• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Study by Steve Grenard & Gary Schwartz still missing.

CFLarsen

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
42,371
Staten Island Advance Article/Sun Sept 8, 2002
Sunday, September 08, 2002

...

But not all mediums subscribe to those methods, says Steve Grenard, an
author and director of research at the Sleep Apnea Center of Staten Island
University Hospital, who is currently conducting a study on the success rate
of well-known psychics.

Grenard said the most effective psychics are "deep trance mediums" who don't
ask probing questions of their sitters, but rather fall into a trance-like
state and allow the dead to speak through them.

Mrs. Walsh qualifies as a deep trance medium, according to Grenard, who said
he secretly tested her during a visit in October.

"No cold reader could do what she does," Grenard said. "I got the feeling
that the deceased person I was interested in contacting was talking through
her."

Working with Grenard on the study is University of Arizona scientist Gary
Schwartz, whose book "The Afterlife Experiments" asserts some mediums under
controlled conditions have successfully contacted the dead. Grenard has
publicly supported Dr. Schwartz's data, but said more research needs to be
conducted.
Source
Click to expand...

It's been four and a half years, Steve. Where is the study?
 
Ersby said:
Is this it?

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...htm+schwartz+grenard&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

It's only in Google's cache, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

There seems to be one essential piece of information missing in the procedural description:

Did the Sitter know he was the sitter and did the control know he was the control?

If they did then this isn't double (or even single) blind and allows the participants to influence the outcomes. As in, if I was the sitter and inclned to want a favourable experimental outcome I just answer "yes" a lot. If I am the control I just answer "no".
 
If so, it is evidence of just how incredibly gullible Steve is.

A demonstration internet-chat room mediumship experiment was conducted by Grenard and Schwartz (2002, in preparation).
Click to expand...

"In preparation", yes. No study yet.

Ten mediums in various locations across the United States, over more than twenty sessions, provided long-distance internet chat-room readings with one sitter (SG) primarily concerning one deceased person (KGN).
Click to expand...

SG is Steve Grenard, KGN is Kevin Nunan, his dead son. Lots of info here and here, easily accessible on the Internet.

In addition, face-to-face (or telephone) readings with three “trance” mediums (one located in England) provided confirmatory evidence.
Click to expand...

Steve, who already believed strongly in psychics, and has a long history of lying, is supposed to give an accurate account of what the psychics told him?

In experiment 2, Steve participates in one of Schwartz' hilarious "Departed Hypothesized Co-Investigator" experiments. Yes, a dead person is used to connect to a dead person.

Give me a break....

More here:
All The Afterworld's A Stage
How the famous paranormal researcher, Montague Keen, became the object of Gary Schwartz' experiments into the world of the dead. And a new term was coined: "Departed hypothesized co-investigator."
Click to expand...
 
Geckko said:
allows the participants to influence the outcomes.
Click to expand...

One of the designers of the experiments is also the participant?

That's not science, that's pseudoscience. Crackpot science. Voodoo science. Bad science.
 
boxing_round1.jpg
 
But, then, so does a clarification (needed because it affects other answers) of the specific meaning of your "gun contol laws" in your survey in that post.
As a reminder, I pointed out that it could mean "no access to guns at all", "limited access by certified/educated persons who are licensed", or "complete, unlimited access". It is not possible to answer question 3 (at least) rationally without that definition/explanation. I admit that has only been two days but.....
 
fuelair said:
But, then, so does a clarification (needed because it affects other answers) of the specific meaning of your "gun contol laws" in your survey in that post.
As a reminder, I pointed out that it could mean "no access to guns at all", "limited access by certified/educated persons who are licensed", or "complete, unlimited access". It is not possible to answer question 3 (at least) rationally without that definition/explanation. I admit that has only been two days but.....
Click to expand...

Wrong thread?
 
Is this the same Steve Grenard who periodically feels the need to start a bunch of threads in Politics about how evil/backward/ignorant Muslims are?
 
RSLancastr said:
Perhaps fuelair is channeling at the moment. You have no control over what you say during a trance session, you know.
Click to expand...

True, true...

Cleon said:
Is this the same Steve Grenard who periodically feels the need to start a bunch of threads in Politics about how evil/backward/ignorant Muslims are?
Click to expand...

And the same who tried to have JREF banned from schools and libraries because Randi is an atheist.

Note that Steve also considers himself an atheist...
 
RSLancastr said:
Perhaps fuelair is channeling at the moment. You have no control over what you say during a trance session, you know.
Click to expand...
No, fuelair is pointing out that if CFL is running a thread about someone else not bothering/forgetting/whatever other reason to provide data, he should not be doing the same thing in his thread(s). He says SG (and I do not deny he is right - though I can't verify it ) was going to provide info and did not - but on his thread where he has a survey for supporters/non-supporters of gun possession he has essentially done that by not defining a phrase that he clearly should be able to so that a correct/accurate answer to a seperate question can be made. I am re-asking him, as he is re-asking SG, for information on his thread involving that topic.
 
fuelair said:
No, fuelair is pointing out that if CFL is running a thread about someone else not bothering/forgetting/whatever other reason to provide data, he should not be doing the same thing in his thread(s). He says SG (and I do not deny he is right - though I can't verify it ) was going to provide info and did not - but on his thread where he has a survey for supporters/non-supporters of gun possession he has essentially done that by not defining a phrase that he clearly should be able to so that a correct/accurate answer to a seperate question can be made. I am re-asking him, as he is re-asking SG, for information on his thread involving that topic.
Click to expand...

If I have overlooked something in that thread, take it up there.
 
fuelair said:
No, fuelair is pointing out that if CFL is running a thread about someone else not bothering/forgetting/whatever other reason to provide data, he should not be doing the same thing in his thread(s). He says SG (and I do not deny he is right - though I can't verify it ) was going to provide info and did not - but on his thread where he has a survey for supporters/non-supporters of gun possession he has essentially done that by not defining a phrase that he clearly should be able to so that a correct/accurate answer to a seperate question can be made. I am re-asking him, as he is re-asking SG, for information on his thread involving that topic.
Click to expand...


games.jpg
 
RSLancastr said:
Ah. My apologies. It truly looked like your post was from some other thread.
Click to expand...
No offense at all - even if it had bothered me (and it really did not), I respect you too much for what you are doing to bring down SB to trouble about it!!:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Oh, yeah. In that article:

In the included transcripts of the single-blind reading (no transcripts are available for the rest of the experiment) and the associated commentary by Dr. Schwartz, there is no clear point shown when the medium was given Veronica's name.
Click to expand...

And no transcripts were ever made available, AFAIK.

And now what transcript there was, is gone.

However, thanks to the Wayback Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060505192246/http://veritas.arizona.edu/survivaldetails.htm

Some irony from that link:

# Selective Withholding of Information � Evidential information that appears to be intentionally withheld across and within readings.
Click to expand...
Since then, Schwartz and DuBois have been engaged in a pissing contest with each other. Perhaps that is why he has removed this experiment, which validates her, from the internet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom