pjrv : Messages : 3769-3798 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3769?? )
?006/07/01 16:11:56

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3769
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Fri Jan 16, ?004 ?:09 pm
Subject: Detail on McMoneagle in Japan 	pjgaenir



Joe rocks, as usual.  Scooter's Winter update included a note on how
the Japan viewing went, and I've posted that part to their
announcements board in TKR.  The found the birth mother of an adopted
woman; he described the other correctly but they are still looking
(alas, an abducted child? ); they didn't have time to begin on the
other two he did for them.  (Off the record, since one was an answer
nobody wanted to hear--worse than death frankly--I'll be surprised if
they ever decide to pursue that one--or admit they have.? )  He also
did a live viewing in the studio for one of the panelists as a
previous outbounder target, that was one of those damn near photo
tracing sessions... how come I can't RV like that?!

Anyway, all the detail can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/?s5x5

PJ

	
#377?
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Sat Jan 17, ?004 1?:34 pm
Subject: Re: Detail on McMoneagle in Japan 	docsavagebill



Hello PJ,

Joe has been amazingly accurate in his work in Japan.
He has hit every target they put up. I would have like
to see the look on the Martial Arts instructors face.
I hope they don't lose faith if he makes the
invevitable miss some time.

Best Regards,
Bill

--------------------------
Well, I doubt they will at this point.  He's had something like ?0 targets done
live on camera from his home, and 5+ live in the studio.  Of the ones done at
home, first he describes the person, when they disappeared, their age, the
circumstance, etc. and then as a second thing, he describes what they
want--where they are now, etc.  He's right on the first one, so even if the
investigators haven't ('yet'? ) found every one of the people described, he's
accurate enough on the stuff they know, to still look good.  Unfortunately in a
couple cases, the answers are... well, not what anybody wants to hear, not good
news, and dangerous to boot sometimes, so I doubt they'll ever show those.

The studio stuff is the scary stuff of course--standing there live, they give
him this card, like a bit sheet of paper, to draw on, and talk as he goes.  The
first time they did this, they actually messed it up, they asked him to describe
where the outbounder was standing, when in reality what they wanted to know
(what the feedback was? ) was where he was LOOKING (two completely different areas
in fact? ), so that one was so-so, it was seen that he was right, yet it wasn't
what was expected, so not too impressive to the audience.

This one was neat because that martial artist is well known and respected in
Japan. You know, it doesn't matter how close to protocol you stay, how many
scientists are involved, how careful everything is, there's always this doubt
from people watching that they weren't there, so....?  So it's nice to have
someone that is widely respected as having integrity involved, as there is some
degree of 'good faith' I think people put in that.

On a previous show (this is funny? ), they had this professor from a university
who was a total skeptoid.  He insisted all the protocol be run by him and that
he have full oversight on everything and access to all the camera film for
re-watching etc.  He said if he couldn't prove how it was done (how it was
faked, in other words? ), he would retire from his job.  Well... he couldn't
figure it out. He turned white and pasty and got all mad and said the studio was
in collusion with Joe etc. and was really upset, and Joe bowed respectfully and
told him he considered this a sign of respect on his part--made him nuts, lol!
The studio audience loved that.  I kidded Joe that thanks to him, ritual suicide
was the only option. ;-? ) The guy didn't retire, though!

PJ

	
#3777
 	From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m
Date: Sat Jan 17, ?004 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: Detail on McMoneagle in Japan 	maliolana



Aloha PJ,

> PJ wrote:
> He said if he couldn't prove how it was done (how it was
> faked, in other words? ), he would retire from his job.  Well...
> he couldn't figure it out. He turned white and pasty and
> got all mad and said the studio was in collusion with Joe
> etc. and was really upset, and Joe bowed respectfully and
> told him he considered this a sign of respect on his part--
> made him nuts, lol! The studio audience loved that.  I kidded
> Joe that thanks to him, ritual suicide was the only option.
> ;-? ) The guy didn't retire, though!

I sure wish there was some way to hold these skeptics to their public
vows...and just have them retire...Of course few of them seem to have a
great deal of integrity in the first place...

Love & Light & Laughter
Mali'o...aka...Dawna

	
#3786

Date: Sun Jan 18, ?004 9:1? am
Subject: Re: Detail on McMoneagle in Japan 	rfjuice?000



Hi PJ,

Thanks for all the information on the program.  I would have responded
earlier, but a chest cold had me down and out for a week.

You know what amazes me with these programs he does, how does he get
to where he has to be with all the people watching and the pressure of
performing on the spot?   For myself a lot of factors affect me, level of
tiredness, if any personal things are bothering me, chest colds :(.  He can't
just say he's having a bad day, sorry.  He seems to be able to set aside
distractors without any problems, I guess that's where all those years of
practice pay off.

Linda

---------------------
Probably where many years of mind-shredding physical chronic pain pay off
also... he has had to learn to 'focus through' such severe and combined personal
health issues that his focus is probably pretty powerful by now. PJ

	
#379?
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Wed Jan ?1, ?004 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake wow's audience at open debate with psi debunkers 	docsavagebill



This is really notable, since it is published in the
most prestigious of all scientific journals Nature.
Bill

Nature 4?7 , ?77 (?? January ?004? );
doi:10.1038/4?7?77b

Telepathic charm seduces audience at paranormal debate

JOHN WHITFIELD

[LONDON] Scientists tend to steer clear of public
debates with advocates of the paranormal. And judging
from the response of a London audience to a rare
example of such a head-to-head conflict last week,
they are wise to do so.

Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at University
College London, made the case against the existence of
telepathy at a debate at the Royal Society of Arts
(RSA? ) in London on 15 January. Rupert Sheldrake, a
former biochemist and plant physiologist at the
University of Cambridge who has taken up
parapsychology, argued in its favour. And most of the
?00-strong audience seemed to agree with him.

Wolpert is one of Britain's best-known public
spokesmen for science. But few members of the audience
seemed to be swayed by his arguments.

Sheldrake, who moved beyond the scientific pale in the
early 1980s by claiming that ideas and forms can
spread by a mysterious force he called morphic
resonance, kicked off the debate.

He presented the results of tests of extrasensory
perception, together with his own research on whether
people know who is going to phone or e-mail them, on
whether dogs know when their owners are coming home,
and on the allegedly telepathic bond between a New
York woman and her parrot. "Billions of perfectly
rational people believe that they have had these
experiences," he said.

Wolpert countered that telepathy was "pathological
science", based on tiny, unrepeatable effects backed
up by fantastic theories and an ad hoc response to
criticism. "The blunt fact is that there's no
persuasive evidence for it," he said. "An open mind is
a very bad thing  everything falls out."

For Ann Blaber, who works in children's music and was
undecided on the subject, Sheldrake was the more
convincing. "You can't just dismiss all the evidence
for telepathy out of hand," she said. Her view was
reflected by many in the audience, who variously
accused Wolpert of "not knowing the evidence" and
being "unscientific".

In staging the debate, the RSA joins a growing list of
London organizations taking a novel approach to
science communication (see Nature 4?6 , 6; ?003 ? ). "We
want to provide a platform for controversial
subjects," says Liz Winder, head of lectures at the
RSA.

© ?004 Nature Publishing Group

	
#3793
 	From: Penny Zingery 
Date: Wed Jan ?1, ?004 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake wow's audience at open debate with psi debunkers 	pzingery



>This is really notable, since it is published in the
>most prestigious of all scientific journals Nature.

On this same night there at the Royal Society of Arts, Montague Keen,
the mediumship researcher, lost consciousness while making a point about
something or other.  He was dead on arrival at the hospital, from a
heart attack, it was thought at the time.

Penny

	
#3796
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Thu Jan ??, ?004 1:18 am
Subject: Re: Montague Keen? 	docsavagebill



Hello Penny,

> On this same night there at the Royal Society of
> Arts, Montague Keen,
> the mediumship researcher, lost consciousness while
> making a point about
> something or other.  He was dead on arrival at the
> hospital, from a
> heart attack, it was thought at the time.

Wierd! I'm unfamiliar with Montague. But sorry to hear
about him in such a way. But just out of curiosity was
he pro medium or a debunker or a neutral in the
debate?

Bill

---------------------
IMO, anybody actually DOing research, rather than armchair critique, is
considered one of the good guys. ;-? )  PJ

	
#3798
 	From: "P. Zingery" 
Date: Thu Jan ??, ?004 9:58 am
Subject: Re: Montague Keen? 	pzingery



Hi, Bill and PJ,

A lot of people might be unfamiliar with him, as he
was a member of the SPR in the UK.  I knew about him
because of my interest in the mediumship research
that's been going on during the past couple of years.
And, he was a member of an E-Group that I recently
joined.

And yeah, I'd say he was one of the good guys. Richard
Wiseman is a researcher, too.  Even though, at times,
he's a little more "iffy," ha.

Penny

> Wierd! I'm unfamiliar with Montague. But sorry to
> hear
> about him in such a way. But just out of curiosity
> was
> he pro medium or a debunker or a neutral in the
> debate?

> ---------------------
> IMO, anybody actually DOing research, rather than
> armchair critique, is considered one of the good
> guys. ;-? )  PJ
>
>

	
#3788
 	From: "elittlestar P. R." 
Date: Sun Jan 18, ?004 4:5? pm
Subject: Re: Detail on McMoneagle in Japan 	elittlestar



If i remember correctly Joe does it before the show on his own time and
then reiterates his work...


~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group-------------
...........~*Pame*~
@~~@
......~ ~It's a NewYear '?OO4'~ ~
Kindness is my sign 4;  'Love You'!
__________________________

-------------------------------
Alas, that's sort of a rumor that got accepted as true instantly, probably
because it's easier for all of us to believe that, than him doing it on the
spot, lol! It's my fault.  I said quite a long time ago I thought he must do it
that way and, well, people took my word on it.  It was just an assumption on my
part.  I asked him directly about it some time ago and he said sometimes yes,
sometimes no, but to him it doesn't really matter.  The only thing that might be
affected by that in his case, I think was his unspoken point to me, is the
overall session time.  PJ