LIFE AFTERLIFE (Full Documentary)

Candlelight.kk wrote:
  OK, a medium called George Anderson is also included, so maybe the 80% was a bit of an over-estimation.  I don't know anything about this guy (I have seen John Edward demonstrate in London) - but as this is an American-made video, perhaps this fellow George Anderson is more well known in the States(?)  There are, of course, other interesting parts to the video, so worth watching through to the end.

JDBP wrote:And he is a fraud. as is the man who tested him. Proven fraud, like caught on video faking, of course idiots find excuses to ignore the fraud.
Either way the whole video features only frauds, who have been tested by frauds, and is completely a PR exercise for those featured.

A Reply to Randi, by Dr Gary Schwartz

Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology, Surgery, Medicine, Neurology, and Psychiatry at the University of Arizona, as well as the Director of the Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science and Director of the Human Energy Systems Laboratory.

[Dr Gary Schwartz] Dr Schwartz has conducted research into 'afterlife' communications with the dead by prominent mediums such as John Edward and Allison Dubois, some of which can be read about in his book "The Afterlife Experiments" (Amazon US and UK). . Prominent media skeptic James 'The Amazing' Randi has been a scathing critic of Dr Schwartz's research and also those who claim to talk to the dead.


Why serious scientists, and other serious people, ignore Mr. Randi

Numerous individuals have emailed me recently informing me that Mr. Randi has once again, on his website, disseminated half truths [as well as explicit lies] about me and certain research mediums who have participated in serious research addressing the survival of consciousness hypothesis.

It is time to correct Mr. Randi’s false statements about his attempt in 2001 to examine the raw data from our research purportedly so that he and his “Independent Qualified Panel” could reach a fair and balanced opinion about the conclusions we had drawn.

When Mr. Randi wrote his letter to Mr. Richard Imwalle, President of the University of Arizona Foundation, and the Foundation asked me for my opinion, I informed the Foundation of Mr. Randi’s unfortunate history of documented trickery and deceptions. I further pointed out an exemplary and important misstatement of fact in Mr. Randi’s letter which severely compromised the integrity of its purported request.

Mr. Randi’s letter claimed that Dr. Stanley Krippner was one of four proposed members of an “Independent Qualified Panel” who would evaluate our research data. Randi wrote that all four members “were Ph.D. scientists who have already agreed with this Foundation to examine the data gathered by Dr. Schwartz.” He went on to say, “They are all informed, willing, specialists, who I believe will be acceptable to Dr. Schwartz.”

Mr. Randi’s recommendation of Dr. Krippner was certainly acceptable to me. However, when I contacted Dr. Krippner directly to see if Mr. Randi’s statement about him serving on the panel was correct, Dr. Krippner was concerned. Dr. Krippner explained that he had previously emailed Mr. Randi stating that he would not agree to serve on such a committee. The truth is, Dr. Krippner was not willing to serve on the panel, and he made this clear to Mr. Randi.

Given that Mr. Randi apparently misrepresented his purported “Independent Qualified Panel,” the Foundation wisely decided not to take any formal action on Mr. Randi’s request.

I did not wish to embarrass Mr. Randi, so I kept this issue (and others) out of the public eye. [Mr. Randi seems to enjoy voicing his opinions and criticisms on his website]. However, I did share privately with a few people [who pressed me about Mr. Randi’s letter] the fact that Dr. Krippner had clearly not agreed to serve on the committee, and this became a concern to the Foundation and me. One person was sufficiently incensed by Mr. Randi’s behavior that she emailed him about it.

Mr. Randi was not happy. Below is what Mr. Randi reported on his website. I have inserted comments and corrections with the phrase VERITAS.

Note: our research directed at testing the survival of consciousness hypothesis is termed the VERITAS Research Program (veritas.arizona.edu). The latin word veritas is Harvard’s motto, meaning truth.

Mr. Randi’s claims, and my VERITAS corrections, speak for themselves.

From Mr. Randi's column - May 11, 2001:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RANDI: Pam Blizzard, I'm told, is a fanatical supporter of John Edward. He's the man who does the guessing-game about dead people on the Sci-Fi Channel.

VERITAS: Pam Blizzard is a fan [not fanatical] of John Edwards. She is very impressed with what he does, and for good reason. What John does can not be [James Randi] explained as a “guessing-game”. The three experiments reported in my book THE AFTERLIFE EXPERIMENTS convincingly rule out guessing as a plausible explanation of the data.

RANDI: She told a correspondent: In an email I just received from [Dr. Gary E.] Schwartz, he states that Randi misrepresented his "Committee." Schwartz contacted one of the four purported members — he said that he had not been contacted by Randi, and if he had been, he would have declined.

VERITAS: Dr. Krippner told me had been contact by Randi, but that for various reasons he declined to serve on this proposed committee. Randi got half of that statement wrong, and half right.

RANDI: If Pam Blizzard — whoever she is — said that, either she is a blatant liar, or Schwartz has misrepresented the situation. I very much doubt that Schwartz e-mailed that to Pam. All four of those persons have agreed to be listed and to serve on the committee.

VERITAS: Pam is not a blatant liar, and Mr. Randi’s “doubt” was in error. Pam and I were in email contact about this.

RANDI: Here's a challenge: If Pam Blizzard will identify this proposed person — who I notice is not named! — and provide the statement in which he said that if he had been contacted by me and asked to serve, he would have declined, I'll push a peanut across Times Square with my nose, naked. How can she pass up that offer?

VERITAS: I contacted Dr. Krippner, and asked him if I could share his email to me stating the truth. He agreed. I shared this information with Pam. She passed this on to Mr. Randi. Did Mr. Randi honor his public challenge and “Push a peanut across Times Sqaure with his nose, naked”? No. What he did was ignore the fact that he made this challenge, and he continues to ignore the fact that his failure to represent the panel correctly was one of the reasons why the Foundation did not take him seriously.

RANDI: Pam, you're a liar. Unless, that is, Dr. Schwartz — or someone
claiming to be Schwartz — did make such a statement, in which case he is the guilty party. Inescapably, someone here is lying. It is not I.

VERITAS: According to Dr. Krippner, Mr. Randi is lying – unless Mr. Randi is suffering a severe form of self-deception and selective amnesia.

RANDI: What's your response, Pam? Who is it, and where's the evidence? Derived from Tarot cards? Or just a plain old LIE?

VERITAS: Pam sent Mr. Randi the evidence. It did not come from Tarot cards; it came from Dr. Krippner.

RANDI: Hello, Pam???? Where are you? Keeping company with Sylvia?

VERITAS: I do not know if Pam knows Sylvia Browne personally.

Lest the reader conclude that the above reflects an anomalous moment in Mr. Randi’s life, I include in Appendix A an early attempt to correct some of Mr. Randi’s misstatements in a column he wrote on October 25, 2002. I quickly learned that my feedback did not help Mr. Randi discern fact from fiction, evidence from bias. It is my hope that someday the public will become conscious of the unfortunately deceptive, and maybe, pathological tactics of Mr. Randi and others like him. Their behavior does not serve the pursuit of truth.

APPENDIX A

Examples of errors of fact and deceptions about Dr. Gary Schwartz from James Randi on October 25, 2002, with commentary by Schwartz.

Below are comments by Randi on the James Randi Educational Foundation website (October 25, 2002). For the sake of integrity, I quote RANDI’s claims word for word, followed by VERITAS, the facts.

RANDI: Dr. Gary Schwartz, of the University of Arizona, just might realize someday, not only that he was deceived by clever performers, but that he himself fell into his errors carelessly, willingly, and eagerly.”

VERITAS: If Randi had read the book THE AFTERLIFE EXPERIMENTS, he would recognize that we have continuously searched for fraud by “clever performers.” We have had skilled psychic entertainers review our experiments. If Randi read the book, he would know that over a succession of increasingly controlled and complex experiments, that whatever minor experimental “errors” were made (e.g. not having a divider screen taped in an early experiment), they were certainly not done “carelessly, willingly, and eagerly.” The published facts do not support Randi’s extremist and erroneous claims.

RANDI: Such scientists never reverse themselves. I include Ted Bastin, John Hasted, and many others in this naive assembly. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, though not technically a scientist per se, shines in this group.

VERITAS: Again, the facts do not support Randi’s extremist statement. My scientific record, over 30 years, documents my careful, willing, and eager efforts to revise or reject hypotheses and theories as a function of data. If anyone has a history of discovering surprises in data, and actively falsifying specific theories and explanations that initially inspired experimental research, it is me. Randi ignores more than 400 published scientific papers that document my openness to revise or reject explanations that turn out to be wrong.

RANDI: While on the subject of Schwartz, I'd like to offer this analogy of what that scientist thinks science is all about. Schwartz never tires of telling us how well-educated he is (Harvard, no less!) but that doesn't say anything about how smart he is.

VERITAS: It is true that newspaper reporters comment on my Harvard and Yale history. The “never tires” comment is grossly exaggerated – which is Randi’s persistent style of communication. If Randi were educated, he would understand that though clever exaggeration is sometimes cute, it is not intelligent, especially in science.

RANDI: As Richard Wiseman points out in the current Skeptical Inquirer (Nov/Dec 2002), Schwartz admits (as if he had any choice!) that there were sources of sensory leakage in his tests of John Edward (see [Only admins are allowed to see this link] yet he is still convinced that Edward is the "real thing."

VERITAS: Randi again ignores the facts. By the third experiment conducted with Edward, the possibility of “sensory leakage” was eliminated to the point where the sitter was not allowed to speak. No semantic or visual feedback was given to John what-so-ever during Part I of each reading. John continued to obtain highly accurate information. Randi acts as if the later studies were not conducted. His cognitive strategy is to ignore experiments and findings that do not support his biases.

RANDI: The basic question here, is why Schwartz allowed the possibility of sensory leakage and judging artifacts to be there at all? The principle of isolation of the subject and the "medium" is rather simple, not expensive nor difficult to implement, and simply must be an element in such experiments!

VERITAS: Again, if Randi read THE AFTERLIFE EXPERIMENTS, he would know we have conducted long distance studies, both single blind and double blind, and the results continue to come out positive. Randi’s mistaken conclusions are based upon ignorance of the facts.

What follows below is Randi “shipwright” analogy. My comments are at the end of his cute but not very intelligent story.

RANDI: My analogy: suppose that Schwartz were not only an experienced sailor, but a shipwright — one who designs and builds boats. He invites us to the beach, where we see that a fine-looking boat of his design and construction is about to be launched for the first time. We and the media are assured that Schwartz obtained his training in his specialty at a leading school where such matters are taught. We're appropriately impressed. We admire the appearance, the paint job, and the general "cut of his jib." The boat looks just fine.

Schwartz invites folks aboard. The launch takes place, and the craft sails smoothly out into the water. We cheer in appreciation. The media people snap photos, then they quickly depart to report this happy news: that Captain Gary Schwartz has designed, built, and successfully launched his boat. The captain is exuberant, smiling, and satisfied.

But then the boat is seen to be listing to one side. The passengers begin leaping off and swimming to shore as a definite settling in the water becomes evident. The boat, it turns out, is not seaworthy. It settles to the bottom. Captain Schwartz admits that there were some leaky spots that he didn't quite seal up, but the basic design, he says, is sound, and very soon he'll build another that will be properly sealed. He points out the fine appearance of the boat, but offers no reasons why he didn't have it water-tight before launching it.

VERITAS: Again, Randi should read THE AFTERLIFE EXPERIMENTS. I carefully explained why the first experiment with John Edward and other well known mediums [The Afterlife Experiments] ended up being “naturalistic” and how it evolved over time. If Randi were a scholar, he would know that the original experiment (which was not conducted) was designed to be a tightly controlled mechanism study investigating alternative hypotheses. Randi also ignores the fact that previous experiments with Laurie Campbell, conducted prior to studies with John Edward, were conducted double-blind.

If we were to use Randi’s ship analogy intelligently, we would say that with John Edward, I first built a row boat that showed the possibility of a vehicle floating on the water. The row boat leaked a little, but it most definitely floated. Each successive boat was designed to be larger, more sophisticated, and more sea worthy. Today’s ships can weather virtually any storm.

RANDI: However, it's evident that he's ahead, because a few hours later the newspapers — who weren't informed of the leaks and subsequent sinking — run photos and glowing accounts of the launching. Captain Schwartz receives further support, even from his disappointed colleagues — because he's very well educated, and he's confident that when he gets around to sealing those leaks, the next boat will be just fine.

VERITAS: If Randi would only cite the history accurately, he would construct an analogy that was meaningful. But that’s not Randi’s mode of operation. Randi’s behavior fits the following well-known phrase: Don’t let the facts get in the way of a “good” story.

RANDI: This simple soul asks, "WHY WAS THE FIRST BOAT, WITH ITS KNOWN FLAWS, BUILT AND LAUNCHED? SURELY HOLES IN A BOAT SHOULD BE PATCHED BEFORE LAUNCHING?" To the uncharitable, it might appear as if Captain Schwartz was in a rush and only wanted the media coverage he got....

VERITAS: It appears that Randi can see only one possible explanation for why with John Edward we ended up conducting a “naturalistic” experiment first – it must be that we “only wanted media coverage.” However, if Randi read THE AFTERLIFE EXPERIMENTS, he would discover that his biased conclusions are simply mistaken and inconsistent with the facts.

RANDI: And yes, it would appear that the captain should admit his poor construction without urging, but if no one makes a fuss — or if no one cares — he'll continue as a captain and he'll still think he can build boats.... Even I, with my inferior education, know that a leaky boat is a useless boat.

VERITAS: The straight forward way for Randi to correct his “inferior education” is to read the account of the research in THE AFTERLIFE EXPERIMENTS. Randi’s chosen lack of education enables him to draw simplistic, biased, and erroneous conclusions.

CONCLUSION: As I have said on numerous occasions, when Randi is correct, I applaud him; when Randi is incorrect, I try to educate him. Randi behaves as if he loves applause and hates to be educated. If I were Randi’s professor, I would discourage him from flaunting his “inferior education.” I would encourage Randi try to improve his knowledge and learn through data. However, despite my repeated efforts to encourage Randi to learn the facts and draw conclusions based upon the evidence, he seems reluctant to do so. Randi is not alone in this behavior - other professional skeptics have a similar style, Wiseman and Shermer included.

** Note added January 15, 2005 **

P.S. I have read multiple books on fraud and cold reading, and also taken a course on cold reading and how to be a fake medium. Any intelligent, open minded person who reads THE AFTERLIFE EXPERIMENTS, and also examines subsequent experiments with Laurie Campbell, Allison Dubois, Janet Mayer, George Dalzell, and other research mediums, can understand how these controlled experiments convincingly rule out fraud and cold reading as an explanation of the totality of the findings.

Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Surgery, Medicine, Neurology, and Psychiatry
Director, Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science
Director, Human Energy Systems Laboratory
University of Arizona
PO Box 210068
Tucson, Arizona 85721-0068
Phone (520) 318-0286 Fax (520) 318-0365
[Only admins are allowed to see this link]

The Evidence Demonstrates that Mediums Communicate with Living People in the Afterlife

The mental mediums, those who receive messages from individuals on the next plane of life and convey them to people in readings, provide accurate details about people’s lives. They bring them from living people on the other side, who communicate as though they were speaking through a translator. The messages mediums receive are not from a psychic knowledge about people—they are from living people who are residents of the afterlife. The conversations are animated, with questions and responses, notations about things going on in people’s lives, and even humor. The mediums and those communicating through them both assert that the living person is there communicating. Psychics don’t claim that the living person is speaking during a standard reading, and if the person does come through, there is a change and clear impression such as "She’s telling me . . ."

Researcher Robert Crookall Finds Accounts of the Afterlife by Mediums to Be Identical.

Dr. Robert Crookall, B.Sc. (psychology), D.Sc., Ph.D., principal geologist with the Geological Survey of Great Britain, resigned from his geological work in 1952 to devote his life to psychical research. During the next nine years, he collected and analyzed medium communications from every country he could, including Brazil, England, South Africa, Tibet, Europe, India, Australia, and the Hawaiian Islands. He found that in all countries, among all cultures, people described the same characteristic accounts of out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, and communications with the deceased through mediums. He concluded that his findings were strong evidence for the existence of an afterlife because an intellectually consistent set of statements came from many independent sources.
 
In 1961, Crookall wrote The Supreme Adventure: Analyses of Psychic Communications describing the findings of his research. His descriptions of the afterlife that came from his many sources are identical to the descriptions of the afterlife that have come from direct-voice mediums before his research and since.

University of Arizona Experiments Demonstrated that the Mediums Do Receive Valid Information.

In an effort to run a controlled experiment to determine whether mediums do receive accurate information from the deceased, Gary Schwartz, Linda Russek, and Christopher Barentsen conducted a study for the Human Energy Systems Laboratory at the University of Arizona testing three talented mediums: Laurie Campbell, John Edward, and Suzane Northrop.
 
The study did reveal that the mediums identified details about the deceased loved ones at a rate much higher than chance, leading the researchers to conclude that "The findings appear to confirm the hypothesis that information and energy, and potentially consciousness itself, can continue after physical death." However, the statistics don’t adequately show the remarkable accuracy of the mediums and the personal nature of the communications with a deceased loved one. For example, in that study, one medium, John Edward, reported that he was receiving information from a deceased grandmother for one of the people being read. He reported that the grandmother brought daisies to the person’s mother’s wedding, the grandmother had a large black poodle and large white poodle, and the white poodle tore up the house. Those and other details were perfectly accurate. John Edward had 70 percent perfect hit scores for that person.
 
But when the next person came in for John Edward to read, he received a zero hit score because the grandmother of the previous person persisted in coming through and he couldn’t read for the next person. He kept hearing the songs On the Good Ship Lollipop and Sabrina the Teenage Witch.
 
After the zero hit reading was over, the experimenter took the person being read back to the waiting room and there was the woman whose grandmother kept coming through to John Edward, still waiting for the next medium. The experimenter asked her whether she knew anything about On the Good Ship Lollipop or Sabrina the Teenage Witch. She emotionally told the experimenter that she had curly brown hair as a child and sang and danced Shirley Temple songs with her grandmother; one of the songs was On the Good Ship Lollipop. Also, her name was Sabrina and when she was a teenager, some children teased her about being "Sabrina-the Teenage Witch" and she went to her grandmother for solace. John Edward knew nothing about the girl, including her name or gender.


A Second Study Also Concluded that Mediums Are Able to Identify Details About the Deceased in Readings.

A second study was performed by Gary Schwartz with three other researchers from the University of Arizona Human Energy Systems Laboratory for a video-recorded HBO documentary on the afterlife. The study used five well-known mediums: George Anderson, John Edward, Anne Gehman, Suzane Northrop, and Laurie Campbell.
 
In this study, two people were subjects for the medium sessions, one of whom had experienced six significant deaths over the previous ten years. Before the readings, each person wrote descriptions of the people who had died to provide objective data that could be compared to the mediums’ readings. The mediums had no knowledge of the two people. Each subject sat behind a screen so the subject couldn’t be seen by the medium giving a reading. The person was able to give only “yes” and “no” answers. Two video cameras recorded the sessions and verbatim scripts were made.
 
The result was that the mediums’ average accuracy score was 83 percent for subject one and 77 percent for subject two. To test whether guessing could achieve the same results by chance, 68 control people were asked to guess details about the deceased loved ones of the two subjects. Their scores averaged 36 percent hits by chance. In other words, the accuracy of the mediums’ details was far beyond chance guesses.


The Miraval Silent Sitter Experiment Showed the Same Accuracy by Mediums.

In the Miraval silent-sitter experiment, the mediums were Suzane Northrop, John Edward, Anne Gehman, and Laurie Campbell. There were ten subjects. The study involved two parts for each reading with each subject. The first was a “silent” part in which the medium described details about the deceased without receiving any responses from the subject. In the second part, the medium was able to receive “yes” and “no” answers from the subject.

In this study, the mediums’ accuracy score was 77 percent during the silent period and 85 percent during the “yes” and “no” questioning period, showing again that the mediums were far more accurate than would be expected by chance (based on the 36 percent accuracy rating in the previous study’s control group).
 
More Stringent Studies at the University of ArizonaYielded the Same Results.

Gary Schwartz, Ph.D., and Julie Beischel, Ph.D., performed another study at the University of Arizona under even more stringent, triple-blind conditions with more mediums. It is apparent that the mediums are learning information about the deceased, but the question arises whether the medium is just using telepathy or clairvoyance to learn information from the person being read rather than really hearing from the deceased. This study added a condition to eliminate that possibility. In this later study, the subjects weren’t present for the reading. Another person sat in as a "proxy sitter." The readings were conducted by phone to eliminate even the presence of the proxy sitter with the medium. Eight mediums were involved to increase the validity of the data.

Transcripts of the readings were made and the subjects, whose deceased loved ones were to come through, rated the readings on a scale of 0 to 6, with 0 being no accuracy and 6 being perfect accuracy on all details. They were given transcripts of both readings intended for them and readings intended for other subjects, without knowing which was which, to see whether they would score the reading intended for them as being more accurate than a random reading for some other person. The result was that the average summary rating for the readings actually intended for the subject was 3.56 on the 6-point scale. The average summary ratings for the readings not intended for the person (that were actually readings for someone else) was 1.94. For three of the best-performing mediums, the summary scores were in the range of 5.0 to 5.5 out of 6, meaning they were dramatically accurate.

In other words, the study showed that mediums in controlled conditions that included not even speaking on the phone with the person being read resulted in communication with the deceased. 


*Hogan, R. C. (2008). Your Eternal Self. Normal, IL: Greater Reality Publications. pp. 99-103.

JDBP wrote:And he was exposed by Geraldo.

JDBP wrote:And are you gonna be honest and tell everyone why you are defending a proven fraud who was caught on video? Go on. Please tell everyone the real reason.

JDBP wrote:Schwartz is a fake psychic, are you saying he is real? And do you think he is a credible person to investigate other people who claim psychic powers.

And you know damn well the reason why you are defending a proven fraud.

Candlelight.kk wrote:

JDBP wrote:Schwartz is a fake psychic, are you saying he is real? And do you think he is a credible person to investigate other people who claim psychic powers.

And you know damn well the reason why you are defending a proven fraud.

Dr Schwartz has NEVER claimed to be psychic!  And I have no idea what you mean by "defending a proven fraud"?  [Only admins are allowed to see this image]  Please explain.

 (Geraldo at Large) -  Dr Gary Schwartz Responds

JDBP wrote:I am curious, what are your opinions of the federal investigation into Schwartz of which he was found liable?
I will assume you are not aware of that, Might need a bit of digging on your part since most of it has been archived now.

Candlelight.kk wrote:

JDBP wrote:I am curious, what are your opinions of the federal investigation into Schwartz of which he was found liable?
I will assume you are not aware of that, Might need a bit of digging on your part since most of it has been archived now.

As per usual, you have got your FACTS arse-over-head .....  I assume you are talking here about Gary Morgan Schwarz (not even the same spelling ) - [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

whereas the person we are talking about here is Gary E. Schwartz.

JDBP wrote:As for why you would defend Schwartz, come on, You know that I know everything, Ok Gordon Smith your best buddy and proven fraud is involved in the reasons why, but lets keep that quiet right? Admit Schwartz is a fraud, and lacks credibility in turn would admit your best friend never really passed any tests that proved him real right?

Candlelight.kk wrote:

JDBP wrote:As for why you would defend Schwartz, come on, You know that I know everything, Ok Gordon Smith your best buddy and proven fraud is involved in the reasons why, but lets keep that quiet right? Admit Schwartz is a fraud, and lacks credibility in turn would admit your best friend never really passed any tests that proved him real right?

Oh dearie, dearie me, Jon - you have really stuck yourself right in the bullseye there.  PROOF that you heeded or learned a big zero from the original 'debate' on this matter. If you hadn't deleted it all and kept it for prosperity, you or anyone else would see that that was the first point I corrected you on - as you had put up the heading to the article "This is the guy who tested Gordon Smith".   NO!  He never tested Gordon Smith.  I pointed this out to you at the time - and you corrected the article - at least on paper, but obviously not in that befuddled head of yours!

Candlelight.kk wrote:

JDBP wrote:As for why you would defend Schwartz, come on, You know that I know everything, Ok Gordon Smith your best buddy and proven fraud is involved in the reasons why, but lets keep that quiet right? Admit Schwartz is a fraud, and lacks credibility in turn would admit your best friend never really passed any tests that proved him real right?

Oh dearie, dearie me, Jon - you have really stuck yourself right in the bullseye there.  PROOF that you heeded or learned a big zero from the original 'debate' on this matter. If you hadn't deleted it all and kept it for prosperity, you or anyone else would see that that was the first point I corrected you on - as you had put up the heading to the article "This is the guy who tested Gordon Smith".   NO!  He never tested Gordon Smith.  I pointed this out to you at the time - and you corrected the article - at least on paper, but obviously not in that befuddled head of yours!

JDBP wrote:I am curious, what are your opinions of the federal investigation into Schwartz of which he was found liable?

Dr Schwartz concludes by saying "legal action will be taken against each and every individual who has made defamatory comments against Dr. Schwartz, and the truth will be brought out in the court room".

Laurie Campbell claimed that she resigned from Dr. Schwartz’s laboratory in 2005, and that this speaks to her opinions regarding Dr. Schwartz’s ethical behavior. What the Geraldo segment did not mention is that new guidelines and procedures for advancing the ethics and scientific understanding for mediums were being formulated at that time, initiated partly by some inappropriate behavior by Ms. Campbell and some other mediums, all mediums would be required to go through a nine step evaluation procedure, including taking a government mandated human subjects ethics examine required of scientists and research staff, plus take a test based on a book describing previous scientific research with mediums.  Ms. Campbell was upset that she would have to undergo the required testing for the new guidelines and procedures, (4) she decided not to participate in the testing, and therefore she was about to be let go by the laboratory,and chose to resign instead.

As for the $3.5 million. It was actually proposed by the donor himself (Mr Knopf)to endow a Chair in Parapsychology at the University of Arizona - named in memory of his deceased son.
Mr. Knopf can post the letter he waved around on Geraldo on the net anytime he wants so we can all see if it contains anything that is unethical.  The Response document was approved by the University and Dr Schwartz's Department Head so we can assume their position is that they support what the Response says.

Mr. Knopf made himself a public figure by appearing on Geraldo at Large. Therefore it is fair to point out he was sentenced to prison for fraud, that he was a client of one of the unhappy mediums and has practically no credibility in this situation.

At no time did Dr. Schwartz say he was a medium but he may've quoted Laurie Campbell with whom, with Mr Knopf's permission, he discussed his deceased sons' readings.

Candlelight.kk wrote:
PS:  It was actually Prof. Archie Roy and Tricia Robertson who tested Gordon Smith.

JDBP wrote:they used Schwartz' methods, am I right? They were replicating HIS experiments!

JDBP wrote:Did you miss my question

Candlelight.kk wrote:

JDBP wrote:Did you miss my question

Not sure what question you are referring to.  I have answered any questions that I know the answer to.

JDBP wrote:
Does Tricia Robertson claim to be psychic herself?

Did you read about when he (Schwartz) discovered photons in an experiment to contact the other side and that proved the afterlife?

Do you think "The Afterlife Experiments" are a credible historical scientific study into mediums?

Do you believe in John Edward, since he was "proven" to be the real deal in "scientific" tests?

Do you think he (Schwartz) is a credible person to investigate other people who claim psychic powers?

Did you ever manage to find a single unedited video of Gordon Smith (not from his Church) that you are convinced is 100% real mediumship, that you could show me?