Okay, THT. I have a very long post for you. Sorry about that - but you are the one who insisted in going into all this detail, so ya asked for it!
Let's start by going back to the reading with the Licatas in the first chapter, since you are still harping on about it, I note. I have now reread this chapter and think I have been giving you too much of an easy ride over this. Yes, GA would not have been starting from zero here. He would have known that the couple had come to see him following a bereavement since almost everyone who go for readings does so for that reason. It may have been obvious ? perhaps they were wearing rings ? that the pair were a married couple, so he could have made a reasonable guess that the deceased person was a son or daughter (although this would not have been a certainty), and from this it would follow logically that the probably young person had died an untimely (but not necessarily sudden) death. By assessing the age of the couple, he could have also surmised that the probable age of the son or daughter ? but only within a fairly broad margin of error. And that's it. Not much to go on.
However, GA then goes on to produce the following additional, specific and accurate information about the deceased person:-
?they died suddenly
?the death involved severe injuries to the back of their head and their back
?they died in an accident (rather than because of a disease)
?the accident had a degree of mystery or uncertainty attached to it
?the accident involved a vehicle, later specified as a car
?the person was their son
?someone else was with him at the time
?a young girl known to the family died before their son
?the son had died less than a year previously, was tall, dark-eyed, dark-haired, 16 years old, very athletic, had trouble with his chest, had a pet dog, was close to someone called Robert, knew someone called Barbara other than his mother, was athletic and played sport, had a cousin called Joseph to whom something worthy of congratulations had happened after the son's death, had a brother who was "very hostile" and a sister who was "very tall", played an instrument, was interested in religion, and had long or thick hair which was often complimented
(GA gets the number of grandparents alive and dead wrong but the authors admit this)
?he son murdered, but it was an "accidental" murder
?he was struck from behind
?he had gone out with friends was near a social gathering where alcohol was being drunk at the time of the accident
?he was keen on a sport involving running
?family members called John, Rose, Theresa and Sal had died before the son
?that there an area of water near the scene of accident
?nobody had yet been convicted but someone the parents knew had been questioned by the police
?the suspect was balding and married (GA then provides an apparently accurate but unquoted description of the man's clothing, health, hairstyle, and temperament, as well as part of his last name)
?the mother possessed a white rosary (GA would not even have known they were Catholic as he did not known their surname)
?the son's maternal grandmother, who was still alive, spoke Italian
?the son's paternal grandmother was "devout to the blessed mother"
The mother blurts out the son's name during the reading, but GA admits this. In most readings later in the books, GA himself produces the name.
So, just guesswork? During the reading, the parents respond to GA's questions with "no" a total of 14 times (I didn't count the much more numerous "yes"es!) HOWEVER, four of those nos are later shown to incorrect (ie GA was right); three occur when GA is trying to place the girl he has psychically seen; and two when GA is trying to place visions of a car and a sport involving running. That leaves only five. The subjects use the phrase "I don't know" five times - however, on four of these occasions, GA is later shown to be correct, and on the fifth he might be correct.
And that's only the introductory, illustrative reading used in the first chapter. I quoted a number of examples of interesting later readings in an earlier post, but I
have also suggested that you read the rest of the book, and possibly the two sequels as well, if you want to continue this debate because there is a lot more in there. I was scanning "We Don't Die" again on Friday and found three more of the other laboratory tests I referred to - on ps. 216-217 and 222-223 (chapter nine) of my edition.
In the first, which takes place in a doctor's office, GA correctly diagnoses the physical ailments of ten anonymous subjects chosen by the doctor standing behind opaque screens via 'sympathetic' (ie. psychically sensed) pain (in which GA experiences sensations in the areas of his body which correspond to the ailments of the subjects).
In the second, a videotaped session with a thermography machine organised by a doctor and viewed by multiple witnesses , GA correctly diagnoses the ailments of the subjects presented to him via sympathetic pain and changes in the corresponding areas of GA's body are clearly observed on the thermography machine. The doctor says these changes could not be produced voluntarily and an experienced thermography technician is quoted as saying that she had never seen similar patterns of body temperature as though seen during the test in GA.
And in the third, which takes place during a television show, GA is blindfolded. In another part of the studio, a doctor applies a sequence of mild electrical shocks to different parts of the body of a scientist taking part in the experiment. GA is correct throughtout apart from once, when the doctor claims to have applied a shock but deliberately hasn't done so. GA describes a type of pain in a particular area of the man's body. This is classed as a mistake, but a month later the scientist experiences the same sensation in the same part of the body when he is diagnosed with degenerative muscle disease.
[quote] Was this specific to you?........Successively more general because he kept on getting negative answers.<hr></blockquote>
If he was just making it up, why did he persist with the questions about a young girl at all? Isn't that just going to make him look bad? Why even mention a young girl in the first place? My understanding is that GA saw a VISION of a young girl (as opposed to say an elderly lady or a 45-year old man with buck teeth and a comb-over) and then had to place this in the context of the subject's lives.
[quote]Is there an instance of specificity to you?....If GA knew, should he have said he's 16 years old right off the bat?<hr></blockquote>
Yes, emotional and sensitive could be applied to all youngsters. The remark about being tall is vague, but you have to look at HOW GA is receiving the information - he is seeing a visual image of the boy, not reading a book of statistics. And where did the figure of 16 come from? Why not 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, or 19? And anyway, it's GA who decides that the figure represents his age, the Licatas don't tell him this.
[quote]How is this specific?......the affirmative answer helped set up these two questions.<hr></blockquote>
Not every accident involves other people, nor is every accident strange or mysterious. I don't see any necessary connection between someone else being involved and it being "strange".
[quote]Okay. What just transpired here?.....Gets negatives and it definitely involved a vehicle.<hr></blockquote>
Admittedly, accidental murder is a strange phrase but I think it is clearly explained. We know the boy was hit by a car - the boy was unlawfully killed, but unintentionally (according to the reading).
And as for the bottle, GA has received a vision of broken glass and has to interpret that. We've already established that GA is not always correct. There is a certain amount of static ? sometimes he seems to be unable to interpret his visions correctly. And how many possible ways do you think the boy could have been murdered? If we trying to narrow down all the possibilities for murder, why stop with a broken bottle?
[quote]He asked if the son had a head injury some 50 questions earlier....wouldn't it be logical for you to be hit from the back?<hr></blockquote>
But how did he know that the boy had been injured in the head in the first place? It's one of the very first claims he makes, before any mention of vehicles, cars, etc. My response is similar with the question of GA saying the boy had dark hair ? this may not be specific in the sense that you mean it, but the point is that GA was correct. The boy could just as easily have had blond hair, or red hair, or light brown hair.
[quote]The athletic question is also setup for a latter "amazing how did he know that" question-statement from GA later on. <hr></blockquote>
Is it? They don't seem very interested in is claim that he plays a sport involving the legs. Again, how did he know the boy was "very athletic" in the first place? That's not the same as just playing a bit of sport at school. Lots of kids aren't athletic, never mind very athletic. GA has received a (possibly physical) impression of the boy using his legs and then has to interpret that.
[quote]Earlier, GA asked if the son had any other injuries.....The pelvis is part of the groin not the back.<hr></blockquote>
I also don't see an obvious connection between the pelvis and the back, but the point is that BL denies that there were any other injuries, but GA does not change his claim and he is later shown to have been correct.
But we could go on quibbling about minor points like this all day. Before this post swells to a massive size, let's address your fundamental proposition - that GA is a ruthless charlatan using the statements of his subjects to logically deduce his answers. There are two problems with this claim as far as I can see. Firstly if this was correct, in order to deal with the vast number of variables and possibilities in each reading, he would generate at least as many "no"s as "yes"es from his subjects, and in fact far more nos in most instances. Instead, as a look at any reading quoted in the books will show that the yeses vastly outnumber the nos, and the nos and "I don't knows" themselves are often the result of forgetfulness or a subject's lack of awareness ? for instance BL did not that there was a sump near the scene of the accident and so denied GA's insistent claim that there was an area of water nearby.
And secondly, have you ever given any thought to the question of how mediums may receive their information? I don't think you have, but are making assumptions about it nevertheless. Perhaps you are assuming it's just instanteously there or like a receiving an invisible telephone call or something? In fact, in a process described at length in the books, GA and similar mediums receive much (although obviously not all) of their information through various non-verbal methods, including sympathetic pain and the triggering of mental and visual imagery, which can have different meanings in different situations to different people. That's why GA solicits acknowledgement, so that he can deduce the context of the sensations and visions. I realise that sounds terribly imprecise but it's the end results that count. We are after all talking about the possibility of communication between physical and non-physical beings. Who said it was going to be easy?
This is how the co-author summed it up for me in her email:
"As for the claim that mediums should remain silent. Doesn't it strike you as somewhat odd that people who don't believe in mediums come up with all of these rules and criteria they must satisfy to be considered "real"? If your friend (that's apparently you, THT!) understood and accepted many mediums' descriptions of how they experience the process, he would know that a contact isn't like a movie, where the spirit or energy appears and tells the medium the message the way an actor would deliver lines. The mesages are auditory, visual, tactile, proprioceptive, gustatory. In addition, they are often conveyed through signals and symbols, words and sounds that have a particular meaning known only to the subject and the spirit. A medium who...asked no questions would be at a considerable disadvantage, because different symbols have different meanings to different people. If, for example, you were to ask a person from the midwest what they thought of when you said "lavender," they might say, "Easter." If you were to ask the same of an Italian-American in the Bronx, they might say "death." Also remember, and this is true of most mediums, the connections don't always last very long, and the power to communicate effectively varies from spirit to spirit. Without the yes or the no, the medium -- and I mean any medium, not just George -- really is limited by his own specific frames of reference. This it not always the case. Sometimes spirits do appear and do show the mediums things that make the experience exactly like watching a movie. The meaning is crystal clear. But that's very rare and seems to occur around highly unusual or dramatic events, such as murders.
Think of it this way: The personal associations you have in your mind for things like love, death, loss, friendship, birthdays, and anything else a spirit might allude to, are yours. When I hear the word "birthday," I always see these yellow frosting roses that I saw on a cake when I was about three or so. You probably think of something else. These associations work kind of like a piano keyboard. When spirits contact a medium like George or John, they seem to communicate in part by sitting down to the medium's keyboard and striking the "keys" that bring up the associations that medium has. Does that make sense? For instance, George and John (another medium she knows) both speak in their readings of someone offering "roses." Although I haven't studied John's readings as closely as George's, he seems to use it more generally, for congratulations or birthday or anniversary. George, however, would often talk about the color of the roses, and for George particular colors had particular meanings to HIM.
So, let's say, I'm a medium, and when I think of my mother, I think of a particular color of geranium. That's also the first image I have if I think about geraniums in general. So right there, you have two possible "meanings" for the geranium image. If a spirit were to contact me and attempt to communicate something to me about my subject's mother, I might see that geranium. Now that geranium would mean nothing to my subject, but I know from past experience, that the spirit is saying something about a mother in a "language" I understand. I can ask about a mother, but I might also find that the important part of the message has nothing to do with mother but is about the geranium that the subject just planted at her husband's grave or the geranium her eight-year-old daughter drew for her hours before she died, or . . . it could be any of a hundred different things. I might see huge geraniums and discover that my subject's father ran a Chinese takout place or laundromat (many of which have huge geraniums growing in their front windows year round; don't ask me why; it's just something we see in New York). Maybe ssomeone wore a dress of that particular coral-ish color. Maybe the spirit's name is Coral. Or maybe Carol, and I'm getting confused. And so on. Now, a really talented medium will be able to narrow that down to a certain extent and may even get the correct association without asking a question. Also note that most questions are confirmatory. George is just confirming; the high rate of "yes" answers tells you that he's not fishing. It's not that the information is not clear, it's more that the context is undefined. Now, if George were to have subjects come in and say, "I'm here because my mother died last year and I miss her terribly. Here's a list of the names, causes of death, and ages or all my deceased family members," how much easier his life would be. But that's not how it goes. You must also remember that, unlike in other parts of the world or even other parts of the United States, the New York metropolitan area is quite multicultural, so mediums are often interepreting symbols and images from different cultures, religions, and so on."
[quote]If GA saw the symbol he interprets as Sigmund Freud before he questions Abrams.....Instead, he seems to enter into a stereotypical psychiatrist answering questions with questions mode of conversation.<hr></blockquote>
Okay, perhaps GA could have guessed that there was something strange about the man. And admittedly, he doesn't immediately identify the man as a psychiatrist. But with no direct clues or prompting, he does go immediately from professional to medical professional to psychiatrist. How many other professions are there?
[quote]I could find this funny if you put a smiley here. But in message posted on 03-31-2002 12:34 PM, you write:
Does not "first couple of chapters" mean chapters 1 and 2, not 3?<hr></blockquote>
I apologise, I had forgotten the context.
And finally, this is the co-author's response to the 'dauphin question':
"Because I wasn't in George's Catholic school classroom, obviously, all I can say about his misstatement of what was LATER proved a historical inaccuracy is this: People make mistakes. At the time George said this, and we're talking about the early 1970s or so, I assume, this DNA evidence had not emerged. But apparently, there were those who believed this "alternate" version of the events, or there was some historical evidence that led some to speculate another fate for the dauphin. History is full of things like this. Just think about Anastasia. Now we're all thinking that Hitler was gay, and we know that Richard Nixon was on drugs. The point of the story is not necessarily that George knew what happened to the dauphin, but that he had somehow come across information that he was not consciously aware of having ever "learned." Although this was never precisely articulated in the books, and I can't guarantee that George or Joel would agree with me, my own feeling is that information is an energy like any other. In this light, it would seem that George picked up the energy of this information. That's not to say that the person or entity he picked it up from was correct. Obviously, he/she/it wasn't. Taking it a step further, if you believe, as I think George might, that there might be some past life experience involved, remember that George can only know what a given spirit knows. If George in a past life or a spirit who lived, say, a hundred years ago, believed that the dauphin's fate was as George described it in class, then that's what you'd get."
[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Let's start by going back to the reading with the Licatas in the first chapter, since you are still harping on about it, I note.</strong>
Primarily because I read most of it, and the others I scanned, completely ignored, or glossed over.
<strong>untimely (but not necessarily sudden) death.</strong>
What's the difference between untimely and sudden? And would a subject or sitter discern a difference in answering yes or no?
<strong>By assessing the age of the couple, he could have also surmised that the probable age of the son or daughter - but only within a fairly broad margin of error.</strong>
He did indeed ask. First young, then teens or twenties, and when he guessed 16, he left himself an out ("or something"). So he did attempt to narrow it down to a pretty small margin of error.
<strong>And that's it. Not much to go on.</strong>
In a cold reading, GA doesn't even need that much.
<strong>However, GA then goes on to produce the following additional, specific and accurate information about the deceased person:-
they died suddenly</strong>
He asked if it was sudden. You already said this was a given as well, or surmisable in your introductory comments. And it wasn't "they". It was just "he" at first.
<strong>the death involved severe injuries to the back of their head and their back</strong>
It was pelvis, not back. The head or heart are the best places to start in any death because they are the most vital of your organs. Blood as well. Once the first answer is given, then there is a fairly logical path of questioning that will get lots of yes answers.
<strong>they died in an accident (rather than because of a disease)</strong>
He asked whether it was a sudden death. The yes indicated that it was not a disease, since it is rare for disease to kill the young suddenly. That left accident which is generic enough to encompass any and all things other then disease.
<strong>the accident had a degree of mystery or uncertainty attached to it</strong>
This I think was an interesting question. I wondered why he would ask such a thing myself. Perhaps GA detected some body language clues or maybe the "yes" wasn't a confident yes.
<strong>the accident involved a vehicle, later specified as a car</strong>
He asked. He reiterated with the "yes, I see a vehicle in front of me" type of reassertion. One wonders why he didn't identify the vehicle if he saw it in front of him. Now that I think about it. This vehicle doesn't have all that much to do with the car later specified, since it was implicit that the vehicle involved was the hit-and-run car. If it was a hit-and-run, the only way they could identify it as a car as opposed to truck was through tire tracks because the car ran. If it's just a vehicle that was close to the teens, one wonders why it took so long to find them? So GA's interpretation here isn't all that great. He never did go anywhere with the car statements.
<strong>the person was their son</strong>
He asked.
<strong>someone else was with him at the time</strong>
He asked.
<strong>a young girl known to the family died before their son</strong>
He asked.
<strong>the son had died less than a year previously, was tall, dark-eyed, dark-haired, 16 years old, very athletic, had trouble with his chest, had a pet dog, was close to someone called Robert, knew someone called Barbara other than his mother, was athletic and played sport, had a cousin called Joseph to whom something worthy of congratulations had happened after the son's death, had a brother who was "very hostile" and a sister who was "very tall", played an instrument, was interested in religion, and had long or thick hair which was often complimented (GA gets the number of grandparents alive and dead wrong but the authors admit this)</strong>
What was good was 16. Perhaps 16 is just a number that is more in the minds of people because it is the cusp of a variety of things (mathematics, puberty, innocence, etc.) The names I will discuss later. The others weren't specific. The Licatas were 5'4", so taller then them was obvious, especially if the Licatas were immigrants. The "athletic" was dubious. If you play on the soccer team, it doesn't mean you're athletic, just that you're on the soccer team. If he was athletic, in the least, he'd be a 3 sports letterman. That's what I would consider athletic. To a parent or anyone, it could be attributed in a number of ways. The hair and eyes were generic and can be based on the parents, especially if the parents were Italian.
The brother could have also been generous, yet sometimes selfish, well mannered, yet sometimes crass, even tempered, but sometimes prone to hostility. That is, hostility isn't specific. For instance, if GA said depressed instead of hostile, would BL have the same reaction?
The sister's height is dubious without the full transcript. GA asked if the son played an instrument, then couldn't identify what that instrument was.
GA didn't say the son was religious at first. He first asked if the son was a spiritual person, after BL said yes, he reiterates that he was impressed with his son's spiritualness. Later, he asked if the son was religious. The answer to these questions, BL and JL won't know for sure even though they said yes. However, the questions are very complimentary to the parents.
<strong>he son murdered, but it was an "accidental" murder</strong>
The son wasn't murdered. If GA said hit-and-run right off the bat, I'd be more impressed. Accidental-murder is dubious, most people wouldn't understand it, and can fit the event to the what "accidental-murder" may mean.
<strong>he was struck from behind</strong>
GA asked about the son being struck in the back of the head. BL said yes. He then said that the son was struck from behind.
<strong>he had gone out with friends was near a social gathering where alcohol was being drunk at the time of the accident</strong>
There is nothing specific about this. What sort of social gathering? How many people? Teens and alcohol? That's impossible! Teens, alcohol and accidents? Even more impossible! Seriously, you think this is specific?
<strong>he was keen on a sport involving running</strong>
When I was going to high school, every sport involved "using one's legs," unless you consider "mathletes" or "quiz bowler" or "chess" as sports. GA didn't specify running even. He guessed track at first, and than said sport using legs, remember? BL even helped by said "not track", instead of just no.
<strong>family members called John, Rose, Theresa and Sal had died before the son</strong>
John was the name of the boy's father, asking if they knew a John seems a good ploy to me because people name children after relatives. Rose is a good guess because it has alternative meanings (with flowers, rosary, et al), but on its own, I'm impressed with that.
Theresa, Sal, Robert, Joseph, the pet dog for all I know, could have been discerned in the line of questioning summarized by the authors right after the questioning about the water nearby. The authors write, "For several minutes George gave out a series of names that Barbara and John acknowledged." Several minutes could be hundreds of questions.
<strong>that there an area of water near the scene of accident</strong>
There's water everywhere. It all depends on what "near" means. It also doesn't matter if GA was wrong. He could be confused by the symbols and the subject will accept it fine.
<strong>nobody had yet been convicted but someone the parents knew had been questioned by the police</strong>
That's why it's a strange death If GA knew that the police picked up a suspect without BL telling him, then I'm impressed.
<strong>the suspect was balding and married (GA then provides an apparently accurate but unquoted description of the man's clothing, health, hairstyle, and temperament, as well as part of his last name)</strong>
GA asked if he was bald, not balding. Again, like the vehicle and car questions, something is not right here. If GA is "specifying" the suspect the police questioned, then it must follow that the suspect was the driver of the hit-and-run. So either the police wasn't competent in connecting the dots with broken glass, vehicle and all, or the suspect was innocent. If the suspect was innocent, how is it possible that GA is talking about him when the son should only be describing the unknown hit-and-run driver?
I'll stick with "apparently" accurate until there is at least a transcript.
<strong>the mother possessed a white rosary (GA would not even have known they were Catholic as he did not known their surname)</strong>
Catholics dominate the New York and New England area. If the mother had an Italian accent, however slight, that Catholic and rosary are no brainers. The white color is impressive, but perhaps I'm missing something about the color of typical rosaries.
<strong>the son's maternal grandmother, who was still alive, spoke Italian</strong>
Perhaps Barbara had an Italian accent, however slight. Not to mention that there are a lot of Italians in the New York and New England area either. He also asked "All the grandparents cross over?" prior. He then says that the grandmother was devastated. Not impressive because he previously ascertained that the other grandparents were deceased.
<strong>the son's paternal grandmother was "devout to the blessed mother"</strong>
GA didn't provide this information. He asked, "Who is devout to the Blessed Mother?" BL said, "My husband's mother, I think." JL nodded affirmatively.
<strong>So, just guesswork? During the reading, the parents respond to GA's questions with "no" a total of 14 times (I didn't count the much more numerous "yes"es!)</strong>
No, not guess work. A cold reading, good deductive reasoning and experience at doing it.
<strong>HOWEVER, four of those nos are later shown to incorrect (ie GA was right); three occur when GA is trying to place the girl he has psychically seen; and two when GA is trying to place visions of a car and a sport involving running. That leaves only five. The subjects use the phrase "I don't know" five times - however, on four of these occasions, GA is later shown to be correct, and on the fifth he might be correct.</strong>
You forgot:
Page 39: For several minutes George gave out a series of names that Barbara and John acknowledged
Page 39: George then spoke of something metallic, which he saw symbolically as a weapon. Barbara was not clear about the meaning of this message. George may have been referring to the vehicle that struck and killed David or some other weapon at the scene of the crime, which could not be fully explained because of lack of information.
Page 41: George had some difficulty in interpreting the girl's age.
Page 44: There was some confusion in the symbols George received as to what instrument David played.
Also, the meaning of the car or vehicle was unclear, the meaning of the broken glass was unclear, GA punted on who the driver of the hit-and-run vehicle was, he virtually ignored who Bret (the other victim) was, and he didn't produce the name of the young girl that was strangled even though BL asked about 2 or 3 times.
So, he wasn't as good as you're saying. If you eliminate all the fluff questions and statements, I think it further degrades his impressiveness.
<strong>I quoted a number of examples of interesting later readings in an earlier post, but I have also suggested that you read the rest of the book, and possibly the two sequels as well, if you want to continue this debate because there is a lot more in there.</strong>
I'm very busy, but I will try if you have the patience. I'm going on vacation in a couple of days, so you won't hear from me for a little bit.
<strong>I was scanning "We Don't Die" again on Friday and found three more of the other laboratory tests I referred to - on ps. 216-217 and 222-223 (chapter nine) of my edition.</strong>
I will try to get to these later.
<strong>If he was just making it up, why did he persist with the questions about a young girl at all? Isn't that just going to make him look bad? Why even mention a young girl in the first place? My understanding is that GA saw a VISION of a young girl ... and then had to place this in the context of the subject's lives.</strong>
Why would it make him look bad to persist? He's got plenty of escape assertions to explain his problems. All he needed to find, once the original "girl" question was asked and answered negatively, was a girl that the family knew had died, so as to say she met him the son on the other side. He even asked if the girl passed on before him to make sure. If they said yes immediately instead, then he would have found out about who the girl was, whether she was his girlfriend et al.
If nothing came out of the line of questioning, saying that he was just confused is also fine, which happened in the reading.
<strong>Yes, emotional and sensitive could be applied to all youngsters. The remark about being tall is vague, but you have to look at HOW GA is receiving the information - he is seeing a visual image of the boy, not reading a book of statistics. And where did the figure of 16 come from? Why not 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, or 19? And anyway, it's GA who decides that the figure represents his age, the Licatas don't tell him this.</strong>
GA didn't say 16 was his age until he knew it meant something. He asked whether 16 meant something, possibly his age. When BL said yes, he asserted age.
I would have eliminated 13, 14, 18 and 19 myself. GA knew he was teen, knew he was in an accident with a vehicle, and knew he was tall in the parents eyes. Tall eliminated 13 and 14. GA knew that the Licatas doted on him like child, almost treated him as a child, and that would have eliminated 18 and 19. He then put 16 out there as bait. Maybe 16 was used to split the difference. If he was wrong, he could have just said his vision of him looks like 16 to 18 year old.
<strong>Not every accident involves other people, nor is every accident strange or mysterious. I don't see any necessary connection between someone else being involved and it being "strange".</strong>
GA said: He said he wasn't alone when this accident occurred. Someone else played a role in it.
If you recall, he earlier asked: Would you say there's something strange about his case? Even earlier to that he asked, Was someone with him when this occurred? BL answered positively to both questions. He is restating something he asked earlier, which he does a lot. The strangeness could be explained through the confidence of BL's answers when asked about whether it was an accident.
<strong>Admittedly, accidental murder is a strange phrase but I think it is clearly explained. We know the boy was hit by a car - the boy was unlawfully killed, but unintentionally (according to the reading).</strong>
There is a way to lawfully kill someone?! A murder is a killing with intent. He was not killed with intent. It was an accident. BL should have said no to the question. If GA was specific, he should have said hit-and-run or manslaughter. Or even better, DL would have identified, through GA, who his killer was.
<strong>And as for the bottle, GA has received a vision of broken glass and has to interpret that. We've already established that GA is not always correct. There is a certain amount of static - sometimes he seems to be unable to interpret his visions correctly. And how many possible ways do you think the boy could have been murdered? If we trying to narrow down all the possibilities for murder, why stop with a broken bottle?</strong>
It was established to be an accident, with a vehicle involved. I'm thinking that BL misled GA by saying yes to the murder question, and was sidetracked a little. He didn't stop with a broken bottle. He asked about a break-in as well. Broken bottle would have meant a fight. The question isn't "how many possible ways do you think the boy could have been murdered?" It's "how many ways can the boy be murdered with broken glass, a vehicle, and an accident?" So it was already narrowed down quite a bit.
<strong>But how did he know that the boy had been injured in the head in the first place? It's one of the very first claims he makes, before any mention of vehicles, cars, etc. My response is similar with the question of GA saying the boy had dark hair - this may not be specific in the sense that you mean it, but the point is that GA was correct. The boy could just as easily have had blond hair, or red hair, or light brown hair.</strong>
I said it before. The head or heart (or the even more generic blood) would be good places to start for any death. Since it was a young person and a very unpleasant and sudden form of passing, the head would seem to be the better choice.
How tough of a "dark hair or eyes" guess would it be? If BL and JL both had dark hair and dark eyes, the odds of the boy have dark is very very good. If GA saw a vision of the boy and was able to tell he was tall, why wasn't he able to tell the specific color of his hair and eyes, not just dark? Btw, blond, red, and brown are hair colors, and GA did not use a color to describe the boy's hair and eyes.
<strong>Is it? They don't seem very interested in is claim that he plays a sport involving the legs. Again, how did he know the boy was "very athletic" in the first place? That's not the same as just playing a bit of sport at school. Lots of kids aren't athletic, never mind very athletic. GA has received a (possibly physical) impression of the boy using his legs and then has to interpret that.</strong>
He didn't know he was "athletic". He asked. After BL said yes though, he said the typical positive reinforcement "because I'm seeing that symbol as well." Then some 30 questions questions later, GA builds on this answer with "Was he big on track or something?"
<strong>I also don't see an obvious connection between the pelvis and the back, but the point is that BL denies that there were any other injuries, but GA does not change his claim and he is later shown to have been correct.</strong>
BL said initially she didn't know. The second time, she said no. His claim of other injuries was correct, though not an amazing claim to having more than head injuries in a fatal car accident. The claim of back injuries was however incorrect.
<strong>Before this post swells to a massive size, let's address your fundamental proposition - that GA is a ruthless charlatan using the statements of his subjects to logically deduce his answers. There are two problems with this claim as far as I can see. Firstly if this was correct, in order to deal with the vast number of variables and possibilities in each reading, he would generate at least as many "no"s as "yes"es from his subjects, and in fact far more nos in most instances.</strong>
No I don't think this would be the case. He just works from a generic or general idea of what happens and asks the right lines of questioning to get more "yes" answers. He stays as general as possible, never saying anything with specificity, so "yes" answers should be more common. Staying generic is to his advantage because the subject will work to apply the generic question to fit their events, and a yes answer would come out.
<strong>In fact, in a process described at length in the books, GA and similar mediums receive much (although obviously not all) of their information through various non-verbal methods, including sympathetic pain and the triggering of mental and visual imagery, which can have different meanings in different situations to different people. That's why GA solicits acknowledgement, so that he can deduce the context of the sensations and visions. I realise that sounds terribly imprecise but it's the end results that count. [The co-author's explanation deleted.]</strong>
In other words, cold reading. Start with some generic thing or symbol and work to explain what it means to the subject's or sitter's events.
<strong>Okay, perhaps GA could have guessed that there was something strange about the man. And admittedly, he doesn't immediately identify the man as a psychiatrist. But with no direct clues or prompting, he does go immediately from professional to medical professional to psychiatrist. How many other professions are there?</strong>
When you start narrowing down binary tree fashion, it eliminates huge swaths very quickly. When you have an understanding of who you're subjects and adversaries typically are, then certain lines of questioning can be used to generate a lot of yes answers.
<strong>And finally, this is the co-author's response to the 'dauphin question':
"Because I wasn't in George's Catholic school classroom, obviously, all I can say about his misstatement of what was LATER proved a historical inaccuracy is this: People make mistakes. ... The point of the story is not necessarily that George knew what happened to the dauphin, but that he had somehow come across information that he was not consciously aware of having ever "learned." ... Taking it a step further, if you believe, as I think George might, that there might be some past life experience involved, remember that George can only know what a given spirit knows. ..."</strong>
Okay, I can buy that people make mistakes. No need to suggest explanations why he was wrong. The cynical point of view about his being aware of something without learning is that GA knew that there was controversy over the fate of the dauphin, and since he could have believed it to be an unsolvable mystery, he put it out there to aggrandize his abilities.
So what's his reading on Amelia Earhart and where her remains are? What about the killers of Jon Benet Ramsey? Where is Chandra Levy? He could be a superhero if he can divine the whereabouts of the thousands of unsolved missing persons, murders, and deaths in the US. It's even okay for him to be wrong 90% of the time.
THT, how much longer does this torture have to go on?
Okay, I don't know if you'll see this message or its imminent follow-up if you're on holiday, but whatever. Watch this space for my final word on the matter in the next couple of days...
The world is held together by twelve blue dwarves...very tiny dwarves... it is written in the scriptures... my morality is based therein... you aare damned if you see otherwise
Okay, THT, it's a few days overdue I know, but here is my final post on this issue. I don't know if you'll see this before you get back from your vacation, but here we go anyway.
I don't really have the time (or to be honest the inclination) to go through your further comments on the Licata reading in great detail, but a few points leapt out at me as I read your post:
[quote]the person was their son
He asked.
someone else was with him at the time
He asked.
a young girl known to the family died before their son
He asked.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]No I don't think this would be the case. He just works from a generic or general idea of what happens and asks the right lines of questioning to get more "yes" answers.<hr></blockquote>
Isn't there a contradiction between your continuing insistence that GA is fishing for his information by asking questions and your claim that he is asking leading questions designed to produce mainly 'yes' answers? Surely they can't be both?
And anyway, in what why are such questions as:
"Is this a son?"
"Was someone with him when this occurred?"
"Was a girl with him?"
"Was your son very athletic?"
...designed to produce more 'yes' answers? Either they're right or they're wrong.
[quote]He stays as general as possible, never saying anything with specificity, so "yes" answers should be more common. Staying generic is to his advantage because the subject will work to apply the generic question to fit their events, and a yes answer would come out.<hr></blockquote>
I understand the point you're trying to make here, but I don't really see how this applies. In what way are the questions quoted above generic? Either it was their son or it wasn't; either he was alone when he died or he wasn't; either there was a girl with him or there wasn't; either he was very athletic or he wasn't.
You have insisted throughout that is is easy to use deduction and guesswork to produce all this information. You can keep on repeating this, but it's not so easy to show that this is actually true. We are not talking about a game of 20 questions, where you may may sometimes be able to deduce the identity of a single object through a series of yes/ no enquiries. In a reading situation we are talking about a huge number of interlinking possibilities.
The point about GA's statements in this and other readings is surely not whether GA does or doesn't, or should or shouldn't, make them in question or statement form (I have already quoted you the co-author's explanation of why GA asks "questions" during readings). It's whether he's right or not. It's the end results that count, not the grammatical structure of his sentences. Look at the definitive number of "questions" in the Licata reading that elicit "yes" answers and ask yourself how many of those GA could just as easily have gotten wrong.
Another point is that GA is described in the first book as being (initially) sceptical of his own perceptions. By asking questions he is demonstrating that he does not necessarily believe his own impressions. Later, as his confidence increases, he becomes much more assertive, frequently insisting on statements which later prove to be correct in the face of some subjects' denials and don't knows.
[quote]Why would it make him look bad to persist? He's got plenty of escape assertions to explain his problems. All he needed to find, once the original "girl" question was asked and answered negatively, was a girl that the family knew had died, so as to say she met him the son on the other side. He even asked if the girl passed on before him to make sure. If they said yes immediately instead, then he would have found out about who the girl was, whether she was his girlfriend et al.<hr></blockquote>
Again, why mention a girl in the first place? It seems a curiously specific statement to make if he was just narrowing down from the generic. We know that there was no girl with the son when he died. It would only take a no answer to two more questions to make GA's vision of a dead girl with some relation to the son definitively wrong: did the son know a girl (not a woman , a girl) who'd died? Did the family know a girl who'd died? (Perhaps at a stretch you could add: did the other boy with the son at the time of the accident know a girl who'd died?) Hardly questions with an overwhelming probabilty of a yes answer.
[quote]How tough of a "dark hair or eyes" guess would it be? If BL and JL both had dark hair and dark eyes, the odds of the boy have dark is very very good. If GA saw a vision of the boy and was able to tell he was tall, why wasn't he able to tell the specific color of his hair and eyes, not just dark? Btw, blond, red, and brown are hair colors, and GA did not use a color to describe the boy's hair and eyes.<hr></blockquote>
Well, okay. I take your point. GA could made certain assumptions about the Licatas based on their physical appearance. If they were short and dark-haired or spoke with a certain accent, he could have guessed with a reasonably high chance of being right that they were Italian-Americans and their son was also likely to have been dark-haired. But apart from the reference to them being short, we know nothing about their physical appearance, nor do we know whether they spoke with accents. In addition:
1/ How did GA (correctly) guess the son was tall? Isn't the child of two short parents more likely to be short themselves?
2/ How did GA know the deceased person was their son?
3/ What if the Licatas did not speak with a discernible accent or provide some other clue to their ethnic background? GA would not have known their surname, so they could just as easily have been representatives of the many other nationalities which tend to be short and dark.
Later in the book, there are several examples quoted of GA giving readings over the phone live on radio or television. In such situations, GA would obviously not have any visual clues to work on. But his accuracy rate does not appear to have been affected.
I don't know why GA used the vague term 'dark' instead of a more specific reference to the son's hair and eye colour. I wasn't there. Perhaps he was just speaking casually. If you were describing someone you had seen in the street, would you necessarily be tremendously specific unless you were giving the police a witness statement or something?
[quote]So what's his reading on Amelia Earhart and where her remains are? What about the killers of Jon Benet Ramsey? Where is Chandra Levy? <hr></blockquote>
I don't know. There are a few references within the books to GA doing confidential police work. Perhaps GA has given readings to relatives of these people or the police and it just hasn't been publicised. Some people, and the police in particular, are very touchy about the involvement of psychics, especially in countries like the US. Perhaps GA knows but no one is listening. Perhaps he hasn't been asked. Perhaps the deaths of these people were meant to be mysterious. Amelia Earhart died decades ago and probably stopped caring whether or not her body is found long ago. I doubt it matters much once you enter the afterlife.
I think you are still failing to grasp the nature of mediumistic communications and assuming that they should mean instant access to some universal database of all knowledge. GA and other mediums who I think are genuine are seemingly only communicating with individual spirits (or whatever term you prefer), and therefore can only convey information known to these individuals. If the spirits are wrong/ vague/ confused, then GA will be too. If they don't or won't say anything, then GA will have nothing to say. And as the co-author of the book explained in her email (as quoted in my previous post), the information is provided in various ways which can include sensual impressions, visions, sounds, sensations, and other entirely non-verbal methods, the meaning of which may not be obvious. This may sound woefully imprecise, but that just seems to be the way it is. It's the end result - the accurate statement hit rate - that counts.
But we could go on like this for months and get nowhere. I have already said several times that I do not consider the reading with the Licatas in the first chapter to be an especially compelling example of the material found in these books. I imagine the authors chose it to lead in the book because of its dramatic qualities and not for any other reason. GA's statements are rather vague in comparison to elsewhere and there are some fuzzy bits (which the authors at least left in). I imagine this is has something to do with the information apparently being conveyed by an agitated and excited teenager in a state of high emotion (imagine talking to a agitated, emotional, and inarticulate but still living teenage boy about similar events). This is why I have been reluctant to debate this reading with you and why I have been so boringly insistent that you read the rest of the book. It was reading the whole book and its sequels, not just the first chapter, that lead me to the conclusion that they were intellectually credible and GA was/ is a genuine medium ? and it is that impression which I have been trying to defend here. I admit I was partly goaded to do so by your earlier insinuations of intellectual superiority.
I have even provided you with page references for some more interesting examples later but I note that you have not read these. No doubt it suits you to keep the debate focused on the first chapter. Perhaps you haven't had time to read the rest of the books(s) but you have had time to write me long postings and continue this debate, which perhaps shows where your true priorities lie.
So I think it is time to declare a draw. We have both known from the start here that nothing I say is ever going to convince you that GA is a genuine medium, because you have already made up your mind. Any evidence I marshal will always be interpreted in a particular way. You will always find a get-out clause no matter what I or anyone else says, and no matter whether the get-out clause has any real credibility. You said in one of your first posts here that anyone who believes in mediums is necessarily a fool - hardly an impartial standpoint from which to consider the evidence.
Of course I am not attempting to deny that there are fakes and fraudulent mediums around. Nor am I in any way attempting to advocate credulity. Scepticism is healthy but there is a point where healthy scepticism ends and the grinding of axes begins. That's not meant as a criticism - it's something we're all prone to But it does mean that debates like this have a limited lifespan. So, whilst this has been fun, I think it's time to drop the curtain and bring the show to a close.
I once proved to my friend that I could "astrally" travel and after that I don't care about proving it to people anymore. You can not always read people's minds when you are out of the body, but sometimes you can (I don't understand why/why not). Anyway, the best thing to do it build a float tank or buy one
then either meditate for 3 years or get 2-CB or Ketamine so you can more easily leave the space/time suit we call the body. After you leave (temporarily) have a friend in another room draw something on paper (such as a big number) and then when you come back and they open the tank lid you can just keep repeating the number outloud no matter how out of it you are. I have done this five or six times to different people who then went on to do it to others, but don't do it around negative people or you will have a BAD experience. Outside the body the mind creates its own reaity (to a point) and if negative/bad people ar around it will effect you profoundly.
Comments
Let's start by going back to the reading with the Licatas in the first chapter, since you are still harping on about it, I note. I have now reread this chapter and think I have been giving you too much of an easy ride over this. Yes, GA would not have been starting from zero here. He would have known that the couple had come to see him following a bereavement since almost everyone who go for readings does so for that reason. It may have been obvious ? perhaps they were wearing rings ? that the pair were a married couple, so he could have made a reasonable guess that the deceased person was a son or daughter (although this would not have been a certainty), and from this it would follow logically that the probably young person had died an untimely (but not necessarily sudden) death. By assessing the age of the couple, he could have also surmised that the probable age of the son or daughter ? but only within a fairly broad margin of error. And that's it. Not much to go on.
However, GA then goes on to produce the following additional, specific and accurate information about the deceased person:-
?they died suddenly
?the death involved severe injuries to the back of their head and their back
?they died in an accident (rather than because of a disease)
?the accident had a degree of mystery or uncertainty attached to it
?the accident involved a vehicle, later specified as a car
?the person was their son
?someone else was with him at the time
?a young girl known to the family died before their son
?the son had died less than a year previously, was tall, dark-eyed, dark-haired, 16 years old, very athletic, had trouble with his chest, had a pet dog, was close to someone called Robert, knew someone called Barbara other than his mother, was athletic and played sport, had a cousin called Joseph to whom something worthy of congratulations had happened after the son's death, had a brother who was "very hostile" and a sister who was "very tall", played an instrument, was interested in religion, and had long or thick hair which was often complimented
(GA gets the number of grandparents alive and dead wrong but the authors admit this)
?he son murdered, but it was an "accidental" murder
?he was struck from behind
?he had gone out with friends was near a social gathering where alcohol was being drunk at the time of the accident
?he was keen on a sport involving running
?family members called John, Rose, Theresa and Sal had died before the son
?that there an area of water near the scene of accident
?nobody had yet been convicted but someone the parents knew had been questioned by the police
?the suspect was balding and married (GA then provides an apparently accurate but unquoted description of the man's clothing, health, hairstyle, and temperament, as well as part of his last name)
?the mother possessed a white rosary (GA would not even have known they were Catholic as he did not known their surname)
?the son's maternal grandmother, who was still alive, spoke Italian
?the son's paternal grandmother was "devout to the blessed mother"
The mother blurts out the son's name during the reading, but GA admits this. In most readings later in the books, GA himself produces the name.
So, just guesswork? During the reading, the parents respond to GA's questions with "no" a total of 14 times (I didn't count the much more numerous "yes"es!) HOWEVER, four of those nos are later shown to incorrect (ie GA was right); three occur when GA is trying to place the girl he has psychically seen; and two when GA is trying to place visions of a car and a sport involving running. That leaves only five. The subjects use the phrase "I don't know" five times - however, on four of these occasions, GA is later shown to be correct, and on the fifth he might be correct.
And that's only the introductory, illustrative reading used in the first chapter. I quoted a number of examples of interesting later readings in an earlier post, but I
have also suggested that you read the rest of the book, and possibly the two sequels as well, if you want to continue this debate because there is a lot more in there. I was scanning "We Don't Die" again on Friday and found three more of the other laboratory tests I referred to - on ps. 216-217 and 222-223 (chapter nine) of my edition.
In the first, which takes place in a doctor's office, GA correctly diagnoses the physical ailments of ten anonymous subjects chosen by the doctor standing behind opaque screens via 'sympathetic' (ie. psychically sensed) pain (in which GA experiences sensations in the areas of his body which correspond to the ailments of the subjects).
In the second, a videotaped session with a thermography machine organised by a doctor and viewed by multiple witnesses , GA correctly diagnoses the ailments of the subjects presented to him via sympathetic pain and changes in the corresponding areas of GA's body are clearly observed on the thermography machine. The doctor says these changes could not be produced voluntarily and an experienced thermography technician is quoted as saying that she had never seen similar patterns of body temperature as though seen during the test in GA.
And in the third, which takes place during a television show, GA is blindfolded. In another part of the studio, a doctor applies a sequence of mild electrical shocks to different parts of the body of a scientist taking part in the experiment. GA is correct throughtout apart from once, when the doctor claims to have applied a shock but deliberately hasn't done so. GA describes a type of pain in a particular area of the man's body. This is classed as a mistake, but a month later the scientist experiences the same sensation in the same part of the body when he is diagnosed with degenerative muscle disease.
[quote] Was this specific to you?........Successively more general because he kept on getting negative answers.<hr></blockquote>
If he was just making it up, why did he persist with the questions about a young girl at all? Isn't that just going to make him look bad? Why even mention a young girl in the first place? My understanding is that GA saw a VISION of a young girl (as opposed to say an elderly lady or a 45-year old man with buck teeth and a comb-over) and then had to place this in the context of the subject's lives.
[quote]Is there an instance of specificity to you?....If GA knew, should he have said he's 16 years old right off the bat?<hr></blockquote>
Yes, emotional and sensitive could be applied to all youngsters. The remark about being tall is vague, but you have to look at HOW GA is receiving the information - he is seeing a visual image of the boy, not reading a book of statistics. And where did the figure of 16 come from? Why not 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, or 19? And anyway, it's GA who decides that the figure represents his age, the Licatas don't tell him this.
[quote]How is this specific?......the affirmative answer helped set up these two questions.<hr></blockquote>
Not every accident involves other people, nor is every accident strange or mysterious. I don't see any necessary connection between someone else being involved and it being "strange".
[quote]Okay. What just transpired here?.....Gets negatives and it definitely involved a vehicle.<hr></blockquote>
Admittedly, accidental murder is a strange phrase but I think it is clearly explained. We know the boy was hit by a car - the boy was unlawfully killed, but unintentionally (according to the reading).
And as for the bottle, GA has received a vision of broken glass and has to interpret that. We've already established that GA is not always correct. There is a certain amount of static ? sometimes he seems to be unable to interpret his visions correctly. And how many possible ways do you think the boy could have been murdered? If we trying to narrow down all the possibilities for murder, why stop with a broken bottle?
[quote]He asked if the son had a head injury some 50 questions earlier....wouldn't it be logical for you to be hit from the back?<hr></blockquote>
But how did he know that the boy had been injured in the head in the first place? It's one of the very first claims he makes, before any mention of vehicles, cars, etc. My response is similar with the question of GA saying the boy had dark hair ? this may not be specific in the sense that you mean it, but the point is that GA was correct. The boy could just as easily have had blond hair, or red hair, or light brown hair.
[quote]The athletic question is also setup for a latter "amazing how did he know that" question-statement from GA later on. <hr></blockquote>
Is it? They don't seem very interested in is claim that he plays a sport involving the legs. Again, how did he know the boy was "very athletic" in the first place? That's not the same as just playing a bit of sport at school. Lots of kids aren't athletic, never mind very athletic. GA has received a (possibly physical) impression of the boy using his legs and then has to interpret that.
[quote]Earlier, GA asked if the son had any other injuries.....The pelvis is part of the groin not the back.<hr></blockquote>
I also don't see an obvious connection between the pelvis and the back, but the point is that BL denies that there were any other injuries, but GA does not change his claim and he is later shown to have been correct.
But we could go on quibbling about minor points like this all day. Before this post swells to a massive size, let's address your fundamental proposition - that GA is a ruthless charlatan using the statements of his subjects to logically deduce his answers. There are two problems with this claim as far as I can see. Firstly if this was correct, in order to deal with the vast number of variables and possibilities in each reading, he would generate at least as many "no"s as "yes"es from his subjects, and in fact far more nos in most instances. Instead, as a look at any reading quoted in the books will show that the yeses vastly outnumber the nos, and the nos and "I don't knows" themselves are often the result of forgetfulness or a subject's lack of awareness ? for instance BL did not that there was a sump near the scene of the accident and so denied GA's insistent claim that there was an area of water nearby.
And secondly, have you ever given any thought to the question of how mediums may receive their information? I don't think you have, but are making assumptions about it nevertheless. Perhaps you are assuming it's just instanteously there or like a receiving an invisible telephone call or something? In fact, in a process described at length in the books, GA and similar mediums receive much (although obviously not all) of their information through various non-verbal methods, including sympathetic pain and the triggering of mental and visual imagery, which can have different meanings in different situations to different people. That's why GA solicits acknowledgement, so that he can deduce the context of the sensations and visions. I realise that sounds terribly imprecise but it's the end results that count. We are after all talking about the possibility of communication between physical and non-physical beings. Who said it was going to be easy?
This is how the co-author summed it up for me in her email:
"As for the claim that mediums should remain silent. Doesn't it strike you as somewhat odd that people who don't believe in mediums come up with all of these rules and criteria they must satisfy to be considered "real"? If your friend (that's apparently you, THT!) understood and accepted many mediums' descriptions of how they experience the process, he would know that a contact isn't like a movie, where the spirit or energy appears and tells the medium the message the way an actor would deliver lines. The mesages are auditory, visual, tactile, proprioceptive, gustatory. In addition, they are often conveyed through signals and symbols, words and sounds that have a particular meaning known only to the subject and the spirit. A medium who...asked no questions would be at a considerable disadvantage, because different symbols have different meanings to different people. If, for example, you were to ask a person from the midwest what they thought of when you said "lavender," they might say, "Easter." If you were to ask the same of an Italian-American in the Bronx, they might say "death." Also remember, and this is true of most mediums, the connections don't always last very long, and the power to communicate effectively varies from spirit to spirit. Without the yes or the no, the medium -- and I mean any medium, not just George -- really is limited by his own specific frames of reference. This it not always the case. Sometimes spirits do appear and do show the mediums things that make the experience exactly like watching a movie. The meaning is crystal clear. But that's very rare and seems to occur around highly unusual or dramatic events, such as murders.
Think of it this way: The personal associations you have in your mind for things like love, death, loss, friendship, birthdays, and anything else a spirit might allude to, are yours. When I hear the word "birthday," I always see these yellow frosting roses that I saw on a cake when I was about three or so. You probably think of something else. These associations work kind of like a piano keyboard. When spirits contact a medium like George or John, they seem to communicate in part by sitting down to the medium's keyboard and striking the "keys" that bring up the associations that medium has. Does that make sense? For instance, George and John (another medium she knows) both speak in their readings of someone offering "roses." Although I haven't studied John's readings as closely as George's, he seems to use it more generally, for congratulations or birthday or anniversary. George, however, would often talk about the color of the roses, and for George particular colors had particular meanings to HIM.
So, let's say, I'm a medium, and when I think of my mother, I think of a particular color of geranium. That's also the first image I have if I think about geraniums in general. So right there, you have two possible "meanings" for the geranium image. If a spirit were to contact me and attempt to communicate something to me about my subject's mother, I might see that geranium. Now that geranium would mean nothing to my subject, but I know from past experience, that the spirit is saying something about a mother in a "language" I understand. I can ask about a mother, but I might also find that the important part of the message has nothing to do with mother but is about the geranium that the subject just planted at her husband's grave or the geranium her eight-year-old daughter drew for her hours before she died, or . . . it could be any of a hundred different things. I might see huge geraniums and discover that my subject's father ran a Chinese takout place or laundromat (many of which have huge geraniums growing in their front windows year round; don't ask me why; it's just something we see in New York). Maybe ssomeone wore a dress of that particular coral-ish color. Maybe the spirit's name is Coral. Or maybe Carol, and I'm getting confused. And so on. Now, a really talented medium will be able to narrow that down to a certain extent and may even get the correct association without asking a question. Also note that most questions are confirmatory. George is just confirming; the high rate of "yes" answers tells you that he's not fishing. It's not that the information is not clear, it's more that the context is undefined. Now, if George were to have subjects come in and say, "I'm here because my mother died last year and I miss her terribly. Here's a list of the names, causes of death, and ages or all my deceased family members," how much easier his life would be. But that's not how it goes. You must also remember that, unlike in other parts of the world or even other parts of the United States, the New York metropolitan area is quite multicultural, so mediums are often interepreting symbols and images from different cultures, religions, and so on."
[quote]If GA saw the symbol he interprets as Sigmund Freud before he questions Abrams.....Instead, he seems to enter into a stereotypical psychiatrist answering questions with questions mode of conversation.<hr></blockquote>
Okay, perhaps GA could have guessed that there was something strange about the man. And admittedly, he doesn't immediately identify the man as a psychiatrist. But with no direct clues or prompting, he does go immediately from professional to medical professional to psychiatrist. How many other professions are there?
[quote]I could find this funny if you put a smiley here. But in message posted on 03-31-2002 12:34 PM, you write:
Does not "first couple of chapters" mean chapters 1 and 2, not 3?<hr></blockquote>
I apologise, I had forgotten the context.
And finally, this is the co-author's response to the 'dauphin question':
"Because I wasn't in George's Catholic school classroom, obviously, all I can say about his misstatement of what was LATER proved a historical inaccuracy is this: People make mistakes. At the time George said this, and we're talking about the early 1970s or so, I assume, this DNA evidence had not emerged. But apparently, there were those who believed this "alternate" version of the events, or there was some historical evidence that led some to speculate another fate for the dauphin. History is full of things like this. Just think about Anastasia. Now we're all thinking that Hitler was gay, and we know that Richard Nixon was on drugs. The point of the story is not necessarily that George knew what happened to the dauphin, but that he had somehow come across information that he was not consciously aware of having ever "learned." Although this was never precisely articulated in the books, and I can't guarantee that George or Joel would agree with me, my own feeling is that information is an energy like any other. In this light, it would seem that George picked up the energy of this information. That's not to say that the person or entity he picked it up from was correct. Obviously, he/she/it wasn't. Taking it a step further, if you believe, as I think George might, that there might be some past life experience involved, remember that George can only know what a given spirit knows. If George in a past life or a spirit who lived, say, a hundred years ago, believed that the dauphin's fate was as George described it in class, then that's what you'd get."
[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Let's start by going back to the reading with the Licatas in the first chapter, since you are still harping on about it, I note.</strong>
Primarily because I read most of it, and the others I scanned, completely ignored, or glossed over.
<strong>untimely (but not necessarily sudden) death.</strong>
What's the difference between untimely and sudden? And would a subject or sitter discern a difference in answering yes or no?
<strong>By assessing the age of the couple, he could have also surmised that the probable age of the son or daughter - but only within a fairly broad margin of error.</strong>
He did indeed ask. First young, then teens or twenties, and when he guessed 16, he left himself an out ("or something"). So he did attempt to narrow it down to a pretty small margin of error.
<strong>And that's it. Not much to go on.</strong>
In a cold reading, GA doesn't even need that much.
<strong>However, GA then goes on to produce the following additional, specific and accurate information about the deceased person:-
they died suddenly</strong>
He asked if it was sudden. You already said this was a given as well, or surmisable in your introductory comments. And it wasn't "they". It was just "he" at first.
<strong>the death involved severe injuries to the back of their head and their back</strong>
It was pelvis, not back. The head or heart are the best places to start in any death because they are the most vital of your organs. Blood as well. Once the first answer is given, then there is a fairly logical path of questioning that will get lots of yes answers.
<strong>they died in an accident (rather than because of a disease)</strong>
He asked whether it was a sudden death. The yes indicated that it was not a disease, since it is rare for disease to kill the young suddenly. That left accident which is generic enough to encompass any and all things other then disease.
<strong>the accident had a degree of mystery or uncertainty attached to it</strong>
This I think was an interesting question. I wondered why he would ask such a thing myself. Perhaps GA detected some body language clues or maybe the "yes" wasn't a confident yes.
<strong>the accident involved a vehicle, later specified as a car</strong>
He asked. He reiterated with the "yes, I see a vehicle in front of me" type of reassertion. One wonders why he didn't identify the vehicle if he saw it in front of him. Now that I think about it. This vehicle doesn't have all that much to do with the car later specified, since it was implicit that the vehicle involved was the hit-and-run car. If it was a hit-and-run, the only way they could identify it as a car as opposed to truck was through tire tracks because the car ran. If it's just a vehicle that was close to the teens, one wonders why it took so long to find them? So GA's interpretation here isn't all that great. He never did go anywhere with the car statements.
<strong>the person was their son</strong>
He asked.
<strong>someone else was with him at the time</strong>
He asked.
<strong>a young girl known to the family died before their son</strong>
He asked.
<strong>the son had died less than a year previously, was tall, dark-eyed, dark-haired, 16 years old, very athletic, had trouble with his chest, had a pet dog, was close to someone called Robert, knew someone called Barbara other than his mother, was athletic and played sport, had a cousin called Joseph to whom something worthy of congratulations had happened after the son's death, had a brother who was "very hostile" and a sister who was "very tall", played an instrument, was interested in religion, and had long or thick hair which was often complimented (GA gets the number of grandparents alive and dead wrong but the authors admit this)</strong>
What was good was 16. Perhaps 16 is just a number that is more in the minds of people because it is the cusp of a variety of things (mathematics, puberty, innocence, etc.) The names I will discuss later. The others weren't specific. The Licatas were 5'4", so taller then them was obvious, especially if the Licatas were immigrants. The "athletic" was dubious. If you play on the soccer team, it doesn't mean you're athletic, just that you're on the soccer team. If he was athletic, in the least, he'd be a 3 sports letterman. That's what I would consider athletic. To a parent or anyone, it could be attributed in a number of ways. The hair and eyes were generic and can be based on the parents, especially if the parents were Italian.
The brother could have also been generous, yet sometimes selfish, well mannered, yet sometimes crass, even tempered, but sometimes prone to hostility. That is, hostility isn't specific. For instance, if GA said depressed instead of hostile, would BL have the same reaction?
The sister's height is dubious without the full transcript. GA asked if the son played an instrument, then couldn't identify what that instrument was.
GA didn't say the son was religious at first. He first asked if the son was a spiritual person, after BL said yes, he reiterates that he was impressed with his son's spiritualness. Later, he asked if the son was religious. The answer to these questions, BL and JL won't know for sure even though they said yes. However, the questions are very complimentary to the parents.
<strong>he son murdered, but it was an "accidental" murder</strong>
The son wasn't murdered. If GA said hit-and-run right off the bat, I'd be more impressed. Accidental-murder is dubious, most people wouldn't understand it, and can fit the event to the what "accidental-murder" may mean.
<strong>he was struck from behind</strong>
GA asked about the son being struck in the back of the head. BL said yes. He then said that the son was struck from behind.
<strong>he had gone out with friends was near a social gathering where alcohol was being drunk at the time of the accident</strong>
There is nothing specific about this. What sort of social gathering? How many people? Teens and alcohol? That's impossible! Teens, alcohol and accidents? Even more impossible! Seriously, you think this is specific?
<strong>he was keen on a sport involving running</strong>
When I was going to high school, every sport involved "using one's legs," unless you consider "mathletes" or "quiz bowler" or "chess" as sports. GA didn't specify running even. He guessed track at first, and than said sport using legs, remember? BL even helped by said "not track", instead of just no.
<strong>family members called John, Rose, Theresa and Sal had died before the son</strong>
John was the name of the boy's father, asking if they knew a John seems a good ploy to me because people name children after relatives. Rose is a good guess because it has alternative meanings (with flowers, rosary, et al), but on its own, I'm impressed with that.
Theresa, Sal, Robert, Joseph, the pet dog for all I know, could have been discerned in the line of questioning summarized by the authors right after the questioning about the water nearby. The authors write, "For several minutes George gave out a series of names that Barbara and John acknowledged." Several minutes could be hundreds of questions.
<strong>that there an area of water near the scene of accident</strong>
There's water everywhere. It all depends on what "near" means. It also doesn't matter if GA was wrong. He could be confused by the symbols and the subject will accept it fine.
<strong>nobody had yet been convicted but someone the parents knew had been questioned by the police</strong>
That's why it's a strange death
<strong>the suspect was balding and married (GA then provides an apparently accurate but unquoted description of the man's clothing, health, hairstyle, and temperament, as well as part of his last name)</strong>
GA asked if he was bald, not balding. Again, like the vehicle and car questions, something is not right here. If GA is "specifying" the suspect the police questioned, then it must follow that the suspect was the driver of the hit-and-run. So either the police wasn't competent in connecting the dots with broken glass, vehicle and all, or the suspect was innocent. If the suspect was innocent, how is it possible that GA is talking about him when the son should only be describing the unknown hit-and-run driver?
I'll stick with "apparently" accurate until there is at least a transcript.
<strong>the mother possessed a white rosary (GA would not even have known they were Catholic as he did not known their surname)</strong>
Catholics dominate the New York and New England area. If the mother had an Italian accent, however slight, that Catholic and rosary are no brainers. The white color is impressive, but perhaps I'm missing something about the color of typical rosaries.
<strong>the son's maternal grandmother, who was still alive, spoke Italian</strong>
Perhaps Barbara had an Italian accent, however slight. Not to mention that there are a lot of Italians in the New York and New England area either. He also asked "All the grandparents cross over?" prior. He then says that the grandmother was devastated. Not impressive because he previously ascertained that the other grandparents were deceased.
<strong>the son's paternal grandmother was "devout to the blessed mother"</strong>
GA didn't provide this information. He asked, "Who is devout to the Blessed Mother?" BL said, "My husband's mother, I think." JL nodded affirmatively.
<strong>So, just guesswork? During the reading, the parents respond to GA's questions with "no" a total of 14 times (I didn't count the much more numerous "yes"es!)</strong>
No, not guess work. A cold reading, good deductive reasoning and experience at doing it.
<strong>HOWEVER, four of those nos are later shown to incorrect (ie GA was right); three occur when GA is trying to place the girl he has psychically seen; and two when GA is trying to place visions of a car and a sport involving running. That leaves only five. The subjects use the phrase "I don't know" five times - however, on four of these occasions, GA is later shown to be correct, and on the fifth he might be correct.</strong>
You forgot:
Page 39: For several minutes George gave out a series of names that Barbara and John acknowledged
Page 39: George then spoke of something metallic, which he saw symbolically as a weapon. Barbara was not clear about the meaning of this message. George may have been referring to the vehicle that struck and killed David or some other weapon at the scene of the crime, which could not be fully explained because of lack of information.
Page 41: George had some difficulty in interpreting the girl's age.
Page 44: There was some confusion in the symbols George received as to what instrument David played.
Also, the meaning of the car or vehicle was unclear, the meaning of the broken glass was unclear, GA punted on who the driver of the hit-and-run vehicle was, he virtually ignored who Bret (the other victim) was, and he didn't produce the name of the young girl that was strangled even though BL asked about 2 or 3 times.
So, he wasn't as good as you're saying. If you eliminate all the fluff questions and statements, I think it further degrades his impressiveness.
<strong>I quoted a number of examples of interesting later readings in an earlier post, but I have also suggested that you read the rest of the book, and possibly the two sequels as well, if you want to continue this debate because there is a lot more in there.</strong>
I'm very busy, but I will try if you have the patience. I'm going on vacation in a couple of days, so you won't hear from me for a little bit.
<strong>I was scanning "We Don't Die" again on Friday and found three more of the other laboratory tests I referred to - on ps. 216-217 and 222-223 (chapter nine) of my edition.</strong>
I will try to get to these later.
<strong>If he was just making it up, why did he persist with the questions about a young girl at all? Isn't that just going to make him look bad? Why even mention a young girl in the first place? My understanding is that GA saw a VISION of a young girl ... and then had to place this in the context of the subject's lives.</strong>
Why would it make him look bad to persist? He's got plenty of escape assertions to explain his problems. All he needed to find, once the original "girl" question was asked and answered negatively, was a girl that the family knew had died, so as to say she met him the son on the other side. He even asked if the girl passed on before him to make sure. If they said yes immediately instead, then he would have found out about who the girl was, whether she was his girlfriend et al.
If nothing came out of the line of questioning, saying that he was just confused is also fine, which happened in the reading.
<strong>Yes, emotional and sensitive could be applied to all youngsters. The remark about being tall is vague, but you have to look at HOW GA is receiving the information - he is seeing a visual image of the boy, not reading a book of statistics. And where did the figure of 16 come from? Why not 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, or 19? And anyway, it's GA who decides that the figure represents his age, the Licatas don't tell him this.</strong>
GA didn't say 16 was his age until he knew it meant something. He asked whether 16 meant something, possibly his age. When BL said yes, he asserted age.
I would have eliminated 13, 14, 18 and 19 myself. GA knew he was teen, knew he was in an accident with a vehicle, and knew he was tall in the parents eyes. Tall eliminated 13 and 14. GA knew that the Licatas doted on him like child, almost treated him as a child, and that would have eliminated 18 and 19. He then put 16 out there as bait. Maybe 16 was used to split the difference. If he was wrong, he could have just said his vision of him looks like 16 to 18 year old.
<strong>Not every accident involves other people, nor is every accident strange or mysterious. I don't see any necessary connection between someone else being involved and it being "strange".</strong>
GA said: He said he wasn't alone when this accident occurred. Someone else played a role in it.
If you recall, he earlier asked: Would you say there's something strange about his case? Even earlier to that he asked, Was someone with him when this occurred? BL answered positively to both questions. He is restating something he asked earlier, which he does a lot. The strangeness could be explained through the confidence of BL's answers when asked about whether it was an accident.
<strong>Admittedly, accidental murder is a strange phrase but I think it is clearly explained. We know the boy was hit by a car - the boy was unlawfully killed, but unintentionally (according to the reading).</strong>
There is a way to lawfully kill someone?!
<strong>And as for the bottle, GA has received a vision of broken glass and has to interpret that. We've already established that GA is not always correct. There is a certain amount of static - sometimes he seems to be unable to interpret his visions correctly. And how many possible ways do you think the boy could have been murdered? If we trying to narrow down all the possibilities for murder, why stop with a broken bottle?</strong>
It was established to be an accident, with a vehicle involved. I'm thinking that BL misled GA by saying yes to the murder question, and was sidetracked a little. He didn't stop with a broken bottle. He asked about a break-in as well. Broken bottle would have meant a fight. The question isn't "how many possible ways do you think the boy could have been murdered?" It's "how many ways can the boy be murdered with broken glass, a vehicle, and an accident?" So it was already narrowed down quite a bit.
<strong>But how did he know that the boy had been injured in the head in the first place? It's one of the very first claims he makes, before any mention of vehicles, cars, etc. My response is similar with the question of GA saying the boy had dark hair - this may not be specific in the sense that you mean it, but the point is that GA was correct. The boy could just as easily have had blond hair, or red hair, or light brown hair.</strong>
I said it before. The head or heart (or the even more generic blood) would be good places to start for any death. Since it was a young person and a very unpleasant and sudden form of passing, the head would seem to be the better choice.
How tough of a "dark hair or eyes" guess would it be? If BL and JL both had dark hair and dark eyes, the odds of the boy have dark is very very good. If GA saw a vision of the boy and was able to tell he was tall, why wasn't he able to tell the specific color of his hair and eyes, not just dark? Btw, blond, red, and brown are hair colors, and GA did not use a color to describe the boy's hair and eyes.
<strong>Is it? They don't seem very interested in is claim that he plays a sport involving the legs. Again, how did he know the boy was "very athletic" in the first place? That's not the same as just playing a bit of sport at school. Lots of kids aren't athletic, never mind very athletic. GA has received a (possibly physical) impression of the boy using his legs and then has to interpret that.</strong>
He didn't know he was "athletic". He asked. After BL said yes though, he said the typical positive reinforcement "because I'm seeing that symbol as well." Then some 30 questions questions later, GA builds on this answer with "Was he big on track or something?"
<strong>I also don't see an obvious connection between the pelvis and the back, but the point is that BL denies that there were any other injuries, but GA does not change his claim and he is later shown to have been correct.</strong>
BL said initially she didn't know. The second time, she said no. His claim of other injuries was correct, though not an amazing claim to having more than head injuries in a fatal car accident. The claim of back injuries was however incorrect.
<strong>Before this post swells to a massive size, let's address your fundamental proposition - that GA is a ruthless charlatan using the statements of his subjects to logically deduce his answers. There are two problems with this claim as far as I can see. Firstly if this was correct, in order to deal with the vast number of variables and possibilities in each reading, he would generate at least as many "no"s as "yes"es from his subjects, and in fact far more nos in most instances.</strong>
No I don't think this would be the case. He just works from a generic or general idea of what happens and asks the right lines of questioning to get more "yes" answers. He stays as general as possible, never saying anything with specificity, so "yes" answers should be more common. Staying generic is to his advantage because the subject will work to apply the generic question to fit their events, and a yes answer would come out.
<strong>In fact, in a process described at length in the books, GA and similar mediums receive much (although obviously not all) of their information through various non-verbal methods, including sympathetic pain and the triggering of mental and visual imagery, which can have different meanings in different situations to different people. That's why GA solicits acknowledgement, so that he can deduce the context of the sensations and visions. I realise that sounds terribly imprecise but it's the end results that count. [The co-author's explanation deleted.]</strong>
In other words, cold reading. Start with some generic thing or symbol and work to explain what it means to the subject's or sitter's events.
<strong>Okay, perhaps GA could have guessed that there was something strange about the man. And admittedly, he doesn't immediately identify the man as a psychiatrist. But with no direct clues or prompting, he does go immediately from professional to medical professional to psychiatrist. How many other professions are there?</strong>
When you start narrowing down binary tree fashion, it eliminates huge swaths very quickly. When you have an understanding of who you're subjects and adversaries typically are, then certain lines of questioning can be used to generate a lot of yes answers.
<strong>And finally, this is the co-author's response to the 'dauphin question':
"Because I wasn't in George's Catholic school classroom, obviously, all I can say about his misstatement of what was LATER proved a historical inaccuracy is this: People make mistakes. ... The point of the story is not necessarily that George knew what happened to the dauphin, but that he had somehow come across information that he was not consciously aware of having ever "learned." ... Taking it a step further, if you believe, as I think George might, that there might be some past life experience involved, remember that George can only know what a given spirit knows. ..."</strong>
Okay, I can buy that people make mistakes. No need to suggest explanations why he was wrong. The cynical point of view about his being aware of something without learning is that GA knew that there was controversy over the fate of the dauphin, and since he could have believed it to be an unsolvable mystery, he put it out there to aggrandize his abilities.
So what's his reading on Amelia Earhart and where her remains are? What about the killers of Jon Benet Ramsey? Where is Chandra Levy? He could be a superhero if he can divine the whereabouts of the thousands of unsolved missing persons, murders, and deaths in the US. It's even okay for him to be wrong 90% of the time.
[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
Okay, I don't know if you'll see this message or its imminent follow-up if you're on holiday, but whatever. Watch this space for my final word on the matter in the next couple of days...
sex bomb baby as well
I don't really have the time (or to be honest the inclination) to go through your further comments on the Licata reading in great detail, but a few points leapt out at me as I read your post:
[quote]the person was their son
He asked.
someone else was with him at the time
He asked.
a young girl known to the family died before their son
He asked.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]No I don't think this would be the case. He just works from a generic or general idea of what happens and asks the right lines of questioning to get more "yes" answers.<hr></blockquote>
Isn't there a contradiction between your continuing insistence that GA is fishing for his information by asking questions and your claim that he is asking leading questions designed to produce mainly 'yes' answers? Surely they can't be both?
And anyway, in what why are such questions as:
"Is this a son?"
"Was someone with him when this occurred?"
"Was a girl with him?"
"Was your son very athletic?"
...designed to produce more 'yes' answers? Either they're right or they're wrong.
[quote]He stays as general as possible, never saying anything with specificity, so "yes" answers should be more common. Staying generic is to his advantage because the subject will work to apply the generic question to fit their events, and a yes answer would come out.<hr></blockquote>
I understand the point you're trying to make here, but I don't really see how this applies. In what way are the questions quoted above generic? Either it was their son or it wasn't; either he was alone when he died or he wasn't; either there was a girl with him or there wasn't; either he was very athletic or he wasn't.
You have insisted throughout that is is easy to use deduction and guesswork to produce all this information. You can keep on repeating this, but it's not so easy to show that this is actually true. We are not talking about a game of 20 questions, where you may may sometimes be able to deduce the identity of a single object through a series of yes/ no enquiries. In a reading situation we are talking about a huge number of interlinking possibilities.
The point about GA's statements in this and other readings is surely not whether GA does or doesn't, or should or shouldn't, make them in question or statement form (I have already quoted you the co-author's explanation of why GA asks "questions" during readings). It's whether he's right or not. It's the end results that count, not the grammatical structure of his sentences. Look at the definitive number of "questions" in the Licata reading that elicit "yes" answers and ask yourself how many of those GA could just as easily have gotten wrong.
Another point is that GA is described in the first book as being (initially) sceptical of his own perceptions. By asking questions he is demonstrating that he does not necessarily believe his own impressions. Later, as his confidence increases, he becomes much more assertive, frequently insisting on statements which later prove to be correct in the face of some subjects' denials and don't knows.
[quote]Why would it make him look bad to persist? He's got plenty of escape assertions to explain his problems. All he needed to find, once the original "girl" question was asked and answered negatively, was a girl that the family knew had died, so as to say she met him the son on the other side. He even asked if the girl passed on before him to make sure. If they said yes immediately instead, then he would have found out about who the girl was, whether she was his girlfriend et al.<hr></blockquote>
Again, why mention a girl in the first place? It seems a curiously specific statement to make if he was just narrowing down from the generic. We know that there was no girl with the son when he died. It would only take a no answer to two more questions to make GA's vision of a dead girl with some relation to the son definitively wrong: did the son know a girl (not a woman , a girl) who'd died? Did the family know a girl who'd died? (Perhaps at a stretch you could add: did the other boy with the son at the time of the accident know a girl who'd died?) Hardly questions with an overwhelming probabilty of a yes answer.
[quote]How tough of a "dark hair or eyes" guess would it be? If BL and JL both had dark hair and dark eyes, the odds of the boy have dark is very very good. If GA saw a vision of the boy and was able to tell he was tall, why wasn't he able to tell the specific color of his hair and eyes, not just dark? Btw, blond, red, and brown are hair colors, and GA did not use a color to describe the boy's hair and eyes.<hr></blockquote>
Well, okay. I take your point. GA could made certain assumptions about the Licatas based on their physical appearance. If they were short and dark-haired or spoke with a certain accent, he could have guessed with a reasonably high chance of being right that they were Italian-Americans and their son was also likely to have been dark-haired. But apart from the reference to them being short, we know nothing about their physical appearance, nor do we know whether they spoke with accents. In addition:
1/ How did GA (correctly) guess the son was tall? Isn't the child of two short parents more likely to be short themselves?
2/ How did GA know the deceased person was their son?
3/ What if the Licatas did not speak with a discernible accent or provide some other clue to their ethnic background? GA would not have known their surname, so they could just as easily have been representatives of the many other nationalities which tend to be short and dark.
Later in the book, there are several examples quoted of GA giving readings over the phone live on radio or television. In such situations, GA would obviously not have any visual clues to work on. But his accuracy rate does not appear to have been affected.
I don't know why GA used the vague term 'dark' instead of a more specific reference to the son's hair and eye colour. I wasn't there. Perhaps he was just speaking casually. If you were describing someone you had seen in the street, would you necessarily be tremendously specific unless you were giving the police a witness statement or something?
[quote]So what's his reading on Amelia Earhart and where her remains are? What about the killers of Jon Benet Ramsey? Where is Chandra Levy? <hr></blockquote>
I don't know. There are a few references within the books to GA doing confidential police work. Perhaps GA has given readings to relatives of these people or the police and it just hasn't been publicised. Some people, and the police in particular, are very touchy about the involvement of psychics, especially in countries like the US. Perhaps GA knows but no one is listening. Perhaps he hasn't been asked. Perhaps the deaths of these people were meant to be mysterious. Amelia Earhart died decades ago and probably stopped caring whether or not her body is found long ago. I doubt it matters much once you enter the afterlife.
I think you are still failing to grasp the nature of mediumistic communications and assuming that they should mean instant access to some universal database of all knowledge. GA and other mediums who I think are genuine are seemingly only communicating with individual spirits (or whatever term you prefer), and therefore can only convey information known to these individuals. If the spirits are wrong/ vague/ confused, then GA will be too. If they don't or won't say anything, then GA will have nothing to say. And as the co-author of the book explained in her email (as quoted in my previous post), the information is provided in various ways which can include sensual impressions, visions, sounds, sensations, and other entirely non-verbal methods, the meaning of which may not be obvious. This may sound woefully imprecise, but that just seems to be the way it is. It's the end result - the accurate statement hit rate - that counts.
But we could go on like this for months and get nowhere. I have already said several times that I do not consider the reading with the Licatas in the first chapter to be an especially compelling example of the material found in these books. I imagine the authors chose it to lead in the book because of its dramatic qualities and not for any other reason. GA's statements are rather vague in comparison to elsewhere and there are some fuzzy bits (which the authors at least left in). I imagine this is has something to do with the information apparently being conveyed by an agitated and excited teenager in a state of high emotion (imagine talking to a agitated, emotional, and inarticulate but still living teenage boy about similar events). This is why I have been reluctant to debate this reading with you and why I have been so boringly insistent that you read the rest of the book. It was reading the whole book and its sequels, not just the first chapter, that lead me to the conclusion that they were intellectually credible and GA was/ is a genuine medium ? and it is that impression which I have been trying to defend here. I admit I was partly goaded to do so by your earlier insinuations of intellectual superiority.
I have even provided you with page references for some more interesting examples later but I note that you have not read these. No doubt it suits you to keep the debate focused on the first chapter. Perhaps you haven't had time to read the rest of the books(s) but you have had time to write me long postings and continue this debate, which perhaps shows where your true priorities lie.
So I think it is time to declare a draw. We have both known from the start here that nothing I say is ever going to convince you that GA is a genuine medium, because you have already made up your mind. Any evidence I marshal will always be interpreted in a particular way. You will always find a get-out clause no matter what I or anyone else says, and no matter whether the get-out clause has any real credibility. You said in one of your first posts here that anyone who believes in mediums is necessarily a fool - hardly an impartial standpoint from which to consider the evidence.
Of course I am not attempting to deny that there are fakes and fraudulent mediums around. Nor am I in any way attempting to advocate credulity. Scepticism is healthy but there is a point where healthy scepticism ends and the grinding of axes begins. That's not meant as a criticism - it's something we're all prone to
<a href="http://www.samadhitank.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.samadhitank.com/</a>;
then either meditate for 3 years or get 2-CB or Ketamine so you can more easily leave the space/time suit we call the body. After you leave (temporarily) have a friend in another room draw something on paper (such as a big number) and then when you come back and they open the tank lid you can just keep repeating the number outloud no matter how out of it you are. I have done this five or six times to different people who then went on to do it to others, but don't do it around negative people or you will have a BAD experience. Outside the body the mind creates its own reaity (to a point) and if negative/bad people ar around it will effect you profoundly.