Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Priss333

Ouija Boards?

65 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

papageorge1
19 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I am sure we would all really like to see this report and teh actual methodology used to conduct this eoperiment as I am not aware of a single legit test.  Do you have alink or a name?

 

Dr. Gary  Schwartz.......Dr. Julie Beischel

Bleishel Interview

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Merc14
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Dr. Gary  Schwartz.......Dr. Julie Beischel

Bleishel Interview

Thnaks but all the links to the "research" on that page are dead. 

I have looked around and both Schwartz and Beischel's work has been rejected by the wider scientific community for poor design and inadequate controls.  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Julie_Beischel    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gary_Schwartz

Schwartz claimed to contact the spirit of a 25 year old man in his parent's bathroom and subsequently tried to charge the parents 3.5 million dollars (see above link)

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
8 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Thnaks but all the links to the "research" on that page are dead. 

I have looked around and both Schwartz and Beischel's work has been rejected by the wider scientific community for poor design and inadequate controls.  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Julie_Beischel    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gary_Schwartz

Schwartz claimed to contact the spirit of a 25 year old man in his parent's bathroom and subsequently tried to charge the parents 3.5 million dollars (see above link)

If all that interests you in serious claims of scientific research is whatever dirt things like rationalwiki can come up with, then carry on. The rest of us will read further.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

If all that interests you in serious claims of scientific research is whatever dirt things like rationalwiki can come up with, then carry on. The rest of us will read further.

 

What would interest me is actual, tangible proof that someone can talk to the dead but all I saw there is more claims.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

What would interest me is actual, tangible proof that someone can talk to the dead but all I saw there is more claims.

What can you expect beyond controlled experiments showing tremendous odds against chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

What can you expect beyond controlled experiments showing tremendous odds against chance?

I'm sorry but I saw no experiments, even at the Windbridge site.  They simply tell you the results of their "scientific" research without offering a peek at how they did these experiments.    That, in and of itself, is very suspicious as a theory must be repeatable to be accepted as correct.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I'm sorry but I saw no experiments, even at the Windbridge site.  They simply tell you the results of their "scientific" research without offering a peek at how they did these experiments.    That, in and of itself, is very suspicious as a theory must be repeatable to be accepted as correct.  

I know I saw in Schwartz’s book a lot of detail on the test protocols and results  and etc..

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

I believe it was in the Schwartz book, Merc, where they laid it out and I felt it was a decent try to actually get a scientific measure on this, but then it started blurring and mediums started dropping out of the program and last I heard they had maybe a couple dozen certified is all now.

In the end I am not sure what "certified" really means, as you infer, nor do I understand what the purpose was as it seems to have stopped in its activity and basically lives on as something of a source to point to on a resume that a medium is certified. I do not know anything really was done with this started idea.

But, it did start as a real effort, so must be sort of applauded for that bit. JMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

I believe it was in the Schwartz book, Merc, where they laid it out and I felt it was a decent try to actually get a scientific measure on this, but then it started blurring and mediums started dropping out of the program and last I heard they had maybe a couple dozen certified is all now.

In the end I am not sure what "certified" really means, as you infer, nor do I understand what the purpose was as it seems to have stopped in its activity and basically lives on as something of a source to point to on a resume that a medium is certified. I do not know anything really was done with this started idea.

But, it did start as a real effort, so must be sort of applauded for that bit. JMO.

Yes, looks like they have 17 "certified" medims whose olnt apparent test was two "blinded phone readings" which, frankly, could mean anything.  https://www.windbridge.org/mediums/

I did find a paper by Beischel that looks like it describes her experiment but I haven't read it yet. and it doesn't seem to have been tightly controlled at all.   Readings conducted over the phone and email using a "proxy sitter" as the only control?    http://windbridge.org/papers/BeischelJP71Methods.pdf

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 1/12/2018 at 7:23 PM, ChaosRose said:

It will say things to hurt you. 

And this is reason enough for people to stay clear of it......IMHO.  Be good to yourself, and don't open the door for these "evil spirits" to mess with you.....if they exist.....and they just may.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

It sounds like it began as a serious effort to measure and also not so uproot the "psychic" so much they could not function within their normal environment. Many mediums and psychics work via phone so that is fair enough if they were reading someone they had zero access to or knowledge about, if it was done right and this was monitored and documented. 

I really want to see more of this kind of effort happen, because I believe that most "psychic" results are normal and just not well understood normal events.

But, the vibe I got reading through the associated links and sheer stuff on that site is that a few stayed on it, most drifted off and when the grant money died out so did most of the effort. There was so much emotionalism and drama and the whole mess is sad without science keeping it clean when you start dealing with the emotions around the death of loved ones. I found a link to a medium who channels her own dead son :( who was at war with another medium who said something negative about him or her or whatever and just shut it down at that point. 

Answers do not lie that direction, I fear. But it really was an attempt, Merc, though that is all I can say about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
26 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Yes, looks like they have 17 "certified" medims whose olnt apparent test was two "blinded phone readings" which, frankly, could mean anything.  https://www.windbridge.org/mediums/

I did find a paper by Beischel that looks like it describes her experiment but I haven't read it yet. and it doesn't seem to have been tightly controlled at all.   Readings conducted over the phone and email using a "proxy sitter" as the only control?    http://windbridge.org/papers/BeischelJP71Methods.pdf

I did a test on this forum once. Had people guess the amount of change in a brown envelope. Got a Lot of guesses for an envelope that didn't exist.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

It sounds like it began as a serious effort to measure and also not so uproot the "psychic" so much they could not function within their normal environment. Many mediums and psychics work via phone so that is fair enough if they were reading someone they had zero access to or knowledge about, if it was done right and this was monitored and documented. 

I really want to see more of this kind of effort happen, because I believe that most "psychic" results are normal and just not well understood normal events.

But, the vibe I got reading through the associated links and sheer stuff on that site is that a few stayed on it, most drifted off and when the grant money died out so did most of the effort. There was so much emotionalism and drama and the whole mess is sad without science keeping it clean when you start dealing with the emotions around the death of loved ones. I found a link to a medium who channels her own dead son :( who was at war with another medium who said something negative about him or her or whatever and just shut it down at that point. 

Answers do not lie that direction, I fear. But it really was an attempt, Merc, though that is all I can say about it. 

I understand and belive that she believes what she is doing is real but therre have been many of these "experiments" and they never shows anything fantastical.   If you are interested this article discussed in depth the problem with these types of experiments and the flaw in the researcher's conclusions.   Schwartz, the subject of teh article,  and Beischel worked together and her experiments follow closely how his were run.  https://www.csicop.org/si/show/how_not_to_test_mediums_critiquing_the_afterlife_experiments

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

Thanks Merc, that was a great write up and is sad to see some really potentially great results, marred because they did not take care to ensure the appearance of no information being leaked or given to the mediums. There were some striking hits, and yet, these scientists did not set it up to ensure the appearances, even knowing the level of criticism was going to be high. 

I will say things I consider to be hits were dismissed by the writer, but, there is unreason and extremism on both sides of the equation. These other issues helped damage the over all credibility of the studies. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Reading about the mathematical mistakes is incredible. Schwartz needed to hire a mathematician/statistician from his old university. 

When it comes to people assessing hits I can't help but think of the RV believer that thought a tornado was well described by rhythmic and musical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.