John Edward and Allison Dubois on Oprah [Archive]

Luke T.

14th February 2007, 03:00 PM

Don't know for sure, but I saw a preview for a recent show of hers on which she was to undergo an accupuncture treatment.

I'd guess she's not real big on science or skepticism.

Damn shame.

One thing's for sure, though. Oprah doesn't tolerate BS once she has identified it. So if the theories about John Edward having microphones around his studio to pick up tips before his show are correct, he won't have that benefit with Oprah's audience. Also, he knows who at least 1/5 of his audience is at least two weeks ahead of time on his show because they have to reserve tickets.

You have to reserve tickets for most or all TV shows. When I went to David Letterman's show and The Daily Show, that was the case. Name and address. So it is probably the same with Oprah's show.

Hopefully, Oprah's staff would get kind of curious if JE asked for the audience list.

If JE is denied these advantages, I would be very surprised if he does any readings for Oprah's audience. If he does, it will be the lamest of cold reading.

Gord_in_Toronto

14th February 2007, 04:23 PM

Randi Has not had a good experience with Oprah's show in the past. See:

http://www.randi.org/hotline/1995/0017.html

Today I was called by the Oprah Winfrey Show and was made an offer to
appear. Again. No thanks. Once was enough. I was sandbagged by the
producer already, being told that no psychics would appear with me, going
all the way out to the location and then finding out, moments before the
show aired, that major "psychics" were appearing, and I had no data on hand to contradict their pompous and false claims. I'd prepared video and
newspaper material, but left it behind at the hotel when told I'd be without
opposition. It was a blatant, calculated lie, designed to trap me, and I
fell for it. But not again. I'm sure Oprah doesn't need me, and I have no
need of such unethical behavior. There are rules, even though Oprah doesn't seem to know them.

Questioninggeller

14th February 2007, 04:26 PM

I did a quick search and didn't find anything about this so I thought I would point it out.

They are on tomorrow, February 15th.

Thought it might be of interest.

Just went to her website:

02/15/07 Do You Believe? (PG)

They say they talk to the dead... the rock-star of psychics John Edward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward). And, the real life pyschic behind the hit show Medium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_%28TV_series%29). How she (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_DuBois) sees through the eyes of a killer. See for yourself and then make up your mind.

http://www.oprah.com/tows/tows_landing.jhtml

So how can you make up your own mind, if you are only presented with one view? Where's the skeptic?

Rodney

14th February 2007, 05:28 PM

Randi Has not had a good experience with Oprah's show in the past. See:

http://www.randi.org/hotline/1995/0017.html I'd prepared video and newspaper material, but left it behind at the hotel when told I'd be without opposition. What does "without opposition" have to do with anything? Wouldn't the video and newspaper material debunking psychics still have been useful? If not, what did Randi talk about on Oprah's show?

Luke T.

14th February 2007, 05:33 PM

Ah, same deal with tickets to her show that I thought.

Audience reservations for The Oprah Winfrey Show are available almost exclusively by phone. Demand far exceeds supply, so you may receive a lot of busy phone signals before getting through to one of our Audience Department members. Periodically, you may be able to request last minute reservations via e-mail. Check below for availability.

Should I bring my ID to the studio?
Yes, you must have a valid photo ID to enter the studio.

So they know ahead of time your name and address. Just like JE's show.

How many seats can I reserve?
You may reserve up to four seats for any one taping. Group tickets are not available.

Just like JE's show. I think you could reserve 5 seats on his, though. Which is why I say it is possible for him to know the names and addresses of at least 20 percent of the audience weeks ahead of time. After that, Lexis-Nexis makes it all downhill from there.

It may be even worse than that.

If you want to change more than one name on your reservation, you must call prior to the date of taping and speak with a member of the Audience Department.

I never saw anything like that for JE's show, but I may have missed it. Sounds like they know the names of everyone in the audience ahead of time.

http://www.oprah.com/tows/program/tows_prog_getticks.jhtml

dissonance

14th February 2007, 07:17 PM

I saw a preview of this earlier this week, and one of the shots was Oprah, saying something like 'are you still a skeptic?' to someone in the audience, with a tone to her voice like 'how can you not believe'?

I predict this show is going to be a mammoth disaster from a skeptical point of view.

CFLarsen

15th February 2007, 12:03 AM

I predict this show is going to be a mammoth disaster from a skeptical point of view.

Oprah runs a pretty tight ship. She's not going to risk any bad press if she possibly can.

If the show was taped before the Hornbeck case broke, she obviously would have little reason to bring it up. If the show was taped after, it will look very much as if she is trying to ignore such blunder, if she doesn't bring it up. If she does bring it up, she will try the "Oh, but these psychics are different from Sylvia Browne" ruse.

Juustin

15th February 2007, 06:35 AM

Even if Edward doesn't know any info on the audience ahead of time, I'm sure he'll still be able to find someone in the audience who had a father figure of some sort (not necessarily a father, per se) with a J somewhere in their name who died during a cold month.

Juustin

15th February 2007, 06:43 AM

Also, one night my wife and I were flipping through TV in the early morning hours and a John Edward special was on. We decided to watch it, and laughed at how vague his questions were to the general audience; and even then, if he wasn't right, how easily he's make him self appear right to anyone who wanted to believe him. One of the best went like this:

JE: I'm seeing someone here who has a loved one who died as a result of a suicide bombing. It's very specific. I'm not sure where though. (no response). I'm definitely seeing a bomb. There was an explosion.

Audience Member: I think it's my uncle.

JE: Did he die in a suicide bombing?

AM: No. He drove a delivery truck, but he died when he hit a gas truck head on and it exploded.

JE: Did he have brown hair?

AM: Yes!

Of course I'm paraphrasing from memory, but it was such a stretch, from "definitely a suicide bomber" to a car accident. On the special he commented on how the audience was much larger than normal, this one was about 5000. He probably figured a suicide bomber was a safe bet.

Also noteworthy: My wife has always been sort of uninterested in the whole skeptic/psychic debate. I had shown her some of the articles on stopsylviabrowne.com, and now watching tv psychics make fools of themselves is one of our favorite things to do together. Last week me, her, and a couple of her friends had a little "Let's watch Sylvia hack and wheeze through an episode of Montel" party.

fuelair

15th February 2007, 06:44 AM

I did a quick search and didn't find anything about this so I thought I would point it out.

They are on tomorrow, February 15th.

Thought it might be of interest.WOW, John Dedward and Allison Dubious together in a threesome with Oprah. Wonder what kind of kids that match will produce.:D :D

Miss Whiplash

15th February 2007, 07:36 AM

I can't speak of the Oprah of today, but Oprah past was very deep in the woo. During her shows in the late 80's and into the 90's there was a constant parade of psychics, trance channelers, homeopaths, haunted people, UFO abductees, and the like. Her reaction at the screening of Interview with the Vampire still makes me laugh. Running out of the film with her friends and having a prayer session in the lobby is not normal behavior at a vampire flick.

Katana

15th February 2007, 07:49 AM

A few years back, I was an Oprah audience member. I had seen one of those ads saying, "Has such and such ever happened to you? If so, the Oprah Show would like to hear from you." Well, they were looking for people with a phobia.

Being severely arachnophobic, I gave it a try. Who knew I'd get through? So I took my brother with me to what ended up being the most ridiculous and bizarre experience.

The topic of the show ended up being an examination into the way past lives may be influencing us today. They had a guy on there who claimed to be able to "regress" people into their past lives through hypnosis to gain insight into fears/phobias of the present. He supposedly took some woman back to a life during which she almost drowned. Ah, ha! No wonder she now has a water phobia. There were others, but you get the idea. It was so painful to watch. Predictably, the audience just ate it up.

The really bizarre thing, though, was the audience members themselves. They were primarily women, which I expected, but their behavior was so strange. It was like they were all manic. In one moment, they would be jumping out of their seats and cackling wildly like what Oprah had just said was the funniest thing they had ever heard. Then, in the next moment, their faces would morph into a caricature of extreme sympathy as they hung on every world of the next maudlin tale that Oprah or a guest was telling. My brother and I felt like we were suddenly plopped into a movie.

Anyone remember the scene from Golden Child with Eddie Murphy where he is in the mansion with Sardo Numspa and he thinks he's in a dream? Well, it felt like that. It was just surreal.

As an aside: I just found the scene on youtube if anyone is intereted. The relevant part isn't until about 2 minutes into the clip.

hvLY3fOBjEg

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 07:59 AM

I don't watch Oprah either and I have never seen her with a psychic so I don't really know how skeptical she will be, but I am not hopeful.

I know that she took apart James Frey, the author of A Million Little Pieces, but I think the reason was mainly because he made her and her reading list look bad, not because of any altruistic defence of Truth.

And as has been pointed out, there is absolutely no indication that she plans to include anyone with the skeptical position. That doesn't bode well for a balanced presentation. Dubois has the show Medium to hawk and Edwards his books so I expect a big love-fest. I don't think his show is on TV anymore, is it?

I don't know for sure how far in advance she tapes these programs, but I don't think it's much in advance. Therefore, I have hope that the Hornbeck case will be a topic of discussion.

But then again, I'm not 100% correct. My Spirit Guide get's his signals crossed at times.

ETA: Based on the additions by Vampire and Katana, I predict Woo-mania today at 4PM! If I'm right, do I get the $1M?

Overman

15th February 2007, 08:08 AM

I have been looking for another reason to fuel my Oprah hate, it has been a little low lately.

Thank you for letting me know this.

Just think, with the power that Oprah commands, what she could do to these creeps if she had a good head for reasoning and well directed morals.

A person like her could ruin these shmucks, instead, she is making them.

Bitch.

Moochie

15th February 2007, 08:13 AM

hgc

15th February 2007, 08:20 AM

Just think, with the power that Oprah commands, what she could do to these creeps if she had a good head for reasoning and well directed morals.
Her power flows from her audience, not the other way around. She has no power to turn millions of silly twits into sentient beings. If she tried, she'd be in retirement lickety-split.

hgc

15th February 2007, 08:21 AM

It might surprise some here that Oprah isn't known in most areas of the planet.

M.
I forgot. On which planet is Australia? ;)

Moochie

15th February 2007, 08:27 AM

I forgot. On which planet is Australia? ;)

Dickhead.

M.

Overman

15th February 2007, 08:31 AM

Her power flows from her audience, not the other way around. She has no power to turn millions of silly twits into sentient beings. If she tried, she'd be in retirement lickety-split.

The influence that she has over those silly twits is quite more powerful than you think...My sister is a big oprah watcher, I have seen this first hand.

Every book she mentions gets on the national best sellers list, every diet she suggest is tried by her dieting following, every movie and tv show she suggests gets a mad spike in ratings...

I would think that every psychic/con she busts would inspire her auidence not to trust them as well...

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 08:35 AM

It might surprise some here that Oprah isn't known in most areas of the planet.

M.

You aren't missing much, to be honest. She's seems to be not as famous as Ralph Kramden.

hgc

15th February 2007, 08:39 AM

The influence that she has over those silly twits is quite more powerful than you think...My sister is a big oprah watcher, I have seen this first hand.

Every book she mentions gets on the national best sellers list, every diet she suggest is tried by her dieting following, every movie and tv show she suggests gets a mad spike in ratings...

I would think that every psychic/con she busts would inspire her auidence not to trust them as well...
There's a difference though. The ways she exerts influence does not challenge the core belief systems of her audience. She's popular and powerful because she's simpatico with her audience. They all believe in psychics or spirituality or other woo stuff (I don't mean literally all of them, of course). If Oprah were to give a fair shot to skepticism about all the woo she parades into her studio, it would be of very little interest to her audience, and would put a fair lot of them right off watching Oprah. Telling her audience to read Toni Morrison isn't challenging them much. Is Oprah still recommending the classics, or did that little experiment go the way of the Dodo?

Moochie

15th February 2007, 09:08 AM

You aren't missing much, to be honest. She's seems to be not as famous as Ralph Kramden.

Now there is a true genius.

M.

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 09:32 AM

I agree 100%. There is nothing that touches The Honeymooners.

Kaylee

15th February 2007, 10:58 AM

Her power flows from her audience, not the other way around. She has no power to turn millions of silly twits into sentient beings. If she tried, she'd be in retirement lickety-split.

Agreed, but in addition I think it's important to remember that the advertisers are the main players in determining the quality of programs that are aired on TV. And what do the advertisers want? An audience that will actually be swayed by their commercials.

IMHO, this is the main explanation behind the poor quality of many television shows that are available, particularly the "free ones" on network TV. They don't reflect what most of the population would actually like to watch; they reflect what programs the advertisers are willing to pay for based on whom they think will be watching. They also reflect the advertisers preference for TV shows that they believe will put the viewers in an optimal mind frame to be influenced by commercials. Skeptical shows need not apply! ;)

I've just given you my opinion -- now here's some equally invalid anecdotal evidence. ;) I recall some newspaper articles back during fhe first Gulf War reporting that the networks were having trouble selling ad space for their coverage of the war. At the time, the networks had replaced their regular lineup of shows with special news coverage of the war 7 by 24. The advertisers who had already committed to the original lineup didn't want to pay for ad space on the special news coverage instead. They believed that they wouldn't have their target audience and even if they did, they wouldn't be in the "right frame of mind" after viewing the news instead of the regular television shows. The networks decided to continue with their special news coverage, but their ad revenues took a major hit.

Ben H. Badikian in his book, The Media Monopoly (http://www.amazon.com/Media-Monopoly-6th-Ben-Bagdikian/dp/0807061794/sr=1-3/qid=1171563705/ref=sr_1_3/102-0704492-0765741?ie=UTF8&s=books), gives a convincing argument about the adverse effect of commercials on the quality of radio and television programming available to the public. (The content of the book varies slightly by editions; IIRC I read the 6th one.)

MichelQC

15th February 2007, 11:02 AM

It might surprise some here that Oprah isn't known in most areas of the planet.

M.

I stand corrected:footinmou

MichelQC

15th February 2007, 11:03 AM

I agree 100%. There is nothing that touches The Honeymooners.

Boy... and I tought I was old! :bgrin:

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 11:44 AM

Hey, I'm not saying that The Honeymooners were still on the air when I was born, but I love classic comedy and you can't get much more classic than the Kramdens.

nw843x

15th February 2007, 12:36 PM

My gf is a big believer in a lot of things woo and she was watching this load of ummmm errrr crud when I came home for lunch.

It was more of the same old drivel - Alison claiming that she helps law enforcement solve crimes, and she talks to people's dead relatives. Thankfully I missed the segment with John Edward, but I can guess as to what he was saying. They also had a Dean ( I cannot remember his name at this moment) pushing his book and making claims that all of the woo he had written about was peer reviewed and published in such journals as Science and Nature.

Oprah at least had someone from the skeptic community providing some sanity, but of course she was only give 15-20 seconds to speak.

All in all, it was a load of bunkum and yesterday's show was also bad. She had a Dr Mehmet Oz on and he was giving advice. Seemed mostly harmless yet common sense until he went in to "energy healing" and chakras and such.

Sigh.

CFLarsen

15th February 2007, 12:43 PM

They also had a Dean Radin ? pushing his book and making claims that all of the woo he had written about was peer reviewed and published in such journals as Science and Nature.

I beg your pardon?

nw843x

15th February 2007, 12:59 PM

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 01:05 PM

Ok, Oprah just started off by describing us all as "vibrating energies"....

This ain't going to go well.

hgc

15th February 2007, 01:06 PM

Agreed, but in addition I think it's important to remember that the advertisers are the main players in determining the quality of programs that are aired on TV. And what do the advertisers want? An audience that will actually be swayed by their commercials.

IMHO, this is the main explanation behind the poor quality of many television shows that are available, particularly the "free ones" on network TV. They don't reflect what most of the population would actually like to watch; they reflect what programs the advertisers are willing to pay for based on whom they think will be watching. They also reflect the advertisers preference for TV shows that they believe will put the viewers in an optimal mind frame to be influenced by commercials. Skeptical shows need not apply! ;)

I've just given you my opinion -- now here's some equally invalid anecdotal evidence. ;) I recall some newspaper articles back during fhe first Gulf War reporting that the networks were having trouble selling ad space for their coverage of the war. At the time, the networks had replaced their regular lineup of shows with special news coverage of the war 7 by 24. The advertisers who had already committed to the original lineup didn't want to pay for ad space on the special news coverage instead. They believed that they wouldn't have their target audience and even if they did, they wouldn't be in the "right frame of mind" after viewing the news instead of the regular television shows. The networks decided to continue with their special news coverage, but their ad revenues took a major hit.

Ben H. Badikian in his book, The Media Monopoly (http://www.amazon.com/Media-Monopoly-6th-Ben-Bagdikian/dp/0807061794/sr=1-3/qid=1171563705/ref=sr_1_3/102-0704492-0765741?ie=UTF8&s=books), gives a convincing argument about the adverse effect of commercials on the quality of radio and television programming available to the public. (The content of the book varies slightly by editions; IIRC I read the 6th one.)
Thank you for this insight. I hadn't realized the impact of advertising on content quality. This helps to explain something that has been bothering me a lot -- the poor quality of network and cable news. I don't mean just that they spend a lot of time covering stuff like Anna Nicole Smith, but also that when they cover real news, they talk about it in such a way that leaves out salient facts, details, explanation, context. It's not like it would take any more time than it takes to utter gibberish to really lay it out clearly. They also have one after another of these 1 hour news shows on the cable news channels, during which they give about 3 minutes of time to each topic, most of that taken with interviewing other journalists/pundits.

I can see how the advertisers would favor the viewers that appreciate this presentation over something more cogent, like The News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

CFLarsen

15th February 2007, 01:07 PM

This Dean fellow claims that all of his research into psychic ability was real and peer reviewed. Sorry that I could not remember his name correctly, I will try and go to Oprah's site and get the author's name.

Oh, I know about Dean. (http://skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radin2002.htm) :)

Did he actually claim that his research into psychic ability had been peer reviewed in Science and Nature? Those two publications?

nw843x

15th February 2007, 01:26 PM

Yup. That's him alright.

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 01:27 PM

I'm very disappointed. Oprah is not being skeptical at all. She let Edward explain away why he only gets letters of names and not whole names and that he can sense "vibrations".

jens

15th February 2007, 01:36 PM

Does anyone know if this Allison Dubois character actually works with law enforcement? The information I find only says that she claims to work with them.
What a disappointment

dissonance

15th February 2007, 01:40 PM

I only caught the first part before I had to leave - Edward's first reading was brutal. The two things he said that 'confirmed' for the guest that he was talking to her sister were classic cold reading (that she wasn't always called by her first name, Kim, but by a nickname) and potential hot reading (her dead sister's middle name, which I am confident he could have discovered before the reading given that the sister had died under circumstances where it wasn't certain if she committed suicide or was murdered).

The nickname thing was particularly bad, since he just said something like 'I'm getting the sense you don't always get called Kim' (does someone have a tape to confirm?) and the guest leapt to fill in the blanks that her sister used to call her 'KimmyBear' or whatever it was. He didn't even specify it was her sister who had used the nickname! AUGH.

Miss Whiplash

15th February 2007, 01:41 PM

I'm very disappointed. Oprah is not being skeptical at all. She let Edward explain away why he only gets letters of names and not whole names and that he can sense "vibrations".

I feel like I've traveled back in time to 1988. I nodded off reading and woke up to Oprah on the tube interviewing vibrating psychics, the same as I did nearly 20 years ago.

Sheesh! She still just as credulous as ever. And she even invoked the name of Jeanne Dixon.

CFLarsen

15th February 2007, 01:42 PM

Yup. That's him alright.

Did he actually claim that his research into psychic ability had been peer reviewed in Science and Nature? Those two publications?

FFed

15th February 2007, 01:43 PM

What a surprise. Another psychic love fest. :mad:

Katana

15th February 2007, 01:45 PM

CFLarsen

15th February 2007, 01:50 PM

Katana

15th February 2007, 01:53 PM

Was the girl identified?

Do you mean was her name provided during the show? Yes.

Do you mean was her body recovered? Not yet.

Sorry if I misunderstood the question.

I don't think that they're coming back to it since Oprah will next be checking out "what science says about psych abilities" next. This should be good. :rolleyes:

Luke T.

15th February 2007, 02:03 PM

Does anyone know if this Allison Dubois character actually works with law enforcement? The information I find only says that she claims to work with them.
What a disappointment

She sure as hell wasn't helpful catching The Baseline Killer or the Serial Shooter in her area.

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 02:03 PM

Ok. I couldn't resist the temptation to check this out.

Allison was talking about a teenager who disappeared and "went out on a limb" (to use her words) that the girl's body would be recovered within two weeks. I'll admit that that seems like a gutsy move. However, I would be more impressed if, later in the show, she was interviewed again two weeks later to discuss what happened (if anything).

Yeah, I thought the same thing. I hope that Oprah follows-up on that in two weeks. I doubt it though.

Also, later in the segment, she worked with a couple who lost a sister or daughter (I'm sorry, I'm work and couldn't follow it all) and it seemed like during the 20-questions bit that she taped with the couple (that the Oprah show edited heavily), Dubois tried to suggest that she was getting a message from "beyond" that they read a book about a bug to the deceased when she was alive. However, the couple wasn't able to put any meaning to that. So Dubois went out the next day and bought a children's book about a bug at the hotel's gift shop and gave it to them as a gift from the deceased! She forced a meaning from that "miss" by suggesting that it was actually a message from the beyond to buy that book as a gift.

eeyore1954

15th February 2007, 02:04 PM

ARe there any threads here discussing her prior predictions or records

Katana

15th February 2007, 02:05 PM

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 02:06 PM

Did he actually claim that his research into psychic ability had been peer reviewed in Science and Nature? Those two publications?

Yes CF, I just watched it and he clearly stated that "well over 1,000 articles" in support of psychic ability have been published in "scientific journals such as Science and Nature". "But many scientists don't realize that".

et tu Oprah?

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 02:08 PM

That was so lame.

The one "skeptic" that they had to rebut the supposed scientist had no credentials (that I saw) and was completely ineffective. Am I surprised? No. I would have been had it been otherwise.

Yes, the only thing under her name was "Skeptical of Psychics" or some such nonsense.

Oprah did indicate that she would have a poll on her website and I am sure there is a message board there for those that may be interested in visiting it.

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 02:10 PM

Arkan_Wolfshade

15th February 2007, 02:12 PM

Yes, the only thing under her name was "Skeptical of Psychics" or some such nonsense.

Oprah did indicate that she would have a poll on her website and I am sure there is a message board there for those that may be interested in visiting it.
http://www2.oprah.com/tows/intheworks/tows_works_belief.jhtml

hilliag

15th February 2007, 02:13 PM

"Ok, Oprah just started off by describing us all as "vibrating energies"...."

We keep ours in a nightstand drawer. Oh, wait, you didn't mean that...

Arkan_Wolfshade

15th February 2007, 02:13 PM

I'm going to be ill

You've taken our poll—now tell us your stories. You might be featured in an upcoming show!

1. Do you believe in the supernatural?
Yes 93%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
No 7%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
Number of responses: 15002

2. Do you believe that sixth-sense abilities are real?
Yes 94.6%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
No 5.4%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
Number of responses: 15012

3. Do you believe human spirits can survive after death?
Yes 94%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
No 6%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
Number of responses: 14971

4. Do you believe it is possible for psychic mediums to see, hear and talk to the dead?
Yes 81.5%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
No 7.9%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
I'm not sure what I believe 10.6%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
Number of responses: 15015

Tell us why you believe or why you do not. (https://www.oprah.com/plugger/templates/BeOnTheShow.jhtml?action=respond&plugId=255300001)5. After watching this episode of the The Oprah Winfrey Show, did your opinions on this subject matter change?
Yes 10%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
No 90%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
Number of responses: 14488

Tell us how your opinion has changed. (https://www.oprah.com/plugger/templates/BeOnTheShow.jhtml?action=respond&plugId=255300002)6. If you have ever visited a psychic medium to try to communicate with a dead relative, was it a successful experience?
Yes 39.8%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
No 60.2%http://images.oprah.com/images/bar.gif
Number of responses: 9506

Tell us about your experience. (https://www.oprah.com/plugger/templates/BeOnTheShow.jhtml?action=respond&plugId=255300003)

ETA:
This means:
Q1: ~13952 of 15002 said "Yes"
Q2: ~14472 of 15012 said "Yes"
Q3: ~14073 of 14971 said "Yes"
Q4: ~12237 of 15015 said "Yes"
Q5: ~13039 of 14488 said "No"
Q6: ~5723 of 9506 said "No"

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 02:14 PM

Sigh, from Oprah's web site:

http://www.oprah.com/cgi-bin/poll0826_new.cgi

Results: What Do You Believe?
From the show: Do You Believe? (http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200702/tows_past_20070215.jhtml)

You've taken our poll—now tell us your stories. You might be featured in an upcoming show!

1. Do you believe in the supernatural?
Yes
93%

No
7%

Number of responses: 14771

2. Do you believe that sixth-sense abilities are real?
Yes
94.5%

No
5.5%

Number of responses: 14782

3. Do you believe human spirits can survive after death?
Yes
94%

No
6%

Number of responses: 14739

4. Do you believe it is possible for psychic mediums to see, hear and talk to the dead?
Yes
81.4%

No
7.9%

I'm not sure what I believe
10.7%

Number of responses: 14786

ETA: Arkan beat me to it...

Katana

15th February 2007, 02:16 PM

Oh, and did you notice the heavy advertising about the reaction to her show last week on "The Secret". Sounds like more woo. She referred to it in today's program when discussing "vibrations" with Edward.
Yep. Noticed that, too.

The show is just pathetic.

As you and Arkan have pointed out, the poll results are sad but not terribly surprising. I put my token "no"s.

Luke T.

15th February 2007, 02:18 PM

ARe there any threads here discussing her prior predictions or records

Yes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60552&highlight=Dubois).

Her name comes up from time to time in a lot of topics about psychics. And of course when the show Medium came out.

And may I humbly suggest this brilliant article (http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/schwartzkeen.htm)? :D

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 02:19 PM

"Ok, Oprah just started off by describing us all as "vibrating energies"...."

We keep ours in a nightstand drawer. Oh, wait, you didn't mean that...

If only I was talking about the kind with batteries...

CFLarsen

15th February 2007, 02:27 PM

Do you mean was her name provided during the show? Yes.

Do you mean was her body recovered? Not yet.

Sorry if I misunderstood the question.

The former. Let's keep track of this, and follow up on it.

To Oprah. To DuBois. And to Randi.

I don't think that they're coming back to it since Oprah will next be checking out "what science says about psych abilities" next. This should be good. :rolleyes:

Next: Schwartz. :rolleyes:

Yes CF, I just watched it and he clearly stated that "well over 1,000 articles" in support of psychic ability have been published in "scientific journals such as Science and Nature". "But many scientists don't realize that".

I would really appreciate a video clip. :)

Next will be an email to Radin...

Yes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60552&highlight=Dubois).

Her name comes up from time to time in a lot of topics about psychics. And of course when the show Medium came out.

And may I humbly suggest this brilliant article (http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/schwartzkeen.htm)? :D

That would be blatant self-promotion! :D

Arkan_Wolfshade

15th February 2007, 02:29 PM

<snip>I would really appreciate a video clip. :)

Next will be an email to Radin...
<snip>
Bet they try say that "such as" meant "like" and not that they were naming names. Not that it won't be a good thing to try to nail them on. I just smell weasel in the air.

Skeptic Guy

15th February 2007, 02:35 PM

The former. Let's keep track of this, and follow up on it.

To Oprah. To DuBois. And to Randi.

Next: Schwartz. :rolleyes:

I would really appreciate a video clip. :)

Next will be an email to Radin...

That would be blatant self-promotion! :D

I didn't record it. I should have had the guys in the control room do it, but didn't think of it.

Isn't it repeated at 7PM on the east coast?

Miss Whiplash

15th February 2007, 02:38 PM

Where are our skeptics, though? During the paranormal/talk-show craze of the 1980s there was always someone from CSICOP bursting the balloons of true believers. Phillip Klass infuriated many during the alien abduction shows. Joe Nickell started laughing once when someone trance-channeled a spirit. Surely someone is coming along to take their place.

Edit: I wish I had recorded this. It would have given me something to rant about on my blog. Day late and a dollar short, yet again! ;)

FFed

15th February 2007, 03:15 PM

I do have a recording of Dubois, but not edward. I should be able to put it on my computer and make it available if anyone is interested.

Kage

15th February 2007, 03:16 PM

Agreed, but in addition I think it's important to remember that the advertisers are the main players in determining the quality of programs that are aired on TV. And what do the advertisers want? An audience that will actually be swayed by their commercials.

IMHO, this is the main explanation behind the poor quality of many television shows that are available, particularly the "free ones" on network TV. They don't reflect what most of the population would actually like to watch; they reflect what programs the advertisers are willing to pay for based on whom they think will be watching. They also reflect the advertisers preference for TV shows that they believe will put the viewers in an optimal mind frame to be influenced by commercials. Skeptical shows need not apply! ;)

I've just given you my opinion -- now here's some equally invalid anecdotal evidence. ;) I recall some newspaper articles back during fhe first Gulf War reporting that the networks were having trouble selling ad space for their coverage of the war. At the time, the networks had replaced their regular lineup of shows with special news coverage of the war 7 by 24. The advertisers who had already committed to the original lineup didn't want to pay for ad space on the special news coverage instead. They believed that they wouldn't have their target audience and even if they did, they wouldn't be in the "right frame of mind" after viewing the news instead of the regular television shows. The networks decided to continue with their special news coverage, but their ad revenues took a major hit.

Ben H. Badikian in his book, The Media Monopoly (http://www.amazon.com/Media-Monopoly-6th-Ben-Bagdikian/dp/0807061794/sr=1-3/qid=1171563705/ref=sr_1_3/102-0704492-0765741?ie=UTF8&s=books), gives a convincing argument about the adverse effect of commercials on the quality of radio and television programming available to the public. (The content of the book varies slightly by editions; IIRC I read the 6th one.)

My mom's company (which I do some consulting for) does optimization for the placement of adds. I think that their complaints about the change in programming has to do with the huge amount of work that goes into reaching a specific audience, and the amount that an add campaign can be derailed when the programming changes. Advertizers are more concerned with who is watching what than with what is being said on the program.

I do think that media is affected by adds and ownership. As a media consumer you have to realize that things like oprah exist in order to make money. That being said people today have more access to information than at any point in history. Forums like this one exist to make up for the silly rule8 that is shown on montel and oprah.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

15th February 2007, 03:41 PM

After stopsylviabrowne.com, perhaps stopoprahwinfrey.com?

~~ Paul

thaiboxerken

15th February 2007, 03:54 PM

Not sure if stopophrah.com would work, it's hard to prove that she's anything but gullible.

Allison, however, has a TV show about her. She would be a great target, it would stop her lies and maybe stop a tv show designed to get people to believe.

fuelair

15th February 2007, 04:05 PM

Oh, I know about Dean. (http://skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radin2002.htm) :)

Did he actually claim that his research into psychic ability had been peer reviewed in Science and Nature? Those two publications?

I believe we are actually speaking of Sunshine and Nature a nudist magazine. And I suspect that was "rear view", not "peer review". - but it's close enough for a woo.:D

Mr. Skinny

15th February 2007, 04:06 PM

Don't know if someone has answered this already:

The "Research Psychologist" was Dean Radin

The "skeptic's" name was Laura McMahon (think I jotted it down right). (ETA: She called herself a scientist and a humanist.)

Alison Dubois claimed she was studied for four years "in Arizona", IIRC. ( I wonder where? :rolleyes:)

Further edited to add: If anyone knows Laura McMahon, they should invite her to the forum.

Nice Guy

15th February 2007, 04:37 PM

I'm sure that this episode is waiting for me on the TiVo at home, and I'm looking forward to seeing it, but in re Oprah's woo: she had a show recently where people had survived experiences that are normally fatal (pardon my vagueness, I can't remember the details -- there were animal attacks, airplane crashes, stuff like that).

After one guy had told his story, Oprah shook her head sympathetically, and said, "I guess God still has some purpose for you here on Earth". The guy replied, "Actually, I don't believe in divine intervention. I credit my survival to amazing good luck, to the people who rescued me, and to the doctors who helped me heal". Oprah looked like she'd been slapped. She let out a few jabs over the remainder of the show that expressed her bewilderment and anger with this guy.

thaiboxerken

15th February 2007, 04:47 PM

That's just sweet, Nice Guy.

hilliag

15th February 2007, 05:15 PM

She sure as hell wasn't helpful catching The Baseline Killer or the Serial Shooter in her area.

Luke T.: Allison was "too busy" to help in that, I believe, and I know she claimed to be "too busy" to work on a missing-person case involving a local businesswoman's mother. Her remains were found in the desert months later about three miles from the closest predicted spot.
Joe and Allison used to be my neighbors. I was doing yard work one day when this woman drove by in a Lincoln Navigator and asked me whether I had seen a cat. Seems that theirs had disappeared as they were moving in.
Years later, when "Medium" came out, I realized it was *that* Allison. I wondered whey she didnt' use her psychic powers to find the cat.
(He turned up later among some empty boxes in the garage.)

RSLancastr

15th February 2007, 06:09 PM

I wondered whey she didnt' use her psychic powers to find the cat.She should have called a Pet Psychic.

skepHick

15th February 2007, 06:11 PM

If anyone wants to catch this, check your local listings. Each day's Oprah episode is replayed at 9pm EST in my market, I believe it is in many others as well.

karros

15th February 2007, 06:56 PM

Thanks! I know that I will try and catch it. I am not an Oprah watcher, so I don't know what time her show airs, but I'll find it. I just hope that I don't get too angry listening to John (first name synonomous with a toilet) McGee "Edward" and his smugness.

No matter where you are in the world, Oprah is on at 4pm local time.

Kaylee

15th February 2007, 07:14 PM

My mom's company (which I do some consulting for) does optimization for the placement of adds.

Cool.

I think that their complaints about the change in programming has to do with the huge amount of work that goes into reaching a specific audience, and the amount that an add campaign can be derailed when the programming changes. Advertizers are more concerned with who is watching what than with what is being said on the program.

I partially agree with you. :) Yes, advertisers are primarily concerned with who is watching. However, each television show is targeted and monitored for drawing a specific demographic --- which is controlled by network advertising and mostly ... program content. Additionally, there are studies that show that watching some types of TV shows can lull viewers into a quasi-hypnotic state. This is not unique to TV. Listening to music, playing video games, enjoying some beer or wine with friends, and other activities also has the same effect. It can be argued that people seek out opportunities to put ourselves into a semi-hypnotic state as a relaxing technique. Not all TV shows put most viewers into that same quality of hypnotic state, this is determined by each program's style and …. content. Not all advertisers are willing to pay for "spots" in shows that don't have that effect. The news special that covered the first Gulf War 7 by 24 is a good example. The advertisers couldn’t seriously argue that their demographics of choice weren't watching -- everyone was watching! But the frame of mind that most of the viewers were in was definitely different than it would normally be for any of the regular television programming. As a result the advertising would not have the same effect and as a result the advertisers didn't want to pay.

I do think that media is affected by adds and ownership. As a media consumer you have to realize that things like oprah exist in order to make money.

No argument from me and no argument from Badikian. Badikian makes a good case that most people would be better off if they paid directly for the programming of their choice instead of paying indirectly. He argues that the public pays indirectly by reimbursing the advertisers for their advertising expense by paying higher prices for the goods that they buy. This would eliminate the side effect of poor programming. Arrgghh -- he writes better than I do. If you have time, check out the book.

But I strongly believe that in an alternate universe where there is less advertiser funded programming and more subscription or "pay as you go" programming, the Sylvia Browne's and John Edwards' of the world would have much less public exposure.

To bring this post back a little closer to the thread's topic -- in an advertiser supported medium, if it wasn't Oprah, it would be somebody else. Oprah's influence is limited to the area of influence created by the advertisers with our (the public) cooperation. They are the ones that really drive program content. Another poster in another thread (I think Luke T.) found poll surveys that showed that only a minority (about 10% (?)) of Americans believe in the paranormal ( in the form of psychics, etc). OK, that is still too high but based on daytime talk shows and evening shows like Medium , one would think its higher, right? That's because it's easy to forget that mass media content (when it only has a few outlets like 3 national networks ) is driven more by the advertisers then by the general public. Advertisers will not fund programming unless it delivers them the audience that they want. Most advertisers prefer easily influenceable people. Ergo -- you have shows like Oprah , Montel Williams featuring Sylvia Browne once a week (?), and The Medium. Shows like the MythBusters, Bullsh!t!, News with Jim Lehrer hour end up on cable and public television.

That being said people today have more access to information than at any point in history. Forums like this one exist to make up for the silly rule8 that is shown on montel and oprah.

Agreed! But this is not due to large business and advertising. ISPs started off as a mom and pop businesses -- that's no longer the case, but despite some large business' lobbying efforts to raise the cost of internet access in the USA -- it is still accessible for many people. Many forums, blogs, local community or targeted community ad pages (similar to Craig's List), web sites, etc. are not affiliated with big business or commercials and are used by people to find and share very targeted information and entertainment. It's never been easier. The mass media saw this coming by the way and didn't like it one bit. I still remember how in the early '90s many newspapers tried to scare their readers away from the Internet. OK, I'm getting off topic... :)

Yahzi

15th February 2007, 07:34 PM

Alison Dubois claimed she was studied for four years "in Arizona", IIRC. ( I wonder where? :rolleyes:)
That would be Gary Schwartz. Although I thought he repudiated her, or vice versa.

Kage

15th February 2007, 08:53 PM

To bring this post back a little closer to the thread's topic -- in an advertiser supported medium, if it wasn't Oprah, it would be somebody else. Oprah's influence is limited to the area of influence created by the advertisers with our (the public) cooperation. They are the ones that really drive program content. Another poster in another thread (I think Luke T.) found poll surveys that showed that only a minority (about 10% (?)) of Americans believe in the paranormal ( in the form of psychics, etc). OK, that is still too high but based on daytime talk shows and evening shows like Medium , one would think its higher, right? That's because it's easy to forget that mass media content (when it only has a few outlets like 3 national networks ) is driven more by the advertisers then by the general public. Advertisers will not fund programming unless it delivers them the audience that they want. Most advertisers prefer easily influenceable people. Ergo -- you have shows like Oprah , Montel Williams featuring Sylvia Browne once a week (?), and The Medium. Shows like the MythBusters, Bullsh!t!, News with Jim Lehrer hour end up on cable and public television.

I think that what you are saying is in essence correct, but this connection comes from tv stations trying to create shows that get ratings. Advertizers don't dictate content, they just vote with their feet if you will, and they are interested in buying expposure to specific groups. Some demographics are more valuable than others. Little wonder that one of the most valuable are impressionable people who will believe anything.

I also agree that directly paying for content is the way to go. Itunes and Tivo are making that more and more of a reality. I just hope that kucinich's media reform ideas don't go anywhere.

Luke T.

15th February 2007, 09:22 PM

I would really appreciate a video clip. :)

Next will be an email to Radin...

Radin did not claim any of his research had been published in peer reviewed journals.

There was a skeptical scientist in the audience that Oprah kept talking to. The skeptic said, "None of this evidence has been backed up or peer reviewed or published or had physical data against it. There's no ability to measure the energy."

Radin said, "I just want to respond to the idea of a lack of peer review evidence. That's completely false. Actually there's well over a thousand experiments that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals, including some of the top like Science and Nature that most scientists are simply unaware of. Within this realm there are many, many studies that are peer reviewed and published."

Radin also spouted a bunch of QM b.s. that has become popular with the woo crowd. A psychologist, for chrissakes.

And Oprah came across as a complete creduloid.

And my own prediction was correct. Neither JE nor Dubois did a reading of an audience member. The entire show was testimonials from people who they had given readings to in the past. Plus the reading Dubois gave of a current case.

As for her "going out on a limb" about predicting the missing teenager's body would be found in two weeks. The suspect has been arrested and is in custody and is awaiting trial. The missing teen's jacket had been found in a dumpster with "bullet-like holes" in it.

To repeat, a suspect is in custody.

Dubois said the body would be found near a city limits sign, that she had been choked into unconsciousness before the "final impact". She said the police should look for a "barbeque" or something that looks like a hibachi that evidence had been burned on.

She said the struggle had started in a vehicle and then moved onto the ground and that she could see the embankment she had been rolled down.

The missing girl is named Jackie Hartman. She was last seen when she was dropped off at one in the morning to meet a man she had met two weeks earlier.

Dubois said it was a date rape gone bad and that the perpetrator considers it partly the victim's fault for fighting back. :rolleyes:

It would be nice to know when the show was taped to see if the two weeks has passed.

The missing girl's aunt was there and Oprah asked her if she believed Dubois.

"Yes. Yes I do. And we're going to find out. I'm so thankful. Thank you very much."

Luke T.

15th February 2007, 09:24 PM

Oprah is soliciting skeptics on her site who saw the show. She wants to hear from them to maybe appear on her show.

Luke T.

15th February 2007, 09:28 PM

And yes, Oprah plugged Dubois' latest book.

I am totally psychic. 100 percent accuracy!

Luke T.

15th February 2007, 09:30 PM

Oprah has a whole bunch of supporting crap for Dubois and Edward on her site that are basically summaries of the show: Slide 1 of 11 here. (http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200702/20070215/slide_20070215_284_101.jhtml)

Luke T.

15th February 2007, 09:33 PM

Here you go, Claus:

Many people are skeptical of psychic ability, and others want scientific proof. Dean Radin, the author of Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality, says he, too, was skeptical at first, but now he thinks it's clear that some psychic abilities exist. "What they suggest is that experience is entangled, is interconnected among people," Dean says.

Dean says there are more than 1,000 experiments concerning psychic phenomena that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and that many scientists are simply unaware of them. Allison even participated in a study for four years at a university in Arizona. "Science is made into very deep specialties. You know about your one area, but you may not know what's happening in the next area," Dean says.

Both Allison and Dean say psychic abilities are like having an extra talent. Dean compares having psychic abilities to being a phenomenal athlete, like Tiger Woods. "Some people have very different skills, and mediums like Allison are able to do things that the rest of us can do to a very small extent, but they can do it more reliably," he says.

"I see mediums like—there are canines that can hear a whistle that human beings can't hear. There are some people who can hear on a level that other people can't hear," Allison says. "We just hear at a higher level."

Do you believe in the supernatural? Do you believe Allison and John can really speak to the dead?
Slide 11 (http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200702/20070215/slide_20070215_284_111.jhtml)

See? QM b.s.! From a shrink!

"You know about your one area, but you may not know what's happening in the next area."

Irony!

ail

15th February 2007, 11:00 PM

I just completed Oprahs poll "What Do You Believe?" on her website.

I feel I just wasted 8 seconds of my life. :covereyes

CFLarsen

16th February 2007, 01:03 AM

Radin did not claim any of his research had been published in peer reviewed journals.

And no mention of Science and Nature either.

Okie doke...

jimtron

16th February 2007, 02:04 AM

I'm going to be ill

ETA:
This means:
Q1: ~13952 of 15002 said "Yes"
Q2: ~14472 of 15012 said "Yes"
Q3: ~14073 of 14971 said "Yes"
Q4: ~12237 of 15015 said "Yes"
Q5: ~13039 of 14488 said "No"
Q6: ~5723 of 9506 said "No"

To me this poll explains why Oprah and her producers don't want to look at this stuff critically. It will turn off her viewers. That may be why Randi was misled; they didn't want to let him make a convincing case against woo, because it would not make the viewers happy. In some ways I have a lot of respect for Oprah, but in other ways not so much. This is a commercial show and the goal is to get as many eyes as possible, and this often involves pandering to the audience.

I've noticed that there is a tiny percentage of really good, intelligent programming on TV, and it usually gets weak ratings. People like crap.

Skeptic Guy

16th February 2007, 05:53 AM

And no mention of Science and Nature either.

Okie doke...

I am not sure if I misunderstand, but...Luke is right that he did not stat HIS research had been published in peer reviewed journals, but he DID say that research proving psychic ability had been published in peer reviewed journals such as Science and Nature.

So there was mention of those two journals.

Just wanted to clarify that. Worth an email to Mr. Radin asking for specific citations, no?

Juustin

16th February 2007, 06:24 AM

The only highlight in those poll numbers (and it's so tiny that it can hardly be called a "highlight"), is that the only question with significantly lower approval ratings of psychic abilities is the last question, which is the only one directed at people who have personally dealt with them.

I say, give Oprah/Allison the benefit of the doubt and assume the show was taped 2 days ago (I know in reality it was taped before that). Give them 12 more days, then everyone should take to contacting the show as much as possible to see if she's been found. I somehow doubt Oprah would do a follow up on it with a negative result, since she's obviously so supportive on the episode.

Ersby

16th February 2007, 06:31 AM

And no mention of Science and Nature either.

Okie doke...

You don't suppose Radin was referring to the paper on Uri Geller published in Nature in the 1970's, do you?

Skeptic Guy

16th February 2007, 06:33 AM

He said "thousands" of papers...

Ersby

16th February 2007, 06:37 AM

He said "thousands" of papers...
Not all in Nature, though. He was probably referring to the usual JSPR, Journal of Parapsychology, JASPR etc...

CFLarsen

16th February 2007, 06:40 AM

I am not sure if I misunderstand, but...Luke is right that he did not stat HIS research had been published in peer reviewed journals, but he DID say that research proving psychic ability had been published in peer reviewed journals such as Science and Nature.

So there was mention of those two journals.

Just wanted to clarify that. Worth an email to Mr. Radin asking for specific citations, no?

"Such as" can mean two things: "Like" and "Two of the journals are Science and Nature".

I need a transcript.

Chimera

16th February 2007, 06:58 AM

I'm afraid to see a clip of this drivel; my stomach has been bothering me all morning anyway.

Here is the link to Oprah's email, in case anyone would like to express their disgust. I just wrote to them:

Email Oprah (http://www2.oprah.com/email/tows/email_tows_main.jhtml)

hgc

16th February 2007, 07:05 AM

Dickhead.

M.
Is that in the assholoid belt?

hgc

16th February 2007, 07:16 AM

He said "thousands" of papers...
Papers, fishes and loaves.

Daryl17

16th February 2007, 07:30 AM

Has

Daryl17

16th February 2007, 07:31 AM

Sorry about my previous poat, has anyone got a video clip of this, its hard to judge without seeing it.

Miss Whiplash

16th February 2007, 07:49 AM

"Such as" can mean two things: "Like" and "Two of the journals are Science and Nature".

I need a transcript.

I regret I didn't have my video card write a transcript from the closed captions for free yesterday. Buying Oprah transcripts (http://boutique.oprah.com/product/show/6153) is a bit pricey at $15.95 each.

Skeptic Guy

16th February 2007, 07:58 AM

"Such as" can mean two things: "Like" and "Two of the journals are Science and Nature".

I need a transcript.

True.

Ocelot

16th February 2007, 08:55 AM

There have been thousands of scientific experiments done on psychic phenomena. I'm aware of this. Many have had their results published. I'm aware of this. Some of these publications are respected scientific journals "like" Science and Nature. I'm aware of this. In fact respected scientific journals that actually are "Science" or "Nature" have carried articles regarding the apparence of paranormal phenomena. I know because I've read some of them. However I see one fact missing from all this. Did he actually say that those experiments demonstrated that the woo claims were in any way substantiated? The only ones I've read have in respected scientific periodicals discussed issues such as statistical missunderstanding, confirmation bias etc.

Talking of confirmation bias, if one did believe in paranormal phenomena and desperately needed to find material to support this belief one could possibly read some of these articles and subconciously cherry phrases that seemed to support that belief.

hilliag

16th February 2007, 09:29 AM

It would be interesting to find out when that show was taped. Jackie Hartman went missing Jan. 29, I believe -- can't tell from our Arizona Republic archives from home, and I'll be darned if I'm paying for it -- and the suspect was arrested the next day. This is from memory on editing those stories, but I believe blood evidence was found in the car.
Regardless, here we are on Feb. 16, and it has been two weeks since she went missing. The family fears the worst, but they have been scouring the desert for her with volunteers. Very similar to that other missing person case, but that's to be expected. When you live in the desert, people will dump a body in the desert. If you're in Louisiana, it would be a swamp. On the coast, in the water.
Anyone could make up DuBois' scenario, and do. They work for shows like "Law and Order" or "CSI."

Moochie

16th February 2007, 09:31 AM

I'm very disappointed. Oprah is not being skeptical at all. She let Edward explain away why he only gets letters of names and not whole names and that he can sense "vibrations".

I am really disappointed in Oprah. The woman does some good stuff with her (ugh!) billions. That she credits woo with being anything other than BS comes as somewhat of a shock.

I guess money corrupts, and untold money corrupts beyond comprehension...

M.

Kaylee

16th February 2007, 10:16 AM

I think that what you are saying is in essence correct, but this connection comes from tv stations trying to create shows that get ratings. Advertizers don't dictate content, they just vote with their feet if you will, and they are interested in buying expposure to specific groups. Some demographics are more valuable than others. Little wonder that one of the most valuable are impressionable people who will believe anything.

I also agree that directly paying for content is the way to go. Itunes and Tivo are making that more and more of a reality. I just hope that kucinich's media reform ideas don't go anywhere.

If you change this line:
"tv stations trying to create shows that get ratings"

to:
"tv stations trying to get ratings with programming that appeals to the emotions and doesn't spark the intellect, and will deliver a very specific demographic to the advertisers"

then I'll agree with you. ;)

High ratings alone are not enough. Otherwise we will just have to agree that we disagree.

But to misquote an old song, 1 out of 3 ain't bad and as you said we do agree that direct pay is the way to go. However, I'd like to see that occur where there's a lot of competition --that's part of the reason why I like Kucinich's ideas on media reform.
Link: http://kucinich.us/issues/media_reform

Although I read it quickly, I think I agree with most of his other ideas in this area also. However, I’ll need to read what the other side has to say before I make up my mind. Some of it has already been the law before it was dismantled, I think mostly by the FTC under one or two Republican administrations. My memory is failing me on this point and I don't have time to research it now.

If you want to discuss this more over in Politics I'd be happy to give it a shot. And I've no doubt that others will join in. :)

FFed

16th February 2007, 01:51 PM

I uploaded the segment where Oprah has Dean Radin on. I recommend watching it with a tension sheet handy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPIiUtlwj98

Skeptic Guy

16th February 2007, 02:07 PM

I uploaded the segment where Oprah has Dean Radin on. I recommend watching it with a tension sheet handy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPIiUtlwj98

Thanks, FFed!

So the actual quote from Radin is:

"there's well over a thousand experiments that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including some of the top like Science and Nature that most scientists are simply unaware of. Well, within this realm there are many, many studies that are peer-reviewed and published".

ETA: He seems he does mean that the scientific journals he refers to include Science and Nature. And by mentioning them I would think he means that the articles provide evidence in support of psychic abilities.

RSLancastr

16th February 2007, 02:18 PM

Dubois said it was a date rape gone bad??????? Is that an exact quote?!?!

Oprah is soliciting skeptics on her site who saw the show. She wants to hear from them to maybe appear on her show.Link?

CFLarsen

16th February 2007, 02:39 PM

??????? Is that an exact quote?!?!

If it is, we know what to do after Sylvia... :)

thaiboxerken

16th February 2007, 03:51 PM

I wonder what she considers a good date rape.

Mr. Skinny

16th February 2007, 04:05 PM

??????? Is that an exact quote?!?!

Robert, if I remember correctly, she did preface the very last bit of what she said (including the date rape part) by saying something like "now this is just my opinion" and Oprah said "so this is just your opinion then?"

I think that would be her out...it wasn't something she sensed psychically.

Maybe someone that can watch the video and confirm my memory.

Mr. Skinny

16th February 2007, 04:06 PM

I wonder what she considers a good date rape.
One where the victim isn't murdered as a result?

Luke T.

16th February 2007, 10:13 PM

"Such as" can mean two things: "Like" and "Two of the journals are Science and Nature".

I need a transcript.

Dude, I taped it. What I wrote above is exactly what Radin said.

Radin said, "I just want to respond to the idea of a lack of peer review evidence. That's completely false. Actually there's well over a thousand experiments that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals, including some of the top like Science and Nature that most scientists are simply unaware of. Within this realm there are many, many studies that are peer reviewed and published."

Luke T.

16th February 2007, 10:30 PM

Robert, if I remember correctly, she did preface the very last bit of what she said (including the date rape part) by saying something like "now this is just my opinion" and Oprah said "so this is just your opinion then?"

I think that would be her out...it wasn't something she sensed psychically.

Maybe someone that can watch the video and confirm my memory.

She prefaced it with that stuff because there is a suspect in custody. So just like a news reporter, they have to say "alleged".

She starts out talking generally about how she "head taps" a criminal, meaning she gets into his head. She brags twice in the show that she wants to be a criminal's "worst nightmare".

So she's babbling on about getting "head taps" and works her way back onto the missing teen's case:

Dubois: ...but I already know who he is from being in his head. I've already felt his motive. I've already felt if it was a sexually motivated crime. I believe in this particular case, and I guess I have to speak as that it's my opinion-

Oprah: Okay.

Dubois: -that the alleged, you know, perpetrator-

Oprah: Right.

Dubois: -that the motive was, it was a date rape gone wrong. That how I see it as. That it was something that got out of control, and I believe that the perpetrator that perpetrated the crime in question blamed her partially for this taking place because if she hadn't fought him, there wouldn't have been such a struggle, and he wouldn't have had to kill her.

Oprah: That's what you believe?

Dubois: Yes.

Exact words, minus the occasional "uh" and "um" here and there.

Luke T.

16th February 2007, 10:57 PM

And just to spin up those in the know, there is this gem.

Oprah: So Miss Skeptic. What your name?

Audience Member: Laura.

*Laura laughs*

Oprah: Laura. Laura, our scientist skeptic, what'd you want to say?

At this point, they put the woman's name on the screen. Laura McMahon with a subtitle "Says she is skeptical about psychic mediums".

Laura: I wanted to know if you keep track of how many times you're right and how many times you're--

At this point, Dubois interrupts. She was ready for this one.

Dubois: I know it's important to you scientists keeping track.

Dubois laughs. Oprah laughs. I guess Radin is wired, because you can hear him laughing offscreen.

Dubois: Actually, I spent four years in a laboratory being studied by scientists in, at a university in Arizona. So they kept track of every hit and every miss. You better believe. And they published it in academic journals. So I spent four years putting it out there, and after four years I realized there are some people that aren't gonna get it, and they're not gonna believe, and I have to be okay with that. But I did dedicate four years of my life to trying to help science find a reason for why people like me do what we do.

*commercial break*

Freaking Schwartz!

Luke T.

16th February 2007, 10:58 PM

Money. Prestige. Appearances on Oprah, LKL, etc.

That's why people like her do what they do.

Duh!

Luke T.

16th February 2007, 11:14 PM

That would be Gary Schwartz. Although I thought he repudiated her, or vice versa.

pdate: May 1, 2006.

Allison DuBois has had a falling out with Schwartz.

For four years, Schwartz tested DuBois in his lab. He came out with a book last October called The Truth About Medium: Extraordinary Experiments with the real Allison DuBois of NBC's Medium and other Remarkable Psychics. There used to be photo of DuBois with Schwartz and his psychic buddy Laurie Campbell on DuBois's website. Not any more. There is now an "editorial" lambasting Schwartz for his duplicity. DuBois writes:

... I do not endorse Dr. Gary Schwartz. I was disappointed to find out that the four years that I spent in the lab for "science" are, in my view, being misused by Dr. Schwartz -- even after I expressed my disapproval.

How about that! That's the four years she mentioned on Oprah!

Gary says that I asked him to write a book about me which is a figment of his imagination. I actually asked him to NOT write a book about me which his publisher Hampton Roads is well aware of since they were served by my attorney before it released....He points to an e-mail from a year ago that he cut and pasted and only shows part of the e-mail trying to make the argument that I said I'd endorse his book.

Participating in lab studies with Dr. Schwartz was never to be a for-profit venture. I always understood that we were participating in scientific studies to help us and the world gain a better understanding of our abilities. Several of our "sitters" in the lab, unknown to many of the mediums, turned out to be writing their own books. In turn, Dr. Schwartz wrote forewords for those books or was mentioned in them. I was promised complete confidentiality and anonymity in how Dr. Schwartz and the University would report the results of these studies. Needless to say, I as well as other mediums were surprised to find our participation in the lab featured in so many other books.

Now that is the height of hypocrisy. Dubois has a forward for HER book, Don't Kiss Them Goodbye, written by Schwartz! She has attempted to hide that fact. But thanks to the Wayback Machine, we have it.

This is the foreword to my up and coming book, "Don't Kiss Them Goodbye". The foreword is written by Dr. Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D. of the Human Energy Systems Laboratory at The University of Arizona.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040202055258/www.allisondubois.com/background.html

You can read Schwartz' foreword at that link.

To continue:
As DuBois found out the hard way, Gary Schwartz does not do science the way it is supposed to be done. For example, in 2001 he and Linda Russek published a paper in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research entitled “Evidence of Anomalous Information Retrieval Between Two Research Mediums: Telepathy, Network Memory Resonance, and Continuance of Consciousness.” The actual experiment used three sitters but only the results with sitter George Dalzell (GD) were reported in the published paper. No explanation is given as to why two-thirds of the data disappeared. (He omits inclusion of all his data in other published studies, as well.) The medium was Laurie Campbell. She was blind to the selection and identities of the sitters, but GD knew who Laurie was and knew that she might be a reader. He is also a medium who had a book coming out on the evidence for the continued existence of his “dear friend” with the unusual name of Michael who had died.

In any case, Dalzell said he asked four ghosts (“departed hypothesized co-investigators”) to come to the reading. Part of the success of the reading would be judged by how many of these ghosts were identified by Campbell. They concluded that all four made contact with Campbell: Michael (dear friend), Alice (an aunt), Bob (father), Jerry (close friend). One problem with the design was that Dalzell confirmed that he’d invited just these four ghosts after the reading. Schwartz writes: “It is unfortunate we did not think to have GD write down the names of the people invited 24 hours before the reading, and have this document notarized.” To add insult to injury, all the data that dazzles Schwartz is validated by GD himself.

http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk44.html

Dubois has also taken down the statements from her that are quoted above. But The Wayback Machine strikes again! http://web.archive.org/web/20060520210018/http://www.allisondubois.com/news.html

About the part I bolded, it is true. Schwartz only publishes pieces of his "studies", with promises the rest will be forthcoming. But it never is. I have found that out for myself while writing for Skeptic Report and just for my own curiosity over the years.

Gary Schwartz is a complete creduloid. And he has no concept of how to conduct a double blind study. Dubois played him like a fiddle.

I will again recommend this article (http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/schwartzkeen.htm). I worked hard on it and it shows exactly how Schwartz and Dubois worked together.

Luke T.

16th February 2007, 11:31 PM

A lying, hypocritical bitch.

Not "alleged". Not opinion.

Fact.

CFLarsen

17th February 2007, 12:52 AM

Dude, I taped it. What I wrote above is exactly what Radin said.

Radin said, "I just want to respond to the idea of a lack of peer review evidence. That's completely false. Actually there's well over a thousand experiments that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals, including some of the top like Science and Nature that most scientists are simply unaware of. Within this realm there are many, many studies that are peer reviewed and published."

That's not entirely clear what he means. He could mean that:

1) These experiments have been peer reviewed in Science and Nature.

or

2) He equates the journals (I hesitate to call them "scientific") these experiments are "peer-reviewed" to Science and Nature.

I'll ask Radin. If he answers 1), he is a liar. If he answers 2), I have a question for him.

Ground Beast Samwich

17th February 2007, 01:52 AM

I think Oprah owns the WE Channel or at least has a part of the ownership of it. She has Edwards on because his stupid show is on WE.

I thought National Geographic channel was stupid with its UFO stories...

Man, there are alot of stupid people on this earth. I'm glad this place is a beacon of hope in a world devoid of reality. Reading those page synopsis of her Psychic show from last week makes me sick. Such utter BS!

valis

17th February 2007, 01:53 AM

The influence that she has over those silly twits is quite more powerful than you think...My sister is a big oprah watcher, I have seen this first hand.

Every book she mentions gets on the national best sellers list, every diet she suggest is tried by her dieting following, every movie and tv show she suggests gets a mad spike in ratings...

I would think that every psychic/con she busts would inspire her auidence not to trust them as well...

She actually put two books on the best seller list for the price of one. She put a book on her book club list and of course it shot to number one, but there was another book with a similar name that also made it into the top ten just because people seeking the book Oprah recommended bought it by mistake.

She also launched the careers of Rachel Ray Dr. Phil.

Oh yeah, and my wife loves her and I can't stand her.

Zep

17th February 2007, 03:35 AM

I'm going to be ill

ETA:
This means:
Q1: ~13952 of 15002 said "Yes"
Q2: ~14472 of 15012 said "Yes"
Q3: ~14073 of 14971 said "Yes"
Q4: ~12237 of 15015 said "Yes"
Q5: ~13039 of 14488 said "No"
Q6: ~5723 of 9506 said "No"OK, I'm going to call COMPLETE AND UTTER CRAP!! on those numbers. I would bet pounds to peanuts they are totally made up.

Why do I say that? Simple. They are all within a very short, highly unlikely, span either way of exactly 15,000 votes. And if you had a nationwide web-poll out, getting anything close to exactly 15,000 responses would be next to impossible.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that there are only two reasonable explanations for this, possibly interrelated.

1) The polsters for this poll have rigged the numbers in advance, and the incoming votes never get counted. They simply selected 15,000 as a "likely" number, and have added/subtracted a few points either way to make it look more "natural".

2) An automatic script somewhere has been run that loads up the poll with preselected entries, and has fired them off for a loop count of about 15,000. Any subsequent variations are the actual votes from interested respondents.

Either or both of these explanations means shennanigans afoot.

Any other explanations start to stretch credulity - they MAY be possible, but Occam says no.

CFLarsen

17th February 2007, 05:18 AM

Ehhh...no. The number of responses is currently at over 50,000.

Moochie

17th February 2007, 07:23 AM

I can see a necessity for lots of StopBlahBlah web sites in the near future.

M.

Luke T.

17th February 2007, 11:13 AM

That's not entirely clear what he means. He could mean that:

1) These experiments have been peer reviewed in Science and Nature.

or

2) He equates the journals (I hesitate to call them "scientific") these experiments are "peer-reviewed" to Science and Nature.

I'll ask Radin. If he answers 1), he is a liar. If he answers 2), I have a question for him.

I am going to bet he names the JASPR and the JSPR, which are to Science and Nature what the National Enquirer is to The New York Times.

Instig8R

20th February 2007, 05:09 PM

I don't usually watch Oprah... but last week, I saw a "teaser" that John Edward was going to be a guest. I tried to resist, but I just had to watch.

Here's what's even more revolting-- I felt compelled to visit Oprah's message board. Many of the folks who post there are convinced that mediumship has been proven. Some of them cite Schwartz and the Afterlife Experiments. Also, I noticed that at least one of JE's fellow authors (at Jodere Publishing) has been trying (unsuccessfully) to turn it into a "believer only" forum.

I'm upset. I'm really upset, and I guess I just needed to vent.

I also wanted to check-in and say "hi" to all my JREF pals. I hope you're all well and happy.

Luke T.

22nd February 2007, 06:18 AM

I also wanted to check-in and say "hi" to all my JREF pals. I hope you're all well and happy.

Another war veteran of the tvtalkshows JE forum. :)

Nice to see you Instig8R.

Luke T.

22nd February 2007, 06:22 AM

The body of the missing teen, Jackie Hartman, has been found.

Police confirmed Wednesday that a body found Monday in a remote area northeast of the Valley is that of a missing 19-year-old woman.

Jacquelan "Jackie" Hartman, of Gilbert, was found dead Monday near Arizona 87, northwest of Saguaro Lake, by an all-terrain vehicle rider. Hartman was believed to be dead after police found her bullet-ridden clothes in a dumpster the day after she went missing in late January.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/0222gr-hartman0222Z12.html

Thanks to hilliag for the tip.

An earlier report:

Authorities have found a body in the desert northeast of Phoenix that they say is connected to a missing persons case out of Gilbert.

But Duncan says it was found in a rugged area near Fountain Hills where crews have been searching for 19-year-old Jackie Hartman.

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=6108761

Nowhere near a city limits sign or down a road embankment.

Overman

22nd February 2007, 06:51 AM

The way AD described it she seemed to be implying choking or some sort of physical death...not bullets...

Luke T.

22nd February 2007, 06:55 AM

The way AD described it she seemed to be implying choking or some sort of physical death...not bullets...

She chose her words carefully. Choking followed by "the impact".

Impact. Baseball bat, bullet, asteroid, Nerf dart, bucket of water.

alfaniner

22nd February 2007, 07:22 AM

You know, it finally struck me last night that, even if psychic predictions are correct, they are totally useless.

Skeptic Guy

22nd February 2007, 08:09 AM

I wonder what kind of spin AD is going to give it to make it all fit into her "prediction".

Juustin

22nd February 2007, 08:15 AM

After watching this all the way through, I have my favorite part picked out.

Oprah, playing the "skeptic" (ie: acting out that part herself so she could avoid having a real skeptic on), asked John Edward "OK, so if there really are all these spirits, where are they?"

Edward made by favorite analogy ever. Spirits of the dead are like the Internet. Where are the spirits? Where is the Internet? Basically implying that the internet is "there" but not physically "there".

Apparently everyone I know who hosts their website on a physical server is unaware of the new technology making it totally unnecessary. Now that I think of it, I *hate* the clutter that is made by the wires coming in and out of my modem. I'm glad I found out they're totally unneeded, since they're not connecting to anything.

hilliag

22nd February 2007, 08:28 AM

Edward made by favorite analogy ever. Spirits of the dead are like the Internet. Where are the spirits? Where is the Internet? Basically implying that the internet is "there" but not physically "there".

Edward: The spirit world is a series of tubes...

RSLancastr

22nd February 2007, 10:30 AM

I can see a necessity for lots of StopBlahBlah web sites in the near future.And man, am I tired of BlahBlah...

:D

Skeptic Guy

22nd February 2007, 01:58 PM

She prefaced it with that stuff because there is a suspect in custody. So just like a news reporter, they have to say "alleged".

She starts out talking generally about how she "head taps" a criminal, meaning she gets into his head. She brags twice in the show that she wants to be a criminal's "worst nightmare".

So she's babbling on about getting "head taps" and works her way back onto the missing teen's case:

Dubois: ...but I already know who he is from being in his head. I've already felt his motive. I've already felt if it was a sexually motivated crime. I believe in this particular case, and I guess I have to speak as that it's my opinion-

Oprah: Okay.

Dubois: -that the alleged, you know, perpetrator-

Oprah: Right.

Dubois: -that the motive was, it was a date rape gone wrong. That how I see it as. That it was something that got out of control, and I believe that the perpetrator that perpetrated the crime in question blamed her partially for this taking place because if she hadn't fought him, there wouldn't have been such a struggle, and he wouldn't have had to kill her.

Oprah: That's what you believe?

Dubois: Yes.

Exact words, minus the occasional "uh" and "um" here and there.

Was there an alleged perpetrator in custody when she taped the Oprah show? I thought it wasn't until after that they arrested someone.

That's not entirely clear what he means. He could mean that:

1) These experiments have been peer reviewed in Science and Nature.

or

2) He equates the journals (I hesitate to call them "scientific") these experiments are "peer-reviewed" to Science and Nature.

I'll ask Radin. If he answers 1), he is a liar. If he answers 2), I have a question for him.

Please let us know what he says, CF. It will be interesting.

hilliag

22nd February 2007, 02:33 PM

[QUOTE=Luke T.;2350686]She starts out talking generally about how she "head taps" a criminal, meaning she gets into his head. She brags twice in the show that she wants to be a criminal's "worst nightmare".

So she's babbling on about getting "head taps" and works her way back onto the missing teen's case:

Dubois: ...but I already know who he is from being in his head. I've already felt his motive. I've already felt if it was a sexually motivated crime. I believe in this particular case, and I guess I have to speak as that it's my opinion-

Whoa! So does this mean Allison is now saying she can read minds, too?

Gord_in_Toronto

22nd February 2007, 03:24 PM

Can someone with more time than I and maybe a bit closer to this thread put together an analysis of what AD "read" versus the reality of the actual case?

Thanks! :D

Instig8R

22nd February 2007, 04:53 PM

Another war veteran of the tvtalkshows JE forum. :)

Hi, LukeT! I've been trying to overcome my internet addiction to arguing about psychic-mediums. Viewing one appearance by John Edward on the Oprah show was all it took to push me over the edge. Grrrrrrr!

I must confess that I still lurk every once in a while, but just couldn't resist dropping in this time. Nice to "see" ya!

Stellafane

22nd February 2007, 05:01 PM

I can see a necessity for lots of StopBlahBlah web sites in the near future.

M.

I really, really cannot stand Allison Dubois and her self-satisfied smirk, and I certainly would welcome a "Stop" website dedicated to her.

But I absolutely HATE Carla Baron.

MondoAtheist

22nd February 2007, 08:47 PM

Maybe a stop Kelsey Grammer website also. I heard in an interview he was trying to setup a whole Network for mediums. TV Network like; "Mondiums" Yeah, that's what my network would be called if it were about Mediums.

I think everyone is getting sick of BlahBlah also.

Skeptic Guy

22nd February 2007, 08:53 PM

Frazier is a Woo Lover? Say it ain't so!

MondoAtheist

22nd February 2007, 09:12 PM

Frazier is a Woo Lover? Say it ain't so!

He's the Executive Producer of Medium. But I don't want to give that as 'Evidence.' I'm trying to find a source with the interview I watched.

-- Added
I couldn't find any info on Google about it. So maybe I was having a premonition and the information will turn up eventually.

Skeptic Guy

22nd February 2007, 09:19 PM

I really hope not. I have always enjoyed his work.

Dragon

23rd February 2007, 03:49 AM

Edward: The spirit world is a series of tubes... and the physical world is a series of rubes ...

Arkan_Wolfshade

23rd February 2007, 06:24 AM

A quite aside (as this following comment is unworthy of a new thread), but a phrase I heard from a book reviewer on NPR this morning describing the genre of books from the likes of JE, AD, and SB really struck a nerve with me; she called them "grief porn".

Skeptic Guy

23rd February 2007, 09:02 AM

"Grief porn"? That kind of describes it, doesn't it? I think they get off on this crap.

Instig8R

19th March 2007, 08:55 PM

Ever since John Edward appeared on Oprah last month, (“Do You Believe”segment), I’ve been monitoring Oprah’s message board for comments, most of which favor JE. However, something else is going on there, and I find it troubling.

Here’s a quick synopsis: JE’s friend, Sandy Goodman, immediately showed up on Oprah’s message board, never having posted there before. Of course, she praised JE. Then, a few of her “friends” arrived, promoting Goodman’s book and her private website (against the posting rules there, which aren’t strongly enforced there). Even more astonishing-- It seems that these "friends" successfully lobbied to get Goodman invited on a future episode of Oprah. It should be broadcast next month. I doubt that there will be any skeptics invited to share the stage with her, so you should brace yourselves for another JE lovefest.

Here's a bit more background: Sandy Goodman suffered a heartbreaking tragedy when her son was killed in an accident. Thereafter, she became acquainted with JE, who delivered a wondrous reading (under very questionable circumstances, of course). JE wrote about her and the fantastic reading in his first book, “One Last Time”. She, in turn, wrote her own book, entitled “Love Never Dies”. (Another coincidence: Jodere is their publisher.) Goodman also seems to share JE’s disdain for James Randi -- She took a gratuitous shot at Randi on Oprah’s website.

Here’s a link to a thread from the old TVTalkshows board from 2002, in which Sandy Goodman spontaneously shows up there to plug her book, (just like she did a few weeks ago on the Oprah board):

http://www.tvtalkshows.com/board/old/topic/25609-1.html

Maybe it's not Deja Vu. It's really Deja Moo -- I've heard this bull before.

Does anybody think it might be useful to send the tvtalkshows link to Oprah? At least it offers some insight. (There's even an excerpt from JE's book in that thread!)