This report was taken from Gary Schwartz's website and is included here with his kind permission. To visit Prof. Gary Schwartz's new website click here. To visit Prof. Linda Russek's new website click here.


Evidence of Information Retrieval between Two Mediums: Telepathy, Network Memory Resonance, and Continuance of Consciousness


(Click here to read Part TWO)

 - Prof. Gary E. R. Schwartz and Prof. Linda G. S. Russek -

- Abstract -

          CAN MEDIUMS receive highly accurate and specific information under laboratory controlled blinded conditions: (1) prior to the scheduled time of the reading, and (2) during the reading in the absence of visual, auditory, or other potential sensory cues? A research medium investigated for three years in the Human Energy Systems Laboratory at the University of Arizona participated in a novel experiment with a unique sitter she did not know. The medium was in Tucson, Arizona; the sitter (who is also a research medium) was in Los Angeles, California. The experimental design involved three phases: Phase 1, a pre-reading contemplation period where the medium attempted to receive information about the sitter's deceased loved ones before the reading began; Phase 2, a silent-read period where the telephone was on mute so that the sitter could not hear the information received by the medium; and Phase 3, an actual telephone reading involving dialogue between the medium and the sitter. Specific information regarding names and relationships during Phases 1 and 2 were more than 90% accurate; the conditional probability of guessing the primary information by chance was less than one in 2.6 trillion. Information obtained during Phase 3 extended the findings, increasing the p value to 1 in 17,000 trillion, including four pieces of specific information unknown to the sitter and later confirmed. The design rules out conventional explanations of fraud, cold reading, vague information, statistical coincidence, selective sitter memory, and sitter rater bias. Three anomalous mechanisms may be involved: telepathy with the living, network memory resonance with the living (a superpsi hypothesis), and the existence of intentional, organizing consciousness. Paraphrasing William James, the present findings represent a genuine "white crow" research reading in mediumship science.


          Contemporary research on anomalous information retrieval has been advanced through the cooperation of research-oriented mediums with exceptional talent and integrity (Schwartz et al, 1999; Schwartz and Russek, 1999; Schwartz, Russek, Nelson, and Barentsen, 2001; Schwartz, Russek, and Barentsen, 2001) and scientists open to exploring their abilities.

In order to establish anomalous information retrieval, it is essential to rule out (1) conventional sources of information (e.g. visual and auditory) obtained intentionally (e.g. through fraud or cold reading) or unintentionally (e.g. via subtle cueing associated with the clients / sitters / subjects breathing), (2) experimenter bias or error, and (3) rater bias on the part of the clients / sitters / subjects (e.g. selective memory effects or inflated ratings of information) (reviewed in Gauld, 1983). 

Research in the Human Energy Systems Laboratory (HESL) has employed single-blind experiments where in the first part of the session, research mediums (i.e., mediums who engage in controlled research studies) are completely blind to the sitters (e.g. Schwartz, Russek, Nelson, and Barentsen, 2001; Schwartz, Russek, and Barentsen, 2001). The mediums do not see or hear the sitter. The mediums must report information out loud in the first ten minutes with no knowledge of the sitters' age, sex, appearance, tone of voice, and personal history and beliefs. Double-blind experiments where the sitters (1) do not hear the readings when they are performed, and (2) later score blinded transcripts (containing their personal readings and control readings of other sitters), are on-going in HESL.

The present report was written because of its research design and the evidential nature of the data. In Schwartz, Russek, Nelson, and Barentsen (2001), five mediums were investigated. We suggested that "the particular mediums participating in this research may be examples of five ‘white crows' of anomalous information retrieval."

Extending James' metaphor further, we suggest that the particular research design and reading reported here may be exemplary of a "white crow" research reading in mediumship science.

As the late Carl Sagan (and others - Sagan originally learned the phrase from Marcello Truizzi) have said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The present findings are consistent with this recommendation. 

The single blind sitter-silent paradigm (termed the Russek procedure in HESL), was creatively extended by Laurie Campbell, LC, chair of our mediumship research committee. LC began doing private readings in the summer of 2000, and wished to extend the Russek procedure to her private practice. It occurred to LC that during her pre-reading contemplation sessions (the term "contemplation" was proposed by Stanley Krippner, LC calls them "meditations") which regularly occur approximately one-half hour before a scheduled reading, that she could request information purportedly from the sitter's departed loved ones before the reading began.

LC noticed that she typically received specific information - names, relationships, causes of death, personal description - that she could record prior to each reading and then confirm or disconfirm, item by item, with the sitter in the first part of the actual reading. At the time this report was written, LC had recorded data on over 100 readings using this pre-reading contemplation procedure (termed the Campbell procedure in HESL); her accuracy ratings range from 50% to 95%.

We learned of her procedure in December, 2000, and decided to conduct a controlled blinded laboratory experiment to investigate her claims. The design of the experiment is described below, followed by the data from one reading with a unique sitter whose evidence is so extraordinary as to deserve special scrutiny. 

A traditional experimental report summarizing group statistics is in preparation. Statistically significant evidence for anomalous information retrieval was found for each of the sitters investigated in the experiment. However, it is the uniqueness and extraordinarily evidential nature of the particular reading highlighted in this detailed report that justifies focusing on this "white crow" research reading.

[Note: Given our commitment to integrity in research - both the experimenters and the mediums - we report all potential sources of error and / or fraud in the conduct of this experiment. Rather than hide these details, we express them openly, and let the reader reach his or her own conclusion about possible sources of contamination in the design.]

- Experimental Design -

Selection of Sitters

Sitters were chosen by the experimenters (the authors, GERS and LGSR) who met the following criteria: (1) the sitters had experienced significant personal losses of beloved individuals (2) the sitters were sincerely interested in the possibility of a spiritual reality and the survival of consciousness hypothesis (3) the sitters were mature individuals of exceptionally high integrity committed to the rigors of experimental research, and (4) the sitters were willing to score information collected in both the single blind and double blind conditions after the readings were conducted and transcripts were prepared. 

The medium (LC) was blind to the selection and identities of the specific sitters.

The particular sitter whose data are reported here (George Dalzell, GD) is important because (1) he is professionally trained as a psychiatric social worker in Los Angeles County in California, (2) he comes from a highly educated academic family (he was educated at Northwestern University in Chicago, and his father, grandfather, and great grandfather were educated at Yale University), (3) he is deeply interested in research, and has validated data from four deceased individuals (described below), and (4) he has secretly been a medium for the past few years since the death of a dear friend (Michael, M) who was one of the four persons GD invited to serve as "departed hypothesized co-investigators" (Schwartz et al, 1999; Russek et al, 1999) in the present experiment. 

The last fact is especially important, because GD has extensive data documented in a forthcoming book (Dalzell, 2001) that provides evidential support for the continued existence of M.

At the time of testing, LC and GD had never met (in person, by telephone, letter, or email). [Note: the mediums were willing to have their phone records examined; the skeptic will point out the possibility that if LC and GD were cheating, they could have used phone booths or phones of friends].

LC had been told of GD's existence (the authors of this report mentioned to her GD's interest in HESL's research a few months earlier). However, LC was not informed that GD would be one of the sitters selected to participate in this experiment. Moreover, LC was never informed that GD would be considered to serve as a sitter in any laboratory investigations. LC had not been shown GD's manuscript (Dalzell, 2001). The manuscript was kept out of sight of LC. [Note: a number of details obtained by LC in the readings were not only absent from the book, but they were unknown to GD prior to the readings. Hence, the thesis that LC somehow read the manuscript is improbable.]

GD knew of LC's existence (GD had read reports from the laboratory describing research with LC; Schwartz et al, 1999; Schwartz and Russek, 1999; Schwartz, Russek, Nelson, and Barentsen, 2001). GD was told that LC might be the medium in this experiment (he knows HESL is working with a number of research mediums). Given GD's academic background and professional standing, as well as his personal interest in this research area, the opportunity to participate as a research sitter in this experiment was of professional and personal significance to him. Engaging in fraud in the laboratory, if detected, would greatly jeopardize his career as a social worker as well as a medium. He was made aware (as are all mediums and sitters) that if fraud was detected in the laboratory, it would be exposed.


The experiment was conducted in Tucson, Arizona. LC was flown in from Irvine, California to participate in research. The sitters were located in Arizona and California. All readings were conducted over the telephone. Distances between the medium and the sitters ranged from approximately ten miles to greater than one thousand miles. 

The sitters were telephoned by GERS and LGSR and invited to participate. The procedures were described in detail, including the pre-reading contemplation periods and the sitter-silent periods. Sitters were encouraged to attempt to personally connect with their deceased loved ones and invite them to communicate with LC prior to their scheduled appointment times with LC. Sitters were told that as in our previous experiments (Schwartz et al, 1999; Schwartz and Russek, 1999; Schwartz, Russek, Nelson, and Barentsen, 2001; Schwartz, Russek, and Barentsen, 2001), LC would be completely blind to their identity. 

The sitters were reminded of the need for absolute integrity, and that they would be required later to carefully score transcripts from the readings. They understood that some of the transcripts they would recognize, and others they would not (Phases I and II described below). We explained that they would not be told ahead of time which of the blinded transcripts were their transcripts until they had completed the scoring and we had analyzed the data.

[Note: LC stayed at the home of GERS and LGSR for the weekend of the experiment. When one of the experimenters was speaking with a potential sitter on the telephone in a given room (to schedule an appointment), the other experimenter was with LC in another room (thus ensuring that LC was not "overhearing" the phone conversation. From the time that sitters were selected to the completion of the experiment, LC never left the home except when she was with the experimenters. Since the exceptional nature of the data reported here was not anticipated ahead of time, the experiment did not include additional desirable controls such as independent observers of all the procedures to establish that the experimenters were not engaged in conscious or unconscious deception. However, the experimenters are exceptionally sensitive to the possibility of unconscious "leakage" if not conscious collusion. It was deemed more effective to watch LC in order to rule out any possibility of the LC communicating with the sitters - recall the sitters were contacted only one day before data collection to participate in the experiment - then to have LC staying in a hotel away from the experimenters.]

Readings were scheduled for specific times (e.g. 2:30, 4:30, 6:00 p.m.). The procedure for each reading was as follows:

Phase 1: Pre-Reading (Campbell) Procedure.

One-half hour before a scheduled time, LC would conduct her pre-contemplation period, in seclusion and silence. She would write down the information she received during the pre-reading period. 

[Note that the blinded pre-reading contemplation phase eliminates all possible visible and auditory cues (as well as olfactory cues), and therefore eliminates conventional explanations of cold reading, subtle cueing, and medium fraud, as possible explanations of the findings.] 

Phase 2: Sitter-Silent (Russek) Procedure

At the appointed time, depending upon the specific sitter, either the sitter telephoned the experimenters (GESR answered the phone) or the experimenter telephoned the sitter. A Sony digital video tape recorder was used to record the initial reception of the sitter and the conduct of the Russek Procedure. 

The sitter was reminded that the telephone would be placed on mute (hence the sitters would not be able to hear LC speaking), and that they were to hold the telephone to their ear for the duration of the ten minute sitter-silent period. We confirmed empirically that the mute button worked effectively, and that the sitters could not detect words spoken by GERS before he handed the muted telephone to LC. Moreover, LC sat a few feet from the answering-machine that contained the mute button. She held the phone with her left hand, and wrote notes with her right hand. There was no possibility of her secretly attempting to manipulate the mute button. 

When the telephone was placed on mute, it was handed to LC. Since the sitter's telephone was not placed on mute (not all sitters had a mute button, and we wanted the sitters to focus their attention as if the telephone was being used in this phase of the reading), sporadic noises generated by the sitter and his or her environment could sometimes be heard by LC if she held the telephone in a normal listening and speaking position. The sporadic noises were distracting to LC. Hence, LC held the telephone with the instrument turned away from her ear, thus minimizing potential distractions.

[Note: One reviewer suggested that LC could have used cues such as breathing coming from the phone as feedback for cold reading. However, since the sitters could not hear LC, the "feedback" would have to be from sitters unconsciously receiving information from LC via telepathy, and then communicating agreement through subtle changes in breathing. This speculation would be a novel super-psi cold reading-type hypothesis.]

The Sony video camera recorded the Russek procedure during which time LC shared out loud what impressions she was receiving. Note that at no time did the experimenters refer to the sitters by name, and LC had not yet heard the sitter's voice. Phase II lasted approximately 15 minutes.

[Note that the blind sitter-silent phase eliminates possible visible and olfactory cues (and hence cold reading, subtle cueing, and fraud) as well as useful auditory cues (the sitter could not hear LC; and LC was not using sporadic distracting auditory cues to shape her responses).] 

Phase 3: The Actual Reading Procedure. 

When the sitter-silent period was completed, the experimenter took the telephone from LC, turned off the mute button, and started a Radio Shack telephone tape recorder that recorded both LC's voice and the sitter's voice. With the telephone on mute, LC's voice could not be recorded on the telephone tape recorder. However, LC's voice was recorded via the auditory channel of the video tape recorder. 

The experimenter explained to the sitter that she or he would now hear LC's voice, and that LC would explain how she conducted a normal reading. LC then introduced herself and explained how she conducted a normal medium-sitter dialogue reading. LC then read, item by item, the content received during the pre-reading contemplation, and asked the sitter to confirm, question, or disconfirm the information. Hence, the sitter was not blind to the pre-reading contemplation content (the Campbell procedure) in this experiment. 

However, we requested that LC not read the sitter-silent period content (the Russek procedure) in this experiment. This material was saved for later blind scoring by the sitters. 

As will be discussed below, the pre-reading (Campbell) procedure can be used for blind scoring by sitters as well. However, this was not the purpose of the present experiment. The purpose was to document whether the pre-reading procedure generated discrete and specific accurate information under single-blind laboratory conditions.

The material obtained during Phase 3 (the actual reading) are obviously complicated by the dialogue established between the medium and the sitter. However, as will be clear, the content received during the actual reading complemented and extended the content received during Phases 1 and 2, thus providing compelling supportive evidence for anomalous information retrieval by LC.

- Results for GD -

Names and Relationships for Phases 1 and 2.

The experimenters knew that GD planned to invite M as a departed hypothesized co-investigator. However, the experimenters were blind to the other individuals GD invited to purportedly participate in the research.

Subsequently, according to GD, he invited four specific individuals: 

(1) M, (2) a deceased aunt named Alice, A), (3) his father, Bob, B, and (4) another close friend, Jerry, J. 

During Phases 1 (Pre-Reading) and 2 (Sitter-Silent) combined, LC reported:

(1) that she was being told that this reading was for someone named George (GD), 

(2) that there was a deceased friend named Michael (M),

(3) that there was a deceased person named Bob (B) (relationship not specified), 

(4) that there was a deceased friend named Jerry (J),

(5) that there was someone with a strange name that sounded like "Talya," "Tiya," and "Tilya" (T) (LC's phonetic spellings of the name she heard),

(6) that there was a deceased person named Alice (A) (relationship specified in Phase 3)

(7) there was deceased dog whose name began with an S.

However, LC ended Phase 2 with a statement indicating that the primary deceased person for this particular sitter was a male named Michael (M). 

[Note - except for the unusual name "Talya" (GD calls her "Tallia," names will typically be listed in this paper by initials; LC provided full names, not initials, for these individuals in Phases 1 and 2.]

Table 1 lists all names and initials recorded in writing by LC during Phases 1 - 3 (save for three scientists names, mentioned for completeness in the Discussion section). The sitter used a 0-3 ratings scale: (0) unknown to sitter (possibly a mistake, e.g. Joyce), (1) known but not close - e.g. GD knows of a "Shermer" but doubts that "Sherm" (LC's spelling) is important to the reading, (2) known and moderately close - e.g. sitter knows a "Fred" and LC might be referring to him, and (3) known and close (e.g. the names GD, M, B, A, J, "Talya", S, and K).

The names of the four people specifically invited by GD - M, A, B, and J - were received by LC during Phases 1 and 2. In addition, it turned out to be factually correct that GD had a friend with the unusual name that sounded like "Talya" (T) (GD called her "Tallia"), and that GD had a beloved dog with an S name (LC's guess about the actual name was similar in sound but not precisely correct).

- TABLE 1 -

Summary of Names, Relationships, and Ratings

Pre-Reading (Phase 1)
George (G)** Self Living 3
Jerry (J)** Friend Deceased 3
John Great Grandfather Deceased 2
B name (Becky, Barbara, Betty) Friend Living 1
Maureen Friend Living 1
Robert/Bob (B)** Father Deceased 3
Talya/Tily/Tilya (T)** Friend Living 3
S (Suzanne) (S)** Dog Deceased 2+
Sherm? (LC spelled) Known Living 1
Sitter Silent (Phase 2)
Michael (M)** Friend Deceased 3
Jerry (J)** Friend Deceased 3
Joyce ---- ---- 0
Fred Friend Living 2
Francis** Friend Living 3
Albert or Alfred** Friend of friend Deceased 3
Alice (A)** ---- Deceased 3
Elaine ---- ---- 0
Actual Reading (Phase 3)
Michael (M)** Friend Deceased 3
Marcus** Friend Living 3
Jerry (J)** Friend Deceased 3
Albert** Joel's friend Deceased 3
Alice (A)** Aunt Deceased 3
George (G)** Self Living 3
Arthur Friend of friend Deceased 2+
Katherine (K)** Granddaughter of Alice Living 3
Joe/Joseph ---- ---- 0

** Refers to people or pets of special significance to GD. 

----- means that no information was provided by JC. Letters in parentheses refer to individuals used to calculate the conservative conditional probability, first for Phases 1 and 2, then including Phase 3. Adding the remaining names to the calculation would serve to inflate the overall conditional probability.

[Note: It is unfortunate that we did not think to have GD write down the names of the people invited 24 hours before the reading, and have this document notarized. One reviewer suggested that maybe GD was deceiving us and / himself about the people he invited to the reading so as to help the sales of his book when it was published. This speculation has no basis in fact, and is entirely inconsistent with GD's professional and personal history. If this was the case, it could not explain other facts in the data, such as the 4 pieces of information obtained by LC, unknown to GD, that he subsequently confirmed after the readings.]

LC reported receiving other names; three were not recognized by GD and therefore could be scored as errors (listed in Table 1 as Joyce, Elaine, and Joe / Joseph).

What is curious is that GD did not know any living people with these three very common names. However, both experimenters (had we been the sitters) do have close relationships with a Joyce, an Elaine, and a Joseph. 

For the purpose of conservative scoring in Phases 1 and 2, we limited our analysis to the specific names, relationships, and details of the four people invited by GD (M, B, J, A) plus two other clearly important individuals (a person and a pet) close to GD (T, S).

As will be clear from the actual reading (Phase 3) described below, not only were each of the four primary people described accurately by LC, but four additional facts not known by GD and later confirmed by sources close to GD indicated that exceptionally accurate information was obtained for GD's deceased family and close friends.

The combined probability of names and relationships reported by LC during the pre-reading and sitter-silent periods is highly statistically significant. It is estimated conservatively as p < one in 2.6 trillion (1 in 2,624,400,000,000 ).

The procedure used for calculating this conditional probability is described below.

Conditional Probability Calculation

If we estimate that there are at least 15 common American male names (e.g. common male names of people well known by the experimenters include Al, Bill, Bob, Edward, Gary, George, Harry, Howard, John, Larry, Michael, Mark, Sam, Steve, Tom), and 15 common female names (names of people well known by the experimenters include Alice, Beverly, Cathy, Jane, Joyce, Joan, Kate, Karen, Linda, Lynn, Mary, Margaret, Martha, Rita, Susan), we can conservatively estimate that the probability of LC getting a specific name correct for a given sex is 1 in 15. 

[Note - the number 15 was selected by the authors to be a conservative yet fair number. Obviously, other common names could be added to the list (e.g. additional common names of males known by the experimenters include Daniel, James, Paul, Ralph, Terry, and additional common names of females known by the experimenters include Ann, Judy, Lisa, Sara, Shirley). Increasing the estimated number of possible common names would only make the conditional probabilities all the more improbable by chance. For example, the conservative 1 in 2.6 trillion estimate would be multiplied by at least 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 (an increase of 15,625 for the six names given), to less than 1 in 41,000 trillion ). The specific examples of male and female names listed above were selected after the experiment was completed and the experimenters decided to attempt to calculate conditional probabilities for the findings. Subsequent analyses of first name frequencies at the University of Arizona and the US Census bureau, reported in Appendix A, document that 1 in 15 is a conservative estimate.]

[Note: One reviewer suggested that once the sitter gets a single name correct, the p value should be reduced accordingly. For example, 1 in 30 - male plus female - should be reduced to 1 in 29, with each name picked. However, this assumes that readings involve single names. In a recent experiment, a medium reported hearing "Michael times 2 - Michael times 2" - not realizing that the name of the son who died, followed by the name of the father died, were Michael Junior, and senior, respectively. The medium not only reported indicated that the son and father were both deceased, and the father died after the son, but he correctly implied that both had the name Michael (Schwartz, Russek, and Barentsen, 2001). Given that 1 in 30 is an underestimate to begin with, the assumption that the p value should be reduced will not alter substantially the overall value of the probabilities.] 

Relationship can be conservatively estimated as 1 in 12 (e.g. mother, father, daughter, son, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, wife, husband, female friend, male friend). 

[Note - ideally one might wish to give more weight to older persons such as grandparents and parents, and less weight to friends and children. For the present data, doing so would serve to make the conditional probabilities even more significant; we purposely adopted a relatively conservative procedure for this reading.]

The conditional probabilities were calculated as follows:
LC said that this particular sitter was male (1 in 2) and his name was G (1 in 15). For this information, the probability would be 2 x 15 or 1 in 30 (p<.033). [Note - when a name is selected without a relationship given, the pool of possible names (male and female combined), as calculated here, would be 2 * 15, or 30 possible names]. 

LC said that the primary deceased person was a male friend and his name was M A male friend (1 in 12) named M (1 in 15) would be 12 x 15 or 1 in 180 (p<.006). The combined probability of G and M, so identified, is 30 x 180 or 1 in 5400.

LC said that there was a deceased friend name J. Friend named J would be 12 x 15 or 1 in 180 (p<.006). The combined probability of G, M and J, so identified, is 30 x 180 x 180 or 1 in 972,000.

LC said that there was a deceased person named B. LC did not specify the precise relationship. Person named B would simply be 2 x 15 (p<.03). The combined probability of G, M, J, and B, so identified, is 30 x 180 x 180 x 30 or 1 in 29,160,000.

LC said that there was a deceased person named A. LC did not specify the precise relationship. Person named A would simply be 2 x 15 (p<.03). The combined probability of G, M, J, B, and A, so identified, is 30 x 180 x 180 x 30 x 30 or 1 in 874,800,000.

The combined probability value of 1 in 874,800,000 is an underestimate of the actual combined probability. 

For example, consider what happens when we add the highly unusual T name "Tallia" (which LC spelled "Tilya") to the conditional probability. LC did not comment what the relationship was. However, the question arises, what is the probability of spontaneously guessing the unusual name Tallia / Tilya by chance? A conservative estimate is 1 in 100 (p<.01). When we add T to the combined probability of G, M, J, B, and A this brings the conditional probability to 30 x 180 x 180 x 30 x 30 x 100, or 1 in 87,480,000,000. 

Also important is the dog with an S initial. LC did not provide information about the sex of the dog, though she later described the dog accurately (see below). If we estimate that of 26 letters in the alphabet, picking S by chance is conservatively 1 in 15 (clearly names starting with Q's, X's, and Z's are highly improbable, whereas names like Alice, Bob, Charles, Debbie, Edward, Frank, Gary, Harry, Jerry, Kathy, Larry, Mary, Peter, Susan, Tom), and the selection of dog is maybe 1 in 2 (dogs and cats are the primary pets that mediums seems to mention), reporting a deceased dog with an S name is at least 1 in 30 (p <.03). Add the S dog to G, M, J, B, A, and T brings the conditional probability to 30 x 180 x 180 x 30 x 30 x 100 x 30, or 1 in 2,624,400,000,000.

In sum, for these six names, one initial, and relationships per se, the conditional probability is at least p < one in 2.6 trillion.

[Note that by comparison, neither author has (1) a deceased person B, or (2) a deceased close friend M, or (3) a deceased close friend J, or (4) a deceased person A, or (5) any known person named Tallia, or (6) a deceased dog S. Clearly, some people will have one or more of these name-relationship pairs, but virtually no-one (except GD) will have the complete pattern of all the name-relationships received by LC in Phases 1 and 2. This hypothesis was empirically investigated with a control group and is reported in Appendix A.]

- Additional Content during Phases 1 (Pre-Reading) and 2 (Sitter-Silent) -

LC reported meaningful content during Phases 1 and 2 that was clearly relevant to GD and his deceased loved ones.

[Note: One reviewer correctly noted that many of these items were, by themselves "vague" and could apply to many people. What make this information important is the constellation of descriptions, specially when the more vague information is interspersed with highly specific content. Just because a medium reports vague information at times does not necessarily imply that the mechanism is "cold reading." The information, though general, may still apply to the individual in question.]

During Phase 1 (pre-reading) LC wrote that the sitter (who had yet to be telephoned) was concerned with "truth that is held within the soul's journey - journey of the soul's path - truth from someone with an M name" and that the sitter was preparing to "stand up and be counted." GD is preparing to stand up and be counted with the publication of his book (Dalzell, 2001). The names G, M, B, T, and a small dog were mentioned. 

LC saw "candles burning." GD informed us that he had lit a candle just prior to the beginning of the experiment, an act seldom practiced by GD.

During Phase 2 (sitter-silent), LC reported East Coast and California (both correct - GD comes from the East Coast, and he currently lives in California), seeing science and books associated with the sitter and his deceased father (both true), new discoveries with radio and television in the future (all true), recent advancement with new directions (true), father deceased (true), the name "Michael" key to the reading (true), and Jerry. 

Other material received by LC was more general and could apply to many people (e.g. that the sitter was loving and caring). It should be noted that LC said that GD's mother was deceased; GD informed us that this was an error; his mother was living and in good health at the time of the experiment.

As in the previous research (Schwartz et al, 1999; Schwartz and Russek, 1999, Schwartz, Russek, Nelson, and Barentsen, 2001; Schwartz, Russek, and Barentsen, 2001), it was during the actual reading (Phase 3), that the most extensive and detailed information was retrieved that replicated and extended the information obtained during Phases 1 and 2.

- Phase 3 (Actual Reading) -

Content outlined as it emerged, including four examples of information not previously known to GD

After reviewing Phase 1 with GD, LC began the reading by focusing on M. She also mentioned that J had passed recently (in the past 6 months, which was true), and that A was also strongly present. LC described M as a partner (which was true) and that M was GD's "muse" (an interesting phrase - remember that LC was blind to the identity of the sitter, though she now knew that the sitter was male and that the names she had received previously were accurate and important to the sitter). 

She described M as seeing the "world" through "lots of glass." She returned to this fact at various points in the reading. LC could not interpret what "M was showing her." It turned out that M was an international purser and flight attendant for Lufthansa Airlines. He flew all over the globe, literally seeing the world through the glass windows of airplanes.

She described M's personality accurately - not only as loving and caring, but obsessively neat and "pristine" (true). 

LC then moved to J. She saw him from the East Coast, Brooklyn area (true), and that he was "drinking and smoking" (true). 

It is important that GD did not know at the time of the reading that J had lived in Brooklyn; this was confirmed afterward by a friend of J and GD. She saw him as often "intoxicated" and sitting on "bar stools" (he was an alcoholic for more than half of his life). She also said that he "stopped" drinking before he died (true). 

After describing an "A" named male (details that were true), she returned to M. She saw M in a white kitchen that was "cozy" with "stone" (true). 

LC said that M showed her where he lived: somewhere in Europe, and his parents have a "heavy accent" (M was German). LC reported that M was showing her a big city, and then M was traveling through the countryside to his home. Along the road to his house LC was shown a river and "centuries old stonework" (true).

LC claimed that M showed her an old, stone "monastery" on the edge of the river on the way to his parent's home. This information was not known to GD prior to the reading. After the reading, GD telephoned M's parents in Germany and learned that there is an old abbey / church along the river's edge on the way to their house, and that they had held a service for M in this monastery-like stone building a few weeks prior to the experiment.

LC then described the older Aunt A, her great sense of humor (true), but related that A was experiencing "compassion and sorrow" for her grand daughter Katherine (true) who was having difficulties and was "uncontrolled." LC indicated that K was currently receiving "healing." This detail was not known to GD prior to reading. After the reading, GD telephoned K's mother who informed him that K was indeed having serious difficulties and had sought psychological counseling in the week prior to the experiment because she was in crisis.

Also interesting was that GD originally thought that LC had misspelled Katherine's name; GD believed that Katherine's name was spelled "Catherine". GD learned that LC was correct. 

LC described more details about A's cottage, and then moved back to GD himself. LC said she was being shown by M that GD's life was about to become "noisy" and be "turned upside down." This is true. With the publication of GD's book, his secret life as a medium will become a matter of public record, and he may have to face professional complications in his role as a psychiatric social worker in good standing with Los Angeles county Department of Mental Health, as well as his role as Psychiatric Admissions Coordinator at a Hospital in Glendale, California.

The experimenters found it interesting and evidential that LC reported M showing her GD and "white coat" / clinicians in a hospital prior to the reading. It turned out that GD had performed psychological evaluations in the emergency room of a Los Angeles hospital, and he had been there just prior to the reading.

The experimenters also found it interesting and evidential that LC saw the small dog (colors and personality description reported by GD to be accurate) being near a favorite tree and water. GD later informed us that he and his dog spent many hours at a special tree near the water, where his deceased dog was buried after living to be eighteen years old.

The complete reading lasted more than one hour. Substantial information was received. Space precludes reporting the complete reading. 

[Note - the full transcript with detailed commentary from the sitter will be placed on a website for future scholars to examine.] 

Some of the information received by LC can be labeled as general and is applicable widely (e.g. that Aunt A was loving, or M was compassionate). GD said that this information was at least 90% accurate. Though this information accurately portrayed the deceased and living family and friends of GD, given that this kind of information is general and widely applicable, it is not considered evidential in the context of the present report.

However, much of the information received by LC was highly specific and clearly organized for specific individuals (e.g. the pattern of "partner," "M," "world through glass," "small house in Europe," "old stone monastery," "on the river's edge," "lived life to the fullest"). GD said this kind of specific information was also at least 90% accurate. Because this information is so highly specific and precisely organized, it is decidedly evidentiary.


Part Two

PART TWO of: Evidence of Information Retrieval Between Two Mediums: Discussions

Home | Intro | News | Investigators | Articles | Experiments | Photographs | Theory | Library | Info | Books | Contact | Campaigns | Glossary


Some parts The International Survivalist Society 2003