Wow! Gary Schwartz the con man?

[SteveGrenard]

But that's not what Schwartz is looking for. He isn't looking for statistical failures. Schwartz is looking for the white crow.

If you are abandoning scientific research, what are you going to advocate instead?

Explain why I have to answer your question more than twice, the last time with a URL
in the same thread and on previous occasions no doubt as well. Probably because you are too lazy to read the link. I am advocating that folks who know more about this than you and I do work on Utts' recommendation. I could care less about testing mediums and have felt this way for quite some time. I know this is something you like to talk about so find someone else to do that with. It is a derail here, that's for sure.

On the white crow thing, are you telling me GS hasn't found ONE yet? I thought he was fond of the following quote:

If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, you mustn't seek to prove that no crows are; it is enough to prove one single crow to be white.
--William James

James probably didn't know it but a white crow such as he describes exists due to a genetic mutation.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Are any of these latest posts about the Geraldo video?

No, it is probably more due to CL's effort to derail.

 

[CFLarsen]

Explain why I have to answer your question more than twice, the last time with a URL
in the same thread and on previous occasions no doubt as well. Probably because you are too lazy to read the link. I am advocating that folks who know more about this than you and I do work on Utts' recommendation. I could care less about testing mediums and have felt this way for quite some time. I know this is something you like to talk about so find someone else to do that with. It is a derail here, that's for sure.

It's a perfectly simple question, Steve.

Since you are abandoning scientific research into mediumship, do you advocate that people should go from medium to medium, discard any pretense of scientific protocols and safeguards, and just believe in those mediums who are lucky enough - or haven't been caught?

In your own words, please.

On the white crow thing, are you telling me GS hasn't found ONE yet?

Do you think that Schwartz has found this white crow yet?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, it is probably more due to CL's effort to derail.

You want to talk more about Schwartz' involvement with Knopf?

Go right ahead.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I will e-mail GS and ask him if he found his WC yet...I think he has. Laurie Campbell, for example and perhaps Alison DuBois are both White Crow material. But the answer is GS' to give unless workerbee can provide some insight. William James says you only need ONE. How many do you need Claus? A simple question you should be able to answer.

Are you suggesting that academia should continue to test mediums through infinity? There will always be a preponderance of fakes or delusionals so again I ask what is the point? To give publicity to mediums that investigators decide are White Crows? A very very bad reason for such research and I am opposed to it.

----------------------------------------------------
On Knopf, we are waiting for the following:

1. A readable authenticated copy of the letter

2. Verifiable info whether or not Knopf asked for the letter or it was sent unsolicited

3. Whether it was to endow a Chair at UA in memory of Paul Knopf or for some other purpose

4. Whether Mr Knopf failed to live up to his original pledge to UA

5. Whether Mr. Knopf approached GS with a for profit business proposition which GS declined

I don't have the answers or documentation for any of the above. Other than GS' telling me.
It has been implied that the newspaper article which is going to appear covers some or all of the above.......so I guess we have to wait.

 

[CFLarsen]

I will e-mail GS and ask him if he found his WC yet...I think he has. Laurie Campbell, for example and perhaps Alison DuBois are both White Crow material.

But are any of these people this white crow?

But the answer is GS' to give unless workerbee can provide some insight. William James says you only need ONE. How many do you need Claus? A simple question you should be able to answer.

I'm looking for evidence of psychic abilities. Got any?

Are you suggesting that academia should continue to test mediums through infinity? There will always be a preponderance of fakes or delusionals so again I ask what is the point? To give publicity to mediums that investigators decide are White Crows? A very very bad reason for such research and I am opposed to it.

Oh? Why? You didn't have these reservations before. In fact, you were very keen on pointing to scientific research as the key to separating the wheat from the chaff. You promoted e.g. Camille Walsh as being a real medium, tested by you.

You have now made a 180 degree turn: Now, you reject scientific research. So...

...since you are abandoning scientific research into mediumship, do you advocate that people should go from medium to medium, discard any pretense of scientific protocols and safeguards, and just believe in those mediums who are lucky enough - or haven't been caught?

In your own words, please.

On Knopf, we are waiting for the following:
...
I don't have the answers or documentation for any of the above. Other than GS' telling me.
It has been implied that the newspaper article which is going to appear covers some or all of the above.......so I guess we have to wait.

We are primarily waiting for Schwartz.

 

[SteveGrenard]

But are any of these people this white crow?

Well if you look at the conclusions of not only UA's studies but those of others you may
be forced to say that the researchers are saying this. I have asked GS if he has found his ONE white crow.

I'm looking for evidence of psychic abilities. Got any?

No, I don't have any. Where have I said I had psychic abilities?

Oh? Why? You didn't have these reservations before. In fact, you were very keen on pointing to scientific research as the key to separating the wheat from the chaff. You promoted e.g. Camille Walsh as being a real medium, tested by you.

And once that was done there is no need to keep doing it. It's called an end-point. All scientific research should have an end-point. There comes a time when it must end.
I have reached that end point 5 years ago on a personal level. I don't go to mediums or constantly seek new ones out. This is being a medium junkie and there are people like that.
It's their addiction, they need to deal with it.

You have now made a 180 degree turn: Now, you reject scientific research. So...

You fail so miserably in comprehending what I have said it astonishes me. I will not
repeat what I have said repeatedly here and in posts above. The research is done, it has been done. It's over. I never said to reject it. You are free to weigh it. It stands or falls on its own merits or lack thereof.

...since you are abandoning scientific research into mediumship, do you advocate that people should go from medium to medium, discard any pretense of scientific protocols and safeguards, and just believe in those mediums who are lucky enough - or haven't been caught?

I don't believe scientists should spend all of eternity checking on the veracity or accuracy of mediums. People will believe what they want. They will be their own research sitters and if they have any intelligence whatsoever they will know whether what they are getting from a medium is true or not. It is simply not practical to keep testing what has already been tested. What you are suggesting is not only hare-brained it is financially and practically impossible.

We are primarily waiting for Schwartz.

We are primarily waiting for satisfactory confirmation or satisfactory denial of these
factors where the Knopf letter is concerned. It was implied by workerbee who claims to have a copy of this document that it will be examined by some otherwise busy journalists
for a local newspaper. I would hope the paper contacts Schwartz to get his on the record
response as well and not do it like Geraldo's people did it .....by calling his office after hours and his home after he has left Tucson on a trip, but just a day before the show was going to run. Since they are taking weeks to put this together they should have contacted him by now.

 

[DrewD]

I shaking with excitment.

 

[workerbee]

"But are any of these people this white crow?"

Laurie Campbell was the medium for The White Crow experiment.

As for GS coming up with the raw data; that will be a challenge for him, since LC has requested it numerous times to no avail. This is another violation of Schwartz'; he is mandated by the IRB and other oversight committees to safeguard raw research data, and protect personally identifiable information in the data etc..

-workerbee

 

[SteveGrenard]

"But are any of these people this white crow?"

Laurie Campbell was the medium for The White Crow experiment.

As for GS coming up with the raw data; that will be a challenge for him, since LC has requested it numerous times to no avail. This is another violation of Schwartz'; he is mandated by the IRB and other oversight committees to safeguard raw research data, and protect personally identifiable information in the data etc..

-workerbee

So what you're saying is that the raw data cannot be published or given out because it is
protected under the IRB? He can't, in fact, prove who is White Crow (if there is a white crow) because he can't make the raw data public on which the conclusion is based. Thus there may be veridical information but because it can personally identify a sitter it cannot be used. It is
entirely possible he could not give it to Campbell even for this reason. At any time she could resign from her position and be absolved of her HIPAA and IRB obligations. In fact she did that.

This sounds like another good reason it is a waste of time to conduct such research within an institution subject to IRB and HIPAA regulations.

All that one can say is that Campbell met the criteria for being the White Crow.......

 

[workerbee]

No, I am not saying the raw data can't be released because of oversight from the IRB. I am saying that Schwartz LOST the raw data, or rather claims his ex-wife has it. We checked with her, and she was stunned he would make this claim. In any event, raw research data is mandated to be protected under any lab at any University, and Schwartz stashed his White Crow data in a closet at his house.....then blamed his wife for not giving it back after they divorced.

I would think the U of A would encourage the publication and sharing of raw data, in order for other scientists to have their pick at it etc..

And yes, he cannot publish personally identifying information without a signed consent form from a human research subject. In the case of LC, he did not seek ANY approval to write about her, her child, her "guides"....he did this to many....why do you think he is so silent now? Don't you think the U of A has already taken action against him?

Yes, Laurie is the White Crow.

 

[SteveGrenard]

No, I am not saying the raw data can't be released because of oversight from the IRB. I am saying that Schwartz LOST the raw data, or rather claims his ex-wife has it. We checked with her, and she was stunned he would make this claim. In any event, raw research data is mandated to be protected under any lab at any University, and Schwartz stashed his White Crow data in a closet at his house.....then blamed his wife for not giving it back after they divorced.

I would think the U of A would encourage the publication and sharing of raw data, in order for other scientists to have their pick at it etc..

I guess UA's IRB doesn't follow the rules against disclosing raw data with personally identifiable information as you suggested and now you reverse yourself. You should know that such data cannot be shared except by other researchers subject to the same regulations.

So the ONE White Crow has been discovered and it is Laurie Campbell. Good. Claus, did you hear that?

 

[workerbee]

"We are primarily waiting for satisfactory confirmation or satisfactory denial of these
factors where the Knopf letter is concerned. It was implied by workerbee who claims to have a copy of this document that it will be examined by some otherwise busy journalists
for a local newspaper. I would hope the paper contacts Schwartz to get his on the record
response as well and not do it like Geraldo's people did it .....by calling his office after hours and his home after he has left Tucson on a trip, but just a day before the show was going to run. Since they are taking weeks to put this together they should have contacted him by now."

Steve, of course the major Arizona paper will contact Schwartz for his comment. Any reputable journalist must do this.

The Geraldo Show said they first called Schwartz on October 4, and then again of the 5th. They had his home and cell phone number. The Geraldo Show did not spend "weeks" preparing for that segment....more like a few days.

I did speak with the journalist I mentioned. She said it is such a "complicated" story with so many aspects that she needs considerable time to get her brain wrapped around the bigger picture.

I suspect the article will take some time to produce, yet the media is aware, and of course Schwartz will be interviewed when the time comes.

-workerbee

 

[Jeff Corey]

... In any event, raw research data is mandated to be protected under any lab at any University...

This is true in universities that get federal funding. They must have an IRB which will insist you protect your raw data for three years in a secure storage facility. What surprised me in talking with someone at another U, who said they didn't bother with an IRB, because they never got grants.
So I ask, "How about lawsuits?"

 

[SteveGrenard]

The Geraldo non-contact is already water under the bridge. Since he was traveling, and in fact, was traveling to Massachusetts, it is possible they called the cel while in flight and cel phones may not always work in the air. They left a messsage on his home answering machine which he could not listen to until after the show had already broadcast.

It is interesting that you say the Geraldo segment was put together in a few days.

 

[workerbee]

"This is true in universities that get federal funding. They must have an IRB which will insist you protect your raw data for three years in a secure storage facility. What surprised me in talking with someone at another U, who said they didn't bother with an IRB, because they never got grants.
So I ask, "How about lawsuits?""




Yes, I have learned a lot about these matters, having had my own very bad experience with Schwartz' research.

You ask about lawsuits. Try finding a lawyer who specializes in these issues, and is not already under contract with the U of A.

Are there any great lawyers on this forum that would be interested in our cases?

-workerbee

 

[Jeff Corey]

I would guess not, if you signed an informed consent form with full disclosure prior to participating in whatever it was, probably a boiler plate form from U A legal department. You would have been informed of all risks involved in whatever it was and agreed that you understood all that stuff. Also, a guarantee of confidentiality.
If not, call Alan Dershowitz. He's in the book.

 

[workerbee]

I would guess not, if you signed an informed consent form with full disclosure prior to participating in whatever it was, probably a boiler plate form from U A legal department. You would have been informed of all risks involved in whatever it was and agreed that you understood all that stuff. Also, a guarantee of confidentiality.
If not, call Alan Dershowitz. He's in the book.

These forms were not signed; that is one of the actionable issues.

Funny! I already called Alan Dershowitz a while ago about this....he gave me a referral.....but the guy was way too pricy, wanted 28K to start!

 

[CFLarsen]

Well if you look at the conclusions of not only UA's studies but those of others you may be forced to say that the researchers are saying this. I have asked GS if he has found his ONE white crow.

And I am asking you if you have found yours. Have you? Who?

No, I don't have any. Where have I said I had psychic abilities?

I didn't say you had. I asked if you had evidence.

And once that was done there is no need to keep doing it. It's called an end-point. All scientific research should have an end-point. There comes a time when it must end.
I have reached that end point 5 years ago on a personal level. I don't go to mediums or constantly seek new ones out. This is being a medium junkie and there are people like that.
It's their addiction, they need to deal with it.
...
You fail so miserably in comprehending what I have said it astonishes me. I will not
repeat what I have said repeatedly here and in posts above. The research is done, it has been done. It's over. I never said to reject it. You are free to weigh it. It stands or falls on its own merits or lack thereof.

This is typical of "research" of the paranormal: They do a couple of "studies" under the pretense of doing science, massage the data (sometimes even fake it) so it looks as if evidence - and then, drops it. As if there is nothing else to discuss. The matter has been settled, so there is no need to respond to those pesky skeptics who simply won't accept that the "researchers"' pet beliefs have been found to be true.

I don't believe scientists should spend all of eternity checking on the veracity or accuracy of mediums. People will believe what they want. They will be their own research sitters and if they have any intelligence whatsoever they will know whether what they are getting from a medium is true or not. It is simply not practical to keep testing what has already been tested. What you are suggesting is not only hare-brained it is financially and practically impossible.

So, you do advocate that people should go from medium to medium, discard any pretense of scientific protocols and safeguards, and just believe in those mediums who are lucky enough - or haven't been caught.

We are primarily waiting for satisfactory confirmation or satisfactory denial of these
factors where the Knopf letter is concerned. It was implied by workerbee who claims to have a copy of this document that it will be examined by some otherwise busy journalists
for a local newspaper. I would hope the paper contacts Schwartz to get his on the record
response as well and not do it like Geraldo's people did it .....by calling his office after hours and his home after he has left Tucson on a trip, but just a day before the show was going to run. Since they are taking weeks to put this together they should have contacted him by now.

Where is Schwartz, Steve?

I guess UA's IRB doesn't follow the rules against disclosing raw data with personally identifiable information as you suggested and now you reverse yourself. You should know that such data cannot be shared except by other researchers subject to the same regulations.

So the ONE White Crow has been discovered and it is Laurie Campbell. Good. Claus, did you hear that?

Is that your stance, Steve? That Laurie Campbell is the ONE white crow?

 

[workerbee]

Steve,

About your question regarding the exact amount in the proposal document from Schwartz to Knopf, here is an excerpt:

"The total would be $330,000 a year. You could "endow" this as a one-time expense (e.g. $3,630,000), or pay the yearly amount (my recommendation, because it would make it easier to move the Chair if that becomes advisable). As a charitable donation, it could come off your income taxes."

So, you see where the inversion of figures comes from. The last time I talked to Knopf, I brought this to his attention too.

-workerbee