ABC News hammers JE

[Flaherty]

Reading Our Audience

Whether you believe him or not, wouldn't it be great if we really could talk to the dead? To see how he works, 20/20 got together a random group of people who had never met Edward.

When he met the group, he included a warning that anyone in the room might get sucked into this process. Even the 20/20 crew.

"There's no spectators to this," Edward said. "Anybody's that's in the room becomes part of the process for me."

He then rubbed his hands together, closed his eyes and meditated before launching into a nearly 90-minute barrage of random names and numbers.

Edward's first subjects in the group were Chris and Jill, who were bombarded by names and initials. "I know there's a James connected to you, but there's another 'J' name besides James. So, I don't know if there's like a Joseph or there's like a Jack, but there's another 'J' connection that comes up over here."

Throughout the session with our sample group, Edward made references to older relatives who had died, to diseases, to "two younger energies" of two children who had died.


Facing a Skeptic’s Challenge

He made some connections during the session. But some are not impressed and say we should be challenging Edward and other psychics like him.


Somebody's got to stand up and say, 'This is baloney.' And that's what I'm doing," said Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society and author of Why People Believe Weird Things.

Shermer analyzed the video of Edward reading 20/20's volunteer group and believes Edward has a strategy. He says he simply rattles off a lot of names until an audience member tells him the right one.

"He also offers up an assortment of common diseases," Shermer said.

"All of us are gonna go, and we're gonna go from something pretty standard — cancer, heart disease. You can't go wrong with that," he said.



For more than 35 minutes, Edward quizzed Pressman with dozens of questions and observations and names. Only a handful turned out to be vaguely relevant; only one thing he mentioned was a concrete "hit." He guessed Pressman's wife's name. One good hit — out of 41 tries.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/Living/John_Edward_031205-1.html

[Teetop]

So is guess the conclusion here is--Edward is a fraud--now we need to get the rest of the population to understand it.

[KelvinG]

Only a handful turned out to be vaguely relevant; only one thing he mentioned was a concrete "hit." He guessed Pressman's wife's name. One good hit — out of 41 tries.

Yes, but expect the believers to jump all over this amazing "hit." Y'know, the old practice of ignoring all the misses and focusing in on one hit and saying "Wow, he could be the real thing."

Give me 41 tries and I'll get at least one hit. Hec, I'll probably get more than one hit. But, I doubt anyone will be particularly amazed since I don't have my own TV show.

[wayrad]

I wonder what her name was. Something common for women in the appropriate age group, I'll bet.

[renata]

Long discussion about this here

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31792

And the wife's name guess was "Laura, Laurie", name was Laura, and - my suspicion- it is possible JE researched the producer a tad before.

[FFed]

Originally posted by wayrad
I wonder what her name was. Something common for women in the appropriate age group, I'll bet.

The wifes name was Laura.
He said something like I am getting a L name, Laura, Lori.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
And the wife's name guess was "Laura, Laurie", name was Laura, and - my suspicion- it is possible JE researched the producer a tad before.

I agree. It stinks to high heaven that JE says before the show that even the production team could be read.

And what happens? The producer is singled out.
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/inmyeye.gif

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I agree. It stinks to high heaven that JE says before the show that even the production team could be read.

And what happens? The producer is singled out.
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/inmyeye.gif

As I said in the thread I helpfully linked to :p

This is a common tactic of JE. He also read Tony the Cameraman on Dateline, in the incident Glory alluded to, and he read someone in LKL studio once, when he was floundering with the callers. It is possible that since he may not have had success with the audience provided him (as it was picked at random, it was unlikely to be eager believers, like on CO or even LKL) he may have zeroed in on someone for whom he felt more comfortable. Did he do research on him? Who knows. I think he would be a fool not to do some basic research, for use in just this very instance. The ABC article says a third of the readings were done on the production crew, as did the segment. The readings were 90 minutes, 30 minutes or more on production crew, mostly on the producer. Of 41 guesses, only one "solid" hit- name of the wife- easiest one to check previously.

This trick of interrupting regular readings with an insistent message from a nosy spirit is a common one as well. I have seen it several times on CO, when he reads someone else, someone who was not "meant" to be read. Of course the interrupting spirit never does seem to have anything groundbreaking to say.


(Pet peeve about many threads- we have about 3 threads on 20/20 appearance and about 5 threads on Sylvia's LKL appearance....I wish they were consolidated)

[dharlow]

I don't even think it neccessary to postulate reading up on the producer. From what I recall from last night, the clip only showed JE saying" L..La...Laura", and the producer says..."That's my wife". He could just have easily been his sister, mother, etc....

[arcticpenguin]

Is the producer's wife, Laura, still alive? If so, why would JE be getting a reading on here, since he hears from dead people?

[renata]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Is the producer's wife, Laura, still alive? If so, why would JE be getting a reading on here, since he hears from dead people?

The theory is that the spirit is giving some validations to let the sitter know JE is with him. So by identifying some unique things, then they can go on to the message. The message would not be from the wife, just for the sitter to understand it is meant for him. Of course, the spirits seem to be relegated to say "L, Laura, Lori" Instead of "Laura is your wife of 28 years, I wore a pink dress at your wedding and spilled some champagne on it, your anniversary is October 18th, and you met her during a drunk frat party in college but you tell everyone it was a philosophy course". See, THAT would be a validation.

[SteveGrenard]

dharlow: I don't even think it neccessary to postulate reading up on the producer. From what I recall from last night, the clip only showed JE saying" L..La...Laura", and the producer says..."That's my wife". He could just have easily been his sister, mother, etc....

That is correct. It could have been anybody with that name, but somebody close to Pressman would be more significant.




arcticpenguin: Is the producer's wife, Laura, still alive? If so, why would JE be getting a reading on here, since he hears from dead people?

What does her being alive or dead have to do anything? Nothing. While I am not defending JE or his process, and I am disturbed about his statement that it is his job to report everything he senses regardless of whether it is true or not, a communicator could be
mentioning somebody close to Pressman (e.g. his wife) because of their mutual relationship to her.

Having seen the test results of low profile mediums conducted by Robinson and Roy, and having personally encountered one medium who did not ask questions, who did not mention sound-alike names, who does not put out non-specific or common causes of death and where this was complete anonymity and no possibility of prior knowledge (especially with respect to some of the information given), I will not rest the case of the validity of mediumship or post-mortem communication solely on the shoulders of John Edward or Sylvia Browne.

[SteveGrenard]

Renata: Of course, the spirits seem to be relegated to say "L, Laura, Lori" Instead of "Laura is your wife of 28 years, I wore a pink dress at your wedding and spilled some champagne on it, your anniversary is October 18th, and you met her during a drunk frat party in college but you tell everyone it was a philosophy course". See, THAT would be a validation.


There is no reason to think that the communicator is getting the name wrong. It is the medium, in this case JE, who is not correctly perceiving this. Mediums say that the things they hear are not so clear, that there are multiple voices talking over each other (like a party line) or that the sounds are very distant or low. This could be the reason JE doesn't hear some names distinctly but it does offer him a convenient excuse to widen the net and throw out more options as Shermer correctly points out.

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard



There is no reason to think that the communicator is getting the name wrong. It is the medium, in this case JE, who is not correctly perceiving this. Mediums say that the things they hear are not so clear, that there are multiple voices talking over each other (like a party line) or that the sounds are very distant or low. This could be the reason JE doesn't hear some names distinctly but it does offer him a convenient excuse to widen the net and throw out more options as Shermer correctly points out.

That presumes the existence of the communicator. In several readings on LKL there was no attempt to establish a specific communicator altogether. Yesterday's segment was very cropped, so it was impossible to determine who the communicator was supposed to be. However, from the information we were shown, it appeared many guesses were general- J name, An name, 2/month, 11/month, older male energy, etc. In other words, any communicators, if they were there were not merely unclear, but extraordinarily general and the portions we saw certainly looked like classic cold reading.

You said before the case for mediumship does not turn on JE. In fact, you felt JE was cold reading during his most recent LKL appearance. I believe every instance of JE I have seen- all LKL appearance, CO episodes and this show he does the very same thing, only sometimes he may be luckier than others.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will not rest the case of the validity of mediumship or post-mortem communication solely on the shoulders of John Edward or Sylvia Browne.

That sounds like a sound strategy. I am constantly surprisd at the number of people who think that JE does anything out of the ordinary. I think that anyone who believes in him as a 'spirit medium' MUST have a belief in spirit communication first. I can't believe that anyone would be swayed to believe in spritualism by JE's lacklustre performances.

...........[snip] and having personally encountered one medium who did not ask questions, who did not mention sound-alike names, who does not put out non-specific or common causes of death and where this was complete anonymity and no possibility of prior knowledge [snip]...........
That's quite a teasing line, Steve. This unnamed person sounds interesting.......maybe a good contender for the $1 million challenge. maybe you bring it to his/her attention.
P

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
That is correct. It could have been anybody with that name, but somebody close to Pressman would be more significant.

Not to the sitter. We have seen time and again that the sitter will stretch the guess until it fits.

You have done it too, haven't you?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What does her being alive or dead have to do anything? Nothing. While I am not defending JE or his process, and I am disturbed about his statement that it is his job to report everything he senses regardless of whether it is true or not, a communicator could be mentioning somebody close to Pressman (e.g. his wife) because of their mutual relationship to her.

It has everything to do with whether JE is a psychic medium or not. If there is no spirit communication, then what? Then he is merely being psychic - or cold reading. Nobody can tell the difference.

We have seen time and again JE throw out a name (even ask if that person is alive or not!) and rearrange his reading according to the answer he gets from the sitter.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Having seen the test results of low profile mediums conducted by Robinson and Roy...

You have?? Why are you allowed to see those results, Steve??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...and having personally encountered one medium who did not ask questions, who did not mention sound-alike names, who does not put out non-specific or common causes of death and where this was complete anonymity and no possibility of prior knowledge (especially with respect to some of the information given), I will not rest the case of the validity of mediumship or post-mortem communication solely on the shoulders of John Edward or Sylvia Browne.

Nobody is asking you to. However, you have been asked to provide evidence of that reading of yours. You have refused. It is therefore merely yet another unverifiable anecdote, and not evidence.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins


That's quite a teasing line, Steve. This unnamed person sounds interesting.......maybe a good contender for the $1 million challenge. maybe you bring it to his/her attention.
P

I have a Martian War Machine in my garage.

But you can't see it. :p

[SteveGrenard]

That presumes the existence of the communicator. In several readings on LKL there was no attempt to establish a specific communicator altogether.

Exactly. We have never seen worse rubbish than those readings. They are beyond bad, they are totally laughable.
I really don't know how Browne can be so self-assured she doesn't even make a semblance of trying to fake it. Even Larry couldn't help smiling a lot and shaking his head a few times. I got the mental picture of him going back stage and:

:dl:

Yesterday's segment was very cropped, so it was impossible to determine who the communicator was supposed to be. However, from the information we were shown, it appeared many guesses were general- J name, An name, 2/month, 11/month, older male energy, etc. In other words, any communicators, if they were there were not merely unclear, but extraordinarily general and the portions we saw certainly looked like classic cold reading.

Indeed the performances were chopped to pieces by the editors to highlight the negative aspects they wanted to highlight. I do not rest my conclusions on JE on this performance. Again, having seen a medium who allows the communicator to speak through her, verbatim, is an experience I shall not soon forget. Seeing JE playing the game of 20 Questions and repying in the 2nd person (Me, I, myself, I am not sure of this, cant hear this, who is this please? everything is me, me, me,... me being JE) is cold reading.


Renata: You said before the case for mediumship does not turn on JE. In fact, you felt JE was cold reading during his most recent LKL appearance. I believe every instance of JE I have seen- all LKL appearance, CO episodes and this show he does the very same thing, only sometimes he may be luckier than others.

I don't dsagree. I have never seen a worse example of cold reading, textbook classic, than JE's last performance on LKL. As I pointed out at the outset he admonished callers not to give him any information. He took two breaths and then he started asking for the same information he warned callers against giving him. Is he for real?
Doesn't he think some people might notice this? With respect to CO, yes, he asks questions in that arena also. However, we have seen him get some amazing hits not based on questionning nor a possibility of hot reading (since the info of some of this nature wouldn't be publicly available). You would chalk it up to getting lucky. I am not so sure. Perhaps like the scientific claims for mediumship, the ability to sense information ebbs and flows at different times. But in the final analysis, I will repeat it again: do not rest your total perspective or any conclusions on the validity of post mortem communication of some kind merely on Edward or Browne.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Indeed the performances were chopped to pieces by the editors to highlight the negative aspects they wanted to highlight. I do not rest my conclusions on JE on this performance. Again, having seen a medium who allows the communicator to speak through her, verbatim, is an experience I shall not soon forget. Seeing JE playing the game of 20 Questions and repying in the 2nd person (Me, I, myself, I am not sure of this, cant hear this, who is this please? everything is me, me, me,... me being JE) is cold reading.

Steve, you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously, before you allow us to see this fantastic reading of yours. Given your history of lies and deceit, nobody takes your word for it.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
However, we have seen him get some amazing hits not based on questionning nor a possibility of hot reading (since the info of some of this nature wouldn't be publicly available). You would chalk it up to getting lucky. I am not so sure. Perhaps like the scientific claims for mediumship, the ability to sense information ebbs and flows at different times.

Classic cop-out: Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Strange thing is: It never works in the company of skeptics, only believers.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
But in the final analysis, I will repeat it again: do not rest your total perspective or any conclusions on the validity of post mortem communication of some kind merely on Edward or Browne.

And I will repeat it again: Nobody is doing this. I will also repeat this: If you know of a medium who is capable of "post mortem communication" (that's a new one!), then say so.

Put up or shut up, Steve. Nobody is impressed with your lengthy posts. Let's see the evidence. Let's see this fantastic reading you got.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Indeed the performances were chopped to pieces by the editors to highlight the negative aspects they wanted to highlight. I do not rest my conclusions on JE on this performance I haven't seen this show. I can only base my judgement of JE on 'crossing over', which (one would surmise) is edited to make JE look BETTER than he actually is.
He is still a bad cold reader.


Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I have a Martian War Machine in my garage.

But you can't see it. :p
That's quite a teasing line, Ratman. This unspecified Martian War Machine sounds interesting.......maybe a good contender for a Pentagon research grant. maybe you bring it to their attention.
P :p

[SteveGrenard]

Peter Jenkins wrote:

That's quite a teasing line, Steve. This unnamed person sounds interesting.......maybe a good contender for the $1 million challenge. maybe you bring it to his/her attention.
P


Of course its up to you to decide what's teasing or not. However, there are other perspectives. One is that the medium I saw , the details for which I have repeated here and elsewhere before, is nothing particularly spectacular as there are others who do what she does. She is not a oner, not a super star nor anything else of that nature. Nor would Randi ever agree to test her on her own terms if his proposal for Sylvia Browne's test is any indication. This type of medium doesn't work like Browne or Edward, doesnt do phones, and does one on ones and not large series of people who then have to guess what was for them or what was not. She does one on ones, in private, in full view of each other (sitter andf medium). She asks for photos in fact. She then goes off into a trance and then begins talking in her sleep. She talks in the first person and what she says is coming from the deceased, previously identified discarnate comunicator or commuication source.
In my case there wasn't a single thing uttered which was not true or verified after the fact. There wasn't a single groping for information and even if she knew who I was, which she didn't, she as the communicator said things which no other human alive knew. Afterwards, when she awoke, almost after 2 hours, she appeared to have remembered nothing and appeared not even to remember who I was or why I was stanfding there in her office in her home. It took her a few moments to regain her bearings which she did. I said thank you. She said you're welcome and I went toward the door and she let me out.


Robinson and Roy's studies have been published in two papers to date with the third, based on tightening of their protocol, to be published in January. Again, they used 40 mediums and hundreds of sitters under tightly controlled conditions. These mediums represented an assemblage of persons who have consistently shown to be able to do this without cold reading (asking questions), getting feedback, seeing the sitter (who is hidden from view) or knowing in advance who the sitter(s) is/are. Again, I don't think Randi would ever agree to simply take their published studies as a performance indicator for his prize but he is welcome to do so. They are in the public domain or will be, in their entirety, come January. I am sure the researchers would be happy to take his check even if they deign to split it among the 40 mediums who participated in their research.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Do you really think anyone believes you have me on ignore?

You keep on harping on this fantastic medium of yours, but you never show any evidence.

Only anecdotes.

You keep dodging the questions, e.g., why YOU have been allowed to see these results from R&R.

You are very transparent, Steve.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Put up or shut up, Steve. Nobody is impressed with your lengthy posts. Let's see the evidence. Let's see this fantastic reading you got.
Claus, Claus, you are an incurable skeptic. Don't you realize that Grenard is a respectable researcher who should be taken on his unsupported word?

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


However, we have seen him get some amazing hits not based on questionning nor a possibility of hot reading (since the info of some of this nature wouldn't be publicly available). You would chalk it up to getting lucky. I am not so sure. Perhaps like the scientific claims for mediumship, the ability to sense information ebbs and flows at different times.

Yes, there are always the immortal (weasel) words 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.


But in the final analysis, I will repeat it again: do not rest your total perspective or any conclusions on the validity of post mortem communication of some kind merely on Edward or Browne.

OK...so bring on this "Super User" you refer to and let him win the $1 Million. Unless his talents also ebb and flow - and would in all likelihood be ebbing just about the time of the JREF test.

Barkhorn.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Claus, Claus, you are an incurable skeptic. Don't you realize that Grenard is a respectable researcher who should be taken on his unsupported word?

Up yours, six-eyes. Your word carries as little weight as a soul. Show me some evidence, or shurrup! :D

[SteveGrenard]

OK...so bring on this "Super User" you refer to and let him win the $1 Million.


I just suggested that in case you missed it. Come January, which is only a month or less away, I invite Randi to inspect the peer reviewed and referee'd published reports of Prof Archie Roy and Patricia Robinson and, if he so deems, pay them and their research mediums the one million. The ball is hardly in my court .... it's in Randi's. I cannot formally submit anyone's research or so-called paranormal faculties to JREF. Randi can either do it himself as he did with Schwartz and then he renegged or he can ignore it. Somehow, based on his renegging on Schwartz by refusing to talk to him, I think he will go on ignore.

PS: What's a super user?

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Will the full body of data be made publically available?

Just yes or no.

(And yes, the "ball" is very much in your "court". The onus is always on the claimant.)

[Clancie]

Posted by Jeff Corey

CFLarsen:Put up or shut up, Steve....Let's see the evidence. Let's see this fantastic reading you got.

Jeff Corey: Claus, Claus, you are an incurable skeptic. Don't you realize that Grenard is a respectable researcher who should be taken on his unsupported word?
Jeff and Claus,

I know you are enjoying haranguing Steve, but how many times does he have to say who this medium was?????

Geez. It was Camille Walsh, the trance medium he saw in NY. He's told us all that so MANY times before!

Beyond that, she didn't do the reading in a laboratory setting, double blind, it wasn't replicated...so as far as you're concerned there's no "evidence" for him to post anyway!

Why keep asking for it? Just for harrassment purposes? How childish that would be! :confused:

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

…snip…


Why keep asking for it? Just for harrassment purposes? How childish that would be! :confused:

Clancie - Steve keeps bringing her up as part of his reason for his belief for communication with the dead. So I can't see how it is harassment to keep asking him about it, and reminding people why it cannot, as it is currently related by Steve, stand as evidence for communication with the dead.

[Darat]

By the way is this the same Camille Walsh as is mentioned here?

http://quinnell.us/natural/skepticism/incidents1.html

9.8.02 - Mankind has pondered the existence of an afterlife for millennia. The question has saddled philosophers, spawned religions and started wars. For some relatives of those killed in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the answer comes not from a theologian or a therapist, but from a 62-year-old New Springville homemaker who says she can contact the dead. Since two hijacked airliners erased the Twin Towers and 2,813 innocent lives on Sept. 11, Camille Walsh claims she has reunited as many as 20 victims with family members who never had the chance to say goodbye. (SIA)


If so is there any collaborative information/evidence that she has claimed she "reunited" 20 victims?

(Edited to add)

Just found this link: http://www.rense.com/general29/some.htm , and I don't know but there is some

...snip...

"These people claim they can talk to dead people and there's no proof they can do it," said James R. Corey, a Long Island University psychology professor and head investigator for the New York Area Skeptics.

"They're playing the probabilities, and the good ones are very clever," Dr. Corey said. "A correct guess every once in a while will often keep a sitter going, just like a hit on a slot machine will keep a gambler gambling."

Psychics glean clues about what their sitters want to hear with techniques called "hot," "warm" and "cold" readings, Dr. Corey said. Hot readings occur when the medium has researched the sitter. They hold an ace from the start, for example, by knowing that the people who seek them out want to contact a dead loved one.

...snip...

So some words from a professional who doesn't seem as impressed with Walsh as Steve is. (Mind you he sounds a right stuffed shirt to me - I bet he's the sort who thinks puns are funny.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Jeff and Claus,

I know you are enjoying haranguing Steve, but how many times does he have to say who this medium was?????

Geez. It was Camille Walsh, the trance medium he saw in NY. He's told us all that so MANY times before!

Beyond that, she didn't do the reading in a laboratory setting, double blind, it wasn't replicated...so as far as you're concerned there's no "evidence" for him to post anyway!

Why keep asking for it? Just for harrassment purposes? How childish that would be! :confused:

Clancie,

First of all, I would like to emphasize that I do not ask Steve who this medium is. I am asking Steve to provide evidence that Walsh did provide real spirit communication.

Surely, you have no problem with that?

Second, I would also like for you to stop this childish pretense of you having me on ignore. It serves no other purpose than for you to create the idea that I am simply not worthy of your replies.

Let go of this childish (to use your own word) pretense. You are only painting yourself as a hypocrite. If you address me directly, why don't you allow me to address you in the same manner?

Still, it's your choice...

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

So some words from a professional who doesn't seem as impressed with Walsh as Steve is
Well, of course one of them has seen her work and the other hasn't...but, by all means, let's not let the facts get in the way of the criticism! :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, of course one of them has seen her work and the other hasn't...but, by all means, let's not let the facts get in the way of the criticism! :)

You cannot possibly take Steve's word as the truth?? Steve Grenard is a know liar, he has faked quotes, he has lied, he has cheated....

Really, Clancie. You should choose your allies with a bit more care....

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

So I can't see how it is harassment to keep asking him about it, and reminding people why it cannot, as it is currently related by Steve, stand as evidence for communication with the dead.
Hi Darat,

I called it "harrassment" to demand that Steve post the medium's name in a way that makes it seem as if he's never, ever posted it for them before! He has, of course, many times.

As for the other demand--for his "evidence"....well, since Claus and Jeff (as so many others here) only define "evidence" as "laboratory testing...double blind...replicated...." and what Steve had (as they know) was a personal reading with this medium...not in a laboratory...not double blind....not replicated....

well...when you know someone doesn't have what you are demanding....why keep demanding it of them (unless, of course, you're just hoping to make them look bad to others when they can't produce the "evidence" you keep asking them for?)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Up yours, six-eyes. Your word carries as little weight as a soul. Show me some evidence, or shurrup! :D
Claus, you prune Danish, your words upset me to no end.
Especially that one.
But I forgive from both the top and bottom of my immaterial soul, my son.
May Old One Eye bless you.





WHO LET THAT DAMNED HARPY IN HERE?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Darat
Just found this link: http://www.rense.com/general29/some.htm ,
Dastard didn't get my name right.
And I can take punishment.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Darat,

I called it "harrassment" to demand that Steve post the medium's name in a way that makes it seem as if he's never, ever posted it for them before! He has, of course, many times.

As for the other demand--for his "evidence"....well, since Claus and Jeff (as so many others here) only define "evidence" as "laboratory testing...double blind...replicated...." and what Steve had (as they know) was a personal reading with this medium...not in a laboratory...not double blind....not replicated....

well...when you know someone doesn't have what you are demanding....why keep demanding it of them (unless, of course, you're just hoping to make them look bad to others when they can't produce the "evidence" you keep asking them for?)

But then you do have to wonder why, in place where I think it is safe to say evidence is accepted to be "laboratory testing...double blind...replicated....", Steve keeps bringing it up?

Plus we can't assume that everyone or anyone will have read previous threads. Whilst it can be a tad tedious at times to some of us who have, it is only right and proper that a "reason for belief" is pointed out to be anecdotal every single time it is brought up as a "reason to believe".

After all we wouldn’t want a newbie to start thinking that some claims aren’t challenged here, would we? ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Dastard didn't get my name right.
And I can take punishment.

Absolutely shameless :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Darat,

Considering that you already have answered Darat, it seems most.....peculiar....that you want to address him again. Without answering me directly.

Still, your choice.

Originally posted by Clancie
I called it "harrassment" to demand that Steve post the medium's name in a way that makes it seem as if he's never, ever posted it for them before! He has, of course, many times.

Who has demanded that Steve post the name of the medium??? "People" - me, among others - have demanded that Steve post evidence of this fantastic reading he claims he got.

Why do you have a problem with that?

If you feel this is "harrassment", I urge you to report it to the moderators. In fact, I insist. I cannot accept that anyone claims that I - or anybody else - is harrassing Steve without a ruling from the moderators.

I have reported your complaint to the mods myself. I demand a ruling on this.

Originally posted by Clancie
As for the other demand--for his "evidence"....well, since Claus and Jeff (as so many others here) only define "evidence" as "laboratory testing...double blind...replicated...." and what Steve had (as they know) was a personal reading with this medium...not in a laboratory...not double blind....not replicated....

well...when you know someone doesn't have what you are demanding....why keep demanding it of them (unless, of course, you're just hoping to make them look bad to others when they can't produce the "evidence" you keep asking them for?)

So, Steve cannot produce any evidence whatsoever?

Why do you have a problem with that?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Claus, you prune Danish, your words upset me to no end.
Especially that one.
But I forgive from both the top and bottom of my immaterial soul, my son.
May Old One Eye bless you.

Still, no evidence.... :) But you can buy me a beer at TAM2. Two, one for me, one for El-Unit.

Better make it non-American, though..... You know what drinking American beer is like....

[SteveGrenard]

Thank you Darat and Clancie for pointing out that it was Camille Wash and MY personal interaction with her that convinced me of the validity of post mortem communication or ADC as some prefer to call it. Although I have Larsen on ignore, thanks (I think) to some others here, I reiterate that my visiting Walsh was personal, it was convincing to me, it was not a lab experiment, there were no statistical results (actually everything the communicator said through her was accurate), I did not replicate or reproduce her session, and the only controls I had I have gone over before and finally I am not publishing my encouner in any form other than limited form to explain my open minded interest in this.

The meager controls I employed included:

1. making the appointment from an extension on a switchboard handling 6, 000 phone extensions. At that time if you had caller ID or hit *69 you would get back a message saying the "Number was not Available by this method".

2. using my first name only.

3. not using a credit card which wasnt accepted anyway

I since learned Camile accepts many people without any payment including 9-11 families locally. The only publicity she ever received for this was in the article which quoted Corey. Randi, myself and Gary Schwartz were were also consulted. The reporter called Schwartz who then referred him to me because I told Gary about Walsh and Gary knew I had seen her. If you want to play dueling appeal to authorities, in addition they interviewed the psychiatrist who is VP of the Behavioral Sciences Unit at my institution. Like Dr. Corey he is a psychiatric professional but has had decades of clinical experience. I believe Professor Corey is a teacher and (correct me if I am wrong) has not been in clinical practice. This story was done six months after I had seen her. It came about because one of the 9-11 families was a friend of the publisher of the local paper and she came to the paper with it. The reporter who did it, whom I have since become friends with, was out to unmask her but he became convinced himself .... I think. He's still not sure. He balanced the story well with quotes from Randi and Corey. But yes, the 9-11 person and myself were the only two interviewed who had first hand experience with Walsh. This is evident of Corey who quotes the standard line of the party re cold, warm and hot reading. There was no cold reading because there were no questions and no feedback. There was no warm reading because I consciously did my best not to cnvey any emotion and dress neutrally. There was no hot reading because I was anonymous and because the information given was so personal it was not available doing prior research even if Walsh knew who I was which she didnt. Thus Corey cannot explain Walsh's methods by these methods.

Now on to Camille. I was asked by her granddaughter who books her appointments to bring photos with me.
I brought three which included one of the deceased and two same age, same gender look-alike persons who were alive.

I arrived at her home a few minutes early and was shown into an office in her house. She sat behind the desk, I sat in front of it. I wore a business suit, tie, no jewelry, watch or anything like that.

She took out a pad and handed it to me with a pencil so I could take notes. I brought one which I used. She took out another pad and sat there scribbling on it like George Anderson does but appearing to get drowsy or sleepy. She raised her head and pointed at one person in the pictures and said "Hey, that's me." It was a correct i.d. of the deceased. Okay, 1 out of 3. Next time I will bring ten, if there is a next time.

She then fell alseep right in front of me. Breathing became slightly noisy as one's breathing does when asleep but of course I had no scientific way of knowing if she was asleep or not although I have years of experience watching people sleep in subway cars.


She then proceeded to talk in the first person, in her own voice, for one hour and fifty minutes. I was not asked any questions. I did not give any feedback, assents or nays or anything. I just kept writing with the pad in my lap so she couldnt see it.

So:

I was anonymous to her.
I was not asked any questions.
I did not give any feedback.

The deceased did not mention his name and mentioned only one human name right away , that of a friend of the deceased whom I did not know well. The communicator said "Tell Frank not to go to California." I didn't know Frank was leaving Brooklyn or going anywhere. Several days later I went to see him and told him this. He said it was true, he was moving to California. He went anyway.


She did not mention any diseases or causes of death.

She did not talk in the second or third person. She did not relate what she saw or thought she heard. She talked only in the first person and everything she said came straight from the mouth of the deceased.

"Oh, ____(correct nick name), thanks also for the pin." The night before I visited Walsh, in the privacy of my own living room with no one to see, I stuck a US Flag Label pin into his picture frame.

He told me where to find a missing pair of sunglasses. They were later found where he said.



I am not going to run through the entire session here, not for Claus or for anyone. Claus can rightfully consider it anecdoal. It was my experience and mine alone, subjective and is my personal justification for thinking that memories, information, ability to acquire info and even personality and emotions survive physical death in some way. It is a very far fetched notion for me so I am looking for physical evidence and proof of this in quantum theory and in electroencephalographic evidence. If I never find it, so be it . I am interested in the many competing theories and theorists who think they have.

It was after having seen Walsh that I started experiencing doubts about JE. If he was real he was afraid of allowing a communicator to use him like Walsh
did or couldn't do this at all and was a fake. The more I see of him the more I think this of him. Or JE is a cold reader and not a very good one.

Walsh did not ask questions, did not get feedback, did not throw out a bunch of J names or fumble with homophones. She didnt bring up relationships either and didnt ask about anything at all as JE does. In fact if I believe anything it was not her talking at all.

Up to then, I was naive to mediums, only knowing JE from the tube so I didnt know that there are any number of low profile mediums that work like Walsh. The rest of them I don't trust.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Still, no evidence.... :) But you can buy me a beer at TAM2. Two, one for me, one for El-Unit.

Better make it non-American, though..... You know what drinking American beer is like....
"Makin' love in a canoe!"

[hal bidlack]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported for possible harrassment. I find that the tone of the poster is confrontational and direct, but is not in and of itself a violation of the rules. In such a post, however, it would be better to provide evidence (links, I suppose) to support the statement. Please also know that it was not Clancie who reported this post.
</font></td></tr></table>

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You cannot possibly take Steve's word as the truth?? Steve Grenard is a know liar, he has faked quotes, he has lied, he has cheated....

Really, Clancie. You should choose your allies with a bit more care....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported for possible harrassment. I find that the tone of the poster is confrontational and direct, but is not in and of itself a violation of the rules. In such a post, however, it would be better to provide evidence (links, I suppose) to support the statement. Please also know that it was not Clancie who reported this post.
</font></td></tr></table>



I have no problems with showing evidence. I would love it if claims are required to be backed up with evidence.... :)

Why is it important to say who did not report it? I didn't either!

(So, that's how you do those cool colored boxes....very easy...whaddayaknow...plain HTML....expect much better looking posts from me from now on... :))

[Marc]

Steve lying is pretty much an accepted fact by anyone who has payed any attention to him. Misquotings, representing other people's quotes as his own, then claiming ignorance when the source of the quote is discredited, self agrandizement, his own share of insults and slander, and whineing when people call him on it.

[Clancie]

Posted by hal bidlack

Please also know that it was not Clancie who reported this post.

Thank you very much for including that, Hal, to eliminate anyone misunderstanding. (And, personally, when the need arises, I much prefer to complain publicly anyway! :) ).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thank you very much for including that, Hal, to eliminate anyone misunderstanding.

Who has misunderstood anything??

Originally posted by Clancie
(And, personally, when the need arises, I much prefer to complain publicly anyway! :) ).

Right.

[gnome]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard



I just suggested that in case you missed it. Come January, which is only a month or less away, I invite Randi to inspect the peer reviewed and referee'd published reports of Prof Archie Roy and Patricia Robinson and, if he so deems, pay them and their research mediums the one million. The ball is hardly in my court .... it's in Randi's. I cannot formally submit anyone's research or so-called paranormal faculties to JREF. Randi can either do it himself as he did with Schwartz and then he renegged or he can ignore it. Somehow, based on his renegging on Schwartz by refusing to talk to him, I think he will go on ignore.

PS: What's a super user?

Surely you are aware by now that reading reports of a past event, no matter how well controlled or peer-reviewed, cannot qualify for the prize. The challenge requires controls that Randi is able to personally verify. But it seems like a medium this reliable should be easily testable.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Back to the ABC news bit. The one that amazed me was when he had singled out a woman and was barraging her with names and numbers, insisting that there was some connection. When she said no he snapped at her and said something along the lines of "No, trust me you're wrong and I'm right." and she did a complete 180, said ok, and started agreeing with him.

[Clancie]

re: ABC news and Shermer
From Michael Shermer

...20/20 correspondent Bill Ritter, with whom I worked on an expose of medium James Van Praagh a few years ago...
Shermer reprinted in valleyskeptics (http://www.valleyskeptic.com/crossing_over.html)

So Ritter and Shermer have teamed up for anti-mediumship pieces before.

Is it any wonder, with the strong anti-mediumship bias of Ritter/Shermer, that this piece violated the basic principles of journalism: balance, fairness, and objectivity?

If JE's a fraud, they should have been able to make their case without so unfairly chopping up his interviews and readings. They only used the little snippets--and only in the context of supporting Ritter or Shermer's point that JE's an arrogant fraud preying on grieving people--and isn't very good at doing readings either, (unless, that is, he's bombarding people with meaningless details and then bullying them into accepting it).

It was quite unethical, imo, not to tell JE that Shermer would be involved in the piece --and at least giving him a chance to respond to the heavy duty "spin" Shermer was allowed to put on everything he said or did (other than the moment when Ritter asked, "What do you say to those who say you're self deluded AND intentionally exploiting grieving people?")

No interviews with anyone who ever was -pleased- with a reading...no readings shown for longer than a sentence or two....not even a follow-up with the producer for whom JE got "40 misses out of 41 tries" (or a description of what exactly the "misses" were). (And the 1 "hit" dismissed as hot reading here, rofl. Since, if so and that's the best he could do, JE's an even worse hot reader than a cold one!)

[zakur]

Originally posted by Clancie
It was quite unethical, imo, not to tell JE that Shermer would be involved in the piece . . .Do we know for a fact that JE was not told Shermer (or any other professional skeptic) would be involved?

And even if he wasn't specifically told that, JE is not so naive to assume one wasn't consulted for the piece.

[Clancie]

Posted by Zakur

Do we know for a fact that JE was not told Shermer (or any other professional skeptic) would be involved?
Shermer said Edward didn't know about it.


And even if he wasn't specifically told that, JE is not so naive to assume one wasn't consulted for the piece.
Yes, but the point is, he may have assumed it would be a balanced and fair approach by 20/20 and Ritter. It wasn't.

[apoger]

>Yes, but the point is, he may have assumed it would be a balanced and fair approach by 20/20 and Ritter. It wasn't.

What would you consider "fair and balanced"?

A statement to the effect that JE could be communicating with the dead even though there was no convincing evidence provided?

Pehaps a disclaimer that the demonstration was for "entertainment" purposes only?

The show opened with a discussion about JE and they did mention that he has seemingly made some impressive "hits" in the past. They went on to do a demonstration and they reported the results. Just because the results were poor, does not mean that the report was unbalanced. Indeed, JE would have looked fine if he had provided a good reading. I see no fault in reporting that JE didn't provide, when that is in fact the case.

If JE wants to rebutt the show... he can come in and undergo proper testing at anytime. By all means, he should provide clear evidence of communication with the dead and put all us skeptics in our place.

[CFLarsen]

<table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0 width=100%><TR><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/001.gif" width=92>http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/xpar.gif</td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/005.gif"></td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/002.gif" width=92>http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/xpar.gif</td></TR><TR><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/006.gif" width=92>http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/xpar.gif</td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/009.gif">
(Yes, just testing a new format...)

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "So Ritter and Shermer have teamed up for anti-mediumship pieces before."</BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they have teamed up for one skeptical piece before.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "Is it any wonder, with the strong anti-mediumship bias of Ritter/Shermer, that this piece violated the basic principles of journalism: balance, fairness, and objectivity?"</BLOCKQUOTE>

Please point to journalists whom you think do not violate the "basic" principles of journalism you mention (you forgot a few - you don't write for a larger audience, so I'll let that slide)


<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "If JE's a fraud"</BLOCKQUOTE>

Please.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "they should have been able to make their case without so unfairly chopping up his interviews and readings. They only used the little snippets--and only in the context of supporting Ritter or Shermer's point that JE's an arrogant fraud preying on grieving people--and isn't very good at doing readings either, (unless, that is, he's bombarding people with meaningless details and then bullying them into accepting it)."</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, he does do that on occasion, doesn't he?

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "It was quite unethical, imo, not to tell JE that Shermer would be involved in the piece --and at least giving him a chance to respond to the heavy duty "spin" Shermer was allowed to put on everything he said or did (other than the moment when Ritter asked, "What do you say to those who say you're self deluded AND intentionally exploiting grieving people?")"</BLOCKQUOTE>

The second a clairvoyant, an astrologer or any other believer/practitioner of the paranormal discovers that there is a skeptic around, he/she will run for the woods. Why do you think JE does not apply for the million bucks?

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "No interviews with anyone who ever was -pleased- with a reading...no readings shown for longer than a sentence or two....not even a follow-up with the producer for whom JE got "40 misses out of 41 tries" (or a description of what exactly the "misses" were). (And the 1 "hit" dismissed as hot reading here, rofl. Since, if so and that's the best he could do, JE's an even worse hot reader than a cold one!)"</BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely disingeneous: You have no problems with programs or articles where JE is portrayed as real.
<td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/007.gif" width=92>http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/xpar.gif</td></TR>
<TR><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/003.gif" width=92>http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/xpar.gif</td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/008.gif"></td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/004.gif" width=92>http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/xpar.gif</td></TR></table>

[Rolfe]

:clap: :th:

Rolfe.

[TruthSeeker]

I'm surprised none of the dead people told JE that Shermer was involved. Maybe they tried..."I'm getting an S name"

Sorry, Clancie, but I think whenever a person (medium, skeptic, anyone with a position on a remotely controversial topic) is interviewed for an investigative journalism type show, they should expect that the other side of the issue will be involved.


Mr. Larsen, I am insanely jealous of your beautifully formatted post.

[Marc]

yea, on the Seance board before the show a number of people wondered why his Spirit Guides would allow him to do the show. No mention of them after the show aired.

[Clancie]

Posted by Truthseeker

Sorry, Clancie, but I think whenever a person (medium, skeptic, anyone with a position on a remotely controversial topic) is interviewed for an investigative journalism type show, they should expect that the other side of the issue will be involved
Of course. But they also have a right to expect that "investigative journalism" will be fair and balanced reporting. This was just a hatchet job with very brief snippets of JE's readings and comments basically just being used to illustrate Shermer's commentary and the shared Shermer/Ritter anti-JE point of view.

[thaiboxerken]

It still amazes me that people still believe JE has superpowers. I say good job to 20/20 for reporting a fair and balanced perspective.

[Loki]

Steve,

Who gave you Walsh's name and number?

[SteveGrenard]

If your question Loki is meant to ferret out the fact that the source of her appointment line number spilled the beans on me to her, it is not the case for several reasons. I heard about her from some staff at work but these people were not close to me. Nor did I tell them I wanted to go to her. Second of all, even if she had my full name and address, which she didn't, the
information provided was so highly personal that it would not appear in any database or on the net. In fact nothing that is known about me publicly was even mentioned. Everything mentioned involved obscure non-public things.

Thirdly she does not speak to you herself, her granddaughter books appointments. At that time I gave a first name and a call back number (in case she had to cancel) which belonged to a friend who was in on it with me and who was highly skeptical. Actually he moved back to Florida and his phone became disconnected so I dont know if she ever tried to call it and I didn't call her back to report this. I just showed up at the appointed date and time. It
took several months for me to get an appointment.

The biggie Loki is that she had a residential listing in the white pages that year (2000-2001) and that's how I obtained her number. If you dont call on the right Saturday of the month there is an answering machine message telling you when to call but it doesnt take messages, just hangs up.

[Loki]

Steve,

If your question Loki is meant to ferret out the fact that the source of her appointment line number spilled the beans on me to her...
Hey, you should go into business doing readings - that's uncanny! How could you know...

I heard about her from some staff at work ...
That's all I was after. Care to elaborate? How did the subject come up? What did these "staff" say exactly?

The biggie Loki is that she had a residential listing in the white pages that year (2000-2001) and that's how I obtained her number.
Are you sure that's right??

[renata]

As to anonymity of Steve's call, Garrette and Claus addressed this in some detailed here
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870148105&highlight=hospital#post1870148105

Steve described the procedure in more detail, and included a rebuttal of Garrette's post. http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870150414&highlight=hospital#post1870150414

[SteveGrenard]

I still have that phone book so I am sure..


Listen, I work for an institution with 4,500 employees and 6000 phone extensions (includes patient rooms and staff) At my site we have about 300 in the building during the day
and a third that number night. I score and analyze test results in the daytime of procedures conducted the night before.

It was mid July, after my loss, and I was out on the promenade having a cup of coffee and one of the staffers said she had an appointment to see Walsh and then, not really talking to me, she told the group about what she heard about her. I didnt do any talking and they didnt know about my personal life. They did pass her phone number around and I may have memorized it then but I remember looking it up as well. To double check I just did so again but its in a 2000-2001 directory which I kept for no particular reason. I frankly didnt feel like telling anybody, at that time, I was even remotely interested in this.

I have never discussed the subject of his missing sunglasses, I never told anyone I was placing a flag pin on his picture frame and nobody knew we had three dogs that grew up with him and predeceased him. I wasnt even working there then. There is no way Walsh would know he had a friend named Frank moving to California because I hardly knew the guy and didnt know he was going even to tell anyone in advance about it. There was not a single thing uttered that didnt make sense or wasn't veridical on its own.
Nobody knew I donated two of his three cars to charity ("Good move, giving them to Children's Aid" ). Yes that was the name of the charity and it was not local but in a nearby state.
Again, I have no intention of giving you all 192 some odd pieces of information that were correct which I tabulated. You just have to accept this as anecdotal, subjective and my personal reasons for looking for a scientific explanation for a phenomenon which most of you say doesnt exist ... a sentiment before then I would've agreed with.

[Loki]

Steve,

Thanks for the additional info.

I still have that phone book so I am sure
Apologies. I asked because I *thought* you said something that, when I reread it, you didn't say. Oops! 'Sorry about that chief!'

You just have to accept this as anecdotal, subjective and my personal reasons for looking for a scientific explanation for a phenomenon which most of you say doesnt exist.
I understand, and have filed your comments appropriately! I still find it strange that your tale of her abilities is perhaps the most accurate and precise account I have ever read (despite your protests that this is "common place", it certainly doesn't seem to be from my reading) of a psychic, yet neither you, nor Walsh, nor Roy, not Swhartz, seem particulary concerned about taking it any further. Given your description, she could prove ADC 100% true in about a week. Okay, her choice I guess...

...a sentiment before then I would've agreed with.
Although it's only what *started* you the ADC path (there's obviously been plenty more since) what do you think would happen (to your worldview) if it was eventually revealed that Walsh was a fraud?

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks Renata. Yes this has all been hashed out before.

Again, in 2001 the call couldnt be traced at my institution. First of all, we had phone service through a private carrier, Teleport, not the regular phone company (Verizon). I had caller ID at home at that time and got frequent calls from the hospital which came up "Not Available." Since they started this system of not letting calls to ring through on some subscribers phones unless they were ID'able, we recently changed. Now our main switchboard number comes up to subvert this tactic ...which I guess was designed to thwart telephone solicitors. Its very frustrating to have to make an emergency or routine call to someone's home and because our number was not ID'able it wouldn't go through.

Insofar as death records are concerned, my loved one did not die in my hospital so this could not be traced either. There was no obituary in any city paper; services were private limited to a relatively small # of friends and family.
But all this would tell Walsh is that someone named X died and was related to me. This never came up. X did not appear and said its me, X, I am here. The things said indicated he was X as only X and myself and his mother would've known most of them. He ID'd his own picture (1 out of 3) but never mentioned his name then either. There was no discussion: "I died from this or that..." either. If you enter my name or his name (if she knew it) in Google you'd get 1000s of hits. Not one thing on any of these sites was mentioned so if she was hot reading she missed out on a great deal.

[SteveGrenard]

Loki: Although it's only what *started* you the ADC path (there's obviously been plenty more since) what do you think would happen (to your worldview) if it was eventually revealed that Walsh was a fraud?

Thats a problem. I thought JE was the greatest also and was the only medium I had had any exposure to like most people. But he was somebody on TV (until I got a chance to go in person) so I was leery of him from the outset. I didnt see any of the tricks people allege for JE when I went to thre studio either. Others will agree he doesnt need them because he is cold reading. If we are going to criticize someone we must be honest about it and the Jaroff/Randi/Shermer/Michael O'Neil stuff was a pile of crap.

I think JE is a cold reader now, especially after the last LKL which I repeated here a number of times. My worldview has not changed because of this. I have read Braud's Immortal Remains (2003) and Arthur Berger's Aristocracy of the Dead, two very thoughtful, highly skeptical but conclusive monographs. I also sorta became the worst thing, a medium junkie and had many bad bad bad readings. People that could not even cold read but I came across three or four others, including several overseas, that were as good as Walsh. Insofar as Robinson and Roy, you will have to wait until the January,2004 issue of the JSPR is available in the U.S. to discuss. They tested 40 UK and Scottish mediums using hundreds of sitters and is the largest, most statistically signficiant study of its kind. Beyond this, I do not know the exact results yet (Flodin is paranoid and thinks I do). I just note that Tricia Robinson says the results were confirmatory. I will wait and see for myself. I have spoken with her and discussed R&Rs protocols. In fact I even transmitted some messages from her to members here with questions.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

Of course. But they also have a right to expect that "investigative journalism" will be fair and balanced reporting. This was just a hatchet job with very brief snippets of JE's readings and comments basically just being used to illustrate Shermer's commentary and the shared Shermer/Ritter anti-JE point of view.

I have never ever heard you speak out against the way skeptics get a token appearance on shows that portray psychics in a positive light.

[Barkhorn1x]

Clancy wrote:
Is it any wonder, with the strong anti-mediumship bias of Ritter/Shermer, that this piece violated the basic principles of journalism: balance, fairness, and objectivity?

One person’s bias is another’s balance I guess. Where are you when LK is giving Sylvia, James and John what almost always amounts to a free pass on LKL?

If JE's a fraud, they should have been able to make their case without so unfairly chopping up his interviews and readings. They only used the little snippets--and only in the context of supporting Ritter or Shermer's point that JE's an arrogant fraud preying on grieving people--and isn't very good at doing readings either, (unless, that is, he's bombarding people with meaningless details and then bullying them into accepting it).

If!?!?!? How much more obvious does his fraud have to be?? You ARE a lost cause.

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

Steve asked me - what I meant by a "Super User".

This is a term I use to respond to credophiles who make statements like, "these powers have been remarked upon for thousands of years, there HAS to be something to them."

Yea sure, the body of world knowledge grows exponentially and technology advances at a rapid pace, but the evidence for paranormal ability is still little more than someone sitting in a room staring at a deck of 6 cards w/ symbols on them while someone in another room tries to guess which one the other person is "selecting" - and ends up w/ results that are 0.0006% above random chance.

After thousands of years - where are the "Super Users"???? Those that are paranormally gifted enough to be able to read them cards w/ 95% accuracy?

Do we hear about these people? No - all we ever get is;
* 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 a 9/11, or the death of a Princess Di, or a JFK, Jr., etc.

But wait, Steve tells us of a Camille Walsh that can do amazing things, things that - if true - would profoundly alter my materialist worldview.

Do you think she would agree to be test for the $1 Million Steve??

No? Why the hell not???

* Is she too busy?
* Too rich?
* Randi has a "negative" aura?
* Her "powers" should not be just another commodity?
* She doesn't get out much?

It appears to me that there is one other VERY good reason why she won't be tested. The wonder is that credophiles fail to see it.

And, finally....
Robinson and Roy's studies have been published in two papers to date with the third, based on tightening of their protocol, to be published in January. Again, they used 40 mediums and hundreds of sitters under tightly controlled conditions. These mediums represented an assemblage of persons who have consistently shown to be able to do this without cold reading (asking questions), getting feedback, seeing the sitter (who is hidden from view) or knowing in advance who the sitter(s) is/are. Again, I don't think Randi would ever agree to simply take their published studies as a performance indicator for his prize but he is welcome to do so.

You KNOW he won’t – and you KNOW why. How about Robinson and Roy REPLICATE their results via a study that has full JREF participation/approval?

In other words can someone please put up or shut up?

Barkhorn.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Clancie

Of course. But they also have a right to expect that "investigative journalism" will be fair and balanced reporting. This was just a hatchet job with very brief snippets of JE's readings and comments basically just being used to illustrate Shermer's commentary and the shared Shermer/Ritter anti-JE point of view. Hmmmm...if Edward is a fraud(and all the evidence points that way), then why should we expect a report to say anything different? By your definition of 'fair and balanced', any report about Hitler should include equal time for Holocaust deniers, or that any report about Saddam Hussien should feature all the good things he acheived in Iraq.

[zakur]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...if Edward is a fraud(and all the evidence points that way), then why should we expect a report to say anything different? By your definition of 'fair and balanced', any report about Hitler should include equal time for Holocaust deniers, or that any report about Saddam Hussien should feature all the good things he acheived in Iraq. :clap:

[Cynical]

LOL, Claus, that's more like it. Chill out over a beer. On reading your posts above, I was beginning to think you were on the verge of a mental breakdown, getting so worked up about Steve. Also, your frustration that he ignores you is just plain unhealthy. It's possible that sgrenard is not giving ANY thought to you at all, and that he just scrolls through your posts without reading them. After all, you say the same thing every time "show me some evidence, or shut up"...:hit:

I think you need several beers, Cantata. What did you mean with that remark about American beer? What IS it like to drink it?:D

[Cynical]

OMIGOD. No wonder it took my post above five minutes to load. I didn't even see all the replies on page 2 of this thread, until now.

After reading more of your posts, Cantata, I am truly concerned about you now. You appear to be in the early stages of paranoia. Your post that was reported to Hal sounds like you are on the verge of an attack. (pssst....Claus, I doubt if anyone "reported" you...Hal just posted that as a warning). Why do you care about sgrenard's s**t? Why can't you just blow him off?

My advice, Claus, is to just scroll over Steve's posts without reading them. And please, take Crow up on that beer offer. Better make it a beer CHASER, with a shot of whiskey first, or whatever they drink in Denmark. You need a serious chill out session, bub.

[Jeff Corey]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cynical
LOL, Claus, that's more like it. Chill out over a beer. On reading your posts above, I was beginning to think you were on the verge of a mental breakdown, getting so worked up about Steve.

(Cynical, Amateur Psycho Therapist.)

I think you need several beers, Cantata. What did you mean with that remark about American beer? What IS it like to drink it?:D [/QUOTE}

Like makin' love in a canoe.

[Cynical]

I read that the first time you posted it, Crow. But sorry, I'm not as much of a liberated, swinging New Yorker as you are, so I don't know what you mean.

I'd still like to know what CLAUS means when he puts down American beer.

[Cynical]

Cantata, you are a COWARD for not answering me.:nope: