Interesting JE Hits....

[Clancie]

Some people ask here, "So...what kind of 'hits' impress you?"

I thought it would be interesting for those who watch CO to have a thread where we can jot them down from time to time, just to give some examples.

Here are two (separate posts--so please give me a minute for the second one, Claus, before responding to this one. :rolleyes: ).

This is from Tuesday's CO, second half hour. JE was reading a well groomed elderly, white-haired woman and her middle aged daughter in the audience. He said he had the older man, which they identified as grandpa. So far, nothing much....

JE: Did someone work with tools?
(I'm obviously thinking, "Nothing special there.")

Elderly woman: Yes, he did.

JE (to elderly woman): And did you...(puzzled look on his face)....cut down a tree?

The daughter turns to her mother with a bemused smile, like, "What a silly thing for him to say!"

Elderly woman: Yes.

Daughter looks at her, totally surprised.

JE: I mean, did you cut down a tree. That you did it yourself. Not that you hired someone to cut it down. Because that's what I'm getting, that you did it yourself.

Elderly woman: (getting a little impatient). Yes. I couldn't afford to hire someone so I just went out and cut it down myself.
No big message other than, "Here's a unique thing this sitter did", but its the kind of hit that I find interesting. This is because, IMO, it does not conform to cold reading (other than the claim its a "lucky guess").

And not researched either.

Next example...

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
This is because, IMO, it does not conform to cold reading (other than the claim its a "lucky guess").

And not researched either.

But how do we know it wasn't either a lucky guess or researched?

[Clancie]

This was the next part with these same two sitters.


JE: Do you have a chalice?

Elderly woman: "Chalice?"

JE: Yes. Do you have a chalice that has his name on it. (gestures the height with his hands).

Elderly woman and daughter don't hear or don't understand.

JE: I'm being shown a chalice, you know, a silver chalice, a cup.

Elderly woman: Oh! A kiddush cup!

Daughter: Yes, we have his kiddush cup.

JE: Because he's telling me its got his name on it.

This part does not appear to be validated.

Post analysis:

Daughter to mother: Oh, I forgot that I'd had Evan's name (her son's) engraved on it and he was named after grandpa.

Elderly woman: Oh! That's a good one.

What interested me about this was that a chalice and a kiddush cup are basically the same thing. JE was shown a Roman Catholic image to pass on to two Jewish sitters, with neither of them obviously being very familiar with the other's cultural frame of reference.

The kiddush cup with the engraved name of the deceased turned out to be a good validation for them.

[arcticpenguin]

I don't care how high you pile the anecdotes. They still do not constitute evidence.

Did you notice, at the start of the episode in which these appeared, the disclaimer that the show was for entertainment purposes only?

Of course you know that the shows are edited. I assume you would not try to pass off anything that occurs there as happening under controlled conditions?

You have no way of verifying that JE did not research these subjects, either before they entered the studio, or while they were in the studio with the microphones on.

[renata]

Two things
I have yet to meet a family that identifies itself as ethnically Jewish that does not have a kiddush cup. I am an atheist and I have an kiddush cup. Mine is not engraved- my parents' kiddush cup is, with name of my great grandfather. I do not know how common it is to engrave them.

I am afraid I am not impressed by CO readings and these hits. The only pure readings that can be analyzed with any degree of certainty that there is no editing or trickery are Larry King live readings.

Why is there never a good hit like that on those readings? Why do most of them fail miserably, and invoke the cold reading type tricks like "does August mean anything", etc.

Clancie, can you explain the big difference in reading quality between LKL and CO?

[Clancie]

AP, These are offered as examples of hits I found interesting. I don't present them as anything other than anecdotal. We all know editing is an issue, but I don't see how it is a relevant factor here.

Renata,
I have seen JE get some good hits on LKL, but I admit he's inconsistent. Whether that is because LK's abrupt manner with JE and the callers negatively impacts on a reading, the -very- short time limit LK gives to each one is a problem (since usually JE works up to it), there are audio problems (as in the last ones in Sept), or because its all guesswork on JE's part, I really don't know. I've seen JE do much better in other live formats, so I tend to think it's because LK is too abrupt and doesn't have patience for readings to develop. (I realize "develop = cold read" to some, but that isn't what it means to me).

And the point about the cup was he was describing a chalice to them, which was his referent, not theirs. He didn't know they weren't Catholic, yet it was still a good validation for them.

Do most Protestants usually have a similar kind of silver cup in their homes? Maybe Episcopalians, but I wouldn't think it was a common thing.

And JE saw it engraved, with the particular deceased's name on it--not some other relative--which was true.

[TLN]

Originally posted by TLN
But how do we know it wasn't either a lucky guess or researched?

[Clancie]

TLN,

How would you research that the elderly woman had cut down her tree years ago?

Or that the daughter had a kiddush cup with the grandfather's name engraved on it? Do you think, like Randi, JE sent someone to the daughter's home to look around? Even in that improbable scenario, how would someone know whose name was engraved on it?

As for guesswork...we don't know. Do they look like good guesses to you?

[Dragon]

JE: Did someone work with tools?
(I'm obviously thinking, "Nothing special there.")

You're right, nothing special.

Elderly woman: Yes, he did.

JE (to elderly woman): And did you...(puzzled look on his face)....cut down a tree?

The "puzzled look" sounds like part of JE's technique to get the subject to answer his question and feed back some more information.

The daughter turns to her mother with a bemused smile, like, "What a silly thing for him to say!"

Elderly woman: Yes.

Daughter looks at her, totally surprised.

Bingo! What's silly about cutting down a tree? Unless an elderly woman does it herself?

JE: I mean, did you cut down a tree. That you did it yourself. Not that you hired someone to cut it down. Because that's what I'm getting, that you did it yourself.

Elderly woman: (getting a little impatient). Yes. I couldn't afford to hire someone so I just went out and cut it down myself.

So, Clancie, what if the lady and her daughter hadn't reacted in quite that way the the first question about the tree and it turned out that someone else had cut it down for her? I think JE would still have made it sound like a hit - not so impressive because more mundane - but still a hit. Good example of warm reading.

[renata]

Really? Good hits in LKL? I have not seen many. And if he knows Larry King will impact negatively, why does he do it? he has been on the show 4 times, three times all by himself and once with other mediums.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/28/lkl.00.html
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/06/lkl.00.html
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/10/lkl.00.html

Please read them over. The readings are appallingly bad.

How about we analyze them, instead.

CALLER: Yes, I would like to ask John what he can tell me about my father or my grandfather or even my grandmother who passed away.
EDWARD: What's your first name?
CALLER: My first name is Lisa.
EDWARD: Lisa, besides the people that you talked about, if -- I want to let you know that I might not be able to connect with them. I might connect with other people. If you again just say yes or no, don't say anything else.
The first thing to tell you is -- I know didn't you ask about this -- but they tell me to acknowledge a female figure that I would see as being like a contemporary to you, whether it be like a sister or a cousin but it's a female person that passed. I'm seeing this as being somebody who has got another name like yours, there has got to be another L-connection that comes up round you, that has got to be L- tied to this. I feel that this person passes either from breast cancer or a female type of cancer in some way.
OK, that's No. 1. That's the first thing I'm being shown. I know this would be like a cousin on your dad's side of the family, or a cousin through the male, like your husband's side of the family. But there is a connection through a male from what are they showing me. And they're also talking about somebody who would be known as either Richard or Rich, because a big R-connection that comes up connected to you. Do you understand that? Where is the August connection for you? Somebody passed in August?
CALLER: August? No.
EDWARD: There is. There's either an anniversary on the eighth of a month or an anniversary in the eight month, August. But there is an eight connection, from what are they showing me.
CALLER: Eight connection.
EDWARD: Is there a father-in-law also who has passed?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Then you've got another father figure besides yours.
CALLER: We do, OK.
EDWARD: There's like another male figure that I would see as being above you, like a father, whether it be an uncle. It's not a grandfather, it's like a father figure. There is an eight-connection, like the eighth month August or the eighth of a month. There's a connection to a young female figure to your side that I would see as being like a sister, or a friend that is passed from female a female type of cancer. That is what's coming through to me.
KING: Does any of that ring a bell?
CALLER: No. I don't know.
EDWARD: Write it down exactly as I said it.

Example from the 9/10/01 reading.
It includes an ambigious 8 connection and an instruction to write things down after the caller does not get a single hit.

Would you like to take a crack at analyzing the readings from an entire show? Count hits, misses and items that look like cold reading tricks ( like the number 8 connection above). Please do not take one reading that is better than others- let's just analyze one show, beginning to end.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

We have to dismiss this reading, for the following reasons:


This is not a reading: There is no spirit communication - we don't know if "grandpa" is dead or alive.
According to you, with no spirit communication, it isn't a reading.
(You used this excuse to dismiss Neill's reading, so why not this one?)

This is not the whole reading.
According to you, it has to be the whole reading.
(You used this excuse with Ian Rowland's cold-reading example, so why not this one?)

There were no men among the sitters.
According to you, there has to be men, otherwise this is a serious problem.
(You used this excuse with Shermer's cold-reading example, so why not this one?)

This is a transcript.
According to you, we cannot trust transcripts.
(You used this excuse to deny us a transcript of your own reading with Brian Hurst, so why not this one?)


These are all your reasons for not accepting a reading. Would you care to comment on why we should view this reading any different?

Also:


We don't know when the tree-felling happened. It could have happened in her early years, when she was stronger.
Cutting down a tree is hardly "unique", even for a woman.
We have to question the validity of the "chalice/kiddush cup w/engraving", because the elderly woman clearly remembers she has a cup, but not that it was engraved.
We also have to ask if either of the sitters wore any Jewish jewelry, e.g. a David's star. This would make the whole "hit" highly questionable.

[Denise]

Neither of these seem to be impressive hits to me. I'm sure my grandmother has cut down a tree in her time, as have many other elderly women. Doing such things is usually part of life on the farm back in the day. As far as the Chalice thing goes... It's not unheard of for people to give gifts at weddings and births etc of cups with people's names engraved on them. In fact, I think it's quite common.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Clancie
TLN,

How would you research that the elderly woman had cut down her tree years ago?

Or that the daughter had a kiddush cup with the grandfather's name engraved on it? Do you think, like Randi, JE sent someone to the daughter's home to look around? Even in that improbable scenario, how would someone know whose name was engraved on it?

As for guesswork...we don't know. Do they look like good guesses to you?
1) If you knew their name and address (i.e. they had advance tickets) you could try searching local newspapers for anything. Maybe the woman got cited for cutting a tree without a permit, or maybe it fell on the neighbor's house. You don't know, do you?

The clip you presented did not show the JE provided the name which appeared on the cup. You are either leaving out important info, or maybe you have fallen for the classic cold reading ploy of getting the readee to supply info, which they then attribute to the reader.

Also, see the mention about microphones being on before a taping.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
How would you research that the elderly woman had cut down her tree years ago?

Where, in the transcript, does it say this? Surely, you didn't provide a partial transcript, did you?

Originally posted by Clancie
Or that the daughter had a kiddush cup with the grandfather's name engraved on it? Do you think, like Randi, JE sent someone to the daughter's home to look around? Even in that improbable scenario, how would someone know whose name was engraved on it?

Do you know for certain that the sitters did not give away that they were Jewish?

[Starrman]

You actually give it away as cold reading before the reading starts:

He said he had the older man, which they identified as grandpa

He said "older man" does anybody on Earth not know an older man who has died?

The only hit is you cut down a tree - so have a bajillion other people in the world. I'm sorry, but I do not consider this to be unique to this sitter. Not even close.

And he asked did 'you' cut down a tree - to which she answered 'yes'. Only then, after she confirms it, does JE say "Because that's what I'm getting, that you did it yourself."

1) JE asks a question
2) The sitter answers
3) JE repeats his confirmed question in the form of a statement

How is that not like cold reading?

This is essentially what you are saying: Yes, the most likely explanation is that JE was talking to her dead grandfather and he told him to tell her that she cut a tree down by herself.

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


We don't know when the tree-felling happened. It could have happened in her early years, when she was stronger.
Cutting down a tree is hardly "unique", even for a woman.
We have to question the validity of the "chalice/kiddush cup w/engraving", because the elderly woman clearly remembers she has a cup, but not that it was engraved.
We also have to ask if either of the sitters wore any Jewish jewelry, e.g. a David's star. This would make the whole "hit" highly questionable.


And if JE is a cold reader, how easily could he have moved to prune out a bush? Or NOT pruning a bush? Or "Why am I seeing a joke about a tree cutting?"; "Did you nag your husband to cut down a tree?"; "Did your children fall from a tree and you wanted to cut it down?" etc.

Psst- Claus- not David's star- "Star of David" aka "Magen David". If this reading was performed in Long Island, which has a huge Jewish community, it was not unreasonable to guess the ethnicity. If JE saw some Jewelry, like a Magen David, which is very common to wear, or some other identifiable Jewelry (like the hand, for example) that could have tipped him off. Of course, JE did not identify it as a kiddush cup, the sitters did. Is it common for non Jews to have a silver cup? A kiddush cup is bascially a ceremonial silver wine glass.

[Brown]

In my family, I can immediately name three elderly women who I know have cut down trees. All three of them are unafraid of outdoor labor, and do not consider it "man's work."

In the case of one of the women, she cut down a tree during the Great Depression. That was a time when money was scarce, and few people had money to hire anyone to do anything.

In the case of another lady, she cut down a small tree in her back yard after it had been destroyed by lightning.

These women weren't lumberjacks; they basically just did their own landscaping.

Consequently, the "cut down a tree" guess doesn't seem to me to be all that remarkable.

[fsol]

Dragon: if you hadn't said it I was about to.

[LTC8K6]

Why wouldn't the dead relative know the proper term?

If "they" can send the image of a kiddush cup, then they can send the image of the words "kiddush cup" as well.

If "they" can tell JE that "it's got his name on it", then why can't they tell him the proper name of the cup and the name of the person.

This makes no sense to me.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
Psst- Claus- not David's star- "Star of David"

It's called "David's Star" in Danish! :p (farts in your general direction)

Originally posted by renata
aka "Magen David".

...which, in Danish, actually means "the sexual partner of David" (if David was an animal). Had it been an "å", it would have been "Mågen David", "David the Seagull".

Yes, Danish is a strange language.... :D

Carry on.

Originally posted by renata
If this reading was performed in Long Island, which has a huge Jewish community, it was not unreasonable to guess the ethnicity.

Far from it. There are over one million Jews in New York.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Clancie
This was the next part with these same two sitters.

. . .

Daughter: Yes, we have his kiddush cup.

JE: Because he's telling me its got his name on it.

. . .

The kiddush cup with the engraved name of the deceased turned out to be a good validation for them.


AAARGH!! He could see the cup but he couldn't see the d*mned name engraved on the cup?!? Instead the "grandpa" had to tell him the name was on the cup. And of course the "grandpa" didn't/couldn't tell JE his own name?!?

This is a perfect example of why many of us don't believe this nonsense.

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It's called "David's Star" in Danish! :p (farts in your general direction)

...which, in Danish, actually means "the sexual partner of David" (if David was an animal). Had it been an "å", it would have been "Mågen David", "David the Seagull".

Yes, Danish is a strange language.... :D

Carry on.


Damn Danes! Rude, smartass pervert bastards....




Far from it. There are over one million Jews in New York.

Yeah, we are everywhere.....:)

1. Did JE grow up in NY? He could have been familiar with Jewish traditions and accessories
2. He did not actually guess it was Jewish, the sitters told them that. Do Catholics or any other Christians use a similar type item?




I see Clancie has received a lot of responses here. It looks the questions are going several directions at once. I suggest a kind soul with extra time on his hands collate the questions by topic? Claus? :) It might be easier for her to address it that way, instead of each individual poster. And I am looking forward to her commentary, especially on LKL readings.

[c0rbin]

We'll be right back after these messages...

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by renata

2. He did not actually guess it was Jewish, the sitters told them that. Do Catholics or any other Christians use a similar type item?

Catholics do not.

[Starrman]

Seriously, Clancie - you really think these hits are not like cold reading?

You really think the BEST possible explanation for these exchanges between human beings, taped for and broadcast on the sci-fi channel, is that one or more of the human beings is dead?

:confused:

[Starrman]

Catholics do not.

They are not used in the home, but are used for mass and communion.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
Damn Danes! Rude, smartass pervert bastards....

'ey!!

Originally posted by renata
1. Did JE grow up in NY? He could have been familiar with Jewish traditions and accessories

Sit down. This is not going to be pretty.

Guess what?

Glen Cove was among the first settlements to have Jewish communities:

"Although far apart, Sag Harbor and Glen Cove both had early Jewish communities "
....
"At about the same time at another Long Island port to the west, Jewish settlers in Glen Cove worked as peddlers and shopkeepers in the growing city. They held services in private homes for 20 years and, in 1897, founded Tifereth Israel, Nassau's first synagogue and Long Island's oldest continually operating, year-round congregation. Like many Jewish and Christian congregations on Long Island, both congregations were founded by European immigrants drawn here by the prospect of jobs. Although there were several other early Jewish communities on Long Island, including Lindenhurst and Setauket, the great wave of Jewish immigration did not occur until well after the turn of the century. "
Long Island's Founding Jews (http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/6/hs629a.htm)

and

"This special section tells the story of Long Island's Jewish history, from early settlers to the peddlers who walked from New York City with packs on their backs in the 1800s to people who are an integral part of the Island's culture and commerce today."
LI History (http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/ejewish/about.htm)

Guess what?

JE was born October 19, 1969, in Glen Cove and went to Glen Cove High School.

Conclusion:

I'd say it was pretty darn impossible for JE to grow up in Glen Cove and not learn a thing or two about Jewish customs.

Originally posted by renata
I see Clancie has received a lot of responses here. It looks the questions are going several directions at once. I suggest a kind soul with extra time on his hands collate the questions by topic? Claus? :)

Of course! :)

Originally posted by renata
It might be easier for her to address it that way, instead of each individual poster. And I am looking forward to her commentary, especially on LKL readings.

Me too. In the meantime, for the people:

11 Techniques to Talk to the Dead, Part II (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jelkl.htm), by Paul Sandoval

The article deals with JE's readings on Larry King. Very interesting stuff.

[Dallin]

Originally posted by renata

1. Did JE grow up in NY? He could have been familiar with Jewish traditions and accessories
2. He did not actually guess it was Jewish, the sitters told them that. Do Catholics or any other Christians use a similar type item?



Renata,

True, JE simply asked about a cup/chalice, but leaves it open for interpretation. Possible connections are:

- A chalice used for mass
- An engraved cup won at a competition or an award of some sort
- A momento of a wedding, anniversary, etc
- An engraved gift from a loved one
- A kiddush cup

Etc etc. While JE certainly could have had a hunch that the sitters were Jewish and threw the words out hoping they would reply with 'kiddush cup', at worst he left himself some legroom in case they came up with a different example of an engraved cup. At best he allowed the sitter to supply valuable information about themselves, eg they are Jewish, the specific nature of the cup... also interesting that he doesn't even bring up the engraving until after the sitters confirmed they owned the cup.

In fact, knowing little about the Jewish religion, I just looked up what a kiddush cup is, and here is the definition i found...

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/art_context/tkidd.htm

which includes the quote


Often people's names or biblical passages are inscribed on cups.


So, he learned from the sitter that they owned a kiddush cup from the departed; I would think it a safe guess to throw out that his name was engraved on it. It sounds to me like he was playing the numbers.

[Mr. Skinny]

Just to support the idea that it's not such a special hit, I've cut down a tree, my mother has cut down a tree, my dad has cut down a tree, my brother-in-law has cut down a tree, and two of my best friends have cut down trees.

I don't see it as being so special.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Starrman
[Among Catholics, silver chalices] are not used in the home, but are used for mass and communion.
Good point -- look at the exact wording of the exchange:


JE: "I'm being shown a chalice, you know, a silver chalice, a cup."
Elderly woman: "Oh! A kiddush cup!"
Daughter: "Yes, we have his kiddush cup."
JE: "Because he's telling me its got his name on it."


Notice that JE didn't say anything about the cup being engraved until after the Elderly woman had told him it was a Kiddush cup. If the Elderly woman had instead said "Oh! A communion cup!", then JE still would have gotten to count his chalice question as a "hit", and would not have gone on to ask about the cup being engraved. JE only suggested that anyone's name was engraved on the cup after the woman told him it was a Kiddush cup, which are items known to be engraved with people's names.

[renata]

Originally posted by tracer


Notice that JE didn't say anything about the cup being engraved until after the Elderly woman had told him it was a Kiddush cup. If the Elderly woman had instead said "Oh! A communion cup!", then JE still would have gotten to count his chalice question as a "hit", and would not have gone on to ask about the cup being engraved. JE only suggested that anyone's name was engraved on the cup after the woman told him it was a Kiddush cup, which are items known to be engraved with people's names.

That is exactly correct. And as Dallin pointed out, it could have been anything else.

JE: "I'm being shown a chalice, you know, a silver chalice, a cup."
Elderly woman: "Oh! My grandson's spelling bee trophy!"
JE: "Because he's telling me he is very proud of the boy."

JE: "I'm being shown a chalice, you know, a silver chalice, a cup."
Elderly woman: "Oh! My poodle's best in show award!"
JE: "Because he's telling me you trained the puppy together."

JE: "I'm being shown a chalice, you know, a silver chalice, a cup."
Elderly woman: "Oh! My silver wedding anniversary gift!"
JE: "Because he's telling it was very meaningful, a symbol of how much he loved you."




etc, etc.

[Starrman]

JE only suggested that anyone's name was engraved on the cup after the woman told him it was a Kiddush cup, which are items known to be engraved with people's names.

Actually, he does says earlier in the reading "Do you have a chalice that has his name on it. (gestures the height with his hands)."

So in all fairness, he did say there was a name on it right from the beginning.

[tracer]

Starrman: D'OH! You're absolutely right. I completely missed that.

I hereby formally apologize to John Edwards for assuming that he could have made the silver chalice out to be something that didn't have somebody's name on it. John Edwards was very brave and took the great risk of assuming the Elderly woman was probably Jewish and would therefore have a Kiddush cup, when he made up that question.

[renata]

Originally posted by Starrman


Actually, he does says earlier in the reading "Do you have a chalice that has his name on it. (gestures the height with his hands)."

So in all fairness, he did say there was a name on it right from the beginning.


You are correct. So it rules out the poodle, but not a gift or trophy- for him. Also, if there had been a name of a relative, I am sure it would have been stretched to fit. (Recall the Schrunchie Snuggle bear stretch)

[Starrman]

You are correct. So it rules out the poodle, but not a gift or trophy- for him. Also, if there had been a name of a relative, I am sure it would have been stretched to fit. (Recall the Schrunchie Snuggle bear stretch)

This is exactly why this is cold reading. I've seen him throw darts like this before and miss, and just move on to something completely different. The only reason this stands out is because his dart hit something.

He doesn't confirm what the target was until after the sitter verifies it. He throws the dart, and then draws the target - isn't his whole game the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy?

[neofight]

Originally posted by Starrman


Actually, he does says earlier in the reading "Do you have a chalice that has his name on it. (gestures the height with his hands)."

So in all fairness, he did say there was a name on it right from the beginning.

Not only that, Starrman, but chalices are very often donated to the Church as a memorial to someone who has died. They are also given as gifts by family/friends to newly ordained priests, and more often than not, they are engraved.

I think Clancie was using this example to demonstrate how John will get a certain symbol, the chalice, which is within his frame of reference, being a Catholic, and the sitter then can translate that into what it means for them.

We believe that the frequency with which these hits are accurate, or meaningful to the sitter, would prove to be consistently higher than the frequency that a cold-reader might attain.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any cold-readers who are interested in putting this theory to the test. :( ......neo

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by neofight

We believe that the frequency with which these hits are accurate, or meaningful to the sitter, would prove to be consistently higher than the frequency that a cold-reader might attain.

What can you say about the frequency when the broadcast in question was not controlled and was edited? It is just another anecdote.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Unfortunately, I am not aware of any cold-readers who are interested in putting this theory to the test. :( ......neo

I am. Test me, neo. How do you suggest we approach this? You can open a new thread for this.

[Starrman]

which is within his frame of reference, being a Catholic, and the sitter then can translate that into what it means for them.

So it is up to the sitter. And you still maintain that the BEST explanation for all of this is that JE is in contact with the dead? :confused:

Ian Rowland (a cold reader) brought a woman to tears with a reading about an out of date calendar on Prime Time live. This is a great example of a cold reader getting a hit that is not quite accurate (Rowland said the deceased had made it for her - but it was not) and the sitter translating into something meaninful.

We believe that the frequency with which these hits are accurate, or meaningful to the sitter, would prove to be consistently higher than the frequency that a cold-reader might attain.

Why can't this be explaied as JE being the BEST cold reader out there? Michael Jordan's lifetime statistics are much better than most basketball players, but they are all STILL playing basketball.

[neofight]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

What can you say about the frequency when the broadcast in question was not controlled and was edited? It is just another anecdote.

Yes. Just like the *mediumship* demonstration done by Ian Rowland on ABC's Primetime Halloween Special that impressed so many of you skeptics, except so much better than that measley 90 seconds of heavily edited tape. :D

I've seen JE do readings for hours straight, and pass on some really meaningful information to the sitters. I'd pay good money to see the same sort of lengthy demonstration done by someone like Ian.......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
We believe that the frequency with which these hits are accurate, or meaningful to the sitter, would prove to be consistently higher than the frequency that a cold-reader might attain.

It makes absolutely no sense to talk about "frequency", when nobody - not even you - have any idea how often hits occur.

Establish that first, neo. Then, we can talk about what a cold-reader needs to be able to copy.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I am. Test me, neo. How do you suggest we approach this? You can open a new thread for this.

Really? Will you be in New York in September? After the book-signing, you can meet us all across the street for some adult beverages, and give it your best shot. :D ......neo

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


It makes absolutely no sense to talk about "frequency", when nobody - not even you - have any idea how often hits occur.

Establish that first, neo. Then, we can talk about what a cold-reader needs to be able to copy.

Well, there is such a frequency- check the LKL transcripts I posted

It will be a lot of work, but I think it will be worthwhile to tally guesses, hits and misses and comment on the technique. To date, this is the only unedited sample of his performance.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by neofight

I've seen JE do readings for hours straight, and pass on some really meaningful information to the sitters.
How sad that you don't have any unedited transcripts. :v:

[GroundStrength]

I have been doing quite a bit of cold reading lately and I always open up with a bit of psychometry (take a ring or other item) then say

"I feel that there is an accident involving water in your past'"

The sitter always fits this prediction to themselves and then later stretches it to something like, "He must be psychic otherwise, How did he know I was in a boating accident"

These hits are "interesting" if by interesting you mean Wild guesses that the sitter stretches to fit themselves.

The chalice is a two way out symbol. (Claus, sorry about not getting you the paper yet, my wife has take very ill) . In my experience of late people get anrgy with me when I dispel their belief that I am psychic.

I'm going to have to try the "chalice" tonight.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight


Really? Will you be in New York in September? After the book-signing, you can meet us all across the street for some adult beverages, and give it your best shot. :D ......neo

Please open a new thread, so we can discuss this.

[Lord Kenneth]

Oh my goodness! Asking an elderly woman if she has every cut down a tree! If she hadn't (said no), JE could have just asked if she had every had a tree cut down (didn't mean she did it herself).

Gee, it's a good thing the spirits are keeping track of who cuts down trees!



:rolleyes:

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Clancie
This was the next part with these same two sitters.



What interested me about this was that a chalice and a kiddush cup are basically the same thing. JE was shown a Roman Catholic image to pass on to two Jewish sitters, with neither of them obviously being very familiar with the other's cultural frame of reference.

The kiddush cup with the engraved name of the deceased turned out to be a good validation for them.

Is that rare or highly unlikely for Jews to do?

[Starrman]

Yes. Just like the *mediumship* demonstration done by Ian Rowland on ABC's Primetime Halloween Special that impressed so many of you skeptics, except so much better than that measley 90 seconds of heavily edited tape.

You were referring to the 'Chalice' reading, which is from JE's taped and edited TV show. I brought up an example of another taped and edited TV show that showed a cold reader doing the same thing.

Why is the chalice reading "how John will get a certain symbol, the chalice, which is within his frame of reference, being a Catholic, and the sitter then can translate that into what it means for them." But Rowland's reading so easily and sarcastically dismissed?

[voidx]

Posted by Neo:
We believe that the frequency with which these hits are accurate, or meaningful to the sitter, would prove to be consistently higher than the frequency that a cold-reader might attain.
Ok let's clarify. In the thread regarding michael shermers cold reading adventure. I also posed the question of why on LKL and other talk shows, in which these mediums have less control of their environment, yet quite consistently show poor performances, should be a rather sizable dent in their credibility. I was given the same excuse of poor audio quality, hurried and frenzied pace, etc. etc. to account for JE's poor performance. So I assume from this that it is being said that JE must have certain conditions in order to perform well and use his talent. Unfortunately it can be put just as valid, that when he cannot control his environment, his performance suffers. I still find this extremely telling.

Now the other thing that needs clarifying. Neo, you say here that the consistency being high is very important, and that itself is still open to debate, but in the other thread Clancie also stated that her belief in JE came from the idea that his hits were not like cold-reading. So I see a contradiction here. The readings listed here as examples are very easily demonstrable as cold-reading, one should not be able to deny that. Consistency, plus a charateristic in his hits that differentiates them from cold-reading would have to seem to be you're criteria for JE validation. Agreed?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lord Kenneth said:Gee, it's a good thing the spirits are keeping track of who cuts down trees!
And you thought we have big databases.

By the way, while we're figuring out the probabilities for all these things, let's not forget the probability of a good hit by coincidence. That should be easy to calculate, no?

~~ Paul

[Thanz]

Claus -

Is it any wonder that Clancie finds you so annoying? She starts a thread that has the chance to be very interestign and informative, and you jump on her the first chance you get. I don't think that she was claiming that this reading proves anything about JE - just that it was the kind of hits that she finds interesting. Given that it is these hits that make her think there may be something to mediumship, I am very interested in what they are. Your list of reasons why we need to dismiss the reading is nothing more than bullying on your part.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie,

We have to dismiss this reading, for the following reasons:


This is not a reading: There is no spirit communication - we don't know if "grandpa" is dead or alive.
According to you, with no spirit communication, it isn't a reading.
(You used this excuse to dismiss Neill's reading, so why not this one?)
I think this is covered in the introduction. Besides, as you note in your second objection, it is not the whole transcript.

Anyway, who is Neill?

This is not the whole reading.
According to you, it has to be the whole reading.
(You used this excuse with Ian Rowland's cold-reading example, so why not this one?)
Apples and oranges. There is a difference between comparing readings and comparing hits.

There were no men among the sitters.
According to you, there has to be men, otherwise this is a serious problem.
(You used this excuse with Shermer's cold-reading example, so why not this one?)
Again, apples and oranges. Shermer did five different readings with different props, all on women. One reading is not the same as five. Again, irrelevant to a discussion of hits.

This is a transcript.
According to you, we cannot trust transcripts.
(You used this excuse to deny us a transcript of your own reading with Brian Hurst, so why not this one?)

Give me a break. She doesn't want to post her reading with Hurst - big deal. It has personal information in it. If she altered it, it wouldn't be a transcript, would it?

These are all your reasons for not accepting a reading. Would you care to comment on why we should view this reading any different?
Way to eliminate all context, Claus. Also, she is not asking you to accept the reading for anything. She is merely explaining the sort of hits that impress her.

Also:


We don't know when the tree-felling happened. It could have happened in her early years, when she was stronger.
Cutting down a tree is hardly "unique", even for a woman.
We have to question the validity of the "chalice/kiddush cup w/engraving", because the elderly woman clearly remembers she has a cup, but not that it was engraved.
We also have to ask if either of the sitters wore any Jewish jewelry, e.g. a David's star. This would make the whole "hit" highly questionable.

Finally, something worthwhile - an analysis of the "hits" themselves with some possible mundane explanations. However, the third point is incorrect - it was validated in the post reading interview.

Now, why couldn't you have just posted this without the attack in the first half? You know, discuss the actual substance?

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

I don't see analyzing a transcript as "annoying", "jumping" on someone, "bullying" or as an "attack". I see it as a skeptical approach to a paranormal claim. As do many others, so it seems.

If you find a skeptical approach "bullying", then so be it. This is a skeptical board, and claims are dealt with in a skeptical manner. Curiously enough, I don't see you complaining about other skeptics on this thread. Do you have a personal problem with me? If so, please take it to another thread.

Neil (it should have been "Neil", not "Neill", my bad) is a cold-reader who once posted a cold-reading transcript on TVTalkshows. I challenged Clancie to see if she could point out what was different from a cold-reading transcript and a JE-transcript. She could not. All her points were invalid.

Although I appreciate your feedback, I nonetheless find it most appropriate to let Clancie have a chance to reply first. It is a transcript of her choice, and there have been many good posts about it.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Thanz
Claus -

Is it any wonder that Clancie finds you so annoying? She starts a thread that has the chance to be very interestign and informative, and you jump on her the first chance you get. I don't think that she was claiming that this reading proves anything about JE - just that it was the kind of hits that she finds interesting. Given that it is these hits that make her think there may be something to mediumship, I am very interested in what they are. Your list of reasons why we need to dismiss the reading is nothing more than bullying on your part.

As Claus points out, both Clancie and Neo discount cold readings for a variety of reasons, but do not discount "medium" readings for the very same reasons. If you finish this entire thread you will notice several occasions of this. If Clancie has been doing this in the past (I haven't been followoing all the related threads), then it is relevant. If it is unpleasant for Clancie, I see that as her own fault for being inconsistent.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by neofight
We believe that the frequency with which these hits are accurate, or meaningful to the sitter, would prove to be consistently higher than the frequency that a cold-reader might attain.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any cold-readers who are interested in putting this theory to the test. :( ......neo

edited to remove everything - someone else had an almost identical post already! doh!

Starrman said

Why can't this be explaied as JE being the BEST cold reader out there? Michael Jordan's lifetime statistics are much better than most basketball players, but they are all STILL playing basketball.


I even used the Michael Jordan analogy too! This is quite a coincidence Starrman... are you sure you didn't communicate this idea to the spirit world and then somehow it was relayed to a spirit in my office who then mischievously planted the idea in my brain?

[Thanz]

[b]Claus (and AP)[b] -
Your analysis of the actual reading I liked. The various reasons why we should ignore it I didn't. I don't think that it was posted as proof that JE is a medium - rather, it was posted as an example of the hits that make Clancie think he may be a medium. See the difference?

Clancie is asked frequently why she thinks JE may be a medium. Her normal answer has to do with hits and special hits, and usually incorporates something to the effect that cold readers don't get the same frequency/quality of hits as JE.

I saw this thread as an opportunity to get at the first part of Clancie's thinking - what is so special about the hits that JE gets? I thought it would be good to analyze the hits themselves, to see if they really are special or mundane. The points in the first part of your post aren't really relevant to this. They are only relevant when we get to part 2 - comparing to cold reading transcripts.

I'd like to be able to focus on the first part. And no, you weren't the only one, but I did see you as the worst offender.

[arcticpenguin]

About the hits: I think taking them out of context has almost no value. It may tell us something about Clancie's thought processes, but it tells us nothing about JE's 'mediumship'. It is cherry-picking. It is counting the hits and forgetting the misses. Since the conditions were uncontrolled and the results edited, they should be assigned no value whatsoever.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
About the hits: I think taking them out of context has almost no value. It may tell us something about Clancie's thought processes, but it tells us nothing about JE's 'mediumship'. It is cherry-picking. It is counting the hits and forgetting the misses. Since the conditions were uncontrolled and the results edited, they should be assigned no value whatsoever.
That, and they're completely within the possibilities of cold reading.

[eli54]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JE: Did someone work with tools?
(I'm obviously thinking, "Nothing special there.")

Elderly woman: Yes, he did.

JE (to elderly woman): And did you...(puzzled look on his face)....cut down a tree?

The daughter turns to her mother with a bemused smile, like, "What a silly thing for him to say!"

Elderly woman: Yes.

Daughter looks at her, totally surprised.

JE: I mean, did you cut down a tree. That you did it yourself. Not that you hired someone to cut it down. Because that's what I'm getting, that you did it yourself.

Elderly woman: (getting a little impatient). Yes. I couldn't afford to hire someone so I just went out and cut it down myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Grandpa's passing have anything to do with a tree falling on him?

[thaiboxerken]

The only interesting hits I would find in any medium would be ones that win the JREF or CSICOP tests.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


...(snip)...

I've seen JE do readings for hours straight, and pass on some really meaningful information to the sitters. I'd pay good money to see the same sort of lengthy demonstration done by someone like Ian.......neo

Hi, Neo! I hope you are not including JE's seminar performances at Glen Cove and Westbury in the above claim. When I attended those seminars, I did not observe him "doing readings for hours straight". He didn't pass on any meaningful information either. .. (or at least he didn't until the Westbury videotape was edited, lol).

At the live seminars, JE wasted enormous amounts of time, more like a stand-up comic. He didn't do many readings at all. He killed lots of time with inane banter. He also whipped the audience up into a frenzy by suggesting that they should be receptive to ALL spirit entities, not just those they wanted to hear from. Then, when the audience obeyed by responding to anything he said, he wasted lots of time by weeding through the senseless validations. He also chastised members of the audience for responding needlessly, when they were only obeying his instructions. Then, there were painfully long periods of time when JE trolled the audience, throwing out all kinds of letters, names, places and causes of death, which no one at all claimed.

JE started out each seminar, bragging about alleged wondrous readings that he did in the past. Then, he sheepishly owned up to a few times when no spirits came through. I believe he does this to keep audience expectations down to a manageable level. Then he trolled the audience for painfully long periods

As for meaningful messages, well, JE kicked off his first reading at Westbury by seeking someone in the audience who supposedly had a case of "the runs" earlier in the day. No one was anxious to validate his statement, although he ultimately got an elderly person to go along with it after a reading began. Yes, that was truly a meaningful experience for everyone.

And, let us not forget how he called out into the audience for someone who died of breast cancer. No one claimed it, so JE settled on reading a bunch of Long Island gals whose mom died from ovarian cancer. One would hope that with JE's medical/hospital background, he would be able to tell a breast from an ovary. I guess his frame of reference malfunctions with body parts and stuffed bears.

It is only through the mercy of drastic editing that the home viewing audience was spared the agonizingly bad readings at the Westbury seminar... And, even with the editing, the readings were still bad, IMO.

JE giving seminar readings for hours??? In what galaxy? :D

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Please open a new thread, so we can discuss this.

Claus, I have enough trouble keeping up with the existing theads that I post on. Will you still be in Denmark in September? Come on. This is easy. YES or NO? :) .......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Starrman


You were referring to the 'Chalice' reading, which is from JE's taped and edited TV show. I brought up an example of another taped and edited TV show that showed a cold reader doing the same thing.

Why is the chalice reading "how John will get a certain symbol, the chalice, which is within his frame of reference, being a Catholic, and the sitter then can translate that into what it means for them." But Rowland's reading so easily and sarcastically dismissed?

Because JE's readings usually take anywhere from five to 15 minutes, sometimes a half-hour, (minus the time for commercials) all with the same person or family. You guys want to keep harping on all the editing that is being done on "CO" but in actuality, there is very little editing at all, and less in this current season than ever before.

On the other hand, Ian's 90 seconds of aired readings were taken from 30 minutes of taped *readings*, and in that timeframe, I believe he included parts of readings from two or three different people.

In other words, he only showed the most impressive parts of his performance. Little snippets from two or three readings. Not all that impressive if you ask me. :( .......neo

[Loki]

Starrman (and arcticpenguin)

Why can't this be explaied as JE being the BEST cold reader out there? Michael Jordan's lifetime statistics are much better than most basketball players, but they are all STILL playing basketball.
I think this needs to be emphasised! Although I think it remains to be proven that JE can consistently outperform *any* cold-reader, even if it *was* shown to be true it doesn't validate mediumship!

You used basketball, and there's a similar example in cricket (yes, that weird game played in England and the colonies). The greatest batsman of all time was Donald Bradman, who played 60 years ago. He finished with a career average of "99.94". The second highest career average is "60.97", then "60.83", then "60.73", then "59.23" then "58.27". The career averages are spread pretty evenly from "60" downwards - with one enormous blimp up to Bradman at "99.94". Every now and then, someone is *a lot* better than those around him/her.

So, work out JE's average first - but even if he tops the averages, it doesn't prove mediumship!

[renata]

OK, it appears I am the only one who wants to analyze LKL readings to get the hit percentage :)

Here it goes. I counted each guess as a guess, and counted strong hits, regular hits, weak hits and misses. Some I did not score, for reasons explained. This is not done with any science in mind, so feel free to rescore as you wish. I also did not analyze any reading in depth, although some are extremely curious for their resemblance to cold reading techniques


I noticed following trends- almost every reading had
- an initial thrown out at them
- a number, 1-12
- badgering, asking them to write things down, repeating some guesses
- some safe guesses- dead grandparents, general cancer
-50/50 guesses
-callers tended to tell JE who they wanted to connect with, but rarely got who they wanted
-lots of platitudes - the dead ones are OK, etc.
-lots of does this make sense or do you understand questions- very difficult to score those, as not sure if caller says yes to understanding or to a connection


http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/10/lkl.00.html

Reading one

KING: We are back with John Edward. We will start including your phone calls. West Bloomfield, Michigan. Hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: Yes, I would like to ask John what he can tell me about my father or my grandfather or even my grandmother who passed away.
EDWARD: What's your first name?
CALLER: My first name is Lisa. EDWARD: Lisa, besides the people that you talked about, if -- I want to let you know that I might not be able to connect with them. I might connect with other people. If you again just say yes or no, don't say anything else.
The first thing to tell you is -- I know didn't you ask about this -- but they tell me to acknowledge a female figure that I would see as being like a contemporary to you, whether it be like a sister or a cousin but it's a female person that passed. I'm seeing this as being somebody who has got another name like yours, there has got to be another L-connection that comes up round you, that has got to be L- tied to this. I feel that this person passes either from breast cancer or a female type of cancer in some way.
OK, that's No. 1. That's the first thing I'm being shown. I know this would be like a cousin on your dad's side of the family, or a cousin through the male, like your husband's side of the family. But there is a connection through a male from what are they showing me. And they're also talking about somebody who would be known as either Richard or Rich, because a big R-connection that comes up connected to you. Do you understand that? Where is the August connection for you? Somebody passed in August?
CALLER: August? No.
EDWARD: There is. There's either an anniversary on the eighth of a month or an anniversary in the eight month, August. But there is an eight connection, from what are they showing me.
CALLER: Eight connection.
EDWARD: Is there a father-in-law also who has passed?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Then you've got another father figure besides yours.
CALLER: We do, OK.
EDWARD: There's like another male figure that I would see as being above you, like a father, whether it be an uncle. It's not a grandfather, it's like a father figure. There is an eight-connection, like the eighth month August or the eighth of a month. There's a connection to a young female figure to your side that I would see as being like a sister, or a friend that is passed from female a female type of cancer. That is what's coming through to me.
KING: Does any of that ring a bell?
CALLER: No. I don't know.
EDWARD: Write it down exactly as I said it.
KING: You were wrong? Or...
EDWARD: Absolutely. Absolutely could be that I was wrong. KING: Cross-connections.
EDWARD: It could be totally that I was misinterpreting.


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

Reading two

KING: Denham, Massachusetts. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, John. I would like to ask about my mother.
EDWARD: OK, the first thing, again, just yes or no.
KING: What is your name, by the way, sir?
CALLER: My name is John as well.
KING: Ok, John.
EDWARD: John, how are you?
CALLER: Great.
EDWARD: The first thing that I'm going to tell you is I'm seeing boxes. Whenever I'm shown boxes it means that there's some type of move or some type of moving issue around someone. So I don't know if you just moved or if there's a pending move of some sort, but there is a move issue. Is there a brother figure for you here?
CALLER: Brother figure?
EDWARD: Where does the Lewis or the Louis or the L-name?
CALLER: The L. I had a uncle that had died when I was a little kid.
EDWARD: Is that connected to your mom's side of family?
CALLER: He was her brother-in-law.
EDWARD: Is there some type of fire connection to them also?
CALLER: My grandfather was a firefighter.
EDWARD: OK, he is also there? That is other side of the family, right?
CALLER: No, my mother -- both grandfathers were firefighters.
EDWARD: Your dad's father has passed.
CALLER: Yes, he has.
EDWARD: Because they're telling me it's the other side of the family. There is connection to either him having a son with him, or him having a younger male like a grandson also there, and they're telling me acknowledge the cancer to the chest. I don't know if somebody passed from lung cancer? But there's cancer all in here, understand that? CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Now isn't your birthday coming up?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Somebody like how just passed -- last week?
CALLER: Yeah, my sister's was a day or two ago.
EDWARD: That is not. It's next week. It's coming up like in a week.
CALLER: My younger brother's is next week.
EDWARD: And he's out of your state?
CALLER: He is on -- no, he is in Massachusetts.
EDWARD: Is he -- are you in that same state?
CALLER: Yes, we are.
EDWARD: There is somebody else out of that state or he's out of state now or there's an out-of-state connection, because they're talking about the out-of-state connection.
KING: What can tell him about his father, though?
EDWARD: I'm not -- all I can tell you is what's coming through. To me the whole message is to validate the fact that this is still connected. They are telling me...



Caller tells JE he wants to connect with his mother
Guesses:
-Boxes/move (not validated)
-brother figure (not validated)
-L name (weak hit- uncle)
-mother's side of the family (Not sure if it was a hit. Caller said uncle was mother's brother in law, but that could mean he was his father's brother, so that would be a miss, or could be related to his mother in another manner. Not scoring this)
-fire connection (hit, grandfather firefighter)
-other side of the family for gandpa (miss, both of granfathers are firefighters)
-dad's father passed (not scoring this- caller says both granfathers were firefighters, obviously both have passed)
-son, younger male (not validated, although it could have been the previously mentioned uncle)
-cancer to the chest (weak hit as general cancer that caller "understands")
-caller's birthday (miss)
-birthday of someone who passed(miss, although caller tried to fit future birthday to past birthday, and to his brother who is alive)
-brother out of state (miss, brother in same state)
-someone out of state (not validated)


Overall impression- some very general hits (cancer) caller not connected with mother, caller tried to fit reading to himself

Total score: 13 guesses
4 not validated
2 not scored
2 weak hits
1 hits
4 misses

Reading 3

KING: Lost him, sorry. Trinidad, Colorado. Hello.
CALLER: My question for John was that my sister comes to me through dreams sometimes and I was wondering is that how people communicate much through dreams.
EDWARD: Absolutely. The No. 1 way that I find that people are able to make connections with their friends and relatives who have crossed over on their own, is usually in the dream state. And that is because that is the place where we kind of surrender and say, "OK, it is acceptable." Not every dream, though, that we have of somebody who crossed over is what I would consider a visit. So you really need to write those down.
KING: OK. Do you have a question? Sorry, go ahead.
CALLER: Well, my sister passed about six years ago, and I was just wondering if you could tell me anything.
EDWARD: Where is -- sorry -- where does the K-name like Karen come up?
CALLER: I don't know. EDWARD: Yes, you do. There is a C or a K connection directly to you or to this family, from what they are telling me. So it either means it's who they are -- put your sister on hold and think about your family. There is some type of C or K connection and they're also telling me to tell you 11, which either means that the 11th month November or the 11th of a month has some type of significance. And why are they showing me...
CALLER: 11th month -- November is her birthday.
EDWARD: Why is there a split family? Is there a split connection there?
CALLER: Gosh. Well my dad's side and my mom's side, it's not that they are split, it is just that they are two totally different.
EDWARD: No. No. There is a split. There is a split where like somebody was raised by somebody who is not -- like there's either a step situation or like an aunt...
CALLER: Oh. My other sister is a lot older -- my other sister is a lot older than me and she's my half sister.
EDWARD: And there's also a congratulations on the baby. Somebody is pregnant.
CALLER: Dorothy. Dorothy is pregnant. She was my sister's best friend.
EDWARD: Just that acknowledgement that comes up. They're telling me talk about Virginia. Where are you calling from?
CALLER: From Colorado.
EDWARD: That is not Virginia, but they're showing me the state of Virginia. So I don't know.
CALLER: Virginia. My cousin living in Virginia now. I have been talking to her about a lot -- my sister a lot.
EDWARD: Somebody there committed suicide. Like their actions brought about their own passing. Are you aware of that?
CALLER: No, I'm not.
EDWARD: OK, just remember I said this. Thank you for calling.


Caller wants an explanation about dream connection with her sister who passed 6 years ago

Guesses:
-K name (miss)
-C or K name (not validated)
-11 connection (weak hit, November birthday)
-split family (miss)
-step situation or an aunt (half sister, weak hit. I am scoring it weak because JE seriously broadened the scope)
-pregnancy (friend is pregnant, hit)
-Virginia (weak hit, cousin lives there)
-suicide (miss)

Overall impression- more badgering and generalities, but some hits. He is doing better with this one

Total score
8 guesses
3 misses
1 not validated
3 weak hits
1 hit



Reading 4

And the caller is from Brooklyn, where Michael was born.
Hello?
CALLER: Hi there.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: I'm trying to connect with my aunt.
EDWARD: OK. Can you put your aunt on hold for one second?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Is there a grandfather for you also whose passed?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, that's her dad?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, and there is a Joseph connection to that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. And does he also have a son whose passed?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Yes, he does. Let's put it this way, there's a younger male energy directly connected to the grandfather.
EDWARD: So either he has the younger brother whose -- there's two Joes?
CALLER: Not that I know of.
EDWARD: OK. There's two Joes from what they're showing. There's your grandfather whose got the connection to Joseph and there's another Joe that they want to me acknowledge. So whether it's Joanne or Josephine, I don't know, but there's two Joes.
What's your aunt's extremely fast because they're talking about a very fast passing. Actually, specific? No. I mean, like, did somebody there who passed from either what I was see as being embolism or an aneurism or a very fast heart attack, like very, very fast.
CALLER: An embolism.
EDWARD: Like really fast.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. They're also making me feel like to acknowledge that there's some type of connection to the month of February or that somebody either was born in February or there's something about -- something big in February.
CALLER: It's his wife's birthday.
KING: Do they have anything to tell her? Usually, you tell her something that they're going to say.
CALLER: She's also passed.
EDWARD: Well, one of the things that they do, by validating this for me, is their way of saying that they're still connected. And I think for me being the, like I have to get the evidence, that this is their way of letting me that they're around.
I do want to acknowledge that they're telling me -- is your mom still here? They telling me to acknowledge hello to your mom.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: All right, and I'm also supposed to talk about her knee and saying her knee's OK now. What's up with the knee?
CALLER: She has a bad knee?
EDWARD: But it's like better?
CALLER: She has trouble walking.
EDWARD: OK, and you made fun of your mom's knee?
CALLER: No, I don't make fun of her.
EDWARD: Yes, you do. They're telling me you make fun of your mom's knee. You were teasing her about her leg. You just did this.
CALLER: I don't remember.
EDWARD: OK, it happened at the younger female's party, where she was a having a hard time -- somebody's having a hard time getting into the room or getting into something and somebody was joking around about the person walking. This is their way of letting you know that they were around. But your aunt is fine and the people that I acknowledged are also there.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: All right, Thank you.



Caller trying to connect with aunt

Guesses:
-dead grandfather (hit)
-aunt's dad (weak hit- he has 50/50 chance of getting it right)
-Joseph connection (hit)
-his son who passed (miss)
-younger brother who passed (miss)
-2 Joes (miss, and one example of cold reading tecniques. Names frequently repeat in families, it is a safe guess to say there are two of them. Oopsie...)
-Joanne or Josephine (miss- now he would take any J name, male or female)
-fast death, such as embolism, aneurism or heart attack (hit, although once again, broadened the field considerably)
-February connection (weak hit, dead person's wife's birthday- who caller says also passed)
-mom still alive (weak hit-another 50/50)
-bad knee, now better ( this is interesting. Caller does not confirm, but repeats, so JE immediately says- it is now better, as caller did not validate. Caller then says she has trouble walking, but nothing about a knee- could be a hip or something else, and she has trouble, so it is not better. Not scoring this)
-making fun of knee (miss)


Started well with likely hits, then got worse, more badgering and guessing months.

Total score
12 guesses
3 hits
3 weak hits
5 misses
1 not scored

KING: Hickory, North Carolina, hello.
CALLER: Hello, John.
EDWARD: Hey, how are you doing?
CALLER: Good.
EDWARD: Don't say anything. First I want to acknowledge, is there a Bill connected to you?
CALLER: A Joe?
EDWARD: No, a Billy or a Bill name?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Yes, there is.
KING: No, don't like to John. There is.
EDWARD: I'm sorry, as soon as I heard your voice, it was like boom. There was like a huge B connection in my head, which means either it's your or there's a B connection directly to you and that there's an older male figure.
KING: Could be the next caller.
EDWARD: Hold on, or that there's an older male figure passed whose also connected to you. So I don't know if it's your dad whose passed or it's an older male that's there, but this person passed and they had cancer. And it affected their brain or there's tumors to the head.
CALLER: OK, that would've been my uncle.
EDWARD: OK. Is that connected to your mom's side of the family?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, is mom still here?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. And there's some type of connection to B. There's got to be like a Billy or a B in there.
CALLER: Betty.
EDWARD: Or a Betty. Is that connected to that same person?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. I need to congratulate you on the uniform. So I don't know if you're doing something with the uniform or if there's like somebody whose just graduated in uniform or something, but there's like a uniform, like a cadet feeling that comes up in this family, just so you know. And they're also making me feel like your mom's mom must be there, because they've got the older female to her, whose also there.
Does that make sense?
CALLER: Yes, it does.
EDWARD: OK. And they're also telling me to acknowledge that somebody's a double amputee. Somebody's missing -- or they're paralyzed in both legs.
CALLER: That doesn't ring a bell.
EDWARD: I'm sorry?
CALLER: That doesn't ring a bell.
EDWARD: OK, put it to that side of the family also. I'm sorry, as soon as I heard your voice, boom, that's what...
KING: Do you have a question, sir?
CALLER: Excuse me?
KING: Do you have a question?
CALLER: I just wanted to know if you could connect with my father, who passed away several years ago.
EDWARD: In addition to what I said, I can only tell you that, and I'll say this, there's somebody there who either had cirhossis or there was somebody there who had severe liver disease. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Uh-huh. That would be my uncle who had cancer.
EDWARD: OK.
CALLER: To the brain. EDWARD: And that's connected to your mom's side of the family, too, right?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: That's the same person?
CALLER: Mm-hmm.
EDWARD: Right. Those -- and I'm not connecting with your dad, I'm sorry. It doesn't mean that he's not OK. I just feel like, you know, these are the people that see us as their opportunity. This is a big deal with the whole cadet graduation thing. So I want you to remember that, OK?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Thank you.


Caller wants to connect with their father

Guesses
-Bill (miss- who does not know a Bill?)
-older male who passed (weak hit)
-cancer in the head (weak hit)
-connected to mom's side (weak hit, another 50/50)
-mom alive (weak hit, 50/50)
-B name (weak hit- Betty, not Bill! These wacky transgendered dead people)
-uniform (makes sense, weak hit)
-older female (makes sense, weak hit)
-double amputee (miss)
-liver disease (weak hit- turns out to be the same uncle who had brain cancer. Wonder whether he had both, or if the caller is trying to make it fit)
-mom's side (not scoring, that was already established)


Impression- many weak general hits, once again not connected to the person they wanted to, more badgering

Total score

11 guesses
2 misses
8 weak hits
1 not scored



To be continued in another post...

[Instig8R]

Hey, Renata-- Nice work! How interesting that you chose the Larry King Live Transcript of 9/10/01. This is the transcript that reveals just how bad JE is.

He claims to be a psychic-medium, but gave no sign that thousands of people would die in the terrorist attacks the following morning... just a few hours after these awful readings.

[renata]

Reading (lost count of which number)

Just the next one!

KING: Virginia Beach, hello.
CALLER: Hello Larry and John. John, can you communicate with my father to find out if he's happy with how our family is getting along without him? And what was the true date of his death?
KING: You don't know the date of your father's death?
CALLER: He was found deceased.
KING: Oh.
EDWARD: Well, let me just -- I'm going to start off in a unique area, which I think is important so the other people are going to want to hear this also. I don't know if -- I'm just going to say this. First and foremost, your -- your dad have a dog just passed?
CALLER: A dog?
EDWARD: Yes.
CALLER: No, but he had a...
EDWARD: OK, wait, wait. I just want to tell you there is a dog that is with your father because as soon as you started asking me the questions, I started getting the dog barking, which is a symbol to let me know that there's an animal or pet that's passed.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: And this would be something that I see as not, this is like an old pet, like 12 or 13-years-old and it's part of the family from what they're showing me.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: And I feel like was there before the father actually passed?
CALLER: Right.
EDWARD: They're also telling me to tell you that the 14th of a month is significant. So I don't know if there's a birthday or an anniversary on the 14th. And they're showing me the sign of Gemini, which either means that somebody is a twin or that somebody's actually the sign of Gemini. OK? That's No. 1.
Your dad must have a sister or a female figure to his side, whose also there, that passed before him. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, and I feel like that would be somebody who would have met this person? And they're telling me acknowledge either Jimmy or Jeannie or Jenny or some type of name that sounds like that in connection with this family.
And I'm thinking that there's a two day thing going on because there's a two day delay before somebody would've seen this person. Do you understand this?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Did something see him two days before?
CALLER: Yes, we all did.
EDWARD: But like two days before?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. I feel like it's not -- it was probably right after the -- I don't know, I think it's within that two days that they're showing me. And I feel like I need to acknowledge not getting the cake.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: You haven't -- was he like diabetic or something where he wasn't allowed to have it?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Or wouldn't let him have the cake. Because I feel like I couldn't get the cake, whatever that means.
CALLER: Right.
EDWARD: There's also two wives. Was he married twice?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Was there a wife and a very significant friend?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK, let's just put it this way, I've got two female energies that I feel like I need to acknowledge for this man. So whether it be two wives, two very close females, a sister and a friend. I have no idea what this is, but I know that there's an Elizabeth or Liz that's connected here.
CALLER: That's my sister, Elizabeth.
EDWARD: OK. This is just their way of acknowledging to me that they're connected to you. And please, I want you to understand that the first thing I got was the connection to the dog. Right, I wrote that down.
And also, I don't know, you know had like a hernia in the stomach or something?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. This man was plagued with a lot of stuff, but I feel like there's like a throwing in the towel. So this was something he was ready to leave. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Right, right.
EDWARD: Do you have the book of poems or the book of poetry or the special book?
CALLER: Yes, I don't know which book.
EDWARD: OK, it's -- it to me, when I see this, it's a symbol. It either means it's like either a family bible, it's a family something. And inside this bible, there's either like the ribbon or there's like the picture or it's a pressed feather or a rose. It's something I feel like would be significant.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: I just know I feel like that this is their way of coming across. Thank you.


Caller wants to connect with her father and know when he died

Guesses
-dead dog (miss)
-old pet (weak hit, caller says no on the dog, but starts saying he had something else)
-number 14 ( not validated. unusual, most numbers he gave are 1-12, and could count as days or months or years)
-Gemini (not validated)
-female figure (weak hit, caller "understands")
-Jimmy or Jenny (not validated)
-2 day "thing"- seeing her father 2 days before he passed. (hit- he starts generally, and gets a decent hit)
-not getting cake, diabetes (weak hit- old man, diabetes is common)
-married twice (miss)
-wife and significant friend (miss)
-female energy, like a sister or a friend (not validated)
-Elizabeth (hit, daughter)
-hernia (hit)
-special book (weak hit, caller has a book)
-family bible, with ribbon or picture (Note caller says OK to that, while she said Yes to hits. Makes me think it was not a hit, but I do not know- not scoring it)



Overall impression- decent general reading

Total score

15 guesses
2 misses
5 weak hits
4 not validated
3 hits
1 not scored

KING: Thank you, ma'am. Mount Morris, Michigan, hello.
CALLER: Hi, John.
EDWARD: Hi, how are you?
CALLER: I'm fine. How are you?
EDWARD: I'm good.
CALLER: I'm calling...
EDWARD: Well, first of all, don't say anything. What's your first name?
CALLER: Kathy.
EDWARD: Hey, Kathy. The first thing -- there's two things I want to acknowledge, three things I want to acknowledge. One, I don't know if you have the son whose passed, but they're telling me to acknowledge a younger male or somebody who's lost a child around you. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Hmm...
EDWARD: Actually, this is a vehicle accident that somebody passed in. And it's like an impact that they're trying to show me. And it's directly connected to you. It's not for anybody else on hold or anybody else that's watching. It's something -- it's a younger male that passed and path is directly connected to you.
And I feel like this is somebody who actually was driving. It was their fault. There's a J or a G name that's connected to this also. And they're telling me to also acknowledge the fact that separate from that, there was somebody who was murdered.
CALLER: Wow, I'm not quite sure on that.
EDWARD: OK, I want you to remember what I'm saying, OK? There's somebody who passed at the hands of somebody else.
KING: Who are you calling about?
CALLER: My mother.
EDWARD: No, I'm not getting your mom. You've got somebody who's either, there's somebody, Kathy, there's somebody who's coming through who's acknowledging that they passed like either the husband or the boyfriend or somebody that they were connected to was involved in the past. This might've been going back a while.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: But it's directly connected to you.
CALLER: OK, I had a car accident and I'm a paraplegic because of that car accident. EDWARD: That's not what was coming through though, unless somebody else in that accident passed?
CALLER: No, nobody passed in that.
EDWARD: No, that's not it. That's not the connection. The connection is that somebody connected to you, younger male, passed in a vehicle accident or with an impact of some sort. And there's a J or G connection to this. And there's also a connection that's separate from that, that somebody in your circle, that I feel like actually was murdered. Like somebody else caused their passing. And it's either like a friend's sister or a friend's girlfriend. It's connected to you in your circle. So I'm giving that to you.
KING: You're not getting a mother at all?
EDWARD: Not at all.
CALLER: Not at all.
EDWARD: Doesn't mean she's not OK, it just means that when I open up and I connect with somebody, they see this as their window of getting through and that's what happens.


Caller wants to connect with mother

Guesses
-younger male (miss-caller seems to decline the whole thing that follows)
-car accident, impact death (miss. Caller said she had a car accident herself, JE rejects that)
-J & G name (miss)
-driver connection (miss)
-murder (miss)
-husband/boyfriend (not validated)
-friend's sister caused someone's passing (not validated)

Bad reading, no hits at all. JE tried to get specific, and it did not work
7 guesses
5 misses
2 not validated

KING: Huber Heights, Ohio. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, there. How are you this evening?
KING: Fine.
CALLER: How are you, John?
EDWARD: I'm doing good. CALLER: This is Alma.
EDWARD: How are you doing, Alma.
CALLER: Pretty good.
KING: What's the question, Alma?
CALLER: I'd just like to see if I could communicate with my sister.
EDWARD: There's two of them, right?
CALLER: No, just one.
EDWARD: No, there's two.
KING: You're telling us there's two sisters when...
EDWARD: I'm telling her that what I'm getting is that there are two energies as I would see as being two her side who have passed.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Which means that you've got like two sister figures who have crossed, correct?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. And there's like a Joyce connection to one of them or there's a J connection to one of them because I'm getting a J connection. And there's also somebody, somebody around you with Alzheimer's also or there was some type of connection that they were not of clear mind prior to their passing?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Are you aware of that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: There's also -- are you in a gambling community?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK. Is there some type of like, somebody just win money?
CALLER: No, maybe I will.
EDWARD: No, no, no, they're referencing like some type of like gambling win. So I don't know if there's like a joke here, where somebody used to joke about, you know, winning the big lotto jackpot or winning bingo or something, but there's like a joke about that.
And I'm also supposed to talk about your ring. I don't know if you have one of the sister's rings, but there's a connection to a piece of jewelry that's passed down. But it's got to more left hand related like wedding band or they want me to acknowledge somebody who I would see as having the wedding band connection, because they're bringing that up also.
Is your dad also there, Alma?
CALLER: Yes, he is.
EDWARD: Is he the archery man?
CALLER: An archery man?
EDWARD: Is somebody play -- did somebody shoot with a bow and arrow or do some type of like archery?
CALLER: Not that I know of.
EDWARD: OK, that's a unique symbol for me. Somebody's doing like an archery thing, where there's some type of like archery connection.
KING: Maybe it's Cupid.
EDWARD: Like there's got to be like a bow and arrow connection. So I'm going to leave that with you, but I got that connected around that energy.



Caller wants to connect with her sister

Guesses
- 2 sisters (miss)
- 2 sister figures (weak hit- he knows one sister is dead, and now there is a second energy- could be anybody)
-J connection (not validated)
-Alzheimers/senile (weak hit, another generality about old age and dead people)
-gambling (miss)
-did someone win money? (miss)
-ring (not validated)
-dead father (weak hit, 50/50)
-archery (miss)


Another bad reading. Badgering and trying to make 2 sisters (recall this is a common cold reading technique to say there is 2 of something they know there is one of- remember Rosemary Altea and 2 rosebushes) fit into two energies.

Total score
9 guesses
4 misses
2 not validated
3 weak hits

KING: Thank you. Dublin, Georgia, hello.
CALLER: Hi.
KING: Hi. Go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, I'm calling to see if I could communicate with my father.
EDWARD: OK, the first thing I'm going to ask you -- I'm telling you. I'm getting an S name. Who's got the SH connection?
CALLER: S name?
EDWARD: Like S.
KING: Like Sam.
EDWARD: Like as in Sharon or Sherie. You know, what? I'm not connecting with you. This is not for you. I'm sorry.
KING: You don't get any reading?
EDWARD: It's not because I'm not with her.
KING: No? Does that happen with some people?
EDWARD: Absolutely. KING: And how do you explain it?
EDWARD: Because I think it's somebody (INAUDIBLE).


Caller wants to connect with father.

Guesses
-s name (miss)
JE bails immediately, claiming not for this caller, after he does not get validation

Total score
1 guess
1 miss

KING: Washington, Indiana, hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Hi, who's Sherie?
CALLER: Sherie?
KING: OK, never mind. Little joke. Go ahead. What's your question?
EDWARD: I'll do the reading. What's your first name?
CALLER: Carol.
EDWARD: How are you doing, Carol. Carol, who around you has the SH connection?
CALLER: SH?
EDWARD: Like Sharon, Sherie.
CALLER: Sherum.
EDWARD: Sherum. What is that?
CALLER: That's my sister's last name.
EDWARD: OK, is she still here?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, do you know if there's somebody younger in that family whose passed?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK, let me say this, the person to tell you, there's a mom figure who's coming through. So I don't know if its your mom whose passed or if it's a mother-in-law. But there somebody who passed from congestive heart failure or they filled up with fluids. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, they're telling me acknowledge that the 18th of the month has some type of significance. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. They're also making me feel -- oh, your dad's there, too? CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, and they're also telling me to technology Charles or -- there's a C name. There's like a C connection to that side of the family. So between the father and the mother energy, they're telling me to acknowledge the SH in the family. And they're also making me feel like do you have cows?
CALLER: Cows?
EDWARD: Cows?
CALLER: No, we don't.
EDWARD: Was there some type of connection to the family?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK, I want you to remember that I'm saying this, they're showing me cows. Now.
KING: Maybe they drink a lot of milk.
EDWARD: I come from the city, so bear with me with my reference. I think cows and I think Ben and Jerry's ice cream. So I think I need to talk about real cows, like as in milking the cows or owning the cows, but there's a reference to like living cows in some way. So cattle, in some reference.
KING: I must say this, John.
EDWARD: It's abstract.
KING: You don't come up with everyday things, you know what I mean? The archery thing. That ain't out of the realm of the normal.
CALLER: No, no.
EDWARD: Just remember the cow thing.
KING: Look up the cows, ma'am. If he tells you cows, there's cows.
CALLER: I got questions.
EDWARD: Go ahead.
CALLER: Can you let me know if my husband's crossed over?
EDWARD: See, I'm seeing it again. What's your first name?
CALLER: Carol.
EDWARD: Carol, I want you to really think...
KING: You don't know if your husband died? CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Carol, why is there -- they're showing me cows. Did someone in his family like something cattle-related?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Are you sure? There's cows.
KING: Did your husband run off to the West?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: There's cows. If they're showing me cattle and cows, there's a definite link.
KING: OK, I got to take break. We'll check on that. Boy, you are really, OK.
EDWARD: It's never dull in my world.
KING: OK. Funny, now it's weird. I saw a zebra. It's crazy. We'll be back with our remaining moments right after this. Don't go away.


Caller wants to know if her husband died. This is the weirdest reading so far.

Guesses
-SH connection (Hit! Sister's last name. Would have been more impressive if the rest of the reading was good, as we now think she is the person for who the energies were waiting for, not the prior caller.)
-someone younger died (miss)
-mom figure (weak hit)
-heart failure( weak hit, another caller "understands")
-18th of the month ( caller understands, again- not scoring this)
-dead father (weak hit, 50/50)
-C name (not validated)
-cows (miss- entirely)


Caller asks a direct question about whether her husband is dead or alive. Her parents can say 18th of the month, but they can't answer a simple yes/now question, they just tease her with cattle. Bizarre

Total score
8 guesses
1 hit
2 misses
3 weak hits
1 not scored
1 not validated


KING: You can now logon to our web site at www.cnn.com/larryking. You'll get the answer to King's quiz. And we'll go to Young, Washington with John Edward. Hello.
CALLER: Hi.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: I was wondering if he can connect with my uncle.
EDWARD: What's your first name?
CALLER: Veronica.
EDWARD: How are you doing, Veronica.
CALLER: Hi.
EDWARD: No, I can't connect with your uncle.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Are you currently married?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Is there like a mother or an aunt figure on your husband's side of the family who just passed?
CALLER: A mother or aunt figure? No.
EDWARD: Yes, there is. Somebody on that side of the family, older female, recently passed or connected to the male in your life.
CALLER: I don't think his mother and his...
EDWARD: Where's the Helen connection?
CALLER: The Helen?
EDWARD: Uh-huh.
CALLER: I'm not sure.
EDWARD: Is he there with you?
CALLER: He just went over next door to watch on the TV.
EDWARD: He's watching me on the TV?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: So he's going to come running back going, "Yes, there is a Helen."
CALLER: Oh wait, here he comes. Here he comes. Yes, he's running back over here.
KING: Here he comes.
CALLER: Do we have a Helen? His mother's side?
EDWARD: Can you put him on?
CALLER: Yes. Here.
KING: What if he has girl named, you ruined his whole.
EDWARD: Hi, what's your first name?
CALLER: February 23.
EDWARD: That's your first name?
CALLER: Oh, Bobby. Bobby Adams.
EDWARD: How are you doing, Bobby.
CALLER: Good.
EDWARD: Just stay focused with me here. What's the Helen or Ellen connection to your family?
CALLER: Helen or Ellen?
EDWARD: Uh-huh. CALLER: I'm not sure.
EDWARD: OK, here's the deal. What's coming through, I was just talking to your wife, they're telling me to acknowledge that connected to your side of the family, there's an older female that I would see as being like a mom, like an aunt, older female, who has crossed. And they're making me feel like there's like a Helen, Ellen connection to that side of the family. And there's also the man that was known for either you went hunting with the person or there's the outdoorsy kind of thing going on there.
Where's the hiker or the woods in the family?
CALLER: Oh.
EDWARD: Like lots of land, lots of trees, house in the middle. Where's that?
CALLER: Oregon, I would think.
EDWARD: Is that where they grew up?
CALLER: My father and -- my mother grew up in Colorado. My father grew up in Texas.
EDWARD: It's not Texas.
CALLER: Texas or Oklahoma.
EDWARD: It's not Texas. It's more of a woodsy, treesy area. Anyway, what's coming through is they're telling me to acknowledge two things. One, I don't know if you guys personally lost a child, but they're rocking a baby on the other side, which lets me know that there's an energy of a child that's there.
CALLER: Oh, my older brother lost a baby during birth.
EDWARD: OK, they're telling me to acknowledge the energy of the child who's there. They're also making me feel like there's either someone whose got a name that sounds like either Tyler or Taylor or a unique T name. OK? There's a unique connection to this, but they're telling me to -- the person to tell you is that there's a person or a Helen or an Ellen or a name that sounds like Eleanor like that to me, whose connected through you, whose there. And that's the person who's trying to come through.
So I'm not getting the uncle.
KING: Sorry we're out of time. Sorry we couldn't get to the other calls. John will of course return to his program. He is a regular guest and always welcome. I congratulate you on crossing over.



Another interesting reading. Caller wants to connect with her uncle, but JE shoots that down immediately

Guesses
-mother or aunt on husband's side, recently passed (miss)
-Helen (miss- a spectacular one at that- neither caller nor her husband can find a Helen or an Ellen. That avenue is abandoned entirely)
-man, outodoorsy (Caller tries to validate but throwing out Oregon- except he did not grow up there. After some more guess a state games, that avenue is also abandoned)
-energy of a child (hit, brother lost a child. Well, he exhausted mother, and father energies, there had to be a kid somewhere)
-T name ( not validated)

Impression- callers really, really tried, without much success

Total score
5 guesses
3 misses
1 hit
1 not validated


Totals for this LKL reading
97 guesses
38 misses=39.2%
10 hits (none spectacular, I might add) 10.3%
28 weak hits (usually safe guesses) 28.9%
15 not validated 15.5%
6 not scored 6.2%

This comes out to 100.1 % ( I must have rounded wrong, but I am too sleepy to fix it). Not to mention the biggest miss of all- next day was 9/11/01, and the spirits kept showing him cows and archers.

I think I was fairly generous, but this was a very quick and dirty count, and I am sure others will disagree with me.

Not impressive. Not in the slightest. Usual cold reading techniques prevalent throughout, and the readings just kept getting worse.

[renata]

Originally posted by Instig8R
Hey, Renata-- Nice work! How interesting that you chose the Larry King Live Transcript of 9/10/01. This is the transcript that reveals just how bad JE is.

He claims to be a psychic-medium, but gave no sign that thousands of people would die in the terrorist attacks the following morning... just a few hours after these awful readings.

Thanks! This took a long time, even with the quick and dirty way of counting. I think these LKL are the only readings worth analyzing, as anything else does not have a full transcript.

I picked this one because it was the first, hopefully the other two will get a similar hit count analysis as well..just not by me and not tonight! :)

Indeed, the spirits were much more concerned with cattle than with death of thousands of people a few hours away. Silly, inconsiderate spirits!

[KelvinG]

If Clancie's stated examples are what is passing as impressive JE hits, then it's no wonder that so many people are skeptical that he is actually a medium.
Those examples are highly unimpressive and are a perfect examples of how cold reading works.
When you do as many readings as JE does, you are going to have some so called "hits" once in a while.
If this is the best the believer crowd can do, don't expect science textbooks to be rewritten anytime soon to include John Edward's miraculous abilities.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, I have enough trouble keeping up with the existing theads that I post on. Will you still be in Denmark in September? Come on. This is easy. YES or NO? :) .......neo

I don't know that yet.

Please open a new thread so we can discuss this. You are not backing down, are you???

Originally posted by neofight
Because JE's readings usually take anywhere from five to 15 minutes, sometimes a half-hour, (minus the time for commercials) all with the same person or family. You guys want to keep harping on all the editing that is being done on "CO" but in actuality, there is very little editing at all, and less in this current season than ever before.

But we see about 11 minutes of actual readings in the show. The show lasts 22 minutes. The rest is spent on anything else but readings.

If a reading happens to be 30 minutes long, what happens to the 19 minutes of the reading, neo?

Originally posted by neofight
On the other hand, Ian's 90 seconds of aired readings were taken from 30 minutes of taped *readings*, and in that timeframe, I believe he included parts of readings from two or three different people.

So? That would still leave about 10 minutes for each reading, which is what you claim JE does.

Originally posted by neofight
In other words, he only showed the most impressive parts of his performance. Little snippets from two or three readings. Not all that impressive if you ask me. :( .......neo

Please explain where the 19 minutes worth of a 30-minute reading goes, neo.

[Thanz]

Has JE ever claimed that being in close physical proximity to the sitter makes a reading easier - or the converse, that great physical distance makes it harder to "focus on the spiritual energies" or something like that?

It would seem to me that this would be an easy excuse for JE to explain away the poor LKL readings - that it is harder for the correct spirit energies to contact him when the callers come from all over the country, rather than focused in one spot like at a CO taping or a seminar.

So, does anyone know if he has offered this excuse and if not, why not?

[arcticpenguin]

Clancie,

So those are the hits that impressed you? You have not convinced me you have an apple, let alone one that glows and tap dances.

[Clancie]

Okay, that was a mistake! lol Gone for 24 hours and almost 70 responses (not including neo's) from 25 people! :eek:

I've read through them--lots of good points. I think I'll just give one answer per person, so...patience!

And, Renata, a friendly suggestion.....

You did a lot of work on the LKL transcripts and are making an interesting point (one that is probably going to get lost in this thread).

Why not start a new thread and put each reading and your tally in a separate post (or at least put them all in that other thread)?
I think its a really good topic, but I know its going to get buried here (and hard for me to read through it here, too, for some reason).

Just a thought....:p

Okay, in the words of JE..."I'm ready to begin....":)

[voidx]

Nice work Renanta. A very plain example of cold-reading througout. This again is my problem. One of Clancies points on JE is that she feels his hits and readings don't seem like cold-reading. I countered that his misses seem entirely like that of a cold-reader, and after reading these, everyone of these examples is entirely within the possibilities of cold-reading. So even his hits seem to be cold-reading. Obviously there are lots more readings he's done, which I'm sure will be brought up, but I'm of the opinion that the LKL readings are some of the more objective ones to judge him by. For one its live, he's out of his own studio environment, so we can much more easily dispel the chances of cheating or hot reading. Believers counter that the pace is to hurried on LKL, that the audio quality is bad making it hard for callers to hear JE, or vice versa (this was not a problem the few times I watched him on LKL, nor do these transcripts seem to carry that through).

I posed a question in the Michael Shermer thread basically trying to verify that JE needs certain conditions to communicate and read well, and that LKL does not meet these conditions idealy. It seems some believers think that to a degree, but at the same time, it can just as easily be turned around to say that since he's not in his own studio environment he has less control over the editing and sitters and what have you, and thus consistently does poorly.

People need to acknowledge that he does poorly on LKL, and Renanta's quick analysis here helps highlight that. So what is the excuse for his poor performance here? Its not the pace, the transcripts seem to show that he's not cut off by Larry, except on the last one. People can hear and understand him and vice versa, so that's out. Thanz put forth an interesting idea about the proximity of the callers. Has he ever laid down a disclaimer about this? My readings may be slightly off based on how far away you are, kind of thing? But then that doesn't make sense. Is there any conviction that spirits stay in close proximity to their loved ones and family? Apparently not because JE doesn't complain about the difficulty of connecting to spirits over the phone. The spirits proximity to John would be a more suitable arguement, for they are communicating with him, the caller/sitter can be anywhere because all their doing is verbally validating his guesses.

Again, I'm not impressed, I'm just not seeing these special hit examples of JE's that supposedly don't fit under the definition of cold-reading. Everyone of these is cold-reading, plain as day.

[Clancie]

(....still working....)

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

[voidx]

btw, voidx, I may have some other live and unedited readings that we can actually watch here, but will post them next week when neo's back.
Well I'd say post them now, but whenever. I'd like to see some unedited transcripts of JE's special hits as you refer to them. Can you acknowledge why I would not be impressed with the readings I've read in this thread so far?

[Clancie]

Okay, here they are. (An experiment gone awry, but here it is! Seriously, it'd be easier to go argue at the Politics forum. There just aren't enough "believers" on this board to help out with these kind of threads! "Learning the hard way!" :eek: )

Anyway, I gave it a shot. Pretty much, one per....(And, Claus, give me five minutes or so to proofread, okay? Tx. )

Posted by TLN:

But how do we know it wasn't either a lucky guess or researched?

We don’t.

Posted by ARCTIC PENGUIN

Of course you know that the shows are edited. I assume you would not try to pass off anything that occurs there as happening under controlled conditions?

You have no way of verifying that JE did not research these subjects, either before they entered the studio, or while they were in the studio with the microphones on.
I think people are on better ground arguing cold reading.

Posted by Renata

Why is there never a good hit like that on those readings?

The cigarettes in the coffin—and wrong brand--was, imo, better than either of these.

Posted by DRAGON (and FSOL)

So, Clancie, what if the lady and her daughter hadn't reacted in quite that way the the first question about the tree and it turned out that someone else had cut it down for her? I think JE would still have made it sound like a hit - not so impressive because more mundane - but still a hit. Good example of warm reading.

I’m curious why people think that the daughter's reaction meant JE was right? If the comment seemed ludicrous (which the daughter’s reaction indicated)…why pursue it? Why not say, “Is there a funny story about someone cutting down a tree?” Why emphasize (as he did the first time he said it through the end) the word YOU?

To say he would have stretched it if it missed is pure speculation. :p

Posted by DENISE

I'm sure my grandmother has cut down a tree in her time, as have many other elderly women. Doing such things is usually part of life on the farm back in the day.
But is it common for JE’s New York City audiences? I’ve never heard him ask it before, of male or female.

I don't think it would be common here in LA either.

I hear many people saying its commonplace to guess that a well dressed elderly woman had chopped down a tree sometime in her life. All I can say is….as a Los Angeleno all my life, I’ve never done it and never known any woman who’s done it. (I suppose, if nothing else, that will give some insight into why this struck me as “interesting” for JE to come up with this for her vs. someone else.)

Posted by Arctic Penguin

If you knew their name and address (i.e. they had advance tickets) you could try searching local newspapers for anything. Maybe the woman got cited for cutting a tree without a permit, or maybe it fell on the neighbor's house. You don't know, do you?
I think the daughter wouldn’t have been surprised then. I really think the “cold reading” argument is better than “hot reading” for this one, AP.

And about the grandfather’s name—JE didn’t give the name, but he mentioned it was grandfather’s (i.e. not any other family members’). Lucky guess, then? Sounds like that’s what most people here think.


Posted by STARRMAN

This is essentially what you are saying: Yes, the most likely explanation is that JE was talking to her dead grandfather and he told him to tell her that she cut a tree down by herself.
I’m saying that it’s interesting that he narrowed it from the beginning more than many people give him credit for. He said, “YOU cut down the tree” rather than the more general (and safer) “There’s a funny story about someone cutting down a tree.”

Posted by BROWN (and MR. SKINNY gives examples to support this point later):

In my family, I can immediately name three elderly women who I know have cut down trees. All three of them are unafraid of outdoor labor, and do not consider it "man's work."… Consequently, the "cut down a tree" guess doesn't seem to me to be all that remarkable.
I can understand that, Brown and Mr. Skinny. Likewise, I’m sure you can understand why it surprised me, as I’ve never known any woman who cut down a tree (or JE ever addressing this possibility to someone before).

And given the woman's apparent age and frailty, it seemed an odd direction to guess.

**Here’s a thought. If its so common, why doesn’t he use it more often? Why the one time he uses it, does it “fit”? (Okay, that’s rhetorical. I already know 10 of you are yelling, “EDITING”, lol)

Posted by LTC8K6
Why wouldn't the dead relative know the proper term?

If "they" can send the image of a kiddush cup, then they can send the image of the words "kiddush cup" as well.
I know I am doing a poor job of explaining why “chalice” instead of “Kiddush cup” interested me so.

It has to do with being very consistent with how JE describes the “process” as being based on imagery that is within his personal frame of reference (i.e. the Christian chalice). But I understand that others (obviously) aren’t impressed!

But I can address the second part (this relates to JE's “process” ). JE says he hears some information (clairaudience), feels some information (clairsentience), but mostly gets what he gets from seeing various images (clairvoyance), some which become familiar, recurrent symbols to him.

Posted by IPECAC

AAARGH!! He could see the cup but he couldn't see the d*mned name engraved on the cup?!? Instead the "grandpa" had to tell him the name was on the cup. And of course the "grandpa" didn't/couldn't tell JE his own name?!?

This is a perfect example of why many of us don't believe this nonsense

Well, Ipecac, would you have believed it if he’d gotten the name? I wouldn’t have been surprised if he had, but I also wouldn’t expect that to convince you of spirit communication. Would it have?

Posted by RENATA

He did not actually guess it was Jewish, the sitters told them that. Do Catholics or any other Christians use a similar type item?
That’s what a chalice is, basically, a kiddush cup. :confused:

Posted by DALLIN

Also…interesting that he doesn't even bring up the engraving until after the sitters confirmed they owned the cup….So, he learned from the sitter that they owned a kiddush cup from the departed; I would think it a safe guess to throw out that his name was engraved on it. It sounds to me like he was playing the numbers.
I think someone already mentioned this, Dallin, but JE talked about the engraved name on it before the sitter validated the existence of an important chalice/Kiddush cup.

Posted by TRACER

Notice that JE didn't say anything about the cup being engraved until after the Elderly woman had told him it was a Kiddush cup.
I don’t think this will change your view about this, Tracer, but just wanted to repeat that JE mentioned the engraved name before she validated the existence of a special cup. I don’t think he gave any indication that he thought she was Jewish. (They were non-descript ethnically--white, one elderly, one middle aged--as far as I was concerned, btw.)
Posted by STARRMAN (and supported later by DINGLER 44)

Why can't this be explained as JE being the BEST cold reader out there? Michael Jordan's lifetime statistics are much better than most basketball players, but they are all STILL playing basketball.
Well, is he the best cold reader? Or is he a mediocre cold reader? I wish critics would make up their minds! :p

Personally, I have read much better examples of meaningful validations from other mediums than what JE gives. The advantage of JE is that what he does is not hidden in a small séance room or in a private reading, but is out there for people to see and evaluate.

Posted by GROUND STRENGTH

I have been doing quite a bit of cold reading lately and I always open up with a bit of psychometry (take a ring or other item) then say

"I feel that there is an accident involving water in your past'"

The sitter always fits this prediction to themselves and then later stretches it to something like, "He must be psychic otherwise, How did he know I was in a boating accident"
There’s no doubt some people can be duped. That doesn’t mean that its necessarily false.

Why not start a thread about your cold reading techniques and experiences? I’m extremely interested in that (and curious how “chalice” will work for you).

Posted by LORD KENNETH

Oh my goodness! Asking an elderly woman if she has every cut down a tree! If she hadn't (said no), JE could have just asked if she had every had a tree cut down (didn't mean she did it herself).
Glad you joined in, Kenneth.

No, he specifically said he saw her doing it herself, not hiring someone.

Re: Kiddush cup question. Renata already answered it.

Posted by VOIDX

I assume from this that it is being said that JE must have certain conditions in order to perform well and use his talent.
Actually, he’s said it doesn’t matter whether its radio, television, remote or in person.

Posted by PAUL ANAGNOPOLOUS

By the way, while we're figuring out the probabilities for all these things, let's not forget the probability of a good hit by coincidence. That should be easy to calculate, no?

You’re being facetious, right? Otherwise, it would certainly be interesting to know the probability of a hit by coincidence. The Sylvia Challenge purports to do that, but I don’t see any statistics to back it up.

Posted by CFLARSEN

Neil (it should have been "Neil", not "Neill", my bad) is a cold-reader who once posted a cold-reading transcript on TVTalkshows. I challenged Clancie to see if she could point out what was different from a cold-reading transcript and a JE-transcript. She could not. All her points were invalid.
Claus, you raised some other points, but unfortunately my “one response” is going to have to be taken up correcting your misrepresentation here. :rolleyes:

You say, “I challenged Clancie to see if she could point out what was different from a cold-reading transcript and a JE-transcript. She could not”

Yet you and I both know I listed thirty 30 ! differences between that transcript and a JE reading (I’ve even added one or two since then in discussion here).

Just because you decided (to your own satisfaction, at least :rolleyes: ) that “all (Clancie’s) points were invalid” is NOT the same as saying, as you do here “Clancie couldn’t point out what was different from a cold reading transcript and JE.”

I pointed out the differences, Claus. Thirty of them.

Posted by ARCTIC PENGUIN

It may tell us something about Clancie's thought processes, but it tells us nothing about JE's 'mediumship'. It is cherry-picking. It is counting the hits and forgetting the misses. Since the conditions were uncontrolled and the results edited, they should be assigned no value whatsoever.
Whatever. (I will agree that this thread was an experiment I’m not going to do again. In a way, the reason you mention is one reason why).

Posted by ELI54

Did Grandpa's passing have anything to do with a tree falling on him?

No, it didn't.

Posted by Thaiboxerken
The only interesting hits I would find in any medium would be ones that win the JREF or CSICOP tests.
If Sylvia passed the Challenge Randi’s designed for her, people could say it was lucky guesswork. Its very poorly designed and no scientific journal would consider it worth anything as far as establishing the existence of mediumship.
And re: CSICOP, I don’t think CSICOP does testing anymore. Which CSICOP tests are you referring to, tbk?
Posted by Instig8r

JE started out each seminar, bragging about alleged wondrous readings that he did in the past. Then, he sheepishly owned up to a few times when no spirits came through. I believe he does this to keep audience expectations down to a manageable level.
Probably so. But…why not? With 3000 people, most of them desperately hoping to hear from at least one loved one and many big fans that expect JE to produce big results for them…why not try and lower the expectation level a bit?

When dealing with the public, it just makes sense. (Plus its true—there are great readings and poor ones.)
Posted by NEO

On the other hand, Ian's 90 seconds of aired readings were taken from 30 minutes of taped *readings*, and in that timeframe, I believe he included parts of readings from two or three different people.
Neo, is that really you? :roll: A JE believer? :roll: Its getting mighty lonely here, lol.

A very important fact about PrimeTime is that many of the participants have publicly posted about their experiences and were absolutely convinced that Ian was a cold reader the entire time. PT had a thirty minute follow up discussion with everyone afterwards and showed not a single criticism! Even JE does better job of showing the people who don’t think he’s “for real” than they did. There was no balance at all, and many participants were very angry that their viewpoints weren’t expressed—in fact, that they were all made to look as if they’d been taken in.

Posted by LOKI

So, work out JE's average first - but even if he tops the averages, it doesn't prove mediumship!
Yet, Loki, isn’t this Randi’s premise in the Sylvia Challenge? That beating the expected average will prove mediumship?

Posted by THANZ
Has JE ever claimed that being in close physical proximity to the sitter makes a reading easier - or the converse, that great physical distance makes it harder to "focus on the spiritual energies" or something like that?

It would seem to me that this would be an easy excuse for JE to explain away the poor LKL readings…. So, does anyone know if he has offered this excuse and if not, why not?

Thanz (And by the way, even though you don’t believe in any of this, you always understand my point, which I definitely appreciate. :p)

Re: your question. Actually, he’s said just the opposite, that physical distance, phone connection or live, etc. makes absolutely no difference.

I don’t think anyone’s ever asked him about his feelings about the hits/misses on LKL readings specifically, though.

Posted by KELVING

(These are) perfect examples of how cold reading works.
When you do as many readings as JE does, you are going to have some so called "hits" once in a while.
If this is the best the believer crowd can do, don't expect science textbooks to be rewritten anytime soon to include John Edward's miraculous abilities.
Not the “believer crowd”, Kelvin. Just me. :p

And when you say its cold reading because out of the volume of guesses some will be right? Is that actually considered part of cold reading? (a question, not a challenge. I’m not sure).

That's it! For better or worse, an experiment gone awry, but there it is!

[Dallin]

Originally posted by Clancie
I think someone already mentioned this, Dallin, but JE talked about the engraved name on it before the sitter validated the existence of an important chalice/Kiddush cup.


Yes, you are right, and I stand corrected. However, my point is that his description of the cup was quite vague on purpose - he expects the sitter to make the connection and provide the details instead of doing so himself. Hence, the sitter could just have easily said 'yes, it was a trophy cup when he won the 50 yard dash' and it would still be a 'hit'. Many people have a cup with their named engraved on it but not as many have a kiddush cup with a name engraved. That's a trick that cold readers use - provide a vague description and leave it up to the sitter to provide the details. It would have been a much more impressive hit if he said 'I see a kiddush cup, it is silver and has an intricate engraving of a butterfly amongst a square patch of ivy, and in the ivy is engraved the name 'Evan''...

[Clancie]

Many people have a cup with their named engraved on it
Yes, but let's give JE credit for being the one to volunteer whose name was on it. I think that's being a bit glossed over in the cold reading explanations, because cold reading works better if you don't lock yourself in to a particular person that is likely to fail. (If its a generic engraved cup as you say, do you really think "grandfather's name" is the obviously most likely guess? I don't think so.)

That's a trick that cold readers use - provide a vague description and leave it up to the sitter to provide the details.
Yes, but my point it that it wasn't really that vague, imo, anyway.

...in the ivy is engraved the name 'Evan''
Did I say "Evan" or did you see the reading? (Sorry, but as the cliche goes, wild horses can't make me go back to look at this point. :p).

Back later....

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Clancie
I really think the “cold reading” argument is better than “hot reading” for this one, AP.

That's not really the full range of choices though. You really think "This person talks to dead people" is more likely then either cold or hot reading? You can't really rule out hot reading unless you have more control. And full control belongs only to JE and his producers.

I say: experimental conditions cannot rule out hot reading - throw it out.

You say: experimental conditions cannot rule out hot reading - so I'm just gonna forget about it and let it slide.

I am not impressed.

[Clancie]

AP,

What did you think of the issue of hot reading in Schwartz's experiments?

Ruled out--or not? :confused;

[Ipecac]

Clancie, you're right if you assume that I wouldn't be convinced if he had gotten the name of the grandpa. I'd need a lot more evidence than that before I make the leap to "JE is speaking to the dead."

However, the fact that he didn't get the name is suggestive that he's cold reading.

You said a couple of times that no woman you know has ever cut a tree down. How do you know this? Have you asked them? I certainly couldn't make that claim with any certainty.

Ipecac

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Clancie
AP,

What did you think of the issue of hot reading in Schwartz's experiments?

Ruled out--or not? :confused;
I haven't been following that closely. All I know is what I read in Ray Hyman's article, How not to test mediums (http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.html) in the Skeptical Inquirer, which I presume you have also read.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, is he the best cold reader? Or is he a mediocre cold reader? I wish critics would make up their minds! :p


Please don't dodge the argument here.

IF JE was the best cold reader or IF JE was the best cold reader with available transcripts to analyze, neofight's request for "relative proof" in finding a better cold reader would be moot.

And quite disturbingly, neofight clings to her "relative proof" argument like it's some towering monument to logic. It's pathetic, really. It's equally sad that you try to defend it by ignoring the criticism it deserves.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Okay, here they are. (An experiment gone awry, but here it is! Seriously, it'd be easier to go argue at the Politics forum. There just aren't enough "believers" on this board to help out with these kind of threads! "Learning the hard way!" :eek: )

Why has it gone "awry"? You posted a reading which you found "interesting". The reading was met with an impressive list from many people of very sound arguments that points to no other conclusion that this was a cold reading.

Originally posted by Clancie
We don’t.

Then why is this ADC?

Originally posted by Clancie
I think people are on better ground arguing cold reading.

Why? Is it not a distinct possibility that JE has done research on this?

Originally posted by Clancie
The cigarettes in the coffin—and wrong brand--was, imo, better than either of these.

Then why didn't you post that, instead of this reading?

Originally posted by Clancie
I’m curious why people think that the daughter's reaction meant JE was right? If the comment seemed ludicrous (which the daughter’s reaction indicated)…why pursue it? Why not say, “Is there a funny story about someone cutting down a tree?” Why emphasize (as he did the first time he said it through the end) the word YOU?

We have seen JE shift focus before, so we shouldn't accept this as evidence of anything.

Why is the daughter necessarily right? Because she validates what JE says?

Originally posted by Clancie
To say he would have stretched it if it missed is pure speculation. :p

Perhaps. However, there are many previous examples of this. Are you saying it hasn't happened before?

Originally posted by Clancie
But is it common for JE’s New York City audiences? I’ve never heard him ask it before, of male or female.

What makes you think the sitter lived on Manhattan? Even for a New Yorker, it is not that uncommon to have a garden with trees. I lived there, remember?

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't think it would be common here in LA either.

That may be. This happened in New York, though.

Originally posted by Clancie
I hear many people saying its commonplace to guess that a well dressed elderly woman had chopped down a tree sometime in her life. All I can say is….as a Los Angeleno all my life, I’ve never done it and never known any woman who’s done it. (I suppose, if nothing else, that will give some insight into why this struck me as “interesting” for JE to come up with this for her vs. someone else.)

Are you not aware that people change into garden clothes, when they chop down a tree? Do you really imagine that people chop down trees in their best dress?? That is just a silly argument, Clancie.

Originally posted by Clancie
I think the daughter wouldn’t have been surprised then. I really think the “cold reading” argument is better than “hot reading” for this one, AP.

Who are now speculating? Why is it OK for you to speculate, but not others?

Originally posted by Clancie
And about the grandfather’s name—JE didn’t give the name, but he mentioned it was grandfather’s (i.e. not any other family members’). Lucky guess, then? Sounds like that’s what most people here think.

So? Was this the only cup they had in the family?

Originally posted by Clancie
I’m saying that it’s interesting that he narrowed it from the beginning more than many people give him credit for. He said, “YOU cut down the tree” rather than the more general (and safer) “There’s a funny story about someone cutting down a tree.”

BEEP! Wrong! He asked if it was the sitter who cut down the tree. We also know that he can shift focus, if necessary.

Originally posted by Clancie
I can understand that, Brown and Mr. Skinny. Likewise, I’m sure you can understand why it surprised me, as I’ve never known any woman who cut down a tree (or JE ever addressing this possibility to someone before).

But you have to acknowledge that it is far from "unique" that a woman chops down a tree?

Originally posted by Clancie
And given the woman's apparent age and frailty, it seemed an odd direction to guess.

Why? Do we know when this tree-chopping happened? It could have happened decades ago.

Originally posted by Clancie
**Here’s a thought. If its so common, why doesn’t he use it more often? Why the one time he uses it, does it “fit”? (Okay, that’s rhetorical. I already know 10 of you are yelling, “EDITING”, lol)

Yes, you are right. Editing.

Originally posted by Clancie
I know I am doing a poor job of explaining why “chalice” instead of “Kiddush cup” interested me so.

I have to admit that I am a bit surprised that you don't do better.

Originally posted by Clancie
It has to do with being very consistent with how JE describes the “process” as being based on imagery that is within his personal frame of reference (i.e. the Christian chalice). But I understand that others (obviously) aren’t impressed!

If you can complain that New Yorkers don't fell trees, how would JE have "tree chopping" as his personal frame of reference? He has lived in New York all his life, right?

Originally posted by Clancie
But I can address the second part (this relates to JE's “process” ). JE says he hears some information (clairaudience), feels some information (clairsentience), but mostly gets what he gets from seeing various images (clairvoyance), some which become familiar, recurrent symbols to him.

By which, he can conveniently switch between whatever opportunity that comes up, depending on the reply from the sitter. Classic cold reading, Clancie.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, Ipecac, would you have believed it if he’d gotten the name? I wouldn’t have been surprised if he had, but I also wouldn’t expect that to convince you of spirit communication. Would it have?

To me, it would certainly have qualified as a better hit. As it is, it is hardly a hit at all.

Originally posted by Clancie
That’s what a chalice is, basically, a kiddush cup. :confused:

The usage is vastly different, as well as the symbolic meaning.

Originally posted by Clancie
I don’t think this will change your view about this, Tracer, but just wanted to repeat that JE mentioned the engraved name before she validated the existence of a special cup. I don’t think he gave any indication that he thought she was Jewish. (They were non-descript ethnically--white, one elderly, one middle aged--as far as I was concerned, btw.)

Did you look at them, up close? No giveaways whatsoever? A New Yorker accent, a Star of David? Remember that JE is standing right in front of them, you merely look at them on a TV.

Can you completely rule out that JE did not know they were Jewish?

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, is he the best cold reader? Or is he a mediocre cold reader? I wish critics would make up their minds! :p

He is a fast cold reader, which spurts out so many statements that something is bound to stick. He also has worked as a cold reader for 17 years, which gives him experience. However - and we can see this from the unedited transcripts of LKL - he is still bad. That should tell you something about how effective cold reading is.

Originally posted by Clancie
Personally, I have read much better examples of meaningful validations from other mediums than what JE gives.

Unfortunately for you, you cannot use this argument. You have refused to let us see the transcript of your reading with Brian Hurst. You are therefore referring to data we cannot see.

Originally posted by Clancie
The advantage of JE is that what he does is not hidden in a small séance room or in a private reading, but is out there for people to see and evaluate.

Yes, after heavy editing. He is still denying people tapes of his readings? What does that say for his willingness to let people "see and evaluate"?

Originally posted by Clancie
There’s no doubt some people can be duped. That doesn’t mean that its necessarily false.

True. A lot of people here are NOT duped by JE. And it is always up to JE to prove he is a real medium. This, he refuses.

Originally posted by Clancie
No, he specifically said he saw her doing it herself, not hiring someone.

No, he asked if she had done it herself. Big difference.

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, he’s said it doesn’t matter whether its radio, television, remote or in person.

So, all three appearances on LKL was just three "bad days"? You have to admit that JE did considerably worse on LKL than he does on CO.

Originally posted by Clancie
You’re being facetious, right? Otherwise, it would certainly be interesting to know the probability of a hit by coincidence. The Sylvia Challenge purports to do that, but I don’t see any statistics to back it up.

And we most certainly don't see any statistics from you, or any other believer, that JE scores better than average. If you are so interesting in seeing this, why don't you do some work of your own?

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus, you raised some other points, but unfortunately my “one response” is going to have to be taken up correcting your misrepresentation here. :rolleyes:

Aha. You completely ignore my points. I can only assume that it is because you don't know how to answer them. As usual, I might say, but I won't...

Originally posted by Clancie
You say, “I challenged Clancie to see if she could point out what was different from a cold-reading transcript and a JE-transcript. She could not”

Yet you and I both know I listed thirty 30 ! differences between that transcript and a JE reading (I’ve even added one or two since then in discussion here).

Just because you decided (to your own satisfaction, at least :rolleyes ) that “all (Clancie’s) points were invalid” is NOT the same as saying, as you do here “Clancie couldn’t point out what was different from a cold reading transcript and JE.”

Hey, I'm perfectly at ease with posting both transcripts, my comparison, your comparison and my walk-through of your comparison here. Do you think that would be a good idea, if this is so important to you?

Originally posted by Clancie
I pointed out the differences, Claus. Thirty of them.

Sure, you did. They were just invalid, that's all.

Originally posted by Clancie
Whatever. (I will agree that this thread was an experiment I’m not going to do again. In a way, that's one reason why).

I understand perfectly. The experiment backfired.

Originally posted by Clancie
If Sylvia passed the Challenge Randi’s designed for her, people could say it was lucky guesswork. Its very poorly designed and no scientific journal would consider it worth anything as far as establishing the existence of mediumship.

Nobody (and you know this) has ever claimed that the Challenge is scientific, Clancie. You are building a strawman here.

It is interesting that you focus on Sylvia and the Challenge, when you perfectly know that JE has flatly refused to take the Challenge. Why is this not more a concern to you?

Originally posted by Clancie
Probably so. But…why not? With 3000 people, most of them desperately hoping to hear from at least one loved one and many big fans that expect JE to produce big results for them…why not try and lower the expectation level a bit?

When dealing with the public, it just makes sense. (Plus its true—there are great readings and poor ones.)

It makes much more sense if he is cold reading. He knows he will bomb, and warns his audience of this. And they suck it up....

Originally posted by Clancie
Neo, is that really you? :roll: A JE believer? :roll: Its getting mighty lonely here, lol.

It's not a question of loneliness. It's a question of you having a very hard time arguing the validity of a reading you yourself chose.

Originally posted by Clancie
A very important fact about PrimeTime is that many of the participants have publicly posted about their experiences and were absolutely convinced that Ian was a cold reader the entire time.

Where did they do this? Please point to where this happened.

Originally posted by Clancie
PT had a thirty minute follow up discussion with everyone afterwards and showed not a single criticism! Even JE does better job of showing the people who don’t think he’s “for real” than they did. There was no balance at all, and many participants were very angry that their viewpoints weren’t expressed—in fact, that they were all made to look as if they’d been taken in.

This is completely wrong. JE never meets his critics, he doesn't even want his fans to listen to critics. I don't see that many skeptics on CO.

Originally posted by Clancie
Yet, Loki, isn’t this Randi’s premise in the Sylvia Challenge? That beating the expected average will prove mediumship?

No, it will prove that Sylvia can pass the Challenge, that's all. Proof is something entirely different.

Originally posted by Clancie
Re: your question. Actually, he’s said just the opposite, that physical distance, phone connection or live, etc. makes absolutely no difference.

Then we should accept that his performance on LKL is on par with how he performs on a regular basis. This raises the question how he can do so well on CO, if the readings are NOT edited.

Originally posted by Clancie
I don’t think anyone’s ever asked him about his feelings about the hits/misses on LKL readings specifically, though.

You know he doesn't listen to his critics.

Originally posted by Clancie
And when you say its cold reading because out of the volume of guesses some will be right? Is that actually considered part of cold reading? (a question, not a challenge. I’m not sure).

Yes, and you should know it, too, if you were so knowledgable of cold reading as you claim to be.

Originally posted by Clancie
That's it! For better or worse, an experiment gone awry, but there it is!

I would love to hear why you think this has gone "awry". What were your intentions with this thread?

[Lord Kenneth]

As for tree-chopping, did the woman live on a farm?

[Lord Kenneth]

As for tree-chopping, did the woman live on a farm?

[Instig8R]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clancie


I hear many people saying its commonplace to guess that a well dressed elderly woman had chopped down a tree sometime in her life. All I can say is….as a Los Angeleno all my life, I’ve never done it and never known any woman who’s done it. (I suppose, if nothing else, that will give some insight into why this struck me as “interesting” for JE to come up with this for her vs. someone else.)



Clancie, I think that this "hit" seems unusual to you because of certain regional differences between New York and California.

I'd like to point out that not all trees are Giant Redwoods like the ones out in your neck of the woods! Here in New York, we have many large trees, like mighty Oaks and Maples. However, many of us plant smaller trees on our properties, too. We have dogwood trees, japanese dogwood trees, hemlocks, etc. You don't need to be a lumberjack to take down one of these puppies! After all, wasn't George Washington a child when he allegedly chopped down the Cherry Tree?

I do not like gardening, so I hire a landscaper. However, imo, the fee for removing small trees is exhorbitant. Therefore, I have personally resorted to chopping down trees myself in the past. One was a hemlock, and the other looked like a Christmas tree. Neither was very large, and I didn't remove them all at once. At the present time, I am in the process of removing another hemlock tree that died. Like the other trees, I remove different sections of it every few days, and then will dig up the roots.

Tree removal is not necessarily the monumental task that you imagine it to be. As for the tree that I am currently cutting down, it's about 15 feet tall, and the diameter of the widest branch (or trunk) is no more than 5 inches. No big deal, honestly!

I hope this puts the tree issue in perspective for you.:)

[renata]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Clancie, I think that this "hit" seems unusual to you because of certain regional differences between New York and California.

I'd like to point out that not all trees are Giant Redwoods like the ones out in your neck of the woods! Here in New York, we have many large trees, like mighty Oaks and Maples. However, many of us plant smaller trees on our properties, too. We have dogwood trees, japanese dogwood trees, hemlocks, etc. You don't need to be a lumberjack to take down one of these puppies! After all, wasn't George Washington a child when he allegedly chopped down the Cherry Tree?




I want to agree that here there are very few trees like in New York. We have lots of Palms, but few decidious trees, it is too hot and not enough water for them to exist. Most homes, if they have any trees have orange or plum trees. This area is half desert and half orange groves.

Also, someone mentioned it was strange that an older woman was the one who was asked about cutting down a tree. Actualy, an older woman would be more likely to have done that earlier in her life than a younger woman now. People were more self sufficient, women had less help, and were more likely to do things themselves, unless they were wealthy enough to afford help.

[Loki]

Clancie,

Well, is he the best cold reader? Or is he a mediocre cold reader? I wish critics would make up their minds!
I understand your frustration here, since JE is often accused of both being "a cold-reader who produces the hits" and "not a very good cold-reader". My personal opinion - he's either a very good cold-reader, or a cold-reader who cheats (editing, hot reading, etc) to 'suppliment' his hit tally.

But the point remains that rating hits/misses to establish a JE "hit percentage" would, at best, simply allow us to rate him against cold-readers. It might be good to do this, to establish once and for all that he is either "in the middle of the pack" or "in a league of his own", but it still wouldn't address the real issue - is it cold-reading or something else. Anyway, I see the problem here as finding suitable comparisons - what cold-reader has the same experience level as JE?

Yet, Loki, isn’t this Randi’s premise in the Sylvia Challenge? That beating the expected average will prove mediumship?
Clancie, if Sylvia beats the JREF challenge, I will walk naked through downtown New York singing "John Edward I want to marry you"! I will also be forced to seriously reappraise my current position on ADC.

But to answer your question, no! The JREF challenge is not about proving a phenomenon is true/valid. It's about establishing that "something" happened that could not be described using mundane terms. The day Sylvia passes the JREF test four things will happen (a) James Randi will reluctantly hand over 1 million dollars to an unbearably smug Sylvia Browne; (b) Randi (and associates) will being reveiwing their protocol to try and see if it was flawed; (c) a major step forward in establishing the existence of mediumship will have occurred; (d) I'll be arrested by the NYPD for exposing myself in the streets. What won't happen is that mediumship will have been proven true.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Loki
Clancie, if Sylvia beats the JREF challenge, I will walk naked through downtown New York singing "John Edward I want to marry you"!

Nobody will take any notice. It's New York, dummy! :)

[Loki]

Claus,

(Originally posted by Clancie) : It has to do with being very consistent with how JE describes the “process” as being based on imagery that is within his personal frame of reference (i.e. the Christian chalice). But I understand that others (obviously) aren’t impressed!

(Originally posted by CFLarsen) : If you can complain that New Yorkers don't fell trees, how would JE have "tree chopping" as his personal frame of reference? He has lived in New York all his life, right?
I know you feel the need to argue *every single* point with Neofight and Clancie, but surely you're reaching here? How would JE have "tree chopping" as an image in his frame of reference, given that he's from New York? What, you think that the phrase "tree chopping" has no meaning to New Yorkers? If I randomly stop a New Yorker in the street and show them a picture (perhaps a short video) of a woman chopping down a tree they'll say "gee...what's going on there! What is that woman doing???". New Yorkers don't fell trees (as a general rule). New Yorkers *do* know what felling a tree looks like.

[tracer]

I think it is a monumental testament to the self-control of all involved with this thread that nobody has yet mentioned Stan Marsh's channeling performance in "John Edwards is the Biggest Douche in the Universe" episode of South Park.

[Loki]

Claus,

Nobody will take any notice. It's New York, dummy!
Did I forget to mention I'll be heavily armed with a variety of large caliber weapons? The "JE I love you" line is just a ploy to get him to come within firing range.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Nobody will take any notice. It's New York, dummy! :)

LOL, CFLarsen! How true! Did you ever see the "Naked Cowboy" who roams Times Square near the TKTS Booth? He strolls around, wearing his cowboy hat, boots and jockey shorts, playing his guitar. (I didn't notice him until my Long Island friends called my attention to him! I haven't lived in NYC for years, but I guess I still behave like a native NYer!)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Loki
I know you feel the need to argue *every single* point with Neofight and Clancie,

All links in the chain has to be strong enough to hold the whole chain together! :)

Originally posted by Loki
but surely you're reaching here? How would JE have "tree chopping" as an image in his frame of reference, given that he's from New York? What, you think that the phrase "tree chopping" has no meaning to New Yorkers? If I randomly stop a New Yorker in the street and show them a picture (perhaps a short video) of a woman chopping down a tree they'll say "gee...what's going on there! What is that woman doing???". New Yorkers don't fell trees (as a general rule). New Yorkers *do* know what felling a tree looks like.

In which case, there would probably be NO limit to JE's frame of reference, right? After all, he does live in NY, where people from all over the world live.

No, I'm not reaching.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Loki
Did I forget to mention I'll be heavily armed with a variety of large caliber weapons? The "JE I love you" line is just a ploy to get him to come within firing range.

Yes, you forgot. However, brandishing a gun in New York these days is definitely a bad idea!

Definitely!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Instig8R
LOL, CFLarsen! How true! Did you ever see the "Naked Cowboy" who roams Times Square near the TKTS Booth? He strolls around, wearing his cowboy hat, boots and jockey shorts, playing his guitar. (I didn't notice him until my Long Island friends called my attention to him! I haven't lived in NYC for years, but I guess I still behave like a native NYer!)

(That was me....shhhhhh!!!!)

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


(That was me....shhhhhh!!!!)

Woof!

[renata]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Woof!

Get a room, you two! :D

[SteveGrenard]

from the George Washington Papers Website, a False Analogy
from Insti8gr re alleged tree chopping by George Washington.
I am surprised you didn't know this was a myth Insti.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/lesson/life/life1.html

Unlike for later periods in his life, historians don't have much evidence about George Washington's boyhood. We have to take what other people wrote about him and then figure out what stories from his youth are true and which are myths.

For instance, we know that the tale of young George chopping down the cherry tree is a myth, created in 1809 by Parson Weems, a man who wanted to establish Washington as a role model for other .................

[thaiboxerken]

from the George Washington Papers Website, a False Analogy
from Insti8gr re alleged tree chopping by George Washington.
I am surprised you didn't know this was a myth Insti. [/QUOTE]

This has nothing to do with the discussion, neither is the analogy necessarily "false" towards the context of the discussion. It's not unheard of for a child to chop down small trees. That's the point, not whether or not GWashington did or not.

My mom has chopped down 3 trees that I know of, they simply were in the way of the garden she was planting.

[SteveGrenard]

No, this is about JE's frame of reference and chopping down trees and land clearing is hardly unheard of in many parts of the city of New York. Besides JE is not from the concrete canyons of Manhattan but from Queens and then Long Island where there was much development and tree chopping.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
from the George Washington Papers Website, a False Analogy
from Insti8gr re alleged tree chopping by George Washington.
I am surprised you didn't know this was a myth Insti.


The issue is that some people here seem to envision a large tree being chopped down by the female sitter. I don't understand why some folks are not considering the fact that there are small trees. Hence, a lumberjack (screaming "Timber!") is not necessarily involved in every tree removal!

Unless I missed it, the size of the tree is not revealed in the transcript excerpt posted in this thread.

As for George Washington, I am well aware of the fact that the story of the Cherry Tree was a myth. That is why I used the word "allegedly".

Here is what I said: "After all, wasn't George Washington a child when he allegedly chopped down the Cherry Tree?"

But, thanks for the history lesson. :roll:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No, this is about JE's frame of reference and chopping down trees and land clearing is hardly unheard of in many parts of the city of New York. Besides JE is not from the concrete canyons of Manhattan but from Queens and then Long Island where there was much development and tree chopping.

Uh yea. Isn't this what the skeptics are saying? The tree hit is hardly impressive, and the reason is that it's not uncommon for people to chop down trees.

[SteveGrenard]

t: Uh yea. Isn't this what the skeptics are saying? The tree hit is hardly impressive, and the reason is that it's not uncommon for people to chop down trees.


Yes, but by whom? Insti8r maintains that it is not unusual for a woman or as in the false GW example, a young child to chop down trees. Even if the GW myth were not a myth, it would've occurred hundreds of years ago and in rural Virginia. Having been a NYorker all my life, while kids and women might chop down trees elsewhere, I have only seen men and heavy machines do it here. And if there is a frame of reference for JE, it would not include women and children as among those who chop down trees .......... even smaller ones.

[Loki]

Claus,

In which case, there would probably be NO limit to JE's frame of reference, right? After all, he does live in NY, where people from all over the world live.
Seems to me this is a semantic issue again Claus, and your use of English is creating a meaning you did not intend. JE's frame of reference is definitely limited, but the pool of references that it is created from is almost "unlimited".

If we work from the inplied assumption that references are completely dictated by "where you live" (an invalid assumption anyway I would think, but you introduced this when you said "If you can complain that New Yorkers don't fell trees, how would JE have 'tree chopping' as his personal frame of reference? He has lived in New York all his life, right?") then the following are true statements :

1. If "reference 'x'" is not in the pool of "references known to the people of New York" then it can't be known to JE.

2. If "reference 'x'" is in the pool of "references known to the people of New York" then it might be known to JE.

No, I'm not reaching.
Well, I still think you are!

Again, you said "If you can complain that New Yorkers don't fell trees, how would JE have 'tree chopping' as his personal frame of reference? He has lived in New York all his life, right?"

Put this into a more formal expression of logic :

1. New Yorkers don't fell trees;
2. JE is from New York;
3. Therefore, JE could not know what "tree chopping" looks like, or even means (he can't "reference" it).

This conclusion appears not to flow from the premises. In fact, it appears you are assuming additional underlying premises :

1. New Yorkers don't fell trees;
2. JE is from New York;
2a. A person can only "reference" something if they have done it themselves;
3. Therefore, JE could not know what "tree chopping" looks like, or even means (he can't "reference" it).

Now your conclusion stands, but premise 2a looks decidedly dodgy to me. In fact, it looks like a stretch! (Not to mention that premise 1 is almost certainly not true - although you might be able to salvage the intention by rephrasing it as a probability rather than an absolute).

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
I can understand that, Brown and Mr. Skinny. Likewise, I’m sure you can understand why it surprised me, as I’ve never known any woman who cut down a tree (or JE ever addressing this possibility to someone before).

And given the woman's apparent age and frailty, it seemed an odd direction to guess.

**Here’s a thought. If its so common, why doesn’t he use it more often? Why the one time he uses it, does it “fit”? (Okay, that’s rhetorical. I already know 10 of you are yelling, “EDITING”, lol)


Well, well. I was just continuing with analysis of another LKL reading, when I stumbled onto this

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "Crossing Over With John Edward")
EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God, the tree in the backyard.
EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, at the cemetery. We just noticed it yesterday. We went Father's Day with the kids. The tree was gone that's right by the plot, right in front. They cut it down, they said, so the sun could shine on daddy.
EDWARD: That's a nice way of covering it, because that tree was how people found him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. That's how we noticed when we drove to the mall. We used to look for the tree so we can see the plot. Oh my God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)


http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/06/lkl.00.html

I guess he does use it more often. I guess the reading you quoted is not the one time he uses it.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Having been a NYorker all my life, while kids and women might chop down trees elsewhere, I have only seen men and heavy machines do it here. And if there is a frame of reference for JE, it would not include women and children as among those who chop down trees .......... even smaller ones.

Well, you may be the self-declared expert on tree-cutting on the Island of Staten. However, I am the self-declared expert on tree cutting on the Island of Long.

Perhaps if you lived out here in the provinces, you would know that not all trees are large. You would also have the opportunity to observe us womenfolk doing all sorts of chores, including landscaping. (We make the menfolk do the cooking and cleaning.)

[thaiboxerken]

I could care less about "frame of reference". The fact is, a person doing landscaping and chopping down trees is not uncommon. Women can do it, kids can do it.. I've done it and so has my mom. The hit is not anything special because it's hardly a rare event. Also, JE did ask if someone cut down a tree.. he didn't tell anyone anything.

Why do questions count as hits in the believer world?

[KelvinG]

Clancie wrote:
And when you say its cold reading because out of the volume of guesses some will be right? Is that actually considered part of cold reading? (a question, not a challenge. I’m not sure).

Yes, I do believe that is a a part of cold reading. JE and others like him rapidly throw out guesses, most of them missing, until they hit something that gets a favourable reaction from the sitter. At that point, he siezes on it, and keeps throwing guesses in that direction.
And, in the words of Ian Rowland who scored the calender hit on ABC's Primetime Live "I just got lucky."

JE is bound to get lucky once in while because he does so many readings. If he didn't get "hits" once in a while I would be surprised.
Nothing he does is particulary impressive since you can't possibly miss all the time, no matter how bad a cold reader you are.

And is JE a bad cold reader? No, I would say he is a very good cold reader. But that's like saying someone is a good car thief.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by KelvinG
[I]

And is JE a bad cold reader? No, I would say he is a very good cold reader. But that's like saying someone is a good car thief.

KelvinG, I agree with you that JE is a very good cold reader. However, imo, he appears even better to people in other parts of the country. JE was born and raised here on Long Island, a rather unique polyglot. The majority of people that he reads in the gallery are from this area, and are culturally familiar to him. Just like any other "community", there are customs, folkways, etc., specific to this area.

Thus, when JE throws out statements about women cutting down trees, or mentions names like Aloysius, Hedwig, etc., I (as a Long Islander) am not amazed that it is acknowledged by the gallery sitter. However, someone in another part of New York might think it is impressive, and someone in another state might be absolutely amazed. I believe this fact contributes a great deal to his success... as a coldreader, not as a psychic medium.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Instig8R
You would also have the opportunity to observe us womenfolk doing all sorts of chores, including landscaping. (We make the menfolk do the cooking and cleaning.)

I thought you were a feller. Hmmm, learn something new each day on these boards..

[Instig8R]

Hi, UnSin! You thought I was a guy??? Maybe it's because of all those darned trees that I cut down! ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Instig8R
Hi, UnSin! You thought I was a guy??? Maybe it's because of all those darned trees that I cut down! ;)

A shiksa lumber jack? Oy Vey! :D

- assuming of course you're not a yenta lumber jack. And my cold reading skills with you have proven woefully un-Edwaresque.

[SteveGrenard]

Renata I am confused by this exchange. First a mention of a backyard tree followed by a cemetary tree which was evidently removed by groundskeepers and not the sitter(s). Trees can come up (pun intended) in many different ways so I am at a loss to see why this exchange emulates the other validation in anyway.

A small survey of tree services on Long Island indicates it is predominantly (well, 100%) male operated insofar as can be determined, and thats allegedly. Also JE was born in
Queens which, I know, some Long Islanders think is allegedly part of Long Island.

Shamrock Tree Expert Co. 631-298-4118- 631-298-4619 Free Estimates/Fully Insured

Tree work. Fully insured. Mark 765-5243, 765-2578.


BUSH HOG SERVICE: Overgrown fields, lots, heavy brush mowed. NEW side-boom mower for mowing roadsides and private driveways. Tom Romanski 727-7668.


Fall cleanups, seasonal maintenance, reasonable, professional tree/shrub/hedge pruning. Tom Sadowski, 765-3836.


TREE WORK: Stump grinding, land clearing. License #17754-HI. Peter Dooley, 631-765-3282.

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Renata I am confused by this exchange. First a mention of a backyard tree followed by a cemetary tree which was evidently removed by groundskeepers and not the sitter(s). Trees can come up (pun intended) in many different ways so I am at a loss to see why this exchange emulates the other validation in anyway.

A small survey of tree services on Long Island indicates it is predominantly (well, 100%) male operated insofar as can be determined, and thats allegedly. Also JE was born in
Queens which, I know, some Long Islanders think is allegedly part of Long Island.

Shamrock Tree Expert Co. 631-298-4118- 631-298-4619 Free Estimates/Fully Insured

Tree work. Fully insured. Mark 765-5243, 765-2578.


BUSH HOG SERVICE: Overgrown fields, lots, heavy brush mowed. NEW side-boom mower for mowing roadsides and private driveways. Tom Romanski 727-7668.


Fall cleanups, seasonal maintenance, reasonable, professional tree/shrub/hedge pruning. Tom Sadowski, 765-3836.


TREE WORK: Stump grinding, land clearing. License #17754-HI. Peter Dooley, 631-765-3282.

Clancie said the tree guess has not come up before, so it was unique. I showed that it has come up before. What is the confusion, exactly? The hit Clancie thought was unique was not.

[Ceinwyn]

I'm sorry but I think this is getting utterly ridiculous.

I've noticed that all too often, people get caught up in minor details that really aren't that important. I reference the Lucianarchy thread, in which everyone tried to pinpoint how the timestamp works, and this thread which revolves around who cut down a tree when.

The fact is, Renata did a great analysis of JE right here in this thread and that analysis is not getting more credit. To me, it shows exactly what JE is and what he does: a cold reader who makes a lot of money out of pretending the dead talk to him.

Whether he fools people knowingly, or whether he truly believes he has some kind of gift, doesn't matter. None of it can be shown to be anything but cold reading, well done for sure, but nothing psychic at all.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
A small survey of tree services on Long Island indicates it is predominantly (well, 100%) male operated insofar as can be determined, and thats allegedly. Also JE was born in
Queens which, I know, some Long Islanders think is allegedly part of Long Island.



Does your survey indicate how many of these male operated companies were NOT retained for tree removal, because the female property owners chose to remove small trees by themselves?

P.S. If you will check a map of the NY downstate area, you will learn that Queens is part of Long Island, and so is Brooklyn.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
A small survey of tree services on Long Island indicates it is predominantly (well, 100%) male operated insofar as can be determined, and thats allegedly. Also JE was born in
Queens which, I know, some Long Islanders think is allegedly part of Long Island.

Shamrock Tree Expert Co. 631-298-4118- 631-298-4619 Free Estimates/Fully Insured

Tree work. Fully insured. Mark 765-5243, 765-2578.


BUSH HOG SERVICE: Overgrown fields, lots, heavy brush mowed. NEW side-boom mower for mowing roadsides and private driveways. Tom Romanski 727-7668.


Fall cleanups, seasonal maintenance, reasonable, professional tree/shrub/hedge pruning. Tom Sadowski, 765-3836.


TREE WORK: Stump grinding, land clearing. License #17754-HI. Peter Dooley, 631-765-3282.

Steve, wouldn't you rather go back to www.johnedwardtalk.org and rationalize with your band of rationalizers? Or is it the utter and likely unbearable triteness of that whole forum that keeps you coming back to www.randi.org where you can engage a community of reasonably to extremely intelligent people?

Seriously, what ARE you doing here? If your goal was to reaffirm how fake JE is and how impossible he is to defend, congratulations.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by buki

The fact is, Renata did a great analysis of JE right here in this thread and that analysis is not getting more credit. To me, it shows exactly what JE is and what he does: a cold reader who makes a lot of money out of pretending the dead talk to him.

Whether he fools people knowingly, or whether he truly believes he has some kind of gift, doesn't matter. None of it can be shown to be anything but cold reading, well done for sure, but nothing psychic at all.

You are correct, buki-- The side issues have dissolved into utter nonsense. renata did an excellent job in tabulating these unedited readings. IMO, the raw figures that she compiled have revealed JE to be even worse than I thought he was. The occasional hits that he manages to eke out of these exchanges appear even more meager, when compared to how many guesses actually accompany each hit. It truly is a case of JE firing shots, and the sitter draws the bullseye around them.

Great job, renata!

[Loki]

buki,

The fact is, Renata did a great analysis of JE right here in this thread and that analysis is not getting more credit.
I agree - well done Renata (and I should have mentioned that sooner!)

To me, it shows exactly what JE is and what he does:...
Again, I agree - but Neo (and Clancie?) have argued that the LKL transcripts are from a "type" of reading "environment" in which JE could be expected to have some difficulties (short on time, caller not able to hear properly, etc). The biggest problem I have with this rationalisation (apart from it's convenience!) is that I haven't heard JE himself offer this excuse! And if he can't really do readings on the phone on national TV, why does he try? Perhaps because it boosts his public profile??

I've noticed that all too often, people get caught up in minor details that really aren't that important.
One of whom might be Claus??

[Ceinwyn]

From what I have observed, JE only does well when JE controls the circumstances, ie his own show, editing, etc. When he's on someone else's show, such as Larry King, he is woefully inadequate.

Which is why I'm so saddened when I find that some people still believe that he is actually communicating with the dead. I know horses wear blinders, but I didn't think that was a human requirement.


edit to add:

Loki said "One of whom might be Claus??"

Claus does what he does. I respect his position and I neither endorse nor vilify it. He's Claus and I'm not. Okay?

[renata]

Thanks, guys!
I analyzed (very roughly) all three JE LKL readings on another thread. Interesting stuff :)

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032

[CFLarsen]

Loki,

Ah, I see where you went wrong! ;)

You are assuming that I am the one arguing the point. I'm not: Clancie says that this business of a woman felling trees is unique: It's a woman, it's New York. Ergo, very good hit. However, if tree felling was so rare, how would JE know about it?

But it's a minor point anyway....trees are felled in NY, and by women, too. Hey, don't tell the women of NY what they can or can¨'t do! You'd lose your balls with a swift kick, buddy! :D

And I agree with Instig8r: Not all trees have to be giant redwoods to be felled. Just a 5-foot tree can be in the way.

Usually of cars! :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
A small survey of tree services on Long Island indicates it is predominantly (well, 100%) male operated insofar as can be determined, and thats allegedly. Also JE was born in Queens which, I know, some Long Islanders think is allegedly part of Long Island.

Red herring: Nobody is claiming that the woman runs a business of tree chopping.

Oh, and Steve? For someone who has been a New Yorker all his life, you sure don't know much about where you live.....

[fsol]

It seems to me that who cut down the tree is not even important.
It would have been important if JE had actually specified who had cut the tree down, but as usual he left him self enough room so that it didn't matter.

In the first tree example JEs use of the word "you" coming as it did after talking about Grandpa can mean, an individual, some one else in the family or the family as a group. JE only supplies the details once the sitter confirms the details her self.

In the second tree example JEs use of the word "you" is directed at the sitter. In fact he repeats his assertion because the sitters response makes him think he got a hit. Problem is, he didn't get a hit. It was the groundsman that cut down the tree without the knowledge of the sitter.

So to recap. Who cut the tree down is only important if JE had actually clearly stated who had cut down the tree and got it right. In the above examples he doesn't do this. This is because he is throwing guesses out and hoping they stick.

[Loki]

Claus,

Ah, I see where you went wrong!
I'm prepared to concede the possibility that I went wrong
:)

After all, I find these conversations between you and Clancie/Neo to end up being a chain of "ah, but what I actually said was..." stretching back to...well, to before the birth of the internet, probably (but I still think you took a cheap shot with no real substance behind it :D)

In any case, please resume your analysis of JE and his passion for female lumberjacks.

[Starrman]

I still haven't seen Clancie, Neo or Steve answer the question of weather JE might just be the best cold reader out there. I used a basketball analogy earlier:

Why can't this be explaied as JE being the BEST cold reader out there? Michael Jordan's lifetime statistics are much better than most basketball players, but they are all STILL playing basketball.

Loki use a cricket analogy:

The greatest batsman of all time was Donald Bradman, who played 60 years ago. He finished with a career average of "99.94". The second highest career average is "60.97", then "60.83", then "60.73", then "59.23" then "58.27". The career averages are spread pretty evenly from "60" downwards - with one enormous blimp up to Bradman at "99.94". Every now and then, someone is *a lot* better than those around him/her.

(Guys - I apologize if you already answered this and I missed it. If you did just let me know and I will go find it. :) )

[Jeff Corey]

Some people can't see the forest for the trees. What has posting the names of owners of tree services on LI got to do with whether a woman, not necessisarily from LI, has ever cut down a tree?
Yet another examole of a long, meaningless post of irrelevant details.
Fact: women can and have cut down trees. My wife even attacks shrubbery with electric clippers. She wants a chainsaw for her birthday.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please explain where the 19 minutes worth of a 30-minute reading goes, neo.

What I was trying to say is that on "Crossing Over", the show, the entire show consists of only a couple of readings. Sometimes the entire show features only one (1) single reading, either with one person or one small group of family and/or friends.

This shows a heck of a lot more of the actual reading than did the few seconds per reading that ABC aired of Ian Rowland's readings.....neo

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Starrman
I still haven't seen Clancie, Neo or Steve answer the question of weather JE might just be the best cold reader out there. I used a basketball analogy earlier:


I'm also waiting, with great intrigue, for a response to that issue.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie
(....still working....)

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

Hi, Clancie. Just stealing a few moments while everything's quiet with the grandkids. Nobody knows I'm down here yet. lol .....neo

[dingler44]

Originally posted by neofight


Hi, Clancie. Just stealing a few moments while everything's quiet with the grandkids. Nobody knows I'm down here yet. lol .....neo

Why not use those spare moments to address these points:

Starrman:

Why can't this be explaied as JE being the BEST cold reader out there? Michael Jordan's lifetime statistics are much better than most basketball players, but they are all STILL playing basketball.


Me:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clancie
Well, is he the best cold reader? Or is he a mediocre cold reader? I wish critics would make up their minds!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please don't dodge the argument here.

IF JE was the best cold reader or IF JE was the best cold reader with available transcripts to analyze, neofight's request for "relative proof" in finding a better cold reader would be moot.

And quite disturbingly, neofight clings to her "relative proof" argument like it's some towering monument to logic. It's pathetic, really. It's equally sad that you try to defend it by ignoring the criticism it deserves.


Starrman:


I still haven't seen Clancie, Neo or Steve answer the question of weather JE might just be the best cold reader out there. I used a basketball analogy earlier:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why can't this be explaied as JE being the BEST cold reader out there? Michael Jordan's lifetime statistics are much better than most basketball players, but they are all STILL playing basketball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Loki use a cricket analogy:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest batsman of all time was Donald Bradman, who played 60 years ago. He finished with a career average of "99.94". The second highest career average is "60.97", then "60.83", then "60.73", then "59.23" then "58.27". The career averages are spread pretty evenly from "60" downwards - with one enormous blimp up to Bradman at "99.94". Every now and then, someone is *a lot* better than those around him/her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(Guys - I apologize if you already answered this and I missed it. If you did just let me know and I will go find it. )

[neofight]

Originally posted by Loki
The biggest problem I have with this rationalisation (apart from it's convenience!) is that I haven't heard JE himself offer this excuse! And if he can't really do readings on the phone on national TV, why does he try? Perhaps because it boosts his public profile??

Loki, he usually does most of his tv/radio guest appearances around the times he is promoting one of his books or possibly a new "CO" season. It's possible that it is a contract obligation.

There have been obvious sound/technical problems from time to time on LKL, including a person calling in while a train was passing by, and poor telephone connections, as well as the caller being disconnected too quickly to validate something that John said............neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by dingler44


Why not use those spare moments to address these points:


Real quickly, I don't believe that it is only a matter of JE being the best cold-reader in the world because as Loki says, he sometimes comes out with hits that we just don't believe can be explained by simple cold-reading. Loki thinks there has to be some hot-reading done as well. I disagee.

When I see JE come up with equally excellent hits at seminars, and seminars with general admission at that, meaning no assigned seating, (READ: no chance for research) then I simply cannot accept that JE is a mere, albeit super-talented, cold-reader. :) ........neo

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


Loki, he usually does most of his tv/radio guest appearances around the times he is promoting one of his books or possibly a new "CO" season. It's possible that it is a contract obligation.

There have been obvious sound/technical problems from time to time on LKL, including a person calling in while a train was passing by, and poor telephone connections, as well as the caller being disconnected too quickly to validate something that John said............neo

So Loki and you agree - he does it to boost his public profile and make more money.

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


Real quickly, I don't believe that it is only a matter of JE being the best cold-reader in the world because as Loki says, he sometimes comes out with hits that we just don't believe can be explained by simple cold-reading. Loki thinks there has to be some hot-reading done as well. I disagee.

When I see JE come up with equally excellent hits at seminars, and seminars with general admission at that, meaning no assigned seating, (READ: no chance for research) then I simply cannot accept that JE is a mere, albeit super-talented, cold-reader. :) ........neo

You seem to keep discounting several points many posters have brought up:

1) The fact that many of JE's very "special" hits seem to involve feedback from the sitter before they become "special"
2) The fact that many of the special hits start with a generalisation that can fit many, many people.
3) And that he could just be “guessing” – but this is really “educated” guesses based on his vast experience of what people react to and the fact that not many people are truly “unique”.

And one I would add is that we all experience many, many common situations, but fail to realise that millions of other people also have these experiences, e.g. parents dying, unresolved “issues” with people who have died, regrets that we never said something, that we didn’t do enough, families that don’t talk, family members brought up by others, adoption, trouble in the family and so on – all common, all general, but to us very “special”.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by neofight
When I see JE come up with equally excellent hits at seminars, and seminars with general admission at that, meaning no assigned seating, (READ: no chance for research) then I simply cannot accept that JE is a mere, albeit super-talented, cold-reader. :) ........neo

Do you have some examples of these hits for analysis? If they've already been discussed in another thread or forum, please just point me in the right direction.

[Renfield]

You also don't get to hear these exchanges in their entirety. We have no idea what might have been said earlier that might have helped him make this guess.

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I don't care how high you pile the anecdotes. They still do not constitute evidence.

Did you notice, at the start of the episode in which these appeared, the disclaimer that the show was for entertainment purposes only?

Of course you know that the shows are edited. I assume you would not try to pass off anything that occurs there as happening under controlled conditions?

You have no way of verifying that JE did not research these subjects, either before they entered the studio, or while they were in the studio with the microphones on.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by neofight


Real quickly, I don't believe that it is only a matter of JE being the best cold-reader in the world because as Loki says, he sometimes comes out with hits that we just don't believe can be explained by simple cold-reading. Loki thinks there has to be some hot-reading done as well. I disagee.


Ok, but just for argument's sake, pretend you think JE is a cold reader.

Would you acknowledge that NOT finding a better cold reader is NOT evidence of JE being a medium?

As people have tried to illustrate by analogy, an individual who is well known for supreme performance in their craft(ie Michael Jordon or Donald Bradman) does not necessarily demonstrate paranormal ability.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
What I was trying to say is that on "Crossing Over", the show, the entire show consists of only a couple of readings. Sometimes the entire show features only one (1) single reading, either with one person or one small group of family and/or friends.

Yes, I am aware of that. You are not addressing the issue, neo:

Where do the 19 minutes worth of a 30-minute reading go?

Originally posted by neofight
This shows a heck of a lot more of the actual reading than did the few seconds per reading that ABC aired of Ian Rowland's readings.....neo

That may be so, but we are not discussing Rowland now. We are talking about the 30-minute readings.

Doesn't it look very much as if those 19 minutes are edited out, neo?

Originally posted by neofight
There have been obvious sound/technical problems from time to time on LKL, including a person calling in while a train was passing by, and poor telephone connections, as well as the caller being disconnected too quickly to validate something that John said............neo

Yes, that's nice. Are you saying that these account for the bad readings on LKL?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by renata
Reading (lost count of which number)



15 guesses
2 misses
5 weak hits
4 not validated
3 hits
1 not scored
.

Something to consider to when counting hits and misses like this is that the people getting their readings done are believers and want them to succeed. Many of them will will be very forgiving of Edward's statements, calling them hits when they are really only vaguelly accurate. You would really have to do some investigating to find out how accurate one of Edward's readings has been.

[c0rbin]

All these interesting hits and what do we as a species have to show for it?

A re-imaging of Battlestar Galactica.

:rolleyes:

[Renfield]

Originally posted by renata



(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "Crossing Over With John Edward")
EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God, the tree in the backyard.
EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, at the cemetery. We just noticed it yesterday. We went Father's Day with the kids. The tree was gone that's right by the plot, right in front. They cut it down, they said, so the sun could shine on daddy.
EDWARD: That's a nice way of covering it, because that tree was how people found him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. That's how we noticed when we drove to the mall. We used to look for the tree so we can see the plot. Oh my God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)





Well, well. I was just continuing with analysis of another LKL reading, when I stumbled onto this



http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/06/lkl.00.html

I guess he does use it more often. I guess the reading you quoted is not the one time he uses it.

Great example. Nice work. Notice too how the sitter stretches things to make the statement a "hit", ignoring differances between what Edward described and her own tree cutting incident. Edward talks about her cutting down a tree at some point in her life - he doesn't specify when - and she relates it to a tree someone else with a connection to her had cut down.

This kind of thing goes on quite a bit, I think.

[Starrman]

Something to consider to when counting hits and misses like this is that the people getting their readings done are believers and want them to succeed. Many of them will will be very forgiving of Edward's statements, calling them hits when they are really only vaguelly accurate. You would really have to do some investigating to find out how accurate one of Edward's readings has been.

If you really want to be fair (or picky - depending on your view) with hits and misses, you should count several misses for each apparent hit. This is due to JE's annoying gerneralities.

Example:

JE says 'I have an older male presence that has crossed'. Sitter says, 'yes I lost my father'.

Rather than a weak hit, this is really 1 hit and 4 misses.

So that is one hit for father, one miss for each of older brother, older cousin, older friend, grandfather.

So his one ridiculously vague guess is really a 1 for 5, or 20%.

[neofight]

Originally posted by dingler44


Ok, but just for argument's sake, pretend you think JE is a cold reader.

Would you acknowledge that NOT finding a better cold reader is NOT evidence of JE being a medium?

As people have tried to illustrate by analogy, an individual who is well known for supreme performance in their craft(ie Michael Jordon or Donald Bradman) does not necessarily demonstrate paranormal ability.

Dingler, what I would acknowledge is that NOT finding a cold reader who performs better than JE does NOT constitute absolute proof that JE is a medium, but I do consider it to be evidence enough to consider that the possiblity of his being a medium does exist.

Is it just me, or is that sentence not written as well as it should have been? :( ...........neo

[Loki]

Neo,

Is it just me, or is that sentence not written as well as it should have been?
I think that sentence is not not written as well as it should not have been - which is to say that it's written or not written as well as not writing it would not have been.

[SteveGrenard]

"So that is one hit for father, one miss for each of older brother, older cousin, older friend, grandfather.

So his one ridiculously vague guess is really a 1 for 5, or 20%."

How would you tally up the hits and misses of this statement if the sitter does not have an older male brother, cousin or friend?
I appreciate the fact that older male is vague but when he gets a name or relationship or both on the first time it ceases to be vague.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
How would you tally up the hits and misses of this statement if the sitter does not have an older male brother, cousin or friend? I appreciate the fact that older male is vague but when he gets a name or relationship or both on the first time it ceases to be vague.

Because the sitter validates. That is an axiom in mediumship, right? We never get any other validation than that from the sitter. Schwartz relies entirely on this, too.

So, if the sitter only says that it fits only one, then it fits only one. Ergo, Starrman's assessment is in full compliance with the rules of mediumship.

[SteveGrenard]

Because the sitter validates. That is an axiom in mediumship, right? We never get any other validation than that from the sitter. Schwartz relies entirely on this, too.

Rply: The medium gets older male deceased. There is only one and that's father. There is no older brother, older male friend and
grandpa is still alive. Whats the tally? Very simple. What has who validates got to do with my question? Nothing.

This example of tallying was a very deceitful means of arriving at a number 20%. If the medium gets older male deceased and there is one, and only one, and there are no other older males or older males who are deceased, then that's a hit. There are no implied misses as starrman is trying to make.

C: So, if the sitter only says that it fits only one, then it fits only one. Ergo, Starrman's assessment is in full compliance with the rules of mediumship.

Reply: The rules of mediumship? Where can I find these rules please? Please give me a link or other reference. Show me the evidence that such rules exist, who promulgated these rules and under what authority and what they are.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Because the sitter validates. That is an axiom in mediumship, right? We never get any other validation than that from the sitter. Schwartz relies entirely on this, too.

So, if the sitter only says that it fits only one, then it fits only one. Ergo, Starrman's assessment is in full compliance with the rules of mediumship.
Validation isn't necessary. JE has often declared, "Psychic amnesia!" in audience settings when the victim-at-hand is unable to "validate" JE's statements. Sylvia Browne often makes statements -- usually related to medical issues or her peculiar religious doctrines -- that the victim-at-hand is unable to "validate". Other mediums do this. Typical of un-validated statements are the "Go home and think about this," comments from mediums.

It is true that much depends upon the sitter retro-fitting the medium's statements to their lives. In laboratory settings, much depends upon the experimenter's fitting of the medium's statements. Any bias must be eliminated.

If I were to test a "medium" in a laboratory setting, I would restrict the readings to specific sets of pre-determined details for specific sitters. These of course would be randomized and double-blinded. No "I'm getting a father figure," or "He's pointing at his chest," nonsense would be permitted. The key issue is that the results should never be subject to interpretation as to whether or not they were hits. No fuzzy logic, no "scoring", no experimenter judging.

The tests have to be binary, yes/no, black/white, hit/no hit. If mediums are unwilling to do this, and if experimenters are unwilling to do this, none of them can expect anybody to believe the results of their laboratory "tests".

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
C: So, if the sitter only says that it fits only one, then it fits only one. Ergo, Starrman's assessment is in full compliance with the rules of mediumship.

Reply: The rules of mediumship? Where can I find these rules please? Please give me a link or other reference. Show me the evidence that such rules exist, who promulgated these rules and under what authority and what they are.
Probably right next to the rules for other magic tricks that are closely guarded and rarely shared with others, and then only with those who are part of the inner circle. From what I'm able to figure out from reading the various biographies and autobiographies of mediums, the techniques are informally passed along. JVP studied with Hurst, Hurst studied with Leslie Flint, Flint studied with -- and married -- Edith Mundin, and so on. The lineage of mediumship isn't all that hard to trace. The "rules", or techniques, vary slightly among mediums, but can be observed, and can be taught.

[SteveGrenard]

P: The tests have to be binary, yes/no, black/white, hit/no hit. If mediums are unwilling to do this, and if experimenters are unwilling to do this, none of them can expect anybody to believe the results of their laboratory "tests".


R: There are many examples of highly specific, dead-on (excuse the reference) hits that come up without equivocation or debate.
I have given some examples elsewhere as have others. On the issue of retro-fitting, I agree that trying to make something fit or strecthing or reaching is invalid. On the other hand there are highly specific details which are not known to the sitter in the lab or at the time of the sitting which are validated after consultation with others or personal reference checking. I did not know my childhood dog's brother's name given to me by a medium. I had to validate it afterwards. This was in the context of a highly specific piece of information that meant nothing to me at the time the medium gave it. I was advised that a dog that looked like my dog Pinky (which was named and described) was present and it was Buster. I knew no dog named Buster. Clearly incorrect. The next day I asked my mother if she knew who Buster was. I didn't tell her anything else or about the reading. She is 82 but pretty sharp. She responded w/o hesitation "Oh, that was Pinky's brother's name." Unequivocal. No stretching, no making it fit. A simple validated fact I have no reason to doubt.

So there are no rules, just a perception of handed down lore. Thank you. Nothing official. Insofar as I am concerned, the only rule is that to be valid, everything a medium gets must be 100% accurate and specific, whether validated at the time or afterwards; that the information be given without the benefit of feedback at the time, even including yes/no responses (trance mediums do no ask questions and do not elicit responses) and that the sitter and medium are mutually anonymous to each other to eliminate prior research or hot reading. Warm reading can be eliminated in one on ones by using separate rooms or screening that prevents the medium from seeing body language. This is also eliminated using IRC and telephones.

This leaves guessing for the medium. While the sitters know the so-called guesses are accurate, scientists studying this need to calculate the probabilities for such guessing and the probabilities that a constellation of valid guesses are all accurate. If you want to use guessing as an hypohesis for a fraudulent reading this needs to go beyond simple binary facts. Otherwise if you rate with yes/no, then you cannot advance guessing as an hypothesis.

I do not know why mediums performing in front of groups ranging from 20 to 1000s of people fish for information, make vague assertions like older male or pointing to chest as what they see but I postulate it is because there are so many overlapping communications being received that they are confused until which time the signal they get or whatever it is they get becomes clear for the targeted sitter. I do not think that performances in front of audiences is a valid way to validate or invalidate ADC; it is merely a means to offer the service to larger numbers by a sort of random lottery, make money and garner P.R. I never disagreed with the disclaimer issue it is entertainment. It always has been. It has no scientific value whatsoever and I do not know why we even continue to bother to discuss it save for the fact, besides personal experiences some of us may've had, it is the only exposure anyone has to this process.

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho: The tests have to be binary, yes/no, black/white, hit/no hit. If mediums are unwilling to do this, and if experimenters are unwilling to do this, none of them can expect anybody to believe the results of their laboratory "tests".

Grenard: There are many examples of highly specific, dead-on (excuse the reference) hits that come up without equivocation or debate.
I have given some examples elsewhere as have others. On the issue of retro-fitting, I agree that trying to make something fit or strecthing or reaching is invalid. On the other hand there are highly specific details which are not known to the sitter in the lab or at the time of the sitting which are validated after consultation with others or personal reference checking.


Pyrrho: That sort of post-sitting validation is obviously subjective and could not apply to a laboratory test. Sorry, but that's giving the medium the benefit of the doubt where none is justified.


Grenard: I did not know my childhood dog's brother's name given to me by a medium. I had to validate it afterwards. This was in the context of a highly specific piece of information that meant nothing to me at the time the medium gave it. The day after I was advised that a dog that looked like my dog Pinky (which was named and described) was present and it was Buster. I knew no dog named Buster. Clearly incorrect. The next day I asked my mother if she knew who Buster was. I didn't tell her anything else or about the reading. She is 82 but pretty sharp. She responded w/o hesitation "Oh, that was Pinky's brother's name." Unequivocal. No stretching, no making it fit. A simple validated fact I have no reason to doubt.

Pyrrho: A simple validated fact that is completely anecdotal. I don't want to delve into the problems of anecdotal evidence, but it just doesn't qualify as scientific evidence. It's satisfactory to you, but explains and means nothing more.

Grenard: So there are no rules, just a perception of handed down lore. Thank you. Nothing official.

Pyrrho: Nothing official that the community of mediums cares to admit. ;) Clearly some sort of schooling goes on -- mediums have clearly stated that they were taught by other mediums. The typical claim is that the medium discovered their "gifts" in childhood, and underwent profound insights upon meeting certain other mediums who were already practicing the craft.

Grenard: Insofar as I am concerned, the only rule is that to be valid, everything a medium gets must be 100% accurate and specific, whether validated at the time or afterwards; that the information be given without the benefit of feedback at the time, even including yes/no responses (trance mediums do no ask questions and do not elicit responses) and that the sitter and medium are mutually anonymous to each other to eliminate prior research or hot reading. Warm reading can be eliminated in one on ones by using separate rooms or screening that prevents the medium from seeing body language. This is also eliminated using IRC and telephones.

Pyrrho: I wouldn't even have the sitter and the medium in the same building. The experimenter's team should be separated; member of the team interacting with the medium should have no interaction at all with the sitters, nor should the sitter's team have interaction with the medium. Neither team should know that a medium or sitter is even present at the time of the reading.

I would eliminate post-sitting validations. Only those readings validated at the time of the sitting should qualify. I see no reason why the dead person could not provide answers that can be validated immediately. This is why I suggested that a restricted pool of information be used, instead of allowing "hits" on details not included in that pool, to be "validated" later.

IRC is not a valid communication method. Information about the sitter's locale can be deduced from IP addresses. Telephones don't make sense. If the sitter gives no feedback, the sitting should be able to be held at a specific time, the medium issues their reading, and the results examined, without need for real-world physical connection via telephone. Surely the dead are not restricted by real-world physics...

Grenard: This leaves guessing for the medium. While the sitters know the so-called guesses are accurate, scientists studying this need to calculate the probabilities for such guessing and the probabilities that a constellation of valid guesses are all accurate. If you want to use guessing as an hypohesis for a fraudulent reading this needs to go beyond simple binary facts. Otherwise if you rate with yes/no, then you cannot advance guessing as an hypothesis.

Pyrrho: I haven't advanced guessing as an hypothesis. The test is to determine if a medium can receive communication from the dead. It's a yes or no question. If yes, the dead should be able to provide answers to binary questions. The need to calculate probabilities should be eliminated, in order to avoid any chance of statistical error or bias by the experimenter. With probabilities, statistics, etc, the potential exists for the medium to miss completely most of the time, but to score very high in terms of probability, given what the experimenter might conclude is a statistically significant "hit".

Grenard: I do not know why mediums performing in front of groups ranging from 20 to 1000s of people fish for information, make vague assertions like older male or pointing to chest as what they see but I postulate it is because there are so many overlapping communications being received that they are confused until which time the signal they get or whatever it is they get becomes clear for the targeted sitter. I do not think that performances in front of audiences is a valid way to validate or invalidate ADC; it is merely a means to offer the service to larger numbers by a sort of random lottery, make money and garner P.R. I never disagreed with the disclaimer issue it is entertainment. It always has been. It has no scientific value whatsoever and I do not know why we even continue to bother to discuss it save for the fact, besides personal experiences some of us may've had, it is the only exposure anyone has to this process.

Pyrrho: I included references to "Pointing at his chest," as an example of vague readings that should not be permitted in a laboratory setting. Performances are performances. When it comes down to testing the real deal, ambiguity cannot be allowed.

[SteveGrenard]

P: The tests have to be binary, yes/no, black/white, hit/no hit. If mediums are unwilling to do this, and if experimenters are unwilling to do this, none of them can expect anybody to believe the results of their laboratory "tests".

Reply: If you do not hypothesize or advance any other type of sensory leakage after all opportunities for cold, warm and hot reading have been eliminated, e.g. guessing, then I agree. The information is either right or wrong, yes or no. This is on a one on one under lab conditions. Hyman has been fond of saying he could find nothing wrong with studies he has looked at but qualifies that with vague statements of his own saying he knows there is a flaw or a problem somewhere but just doesn't know what it is. Hymanesque remarks like this need to be discarded as well if we accept this protocol. Its not good enough for him to say the results were valid but there is some sensory leakge or other flaws or factors which must be in play: he has to name them.


Pyrrho: That sort of post-sitting validation is obviously subjective and could not apply to a laboratory test. Sorry, but that's giving the medium the benefit of the doubt where none is justified.

Reply: Not if the follow-up information is unequivocal. It too is either right or wrong. There is no reason to expect communicators to give only information known to the sitter. If you have a dialogue with me or anyone, do you expect everything I say to you to be something you already know? Do we not learn from such dialogues about new information we did not have before? Whether this is permissible under lab protocols is another matter. If it is to be discarded then the information cannot count as a miss either. Its like saying just because Pyrrho didn't know it beforehand, anything I say to him is incorrect. You know this is fallacious.


P: A simple validated fact that is completely anecdotal. I don't want to delve into the problems of anecdotal evidence, but it just doesn't qualify as scientific evidence. It's satisfactory to you, but explains and means nothing more.

Reply: I never said it wasn't anecdotal. It was in fact highy anecdotal. It was given as an example which could also occur under controlled conditions where it would not be anecdotal.


P: Nothing official that the community of mediums cares to admit. Clearly some sort of schooling goes on -- mediums have clearly stated that they were taught by other mediums. The typical claim is that the medium discovered their "gifts" in childhood, and underwent profound insights upon meeting certain other mediums who were already practicing the craft.

Reply: Oh surfe. And there are hundreds, maybe thousands of books to self-educate on these matters. But no formal body of rules. I have read a bit on this myself and find many conflicting arguments or statements.


P: I wouldn't even have the sitter and the medium in the same building. The experimenter's team should be separated; member of the team interacting with the medium should have no interaction at all with the sitters, nor should the sitter's team have interaction with the medium. Neither team should know that a medium or sitter is even present at the time of the reading.

R: Agreed except I still do not know what medium's claima s being necessary for a reading. If it is merely intent then it needs to be added to the above formula.

P: I would eliminate post-sitting validations. Only those readings validated at the time of the sitting should qualify. I see no reason why the dead person could not provide answers that can be validated immediately. This is why I suggested that a restricted pool of information be used, instead of allowing "hits" on details not included in that pool, to be "validated" later.

Reply: If you disallow post sitting validation, you need to discard the informatin completely and not count it as a NO. As a matter of interest it could be counted as a DONT KNOW. Just assessing follow-up information can be a separate study by itself. It was for Arthur Berger's research. A restricted pool would eliminate hits that occur if an item is not on the list. If you do this, you must not count them as NOs whether they are incorrect or not.

P" IRC is not a valid communication method. Information about the sitter's locale can be deduced from IP addresses. Telephones don't make sense. If the sitter gives no feedback, the sitting should be able to be held at a specific time, the medium issues their reading, and the results examined, without need for real-world physical connection via telephone. Surely the dead are not restricted by real-world physics...

Reply: IRC is valid if the sitter and medium are sitting at PCs and internet connections which are not registered to them. Those of multi-center investigators come to mind. Sitter can be in a lab at Univ A and medium at Univ B. Randi suggested a silent telephone protocol for Sylvia Browne.

I do not know what kind of connection a medium needs for a sitter in order to make it work. It is not logical that mere intent and reading anyone, anywhere in the world could work which is what you are suggesting. I dont know the answer to this. In setting up an interface, if there is one, you need to be mindful of the medium's claims and not move the goalposts beyond those claims.


P: I haven't advanced guessing as an hypothesis. The test is to determine if a medium can receive communication from the dead. It's a yes or no question. If yes, the dead should be able to provide answers to binary questions. The need to calculate probabilities should be eliminated, in order to avoid any chance of statistical error or bias by the experimenter. With probabilities, statistics, etc, the potential exists for the medium to miss completely most of the time, but to score very high in terms of probability, given what the experimenter might conclude is a statistically significant "hit".

Reply: I have seen communicators answer very few questions; nor have I seen them take true or false tests administered through the agency of a medium. This demand may exceed the realities of their claims. I have seen skeptics advance the guessing hypothesis when they could not explain a reading based on cold reading & generalities, warm or hot reading. I did not suggest adding up the probabilities except where they occur as a constellation of yeses. I suggest probability calculation to validate or invalidate this hypothesis which always comes up. You should first and foremost base the assesment on the individual pieces of information and whether they are true or false. Guesing the name of my dead dog's brother which dates back to the 60s is not possible to guess. The odds are astronomical. Okay, it is anecdotal but we have seen similar validations under controlled conditions.

P: I included references to "Pointing at his chest," as an example of vague readings that should not be permitted in a laboratory setting. Performances are performances. When it comes down to testing the real deal, ambiguity cannot be allowed.


Reply: Good, so you point to examples also as I did above. I am glad to see we both feel we can advance examples without being discredited for doing so. I agree that vague symptomatology involving medical problems or cause of death are not valid. However, are they wrong? Sure pointing to the chest can be heart, lungs, lung cancer, COPD, chest trauma, pneumonia, asthma, overdose, geez, a host of things. Much too vague. One could not make a diagnosis on this but if it was, say, chest trauma or pneumonia, can one say it is wrong? So if you want to eliminate vagueries, do so but then dont count them as misses. You can't blame the communicator for not saying he died of metastatic adenocarcinoma affecting the right lower lobe and bronchus.

[thaiboxerken]

So, how many shovels would it take to get rid of all the BS Stevie spouts out?

It's just amazing how much garbage comes from paranormal apologists.

[Loki]

Steve,

The medium gets older male deceased. There is only one and that's father. There is no older brother, older male friend and
grandpa is still alive. Whats the tally? Very simple.
In JE speak "older male 'above'" means father, grandfather, uncle, or 'father-figure'. So "older male 'above'" is short hand - lets put it into 'long hand' :

"The Medium gets father, grandfather, uncle or 'father-figure' deceased."

There are three possible situations for any sitter given that above statement by a medium :

A. There is no dead father/uncle/grandfather/proxy
B. There is exactly one dead father/uncle/grandfather/proxy
C. There is more than 1 dead.

It appears that this all means :
"A" is a miss.
"B" is a hit.
"C" is what?

Lets not leave out the fact that "father figure' is a subjective call anyway. Could be a teacher they were close to? A sports coach that has guided them to success? A priest that was there for them in a time of stress? An older brother that 'took on the role' for a father in prison?

(Edited to add) Oops - side tracked myself with the "father figure" paragraph! I meant to add that I agree with Starrman. If we further expand the statement into it's full meaning we get :

"The Medium gets father deceased, or grandfather deceased, or uncle deceased, or 'father-figure' deceased."

So really "A" is 4 misses, "B" is 1 hit and 3 misses, and "C" is what?

And this is simple? Sorry Steve - seems to me that unless the medium specifically indicates the relationship (ie, father deceased) then the implied other guesses (uncle, etc) *must* count as misses - otherwise they're just "free hits" waiting to be collected.

[SteveGrenard]

Again, I have to interject here that preoccupation with JE and so-called platform mediumship is non-scientific and meaningless.

Is JE cold reading to establish identities? Yes. If you can get past this, what is he doing when he gets highly specific information from the communicator he has identified for a particular person in an audience of two hundred or, in seminars, several thousand?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Again, I have to interject here that preoccupation with JE and so-called platform mediumship is non-scientific and meaningless.

Is JE cold reading to establish identities? Yes. If you can get past this, what is he doing when he gets highly specific information from the communicator he has identified for a particular person in an audience of two hundred or, in seminars, several thousand?

But he doesn't. He never goes up to a specific person and says "Hey, Gramps Dudley from Nottingham, UK says that the will is in the 3rd drawer".

Give just one example of "highly specific information" that JE has ever come up with, without homing in on the sitter.

Just one.

[SteveGrenard]

CFL: Give just one example of "highly specific information" that JE has ever come up with, without homing in on the sitter.


Can you expand on "homing in on a sitter please?" I am at a loss to understand how one can give specific information for a specific person without homing in on them. Are you suggesting he should say Gramps from Long Island is here and is saying where he hid his will to the entire audience? Isn't this trolling? Net casting?
In large groups you will find people with similar family histories, deceased relatives with the same names and so on.


The problem with this is venue. With hundreds and even, at seminars 1000s in attendance, such information is likely to produce multiple persons to claim the information. If he gets the name, location and relationship, I know I saw people in the audience of the taping I was at speak up. I am not sure I have ever seen this phase of a reading on air which is why, once again, using the tube to study mediumship and concentrating on a single person (e.g. JE) is not a scientifically valid way to prove anything and this is by your own definition of "evidence." In fact you claim the show is edited to make him look good. Although the performance he gave which I witnessed in person seemed no better or no worse than what I have seen televised, if this is true, there is no possible way you can scientifically deduce the validity or non-validity of the process by studying JE in this venue. In the research paper thread we are about done because of the hidden flaws argument. There is simply no way to scientifically or logically respond to the possible or suggested presence of hidden flaws or the use of editing, which is tantamount to a "hidden flaw."

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Does JE ever walk up to a sitter and start with "highly specific information"?

Or does he ask general questions first, and then, when a sitter bites, starts working his way to "highly specific information"?

The latter? Then why is he not cold reading? First, you say that JE can get "highly specific information" in a huge crowd, then you start explaining that the information can fit many people.

Can you please make up your mind??

(I thought you had me on ignore?? :D)

[SteveGrenard]

L: Does JE ever walk up to a sitter and start with "highly specific information"?

I granted he was cold reading or asking questions to determine identity of the communicator. Did you miss that?

L: Or does he ask general questions first, and then, when a sitter bites, starts working his way to "highly specific information"?

Exactly. See above.

C: The latter? Then why is he not cold reading? First, you say that JE can get "highly specific information" in a huge crowd, then you start explaining that the information can fit many people.

Same answer. You brought up the fact that he does not get highly specific information unless homing in on someone. You didn't expand on this unless this was it. I question how one can get highly specific info for a large crfowd......and if he does throw out highly specific information it was the same as casting a net or trolling.


C: Can you please make up your mind??

My response is self explanatory. I don't understand this.

You are on ignore for posts containing irrelevant ad hominems and baseless accusations.

[Loki]

SteveGrenard,

In the research paper thread we are about done because of the hidden flaws argument. There is simply no way to scientifically or logically respond to the possible or suggested presence of hidden flaws ...
You are wrong about this IMO. The "hidden flaws" argument is similar in nature to the "hidden variables" in QM debates. There *is* a scientific way forward - you design new experiments that examine specific aspects of the phenomenon being inverstigated, and try to build an overall picture that shows "hidden flaws/variables" is an unsustainable argument. The *only* reason this cannot be done with mediumship is because the mediums will not allow it. They will only participate in experiments that they believe they can pass.

Why not have JE read 10 people consecutively, but make it a 'silent' reading - he simply writes down the 'images' the spirits send him ('older male', 'white feather', 'cutting down tree'). Then shuffle the 10 readings and have each sitter identify the one they feel is "for them".

Why not have JE do 10 readings (sight unseen - over a phone line, for instance) yet have only 5 sitters - each is read twice, in a random order. Have JE identify whether this is the 'first' or 'second' reading for each sitter. And/or again show all readings to the sitters and have them pick the two that are for them.

The scientific answer to "hidden flaws" is more methodologies, relating to the same phenomena, but varying the protocol. Constant solid results eliminates the argument.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
My response is self explanatory. I don't understand this.

So, you are saying that JE never talks to dead people?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You are on ignore for posts containing irrelevant ad hominems and baseless accusations.

So, you scan the posts to see if they contain "irrelevant ad hominems and baseless accusations", is that it? :rolleyes:

[SteveGrenard]

LOKI: You are wrong about this IMO. The "hidden flaws" argument is similar in nature to the "hidden variables" in QM debates. There *is* a scientific way forward - you design new experiments that examine specific aspects of the phenomenon being inverstigated, and try to build an overall picture that shows "hidden flaws/variables" is an unsustainable argument. The *only* reason this cannot be done with mediumship is because the mediums will not allow it. They will only participate in experiments that they believe they can pass.

Reply: Mediumship was not under discussion in the research paper thread, telepathy/esp was using ganzfeld techniques.
I don't know who you are taking to but I did not sign on to this thread to design a new experiment. You are going pretty far afield here and changing Mark Tidwell's original objective which was to nominate a paper. We did. Dicussion has ended or is at an impasse because of the Hyman argument. Thread over.


LOKI: Why not have JE read 10 people consecutively, but make it a 'silent' reading - he simply writes down the 'images' the spirits send him ('older male', 'white feather', 'cutting down tree'). Then shuffle the 10 readings and have each sitter identify the one they feel is "for them".

Reply: LOL. Why not write him and suggest it? If you're talking to me, please be informed I have nothing whatsoever to do with him or testing him.

LOKI: Why not have JE do 10 readings (sight unseen - over a phone line, for instance) yet have only 5 sitters - each is read twice, in a random order. Have JE identify whether this is the 'first' or 'second' reading for each sitter. And/or again show all readings to the sitters and have them pick the two that are for them.

Reply: Go ahead and suggest it to JE.


LOKI: The scientific answer to "hidden flaws" is more methodologies, relating to the same phenomena, but varying the protocol. Constant solid results eliminates the argument.

Reply: I see you are not familiar with Hyman's Razor. As there have been 42 ganzfeld studies and 1000s of trials already including minor variations in protocol, tightening up of controls including the 2000 paper done by Parker of 5 studies which was nominated for discussion and still refuted on the basis of hidden flaws, what exactly is the point? There is none. There is not now and there never will be a honest dialogue between Hymanists and researchers. Hymans Razor cannot be scientifically refuted because of its nature. He knows it. I know it and the peope who invoke it know it.

Loki .. for more information on Hyman's philosophy, check out:

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

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I see you are not familiar with Hyman's Razor.

Neither is Google.

So you can stop pretending you have superior knowledge, Steve.

[Loki]

SteveGrenard,

Why not write him and suggest it? If you're talking to me, please be informed I have nothing whatsoever to do with him or testing him.
Gee Steve...what a surprise! You have no opinion on why JE (or any other medium) won't sit such tests. I wasn't inferring *you* should/could conduct such test - I thought it fairly obvious that I was asking for your opinion (since we are on an internet forum exchanging opinions). Let me be more clear then...why do *you*, personally, in your opinion only, feel that such tests have not been done? Why do mediums not arrange such tests themselves? What, in your opinion, does it suggest (not prove, but suggest) that when tests are conducted such simple protocols are overlooked in favour of protocols that supply much greater "flexibility" to the medium?

As there have been 42 ganzfeld studies and 1000s of trials already including minor variations in protocol, tightening up of controls including the 2000 paper done by Parker of 5 studies which was nominated for discussion and still refuted on the basis of hidden flaws, what exactly is the point?
This belongs on the other thread I woud think. But since we're here...what would be the point, you ask? How about you answer this one simple question, Steve. If you and I were to set up an AutoGanzfeld experiment tomorrow, using a readily available protocol, and using recievers who had previously scored well, would you *guarantee* an above chance result? Would you bet your house on getting better than 25%? If the answer is *no*, then in what way can *you* say there cannot be "hidden flaws"?

[SteveGrenard]

LOKI: Gee Steve...what a surprise! You have no opinion on why JE (or any other medium) won't sit such tests. I wasn't inferring *you* should/could conduct such test - I thought it fairly obvious that I was asking for your opinion (since we are on an internet forum exchanging opinions). Let me be more clear then...why do *you*, personally, in your opinion only, feel that such tests have not been done? Why do mediums not arrange such tests themselves? What, in your opinion, does it suggest (not prove, but suggest) that when tests are conducted such simple protocols are overlooked in favour of protocols that supply much greater "flexibility" to the medium?

Reply: There are many mediums interested in participating in research. Insofar as I am aware JE was never one of them and he was cajoled even into doing the HBO experiments. His attitude toward critics and skeptics is well known. This is why I feel such further testing of JE, per se, as an individual, has not been done. Some people don't mind being lab rats, apparently he does. I will not infer from the absence of any willinness or solicitation on his part to engage in further resarch as a sign of anything. Unlike Hyman, I do not believe that the absence of evidence is evidence..........to borrow a phrase from the cynics. For myself it is the process that is important, not whether some platform medium with a TV show is the real deal or not. I appreciate that there are others here who believe this is important. I am not one of them.
Never was. I am interested, however, in truthful representations concerning him or anyone.

The research selected for evidence of the paranormal on that other thread were ganzfeld studies involving esp and telepathy, something upon which mediumship is based or theoretically based. The argument between the parapsychologists and those who espouse survival is whether the informatgion obtained by mediums is obtained from telepathy with the living or physically extant objects anywhere in the world, universe even I guess or
if they are really getting that information from the surviving consciousness of people who have died. As the evidence for telepathy and esp mounts it is predicted that the field will polarize (if it hasn't done so already) into those espousing ESP or super ESP/PSI and those espousing survival and those espousing the probability of both being possible.


LOKI: This belongs on the other thread I woud think. But since we're here...what would be the point, you ask? How about you answer this one simple question, Steve. If you and I were to set up an AutoGanzfeld experiment tomorrow, using a readily available protocol, and using recievers who had previously scored well, would you *guarantee* an above chance result? Would you bet your house on getting better than 25%? If the answer is *no*, then in what way can *you* say there cannot be "hidden flaws"?

Reply: I did not say there were not hidden flaws. I said if there were flaws, and they were hidden, then it is impossible to validate or refute any ganzfeld study. So no, I would not bet my house on that. LOL. I was not the person who accepted the task of examining the data, Hyman was. If anyone should be betting, it should be him. If Hyman accepts the task of assesing such studies then I think we have the right for him to be more than rhetorically vague. I would like to know what those flaws are that remained after every conceivable source of sensory leakage was plugged. I would like to know that if "it must not be psi" then what is it........? If Hyman, after examining and auditing the raw data doesn't know, how do you expect us data impoverished debaters to know? That's the point. There is no point, it is a useless exercise.

[thaiboxerken]

Hyman's Razor? Is that where you can absolutely assume conclusions even though the evidence doesn't support it?

[voidx]

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

If Sylvia passed the Challenge Randi’s designed for her, people could say it was lucky guesswork. Its very poorly designed and no scientific journal would consider it worth anything as far as establishing the existence of mediumship.
I answered this question for you in the Michael Shermer thread. It would prove that she was not merely cold-reading. After checking the protocol to rule out flaws as previously mentioned, we would have to acknowledge that she was not using cold-reading techniques to gain her hits as we suspect, and therefore would have to begin evaluating just how she was able to get her hits. It is not meant to be proof of mediumship, but it would be a strong start in making those of us who are skeptical of it, start to reconsider our view of these peoples "talents".

Actually, he’s said it doesn’t matter whether its radio, television, remote or in person.
Remote. So bad phone connections on LKL are dismissed then agreed? Or wait. Can he pick and choose for specific readings and sitters whether or not radio,television,remote or in person is better for that specific instance? I say no, he can't pick.

Posted by Neo:
There have been obvious sound/technical problems from time to time on LKL, including a person calling in while a train was passing by, and poor telephone connections, as well as the caller being disconnected too quickly to validate something that John said............neo
Is it safe to say then that you 2 disagree on this point?

Well, is he the best cold reader? Or is he a mediocre cold reader? I wish critics would make up their minds!
We can't because his performance varies! You say at seminars he's fantastic, come critics say that on CO his performances are better than on LKL. I say his LKL performances are decidedly poor and on par with cold-reading. I'd say he's an average cold-reader, who can be made to look better when he has more control over his own environment. Which incidentantly you have him saying doesn't matter. Radio, TV, in person, it doesn't matter says JE. When we ask why he does poorly on LKL its because of bad phones, or getting cut off (maybe a valid reason for 1 or 2 readings, but not the majority, and Renanta's transcripts don't carry this through) or the hurried pace of LKL. But then you quote later that JE says these things don't matter, they shouldn't affect his performance. And yet his performance is still poor, and he makes no excuse for it! He doesn't even attempt, he just passes off the invalidated by user, go home and think on it excuse and carries on. You have to acknowledge this, I don't see how you could not.

The seperate debate going on in here concerning psi and telepathy is where people really wanting to prove mediumship should concentrate. I think, especially in the course of this thread and others, that JE just cannot be differianted enough from cold-reading, lucky guesswork, potential editing to make hits look more impressive, to be seen as a real medium. I haven't been shown a transcript of a special hit that couldn't be more logically explained by one of these three phenomenon. Why jump to ADC? I remain unconvinced.

On a side note, either Loki or Claus, can't remember which sorry, came up with an excellent example. Has JE or any other medium passed off specific personal information to a person without saying anything else to them. Eg. "You there, no, don't say a word. You're uncle Jesse from Edmonton says not to worry about the cut on your ass you got in grade 3." No cold-reading to home in on sitter details and information, no asking of questions, or validations of guesses tossed out. Plain and simple, you there, I know its you, here's your message. Has this ever happened? If he's speaking to the dead I cannot see how it couldn't have, at least once. But nope, every single reading must be validated by the reader, which is the achilles heel of this entire charade. Unless someone can convince me otherwise.

[SteveGrenard]

T: Hyman's Razor? Is that where you can absolutely assume conclusions even though the evidence doesn't support it?

You fell asleep in class. Hyman's Razor states that for anything paranormal that is statistically, mathematically and scientifically proven there must be a flaw to account for it, but we (he) don't know what it is. Or another way: the simplest explanation for any study that proves a paranormal phenomenon statistically, mathematically and scientifically is that the study is flawedbut "he still don't know"what that flaw is.

off topic:

Is it true that you can kill someone with a single toe using thai boxing?

[voidx]

Is it true that you can kill someone with a single toe using thai boxing?
You can kill someone with a pool noodle if one were so inclined to put in the effort. But as to their being a mystical "place thai boxing toe here to incur instant death" the answer is no. Not that someone couldn't be kicked to death by a toe, but there's no way it would be intentional.

[thaiboxerken]

T: Hyman's Razor? Is that where you can absolutely assume conclusions even though the evidence doesn't support it?

You fell asleep in class. Hyman's Razor states that for anything paranormal that is statistically, mathematically and scientifically proven there must be a flaw to account for it, but we (he) don't know what it is. Or another way: the simplest explanation for any study that proves a paranormal phenomenon statistically, mathematically and scientifically is that the study is flawedbut "he still don't know"what that flaw is.

Ahh..Hyman's strawman is more like it. This must be something that you quacks use to try and discredit skeptics and science.


Is it true that you can kill someone with a single toe using thai boxing?

We don't use our toes as weapons.

[SteveGrenard]

T: We don't use our toes as weapons.


__________________


You don't know how to read a question. It wasn't asked if you use your toes as weapons, it was asked if it was possible to kill someone with a single toe using thai boxing. A simple yes or no would suffice or I will find out elsewhere. Thanks.

Hyman's Razor is based on what Hyman says so it is hardly made of straw. If you have read his conclusions on a number of studies involving the paranormal you would know this.

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Hyman's Razor is based on what Hyman says so it is hardly made of straw. If you have read his conclusions on a number of studies involving the paranormal you would know this.

I've read his conclusions and I don't ever remember seeing this. I recall that, concerning Ganzfeld, Hyman stated that the statistical significance did not necessarily mean that the cause was due to paranormal phenomena. He did suggest some possible contributing flaws, but admitted clearly that there was no evidence of such flaws. Can you provide a link where he makes the claim you describe?

[Dogwood]

el bumpo

[SteveGrenard]

M: He did suggest some possible contributing flaws, but admitted clearly that there was no evidence of such flaws.

Reply: Exactly. He suggests flaws but says there is no evidence for them. He also has suggested flaws but says he doesn't know what they are; he did this in the Utts/Hyman CIA debate.


M: Can you provide a link where he makes the claim you describe.

Reply: Not precisely. He makes these kinds of statements all the time when evaluating experiments such as the CIA/AIR/SAIC/SRI studies and the ganzfeld work. I guess you are familiar with them because you just sorta paraphrased him on this above. I am not sure this is a claim so much as it is an "opinion." I myself never used the word claim nor did I imbue it in Hyman.

Hyman's Razor aka Skeptic's Razor is not a term Hyman devised. It was devised to describe the above outlook by others reading his wishy washy escape clauses and fall back position when he can't find anything wrong. Hyman is not alone in this but is probably best known for it.

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Reply: Exactly. He suggests flaws but says there is no evidence for them. He also has suggested flaws but says he doesn't know what they are; he did this in the Utts/Hyman CIA debate.

Offering possible answers is part of what a critic does. In the Utts/Hyman debate, he also suggested that paranormal phenomena might account for the statistical results. Unlike Utts however, he did not conclude that the explanation was necessarily a paranormal one.


He makes these kinds of statements all the time when evaluating experiments such as the CIA/AIR/SAIC/SRI studies and the ganzfeld work. I guess you are familiar with them because you just sorta paraphrased him on this above. I am not sure this is a claim so much as it is an "opinion." I myself never used the word claim nor did I imbue it in Hyman.

Hyman's Razor aka Skeptic's Razor is not a term Hyman devised. It was devised to describe the above outlook by others reading his wishy washy escape clauses and fall back position when he can't find anything wrong. Hyman is not alone in this but is probably best known for it.


No you didn't use the word "claim". You did state the following (emphasis mine).

"Hyman's Razor states that for anything paranormal that is statistically, mathematically and scientifically proven there must be a flaw to account for it, but we (he) don't know what it is. Or another way: the simplest explanation for any study that proves a paranormal phenomenon statistically, mathematically and scientifically is that the study is flawed but "he still don't know"what that flaw is."

I have never observed Hyman to state that positive results must be due to flaws. When you so devise a phrase, you do imbue the person you are talking about. You are putting words in his mouth. Hyman, to my knowledge, has never expressed such a sentiment. Can you provide a reference to the contrary?

Regarding "wishy washy escape clauses", I've always found his criticisms to be highly specific, as they were with Ganzfeld and with Schwartz.

[SteveGrenard]

NOTICE: This is getting so far off the subject of this thread, I have copied the following to a new thread. sg





OK Mark, here are some nuggets written by Hyman which have been preserved at:

http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html

This “rare” document was on the University of Oregon server but mysteriously disappeared but not before others preserved it and Joe McMoneagle decided to continue making it available.

You (Mark) state it was Hyman’s job as a “critic.” I did not know critic was in his Job description. He was hired to evaluate the data, not play a rhetorical critic but I agree it is important to call a spade a spade: he was nothing more than a critic, given the level and nature of his rhetoric.

There are not , to my knowledge any scientific experiments or series of experiments in which the world of all possible unknown flaws result in their invalidation and if science had questioned every finding, statistically significant result or substantive conclusion by saying something must be wrong with it but we don’t know what it is but here are some suggestions but I can’t prove them and I have no evidence for their existence. So we waited to to find out if these unknown, unproven and impossible to prove non-existent flaws were valid, then we wouldn’t be where we are today. Think of the defense making this argument to impeach DNA evidence in a murder or rape trial or the prosecution doing likewise when the evidence exonerates a defendant. Hyman should be on every capital murder defense team. Can you say “O-J”?

It’s remarks like these which resulted in the satirical creation of the skeptic razor being named in Hyman’s honor. As a skeptic, I understand your desire to paint these kinds of comments by Hyman with a broad brush to minimize their absolute
silliness but they must be taken at face value.

Perhaps some others would care to take a crack at the following quotes after reading them in CONTEXT the above URL.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“Because my report will emphasize points of disagreement between Professor Utts and me, I want to state that we agree on many other points. We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.”


“Obviously I do not agree that all possibilities for alternative explanations of the non-chance results have been eliminated. The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.”



“So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance." Parapsychologists, of course, realize that the truth of this claim does not constitute proof of anomalous cognition. Numerous factors can produce significant statistical results. Operationally, the presence of anomalous cognition is detected by the elimination of all other possibilities. This reliance on a negative definition of its central phenomenon is another liability that parapsychology brings with its attempt to become a recognized science. Essentially, anomalous cognition is claimed to be present whenever statistically significant departures from the null hypothesis are observed under conditions that preclude the operation of all mundane causes of these departures. As Boring once observed, every success in parapsychological research is a failure. By this he meant that when the investigator or the critics succeed in finding a scientifically acceptable explanation for the significant effect the claim for ESP or anomalous cognition has failed.”


“However, I am willing to assume that the effect sizes represent true effects beyond inadequacies in the underlying model. Statistical effects, by themselves, do not justify claiming that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated--or, for that matter, that an anomaly of any kind has occurred.”

[Lurker]

Originally posted by voidx


We can't because his performance varies! You say at seminars he's fantastic, come critics say that on CO his performances are better than on LKL. I say his LKL performances are decidedly poor and on par with cold-reading.



At the seminar I attended JE's performance was certainly not fantastic but it was ok. Transcript at TVTALK.

Lurker

[Darat]

Originally posted by Lurker


At the seminar I attended JE's performance was certainly not fantastic but it was ok. Transcript at TVTALK.

Lurker

Oh I would disagree I find all of JE's shows fantastic... :D

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
NOTICE: This is getting so far off the subject of this thread, I have copied the following to a new thread. sg

<snip>



Replied to in new thread. Good idea, Steve.

[DeistKillerofSmurfs]

I seem to remember that once John asserted that someone had known someone who owned a pet rabbit and was killed by a sharp blow to the head. Turns out they knew someone who was a magician who was killed when someone whacked him with a pipe or similar object. The exact dialogue has slipped my mind, so maybe it was just more of his usual hunting and pecking. If not, I should remind you that some people say he has spies and hidden mikes in his audience....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You fell asleep in class. Hyman's Razor states that for anything paranormal that is statistically, mathematically and scientifically proven there must be a flaw to account for it, but we (he) don't know what it is. Or another way: the simplest explanation for any study that proves a paranormal phenomenon statistically, mathematically and scientifically is that the study is flawedbut "he still don't know"what that flaw is.

Perhaps you could give a reference for this "Hyman's Razor", Steve? Where is that term used?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Not precisely. He makes these kinds of statements all the time when evaluating experiments such as the CIA/AIR/SAIC/SRI studies and the ganzfeld work. I guess you are familiar with them because you just sorta paraphrased him on this above. I am not sure this is a claim so much as it is an "opinion." I myself never used the word claim nor did I imbue it in Hyman.

So, this is something you invented?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hyman's Razor aka Skeptic's Razor is not a term Hyman devised. It was devised to describe the above outlook by others reading his wishy washy escape clauses and fall back position when he can't find anything wrong. Hyman is not alone in this but is probably best known for it.

Who devised it, Steve?

[renata]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clancie
I can understand that, Brown and Mr. Skinny. Likewise, I’m sure you can understand why it surprised me, as I’ve never known any woman who cut down a tree (or JE ever addressing this possibility to someone before).

And given the woman's apparent age and frailty, it seemed an odd direction to guess.

**Here’s a thought. If its so common, why doesn’t he use it more often? Why the one time he uses it, does it “fit”? (Okay, that’s rhetorical. I already know 10 of you are yelling, “EDITING”, lol)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, well. I was just continuing with analysis of another LKL reading, when I stumbled onto this


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "Crossing Over With John Edward")
EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God, the tree in the backyard.
EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, at the cemetery. We just noticed it yesterday. We went Father's Day with the kids. The tree was gone that's right by the plot, right in front. They cut it down, they said, so the sun could shine on daddy.
EDWARD: That's a nice way of covering it, because that tree was how people found him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. That's how we noticed when we drove to the mall. We used to look for the tree so we can see the plot. Oh my God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/06/lkl.00.html

I guess he does use it more often. I guess the reading you quoted is not the one time he uses it.


As this thread has beem bumped, I am reposting my comment from 7/24, on page 3 of this thread.

[Clancie]

Hi renata,

Two things. First, yes, you've found another example of JE using a tree being cut down in a reading. I remember that reading on CO and it was a good one.

So, first comment is, yes...he's mentioned cutting down a tree at least twice. Also, I think its important to note that both times we know of him mentioning it were hits.

Second comment is in the reading I started the thread with he says "You cut down a tree", and then makes it clear he's seeing her personally cutting down the tree.

Slight difference in the LKL clip. He says, "You cut down his tree?" and although I agree, this could be just a guess, the fact that its not just "A" tree this time, (and not emphasizing the woman doing it herself) but "HIS" tree, that one key part of the statement makes it not quite so generic.

In fact, this was a very significant event for the sitters, as it was the tree that had marked the father's grave at the cemetery, i.e. "HIS" tree.

So...yes, two hits for tree. But I think the sitter didn't do all the work to make the "cutting down tree" hit significant. JE had a bit different focus on each and....

...both were pretty good hits, imo. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi renata,

Two things. First, yes, you've found another example of JE using a tree being cut down in a reading. I remember that reading on CO and it was a good one.

Yet, you were so sure that JE had never used this example before. See how we cannot trust memory, Clancie - especially not yours?

Originally posted by Clancie
So, first comment is, yes...he's mentioned cutting down a tree at least twice. Also, I think its important to note that both times we know of him mentioning it were hits.

Which only emphasizes that this is a very common event, as we have seen from the feedback from people here.

Originally posted by Clancie
Second comment is in the reading I started the thread with he says "You cut down a tree", and then makes it clear he's seeing her personally cutting down the tree.

Slight difference in the LKL clip. He says, "You cut down his tree?" and although I agree, this could be just a guess, the fact that its not just "A" tree this time, (and not emphasizing the woman doing it herself) but "HIS" tree, that one key part of the statement makes it not quite so generic.

Strange how you change your stance. Now, you think that minor semantic differences are important. You would gloss this over at TVTalkshows. Do you think you could be a little bit more consistent in your evaluation of JE's hits?

Originally posted by Clancie
In fact, this was a very significant event for the sitters, as it was the tree that had marked the father's grave at the cemetery, i.e. "HIS" tree.

But, as we have learned from you, sitters do not always tell the truth. And since we have no idea when they do not tell the truth, why should we believe this one? It is important for the sitter to make this fit. JE never mentions a grave, does he? Couldn't it be a tree the dead guy had in his own garden?

Originally posted by Clancie
So...yes, two hits for tree. But I think the sitter didn't do all the work to make the "cutting down tree" hit significant. JE had a bit different focus on each and....

...both were pretty good hits, imo. :)

You know that tree-cutting is very common, yet you still consider them "pretty good hits"??

How do we know when sitters tell the truth, Clancie?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Yet, you were so sure that JE had never used this example before.
Actually, Claus, as you quoted me saying above...
I’m sure you can understand why it surprised me, as I’ve never known any woman who cut down a tree (or JE ever addressing this possibility to someone before).
If he'd said, "You cut down a tree", and she said, "It was dying. We had it removed" that would not have seemed very unique.

What interested me, as I said, was how insistent he was on "YOU" cutting down the tree, in other words, that she did it herself. I think that was clear if you read my post.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

Actually, Claus, as you quoted me saying above...

If he'd said, "You cut down a tree", and she said, "It was dying. We had it removed" that would not have seemed very unique.

What interested me, as I said, was how insistent he was on "YOU" cutting down the tree, in other words, that she did it herself. I think that was clear if you read my post.

But we have seen that it is far from unique for women to cut down trees. Je has used it at least twice. And we have seen it here, too.

Why do you ignore the rest of the points? Could you at least try to answer this one?

How do we know when sitters tell the truth?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

How do we know when sitters tell the truth?
"Know?" How do you "know" when anyone is telling the truth, unless you know the facts for yourself already? Obviously, we can't "know", we have to "evaluate". And, yes, Claus, there is subjectivity in doing this, but it is helpful that there are many sitters to observe, not only one or two.

Personally, I look at how specific JE's information was in the reading to begin with and how specific the validation of it is (whether in the reading or, more likely, in the post-analysis).

But, yes, there is subjectivity in deciding, as a spectator, if these family members are all just "making it up" when they agree with each other about dad's tree being recently cut down at the cemetery.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do we know when sitters tell the truth?
What? I doubt the sitters lie. If they do, its probably extremely minimal (such as "yeah, I had waffles for breakfast" when infact they had cereal). I wouldnt understand why the sitter would lie... I dont know, maybe as a private joke to himself.

For the most part, I'm sure the sitter is going to tell the truth.

For the most part, I'm sure the psychic is going to use their knowledge of "psychic-sitter psychology" to perform the reading.

I really dont think its the sitter who is the liar... (to make the hint more obvious I'm going to be blunt and say I believe its the psychic who is the liar...)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
"Know?" How do you "know" when anyone is telling the truth, unless you know the facts for yourself already? Obviously, we can't "know", we have to "evaluate". And, yes, Claus, there is subjectivity in doing this, but it is helpful that there are many sitters to observe, not only one or two.

Personally, I look at how specific JE's information was in the reading to begin with and how specific the validation of it is (whether in the reading or, more likely, in the post-analysis).

But, yes, there is subjectivity in deciding, as a spectator, if these family members are all just "making it up" when they agree with each other about dad's tree being recently cut down at the cemetery.

Nobody has ever claimed that "all" are just "making it up", Clancie. Please don't succumb to hyperbole or misrepresentation of the skeptic view.

So, there is "evaluation" in each case. Can you point to other cases where you have thought "Hey, this sitter is faking it!"? Has this ever influenced your opinion of JE?

How often do you think this happens? We can't know, right?

Why do you put so much trust in the sitters, then? Can you trust any sitter at all?

[CFLarsen]

Yahweh,

It's not necessary for all sitters to lie. However, we have seen from Clancie's own example, that sitters do not tell the (whole) truth. That the mere being "in the spotlight" influences their answers.

They will lie - or not tell the truth - because of at least two reasons: Stage fright (Steve Grenard witnessed such an event), and the desire to make JE look real.

The sitter is in a position where she (!) is very "open" to the idea that JE is a real medium, and will therefore do her best to fit the guesses to her own situation. JE even has to fend off people who want to "steal" a reading.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

We have seen from Clancie's own example, that sitters do not tell the (whole) truth. That the mere being "in the spotlight" influences their answers.
What exactly, from my "own example" are you referring to, Claus?
So, there is "evaluation" in each case. Can you point to other cases where you have thought "Hey, this sitter is faking it!"? Has this ever influenced your opinion of JE?
I've seen readings where I thought the sitter agreed with JE when the area of agreement seemed kind of weak just watching the reading on TV. But I feel the sitter is a better judge of whether information fits for him than I am.
Why do you put so much trust in the sitters, then? Can you trust any sitter at all?
Well, they're a better judge of whether the information really makes sense to them than a stranger is. And when there's a group being read (like the family with the tree cut at the cemetery), then it becomes more than just one person's validation of the information.

[voidx]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "Crossing Over With John Edward")EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God, the tree in the backyard.
EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, at the cemetery. We just noticed it yesterday. We went Father's Day with the kids. The tree was gone that's right by the plot, right in front. They cut it down, they said, so the sun could shine on daddy.
EDWARD: That's a nice way of covering it, because that tree was how people found him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. That's how we noticed when we drove to the mall. We used to look for the tree so we can see the plot. Oh my God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
What exactly, from my "own example" are you referring to, Claus?

Don't play innocent, Clancie:

Originally posted by Clancie
The man was obviously embarrassed by the original reading and changed some details.

You admitted that the sitter did not tell the truth.

Originally posted by Clancie
I've seen readings where I thought the sitter agreed with JE when the area of agreement seemed kind of weak just watching the reading on TV. But I feel the sitter is a better judge of whether information fits for him than I am.

And that's where you are wrong. Not from a subjective point of view, but from an objective one. We know that we cannot rely on just one person to verify anything. We need repeated, independent confirmation.

I really cannot see why you ignore this, if you claim to be a skeptic. But then again, you are not, are you?

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, they're a better judge of whether the information really makes sense to them than a stranger is. And when there's a group being read (like the family with the tree cut at the cemetery), then it becomes more than just one person's validation of the information.

Ever heard of group pressure, Clancie? Ever thought about this being a case of a group of people, wanting to make this fit? Ever heard of "psychic amnesia"?

The sitters are not the "better judge" of whether the information really makes sense to them, because - as we have seen from your own examples - they do not tell the truth. And since you have not been able to determine when they do tell the truth (and when they don't), your whole argument falls flat.

[Clancie]

Clancie: What exactly, from my "own example" are you referring to, Claus?

CFLarsen: Don't play innocent, Clancie:
Well, you're the one who made the statement, Claus. I have no idea what you're referring to. What's the big secret in making it clearer?

You admitted that the sitter (in the "milk"/"cow" reading)did not tell the truth.
Well, there's a definite discrepancy between his reading and his follow up comments months later. I think its attributable to the embarrassment he suffered after the reading aired. Perhaps you explain it as "not telling the truth" in the original sitting--or, alternatively, in the follow up. I guess if you'd seen both of them, it might be easier for you to say one way or the other.
Ever heard of group pressure, Clancie? Ever thought about this being a case of a group of people, wanting to make this fit? Ever heard of "psychic amnesia"?
Yes. However, all of that seems a little far-fetched with something as clear-cut as the cemetery recently chopping down dad's tree.
The sitters are not the "better judge" of whether the information really makes sense to them, because - as we have seen from your own examples - they do not tell the truth.
Meaning...what? :confused: The man who changed the details of the "cow" reading after the fact? The people re: cemetery? The woman who says she cut down a tree? Who are you talking about? How do we know any of them "do not tell the truth" when they say the information relates to them?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, you're the one who made the statement, Claus. I have no idea what you're referring to. What's the big secret in making it clearer?

No "big secret". You are merely trying to avoid the issue, Clancie: That the sitter cannot be trusted.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, there's a definite discrepancy between his reading and his follow up comments months later. I think its attributable to the embarrassment he suffered after the reading aired. Perhaps you explain it as "not telling the truth" in the original sitting--or, alternatively, in the follow up. I guess if you'd seen both of them, it might be easier for you to say one way or the other.

Don't be so condescending, please. Yes, there is a "discrepancy". That's why I point out that sitters cannot be trusted.

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes. However, all of that seems a little far-fetched with something as clear-cut as the cemetery recently chopping down dad's tree.

Who gave that information, JE or the sitter? If the sitter did, you got a problem, don't you? (And, please, please, don't play the fool here...you are not fooling anyone. You are smart enough to know what I am talking about)

Originally posted by Clancie
Meaning...what? :confused: The man who changed the details of the "cow" reading after the fact? The people re: cemetery? The woman who says she cut down a tree? Who are you talking about? How do we know any of them "do not tell the truth" when they say the information relates to them?

Oh, Clancie....why do you think this will work? It means that we can not trust sitters. We don't know when they tell the truth.

You may try to avoid the issue, but that changes nothing. From your own admission, we cannot trust the sitters.

What does that leave us with?

[voidx]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "Crossing Over With John Edward")EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God, the tree in the backyard.
EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, at the cemetery. We just noticed it yesterday. We went Father's Day with the kids. The tree was gone that's right by the plot, right in front. They cut it down, they said, so the sun could shine on daddy.
EDWARD: That's a nice way of covering it, because that tree was how people found him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. That's how we noticed when we drove to the mall. We used to look for the tree so we can see the plot. Oh my God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

See this is a slight case of where given a moment they'll fit the reading to their own specific case. I don't think people lie, but I think unconsciously many people go, hey close enough, and seize on a detail and validate it correctly for JE. To me this reading goes like this.

EDWARD: You cut down his tree?
FEMALE: Oh my God, the tree in the backyard. **this to me says she's talking about a tree in their own yard, which would quite easily relate to their father/grandfather**
EDWARD: You cut down his tree? **Edwards in a smart twist simply reiterates the question, making them perhaps momentarily reconsidering it, or perhaps a more relevant scenario**
FEMALE: Yes, at the cemetery. We just noticed it yesterday. We went Father's Day with the kids. The tree was gone that's right by the plot, right in front. They cut it down, they said, so the sun could shine on daddy. **this is why I wonder if this is the same female. It seems like the focus changes from a tree in their, or his backyard, to a tree in the cemetary. Or if its the same female. She thinks...oh the tree in the backyard...JE reiterates the question...she thinks to herself, oh wait, the cemetary tree and answers thusly**
EDWARD: That's a nice way of covering it, because that tree was how people found him. **this is an easy conclusion. He tosses out his tree for a dead father figure, he gets a response, plus the details that it was buy his burial plot. Of course they used it as a visual reference as to how to find him, or thought of him whenever they saw it. Basic reasoning here, but he simply states it like he knows it and so it seems more significant.**

See how it can just as easily be shown in this little tidbit of transcript that certain things aren't 100% clear, and that I can make it an unimpressive hit as easily as vice versa. This is why I think in certain respects going over and over these transcripts is pointless. I'm certain we don't have all of this one, so what's the point in evaluating it?

[neofight]

Originally posted by DeistKillerofSmurfs
I seem to remember that once John asserted that someone had known someone who owned a pet rabbit and was killed by a sharp blow to the head. Turns out they knew someone who was a magician who was killed when someone whacked him with a pipe or similar object. The exact dialogue has slipped my mind, so maybe it was just more of his usual hunting and pecking. If not, I should remind you that some people say he has spies and hidden mikes in his audience....

Hi, DeistKillerof Smurfs. lol Great name. :)

First of all, I guess I missed this particular show, but I would just like to say that this is precisely the kind of a great hit that continues to fascinate me.

For those who do not even accept the [possibility that mediumship is exactly what John says it is, with images, and symbolism that is subject to interpretation by the medium, none of this will ever make the least bit of sense.

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

He misinterpreted it to mean thatsomeone's pet rabbit died this way, when in reality the pet rabbit was a typical symbol for a magician. How many times must this sort of thing happen before it is given at least a modicum of consideration?

As far as JE's "spies", and hidden mikes, I'm sorry, but at this point, after all this time, how can you even suggest something like that with a straight face? If you were read, and the medium simply regurgitated everything you had just said within the past hour or so, how much value would YOU put on such a reading? Let's be serious here. :) .........neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

They will lie - or not tell the truth - because of at least two reasons: Stage fright (Steve Grenard witnessed such an event), and the desire to make JE look real.

To even suggest that this theory would account for anything but the tiniest percentage of sitter reactions, is really off-base, Claus. People validate the information because it is significant to them, and because it makes perfect sense. They understand it. Most of the time, they understand it immediately.

This nonsense that you are suggesting, about sitters lying, is, imo, just that. Nonsense........neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by voidx

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

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

Who knows why the sitter's initial comment mentioned the tree in the backyard. It's possible that they had just removed a tree, but when John repeated his statement, emphasizing that it was his tree, the sitters then realized that it was the tree in the cemetery that John had to be referring to, because it was directly related to their loved one.......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, there's a definite discrepancy between his reading and his follow up comments months later. I think its attributable to the embarrassment he suffered after the reading aired. Perhaps you explain it as "not telling the truth" in the original sitting--or, alternatively, in the follow up. I guess if you'd seen both of them, it might be easier for you to say one way or the other.


True, Clancie. It was very obvious that even after so many years had passed since this embarrassing childhood moment, this guy still hung his head and covered his face, etc.

If you remember, he said that he had gotten his mother to stop telling the story to everyone she met, because he was at an awkward age and he was totally humiliated by it. She did stop telling it when he was a teenager btw, but couldn't resist this one last time on "Crossing Over", and her son welcomed the reference this time because it meant something special to him.....neo

[CFLarsen]

neo,

Can you read the mind of other people? Are you such a good judge of character, that you can determine what reasons people have for answering the way they do, based on a few moments of an edited TV-show?

You can try to explain it away, but the fact remains: The sitter did not tell the truth during the reading. That you simply dismiss the possibility of this happening more often than a "tiniest percentage" of the time is staggering: You really must be a mind-reader!

We cannot trust sitters, and we don't know when they tell the truth. It's that simple, neo.

Are you willing to discuss JE's "process" in another thread? You refer to it all the time, and you seem to be very knowledgable about it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


To even suggest that this theory would account for anything but the tiniest percentage of sitter reactions, is really off-base, Claus. People validate the information because it is significant to them, and because it makes perfect sense. They understand it. Most of the time, they understand it immediately.

This nonsense that you are suggesting, about sitters lying, is, imo, just that. Nonsense........neo

Neo you may not like the word lie however as has been shown (if the excerpts shown here are correct) a sitter did make shall I say mistakes with their recollections and we are left with two accounts which do contradict each other slightly.

No matter how this is excused it is compelling evidence that sitters validations can not be taken as necessarily being 100% accurate.

Or do you disagree and state that every sitters’ recollection and validation is 100% correct and consistent across any time span.

I would also add that it is a well known phenomenon that memory is not a reliable tool here is an excerpt from a on-line police magazine dealing with eye witnesses – which is what we are doing when we look at how much credit we can take from “post-show validations”.

(Just as an aside since JEs refuses to allow recordings to be made … hmmm… of his readings then all post-show recollections have to be treated with a grain of salt since the sitters themselves don’t have anything else but memory to go on.)



http://www.polfed.org/magazine/01_2001/01_2001_eyewitness.htm

It has long been recognized that there may be value in the testimony of eye-witnesses to crime. It must, however, also be recognize that eye witnesses are not infallible. Mistakes can be made and those mistakes militate against the most rigorous justice that can be available for those who allegedly have committed offences. Identification is a tricky issue, reports



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

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

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

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

the fact remains: The sitter did not tell the truth during the reading
No, Claus. Actually that's not the "fact".

The fact, as Darat points out, is that there are two interviews with the sitter that differ on some details. To me, having seen both of them, these differences seem obviously due to the sitter's acute embarrassment after the reading aired. Having seen them both, it was apparent to me that he changed details in order to make it less embarrassing.

However, changed or not, it wasn't as if he validated something that didn't happen. In both instances, he still admitted there was an embarrassing incident for him as a child...that he was at a farm...that he started to go drink "milk" from the "cow" which his parents teased him about for years to come.

Essentially a hit? Seems so to me.

Was what JE said essentially validated both times by the sitter? Seems so to me.

As for the bigger question: is memory subjective? Yes. Should that invalidate sitters' validations? I don't see why it should.

And my question for those who think scientific testing is the only way to prove mediumship...how would you propose to get rid of the subjectivity of any validations in a scientific test?

How would you test what mediums do without using validations from the sitters?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
No, Claus. Actually that's not the "fact".

The fact, as Darat points out, is that there are two interviews with the sitter that differ on some details. To me, having seen both of them, these differences seem obviously due to the sitter's acute embarrassment after the reading aired. Having seen them both, it was apparent to me that he changed details in order to make it less embarrassing.

"Differ on some details", Clancie? It's not "details", it's what makes the hit a hit.

"Differences", Clancie? It doesn't matter why the sitter does not tell the truth during the reading. What matters is that he does not tell the truth.

"Changed details", Clancie? How far will you go to invent excuses?

Originally posted by Clancie
However, changed or not, it wasn't as if he validated something that didn't happen. In both instances, he still admitted there was an embarrassing incident for him as a child...that he was at a farm...that he started to go drink "milk" from the "cow" which his parents teased him about for years to come.

BEEP! He didn't validate something that didn't happen? It was a cow, Clancie! The sitter first said it wasn't, then said it was. How do you explain that little "detail"?

Originally posted by Clancie
Essentially a hit? Seems so to me.

Yes. What doesn't?

Originally posted by Clancie
Was what JE said essentially validated both times by the sitter? Seems so to me.

"Essentially"? Why do you gloss over this "detail", when you focus on "details" in other readings? It seems to me that you are once again highly inconsistent in the way you evaluate JE's hits.

Originally posted by Clancie
As for the bigger question: is memory subjective? Yes. Should that invalidate sitters' validations? I don't see why it should.

Huh? The sitter gives two opposite "validations", and this shouldn't invalidate his validations? What, pray tell, will invalidate a sitters validation, Clancie?

Originally posted by Clancie
And my question for those who think scientific testing is the only way to prove mediumship...how would you propose to get rid of the subjectivity of any validations in a scientific test?

How would you test what mediums do without using validations from the sitters?

Simple: Go back and check if the sitter remembers correctly. Get independent confirmation. Eliminate cheating (e.g. that the family members have time to correlate their stories).

The fact - and it is a fact - remains:

We cannot trust the sitters. They change their stories.

I know why you struggle so hard to salvage this, Clancie: If we cannot rely on the sitters, then there are no more reasons for you to believe that JE is real.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

It doesn't matter why the sitter does not tell the truth during the reading. What matters is that he does not tell the truth.
Why are you so insistent he didn't tell the truth during the reading, Claus? How can you be so certain his original version was wrong (i.e. "not a cow").

In any case, as I said, he validated what JE said as a hit both times. He never said, "Well, we didn't go to a farm. I didn't have such an embarrassment. I just felt a lot of pressure to say something when JE was talking to me." Never said that at all.
Posted by CFLarsen

Simple: Go back and check if the sitter remembers correctly. Get independent confirmation. [Clancie: Such as...?]...Eliminate cheating (e.g. that the family members have time to correlate their stories).
The last item is particularly interesting, Claus, as even with the "cemetery/tree" hit, validated by several family members without opportunity to correlate their story, you still dismiss it.

I really don't think other family members would convince you. Would it really?
Posted by CFLarsen

We cannot trust the sitters.
Fine. You know where you're coming from then. And that is...That there is nothing in mediumship--or in the history of research into mediumship--that would even open your eyes to the possibility it is real if you operate from the premise that sitters' validations are always worthless.
Posted by CFLarsen

If we cannot rely on the sitters, then there are no more reasons for you to believe that JE is real.
See above.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Why are you so insistent he didn't tell the truth during the reading, Claus? How can you be so certain his original version was wrong (i.e. "not a cow").

Listen, Clancie: He changes his story, OK? You said so yourself. Ergo, one of the versions - the reading or the follow-up - has to be false.

Both cannot be true. Unless you are able to double-think.

Originally posted by Clancie
In any case, as I said, he validated what JE said as a hit both times. He never said, "Well, we didn't go to a farm. I didn't have such an embarrassment. I just felt a lot of pressure to say something when JE was talking to me." Never said that at all.

Nobody claimed that. However, he did feel a lot of pressure, which resulted in him not telling the truth during the reading.

Originally posted by Clancie
The last item is particularly interesting, Claus, as even with the "cemetery/tree" hit, validated by several family members without opportunity to correlate their story, you still dismiss it.

No, I dismiss it because it is not unique at all. How do you know that JE couldn't see they were Jews? Even if he couldn't, guessing that someone is Jewish in New York is not difficult at all. Over 1 million Jews live there.

Originally posted by Clancie
I really don't think other family members would convince you. Would it really?

Sure, if we knew they hadn't had time to "synchronize" their stories.

Originally posted by Clancie
Fine. You know where you're coming from then. And that is...That there is nothing in mediumship--or in the history of research into mediumship--that would even open your eyes to the possibility it is real if you operate from the premise that sitters' validations are always worthless.

No, that is a gross misrepresentation of my view. I have never ever claimed that mediumship is impossible. You know that, Clancie.

I am simply unable to distinguish between JE and a cold-reader. And so are you.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Listen, Clancie: He changes his story, OK? You said so yourself. Ergo, one of the versions - the reading or the follow-up - has to be false.
Fine. One or the other then. He went toward a "cow" or another animal. Whatever. Both sets of comments validated the basics of JE's reading.

Posted by CFLarsen

...which resulted in him not telling the truth during the reading.
Could you stop stating this as a fact, Claus? It's annoying. Please re-read your own post above for better understanding of the issue. :rolleyes:
Posted by CFLarsen

I have never ever claimed that mediumship is impossible.
Well, let's face it. If your position is that every sitter's validation can't be trusted, then there's no way you could ever even consider mediumship to be real, imo. There's just no way you would ever have any information that is validated whatsoever.

Its a forgone conclusion, Claus. No way.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Fine. One or the other then. He went toward a "cow" or another animal. Whatever. Both sets of comments validated the basics of JE's reading.

So you are saying that two contradicting statements can still serve as validation for the same hit.

Fascinating.

Originally posted by Clancie
Could you stop stating this as a fact, Claus? It's annoying. Please re-read your own post above for better understanding of the issue. :rolleyes:

But it is a fact, Clancie: He did tell the truth during the follow-up, didn't he? How can he then also tell the truth, when his statements contradict each other?

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, let's face it. If your position is that every sitter's validation can't be trusted, then there's no way you could ever even consider mediumship to be real, imo. There's just no way you would ever have any information that is validated whatsoever.

No, that is not correct. I look at each reading and evaluate it separately. Then, I collate the results.

Why are you so much against independent verification, Clancie? Why do you insist that the memory of the sitter is good enough, even though you admit it can be faulty? It seems to be as if you believe that whatever is remembered is also what actually happened, but at the same time also believe (and rightly so) that memory is faulty.

How can you deal with this double-thinking in your everyday life?

Originally posted by Clancie
Its a forgone conclusion, Claus. No way.

I see you have closed your mind to this. You are very wrong. It is not a foregone conclusion. I am very open to the possibility of mediumship. I just don't see any evidence of it.

[Clancie]

Okay, if you think sitters validations can't be trusted, but mediumship may be real, then here's the problem.....


What kinds of evidence in a reading would convince you that mediumship was real?

And how would that information be validated to your satisfaction?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Okay, if you think sitters validations can't be trusted, but mediumship may be real, then here's the problem.....

Why? You yourself have admitted that memory is faulty and that the sitters do not tell the truth during readings.

If anybody has a problem, it most certainly is you.

Originally posted by Clancie
What kinds of evidence in a reading would convince you that mediumship was real?

And how would that information be validated to your satisfaction?

I told you: Independent verification. Why are you so against that? You place all your faith in the sitters, even though you admit they can - and do - make mistakes.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie

Fine. You know where you're coming from then. And that is...That there is nothing in mediumship--or in the history of research into mediumship--that would even open your eyes to the possibility it is real if you operate from the premise that sitters' validations are always worthless.


http://www.gifs.net/animate/hammer.gif

BINGO! Clancie, I have no doubt in my own mind that you have just hit the nail on the head. And in Claus' own mind, I think he probably does believe that he is quite objective about mediumship, but I honestly don't see any evidence of that whatsoever.

Something else that I see as being problematic where Claus is concerned is that since he is an extremely literal sort of individual, it is just about impossible for him to embrace or even begin to grasp the less than literal aspects of mediumship. Let's face it, the imagery or symbolism that is inherent in mediumship is totally unacceptable to him. Let me give you a for instance.....

Let's just say that in a reading, John talks about someone falling off a horse on a merry-go-round and bumping their head. Perhaps that happened to him (JE) as a kid, and the father spirit coming through "showed" John that memory to get him to bring this up with a sitter.

Now say this sitter at some point in his life had gone horseback riding with his dad, and got thrown off his horse and hit his head, and his deceased dad wanted to reference that event to his son as a form of validation to prove to him that he is there.

I think Claus would most likely have a problem accepting this as a valid confirmation, since one example is a carnival ride, and one is a real horse, thereby entirely missing the point, and the great hit. Not to mention the fact that in Claus' world, we would not even be able to accept the sitter's word that he was indeed thrown from a horse, because he might just be lying, or misremembering the whole thing. :rolleyes:

Perhaps that is not the perfect example, but I hope you, and Claus, do catch my drift. I think that because mediumship cannot be exact, Claus will not ever be able to accept that it might be real. He claims otherwise, but I believe that his claim to open-mindedness is lip service, plain and simple......neo

[CFLarsen]

neo,

I do "catch" your "drift". Why don't you open a thread where we can discuss the "process" of John Edward's type of mediumship?

I do, however, object to you casting me as a close-minded person. I am very open-minded to the possibility of any paranormal phenomenon.

But just because I do not accept the very low standards you accept does not make my mind closed.

Open a thread on the process of JE and I'll be there.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

I am very open-minded to the possibility of any paranormal phenomenon.
"Any", meaning "psychic surgery" as well?

Posted by CFLarsen

I object to you casting me as a close-minded person
I don't think neo did that at all, Claus. She just summarized your views and what you want to see from mediums to get you to think of it differently.

Seems her summary is accurate and fair, too. Do you disagree with any of the particulars of her example?

[thaiboxerken]

"Any", meaning "psychic surgery" as well?

I'm as open-minded as CFL. Just have one of these superbeings validated by the scientific community or even pass the JREF challenge and I'll believe there is something more to it than the mundane.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

"Any", meaning "psychic surgery" as well?

I'm as open-minded as CFL. Just have one of these superbeings validated by the scientific community or even pass the JREF challenge and I'll believe there is something more to it than the mundane.
Now, I'm not open-minded at all about this crap. It all purports to violate the laws of nature, and to be open-minded about any of it means that I must disgregard what I've learned and what I know to be true, and not only that, but I must disgregard hundreds of years of scientific work. In addition, I must suspend the belief that I can be fooled, and I must also give the benefit of the doubt to delusional and/or conniving, clever people who just don't deserve it.

After-death-communication? Psychic surgery? Spoonbending? Remote viewing? It's all nonsense. To entertain that these notions are at all possible means lying to myself, and I just won't do that anymore.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

After-death-communication? Psychic surgery? Spoonbending? Remote viewing? It's all nonsense. To entertain that these notions are at all possible means lying to myself, and I just won't do that anymore.

Well.. I'm thinking that if there was actual evidence of this nonsense, you'd probably believe it. Since it's all anecdotes, stories and fabrications that all go against current scientific knowledge, you don't believe. Neither do I. I'm "open-minded" but only if the screwballs can actually produce real evidence. Much in the quantum fields are hard for me to believe, but they are find out alot with scientific method. The same cannot be said of the paranormalists.

But.. requiring evidence, scientific method and honesty makes us skeptics "close minded" according to the woo-woos.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
"Any", meaning "psychic surgery" as well?

Sure.

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't think neo did that at all, Claus. She just summarized your views and what you want to see from mediums to get you to think of it differently.

She summarized wrong.

Originally posted by Clancie
Seems her summary is accurate and fair, too. Do you disagree with any of the particulars of her example?

Her example is hypothetical. It would be far better if she chose a real example. That she has to invent scenarios to describe how I would react only confirms my suspicion that she has run out of arguments. Now, she doesn't argue from what has happened, but what could happen. That's pretty lame.

Catching up a bit:

Why do you gloss over "details" in the "Milk from Cow"-reading, when you focus on "details" in other readings? Isn't this inconsistent?
What will invalidate a sitter's validation?
Why are you so against independent verification?
Why do you insist that the memory of the sitter is good enough, even though you admit it can be faulty? It seems to be as if you believe that whatever is remembered is also what actually happened, but at the same time also believe (and rightly so) that memory is faulty.
How can you deal with this double-thinking in your everyday life?
How can the sitter tell the truth, when his statements contradict each other?

It would be nice if you would answer the questions the first time, so we won't have to waste time reading them twice. If you don't want to answer these, just say so.

[Loki]

Claus,

The fact - and it is a fact - remains:

We cannot trust the sitters. They change their stories.

I know you're a stickler for making sure that *everything* that someone says is *exactly* what they mean, so ... surely what you mean is :

The fact - and it is a fact - remains:

We cannot trust the sitters. They may change their stories. We know this because some have done so.

Your original statement makes it appear that you consider it a fact that (by implication) all sitters change their stories. Just a minor point and all, but I know you demand accuracy, accuracy, and more accuracy...

[Loki]

Neofight,

For those who do not even accept the [possibility that mediumship is exactly what John says it is, with images, and symbolism that is subject to interpretation by the medium, none of this will ever make the least bit of sense.
Err...no! It makes perfect sense within a framework of coldreading.

On the other hand, for those of us who believe that it just might be real, this is such a cool validation and it shows exactly how the process of mediumship works.
To be precise, we are talking about JE's own personal version of mediumship - there are plenty of mediums who (claim they) can do things that JE says are not possible. Really, "mediumship" is an umbrella term in which each active participant defines their own particular set of rules. Each medium seems to have their own peculiar "process".

But what does this "show exactly" about the process? JE "gets" fatal blow on the head, pet rabbit. Fine - dead magician matches I guess. But why why why can't JE get letters? The spirits can "show" him a rabbit? Why not show him white boards containing the letters "M" "A" "G" "I" "C" "I" "A" "N", followed by "U" "N" "C" "L" "E" "F" "R" "E" "D". Are letters not in JE's 'frame of reference'? Can't spirits spell? Why not show him a pet rabbit with the word "FRED" on it?

JE has said that the spirits are showing him "sheet music". That's paper. Obviously, he was able to tell the difference between "sheet music" and "newspaper" and "school exam paper". I guess he saw a piece of paper containing staves, notes, and cleffs. Yet they can't get a plain piece of paper with a 10 inch high "A" across to John?

What is it about the "process" that this hit shows us? Simply that if the sitter recognises the images, it's a hit (we've seen that plenty of times). If the sitter doesn't, JE tries a variation (we've seen that plenty of times), or drops it entirely (we've seen that plenty of times). He then might ask them to "review" this later (we've seen that plenty of times). What precisely is the process then?????

[CFLarsen]

Loki,

You're right, it should be:

Sitters may change their stories. We know this because some have done so. And we don't know who else does.

Therefore, we cannot rely on sitter validation at all. We need independent validation.

("Stickler"? I'll come after you...! :D)

[CFLarsen]

New thread: The "Process" of John Edward (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24602)

[neofight]

Originally posted by Loki
Neofight,


Err...no! It makes perfect sense within a framework of coldreading.

As you already know, Loki, I agree with that statement, but only to a very limited degree. :D

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

Well, no. Now that I don't really agree with, Loki. Who are these "plenty of mediums" who claim they can do things that JE says are not possible? You'll have to clarify that for me.

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

But what does this "show exactly" about the process? JE "gets" fatal blow on the head, pet rabbit. Fine - dead magician matches I guess. But why why why can't JE get letters? The spirits can "show" him a rabbit? Why not show him white boards containing the letters "M" "A" "G" "I" "C" "I" "A" "N", followed by "U" "N" "C" "L" "E" "F" "R" "E" "D". Are letters not in JE's 'frame of reference'? Can't spirits spell? Why not show him a pet rabbit with the word "FRED" on it?

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

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

If the spirits were capable of giving mediums letters or whole words, then they would probably be able to give them complete paragraphs as well, and there wouldn't be all this difficulty in conveying the right message to their loved ones.

JE has said that the spirits are showing him "sheet music". That's paper. Obviously, he was able to tell the difference between "sheet music" and "newspaper" and "school exam paper". I guess he saw a piece of paper containing staves, notes, and cleffs. Yet they can't get a plain piece of paper with a 10 inch high "A" across to John?

Again, I'm sure that JE has at some point in his 34 years laid his eyes upon a piece of sheet music, so it's logical that he would understand this reference if that is what he was being shown.

What is it about the "process" that this hit shows us? Simply that if the sitter recognises the images, it's a hit (we've seen that plenty of times). If the sitter doesn't, JE tries a variation (we've seen that plenty of times), or drops it entirely (we've seen that plenty of times). He then might ask them to "review" this later (we've seen that plenty of times). What precisely is the process then?????

Well, I've watched my share of readings, Loki, and I disagree with people who say that JE gets a lot of misses. Most information that JE gives to a particular sitter is validated, and validated right at that moment.

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

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Well, no. Now that I don't really agree with, Loki. Who are these "plenty of mediums" who claim they can do things that JE says are not possible? You'll have to clarify that for me.

Sylvia Browne. James van Praagh. Rosemary Altea. They all say they know what life is like on the other side. JE says he doesn't.

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

Yes, they do. All the time. But only first names, neo.

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

But JE also refers to something that is not within his own fram of reference. How do you explain that?

Originally posted by neofight
If the spirits were capable of giving mediums letters or whole words, then they would probably be able to give them complete paragraphs as well, and there wouldn't be all this difficulty in conveying the right message to their loved ones.

Indeed. What is the more likely, JE cold reading or JE talking to dead people?

Originally posted by neofight
Again, I'm sure that JE has at some point in his 34 years laid his eyes upon a piece of sheet music, so it's logical that he would understand this reference if that is what he was being shown.

I'm also sure that JE has at some point in his 34 years growing up and living in a city with the largest Jewish population in the US noticed a thing or two about Jewish customs. Right?

Originally posted by neofight
Well, I've watched my share of readings, Loki, and I disagree with people who say that JE gets a lot of misses.

How do you know that? You have admitted that we don't see the whole reading. This is a question you never got around to:

If a reading at CO happens to be 30 minutes long, what happens to the 19 minutes of the reading, neo? We get perhaps 11 minutes of reading, so what happens to the remaining 19 minutes?

Originally posted by neofight
Most information that JE gives to a particular sitter is validated, and validated right at that moment.

But we have found out that sitters cannot be relied upon. Sometimes, they do not tell the truth. And we don't know when they do.

Originally posted by neofight
I don't believe he is reading the sitters' minds.....neo

Why not? Why is this impossible?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Sylvia Browne. James van Praagh. Rosemary Altea. They all say they know what life is like on the other side
Well, Sylvia's views are well known, with books describing in much detail life on the other side.

What do JVP and Rosemary Altea say about it, Claus?

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

JVP refers heavily to the Christian bible, albeit with references to common New Age beliefs. RA claims that nobody has diseases "Over There", so she agrees with SB on that one.

I'm actually a little shocked to learn that you know nothing of e.g. JVP's claims. Surely you haven't based your assessment that he is a fake on his readings alone?

I thought you had studied this a lot??

[Clancie]

Well, I'm actually wondering what specifics you are basing your claim about JVP and Altea on.

And, so far, I don't find the examples you just gave very contradictory with JE.

After all, what psychic has ever said they do have diseases over there? JE apparently agrees with that, too, since he's often says they're not still suffering from the physical problems they had here. I don't see how he disagrees with Altea from the example you gave so far.

And how does JVP use the Bible in describing "the other side"? God? Angels? Heaven? What are you referring to that contradicts JE?

[RC]

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

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

Neo, I really don't understand this frame of reference argument at all. Surely JE has read the word "Uncle" and the word "Fred" at one time in his life, so the words are indeed in his frame of reference. It just doesn't fly. Also, did you just state that spirits aren't able to give letters? They do it all the time with JE. He claims that when a spirit is "shouting" a "T" name, that he is "seeing" the letter T getting bigger and bigger. So if a spirit can give one letter, why can't they give four of them to spell the name "Fred"...and then go on to spell a few words to make a sentence?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I'm actually wondering what specifics you are basing your claim about JVP and Altea on.

You can check their websites, if you don't believe me. I have books, too, but if you don't have them, you probably won't believe me...

Originally posted by Clancie
And, so far, I don't find the examples you just gave very contradictory with JE.

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

Originally posted by Clancie
After all, what psychic has ever said they do have diseases over there? JE apparently agrees with that, too, since he's often says they're not still suffering from the physical problems they had here. I don't see how he disagrees with Altea from the example you gave so far.

So, JE knows what life is like on the other side?? I'm confused...as I am sure you are.

Originally posted by Clancie
And how does JVP use the Bible in describing "the other side"? God? Angels? Heaven? What are you referring to that contradicts JE?

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

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

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight
...snip...

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

...snip...

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

If the spirits were capable of giving mediums letters or whole words, then they would probably be able to give them complete paragraphs as well, and there wouldn't be all this difficulty in conveying the right message to their loved ones.

...snip...

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

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

http://the-psychics.co.uk/doris-stokes.htm


...snip...

She recalls in her book 'In My Ear' "The bedroom door flew open so sharply I thought it was my mother bursting in, and there stood my father. My mouth dropped open. He looked as real and solid as he did when he was alive... "Dad?" I whispered " I never lied to you, did I Doll? he asked. "I don't think so". I said. " I'm not lying to you now. John is not with us and on Christmas day you will have proof of this." Then as I watched, he vanished. Three days later the War Office informed her that her husband John was dead. To everyone's amazement she refused to believe it. She clung to her hopes. Just as her father had predicted her husband was found, although badly injured but alive and she was indeed notified on Christmas day.

Doris Stokes popularised mediumship and was an inspiration to many to develop their own psychic ability.

...snip...


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

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

The best known current UK psychic Derek Acorah

http://the-psychics.co.uk/derek-acorah.htm
...snip...

Derek trusts implicitly in his Spirit guide 'Sam' ,

...snip...

often taking on the physical characteristics of a passed loved one with a comic effect (Darat: by the way he isn't a trance medium he does this all without the add of safety trance ;) )

...snip...



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

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

I have books (re JVP and Altea), too, but if you don't have them, you probably won't believe me.

Sure I will, Claus, as long as you mention which book the info comes from. :)

[CFLarsen]

Graham Bishop (see article here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/grahambishop.htm)) specifically claims to hear spirits talk to him - sometimes even so clear that it is like shouting.

No mention of "personal frame of reference" here either.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Sure I will, Claus, as long as you mention which book the info comes from. :)

Go take a look at the websites first and tell me if I am wrong. I'm quite frankly a bit tired of offering you evidence that you never look at.

[Clancie]

No, Claus. You said you have books with specific examples of Altea and JVP which you'd reference if I'd accept them.

I accept them. Where are they?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
No, Claus. You said you have books with specific examples of Altea and JVP which you'd reference if I'd accept them.

I accept them. Where are they?

You have a backlog of evidence you asked for but never looked at.

E.g.:

Recordings of Graham Bishop. You never bothered to listen to them.
Evidence of your lies. You never bothered to read them (and lied about it, as well)

Have you been to their websites? Am I wrong?

[Clancie]

Claus,
Posted by CFLarsen

You have a backlog of evidence you asked for but never looked at.

Recordings of Graham Bishop. You never bothered to listen to them.

Evidence of your lies. You never bothered to read them (and lied about it, as well)

FYI, I listened to your audio file of Bishop. It was totally garbled. Not a word was intelligible.

Re: my "lies" and your 94mb file of all the TVT threads. Enough already.

Re: Altea and JVP and the "books" you say you have of theirs. You seem to be stalling.

Is this going to be like that memorable TVTalk weekend when you claimed to have read JE's books, disappeared for two days, then reemerged--finally--with some actual quotes?

I mean, how hard is it to pull out a book from the shelf and quote whatever it is you're thinking of re: JVP and Altea? (Of course, it becomes very difficult if you don't actually have the books you're claiming you do).

I said I'd accept your quotes from the JVP and Altea books you have if you source them, and I will. Got any?

Oh well, if not, by tomorrow you should be able to get to a bookstore or library and find something. :rolleyes: I won't hold my breath that you're going to go ahead and post any actual quotes from your "books of theirs" today....

[Pyrrho]

Rosemary Altea discusses some of her "process" here:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/15/lkl.00.html

and here

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/13/lkl.00.html

and here

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/05/lkl.00.html

and here, in an incident that illustrates how Altea's cold reading method works, even though it's in her own book and we have no idea what actually happened at the original meeting

http://67.120.246.148/practice/book_excerpts/otherrealms/channeling/altea/own_power_one.asp

John Edward:

http://www.nytix.com/TVShows/NewYork/JohnEdward/transcripts/


Basically I act as a bridge, I go between the physical world and the non-physical world. And what I do -- I'm somewhat of a waiter -- I go to the other side, not literally go there, but I go to the other side and get information and I bring it out and I serve my client the information and hope that they understand it.

KING: From the various people who communicate to you. How do they communicate to you?

EDWARD: They communicate with an energy and what happens is the energy comes to me.

KING: Into words?

EDWARD: Well, it comes in three different ways: clairvoyance, clairaudience and clairsentience -- and what that means is that I see pictures; I hear -- I don't want to say voices but I hear thoughts. I'm hearing in my -- for example, if you count, in your mind, from one to ten, that voice that you are hearing in your mind is how I receive the information. Except that I have two voices happening at the same time, so I have to learn how to fine-tune it and listen to it and then I get feelings or sensations. What I do in my frame of reference is that interpret what it is that I am seeing, hearing, and feeling and try to give it to the client and hopefully they understand it. Many times they don't. Many times I say please write this down and they'll validate it for me later. Well they might be aware of it at the moment and it might come out later for them when they talk to mom or they talk to dad.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/06/lkl.00.html


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

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

And I can only speak for myself. I don't want to speak in broad strokes for every medium that's out there, of which there are many around the world that are equally as talented who might not ever sit in front of a camera or write a book or go on the radio, they just do their thing.

But I don't see them the way I'm seeing you, because they're not of the physical world. They're vibrating at a higher frequency. It's kind of like taking a helicopter blade, you know, when it's not airborne, you can look and see there's four or five blades. Once it takes off and those blades are moving at an accelerated rate, at a higher frequency, you can't really see it, yet we know it's still there.

It's kind of like that. And I will see images in my mind. I will hear things, thoughts in my mind. And I will get clear sentient feelings.

So basically I'm seeing, hearing and feeling energy that I'm interpreting in my own frame of references. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I get it wrong.

KING: These dead people are somewhere? Or are they in some sort of spirit, ghostly world?

EDWARD: I think that they're in a different dimension. But I think it's a dimension that coexists in some way with ours.

KING: Not in a physical body?

EDWARD: Not in a physical body. It's more of an energy body. It's more an energy world.

Again, you know, one of the things that I use as an example, is when somebody is having a hard time, you know, especially after some of the events that we've all lived through, explaining death to a child. You know, kids don't accept the answer anymore, this person is in heaven. Now they want to know, how do you get there? Why can't we go there?

So I feel like, you know, we need to kind of help explain a little bit better where heaven might be for that person in their belief system. And I use the example of a glass. I say, when we're born, you know, this is our body and, you know, God pours the soul into the body. Over a lifetime, what happens to that water? A child would knows through school that it evaporates and that it changes form. Why? Because they have been taught that. They're taught that the water will change form and it will evaporate.

And it kind of lets them know that the energy, the soul that evaporates out of the body is like the air and it's all around them. And it's much more comforting for a child to know that their grandfather is all around them, rather than that far-off place, heaven, that they want to know how to get there.

KING: I understand that. But how can that soul, spirit speak to you?

EDWARD: Well, they can't speak to me in the way that we're speaking.

KING: So what are you hearing when you...

EDWARD: A misconception is that it's a voice that I'm actually getting.

It's thought. It's kind of like, you know, you're married. You have a relationship with your wife. You guys can finish each other's sentences. You guys can have a conversation that an outside person will look and be like, they're not talking like normal people would talk, because you've built up an energy bridge.

What happens as a medium, you kind of act as a conduit and they kind of project their thoughts to you as if I was a radio. So they project their energy, and I'm able to pick that up and hopefully interpret it correctly. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,
FYI, I listened to your audio file of Bishop. It was totally garbled. Not a word was intelligible.

That's quite interesting, because I also let a Danish journalist listen to it. He had no such problems.

When did you listen to it? This is the first time you mention it.

Originally posted by Clancie
Re: my "lies" and your 94mb file of all the TVT threads. Enough already.

Yes, I agree. We have established, once and for all, that you lied. Not just once, but several times. Enough already.

Originally posted by Clancie
Re: Altea and JVP and the "books" you say you have of theirs. You seem to be stalling.

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

Originally posted by Clancie
Is this going to be like that memorable TVTalk weekend when you claimed to have read JE's books, disappeared for two days, then reemerged--finally--with some actual quotes?

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

Originally posted by Clancie
I mean, how hard is it to pull out a book from the shelf and quote whatever it is you're thinking of re: JVP and Altea? (Of course, it becomes very difficult if you don't actually have the books you're claiming you do).

I have told you that I have moved to Denmark. I have not yet established myself in a proper home. So most of my books are in storage.

Originally posted by Clancie
I said I'd accept your quotes from the JVP and Altea books you have if you source them, and I will. Got any?

Sure. What page from the RA book do you want scanned?

Originally posted by Clancie
Oh well, if not, by tomorrow you should be able to get to a bookstore or library and find something. :rolleyes: I won't hold my breath that you're going to go ahead and post any actual quotes from your "books of theirs" today....

No. Now. What page do you want scanned??

[Clancie]

Good, at least we're getting somewhere with Altea.

No need to scan in pages. Just post some quotes that show how her view of the afterlife is so different from JE (since that's what your post was about). That'll do it! :p

[thaiboxerken]

LOL. This whole "process" arguement is silly. It involves way too many "if's" and "but"s. The laws of parsimony are clearly being violated with the "process" arguement of mediumship.

I'll tell you why the readings are not clear, it's because people aren't talking to ghosts or spirits. It's a guessing game.

John Edward is just an entertainer, read his disclaimer.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Good, at least we're getting somewhere with Altea.

No need to scan in pages. Just post some quotes that show how her view of the afterlife is so different from JE (since that's what your post was about). That'll do it! :p

Page 9:

"Tell Daniel that no, I don't snowboard anymore. I do something much more fun. Tell him I 'cloudboard'...skating from one cloud to another, right across God's skies. Tell him also, plase, Rosemary, that I am his own personal angel, here to guide him for all of his life."

Here, RA tells of a dead person "cloudboarding" the clouds. Also, about personal angels.

This is a very precise description of life on the other side.

You want more? How many more? (Because otherwise, you will just keep asking and asking)

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

When did you listen to the Graham Bishop recording? This is the first time you mention it.

(You do have a habit of leaving questions hanging, you know...)

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Page 265:

(RA is listening to the confessions of a former Nazi on his death bed)

I reached out and touched Joseph's face, and quietly said, "Joseph, God has sent me here to you. He is in my hands as I touch you. God is in my heart as I give my heart to you, and God is in the love that I share with you. Have no more fear, Joseph, for God is with us now. He hears your prayers, you are His son, and He loves you. And where God is, and where God goes, the devil cannot enter. Now go to sleep, have no more fear. God will keep you safe."

JE never refers to the afterlife with references to "God". RA is very certain what happens on the other side.

You want another? How many??

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

When did you listen to the Graham Bishop recording? This is the first time you mention it.
Some time back, when I got a different computer. But your audio file of Bishop was completely unintelligible. Does it sound clear to you?

re: Altea. Yes, I think those are good examples of some specifics she associates with the afterlife that JE doesn't.

So...Let's agree that Altea does offer some specific notions about it that he doesn't. What do you want us to make of that? That he isn't as "good" at communicating as RA is (with the help of her spirit guide)? That one or both of them are--because of their differences in perceptions--necessarily just "making it up"?

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

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

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Some time back, when I got a different computer. But your audio file of Bishop was completely unintelligible. Does it sound clear to you?

No, not "clear", as in CD quality. But definitely not "unintelligible".

"Some time back". I see. I don't believe you. Know why? The log tells me so, Clancie.

What, you thought I can't read a log??

Originally posted by Clancie
re: Altea. Yes, I think those are good examples of some specifics she associates with the afterlife that JE doesn't.

Thank you. Your turn: What is the first word on page 175?

Originally posted by Clancie
Let's say she does have these specific ideas about it that he doesn't. What do you want us to make of that? That he isn't as "good" at communicating as RA is (with the help of her spirit guide)? That one or both of them are because of their differences necessarily just "making it up"?

It tells us that there is profound disagreement among mediums about what goes on Over There. Why aren't they more in agreement about that, if they can agree on first letters of names, and specific hits? That is odd, isn't it?

Originally posted by Clancie
JE doesn't "get" much about the "other side", and some other mediums get many specifics. Does that mean he's a fake? They are? Or maybe only that their abilities and strengths are different? :confused:

You tell me, you're the expert. What is your opinion of this? To me, it sounds like they each have their own story, completely made up.

Does Brian Hurst see Over There the same way as JE? As Robert Brown?

[Clancie]

Claus,

Did I say I have RA's book? Where? (I do have two by JVP, however, if you still need some quotes from him).

re: the "Other Side". Its possible that they could be legitimate mediums, but that what they "get" about the other side is filtered through their own preconceived ideas about death, God, religion, etc.

Personally, I think JE is quite right not to presume he really "knows" what its like.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
re: the "Other Side". Its possible that they could be legitimate mediums, but that what they "get" about the other side is filtered through their own preconceived ideas about death, God, religion, etc.

But that would make it impossible for anyone to trust anything a medium says. How can we know if what they tell us are their own ideas?

Originally posted by Clancie
Personally, I think JE is quite right not to presume he really "knows" what its like.

Yeah. He's got enough to worry about...

Originally posted by Clancie
Did I say I have RA's book? Where? (I do have two by JVP, however, if you still need some quotes from him).

So, you just believe me? Tsk, tsk...good thing I don't believe you:

Here is an extract of the log for today, not an hour ago (where the subject of the Bishop file came up):


68.64.219.218 - - [03/Aug/2003:15:20:40 -0400] "GET /resources/bishop1.wav HTTP/1.1" 200 56492 ....."
68.64.219.218 - - [03/Aug/2003:15:20:41 -0400] "GET /resources/bishop1.wav HTTP/1.1" 200 56491 ....."
68.64.219.218 - - [03/Aug/2003:15:21:47 -0400] "GET /resources/bishop1.wav HTTP/1.1" 200 11743660 ....."
68.64.219.218 - - [03/Aug/2003:15:22:24 -0400] "GET /resources/bishop1.wav HTTP/1.1" 200 56491 ....."
68.64.219.218 - - [03/Aug/2003:15:22:25 -0400] "GET /resources/bishop1.wav HTTP/1.1" 200 56491 ....."
68.64.219.218 - - [03/Aug/2003:15:22:28 -0400] "GET /resources/bishop1.wav HTTP/1.1" 200 815691 .....

Clancie, guess what IP you post under at TVTalkshows?

68.64.219.218

Yup. The evidence is clear: You just downloaded it. Not "some time ago". There is no mention of that IP downloading the file before today.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.