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

[SteveGrenard]

I have seen evidence that JE used cold reading on phone in readings on his last appearance on Larry King Live. Not one person here, skeptic or so-called believer noticed this before I mentioned it. Or if they did, they didnt mention it.

Again this is not about whether JE is the real deal. I do not agree with Jaroff because nothing he said was substantiated fact including the O'Neill e-mail. What is so difficult to understand that making an argument built on a base of poor journalistic inquery and a tissue of un-substantiated facts is both immoral and unethical. JE may be a fraud but so is Jaroff in the way he wrote this story.

JE is almost irrelevant renata to this issue. While Randi may obviously feel it is necessary to fight fire with fire --- engage in fraud to fight fraud, I do not.
It is anaethema to our heritage and the basic truths of rule of law and ethics.

If one is to debunk or disprove JE or anything else, one should do so honestly, open mindedly and in a truly skeptical rather than cynical fashion and back up their statements with evidence.

O'Neill's comments which I have already recounted ad nauseum are non-sensical. They might as well have been written by Lewis Carrol.
Jaroff's "opinions" are crafted to make it look like he personally investigated his charges but a careful reading demonstrates he has done nothing of the kind. The only baloney being spouted is Jaroff's.

Unas .... Have you read the original Randi column on this in The Skeptic? Sorry I cannot provide it. Have you read Shermer's column in Scientific American on this? No? Yes? Jaroff, like Shermer, followed Randi's lead on this. So they are all, by their own choosing and their own wirtten words, in this together.
The remarks on the studio are innuendo and are not true as I have been there and seen it. So have thousands of others. Jaroff may be trying to fool the couple of million people who read TIME who will never be there but he cant fool people who have been there and seen it for themselves. That is my only answer to you. If you dont accept it, start working now to go yourself. If not, so be it.

Martin Gardner is an admitted practicing evangelical Catholic. You are not familiar with all that he has written over the decades or you would know this. I didn't say anything bad about MG so have nothing to retract. However evangelical christians do believe that mediumship and communicating with spirits is the devil's work so he has a philosophical dilemma on his hands.

I am sure Martin has rationalized it quite nicely to his own and everyone of his follower's satisfaction. Every envangelical I have ever had the misfortune of talking to has accused mediums of satanism and demonology. I am afraid I do not take this supersititon very seriously. I truly wonder, given his religious admissions, what MG's take on this is? Perhaps the following account holds some answers.

"Equivocation with respect to naturalism makes religion look like
fraud to many secular observers. The skeptic Martin Gardner put
the dilemma of contemporary theism particularly well, writing that
modernist clergy face a choice between being `loyal liars' and
`truthful traitors.' (Gardner M., "The Flight of Peter Fromm,"
William Kauffmann: Los Altos CA, 1973).

The loyal liar reassures the simple folk by pretending to believe that the universe was created by a supernatural being called God who had a Son who
really did rise from the dead; the truthful traitor betrays the faithful
by admitting that the supernatural elements in religion are all
fantasy. Of course Gardner's `liars' see themselves as merely tactful,
and his `traitors' usually see themselves as saving the faith rather
than betraying it. In fact, it is perfectly possible to continue
Christianity for a time on a naturalistic basis. People do have
religious feelings, even if those feelings are anachronistic by
products of evolution rather that signposts pointing to an ultimate
reality. Naturalistic Christianity exists in plenty, but it is a hollow
shell sustained mainly by nostalgia. Once Christian institutions have
accepted naturalistic metaphysics, they inevitably repeat the process
of secularization that the formerly Christian universities completed
years ago." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance: The Case
Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, p.202). [-posted by SB elsewhere.

 

[Clancie]

The account of Jaroff's last minute phone call (just asking for a comment he could include in his ridiculous story to, imo, try to give it a credibility that it didn't warrant) is told in JE's book "Crossing Over: The Stories Behind the Stories". Jaroff has never challenged any part of that account--and he said nothing that indicated he had actually followed a higher ethic when he appeared on LKL....nor in anything about the incident in TIME....nor anywhere else, even after the publication of JE's book.

Jaroff obviously wanted to write a biased story masquerading as "objective" in TIME, and he didn't even check his source by talking with O'Neill or by attending a taping for himself. Very shoddy...very biased. (Reading his attack on LKL for a supposedly pro paranormal bias...how do you spell "hypocrite"?)

 

[Unas]

Unas .... Have you read the original Randi column on this in The Skeptic? Sorry I cannot provide it. Have you read Shermer's column in Scientific American on this? No? Yes? Jaroff, like Shermer, followed Randi's lead on this. So they are all, by their own choosing and their own wirtten words, in this together.

What are the specific lies that you claim those three men told?

It's a very, very simple question, Mr. Grenard. Why do you find it so difficult to answer? Or is the concept of backing up accusations with facts simply unfamiliar to you?

Martin Gardener is an admitted practicing evangelical Catholic. You are not familiar with all that he has written over the decades or you would know this. I didn't say anything bad about MG so have nothing to retract.

False. Your earlier post accused Gardner of being a liar as well. Do you always have this much trouble keeping track of the fact-free accusations you make against others, Mr. Grenard?

 

[CFLarsen]

The account of Jaroff's last minute phone call (just asking for a comment he could include in his ridiculous story to, imo, try to give it a credibility that it didn't warrant) is told in JE's book "Crossing Over: The Stories Behind the Stories".

Oh. Wow. It must be true, then. It's in a book! Hey, let's believe JE at face value, whatever he says, shall we?

Jaroff has never challenged any part of that account--he said nothing that indicated a higher ethic when he appeared on LKL....nor in TIME....nor anywhere else, even after the publication of the book.

You are using Steve's technique here: Holding people responsible for what you want them to do, not what they are actually doing.

He obviously wanted to write a biased story masquerading as "objective" in TIME, and he didn't even check his source by talking with O'Neill or by attending a taping for himself. Very shoddy...very biased. (Reading his attack on LKL for a supposedly pro paranormal bias...how do you spell "hypocrite"?)

Whoa....what is wrong in the article? Where are the lies? What is not "factual"? These are the questions you keep avoiding.

 

[Unas]

Jaroff obviously wanted to write a biased story masquerading as "objective" in TIME...

Yada yada yada. Stop evading.

The original accusation made by Steve Grenard was that Jaroff lied.

Do you agree with Mr. Grenard's accusation? Yes or no. Anything else is evasion.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Jaroff Lied, Prevaricated and Fabricated his opinions regarding everything he said in the article which is posted above. Everything. Not one specific thing but all of it. He had not one single sliver of personal, eyewitness evidence to substantiate a single thing he wrote. Not one. Does that answer your question Dont ask me for specific instances of lying when the entire article which you can access for free (we have given you the URL) is all tainted.

Jaroff sold TIME a work of fiction masquarading as non-fiction and worse, as some sort of science.

Why Unas? Because it is based on information which he did not investigate as he has never attended a studio taping to see for himself. Others have and they refute every single item he wrote. However, Randi wrote most of this first (see: The Skeptic) and Shermer parrotted it in Scientific American. Shermer is also the editor and publisher of The Skeptic where Randi wrote this.

Does that help bring Shermer and Randi into this for you? Geez. Does that add up to 3?

 

[Pyrrho]

Jaroff Lied, Prevaricated and Fabricated his opinions regarding everything he said in the article which is posted above. Everything. Not one specific thing but all of it. He had not one single sliver of personal, eyewitness evidence to substantiate a single thing he wrote. Not one. Does that answer your question Dont ask me for specific instances of lying when the entire article which you can access for free (we have given you the URL) is all tainted.

Jaroff sold TIME a work of fiction masquarading as non-fiction and worse, as some sort of science.

Why Unas? Because it is based on information which he did not investigate as he has never attended a studio taping to see for himself. Others have and they refute every single item he wrote. However, Randi wrote most of this first (see: The Skeptic) and Shermer parrotted it in Scientific American. Shermer is also the editor and publisher of The Skeptic where Randi wrote this.

Does that help bring Shermer and Randi into this for you? Geez. Does that add up to 3?

 

[thaiboxerken]

LOL. I wouldn't believe SG, because he's a liar and a fool. He just wants to try and censor skeptics because they threaten his fantasies.

 

[CFLarsen]

Jaroff Lied, Prevaricated and Fabricated his opinions regarding everything he said in the article which is posted above. Everything. Not one specific thing but all of it. He had not one single sliver of personal, eyewitness evidence to substantiate a single thing he wrote. Not one. Does that answer your question Dont ask me for specific instances of lying when the entire article which you can access for free (we have given you the URL) is all tainted.

Jaroff sold TIME a work of fiction masquarading as non-fiction and worse, as some sort of science.

Why Unas? Because it is based on information which he did not investigate as he has never attended a studio taping to see for himself. Others have and they refute every single item he wrote. However, Randi wrote most of this first (see: The Skeptic) and Shermer parrotted it in Scientific American. Shermer is also the editor and publisher of The Skeptic where Randi wrote this.

Does that help bring Shermer and Randi into this for you? Geez. Does that add up to 3?

Steve,

Please present your evidence that Jaroff lied.

No. I retract that.

Present your evidence that Jaroff lied.

No "please". I am very tired of you throwing out accusations like these. I am very tired of your acidic rants. You never follow up with evidence. You attack Randi. You attack Jaroff. You attack anyone who disagrees with you. No evidence is ever provided.

You are a brute, Steve. You don't play fair. You are very quick to accuse those you do not agree with. No evidence from you, ever. Just evasions, outbursts, more accusations.

I can easily understand why you do not refer to Schwartz anymore. I can understand if he wants to distance himself from you. You have placed your bets on Keen lately. Now, you seem to rely on Benneth.

Who will you go to next, in your spiral of dwindling credibility? Peter Popoff? Uri Geller?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Before I stop responding to you, please show me where I said Gardner was a liar. Here is the first and only thing I originally said about Gardner and BTW the beginning of these remarks are not mine but were from an e-mail sent by Angus Huck which I properly attributed to him:

Angus wrote:
Rather odd, actually, when one considers that Gardner is an Evangelical Christian and Jaroff is a militant atheist and one-time admirer of Stalin.

Very strange bedfellows, these folks. What unites them is a hatred of the truth.

SG (that's me) added:

-----------------------------------------------
I suspect Gardner et al have other agendas. It would be interesting to
understand their motivations given that Gardner is a bible thumping evangelical fundamentalist whose credo(*) is that talking to the dead is akin to satan worship. It does get weird.

At no time did I say Martin Gardner was a liar. You are clearly becoming caught up in this and evidencing some delusions regarding this or is it the usual tactic of misattribution, distraction and argument for argument's sake that motivates you? Whatever the case, please retract your assertion I called MG a liar or consider yourself properly labeled a liar yourself for saying this.
Angus Huck said he and Jaroff share a common hatred of the truth. I did not say this. Nor did I say MG was a liar.
In addition I even said that I would NOT write an article on such a baseless e-mail without personally investigating the claims made by the writer. If you realized that you might realize I was actually agreeing with you and critcising Huck or rather his e-mail. I compared it with Jaroff using O'Neill's e-mail account as provided by Randi for similar if not much more nefarious purposes.


footnote:
I add for your understanding the following (*)starred advisory: envangelical christians consider mediumship communing with the devil, satanist and demonological.

 

[Unas]

Dont ask me for specific instances of lying when the entire article which you can access for free (we have given you the URL) is all tainted.

I'll ask you whatever I please. Kindly bear in mind that you do not control this forum.

What are the specific lies Jaroff wrote? All you've given us so far are vague, hysterical accusations that everything Jaroff wrote was a lie. You cannot specify one single statement he published that was false? Not one?

If that is the case, then it is your own accusations against Mr. Jaroff that can be dismissed as lies. The same is true of your accusations against Mr. Randi and Mr. Shermer. You obviously haven't investigated the claims that they've lied. If you had, you could produce specific instances and evidence. That's SOP for a writer, remember?

 

[Clancie]

Unas,

I've stated my point for you. I don't notice you responding to it.

Also, you've still not said whether or not you've even bothered to read the Jaroff article about CO that you're so vigorously defending. Have you? Yet?

If so...do you feel its a credible piece of journalism? (Because, if not, then we have no reason to continue to argue about it....)

 

[SteveGrenard]

Unas: I'll ask you whatever I please. Kindly bear in mind that you do not control this forum.

Answer: You can indeed ask what you please. And therefore I can answer what I please. When you ask questions which are based on lies you yourself are making (see Martin Gardner issue above), I will not answer you.
It is my privilege to ignore you or anyone on this forum. I unequivocably control that.

Unas: What are the specific lies Jaroff wrote? All you've given us so far are vague, hysterical accusations that everything Jaroff wrote was a lie. You cannot specify one single statement he published that was false? Not one?

Answer: Have you read the article? And the precursor articles? Shermer in SciAm? Randi in The Skeptic? Jaroff in TIME? Yes, no? You havent answered the question. Are you arguing from extreme ignorance or not? You dont have to answer.

How old is this troll anyway?

Unas: If that is the case, then it is your own accusations against Mr. Jaroff that can be dismissed as lies. The same is true of your accusations against Mr. Randi and Mr. Shermer. You obviously haven't investigated the claims that they've lied. If you had, you could produce specific instances and evidence. That's SOP for a writer, remember?


Answer: Unlike yourself I have read and dissected all three of the above sources at length in many forums since they were first published. Unlike yourself I have investigated Jaroff's claims by attending a CO taping with others and we all found his descriptions to be totally incorrect.

I think I said this several times above but in your haste to spit out invective you probably overlooked it.

 

[Unas]

I've stated my point for you.

You have evaded a simple question: The original accusation made by Steve Grenard was that Jaroff lied. Do you agree with Mr. Grenard's accusation? Yes or no. Anything else is evasion.

 

[renata]

I have seen evidence that JE used cold reading on phone in readings on his last appearance on Larry King Live. Not one person here, skeptic or so-called believer noticed this before I mentioned it. Or if they did, they didnt mention it.

I am not sure whether you mean whether anyone noticed that JE cold read on LKL before, or whether they noticed he cold read on this particular LKL program, but I assure you people noticed and mentioned both before you.

This is where people called this very performance cold reading
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28028&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

This is where people noticed other performances resembled cold reading. Performances, by the way that did not differ all that much from this one. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032

Again this is not about whether JE is the real deal. I do not agree with Jaroff because nothing he said was substantiated fact including the O'Neill e-mail. What is so difficult to understand that making an argument built on a base of poor journalistic inquery and a tissue of un-substantiated facts is both immoral and unethical. JE may be a fraud but so is Jaroff in the way he wrote this story.

Why doesn't JE sue Jaroff and Time? He can, you know. There have been several suits of newspapers by celebrities when those newspapers printed lies. Sue it, settle it once and for all.

JE is almost irrelevant renata to this issue. While Randi may obviously feel it is necessary to fight fire with fire --- engage in fraud to fight fraud, I do not.
It is anaethema to our heritage and the basic truths of rule of law and ethics.

So I take it you then are saying Randi is committing fraud to fight a fraud (JE). I will leave it to others to engage you on that matter, I just wanted to confirm that you did think JE was a fraud...you are just objecting to the methods.

If one is to debunk or disprove JE or anything else, one should do so honestly, open mindedly and in a truly skeptical rather than cynical fashion and back up their statements with evidence.

I would like to see some examples of what you have in mind.

 

[Pyrrho]

Let's examine the Jaroff article more critically.

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

Items reported as "fact" in the article (meaning that these items have not been qualified with disclaimers such as "In my opinion," or "I believe that," or similar disclaimers.)

Clairvoyants who claim to communicate with the dead--and warnings not to listen to them--go back at least as far as the Old Testament, yet psychics continue to flourish in back parlors and storefronts across America.

Factually correct. There are Old Testament warnings against soothsayers, and psychics do continue to do business in America. Whether or not they flourish is subjective opinion, but certainly not a lie.

None today is better known or more listened to than John Edward, a fast-talking former ballroom-dancing instructor who is cleaning up on his proclaimed ability "to connect with energies of people who have crossed over." Died, that is.

At the time of Jaroff's writing, this was factually correct. It is probably still factually correct. John Edward did work as a dancing instructor, he was and is quite popular, he does talk fast, and he does proclaim the abilities mentioned.

Indeed, his nightly Crossing Over with John Edward is the highest-rated show on the Sci Fi network and is about to go into syndication. He has made appearances on Larry King Live, Dateline, an HBO special, Entertainment Tonight and other TV shows. Between his fees for individual appointments, tickets for his seminars and stage appearances, and sales of his books, audiotapes and videotapes, Edward seems to be one of the few growth industries in an otherwise lackluster economy.

Again, factually correct. Note the qualifier, "seems to be".

But is he for real? Edward's critics claim his feats are merely illusions created by standard magicians' ploys--helped along, they charge, by a few tactics that are downright underhanded.

Factually correct. These are indeed the claims of JE's critics. Jaroff has not claimed that the critics are right.

Like other mediums, Edward relies heavily on a technique known in the trade as "cold reading." .

Whether JE relies heavily on cold reading or has genuine powers has not been established. It is Jaroff's opinion that he does rely on cold reading, but Jaroff has not qualified this as opinion. Even so, can this properly be called a lie? What JE does do does match the factual description of cold reading.

It involves posing a series of questions and suggestions, each shaped by the subject's previous response. Practitioners often begin, for example, by uttering a generality: "I sense an older father figure here," eliciting a response that leads him to the next question. "I'm getting that his death resulted from a problem in his chest" is a statistically sound guess that could cover everything from lung cancer and emphysema to a heart attack. Should the subject answer no, the cold reader will often say, "Well, we'll get back to that," and quickly change tack. It's a sophisticated form of the game Twenty Questions, during which the subject, anxious to hear from the dead, seldom realizes that he, not the medium or the departed, is supplying the answers.

Factually correct, if brief, description of cold reading.

Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance. Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather.

Unless Jaroff is misrepresenting what O'Neill reported, this is not a lie. We'd need O'Neill's original account to perform a comparison to see if Jaroff has lied about what O'Neill reported. Please note that this has nothing to do with whether or not O'Neill has lied; the subject at hand is whether or not Jaroff lied in his article.

While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known.

Again, Jaroff is reporting what O'Neill claimed. Unless Jaroff is misrepresenting what O'Neill reported, this is not a lie. We'd need O'Neill's original account to perform a comparison to see if Jaroff has lied about what O'Neill reported. Please remember that this has nothing to do with whether or not O'Neill has lied; the subject at hand is whether or not Jaroff lied in his article.

It was not until weeks after the performance, when O'Neill saw the show on TV, that he began to suspect chicanery. Clips of him nodding yes had been spliced into the videotape after statements with which he remembers disagreeing. In addition, says O'Neill, most of Edward's "misses," both on him and other audience members, had been edited out of the final tape.

Same as above. Jaroff is still relaying O'Neill's report, if not in O'Neill's original words. This still does not qualify as a lie by Jaroff.

Now suspicious, O'Neill recalled that while the audience was waiting to be seated, Edward's aides were scurrying about, striking up conversations and getting people to fill out cards with their name, family tree and other facts. Once inside the auditorium, where each family was directed to preassigned seats, more than an hour passed before show time while "technical difficulties" backstage were corrected.

Jaroff is still relaying O'Neill's report, if not in O'Neill's original words. This still does not qualify as a lie by Jaroff.

And what did most of the audience--drawn by the prospect of communicating with their departed relatives--talk about during the delays? Those departed relatives, of course. 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.

Jaroff is still relaying O'Neill's report, if not in O'Neill's original words. This still does not qualify as a lie by Jaroff.

(A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)

An assertion of fact. We have this from Steve Grenard, which, if Steve is correct, corroborates that Jaroff or TIME contacted Crossing Over:

Grenard:
Actually this is not completely the whole story on this. This was the first thing TIME got when they cold called. Jaroff was called back and invited to come to the show. He said he wanted a comment, if they had one, after he read them the piece. They responded by inviting him to attend a taping and see if what he was alleging was true.

Thus, Jaroff did not lie about this in his article, even if he did omit mention of an invitation from Crossing Over to come to the show. That assertion by Steve Grenard has not been corroborated, however.

Meanwhile, O'Neill e-mailed his suspicions to the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the Amazing Randi, a magician and skeptic, had been tracking Edward's career. Some of what Randi has learned is scheduled to be aired this week on Inside Edition, in what will probably be the first nationally televised show to take a skeptical look at the Edward phenomenon. Among other things, the show will feature Randi's demonstration of the cold-reading technique used by magicians to entertain and mediums to hoodwink an unsuspecting public.

Factually correct.

I can find no instance in this article that indicates that Leon Jaroff lied. There is one instance, when Jaroff talks of JE relying heavily on cold reading, in which Jaroff's opinion is not labeled as such, but this cannot properly be called a lie.

 

[renata]

I can find no instance in this article that indicates that Leon Jaroff lied. There is one instance, when Jaroff talks of JE relying heavily on cold reading, in which Jaroff's opinion is not labeled as such, but this cannot properly be called a lie.

Well done. Indeed, that one comment you will find Steve in perfect agreement with
He does think JE cold reads, and as he mentioned earlier, he does not seem to like the tactics used to debunk him- fraud with fraud, like with like. I could say something about Homeopathic fraud busting, but I better let it go...

 

[SteveGrenard]

re last LKL:

On the very first call JE waved his hand and shut the caller up and then launched into an advisory that one should not give any information to the medium.

Five minutes later and for the rest of the show he did nothing but ask for the information he was so vociiferously declining at the outset. I don't recall anyone mentioning this.

-------------------------------------------------
Jaroff's thesis is that JE's hits can be blamed entirely on:

1. hot reading based on eavesdropping:
staff and mics overhearing audience members when said staff members were telling those same audience members to be "very" quiet, e.g. don't talk, don't say anything. Makes no sense to me. We saw no mics in areas we were herded before being allowed in the studio. Once in the studio we really couldn't talk.

2. the presence of ringers in the audience, a van load of them as espied by Michael O'Neill. But O'Neill does not say any of this van load of ringers was read whereas, lo, he was. The van, by the way, is a commercial transport vehicle that picks people up at hotels near LaGuardia. Occupants are basically starngers to each other. Why would they necessarily sit together in the studio?

3. guessing, as espoused by O'Neill to explain his hits without, by the way, revealing what the hits were so a reasonable person could at least mentally calculate the odds for guessing those hits

I am sorry. Jaroff and O'Neill got some splaining to do.

 

[renata]

re last LKL:

On the very first call JE waved his hand and shut the caller up and then launched into an advisory that one should not give any information to the medium.

Five minutes later and for the rest of the show he did nothing but ask for the information he was so vociiferously declining at the outset. I don't recall anyone mentioning this.

He has done similar things on his other appearances, Steve. In fact, NoZed and others mentioned this very trait a few months back.
But I know you do not want to get into a discussion over that, as it is not the main point of the thread. I will withdraw from this matter.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Jaroff's thesis is that JE's hits can be blamed entirely on:

1. hot reading based on eavesdropping:
2. the presence of ringers in the audience,
3. guessing

These are mundane explanations of how JE probably does what he does. Because of the nature of his claims, these 3 explanations must be ruled out before jumping to the "JE has superpowers" explanation. It has to do with the whole "burden of evidence" thing that believers so often try to shift onto skeptics.