Wow! Gary Schwartz the con man?

[CFLarsen]

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

You don't know?

Let's sum up what it is you "don't know".

You point to a test you did yourself, with yourself as a sitter.

But you don't know if the test was scientific or not.

You bring up a rejected "business proposal" as a reason to question Michael Knopf's motives to appear on a show.

Despite you having all sorts of inside information from your close collaborator, Schwartz, you don't know what the "business proposal" is.

The rejected "business proposal" is described in a letter which you refer to as "mysterious".

But you don't know what the letter actually says.

Although the evidence shows that you are the first to make public that Michael Knopf was Laurie Campbell's client, you claim it was Knopf himself who revealed it.

But you don't know if the university asked Schwartz if this was so, or if it was Schwartz who offered the information to the University.

That adds up to one thing: A hatchet job.

You have done nothing but cast suspicion on Michael Knopf, and smear his name, ever since the segment was aired. You have done it here, on Michael Prescott's blog, and who knows where else.

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.

Very well: Who would qualify for this discussion group?

Would either of these people qualify?

James Randi
Phil Plait
Richard Saunders
Massimo Polidoro
Richard Wiseman
Michael Shermer
Robert Park
Benjamin Radford

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.

How can I show a lack of respect for the members if you refuse to tell me who they are?

It could very well be that there are people here interested in what this group is discussing. I find it odd that you would make the existence of such a group known, and then deny people with knowledge to join.

It may be a private forum, but surely, that doesn't mean that people from this forum can't sign up? Or from somewhere else?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Claus in his confusion has written:

Despite you having all sorts of inside information from your close collaborator, Schwartz, you don't know what the "business proposal" is.

The rejected "business proposal" is described in a letter which you refer to as "mysterious".

But you don't know what the letter actually says.

The only proposal letter Mr. Knopf received is from the University of Arizona. It was allegedly the prop he waved around on air. It was a proposal for him to endow a Chair at the University and was sent at his request. No I have not seen the letter other than as a prop being waved by Mr. Knopf in his video performance and only know the subject matter, which I just told you, not the details of what it is says. Mr. Knopf needs to produce the letter so that everyone can read it to see if what he said it contains and what it actually contains are the same thing.Mr. Knopf has gone on the record that the letter on UA letterhead says they are asking him for 3.5 million to establish a business in the afterlife for his son Paul. If true it is egregious. Problem is it isn't true. Let Mr. Knopf prove it is if he can.

There is no other letter from GS or UA to Knopf.

Perhaps Mr. Knopf went to the same school you did Claus. There was a business proposal floated by Mr. Knopf and directed at GS. GS declined as it would've been a conflict of interest for him as a scientist with UA to get involved with Mr. Knopf on
that basis.

So you and he can keep confounding the two different proposals, one for an endowed Chair and the other for a business to be run by Mr. Knopf somehow involving GS and his deceased son. It ain't gonna happen and never was. I have no idea of the details but it is mentioned in the formal response which obviously in spite of your claims did not read carefully. The only involvement of his late son Paul is in honoring him by naming the endowed chair in his memory.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I was a subject sitter in a project run by a University psych department. I have no knowledge of the design or safeguards employed in the overall project. Mine was a small need to know role. I had to rate five readings and determine which one was for me. I picked the wrong one, and the one that was was completely wrong was for me. There wasn't one fact I could verify as true.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Since the listserver you refer to is private you know I cannot reveal or indicate in anyway if anyone on your list is a member or not. Good try.

I said I would block your nomination for membership because of your disrespectful behavior. I never mentioned anyone else's. Just in this thread see my Post 58 referencing your post 54. Of course you know there are considerable more examples.

Do not expect other groups to employ lesser standards than this group does where courtesy and respect are concerned. The fact that you post here and then attack people, especially erroneously, is the owner's decision and I have nothing to say about it.

 

[Mojo]

The only proposal letter Mr. Knopf received is from the University of Arizona. It was allegedly the prop he waved around on air. It was a proposal for him to endow a Chair at the University and was sent at his request. No I have not seen the letter other than as a prop being waved by Mr. Knopf in his video performance and only know the subject matter, which I just told you, not the details of what it is says. Mr. Knopf needs to produce the letter so that everyone can read it to see if what he said it contains and what it actually contains are the same thing.Mr. Knopf has gone on the record that the letter on UA letterhead says they are asking him for 3.5 million to establish a business in the afterlife for his son Paul. If true it is egregious. Problem is it isn't true. Let Mr. Knopf prove it is if he can.

The only real evidence in the video, as far as I could see, was the unsupported word of an obviously distraught parent. But then, if someone involves themselves with mediums, this is the sort of thing that they must expect, given that mediums' target market includes the vulnerable and bereaved.

 

[CFLarsen]

The only proposal letter Mr. Knopf received is from the University of Arizona. It was allegedly the prop he waved around on air. It was a proposal for him to endow a Chair at the University and was sent at his request. No I have not seen the letter other than as a prop being waved by Mr. Knopf in his video performance and only know the subject matter, which I just told you, not the details of what it is says. Mr. Knopf needs to produce the letter so that everyone can read it to see if what he said it contains and what it actually contains are the same thing.Mr. Knopf has gone on the record that the letter on UA letterhead says they are asking him for 3.5 million to establish a business in the afterlife for his son Paul. If true it is egregious. Problem is it isn't true. Let Mr. Knopf prove it is if he can.

Considering that Schwartz is so upset about this, it is decidedly odd that Schwartz himself isn't all too keen on providing evidence that Knopf is the bad guy here.

There is no other letter from GS or UA to Knopf.

Perhaps Mr. Knopf went to the same school you did Claus.

It is comments like these that make it obvious that there is something fishy going on here. If you are defending an innocent man, you shouldn't need to come up with these lame attempts of character assassination.

There was a business proposal floated by Mr. Knopf and directed at GS. GS declined as it would've been a conflict of interest for him as a scientist with UA to get involved with Mr. Knopf on
that basis.

So you and he can keep confounding the two different proposals, one for an endowed Chair and the other for a business to be run by Mr. Knopf somehow involving GS and his deceased son. It ain't gonna happen and never was. I have no idea of the details but it is mentioned in the formal response which obviously in spite of your claims did not read carefully. The only involvement of his late son Paul is in honoring him by naming the endowed chair in his memory.

I'm confused.

If Knopf "floats" an idea of a business proposal directed at Schwartz, which Schwartz rejects....and Knopf sends a letter to the University of Arizona, suggesting a donation which has nothing to do with Schwartz...

...

...what the hell was Schwartz doing visiting Knopf's house, even staying the night?

I was a subject sitter in a project run by a University psych department. I have no knowledge of the design or safeguards employed in the overall project. Mine was a small need to know role. I had to rate five readings and determine which one was for me. I picked the wrong one, and the one that was was completely wrong was for me. There wasn't one fact I could verify as true.

Which university? Who was in charge of the psych department?

Since the listserver you refer to is private you know I cannot reveal or indicate in anyway if anyone on your list is a member or not. Good try.

I said I would block your nomination for membership because of your disrespectful behavior. I never mentioned anyone else's. Just in this thread see my Post 58 referencing your post 54. Of course you know there are considerable more examples.

Do not expect other groups to employ lesser standards than this group does where courtesy and respect are concerned. The fact that you post here and then attack people, especially erroneously, is the owner's decision and I have nothing to say about it.

Since I didn't ask you to reveal if these people were members, maybe you could answer the question I was asking? Namely if any of these people could be members?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Considering that Schwartz is so upset about this, it is decidedly odd that Schwartz himself isn't all too keen on providing evidence that Knopf is the bad guy here.

The letter in contention, the one used as a prop on Geraldo, is the important one. It is important for Mr. Knopf to back up his remarks by showing that.

It is comments like these that make it obvious that there is something fishy going on here. If you are defending an innocent man, you shouldn't need to come up with these lame attempts of character assassination.

I'm confused.

You admit you're confused but you accuse me of character assasination. I
was, in fact, trying to point out that you are confused and Mr. Knopf may well be
also. Or he is confusing and confounding the proposal he asked for about endowing a chair in his son's memory and the business deal he approached Schwartz with and which was declined by Schwartz. There is no letter or written proposal for the business deal Knopf proposed.
I understand it never got past verbal stage. No, I have no details. But I am sure we'll get
them in due course. I know it had something to do with mediumship. Maybe Knopf wanted to start a McMedium, a franchise with mediums all over the country. How do you want your burger cooked? Tell me "medium."

If Knopf "floats" an idea of a business proposal directed at Schwartz, which Schwartz rejects....and Knopf sends a letter to the University of Arizona, suggesting a donation which has nothing to do with Schwartz...

Who said Knopf sent UA a letter? I don't know if he did or did not. When he in person handed over half of a $100,000. pledge he verbally asked the UA to send him a proposal about the endowed chair in Paul's memory.

.
...what the hell was Schwartz doing visiting Knopf's house, even staying the night?

It is my recollection that Gary arranged for him to attend the lecture where
I happened to have met him May, 2003. It was at the Hilton in Staten Island so
it was easy also for me to accept an invitation as I live on S.I. Gary was flying
back to Arizona the next day and since Knopf lived on the Long Island with an
easy commute to JFK it is my recollection that Knopf invited him to stay at
his house and get him to his plane the next day.

Scoreboard:

Questions answered by Claus: 0 Questions Answered by SG: Dozens ...

By the way can you share with us why you need to know all this information and what you are going to do with it?

Which university? Who was in charge of the psych department?

I have been asked not to give this out prior to publication. But its not UA.

Since I didn't ask you to reveal if these people were members, maybe you could answer the question I was asking? Namely if any of these people could be members?

Nice try but no. Anybody could be a member, even you but I would block your nomination because of your disrespect. See Post #58, referencing your post #54.

 

[CFLarsen]

The letter in contention, the one used as a prop on Geraldo, is the important one. It is important for Mr. Knopf to back up his remarks by showing that.

Maybe. But, if that letter is the letter he received from UA, and has nothing to do with Schwartz, don't you think the film crew would have read it?

If they did, and it doesn't say anything about Schwartz, then you are accusing the film crew of outright fraud.

That's a serious accusation, Steve.

You admit you're confused but you accuse me of character assasination. I
was, in fact, trying to point out that you are confused and Mr. Knopf may well be
also. Or he is confusing and confounding the proposal he asked for about endowing a chair in his son's memory and the business deal he approached Schwartz with and which was declined by Schwartz. There is no letter or written proposal for the business deal Knopf proposed.
I understand it never got past verbal stage. No, I have no details. But I am sure we'll get
them in due course. I know it had something to do with mediumship. Maybe Knopf wanted to start a McMedium, a franchise with mediums all over the country. How do you want your burger cooked? Tell me "medium."

Who said Knopf sent UA a letter? I don't know if he did or did not. When he in person handed over half of a $100,000. pledge he verbally asked the UA to send him a proposal about the endowed chair in Paul's memory.

This is getting weirder and weirder. You keep coming up with these assertions (all of which cast Michael Knopf in a bad light), but when asked to back it up, you say that you don't have real, inside knowledge.

It is my recollection that Gary arranged for him to attend the lecture where
I happened to have met him May, 2003. It was at the Hilton in Staten Island so
it was easy also for me to accept an invitation as I live on S.I. Gary was flying
back to Arizona the next day and since Knopf lived on the Long Island with an
easy commute to JFK it is my recollection that Knopf invited him to stay at
his house and get him to his plane the next day.

I am not interested in your recollection, Steve. Let's take a look at what Schwartz says:

he invited Dr. Schwartz to his home to discuss possible research programs that he would fund
...
he was upset because Dr. Schwartz refused to participate in a proposed business venture with Mr. Knopf that would compromise Dr. Schwartz’s ethics.

So, after rejecting Knopf's shady business proposal, Schwartz spends the night in the dead son's room, after taking a shower?

O....K.

By the way can you share with us why you need to know all this information and what you are going to do with it?

There have been very serious accusations made, both against Gary Schwartz and Michael Knopf.

I have been asked not to give this out prior to publication. But its not UA.

Yet another one of your secret experiments, which you only hint at, but never can provide actual facts about.

Nice try but no. Anybody could be a member, even you but I would block your nomination because of your disrespect. See Post #58, referencing your post #54.

No, what? Would you - or anyone else - block any of the people on the list?

 

[Soapy Sam]

So, after rejecting Knopf's shady business proposal, Schwartz spends the night in the dead son's room, after taking a shower?

O....K.

You've commented on the shower before, Claus. What do you find so unusual about someone taking a shower while a guest in some else's house?
Is there some relevance to the shower that I'm unaware of?
I know nothing of the timeline of events that evening, but as I understand it, at some point after a lecture, K and S discussed a business deal, in K's house, which S rejected- either then or at some later time. He may have chosen to sleep on it. As we don't know what the proposal was, we don't know that it was "shady". S may have rejected it because it was not permitted by his contract of employment or for any other reason.

While I have a poor opinion of GS as an academic, I must say I find nothing in this thread to prove he is a crook. Knopf may, or may not have a police record. I can't see it's relevant either way in implying that GS has broken the law (apart from the laws of comon sense).

 

[tkingdoll]

You've commented on the shower before, Claus. What do you find so unusual about someone taking a shower while a guest in some else's house?
Is there some relevance to the shower that I'm unaware of?
I know nothing of the timeline of events that evening, but as I understand it, at some point after a lecture, K and S discussed a business deal, in K's house, which S rejected- either then or at some later time. He may have chosen to sleep on it. As we don't know what the proposal was, we don't know that it was "shady". S may have rejected it because it was not permitted by his contract of employment or for any other reason.

While I have a poor opinion of GS as an academic, I must say I find nothing in this thread to prove he is a crook. Knopf may, or may not have a police record. I can't see it's relevant either way in implying that GS has broken the law (apart from the laws of comon sense).

Until or unless further evidence is forthcoming, then I agree with your assessment of this matter. The letter will be critical evidence, I assume, but as Gary has declared his intention to sue, then we'll find out soon enough.

However, as Geraldo employs a legal team, there may be just enough fire for the smoke to have been justified. But at this stage I certainly don't see any flames.

 

[workerbee]

Exact Language from Document

Hi All,

I am new here; and will need to keep my identity anonymous. Yet, want you to have some facts regarding Schwartz. Your board has been brought to my attention, and after waiting a couple of days to get accepted into this forum, I want to post the actual language from the 7 page Schwartz document to Knopf.

For those who question the authenticity of this document, I obtained it directly from a source who was given it directly by Schwartz. The document has not been altered in anyway, and my source knows I am placing this quote here.

This is an exact quote from Schwartz to Knopf on the U of A letterhead on page 2 of the 7 page "proposal".

It is entitled: MONDAY'S SURPRISING SHOWER

"At 11:30 am Monday morning (3-10-03), while I was in the shower, I asked Paul the following question:

'Given the complex history of your (Paul's) family, and my need to bring this work to the world with humility and integrity, what do you (Paul) want me to do?'

I was shown two words- "honesty" and "forgiveness" -and I was told "you must stand up for these principles of my (Paul's) family, and the world at large is to heal."

As I participated in this conversation, I experienced both peace and pain.

I then asked Paul, "How shall I do this?"

I was told that I must serve as a role model for honesty, expressing certain truths to you-gently yet forcefully-knowing that they might cause you some pain, anger, and soul searching, yet also knowing that facing these truths would have the potential to bring your family healing, relief, and peace.

In the shower I was shown two aspects of the truth: (1) sharing with you my personal observations of your family to date, and (2) explaining what we need to do professionally/academically if I am to represent Paul and your family as a visible role model for this work."

This should clarify that Dr. Schwartz did indeed talk to Michael Knopf's deceased son Paul in the shower, and did act in the compacity as a "medium".

-Workerbee

 

[workerbee]

Exact dollar amount requested

Some of you may be interested to know that the exact dollar amount GS asked for in this "proposal" is for $3,630,000., which would be in a one time installment, or $330,000. a year for ten years....this was to fund a Chair for Schwartz.


-workerbee

 

[CFLarsen]

You've commented on the shower before, Claus. What do you find so unusual about someone taking a shower while a guest in some else's house?
Is there some relevance to the shower that I'm unaware of?
I know nothing of the timeline of events that evening, but as I understand it, at some point after a lecture, K and S discussed a business deal, in K's house, which S rejected- either then or at some later time. He may have chosen to sleep on it. As we don't know what the proposal was, we don't know that it was "shady". S may have rejected it because it was not permitted by his contract of employment or for any other reason.

While I have a poor opinion of GS as an academic, I must say I find nothing in this thread to prove he is a crook. Knopf may, or may not have a police record. I can't see it's relevant either way in implying that GS has broken the law (apart from the laws of comon sense).

It strikes me as a very odd thing to do. Schwartz doesn't say anything about the timeline, and has been pretty clear that the deal supposedly offered by Knopf was unacceptable. Why even stay at someone's house, if you thought you were being suckered into a bum deal?

I'd get the hell out, as soon as possible, to minimize any kind of rumours.

Until or unless further evidence is forthcoming, then I agree with your assessment of this matter. The letter will be critical evidence, I assume, but as Gary has declared his intention to sue, then we'll find out soon enough.

I don't think we need psychic powers to predict that there will be no lawsuit.

However, as Geraldo employs a legal team, there may be just enough fire for the smoke to have been justified. But at this stage I certainly don't see any flames.

I have a hard time believing that they will let Knopf wave a letter about that has nothing to do with Schwartz - as Steve has claimed.

Hi All,

I am new here; and will need to keep my identity anonymous. Yet, want you to have some facts regarding Schwartz. Your board has been brought to my attention, and after waiting a couple of days to get accepted into this forum, I want to post the actual language from the 7 page Schwartz document to Knopf.

You have to verify that information.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Why stay? Because going home was more awkward.
For example, it's not unreasonable to suppose either party had had a drink. Drive home after drinking, or stay with someone whose business proposition I just rejected?

I'd stay. Personal call. I suspect we'd get a 50 / 50 split in a poll.

Clearly I don't know the actual details or order of events, but I can think of many circumstances in which I'd have stayed- and likely , showered.
I doubt I'd have spoken to dead people in the shower though.

 

[workerbee]

How do you propose I verify this information?

 

[CFLarsen]

How do you propose I verify this information?

Get official confirmation from Knopf, the production team, and, of course, the sender.

Was the sender Schwartz or the University of Arizona?

 

[tkingdoll]

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.

Hang on, I just saw that last para in your reply to me. Are you sure you have the right person? I'm hardly trolling in my own damn thread. Plus, I have been more than generous in my skepticism about Geraldo's claims.

Although in light of the new document, if it is genuine then I may have to change my position.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Hang on, I just saw that last para in your reply to me. Are you sure you have the right person? I'm hardly trolling in my own damn thread. Plus, I have been more than generous in my skepticism about Geraldo's claims.

Although in light of the new document, if it is genuine then I may have to change my position.

To tkingdoll:

The remarks which are mistakenly attributed from me to you were from me to Mr. Larsen.

I have spoken to Dr. Schwartz regarding the leak of this text hereon. For one thing this is not a document, it is probably the equivalent of less than 1/2 of one page of a seven page document and according to Schwartz is taken out of context. As soon as he provides me with more on this, which involves him referring to Campbell's contact with Knopf's son, I will
post it.

But please don't think I am so discourteous as to make such remarks to you when it was
actually to Larsen. Thank you.

 

[workerbee]

The original sender is definitely Schwartz, on the U of A letter head. The U of A only learned of the letter from complainants, NOT from Schwartz. Schwartz did not put any such letter "on record" with the U of A like Grenard had indicated.

-workerbee

 

[tkingdoll]

To tkingdoll:

The remarks which are mistakenly attributed from me to you were from me to Mr. Larsen.

I have spoken to Dr. Schwartz regarding the leak of this text hereon. For one thing this is not a document, it is probably the equivalent of less than 1/2 of one page of a seven page document and according to Schwartz is taken out of context. As soon as he provides me with more on this, which involves him referring to Campbell's contact with Knopf's son, I will
post it.

But please don't think I am so discourteous as to make such remarks to you when it was
actually to Larsen. Thank you.

No problem. Thanks for clarifying, looking forward to Schwartz's response