No, what I concluded is what Utts concluded back in 1995 and which I first read in 2002 and then agreed with a year or so later, in 2003. She was talking about psychic funcioning such as remote viewing and ESP but the tie-in to mediumship was evident to me.
1995: Jessica Utts
http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
The issue of Camille Walsh is interesting. I did see her as an anonymous sitter in
2002. I was and continue to be convinced that there she was not cold reading,
did not have advanced information on me and that she was, for specifics and
generalities, 100% correct. She went into a trance, did not ask me any questions and had her eyes closed all the time as if asleep but she continued to talk as if she was the deceased and said highly specific things only the deceased could've known. That included information I didn't know but verified afterwards.
This experience which was so overhwleming, also convinced me that any sitter who has an experience such as this will not be swayed by confirmatory or non-confirmatory
results of tests nor could they be swayed one way or the other re their particular
medium by any studies performed by outside third parties, with other mediums, and in
other venues. I went on to try other mediums with complete failure or enough failures
to make them statistical failures. In short nothing Gary Schwartz proved or disproved
in his lab would make any difference to someone who has had that experience.
Hence Jessica Utts' conclusion cited above became my own. I take it a step
further and say there is nothing to be learned by endless trials trying to
obtain proof. Period. There are just too many variables, not the least of which are
deluded operators or outright frauds.
So until the great genuises can figure out a way to meet Jessica Utts' call above,
there is little benefit, I say, in continuing to continue testing mediums. It is useless, an absymal waste of time and resources.
