ABC News hammers JE

If your question Loki is meant to ferret out the fact that the source of her appointment line number spilled the beans on me to her, it is not the case for several reasons. I heard about her from some staff at work but these people were not close to me. Nor did I tell them I wanted to go to her. Second of all, even if she had my full name and address, which she didn't, the
information provided was so highly personal that it would not appear in any database or on the net. In fact nothing that is known about me publicly was even mentioned. Everything mentioned involved obscure non-public things.

Thirdly she does not speak to you herself, her granddaughter books appointments. At that time I gave a first name and a call back number (in case she had to cancel) which belonged to a friend who was in on it with me and who was highly skeptical. Actually he moved back to Florida and his phone became disconnected so I dont know if she ever tried to call it and I didn't call her back to report this. I just showed up at the appointed date and time. It
took several months for me to get an appointment.

The biggie Loki is that she had a residential listing in the white pages that year (2000-2001) and that's how I obtained her number. If you dont call on the right Saturday of the month there is an answering machine message telling you when to call but it doesnt take messages, just hangs up.
 
Steve,

If your question Loki is meant to ferret out the fact that the source of her appointment line number spilled the beans on me to her...
Click to expand...
Hey, you should go into business doing readings - that's uncanny! How could you know...

I heard about her from some staff at work ...
Click to expand...
That's all I was after. Care to elaborate? How did the subject come up? What did these "staff" say exactly?

The biggie Loki is that she had a residential listing in the white pages that year (2000-2001) and that's how I obtained her number.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that's right??
 
I still have that phone book so I am sure..


Listen, I work for an institution with 4,500 employees and 6000 phone extensions (includes patient rooms and staff) At my site we have about 300 in the building during the day
and a third that number night. I score and analyze test results in the daytime of procedures conducted the night before.

It was mid July, after my loss, and I was out on the promenade having a cup of coffee and one of the staffers said she had an appointment to see Walsh and then, not really talking to me, she told the group about what she heard about her. I didnt do any talking and they didnt know about my personal life. They did pass her phone number around and I may have memorized it then but I remember looking it up as well. To double check I just did so again but its in a 2000-2001 directory which I kept for no particular reason. I frankly didnt feel like telling anybody, at that time, I was even remotely interested in this.

I have never discussed the subject of his missing sunglasses, I never told anyone I was placing a flag pin on his picture frame and nobody knew we had three dogs that grew up with him and predeceased him. I wasnt even working there then. There is no way Walsh would know he had a friend named Frank moving to California because I hardly knew the guy and didnt know he was going even to tell anyone in advance about it. There was not a single thing uttered that didnt make sense or wasn't veridical on its own.
Nobody knew I donated two of his three cars to charity ("Good move, giving them to Children's Aid" ). Yes that was the name of the charity and it was not local but in a nearby state.
Again, I have no intention of giving you all 192 some odd pieces of information that were correct which I tabulated. You just have to accept this as anecdotal, subjective and my personal reasons for looking for a scientific explanation for a phenomenon which most of you say doesnt exist ... a sentiment before then I would've agreed with.
 
Steve,

Thanks for the additional info.

I still have that phone book so I am sure
Click to expand...
Apologies. I asked because I *thought* you said something that, when I reread it, you didn't say. Oops! 'Sorry about that chief!'

You just have to accept this as anecdotal, subjective and my personal reasons for looking for a scientific explanation for a phenomenon which most of you say doesnt exist.
Click to expand...
I understand, and have filed your comments appropriately! I still find it strange that your tale of her abilities is perhaps the most accurate and precise account I have ever read (despite your protests that this is "common place", it certainly doesn't seem to be from my reading) of a psychic, yet neither you, nor Walsh, nor Roy, not Swhartz, seem particulary concerned about taking it any further. Given your description, she could prove ADC 100% true in about a week. Okay, her choice I guess...

...a sentiment before then I would've agreed with.
Click to expand...
Although it's only what *started* you the ADC path (there's obviously been plenty more since) what do you think would happen (to your worldview) if it was eventually revealed that Walsh was a fraud?
 
Thanks Renata. Yes this has all been hashed out before.

Again, in 2001 the call couldnt be traced at my institution. First of all, we had phone service through a private carrier, Teleport, not the regular phone company (Verizon). I had caller ID at home at that time and got frequent calls from the hospital which came up "Not Available." Since they started this system of not letting calls to ring through on some subscribers phones unless they were ID'able, we recently changed. Now our main switchboard number comes up to subvert this tactic ...which I guess was designed to thwart telephone solicitors. Its very frustrating to have to make an emergency or routine call to someone's home and because our number was not ID'able it wouldn't go through.

Insofar as death records are concerned, my loved one did not die in my hospital so this could not be traced either. There was no obituary in any city paper; services were private limited to a relatively small # of friends and family.
But all this would tell Walsh is that someone named X died and was related to me. This never came up. X did not appear and said its me, X, I am here. The things said indicated he was X as only X and myself and his mother would've known most of them. He ID'd his own picture (1 out of 3) but never mentioned his name then either. There was no discussion: "I died from this or that..." either. If you enter my name or his name (if she knew it) in Google you'd get 1000s of hits. Not one thing on any of these sites was mentioned so if she was hot reading she missed out on a great deal.
 
Loki: Although it's only what *started* you the ADC path (there's obviously been plenty more since) what do you think would happen (to your worldview) if it was eventually revealed that Walsh was a fraud?
Click to expand...

Thats a problem. I thought JE was the greatest also and was the only medium I had had any exposure to like most people. But he was somebody on TV (until I got a chance to go in person) so I was leery of him from the outset. I didnt see any of the tricks people allege for JE when I went to thre studio either. Others will agree he doesnt need them because he is cold reading. If we are going to criticize someone we must be honest about it and the Jaroff/Randi/Shermer/Michael O'Neil stuff was a pile of crap.

I think JE is a cold reader now, especially after the last LKL which I repeated here a number of times. My worldview has not changed because of this. I have read Braud's Immortal Remains (2003) and Arthur Berger's Aristocracy of the Dead, two very thoughtful, highly skeptical but conclusive monographs. I also sorta became the worst thing, a medium junkie and had many bad bad bad readings. People that could not even cold read but I came across three or four others, including several overseas, that were as good as Walsh. Insofar as Robinson and Roy, you will have to wait until the January,2004 issue of the JSPR is available in the U.S. to discuss. They tested 40 UK and Scottish mediums using hundreds of sitters and is the largest, most statistically signficiant study of its kind. Beyond this, I do not know the exact results yet (Flodin is paranoid and thinks I do). I just note that Tricia Robinson says the results were confirmatory. I will wait and see for myself. I have spoken with her and discussed R&Rs protocols. In fact I even transmitted some messages from her to members here with questions.
 
Clancie said:

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.
Click to expand...

I have never ever heard you speak out against the way skeptics get a token appearance on shows that portray psychics in a positive light.
 
Hmmm...

Clancy wrote:
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?
Click to expand...

One person’s bias is another’s balance I guess. Where are you when LK is giving Sylvia, James and John what almost always amounts to a free pass on LKL?

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).
Click to expand...

If!?!?!? How much more obvious does his fraud have to be?? You ARE a lost cause.

Barkhorn.
 
Reply...

Steve asked me - what I meant by a "Super User".

This is a term I use to respond to credophiles who make statements like, "these powers have been remarked upon for thousands of years, there HAS to be something to them."

Yea sure, the body of world knowledge grows exponentially and technology advances at a rapid pace, but the evidence for paranormal ability is still little more than someone sitting in a room staring at a deck of 6 cards w/ symbols on them while someone in another room tries to guess which one the other person is "selecting" - and ends up w/ results that are 0.0006% above random chance.

After thousands of years - where are the "Super Users"???? Those that are paranormally gifted enough to be able to read them cards w/ 95% accuracy?

Do we hear about these people? No - all we ever get is;
* Remote viewing – works fine, except when the object to be viewed is in a dark locker or under a blue tent.
* Contacting the dead – coming through A-OK, except if you want to contact historical figures or want VERY specific information.
* Clairvoyance – yes there will be an earthquake in India this year, but no inkling of a 9/11, or the death of a Princess Di, or a JFK, Jr., etc.

But wait, Steve tells us of a Camille Walsh that can do amazing things, things that - if true - would profoundly alter my materialist worldview.

Do you think she would agree to be test for the $1 Million Steve??

No? Why the hell not???

* Is she too busy?
* Too rich?
* Randi has a "negative" aura?
* Her "powers" should not be just another commodity?
* She doesn't get out much?

It appears to me that there is one other VERY good reason why she won't be tested. The wonder is that credophiles fail to see it.

And, finally....
Robinson and Roy's studies have been published in two papers to date with the third, based on tightening of their protocol, to be published in January. Again, they used 40 mediums and hundreds of sitters under tightly controlled conditions. These mediums represented an assemblage of persons who have consistently shown to be able to do this without cold reading (asking questions), getting feedback, seeing the sitter (who is hidden from view) or knowing in advance who the sitter(s) is/are. Again, I don't think Randi would ever agree to simply take their published studies as a performance indicator for his prize but he is welcome to do so.
Click to expand...

You KNOW he won’t – and you KNOW why. How about Robinson and Roy REPLICATE their results via a study that has full JREF participation/approval?

In other words can someone please put up or shut up?

Barkhorn.
 
Clancie said:

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.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm...if Edward is a fraud(and all the evidence points that way), then why should we expect a report to say anything different? By your definition of 'fair and balanced', any report about Hitler should include equal time for Holocaust deniers, or that any report about Saddam Hussien should feature all the good things he acheived in Iraq.
 
Zero said:
Hmmmm...if Edward is a fraud(and all the evidence points that way), then why should we expect a report to say anything different? By your definition of 'fair and balanced', any report about Hitler should include equal time for Holocaust deniers, or that any report about Saddam Hussien should feature all the good things he acheived in Iraq.
Click to expand...
:clap:
 
LOL, Claus, that's more like it. Chill out over a beer. On reading your posts above, I was beginning to think you were on the verge of a mental breakdown, getting so worked up about Steve. Also, your frustration that he ignores you is just plain unhealthy. It's possible that sgrenard is not giving ANY thought to you at all, and that he just scrolls through your posts without reading them. After all, you say the same thing every time "show me some evidence, or shut up"...:hit:

I think you need several beers, Cantata. What did you mean with that remark about American beer? What IS it like to drink it?:D
 
OMIGOD. No wonder it took my post above five minutes to load. I didn't even see all the replies on page 2 of this thread, until now.

After reading more of your posts, Cantata, I am truly concerned about you now. You appear to be in the early stages of paranoia. Your post that was reported to Hal sounds like you are on the verge of an attack. (pssst....Claus, I doubt if anyone "reported" you...Hal just posted that as a warning). Why do you care about sgrenard's ◊◊◊◊? Why can't you just blow him off?

My advice, Claus, is to just scroll over Steve's posts without reading them. And please, take Crow up on that beer offer. Better make it a beer CHASER, with a shot of whiskey first, or whatever they drink in Denmark. You need a serious chill out session, bub.
 
Cynical said:
LOL, Claus, that's more like it. Chill out over a beer. On reading your posts above, I was beginning to think you were on the verge of a mental breakdown, getting so worked up about Steve.

(Cynical, Amateur Psycho Therapist.)

I think you need several beers, Cantata. What did you mean with that remark about American beer? What IS it like to drink it?:D [/QUOTE}

Like makin' love in a canoe.
Click to expand...
 
I read that the first time you posted it, Crow. But sorry, I'm not as much of a liberated, swinging New Yorker as you are, so I don't know what you mean.

I'd still like to know what CLAUS means when he puts down American beer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom