Interesting JE Hits....

[Clancie]

Claus,

You do understand the words "different computer", right?

And, as long as we're on the topic of Bishop, of what possible value is a garbled audio file?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,

You do understand the words "different computer", right?

Yep, absolutely. That's why I checked the IPs you have posted under at TVTalkshows. No log of any of those re. the Bishop-file until today.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, as long as we're on the topic of Bishop, of what possible value is a garbled audio file?

It's not "garbled". You can make out what he says. No, it's not CD quality, but I didn't claim it would be.

You, dear Clancie, is a liar. You did not listen to it "some time ago". You just downloaded it, today.

[Clancie]

Claus,

Call me a liar if you want. whatever. You will anyway.

But your audio file of Bishop doesn't show anything about the quality of his readings. Unless there's a way to get rid of the distortion at the listener's end, its unintelligible, Claus.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,

Call me a liar if you want. whatever. You will anyway.

I will only call you a liar when I can back it up with evidence. I did.

Originally posted by Clancie
But your audio file of Bishop doesn't show anything about the quality of his readings. Unless there's a way to get rid of the distortion at the listener's end, its unintelligible, Claus.

Well, you downloaded it (today, not before that), and, as usual, you dismiss the evidence.

Why didn't you bring this up before, when you (claimed you) first listened to it? That is odd, don't you think?

[thaiboxerken]

JE doesn't "get" much about the "other side", and some other mediums get many specifics. Does that mean he's a fake? That they are? Maybe so.

Yes, they are fakes.



Or, hypothetically, could it just show that they have different strengths and abilities? :confused:

That would require belief, since there is no evidence to support the notion and it goes against scientific convention.

They are both entertainers.

[Loki]

Neofight,

Now that I don't really agree with, Loki. Who are these "plenty of mediums" who claim they can do things that JE says are not possible? You'll have to clarify that for me.
Sure - clarification is a good thing!

From Pyrrho's post of the LKL transcript :

(JE said) : And I can only speak for myself. I don't want to speak in broad strokes for every medium that's out there, of which there are many around the world that are equally as talented ...
This seems pretty clear cut to me - JE is specifically saying that his process, as far as he knows, is his process only - and that we should not be assuming the other mediums do it the same way. What's confusing about this? JE is telling you *not* to assume that any oither medium is using the same process as he is.

But I can give you a more concrete example if you wish - the Princess Diana seances on TV used a husband and wife as the mediums, and they used an process virtually identical to JE - except that they believed that it *is* possible to "influence" which spirit will come through. As far as I know, JE claims that he has *no control* over who comes through. A clear difference in process, between these mediums, I would think.

As far as I can tell from reading about George Anderson, and from watching James Van Praagh do readings on his show, "Beyond", the process is pretty similar from one medium to another...
Well, yes! But my point is that they are not "identical", which makes it difficult to establish boundaries of what is possible and not possible - each medium has a slightly different take on things.

Why does this matter? Does an inconsistency prove they lie? No - it simply makes it difficult to establish a viable method of testing, because the details matter when you are trying to establish reliable data.

Oh, and regarding the "receiving of letters" - there are two points really.

First, the thing about the "sheet music" was simply that if we believe JE then the "image" transferred to him obviously contained sufficient detail that he could recognise it as "sheet music", not as "newspaper". He saw details on the paper. If he didn't, then how did he know it was sheet music? He he *did* see details, then why can't the spirits makes one of the details be a 10 inch high letter "A"?

Second, JE gets "letter sounds" in virtually every second reading. "A 'T' or 'T'-sound" is a common JE phrase. Why not simply get the spirits to send a sequence of letter-sounds? Yes, I know the answer - JE is a passive receiver, he get whatever the "other side" chooses to send. So the question, according the JE, should be phrased as "Why don't the spirirts send a sequence of letter-sounds"? Answer? We don't know. The spirits are happy to send the occasional letter-sound, the spirits are happy to be trying to pass on "proof" of the after life to their relatives - but the spirits are not interesting in doing so in an unambiguous way. Those zany, wacky, fun loving spirits!

[thaiboxerken]

So the question, according the JE, should be phrased as "Why don't the spirirts send a sequence of letter-sounds"? Answer? We don't know. The spirits are happy to send the occasional letter-sound, the spirits are happy to be trying to pass on "proof" of the after life to their relatives - but the spirits are not interesting in doing so in an unambiguous way. Those zany, wacky, fun loving spirits!

I know the answer. It's because spirits are stupid, moronic and fools. It's not that they are playing "charades", "guess my name" or "what's this mean?" because they like to. No, they can't help but to play the games because they lack brainpower to put full sentences together. Yes.. spirits don't have brains, therefore they are stupid. I guess even spirits are limited by the material body, or lack there-of.

:wink8:

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

RA claims that nobody has diseases "Over There", so she agrees with SB on that one.


Now who wouldn't agree with that, Claus? If there is an afterlife, when we cross over, we leave this physical world behind, along with our used and then totally superfluous body, so of course there is no disease in the hereafter. :rolleyes: .....neo

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
So the question, according the JE, should be phrased as "Why don't the spirirts send a sequence of letter-sounds"? Answer? We don't know. The spirits are happy to send the occasional letter-sound, the spirits are happy to be trying to pass on "proof" of the after life to their relatives - but the spirits are not interesting in doing so in an unambiguous way. Those zany, wacky, fun loving spirits!

I know the answer. It's because spirits are stupid, moronic and fools. It's not that they are playing "charades", "guess my name" or "what's this mean?" because they like to. No, they can't help but to play the games because they lack brainpower to put full sentences together. Yes.. spirits don't have brains, therefore they are stupid. I guess even spirits are limited by the material body, or lack there-of.

:wink8:

thaiboxerken,

What you say here reminded me of a statement Alan Gauld makes on page 9 of his book, Mediumship and Survival: A Century of Investigations. He writes: "...the notion of personal identity is a complex and elusive one, and some people would say that personal identity is logically as well as factually linked to bodily continuity, so that it makes no sense to talk of a person surviving the dissolution of his body. ... Another possiblity to be borne in mind -- one with which not a little of the evidencce could be squared -- is that there is survival, but survival only of a diminished and truncated something, capable of manifesting as a quasi-person in certain circumstances, but not ordinarily to be thought of as a person at all."

Mike

[Loki]

Mike D.

...there is survival, but survival only of a diminished and truncated something, capable of manifesting as a quasi-person in certain circumstances, but not ordinarily to be thought of as a person at all.
We touched on this the other day in another thread....just how *much* of me will remain in this diminished/truncated after-me? At JE seance time, it appears there is quite a bit - spirit-me has my 'life' memories, and even memories of things that have happened in the real world after I passed. I even retain my 'relationships' with both living and dead - although the emotional content of *all* relationships appears to have changed from the wide range available in life (hate, indifference, affection, love) to just love/peace. Yes, even people I loathed in life I appear to embrace affectionately in death.

Does spirit-me still follow the same sporting teams? Does spirit-me care who wins the Superbowl? Is spirit-me still interested in music? Does spirit-me write songs anymore? Is spirit-me still attempting to learn Japanese? If I reach the after life and I don't have any interest in sport, I don't care about music, I've stopped learning new skills, and my opinon of everyone has changed to "really, they're lovely!", then in what sense have *I* crossed over?

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC
It's true that most mental mediums seem to use the same "process". However, I've never heard anyone except JE use this "frame of reference" argument. I'm very suspicious of this particular claim.

RC, I honestly do not know whether or not you are correct on this. I'd have to go back and read a George Anderson or JVP book to see if I could find any of their quotes that refer to a frame of reference. In any case, the personal frame of reference concept makes eminent sense to me.

I did say that JE did not normally see letters or words, and I do stand by that statement. I believe I used the phrase, "as a rule". I do remember on rare occasions John saying something like the letter "T" getting bigger and bigger, when the spirit was insisting on something, but that's the exception, and not the rule, as far as I remember.

The medium I went to was able to get the word "Clarendon". This word is part of a meaningful joke between my partner and I. We were the only 2 people who would know about that joke. I highly doubt that Karen has a "frame of reference" of a white board with the word "Clarendon", but somehow she was able to say it.

No, RC. I agree, and naturally, I do remember your mentioning that unusual hit. Do you know for a fact though, that Karen got that word clairvoyantly, rather than clairaudiently? I would have thought the latter, but perhaps her clairvoyance is her strong point, and she gets words that way. If I'm not mistaken, JE has claimed that his strong suit was clairaudience, rather than clairvoyance.

You yourself, in your pyschic development class, seem to have gotten the name "Johann" (SP?) through clairvoyance, RC, so as I said, it could depend on the particular medium, and which sense of theirs is stronger.

What about the "Tom Petty" record album? Was that not in your own frame of reference, RC? Or had you never before seen that record jacket before you saw it psychically?

Neo, I really don't understand this frame of reference argument at all. Surely JE has read the word "Uncle" and the word "Fred" at one time in his life, so the words are indeed in his frame of reference. It just doesn't fly.

RC, I never claimed to have all the answers you know. :con2: I don't remember any of the mediums that I've ever seen able to get "Uncle Fred" or "Aunt Rose" in the manner you suggest, do you? I believe they all get the older male, female to the side, younger energy, below, etc.

I think once JE may have gotten an "Aunt Mary", or something, precisely because he was shown his own Aunt Mary, but don't hold me to that vague memory. Does anyone else remember that happening once?

Also, did you just state that spirits aren't able to give letters? They do it all the time with JE. He claims that when a spirit is "shouting" a "T" name, that he is "seeing" the letter T getting bigger and bigger. So if a spirit can give one letter, why can't they give four of them to spell the name "Fred"...and then go on to spell a few words to make a sentence?

Exactly what I said earlier, RC. I don't know why, but I can only assume that mediums cannot do this sort of thing on any grand scale, with the possible exception of a "trance" medium. From what I've read about their abilities, it would seem that if any medium would be capable of getting whole sentences, etc., it would be this type of medium.

And I disagree with you, RC, about the spirits doing this "all the time". I think the letters that they give John are almost always given through clairaudience. At least, that has been my own observation. :) ......neo

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Mike D.

Another possiblity to be borne in mind -- one with which not a little of the evidencce could be squared -- is that there is survival, but survival only of a diminished and truncated something, capable of manifesting as a quasi-person in certain circumstances, but not ordinarily to be thought of as a person at all."

Mike

LOL. It's all BS, it sounds nice, but it's still BS. All that is left of a person is the memories of them and the evidence that they used to be around. The memories and the evidence fade faster for some than others.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Loki
Mike D.


We touched on this the other day in another thread....just how *much* of me will remain in this diminished/truncated after-me? At JE seance time, it appears there is quite a bit - spirit-me has my 'life' memories, and even memories of things that have happened in the real world after I passed. I even retain my 'relationships' with both living and dead - although the emotional content of *all* relationships appears to have changed from the wide range available in life (hate, indifference, affection, love) to just love/peace. Yes, even people I loathed in life I appear to embrace affectionately in death.

Does spirit-me still follow the same sporting teams? Does spirit-me care who wins the Superbowl? Is spirit-me still interested in music? Does spirit-me write songs anymore? Is spirit-me still attempting to learn Japanese? If I reach the after life and I don't have any interest in sport, I don't care about music, I've stopped learning new skills, and my opinon of everyone has changed to "really, they're lovely!", then in what sense have *I* crossed over?

Loki,

I've always had trouble imagining what an afterlife would be like in any concrete terms, and part of this has to do with what you've said here. It seems the more concretely I try to think about an afterlife, the more difficult it is for me to imagine it in what to me would be a realistic way.

Mike

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No? JE claims not to know what is on the other side. These skeptics do. That's contradictory, Clancie.

My point is - again - that JVP knows what goes on over there. JE doesn't.

Or does he? Perhaps we are dealing with yet-another-JE-contradiction??

There is no contradiction, Claus. You're right. For the most part, I think JE is the least vocal and the most cautious about what he says concerning what it might be like on the other side.

He does acknowledge that he gets little glimpses and quick impressions of what it might be like in that dimension, but he is also sensible enough to say that he, and we, are here in the physical realm, and not over there. That's why he is reluctant to say too much about it because after all, he really cannot "know" for certain, since he is here, and not there.

Anything he might be shown of the afterlife would always be subject to his own interpretation anyhow, so I think he is wise not to give the impression that he knows it all. I fail to see the great big contradiction you mention, Claus......neo

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Loki
Mike D.


We touched on this the other day in another thread....just how *much* of me will remain in this diminished/truncated after-me? At JE seance time, it appears there is quite a bit - spirit-me has my 'life' memories, and even memories of things that have happened in the real world after I passed. I even retain my 'relationships' with both living and dead - although the emotional content of *all* relationships appears to have changed from the wide range available in life (hate, indifference, affection, love) to just love/peace. Yes, even people I loathed in life I appear to embrace affectionately in death.

Does spirit-me still follow the same sporting teams? Does spirit-me care who wins the Superbowl? Is spirit-me still interested in music? Does spirit-me write songs anymore? Is spirit-me still attempting to learn Japanese? If I reach the after life and I don't have any interest in sport, I don't care about music, I've stopped learning new skills, and my opinon of everyone has changed to "really, they're lovely!", then in what sense have *I* crossed over?

Loki,

A few comments on what you've written here. Regarding one's emotions being totally peaceful and loving in the afterdeath state, there are some people who have claimed that there are "lower astral levels" among the afterlife realms, where spirits dwell who had a deficit of positive emotions while alive. And they are said to stay there until they change for the better (or reincarnate, if reincarnation figures into the particular belief system of the people alleging this).

And as far as retaining an interest in music goes, the late Rosemary Brown of course claimed to channel new compositions from composers on the other side, so according to her, those deceased composers have not only retained their interest in music, but continue to compose as well.

Mike

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat


Neo are you surprised to find that at least one very well known medium Doris Stokes had a very different process...

Not really, Darat. I've read a little bit about Doris Stokes, although I admit I am nowhere near as familiar with her work as I am with JE's.

A quote here from one of the sites that features her, itself quoting form one of her books her:

Any comments about this very clear cut type of mediumship? Doris didn't have to scramble for meanings of symbols, she didn’t have to have a “personal frame of reference” - she heard the spirits speak as clearly as she heard the living....

Yes, Darat, but I think this might have been more a vision, or a visitation of sorts, and not her usual form of mediumship. If you go look back a ways in Randi's commentary, I believe he featured a story about Doris Stokes and a transcript or partial transcript of her doing readings, and it was nothing at all like this example of her seeing her dead father. In fact, the reading in that particular article that I remember was not too impressive at all. She was rather abysmal, actually.

And Doris isn't alone in claiming a very different process to JEs..

The best known current UK psychic Derek Acorah

It would seem many mediums don't follow the "process" you seem to believe exists.

Could be, Darat. I can't speak to what I do not know. I'm not at all familiar with Derek Acorah. The mediums that I am most familiar with work in a similar manner to JE as far as I can tell, although some of them do claim to speak through their special guide. I don't believe this is the case with JE, JVP, or GA......neo

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by RC
Also, did you just state that spirits aren't able to give letters? They do it all the time with JE. He claims that when a spirit is "shouting" a "T" name, that he is "seeing" the letter T getting bigger and bigger. So if a spirit can give one letter, why can't they give four of them to spell the name "Fred"...and then go on to spell a few words to make a sentence?

RC,

I think this is a good point. It's interesting too to remember that there have been mediums who allegedly had spirits communicate through raps and they devised a system where each letter of the alphabet would correspond with a certain number of raps. Then, through this rather laborious process, the spirits could rap out whole words, sentences, and messages.

Mike

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Nope. I can't find the JVP book (most of my books are still in boxes), but what page do you want me to scan of RA's "You Own the Power"?

Well, call me crazy, Claus, but my guess would be that Clancie would want you to reference whatever part of RA's book that would make your case, you know? Prove your point. Demonstrate your claim. Of course, that's just a wild guess on my part. :D

Oh, please! Stop lying, Clancie! You know damn well that I was away that weekend - the two days you mentioned. Which I explained to you, and which you have conveniently "forgotten".

Hmmm! Now this is interesting. Are you sure that you are not getting your "Gorgons" as well as your alibis mixed up here, Claus? lol Is that what you told us about that weekend? That you were away? I mean, it's possible, but I don't really have a clear memory of that. I do remember you saying something about getting some sunshine because it was such a nice day, but that's all I remember at this moment.

You did, however, tell me about being away those couple of days back when I had posted one of JE's transcripts. You remember, the thread I started over at tvtalkshows that you made only one post on, demanding me to show you how that transcript differed from cold-reading.

That was the time that you said you were away for a couple of days. Hmmm. As much as I hate doing searches, I might just have to go check the tvtalkshow archives to refresh my memory of what you claimed at the time we were discussing your lack of knowledge concerning JE's books. The ones you claimed to have read. Were you away that weekend as well?

Clancie, do you have any recollection of Claus ever saying that he was away that particular weekend? I mean, it's entirely possible. Anybody? I may have to go ask Rain to find that thread for me. Maybe she'll join us here, and we can have a "Gorgon" reunion. :roll: .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat
So not to lose track of the various bits I’ve rambled on about I think my questions to you are

Do you claim that all validations are 100% accurate and consistent across anytime span?

Do you accept that recollections from memory are an unreliable way to determine the truth of an event or in this case a reading by JE?

Sorry, Darat. Those questions got buried.

No, I do not claim that all validations are 100% accurate and consistent across any timespan. However, I do not buy into the idea that sitters cannot be trusted to know whether or not certain things have occurred to them in their lives, which is what Claus is suggesting.

Say, for instance, that a woman had a miscarriage, and JE mentions that fact. According to Claus, she would have to go find someone else to verify that she did, indeed, have a miscarriage. The whole idea is ludicrous. Unless I'm not understanding your question, Darat.

Again, I would concede that memories can be unreliable, but I saw both Tim's original "Milk from a cow" reading, (more than once) AND the followup reading that he did some time later on. Nothing in the followup segment contradicted the original reading that was aired in any significant way whatsoever.

In the followup segment, Tim merely explained the incident in even more depth than in the original segment. He clarified one or two things, but he didn't change his story at all. If Claus had seen these shows, he would know this......neo

[Clancie]

Posted by neofight

Hmmm. As much as I hate doing searches, I might just have to go check the tvtalkshow archives to refresh my memory of what you claimed at the time we were discussing your lack of knowledge concerning JE's books. The ones you claimed to have read. Were you away that weekend as well?

Clancie, do you have any recollection of Claus ever saying that he was away that particular weekend? I mean, it's entirely possible.

Hi neo,

Well, my memory of the thread is that he spent a week or more seemingly unable to discuss any information from JE's books (while still claiming to have read them). Then he disappeared for a weekend (a rare occurrence) and reemerged on Monday or Tuesday eager to show that he was indeed now acquainted with the books, even being able to quote one of them for us!

That's how I remember his "lost weekend" anyway,--that, and that it was pretty funny when he returned.

And, yes, he claimed he had not been reading JE books that weekend, just was "busy" elsewhere. It could be true...of course....all true....:p
I may have to go ask Rain to find that thread for me. Maybe she'll join us here, and we can have a "Gorgon" reunion.
Well, that reunion would be fun, neo! I wish Rain would come on board, and atmytv, too.

Just imagine how happy Claus would be with the three of us all here! I'm sure it would really make his day! :)

[neofight]

Originally posted by Loki
Neofight,

Sure - clarification is a good thing!

From Pyrrho's post of the LKL transcript :

This seems pretty clear cut to me - JE is specifically saying that his process, as far as he knows, is his process only - and that we should not be assuming the other mediums do it the same way. What's confusing about this? JE is telling you *not* to assume that any oither medium is using the same process as he is.

Yes, Loki, and I'm not confused, but there are many mediums, especially the ones I've mentioned, that do seem to use a process that very much resembles the one that JE talks about. I've already stated that I believe that some might be stronger in clairvoyance, and others in clairaudience. I've acknowledged that.

Besides, what I was responding to was this quote........

originally posted by LokiTo be precise, we are talking about JE's own personal version of mediumship - there are plenty of mediums who (claim they) can do things that JE says are not possible. Really, "mediumship" is an umbrella term in which each active participant defines their own particular set of rules. Each medium seems to have their own peculiar "process".


Loki, I see nothing anywhere, nor have I ever heard JE ever claim that "there are plenty of mediums who (claim they) can do things that JE says are not possible". As you can clearly see, JE is the first to acknowledge that he does what he does, and other mediums do what they do. Where does he say that he thinks that the stuff other mediums do is impossible, Loki? I think I still need you to clarify your words, because I'm not following you. We each feel that the other is confused. lol

But I can give you a more concrete example if you wish - the Princess Diana seances on TV used a husband and wife as the mediums, and they used an process virtually identical to JE - except that they believed that it *is* possible to "influence" which spirit will come through. As far as I know, JE claims that he has *no control* over who comes through. A clear difference in process, between these mediums, I would think.

Not exactly all that clear, Loki. Although it's true that JE has always acknowledged that he has no real control over who might come through, or what information he might get, that never prevents him from asking for certain things, and very often his request, e.g. for more information or something, is honored by spirit.

He just doesn't want the sitter to be disappointed in case they do not hear from the person they wanted, or didn't get the message they specifically asked for, so he warns them beforehand that he cannot guarantee them anything.

Well, yes! But my point is that they are not "identical", which makes it difficult to establish boundaries of what is possible and not possible - each medium has a slightly different take on things.

Exactly. When JE sees the blood flowing symbol, that, to him, symbolizes an irregularity of the blood, such as AIDS, or leukemia, etc. George Anderson, according to the glossary in his book, "We Don't Die", does actually see the word AIDS appearing over a sitter's head, and that indicates to him either that the spirit that is coming through passed from that disease, or that the sitter in front of him suffers from it. Two very different symbols for the same thing.

Another difference. When GA sees musical notes, it signifies to him that the person had an interest in music, was a musician, disc jockey, songwriter, music teacher etc. On the other hand, when JE sees musical notes, he interprets it as meaning prayers that lift the spirits like music. Once again, the same symbol means something to one, something else to the other, which is the point that I've been trying to make.

I agree that these inconsistencies from one medium to another makes it extremely difficult indeed to establish a viable method of testing, and that's why I sometimes doubt that mediumship will ever be scientifically proven to be real.

First, the thing about the "sheet music" was simply that if we believe JE then the "image" transferred to him obviously contained sufficient detail that he could recognise it as "sheet music", not as "newspaper". He saw details on the paper. If he didn't, then how did he know it was sheet music? He he *did* see details, then why can't the spirits makes one of the details be a 10 inch high letter "A"?

Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a world of difference between being able to show JE a piece of sheet music, which he undoubtedly can recognize even in a quick psychic flash, and sending a series of 10 inch high letters in an effort to spell out words and sentences. But then, what do either of us know? We're not psychic mediums. :) .....neo

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight
And I disagree with you, RC, about the spirits doing this "all the time". I think the letters that they give John are almost always given through clairaudience. At least, that has been my own observation. :) ......neo

Neo, I think you are missing something very big in JE's work. He was asked once if he "hears" or "sees" the initials, and he answered that he "sees" them. He went on to say that when he says that a spirit is "getting louder" he really means that he's "seeing" the letter getting bigger and bigger. He has said this many times and I'm really surprised you haven't caught it.

[RC]

AIDS IS NOT AN IRREGULARITY OF THE BLOOD!!!!!!!

[Clancie]

Posted by RC

He went on to say that when he says that a spirit is "getting louder" he really means that he's "seeing" the letter getting bigger and bigger. He has said this many times and I'm really surprised you haven't caught it.
Hi RC. Well, I was kind of surprised to read this, too, because frankly it doesn't ring a bell with me either. That doesn't mean he hasn't said it, of course, and maybe I just wasn't paying attention at the time. But I do watch him a lot and have no recollection of anything like that.

As far as AIDS, I posted earlier that I think JE groups it with hepatitis, leukemia, etc. as being what he gets as "blood related" to distinguish it from illness related to "head", "heart", "chest" etc.

Do you think that's so totally off-base? I mean, AIDS and forms of hepatitis can be transmitted through the blood and the Red Cross will reject someone as a blood donor if they have even the potential to have contracted either of them and could possibly pass on the virus through their blood.

I've never thought it was too off-base for JE to associate leukemia, AIDS and hepatitis as diseases that are blood-related. Do you think that seems like an unreasonable connection for him to make?

[Loki]

Neo,

As you can clearly see, JE is the first to acknowledge that he does what he does, and other mediums do what they do. Where does he say that he thinks that the stuff other mediums do is impossible, Loki?
Ah ... "pronoun trouble"! Sorry, I can see my language was unclear. I meant to say that JE and other mediums do not agree on what "a medium" can do - each one has things that are "impossible" for them, but not for others. Sylvia can diagnose the health of the sitter, but JE can't. JVP (I think it's him - he's not exactly a specialty of mine!) sees the future, but JE can't. Sylvia (my, but she is talented) can find dead bodies, but JE can't. The Pet Pychic can converse with elephants, but JE can't. And so on. The exact "skill set" and "boundaries" of each is different. We agree on this. The claims of each are unique - the only point I wished to make here is that "mediumship" and "what JE does" are not the same thing (even if there is considerable overlap).

Although it's true that JE has always acknowledged that he has no real control over who might come through, or what information he might get, that never prevents him from asking for certain things, and very often his request, e.g. for more information or something, is honored by spirit.
Again, perhaps I have just learned something! I always took JE's disclaimer to mean "I have no control over who comes through". You think this means "I have influence, but cannot make guarantees". These are not the same statement - do you have any references for your interpretation? Has JE made it clear that the spirits "listen" to his requests sometimes? How would he know this? What tests has he devised and undertaken to establish this?

I agree that these inconsistencies from one medium to another makes it extremely difficult indeed to establish a viable method of testing, and that's why I sometimes doubt that mediumship will ever be scientifically proven to be real.
I agree with every word of this - well, except for the one single solitary word "sometimes". I actually doubt this all the time!

Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a world of difference between being able to show JE a piece of sheet music, which he undoubtedly can recognize even in a quick psychic flash, and sending a series of 10 inch high letters in an effort to spell out words and sentences.
"a quick psychic flash"...now, really, how do we know it's a "flash"? But I digress - yes, I agree there's a world of difference. Especially notable would the difference in levels of ambiguity! How about a single sheet of white paper, with just two letters on it - the initials of the deceased. Would that be so hard? Gee, the spirits can show him a book so that he can read the title and author! They can show him pages with enough detial that he can tell the difference between musical notation and newsprint. What's so damn hard about a sheet of paper with 2 letters on it? The spirit, the sitter and JE all have letters within their "frame of reference" - it's clean, it's simple, it's unambiguous, and it's 'not possible'. Now why might that be....

But then, what do either of us know? We're not psychic mediums.
But then why take his word for it?

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Loki
I agree with every word of this - well, except for the one single solitary word "sometimes". I actually doubt this all the time!


Loki,

Do you feel that scientifically testing mediums is a worthwhile endeavor?

Mike

[Loki]

Mike D.

Do you feel that scientifically testing mediums is a worthwhile endeavor?
If it is/was done in a process something like the Ganzfeld studies then yes. Persistence, repeated research with an attempt to review and tighten methodology - and a focus on using separate methodologies to test and control for different aspects of "mediumship". The ad hoc nature of things like the Arizona trials seem to be little more than publicity machines for the psychic industry.

Personally, I wonder why the "psychic industry" is so disinterested in proving their claims?

[RC]

Clancie,

I really mean it when I'm surprised that you and Neo haven't seen JE talk about how he gets names. I have watched the show a million times and always hear him talk about "seeing" the letters and I've even heard him say that he doesn't "hear" spirits talk. Perhaps I'll have to start watching again, but for now I stand behind my comments. I am thinking of a very specific reading. He was reading this ditzy woman whose friend had died. JE kept trying to bring through a "T" name. The woman insisted that her friend was telling JE that she would meet a T guy as some love interest, but JE wouldn't go there. But JE did say that the spirit was getting "louder". She asked what he meant and he said that he was "seeing" the letter "T" getting bigger and bigger. I've also heard him answer a question from the audience about what is meant when he says "they're getting louder" and he clarified that what he was "seeing" is getting bigger and bigger. Maybe he said it in my seminar.

Anyway, regarding AIDS. AIDS is not transmitted by blood. I am assuming that you (and maybe JE ) are talking about HIV. HIV and AIDS aren't the same thing. I know that you know that, but it's important to me that we are accurate when talking about HIV and AIDS. Also, I think it's rather unimpressive that a medium would get all "blood-related" illnesses with the same symbol. Why does George Anderson see the word "AIDS" but JE can only get that someone died of AIDS....leukemia....hepatitis...and don't forget that he adds overdoses in this category. Maybe that's why GA gets $1,000 and JE only $300?

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC


Neo, I think you are missing something very big in JE's work. He was asked once if he "hears" or "sees" the initials, and he answered that he "sees" them. He went on to say that when he says that a spirit is "getting louder" he really means that he's "seeing" the letter getting bigger and bigger. He has said this many times and I'm really surprised you haven't caught it.

I challenge that idea, RC. It was my impression that JE "hears" the initials and names, although I agreed that there were a couple of times when a mental visual was involved, as in the case of that "T" that kept getting bigger and bigger.

AIDS IS NOT AN IRREGULARITY OF THE BLOOD!!!!!!!

RC, you don't have to shout! lol I understand this. So does JE. Still, medically accurate or not, that is the symbol that JE gets, and has always gotten for AIDS, leukemia, and I think even drug overdoses. If you did a blood test for any one of these three things, the results would be highly irregular. That is all this signifies to JE. Nothing more.

Please don't go all literal on me, RC. That's what Claus is for. ;) This is symbolism we are talking about here......neo

[Clancie]

Posted by RC

AIDS is not transmitted by blood. I am assuming that you (and maybe JE ) are talking about HIV. HIV and AIDS aren't the same thing. I know that you know that, but it's important to me that we are accurate when talking about HIV and AIDS.
You know, RC, I should know this, but I'm thinking about it and may be confused. Since I agree 100% that it's important to be accurate, so I'll just ask you here. (Understanding HIV/AIDS seems more important than understanding JE's process anyway).

Basically, HIV is the virus and can be transmitted by body fluids, right? Primarily through blood and sexual contact.

The virus can weaken the immune system and then various diseases can take advantage of that weakness. These are used to identify someone as having AIDS. Is that right so far? :confused:

As far as blood goes...HIV is what can be transmitted by blood, but not AIDS itself since that's the after-effect of infection, so to speak, when the immune system is weakened and disease sets in.

So, is that why I'm wrong (like JE) in saying AIDS (rather than HIV) is blood-related? :confused:

If so, I totally should have been more careful in accurately distinguishing between HIV and AIDS. :(

However, as far as JE goes, I'm not so sure. After all, since he's really just using a personal symbol that helps him tell a sitter, "Your friend/relative had AIDS", do you really think it matters if he distinguishes between HIV and AIDS in his symbols? For example, seeing AIDS as a "blood disorder" may be medically totally wrong, but its his own personal symbol that lets gets him to "AIDS" in his readings. Somehow that seems different to me than if the rest of us misuse it.

As for Karen....Well, her reading for you always sounds so much better than JE, but personally whenever I hear about a "long lingering illness" I always think of Robert Brown's similar description which always seems a safe bet to cover the final months of a lot of people who died from varied illnesses. To me, it would have sounded more specific if RB'd said "blood disease like AIDS" rather than just "a long and difficult illness that sapped energy".

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight


I challenge that idea, RC.


Hmm, now I'm going to have to start watching the show again. I truly am surprised that we (you, me, Clancie) aren't in sync on this. I could very well be wrong.

[RC]

Hi Clancie, yes, you have distinguished HIV and AIDS pretty well. HIV is a virus transmitted via bodily fluids. AIDS is sort of a global term used to describe a condition someone with HIV has entered when either having a particular opportunistic infection or when their immune system has reached a certain low point (such as a low number of T-cells). I'm sure someone out there will have a better way of distinguishing between the two.

True, what's the big deal when it comes to mediumship, but it's important to me that people understand the distinction. Yes, if JE's symbol for someone dying from complications of HIV/AIDS is the same as his symbol for leukemia, hepatitis, overdose, then so be it, it's his symbol. Maybe I'm just in a particulary anti-JE mood tonight, lol, but why wouldn't spirit give him special symbols? Why wouldn't he feel something in his liver to denote hepatitis? He feels pain in his head, heart, and lungs, so why not the liver? Why doesn't he see a bottle of pills to denote overdose? Just seems weird that he can get other causes of death more accurately (impact to the chest) but then has this totally vague, all-encompassing "blood" thingamajig.

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC
Clancie,

I really mean it when I'm surprised that you and Neo haven't seen JE talk about how he gets names. I have watched the show a million times and always hear him talk about "seeing" the letters and I've even heard him say that he doesn't "hear" spirits talk. Perhaps I'll have to start watching again, but for now I stand behind my comments.

RC, I've heard him talk about how he gets names many, many, many times, and he gets them clairaudiently. Trust me on this one. Here, I'll type an excerpt from "OLT" relating to names.....

("One Last Time" by John Edward)

Besides those of people, I have heard all kinds of names -- of places, songs, movies. I also hear phrases. But the clarity varies wildly. Very few things come in loud and clear, as if they've been handed to me in lightning bolts on a tablet and I can just read it: This just in from the Other Side. Clairaudience means "clear hearing,' but in reality it is far from that.

With names, for instance, sometimes I get the whole thing, other times just an initial or a sound. Sometimes it's analogous to a radio with very heavy static. You hear a voice, but it's not clear and you try to catch a word here or there. Other times the messages are very faint, like a whisper, or come and go incredibly fast. You catch it for a split second as it rushes by, like a train. And still other times it's like a voice that keeps breaking up. If a spirit were to try to give me the name James, I might just get the "J" sound or a "J-S" sound. "Ellen" might come through with the "L" sound strongest, or "L-N." By experience, I would probably know that the spirit is not giving an "L" initial, indicating it's a name that begins with that letter, but that it's the dominant sound. So I would give that as Ellen or Ellie or some variation......

It goes on, but you get the idea. I hope that clears that up for you, RC. On the other hand, I definitely do remember that "T" that JE was "seeing" in that particular reading. But as I said before, that is the exception, and not the rule. :) ......neo

[RC]

I do stand corrected, Neo, and thanks for posting that. Although I keep thinking of an answer he gave once when someone asked what he means by a spirit getting louder and he said that he just sees the letter getting bigger and bigger. This was different than the "T" reading you and I are both referring to. I could have sworn that in his answer he said that he doesn't hear letters but "sees" them. However, since I don't have exact quotes, and you do to back up your point, I will yield to you. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
There is no contradiction, Claus. You're right. For the most part, I think JE is the least vocal and the most cautious about what he says concerning what it might be like on the other side.

He does acknowledge that he gets little glimpses and quick impressions of what it might be like in that dimension, but he is also sensible enough to say that he, and we, are here in the physical realm, and not over there. That's why he is reluctant to say too much about it because after all, he really cannot "know" for certain, since he is here, and not there.

OK, then: He doesn't know what goes on Over There. Other mediums claim to know. OK.

Originally posted by neofight
Anything he might be shown of the afterlife would always be subject to his own interpretation anyhow, so I think he is wise not to give the impression that he knows it all. I fail to see the great big contradiction you mention, Claus......neo

I don't see a contradiction either, actually. I was responding to what Clancie had to say about it.

Originally posted by neofight
Well, call me crazy, Claus, but my guess would be that Clancie would want you to reference whatever part of RA's book that would make your case, you know? Prove your point. Demonstrate your claim. Of course, that's just a wild guess on my part. :D

Well, call me crazy, neo, but haven't we seen Clancie dismiss evidence, even when it is put before her? She just did, when I proved she never looked at the Graham Bishop sound clip before today.

Of course, that's not just a wild guess on my part.

Originally posted by neofight
Hmmm! Now this is interesting. Are you sure that you are not getting your "Gorgons" as well as your alibis mixed up here, Claus? lol Is that what you told us about that weekend? That you were away? I mean, it's possible, but I don't really have a clear memory of that. I do remember you saying something about getting some sunshine because it was such a nice day, but that's all I remember at this moment.

Instead of relying on your incredibly faulty memory, you should check the threads. Like I do.

Originally posted by neofight
You did, however, tell me about being away those couple of days back when I had posted one of JE's transcripts. You remember, the thread I started over at tvtalkshows that you made only one post on, demanding me to show you how that transcript differed from cold-reading.

That was the time that you said you were away for a couple of days. Hmmm. As much as I hate doing searches, I might just have to go check the tvtalkshow archives to refresh my memory of what you claimed at the time we were discussing your lack of knowledge concerning JE's books. The ones you claimed to have read. Were you away that weekend as well?

I think you are messing up the posts. But sure, do something you rarely do: Check!

Originally posted by neofight
Clancie, do you have any recollection of Claus ever saying that he was away that particular weekend? I mean, it's entirely possible. Anybody? I may have to go ask Rain to find that thread for me. Maybe she'll join us here, and we can have a "Gorgon" reunion. :roll: .....neo

"Recollections" won't serve as evidence of anything else than an utter inability to trust them.

Originally posted by neofight
No, I do not claim that all validations are 100% accurate and consistent across any timespan. However, I do not buy into the idea that sitters cannot be trusted to know whether or not certain things have occurred to them in their lives, which is what Claus is suggesting.

Say, for instance, that a woman had a miscarriage, and JE mentions that fact. According to Claus, she would have to go find someone else to verify that she did, indeed, have a miscarriage. The whole idea is ludicrous. Unless I'm not understanding your question, Darat.

Why? Why is it ludicrous? It is a pretty easy claim to verify, so why not do it? Why are you so against independent verification, when we know that memory is faulty?

Originally posted by neofight
Again, I would concede that memories can be unreliable, but I saw both Tim's original "Milk from a cow" reading, (more than once) AND the followup reading that he did some time later on. Nothing in the followup segment contradicted the original reading that was aired in any significant way whatsoever.

No?? I'll be...

Originally posted by neofight
In the followup segment, Tim merely explained the incident in even more depth than in the original segment. He clarified one or two things, but he didn't change his story at all. If Claus had seen these shows, he would know this......neo

Well, since you are now relying on your memory again (which is notoriously faulty, but seemingly always to the benefit of JE), we cannot really take your claim seriously.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, my memory of the thread is that he spent a week or more seemingly unable to discuss any information from JE's books (while still claiming to have read them). Then he disappeared for a weekend (a rare occurrence) and reemerged on Monday or Tuesday eager to show that he was indeed now acquainted with the books, even being able to quote one of them for us!

That's how I remember his "lost weekend" anyway,--that, and that it was pretty funny when he returned.

And, yes, he claimed he had not been reading JE books that weekend, just was "busy" elsewhere. It could be true...of course....all true....:p

Why not, Clancie? Do you know what happens in my life? Why is it impossible that I go away for a weekend? I read fast, but not that fast. Reading two books during a weekend? Ahh....that is a bit over my head.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, that reunion would be fun, neo! I wish Rain would come on board, and atmytv, too.

Yeah, why not? The more, the merrier...

Originally posted by Clancie
Just imagine how happy Claus would be with the three of us all here! I'm sure it would really make his day! :)

Sure, go ahead.

Originally posted by Clancie
I've never thought it was too off-base for JE to associate leukemia, AIDS and hepatitis as diseases that are blood-related. Do you think that seems like an unreasonable connection for him to make?

But that gives JE a huge range of diseases to choose from. Or rather, the sitter. Do you acknowledge that - should JE be a cold reader - this would give him a much better chance of a hit?

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


RC, I honestly do not know whether or not you are correct on this. I'd have to go back and read a George Anderson or JVP book to see if I could find any of their quotes that refer to a frame of reference. In any case, the personal frame of reference concept makes eminent sense to me....snip...

Might make sense to you but is in direct contradiction of other very succesful mediums.

Doris says "The bedroom door flew open so sharply I thought it was my mother bursting in, and there stood my father. My mouth dropped open. He looked as real and solid as he did when he was alive... "Dad?" I whispered " I never lied to you, did I Doll? he asked. "I don't think so". I said. " I'm not lying to you now. John is not with us and on Christmas day you will have proof of this." Then as I watched, he vanished."

JE says "But I don't see them the way I'm seeing you, because they're not of the physical world. They're vibrating at a higher frequency. It's kind of like taking a helicopter blade, you know, when it's not airborne, you can look and see there's four or five blades. Once it takes off and those blades are moving at an accelerated rate, at a higher frequency, you can't really see it, yet we know it's still there.
It's kind of like that. And I will see images in my mind. I will hear things, thoughts in my mind. And I will get clear sentient feelings. "

So here we have too very different accounts of how a "medium" accounts for what they do and how the communication works.

How do you reconcile the two into one process?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...

As far as AIDS, I posted earlier that I think JE groups it with hepatitis, leukemia, etc. as being what he gets as "blood related" to distinguish it from illness related to "head", "heart", "chest" etc.

Do you think that's so totally off-base? I mean, AIDS and forms of hepatitis can be transmitted through the blood and the Red Cross will reject someone as a blood donor if they have even the potential to have contracted either of them and could possibly pass on the virus through their blood.

I've never thought it was too off-base for JE to associate leukemia, AIDS and hepatitis as diseases that are blood-related. Do you think that seems like an unreasonable connection for him to make?

Then you'd have to accept that "blood disease" is any disease that can be transmitted by blood - in otherwords nearly every single disease can be called a "blood disease"....

Using the “Red Cross” argument as a standard you'd have to say the human form of mad cow disease is a "blood disease", after all the USA wont accept blood from anyone in the UK because of the risk of it being transmitted via a transfusion.

I would suggest that if you are willing to give JE this latitude with blood disease then it ceases to be meaningful at all, it can be made to fit nearly any disease.

[CFLarsen]

Heavens (!) to Betsy, let's look at the whole glossary. These are all terms that JE uses.

"Above - Older than the guest being read, in some way: parents, grandparents, older friend or relative. (general terms but not specific to guest)"

So, anyone "older". That should give us a few to choose from.

"To The Side - Refers to a spirit or person who is the same age as the guest who is being read. A sibling, friend or cousin. (general terms but not specific to guest) "

Question is, how wide a range should we accept? 1 year older, 5 years younger, 10 years older? A "sibling" is not a "cousin"? "Friend" is a very wide-ranging term - who is your "friend"? Your colleagues? This will be dependent on what the sitter says, and we know that we cannot trust the sitters for validation. We certainly don't know when we can trust them.

"Below - Younger than the guest being read. A child or younger sibling or friend. (general terms but not specific to guest) "

Same as with "To The Side".

"White Rose - A sign of congratulations. Celebratory. (Happy Birthday) "

Any positive event covers this: A birth, graduation, birthday, wedding day (heck, even divorce day!), your kid brings home a sports prize, you find a wallet with a 1000 dollars.....

"Pink Rose - An expression of love. "

Could be anything: Love of a dog, wife, husband, kid, relative, car...

"Pink Rose with Thorns - Indicates that a person had a hard time expressing their love when they were here. "

Hey, don't we all feel that at times? If this isn't a general term, then I don't know what is.

"Parallel Line - A parallel between the spirit and the guest; same name, similar interests or physical appearance. (or related dates) "

This includes so many options that it is mind-blowing! Where to start? How many are called John/Johan/Jonie/Jon? Is an interest in the Civil War "parallel" to an interest in history? Do brunettes validate this?

"Black Spots - Indicates the spirit had cancer. (or severe health issues in that area) "

Cancer or "severe health issues" will account for just about anything that can kill you - and not even that. Arthritis is serious, but so is lung cancer.

"Flowing Blood - Indicates the cause of death was some type of blood disorder. (leukemia, hepatitis, AIDS, and/or drug overdose) "

Already covered. Way too many options.

"Numbers - Usually symbolizes an important date such as a birth or death, or another significant date. "

As we have seen, the "7 of the month or 7th month" will apply to just about anyone. Funny JE doesn't get "13th of the month" quite as often as he gets those under 13...

"Names - The spirit either gives a clearly recognizable name, an initial or a sound to convey its message. "

When have we a confirmed occurrence of a "clearly recognizable name"? Are we playing the "sound-alike" game here? If initials or sound are used to convey messages, then anything can be fitted.

"Clairaudience (clear hearing) - Ability to hear sounds physically. Sometimes the thoughts are clearer than others. "

Since these following are in the glossary, we have to assume that JE gets information this way.

Note that the term "physically" is used. Not in JE's mind, but he actually hears sounds.

"Clairvoyance (clear seeing) - Ability to interpret objects, symbols and scenes from the spirit. The images can be both literal and symbolic. This is also a way for the spirit to convey what they looked like in their physical body. "

Do we assume here that, when you croak, you change your physical appearance?

"Clairsentience (clear sensing) - The way in which a spirit conveys emotion. This can be how they feel now as well as the way they felt at the time of their death. This is often in the form of "sympathetic pain," in which the spirit makes John "feel" what they feel. "

Covered elsewhere, but worthy of repeating: I bet most felt pretty bad about dying! "Hey, kids, I'm gonna croak! Yipeekayeh!"

"Clairalience (clear smelling)/Clairambience (clear tasting) - Receiving smells and tastes to convey in John's reading. This can be a scent or a taste closely related to the spirit. "

Whoa, just a second! So, spirits are able to convey something that is not within JE's "frame of reference"? Can he get the scent of say, some local Indian spice and still recognize it?

I think we have a very long debate ahead of us....! :rolleyes:

[SteveGrenard]

Blood borne diseases are blood borne diseases. Not every disease is blood borne. Some can be transmited by aerosol contact, some by direct contact and others by other body fluids;
many are transmitted by insects into the blood (e.g. malaria, WNV, etc) and others by ingestion. ALL diseases are not blood borne diseases nor do all diseases affect the blood. Pathologic organisms such as viruses, bacteria, fungi and larger parasites can find their way into humans and larger animal hosts by a variety of means. Many diseases are also genetic, or hereditary,
congenital or the results of various insults not related to the blood in any way. The blood circulation is certainly a river used by infectious diseases to distribute themselves and when infectious organisms ride this they certainly can be blood borne.

AIDS and HIV can very much be considered "blood diseases" not only because they are blood (and yes other fluid) borne but also because their principal pathology involve alterations in white blood cells of the blood known as CD4+ T-lymphocyteswhich help confer immunity.

The T-lymphocyte count even in the absence of a specific ELISA or western blot to determine HIV, may alert health care workers that a patient CAN have HIV or its consequence: AIDS.


More pointedly: it really interests me why skeptics such as Third Twin (or others..didnt mean to single third out) who is very knowledegable about medicine never seems to correct statements made by fellow skeptics or involve themselves in clarifications of such arguments. There is a pathology here borne of bias and that's why I have decided not to post as frequently as I have in the past. This forum is at risk of disintegrating into a playground for opposing biases rather than truth.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Do you agree that "blood related" gives JE a very wide range of diseases to let the sitter choose from?

You can PM ThirdTwin if you want him to answer.

[SteveGrenard]

Do you agree that "blood related" gives JE a very wide range of diseases to let the sitter choose from?

We all have to physically die of something. Blood diseases or blood borne diseases are not on the top of the list: heart disease and cancer is. When a medium sees or hears an impact that is not a blood borne or blood disease either. When a medium gets overdose of drugs this is not a blood disease. Sure grouping diseases or causes of deaths within larger categories, e.g. blood, widens the net. So? If a medium says blood related and then the victim died of a heart attack, I'd say the medium was wrong. Someone will stretch to make the lipids in the blood and the plaques narrowing the coronary arteries into "blood related." I would disagree. There needs to be and there is specificity in the information mediums get. I do not speak here of JE necessarily although I have seen him get specific diagnoses right off. JE got three cause of death as suciidie by gunshot for a single sitter.These were not blood diseases. JE got a son of a man who was found hanged from a tree in the back of the house. This was not a blood disease. JE got the death of a son of a man who was impacted in the chest. This was not a blood disease.

Are Hepatitis B & C and HIV/AIDS blood related diseases? Yes.
There is a high degree of association between the blood and these diseases in the minds of almost everyone.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Is it impossible for you to answer a simple question with a simple answer? I didn't ask you to list all the possible causes of death, I just asked if it gave JE a very wide range of diseases to let the sitter choose from.

I see, however, that you do agree. Do we really say that JE is "accurate", when he "nails" a "blood-related" disease (or rather, let the sitter do it for him)?

You point to heart disease. That's "blood related" as well. Also, cancer can be "blood related" (leukemia).

You speak very generally of mediums, when you talk about "impact". Do you have any comparative analysis to point to, or is this just another blanket statement of yours?

You forget that it is entirely up to the sitter to decide what constitutes a hit. Therefore, it is irrelevant what you think other people think are hits. If they validate it, it is validated.

The problem is, of course, just because people think a disease is blood-related doesn't make it so.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat


Might make sense to you but is in direct contradiction of other very succesful mediums.

I don't know that "contradiction" would be the correct word to use, Darat. JE is probably more aware than any of us concerning the various types of mediumship there are. He is describing his own experiences, not that of other mediums. Their abilities vary.


Doris says "The bedroom door flew open so sharply I thought it was my mother bursting in, and there stood my father. My mouth dropped open. He looked as real and solid as he did when he was alive... "Dad?" I whispered " I never lied to you, did I Doll? he asked. "I don't think so". I said. " I'm not lying to you now. John is not with us and on Christmas day you will have proof of this." Then as I watched, he vanished."

JE says "But I don't see them the way I'm seeing you, because they're not of the physical world. They're vibrating at a higher frequency. It's kind of like taking a helicopter blade, you know, when it's not airborne, you can look and see there's four or five blades. Once it takes off and those blades are moving at an accelerated rate, at a higher frequency, you can't really see it, yet we know it's still there.
It's kind of like that. And I will see images in my mind. I will hear things, thoughts in my mind. And I will get clear sentient feelings. "

So here we have too very different accounts of how a "medium" accounts for what they do and how the communication works.

Again, I think I've already mentioned this, but I'll repeat. This sounds more like a vision that Doris Stokes had. This is not DS doing readings. I read a portion of a transcript of DS readings, and it was not exceptional at all. Randi had it on this very site a while back.

Furthermore, when JE was very young, he, too, was able to actkually see spirits. At the age of five or six, he used to see a little old man sitting at the table next to his grandmother, and he often dreamed of this man as well. Once, when he was older, JE looked up from where he was doing homework, on his bed, and he saw him standing in the doorway, smiling. He asked him grandmother about it, and she told him not to worry, that it was his grandpa lieting him know he was around. His grandpa had dies about seven years before JE was born.

So there is really nothing to reconcile, Darat. Mediums doing readings is one thing, these visions or ability to actually see spirits is something else entirely.

This type of thing happens only very rarely to JE these days, but JVP and GA claim to see spirits all the time when they are doing readings. I'm sure others do as well. That means that their clairvoyance is very strong. JE's is not. He's often said that clairaudience is his stronger ability. :) ....neo

[CFLarsen]

neo,

What's the difference between a "vision" and "getting flashes of information from the spirit world"?

[SteveGrenard]

C: Is it impossible for you to answer a simple question with a simple answer?

Reply: Not on a subject like this. I am not in the witness chair,
answering yes or no. It is necessary to explicate my answers.

C: I see, however, that you do agree. Do we really say that JE is "accurate", when he "nails" a "blood-related" disease (or rather, let the sitter do it for him)?

You point to heart disease. That's "blood related" as well. Also, cancer can be "blood related" (leukemia).

Reply: Leukemia is blood related and is treated by hematological oncologists. Heart disease, I said specifically, is not blood related and it is a stretch I would not accept myself.

C: You speak very generally of mediums, when you talk about "impact". Do you have any comparative analysis to point to, or is this just another blanket statement of yours?

Reply: An impact means bang bang, hit by a bullet. Whack, whack hit by something or smashed in someway. Not a blood
disease. When JE said he got impacts for people, the family confirms their loved one died by bullet or other type of impact.
You dont need to be an expert to know this category of cause of death. No, I have not done a survey on JE's hit rate when it comes to cause of death. Have you done one? If not, you can't make any claims either, especially ones that serve to confirm your bias. I was not being general, I was being specific and pointed to specific instances of JE getting hits that were not blood related. He gets them.


C: You forget that it is entirely up to the sitter to decide what constitutes a hit. Therefore, it is irrelevant what you think other people think are hits. If they validate it, it is validated.


Reply: I agree sitters are not always in full posession of medical details concerning a passing. JE described for one a burning around the heart. The deceased had breast cancer. A heart on
fire or burning is not a symptom of breast cancer. JE did not give the breast cancer as a cause of death or even get it.

The sitter, in this case astute, said yes. The radiation treatment had burned or scarred the heart causing death. This is an extremely rare complication of radiation treatment (radiation cardiomyopthay) to the chest for breast and lung cancer. It was followed up and found to be correct. Another case involved the medium seeing a person with two hearts. Any medical expert would know they had a piggy back transplant which is also extremely rare (7 to 10 done a year in the U.S.) Family might know this as well.

C: The problem is, of course, just because people think a disease is blood-related doesn't make it so.

Reply: An expert medical opinion is required. You are not in a posession to judge this either. I agree also this is one slim area of a mediumistic reading where external expertise should be used when necessary to render the information valid or not. Is this what you mean by indpendent verification? If so, I agree with you. We finally get a definition of a term from Larsen.

The other 99% of the reading, besides cause of death, may involve things that only family and people close to the deceased would know. This makes them experts on this.

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Then you'd have to accept that "blood disease" is any disease that can be transmitted by blood - in otherwords nearly every single disease can be called a "blood disease"....
Hi Darat.

A couple of problems with that idea, Darat. The most important is that, no, the way JE uses this it would not be fair to say that he leaves the door wide open to almost every disease that shows up in the blood.

JE gets a pressure in his chest for heart attack, sees blackness in the lungs for emphysema or lung cancer. When he sees or feels strong awareness of the circulatory system throughout the entire body, that is his personal symbol for someone having "AIDS, hepatitis, or leukemia". *

He doesn't leave it open for "everything that is possibly blood related, take your pick."

*edited to add...and overdose, per below.

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


...snip...

Again, I think I've already mentioned this, but I'll repeat. This sounds more like a vision that Doris Stokes had. This is not DS doing readings. I read a portion of a transcript of DS readings, and it was not exceptional at all. Randi had it on this very site a while back.



That's your explanation however DS was always clear that she saw and heard the spirits as clear as she did the living. I am sure DS knew more about how her mediumship worked then you or I do.

Originally posted by neofight


…snip…

So there is really nothing to reconcile, Darat. Mediums doing readings is one thing, these visions or ability to actually see spirits is something else entirely.



What there is to reconcile is your claim that there is a distinct "process" of mediumship - yet I and others have been able to show you many examples of where JE and other mediums are at odds with each other and even say that there isn't just "a process".

Do you concede your claim was incorrect, that there is no established "process" that mediums use?

[RC]

Don't forget overdose. It's AIDS, hepatitis, leukemia, and overdose.

But that's all........

Anyone have stats on deaths from above diseases? I imagine a lot of people have died from one of the 4 categories.

I also think that you'd find that many younger people die from one of these conditions, so if JE is "bringing through" a younger male, I'll bet it's a safe guess for him to do his "blood disorder" validation.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Not on a subject like this. I am not in the witness chair, answering yes or no. It is necessary to explicate my answers.

Steve, stop the drama queen act. It's just a simple question.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Leukemia is blood related and is treated by hematological oncologists. Heart disease, I said specifically, is not blood related and it is a stretch I would not accept myself.

It doesn't matter what you would do. It all depends on the sitter.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: An impact means bang bang, hit by a bulletin. Whack, whack hit by something or smashed in someway. Not a blood disease. When JE said he got impacts for poeple, the family confirms their loved one died by bulletin or other type of impact. You dont need to be an expert to know this category of cause of death.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No, I have not done a survey on JE's hit rate when it comes to cause of death. Have you done one? If not, you can't make any claims either, especially ones that serve to confirm your bias. I was not being general, I was being specific and pointed to specific instances of JE getting hits that were not blood related. He gets them.

No, you were not being "specific" and you were not speaking of JE:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
When a medium sees or hears an impact that is not a blood borne or blood disease either. When a medium gets overdose of drugs this is not a blood disease. Sure grouping diseases or causes of deaths within larger categories, e.g. blood, widens the net. So? If a medium says blood related and then the victim died of a heart attack, I'd say the medium was wrong. Someone will stretch to make the lipids in the blood and the plaques narrowing the coronary arteries into "blood related." I would disagree. There needs to be and there is specificity in the information mediums get. I do not speak here of JE necessarily although I have seen him get specific diagnoses right off.

No survey, then. Just another blanket statement from you.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I agree sitters are not always in full posession of medical details concerning a passing. JE described for one a burning around the heart. The deceased had breast cancer. A heart on fire or burning is not a symptom of breast cancer. JE did not give the breast cancer as a cause of death or even get it.

The sitter, in this case astute, said yes. The radiation treatment had burned or scarred the heart causing death. This is an extremely rare complication of radiation treatment (radiation cardiomyopthay) to the chest for breast and lung cancer. It was followed up and found to be correct. Another case involved the medium seeing a person with two hearts. Any medical expert would know they had a piggy back transplant which is also extremely rare (7 to 10 done a year in the U.S.) Family might know this as well.

Good! So you agree that we cannot rely on the sitters.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: An expert medical opinion is required. You are not in a posession to judge this either.

I didn't say I was, nor was I implying that you were.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I agree also this is one slim area of a mediumistic reading where external expertise should be used when necessary to render the information valid or not. Is this what you mean by indpendent verification? If so, I agree with you. We finally get a definition of a term from Larsen.

"Slim area"? Mediums - JE included - use these broad medical terms all the time, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The other 99% of the reading, besides cause of death, may involve things that only family and people close to the deceased would know. This makes them experts on this.

Perhaps you have some statistical analysis??

[Clancie]

RC,

You're right and I've edited to add in overdose.

re: younger people. Well, the leading cause of death in under 18's by far is accidents. So, actually, I'm always surprised that he mentions illness as much as he does for that age group.

Darat,

re: Stokes and JE. "Clairvoyant, clairaudient, clairsentient".

My understanding is that every medium uses some combination of these as his/her "process".

It sounds like Stokes' (if she's legit, which as neo points out, Randi didn't feel she was), is claiming a process that is highly clairvoyant.

JE claims to be more strongly clairaudient, with clairvoyance showing up in the symbols he sees.

This doesn't seem problematic in itself to me, btw. We non-mediums don't all think alike and cognitive strengths and weaknesses can vary greatly from one person to the next.

It doesn't seem so incredible to me, or invalidate the idea of mediumship, if there are mediums with greater strength in clairvoyance than JE has.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
When he sees or feels strong awareness of the circulatory system throughout the entire body, that is his personal symbol for someone having "AIDS, hepatitis, or leukemia". *

No, JE sees AIDS as a blood disorder, according to neofight:

TVTalkshows
(neofight) 152.163.189.131 10-29-2002 01:55 PM
We know he (JE) gets lung cancer as blackness to the chest ares, AIDS as toxins in the blood or blood disorder, malaria, who knows, hit by car while crossing street, as a severe impact, not localized as a gunshot would be.

"AIDS as toxins in the blood or blood disorder." Perhaps we could get a comment from neofight. And you.

Originally posted by Clancie
JE gets a pressure in his chest for heart attack, sees blackness in the lungs for emphysema or lung cancer.

He get a pressure in his chest for heart attack? That's completely opposite of what neofight claims:

TVTalkshows
(neofight) 152.163.201.191 05-14-2002 02:03 PM
Well of course it does, dogwood, if in one article he's quoting things that JVP might say, and then writes another article about John Edward and uses the same type of quotes, something like "do you have a ring or a piece of jewelry on you, please?" Or, "I'm feeling a pain in the chest. "Did he have cancer, please? Because I'm seeing a slow death here." This is JVP's style of speaking, not John Edward's. For Shermer to write about Edward as though he knows what he is talking about, when it's obvious that he doesn't, to me indicates that he has lumped all mediums together and has a pre-disposed tendency to believe that they are all fakes, not based on his own research of the medium's claims, but based upon his anti-paranormal bias.

TVTalkshows
(neofight) 205.188.199.177 05-14-2002 09:52 AM
From the articles that Michael Shermer writes, it is patently obvious that he has nothing but distain for John Edward. As I pointed out on some other thread, he writes negative and demeaning articles about JVP and then reprints basically the same article, simply replacing JVP's name with that of John Edward, not even bothering to re-work the body of the article much. I think that is really tacky and lazy, and does not demonstrate any attempt at all at fairness or objectivity. It's the same old accusations of "cold-reading" and "parlor trick" every time. It's obvious from reading Shermer's commentary that, like the majority of JE's detractors, he does not watch "Crossing Over" yet he feels justified in making these blanket statements as to the validity of JE's claims to mediumship. That just frosts me.

neofight is talking about Shermer's article "Deconstructing the Dead": She claims that Shermer is describing the methods of JVP, not JE.

Clancie, it would seem that you are in direct conflict with what neofight has said. It would also seem that you do not agree with neofight that Shermer misattributed "chest pressures" to JE.

Would you care to comment?

[Clancie]

Claus,

Well, (this is going to really surprise you...but it is perfectly conceivable to me that neo could be right and I could be...wrong! Yes it is!

However, I'm not convinced that we actually are disagreeing at all. She said JE gets the four things we all agree on he sees symbolically as "blood disorder".

He also has talked about how it feels in a reading, to get the feeling of blood disorder, i.e. that its kind of a whole-body toxic circulatory feeling he associates with these "blood disorders" as his symbol.

I'm not convinced there's a contradiction at all. Just that we're each mentioning aspects of the same process/symbol/feeling. "Circulating toxins" being his symbol/feeling for "blood disorders" which he categorizes as those four things.

As for the quote....:confused:


"Did he have cancer, please? Because I'm seeing a slow death here." This is JVP's style of speaking, not John Edward's.
I agree with neo here, too. And it also sounds like Suzane Northrop with the "please". It doesn't sound like JE at all, and I think its very sloppy of Shermer to mix them up, especially as he's quite familiar with JVP's work.

Likewise, for heart attack. What do you see as contradictory? "Pain in the chest" vs. "pressure in the chest"? I don't see from your quotes what big contradiction there is, Claus.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
re: younger people. Well, the leading cause of death in under 18's by far is accidents. So, actually, I'm always surprised that he mentions illness as much as he does for that age group.

How often does he do this? Can you point to the statistical analysis that proves this?

Originally posted by Clancie
My understanding is that every medium uses some combination of these as his/her "process".

Problem is that the combinations contradict each other.

Originally posted by Clancie
It sounds like Stokes' (if she's legit, which as neo points out, Randi didn't feel she was), is claiming a process that is highly clairvoyant.

Why do you all of a sudden point to Randi as someone who is capable of judging if a medium is legit or not, when you don't think he is capable of doing the same re. JE? That is highly inconsistent of you.

Originally posted by Clancie
JE claims to be more strongly clairaudient, with clairvoyance showing up in the symbols he sees.

Where does he say this? References, please?

Originally posted by Clancie
This doesn't seem problematic in itself to me, btw. We non-mediums don't all think alike and cognitive strengths and weaknesses can vary greatly from one person to the next.

It doesn't seem so incredible to me, or invalidate the idea of mediumship, if there are mediums with greater strength in clairvoyance than JE has.

But if they contradict each other? It's not just a question of various degrees of the same method.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,

Well, (this is going to really surprise you...but it is perfectly conceivable to me that neo could be right and I could be...wrong! Yes it is!

We shall see about that.

Originally posted by Clancie
However, I'm not convinced that we actually are disagreeing at all.

See?

Originally posted by Clancie
She said JE gets the four things we all agree on he sees symbolically as "blood disorder".

He also has talked about how it feels in a reading, to get the feeling of blood disorder, i.e. that its kind of a whole-body toxic circulatory feeling he associates with these "blood disorders" as his symbol.

I'm not convinced there's a contradiction at all. Just that we're each mentioning aspects of the same process/symbol/feeling. "Circulating toxins" being his symbol/feeling for "blood disorders" which he categorizes as those four things.

No, Clance, you are talking around this, in order to avoid conflict with neo. There is a clear contradiction between what you say and what neo says.


Originally posted by Clancie
As for the quote....:confused:

I agree with neo here, too. And it also sounds like Suzane Northrop with the "please". It doesn't sound like JE at all, and I think its very sloppy of Shermer to mix them up, especially as he's quite familiar with JVP's work.

Likewise, for heart attack. What do you see as contradictory? "Pain in the chest" vs. "pressure in the chest"? I don't see from your quotes what big contradiction there is, Claus.

But you are saying that JE indeed uses this phrase. Neo claims that he does not. That's not a contradiction??

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...


This doesn't seem problematic in itself to me, btw. We non-mediums don't all think alike and cognitive strengths and weaknesses can vary greatly from one person to the next.

It doesn't seem so incredible to me, or invalidate the idea of mediumship, if there are mediums with greater strength in clairvoyance than JE has.

But my issue here is the the claim that Neo made, to paraphrase, "there is a process", we have several mediums quoted as disagreeing with Neo over this point, including JE himself.

Whether one medium is better then another is not the point, this is about Neo's apparent insistence that mediums have a process that involves a "frame of reference".

Several of us have provided evidence, in the words of mediums that this is not the case. It's not a big thing and I am sure that Neo will, once she has considered it, realise that the evidence put forward here means that her theory of an established process that includes “frame of reference” is not supported by the evidence.

(And you are now citing and accepting Randi as an authority on mediums? :eek: :) I wonder what he thinks about JE? ;) )

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by RC
I do stand corrected, Neo, and thanks for posting that. Although I keep thinking of an answer he gave once when someone asked what he means by a spirit getting louder and he said that he just sees the letter getting bigger and bigger. This was different than the "T" reading you and I are both referring to. I could have sworn that in his answer he said that he doesn't hear letters but "sees" them. However, since I don't have exact quotes, and you do to back up your point, I will yield to you. :)

Hey, RC! I think you have yielded too soon. I, too, have distinct recollections of JE being shown letters. I watched CO today, and he was getting the letter "V", and he was mimicking someone writing a big letter "V" with his finger, as though writing on a blackboard. I have seen him do this with other letters, too, and he does it a lot.

If JE is hearing the letters clairaudiently, why does he need to mimick writing them? It always seemed to me that he was trying to show the audience what he was seeing.

I recall JE saying that he had difficulty with the letter "V", but I have no transcript to support my claim.

I have seen JE mimick writing the big "V" in other readings, and he said that there is a big "V" connection over the family.

I do not know why Neo does not remember JE showing us the letters. I, too, have read JE's books, and I know what he says about his method of communicating with the dead. However, what he writes and what he says are often two different things, and he does not offer explanations because his fans do not demand any.

This is a big inconsistency, not to be glossed over and minimized, IMO.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Instig8R
This is a big inconsistency, not to be glossed over and minimized, IMO.

You know the criterion for what is important about JE: If it in any way diminishes the possibility that he is a real medium, then it is not important.

It will be downplayed, explained away or downright ignored. Or, if that isn't possible, focus will be shifted away from the issue.

It's really very simple. Completely fascinating to watch, though.

[SteveGrenard]

Maybe I missed something but is someone saying an overdose is a blood disorder? It is not. The usual drugs used in an overdose are carried to the brain by the plasma or liquid part of the blood, not whole blood, and kill by suppressing respiration, in effect asphyxiating the victim. It would be an unacceptable stretch to consider this a blood disorder. Death is due to respiratory failure by chemical suppression of the respiratory centers. It is neurological. Unlike HIV or leukemnia, the usual drugs used in fatal overdoses have no direct effect on the components of the blood.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R
I do not know why Neo does not remember JE showing us the letters.


Hello, Instig8R. Tsk tsk! That is not what I said! :D If you go back and check my posts, I think you will find that I never said what you just claimed I did. I distinctly remember telling RC that I most definitely do recall JE on a couple of occasions stating that he was seeing some letter or other.

I also stated that this was not the more common manner in which he got the letters. Most often he gets them through clairaudience is what I said. Come on now. Let's keep this accurate! ;) .....neo

[Darat]

Neo - have you looked into the evidence that seems to disprove your theory about mediums sharing a process that includes "frame of reference"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Maybe I missed something but is someone saying an overdose is a blood disorder? It is not. The usual drugs used in an overdose are carried to the brain by the plasma or liquid part of the blood, not whole blood, and kill by suppressing respiration, in effect asphyxiating the victim. It would be an unacceptable stretch to consider this a blood disorder. Death is due to respiratory failure by chemical suppression of the respiratory centers. It is neurological. Unlike HIV or leukemnia, the usual drugs used in fatal overdoses have no direct effect on the components of the blood.

It doesn't matter! If the sitter claims a hit, then it's a hit!

[neofight]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Maybe I missed something but is someone saying an overdose is a blood disorder? It is not. The usual drugs used in an overdose are carried to the brain by the plasma or liquid part of the blood, not whole blood, and kill by suppressing respiration, in effect asphyxiating the victim. It would be an unacceptable stretch to consider this a blood disorder. Death is due to respiratory failure by chemical suppression of the respiratory centers. It is neurological. Unlike HIV or leukemnia, the usual drugs used in fatal overdoses have no direct effect on the components of the blood.

Okay. This is not your fault, Steve, but I am going to say this one more time, and only one more time, because this issue that is being discussed on this thread is the biggest NON-issue that we could ever waste our time on.

No, Steve. Nobody is claiming that a drug overdose is technically or medically considered a blood disorder. We are merely saying, Clancie and I, that when JE does a reading, he has learned through experience, that when he sees a certain symbol, it consistently means a certain thing to him, and when he is shown an image of the circulatory system, he has learned, again, through experience, that it indicates that someone either died of AIDS, of leukemia, or of a drug overdose.

It doesn't have to make sense, or be correct. That is not the issue. It is simply the way he knows what health problem to reference. I doubt he picked this symbol by himself. More likely, it was kind of "assigned" to him, and he has gotten to trust what it means.

I'm sure he does not know why he sees this particular symbol, or why it is the same symbol for three obviously different conditions, but nonetheless, that is the symbol he gets for these blood-related (for want of a better word) *disorders*. Irregularities. Problems. Conditions. Call them what you will. If someone has died from any of these *problems*, he will get the same symbol, the circulatory system, to get him to say one of these things, and he is consistently correct with this info......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat
Neo - have you looked into the evidence that seems to disprove your theory about mediums sharing a process that includes "frame of reference"?

Darat, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Either that, or we are completely misunderstanding one another. I'll try this again...... :)

Like the word or not, mediumship is a process. For mediums like JE, they get their information from people who have crossed over. They get it psychically. Through telepathy. From spirit.

JE might not get a piece of information in quite the same way as another medium might. Know why? Because the mediumship process, which you feel does not exist, is such that each medium gets his messages in a way that he or she will best understand them. In other words, he gets information within his own frame of reference. That is why they all get it in a unique way. So that it makes sense to THEM.

There is no contradiction here, anywhere. I don't even understand what everyone is agonizing over. It's such a red herring. From what I can guess, you are troubled that some mediums seem to be more clairvoyant than others. They can actually *see* (again, psychically) spirits standing next to the people that they read. Some do, and some don't. Why does that bother you? I'm at a loss here to understand all this big to do over nothing.

Do you feel like trying to explain it to me once more?.....neo

[CFLarsen]

neo,

I'm afraid your explanation raises more questions than it provides answers.

E.g., how can JE claim to be a "vehicle", if he and his personal frame of reference are pivotal to the communication between the spirit and the sitter?

We also have to ask how much of JE is in those readings. Don't we run a very high risk of this simply is JE fantasizing (let's be kind and not call him a crook) and the sitter interpreting what he says?

Ìt also means that the spirits can somehow go "into" JE's mind, "read" his personal references, and then convert their own experiences to however he sees it.

Far from explaining it, you are actually providing more ammunition for the skeptic camp. I'm not stopping you, I'm merely saying that you make a very lousy case here.

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


Darat, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Either that, or we are completely misunderstanding one another. I'll try this again...... :)

Like the word or not, mediumship is a process. For mediums like JE, they get their information from people who have crossed over. They get it psychically. Through telepathy. From spirit.

JE might not get a piece of information in quite the same way as another medium might. Know why? Because the mediumship process, which you feel does not exist, is such that each medium gets his messages in a way that he or she will best understand them. In other words, he gets information within his own frame of reference. That is why they all get it in a unique way. So that it makes sense to THEM.

There is no contradiction here, anywhere. I don't even understand what everyone is agonizing over. It's such a red herring. From what I can guess, you are troubled that some mediums seem to be more clairvoyant than others. They can actually *see* (again, psychically) spirits standing next to the people that they read. Some do, and some don't. Why does that bother you? I'm at a loss here to understand all this big to do over nothing.

Do you feel like trying to explain it to me once more?.....neo

Explain what?

That you claim there is a recognisable "process" involved in mediumship? A claim that mediums themselves including John Edward say isn't true!

And that it can with only a few minutes research on the internet be shown that at least a few other well known and claimed by thousands to be real mediums have a totally different "process" then JE to communicate with the dead?

And that you claim is why JE can't get letters etc. "as a rule"?


These are just a few quotes from you many posting in this thread that touches on this "process" idea.

By Neofight (These are extracted from longer posts in this thread that can be found a couple of pages behind this page.)


...snip...

On the other hand, for those of us who believe that it just might be real, this is such a cool validation and it shows exactly how the process of mediumship works. John got the sense of someone dying from a sharp blow to the head, in conjunction with seeing an image of a tame rabbit.

...snip...

As far as I can tell from reading about George Anderson, and from watching James Van Praagh do readings on his show, "Beyond", the process is pretty similar from one medium to another, although I believe that they each have their strong suits as well as their weak areas.

...snip...


Fair question, Loki, but not being a medium myself, I can't really answer it for you. I don't know why mediums don't seem to get letters, but as a rule, they don't.

...snip...


In theory, since the spirits tend to give information that is within the medium's own personal frame of reference, I'd guess that the rabbit, (presumably a white rabbit) was within JE's frame of reference that would indicate something magic or magician-related. JE does not have white boards with the words "magician" or "Uncle Fred" within his own frame of reference.

...snip...


True, sometimes JE does not interpret the image or message perfectly, and it is the sitter who clarifies the subtlety or specificity of the information as it relates to themselves, since they are the only ones who know their friends, family and past experiences, and not JE. I don't believe he is reading the sitters' minds.....neo

...snip...




Neo you may believe you are being rational and objective about JE. However the evidence (in this thread) on this issue of JE's and other mediums "process" is that not only will you ignore facts but that you will also create “rationalisations” that are not supported by facts rather then ever considering that JE cannot not do what he claims he can i.e. communicate with the dead.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Instead of relying on your incredibly faulty memory, you should check the threads. Like I do.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, please! Stop lying, Clancie! You know damn well that I was away that weekend - the two days you mentioned. Which I explained to you, and which you have conveniently "forgotten".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, Claus. I took your advice, and I went back and found the relevant thread in which you supposedly went away for the weekend. Funny, but at the time, you made absolutely NO mention of having gone away for the weekend. You simply mention that it was such a nice sunny Sunday that you didn't feel like sitting indoors at a computer. How curious! If you had really gone away for that weekend, it would seem that you would have mentioned that fact to make yourself seem more credible. ;)
Here's the link.

tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25278&perpage=50&highlight=john (http://)

And here are the relevant excerpts, although the thread is quite entertaining for anyone who likes to read this stuff. :D I think we caught Claus in another, uh, inconsistency. ;) First, a little background. Here's what Clancie remembered about this weekend, and my recollection is the same. When Cantata posted after that weekend, he had all three of the answers that we had been begging him for the week before. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, my memory of the thread is that he spent a week or more seemingly unable to discuss any information from JE's books (while still claiming to have read them). Then he disappeared for a weekend (a rare occurrence) and reemerged on Monday or Tuesday eager to show that he was indeed now acquainted with the books, even being able to quote one of them for us!

That's how I remember his "lost weekend" anyway,--that, and that it was pretty funny when he returned.

And, yes, he claimed he had not been reading JE books that weekend, just was "busy" elsewhere. It could be true...of course....all true....


(Cantata, aka Claus)
Post # 40 24.90.221.173 May 20th, 2002 02:07 PM

Back from a nice sunday with no computer.......

The three validations:

1) "Princess"
2) Pooh
3) "Guiding Light"

(truncated)

Post # 54 24.90.221.173 May 20th, 2002 06:00 PM

neo,

You know, I'm getting a little p'd off here. I did NOT "postpone" my response. Contrary to some here, I have an occupation that needs to be taken care of, I have a life outside these boards, and I do certainly NOT want to spend a sunny sunday in front of my computer.

Therefore, I do NOT want to be accused of "postponing" anything. I haven't seen Rain posting here at all, and nobody is complaining about that. Sometimes, we simply don't have time - or inclination - to post. If Rain can not post without comment for a day, then I should be able to do the same.

(truncated)

Post # 71 24.90.221.173 May 21st, 2002 10:02 AM

I did join G2's thread about the three validations. I also explained why I was not online sunday - we haven't had that many sunshiny sundays in NY this year. I gave the three validations after the weekend, and they were correct.

(neo)
So, Claus, why didn't you ever mention to any of us that you had gone away for the weekend? You only mention getting out in the sunshine, and not wanting to spend your Sunday "on-line".

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." :D .....neo

[CFLarsen]

neo,

What, in your post, proves that I was not away??? You don't think that "getting out in the sunshine" does not mean "going away"??

Darat is right: You think you are, oh, so rational and objective, but quite honestly, you come across as a very confused individual. You grasp at straws, and they continue to break, one by one.

Sad, really.

[Clancie]

rofl, neo! :D That walk down memory lane was so much fun! :D And you were indeed right about the "sunny Sunday". I'm much impressed! :D Good to have a record of what we'd been asking Claus for...the three validations. Nothing for a week, then...Bingo! Gone and back with all three at once. Too funny. :D

(P.S. Claus, I read "OLT" in an afternoon and you know what you think of my brain power! Should be a snap for you to "finish the whole book"--or at least have read enough to find the answers, lol--in no time at all!)

Darat,

The claim we're making for "the process" is that all mental mediums use a combination of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience. And that communication takes place telepathically, is difficult to do, and isn't just like sitting in a room talking with someone or showing videos of the family vacation.

Also that the images and sounds a medium hears are somehow being built from things he or she is already familiar with in his own experience. (Some of these he is shown so regularly with such consistency of meaning that JE has come to think of them as symbols that he can interpret confidently to the sitter).

Other mediums also work with a mixture of clairaudience, clairvoyance, and clairsentience. I don't see anything inconsistent in the examples given in this thread. All the mediums I can think of--Altea, GA, van Praagh, JE, and others--seem to consistently say that these are the three "tools" of mediumship, but that they rely on them to varying degrees.

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point. Could you be more specific about how you feel this explanation is inconsistent from one to the other?

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat


Explain what?

That you claim there is a recognisable "process" involved in mediumship? A claim that mediums themselves including John Edward say isn't true!

Okay, Darat. I think I am almost at the point where I am ready to throw in the towel. I feel like I am living in Bizarro World. Where exactly do you see mediums, especially JE, but other mediums as well, stating that there is not some sort of a process for mediumship? Could you help me out here, because you are losing me.

And that it can with only a few minutes research on the internet be shown that at least a few other well known and claimed by thousands to be real mediums have a totally different "process" then JE to communicate with the dead?

Oh, so now you are more or less admitting that other mediums do have a process of sorts, only it's a different process from JE's process? Fine, then perhaps now you could show me where I ever said that JE's process was identical to that of every other medium's process. (?) Certainly, they're all doing mediumship, and there are many similarities, but the process has to be personalized to each individual. One medium would not necessarily understand another medium's symbols.

And that you claim is why JE can't get letters etc. "as a rule"?

Yes, I do claim that. John Edward has himself said that he gets most of his initials and names clairaudiently, not clairvoyantly. So it is not me who is making this claim, it is JE himself. (?)

These are just a few quotes from you many posting in this thread that touches on this "process" idea.

"Fair question, Loki, but not being a medium myself, I can't really answer it for you. I don't know why mediums don't seem to get letters, but as a rule, they don't."

Darat, this is the only quote that I would like to clarify. The others I'll let stand. I should not have generalized here and said that mediums don't seem to get letters as a rule, because I am not all that familiar with mediums other than JE. I myself posted just today that George Anderson sees both spirits AND letters/words. (e.g. the word AIDS over the person's head) So I would amend this quote to Loki to read that "I don't know why JE doesn't seem to get letters, but as a rule, he doesn't.

Neo you may believe you are being rational and objective about JE. However the evidence (in this thread) on this issue of JE's and other mediums "process" is that not only will you ignore facts but that you will also create “rationalisations” that are not supported by facts rather then ever considering that JE cannot not do what he claims he can i.e. communicate with the dead.

Well, Darat, you are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I sincerely cannot see how you think you have made this case. I won't belabor the point any further, however, and I would welcome other opinions. I think we are simply talking past eachother somehow. :confused: .....neo

[thaiboxerken]

I have concluded that Neo is insane.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
neo,

What, in your post, proves that I was not away??? You don't think that "getting out in the sunshine" does not mean "going away"??

Darat is right: You think you are, oh, so rational and objective, but quite honestly, you come across as a very confused individual. You grasp at straws, and they continue to break, one by one.

Sad, really.

Claus, give it up! You are sooooo very busted! :D
....neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, give it up! You are sooooo very busted! :D

Great, you win.

Car