Scare tactics --- the victims are actors too
mike
second episode. First -- Shannen Doherty....eat some carbs, bitch. You
souldn't be wearing short dresses with those chicken legs.
Second, the whole show is a fraud. The victims are bad actors and have
the most unrealistic reactions to the scares, and when they're told
that they're on "Scare Tactics". It's so unnatural and it smells fake.
Traveler
swen
wow the victims weren't even close to believable. just watched the first
two episodes. i've seen more believable acting in the wwf. doesn't help
that all the victims have perfect skin and features (the girls at least).
it seemed like a cool concept when i saw the previews, but those pranks
would result in some serious lawsuits, so there's no way they could have
pulled it off.
swen
believability of the jon edwards show. very stupid move on scifi's part as
jon edwards seems like a pretty successful show.
Traveler
"swen" <sw...@news.net> wrote in message
news:cm9yeWI=.f862a94b3d2d713d18310fb86fb64a95@1049525241.cotse.net...
What did you expect?
profft
"Traveler" <firstt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Rwuja.9225$ey1.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
nos...@nospam.com
Same with John Edwards.
It's all fiction. People often forget that.
nos...@nospam.com
>I just watched one episode of Scare Tactics and the first part of a
>second episode. First -- Shannen Doherty....eat some carbs, bitch. You
>souldn't be wearing short dresses with those chicken legs.
She's about my age but she looks 10 years older than me.
Or maybe I look way too young for my age. :P
forge
"Scare Tactics" presents this stuff as real situations perpetrated
upon real people. Thus, they are lying. Dunno why anyone's surprised,
do you expect Shannen Doherty to be able to get work with any *real*
production at this point? If you're too fricking bitchy to work with
Alyssa Milano and Holly Marie Combs, you have a definite problem.
ShowBiz
I can assure you the reactions you see on Scare Tactics are real. I
work on the show. If someone knows in advance what's about to happen
to them we don't use them.
I've been reading this newsgroup as we neared the premiere and checked
in this morning to read the reactions. And while I'm sure I'm inviting
an avalanche of hate by posting here I couldn't let your claim that
these people are actors go un-answered.
Go ahead and hate the show if you like. But there is not a single
truth to your claim that we use actors to fake their reaction as
victims on the show.
In article <60d237b6.0304...@posting.google.com>, mike
Dark
>From: ShowBiz showbi...@excite.com
>Date: 4/5/2003 11:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <050420030858570648%showbi...@excite.com>
Poop Dogg
I suspected a fraud too. Doesn't the "victim" notice the cameras
filming them from all different angles? Don't they wonder why
there are cameras there?
Dennis Groome
don't get me started on John Edwards...the man's a hack, a charleton. As a
trained stage magicina myself, i can do everything he does better. What
he's doing is called "cold reading," a very crappy technique for performing
Spiritualism. Salon.com had an article on him, i'll see if i can dig it up
again.
http://salon.com/people/feature/2002/06/13/probability/index.html (note:
this isn't the one i was looking for, just another one i came accross)
--
Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so.
-Douglas Adams
-Dennis H. Groome V
ICQ: 11430261 AIM/Yahoo: AmoNympham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/daily_rant/
nos...@nospam.com
just to laugh at them for their pain.
Scare Tactics is all about that - hurt people and laugh at them.
It's unethical, it's hurtful, it's lame, it's not even Sci Fi.
Is this what Sci Fi wants to tell people - that you enjoy watching
people suffer so you can laugh at them?
Mac Breck
news:050420030858570648%showbi...@excite.com...
>
snip
> Go ahead and hate the show if you like.
Hate it? No. To hate it, I'd have to watch it. I hate the *idea* of it,
the low rent sensationalism and exploitation of it. I just don't think it
belongs on "Sci-Fi," and I've had enough "Reality" shows to last me the rest
of my life. I have absolutely zero interest in watching "Scare Tactics,"
and completely forgot it was on.
I used to set the VCR and/or DVD Recorder to record **every Friday night**
on Sci-Fi (to watch later, when I got home). "Tremors" is the best thing on
Sci-Fi anymore on Friday nights, and that's not saying much.
The funny thing is that "Tremors" is being helped by the sheer low-class of
everything else currently on Friday nights on Sci-Fi. The only things I
taped last night were John Doe (DVD-LP) and Tremors (VHS EP).
--
Mac Breck
http://www.scifi.com/babylon5/
http://www.scifi.com/crusade/
http://www.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/1521
Mac Breck
news:jm6u8v8ihojmf1mpb...@4ax.com...
...somewhat along the lines of what the bullies were doing to Duggits in
Dreamcatcher.
ShowBiz
The cameras are hidden. If a subject spots a camera the bit is stopped
and not used.
In article <LYydnRSgFsb...@bravo.net>, Poop Dogg
forge
wrote:
>> Go ahead and hate the show if you like.
>
>Hate it? No. To hate it, I'd have to watch it. I hate the *idea* of it,
>the low rent sensationalism and exploitation of it. I just don't think it
>belongs on "Sci-Fi," and I've had enough "Reality" shows to last me the rest
>of my life. I have absolutely zero interest in watching "Scare Tactics,"
>and completely forgot it was on.
Plus Shannen's an uptight kahunta.
Mac Breck
news:5sau8vcc8s8gms7u0...@4ax.com...
I didn't mind her on Charmed, though she does sound "difficult to work
with." What's she add to the "Scare Tactics" show? Seems to be about as
much a draw as Forest Whitaker on The Twilight Zone, which is to say, not
much. I've even seen Shannen in Playboy, and she doesn't even do anything
for me on superficial "looks" level either. Her high point seems to have
been in Charmed.
KERSPLOSH
>> Sci Fi - .. fiction.
>>
>> Same with John Edwards.
>>
>> It's all fiction. People often forget that.
>
>don't get me started on John Edwards...the man's a hack, a charleton. As a
>trained stage magicina myself, i can do everything he does better. What
>he's doing is called "cold reading," a very crappy technique for performing
>Spiritualism. Salon.com had an article on him, i'll see if i can dig it up
>again.
>
>http://salon.com/people/feature/2002/06/13/probability/index.html (note:
>this isn't the one i was looking for, just another one i came accross)
The odds and statistics that the article offer as proof of the authors
assertions are actually what proves that John Edward is genuine. The way the
statistics are presented are not only cursory, but wrong in context with the
subject matter presented. The article is long on personal opinion and short on
facts or examples. If you find this article compelling, I can only assume that
you have not done your homework. This one lame article you offer is only
compelling evidence of your own lack of investigative skills. Perhaps you ought
to also look into work that has been done in the field that was not on a TV
show.
http://www.openmindsciences.com/
http://www.SurvivalScience.org/debunk/default.shtml
http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/somethoughts.htm
forge
wrote:
>I didn't mind her on Charmed, though she does sound "difficult to work
>with." What's she add to the "Scare Tactics" show? Seems to be about as
>much a draw as Forest Whitaker on The Twilight Zone, which is to say, not
>much. I've even seen Shannen in Playboy, and she doesn't even do anything
>for me on superficial "looks" level either. Her high point seems to have
>been in Charmed.
That's pretty fricking sad when you're a 32-year-old actress and you
have to say the "highlights" of your career are "Beverly Hills, 90210"
and "Charmed," both of which you were fired from for fighting with the
other actors.
forge
wrote:
>The odds and statistics that the article offer as proof of the authors
>assertions are actually what proves that John Edward is genuine.
What the fuck are you talking about? Stan on "South Park" stood in
front of the people of his community and cold-read them just like
Edwards does. And they swallowed that crap hook, line and sinker just
as you seem to. Please!!!
forge
wrote:
>This one lame article you offer is only
>compelling evidence of your own lack of investigative skills. Perhaps you ought
>to also look into work that has been done in the field that was not on a TV
>show.
I cannot fucking believe you are defending that fucking FRAUD. Listen,
regarding all these fakers, psychics, seers, readers, whatever the
fuck you want to call them - The James Randi Educational Foundation
has a standing offer of one million dollars to anyone who can prove
they actually honestly have any of the powers they claim to have and
make big bucks pretending to have. No one has taken him up on it. No
one, not a single one.
Note also that the faker who helped Diahann Carol promote her bullcrap
Psychic Friends Network died suddenly several years ago. The first
thing many of her "psychic friends" said was, I am not making this
up... "this was totally unexpected, it's so tragic." Some fucking
psychic you are honey.
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000012.html
http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/
http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html
http://skepdic.master.com/texis/master/search/?s=SS&q=john+edward
Another "cold reading" bullshitter http://skepdic.com/vanpraagh.html
And the final word: http://www.weblemur.net/JohnEdward2.html
"Perhaps there are some people with a "special gift" for reaching
beyond the grave.
Perhaps John Edward is one of those people.
Perhaps there are also people with a special gift for turning ladies
into white tigers.
Perhaps Siegfried and Roy have that "special gift."
And perhaps there exists a man with a "special gift" for flying around
the world delivering presents to good boys and girls every christmas.
What are you, stupid??"
Traveler
> the fact that this show is obviously fake has got reflect on the
> believability of the jon edwards show. very stupid move on scifi's part as
> jon edwards seems like a pretty successful show.
>
>
>
Believability of Edwards???????????????
Rosalie
Whatever---I enjoyed the show-seemed to me all the 'victems' came out
laughing as well:) No need to be nasty about it-if you don't enjoy
the show then you can just change the channel now can't you:)
Pine106887
reactions are real and not "actor-inspired." But I will say that I saw an
interview years ago with an actress who was saying how she had to cry for a
scene and her father had just died and she was really crying. And when she saw
the dailies, she was just shocked, she looked entirely fake.
pine.
Perry Noid
> I can assure you the reactions you see on Scare Tactics are real. I
> work on the show. If someone knows in advance what's about to happen
> to them we don't use them.
I believe you. I bet candid camera got that stunned, dumbfounded look of
disbelief from people a lot more often than they showed. imho, to more
reliablely get the kind of reactions they're looking for, i think they
need to put the "victim" into more of an active role, like set up a
panic, everything goes wrong at the worst possible moment type situation
:o)
I remember a few years back in my town, someone took the chain off a
chainsaw and used that during holloween a haunted-house type thing,
scared this one girl so bad she needed profesional help :o/
i hope that guy with the knife was wearing a bullet proof vest, he could
get shot doing a bit like that!! :o/
They going to add a suggest a scare tactic bit to the scifi website?
Joe Moore
That's right. If you want to escape from "reality" tv you can always
turn to the Sci Fi channel.
Oh, wait a minute. That _was_ the SciFi channel.
joemooreaterolsdotcom
nos...@nospam.com
nos...@nospam.com
Skeptic's Dictionary is one of the greatest sites ever created. =)
nos...@nospam.com
>Whatever---I enjoyed the show-seemed to me all the 'victems' came out
>laughing as well:) No need to be nasty about it-if you don't enjoy
>the show then you can just change the channel now can't you:)
Any recommendations on channels that actually show Sci Fi - especially
since the Sci Fi channel is losing it's appeal?
On Friday nights I've been watching TNN and re-runs of ST TNG.
nos...@nospam.com
I am wondering why the Sci Fi channel is promoting the exploitation of
other people's pain to get a laugh. Sci Fi (in general) usually has
stories that show a ray of hope for the human race - not cruelty as
entertainment. Also, this show is pretty bad timing in war-time, where
pain and exploitation (from either side) is NOT funny.
You may not take this seriously, even laugh off my post, but a lot of
viewers will have my viewpoint.
Perry Noid
> http://skepdic.com/coldread.html
His readings can seem pretty amazing until you stop and think about it.
There are so many ways to cheat on those readings:
- only pick subjects that are easy to read
- get some inside infomation
- stereotype the person for general information
- the subject is in on it
- edit out mistakes from the broadcast
- only broadcast the best 1/3 of the readings
- the subject actually lies to claim a mistakes were accurate!!!!
reasons for lying may be because the reading is making her
look good or because she knows the reader was given false
information about another subject and wants to add
credibility to the reader which adds credibility to the
false information or the subject lies just because she wants
to take part in fooling lots of people for the fun of it.
Podkayne Fries
wrote:
>
>I can assure you the reactions you see on Scare Tactics are real. I
>work on the show. If someone knows in advance what's about to happen
>to them we don't use them.
>
>I've been reading this newsgroup as we neared the premiere and checked
>in this morning to read the reactions. And while I'm sure I'm inviting
>an avalanche of hate by posting here I couldn't let your claim that
>these people are actors go un-answered.
>
>Go ahead and hate the show if you like. But there is not a single
>truth to your claim that we use actors to fake their reaction as
>victims on the show.
What's the status of the lawsuit that one of the victims filed against
SciFi?
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
Nobody meets me and walks away unchanged. At the very least,
they have to change their underwear. - Arthur M Levesque
David Samuel Barr
>
>
> Note also that the faker who helped Diahann Carol
Dionne Warwick, not Diahann Carroll.
> promote her bullcrap Psychic Friends Network
It's the other way around. Warwick was just the shill hired to promote
PFN by the con artists who ran it; it wasn't her operation.
> died suddenly several years ago. The first thing many of her "psychic
> friends" said was, I am not making this up... "this was totally
> unexpected, it's so tragic." Some fucking psychic you are honey.
That is the punchline to numerous jokes about psychics et al that long
predate PFN.
forge
<dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> died suddenly several years ago. The first thing many of her "psychic
>> friends" said was, I am not making this up... "this was totally
>> unexpected, it's so tragic." Some fucking psychic you are honey.
>
>That is the punchline to numerous jokes about psychics et al that long
>predate PFN.
True but it is particularly hypocritical for a psychic to tell the
media "this was so unexpected!" I mean, I saw them actually saying
that to interviewers. Unbelievably stupid.
KERSPLOSH
>wrote:
>
>>This one lame article you offer is only
>>compelling evidence of your own lack of investigative skills. Perhaps you
>ought
>>to also look into work that has been done in the field that was not on a TV
>>show.
>
>I cannot fucking believe you are defending that fucking FRAUD. Listen,
>regarding all these fakers, psychics, seers, readers, whatever the
>fuck you want to call them - The James Randi Educational Foundation
>has a standing offer of one million dollars to anyone who can prove
>they actually honestly have any of the powers they claim to have and
>make big bucks pretending to have. No one has taken him up on it. No
>one, not a single one.
You are aware that Randi was quoted long ago that he would never pay that
challenge, that he "alway's had an out." Also, it is just a publicity gimmick
that he stole from one of his favorite magicians. The lies and distortions that
Randi has already proven to have made are huge. I am no great fan of astrology,
homeopathy, Sheldrake's dog, or Uri Geller, but but the lies and distortions he
made are already a matter of record in these cases. (How can you even begin to
trust someone that has to stoop to lies and distortion to disprove
*astrology!?* or a *psychic dog?* Talk about lame.)
You can start to get a general feel for his lack of ethics and disregard for
truth here;
http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/kammann.html
http://www.linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/hansen
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
This is more recent;
---------------------------------
"The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible
sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi
was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James
Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details
were given of these tests. I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this
JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information
too.
I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out
more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an
email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were
not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They
involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week
period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting
the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was
rash and improper of me to do so."
Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee,
a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for
his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off.
In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog
responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This
is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape." - Dr
Rupert Sheldrake
---------------------------------
Here is a couple of samples of other things;
------------------------
"Randi's antics should have come as no surprise to members of CSICOP because he
has engaged in similar behavior in relation to psi research. Krippner (1977),
Rao (1984), Targ and Puthoff (1977, pp. 182-186), and Tart (1982b) have all
documented glaring errors of Randi. Dennis Stillings has demonstrated that
"Randi is capable of gross distortion of facts" (Truzzi, 1987, p. 89). Randi
has been quoted as saying, "I always have an out" with regard to his $10,000
challenge (Rawlins, 1981, p. 89). Puthoff and Targ (1977) documented a number
of mistakes. In a published, handwritten, signed letter, Randi replied offering
$1,000 if any claimed error could be demonstrated (see Fuller, 1979). Fuller
proved Randi wrong. In a rejoinder to Puthoff and Targ (1977), Randi reversed
himself (for a clear example, see point number 15 in Randi, 1982, p. 223).
Randi should have paid the $1,000, but he never did."
"In 1988, Jacques Benveniste and colleagues published a paper in "Nature" that
gave support to some ideas of homeopathy (Davenas et al., 1988). After the
publication of the Davenas et al. report, a small group was named to examine
the procedures of the experiments, and Randi was appointed as one of the three
members. The subsequent accounts depict Randi as capitalizing on the
opportunity for showmanship and disrupting the business of the laboratory
(Benveniste, 1988). Randi made public innuendoes of fraud and incompetence.
Later he gave presentations about his involvement. During one of them, he
mimicked the Gallic mannerisms of Benveniste and made highly derogatory
comments about "French science"; many in the audience were offended (Inglis,
1988b)."
"SI" eventually published an article critical of Randi (Shneour, 1989), though
it was relegated to the back pages. Shneour wrote specifically of "careless"
criticisms, "squander[ing]" "credibility" (p. 95), and even noted that there
was a "preconceived bias that Benveniste's data was fraudulently generated" (p.
94). Both Collins (1988) and Shneour (1989) warned that such practices could be
destructive to the conduct of science. Randi (1990a) had little to say in
reply. (25)"
http://www.linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/hansen
------------------------
Or;
-------------------------------------------------
Rogo writes, "There obviously exist several discrepancies between Dr
Puthoff’s views on what happened during this experiment, and what Randi
claims Dr Hebard told him. So to clarify the matter, I decided to get in touch
with Dr Hebard myself. I finally tracked him down at the Bell Telephone
Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. He was very willing to discuss the
Swann magnetometer demonstration with me, and professed to be very interested
in parapsychology." Hebard’s interest in the paranormal contradicts Randi’s
statement that Hebard, "not being a reader of far-out literature," was unaware
of Targ and Puthoff’s claims.
Rogo acknowledges that Hebard’s account differs in some respects from
Puthoff’s. "Dr Hebard denied in no uncertain terms, however, Randi’s claim
that Swann was never asked to ‘stop the field charge’ being recorded from
the magnetometer. He easily recalled that he had suggested that it would be a
fascinating effect if Swann could produce it . . . which, of course, he
actually did soon after the suggestion was made. Randi also directly quotes Dr
Hebard as calling some of Targ and Puthoff’s claims ‘lies’. Dr Hebard was
very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get
him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement
to this effect for me." (Ellipsis in original.)
As for the discrepancies between Hebard’s and Puthoff’s accounts, Rogo
reports that in a subsequent meeting with Puthoff, he was shown "the actual
graphed print-outs given by the magnetometer during the Swann demonstrations.
The records supported Dr Puthoff’s contention more than they did Dr
Hebard’s.
-------------------------------------------------
Randi proceeds to launch a comprehensive critique of Targ and Puthoff’s
article "Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding," which
appeared in the October 18, 1974, issue of the respected journal Nature, and
which can be read here (or here). The article details experiments involving,
among other participants, the professed psychic Uri Geller.
Randi’s take on this series of experiments is withering. He skewers Targ and
Puthoff as "bunglers." He reports that their experiments were conducted in a
chaotic atmosphere conducive to cheating. He says that a hole in the wall of
Geller’s isolation room enabled him to spy on the scientists during their ESP
experiments. He says that Targ and Puthoff falsified the results of the tests
by omitting failed experiments that would have lowered Geller’s averages to
the level of chance. Further, he says that the scoring of Geller’s
performances was mishandled, generating higher scores than Geller deserved.
The question naturally arises: How does Randi know all this, since, as he
admits, "I’ve never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI [Stanford
Research Institute, where the experiments were conducted]"? He explains that he
was given inside information by "an individual" who claimed to represent dozens
of SRI scientists. This group, which worked in secret and even adopted a code
name (Broomhilda), passed the information to Randi.
Unfortunately, Randi never names this individual or any other members of the
Broomhilda group. He says that "Broomhilda verified for me much of the
information that I had been holding on to for years," but where did he get this
earlier information in the first place? "That data," he says, "now moved from
the status of hearsay to documented fact." But documented is hardly a term
applicable to either the initial information, which is never specified, or the
Broomhilda information, which came from an anonymous source. He adds,
"Additional facts were elicited during conversations and correspondence with
individuals. Many of these persons were not aware of Broomhilda and were acting
on their own. Their completely independent input supported Broomhilda’s
charges. Taken together," he concludes, "the information from all sources
amounted to quite an indictment."
Maybe so, but it’s an indictment that would never hold up in court. The
reader is expected to take Randi’s word that his unidentified sources are
trustworthy – and that the sources themselves are well-informed about
experimental procedures they may or may not have witnessed.
Thus when Randi alleges that "hundreds of [failed] experiments that were done
by SRI ... were never reported," we must take the statement on faith, as it is
unsupported by any documentation. Similarly, when Randi says definitively, "All
the other tests [i.e., the successful ones] lacked proper controls and were
useless," we search in vain for any footnote to back up this assertion.
A posting I found on a message board sums up the situation nicely: "Claims of
poor scientific method leveled at the experimenters have been shown to be
mainly unsubstantiated personal opinion and second-hand ‘Chinese
Whispers.’" (Chinese Whispers is the British equivalent of the American game,
Telephone.) It might be worth adding that critics of paranormal phenomena, like
Randi, are forever decrying any reliance on "anecdotal evidence," which is
precisely what the bulk of Randi’s argument consists of.
-------------------------------------------------
Some idea of the counter-arguments to Randi’s claims can be obtained by
taking another look at D. Scott Rogo, who earlier showed the initiative to
track down Dr. Hebard. Unlike Randi, who, as we have seen, had "never even set
foot" inside the research facility, Rogo visited SRI on June 12, 1981. He found
that Randi had misrepresented the hole in the wall of the isolation room
through which Geller was supposedly able to spy on the researchers. The hole, a
conduit for cables, is depicted in Flim-Flam as being three and a half inches
wide and therefore offering a good view of the experimental area where the
researchers were working. Rogo found, however, that the hole "is
three-and-a-quarter inches [wide] and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch
wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it.
The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which
cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned
that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through
this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy
experiments."
Randi also indicates that the hole is stationed 34 inches above the floor. Not
so, says Rogo. "It isn’t three feet above the floor, but is located only a
little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under
optimal conditions -is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The
viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments
were hung on a different wall completely.)* I also discovered during my trip to
SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the
Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my
little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these
critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole
– therefore totally blocking it – during the time of the Geller
experiments."
It would appear that the hole in the isolation booth’s wall poses
considerably less of a problem than the holes in Randi’s arguments.
-------------------------------------------------
Playfair writes, "[Randi] turned, in a later book, Flim-Flam, to the
professional photographer who had made the film, a Stanford employee named Zev
Pressman, with an extraordinary series of unfounded allegations....
"Pressman flatly denied all of Randi’s allegations in two public statements,
neither of which was even mentioned in the 1982 reissue of the book. ‘I made
the film,’ said Pressman, ‘and my name appeared with my full knowledge and
permission . . . Nothing was restaged or specially created . . . I have never
met nor spoken to nor corresponded with Randi. The "revelations" he attributes
to me are pure fiction.’"
-------------------------------------------------
Rogo writes, "I spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was
quite interested when I told him about Randi’s book. He denied that he had
spoken to the magician. When I read him the section of Randi’s book dealing
with his alleged ‘expose’ of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed.
He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it
on the spot, and labeled Randi’s allegation as a total fabrication. (His own
descriptive language was a little more colourful!)*" Rogo also reports that
Puthoff showed him Pressman’s signed affidavit.
How could Randi’s conversation with Pressman be so different from Rogo’s?
The truth is, Randi does not appear to have had a conversation with Pressman at
all. Take another look at the quote from Flim-Flam. The key words are: "Most
damning of all, Pressman said to others at SRI ..." Evidently, then, Randi’s
source is not Pressman himself, but unnamed "others at SRI" who passed on this
information to Randi. Another round of Chinese Whispers, it seems.
-------------------------------------------------
Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had
mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I
also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having
explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am
thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to
attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short,
the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair
means or foul.
The title of his book thus takes on a new and unintended meaning. From what I
can tell, James Randi really is the Flim-Flam man.
KERSPLOSH
As proof of your assertions you offer the words of cartoon characters? What
does Johnny Qwest tell you to do? Or Haji? Or Bandit? How many copies of
"Catcher in the Rye" do you own?
KERSPLOSH
nos...@nospam.com
"Dr. Michael Persinger, working at Laurentian University, in Sudbury,
Ontario, Canada, has pioneered a method for inducing the religious,
spiritual experience of the shaman. Without drugs, herbs, hypnosis or
invasive surgery, he can quite literally flip a switch and induce the
experience of "god."
Using an ordinary striped yellow motorcycle helmet purchased at a
sporting goods store, which he has modified with electromagnetic
coils, he can place the helmet on your head, connect the wires to a
device he has constructed that generates the proper signals, and when
the magnetic fields produced by the coils penetrate the skull and into
the temporal lobes of the brain, the result is the stimulation of
those lobes and a religious experience results.
In common with the Hindu view that a confrontation with God is a
confrontation with the self, the nine-hundred plus people who have
undertaken the experience produced by Dr. Persinger's helmet have had
some very profound experiences. Four out of five say that they've had
experiences so profound they would be life-changing had they not
understood the mechanistic underpinnings of what they had experienced.
How does Dr. Persinger's helmet work? It works by inducing very small
electrical signals with tiny magnetically induced mechanical
vibrations in the brain cells of the temporal lobes and other selected
areas of the brain, located in the skull just above and forward of the
ears. These lobes are the portions of the brain that produce the
"Forty Hertz Component" of the brainwaves detected in
electroencephalograms. These mysterious "forty hertz components" are
present whenever you are awake or when you are in REM sleep. They are
absent during deep, dreamless sleep. What the "forty hertz component"
does is not well understood, but we know that it is always present
during the experience of "self." We cannot have a "me" experience
without the forty hertz component being present.
What this means is that the forty hertz component is essential to our
experience of self. We cannot experience our sense of individuality
without it. It stands to reason, then, that if the forty hertz
component could somehow be suppressed, the sense of individuality
would be suppressed with it, and indeed, this is what Dr. Persinger's
helmet does. It turns off the forty hertz component and with it the
sense of individuality which your brain uses to define "self" as
opposed to "rest of the world."
When the brain is deprived of the self stimulation and sensory input
that is required for it to define itself as being distinct from the
rest of the world, the brain 'defaults' to a sense of infinity. The
sense of self expands to fill whatever the brain can sense, and what
it senses is the world, so the experience of the self simply expands
to fill the perception of the world itself. One experiences becoming
"one with the universe."
But What About the God Experience?
There are two temporal lobes in the brain, one on each side. The one
on the left, in most people, is the dominant one, responsible for
language, which becomes dominant when we first learn language as
children. The one on the right, non-dominant, contributes to the sense
of self with constant communication with its opposite colleague. But
being on the far side of the brain, sometimes the communications get
out of whack, often as a result of stress or disease, and the forty
hertz component falls out of sync. When this happens, the result is
that the normally silent right-hand sense of self becomes experienced
as a separate presence by the left-hand sense of self.
This is the experience of the God presence. There is an overwhelming
sense of presence, an inescapable feeling that someone is there. But
when the forty hertz component is deeply attenuated or entirely absent
from, say, the left side, and there's no "self" experience occurring,
the feeling of unity with infinity is occuring with a sense of an
overwhelming presence resulting from the continued operation of the
right hand side, there is no way to describe it other than feeling
that one has experienced the "infinite presence." Hence the God
experience.
All of this has been verified not only experimentally with Dr.
Persinger's helmet, but by use of high-tech brain scanning machines
similar to the CAT and MRI scanners that many of us have experienced.
And The Sense of Timelessness and Spacelessness in Prayer and
Meditation?
Many deeply experienced meditators feel, when deep in meditation, an
experience of transcendance of the here and now. They feel a sense of
being outside of time and space. How is this experience produced?
Two researchers, Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili, have taken a
particular interest in these experiences. Through the use of a
brain-scanning technique called SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed
Tomography), they have determined how these experiences arise. The
researchers have produced images of the brains of Tibetan Buddhists
who undergo deep, profound meditative experiences as the result of
years of practice. They have done the same with a Catholic Franciscan
nun, who, after 45 minutes of deep prayer, had her brain scanned to
determine what centers were active and what centers were not.
The results show that in both cases, the pre-frontal cortex, which
controls attention, is highly stimulated. This is not surprising -
meditation requires a great deal of concentration. The subjects are
clearly deeply attentive to their task. But the superior parietal
lobe, the center that processes information about space, time and the
orientation of the body in space, is suppressed, and is almost totally
quiet. The result is that any sense of time, space or being in the
world is suppressed along with the activity in the superior parietal
lobe. And not feeling "in the world" leads to an "other-worldly"
experience. So it is not surprising that those who have this
experience describe it as being in the "spiritual realm." Persinger
has been able to reproduce this by electrically supressing activity in
the superior parietal lobe using his helmet - and when he performs
this experiment on Tibetan monks and the Franciscan nun, they all
report that the experience is identical to what they experience in
their own meditative practice.
What About The Near-Death Experience?
The near-death experience that is described by many patients who have
been revived from life-threatening events contain elements of all of
these and a few more.
We have seen how the presence of the "god" feeling arises from the
result of the shutting down of communications between the temporal
lobes. And we have seen how the sense of timelessness and infinite
space arise through the supression of activity in the superior
parietal lobe. But what about the vision of the tunnel with the light
at the end? And the sense of rising out of the body?
The sense of orientation is lost when the superior parietal lobe shuts
down. The 'self' no longer feels anchored to the body, because the
sense of self being in the body is lost, and one often seems to be
rising to 'heaven.' We now know that the vision of the tunnel is
produced by the visual cortex being disconnected from sensory input,
and beginning to shut down. Same with the light at the end of the
tunnel, which is an artifact of the brain's visual cortex 'looking'
for sensory input it cannot 'see.' The visions of a beautiful summer
garden or lovely mountain landscapes are the result of the memory
centers acting on the centers of the brain that organize visual input
into things we recognize, which is operating in the near-total absense
of sensory input. All of these brain activities together produce the
familiar being of light at the end of a tunnel, and the entrance into
the beautiful summer garden.
These experiences have a deep, even profound feeling of reality to
them. This is simply because the centers of the brain that are
producing the experience are cut completely off from sensory that
would dilute the 'realness' of the experience - those centers that
analyse experience for us in real time and allow us to evaluate it for
its correspondence to reality - in other words, the centers of the
brain that enable us to discern the difference between dreaming and
wakefulness, real versus imagined. Hence, the subjects who report
these experiences describe them as being so real they were not at all
like a dream. Indeed, they weren't - they were dreams undiluted from
sensory reality checks and the evaluation of sensory data for its
validity.
But What About "Brain-Dead" Patients And Their Near-death Experiences?
What is now understood is that these phenomena can occur with very
minute amounts of electrical activity in the brain. Most of the brain
can be shut down and these phenomena are still possible - with
electrical activity so small it is not possible to measure it through
external devices. Remember, our brains don't come with "diagnostic
ports" like a modern automobile's engine computer - what we measure
with our electroencephalograms is the "leakage." It's like trying to
discern what's happening inside a computer by listening to the static
it creates in a radio sitting next to it. A lot can be happening
without making enough noise to hear it on the "radio."
http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm
There is more to the article, that's just a clip.
forge
wrote:
>You are aware that Randi was quoted long ago that he would never pay that
>challenge, that he "alway's had an out." Also, it is just a publicity gimmick
>that he stole from one of his favorite magicians. The lies and distortions that
>Randi has already proven to have made are huge.
Very well then. However most if not all of the things he purports to
debunk are in fact plots designed to separated gullible idiots from
their money.
To be perfectly honest, I'm a Witch, so I *do* believe in some kind of
influence of synergistic energies on our lives. And it's okay, I feel,
to help people who choose to follow that path. But to pull a Miss Cleo
and rip off morons just because you can is simply immoral and ought to
be stopped in any way possible.
forge
wrote:
>>What the fuck are you talking about? Stan on "South Park" stood in
>>front of the people of his community and cold-read them just like
>>Edwards does. And they swallowed that crap hook, line and sinker just
>>as you seem to. Please!!!
>
>As proof of your assertions you offer the words of cartoon characters? What
>does Johnny Qwest tell you to do? Or Haji? Or Bandit? How many copies of
>"Catcher in the Rye" do you own?
South Park is animated by humans, dude. Very clearly-thinking ones, if
you look from where I'm standing. The point of the post is that anyone
can do cold-reading, even the animator of a cartoon that features a
talking turd and a kid that dies and is eaten by rats in every
episode.
As I said in my previous post, I actually believe in things that I
guess would be called "paranormal." But people who capitalize on the
gullibility of others should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
the law.
Mac Breck
snip
> ...But people who capitalize on the
> gullibility of others should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
> the law.
Talking about John Edward, or CEOs?
forge
wrote:
>> ...But people who capitalize on the
>> gullibility of others should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
>> the law.
>
>Talking about John Edward, or CEOs?
Yes.
KERSPLOSH
>wrote:
>
>>>What the fuck are you talking about? Stan on "South Park" stood in
>>>front of the people of his community and cold-read them just like
>>>Edwards does. And they swallowed that crap hook, line and sinker just
>>>as you seem to. Please!!!
>>
>>As proof of your assertions you offer the words of cartoon characters? What
>>does Johnny Qwest tell you to do? Or Haji? Or Bandit? How many copies of
>>"Catcher in the Rye" do you own?
>
>South Park is animated by humans, dude. Very clearly-thinking ones, if
>you look from where I'm standing.
And somehow these animators are experts on the matter? When have they ever
offered anything but knee jerk explanations for anything? Also, if you go by
what episode in question states, then the afterlife can be proven by drinking a
child's ashes like chocolate milk!
>The point of the post is that anyone
>can do cold-reading, even the animator of a cartoon that features a
>talking turd and a kid that dies and is eaten by rats in every
>episode.
Hello? So cold reading in a cartoon means what? And you offer a talking turd as
evidence of some "ability?" If *anybody* can cold read like you say, then how
come the episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" that was supposed to show how
John Edward does his show by cold reading received such poor reviews? And Penn
& Teller claim to be experts in that sort of thing.
>As I said in my previous post, I actually believe in things that I
>guess would be called "paranormal." But people who capitalize on the
>gullibility of others should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
>the law.
I suggest that you read these links;
http://www.openmindsciences.com/
http://www.SurvivalScience.org/debunk/default.shtml
http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/somethoughts.htm
before you pass judgement. South Park is not a legitimate reference.
Gigabites
and managed to come up with this:
> ...somewhat along the lines of what the bullies were doing to Duggits in
> Dreamcatcher.
uh, it's "Duddits"
as in "I, Duddits!!!"
Mac Breck
news:Xns935732A608C...@204.127.199.17...
Oops, my mistake (I guess.). Never heard "I, Duddits!!!" before. *shrug*
KERSPLOSH
Mistress of the Fright
Stupid questions for "90210"'s Shannen Doherty. EW tries to scare the "Tactics"
host with some trivia by Dan Snierson
BRENDA STAR Doherty can't seem to shake the "90210" inquires
Jump for joy! Quake with fear! Start a newsletter! Shannen Doherty returns to
TV as the host of "Scare Tactics," the Sci Fi Channel's new hidden-camera
practical-joke series (premiering April 4 at 10 p.m.). "I get to play pranks on
my friends and work six days out of the year," says the 31-year-old former
"90210" and "Charmed" star. "What could be better?" Nothing -- except a round
of stupid questions.
I thought of a good prank you could play on Sci Fi viewers. How about sneaking
into their homes and replacing their "Babylon 5" tape collections with
real-life women?
They might be excited. Is "Babylon 5" -- I don't know that show -- is it, like,
hugely popular, and they're all just freaks for it?
Pretty much.
Really? My God, hopefully they'll get culty about me.
How's it going at the Sci Fi Channel? Are nerdy guys hitting on you in the
hallway and telling you they've got a big phaser in their pants?
Oh, nobody's hitting on me. But they can. I'm free. I'm single. I'm available.
They're more than welcome to; it's good for my ego.
Settle those "90210" rumors once and for all: What was the secret behind Ian
Ziering's early-'90s 'fro mullet?
Dude, that 'fro was hot…. We all had different times in the makeup trailer,
and I think his hair time was very, very top secret. I think it was done in a
corner when everybody else was gone. You know, I'm sure there was a pick
involved. There had to be a pick involved.
My editor keeps a "90210" Brenda doll in her office. You're wearing a big hat
with a white flower, floral vest, purple tie, and khaki shorts. Want me to get
it back for you?
I don't need it back, sweetie, because I have three at home. My goddaughter
likes to take me out of the box and play with me every once in awhile.
In "Charmed," you once had to banish something called "the Woogyman" to save
your possessed sister. I don't have a question, but I have to say I don't blame
you for leaving that show.
Thank you. There's only so many Woogymen I can take in my life -- although my
personal life would beg to differ.
Hey, this interview is going really well. Wait a sec -- you're not going to
marry me, are you?
I might. I've been known to do that.
Wow. I thought you would've hung up by now, and I'm running low on questions.
So…what's up?
Uh, nothing. I gotta go.
http://www.ew.com/ew/onlyonaol/report/0,17129,439192~3~0~,00.html
forge
wrote:
>Hello? So cold reading in a cartoon means what? And you offer a talking turd as
>evidence of some "ability?" If *anybody* can cold read like you say, then how
>come the episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" that was supposed to show how
>John Edward does his show by cold reading received such poor reviews? And Penn
>& Teller claim to be experts in that sort of thing.
Reviews aren't related to credibility.
KERSPLOSH
Actually, they are in this case. It is up to the viewer to ultimately believe
what they feel is right. These two critics ultimately felt that P&T did not
present sufficient evidence to support their claim that they could duplicate
John Edward's work. The point was that P&T attempted to demonstrate how JE is a
fake by showing somebody else do the same thing, and two critics were not
impressed, and felt the demonstration fell short.
--------------------------------------------------
The quality of their investigations also is erratic. Like most everyone else
who has taken aim at Edward, for instance, they accuse the Sci-Fi star of using
an age-old carnival technique called "cold reading." This is device where a
so-called psychic will use educated guesses and intuition to trick customers
into revealing pertinent information.
Penn & Teller demonstrate how this technique works extraordinarily well under
the right circumstances. But if Edward is a fraud, he's using more than just
the cold-reading routine.
The rule with cold reading is not to give specifics: names, dates, places,
events. Edward appears to do this frequently.
The only way a fraud can know these is by "hot" techniques: acquiring advance
knowledge of subjects through research or, perhaps, electronically bugging
audience members before a show. Does Edward use this in combination with cold
reading? Does he edit his taped sessions to get rid of the misses and bad
guesses, making him seem more gifted? Is he the total fake the Penn & Teller
show says he is?
If so, Penn & Teller never get anywhere near proving it.
Maybe they're taking an educated guess about Edward, but isn't that the very
thing they're accusing Edward of doing? Houdini caught his targets in the act.
Penn & Teller are showing you how admitted fakes work the cold reading bit,
then saying, "See how easily you are fooled."
Proof? Again, they're the ones advising skepticism.
Other segments are more effective, convincing and hilarious. The rule is to
have fun and to remember, you can't believe everything someone tells you, even
when that someone is cautioning you not to believe everything someone tells
you. Total truth? If that's the goal, you're chasing an illusion.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
mdawi...@plaind.com, 216-999-4249
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/enterta
inment/1043404382176280.xml
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In attempting to debunk mediums, he uses a con man, "Mark Edward," to "contact"
the dead relatives of unsuspecting people who've been brought into a studio
hoping for some word from beyond the grave. The guy doesn't do much, but
hopeful people want to believe and maybe in an effort to not embarrass the
"medium" on camera, they go along with it.
He then goes on to debunk real TV psychic John Edward. As "proof" that John
Edward is a phony, they show a security guard refusing to allow Penn's camera
crew into a show. Not for nuthin' but since when is the audience allowed to
videotape a show?
On show two, "Alternative Medicine," they set out to disprove reflexology,
chiropractic medicine, and the use of magnets in pain relief.
Instead of going to legitimate chiropractors, who work in conjunction with
sports medicine physicians using ultra-sound, exercise and massage, they find
some little guy who's half crazed in his little office. They make a fool of him
and the people he's treating.
Next up, a wheelchair-bound reflexologist, and an old MD who believes magnets
can ease pain. I'm sorry, but an old man and a handicapped guy?
The only bright spot, if you can stand to look at it, is when they set up a
phony booth at a mall and find three suckers who agree to snail-mucous facials,
where live snails crawl on their faces and deposit snail snot. If you don't
throw up, it's somewhat amusing.
But really, "Bull…#@$%" can be best summed up by Penn's quote about another
show, "I don't see how they can even make a television show out of it, it's so
bad."
"Penn & Teller: Bull%$#*"
Tonight at 11 on Showtime
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/67284.htm
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Dennis Groome
>
> Penn & Teller demonstrate how this technique works extraordinarily
> well under the right circumstances. But if Edward is a fraud, he's
> using more than just the cold-reading routine.
>
> The rule with cold reading is not to give specifics: names, dates,
> places, events. Edward appears to do this frequently.
It's called using plants. You think everyone he reads is a stranger? All
you need to do is have someone set up before hand in the audience. Man, i
really wish i could find that link for the Salon article written by someone
who actually went to a show and saw his tactics first hand.
>
> The only way a fraud can know these is by "hot" techniques: acquiring
> advance knowledge of subjects through research or, perhaps,
> electronically bugging audience members before a show. Does Edward
> use this in combination with cold reading? Does he edit his taped
> sessions to get rid of the misses and bad guesses, making him seem
> more gifted? Is he the total fake the Penn & Teller show says he is?
yes. that damn article i can't find anymore specifically referenced a can
load of people that arrived together but didn't sit near each other, many of
whom had "validations"; they're plants. The article also detailed his
technique of running through description after description until you give
him something to work with as well as noting that he edited the response to
make it look better when it aired.
--
"Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as
fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the
slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This
natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general
speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular
killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain
can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake
of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks
the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular
consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain
a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter
after a few beers." -Cliff Clavin
-Dennis H. Groome V
ICQ: 11430261 AIM/Yahoo: AmoNympham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/daily_rant/
KERSPLOSH
>>
>> Penn & Teller demonstrate how this technique works extraordinarily
>> well under the right circumstances. But if Edward is a fraud, he's
>> using more than just the cold-reading routine.
>>
>> The rule with cold reading is not to give specifics: names, dates,
>> places, events. Edward appears to do this frequently.
>
>It's called using plants. You think everyone he reads is a stranger? All
>you need to do is have someone set up before hand in the audience.
Let's see, if he had one plant per show, 2 shows a day, 5 days a week, 29 (?)
week shooting schedule a year, over a period of two years that would be almost
600 "plants." Of course, that would not be an accurate number, because usually
he has more than one reading per show that he demonstrates the ability to cite
very specific information - names, dates, places, events, etc. Also he often
reads whole families, so if they were a plant you would have to pay off the
whole family to be a plant. It seems very unlikely that John Edward could keep
that many people quiet. Newspapers, or even CSICOP would pay good money to have
a plant come foreward and speak up. You are talking a bout a conspiracy theory
that would impress even the likes of Mulder and Scully.
You would then have to call Gary Scwartz and his studies a sham, as well as the
four other mediums invovled, and the HBO crew that filmed it. You would also
have to call journalist Linda Ellerbee a liar. She chose one of the sitters,
whose identity was unbeknownst to the Schartz or any of the mediums. John
edward also demonstrated remarkable accuracy in some of the reading he did on
Larry King, with random callers. So I guess that Larry King is in on the scam
too. I suggest you rethink this stance, and investigate further. Conspiracy
theories of this magnitude are generally made by those that are delusional and
paranoid.
>Man, i
>really wish i could find that link for the Salon article written by someone
>who actually went to a show and saw his tactics first hand.
Here is a very positive article written about John Edward in Salon;
http://archive.salon.com/ent/col/mill/2000/07/31/crossing_over/
>> The only way a fraud can know these is by "hot" techniques: acquiring
>> advance knowledge of subjects through research or, perhaps,
>> electronically bugging audience members before a show. Does Edward
>> use this in combination with cold reading? Does he edit his taped
>> sessions to get rid of the misses and bad guesses, making him seem
>> more gifted? Is he the total fake the Penn & Teller show says he is?
>
>yes. that damn article i can't find anymore specifically referenced a can
>load of people that arrived together but didn't sit near each other, many of
>whom had "validations"; they're plants. The article also detailed his
>technique of running through description after description until you give
>him something to work with as well as noting that he edited the response to
>make it look better when it aired.
I believe that you are talking about some version of this article that I posted
in a different newsgroup with comments that I added.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Deconstructing The Dead: Cross Over One Last Time To Expose Medium John Edward
By Michael Shermer
History is not just one damn thing after another, it is also the same damn
thing over and over--time's arrow and time's cycle. Fads come and go, in
clothing, cars, and psychics. In the 1970s it was Uri Geller, in the 1980s it
was Shirley MacLaine, in the 1990s it was James Van Praagh, and to kick off the
new millennium it is John Edward. Edward's star is rising rapidly with a hit
daily television series "Crossing Over" on the Sci Fi network and a New York
Times bestselling book "One Last Time." He has appeared, unopposed, on Larry
King Live and has been featured on Dateline, Entertainment Tonight, and an HBO
special. He is so hot that his television show is about to make the jump to
network television, as he is soon to go opposite Oprah in CBS's afternoon
lineup.
Last month Skeptic magazine was the first national publication to run an expose
of John Edward in James "The Amazing" Randi's column (in Vol. 8, #3, now on
newsstands and bookstores or at www.skeptic.com), a story that was picked up
this week by Time magazine, who featured a full-page article on what is rapidly
becoming the Edward phenomenon. There is, in reality, nothing new here. Same
story, different names. In watching Edward I'm amazed at how blatant he is in
stealing lines from medium James Van Praagh.
It reminds me of entertainers, commedians, and magicians who go to each others'
shows to glean new ideas.
Time's reporter Leon Jaroff, quoting from the Skeptic article, wrote a
skeptical piece in which he reported the experiences of an audience member from
an Edward taping. His name is Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing
manager, who reported his experiences as follows (quoting from the Skeptic
article):
"I was on the John Edward show. He even had a multiple guess "hit" on me that
was featured on the show. However, it was edited so that my answer to another
question was edited in after one of his questions.
-------------------------------------
That is a surprise? And it is interesting that this quote is so often repeated,
and yet is still the only one. Other disgruntled audience member must surely
want to come foreward about their plight?
-------------------------------------
In other words, his question and my answer were deliberately mismatched.
-------------------------------------
What question, what answer? Other disgruntled audience member must surely want
to come foreward regarding this. What segment is this? Why is it not described?
Why is that omitted from the article? Only the accusation remains.
-------------------------------------
Only a fraction of what went on in the studio was actually seen in the final 30
minute show.
-------------------------------------
What fraction? As each shooting is cut up into several different episodes, how
can he quantify that in terms of one 30 minute show?
-------------------------------------
He was wrong about a lot and was very aggressive when somebody failed to
acknowledge something he said. Also, his "production assistants" were always
around while we waited to get into the studio. They told us to keep very quiet,
and they overheard a lot.
-------------------------------------
Ah, other people in the audience that are not audience members but are members
of the crew are proof of some conspirasy. Note the very scientific use of the
words "a lot."
-------------------------------------
I think that the whole place is bugged somehow.
-------------------------------------
There is some real evidence. He "THINKS" that there must bugs. The "production
assistants" *must* be spys.
-------------------------------------
Also, once in the studio we had to wait around for almost two hours before the
show began.
-------------------------------------
Note that Time magazine said one hour.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html
Assumed bugs, "production assistants," being made to wait. No evidence so far.
-------------------------------------
Throughout that time everybody was talking about what dead relative of theirs
might pop up.
-------------------------------------
People will talk regardless. NO evidence that it was recorded or listened to
was presented.
-------------------------------------
Remember that all this occurred under microphones and with cameras already set
up.
-------------------------------------
So the equipment should be hauled in at the last minute? Because Shermer sees a
phantom?
-------------------------------------
My guess is that he was backstage listening and looking at us all and noting
certain readings. When he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he
were trying to spot people he recognized.
-------------------------------------
Ah, his guesses and feelings are now considered crucial evidence. (actually the
only evidence presented in ths article are his guesses and feelings.) How JE
looked at the audience is evidence of something. What he guesses is backstage
is now proof of something.
-------------------------------------
He also had ringers in the audience. I can tell because about fifteen people
arrived in a chartered van, and once inside they did not sit together."
-------------------------------------
You mean like several people coming from the same hotel in the same charted van
to the same event? That happens all the time. That is proof of a "ringer?"
-------------------------------------
Last week an ABC television producer flew out from New York to film me for an
investigation of Edward they are conducting.
-------------------------------------
I believe I saw it. It was even handed and did not presume to make a judgement.
Both sides were covered.
-------------------------------------
The segment began as a "puff piece" (as she called it), but a chance encounter
in the ABC cafeteria with 20/20 correspondent Bill Ritter, with whom I worked
on an expose of medium James Van Praagh a few years ago, tipped her off that
Edward was, in fact, a Van Praagh clone and that his talking to the dead was
nothing more than the old magicians' cold reading trick.
-------------------------------------
So we have the opinion of a reporter met on a chance encounter about a
different person than the article is about and it is now considered an
important point. It certainly fits with the rest of the noise.
-------------------------------------
After waching the 20/20 piece the producer immediately realized what was really
going on inside Edward's studio.
-------------------------------------
And what did she say "was really going on?" production assistants, cameras, and
microphones? Oh my God! Note the lack of a quote, and the very important lack
of a **NAME** for the "ABC television producer."
-------------------------------------
She began to ask a few probing questions and was promptly cut off by Edward and
his producers. ABC was told they would not be allowed to film inside the studio
and that they, the Sci Fi network, would provide edited clips that ABC could
use. The ABC producer became suspicious, and then skeptical. She has been
trying to get an interview with Edward to confront him with my critiques, but
they continue to put her off.
-------------------------------------
Ah! One producer blown off by another producer. That never happens in show biz.
Note the use of the phrase, "confront him with **my** critiques." There is
absolutely nothing original about his theories.
-------------------------------------
In fact, she just phoned to tell me that Edward's publicist just left a message
on her voice mail (with a date and time) stating that Edward was not available
for an interview because he is out of state, yet the producer just caught him
on television live in studio on CBS New York!
-------------------------------------
Ah! One producer blown off by another producer. That never happens in show biz.
-------------------------------------
Something fishy is going on here and I know what it is.
The video clips I was shown make it obvious why Edward does not want raw
footage going out to the public--he's not all that good at doing cold readings.
Where I estimated Van Praagh's hit rate at between 20-30 percent, Edward's hit
rate at between 10-20 percent (the error-range in the estimates is created by
the fuzziness of what constitutes a "hit"--more on this in a moment). The
advantage Edward has over Van Praagh is his verbal alacrity. Van Praagh is
Ferrari fast, but Edward is driving an Indy-500 racer. In the opening minute of
the first reading captured on film by the ABC camera, I counted over one
statement per second (ABC was allowed to film in the control room under the
guise of filming the hardworking staff, and instead filmed Edward on the
monitor in the raw). Think about that--in one minute Edward riffles through 60
names, dates, colors, diseases, conditions, situations, relatives, and the
like. It goes so fast that you have to stop tape, rewind, and go back to catch
them all. When he does come up for air the studio audience members to whom he
is speaking look like deer in the headlights.
-------------------------------------
Something fishy *is* going on here. By grading each hit as a 50-50 chance and
not following the proper math, he is not even begining to describe the right
way to grade a reading. Do you think this may have something to do with his
being "persona non grata?"
-------------------------------------
In the edited tape provided by Edward we caught a number of editing mistakes,
where he appears to be starting a reading on someone but makes reference to
something they said "earlier." Oops!
-------------------------------------
Ah ha! evidence of editing in a show that admits it is edited!
What follows below is the standard explanation of cold, warm hot reading.
-------------------------------------
Edward begins by selecting a section of the studio audience of about 20 people,
saying things like "I'm getting a George over here. I don't know what this
means. George could be someone who passed over, he could be someone here, he
could be someone that you know," etc. Of course such generalizations lead to a
"hit" where someone indeed knows a George, or is related to a George, or is a
George. Now that he's targeted his mark, the real reading begins in which
Edward employs cold reading, warm reading, and hot reading techniques.
1. Cold Reading. The first thing to know is that John Edward, like all other
psychic mediums, does not do the reading--his subjects do. He asks them
questions and they give him answers. "I'm getting a P name. Who is this
please?" "He's showing me something red. What is this please?" And so on. This
is what is known in the mentalism trade as cold reading, where you literally
"read" someone "cold," knowing nothing about them. You ask lots of questions
and make numerous statements, some general and some specific, and sees what
sticks. Most of the time Edward is wrong. If the subjects have time they
visibly nod their heads "no." But Edward is so fast that they usually only have
the time or impetus to acknowledge the hits. And Edward only needs an
occasional strike to convince his clientele he is genuine.
2. Warm Reading. This is utilizing known principles of psychology that apply to
nearly everyone. For example, most grieving people will wear a piece of jewelry
that has a connection to their loved one. Katie Couric on The Today Show, for
example, after her husband died, wore his ring on a necklace when she returned
to the show. Edward knows this about mourning people and will say something
like "do you have a ring or a piece of jewelry on you, please?" His subject
cannot believe her ears and nods enthusiastically in the affirmative. He says
"thank you," and moves on as if he had just divined this from heaven. Most
people also keep a photograph of their loved one either on them or near their
bed, and Edward will take credit for this specific hit that actually applies to
most people.
Edward is facile at determining the cause of death by focusing either on the
chest or head areas, and then exploring whether it was a slow or sudden end. He
works his way down through these possibilities as if he were following a
computer flow chart and then fills in the blanks. "I'm feeling a pain in the
chest." If he gets a positive nod, he continues. "Did he have cancer, please?
Because I'm seeing a slow death here." If he gets the nod, he takes the hit. If
the subject hesitates at all, he will quickly shift to heart attack. If it is
the head, he goes for stroke or head injury from an automobile accident or
fall. Statistically speaking there are only half a dozen ways most of us die,
so with just a little probing, and the verbal and nonverbal cues of his
subject, he can appear to get far more hits than he is really getting.
3. Hot Reading. Sometimes psychic mediums cheat by obtaining information on a
subject ahead of time. I do not know if Edward does research or uses shills in
the audience to get information on people, or even plants in the audience on
which to do readings, but in my investigation of James Van Praagh I discovered
from numerous television producers that he consciously and deliberately pumps
them for information about his subjects ahead of time, then uses that
information to deceive the viewing public that he got it from heaven.
The ABC producer also asked me to do a reading on her. "You know absolutely
nothing about me so let's see how well this works." After reviewing the Edward
tapes I did a ten minute reading on her. She sat there dropped jawed and wide
eyed, counting my hits. She proclaimed that I was unbelievably accurate. How
did I do it? Let's just say I utilized all three of the above techniques. After
the show airs on ABC New York this week (Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday I'm
told) I'll reveal the details in another posting.
-------------------------------------
Does anybody know if this is on the internet? I would like to read it.
Otherwise, it is just his word that the "ABC producer" was read by him, and if
it was even any good.
-------------------------------------
Most of the time, however, mediums do not need to cheat. The reason has to do
with the psychology of belief. This stuff works because the people who go to
mediums want it to work (remember, they do the readings, not the mediums). The
simplest explanation for how mediums can get away with such an outrageous claim
as the ability to talk to the dead is that they are dealing with a subject the
likes of which it would be hard to top for tragedy and finality--death. Sooner
or later we all will face this inevitability, starting, in the normal course of
events, with the loss of our parents, then siblings and friends, and eventually
ourselves. It is a grim outcome under the best of circumstances, made all the
worse when death comes early or accidentally to those whose "time was not up."
As those who traffic in the business of loss, death, and grief know all too
well, we are often at our most vulnerable at such times. Giving deep thought to
this reality can cause the most controlled and rational among us to succumb to
our emotions.
The reason John Edward, James Van Praagh, and the other so-called mediums are
unethical and dangerous is that they are not helping anyone in what they are
doing.
-------------------------------------
If he supplied proof, that would be true.
You mean like several people coming from the same hotel in the same charted van
to the same event? That happens all the time. That is proof of a "ringer?"
-------------------------------------
They are simply preying on the emotions of grieving people.
-------------------------------------
Perhaps, but as this article shows no evidence aside from theory and guesswork,
it is merely yellow journalism.
-------------------------------------
As all loss, death, and grief counselors know, the best way to deal with death
is to face it head on. Death is a part of life, and pretending that the dead
are gathering in a television studio in New York to talk twaddle with a former
ballroom-dance instructor is an insult to the intelligence and humanity of the
living.
forge
wrote:
>Let's see, if he had one plant per show, 2 shows a day, 5 days a week, 29 (?)
>week shooting schedule a year, over a period of two years that would be almost
>600 "plants."
Tell me exactly why you think it couldn't be the same six or seven
staffers in each taping of the show. I bet you a basquillion dollars
the regular audience aren't allowed to view more than one taping,
ever.
KERSPLOSH
>wrote:
>
>>Let's see, if he had one plant per show, 2 shows a day, 5 days a week, 29
>(?)
>>week shooting schedule a year, over a period of two years that would be
>almost
>>600 "plants."
>
>Tell me exactly why you think it couldn't be the same six or seven
>staffers in each taping of the show.
The "plant" by definition of the earlier post would have to be an audience
member. You seem to have snipped that part.
-------------------------------------------------
It's called using plants. You think everyone he reads is a stranger? All you
need to do is have someone set up before hand in the audience.
-------------------------------------------------
If you are now bringing in a new theory, and conceding the fallacy of the
earlier post, the why why don't you expound on it. Tell us how these "staffers"
extract information from audience members. (Often time the information has not
been thought of by the audience member for years, for example something that
happened in their childhood, or is known only by someone who is not in the room
and must be verified later, information that you can't find in public records,
etc.)
KERSPLOSH
>wrote:
>
>>Let's see, if he had one plant per show, 2 shows a day, 5 days a week, 29
>(?)
>>week shooting schedule a year, over a period of two years that would be
>almost
>>600 "plants."
>
>Tell me exactly why you think it couldn't be the same six or seven
>staffers in each taping of the show.
The "plant" by definition of the earlier post would have to be an audience
member. You seem to have snipped that part.
-------------------------------------------------
It's called using plants. You think everyone he reads is a stranger? All you
need to do is have someone set up before hand in the audience.
-------------------------------------------------
Even if this were true, how would it make it easier to " cheat?" If you have a
theory of some sort, let's hear it.
>bet you a basquillion dollars
>the regular audience aren't allowed to view more than one taping,
>ever.
And what does this claim of yours even mean? Are you saying that if someone
came back to the show more than once, then they would spot the six or seven
staffers that you are saying are doing something, but that you do not explain
what it is they are supposed to be doing? Can you clarify this a bit?
Jak Crow
You're a gullible kook. "nuff said.
KERSPLOSH
All I asked you to do was to make clear what you said, as it was extremely
vague and nebulous. If I was "gullible" I would accept what you said without
question. I regret that you are unable to explain yourself in a coherent way.
KERSPLOSH
>wrote:
>
>>Let's see, if he had one plant per show, 2 shows a day, 5 days a week, 29
>(?)
>>week shooting schedule a year, over a period of two years that would be
>almost
>>600 "plants."
>
>Tell me exactly why you think it couldn't be the same six or seven
>staffers in each taping of the show.
That would depend entirely on what you feel that said staffers were doing. If
they were "plants" as described in the earlier post, you would see them on
camera. Explain what you think these six or seven staffers would do.
KERSPLOSH
>load of people that arrived together but didn't sit near each other, many of
>whom had "validations"; they're plants.
Have you ever taken the shuttle from a hotel? They are often parked 10 deep in
some hotels. You get into a van with a bunch of people that you don't know, and
they are often going to the same destination as you. This does not sound odd at
all.
Wutzizname
news:cm9yeWI=.f862a94b3d2d713d18310fb86fb64a95@1049525241.cotse.net...
>
it seemed like a cool concept when i saw the previews, but those pranks
would result in some serious lawsuits, so there's no way they could have
pulled it off.
http://www.entlawdigest.com/story.cfm?storyID=2583
I get the impression they did this to inflate their credibility.
=================================================================
New Filing - Scare Tactics
LA Superior Court BC290440
Kara Blanc
v.
Tri-Crown Productions, Inc., Yeah Studios, Sci-Fi Channel, Scott Hallock,
Kevin Healey, Mathew Mertha, Travis Draft, Hallock Healey Entertainment,
Tri-Crown Creative Group, Tri-Crown Companies
A woman who thought an alien was attempting to kill her has sued the
producers of a new Sci-Fi Channel reality series called "Scare Tactics" for
frightening her so badly she ended up in hospital.
Kara Blanc, in a complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court,
claimed that actors working for the show produced by Tri-Crown Productions,
told her she had been invited an exclusive Hollywood industry party in the
desert in Los Angeles County and then convinced that they and she were being
attacked.
According to the complaint, actors Mathew Mertha and Travis Draft
convinced Blanc after their car "stalled" in a remote area that the only way
to escape serious injury or death was to run for her life through a dark
desert canyon area and then later return to the car. The scene - and Blanc's
reactions - were filmed for the series.
"Defendants ... knew or should have known that plaintiff would be
seriously frightened, emotionally disturbed, fear for her personal safety
and be psychologically and/physically injured," the suit said.
Filing counsel: Stephen Warren Solomon, Stephen Allen Jamieson, R.
Bruce Evans, Salomon, Saltsman & Jamieson.
Causes of action: negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress; invasion of privacy; violation of Civil Code section 1708.8;
violation of Penal Code section 632.2; assault; false imprisonment;
fraudulent misrepresentation; fraudulent concealment; unfair business
practices.
=================================================================
Reeks of it. Fake like titties that squeak.
-Wutzizname
forge
wrote:
>If you are now bringing in a new theory, and conceding the fallacy of the
>earlier post, the why why don't you expound on it. Tell us how these "staffers"
>extract information from audience members.
If they're masquerading as other audience members, how would it be the
slightest bit difficult?
"So, where ya from? ...I came to see if he could tell me about my
Uncle Walter, he died last year in a car accident... what about you?
Your sister? Oh how awful; how old was she? And she had kids? Oh my,
that's so sad... How is her husband doing? Oh, he's gone too?..."
forge
wrote:
>(Often time the information has not
>been thought of by the audience member for years, for example something that
>happened in their childhood, or is known only by someone who is not in the room
>and must be verified later, information that you can't find in public records,
>etc.)
Yah, or they could've told the guy they were sitting next to or put it
on the questionnaire they're required to fill out before entering the
studio, or it could just be a wildassed guess. Yes, a great deal of
"cold reading" is just pulling stuff out of your ass, and it still
works just fine.
forge
wrote:
>Even if this were true, how would it make it easier to " cheat?" If you have a
>theory of some sort, let's hear it.
See previous post.
forge
wrote:
>>bet you a basquillion dollars
>>the regular audience aren't allowed to view more than one taping,
>>ever.
>
>And what does this claim of yours even mean? Are you saying that if someone
>came back to the show more than once, then they would spot the six or seven
>staffers that you are saying are doing something, but that you do not explain
>what it is they are supposed to be doing? Can you clarify this a bit?
Dude (or dudette), if you can't figure out for yourself how some
random person in an audience can casually grill another audience
member for information without their figuring it out, well, that's
just sad actually. Look at it this way: not only are the plants posing
as other random members of the crowd but the "marks" are presupposed
to be extremely gullible in the first place.
forge
wrote:
>>And what does this claim of yours even mean? Are you saying that if someone
>>came back to the show more than once, then they would spot the six or seven
>>staffers that you are saying are doing something, but that you do not explain
>>what it is they are supposed to be doing? Can you clarify this a bit?
>
>You're a gullible kook. "nuff said.
No shit. = ) Wonder if I can sell him/her some nice land in South
Florida. Or maybe a bridge in New York City.
forge
wrote:
>>>And what does this claim of yours even mean? Are you saying that if someone
>>>came back to the show more than once, then they would spot the six or seven
>>>staffers that you are saying are doing something, but that you do not
>>explain
>>>what it is they are supposed to be doing? Can you clarify this a bit?
>>
>>You're a gullible kook. "nuff said.
>
>All I asked you to do was to make clear what you said, as it was extremely
>vague and nebulous. If I was "gullible" I would accept what you said without
>question. I regret that you are unable to explain yourself in a coherent way.
You do realize you're quoting and responding to two different people
don't you?
forge
wrote:
You've just disproved your own argument, assuming you were arguing
there aren't any plants in Edwards' audiences.
KERSPLOSH
Really? How? You are long on claims and short on explanations.
KERSPLOSH
>wrote:
>
>>>bet you a basquillion dollars
>>>the regular audience aren't allowed to view more than one taping,
>>>ever.
>>
>>And what does this claim of yours even mean? Are you saying that if someone
>>came back to the show more than once, then they would spot the six or seven
>>staffers that you are saying are doing something, but that you do not
>explain
>>what it is they are supposed to be doing? Can you clarify this a bit?
>
>Dude (or dudette), if you can't figure out for yourself how some
>random person in an audience can casually grill another audience
>member for information without their figuring it out, well, that's
>just sad actually.
Dude (or dudette), if you think that you can explain away John Edward with this
lame theory, then you are very sad and pathetic, actually. First and foremost,
can you provide any evidence of this theory, aside from the "people getting out
of the van" thing from the guy that Shermer came up with? And how can you
explain that he (and others) has been able to come up with very distinct items
of information, like names and places and events that cannot be cold read from
people that are random callers on Larry King? Or, in Gary Schwartz's study,
been able to cull information from a sitter that he has never seen, and is in
another room?
Seriously think about your theory for a minute. Some guy (who is also on
camera, but you don't seem him in every episode) is chatting you up, and you
tell him some particular part of you life that John Edward later reads.
Wouldn't you get suspicious? "Gee, I just told that to the man that got out of
the van!" And you still have the problem of how do you keep those people quiet
if you are the medium. One disgruntled employee can ruin your whole career.
Do you really think that an audience member would not remember or get
suspicious if you were read by John Edwards with information you just told
someone in the audience? Do you really think a spy could extract info like
this, and not cause suspicion?
--------------------------------------------------------
Edward: There’s a connection with a dolphin. Swimming with dolphins?
Woman: We took a trip last year where we went swimming with dolphins.
Edward: There’s a bug. A bug in the bathroom.
Woman: There was a big bee in our house once –
Edward: That’s not it. This is a bug, a big bug in a bathtub, and someone
pulls back the shower curtain and – eek!
Woman: I don’t know …
Edward: On your trip?
Woman and Daughter: Oh, the bug!
--------------------------------------------------------
Edward: I don’t know how to say this, but did you and your husband do
something involving … handcuffs?
Woman (very embarrassed): Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------
Edward: There was a neighbor’s dog … I don’t want to use the word
torture, but you … abused this dog.
Man (shamefaced): Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------
Edward: Someone in the family would read coffee grinds – like, for
predictions? Like reading tea leaves?
Woman: My grandmother did that.
Edward: With coffee grinds?
Woman: Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------
Edward: Was there a baby’s toy buried with him [an elderly man]?
Woman: A stuffed bunny. My daughter’s.
--------------------------------------------------------
KERSPLOSH
Really? That is your theory?
KERSPLOSH
And nobody comes foreward and says, "I just said that to the man sitting next
me?" Nobody? I wonder how many people would feel comfortable talking about
handcuff games with their spouse with a perfect stranger, or how they had
abused a dog.
You try to make it sound like only you or a fellow skeptic is smart enough to
think of this, and that that is why all of these poor deluded people are taken
in. What is really going on is that you are either unfamiliar about the
subject, or you purposely turn a blind eye to the stuff you can't explain to
support your claim that you have all of the answers. You cannot explain it, and
your little theory (which others have already looked into) does not hold water.
KERSPLOSH
You just switched theories without acknowledging the the previous one was
invalid. (The more recent one is to.)
KERSPLOSH
Such rapier wit! Too bad that you add nothing to the discussion.
KERSPLOSH
Who cares? these morons are all alike.
forge
wrote:
>>Yah, or they could've told the guy they were sitting next to or put it
>>on the questionnaire they're required to fill out before entering the
>>studio, or it could just be a wildassed guess. Yes, a great deal of
>>"cold reading" is just pulling stuff out of your ass, and it still
>>works just fine.
>
>Really? That is your theory?
Mine and a whole shitload of other people who've written books and
posted web pages about how to cold read.
forge
wrote:
>Dude (or dudette), if you think that you can explain away John Edward with this
>lame theory, then you are very sad and pathetic, actually.
Hey Kersplosh? "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the
number of entities required to explain anything."
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
Don't care about William of Ockham? How about Sir Isaac Newton then,
is he credible enough for you? "We are to admit no more causes of
natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain
their appearances." http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/occam.html
In other words the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Now, (a) John Edward is really a psychic with amazing mystical powers
who can look into the souls of all the people in his studio audience,
several times a day even, and tell them about their families, and he
can even contact their dead relatives and tell them how said dead
persons are feeling now that they have passed on.
Or (b) he's a lying faker who's playing gullible fools for their
money, said fools being not only those who pay to see him but also any
television network that pays to put his drivel on the air.
Which is simpler, (a) or (b)? Hmmmmmmmmmm?
----
From the 2nd link:
This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle who wrote
"Nature operates in the shortest way possible."
The final word falls to Einstein, himself a master of the quotable one
liner. He warned, "Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not simpler."
forge
wrote:
>>>You're a gullible kook. "nuff said.
>>
>>No shit. = ) Wonder if I can sell him/her some nice land in South
>>Florida. Or maybe a bridge in New York City.
>
>Such rapier wit! Too bad that you add nothing to the discussion.
Oo, ad hominem attacks. Guess I was guilty too, except I wasn't
actually addressing you. Oh well.
forge
wrote:
>>You do realize you're quoting and responding to two different people
>>don't you?
>
>Who cares? these morons are all alike.
Yes.
KERSPLOSH
And yet not one has been able to demonstrate how John Edward or other mediums
can come up with the quality and quanity of verifiable information. To simply
say it is cold reading is easy, to duplicate their result eludes even the most
knowledgable in the field of cold reading. For example, Ray Hyman is a very
well known skeptic. He is a member of CSICOP, he was one of the reviewers of
the Stargate program, etc. Ray Hyman actually teaaches a class in cold reading;
http://www.ncas.org/pdf/2003march.pdf
And yet Ray Hyman has refused to demonstrate that he can do with cold reading
what John Edward can do. Given the chance, he stated that he could do it "with
a year or two's practice to figure it out." Unsubstantiated claims of this
nature can only be met with skepticism. As Gary Schwartz says, "show me."
-------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, at the two day meeting I convened of seven highly
experienced professional mentalist magicians and cold readers, they all agreed
that they could not apply their conventional mentalist tricks under these
strict experimental conditions [no knowledge of the sitter's identity, and no
verbal or non-verbal visual or auditory cues / feedback]. However, a vocal
subset (Hyman was one of the three), made the claim that if they had a year or
two to practice, they might be able to figure out a way how to fake what the
mediums were doing under these experimental conditions. My response to this
vocal subset was simple. It was "show me." Just as I don't take the claims of
the mediums on faith, I don't take the claims of the magicians on faith either.
Mentalist magicians who make these claims will have to "sit in the research
chair" and show us that they can do what they claim they can do. Thus far, the
few cold readers who have made these extreme claims have refused to be
experimentally tested. They have not been willing to demonstrate in the
laboratory that they can't do what the mediums do under these experimental
conditions; and at a later date, demonstrate that their performance can improve
substantially with practice.
http://www.enformy.com/Gary-reHymanReview.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Penn & Teller tried to show how easy it was to imitate John Edward with cold
reading, with very poor results.
-------------------------------------------------
The quality of their investigations also is erratic. Like most everyone else
who has taken aim at Edward, for instance, they accuse the Sci-Fi star of using
an age-old carnival technique called "cold reading." This is device where a
so-called psychic will use educated guesses and intuition to trick customers
into revealing pertinent information.
Penn & Teller demonstrate how this technique works extraordinarily well under
the right circumstances. But if Edward is a fraud, he's using more than just
the cold-reading routine.
The rule with cold reading is not to give specifics: names, dates, places,
events. Edward appears to do this frequently.
The only way a fraud can know these is by "hot" techniques: acquiring advance
knowledge of subjects through research or, perhaps, electronically bugging
audience members before a show. Does Edward use this in combination with cold
reading? Does he edit his taped sessions to get rid of the misses and bad
guesses, making him seem more gifted? Is he the total fake the Penn & Teller
show says he is?
If so, Penn & Teller never get anywhere near proving it.
Maybe they're taking an educated guess about Edward, but isn't that the very
thing they're accusing Edward of doing? Houdini caught his targets in the act.
Penn & Teller are showing you how admitted fakes work the cold reading bit,
then saying, "See how easily you are fooled."
Proof? Again, they're the ones advising skepticism.
Other segments are more effective, convincing and hilarious. The rule is to
have fun and to remember, you can't believe everything someone tells you, even
when that someone is cautioning you not to believe everything someone tells
you. Total truth? If that's the goal, you're chasing an illusion.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
mdawi...@plaind.com, 216-999-4249
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/enterta
inment/1043404382176280.xml
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In attempting to debunk mediums, he uses a con man, "Mark Edward," to "contact"
the dead relatives of unsuspecting people who've been brought into a studio
hoping for some word from beyond the grave. The guy doesn't do much, but
hopeful people want to believe and maybe in an effort to not embarrass the
"medium" on camera, they go along with it.
He then goes on to debunk real TV psychic John Edward. As "proof" that John
Edward is a phony, they show a security guard refusing to allow Penn's camera
crew into a show. Not for nuthin' but since when is the audience allowed to
videotape a show?
On show two, "Alternative Medicine," they set out to disprove reflexology,
chiropractic medicine, and the use of magnets in pain relief.
Instead of going to legitimate chiropractors, who work in conjunction with
sports medicine physicians using ultra-sound, exercise and massage, they find
some little guy who's half crazed in his little office. They make a fool of him
and the people he's treating.
Next up, a wheelchair-bound reflexologist, and an old MD who believes magnets
can ease pain. I'm sorry, but an old man and a handicapped guy?
The only bright spot, if you can stand to look at it, is when they set up a
phony booth at a mall and find three suckers who agree to snail-mucous facials,
where live snails crawl on their faces and deposit snail snot. If you don't
throw up, it's somewhat amusing.
But really, "Bull…#@$%" can be best summed up by Penn's quote about another
show, "I don't see how they can even make a television show out of it, it's so
bad."
"Penn & Teller: Bull%$#*"
Tonight at 11 on Showtime
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/67284.htm
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Your theory about cold read is not plausible. It does not matter what a web
page says or some book says. John Edward and other mediums can do what no cold
reader has been able to do. As Gary Schwartz says, "show me."
KERSPLOSH
>wrote:
>
>>Dude (or dudette), if you think that you can explain away John Edward with
>this
>>lame theory, then you are very sad and pathetic, actually.
>
>Hey Kersplosh? "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the
>number of entities required to explain anything."
>
>http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
>
>Don't care about William of Ockham? How about Sir Isaac Newton then,
>is he credible enough for you? "We are to admit no more causes of
>natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain
>their appearances." http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/occam.html
>
>In other words the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
>Now, (a) John Edward is really a psychic with amazing mystical powers
>who can look into the souls of all the people in his studio audience,
>several times a day even, and tell them about their families, and he
>can even contact their dead relatives and tell them how said dead
>persons are feeling now that they have passed on.
>
>Or (b) he's a lying faker who's playing gullible fools for their
>money, said fools being not only those who pay to see him but also any
>television network that pays to put his drivel on the air.
>
>Which is simpler, (a) or (b)? Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Occam's Razor is proof of nothing, it is just an old saw. That has got to be
the lamest rebuttal you could possibly use! ["If man were meant to fly, he
would have given him wings, etc." It is certainly easier to believe that man
will never fly, right?] You are obviously running out of steam, and have
nothing left to bring to the discussion.
Occam's Razor could also be used against you, you know. As none of the theories
that you (or others) have presented is even close to plausible, the simplest
explanation is that John Edward and other mediums are able to extract
verifiable information in a paranormal way. But even I would not base anything
on some old saw, even in my defense.
forge
wrote:
>And yet not one has been able to demonstrate how John Edward or other mediums
>can come up with the quality and quanity of verifiable information.
And yet no one, not anyone on Earth, to date, has been able to prove
that anything anyone defines as "paranormal" is provable in a clinical
environment. I'm gonna go with that, in this case, mmkay?
forge
wrote:
>Your theory about cold read is not plausible. It does not matter what a web
>page says or some book says. John Edward and other mediums can do what no cold
>reader has been able to do. As Gary Schwartz says, "show me."
Yeah, "show me." Show me in a controlled environment, not a TV studio,
that what JE does is real. Showmeshowmeshowme.
KERSPLOSH
KERSPLOSH
Okay, but you will lose. You are just regurgitating CISCOP/Randi crap. It is
not true. You could start with the vastly replicated Ganzfeld and Autoganzfeld
controlled telepathy experiments,
An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning
Professor Jessica Utts
Division of Statistics University of California, Davis
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena
Ray Hyman
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/hyman.html
Utts' reply to Hyman's report
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/response.html
Response by Dr. Edwin May,
the lead investigator for the government-sponsored work and Director,
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/may.html
But there is a lot more. The CIA/DIA Stargate program, for one. Or the 20 year
consistency of the Princeton Random Number Generator PK experiments, the
controlled tests on psychics such as Uri Geller that he succeeded in, the
recent tests on mediums by Dr. Gary Schwartz, and others. Now I bet you are
just going to raise the bar.
By the way, there is a large body of accepted knowledge that cannot be proven
in a clinical environment.
Jak Crow
The root of the matter is: Edwards claims he's psychic, you believe him,
thus, it's up to you guys to prove it, but of course, you can't.
Jak Crow
Talking about yourself again I see.
forge
wrote:
>The root of the matter is: Edwards claims he's psychic, you believe him,
>thus, it's up to you guys to prove it, but of course, you can't.
I think I already tried "proof lies with the one making the claim" but
he blew it off or something. Fact of the matter is, it does. If I
claim ostriches can talk it's up to me to prove it, not someone else
to disprove it, because it's basic common sense that ostriches don't
talk. Ditto for people who speak to the dead.
bl...@antispam.com
Let's say Edward's is a psychic. Let's say psychics exist. I
personally believe neither are the case, but for the sake of argument,
let's go with this.
Is it possible he's simply reading and feeling ghost images in
people's minds, and not the dead? He could just be getting impressions
and his own imagination fills in the gaps, in order to understand the
impressions. Heck, for that matter, he could be talking to the
subconcious of the live person and it only seems like the dead person
is communicating with him.
How would he know the difference?
Ray Salisbury
Star Trek either.
Sincerely,
Ray Salisbury, the alterego of Hayley Mills
kmfrye
Jak Crow <new...@werewolves.org> wrote in message
> >Who cares? these morons are all alike.
>
> Talking about yourself again I see.
Gentlemen, what we have here is a *believer*. He believes because he
*wants* to believe, because it provides comfort in an otherwise rather
frighteningly large universe to realise that maybe there is something more
than just a vast abyss of vacuum and the occasional spinning orb of
haphazard biorganisms.
What has been omitted in all of the John Edwards "Yes he does - no he
doesn't" flap is that those episodes are also edited to remove his misses,
thereby making his random hits look more plausible.
I do take some comfort that the believers now know that CSICOP has an eye on
some of their sacred cattle, and are trying to discredit an organization
sponsored, if not actually founded, by Carl Sagan.
Makes them sound a bit like cargo-cultists, if you ask me, especially when
they hurl the label "skeptic" like you're not being rational.
Regards,
Keith Frye
kmfrye
<bl...@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:62h1av81hj5t9b5iv...@4ax.com...
> My question is ..
>
> Let's say Edward's is a psychic. Let's say psychics exist.
Hypothetically, we need to define what 'Psychic" means. Does he:
Read thoughts (concious brain waves)
Read emotions (glandular chemistry)
Read the future/past (psychometry)
Edwards implies he does it all.
> Is it possible he's simply reading and feeling ghost images in
> people's minds, and not the dead?
The problem lies in most of us not clearly understanding how "thought"
works. It's a chemical action in the brain which produces electrical
impulses, which travel along synapses until reaching the part of the brain
that interprets the thought. It's internal in nature.
"Psychics" seem to suggest that they can 'read' this neural network, as
though your brain was transmitting like a radio. This fallacy is reinforced
by tv medical shows when they depict 'the brain wave'. It looks like a
radio wave, so it must be like a radio wave. Really, it's just the monitor
interpreting levels of brain activity, bu we see this and create an
intellectual dualism in our minds.
Your brain gives off enery in no different way than does a chemical battery.
If John Edwards could pick the one 'live' battery out of a collection of
empties, I then would be impressed.
He could just be getting impressions
> and his own imagination fills in the gaps, in order to understand the
> impressions.
I think you have something here, but his impressions are intepreted by years
of practise in reading human body language, assisted by his audiences *need*
to believe - to a degree they project their past into Edwards' assertions.
This is why he needs a room full of people - people who are already mentally
receptive to the idea and are therefore willing to go along to a limited
degree.
I don't suggest that the audience member's actually fabricate info - and I'm
not convinced there are plants in the audience. I do believe there are
staff in the lounge, and I am almost absolutely certain they pay attention
to the conversations of the audience before the show and feed Edwards the
information.
Heck, for that matter, he could be talking to the
> subconcious of the live person and it only seems like the dead person
> is communicating with him.
Psychologically speaking, I think you're right. The subject subconciously
wants to help, in the majority of exchanges.
> How would he know the difference?
He knows, because he is a fraud. An especially clever and talented fraud,
but a fictioneer nonetheless.
Regards,
KFrye
kmfrye
Ray Salisbury <pome...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1471-3EA...@storefull-2257.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> It wouldn't surprise me if ST is a phony show. The ST doesn't stand for
> Star Trek either.
It would certainly be in keeping with SCF's lack of programming integrity.
Regards,
KFrye
KERSPLOSH
><bl...@antispam.com> wrote in message
>news:62h1av81hj5t9b5iv...@4ax.com...
>> My question is ..
>>
>> Let's say Edward's is a psychic. Let's say psychics exist.
>
>Hypothetically, we need to define what 'Psychic" means. Does he:
>
Thoughts are merely brain waves?
>Read emotions (glandular chemistry)
Emotions are merely glandular secretions?
>Read the future/past (psychometry)
That would only apply within the confines of being a medium.
>Edwards implies he does it all.
No he doesn't.
> > Is it possible he's simply reading and feeling ghost images in
>> people's minds, and not the dead?
>
>The problem lies in most of us not clearly understanding how "thought"
>works. It's a chemical action in the brain which produces electrical
>impulses, which travel along synapses until reaching the part of the brain
>that interprets the thought. It's internal in nature.
You are merely describing the actions of nerve cells. The human brain is still
largely misunderstood. Human consciousness and long term memory are still a
mystery.
>"Psychics" seem to suggest that they can 'read' this neural network, as
>though your brain was transmitting like a radio. This fallacy is reinforced
>by tv medical shows when they depict 'the brain wave'. It looks like a
>radio wave, so it must be like a radio wave. Really, it's just the monitor
>interpreting levels of brain activity, bu we see this and create an
>intellectual dualism in our minds.
It would seem unlikely that "Psychics" are merely reading the DC voltage
created within the brain. Nobody know what they are reading, only that the
effect takes place.
>Your brain gives off enery in no different way than does a chemical battery.
>If John Edwards could pick the one 'live' battery out of a collection of
>empties, I then would be impressed.
That is a rather childish idea.
> He could just be getting impressions
>> and his own imagination fills in the gaps, in order to understand the
>> impressions.
>
>I think you have something here, but his impressions are intepreted by years
>of practise in reading human body language, assisted by his audiences *need*
>to believe - to a degree they project their past into Edwards' assertions.
>This is why he needs a room full of people - people who are already mentally
>receptive to the idea and are therefore willing to go along to a limited
>degree.
That old saw does not cut it. You are just regurgitating Randi and CSICOP
baloney.
http://www.openmindsciences.com/
>I don't suggest that the audience member's actually fabricate info - and I'm
>not convinced there are plants in the audience. I do believe there are
>staff in the lounge, and I am almost absolutely certain they pay attention
>to the conversations of the audience before the show and feed Edwards the
>information.
You obviously have not done your homework.
> Heck, for that matter, he could be talking to the
>> subconcious of the live person and it only seems like the dead person
>> is communicating with him.
>
>Psychologically speaking, I think you're right. The subject subconciously
>wants to help, in the majority of exchanges.
You obviously have not done your homework.
>> How would he know the difference?
>
>He knows, because he is a fraud. An especially clever and talented fraud,
>but a fictioneer nonetheless.
You obviously have not done your homework.
kmfrye
KERSPLOSH <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030421012301...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Thoughts are merely brain waves?
Thought is the result of the brain's chemical activity. This is basic
biology. There are no brainwaves outside of a medical occilloscope.
> Emotions are merely glandular secretions?
Emotional reaction is the result of signals from the brain, which triggers a
chemical response. You love someone because of biochemistry, you fear
someone because of instinctual fight or flight impulse, you hate someone
because of ego.
> That would only apply within the confines of being a medium.
Whatever. I do not recognise mediumistic confines because I do not believe
it is possible for a medium to talk to the dead. I do not believe it is
possible for the conciousness to survive the body, because all evidence
clearly demonstrates that conciousness is derived from electro-chemical
activity in the cells. Were it not so, we would not become senile as we
grow old, we would not suffer from dementia when stricken with Altzheimers,
we would not be affected by alchohol in our bloodstream.
I believe that many people think the conciousness survives after death
because they have difficulty imagining what it would be like NOT to have a
conciousness. It is, IMO, the fear of NOT BEING that drives us toward the
conclusion that the dead go on.
> >Edwards implies he does it all.
>
> No he doesn't.
Unless you give an example or otherwise expand upon a contadictory
statement, I will assume you are only contradicting for contradictions sake,
and I shall stand by my previous staement.
Edwards implies that he does it all.
> You are merely describing the actions of nerve cells.
Yep - because that is all that brain activity is. In your brain, in my
brain, in the monkey's brain.
The human brain is still
> largely misunderstood.
Only by laymen. Doctors, Psychologists, Neurosurgeons; these are the sort
who understand the brain, and they are, by and large, not prone to ascribing
to it the ability to talk to the dead, read auras, or move objects
telekinetically. A good deal of pseudo-scientific flummery is driven by
practising on what people, common, man-on-the-street types don't understand.
Idiocy like the old "Humans only use %10 of their brains, imagine what we
could do if we used all of our brain" nonsense.
Human consciousness and long term memory are still a
> mystery.
There are many things that are not clearly understood, but are still
measurable. Scientists don't completely understand gravity, yet we've had
Newton's law for almost 350 years. Yet, we can measure gravity, we can
predict its behaviour, we can see its effect. We just can't *make* it and
don't understand why it effects light the way it does.
What John Edwards *claims* to do is unmeasurable, cannot be predicably
recreated, and doesn't even have a theory to support. It is a supposed
"effect" without a detectable force.
The simplest answer? He doesn't do it, all things being equal.
I thought it interesting that the Univ. of Arizona brought him into the Psi
test. I found it even more interesting that, when confronted by a skeptical
review, the UA staff didn't attempt to recreate the test, they just
counterattacked the reviewer.
Debunking the debunkers just seems easier, unless it backfires on them.
> It would seem unlikely that "Psychics" are merely reading the DC voltage
> created within the brain.
I quite agree. Very nearly as unlikely that they're reading the thoughts in
the brain as well.
> Nobody know what they are reading, only that the
> effect takes place.
No - only that an effect is *claimed*. It takes place, academically
speaking, when the effect is measurable, predictable, and re-createable.
Not a very hard criteria for something that is.
>
> >Your brain gives off enery in no different way than does a chemical
battery.
> >If John Edwards could pick the one 'live' battery out of a collection of
> >empties, I then would be impressed.
>
> That is a rather childish idea.
Never confuse a straightforward idea with a childish one. That a man could,
through some ocular development, read the electromagnetic signature of a
battery - something we know to exist - seems an infinitely less childish
idea than that the same man could "see" into the afterlife.
>> his impressions are intepreted by years
> >of practise in reading human body language, assisted by his audiences
*need*
> >to believe - to a degree they project their past into Edwards'
assertions.
> >This is why he needs a room full of people - people who are already
mentally
> >receptive to the idea and are therefore willing to go along to a limited
> >degree.
>
> That old saw does not cut it. You are just regurgitating Randi and CSICOP
> baloney.
No, I don't follow Randi. I've admitted reading Skeptical Inquirer, but I
was already a Rationalist when I sought them out. What I wrote up there is
just common sense, echoed from HP Lovecraft, and he wrote that in the
1920's-30's.
What I expect you will eventually discover is that a good many of SI's
readers aren't brainwashed clones; we already thought the way we do. The
Panic Sheet that Hansen wrote has all the atmosphere of a call to arms
against some mid-western militia, even when he admits that something like
80% of CSICOP members have degrees, and others have Masters and Doctorates.
Similar philosophies attract.
> http://www.openmindsciences.com/
Read it. See above. Schwarz is as much worried about preserving his grant
as he is conducting research. Less time rebutting and more time redoing the
experiment would resolve his problem - IF the results are re-creatable,
predictable and measureable.
I will add a quote "It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that
your brain falls out."
> >I don't suggest that the audience member's actually fabricate info - and
I'm
> >not convinced there are plants in the audience. I do believe there are
> >staff in the lounge, and I am almost absolutely certain they pay
attention
> >to the conversations of the audience before the show and feed Edwards the
> >information.
>
> You obviously have not done your homework.
An irrelevant and dismissive statement.
> >Psychologically speaking, I think you're right. The subject
subconciously
> >wants to help, in the majority of exchanges.
>
> You obviously have not done your homework.
You need a new tagline.
> >He knows, because he is a fraud. An especially clever and talented
fraud,
> >but a fictioneer nonetheless.
>
> You obviously have not done your homework.
So, no TV until it's done?
Cordially,
Keith Frye
forge
wrote:
>> You obviously have not done your homework.
>
>An irrelevant and dismissive statement.
>> You obviously have not done your homework.
>
>You need a new tagline.
>> You obviously have not done your homework.
>
>So, no TV until it's done?
I can't believe you fellas have so much patience with this assclown; I
got tired of his BS because all he does is contradict, belittle and
sneer, and quote the same 5 sources (who each quote one another)
repeatedly. I KFed the twit aeons ago... but I guess there ain't that
much else going on in this group, so if it amuses you to prove what
an... assclown... he is, be my guest, I suppose...
KERSPLOSH
So glad you are back! You are not humerous or amusing, but at least you bring
nothing to the conversation.
bl...@antispam.com
wrote:
>http://www.openmindsciences.com/
"Viola! Instant God Experience!
Dr. Michael Persinger, working at Laurentian University, in Sudbury,
Ontario, Canada, has pioneered a method for inducing the religious,
spiritual experience of the shaman. Without drugs, herbs, hypnosis or
invasive surgery, he can quite literally flip a switch and induce the
experience of "god."
Using an ordinary striped yellow motorcycle helmet purchased at a
sporting goods store, which he has modified with electromagnetic
coils, he can place the helmet on your head, connect the wires to a
device he has constructed that generates the proper signals, and when
the magnetic fields produced by the coils penetrate the skull and into
the temporal lobes of the brain, the result is the stimulation of
those lobes and a religious experience results.
In common with the Hindu view that a confrontation with God is a
confrontation with the self, the nine-hundred plus people who have
undertaken the experience produced by Dr. Persinger's helmet have had
some very profound experiences. Four out of five say that they've had
experiences so profound they would be life-changing had they not
understood the mechanistic underpinnings of what they had experienced.
How does Dr. Persinger's helmet work? It works by inducing very small
electrical signals with tiny magnetically induced mechanical
vibrations in the brain cells of the temporal lobes and other selected
areas of the brain, located in the skull just above and forward of the
ears. These lobes are the portions of the brain that produce the
"Forty Hertz Component" of the brainwaves detected in
electroencephalograms. These mysterious "forty hertz components" are
present whenever you are awake or when you are in REM sleep. They are
absent during deep, dreamless sleep. What the "forty hertz component"
does is not well understood, but we know that it is always present
during the experience of "self." We cannot have a "me" experience
without the forty hertz component being present.
What this means is that the forty hertz component is essential to our
experience of self. We cannot experience our sense of individuality
without it. It stands to reason, then, that if the forty hertz
component could somehow be suppressed, the sense of individuality
would be suppressed with it, and indeed, this is what Dr. Persinger's
helmet does. It turns off the forty hertz component and with it the
sense of individuality which your brain uses to define "self" as
opposed to "rest of the world."
When the brain is deprived of the self stimulation and sensory input
that is required for it to define itself as being distinct from the
rest of the world, the brain 'defaults' to a sense of infinity. The
sense of self expands to fill whatever the brain can sense, and what
it senses is the world, so the experience of the self simply expands
to fill the perception of the world itself. One experiences becoming
"one with the universe."
But What About the God Experience?
There are two temporal lobes in the brain, one on each side. The one
on the left, in most people, is the dominant one, responsible for
language, which becomes dominant when we first learn language as
children. The one on the right, non-dominant, contributes to the sense
of self with constant communication with its opposite colleague. But
being on the far side of the brain, sometimes the communications get
out of whack, often as a result of stress or disease, and the forty
hertz component falls out of sync. When this happens, the result is
that the normally silent right-hand sense of self becomes experienced
as a separate presence by the left-hand sense of self.
This is the experience of the God presence. There is an overwhelming
sense of presence, an inescapable feeling that someone is there. But
when the forty hertz component is deeply attenuated or entirely absent
from, say, the left side, and there's no "self" experience occurring,
the feeling of unity with infinity is occuring with a sense of an
overwhelming presence resulting from the continued operation of the
right hand side, there is no way to describe it other than feeling
that one has experienced the "infinite presence." Hence the God
experience.
All of this has been verified not only experimentally with Dr.
Persinger's helmet, but by use of high-tech brain scanning machines
similar to the CAT and MRI scanners that many of us have experienced.
And The Sense of Timelessness and Spacelessness in Prayer and
Meditation?
Many deeply experienced meditators feel, when deep in meditation, an
experience of transcendance of the here and now. They feel a sense of
being outside of time and space. How is this experience produced?
Two researchers, Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili, have taken a
particular interest in these experiences. Through the use of a
brain-scanning technique called SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed
Tomography), they have determined how these experiences arise. The
researchers have produced images of the brains of Tibetan Buddhists
who undergo deep, profound meditative experiences as the result of
years of practice. They have done the same with a Catholic Franciscan
nun, who, after 45 minutes of deep prayer, had her brain scanned to
determine what centers were active and what centers were not.
The results show that in both cases, the pre-frontal cortex, which
controls attention, is highly stimulated. This is not surprising -
meditation requires a great deal of concentration. The subjects are
clearly deeply attentive to their task. But the superior parietal
lobe, the center that processes information about space, time and the
orientation of the body in space, is suppressed, and is almost totally
quiet. The result is that any sense of time, space or being in the
world is suppressed along with the activity in the superior parietal
lobe. And not feeling "in the world" leads to an "other-worldly"
experience. So it is not surprising that those who have this
experience describe it as being in the "spiritual realm." Persinger
has been able to reproduce this by electrically supressing activity in
the superior parietal lobe using his helmet - and when he performs
this experiment on Tibetan monks and the Franciscan nun, they all
report that the experience is identical to what they experience in
their own meditative practice.
What About The Near-Death Experience?
The near-death experience that is described by many patients who have
been revived from life-threatening events contain elements of all of
these and a few more.
We have seen how the presence of the "god" feeling arises from the
result of the shutting down of communications between the temporal
lobes. And we have seen how the sense of timelessness and infinite
space arise through the supression of activity in the superior
parietal lobe. But what about the vision of the tunnel with the light
at the end? And the sense of rising out of the body?
The sense of orientation is lost when the superior parietal lobe shuts
down. The 'self' no longer feels anchored to the body, because the
sense of self being in the body is lost, and one often seems to be
rising to 'heaven.' We now know that the vision of the tunnel is
produced by the visual cortex being disconnected from sensory input,
and beginning to shut down. Same with the light at the end of the
tunnel, which is an artifact of the brain's visual cortex 'looking'
for sensory input it cannot 'see.' The visions of a beautiful summer
garden or lovely mountain landscapes are the result of the memory
centers acting on the centers of the brain that organize visual input
into things we recognize, which is operating in the near-total absense
of sensory input. All of these brain activities together produce the
familiar being of light at the end of a tunnel, and the entrance into
the beautiful summer garden.
These experiences have a deep, even profound feeling of reality to
them. This is simply because the centers of the brain that are
producing the experience are cut completely off from sensory that
would dilute the 'realness' of the experience - those centers that
analyse experience for us in real time and allow us to evaluate it for
its correspondence to reality - in other words, the centers of the
brain that enable us to discern the difference between dreaming and
wakefulness, real versus imagined. Hence, the subjects who report
these experiences describe them as being so real they were not at all
like a dream. Indeed, they weren't - they were dreams undiluted from
sensory reality checks and the evaluation of sensory data for its
validity.
But What About "Brain-Dead" Patients And Their Near-death Experiences?
What is now understood is that these phenomena can occur with very
minute amounts of electrical activity in the brain. Most of the brain
can be shut down and these phenomena are still possible - with
electrical activity so small it is not possible to measure it through
external devices. Remember, our brains don't come with "diagnostic
ports" like a modern automobile's engine computer - what we measure
with our electroencephalograms is the "leakage." It's like trying to
discern what's happening inside a computer by listening to the static
it creates in a radio sitting next to it. A lot can be happening
without making enough noise to hear it on the "radio."
What Does All This Mean?
It is clear that the meaning of the understanding of these phenomena
are easily explained in detail through well-understood neurological
processes in the brain. What are widely regarded as evidence for the
existence of a spiritual realm can easily be explained by the
material, the mundane. So in the light of that reality, what does the
religionist have to say?
Those who have communicated their interpretations to me say that they
remain unconvinced that this means any new. I disagree. For most who
write to me regarding my essays about the reality of a metaphysical
universe, I have but one thing to say: your most powerful, persuasive
evidence, namely your own powerful, personal experience, can now be
easily and rationally explained, in all its features. No metaphysical
explanation is necessary. Because no metaphysical explanation is
required to explain your experience, your "evidence" is no longer
evidence of anything metaphysical."
kmfrye
forge <bak...@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:77r7avgbeafooqv65...@4ax.com...
> I can't believe you fellas have so much patience with this assclown; I
> got tired of his BS because all he does is contradict, belittle and
> sneer,
It's good practise to be able to argue and not get heated over it. And
amidst what some would consider chaff, there was a private revelation or
two.
> and quote the same 5 sources (who each quote one another)
> repeatedly.
Yes - that's vaguely disconcerting. It's as if the para-scientific faction
has decided it's easier to attack the critics than provide consistently
demonstratable results.
I concluded last night that this will probably backfire on them in the long
term, because the boards that hold the purse-strings will ultimately expect
consistently demonstratable results.
I KFed the twit aeons ago... but I guess there ain't that
> much else going on in this group, so if it amuses you to prove what
> an... assclown... he is, be my guest, I suppose...
It's an interesting topic, don't you agree? I wonder that the U of A
brought Edwards in because he's well known, or because he's notorious.
Cordially,
KFrye
kmfrye
<bl...@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:qq48avsnmbt1bbbvn...@4ax.com...
>
> "Viola! Instant God Experience!
(snip a really neat post.)
Fascinating article. Dr. Susan Blackmore performed an experiment along
similar lines with Laurentian University professor Michael Persinger, only
the result was "Instant Alien Abduction!"
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/ns94.html
Thanks,
KFrye
> http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm
>
Vector Viper
"mike" <adr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:60d237b6.0304...@posting.google.com...
> I just watched one episode of Scare Tactics and the first part of a
> second episode. First -- Shannen Doherty....eat some carbs, bitch. You
> souldn't be wearing short dresses with those chicken legs.
>
> Second, the whole show is a fraud. The victims are bad actors and have
> the most unrealistic reactions to the scares, and when they're told
> that they're on "Scare Tactics". It's so unnatural and it smells fake.
Oh right! Next you will be saying wrestling is fake too... :*)