Interesting JE Hits....

[Darat]

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

Well it was you who claimed that "telepathy" is a "right brain" phenomena. It is you who has claimed that it resides in the brain, I don't think any "sceptic" here has stated that these "gifts" reside in the brain, that is 100% your claim.

If this "telepathy" is a function of the brain as you have claimed it is then like writing, like listening to music, looking at a picture and so on it can be theoretically at least be measured.

This is why I asked you if you realised what huge assumptions and leaps you were making when you first made you claim. I suspect that you would like to withdraw that claim now?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

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.

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.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0742514722/qid=1060245189/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-8754181-1848636?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Apparently it wasn't that earth-shattering. I didn't check, but I'd be willin got bet that The Late Great Planet Earth is outselling it on amazon.com.

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...snip...

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.

...snip...

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.

Perhaps you should read what Claus actually said Steve? You took the time to use your non-standard quoting/atrributing method but don't seem to have read what Claus actually said.

(Edited a “Claud” to a “Claus” and without the aid of anaesthetic.)

[CFLarsen]

It would seem that neofight needs to learn a bit more about the brain that what she can read in the National Enquirer (emphasis mine):

Artistic behavior

One of the most interesting things about artistic production is that it seems to rely on so many brain regions that it is amazingly resilient to brain damage of different kinds.

This resiliency seems almost counter-intuitive because artistic production would certainly be considered a very complex kind of cognition.

However, it seems to be the case that so many brain regions are involved in the production of art that an artistic patient can employ many alternative cognitive strategies to overcome the limitations they face following brain injury.

Some general issues related to the neuroscience of artistic behavior:

Artistry is like other complex cognitive processes (like executive control or language), because it requires the integration of many individual skills.
Different brain regions carry out these individual skills.
Therefore, there is no single location in the brain that is specialized for creativity or artistry.
Theories of creativity or artistry that argue that the RH is the only source of creative cognition or creative behavior are wrong.
When an artist suffers from brain damage they can often continue to create artistic works, but they may have to use different strategies so that they can get around the deficits that result from the damage.

Psychology 370: Brain and Behavior (http://www.psych.ukans.edu/psyc370/Artistic%20behavior)
Dept. of Psychology, University of Kansas

Yet another woo-woo idea shot down by reality. Isn't science wonderful? :)

[SteveGrenard]

Please Darat, don't get involved in this. Larsen was being facetious .. I know it, you know and he knows it................
and just above he broke the agreement not to use ad hominems, not just once, but three times .........sorry, he lost that one.

He is a parody of himself. and totally predictable. I see he is now also doing brain research. He should check out the work of Lashley on memories. Nothing whatsoever to do with RH/artistic abilities, but of other interest relevant to this subject. I'll have some more brain references for him to check out later.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Please Darat, don't get involved in this. Larsen was being facetious .. I know it, you know and he knows it................

No, I was not. Now, please address what I actually wrote.

Darat can get involved all he likes. If you want to address me privately, please do so via email or PM.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
and just above he broke the agreement not to use ad hominems, not just once, but three times .........sorry, he lost that one.

What "agreement" is that, Steve?

Where do I use ad hominem in my post? Showing that the three of you lie is ad hominem? No, Steve. That's presenting the facts.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He is a parody of himself. and totally predictable. I see he is now also doing brain research. He should check out the work of Lashley on memories. Nothing whatsoever to do with RH/artistic abilities, but of other interest relevant to this subject. I'll have some more brain references for him to check out later.

I am not doing brain research. It took a few seconds to find evidence that neofight was wrong, that's all.

If your reference has nothing to do with artistic abilities, why do you refer to it?

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Please Darat, don't get involved in this. Larsen was being facetious .. I know it, you know and he knows it................
and just above he broke the agreement not to use ad hominems, not just once, but three times .........sorry, he lost that one.

He is a parody of himself. and totally predictable. I see he is now also doing brain research. He should check out the work of Lashley on memories. Nothing whatsoever to do with RH/artistic abilities, but of other interest relevant to this subject. I'll have some more brain references for him to check out later.



The reason I "involve" myself in this is quite simple i.e. you made a mistake.

Claus did not say the he said one of the most important discoveries. Whether he was being facetious or not you made an argument against something he didn't say, classic strawman.

It is a very significant difference or do you hold the opinion that proof of "life-after-death" wouldn't be momentous and one the most significant discoveries ever made by humans?

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight

Instig8R, you are not claiming that the LKL transcript you just posted proves that JE gets names clairvoyantly, are you? :rolleyes:

Hi, Neo- If JE doesn't get names clairvoyantly, why does he use the word "seeing" in the LKL transcript? Again, here is the quote:

"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."

:confused:

Originally posted by neofight

As for data other than names, I never said that JE gets those messages clairaudiently. Most of his messages come through in symbols. In his own estimation, however, I have heard him say many times that he feels his strong suit is clairaudience. Why do you have such a hard time with that? Shouldn't he have a better idea than anyone else what he feels is his greater ability?...neo

Neo, you may choose to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem going along with whatever he says.

In response to your suggestion that he should have a better idea than anyone else about what he considers his greatest ability, I disagree very strongly with any such notion. The proof is in the results. In the case of the LKL transcript that I posted above, JE got everything ALL wrong, regardless of whether he saw, heard or felt the messages! Here is renata's breakdown of the reading:

Sitter tells JE she wants to connect with father or grandparents

Guesses (some repeated several times):
Sister figure (miss)
Lname (miss)
female type of cancer (miss)
R connection (miss)
August connection (miss)
8 connection (miss)
father in law (miss)
another father figure (weak hit)

Overall impression:badgering the listener to write things down, repeating same guesses.

Score: 8 guesses, one weak hit, 7 misses


IMO, JE claims to receive messages by whatever method yields the most excuses for the misses. You were so busy wondering how he got the messages... you didn't even notice that the messages were wrong.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


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". :)

Neo, don't you find it strange that JE goes through all of this "R" nonsense with clairaudience, when he can so easily see the letters "AMA" (against medical advice)? Why do you suppose he chooses to receive names by clairaudience, when the spirits can actually show him letters?

In other words, why don't the spirits show initials to JE? It would be so much easier to identify people with their initials... and it would remove all that wiggle-room that JE relies upon in his act.


Originally posted by neofight

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

Omigod! El, L, Ellen, Helen... I'm having flashbacks to the 1960's... I am experiencing clairaudience!!! It's "The Name Game"--

The name game!

Shirley!
Shirley, Shirley bo Birley Bonana fanna fo Firley
Fee fy mo Mirley, Shirley!

Lincoln!
Lincoln, Lincoln bo Bincoln Bonana fanna fo Fincoln
Fee fy mo Mincoln, Lincoln!

ROFLMAO!

[SteveGrenard]

DARAT: Claus did not say the he said one of the most important discoveries. Whether he was being facetious or not you made an argument against something he didn't say, classic strawman.


Reply: Why don't you address his ad hominem attacks if you are going to address articles of speech. LOL ... you guys are a trip. I can only conclude that you are adding more facetiousness on top of his. Thanks for the laugh.

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
DARAT: Claus did not say the he said one of the most important discoveries. Whether he was being facetious or not you made an argument against something he didn't say, classic strawman.


Reply: Why don't you address his ad hominem attacks if you are going to address articles of speech. LOL ... you guys are a trip. I can only conclude that you are adding more facetiousness on top of his. Thanks for the laugh.

This is what Claus posted:

(Bold & underline by me)

...snip...

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.

...snip...



This is what you posted:

(Bold & underline by me)

...snip...

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.

...snip...


The facts are very clear, Claus never made the claim that you assert he did.


(Edited for formating.)

[voidx]

Posted by Neofight:
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".
Heh wow, I'm really at a loss for this one. He hears it, 2 syllables starting with R, like Rudy or Rudolph. Ok I'll bite, those names sound similiar. But what does it turn out that the name is? Damned Raoul!!!! Which sounds nothing like Rudy or Rudolph. Heh come on, bad mind connection is one thing, being half deaf is quite another.

Posted by MRC_Hans:
This truly amazes me. We have now seen all these transcripts where JE obviously is fishing for information, and with a big net. Neo, the reason he is not sure if it is Helen or Ellen is because this gives twice the scope for hits. I am really surprised that people can fall for this repeatedly. I can understand if some are caught by the moment, I know that dazzled feeling of "Hey! This is a miracle!", but the day after, when coolly examining the facts, it becomes clear that we are in the entertaining business.
Excellent point Hans. Would the supporters of JE not now acknowledge that in these LKL transcripts JE is actively fishing for information in classic cold-reading style? Just sit down and read them objectively, go back and read Renata's posted LKL transcripts and then explain to me how it is that JE is NOT tossing out information, that he is not seizing upone an ok, or a positive response from the caller. You cannot deny that he quickly tosses out a big barrage of information, and then asks the sitter, "Does any of that make sense to you?". How is that not cold-reading?

[SteveGrenard]

Well actually Darat I didnt claim anything. However I agree we should elect you chief claim's examiner so we are careful that nobody makes claims about claims which are not claimable.

[c0rbin]

so we are careful that nobody makes claims about claims which are not claimable.

Too late.

People make claims up and down the para-whatever world...then slowly back away.

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Well actually Darat I didnt claim anything. However I agree we should elect you chief claim's examiner so we are careful that nobody makes claims about claims which are not claimable.

I did not say you claimed anything.

I have merely commented that the evidence is clear for anyone to see that you attributed a statement to Claus that he did not make and then argued against it.

This represents a “strawman argument”,. i.e. when a person misrepresents the opposing argument then attacks the misrepresentation.

The evidence is:

Claus posted:

(Bold & underline by me)

...snip...

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.

...snip...



You replied with:

(Bold & underline by me)

...snip...

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.

...snip...


You misrepresented what Claus said.
You attack the misrepresentation by stating it is a “ridiculous assertion”.
Your argument was a “strawman” argument.

(Edited for format.)

[dingler44]

Originally posted by neofight
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.


No, it's not obvious. Knowing the twisted functioning of JE's brain is anything but obvious.


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

Neo, if anyone around here thinks they can read JE's mind, it's you.


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.


If this is proof to you... it is indeed a sad day for logic and reason.


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

Welcome to Bizzaro World... where Neo can make anything possible.

[neofight]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
This truly amazes me. We have now seen all these transcripts where JE obviously is fishing for information, and with a big net. Neo, the reason he is not sure if it is Helen or Ellen is because this gives twice the scope for hits. I am really surprised that people can fall for this repeatedly. I can understand if some are caught by the moment, I know that dazzled feeling of "Hey! This is a miracle!", but the day after, when coolly examining the facts, it becomes clear that we are in the entertaining business.

Hans

Hans, with all due respect, you dismiss this stuff way too easily. Those of us who seriously consider the possibility of it being real are not caught up in the moment. We have studied the whole issue very closely, very calmly, and we are not imbeciles.

You can say that at this time there is no conclusive scientific proof that there is anything to mediumship, but that is very different from saying that there is no reason to entertain the idea that there is something to it, because there are plenty of unexplained things going on here.

Those who cannot at least admit, even to themselves, that they have never seen an admitted cold-reader replicate what JE does, have a real problem with objectivity, imho.......neo

[voidx]

Originally posted by neofight


Hans, with all due respect, you dismiss this stuff way too easily. Those of us who seriously consider the possibility of it being real are not caught up in the moment. We have studied the whole issue very closely, very calmly, and we are not imbeciles.

You can say that at this time there is no conclusive scientific proof that there is anything to mediumship, but that is very different from saying that there is no reason to entertain the idea that there is something to it, because there are plenty of unexplained things going on here.

Those who cannot at least admit, even to themselves, that they have never seen an admitted cold-reader replicate what JE does, have a real problem with objectivity, imho.......neo
If you're about done, would you like to address the actual bulk of Hans post? That being that all the LKL transcripts being posted here fit quite well within the confines of cold-reading. Or also the clear fact that JE is fishing for information. To mirror you're sentiment, those that cannot admit to themselves that JE is fishing for information in these particular transcripts, and that what he's doing looks amazingly like cold-reading, also have a problem with objectivity.

[CFLarsen]

neo,

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

Just let me know if you don't want to answer these questions, neo, and I'll stop asking them.

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight

...snip...

Those who cannot at least admit, even to themselves, that they have never seen an admitted cold-reader replicate what JE does, have a real problem with objectivity, imho.......neo

Sorry but this doesn't make sense to me, do what that JE does?

I've seen sessions of cold-readings where the sitters have stated that the reader must be "psychic" because they were “so accurate”, even when the reader claimed no such power...

Sure I've only seen people who claim to have the power that JE does perform a similar act, for instance Colin Fry, but then what would be the point of a whole show of doing that type of act for a mentalist?! It’s a one shot demonstration, after that it has no entertainment value…

I've seen acts where they have told people their PIN number, where they have "read someones" mind and knew what card they had chosen, what word they'd wrote down from a magazine and kept hidden, where items have appeared in their pockets etc...

Neo – have you ever considered that all the magicians in the world are part of a secret conspiracy and in fact do have “superpowers” that let them catch a bullet in their teeth, duplicate a drawing that they couldn’t see being drawn, know what my PIN is by reading my mind. Of course you haven’t, yet for some reason you just can’t seem to see that JE does nothing different from these people, apart from he tells us he has a superpower.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
Of course you haven’t, yet for some reason you just can’t seem to see that JE does nothing different from these people, apart from he tells us he has a superpower.

Actually, he doesn't. He admits that what he does is not real here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24886).

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat


Well it was you who claimed that "telepathy" is a "right brain" phenomena. It is you who has claimed that it resides in the brain, I don't think any "sceptic" here has stated that these "gifts" reside in the brain, that is 100% your claim.

Well are you saying that creativity and intuition are not determined by the right side of the brain, Darat? Likewise, is logic not determined by the left side? I thought that, at least, was scientific fact. Am I mistaken in believing that?

Darat, I know there have been plenty of experiments involving the right temporal lobe, and I believe it's been shown that this part of the brain is connected to such things as ADCs, visions, and increased intuitive abilities, or telepathy etc. Many people, after sustaining an injury to the head, have experienced things that could only be classified as paranormal.

I'm not a specialist in this area, and because I'm not, I have said that I have no interest in debating this any further. I was just speculating on where telepathy originates from. I have no indepth knowledge to share with you, but there is research already out there. If anyone is interested in accessing it, they can do so.

If this "telepathy" is a function of the brain as you have claimed it is then like writing, like listening to music, looking at a picture and so on it can be theoretically at least be measured.

How exactly would you suggest this be measured? :confused:

This is why I asked you if you realised what huge assumptions and leaps you were making when you first made you claim. I suspect that you would like to withdraw that claim now?

Perhaps, to an extent. I will qualify my previous remarks by adding the possibility that what allows telepathy to occur, may not be found in any physical part of the brain at all, but may very well be this separate consciousness that we talk about, that some believe survives our physical death. In that case, then I guess I would be wrong to say that telepathy is a function of the brain. :) ......neo

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Neo – have you ever considered that all the magicians in the world are part of a secret conspiracy and in fact do have “superpowers” that let them catch a bullet in their teeth
Slightly OT, but have you ever been interested in the mentalists and magicians who, even though they know they intentionally do tricks and deception, are still surprised by things that happen during this process, things that go beyond "what can be explained as trick or deception"?

They, of all people, should be able to attribute everything to "the mundane explanation".

[juninho]

Originally posted by Clancie

Slightly OT, but have you ever been interested in the mentalists and magicians who, even though they know they intentionally do tricks and deception, are still surprised by things that happen during this process, things that go beyond "what can be explained as trick or deception"?

They, of all people, should be able to attribute everything to "the mundane explanation".

Like what exactly? Examples please if its not too much to ask or kindly refrain from throwing in such random gibberish.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It would seem that neofight needs to learn a bit more about the brain that what she can read in the National Enquirer (emphasis mine):

Yet another woo-woo idea shot down by reality. Isn't science wonderful? :)

Claus, yes, science is indeed wonderful, and I do not doubt that the brain is a magnificent organ, and that it can sometimes repair itself and thus maintain the various functions when one part or another part of it is damaged.

So let me ask you, like I just asked Darat. Was I totally wrong then when I said that logic is connected to the left hemisphere of the brain, and intuition/creativity connected with the right? Are you saying that there is no element of truth in that?

And another point, it does not seem as though the article you posted disputes that creativity/artististic ability may be based in the RH, it just states that once a part of the brain is damaged, the brain is resilient enough that it can adapt itself to finding another way to continue a particular function......neo

[Clancie]

Posted by juninho

ike what exactly? Examples please if its not too much to ask or kindly refrain from throwing in such random gibberish
David Blaine has written about that--things that happen in the course of doing "magic" that are beyond what he's able to logically explain.

Lamar Keene, though an admitted fraud as a medium, commented on the same kind of thing--very specififc information that he got for the sitter which was accurate (finding a hidden will), and which he couldn't understand how he was able to come up with it.

Most recently, I've seen Mark Edward (the mentalist who demonstrated cold reading on P&T) comment that although a member of CSICOP, he's also a quasi-believer, based on his observation in his work, that there are things that cannot logically and rationally be explained away as mentalism or as tricks.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Well are you saying that creativity and intuition are not determined by the right side of the brain, Darat? Likewise, is logic not determined by the left side? I thought that, at least, was scientific fact. Am I mistaken in believing that?

Why? Don't? You? Go? CHECK?? You make the claim, neo, don't ask other people to back it up.

Originally posted by neofight
Darat, I know there have been plenty of experiments involving the right temporal lobe, and I believe it's been shown that this part of the brain is connected to such things as ADCs, visions, and increased intuitive abilities, or telepathy etc. Many people, after sustaining an injury to the head, have experienced things that could only be classified as paranormal.

Really? Who? Examples?

Originally posted by neofight
I'm not a specialist in this area, and because I'm not, I have said that I have no interest in debating this any further. I was just speculating on where telepathy originates from. I have no indepth knowledge to share with you, but there is research already out there. If anyone is interested in accessing it, they can do so.

Right. You bring it up, and when it is shown that you are wrong, you don't admit your error. You just say that you have no interest in debating this any further.

Originally posted by neofight
How exactly would you suggest this be measured? :confused:

Hey, you make the claim that telepathy happens in the right-side brain. You have to have some kind of measurement to be able to make this claim.

No?

Originally posted by neofight
Perhaps, to an extent. I will qualify my previous remarks by adding the possibility that what allows telepathy to occur, may not be found in any physical part of the brain at all, but may very well be this separate consciousness that we talk about, that some believe survives our physical death. In that case, then I guess I would be wrong to say that telepathy is a function of the brain. :) ......neo

How exactly would you suggest this be measured? :confused: :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, yes, science is indeed wonderful, and I do not doubt that the brain is a magnificent organ, and that it can sometimes repair itself and thus maintain the various functions when one part or another part of it is damaged.

That has nothing to do with your claims, that telepathy/PSI/ESP was a right-brain phenomenon and that mediumship could be considered an art. Please try to stay focused.

Originally posted by neofight
So let me ask you, like I just asked Darat. Was I totally wrong then when I said that logic is connected to the left hemisphere of the brain, and intuition/creativity connected with the right? Are you saying that there is no element of truth in that?

Of course there is, but that's not what you claimed.

Originally posted by neofight
And another point, it does not seem as though the article you posted disputes that creativity/artististic ability may be based in the RH, it just states that once a part of the brain is damaged, the brain is resilient enough that it can adapt itself to finding another way to continue a particular function......neo

No, it doesn't just say that. Read the friggin' article, OK?

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

Just let me know if you don't want to answer these questions, neo, and I'll stop asking them.

Originally posted by Clancie
David Blaine has written about that--things that happen in the course of doing "magic" that are beyond what he's able to logically explain.

What things?

Originally posted by Clancie
Lamar Keene, though an admitted fraud as a medium, commented on the same kind of thing--very specififc information that he got for the sitter which was accurate and which he couldn't explain getting.

What information?

Originally posted by Clancie
Most recently, I've seen Mark Edward (the mentalist who demonstrated cold reading on P&T) comment that although a member of CSICOP, he's also a quasi-believer, based on his observation in his work, that there are things that cannot logically and rationally be explained away as mentalism or as tricks.

References? What things?

You just throw out claims and expect us to take your word for it? That works on TVTalkshows, but not here.

[voidx]

Originally posted by neofight

**snip**

So let me ask you, like I just asked Darat. Was I totally wrong then when I said that logic is connected to the left hemisphere of the brain, and intuition/creativity connected with the right? Are you saying that there is no element of truth in that?

And another point, it does not seem as though the article you posted disputes that creativity/artististic ability may be based in the RH, it just states that once a part of the brain is damaged, the brain is resilient enough that it can adapt itself to finding another way to continue a particular function......neo
Ummm did you read the bullets from the posted article by CFL?

Artistry is like other complex cognitive processes (like executive control or language), because it requires the integration of many individual skills.

Different brain regions carry out these individual skills.

Therefore, there is no single location in the brain that is specialized for creativity or artistry.

Theories of creativity or artistry that argue that the RH is the only source of creative cognition or creative behavior are wrong.

When an artist suffers from brain damage they can often continue to create artistic works, but they may have to use different strategies so that they can get around the deficits that result from the damage.
You're trying to say the base of creativity is mostly in the RH, but the article seems to say it works upon many different area's of the brain, that not one area of the brain is responsible for it. When part of the brain is damaged, the other parts have to find alternate ways of achieving that creative process to compensate for the last centres of the brain. Seems pretty clear to me.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Clancie

David Blaine has written about that--things that happen in the course of doing "magic" that are beyond what he's able to logically explain.


Oh come on! Don't even start with David Blaine... he tries to convince people on his "Street Magic" show that he does a "real levitation."

He is probably just another new aged woo-woo who "gets a weird feeling" when doing some of his tricks... that he likes to chalk up to spirituality.

If Blaine makes such a claim:

1. he's lying to boost the entertainment/interest value of his tricks

2. he's talking about emotions or perhaps surprise at his own deftness - hell if I know

But, again, I remind you... don't rely on the word of David Blaine - he claims to do "real levitations" in "Street Magic" and he attempts to demonstrate this by devious editing tricks.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Hi, Neo- If JE doesn't get names clairvoyantly, why does he use the word "seeing" in the LKL transcript? Again, here is the quote:

"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."

Instig8R, since you watch the show at least three times a week, you should be aware that JE often uses the word "see" to denote how he "perceives" or "intuits" or "discerns". There is no way in hell that you can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something, unless he actually describes what it is he is "seeing". :rolleyes:

What he is saying in that above quote is that it is his sense that there is another person connected to this sitter who has a similar "L" name. He is being adamant about that point. That does not mean that he is literally "seeing" an "L".

Neo, you may choose to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem going along with whatever he says.

Instig8R, you may choose not to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem disbelieving whatever he says. :D

In response to your suggestion that he should have a better idea than anyone else about what he considers his greatest ability, I disagree very strongly with any such notion.

Well of course you are right, Instig8R. Why on earth would I think that JE might better know what he feels are his strengths or weaknesses. :con2:

The proof is in the results. In the case of the LKL transcript that I posted above, JE got everything ALL wrong, regardless of whether he saw, heard or felt the messages! Here is renata's breakdown of the reading:

IMO, JE claims to receive messages by whatever method yields the most excuses for the misses. You were so busy wondering how he got the messages... you didn't even notice that the messages were wrong.

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Hi, Neo- If JE doesn't get names clairvoyantly, why does he use the word "seeing" in the LKL transcript? Again, here is the quote:

"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."

Instig8R, since you watch the show at least three times a week, you should be aware that JE often uses the word "see" to denote how he "perceives" or "intuits" or "discerns". There is no way in hell that you can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something, unless he actually describes what it is he is "seeing". :rolleyes: I don't understand why you insist on doing this.

What he is saying in that above quote is that it is his sense that there is another person connected to this sitter who has a similar "L" name. He is being adamant about that point. That does not mean that he is literally "seeing" an "L".

Neo, you may choose to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem going along with whatever he says.

Instig8R, you may choose not to believe JE when he says that his strong suit is clairaudience. You seem to have no problem disbelieving whatever he says. :D

In response to your suggestion that he should have a better idea than anyone else about what he considers his greatest ability, I disagree very strongly with any such notion.

Well of course you are right, Instig8R. Why on earth would I think that JE might better know what he feels are his strengths or weaknesses. :con2:

The proof is in the results. In the case of the LKL transcript that I posted above, JE got everything ALL wrong, regardless of whether he saw, heard or felt the messages! Here is renata's breakdown of the reading:

IMO, JE claims to receive messages by whatever method yields the most excuses for the misses. You were so busy wondering how he got the messages... you didn't even notice that the messages were wrong.

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

References? What things?

You just throw out claims and expect us to take your word for it? That works on TVTalkshows, but not here

re: sources

David Blaine mentions experiencing things that happen beyond what he is able to explain in his book "Mysterious Stranger". I don't have the book with me, but if someone else does, I think it's the part where he's reading the couple on the street and the car goes by with the word "Dawn" painted on the side of it. There's a photo of the car, so the page shouldn't be too hard to find.

Lamar Keene describes the experience of being amazed when he described the location of a key, the secret drawer it unlocked and the hidden documents of the deceased inside it in "The Psychic Mafia".

Mark Edward describes himself as a bit of a believer, for the reasons I've mentioned, in the CSICOP videotape, "The Psychology of the Psychic and the Believer", a video of his lecture for CSICOP at Cal Tech.

******

edited to add: Dingler44, Many magicians do a levitation trick. Where has David Blaine said he actually is levitating, physically lifting himself off the ground without any trick or gimmick?

Beyond that, however, you're right, he does have a very interesting spiritual side. :)

later edited again, upon request by dingler44 to add. Dingler44's quote was

He is probably just another new aged woo-woo who "gets a weird feeling" when doing some of his tricks... that he likes to chalk up to spirituality.
My response to this will now be clarified as...

Yes, imo he does have a very interesting spiritual side.


....happy, now, dingler44?

[renata]

Originally posted by neofight

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

:eek:

They are not "snippets". They are full readings done by JE, of his own volition. I am shocked to see that you find useless and unaccepatable the only readings where possibility of editing and mischief are minimized. It appears the less control JE has over the presentation of his readings the more they look like cold readings. To glibly dismiss that is astonishing.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Neo, don't you find it strange that JE goes through all of this "R" nonsense with clairaudience, when he can so easily see the letters "AMA" (against medical advice)? Why do you suppose he chooses to receive names by clairaudience, when the spirits can actually show him letters?

In other words, why don't the spirits show initials to JE? It would be so much easier to identify people with their initials... and it would remove all that wiggle-room that JE relies upon in his act.

Omigod! El, L, Ellen, Helen... I'm having flashbacks to the 1960's... I am experiencing clairaudience!!! It's "The Name Game"--

The name game!

Shirley!
Shirley, Shirley bo Birley Bonana fanna fo Firley
Fee fy mo Mirley, Shirley!

Lincoln!
Lincoln, Lincoln bo Bincoln Bonana fanna fo Fincoln
Fee fy mo Mincoln, Lincoln!

ROFLMAO! [/B]

LOL Yes, a nice trip down memory lane, Instig8R, but did I miss the part of your post where you addressed why, if JE sees these letters clairvoyantly, as you keep insisting he does, why he would not recognize that "Ellen" begins with an "E", while "Helen" beings with an "H"? :D ......neo

[juninho]

Originally posted by Clancie

David Blaine mentions experiencing things that happen beyond what he is able to explain in his book "Mysterious Stranger". I don't have the book with me, but if someone else does, I think it's the part where he's reading the couple on the street and the car goes by with the word "Dawn" painted on the side of it. There's a photo of the car, so the page shouldn't be too hard to find.

Lamar Keene describes the experience of being amazed when he described the location of a key, the secret drawer it unlocked and the hidden documents of the deceased inside it in "The Psychic Mafia".

Mark Edward describes himself as a bit of a believer, for the reasons I've mentioned, in the CSICOP videotape, "The Psychology of the Psychic and the Believer", a video of his lecture for CSICOP at Cal Tech.


What, that's it. This is the sum total of all the evidence you can produce to support your assertion that magicians experience things that go beyond a mundane explanation! Are you really that naiive that you base your whole belief system on such flimsy anecdotal 'evidence'? What's worse is that you expect others to follow suit.

[voidx]

Posted by Renata:
They are not "snippets". They are full readings done by JE, of his own volition. I am shocked to see that you find useless and unaccepatable the only readings where possibility of editing and mischief are minimized. It appears the less control JE has over the presentation of his readings the more they look like cold readings. To glibly dismiss that is astonishing.
I have to agree Neo.

Posted by Neofight:
So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.
You say yourself you never checked out the thread, so how can you write it off as useless? At least Clancie went in and read it, and is working on some responses. This is completely turning a blind ignorant eye. Unlike most other transcripts of readings I've seen posted in these threads, Renata's transcripts actually start off with the verbal introduction between John and the caller all the way through the completion of the reading. Most other transcripts pick an arbitrary place to begin, leaving out this initial verbal exchange. In essence removing the initial fishing for information that JE almost always does. They are the most objective transcripts on which to base JE's readings that we have so far, and I find your dismissal of commenting on them, or to read them at all extremely telling, sorry.

[Clancie]

Juninho,

Curiosity's a good thing. You might try it sometime.

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


Well are you saying that creativity and intuition are not determined by the right side of the brain, Darat? Likewise, is logic not determined by the left side? I thought that, at least, was scientific fact. Am I mistaken in believing that?



Neo - I'm not the one making the claim, I have just pointed out some of the conclusions that can be made if one follows your claims through. I would have thought you’d have the answers to these types of questions before you made your claim.

Originally posted by neofight

Darat, I know there have been plenty of experiments involving the right temporal lobe, and I believe it's been shown that this part of the brain is connected to such things as ADCs, visions, and increased intuitive abilities, or telepathy etc. Many people, after sustaining an injury to the head, have experienced things that could only be classified as paranormal.



Can you please provide some references for your claims?

(By the way you are really saying here that paranormal experiences can be caused by the brain not working correctly – again this is why I told you to consider what assumptions and leaps you made when you made your original claims.)

Originally posted by neofight


I'm not a specialist in this area, and because I'm not, I have said that I have no interest in debating this any further. I was just speculating on where telepathy originates from. I have no indepth knowledge to share with you, but there is research already out there. If anyone is interested in accessing it, they can do so.



I would point out to you that this was something that you raised and claimed. That you won’t and can’t support your speculation shows that it cannot have formed any part of a rational thought process to determine the truth or not of JE’s claimed ability.



Originally posted by neofight


How exactly would you suggest this be measured? :confused:




When the brain is active and processing information it must expend energy, when it is performing more work it will use more energy, just like muscles and any other tissue. This can, at least theoretically, be measured.

Originally posted by neofight


Perhaps, to an extent. I will qualify my previous remarks by adding the possibility that what allows telepathy to occur, may not be found in any physical part of the brain at all, but may very well be this separate consciousness that we talk about, that some believe survives our physical death. In that case, then I guess I would be wrong to say that telepathy is a function of the brain. :) ......neo


You are now using “after-death-survival” to explain how this “telepathy” with a spirit works! This appear to be circular reasoning…. ?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities.

Are you completely crazy?? These are not snippets, they are complete readings! You ask for analyses, but when you get them, you simply dismiss them.

Honestly, neo.......

Originally posted by neofight
So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

So, you wilfully ignore anything that could show JE was cold reading.

Amazing! Absolutely amazing!

[neofight]

Originally posted by dingler44


No, it's not obvious. Knowing the twisted functioning of JE's brain is anything but obvious.

Yes, even you are entitled to your opinion, dingler44! :D

Neo, if anyone around here thinks they can read JE's mind, it's you.

Yes, that's probably correct, d44, and with good reason, too, I might add. ;)

If this is proof to you... it is indeed a sad day for logic and reason.

Yes, I'm sure Instig8R's theory makes much more sense to you dingler. He sees letters and names, he doesn't hear them. That's why he can't tell that the name Ellen begins with an "E", and the name Helen begins with an "H". That makes eminently more sense than what I said. :rolleyes:
......neo

[dingler44]

Originally posted by neofight

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

Snippets? It was analysis of each full LKL reading. Those weren't snippets. I suspect you find it basically useless because it is so damning.

JE is a very lucky man... to be able to make such a lucrative living at a craft he's not even good at.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

Slightly OT, but have you ever been interested in the mentalists and magicians who, even though they know they intentionally do tricks and deception, are still surprised by things that happen during this process, things that go beyond "what can be explained as trick or deception"?

They, of all people, should be able to attribute everything to "the mundane explanation".

Not that much (any examples you'd like to share ;) ) after all "spooky" things happen to us all, from coincidences to accidents to surprises.

Plus I always take with a bloody big boulder of salt claims by professional entertainers, whether they be magicians, pop-stars, movie-stars, mentalists etc.. Look at David Blaine who likes to create the air of mystery around him – it’s a good way to garner publicity and makes for a good stage act but I wouldn't necessarily believe what the "stage persona" of DB said!


(Edited to add)

Sorry Clancie I hadn’t read the posts further down, I made my comment about DB coincidentally ... spooky or what ;)

The reason for my comments about DB was that he appeared on a UK TV breakfast show and just was completely non-responsive to the interviewer etc. - obviously part of his act to appear "weird". It's been repeated on several TV shows such as “It shouldn't happen to... a TV presenter".

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat


Sorry but this doesn't make sense to me, do what that JE does?

I've seen sessions of cold-readings where the sitters have stated that the reader must be "psychic" because they were “so accurate”, even when the reader claimed no such power...

Sure I've only seen people who claim to have the power that JE does perform a similar act, for instance Colin Fry, but then what would be the point of a whole show of doing that type of act for a mentalist?! It’s a one shot demonstration, after that it has no entertainment value…

I've seen acts where they have told people their PIN number, where they have "read someones" mind and knew what card they had chosen, what word they'd wrote down from a magazine and kept hidden, where items have appeared in their pockets etc...

Neo – have you ever considered that all the magicians in the world are part of a secret conspiracy and in fact do have “superpowers” that let them catch a bullet in their teeth, duplicate a drawing that they couldn’t see being drawn, know what my PIN is by reading my mind. Of course you haven’t, yet for some reason you just can’t seem to see that JE does nothing different from these people, apart from he tells us he has a superpower.

Darat, your above post only proves that you are not really familiar with JE at all, and you just lump all believers together into one big category and file it under "I" for Idiots, or at the very least, "N" for "Naive". Sorry to say this, but you seem to be absolutely clueless on the subject of mediumship vs. cold-reading, and I really can't continue with this post because I am beginning to get irritated. :D ......neo

[CFLarsen]

neo,

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

You haven't indicated that you won't answer these questions, so I will keep asking them.

[voidx]

Posted by Neofight:
Perhaps, to an extent. I will qualify my previous remarks by adding the possibility that what allows telepathy to occur, may not be found in any physical part of the brain at all, but may very well be this separate consciousness that we talk about, that some believe survives our physical death. In that case, then I guess I would be wrong to say that telepathy is a function of the brain. ......neo
Will you acknowledge that since there seems to be no evidence so far of telepathy originating in the physical brain, that the other-wordly spiritual explanation should be your assumption until present with further proof? Or at the very least that if you still believe it to be part of the physical brain, that there seems to be nothing supporting that assertion?

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Clancie
edited to add: Dingler44, Many magicians do a levitation trick. Where has David Blaine said he actually is levitating, physically lifting himself off the ground without any trick or gimmick?

Beyond that, however, you're right, he does have a very interesting spiritual side. :)


I'm right? I never said Blaine has an interesting spiritual side. Do NOT twist my words. I repeat, do NOT twist my words.

Here is the quote that Clancie the great deceiver has misrepresented:


He is probably just another new aged woo-woo who "gets a weird feeling" when doing some of his tricks... that he likes to chalk up to spirituality.


This is the SECOND time I've had to request this courtesy of you Clancie, but I ask that you either amend your misrepresentation of my post or omit it entirely.

Regarding where Blaine says he is actually levitating - I already told you - it's in Street Magic. The narrator of the show explicitly states that "David Blaine will perform a real levitation." And because this is Blaine's film, directed and produced by Blaine, the narrator's comments are at the very least condoned by Blaine. Watch the movie, it's quite entertaining aside from deceptive levitation scam.

See this thread for more on the Blaine levitation scam:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10648&highlight=balducci

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


Darat, your above post only proves that you are not really familiar with JE at all, and you just lump all believers together into one big category and file it under "I" for Idiots, or at the very least, "N" for "Naive". Sorry to say this, but you seem to be absolutely clueless on the subject of mediumship vs. cold-reading, and I really can't continue with this post because I am beginning to get irritated. :D ......neo

Why does it show this? How does it show I just lump all "believers together into one big category"?

My post may have irratated you, but it would be useful to understand your rational objections and counterpoints to my post.

[Clancie]

Posted by dingler44

I'm right? I never said Blaine has an interesting spiritual side. Do NOT twist my words. I repeat, do NOT twist my words.
I admit that was a bit sloppy. I'm happy to correct it, however, and I think you're totally overreacting.

....Clancie the great deceiver...
I don't like your rude tone at all, dingler44.

(....biting my tongue....)
This is the SECOND time I've had to request this courtesy of you Clancie, but I ask that you either amend your misrepresentation of my post or omit it entirely.
Amended. Done.


Regarding where Blaine says he is actually levitating - I already told you - it's in Street Magic. The narrator of the show explicitly states that "David Blaine will perform a real levitation."
What do most other magicians say when they perform levitation? "I'm not really levitating anything, but watch how I can trick you into thinking that I am?"

"A real levitation" could also mean "a real (trick) of levitation", dingler44.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Clancie

I admit that was a bit sloppy. I'm happy to correct it, however, and I think you're totally overreacting.

I don't like your rude tone at all, dingler44.

(....biting my tongue....)


I'm sick of your diversion and misrepresentation Clancie - it's chronic.


What do most other magicians say when they perform levitation? "I'm not really levitating anything, but watch how I can trick you into thinking that I am?"


I would expect them to say they were going to perform a levitation. spectacular levitation, amazing levitation, mind-blowing, startling... hundreds of words could produce excitement and interest without claiming the levitation is "real." Come on Clancie, think a little... I thought you were open minded.


"A real levitation" could also mean "a real (trick) of levitation", dingler44.

haha... truly hilarious. So we should infer "trick" whenever a magician uses the word "real?" Maybe we should start saying "honest" when we mean "dishonest" or "stand" when we mean "sit." Hell let's just change the English language so every word and its opposite are interchangeable.

As a side note, I don't care what you think of my tone Clancie, you'd be hypocritical to expect anything else.

*edited to remove a naughty word!*

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Clancie
What do most other magicians say when they perform levitation? "I'm not really levitating anything, but watch how I can trick you into thinking that I am?"

"A real levitation" could also mean "a real (trick) of levitation", dingler44.

I agree with you here, Clancie. I don't know why anyone would take DB or any other magician literally. If DB uses "real" he is using it to heighten the excitement.

This statement alone does not prove your contention, dingler.

Lurker

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Lurker


I agree with you here, Clancie. I don't know why anyone would take DB or any other magician literally. If DB uses "real" he is using it to heighten the excitement.

This statement alone does not prove your contention, dingler.

Lurker

Lurker you're operating on the assumption that magic is real. DB shouldn't have to use the word "real" to heighten excitement unless people already believe magic is real/possible. So if magic is real and DB claims to use it, fine.

But it's known that DB does not use magic to perform his levitation trick.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by dingler44


Lurker you're operating on the assumption that magic is real. DB shouldn't have to use the word "real" to heighten excitement unless people already believe magic is real/possible. So if magic is real and DB claims to use it, fine.

But it's known that DB does not use magic to perform his levitation trick.
It is not the assumption that magic is real. It is the assumption that David Blaine (and other magicians) like people to believe that it is real. And they do. Or at least, most perform their acts ina manner consistent with this.

David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
neo,

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

You haven't indicated that you won't answer these questions, so I will keep asking them.
But, she did answer those questions! Maybe you just didn't like the answers. :p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
It is not the assumption that magic is real. It is the assumption that David Blaine (and other magicians) like people to believe that it is real. And they do. Or at least, most perform their acts ina manner consistent with this.

Does David Blaine claim paranormal powers?

Originally posted by Thanz
David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.

Does David Copperfield claim paranormal powers?

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Thanz

It is not the assumption that magic is real. It is the assumption that David Blaine (and other magicians) like people to believe that it is real. And they do. Or at least, most perform their acts ina manner consistent with this.

David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.

You guys, Thanz, Lurker and Clancie are right. DB claims to be a magician, a conjurer for entertainment... so it is of course natural he will produce and claim his tricks as magic.

I need to take a chill pill.
(universal agreement is not necessary!:o )

I'm just sensitive to DB in particular after seeing his Street Magic and seeing a lot of the fools shown in the movie pointing to supernatural explanations... of which DB is of course happy to accept since it boosts his mystique. Plus DB's personal allusions to the "unexplanable." I love the illusions and sleights of hand magicians/conjurers can perform but I can't stand to see people buttress belief in the paranormal with them. And I don't find it impressive when an illusion succeeds only because of video editing.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Does David Blaine claim paranormal powers?

Does David Copperfield claim paranormal powers?
Wholesale edit:

I think that the claims made by magicians to paranormal powers are all in the "nudge nudge, wink wink" sort of vein. Even Blaine's, although I don't know that much about him (I have seen a street magic special and parts of his pole standing stunt).

I just think that Blaine is better at the schtick than others.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.
This is so incredibly disingenuous as to defy belief! Copperfield does not claim that he does other than "magic" in the sense of creating illusions to inspire awe. Here is Copperfield's website (http://www.davidcopperfield.com/) Note the header that says "An evening of grand illusion."

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Does David Blaine claim paranormal powers?

Does David Copperfield claim paranormal powers?
Blaine's book is, imo, ambiguous about this.

Copperfield doesn't. But...with his recent comment about choosing the German lottery numbers ("it wasn't a trick"), he got a strong rebuke from Randi. He later clarified his meaning to indicate that he wasn't claiming it was paranormal, that it wasn't just an ordinary trick, and that, in fact, no disagreement with Randi existed, i.e. that he wasn't making a paranormal claim.

Nevertheless, after listening to Mark Edward talk about at some length about how he feels there's more to mentalism (at times) than can be rationally explained, I think it would be very interesting to read interviews with Blaine and Copperfield speaking about that issue, too.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

This is so incredibly disingenuous as to defy belief! Copperfield does not claim that he does other than "magic" in the sense of creating illusions to inspire awe. Here is Copperfield's website (http://www.davidcopperfield.com/) Note the header that says "An evening of grand illusion."

Come on, you know it is all part of the schtick. Does Copperfield say "I am now going ot make the S of L disappear" or does he say "I am now going to make you think that I made the S of L disappear"?

As for "This is so incredibly disingenuous as to defy belief!", I think that is saved for your logic prize.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Do Blaine, Copperfield or any other magician have disclaimers after their TV performances?

[Darat]

I am being really, really dense here I but want point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

:confused:

Edited to add

The above should have said:

I am being really, really dense here but what point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

:confused:

[voidx]

Originally posted by Thanz

But, she did answer those questions! Maybe you just didn't like the answers. :p
I'd like to make it clear that Neo restated, or rather clarified her own personal view of the Brain questions. Her contention that artistic and creative ability is mostly based in the RH of the brain appeared to be not the case as per tye article CFL linked, and her idea of telepathy emenating in a similar fashion in the physical brain is also unsupported. She choose on her own to quit debating it because by her own admission its not her area of expertise and she could not answer many of the questions put to her about it. I generally abhor the amount of keeping score of debating points that happens in these threads at times, but I think its important not to glaze over this particular instance. The brain issue, and telepathy being more art than science I think has been quite soundly put down in the context of this discussion.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Darat
I am being really, really dense here I but want point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

:confused:
I don't know about the others, but I was just trying to make the point that all it is is a stage persona, and what they say is just their schtick. I was primarily posting as it seemed that some thought Blaine was more than this.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


Instig8R, since you watch the show at least three times a week, you should be aware that JE often uses the word "see" to denote how he "perceives" or "intuits" or "discerns". There is no way in hell that you can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something, unless he actually describes what it is he is "seeing". :rolleyes:

What he is saying in that above quote is that it is his sense that there is another person connected to this sitter who has a similar "L" name. He is being adamant about that point. That does not mean that he is literally "seeing" an "L".

Hey, Neo-- I am amazed at these farfetched excuses! The only defense you haven't tried would be that it depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.

To recap, when JE uses the word "see", it denotes how he "perceives", "intuits" or "discerns", and there is no way we can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something.

However, it is somehow possible for you to make the determination that he is NOT literally seeing something.

Allrighty... Assuming I buy your explanation, please tell me what JE is "seeing" when he claims to "see" AMA, Against Medical Advice. Is he only perceiving, intuiting or discerning AMA??? Because I thought we had finally agreed that JE was "seeing" letters when he sees "AMA". :confused:


Originally posted by neofight

-snip-

Well of course you are right, Instig8R. Why on earth would I think that JE might better know what he feels are his strengths or weaknesses. :con2:

Neo, I used to think that JE knew his own strengths and weaknesses. I thought he knew his chief strength is his ability to b.s. people, so that they won't notice how bad most of his readings are. Now, I'm not so sure. Obviously, you realize how bad those unedited readings are, which is why you refuse to examine them. Soooo, I guess JE's greatest strength is getting people to believe in him, despite how badly he performs.

Have you officially taken the position that any and all facts that do not conform to your beliefs must simply be discarded? :)

Originally posted by neofight


No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". :) .....neo

Neo, I did not post a "snippet". I posted the very first reading from JE's 9/10/01 appearance on LKL. It was a complete, unedited reading, and it stunk to high heaven, as did those that followed. I don't understand your claim that you didn't check out the thread. You didn't need to check out the thread, because I posted the entire reading here for you to view it.

The LKL reading that I posted here showed JE saying that he was seeing a letter, and he got it wrong. You are insisting that he heard the letter, and completely overlooked the fact that he got it WRONG, regardless of how he claims he got the message, lol.

You are also glossing over the final count for that entire unedited reading: Score: 8 guesses, one weak hit, 7 misses. But I guess that's not important, as long as we accept that he heard the information from the spirits, rather than saw or felt the messages. I guess there was a lot of static on the spirit connection that night... which would also explain why JE didn't know that America would be attacked by terrorists within a few hours after the show ended.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Thanz

It is not the assumption that magic is real. It is the assumption that David Blaine (and other magicians) like people to believe that it is real. And they do. Or at least, most perform their acts ina manner consistent with this.

David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.

Thank you, Thanz. If dingler thought I was operating under that assumption he is wrong. It is all about ENTERTAINMENT. Making something as real as possible heightens the excitement.

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Darat
I am being really, really dense here I but want point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

:confused:
They're trying to blur the lines, Darat. They want to compare Copperfield and Blaine with JE. Copperfield and Blaine do not claim paranormal powers. They say they are performing magic. Copperifield's website clearly says "illusion."

The disingenuous attempt here is to make the lines fuzzy and thereby make magicians seem to be committing the same kind of fraud. It is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

And, Thanz, that is your answer as well: this is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Posted by BillHoyt

They're trying to blur the lines, Darat. They want to compare Copperfield and Blaine with JE. Copperfield and Blaine do not claim paranormal powers.
Quite false, Bill.

Thanz and Lurker were obviously responding only in the context of dingler44's example of DB referring to "real" levitation. Read more carefully.
The disingenuous attempt here is to make the lines fuzzy and thereby make magicians seem to be committing the same kind of fraud. It is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.
Again, not they, Bill. Only me.

And I don't find it "disingenuous" to be interested in some magician/mentalists' own feelings that, even when they are performing a "trick" they sometimes have the feeling that what actually happens is not conforming to natural laws as we know them.

I've mentioned three magician/mentalists who've made that kind of observation.

I find it quite interesting and would like to hear more about it. Naturally, you don't.

No surprises there whatsoever, but please don't categorize other people's statements as something that they're clearly not.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The disingenuous attempt here is to make the lines fuzzy and thereby make magicians seem to be committing the same kind of fraud. It is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

And, Thanz, that is your answer as well: this is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.
Dude, I have no idea where you are coming from. I made no claim comparing Blaine or Copperfield or any other magician to JE. I was simply comparing Blaine to Copperfield, that's all.

Oh, and here's a newsflash: I don't think that JE is real any more than you do.

You assume too much. I ask for an apology for calling me a weasel.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Fine. Whatever. This whole discussion is not all that important.

In fact, it is a red herring. You brought up Blaine, and so far, you have been very successful in diverting attention from the fact that you have a lot of questions to answer.

Please do so, without any further delay. You have a habit of diversion and delaying, but don't think it will go unnoticed.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

Quite false, Bill.

Thanz and Lurker were obviously responding only in the context of dingler44's example of DB referring to "real" levitation. Read more carefully.
[/B]
Again, not they, Bill. Only me.

And I don't find it "disingenuous" to be interested in some magician/mentalists' own feelings that, even when they are performing a "trick" they sometimes have the feeling that what actually happens is not conforming to natural laws as we know them.

I've mentioned three magician/mentalists who've made that kind of observation.

I find it quite interesting and would like to hear more about it. Naturally, you don't.

No surprises there whatsoever, but please don't categorize other people's statements as something that they're clearly not. [/B]

I agree that Thanz has separated his comments from yours. Your comments are still disingenuous. As I said before, you are heading for a tu quoque and an attempt to weasel.

I have seen this tripe before and it always smells, clancie. Don't smear magicians with flim-flam artists.

Cheers,

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Thanz

Dude, I have no idea where you are coming from. I made no claim comparing Blaine or Copperfield or any other magician to JE. I was simply comparing Blaine to Copperfield, that's all.

Oh, and here's a newsflash: I don't think that JE is real any more than you do.

You assume too much. I ask for an apology for calling me a weasel.

Same goes for me. But you don't need to apologize for calling me a weasel. I am one. (Insert appropriate weasal noises here from insipid Pauly Shore movies)

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
You assume too much. I ask for an apology for calling me a weasel.
I see your other posts in which you clarified the first. I regret that I saw that post as supporting the other crap here. But I did not call you a weasel. I said "this is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one." That referred to the attempt to smear magicians with the flim-flammery of mediums.

Cheers,

[Darat]

So - what was this thread about again... ?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Darat
So - what was this thread about again... ?
Interesting JE hits, which so far have been less than extraordinary. We await more.

[davefoc]

Wow, 15 pages, amazing.

Here's a question for Clancie and neofight:

If you had the ability to talk to the dead, as you suspect that JE does, would you do something similar to what he does? That is tout your ability without citing any studies or providing any testable evidence for them.

Or would you do contolled testing of your ability and publish the results to verify that it exists and to convince others that it exists? Even if you were sure your ability existed, wouldn't you at least do controlled studies to search for improvements. For instance JE says distance to the subject doesn't matter. But how would he know without controlled testing?

My thought is that all charlatans would follow the JE approach and most people with legitimate abilities would not. I wonder how you'd feel about a doctor who claimed to be able to cure cancer who presented evidence in the same way that JE does?

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Clancie


I've mentioned three magician/mentalists who've made that kind of observation.

I find it quite interesting and would like to hear more about it. Naturally, you don't.



You might be interested in this link:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/MagWhoEndors.htm

[Loki]

Neo,

Apologies if you've answered this (I haven't seen a reply, so that's why I'm asking) - what happens to a reading that goes fro more that 11 minutes in a CO taping session? I'm prepared to accept that whole "30 minutes" thing was just a communication mixup, but given that a 22 minute episode only actually contains 11 minutes of reading(s) then surely there are only three options here :

1. In CO taping sessions, *no* reading ever exceeds 11 minutes;
2. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes, it is not used;
3. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes, it is edited down.

If you accept that #3 is possible, then in *any* epoised of CO in which a single reading occuspies the entire 11 minutes, you no way at all of determining how much editing was done - yet almost certainly *some* content was removed.

If you want to try and use Steve Grenard's argument of "editing probably only removes pauses, etc", then I'll rephrase my options as :

1. In CO taping sessions, *no* reading ever exceeds 11 minutes of content;
2. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes of content, it is not used;
3. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes of content, it is edited down.

Aren' we force to agree that at the very least it's likely that *some* content is removed from *some* longer readings.

[Clancie]

Posted by loki

...given that a 22 minute episode only actually contains 11 minutes of reading(s)
Loki,

Did I miss where this "given" fact about CO episodes came from? Source, please? :confused:

[Loki]

Clancie,

Did I miss where this "given" fact about CO episodes came from? Source, please?
Good question! Source would be the discussion between Claus, SteveGrenard and Neofight. I certainly got the impression that this was an "agreed upon" fact, and I assumed that it was probably something that had been "thrashed out" over at TVTalkShows. Claus certianly seems to think it's a fact. I dont; recall seeing Steve or Neo disputing it.

But if you like, since there's *no* disagreement on the length of a full episode, we can always rewrite the options to be :

1. In CO taping sessions, *no* reading ever exceeds 22 minutes of content;
2. If a reading exceeds 22 minutes of content, it is not used;
3. If a reading exceeds 22 minutes of content, it is edited down.

Now, I'd agree that 22 minute readings are likely to be the exception, not the rule. But really, the truth is that the "11" minute figure is closer to the truth than the "22" isn't it? I await Claus, Steve or Neo to confirm of deny the 11 minute figure!!

[Clancie]

Posted by Loki

Now, I'd agree that 22 minute readings are likely to be the exception, not the rule. But really, the truth is that the "11" minute figure is closer to the truth than the "22" isn't it? I await Claus, Steve or Neo to confirm of deny the 11 minute figure!!
Fair enough! Thanks for the quick clarification. :)

[neofight]

Originally posted by voidx

Will you acknowledge that since there seems to be no evidence so far of telepathy originating in the physical brain, that the other-wordly spiritual explanation should be your assumption until present with further proof? Or at the very least that if you still believe it to be part of the physical brain, that there seems to be nothing supporting that assertion?

voidx, what I will do is leave science, and scientific explanations, to the scientists. I do not know what, if any, research has been done to date that might give evidence of telepathy originating from the physical brain. If I come across any of the material that I've read in the past on the subject of the right temporal lobe and PSI, I will post it. :) .....neo

[SteveGrenard]

I thought I made it very clear that there is no pre-set time for a reading JE gives in a studio taping. And there is no preset number of shows they get from a single taping session, the reading part of which I timed at about 3 hrs and 14 minutes out of the 4 hours we had to remain glued to our seats. This was on the day I was there, July 23, 2002.

I have seen material from the same reading also extended onto two different episodes so this is known to occur. I also gave a
single example of a reluctant sitter JE said he couldnt get passed which occupied 45 minutes of the reading taping time. I have no idea if this was a frequent ocurrence and suspect that a lot of the silent portions of this reading were edited out.

The show is 22 minutes in a 30 min timeslot, the other 8 mins occupied by commercial breaks. I have seen shows with 3 readings and I have seen shows occupied by just one reading. I have seen shows half occupied with follow-ups or reprises and I have seen shows where there were none. I have seen shows with one-on-ones, with celeb readings and shows where there were none of this. There are two kinds of follow-ups: one takes place the same day in the studio after the main taping is over and those read are held back from leaving to do this. The other type involves a crew going out to the sitters home and interviewing them and other family members who were not present and verifying things about the reading which could not be validated in the studio. We see a lot of old photos, household items mentioned in the reading and mementos in these. They serve to verify that what the sitter validated in the studio was, in fact, true.

Paul Shavelson said this was a very variable process with no pre-cast formula. I will leave it at that. This attempt to standardize that which is not, in reality, standardized is an exercise in futility.
I understand the underlying motivation is to prove the show is edited for content. This will not do it. Only a side by side comparison of up to approx 32 hours of rolled footage against X number of shows cut from this will tell you that. I say 32 hours because its
the product of 4 hrs X 8 cameras. And yeah, I know, its a lot of cameras but that's what I counted when I was there. They get a lot of coverage apparently. Was I sure all of them were running all the time? No.

[Clancie]

Posted by Steve Grenard

Only a side by side comparison of up to approx 32 hours of rolled footage against X number of shows cut from this will tell you that. I say 32 hours because its the product of 4 hrs X 8 cameras.
Hi Steve,

Well, I was right there with you until this last part.

I don't think we disagree, but I just wanted to clarify the above. If JE reads you for an hour--even if he's got ten different cameras filming it, its still just a 1 hour reading, not 10 hours worth of readings.

I'm sure you weren't implying otherwise, but selecting which camera angles to use from 4 hours of taped CO, doesn't mean there are 32 hours of footage of individual readings to choose from to make up 5 or 6 programs.

If 20 people are read in a day, its still just 20 readings in 4 hours, and the number of camera angles available to choose from has no bearing on how much of filmed readings are available for the shows at all.

The way its worded above makes it sound like 32 hours of taped readings are then editing down to 5 or 6 half hour shows--obviously not what's actually happening just because you've got several cameras filming the same reading.

[SteveGrenard]

Clanci: Well, I was right there with you until this last part.

I don't think we disagree, but I just wanted to clarify the above. If JE reads you for an hour--even if he's got ten different cameras filming it, its still just a 1 hour reading, not 10 hours worth of readings.

Yes, it would be just one reading from eight or six or whatever different camera angles. But if one wanted to be scientifically accurate in assessing the editing question one would have to look at all the footage to decide the show was not edited for content. In some angles we just see JE, in others just the sitter, sometimes John and the sitter, and while the reading is going on long shots of the audience. But yes, 8 different angles of one cohesive reading. Not all the cameras may've been running all the time, also requiring one to look at all the angles. Geez, what if they missed a head nod or something and it got into Time magazine? Its complex and would be unbearably tedious as all editing is.



Clanci: I'm sure you weren't implying otherwise, but selecting which camera angles to use from 4 hours of taped CO, doesn't mean there are 32 hours of footage of individual readings to choose from to make up 5 or 6 programs.

yup. Actually up to 8 different programs, sometimes more, sometimes less. Its a business. Four hours of taping cost them thousands and thousands of dollars. For financial reasons alone they want to use as much of the footage as possible and get as much product out of each session as possible. This factor sort of puts a hole in the theory that most of the footage winds up cut. But there truly is no formula. Its all spontaneous and they never know what they are going to wind up with. They do not air long silences. We know that from watching the show as we see shorter ones which may've been much longer in reality. We saw many long silences.

And....no reading is 32 hrs long, thought that would be obvious.

Clanci: If 20 people are read in a day, its still just 20 readings in 4 hours, and the number of camera angles available to choose from has no bearing on how much of filmed readings are available for the shows at all.

Correct. We actually counted what were 8 separate readings on the day we were there and they were of different lengths. One was the 45 minute reading, some were much shorter, some in between. Sorry, didn't keep track of this with so much else to keep track of. But they were all of different lengths.


Clanci: The way its worded above makes it sound like 32 hours of taped readings are then editing down to 5 or 6 half hour shows--obviously not what's actually happening just because you've got several cameras filming the same reading.

Hmm..how can one have 32 hours of readings if they were taping for 4 hours? LOL. I don't think the math works.

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight


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

Sheesh, take one day off of JREF and I'm behind 3 pages of threads.

Suzane Northrop is a cheesy cold reader. Anyone who sits through her seminar should be able to see this. You would also, Neo. I don't believe that JE's mom "came through" SN. She either tricked him or they are both liars, in my humble, very strong, opinion.

Do you think the Pet Psychic is for real?

[RC]

Originally posted by dingler44


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.

I didn't get confirmation at the time, but I have since. They were both grandfathers and I've seen letters that back it up. I've since become friends with the teacher. She never pushed me to take another class with her. In fact, the mediumship experiment was on the final day of the 5 day series (which only cost $30 per 3 hour class, and included yummy snacks, handouts and a notepad).

There may have been a conflict of interest, but it wasn't like I was sitting down just reading the teacher. We meditated as a group (about 6 of us) and then called out what we "saw". That was when she piped up.

Look, if this woman had insisted that I was a real medium and that I must work with her (for a fee) to improve my skills, then I would share your cynicism. Instead, she just acted like she was pleased that her grandfathers came through and that was that.

I think she is sincere with her work.

I will start a thread about all this over the weekend.

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight
[B]

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 thought it was a very cool experience and it does keep me from giving up on mediumship. As for more classes, the only medium I trust is the one I took the original courses from. As you know, she is quite ill and not giving more classes. As it was, there weren't any more classes to take as I had gone through the whole 5 classes series.

The other issue, as I explained on Mike's thread, is that I'm not as interested in this anymore so the question is how to spend my time and money. Do I pursue this mediumship thing or do I take that series of wine tasting classes (which I'm doing in September, can't wait!) :D

[RC]

Originally posted by Darat


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...

All fair points, Darat, perhaps we can address further when I start the thread.

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC
Suzane Northrop is a cheesy cold reader. Anyone who sits through her seminar should be able to see this. You would also, Neo. I don't believe that JE's mom "came through" SN. She either tricked him or they are both liars, in my humble, very strong, opinion.

I would be curious as to what a one-on-one might be like with SN after all the negative things that you have said about her, RC. What if she gave you a great reading? What then?


Do you think the Pet Psychic is for real?

I have yet to see one whole episode of the Pet Psychic, RC, and I have no opinion on Sonia. :) JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through, or which at least have been acknowledged by people who have crossed over, however it works. He's gotten many dog and cat names, and even described many of them, so who knows? As I say, he might be getting their information from a human spirit, and not the animal itself. I don't know......neo

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


voidx, what I will do is leave science, and scientific explanations, to the scientists. I do not know what, if any, research has been done to date that might give evidence of telepathy originating from the physical brain. If I come across any of the material that I've read in the past on the subject of the right temporal lobe and PSI, I will post it. :) .....neo

Thankyou - a fair and reasonable answer.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
I have yet to see one whole episode of the Pet Psychic, RC, and I have no opinion on Sonia. :) JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through, or which at least have been acknowledged by people who have crossed over, however it works. He's gotten many dog and cat names, and even described many of them, so who knows? As I say, he might be getting their information from a human spirit, and not the animal itself. I don't know......neo

Liar.

You have seen an episode of the Pet Psychic. You do have an opinion on Sonya. And you have changed your mind quite dramatically regarding JE and dead animals.

TVTalkshows
(neofight) 152.163.189.131 08-05-2002 11:31 PM
I don't know about this Sonya person. I only saw the show once, but my question would be that if some sort of communication with these deceased pets is possible, then why doesn't JE or any of the other mediums get any messages from them? I'm trying to remember the wording that JE uses when he mentions someone's dog that has passed over, and as far as I remember, I think John usually says something like, "he's saying he has the small black dog with him" or words to that effect. I never hear him say something like, "I have Rover coming through, and he's still pissed that you started buying him that really cheap dog food a year before he died." :)

I think that all life is sacred, but I am not sure that I would equate the soul of a human being with the soul of an animal. Not to say that some animals are not more noble than some humans, because I agree that is exactly the case many times, but I just don't think that they would be able to communicate in quite the same way. Just my two-cents worth.....neo
(emphasis mine)

Now, could you answer some questions?

Do you have any comment on the lack of support for your claim about the brain?

What happens to those readings at CO that are longer than 11 minutes?

As well as all the other questions you have dangling...I think it might be time for yet another list...

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...snip...

yup. Actually up to 8 different programs, sometimes more, sometimes less. Its a business. Four hours of taping cost them thousands and thousands of dollars. For financial reasons alone they want to use as much of the footage as possible and get as much product out of each session as possible. This factor sort of puts a hole in the theory that most of the footage winds up cut. But there truly is no formula. Its all spontaneous and they never know what they are going to wind up with. They do not air long silences. We know that from watching the show as we see shorter ones which may've been much longer in reality. We saw many long silences.

And....no reading is 32 hrs long, thought that would be obvious. ...snip...

Steve - this doesn't "sort of puts a hole in the theory that most of the footage winds up cut".

I do agree that it is likely that a production company will try to use as much of the footage as possible since it is a business. However their over riding goal is to produce a programme that gets ratings; what they will do is use as much of the footage as they can that will achieve that goal.

As a total ‘for instance’, if JE did a reading in which he just spoke to the sitter twice, but meditated quietly saying or doing nothing for 20 minutes they are not likely to use the 20 minutes of meditation, as it would not achieve their goal of producing a show that gets the ratings.

In fact since it is a business then I would suggest that starting with the premise “they will seek to make this show as rating grabbing as possible” is a sensible starting point. And therefore since we know shows have in the past "distorted the truth" to achieve their goals a reasonable question to always ask is “Were/are ratings more important then the truth for producers of this show?” when reviewing any show.

(I am not saying this happens in Crossing Over or JE and his production company seek to "sensationalise" and allow the "truth" to become distorted to achieve higher ratings, only that there is evidence to support the contention that shows have and do distort the truth to achieve higher ratings.)

[juninho]

Originally posted by dingler44


Lurker you're operating on the assumption that magic is real. DB shouldn't have to use the word "real" to heighten excitement unless people already believe magic is real/possible. So if magic is real and DB claims to use it, fine.

But it's known that DB does not use magic to perform his levitation trick.

The thing about DB's levitation trick is this:

1) He performs it as street magic in front of real passers-by. Its a simple trick that could be replicated by almost anyone, however;

2) For effect, he is then subsequently filmed in the same location but with the use of wires. The two sets of footage are then stitched together for airing on TV so that it appears his levitation is much more impressive than it actually is. Its a con.

[Loki]

Darat,

Nice sig... it's been years since I read Solzhenitsyn!

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight

-snip-

I have yet to see one whole episode of the Pet Psychic, RC, and I have no opinion on Sonia. :) JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets that he has brought through, or which at least have been acknowledged by people who have crossed over, however it works. He's gotten many dog and cat names, and even described many of them, so who knows? As I say, he might be getting their information from a human spirit, and not the animal itself. I don't know......neo

Neo, the "big sloppy black dog" reading was rerun on CO yesterday. This was the reading wherein JE supposedy communicated messages from a dead 170 lb. Newfie with hip dysplasia, whose owner had him euthanized. According to JE, the dog spirit was forgiving the owner for not being there when he was put down. In reality, fo course, one only had to watch the reading to discern that it was the live human in the audience who was giving JE the information, which he then re-phrased.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Loki
Darat,

Nice sig... it's been ye