Wow! Gary Schwartz the con man?

[CFLarsen]

SG: Laurie visits the blog and has posted. She did not deny this

CL: She didn't comment at all.

SG: That is correct. That’s what I said.

No, you used a weasel tactic: When X doesn't even respond to something, say that X didn't deny it - thereby giving the impression that X admitted that it was true.

If I accuse you of robbing a bank, and you never respond to the accusation, would it be OK to say that you didn't deny robbing a bank?

SG: My source is Schwartz.

CL: You made it public on October 08, 2007, before Laurie Campbell came to the thread.

SG: That’s because there was discussion/traffic just on this several days before we even knew about or saw the Geraldo program. Somebody posted (on TM list) the URL of a letter sent to UA by the OHRP of HHS responding to a complaint by Laurie about not keeping the daughter’s name secret in the book Truth about Medium or TAM for short. Laurie was always present on the thread, if not by herself, through proxies in her group of, how can I describe them, okay, her group of dissidents.

That's nonsense. You cannot excuse your actions based on who you think are "present" on the thread. And even if Laurie Campbell was "present" on the thread, it makes no difference: What matters is who makes the information public first.

You made the information public that Michael Knopf had been Laurie Campbell's client.

CL: Did Schwartz give you permission to make it public that Knopf had been a client of Laurie Campbell's?

SG: Not specifically required. Since I have seen drafts of GS’ response and GS made it public there. In addition there was no privileged relationship or doctor-client relationship between Mr. Knopf and Dr. Schwartz or myself. And that is especially true since Mr. Knopf made himself a public figure on Geraldo. It is not good enough for him to be given a license to lie and then believe nobody could reveal why.

That is pure hypocrisy, given that you yourself have hidden behind claims of confidentiality on Prescott's blog:

The information regarding the NCCAM grant is factual whereas Geraldo manages to make a 1.8 million dollar erroneous implication out of it and I felt that this required some clarification.

Because I have spoken with the grieving father (in person) whose pre-taped footage was used on the program and since I was introduced to him as a health care
professional I am unable to comment on any aspect of this.
...
As I indicated above I met and conversed with Michael Knopf. This was at a lecture on mediumship Mr. Knopf, his wife and daughter attended. The lecture was not given by Dr. Schwartz, who attended, but by a NY area medium and which was followed by a demonstration.

I am afraid, however, we are all being naive if we do not know that asking for donations and raising money is a part of a university researcher's job description. Dr. Schwartz' bosses at UA would want him to do this as would the brass at any institution that is fueled by grants and donations to stay afloat. Funding, as a rule, doesn't levitate in over the transom by itself. Especially in this field.

I am not sure how Gary was introduced to Mr. Knopf but it was probably through other donors and/or people interested in the research. I believe this is called networking.

The argument/question that Don brings up is whether Dr. Schwartz conveyed feelings of mediumistic contact with deceased son Paul as an inducement to obtain funding. And if true it begs a further question as to whether this is ethical or appropriate.

I have to stop here because I would be getting into areas that would breech Mr. Knopf's privacy. Source

You drop hints and allegations, but hide behind claims of confidentiality, when you find yourself in hot water.

CL: Did Knopf give you and Schwartz permission to make it public that Knopf had been a client of Laurie Campbell's?

SG: I have been asked why would Mr. Knopf lie about what he said about Schwartz on Geraldo? The reasons have now been made public in the formal document but I was aware of them before. There are two. One, as a client of Laurie’s, he was enlisted to help her smear Schwartz and two, as someone whose business proposal to Schwartz was rejected by Schwartz. So no, Mr. Knopf did not give me or Dr Schwartz permission to reveal his relationship with Laurie Campbell. However because there is no known privileged relationship such as patient-doctor or confessor-priest involved such privilege in fact does not exist where this information is concerned. So Mr. Knopf’s permission was not necessary for third parties to reveal this relationship which in fact were at least one half of his motivation for assisting in smearing Schwartz.

OK: Kopf did not give you or Schwartz permission to make it public.

This means that both you and Schwartz will have no problems revealing the full identity of all the sitters involved in the Arizona Experiments.

Please email me that list at editor@skepticreport.com

SG: Yes. Mr. Knopf told me that he owned a medical school.

CL: Why do you find it necessary to bring up Knopf's criminal record? What does that have to do with this, if not attack Knopf personally?

SG: It goes to his credibility. He either pleaded guilty or was found guilty and convicted of fraud. If he would commit one fraud the public needs to the consider the fact he may have committed others. It’s called "prior bad acts." Sometimes these are not allowed in a courtroom but this is not a courtroom, it is the “court” of public opinion. Do you think if a certain US Senator had prior bad acts similar to the one he got caught for in an airport bathroom in Milwaukee the public should not be allowed to hear about it?

So far, we have not seen any evidence from you that Michael Knopf indeed has been convicted, nor of what he was convicted for.

SG: Good, then you won’t mind if I think it is important, therefore, that Dr. Schwartz’ own words from a response re this question but posted on TM should be provided:

Quote from an e-mail by Gary Schwartz on the subject of the confidentiality
complaint.

OK: Schwartz does not know where he saw the information.

SG: Don't disagree. I don't know if Laurie records or what.

CL: We are not talking about what Laurie Campbell does. We are talking about what happens in a purportedly scientific test.

SG: This is way off topic but my answer remains the same. I have no idea what kind of notes or recorded records were made by Laurie Campbell when she read Mr. Knopf and or when she reads anyone else. I am not part of that effort nor was I. I never even met Ms. Campbell. I don't think this is about the general topic of scientific tests.

You are evading again: I didn't ask for what kind of notes or recorded records were made by Laurie Campbell.

SG: No I can't. I don't think this is about "rating" Laurie's reading for Michael Knopf for facts which would prove that it was accurate or valid.

CL: But there was a definition, correct?

SG: This is a way bit too cryptic for me. If you expand on what you mean I will try and respond. Thanks.

Was there a definition of how the person should know what parts of the reading were "facts", and which were not?

SG: This is true, Linda denied being, er, Linda, Linda Russek. I said she appears to be
Linda Russek. I know this and Gary knows this by her claims and her syntax. For example nobody seems to know any other Lindas who could claim to have tested “dozens” of mediums. She knew other obscure details for which there are no other Linda’s who could be held accountable for knowing these. The only other explanation is Linda was a phony name and she was someone else. I sorta doubt it.

That's an extremely weak position. The fact remains that you do not know that the Linda posting on Prescott's blog is in reality Linda Russek.

CL: I did not find "confirmatory evidence". I asked if that was the Knopf you were talking about. You dropped the hint, and you are the one confirming it.

SG: Ok. I confirm it. His medical school connection was based on an in person, face to face discussion with me when we met at a lecture in May, 2003.

Please refrain from trying to shift blame onto someone else.

CL: No, Steve: Schwartz will have to provide the evidence.

SG: The complaint this involves has already been submitted to the OHRP of HHS, been investigated and been acted on.

That doesn't provide the evidence.

CL: Why would there be "inconsistencies"? Why cast doubt on whether the accident was really an accident or not?

SG: This is sorta in the back of my head. In the face to face I had with Michael Knopf he told me the plane blew up and dropped out of the sky in a lot of pieces. The FAA says the
recently rebuilt engine caught fire, lit up the plane, it burned and then crashed. In fact witnesses said it looked like a meteor. In the NY Times piece on the crash Michael Knopf is quoted as saying the plane was in tip top shape. Apparently not. But this is a side issue. I seem to recall some aircraft buffs or experts around here who might look at the FAA reports and give some feedback.

It doesn't matter how the accident is described, especially by someone who didn't even watch it. For some reason, you find it necessary to cast doubt on Michael Knopf, when it comes to the death of his son.

CL:Excellent! When will that be, precisely?

SG: In two instances. Hopefully Geraldo’s fact checkers got themselves a copy before they allowed him to go on the air and they release it or Mr. Knopf releases the letter he showed them assuming he did show it to them. At that point this copy can then be compared with the copy in the University’s files.

While I do not speak for them, common sense dictates not to expect the University to release their copy until the copy shown on the program is released. You show me yours, I'll show you mine sorta deal. After all the contention is about the letter Mr. Knopf was waving around on air.

Thank you for your insightful questions. I have omitted those few which you slipped in which are off topic in order to keep this on topic.

You cannot produce a copy of the letter, then.

 

[SteveGrenard]

No, you used a weasel tactic: When X doesn't even respond to something, say that X didn't deny it - thereby giving the impression that X admitted that it was true.

If I accuse you of robbing a bank, and you never respond to the accusation, would it be OK to say that you didn't deny robbing a bank?

Yes it is okay. If one doesn't deny something then it is okay to say they did not deny it.

That's nonsense. You cannot excuse your actions based on who you think are "present" on the thread. And even if Laurie Campbell was "present" on the thread, it makes no difference: What matters is who makes the information public first.

You made the information public that Michael Knopf had been Laurie Campbell's client.

Well I didn't actually because other people also made it public before I EVER did. But it doesn't make any difference because after getting some advice on the subject there is no legal requirement that in the case of Michael Knopf this information needed to be kept confidential. I was concerned about this at the outset. There is no more legal prohibition for saying publicly that Claus Larsen went to the movies than it is to say Michael Knopf went to a medium. This is not protected health information (PHI) nor is there a privileged relationship between Campbell and Knopf. Where this is concerned there is definitely not any sort of privilege between me and Knopf or Schwartz and Knopf. I have said this already and will not answer it again. I know you are fond of repeating yourself.

That is pure hypocrisy, given that you yourself have hidden behind claims of confidentiality on Prescott's blog:

At the outset I was concerned if they apply. I since learned they do not in this case. If these laws apply in a particular case then I will certainly uphold and stand behind them.
It is not hypocrisy if there are different sets of circumstances that dictate your actions. I can understand from your point of view where this gives the appearance of hypocrisy. But you do not deal with HIPAA and confidentiality/privacy issues every day. I do.

You drop hints and allegations, but hide behind claims of confidentiality, when you find yourself in hot water.

See above. Ultimately there was no requirement for confidentiality where Michael Knopf was concerned. If someone discusses their medical problems with me privately, that information is certainly confidential and I would never reveal it publicly. If someone tells me their son died in an airplane that "blew up," owned a medical school or got out of jail recently that is not confidential. In fact all three of these items are part of the public record in the United States.
Only juvenile court records are sealed in this country. Mr. Knopf, clearly, is/was not a juvenile.

A Question for Claus:
I ask you to provide evidence that revealing business ownership, the details of a plane crash or a criminal record are protected information in the United States. Can you do that?

OK: Kopf did not give you or Schwartz permission to make it public.

Not necessary. Mr. Knopf's readings with Ms Campbell were as her own client. He was not
in any study or part of any research. He was a paying customer of Campbell's.

This means that both you and Schwartz will have no problems revealing the full identity of all the sitters involved in the Arizona Experiments.

First of all I can't give you anything. I am not a member of any part of this lab nor do I have any formal relationship with them whatsoever. Absolutely none. Secondly, however, I can say that you are confounding subjects in a research study with a client of a medium who is not a subject in a research study. Study subjects are entitled to confidentiality and in fact probably signed consents to that effect to be in the study. They could give the lab permission to reveal who they are, and all or selective parts of the results of their particpation. I have no idea who most of these people are save for the few who were identified by Schwartz in the past and for whom he had their permission to do so. I never met them, don't know them and in fact don't remember today who they are even.

Please email me that list at editor@skepticreport.com

Off topic. I do not e-mail you anything privately.

So far, we have not seen any evidence from you that Michael Knopf indeed has been convicted, nor of what he was convicted for.

Nothing beyond Mr. Knopf's admission of this to Dr. Schwartz and his saying it to others. It is possible he is making this up. It is possible it is not true which is why I say "if" he has
a prior record of bad acts for which he's been convicted it goes to his credibility in this matter.

OK: Schwartz does not know where he saw the information.

Anything Schwartz said in reference to this was provided previously.

You are evading again: I didn't ask for what kind of notes or recorded records were made by Laurie Campbell.

You can think I am evading but I am simply confused by your questions re this. I still don't understand their relevance to this discussion so will consider it off topic.

Was there a definition of how the person should know what parts of the reading were "facts", and which were not?

Exactly what reading are you talking about? I have not had any interest in readings or
this subject for several years now nor have I read any readings of study subjects. What exactly are you talking about?

That's an extremely weak position. The fact remains that you do not know that the Linda posting on Prescott's blog is in reality Linda Russek.

I said that and pointed out the reasons why it was believed she may be. What is your point?

Please refrain from trying to shift blame onto someone else.

Blame for what? And to whom? Mr. Knopf told me and multiple others including other people at the lecture where I met him that he owns a medical school. How can I be blamed for that? There is absolutely no reason to assume that when he said this, in May, 2003, that it was not true. But if you wish to harbor the thought that it is not true you are free to do so. Nobody really cares.

I explained the situation re the accident. It's a side issue.

At some point Geraldo and/or Mr. Knopf need to provide a readable copy of the
letter, not a piece of paper with printing on it being waved around so the camera cannot
read what's on it. If they don't, their failure to do so speaks for itself.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes it is okay. If one doesn't deny something then it is okay to say they did not deny it.

That opens up for a hornet's nest of nasty ways of casting doubt about everyone, by omission. It's a dirty, underhanded tactic, with the sole purpose of attacking the person, not the argument.

Well I didn't actually because other people also made it public before I EVER did.

Oh? Where?

Nowhere in the clip does it say anything about Michael Kopf getting a reading from Laurie Campbell.

Nowhere on Michael Prescott's blog does anyone mention Michael Kopf's reading - until you bring it up:

Knopf was a client of Campbell's

Mr. Knopf, I have now learned, was a sitter of Laurie Campbell's, who introduced him to Gary
Source

But it doesn't make any difference because after getting some advice on the subject there is no legal requirement that in the case of Michael Knopf this information needed to be kept confidential. I was concerned about this at the outset. There is no more legalprohibition for saying publicly that Claus Larsen went to the movies than it is to say Michael Knopf went to a medium. This is not protected health information (PHI) nor is there a privleged relationship between Campbell and Knopf. Where this is concerned there is definitely not any sort of privilege between me and Knopf or Schwartz and Knopf. I have said this already and will not answer it again. I know you are fond of repeating yourself.

We don't even know if Knopf had a reading with Campbell. This is your claim, so far unfounded.

At the outset I was concerned if they apply. I since learned they do not in this case. If these laws apply in a particular case then I will certainly uphold and stand behind them.

Where did you "learn" this?

See above. Ultimately there was no requirement for confidentiality where Michael Knopf was concerned. If someone discusses their medical problems with me privately, that information is certainly confidential and I would never reveal it publicly. If someone tells me their son died in an airplane that "blew up," owned a medical school or got out of jail recentrly that is not confidential. In fact all three of these items are part of the public record in the United States.
Only juvenile court records are sealed in this country. Mr. Knopf, clearly, is/was not a juvenile.

Has Michael Knopf ever been your patient, or under your care, in any way, shape or form?

A Question for Claus:
I ask you to provide evidence that revealing business ownership, the details of a plane crash or a criminal record are protected information in the United States. Can you do that?

I never said it was.

Not necessary. Mr. Knopf's readings with Ms Campbell were as her own client. He was not in any study or part of any research. He was a paying customer of Campbell's.

We only have your word for that.

First of all I can't give you anything. I am not a member of any part of this lab nor do I have any formal relationship with them whatsoever. Absolutely none.

But you work closely together with Schwartz, even designing experiments with him.

Secondly, however, I can say that you are confounding subjects in a research study with a client of a medium who is not a subject in a research study. Study subjects are entitled to confidentiality and in fact probably signed consents to that effect to be in the study. They could give the lab permission to reveal who they are, and all or selective parts of the results of their particpation. I have no idea who most of these people are save for the few who were identified by Schwartz in the past and for whom he had their permission to do so. I never met them, don't know them and in fact don't remember today who they are even.

That is very hard to believe, since you have been working so closely with Schwartz for this long.

Off topic. I do not e-mail you anything privately.

That is a lie. You have emailed me before.

Nothing beyond Mr. Knopf's admission of this to Dr. Schwartz and his saying it to others. It is possible he is making this up. It is possible it is not true which is why I say "if" he has
a prior record of bad acts for which he'sbeen convicted it goes to his credibility in this matter.

You did a hell of a lot more. You confirmed that he did have a criminal record.

Exactly what reading are you talking about? I have not had any interest in readings or
this subject for several years now nor have I read any readings. What exactly are you talking about?

The research you participated in:

I have been a subject sitter in research (not at UA) and have been required to read and rate readings to see if I could spot the one which was for me and those which were not. I was not present and proxies were used. The medium was shown a picture of the deceased and said they have him/her.The ratings are what is important. If the investigator knows a particular reading is for a particular sitter and is rated poorly then that is enough in my mind to invalidate the process, or at least that particular medium.

These rating sheets are not word for word transcripts but rather have "facts" given by the medium line by line. They would be meaningless to anyone but the person for whom they were intended unless the sitter's ratings were included. I agree that once such data was rated and tabulated it would not be difficult to put them onto a website
but what for? Morbid curiosity?

Explain to me what exactly would be the value or purpose of a verbatim transcript online that would be worth violating the sitter's rights to confidentiality if their identity would be included or could be surmised by the information. Thanks.

In that research, was there a definition of how the person should know what parts of the reading were "facts", and which were not?

I said that and pointed out the reasons why it was believed she may be. What is your point?

That you have no evidence that she is, in fact, Linda Russek. She has denied that she was Linda Russek.

Blame for what? And to whom? Mr. Knopf told me and multiple others including other people at the lecture where I met him that he owns a medical school. How can I be blamed for that? There is absolutely no reason to assume that when he said this, in May, 2003, that it was not true. But if you wish to harbor the thought that it is not true you are free to do so. Nobody really cares.

You claimed I had "confirmed" that Knopf had a criminal record. I did no such thing. I leave such character assassination to you.

I explained the situation re the accident. It's a side issue.

You clearly brought it up as an attempt of casting suspicion on Michael Knopf.

At some point Geraldo and/or Mr. Knopf need to provide a readable copy of the
letter, not a piece of paper with printing on it being waved around so the camera cannot
read what's on it. If they don't, their failure to do so speaks for itself.

Schwartz surely has a copy of the letter. The easiest would be to have him present it. But he won't.

How do skeptics sign up for this Yahoo discussion group?

Are you the "steve" who posts here?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

From nutjob scientific researcher to plain old nutjob.

~~ Paul

 

[SteveGrenard]

It should be obvious by now that the basis for the accusations leveled on Geraldo are
complicated and convoluted. I have already made a good faith effort to provide
requested information and will stop here. If there are any details or evidence deemed deficient it is because I cannot provide it or provide enough of it to the satisfaction of the inquisitor. This is understandable. The formal summary response I forwarded from GS remains the official response. See Post #27.

If and when further developments occur, if I become aware of them, I will let you all know.

 

[ChristineR]

It should be obvious by now that the basis for the accusations leveled on Geraldo are
complicated and convoluted. I have already made a good faith effort to provide
requested information and will stop here. If there are any details or evidence deemed deficient it is because I cannot provide it or provide enough of it to the satisfaction of the inquisitor. This is understandable. The formal summary response I forwarded from GS remains the official response. See Post #27.

If and when further developments occur, if I become aware of them, I will let you all know.

Thanks Steve, I think you've gone above and beyond here and I for one am grateful for your information.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Your welcome. As additional links are known I will post them. For now I am adding the links concerning the plane crash for the record:

NY TIMES Report:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...15751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

NTSB Report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030106X00013&key=1

with NTSB # and links to related reports on incident including
complete narrative at:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20030106X00013&ntsbno=IAD03FA024&akey=1

 

[SteveGrenard]

Link to Government's letter re Campbell complaint

Here is a link to the letter from the OHRP/HHS regarding the complaint filed by Laurie Campbell regarding GS' breech of confidentiality concerning information contained therein. The complaint gives the appearance of being retalitory and is discussed in the formal response in Post 27 and elsewhere on this thread:


http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR07/jun07a.pdf

Large parts of the letter are redacted, perhaps for confidentiality reasons. I don't know.

In any case the advice and guidance contained in the letter as far as I know has been implemented.

 

[CFLarsen]

It should be obvious by now that the basis for the accusations leveled on Geraldo are complicated and convoluted. I have already made a good faith effort to provide
requested information and will stop here. If there are any details or evidence deemed deficient it is because I cannot provide it or provide enough of it to the satisfaction of the inquisitor. This is understandable. The formal summary response I forwarded from GS remains the official response. See Post #27.

If and when further developments occur, if I become aware of them, I will let you all know.

You still haven't answered these questions:

• Where have other people made it public that Michael Knopf had been a client of Laurie Campbell's?
  
• What evidence do you have that Michael Knopf have been a client of Laurie Campbell's?
  
• Where did you learn that there were no legal requirements for keeping information from Michael Knopf confidential?
  
• Has Michael Knopf ever been your patient, or under your care, in any way, shape or form?
  
• In the research you participated in, was there a definition of how the person should know what parts of the reading were "facts", and which were not?
  
• How do skeptics sign up for this Yahoo discussion group?
  
• Are you the "steve" who posts here?

You don't need to await any "further developments" to answer these questions.

 

[Mojo]

Here is a link to the letter from the OHRP/HHS regarding the complaint filed by Laurie Campbell regarding GS' breech of confidentiality...

I always wear breeches of confidentiality so that anything I don't want revealed can't slip out.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Where have other people made it public that Michael Knopf had been a client of Laurie Campbell's?

A: Laurie Campbell made it public, Michael Knopf made it public to Dr. Schwartz and he made it public. See Post#27. See his website. The fact that Mr. Knopf is a client of Ms Campbell's is not protected. He was part of no research or IRB protocol. AND He made himself a public figure by appearing on Geraldo.

What evidence do you have that Michael Knopf have been a client of Laurie Campbell's?

A: Reports of Michael Knopf's saying he was to Dr. Schwartz who then made it public.
As an aside Geraldo, using rhetorical hyperbole, implied that Dr. Schwartz had stalked Mr. Knopf after learning of the tragic loss of his son and preyed upon him. This was not true.

He was a client of Laurie Campbell's and it was she who introduced Mr. Knopf to Dr. Schwartz. She then enlisted Mr. Knopf in retaliating against Dr. Schwartz for his imposition of guidelines and ethics for the mediums after several incidents where they showed up for research sessions impaired by alcohol. Mr Knopf also gave a business proposal to Dr Schwartz who rejected it. So Mr. Knopf had two motives for participating in this retaliation. One as a favor to Campbell, his medium, and the other because Schwartz rejected his business proposal. That's what all this really about.

Where did you learn that there were no legal requirements for keeping information from Michael Knopf confidential?

A: First of all no information about what was said by and between Campbell and Knopf has been released. Only the fact that Knopf was Campbell's sitter. This is not protected information. The University of Arizona passed on this information which is contained in Dr. Schwartz' formal response (see Post#27) which is where I learned it several days before the actual release.

Has Michael Knopf ever been your patient, or under your care, in any way, shape or form?

A: No. I met him once and only once, socially, at a lecture in May, 2003. I never talked to him or knew him before that, nor have I ever talked to him after that. This question is also moot because if he were a patient I would not be revealing that nor anything about his medical problems assuming like everyone else he has any.


In the research you participated in, was there a definition of how the person should know what parts of the reading were "facts", and which were not?

A: I still don't understand what you are asking but don't care. It is off topic and I am not going to answer this question. I participated in no research other than that involving myself as a sitter so therefore this question is not only off topic but moot in the extreme. As a sitter I knew that the facts given by the medium of my own reading are accurate or not. In the single trial I pariticpated in they were not correct. I need no definitions to know a loved onehad a particular color hair or were single rather than married. If a medium gives such erroneous information one can conclude they are either frauds or deluded. We've had this conversation before.


How do skeptics sign up for this Yahoo discussion group?

A: Anyone who tries to sign up for the group must be approved by the moderator panel. It is private, you cannot sign up for it without approval. Under Yahoo's,terms and conditions no reasons have to be given. You wouldn't be interested in it as it is mostly used to debate Don Watson's TES/enformy, philosophy and the physics of everything.

Are you the "steve" who posts here?

A: You know my user name, why do you keep asking me this? How many Steve's are on this forum? Ten, twelve, twenty. Are you serious? I am only one of them and you know who I am. I ignored this question previously and from this point forward will continue to
do so because it is off topic.

I trust that brings your little drama to a close. As I promised above I will stop trying to
deal with this complicated issue for now and if anything new and exciting occurs I will be sure and let you and the others know.

 

[CFLarsen]

A: Laurie Campbell made it public

Where? When?

, Michael Knopf made it public to Dr. Schwartz and he made it public. See Post#27. See his website.

That was made public after you made it public.

A: Reports of Michael Knopf's saying he was to Dr. Schwartz who then made it public.

Unverifiable hearsay.

He was a client of Laurie Campbell's and it was she who introduced Mr. Knopf to Dr. Schwartz. She then enlisted Mr. Knopf in retaliating against Dr. Schwartz for his imposition of guidelines and ethics for the mediums after several incidents where they showed up for research sessions impaired by alcohol.

Ah, it's a setup! Laurie Campbell is behind the attack on Schwartz, and she used Michael Knopf for this.

How do you know that Laurie Campbell "enlisted" Michael Knopf in "retaliating" against Schwartz?

Will Schwartz take legal action against Laurie Campbell?

Mr Knopf also gave a business proposal to Dr Schwartz who rejected it. So Mr. Knopf had two motives for participating in this retaliation. One as a favor to Campbell, his medium, and the other because Schwartz rejected his business proposal. That's what all this really about.

What "business proposal"?

Did Schwartz receive a cheque for $50,000, yes or no?

A: First of all no information about what was said by and between Campbell and Knopf has been released. Only the fact that Knopf was Campbell's sitter. This is not protected information. The University of Arizona passed on this information which is contained in Dr. Schwartz' formal response (see Post#27) which is where I learned it several days before the actual release.

How did the University of Arizona know that Knopf was Campbell's sitter?

A: No. I met him once and only once, socially, at a lecture in May, 2003. I never talked to him or knew him before that, nor have I ever talked to him after that. This question is also moot because if he were a patient I would not be revealing that nor anything about his medical problems.

Nevertheless, you excused yourself from revealing information about Michael Knopf because you referred to your own status as a health care employee.

Now you say there was no such reason.

A: I still don't understand what you are asking but don't care. It is off topic and I am not going to answer this question. I participated in no research other than that involving myself as a sitter so therefore this question is not only off topic but moot in the extreme.

Do you consider that "involvement" part of the scientific evidence of after-death communication?

A: Anyone who tries to sign up for the group must be approved by the moderator panel. It is private, you cannot sign up for it without approval. Under Yahoo's,terms and conditions no reasons have to be given. You wouldn't be interested in it as it is mostly used to debate Don Watson's TES/enformy, philosophy and the physics of everything.

I am very interested, Steve. How do I sign up? What are the terms of approval?

A: You know my user name, why do you keep asking me this? How many Steve's are on this forum? Ten, twelve, twenty. Are you serious? I am only one of them and you know who I am. I ignored this question previously and from this point forward will continue to
do so because it is off topic.

Not this forum, Steve. I linked to a post on Michael Prescott's blog. Are you that person?

There is something we still don't know the answers to:

Did Schwartz shower while he stayed in the home of Michael Knopf?

Did Schwartz claim to have talked to Michael Knopf's dead son?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Where? When?

Long before I made it public. At least back in 2003! I was not involved so don't know
exactly when and where and I doubt anyone recalls.

That was made public after you made it public.

Your timeline needs fine tuning. This goes back 4 years. I didn't make it
public until a week or so ago.

Unverifiable hearsay.

Except for the fact that suddenly Ms Campbell and Mr Knopf find themselves
together in a joint effort on a major cable television news show.................

Ah, it's a setup! Laurie Campbell is behind the attack on Schwartz, and she used Michael Knopf for this.

How do you know that Laurie Campbell "enlisted" Michael Knopf in "retaliating" against Schwartz?

Would you like to posit an alternative explanation? Do you actually believe they
both approached Geraldo Rivera or Geraldo sought them out using his investigative skills
independently and put this together himself? If you want to believe that go ahead.
I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn when you're ready.

Will Schwartz take legal action against Laurie Campbell?

See Post#27, Dr. Schwartz' statement down at the bottom. You constantly reveal you have not read this document. Has anyone else done so?

What "business proposal"?

Ditto. See Post#27.

Did Schwartz receive a cheque for $50,000, yes or no?

Ditto. See Post#27. Not personally. Knopf showed up at the Dean's
office and personally handed over a check to the dean for $50,000.00
payable to the University of Arizona as part of a $100,000.00 pledge.
He has still to make good on thesecond installment or half of that pledge.
He also discussed making a 3.5 million dollar pledge to Endow a Chair at the University
and wanted a proposal. If anything the mysterious letter contained that proposal.

How did the University of Arizona know that Knopf was Campbell's sitter?

Because they asked Dr.Schwartz, their employee, how he met Mr. Knopf and
Dr. Schwartz told them?

Nevertheless, you excused yourself from revealing information about Michael Knopf because you referred to your own status as a health care employee.

Information yes until I established what might have been protected health care information
and what was not.

Now you say there was no such reason.

That's correct. The information turns out not to be protected., Do I have to repeat this again? Mr. Knopf was not a patient, he was not a research subject/sitter in any
trials under the IRB, he did not disclose any PHI to me, and if he did, I would not
disclose it anyway. I just needed to make sure what was disclosed was not a
violation. I deal with this everyday but not in a scenario such as this. I usually deal
with black and white issues. Somebody wants somebody's records ...... sorry,
can't even tell you anything or give out any records without a signed, notarized release
or the patient showing up in person in my office with picture ID. This situation
definitely fell out of the normal type of situation.

Do you consider that "involvement" part of the scientific evidence of after-death communication?

Nope. In fact my particular session was rated by me as a failure.

I am very interested, Steve. How do I sign up? What are the terms of approval?

It is a private list. The terms are in this case that you need to be invited and I
don't know whether that will happen. The list is for participants working together on
these problems and you are not one of these people.

Not this forum, Steve. I linked to a post on Michael Prescott's blog. Are you that person?

No. Toward the end there were a few folks, seems like but not sure, who were members of the attack group or the anti-attack group posting using different names. Michael had to shut it down at that point.

There is something we still don't know the answers to:

CL: Did Schwartz shower while he stayed in the home of Michael Knopf?

1. Of course. Don't you shower daily? Especially if you were a guest?

CL: Did Schwartz claim to have talked to Michael Knopf's dead son?

2. No. He discussed Campbell having done so. She's the medium. In fact Knopf asked Campbell to be introduced to Schwartz for the very purpose of discussing the alleged ADCs with his son.

 

[CFLarsen]

Long before I made it public. At least back in 2003! I was not involved so don't know
exactly when and where and I doubt anyone recalls.

No evidence, then.

As far as the evidence shows, you were the first to make public that Michael Knopf was Laurie Campbell's client.

Your timeline needs fine tuning. This goes back 4 years. I didn't make it
public until a week or so ago.

You have no evidence of that.

Except for the fact that suddenly Ms Campbell and Mr Knopf find themselves
together in a joint effort on a major cable television news show.................

Would you like to posit an alternative explanation? Do you actually believe they
both approached Geraldo Rivera or Geraldo sought them out using his investigative skills
independently and put this together himself? If you want to believe that go ahead.
I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn when you're ready.

How do you know that is the reason? Doesn't it make sense to bring on Campbell, because she is a medium known to have worked with Schwartz?

Is that really all you base your conspiracy theory on, Steve?

See Post#27, Dr. Schwartz' statement down at the bottom. You constantly reveal you have not read this document. Has anyone else done so?

I have read it: I want to know what the business venture was.

Ditto. See Post#27. Not personally. Knopf showed up at the Dean's
office and personally handed over a check to the dean for $50,000.00
payable to the University of Arizona as part of a $100,000.00 pledge.
He has still to make good on thesecond installment or half of that pledge.
He also discussed making a 3.5 million dollar pledge to Endow a Chair at the University
and wanted a proposal. If anything the mysterious letter contained that proposal.

You have seen this letter?

Because they asked Dr.Schwartz, their employee, how he met Mr. Knopf and Dr. Schwartz told them?

It originated from Schwartz, then. Who told you. Who made it public.

Why would the University ask Schwartz if Knopf had been a sitter of Campbell's? Who at the university asked Schwartz this?

Or did Schwartz offer the information himself, voluntarily?

Information yes until I established what might have been protected health care information
and what was not.
...
That's correct. The information turns out not to be protected., Do I have to repeat this again? Mr. Knopf was not a patient, he was not a research subject/sitter in any
trials under the IRB, he did not disclose any PHI to me, and if he did, I would not
disclose it anyway. I just needed to make sure what was disclosed was not a
violation. I deal with this everyday but not in a scenario such as this. I usually deal
with black and white issues. Somebody wants somebody's records ...... sorry,
can't even tell you anything or give out any records without a signed, notarized release
or the patient showing up in person in my office with picture ID. This situation
definitely fell out of the normal type of situation.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself? You didn't discuss medical matters, nor were you in any way involved with his medical history, yet you thought there might be some protected health care information?

It's nonsense, Steve. As usual, you try to inflate your own importance with these pompous claims.

Nope. In fact my particular session was rated by me as a failure.

Do you consider it a scientific test that failed to produce evidence of after-death communication?

It is a private list. The terms are in this case that you need to be invited and I
don't know whether that will happen. The list is for participants working together on
these problems and you are not one of these people.

Why "in this case"? Before, you said nothing about there being conditions that people had to fulfill.

Who, specifically, qualifies for an invitation? Please name some of them. Who are members of this group?

No. Toward the end there were a few folks, seems like but not sure, who were members of the attack group or the anti-attack group posting using different names. Michael had to shut it down at that point.

You simply cannot stop lying. Prescott did not shut it down because of any "attack group", but because it got too long.

CL: Did Schwartz shower while he stayed in the home of Michael Knopf?

1. Of course. Don't you shower daily? Especially if you were a guest?

So, Schwartz did stay the night? And asked to sleep in the son's bed?

CL: Did Schwartz claim to have talked to Michael Knopf's dead son?

2. No. He discussed Campbell having done so. She's the medium. In fact Knopf asked Campbell to be introduced to Schwartz for the very purpose of discussing the alleged ADCs with his son.

So, Michael Knopf is lying, when he claims Schwartz spoke to his dead son?

 

[tkingdoll]

So, Michael Knopf is lying, when he claims Schwartz spoke to his dead son?

That should be "So, Michael Knopf is lying, when he claims Schwartz claimed to have spoken to his dead son?"

 

[CFLarsen]

That should be "So, Michael Knopf is lying, when he claims Schwartz claimed to have spoken to his dead son?"

Correct.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll
That should be "So, Michael Knopf is lying, when he claims Schwartz claimed to have spoken to his dead son?"

Yup. It was Campbell who makes this claim.Schwartz never claimed it.


Schwartz did not ask to sleep in Paul's room. Mr. Knopf's daughter and her two children were in the house that night and using the guest room among others. The only room available was Paul's so that's how GS got to sleep in that room. He did not request it. Mr. Knopf told him to sleep there.

I will ignore the rest of your remarks as they are your opinion. Ready to buy that bridge yet? It's really in tip-top shape. You can make a fortune charging tolls just off the foot traffic alone.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Claus wrote:

You simply cannot stop lying. Prescott did not shut it down because of any "attack group", but because it got too long.

When you use your erroneously perceived information to accuse me of lying and treating me, your fellow listmate w/disrespect, it goes too far to paraphrase Michael Prescott. I have answered all your questions and treated you with deference and respect throughout this discussion. You ultimately find that you could not do the same and then base your disrespect on something which ultimately isn't true. Here are a few of the last lines of Prescott's blog as he shut it down. I will let others decide who is lying or who is misperceiving the rationale being cited:

ohrp please read your doing it again!Check out http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR07/jun07a.pdf

Posted by: | October 11, 2007 at 12:34 AM

Have some guts. Include your name in your posts.

Posted by: RobL | October 11, 2007 at 05:50 AM

This is the last published post. Prescott actually removed the intervening one;

Okay, I'm shutting down this thread. Sorry, but when people start making unsubstantiated allegations (one of which I had to delete) about what goes on in Schwartz's lab, it's just gone too far.

I have no idea where the truth lies in this Knopf situation, but simple fairness demands that people with an obvious ax to grind (on both sides) not be encouraged to post nasty personal and irrelevant allegations on a public site.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | October 11, 2007 at 06:07 AM

To which Michael added the following for the reasons cited:

P.S. I'm closing down comments on my last post, too, even though it has nothing to do with Schwartz. I don't want this discussion migrating over there.

Everyone take a deep breath, read some Eckhart Tolle, and in a day or two I'll post something nice about bunnies or butterflies and we can have a nice discussion about that.

'Kay?

Posted by: Michael Prescott | October 11, 2007 at 06:09 AM

Please show me Claus where it says Prescott is closing this thread down because it is too long?

ETA the following for Link Lovers:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/10/gary-schwartz-r.html

 

[CFLarsen]

I have answered all your questions

No, you have not.

What is the business venture that Knopf suggested to Schwartz?

Have you seen the letter where Knopf describes this "proposal"?

Why would the University ask Schwartz if Knopf had been a sitter of Campbell's? Who at the university asked Schwartz this?

Or did Schwartz offer the information himself, voluntarily?

Do you consider the test you did a scientific test that failed to produce evidence of after-death communication?

Why are there special conditions for me, if I want to sign up for this Yahoo discussion group? Before, you said nothing about there being conditions that people had to fulfill.

Who, specifically, qualifies for an invitation? Please name some of them. Who are members of this group?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Don't know, No, Don't know X2, Don't know, Don't know.

Last question:
Due to rules of decorum involving respect and courtesy I believe you would not qualify for this forum. I would provide evidence of your prior interactions including that recently outlined in my post 58 referencing your post 54 (near bottom) which speaks to this.

Your question on this itself is a violation. You are seriously asking who are members of this forum on another forum populated by thousands of people using pseudononymous screen names? This was explained to you that it was and is a private forum. Your lack of respect for the members of the group which you "yearn" to join is duly noted.