Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Dr Gary Schwartz Responds

By Gregon

Earlier this week I mentioned a segment on Geraldo at Large from last weekend, which alleged that ‘afterlife researcher’ Dr Gary Schwartz tried to extract millions of dollars from a grieving family. The segment featured the ‘victim’ Michael Knopf telling his side of the story, followed by Geraldo interviewing medium Laurie Campbell and reporter Marianne Macy live about the accusations and their own experience/investigations into unethical practices by Dr Schwartz. The video has since turned up on YouTube, and so I’ve posted it here on TDG for anyone interested to watch.

Dr Gary Schwartz has now responded to the accusations in a statement on his website titled “Examining an erroneous and malicious character assassination“. He makes a number of points in his defence, some of which I’ve listed underneath (note, these are direct quotes, not my own interpretation). For the full text, follow the link:

  1. It was Mr. Knopf who initiated contact with Dr. Schwartz following Mr. Knopf’s successful private readings with Ms. Campbell.
  2. Mr. Knopf communicated to Dr. Schwartz that Mr. Knopf had recently been released from spending time in jail.
  3. New guidelines and procedures for advancing the ethics and scientific understanding for mediums were being formulated at that time, initiated partly by some inappropriate behavior by Ms. Campbell and some other mediums.
  4. Geraldo made a point on the show of reporting that Dr. Schwartz did not return their calls, with an implicit negative connotation. The truth is that there was no genuine attempt by the Geraldo show to contact Dr. Schwartz to have a fair representation of both sides of this story. What Geraldo failed to mention was that the call to Dr. Schwartz’s office was made only after closing hours of his office on Friday, October 5, for a show that was ready to be aired on Saturday, October 6.

Dr Schwartz concludes by saying “legal action will be taken against each and every individual who has made defamatory comments against Dr. Schwartz, and the truth will be brought out in the court room”.

If Dr Schwartz’s points are correct, one would have to question the integrity of the Geraldo at Large show (I know, ‘what integrity’). The late telephone call is a stock-in-trade of ‘current affair’ shows, as it allows them to say there was no comment from the accused…suggesting guilt by silence. But if Michael Knopf was introduced to Schwartz by Laurie Campbell (as Dr Schwartz says), then why was she introduced and interviewed as merely an interested third party – when she was the person that actually set up/caused the alleged ‘scam’?

Having followed these stories for some time now, I have my own conclusions about what is going on. As I’ve said before on similar matters though, the big loser out of all this will be research into mediumship. Either the mediums look vindictive and deceitful, or the researcher looks like a scam artist with no ethics. What scientist would touch the topic with a ten foot pole? And that’s a shame, because there is something to be looked at here. The trickster strikes again…

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

6 Comments

  1. I will watch with interest …
    I will watch with interest for what happens in the future re Gary Schwartz’s prosecution of the parties involved in the Geraldo segment, and will keep an open mind in the meantime.

    I am wondering, however, about the Schwartz interview shown throughout large parts of the segment, and would like to know when and where (and about what subject) that interview took place. It obviously predated the Geraldo segment, and it is interesting to me that the first clip begins in Black & White but quickly changes to color. Nowadays, as we know from much recent negative political advertising, B&W clips tend to show the subject of the clip in a somewhat sinister light — akin to a police mugshot.

    It is also interesting to me that the viewer of the piece does not find out until towards the end that Schwartz has not returned Geraldo’s request to hear Schwartz’s comments. So it is likely that the viewer might think that the first comment Schwartz makes in those clips is “And so, of course, they gave a false impression …” A viewer, who will not know until the end of the piece that Schwartz has not been interviewed for the piece, can be excused for thinking that Schwartz is somehow already arguing in his own defense which, in fact, he is not.

    The only other words uttered by Schwartz during the balance of the piece are “But what I wanted was …” The balance of Schwartz’s unfinished sentence, having been part of a previous and probably unrelated interview, would not have been relevant to the subject matter in the Geraldo piece.

    The shower scenes were, of course, added to lend dramatic impact to Michael Knopf’s narrative about the events surrounding Schwartz’s stay in Knopf’s home, and photographing all that paper money within the body of the piece lends the same dramatic impact to Geraldo’s narrative — especially his comment that much of Schwartz’s earnings are, as he says, “Our money.”

    As I said at the beginning of this comment, I will try to keep an open mind about the case. After all, I have only seen Geraldo’s five-minute report, and read Schwartz’s brief rebuttal — so I am not yet ready to put my money down on either horse.

    Time, I guess, will tell. Although if Schwartz is telling the truth, Geraldo might have given Schwartz a bit more of it.

    Best,

    Jeff

    1. Good points
      [quote=JeffN]I am wondering, however, about the Schwartz interview shown throughout large parts of the segment, and would like to know when and where (and about what subject) that interview took place. It obviously predated the Geraldo segment, and it is interesting to me that the first clip begins in Black & White but quickly changes to color. Nowadays, as we know from much recent negative political advertising, B&W clips tend to show the subject of the clip in a somewhat sinister light — akin to a police mugshot.[/quote]

      Great post Jeff. I noticed those Schwartz clips and recognized them from the Conscious Media interviews which we’ve posted here before. The two clips in which Schwartz speaks are from their original interview:

      http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/gschwartz.htm

      There is also a clip from their second interview, though without audio I think:

      http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/gschwartz2.htm

      Would be interesting to find out if Conscious Media know their clips are being used.

      [quote]So it is likely that the viewer might think that the first comment Schwartz makes in those clips is “And so, of course, they gave a false impression …”
      *snip*
      The only other words uttered by Schwartz during the balance of the piece are “But what I wanted was …” The balance of Schwartz’s unfinished sentence, having been part of a previous and probably unrelated interview, would not have been relevant to the subject matter in the Geraldo piece.[/quote]

      Again, right on. I noticed the second ‘quote’, in which they have Schwartz saying “but what I wanted was”, and then they fade into a shot of loads of paper money…talk about subliminal influence of the viewer! But I missed the first, which you picked up here – again, the same thing, with his words following “he wrote a book about how the dead could speak” (paraphrase)…”but they gave a false impression”.

      All other debates aside, this little clip is well worth deconstructing purely on how the media manipulates viewers!

      [quote]As I said at the beginning of this comment, I will try to keep an open mind about the case. After all, I have only seen Geraldo’s five-minute report, and read Schwartz’s brief rebuttal — so I am not yet ready to put my money down on either horse.[/quote]

      Sage advice.

      Kind regards,
      Greg
      ——————————————-
      You monkeys only think you’re running things

  2. Assassination by Television
    I’ve worked in the ‘factual television’ business for a long time and have just a couple of things I’d like to add to this discussion. First off:

    How could anybody with even half a brain seriously draw a damning conclusion of Dr. Gary Schwartz on the strength of the Geraldo “investigation” alone? What about digging for further information and clarifying the facts first? Remember innocent until PROVEN guilty?

    I mean, come on folks. Who could possibly rate Geraldo as “credible journalism”? Really? Is anybody so dumb that don’t realise that Gerlado’s FIRST and main interest is ratings, that his second interest is ratings, and that his third interest isn’t… I guess you catch my drift.

    Of course, there could be a fourth interest: The type that CSICOP and their ilk have been engaging in for decades. Remember how the church used to burn scientific heretics? Now “they” use the media to discredit “heretics”… when it suits them.

    This so-called ‘investigative report’ from the Geraldo show is extraordinarily manipulative. You don’t have to work in television to see that. The editing is obviously seeking to maximise the shock value of the allegations and put the boot into Schwartz as hard and fast as possible. The editor also used audio grabs and stock footage shots that were very clearly inserted to generate the worst sort of impressions.

    And where’s the balance in this bastion of credible journalism’s attack ? “We tried to call but Schwartz he didn’t respond.” Yeah. Right. Pull the other one.

    This type of ‘journalism’ is nothing short of a steaming bucket of… (inset your favourite expletive here). No wonder people are turning off their televisions in droves. I say we should take a baseball bat to all of them even if it does put me out of work.

    In 2003, I personally filmed with Gary Schwartz (at his lab at the University of Arizona) for a Discovery Channel documentary. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t stand up for him if I thought these allegations were legitimate. What I can report, from first-hand experience, is that:

    – Schwartz was open in showing me (and providing me a copy of) unedited video material shot simultaneously with two camera during his ‘Afterlife Experiments’. He didn’t try to hide any particular sequences to make anything look more convincing.

    – During my interview with Scwhartz, he wasn’t grandstanding in front of the camera or constantly trying to ‘self-promote’. He actually struck me as an authentically open-minded scientist who drew his conclusions from the results of the experiments he was conducting.

    – Schwartz also NEVER made any claim to being psychic himself. Hell, he even admitted to me that his initial reaction to his first experiments with Laurie Campbell, John Edward, etc., was complete disbelief! As a scientists, he found what he was seeing hard to swallow, but then he had to make a choice. Deal with the data, or ignore it. So he did more experiments…

    And now we end up here today, with Geraldo doing a 5-minute on-screen assassination and causing all this fuss.

    I repeat. If Dr. Schwartz has been unethical, I hope we find out the truth. If he hasn’t and is just being targeted for DARING to look at the “scientifically inexcusable”, then I hope Geraldo gets his socks sued off. But of course, Uncle Rupert (Murdoch) will foot the bill, FOX news will continue to “tell the truth” and parapsychology researchers will have yet another reason to be defensive.

    To anybody who is rushing to judgement I say: Wake up. Television is not in the business of telling the truth. These days, it has been reduced to NOTHING but mindless entertainment. Just look at the nightly news.

    Coming up next… a serial killer is lurking in you neighbourhood, the latest fabulous medicine from a pharmaceutical company that wants your money and an amazing cat that survived a hurricane. After the break.

    1. Great comments!
      Great comments JeffN and Omegaman. Indeed, we should never let the “boobtube” to think for us.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. In brief, dumb
        It is a very dumb segment. The man who cries, “Who the hell is this man to …” well, he is the man that the guy was willing to pay $50 thousand dollars to, and then more. He now acts as if he did not know who he was. But, this was allowed. As he siad, he would cut his heart out to see a glimpse of his son. SInce he had the money, he was willing to pay money- he didn’t have to cut his heart out. HOw over dramatic is that? He is a desperate father who is unable to accept the death of his son, and will go to any length to have a little more time with him……I say to the father, grow up and get right with your self. Your kid is dead, contact him yourself and don’t go to others if you can not handle the after math of the wierd stuff that happens. GOing into it, the father must have realized that this stuff is different and strange and not conventional. SO, why does he cry now and act like he was conned? Who in the “hell is this man” to cry he is a victim of some one sayng they can contact his son when the father should realize that it is a weird request in the first place?

        The Editors cut to the father crying and wiping his tears, this is called staged editing. This is more comic relief if anything. It is obvious that it is a one sided show and that the portrait of Gary and then “What I wanted” and they cut to the dollars is very stupid. Only brainless people will watch this and think it is credible. It has no authoritive conjecture to it as everyone who is crying were initially involved for some potential reason anyway. Only when what transpired is not what they had in mind did they start bawling. Any one who would write out a check for 50 thousand and then turn around and ask the question of “Who is this guy?” well, shouldn’t that question have been asked before he cut the check ? It is all very dumb to me. Too bad for crap like this does make para-normal investigators look dumb, but, also make the others look dumb as well to any one who is intelligent.

        Dr. Colette M. Dowell ND
        Circular Times
        http://www.circulartimes.org
        http://www.robertschoch.net

  3. Outfoxed
    It’s heartwarming to read the comments on this issue. Having read Dr Schwartz’s books and seen him in numerous interviews I have no doubt of his integrity. I came across the geraldo piece on youtube and was sickened by the knee-jerk reponses in the comments section there. nobody took the time to look further into the issue, prefering to take the report as gospel.

    If there are any doubts about the untruthful nature of the FOX network and that mustacheo’d buffoon, please check out this excellent documentary on the subject:

    http://www.outfoxed.org/

    I look forward to reading of Dr. Schwartz’s victory in the courtroom. For a man who’s motto is “Veritas” I’m sure he will have no problems proving his innocence.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal