> It's by Bob Larson.
If you do, then I suggest you listen to "Talk Back" regularly, and take note of the different people with problems that call. After a while you will say to yourself, "hey, I've heard that call before!". At best it can be said that he occasionally plays tapes of dramatic calls from the past as if they were live. It would not surprise me of the deception goes even farther than that, but this is all I know for a fact. Even if this is the extent of his dishonesty, it still does not say much for his integrity.
Case and point, on Fri. 26 Apr. 1991, 32 minutes into the second hour a girl named Amy from Toronto supposedly called. I don't know about your local station, but mine usually does not play commercials during the breaks, so what comes over the air is Bob's filler spots. As Amy spoke, I recalled what she said, exact same voice, exact same words, exact same inflections, from a filler spot used about 18 months ago. Since I had heard the spot many times back then, voice, words and inflections were inadvertently memorized. This was not the first time I had recognized that a "live" call has been identical to one of these spots, it was just the first time I had grabbed a pen and made note of the time and person's name. It would seem that most stations must play commercials during the breaks, otherwise Bob would not be so careless.
From your messages it would seem that you share Bob's religious views. I know that it is common for people to automatically assume that those with the same beliefs are going to give reliable information, but I urge you to take a step back and examine just what proof there is to back some of Bob's claims.
I can say this because I was once guilty of accepting unreliable information on the occult as factual. A guy I used to do witnessing work with once shared a tape of a lecture on the occult and rock music. My first reaction was, "Boy this guy really knows what he is talking about!", but later when it became clear to me that people like Larson and Giraldo Rivera were sensationalizing and blowing Satanism way out of proportion, I played the tape again. Listening critically this time, I observed that although the speaker took an authoritative tone, he offered no proof and expected the audience to accept his word on everything. Since he gave his presentations in churches, it is not surprising that people would accept what he said without requiring evidence.
The bottom line is that Bob will only continue to propagate such myths as breeders and organized networks of Satanists as long as people are willing to $believe$ him. I'm not saying that Satanism doesn't exist or that no one has ever killed for the devil, but I do consider it irresponsible for Bob to put people on the radio as occult crime survivors just because they say that they have had such experiences.
The fact that many victim's stories have been disproven, that schizophrenia is common among people claiming such experiences, and that none that I know of have offered any tangible proof to back their fantastic stories, tells me that before a responsible journalist will put a person before the public as an occult crime survivor, that person must disclose to the police the location of a bloody alter or a clandestine burial site, or come up with a corroborating witness.
The person who claims to be a victim, but in reality has not has the experiences they speak of, is probably in just as much need of Christian love and counselling as an actual victim. I would not tell such a person to their face that I will only believe the story once proof has been found, but I would not tell other people that this person is a "survivor" unless I could be sure of it myself.