• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Oct 12th 2008 - Gary E. Schwartz

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

I finished reading Schwartz book that I bought and the data I find quite compelling to support the effectiveness of mediums. Just IMO I also found the data to provide evidence that an afterlife exists which is something I've always thought anyway so it just reinforced that belief.

I don't think Schwartz in his lifetime will be able to prove this as a scientific certainty however and i didn't find his book written in an objective manner and he probably overstates the data results, but the data he collected does seem legit (I am no scientist though) and many of the examples he gives seem nearly impossible unless there was truly something to this.

Strange that John Edwards (i think that was his name) actually is a very effective medium, who would have thought? It would be interesting to get Sylvia Brown in the same lab experiment and see how she bullshits her way out of a set up where she can't see the person and can't talk to them, a scenario where Edwards was still able to get significant results.
 
It's John Edward. I had James Randi yell at me for calling him Edwards once. Since then it sticks in my mind lol.

John's reportedly been tested. I can't recall if Schwartz was involved or not. Was he?

He needs to go for the Randi challenge though. He's aware of it but always has a lame cop out when asked if he'll do it.
 
Aaron LeClair said:
It's John Edward. I had James Randi yell at me for calling him Edwards once. Since then it sticks in my mind lol.

John's reportedly been tested. I can't recall if Schwartz was involved or not. Was he?

He needs to go for the Randi challenge though. He's aware of it but always has a lame cop out when asked if he'll do it.
Click to expand...

LOL Randi corrected me about John Edward to.

Yes it was John that was tested, plus a few others.
 
Mothra said:
LOL Randi corrected me about John Edward to.

Yes it was John that was tested, plus a few others.
Click to expand...

I don't know very much about Randi but............. I get the major impression Randi is a fundamentalist debunker, it doesn't matter what you do he's not gonna admit it's real even if monkeys literally flew out of your butt.

For him to write Arigo off as a fraud or to think the data Schwartz got is anyway a hoax is not being honest IMO. Granted this is a very hard field for people to be completely objective in. We were all raised certain ways or have had certain experiences that affect our opinions in light of real data.

I think it's likely Randi has witnessed thousands of frauds, some of them probably extremely tricky and creative and talented. And he's probably seen some people who maybe were legit but had aspects to them that ruined their credibility. I wouldn't be surprised if he was raised to believe this stuff is fake to such a degree that I bet when confronted with the real deal (which until I hear compelling evidence against Arigo I think he so obviously was the real deal) that it doesn't matter what evidence you had, his mind is wired to not give it a chance. Kind of in the same way that many partisan people no matter what their party says, is gonna support them even if they are obviously wrong.

Schwartz did indeed do a lot of tests with John Edward in the book. While the book is likely written in a way that doesn't elaborate on the incorrect data John my have said, some of the examples that John got correct are ridiculous. At one point in the book (I think it was John) he guesses that a lady had a son and he committed suicide with a gun and that the son says sorry to his mom and this was done with controls in place to undermine cold readings a la hoaxers. Pretty amazing stuff, when a significant majority of what Edward says is correct and completely repeatable in a lab setting.
 
Rocketsauce said:
I don't know very much about Randi but............. I get the major impression Randi is a fundamentalist debunker, it doesn't matter what you do he's not gonna admit it's real even if monkeys literally flew out of your butt.

For him to write Arigo off as a fraud or to think the data Schwartz got is anyway a hoax is not being honest IMO. Granted this is a very hard field for people to be completely objective in. We were all raised certain ways or have had certain experiences that affect our opinions in light of real data.

I think it's likely Randi has witnessed thousands of frauds, some of them probably extremely tricky and creative and talented. And he's probably seen some people who maybe were legit but had aspects to them that ruined their credibility. I wouldn't be surprised if he was raised to believe this stuff is fake to such a degree that I bet when confronted with the real deal (which until I hear compelling evidence against Arigo I think he so obviously was the real deal) that it doesn't matter what evidence you had, his mind is wired to not give it a chance. Kind of in the same way that many partisan people no matter what their party says, is gonna support them even if they are obviously wrong.

Schwartz did indeed do a lot of tests with John Edward in the book. While the book is likely written in a way that doesn't elaborate on the incorrect data John my have said, some of the examples that John got correct are ridiculous. At one point in the book (I think it was John) he guesses that a lady had a son and he committed suicide with a gun and that the son says sorry to his mom and this was done with controls in place to undermine cold readings a la hoaxers. Pretty amazing stuff, when a significant majority of what Edward says is correct and completely repeatable in a lab setting.
Click to expand...


That scene with the suicide is in the documentary. Johns like, "I'm seeing an explosion to the face".

I believe they were also sequestered away like jurors while the experiments were going on.
 
I just found this clip from a Fox news report on Gary Schwartz asking a family for 3 million bucks to help their deceased son?????

Granted that Fox news and Geraldo are not a very good source of information for anything objective :)

But.... I thought this clip really opens questions in my mind about the legitimacy of this guy's work. I have read and endorsed 'Afterlife Experiments' which is the book he wrote, to my friends so I'd be curious if you could get him back on the show and give him the hot seat about this and see what you guys can uncover. Is he an unethical fraud who needs to be exposed or is this a misunderstanding/Fox News sensationalism?


Gary Schwartz Afterlife Scam
 
Nice find! Although it all occurred 2 years ago, very interesting stuff.

My guess from watching the video and then reading the response is that (surprise!) Fox News and Geraldo did not do their due diligence. They obviously took 1 side and didn't interview anyone who worked for him other than the disgruntled former employee.

If Schwartz was going around conning people you'd think he'd be out of a job. Certainly mixing commerce/fundraising with people who are grieving in the name of studying psychics seems very sketchy, but if the dude was the instigator in pursuing Schwartz initially because he wanted to talk with him about funding then the Fox story would seem bogus.

I will say that nowhere in Schwartz's rebuttal did he deny asking to stay in the boys room or deny that he gave the father his opinion on his son and feeling his son's presence. Some questions remain unanswered, perhaps the Paracast can get to the bottom of this saga?

As we all have noticed, people in the paranormal field (particularly UFO's) at some point all seem to lose their minds along the way, which is why it wouldn't surprise me if Schwartz was getting into some sketchy areas, but this Fox report certainly doesn't provide any conclusions in light of Schwartz rebuttal.

My conclusion for now is Fox News and Geraldo went for the sensationalism over balance but Schwartz is possibly starting to drink his own kool aide as well, particularly if he did indeed offer his own physic reading to someone who was a potential funder of his research.............
 
Back
Top