he says:

"I am asking those who read this site to remember I am an entertainer, artist & researcher.

Please do not get carried away when viewing and interacting with my work. It is to be an entertaining, surreal diversion.

I am not a psychic nor a medium. I am a Paranormalist.
You are in control of what you believe and do with your life.
Just as I am.
Have fun and enjoy yourselves........Jim"

[Locknar]

fakejakesnake - Jim seems to make lots of claims on his page, and that is at the heart of the issue wrt to him.

If he is a entertainer, using "woo woo" for entertainment purposes only (and makes that clear) I say more power to him. If, however, he is selling "woo woo" as a legitimate service/ability (same as SB and many others) then that is fraud...unless he can credibly validate his ability.

Of course, he could clear this all up by simply answering the question I asked back on post #20. Interesting to note Jim's been noticeably quiet.

[quarky]

Looks like a can of worms. Is it much different than selling a new shampoo by implying that it will improve your love-life?

[fakejakesnake]

If he is a entertainer, using "woo woo" for entertainment purposes only (and makes that clear) I say more power to him.

Until I'm shown otherwise, I think he makes it clear in his disclaimer on the opening page of his website. From that point on, everything is woo, just like any entertainer. I still don't see the relevance to SB. Two different markets.

One tells you up front its entertainment, and has expanded his audience to the unwilling, the other is, IMHO, a fraud that relies upon belief in her powers in order to make money.

[arthwollipot]

He successfully linked himself to Raymond Hill a man who died in 1980 on live televisionThe guy died on live television?? I'd have thought they'd cut the feed if someone died.

And we still haven't got any answer on how this guy died but is not dead.

[Locknar]

*bump, to make it easy for Jim to find the question* Jim - See the question on Post #30....your response?

[e-sabbath]

You've left out one important element...they are real people who have signed off on release forms and/or been otherwise compensated after the fact.
The participants featured in The Real Hustle have either been set up by their family and friends or believe that they are participating in another television programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/realhustle/about/

So there's slightly more than 'after the fact'. If it were simply 'release forms after the fact', I'd rather expect civil lawsuits or criminal charges.

[volatile]

The participants featured in The Real Hustle have either been set up by their family and friends or believe that they are participating in another television programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/realhustle/about/

So there's slightly more than 'after the fact'. If it were simply 'release forms after the fact', I'd rather expect civil lawsuits or criminal charges.

Oooh... I did not know that. Thanks.

[e-sabbath]

It's the difference between simply being a Jackass on TV and being a criminal. If you're a Jackass, you might get busted by the cops as a public nuisance, maybe you'll get out of it, maybe you won't.

You scam someone, even if 'it's for TV', you're still up the creek.

[Jim Callahan]

I have never claimed a Paranormal skill set Locknar.

Would be interested to see were such a claim was ever made.

Best Wishes,

Jim

[not daSkeptic]

I have never claimed a Paranormal skill set Locknar.

Classic wooist technique. Only affirm that which cannot be verified, and deny all else.

[Jim Callahan]

Classic wooist technique. Only affirm that which cannot be verified, and deny all else.

Hey good one and your point is what?
Other than proving my point.

Really are you guys this dumb all the time or are you just showing off for me?

I do what I claim and you do what?

Sorry if this sounds harsh but really I want to know, do you cats ever think or is what this guy wrote pretty much the deal?

Jim

[tyr_13]

Hey good one and your point is what?
Other than proving my point.

Really are you guys this dumb all the time or are you just showing off for me?

I do what I claim and you do what?

Sorry if this sounds harsh but really I want to know, do you cats ever think or is what this guy wrote pretty much the deal?

Jim

Ignore the articulate and well thought out criticisms and focus on one-liners. Good idea. I mean, if you want to prove something, like that skeptics don't really think, it is best to ignore evidence to the contrary.

"I do what I claim." So do I. It is an easy thing to say when what that claim exactly is is nebulous.

[chillzero]

Keep it civil please, and do not personalise the discussion. Keep this thread on topic - specific challenges have their own threads.

ETA: Some posts moved to the specific thrad to discuss Jim Callahan's claims. Don't ignore this mod warning to keep to this thread's topic any further.

[Jim Callahan]

Do you guys go after people who paint pictures of religiouse events?
Denouncing and proclaiming the pictures fraud.

Or attack those who write stories such as Steven King's?

In the course of my work point out the fallacies of the James Randi brand of skepticism?
(Or as I call it ideological bigotry and bad science).
But it is done to create an event.
It is also based upon fact.

I would also point out that Randi is not singled out for use.
The paranormal followers get the same treatment.

If you opened your minds a bit you might understand that.

But you only see what you want to see.
Because you only think what you need and want to think.

You cats do some serious filtering and editing of information.

Wonder if it is possible that a persons Psychological filters can get so clogged they stop working and then they see the things right before them.

Well possibly we shall see. Sounds like it is possible.
But then the person may not admit it has happened because they want to maintain their public image.
What would people say if they were to admit they made a mistake.

-Jim

H.O.A-X

[chillzero]

Jim,
The topic here is whether or not paranormalist performances are performance art or not. Please keep your comments on topic.

[kitakaze]

People such as Criss Angel are always completely forthright about the illusory nature of their performances. What they do is an art. Mr. Callahan has a Vegas routine in which he deceives people to believe that he is in communication with the dead who assist him in discerning trivial things. Entertainment, yes. Very cheesy entertainment. Art? Not by a long shot.

[Czarcasm]

Jim Callahan, what is the definition of a "paranormalist"-is it some kind of entertainer?

[chillzero]

Post moved to AAH for off topic bickering. Keep it civil and on topic or this thread will be closed.

[chillzero]

Once again, the topic is whether or not 'woo' artists are performance artists.
Thread set to moderated status due to inability to stay on topic despite two mod warnings, and more posts removed.