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

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho: Good, actionable libel. Always fun to read.


Funny when Ed Dittus calls Schwartz a fraud that isnt actionable libel according to the mods here. Funny how when Ed accuses people of infidelity or being town whores that isn't libelous either on this forum.

I guess it goes back to the old double standard here -- some members are immune to such accusations whereas others are not. I invite Leon Jaroff to prove to me he didn't fake this story and lift it from Randi and Shermer almost in its entirety. OR That he did any research on it himself save for making the ultimatum phone call. Unfortunatey for Jaroff, Randi and Shermer have left an indelible trail that leads right to the story with his byline on it and his alone. I did not quote all of Shermer's article or Randi's original article at all (which I have as hardcopy in the magazine) so you missed out on the identical explanations of cold reading that were truncated by Jaroff and appear in his piece as well. Jaroff's article should have read: " BY: James Randi, Michael Shermer and Leon Jaroff." At least Emily shared the byline for her JAMA study with her parents who undoubtedly wrote it up for that publication.

Remember Pyrrho, before you make accusations of actionable libel, the libelous statements have to be proven incorrect. In Jaroff's case they are correct and just too easy to prove.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Do you have any documentation that proves that? Let's just start with the first statement. Any proof he was invited to a taping?
If Jaroff said he was invited, I'd believe it.
But not if you state it as fact.
I must larsen this statement. Prove what you said was true while providing a credible source.

good luck

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho was kind enough to provide a statement by JE that he made on LKL indicating that this TIME reporter person was welcome to come and visit the program and see how it works.

I am sorry if you do not like this report but it is where I get the notion he was invited.

JE also discusses this in his Stories behind the Stories. as quoted above by Clancie. I am sorry also if you don't like this either. Too bad.

It is really moot now and it does not negate the fact that Jaroff could have had months to do this story properly (instead of lifting, well acc to Shermer, "picked up" from Randi's column in The Skeptic...see, er, Shermer quotes above). That once Jaroff had "picked up" Randi's stuff and the O'Neill e-mails from Randi he could've corroborated them with O'Neill as well. He didn't.

 

[Unas]

Steve Grenard: proven liar

Why do you think Jason Blair got booted form the NY Times? Because he faked his stories much the same way Jaroff faked this story by having someone else source it for him and all but write it for him as well. (I provided the evidence of that above).

You're lying again, Grenard. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that Jaroff faked the story. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that someone else wrote the story for Jaroff.

You have been proven to have lied regarding the content of your past posts attacking Martin Gardner, as well.

Put up a photo of yourself as your avatar, Grenard. That can serve as the official JREF Forums "ad hominem smilie".

 

[Unas]

Steve Grenard: proven liar

Remember Pyrrho, before you make accusations of actionable libel, the libelous statements have to be proven incorrect. In Jaroff's case they are correct and just too easy to prove.

You have offered no proof that Jaroff lied in his article, or at any other time. You have also provided no proof to support your accusations against Shermer, Randi, and Martin Gardner.

You're a liar, Grenard. You're going to be stuck with that label for the rest of your stay on this forum.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Steve Grenard: proven liar

Put up a photo of yourself as your avatar, Grenard. That can serve as the official JREF Forums "ad hominem smilie".

(cough)

 

[Unas]

Read the book and what JE wrote. Somebody is lying.

My goodness... from accusations that Jaroff, Randi, Shermer, and Gardner are all liars to "somebody is lying". Be careful, Grenard... in your haste to backpedal away from your earlier accusations, you might trip over a scruple or two that you obviously dropped earlier.

Wouldn't want you to hurt yourself...

 

[Jeff Corey]

Pyrrho was kind enough to provide a statement by JE that he made on LKL indicating that this TIME reporter person was welcome to come and visit the program and see how it works.

That's your proof? A con man on a media whore's show said it?
Get real.
Let's see, you've cited that and the ravings of Benneth as evidence so far.
What's next?
Uri Geller's testimony? The Tooth Fairy's evidence?
What a credulous person.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Read the book and what JE wrote.

LOL. But what JE says in his books cannot be, and should not be, construed as factual statements. Did you not read the disclaimer in the book?

 

[SteveGrenard]

The distraction is a very nice touch fellows but you are still not getting it.


1. Jaroff could have, should have interviewed Michael O'Neill, verified his e-mail and his comments. Instead he "picks up" (per Shermer) the stuff from Randi's article in The Skeptic and never speaks with or otherwise communicates with O'Neill. How do I know this? Because if he did, he would have said so. And he has never said he has verified O'Neill's e-mail with O'Neill. A primary source no less coming through the backdoor as a hearsay from Randi.


2. Jaroff could have, should have visited the set or cause the set to be investigated . It was at the time a few blocks from TIME's Hq. If TIME called up CO's PR or USA's PR department they would have arranged it in a literal NY minute. These people are investigative reporters, not kindergarden kids. They can get in anywhere, anytime they want to unless there is national security involved. They have sources working on all these NY based live TV show sets as well. It does not make any diff whether JE, the Pope or anyone invited him to the studio.

But NO, Jaroff didn't find it was necessary to do that. He would just take Michael O'Neill's word for everything, a person he never spoke to or laid eyes on in his life. And if I believe what Randi wrote, Randi never interviewed or laid eyes on O'Neill either.

I am done with this 15th Jaroff conversation now myself. The story was rubbish, the non-actions of the person who got the byline was rubbish and the whole thing was a farce.

 

[CFLarsen]

1. Jaroff could have, should have interviewed Michael O'Neill, verified his e-mail and his comments. Instead he "picks up" (per Shermer) the stuff from Randi's article in The Skeptic and never speaks with or otherwise communicates with O'Neill. How do I know this? Because if he did, he would have said so. And he has never said he has verified O'Neill's e-mail with O'Neill. A primary source no less coming through the backdoor as a hearsay from Randi.

Wrong. Is Hilary Clinton a lesbian? Following your "logic", she must be, because she never said she wasn't.

2. Jaroff could have, should have visited the set or cause the set to be investigated . It was at the time a few blocks from TIME's Hq. If TIME called up CO's PR or USA's PR department they would have arranged it in a literal NY minute. These people are investigative reporters, not kindergarden kids. They can get in anywhere, anytime they want to unless there is national security involved. They have sources working on all these NY based live TV show sets as well. It does not make any diff whether JE, the Pope or anyone invited him to the studio.

They can get in "anywhere"? Could ABC get in? No.

But NO, Jaroff didn't find it was necessary to do that. He would just take Michael O'Neill's word for everything, a person he never spoke to or laid eyes on in his life. And if I believe what Randi wrote, Randi never interviewed or laid eyes on O'Neill either.

You don't know for sure that Jaroff didn't speak to O'Neill. You are repeating this false statement, until it becomes real. It won't work here, Steve.

I am done with this 15th Jaroff conversation now myself. The story was rubbish, the non-actions of the person who got the byline was rubbish and the whole thing was a farce.

And not a shred of evidence from you, either. This was a lesson in how Steve Grenard argues: Accusations, innuendos, evasions, attacks, logical fallacies...

 

[Unas]

Run away, Grenard

The distraction is a very nice touch fellows but you are still not getting it.

We get it just fine, Grenard. You accuse people of lying and run away when challenged to provide evidence for your accusations.

1. Jaroff could have, should have interviewed Michael O'Neill, verified his e-mail and his comments.

Where are the lies that Mr. Jaroff supposedly printed in the TIME article, Grenard?

2. Jaroff could have, should have visited the set or cause the set to be investigated .

Where are the lies that Mr. Jaroff supposedly printed in the TIME article, Grenard?

But NO, Jaroff didn't find it was necessary to do that. He would just take Michael O'Neill's word for everything, a person he never spoke to or laid eyes on in his life.

Where are the lies that Mr. Jaroff supposedly printed in the TIME article, Grenard?

I am done with this 15th Jaroff conversation now myself.

Where are the lies that Mr. Jaroff supposedly printed in the TIME article, Grenard?

The story was rubbish, the non-actions of the person who got the byline was rubbish and the whole thing was a farce.

Your accusations are rubbish, Grenard. Your behavior is that of a man who knows he's been caught making false accusations.

You're running away. Do you find that you have to do that often, Grenard?

 

[Jeff Corey]

(Grenard)"...the whole thing was a farce."
Your whole post was a farce. You seize upon innuendo from questionable sources and then proceed to erect a house of straw to bolster your opinions.
And you call yourself "a true skeptic".

Claus, I know you're saving all these gems of credulity. Maybe you should print them out and present a poster at TAM2.

 

[CFLarsen]

(Grenard)"...the whole thing was a farce."
Your whole post was a farce. You seize upon innuendo from questionable sources and then proceed to erect a house of straw to bolster your opinions.
And you call yourself "a true skeptic".

Claus, I know you're saving all these gems of credulity. Maybe you should print them out and present a poster at TAM2.

Sure. But if people want a copy, I'd have to get access to a photocopier (for free! , because I cannot haul all those volumes in less than 5 suitcases....

 

[Jeff Corey]

Last year I ran out of copies of my paper and ran more off at the hotel.
If that's not possible, Kinkos is relatively cheap.
And you only have to hand out papers to those who are interested in a peek into the contorted illogic of a credulous person.

 

[CFLarsen]

Last year I ran out of copies of my paper and ran more off at the hotel.
If that's not possible, Kinkos is relatively cheap.
And you only have to hand out papers to those who are interested in a peek into the contorted illogic of a credulous person.

I wasn't referring to the number of people wanting to read it. I was referring to the number of gems of credulity...

 

[walthrup48]

SG: [O'Neill's email regarding the CO show] was a missive [Randi, Shermer and Jaroff] were in complete agreement with so they did not fact check it, just go with it.

Regarding Randi's agreement, I think this has been overlooked:

Randi comments on some of O'Neill's observations (scroll down, article after crystal pics)

 

[SteveGrenard]

James Randi wrote:

There's been much to-do about the hints that the "Crossing Over" TV show might owe it's success to hidden microphones that pick up conversations among those about to enter the studio to have their deceased relatives contacted by John Edward, the performer who says he talks to and hears from, dead people. I've never taken that electronic eavesdropping possibility seriously, simply because it's not a needed gimmick. It would certainly be nice, a means of fluffing up the show, but such technological advantages are not at all necessary, or even probable. The "cold-reading" process is all that Edward — or any of the others — needs to succeed, and it is obviously the method he uses. A half-hour of observing the show reveals that fact.

I've received a posting from a person who is closely acquainted with a member of the production staff for the "Crossing Over" show. This staff member has made it very clear that no tricks other than Edward's stage performance are used. There are, she states, no hidden microphones, no assistants listening in before the show and funneling information to Edwards, and neither Edwards nor his handlers have knowledge of who is going to be the celebrity guest prior to taping. Everything he does, she says, he does "on the fly," and although the sessions are edited, they are edited for time rather than for content. She is often in the booth while they do it.

I've no idea how expert an observer this person is, but in view of this, and my own experience with such acts, I consider this "hidden microphones" claim to be a "straw man" set up to bring in the eavesdropping possibility. It's simply not needed, and the claim can be rather easily shown to be a frivolous bit of reasoning. And, Edward's handlers have been proclaiming lately to the media that his studio audiences are now being strictly cautioned not to discuss family matters. I suggest that since we've eliminated that rather unlikely cheating possibility, we can ask John Edward to do readings:

a. Without asking questions and giving hints and suggestions

b. Without requiring people to tell him who the guesses might apply to.

He's still throwing out guesses and hints, asking questions, and requiring his audience to fill in the gaps — which they happily do. Hey! Wait a minute! Isn't that the very definition of "cold reading"?

Yep.

-------------------------------------------------

I guess he forgot to tell Shermer and Jaroff about the above. It would've messed up Jaroff's story as well as Shermer's piece "Deconstructing the Dead." Too bad Randi's commentary didn't get the exposure TIME did on this or Shermer got in SciAm.

Schwartz has accepted quite some time ago that the best way to test a medium involves the following conditions:

1. The sitter and medium cannot see each other.

2. The sitter and medium do not know each other nor have they met beforehand. The identity and details re the sitter is kept confidential from the medium prior to the trial.

3. The sitter provides no verbal feedback whatsoever and the medium asks no questions of the sitter. No sensory leakage of any kind is permitted.

4. In the case of an experiment with a number of mediums and sitters, pairing is done by random draw.

I agree with Randi that JE asks questions to elicit confirmation of information he receives. I agree this clearly leaves the door open for the accusation of cold reading. I do not agree all mediums do this and this is based on personal experience and is anecdotal so I will not (again) provide details. Mediums wishing to participate in research need to accept these sorts of conditions. Cold reader controls need to do likewise.

It's fascinating that Randi now here indirectly accuses O'Neill (not by name) of establishing a strawman in the hidden mic and eavesdropping accusations since when he published these O'Neill speculations in The Skeptic and provided it to Jaroff, this did not come up.

Does anyone think he is being somewhat inconsistent here or was he just going with the flow?

Patricia Robertson and Archie Roy's third paper and final study of mediums is scheduled for publication in the JSPR (UK) in January. It is my understanding that they imposed these kinds of conditions but I have no details regarding numbers, stats or results at this time. Tricia Robertson circulated the following e-mail announcement today:

"I am pleased to announce that paper three in the Robetson/Roy MIA series of testing mediumship information is now scheduled for publication in the JSPR January 2004.

I must say here and now that if anyone states that we did not follow the strict protocol to the letter, or that our methodologies were faulty, they must state categorically where errors were made. Not " oh maybe it's possible that .........." We know that we operated 100% within the strict protocol. We know that the mediums' made individual statements to intended recipients, people whom the medium had no way of knowing who they were and with no sensory leakage of any description.

If the last stance of the super sceptic is to say that we in some way cheated - then we will simply sue.

Tricia Robertson"


Oh, and thanks Jim for ferreting these Randi paragraphs out of that commentary.

 

[Pyrrho]

If all else fails to silence your critics, there is always barratry.

These days, you can be sued for voicing an opinion, even for saying "this is what I think may have happened". If someone doesn't like it, you can be haled into court. Dissent has become synonymous with libel or slander. We dare not scoff, lest we be accused of either one.

It's always the other guy's opinion that is libel...

And people wonder why I choose to remain anonymous. Yeah, yeah, I'm a coward, etc. Hopefully that will save some people from verbosely pointing that out, but I hope in vain.

Back to the regularly scheduled vituperation...

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho wrote: These days, you can be sued for voicing an opinion, even for saying "this is what I think may have happened". If someone doesn't like it, you can be haled into court. Dissent has become synonymous with libel or slander. We dare not scoff, lest we be accused of either one.

It's always the other guy's opinion that is libel...

And people wonder why I choose to remain anonymous. Yeah, yeah, I'm a coward, etc. Hopefully that will save some people from verbosely pointing that out, but I hope in vain.

Robertson's announcement could also be construed as defending against spurious and yes, libelous speculation using the full panopoly of verbiage designed for that purpose: perhaps, maybe, possibly and so on. This can go beyond mere opinion.

Robertson clearly invited criticism but she invited concrete critcism, not supposition.

I take it you feel it is okay, for example, to accuse a researcher of fraud (e.g. Ed Dittus re Gary Schwartz and more recently even Garrette re Gary Schwartz) giving absolutely no evidence or proof to back up such assertions. And if that's the reason people hide behind screen names (as you imply for yourself) and use hotmail and other e-mail forwarders or web-based e-mail, then we have been misled by many who give other reasons for using nom de plumes. Thanks for this succinct and tell-it-like-it-is rationale..... it was very revealing.