Larry King Live show

I taped a Larry King Live show last November with J.Z. Knight, Candace Pert, Fred Alan Wolf, Will Arntz (producer of the What the Bleep movie) and Edgar Mitchell.

I'm told it will air on CNN Saturday, August 2 at 6pm PT, 9pm PT & Midnight PT.

My main recollection of the show is that the hair and makeup artists were amazing. Because of the high resolution of HD TV, some makeup artists are now using airbrushes. I guess if you use traditional pancake, the makeup is too obvious in hi-def. I also saw the singer Wayne Newton in the green room after the show. Other than that, it all went by in a blur and I have no idea what I said.

Comments

Sonic Ghost said…
"I'm told it will air on CNN Saturday, August 2 at 6pm PT, 9pm PT & Midnight PT."

... Huh? I don't watch Larry King unless it's a subject of my interest, so I don't know how long these shows last, but were those typos, or are they really airing the episode three times in a row in a single day?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Dean Radin said…
Yes, three times in one day. Such repeats are pretty common for taped shows on CNN.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Sonic Ghost said…
Oh, I see. I can't wait to watch this.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Dreamer said…
Thanks for the heads-up -- I was fortunate enough to catch the 9:00 screening.

It makes me so happy to see these topics covered on a high-profile program like Larry King Live. You guys all did such a great job of getting your messages across in a talk-show format, and Larry himself seemed very receptive to the ideas presented. Great job -- I'm so "proud" of you!
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Fifi said…
The pit-falls of not having cable...*sniff* Maybe some merciful You-Tuber will post it...

As for makeup...

Airbrushing is great for hi-def. It covers what you need it to cover without having to use a ton of product -- the base sits on top of the skin, which allows for less product to sit on the skin. It also holds up well under hot lights
I've done a few weddings, and I like using airbrushing for those reasons.

Pancake is better works better for theater. Like airbrushing, it holds up to hot lights, but it has the advantage of being a bit more sweat proof -- especially for performers with oily skin. Used dry (and with an incredibly light hand) it makes a great powder base.

The makeup fanatic will now shut her mouth... =0|
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Blue Mystic said…
Any chance it will be on google video?
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Dean Radin said…
If it shows up on YouTube or equivalent I'll post the link here.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Sonic receptacle said…
I am so grateful I caught this episode, I rarely watch television. You put some things I have been contemplating internally in a context I could really grasp. Your view resonates more in line with my thought processes possibly because I'm a musician and software engineer. Like minds? I have no idea. I would love to see it again on you tube, I feel very inspired from the broadcast. Thank you very much Dean for your work.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Unknown said…
It now appears to be on Google -- at least embedded within this blog.
http://inherentexcellence.com/blog/?p=49

(Those with more technical skill than I surely can extract it.)

What a contradiction in terms, your message vs. the non-stop ticker tape at screen's bottom of all the negative news worldwide. How remarkable---no perfect---that you and Edgar Mitchell and the Bleep crew appear on and thus powerfully inspire the watchers of BNN (bad news net).

Alert! Paradigm shift underway. Yesssss.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Sonic receptacle said…
Here is the direct link for those that would like it:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5728803024051695792&hl=en&fs=true
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
goodwitchy said…
I am so glad that I saw this Larry King show - this is how I discovered you and I am so interested in the research you're doing.

I'm ordering your books.
Thank you Dean.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent  Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times  was kind enough to  prepare us to be outraged .  It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake .  I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha  in this blog .  But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology  and is available here .  The key
Read more

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Image
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area
Read more

Show me the evidence

Image
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student  might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on  virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME  page with downloadable articles on psi a
Read more