Hi David. Thank you for your comments. I agree with this actually to put to bed all of the variables to this type of work. How would you set up protocols to ensure fairness to both sides? What would be deemed as undisputable towards definitive proof? It is something that is hard to quantify given the etheral nature of it.
I was really more posing the question. I mean as I see it, there are several issues that pull in different directions.
One extreme would be to do something like Julie Beischel did, but I am sure her super severe protocol failed many good mediums. I am curious whether either you or Claire tried that test.
Another extreme would be to do what the TV shows do - make it all about entertainment, and we sure don't want to go there.
The third approach is to do the job as you would normally do it, and let people judge for themselves.
I think describing Alex's house as lots of white squares was very accurate, and rather unusual. It sounded as though what you actually see on these occasions is maybe more like a sketch that a photograph?
I think LetsEat was discussing one way a medium could cheat - I mean the internet makes that rather easy. The trouble is, all that conventional science wants to do with psychic phenomena is to try to figure out some way they could have cheated! Maybe an experiment with one layer of Julie Beischel's blinding might help. Suppose that Alex talked to you with the sitter listening in, and the sitter would type replies that Alex would read back to you.
BTW, there is only one or two true sceptics here, most of us are just interested in hardening the evidence as much as possible.
Thanks again for joining us!