Interesting JE Hits.... [Archive] - Page 2

Loki

3rd August 2003, 04:03 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 04:19 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 04:33 PM

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.

3rd August 2003, 04:41 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 05:02 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 05:06 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 05:13 PM

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.

3rd August 2003, 05:18 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 05:19 PM

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.

3rd August 2003, 05:29 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 05:38 PM

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.

3rd August 2003, 05:41 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 06:02 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 06:15 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 07:04 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 07:32 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 08:19 PM

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.

3rd August 2003, 08:20 PM

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

Clancie

3rd August 2003, 08:43 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 08:58 PM

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.

3rd August 2003, 09:13 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 09:20 PM

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?

3rd August 2003, 09:26 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 09:50 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 09:50 PM

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".

3rd August 2003, 09:59 PM

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.

3rd August 2003, 10:07 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 10:16 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 10:29 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 11:31 PM

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

3rd August 2003, 11:32 PM

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

4th August 2003, 02:45 AM

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

4th August 2003, 02:50 AM

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

4th August 2003, 03:51 AM

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

4th August 2003, 05:01 AM

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

4th August 2003, 05:08 AM

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

4th August 2003, 05:40 AM

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

4th August 2003, 05:57 AM

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

4th August 2003, 06:45 AM

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

4th August 2003, 07:03 AM

neo,

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

SteveGrenard

4th August 2003, 08:55 AM

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

4th August 2003, 09:01 AM

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

4th August 2003, 09:04 AM

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?

4th August 2003, 09:07 AM

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

4th August 2003, 09:16 AM

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

4th August 2003, 09:20 AM

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

4th August 2003, 09:34 AM

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

4th August 2003, 09:50 AM

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

4th August 2003, 09:55 AM

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

4th August 2003, 09:59 AM

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

4th August 2003, 10:12 AM

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

4th August 2003, 01:06 PM

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

4th August 2003, 01:17 PM

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

4th August 2003, 02:30 PM

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

4th August 2003, 02:48 PM

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

4th August 2003, 03:00 PM

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

CFLarsen

4th August 2003, 03:04 PM

neofight

4th August 2003, 03:05 PM

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

4th August 2003, 03:19 PM

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

4th August 2003, 03:28 PM

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

4th August 2003, 03:57 PM

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

4th August 2003, 04:00 PM

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

4th August 2003, 04:11 PM

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

4th August 2003, 04:31 PM

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

4th August 2003, 04:31 PM

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

4th August 2003, 04:31 PM

I have concluded that Neo is insane.

neofight

4th August 2003, 04:34 PM

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

4th August 2003, 04:36 PM

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

Great, you win.

Care to address the excellent points above about John Edward, or continue your schoolyard vendetta against Claus?

neofight

4th August 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Great, you win.

Care to address the excellent points above about John Edward, or continue your schoolyard vendetta against Claus?

Like I haven't been trying my best to do that, Captain? If I missed anything, please re-post it, and I'll get to it. :) .....neo

Loki

4th August 2003, 04:52 PM

Neofight,

Isn't this the "final straw" ? Fron the JE website glossary:

Numbers - Usually symbolizes an important date such as a birth or death, or another significant date. "
Well, it appears that the spirits can send, unambiguously, numbers through to JE. I've never heard him talk about "an 'S' number...six, or seven?" It's *always* a precise statement - "what's the significance of the number '8'?"

So, apparently the rules of of JE mediumship include :

Rule 17, Subsection 11, Clause 9 : The 10 symbols used to represent the decimal counting system can be received clearly and without confusion. Sitter will then need to find the relevance of this recieved number, but the number itself is unambiguous.

Rule 22, Subsection 14, Clause 17 (Addendum 4A) : The 26 symbols used to represent the English alphabet cannot be received as a general rule. Occasional excepts will occur, but this is extremely rare.

Rule 26, Subsection 5, Clause 3 : Alphabet-based information such as names, will be received "clairaudiently" as a single syllable phoneticly sounded "audio-flash".

Okay. You're prepared to use you reason and logic to examine JE readings and conclude that the hits are "too strong/frequent" to be cold reading, and that "editing", "warm/hot reading", "sitter error" and "sitter buy-in" are insufficient or unacceptable explanations to bridge the gap between cold-reading and JE_reading. But then you're prepared to "switch off" your logic and reason and accept that JE and the spirit world can exhange numbers freely and at will, but cannot exchange letters at all. It's your choice, but I can see *no* reason to accept the "number - yes/letters no" argument *except* that you've already decided it's true.

Here's an idea! Since numbers are so clear and easy, why don't the spirits send JE numbers corresponding to letters?

JE : "I'm getting a male spirit 'above' you. And he's showing me a 2, and a 13 - that would be the letters 'B' and 'M'. The spirit's intiails are B. M."
Sitter : "Yes- I'm Brian Martin's daughter!!"

You *need* to explain this Neo - why are numbers readily and cleary available to JE, but letters are not? And by explain, I mean to yourself, not to me. What logic or reason can you think of for this? I can see only one - to preserve JE's career. Care to offer *any* other?

TLN

4th August 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by neofight
Like I haven't been trying my best to do that, Captain? If I missed anything, please re-post it, and I'll get to it. :) .....neo

How about anything from Darat's last post.

Captain? Do I know you? :)

Loki

4th August 2003, 04:59 PM

Claus,

You're busted ... admit it, move on. You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton...

Clancie

4th August 2003, 05:00 PM

TLN

4th August 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I think neo and I have both responded to Darat's last post in some detail. What points do you feel still haven't been addressed?

My bad, thanks. Catching up now...

Loki

4th August 2003, 05:24 PM

Clancie,

Hot reading (and it would need to be research beyond what's in an obituary) could go far to "fill in the gaps" on many readings. But there's no evidence that JE hot reads on CO.

Even skeptics who've known people who worked on the show (Jim Underdown; Mark, who posts here), have not heard any rumors or suspicions from these people of hot-reading.
As far as CO is concerned, my preferred explanation is editing. It *does* occur, we just don't know how/why. I find Steve Grenard's argument about the editing to be extremely weak - editing is a subtle art. Small changes to produce large results. To say that "I was in the studio, and there was very little I think would be edited out" is to completely miss the point.

But editing can't explain seminars, personal readings, or LKL. LKL looks just like cold-reading to me, nothing more and nothing less. "Sitter error/buy-in" seems a real possibility in the seminar situation, and warm/hot reading is a possibility. It's *critical* to realise that an accusation of warm/hot reading does not mean that *every hit*is because of this. I just can't see anyway you can eliminate the possibility that *some* of the hits in a seminar session are due to warm/hot reading - and you and Neo both admit that the single greatest piece of data that persuades you is the "frequency and quality" of the hits.

This is a bit redundant, since I'm sure you understand this, but for me the argument is simple :

1. Result appears to be "beyond cold-reading";
2. Claim is made that the result *must* be ADC;
3. Mundane explanations such as warm/hot reading have not been eliminated by the claimant;
4. Therefore, claim cannot be accepted as proven.

It's that simple really - as long as the person making the claim has made no effort to prove that mundane explanations are not applicable, then the claim doesn't deserve to be considered as "proven" in any true sense. Of course, I think that the very first premise is also still "unproven" - perhaps cold readers can do this, we just don't know for sure! You and Neo, despite the fact you think you are basing your position on logic and reason, are in fact simply "choosing to believe". That's fine - you can do so, it's a free world. But you have no evidential argument *until* you address the mundane explanations by showing they do not apply.

Hmmm...wandered a bit off track there!

Can I ask you - what does the "I can get numbers perfectly, and letters not at all" argument do for you? Numbers and letters are *nothing more than agreed upon symbols*. A communication system worked out and agreed upon by humans to enable them to understand each other. JE unquestioningly gets numbers clear as day. He can't get letters at all. The entire process, as described by you and Neo, is one of "communication via symbols within JE's frame of reference" - that's a description of what an alphabet is!! Any thoughts on this?

dingler44

4th August 2003, 05:51 PM

Posted by Loki
...editing", "warm/hot reading", "sitter error" and "sitter buy-in" are insufficient or unacceptable explanations to bridge the gap between cold-reading and JE_reading

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, Loki,
Hot reading (and it would need to be research beyond what's in an obituary) could go far to "fill in the gaps" on many readings. But there's no evidence that JE hot reads on CO.

Even skeptics who've known people who worked on the show (Jim Underdown; Mark, who posts here), have not heard any rumors or suspicions from these people of hot-reading.

Clancie, you've taken Loki's quote completely out of context. He wasn't even trying to assert the warm/hot reading argument. He was illustrating what he saw as inconsistent reasoning on Neo's part. Why are you even responding to this? It was addressed specifically to Neo. Are you some sort of lap dog?

I'm literally blown away at how you took a small segment of Loki's post, formed it into an argument he wasn't making and then criticized it. If you need to respond, why don't you respond to the points Loki is making?

Seriously... what the hell is going on in here? Neo was right about one thing - this thread is turning into Bizzaro World.

SteveGrenard

4th August 2003, 06:05 PM

Loki -- just to make a few facts in your comments absolutely clear. You sorta merge warm and hot reading. Of course they could both apply but they are nowhere near each other or related even though they convey a sense of heat. Warm reading is the medium providing guess information based on a sitter's appearance, tone of voice, emotional status, dress, jewelry (e.g. wedding ring; obvious keepsakes), accent, body language .... factors he/she can use to try and guess something about the sitter and their deceased relatives. Hot reading is prior research on a sitter based on foreknowledge of their name, address and what's out there in the public or private record that a good detective can find about a subject. If a medium provides highly personal, very specific and extremely accurate information that is not anywhere in a public archive, hot reading does not apply. If the medium is separated physically from the sitter, warm reading is difficult and may be impossible. If the medium and sitter are anonymous to each then hot reading is impossible. If a medium does not ask or require to be asked questions or solicits assents or nays from a sitter then cold reading, the game of 20 questions, pigeon holing and fishing is not occurring. You are only left with guessing, the weakest argument of all when the guesses are accurate and the probabilities confer huge odds against. Ev en if the guesses were based on warm reading as defined above.
The quality of a hit must be studied and takes slight precedence of hit/miss ratios. Based on my own experience I would demand nothing less than 100% accuracy.

Since none of these including the editing issue can be controlled for JE on his television show or other factors in any venue then only secure scientific experiments with sitters and mediums can validate the process. Discussing these other forms of vaidation is neither objective or scientific. And even since telepathy has been validated by research in many instances, it does not prove a particular medium in a particular venue outside the "lab" is real or not.

With respect to your mentioning my remarks about my experience at a taping. I have watched JE for almost two years, nightly in fact, before getting the chance to get into a taping thanks to an out of state person who scored their own hit with CO's telephone call in lottery. I said that I did not see any misses or other problems with any of the readings JE gave when I was there in person and what I have seen on air. I admit this is a subjective opinion so consider it in the category of any book or movie reviewer giving their opinion.

Clancie

4th August 2003, 06:06 PM

Posted by dingler44

Why are you even responding to this? It was addressed specifically to Neo. Are you some sort of lap dog?

I'm literally blown away at how you took a small segment of Loki's post, formed it into an argument he wasn't making and then criticized it. If you need to respond, why don't you respond to the points Loki is making?

Seriously... what the hell is going through your mind?Wow, dingler44, I might ask you the same. :confused:

If Loki wants to just have a response from neo, I'm sure he'll let me know. I figured, since she's not around to answer, that he wouldn't mind another "believer" jumping into the fray.

But, if he only wants to discuss this with her...and/ or feels I'm totally missing his points..don't you think he'll let me know himself?

I don't have a problem with that, but as much as you think I'm being presumptuous giving my two cents on their discussion, well.... :rolleyes:

Steve,

Good point about the need to separate warm from hot reading. So different....

dingler44

4th August 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Wow, dingler44, I might ask you the same. :confused:

********.

If you might ask me the same - why don't you ask - and then provide some reason? Oh you think the reason is because I called you on your ludicrous post?

Again, ********.

If Loki wants to just have a response from neo, I'm sure he'll let me know. I figured, since she's not around to answer, that he wouldn't mind another "believer" jumping into the fray.

You are truly amazing Clancie. I call you on your silly diversion tactics and what do you do? divert

You took a quote out of context and criticized it for a meaning it did not have. Can't you acknowledge that?

dingler44

4th August 2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Loki -- just to make a few facts in your comments absolutely clear. You sorta merge warm and hot reading. Of course they could both apply but they are nowhere near each other or related even though they convey a sense of heat. Warm reading is the medium providing guess information based on a sitter's appearance, tone of voice, emotional status, dress, jewelry (e.g. wedding ring; obvious keepsakes), accent, body language .... factors he/she can use to try and guess something about the sitter and their deceased relatives.

First, can you source this definition so everyone can confirm it?

Second, if SG's definition is accurate, it sounds like JE does a lot of warm reading. Even when he's doing a terrible job reading people over the phone for LKL, he gets the callers tone of voice. And obviously he has easy observation of the rest of the characteristics you mention when reading in person. (no point here, just an observation)

SteveGrenard

4th August 2003, 06:25 PM

D44: First, can you source this definition so everyone can confirm it?

:) These definitions, including warm reading, appear in about every skeptic tome there is on the subject. Start with the skeptic dicitionary online. I think the url is skepdic.something.

What's second again? Oh yes. JE warm reading. Yes in his venues he has this opportunity so you must weigh the probabilities of his guesses, if he is guessing or you assume he is, against what he can get from the sitter in the way of clues

Loki

4th August 2003, 06:29 PM

SteveGrenard,

You sorta merge warm and hot reading.
Purely a shorthand way of saying "other forms of reading that aren't strictly cold reading". Yes, they are different. Perhaps you're right, and "warm" needs to be associated more with "cold" rather than "hot". Anyway, I was just following the general flow of these discussions, in which "warm/hot" are normally rejected by JE supporters.

If a medium provides highly personal, very specific and extremely accurate information that is not anywhere in a public archive, hot reading does not apply.
"The public archive" is only one way this can be done. I strongly suspect that in the reading I went to, the psychic was able to produce a few strong hits (one in particular) because a friend of mine (a) booked the reading for me and (b) went for readings with the psychic on a regular basis. I suspect that I may have "come up" in the readings of my friend, and that part way through my reading the 'psychic' suddenly realised that I was the person that had been mentioned in other readings. A strong hit followed shortly - one that seems to defy cold reading, or any searchable "public archive" information. Nevertheless, it appears to me that hot reading is a viable explanation for the hit in my reading.

If the medium and sitter are anonymous to each then hot reading is impossible.
Well, strictly speaking a 3rd party may act as a "knowledge go-between" so that the medium can in all honesty say "I do not know the identity of the sitter", and yet still know some details. But I take your point - hot reading means that the identity of the sitter must be know to the medium or someone associated with the medium.

...then only secure scientific experiments with sitters and mediums can validate the process.
Yes.

Discussing these other forms of vaidation is neither objective or scientific.
Yes. My main point above.

And even since telepathy has been validated by research in many instances,...
Nice try Steve! Nope, nope, and nope. I'll see your Steve's SlipperySlope and raise you a Hyman's Razor.

I said that I did not see any misses or other problems with any of the readings JE gave when I was there in person and what I have seen on air. I admit this is a subjective opinion so consider it in the vain of any book or movie reveiewer giving their opinion.
We are in agreement then! I see what you are saying, and I'll repeat my point - it's largely irrelevant, since editing is a topic that goes far beyond "removing misses". I could also argue against your "memory" of the original versus the screened segment, and against the clear bias you bring into the "subjective" process (at the time of viewing you were in the "yes" camp already). But I'll content myself to simply repeat that I think "editing" is far more subtle than is being allowed for here. JE of course can prove me wrong in an instant - just release unedited footage for "research pruposes". Won't happen.
You and I both agree this damages his credibility. No more to be said, really.

Clancie

4th August 2003, 06:50 PM

Posted by Loki

As far as CO is concerned, my preferred explanation is editing.
I agree with you that editing could be an extremely powerful tool (though not in the way O'Neill says, having to change a "no" to a "yes")

That's why I wonder why we still haven't heard from Jim Underdown? His whole point in taping CO live (last winter) was to compare the edited and unedited versions. This would be a huge contribution to knowing about JE's mediumship, and its been over 8 months already. I wonder if editing didn't show the results he expected? Or if there's some other reason for the delay?

"Sitter error/buy-in" seems a real possibility in the seminar situation
I agree that subjectivity is important to look at. (And without the post-analysis interviews, CO would be much less compelling). But I think this is going to be less a factor when JE gets hits that are highly specific and unique. Also, I've seen sitters say they don't recognize the information, or don't think a reading is for them. I think its not clear how likely false validations are.

...and warm/hot reading is a possibility.

Just repeating what Steve said, about needing to separate these two.

...you and Neo both admit that the single greatest piece of data that persuades you is the "frequency and quality" of the hits.

Well, I'm not sure about this. I think I lean more toward being persuaded by the "overall pattern of information he brings through for the sitter" combined with the "special hits" that can't, imo by explained as warm or cold reading and which there is no evidence of hot reading (or even, at times, a way to get them through hot reading).

1. Result appears to be "beyond cold-reading";
2. Claim is made that the result *must* be ADC;
3. Mundane explanations such as warm/hot reading have not been eliminated by the claimant;
4. Therefore, claim cannot be accepted as proven.
It's that simple really - as long as the person making the claim has made no effort to prove that mundane explanations are not applicable, then the claim doesn't deserve to be considered as "proven" in any true sense.

I don't disagree exactly. I don't think mediumship is "proven". But I do think there seems "more to it" than has adequately been explained by the critics--not just in JE's mediumship, but other mediums who've been observed as well.

perhaps cold readers can do this, we just don't know for sure!

True, because we haven't seen any demonstrate that they could. Maybe one day someone will.

You and Neo, despite the fact you think you are basing your position on logic and reason, are in fact simply "choosing to believe". That's fine - you can do so, it's a free world.
Actually, I argue the believers side, because I think there are aspects of mediumship that have not been adequately explained by mundane means, despite many, many efforts in that direction. To me, that means it all shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand as obviously just fraud, or just "cold/warm/hot" reading techniques.

There are things about mediumship that aren't completely accounted for by the mundane that are offered.. Until I see they do fit with a mundane explanation, I'll continue to be interested in the various possible explanations (including ADC).

Can I ask you - what does the "I can get numbers perfectly, and letters not at all" argument do for you? Numbers and letters are *nothing more than agreed upon symbols*
Well, re: letters. Letters we use are symbols--symbols for sounds, nothing more. We take symbols for sounds, form them into words, and assign those abstract combinations of letters a meaning that we understand to represent something else. When you think about it, a written alphabet is quite a sophisticated and complex communication tool.

On the other hand, JE hears some sounds, sees some images, gets a physical feeling, and tries to piece together a meaning from it. Quite a different language "process", much less sophisticated than spelling words out.

As for numbers, I'm actually not sure how he gets numbers. I'll look into it and see if I can find out.

SteveGrenard

4th August 2003, 06:55 PM

L: Anyway, I was just following the general flow of these discussions, in which "warm/hot" are normally rejected by JE supporters.

Its really not possible to reject warm reading since his sitters are, well, sitting there in front of him. If he posits guesses based on this, then he does so. You need to take the guesses and not only determine the relevance to any "warm" cues he can get but also determine them on a probablistic basis. Some really obscure, uncommon name or disease or geographic location comes to mind where JE is concerned.

L: "The public archive" is only one way this can be done. I strongly suspect that in the reading I went to, the psychic was able to produce a few strong hits (one in particular) because a friend of mine (a) booked the reading for me and (b) went for readings with the psychic on a regular basis. I suspect that I may have "come up" in the readings of my friend, and that part way through my reading the 'psychic' suddenly realised that I was the person that had been mentioned in other readings. A strong hit followed shortly - one that seems to defy cold reading, or any searchable "public archive" information. Nevertheless, it appears to me that hot reading is a viable explanation for the hit in my reading.

You need then to discuss this in earnest with your friend who has seen this medium before. Did he or she give the medium your full name in advance? Did they discuss any losses you had? I agree a third person can tip off a phony medium, even without meaning to.

L:"Well, strictly speaking a 3rd party may act as a "knowledge go-between" so that the medium can in all honesty say "I do not know the identity of the sitter", and yet still know some details. But I take your point - hot reading means that the identity of the sitter must be know to the medium or someone associated with the medium.

Well by being completey anonymous to each other, I also mean that nobody who knows the sitter (e.g. you) on a personal basis has discussed you or identified you to the medium beforehand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S: And even since telepathy has been validated by research in many instances,...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

L: Nice try Steve! Nope, nope, and nope. I'll see your Steve's SlipperySlope and raise you a Hyman's Razor.

Reply: That's all we got to invalidate ganzfeld/auto-ganzfeld experiments: Hyman's razor. The body of evidence supporting telepathy as possible is overwhelming in my opinion and a single researcher, Ray Hyman, who has looked at such experiments says they were just fine and dandy but there has got to be a flaw or flaws but can't prove what they are is just one razor that doesn't cut it.

L: We are in agreement then! I see what you are saying, and I'll epeat my point - it's largely irrelevant, since editing is a topic that goes far beyond "removing misses". I could also argue against your "memory" of the original versus the screened segment, and against the clear bias you bring into the "subjective" process (at the time of viewing you were in the "yes" camp already). But I'll content myself to simply repeat that I think "editing" is far more subtle than is being allowed for here. JE of course can prove me wrong in an instant - just release unedited footage for "research pruposes". Won't happen.

You and I both agree this damages his credibility. No more to be said, really.

My memory could, singularly be faulty but I was there with three other people and we all took notes and compared them immediately afterwards. I was there with a a NY based parapsychologist, an interior designer and a no-nonsense, level headed housewife from the midwest who scored the tickets.

From the public's perspective I agree such possibilities damages JE's credibility for the few critical thinkers among us who are astute enough to consider them. I, many others and even Schwartz considers JE's unwillingness to record even his private sessions as also damaging JE's credibility and he has been told as much. There is no argument there from me as well as from Gary Schwartz. But JE doesn't care. What did he say: "Bite me..."?? Oh well. This is why discussing him is a monumental waste of time. We should be discussing the process and there is a multifaceted process rather than one personality who may or may not be a complete fraud or delusional but clever enough to make this work. Frankly if he does edit his tapes for content and doesn't allow his private sessions to be taped, then I think delusional is off the table.

Instig8R

4th August 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by neofight

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

Hi, Neo! I'm all for accuracy! Perhaps I should have said that I don't know why you don't recall how frequently JE says he sees letters.

You are claiming that JE "gets" the letters through clairaudience, with very few exceptions. I do not understand how you can possibly make such a claim. I feel that you are minimizing the number of times that it actually happens, merely because you do not question what JE claims in his books.

I feel that RC yielded the argument to you, because he had no evidence, but neither do you! You haven't supplied evidence to refute his argument, except to repeat a paragraph from JE's book, wherein he claims to hear letters clairaudiently. I do not consider JE's written explanation to be a good source of evidence.;)

If you pay close attention to what JE is doing during gallery readings, you will notice that he seldom divulges the method of communication. For example, he mostly asks open-ended questions, like "Who has the 'J' name?". When something isn't validated, he will then go into further detail, and he will use his index finger to "write" the letter on an imaginary blackboard.

JE will also say that he is seeing a letter. In one reading, he even went so far as to tell the sitter that "they're putting a 'JO' over you".

And, let's not forget the famous line, "They're showing me 'AMA', which means the person acted 'against medical advice'."

I believe that JE wrote his off-the-wall explanation of being oriented towards hearing letters, rather than seeing letters, for a reason: It gives him more wiggle room. However, if you watch his performances with a critical eye, you will see that JE deviates from his "hearing" method a lot more often than you think. I am suggesting that you forget about what he wrote in his books, and simply watch him and listen to him.

Given that the CO readings are heavily edited, we really cannot know for sure how many times JE claims to "hear" letters or "see" letters. However, JE has demonstrated that he CAN receive written letter symbols during readings. It has occurred enough for a case to be made that JE would get clearer messages from beyond if he would only use a typewriter or a ouija board.

Loki

4th August 2003, 07:34 PM

Clancie,

Letters we use are symbols--symbols for sounds, nothing more. We take symbols for sounds, form them into words, and assign those abstract combinations of letters a meaning that we understand to represent something else. When you think about it, a written alphabet is quite a sophisticated and complex communication tool.

On the other hand, JE hears some sounds, sees some images, gets a physical feeling, and tries to piece together a meaning from it. Quite a different language "process", much less sophisticated than spelling words out
The basic, entire substance of JE is to establish the identity of the spirit. Since JE doesn't know who the sitter or spirit is (apparently), the pupose of *all* the communication is determine identity. Really, that's what it all boils down to - a question of identity. A person's name would be overwhelming evidence of identity. It's short, sharp and unambigous (well, unless your name is "John Smith" I suppose!). Names are letters, letters are symbols. Where's the problem? Oh, that's right - JE says there's a problem.

Numbers are fine, although apparently the spirits aren't interested in supplying unambiguous numbers like their last home phone number while they were alive - they'd rather send though "11" and have the sitter figure out if it's a month, a aday, an age, etc.

JE is saying "how" it works. He can't say "why" it works that way. The "why" (a) follows no observable logical pattern (it is full of inconsistencies and "special cases") and (b) is exactly the way a fraud would wish to to be. This seems to argue strongly against "the process" being credible, IMO.

Instig8R

4th August 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, Loki,
Hot reading (and it would need to be research beyond what's in an obituary) could go far to "fill in the gaps" on many readings. But there's no evidence that JE hot reads on CO.

Even skeptics who've known people who worked on the show (Jim Underdown; Mark, who posts here), have not heard any rumors or suspicions from these people of hot-reading.

So...yes, so far that isn't a very viable explanation, imo.

Hi, Clancie! I acknowledge that there is no evidence that JE hot reads on CO. However, I take issue with your statement that hot reading doesn't happen because no one who worked on the show has come forward to report it. I believe I have previously demonstrated that a big staff is not required to gather information for hot reading.

I believe that one person, acting alone , (namely: JE), can easily find information on the internet for that occasional "special hit".

I also believe that the fact that JE will not insist upon an anonymous ticketholders system is highly suspicious.

If JE would merely switch to a system whereby the identity of 25% of ticketholders would not be known to him several weeks before appearing at the gallery, it would eliminate a major source of criticism. For some reason, he will not do so... and that makes me highly suspicious.

For the record, I feel very strongly that JE is mostly cold-reading. However, on many occasions, his readings improve when his subjects have a high profile on the internet (like the at-home readings he did for WTC families). Therefore, hot reading cannot be ruled out.

neofight

4th August 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
[B]rofl, neo! :D That walk down memory lane was so much fun! :D

Yes, Clancie. I rather enjoyed it myself, :) not because I'm a mean-spirited person really, but because I really do abhor dishonesty, and I'm afraid that Claus was being dishonest. :(

And you were indeed right about the "sunny Sunday". I'm much impressed! :D

How about that, huh? A post written over a year ago, and I was able to remember about the "sunny Sunday". lol I guess my memory is not quite as bad as Claus would have everyone believe. :D

It looks like I'm getting better at searching through the threads, as well. :) .....neo

neofight

4th August 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by TLN
Captain? Do I know you? :)

Not really. I was just trying my own psychic abilities out on you, TLN. Why? Did I hit on something? Kind of like in "The Shining", when Scatman Crothers called Danny Torrence "Doc", huh? :roll:
......neo

TLN

4th August 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by neofight
Not really. I was just trying my own psychic abilities out on you, TLN. Why? Did I hit on something? Kind of like in "The Shining", when Scatman Crothers called Danny Torrence "Doc", huh? :roll:
......neo

Sorry, not buying it. :p

See you on PalTalk... :)

neofight

4th August 2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Neofight,

Isn't this the "final straw" ? Fron the JE website glossary:

Well, it appears that the spirits can send, unambiguously, numbers through to JE. I've never heard him talk about "an 'S' number...six, or seven?" It's *always* a precise statement - "what's the significance of the number '8'?"

So, apparently the rules of of JE mediumship include :

Rule 17, Subsection 11, Clause 9 : The 10 symbols used to represent the decimal counting system can be received clearly and without confusion. Sitter will then need to find the relevance of this recieved number, but the number itself is unambiguous.

Rule 22, Subsection 14, Clause 17 (Addendum 4A) : The 26 symbols used to represent the English alphabet cannot be received as a general rule. Occasional excepts will occur, but this is extremely rare.

Well, Loki. If you'd like, I can try to explain why I think JE might more easily get numbers, but not too many letters and/or words. Naturally, I cannot know this definitively, but since I have a fairly good idea of how mediumship works, at least JE's mediumship, I'll give it a try. :D

First off, I will type a short paragraph from "One Last Time", since it is sitting right here on my computer table. It deals expressly with numbers. JE does not explain why he gets numbers, but only that he does get them. Another reason I'm quoting from the book again is because I think it might annoy Instig8R. ;) lol Anyhow, here it is......

("One Last Time" written by John Edward)

Spirits love to show me numbers. Barely a reading goes by without my seeing at least a couple, though their meaning is often vague. If I'm shown the number 7, for instance, it could mean something significant happened in July, the seventh month, or on the seventh of a month. Or even that it happened seven months ago or seven years ago. And there are times when it's not clear what that significant event is. It could be a birth. It could be a death. So the number will only be a small piece in the puzzle: it only has meaning when put together with other information.

Okay, that's all I can find in the book on numbers. Nothing too informative, I would agree.

So, you asked me for my own reasoning, Loki, and the only thing that comes to my mind that might explain why he might be able to get numbers, and not many words, would be because there are a lot fewer numbers than there are letters.

Now, hold on! I'm not finished yet. lol Let me explain. Okay, so if a spirit wanted JE to get a number, he could simply send that number image to JE, and he would be able to understand it instantly.

Don't forget, even if the number is "seven thousand, seven hundred and seventy-seven", all JE would have to grasp as he gets that quick thought would be 7777, as opposed to the same number in its written form. To me, it just seems as though it would be a lot easier to get numbers than words.

Now that is not to say that John can't get a single letter if they show him it. I'm sure he could get single letters and probably even short words, if that's how they gave it to him, but since he has often stated that his clairaudience is stronger for him than his clairvoyance, I'm assuming that is why he doesn't get all that much information in that way, although of course he has no problem with getting actual picture images.

Rule 26, Subsection 5, Clause 3 : Alphabet-based information such as names, will be received "clairaudiently" as a single syllable phoneticly sounded "audio-flash".

I don't believe that I've ever said that JE clairaudiently receives only words or names that consist of one syllable, Loki. Where did you get that, if you don't mind my asking? Are you making things up now? ;)

Okay. You're prepared to use you reason and logic to examine JE readings and conclude that the hits are "too strong/frequent" to be cold reading, and that "editing", "warm/hot reading", "sitter error" and "sitter buy-in" are insufficient or unacceptable explanations to bridge the gap between cold-reading and JE_reading. But then you're prepared to "switch off" your logic and reason and accept that JE and the spirit world can exhange numbers freely and at will, but cannot exchange letters at all. It's your choice, but I can see *no* reason to accept the "number - yes/letters no" argument *except* that you've already decided it's true.

No, that is not accurate, Loki. I can accept the "number - yes/letters - no" argument because if I try to imagine what it might be like to actually do this mediumship stuff, I can see where getting a lot of written letters or words might just be a bit much for the brain to process as quickly as it would need to be processed.

Here's an idea! Since numbers are so clear and easy, why don't the spirits send JE numbers corresponding to letters?

JE : "I'm getting a male spirit 'above' you. And he's showing me a 2, and a 13 - that would be the letters 'B' and 'M'. The spirit's intiails are B. M."
Sitter : "Yes- I'm Brian Martin's daughter!!"

Tell you what, Loki. When you cross over, why don't you see if this can actually be done, okay? :p ......neo

neofight

4th August 2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Sorry, not buying it. :p

See you on PalTalk... :)

LOL TLN. Sorry, but I don't do "Paltalk". Anyhow, I was just teasing you. Didn't you used to use "Captain" in front of TLN? If you did, I believe that we exchanged a couple of posts back when tvtalkshows went down last year. I think you even came over to TVT once it was back up and running. Wasn't that you? :confused: I could be wrong......neo

4th August 2003, 08:44 PM

I am so glad I bought some beer before coming home.

I don't even know where to begin.

'g8r...I definitely have seen JE talk about "seeing" letters. And you're right that what Neo presented as "evidence" was from JE's book along with a "hope that clears things up". And a smiley face, which I thought was nice, we are friends after all.

Like you, I don't go with JE's word, particularly from his books. However, I simply don't have much evidence to offer to back up my opinion (which I still hold) that JE says quite often that he sees (not hears) letters. I can only state that this is my opinion, but I need to watch his show again to gather some evidence.

Also, I still think the blood "disorder" thing is kind of a big deal. I can't just go with "it's no big deal because it's JE's symbol and it doesn't even have to be accurate". It may very well be a symbol that includes HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, leukemia, and drug overdose. But it certainly isn't very specific and it includes 4 diseases that kill a lot of people, so why is it unreasonable to think that it's part of a cold reading strategy?

Finally, sorry Clancie, but I disagree with your opinion about JE's readings of people under 18. Yes, when he brings through an infant, he goes with illness, but when it's a teenager he very often brings up accidents. However, I wasn't talking about people under the age of 18 when I said that the diseases/conditions that fall in JE's "blood conditions" symbol affect young people. I was thinking more like ages 20-40. I'd like to know the leading causes of death of people in that age range and see where AIDS, hepatitis, leukemia, and drug overdose are.

4th August 2003, 08:54 PM

I think it would be very difficult for JE to be the only person involved in hot reading. But I don't think it would take anymore than 1 or maybe 2 others on the CO staff. There seems to be this belief that the entire staff would have to be aware of trickery.

I can see a scenario in which JE has 1 or 2 friends who he trusts and pays well to assist with hot reading in limited cases; giving us those "amazing" readings. He really only needs a handful of "special hits" per season to get people hooked. Look at me, I was hooked by just a handful of shows.

neofight

4th August 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R

Hi, Neo! I'm all for accuracy! Perhaps I should have said that I don't know why you don't recall how frequently JE says he sees letters.

Well, I guess that you could go ahead and say it that way instead, Instig8R, but that still doesn't make your statement any more convincing or accurate than it was before, since it is only your impression that this occurs frequently, up against my impression that it's actually quite infrequent.

You are claiming that JE "gets" the letters through clairaudience, with very few exceptions. I do not understand how you can possibly make such a claim. I feel that you are minimizing the number of times that it actually happens, merely because you do not question what JE claims in his books.

Now that's crossing a line, and heading towards being a trifle insulting, Instig8R! I am going by my own recollections of what I see on the show, and I only copied the section of "OLT" that applied to this issue, for those who didn't have a copy of the book. I certainly didn't need to look up what JE said about how he gets people's names, since I've been watching the show for two years now. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, I suggest that you start watching the show a bit more often and while you are at it, start keeping track of this type of thing, because I maintain that your impression is wrong, and that JE does not get all that many initials in the way that you have suggested he does. RC said that he was going to start watching more closely for this as well, and so will I. Start counting! ;)

I feel that RC yielded the argument to you, because he had no evidence, but neither do you! You haven't supplied evidence to refute his argument, except to repeat a paragraph from JE's book, wherein he claims to hear letters clairaudiently. I do not consider JE's written explanation to be a good source of evidence.;)

That's a valid point. No one has to accept JE's word for it. I just wanted RC, and anyone else who was interested, to know what JE has said on the subject. I base my own claim on what I've seen on the show, and not on what JE has written in his book.

If you pay close attention to what JE is doing during gallery readings, you will notice that he seldom divulges the method of communication. For example, he mostly asks open-ended questions, like "Who has the 'J' name?". When something isn't validated, he will then go into further detail, and he will use his index finger to "write" the letter on an imaginary blackboard.

Right. And you claim you've seen him do this how many times, ballpark figure?

1. a few times
2. several times
3. very often
4. almost always

JE will also say that he is seeing a letter. In one reading, he even went so far as to tell the sitter that "they're putting a 'JO' over you".

Yes, you probably remember the "JO" being put over the woman because I believe I transcribed that particular reading. However, I am sticking to my guns, and maintaining that these instances are far and few between in the many, many readings that JE does.

And, let's not forget the famous line, "They're showing me 'AMA', which means the person acted 'against medical advice'."

That is in another category altogether, Instig8R. The "AMA" or American Medical Association logo is a symbol that is within JE's frame of reference. That has nothing to do with his getting names. It is a staple of his readings, letting him know, as you say, that someone had to have gone against medical advice and refused treatment or something.

I believe that JE wrote his off-the-wall explanation of being oriented towards hearing letters, rather than seeing letters, for a reason: It gives him more wiggle room. However, if you watch his performances with a critical eye, you will see that JE deviates from his "hearing" method a lot more often than you think. I am suggesting that you forget about what he wrote in his books, and simply watch him and listen to him.

And I'll repeat myself as well. I already do that, and have done it for two years. I believe that you're wrong.

Given that the CO readings are heavily edited, we really cannot know for sure how many times JE claims to "hear" letters or "see" letters. However, JE has demonstrated that he CAN receive written letter symbols during readings.

Given that getting the names of people is so very important, Instig8R, I question your assertion that the very part of the reading where names come through are edited out of the show. I also take issue with your claim that the CO readings are heavily edited, since you have no way of knowing that is the case. Simply stating it as a fact, does not make it one. :) .....neo

SteveGrenard

4th August 2003, 09:37 PM

In response to RC's question regarding the leading causes of death by age groups visit:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus.html

and an easier site to use might be the following:

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/

Loki

4th August 2003, 09:44 PM

Neo,

JE does not explain why he gets numbers, but only that he does get them
Thanks for the confirmation - I wasn't aware of any JE supplied "why", and you've confirmed that there isn't.

So, you asked me for my own reasoning, Loki, and the only thing that comes to my mind that might explain why he might be able to get numbers, and not many words, would be because there are a lot fewer numbers than there are letters.
He can get any number between 1 and 31 *at least*, since that's the number of days in the longest month. He can't get two letters, being the spirits initials? You find "editing" and "hot reading" to be "hard to accept", but you find "there are more letter than numbers" as perfectly reasonable? Okay...

Now, hold on! I'm not finished yet. lol Let me explain.
...
To me, it just seems as though it would be a lot easier to get numbers than words.
Subtle shift of emphasis, Neo, but no one's mentioning "words". The comparison is 2 letters (initials) to two digits (a date greater than 9). You still want to claim that letters are "too hard" while numbers are "easy"?

Now that is not to say that John can't get a single letter if they show him it. I'm sure he could get single letters and probably even short words, if that's how they gave it to him, but since he has often stated that his clairaudience is stronger for him than his clairvoyance, I'm assuming that is why he doesn't get all that much information in that way, ...
Especially numbers. But you say he claims "clairaudience" is stronger than "clairvoyance? Only for letters/name, I would think. He seems to say "they are showing me..." far more than "they are telling me...". I stand to be corrected there, but it seems to me that the bread and butter of JE's statements are visual clues - "they're showing me moving boxes", "What's the connection with the white feather", "I'm seeing the Danielle Steele book", "They're showing me a tree being cut down" seem to be standard JE-style phrases. But I haven't researched this, so *perhaps* he's an audio kind of guy and I've simpy missed that.

...although of course he has no problem with getting actual picture images.
And what exactly is a letter? The letter "A" is just a glyph - an image with a predetermined, agreed upon meaning. You claim is that JE's process is "an exchange of symbols that have meaning, using symbols from JE's frame of reference". Letters are the absolute simplest expression of this. *Everything* else is more complicated, requiring "interpetation" by the sitter.

I don't believe that I've ever said that JE clairaudiently receives only words or names that consist of one syllable, Loki. Where did you get that, if you don't mind my asking? Are you making things up now?
Am I making things up? Yes! The entire "Rules of Mediumship" was a parody! But the details have some meaning. Did I literally mean that JE can and must receive *only* single syllables? No - I admit to using too narrow a term. He certainly seems to favour very short "audio" grabs though. He can't get "Ellen" - just the "L", with a weakness indicating "el", so he takes the snippet and expands to "Helen" or "Ellen" or "Elvira". Does it get only single syllables? Can't say for sure - but he rarely gets much more.

I can accept the "number - yes/letters - no" argument because if I try to imagine what it might be like to actually do this mediumship stuff, I can see where getting a lot of written letters or words might just be a bit much for the brain to process as quickly as it would need to be processed.
Again, no need to widen this to include "lots of letters" or even "words". If *every* JE reading began with JE bringing through a spirit, and then *immediately* identifying the initials you've have a hell of a lot stronger case. Just two letters, one after the other. Cold-reading would be dead in the water as an explanation. Do it live on LKL and "editing" is dead as an explanation. Do it 10 times in a row and guessing is off the menu. Do it for the JREF and hot reading vanishes from the equation. Hell, JE could settle this inside a week.

Neo, JE has an endless amount of time to do a reading. There's no "processing time" requirement. Could the spirits send through the Gettysburg Address? Probably not. Can the spirits send through a 2 digit number indicating "something significant"? Everytime ! (I've *never* seen JE stumble over a number - the number is always clear, its the "meaning" that is debated). Can the spirits send through 2 letters ? Nope. Not even close. Not even one, except under extremely rare circumstances.

Tell you what, Loki. When you cross over, why don't you see if this can actually be done, okay?
Neo, you have my word - if my death leads me to discover that JE is correct, I'll contact you and let you know "for sure". Just watch out for flickering lights!!

Let's try another tack - Neo, JE has build up over the course of many years of "seeing/listening" to spirits a "dictionary" of symbols and their meanings. Why doesn't he develop 26 symbols that relate to the letters of the alphabet? "An apple" for "A". "A ball" for "B". The spirit shows him an apple and a ball. Bingo, the initials of the spirit are "A" "B". What part of "the process" does this violate Neo?

1. Numbers - Okay, sure!
2. Images of boxes to indicate "moving" - No problem!
3. Letters - no, sorry.
4. Images to indicate letters - impossible!

Any theory of how "the process" explains these four conditions? "JE says the spirits don't want to...." seems to be about it.

CFLarsen

5th August 2003, 12:13 AM

Man, I'm in the wrong time zone!

A bit busy this morning, so I'll just focus on a minor thing: If anyone wants the full threads (not just the snippet neo presented) of my purported dishonesty, they are available for inspection.

Carry on. This is great skepticism.

juninho

5th August 2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by neofight

("One Last Time" written by John Edward)

Spirits love to show me numbers. Barely a reading goes by without my seeing at least a couple, though their meaning is often vague. If I'm shown the number 7, for instance, it could mean something significant happened in July, the seventh month, or on the seventh of a month. Or even that it happened seven months ago or seven years ago. And there are times when it's not clear what that significant event is. It could be a birth. It could be a death. So the number will only be a small piece in the puzzle: it only has meaning when put together with other information.

By heck, if that's not an admission to a cold-reading technique then I'll eat my hat.

Ersby

5th August 2003, 04:28 AM

Perhaps neofight should spend a little time thinking about the process of cold reading. I’m not being facetious. I definitely think she needs to sit down and think it through. A cold reader needs to convince people that he (we’ll assume it’s a man) knows things about them that he couldn’t possibly know. Quite apart from clues from physical appearances, he needs to phrase his questions in a particular way so they sound specific but aren’t really, or at least can easily be stretched to something else. He needs to reduce the odds, and they way this is done isn’t obvious: it doesn’t leap out and make itself plain. Some of the tricks are very subtle indeed.

For example, when dealing with the death of a child or young person, a cold reader would probably not say (unless he’s fishing for a big hit, or unless the sitter is quite old) which gender it is. For older people, that’s fine. The odds are good enough that he can be specific and refer to male or female above. Young people don’t die so often, so with fewer chances, he doubles the odds and keeps it non-gender specific.

Another example, when guessing about pregnancies, a nice technique for cold readers would be to keep these guesses for female sitters. With a bit of luck (1 in 30 odds of a not visibly pregnant woman between 18-35 being pregnant) the sitter in question will be expecting. A nice big hit. Otherwise, there’s a good chance the sitter will know someone. “Congratulations on the baby” is a nice variation on the theme, since it extends the odds to include any recently born child.

Guessing about the size of a family is a bit tricky, but with a little leeway, it can be done. First, a cold reader would never ask if a sitter is “an only child”. They would say “Are you the only son” (or daughter). This increases the chances of a hit, while still sounding very accurate. And of course, “Is there three in the family?” could include parents or not, as the case may be. If the sitter has already established someone in the immediate family has died, then so much the better since the number of people in the family can include (or not) the deceased member too.

Some people have asked about what JE does with numbers of 12. I found a few examples.

-- Is this the 19th or the 19? Is it 1-9 or 9-1?(“No.”)
-- They're also telling me to tell you that the 14th of a month is significant. So I don't know if there's a birthday or an anniversary on the 14th. (unacknowledged)
-- OK, they're telling me acknowledge that the 18th of the month has some type of significance. Do you understand that? (“Yes.”)
-- She's also showing me my birthday, which is in October, so it's something symbolic to October for her, from what she's also acknowledging; all righty, so I don't know if there's a birthday -- I think it's around the 16th or the 6th, from what she's showing me. (“OK”) Write the date down. It's October -- it's around the 6th or the 16th. OK. It's the 10th month, and it's around the 6th. She's fine, and I feel like she's OK.

And numbers are a prime source of stretching, such as this example here:

-- and she's telling me to say to you 7. So I don't if July(the seventh month) is significant, the 7th of a month is significant or she was 7 when she passed. How old would she be now? (“Now she would be 10.”) Okay, and how old was she when she passed? (“6”) I need to talk about 7. So I leave it as the 7th Month July or the 7th of a month. Okay? (sitter nods head)

Regarding JE’s success with names, remember his hit rate with names on LKL is around the 40% mark, while on Crossing Over it’s up around 85-90%. That’s a big gap. Perhaps the CO studios are more conducive to psychic communication, or perhaps something is ending up on the cutting room floor.

Sometimes I think I may be coming across as a bit pompous: I do just a couple of half-decent readings and I’m an expert on cold reading. But I have been looking very closely at the transcripts of John at work for almost one year. I’ve made tallies, lists, cross references, and read and reread them, and some things simply don’t make sense. Why can’t he identify the gender of children? Why is the criteria for “family” so flexible? Why are accidents so often reduced to “an impact of some kind”? And the clustering of diseases and conditions around a theme may be entirely in keeping with the “process” of mediumship, but no one can deny it skews the odds in the psychics favour. Saying that names are heard clairaudiently does the same: it allows C and K names to be lumped together, and L names needn’t just be Lynda, Louise, etc, but can also include Ellen, Eileen and so on.

Darat

5th August 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by 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?

Please see Neo's posts where she mentions process etc. That is not the claim she is making.

She makes a claim that there is a distinct process involved in mediumship and in fact she goes further to suggest that this is one way she can determine the “genuine” from the fake.

However the evidence is that, according to JE and other mediums, there is not a common process that would enable you to determine if someone is communicating with the dead or not.

Darat

5th August 2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Instig8R

Hi, Clancie! I acknowledge that there is no evidence that JE hot reads on CO. However, I take issue with your statement that hot reading doesn't happen because no one who worked on the show has come forward to report it. I believe I have previously demonstrated that a big staff is not required to gather information for hot reading.

I believe that one person, acting alone , (namely: JE), can easily find information on the internet for that occasional "special hit"....snip....

And I think it is wrong for believers to assume that when "hot reading" is put forward as an explanation it is being put forward as the explanation, it is simply an example of a theory that can account for “special hits”…

And as I have repeated many time Pete Popoff is a very good example of how not having "rumours" is not evidence that fraud is not taking place. PP had many collaborators - yet none came forward therefore there is proof that the repeated comment about "No one on his staff has come forward" or "No rumours.." is totally irrelevant and cannot be used in any way to support the belief the JE can communicate with the dead.

5th August 2003, 07:58 AM

Couple things:

Steve, thanks for sending those links. I had a quick look and saw that AIDS, suicide, and liver disease are in the top 10 for age 20-40, based on 1999 stats. Suicide isn't broken down so I can't find stats for overdose. And liver disease is broader than hepatitis but I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that hep would be a leading cause of liver disease for someone under the age of 40.

I don't see leukemia in the top 10, but I also don't know what a "malignant neoplasm" is. It that a fancy word for cancer?

Clancie is correct that accidents are the number one cause, but I just wanted to make the point that JE's "blood" symbol encompasses 4 major diseases/conditions that particularly affect youngish people.

Side question, maybe Neo knows the answer. JE is able to bring through suicides as a "their actions caused their own death". When he brings through someone who overdosed, does he both mention the "circulatory system" validation AND the "caused their own death"? I can't remember.

Also.....Neo, are you saying that JE gets the majority of all of his validations through clairaudience? Before I thought you were referring simply to names. But now it seems like you're saying that he is much more clairaudient than clairvoyant. I would disagree with this statement. His readings are almost entirely based on images. He doesn't "hear" numbers, and he always says "they're showing me..........". Am I reading your comments incorrectly?

voidx

5th August 2003, 08:54 AM

I haven't bothered reading the ....counting..... 4 pages of posts since friday, but I'd like to comment on this reply from Neo about this post of mine here:

Again, seems like we're missing the start of this reading. Did he already establish that he was trying to communicate with the Father/Grandpa? If so, his use of the word "his" is hardly significant. Also look at the top, are there 2 unidentified females? At first they mention the tree in the backyard...then when JE reiterates the question, it changes to a tree in the cemetary. Is their backyard in the cemetary? What's going on here? Sorry, this just isn't clear to me. As it reads sure "you cut down "his" tree" seems impressive, but like most people, if they'd started out going...I wanna talk to daddy...then its not impressive in the least. I reserve judgement of this being a good hit until a full transcript can be provided, sorry.

Here's Neo's reply:
Originally posted by neofight

Well, it's always preferable to read the whole transcript, voidx, but this still would appear to be a pretty good hit.

Who knows why the sitter's initial comment mentioned the tree in the backyard. It's possible that they had just removed a tree, but when John repeated his statement, emphasizing that it was his tree, the sitters then realized that it was the tree in the cemetery that John had to be referring to, because it was directly related to their loved one.......neo
I really see this as quite a large bit of inconsistency. You agree its preferable to get the whole transcript. Yet even taking my point that its really quite unobjective and impossible to judge this reading because certain things aren't clear, and the use of "his" cannot be taken as impressive as we don't know for sure whether this was already known by JE, you still take it as a pretty good hit. I just don't see how you can objectively do that. I'm almost 100% positive we don't have the first few verbal interactions of this particular reading, which in my opinion, should make it near impossible for someone to label it a pretty good hit. We just don't know. As for the second part, reread my one post about it. This is exactly what I'm talking about, its a technique that can be used by JE. Ask a question, "oh my tree at home", well ok that's nothing significant for JE, so he reiterates the question, hoping they'll think again and give him more of a lead, "yah yah, the one by his plot in the cemetary, they cut it down", ahhh now that is something he can work with. Again, you have to acknowledge that while you think the sitter is merely remembering correctly after reiteration from John, that it also can be taken as John reiterating to get information that is actually useful to him, for IMO cold-reading.

5th August 2003, 09:20 AM

...and notice that JE doesn't start getting anything specific until AFTER he is told that the tree was in the cemetary. Then suddenly, JE starts talking about how the tree was how visitors would find the grave.

It's possible that this is just how mediumship works. JE got a symbol about cutting down a tree and once the sitters got him on the right track, then spirit showed other images to help confirm that they got it right.

But it also seems to me like this could be cold reading: JE tosses out something, sitters verify and provide more details, then he turns those details around, adds a little more, and tries for a more "special hit", while creating the impression that he was the one who knew that the tree was in a cemetary.

Clancie

5th August 2003, 09:36 AM

Posted by Darat

Please see Neo's posts where she mentions process etc. That is not the claim she is making.
Okay, Darat, if she says so.

In that case, then its just how I understand the "process" and I really don't so far see anything contradictory with JE's and how others' are described. There are differences in which one they rely on most, but this seems perfectly consistent with the idea of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience being the communication "process" that all mediums use to varying degrees. I don't see the inconsistency in this with others and what JE does.

And as I have repeated many time Pete Popoff is a very good example of how not having "rumours" is not evidence that fraud is not taking place. PP had many collaborators - yet none came forward therefore there is proof that the repeated comment about "No one on his staff has come forward" or "No rumours.." is totally irrelevant and cannot be used in any way to support the belief the JE can communicate with the dead.
I think the day-to-day scrutiny of a television show would have brought Popoff to attention sooner. (Plus, after the Jaroff article came out, USA Networks started scrutinizing the show a great deal more as well).

Didn't Popoff have a confederate in the audience who gave him information on a hidden mike? I really don't see how this is analogous to what JE could possibly be doing.

CFLarsen

5th August 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
In that case, then its just how I understand the "process" and I really don't so far see anything contradictory with JE's and how others' are described. There are differences in which one they rely on most, but this seems perfectly consistent with the idea of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience being the communication "process" that all mediums use to varying degrees. I don't see the inconsistency in this with others and what JE does.

Sheeesh.....:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Clancie
I think the day-to-day scrutiny of a television show would have brought Popoff to attention sooner. (Plus, after the Jaroff article came out, USA Networks started scrutinizing the show a great deal more as well).

What "scrutiny"? The ABC team was not allowed to film backstage, remember? Does JE allow anyone to look him over the shoulder? Does he respond to criticism at all?

Originally posted by Clancie
Didn't Popoff have a confederate in the audience who gave him information on a hidden mike? I really don't see how this is analogous to what JE could possibly be doing.

Why not? We know he knows at least 25% of the identity of the audience, and we know about all the other possible methods JE could use.

Whatever comes up, you either ignore, misrepresent, misinterpret or simple claim that it isn't analogous. The denial continues.

voidx

5th August 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by RC
...and notice that JE doesn't start getting anything specific until AFTER he is told that the tree was in the cemetary. Then suddenly, JE starts talking about how the tree was how visitors would find the grave.

It's possible that this is just how mediumship works. JE got a symbol about cutting down a tree and once the sitters got him on the right track, then spirit showed other images to help confirm that they got it right.

But it also seems to me like this could be cold reading: JE tosses out something, sitters verify and provide more details, then he turns those details around, adds a little more, and tries for a more "special hit", while creating the impression that he was the one who knew that the tree was in a cemetary.
Exactly. Taking a logical look at it, it fits very well inside the confines of what cold-reading is. I dislike running around invoking Occam's Razor as many people misuse it, but if we know cold-reading is possible, we can prove it, we can demonstrate it, and this seems quite similar to it. Why is the paranormal necessary to explain this? From everything I've seen in all these threads with all these transcripts my opinion is still solidly, its not necessary.

As for the process of mediumship, this has flip flopped so many times, even within these threads that its obvious no one has any real idea, its all subjective. At times when getting numbers would be clearest, oh, JE doesn't get numbers, he gets things visually. When letters, or a name would be clearest, oh JE gets things in symbols in his own frame of reference. Do you not find it telling that of the 3 forms of Clairvoyance, sentiences, audience, its often seems to be the most inappropriate of the 3 that is used in each specific case? Why? Because it is the most vague and gives the medium the most leway.

Darat

5th August 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by neofight

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.

JE says for instance:

KING: What -- do you see something, or do you hear? What...

EDWARD: I think a big misconception with this work is that people think that a psychic or a medium -- I'm seeing them like I'm seeing you.

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 who might not ever sit in front of a camera or write a book or go on the radio, they just do their thing.

He is very clear to state he only speaks for himself.

Originally posted by neofight

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.

No I do not say that at all. I have been questioning your claim that there is a “process” that mediums follow, this is your claim. You must not have noticed I used the word “process” in speech marks when referring to other mediums, I did this to indicate I was using your word. Some mediums don’t have a “process” in the sense of symbols etc. they just “see” people as you and I do, it just happens they can “see” people that the rest of us can’t.

Please show where a medium like Doris Stokes or Derek Akorah state that they see “symbols” line JE does, they claim to hear and see the spirits, that these sprits talk to them. (DA does state that he also gets “feelings” from energies…) The claims that you make for the process that you say JE uses i.e. symbols is not a process common across mediumship.

Originally posted by neofight

…snip…

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.

…snip…

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

To re-iterate it is you that has made the suggestion that there is a process for mediumship, I have offered evidence to indicate that this statement is not true.

(Edited to place JE quote in correct place.)

Darat

5th August 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

...snip...

Didn't Popoff have a confederate in the audience who gave him information on a hidden mike? I really don't see how this is analogous to what JE could possibly be doing.

He had several collaborators, his wife viewed the show from out of sight and relayed information gathered by his staff prior to the show starting. (i.e. he had people who gathered the information for "hot reading"). There were also people involved who set up the radio link to his earpiece.

Despite all these people being involved not one of them came forward prior to his exposure via an investigation.

What this shows is that it is possible to have a person knowingly commit a deliberate deception to give the appearance of having a gift that others don't and to have many other people involved in this deception and for there not to be "rumours" known to the public at large or have an employee come forward and reveal the fraud.

Therefore it goes against the evidence we have to state that a collaborating factor in accepting JE as someone who can communicate to the dead is that no employee etc. has come forward with claims of deception.

It is a fact that a long term deception of a claim of "special gift" is possible.

Lurker

5th August 2003, 10:55 AM

Clearly what neo meant was that for each and every medium they will have their own unique process.

Which really brings into question why she mentioned process at all. If each is unique then there really is nothing to learn from one medium to another.

Lurker

5th August 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by voidx

As for the process of mediumship, this has flip flopped so many times, even within these threads that its obvious no one has any real idea, its all subjective. At times when getting numbers would be clearest, oh, JE doesn't get numbers, he gets things visually. When letters, or a name would be clearest, oh JE gets things in symbols in his own frame of reference. Do you not find it telling that of the 3 forms of Clairvoyance, sentiences, audience, its often seems to be the most inappropriate of the 3 that is used in each specific case? Why? Because it is the most vague and gives the medium the most leway.

Yes, the process is subjective. But if you have a look in the "Big JE misses" thread, I have written about my own personal experience in a mediumship experiment. While I don't argue that I experienced true mediumship, given that what I experienced was similar to the "process", I'm much more open to the concept that mediumship can be real, yet not operate in a very logical manner.

Clancie

5th August 2003, 11:08 AM

Posted by RC

While I don't argue that I experienced true mediumship, given that what I experienced was similar to the "process", I'm much more open to the concept that mediumship can be real, yet not operate in a very logical manner.
Hi RC,

Any chance of you starting a thread with that--or putting it in Mike's (short) thread asking you about psychic development?

That was such an interesting experience and I think it gets lost in that long thread.

I'm very curious what some others here will think of it ("coincidence"? "stretching"? "luck?" "hard to explain?") Will anyone consider the possibility that you, at a minimum, had an experience that doesn't lend itself to easy analysis and dismissal? I wonder. :confused:

CFLarsen

5th August 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Clearly what neo meant was that for each and every medium they will have their own unique process.

Which really brings into question why she mentioned process at all. If each is unique then there really is nothing to learn from one medium to another.

True. However, since mediums learn from each other ("study" might be an applicable term), then there must be some sort of "process".

JE speaks of one, too.

So far, we haven't seen any, though.

voidx

5th August 2003, 11:27 AM

Posted by RC:
Yes, the process is subjective. But if you have a look in the "Big JE misses" thread, I have written about my own personal experience in a mediumship experiment. While I don't argue that I experienced true mediumship, given that what I experienced was similar to the "process", I'm much more open to the concept that mediumship can be real, yet not operate in a very logical manner.
Yes I do remember reading that, and would be interested to hear more. But just realize that while I have no reason to believe you would be misleading of your account I still have to swallow my "ancedotyle pill" because I have only you're word to verify upon. I don't disagree with your statement persay, but do realize that lately in these posts there have been attempts to try and nail down a process of sorts for how these mediums work. That has come in part from mine and others prompting of just how this communication works because it seems horrible inconsistent from medium to medium, and even sometimes from reading to reading from the same medium.

Posted by Clancie:
I'm very curious what some others here will think of it ("coincidence"? "stretching"? "luck?" "hard to explain?") Will anyone consider the possibility that you, at a minimum, had an experience that doesn't lend itself to easy analysis and dismissal? I wonder.
We will listen to it, try and get as many details as possible about the reading, or series of readings, and the exact dialogue shared, as much as possible and judge it based upon that. Please do realize though Clancie that RC's reading if I remember right was not done by JE. In fact it appears to be a much more solid hit than anything I've seen in the transcripts for JE. JE has been the focus of these threads for the most part, and in my own opinion he's not been shown to get hits unexplainable by cold-reading. RC's experience seems like it may be different, but lets not glaze over the fact that these threads have not done much to convince anyone of JE's ability. If anything, they've cemented our opinion that he's merely cold-reading.

CFLarsen

5th August 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi RC,

Any chance of you starting a thread with that--or putting it in Mike's (short) thread asking you about psychic development?

That was such an interesting experience and I think it gets lost in that long thread.

I'm very curious what some others here will think of it ("coincidence"? "stretching"? "luck?" "hard to explain?") Will anyone consider the possibility that you, at a minimum, had an experience that doesn't lend itself to easy analysis and dismissal? I wonder. :confused:

Clancie, I really think you have BOTH your hands full as it is....no need to divert (once again!) attention from the threads you are already participating in.

Darat

5th August 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Clearly what neo meant was that for each and every medium they will have their own unique process.

Which really brings into question why she mentioned process at all. If each is unique then there really is nothing to learn from one medium to another.

Lurker

I diasagree. Neo seems to have used (and did so in her last post to me) that getting "symbols" in the manner claimed by JE is part of the process of mediumship whereas the evidence seems to be that JE is pretty unique in his descriptions of his process (compared to other mediums).

Clancie

5th August 2003, 12:11 PM

Posted by Darat

I diasagree. Neo seems to have used (and did so in her last post to me) that getting "symbols" in the manner claimed by JE is part of the process of mediumship
Just for the record, I personally think neo's right in talking about a process of communication that is commonly used by mediums.

I thought she was referrring to the blend of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience that all mediums seem to share, although they may have different preferences and strengths within those three.

So...neo, Are you saying the "mediumship process" is something other than this? To me, it seems that all mediums I can think of say that they use a mixture of the above, including clairvoyance (and clairvoyance is based on images--some of which can assume a consistent symbolism for a particular medium).

I really don't understand what their question is. Do you? :confused:

Darat

5th August 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Just for the record, I personally think neo's right in talking about a process of communication that is commonly used by mediums.

I thought she was referrring to the blend of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience that all mediums seem to share, although they may have different preferences and strengths within those three.

So...neo, Are you saying the "mediumship process" is something other than this? To me, it seems that all mediums I can think of say that they use a mixture of the above, including clairvoyance (and clairvoyance is based on images--some of which can assume a consistent symbolism for a particular medium).

I really don't understand what their question is. Do you? :confused: [/B]

Please provide some collaboration that the "symbol process" of JE is the same as other mediums.

Clancie

5th August 2003, 12:36 PM

Darat,

Are you asking for examples of how other mediums use clairvoyance? That is the "process" I'm referring to. It is based in images, some of which are repeated so often that they can be seen as symbolic.

Are you disputing that others use clairvoyance?

Or that images are repeated for mediums other than JE? I am not saying that his images and consistent interpretation of their meaning is the same as it would be if another medium saw that same image. Their process (clairvoyance/clairaudience/clairsentience), not necessarily individual symbols, is what I'm saying is similar.

CFLarsen

5th August 2003, 12:52 PM

Clancie,

What part of "the "symbol process" of JE" don't you understand? Look in the glossary that JE uses and that he has on his SciFi-site. Look in his books.

JE gets a white rose for congratulations, numbers for important dates, etc.

Do other mediums use this "symbol process" too?

Stop faking ignorance, stop your incessant stalling and get to the friggin' point!

(Funny how this always happens when you have a tough job ahead of you....)

SteveGrenard

5th August 2003, 03:01 PM

Darat: Please provide some collaboration that the "symbol process" of JE is the same as other mediums.

The symbolism business is taught by many mediums who teach psychic development including one who claims to have taught John Edward! The following is excerpted from her website which is given also:

the following is excerpted from:

http://www.starchildbooks.com/psydevelopwkshps.htm

Sandy Anastasi has been teaching classes in Psychic Development and Tarot for over 20 years. Her former students include world famous Psychic Super-Star John Edward, host of Television's "Crossing Over", the famous but now deceased Psychic Medium Shelley Peck, and many other gifted professionals. Whether you want to be a pro, or just learn
to access your own psychic gifts to enrich your life, now is your opportunity to participate in a special program wherein Sandy's own Psychic Development 1, 2, and 3 series classes are encapsulated into 3 full week-ends of fun and learning! Sandy teaches these three seminars with John Maerz, who is a gifted psychic with over 35 years of experience. John, a Reiki Master, performs a "Psychic Attunement" on each student to help facilitate a psychic "opening" in Psychic Development 2. This is not available to students who take the courses on tape. The blending of their abilities brings you a truly transformational experience. Together, all three seminars comprise a complete program in psychic development. Psychic Development 1 is the same class John Edward, star of 'Crossing Over', started out with. ....................(truncated)

Darat

5th August 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Darat: Please provide some collaboration that the "symbol process" of JE is the same as other mediums.

The symbolism business is taught by many mediums who teach psychic development including one who claims to have taught John Edward! The following is excerpted from her website which is given also:

the following is excerpted from:

http://www.starchildbooks.com/psydevelopwkshps.htm

...snip...

Thank you for this reference Steve, an even more relevant section then the one you quoted is:

P7 - Mediumship III: Symbols & Policy will be taught by Sandy Anastasi, John Maerz, and Ed Hicks. This class covers how to receive and interpret symbols from spirit, and practical applications of mediumship.

Here is a very explicit reference to "symbols". However it doesn’t quite answer my question i.e. "Please provide some collaboration that the "symbol process" of JE is the same as other mediums.". It certainly would indicate that symbols can form part of the repertory of a mediums communication with the dead. (Which I don’t think I’ve questioned (?). )

I also agree that this site would seem to support that JE uses a "process" that is common in mediumship (especially if her claim of teaching JE is true).Yet I find I am still not able to find the words of mediums who describe their communication as "symbols" and within a "personal frame of reference", I haven't found one yet. And I have looked for them, well at least on the web.

I still want to see evidence of a medium other then JE describe their communication in the manner of being reliant on symbols and a "personal frame of reference" as Neo describes JE's process is before I can accept that there is merit in Neo’s theory.

As a follow up to this I take it that you (and Neo if she agrees this supports her theory that JE uses the process of mediumship) accept this site as an authority on mediumship?

And the reason I ask, (just so that I am totally upfront about my motivation for asking this question), is that there is a lot of questions I have from reading this site that I would love to ask believers in JE (or other) ability to communicate with the dead.

Darat

5th August 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Darat,

Are you asking for examples of how other mediums use clairvoyance? That is the "process" I'm referring to. It is based in images, some of which are repeated so often that they can be seen as symbolic.

Are you disputing that others use clairvoyance?

Or that images are repeated for mediums other than JE? I am not saying that his images and consistent interpretation of their meaning is the same as it would be if another medium saw that same image. Their process (clairvoyance/clairaudience/clairsentience), not necessarily individual symbols, is what I'm saying is similar.

No I'm not denying anything about mediums and I am not putting forward any evidence or theory for or against JE's or any other medium's ability.

I'll try to re-state my main point/issue again. (This is all paraphrasing rather then nit picking a syllable at a time - I won't get into that - well apart from a sly comment that you've used the word "develop" for how JE gets his special hits ;) )

Neo claims that JE has a "process", that is a common mediumship technique and that the reason he cannot get some of the detail people ask from him is because of this process. His communciation "process" is that gets his information via symbols which have to be within his "personal frame of reference".

I still cannot find any other medium that describe their "process" of mediumship as symbols within a personal frame of reference - this seems quite unique to JE.

Loki

5th August 2003, 04:02 PM

RC,

I'm much more open to the concept that mediumship can be real, yet not operate in a very logical manner.
I think you mean to say something like "yet not operate in an easily understood or explained manner". Surely the premise has to be (by those who believe) that there are clear and logical reasons why JE does things the way he does, but that we poor unpsychics just can't see these reasons.

Just to restate the JE issue :

1. He recieves "symbols from within his personal frame of reference" that contain meaning for the sitter.
2. Numbers are "symbols from within his personal frame of reference" that he can receive easily.
3. Letters are "symbols from within his personal frame of reference" that he can't receive at all.

The reason given for this clear contradiction? "That's just the way it is..."

SteveGrenard

5th August 2003, 04:07 PM

D: I also agree that this site would seem to support that JE uses a "process" that is common in mediumship (especially if her claim of teaching JE is true).Yet I find I am still not able to find the words of mediums who describe their communication as "symbols" and within a "personal frame of reference", I haven't found one yet. And I have looked for them, well at least on the web.

Reply: I guess you gotta take the course to find out what these symbols are. Or yes, if you accept her claim of JE being a student, it is evident that the symbology she teaches forms a part of JE's repetoire as well as that of others whom she also teaches. It is about the best evidence you are going to find which helps to answer your question.

Alternatively if we want to know what those symbols are we can take them out of JE's repeptoire as they were furnished above and spend the rest of our lives looking for mediums who also use them. Me personally, I have never met a medium who used them but I have only met 3 in person and maybe 6 or 7 by internet acquaintance who I considered real. I met and had experiences with a lot of bad ones and one downright fraud. The mediums who read for myself and my wife who were in the valid category were both trances and didn't use symbols. The deceased spoke through them, in the first person and everything he said was 100% accurate for him or us. There was NO "they're showing me" or "they're telling me" or who's this or what's that type of questions from the medium. No pink or white roses. No refrences to movies or old TV shows. No ups, unders or sides. LOL. And there were no questions at all. Which I guess says that different mediums and different influences (e.g. teachers) have different processes. Is the pink rose or other symbol processes valid or is the process of trance mediumship without symbols or questions more valid? Is symbology part of the patter for a showman like JE, enabling generalizations as symbolized by pink roses , etc to creep into a reading? I don't know but perhaps.

Anxious to try my experiment with id'ing the spirit up front, I brought a photo line up with me of three people of the same age, two were relatives and bore a family resemblance, one was the deceased. The third bore a slight resemblance and was a friend.

After going into a trance, the three photos laid out on the desk, the medium pointed at the one of the deceased and says "That's me." Not "that's him." He never once said his name but didn't have to and why would he anyway? There were no initials, no vague causes of death, in fact no cause of death at all., I knew how he died and he knew I didnt need him to tell me.

voidx

5th August 2003, 04:12 PM

Anxious to try my experiment with id'ing the spirit up front, I brought a photo line up with me of three people of the same age, two were relatives and bore a family resemblance, one was the deceased. The third bore a slight resemblance and was a friend.
Any research tried a version of this ID'ing approach? That can show it on a consistent basis? Seems rather foolproof from a medium perspective if its true. In this one case he had a 1 in 3 chance, 2 of which bore more of a resemblance, so maybe more like 1 in 2. Were they all the same gender? And did the medium know exactly who you were hoping to contact? I'm surprised this isn't used more often, seems like it would be quicker to validate who the spirit was, so they could then move on to the actual message.

Clancie

5th August 2003, 04:22 PM

Posted by Darat

Neo claims that JE has a "process", that is a common mediumship technique and that the reason he cannot get some of the detail people ask from him is because of this process. His communciation "process" is that gets his information via symbols which have to be within his "personal frame of reference".

I still cannot find any other medium that describe their "process" of mediumship as symbols within a personal frame of reference - this seems quite unique to JE.
Well, Darat, perhaps you're saying your question is more for neo then, than for me? :confused:

If so, then just for my own understanding, I'm still curious about what you're trying to say. Am I correctly understanding your position re: my questions above (what I think you're saying is in italics below):

1. Are you asking for examples of how other mediums use clairvoyance?

No (Just guessing; not sure what you think about it = ?)

2. That is the "process" I'm referring to (clairvoyance + clairaudience + clairsentience). CV is based in images, some of which are repeated so often that they can be seen as symbolic for a particular medium.

So...apart from what neo thinks, do you understand this is what the "process" means to me?

Yes (?)

3. Is this contradictory in any way with what JE and others do, do you think?

No (?)

4. Are you disputing that other mediums also use clairvoyance and asking for examples?

No (?)

5. Are you looking for examples that other mediums see images repeated for them like JE says he does ( that is, using images that are meaningful for them--which I think is what neo means by "frame of reference?

Yes, looking for examples. (?).

6. Are you trying to get examples of how other mediums see the same image often enough that it becomes symbolic for them?

Yes (?)

7. Are you asking for examples of mediums using the same images JE sees as meaningful to him)?

No (?)

In other words, you can see I'm not really sure where you're coming from with this topic at all, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

If you could tell me how you would answer 1-7 I know it would be very helpful in answering you (maybe helpful for neo as well)! :p . Tx.

P.S. And yes, "develop", given its double meaning with cold reading, was not the best choice :).

voidx

5th August 2003, 04:27 PM

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

Is it next week yet?

Did these ever get posted?

Darat

5th August 2003, 04:35 PM

This is getting complicated – I apologise in advance if my cutting and pasting and attributing is a bit sloppy – want to do this post as quickly as possible.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, Darat, perhaps you're saying your question is more for neo then, than for me? :confused:

Yes my questions are directed at Neo and her position – I do understand you share a lot of Neo’s view regarding JE but this seems to be a point of difference between the two of you.

Originally posted by Clancie

If so, then just for my own understanding, I'm still curious about what you're trying to say. Am I correctly understanding your position re: my questions above (what I think you're saying is in italics below):

1. Are you asking for examples of how other mediums use clairvoyance?

No (Just guessing; not sure what you think about it = ?)

No – I was just using some very successful and well known mediums own words to demonstrate that they don’t seem to make a reference to “symbols” and a “personal frame of reference”.

Originally posted by Clancie

2. That is the "process" I'm referring to (clairvoyance + clairaudience + clairsentience). CV is based in images, some of which are repeated so often that they can be seen as symbolic for a particular medium.

So...apart from what neo thinks, do you understand this is what the "process" means to me?

Yes (?)

Yes I think understand your idea of how it all works – as I say I’m trying not to confuse this issue with any of my opinions and beliefs for or against any medium. That would confuse matters even more (if possible).

Originally posted by Clancie

3. Is this contradictory in any way with what JE and others do, do you think?

No (?)

I’ve no problem with what any of the mediums say they do or how they say they do it this is about Neo’s theory of how the mediumship process works with special reference to JE.

Originally posted by Clancie

4. Are you disputing that other mediums also use clairvoyance and asking for examples?

No (?)

No not disputing anything about what mediums say they do or say.

Originally posted by Clancie

5. Are you looking for examples that other mediums see images repeated for them like JE says he does ( that is, using images that are meaningful for them--which I think is what neo means by "frame of reference?

Yes, looking for examples. (?).

Yes – I want to see how other mediums that use the “process” Neo see’s in JE readings use it in their readings.

Originally posted by Clancie

6. Are you trying to get examples of how other mediums see the same image often enough that it becomes symbolic for them?

Yes (?)

Or looking for that type of explanation from a medium….

Originally posted by Clancie

7. Are you asking for examples of mediums using the same images JE sees as meaningful to him)?

No (?)

Well I wouldn’t expect to see the same symbols having the same meaning for someone else otherwise what would “personal frame of reference” have to do with the “process”?

Originally posted by Clancie

In other words, you can see I'm not really sure where you're coming from with this topic at all, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

If you could tell me how you would answer 1-8 I know it would be very helpful in answering you (maybe helpful for neo as well)! :p . Tx.

P.S. And yes, "develop", given its double meaning with cold reading, was not the best choice :).

Fair enough I do want my points to be understood and am willing to try and clear up any confusion I’m causing.

SteveGrenard

5th August 2003, 04:37 PM

V: Any research tried a version of this ID'ing approach? That can show it on a consistent basis? Seems rather foolproof from a medium perspective if its true. In this one case he had a 1 in 3 chance, 2 of which bore more of a resemblance, so maybe more like 1 in 2. Were they all the same gender? And did the medium know exactly who you were hoping to contact? I'm surprised this isn't used more often, seems like it would be quicker to validate who the spirit was, so they could then move on to the actual message.

Reply: To my knowledge this has never been tried before in a research setting nor in any setting up front. I agree the odds were low. The pictures were all of same gender ..... the deceased and his cousin almost look like twins. The third party bore a slight resemblance and was a friend of the deceased. He didn't acknowledge him. I was anonymous to the medium. The medium did not know who I was trying to contact but may've surmised that after seeing the photos. I didn' t have enough similar line up photos of different people to use so I was stuck with what I could get. I wasn't really interested in seeing if the medium could guess the person, I was more interested in gauging the
reaction (in first person: "That's me" as opposed to "that's him").
I was also interested in confirming the identity of the spirit I wanted to contact and having received that confirmation, I had no reason to assume there would be any misses whatsoever. There weren't any. I will not disclose everything he talked about through this trance but it was specific things about the house, about the dogs, he identified my father who died before he was born as being with him, other deceased family members, some of whom died a long time ago including a great grandmother in 1938. He did identify these by name. He talked also about his pets, all accurate as to their name (e.g. Rambo is here....Rambo was his black lab who died a year after he did, probably of melancholia) and so forth. It was mostly about meeting dead relatives, many of whom he never knew in life. It was fascinating
and accurate. He called these by their first names and their relationships such as Grandma Sophie (died in 1938). He called my wifes father "Big Daddy" which was his nick-name. He died when he was only 15 so knew this nick-name.

The medium did not know me from Adam. I paid cash. Used a untraceable trunk line at my institution to make the appointment
and gave only my first name. He told me where his RayBans were hidden (they were where he said they would be). And what blew me away was he said "Thank's for the pin" The night before I came home with some Flag lapel pins given out at work. I stuck one in his picture frame.

I did not say a word. Just took notes, pages of them and never looked up or even nodded. The medium appeared to be asleep while talking and had her eyes closed but, of course, could have peeked (Randi's favoirite hypothesis: peeking)

I think this should be used routinely. It puts the onus on the non-trance medium to say "Yes, I have this person here." The trance would say "That's me." If they indeed confirm the identity a lot of cold reading and the game of 20 questions can be avoided. You can get down to the nitty gritty info which should all be 100%. On TV JE and others seem to waste most of their time establishing identities. On LKL the phone calls are 20 to 30 seconds and then cut off by switch King has. It's ridiculous
to base anything on these performances. They're hardly scratching the surface and are a waste of time.

I am trying to get this idea in front of some researchers who plan to move ahead over the next few years with more mediumship trials. I definitely believe it would be a good thing. Some skeptics as well as believers disagree., however. I cannot fathom their rationale. Some say to me "Getting the identity is part of what the medium should do" I say how, by asking questions? I don't get it I guess.

voidx

5th August 2003, 04:52 PM

I am trying to get this idea in front of some researchers who plan to move ahead over the next few years with more mediumship trials. I definitely believe it would be a good thing. Some skeptics as well as believers disagree., however. I cannot fathom their rationale. Some say to me "Getting the identity is part of what the medium should do" I say how, by asking questions? I don't get it I guess.
Well logistically, it would be hard to not give the medium a hint. I would think a good way would be to bring the medium in, give him no visual look at the sitter, give him an array of photo's, of both varying age and gender. And have him identify the spirit before continuing. Then letting them continue on with the reading. First off it would be instant verification of the correct spirit so to speak. And even if he got the picture wrong, it would still be interesting to see if the reading fit the sitter. If done properly I think it could be effective. Obviously this seems to conflict with the different "styles" of mediumship, the concept of which seems odd to me in the first place. Whats the general believers opinion in trance mediums which seem to operate on possession of a form rather than Clairvoyance/audience/sentience? It seems trance mediums are entirely different, and use an entirely different process from whatever you called JE type mediums. Seems a tad inconsistent no?

Clancie

5th August 2003, 04:58 PM

Thank you, Darat. That helped a great deal. :)

I see your questions are for neo, not me (and, no surprise, I'm not disappointed in the least! :) )

Since she's not around, I thought of two things from a reading I had with Robert Brown that might be of interest to you.

At one point he said, "I see boxes, and whenever I see boxes that's my symbol for someone moving." (Interestingly, this is also JE's symbol for moving).

Later, he said, "She's putting a small bag on your lap--small bag, means a small trip, just two or three days."

Anyway, I don't want to argue if these could be classic cold reading techniques (obviously, they could). I only mention it as an example of another medium who did say that he sees images that symbolized something else to him, something that perhaps conforms to the idea of clairvoyant symbols within his own "frame of reference".

Voidx,

Yes, its already "next week", but several JE threads are active and some have been bumped up. I thought I'd wait till things "die down" (no pun :) ) before putting up the JE readings (assuming they'll post okay. I'm hopeful.... )

SteveGrenard

5th August 2003, 05:27 PM

V: Well logistically, it would be hard to not give the medium a hint. I would think a good way would be to bring the medium in, give him no visual look at the sitter, give him an array of photo's, of both varying age and gender. And have him identify the spirit before continuing. Then letting them continue on with the reading. First off it would be instant verification of the correct spirit so to speak.

Reply: This is excellent input. I will make this a part of my proposal and call it the Voidx Modification. Thank you and I
mean that sincerely! My intent is exactly as you state: to provide unequivocal instant identification and skip the b.s.

V: And even if he got the picture wrong, it would still be interesting to see if the reading fit the sitter. If done properly I think it could be effective.

Reply: If they got the picture wrong and the reading still fit the sitter, I would call this invalid. Please expand on why this possibility could still be effective? or valid?

V: Obviously this seems to conflict with the different "styles" of mediumship, the concept of which seems odd to me in the first place.

Reply: I think Neo, Clanci and now myself as well as others here (e.g. MikeD) have been trying to say that for eons. Take any profession, any artist, any sportsfigure, any actor, any singer,
geez, even any physician or dentist, and you will find different styles. It may seem odd to you but it isn't.

V: Whats the general believers opinion in trance mediums which seem to operate on possession of a form rather than Clairvoyance/audience/sentience?

Reply: Trance mediums allow the deceased to use them as public address systems, to use their vocal apparatus. The information apparently somehow telepathically enters centers in the brain for speech and are spit out as fast as they enter. Remember spirits have no vocal cords, no speech centers or brains of their own, and are allegedly just clusters of consciousness, memories and related information floating in the atmosphere not unlike EM waves: radio or television signals. They need a terminus (e.g. TV or radio receiver ) to pick them up and convert them to intelligble speech. Trances may also see, hear and feel but usually work
this way. There is some debate that all mediumship and telepathy involves some sort of trance or "semi-trance" state.

The other type of mediumship is called mental mediumship. The medium does not allow their thoughts to be entirely taken over by the communicator and instead filter them. To me it is far less evidential, tainted by such excuses as frame of reference and laden with symbology which may not be real, just imagined by the medium.

Trance mediums:

1. ask no questions
2. work while self hypnotized or partly asleep with eyes closed
3. just speak continuously as if they were the deceased
4. don't grope for identities
5. reflect the personality and knowledge of the deceased as if you were talking to them rather than to a third party (e.g. JE) who says he is interpreting. I don't want JE to interpret for me.
Sorry.

V: It seems trance mediums are entirely different, and use an entirely different process from whatever you called JE type mediums. Seems a tad inconsistent no?

Reply: JE et al are mental mediums or semi-trances. Trance mediums ARE entirely different. The second trance was encountered by my wife who is British while I am an American.
Our deceased was born in the UK but lived in the states most of his life and spoke wth an American, New York accent. You can't infer this from my wife's speech which is very British. The English trance medium she went to not only got the deceased but he effected changes in his tone of voice to that of an American accent and did so for over 1 hour. Its on tape and being studied by a lingistic expert right now. The medium had no idea that my wife, who used her maiden name, had any connection to a deceased who spoke with an American accent. They were both in the UK. She told him nothing and I stayed far away from the encounter and had nothing to do with setting it up.

It is not inconsistent. If you are familiar with the literature on this subject and have read serious, scholarly books such as Gauld's on Mediumship or the more recent book by Prof.Stephen Braude of the Univ of Maryland: Immortal Remains, you would be made aware of the numerous different kinds of mediumship there are. So in the world of all things mediumistic it is not inconsistent. Drawing the same analogy above there are among doctors different specialists, among car mechanics different specialists and among artists different specialists. What is so unusual about having diffeent types of mediumship?

voidx

5th August 2003, 05:43 PM

V: And even if he got the picture wrong, it would still be interesting to see if the reading fit the sitter. If done properly I think it could be effective.

Reply: If they got the picture wrong and the reading still fit the sitter, I would call this invalid. Please expand on why this possibility could still be effective? or valid?
Sorry, wasn't clear there. I would also label it as invalid just as you would. But it would be effective in perhaps further showing how readings can be made to fit the sitter, or can be validated by the sitter even if the intial spirit identification is wrong. One way or the other, it would either prove my point of view, or yours, or at least give some objective data one way or the other.

It is not inconsistent. If you are familiar with the literature on this subject and have read serious, scholarly books such as Gauld's on Mediumship or the more recent book by Prof.Stephen Braude of the Univ of Maryland: Immortal Remains, you would be made aware of the numerous different kinds of mediumship there are. So in the world of all things mediumistic it is not inconsistent. Drawing the same analogy above there are among doctors different specialists, among car mechanics different specialists and among artists different specialists. What is so unusual about having diffeent types of mediumship?
I look at it differently. Yes there are different types of doctors and mechanics who specialize in certain area's. However, a normal mechanic, and a specialized mechanic would still agree on all the base principles of how a car runs, or to use the word of the day, the "process" by which an automobile runs. Same goes with the doctor analogy, whether your a heart specialist, or a brain surgeon, your understanding of the basic principles of how the known process' of the human body work would be the same. To me, it seems as if these different styles of mediumship do not agree in their base "process" of how the communication works. I suppose it could be argued that trance mediums just give total control of their voice, or whichever of the 3 clairvoyance/audience/sentience senses would be responsible for communication by voice, and let the spirit talk directly, but to me it seems a little thin in the credibility department.

neofight

5th August 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Man, I'm in the wrong time zone!

A bit busy this morning, so I'll just focus on a minor thing: If anyone wants the full threads (not just the snippet neo presented) of my purported dishonesty, they are available for inspection.

Carry on. This is great skepticism.

Hi, Claus. Perhaps you still had sleep in your eyes and didn't see it, but I did include a link for the referenced thread, Claus, and I even encouraged anyone who was interested to go and read it. I did, and it was well worth the time as it put me in a most excellent humor for the better part of the day. :D ......neo

SteveGrenard

5th August 2003, 06:19 PM

VOIDX: I look at it differently. Yes there are different types of doctors and mechanics who specialize in certain area's. However, a normal mechanic, and a specialized mechanic would still agree on all the base principles of how a car runs, or to use the word of the day, the "process" by which an automobile runs. Same goes with the doctor analogy, whether your a heart specialist, or a brain surgeon, your understanding of the basic principles of how the known process' of the human body work would be the same. To me, it seems as if these different styles of mediumship do not agree in their base "process" of how the communication works. I suppose it could be argued that trance mediums just give total control of their voice, or whichever of the 3 clairvoyance/audience/sentience senses would be responsible for communication by voice, and let the spirit talk directly, but to me it seems a little thin in the credibility department.

Reply: To this, I can reply that this is an emerging field. Perhaps based on physics about which many have theorized but also about which little has been conclusively determined so I have no
doubt and wonder little why basic causality(ies) has/have not been established for this. I seriously doubt that platform mediums like JE have anything other than the most rudimentary facts re these considerations so I hardly expect them to understand the math. And while I don't wish to be picky, you omitted the analogy to artists, musicians, actors, et al who certainly operate on different basic underlying motivations and have diverse objectives.

I think I have seen this example mentioned as well..............that laypersons know things like cars, if you put oil and gasoline in them, and start them up take you places but few people who operate such machines know anything about how they really work.

neofight

5th August 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Just for the record, I personally think neo's right in talking about a process of communication that is commonly used by mediums.

I thought she was referrring to the blend of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience that all mediums seem to share, although they may have different preferences and strengths within those three.

So...neo, Are you saying the "mediumship process" is something other than this? To me, it seems that all mediums I can think of say that they use a mixture of the above, including clairvoyance (and clairvoyance is based on images--some of which can assume a consistent symbolism for a particular medium).

I really don't understand what their question is. Do you? :confused: [/B]

:hb: No, Clancie. No I don't. I thought it was clear that we were totally in agreement as to what was meant by "process". And I'm sure that we are. :) ......neo

neofight

5th August 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
Clearly what neo meant was that for each and every medium they will have their own unique process.

Lurker, thank you! Thank you! Thank you! :kiss:

Which really brings into question why she mentioned process at all. If each is unique then there really is nothing to learn from one medium to another.

Well, Lurker, I use the word process, because that is the word that JE uses, and uses very frequently, as those of us who do watch "Crossing Over" can attest to.

As far as mediums not learning from other mediums, I would not say that is necessarily true. After all, Brian Hurst was James Van Praagh's mentor.

And JE had Shelley Peck, another medium, as a close friend in his life, although she's no longer alive. And of Sandy Anastasi, in his list of acknowledgements in the front of "OLT" JE had this to say.

Sandy Anastasi: The one and only "teacher" I had in developing my abilities...thank you for teaching me to be humble, and that it is okay to be wrong. Your guidance has been the foundation upon which I built and developed my abilities.

But in general, Lurker, you are correct in what you thought I meant. Every true psychic medium is unique, and so it goes to follow that their respective mediumship styles and abilities are also unique. Which, imo, is precisely why all the predominently "left side of the brain" users have such a difficult time with this whole subject. ;) ....neo

neofight

5th August 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Darat

I diasagree. Neo seems to have used (and did so in her last post to me) that getting "symbols" in the manner claimed by JE is part of the process of mediumship whereas the evidence seems to be that JE is pretty unique in his descriptions of his process (compared to other mediums).

Darat, I can only go by the mediums that I know the most about, which would be JE, GA and JVP, although GA and JVP might both be stronger clairvoyantly than JE, in the sense that they have both spoken of being able to see the spirit during readings, if not always, than at least some of the time. For JE, these days, this would be an extremely rare occurance.

In fact, not too long ago, during one of the "CO" readings, he did mention that he kept getting a quick visual glimpse of a man who was standing behind the sitter. He commented at the time on how very rare that was for him.....neo

neofight

5th August 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie,

What part of "the "symbol process" of JE" don't you understand? Look in the glossary that JE uses and that he has on his SciFi-site. Look in his books.

JE gets a white rose for congratulations, numbers for important dates, etc.

Do other mediums use this "symbol process" too?

Stop faking ignorance, stop your incessant stalling and get to the friggin' point!

(Funny how this always happens when you have a tough job ahead of you....)

Oh Claus! Why don't you just go back to bed. You are getting cranky again. :p

Clancie isn't faking ignorance OR stalling. She's trying to clarify what it is that Darat is asking her for, since we seem to be having a difficult time understanding eachother for some reason......neo

neofight

5th August 2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Thank you for this reference Steve, .....

Yes, Steve. My thanks as well. I'm catching up on reading this thread, and responding to the posts as I get to them. I posted something about Sandy Anastasi as well because I remembered JE mentioning her and crediting her with being his teacher.

As a follow up to this I take it that you (and Neo if she agrees this supports her theory that JE uses the process of mediumship) accept this site as an authority on mediumship?

I do accept Sandy's site, Darat......neo

SteveGrenard

5th August 2003, 07:36 PM

NEO: Yes, Steve. My thanks as well. I'm catching up on reading this thread, and responding to the posts as I get to them. I posted something about Sandy Anastasi as well because I remembered JE mentioning her and crediting her with being his teacher.

Reply: Yes. But Darat questionned, as he rightfully should have, whether or not her (SandyA's) site and claim that she had taught JE was valid. I also recall JE acknowledging her as his one and only teacher. Thanks for finding that. Although I knew of Sandy's use of symbols in her work teaching mediums, JE included, but others as well, Darat managed to surf the site and found this on his own. I think that pretty well sums up the origins of JE's process and use of symbols.

neofight

5th August 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Darat
Yes my questions are directed at Neo and her position – I do understand you share a lot of Neo’s view regarding JE but this seems to be a point of difference between the two of you.

No, that is not accurate, Darat. From what I can tell, Clancie (Gryphon2) and I have been posting on the same boards for about a year and a half now, and we are both quite familiar with the other's understanding of this issue.

Hell, we could probably even complete one another's sentences by now, if we tried. There is no point of difference between us concerning the mediumship process that I am aware of. :)

No – I was just using some very successful and well known mediums own words to demonstrate that they don’t seem to make a reference to “symbols” and a “personal frame of reference”.

Well, aside from having heard a little about Doris Stokes, I am really not familiar with those mediums, and I have no idea how they tend to get their messages from spirit.

I’ve no problem with what any of the mediums say they do or how they say they do it this is about Neo’s theory of how the mediumship process works with special reference to JE.

Darat, I don't know that "theory" would be the right word to use. It's not MY theory. I only know what I have observed from watching and listening to JE on "CO", from attending four of his seminars, and from reading all of his books. Not being a medium myself, I have no first-hand experience of how mediumship works.

Yes – I want to see how other mediums that use the “process” Neo see’s in JE readings use it in their readings.

Well, I'm guessing that you've probably not seen James Van Praagh's tv show, "Beyond"? His mediumship seems similar to JE. So does that of George Anderson. In fact, he has a whole glossary of his symbols in one of the books I have.

Clancie was read by British mediums Brian Hurst, and Robert Brown, and I don't know that their "process" was all that different from that of JE, so I know that JE's type of process using symbols and images is not strictly an American thing, Darat.

I don't know what else I could say to you to convince you that whatever discrepency you thought you had detected in my posts concerning the process of mediumship, was just mistaken......neo

neofight

5th August 2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I had no reason to assume there would be any misses whatsoever. There weren't any. I will not disclose everything he talked about through this trance but it was specific things about the house, about the dogs, he identified my father who died before he was born as being with him, other deceased family members, some of whom died a long time ago including a great grandmother in 1938. He did identify these by name. He talked also about his pets, all accurate as to their name (e.g. Rambo is here....Rambo was his black lab who died a year after he did, probably of melancholia) and so forth. It was mostly about meeting dead relatives, many of whom he never knew in life. It was fascinating
and accurate. He called these by their first names and their relationships such as Grandma Sophie (died in 1938). He called my wifes father "Big Daddy" which was his nick-name. He died when he was only 15 so knew this nick-name.

The medium did not know me from Adam. I paid cash. Used a untraceable trunk line at my institution to make the appointment
and gave only my first name. He told me where his RayBans were hidden (they were where he said they would be). And what blew me away was he said "Thank's for the pin" The night before I came home with some Flag lapel pins given out at work. I stuck one in his picture frame.

I did not say a word. Just took notes, pages of them and never looked up or even nodded. The medium appeared to be asleep while talking and had her eyes closed but, of course, could have peeked (Randi's favoirite hypothesis: peeking)

Hi, Steve. What I find absolutely amazing is why all, or at least some of those skeptics out there who are so darned sure that there is nothing to this stuff, why they don't attempt to get a reading by someone like this trance medium that you went to.

It would seem such a great opportunity for them to see for themselves what a powerful experience this could be. It boggles my mind that they don't do this, especially when they have such a great testimony as you've just given. :confused: ....neo

thaiboxerken

5th August 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Hi, Steve. What I find absolutely amazing is why all, or at least some of those skeptics out there who are so darned sure that there is nothing to this stuff, why they don't attempt to get a reading by someone like this trance medium that you went to.

It would seem such a great opportunity for them to see for themselves what a powerful experience this could be. It boggles my mind that they don't do this, especially when they have such a great testimony as you've just given. :confused: ....neo

LOL. I'll tell you what, neo, if YOU pay for my visit to a medium, I'll go. Many skeptics really don't wish to donate their money to scam artists.

I am not entertained by John Edward, so I try not to toss my money his way. After all, that's all he claims to be able to do with his disclaimer.

Instig8R

5th August 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Well, I guess that you could go ahead and say it that way instead, Instig8R, but that still doesn't make your statement any more convincing or accurate than it was before, since it is only your impression that this occurs frequently, up against my impression that it's actually quite infrequent.

Hey, Neo-- Have you forgotten that it was you who argued with RC, and claimed that JE usually gets information clairaudiently. If you had bothered to look at some transcripts, instead of relying on your memory or a quote from JE's book, you would know that most of the time, JE does't indicate HOW he is receiving the information. He usually asks open-ended questions, like "Who has the T-connection".

Now that's crossing a line, and heading towards being a trifle insulting, Instig8R! I am going by my own recollections of what I see on the show, and I only copied the section of "OLT" that applied to this issue, for those who didn't have a copy of the book. I certainly didn't need to look up what JE said about how he gets people's names, since I've been watching the show for two years now. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, I suggest that you start watching the show a bit more often and while you are at it, start keeping track of this type of thing, because I maintain that your impression is wrong, and that JE does not get all that many initials in the way that you have suggested he does. RC said that he was going to start watching more closely for this as well, and so will I. Start counting! ;)

Just because RC hasn’t been watching CO lately, there is no reason for you to conclude that I have not watched the show lately. I watch the show at least 3 times per week. I consider it highly prejudicial for you to suggest otherwise with no basis in fact. If I didn’t know you better, I would interpret that as a ploy to undermine my observations. ;)

If you based your claim on what appears on TV, instead of what was said in the book, you would note that JE does not usually state how how he receives messages, but when he does commit to a method, it is pretty equally distributed amongst "hearing", "seeing" and "feeling". Since you didn't appear to have noticed it, I presumed you were following the prescribed method JE wrote about in his book, which you quoted with such authority.

I would remind you that initially, you argued with RC that JE receives most of the messages clairaudiently. I hope by now you have discovered that the transcripts do not support your argument. Most of the information cannot be attributed to any particular method.

That's a valid point. No one has to accept JE's word for it. I just wanted RC, and anyone else who was interested, to know what JE has said on the subject. I base my own claim on what I've seen on the show, and not on what JE has written in his book.

Yeah, right! :)

Right. And you claim you've seen him do this how many times, ballpark figure?

1. a few times
2. several times
3. very often
4. almost always

There is no need for you to exaggerate my claim. I was refuting your claim that JE predominently uses clairaudience. When not being deliberately vague about the method, JE claims that “they’re making me feel like”, “they’re showing me” and “they’re telling me”. Since you are the one claiming that it is predominantly clairaudience, it should be easy for you to prove it. I think you should start the count! ;)

I also note that it is your distinct claim that JE is SHOWN numbers, rather than hearing them. While you are reviewing the transcripts, you will also learn that JE is hearing numbers, despite his claims (and your claims) to the contrary. I think you also posted an excerpt from his book, about how the spirits love to show him numbers. It is another example of how JE can deviate from his own stated rules, without it being noticed.

Yes, you probably remember the "JO" being put over the woman because I believe I transcribed that particular reading. However, I am sticking to my guns, and maintaining that these instances are far and few between in the many, many readings that JE does.

I’m also remembering JE writing letters, using his index finger on his imaginary chalkboard, painting a big “H”, and then there are other times when he puts a big “V” over a family. The writing instances and other occasions of being shown letters are comparable to the other times when JE is being told or made to feel something. Do you object to observations that JE is being shown, as opposed to being “made to feel like”? When JE says, “they’re making me feel like there’s an R-connection”, it does not reflect the clairaudience that you previously claimed happened the most. Is this a selective argument?

That is in another category altogether, Instig8R. The "AMA" or American Medical Association logo is a symbol that is within JE's frame of reference. That has nothing to do with his getting names. It is a staple of his readings, letting him know, as you say, that someone had to have gone against medical advice and refused treatment or something.

That is pure Ca-ca de Toro. It has everything to do with JE’s method of getting names. The official symbol of the American Medical Association is the Sword of Caduceus. The symbol is a snake, crawling around a sword. A guy like JE, with his medical/hospital background would be quite familiar with it.

However, JE doesn’t claim to be shown the logo… he claims to see the letters AMA, the abbreviation for American Medical Association. If JE can formulate abbreviations for such things as “Against Medical Advice”, then he can formulate abbreviations for names and places. I can only marvel at the fact that he has not done so, after 18 years in the psychic-medium business.

Given that getting the names of people is so very important, Instig8R, I question your assertion that the very part of the reading where names come through are edited out of the show. I also take issue with your claim that the CO readings are heavily edited, since you have no way of knowing that is the case. Simply stating it as a fact, does not make it one. :) .....neo

Uh, Neo— Who made the assertion that “the very part of the reading where names come through are edited out of the show”? The general consensus seems to be that the misses are edited out.

Based on the amount of footage edited out of gallery readings on CO, and based on my personal observations of the Westbury seminar and the edited readings that were created from it, I believe there is a good basis for my claim about editing. Perhaps JE's readings on Larry King Live would be better if he could invoke editing like he does on CO Gallery readings... which are still quite poor, despite the advantages he has on his own turf. I guess we're in for another flurry of bad LKL readings next month, when his newest book hits the stands. :eek:

Loki

5th August 2003, 08:49 PM

Neo,

It boggles my mind that they don't do this, especially when they have such a great testimony as you've just given.
It boggles my mind that there is any debate at all about the validity of ADC and mediumship if Steve's trance medium is that good! I read Steve's testimony, and see only 3 alternatives :

1. Steve is completely correct in his recollection of "100% accuracy", and the trance medium had no prior knowledge of Steve - mediumship is a hot favourite!
2. Steve is completely correct, but the medium did have prior of knowledge of Steve and was hoit reading.
3. Steve is mistaken in his memory - the reading was not "100% accurate" - the status of the medium is undetermined.

How do you propse we discover which of these three is correct? Steve says there were other witnesses with him - so perhaps we can confirm their version of the reading, and therefore eliminate (tentatively) option 3. How can we decide between1 and 2? Steve is *sure* that medium didn't know him, and couldn't find out - but surely that's also a sign of a clever fake? If you know exactly how a magician does their trick, it's not very impressive. Surely the "gee - how did they do that" factor only occurs when you don't know?

thaiboxerken

5th August 2003, 09:05 PM

Neo,

It boggles my mind that there is any debate at all about the validity of ADC and mediumship if Steve's trance medium is that good! I read Steve's testimony, and see only 3 alternatives :

[/QUOTE]

Well.. what we really have here is just another anecdote by a believer that calls himself a skeptic. Steve Grenard is as much of a skeptic as Gary Schwartz.

Still no evidence, the JREF still has a million dollars waiting for a medium to take.

neofight

5th August 2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

LOL. I'll tell you what, neo, if YOU pay for my visit to a medium, I'll go. Many skeptics really don't wish to donate their money to scam artists.

I am not entertained by John Edward, so I try not to toss my money his way. After all, that's all he claims to be able to do with his disclaimer.

Well, I've got my own favorite charities to donate to, thaiboxer, and you ain't one of them, :D but too bad you weren't around last year, when Valyou offered to pay Claus' way out to California to get a reading. She might have put her money where your mouth is. lol .....neo

5th August 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by neofight

And JE had Shelley Peck, another medium, as a close friend in his life, although she's no longer alive

Ah, yes, the great Shelley Peck. Another one of JE's friends/"medium" colleagues, like Robert "page 17" Brown and Suzane "did Papa like to wear hats, please may I ask" Northrop.

I didn't know much about Ms. Peck until recently I had a look through the postings at Suzane Northrop's board. People there have been talking about the readings with Shelley. One poster is skeptical of her reading and that says a lot given how firm in their beliefs the crowd is over there. The "hit" she got was when Shelley told her that she has a picture of she and her mother in the living room. Stunning hit.

The other amazing hit given by someone else was when Peck asked why her daughter was wearing blue at her communion. Apparently the daughter didn't wear blue, so Peck went on to say that it must have been a piece of jewelry. Well, lo and behold, the daughter did indeed have a blue stone on her ring! Such a special hit.

I'm a little sarcastic tonight, but please. I held my tongue over there because they deserve their space, but every single one of JE's buddies seem like 2nd rate cold readers. And Peck is his mentor!

5th August 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by voidx
Posted by RC:

Yes I do remember reading that, and would be interested to hear more. But just realize that while I have no reason to believe you would be misleading of your account I still have to swallow my "ancedotyle pill" because I have only you're word to verify upon. I don't disagree with your statement persay, but do realize that lately in these posts there have been attempts to try and nail down a process of sorts for how these mediums work. That has come in part from mine and others prompting of just how this communication works because it seems horrible inconsistent from medium to medium, and even sometimes from reading to reading from the same medium.

I understand where you're coming from, and I don't expect anyone to take my anecdote as the truth. I merely offer it to explain why I am more open to "the process" than others.

Also, just to be clear, while I have had readings, the experience I am talking about is a mediumship experiment in which *I* gave the reading. I was the one who brought through "Johann" and the "Tom Petty" record. That is why it is compelling to me. I can't say I really understand what happened, nor do I necessarily believe that it was mediumship, but I did...in a meditative state..."see" the word "Johann" and the Tom Petty album, and it turned out that the teacher's dead grandfathers are Johann and Tom.

I'll write more about it on another thread when I have a little time.

5th August 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Loki
RC,
I think you mean to say something like "yet not operate in an easily understood or explained manner".

Fair enough, that is closer to what I meant.

voidx

5th August 2003, 10:29 PM

Posted by Steve Grenard:
Reply: To this, I can reply that this is an emerging field. Perhaps based on physics about which many have theorized but also about which little has been conclusively determined so I have no doubt and wonder little why basic causality(ies) has/have not been established for this. I seriously doubt that platform mediums like JE have anything other than the most rudimentary facts re these considerations so I hardly expect them to understand the math. And while I don't wish to be picky, you omitted the analogy to artists, musicians, actors, et al who certainly operate on different basic underlying motivations and have diverse objectives.
I agree that its obvious JE doesn't understand what it is technically that he does, and doesn't necessarily need to in order to "do what he does", as per your, I don't know squat about cars, but I can drive one example. Go ahead and nitpick, that's perfectly fine, but I was correcting you're analogy with what I thought was more accurate, keep that in mind. Also, musicians et al are also a poor example. They work entirely in the subjective. Their is no scientific process to art, its a subjective experience. Telepathy/PSI/ESP if real should very much be a scientific process of communication, so again, not an apt analogy. I understand I'm in a way asking for the impossible right now by demanding supporters of mediumship explain to me the science behind this communication, its completely unknown, and to me that's the problem with it. I'll admit I've not read everything there is to read on this topic by a long shot, so if there are physics based theories of how this form of communication works then I'd be glad to read them. If there are not, or if they are still mostly unsupported hypothesis, then I have to ask why paranormal research has not been able to do more in the last 30-40 years in furthering our knowledge of this communication process, if it indeed exists. It seems to me their trying to correlate whether it exists period by analyzing test results, and are in no way closer to understanding how it might work, but rather are still trying to nail down that it works consistently, period.

Posted by RC:
I understand where you're coming from, and I don't expect anyone to take my anecdote as the truth. I merely offer it to explain why I am more open to "the process" than others.
Fair enough.

Posted by RC:
Also, just to be clear, while I have had readings, the experience I am talking about is a mediumship experiment in which *I* gave the reading. I was the one who brought through "Johann" and the "Tom Petty" record. That is why it is compelling to me. I can't say I really understand what happened, nor do I necessarily believe that it was mediumship, but I did...in a meditative state..."see" the word "Johann" and the Tom Petty album, and it turned out that the teacher's dead grandfathers are Johann and Tom.
I seem to remember you mentioning that in one of the other threads.

Posted by Neofight:
Hi, Steve. What I find absolutely amazing is why all, or at least some of those skeptics out there who are so darned sure that there is nothing to this stuff, why they don't attempt to get a reading by someone like this trance medium that you went to.
That's simple, because we'd be meeting on their terms, in their controlled environment. Same as going to a magic show, I might not have an idea how they came up with the information, but that doesn't automatically authentic them either. I see the trick, but I don't know how its accomplished persay. This question can be turned both ways. If these mediums are so deadsure about what they do, why not work to dictate the terms of a test with the JREF and prove us wrong, that they do in fact have a new, previously unknown of form of communication of some sort, prove it to the world.

neofight

5th August 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by RC

Ah, yes, the great Shelley Peck. Another one of JE's friends/"medium" colleagues, like Robert "page 17" Brown and Suzane "did Papa like to wear hats, please may I ask" Northrop.

I didn't know much about Ms. Peck until recently I had a look through the postings at Suzane Northrop's board. People there have been talking about the readings with Shelley. One poster is skeptical of her reading and that says a lot given how firm in their beliefs the crowd is over there. The "hit" she got was when Shelley told her that she has a picture of she and her mother in the living room. Stunning hit.

The other amazing hit given by someone else was when Peck asked why her daughter was wearing blue at her communion. Apparently the daughter didn't wear blue, so Peck went on to say that it must have been a piece of jewelry. Well, lo and behold, the daughter did indeed have a blue stone on her ring! Such a special hit.

I'm a little sarcastic tonight, but please. I held my tongue over there because they deserve their space, but every single one of JE's buddies seem like 2nd rate cold readers. And Peck is his mentor!

Well, I guess you are one skeptic who places a lot of weight on anecdotal evidence, right RC?

RC, I've never seen a Shelley Peck reading. Never. Not a one. I didn't come to believe in JE's mediumship right away, even though I had seen many of his readings. I don't think I'll make a judgement on the merits of Shelley Peck's abilities either. ;) ....neo

neofight

5th August 2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by RC
I was the one who brought through "Johann" and the "Tom Petty" record.

RC, I asked you this elsewhere, but I guess it got buried. Were you already familiar with the jacket of the Tom Petty album that you saw?

In other words, is this a good example of your getting information within your own frame of reference, i.e. a particular Tom Petty record? Or did you simply see a generic record cover that had the name Tom Petty on it?.....neo

neofight

5th August 2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by voidx
Also, musicians et al are also a poor example. They work entirely in the subjective. Their is no scientific process to art, its a subjective experience. Telepathy/PSI/ESP if real should very much be a scientific process of communication, so again, not an apt analogy.

I'm curious, voidx, about why you believe that telepathy is more a science, and not an art. How can you say that mediumship is not subjective? Do we know that for a fact? No, of course we don't, since we don't even know if it is real.

Intuition, including telepathy/PSI/ESP if they indeed exist, stems from the right side of the brain, just as do all of the creative and artistic abilities that we might have. Logic and science are related to the left side of the brain. So why are you so convinced that if mediumship is real, it should "very much be a scientific process of communication"? :confused: .....neo

MRC_Hans

6th August 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by neofight
*snip*
Intuition, including telepathy/PSI/ESP if they indeed exist, stems from the right side of the brain, just as do all of the creative and artistic abilities that we might have.
Logic and science are related to the left side of the brain. So why are you so convinced that if mediumship is real, it should "very much be a scientific process of communication"? :confused: .....neo

How on Earth can you say that? Since you admit that we do not even know if such faculties exist, how can you state which side of the brain they come from?

And, if you assume they are from one or the other side of the brain, then it follows that you assume them to be processes of the brain, and thus within the realm of logic and science.

The fact that we mostly use the left side of the brain for science and logic does not mean that we cannot use logic and science to understand the right side of the brain. Obviously we use our brain to understand things outside our brain too.

Hans

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by neofight
I also take issue with your (Instig8r) claim that the CO readings are heavily edited, since you have no way of knowing that is the case. Simply stating it as a fact, does not make it one. :) .....neo

It is your claim that a reading can take 30 minutes. It is your claim that the CO readings are not heavily edited. We know that we only see about 11 minutes of readings.

So, what happens to the remaining 19 minutes, neo?

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by neofight
Well, I've got my own favorite charities to donate to, thaiboxer, and you ain't one of them, :D but too bad you weren't around last year, when Valyou offered to pay Claus' way out to California to get a reading. She might have put her money where your mouth is. lol .....neo

Perhaps you should also tell that Valyou insisted on knowing my personal info, too. But, nooooooo, I would certainly remain anonymous to the medium she was trying to persuade me was real.

:rolleyes:

Why do you always seem to leave out the little bit of information that completely destroys your story, neo?

SteveGrenard

6th August 2003, 03:37 AM

Instigator writes:

However, JE doesn’t claim to be shown the logo… he claims to see the letters AMA, the abbreviation for American Medical Association. If JE can formulate abbreviations for such things as “Against Medical Advice”, then he can formulate abbreviations for names and places. I can only marvel at the fact that he has not done so, after 18 years in the psychic-medium business.

Reply: While AMA may be the nick-name of the American Medical Association it is also, quite definitely, also the acronym used by doctors when discharging patients from the hospital or emergency room against their best advice ....or documenting patients who refuse treatment, surgery or other procedures.

JE would know this having worked in healthcare. I can assure he you did not make it up as the term has been in use long before he was born. He did not formulate this acronym or abbreviation.

Just for fun, I entered the following string Google: "AMA=against medical advice" (try it...). I came up with the following (shortened) results:

COBRA/EMTALA Resources for hospitals
... Many folks confuse this with an AMA -- Against Medical Advice -- but it
is not the same as an AMA form because of what is required in it.. ...
www.medlaw.com/forms.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

[DOC]ER: THE MEDICAL REGISTER
File Format: Microsoft Word 97 - View as HTML
... The data is conflicting. * AMA: Against Medical Advice. If I tell you stay
put and you leave anyway, you're leaving Against Medical Advice. ...
www.geoffbarton.co.uk/files/Registersamplesx3.doc - Similar pages

AMA (Ethics) From the Editor
... This lack of familiarity makes already difficult encounters—dealing with patients
who want to leave AMA (against medical advice) or communicating with ...
www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/9582.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

New Hampshire Hospital Association
... AMA, Against Medical Advice: Code the disposition AMA in the following instances:
The patient’s record has an order written stating he/she left AMA, even if ...
www.healthynh.com/healthcare_data/ newsletter/april1998.php - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

Sirote.com
... Consequently, the hospital staff had Cook read and sign an AMA (“Against Medical
Advice”) acknowledging his refusal of further treatment and of the ...
www.sirote.com/publications/ index.asp?action=details&pub_id=217 - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

AMA Questions Anti-Bacterial Soaps 6/17/00
... Toiletry and Fragrance Association, had previously lobbied the AMA against having
any ... health care professional and they are not intended as medical advice. ...
www.mercola.com/2000/june/17/anti_bacterial_soap.htm - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF]National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... #1. AMA = Against Medical Advice Any discharge of a patient for any reason other
than having completed the treatment process or meeting the treatment goals. ...
www.naatp.net/naatp/2003naatpbenchmark.pdf - Similar pages

AMA: No ethical barriers to cloning for research
... that this decision should not be viewed as "pitting the AMA against the Bush ... for your
general knowledge and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment ...
yalenewhavenhealth.org/HealthNews/ reuters/NewsStory0617200339.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

MIM - Approved Medical Abbreviations AD
... ALP, alkaline phosphatase. ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. ALT, alanine aminotransferase.
AM, before noon. AMA, against medical advice. Amb, ambulate. Amb. ambulatory. ...
academic.med.ohio-state.edu/MIMabbrev/abbr_AD.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

DR BELAIR'S Medical acronyms glossary-A
... ALTS Acute Lumbar Trauma Syndrome. AM Antero Medial. AMA Against Medical Advice.
AMA AntiMitochondrial Antibody. AMC Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita. ...
www.dr-belair.com/dic/Medicine/Medecine/ gl-medical%20acronyms%20glossary-A.htm - 17k

Loki

6th August 2003, 05:09 AM

SteveGrenard,

I was also interested in confirming the identity of the spirit I wanted to contact and having received that confirmation, I had no reason to assume there would be any misses whatsoever.
Do you think that if you had asked the spirit to give his full name and data of birth *immediately* after pointing to the photo that this spirit would have been able to do so?

There weren't any.
No misses at all?? Nothing ambiguous, or open to interpretation?

...it was specific things about the house, about the dogs, he identified my father who died before he was born as being with him, other deceased family members, some of whom died a long time ago including a great grandmother in 1938. He did identify these by name. He talked also about his pets, all accurate as to their name (e.g. Rambo is here....Rambo was his black lab who died a year after he did, probably of melancholia) and so forth. It was mostly about meeting dead relatives, many of whom he never knew in life. It was fascinating
and accurate. He called these by their first names and their relationships such as Grandma Sophie (died in 1938). He called my wifes father "Big Daddy" which was his nick-name. He died when he was only 15 so knew this nick-name.
I assume we have a missing "never" regarding the spirit knowing your wife's father's nick-name?

You took notes - how many relatives were identified by relationship and name? You list one - Grandma Sophie. How many more were there?

The medium did not know me from Adam. I paid cash. Used a untraceable trunk line at my institution to make the appointment and gave only my first name.
How did you select the medium? When did you tell you wife about the sitting? How much time elapsed between the phone call and the actual sitting? What did you say when making the appointment - what reason did you give for wanting a reading? Did you ask if note taking would be okay?

What is an "untraceable trunk line"? Does the New York phone system offer "Caller ID" as an option for incoming calls?

He told me where his RayBans were hidden (they were where he said they would be). And what blew me away was he said "Thank's for the pin" The night before I came home with some Flag lapel pins given out at work. I stuck one in his picture frame.
Did the spirit say anything more to identify that "the pin" was this Flag lapel that you'd stuck in the frame, or is that a connection you have drawn ?

I did not say a word. Just took notes, pages of them and never looked up or even nodded.
What did the people who accompanied you do during the reading?

I am trying to get this idea in front of some researchers who plan to move ahead over the next few years with more mediumship trials.
Why does anyone waste time with "mental mediums"! If your trance medium is this good, then you could soon have the pleasure of separating James Randi from 1 million dollars, and probably world wide fame shortly afterwards. How can you fail to pass any test if the medium can readily produce the spirit, the names and relationships of the entire family (including pets), and select themselves from a "mugshot lineup".

Steve, do *you* believe this medium can do this repeatedly, or is there some reason that the "power" that worked so brilliantly for you might fail completely for someone else? Why is the medium not interested in research? Can you identify the medium?

Instig8R

6th August 2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Reply: While AMA may be the nick-name of the American Medical Association it is also, quite definitely, also the acronym used by doctors when discharging patients from the hospital or emergency room against their best advice ....or documenting patients who refuse treatment, surgery or other procedures.

JE would know this having worked in healthcare. I can assure he you did not make it up as the term has been in use long before he was born. He did not formulate this acronym or abbreviation.

Just for fun, I entered the following string Google: "AMA=against medical advice" (try it...). I came up with the following (shortened) results:

-snip-

I am well aware of the fact that AMA is a well-known medical abbreviation for against medical advice. However, that is not how JE claims to use the term.

JE claims that he is being shown the AMA logo, he mentions American Medical Association, and then explains that it is his symbol for against medical advice. I believe he does so to eliminate any expectations that he can get other medical abbreviations, like HIV, AIDS, and a myriad of other medical abbreviations that run the gamut of health conditions.

Think of the readings where JE can't tell a gunshot wound from an auto accident, because all he has is the feeling of an impact. This problem could be eliminated in its entirety, because if JE can get medical abbreviations known by hospital personnel, then he could get the letters GSW, which is the official abbreviation for Gunshot Wound.

Unfortunately, after 18 years as a psychic-medium, he flounders around, offering vague causes of death. He has not tapped into the use of medical abbreviations which could pin him down to anything specific.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 06:11 AM

A 100%-accuracy medium of any kind means only one of two things:

1) He's a crook.
2) He's genuine.

In both cases, we need to find out.

Steve, what is the name of this medium again?

SteveGrenard

6th August 2003, 06:54 AM

In the UK, the trance medium consulted was Robin Winbow.
The only other valid medium we found there was Kimberly Clark.
which was done cold over the phone and then, for a proxy, via the internet. In NY the trance medium with whom I had the described experience was Camille Walsh, however.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 07:10 AM

Steve,

No website/email of Winbow?

Dragon

6th August 2003, 08:05 AM

Claus,
You could try The College of Psychic Studies (http://www.psychic-studies.org.uk/welcome.htm) as Winbow apparently lectures there.

I've even found his phone number here (http://www.snu.org.uk/mediums_1.htm) (about half way down).

BTW I wonder how you become a "Registered" or "Certificated" medium - if only I had more time on my hands...

6th August 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by neofight
Well, I guess you are one skeptic who places a lot of weight on anecdotal evidence, right RC?

I'm a skeptic?
:eek:

I have no problem working with anecdotes, Neo. I don't consider them proof, but I don't write them off as worthless, either. I've never seen a Shelley Peck reading either, which is why I was eager to read reports of people who had been read by her. What they described came across as JVP-style cold reading. And one person, who appears to be a believer in mediumship is even skeptical about her reading.

One thing that I've always found to be strange is that Peck said in an interview on Crossing Over that only about 10 people in the United States (or was it world, can't remember) have the "gift" that she and JE have. That doesn't match what JE says, in fact I think he has either endorsed or spoken/written about more than 10 others.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Dragon
Claus,
You could try The College of Psychic Studies (http://www.psychic-studies.org.uk/welcome.htm) as Winbow apparently lectures there.

I've even found his phone number here (http://www.snu.org.uk/mediums_1.htm) (about half way down).

BTW I wonder how you become a "Registered" or "Certificated" medium - if only I had more time on my hands...

Thanks - I've been through the mill already. That's why I asked :)

6th August 2003, 08:13 AM

And Neo, you have commented on the merit of Peck's abilities when you called her a medium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe she is a medium because JE says so.

6th August 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by neofight

RC, I asked you this elsewhere, but I guess it got buried. Were you already familiar with the jacket of the Tom Petty album that you saw?

In other words, is this a good example of your getting information within your own frame of reference, i.e. a particular Tom Petty record? Or did you simply see a generic record cover that had the name Tom Petty on it?.....neo

I don't remember seeing this questions so sorry I didn't answer before.

Yes, I was familiar with this album, it's the one with "The Waiting" (Hard Promises, I think). And actually it was a bit of morphing. First I "saw" a red heart, which turned into the TP symbol (or at least it used to be) of a heart with a guitar going through it, then I saw the album cover.

To be honest, had I just seen the album cover, I would be a little more sure it was mediumship, but the whole morphing thing seems just like my mind wandering. The JOHANN thing is much more compelling to me.

Back to your question, though, yes this would match the frame of reference argument. But I've also seen the word "Tom" before, so I wonder why I wasn't shown this as a name the way I saw "Johann"? My teacher had an answer for this, but I'll save it for the thread I'm going to start about my experience, don't want to drift this highly focused thread, lol.

Darat

6th August 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by RC

...snip...

Back to your question, though, yes this would match the frame of reference argument. But I've also seen the word "Tom" before, so I wonder why I wasn't shown this as a name the way I saw "Johann"? My teacher had an answer for this, but I'll save it for the thread I'm going to start about my experience, don't want to drift this highly focused thread, lol.

RC can you expand on something?

From what I've read of your account it would seem that you didn't get any "meaning" associated with the symbols? And that it was the sitter who brought "meaning" to the information?

voidx

6th August 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by neofight

I'm curious, voidx, about why you believe that telepathy is more a science, and not an art. How can you say that mediumship is not subjective? Do we know that for a fact? No, of course we don't, since we don't even know if it is real.

Intuition, including telepathy/PSI/ESP if they indeed exist, stems from the right side of the brain, just as do all of the creative and artistic abilities that we might have. Logic and science are related to the left side of the brain. So why are you so convinced that if mediumship is real, it should "very much be a scientific process of communication"? :confused: .....neo
MRC_Hans summed this up pretty well with his post. But to add a few things. How can you deny that they have to be scientific in nature? Telepathy/PSI/ESP is some form of communication if it exists. Mediums regularily state that energy exists in the form of spirits, that they broadcast this energy, that they make a bridge of some sort, blah blah blah. All of this if real should be measurable by scientific measures. Communication on a physical plane has numerous measureable scientific properties. Communication on a supposedly mental plane should exhibit the same (not that its on a purely mental plane because if there is this energy we're communicating with, it has to have a physical manifestation of some sort via vibrating atoms and molecules :D). You want to call it a creative process or more of an "art", ok fine. But that does not change the fact that at the most base principle of how this communication works, that there must be a scientifically logical set of principles as to how the communication works. I can sing (disclaimer: actually I can't, I suck) that is an artsy form of how I communicate verbally. It does nothing to change the fact that air and vocal cords and many other scientifically understood principles are what makes that communication possible in the first place. I'm sorry, you can't take a form of communication to be more art than science.

6th August 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Darat

RC can you expand on something?

From what I've read of your account it would seem that you didn't get any "meaning" associated with the symbols? And that it was the sitter who brought "meaning" to the information?

That's correct, Darat. I didn't get anything other than the name Johann and the TP symbol/album. After I relayed what I was getting, the sitter said that her two dead grandfathers were Johann and Tom. For full disclosure, the sitter was also the teacher of the class.

Darat

6th August 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by RC

That's correct, Darat. I didn't get anything other than the name Johann and the TP symbol/album. After I relayed what I was getting, the sitter said that her two dead grandfathers were Johann and Tom. For full disclosure, the sitter was also the teacher of the class.

Interesting I suppose it could be said that the sitter therefore had a vested interest in your progress ;)

Seriously, I do think it is very telling that the confirmation/validation seems to always to come from the sitter filling in the blanks. For instance the "impact in the chest area" type of hit only becomes a hit once the sitter fills in the blanks. The sitter has to say "Oh yes my grandfather was hit in the chest and then died" to make this hit. Otherwise it is meaningless. We never seem to get validations that don’t need infomration from the sitter for it to make sense. (Apart from Steve’s claims.) . We just don't see any evidence that mediums just say "Your grandfather on your mother side, Edward, died from a hit to the chest". The medium needs the sitter to develop the hit.

On another point:

I have often wondered if what happened to you explains why people start to think they have these types of gifts?

I would suggest that for many of us when we are relaxed etc. thoughts and images float across our mind. If you then mention this to someone e.g. "I was just thinking about a red car" and they say "that's spooky as I was just thinking about my grandfather and he always drove a red car", perhaps you'd start to think you had a gift...

neofight

6th August 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

How on Earth can you say that? Since you admit that we do not even know if such faculties exist, how can you state which side of the brain they come from?

And, if you assume they are from one or the other side of the brain, then it follows that you assume them to be processes of the brain, and thus within the realm of logic and science.

The fact that we mostly use the left side of the brain for science and logic does not mean that we cannot use logic and science to understand the right side of the brain. Obviously we use our brain to understand things outside our brain too.

Hans

Hello, Hans. Well, I think we do know that intuition is associated with the right side of the brain, and not the left, do we not? And what is telepathy, if not an extension of intuition?

But my comments were actually in response to voidx's statement suggesting that we should not use musicians as being analogous to mediums because music is an art, and there is no science involved. I was simply opining that mediumship could well be considered an art as well. :) .....neo

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by voidx
Also, musicians et al are also a poor example. They work entirely in the subjective. Their is no scientific process to art, its a subjective experience. Telepathy/PSI/ESP if real should very much be a scientific process of communication, so again, not an apt analogy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darat

6th August 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Hello, Hans. Well, I think we do know that intuition is associated with the right side of the brain, and not the left, do we not? And what is telepathy, if not an extension of intuition?

Neo - do you not realise what HUGE assumptions and leaps you are making with this claim? :eek:

Originally posted by neofight

But my comments were actually in response to voidx's statement suggesting that we should not use musicians as being analogous to mediums because music is an art, and there is no science involved. I was simply opining that mediumship could well be considered an art as well. :) .....neo

...snip...

So why hasn't it developed like all other human "arts" though out the ages? Consider an art form such as photography (roughly the same age as modern mediumship) and the progress and understanding that has been made in this over the last hundred years or so…

This has been brought up before but it still hasn't been answered i.e. why is mediumship so different to every other human skill, ability, endeavour in that it shows no progress...?

neofight

6th August 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It is your claim that a reading can take 30 minutes. It is your claim that the CO readings are not heavily edited. We know that we only see about 11 minutes of readings.

So, what happens to the remaining 19 minutes, neo?

Claus, I don't know where to go look for my actual statement, (perhaps you do?) but I believe that what I was referring to was the fact that at times, the whole 30 minute "Crossing Over" show deals with only ONE reading.

I never said that the reading itself was 30 minutes. You are misinterpreting my remarks.......yet again. Big surprise! :rolleyes: .....neo

neofight

6th August 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Perhaps you should also tell that Valyou insisted on knowing my personal info, too. But, nooooooo, I would certainly remain anonymous to the medium she was trying to persuade me was real.

:rolleyes:

Why do you always seem to leave out the little bit of information that completely destroys your story, neo?

Why do I leave it out you ask? I leave it out because it is pure fabrication on your part, numbnuts! :p

Okay, that was childish. Replace numbnuts with "pinhead". :D ....neo

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, I don't know where to go look for my actual statement, (perhaps you do?) but I believe that what I was referring to was the fact that at times, the whole 30 minute "Crossing Over" show deals with only ONE reading.

Wrong:

Posted by neofight on 07-23-2003 07:43 PM:
Because JE's readings usually take anywhere from five to 15 minutes, sometimes a half-hour, (minus the time for commercials) all with the same person or family.

Originally posted by neofight
I never said that the reading itself was 30 minutes. You are misinterpreting my remarks.......yet again. Big surprise! :rolleyes: .....neo

Yes you did.

Where do the remaining 19 minutes go? You know perfectly well that each CO is 22 minutes long, and about half of that time is devoted to anything else but readings.

Where do the remaining 19 minutes go?

Originally posted by neofight
Why do I leave it out you ask? I leave it out because it is pure fabrication on your part, numbnuts!

Rrrrrright.

Now, answer the question, please: Where do the remaining 19 minutes go?

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Darat
This has been brought up before but it still hasn't been answered i.e. why is mediumship so different to every other human skill, ability, endeavour in that it shows no progress...?

One could easily argue that it has actually deteriorated, since we have gone from very precise descriptions in the past to the vapid fluff that is used today.

But since any paranormal ability gives you an advantage, evolution-wise, this is therefore much more likely that mediumship is not a real phenomenon.

Clancie

6th August 2003, 10:52 AM

Posted by CFLarsen

Where do the remaining 19 minutes go? You know perfectly well that each CO is 22 minutes long,

Claus,

The producers get about five or six shows from a three hour taping session. Does that help?

voidx

6th August 2003, 10:52 AM

Posted by Neofight:
But my comments were actually in response to voidx's statement suggesting that we should not use musicians as being analogous to mediums because music is an art, and there is no science involved. I was simply opining that mediumship could well be considered an art as well. .....neo
And again to reiterate my post responding to this it doesn't matter. Take Darat's example of photography...an art...with a solid basis in science. Sure there are different styles of taking photography, but the essential process of capturing a picture on film is universally understood in a scientific manner. I rather refuse to let you glaze over this point. Communication can be done in different artsy forms, but the process of any communication has its basis in science, period. Hell even music has science behind it. The process by which the musical instruments make sound is scientific, what you do with those sounds and how you arrange them is how its artistic. You're trying to seperate the two in my opinion by saying the science basis of mediumship or telepath/psi/esp is unimportant because its more of an art. I think I've quite convincingly shown that any "art" also has a scientific process behind it. So where is this for the communication used within mediumship?

dingler44

6th August 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Remember spirits have no vocal cords, no speech centers or brains of their own, and are allegedly just clusters of consciousness, memories and related information floating in the atmosphere not unlike EM waves: radio or television signals.

I would say these "clusters of consciousness" are QUITE unlike EM waves... since EM waves can be easily received and measured.

Clancie

6th August 2003, 10:56 AM

voidx,

What's the science behind writing? There are rules for it, but they don't explain the ability of some to use the words more effectively than others.

Has our writing ability markedly improved since Shakespeare? You can study the "science" behind communication, but that doesn't make the ability of some to communicate more effectively than others into a science. Perhaps its the same with mediumistic communication--more "art" than "science".

neofight

6th August 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Instig8R

I am well aware of the fact that AMA is a well-known medical abbreviation for against medical advice. However, that is not how JE claims to use the term.

JE claims that he is being shown the AMA logo, he mentions American Medical Association, and then explains that it is his symbol for against medical advice. I believe he does so to eliminate any expectations that he can get other medical abbreviations, like HIV, AIDS, and a myriad of other medical abbreviations that run the gamut of health conditions.

NO! NO! NO! and NO! Let me nip this misconception in the bud, because this is not accurate at all, and it is not your fault, 'g8R, but entirely my own, which is why I must clear it up immediately.

Here is where you got this idea.......

Instig8R's quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, let's not forget the famous line, "They're showing me 'AMA', which means the person acted 'against medical advice'."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

neo's quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------That is in another category altogether, Instig8R. The "AMA" or American Medical Association logo is a symbol that is within JE's frame of reference. That has nothing to do with his getting names. It is a staple of his readings, letting him know, as you say, that someone had to have gone against medical advice and refused treatment or something.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, just let me state as loudly and as clearly as I can, that JE never claimed that he was seeing the logo for the American Medical Association, nor did he ever mention the American Medical Association AT ALL. This was me, neofight, assuming something that I should not have assumed. Obviously, I realize now that I was in error. :o

When I heard JE making frequent references to AMA, he would always explain how it meant going against medical advice such as refusing a certain treatment or procedure, etc., but I never put it together (Let's hear a big "DUH" here) that AMA was the acronym for just that...."against medical advice".

In my head, I just made the connection with the American Medical Association, and thought that he was seeing either the logo for the AMA, or the letters "AMA" meaning the American Medical Association every time he got the message that a person was going against the advice of the doctors. My mistake. My bad. But I'm glad that I have the chance to straighten this mess out before the situation got even further out of hand. My sincere apologies to you all for this mistake, and to you, Steve, for making you do all that research for nothing. :( ......neo

voidx

6th August 2003, 11:06 AM

Posted by Clancie:
What's the science behind writing? There are rules for it, but they don't explain the ability of some to use the words more effectively than others.
Carbon pencil or ink pen or any other form of writing tool leaves markings on an appropriate surface in the form of formalized symbols and letters. Quite easy actually, or read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a little deeper discussion about how writing came into existence. Again, what you decide to write doesn't change the physical process by which you write. We can run around playing musical analogies all day, none of them will fit.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,

The producers get about five or six shows from a three hour taping session.

Five or six shows would mean 55-66 - maybe 70 minutes of readings. What happens to the rest of those 180 minutes?

Steve has said that there is very little "down-time" (or whatever he called it). He's been there. You haven't. Neither has neo. Should we dismiss Steve's testimony simply because it doesn't fit with the idea that the shows are not edited?

Originally posted by Clancie
Does that help?

It would only help if we see the same sitter being read on two different shows. I have never seen this happening, I have never heard it mentioned by any CO-viewer, fan or non-fan, and I would like independent confirmation of this ever happening.

Clancie

6th August 2003, 11:10 AM

Posted by voidx

Carbon pencil or ink pen or any other form of writing tool leaves markings on an appropriate surface in the form of formalized symbols and letters. Quite easy actually, or read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a little deeper discussion about how writing came into existence.
voidx,

The point is that written communication is far more than the physical process, with far more involved than muscles, tools, and neurons. And that people can be given the best pen and paper set in the world, but it won't turn them into Shakespeare.

I agree with neo. If mediumship is for real, then its another form of communication and as such would be far more art than science.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
If mediumship is for real, then its another form of communication and as such would be far more art than science.

Then where is the Shakespeare of mediumship?

Clancie

6th August 2003, 11:21 AM

Maybe, if she's as good as Steve says, ... Camille Walsh? Rita Rogers? Maybe Mrs. Piper was one?

Maybe there are people you and I have never heard of, Claus, mediums who are doing wonderful readings for people in their own small communities.

After all, very few mediums become famous, and many do the work for free.

neofight

6th August 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by RC

I'm a skeptic?
:eek:

LOL I hope you don't feel like I've insulted you, RC. :rub: I know that we're not allowed to say this on this site because, like it or not, here we are all defined by a few of the more hard-core skeptics, but I certainly believe it's true that we all have our skeptical side. None of us has come to believe, or at least acknowledge the possibility, that mediumship is real without taking a good look at it as it compares to cold-reading, right?

One thing that I've always found to be strange is that Peck said in an interview on Crossing Over that only about 10 people in the United States (or was it world, can't remember) have the "gift" that she and JE have. That doesn't match what JE says, in fact I think he has either endorsed or spoken/written about more than 10 others.

Yes, I do remember her saying that, but I take that to mean that she thought there were only a few people in this country who had developed their mediumship abilities to the extent that they had.

I think JE is right, and that there might be many, many more that do this, and do it well, but who are content, for whatever reasons, to do it on a limited basis only. For instance, Glenn Dove, from Baldwin, Long Island, a psychic medium that JE recommends in the back of "OLT", still keeps on with his music career, which is something that he loves.

At a recent family BBQ, I was talking to my sister-in-law's brother and I mentioned Glenn's name, and he was shocked to know that he was a psychic medium. He was not a close friend of Glenn's in high school in Queens, but he knew he was a drummer and was familiar with the band that he used to play in.

So Glenn only does readings on a limited basis, and only because he is so much in demand that it would be difficult for him to stop doing them, even if he wanted to.....neo

neofight

6th August 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by RC
And Neo, you have commented on the merit of Peck's abilities when you called her a medium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe she is a medium because JE says so.

I suppose that's true, RC. If I am willing to believe that JE could be a medium, then yes, I'm willing to accept that people he refers to as mediums, probably are. (Ooooh! Appealing to authority!) :eek: lol

I know that when John's mother died, he had requested her to contact him through Shelley Peck, since he didn't trust his own objectivity to get her messages directly. If you remember, instead, his mom came through to Suzane Northrup, even though JE didn't really know SN very well at the time.......neo

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Maybe, if she's as good as Steve says, ... Camille Walsh? Rita Rogers? Maybe Mrs. Piper was one?

Maybe there are people you and I have never heard of, Claus, mediums who are doing wonderful readings for people in their own small communities.

After all, very few mediums become famous, and many do the work for free.

Your logical skills has failed you again: When you mention Shakespeare as an argument that mediumship is an art, you point to someone who is very, very famous for their art.

And now, you want to switch to the opposite standpoint??

Not one single medium has ever been shown to be real, Clancie. While there are many, many people highly successful in their own fields of "art".

Try again: Where is the Shakespeare of mediumship? I've heard of Shakespeare. So have you. People get famous because they are good at what they do. That was your argument.

Well, up to a few moments ago... :rolleyes:

voidx

6th August 2003, 11:33 AM

The point is that written communication is far more than the physical process, with far more involved than muscles, tools, and neurons. And that people can be given the best pen and paper set in the world, but it won't turn them into Shakespeare.
Muscles, tools, neurons, all of which have their basis in....science, not art. You're completely missing my point. Shakespeare could not have created the "art" he did without the scientific physical process' of writing and language. All art has a basis in some sort of physical process. Yes, there is an artistic subjective level to all of it, but you cannot seperate that from the physical process. To say communication is more art than science is a tad ridiculous. There is no art without the science. And so far for mediumship, all we have is the art, so where's the science?

I agree with neo. If mediumship is for real, then its another form of communication and as such would be far more art than science.
I'm sure an entire field of linguists would tend to disagree with you.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 11:35 AM

Neo, answer the question, please: Where do the remaining 19 minutes go?

Clancie

6th August 2003, 11:38 AM

Posted by CFLarsen

People get famous because they are good at what they do. That was your argument.

No, Claus. I just gave Shakespeare as an example of someone who made written communication so obviously more than an issue of just having "good tools".

My point was about the individuality of the communication process, not about fame. Although there are famous mediums who have not been shown to be fraudulent (Mrs. Piper comes to mind), no, I wasn't comparing any of them with Shakespeare, Claus. Actually, I wasn't talking about them at all.

I was giving an example of how communication skills (including mediumship) can be more art than science. As Suzane would say, "Do you understahnd???" :eek:

neofight

6th August 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by RC
Yes, I was familiar with this album, it's the one with "The Waiting" (Hard Promises, I think). And actually it was a bit of morphing. First I "saw" a red heart, which turned into the TP symbol (or at least it used to be) of a heart with a guitar going through it, then I saw the album cover.

To be honest, had I just seen the album cover, I would be a little more sure it was mediumship, but the whole morphing thing seems just like my mind wandering. The JOHANN thing is much more compelling to me.

Well, maybe so, RC, but on the other hand, I think it's cool that in your short time in psychic development class you managed to experience both the literal (written word) type of image, and also the more subjective, symbolic type. Actually, I'd be thrilled if I were you. I'd also be signing up for more classes, since it appears you may have a flair for it. :D

I wonder why I wasn't shown this as a name the way I saw "Johann"? My teacher had an answer for this, but I'll save it for the thread I'm going to start about my experience, don't want to drift this highly focused thread, lol.

Great, RC! I'll be looking forward to reading what Karen said about it. :) .....neo

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 11:49 AM

Clancie,

The result of someone communicating more effectively - and you use Shakespeare as an example - is fame. When people think "Hey, this guy's writing means something to me", they sit up and take notice.

Being a writer myself, I can assure you that there are more to writing than just good tools. But the tools are needed. You can't just sit down and hack away. Structure, format, methodology: You have to learn the tools before you can use them.

You can actually be a better writer - if not a Shakespeare - by taking classes. And it can be determined that your writing has improved.

However, nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes. Not even JE's.

Your analogy is therefore invalid.

voidx

6th August 2003, 11:51 AM

Posted by Clancie:
I was giving an example of how communication skills (including mediumship) can be more art than science.
And its still not a valid example. The art is the message, the essence of Shakespeares play, the communication is the physical process of writing and language. He could not communicate his art to anyone without them. The art requires the science in order to be communicated to others. I don't really have any doubts that this will apply to any "art" analogy anyone tries to bring up.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 11:51 AM

Neo, answer the question, please: Where do the remaining 19 minutes go?

Clancie

6th August 2003, 11:55 AM

Posted by CFLarsen

However, nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes. Not even JE's.

Your analogy is therefore invalid.
Um....You did read RC's post about (imo at least) doing exactly this, right?

I don't know how you can say "nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes." What makes you feel qualified to make such a "statement of fact", Claus?

I've personally heard many people say otherwise and--if you look in autobiographies of mediums--many (including JE) describe how their development was helped by learning, even in a structured "class" setting, from other mediums.

Darat

6th August 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
voidx,

What's the science behind writing? There are rules for it, but they don't explain the ability of some to use the words more effectively than others.

Has our writing ability markedly improved since Shakespeare? You can study the "science" behind communication, but that doesn't make the ability of some to communicate more effectively than others into a science. Perhaps its the same with mediumistic communication--more "art" than "science".

I would argue that our writing has improved since Shakespeare.

Let me give you two “”for instances”.

1)"Standardised spelling". In Shakespeare's time the spelling of words was quite arbitrary, many authors spelt the same word in a different way. This meant communication by "writing" was less efficient and more prone to misunderstandings. Progress.

2) Literacy & illiteracy. In Shakespeare time the vast majority of people were totally illiterate. Today in many countries literacy rates approach 100%. Just 100 years ago in the UK literacy was, on the whole, confined to a small minority who belonged to a privileged class. In just 100 years literacy has become the norm, most people can now communicate by "writing" then at any other time. Again progress.

Writing shows process, mediumship doesn’t.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Um....You did read RC's post about (imo at least) doing exactly this, right?

(groan)...Clancie, just because RC says so, doesn't make it so. You really have to stop putting all your trust in testimonials....

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't know how you can say "nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes." What makes you feel qualified to make such a "statement of fact", Claus?

Because nobody has ever shown this, under controlled circumstances. Nobody. Ever.

Originally posted by Clancie
I've personally heard many people say otherwise and--if you look in autobiographies of mediums--many (including JE) describe how their development was helped by learning, even in a structured "class" setting, from other mediums.

Yes, that's nice. And I have also heard people describe how they got better at remote viewing. But that doesn't make it so!

dingler44

6th August 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by RC
Also, just to be clear, while I have had readings, the experience I am talking about is a mediumship experiment in which *I* gave the reading. I was the one who brought through "Johann" and the "Tom Petty" record. That is why it is compelling to me. I can't say I really understand what happened, nor do I necessarily believe that it was mediumship, but I did...in a meditative state..."see" the word "Johann" and the Tom Petty album, and it turned out that the teacher's dead grandfathers are Johann and Tom.

I'll write more about it on another thread when I have a little time.

I shouldn't ask here since you're going to start another thread - but did you ever get any sort of confirmation that your instructor did in fact have two grandfathers, Tom and Johann? Were they both grandfathers? great grandfathers? great great etc?

I'm so cynical of so-called mediums... especially those charging money to teach their craft... I wouldn't put it past them to tell you that you were getting interesting hits just to keep you coming back for more classes.

It would seem there's a conflict of interest in reading your instructor.

neofight

6th August 2003, 02:49 PM

Thank you, Claus, for finding my quotes! :)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by neofight on 07-23-2003 07:43 PM:
Because JE's readings usually take anywhere from five to 15 minutes, sometimes a half-hour, (minus the time for commercials) all with the same person or family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by neofight
I never said that the reading itself was 30 minutes. You are misinterpreting my remarks.......yet again. Big surprise! .....neo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like a mediator please. Any fair-minded person will do. :) I may not have worded my first quote in the clearest manner possible, but is it, or is it not fairly obvious that by "half-hour" (30 minutes) in this context, I was referring to the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show?

That half-hour show is made up of the opening segment, the readings, commercials, follow-up segments, and the closing segment and credits. By my first quote, I was saying that often times, that entire half-hour "Crossing Over" show is taken up with a single, longer reading, as opposed to a show that is made up of anywhere from 2 to 6 shorter readings......neo

SteveGrenard

6th August 2003, 03:13 PM

Forget about 30 minutes. That's the time slot including commercial breaks. Each segment CO sells to its distributors is 22 minutes long when you deduct the commercials. Now you can start all over again.

Paul Shavelson personally told me and the others who attended a taping, after we revealed who we were, that the taping we just witnessed looked as if it could be made into 8 XS 22 minute segments. He said this number varies with the number of readings and length of each reading, and these vary tremendously. The formula is there is no formula. There is a lot of JE meditating, silently on his feet and there were water and make up breaks (on stage) although he audience could not leave; JE was never out of the audience's sight once he started. I think they do edit these long and often very pregnant silences from the final cut. I probably mentioned this originally but it got lost in the shuffle and if so I apologize. We were seated for 4 hours, 11 AM to 3 PM. This included a warm up and intro by Jesse, an assistant director and we also saw a videotape of JE explaining mediumship (30 +16 mins). The readings, including the aforementioned silent periods and JE water/make-up breaks took up the remaining 3 hours and 14 minutes. Just had to ck my notes.

neofight

6th August 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by voidx
And again to reiterate my post responding to this it doesn't matter. Take Darat's example of photography...an art...with a solid basis in science. Sure there are different styles of taking photography, but the essential process of capturing a picture on film is universally understood in a scientific manner. I rather refuse to let you glaze over this point. Communication can be done in different artsy forms, but the process of any communication has its basis in science, period. Hell even music has science behind it. The process by which the musical instruments make sound is scientific, what you do with those sounds and how you arrange them is how its artistic. You're trying to seperate the two in my opinion by saying the science basis of mediumship or telepath/psi/esp is unimportant because its more of an art. I think I've quite convincingly shown that any "art" also has a scientific process behind it. So where is this for the communication used within mediumship?

Fine, voidx. I have no interest in a technical debate of this nature. If you and anyone else can't seem to understand how all of the other examples deal with solid, concrete, and thereby, eminently "testable" materials, such as with photography and the materials needed to create it, and music with instruments that are quite tangible, and the math that's involved in composing music, and all the methods of communication apart from telepathy that involve wiring, airwaves, satelite dishes, hardware, software, etc., then I don't know how to explain the difference to you.

And I'm not even saying that there will never come a day when mediumship/telepathy/ESP/superPSI will be able to be
proven scientifically, because I do not know that to be the case. It may be impossible. It may not be. I just don't know. I'm only saying that in my mind at least, it will most definitely be a real challenge to do so, considering the subjectivity involved in the whole issue.....neo

neofight

6th August 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by voidx
Posted by Clancie:

Carbon pencil or ink pen or any other form of writing tool leaves markings on an appropriate surface in the form of formalized symbols and letters. Quite easy actually, or read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a little deeper discussion about how writing came into existence. Again, what you decide to write doesn't change the physical process by which you write. We can run around playing musical analogies all day, none of them will fit.

Correct, voidx. You mention writing, the actual act of writing, as a "physical" process. Now how is that analogous to an entirely "telepathic" process such as mediumship? :con2: Won't you at least concede that there may just be a difference between the two? I'll hold! :D .....neo

thaiboxerken

6th August 2003, 03:27 PM

Fine, voidx. I have no interest in a technical debate of this nature.

Yea, because it only shows how silly your belief in mediumship is.

If you and anyone else can't seem to understand how all of the other examples deal with solid, concrete, and thereby, eminently "testable" materials, such as with photography and the materials needed to create it, and music with instruments that are quite tangible, and the math that's involved in composing music, and all the methods of communication apart from telepathy that involve wiring, airwaves, satelite dishes, hardware, software, etc., then I don't know how to explain the difference to you.

I can explain the difference. The methods of communication discussed above are real methods of communication using real media except for telepathy and mediumship. Telepathy and mediumship are forms of communication that only work in fictional stories.

And I'm not even saying that there will never come a day when mediumship/telepathy/ESP/superPSI will be able to be
proven scientifically, because I do not know that to be the case.

It won't happen simply because the things you mentioned are all fiction.

I'm only saying that in my mind at least, it will most definitely be a real challenge to do so, considering the subjectivity involved in the whole issue.....neo

I think the hardest challenge to overcome is the fact that mediumship/telapathy/ESP/superPSI aren't real.

voidx

6th August 2003, 03:28 PM

Posted by Neofight:
Fine, voidx. I have no interest in a technical debate of this nature. If you and anyone else can't seem to understand how all of the other examples deal with solid, concrete, and thereby, eminently "testable" materials, such as with photography and the materials needed to create it, and music with instruments that are quite tangible, and the math that's involved in composing music, and all the methods of communication apart from telepathy that involve wiring, airwaves, satelite dishes, hardware, software, etc., then I don't know how to explain the difference to you.
Now wait a second. I thought this was all more art than science. Now you're talking about musicians and other such stuff in terms of testable materials and process, which was my standpoint to begin with. Same goes with the math behind the music. If this had been you're contention from the start I'd have had no problem with it. Now it sounds to me like you're agreeing with my idea that you cannot seperate the science from the art. People have a tendancy to throw all sorts of analogies around all the time on here, and they aren't often very appropriate. So its somewhat of a personal pet peeve of mine. I just had a problem swallowing the "communication as a whole is more art than science" pill I was being asked to swallow.

And I'm not even saying that there will never come a day when mediumship/telepathy/ESP/superPSI will be able to be
proven scientifically, because I do not know that to be the case. It may be impossible. It may not be. I just don't know. I'm only saying that in my mind at least, it will most definitely be a real challenge to do so, considering the subjectivity involved in the whole issue.....neo
I agree for the most part. But I would argue that the subjectivity comes into play with the mediums interpretation of the communicated message. The process of communication itself, if it is ever discovered, should make quite logical concise scientific sense.

thaiboxerken

6th August 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Correct, voidx. You mention writing, the actual act of writing, as a "physical" process. Now how is that analogous to an entirely "telepathic" process such as mediumship? :con2: Won't you at least concede that there may just be a difference between the two? I'll hold! :D .....neo

Yea voidx, i'm with neo. Writing and telepathy are different in a very major way. Writing is real while telepathy is not.

neofight

6th August 2003, 03:39 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by CFLarsen

However, nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes. Not even JE's.

Your analogy is therefore invalid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Clancie

Um....You did read RC's post about (imo at least) doing exactly this, right?

I don't know how you can say "nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes." What makes you feel qualified to make such a "statement of fact", Claus?

I've personally heard many people say otherwise and--if you look in autobiographies of mediums--many (including JE) describe how their development was helped by learning, even in a structured "class" setting, from other mediums. [/B]

You beat me to it, Clancie! lol ......neo

thaiboxerken

6th August 2003, 03:42 PM

I don't know how you can say "nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes." What makes you feel qualified to make such a "statement of fact", Claus?

Claus is absolutely correct in his statement and it is a fact. People may become better at cold-reading, but certainly not mediumship. One can't become better at doing something that doesn't happen. Claus statement that no person has ever increased their mediumship skill by taking classes is the same as saying no person has increased their ability to shoot lasers out of their eyes by taking classes.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by neofight
Thank you, Claus, for finding my quotes! :)

You're welcome. Anytime.

Originally posted by neofight
I'd like a mediator please. Any fair-minded person will do. :) I may not have worded my first quote in the clearest manner possible, but is it, or is it not fairly obvious that by "half-hour" (30 minutes) in this context, I was referring to the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show?

No mediator needed. All that is needed is for you to explain how:

Posted by neofight on 07-23-2003 07:43 PM:
Because JE's readings usually take anywhere from five to 15 minutes, sometimes a half-hour, (minus the time for commercials) all with the same person or family.

can suddenly turn into:

the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show

I am waiting.

Originally posted by neofight
That half-hour show is made up of the opening segment, the readings, commercials, follow-up segments, and the closing segment and credits. By my first quote, I was saying that often times, that entire half-hour "Crossing Over" show is taken up with a single, longer reading, as opposed to a show that is made up of anywhere from 2 to 6 shorter readings......neo

No. Sorry. Your claim was very clear: The "half-hour" long reading was with one person or one person + relatives. Not anything else.

I seriously doubt that you can worm your way out of this one. You can try, of course.

I don't particularly enjoy watching you squirm. But you do squirm.

Originally posted by neofight
Fine, voidx. I have no interest in a technical debate of this nature. If you and anyone else can't seem to understand how all of the other examples deal with solid, concrete, and thereby, eminently "testable" materials, such as with photography and the materials needed to create it, and music with instruments that are quite tangible, and the math that's involved in composing music, and all the methods of communication apart from telepathy that involve wiring, airwaves, satelite dishes, hardware, software, etc., then I don't know how to explain the difference to you.

In other words: You cannot explain it.

Originally posted by neofight
And I'm not even saying that there will never come a day when mediumship/telepathy/ESP/superPSI will be able to be proven scientifically, because I do not know that to be the case. It may be impossible. It may not be. I just don't know. I'm only saying that in my mind at least, it will most definitely be a real challenge to do so, considering the subjectivity involved in the whole issue.....neo

In other words: You believe, blindly.

dingler44

6th August 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by neofight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by CFLarsen

However, nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes. Not even JE's.

Your analogy is therefore invalid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You beat me to it, Clancie! lol ......neo

PFF haha! This is hilarious...

Do we have any indication besides RC's opinion that his "mediumystic skills" were improved?

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Forget about 30 minutes. That's the time slot including commercial breaks.

Wrong. That is the time that neofight claims a reading can take. Therefore, it is crucial to ask what happens to these readings.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Each segment CO sells to its distributors is 22 minutes long when you deduct the commercials. Now you can start all over again.

Paul Shavelson personally told me and the others who attended a taping, after we revealed who we were, that the taping we just witnessed looked as if it could be made into 8 XS 22 minute segments. He said this number varies with the number of readings and length of each reading, and these vary tremendously. The formula is there is no formula. There is a lot of JE meditating, silently on his feet and there were water and make up breaks (on stage) although he audience could not leave; JE was never out of the audience's sight once he started. I think they do edit these long and often very pregnant silences from the final cut. I probably mentioned this originally but it got lost in the shuffle and if so I apologize. We were seated for 4 hours, 11 AM to 3 PM. This included a warm up and intro by Jesse, an assistant director and we also saw a videotape of JE explaining mediumship (30 +16 mins). The readings, including the aforementioned silent periods and JE water/make-up breaks took up the remaining 3 hours and 14 minutes. Just had to ck my notes.

So, we cannot assume that 8 shows are taped for a 4-hour session. Far from it, because that would be very telling that JE can produce the exact amount of minutes for each session.

And even if we could, that would still leave a lot of material unaccounted for. 8 shows would mean 88 minutes of readings. Since you yourself has claimed very little "downtime" (or whatever you call it), what happens to the remaining 152 minutes?

I find it very telling that you now change your stance to there being a substantial amount of "downtime" during the readings.

The shows are edited. No doubt about it.

Loki

6th August 2003, 03:53 PM

SteveGrenard,

ANy chance you might answer my questions? In particular, feel like giving any details of how the NY medium was chosen? What did you say when you made the appointment? When did your wife and friends learn of the appointment? How long between the phone call and the reading? Does NY offer "Caller ID"? And what precisely does "untraceable trunk line" mean?

voidx

6th August 2003, 03:56 PM

Posted by Neofight:
Correct, voidx. You mention writing, the actual act of writing, as a "physical" process. Now how is that analogous to an entirely "telepathic" process such as mediumship? Won't you at least concede that there may just be a difference between the two? I'll hold! .....neo
Nice try. If you go back and read the posts correctly you'll find it was Clancie herself that brought up the writing example. My entire statement was to the effect that the writing example was exactly a horrible analogy for telepathy being more art than science. But if you like here again is the point. I can write something down and go..."this is HOW I write"...that is the process. Then to go, ..."and here is the story I've written in my own style of writing", is the subjective art of your process. Correct? So what I'm saying is this. I communicate telepathically and go..."this is a complete description of how I communicate telepathically" (which we don't have). Then to say..."And I'm a trance medium, and through this style of telepathy(which must share a common base with the above description), here is the message I have perceived from this spirit energy"...the trance is the style, and the message is the subjective art if you like of that communication. So when you state, mediumship or rather the unknown form of communication it utilizes, if real, would be more art than science. I have to look at the above description and ask how?

Now, lets deal with this misconception of "physical". If spirits are energy, and we communicate, or receive that energy, or connect to it. We as physical beings, based in our physics based physical reality...then at some point, the communication must become converted into a process of energy or communication that our physical minds can comprehend. Even JE claims this, spirits being vibrating atoms and molecules changing vibrational rates in conjecture with his own to create a bridge of some sort. Those atoms and molecules (spirit energies) are part of our physical realm. Even if they weren't, they'd have to become so in some form in order to communicate with us. To say otherwise is to me to say that this communication, this telepathy, comes out of thin air, which is decidely impossible. Now the out that people try to use here is that you're mind, you're soul, is not part of the physical realm and so this is you're bridge of communication. But since there is absolutely no proof of this, then you must acknowledge that your entire premise is based on some rather unsupported, shaky ground.

Loki

6th August 2003, 03:58 PM

Neofight,

I'd like a mediator please. Any fair-minded person will do. I may not have worded my first quote in the clearest manner possible, but is it, or is it not fairly obvious that by "half-hour" (30 minutes) in this context, I was referring to the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show?

I have no idea if I could possibly be considered "fair minded" on this matter, so I'm probably ill-suited to play the role of "mediator". But for what it's worth I read your comment as meaning that you thought an individual reading (not episode) could run from 5 to 30 minutes. I did wonder how you'd know that, since you've never seen unedited CO readings - I assumed that you were working from info from Steve Grenard (or someone else).

You've now clarified that you meant episode, not reading. Okay. Was it "fairly obvious" that you meant episode? If it was, I got it wrong.

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Loki
You've now clarified that you meant episode, not reading. Okay. Was it "fairly obvious" that you meant episode? If it was, I got it wrong.

No. You didn't get it wrong. There is no way that

"JE's readings usually take anywhere from five to 15 minutes, sometimes a half-hour, (minus the time for commercials) all with the same person or family"

can be interpreted as

"the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show".

Not a chance.

neofight does not say that she was wrong. She asks for "mediators" and tries to circumvent the fact that she has made a blunder.

I have no idea why she just doesn't say that she was wrong. But that is her choice, and we have to work from that.

neofight said that a reading with one person or family could take 30 minutes.

neofight said that this meant the taping of a whole show.

Sorry, but those two statements are in direct conflict with each other, when we consider the fact that each CO shows only about 11 minutes worth of reading.

If she now says that she was wrong all along, and that she did, in fact, mean the whole taping, then we have to ask why she previously claimed that she was not wrong.

Either she is defending two opposing, completely contradictory statements.

Or she is a liar.

The choice is hers.

SteveGrenard

6th August 2003, 04:20 PM

ANy chance you might answer my questions?

Q: In particular, feel like giving any details of how the NY medium was chosen?

Answer: I got interested in this field around February, 2001. I read that 9/11 families had seen her and had had good things to say. I looked her number up and was able to get a cancellation appointment the end of October, 2001. (I am not a 9/11 family).
Untill then the only experience with mediums I had was with JE on the tube. And that was no experience at all but my interest and study of the field began around then.

Q: What did you say when you made the appointment?

Reply: I did not speak with the medium but her niece who books her appointments for her on the last Saturday of every month. I just asked if she had any openings as soon as possible and was given the date of someone who cancelled; otherwise I was told I would have to wait six months.

Q: When did your wife and friends learn of the appointment?

Reply: My wife was in France with her sister who was recuperating from OH surgery so I didn't tell her anything about it until afterwards.

Q: How long between the phone call and the reading?

Reply: Two weeks and I was lucky. See above. As word spread about this medium she began working (for free) with more and more 9/11 families and the local newspaper got wind of it from one victim's family and they interviewed her. They also spoke with Randi and with Jeff Corey for balance. They also called Gary Schwartz. When Schwartz heard it was about a medium in my neighborhood whom I told him about (afterwards), he referred the reporter to me for comment as well. They also spoke to the the head our Behavioral Sciences Unit who felt she was helping the families cope where conventional psychology failed. I heard from people I recommended to her that it takes about a year to see her now. She charges only $100.00 unless you are a 9/11 family. I remember paying $70.00 back in October, 2001. I think all she can stand is one client a day. She seemed wasted after my session and she is not that young -- I think around 62 now.
My encounter lasted two hurs even though it was for one. The medium didnt seem to know whow much time had passed nor did she ask me about anything said afterwards.

Q: Does NY offer "Caller ID"? And what repcisely does "untraceable trunk line" mean?

Reply: Yes from residences and certain businesses. I work for a large institution with at least 5,000 extensions. At that time for
any call coming from us, the ID box or *69 would say the number was unavailable.

Our phone service is not provided by the local telco, Verizon, but by a private company known as Teleport. It would be almost impossible to use caller ID or trace a call back to an extension at my work. About four months ago , because of the system where phones dont ring unless the number is ID'able the hospital instituted a policy of letting our main switchboard number show up so all anyone would know is the call was coming from the hospital but not from what department or whether even from a patient
room.

Even if Camille knew everything about me and my own recent deceased loved one, she could not possibly have found out the things he said, through her, about other deceased relatives, one of whom died back in 1938 for which there is no record tying me to her anywhere (I wasnt born yet myself). Also highly personal things like my dad 's(died 1965) appearance and his horses including one that he bred but had died as a yearling and about killed him, my wife's father's nick-name (he died in 1978 in England) and that I gave him a pin. And no, I wasn't wearing mine. And there was a lot more, 196 discrete facts in all, highly personal, basically unknowable but all of which were 100% accurate save for 2 things which were verified afterwards.
I have gone over and over this list and even if half of it was wrong, which it isn't, the other half is so specific and so accurate, it has me befuddled ever since to come up with a scientific explanation.

neofight

6th August 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Neofight,

I have no idea if I could possibly be considered "fair minded" on this matter, so I'm probably ill-suited to play the role of "mediator". But for what it's worth I read your comment as meaning that you thought an individual reading (not episode) could run from 5 to 30 minutes.

You've now clarified that you meant episode, not reading. Okay. Was it "fairly obvious" that you meant episode? If it was, I got it wrong.

Fair enough, Loki. I thought that my reference to commercials kind of supported my claim that I was referring to one single reading being featured on the 30 minute "CO" show, but I did acknowledge that my quote was not written as well as it could have been.

I was trying to say that some "CO" shows are made up of several short little readings, while others showcase only one longer one. I do feel that you were fair, though, in your comments, Loki, for what it's worth. ;)

But now that I've clarified what it was that I meant to say, do you accept that explanation? Is it so far-fetched that you simply cannot accept my explanation as being truthful? Just curious, because something tells me that Claus will continue to harp on this issue as though he caught me in a deliberate lie or something. He still hasn't learned that I don't do that. :rolleyes: ....neo

dingler44

6th August 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Even if Camille knew everything about me and my own recent deceased loved one, she could not possibly have found out the things he said, through her, about other deceased relatives, one of whom died back in 1938 for which there is no record tying me to her anywhere (I wasnt born yet myself). Also highly personal things like my dad 's(died 1965) appearance and his horses including one that he bred but had died as a yearling and about killed him, my wife's father's nick-name (he died in 1978 in England) and that I gave him a pin. And no, I wasn't wearing mine. And there was a lot more, 196 discrete facts in all, highly personal, basically unknowable but all of which were 100% accurate save for 2 things which were verified afterwards.
I have gone over and over this list and even if half of it was wrong, which it isn't, the other half is so specific and so accurate, it has me befuddled ever since to come up with a scientific explanation.

Would you be willing to start a new thread with a subset of these 196 discrete facts Camille gave you?

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by neofight
Fair enough, Loki. I thought that my reference to commercials kind of supported my claim that I was referring to one single reading being featured on the 30 minute "CO" show, but I did acknowledge that my quote was not written as well as it could have been.

I was trying to say that some "CO" shows are made up of several short little readings, while others showcase only one longer one. I do feel that you were fair, though, in your comments, Loki, for what it's worth. ;)

But now that I've clarified what it was that I meant to say, do you accept that explanation? Is it so far-fetched that you simply cannot accept my explanation as being truthful? Just curious, because something tells me that Claus will continue to harp on this issue as though he caught me in a deliberate lie or something. He still hasn't learned that I don't do that. :rolleyes: ....neo

No. There was no need for "clarification". Your post was very clear. One reading could take up 30 minutes.

But, after you discovered that your claim would get you - and JE - in trouble, you now say that you have "clarified" it.

OK, OK. Fine, then. I fully accept that you are now backtracking wildly.

Now, this raises a few, very important questions:

If a reading during the taping of CO takes 30 minutes, then what? That never happens? How do you know? In fact, we do know that this happens: Steve Grenard has told us so.

So, what happens to those readings that take more than 11 minutes?

The more, basic question is:

Can we ever trust anything you say, ever again? Aren't we in a situation where we have to believe you right up until the moment where you are caught in a terrible predicament like this one?

These are two very fair and important questions.

neofight

6th August 2003, 05:05 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Loki
You've now clarified that you meant episode, not reading. Okay. Was it "fairly obvious" that you meant episode? If it was, I got it wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I meant the reading that was within the episode. lol 30 minutes total, just dealing with one sitter, or one family.

Originally posted by CFLarsen

neofight does not say that she was wrong. She asks for "mediators" and tries to circumvent the fact that she has made a blunder.

I have no idea why she just doesn't say that she was wrong. But that is her choice, and we have to work from that.

Claus, when I make a mistake, I own up to it immediately. I admitted that my quote obviously did not say want I had wanted to express. It was not written well. So sue me.

But for you to try to make this into an issue of dishonesty on my part, is only what I've come to expect from you. I'll tell you what, Mr. Larsen. I'll put my record of honesty and integrity up against yours, any time. :p

neofight said that a reading with one person or family could take 30 minutes.

Yes. Within the confines of one "CO" show. How would I possibly know exactly how much time that reading had taken at the taping? As someone else pointed out, I wasn't there. I've never attended a "CO" taping.

Readings at seminars, which I have witnessed in person, have greatly varied in length one from another. Some are quite brief, others longer. If one of them is particularly long, and the seminar is taped, there is a chance that a future "CO" show might consist solely of that one lengthy reading, which was my only point.

BTW, you found my "30 minute" quote with no trouble. Was that from this thread, do you remember.....neo

neofight

6th August 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No. There was no need for "clarification". Your post was very clear. One reading could take up 30 minutes.

But, after you discovered that your claim would get you - and JE - in trouble, you now say that you have "clarified" it.

OK, OK. Fine, then. I fully accept that you are now backtracking wildly.

Now, this raises a few, very important questions:

If a reading during the taping of CO takes 30 minutes, then what? That never happens? How do you know? In fact, we do know that this happens: Steve Grenard has told us so.

So, what happens to those readings that take more than 11 minutes?

The more, basic question is:

Can we ever trust anything you say, ever again? Aren't we in a situation where we have to believe you right up until the moment where you are caught in a terrible predicament like this one?

These are two very fair and important questions.

No they're not, Claus. And the only really important question here is why are you always such a horse's @$$? :( ......neo

SteveGrenard

6th August 2003, 05:16 PM

d44: Would you be willing to start a new thread with a subset of these 196 discrete facts Camille gave you?

To what purpose? The skeptics would say it is ALL anecdotal and they would be right; the so-called believers have no problem accepting this already. I am not done with mediums yet so I am also not interested in revealing this much really hard to come by information in a public forum where any fraudulent medium or cold reader can use it. Some of it is also highly personal. I have given a few snippets but not all.

If you are interested just in the catgeories of information given, they are quite simple and Iwould be happy go over my database and recategorize the subject areas if this would be of any
interest: like, for example the name of the cemetary where he is and the section within the cemetary which was changed and both areas were given, one as being changed and he liked the
first one better. Nobody but myself and the plot manager at the cemetary knew about the change and why. He named both sections but I wont give that out publicly either. The presence of people who pre-deceased him, animals given specifically and by name, descirption and breed, people, given by name and relation, who even died decades before he was born is not the kind of material we see on JE any given night with this kind of specificity. There was no above, below or to the side stuff. No symbology. No magic numbers. No questions from the medium. Frankly I sit here and listen to all these perfectly logical arguments made by the skeptics including, believe it or not, Larsen, about JE and other questionnable mediums and I still don't get it where a deep trance medium is concerned. Nobody can answer how such a medium, without asking a single question, can give that kind of information in the first person. Sorry.

SteveGrenard

6th August 2003, 05:27 PM

C: If a reading during the taping of CO takes 30 minutes, then what? That never happens? How do you know? In fact, we do know that this happens: Steve Grenard has told us so.

I never said a reading takes 30 minutes. Some readings can take 30 minutes. Some can take 10. One example I gave lasted 45 minutes and was mostly silence as an obviousy embarassed sitter refused to answer, just making muffled denials with her hand in front of her face. Clearly she didnt want to be there or at least caught there on camera. Hey, did Mrs. Crowunit ever teach piano? Shavelson clearly stated that they never know how many readings and how many shows they can carve out of one four hour session. Also deduct 46 minutes for warm-up prelims, Q&A, a JE video on big screen, water breaks, several at about 10 mins each and two or three 2-minute make-up touchups. Oh, in that four hours, they introduced their social worker who said a few words and invited anyone who thought they would benefit from speaking to her about counseling to let a PA know and she would talk to them privately. There was a lot of stuff going on in the whole 4 hours we were there in addition to the readings. They even had a win a free CO T-shirt contest. I thought what a waste of time but I guess some people love that kind of stuff. It just seemed cheesy to our group.

dingler44

6th August 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
d44: Would you be willing to start a new thread with a subset of these 196 discrete facts Camille gave you?

To what purpose? The skeptics would say it is ALL anecdotal and they would be right; the so-called believers have no problem accepting this already. I am not done with mediums yet so I am also not interested in revealing this much really hard to come by information in a public forum where any fraudulent medium or cold reader can use it. Some of it is also highly personal. I have given a few snippets but not all.

never mind

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by neofight
Actually, I meant the reading that was within the episode. lol 30 minutes total, just dealing with one sitter, or one family.

Yes, now. When you were caught. Question is, would you ever have 'fessed up, had you not been caught?

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, when I make a mistake, I own up to it immediately.

This is not correct. You tried to explain this away, until you realized that it was impossible.

Originally posted by neofight
I admitted that my quote obviously did not say want I had wanted to express. It was not written well. So sue me.

I'm not going to "sue" you. I am merely pointing out that you are unreliable. You are not to be trusted. You lie, you cheat, you obfuscate. The list is long, but distinguished.

Originally posted by neofight
But for you to try to make this into an issue of dishonesty on my part, is only what I've come to expect from you. I'll tell you what, Mr. Larsen. I'll put my record of honesty and integrity up against yours, any time. :p

Sure! Go ahead! Just remember, that it takes evidence to do so! Which is why you will run away, yet again.

Originally posted by neofight
Yes. Within the confines of one "CO" show. How would I possibly know exactly how much time that reading had taken at the taping? As someone else pointed out, I wasn't there. I've never attended a "CO" taping.

Whoa...! So how do you know what goes on at the tapings at all? We now have to dismiss any post you make regarding the tapings, because you have admitted that you do not know anything about what goes on there.

Originally posted by neofight
Readings at seminars, which I have witnessed in person, have greatly varied in length one from another. Some are quite brief, others longer. If one of them is particularly long, and the seminar is taped, there is a chance that a future "CO" show might consist solely of that one lengthy reading, which was my only point.

But what happens if the reading is longer than 11 minutes? We know this happens, yet you have avoided this question like the plague.

Originally posted by neofight
BTW, you found my "30 minute" quote with no trouble. Was that from this thread, do you remember.....neo

Yes. All it takes is one simple search. You didn't bother. You want others to find your own posts.

You are one seriously confused individual, neo.

Originally posted by neofight
No they're not, Claus. And the only really important question here is why are you always such a horse's @$$? :( ......neo

Yes, they are very fair. And I am not a "horses a$$" because I point out that you post something that does not hold water.

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes, neo?

CFLarsen

6th August 2003, 05:41 PM

Steve,

It doesn't hold water.

You claim to have encountered a medium that is 100% correct.

You claim that there is no way this medium could have cheated.

You claim to approach this subject in a scientific manner.

And you refuse to let other people see the data?? What kind of researcher are you? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Your reputation is shot, Steve. Not just by your previous lies, misrepresentations, bad experiments, etc., but this is the final nail.

You claim to hold the key to one of the most important discoveries in the world ever, and you want to keep it to yourself.

Pah.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I never said a reading takes 30 minutes.

Nobody claimed you did. I said "if a reading". Stop misrepresenting what people post, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Also deduct 46 minutes for warm-up prelims, Q&A, a JE video on big screen, water breaks, several at about 10 mins each and two or three 2-minute make-up touchups. Oh, in that four hours, they introduced their social worker who said a few words and invited anyone who thought they would benefit from speaking to her about counseling to let a PA know and she would talk to them privately. There was a lot of stuff going on in the whole 4 hours we were there in addition to the readings. They even had a win a free CO T-shirt contest. I thought what a waste of time but I guess some people love that kind of stuff. It just seemed cheesy to our group.

It's late now here, but I will follow up on this tomorrow (well, later today!).

SteveGrenard

6th August 2003, 06:00 PM

C: And you refuse to let other people see the data?? What kind of researcher are you? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I wasn't researching anything formally. I expect people to take this any way they want to. If someone else told me these things I would say okay, but its anecdotal. So would you. And you'd be correct. This was not a controlled experiment. Athough I knew I was anonymous to the medium and more than half of the facts were un-findable in any public database and I knew she asked no questions, just fell asleep and talked in the first person for 2 hours, this had no corroboration and it was not scientific research nor was it intended to be. It was personal experience. Take it or leave it or, better yet, try it yourself. Like ice cream.

C: Your reputation is shot, Steve. Not just by your previous lies, misrepresentations, bad experiments, etc., but this is the final nail.

Reply: Again, this was not an experiment. Hah. Couldn't hold onto those ad hominems could you? I knew you'd break sooner or later. You have no self control. Why are you so solicitous of my reputation? I strongly question that tactic for its underlying motivation.

C: You claim to hold the key to one of the most important discoveries in the world ever, and you want to keep it to yourself.

Reply: Nonesense. While I agree that this was earth shaking for me personally, as I learned more, I came to understand that there was nothing here to merit the kind of hyperbole you use above. Before you make such statements, read the following three books. My experience is not mentioned in any of them, LOL.
It would hardly merit a wimper in Braude compared to the investigations that have taken place.

1. Braude, Stephen E. Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life
After Death. Published: 2003. (Braude draws heavily
on Gauld but adds a great deal of new information)
In paperback is $24.95 ($75-hardcover). pp. 329.

2. Gauld, Alan : Mediumship and Survival: A Century of
Investigations. 1983. . Available from many sites used or
like new for as little as five dollars.pp. 287

and the grand-daddy of them all, the source, without which the above two texts would not have been likely:

3. Myers, F.W.H. Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily
Death. Foreword by Aldous Huxley. Introduction by
Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove and Preface by Susy Smith.
pp. 352.
Originally published 1903 but reprinted at low cost
($16.95) in 2001 and available at amazon, b&n etc.

As are all of the above. So invest fifty dollars if you are serious about your remark that MY experience is the most important discovery in the world ever and then get back to me on your ridiculous assertion.

Clancie

6th August 2003, 07:06 PM

Claus...Setting A New Record!....
Posted by CFLarsen

(to neo)

I am merely pointing out that you are unreliable. You are not to be trusted. You lie, you cheat, you obfuscate.

(to Steve)

Your reputation is shot, Steve. Not just by your previous lies, misrepresentations, bad experiments, etc., but this is the final nail.

(to Clancie)

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Claus,

You've called all of us liars many times before. But this is the first time ever in the same thread. :eek:

And, no, neo, we all know he's never interested in clarification (despite the frequent need for it when we're all just typing back and forth to share ideas).

He never checks for clarification before going on the attack, doesn't like clarification when he sees it, and never accepts it when its clearly stated for him..... :rolleyes:

Instig8R

6th August 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by neofight

When I heard JE making frequent references to AMA, he would always explain how it meant going against medical advice such as refusing a certain treatment or procedure, etc., but I never put it together (Let's hear a big "DUH" here) that AMA was the acronym for just that...."against medical advice".

No problem, Neo! It happens to the best of us.;)

Are we at least in agreement that JE is perfectly capable to seeing letters? (I'm sure we are still in disagreement over why he doesn't do it more often!):D

Jeff Corey

6th August 2003, 08:23 PM

He's good at seeing $$$, too. I heard from a real estate agent that he sold his modest ranch on Little Plains Court in Huntington to move to something more palatial in a "better" neighborhood. (warning: anecdote, no proof)
Location, location, location.

neofight

6th August 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R

No problem, Neo! It happens to the best of us.;)

Are we at least in agreement that JE is perfectly capable to seeing letters? (I'm sure we are still in disagreement over why he doesn't do it more often!):D

Come on now, Instig8R. :) We were always in agreement on that point. I have agreed with RC (and you) from the beginning of this discussion that JE has occasionally referred to a letter that he seemed to be seeing, e.g. the "T" that kept getting larger and larger, and the "JO" that he *saw* over that woman's head, and the AMA symbol, etc.

I have seen him trace a letter in the air, I just strongly disagree with you that it happens on any kind of a regular basis, and I maintain that it's definitely extremely rare for that to happen when the spirit is giving John names. It's just not the normal way in which he gets them. :D ......neo

neofight

6th August 2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus...Setting A New Record!....

Claus,

You've called all of us liars many times before. But this is the first time ever in the same thread. :eek:

And, no, neo, we all know he's never interested in clarification (despite the frequent need for it when we're all just typing back and forth to share ideas).

He never checks for clarification before going on the attack, doesn't like clarification when he sees it, and never accepts it when its clearly stated for him..... :rolleyes: [/B]

Yes, Clancie. Mr. Larsen has certainly outdone himself tonight. lol As long as he realizes that he has long ago become a parody of himself. Oh, he doesn't realize that? I guess he doesn't. I truly think he's losing it. :rolleyes: ....neo

thaiboxerken

6th August 2003, 09:44 PM

Let's pretend that Claus hasn't called you a liar. Now, why haven't you woo woos produced a superbeing to beat the JREF challenge? Why hasn't a superbeing been validated by the scientific community?

I know the answer, but I suspect you'll come up with excuses.

Instig8R

6th August 2003, 09:51 PM

Instig8R

6th August 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by neofight

I have seen him trace a letter in the air, I just strongly disagree with you that it happens on any kind of a regular basis, and I maintain that it's definitely extremely rare for that to happen when the spirit is giving John names. It's just not the normal way in which he gets them. :D ......neo

Hmmm... Here is the first of the LKL readings that JE did on 9/10/01, with the method of transmission (seeing-hearing-feeling) underlined:

KING: We are back with John Edward. We will start including your phone calls. West Bloomfield, Michigan. Hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: Yes, I would like to ask John what he can tell me about my father or my grandfather or even my grandmother who passed away.
EDWARD: What's your first name?
CALLER: My first name is Lisa.
EDWARD: Lisa, besides the people that you talked about, if -- I want to let you know that I might not be able to connect with them. I might connect with other people. If you again just say yes or no, don't say anything else.
The first thing to tell you is -- I know didn't you ask about this -- but they TELL me to acknowledge a female figure that I would SEE as being like a contemporary to you, whether it be like a sister or a cousin but it's a female person that passed. I'm SEEING this as being somebody who has got another name like yours, there has got to be another L-connection that comes up round you, that has got to be L- tied to this. I FEEL that this person passes either from breast cancer or a female type of cancer in some way.
OK, that's No. 1. That's the first thing I'm being SHOWN. I know this would be like a cousin on your dad's side of the family, or a cousin through the male, like your husband's side of the family. But there is a connection through a male from what are they SHOWING me. And they're also TALKING about somebody who would be known as either Richard or Rich, because a big R-connection that comes up connected to you. Do you understand that? Where is the August connection for you? Somebody passed in August?
CALLER: August? No.
EDWARD: There is. There's either an anniversary on the eighth of a month or an anniversary in the eight month, August. But there is an eight connection, from what are they SHOWING me.
CALLER: Eight connection.
EDWARD: Is there a father-in-law also who has passed?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Then you've got another father figure besides yours.
CALLER: We do, OK.
EDWARD: There's like another male figure that I would SEE as being above you, like a father, whether it be an uncle. It's not a grandfather, it's like a father figure. There is an eight-connection, like the eighth month August or the eighth of a month. There's a connection to a young female figure to your side that I would SEE as being like a sister, or a friend that is passed from female a female type of cancer. That is what's coming through to me.
KING: Does any of that ring a bell?
CALLER: No. I don't know.
EDWARD: Write it down exactly as I said it.
KING: You were wrong? Or...
EDWARD: Absolutely. Absolutely could be that I was wrong.
KING: Cross-connections.
EDWARD: It could be totally that I was misinterpreting.

Uh, neo, what is it you were saying about the normal way that JE receives messages, especially names? Clairaudience? :D

neofight

7th August 2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Instig8R

neo, I believe you are not noticing how frequently these visual references to letters are showing up in JE's readings. The transcripts do not always divulge them. For example, I checked the "Malibu Shrimp" transcript, because I remembered JE air-writing an "R" letter. The transcript reads as follows:

"John: Okay, she's also making me feel like I've got the father figure, the grandfather, coming through, and that there's a connection to Rudy, or Rudolph, or somebody with a red nose, but there's like an "R" connection. I don't know (pointing at the daughter and boyfriend/husband) who else you guys are with, but I feel like I'm in this area, over here. I got the older male who's coming through like Dad, there's an "R" connection that comes up. It's gotta be over here. Who are you guys with? Are you guys together?"

Note that there is no reference to HOW he is supposedly getting that R-connection. I guess you would have claimed that it was clairaudient, based on the position that you have already expressed.

Well, I remembered that JE air-wrote the letter "R" with his finger, so I re-watched the video, and I was correct: JE wrote the "R" with his index finger on his imaginery blackboard.

Instig8R, You are wrong about my not noticing these things. I am quite certain of what I am talking about. While it's true that you can't really tell from the transcript how JE is getting letters, through clairaudience or clairvoyance, neither can you tell for sure simply from watching the video.

Now going by this reading alone, I'm going to have to challenge your assertion that every single time JE traces a letter in the air, it signifies with absolute certainty that he was seeing the letter as opposed to hearing it.

As you can see, "R" is not the first name-related thing that JE said here. Before he indicated the letter "R", he first came up with the names "Rudy" and "Rudolph". Two names beginning with an "R", each of two syllables. I think it's fairly obvious that he is *hearing* this name telepathically.

Notice that he did not say "Ray" or "Rick" or "Rob". He heard the name, not too clearly, as is most often the case, but knew that it was not a short, one syllable word. He knew it began with an "R" and was of two syllables. As it turned out, the name was "Raoul", a two-syllable name beginning with an "R". :)

JE may state in his books that he usually gets names, parts of names and letters by hearing them. However, the reality is that he appears to be uncommitted to any particular method. Overall, he appears to be more visually oriented in his speech pattern. As for his approach to names, it is often vague and follows this form:

"I'm supposed to talk to you about Ellen or Helen. So I don't know if that's who she's with, but there is an Ellen or a Helen type name, it's an L name with a vowel in front of it who's also passed?"

Instig8R, I don't know how you can possibly say that he appears to be uncommitted to a particular method. What are you, a mind-reader? lol The Ellen/Helen issue he has spoken about more than once. In both of those names, the "L" sound is prevalent, so he has pointed out that he most definitely would not get the "Ellen" as an "E" name. But he does get the name clairaudiently, which is exactly the reason he gets them mixed up.

If anything, this to me is proof positive that he does not just see a letter, Instig8R. He gets the sound, just as he has always said he does. If he did, indeed, get the first letter by seeing the image of the letter clairvoyantly, then he would know darned well that the name "Helen" begins with an "H", and the name "Ellen" begins with an "E", and he would never again have to be ambiguous about those two names again.

He confuses them precisely because he hears them. Not because he sees them. Thank you for making my point for me so very nicely. :D .....neo