ABC News hammers JE

Thank you Darat and Clancie for pointing out that it was Camille Wash and MY personal interaction with her that convinced me of the validity of post mortem communication or ADC as some prefer to call it. Although I have Larsen on ignore, thanks (I think) to some others here, I reiterate that my visiting Walsh was personal, it was convincing to me, it was not a lab experiment, there were no statistical results (actually everything the communicator said through her was accurate), I did not replicate or reproduce her session, and the only controls I had I have gone over before and finally I am not publishing my encouner in any form other than limited form to explain my open minded interest in this.

The meager controls I employed included:

1. making the appointment from an extension on a switchboard handling 6, 000 phone extensions. At that time if you had caller ID or hit *69 you would get back a message saying the "Number was not Available by this method".

2. using my first name only.

3. not using a credit card which wasnt accepted anyway

I since learned Camile accepts many people without any payment including 9-11 families locally. The only publicity she ever received for this was in the article which quoted Corey. Randi, myself and Gary Schwartz were were also consulted. The reporter called Schwartz who then referred him to me because I told Gary about Walsh and Gary knew I had seen her. If you want to play dueling appeal to authorities, in addition they interviewed the psychiatrist who is VP of the Behavioral Sciences Unit at my institution. Like Dr. Corey he is a psychiatric professional but has had decades of clinical experience. I believe Professor Corey is a teacher and (correct me if I am wrong) has not been in clinical practice. This story was done six months after I had seen her. It came about because one of the 9-11 families was a friend of the publisher of the local paper and she came to the paper with it. The reporter who did it, whom I have since become friends with, was out to unmask her but he became convinced himself .... I think. He's still not sure. He balanced the story well with quotes from Randi and Corey. But yes, the 9-11 person and myself were the only two interviewed who had first hand experience with Walsh. This is evident of Corey who quotes the standard line of the party re cold, warm and hot reading. There was no cold reading because there were no questions and no feedback. There was no warm reading because I consciously did my best not to cnvey any emotion and dress neutrally. There was no hot reading because I was anonymous and because the information given was so personal it was not available doing prior research even if Walsh knew who I was which she didnt. Thus Corey cannot explain Walsh's methods by these methods.

Now on to Camille. I was asked by her granddaughter who books her appointments to bring photos with me.
I brought three which included one of the deceased and two same age, same gender look-alike persons who were alive.

I arrived at her home a few minutes early and was shown into an office in her house. She sat behind the desk, I sat in front of it. I wore a business suit, tie, no jewelry, watch or anything like that.

She took out a pad and handed it to me with a pencil so I could take notes. I brought one which I used. She took out another pad and sat there scribbling on it like George Anderson does but appearing to get drowsy or sleepy. She raised her head and pointed at one person in the pictures and said "Hey, that's me." It was a correct i.d. of the deceased. Okay, 1 out of 3. Next time I will bring ten, if there is a next time.

She then fell alseep right in front of me. Breathing became slightly noisy as one's breathing does when asleep but of course I had no scientific way of knowing if she was asleep or not although I have years of experience watching people sleep in subway cars.


She then proceeded to talk in the first person, in her own voice, for one hour and fifty minutes. I was not asked any questions. I did not give any feedback, assents or nays or anything. I just kept writing with the pad in my lap so she couldnt see it.

So:

I was anonymous to her.
I was not asked any questions.
I did not give any feedback.

The deceased did not mention his name and mentioned only one human name right away , that of a friend of the deceased whom I did not know well. The communicator said "Tell Frank not to go to California." I didn't know Frank was leaving Brooklyn or going anywhere. Several days later I went to see him and told him this. He said it was true, he was moving to California. He went anyway.


She did not mention any diseases or causes of death.

She did not talk in the second or third person. She did not relate what she saw or thought she heard. She talked only in the first person and everything she said came straight from the mouth of the deceased.

"Oh, ____(correct nick name), thanks also for the pin." The night before I visited Walsh, in the privacy of my own living room with no one to see, I stuck a US Flag Label pin into his picture frame.

He told me where to find a missing pair of sunglasses. They were later found where he said.



I am not going to run through the entire session here, not for Claus or for anyone. Claus can rightfully consider it anecdoal. It was my experience and mine alone, subjective and is my personal justification for thinking that memories, information, ability to acquire info and even personality and emotions survive physical death in some way. It is a very far fetched notion for me so I am looking for physical evidence and proof of this in quantum theory and in electroencephalographic evidence. If I never find it, so be it . I am interested in the many competing theories and theorists who think they have.

It was after having seen Walsh that I started experiencing doubts about JE. If he was real he was afraid of allowing a communicator to use him like Walsh
did or couldn't do this at all and was a fake. The more I see of him the more I think this of him. Or JE is a cold reader and not a very good one.

Walsh did not ask questions, did not get feedback, did not throw out a bunch of J names or fumble with homophones. She didnt bring up relationships either and didnt ask about anything at all as JE does. In fact if I believe anything it was not her talking at all.

Up to then, I was naive to mediums, only knowing JE from the tube so I didnt know that there are any number of low profile mediums that work like Walsh. The rest of them I don't trust.
 
CFLarsen said:


Still, no evidence.... :) But you can buy me a beer at TAM2. Two, one for me, one for El-Unit.

Better make it non-American, though..... You know what drinking American beer is like....
"Makin' love in a canoe!"
 
<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported for possible harrassment. I find that the tone of the poster is confrontational and direct, but is not in and of itself a violation of the rules. In such a post, however, it would be better to provide evidence (links, I suppose) to support the statement. Please also know that it was not Clancie who reported this post.
</font></td></tr></table>

CFLarsen said:


You cannot possibly take Steve's word as the truth?? Steve Grenard is a know liar, he has faked quotes, he has lied, he has cheated....

Really, Clancie. You should choose your allies with a bit more care....
 
hal bidlack said:
<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported for possible harrassment. I find that the tone of the poster is confrontational and direct, but is not in and of itself a violation of the rules. In such a post, however, it would be better to provide evidence (links, I suppose) to support the statement. Please also know that it was not Clancie who reported this post.
</font></td></tr></table>


I have no problems with showing evidence. I would love it if claims are required to be backed up with evidence.... :)

Why is it important to say who did not report it? I didn't either!

(So, that's how you do those cool colored boxes....very easy...whaddayaknow...plain HTML....expect much better looking posts from me from now on... :))
 
Steve lying is pretty much an accepted fact by anyone who has payed any attention to him. Misquotings, representing other people's quotes as his own, then claiming ignorance when the source of the quote is discredited, self agrandizement, his own share of insults and slander, and whineing when people call him on it.
 
Posted by hal bidlack

Please also know that it was not Clancie who reported this post.
Thank you very much for including that, Hal, to eliminate anyone misunderstanding. (And, personally, when the need arises, I much prefer to complain publicly anyway! :) ).
 
Clancie said:
Thank you very much for including that, Hal, to eliminate anyone misunderstanding.

Who has misunderstood anything??

Clancie said:
(And, personally, when the need arises, I much prefer to complain publicly anyway! :) ).

Right.
 
SteveGrenard said:



I just suggested that in case you missed it. Come January, which is only a month or less away, I invite Randi to inspect the peer reviewed and referee'd published reports of Prof Archie Roy and Patricia Robinson and, if he so deems, pay them and their research mediums the one million. The ball is hardly in my court .... it's in Randi's. I cannot formally submit anyone's research or so-called paranormal faculties to JREF. Randi can either do it himself as he did with Schwartz and then he renegged or he can ignore it. Somehow, based on his renegging on Schwartz by refusing to talk to him, I think he will go on ignore.

PS: What's a super user?

Surely you are aware by now that reading reports of a past event, no matter how well controlled or peer-reviewed, cannot qualify for the prize. The challenge requires controls that Randi is able to personally verify. But it seems like a medium this reliable should be easily testable.
 
Back to the ABC news bit. The one that amazed me was when he had singled out a woman and was barraging her with names and numbers, insisting that there was some connection. When she said no he snapped at her and said something along the lines of "No, trust me you're wrong and I'm right." and she did a complete 180, said ok, and started agreeing with him.
 
re: ABC news and Shermer
From Michael Shermer

...20/20 correspondent Bill Ritter, with whom I worked on an expose of medium James Van Praagh a few years ago...
Shermer reprinted in valleyskeptics

So Ritter and Shermer have teamed up for anti-mediumship pieces before.

Is it any wonder, with the strong anti-mediumship bias of Ritter/Shermer, that this piece violated the basic principles of journalism: balance, fairness, and objectivity?

If JE's a fraud, they should have been able to make their case without so unfairly chopping up his interviews and readings. They only used the little snippets--and only in the context of supporting Ritter or Shermer's point that JE's an arrogant fraud preying on grieving people--and isn't very good at doing readings either, (unless, that is, he's bombarding people with meaningless details and then bullying them into accepting it).

It was quite unethical, imo, not to tell JE that Shermer would be involved in the piece --and at least giving him a chance to respond to the heavy duty "spin" Shermer was allowed to put on everything he said or did (other than the moment when Ritter asked, "What do you say to those who say you're self deluded AND intentionally exploiting grieving people?")

No interviews with anyone who ever was -pleased- with a reading...no readings shown for longer than a sentence or two....not even a follow-up with the producer for whom JE got "40 misses out of 41 tries" (or a description of what exactly the "misses" were). (And the 1 "hit" dismissed as hot reading here, rofl. Since, if so and that's the best he could do, JE's an even worse hot reader than a cold one!)
 
Clancie said:
It was quite unethical, imo, not to tell JE that Shermer would be involved in the piece . . .
Do we know for a fact that JE was not told Shermer (or any other professional skeptic) would be involved?

And even if he wasn't specifically told that, JE is not so naive to assume one wasn't consulted for the piece.
 
Posted by Zakur

Do we know for a fact that JE was not told Shermer (or any other professional skeptic) would be involved?
Shermer said Edward didn't know about it.
And even if he wasn't specifically told that, JE is not so naive to assume one wasn't consulted for the piece.
Yes, but the point is, he may have assumed it would be a balanced and fair approach by 20/20 and Ritter. It wasn't.
 
>Yes, but the point is, he may have assumed it would be a balanced and fair approach by 20/20 and Ritter. It wasn't.

What would you consider "fair and balanced"?

A statement to the effect that JE could be communicating with the dead even though there was no convincing evidence provided?

Pehaps a disclaimer that the demonstration was for "entertainment" purposes only?

The show opened with a discussion about JE and they did mention that he has seemingly made some impressive "hits" in the past. They went on to do a demonstration and they reported the results. Just because the results were poor, does not mean that the report was unbalanced. Indeed, JE would have looked fine if he had provided a good reading. I see no fault in reporting that JE didn't provide, when that is in fact the case.

If JE wants to rebutt the show... he can come in and undergo proper testing at anytime. By all means, he should provide clear evidence of communication with the dead and put all us skeptics in our place.
 
<table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0 width=100%><TR><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/001.gif" width=92>
xpar.gif
</td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/005.gif"></td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/002.gif" width=92>
xpar.gif
</td></TR><TR><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/006.gif" width=92>
xpar.gif
</td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/009.gif">
(Yes, just testing a new format...)

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "So Ritter and Shermer have teamed up for anti-mediumship pieces before."</BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they have teamed up for one skeptical piece before.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "Is it any wonder, with the strong anti-mediumship bias of Ritter/Shermer, that this piece violated the basic principles of journalism: balance, fairness, and objectivity?"</BLOCKQUOTE>

Please point to journalists whom you think do not violate the "basic" principles of journalism you mention (you forgot a few - you don't write for a larger audience, so I'll let that slide)


<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "If JE's a fraud"</BLOCKQUOTE>

Please.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "they should have been able to make their case without so unfairly chopping up his interviews and readings. They only used the little snippets--and only in the context of supporting Ritter or Shermer's point that JE's an arrogant fraud preying on grieving people--and isn't very good at doing readings either, (unless, that is, he's bombarding people with meaningless details and then bullying them into accepting it)."</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, he does do that on occasion, doesn't he?

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "It was quite unethical, imo, not to tell JE that Shermer would be involved in the piece --and at least giving him a chance to respond to the heavy duty "spin" Shermer was allowed to put on everything he said or did (other than the moment when Ritter asked, "What do you say to those who say you're self deluded AND intentionally exploiting grieving people?")"</BLOCKQUOTE>

The second a clairvoyant, an astrologer or any other believer/practitioner of the paranormal discovers that there is a skeptic around, he/she will run for the woods. Why do you think JE does not apply for the million bucks?

<BLOCKQUOTE>Clancie: "No interviews with anyone who ever was -pleased- with a reading...no readings shown for longer than a sentence or two....not even a follow-up with the producer for whom JE got "40 misses out of 41 tries" (or a description of what exactly the "misses" were). (And the 1 "hit" dismissed as hot reading here, rofl. Since, if so and that's the best he could do, JE's an even worse hot reader than a cold one!)"</BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely disingeneous: You have no problems with programs or articles where JE is portrayed as real.
<td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/007.gif" width=92>
xpar.gif
</td></TR>
<TR><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/003.gif" width=92>
xpar.gif
</td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/008.gif"></td><td align=left valign=top background="http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/004.gif" width=92>
xpar.gif
</td></TR></table>
 
I'm surprised none of the dead people told JE that Shermer was involved. Maybe they tried..."I'm getting an S name"

Sorry, Clancie, but I think whenever a person (medium, skeptic, anyone with a position on a remotely controversial topic) is interviewed for an investigative journalism type show, they should expect that the other side of the issue will be involved.


Mr. Larsen, I am insanely jealous of your beautifully formatted post.
 
yea, on the Seance board before the show a number of people wondered why his Spirit Guides would allow him to do the show. No mention of them after the show aired.
 
Posted by Truthseeker

Sorry, Clancie, but I think whenever a person (medium, skeptic, anyone with a position on a remotely controversial topic) is interviewed for an investigative journalism type show, they should expect that the other side of the issue will be involved
Of course. But they also have a right to expect that "investigative journalism" will be fair and balanced reporting. This was just a hatchet job with very brief snippets of JE's readings and comments basically just being used to illustrate Shermer's commentary and the shared Shermer/Ritter anti-JE point of view.
 
It still amazes me that people still believe JE has superpowers. I say good job to 20/20 for reporting a fair and balanced perspective.
 

Back
Top Bottom