Interesting JE Hits.... [Archive] - Page 3

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 03:25 AM

It would seem that neofight needs to learn a bit more about the brain that what she can read in the National Enquirer (emphasis mine):

Artistic behavior

One of the most interesting things about artistic production is that it seems to rely on so many brain regions that it is amazingly resilient to brain damage of different kinds.

This resiliency seems almost counter-intuitive because artistic production would certainly be considered a very complex kind of cognition.

However, it seems to be the case that so many brain regions are involved in the production of art that an artistic patient can employ many alternative cognitive strategies to overcome the limitations they face following brain injury.

Some general issues related to the neuroscience of artistic behavior:

Artistry is like other complex cognitive processes (like executive control or language), because it requires the integration of many individual skills.
Different brain regions carry out these individual skills.
Therefore, there is no single location in the brain that is specialized for creativity or artistry.
Theories of creativity or artistry that argue that the RH is the only source of creative cognition or creative behavior are wrong.
When an artist suffers from brain damage they can often continue to create artistic works, but they may have to use different strategies so that they can get around the deficits that result from the damage.

Psychology 370: Brain and Behavior (http://www.psych.ukans.edu/psyc370/Artistic%20behavior)
Dept. of Psychology, University of Kansas

Yet another woo-woo idea shot down by reality. Isn't science wonderful? :)

SteveGrenard

7th August 2003, 03:28 AM

Please Darat, don't get involved in this. Larsen was being facetious .. I know it, you know and he knows it................
and just above he broke the agreement not to use ad hominems, not just once, but three times .........sorry, he lost that one.

He is a parody of himself. and totally predictable. I see he is now also doing brain research. He should check out the work of Lashley on memories. Nothing whatsoever to do with RH/artistic abilities, but of other interest relevant to this subject. I'll have some more brain references for him to check out later.

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Please Darat, don't get involved in this. Larsen was being facetious .. I know it, you know and he knows it................

No, I was not. Now, please address what I actually wrote.

Darat can get involved all he likes. If you want to address me privately, please do so via email or PM.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
and just above he broke the agreement not to use ad hominems, not just once, but three times .........sorry, he lost that one.

What "agreement" is that, Steve?

Where do I use ad hominem in my post? Showing that the three of you lie is ad hominem? No, Steve. That's presenting the facts.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He is a parody of himself. and totally predictable. I see he is now also doing brain research. He should check out the work of Lashley on memories. Nothing whatsoever to do with RH/artistic abilities, but of other interest relevant to this subject. I'll have some more brain references for him to check out later.

I am not doing brain research. It took a few seconds to find evidence that neofight was wrong, that's all.

If your reference has nothing to do with artistic abilities, why do you refer to it?

Darat

7th August 2003, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Please Darat, don't get involved in this. Larsen was being facetious .. I know it, you know and he knows it................
and just above he broke the agreement not to use ad hominems, not just once, but three times .........sorry, he lost that one.

He is a parody of himself. and totally predictable. I see he is now also doing brain research. He should check out the work of Lashley on memories. Nothing whatsoever to do with RH/artistic abilities, but of other interest relevant to this subject. I'll have some more brain references for him to check out later.

The reason I "involve" myself in this is quite simple i.e. you made a mistake.

Claus did not say the he said one of the most important discoveries. Whether he was being facetious or not you made an argument against something he didn't say, classic strawman.

It is a very significant difference or do you hold the opinion that proof of "life-after-death" wouldn't be momentous and one the most significant discoveries ever made by humans?

Instig8R

7th August 2003, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Instig8R, you are not claiming that the LKL transcript you just posted proves that JE gets names clairvoyantly, are you? :rolleyes:

Hi, Neo- If JE doesn't get names clairvoyantly, why does he use the word "seeing" in the LKL transcript? Again, here is the quote:

"I'm SEEING this as being somebody who has got another name like yours, there has got to be another L-connection that comes up round you, that has got to be L- tied to this."

:confused:

Originally posted by neofight

As for data other than names, I never said that JE gets those messages clairaudiently. Most of his messages come through in symbols. In his own estimation, however, I have heard him say many times that he feels his strong suit is clairaudience. Why do you have such a hard time with that? Shouldn't he have a better idea than anyone else what he feels is his greater ability?...neo

Neo, you may choose to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem going along with whatever he says.

In response to your suggestion that he should have a better idea than anyone else about what he considers his greatest ability, I disagree very strongly with any such notion. The proof is in the results. In the case of the LKL transcript that I posted above, JE got everything ALL wrong, regardless of whether he saw, heard or felt the messages! Here is renata's breakdown of the reading:

Sitter tells JE she wants to connect with father or grandparents

Guesses (some repeated several times):
Sister figure (miss)
Lname (miss)
female type of cancer (miss)
R connection (miss)
August connection (miss)
8 connection (miss)
father in law (miss)
another father figure (weak hit)

Overall impression:badgering the listener to write things down, repeating same guesses.

Score: 8 guesses, one weak hit, 7 misses

IMO, JE claims to receive messages by whatever method yields the most excuses for the misses. You were so busy wondering how he got the messages... you didn't even notice that the messages were wrong.

Instig8R

7th August 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Instig8R, You are wrong about my not noticing these things. I am quite certain of what I am talking about. While it's true that you can't really tell from the transcript how JE is getting letters, through clairaudience or clairvoyance, neither can you tell for sure simply from watching the video.

Now going by this reading alone, I'm going to have to challenge your assertion that every single time JE traces a letter in the air, it signifies with absolute certainty that he was seeing the letter as opposed to hearing it.

As you can see, "R" is not the first name-related thing that JE said here. Before he indicated the letter "R", he first came up with the names "Rudy" and "Rudolph". Two names beginning with an "R", each of two syllables. I think it's fairly obvious that he is *hearing* this name telepathically.

Notice that he did not say "Ray" or "Rick" or "Rob". He heard the name, not too clearly, as is most often the case, but knew that it was not a short, one syllable word. He knew it began with an "R" and was of two syllables. As it turned out, the name was "Raoul", a two-syllable name beginning with an "R". :)

Neo, don't you find it strange that JE goes through all of this "R" nonsense with clairaudience, when he can so easily see the letters "AMA" (against medical advice)? Why do you suppose he chooses to receive names by clairaudience, when the spirits can actually show him letters?

In other words, why don't the spirits show initials to JE? It would be so much easier to identify people with their initials... and it would remove all that wiggle-room that JE relies upon in his act.

Originally posted by neofight

Instig8R, I don't know how you can possibly say that he appears to be uncommitted to a particular method. What are you, a mind-reader? lol The Ellen/Helen issue he has spoken about more than once. In both of those names, the "L" sound is prevalent, so he has pointed out that he most definitely would not get the "Ellen" as an "E" name. But he does get the name clairaudiently, which is exactly the reason he gets them mixed up.

If anything, this to me is proof positive that he does not just see a letter, Instig8R. He gets the sound, just as he has always said he does. If he did, indeed, get the first letter by seeing the image of the letter clairvoyantly, then he would know darned well that the name "Helen" begins with an "H", and the name "Ellen" begins with an "E", and he would never again have to be ambiguous about those two names again.

He confuses them precisely because he hears them. Not because he sees them. Thank you for making my point for me so very nicely. :D .....neo

Omigod! El, L, Ellen, Helen... I'm having flashbacks to the 1960's... I am experiencing clairaudience!!! It's "The Name Game"--

The name game!

Shirley!
Shirley, Shirley bo Birley Bonana fanna fo Firley
Fee fy mo Mirley, Shirley!

Lincoln!
Lincoln, Lincoln bo Bincoln Bonana fanna fo Fincoln
Fee fy mo Mincoln, Lincoln!

ROFLMAO!

SteveGrenard

7th August 2003, 06:26 AM

DARAT: Claus did not say the he said one of the most important discoveries. Whether he was being facetious or not you made an argument against something he didn't say, classic strawman.

Reply: Why don't you address his ad hominem attacks if you are going to address articles of speech. LOL ... you guys are a trip. I can only conclude that you are adding more facetiousness on top of his. Thanks for the laugh.

Darat

7th August 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
DARAT: Claus did not say the he said one of the most important discoveries. Whether he was being facetious or not you made an argument against something he didn't say, classic strawman.

Reply: Why don't you address his ad hominem attacks if you are going to address articles of speech. LOL ... you guys are a trip. I can only conclude that you are adding more facetiousness on top of his. Thanks for the laugh.

This is what Claus posted:

(Bold & underline by me)

...snip...

You claim to hold the key to one of the most important discoveries in the world ever, and you want to keep it to yourself.

...snip...

This is what you posted:

(Bold & underline by me)

...snip...

So invest fifty dollars if you are serious about your remark that MY experience is the most important discovery in the world ever and then get back to me on your ridiculous assertion.

...snip...

The facts are very clear, Claus never made the claim that you assert he did.

(Edited for formating.)

voidx

7th August 2003, 07:47 AM

Posted by Neofight:
As you can see, "R" is not the first name-related thing that JE said here. Before he indicated the letter "R", he first came up with the names "Rudy" and "Rudolph". Two names beginning with an "R", each of two syllables. I think it's fairly obvious that he is *hearing* this name telepathically.

Notice that he did not say "Ray" or "Rick" or "Rob". He heard the name, not too clearly, as is most often the case, but knew that it was not a short, one syllable word. He knew it began with an "R" and was of two syllables. As it turned out, the name was "Raoul", a two-syllable name beginning with an "R".
Heh wow, I'm really at a loss for this one. He hears it, 2 syllables starting with R, like Rudy or Rudolph. Ok I'll bite, those names sound similiar. But what does it turn out that the name is? Damned Raoul!!!! Which sounds nothing like Rudy or Rudolph. Heh come on, bad mind connection is one thing, being half deaf is quite another.

Posted by MRC_Hans:
This truly amazes me. We have now seen all these transcripts where JE obviously is fishing for information, and with a big net. Neo, the reason he is not sure if it is Helen or Ellen is because this gives twice the scope for hits. I am really surprised that people can fall for this repeatedly. I can understand if some are caught by the moment, I know that dazzled feeling of "Hey! This is a miracle!", but the day after, when coolly examining the facts, it becomes clear that we are in the entertaining business.
Excellent point Hans. Would the supporters of JE not now acknowledge that in these LKL transcripts JE is actively fishing for information in classic cold-reading style? Just sit down and read them objectively, go back and read Renata's posted LKL transcripts and then explain to me how it is that JE is NOT tossing out information, that he is not seizing upone an ok, or a positive response from the caller. You cannot deny that he quickly tosses out a big barrage of information, and then asks the sitter, "Does any of that make sense to you?". How is that not cold-reading?

SteveGrenard

7th August 2003, 07:54 AM

Well actually Darat I didnt claim anything. However I agree we should elect you chief claim's examiner so we are careful that nobody makes claims about claims which are not claimable.

c0rbin

7th August 2003, 08:08 AM

so we are careful that nobody makes claims about claims which are not claimable.

Too late.

People make claims up and down the para-whatever world...then slowly back away.

Darat

7th August 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Well actually Darat I didnt claim anything. However I agree we should elect you chief claim's examiner so we are careful that nobody makes claims about claims which are not claimable.

I did not say you claimed anything.

I have merely commented that the evidence is clear for anyone to see that you attributed a statement to Claus that he did not make and then argued against it.

This represents a “strawman argument”,. i.e. when a person misrepresents the opposing argument then attacks the misrepresentation.

The evidence is:

Claus posted:

(Bold & underline by me)

...snip...

You claim to hold the key to one of the most important discoveries in the world ever, and you want to keep it to yourself.

...snip...

You replied with:

(Bold & underline by me)

...snip...

So invest fifty dollars if you are serious about your remark that MY experience is the most important discovery in the world ever and then get back to me on your ridiculous assertion.

...snip...

You misrepresented what Claus said.
You attack the misrepresentation by stating it is a “ridiculous assertion”.
Your argument was a “strawman” argument.

(Edited for format.)

dingler44

7th August 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by neofight
As you can see, "R" is not the first name-related thing that JE said here. Before he indicated the letter "R", he first came up with the names "Rudy" and "Rudolph". Two names beginning with an "R", each of two syllables. I think it's fairly obvious that he is *hearing* this name telepathically.

No, it's not obvious. Knowing the twisted functioning of JE's brain is anything but obvious.

Instig8R, I don't know how you can possibly say that he appears to be uncommitted to a particular method. What are you, a mind-reader? lol

Neo, if anyone around here thinks they can read JE's mind, it's you.

If anything, this to me is proof positive that he does not just see a letter, Instig8R. He gets the sound, just as he has always said he does. If he did, indeed, get the first letter by seeing the image of the letter clairvoyantly, then he would know darned well that the name "Helen" begins with an "H", and the name "Ellen" begins with an "E", and he would never again have to be ambiguous about those two names again.

If this is proof to you... it is indeed a sad day for logic and reason.

He confuses them precisely because he hears them. Not because he sees them. Thank you for making my point for me so very nicely. :D .....neo

Welcome to Bizzaro World... where Neo can make anything possible.

neofight

7th August 2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
This truly amazes me. We have now seen all these transcripts where JE obviously is fishing for information, and with a big net. Neo, the reason he is not sure if it is Helen or Ellen is because this gives twice the scope for hits. I am really surprised that people can fall for this repeatedly. I can understand if some are caught by the moment, I know that dazzled feeling of "Hey! This is a miracle!", but the day after, when coolly examining the facts, it becomes clear that we are in the entertaining business.

Hans

Hans, with all due respect, you dismiss this stuff way too easily. Those of us who seriously consider the possibility of it being real are not caught up in the moment. We have studied the whole issue very closely, very calmly, and we are not imbeciles.

You can say that at this time there is no conclusive scientific proof that there is anything to mediumship, but that is very different from saying that there is no reason to entertain the idea that there is something to it, because there are plenty of unexplained things going on here.

Those who cannot at least admit, even to themselves, that they have never seen an admitted cold-reader replicate what JE does, have a real problem with objectivity, imho.......neo

voidx

7th August 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Hans, with all due respect, you dismiss this stuff way too easily. Those of us who seriously consider the possibility of it being real are not caught up in the moment. We have studied the whole issue very closely, very calmly, and we are not imbeciles.

You can say that at this time there is no conclusive scientific proof that there is anything to mediumship, but that is very different from saying that there is no reason to entertain the idea that there is something to it, because there are plenty of unexplained things going on here.

Those who cannot at least admit, even to themselves, that they have never seen an admitted cold-reader replicate what JE does, have a real problem with objectivity, imho.......neo
If you're about done, would you like to address the actual bulk of Hans post? That being that all the LKL transcripts being posted here fit quite well within the confines of cold-reading. Or also the clear fact that JE is fishing for information. To mirror you're sentiment, those that cannot admit to themselves that JE is fishing for information in these particular transcripts, and that what he's doing looks amazingly like cold-reading, also have a problem with objectivity.

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 09:05 AM

neo,

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

Just let me know if you don't want to answer these questions, neo, and I'll stop asking them.

Darat

7th August 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by neofight

...snip...

Those who cannot at least admit, even to themselves, that they have never seen an admitted cold-reader replicate what JE does, have a real problem with objectivity, imho.......neo

Sorry but this doesn't make sense to me, do what that JE does?

I've seen sessions of cold-readings where the sitters have stated that the reader must be "psychic" because they were “so accurate”, even when the reader claimed no such power...

Sure I've only seen people who claim to have the power that JE does perform a similar act, for instance Colin Fry, but then what would be the point of a whole show of doing that type of act for a mentalist?! It’s a one shot demonstration, after that it has no entertainment value…

I've seen acts where they have told people their PIN number, where they have "read someones" mind and knew what card they had chosen, what word they'd wrote down from a magazine and kept hidden, where items have appeared in their pockets etc...

Neo – have you ever considered that all the magicians in the world are part of a secret conspiracy and in fact do have “superpowers” that let them catch a bullet in their teeth, duplicate a drawing that they couldn’t see being drawn, know what my PIN is by reading my mind. Of course you haven’t, yet for some reason you just can’t seem to see that JE does nothing different from these people, apart from he tells us he has a superpower.

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Darat
Of course you haven’t, yet for some reason you just can’t seem to see that JE does nothing different from these people, apart from he tells us he has a superpower.

Actually, he doesn't. He admits that what he does is not real here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24886).

neofight

7th August 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Well it was you who claimed that "telepathy" is a "right brain" phenomena. It is you who has claimed that it resides in the brain, I don't think any "sceptic" here has stated that these "gifts" reside in the brain, that is 100% your claim.

Well are you saying that creativity and intuition are not determined by the right side of the brain, Darat? Likewise, is logic not determined by the left side? I thought that, at least, was scientific fact. Am I mistaken in believing that?

Darat, I know there have been plenty of experiments involving the right temporal lobe, and I believe it's been shown that this part of the brain is connected to such things as ADCs, visions, and increased intuitive abilities, or telepathy etc. Many people, after sustaining an injury to the head, have experienced things that could only be classified as paranormal.

I'm not a specialist in this area, and because I'm not, I have said that I have no interest in debating this any further. I was just speculating on where telepathy originates from. I have no indepth knowledge to share with you, but there is research already out there. If anyone is interested in accessing it, they can do so.

If this "telepathy" is a function of the brain as you have claimed it is then like writing, like listening to music, looking at a picture and so on it can be theoretically at least be measured.

How exactly would you suggest this be measured? :confused:

This is why I asked you if you realised what huge assumptions and leaps you were making when you first made you claim. I suspect that you would like to withdraw that claim now?

Perhaps, to an extent. I will qualify my previous remarks by adding the possibility that what allows telepathy to occur, may not be found in any physical part of the brain at all, but may very well be this separate consciousness that we talk about, that some believe survives our physical death. In that case, then I guess I would be wrong to say that telepathy is a function of the brain. :) ......neo

Clancie

7th August 2003, 09:31 AM

Posted by Darat

Neo – have you ever considered that all the magicians in the world are part of a secret conspiracy and in fact do have “superpowers” that let them catch a bullet in their teeth
Slightly OT, but have you ever been interested in the mentalists and magicians who, even though they know they intentionally do tricks and deception, are still surprised by things that happen during this process, things that go beyond "what can be explained as trick or deception"?

They, of all people, should be able to attribute everything to "the mundane explanation".

juninho

7th August 2003, 09:35 AM

neofight

7th August 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It would seem that neofight needs to learn a bit more about the brain that what she can read in the National Enquirer (emphasis mine):

Yet another woo-woo idea shot down by reality. Isn't science wonderful? :)

Claus, yes, science is indeed wonderful, and I do not doubt that the brain is a magnificent organ, and that it can sometimes repair itself and thus maintain the various functions when one part or another part of it is damaged.

So let me ask you, like I just asked Darat. Was I totally wrong then when I said that logic is connected to the left hemisphere of the brain, and intuition/creativity connected with the right? Are you saying that there is no element of truth in that?

And another point, it does not seem as though the article you posted disputes that creativity/artististic ability may be based in the RH, it just states that once a part of the brain is damaged, the brain is resilient enough that it can adapt itself to finding another way to continue a particular function......neo

Clancie

7th August 2003, 09:49 AM

Posted by juninho

ike what exactly? Examples please if its not too much to ask or kindly refrain from throwing in such random gibberish
David Blaine has written about that--things that happen in the course of doing "magic" that are beyond what he's able to logically explain.

Lamar Keene, though an admitted fraud as a medium, commented on the same kind of thing--very specififc information that he got for the sitter which was accurate (finding a hidden will), and which he couldn't understand how he was able to come up with it.

Most recently, I've seen Mark Edward (the mentalist who demonstrated cold reading on P&T) comment that although a member of CSICOP, he's also a quasi-believer, based on his observation in his work, that there are things that cannot logically and rationally be explained away as mentalism or as tricks.

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by neofight
Well are you saying that creativity and intuition are not determined by the right side of the brain, Darat? Likewise, is logic not determined by the left side? I thought that, at least, was scientific fact. Am I mistaken in believing that?

Why? Don't? You? Go? CHECK?? You make the claim, neo, don't ask other people to back it up.

Originally posted by neofight
Darat, I know there have been plenty of experiments involving the right temporal lobe, and I believe it's been shown that this part of the brain is connected to such things as ADCs, visions, and increased intuitive abilities, or telepathy etc. Many people, after sustaining an injury to the head, have experienced things that could only be classified as paranormal.

Really? Who? Examples?

Originally posted by neofight
I'm not a specialist in this area, and because I'm not, I have said that I have no interest in debating this any further. I was just speculating on where telepathy originates from. I have no indepth knowledge to share with you, but there is research already out there. If anyone is interested in accessing it, they can do so.

Right. You bring it up, and when it is shown that you are wrong, you don't admit your error. You just say that you have no interest in debating this any further.

Originally posted by neofight
How exactly would you suggest this be measured? :confused:

Hey, you make the claim that telepathy happens in the right-side brain. You have to have some kind of measurement to be able to make this claim.

No?

Originally posted by neofight
Perhaps, to an extent. I will qualify my previous remarks by adding the possibility that what allows telepathy to occur, may not be found in any physical part of the brain at all, but may very well be this separate consciousness that we talk about, that some believe survives our physical death. In that case, then I guess I would be wrong to say that telepathy is a function of the brain. :) ......neo

How exactly would you suggest this be measured? :confused: :D

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, yes, science is indeed wonderful, and I do not doubt that the brain is a magnificent organ, and that it can sometimes repair itself and thus maintain the various functions when one part or another part of it is damaged.

That has nothing to do with your claims, that telepathy/PSI/ESP was a right-brain phenomenon and that mediumship could be considered an art. Please try to stay focused.

Originally posted by neofight
So let me ask you, like I just asked Darat. Was I totally wrong then when I said that logic is connected to the left hemisphere of the brain, and intuition/creativity connected with the right? Are you saying that there is no element of truth in that?

Of course there is, but that's not what you claimed.

Originally posted by neofight
And another point, it does not seem as though the article you posted disputes that creativity/artististic ability may be based in the RH, it just states that once a part of the brain is damaged, the brain is resilient enough that it can adapt itself to finding another way to continue a particular function......neo

No, it doesn't just say that. Read the friggin' article, OK?

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

Just let me know if you don't want to answer these questions, neo, and I'll stop asking them.

Originally posted by Clancie
David Blaine has written about that--things that happen in the course of doing "magic" that are beyond what he's able to logically explain.

What things?

Originally posted by Clancie
Lamar Keene, though an admitted fraud as a medium, commented on the same kind of thing--very specififc information that he got for the sitter which was accurate and which he couldn't explain getting.

What information?

Originally posted by Clancie
Most recently, I've seen Mark Edward (the mentalist who demonstrated cold reading on P&T) comment that although a member of CSICOP, he's also a quasi-believer, based on his observation in his work, that there are things that cannot logically and rationally be explained away as mentalism or as tricks.

References? What things?

You just throw out claims and expect us to take your word for it? That works on TVTalkshows, but not here.

voidx

7th August 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by neofight

**snip**

So let me ask you, like I just asked Darat. Was I totally wrong then when I said that logic is connected to the left hemisphere of the brain, and intuition/creativity connected with the right? Are you saying that there is no element of truth in that?

And another point, it does not seem as though the article you posted disputes that creativity/artististic ability may be based in the RH, it just states that once a part of the brain is damaged, the brain is resilient enough that it can adapt itself to finding another way to continue a particular function......neo
Ummm did you read the bullets from the posted article by CFL?

Artistry is like other complex cognitive processes (like executive control or language), because it requires the integration of many individual skills.

Different brain regions carry out these individual skills.

Therefore, there is no single location in the brain that is specialized for creativity or artistry.

Theories of creativity or artistry that argue that the RH is the only source of creative cognition or creative behavior are wrong.

When an artist suffers from brain damage they can often continue to create artistic works, but they may have to use different strategies so that they can get around the deficits that result from the damage.
You're trying to say the base of creativity is mostly in the RH, but the article seems to say it works upon many different area's of the brain, that not one area of the brain is responsible for it. When part of the brain is damaged, the other parts have to find alternate ways of achieving that creative process to compensate for the last centres of the brain. Seems pretty clear to me.

dingler44

7th August 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

David Blaine has written about that--things that happen in the course of doing "magic" that are beyond what he's able to logically explain.

Oh come on! Don't even start with David Blaine... he tries to convince people on his "Street Magic" show that he does a "real levitation."

He is probably just another new aged woo-woo who "gets a weird feeling" when doing some of his tricks... that he likes to chalk up to spirituality.

If Blaine makes such a claim:

1. he's lying to boost the entertainment/interest value of his tricks

2. he's talking about emotions or perhaps surprise at his own deftness - hell if I know

But, again, I remind you... don't rely on the word of David Blaine - he claims to do "real levitations" in "Street Magic" and he attempts to demonstrate this by devious editing tricks.

neofight

7th August 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Instig8R

Hi, Neo- If JE doesn't get names clairvoyantly, why does he use the word "seeing" in the LKL transcript? Again, here is the quote:

"I'm SEEING this as being somebody who has got another name like yours, there has got to be another L-connection that comes up round you, that has got to be L- tied to this."

Instig8R, since you watch the show at least three times a week, you should be aware that JE often uses the word "see" to denote how he "perceives" or "intuits" or "discerns". There is no way in hell that you can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something, unless he actually describes what it is he is "seeing". :rolleyes:

What he is saying in that above quote is that it is his sense that there is another person connected to this sitter who has a similar "L" name. He is being adamant about that point. That does not mean that he is literally "seeing" an "L".

Neo, you may choose to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem going along with whatever he says.

Instig8R, you may choose not to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem disbelieving whatever he says. :D

In response to your suggestion that he should have a better idea than anyone else about what he considers his greatest ability, I disagree very strongly with any such notion.

Well of course you are right, Instig8R. Why on earth would I think that JE might better know what he feels are his strengths or weaknesses. :con2:

The proof is in the results. In the case of the LKL transcript that I posted above, JE got everything ALL wrong, regardless of whether he saw, heard or felt the messages! Here is renata's breakdown of the reading:

IMO, JE claims to receive messages by whatever method yields the most excuses for the misses. You were so busy wondering how he got the messages... you didn't even notice that the messages were wrong.

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

neofight

7th August 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Instig8R

Hi, Neo- If JE doesn't get names clairvoyantly, why does he use the word "seeing" in the LKL transcript? Again, here is the quote:

"I'm SEEING this as being somebody who has got another name like yours, there has got to be another L-connection that comes up round you, that has got to be L- tied to this."

Instig8R, since you watch the show at least three times a week, you should be aware that JE often uses the word "see" to denote how he "perceives" or "intuits" or "discerns". There is no way in hell that you can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something, unless he actually describes what it is he is "seeing". :rolleyes: I don't understand why you insist on doing this.

What he is saying in that above quote is that it is his sense that there is another person connected to this sitter who has a similar "L" name. He is being adamant about that point. That does not mean that he is literally "seeing" an "L".

Neo, you may choose to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem going along with whatever he says.

Instig8R, you may choose not to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem disbelieving whatever he says. :D

In response to your suggestion that he should have a better idea than anyone else about what he considers his greatest ability, I disagree very strongly with any such notion.

Well of course you are right, Instig8R. Why on earth would I think that JE might better know what he feels are his strengths or weaknesses. :con2:

The proof is in the results. In the case of the LKL transcript that I posted above, JE got everything ALL wrong, regardless of whether he saw, heard or felt the messages! Here is renata's breakdown of the reading:

IMO, JE claims to receive messages by whatever method yields the most excuses for the misses. You were so busy wondering how he got the messages... you didn't even notice that the messages were wrong.

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

Clancie

7th August 2003, 10:14 AM

Posted by CFLarsen

References? What things?

You just throw out claims and expect us to take your word for it? That works on TVTalkshows, but not here

re: sources

David Blaine mentions experiencing things that happen beyond what he is able to explain in his book "Mysterious Stranger". I don't have the book with me, but if someone else does, I think it's the part where he's reading the couple on the street and the car goes by with the word "Dawn" painted on the side of it. There's a photo of the car, so the page shouldn't be too hard to find.

Lamar Keene describes the experience of being amazed when he described the location of a key, the secret drawer it unlocked and the hidden documents of the deceased inside it in "The Psychic Mafia".

Mark Edward describes himself as a bit of a believer, for the reasons I've mentioned, in the CSICOP videotape, "The Psychology of the Psychic and the Believer", a video of his lecture for CSICOP at Cal Tech.

******

edited to add: Dingler44, Many magicians do a levitation trick. Where has David Blaine said he actually is levitating, physically lifting himself off the ground without any trick or gimmick?

Beyond that, however, you're right, he does have a very interesting spiritual side. :)

later edited again, upon request by dingler44 to add. Dingler44's quote was

He is probably just another new aged woo-woo who "gets a weird feeling" when doing some of his tricks... that he likes to chalk up to spirituality.
My response to this will now be clarified as...

Yes, imo he does have a very interesting spiritual side.

....happy, now, dingler44?

renata

7th August 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by neofight

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

:eek:

They are not "snippets". They are full readings done by JE, of his own volition. I am shocked to see that you find useless and unaccepatable the only readings where possibility of editing and mischief are minimized. It appears the less control JE has over the presentation of his readings the more they look like cold readings. To glibly dismiss that is astonishing.

neofight

7th August 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Instig8R

Neo, don't you find it strange that JE goes through all of this "R" nonsense with clairaudience, when he can so easily see the letters "AMA" (against medical advice)? Why do you suppose he chooses to receive names by clairaudience, when the spirits can actually show him letters?

In other words, why don't the spirits show initials to JE? It would be so much easier to identify people with their initials... and it would remove all that wiggle-room that JE relies upon in his act.

Omigod! El, L, Ellen, Helen... I'm having flashbacks to the 1960's... I am experiencing clairaudience!!! It's "The Name Game"--

The name game!

Shirley!
Shirley, Shirley bo Birley Bonana fanna fo Firley
Fee fy mo Mirley, Shirley!

Lincoln!
Lincoln, Lincoln bo Bincoln Bonana fanna fo Fincoln
Fee fy mo Mincoln, Lincoln!

ROFLMAO! [/B]

LOL Yes, a nice trip down memory lane, Instig8R, but did I miss the part of your post where you addressed why, if JE sees these letters clairvoyantly, as you keep insisting he does, why he would not recognize that "Ellen" begins with an "E", while "Helen" beings with an "H"? :D ......neo

juninho

7th August 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

David Blaine mentions experiencing things that happen beyond what he is able to explain in his book "Mysterious Stranger". I don't have the book with me, but if someone else does, I think it's the part where he's reading the couple on the street and the car goes by with the word "Dawn" painted on the side of it. There's a photo of the car, so the page shouldn't be too hard to find.

Lamar Keene describes the experience of being amazed when he described the location of a key, the secret drawer it unlocked and the hidden documents of the deceased inside it in "The Psychic Mafia".

Mark Edward describes himself as a bit of a believer, for the reasons I've mentioned, in the CSICOP videotape, "The Psychology of the Psychic and the Believer", a video of his lecture for CSICOP at Cal Tech.

What, that's it. This is the sum total of all the evidence you can produce to support your assertion that magicians experience things that go beyond a mundane explanation! Are you really that naiive that you base your whole belief system on such flimsy anecdotal 'evidence'? What's worse is that you expect others to follow suit.

voidx

7th August 2003, 10:32 AM

Posted by Renata:
They are not "snippets". They are full readings done by JE, of his own volition. I am shocked to see that you find useless and unaccepatable the only readings where possibility of editing and mischief are minimized. It appears the less control JE has over the presentation of his readings the more they look like cold readings. To glibly dismiss that is astonishing.
I have to agree Neo.

Posted by Neofight:
So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.
You say yourself you never checked out the thread, so how can you write it off as useless? At least Clancie went in and read it, and is working on some responses. This is completely turning a blind ignorant eye. Unlike most other transcripts of readings I've seen posted in these threads, Renata's transcripts actually start off with the verbal introduction between John and the caller all the way through the completion of the reading. Most other transcripts pick an arbitrary place to begin, leaving out this initial verbal exchange. In essence removing the initial fishing for information that JE almost always does. They are the most objective transcripts on which to base JE's readings that we have so far, and I find your dismissal of commenting on them, or to read them at all extremely telling, sorry.

Clancie

7th August 2003, 10:35 AM

Juninho,

Curiosity's a good thing. You might try it sometime.

Darat

7th August 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Well are you saying that creativity and intuition are not determined by the right side of the brain, Darat? Likewise, is logic not determined by the left side? I thought that, at least, was scientific fact. Am I mistaken in believing that?

Neo - I'm not the one making the claim, I have just pointed out some of the conclusions that can be made if one follows your claims through. I would have thought you’d have the answers to these types of questions before you made your claim.

Originally posted by neofight

Darat, I know there have been plenty of experiments involving the right temporal lobe, and I believe it's been shown that this part of the brain is connected to such things as ADCs, visions, and increased intuitive abilities, or telepathy etc. Many people, after sustaining an injury to the head, have experienced things that could only be classified as paranormal.

Can you please provide some references for your claims?

(By the way you are really saying here that paranormal experiences can be caused by the brain not working correctly – again this is why I told you to consider what assumptions and leaps you made when you made your original claims.)

Originally posted by neofight

I'm not a specialist in this area, and because I'm not, I have said that I have no interest in debating this any further. I was just speculating on where telepathy originates from. I have no indepth knowledge to share with you, but there is research already out there. If anyone is interested in accessing it, they can do so.

I would point out to you that this was something that you raised and claimed. That you won’t and can’t support your speculation shows that it cannot have formed any part of a rational thought process to determine the truth or not of JE’s claimed ability.

Originally posted by neofight

How exactly would you suggest this be measured? :confused:

When the brain is active and processing information it must expend energy, when it is performing more work it will use more energy, just like muscles and any other tissue. This can, at least theoretically, be measured.

Originally posted by neofight

Perhaps, to an extent. I will qualify my previous remarks by adding the possibility that what allows telepathy to occur, may not be found in any physical part of the brain at all, but may very well be this separate consciousness that we talk about, that some believe survives our physical death. In that case, then I guess I would be wrong to say that telepathy is a function of the brain. :) ......neo

You are now using “after-death-survival” to explain how this “telepathy” with a spirit works! This appear to be circular reasoning…. ?

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by neofight
No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities.

Are you completely crazy?? These are not snippets, they are complete readings! You ask for analyses, but when you get them, you simply dismiss them.

Honestly, neo.......

Originally posted by neofight
So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

So, you wilfully ignore anything that could show JE was cold reading.

Amazing! Absolutely amazing!

neofight

7th August 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by dingler44

No, it's not obvious. Knowing the twisted functioning of JE's brain is anything but obvious.

Yes, even you are entitled to your opinion, dingler44! :D

Neo, if anyone around here thinks they can read JE's mind, it's you.

Yes, that's probably correct, d44, and with good reason, too, I might add. ;)

If this is proof to you... it is indeed a sad day for logic and reason.

Yes, I'm sure Instig8R's theory makes much more sense to you dingler. He sees letters and names, he doesn't hear them. That's why he can't tell that the name Ellen begins with an "E", and the name Helen begins with an "H". That makes eminently more sense than what I said. :rolleyes:
......neo

dingler44

7th August 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by neofight

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

Snippets? It was analysis of each full LKL reading. Those weren't snippets. I suspect you find it basically useless because it is so damning.

JE is a very lucky man... to be able to make such a lucrative living at a craft he's not even good at.

Darat

7th August 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Slightly OT, but have you ever been interested in the mentalists and magicians who, even though they know they intentionally do tricks and deception, are still surprised by things that happen during this process, things that go beyond "what can be explained as trick or deception"?

They, of all people, should be able to attribute everything to "the mundane explanation".

Not that much (any examples you'd like to share ;) ) after all "spooky" things happen to us all, from coincidences to accidents to surprises.

Plus I always take with a bloody big boulder of salt claims by professional entertainers, whether they be magicians, pop-stars, movie-stars, mentalists etc.. Look at David Blaine who likes to create the air of mystery around him – it’s a good way to garner publicity and makes for a good stage act but I wouldn't necessarily believe what the "stage persona" of DB said!

(Edited to add)

Sorry Clancie I hadn’t read the posts further down, I made my comment about DB coincidentally ... spooky or what ;)

The reason for my comments about DB was that he appeared on a UK TV breakfast show and just was completely non-responsive to the interviewer etc. - obviously part of his act to appear "weird". It's been repeated on several TV shows such as “It shouldn't happen to... a TV presenter".

neofight

7th August 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Sorry but this doesn't make sense to me, do what that JE does?

I've seen sessions of cold-readings where the sitters have stated that the reader must be "psychic" because they were “so accurate”, even when the reader claimed no such power...

Sure I've only seen people who claim to have the power that JE does perform a similar act, for instance Colin Fry, but then what would be the point of a whole show of doing that type of act for a mentalist?! It’s a one shot demonstration, after that it has no entertainment value…

I've seen acts where they have told people their PIN number, where they have "read someones" mind and knew what card they had chosen, what word they'd wrote down from a magazine and kept hidden, where items have appeared in their pockets etc...

Neo – have you ever considered that all the magicians in the world are part of a secret conspiracy and in fact do have “superpowers” that let them catch a bullet in their teeth, duplicate a drawing that they couldn’t see being drawn, know what my PIN is by reading my mind. Of course you haven’t, yet for some reason you just can’t seem to see that JE does nothing different from these people, apart from he tells us he has a superpower.

Darat, your above post only proves that you are not really familiar with JE at all, and you just lump all believers together into one big category and file it under "I" for Idiots, or at the very least, "N" for "Naive". Sorry to say this, but you seem to be absolutely clueless on the subject of mediumship vs. cold-reading, and I really can't continue with this post because I am beginning to get irritated. :D ......neo

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 10:46 AM

neo,

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

You haven't indicated that you won't answer these questions, so I will keep asking them.

voidx

7th August 2003, 10:47 AM

Posted by Neofight:
Perhaps, to an extent. I will qualify my previous remarks by adding the possibility that what allows telepathy to occur, may not be found in any physical part of the brain at all, but may very well be this separate consciousness that we talk about, that some believe survives our physical death. In that case, then I guess I would be wrong to say that telepathy is a function of the brain. ......neo
Will you acknowledge that since there seems to be no evidence so far of telepathy originating in the physical brain, that the other-wordly spiritual explanation should be your assumption until present with further proof? Or at the very least that if you still believe it to be part of the physical brain, that there seems to be nothing supporting that assertion?

dingler44

7th August 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
edited to add: Dingler44, Many magicians do a levitation trick. Where has David Blaine said he actually is levitating, physically lifting himself off the ground without any trick or gimmick?

Beyond that, however, you're right, he does have a very interesting spiritual side. :)

I'm right? I never said Blaine has an interesting spiritual side. Do NOT twist my words. I repeat, do NOT twist my words.

Here is the quote that Clancie the great deceiver has misrepresented:

He is probably just another new aged woo-woo who "gets a weird feeling" when doing some of his tricks... that he likes to chalk up to spirituality.

This is the SECOND time I've had to request this courtesy of you Clancie, but I ask that you either amend your misrepresentation of my post or omit it entirely.

Regarding where Blaine says he is actually levitating - I already told you - it's in Street Magic. The narrator of the show explicitly states that "David Blaine will perform a real levitation." And because this is Blaine's film, directed and produced by Blaine, the narrator's comments are at the very least condoned by Blaine. Watch the movie, it's quite entertaining aside from deceptive levitation scam.

See this thread for more on the Blaine levitation scam:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10648&highlight=balducci

Darat

7th August 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Darat, your above post only proves that you are not really familiar with JE at all, and you just lump all believers together into one big category and file it under "I" for Idiots, or at the very least, "N" for "Naive". Sorry to say this, but you seem to be absolutely clueless on the subject of mediumship vs. cold-reading, and I really can't continue with this post because I am beginning to get irritated. :D ......neo

Why does it show this? How does it show I just lump all "believers together into one big category"?

My post may have irratated you, but it would be useful to understand your rational objections and counterpoints to my post.

Clancie

7th August 2003, 11:05 AM

Posted by dingler44

I'm right? I never said Blaine has an interesting spiritual side. Do NOT twist my words. I repeat, do NOT twist my words.
I admit that was a bit sloppy. I'm happy to correct it, however, and I think you're totally overreacting.

....Clancie the great deceiver...
I don't like your rude tone at all, dingler44.

(....biting my tongue....)
This is the SECOND time I've had to request this courtesy of you Clancie, but I ask that you either amend your misrepresentation of my post or omit it entirely.
Amended. Done.

Regarding where Blaine says he is actually levitating - I already told you - it's in Street Magic. The narrator of the show explicitly states that "David Blaine will perform a real levitation."
What do most other magicians say when they perform levitation? "I'm not really levitating anything, but watch how I can trick you into thinking that I am?"

"A real levitation" could also mean "a real (trick) of levitation", dingler44.

dingler44

7th August 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

I admit that was a bit sloppy. I'm happy to correct it, however, and I think you're totally overreacting.

I don't like your rude tone at all, dingler44.

(....biting my tongue....)

I'm sick of your diversion and misrepresentation Clancie - it's chronic.

What do most other magicians say when they perform levitation? "I'm not really levitating anything, but watch how I can trick you into thinking that I am?"

I would expect them to say they were going to perform a levitation. spectacular levitation, amazing levitation, mind-blowing, startling... hundreds of words could produce excitement and interest without claiming the levitation is "real." Come on Clancie, think a little... I thought you were open minded.

"A real levitation" could also mean "a real (trick) of levitation", dingler44.

haha... truly hilarious. So we should infer "trick" whenever a magician uses the word "real?" Maybe we should start saying "honest" when we mean "dishonest" or "stand" when we mean "sit." Hell let's just change the English language so every word and its opposite are interchangeable.

As a side note, I don't care what you think of my tone Clancie, you'd be hypocritical to expect anything else.

*edited to remove a naughty word!*

Lurker

7th August 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
What do most other magicians say when they perform levitation? "I'm not really levitating anything, but watch how I can trick you into thinking that I am?"

"A real levitation" could also mean "a real (trick) of levitation", dingler44.

I agree with you here, Clancie. I don't know why anyone would take DB or any other magician literally. If DB uses "real" he is using it to heighten the excitement.

This statement alone does not prove your contention, dingler.

Lurker

dingler44

7th August 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Lurker

I agree with you here, Clancie. I don't know why anyone would take DB or any other magician literally. If DB uses "real" he is using it to heighten the excitement.

This statement alone does not prove your contention, dingler.

Lurker

Lurker you're operating on the assumption that magic is real. DB shouldn't have to use the word "real" to heighten excitement unless people already believe magic is real/possible. So if magic is real and DB claims to use it, fine.

But it's known that DB does not use magic to perform his levitation trick.

Thanz

7th August 2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by dingler44

Lurker you're operating on the assumption that magic is real. DB shouldn't have to use the word "real" to heighten excitement unless people already believe magic is real/possible. So if magic is real and DB claims to use it, fine.

But it's known that DB does not use magic to perform his levitation trick.
It is not the assumption that magic is real. It is the assumption that David Blaine (and other magicians) like people to believe that it is real. And they do. Or at least, most perform their acts ina manner consistent with this.

David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.

Thanz

7th August 2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
neo,

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

You haven't indicated that you won't answer these questions, so I will keep asking them.
But, she did answer those questions! Maybe you just didn't like the answers. :p

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
It is not the assumption that magic is real. It is the assumption that David Blaine (and other magicians) like people to believe that it is real. And they do. Or at least, most perform their acts ina manner consistent with this.

Does David Blaine claim paranormal powers?

Originally posted by Thanz
David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.

Does David Copperfield claim paranormal powers?

dingler44

7th August 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

It is not the assumption that magic is real. It is the assumption that David Blaine (and other magicians) like people to believe that it is real. And they do. Or at least, most perform their acts ina manner consistent with this.

David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.

You guys, Thanz, Lurker and Clancie are right. DB claims to be a magician, a conjurer for entertainment... so it is of course natural he will produce and claim his tricks as magic.

I need to take a chill pill.
(universal agreement is not necessary!:o )

I'm just sensitive to DB in particular after seeing his Street Magic and seeing a lot of the fools shown in the movie pointing to supernatural explanations... of which DB is of course happy to accept since it boosts his mystique. Plus DB's personal allusions to the "unexplanable." I love the illusions and sleights of hand magicians/conjurers can perform but I can't stand to see people buttress belief in the paranormal with them. And I don't find it impressive when an illusion succeeds only because of video editing.

Thanz

7th August 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Does David Blaine claim paranormal powers?

Does David Copperfield claim paranormal powers?
Wholesale edit:

I think that the claims made by magicians to paranormal powers are all in the "nudge nudge, wink wink" sort of vein. Even Blaine's, although I don't know that much about him (I have seen a street magic special and parts of his pole standing stunt).

I just think that Blaine is better at the schtick than others.

BillHoyt

7th August 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.
This is so incredibly disingenuous as to defy belief! Copperfield does not claim that he does other than "magic" in the sense of creating illusions to inspire awe. Here is Copperfield's website (http://www.davidcopperfield.com/) Note the header that says "An evening of grand illusion."

Cheers,

Clancie

7th August 2003, 12:25 PM

Posted by CFLarsen

Does David Blaine claim paranormal powers?

Does David Copperfield claim paranormal powers?
Blaine's book is, imo, ambiguous about this.

Copperfield doesn't. But...with his recent comment about choosing the German lottery numbers ("it wasn't a trick"), he got a strong rebuke from Randi. He later clarified his meaning to indicate that he wasn't claiming it was paranormal, that it wasn't just an ordinary trick, and that, in fact, no disagreement with Randi existed, i.e. that he wasn't making a paranormal claim.

Nevertheless, after listening to Mark Edward talk about at some length about how he feels there's more to mentalism (at times) than can be rationally explained, I think it would be very interesting to read interviews with Blaine and Copperfield speaking about that issue, too.

Thanz

7th August 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

This is so incredibly disingenuous as to defy belief! Copperfield does not claim that he does other than "magic" in the sense of creating illusions to inspire awe. Here is Copperfield's website (http://www.davidcopperfield.com/) Note the header that says "An evening of grand illusion."

Come on, you know it is all part of the schtick. Does Copperfield say "I am now going ot make the S of L disappear" or does he say "I am now going to make you think that I made the S of L disappear"?

As for "This is so incredibly disingenuous as to defy belief!", I think that is saved for your logic prize.

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 12:37 PM

Clancie,

Do Blaine, Copperfield or any other magician have disclaimers after their TV performances?

Darat

7th August 2003, 12:39 PM

I am being really, really dense here I but want point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

:confused:

Edited to add

The above should have said:

I am being really, really dense here but what point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

:confused:

voidx

7th August 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

But, she did answer those questions! Maybe you just didn't like the answers. :p
I'd like to make it clear that Neo restated, or rather clarified her own personal view of the Brain questions. Her contention that artistic and creative ability is mostly based in the RH of the brain appeared to be not the case as per tye article CFL linked, and her idea of telepathy emenating in a similar fashion in the physical brain is also unsupported. She choose on her own to quit debating it because by her own admission its not her area of expertise and she could not answer many of the questions put to her about it. I generally abhor the amount of keeping score of debating points that happens in these threads at times, but I think its important not to glaze over this particular instance. The brain issue, and telepathy being more art than science I think has been quite soundly put down in the context of this discussion.

Thanz

7th August 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Darat
I am being really, really dense here I but want point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

:confused:
I don't know about the others, but I was just trying to make the point that all it is is a stage persona, and what they say is just their schtick. I was primarily posting as it seemed that some thought Blaine was more than this.

Instig8R

7th August 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Instig8R, since you watch the show at least three times a week, you should be aware that JE often uses the word "see" to denote how he "perceives" or "intuits" or "discerns". There is no way in hell that you can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something, unless he actually describes what it is he is "seeing". :rolleyes:

What he is saying in that above quote is that it is his sense that there is another person connected to this sitter who has a similar "L" name. He is being adamant about that point. That does not mean that he is literally "seeing" an "L".

Hey, Neo-- I am amazed at these farfetched excuses! The only defense you haven't tried would be that it depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.

To recap, when JE uses the word "see", it denotes how he "perceives", "intuits" or "discerns", and there is no way we can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something.

However, it is somehow possible for you to make the determination that he is NOT literally seeing something.

Allrighty... Assuming I buy your explanation, please tell me what JE is "seeing" when he claims to "see" AMA, Against Medical Advice. Is he only perceiving, intuiting or discerning AMA??? Because I thought we had finally agreed that JE was "seeing" letters when he sees "AMA". :confused:

Originally posted by neofight

-snip-

Well of course you are right, Instig8R. Why on earth would I think that JE might better know what he feels are his strengths or weaknesses. :con2:

Neo, I used to think that JE knew his own strengths and weaknesses. I thought he knew his chief strength is his ability to b.s. people, so that they won't notice how bad most of his readings are. Now, I'm not so sure. Obviously, you realize how bad those unedited readings are, which is why you refuse to examine them. Soooo, I guess JE's greatest strength is getting people to believe in him, despite how badly he performs.

Have you officially taken the position that any and all facts that do not conform to your beliefs must simply be discarded? :)

Originally posted by neofight

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

Neo, I did not post a "snippet". I posted the very first reading from JE's 9/10/01 appearance on LKL. It was a complete, unedited reading, and it stunk to high heaven, as did those that followed. I don't understand your claim that you didn't check out the thread. You didn't need to check out the thread, because I posted the entire reading here for you to view it.

The LKL reading that I posted here showed JE saying that he was seeing a letter, and he got it wrong. You are insisting that he heard the letter, and completely overlooked the fact that he got it WRONG, regardless of how he claims he got the message, lol.

You are also glossing over the final count for that entire unedited reading: Score: 8 guesses, one weak hit, 7 misses. But I guess that's not important, as long as we accept that he heard the information from the spirits, rather than saw or felt the messages. I guess there was a lot of static on the spirit connection that night... which would also explain why JE didn't know that America would be attacked by terrorists within a few hours after the show ended.

Lurker

7th August 2003, 12:46 PM

BillHoyt

7th August 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Darat
I am being really, really dense here I but want point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

:confused:
They're trying to blur the lines, Darat. They want to compare Copperfield and Blaine with JE. Copperfield and Blaine do not claim paranormal powers. They say they are performing magic. Copperifield's website clearly says "illusion."

The disingenuous attempt here is to make the lines fuzzy and thereby make magicians seem to be committing the same kind of fraud. It is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

And, Thanz, that is your answer as well: this is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

Cheers,

Clancie

7th August 2003, 01:01 PM

Posted by BillHoyt

They're trying to blur the lines, Darat. They want to compare Copperfield and Blaine with JE. Copperfield and Blaine do not claim paranormal powers.
Quite false, Bill.

Thanz and Lurker were obviously responding only in the context of dingler44's example of DB referring to "real" levitation. Read more carefully.
The disingenuous attempt here is to make the lines fuzzy and thereby make magicians seem to be committing the same kind of fraud. It is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.
Again, not they, Bill. Only me.

And I don't find it "disingenuous" to be interested in some magician/mentalists' own feelings that, even when they are performing a "trick" they sometimes have the feeling that what actually happens is not conforming to natural laws as we know them.

I've mentioned three magician/mentalists who've made that kind of observation.

I find it quite interesting and would like to hear more about it. Naturally, you don't.

No surprises there whatsoever, but please don't categorize other people's statements as something that they're clearly not.

Thanz

7th August 2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The disingenuous attempt here is to make the lines fuzzy and thereby make magicians seem to be committing the same kind of fraud. It is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

And, Thanz, that is your answer as well: this is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.
Dude, I have no idea where you are coming from. I made no claim comparing Blaine or Copperfield or any other magician to JE. I was simply comparing Blaine to Copperfield, that's all.

Oh, and here's a newsflash: I don't think that JE is real any more than you do.

You assume too much. I ask for an apology for calling me a weasel.

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 01:16 PM

Clancie,

Fine. Whatever. This whole discussion is not all that important.

In fact, it is a red herring. You brought up Blaine, and so far, you have been very successful in diverting attention from the fact that you have a lot of questions to answer.

Please do so, without any further delay. You have a habit of diversion and delaying, but don't think it will go unnoticed.

BillHoyt

7th August 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Quite false, Bill.

Thanz and Lurker were obviously responding only in the context of dingler44's example of DB referring to "real" levitation. Read more carefully.
[/B]
Again, not they, Bill. Only me.

And I don't find it "disingenuous" to be interested in some magician/mentalists' own feelings that, even when they are performing a "trick" they sometimes have the feeling that what actually happens is not conforming to natural laws as we know them.

I've mentioned three magician/mentalists who've made that kind of observation.

I find it quite interesting and would like to hear more about it. Naturally, you don't.

No surprises there whatsoever, but please don't categorize other people's statements as something that they're clearly not. [/B]

I agree that Thanz has separated his comments from yours. Your comments are still disingenuous. As I said before, you are heading for a tu quoque and an attempt to weasel.

I have seen this tripe before and it always smells, clancie. Don't smear magicians with flim-flam artists.

Cheers,

Lurker

7th August 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

Dude, I have no idea where you are coming from. I made no claim comparing Blaine or Copperfield or any other magician to JE. I was simply comparing Blaine to Copperfield, that's all.

Oh, and here's a newsflash: I don't think that JE is real any more than you do.

You assume too much. I ask for an apology for calling me a weasel.

Same goes for me. But you don't need to apologize for calling me a weasel. I am one. (Insert appropriate weasal noises here from insipid Pauly Shore movies)

Lurker

BillHoyt

7th August 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
You assume too much. I ask for an apology for calling me a weasel.
I see your other posts in which you clarified the first. I regret that I saw that post as supporting the other crap here. But I did not call you a weasel. I said "this is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one." That referred to the attempt to smear magicians with the flim-flammery of mediums.

Cheers,

Darat

7th August 2003, 01:26 PM

So - what was this thread about again... ?

voidx

7th August 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Darat
So - what was this thread about again... ?
Interesting JE hits, which so far have been less than extraordinary. We await more.

davefoc

7th August 2003, 02:03 PM

Wow, 15 pages, amazing.

Here's a question for Clancie and neofight:

If you had the ability to talk to the dead, as you suspect that JE does, would you do something similar to what he does? That is tout your ability without citing any studies or providing any testable evidence for them.

Or would you do contolled testing of your ability and publish the results to verify that it exists and to convince others that it exists? Even if you were sure your ability existed, wouldn't you at least do controlled studies to search for improvements. For instance JE says distance to the subject doesn't matter. But how would he know without controlled testing?

My thought is that all charlatans would follow the JE approach and most people with legitimate abilities would not. I wonder how you'd feel about a doctor who claimed to be able to cure cancer who presented evidence in the same way that JE does?

dharlow

7th August 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

I've mentioned three magician/mentalists who've made that kind of observation.

I find it quite interesting and would like to hear more about it. Naturally, you don't.

You might be interested in this link:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/MagWhoEndors.htm

Loki

7th August 2003, 05:17 PM

Neo,

Apologies if you've answered this (I haven't seen a reply, so that's why I'm asking) - what happens to a reading that goes fro more that 11 minutes in a CO taping session? I'm prepared to accept that whole "30 minutes" thing was just a communication mixup, but given that a 22 minute episode only actually contains 11 minutes of reading(s) then surely there are only three options here :

1. In CO taping sessions, *no* reading ever exceeds 11 minutes;
2. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes, it is not used;
3. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes, it is edited down.

If you accept that #3 is possible, then in *any* epoised of CO in which a single reading occuspies the entire 11 minutes, you no way at all of determining how much editing was done - yet almost certainly *some* content was removed.

If you want to try and use Steve Grenard's argument of "editing probably only removes pauses, etc", then I'll rephrase my options as :

1. In CO taping sessions, *no* reading ever exceeds 11 minutes of content;
2. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes of content, it is not used;
3. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes of content, it is edited down.

Aren' we force to agree that at the very least it's likely that *some* content is removed from *some* longer readings.

Clancie

7th August 2003, 05:22 PM

Posted by loki

...given that a 22 minute episode only actually contains 11 minutes of reading(s)
Loki,

Did I miss where this "given" fact about CO episodes came from? Source, please? :confused:

Loki

7th August 2003, 05:36 PM

Clancie,

Did I miss where this "given" fact about CO episodes came from? Source, please?
Good question! Source would be the discussion between Claus, SteveGrenard and Neofight. I certainly got the impression that this was an "agreed upon" fact, and I assumed that it was probably something that had been "thrashed out" over at TVTalkShows. Claus certianly seems to think it's a fact. I dont; recall seeing Steve or Neo disputing it.

But if you like, since there's *no* disagreement on the length of a full episode, we can always rewrite the options to be :

1. In CO taping sessions, *no* reading ever exceeds 22 minutes of content;
2. If a reading exceeds 22 minutes of content, it is not used;
3. If a reading exceeds 22 minutes of content, it is edited down.

Now, I'd agree that 22 minute readings are likely to be the exception, not the rule. But really, the truth is that the "11" minute figure is closer to the truth than the "22" isn't it? I await Claus, Steve or Neo to confirm of deny the 11 minute figure!!

Clancie

7th August 2003, 05:46 PM

Posted by Loki

Now, I'd agree that 22 minute readings are likely to be the exception, not the rule. But really, the truth is that the "11" minute figure is closer to the truth than the "22" isn't it? I await Claus, Steve or Neo to confirm of deny the 11 minute figure!!
Fair enough! Thanks for the quick clarification. :)

neofight

7th August 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by voidx

Will you acknowledge that since there seems to be no evidence so far of telepathy originating in the physical brain, that the other-wordly spiritual explanation should be your assumption until present with further proof? Or at the very least that if you still believe it to be part of the physical brain, that there seems to be nothing supporting that assertion?

voidx, what I will do is leave science, and scientific explanations, to the scientists. I do not know what, if any, research has been done to date that might give evidence of telepathy originating from the physical brain. If I come across any of the material that I've read in the past on the subject of the right temporal lobe and PSI, I will post it. :) .....neo

SteveGrenard

7th August 2003, 05:54 PM

I thought I made it very clear that there is no pre-set time for a reading JE gives in a studio taping. And there is no preset number of shows they get from a single taping session, the reading part of which I timed at about 3 hrs and 14 minutes out of the 4 hours we had to remain glued to our seats. This was on the day I was there, July 23, 2002.

I have seen material from the same reading also extended onto two different episodes so this is known to occur. I also gave a
single example of a reluctant sitter JE said he couldnt get passed which occupied 45 minutes of the reading taping time. I have no idea if this was a frequent ocurrence and suspect that a lot of the silent portions of this reading were edited out.

The show is 22 minutes in a 30 min timeslot, the other 8 mins occupied by commercial breaks. I have seen shows with 3 readings and I have seen shows occupied by just one reading. I have seen shows half occupied with follow-ups or reprises and I have seen shows where there were none. I have seen shows with one-on-ones, with celeb readings and shows where there were none of this. There are two kinds of follow-ups: one takes place the same day in the studio after the main taping is over and those read are held back from leaving to do this. The other type involves a crew going out to the sitters home and interviewing them and other family members who were not present and verifying things about the reading which could not be validated in the studio. We see a lot of old photos, household items mentioned in the reading and mementos in these. They serve to verify that what the sitter validated in the studio was, in fact, true.

Paul Shavelson said this was a very variable process with no pre-cast formula. I will leave it at that. This attempt to standardize that which is not, in reality, standardized is an exercise in futility.
I understand the underlying motivation is to prove the show is edited for content. This will not do it. Only a side by side comparison of up to approx 32 hours of rolled footage against X number of shows cut from this will tell you that. I say 32 hours because its
the product of 4 hrs X 8 cameras. And yeah, I know, its a lot of cameras but that's what I counted when I was there. They get a lot of coverage apparently. Was I sure all of them were running all the time? No.

Clancie

7th August 2003, 06:29 PM

Posted by Steve Grenard

Only a side by side comparison of up to approx 32 hours of rolled footage against X number of shows cut from this will tell you that. I say 32 hours because its the product of 4 hrs X 8 cameras.
Hi Steve,

Well, I was right there with you until this last part.

I don't think we disagree, but I just wanted to clarify the above. If JE reads you for an hour--even if he's got ten different cameras filming it, its still just a 1 hour reading, not 10 hours worth of readings.

I'm sure you weren't implying otherwise, but selecting which camera angles to use from 4 hours of taped CO, doesn't mean there are 32 hours of footage of individual readings to choose from to make up 5 or 6 programs.

If 20 people are read in a day, its still just 20 readings in 4 hours, and the number of camera angles available to choose from has no bearing on how much of filmed readings are available for the shows at all.

The way its worded above makes it sound like 32 hours of taped readings are then editing down to 5 or 6 half hour shows--obviously not what's actually happening just because you've got several cameras filming the same reading.

SteveGrenard

7th August 2003, 07:02 PM

Clanci: Well, I was right there with you until this last part.

I don't think we disagree, but I just wanted to clarify the above. If JE reads you for an hour--even if he's got ten different cameras filming it, its still just a 1 hour reading, not 10 hours worth of readings.

Yes, it would be just one reading from eight or six or whatever different camera angles. But if one wanted to be scientifically accurate in assessing the editing question one would have to look at all the footage to decide the show was not edited for content. In some angles we just see JE, in others just the sitter, sometimes John and the sitter, and while the reading is going on long shots of the audience. But yes, 8 different angles of one cohesive reading. Not all the cameras may've been running all the time, also requiring one to look at all the angles. Geez, what if they missed a head nod or something and it got into Time magazine? Its complex and would be unbearably tedious as all editing is.

Clanci: I'm sure you weren't implying otherwise, but selecting which camera angles to use from 4 hours of taped CO, doesn't mean there are 32 hours of footage of individual readings to choose from to make up 5 or 6 programs.

yup. Actually up to 8 different programs, sometimes more, sometimes less. Its a business. Four hours of taping cost them thousands and thousands of dollars. For financial reasons alone they want to use as much of the footage as possible and get as much product out of each session as possible. This factor sort of puts a hole in the theory that most of the footage winds up cut. But there truly is no formula. Its all spontaneous and they never know what they are going to wind up with. They do not air long silences. We know that from watching the show as we see shorter ones which may've been much longer in reality. We saw many long silences.

And....no reading is 32 hrs long, thought that would be obvious.

Clanci: If 20 people are read in a day, its still just 20 readings in 4 hours, and the number of camera angles available to choose from has no bearing on how much of filmed readings are available for the shows at all.

Correct. We actually counted what were 8 separate readings on the day we were there and they were of different lengths. One was the 45 minute reading, some were much shorter, some in between. Sorry, didn't keep track of this with so much else to keep track of. But they were all of different lengths.

Clanci: The way its worded above makes it sound like 32 hours of taped readings are then editing down to 5 or 6 half hour shows--obviously not what's actually happening just because you've got several cameras filming the same reading.

Hmm..how can one have 32 hours of readings if they were taping for 4 hours? LOL. I don't think the math works.

7th August 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by neofight

I suppose that's true, RC. If I am willing to believe that JE could be a medium, then yes, I'm willing to accept that people he refers to as mediums, probably are. (Ooooh! Appealing to authority!) :eek: lol

I know that when John's mother died, he had requested her to contact him through Shelley Peck, since he didn't trust his own objectivity to get her messages directly. If you remember, instead, his mom came through to Suzane Northrup, even though JE didn't really know SN very well at the time.......neo

Sheesh, take one day off of JREF and I'm behind 3 pages of threads.

Suzane Northrop is a cheesy cold reader. Anyone who sits through her seminar should be able to see this. You would also, Neo. I don't believe that JE's mom "came through" SN. She either tricked him or they are both liars, in my humble, very strong, opinion.

Do you think the Pet Psychic is for real?

7th August 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by dingler44

I shouldn't ask here since you're going to start another thread - but did you ever get any sort of confirmation that your instructor did in fact have two grandfathers, Tom and Johann? Were they both grandfathers? great grandfathers? great great etc?

I'm so cynical of so-called mediums... especially those charging money to teach their craft... I wouldn't put it past them to tell you that you were getting interesting hits just to keep you coming back for more classes.

It would seem there's a conflict of interest in reading your instructor.

I didn't get confirmation at the time, but I have since. They were both grandfathers and I've seen letters that back it up. I've since become friends with the teacher. She never pushed me to take another class with her. In fact, the mediumship experiment was on the final day of the 5 day series (which only cost $30 per 3 hour class, and included yummy snacks, handouts and a notepad).

There may have been a conflict of interest, but it wasn't like I was sitting down just reading the teacher. We meditated as a group (about 6 of us) and then called out what we "saw". That was when she piped up.

Look, if this woman had insisted that I was a real medium and that I must work with her (for a fee) to improve my skills, then I would share your cynicism. Instead, she just acted like she was pleased that her grandfathers came through and that was that.

I think she is sincere with her work.

I will start a thread about all this over the weekend.

7th August 2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by neofight
[B]

Well, maybe so, RC, but on the other hand, I think it's cool that in your short time in psychic development class you managed to experience both the literal (written word) type of image, and also the more subjective, symbolic type. Actually, I'd be thrilled if I were you. I'd also be signing up for more classes, since it appears you may have a flair for it. :D

I thought it was a very cool experience and it does keep me from giving up on mediumship. As for more classes, the only medium I trust is the one I took the original courses from. As you know, she is quite ill and not giving more classes. As it was, there weren't any more classes to take as I had gone through the whole 5 classes series.

The other issue, as I explained on Mike's thread, is that I'm not as interested in this anymore so the question is how to spend my time and money. Do I pursue this mediumship thing or do I take that series of wine tasting classes (which I'm doing in September, can't wait!) :D

7th August 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Interesting I suppose it could be said that the sitter therefore had a vested interest in your progress ;)

Seriously, I do think it is very telling that the confirmation/validation seems to always to come from the sitter filling in the blanks. For instance the "impact in the chest area" type of hit only becomes a hit once the sitter fills in the blanks. The sitter has to say "Oh yes my grandfather was hit in the chest and then died" to make this hit. Otherwise it is meaningless. We never seem to get validations that don’t need infomration from the sitter for it to make sense. (Apart from Steve’s claims.) . We just don't see any evidence that mediums just say "Your grandfather on your mother side, Edward, died from a hit to the chest". The medium needs the sitter to develop the hit.

On another point:

I have often wondered if what happened to you explains why people start to think they have these types of gifts?

I would suggest that for many of us when we are relaxed etc. thoughts and images float across our mind. If you then mention this to someone e.g. "I was just thinking about a red car" and they say "that's spooky as I was just thinking about my grandfather and he always drove a red car", perhaps you'd start to think you had a gift...

All fair points, Darat, perhaps we can address further when I start the thread.

neofight

7th August 2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by RC
Suzane Northrop is a cheesy cold reader. Anyone who sits through her seminar should be able to see this. You would also, Neo. I don't believe that JE's mom "came through" SN. She either tricked him or they are both liars, in my humble, very strong, opinion.

I would be curious as to what a one-on-one might be like with SN after all the negative things that you have said about her, RC. What if she gave you a great reading? What then?

Do you think the Pet Psychic is for real?

I have yet to see one whole episode of the Pet Psychic, RC, and I have no opinion on Sonia. :) JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through, or which at least have been acknowledged by people who have crossed over, however it works. He's gotten many dog and cat names, and even described many of them, so who knows? As I say, he might be getting their information from a human spirit, and not the animal itself. I don't know......neo

Darat

7th August 2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by neofight

voidx, what I will do is leave science, and scientific explanations, to the scientists. I do not know what, if any, research has been done to date that might give evidence of telepathy originating from the physical brain. If I come across any of the material that I've read in the past on the subject of the right temporal lobe and PSI, I will post it. :) .....neo

Thankyou - a fair and reasonable answer.

CFLarsen

7th August 2003, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by neofight
I have yet to see one whole episode of the Pet Psychic, RC, and I have no opinion on Sonia. :) JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through, or which at least have been acknowledged by people who have crossed over, however it works. He's gotten many dog and cat names, and even described many of them, so who knows? As I say, he might be getting their information from a human spirit, and not the animal itself. I don't know......neo

Liar.

You have seen an episode of the Pet Psychic. You do have an opinion on Sonya. And you have changed your mind quite dramatically regarding JE and dead animals.

TVTalkshows
(neofight) 152.163.189.131 08-05-2002 11:31 PM
I don't know about this Sonya person. I only saw the show once, but my question would be that if some sort of communication with these deceased pets is possible, then why doesn't JE or any of the other mediums get any messages from them? I'm trying to remember the wording that JE uses when he mentions someone's dog that has passed over, and as far as I remember, I think John usually says something like, "he's saying he has the small black dog with him" or words to that effect. I never hear him say something like, "I have Rover coming through, and he's still pissed that you started buying him that really cheap dog food a year before he died." :)

I think that all life is sacred, but I am not sure that I would equate the soul of a human being with the soul of an animal. Not to say that some animals are not more noble than some humans, because I agree that is exactly the case many times, but I just don't think that they would be able to communicate in quite the same way. Just my two-cents worth.....neo
(emphasis mine)

Now, could you answer some questions?

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

As well as all the other questions you have dangling...I think it might be time for yet another list...

Darat

7th August 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...snip...

yup. Actually up to 8 different programs, sometimes more, sometimes less. Its a business. Four hours of taping cost them thousands and thousands of dollars. For financial reasons alone they want to use as much of the footage as possible and get as much product out of each session as possible. This factor sort of puts a hole in the theory that most of the footage winds up cut. But there truly is no formula. Its all spontaneous and they never know what they are going to wind up with. They do not air long silences. We know that from watching the show as we see shorter ones which may've been much longer in reality. We saw many long silences.

And....no reading is 32 hrs long, thought that would be obvious. ...snip...

Steve - this doesn't "sort of puts a hole in the theory that most of the footage winds up cut".

I do agree that it is likely that a production company will try to use as much of the footage as possible since it is a business. However their over riding goal is to produce a programme that gets ratings; what they will do is use as much of the footage as they can that will achieve that goal.

As a total ‘for instance’, if JE did a reading in which he just spoke to the sitter twice, but meditated quietly saying or doing nothing for 20 minutes they are not likely to use the 20 minutes of meditation, as it would not achieve their goal of producing a show that gets the ratings.

In fact since it is a business then I would suggest that starting with the premise “they will seek to make this show as rating grabbing as possible” is a sensible starting point. And therefore since we know shows have in the past "distorted the truth" to achieve their goals a reasonable question to always ask is “Were/are ratings more important then the truth for producers of this show?” when reviewing any show.

(I am not saying this happens in Crossing Over or JE and his production company seek to "sensationalise" and allow the "truth" to become distorted to achieve higher ratings, only that there is evidence to support the contention that shows have and do distort the truth to achieve higher ratings.)

juninho

8th August 2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by dingler44

Lurker you're operating on the assumption that magic is real. DB shouldn't have to use the word "real" to heighten excitement unless people already believe magic is real/possible. So if magic is real and DB claims to use it, fine.

But it's known that DB does not use magic to perform his levitation trick.

The thing about DB's levitation trick is this:

1) He performs it as street magic in front of real passers-by. Its a simple trick that could be replicated by almost anyone, however;

2) For effect, he is then subsequently filmed in the same location but with the use of wires. The two sets of footage are then stitched together for airing on TV so that it appears his levitation is much more impressive than it actually is. Its a con.

Loki

8th August 2003, 04:35 AM

Darat,

Nice sig... it's been years since I read Solzhenitsyn!

Instig8R

8th August 2003, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by neofight

-snip-

I have yet to see one whole episode of the Pet Psychic, RC, and I have no opinion on Sonia. :) JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through, or which at least have been acknowledged by people who have crossed over, however it works. He's gotten many dog and cat names, and even described many of them, so who knows? As I say, he might be getting their information from a human spirit, and not the animal itself. I don't know......neo

Neo, the "big sloppy black dog" reading was rerun on CO yesterday. This was the reading wherein JE supposedy communicated messages from a dead 170 lb. Newfie with hip dysplasia, whose owner had him euthanized. According to JE, the dog spirit was forgiving the owner for not being there when he was put down. In reality, fo course, one only had to watch the reading to discern that it was the live human in the audience who was giving JE the information, which he then re-phrased.

Darat

8th August 2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Loki
Darat,

Nice sig... it's been years since I read Solzhenitsyn!

Thanks for noticing, it really sums up my view that we are all human - even the monsters amongst us. (And Soubrette reccomended him to me - Thanks Sou.)

Sorry for the interuption back to the programme...

CFLarsen

8th August 2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Loki
Darat,

Nice sig... it's been years since I read Solzhenitsyn!

Psychically? You're a medium? :D

Originally posted by Instig8R
...a dead 170 lb. Newfie...

You don't call a 170 lb. dog "Newfie" to its face, do you..? ;)

Carry on...

8th August 2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by neofight

I would be curious as to what a one-on-one might be like with SN after all the negative things that you have said about her, RC. What if she gave you a great reading? What then?

I'd probably die of a heart attack if she gave me a great reading. :roll:

I've seen her in person and I've yet to read a single transcript of her readings (except the ones in her own book, of course) to suggest that I would get anything but nonsense. Even her readings in the "Afterlife Experiments" are really bad. If she is the real deal, she is indistinguishable from a cold reader, in my opinion, so she isn't worth having a reading with.

voidx

8th August 2003, 07:45 AM

Clancie

8th August 2003, 08:29 AM

Posted by juninho

The thing about DB's levitation trick is this:

1) He performs it as street magic in front of real passers-by. Its a simple trick that could be replicated by almost anyone, however;

2) For effect, he is then subsequently filmed in the same location but with the use of wires. The two sets of footage are then stitched together for airing on TV so that it appears his levitation is much more impressive than it actually is. Its a con.

OT, but what's your source for stating this as a fact?

I've seen it offered as a possibility, (along with other possible ways to do "levitation"), but never as a fact that this was how Blaine did it, that it was "a con".

What reference are you using?

renata

8th August 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

OT, but what's your source for stating this as a fact?

I've seen it offered as a possibility, (along with other possible ways to do "levitation"), but never as a fact that this was how Blaine did it, that it was "a con".

What reference are you using?

I want to point out that there was a request from Randi not to reveal magician's tricks on this forum. This being said, I found several links that support juninho's view. Here they are, but it might be best not to quote from them (I know, I know, walking a fine line :))

http://203.120.90.137/~guezs/magic/levitation2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/jhnsnoot/blainelev1.html

voidx

8th August 2003, 09:50 AM

I'd like to respond also to this oft repeated request by Neo and Clancie to show them a cold-reader that can do what JE does, and hence convince them once and for all that he is bunk. You're mistakenly thinking that we care one way or the other whether you believe or not. I myself do not. If you believe, fine, but if you're on here discussing it, you have to support your position. When you come here into a discussion about how people think JE is a fraud, or how mediumship is bunk, and then claim that you do not necessarily think that is the case and are debated thusly, its not with the intent to convert you from your belief. Rather its to analyze and where needed pick apart your claims and ideas for your belief, 100% or 80%, in JE and mediumship. And so far as I've seen when the discussion has moved into the actual theory of mediumship, of the potential science involved you've had to concede that there really isn't anything to support your position. No one is going to bother finding a cold-reader equal to JE, because the numerous posts of transcripts so far make it obvious to most of us that his readings resemble cold-reading close enough, and in many instances, resemble it exactly, so that we see no need in our own minds to put forth our own cold-reading champ to take JE down in some big royal rumble of validation. We have our position, the reasons behind it, and you've not convinced us sufficiently that JE and mediumpship are indeed authentic. End of story, until solid points are put forth.

CFLarsen

8th August 2003, 10:08 AM

Steve, I have a problem with your account of the taping you went to. It seems that you have changed your mind about what happened there quite dramatically.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
They do not air long silences. We know that from watching the show as we see shorter ones which may've been much longer in reality. We saw many long silences.
...
I also gave a single example of a reluctant sitter JE said he couldnt get passed which occupied 45 minutes of the reading taping time. I have no idea if this was a frequent ocurrence and suspect that a lot of the silent portions of this reading were edited out.
...
One example I gave lasted 45 minutes and was mostly silence as an obviousy embarassed sitter refused to answer, just making muffled denials with her hand in front of her face.

However, you had this to say last year:

Posted by SteveGrenard on 11-02-2002 09:04 PM:

I have to make a correction here. I was at the Gallery. JE read non-stop from 11 AM to 3PM or a total of 4 hours (240 minutes) From this I was told up to 8 shows will be made. Each show is 22 minutes but includes post-interviews, JE talking and unrelated material. How many shows they make really depends on how many readings are done (highly variable) and how long each may be (also highly variable). I frankly didn't see anything that would be edited out that I haven't already seen broadcasted. This may be a non-issue.

Source: Is John Edward Hot Reading? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=9560)

(Emphasis mine)

Can you please explain why you give such contradicting accounts?

Before, JE read "non-stop" for 4 hours. Now, we hear all sorts of delays, interruptions, things that are edited out.

SteveGrenard

8th August 2003, 10:34 AM

Larsen: Before, JE read "non-stop" for 4 hours. Now, we hear all sorts of delays, interruptions, things that are edited out.

He never left the stage, was never out of view for the period of time in question. I am sorry you take non-stopp so literally but the fact is there were pauses and I always said so: for drinks (have you ever seen JE with a bottle of water on camera? No...oh, but then you dont watch the show); have you ever seen him get his nose powdered on air? No. There is also a big screen video of him shown in the beginning. Is a 15 or 20 minute period of silence part of a reading when it comes in the middle of it? You bet it is but do we see these on air? No...but you may not know that either. I am sure you would be happy if he had a 20 minute period of silence during a 22 minute program. This would make
for a pretty boring show, not that you would mind.

c0rbin

8th August 2003, 10:46 AM

I am sorry you take non-stopp so literally

Since we are reading these "conversations" I don't see how else one could take any contribution here, unless an image, or media file were uploaded/linked.

CFLarsen

8th August 2003, 10:48 AM

Sorry, Steve, but you "forgot" this one (the crucial one):

"I frankly didn't see anything that would be edited out that I haven't already seen broadcasted."

"Anything", Steve?

If you consider JE having his nose powdered a "reading", then I can see why he can read for four hours straight. It does weaken your claim considerably, though.

neofight

8th August 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Liar.

You have seen an episode of the Pet Psychic. You do have an opinion on Sonya. And you have changed your mind quite dramatically regarding JE and dead animals.

Yeah, yeah. I know. Always the liar am I. :rolleyes: Claus, I don't think I ever watched an entire show. I did tune in once to see what it looked like, but I really don't even remember any specifics of the "readings' at this point. I keep forgetting what a *literal* person you are.

The only thing I remember getting out of that show after watching a reading was that I didn't think I'd ever be going out of my way to catch the show again. And I have not done so. :p

As for the rest of my comment about what I think about pets coming through, my prior comments still stand. I'm really not sure what I think about it. I don't consider pets to be quite like people really, but then again, as I said before, I do believe that all life is sacred, so.....there you go......neo

BillHoyt

8th August 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by neofight
As for the rest of my comment about what I think about pets coming through, my prior comments still stand. I'm really not sure what I think about it. I don't consider pets to be quite like people really, but then again, as I said before, I do believe that all life is sacred, so.....there you go......neo
Literal? Hardly, neo. Let us do a slow motion, A/B roll here of the different things you said in the two different posts:
"A"
I have yet to see one whole episode of the Pet Psychic, RC, and I have no opinion on Sonia. JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through, or which at least have been acknowledged by people who have crossed over, however it works. He's gotten many dog and cat names, and even described many of them, so who knows? As I say, he might be getting their information from a human spirit, and not the animal itself. I don't know......neo
"B"
I don't know about this Sonya person. I only saw the show once, but my question would be that if some sort of communication with these deceased pets is possible, then why doesn't JE or any of the other mediums get any messages from them? I'm trying to remember the wording that JE uses when he mentions someone's dog that has passed over, and as far as I remember, I think John usually says something like, "he's saying he has the small black dog with him" or words to that effect. I never hear him say something like, "I have Rover coming through, and he's still pissed that you started buying him that really cheap dog food a year before he died."

I think that all life is sacred, but I am not sure that I would equate the soul of a human being with the soul of an animal. Not to say that some animals are not more noble than some humans, because I agree that is exactly the case many times, but I just don't think that they would be able to communicate in quite the same way. Just my two-cents worth.....neo

A: "I have yet to see one whole episode of the Pet Psychic"
B: "I only saw the show once"
oops.

A: "I have no opinion on Sonia"
B: "I don't know about this Sonya person"
Okay, so far on this one, but then you go on to suggest that what she does is somehow less believable than what JE does. These suggestions, I'm afraid, do fall under the rubric, "opinion".

A: "JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through"
B: "why doesn't JE or any of the other mediums get any messages from [pets]?"
big oops.

A: "JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through"
B: "I just don't think that [pets] would be able to communicate in quite the same way"
oops.

A: "JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through"
B: "I never hear him say something like 'I have Rover coming through".
Do they or don't they come through? Only his apologists don't know for sure. Or shall we quibble over the tremendous (I'm sure) differences between "brought through" and "coming through"?

A: "[JE's] gotten many dog and cat names"
B: "as far as I remember, I think John usually says something like, 'he's saying he has the small black dog with him' or words to that effect. I never hear him say something like 'I have Rover coming through".
Does he or doesn't he get the names? Only his apologists don't know for sure, neo. oops.

Cheers,

CFLarsen

8th August 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by neofight
Yeah, yeah. I know. Always the liar am I. :rolleyes: Claus, I don't think I ever watched an entire show. I did tune in once to see what it looked like, but I really don't even remember any specifics of the "readings' at this point. I keep forgetting what a *literal* person you are.

But that is how we determine what people are actually saying. If we are allowed to waffle, then we get nowhere.

Do you extend me the same courtesy that you demand of me? Will you allow me to change the meaning of my posts, at my whim? I think not.

Originally posted by neofight
The only thing I remember getting out of that show after watching a reading was that I didn't think I'd ever be going out of my way to catch the show again. And I have not done so. :p

That may be. However, you clearly said that you had watched a show. You never indicated that it was part of a show.

Originally posted by neofight
As for the rest of my comment about what I think about pets coming through, my prior comments still stand. I'm really not sure what I think about it. I don't consider pets to be quite like people really, but then again, as I said before, I do believe that all life is sacred, so.....there you go......neo

You're not really sure? You sure don't sound like it.

neo, what you are saying here is that we cannot trust anything you say. If you want to be able to backtrack from any of your previous statements, depending on the circumstances, then your credibility is shot. To smithereens.

Which is it? Can we trust what you say or not? Do we have to ask you, each time you say something, if you stand by it?

Oh, and don't forget these, which you have been trying very hard to ignore:

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

davefoc

8th August 2003, 12:49 PM

Clancie, nefight and SteveGrenard,

Awhile back I asked this question:

"If you had the ability to talk to the dead, as you suspect that JE does, would you do something similar to what he does?"

I suppose it's a little impolite to ask it again, but I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on it. I am curious about how people come to believe different things in the face of similar evidence.

This question goes to the heart of that I think. Most of us that think what JE does is a crock assume that if we had the capability to talk to the dead we would submit our abilities to controlled testing. We would do this for several reasons including overcoming our own skepticism, convincing others of the ability and improving our technique. The fact that JE seems to do nothing like that marks him pretty much as a charlatan to us.

My question is what do you think about this? Why wouldn't JE submit his work for controlled testing? Why wouldn't he thoroughly document the process of his readings to promote improvements in the field? How would you feel about a doctor that claimed the ability to cure cancer and offered evidence in a way similar to what JE does of his ability?

SteveGrenard

8th August 2003, 01:12 PM

Awhile back I asked this question:

Dave:"If you had the ability to talk to the dead, as you suspect that JE does, would you do something similar to what he does?"

Reply: No, because I don't consider mental mediumship as practiced by JE as evidential. He asks too many questions.
JVP is worse and Sylvia Browne is among the worst. The only
mediumship I consider evidential is that of deep trance mediums who do not ask questions and where everything they say is 100% accurate for an anonymous sitter.

Dave:I suppose it's a little impolite to ask it again, but I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on it. I am curious about how people come to believe different things in the face of similar evidence.

Reply: Not at all impolite but I answered this question before.
I came to suspect the survival hypothesis has some merit based on evidence given to me by a deep trance, several actually, which was 100% accurate and went on for close to 2 hours. Without a single question and under total anonymity.

And I said even if I was not anonymous, the information conveyed
was not publicly available anywhere, some of it being between 40 and 62 years old. Other parts involving things in my house the medium nor anyone had access to.

Dave:This question goes to the heart of that I think. Most of us that think what JE does is a crock assume that if we had the capability to talk to the dead we would submit our abilities to controlled testing. We would do this for several reasons including overcoming our own skepticism, convincing others of the ability and improving our technique. The fact that JE seems to do nothing like that marks him pretty much as a charlatan to us.

Reply: Indeed he may be a crock. I never said otherwise. Insofar as his submitting to further testing, I also pointed out that his attitude is that he is not interested in being a lab rat and he couldn't care less what you think or I think. And to skeptics, he has said, and I quote "Bite me." This does not mean we should not be accurate in our discussions of him or rely on nit picking to earn some imaginary points that confirm our own biases. edited to add: and yes, he did submit to some testing and I have to corroborate what Clancie said below which is that in spite of calls by people here that JE submit to more testing (exception: the JREF challenge which is not a scientific test) they can provide no evidence that he has been asked to do so by any reputable scientist with experience in parapsychology. On the remark about overcoming one's own skepticism, it may interest you that the late Eileen Garrett was extremely skeptical of her mediumship abilities, so much so that she established the Parapsychology Foundation in New York to study the phenomenon. Since this has come up, one of the person's who attended the JE taping with us was Garrett's grand-daughter who remains very much involved with the foundation today. And no, she is not a medium, at least she has never admitted that to me.

Dave: My question is what do you think about this? Why wouldn't JE submit his work for controlled testing? Why wouldn't he thoroughly document the process of his readings to promote improvements in the field? How would you feel about a doctor that claimed the ability to cure cancer and offered evidence in a way similar to what JE does of his ability?

Reply: You are asking me to answer a question only JE can answer as to "why" he wouldn't do it. I suspect the question is rhetorical and you already have an answer in mind: he's a fake and doesn't want to be exposed by tightened and controlled conditions. Not exactly a valid conclusion but think what you want. I answered it insofar as I am aware of it from JE's stated perspective. Putting your fixation on JE aside for a moment, there are plenty of mediums who are interested in research work and have stepped up to participate. And there have been many in the past. I gave three important references in this regard above. (S. Braude, A. Gauld and FWH Myers)

For current, the dozen or so working with Robinson and Roy in their series of published reports comes to mind.

CFLarsen

8th August 2003, 01:35 PM

Sorry, Steve, but you "forgot" this one (the crucial one):

"I frankly didn't see anything that would be edited out that I haven't already seen broadcasted."

"Anything", Steve?

SteveGrenard

8th August 2003, 01:48 PM

Exactly Claus. What was witnessed at a live taping with respect to the hits or misses of readings have been seen on air. What this means, as if you need an explanation, is that I did not see a finished program which had edited content compared to a taping which had unedited content.

If you want to make a case out of the fact that water breaks and powdering JE's nose is not broadcast you go ahead and argue this. You make yourself into a bigger idiot than I thought. The sponsors are not paying JE to broadcast this and it has nothing to do with the readings. And whatsmore if you are trying to say I never said this before think again. I said there were water breaks and make-up breaks and long periods of silence which get edited out. I said this before and I said it again. Any reference to what's left in out out which may be related to edited for content refers only to the readings and this means long periods of silence. Hits or misses can be seen any night of the week on air as well as in person. This is a given. Usual Larsen diversion.
When you gonna give it up and play straight?

CFLarsen

8th August 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Exactly Claus. What was witnessed at a live taping with respect to the hits or misses of readings have been seen on air. What this means, as if you need an explanation, is that I did not see a finished program which had edited content compared to a taping which had unedited content.

If you want to make a case out of the fact that water breaks and powdering JE's nose is not broadcast you go ahead and argue this. You make yourself into a bigger idiot than I thought. The sponsors are not paying JE to broadcast this and it has nothing to do with the readings. And whatsmore if you are trying to say I never said this before think again. I said there were water breaks and make-up breaks and long periods of silence which get edited out. I said this before and I said it again. Any reference to what's left in out out which may be related to edited for content refers only to the readings.

Thank you, Steve. You f*cked up, and are now trying to salvage the wreckage.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is a given. Usual Larsen diversion. When you gonna give it up?

Never. What, you thought otherwise?? I give new meaning to the word "persistent".

Steve, you have contradicted yourself in a major way. You don't even try to address it, but instead go for the insults.

Had you at least tried to explain yourself, I might have been inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. But no. You choose to attack me personally. Which could lead one into believing that I was right.

This is a keeper.

(And you can pull up your pants now...)

neofight

8th August 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He never left the stage, was never out of view for the period of time in question. I am sorry you take non-stopp so literally but.......

I'm always telling Claus that he is entirely too literal, Steve. Accuracy is one thing, but you have to be able to use your common sense as well, and it seems that "Literal Larsen" has none. :( Many of the misunderstandings on this board stem from this trait of his......neo

CFLarsen

8th August 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by neofight
I'm always telling Claus that he is entirely too literal, Steve. Accuracy is one thing, but you have to be able to use your common sense as well, and it seems that "Literal Larsen" has none. :( Many of the misunderstandings on this board stem from this trait of his......neo

Really? Could it be that the "misunderstandings" stem from e.g. your repeated backtracking?

Why do you ignore these questions?

Can we trust what you say or not? Do we have to ask you, each time you say something, if you stand by it?

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

neo, if you don't want to answer these questions, just say so.

Clancie

8th August 2003, 02:51 PM

Posted by davefoc

Clancie, nefight and SteveGrenard,

Awhile back I asked this question:

"If you had the ability to talk to the dead, as you suspect that JE does, would you do something similar to what he does?"

I suppose it's a little impolite to ask it again,
No, like Steve said, not impolite at all. These threads move so quickly, its very easy to overlook a question. I appreciate you asking it again.
I am curious about how people come to believe different things in the face of similar evidence.
Me, too.
My question is what do you think about this? Why wouldn't JE submit his work for controlled testing? Why wouldn't he thoroughly document the process of his readings to promote improvements in the field?
You probably already know my answer to this regarding JE. It's that he has submitted to all the scientific tests that have been asked of him, as far as any of us know.

I guess we disagree, but I don't expect him to design his tests (he's not qualified), nor hunt the country for someone he knows nothing about who could test him. If he was turning down serious and fair researchers, I would think that was bad. But I don't know of anything like that that has been offered to him.

That is my position on this issue and JE.

As for the cure for cancer, you could look at a doctor's patients. Are they cured by his treatment or not? In JE's case, you could look at his clients. Do they feel they've contacted deceased loved ones or not?

Unfortunately, their answer to that doesn't "prove" communication has happened (unlike the easily measurable results from cancer treatments).

neofight

8th August 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Literal? Hardly, neo. Let us do a slow motion, A/B roll here of the different things you said in the two different posts:

A: "I have yet to see one whole episode of the Pet Psychic"
B: "I only saw the show once"
oops.

Yeah, Bill. I was really glued to the screen. Didn't miss a minute of it. NOT! What a huge contradiction between my saying that I haven't seen a whole episode of the Pet Psychic and saying that I only saw the show once. Sounds like I'm a real fan, right?

A: "I have no opinion on Sonia"
B: "I don't know about this Sonya person"
Okay, so far on this one, but then you go on to suggest that what she does is somehow less believable than what JE does. These suggestions, I'm afraid, do fall under the rubric, "opinion".

(?) I'll repeat. I just don't know. :rolleyes:

A: "JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through"
B: "why doesn't JE or any of the other mediums get any messages from [pets]?"
big oops.

Big nothing! I was commenting on why the pets didn't give JE messages directly, as they supposedly did with Sonia. Jerk!

A: "JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through"
B: "I just don't think that [pets] would be able to communicate in quite the same way"
oops.[/b][/quote]

In quite the same way as people. Yes. The question was still did JE bring through the actual spirit of the pet, or did the person who had passed simply acknowledge the pet? Pinhead![/b][/quote]

A: "JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through"
B: "I never hear him say something like 'I have Rover coming through".
Do they or don't they come through? [/b][/quote]

See above. Dolt!

A: "[JE's] gotten many dog and cat names"
B: "as far as I remember, I think John usually says something like, 'he's saying he has the small black dog with him' or words to that effect. I never hear him say something like 'I have Rover coming through".
Does he or doesn't he get the names?

He gets names, Bill, but he mentions the names, like Brandy or something, and it's the sitter who identifies who Brandy is. He doesn't say, "Hey, a black lab is coming through and he says his name is "Whitie".

Another point is that people's frames of reference are always broadening. That first quote I made was quite a while ago. When "CO" began, JE didn't get too many pet references, and what he got was vague at times. More recently he has said that since he and his wife have gotten their two Bichon Frise, this area has opened up to him significantly, and he now brings through all sorts of pets and is able to identify them much better than he did before he had his dogs.

Cheers :p .....neo

thaiboxerken

8th August 2003, 03:02 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by neofight

Another point is that people's frames of reference are always broadening.

Just an assumption on your part, based on NOTHING. No evidence, no science, no reason.. nothing.

That first quote I made was quite a while ago. When "CO" began, JE didn't get too many pet references, and what he got was vague at times. More recently he has said that since he and his wife have gotten their two Bichon Frise, this area has opened up to him significantly, and he now brings through all sorts of pets and is able to identify them much better than he did before he had his dogs.

Or, it could be that JE saw the success of the Pet Psychic and decided he wanted in on that market as well. He is merely broadening the audience he is there to entertain. JE doesn't have superpowers.

BillHoyt

8th August 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by neofight
Yeah, Bill. I was really glued to the screen. Didn't miss a minute of it. NOT! What a huge contradiction between my saying that I haven't seen a whole episode of the Pet Psychic and saying that I only saw the show once. Sounds like I'm a real fan, right?
Now, now, neo. Don't strawman me, ma'am. But how like Clancie this is! She says she "looked at it", gave the detailed information that she "saw no lies in it". But, when called out on obvious errors then claims she never looked inside the file, just at the file listing. Impression management at its finest until it goes blewie.

Now you take this from Clancie's playbook. You say "I only saw the show once." Now you say "I have yet to see one whole episode". When called out on this, you start looking like the little naked guy out in the cold watching his member shrink. But, dearheart, I never said you had to be a fan. I never said you had to stay glued through the commercials and such. One just needs to know how you have so much to say, contrasting JE and Sonia when apparently you caught Sonia's show through the discount TV store window while waiting for the bus. Oh, wait, that's not the story, is it? What was it? Oh, that's right. It keeps changing!

Big nothing! I was commenting on why the pets didn't give JE messages directly, as they supposedly did with Sonia. Jerk!
On one occasion you said that. On the other occasion you said "JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets he has brought through."

So which is it? Do they come through or don't they? Or do you wish to redefine "come through" so that , like "flowing blood" it can mean anything?

I'll stop there for now, so that others can digest what you're doing here. Please answer these questions, neo, with honest answers.

Cheers,

SteveGrenard

8th August 2003, 03:14 PM

Neo: I'm always telling Claus that he is entirely too literal, Steve. Accuracy is one thing, but you have to be able to use your common sense as well, and it seems that "Literal Larsen" has none. Many of the misunderstandings on this board stem from this trait of his......neo

Reply: I have to question the motivation for this trait. It is evident it is used to confirm one's own biases, cause diversion and overlooks or ignores the real issues and responses. If you are implying he doesn't know he's doing this, I have to disagree. He is fully aware of it. I have seen him not being too literal toward posters he agrees with, for example. Its a rhetorical device, everyone knows it so he should really move on. I would be interested in seeing what else he can come up with.

renata

8th August 2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R

Neo, the "big sloppy black dog" reading was rerun on CO yesterday. This was the reading wherein JE supposedy communicated messages from a dead 170 lb. Newfie with hip dysplasia, whose owner had him euthanized. According to JE, the dog spirit was forgiving the owner for not being there when he was put down. In reality, fo course, one only had to watch the reading to discern that it was the live human in the audience who was giving JE the information, which he then re-phrased.

In case you missed that, Neo. Looks like JE talked to the pooch after all.

BillHoyt

8th August 2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by neofight
Another point is that people's frames of reference are always broadening. That first quote I made was quite a while ago. When "CO" began, JE didn't get too many pet references, and what he got was vague at times. More recently he has said that since he and his wife have gotten their two Bichon Frise, this area has opened up to him significantly, and he now brings through all sorts of pets and is able to identify them much better than he did before he had his dogs.

This is just such patently apologetic poppycock, I have to address it. Before JE's "frame of refererence" broadened, Sonia's work was cause for questioning her, but now that JE does it too, it is cause to remark on his abilities. Now don't say a word. Just wallow in the hypocrisy.

Cheers,

Clancie

8th August 2003, 03:22 PM

And, davefoc, I also wanted to address the other part of your questionPosted by davefoc

"If you had the ability to talk to the dead, as you suspect that JE does, would you do something similar to what he does?"
Well, this is a really interesting question and I'm going to give the full range of things I can think of. :)

There are some things in JE's "presentation" that I personally would completely change if it were me. I would totally redesign the website, making it informative and helpful, not about "product". I would change some of CO--for example, eliminate the standing ovation and cheering in the gallery. I would allow private readings to be taped, and, for me, I would slow the whole "reading process" down to try to get the best link between the sitter and spirit I could. I would also NOT tell sitters "You're wrong" when they couldn't relate to information that I gave them.

I agree with Steve that trance mediums (historically and now) seem to bring forth a higher quality of evidence and more consistently so. But I don't think there's a choice, so I'm assuming for your question that, like JE, I'm a mental medium.

I would continue to read for the large audiences on CO. I believe it helps and comforts many people, just to observe the process. I think it helps with grief to see other people openly talking about it and dealing with it--our society usually doesn't handle these feelings very well as a whole. I think CO can be a bit of a "support group" in that sense.

If JE's legit, then CO is also educational--and I think has raised people's expectations of readings and made them better "consumers" of mediumship, less easy to fall prey to deception. (Just my belief. Claus, don't ask for proof. This is all just me chatting with davefoc about his question. :rolleyes: ).

Anyway, I'd do the tv shows, but I don't think I would do the seminars. Too big, too many disappointed people, no educational opportunities that aren't offered already in television, videos and books.

I would definitely write books just like JE does--and make videos-- to help inform people about spirit communication and to offer them information about getting a good reading with a medium and, yes, to give them hope if they are grieving, to let them know that death is not "the end". (This is all assuming, of course, that I believe my ability is for real).

I WOULD help police locate missing people if I was convinced I had that ability (I don't think all mediums consider that a strength, although some obviously do). I would NOT solicit grieving families in order to do this, however, like some mediums do. Nor would I do it as a staged event in front of the cameras (like JVP).

I would probably NOT help identify killers, etc. because I don't think the process of ID-ing someone is 100% reliable--certainly not enough, imo, to risk wrongly implicating an innocent person. (JE says that happened to him).

I would NOT take the Challenge, because based on Randi's design of the Sylvia Test, I think it is just a PR opportunity for JREF, not a legitimate measure of mediumship. Its not science and Randi's not unbiased; I'd avoid it.

I WOULD make myself available to be tested by university researchers--but not just anyone. I'd want a thorough and respected researcher, someone familiar with parapsychology as well as being a meticulous and respected scientist and definitely skilled in conducting controlled tests of this nature and carefully documenting the results. I would look through testing requests that were offered to me, but I wouldn't go canvassing the country trying to find someone willing to do it.

I would also to look into the researcher carefully, and make sure s/he knew what they were doing. For example, I wouldn't want the same experience the mediums had with Schwartz in AZ--giving their time for the first test only to have him say that he'd screwed up and the results weren't scientifically credible after all.

I would also (I hope) regularly give readings free (and at reduced rates) for people who couldn't afford it--although figuring out how to fairly do that would be difficult, I'm sure.

BillHoyt

8th August 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by renata

In case you missed that, Neo. Looks like JE talked to the pooch after all.

Yeah, Renata. She was really glued to the screen. Didn't miss a minute of it. NOT! What a huge contradiction between her saying that she hasn't seen that whole episode of the CO and saying that JE never has the pets come through. Sounds like she's a real fan, right?

ars est celare artem

Cheers,

Loki

8th August 2003, 07:07 PM

SteveGrenard,

Does your NY trance medium fail? Are *all* readings 100% accurate? Any idea?

CFLarsen

8th August 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
No, like Steve said, not impolite at all. These threads move so quickly, its very easy to overlook a question. I appreciate you asking it again.

It is, however, not easy to overlook the many, many questions you do not answer.

Originally posted by Clancie
Me, too.

Indeed. Don't you find it especially interesting that people can still believe JE is real, when they have seen so much evidence that he is not? And that they can believe that he is real, when there is absolutely no evidence that he is?

Originally posted by Clancie
You probably already know my answer to this regarding JE. It's that he has submitted to all the scientific tests that have been asked of him, as far as any of us know.

Whoa, that's a gross distortion of the truth. JE has repeatedly made it clear that he doesn't see the need for him to be tested. And surely, you cannot call Schwartz' experiment "scientific". What was so scientific about it?

JE has a huge responsibility in this: He should be banging on the doors of scientists, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Clancie
I guess we disagree, but I don't expect him to design his tests (he's not qualified), nor hunt the country for someone he knows nothing about who could test him.

Oh? He's not "qualified"? Then how come he suggested a vital part of Schwartz' experiment?

Originally posted by Clancie
If he was turning down serious and fair researchers, I would think that was bad. But I don't know of anything like that that has been offered to him.

"Serious" and "fair" has nothing to do with it. In science, only the results count. If JE submitted to a test that was poorly designed, the researchers would be heavily critized. Oh, wait! That's what happened!!

Originally posted by Clancie
As for the cure for cancer, you could look at a doctor's patients. Are they cured by his treatment or not? In JE's case, you could look at his clients. Do they feel they've contacted deceased loved ones or not?

So, the experience is enough, no real results are needed? That means that a scam artist, in your opinion, should be allowed to sell his phony quackery, just as long as (at least some) of his customers are happy.

Amazing that you advocate selling snake oil medicine to sick people.

Originally posted by Clancie
Unfortunately, their answer to that doesn't "prove" communication has happened (unlike the easily measurable results from cancer treatments).

But a doctor can prove that the cancer is gone. That means your comparison is invalid.

Logic really isn't your big thing.

I'll let the new neo-fib slide...people have grilled her enough. It's clear that she was caught fibbin'...story of her life, it seems.

davefoc

8th August 2003, 10:59 PM

Thank you to SteveGrenard and Clancie for their responses.

A few comments:

1. Steve seems to be skeptical of JE. I didn't understand that, my error.

2. Steve said:
"I also pointed out that his attitude is that he is not interested in being a lab rat and he couldn't care less what you think or I think. And to skeptics, he has said, and I quote "Bite me." "

It is interesting that you would reference these JE statements. From my view as a skeptic, the remarks seem of no significance, as I would have expected every charlatan to say something similar. I would have noted the inherent dishonesty of them, which possibly you didn't. On one hand he says he doesn't care what you or I think and the other hand he has a television show based on convincing people that he is successfully talking to the dead. He must care what somebody thinks.

3. Steve said:
"...he did submit to some testing ..."

I wasn't aware of this. Are the reports publically available?

4. Steve said:
"...the JREF challenge which is not a scientific test..."

Here is an area where we disagree. I don't know what the basis of this statement is. But by almost any definition that I can imagine, JREF does scientific testing. Perhaps though your definition of scientific is different than mine and if I understood that we would find some common ground on this.

5. Clancie said:
"I WOULD make myself available to be tested by university researchers--but not just anyone. I'd want a thorough and respected researcher, someone familiar with parapsychology as well as being a meticulous and respected scientist and definitely skilled in conducting controlled tests of this nature and carefully documenting the results. I would look through testing requests that were offered to me, but I wouldn't go canvassing the country trying to find someone willing to do it."

A reasonable thought. The point of my question was that if that is what you would do, don't you find it strange that JE hasn't done something similar. Or perhaps he has. You seemed to have suggested that he has undergone some kind of testing. Are these reports available?

davefoc

8th August 2003, 11:36 PM

Clancie said:
As for the cure for cancer, you could look at a doctor's patients. Are they cured by his treatment or not? In JE's case, you could look at his clients. Do they feel they've contacted deceased loved ones or not?

Unfortunately, their answer to that doesn't "prove" communication has happened (unlike the easily measurable results from cancer treatments).?

I was surprised by your answer here Clancie.

It is very difficult to determine the efficacy of a treatment and a doctor that claimed a successful treatment based only on anecdotal evidence is certainly somebody to be highly suspect of. He would be routinely investigated and probably sanctioned by medical governing bodies.

As to looking at the doctor's patients and determining if they were cured, this would work if the cure was so powerful that the results were obvious and unequivocal. This is essentially never the case and detailed testing is required to determine the efficacy of any real world treatment. A doctor's self serving pronouncements of the benefits of his treatments without studies to back them up seem useless in determining the efficacy of a treatment.

Since even the JE defenders here would agree that his results are equivocal, detailed tests are required if one is to determine the ability of JE to talk to the dead. JE's own reports of successful communication with the dead or anecdotal tales of folks from uncontrolled readings are useless in assessing his abilities. This seems to be obvious to me for both the doctor and JE. I frankly don't understand why you don't agree.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 06:02 AM

Does your NY trance medium fail? Are *all* readings 100% accurate? Any idea?

Reply: I said my account was anecdotal and based on my personal experience. I met one person a few weeks ago who said she was not happy with her encounter with this medium but she didn't want to go into detail so I am not sure what that meant. I am not investigating or doing a survey of this medium except in idle conversation so I have no idea what the answer to your question is. But I have met people who were astounded by her work. Again, I do not have a valid score card upon which to base any statement other than my own experience. This experience is always given when I am asked what makes me think there is something to this, but for no other reason. And it was given for this reason in this instance.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 06:18 AM

Dave wrote: It is very difficult to determine the efficacy of a treatment and a doctor that claimed a successful treatment based only on anecdotal evidence is certainly somebody to be highly suspect of. He would be routinely investigated and probably sanctioned by medical governing bodies.

Any scientist claiming a cure for a disease like cancer can do so by publishing large series of detailed case histories in peer reviewed medical journals like JAMA, NEJM, Lancet and the BJM. Any claim of this nature that cannot withstand the rigors of peer review is properly deemed not credible.

Case histories are anecdotal by definition but if there are sufficient numbers of well documented ones they are an accepted means of documenting the results of treatment. I do not mean quacks who self-publish their results on websites, use patient testimonials and the rest of that kind of rubbish. I am talking about getting them accepted and published by mainstream medical journals which are peer reviewed. Unfortunately there is, like it or not and this may surprise many outside the field of medicine, a lot of politics and financial motives associated with such findings which tends to taint the peer review process.
This is particularly the case with non-mainstream remedies which cannot find acceptance because there are no really big bucks to be made by pharmaceutical firms which lavish unbelievable amounts of money on researchers. So I am really out to lunch on this subject and can't be sure if some advances are being ignored for this reason. Some workers in these fields have tried to establish alternative peer reviewed journals to advance their positions which are not under the thumb of pharmaceutical firms that support mainstream medical journals with ad and other money. One such example can be found at the following link
but I am neither qualified or even interested in assessing the
quality of their output. Only find it curious that it is officially ignored by mainstream medicine but is probably read carefully in back rooms by serious drug researchers:

http://www.worldscinet.com/ajcm/ajcm.shtml

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 06:21 AM

Larsen wrote: Oh? He's not "qualified"? Then how come he suggested a vital part of Schwartz' experiment?

Can you tell us please what vital part of the experiment JE "suggested"?

And also how that a single suggestion qualifies one to design an entire experiment?

Thank you.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 06:27 AM

Steve,

I don't understand your unwillingness to investigate this medium further. You, who always hammer on about the necessity of scientific experiments (even claiming to have carried out a few of your own), find a medium with a 100% score....and then leave it at that??

Doesn't that mean that you are not really interested in finding the truth, but prefer to savor the fond memories instead? As you say, it's all just idle conversation?

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Can you tell us please what vital part of the experiment JE "suggested"?

That Scwhartz used EEG.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And also how that a single suggestion qualifies one to design an entire experiment?

Who said that JE was qualified to design an entire experiment? Strawman.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Thank you.

You're welcome. Now, you can tell me: Who is qualified to design an entire experiment? And why?

Thank you.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 06:55 AM

Larsen writes:

don't understand your unwillingness to investigate this medium further. You, who always hammer on about the necessity of scientific experiments (even claiming to have carried out a few of your own), find a medium with a 100% score....and then leave it at that??

Doesn't that mean that you are not really interested in finding the truth, but prefer to savor the fond memories instead? As you say, it's all just idle conversation?

------------------------------------------------------------REPLY SEPARATORI

I woud have first appreciated an answer to my two simple questions but, sigh, sigh, I will answer your questions first.

Unwillingness you say? I am not really unwilling so much as I am too busy and I am not funded to do this. Therefore, I cannot issue an invitation to John Edward or any other medium to participate in an investigation. I am also not qualified to do this but I am a small part of a larger group, at multiple centers, that is designing experiments and plannning on doing this. The day an invitation goes out to JE or any other medium that is declined you will be told. So far you are speculating on something which has not ocurred. The decision to do what experiment with what medium is not my own. This is funded research by a recent post-doc at a major university.

In the meantime there is ongoing research being done in the U.K. Holland and elsewhere that proceeds apace. It is a slow, painstaking process that does not give the kind of unscientific, instant gratification promised by the JREF challenge.

There is also a long history of prior investigations and I gave you
three references that will require a fifty dollar outlay on your part to obtain in order to assess these for yourself.

So no, it does not mean I am not really interested in the truth.
Personal experiences are extremely important for any observer and I have conveyed these. You can take them or leave them; indeed, I am not interested in what you think about them. I furnish them for those who ask me a specific question (see above). You have been given the advice to seek some of your own, even an offer of a prepaid ticket to see a medium in Calfiornia when you used to live in NY. You made quick work of shredding that offer so we know you are the one who is really not interested in truth, personal or otherwise.

Now, can you respond to my questions? Thank you.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 06:58 AM

Steve,

You're too....busy?? You are standing (potentially) in front of one of the biggest discoveries of all time, and you are too...busy??

Does this everlasting ongoing research ever result in anything?

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 07:00 AM

Unfortunatey I have to make a living,. Will you pay my salary for the next three years to do this? I will get un-busy very quick, Otherwise I will be living in a box in front of a church somewhere.

Are you for real? Or are you all b.s.? And where are the answers to my questions sonny? Your answers as given were insufficient and evasive. You said JE was qualified to design a vital part of the experiment? What was vital about using EEG in this experiment? Do you know?

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Unfortunatey I have to make a living,. Will you pay my salary for the next three years to do this? I will get un-busy very quick, Otherwise I will be living in a box in front of a church somewhere.

Well, then, have you alerted the psychic researchers about this fantastic, awesome, incredibly precise medium?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Are you for real? Or are you all b.s.? And where are the answers to my questions sonny?

Scroll up. It the pace is too fast for you, just say so.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 07:08 AM

Larsen: Does this everlasting ongoing research ever result in anything?

Rhetorical question but it does have an answer. Visit the various websites where the published results and/or abstracts of Robinson and Roy, Blackmore, Wiseman, Schwartz, Parker and other parpsychological research are published. Visit the JSPR website.

Yes, it results in results which are then published so that others can assess the findings and make up their own minds including, for some unknown reason, yourself. I gave you three references of the results of many many decades of research but you ignore it, now for the fourth or fifth time. So for you, it results in nothing because you wish to ignore answers that fail to confirm your personal biases.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 07:09 AM

Larsen: Well, then, have you alerted the psychic researchers about this fantastic, awesome, incredibly precise medium?

Yes.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 07:21 AM

Steve,

Who among the psychic researchers have you alerted?

You "forgot" this one:

Who is qualified to design an entire experiment? And why?

Just say the word, if you need for this to slow down.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 07:37 AM

Larsen: Who among the psychic researchers have you alerted?

I have alerted everyone here who reads this forum. Thousands of people? I dont know. I have given the mediums name three or four times here. I have alerted the 35 members of the medium testing group, a multi-centered colloqium of parapsychological researchers including Robinson, Roy, Schwartz, Keen, Beischel, Waldron, Watson, and some two dozen others you don't know and never heard of.

Larsen: Who is qualified to design an entire experiment? And why?

No one person and certainly not the lab rat himself (JE) as you assert which is why I have asked for and gotten many good ideas for a design here and passed them along to the group.
There was nothing vital about JE's suggestion to include EEG in this demonstration but it was something that interested JE and Schwartz accomodated him. Some day I hope to look at all the tracings myself. If you wish to pay my salary for a few weeks and buy me a ticket to Tucson I could do that for you. In the meantime I suggest you don't make demands unless you intend to fund them. Maybe Randi would pay for my trip west since he didnt want to go himself when he had the chance and he didnt want his referees to go either. I would need a RT ticket, boarding for my dogs, hotel and meals and two weeks salary. The whole thing might cost him six or seven thousand.

I will tell you why EEG may be of some side interest to this work.
For me, in a mediumship demonstration in the lab it is only of interest since it will prove what stage of sleep or whether a medium is awake when they appear to be in a trance. I personally do not buy into the synchronicity between ECG and EEG between two persons or its lack thereof as evidence of anything but I could be wrong. This is what JE was seeking and it may have been his special request because it is a question which was nagging at him. That's it. In other experiments, spectral analysis and ERPs (event related potentials) may be revealed by EEG in highly structured experiments involving the testing of precognition with ERPs showing up in the EEG a few hundred milliseconds before the target stimulus is presented and not show up when the target is not presented.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have alerted everyone here who reads this forum. Thousands of people? I dont know. I have given the mediums name three or four times here. I have alerted the 35 members of the medium testing group, a multi-centered colloqium of parapsychological researchers including Robinson, Roy, Schwartz, Keen, Beischel, Waldron, Watson, and some two dozen others you don't know and never heard of.

Your standard answer, then. How can you be sure they read your post??? Do you really think you are that important?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No one person and certainly not the lab rat himself (JE) as you assert which is why I have asked for and gotten many good ideas for a design here and passed them along to the group.

No one person is qualified? Great, Steve!! So, Schwartz, Roy, even you are not qualified to do this kind of research. Nice to get that clarified!

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There was nothing vital about JE's suggestion to include EEG in this demonstration but it was something that interested JE and Schwartz accomodated him. Some day I hope to look at all the tracings myself. If you wish to pay my salary for a few weeks and buy me a ticket to Tucson I could do that for you. In the meantime I suggest you don't make demands unless you intend to fund them.

Perhaps you shouldn't, either, then....:rolleyes:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will tell you why EEG may be of some side interest to this work.
For me, in a mediumship demonstration in the lab it is only of interest since it will prove what stage of sleep or whether a medium is awake when they appear to be in a trance. I personally do not buy into the synchronicity between ECG and EEG between two persons or its lack thereof as evidence of anything but I could be wrong. This is what JE was seeking and it may have been his special request because it is a question which was nagging at him. That's it. In other experiments, spectral analysis and ERPs (event related potentials) may be revealed by EEG in highly structured experiments involving the testing of precognition with ERPs showing up in the EEG a few hundred milliseconds before the target stimulus is presented and not show up when the target is not presented.

Was there any difference between JE doing readings and JE not doing readings, EEG-wise?

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 08:24 AM

JE was not the only medium tested with this. The results across all the mediums for the ECG and EEG part of the study can be found in the following paper:

http://www.survivalscience.org/schwartz/frame1.htm

There is an indexed sidebar created by Pam Blizzard to help people navigate this paper. You can scroll down to and click on Appendix A for the ECG and EEG results. This paper was
published previously in the JSPR and was peer reviewed prior to that.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 08:38 AM

Davefoc:Thank you to SteveGrenard and Clancie for their responses.

You're welcome.

DF: It is interesting that you would reference these JE statements. From my view as a skeptic, the remarks seem of no significance, as I would have expected every charlatan to say something similar. I would have noted the inherent dishonesty of them, which possibly you didn't. On one hand he says he doesn't care what you or I think and the other hand he has a television show based on convincing people that he is successfully talking to the dead. He must care what somebody thinks.

reply: To be fair, JE said these things in response to accusations by Randi and Jaroff, who are joined at the hip as Jaroff used unsubstantiated information supplied by Randi to blast JE in a TIME opinion piece. He does not say this to all serious investigators and scientists. There was a highly speciifc circumstance that elicited this reaction from JE.

Davefoc: I wasn't aware of this. Are the reports publically available?

Reply: http://www.survivalscience.org/schwartz/frame1.htm

Davefoc: Here is an area where we disagree. I don't know what the basis of this statement is. But by almost any definition that I can imagine, JREF does scientific testing. Perhaps though your definition of scientific is different than mine and if I understood that we would find some common ground on this.

Reply: Randifans and Randi-type skeptics have repeatedly said that Randi is a magician and self-confessed charlatan and that it takes one to know one and this is how they justify the JREF challenge. Randi is not a scientist and his test is not scientific. It follows no scientific methods but his designed on a case by case basis by Randi. The only taker he had recently and apparently still has is some Russian child in Brooklyn who claims she can read blindfolded. This is certainly worthy of debunking if she is faking.
When the "claims" are more complex he becomes mired down
in these complexities and then, as he demonstrated in various
mediumship experiments, backs out.

He no longer allows results which need to be interpreted statistically or in light of the evidence. Randi is basically a debunker and when something is debunkable he does an admirable job. Everything is black and white with him but
science at this stage of the game doesn't work that way. If
it did, as stated elsewhere, astrophysicists and quantum
physicists would all be driving taxis and that would include,
if they were still with us, Einstein, Bohr, and others. And
don't think Einstein, Bohr et al didnt have their Randi's to contend with in their day either.

BillHoyt

9th August 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
JE was not the only medium tested with this. The results across all the mediums for the ECG and EEG part of the study can be found in the following paper:

http://www.survivalscience.org/schwartz/frame1.htm

See Wiseman & Okeefe's critique (http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html).

Cheers,

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
JE was not the only medium tested with this. The results across all the mediums for the ECG and EEG part of the study can be found in the following paper:

http://www.survivalscience.org/schwartz/frame1.htm
Appendix A:

"The EEG findings can be summarized briefly. Only the medium's EEG was analyzed."

Then, why did the sitters wear EEG headgear? There is nothing in the paper that indicates that EEG is influenced during a reading.

Can we surmise that this is not a brain phenomenon, as claimed by neofight? If it was a brain phenomenon, shouldn't it show in the EEGs?

BillHoyt

9th August 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Everything is black and white with him but
science at this stage of the game doesn't work that way. If
it did, as stated elsewhere, astrophysicists and quantum
physicists would all be driving taxis and that would include,
if they were still with us, Einstein, Bohr, and others. And
don't think Einstein, Bohr et al didnt have their Randi's to contend with in their day either.
R E A L L Y!

You are always so utterly fascinating and so utterly full of pap. Please provide us the evidence for this outlandish claim:
"science at this stage of the game doesn't work [in black and white]"

Fascinating! So falsifiability is out the door? Wow! I must have missed class that day. Do tell.

Please provide us evidence for this outlandish claim:
"Einstein [had his] Randi's to contend with in their day."
Please cite the attempts to debunk Einstein and what, specifically they were trying to debunk.

Please provide us evidence for this outlandish claim:
"Bohr [had his] Randi's to contend with in their day."
Please cite the attempts to debunk Bohr and what, specifically they were trying to debunk.

Careful where you go with your answers, Steve. There is really only one rational response to salvage this poppycock, but I warn you: if you are foolish enough to take the available avenue, it will bite you. Your best move is to back down from this nonsense.

Cheers,

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 08:50 AM

Then, why did the sitters wear EEG headgear? There is nothing in the paper that indicates that EEG is influenced during a reading.

Can we surmise that this is not a brain phenomenon, as claimed by neofight? If it was a brain phenomenon, shouldn't it show in the EEGs?

Reply: Which is exactly why some day when I have the time and funds, I said I would like to examine all of these tracings myself. You impute I may not be qualified to do this. I have been reading EEGs for 35 years, and more intensely for the past 7 so I hope I have enough experience to do exactly that. I am also installing a NEW program on my own equipment which will enable me to receive these tracings data from Schwartz on CD and transfer it so I can read and analyze it locally using EDF and without having to have his specific program on my site. This upgrade will happen within the next month. If he will send me the tracings this way maybe I don't have to go to Arizona. We'll see. Think of all the money you will save.

BillHoyt

9th August 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Appendix A:

"The EEG findings can be summarized briefly. Only the medium's EEG was analyzed."

Then, why did the sitters wear EEG headgear? There is nothing in the paper that indicates that EEG is influenced during a reading.

Can we surmise that this is not a brain phenomenon, as claimed by neofight? If it was a brain phenomenon, shouldn't it show in the EEGs?

Bad boy, Claus! Naughty. Do you actually think Steve would post a paper he either didn't read or didn't remember correctly? Bad boy.

Cheers,

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 08:54 AM

Hoyt and this is the only answer I will give you since I already justified it with the same comments:

Consider the RANDI Challenge in the arena of astrophysics and quantum physics and then get back to me. Consider your answer very carefully yourself .........I might add. Think real hard about this. Clue: give me a means to falsify black holes?

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Which is exactly why some day when I have the time and funds, I said I would like to examine all of these tracings myself. You impute I may not be qualified to do this. I have been reading EEGs for 35 years, and more intensely for the past 7 so I hope I have enough experience to do exactly that.

But nothing came out of this, right? There is no connection between EEG and psychic ability.

That's pretty important, me thinks. Don't you???

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am also installing a NEW program on my own equipment which will enable me to received the data from Schwartz on CD and transfer it so I can read and analyze it locally using EDF and without having to have his specific program on my site. This upgrade will happen within the next month. If he will send me the tracings this way maybe I don't have to go to Arizona. We'll see.

Wait a second....how come you can have the data sent to you, but not Randi?? Can I get a copy, Steve??

Darat

9th August 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hoyt and this is the only answer I will give you since I already justified it with the same comments:

Consider the RANDI Challenge in the arena of astrophysics and quantum physics and then get back to me. Consider your answer very carefully yourself .........I might add. Think real hard about this. Clue: give me a means to falsify black holes?

Completly irrelevant and I can't find any reasonable explanation for why you would persue this line of debate when you are ignoring the comments by Claus & BillHoyt about the experiemnts you had been discussing.

Why not respond to the comments they have made about the expereiments etc.?

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 09:39 AM

C:But nothing came out of this, right? There is no connection between EEG and psychic ability. That's pretty important, me thinks. Don't you???

Reply: Yes, I do. I think that the findings were very significant but I still would like to have the chance to review them myself. Its a credit to Schwartz as an honest reporter to set forth the objectives of this part of the experiment and the actual results and I did read the paper. I never said Schwartz found anything significant. But by doing so we have less speculation, don't we?
Schwartz had the equipment, JE saw this and suggested this to Schwartz without knowing what the results would be. It was something he was interested in.

I explained to you that I have a different take on using EEG. I am interested in using EEG to determine if a deep trance medium is alseep and if so in what stage of sleep? If they were awake, conscious and not in the relaxed meditative state they claim, I would have a serious problem with their veracity and the veracity of their claim. If they were asleep, in a depeer stage of sleep, and speaking coherently, it would help to validate their claim.

CL: Wait a second....how come you can have the data sent to you, but not Randi?? Can I get a copy, Steve??

Reply: I didn't say all the data. I said with my new program we can transfer ECG and EEG tracings between multiple sites using an improved, more error free version of the European Data Format
as the format used to export the data. This only was developed within a year or so and was beta tested only within the past few months. EDF prior to this caused many errors and somewhere along the line would corrupt whole chunks of tracings converted to digital signals. The data will be encoded on CD. You would need to take it to a lab with software that can read it. I will be getting such software as part of a major clinical upgrade. If you think you can find someone that is willing and capable of downloading the tracings and is qualified to look at them (which should be no problem really), I can easily make you a copy of that CD if and when I get it and I have permission to do that. I will let you know. I have no idea what Randi could do with this information. Since this was not a VITAL part of the study I do not know what purpose it would serve but I am always open to having more people render an opinion and would be grateful for such input if you can get it on this aspect alone.

Randi could not have gotten any wave form data before because it was not exportable in an error free format. He severed contact and dialogue with Schwartz before this was even discussed. He made a demand: pack up everything and send it to him im Florida. Reply: No, you come here and agree to some restrictions. And then there were subject names on the data as well which needed to be protected. He didn't want to discuss the details even though the devil is in those. Randi is the epitome of a black and white sort of guy and I understand that. This work cannot be reduced to that. If one of the sitter's EEG showed something amiss or the ECG showed a heart condition, there is a real problem allowing Randi or anyone having this information. What I would do with the new system is to omit sitter and hence medium names (linked to those sitters publicly already; also medical info re the mediums is similarly protected ) to mask this data from becoming public knowledge. Hence the data can never be pinned on one sitter or one particular medium and would have to be used in a general way.

I am bound by confidentiality laws already. Randi is not and, in fact, refused to be. I would need you and Randi to sign a confidentiality agreement, breech of which now makes you liable to 10 years in prison and a quarter of a million dollar fine if found guilty of violating it. If you or Randi are willing to sign that I have no problem sharing this wave form data with you and your researcher(s) who also need to sign if and when I get it and have permission to do so. I would have to investigate whether being overseas is an impediment as I dont have that kind of information and what your country's extradition laws are should a violation cause you to be charged.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 09:48 AM

Darat: Why not respond to the comments they have made about the expereiments etc.?

Side issue. The JREF challenge is NOT scientific and why. Thanks anyway for your input. In case you missed it i was brought up by Davefoc. Hoyt injected himself into it. I was answering Dave.
What else is new around here? You are doing the same thing.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Yes, I do. I think that the findings were very significant but I still would like to have the chance to review them myself. Its a credit to Schwartz as an honest reporter to set forth the objectives of this part of the experiment and the actual results and I did read the paper. I never said Schwartz found anything significant. But by doing so we have less speculation, don't we?

I didn't claim you said that, Steve. Stop obfuscating.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Schwartz had the equipment, JE saw this and suggested this to Schwartz without knowing what the results would be. It was something he was interested in.

And it turned out to be nothing.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I explained to you that I have a different take on using EEG. I am interested in using EEG to determine if a deep trance medium is alseep and if so in what stage of sleep? If they were awake, conscious, then I would have serious dobut about them feigning a hypnotic or sleep state. You can't fake sleep if you are wired to an EEG. My hypothesis would be that if they were in Stage 2, 3 or 4 sleep and were speaking as coherently as they appear to be then there is evidence of a paranormal explanation.

What do you need Schwartz' data for, then? Neither medium was in a trance.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I didn't say all the data.

I didn't claim you said that, Steve! Stop this incessant game.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I said with my new program we can transfer ECG and EEG tracings between multiple sites using an improved, more error free version of the European Data Format as the format used to export the data. This only was developed within a year or so and was beta tested only within the past few months. EDF prior to this caused many errors and somewhere along the line would corrupt whole chunks of tracings converted to digital signals. The data will be encoded on CD. You would need to take it to a lab with software that can read it. I will be getting such software as part of a major clinical upgrade. If you think you can find someone that is willing and capable of downloading the tracings and is qualified to look at them (which should be no problem really), I can easily make you a copy of that CD if and when I get it and I have permission to do that. I will let you know. I have no idea what Randi could do with this information. Since this was not a VITAL part of the study I do not know what purpose it would serve but I am always open to having more people render an opinion and would be grateful for such input if you can get it on this aspect alone.

So, there is no reason for Schwartz not to start shipping the data to Randi, then. Excellent. Has Schwartz informed Randi of this, have you, or should I?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Randi could not have gotten any wave form data before because it was not exportable in an error free format.

Now you are fibbing, Steve. You and I went through your shifting explanations until we ended up with the legal ones: That the data couldn't leave the university. Now, it can.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He severed contact and dialogue with Schwartz before this was even discussed. He made a demand: pack up everything and send it to him im Florida. Reply: No, you come here and agree to some restrictions.

Yeah, let's hear those restrictions again.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And then there were subject names on the data as well which needed to be protected.

We know the identity of all the sitters who are commented on in Schwartz' book, except the "Pretty in Pink" one, which is - incidentally - odd, since this hit was described as "poignant" by Schwartz, as well as being one of his favorites.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He didn't want to discuss the details even though the devil is in those. Randi is the epitome of a black and white sort of guy and I understand that. This work cannot be reduced to that.

That's exactly what Schwartz is trying to do, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If one of the sitter's EEG showed something amiss or the ECG showed a heart condition, there is a real problem allowing Randi or anyone having this information.

But was there? Schwartz would have to know this, in order to read the data correctly. He mentions nothing of this sort. And don't forget that only the mediums' EEG were investigated.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What I would do with the new system is to omit sitter and hence medium names (linked to those sitters publicly already; also medical info re the mediums is similarly protected ) to mask this data from becoming public knowledge. Hence the data can never be pinned on one sitter or one particular medium and would have to be used in a general way.

Of course, published, too. When? "Soon"??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am bound by confidentiality laws already. Randi is not and, in fact, refused to be. I would need you and Randi to sign a confidentiality agreement, breech of which now makes you liable to 10 years in prison and a quarter of a million dollar fine if found guilty of violating it. If you or Randi are willing to sign that I have no problem sharing this wave form data with you and your researcher(s) who also need to sign if and when I get it and have permission to do so. I would have to investigate whether being overseas is an impediment as I dont have that kind of information and what your country's extradition laws are should a violation cause you to be charged.

You don't scare me one little bit. Let's see the confidentiality agreement, Steve. You can start scanning the one you signed.

davefoc

9th August 2003, 11:48 AM

I came late to this and was unaware of the Schwartz report until SteveGrenard posted the link. Thank you.

I understand, a little bit better how this has gone on so long. I am sure that most of the things I would like to say at this point have been said, so I will attempt to make my comments brief.

On the testing: This report goes right to the heart of the difference between a skeptics view of the world and a non-skeptics view of the world. This testing was of essentially no informative value at all to this skeptic at least.

The key question that one is trying to determine the answer to with regard to talk to the dead mediums is whether the medium can obtain information from the sitter or a dead person in a way that is unexplainable by standard natural laws. So a simple and obvious requirement of any such testing is to prevent information leaks between the sitter and the medium that have known natural law explanations. At a minimum this would suggest that the medium not be allowed to see the sitter and that there be no verbal communication between sitter and medium which can impart lots of difficult to exclude opportunities for information exchange, like the pitch, amplitude, steadiness and amplitude of the answer.

The fact that verbal communication wasn't excluded is a pretty damning suggestion that the people setting up these tests were not trying to scientifically prove anything or were not qualified to do so if they were trying. It is then followed up by the bogus technique of asking the control group reformulated and more difficult questions and using this as a basis to decide that the mediums were more successful than the control group. And then to cap it off no data is published. Nice.

On Einstein:
Great example, sort of. Yes Einstein's theories had and have their detractors. But what a difference. Einstein created theories to explain the Michelson-Morley results that suggested the constancy of the speed of light. The MM tests were well documented and have been repeated many times. Einstein went on as a result of those tests and his theorizing to make testable predictions about the world that he thought followed from the constancy of the speed of light.

Those theories were documented and could be scrutinized by anybody willing to put in the effort. There are many well documented and independently done tests of the predictions of the theory with published data. Never once, was anything that Einstein did based on anything as shaky as the "science" that supports the notion that the talk to the dead folks aren't just plain charlatans.

renata

9th August 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am bound by confidentiality laws already. Randi is not and, in fact, refused to be. I would need you and Randi to sign a confidentiality agreement, breech of which now makes you liable to 10 years in prison and a quarter of a million dollar fine if found guilty of violating it. If you or Randi are willing to sign that I have no problem sharing this wave form data with you and your researcher(s) who also need to sign if and when I get it and have permission to do so. I would have to investigate whether being overseas is an impediment as I dont have that kind of information and what your country's extradition laws are should a violation cause you to be charged.

Emphasis mine above.

Steve, I am not familiar with civil law in NY or Arizona. However, I highly doubt that breach of a confidentiality agreement that threatens 10 years in prison time could be enforceable. I strongly suggest you have a lawyer look at it.

Clancie

9th August 2003, 11:57 AM

davefoc,

Schwartz (professor at University of Arizona) also wrote a book about his mediumship experiments, "The Afterlife Experiments". I actually have a second copy of it (don't ask!). If you'd like to have it and have a mailing address let me know and I'd be glad to send it to you. Its not doing me any good.

Even many believers feel Dr. Schwartz's experiments were flawed, while giving him credit for being a pioneer at this time for looking into it in the first place.

The point is: Schwartz is the only scientist we know of who has actually designed an experiment and asked for JE's participation.

And JE did participate in Schwartz's experiments (5 of them in all).

So the criticism that "JE doesn't let himself be scientifically tested" always annoys me a bit. The only scientist we know of who has actually asked him is Schwartz and JE did accept and let himself be tested on five different occasions, with five different test protocols.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 12:02 PM

Clancie,

You cannot possibly call the Arizona Experiments "scientific". Sure, JE was tested by a scientist. But the test itself was anything but scientific.

Ergo, JE has NOT been tested scientifically. That's an important point to make.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 12:08 PM

R: Steve, I am not familiar with civil law in NY or Arizona. However, I highly doubt that breach of a confidentiality agreement that threatens 10 years in prison time could be enforceable. I strongly suggest you have a lawyer look at it.

We have the standard verbiage through our instituion and in everything we do. Every employee of every hospital in the U.S.
had to receive training in this and sign such agreements before
April 14, 2003. This law was not in effect when Schwartz' experiments were done but it supercedes NY and Arizona law
now and it applies to all such data, even data collected but not disclosed before the law went into effect on April 14th. Check out the acronym HIPAA for more information. I myself had separate training under Protection of Human Subjects in Experimental
Trials under the National Institutes of Health which was mandated in a weaker version that involved other protections in addition to privacy concerns. All persons working in institutions receiving any type of Federal funds whatsoever are required to
have this. A transfer of data from a person who is so constrained to one who is not is a primie facie violation of the act. Therefore, in order to protect my butt, anyone I give the data to must sign on the dotted line. Then if they release it to someone not bound, it becomes their problem and not mine.

Yup you can doubt the decade behind bars if you want to or the humongous fine but they are real under HIPAA I assure you. We joke now about two prisoners talking:

"What are you in for?" ....

"Releasing someone's X-rays without authorization."

Our in house counsel is very up on this and very strict about disclosures and paperwork permitting same. The same is no doubt true of the University of Arziona and anywhere else getting federal funds and doing experiments on humans or testing and treating humans for medical conditions.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 12:10 PM

Larsen: You cannot possibly call the Arizona Experiments "scientific". Sure, JE was tested by a scientist. But the test itself was anything but scientific.

Larsen: Ergo, JE has NOT been tested scientifically. That's an important point to make.

PLEASE don't state opinion as fact. Thank you.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 12:11 PM

Steve,

Just give me the friggin' form to sign, OK?

renata

9th August 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
R: Steve, I am not familiar with civil law in NY or Arizona. However, I highly doubt that breach of a confidentiality agreement that threatens 10 years in prison time could be enforceable. I strongly suggest you have a lawyer look at it.

We have the standard verbiage through our instituion and in everything we do. Every employee of every hospital in the U.S.
had to receive training in this and sign such agreements before
April 14, 2003. This law was not in effect when Schwartz' experiments were done but it supercedes NY and Arizona law
now and it applies to all such data, even data collected but not disclosed before the law went into effect on April 14th. Check out the acronym HIPAA for more information. I myself had separate training under Protection of Human Subjects in Experimental
Trials under the National Institutes of Health which was mandated in a weaker version that involved other protections in addition to privacy concerns. All persons working in institutions receiving any type of Federal funds whatsoever are required to
have this. A transfer of data from a person who is so constrained to one who is not is a primie facie violation of the act. Therefore, in order to protect my butt, anyone I give the data to must sign on the dotted line. Then if they release it to someone not bound, it becomes their problem and not mine.

Our in house counsel is very up on this and very strict about disclosures and paperwork permitting same. The same is no doubt true of the University of Arziona and anywhere else getting federal funds and doing experiments on humans or testing and treating humans for medical conditions.

I see. Can you scan in the agreement, especially the part about 10 year prison term for breach of confidentiality?

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 12:20 PM

I see. Can you scan in the agreement, especially the part about 10 year prison term for breach of confidentiality?

__________________

You can find the law and penalties for violating it by looking up HIPAA on the web. I do not have a scanned copy of the forms at home nor polciies, procedures and regs at home so will be happy to privately e-mail to anyone next week as I probably have digital copies on diskette in the lab where I am not. Sample agreements are probably also on the web. I cannot take data out of the lab as this is also a violation without paperwork so I don't. Employees have been fired for this.

Claus: I don't see any point in having you sign anything yet until after the upgrade is complete and Schwartz agrees to give me the EEG and ECG data as discussed above and also agrees for me to send it to Denmark so an independent researcher can look at it as well. I am happy to have independent evaluation of anything I might end up doing with it and I don't know yet as I have not seen it. This upgrade that would enable this will be complete by the end of August so we are looking at the middle of September earliest. This would give you time to find someone to download it and enable reading of it. I suggest any neurophysiology department, sleep lab or EEG department that is
digitized and can convert EDF files. They would have to agree to sign as well.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
PLEASE don't state opinion as fact. Thank you.

It's a fact, Steve. Schwartz designed and performed an experiment that was so full of flaws and errors that it is embarrassing to observe.

And what did he get out of it, despite these flaws and errors?

Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Not one single piece of evidence of an afterlife.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 12:25 PM

Steve,

Just scan it, then. For now.

You do have the form, don't you.....???

renata

9th August 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I see. Can you scan in the agreement, especially the part about 10 year prison term for breach of confidentiality?

__________________

You can find the law and penalties for violating it by looking up HIPAA on the web. I do not have a scanned copy of the forms at home nor polciies, procedures and regs at home so will be happy to privately e-mail to anyone next week as I probably have digital copies on diskette in the lab where I am not. Sample agreements are probably also on the web. I cannot take data out of the lab as this is also a violation without paperwork so I don't. Employees have been fired for this.

Please do scan it in next week. I am really interested in reading it. When you said you would have Claus and Randi sign the agreements, I assumed you were talking about a standard confidentiality agreement, this is now federal guidelines violations- different things. I am not asking you to take data out of the lab- simply show the agreement you asked Claus and Randi to sign.

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 12:34 PM

These WOULD be the agreements Randi, his staff and referees would have been asked to sign if such data was released to them. But this point was never reached. Before this, Randi has backed out of any further involvement with this data. He did this categorically and without doubt. These are agreements that Claus and his consulatnts and anyone made privy to the information would be asked to sign. Randi was asked to agree to such restrictions and refused to be b ound by those kinds of constraints. He ended all dialogue with Schwartz on this and said so very loudly and very publicly citing this as the reason.

I do not need to scan them because they exist in digital form but I do not have them at home.

Yes, these are U.S. Federal Law, violation of which can carry imposing penalties such as those mentioned.

CFLarsen

9th August 2003, 12:43 PM

Monday, then, Steve. We need to see those forms.

Iamme

9th August 2003, 04:49 PM

How's THIS one: A lady is being read by JE on Crossing over. Out of the blue, he asks why he is getting Ft. Lauderdale or Aventura, Florida. Now, previously in the reading it was acknowledged that the sitters mother lived I believe on the WEST coast of Florida. Yet JE mentions the two cities on the east coast that he did and guess what? The sitter said she was moving to Aventura, in about one month! (And the sitter lives in some other far away state!) Aventura of all places. If JE wanted to even take a stab at Florida cities..why not Miami, or Tampa, or Sarasota, or Naples, or Palm Beach' or Orlando. Ft. Lauderdale...yes, too. But to include some odd town (near Ft. Lauderdale, like this) and it turns out that that is where the sitter was going to be moving to is either, well...JE IS psychic, or a charlatan. I don't think there is any inbetween. As of late, I am leaning toward the latter.

In readings on the show, JE will ask the sitter a question. Then the sitter agrees to the validity of it. So then JE will say, "Yes...because they were showing me (blah blah)" An example recently posted by a poster on the JE board posted part of a transcript where JE asked the sitter about the significance of November. The sitter said that that was her birthday! Then JE follows and says something to the effect that the departed soul said yes, and was wishing her (the sitter ) a happy birthday. Hmmmm. Why doesn't JE just come right out with what the spirit is telling and showing him right off the bat. Why didn't JE FIRST say, "I am being told that someone has a birthday. And I also get the feeling that November has a special significance. Could it possibly BE that you have a birthday in November?" But nooooo. The readings are never done THIS way. JVP (James van Praagh pulls the same thing. He will follow up a sitters validation by saying, "Yes...because they were telling/showing me". Ya...right.:wink8:

Clancie

9th August 2003, 04:59 PM

Posted by Iamme

An example recently posted by a poster on the JE board posted part of a transcript where JE asked the sitter about the significance of November. The sitter said that that was her birthday!
Ummm....which "JE board" and thread is that, Iamme?

Instig8R

9th August 2003, 05:09 PM

The following is an excerpt from a CO transcript posted by neo (about a year and a half ago) over at TVTalkshows:

"John: ...Does not care about the whole cigarette thing. My feeling is like, its his torch. He loves it, you know what I'm saying? (Yep) It's like, it's an enjoyment kind of a thing. You you have a child that's getting married?"

Man: She just got married.

John: Okay, he wants me to tell you he was at the wedding. He's acknowleging the wedding. (Okay)"

This is typical of the manner in which JE gives readings: First a question from JE, then an answer from the sitter, followed up with JE pretending the info emanated from him, by saying: "Yes, because they're telling me..."

SteveGrenard

9th August 2003, 06:56 PM

Fines and Civil Monetary Penalties

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIPAA is enforced by the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d-5, 1320d-6

HIPAA provides severe civil and criminal penalties for violations:

Fines of up to $250,000

Up to ten years in prison

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a violation of section 1176 of HIPAA, HHS can impose civil monetary penalties on a covered entity that violated the Amended Privacy Rule. See Part C of Title 11 of the Act. The penalty is $100 per knowing failure to comply with a requirement of the Amended Privacy Rule. That penalty may not exceed $25,000 per year for multiple violations of the identical requirement of the Amended Privacy Rule.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The procedural provisions in section 1128A of the Social Security Act Civil Monetary Penalties are applicable to the imposition of the penalties. The Act also establishes penalties for any person who normally misuses the unique health identifier or obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of this part.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Misuse of individually identifiable health information carries potential criminal penalties. HIPAA provides that a "person who knowingly ... obtains individually identifiable health information" or "discloses individually identifiable health information to another person" in violation of HIPAA faces a fine of $50,000 and up to 1 year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to 5 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison if the wrongful conduct involves the "intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIPAA Privacy regulations not only govern entities that have direct access to patient protected health information (i.e., the "covered entities"), but they also indirectly govern the "business associates," which receive protected health information from the covered entities. The HIPAA Privacy Rule requires the discloser and the recipient of the patient information to enter into written agreements under which, among other things, the business associate will protect the patient information, provide access to the patient information, and cooperate with the covered entity in responding to audit and other investigations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The law provides no private cause of action for patients who wish to sue under the act. They must bring their request to the Office of Civil Rights, which will conduct an investigation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resources:

Hayman, Dissecting A Health Care Fraud Investigation, 1129 PLI/Corp 223- 244 (June 1999).

Faddick, Health Care Fraud and Abuse: New Weapons, New Penalties, and New Fears for Providers Created by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 6 Annals Health Law 77-103 (1997).

PLI, Department of Health and Human Services Documents, 1111 PLI/Corp 429-865 (1999); PLI Order No. B0-009J, (April, 1999).

Meador, Health Care Fraud and Abuse, 1175 PLI/Corp 21-80; PLI Order No. B0-00IUL (May 1-2, 2000).

Teplitzky, Medicare and Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Issues, 741 PLI/Comm 397-431, PLI Order No. A4-4502 (1996).

Rovner, Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control after HIPAA, 9 No. 6 Health Law 17-23 (1997).

9th August 2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Iamme
How's THIS one: A lady is being read by JE on Crossing over. Out of the blue, he asks why he is getting Ft. Lauderdale or Aventura, Florida. Now, previously in the reading it was acknowledged that the sitters mother lived I believe on the WEST coast of Florida. Yet JE mentions the two cities on the east coast that he did and guess what? The sitter said she was moving to Aventura, in about one month! (And the sitter lives in some other far away state!) Aventura of all places. If JE wanted to even take a stab at Florida cities..why not Miami, or Tampa, or Sarasota, or Naples, or Palm Beach' or Orlando. Ft. Lauderdale...yes, too. But to include some odd town (near Ft. Lauderdale, like this) and it turns out that that is where the sitter was going to be moving to is either, well...JE IS psychic, or a charlatan. I don't think there is any inbetween. As of late, I am leaning toward the latter.

In readings on the show, JE will ask the sitter a question. Then the sitter agrees to the validity of it. So then JE will say, "Yes...because they were showing me (blah blah)" An example recently posted by a poster on the JE board posted part of a transcript where JE asked the sitter about the significance of November. The sitter said that that was her birthday! Then JE follows and says something to the effect that the departed soul said yes, and was wishing her (the sitter ) a happy birthday. Hmmmm. Why doesn't JE just come right out with what the spirit is telling and showing him right off the bat. Why didn't JE FIRST say, "I am being told that someone has a birthday. And I also get the feeling that November has a special significance. Could it possibly BE that you have a birthday in November?" But nooooo. The readings are never done THIS way. JVP (James van Praagh pulls the same thing. He will follow up a sitters validation by saying, "Yes...because they were telling/showing me". Ya...right.:wink8:

Welcome back, Phelps!;)

9th August 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R
The following is an excerpt from a CO transcript posted by neo (about a year and a half ago) over at TVTalkshows:

"John: ...Does not care about the whole cigarette thing. My feeling is like, its his torch. He loves it, you know what I'm saying? (Yep) It's like, it's an enjoyment kind of a thing. You you have a child that's getting married?"

Man: She just got married.

John: Okay, he wants me to tell you he was at the wedding. He's acknowleging the wedding. (Okay)"

This is typical of the manner in which JE gives readings: First a question from JE, then an answer from the sitter, followed up with JE pretending the info emanated from him, by saying: "Yes, because they're telling me..."

Hi g8r, I wonder why JE doesn't just say what he's "seeing" or "hearing" instead of asking these questions. I wonder what "symbol" he is "seeing" that would lead him to ask "you have a child that's getting married"? If he would just call out the images he gets or whatever he "hears" then it would look a lot less like guesswork and cold reading, wouldn't it?

Instig8R

9th August 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by RC

Hi g8r, I wonder why JE doesn't just say what he's "seeing" or "hearing" instead of asking these questions.

Hi, RC-- If JE doesn't ask questions of the sitters, he can't rephrase the information and feed it back for validation!

I have learned that although JE claims to be psychic-medium, his main talent is his hindsight. People have to tell him things before he can know them, and things have to happen before he can predict them. This is difficult when one is a psychic! Remember how he failed to predict the 9/11 terrorist attacks when he was on LKL the night before? Then, he wrote the new chapter ("Postscript") to his book, listing all the premonitions that he had about 9/11... even though he neglected to mention them to anyone before it happened.

I'll bet he can predict the winning lottery numbers, too... after they're selected. :)

Loki

9th August 2003, 09:39 PM

Instig8r,

...his main talent is his hindsight.
I believe it's known as "clairhindsight".

I'll bet he can predict the winning lottery numbers, too... after they're selected.
Any data to back up this claim, or do you just expect me to accept it? :)

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

If you want to make a case out of the fact that water breaks and powdering JE's nose is not broadcast you go ahead and argue this. You make yourself into a bigger idiot than I thought. The sponsors are not paying JE to broadcast this and it has nothing to do with the readings.

I doubt that the sponsors are paying for JE flops and misses, so those would be editted out as well. It's just not entertaining to see a cold-reader fail.

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Does your NY trance medium fail? Are *all* readings 100% accurate? Any idea?

Reply: I said my account was anecdotal and based on my personal experience. I met one person a few weeks ago who said she was not happy with her encounter with this medium but she didn't want to go into detail so I am not sure what that meant. I am not investigating or doing a survey of this medium except in idle conversation so I have no idea what the answer to your question is. But I have met people who were astounded by her work. Again, I do not have a valid score card upon which to base any statement other than my own experience. This experience is always given when I am asked what makes me think there is something to this, but for no other reason. And it was given for this reason in this instance.

Did you tell this medium about the JREF million dollar challenge? Would this medium be interested in enlightening the close minded skeptics in here by taking the JREF money?

Probably not, eh?

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
These WOULD be the agreements Randi, his staff and referees would have been asked to sign if such data was released to them. But this point was never reached. Before this, Randi has backed out of any further involvement with this data. He did this categorically and without doubt. These are agreements that Claus and his consulatnts and anyone made privy to the information would be asked to sign. Randi was asked to agree to such restrictions and refused to be b ound by those kinds of constraints. He ended all dialogue with Schwartz on this and said so very loudly and very publicly citing this as the reason.

I do not need to scan them because they exist in digital form but I do not have them at home.

Yes, these are U.S. Federal Law, violation of which can carry imposing penalties such as those mentioned.

LOL. I think you are making up BS and not telling the whole story. Yet, another excuse as to why you won't produce one of your superbeings/mediums to take the JREF money. Ever think that Schwartz might be the dishonest one here wanting important information witheld from the public? Information that would reduce his book sales, perhaps?

Darat

10th August 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Did you tell this medium about the JREF million dollar challenge? Would this medium be interested in enlightening the close minded skeptics in here by taking the JREF money?

Probably not, eh?

1) Randi would cheat
2) Money not important
3) Nothing to prove anyway
4) What's that over there? Sounds of rapid footsteps....

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Darat

1) Randi would cheat
2) Money not important
3) Nothing to prove anyway
4) What's that over there? Sounds of rapid footsteps....

Yep, standard answers. Here is one that you didn't list.

"The JREF test isn't scientific".

LOL.

They fail to understand that, while the JREF challenge isn't backed by the scientific community, it IS still a controlled and double-blind test. Yes.. it's scientific, just not funded by science foundations.

BillHoyt

10th August 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hoyt and this is the only answer I will give you since I already justified it with the same comments:

Consider the RANDI Challenge in the arena of astrophysics and quantum physics and then get back to me. Consider your answer very carefully yourself .........I might add. Think real hard about this. Clue: give me a means to falsify black holes?

Unresponsive, Steve.

1. Support your claims.
2. Concede you cannot.
3. Admit you will not answer.

Those are your basic choices at JREF.

Cheers,

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 08:22 AM

First of all I qualified my remarks and explained in detail about my encounter with two trance mediums. Secondly, based on the protocols Randi wanted to establish for Schwartz and which he did for Sylvia Browne, I can say (and you can check my account) that the mediums I dealt with do not claim to do what he wants them to do so it would be a monumental waste of time. In addition they would end up being discussed by Randi publicly in a most vituperative manner (see his treatment of Schwartz) and I don't know if they are masochists and would want to subject themselves to that, especially for zilch which is predictably what they would end up getting based on Randi's previous behavior.

Also I have had no further contact with either of these mediums
personally since my one and only one reading (well one for me in the US and one for my wife in the UKwith a different trance). I am not friends with them. I have not followed up with them. And I don't wish to do so. Therefore I am in no position to recommend anything to them. Also I am not a provocateur for the JREF challenge nor am I a recruiting agent for James Randi and his
publicity machine.

These were personal experiences, they were anecdotal and they
represented an honest answer to a question posed as to why I became interested in this subject. This is what I said before, and this is what I am saying now. This eliminates the need for me to support my account, especially in this forum, and clearly I am claiming nothing other than this. Is this the game you jerks play? Ask a question and then when you get an honest answer turn that around and try and recruit for Randi's slaughterhouse?
Pretty sick bunch of whackos I would say.

So find some other fool to apply for the challenge. So far all this year, now more than half over, is he gets a possible re-match with little Natalia. If he has had other challengers, he still hasn't seen fit to publish a list of applicants, even without giving their names and what they claim and what the disposition of their apps are. Based on this non-information we have to assume he has nothing. This is why Randi went to the UK last week to tape a show called the "Ultimate Psychic Challenge." Perhaps he will recruit some challengees over there with this project.

It would also be nice if Randi would tell the world what authority or corporation issued the bearer bonds he alegedly has in some account at Goldman Sachs (which are not there anymore--GS I understand may've backed out of holding them or being a party to his challenge). Nobody wants to see them. Just tell us the name of the issuer and series number? Maybe if Randi did that
we might get some people to take him more seriously and apply.

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 08:36 AM

Randi's slaughter house?!

LOL. Randi works with people to test what they claim, that's why each test is customised. You are making excuses, that's all. You know damn well that these people are not talking to spirits or ghosts, so you won't even try to get them tested. It's come down to this, you refuse to have your beliefs tested because you won't like the answer.

Your tall tales aren't impressive. Get one of your superbeinged people to take the JREF money, and I'll be impressed.

Right now, you are nothing but an excuse maker. You have no evidence of the paranormal, and you know it. Instead of admitting that all you have is faith, you will dishonestly try to convince people that you have evidence. You'll dishonestly try to convince people that science has evidence.

A skeptic, you are not. You are just a faithful believer of nonsense.

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
First of all I qualified my remarks and explained in detail about my encounter with two trance mediums. Secondly, based on the protocols Randi wanted to establish for Schwartz and which he did for Sylvia Browne, I can say (and you can check my account) that the mediums I dealt with do not claim to do what he wants them to do so it would be a monumental waste of time. In addition they would end up being discussed by Randi publicly in a most vituperative manner (see his treatment of Schwartz) and I don't know if they are masochists and would want to subject themselves to that, especially for zilch which is predictably what they would end up getting based on Randi's previous behavior.

Steve, you are more than welcome to start a thread with your complaints about Randi's "behavior".

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Also I have had no further contact with either of these mediums personally since my one and only one reading (well one for me in the US and one for my wife in the UKwith a different trance). I am not friends with them. I have not followed up with them. And I don't wish to do so. Therefore I am in no position to recommend anything to them.

Sure, you are: You like to give the impression that you are this hot shot paranormal investigator and experimenter who sucks up to known people in the field by name-dropping, claiming that you do important work with them, then back down when you are called on it.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Also I am not a provocateur for the JREF challenge nor am I a recruiting agent for James Randi and his
publicity machine.

Actually, you might be the best to happen to skepticism in a very long time.... ;)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
These were personal experiences, they were anecdotal and they represented an honest answer to a question posed as to why I became interested in this subject. This is what I said before, and this is what I am saying now. This eliminates the need for me to support my account, especially in this forum, and clearly I am claiming nothing other than this. Is this the game you jerks play? Ask a question and then when you get an honest answer turn that around and try and recruit for Randi's slaughterhouse? Pretty sick bunch of whackos I would say.

Steve, you know very well what this board is about. You just hate the thought that you cannot shut your critics up. Like you did on your own SS-board.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It would also be nice if Randi would tell the world what authority or corporation issued the bearer bonds he alegedly has in some account at Goldman Sachs (which are not there anymore--GS I understand may've backed out of holding them or being a party to his challenge). Nobody wants to see them. Just tell us the name of the issuer and series number? Maybe if Randi did that we might get some people to take him more seriously and apply.

Here. (http://www.skepticreport.com/images/investmentaccount.gif)

Heard the phrase "Put up or shut up"? I put up. What do you do?

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

It would also be nice if Randi would tell the world what authority or corporation issued the bearer bonds he alegedly has in some account at Goldman Sachs (which are not there anymore--GS I understand may've backed out of holding them or being a party to his challenge). Nobody wants to see them. Just tell us the name of the issuer and series number? Maybe if Randi did that
we might get some people to take him more seriously and apply.

Yet another excuse for not supplying one of your superbeings to test for the JREF challenge. If you write/email Randi, and have an applicant in mind, I'm sure he can fax you the legal documents that prove that the million dollars certainly does exist. He tried to send that exact information to Sylvia Browne, who refused the certified mail containing it. Sylvia made the same assertions that you did, that the money didn't exist. Randi showed that the money most certainly does.

The JREF challenge won't be won, but only because people really don't have superpowers. You are trying to imply dishonesty by Randi and his organization as the reason. It's apparent that you are a fabricator of lies and you certainly place faith in your beliefs over evidence.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 08:42 AM

THBK: LOL. Randi works with people to test what they claim, that's why each test is customised. You are making excuses, that's all. You know damn well that these people are not talking to spirits or ghosts, so you won't even try to get them tested. It's come down to this, you refuse to have your beliefs tested because you won't like the answer.

Reply: Please tell me who Randi is working with to test what they claim other than Natalia Lulova? Thank you. Who are these "people" he is testing? Please provide a list? One, two, three? Any number other than Natlia would do.

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Heard the phrase "Put up or shut up"? I put up. What do you do?

He does neither, he just starts making excuses and apologies for his beliefs.

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Reply: Please tell me who Randi is working with to test what they claim other than Natalia Lulova? Thank you. Who are these "people" he is testing? Please provide a list? One, two, three? Any number other than Natlia would do.

If you read the commentary archives, you'll see that Randi has tested many. No, I haven't taken the time to make a list and I won't. You can keep up this charade of excuses for not having your superbeings tested, but the reality is.. you are afraid of having your beliefs shown to be false. You are a coward. Get your 100% accurate mediums in to be tested, otherwise, your tall tales about them are worth ZERO.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 08:46 AM

lARSEN: Sure, you are: You like to give the impression that you are this hot shot paranormal investigator and experimenter who sucks up to known people in the field by name-dropping, claiming that you do important work with them, then back down when you are called on it.

Reply: Sure -- I am not. LOL. I have no contact or relationships with either Mr. Winbow in the U.K. or Mrs. Walsh in the U.S. However, Randi is free to contact them anytime he wants and make an offer to them. I am not an employee of JREF and therefore cannot do that. If Randi would like to hire me to recruit challengers for him or to help him in this way, be sure and let him know I am willing to listen to any offer he cares to make.

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Reply: Sure -- I am not. LOL. I have no contact or relationships with either Mr. Winbow in the U.K. or Mrs. Walsh in the U.S. However, Randi is free to contact them anytime he wants and make an offer to them. I am not an employee of JREF and therefore cannot do that. If Randi would like to hire me to recruit challengers for him or to help him in this way, be sure and let him know I am willing to listen to any offer he cares to make.

Yet another excuse. This shows that you are not interested in the truth. You are afraid that these individuals will be shown as tricksters, you are afraid that you'll find out that you were merely tricked by these people. Or.. if these people truly are superbeings, you really don't care about promoting the truth. Either way, you are just making excuses for your inaction. You'd rather have your tall tales remain anecdotes. That's fine. You can talk all you want, but realize that your anecdotes mean nothing to a skeptic.

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 08:49 AM

Steve,

Did you look at the link for the GoldmanSachs account?

BillHoyt

10th August 2003, 08:50 AM

Unresponsive, Steve.

1. Support your claims.
2. Concede you cannot.
3. Admit you will not answer.

Those are your basic choices at JREF.

Cheers,

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 08:52 AM

Thank you THBK. You don't know who Randi is working with then on this now. Not last year or years ago. I thought so. I read his commentaries. All I see in them is failed attempts scorned and castigated by Randi and which never reach the preliminary stage. This is what he did with Schwartz when he was getting too close to actually examining the data. He refused except under his conditions. I wonder what happened to the rights of the applicant in that case? Out the window I guess.
And I haven't seen one of these in a long while either although he gets as much copy out of them as possible. The magic water purveyors come to mind. LOL.

Also: Can anyone tell me the name on the million in bonds Randi has tucked away somewhere? I am sure if he published this information he would eliminate a lot of speculation and get many more applicants by this simple action alone. Funny nobody willing to tackle this. Wonder why? What does Randi have to hide? Remember, Randi is a self-confessed trickster and charlatan. He freey admts it to your face. It worries people when it comes to serious issues like this whether he likes it or not.

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Also: Can anyone tell me the name on the million in bonds Randi has tucked away somewhere? I am sure if he published this information he would eliminate a lot of speculation and get many more applicants by this simple action alone. Funny nobody willing to tackle this. Wonder why? What does Randi have to hide? Remember, Randi is a self-confessed trickster and charlatan. He freey admts it to your face. It worries people when it comes to serious issues like this whether he likes it or not.

Steve,

Here. (http://www.skepticreport.com/images/investmentaccount.gif)

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 08:59 AM

Claus I did NOT ask if he had them or not. I asked if anybody knew the name on them. As you will note, the name on this
document is neatly BLACKED out.

Do you know the name?

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 09:01 AM

Steve,

The money is there. Why is it important to know who came up with it?

Can you understand why somebody would NOT want to say they were rich?

What is your purpose of asking for this name?

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 09:04 AM

SG, you are nothing but a believer. You are one that would rather try to discredit the JREF challenge than have it beat. That's ok, the tactic you are using is neither original or unique. Many believers come up with excuses to avoid the challenge. That's all you have, though, SG.. excuses.

Your tall tales mean nothing. People don't have superpowers.

If you want information about applicants and so-on, feel free to e-mail Randi, or if you are ever in Jacksonville, walk in the front door and ask for it. As a non-profit organization, their records should be public access.

Clancie

10th August 2003, 09:05 AM

Posted by thaiboxerken

"The JREF test isn't scientific".

LOL.

They fail to understand that, while the JREF challenge isn't backed by the scientific community, it IS still a controlled and double-blind test. Yes.. it's scientific, just not funded by science foundations.
TBK.

Do you consider the "Sylvia Challenge", the test that Randi has designed for Sylvia, to be scientific or not?

If you feel that "Yes, it is", could you explain how the protocol would yield results that would hold up scientifically? For example, do you feel it is adequately controlled? Is the Sylvia test double blind?

10 people, tbk, one of them is read and 9 aren't (and they all know it). All 10 are people known to Randi though not Sylvia. The scoring is conducted in comparison with statistics that are completely arbitrary.

If she passed (which isn't impossible to do from incredibly lucky guesswork) how can you possibly think the Sylvia test results would be considered proof of her psychic ability within the scientific community?

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What is your purpose of asking for this name?

The purpose is so that when the name is refused, he can call the JREF challenge a fascade. That's his entire purpose, to discredit the tests that would show his beliefs to be false. He's making excuses for the fact that people don't have superpowers and can't win the prize.

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 09:11 AM

Do you consider the "Sylvia Challenge", the test that Randi has designed for Sylvia, to be scientific or not?

If you feel that "Yes, it is", could you explain how the protocol would yield results that would hold up scientifically? For example, do you feel it is adequately controlled? Is the Sylvia test double blind?

No, this is just a preliminary test.

10 people, tbk, one of them is read and 9 aren't (and they all know it). All 10 are people known to Randi though not Sylvia. The scoring is conducted in comparison with statistics that are completely arbitrary.

Arbitrary, how so?

If she passed (which isn't impossible to do from incredibly lucky guesswork) how can you possibly think the Sylvia test results would be considered proof of her psychic ability within the scientific community?

It wouldn't, also.. that's not the actual JREF test Sylvia would be performing. It's just a preliminary test to see if there is something to be tested. An actual double-blind test would then be designed.

Oh, and the scientific community would certainly want to duplicate the test themselves. They'd want to see repeatable results. They wouldn't consider it proof, but evidence that something is there.. it might nudge the scientific community into testing Sylvia.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 09:11 AM

Very funny Claus. Do you know anything abut bonds? The name of the donor is not what I am interested in. Again, I will repeat it one more time and explain:

Bonds are ISSUED by such things as power companies, insurance companies, mortageg companies, corporations, cities, states and the Federal government. The name of the issuing authority appears on them. I would have to assume this is what is blacked out on this document, not the name of the donor. This document states Fixed Assets. This would denote bonds issued by some corporation or other issuing authority, not whomever donated them. They apparently pay dividends and interest as well.

If the blacked out portion is indeed the name of the donor does this mean the bonds are on loan to Randi for the purpose of his challenge and do not really belong to him? This would be the only reason GS is holding them with the original owners name still on them even if they are in the JREF account. This brings up new
concerns I didnt even think of before.

So I will repeat my question: what is the name of the issuing authority or coproration that issued these bonds and now I will also say: what is the big secret requiring that to be blacked out?

I have an idea why the name is not revealed but I will not speculate or say why until and if and when the name is ever revealed.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 09:15 AM

My purpose in asking for the name is that there is yet another kind of fixed asset in the form of a bond and it is issued by a surety company. It is a form of insurance. The premium appears on Randi's 501(3)c information tax return. This injects a third party into the decision to pay off: the surety company who could then litigate the matter as they usually reserve the right to do that. By having this blacked out line and by nor showing who owns and who issued the bonds, Randi is leaving himself open to speculation he does not have compete control over the principal amount.

If Randi would publicize the name of the issuing authority of the bond, if he would announce for example there is one million dollars in Rated A+ bonds issued by the Ohio Water Authority or Los Angeles Hospital Authority or the NYS Dormitory Authority or General Motors or whatever it would be a great way for JREF to settle the speculation and he could recruit more applicants who will be assauged by this information. I hve a perfectly positive and good reason to ask this question Claus.

Clancie

10th August 2003, 09:18 AM

tbk,

Why shouldn't the preliminary tests (which no one has ever passed, interestingly), be scientific as well? Why save the "science" for the final and use....what, exactly instead?...for the preliminary?

Preliminary or final...both tests should be scientifically credible and completely fair. However, how fair is this? .

....Participants known to Randi not Sylvia...selected by Randi...9 of them knowing they haven't been read, yet scoring the results "as if" they have...the "statistics" used to evaluate the scoring (totally arbitrary statistics, cited as if they are mathematically sound, when in reality they are based on nothing at all...just Randi's claim)....

Why would anyone want to participate in a scientifically flawed and statistically unsupportable preliminary test just in the hope that the obvious flaws of the design would not eliminate them and that they would somehow be able to get to take a "better" and more scientific "final test" in the future?

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
My purpose in asking for the name is that there is yet another kind of fixed asset in the form of a bond and it is issued by a surety company. It is a form of insurance. The premium appears on Randi's 501(3)c information tax return. This injects a third party into the decision to pay off: the surety company who could then litigate the matter as they usually reserve the right to do that.

Well, what is your reason for saying that this could be the case here?

Do you have any evidence?

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 09:24 AM

Clancie,

The JREF Challenge is only about testing whether people can do what they claim. Even if the principles might be scientific, all that is needed is for someone to show - not prove - that he/she can do his/her paranormal ability.

Without trickery, of course.

Both parties must agree to the design. So your question is moot.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 09:25 AM

Using the controls as means to eliminate the applicant is ridiculous but this is what Randi is doing. Browne would be rated on who she doesn't read rather than on who she does. She could give a 100% perfect reading to one person and still fail based on the reports given by the other nine who are known to Randi.
After seeing this protocol, no medium in their right mind would consider the JREF challenge and that would be my advice to Browne or any other medium if they ever asked me. So far I guess they are psychic enough to figure this out on their own.

So what would be the result: another medium bites the dust and doesn't pass the preliminary. But the preliminary was not scientific so its okay? I dunno. Tell that to Randi.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 09:27 AM

Larsen: Both parties must agree to the design. So your question is moot.

Yeah, Claus, and if you don't agree and don't sign what do you get? Your picture and your own clock on Randi's homepage
weekly for the rest of your life?

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yeah, Claus, and if you don't agree and don't sign what do you get? Your picture and your own clock on Randi's homepage
weekly for the rest of your life?

No, not if you officially back down from the challenge. Sylvia hasn't done that. She has just evaded the whole issue.

Please answer the question: Do you have any evidence that such a third party exists and that what you describe is possible?

Clancie

10th August 2003, 09:35 AM

Steve,

I don't feel like looking it up, but do you know if the Russian girl passed the prelim she took? I thought she did, but that Randi wants to test her again.

If memory serves, he wants to give her another preliminary test, though. Seems by the rules of the Challenge as set out by Randi himself that, regardless of how she was able to pass, she should now advance to the final, not be re-tested at the preliminary stage.

Am I incorrect that she passed it?

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 09:37 AM

tbk,

Why shouldn't the preliminary tests (which no one has ever passed, interestingly), be scientific as well? Why save the "science" for the final and use....what, exactly instead?...for the preliminary?

Costs and time. Again, you are trying to discredit the JREF test. I can see why, your beliefs are being challenged by it.

Preliminary or final...both tests should be scientifically credible and completely fair. Participants known to Randi not Sylvia...selected by Randi...9 of them knowing they haven't been read, yet scoring the results "as if" they have...the "statistics" used to evaluate the scoring (totally arbitrary statistics, cited as if they are mathematically sound, when in reality they are based on nothing at all...just Randi's claim)....

You grossly misrepresent the test. Again, you are making excuses for why people can't pass the test. The real reason is that people don't have superpowers. The criteria for passing the test was agreed upon by both Randi and Sylvia. The test was designed by both Randi and Sylvia. Why isn't Sylvia following through with a test that she helped to design?

Why would anyone want to participate in a scientifically flawed and statistically unsupportable preliminary test just in the hope that the obvious flaws of the design would not eliminate them and that they would somehow be able to get to take a "better" and more scientific "final test" in the future?

You don't like that particular test because of various reason. However, if you think you have superpowers or know someone who does.. you can customise one along with Randi and do it. Take the JREF money. The JREF preliminary test gives the testees many benefits of the doubt. You admitted that Sylvia could pass her test using luck alone. SHouldn't that mean she could easily do it using her superpowers?

You want to discredit the test and JREF, but you fail. The preliminary is there for costs and time reasons. If one can't pass the easily passable preliminary, why even bother with a costly and extensive test?

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Using the controls as means to eliminate the applicant is ridiculous but this is what Randi is doing. Browne would be rated on who she doesn't read rather than on who she does. She could give a 100% perfect reading to one person and still fail based on the reports given by the other nine who are known to Randi.
After seeing this protocol, no medium in their right mind would consider the JREF challenge and that would be my advice to Browne or any other medium if they ever asked me. So far I guess they are psychic enough to figure this out on their own.

So what would be the result: another medium bites the dust and doesn't pass the preliminary. But the preliminary was not scientific so its okay? I dunno. Tell that to Randi.

So now you imply deception and dishonesty on Randi's part. You imply that if Browne have a 100% accurate reading, Randi would somehow coach the others into saying it was accurate for them as well.

That's ok, these excuses will not work for the reasonable person. People don't have superpowers.

My advice to psychics and mediums is to avoid the JREF challenge, only so that their trickery will not be discovered.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 09:41 AM

Please answer the question: Do you have any evidence that such a third party exists and that what you describe is possible?

The evidence Claus is in the very document you pointed to. The blacked out lines. There are two possibilities:

1) The bonds remain in the name of the donor's account so this is why they are blacked out. I understand why they should be blacked out since the donor wants to remain anonymous. But
if that's the case, why is the original donor's name still on them. There is a mechanism to change the ownership of the bonds and JREF's name should be on them.

2) The blacked out lines are the issuing authority or corporation's name. This is the more likely of the two. What reason is there for JREF to suppress who issued the bonds? None that I can think of unless they are surety bonds and not corporate or public authority bonds.

With those lines blacked out I have no evidence of any of this but the existence of the blacked out lines adds fuel to the speculation. If Randi unequivocally states JREF owns those bonds and they were issued by so and so it will go a long way in helping to promote applicants for the challenge. I am sure you will agree this would be a very positive step.

Clancie

10th August 2003, 09:44 AM

Posted by thaiboxerkenAgain, you are trying to discredit the JREF test. I can see why, your beliefs are being challenged by it.
The only belief that it challenges is my belief that the test should be (1) scientifically sound and (2) fair.
Posted by tbk

You grossly misrepresent the test.
A big charge, tbk. Specifics, please? How have I -specifically- "misrepresented" anything about the Sylvia test? What did I say that is untrue? You can't just accuse me of that without providing specifics.

The test was designed by both Randi and Sylvia. Why isn't Sylvia following through with a test that she helped to design?
Randi presented the terms of his test to Sylvia and she agreed. She did not, technically, "help to design it".

Sylvia's participation or not really is irrelevant. The test Randi designed for her to take is very flawed (for reasons I've given) and is not scientifically sound. We may disagree on why that is, but I haven't seen you contradict any specficis of my criticism or explain why, in fact, it is a very good test of paranormal ability.

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 09:44 AM

Clancie,

Why don't you ever do some work of your own? All it takes is a simple search on Randi.org:

Our rule is that an applicant may re-apply in 12 months after failing the preliminary test. Come to think of it, "psychic" Natalia Lulova's new lawyer applied promptly at the end of her 12-month period, for a re-engagement, and we've been almost six months trying to clarify the meanings of words and other weighty lawyer-type matters. These folks do run on.
Swift, June 13th, 2003 (http://www.randi.org/jr/061303.html)

You don't "feel" like looking it up? "SloppyLazyKaffeeKlatchClancie". That should be your registered name. :rolleyes:

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 09:45 AM

You know.. i've seen this same line of excuses many times.. and I've also heard them in conversation.

I guess the big reason many people won't go after the JREF million is that they don't think the JREF actually owns the million.. is this your assertion, SG?

LOL.

It's a lame excuse, SG. Very lame, since many of the "psychics" and "mediums" claim to do what they do for spiritual purposes and not monetary. In fact, several of these people claim that it's because of the money that they refuse the test.. that they don't need the money or that they aren't about money.

The refusal to take the test is more about belief and faith, these people are afraid to have their beliefs placed to the test.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 09:48 AM

THBK: So now you imply deception and dishonesty on Randi's part. You imply that if Browne have a 100% accurate reading, Randi would somehow coach the others into saying it was accurate for them as well.

Reply: I did not say or imply deception on Randi's part but since you now mention it, the thought will cross everyone's mind. He is, after all, a self-admitted liar, cheater, charlatan and trickster.

Randi doesnt have to coach the others actually and he knows it

What Browne has to do, even if she gets 100% accuracy for the person she reads, is make sure somehow that nothing she tells the person she reads is true of the people she doesn't read. Now that IS NOT her claim. It is Randi's demand. It is my understanding that Randi will not budge on this condition and she does not want to back down either and withdraw as someone suggested she could do in order to have her clock removed. I guess there is some clock policy, procedure and protocol somewhere that Claus checked.

They set a statistical cut off point which Randi claims to have consulted statisticians on but it is quite high as I recall (I havent read the offer in awhile). It is still absurd and I cannot blame Browne or anyone else from going on a fool's errand with this challenge.

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The evidence Claus is in the very document you pointed to. The blacked out lines. There are two possibilities:

No, there are three: The third being that the donating part does not want his/her name out. Which is fair enough. Howver, the black lines do not hide the name of anybody.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
With those lines blacked out I have no evidence of any of this but the existence of the blacked out lines adds fuel to the speculation.

Thank you. You only have speculation. No evidence.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If Randi unequivocally states JREF owns those bonds and they were issued by so and so it will go a long way in helping to promote applicants for the challenge. I am sure you will agree this would be a very positive step.

The black lines are there to prevent people from knowing the actual account number - for obvious reasons. The account is for JREF. That means the money belongs to JREF.

Yet another attempt of yours to smear JREF has failed. You never seem to give up, Steve. Nor do I.

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 09:53 AM

tbk,
....Participants known to Randi not Sylvia...selected by Randi...9 of them knowing they haven't been read, yet scoring the results "as if" they have...the "statistics" used to evaluate the scoring (totally arbitrary statistics, cited as if they are mathematically sound, when in reality they are based on nothing at all...just Randi's claim)....

Here is what Randi said to Sylvia on the testing protocols, read it carefully.. you'll see that it's not just Randi that selects the participants.

Well, I have a proposed test, approved by people at Harvard and at MIT, that would clearly test whether you're simply doing a guessing game, or that you have the powers you claim to have. May I suggest that process to you?

I suggest that we advertise ¡ª via the Internet ¡ª perhaps even on Larry's web page, if that would be possible, Larry ¡ª for ten persons who would be willing to be subjects for this test, done via telephone. Each one would have to attest in writing that (a) they believe in your powers, Sylvia, (b) that they believe you can do a genuine spiritual reading, and (c) that they've had a personal loss of a loved one within the last year. At a date and time convenient to you ¡ª and I know how very busy you are ¡ª we would randomly select one of those ten persons ¡ª by choosing a number from a hat. Then, either you would call us or we would call you ¡ª your choice ¡ª you'd be given the gender, name, and age of the chosen subject, and you would do a reading over the telephone without getting feedback, that is, without doing questions-and-answers or asking for guesses to be accepted or refused. That reading could take a minute or two, or as much as half an hour ¡ª again, Sylvia, your choice, so that you could be sure that you've made "connection" with the subject.

When the reading is finished, you would so indicate, and the subject would then be asked to give a score to the reading, from zero to ten points. Following that, we would contact, again in random order, each of the other nine persons for whom the reading was not done, and present them with either a transcript of the reading, or an audio tape of it, for them to also score from zero to ten.

Now, we should expect that the person for whom the reading was done would obtain a score, say, from six through ten, and ¡ª unless my "guessing game" scenario is correct ¡ª the other nine for whom the reading was not done, would have scores of zero to five. But, to simplify all this, in order to beat 50-to-1 odds ¡ª which is much better than the thousand-to-one odds we usually require for such a test! ¡ª eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done.

I point out to you, that the person chosen to have the reading would be a believer in Sylvia's powers, and would therefore be expected to be sympathetic to her success. Please note, Sylvia would be provided with complete identifications on each of these persons, so that she could fully check out their credentials. And one more thing: we would have an independent party, approved by both sides, present at all procedures, and everything would be videotaped, and the original videotape would be retained by that independent party. It could be someone from your staff, if you wished, Larry, and if Sylvia approved, of course.

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
The only belief that it challenges is my belief that the test should be (1) scientifically sound and (2) fair.

It doesn't need to be scientific. All it needs to do is to be agreed by both parties.

It needs to be fair, sure. Please point out where it is not fair.

Originally posted by Clancie
A big charge, tbk. Specifics, please? How have I -specifically- "misrepresented" anything about the Sylvia test? What did I say that is untrue? You can't just accuse me of that without providing specifics.

Don't make me fire up that search engine.... ;)

Originally posted by Clancie
Randi presented the terms of his test to Sylvia and she agreed. She did not, technically, "help to design it".

Yes, she did. Randi suggested some things, and she agreed to all of them. Read about what happened in the article by Bryan Farha, "Dodge Ball Deluxe - The Sylvia Browne Chronology" (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/dodgeball.htm)

Originally posted by Clancie
Sylvia's participation or not really is irrelevant. The test Randi designed for her to take is very flawed (for reasons I've given) and is not scientifically sound. We may disagree on why that is, but I haven't seen you contradict any specficis of my criticism or explain why, in fact, it is a very good test of paranormal ability.

It doesn't really matter. Sylvia claims paranormal powers. Randi suggests a test. Sylvia agrees. Sylvia then ignores Randi completely.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 09:59 AM

C: The black lines are there to prevent people from knowing the actual account number - for obvious reasons. The account is for JREF. That means the money belongs to JREF.

The account number is at the top of the page and is partially blacked out. I am not referring to that line . I am referring to the asset allocation. One short, one long blacked out line below.
If these are account numbers so be it.

The question remains then: Randi has always said these are bonds, these assets are being held as bonds. These are a perfectly good investment vehicle so why doesn't he simply tell us
what the name of the company's whose bonds JREF owns is? Maybe we'd like to buy some too.

thaiboxerken

10th August 2003, 10:00 AM

Reply: I did not say or imply deception on Randi's part but since you now mention it, the thought will cross everyone's mind. He is, after all, a self-admitted liar, cheater, charlatan and trickster.

Now you imply it even more. You are a disguisting individual to resort to this kind of ad-hominem. Randi's "self admittance" lies only in the context of his prestigidation, yet you'll want to apply it to all aspects of his life in order to discredit him and his organisation.

Randi doesnt have to coach the others actually and he knows it

Why is that?

What Browne has to do, even if she gets 100% accuracy for the person she reads, is make sure somehow that nothing she tells the person she reads is true of the people she doesn't read. Now that IS NOT her claim. It is Randi's demand. It is my understanding that Randi will not budge on this condition and she does not want to back down either and withdraw as someone suggested she could do in order to have her clock removed. I guess there is some clock policy, procedure and protocol somewhere that Claus checked.

LOL. The test is to show if she's making general assertions about the people she reads, general enough that they apply to everyone. That's what cold-reading is, that's what's being tested.. whether Sylvia is cold-reading or not. If she's not, her readings could be so specific that they would apply to only that one person, right? Wow, you're stupid.

They set a statistical cut off point which Randi claims to have consulted statisticians on but it is quite high as I recall (I havent read the offer in awhile). It is still absurd and I cannot blame Browne or anyone else from going on a fool's errand with this challenge.

LOL. It's only absurdly high to people that don't have superpowers. If Sylvia had superpowers, she should easily be able to pass the test.

Damn.. you must really hate logic.

10th August 2003, 10:13 AM

Steve, I think I've asked this before, but do Walsh and Winbow have websites? I can't find any info on them. Is Winbow in London? How does one contact these trance mediums? You can PM me if you don't want to post on the thread...thanks. I'm interested in having the experience of being read by a trance medium.

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The question remains then: Randi has always said these are bonds, these assets are being held as bonds. These are a perfectly good investment vehicle so why doesn't he simply tell us what the name of the company's whose bonds JREF owns is? Maybe we'd like to buy some too.

Huh?? What difference does that make? What happened to your previous "two possibilities"?? Abandoned those because you failed to provide evidence of your allegations?

You're a real piece of work, Steve.

Clancie

10th August 2003, 10:21 AM

tbk,

Is it fair to say that you had to post the long quote from Randi because you are unable to address any of the points I've raised, one by one, yourself?

Apart from that, some time after his LKL appearance, Randi mentioned here that he "already had enough volunteers" for the reading. So...he did not use LKL as an intermediary, and had somehow selected the participants himself.

Tell me, tbk....Would you let Sylvia unilaterally select 10 people to participate (knowing that all the scoring rules are already published. thereby allowing people to consciously determine the results? No? You wouldn't want Sylvia to choose the 10 participants because she'd be biased? Then why should Randi? He also has a vested interest in the outcome and can hardly be considered unbiased.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 10:42 AM

No Claus. Think again., My FIRST and now my last question is the same: what is the name of the issuer of the bonds. You introduced all these other issues which I was perfectly happy to entertain but they do not change the fact I suggested releasing the name of the bond issuer.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by RC
Steve, I think I've asked this before, but do Walsh and Winbow have websites? I can't find any info on them. Is Winbow in London? How does one contact these trance mediums? You can PM me if you don't want to post on the thread...thanks. I'm interested in having the experience of being read by a trance medium.

No they do not. They work in total obscurity, are both elderly and probably not computer savvy at all. See you PM for more information.

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No Claus. Think again., My FIRST and now my last question is the same: what is the name of the issuer of the bonds. You introduced all these other issues which I was perfectly happy to entertain but they do not change the fact I suggested releasing the name of the bond issuer.

Write to JREF, then.

Darat

10th August 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...snip...

Also: Can anyone tell me the name on the million in bonds Randi has tucked away somewhere? I am sure if he published this information he would eliminate a lot of speculation and get many more applicants by this simple action alone. Funny nobody willing to tackle this. Wonder why? What does Randi have to hide? Remember, Randi is a self-confessed trickster and charlatan. He freey admts it to your face. It worries people when it comes to serious issues like this whether he likes it or not.

Can you show me where Randi states he is "charlatan"? A trickster yes, because he was and is a magician...

Darat

10th August 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
tbk,

Why shouldn't the preliminary tests (which no one has ever passed, interestingly), be scientific as well? Why save the "science" for the final and use....what, exactly instead?...for the preliminary?

Preliminary or final...both tests should be scientifically credible and completely fair. However, how fair is this? .

....Participants known to Randi not Sylvia...selected by Randi...9 of them knowing they haven't been read, yet scoring the results "as if" they have...the "statistics" used to evaluate the scoring (totally arbitrary statistics, cited as if they are mathematically sound, when in reality they are based on nothing at all...just Randi's claim)....

Why would anyone want to participate in a scientifically flawed and statistically unsupportable preliminary test just in the hope that the obvious flaws of the design would not eliminate them and that they would somehow be able to get to take a "better" and more scientific "final test" in the future?

At the moment this is a hypothetical discussion as the test itself is still a proposal - lets wait and see if SB ever accepts ANY challenge...

Darat

10th August 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
[...snip...

Randi presented the terms of his test to Sylvia and she agreed. She did not, technically, "help to design it".

Sylvia's participation or not really is irrelevant. The test Randi designed for her to take is very flawed (for reasons I've given) and is not scientifically sound. We may disagree on why that is, but I haven't seen you contradict any specficis of my criticism or explain why, in fact, it is a very good test of paranormal ability. [/B]

Not quite the full picture, the details of the test had not been hammered out when SB accepted to take the challenge.

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Darat
Can you show me where Randi states he is "charlatan"? A trickster yes, because he was and is a magician...

Discussed here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5910)

No verification whatsoever, but lots of false claims. Somebody makes a remark, it is quoted again and again, and suddenly, it achieves validity.

We have seen this happen to Hyman's quotes, as well. Incidentally by Steve Grenard, also. He quoted Hyman out of context, to show that Hyman supported Steve's ideas.

Hyman did exactly the opposite. One cannot trust Steve in anything.

Clancie

10th August 2003, 11:01 AM

Not quite the full picture, the details of the test had not been hammered out when SB accepted to take the challenge
Darat,

Randi added the scoring details unilaterally afterwards. Is that what you mean? He has laid out all the procedures and evaluation here and never mentioned that it was not going to happen (if it ever does) exactly as stated.

edited to add:

Sylvia is on record as accepting the Challenge prelim test (well, Randi didn't call it that at all on LKL). She clearly said "Yes".

Darat

10th August 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Darat,

Randi added the scoring details unilaterally afterwards. Is that what you mean? He has laid out all the procedures and evaluation here and never mentioned that it was not going to happen (if it ever does) exactly as stated.

edited to add:

Sylvia is on record as accepting the Challenge prelim test (well, Randi didn't call it that at all on LKL). She clearly said "Yes". [/B]

I will reserve final judgment on the validity of the testing until after it has happened.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 11:08 AM

Darat -- in answer to your question, first define charlatan. In response to the entire subject matter, I forward the following;
the connection is there if you see it.

The second front is garrisoned by professional magicians, the most famous of which is James Randi, founder and promoter of JREF (James Randi Educational Forum). His website proclaims, "James Randi has an international reputation as a magician and escape artist, but today he is best known as the world's most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

Randi is an accomplished illusionist and trickster. That is, his glib delivery and skills of misdirection are outstanding. Yet, his behavior is ethically corrupt. When a magician such as Randi performs on stage, his deceit is entirely ethical because he and his audience enter into a tacit agreement. Spectators expect to be fooled, and the performer expects to entertain. This agreement works well when the performer tells a lie such as, "I'm holding in my hand a new deck of ordinary playing cards." The spectators don't say, "I don't believe it." Instead, they suspend their disbelief to enjoy the show. Then, say, the magician pushes a cigarette through a "randomly chosen card." The majority of spectators will enjoy the illusion, knowing that they've been tricked but not caring. But a spectator with a scientific turn of mind might ask how the trick works. After a quick search on the internet, he or she can link to a dealer of magic tricks and find the "Cigarette thru card" trick for sale. Clearly, there's nothing unethical about any of that.

However, Randi has broken the tacit agreement by creating illusions off-stage under the guise of investigating and debunking paranormal phenomena. The people he aims to fool have not agreed to be tricked, nor does he tell them he's doing it. On the contrary, he claims he's a serious investigator. It's ludicrous because he uses deception from the start, and that's a serious ethical problem. In fact, this type of unethical behavior is the reason con games are illegal when they are intended to swindle victims of their money.

Is Randi's con game deliberate? Judging from his own words, it is. He candidly identifies himself as a professional trickster in his online commentary of 8/3/01 in response to the remark, "Randi is a professional trickster whose life's work is to fool people." He wrote, "Here we have two 'doctors' ... who resent my being a professional trickster (how could we function without lawyers or politicians, smartypants?)."

In short, not only critical thinkers, but Randi himself, recognize the absurdity of claiming to evaluate serious scientific work in terms of the methods of tricksters. Nevertheless, scientists and lay persons alike are regularly duped by this showman.

Darat

10th August 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Discussed here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5910)

No verification whatsoever, but lots of false claims. Somebody makes a remark, it is quoted again and again, and suddenly, it achieves validity.

We have seen this happen to Hyman's quotes, as well. Incidentally by Steve Grenard, also. He quoted Hyman out of context, to show that Hyman supported Steve's ideas.

Hyman did exactly the opposite. One cannot trust Steve in anything.

I agree - I've many of Randi's books and I've searched the archives and "charlatan" seems to be a word Randi uses for someone who frauds someone, I can't find any record of this "self-confessed" phrase.

However I am sure Steve (knowing his views on litigation) would not risk making such a statement if he couldn't prove it. Steve - can you provide proof that Randi has "self-confessed" to being a charlatan?

Darat

10th August 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Darat -- in answer to your question, first define charlatan. In response to the entire subject matter, I forward the following;
the connection is there if you see it.
..snip...

No Steve I will not define "charlatan" it does not matter how you or I define charlatan.

I will remind you of your words

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
…snip…

Remember, Randi is a self-confessed trickster and charlatan. He freey admts it to your face.

...snip…

No ambiguity about this, now please provide the proof you have of a statement from Randi where he says, in his own words that he is a "charlatan".

(Edited to remove an "or")

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 11:14 AM

I guess you posted before you got the connection. In addition, as Clancie points out, he has duped Sylvia Browne as well. He owes her an apology. I don't wonder why she has not backed down. When Randi comes to his senses and plays fair and square, perhaps they can hammer out a scientifically proper test. Until then Darat, I have to agree with you.................of course we may all be gone by then. I seem to recall something about hell freezing over.

Clancie

10th August 2003, 11:16 AM

Posted by Darat

I will reserve final judgment on the validity of the testing until after it has happened.

I don't understand that position. All the details are already available. There are obvious flaws (noted above). Why wait?
And why would anyone bother taking a test that has flaws only to hear people say later, "Well, you passed. But it wasn't valid anyway."

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 11:19 AM

Here we go:

At one point in the trial, his lawyer asked me about a statement he said I'd made, and he triumphantly announced that had a recording of it, too! It was:

"Good evening. My name is James Randi. I'm a liar, a cheat, a fake, and a charlatan. But I perform all this with a certain degree of panache, which may even evoke from you a spontaneous expression of delight and astonishment — in the form of applause. I trust this will be the case."

That was the beginning of my opening address to my magic audiences, recorded at one of my shows — obviously meant to be a gag, but Byrd (and Geller!) apparently have no sense of humor, and still flaunt this joke as evidence of my dishonesty. Hey, Robin Williams portrayed a killer in a recent film. That must mean he's a killer, right?
Source: Swift, October 18, 2002 (http://www.randi.org/jr/101802.html)

As usual, Steve quotes out of context. And always to support his own agenda.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 11:19 AM

Okay, here is my dictionary definition of the word in question:

Definition: [n] a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes

Darat

10th August 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

I don't understand that position. All the details are already available. There are obvious flaws (noted above). Why wait?
And why would anyone bother taking a test that has flaws only to hear people say later, "Well, you passed. But it wasn't valid anyway."

Because something could change.

We may find that SB comes back and says "I will only take the test if you change x,y & Z", Randi may agree to some of your suggestions and put them forward to SB.

Until a test takes place we wont know the final details and as I say I will reserve final judgment until a test has been carried out.

Darat

10th August 2003, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Here we go:

As usual, Steve quotes out of context. And always to support his own agenda.

Thankyou.

I stand corrected, Randi has at sometime called himself a "charlaton", it may have been in the course of a show but he did say it which is all I asked anyone to provide proof for.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 11:25 AM

I just had a vision: we are all about 98 years old well, I am 106, and we are all here with our arthritis killing us still arguing about this....

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 11:36 AM

"Project Alpha" was a hoax devised by Randi to test parapsychologists. He had two teenaged magicians, Steve Shaw and Mike Edwards, pose as psychics and arrange to be tested by the McDonnell Lab, which had just opened as a parapsychology lab in St. Louis. Shaw and Edwards were believed to be genuine psychics, and a presentation about them was given at the Parapsychological Association at which most parapsychologists present were NOT taken in. I believe Randi himself suggested controls to the McDonnell Lab, which were imposed and Shaw and Edwards ceased to produce results. The McDonnell Lab published nothing about them, but two other psi researchers, Berthold Schwarz and Walter Uphoff, did.

(The latter was quoted in a _National Enquirer_ story touting one of the "psychics.") Randi then revealed the hoax publicly, and awarded a "straight spoon" to McDonnell Lab director Peter Phillips for taking his advice. (This award was listed in Randi's 1982 "Uri" award press release, but not mentioned in the list of awards published by either _Omni_ or the _Skeptical Inquirer_, which led to the letter from Thalbourne in _SI_ cited below.)

A number of parapsychologists were annoyed by Alpha, and made the kinds of criticisms which may be found in the articles by Truzzi listed below.

Anonymous (1983a) Skeptical eye: Psychic Abscam. @I(Discover)
4(March):10,12.
Anonymous (1983b) Response to letter from Peter Phillips.
@I(Discover) 4(May):100.
Chalmers, J.H. (1983-84) Unnoticed irony of Alpha. @I(Skeptical
Inquirer) 8(Winter):187-188.
Cherfas, J. (1983) The Amazing Randi hoodwinks the spoonbenders. @I(New
Scientist) 97(3 February):287.
Collins, H. (1983) Magicians in the laboratory: A new role to
play. @I(New Scientist) 98(30 June):929-931.
Frazier, K., editor (1981) @I(Paranormal borderlands of science).
Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus.
--- (1982) From Rand to the Pentagon: This year's Uri awards.
@I(Skeptical Inquirer) 7(1, Fall):11-12.
--- (1983a) Uri awards: A straight spoon joins three bent ones in
'83. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Fall):9-10.
--- (1983b) Correction. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Fall):96.
--- (1983-84) The editor responds. @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
8(Winter):188.
---, editor (1986) @I(Science confronts the paranormal).
Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus.
Gardner, M. (1983) Lessons of a landmark PK hoax. @I(Skeptical
Inquirer) 7(4, Summer):16-19. In Frazier (1986), pp. 166-169.
--- (1983-84a) Magicians in the psi lab: Many misconceptions.
@I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Winter):111-116. In Frazier (1986),
pp. 170-175.
--- (1983-84b) Martin Gardner replies. @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
8(Winter):187.
Joyce, C. (1983) Now you see it, now you don't. @I(New
Scientist) 100(17 November):523-524.
McBurney, D.H. and Greenberg, J.K. (1980) Downfall of a would-be
psychic. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 5(1, Fall):61-62. In Frazier
(1981), pp. 148-149.
Phillips, P.R. (1983) Randi's hoax. @I(Discover) 4(May):100.
Pinch, T.J. (1983-84) Project Alpha: Preliminary only?
@I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Winter):186.
Pinch, T.J. and Collins, H.M. (1984) Private science and public
knowledge: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
the Claims of the Paranormal and its use of the literature.
@I(Social Studies of Science) 14:521-546.
Randi, J. (1981) Innocent "psychics". @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
5(3, Spring):78.
--- (1982a) Last word. @I(Omni) 4(May):154.
--- (1982b) Extrasensory deception: The strange story of the
professor and the psychic. @I(Games) 6(September):58-59.
--- (1983a) The Project Alpha experiment: Part 1. The first two
years. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 7(Summer):24-33. In Frazier
(1986), pp. 158-165.
--- (1983b) The Project Alpha experiment Part 2. Beyond the
laboratory. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Fall):36-45.
--- (1983c) Psience research. @I(New Scientist) 99(28 July):300.
--- (1983-84) James Randi replies. @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
8(Winter):186-187.
--- (1984-85) James Randi responds. @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
9(Winter):188.
Thalbourne, M.A. (1984-85) Phillips's "Straight Spoon".
@I(Skeptical Inquirer) 9(Winter):187-188.
Truzzi, M. (1983) Trickery in the name of science. @I(Omni) 5(May):117.
--- (1983-84) Project Alpha: Sabotage? @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
8(Winter):187.
--- (1987b) Reflections on "Project Alpha": Scientific experiment
or conjurer's illusion? @I(Zetetic Scholar)
12/13(August):73-98.

Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

CFLarsen

10th August 2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Darat
I stand corrected, Randi has at sometime called himself a "charlaton", it may have been in the course of a show but he did say it which is all I asked anyone to provide proof for.
Point is, Randi did not refer to himself as a charlatan-as-in-bad-deceit.

I understand perfectly why Steve doesn't want to talk about context. Just as he has backed down from his claims about the JREF Challenge money.

He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails.

One thing: He never learns.

SteveGrenard

10th August 2003, 11:44 AM

Claus:

What's the point about talking about context when actions speak louder than words and I have provided accounts of those actions above. Since I was not there and only have his written words to go by I am not to be expected to infer from his tone of voice that he was joking.

The definition of charlatan which Darat is not interested in but which is extremely important fits Randi rather nicely and I am sure he would not disagree with it based on his actions and what else he has said about himself. In addition, the paragraph where he confesses to be a charlatan which you quoted were responded to long after after the fact in legal questionning.
When originally quoted, these remarks were not hastily subject to qualification by Randi. Randi then backtracked on them, saying "hey, I was only joking." Who's backtracking now?

I made no claims about the JREF money pot. I suggested that it woud be nice if Randi revealed the issuer of the securities or bonds in that account. I did this at the very first instance of this subject and I did so at the end. Nothing changed with that. Can you tell me why Randi doesn't want to reveal this?