He was trying to show me how I was wrong saying that Muslims and Christians are not the same. His argument: "Their books have the same stories in them." Not a valid stand as the underlying religion is largely different in beliefs and creed. (if you understood his stand then sorry, but hey you butted in. )</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you completely. I wasn't trying to butt into your discussion, just his assertions about Christianity and Islam. I've heard this before from others and it is YABA (yet another bogus argument). It's another example of affirming the consequent:
IF (Christianity = Islam) THEN (their holy books should be similar) is a reasonable argument. However,
IF (their holy books are similar) THEN (Christianity = Islam) is NOT a reasonable argument. I was pointing out that there are many cultural and historical reasons for the similarities which have nothing to do with theology. I think we are arguing the same point from two different angles.
So, I'll leave you two to your discussion. I just wanted to interject my objections to the stated argument. If The Blue Meanie wants to try to equate Christianity with Islam, he's welcome to continue trying. Similarities between the people and stories Bible and the Koran are not a valid basis for such an argument, IMHO. The distinction is how those stories are used to illustrate the underlying theology (well, aside from all that salvation stuff Jesus and Paul went on about... ).
If The Blue Meanie wants to try to equate Christianity with Islam, he's welcome to continue trying. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I dont' want to do that. The two faiths are clearly different. I was just trying to make the point that the Koran and the Bible have more common ground than is sometimes remembered
Really? They believe that Jesus is the Messiah? The Saviour? The only way to get to Heaven? That he died on the Cross to take away the sins of the world? That he rose again on the third day? That he sits at the right hand of God and intercedes on our behalf? THey believe all that? Because if they do then I am wrong. If they don't then they are NOT Christians as Christians have the whole Jesus was the messiah thing going on. Kinda a cornerstone and all. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, no, Muslims are not Christians. They don't have that whole 'Jesus was the Messiah' thang going on. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of God, a forerunner of Muhammed, whose teachings were subsequently distorted, and that equating a man (Jesus) with God is idolatory - all irrelevant in The Blue Meanie's humble opinion. I was just trying to make the point that there is a lot of common ground between Islam, Chrisitianity and Judaism ? but that doesn't mean one equals the other, clearly.
Well, no, Muslims are not Christians. They don't have that whole 'Jesus was the Messiah' thang going on. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of God, a forerunner of Muhammed, whose teachings were subsequently distorted, and that equating a man (Jesus) with God is idolatory - all irrelevant in The Blue Meanie's humble opinion. I was just trying to make the point that there is a lot of common ground between Islam, Chrisitianity and Judaism ? but that doesn't mean one equals the other, clearly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like back-pedaling a bit. But I will not pursue it. I realize that the books are similar and it would make sense that they are given their similar cultural backgrounds and roots. However you appeared to be saying something that you were apparently not.
Number four is an experiment, surely? And number one also involved the author attempting to mislead Anderson. And all suggest that Anderson's powers might be genuine.</strong>
They are the usual readings GA performs. That a skeptic or a psychiatrist (or was it psychologist) took part in the reading doesn't make it an experiment. Not to mention that Joel Martin didn't seem like a skeptic to me (he said he didn't think about it) nor that the psychiatrist dude believed in the stuff in the first place.
Things that an experiment would do is characterize GA's abilities. In what situations he performs best at, what particular people he reads the best, what sort of information he gives, and so on. Like how well would he perform if the subject sits there silent. I would think he'd suck if they kept their mouthes shut.
Yes to doubt strengthening faith . . . but to the point that one may venture out without holding daddy's hand: that's where things start to get really interesting. Let go of the specifics --the beings in the world-- and start asking about the Being of the world.
Also, the point about arguing muslims, and the Smith idea, is merely to point out that you are all invested in your interpretive vocabulary to the point that it seems to be the ultimate truth and no other is real . . .naturally that seems so right for 'true believers' . . . but, even if in a thousand years we were all muslim and argueing like this, the vocabulary would be defining the parameters in the same way: the given interpretive framework creates your answers for you: your 'god' is just a being, like an object in the world, unless you let go of your schemas, frameworks and phrase bound spiritualities.
or as Wittgenstein said:
"I want to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle"
<strong>Yes to doubt strengthening faith . . . but to the point that one may venture out without holding daddy's hand: that's where things start to get really interesting. Let go of the specifics --the beings in the world-- and start asking about the Being of the world.
Also, the point about arguing muslims, and the Smith idea, is merely to point out that you are all invested in your interpretive vocabulary to the point that it seems to be the ultimate truth and no other is real . . .naturally that seems so right for 'true believers' . . . but, even if in a thousand years we were all muslim and argueing like this, the vocabulary would be defining the parameters in the same way: the given interpretive framework creates your answers for you: your 'god' is just a being, like an object in the world, unless you let go of your schemas, frameworks and phrase bound spiritualities.
or as Wittgenstein said:
"I want to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle"
Just another note:
the problem with God is that he isn't God enough</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to have some important things you're trying to say, but the way you are writing them is almost incoherent. There are some huge gaps in your statements that you seem to assume we can fill. For example, I have seen both of your last two quotes before. I don't see how they are connected to your previous comments, or what point you are trying to make with them. Please, pick a fairly narrow topic and flesh it out with enough examples and commentary (minus the philosophy buzzwords) that I can figure out what it is you're saying. At this point I'm not sure if you're arguing for Christianity or against it, or for some other philosophical/religious point of view. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
that sums up what I am trying to say: namely that this thread, and its continuation ad nauseum, reveals that the 'points of view' are conditioning all the possibilities of what is being said.
Because you all have so much invested in the frameworks from which each of you are arguing you will merely run in circles: circling around the vocabulary that defines your answers for you. This is the 'fly-bottle' which holds the fly prisoner. By stating this I am saying that both the idea of God and the ideas of athiesm are as small as the walls of the bottle.
I'm not incoherent, I'm merely refusing to jump into your terminologies.
another way of phrasing the last note of my last post:
Because you all have so much invested in the frameworks from which each of you are arguing you will merely run in circles: circling around the vocabulary that defines your answers for you. This is the 'fly-bottle' which holds the fly prisoner. By stating this I am saying that both the idea of God and the ideas of athiesm are as small as the walls of the bottle.</strong>
So tell me, what happens when we get out of the bottle?
that sums up what I am trying to say: namely that this thread, and its continuation ad nauseum, reveals that the 'points of view' are conditioning all the possibilities of what is being said.
Because you all have so much invested in the frameworks from which each of you are arguing you will merely run in circles: circling around the vocabulary that defines your answers for you. This is the 'fly-bottle' which holds the fly prisoner. By stating this I am saying that both the idea of God and the ideas of athiesm are as small as the walls of the bottle.
I'm not incoherent, I'm merely refusing to jump into your terminologies.
another way of phrasing the last note of my last post:
God is more than God</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the translation. Unfortunately, every field of human thought brings its own terms and jargon. Religion is no different. I am unfamiliar enough with the jargon you were using as to not be able to figure out what you were trying to say. I didn't mean to imply that you personally were incoherent, only that it was incoherent to me trying to read it.
Anyway, I agree with you completely with regards to God. It is rather frustrating to try to figure out The Supreme Being with my puny brain. God is beyond words and description, so any attempt to describe Him using human language is inherently distorted and limited. Your point is well taken - God is God. There are no words that can describe Him. The philosophical/theological frameworks we build to try and understand Him can easily become a jail - not for God, but for our own thinking.
To paraphrase (very roughly) Thomas Aquinas: "Logic is a crutch for a limited mind". A pure intellect would simply Know, without having to resort to logical deduction. We must "figure things out" because our minds are feeble. We construct doctrines and dogma as a way of getting God into bite-sized chunks that we can at least partially digest. It is all too easy, though, to forget that the doctrines and dogma are purely man-made as a concession to humans' limited intelligence. As poor as these are at "defining" God, the only alternative is to give up completely - which is even worse, IMHO. God is, indeed more than God.
So I hope I don't seem to you to be too much a "prisoner of my terminology." That terminology is about all we've got to work with. And thanks again for restating your post. I thought that was the gist of what you were getting at, but I didn't feel comfortable jumping in with a reply that completely missed the mark. Your input is/was/will be quite welcome, as far as I am concerned.
<strong>I'm not incoherent, I'm merely refusing to jump into your terminologies.
another way of phrasing the last note of my last post:
God is more than God</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, I see where you are going as well, but as I have stated before, you are confusing as heck about it. You can complain all you want about jargon and whatnot, Christians have lots of words about God and faith and religion that confuse non-christians, and they should not. But your posts were so full of ??? that I could not decipher it even with my super secret decoder ring. The last post was quite a bit more clear, but still you use a lot of words, and it doesn't say much to me.
As for your last sentence, I would say to anyone;
Your definition of God is less than what God really is.
However, without a definition to work with it is really hard to know, even slightly, who it is that you are following. Hard to have a relationship with someone that you do not "know" at all. Eh?
They are the usual readings GA performs. That a skeptic or a psychiatrist (or was it psychologist) took part in the reading doesn't make it an experiment. Not to mention that Joel Martin didn't seem like a skeptic to me (he said he didn't think about it) nor that the psychiatrist dude believed in the stuff in the first place.
Things that an experiment would do is characterize GA's abilities. In what situations he performs best at, what particular people he reads the best, what sort of information he gives, and so on. Like how well would he perform if the subject sits there silent. I would think he'd suck if they kept their mouthes shut.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The "psychiatrist dude believed in the stuff in the first place"? Where does it say that? And as for Martin, he may not be a skeptic in the sense I think you mean it (ie refusing to accept to accept any evidence), but he does explain in the first couple of chapters how he successfully debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA - not the typical behaviour of a gullible believer desperate for confirmatory evidence.
Anyway, whatever they did or didn't believe, the point I was trying to make is that they were deliberately trying to deceive GA and failed to do so. But yes, I take your point, they
weren't experiments int the strictly controlled, laboratory sense of the term.
[quote] I would think he'd suck if they kept their mouthes shut. <hr></blockquote>
Really? I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there. IMHO you're making too much of this yes-no stuff. My own point of view would be that whether the subjects respond to statements with yes or no is secondary to the question of whether GA could really produce his information through a process of deduction from the subjects' answers...
The "psychiatrist dude believed in the stuff in the first place"? Where does it say that?</strong>
I've got the hardcover 1988 edition. On page 118:
Mr. Martin, I am a thirty-year veteran of the psychiatric profession, and I hold a deep interest and belief in parapsychology and survival research. I have my very own definite theories. George gave quite an impressive demonstration, or he was the greatest psychic hoax I have ever heard perpetuated publicly, and I will spare no effort to expose both you and George as frauds!
Abrams came to GA disguised as a derelict a few months later, and GA figures out Abrams is a psychiatrist after a few questions. This convinces Abrams that GA is genuine. He doesn't give GA any sort of testing. Doesn't characterize any of GA's abilities. That's sparing no effort? That's just a very short reading for a person who already believes that mediums can be genuine.
An experimenter or a scientist does not believe in favor of one theory over another. They perform the experiment, and the results will show what is true.
<strong>And as for Martin, he may not be a skeptic in the sense I think you mean it (ie refusing to accept to accept any evidence), but he does explain in the first couple of chapters how he successfully debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA - not the typical behaviour of a gullible believer desperate for confirmatory evidence.</strong>
He didn't do that in We Don't Die, explain that he debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA. He just said that he exposed fraudulent mediums before in his media work in one sentence in the 2 page Foreword of WDD. No references to who or where. To me, that's not an explanation.
<strong>IMHO you're making too much of this yes-no stuff. My own point of view would be that whether the subjects respond to statements with yes or no is secondary to the question of whether GA could really produce his information through a process of deduction from the subjects' answers...</strong>
Just perform the experiment where the subjects don't say a word, and it'll give us the answer to whether GA "could really produce his information through a process of deduction from the subjects' answers". If GA is able to produce details of subjects that stay silent, then we have something to work on.
In fact, have one group of people answer as GA requests. Have another group stay silent. Have a group of foreigners (French, Russians, Japanese, etc.). Have a group of old people. Have a group of young people. Have a group of middle age people. Have a mix of people who lie and tell the truth.
Hmm... just looked at page 55 and Martin writes:
Having these psychic powers wasn't always a problem, however. Besides keeping bullies at bay. George's abilities served him in other unusual ways. One day during his sophomore year, he sat quietly listening to Sister Aquinas lecture on the French Revolution and the fate of the royal family.
"Louis XVI was executed," she stated, to which George nodded in agreement, "and Marie Antoinette followed soon after." George nodded again.
"The princess, little daughter Maria Theresa, was executed."
"Wrong," George said quietly.
The nun. who didn't hear him, continued, "The dauphin was executed next. The dauphin is the prince who is heir to the throne."
At that, George could no longer keep quiet. "Wrong! I know what happened to the royal children."
"George, I'll put you through a wall, if-" the nun began before composing herself. "All right, George, what do you think happened."
Suddenly, George, who had never read of heard a word about the children's fates, found himself standing before the class and saying, "First of all, the girl was never executed. She lived in the tower until she was taken to Austria by sympathetic aristocrats. The people more or less just sympathized with her in the tower, and they let her go."
Sister Aquinas lost her temper, telling George that she had never read any such thing. (If only she'd known that George hadn't either!) "What do you think happened to the dauphin?"
"He was in prison, but he was smuggled out of the country and taken to England."
The nun stared at George until he sat back down. But when she later researched the subject, she discovered that what he said about the princess was correct. She was not, however, able to corroborate his version of what happened to the dauphin. But how did George know?
All George knew was the information was "just there." He later reasoned that it either was given to him by spirits or might have resulted from the recall of a personal past-life experience.
We now know that dauphin did indeed die in that prison and was dumped in a mass grave along with all the other aristocrats. He was not whisked away and an imposter put in his place in prison.
Comparison of DNA sequences in the mitochondria of cells from the heart to that of these four royal individuals suggests that the heart, long preserved in a crystal urn, indeed belonged to the son of Marie Antoinette.
DNA analysis reveals that the young heir to the French throne left to die in prison was no impostor
BY NADYA LABI
...
The boy who died in Temple prison and whose body was dumped in a mass grave really was Louis Charles, DNA tests have revealed. Scientists Jean-Jacques Cassiman and Bernd Brinkmann compared the mitochondrial DNA of the boy's mummified heart with samples from locks of hair taken from his mother, two of her sisters and two living maternal relatives. The sequences were all identical. Cassiman pronounced the results definitive, while conceding that "the heart was not ideally preserved for this test."
...
So, is GA simply mistaken? Did GA remember mistakenly? Was he lying to Martin? Is he and Martin in collusion? Did GA just look into the subject of what happened to the royal children and showed up his instructor?
[quote] I've got the hardcover 1988 edition. On page 118:
Mr. Martin, I am a thirty-year veteran of the psychiatric profession, and I hold a deep interest and belief in parapsychology and survival research. I have my very own definite theories. George gave quite an impressive demonstration, or he was the greatest psychic hoax I have ever heard perpetuated publicly, and I will spare no effort to expose both you and George as frauds!
Abrams came to GA disguised as a derelict a few months later, and GA figures out Abrams is a psychiatrist after a few questions. This convinces Abrams that GA is genuine. He doesn't give GA any sort of testing. Doesn't characterize any of GA's abilities. That's sparing no effort? That's just a very short reading for a person who already believes that mediums can be genuine.
An experimenter or a scientist does not believe in favor of one theory over another. They perform the experiment, and the results will show what is true.<hr></blockquote>
Touche, I didn't remember that bit. Fair enough, so that particular incident fails the lab test for strict impartiality. But I still don't think a pre-existing "belief" in the paranormal on the part of the psychatrist provides an adequate explanation for the incident. What about GA seeing a vision of Sigmund Freud over the man's head?
What about GA abruptly announcing: "I'm being told you are not what you appear to be"?
BTW, it appears we do have different editions. In my copy this incident is on ps 109-110. We will have to adjust each other's page references.
[quote]He didn't do that in We Don't Die, explain that he debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA. He just said that he exposed fraudulent mediums before in his media work in one sentence in the 2 page Foreword of WDD. No references to who or where. To me, that's not an explanation.<hr></blockquote>
See ps. 58-59 (in my edition that is - it's just before the reading with Martin I quoted as my first example), Admittedly he only lists two specific examples here (and only goes into detail about one). But that's more than one sentence in the forward.
[quote]Just perform the experiment where the subjects don't say a word, and it'll give us the answer to whether GA "could really produce his information through a process of deduction from the subjects' answers".<hr></blockquote>
Really? I'm sorry, THT, but I remain sceptical about this point. I accept that it is possible to work the identity of particular objects and common concepts through a process of elimination from yes/ no answers - but you try working out, through the same process, the name, appearance, personality, characteristics and personal secrets of a randomly chosen deceased relative of a person you've never met before. Yes, it's possible that positive confirmations might help to steer a fraudulent medium in the right direction in a few instances, but that doesn't come anywhere near to explaining the level of detail produced in these readings.
[quote]We now know that dauphin did indeed die in that prison and was dumped in a mass grave along with all the other aristocrats. He was not whisked away and an imposter put in his place in prison.
The heart of the dauphin
By Dorothy C. Wertz, PhD
Comparison of DNA sequences in the mitochondria of cells from the heart to that of these four royal individuals suggests that the heart, long preserved in a crystal urn, indeed belonged to the son of Marie Antoinette.
...
Requiem for a Dauphin
DNA analysis reveals that the young heir to the French throne left to die in prison was no impostor
BY NADYA LABI
...
The boy who died in Temple prison and whose body was dumped in a mass grave really was Louis Charles, DNA tests have revealed. Scientists Jean-Jacques Cassiman and Bernd Brinkmann compared the mitochondrial DNA of the boy's mummified heart with samples from locks of hair taken from his mother, two of her sisters and two living maternal relatives. The sequences were all identical. Cassiman pronounced the results definitive, while conceding that "the heart was not ideally preserved for this test."
...
So, is GA simply mistaken? Did GA remember mistakenly? Was he lying to Martin? Is he and Martin in collusion? Did GA just look into the subject of what happened to the royal children and showed up his instructor?<hr></blockquote>
I must admit, this rattled my cage when I read it.... So ya got me ? it takes a lot to rattle the Blue Meanie's cage. I don't have a neat answer for you and I have in fact just emailed one of the book's authors about this particular point ? (no, I don't know her, I just happened to find her email address on the web). It'll be interesting to see if we get a response.
All I can say at this stage is that no reputable medium would claim to be 100 per cent accurate all the time, and certainly no claims of that nature are made for GA in those books (I don't have a page reference to hand, but the point is made several times that he is only 90 per cent + accurate). Sceptics often assume that mediums have to be entirely accurate all the time or it's all fraudulence - but there is no reasons to assume it has to be like that. Psychic abilities seem to be more like tuning a radio to a particular station - a certain amount of interference is inevitable.
What you have to do is look at inaccuracies in context and use your judgement (not to mention, weigh up the inaccuracies against the accuracies One inaccuracy doesn't make everything else inaccurate). In the example on ps 58-59, Martin catches out a fraudulent medium when she fails to recognise the wife of the spirit she claims to be directly channeling - a fairly devastating hole in her claims. With this unrecorded, second-hand anecdote from Anderson's childhood, however, we are talking about an unattributed psychic "awareness" of some kind - or possibly just the product of a desire to show up his vivid (*EDIT: I meant to type 'vindicative') teachers and a vivid imagination. In either case, we are not talking about a specific, face-to-face reading.
In addition, Anderson is reported as having corrected the nun for claiming that the dauphin was executed and the second of the two articles you link to explains that he in fact died of TB. Secondly, Anderson merely says that the dauphin was taken to England, he doesn't say that he died there. And thirdly, the samples used for reading may have been misattributed. In the hysterical atmosphere of the times and with the subsequent passing of two whole centuries, that is surely not inconceivable. But of course, I realise that this will all sound like a cop-out to you and is not a real answer. We'll have to see if I get a response to my email...
[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Touche, I didn't remember that bit. Fair enough, so that particular incident fails the lab test for strict impartiality. But I still don't think a pre-existing "belief" in the paranormal on the part of the psychatrist provides an adequate explanation for the incident.</strong>
I don't care if someone is biased one way or the other, impartial or not. They just need to do a proper experiment.
<strong>What about GA seeing a vision of Sigmund Freud over the man's head? What about GA abruptly announcing: "I'm being told you are not what you appear to be"?</strong>
If I go by the quotes alone, ie, excluding what Martin writes, GA asks three questions, and Abrams answers with some rather strange questions for a derelict. GA was already suspicious (since he doesn't understand how the derelict got to his place and this was after going public with the radio show.) So I don't see it as surprising that he figures out Abrams was in disguise.
I would have been more impressed if GA come out and said Abrams was a psychiatrist right away, not after asking three questions, and being suspicious of an uncommon visitor who was some 50+ year old man dressed up as a bum who answers questions with questions. And this is the way a psychiatrist of some 30 years experience tests the authenticity of a medium?
I would, however, find it more intriguing if it was done in more controlled circumstances.
<strong>See ps. 58-59 (in my edition that is - it's just before the reading with Martin I quoted as my first example), Admittedly he only lists two specific examples here (and only goes into detail about one). But that's more than one sentence in the forward.</strong>
I found it on page 69-70. It was in Chapter 3. I was looking in the first couple of chapters as you indicated I guess that Joel Martin doesn't understand how mediums could work (without the paranormal explanation.)
<strong>Sceptics often assume that mediums have to be entirely accurate all the time or it's all fraudulence - but there is no reasons to assume it has to be like that. Psychic abilities seem to be more like tuning a radio to a particular station - a certain amount of interference is inevitable.</strong>
Experimentation would determine what their accuracy is. They should all submit to experimentation.
<strong>With this unrecorded, second-hand anecdote from Anderson's childhood, however, we are talking about an unattributed psychic "awareness" of some kind - or possibly just a desire to show up his vivid teachers and a vivid imagination.</strong>
I'm not even impressed with the awareness of that particular instance. It's not like there wasn't a controversy over the fate of the children of Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette for nearly two centuries.
<strong>But of course, I realise that this will all sound like a cop-out to you and is not a real answer. We'll have to see if I get a response to my email...</strong>
All GA has to do is do some experimentation. Afterall, it would alter the very foundations of science. It is virtually his responsibility to do so.
<strong>... but you try working out, through the same process, the name, appearance, personality, characteristics and personal secrets of a randomly chosen deceased relative of a person you've never met before.</strong>
How detailed has he been? Look at the reading for the Licatas. Starting off where I left off previously when GA found out a girl the Licatas knew passed on before. Joel Martin writes:
Suddenly John Licata, who sat silently and who had so far let his wife respond to George's queries, shuddered. He had been watching and listening neither fully believed nor comprehended what was taking place. However, when George described a young girl greeting his son, John's skepticism began to waver. There was absolutely no way that George could have known that a young female friend of David's from their neighborhood had been strangled about four months before David was killed. ...
Was this specific to you? GA doesn't give a name, an age, what she looks like, when she died, what she died of, where she lived, etc. Remember, this was after asking 3 successively more general questions about whether the Licatas knew of a girl that passed on. Successively more general because he kept on getting negative answers. Continuing:
He's very, very restless. Let's hope he can get it off his chest now, whatever he has to say, so he can be at better rest. Was he very sensitive, very emotional?
"Yes"
"Because that's how he's now coming through. Just bear with me. He has to calm down. He's speaking so fast, I can't understand what he's saying. Would you say there's something strange about his case?"
"Yes."
"He's trying to explain something to me. I can't get it out of him. Late teens, early twenties?"
"No."
"Just teens."
"Yes."
"Okay. Was he tall?"
"Yes."
"That's what it is. He just appeared to me for a second. He looked pretty tall. I don't know if this is his age or a specific number, but does sixteen mean anything?"
"Yes."
"That's his age," George said, nodding confidently.
Is there an instance of specificity to you? Can emotional and sensitive be applied to all young people? I would say yes. Will all parents say yes to the question? I would say yes because sensitive and emotional can be applied in a very wide range of ways to kids. It's not sensitive and emotional that GA asked. It could be interpreted in an "or" or "and" context.
Next, GA doesn't state the son's age. He first narrows it down between teens and twenties. Asks if he is tall? BL says yes which indicates a person past puberty, not an 11 to 14 year old. He doesn't even give a height. 5'6", 5'10", 6'2" would be specific to me. Do you consider the son's height of 5'11" to be tall? I would consider that average for a caucasian American. Since both the Licata parents were short (5'4"), an affirmative answer to the question if he's tall seems like a no-brainer. Onto the age question. He doesn't state that 16 is his age at first. He just asks if the number 16 could be his age or could mean something. Why did he have to put the "does 16 mean anything in there?" BL then says yes. He affirms he's 16. If GA knew, should he have said he's 16 years old right off the bat? Continuing:
"Okay. He says, 'Thank you.' When he crossed over, he said he was sixteen, but he's a big kid... He said he wasn't alone when this accident occurred. Someone else played a role in it."
"Yes"
How is this specific? Someone else playing a role in it could be a drinking buddy, the person he hit or hit him, an influential friend, etc. The parents could apply "played a role in it" and "wasn't alone when this accident occurred" in a number of ways. He also previously asked a question whether there was something strange about his case, and the affirmative answer helped set up these two questions.
"That's what he tells me. Someone else is involved."
"Yes."
"Another male."
"Yes."
"Was he severely cut by this blow?"
"Yes."
George suddenly stopped writing and looked into Barbara's eyes. "I'm afraid to say it. Was he murdered?"
"Yes."
"That's what he says. Just bear with me for a second. I'm getting so much emotion [that] I keep getting knocked to the edge. It keeps going down because of what he's trying to get across. Does broken glass have anything to do with this?"
"Yes."
"Because I keep seeing glass smashed in front of me."
"Yes."
"Was he hit with anything like a bottle?"
"Not a bottle."
"Sometimes I try to interpret what I see.... I see broken glass shattered in front of me. Was someplace broken into? Besides his being murdered, was there any other crime around?"
"I don't know the answer to that.?
"I keep praying for him that he take it easy and calm down and get off what he has to say. Is it possible that his murder was an accident?"
"Yes."
George looked up from his writing again and shook his head sympathetically. "Do you feel it was deliberate?"
"No."
"I have to say it wasn't. He says to me it was an accidental murder. It wasn't deliberate."
"Right."
Okay. What just transpired here? Was there anything specific in it? BL contradicts herself by saying its both a murder and an accident. How could that be? Does GA get a hit for knowing it was a murder? Does GA get a hit for knowing it was an accident? Does he cover all bases by saying it was a murder-accident, whatever that as. And this is all based on BL's answers. Why didn't he just say hit-and-run?
GA asks about broken glass. I was thinking fatal auto accident and broken glass is quite common, so no-brainer, but was thrown when he asks about a bottle. So what's up with the bottle, someone breaking through a window, and in general other crime questions? All negative answers as well. Was GA narrowing down all the possibilities for murder perhaps? I think so. Because BL did answer yes to the murder question, so he had to explore that mistaken answer. Gets negatives and it definitely involved a vehicle. Continuing:
George began writing again. "Without telling me anything but 'yes' or 'no', do you have any suspicions as to who it could have been? Because it's somebody he knows."
"Yes."
"It definitely is. It's a male."
"Yes."
"Did your son have any trouble with his chest?"
"Yes."
"No wonder I can't catch my breath.... Was your son very athletic?"
"Yes."
"Because I'm seeing that symbol as well." George then shifted in his as he raised his hands to the back of his head, as he had done earlier in the reading. Again he asked, "Was he struck in the back of the head?" When Barbara replied affirmatively, George repeated, "Was he struck in the back of his head? Because he was hit from behind, he tells. That's for a fact."
"Yes."
The part where GA states that someone who played role in the accident was someone the son knew threw me for a little. Can't figure it yet. Perhaps BL revealed something with her posture or face in the answers earlier.
He asked if the son had a head injury some 50 questions earlier. He's just narrowing down specifically where now. If your head is injured in the back, wouldn't it be logical for you to be hit from the back?
The athletic question is also setup for a latter "amazing how did he know that" question-statement from GA later on. He's already done it 2 or 3 times to the Licatas.
What specifics do you see here?
Continuing:
... "Was he out socially? He says, 'I was out socially." I see him ... he's off ... this might be a symbol, as I say, a dance place there. And I'm off, I'm outside of it, around it. Was he near a place of social gathering?"
"Yes."
To the Licatas, George seemed to be talking to himself. ... "All right," George was saying to what the Licatas were by now certain was the spirit of David, "calm down. Just tell me everything exactly as you want to."
John and Barbara watched and listened. After a few moments, George resumed the writing. "Was he found near a car? Why do I keep seeing car?"
"Yes."
"Was he in a car?"
"No."
"Near a car?"
"Yes."
"He keeps showing me himself near a car-"
"Yes."
George turned to the Licatas and explained, "He's going right to his face. There's something abobut the face he wants to tell me. I don't know what."
George again turned his attention to the spirit. "What do you want me to see?" he appeared to be asking the air. "I don't understand what you mean."
George was both frustrated and apologetic about his inability to comprehend the spirit's message. "Maybe he means that I'm not seeing something right," he offered, then warned the Licatas again not to divulge anything more than simple acknowledgements about the messages. "Did he have very dark eyes?"
"Yes"
"Very dark hair?"
"Yes"
"Tall, good-looking."
"Oh yes," Barbara said, beaming. Her husband nodded in agreement.
First set of questions he asks if the son is out socially, at a dance, then generically at a social gathering. Socially could easily mean out with the friend he was with to any subject. He already knew he was out with a friend. He asks about a dance, but covers all the bases by saying social gathering. Not very specific to me.
The car questions are again not specific and it seems to me GA is trying to find out what sort of accident it was. Since he asks whether he was in a car, and a negative was given, GA should have a very large clue on what sort of accident it was.
The hair questions are all generic. "Dark" is not a color, and covers half the spectrum of hair color. If the Licatas both had dark hair, or if JL had dark hair, it's easy to surmise the son had dark hair. People with dark hair very commonly have dark eyes. GA already asked the height question earlier. The good-looking question is subjective to which most parents would say yes. Continuing:
Looking up at the Licatas, George said, "He appears next to you. He shows me how he looks like. Was he near any place where there would have been alcoholic beverages when it happened?"
"Yes."
"They weren't in the right frame of mind. Nobody's been nailed yet, though."
"Right."
George returned to the young girl who had passed over before David. "He keeps saying, 'She met me when I came over.'"
"Yes."
"'She brought me into the light,' he says."
"Yes."
"You know her also."
"Yes."
"'Cause she says hello to you. She says, 'You remember me. You know who I am.'"
"Yes."
George's focus returned to David. "See, this is very strange because it seems he was not a troublesome young man."
"No."
"It seems that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time."
"Right."
"Did he go out alone?"
"No."
"Because I see friends. He went out with friends. A group of people."
Barbara interrupted, "George, can you send a message to him or do you just receive?"
"I can send back, but he can hear you also. He's standing next to you so undoubtedly he's perceiving anything you're thinking or feeling or whatever." After a moment, the reading continued. "Any other bodily injury at all besides the head?"
"No." (3)
"Was he big on track or something?"
"Not track."
"Some type of sport where you're using your legs."
"Yes." (4)
(3) At the time of this reading, Barbara knew that David suffered fatal head injuries. She would not learn until some three months after this reading that David's pelvis had also been broken. Earlier in the reading, George stated that he felt David had suffered back injuries. Now he is referring to it again. Although Barbara was unable to acknowledge it at this time, George was in fack correct.
(4) David was a soccer star at his high school
Anything specific here? I don't see any.
GA asked if the son was athletic some 50 questions earlier. He know guesses track or something. It's "or something", so he states something to do with the legs. Not to Joel Martin, GA did not state the son played soccer, just a sport where you're using your legs. Outside of chess, I can't think of a sport that doesn't use one's legs.
Earlier, GA asked if the son had any other injuries, and BL said she didn't know, not negatively. Here she says no. If there was, why didn't GA positively state he had other injuries? Also note to Joel Martin, GA asked if there were back injuries, not groin injuries. The pelvis is part of the groin not the back.
[quote]If I go by the quotes alone, ie, excluding what Martin writes, GA asks three questions, and Abrams answers with some rather strange questions for a derelict. GA was already suspicious (since he doesn't understand how the derelict got to his place and this was after going public with the radio show.) So I don't see it as surprising that he figures out Abrams was in disguise.
I would have been more impressed if GA come out and said Abrams was a psychiatrist right away, not after asking three questions, and being suspicious of an uncommon visitor who was some 50+ year old man dressed up as a bum who answers questions with questions. And this is the way a psychiatrist of some 30 years experience tests the authenticity of a medium?
I would, however, find it more intriguing if it was done in more controlled circumstances.<hr></blockquote>
Maybe this wasn't a brilliant example. As mentioned in my earlier email, the examples I quoted were just ones I particularly remembered and which I managed to find when flicking through the books. There's more in there!
I take your point - it is conceivable that Anderson could have guessed that his visitor was not who he appeared to be, but the only questions quoted are:
1/ "Sir, are you a professional?" - and that's after Anderson sees an image of Sigmund Freud over the man's head;
2/ "Well, I'm impressed to say that you are. Is it the medical profession? To tell you the truth, I see the symbol of Sigmund Freud's face over you."
3/ "I'm being told you are not what you appear to be. Are you a psychiatrist?"
The psychiatrist's only responses to these statements are:
"Am I?"
"Why do you say that?"
"You do?" - hardly the leading questions you suggest. Did GA just guess the man was a psychiatrist?
[quote]I was looking in the first couple of chapters as you indicated<hr></blockquote>
Did I?
[quote]I guess that Joel Martin doesn't understand how mediums could work (without the paranormal explanation.)<hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure what you mean here.
[quote] Experimentation would determine what their accuracy is. They should all submit to experimentation.<hr></blockquote>
As I think I've already explained, Anderson has submitted to experimentation. Several lab tests are described in these books - I referred you to one of these in my earlier email.
[quote]I'm not even impressed with the awareness of that particular instance. It's not like there wasn't a controversy over the fate of the children of Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette for nearly two centuries.<hr></blockquote>
I wasn't really trying to make an issue out of the word 'awareness'. I was just trying to differentiate the incident described from one of his normal readings.
[quote]All GA has to do is do some experimentation. Afterall, it would alter the very foundations of science. It is virtually his responsibility to do so.<hr></blockquote>
See my comment above. In general, I think science is very resistant to having its foundations altered and tends to ignore inconvenient information.
[quote]How detailed has he been? Look at the reading for the Licatas. Starting off where I left off previously when GA found out a girl the Licatas knew passed on before. Joel Martin writes:
Suddenly John Licata, who sat silently and who had so far let his wife respond to George's queries, shuddered. He had been watching and listening neither fully believed nor comprehended what was taking place. However, when George described a young girl greeting his son, John's skepticism began to waver. There was absolutely no way that George could have known that a young female friend of David's from their neighborhood had been strangled about four months before David was killed. ...
Was this specific to you? GA doesn't give a name, an age, what she looks like, when she died, what she died of, where she lived, etc. Remember, this was after asking 3 successively more general questions about whether the Licatas knew of a girl that passed on. Successively more general because he kept on getting negative answers. Continuing:
He's very, very restless. Let's hope he can get it off his chest now, whatever he has to say, so he can be at better rest. Was he very sensitive, very emotional?
"Yes"
"Because that's how he's now coming through. Just bear with me. He has to calm down. He's speaking so fast, I can't understand what he's saying. Would you say there's something strange about his case?"
"Yes."
"He's trying to explain something to me. I can't get it out of him. Late teens, early twenties?"
"No."
"Just teens."
"Yes."
"Okay. Was he tall?"
"Yes."
"That's what it is. He just appeared to me for a second. He looked pretty tall. I don't know if this is his age or a specific number, but does sixteen mean anything?"
"Yes."
"That's his age," George said, nodding confidently.
Is there an instance of specificity to you? Can emotional and sensitive be applied to all young people? I would say yes. Will all parents say yes to the question? I would say yes because sensitive and emotional can be applied in a very wide range of ways to kids. It's not sensitive and emotional that GA asked. It could be interpreted in an "or" or "and" context.
Next, GA doesn't state the son's age. He first narrows it down between teens and twenties. Asks if he is tall? BL says yes which indicates a person past puberty, not an 11 to 14 year old. He doesn't even give a height. 5'6", 5'10", 6'2" would be specific to me. Do you consider the son's height of 5'11" to be tall? I would consider that average for a caucasian American. Since both the Licata parents were short (5'4"), an affirmative answer to the question if he's tall seems like a no-brainer. Onto the age question. He doesn't state that 16 is his age at first. He just asks if the number 16 could be his age or could mean something. Why did he have to put the "does 16 mean anything in there?" BL then says yes. He affirms he's 16. If GA knew, should he have said he's 16 years old right off the bat? Continuing:
"Okay. He says, 'Thank you.' When he crossed over, he said he was sixteen, but he's a big kid... He said he wasn't alone when this accident occurred. Someone else played a role in it."
"Yes"
How is this specific? Someone else playing a role in it could be a drinking buddy, the person he hit or hit him, an influential friend, etc. The parents could apply "played a role in it" and "wasn't alone when this accident occurred" in a number of ways. He also previously asked a question whether there was something strange about his case, and the affirmative answer helped set up these two questions.
"That's what he tells me. Someone else is involved."
"Yes."
"Another male."
"Yes."
"Was he severely cut by this blow?"
"Yes."
George suddenly stopped writing and looked into Barbara's eyes. "I'm afraid to say it. Was he murdered?"
"Yes."
"That's what he says. Just bear with me for a second. I'm getting so much emotion [that] I keep getting knocked to the edge. It keeps going down because of what he's trying to get across. Does broken glass have anything to do with this?"
"Yes."
"Because I keep seeing glass smashed in front of me."
"Yes."
"Was he hit with anything like a bottle?"
"Not a bottle."
"Sometimes I try to interpret what I see.... I see broken glass shattered in front of me. Was someplace broken into? Besides his being murdered, was there any other crime around?"
"I don't know the answer to that.?
"I keep praying for him that he take it easy and calm down and get off what he has to say. Is it possible that his murder was an accident?"
"Yes."
George looked up from his writing again and shook his head sympathetically. "Do you feel it was deliberate?"
"No."
"I have to say it wasn't. He says to me it was an accidental murder. It wasn't deliberate."
"Right."
Okay. What just transpired here? Was there anything specific in it? BL contradicts herself by saying its both a murder and an accident. How could that be? Does GA get a hit for knowing it was a murder? Does GA get a hit for knowing it was an accident? Does he cover all bases by saying it was a murder-accident, whatever that as. And this is all based on BL's answers. Why didn't he just say hit-and-run?
GA asks about broken glass. I was thinking fatal auto accident and broken glass is quite common, so no-brainer, but was thrown when he asks about a bottle. So what's up with the bottle, someone breaking through a window, and in general other crime questions? All negative answers as well. Was GA narrowing down all the possibilities for murder perhaps? I think so. Because BL did answer yes to the murder question, so he had to explore that mistaken answer. Gets negatives and it definitely involved a vehicle. Continuing:
George began writing again. "Without telling me anything but 'yes' or 'no', do you have any suspicions as to who it could have been? Because it's somebody he knows."
"Yes."
"It definitely is. It's a male."
"Yes."
"Did your son have any trouble with his chest?"
"Yes."
"No wonder I can't catch my breath.... Was your son very athletic?"
"Yes."
"Because I'm seeing that symbol as well." George then shifted in his as he raised his hands to the back of his head, as he had done earlier in the reading. Again he asked, "Was he struck in the back of the head?" When Barbara replied affirmatively, George repeated, "Was he struck in the back of his head? Because he was hit from behind, he tells. That's for a fact."
"Yes."
The part where GA states that someone who played role in the accident was someone the son knew threw me for a little. Can't figure it yet. Perhaps BL revealed something with her posture or face in the answers earlier.
He asked if the son had a head injury some 50 questions earlier. He's just narrowing down specifically where now. If your head is injured in the back, wouldn't it be logical for you to be hit from the back?
The athletic question is also setup for a latter "amazing how did he know that" question-statement from GA later on. He's already done it 2 or 3 times to the Licatas.
What specifics do you see here?
Continuing:
... "Was he out socially? He says, 'I was out socially." I see him ... he's off ... this might be a symbol, as I say, a dance place there. And I'm off, I'm outside of it, around it. Was he near a place of social gathering?"
"Yes."
To the Licatas, George seemed to be talking to himself. ... "All right," George was saying to what the Licatas were by now certain was the spirit of David, "calm down. Just tell me everything exactly as you want to."
John and Barbara watched and listened. After a few moments, George resumed the writing. "Was he found near a car? Why do I keep seeing car?"
"Yes."
"Was he in a car?"
"No."
"Near a car?"
"Yes."
"He keeps showing me himself near a car-"
"Yes."
George turned to the Licatas and explained, "He's going right to his face. There's something abobut the face he wants to tell me. I don't know what."
George again turned his attention to the spirit. "What do you want me to see?" he appeared to be asking the air. "I don't understand what you mean."
George was both frustrated and apologetic about his inability to comprehend the spirit's message. "Maybe he means that I'm not seeing something right," he offered, then warned the Licatas again not to divulge anything more than simple acknowledgements about the messages. "Did he have very dark eyes?"
"Yes"
"Very dark hair?"
"Yes"
"Tall, good-looking."
"Oh yes," Barbara said, beaming. Her husband nodded in agreement.
First set of questions he asks if the son is out socially, at a dance, then generically at a social gathering. Socially could easily mean out with the friend he was with to any subject. He already knew he was out with a friend. He asks about a dance, but covers all the bases by saying social gathering. Not very specific to me.
The car questions are again not specific and it seems to me GA is trying to find out what sort of accident it was. Since he asks whether he was in a car, and a negative was given, GA should have a very large clue on what sort of accident it was.
The hair questions are all generic. "Dark" is not a color, and covers half the spectrum of hair color. If the Licatas both had dark hair, or if JL had dark hair, it's easy to surmise the son had dark hair. People with dark hair very commonly have dark eyes. GA already asked the height question earlier. The good-looking question is subjective to which most parents would say yes. Continuing:
Looking up at the Licatas, George said, "He appears next to you. He shows me how he looks like. Was he near any place where there would have been alcoholic beverages when it happened?"
"Yes."
"They weren't in the right frame of mind. Nobody's been nailed yet, though."
"Right."
George returned to the young girl who had passed over before David. "He keeps saying, 'She met me when I came over.'"
"Yes."
"'She brought me into the light,' he says."
"Yes."
"You know her also."
"Yes."
"'Cause she says hello to you. She says, 'You remember me. You know who I am.'"
"Yes."
George's focus returned to David. "See, this is very strange because it seems he was not a troublesome young man."
"No."
"It seems that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time."
"Right."
"Did he go out alone?"
"No."
"Because I see friends. He went out with friends. A group of people."
Barbara interrupted, "George, can you send a message to him or do you just receive?"
"I can send back, but he can hear you also. He's standing next to you so undoubtedly he's perceiving anything you're thinking or feeling or whatever." After a moment, the reading continued. "Any other bodily injury at all besides the head?"
"No." (3)
"Was he big on track or something?"
"Not track."
"Some type of sport where you're using your legs."
"Yes." (4)
(3) At the time of this reading, Barbara knew that David suffered fatal head injuries. She would not learn until some three months after this reading that David's pelvis had also been broken. Earlier in the reading, George stated that he felt David had suffered back injuries. Now he is referring to it again. Although Barbara was unable to acknowledge it at this time, George was in fack correct.
(4) David was a soccer star at his high school
Anything specific here? I don't see any.
GA asked if the son was athletic some 50 questions earlier. He know guesses track or something. It's "or something", so he states something to do with the legs. Not to Joel Martin, GA did not state the son played soccer, just a sport where you're using your legs. Outside of chess, I can't think of a sport that doesn't use one's legs.
Earlier, GA asked if the son had any other injuries, and BL said she didn't know, not negatively. Here she says no. If there was, why didn't GA positively state he had other injuries? Also note to Joel Martin, GA asked if there were back injuries, not groin injuries. The pelvis is part of the groin not the back.<hr></blockquote>
THT - these are all fair points, and yes, the statements quoted not are tremendously specific, and yes, I admit, it is possible that Anderson could have guessed some from the responses given. But as I've already said, the reading for the Licatas is just an introduction, used by the authors for dramatic affect. It is not supposed to be a complete tour of Anderson's abilities. What about the other examples I quoted? What about the rest of the books?
1/ "Sir, are you a professional?" - and that's after Anderson sees an image of Sigmund Freud over the man's head;
2/ "Well, I'm impressed to say that you are. Is it the medical profession? To tell you the truth, I see the symbol of Sigmund Freud's face over you."
3/ "I'm being told you are not what you appear to be. Are you a psychiatrist?"
The psychiatrist's only responses to these statements are:
"Am I?"
"Why do you say that?"
"You do?" - hardly the leading questions you suggest. Did GA just guess the man was a psychiatrist?</strong>
If GA saw the symbol he interprets as Sigmund Freud before he questions Abrams (the psychiatrist), why isn't it the first thing he says? Ie, why didn't GA say, "I see the symbol of Sigmund Freud, are you a psychiatrist?" instead of "Are you a professional?" as the very first question or statement? I would have been much more impressed if he said it outright.
Abrams was in disguise as a derelict, which my American Heritage dictionary says is a homeless person or a vagrant, and he answers the question of "are you a professional?" with "Am I?" If Abrams wanted to at least keep up the appearance of a derelict, shouldn't the appropriate answer been "no"? That's why I said they were strange questions. Instead, he seems to enter into a stereotypical psychiatrist answering questions with questions mode of conversation.
<strong>Did I?</strong>
I could find this funny if you put a smiley here. But in message posted on 03-31-2002 12:34 PM, you write:
And as for Martin, he may not be a skeptic in the sense I think you mean it (ie refusing to accept to accept any evidence), but he does explain in the first couple of chapters how he successfully debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA - not the typical behaviour of a gullible believer desperate for confirmatory evidence.
Does not "first couple of chapters" mean chapters 1 and 2, not 3?
<strong>I'm not sure what you mean here.</strong>
If Martin understood how mediums worked, he could have devised tests to determine GA's abilities, instead of the "Oh wow! It's so amazing it must be real!" sort of thing when GA gets a platform of his own choosing.
<strong>I wasn't really trying to make an issue out of the word 'awareness'. I was just trying to differentiate the incident described from one of his normal readings.</strong>
Yeah, GA won't go out on limb like that anymore No, my comment was geared towards the incompetence of the instructor (at least with the fate of royal children) since the fate of the Dauphin was debated for nearly two centuries. It's not a particularly amazing "awareness" nor reading.
An amazing reading would be like "Amelia Earhart washed ashore in the Philipines" or something, and we go there and find her.
<strong>As I think I've already explained, Anderson has submitted to experimentation. Several lab tests are described in these books - I referred you to one of these in my earlier email.
...
See my comment above. In general, I think science is very resistant to having its foundations altered and tends to ignore inconvenient information.</strong>
If GA and Martin can conduct the experiment (or have someone do it for them), show its results, and GA and is willing to submit himself for repeat experiments and performs well, science won't have a choice.
As for what you have submitted before, at least in reply to me, all I saw was:
5/ We Are Not Forgotten (sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), Ps. 303-309: Anderson undergoes a videotaped electroencephalogram test. ... The supervising doctor describes the reading as ?abnormal? and acknowledges that ?something really is going on?.
I'm interested in reading about the test. It'll take some time. Any others?
<strong>THT - these are all fair points, and yes, the statements quoted not are tremendously specific,</strong>
They are not even specific let alone tremendously specific.
<strong>What about the other examples I quoted? What about the rest of the books? </strong>
Okay, THT, The Blue Meanie is back. Been away for a couple of days. I have now received a reply to my email from the co-author of these books and she has given some interesting answers and reminded of a few things I had forgotten. But I need a bit more time to get my response together. Watch this space - I'll post here tomorrow.
Comments
<strong>
He was trying to show me how I was wrong saying that Muslims and Christians are not the same. His argument: "Their books have the same stories in them." Not a valid stand as the underlying religion is largely different in beliefs and creed. (if you understood his stand then sorry, but hey you butted in.
I agree with you completely. I wasn't trying to butt into your discussion, just his assertions about Christianity and Islam. I've heard this before from others and it is YABA (yet another bogus argument). It's another example of affirming the consequent:
IF (Christianity = Islam) THEN (their holy books should be similar) is a reasonable argument. However,
IF (their holy books are similar) THEN (Christianity = Islam) is NOT a reasonable argument. I was pointing out that there are many cultural and historical reasons for the similarities which have nothing to do with theology. I think we are arguing the same point from two different angles.
So, I'll leave you two to your discussion. I just wanted to interject my objections to the stated argument. If The Blue Meanie wants to try to equate Christianity with Islam, he's welcome to continue trying. Similarities between the people and stories Bible and the Koran are not a valid basis for such an argument, IMHO. The distinction is how those stories are used to illustrate the underlying theology (well, aside from all that salvation stuff Jesus and Paul went on about...
<strong>
If The Blue Meanie wants to try to equate Christianity with Islam, he's welcome to continue trying. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I dont' want to do that. The two faiths are clearly different. I was just trying to make the point that the Koran and the Bible have more common ground than is sometimes remembered
<strong>
Really? They believe that Jesus is the Messiah? The Saviour? The only way to get to Heaven? That he died on the Cross to take away the sins of the world? That he rose again on the third day? That he sits at the right hand of God and intercedes on our behalf? THey believe all that? Because if they do then I am wrong. If they don't then they are NOT Christians as Christians have the whole Jesus was the messiah thing going on. Kinda a cornerstone and all.
Well, no, Muslims are not Christians. They don't have that whole 'Jesus was the Messiah' thang going on. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of God, a forerunner of Muhammed, whose teachings were subsequently distorted, and that equating a man (Jesus) with God is idolatory - all irrelevant in The Blue Meanie's humble opinion. I was just trying to make the point that there is a lot of common ground between Islam, Chrisitianity and Judaism ? but that doesn't mean one equals the other, clearly.
<strong>
Well, no, Muslims are not Christians. They don't have that whole 'Jesus was the Messiah' thang going on. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of God, a forerunner of Muhammed, whose teachings were subsequently distorted, and that equating a man (Jesus) with God is idolatory - all irrelevant in The Blue Meanie's humble opinion. I was just trying to make the point that there is a lot of common ground between Islam, Chrisitianity and Judaism ? but that doesn't mean one equals the other, clearly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like back-pedaling a bit. But I will not pursue it. I realize that the books are similar and it would make sense that they are given their similar cultural backgrounds and roots. However you appeared to be saying something that you were apparently not.
Number four is an experiment, surely? And number one also involved the author attempting to mislead Anderson. And all suggest that Anderson's powers might be genuine.</strong>
They are the usual readings GA performs. That a skeptic or a psychiatrist (or was it psychologist) took part in the reading doesn't make it an experiment. Not to mention that Joel Martin didn't seem like a skeptic to me (he said he didn't think about it) nor that the psychiatrist dude believed in the stuff in the first place.
Things that an experiment would do is characterize GA's abilities. In what situations he performs best at, what particular people he reads the best, what sort of information he gives, and so on. Like how well would he perform if the subject sits there silent. I would think he'd suck if they kept their mouthes shut.
Also, the point about arguing muslims, and the Smith idea, is merely to point out that you are all invested in your interpretive vocabulary to the point that it seems to be the ultimate truth and no other is real . . .naturally that seems so right for 'true believers' . . . but, even if in a thousand years we were all muslim and argueing like this, the vocabulary would be defining the parameters in the same way: the given interpretive framework creates your answers for you: your 'god' is just a being, like an object in the world, unless you let go of your schemas, frameworks and phrase bound spiritualities.
or as Wittgenstein said:
"I want to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle"
Just another note:
the problem with God is that he isn't God enough
<strong>Yes to doubt strengthening faith . . . but to the point that one may venture out without holding daddy's hand: that's where things start to get really interesting. Let go of the specifics --the beings in the world-- and start asking about the Being of the world.
Also, the point about arguing muslims, and the Smith idea, is merely to point out that you are all invested in your interpretive vocabulary to the point that it seems to be the ultimate truth and no other is real . . .naturally that seems so right for 'true believers' . . . but, even if in a thousand years we were all muslim and argueing like this, the vocabulary would be defining the parameters in the same way: the given interpretive framework creates your answers for you: your 'god' is just a being, like an object in the world, unless you let go of your schemas, frameworks and phrase bound spiritualities.
or as Wittgenstein said:
"I want to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle"
Just another note:
the problem with God is that he isn't God enough</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to have some important things you're trying to say, but the way you are writing them is almost incoherent. There are some huge gaps in your statements that you seem to assume we can fill. For example, I have seen both of your last two quotes before. I don't see how they are connected to your previous comments, or what point you are trying to make with them. Please, pick a fairly narrow topic and flesh it out with enough examples and commentary (minus the philosophy buzzwords) that I can figure out what it is you're saying. At this point I'm not sure if you're arguing for Christianity or against it, or for some other philosophical/religious point of view. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 03-29-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
that sums up what I am trying to say: namely that this thread, and its continuation ad nauseum, reveals that the 'points of view' are conditioning all the possibilities of what is being said.
Because you all have so much invested in the frameworks from which each of you are arguing you will merely run in circles: circling around the vocabulary that defines your answers for you. This is the 'fly-bottle' which holds the fly prisoner. By stating this I am saying that both the idea of God and the ideas of athiesm are as small as the walls of the bottle.
I'm not incoherent, I'm merely refusing to jump into your terminologies.
another way of phrasing the last note of my last post:
God is more than God
Because you all have so much invested in the frameworks from which each of you are arguing you will merely run in circles: circling around the vocabulary that defines your answers for you. This is the 'fly-bottle' which holds the fly prisoner. By stating this I am saying that both the idea of God and the ideas of athiesm are as small as the walls of the bottle.</strong>
So tell me, what happens when we get out of the bottle?
[ 03-29-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>
that sums up what I am trying to say: namely that this thread, and its continuation ad nauseum, reveals that the 'points of view' are conditioning all the possibilities of what is being said.
Because you all have so much invested in the frameworks from which each of you are arguing you will merely run in circles: circling around the vocabulary that defines your answers for you. This is the 'fly-bottle' which holds the fly prisoner. By stating this I am saying that both the idea of God and the ideas of athiesm are as small as the walls of the bottle.
I'm not incoherent, I'm merely refusing to jump into your terminologies.
another way of phrasing the last note of my last post:
God is more than God</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the translation. Unfortunately, every field of human thought brings its own terms and jargon. Religion is no different. I am unfamiliar enough with the jargon you were using as to not be able to figure out what you were trying to say. I didn't mean to imply that you personally were incoherent, only that it was incoherent to me trying to read it.
Anyway, I agree with you completely with regards to God. It is rather frustrating to try to figure out The Supreme Being with my puny brain. God is beyond words and description, so any attempt to describe Him using human language is inherently distorted and limited. Your point is well taken - God is God. There are no words that can describe Him. The philosophical/theological frameworks we build to try and understand Him can easily become a jail - not for God, but for our own thinking.
To paraphrase (very roughly) Thomas Aquinas: "Logic is a crutch for a limited mind". A pure intellect would simply Know, without having to resort to logical deduction. We must "figure things out" because our minds are feeble. We construct doctrines and dogma as a way of getting God into bite-sized chunks that we can at least partially digest. It is all too easy, though, to forget that the doctrines and dogma are purely man-made as a concession to humans' limited intelligence. As poor as these are at "defining" God, the only alternative is to give up completely - which is even worse, IMHO. God is, indeed more than God.
So I hope I don't seem to you to be too much a "prisoner of my terminology." That terminology is about all we've got to work with. And thanks again for restating your post. I thought that was the gist of what you were getting at, but I didn't feel comfortable jumping in with a reply that completely missed the mark. Your input is/was/will be quite welcome, as far as I am concerned.
<strong>I'm not incoherent, I'm merely refusing to jump into your terminologies.
another way of phrasing the last note of my last post:
God is more than God</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, I see where you are going as well, but as I have stated before, you are confusing as heck about it. You can complain all you want about jargon and whatnot, Christians have lots of words about God and faith and religion that confuse non-christians, and they should not. But your posts were so full of ??? that I could not decipher it even with my super secret decoder ring. The last post was quite a bit more clear, but still you use a lot of words, and it doesn't say much to me.
As for your last sentence, I would say to anyone;
Your definition of God is less than what God really is.
However, without a definition to work with it is really hard to know, even slightly, who it is that you are following. Hard to have a relationship with someone that you do not "know" at all. Eh?
<strong>
They are the usual readings GA performs. That a skeptic or a psychiatrist (or was it psychologist) took part in the reading doesn't make it an experiment. Not to mention that Joel Martin didn't seem like a skeptic to me (he said he didn't think about it) nor that the psychiatrist dude believed in the stuff in the first place.
Things that an experiment would do is characterize GA's abilities. In what situations he performs best at, what particular people he reads the best, what sort of information he gives, and so on. Like how well would he perform if the subject sits there silent. I would think he'd suck if they kept their mouthes shut.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The "psychiatrist dude believed in the stuff in the first place"? Where does it say that? And as for Martin, he may not be a skeptic in the sense I think you mean it (ie refusing to accept to accept any evidence), but he does explain in the first couple of chapters how he successfully debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA - not the typical behaviour of a gullible believer desperate for confirmatory evidence.
Anyway, whatever they did or didn't believe, the point I was trying to make is that they were deliberately trying to deceive GA and failed to do so. But yes, I take your point, they
weren't experiments int the strictly controlled, laboratory sense of the term.
[quote] I would think he'd suck if they kept their mouthes shut. <hr></blockquote>
Really? I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there. IMHO you're making too much of this yes-no stuff. My own point of view would be that whether the subjects respond to statements with yes or no is secondary to the question of whether GA could really produce his information through a process of deduction from the subjects' answers...
The "psychiatrist dude believed in the stuff in the first place"? Where does it say that?</strong>
I've got the hardcover 1988 edition. On page 118:
Mr. Martin, I am a thirty-year veteran of the psychiatric profession, and I hold a deep interest and belief in parapsychology and survival research. I have my very own definite theories. George gave quite an impressive demonstration, or he was the greatest psychic hoax I have ever heard perpetuated publicly, and I will spare no effort to expose both you and George as frauds!
Abrams came to GA disguised as a derelict a few months later, and GA figures out Abrams is a psychiatrist after a few questions. This convinces Abrams that GA is genuine. He doesn't give GA any sort of testing. Doesn't characterize any of GA's abilities. That's sparing no effort? That's just a very short reading for a person who already believes that mediums can be genuine.
An experimenter or a scientist does not believe in favor of one theory over another. They perform the experiment, and the results will show what is true.
<strong>And as for Martin, he may not be a skeptic in the sense I think you mean it (ie refusing to accept to accept any evidence), but he does explain in the first couple of chapters how he successfully debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA - not the typical behaviour of a gullible believer desperate for confirmatory evidence.</strong>
He didn't do that in We Don't Die, explain that he debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA. He just said that he exposed fraudulent mediums before in his media work in one sentence in the 2 page Foreword of WDD. No references to who or where. To me, that's not an explanation.
<strong>IMHO you're making too much of this yes-no stuff. My own point of view would be that whether the subjects respond to statements with yes or no is secondary to the question of whether GA could really produce his information through a process of deduction from the subjects' answers...</strong>
Just perform the experiment where the subjects don't say a word, and it'll give us the answer to whether GA "could really produce his information through a process of deduction from the subjects' answers". If GA is able to produce details of subjects that stay silent, then we have something to work on.
In fact, have one group of people answer as GA requests. Have another group stay silent. Have a group of foreigners (French, Russians, Japanese, etc.). Have a group of old people. Have a group of young people. Have a group of middle age people. Have a mix of people who lie and tell the truth.
Hmm... just looked at page 55 and Martin writes:
Having these psychic powers wasn't always a problem, however. Besides keeping bullies at bay. George's abilities served him in other unusual ways. One day during his sophomore year, he sat quietly listening to Sister Aquinas lecture on the French Revolution and the fate of the royal family.
"Louis XVI was executed," she stated, to which George nodded in agreement, "and Marie Antoinette followed soon after." George nodded again.
"The princess, little daughter Maria Theresa, was executed."
"Wrong," George said quietly.
The nun. who didn't hear him, continued, "The dauphin was executed next. The dauphin is the prince who is heir to the throne."
At that, George could no longer keep quiet. "Wrong! I know what happened to the royal children."
"George, I'll put you through a wall, if-" the nun began before composing herself. "All right, George, what do you think happened."
Suddenly, George, who had never read of heard a word about the children's fates, found himself standing before the class and saying, "First of all, the girl was never executed. She lived in the tower until she was taken to Austria by sympathetic aristocrats. The people more or less just sympathized with her in the tower, and they let her go."
Sister Aquinas lost her temper, telling George that she had never read any such thing. (If only she'd known that George hadn't either!) "What do you think happened to the dauphin?"
"He was in prison, but he was smuggled out of the country and taken to England."
The nun stared at George until he sat back down. But when she later researched the subject, she discovered that what he said about the princess was correct. She was not, however, able to corroborate his version of what happened to the dauphin. But how did George know?
All George knew was the information was "just there." He later reasoned that it either was given to him by spirits or might have resulted from the recall of a personal past-life experience.
We now know that dauphin did indeed die in that prison and was dumped in a mass grave along with all the other aristocrats. He was not whisked away and an imposter put in his place in prison.
<a href="http://www.geneletter.org/01-02-01/features/dauphin.html"; target="_blank">The heart of the dauphin</a>
By Dorothy C. Wertz, PhD
Comparison of DNA sequences in the mitochondria of cells from the heart to that of these four royal individuals suggests that the heart, long preserved in a crystal urn, indeed belonged to the son of Marie Antoinette.
...
<a href="http://medweb.uni-muenster.de/institute/remed/IfRenglish/news/TIME01_05_00.html"; target="_blank">Requiem for a Dauphin</a>
DNA analysis reveals that the young heir to the French throne left to die in prison was no impostor
BY NADYA LABI
...
The boy who died in Temple prison and whose body was dumped in a mass grave really was Louis Charles, DNA tests have revealed. Scientists Jean-Jacques Cassiman and Bernd Brinkmann compared the mitochondrial DNA of the boy's mummified heart with samples from locks of hair taken from his mother, two of her sisters and two living maternal relatives. The sequences were all identical. Cassiman pronounced the results definitive, while conceding that "the heart was not ideally preserved for this test."
...
So, is GA simply mistaken? Did GA remember mistakenly? Was he lying to Martin? Is he and Martin in collusion? Did GA just look into the subject of what happened to the royal children and showed up his instructor?
[ 03-31-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
Mr. Martin, I am a thirty-year veteran of the psychiatric profession, and I hold a deep interest and belief in parapsychology and survival research. I have my very own definite theories. George gave quite an impressive demonstration, or he was the greatest psychic hoax I have ever heard perpetuated publicly, and I will spare no effort to expose both you and George as frauds!
Abrams came to GA disguised as a derelict a few months later, and GA figures out Abrams is a psychiatrist after a few questions. This convinces Abrams that GA is genuine. He doesn't give GA any sort of testing. Doesn't characterize any of GA's abilities. That's sparing no effort? That's just a very short reading for a person who already believes that mediums can be genuine.
An experimenter or a scientist does not believe in favor of one theory over another. They perform the experiment, and the results will show what is true.<hr></blockquote>
Touche, I didn't remember that bit. Fair enough, so that particular incident fails the lab test for strict impartiality. But I still don't think a pre-existing "belief" in the paranormal on the part of the psychatrist provides an adequate explanation for the incident. What about GA seeing a vision of Sigmund Freud over the man's head?
What about GA abruptly announcing: "I'm being told you are not what you appear to be"?
BTW, it appears we do have different editions. In my copy this incident is on ps 109-110. We will have to adjust each other's page references.
[quote]He didn't do that in We Don't Die, explain that he debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA. He just said that he exposed fraudulent mediums before in his media work in one sentence in the 2 page Foreword of WDD. No references to who or where. To me, that's not an explanation.<hr></blockquote>
See ps. 58-59 (in my edition that is - it's just before the reading with Martin I quoted as my first example), Admittedly he only lists two specific examples here (and only goes into detail about one). But that's more than one sentence in the forward.
[quote]Just perform the experiment where the subjects don't say a word, and it'll give us the answer to whether GA "could really produce his information through a process of deduction from the subjects' answers".<hr></blockquote>
Really? I'm sorry, THT, but I remain sceptical about this point. I accept that it is possible to work the identity of particular objects and common concepts through a process of elimination from yes/ no answers - but you try working out, through the same process, the name, appearance, personality, characteristics and personal secrets of a randomly chosen deceased relative of a person you've never met before. Yes, it's possible that positive confirmations might help to steer a fraudulent medium in the right direction in a few instances, but that doesn't come anywhere near to explaining the level of detail produced in these readings.
[quote]We now know that dauphin did indeed die in that prison and was dumped in a mass grave along with all the other aristocrats. He was not whisked away and an imposter put in his place in prison.
The heart of the dauphin
By Dorothy C. Wertz, PhD
Comparison of DNA sequences in the mitochondria of cells from the heart to that of these four royal individuals suggests that the heart, long preserved in a crystal urn, indeed belonged to the son of Marie Antoinette.
...
Requiem for a Dauphin
DNA analysis reveals that the young heir to the French throne left to die in prison was no impostor
BY NADYA LABI
...
The boy who died in Temple prison and whose body was dumped in a mass grave really was Louis Charles, DNA tests have revealed. Scientists Jean-Jacques Cassiman and Bernd Brinkmann compared the mitochondrial DNA of the boy's mummified heart with samples from locks of hair taken from his mother, two of her sisters and two living maternal relatives. The sequences were all identical. Cassiman pronounced the results definitive, while conceding that "the heart was not ideally preserved for this test."
...
So, is GA simply mistaken? Did GA remember mistakenly? Was he lying to Martin? Is he and Martin in collusion? Did GA just look into the subject of what happened to the royal children and showed up his instructor?<hr></blockquote>
I must admit, this rattled my cage when I read it.... So ya got me ? it takes a lot to rattle the Blue Meanie's cage. I don't have a neat answer for you and I have in fact just emailed one of the book's authors about this particular point ? (no, I don't know her, I just happened to find her email address on the web). It'll be interesting to see if we get a response.
All I can say at this stage is that no reputable medium would claim to be 100 per cent accurate all the time, and certainly no claims of that nature are made for GA in those books (I don't have a page reference to hand, but the point is made several times that he is only 90 per cent + accurate). Sceptics often assume that mediums have to be entirely accurate all the time or it's all fraudulence - but there is no reasons to assume it has to be like that. Psychic abilities seem to be more like tuning a radio to a particular station - a certain amount of interference is inevitable.
What you have to do is look at inaccuracies in context and use your judgement (not to mention, weigh up the inaccuracies against the accuracies One inaccuracy doesn't make everything else inaccurate). In the example on ps 58-59, Martin catches out a fraudulent medium when she fails to recognise the wife of the spirit she claims to be directly channeling - a fairly devastating hole in her claims. With this unrecorded, second-hand anecdote from Anderson's childhood, however, we are talking about an unattributed psychic "awareness" of some kind - or possibly just the product of a desire to show up his vivid (*EDIT: I meant to type 'vindicative') teachers and a vivid imagination. In either case, we are not talking about a specific, face-to-face reading.
In addition, Anderson is reported as having corrected the nun for claiming that the dauphin was executed and the second of the two articles you link to explains that he in fact died of TB. Secondly, Anderson merely says that the dauphin was taken to England, he doesn't say that he died there. And thirdly, the samples used for reading may have been misattributed. In the hysterical atmosphere of the times and with the subsequent passing of two whole centuries, that is surely not inconceivable. But of course, I realise that this will all sound like a cop-out to you and is not a real answer. We'll have to see if I get a response to my email...
[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Touche, I didn't remember that bit. Fair enough, so that particular incident fails the lab test for strict impartiality. But I still don't think a pre-existing "belief" in the paranormal on the part of the psychatrist provides an adequate explanation for the incident.</strong>
I don't care if someone is biased one way or the other, impartial or not. They just need to do a proper experiment.
<strong>What about GA seeing a vision of Sigmund Freud over the man's head? What about GA abruptly announcing: "I'm being told you are not what you appear to be"?</strong>
If I go by the quotes alone, ie, excluding what Martin writes, GA asks three questions, and Abrams answers with some rather strange questions for a derelict. GA was already suspicious (since he doesn't understand how the derelict got to his place and this was after going public with the radio show.) So I don't see it as surprising that he figures out Abrams was in disguise.
I would have been more impressed if GA come out and said Abrams was a psychiatrist right away, not after asking three questions, and being suspicious of an uncommon visitor who was some 50+ year old man dressed up as a bum who answers questions with questions. And this is the way a psychiatrist of some 30 years experience tests the authenticity of a medium?
I would, however, find it more intriguing if it was done in more controlled circumstances.
<strong>See ps. 58-59 (in my edition that is - it's just before the reading with Martin I quoted as my first example), Admittedly he only lists two specific examples here (and only goes into detail about one). But that's more than one sentence in the forward.</strong>
I found it on page 69-70. It was in Chapter 3. I was looking in the first couple of chapters as you indicated
<strong>Sceptics often assume that mediums have to be entirely accurate all the time or it's all fraudulence - but there is no reasons to assume it has to be like that. Psychic abilities seem to be more like tuning a radio to a particular station - a certain amount of interference is inevitable.</strong>
Experimentation would determine what their accuracy is. They should all submit to experimentation.
<strong>With this unrecorded, second-hand anecdote from Anderson's childhood, however, we are talking about an unattributed psychic "awareness" of some kind - or possibly just a desire to show up his vivid teachers and a vivid imagination.</strong>
I'm not even impressed with the awareness of that particular instance. It's not like there wasn't a controversy over the fate of the children of Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette for nearly two centuries.
<strong>But of course, I realise that this will all sound like a cop-out to you and is not a real answer. We'll have to see if I get a response to my email...</strong>
All GA has to do is do some experimentation. Afterall, it would alter the very foundations of science. It is virtually his responsibility to do so.
<strong>... but you try working out, through the same process, the name, appearance, personality, characteristics and personal secrets of a randomly chosen deceased relative of a person you've never met before.</strong>
How detailed has he been? Look at the reading for the Licatas. Starting off where I left off previously when GA found out a girl the Licatas knew passed on before. Joel Martin writes:
Suddenly John Licata, who sat silently and who had so far let his wife respond to George's queries, shuddered. He had been watching and listening neither fully believed nor comprehended what was taking place. However, when George described a young girl greeting his son, John's skepticism began to waver. There was absolutely no way that George could have known that a young female friend of David's from their neighborhood had been strangled about four months before David was killed. ...
Was this specific to you? GA doesn't give a name, an age, what she looks like, when she died, what she died of, where she lived, etc. Remember, this was after asking 3 successively more general questions about whether the Licatas knew of a girl that passed on. Successively more general because he kept on getting negative answers. Continuing:
He's very, very restless. Let's hope he can get it off his chest now, whatever he has to say, so he can be at better rest. Was he very sensitive, very emotional?
"Yes"
"Because that's how he's now coming through. Just bear with me. He has to calm down. He's speaking so fast, I can't understand what he's saying. Would you say there's something strange about his case?"
"Yes."
"He's trying to explain something to me. I can't get it out of him. Late teens, early twenties?"
"No."
"Just teens."
"Yes."
"Okay. Was he tall?"
"Yes."
"That's what it is. He just appeared to me for a second. He looked pretty tall. I don't know if this is his age or a specific number, but does sixteen mean anything?"
"Yes."
"That's his age," George said, nodding confidently.
Is there an instance of specificity to you? Can emotional and sensitive be applied to all young people? I would say yes. Will all parents say yes to the question? I would say yes because sensitive and emotional can be applied in a very wide range of ways to kids. It's not sensitive and emotional that GA asked. It could be interpreted in an "or" or "and" context.
Next, GA doesn't state the son's age. He first narrows it down between teens and twenties. Asks if he is tall? BL says yes which indicates a person past puberty, not an 11 to 14 year old. He doesn't even give a height. 5'6", 5'10", 6'2" would be specific to me. Do you consider the son's height of 5'11" to be tall? I would consider that average for a caucasian American. Since both the Licata parents were short (5'4"), an affirmative answer to the question if he's tall seems like a no-brainer. Onto the age question. He doesn't state that 16 is his age at first. He just asks if the number 16 could be his age or could mean something. Why did he have to put the "does 16 mean anything in there?" BL then says yes. He affirms he's 16. If GA knew, should he have said he's 16 years old right off the bat? Continuing:
"Okay. He says, 'Thank you.' When he crossed over, he said he was sixteen, but he's a big kid... He said he wasn't alone when this accident occurred. Someone else played a role in it."
"Yes"
How is this specific? Someone else playing a role in it could be a drinking buddy, the person he hit or hit him, an influential friend, etc. The parents could apply "played a role in it" and "wasn't alone when this accident occurred" in a number of ways. He also previously asked a question whether there was something strange about his case, and the affirmative answer helped set up these two questions.
"That's what he tells me. Someone else is involved."
"Yes."
"Another male."
"Yes."
"Was he severely cut by this blow?"
"Yes."
George suddenly stopped writing and looked into Barbara's eyes. "I'm afraid to say it. Was he murdered?"
"Yes."
"That's what he says. Just bear with me for a second. I'm getting so much emotion [that] I keep getting knocked to the edge. It keeps going down because of what he's trying to get across. Does broken glass have anything to do with this?"
"Yes."
"Because I keep seeing glass smashed in front of me."
"Yes."
"Was he hit with anything like a bottle?"
"Not a bottle."
"Sometimes I try to interpret what I see.... I see broken glass shattered in front of me. Was someplace broken into? Besides his being murdered, was there any other crime around?"
"I don't know the answer to that.?
"I keep praying for him that he take it easy and calm down and get off what he has to say. Is it possible that his murder was an accident?"
"Yes."
George looked up from his writing again and shook his head sympathetically. "Do you feel it was deliberate?"
"No."
"I have to say it wasn't. He says to me it was an accidental murder. It wasn't deliberate."
"Right."
Okay. What just transpired here? Was there anything specific in it? BL contradicts herself by saying its both a murder and an accident. How could that be? Does GA get a hit for knowing it was a murder? Does GA get a hit for knowing it was an accident? Does he cover all bases by saying it was a murder-accident, whatever that as. And this is all based on BL's answers. Why didn't he just say hit-and-run?
GA asks about broken glass. I was thinking fatal auto accident and broken glass is quite common, so no-brainer, but was thrown when he asks about a bottle. So what's up with the bottle, someone breaking through a window, and in general other crime questions? All negative answers as well. Was GA narrowing down all the possibilities for murder perhaps? I think so. Because BL did answer yes to the murder question, so he had to explore that mistaken answer. Gets negatives and it definitely involved a vehicle. Continuing:
George began writing again. "Without telling me anything but 'yes' or 'no', do you have any suspicions as to who it could have been? Because it's somebody he knows."
"Yes."
"It definitely is. It's a male."
"Yes."
"Did your son have any trouble with his chest?"
"Yes."
"No wonder I can't catch my breath.... Was your son very athletic?"
"Yes."
"Because I'm seeing that symbol as well." George then shifted in his as he raised his hands to the back of his head, as he had done earlier in the reading. Again he asked, "Was he struck in the back of the head?" When Barbara replied affirmatively, George repeated, "Was he struck in the back of his head? Because he was hit from behind, he tells. That's for a fact."
"Yes."
The part where GA states that someone who played role in the accident was someone the son knew threw me for a little. Can't figure it yet. Perhaps BL revealed something with her posture or face in the answers earlier.
He asked if the son had a head injury some 50 questions earlier. He's just narrowing down specifically where now. If your head is injured in the back, wouldn't it be logical for you to be hit from the back?
The athletic question is also setup for a latter "amazing how did he know that" question-statement from GA later on. He's already done it 2 or 3 times to the Licatas.
What specifics do you see here?
Continuing:
... "Was he out socially? He says, 'I was out socially." I see him ... he's off ... this might be a symbol, as I say, a dance place there. And I'm off, I'm outside of it, around it. Was he near a place of social gathering?"
"Yes."
To the Licatas, George seemed to be talking to himself. ... "All right," George was saying to what the Licatas were by now certain was the spirit of David, "calm down. Just tell me everything exactly as you want to."
John and Barbara watched and listened. After a few moments, George resumed the writing. "Was he found near a car? Why do I keep seeing car?"
"Yes."
"Was he in a car?"
"No."
"Near a car?"
"Yes."
"He keeps showing me himself near a car-"
"Yes."
George turned to the Licatas and explained, "He's going right to his face. There's something abobut the face he wants to tell me. I don't know what."
George again turned his attention to the spirit. "What do you want me to see?" he appeared to be asking the air. "I don't understand what you mean."
George was both frustrated and apologetic about his inability to comprehend the spirit's message. "Maybe he means that I'm not seeing something right," he offered, then warned the Licatas again not to divulge anything more than simple acknowledgements about the messages. "Did he have very dark eyes?"
"Yes"
"Very dark hair?"
"Yes"
"Tall, good-looking."
"Oh yes," Barbara said, beaming. Her husband nodded in agreement.
First set of questions he asks if the son is out socially, at a dance, then generically at a social gathering. Socially could easily mean out with the friend he was with to any subject. He already knew he was out with a friend. He asks about a dance, but covers all the bases by saying social gathering. Not very specific to me.
The car questions are again not specific and it seems to me GA is trying to find out what sort of accident it was. Since he asks whether he was in a car, and a negative was given, GA should have a very large clue on what sort of accident it was.
The hair questions are all generic. "Dark" is not a color, and covers half the spectrum of hair color. If the Licatas both had dark hair, or if JL had dark hair, it's easy to surmise the son had dark hair. People with dark hair very commonly have dark eyes. GA already asked the height question earlier. The good-looking question is subjective to which most parents would say yes. Continuing:
Looking up at the Licatas, George said, "He appears next to you. He shows me how he looks like. Was he near any place where there would have been alcoholic beverages when it happened?"
"Yes."
"They weren't in the right frame of mind. Nobody's been nailed yet, though."
"Right."
George returned to the young girl who had passed over before David. "He keeps saying, 'She met me when I came over.'"
"Yes."
"'She brought me into the light,' he says."
"Yes."
"You know her also."
"Yes."
"'Cause she says hello to you. She says, 'You remember me. You know who I am.'"
"Yes."
George's focus returned to David. "See, this is very strange because it seems he was not a troublesome young man."
"No."
"It seems that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time."
"Right."
"Did he go out alone?"
"No."
"Because I see friends. He went out with friends. A group of people."
Barbara interrupted, "George, can you send a message to him or do you just receive?"
"I can send back, but he can hear you also. He's standing next to you so undoubtedly he's perceiving anything you're thinking or feeling or whatever." After a moment, the reading continued. "Any other bodily injury at all besides the head?"
"No." (3)
"Was he big on track or something?"
"Not track."
"Some type of sport where you're using your legs."
"Yes." (4)
(3) At the time of this reading, Barbara knew that David suffered fatal head injuries. She would not learn until some three months after this reading that David's pelvis had also been broken. Earlier in the reading, George stated that he felt David had suffered back injuries. Now he is referring to it again. Although Barbara was unable to acknowledge it at this time, George was in fack correct.
(4) David was a soccer star at his high school
Anything specific here? I don't see any.
GA asked if the son was athletic some 50 questions earlier. He know guesses track or something. It's "or something", so he states something to do with the legs. Not to Joel Martin, GA did not state the son played soccer, just a sport where you're using your legs. Outside of chess, I can't think of a sport that doesn't use one's legs.
Earlier, GA asked if the son had any other injuries, and BL said she didn't know, not negatively. Here she says no. If there was, why didn't GA positively state he had other injuries? Also note to Joel Martin, GA asked if there were back injuries, not groin injuries. The pelvis is part of the groin not the back.
Getting tired. Will continue later, Meanie.
[quote]If I go by the quotes alone, ie, excluding what Martin writes, GA asks three questions, and Abrams answers with some rather strange questions for a derelict. GA was already suspicious (since he doesn't understand how the derelict got to his place and this was after going public with the radio show.) So I don't see it as surprising that he figures out Abrams was in disguise.
I would have been more impressed if GA come out and said Abrams was a psychiatrist right away, not after asking three questions, and being suspicious of an uncommon visitor who was some 50+ year old man dressed up as a bum who answers questions with questions. And this is the way a psychiatrist of some 30 years experience tests the authenticity of a medium?
I would, however, find it more intriguing if it was done in more controlled circumstances.<hr></blockquote>
Maybe this wasn't a brilliant example. As mentioned in my earlier email, the examples I quoted were just ones I particularly remembered and which I managed to find when flicking through the books. There's more in there!
I take your point - it is conceivable that Anderson could have guessed that his visitor was not who he appeared to be, but the only questions quoted are:
1/ "Sir, are you a professional?" - and that's after Anderson sees an image of Sigmund Freud over the man's head;
2/ "Well, I'm impressed to say that you are. Is it the medical profession? To tell you the truth, I see the symbol of Sigmund Freud's face over you."
3/ "I'm being told you are not what you appear to be. Are you a psychiatrist?"
The psychiatrist's only responses to these statements are:
"Am I?"
"Why do you say that?"
"You do?" - hardly the leading questions you suggest. Did GA just guess the man was a psychiatrist?
[quote]I was looking in the first couple of chapters as you indicated<hr></blockquote>
Did I?
[quote]I guess that Joel Martin doesn't understand how mediums could work (without the paranormal explanation.)<hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure what you mean here.
[quote] Experimentation would determine what their accuracy is. They should all submit to experimentation.<hr></blockquote>
As I think I've already explained, Anderson has submitted to experimentation. Several lab tests are described in these books - I referred you to one of these in my earlier email.
[quote]I'm not even impressed with the awareness of that particular instance. It's not like there wasn't a controversy over the fate of the children of Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette for nearly two centuries.<hr></blockquote>
I wasn't really trying to make an issue out of the word 'awareness'. I was just trying to differentiate the incident described from one of his normal readings.
[quote]All GA has to do is do some experimentation. Afterall, it would alter the very foundations of science. It is virtually his responsibility to do so.<hr></blockquote>
See my comment above. In general, I think science is very resistant to having its foundations altered and tends to ignore inconvenient information.
[quote]How detailed has he been? Look at the reading for the Licatas. Starting off where I left off previously when GA found out a girl the Licatas knew passed on before. Joel Martin writes:
Suddenly John Licata, who sat silently and who had so far let his wife respond to George's queries, shuddered. He had been watching and listening neither fully believed nor comprehended what was taking place. However, when George described a young girl greeting his son, John's skepticism began to waver. There was absolutely no way that George could have known that a young female friend of David's from their neighborhood had been strangled about four months before David was killed. ...
Was this specific to you? GA doesn't give a name, an age, what she looks like, when she died, what she died of, where she lived, etc. Remember, this was after asking 3 successively more general questions about whether the Licatas knew of a girl that passed on. Successively more general because he kept on getting negative answers. Continuing:
He's very, very restless. Let's hope he can get it off his chest now, whatever he has to say, so he can be at better rest. Was he very sensitive, very emotional?
"Yes"
"Because that's how he's now coming through. Just bear with me. He has to calm down. He's speaking so fast, I can't understand what he's saying. Would you say there's something strange about his case?"
"Yes."
"He's trying to explain something to me. I can't get it out of him. Late teens, early twenties?"
"No."
"Just teens."
"Yes."
"Okay. Was he tall?"
"Yes."
"That's what it is. He just appeared to me for a second. He looked pretty tall. I don't know if this is his age or a specific number, but does sixteen mean anything?"
"Yes."
"That's his age," George said, nodding confidently.
Is there an instance of specificity to you? Can emotional and sensitive be applied to all young people? I would say yes. Will all parents say yes to the question? I would say yes because sensitive and emotional can be applied in a very wide range of ways to kids. It's not sensitive and emotional that GA asked. It could be interpreted in an "or" or "and" context.
Next, GA doesn't state the son's age. He first narrows it down between teens and twenties. Asks if he is tall? BL says yes which indicates a person past puberty, not an 11 to 14 year old. He doesn't even give a height. 5'6", 5'10", 6'2" would be specific to me. Do you consider the son's height of 5'11" to be tall? I would consider that average for a caucasian American. Since both the Licata parents were short (5'4"), an affirmative answer to the question if he's tall seems like a no-brainer. Onto the age question. He doesn't state that 16 is his age at first. He just asks if the number 16 could be his age or could mean something. Why did he have to put the "does 16 mean anything in there?" BL then says yes. He affirms he's 16. If GA knew, should he have said he's 16 years old right off the bat? Continuing:
"Okay. He says, 'Thank you.' When he crossed over, he said he was sixteen, but he's a big kid... He said he wasn't alone when this accident occurred. Someone else played a role in it."
"Yes"
How is this specific? Someone else playing a role in it could be a drinking buddy, the person he hit or hit him, an influential friend, etc. The parents could apply "played a role in it" and "wasn't alone when this accident occurred" in a number of ways. He also previously asked a question whether there was something strange about his case, and the affirmative answer helped set up these two questions.
"That's what he tells me. Someone else is involved."
"Yes."
"Another male."
"Yes."
"Was he severely cut by this blow?"
"Yes."
George suddenly stopped writing and looked into Barbara's eyes. "I'm afraid to say it. Was he murdered?"
"Yes."
"That's what he says. Just bear with me for a second. I'm getting so much emotion [that] I keep getting knocked to the edge. It keeps going down because of what he's trying to get across. Does broken glass have anything to do with this?"
"Yes."
"Because I keep seeing glass smashed in front of me."
"Yes."
"Was he hit with anything like a bottle?"
"Not a bottle."
"Sometimes I try to interpret what I see.... I see broken glass shattered in front of me. Was someplace broken into? Besides his being murdered, was there any other crime around?"
"I don't know the answer to that.?
"I keep praying for him that he take it easy and calm down and get off what he has to say. Is it possible that his murder was an accident?"
"Yes."
George looked up from his writing again and shook his head sympathetically. "Do you feel it was deliberate?"
"No."
"I have to say it wasn't. He says to me it was an accidental murder. It wasn't deliberate."
"Right."
Okay. What just transpired here? Was there anything specific in it? BL contradicts herself by saying its both a murder and an accident. How could that be? Does GA get a hit for knowing it was a murder? Does GA get a hit for knowing it was an accident? Does he cover all bases by saying it was a murder-accident, whatever that as. And this is all based on BL's answers. Why didn't he just say hit-and-run?
GA asks about broken glass. I was thinking fatal auto accident and broken glass is quite common, so no-brainer, but was thrown when he asks about a bottle. So what's up with the bottle, someone breaking through a window, and in general other crime questions? All negative answers as well. Was GA narrowing down all the possibilities for murder perhaps? I think so. Because BL did answer yes to the murder question, so he had to explore that mistaken answer. Gets negatives and it definitely involved a vehicle. Continuing:
George began writing again. "Without telling me anything but 'yes' or 'no', do you have any suspicions as to who it could have been? Because it's somebody he knows."
"Yes."
"It definitely is. It's a male."
"Yes."
"Did your son have any trouble with his chest?"
"Yes."
"No wonder I can't catch my breath.... Was your son very athletic?"
"Yes."
"Because I'm seeing that symbol as well." George then shifted in his as he raised his hands to the back of his head, as he had done earlier in the reading. Again he asked, "Was he struck in the back of the head?" When Barbara replied affirmatively, George repeated, "Was he struck in the back of his head? Because he was hit from behind, he tells. That's for a fact."
"Yes."
The part where GA states that someone who played role in the accident was someone the son knew threw me for a little. Can't figure it yet. Perhaps BL revealed something with her posture or face in the answers earlier.
He asked if the son had a head injury some 50 questions earlier. He's just narrowing down specifically where now. If your head is injured in the back, wouldn't it be logical for you to be hit from the back?
The athletic question is also setup for a latter "amazing how did he know that" question-statement from GA later on. He's already done it 2 or 3 times to the Licatas.
What specifics do you see here?
Continuing:
... "Was he out socially? He says, 'I was out socially." I see him ... he's off ... this might be a symbol, as I say, a dance place there. And I'm off, I'm outside of it, around it. Was he near a place of social gathering?"
"Yes."
To the Licatas, George seemed to be talking to himself. ... "All right," George was saying to what the Licatas were by now certain was the spirit of David, "calm down. Just tell me everything exactly as you want to."
John and Barbara watched and listened. After a few moments, George resumed the writing. "Was he found near a car? Why do I keep seeing car?"
"Yes."
"Was he in a car?"
"No."
"Near a car?"
"Yes."
"He keeps showing me himself near a car-"
"Yes."
George turned to the Licatas and explained, "He's going right to his face. There's something abobut the face he wants to tell me. I don't know what."
George again turned his attention to the spirit. "What do you want me to see?" he appeared to be asking the air. "I don't understand what you mean."
George was both frustrated and apologetic about his inability to comprehend the spirit's message. "Maybe he means that I'm not seeing something right," he offered, then warned the Licatas again not to divulge anything more than simple acknowledgements about the messages. "Did he have very dark eyes?"
"Yes"
"Very dark hair?"
"Yes"
"Tall, good-looking."
"Oh yes," Barbara said, beaming. Her husband nodded in agreement.
First set of questions he asks if the son is out socially, at a dance, then generically at a social gathering. Socially could easily mean out with the friend he was with to any subject. He already knew he was out with a friend. He asks about a dance, but covers all the bases by saying social gathering. Not very specific to me.
The car questions are again not specific and it seems to me GA is trying to find out what sort of accident it was. Since he asks whether he was in a car, and a negative was given, GA should have a very large clue on what sort of accident it was.
The hair questions are all generic. "Dark" is not a color, and covers half the spectrum of hair color. If the Licatas both had dark hair, or if JL had dark hair, it's easy to surmise the son had dark hair. People with dark hair very commonly have dark eyes. GA already asked the height question earlier. The good-looking question is subjective to which most parents would say yes. Continuing:
Looking up at the Licatas, George said, "He appears next to you. He shows me how he looks like. Was he near any place where there would have been alcoholic beverages when it happened?"
"Yes."
"They weren't in the right frame of mind. Nobody's been nailed yet, though."
"Right."
George returned to the young girl who had passed over before David. "He keeps saying, 'She met me when I came over.'"
"Yes."
"'She brought me into the light,' he says."
"Yes."
"You know her also."
"Yes."
"'Cause she says hello to you. She says, 'You remember me. You know who I am.'"
"Yes."
George's focus returned to David. "See, this is very strange because it seems he was not a troublesome young man."
"No."
"It seems that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time."
"Right."
"Did he go out alone?"
"No."
"Because I see friends. He went out with friends. A group of people."
Barbara interrupted, "George, can you send a message to him or do you just receive?"
"I can send back, but he can hear you also. He's standing next to you so undoubtedly he's perceiving anything you're thinking or feeling or whatever." After a moment, the reading continued. "Any other bodily injury at all besides the head?"
"No." (3)
"Was he big on track or something?"
"Not track."
"Some type of sport where you're using your legs."
"Yes." (4)
(3) At the time of this reading, Barbara knew that David suffered fatal head injuries. She would not learn until some three months after this reading that David's pelvis had also been broken. Earlier in the reading, George stated that he felt David had suffered back injuries. Now he is referring to it again. Although Barbara was unable to acknowledge it at this time, George was in fack correct.
(4) David was a soccer star at his high school
Anything specific here? I don't see any.
GA asked if the son was athletic some 50 questions earlier. He know guesses track or something. It's "or something", so he states something to do with the legs. Not to Joel Martin, GA did not state the son played soccer, just a sport where you're using your legs. Outside of chess, I can't think of a sport that doesn't use one's legs.
Earlier, GA asked if the son had any other injuries, and BL said she didn't know, not negatively. Here she says no. If there was, why didn't GA positively state he had other injuries? Also note to Joel Martin, GA asked if there were back injuries, not groin injuries. The pelvis is part of the groin not the back.<hr></blockquote>
THT - these are all fair points, and yes, the statements quoted not are tremendously specific, and yes, I admit, it is possible that Anderson could have guessed some from the responses given. But as I've already said, the reading for the Licatas is just an introduction, used by the authors for dramatic affect. It is not supposed to be a complete tour of Anderson's abilities. What about the other examples I quoted? What about the rest of the books?
1/ "Sir, are you a professional?" - and that's after Anderson sees an image of Sigmund Freud over the man's head;
2/ "Well, I'm impressed to say that you are. Is it the medical profession? To tell you the truth, I see the symbol of Sigmund Freud's face over you."
3/ "I'm being told you are not what you appear to be. Are you a psychiatrist?"
The psychiatrist's only responses to these statements are:
"Am I?"
"Why do you say that?"
"You do?" - hardly the leading questions you suggest. Did GA just guess the man was a psychiatrist?</strong>
If GA saw the symbol he interprets as Sigmund Freud before he questions Abrams (the psychiatrist), why isn't it the first thing he says? Ie, why didn't GA say, "I see the symbol of Sigmund Freud, are you a psychiatrist?" instead of "Are you a professional?" as the very first question or statement? I would have been much more impressed if he said it outright.
Abrams was in disguise as a derelict, which my American Heritage dictionary says is a homeless person or a vagrant, and he answers the question of "are you a professional?" with "Am I?" If Abrams wanted to at least keep up the appearance of a derelict, shouldn't the appropriate answer been "no"? That's why I said they were strange questions. Instead, he seems to enter into a stereotypical psychiatrist answering questions with questions mode of conversation.
<strong>Did I?</strong>
I could find this funny if you put a smiley here. But in message posted on 03-31-2002 12:34 PM, you write:
And as for Martin, he may not be a skeptic in the sense I think you mean it (ie refusing to accept to accept any evidence), but he does explain in the first couple of chapters how he successfully debunked several fraudulent mediums before meeting GA - not the typical behaviour of a gullible believer desperate for confirmatory evidence.
Does not "first couple of chapters" mean chapters 1 and 2, not 3?
<strong>I'm not sure what you mean here.</strong>
If Martin understood how mediums worked, he could have devised tests to determine GA's abilities, instead of the "Oh wow! It's so amazing it must be real!" sort of thing when GA gets a platform of his own choosing.
<strong>I wasn't really trying to make an issue out of the word 'awareness'. I was just trying to differentiate the incident described from one of his normal readings.</strong>
Yeah, GA won't go out on limb like that anymore
An amazing reading would be like "Amelia Earhart washed ashore in the Philipines" or something, and we go there and find her.
<strong>As I think I've already explained, Anderson has submitted to experimentation. Several lab tests are described in these books - I referred you to one of these in my earlier email.
...
See my comment above. In general, I think science is very resistant to having its foundations altered and tends to ignore inconvenient information.</strong>
If GA and Martin can conduct the experiment (or have someone do it for them), show its results, and GA and is willing to submit himself for repeat experiments and performs well, science won't have a choice.
As for what you have submitted before, at least in reply to me, all I saw was:
5/ We Are Not Forgotten (sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), Ps. 303-309: Anderson undergoes a videotaped electroencephalogram test. ... The supervising doctor describes the reading as ?abnormal? and acknowledges that ?something really is going on?.
I'm interested in reading about the test. It'll take some time. Any others?
<strong>THT - these are all fair points, and yes, the statements quoted not are tremendously specific,</strong>
They are not even specific let alone tremendously specific.
<strong>What about the other examples I quoted? What about the rest of the books?
We will get to them in due time.