Unedited John Edward Transcripts

[TLN]

Does anyone have any of these? Transcripts should be:
[list=1]
Complete per sitter from start to finish and unedited.
From a verifiable source.
Not from Larry King Live as renata's already done a great job there.
[/list=1]
Are there any other crucial criteria I've missed that someone else wants to remind me of?

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by TLN
Does anyone have any of these? Transcripts should be:
[list=1]
Complete per sitter from start to finish and unedited.
From a verifiable source.
Not from Larry King Live as renata's already done a great job there.
[/list=1]
Are there any other crucial criteria I've missed that someone else wants to remind me of? Not just complete per sitter, but complete over an entire session. I'm sure you knew that, but it wasn't explicit that I couldn't just choose the best examples from your post above. :)

Walt

[TLN]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Not just complete per sitter, but complete over an entire session.

Whoa, and the semantic festival begins! :D

Can you clarify what you mean by "session"? By "sitter" I mean a single person getting a reading from Edward.

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
I'm sure you knew that...

Never assume I know anything as I can be as thick as the next guy. :D

[renata]

Just so you know, there are 2 more LKL transcrips I am working on. Let's see if the patterns hold.
I have been a tad busy, but look for them tomorrow evening! :)

And I agree per session. What I have seen with LKL readings is that believers take one lucky reading from 10 or so he does from his appearance and use it as a hit (cigarettes, Timothy). However, if you analyze the whole LKL appearance, you see it was the best reading, and he did quite poorly overall. Therefore, if you have a transcript from a seminar, one cannot extract reading for a single good reading and disregard all others, one must analyze performance for the whole seminar. Of course, that assumes such a transcript is available at all.

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN
Does anyone have any of these? Transcripts should be:
[list=1]
Complete per sitter from start to finish and unedited.
From a verifiable source.
Not from Larry King Live as renata's already done a great job there.
[/list=1]
Are there any other crucial criteria I've missed that someone else wants to remind me of?

The only person I know of who supposedly has something like this, TLN, is Jim Underwood. Isn't he going to share them with the skeptic communitiy in their entirety? If not, why not???

I've never been to a "CO" taping, and I never taped any of the seminars I've gone to, although I sure wish I had a copy of the half-reading that I got in Philadelphia last Fall. :(

All of the transcripts that I've made and posted over at tvtalkshows, I made from the edited readings on "CO"......neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
The only person I know of who supposedly has something like this, TLN, is Jim Underwood. Isn't he going to share them with the skeptic communitiy in their entirety? If not, why not???

I don't know as I'm not him and I haven't read the article in question. Since you insist on turning every conversation towards it though, I will.

Originally posted by neofight
I've never been to a "CO" taping, and I never taped any of the seminars I've gone to, although I sure wish I had a copy of the half-reading that I got in Philadelphia last Fall. :(

All of the transcripts that I've made and posted over at tvtalkshows, I made from the edited readings on "CO"

Originally posted by neofight
If you don't even know what a full-length unedited JE reading might look like, who are you to even comment, let alone put a label on me?

So, you have no problem with chastising me for not having seen a full-length unedited Edward reading, but you can't tell me where to find one? How can you scold me for not having researched that which isn't there?

[Bentspoon]

I was looking for Rockford Files the other day and thumbed the remote by JE on Sci-Fi. I haven't seen it in a while. Not much point after you get his obvious schtick.

However, in the few minutes I lingered he was reprising a big hit from the week before. He was making a big deal about it so I waited. They put this lady on that got the big hit and this is what she said:

"He said March 3rd and then he said March 5th an that is when I knew he was talking about my husband. JE conspicuously skipped over March 4th and that was when my husband died"

Typical - nuff said.

I feel sorry for people that accept this buffoon. It is so obvious it is silly.

And to think that I missed the opening phone call of Rockford for this big hit

Bentspoon

[Dogwood]

Other than LKL, I don't think they exist. I did my best to transcribe some of the readings I witnessed at the seminar I attended as have many others. But I would never hold these up as accurate transcripts due to the failings of human hearing, memory and writing very damn fast.

[TLN]

Originally posted by mark tidwell
Other than LKL, I don't think they exist.

Neither do I, which makes me wonder where neo gets off browbeating me for not having seen one.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by TLN


Whoa, and the semantic festival begins! :D

Can you clarify what you mean by "session"? By "sitter" I mean a single person getting a reading from Edward.



Never assume I know anything as I can be as thick as the next guy. :D I guess what I was trying to get at, was to get transcripts from a cross section of sitters, not one sitter from a session of several readings. I guess I was forgetting that sometimes JE reads one person.

Walt

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN


So, you have no problem with chastising me for not having seen a full-length unedited Edward reading, but you can't tell me where to find one? How can you scold me for not having researched that which isn't there?

As I've said more than once, anyone who is truly interested in seeing what an unedited JE reading looks like, so they can fairly evaluate whether or not they're so very different from the edited readings they see on "CO", should try to attend a seminar, like Instig8R, Lurker and Mark Tidwell did.......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN


Neither do I, which makes me wonder where neo gets off browbeating me for not having seen one.


Well, I don't have my quote handy, TLN, but I probably didn't so much browbeat you for not having seen one, as much as criticizing you for opining about it as though you had. ;) .......neo

[neofight]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TLN


Neither do I, which makes me wonder where neo gets off browbeating me for not having seen one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

originally posted by neofight

Oh really, TLN? And how many live seminars have you seen that you're such a know-it-all? If you don't even know what a full-length unedited JE reading might look like, who are you to even comment, let alone put a label on me?......neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
As I've said more than once, anyone who is truly interested in seeing what an unedited JE reading looks like, so they can fairly evaluate whether or not they're so very different from the edited readings they see on "CO", should try to attend a seminar, like Instig8R, Lurker and Mark Tidwell did.......neo

Attending a seminar would not guarantee me an unedited reading unless I packed a tape recorder. My mind edits as I go and is not to be trusted.

Do they allow those in the seminars?

[renata]

Originally posted by TLN


Attending a seminar would not guarantee me an unedited reading unless I packed a tape recorder. My mind edits as I go and is not to be trusted.

Do they allow those in the seminars?

Even if they allowed tape recorders, your tape recorder would also have to be sure to record over the noise of the large crowd, and when he read people in other areas. And, without a recorder, as we saw from different impressions from Mark, Lurker, Neo and Instig8r, believers and skeptics come with very different impressions from the seminars. Sometimes even from the same one! And, as we saw with the infamous malibu shrimp case with Neo and insrig8r, and Caltech reading with me and Clancie, memory fails all of us- sometimes to make readings better than what we thought they were, and sometimes worse than what we thought they were.

Anyway, didn't we have a believer say she was going to post some other transcripts or is my memory playing tricks on me?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by neofight
As I've said more than once, anyone who is truly interested in seeing what an unedited JE reading looks like, so they can fairly evaluate whether or not they're so very different from the edited readings they see on "CO", should try to attend a seminar, like Instig8R, Lurker and Mark Tidwell did.......neo
Begging your pardon, but large group sessions such as seminars virtually guarantees hits for JE. For one thing, regardless of who he's supposed to be reading for, someone else is going to find a "match". For another, there are probably people in such groups who will claim hits just for the sake of claiming a hit, whether there was a hit or not. Someone described a seminar on this board some time ago, and there were people actively vying for JE's attention when he was reading for a specific person. "Yo, John, it was my grandpappy with the peg leg!"

Nah, such places are bound to be chaotic crapshoots.

[TLN]

Originally posted by renata
And, without a recorder, as we saw from different impressions from Mark, Lurker, Neo and Instig8r, believers and skeptics come with very different impressions from the seminars.

Just for clarity neo, I don't trust skeptics anymore than I do believers on this issue. I need a recording or transcripts made from one. Otherwise the bias of the observers creeps in.

Some of you went to the same seminars and guess what? The believers bought (some of) it and the skeptics didn't. What a surprise.

Just so you don't think I'm bashing believers, I don't trust skeptics either.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Begging your pardon, but large group sessions such as seminars virtually guarantees hits for JE. For one thing, regardless of who he's supposed to be reading for, someone else is going to find a "match". For another, there are probably people in such groups who will claim hits just for the sake of claiming a hit, whether there was a hit or not. Someone described a seminar on this board some time ago, and there were people actively vying for JE's attention when he was reading for a specific person. "Yo, John, it was my grandpappy with the peg leg!"

Nah, such places are bound to be chaotic crapshoots.

Agreed, but in order to start evaluating these things we need some transcripts. :)

But yes, seminars are not the best source and are bound to be the hit farms you describe.

[renata]

Originally posted by renata



Anyway, didn't we have a believer say she was going to post some other transcripts or is my memory playing tricks on me?

Quoting myself...first sign of insanity...

It was not my memory playing tricks!
Clancie said this here 7/24/03
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870016414


btw, voidx, I may have some other live and unedited readings that we can actually watch here, but will post them next week when neo's back.

Unless she posted them when I was away for 3 weeks. If she did, can someoine point me to it? If not, maybe this is what you are waiting for, TLN :)

And, TLN, I agree with you on observer bias. I think skeptics, just like believers exhibit it. It would be great if skeptics and believers watched several presentations not knowing who was an alleged medium and who was an acknowledged cold reader. I believe skeptics will grade mediums low and cold readers high, and believers will do then opposite :)

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

It was not my memory playing tricks!
Clancie said this here 7/24/03
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...stid=1870016414
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

btw, voidx, I may have some other live and unedited readings that we can actually watch here, but will post them next week when neo's back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless she posted them when I was away for 3 weeks. If she did, can someoine point me to it? If not, maybe this is what you are waiting for, TLN
Yes, renata, while you were away I started the thread. Unfortunately, when I went to FOJE for the link they had decided not to host it any more. (It was JE doing readings, live and unedited, on Wayne Brady's show). I wrote the mods, asking if it could still be available for us to look at somehow, but...no such luck. :(
Posted by renata

And, TLN, I agree with you on observer bias. I think skeptics, just like believers, exhibit it. It would be great if skeptics and believers watched several presentations not knowing who was an alleged medium and who was an acknowledged cold reader. I believe skeptics will grade mediums low and cold readers high, and believers will do then opposite
Well, in the case of a "medium" I'm not sure believers would rate someone high just because they say what they are doing is mediumship, if they don't have some decent hits in the process. (And people forget that much of the audience on PrimeTime thought Ian was a cold reader, not a medium, according to participants in the-untelevised-discussion afterwards). But, yes, it would be interesting to see confirmation bias at work both ways.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by neofight

I've never been to a "CO" taping, and I never taped any of the seminars I've gone to, although I sure wish I had a copy of the half-reading that I got in Philadelphia last Fall. :(


What exactly is a "half-reading"?

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by renata
And, TLN, I agree with you on observer bias. I think skeptics, just like believers exhibit it.

Worth repeating. Accepting that everyone exhibits bias, even ourselves, is necessary to true skepticism. That's why so many mechanisms of science are geared towards reducing the effect of observer bias.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by TLN
Just for clarity neo, I don't trust skeptics anymore than I do believers on this issue. I need a recording or transcripts made from one. Otherwise the bias of the observers creeps in.

Some of you went to the same seminars and guess what? The believers bought (some of) it and the skeptics didn't. What a surprise.

Just so you don't think I'm bashing believers, I don't trust skeptics either.

Hi, TLN-- I do not dispute that our respective biases can taint our perceptions. However, with respect to the Westbury seminar that neo and I both attended last year, observer bias was not a factor... until after neo saw the edited televised reading several months after the seminar.

The following illustrates one element of the controversy:

1. neo and I both attended the same seminar on May 7, 2002 at Westbury, NY. She wrote her recollection of the Malibu Shrimp reading, which was essentially the same as my recollection.

2. neo and I both agreed that there was a very lengthy interrogation of the sitter, Deborah, regarding a secret recipe.

3. Our only difference of opinion was that I felt that JE pressured Deborah (the sitter) into a false validation (i.e., that she had stolen a secret recipe from her mom). Neo felt that my theory was nonsense, and argued vehemently that there was no false validation by the sitter -- She insisted that JE was right about the recipe being stolen.

Several months later, when the reading was edited for broadcast on TV, there were major revisions. The most significant editing was the removal of most of the lengthy interrogation. Previously, it was the focal point of the reading. After editing, it had little (if any) significance. We then learned, in the post-reading segment, that the recipe was "secret" because it contained dirty claims, and not because Deborah had stolen the recipe from her mom.

After the edited version of the Malibu Shrimp reading was broadcast on TV, I complained that it had been tampered with in a significant way. It no longer matched the reading that neo and I saw at Westbury. At this point, however, neo altered her recollections, in order to defend the edited reading. She continues to defend the edited version, contradicting her earlier written account of what transpired at the seminar.

Therefore, neo is not contradicting my version of the Malibu Shrimp reading that we both saw at Westbury -- she is contradicting her own earlier version of it. Until it was edited for TV, we agreed upon the content.

In essence, neo has revised her own version of what transpired in the Malibu Shrimp reading, in order to conform with the later edited version.

Perhaps I should start a thread with her pre-editing and post-editing comments. It will show that this is not a case of believer-bias -vs- skeptic-bias. This is a case of neo -vs- neo, merely altering her memory to accommodate her belief in JE, even if it flies in the face of the truth.

Is it still "observer bias" when the same observer contradicts herself?

[renata]

Originally posted by Instig8R



Perhaps I should start a thread with her pre-editing and post-editing comments. It will show that this is not a case of believer-bias -vs- skeptic-bias. This is a case of neo -vs- neo, merely altering her memory to accommodate her belief in JE, even if it flies in the fact of the truth.

Is it still "observer bias" when the same observer contradicts herself?


Instig8R, In this thread, http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27500&pagenumber=3 I mentioned your experience because neo was quite angry at the suggestion that believers ignore dishonest editing.

I also explained that one of the reasons I cannot accept her evidence of her conversations of people who were read at CO and who claimed that readings were just "shorter" is because I have seen her apply different standards of evidence based on what results she finds. Most glaring was the LKL readings- poor readings, were useless "snippets" one good hit with cigarettes was spirit communication. I also used your claim that Neo changed her recollection of the seminar.

Neo responded on page 4 of that thread to what I think your beliefs are on this. She says the changes were small and unimportant, JE got great hits, the sitter was happy, and you have skeptic bias. And, she says she is done addressing this issue. :)


Well, although in the past I was accused of butting in between friends, I am sorry if I am doing it again. Here we have Neo saying skeptics cannot evaluate whether there is editing and quality of the readings, because we did not attend seminars. Here is a skeptic who attended a seminar who testifies to editing, and apparently has proof that there was editing, due to notes taken after the seminar. And it is still not good enough. Maybe not a thread, but can you respond to Neo's post in that other thread and put this issue to bed once and for all?

Here are my questions, just to begin with
-of the seminar readindgs, how many were televised for CO
-how extensive was the editing?
-how did the seminar readings compare to LKL or CO? What were they closer to?
-were you allowed to bring an audio recorder in?

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by renata


Neo responded on page 4 of that thread to what I think your beliefs are on this. She says the changes were small and unimportant, JE got great hits, the sitter was happy, and you have skeptic bias. And, she says she is done addressing this issue. :)

Hi, renata-- In the Malibu Shrimp reading, the editing was very significant and it affected the entire reading. Much of the subtle editing merely removed information conveyed by the sitter to JE, which later formed the basis of what few hits he got. The more blatant editing was done to remove the appearance of some major blunders that JE made. In its original form, the reading stunk to high heaven. In its edited form, it was made to resemble a typical gallery reading on CO.

Fortunately, neo wrote about the Malibu Shrimp reading over at TVT before she saw it edited for television. It confirms my own recollection of the seminar, and not the edited version on TV.

Originally posted by renata

Well, although in the past I was accused of butting in between friends, I am sorry if I am doing it again. Here we have Neo saying skeptics cannot evaluate whether there is editing and quality of the readings, because we did not attend seminars. Here is a skeptic who attended a seminar who testifies to editing, and apparently has proof that there was editing, due to notes taken after the seminar. And it is still not good enough. Maybe not a thread, but can you respond to Neo's post in that other thread and put this issue to bed once and for all?

I don't believe in personalizing arguments in debate. I don't like the fact that you were criticized for speaking your mind, especially when you did not express yourself in an offensive or belligerent way. IMO, there is no need to censor yourself. We are all adults here... I hope! :)

Originally posted by renata
Here are my questions, just to begin with
-of the seminar readindgs, how many were televised for CO
-how extensive was the editing?
-how did the seminar readings compare to LKL or CO? What were they closer to?
-were you allowed to bring an audio recorder in?

Here are my answers:

-of the seminar readings, several were televised for CO. The two that I have seen were "Malibu Shrimp" and "Girls Gone Wild".

-how extensive was the editing: The "Malibu Shrimp" reading was drastically edited, but the "Girls Gone Wild" reading was not significantly edited. (It was a reading of 4 sisters whose mom died of ovarian cancer -- although JE incorrectly called out for breast cancer, he allowed them to claim the reading.)

-seminar readings compared to LKL or CO: The Malibu Shrimp reading prior to editing was very comparable to a LKL reading (if not worse). The Girls Gone Wild reading was very comparable to a big family reading in the CO Gallery, because JE had lots of sisters to claim initials, significant dates, etc.

-No audio recorders could be brought into the seminar -- There were actually handbag searches -- and the audio quality would not have been good anyway.

[neofight]

Originally posted by renata
.....I also used your claim that Neo changed her recollection of the seminar.

Neo responded on page 4 of that thread to what I think your beliefs are on this. She says the changes were small and unimportant, JE got great hits, the sitter was happy, and you have skeptic bias. And, she says she is done addressing this issue. :)

Renata, you're right, I did say I was done addressing the "Malibu Shrimp" reading. Neither Instig8R nor myself took notes at this seminar. If Instig8R has notes, she made them hours later, because we didn't go straight home after the seminar, but stopped for coffee afterwards with myself and another friend.

What I would challenge in Instig8R's post, however, is her assertion that I changed my recollectioin of the seminar. I would just say that my "recollection" of the Malibu Shrimp reading is just fine.

It's not that I do not remember the reading, it's that I disagree with Instig8R about the significance of JE's interpretation of "why" this recipe was "secret". He already knew that the spirit wanted him to mention a secret fish or shrimp sauce recipe, so that was very much a hit. The secret recipe did in fact exist, and was something that the two friends did come up with together while on vacation.

He went on to say that he thought that Deborah's mother, also passed, was teasing her, and saying that this recipe was not really her daughter's and her friend's, but was based on one of her own recipes.

Now, here's where Instig8R's point of contention arises. JE was asking Deborah to validate what he said he was getting from her mom, i.e. that the recipe was based on one of her mom's recipes.

Naturally, Deborah knew that the recipe was a secret because she and her friend didn't want to tell their dinner guests that they had used questionable clams in the dish, so she wasn't validating what John was saying until he asked her, (paraphrasing) 'if this were a court of law, and I asked you whether or not you had based this recipe upon one of your mother's recipes, and you had to answer either "yes" or "no", what would you say?' To which she just smiled, and said simply, "yes". And John said, "I rest my case".

This is pretty much why Instig8R has a problem with this reading. She places a lot of importance upon the fact that John thought it was secret for one reason, when in reality it was secret for another reason. She feels that this changes everything. I feel that it's insignificant, mainly because it is entirely possible that Deborah did base her special recipe on something her mother used to make, but that was not the reason for the secrecy.

I find this to be a very trivial point, and don't feel that it should render the entire reading invalid or tampered with as Instig8R does. I think it's called, "Making a mountain out of a molehill" actually, but that's just my own opinion.

And now I swear that I have addressed this reading for the last time. And I really mean it this time! ;) ......neo

[CFLarsen]

neo,

It's not about how significant it was to the reading, but about whether or not you changed your opinion, based on what you saw on TV.

You don't have to spend a lot of time addressing this issue, it's a very simple question:

Was the recipe stolen? Just "Yes" or "No".

It could not be more simple.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


-snip-

Naturally, Deborah knew that the recipe was a secret because she and her friend didn't want to tell their dinner guests that they had used questionable clams in the dish, so she wasn't validating what John was saying until he asked her, (paraphrasing) 'if this were a court of law, and I asked you whether or not you had based this recipe upon one of your mother's recipes, and you had to answer either "yes" or "no", what would you say?' To which she just smiled, and said simply, "yes". And John said, "I rest my case".

The interrogation was the highlight of the reading. JE did not merely ask once or twice if Deborah's mom contributed to the recipe. He said that mom was there. He really hammed it up for the audience. He spoke to Deborah like she was a willful, disobedient child, caught with her hand in the cookie jar. In fact, neo herself wrote that she she could actually see the moment when JE was being let in on another secret.

JE made it clear that he was acting on information directly from mom, and he was a man on a mission, with arms folded and foot tapping like a stern parent. Then he switched gears into his prosecutor-mode.

JE's accusation that Deborah stole the recipe from her mother was probably one of the few definite statements he made at the Westbury seminar -- and he was dead wrong about it, and that is why the whole segment was edited out of the televised version of the reading.

Originally posted by neofight

This is pretty much why Instig8R has a problem with this reading. She places a lot of importance upon the fact that John thought it was secret for one reason, when in reality it was secret for another reason. She feels that this changes everything. I feel that it's insignificant, mainly because it is entirely possible that Deborah did base her special recipe on something her mother used to make, but that was not the reason for the secrecy.

Actually, I have various other problems with the reading. The only reason that I emphasize the "secret recipe" portion is because I can actually use neo's own comments to verify some of the drastic editing that was done to make this awful reading into something that could be broadcast on TV.

The editing did change the focus of the reading. It also showed JE claiming to have some very definite, precise messages from Deborah's friend and mother. He played this aspect up to the hilt, and then left it all out of the televised version. I believe this had to be done because JE was wrong, and it made him look really bad to coerce a false validation out of Deborah.

This editing also demonstrated that sitters may not always be telling the truth, because JE can manipulate and intimidate them into false validations. The bullying is simply edited out of the reading, and the sitter is too embarrassed or is not given the option to recant in the post-reading segment.

Even though JE will sometimes claim that he may not be interpreting messages correctly, that was not the case in the Malibu Shrimp reading. He was definite, he was aggressive, he was intimidating... and he forced a false validation out of Deborah.

Originally posted by neofight

I find this to be a very trivial point, and don't feel that it should render the entire reading invalid or tampered with as Instig8R does. I think it's called, "Making a mountain out of a molehill" actually, but that's just my own opinion.

The tampering with the "recipe" part of the reading is only the tip of the iceberg. The entire reading was monkeyed around with, to make JE appear better than he was.

I focus on the recipe, not to make a "mountain out of a molehill". I focus on the recipe because it is the part of the original reading that neo wrote about before it was edited for television. This serves as verification that it actually occurred, and serves as an example as to the type of editing that takes place.

Originally posted by neofight

And now I swear that I have addressed this reading for the last time. And I really mean it this time! ;) ......neo

I never tire of discussing this reading. It gave me great insight into "the process" of JE. :)

[RC]

Neo, I will accept that you don't think the details about the stolen recipe are that important, but then I simply can't accept how you brush off IR's old calendar hit. Either details are important, or they aren't, in my opinion.

[Clancie]

Just for the record, here's the part of IR's reading about the calendar (from the transcript neo posted about it at TVT):


Ian Rowland

If I come in to your home door -- would I see a calendar or a wall chart with nothing to do with the current year? It's actually out of date.


Woman:

(very emotional) She gave me a fabric calendar. I still have it.

[note from neo: Who? Possibly her grandma, but it was cut out].


Rowland:

And she made that for you. Okay.


Woman

She GAVE it to me.


Rowland

All Right. I won't go any further with that, but you still have it, don't you?


Woman:

I have it in my hope chest.
Anyway, that's the whole thing about the calendar. Sorry, RC, but after re-reading it, I don't see anything much in this at all. Ian didn't say it was a fabric calendar, didn't say it was in the chest. All he said was it was out of date.

He was wrong that it was made speciially for her.

All he says, essentially, is "somewhere in your house you have an out of date calendar" which, he admits, he often guesses for people just because its so common for people to have one.

He got lucky in doing this because the woman herself described a special calendar to him, so, yes, it showed how an extremely mundane "hit" can be fleshed out by the sitter and therein be given a meaning by the sitter that the "medium" didn't really contribute to it at all. That's a good point about "sitter buy in" and how it can help out a not very exceptional cold reading.

But other than illustrating that point about sitters, I have to agree with neo that IR's "hit" itself was nothing special.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Again, we see this "versatile" attitude towards anything from cold readers. Now, we are supposed to forget that if the sitter validates, it is a hit.

The woman was in tears, Clancie. She acknowledged it was for her. She validated the hit. Therefore, according to the "process" of JE, it is a hit.

Don't forget that the audience thought Rowland was a real psychic medium. They believed it, Clancie. That makes it real.

You also leave out that JE also gets info from the sitter and recycles it.

Of course, Rowland seems to have integrity and a conscience. He also had to reveal he was a fake, so he couldn't go too far.

If you see this as "nothing special", then you really should look again at what kind of hits JE gets.

[renata]

Originally posted by Instig8R

Hi, renata-- In the Malibu Shrimp reading, the editing was very significant and it affected the entire reading. Much of the subtle editing merely removed information conveyed by the sitter to JE, which later formed the basis of what few hits he got. The more blatant editing was done to remove the appearance of some major blunders that JE made. In its original form, the reading stunk to high heaven. In its edited form, it was made to resemble a typical gallery reading on CO.

That is what I understood, and that would explain some skeptical suspicions about CO editing.



Fortunately, neo wrote about the Malibu Shrimp reading over at TVT before she saw it edited for television. It confirms my own recollection of the seminar, and not the edited version on TV.

Given Neo's repeated denials, perhaps it is best after all if you posted that info, to settle this once and for all :D.



I don't believe in personalizing arguments in debate. I don't like the fact that you were criticized for speaking your mind, especially when you did not express yourself in an offensive or belligerent way. IMO, there is no need to censor yourself. We are all adults here... I hope! :)

Thanks for the support. I did not expect some passions this issue evoked! I guess I must be doing something right! ;)



Here are my answers:

-of the seminar readings, several were televised for CO. The two that I have seen were "Malibu Shrimp" and "Girls Gone Wild".

-how extensive was the editing: The "Malibu Shrimp" reading was drastically edited, but the "Girls Gone Wild" reading was not significantly edited. (It was a reading of 4 sisters whose mom died of ovarian cancer -- although JE incorrectly called out for breast cancer, he allowed them to claim the reading.)

-seminar readings compared to LKL or CO: The Malibu Shrimp reading prior to editing was very comparable to a LKL reading (if not worse). The Girls Gone Wild reading was very comparable to a big family reading in the CO Gallery, because JE had lots of sisters to claim initials, significant dates, etc.

-No audio recorders could be brought into the seminar -- There were actually handbag searches -- and the audio quality would not have been good anyway.

Thanks for the valuable information. I was particularly interested in the handbag searches. Did they explain why audio recorders were not allowed?

Given that constraint, no transcripts from seminars are available. We know no unedited transcripts from CO are available(with the exception of Underdown, which I have not yet seen), so the only ones we have are LKL (I promise to finish the last 2 soon..I have been busy, and I cannot spend more than 30 minutes at them at a time, because I get a headache. Soon, I hope!:)) So I am not sure where someone can get an unedited transcript. I also am not sure why anyone would admonish an skeptic for not examining one, if JE makes them impossible to obtain! I am also amused that the same person who scolded TLN for not seeing a full length unedited JE transcript refused to look at the only ones that exist, LKL ones, because they were snippets.

[RC]

I'm with Claus on this one. :eek:

Clancie, I agree that the calendar hit isn't that great, but it's not my point.

I think there is a double standard in how JE's hits are evaluated/weighed compared to this hit by Ian Rowland.

Let's look at the most recent offering of a good hit by JE. He tossed out a date to a sitter, December 17th. The sitter told him that it was the day her dog was born, and *suddenly* JE started getting information about a dog (most of it just regurgitated from what the sitter was telling him).

I could say the same thing you've presented above. JE didn't know anything about a dog, didn't know the significance of the date, in fact didn't know diddly squat, just tossed out a date. Same with IR, didn't know where the calendar was, didn't know it was fabric, didn't know diddly squat.

They both tossed out something and it stuck.

Neo's argument about the Malibu Shrimp reading is that the details don't matter because it was obviously meaningful to the sitter. But that argument ends when looking at IR's reading in which details shouldn't matter because it was obviously meaningful to the sitter. After all, that's the mediumship process, as long as spirits get the medium to say something that makes immediate sense to the sitter.

[RC]

I just figured out why IR got the location of the calendar wrong.

Clearly the spirit was using his frame of reference to get him to spit out the very meaningful validation of an old calendar, given to the sitter by her loved one.

So the spirit, using IR's frame of reference, took IR to his own house where he probably has an old calendar on the wall.

IR just got confused about the location, which is understandable since spirit communication isn't exact and the mediumship process isn't perfect.

Isn't this similar to arguments used to explain JE's work?

[Darat]

Originally posted by RC
I just figured out why IR got the location of the calendar wrong.

Clearly the spirit was using his frame of reference to get him to spit out the very meaningful validation of an old calendar, given to the sitter by her loved one.

So the spirit, using IR's frame of reference, took IR to his own house where he probably has an old calendar on the wall.

IR just got confused about the location, which is understandable since spirit communication isn't exact and the mediumship process isn't perfect.

Isn't this similar to arguments used to explain JE's work?

I'd say frighteningly so.... but sorry for being cynical I suspect Neo and Clancie will not agree that it is anything like how JE's "process" works... :(

[CFLarsen]

RC,

Not to be flippant, but do you think it is possible that you will come to a similar conclusion about Brian Hurst and Karen Lundegaard, if you investigate thoroughly enough?

If so, why don't you?

You may agree with me on JE, but I still think Dolly Parton sucks. :)

[Clancie]

Hi RC,

Well, if the best hit JE could get in 30 minutes was "If I come to your home door...there's a calendar or a wall chart that's out of date"...and the validation is that somewhere in the house the sitter has an old fabric calendar...well, I can honestly say I wouldn't be impressed.

As for the "dog's birthday", well, that's not a special hit, but I think coming up with a particular date that is significant to the sitter is more difficult (as your experiment here and at TVT illustrated) than saying, "Do you have an out of date calendar or chart?)

In the reading JE did with the Dec 17th date, this is what he also got for that woman (Lela). She doesn't validate until after he's said quite a few things...

paraphrased, summarized for "Lela"

*JE, (addressing a particular person in front of him): older female who's coming through who's claiming to be Mom,

*name like "Gloria" or something with a "G-L" sound (this one, the woman asks if it could be for her, last name "Gabrielli")

*mother figure passed (Yes, her mother in law)

*a person had back surgery (Yes, her cousin, not the mother in law's family)

*March connection or the 3rd of a month (Yes, mother in law's birthday is in March)

*someone drowned (Yes, the mother in law's godchild)

Lela claims reading at about this point in JE's hits; She validates the above and JE goes on....

*Dad passed (Yes)

*Nicholas or Nicky (the name of the cousin who had back surgery's father, i.e. presumably it is the sitter's uncle).

*mom's sister has passed (Yes)

*someone with severe diabetes (Yes, the sitter's mother and brother)

*17th. of December. (Yes, sitter's dog was born then)

*somebody who passed like back in the 60s or the late 50s. Your dad? (sitter says her son died in '66)

Then JE gets a train...mental illness...various other things that are claimed by three women sitting near Lela.

I guess we disagree, RC, but this seems far and away better than what IR got for his sitter--a few vague general hits and "an out of date calendar or wall chart".

[RC]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi RC,

Well, if the best hit JE could get in 30 minutes was "If I come to your home door...there's a calendar or a wall chart that's out of date"...and the validation is that somewhere in the house the sitter has an old fabric calendar...well, I can honestly say I wouldn't be impressed.



Hi Clancie,

I wouldn't either, but again that's not my point. I'm not addressing IR's body of work vs. JE's. I'm talking specifically about how people choose what details are important and what aren't.

But now that you've brought up that entire reading, I suppose you saw on TVTalk that most of the validations fit me as well, including some very *spot on* ones such as the fact that I was diagnosed with PTSD. Also, JE didn't say "December 17th", he said the 17th, near the end of the year, he thinks it's December. Obviously November would count under this vague "validation" and November 17th is my parent's anniversary. Quite meaningful, I'd say....

[RC]

For the benefit of people here, this is the "me too" reading I got from JE. If I were to get this reading from JE, I would think it was pretty good and I would just forget about the drowning question:

John: Right in front, right here (indicating directly in front of him)_ I've got an older female who's coming through who's claiming to be Mom, and I feel there's a name like "Gloria" or something with a "G-L" sound they want me to say._ And they're telling me to say the person had back surgery._ Somebody definitely had this._ There's a March connection or the 3rd of a month has a meaning here also._ And somebody has a cousin that drowned._ It's right in front of me.

RC: My grandmother, "mom figure", has a G-L last name. There are several people in my family who have had back surgery, including my uncle who recently died. My father's birthday is in March, and my grandfather (G-L's husband)'s birthday is May 3rd.

Nobody has drowned that I know.

John:_ And that would be like a contemporary to you._ Okay._ And is your Dad also passed?

RC: No, but both grandfathers, which are always accepted as "father figure"

John:_ Okay._ And there's a connection to someone who's Nicholas or Nicky?

RC: Big hit, my first partner of 7 years.

John:_ Okay._ And I also feel like, connected to your mom, that she's gotta have a sister who's passed because I've got like an aunt who's there for you._ Somebody who I would see as being like your family._ Older female, like mom, not grandmother.

RC: Deceased aunt

John:_ Okay._ Somebody's very diabetic.

RC: Big hit, diabetes rampant in my family

John:_ And the 17th is significant here also for this family._ She's claiming the 17th._ I think it's of December._ It's at the end of the year.

RC: November 17th is my parent's anniversary (end of year, would probably count as a hit)

John:_ I also feel like, I don't know if your Dad's gone like 35 years, but I've got somebody who's gone like back in the 60s or the late 50s._ I don't feel the presence of this man around for a long time._ Do you understand this?

RC: A few males in my family died in the 60's. This is too vague.

John:_ Okay._ Now, they want me to bring up the "train" references for you._ Now I know there's something about trains._ I don't know if somebody works in transportation, or if they....._ There's a train connection.

RC: No train connection in my family

John:_ It's not school buses._ It's a train._ It's specifically like, choo-choo,_ woo-woo._ That kind of a train thing._ As a matter of fact, it's a "high up" railroad._ Somebody did something high up on the railroad._ Like an overpass._ Like they had it built like, when the train goes between two things._ Was there somebody a little like, mentally "off" or unstable?

RC: Yes, mental illness in the family

John:_ Do you know what "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome" is?

RC: Bigtime, was diagnosed with it after my partner died

John:_ Somebody in the family suffer from that?

RC: I did

John:_ There's a husband or a brother who's also here.

RC: My partner

John:_ (addressing Lela)_ I know you lost your son, but I gotta come back over here._ Somebody else lost the younger male._ Up here._ (addressing the same younger woman in row above)_ Is that for you too?
(she nods)_ So you also have a son who's crossed.

RC: No younger male, but JE is switching at this point

[RC]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
RC,

Not to be flippant, but do you think it is possible that you will come to a similar conclusion about Brian Hurst and Karen Lundegaard, if you investigate thoroughly enough?

If so, why don't you?

You may agree with me on JE, but I still think Dolly Parton sucks. :)

Dolly Parton is one of the greatest singer/songwriters of all time and just an all-around fantastic woman. :)

On the other point, I wouldn't be able to say with integrity that the two mediums I went to are for real while everyone else is fake. It's entirely possible I was fooled both times. I've always said the hits I got from both are better than the ones I've seen JE and other give, but that doesn't necessarily mean they came from spirit.

I'm not sure what I will eventually think about those experiences, but for now I'm on the fence on the subject of mediumship with far more doubts and questions than ever before.

[Darat]

Originally posted by RC


Hi Clancie,

I wouldn't either, but again that's not my point. I'm not addressing IR's body of work vs. JE's. I'm talking specifically about how people choose what details are important and what aren't.

But now that you've brought up that entire reading, I suppose you saw on TVTalk that most of the validations fit me as well, including some very *spot on* ones such as the fact that I was diagnosed with PTSD. Also, JE didn't say "December 17th", he said the 17th, near the end of the year, he thinks it's December. Obviously November would count under this vague "validation" and November 17th is my parent's anniversary. Quite meaningful, I'd say....

I think we've just seen, again, how we remember things can alter the significance of something. This again shows that just because someone "validates" or even claims significant "hits" for a JE reading we need to go back to the sources we have to check if they truely were as significant as claimed.


Clancie stated that one of JE's hit's was:
"*17th. of December. (Yes, sitter's dog was born then) "

but from RC's next post it appears that JE actually said:
" John:_ And the 17th is significant here also for this family._ She's claiming the 17th._ I think it's of December._ It's at the end of the year. "

So an apparently specific and accurate "hit" is again shown to be quite vague, that JE gives himself "wriggle" room, JE did not say "17th December is significant", he starts with just a 17th - nothing more specific, attempts to make is sound specific, "I think it's of December" without stating that "17th of December is significant", but then at the end gives himself an out if the December isn't a hit "It's at the end of the year.".

Once again it can be shown that a claimed JE “hit” is indistinguishable from a guess and a fishing expedition.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat

So an apparently specific and accurate "hit" is again shown to be quite vague, that JE gives himself "wriggle" room, JE did not say "17th December is significant", he starts with just a 17th - nothing more specific, attempts to make is sound specific, "I think it's of December" without stating that "17th of December is significant", but then at the end gives himself an out if the December isn't a hit "It's at the end of the year.".

Once again it can be shown that a claimed JE “hit” is indistinguishable from a guess and a fishing expedition.
I disagree, Darat. What possible difference does it make if JE gives the information as a statement, or in the form of a question, as long as the information is accurate? Remember the game "Jeopardy"? They were actually required to do that, or their answer would be disqualified.

When JE and other mediums tend to do this, it's because they are evaluating and commenting upon what they are being given in the way of symbols, etc., and it's just more natural to express what you are seeing in this manner, so that the sitter can validate it as you go along.

He wasn't looking for feedback, nor was he getting any, while saying that the "17th December is significant", "I think it's of December" or "It's at the end of the year." It was simply relating his thoughts, or thinking out loud, and this would be consistent with how he says he gets his information.

Anyhow, I don't think putting a question mark at the end of the sentence makes the information any less valid. I think you're making this a matter of "style" over "substance", when obviously, the "substance" is what really counts. :) ......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
I disagree, Darat. What possible difference does it make if JE gives the information as a statement, or in the form of a question, as long as the information is accurate? Remember the game "Jeopardy"? They were actually required to do that, or their answer would be disqualified.

Because, neofight, asking a question leaves even more wiggle room open.

Originally posted by neofight
When JE and other mediums tend to do this, it's because they are evaluating and commenting upon what they are being given in the way of symbols, etc., and it's just more natural to express what you are seeing in this manner, so that the sitter can validate it as you go along.

Could it be because they are cold reading? If not, why not?

Originally posted by neofight
He wasn't looking for feedback, nor was he getting any, while saying that the "17th December is significant", "I think it's of December" or "It's at the end of the year." It was simply relating his thoughts, or thinking out loud, and this would be consistent with how he says he gets his information.

How is this different from cold reading, neo? Asking a question is not looking for feedback? What is, then???

Originally posted by neofight
Anyhow, I don't think putting a question mark at the end of the sentence makes the information any less valid. I think you're making this a matter of "style" over "substance", when obviously, the "substance" is what really counts. ......neo

(cough) Neofight, Clancie's main (and only) point about Neil's cold reading transcript was "style". Neil didn't have the same "style" as JE, ergo Neil wasn't doing it "like" JE.

If you want to talk about "substance", fine with me! :)

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC


John: Right in front, right here (indicating directly in front of him)_ I've got an older female who's coming through who's claiming to be Mom, and I feel there's a name like "Gloria" or something with a "G-L" sound they want me to say._ And they're telling me to say the person had back surgery._ Somebody definitely had this._ There's a March connection or the 3rd of a month has a meaning here also._ And somebody has a cousin that drowned._ It's right in front of me.

RC: My grandmother, "mom figure", has a G-L last name. There are several people in my family who have had back surgery, including my uncle who recently died. My father's birthday is in March, and my grandfather (G-L's husband)'s birthday is May 3rd.

Hi, RC. Not to bust your chops here, but your grandmother would not be considered a "mom" figure for you, unless she lived with you, or you lived with her, and she had a very major part in your upbringing. You don't mention whether or not that is the case here, but it's something that would be required to be the case, if you were to try to claim this reading.

Nobody has drowned that I know.

Another reason then not to even think that this would be for you, RC. This is a very specific thing for JE to say, and if you can't relate.....well.....you can't relate. ;) That's why these specifics are given at the beginning of a reading. To identify the proper sitter.

John:_ And that would be like a contemporary to you._ Okay._ And is your Dad also passed?

RC: No, but both grandfathers, which are always accepted as "father figure"

Again, RC. That is incorrect. Your two grandfathers would not be automatically accepted as "father figures". (see above)

John:_ Okay._ And there's a connection to someone who's Nicholas or Nicky?

RC: Big hit, my first partner of 7 years.

Obviously, a significant name for you, RC, but without having first established that this reading was for you, I don't think you could just go and claim it.

John:_ Okay._ And I also feel like, connected to your mom, that she's gotta have a sister who's passed because I've got like an aunt who's there for you._ Somebody who I would see as being like your family._ Older female, like mom, not grandmother.

RC: Deceased aunt

Just out of curiosity, RC, was this your mother's sister? Or you father's sister? You don't specify. The only reason I ask is because the first answer that Lela gave John was that, yes, her deceased mother-in-law did in fact have her sister or sisters there with her on the Other Side, but JE rejected that answer, saying that he felt the reference was to Lela's own mother's sister, who indeed, was passed as well. And just as an aside, a cold-reader would NEVER have rejected Lela's offering up her mother-in-law's sister as an answer, and held out for it being her own mother's sister. :)

John:_ Okay._ Somebody's very diabetic.

RC: Big hit, diabetes rampant in my family

This would be a decent hit for you, if it were your reading.

John:_ And the 17th is significant here also for this family._ She's claiming the 17th._ I think it's of December._ It's at the end of the year.

RC: November 17th is my parent's anniversary (end of year, would probably count as a hit)

Yes, it would have counted as a hit, but not nearly as specific a hit as John got with Lela.

John:_ I also feel like, I don't know if your Dad's gone like 35 years, but I've got somebody who's gone like back in the 60s or the late 50s._ I don't feel the presence of this man around for a long time._ Do you understand this?

RC: A few males in my family died in the 60's. This is too vague.

Yes, this was very vague. I'd have to agree with you there. JE didn't get too much of a sense of this spirit at all, and he says that. But it was obviously important to Lela because the only person she really wanted to hear from was her son, who had died all those years ago.

John:_ Okay._ Now, they want me to bring up the "train" references for you._ Now I know there's something about trains._ I don't know if somebody works in transportation, or if they....._ There's a train connection.

RC: No train connection in my family

No, and like I said, RC, the first things to come through are really important, as they are how JE determines who the reading is supposed to be for. That is very clearly demonstrated right here at this point, since Lela was not able to identify any longer with what JE was saying. JE was moving on to another energy, and so he rejected Lela's "school bus" reference, because he was clearly understanding that this had something to do with a train, and not a school bus, and that is what brought him to June, the first of the widows to speak up.

Between the "train" reference, and the "mental illness" reference, and the "husband or brother" reference, JE had enough proof to know he was with June.


John:_ It's not school buses._ It's a train._ It's specifically like, choo-choo,_ woo-woo._ That kind of a train thing._ As a matter of fact, it's a "high up" railroad._ Somebody did something high up on the railroad._ Like an overpass._ Like they had it built like, when the train goes between two things._ Was there somebody a little like, mentally "off" or unstable?

RC: Yes, mental illness in the family

John:_ Do you know what "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome" is?

RC: Bigtime, was diagnosed with it after my partner died

John:_ Somebody in the family suffer from that?

RC: I did

John:_ There's a husband or a brother who's also here.

RC: My partner

And yes, RC, all those "mental illness" references could have been for you because of what you had been going through at the time with the loss of your partner, but first JE would have had to "get" to you, and the "train" reference would just not have done it. He would have had to come up with something specific that you would have understood.

Anyhow, hope you don't mind that I critiqued your "me-too" reading, RC, but I just wanted to point out some of the consistancies that JE works with within the process of mediumship that would not have worked for you here. :) ....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Because, neofight, asking a question leaves even more wiggle room open.

I guess you see it this way, Claus, because you assume that JE needs wiggle room. :D

(cough) Neofight, Clancie's main (and only) point about Neil's cold reading transcript was "style". Neil didn't have the same "style" as JE, ergo Neil wasn't doing it "like" JE.


As usual, Claus, you are as wrong as wrong can be. Go back and read the thread. Style has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Neil's attempt at cold-reading (with some hot-reading added in for good measure) was very non-specific, and he got many things wrong, even after researching on the internet.

Everyone keeps bringing up fishing. You want to see some fishing? Read Neil's thread. ;)

We said that his attempt was a decent effort, but the substance of the things he said fell short of being very impressive......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
I guess you see it this way, Claus, because you assume that JE needs wiggle room. :D

No, I am not assuming that he needs it, I am saying that he has it, by asking questions.

Originally posted by neofight
As usual, Claus, you are as wrong as wrong can be. Go back and read the thread. Style has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Neil's attempt at cold-reading (with some hot-reading added in for good measure) was very non-specific, and he got many things wrong, even after researching on the internet.

Everyone keeps bringing up fishing. You want to see some fishing? Read Neil's thread. ;)

We said that his attempt was a decent effort, but the substance of the things he said fell short of being very impressive......neo

Neither you or Clancie were able to point out the differences. Read the thread again: Where, in my analysis of Clancie's answers, am I wrong?

I see that you "left out" the direct questions:


Could it be that asking questions means these mediums are cold reading?
If not, why not?
How is ""17th December is significant", "I think it's of December" or "It's at the end of the year" not cold reading?

[Ed]

I have not been following this thread but I have a question.

What is it meant by saying that one "claims" a reading?

[Clancie]

Posted by neofight

..Everyone keeps bringing up fishing. You want to see some fishing? Read Neil's thread.

We said that his attempt was a decent effort, but the substance of the things he said fell short of being very impressive.
Right, neo. And my main criticisms of how it wasn't like JE were (1) Neill never established a spirit energy who was bringing through the "information" and (2) it was conducted via the Internet, over a period of several days (i.e. plenty of time for thinking of how to fish for/develop what April had told him, time to research--which he tried unsuccessfully to do--etc).

No, not "like JE" and it wasn't at all "just about style" (as Claus would know if he took your advice to re-read it--I listed at least 30 points of difference between Neill's reading and JE's--and have thought of a few more since then).

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Clancie stated that one of JE's hit's was:
"*17th. of December. (Yes, sitter's dog was born then) "

but from RC's next post it appears that JE actually said:
" John:_ And the 17th is significant here also for this family._ She's claiming the 17th._ I think it's of December._ It's at the end of the year. "

So an apparently specific and accurate "hit" is again shown to be quite vague, that JE gives himself "wriggle" room
neo, I'm glad you addressed this, because I didn't understand why Darat even singled it out for criticism as being vague with JE giving "wiggle room".

JE says "17th is significant...I think it's of December." and the date he's just mentioned, "17th...I think it's of December" is significant to her. In my summary I said the hit was "17th of December", which, yes, I feel is what he said. (If he had said, "17th...near the end of the year..." and she'd said "December 17th is my dog's birthday" it would be quite different.

Is he fishing? Well, it doesn't look like fishing to me because he's not getting anything back from the sitter that helps him get to "17th...I think of December". He says it, that's it.

As for RC's "me too" on this, well, if Lela had said, "17th works for me. End of the year? Well, not December, but my parents' anniversary is in November," well, it would have been a much weaker fit, even if we consider November 17th to qualify as "at the end of the year" (which I'm not sure it would, to be perfectly honest).

I think I would have considered it a hit on the 17th, but a miss on the month--not bad, but not as good as getting a particular date (day and month) that was significant to the sitter he was reading.

I mean, if JE said, "12th is significant...I think its in the first part of the year, in January," and I said, "February 12th is my son's birthday", would we really consider that comparable to having something meaningful on January 12th or would we think the sitter was trying to make it fit?

I really don't think validating for the month he didn't mention would be comparable to validating for the month he did say.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Ed
I have not been following this thread but I have a question.

What is it meant by saying that one "claims" a reading?
1. Psychic medium begins a reading for Sitter A in the audience.

2. Reading misses completely for Sitter A.

3. Three rows back, Sitter B waves arms because some of what the psychic medium says "matches" events for Sitter B. Sitter B has just "claimed" the reading, beating out Sitter C across the auditorium who has also been waving her arms.

or

1. Psychic medium begins by saying something such as "Who has a Jiminy Cricket clock?"

2. Audience member reacts; either is noticed by psychic medium or by the director in the control room, who tells camera to focus on audience member, or audience member raises hand.

3. Psychic medium begins to elaborate via classic cold reading techniques. Audience member begins to provide feedback. Reading has thereby been "claimed".

That's why frauds such as JE can't miss in a group setting.

I feel genuinely sorry for people who either fall for this scam or who willingly participate in their own exploitation.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Right, neo. And my main criticisms of how it wasn't like JE were (1) Neill never established a spirit energy who was bringing through the "information"

This is not correct. Neil did establish spirit energies who was bringing through the "information":

READER: I have an older male with me - he's showing me the letter "P" and telling you not to worry so much about the house and about money. He knows you've had your problems in recent times, but he wants to let you know that there's a much better spell ahead financially. Do you understand that?

SITTER: My sons name is Dylan, and his birthday is in may and my older son was born on the 5th, also I do have an older p name does he tell you more,, the Harley is my husband and I-and I have a niece Hailey.. kinda the same .. come to think of it not just my husbands name is Bill but my cousin who passed name is Bill,, you know things that only my husband and I know... so you have me at 70% believing right now...

...

READER: I'm sensing that the 5th of the month or the month of May has a great significance. I'm also seeing a D-n name, so that would be like a Daniel, Donald, Dylan, Donna - who would that be?

SITTER: ...you had asked about a Daniel and Donald, my uncle Danny passed away when I was young, and Donald is my brother in law in Virgina , how could you know please for sanity sake tell me more!!!

Originally posted by Clancie
and (2) it was conducted via the Internet, over a period of several days (i.e. plenty of time for thinking of how to fish for/develop what April had told him, time to research--which he tried unsuccessfully to do--etc).

So? Can you guarantee that JE does not do Internet searches? Does JE not know the identity of 100% of the gallery members hours in advance?

Originally posted by Clancie
No, not "like JE" and it wasn't at all "just about style" (as Claus would know if he took your advice to re-read it--I listed at least 30 points of difference between Neill's reading and JE's--and have thought of a few more since then).

All of which were shown to be no difference at all, yes. You are, of course, welcome to bring your new points up, so we can discuss them.


Originally posted by Clancie
JE says "17th is significant...I think it's of December." and the date he's just mentioned, "17th...I think it's of December" is significant to her. In my summary I said the hit was "17th of December", which, yes, I feel is what he said. (If he had said, "17th...near the end of the year..." and she'd said "December 17th is my dog's birthday" it would be quite different.

Is he fishing? Well, it doesn't look like fishing to me because he's not getting anything back from the sitter that helps him get to "17th...I think of December". He says it, that's it.

If he had gotten a miss, would that have been fishing?

Yes? Then you admit that JE is cold reading.

No? Then you admit that JE can miss, but that it doesn't detract from his abilities.

[Clancie]

Posted by Pyrrho

That's why frauds such as JE can't miss in a group setting.
Well, not quite "can't miss", Pyrrho.

Ian Rowland at Cal Tech (group size, about 350 people) got no takers at all for the first "spirit reading" he tried to give about "Charles/Charlie" who'd "been in the military", etc.

His next attempt for a spirit of an "Elizabeth" didn't work out either--with an audience member finally cooperatively claiming a living Elizabeth and IR accepting it and proceeding to make guesses about the sitter's life, relationship with Elizabeth etc. that, though not even presented as being "from spirit", were still often wrong.

[CFLarsen]

Pyrrho,

Don't forget that people can also claim a reading was really for them, even though they never manage to either wave their arms, or get JE's attention.

Neofight is one recent example.

This, of course, will theoretically inflate the number of hits to over 100%, if only more than one audience member feels this way.

Pretty good going!!

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, not quite "can't miss", Pyrrho.

Ian Rowland at Cal Tech (group size, about 350 people) got no takers at all for the spirit reading he tried to give about "Charles/Charlie" who'd "been in the military", etc. His next attempt for a spirit of an "Elizabeth" didn't work out either--with an audience member claiming a livingElizabeth and IR accepting it and proceeding to make guesses about the sitter's life, relationship with Elizabeht etc. that, though not even presented as being "from spirit", were still often wrong.
Did I say Ian Rowland?

[renata]

Birthday of a dog? a DOG????

Are these people insane?

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

Who knows a birthday of their dog? And who remembers that? People forget more importand dates! Spouses..cousins...anniversaries...Birthday of a dog! It had better be some kind of a super special talking dog, I tell you.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Pyrrho,

Don't forget that people can also claim a reading was really for them, even though they never manage to either wave their arms, or get JE's attention.

Neofight is one recent example.

This, of course, will theoretically inflate the number of hits to over 100%, if only more than one audience member feels this way.

Pretty good going!!
In every crowd, there are a number of lying yahoos who want their 15 minutes of fame. Especially if they've paid money and traveled a long distance.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, not quite "can't miss", Pyrrho.

Ian Rowland at Cal Tech (group size, about 350 people) got no takers at all for the first "spirit reading" he tried to give about "Charles/Charlie" who'd "been in the military", etc.

You "forget" that Rowland was an admitted cold reader: People knew he was cheating them. When they did not (at the ABC taping), they gobbled it up.

Originally posted by Clancie
His next attempt for a spirit of an "Elizabeth" didn't work out either--with an audience member finally cooperatively claiming a living Elizabeth and IR accepting it and proceeding to make guesses about the sitter's life, relationship with Elizabeht etc. that, though not even presented as being "from spirit", were still often wrong.

Whoa....you acknowledged the "Elizabeth" hit at first, then backed down.

[Clancie]

Pyrrho,

You said, "frauds" which I felt would also apply to a professional "deceiver" like Rowland who claim to be able to demonstrate with cold reading how the frauds really do it.

It didn't work out in that demonstration to be quite as easy as your description above, that was my point.

Oh, and renata...JE will be on LKL again on Thursday.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
Birthday of a dog? a DOG????

Are these people insane?

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

Who knows a birthday of their dog? And who remembers that? People forget more importand dates! Spouses..cousins...anniversaries...Birthday of a dog! It had better be some kind of a super special talking dog, I tell you.

I can't imagine remembering the birthday of a dog either. Now, my cats were born on.... ;)

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Clancie
Pyrrho,

You said, "frauds" which I felt would also apply to a professional "deceiver" like Rowland who claim to be able to demonstrate with cold reading how the frauds really do it.

It didn't work out in that demonstration to be quite as easy as your description above, that was my point.

Oh, and renata...JE will be on LKL again on Thursday.
No, I meant "frauds", as in liars such as JE who pretend to have genuine psychic powers, as opposed to people such as Rowland, who only pretend part of the time, for a specific purpose, who willingly admit that they do not have such powers.

Rowland doesn't have the star status and groupie following that JE does, thus necessarily doesn't have the same stock of fools willing to "play the game".

No, it ain't as easy as it looks, and JE's multiple failures are indicative of this.

[Clancie]

Posted by renata


Who knows a birthday of their dog? And who remembers that? People forget more importand dates! Spouses..cousins...anniversaries...Birthday of a dog! It had better be some kind of a super special talking dog, I tell you.

renata,

Well, maybe it's the point of view. I don't know my dog's birthday either and I think most people probably don't. But this sitter did; it was a significant date for her.

And, who knows? With her husband passed, and her son gone, too, maybe her dog really was the most important relationship in her life...much more so than aunts, cousins, etc. whom she may hardly ever see. Its not hard to see how "pets" can become real "members of the family" that have a closer bond with their "owner" than any people in his/her life do. That Lela knew her dog's birthday, that it was a significant date to her, made me think that maybe this was the case for her, too.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

1. Psychic medium begins a reading for Sitter A in the audience.

2. Reading misses completely for Sitter A.

3. Three rows back, Sitter B waves arms because some of what the psychic medium says "matches" events for Sitter B. Sitter B has just "claimed" the reading, beating out Sitter C across the auditorium who has also been waving her arms.

or

1. Psychic medium begins by saying something such as "Who has a Jiminy Cricket clock?"

2. Audience member reacts; either is noticed by psychic medium or by the director in the control room, who tells camera to focus on audience member, or audience member raises hand.

3. Psychic medium begins to elaborate via classic cold reading techniques. Audience member begins to provide feedback. Reading has thereby been "claimed".

That's why frauds such as JE can't miss in a group setting.

I feel genuinely sorry for people who either fall for this scam or who willingly participate in their own exploitation.

Could we stick with this a minute? I'd like to hear from people who think that mediums can do what they say.

So the idea is that the first "hit" is a given? So the sitter is, in effect, volenteering information from the gitgo? Is this the case? The medium does not know who it is for? The "spirit" can not tell him?

[Clancie]

So the idea is that the first "hit" is a given? So the sitter is, in effect, volenteering information from the gitgo? Is this the case? The medium does not know who it is for? The "spirit" can not tell him?
Well, Ed, with JE he says something like "I'm being pulled over here" indicating a small section of the audience OR, sometimes, he will point to a particular person and say, "I think I'm with you", then begin to give the information.

On occasion, I've seen him throw out information to the gallery in general, but it's usually pretty specific info, like, "I'm getting a 'Michael' and this was a drowning...something that's boat-related". If no one identifies it, he will continue to add on specififc pieces of information (not just throwing out new names as if "fishing" for takers). When someone "claims" it, he goes back over the points that came through with them to see if its really for them or they're just picking up one or two things and ignoring the rest. He doesn't just "cast the net" and then snatch up anyone who "bites".

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, not quite "can't miss", Pyrrho.

Ian Rowland at Cal Tech (group size, about 350 people) got no takers at all for the first "spirit reading" he tried to give about "Charles/Charlie" who'd "been in the military", etc.

His next attempt for a spirit of an "Elizabeth" didn't work out either--with an audience member finally cooperatively claiming a living Elizabeth and IR accepting it and proceeding to make guesses about the sitter's life, relationship with Elizabeth etc. that, though not even presented as being "from spirit", were still often wrong.

Clancie :)

Do I have to follow you around JREF waiting for you to respond to the Ian Rowland claims you are making? You promised you would answer three days ago! This is the third thread in two weeks you are making this claim, and you promised you would answer me a few days back in this thread, on Please Stop Citing "Crossing Over" As Evidence (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27500&perpage=40&pagenumber=4) after you ignored my post in this thread How Does JE Receive Messages? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26839&perpage=40&pagenumber=6) a week ago.

This isn't even the first time we discussed this! I corrected your recollection of the event 7/3, in this thread
Taken in by John Edward" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869986095)

Your recollection of the event seems to change quite dramatically. I really don't want to follow you around JE threads correcting you ever worsening memory of the event, particularly since there are your own words words to contradict you. You know, if you didn't keep bringing it up, I would just wait for your answer in the thread I posed the question. For some reason, you don't answer there (again) you just bring up the same incorrect impression in yet another thread, and I am forced to correct it anew in yet another thread. Luckily, most of this is just cut and paste now :).

In your very post above, for example you acknowledge the Elizabeth hit, finally, whereas only a week ago you claimed "zero hits" in his reading. However, you now claim guesses were wrong, whereas according to the notes I took at the event, and transcribed immediately after here, Elizabeth reading was quite good, and he described Elizabeth quite accurately, generating many hits. And the reading was claimed almost immediately, not "finally". Right after the event, you did not contradict that description of mine. You are also not seriously going to claim JE never throws out a name and gets someone living instead of someone dead, are you? Now since you seem to swing from some hits to "zero hits" to Ok, some hits, but bad ones let me repost my post from the other thread to refresh your memory. You do disservice to yourself by not only contradicting the other person at the seminar, but repeatedly coming up with different (yet consistently negative) commentary about his performance.

Here is my post, in full from Please Stop Citing "Crossing Over" As Evidence thread. This whole thing is getting a tad long, with all the non responses, and past posts, but I am a firm believer in supporting claims with evidence, so forgive me if this is a tad long winded. So yes, it includes many posts from several people, going months back, but since the whole point is that
a. Clancie's reporting of Caltech lecture is inaccurate
b. Clancie repeatedly changed her recollection of Ian Rowland's performance
c. Similar readings by IR and JE are being treated differently

I felt I needed to provide some evidence of such.


Originally posted by Clancie
Ian Rowland might have done a great demonstration in his thirty minutes on Primetime Thursday, but we will never know as they only showed ninety seconds of it. Viewed in person at Cal Tech, he did a couple of psychic-style cold reading demos, but brought nothing through in terms of mediumship, despite two attempts at it.


Clancie,

I noticed you did not reply to my post in How Does JE Receive Messages? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26839&perpage=40&pagenumber=6) thread. I really must correct the impression you keep giving of this performance at Caltech- remember, I was there. And, remember, so was Electric Monk. And, remember, you and I discussed this right after the performance. Here is you post in How Does JE Receive Messages? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26839&perpage=40&pagenumber=6) and my response.

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi g8r,

Yes, I agree with you that some of LKL messages are vague (not that I've seen any professed cold reader get anything comparable--including Ian Rowland, viewed live, where his mediumship demo yielded....zero hits, not even "vague" ones).

I -do- disagree that all LKL hits were vague messages. For example, (and I realize others disagree:) ), I consider "cigarettes in the coffin--not his brand" an excellent hit. :) [/B]

Can you link to the transcripts of the additional LKL interviews?

As to Ian Rowland, I would like to remind you, that not only did he get some hits, as you and I were in the same audience, but at least one other member of the audience agreed with me on that. In addition, presenting an admitted cold reader to an audience of skeptics at Caltech is a slightly different circumstance than a medium to an audience of believers.

Here were my original notes

Cold reading- that was a tough one, as he was sitting in front of a skeptic crowd. He threw out 4 threads, and I believe if it had been a more trusting crowd, he would have gotten spectacular hits on all. However, the interesting part was not so much the hits, but his entirely nimble maneuvering, making use of near misses into great hits. It was fascinating. Once again, it is impossible to do it justice here, but here were the threads
1. Charles, older man, mustache, connection with military. Now in a crowd of 300, there damn well better be a connection, but nobody bit on that- it did not phase him one bit. He just let Charles stick around
2. Conversation with Elizabeth. One woman said she had recently spoke with Elizabeth, at which point he fairly accurately described Elizabeth's appearance and said they had a professional relationship. This is where it got funny- the person said Elizabeth was her apartment manager, but I think Ian thought she was her work manager, because he talked a bit about raises and work changes. The woman appeared to validate most of his guesses- good reading
3. Recent financial troubles- also a hit and a prediction. Not as general as it might sound, the sitter validated a few things
4. Car trouble in tires- also hit, the sitter validated shock problems, and Ian pretty much guessed all.



Here is a portion of your reply, where you seem to acknowledge Elizabeth hit, which you forgot above.


However, I just do want to highlight what you mentioned, that his two attempts at "mediumship cold reading" didn't come off at all. "Deceased Charles or Charlie" got no hits, despite being an "uncle/grandfather"....or eventually "maybe a family friend", "having a military connection...." Nothing.

And "Elizabeth" was originally supposed to be someone deceased, too, until the woman claimed her as someone living.

He quickly dropped "mediumship" and switched to just "psychic readings" --about a job and money--predictably cold reading-as-you'd-expect-it, and those did seem to fit whoever he gave them to (probably also fit many others in the audience with work/money problems, as well).

Very entertaining stuff. Just no "cold reading like JE". None at all.

A portion of my reply

That is true. There are many reasons for that, including
1. He is, as he says an admitted fraud
2. This was a skeptical audience
3. He has scruples.

I believe that if this was a believer audience, who did not know he was a magician, and if did not care about their feelings and loss, he would have done as well or better than JE. Certainly his performance last night, even with the above constraints was as good as or superior to JE's undedited readings on Larry King.

And here is a comment by another JREFer who was there, Electric Monk

I'll put my vote in for audience difficulties on the cold reading portion of the program. Despite asking everyone to put themselves in the place of an earnest audience, the general familiarity of the local skeptics with the tricks of cold reading had a lot of them laughing loudly every time he tried one of the standard dodges. Kinda spoiled the mood, I think.

The sitter who responded to the "tires" prompt was the husband of Tanja Sterrmann, Mike Shermer's office manager and lovely assistant at TAM. Since TAM, I've spoken to them both a few times and can report that they're both quite sharp-minded individuals, and that he is a very lucky guy.



As to whether it was at all like John Edward- perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with this comment by Luker
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24370&perpage=40&highlight=tire*&pagenumber=1

Anyone want to list John Edward's big misses? Misses where the info was fairly specific but got no response?

I happened to be home for lunch yesterday and saw a couple of big misses on one lady.
{snip=r}
3. At the seminar I attended John picked someone out of the crowd and said, "Congratulations on the new tires." The man shrugged his shoulders clearly indicating he knew nothing.
{snip=r}


Of course I could not let it pass, hence the comment by me

New tires? That is hilarious because Ian Rowland in his cold reading demo said something similar, about new tires. Of course JE was getting it psychicly... I alsways thoughts spirits were quite the kidders.

So JE somewhat like Rowland, at least.


Now I would like to elaborate on that. You now claimed there were no hits, "zero" hits. Right after the seminar you acknowledged that he got Elizabeth, and you did not contradict me when I said he accurately described her. Your quibble seemed to be that she was supposed to be dead, but turned out to be alive. That happens with JE all the time! Check the LK readings! You count even initials as hits, remember how you combine weak hits and hits to inflate JE's hit ratio.

As to Charles not being validated= that is not a miss at all! That is merely not validated! If you applied the same standard to Ian's reading at Caltech as you apply to my analysis of JE's reading (dismissing not validated guesses and combining weak hits to generate a 50% hit ratio) Ian is doing great. You claimed his tire hit is a psychic communication, not a psychic medium communication. Lurker posted an example of JE doing the same thing- except Ian got a hit, but JE got a miss. Seems Ian is better than JE.

Add to that the fact that Ian was reading a skeptical audience, and as Electric Monk said, every phrase from him was met with a round from laughter. Can you really think that in an audience of several hundred people nobody had a dead man named Charles? I suspect that is impossible.

The problem I have here is the same I have with Neo, in the post she did not answer to. I do not think you or Neo are dishonest. But you also seem to use different standards of evidence based on what results you want to find. You had many objections to LKL readings, when they were bad, but no objections to cigarette hit. Just like neo, who dismissed LKl readings as snippets when they were bad, but said it may have been spirit communication when it was good. A skeptic looks at all results.

With the LKL readings you equated very weak hits with regular hits, added them up, dismissed not validated hits and came up with in inflated 50% hit rate. With Ian you now claim zero hit rate, you claim not validated Charles hits are misses, you forgot the Elizabeth hits, the tires hits. How can you be an objective witness if not only two other witnesses contradict your memory of what happened, but your own writings after the fact contradict it? If it was a JE reading, you would fight to give him the Elizabeth hit, the tires, the fact Ian described her! You would claim the not validated Charles reading would fall in the same proportion as the other hits or misses, like claimed not validated comments did for JE. Or maybe Charles came through for the guy in the other room. Ian spoke about the future- well, JE does that also!

I am amazed at the litany of excuses JE believers have for poor performance of JE on LKL or other venues, but they are terribly strict when cold readers try to replicate him. Not to mention, once again that, in this particular case
1. Ian as he says an admitted fraud, and the crowd knew it
2. This was a skeptical audience, familiar with tricks of the trade
3. Ian has scruples and would not milk the audience.
I would love to see how well JE would perform in front of the same crowd...:)

[Clancie]

renata,

This was the transcript I made from my notes at Cal Tech (not posted here before). I don't see any conflict between them and what you, RSL, Electric Monk and I said in the thread where you originally brought it up.


Ian Rowland

(in a soft, soothing voice) “I have no control over who comes through. I am using my psychic gift for the benefit of those who are grieving and need contact with their loved ones.”

I’m getting a Charles who has passed.

(No Response)

Elderly?

(No Response)

Charles. Charlie.

(No Response)

He’s a military man.

Could be an uncle or a grandfather.

(No Response)

(Waits) Maybe this genetleman isn’t a relative. Not a blood relative . (pause) He recently passed. Within the last two or three years.

(No Response)

He has a bit of whiskers.

I guess the person doesn’t want to acknowledge this. Don’t make it fit. I’ll leave it.

So, yes, I consider that he had no hits--zero--with this reading (and it was his only "spirit reading" attempt of the evening--other than "Elizabeth" which he started out describing as being in spirit, but then accepted as being the audience member's very-much-alive "Elizabeth". He never returned to spirit communication again).

[Clancie]

re: crowd

I thought they (we) were very cooperative, perfectly willing to follow his directions to play along if it fit, but not make things up. I think that's how he got someone to raise her hand for a (living) Elizabeth, and someone else to talk later about car repairs, etc.

As for JE, he often reads skeptics. There's no screening process (except self screening) at CO.

As far as your comments about my being biased, well, all I can say is that I went to see Ian in order to see cold reading in action, from someone who seems to be quite recognized as an authority on it. I didn't watch him demonstrate "cold reading like JE" and then go on the defensive, denying hit after hit that he was able to get. I made the effort to go, to be objective about what I saw, and frankly didn't see him demonstrate "mediumship", despite repeated efforts to.

I still don't know what evidence of "mediumship cold reading" you saw Ian give, but I saw...none. The psychic readings were more successful--just as one would expect since the evidentiary level is so much lower and generalities about people's lives are so much easier to bring out than specific information about specific people in your life who have died.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
renata,

This was the transcript I made from my notes at Cal Tech (not posted here before). I don't see any conflict between them and what you, RSL, Electric Monk and I said in the thread where you originally brought it up.



So, yes, I consider that he had no hits--zero--with this reading (and it was his only "spirit reading" attempt of the evening--other than "Elizabeth" which he started out describing as being in spirit, but then accepted as being the audience member's very-much-alive "Elizabeth". He never returned to spirit communication again).

I am so impressed you had time to take such a detailed transcript! Can you post all of it, including the other three readings? I would like to compare it to my notes. Where did you sit, by the way?

Of course that does not answer my questions, because
a. your zero hits comment was not only for the Charles reading, but for "mediumship demo".
b. this was merely a not validated reading, as you would score it for JE. You also seem to disco0ut audience laughing reaction and the fact that it is highly unlikely nobody in such a large audience knew a dead elderly Charles.

Why do you think the other readings where not spirit communication? Do you think Lurker's example of a tire miss by JE was not spirit communication either?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I still don't know what evidence of "mediumship cold reading" you saw Ian give, but I saw...none. The psychic readings were more successful--just as one would expect since the evidentiary level is so much lower and generalities about people's lives are so much easier to bring out than specific information about specific people in your life who have died.

Excuse me, but I can find examples where the information JE gets is not from the spirit world. He gets living people, living animals, things that did not come through via spirit communication but sitter validation.

It all depends on how the reading goes.

So, your argument is invalid, Clancie.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
[B]re: crowd

I thought they (we) were very cooperative, perfectly willing to follow his directions to play along if it fit, but not make things up. I think that's how he got someone to raise her hand for a (living) Elizabeth, and someone else to talk later about car repairs, etc.

Clancie
The crowd roared with laughter at his attempts to cold read us. Do you really think in a crowd of 350 there was no dead Charles or dead Elizabeth?


As for JE, he often reads skeptics. There's no screening process (except self screening) at CO.

Yes, but there is also editing, isn't there? And I think you know very well the difference between reading one skeptic in a crowd of believers and reading a crowd of 350 skeptics at Cal Tech.



As far as your comments about my being biased, well, all I can say is that I went to see Ian in order to see cold reading in action, from someone who seems to be quite recognized as an authority on it. I didn't watch him demonstrate "cold reading like JE" and then go on the defensive, denying hit after hit that he was able to get. I made the effort to go, to be objective about what I saw, and frankly didn't see him demonstrate "mediumship", despite repeated efforts to.

Your bias is self evident in your comments about his performance.

All the below by you

Viewed in person at Cal Tech, he did a couple of psychic-style cold reading demos, but brought nothing through in terms of mediumship, despite two attempts at it.


I've seen any professed cold reader get anything comparable--including Ian Rowland, viewed live, where his mediumship demo yielded....zero hits, not even "vague" ones).


His next attempt for a spirit of an "Elizabeth" didn't work out either--with an audience member finally cooperatively claiming a living Elizabeth and IR accepting it and proceeding to make guesses about the sitter's life, relationship with Elizabeth etc. that, though not even presented as being "from spirit", were still often wrong.

And "Elizabeth" was originally supposed to be someone deceased, too, until the woman claimed her as someone living.



Just no "cold reading like JE". None at all


Well, I went to see Ian Rowland. His cold reading "mediumship" demo (in a room of 350 people) bombed.



So really, Clancie, whether he has zero hits, some hits, or bad hits is just a matter of timing with you. This is what I call bias. Or, bad memory, although your memory seems to be worsening always in one direction. I never claimed Charles was a good reading. I merely claim it did not suceed due to the audience reaction. I also think, if it was a JE seminar, there would be some believer who would "claim it" later. Finally, had it been JE's I think you would imagine it be merely not validated.

I do not think there is any question you sometimes tried to create impression of "zero" hits from this seminar, and, after pressure from me, gave in on Elizabeth hit( anticipating that transcript, Clancie!). I think there is no doubt JE connect with living people- you are not seriously trying to claim he does not bring forth names of living people as validations he is with them?

As to the last two readings, better ones- you still have not explained the difference between IR's tire hit and JE's tire miss.




I still don't know what evidence of "mediumship cold reading" you saw Ian give, but I saw...none. The psychic readings were more successful--just as one would expect since the evidentiary level is so much lower and generalities about people's lives are so much easier to bring out than specific information about specific people in your life who have died.


As said previously, I believe Ian's cold reading demo compared to JE's performance on LKL. And I will gladly analyze JE's upcoming performance, as soon as I finish the two I am working on- keep getting distracted, darn it! :)

[RC]

Neo, I don't get it. You say that I can't claim the "G-L" name as a Mom figure (even though JE says that spirits "above" are like Mom, grandma, etc.) because in order to be a true Mom figure, my grandma would have to live with me, or help raise me.

But you have no problem with the fact that the "G-L" spirit wasn't the sitter's mom at all. She was her MOTHER IN LAW.


:confused:

Did this mother in law help raise the sitter? I highly doubt it.

Then, this is no more and no less a "mom " figure to the sitter than my grandma was to me.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by RC
Neo, I don't get it. You say that I can't claim the "G-L" name as a Mom figure (even though JE says that spirits "above" are like Mom, grandma, etc.) because in order to be a true Mom figure, my grandma would have to live with me, or help raise me.

But you have no problem with the fact that the "G-L" spirit wasn't the sitter's mom at all. She was her MOTHER IN LAW.

:confused:

Did this mother in law help raise the sitter? I highly doubt it.

Then, this is no more and no less a "mom " figure to the sitter than my grandma was to me.
The way I see it, any adult woman could be considered to be a "mom figure". Readers often throw in such adjectives to better their chances of a hit, or to flesh out the reading. I can see sitters nodding along as a reader trots out such terms, whether or not the spirit was a mom figure.

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight
[B]


And yes, RC, all those "mental illness" references could have been for you because of what you had been going through at the time with the loss of your partner, but first JE would have had to "get" to you, and the "train" reference would just not have done it. He would have had to come up with something specific that you would have understood.


He did "get to me" and he did come up with specific information. Loss of someone to my side, "mom" figure with a "G-L" name (I disagree with you that's it's okay to mess up and think a mother in law is a mom, but not okay to think a grandma is a mom), name of my first partner, diagnosed with PTSD (not just a vague mental illness, but a very specific illness). Also, I had a train set when I was a kid given to me by my grandfather.

And I disagree with you and Clancie about the 17th hit. He said end of the year and November is at the end of the year. Had he just said December 17th, then of course Nov. 17th wouldn't count. But his statement (question?) is vague enough to allow for November.

[RC]

Originally posted by renata
Birthday of a dog? a DOG????

Are these people insane?

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

Who knows a birthday of their dog? And who remembers that? People forget more importand dates! Spouses..cousins...anniversaries...Birthday of a dog! It had better be some kind of a super special talking dog, I tell you.

I know the birthdays of my pets. I absolutely accept that this was a meaningful date for the sitter. What is funny about the reading though, is that it wasn't until the sitter told JE the significance of the date that he *suddenly* started to get images related to a dog (in fact he "saw" the front paws of a dog, but accepted that the sitter's dog just had surgery on his *back* legs).

Seems strange that spirit would go through so much trouble to acknowledge the dog, i.e. try to show the date of its birth (17th, probably December, definitely at the end of the year) instead of just showing JE a dog or trying to get the name across.

[renata]

Psst...RC...Dolly Parton is supremely talented in all things! Just ask Claus who he thinks best American female singer is, and try not to laugh too hard. The man has no taste.


I am pretty sure in some readings some have been claimed as grandparents even without the requirement of tight knit connections, but I cannot recall the reading in question. If I do, I will post it.

But here is one example
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/28/lkl.00.html

EDWARD: How are you doing, Barbara. First thing I'm going to tell you is that I'm getting the feeling of an older female. That to me would be either your aunt, your grandmother or there's an older female that has crossed.


It sounds like he would accept any older female.


Edited to add: you know the exact date of birth of your pet? How can you know? Aren't they born in a litter, and then you adopt them when they are a few weeks old? That always puzzled me. Anyway, I am with you on the Dolly Parton thing, but you are losing me on the pet thing :)

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC
Neo, I don't get it. You say that I can't claim the "G-L" name as a Mom figure (even though JE says that spirits "above" are like Mom, grandma, etc.) because in order to be a true Mom figure, my grandma would have to live with me, or help raise me.

But you have no problem with the fact that the "G-L" spirit wasn't the sitter's mom at all. She was her MOTHER IN LAW.

:confused:

Did this mother in law help raise the sitter? I highly doubt it.

Then, this is no more and no less a "mom " figure to the sitter than my grandma was to me.

But there is a difference, RC. How can you say that a mother-in-law is not a mother figure? It's on the very same level as a mother. Of course the mother-in-law didn't help raise the daughter-in-law. But her husband's mom is on the same level as her own mom would be.

I know you had to have heard JE say many times, when a sitter is mentioning a mother-in-law, or referencing her husband's mom, JE says, "It's "mom" to me!"

Not so with a grandparent. A grandparent would not come through as a parent figure, unless he or she had a significant part in raising the child. There have been so many examples of this on "CO" over the years, RC......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC


He did "get to me" and he did come up with specific information. Loss of someone to my side, "mom" figure with a "G-L" name (I disagree with you that's it's okay to mess up and think a mother in law is a mom, but not okay to think a grandma is a mom), name of my first partner, diagnosed with PTSD (not just a vague mental illness, but a very specific illness). Also, I had a train set when I was a kid given to me by my grandfather.

Okay, RC. Hmmm. Let's deal with the train reference first. I don't know how I feel about your adding to your testimony after the fact. lol Didn't you just make this post before?

John:_ Okay._ Now, they want me to bring up the "train" references for you._ Now I know there's something about trains._ I don't know if somebody works in transportation, or if they....._ There's a train connection.

RC: No train connection in my family

But seriously, RC, aside from the fact that I still say you had no mother figure right at the top of the reading, (I swear, I'm not BSing you about this) John also was very clear about someone's cousin drowning. Now you said that there was no drowning that you could relate to, so the way I see it, John would not have let you claim this reading.


And I'm still curious about this hit, RC. Was your deceased aunt from your mother's side or not? And notice below, that John makes a distinction here about a mom, but not grandmother figure. There IS a difference.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John:_ Okay._ And I also feel like, connected to your mom, that she's gotta have a sister who's passed because I've got like an aunt who's there for you._ Somebody who I would see as being like your family._ Older female, like mom, not grandmother.

RC: Deceased aunt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I disagree with you and Clancie about the 17th hit. He said end of the year and November is at the end of the year. Had he just said December 17th, then of course Nov. 17th wouldn't count. But his statement (question?) is vague enough to allow for November.

Well actually, I said that yes, it would have counted as a hit, just not nearly as specific a hit as John got with Lela. ;) .....neo