Great Time.com article. "Larry King and the Paranormal

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html


UNAS... Click on the above site for the Jaroff article.

NO, I do not consider it acceptable. It is no more and no less than the example of what Randi did with the O'Neill e-mail which made it into gospel reprinted in

TIME

Scientific American

The Skeptic


PS: Martin Gardner's religious beliefs are a matter of record. He has admitted these himself. Jaroff admits he is a close friend of Gardner's. I do not know the basis for, at one time, his admiration for Joe Stalin but I'll let that one rest.
Some source sent me this e-mail a few minutes before I posted it. It was signed Angus Huck. (A). John Benneth also sent me an e-mail a week or so ago I did not publish here stating that when Randi lst saw Geller's act, he loved it and wanted Geller to team up with him (The Amazing Randi and Geller?) but Geller rebuffed his advances and soon thereafter the only place both names appeared were on legal papers separated by the word
"Vrs."
 
SteveGrenard said:
NO, I do not consider it acceptable. It is no more and no less than the example of what Randi did with the O'Neill e-mail which made it into gospel reprinted in

TIME

Scientific American

The Skeptic

OK, so it's unacceptable. So, you are back to square one, Steve. Could we now see your evidence?

SteveGrenard said:
PS: Martin Gardner's religious beliefs are a matter of record. He has admitted these himself. Jaroff admits he is a close friend of Gardner's. I do not know the basis for, at one time, his admiration for Joe Stalin but I'll let that one rest.
Some source sent me this e-mail a few minutes before I posted it. It was signed Angus Huck. (A). John Benneth also sent me an e-mail a week or so ago I did not publish here stating that when Randi lst saw Geller's act, he loved it and wanted Geller to team up with him (The Amazing Randi and Geller?) but Geller rebuffed his advances and soon thereafter the only place both names appeared were on legal papers separated by the word
"Vrs."

What does this have to do with Jaroff's article?? You are ranting again.
 
SteveGrenard said:
NO, I do not consider it acceptable.
Your statement is puzzling. You have just done something that you claim to consider unacceptable. Are we to conclude from this that you routinely commit acts that contravene your sense of morality, or that you are lying when you say that you consider your own actions unacceptable?

You have yet to provide any specifics regarding the lies you claim that Jaroff and Gardner have told, or your evidence for your claims. Do you have any specifics, Mr. Grenard? That question can be answered simply: either yes or no. No more evasion, Mr. Grenard: provide the specifics.
 
You are missing the point UNAS. See logical fallacies on "missing the point. "

You consider Randi's use of an unsubstantiated e-mail from O'Neill as the absolute gospel but you do not consider an e-mail I received in the same light. So what does that beg? A double standard based on the fact that I have a different name than James Randell Zwinge?

The e-mail I received from Huck, and I get many from him on such issues (he has been around long enough and has been a watcher of Randi, etc for decades) are usually just deleted or filed if of interest. But since we were discussing the veracity of an article by Jaroff based on the same sort of hearsay, I decided to quote it as an example or object lesson. It got precisely the response I predicted. And when you asked if I considered it acceptable, my answer was unequivocable: NO. And it is also unequivocable where Jaroff's use of the O'Neill e- mail is concerned: NO... that was not acceptable either.

I have not gone out to substantiate anything Huck wrote in that e-mail.
Jaroff did NOT go out and substantiate anything O'Neill wrote in an e-mail to Randi either. (See Clancie's post above). And how do we know this? Because if Jaroff did this, or if Randi or Shermer did this, they would've said so. Randi could have done it elsewhere (not in TIME) and Shermer owns The Skeptic and he would've have said so. He also would've used that substantiation in his monthly column in SciAm. But did he? No. He did not. Because it was not done.

Nothing about O'Neill's e-mail was substantiated and, frankly, on careful critical analysis, none of it made much sense either. It was a self-disproving document . and still is. Unless or until the real Michael O'Neill shows up and agrees to be questionned further about the assertions he made as re-penned by Randi, Jaroff and Shermer, it remains exactly that: 3rd party hearsay or rubbish.
 
Yet again, SG and company have swindled the skeptics into thinking that it's the burden of the skeptics to prove that JE and Sylvia are not real.

Don't let them do it, it's the believer's burden to provide evidence to support their beliefs.

I also note that they seriously want to discredit any skeptic writer as well, desperate to discredit is more like it.
 
TBK you are missing the point also and where did Sylvia Browne come into the picture? Is this a distraction? If so, its transparent.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether JE is the real deal or not. This has to do with the credibility of the O'Neill e-mail as reported by Randi and then parrotted by Jaroff and Shermer. It has to do with Jaroff's credibility .... that he was implying all this stuff about the studio set up when neither he nor anyone on TIME's payroll has ever been there and willing to say so. I have been there. Jim Underdown, who reported on this at TAM 1, has been there. It is already agreed by the evidence or rather Jaroff's very poignant lack of evidence, that nothing he wrote implying all the tricks alleged to be used on Crossing Over really occurs.

I have already acknowledged that I have clearly seen JE employ cold reading in telephone readings on LKL.
It was incompetent that Jaroff never touched on this or gave any examples.
of cold reading. He did no research whatsoever. There is nothing worse than a lazy science writer.


What is important in the end is truth.
And using lies and fabrications to arrive at the truth is unethical and immoral and these are the tactics I accuse Randi, Jaroff and Shermer using in this specific instance.


PS: I am not shifting the burden on you or anyone to disprove what I am saying. I am not asking you to do that. You are not making claims, why should I? This has nothing to do with that favorite argument of yours. More logical fallacy on your part. I am asking you and others to read the quotes of O'Neill, read the statements made by Jaroff prior to his use of O'Neill and then show me where he says he has substantiated any of it. He doesn't. End of story, Case closed. Not very difficult. The Jaroff article on JE is a pile of crap. To Jaroff I say get off your ass and get us the real goods. If you want to be an investigative journalist do some investigating. Otherwise your pontiifcations and maybes add up to nothing.
 
SteveGrenard said:
[John Benneth also sent me an e-mail a week or so ago I did not publish here stating that when Randi lst saw Geller's act, he loved it and wanted Geller to team up with him (The Amazing Randi and Geller?) but Geller rebuffed his advances and soon thereafter the only place both names appeared were on legal papers separated by the word
"Vrs."
You consider an e-mail from Benneth a reliable source of information?
Are you totally deluded?
 
Sigh...just more of the same. I should open a herring shop, what with all the red ones on the trail.
 
COREY: You consider an e-mail from Benneth a reliable source of information?
Are you totally deluded?

As a true skeptic I would have to answer that by saying I don't know. On the surface, however, I agree much of what he writes can seem outlandish. This particular account was especially amusing. It could be a blend of some truths and a healthy dose of delusion. Am I going to write an article for TIME Magazine based on this? I think not. It is what Jaroff did with O'Neill's e-mail:


The Hellfire Curse


Matthew 5:22 : but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. (KJV)

If you're having trouble understanding that, maybe there's a different way to put it. Such as, "If you tell a man to go to Hell and he does, you have to go with him. The only way out is love. You got to love your enemy. You resist nothing, you don't even resist what you used to think was evil."

(The Reverend Johnny Jack Jovan St. John on horseback at the Church of the Savage Mine in Virginia City, Nevada)

I peeked in on Uri Geller's website today to see how he was doing. It had been years since I talked to Uri, before Eldon died, or I should say passed away. And I did finally see Eldon, after he died.On a video tape that was made just before he went. He was talking about mind control. The tape was brought to me by a friend of mine, who by another strange coincidence not only knew and met Eldon Byrd, but Uri Geller as well.

It's one thing to know Uri Geller, to have met him and talked to him, but it's another thing to know who Eldon Byrd is and to have met and talked to him. And by strange coincidence, both these qualities appear. As far as strange coincidences go, I experience more strange and sometimes awe inspiring coincidences than anyone I know.

So of course the phone rings and it's Uri. Or perhaps, someone who sounded like him.

The video tape that I saw Eldon in was on mind control.

Uri said by some fluke in his computer an essay I wrote on skepticism had got through to him. "Synchronicity, I guess," he said.

Eldon once told me that he was at Uri's house one day eating spaghetti and he stabbed himself in the chin with the fork.

I hope it doesn't take you as long to get that as it took me.

I really love Uri Geller. He called right at the right moment, too. I think I've been getting real depressed. I sleep a lot, obsess over things. I don't stay busy enough. But Uri Geller gives me tremendous confidence in myself. But what I really love about Uri is that anyone can get that from him, all they got to do is stop being so skeptical, stop acting afraid.

<snip>

He got very angry with me when I started putting him up to a level with Jesus Christ, but this is the man one observer wrote was something other than human, a different species, homo geller. Why not? They're both Jewish.

Marcello Truzzi was the first editor of CSICOP's magazine, during sTarbaby, the Gaughelin fiasco. He must have seen through Kurtz, Randi and the others, seen what they were really into and backed off.

During Eldon's libel suit against Randi Truzzi stood up for Eldon.

Eldon was the guy who convinced me Uri was for real. He did the tests on Uri back in the seventies for the U.S. Navy. When Randi attacked Uri, he also attacked Eldon. I guess Eldon had really stood up for Uri.

Marcello died within thirty days of Eldon.

Uri may not even know this and I won't say how I do. Ask Randi if its true. Randi started out almost desperately in love with Uri. He used to write to Uri, but Uri never responded. Randi wanted to form a partnership with Uri after he saw him perform in New York, or was it New Jersey?

The letters Randi wrote became more and more desperate until they finally turned to threats and curses, then ceased altogether. Uri never read the letters.

Randi once accused me of betraying him by saying he thought he could trust me. I thought that was odd for a man to expect to trust someone you've been reviling as a stupid crazy liar. But I think I am mostly crazy in Randi's book.

<snipped>

So far during the three years this has been going on I haven't heard any denials. I saw what he did to X's marriage. But that was just for having the audacity to show up in Ft. Lauderdale. What I did to Randi deserved the special treatment, for revealing those affidavits from the civil compromises detailing ......<snipped>

Yep, for that I get the special treatment.

Goldschneider and Elffer's Secret Language of Relationships describes the astrological relationship between Leo II's, Randi, and Sagittarian Capricorn Cusps, Uri.

"These two may find themselves acting out a drama over which they have no control. Their relationship has a peculiar fated quality to it, which each partner taking on defined roles, as if someone were pulling the strings. Well directed and strong minded, the relationship knows where it is going and what it is sup[posed to do, but the question is, do its partners?"

I get to wondering what would happen if Uri Geller started studying the Sermon on the Mount. I mean here's the greatest living paragnost, he ought to read up and practice what the most legendary master of healing did and how he did it.

One can appear to bend metal with his mind, locate gold and old submarines by waving his hands over maps, and the other guy can heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead. And as far as what Uri does he says, "if you believe, you can tell that mountain over there to get up and cast itself into the sea and it will."

George Harrison of the Beatles got mad at Uri once because he felt Uri wasn't using his powers for healing, but I don't think Uri knows how. Or maybe Uri has avoided knowing how, just as most of the rest of us have.

I think he wants to know how. But maybe something keeps getting in the way. And I think Randi wants to know how, but something keeps getting even more in his way.

But look at this. It tells you how. It ells you how to become able to do all sorts of incredible things.

The primitive Christians were noted for their ability to escape from incarceration, to suddenly become invisible enough to walk through a crowd, having the power of bilocation and to speak in a way that they could be understood by any foreign tongue, to glow with halos, to levitate. Simon the Magician claimed he too could levitate but broke a leg in a show down with one of the apostles when he fell.

Blessed are the meek, they inherit the Earth, they get the world after the arrogant have blown away.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.

Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say , Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
 
It is already agreed by the evidence or rather Jaroff's very poignant lack of evidence, that nothing he wrote implying all the tricks alleged to be used on Crossing Over really occurs.

Oh, I get it. You're not shifting the burden of evidence to the skeptics here. You are trying to shift it to Jaroff. Sorry, but JE is still the one that has the burden of evidence.
 
Boy, look at what I started with a question about TIME!

Steve, I am well aware of the difference between an editorial columnist and the "news". This is why in my original post I said "aside from Jaroff" and asked about the magazine more generally.

I do not want to derail this discussion that is going on but I remembered this morning that several months ago TIME did a cover story on meditation. I bought the issue as I meditate (it helps my insomnia) and found the article very cynical and skeptical in places. I was not alone in this as a few weeks later letters to the editor commented on the same thing. So, while this is highly anecdotal, I shall conclude that, in addition to Jaroff, it is not unheard of that TIME takes a skeptical stance towards not only the paranormal but also alternative medicine and spiritual practice.
 
Jeff Corey said:

You consider an e-mail from Benneth a reliable source of information?
Are you totally deluded?

Hard to say, really. It seems Steve will accept anything from anyone, as long as it is critical of skeptics. He doesn't consider the source, he simply laps it up.

He wouldn't be the first creduloid to do this.

Steve could be deluded, I'll grant you that. His actions over the years clearly point in that direction.

Is it possible to be both knowingly deceitful and deluded? The part of you that knows you cheat cooperates with the part of you that is deluded?

Hmmm.....
 
Posted by thaiboxerken

Oh, I get it. You're not shifting the burden of evidence to the skeptics here. You are trying to shift it to Jaroff. Sorry, but JE is still the one that has the burden of evidence
Actually, tbk, this thread begins with an article by Jaroff, in which he criticizes Larry King for his shows with paranormalists.

So, in terms of this thread and this issue of journalistic fairness/balance/and bias, tbk, Jaroff's past writing on this topic and his own shoddy journalistic standards in regard to it -do- seem quite relevant.....
 
TruthSeeker said:
So, while this is highly anecdotal, I shall conclude that, in addition to Jaroff, it is not unheard of that TIME takes a skeptical stance towards not only the paranormal but also alternative medicine and spiritual practice.
As journalists, they should take a skeptical stance toward everything. Good reporters know that they can't take things at face value. Otherwise, all that would be reported is PR releases and the "party line".
 
SteveGrenard said:
John Benneth also sent me an e-mail a week or so ago I did not publish here stating that when Randi lst saw Geller's act, he loved it and wanted Geller to team up with him (The Amazing Randi and Geller?) but Geller rebuffed his advances and soon thereafter the only place both names appeared were on legal papers separated by the word
"Vrs."

Believing crap from Benneth now? Can you sink any lower or get any more stupid?
 
TrtuhSeeker if you are seeking the truth go with renata on this. They will publish whatever benefits their bottom line.

Remember that

Time-Life-Warner-AOL-CNN etc

has a box in almost everyone's living room attached to our TV sets. They do something friends of mine who work for the local cable company call "zapping." Its used to detect any illegal pay station use. However, if it can do that it can also tell the conglomerate what millions and millions of Americans are watching on TV.
They use this information to design their editorial policies and sell magazines and programming. The recent move to digital interactive cable interfaces facilitates this even easier. They are going beserk trying to get people to convert to digital cable. And AOL, of course, knows what millions of their subscribers are doing with their web browsing habits as well. They do not like to talk about it.
 
Pyrrho: As journalists, they should take a skeptical stance toward everything. Good reporters know that they can't take things at face value. Otherwise, all that would be reported is PR releases and the "party line".


True. However the above excludes Jaroff as a "good reporter."
 
SteveGrenard said:
Pyrrho: As journalists, they should take a skeptical stance toward everything. Good reporters know that they can't take things at face value. Otherwise, all that would be reported is PR releases and the "party line".

True. However the above excludes Jaroff as a "good reporter."
He's an editor, and he wrote an editorial. That's an opinion piece. I agree, though, that when he writes articles, he needs to verify facts before committing them to print. So should any reporter.
 
I've read the Jaroff article located here:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html

Jaroff hasn't portrayed O'Neill's as fact. He merely repeats what O'Neill has said, if not in the same words O'Neill probably used. He includes a couple of quotes from O'Neill. It is clear that even O'Neill did not assert the "hidden microphones" as fact:

These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium. (A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)

Jaroff clearly identifies O'Neill's statements as "O'Neill's suspicions". Now, I wouldn't say that O'Neill's suspicions were an adequate explanation of JE's abilities, because those suspicions would have to be corroborated by other evidence. It is enough, however, to raise questions about how the show is run and how information could be obtained.
 

Back
Top Bottom