IMG_1216 BW small
Blog powered by Typepad

« Summerland, Dreamland, Disneyland | Main | Dream a little dream »

Comments

||What is “psychic energy,” for example, and how is it measured objectively?||

Here nobody has spoken of psychic energy. Your comment seems pseudo skeptical from manual. Actually there are psychic theories that consider that there is no energy transference in psychic instances.

||“It doesn’t work like that.” No, it never does.||

You think psi does not work like that because it does not exist, but the lab evidence and the spontaneous strongest cases indicate that psi exists but is too weak and inconsistent so that it can be used systematically and on demand.

||Psi is an unproven concept that has absolutely no scientific plausibility.||

Certain forms of psi have been scientifically proven and psi is less implausible in view of quantum theory, the universe as information and the holographic paradigm.

||Matt claims that the reality of psi is proven. No, it is not; were it otherwise, then this debate would not even be happening, in the same way that no-one is still arguing about whether powered flight is real – even if “they” laughed at the Wright brothers over a hundred years ago.||

Why should the existence of psi be as obvious as the powered flight? It is the fallacy of the pseudo-skeptic to raise the bar indefinitely. There are discursions of whether global warming occurs, when it is clear that it occurs.


Michael one of the investigators Everard Feilding attended more séances with Palladino with a professional magician William Marriott and detected her in trickery.

Check out their paper "Report on Further Series of Sittings with Eusapia Palladino at Naples".

Believers such as yourself seem to ignore this. Your statement that Palladino's phenomena was not replicable by stage magic is not backed up by any evidence, it is entirely false. Their are publications that reveal all her 'main' tricks.

I am Swedish and lived in Sweden for years and attended many séances in the 1990s. I detected nothing but fraud.

Perhaps Matt can tell me of a medium not caught or suspected of fraud? None such psychic medium exists.

||Juan, on a consistent basis I find it hard to tell what *your* position is. Why don't you just state it? It's hard to tell if you are disagreeing or just playing Devil's Advocate.||

I consider psi experiences are rare and many people confuse psi with phenomena of ordinary psychology, but that's why they should focus on the strongest cases.

||Which side are you on?||

I think there should be no "sides", but a truth seeker, that's why I ask those questions.

||Bigfoot clearly cannot be found easily, if it exists at all. As has been correctly observed, we don't have a dead body to prove once and for all that it is real. That's why film evidence for its existence is controversial.||

I still do not consider it a paranormal phenomenon because it could be an ordinary animal.

I spoke too soon, rat is not fine. She got worse and I'm sitting up with her as she passes right now :( I don't think the dream was psi though because it was about the other rat, and instead of illness it was about her being eaten by a dog. Maybe I picked up on an aura of sickness around them, though. Have any pets other than dogs and horses shown up in NDEs?

Chel - very sorry to hear about your pet. :-(

Garvarn, you wrote, "Your statement that Palladino's phenomena was not replicable by stage magic is not backed up by any evidence, it is entirely false. Their are publications that reveal all her 'main' tricks."

As I indicated, Howard Thurston, the leading stage magician of that era, did not think her phenomena could be faked. But I would be interested to know how you think she faked the phenomena summarized (in a long quotation) in my earlier comment. Especially the stuff in "all caps."

Remember, the tests took place in a hotel room, not a venue she controlled, and there was enough light to see by, supplemented at times with handheld lanterns used to peer under the table, etc.

Bearing all that in mind, could you do us the favor of explaining exactly how she did the things described in the quoted material? You apparently have access to unspecified "publications" that reveal everything, so it should be easy.

Roger Knights wrote,

||"dovetails with" = "consilience"||

Yep, good reminder of that concept.

||Conratualtions to all who are capitalizing "Skeptic".||

You came up with a great idea, and I bet that it will see larger adoption.

When I see someone discount mediumship as "all of it is faked or fraud," and then consider my own study of the subject, at some point I must finally ask the qualifications of the person to make such a pronouncement.

For instance, in the sessions my wife and I have sponsored, I have had complete access to the room, the medium before and after, every bit of material in the room--brought in the room and taken out. In fact, we supplied the room.

At the same time, I am an engineer and well versed in the physics and human characteristics of what must be possible for physical phenomena to be faked. Yes, I can be fool, but the likelihood approaches improbable.

It is unreasonable to rule out that some demonstrating mediums might resort to trickery if there are no controls, but it is relatively simple to impose such controls.

The average sitter is seldom in a position to know all that went into imposing such controls. But when I vouch for the authenticity of the phenomena, claiming there was trickery is also saying I am incapable of imposing such controls ... or saying I am part of the trick.

Alternatively, the witness is making the amateur error of magical thinking; saying that the medium must be able to somehow released himself from his bindings, make the light move around the room with perfectly accuracy, and then slip back into his bindings without making a sound. "Obviously, there must have been a trap door ... in the concrete floor."

After so many years of demonstrations and witness accounts, my hope before my transition is to see the conversation move from "if" to "how." I understand that will force some of us to become better informed about these phenomena, but it seems the only way forward.

DL wrote,

||I think the analogy to psi is being strained though. Even when virtuosos are not 'on' in a specific performance, they are still clearly expert musicians, there is no doubt they have the skill. When psi fails, it is indistinguishable from the psi user having no skills at all.||

This is simply wrong. I never feel at "zero psi" level, and I doubt that other psychics do either. My guess is that seances in which Palladino exhibited *zero* psi were rare.

||How else can we differentiate chance from real phenomenon without reliability?||

What level of reliability? By this logic a baseball player with a batting average of 0.350 would not have proven ability. This whole line of reasoning is simply going nowhere.

||One of the links above had an article about a study where participants drew sketches of a picture that was going to appear in a newspaper in a few days. If that is possible, then why not try to do something that seems much simpler and is more decisive, read the headline, or even the daily 4 digit lottery numbers?||

A ton of experiments have already been performed, and they have generated results. If Skeptics choose not to recognize them, then they don't.

||I was thinking more along the lines of people receiving information from the future, that I think has some serious repercussions on our current scientific understanding of time.||

I think Quantum Mechanics has already had such serious repercussions.

iv read that Palladino resented the controls placed on her and scorned investigators, and so she made obvious attempts at cheating as a way of dissing them. She was a "difficult" person.

"Have any pets other than dogs and horses shown up in NDEs?"

Not sure about NDEs specifically, but I know that a variety of pets have been reported by mediums, sometimes in evidential communications. Cats, birds, more exotic creatures ... I have no reason to doubt that a pet rat could show up, too.

The key factor seems to be the person's emotional connection to the animal.

Fabulous guest post, Matt! My cousin, who is a journalist here in the UK, is interviewing Richard Dawkins next month and has offered me the chance to give him one question for him to include. A great opportunity of course, but I thought I would enlist the help of Michael's readers! I had been playing around with the idea of asking him if, given the old adage that one white crow disproves the statement "all crows are black", if he can really justify dismissing the scores of credible, scientifically-minded researchers from Crookes and Richet to Gary Schwartz and Rupert Sheldrake, who claim thousands of "white crows" in their research in areas falling outside the materialist paradigm...but then I realised he would just say "Yes..."! So any better ideas for framing a question that could put Richard on the back foot, at least for a while?

Thanks for the kind comments, Michael. I needed to hear that.

@Garvarn; what does living in Sweden have to do with anything? I see it brought up exactly nowhere in the thread.

Garvarn wrote, "Perhaps Matt can tell me of a medium not caught or suspected of fraud? None such psychic medium exists."

I think the key words there are "or suspected." Anyone can be *suspected* of anything. And Skeptics "suspect" all mediums of being frauds. So it's true - you can never find any medium who has not been "suspected of fraud" by someone, even if that someone is only an armchair Skeptic.

"Caught" in fraud is a different matter. To the best of my knowledge, Leonora Piper, Gladys Osborne Leonard, Eileen Garrett, and D.D. Home (among others) were never caught in fraud, even though the first three are among the most extensively tested mediums of all time.

You will read Skeptical articles asserting that D.D. Home was caught in fraud because of a legal dispute he had with a client, or that Piper was caught in fraud because Martin Gardner wrote a poorly researched and often debunked exposé on her. Or that any given medium has been caught in fraud because some media Skeptic has said sarcastic things about him or her. But I don't count personal attacks and groundless speculation as "catching" someone.

Just to complicate the issue, I'll add that a degree of trickery may actually be necessary to break down barriers of resistance and get the ball rolling. That's the thesis of Kenneth Batcheldor, which is summarized in this post (near the end):

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2017/01/magic-time.html

Of course, trickery of any kind greatly increases the difficulty of objectively evaluating the results. But the black-and-white attitude that "if there's even a smidgen a trickery, the medium/psychic must be wholly fake" seems counterproductive when dealing with phenomena like these, which by their nature inhabit a tricksterish borderland. A certain tolerance for ambiguity is necessary when investigating this subject.

(As an aside, I believe tolerance for ambiguity is the quality most often absent in Skeptics, and that this absence - which presents itself as an extreme aversion to cognitive dissonance - is the reason why most Skeptics take the hardline positions they do.)

I'd quite like to ask Garvarn if he can name one major Skeptic commentator who hasn't been 'caught or suspected of fraud?'; although I suppose that could be paraphrased as 'caught or suspected' of one of the following...

1) Cherry picking facts to suite the occasion.

2) The 'fallacy of the glancing blow' (thank you Matt)

3) Quoting out of context.

4) Gross distortion of facts.

5) Ignorance of source material, and ignoring primary sources.

6) Lying (e.g. a Skeptic claiming that he failed to replicate someone's research, only later to admit that he hadn't even attempted it).

7) Violating "Truzzi's law' i.e. making a claim of your own and ignoring one's obligation to provide evidence.

8) Making stupid, uncorroborated claims (e.g. claiming, on Paranormalia, that Steve Hume uses the online pseudonym 'Open Mind' ... I haven't a clue what that particular bone-head was babbling on about, BTW)

I can't be bothered to type any more from my phone. So please refer to this list (not exhaustive) provided at the following location:-

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt

That's a good spot on intolerance for ambiguity Michael. I suspect it lies at the base of most fundamentalist positions. Almost as though some of us crave the comfort of certainty, even when that isn't possible.

Such a desire can be positive of course if it drives people to find the truth. Perhaps ego and fear often get in the way,

What is psychic energy?

I would be curious to know what "energy", "force", etc are before that.

"(As an aside, I believe tolerance for ambiguity is the quality most often absent in Skeptics, and that this absence - which presents itself as an extreme aversion to cognitive dissonance - is the reason why most Skeptics take the hardline positions they do.)"

In other words, they are fundamentalists.

That's the bottom line and the only reason why the kind of sceptic under discussion will never be convinced by the evidence for Psi. Such evidence is trickery or, in religious parlance, the work of the devil.

Why do these things get presented as complicated issues?

I am sure the skeptics would say their is strong evidence against Eusapia Palladino being a real physical medium. Have probably read up a lot of the information on Rationalwiki about her. One of the laughable accusations that was brought up was that he slept with Charles Richet and Cesare Lombros, that she seduced them.

Here are some of the objections to Eusapia Palladino that can be summed up here.

In particular locations where she displayed her mediumship.

- First England, on July 1895, they did performed a series of invertigations into her mediumship, Myers and Oliver Lodge concluding that all the phenomena observed was a result of trickery at the Cambridge sittings at the house of Frederic William Henry Myers. She was caught cheating in order to free herself from the physical controls of the experiments conducted on her. She was also found liberating her hands by placing the hand of the controller on her left on top of the hand of the controller on her right. Instead of maintaining any contact with Palladino, the observers on either side were found to be holding each other's hands instead of hers—this made it possible for her to commit all kinds of trickery. Both British SPR investigators such as Frank Podmore and Henry Sidgwick both considered her mediumship to be permanently discredited.

- Psychical research Harry Price states, "Her tricks were usually childish"

- Back in the USA on December 18, 1909 in New York, a Harvard psychologist Hugo Munsterberg has stated he has investigated the mediumship of Palladino and with the help of a hidden man lying underneath a table caught her it with her foot to fake levitation

- The magician Joseph F. Rinn had given a full account of fraudulent behavior in a test of Palladino at Columbia University. The psychologist Joseph Jastrow in his book The Psychology of Conviction (1918) included an entire chapter exposing the tricks of Palladino.

There is a lot more objections than this. This information was taken from Rational Wiki. I certainly don't trust any of the information taken from this site. However, I am sure the commentators that have come on here who are heavily skeptical of Eusapia Palladino probably read up on this site.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eusapia_Palladino

Adeimantus wrote,

||Fabulous guest post, Matt!||

Thank you. I really appreciate that. :)

||My cousin, who is a journalist here in the UK, is interviewing Richard Dawkins next month and has offered me the chance to give him one question for him to include.||

Intriguing!


||...but then I realised he would just say "Yes..."!||

Indeed. And he would have thought, "I don't play golf, but thank you for teeing that one up for me!" Actually, I don't know whether Dawkins plays golf.

||So any better ideas for framing a question that could put Richard on the back foot, at least for a while?||

I have one:

"How does it feel that your legacy is and will forever be creating the word 'meme,' which doesn't mean what you originally intended but instead funny CAT photos with captions LULZ hahahah herp derp birdy chirp...?"

I just don't think Dawkins is all that interesting a thinker. He seems to toe the party line very well and just repeat the talking points.


"My cousin, who is a journalist here in the UK, is interviewing Richard Dawkins next month and has offered me the chance to give him one question for him to include. A great opportunity of course, but I thought I would enlist the help of Michael's readers!" —Adeimantus
My suggestions: 1. What do you think about Michael Shermer's apostasy; i.e., his belief that his wife's dysfunctional radio behaved as though possessed at his wedding? (And what about his bending of the bowl of a spoon at one of Hauk's PK parties? Do you agree with Shermer's explaining-away of that as being due to an excess of adreniline?)

2. Do you think that certain prominent Skeptics have ever behaved badly; e.g., Wiseman and Randi? In what way(s)?

Juan wrote,

||I consider psi experiences are rare and many people confuse psi with phenomena of ordinary psychology, but that's why they should focus on the strongest cases.||

That needs to be put in some sort of context, don't you think? For example, I see psi as very common. You have "everyday psychics" such as me and my friends. Lab experiments seem to show (and I think do show) that low-grade psi is commonplace in the general. People report all kinds of common psi experiences.

So... is your thought that this is all incorrect? We are being fooled somehow, and "real" psi is actually rare? How rare?

I'm not exactly sure what your position is, but I think it's obvious that low- to medium-grade psi is quite common.

||I think there should be no "sides", but a truth seeker, that's why I ask those questions.||

Yes, you are right, ultimately. But my point is this: unless I understand your base position, I don't have the context to understand what you are saying.

||I still do not consider it a paranormal phenomenon because it could be an ordinary animal.||

Skeptics oppose much more than just the existence of truly paranormal phenomena. They oppose a bunch of stuff simply because it's "that kind of thing." For example, they pooh-pooh alternative medicine in general, even though many herbs have proven efficacy and do not work due to any paranormal principle.


You know what...on the basis that Dawkins will simply hand-wave away any sensible question, I think I may well go with that "meme" suggestion, Matt (hilarious)!!

Roger, was Shermer's apostasy really an apostasy? Was it not more a case of him simply acknowledging that weird stuff happens but really thinking that this doesn't equate to saying there's not a rational explanation for it somewhere (which is certainly the conclusion Dawkins would draw)..I don't think Shermer has "converted" has he?

||So... is your thought that this is all incorrect? We are being fooled somehow, and "real" psi is actually rare? How rare?||

I do not know, but my case is based entirely on what I have read because I do not think I have had psychic experiences, and my relatives are not interested in these issues.

||Skeptics oppose much more than just the existence of truly paranormal phenomena. They oppose a bunch of stuff simply because it's "that kind of thing."||

Yes, but "skeptics" are far from homogeneous. DL asked you what you think is the paranormal phenomenon supported with more evidence and you answered the Bigfoot, but I do not consider Bigfoot as paranormal. According to its use, paranormal phenomenon is extensive to psychic phenomenon, that is, phenomena related to the mind that can not be explained by accepted theories.

Juan, in American popular usage, "paranormal" is a pretty expansive term, applying to more than psi. It's a catch-all term for unusual claims of many kinds: UFOs, alien abductions, ancient aliens, cryptozoology, Atlantis, crystals, pyramid power, alchemy, witchcraft, etc.

Since I'm not interested in those things, I generally use the term to apply to psi and afterlife claims. But almost anything "weird" can be (and has been) called "paranormal."

I'm with Juan. I would not label "Bigfoot" as being paranormal, as it is alleged to be a flesh and blood creature, though I do understand that Skeptics may lump Bigfoot in with everything else they disdain.

I was also a little surprised when Matt offered up Bigfoot as a good example.

Skeptics have torn apart the Bigfoot evidence, including the Patterson film. I have no personal opinion on the whole topic. If I had to bet on it, I'd say there is no Bigfoot for the simple reason that with all of the human encroachment on likely habitat, no dead Bigfoots or their bones have ever been produced. Even the jaguar and juguarundi - once doubted to exist in Arizona, despite legends and the stories of a few locals, have now been captured on film where they were said to be. It took many years of trying to obtain evidence of these incredibly elusive animals, but it was accomplished. I would think the same would have occurred with a Bigfoot by now. I don't buy that Bigfoot can understand and identify trail cams with night vision capabilities and skillfully avoid the devices. I also think that Native Americans, over the centuries, would have found and kept (probably as a sacred item) a Bigfoot skull or something. None have been produced.

Since we're talking about it, here's the footage, with "creepy" background music and sound effects added for some reason:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Us6jo8bl2lk

I know almost nothing about this topic, but I have watched a lot of monster movies, including ape movies. I've read that makeup effects experts are unanimous in their opinion that the Patterson film shows a man in a suit.

To me, as a non-expert, it seems questionable that hoaxers in 1967 would have access to a suit this good. But it's hard to be sure, given the low quality of the footage.

Here's a rundown on gorilla suits in the movies during this period:

http://www.bloodsprayer.com/monkey-business-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-american-gorilla-suit-actor-part-2/

Given the sketchy circumstances surrounding the video and the fact that no other footage has been shot in the ensuing fifty years, even after the arrival of ubiquitous cell-phone cameras, I'm inclined to think it's a fake. But a good one.

"Skeptics oppose much more than just the existence of truly paranormal phenomena. They oppose a bunch of stuff simply because it's "that kind of thing."

To me "that kind of thing" are those things whose primary support comes from testimonials and which science has made little headway in establishing even exists. I think though that this phrase in your quote is meant more to refer to Skeptics unwillingness to accept anything outside of science something like that, but if so this Bigfoot example illustrates that's not really the case. Bigfoot, like psi, is indeed one of those 'kinds of things' that skeptics typically don't believe in, but unlike psi or the afterlife it fits right in with things that already exist, it's usually posited to be an animal with nothing supernatural about it. It seems fairly clear that the reason skeptics don't believe in Bigfoot is lack of good evidence along with missing evidence where we would expect some, not because of anything irrational or biased.

I was surprised too that Matt chose the Patterson film as the best paranormal evidence, but I can see what he's talking about; it is the most spectacular footage of anything 'paranormal' in my view and isn't an obvious fake. There are various experts that indeed say it must be real, but there seem to be experts in the same fields that say the opposite. Coupled with the fact that someone has claimed to have created the suit for Patterson, someone has claimed to have worn the suit, a few other people say they saw the suit, those who made the suit said it was made to accommodate shoulder pads and a football helmet and the person who wore it said he wore pads and a helmet, female humans and chimps do not have fur on their breasts, etc, I'm suspecting it's probably not a Bigfoot. There seem to be quite a few negative opinions about Patterson's character but even setting that aside, the reason he was in the wilderness with a camera is because he was shooting a Bigfoot documentary. And wow, he just so happened to capture the most incredible footage ever seen.

"I am sure the skeptics would say their is strong evidence against Eusapia Palladino being a real physical medium."

I had never heard of her and had looked at this site which isn't really skeptical but does include a lot of quotes from those who observed her:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/mediums/palladino.htm

I don't know that I'd say that there's strong evidence against her being a genuine medium, but I don't think there is much reason to think she is one. That one of the strongest cases for the existence of psi is someone who died 100 years ago doesn't really help.

And thumbs-up to the blog owner and participants here! This may be the friendliest discussion I've ever seen on a topic like this involving people of different opinions; refreshing.

One more question, what is and example of "low grade psi"?

Adeimantus said:

"Roger, was Shermer's apostasy really an apostasy? Was it not more a case of him simply acknowledging that weird stuff happens but really thinking that this doesn't equate to saying there's not a rational explanation for it somewhere"

I think apostasy is too strong a word. Still, when I read his initial account of the experience, I was stunned by how deeply affected he seemed to be. Since then, he's pretty much reverted to his old denial, hasn't he? (I haven't been following the matter.)

I am not a Bigfoot partisan and have reached no firm conclusion about its existence. But I lean toward thinking that Bigfoot does not exist as a "real" animal. That said, the Bigfoot footage is inexplicable. I open to it being a fake, but exactly *how* it was faked would be extremely interesting in its own right.

One possibility: the hoaxers (if they were so) were just *extremely* lucky in how the film turned out. I.e., as non-professionals, they made a costume and it just happened to fit the wearer perfectly, the lighting was just right, and the performance was just right. It all just fit together. (And maybe the analysis about joint ratios is wrong.) It's highly implausible to me, but it's possible.

BTW, although I think this is the single piece of evidence I think is hardest to explain away, that doesn't mean I think the evidence for Bigfoot is very good. I think it's not. The evidence for psi is compelling because there is a vast pattern of consilient data. It's hard to find a single piece of irrefutable evidence, however, because psi is informational, not visual, in nature. Information can be transmitted via collusion, or people can guess and be lucky. Any individual piece of evidence can be handwaved away. The overall pattern, which Skeptics conveniently refuse to see, cannot.


Eric wrote,

||I would not label "Bigfoot" as being paranormal, as it is alleged to be a flesh and blood creature, though I do understand that Skeptics may lump Bigfoot in with everything else they disdain.||

I think it's likely to be a genuinely paranormal phenomenon like UFOs, in which myth takes form in people's imaginations and also from time to time influences physical reality. Bigfoot would be like a functional entity.

||I was also a little surprised when Matt offered up Bigfoot as a good example.||

That's why I said in advance that you'd be surprised!

||Skeptics have torn apart the Bigfoot evidence, including the Patterson film.||

I have seen attempts to refute it, including replicating the suit, and I haven't seen anything successful.

||If I had to bet on it, I'd say there is no Bigfoot for [various excellent reasons].||

Yes, I agree with all of your points. But be careful not to engage in Skeptical-style reasoning here. We cannot reason backward from these arguments and say that the Patterson film is therefore a hoax. It may be that the Patterson film is genuine *and* Bigfoot does not exist as a "real" animal.

Michael wrote,

||I know almost nothing about this topic, but I have watched a lot of monster movies, including ape movies. I've read that makeup effects experts are unanimous in their opinion that the Patterson film shows a man in a suit.||

I've read the opposite, that effects guys have said that it would be impossible to fake. But I haven't read enough to feel that I've nailed down exactly what the opinion was and is on that.

||To me, as a non-expert, it seems questionable that hoaxers in 1967 would have access to a suit this good. But it's hard to be sure, given the low quality of the footage.||

I agree, except that the footage is actually very good in spots. On YouTube, you can find all manner of stabilized videos, close-ups of shots, etc.

||Given the sketchy circumstances surrounding the video and the fact that no other footage has been shot in the ensuing fifty years, even after the arrival of ubiquitous cell-phone cameras, I'm inclined to think it's a fake. But a good one.||

It's not true that there has been no other photos or footage taken, but that date of 1967 is important. Anything taken now can be accused of being CGI.

Again, I think it's a very interesting case. There is a bunch of other evidence in other instances, such as footprints (that would be hard to fake), that suggests Bigfoot is "real" in some sense, but it's not my personal cause. :)

There is, however ample evidence of a little foot. He formed a band with some members of his species and they were pretty poplar in the 70s and early 80s.

MP says: "I've read that makeup effects experts are unanimous in their opinion that the Patterson film shows a man in a suit."
Their opinion is not unanimous; see wikipedia's item on the Patterson film, here, for dissenters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#Film_industry_personnel

And their skepticism is partly an instance of "motivated reasoning"; see:
http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Keith_rev.pdf

"Juan, in American popular usage, "paranormal" is a pretty expansive term, applying to more than psi."

I know, but then DL would have asked for the most robust evidence of psychic phenomena.

Hello, all.

I'll be right up front: I am a skeptic when it comes to paranormal stuff. I'm certainly not dogmatic about it and I'm perfectly happy to change my worldview if presented with, as you put it, an exceptional individual case of psi.

My objection to the existence of psi phenomenon is very simple and practical: if it were possible to read people, see the future, etc, then I would expect casinos to be impossible to operate. Even a small group of psychics could easily hurt the profits of a casino. We have seen this with people who are gifted in mathematical thinking. A group of psychics that targeted casinos would be unstoppable because their edge would be undetectable -they would just look extremely lucky.

A psychic would be unbeatable at poker. There is no one dominant poker player and the best often get beat by random swings of luck. That would never happen to a person who could read the feelings/cards of their opponents.

I guess you can say, "It doesn't work that way," but that isn't very satisfying when everyone seems to have a different conception of how it's supposed to work. If it's real, it should be easily reproducible. You say at the end that in order for skeptics to accept psi, it has to lead to a productive end. You predict that this will happen within 100 years. However, psi phenomena has been written about for centuries -why has there been no industry developed yet and what is supposed to change in the next 100 years?

"If it's real, it should be easily reproducible."

Richard, that statement (or the thinking behind it) has already been addressed elsewhere in this thread.

"I'm certainly not dogmatic about it and I'm perfectly happy to change my worldview if presented with, as you put it, an exceptional individual case of psi. "

Uh huh. That's what they all say. It's kind of the point of Matt's post. IMO, another skepto-bot heard from.

Hi, Jordan

01 - The casino environment is intentionally designed to be noisy and visually distracting, and this makes psi difficult to operate.

02 - The cure of the AIDS is real, is possible, but very difficult to reproduce: https://www.livescience.com/48015-berlin-patient-hiv-treatment.html

03 - Psychics help police to find missing persons. There are many examples of this, and in archaeology too.

DL wrote,

||To me "that kind of thing" are [...]||

Each tribe has its own "that kind of thing." For a lot of Liberals like me (and New Agers like me), GMOs are "that kind of thing":

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/06/food_evolution_is_correct_on_gmos_and_unconvincing.html

My level of fear with respect to GMOs is zero. (There are issues surrounding them that can make them an issue, but for me it's not about health risks.) No human can be 100%, but I think it's incumbent upon us to look at the prejudices of our own tribe and try to think for ourselves on the issues one by one. The irony is that Skeptics portray themselves as the Holy Knights Templar of Science and Rational Thought, but they are as dogmatic and peer-influenced as extremely religious people.

|| [...] those things whose primary support comes from testimonials and which science has made little headway in establishing even exists.||

I don't agree. Skeptics cast the "net of woo" pretty wide. I regularly see "alternative medicine" trashed, even though that's a huge category, and many individual things are proven, backed up by studies and scientific research.

||but unlike psi or the afterlife it fits right in with things that already exist, it's usually posited to be an animal with nothing supernatural about it.||

That's actually not true. Many Bigfoot encounters have involved a telepathic link between Bigfoot and the experiencer, in tht respect making them similar to experiences of the Greys in alien abduction reports.

||It seems fairly clear that the reason skeptics don't believe in Bigfoot is lack of good evidence along with missing evidence where we would expect some, not because of anything irrational or biased.||

That's fair, but Skeptics would, as they always do, deny the phenomena themselves and say that the Bigfoot experiencers were lying, hallucinating, etc.

||I was surprised too that Matt chose the Patterson film as the best paranormal evidence, but I can see what he's talking about; it is the most spectacular footage of anything 'paranormal' in my view and isn't an obvious fake.||

Right. I find it intriguing because the "obvious" explanation (man in suit) is itself so problematic--and it's also the only possible explanation except for admitting that a non-human is shown in the film.

||Coupled with the fact that someone has claimed to have created the suit for Patterson, someone has claimed to have worn the suit||

By the way, this is a relatively new thing: people confessing to alleged hoaxes and others accepting their claims as fact without verification. There were two men who claimed they had made all of the crop circles in Britain--case solved! I've watched videos of and about the guy who claims to have worn the Bigfoot suit--case solved! Actually, not. Both are unproven claims in their own right, and both are dubious. (Note: I do not believe that crop circles are created by "aliens," but that phenomenon as well is a huge rabbit hole of its own.)

||a few other people say they saw the suit, those who made the suit said it was made to accommodate shoulder pads and a football helmet and the person who wore it said he wore pads and a helmet,||

To my knowledge, Patterson and Gimlin did not make mega-bucks from the film. Patterson died in 1972 and went to the grave saying the film was real. Gimlin is still alive and has always maintained the film is genuine. Let's suppose it was a hoax. Why throw the suit away? Why not reap some original publicity and money from the film and then trot out the suit later and get more money and publicity from saying, "Haha, gotcha!" Even if they threw the original suit away, they *made* it, right? So they could make another one, right? If Gimlin is a con artist, why not be a more well-off con artist? Plus, he's 85, and what does he have to lose now? The psychology of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

||female humans and chimps do not have fur on their breasts||

I was easily able to find an orangutan photo with some pretty hairy-looking boobs.

||the reason he was in the wilderness with a camera is because he was shooting a Bigfoot documentary. And wow, he just so happened to capture the most incredible footage ever seen.||

That was his passion, and they had been working on finding Bigfoot awhile. It's not really a coincidence or suspicious.

||I don't know that I'd say that there's strong evidence against [Palladino] being a genuine medium, but I don't think there is much reason to think she is one.||

Do you mean that there are such things as genuine mediums but she in particular doesn't seem to be one? Or do you mean that you don't think there exists proof for *any* medium being genuine? If it's the latter, well, Michael quoted the original observers of the phenomena she produced/mediated. If she wasn't genuine, then they were either lying or they were fooled by absolutely astounding stage magic that they couldn't detect even when they were literally sitting right on top of it.

||That one of the strongest cases for the existence of psi is someone who died 100 years ago doesn't really help.||

I had explicitly mentioned above Skeptics' penchant for hoping that the past will bury any evidence, and you have provided another example. (Don't worry, over the past 100 years, there has been a nigh-infinite amount of new evidence for the paranormal.)

||And thumbs-up to the blog owner and participants here! This may be the friendliest discussion I've ever seen on a topic like this involving people of different opinions; refreshing.||

Yes, it's a good joint. Thanks to you as well.

||One more question, what is and example of "low grade psi"?||

Note that this is a term I just came up with on the fly for this discussion. Something like, "The phone rang and I knew it was my friend, and it was." Things like that. Everyday little psychic impressions.

I googled for "michael shermer radio at wedding" and got a results page at this address:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=michael+shermer+radio+at+wedding&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Looking over the headlines I see "shaken to the core" but no articles later than 2015 and nothing about a retraction. I urge someone here to do what I'm too lazy to do and check out some of those links.

@Richard Jordan:
But some poker players who are consistent winners over the years have an edge partly because psi is aiding their picking up of "tells," etc.

Joe Gallenberger wrote a book called Inner Vegas at https://www.amazon.com/INNER-VEGAS-Creating-Miracles-Abundance-ebook/dp/B00AU7BXDG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498683389&sr=1-1&keywords=Inner+Vegas

has been hosting "Inner Vegas Adventures" for over a dozen years, and winning at roulette, although he provides no rigorous or audited accounting. Here's a link to his invitation page:
https://synccreation.com/inner-vegas/

His email invitation reads:
"Inner Vegas Adventure June 24-26, 2017 is open for enrollment. You are most welcome to attend! Click here [the link above] for more information. or call us at (828) 698-4815 to register."

IMO, "paranormal" is a synonym for, and replacement of, "supernatural." It's a more limited term than "weird things" or "Forteana." It's used more loosely only by a minority of users, and generally in informal contexts. Books and articles generally are stricter, especially more serious ones. It's a distinction that should be observed.

Bigfoot buffs are intolerant of "paranormalists" in their midst, although a few prominent ones have been in that camp (e.g., Henry Franzoni), or have moved in that direction (e.g., Chris Murphy). I'm moving in that direction myself.

Hi Richard,

That is one of the reason's why I think materialists don't accept the evidence for Psi is because it doesn't have any practical applications. Also, a lot of stuff in sociology the soft sciences are not easily reproducible. However, the evidence is accepted. I honestly cannot see Psi ever being accepted by Mainstream Science. Surprise surprise apparently skeptics are talking about us including Michael Prescott on a skeptic forum. One of the skeptics is saying that Michael Prescott bans all skeptics from commentating on his blog.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?


"Psychokinesis effects in casino payout rates depending on lunar phases."

http://deanradin.blogspot.ca/2007/03/lunacy.html

My previous comment seems to have put everyone on the defensive, but I don’t have time to write out the thousands of words it would take to answer every point made. Instead, I’ll try to state my position as best I can, and try to deal with at least some of the issues raised.

When I am faced with someone who believes in, or promotes, the paranormal, I assume that they are sincere in their belief, and as honest as they can be when they make their claims. I do not assume that they are dishonest, but I might think they are mistaken. Nor do I name-call as a substitute for argument, or accuse anyone of making “dumb” comments, even though I do sometimes refer to the paranormal as “woo.”

Many believers have a poor understanding of what science is and how it works (some of the comments here show that). Are there really lots of “theories” regarding how psi supposedly works? Not in the scientific sense of the word theory, which in science means a well-tested explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Unfounded speculation that cannot be tested is not a theory: at best it might be called a hypothesis, but until psychic “energy” or whatever anyone wants to call it can be demonstrated by its objective detection and manipulation, it cannot be accepted as proven to exist. There are certainly anomalous experiences that people sometimes have, but something that cannot be explained immediately does not imply psi.

Palladino and many other alleged psychics (maybe including the one Eric refers to) are often said to cheat “when the energy is weak,” just so that their clients are not disappointed. Seriously? That is unethical at best, and can justifiably be called fraud. It means that if a psychic gets away with just making it up to please a sitter, then no one needs to be psychic if their clientele are so easily taken in, and shows clearly that psychic powers are not needed to give the impression that someone is communicating with the dead. No psychic’s client can ever be sure they aren’t being duped. How much should an employer trust an employee who steals money only occasionally, given the fact that they do it only when their resistance to temptation is weak? They are trustworthy the rest of the time, after all.

It was a similar situation when Uri Geller appeared on the Johnny Carson show, not having previous access to the items Carson presented him with. As everyone must know, Geller was unable to perform, saying that he felt “weak” at the time. Still, Geller does find oil for unnamed oil companies, and does psychic espionage for the Israeli government. Unfortunately, no oil company is able to speak about it for commercial reasons, and the Israelis can’t comment for security reasons. Of course.

Then there was alleged medium Colin Fry. In the early nineties he was conducting a séance when someone switched the light on, only to reveal Fry in the middle of the room waving a spirit trumpet around. He later put himself into a trance and was informed by his spirit guide that he had been temporarily possessed by a mischievous spirit. So that’s all explained, then. I’m not sure what is happening with a more recent case at the moment, but you can make your own mind up here:

http://www.badpsychics.com/2016/06/gary-mannion-secretly-recorded-cheating.html

There are many more examples, of course, but what astounds me is that not only do the believers accept such glib excuses like Fry’s, and others, but go to great lengths to defend it all.

It is often said that a sceptic would have to have a paranormal experience in order to understand its reality. But what exactly is a paranormal experience? I have had numerous experiences that others would call paranormal, but unlike believers, I am not content to experience something I can’t immediately explain and assume it must be paranormal; I need to try to find out what is going on.

UFO sightings are a case in point. Some observers have said they saw a UFO zooming up and doing a right-angled turn before disappearing into the distance at very high speed, for example. Again, I don’t assume that the observer is lying or even that he must be stupid or deluded. It’s a difficult claim to find a reasonable answer to; after all, how could any living organism survive what would have to be fatal G-forces?

That was the sort of case where I couldn’t think of a reasonable explanation for the observation, so I had to put those claims to one side as “unexplained.” Then the very same thing happened to me: I was driving along the coast where I live, and a “UFO” took off from the sea, did a right-angled turn and shot off into the distance! Had I at last seen a genuine alien space ship taking off from its secret underwater base? Some people would interpret it that way, but it was nothing of the sort. It was just an optical illusion that took me a while to work out, but I could eventually repeat the experience almost at will. If you want the details, I wrote it up on my blog. You can see it here:

https://badthinking.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/my-very-own-ufo/

I’m not going to assert that all UFO sightings are now debunked because I was able to find out what caused one particular event, but it would be helpful if the believers could at least consider the possibility that there might be an alternative explanation for their own sightings, whether it’s a UFO, ghost, precognition or anything else.

I have to disagree with the assertion that the paranormal is now part of mainstream science; it is not, even if some people believe that lab experiments done by a small number of researchers who happen to have some scientific qualifications get the results they want. Those results are not definitive; science doesn’t work like that. And no, paranormal claims do not have an underlying theory, just speculation.

One more point: every human being is subject to psychological bias. When someone interprets their experience through the lens of their beliefs, then what is perceived is not necessarily what actually happened. Did thousands of religious people in Fatima in Portugal in 1917 really see the Sun plunge towards the Earth and then dance around the sky back to its usual position? I don’t think so, and no one else on this planet seemed to notice it at the time, but I suspect no one would convince any of those observers that they might have been wrong. Such is the power of belief, then and now.

DL wrote, "I don't know that I'd say that there's strong evidence against her being a genuine medium, but I don't think there is much reason to think she is one."

For convenience, I'll copy and paste the quotes I provided earlier in this thread. The stuff in "all caps" strikes me as particularly compelling. Wouldn't reports like this constitute "reason to think she is [a genuine medium]"? The alternative is to assume that the observers were liars or completely incompetent fools – but remember that the Naples investigators were experienced at debunking mediums of this type and had exposed a hundred or more in their previous work. And their notes, preserved in the book "Sittings with Eusapia Palladino," by Feilding et al., do not read like the notes of people who desperately want to believe. Quite the opposite.

"Levitations of the table, lasting two or three seconds, occurred at every seance. On exceptional occasions the table remained up for over a minute.... This phenomenon often occurred under the most stringent test conditions; while a sitter on either side held the medium's hands and one of them placed his arm across her knees, another got below the table and held her ankles; and sometimes a night-light was placed under the table. The sitters often tried to force the levitated table downwards, but always found that the resistance offered, though stout, was a peculiarly elastic one, similar to what is experienced when a buoyant, floating body is pressed downwards....

"In semi-darkness, EUSAPIA WAS OFTEN LEVITATED, CHAIR AND ALL, ON TO THE TABLE ... And Prof. Poro reports that WHILE SHE, SITTING IN HER CHAIR, WAS RAISED ABOVE THE TABLE TOP, HE AND ANOTHER SITTER PASSED THEIR HANDS UNDER HER AND THE CHAIR. In good light articles of furniture were often seen to advance untouched towards the medium, and A SMALL TABLE SOMETIMES [SEEN TO] CLIMB UP ON TO THE LARGER ONE, ROUND WHICH THE SITTERS SAT ...

"Eusapia used to sit at the table with her back close to the curtains of a cabinet [a curtained-off corner of the room]. Inside, there was a small table, and various musical instruments, a banjo, tambourine, musical-box, bell, etc., and in the darkness THESE WOULD BEGIN TO PLAY OR COME OUT AND PLAY IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE ROOM, OR ALL WOULD PLAY TOGETHER IN THE CABINET TO AN ACCOMPANIMENT OF RAPS AND TILTING OF THE TABLE. These noisy demonstrations were frequent. The curtains often bulged outwards, as if blown by a wind, and sometimes they enveloped a sitter's head; there was no wind or other apparent cause of the movements...."

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/07/palladin

"My previous comment seems to have put everyone on the defensive."

I wouldn't say that. We've heard it all before. It does get tiresome to deal with the same objections over and over, but I really doubt that anyone felt threatened or defensive about it.

"... what astounds me is that not only do the believers accept such glib excuses like Fry’s, and others, but go to great lengths to defend it all."

Some do. But you generally won't find them here.

Here's what I wrote about Fry:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/07/the_subject_of_.html

And Mannion:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2016/06/dnacing-in-the-dark.html

Hi Matt,

" Many Bigfoot encounters have involved a telepathic link between Bigfoot and the experiencer, in tht respect making them similar to experiences of the Greys in alien abduction reports."

Fair enough, but many have not. A simple separate species of undiscovered but intelligent ape/man living in the woods pretty thoroughly explains Bigfoot.

"That's fair, but Skeptics would, as they always do, deny the phenomena themselves and say that the Bigfoot experiencers were lying, hallucinating, etc."

Sure, fair enough. (It is interesting to be on a pro-psi blog conversation and be the 'other side' having to wade through so many negative comments about 'Skeptics'. I used to read various skeptic boards and of course see much nastier personal criticism pointed at believers of all sorts by Skeptics there, I can only imagine how much more distracting and impossible it would be for you guys to have a discussion there.) I view it more as a mix of people who are mistaken and hoaxers. The case against Bigfoot involves a much larger scale argument that pretty much eclipses the existing footage and sightings, namely the more biological aspects (need for sufficient breeding population, food, where are the bodies/scat/anything, etc). There are a lot of plaster casts of Sasquatch feet whose only explanation if Bigfoot doesn't exists is hoaxers. Yes, of course if it is telepathic or alien or something, then anything is possible.

"I was easily able to find an orangutan photo with some pretty hairy-looking boobs."

Okay, but the Patterson Bigfoot's don't look just 'hairy', they look 'furry'.

"Do you mean that there are such things as genuine mediums but she in particular doesn't seem to be one? Or do you mean that you don't think there exists proof for *any* medium being genuine? If it's the latter, well, Michael quoted the original observers of the phenomena she produced/mediated. If she wasn't genuine, then they were either lying or they were fooled by absolutely astounding stage magic that they couldn't detect even when they were literally sitting right on top of it."

First off I appreciate the info you guys have provided on her. But to be honest, I'm not sure what you are expecting I do with it? At a base level I assume we agree that it would be irrational if I was to say these accounts of her on their own prove psi? Outside of the obvious, 'there is no way to verify the accuracy of these accounts', there are so many arguments against it, I'm sure you've heard them before. That she cheated at least sometimes is well known, there's a quote on my link from someone who studied her and did think she had powers, "practically every scientific committee detected her in attempted fraud, but every one of these committees emerged from their investigations quite convinced of the reality of these phenomena, except the Cambridge and American investigation which ended in exposure". Yes, she provided 'explanations' why she cheated sometimes, but regardless there would be no reason for her to cheat if it never worked. So in the cases she cheated, the testimonials provided are exactly what I would expect from someone who has been fooled or is mistaken about what occurred. That unfortunately is all I can do with it, I can't examine any of these witnesses, I don't know how easy they are to fool, I don't know if they are accurate. I have no doubt that if magicians I've seen today existed 100 years ago and didn't admit that they were doing tricks, I'd see similar testimonials. I see that Swift already mentioned Fatima and that was after Palladino's death I think, so many divergent testimonials, I'm sure some by people with great credentials.

What do you think are the best arguments against that she had powers? On their own do you really find them that weak? I guess this is difficult for me to discuss to an extent as I'm shut off from many analogies as I'm not sure what things we both agree do not exist. Again, my current theory is that it's the personal experiences with psi that you've had that make her more credible to you, I'm sure this account fits in well and complements the personal evidence you already have. No, I don't think the case that anyone is a true medium is that strong, to me there are too many qualifications on what psi can actually show it can do, it's quite a bit more narrow than just simply "read people's minds/see the future". It's definitely not impossible though, again we still need someone who is excellent enough at it.

||If it's real, it should be easily reproducible.||

Reproduce the universe then... Also psi studies indicate that it exists but is not easily repeatable at will.

||Unfounded speculation that cannot be tested is not a theory: at best it might be called a hypothesis, but until psychic “energy” or whatever anyone wants to call it can be demonstrated by its objective detection and manipulation, it cannot be accepted as proven to exist.||

Okay, but psi is a kind of phenomenon, not hypothesis or theory.

||Then there was alleged medium Colin Fry.||

Why are we going to accept your collecting of
supposed mediums? There are other mediums that probably were authentic as Eileen Garrett and Leonora Piper, in addition to psychic phenomena that do not require strongly endowed people like crisis apparitions or veridical out of body experiences.

Swiftsure, "Seriously? That is unethical at best, and can justifiably be called fraud. "

And how many scientists - the kind that you would accept as being real scientists - have fudges results? Answer....a lot. They get caught all of the time. Yet you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. To lie and cheat is to be human.

With regards to the medium I mentioned, I said that *maybe* she cheated when powers were weak. However I *know* she wasn't cheating when she impressed me. I am someone who fully understands science.

So not sure what your point is.

Swiftsure wrote: "until psychic “energy” or whatever anyone wants to call it can be demonstrated by its objective detection and manipulation, it cannot be accepted as proven to exist."

In Ganzfeld, the results shows 31% vs 25% in a normal population. This is detection. And when we use an artistic population, the hit rate ups to 45% or more. This is manipulation. So, according to your own rules, psi is proven.

Swiftsure wrote: "I have to disagree with the assertion that the paranormal is now part of mainstream science; it is not, even if some people believe that lab experiments done by a small number of researchers who happen to have some scientific qualifications get the results they want. Those results are not definitive; science doesn’t work like that."

Well, any results in science are not definitive. Our knowledge is always provisional, more or less. But the evidence for psi in those experiments is very high.

Swift sure: "And no, paranormal claims do not have an underlying theory, just speculation."

In experiments to test "telepathy," the theory that appears is that two living people can send their thoughts to each other. This in itself is already a proto-theory. Complete absence of theory would be if we merely stated that there was a co-occurrence. From the moment we postulate a co-relation, we are already entering the field of theorizing.

MP wrote: "Wouldn't reports like this constitute "reason to think she is [a genuine medium]"?


Because the levitations were not actually seen. Read carefully:

a) "In semi-darkness, EUSAPIA WAS OFTEN LEVITATED, CHAIR AND ALL, ON TO THE TABLE ... And Prof. Poro reports that WHILE SHE, SITTING IN HER CHAIR, WAS RAISED ABOVE THE TABLE TOP, HE AND ANOTHER SITTER PASSED THEIR HANDS UNDER HER AND THE CHAIR."

Poro and the sitter are not in fact seeing Eusapia levitating with the chair. Remember, is semi-darkness. They passed their hands in what they think is Eusapia and the chair.

b)"In good light articles of furniture were often seen to advance untouched towards the medium, and A SMALL TABLE SOMETIMES [SEEN TO] CLIMB UP ON TO THE LARGER ONE, ROUND WHICH THE SITTERS SAT ..."

An invisible thread stretched between her hands or dress would explain this.

c) The alternative is to assume that the observers were liars or completely incompetent fools – but remember that the Naples investigators were experienced at debunking mediums of this type and had exposed a hundred or more in their previous work.

They have their level of incompetence, as Wiseman shows:

"Yet as one discovers more about the Feilding Report it becomes harder and harder not to question the investigators' competence. One final point serves to illustrate this issue. In the eleventh (and final) seance the investigators report observing some of the most convincing phenomena of the entire set of seances. Yet for this seance Baggally and Feilding—Carrington had by this time left Naples—had been joined by three additional sitters. The first of these, Signor Zingaropoli, was a friend of Palladino's. The other two sitters (Mrs and Miss Hutton) were friends of Signor Zingaropoli's. Yet, despite this, the investigators never once consider the possibility that these three people might have conspired with Palladino to help produce the various phenomena. Indeed, when this was later suggested to Baggally (in Stawell, 1910), he produced the unconvincing reply that "Miss Stawell's implied assertion that Signor Zingaropoli was a confederate cannot be entertained. This gentleman occupies a very high position in the legal department of Naples municipality." (Taylor, 1910, p.281). Thus we are asked to trust the judgement of investigators who believed certain people to be above fraud simply because of their professional standing!"

And there are my other problems, many problems with the report, wrong descriptions of the room, contradictions between the experimenters etc.

We cannot accept a report with such problems as valid.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)