A count of JE's hits on Larry King Live

[renata]

This came out of Clancie's Interesting JE Hits thread
I am doing a rough count of JE's hits on his 3 appearances on LKL. I believe those are the only complete transcripts of his work we have available.

I did the first one last night, and it was pretty bad. Here is the reposting from the other thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23922&perpage=40&pagenumber=2


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



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Reading (lost count of which number)

Just the next one!



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.



I will now perform a similar count for the other two readings, let's see how they compare.

[renata]

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



Nevada City, California. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. Hi, Larry. Hi, John.
EDWARD: How are you?
CALLER: I'm good.
EDWARD: How can I help you?
CALLER: What can you tell me about my dad?
EDWARD: Well, first of all, whenever I do this, especially live like this, I can only tell you that -- I can only pass on to you what it is that I'm getting. I might not connect with your dad.
CALLER: That's great.
EDWARD: OK. I will just listen to what's coming through, I may be able to connect with him. What's your first name?
CALLER: Collese (ph).
EDWARD: Put your dad on hold for one second, OK? Sometimes I connect with people that you're not expecting to hear from, and this might be an example of that. I'm being told that there is some type of younger male that I would see as being to your side, who has crossed. And that to me I would see as being like a contemporary to you. So I don't know if you've lost a friend or if you have got a cousin or somebody around you lost a brother, but there's like a younger male who passed. And it is illness related. It's somebody who had either leukemia or AIDS, but it's a blood disease that they passed from.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: And there has got to be some type of connection to the month of July for this family. I feel like it's either where you live, where you grew up, or who you grew up with. But I feel like it's somebody that I would spend time with. I am not connecting with your dad. I just wanted to say that right from the get-go and say that this is what's coming through. I do think that there is a Thomas or a t-connection that's going to be coming up around this in some way.
Are you not originally from where you are calling me from?
CALLER: Correct.
EDWARD: OK. I feel like it's where you are originally from, or where you would be originally from is where this is connected. So growing up around where you lived, somebody that you would have some type of contact with is where this is connected to. So that's what I'm getting as I talk to you.
KING: Does that cross with anything you have, ma'am?
CALLER: I had a brother who died before I was born who had leukemia, named Tim.
EDWARD: So that would be your contemporary. So it happened where you grew up originally, correct?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: So I am not connecting with your dad. That would be the male figure to your side. When I say to your side, that to me is a sibling or a contemporary.


This reading was analyzed on thse boards before. Arguably a good one, especially compared to others. However, some misses also, although subtle. For example, the brother died before the caller was born, yet JE says caller would have had contact with him, where she grew up- of course she never had contact with him.

Guesses
-younger male (hit, brother)
-blood disease (hit)
-July connection (not validated)
-Thomas or T name (hit)
-connection with where caller grew up (hit)

Total
5 guesses
4 hits
1 not validated

Glen Oak, New York. Hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Hi.
EDWARD: Is it Glen Oaks, Queens?
CALLER: Yes, it is.
EDWARD: I actually lived there.
CALLER: Yes, I do.
EDWARD: No, I said I actually lived there.
CALLER: Really?
EDWARD: I grew up there.
CALLER: Really?
EDWARD: Early on.
CALLER: OK. Just like to hear anything from my parents or my sister. Hello?
EDWARD: Hold on a second. I'm sorry. I don't know who this is from. I don't know if this is for you or it's for the next person -- and there are people in the studio so I don't know -- let me just say this. Is there like a Ronny or a Ronald connection to you?
CALLER: A friend, yes.
EDWARD: Is he still here?
CALLER: As far as I know.
EDWARD: Is he out of your state?
CALLER: Not that I know of.
EDWARD: OK. There is a Ronny or Ronald connection that I'm supposed to be bringing up, and somebody -- and I'm sorry to say this live -- somebody who passed from a suicide. And it's -- it's gunshot related from what I'm seeing.
CALLER: I have a cousin, distant cousin, up in Connecticut, Ronny.
EDWARD: Is there somebody connected to him that passed like this?
CALLER: Not to my knowledge that I'm aware of.
EDWARD: OK. What's coming through as I'm listening to your voice is that. Is that I'm getting the acknowledgement of like Ronny or Ronald, there is an acknowledgement of somebody who passes out of state, and there's a connection to a gunshot where somebody crosses themselves over.
Unfortunately, and that's what's coming through. And I'm going to tell that you there are two younger energy like children who have crossed, somebody lost like two pregnancies or somebody lost two babies as well, in some capacity in there.
CALLER: Wow.
EDWARD: So, just remember that I said that, OK?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Thank you.


Caller wants to connect with parents or sister

Guesses
-Ronald (hit, friend)
-alive (weak hit, 50/50)
-out of state (miss)
-suicide, gunshot (miss)
-two children/two pregnancies (not validated)

Total
5 guesses
2 misses
1 weak hit
1 hit
1 not validated


KING: East Cloud, New York. Hello.
CALLER: Hello?
KING: Go ahead.
CALLER: Hi, John, could you tell me a bit...
EDWARD: Hold on one second. Don't say anything. Just yes or no if you can, there's an older female like your mom has crossed.
CALLER: My mom's crossed. Yes, just July 3.
EDWARD: Wait a second, wait. Let me just say this, OK, because I have got -- the first thing I've got listening to your voice I have got a mom figure who's coming through. I'm supposed to talk to you about Ellen or Helen. So I don't know if that's who she's with, but there is an Ellen or a Helen type name, it's an L name with a vowel in front of it who's also passed?
CALLER: I have a train going through. I can hardly...
EDWARD: There's an Ellen or a Helen name that I'm supposed to -- there's the train. There's an Ellen or a Helen name that I'm supposed to acknowledge being there. Also, can you...
CALLER: OK, John. I can hear you.
EDWARD: OK. There's an Ellen or a Helen connection that's with your mom that I'm supposed to be acknowledging, so I don't know if that's her side of the family or your dad's, but there's an older female. And somebody passed from either congestive heart failure or pneumonia. Do you understand that? Hello?
KING: Ma'am, do you hear him?
CALLER: Yes, there is.
EDWARD: OK. Now, you didn't see your mom before she passed?
CALLER: Yes, I do.
EDWARD: No, you didn't...
CALLER: Yes, hi.
KING: Ma'am, turn your television down.
CALLER: Oh, OK.
EDWARD: You didn't see your mom before she passed?
CALLER: Yes, I was with her when she passed.
EDWARD: OK, so that would be a no. Let me say this again. I'm supposed to tell you that you did not have the opportunity to talk to your mom in the way that you wanted to talk to her prior to her passing. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: I'm also supposed to acknowledge a huge, massive, massive infection that somebody had, so they either had gangrene or they had some a serious, like infectious disease. That's also there.
CALLER: John, I can hardly hear you.
KING: I'm sorry, ma'am. We will work on that.
EDWARD: Well, that's what's coming, so remember it. OK? I'm sorry.
CALLER: That's OK.


Lots of technical problems here, hard to evaluate
Guesses
-older female, mother (hit)
-Ellen or Helen (wonder if it is the same naughty Helen/Ellen from a year ago! not validated)
-heart failure or pneumonia (not validated)
-didn't see mother before death (emphatic miss)
-massive infection (not validated)

Total
5 guesses
1 hit
1 miss
3 not validated

Atlanta, Georgia, hello. Atlanta, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Larry. Hi, John.
EDWARD: How are you?
CALLER: OK. My question is, if someone tried to develop their psychic ability like I'm trying to reach my husband who passed, what should I hear? Should I hear a voice, should I see pictures, should I feel something? What? Because right now it's kind of been nothing.
EDWARD: OK. It actually -- it depends upon you. And I really wouldn't be able to tell you specifically. Like, for example, when I developed my abilities, I developed my claireaudiant (ph) abilities the strongest, for some reason, and clairvoyant came in like a close second, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE). So it means like hear first, see second, feel last.
So it really depends upon you as a person. And the way you would know that is by documenting it. So I would remember you getting like a salt and pepper, you know, a regular school notebook and write down your experiences. But I would try to -- if you are really trying to develop, you really need to be objective. So you need to actually try to read people that you are not related to, and you have no knowledge about. This way, you will get more validation -- one, from them and two, for yourself -- to prove to yourself that you are actually interpreting this information correctly. Do you follow what I'm saying?
CALLER: Yes, I do.
EDWARD: Now, is Paul connected to you?
CALLER: I have a cousin.
EDWARD: OK. Did his mom just pass?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. You need to tell Paul that his mom saw this as her opportunity to come through for you. And also, you just put your dog down or somebody just lost their dog?
CALLER: When my husband passed, his dog died.
EDWARD: Like right around the same time, then?
CALLER: Three days away.
EDWARD: OK. You need to know that your husband then and your dog would be together. Did you actually make the comment that they couldn't live without each other?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. I feel strange telling you this but I've got to say this: It's as if you would joke around that the dog would be like the other woman, or like that was his girlfriend, or he would spend more time with the dog?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. I'm supposed to tease you about that. I'm also supposed to tease you about -- and I'm so sorry and I'm just very thankful that people can't see you, because I think if you were here, you'd hit me for saying this. I am supposed to tease you about some type of walking outside in a nightie or walking outside in like -- not dressed properly kind of way, whether to get your mail or to get something or -- there's a funny story about this?
CALLER: It's not ringing a bell with me.
EDWARD: Oh, sure, you just don't want to acknowledge it live on TV, but that's OK. That's right. Leave me out here. That's OK. Just remember I said this. But I -- just know that what they're showing, it's not him, it's not him saying he did it. He's kind of putting it on you. And he wants me to remind you about February.
CALLER: That's his birthday.
EDWARD: OK. Thank you.
CALLER: Thank you, John.
KING: Try to be specific, will you?


Caller wants to connect with her husband, a strong reading for her

Guesses
-Paul (hit, cousin)
-his mother passed (hit)
-dead dog (hit)
-same time as her husband (not scoring this, caller told JE dog died when her husband did)
-lots of comments about how close the dog and husband were (weak hit- pretty obvious stuff)
-walking in a nighties outside (miss)
-February connection (hit, birthday)

Total score
7 guesses
4 hits
1 weak hit
1 miss
1 not scored

EDWARD: ... passings close together, or if there were just three significant dates that fall within a short period of time that they want me to acknowledge, but I feel like we're supposed to go like, you know, two in the same month and one might be the next month or six weeks later. But there's like dates that happen like that, and I'm supposed to acknowledge that somebody passes from lung cancer, somebody passes from blackness of the chest, which is lung cancer in some way for me?
CALLER: My father.
EDWARD: And I'm also supposed to acknowledge that either he had a tattoo on his entire front of his chest, or somebody had some type of like scarring or a marking on their chest? Do you have any idea? I have no idea what this is.
CALLER: Well, he -- from surgery.
EDWARD: On his chest, though?
CALLER: Yes, he had lung cancer. He had a lung removed.
EDWARD: Yeah, but would they do it -- they would do it on the chest here? No, they would do that through his back?
CALLER: Well, he did have surgery from the front as well.
EDWARD: OK. Because my mom had lung cancer surgery, and it was like more underneath, and I'm not seeing that. I'm getting it like across in some way.
He's telling me to tell you June is significant. So there's either a birthday or anniversary in the sixth month. OK? Hello?
CALLER: No -- OK, go ahead.
EDWARD: There's something about June, like specifically around the 12th or 13th, like right before what I would see as being Flag Day for me here. There is something in the middle of June, like the 12th or 13th that he wants me to acknowledge, and he is telling me to acknowledge Laura, or Lori (ph), or Lorraine -- but there's an L.R. name that he wants me to make mention of.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: But it would be your dad's way of coming through. And he's also making me feel like -- I don't know if you are planning a cruise, but there's an acknowledgement of travel over water.
CALLER: Travel over water?
EDWARD: Travel over the water -- on the water, not in a plane over water.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: All right, thanks for calling.
KING: Thank you, ma'am.


This reading for some reason cut off in the beginning

Guesses
-3 important dates close together (not validated)
-lung cancer (weak hit, cancer very common)
-tattoo or scar on chest (I am not scoring this, caller said he had surgery scars, seems an obvious thing to have with lung cancer)
-June (miss)
-12, 13th of June (not validated)
-Laura, L name (not validated)
-Travel over water (not validated)


Total score
7 guesses
4 not validated
1 weak hit
1 miss
1 not scored


To Fort Wayne, Indiana, with John Edward, hello. Fort Wayne, hello.
CALLER: Yes.
KING: Go ahead, sir.
CALLER: Hello?
KING: Go ahead.
CALLER: Oh, hi, Larry and John.
KING: How are you.
CALLER: Fine. I have got some questions. I was wondering about some people in my life that have passed. Lost my father.
KING: Go ahead.
EDWARD: I'm not -- I'm not getting anything from you.
KING: Anything specific, sir, your father...
CALLER: OK, my father...
EDWARD: I'm not connecting with you.
CALLER: My father.
EDWARD: I'm not feeling anything from him.
KING: I'm sorry, sir. Thank you.
EDWARD: Sorry.


Caller wants to connect with father, JE does not even guess

Temple, Texas. Hello.
CALLER: Yes. Hello, John.
EDWARD: Hi, how are you.
CALLER: I'm just fine. My name is Diane.
EDWARD: Stop right there, Diane. I have a couple of things. Let me just jump right in there. The first thing I'm going to tell you, I don't know if this is for you or if somebody around you lost their son, but there's a younger male energy that I need to acknowledge. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Not a younger, no.
EDWARD: Well, to me, he's coming across as what I would see as a younger male, and he's telling me he passes on an impact, like he is thrown from something.
CALLER: Doesn't sound familiar to me, but go on, please.
EDWARD: Let me just tell you more. There is a younger male that's coming through, I would see this as somebody being below you -- below me -- below you -- would be like son, nephew, grandson, or a connection like that. Passes by being -- he's thrown -- he has an impact but he's thrown from this, he's like thrown, like he's -- he's off the bike, he's off the moped, he's off whatever this is. Passes as a result of that.
He's connected to either David or he's connected to the D. name, like a D.A. name, like David or Danny or Dale. Or there's a D connection that comes up with this. That's the first thing. And then your connection to October is what?
CALLER: My daughter's birthday.
EDWARD: OK. And she's still here?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. In some way, should I be connecting this younger male to your daughter, is this a friend of hers? Like, would you know if that's connected in that capacity?
CALLER: I don't think so. She's only 7.
EDWARD: That's fine. I want you to remember what I'm saying. This is like what they're showing me. And they're telling me two marriages.
CALLER: Yes, that's correct. EDWARD: And they're making me feel like -- four pregnancies?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: They're telling me there's four children, which to me means that there's either four children, there's four pregnancies. Doesn't matter how many you had, I'm just telling you what they're showing me. Miscarriages count. Children that don't make it here count for me in that capacity. And they're making me feel like there is separate from the younger male with the impact, connected to the way I saw it, there's also somebody who passes either from a brain tumor or somebody who had something that affected their head, like aneurysm...
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Or embolism.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: And they're making me feel like that would be connected to your family, like by blood in some capacity, like it's your family. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes, I do.
EDWARD: OK. I'm also supposed to tell you that the 15th or 16th is significant as well. So I feel like either somebody got sick on the 15th or the 16th of the month. Or there's a turning point that happens.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: You need to ease up, because they're making me feel like you had a major issue, either with an insurance company, where I'm surprised that you didn't have a stroke on the phone the way you were arguing with somebody.
CALLER: It doesn't sound familiar.
EDWARD: This would have been like in the last three, like three months, three years, but they're making me feel like it's intense. Because I feel like there's a major dialogue, health care related, insurance, dealing with an institution of some sort. And they're bringing it up. This is what's coming up around you.


Very strange reading, lots of guesses, none quite right

Guesses
-younger male (miss)
-impact death (miss)
-D name (not validated)
-October (weak hit, a birthday)
-friend connected with daughter (miss)
-two marriages (weak hit- whose marriages?)
-4 pregnancies (miss, although he tried making it fit)
-brain tumor/aneurism (hit)
-connected to family (not scoring, another caller "understands")
-15, 16 of the month (not scoring, another caller "understands")
-ease up on arguing (miss)

Total score
11 guesses
5 misses
2 not scored
1 not validated
2 weak hits
1 hit

CALLER: Hi, Larry. Hi, John.
EDWARD: Hi, how are you?
CALLER: My name is Ron. I'm doing very well. We recently lost three family members pretty close in succession. I just wondered if you could make a connection?
EDWARD: Please don't laugh when I say this, OK?
CALLER: OK?
EDWARD: You didn't lose a horse, did you?
CALLER: No.
[LAUGHTER]
EDWARD: I said don't laugh, and you laughed.
CALLER: Oh, sorry.
EDWARD: I know this is going to sound strange, but I say it as I get it, somebody is connected to you has a horse who passed, because they're showing me what I would see as not gambling horses, but like either horses on a farm or it's a reference to get me to that side of the family. And there's also a connection to somebody who passes who either had pancreatic or colon cancer?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Somebody had cancer, lower in the body.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: It's that connection. Is this on your mom's side of the family, as well?
CALLER: It's -- it's through a marriage.
EDWARD: But it's going to be through the mother's side of the family.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Because they're making me feel like it's through mom's side of the family. And they're also making me feel there is somebody who had a horse who passed. Somebody either bred horses, they were an equestrian, they rode, but they lost a horse.
CALLER: I'll look into that.
EDWARD: Where's the Jane connection or Jeannie?
CALLER: Jane would be sister-in-law.
EDWARD: OK. Ask her. Because they're telling me to connect it either through either Janey or Jeannie.
CALLER: OK?
EDWARD: In that family, the older male must have passed as well, like the father figure there. Because they're telling me to acknowledge that somebody was at their wedding. So, somebody in that side of the family must have lost their dad before they got married.


Caller wants to connect with 3 families members who died in close succession

Guesses
-dead horse (miss)
-cancer lower in body (weak hit, common illness)
-mom's side of family (weak hit, 50/50)
-Jane (hit, sister in law- common name, though)
-older male (not validated)

Total
5 guesses
1 miss
1 hit
2 weak hits
1 not validated

KING: Thank you, sir. We go to Waycross, Georgia.
Hello.
CALLER: Hi. This is Becky.
EDWARD: Hi, how are you?
CALLER: I'm fine. I'm shocked that I -- that my call got through. I'm very interested to hear what you have to say. I hope that you can connect.
EDWARD: I hope I can, too. The first thing I'm going to tell you, I don't know if you're familiar with my symbols, but if I talk about somebody being to your side. That means it's going to be like a husband, a brother, a cousin, a friend.
CALLER: Yes?
EDWARD: There's a male figure that is connected to your side who has crossed.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK? I'm also going to tell you that connected to this male figure who has crossed is either his mother or yours, but there's an older female who is there, you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: I'm also supposed to talk about either you having knee surgery or somebody having surgery to their leg.
CALLER: My father who has crossed had knee surgery to both legs.
EDWARD: Then he had it four times, or like five times. They were four or five procedures for that, correct?
CALLER: There were several. EDWARD: I'm supposed to tell you that somebody had either Alzheimer's or somebody was not of clear mind before they passed. And they have clarity back, OK?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: And there's somebody in the health care field, through marriage for you. Like your sister-in-law's a nurse, your mother-in- law was a nurse, that type of a thing.
CALLER: Best friend?
EDWARD: No. Nope. Not best friend.
CALLER: Not somebody in the family.
EDWARD: No, no. It is family. Somebody works in health care. Because I'm seeing white. That comes up with this.
So, again, let me just reiterate. The male figure to your side has to be like the husband or brother figure; older female, like mom, would be connected to that. And the issue with the knees, that would be your dad's way of coming through. Was he a cop? There's a cop connection here. Is that him?
CALLER: What connection?
EDWARD: A police officer.
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Yes, there is.
CALLER: Police officer?
EDWARD: Somebody's in the uniform where they had a badge, or a shield. So, whether they're a sheriff, whether they're a state trooper, a deputy -- they wore a uniform and they carried a badge.
CALLER: Well, now, my uncle, who is still living, was in law enforcement.
EDWARD: OK. That's connected to one of these people?
CALLER: Yes?
EDWARD: That would be their way of acknowledging that person. Is there a Jack or J connection to that?
CALLER: Whew, no?
EDWARD: There's going to be a Jack or J connection to this as well. Remember it as I say it, don't stretch it to be what it's not. Let it be what it is. But thank you for calling.


Guesses
-male to the side (weak hit)
-older female (weak hit)
-surgery to leg (weak hit, common procedure)
-several procedures (not scoring, obvious derivation)
-someone senile (we saw this in the other reading. Not scoring, caller "understands")
-mother or sister in law nurse (miss)
-police officer (miss)
-uniform (weak hit, caller gets an uncle, who is living)
-J name (miss)


Total
9 guesses
4 weak hits
2 not scored
3 miss

KING: Peterborough, Ontario, for John Edward.
Hello. Hello?
CALLER: Hi, John?
EDWARD: Hi, how are you?
CALLER: I'm fine, thank you. I'm so happy to get through.
EDWARD: Oh, thank you.
CALLER: My name is Karen.
EDWARD: Stop right there, Karen.
CALLER: I watch your show all the time.
KING: Do you have a question, Karen?
CALLER: I do. I wonder if John can connect to my mother.
EDWARD: I don't know, but let me tell you what I can tell you. Are you pregnant now?
CALLER: No. I don't think so.
EDWARD: OK. Let me tell that you that there's a congratulatory message of somebody being pregnant now.
CALLER: OK. There's a possibility that somebody in my family may be.
EDWARD: Yeah? It's going to be a big possibility, because they are.
CALLER: OK. Great.
EDWARD: I'm going to tell you also, did your mom pass -- your mom must have passed in the last two years?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: She either passed by her birthday or your dad's?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. I need to acknowledge that she has her daughter with her or she has a younger sister with her as well. But somebody lost a younger female that's connected to her.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: There's a unique name, like Abigail, or Abbey. I hear a B sound, but it's softened by a vowel in front of it, so whether it's a nickname like Ubi or Obo. I don't know what this is. But I hear the B, it's a consonant, but there's a vowel in front of it that's softening it. OK?
I'm also going to tell you that they're has to be something unique about corn and husking corn. I don't know if you guys have something hanging on your wall that I would see as being like, corn- related, or if that's something that she would have or it would be a validation that you have that's hers?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: You have this?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Where? Like where would you have this?
CALLER: I have lost your voice, completely, John, but keep talking.
EDWARD: Just know that -- I'm just curious to know what this actually was, because she shows me the cornhusk and it's like hanging. Please know that your mom sees this as her way of coming through. I'm supposed to be talking about somebody who either had a malformation of their foot or their toe or something that would be surgical on the foot to correct something?
Can you hear me?
CALLER: Very, very vaguely, John.
KING: Then you'll have to move on.
EDWARD: You will get it.
CALLER: I have you on tape, so keep talking.
KING: OK.
EDWARD: Just remember that I said this. But just know that your mom is OK. And that she's with the people that I talked about. Thanks for calling.



More phone difficulties, difficult to evaluate. Caller wants to connect to her mother

Guesses
-caller pregnant (miss)
-someone preganant (very weak hit- possibility that someone may be..)
-mother passed in last 2 years (hit)
-by her or her husband's birthday (hit)
-younger female (hit)
-Abi, B name (not validated)
-corn (hit, caller seems to validate it)
-toe malformation (not validated)

Total
8 Guesses
2 not validated
4 hits
1 miss
1 weak hit


Onward to Duluth, Georgia.
Hello.
CALLER: Hello?
EDWARD: Hello.
KING: Hello.
CALLER: Good. How are you doing, John?
EDWARD: I'm doing good.
CALLER: Good. I'm just seeing if you can connect with anything?
EDWARD: The first thing -- actually, a couple of things. Somebody's got a nickname after a spice, like pepper?
CALLER: I'm sorry?
EDWARD: Somebody has a nickname after a spice, like pepper? Who's got a spice name?
CALLER: Spice name? Don't know.
EDWARD: Salty or pepper, cinnamon.
CALLER: Oh, my dog.
EDWARD: OK. What's the name?
CALLER: Her name is Ginger.
EDWARD: Has that dog passed?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK. Then you got that dog after somebody passed. Because they're making me feel like I need to bring up the dog, because they're bringing up the spice name. I'm also going to tell you that -- I think what I'm supposed to tell you is that there is either there's a boyfriend who passed for you, or a husband that's passed for you. But I don't feel it now.
CALLER: No?
EDWARD: Remember what I'm saying, OK? There's a male figure that has passed, but it's not a now thing. I'm not predicting it, it happened already, it would be somebody that would be connected to your side, but there's a love bond that's there.
To me, it's not a brother, it's like -- it doesn't feel like a brother to me. It feels like it's somebody's boyfriend or feels like somebody's husband. But it's like somebody that you were involved with, or somebody who was involved on that level who has passed that I'm getting this connection to. That's what's coming through. Probably not who you want to hear from, I'm sorry.
But the reference does come through, first and foremost, to the spice connection. Sorry.
CALLER: OK. All right.



Strange reading- biggest validation is the dog.

Guesses
-spice nickname (stretched hit, name of a dog)
-dead dog (miss)
-dead boyfriend/husband (miss)

Total
3 guesses
2 misses
1 hit

KING: Go to York, Pennsylvania, for John Edward.
Hello. York, hello?
CALLER: Hi, Larry. Hi, John Edward. Thanks for taking my call.
EDWARD: How are you?
CALLER: I'm fine, thank you.
KING: What's your name? What's the question?
CALLER: My name is Christine. I'm just wondering what John could tell me? Tell me anything, John, maybe my dad?
KING: He's thinking. He's thinking.
EDWARD: Hold on a second.
CALLER: He's thinking.
EDWARD: I'm only quiet for one reason and -- I'll just say it, they're telling me to acknowledge there's been an issue or there is an issue with somebody having an alcohol problem, do you understand that?
CALLER: OK?
EDWARD: You understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: And that it's not in check completely?
CALLER: OK?
EDWARD: That's something -- you're one of three?
CALLER: One of two.
EDWARD: Well, they're telling me one of three. Do you know if they lost a child?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. You're one of three. Whoever is giving me this information, there's somebody who passed -- they passed from like cardiac arrest. They died from a heart attack.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: And also -- is that your dad?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Is there a reason why your dad would not go by his name? That he would go by the name of a place?
CALLER: Not that I know of?
EDWARD: Somebody has a name like would be off of a map or something. Like they would be named for a location. Like they called the person, you know, New York or they called the person, Brooklyn or they called the person, you know, Boston. They called the person by a place name, in some capacity, that would be connected to him. And Ed is connected to him, as well. Where is the Ed word in your family?
CALLER: None that I know of. I know he had a friend at one time named Ed.
EDWARD: Your dad?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: More than likely, he's telling me to acknowledge there's an Ed that's with him. There's somebody who passed either right after surgery, or a procedure was done and the person then crossed. Do you understand that?
CALLER: I think so.
EDWARD: There's like a medical procedure and then the person passes. It's not your dad, but somebody else that would be with him. They're telling me to acknowledge Florida. Where are you from?
CALLER: I'm from Pennsylvania.
EDWARD: What's the Florida connection to the family?
CALLER: My grandfather used to go to Florida half-year.
EDWARD: Is that on your mom's side, though?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. And he's got two daughters?
CALLER: Not that I know of. As far as I know, my mom's an only child.
EDWARD: He's telling me to acknowledge the two girls, so that he would see -- there's like two girls that would be on your grandfather's side of the family, below him, like he had two daughters, the two nieces, the two granddaughter's. But there's two of them. And that there's a connection to Millie or Melissa. Or the ML name, as well, for that family. That's what's coming through.
But again, I want to reiterate what your dad said, there's an issue about alcohol that's not in check and that should be looked at.



Caller wants to connect with her father. More acknowledgements, little validations

Guesses
-Alcohol problem (not scoring, caller "understands")
-1/3 (caller first says 1/2, then makes it fit. Weak hit)
-heart attack (weak hit, common)
-her dad with the heart attack (weak hit)
-name of location (miss)
-Ed (very weak hit - who does not know an Ed?)
-someone who passed after procedure (not scoring, caller "understands")
-Florida (weak hit, grandather used to live there hald year along with many, many seniors in the US)
-2 daughters (miss)
-ML name (not validated)


Total
10 guesses
2 not scored
5 weak hits
2 misses
1 not validated

KING: Yes, go ahead, Dallas. Go ahead. Are you there, go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, I'm here.
EDWARD: Hello.
CALLER: This is Sally from Dallas.
EDWARD: Hey, Sally. How are you?
CALLER: I'm fine. Thanks for taking my call.
EDWARD: Our pleasure.
CALLER: I wanted to ask John, today is a special day for my family, and I wanted to know if you could -- today is a special day in my family, and I wondered if you had a message for us?
EDWARD: Yes, actually, I'm going to use this as an example. One of the things that I want to tell people, is that if they have the opportunity to do what I'm doing right now, go see somebody in the area that does this. Don't do what this lady just did. And that is give us information. Like don't say today is a special day.
CALLER: Why?
KING: Why?
CALLER: I can't hear you, John.
KING: OK. Well, there's something wrong with our phones. Just hang up, ma'am and turn up your television.
EDWARD: When somebody gives you information like that, it's kind of, one, pigeon-holing the reading. And it's saying that, OK, if that doesn't come through, it's going to discount and not validate the rest of the experience. But it's also setting her up, you know, to give the information to somebody else. If it's a special day, it would be nice if that came through during the session. It might not.
But what's important to recognize for anybody, that you don't need a medium like myself to convey to you that today is a special day. I think the most important thing, if you have a belief system, a belief system in knowing that your loved ones and friends are still connected to, then every day is a special day. And that, to me, is the important thing.


More phone problems here. Caller wants a message on special day, does not get it, gets scolded instead. No guesses


Total:
75 guesses
17 hits 22.7%
17 weak hits 22.7%
19 misses 25.3%
14not validated 18.7%
8 not scored 10.7%

He did much better than the previous year. More hits, fewer guesses.

[dingler44]

http://www.csicop.org/sb/9809/i-files.html


...

In all, Edward gave eighteen brief readings on the show, offering (apart from a few ramblings) some 125 statements or pseudostatements (i.e. questions). As I score them, there were four instances of Edwards being unable to make contact or supply an answer and twenty-four unverified and sixteen moot statements. I counted forty-one misses. There were about the same number of hits, forty-two (only 33.6 percent of the total). Or perhaps I should say apparent hits: most, thirty-four, of these were weak hits (as when Edward envisioned "an older female," with "an M-sounding name," either an aunt or grandmother, he said, and the caller supplied "Mavis" without identifying the relationship).

Just six of the statements seemed worthy of being termed moderate hits. (For example, Edward told a caller, "there's a dog who's passed also," and she responded by saying her mother "had a dog that passed." I rated this only a moderate hit since dogs are common pets.) And there were just two statements I felt might be deserving of the unqualified label "hit." (Edward asked a caller, who was seeking her husband, "Did you bury him with cigarettes?" and when she responded in the affirmative, queried, "Was this the wrong brand?" The information does seem rather distinctive, but in both instances was phrased as a question and the second one was, of course, a follow-up.)

As these results indicate, John Edward was incorrect about as often as he was right. And considering the weaknesses of his ostensible hits, his success seems little better than might be obtained from guessing. By taking advantage of human nature, simple probabilities, the opportunities for multiple interpretations, and the technique of asking questions as a means of directing the reading, among other techniques, mediums like John Edward may give the impression they are communicating with the dead. The evidence, however, indicates otherwise.


To summarize Nickell's numbers:
*18 readings
*125(approx) statements or pseudostatements (ie questions)
*4 times JE was unable to make contact or supply an answer
*24 unverified statements
*16 moot statements
*41 misses
*42 apparent hits (33.6% of 125)
*of the apparent hits, there were:
---->34 weak hits
---->6 moderate hits
---->2 hits

[renata]

Last one

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/28/lkl.00.html


We go to Milwaukee for John. Hello?
CALLER: Hello, John.
EDWARD: Hi, how are you?
CALLER: Oh, I'm great. This is so great to talk to you, because...
EDWARD: Thank you.
CALLER: ... what I do in the evening is, I put your show on, and for some reason it's so calm and peaceful. I get something out of it, something spiritual...
EDWARD: Thank you. I appreciate that.
CALLER: ... when I watch you.
Can you -- I don't know what to ask you. Can you tell me anything? EDWARD: Well, let me just tell you, for anybody that's watching or that's listening, that, you know, that's going to have this experience from me, what happens is, whatever I'm seeing, hearing, and feeling I'm going to share with you. I don't communicate with them in the way that I'm speaking with you right now. But whatever it is that I'm getting, I'll pass on to you.
And I know that you're calling and hoping that I can connect with you, but always -- people always want to know that one person might be...
KING: She didn't ask about any...
EDWARD: She didn't ask about any specific person...
KING: ... specific person.
EDWARD: ... but there's always that kind of hope I might connect with that one person. So all I have to say is, please listen to what I'm saying. I might not connect with who you're hoping, but if somebody has passed, if you can, just acknowledge it.
What's your first name?
CALLER: Elaine.
EDWARD: Elaine, the first thing I'm going to tell you is, either your mom has passed, but I have an older female who I feel like is connected around you, OK?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: And I feel like I need to acknowledge that either there's some type of connection to the month of February or the second of a month, which to me means that there's either a birthday or an anniversary in the month of February, or something took place in the second of the a month. That's what they're showing me, OK?
I'm also going to tell you that -- is your dad passed too?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. And you had two dads? Either you have two father figures, or there's an uncle or a father-in-law who's also passed. It's the one that had the cancer that affected the lungs. Because there's somebody that's with the older female that had the cancer that affects the lungs.
CALLER: That was my mother.
EDWARD: OK, well, they're telling me to acknowledge that your mom's got two men that are hanging out with her, which means she's got your dad with her -- Larry just popped a suspender -- she's got your dad with her, and there's another man that she's hanging out with her who might be the father-in-law.
KING: Even after life they fool around. Can't get away from it, man. It's as old as the hills.
EDWARD: Is there something -- is there -- Elaine, is there some type of reference as to why your mom wants me to talk about either her sewing, her needlepoint, or your sewing or needlepoint, or something that's connected to the both of you?
CALLER: That I don't know. I don't...
EDWARD: OK. To me, it's not crochet, it's not knitting. It's like an -- it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- it's got to be, like, sewing, or a needle thing. I'm sewing something. So, like, if you tell me that right now as we're talking, you're doing this, and that's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) way of saying, I see what you're doing.
But she wants me to bring up this. OK? Just know that they see this as their way of coming through. And I don't know if you were in a different state or place when she- -- your mom passed, but I need you to know that they're aware that that -- you know, it's OK.
KING: Thank you, dear. Thanks for calling.



Guesses
-mom or older female (weak hit)
-February or number 2 (not validated)
-dad also passed (weak hit)
-2 dads (not validated)
-lung cancer (weak hit. JE reads it for a man, caller makes it fit for her mother)
-sewing, needlepoint (miss)
-different state at time of death (not validated)

Total
7 guesses
3 not validated
1 miss
3 weak hits

CALLER: Hello. Hi, John. Hi, Larry.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: I'm wanting to know if you feel the presence of my father, who passed away almost four years ago.
EDWARD: I don't know if I'm connecting with your dad, but this is the first thing that's hitting me. Sometimes they give me, like, really, really weird things, and it's weird, and I just say it. There has to be a reference to somebody connected to your family who is known for doing animated voices, or somebody who, for some reason, they'd want me to talk about, like, imitating, like, Donald Duck or somebody who did some type of unique voice connected to the family. Who did that?
CALLER: My sister does weird voices, but dad used to whistle a lot.
EDWARD: Unless he whistled like Donald Duck, I don't think that's it.
CALLER: No, but he really liked Huey, Dewey, and Louie.
EDWARD: Well, that's -- this is where I'm going. They want me to acknowledge that there's a connection to Donald Duck...
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: ... with this man. But I need to talk about the voices being done. I'm also supposed to talk...
KING: Where did that come from? EDWARD: I'm always supposed to talk about somebody -- and this is an -- you got a weird family, I'm sorry. But there's somebody who either gagged on a spoon, or somebody was choking on a fork, or somebody stuck something too far in the back of their throat. And they want me to bring this up for some reason. I don't know who this is. But they're telling me to bring up the J or G name connected to your family. Where...
CALLER: J or G?
EDWARD: Like, somebody's name's, like, John or Jim, it's, like, a short J name.
CALLER: No, I don't -- I can't think of anything.
EDWARD: Yes, you can. It's younger than you, and it's going to be somebody like, you know, the nephew, the grandson, the younger brother. It's the younger male that they would refer to.
CALLER: Well, my nephew just went into convulsions a couple of weeks ago.
EDWARD: And what's the J or G connection to him?
CALLER: Well, his name is not J or G, it's Sky.
EDWARD: OK. Well, there's a J or G connection around this. But I have to tell you, maybe the convulsions was, you know, showing me, like, an epileptic thing, like, you know, putting something on their tongue, I don't know, but that's the reference that they're coming through with. I don't know if it's coming from your dad, though, to be honest. I'm not getting a reference to your dad. But as soon as you started talking, that's what came through.
CALLER: OK.


Caller states he/she wants to connect with father who died 4 years ago


Guesses
-Donald Duck voice (miss. Caller tries to make it fit, JE rejects it)
-gagged on a spoon (not validated)
-J or G name (miss)
-younger male (miss, caller tries to make it fit, but it is not J&G)
-epileptic, tongue (not scoring this, caller already mentioned convulsions)

Total
5 guesses
1 not validated
3 miss
1 not scored

KING: Bethel, Connecticut, for John Edward. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, John.
EDWARD: Hey, how are you doing?
CALLER: Good. I just have a question for you. My mom passed away about a month ago, and she was on life support for over a week. And I just want to know if she heard all the things that I said to her.
EDWARD: Well, let me tell you this. Before you even started to speak, when he was saying -- announcing where you were calling from, the first thing I wanted to talk about was a Catholic priest. So I don't know if you guys have a Catholic background.
CALLER: Well, my mom does, but I'm Lutheran.
EDWARD: OK. I -- OK, but I want to talk about a Catholic priest, because the first thing I want to let you know is, somewhere in your family there has to be a priest that has passed, because I have to tell you that there was somebody that met her that would have been Catholic, of a -- they worked of the cloth.
Now, is there somebody there who had, like, the -- like -- did she have bands on both her legs? Were her legs wrapped?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. I want you to know that yes, she did hear what was going on. And she wants me to talk about May. What happened in May?
There had to be some type of either hospitalization, or she was -- had a procedure, or something happened in the fifth month, because she's telling me to go back to May. She's also talking about the baby of the family. Are you her baby.
CALLER: No, my brother is, I'm the middle child.
EDWARD: I want to talk about the baby of the family. It's very important that you let him know that she came through. What -- and is he the guy in the uniform, or is that dad? Where is the uniform guy?
CALLER: Well, my husband's a volunteer firefighter...
EDWARD: OK.
CALLER: ... so he wears the uniform.
EDWARD: Did he help take care of her, or was he -- was he...
CALLER: Yes, he was very close to her.
EDWARD: I want you to thank him for being patient, and also for keeping her dignity. He helped her in ways that might have been difficult for her to know that somebody like her son-in-law was helping her. Just know that it's appreciated.
Is Mary connected directly to your mom?
CALLER: Mary? Yes, that was her roommate in the nursing home.
EDWARD: OK. Please know that your mom is OK. And she wants to know if you're going to actually replace the china, or if you're going to replace the glasses.
CALLER: Glasses, I don't have any china or glasses.
EDWARD: Well, she's asking me. I'm just supposed to tell you as I'm getting it. Are you going to replace the broken glasses, or the thing that's broken, the broken china or the broken glasses? Again, it's her way of letting you know she sees what's happening around you.
Thank you.

Caller says her mother died a month ago

Guesses
-Catholic priest (miss, caller is Lutheran)
-Wrapped legs (weak hit, common with older people)
-May (not validated)
-caller baby of family (miss, her brother is)
-uniform (weak hit, caller's husband. Very vague unform- could be anything)
-husband close to her mother (not scoring, seems an obvious platitude)
-Mary (weak hit, common name- roommate in nursing home)
-Broken china, broken glass (bad miss- cold reading trick- could have been a great hit)

Total
8 guesses
1 not validated
3 misses
3 weak hits
1 not scored

Boston, Massachusetts. Hello?
CALLER: Hi, John and Larry?
KING: Yes. Go ahead.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you for taking my call.
KING: Sure.
CALLER: I recently lost someone very close to me...
EDWARD: Let me just -- wait, stop right there. What's your first name?
CALLER: Bella.
EDWARD: How are you doing, Bella? I might not connect with who you want me to connect with. So I want you to listen, and if someone makes sense, you can say yes to it. If not, I'll probably not going to be able to connect with you.
I'm supposed to acknowledge a younger male that has crossed. So to me, I don't know if there is a younger male, like a younger brother for you, or if somebody around you lost their son or a younger male. But there's a younger energy that's coming through, that I have to tell you...
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: ... I'm getting, that passes in event, which to me means something happened that causes their passing. It's not a health-care- related issue. Do you understand this?
CALLER: I'm not sure.
EDWARD: OK, well, let me say this again. Is there a younger male that has passed connected to you?
CALLER: My mother's younger brother.
EDWARD: That's not a younger male to you. That would be...
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: ... that would be older than you. Somebody connected, from what I'm getting, passes in what I would see as being an event. Whether this is being vehicle related, or somebody had an impact of some sort, but it's a younger male connection, and they're telling me to acknowledge that this would be, like, somebody's younger male, like their son, like their nephew, like their younger brother.
CALLER: I'm not sure. EDWARD: OK, then I'm not going to be able to connect with you, because that's what's coming through, and it's going to be for somebody else that we're going to.
KING: Yes, when that happens, what does that tell you?
EDWARD: It means that I'm not connecting with them, and it's going to be for somebody else that we're going to, or somebody who's here.


JE makes some guesses, bails on reading

Guesses
-younger male (miss, caller tries to stetch to her uncle)
-something happened to cause passing (miss)
-impact death (miss)

Total
3 guesses
3 misses

KING: Grosse Point, Michigan. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, John. I wondered if you could tell me anything about my mother or my father.
EDWARD: Let me just say this. You're not adopted, are you?
CALLER: No, I'm not.
EDWARD: OK. There has to be somebody that was raised by somebody else in your family, or somebody was raised by, like, their grandmother or their aunt, because I'm getting the feeling of, like, another person raising them. Can you explain that?
CALLER: Yes, my sister was raised by my aunt.
EDWARD: OK. And your mom...
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: ... had -- she had the neurological thing going on?
CALLER: She died when I was a baby. She died of a heart attack in her sleep.
EDWARD: OK, she's telling me to acknowledge somebody with, like, a neurological thing, like, somebody having, like, M.D., or M.S., or there's some type of Parkinson's. There's a feeling of some type of, neuromuscular, neurological thing in the family. I'm not getting father, I'm getting it from the older female. And the aunt that raised her sister, she's also passed?
CALLER: No, she's alive.
EDWARD: Your mom wants me to acknowledge that aunt. So if she's still here, I'm very happy to report that then. But it's the way of meet -- no, that's not it. Your aunt must have lost her husband, or your aunt must have lost somebody that's directly connected to her, because...
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: ... your mom is telling me to acknowledge that person's being there. And they're telling me to bring up either Robert, or Ronnie, or the R name that's connected to that family or your family. There's an R connection here. But they're bringing this up as well, and they're telling me to also acknowledge again that somebody had either a neurological disorder or something that would be, like, neuromuscular or something along those lines.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: All rightie?
KING: Thank you.


Guesses
-someone raised by grandmother or aunt (hit, sister raised by aunt)
-mother- neurological thing (miss, mother died of heart attack)
-neurological/neuromuscular disease (not validated)
-aunt dead (miss, she is alive. One of those 50/50 things)
-aunt lost somebody (too vague, not scoring)
-R name (not validated)

Total
6 guesses
2 not validated
1 not scored
2 miss
1 hit

CALLER: Oh, hello, Larry, hi, John.
KING: Hi.
EDWARD: How are you? CALLER: This is so awesome to talk to you.
EDWARD: Thank you.
Don't say anything. Let me just go. What's your first name?
CALLER: Betsy.
EDWARD: Betsy, I don't know if your dad's passed, but I got an older male that's coming through, trying to let me know that he's here. And he's telling me to acknowledge that either you have the husband or brother who's passed, or there is a contemporary to you that I would see as passed as well. Do you understand this?
CALLER: Not really, no.
EDWARD: OK, let me do it again. Is there an older male connected to you, like your father, who passed?
CALLER: No, my dad's here.
EDWARD: OK, there's got to be a father-in-law or somebody who's crossed.
KING: Well, she -- you have a question for John? Betsy?
CALLER: Actually, yes, I was wondering if...
KING: What were you going to ask?
CALLER: Pardon?
KING: Go ahead.
CALLER: I was wondering if my mother-in-law was watching over us still.
EDWARD: OK, can we just hold that question in two seconds? Is there a father-in-law who has passed?
CALLER: Father-in-law's with us, no.
EDWARD: No. I've got a dad that's coming through. Where is the guy that passes that had the throat cancer or had problems to the throat?
CALLER: My grandpa.
EDWARD: OK. That man that had the problems with the throat wants your attention, OK?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: And I'm supposed to acknowledge that there's a connection to July in your family?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. And I'm also -- some -- well, you just -- you just -- somebody just moved.
CALLER: I don't know.
EDWARD: Is that your -- is that on your mom's side of the family?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, somebody there just moved. Just know that your grandfather did not care about your question, just so you know that, and as I started connecting with you, he wanted to be the first person to come through, and he wants me to acknowledge that either your name for somebody in his family, but he making me feel like there's a parallel between his family and you...
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: ... and to let you know that he is OK, and to let you know that the dog is with them on the other side. Because they've got a dog barking for me. So that's -- and he lets me know that there's a dog or a pet that's passed that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) let you know was there, OK?
CALLER: OK.
KING: What about the mother-in-law.
EDWARD: I'm not connecting with your mother-in-law, but to me, if this is possible for him to come through, it's just as possible for her to come through as well.


Guesses
-older male,father (miss)
-husband or brother (miss)
-father in law (miss- a 50/50 guess)
-throat cancer (grandfather, weak hit)
-July (weak hit)
-somebody moved (miss)
-dead dog (not validated)

Total
7 guesses

1 not validated
4 misses
2 weak hits


KING: Lexington, Kentucky. Hello.
CALLER: Yes, this is just so exciting and fascinating. I wanted to see if you could reach my mother.
EDWARD: Actually, I can't reach your mother, because I'm getting that energy again. I'm sorry, I'm not -- I can't. I'm getting this energy again. You said Barney was your cousin over there?
CALLER: No, I was going to see if you could reach my mother or my father.
EDWARD: No, I know, I'm -- but there's somebody in the studio who -- I made -- during the commercial break I was able to make a connection with, who is a cousin who is not leaving.
KING: So that prevents this person.
EDWARD: That prevents me from getting this because -- His mother's still here?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. KING: You're talking to someone in the studio, OK.
EDWARD: I'm talking to somebody in the studio.
KING: We're sorry, ma'am.
Let's see, hope the next connects.


JE Bails
-cousin, Barney (miss)

Total
1 guess
1 miss

CALLER: Hi, I was wondering if you can reach my brother.
EDWARD: If I can get her cousin to stop talking to me, I'll do my best.
CALLER: OK.
KING: Shut up, cousin.
EDWARD: I can't. Sorry.
CALLER: Oh, OK. Thank you.


JE bails again, wants to read someone in studio


EDWARD: Can you just put -- help -- can I just do that?
KING: All right. There's a lady, so you want to finish on her?
EDWARD: If I can just do that.
KING: Go ahead.
EDWARD: He wants me to acknowledge -- I don't know if Mom and Dad are separated?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. It's very important that he gets a message across to both of them that he is OK. I don't know if his passing helped to push them further apart.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. He's making me feel like he doesn't want them to feel like -- he doesn't want them to feel like it's his -- he doesn't want the blame. You know what I'm saying? And he doesn't want them to use -- he doesn't want them to use him as an excuse not to work on some of the things that they need to work on.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.
EDWARD: You follow what I'm saying?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. EDWARD: And I don't know if you're closer to Dad than you are to Mom, but I feel like, as a parent, they both need to know that he is OK...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
EDWARD: ... and they both need to know that he sees what's happening in their lives. And I also feel like the separation that's happening between the two of them might not change, but the communication between both can change. OK?
There's got to be either a Nathaniel or a Nate or a Nat or an N name.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Other side of the family.
EDWARD: Is -- who is that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That would be my great-uncle.
KING: OK.
EDWARD: OK.
KING: Your name is?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Elizabeth.
KING: Elizabeth. And you're a friend of our -- Patty, who does all our makeup.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I am.
KING: And he's been uncanny with you, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, completely.


This is potentially Tony the cameraman situation. We do not know what this woman told him prior to the show or during a break. Most of the reading is reassuring that he is OK, little actual info

Guesses
-parents separated (hit)
-Nat (weak hit, distant relative)

2 guesses
1 hit
1 weak hit

KING: Yes. Lakeview, Oregon, hello.
CALLER: Hello, John and Larry.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: I'm open to whoever wants to talk.
EDWARD: OK, I'm open to bringing through whoever wants to come through. Thank you.
The first thing I want to talk about is a female who has crossed that I would see as being somebody like a contemporary, so I don't know if you've had, like, a sister or a friend that's crossed, but this is a female that I would see as being a contemporary.
It doesn't have to be blood to you, it could be like a sister, Laura (ph), it could be your friend's sister, I don't know. But there's somebody who's gone for a while. Where does the Cathy (ph), Catherine (ph), C or K name come in?
CALLER: I have a best friend named Cathy.
EDWARD: OK, and she's still here, correct?
CALLER: Yes, she is.
EDWARD: OK, I think the female that I'm getting, I might be misinterpreting this, is connected to her, OK?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: And, there's also somebody that I feel like passes either that had liver cancer or somebody who had stomach cancer or cancer that effects the stomach area, from what they're showing me.
That comes up either for that family or for you, and they're making me feel like, I don't know, if you're getting ready to take a trip west, but there's a major pull to my left which takes me west, and they're showing me that, as well, and one last thing is that they're rocking a baby, so when I see a baby being rocked in this capacity it means that there was the loss of a child in the life so I want you to have the baby with them on the other side as well. All righty?
CALLER: OK, thank you very much.
EDWARD: Thank you very much.



Guesses
-dead friend or sister (not validated)
-Laura (not validated)
-C or K name (weak hit, common name, and the person is alive)
-woman connected to Cathy (not validated)
-liver or stomach cancer (not validated)
-trip out west (not validated)
-dead baby (not validated)


Total
7 guesses
6 not validated
1 weak hit


KING: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, hello.
CALLER: Hi.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: Hi, I'm Vanessa (ph) and I wonder if you can connect to somebody.
EDWARD: I can try, Vanessa. I might not connect with who you're hoping to, but I'm going to bring through whatever that does come through, whatever that does come through. Is that OK?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: The first thing I'm going to tell you is -- and I'm getting this really simple again, I'm getting an older female who has crossed. So I don't know if you have a mom vibration who has passed, but I'm getting an older female who has crossed who I think had breast cancer, by the way.
CALLER: I'm not sure.
EDWARD: OK, well, try thinking again because this is where I'm going to be soft (ph) because I've got somebody who's passed from either breast cancer, or lung cancer, but the female figure that's connected here. Who has the unique J name that I'm not going to be able to pronounce?
CALLER: J? Well my name -- my mother's name is Jane.
EDWARD: Jane?
CALLER: Jane? Jane, yes.
EDWARD: I can pronounce that. Is there another version of the name, or is there another, like, unique name?
CALLER: Not that I can recall.
EDWARD: OK, I'm going to leave this with you. If, again, you can contact us here back, but the -- whatever's coming -- I don't know who you're hoping to connect with, but if -- obviously that's not what I'm getting.
I have an older female who passed from either breast or lung cancer; there's a unique J name which is not going to be Jane for me, and that's basically what's coming through.



Guesses
-older female (not validated)
-breast cancer (miss)
-lung cancer (not validated)
-unique J name (now this is funny. Caller is from Brazil. A cold reader would assume a unique or exotic name...but it is Jane. Can't get more plain than that! Since he keeps harping on a name he can't pronounce, this is a miss)

Total
4 guesses
2 not validated
2 miss


KING: Thank you. Yorkshire, England. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. Good evening Mr. King, Mr. Edward.
EDWARD: How are you?
CALLER: And thank you and I just wondered if you could get in touch with my husband.
EDWARD: Did you have two of them?
CALLER: Pardon?
No, just one.
EDWARD: OK, well, I have two here. I have two here. I have one that's making me feel like they either had diverticulitis or somebody had some type of also stomach or digestive illness issues that they want me to bring up, so somebody that's cross-connected to you has had some stomach issues or illness on that -- along that level. And I'm also supposed to be talking about somebody who either passed at home, or they were in their own home or environment when they took ill. Do you understand this?
CALLER: Right, yes.
EDWARD: Was that him?
CALLER: That was -- yes, yes.
EDWARD: That's your husband?
CALLER: Yes. EDWARD: OK, now, is there a reason why he would claim that you would take him from his home, or you would take him -- like when you first met did you like steal him away from where he lived? Or did his family feel like you took him away from his family?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK, well, that's what I'm seeing. So one of the things that I'm known for is not deviating from the message, so what I'm going to tell you again is that there is some type of reference that you did something -- maybe not in a negative way, but that life in a some capacity the two of you kind of moved away from an area or a place that he would be connected to.



Caller wants to get in touch with husband

Guesses
-2 husbands (miss- this is another time he uses a multiplier. He has done that before- 2 sisters, etc)
-stomach illness (not validated)
-someone who either died or became ill at home (how more general can one get? Caller "understands", not scoring. he badgers her into saying it was her husband, but it is too general and all applicable to be a hit- everyone gets ill at home at one point or other)
-taken from his family (miss, although also a good try- almost any marriage involves taking someone from their family)
- couple moved away (not validated)

Total
5 guesses
1 not scored
2 misses
2 not validated

KING: Huron, Tennessee, hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Yes, go ahead.
CALLER: Hi. I lost my father in 2000 and my mother this past June. Can you feel anything, tell me anything?
EDWARD: Hold on one second, OK? Before I go to your mom and dad so -- let me just say right now, no -- I'm not going to connect with them immediately, but I want you to listen to this, OK?
CALLER: OK
EDWARD: There's something that's showing me that they've passed from a gunshot.
CALLER: Right.
EDWARD: You understand that?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK, somebody's claiming that they crossed themselves over. Something that they did.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Caused how they passed. OK? And it does effect their head.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, is that not connected to one of them?
CALLER: My mother's brother-in-law.
EDWARD: OK, it's not connected to one of them. I want you to know that that person needed to get me that -- I needed to get that out first, OK?
I also need to acknowledge that your Dad -- there's either some type of issue of substance, where somebody was known for their drinking, or there's some type of alcohol connection that comes up around the family, you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, now, they're showing me pink roses with thorns on it? When I see that, that means that in life there wasn't the ability to be able to communicate the message of love or to be able to communicate feelings back and forth, and I feel like I need to bring this across to you, OK, and I need you to understand that they are aware of what you tried to do, and that you were not able to always accomplish what it was that you wanted to do, OK?
And I also feel like there was an issue -- and I'm sorry to do this on television, there was an issue of anger and of disappointment that I feel like you were not able to live underneath -- you couldn't get out from underneath that, you know what I'm saying.
It's like nothing was ever good enough and you were not able to -- you were not able to accomplish in their eyes, you know, what you think they wanted you to see. Please understand that that's not a you thing, that's a them thing, OK, and that your mom recognized that before her passing. Your Dad did not, unfortunately.
And that those issues, that will linger for about 7, 8, 9 years for the opportunity to be able to put them to bed. Please know you don't have to wait. You can still deal with this stuff. If you have to, like, work with a counselor or write your mom and dad a letter just to get out what it is you're feeling. Do that, they will understand and they will hear you. OK?
CALLER: Yes, thank you.
EDWARD: You're very welcome.


Caller wants to connect with her parents

Guesses
-death from gunshot (miss- recall similar gunshot question in a prior LKL reading)
-suicide, later widened to something to do with their head. (caller confirms mother's brother in law, something to do with head. Stretch, but a weak hit)
-alcohol problem (not scored, caller "understands")
-lingering issues, anger, etc. (not scored, general platitudes)

Total
4 guesses
1 miss
2 not scored
1 weak hit


KING: Thank you. Amazing. Crown Point, Indiana, hello.
CALLER: Hi, thank you for taking my phone call.
KING: Sure.
EDWARD: Go ahead.
CALLER: My father passed away two years ago, and its really hard for me to believe in an after life. I mean, I've been very religious person, but is there anything that you can tell me?
EDWARD: I don't -- actually, you know what, I don't think that you don't believe in an afterlife. If I can, I don't need to tell you what you believe but as I'm -- as I'm talking to you, what I think it is that you have a very, very strong belief system and I think that you're a person -- I think you're at the perfect place, to be honest.
I think you're at the place where you need validation and you need to know that your own experience to get what I could do, your own experiences are real and the first place I want to start is by talking about something that would have happened to you.
After one of your -- after one of your parents, or after one of the people in your life, there seem very significant passings that I think happen in a short period of time from what they're showing me, and I think that after one of them passed, you had your own experience that you just kind of played off and thought like oh, that's no big deal, that was a dream or the feeling that you had or whatever, and I don't -- I don't believe that's the case.
I believe that possibly the dream that you had or the experience you had was a direct connection from your own family in coming through. The other thing I want to talk about is the unique B name. Where is the B coming for you?
CALLER: A B?
EDWARD: Yes.
CALLER: I can't think of anything right now.
EDWARD: Well, directly connected to your mom's side of the family, where's the B name? Like Betty, like Beth or Bobby or the B connection again? Or Buddy? Just a short B name like Bud, Bill.
CALLER: No, nothing I'm -- no.
EDWARD: OK, I'm going to say yes and I'm going to leave that with you. I want you to be clear what I said as far as more importantly, remember what I said because you already had your own experience and what I want this to be is a validation of that for you.




Guesses
-Caller had a dream (not validated)
-B name (miss. Interestingly, first it starts as a unique B name, and then he fishes for Betty, Beth or Bobby Or Buddy? or Bud, Bill. Pretty much anything. Classic cold reading)


Total
2 guesses
1 miss
1 not validated


KING: We're back with John Edward. Cambridge, Massachusetts, hello.
CALLER: Hi, John. Hi, Larry. I was just wondering if you could talk to my mom and my grandmother?
EDWARD: Are they in the same family? Like mother and daughter?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Yes, tell me that you're leaving out one.
CALLER: Yes, a lot of people.
EDWARD: Well, they're making me feel like they're coming through together in threes.
CALLER: My grandfather.
EDWARD: Like Mom's Dad too?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Two of them must have passed close together? I need to know yes they are together -- is there a reason why they want me to show you candy canes?
CALLER: Candy canes?
EDWARD: Like does somebody have the name candy or is there some type of reference that somebody would be like a candy striper. or like they did something that I would see like red and white stripes around this?
It's not a Christmas message for me, it's a candy cane message, so I want to come up with that. I also want to talk about -- you have a son?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Who's the little boy?
CALLER: My brother? But she wouldn't know him. Different family.
EDWARD: They're telling me to acknowledge the little boy. Or the young boy. So to me -- was your brother born after your mom passed or...
CALLER: Well, step family, so I have a younger brother now that I didn't when she was around.
EDWARD: OK, yes, she tells me to acknowledge the little boy. She's also telling me to bring up that the 11th or the 12th of the month means something.
CALLER: OK
EDWARD: And she's also telling me to acknowledge that. Did she pass before her mom?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Because she's claiming that she was there to grieve her mom and she's also making me feel like -- do you take care of her mom?
CALLER: Try to.
EDWARD: OK. I'm supposed to let you know that the stroke or whatever this cardiovascular thing that one of them dealt with kind of in -- it did enable them to be able to deal with the family a certain way, but they appreciate your efforts of what you did...
CALLER: Oh, because we didn't tell my grandfather that my mother had died because he was in the hospital at the time.
EDWARD: They -- they understand, OK, and I think that upon their passing obviously they are all together. I want you to know that they are aware of what you are trying to accomplish by bringing like two of your families together. And that it is not going to be an easy task because people are either spread out or you have two people that are just not talking for a while, so you'll get it together.
CALLER: My uncles don't speak.
EDWARD: You'll get it together, but it's going to take a while so just be patient. Thanks for calling.


Caller wants to connect to mom and grandmother

Guesses
-coming together in threes.(not scoring. Obviously, people know many dead people, why shouldn't they come in threes?)
-grandparents passed close together (not validated)
-candy canes (not validated)
-son (miss)
-young boy (miss)
-11th or 12th of the month (number game again, not validated)
-passed before her mom (not scoring- obvious from the fact that the caller had a step brother who was born to different mother, her mother must have died young)
-stroke or cardiovascular (not validated, more general illness stuff)
-some family members not talking (weak hit, her uncles don't speak)

Total
9 guesses
2 not scoring
4 not validated
1 weak hit
2 miss

KING: Belfast -- Belfast, Northern Ireland, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Larry. Hi, John. I was just wondering if you could connect me to any members of family.
EDWARD: You have a son who's passed or there's a younger male in your family who has crossed.
CALLER: Yes, younger male.
EDWARD: OK, that would -- that has to be either like I said your son, your nephew, your grandfather.
CALLER: Nephew.
EDWARD: OK, he's the first person that I'm getting. He wants me to acknowledge that either Charles or that there's a C -- C name that's connected to that family as well. And he's also -- your mom's passed?
CALLER: My mom passed, yes.
EDWARD: Because he's claiming that he's got -- he's got your mom with him. I'm going to say something and I hope I don't offend you with, but in life your mom might have been a very difficult lady to work with, because he's making me feel like she's not like she was when she was here so I think that she might have been a little stern, a little difficult, a little hard to deal with. Not as openly loving as maybe sometimes you would like. Or maybe she was just this way with you but I want you to know that she's not that way any longer. I also feel like -- I don't know if you just had some type of minor surgery but they're telling me to acknowledge that somebody in the family just had a procedure, a minor thing, done and that they're aware that you had to do this, OK? And they were with the person while this was taking place.
Separately from your nephew and your mom, I also have somebody to your side who has crossed. That to me would be like your husband -- no -- it's like your husband, it's your brother, it's the male figure to your side that they want me to bring up, do you understand?
CALLER: My brother.
EDWARD: OK. He had to be a very loud individual in life because he's making me feel like he's got this very big personality, OK? He's coming across in a big, big way. And I'm supposed to tell you that there's a hand signal or gesture of some sort that one of these people had in life that when they talked they maybe they did this, I don't know what this is, but...
CALLER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
EDWARD: I'm sorry?
CALLER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
EDWARD: Boxing?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: No, I think it's fighting, I think it's a one hand gesture thing that they would do and I feel like it's their thing and I'm supposed to do that for you or acknowledge that to you so you know that it's them and they're telling me to ask you how your ear is.
CALLER: Fine.
EDWARD: Your ear. It's fine.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: They're making me feel like it's not, so I'm just going to tell you to check it. Exactly.
KING: Now you said her mother changed. You can change after you pass?
EDWARD: I do believe that you can transition. And one of the -- one of the major things that I'm working on now is talking about -- you know -- in the next book that I'm working on is that relationships that you don't get a chance to fix like while you're here I do believe that you can work on after somebody has passed.
KING: Really?
EDWARD: I do, I really believe that.



Guesses
-son or younger male (weak hit, younger male, nephew)
-C name, Charles (not validated)
-mother passed (weak hit, 50/50)
-mother strict (not validated)
-minor surgery (not validated)
-male figure to the side (weak hit, brother)
-loud individual (not validated)
-special hand signal (not validated)
-ear (Eh? Spirits ask about caller's ear? Caller never confirms her ear had a problem, not scoring)


Total
9 guesses
3 weak hits
1 not scored
5 not validated

There are several readings which are just questions- why did a caller lose a child, why did a mother die suddenly- those callers were not "read" I am not including them here.

KING: Brunswick, Ohio, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Mr. Edward.
I don't know, I don't have any particular question, I don't want to take up too much of the time that way but I wondered if you could kind of pick up on something that neither one of my parents are around I come from a very large family so maybe you've got some insight.
EDWARD: Well, I can actually provide you with some insight but I don't think it's going to be to your family. I don't know if you were just helping somebody deal with their dad being ill?
Or you were helping somebody cope with the loss of a father figure or an older male, but I'm being -- first of all I'm supposed to tell you that somebody had either Alzheimer's or some body had some type of issue that effected their head prior to their passing that would kind of make me see them as being like either having Alzheimer's, being either like senile or having something like that but I'm not getting it to your family I'm getting it through the person you were working with or helping so that means it was somebody that's like you're connected to. Where are you calling from, Ohio?
CALLER: Brunswick, Ohio.
EDWARD: What are your ties to North Carolina?
CALLER: I'm sorry?
EDWARD: What's your tie to like the Carolinas?
CALLER: Nothing.
EDWARD: Well I might not be with you.
CALLER: Nothing at all.
EDWARD: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm definitely not with you. Can you find out if we have a caller on hold from North Carolina?


Another escape for JE

Guesses
-helping someone with ill father (not validated)
-helping someone to get over death of father (not validated)
-Alzheimers or senile (this is about the 4-5th time in these readings Alzheimers is mentioned. Not validated)
-North Carolina (miss)
-Any Carolina (miss)

Total
5 guesses
3 not validated
2 misses

KING: No we don't. Or maybe they do, they haven't given me. Harvey, Louisiana, hello.
CALLER: Hi, John, I'd like to see if you can contact anyone in my family.
EDWARD: OK, what's your first name?
CALLER: Barbara (ph).
EDWARD: How are you doing, Barbara. First thing I'm going to tell you is that I'm getting the feeling of an older female. That to me would be either your aunt, your grandmother or there's an older female that has crossed.
They're also making me feel like there's a tie to the month of October. I don't know if there's a birthday or anniversary on the tenth of a month, or if it's the 10th month of October that I'm supposed to be bringing up, but connected to that family there is also a younger female who has crossed so someday either lost their sister, somebody lost their daughter so there's a younger female who lost who would be below them, OK, so you got to think like it's a grandmother who's coming through, she lost her daughter or a younger sister, it could be below you but it's below her from what they're showing me but that's pretty much what's coming through. What's the big issue in October?
CALLER: My mother passed away in October.
EDWARD: OK, well, then the older female would be above her and they're tying that to October. It's just their way of letting me know that they are connected to you.
They're also making me feel like your mom has to have a connection to the 16th of some month, so I don't know if like the 16th of August is their birthday or anniversary, but there's a 16 connection that comes up, not directly to your mom per se but it's to her side of the family and I'm supposed to tell you that either her father is with her or her older brother is with her. OK, but please know that they are together and they are OK.



Interestingly, caller lets JE throw out more and more before she validates one of the first guesses.

Guesses
-older female (weak hit, mother dead)
-10 or October (hit, month of mother's death. Those months keep popping up)
-younger female -sister or daughter ( by this time any dead woman should do, eh?) (not validated)
-grandmother (not validated)
-16th of the month (not validated)
-mother's father or brother dead (not validated)

Total
6 guesses
1 hit
1 weak hit
4 not validated


KING: Thank you Phoenix, Arizona hello.
CALLER: Hello, John.
EDWARD: How are you?
CALLER: I'm trying to find out about my husband. I can't hear you.
EDWARD: OK, I'm sorry. I don't know, I don't know if I'll be able to connect with your husband. Did he just pass?
CALLER: Couple of years ago.
EDWARD: No, did somebody else just pass?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Are you sure?
CALLER: I'm positive.
EDWARD: Well, let me just say this, OK? I'm being told, and it is not for somebody else, I'm being told that it is for you, that somebody else passed right after your husband.
So after he passed, connected to you or his family, somebody else passed and I'm supposed to let you know that they would be I guess together and I'm also supposed to let you know did he pass right around the holiday or right around his own birthday?
CALLER: It was a holiday, July 4th.
EDWARD: Yes, I'm supposed to let you know that there's somebody else that passed after him that I'm needing to let you know that he would be with and I'm also supposed to let you know that either you have a different name than what you said your name was or I'm supposed to bring up the other name that he would have called you by and I'm also -- did he have a heart problem who passed very fast?
CALLER: He had a heart attack.
EDWARD: Yes, OK. Please know that your husband is fine; he does make me feel like -- do you talk to his picture in the kitchen?
CALLER: I'm sorry?
EDWARD: Do you speak to his picture in like a kitchen?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Yes, he hears you, but you've got to stop telling him like why did he leave you.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: You know what I'm saying? When nobody else is around, you're crying to him and saying why did you leave me.
CALLER: I do but I don't blame him at the same time.
EDWARD: I know that, I know you don't blame him, but I want you to know that he hears you, so what you need to let him know is that you're upset that he's gone but you need to know that he's still connected to you.


Caller wants to know about her husband

Guesses
-Husband just passed (miss)
-Someone else just passed (miss)
-someone else passed around the time husband did (not validated)
-someone passed around a holiday or birthday (weak hit, July 4th. Considering holidays are evenly scattered, pretty much any death is near some holiday)
-different name (not validated)
-quick death, heart problem (weak hit, heart attack)
-talking to the picture (not scoring this- yet to meet a person who did not talk to picture of a dead loved one)
-caller asks husband why he left her (not scoring, general platitude)


Total
8 guesses
2 misses
2 not validates
2 not scored
2 weak hits


Totals for this reading

98 guesses
3 hits 3.1%
18 weak hits 18.4%
29 misses 29.6%
11 not scored 11.2%
37 not validated 37.8%


This one was pretty bad. It is possible I scored them differently, as second reading is much better than this. If anyone wishes to readjust scoring as they see fit, they can, I just wanted a rough count. I find it interesting that his strategy evolved- in the first reading, he read fewer callers, and guessed more in each. Here he started throwing things that could not be validated and general stuff, perhaps avoiding some bad misses he had before.

Interestingly, same things occured over and over- months, vague energies, initials.

I do not know how someone can possibly think these readings are any good. They appear to be classic cold reading.

If anyone wants to do mroe on this, please do. I am pretty tired from all the counting :)

[ImpyTimpy]

Sorry Renata, I don't think you scored this reading correctly. I'm not sure about others...

Just so you know I'm not a believer in JE by any account but this reading is interesting. I'll count the hits/misses and add my comments from a neutral stand point then compare against your statistic for the said reading.


KING: Thank you Phoenix, Arizona hello.
CALLER: Hello, John.
EDWARD: How are you?
CALLER: I'm trying to find out about my husband. I can't hear you.
EDWARD: OK, I'm sorry. I don't know, I don't know if I'll be able to connect with your husband. Did he just pass?
CALLER: Couple of years ago.

Cold reading here possibly. Let's call it miss.

EDWARD: No, did somebody else just pass?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Are you sure?
CALLER: I'm positive.

Seems to be a miss, but there seems to be persistence about this... Perhaps trying to force the client to validate?

2 misses so far.

EDWARD: Well, let me just say this, OK? I'm being told, and it is not for somebody else, I'm being told that it is for you, that somebody else passed right after your husband.
So after he passed, connected to you or his family, somebody else passed and I'm supposed to let you know that they would be I guess together and I'm also supposed to let you know did he pass right around the holiday or right around his own birthday?
CALLER: It was a holiday, July 4th.

Hit... Also the woman seems to be validating the "second person"? That could be a hit too then rather then a miss.

Another possibility is she's confused and referring to her husband.

2 unclear hits
2 clear misses

EDWARD: Yes, I'm supposed to let you know that there's somebody else that passed after him that I'm needing to let you know that he would be with and I'm also supposed to let you know that either you have a different name than what you said your name was or I'm supposed to bring up the other name that he would have called you by and I'm also -- did he have a heart problem who passed very fast?

Now I'm confused. Who was he referring to? Obviously jumping between this person and husband... So what is she validating anyway? He also makes guesses as to names but we can't verify hit miss so we'll leave those.

So that leaves us with the heart attack.

Unclear hit since he's jumping back and forth between people.

3 unclear hits
2 clear misses.

CALLER: He had a heart attack.
EDWARD: Yes, OK. Please know that your husband is fine; he does make me feel like -- do you talk to his picture in the kitchen?
CALLER: I'm sorry?
EDWARD: Do you speak to his picture in like a kitchen?
CALLER: Yes.

This is a good hit - not because she speaks to his picture but because he clearly mentions picture in the kitchen.

1 good hit
3 unclear hits
2 clear misses.
[B]
EDWARD: Yes, he hears you, but you've got to stop telling him like why did he leave you.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: You know what I'm saying? When nobody else is around, you're crying to him and saying why did you leave me.
CALLER: I do but I don't blame him at the same time.

I'm labelling this is as a possible miss. He said she blames him while the sitter clearly set she doesn't... From the spirit's point of view however it might appear as if she blames him. Poor bugger can't get rest in the afterlife.

1 good hit
3 unclear hits
2 clear misses
1 possible miss

EDWARD: I know that, I know you don't blame him, but I want you to know that he hears you, so what you need to let him know is that you're upset that he's gone but you need to know that he's still connected to you.

Nothing to score here...

The unclear hits are the ones which the sitter seems to acknowledge but this may be due to the confusion generated by JE words.

The good hit is impressive.

The clear misses are just that - he got information wrong.

Possible miss is something I'm not sure about, sitter seems to suggest it's a miss although it might classify as a hit if we believe the spirit can see what she's doing but misinterpreted the information.

Compared to Renatas statistics:


Total
8 guesses
2 misses
2 not validates
2 not scored
2 weak hits

He seems to have done a little better. Still, it'd be good if we could get believer/independants/skeptics/cynics/whatever to chime in and score it so no bias is possible. What seems like a hit to one person may seem like a miss to another.

My final analysis is in that reading he did get an interesting hit but the opening seemed to suggest clear cut cold reading.

[Ceinwyn]

Each and every reading Renata posted is a clear-cut case of cold reading. It's obvious and it's ridiculous.

Here's a small example:

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.

Many people have pets. Many people have pets who have died. What JE is good at is just getting enough information--"He had a dog" "No, but he had a--" "Ok wait, wait"--then it becomes a generic pet, he hears a "dog barking which is a symbol" which then becomes "an animal or pet that's passed." Also an old one that was "part of the family", so who the hell knows what it was or when it died.

Also note that the caller never verified if it was a dog at all. He simply said "Ok."

This is a prime example of cold reading. He's very good at it, but that's all it is.

[MRC_Hans]

I'd like to start by saying: Great work, Renata!
Now for reading ..........

Hans

[juninho]

Originally posted by renata
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


Oh my god, its so blatant. When he can't 'hook' someone immediately he claims he can't connect with them and then uses the general routine he had planned on the next caller. He obviously goes into each reading with a game-plan. He must prepare all the opening gambits in advance to avoid suspicion of replication were people to look for similarities in his readings.

It would be interesting to see if he ever has started with the "I see an X (or a Q, Y or Z) that is important to you..." line. Statistically, names beginning with these letters are unlikely but the number of readings he has done over time, surely one of these letters must have been the first to "boom" out of the ether at him.

[MRC_Hans]

OK; read it.

You have done a lot of work here, Renata, thanks. I would say your scoring is very friendly.

I noticed this: JE often ends something with the words "do you understand?", so caller says "yes". This will sound like a hit to some, and sometimes it may be a hit, but more often, the caller just acknowleges understanding the words.

I was a little puzzled in the start of how he almost consistently refuses to talk about what the caller asks him, but it clearly isn't attactive for him to get in to an area full of specifics; the risk is too great. Looking through it, he almost invariably veers away as soon as things get specific.

I think an interesting way to test this would be for some people to put themselves in the place of the callers. See how many hits you get. I noticed often getting nearly as many hits as the caller, except for names, of course.

Hans

[Ersby]

Excellent work, renata. I did something similar, though not in as much detail, a while back.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jeblues.htm

My method is even more blunt, reliying on simply counting things as "hits" or "misses", and it served to compare Crossing Over to the unedited LKL transcripts I had.

[Skat Bo]

Good job Renata - this is the most detailed one I've seen yet. I'm sure it will continue to be aswell.

[renata]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Sorry Renata, I don't think you scored this reading correctly. I'm not sure about others...
.....

He seems to have done a little better. Still, it'd be good if we could get believer/independants/skeptics/cynics/whatever to chime in and score it so no bias is possible. What seems like a hit to one person may seem like a miss to another.

My final analysis is in that reading he did get an interesting hit but the opening seemed to suggest clear cut cold reading.

Bias was a big concern for me, I thought I might not give him hits. Also, since I was just doing a rough count, I was probably inconsistant from reading to reading. I tried to be generous in granting hits, even if it was very vague, like female energy, or J name. I think it would be very interesting if several people scored those readings, and we could compare our impressions.

[Starrman]

That took a lot of time to read - so I edited them down a bit. What do you think about them now?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALLER: Hi, Larry. Hi, John.
EDWARD: Hi, how are you?
CALLER: My name is Ron. I'm doing very well. We recently lost three family members pretty close in succession. I just wondered if you could make a connection?
EDWARD: I know this is going to sound strange, but I say it as I get it, somebody is connected to you has a horse who passed, because they're showing me what I would see as not gambling horses, but like either horses on a farm or it's a reference to get me to that side of the family. And there's also a connection to somebody who passes who either had pancreatic or colon cancer?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Somebody had cancer, lower in the body.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: It's that connection. Is this on your mom's side of the family, as well?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Where's the Jane connection or Jeannie?
CALLER: Jane would be sister-in-law.
EDWARD: OK. Ask her. Because they're telling me to connect it either through either Janey or Jeannie.
CALLER: OK?
EDWARD: In that family, the older male must have passed as well, like the father figure there. Because they're telling me to acknowledge that somebody was at their wedding. So, somebody in that side of the family must have lost their dad before they got married.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING: Peterborough, Ontario, for John Edward.
Hello. Hello?
CALLER: Hi, John?
EDWARD: Hi, how are you?
CALLER: I'm fine, thank you. I'm so happy to get through.
EDWARD: OK. Let me tell that you that there's a congratulatory message of somebody being pregnant now.
CALLER: OK. There's a possibility that somebody in my family may be.
EDWARD: Yeah? It's going to be a big possibility, because they are.
CALLER: OK. Great.
EDWARD: I'm going to tell you also, did your mom pass -- your mom must have passed in the last two years?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: She either passed by her birthday or your dad's?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. I need to acknowledge that she has her daughter with her or she has a younger sister with her as well. But somebody lost a younger female that's connected to her.
CALLER: Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALLER: I'm just wondering what John could tell me?
EDWARD: I'm only quiet for one reason and -- I'll just say it, they're telling me to acknowledge there's been an issue or there is an issue with somebody having an alcohol problem, do you understand that?
CALLER: OK?
EDWARD: You understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: And that it's not in check completely?
CALLER: OK?
EDWARD: That's something -- you're one of three?
CALLER: One of two.
EDWARD: Well, they're telling me one of three. Do you know if they lost a child?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. You're one of three. Whoever is giving me this information, there's somebody who passed -- they passed from like cardiac arrest. They died from a heart attack.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: And also -- is that your dad?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: He's telling me to acknowledge there's an Ed that's with him. There's somebody who passed either right after surgery, or a procedure was done and the person then crossed. Do you understand that?
CALLER: I think so.
EDWARD: There's like a medical procedure and then the person passes. It's not your dad, but somebody else that would be with him. They're telling me to acknowledge Florida. Where are you from?
CALLER: I'm from Pennsylvania.
EDWARD: What's the Florida connection to the family?
CALLER: My grandfather used to go to Florida half-year.
EDWARD: Is that on your mom's side, though?
CALLER: Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lord Kenneth]

Clancie's excuse is that Larry King's bad breath disrupted his powers... :rolleyes:

[Charlie Monoxide]

Great post renata! I'm sure a lot of effort went into it.

It's all pathetic though. It breaks my heart that a well-watched show like Larry King Live gives credence to this douche-bag.

I have sat through a few Sci-Fi shows of JE. My eyes glaze over ever time he tells callers/audience to only answer "yes or no". They always provide fodder for his "cold readings".

The shear arrogance of JE berating them when they say that they have no idea what JE is talking about is pathetic. When some of his subjects break down in tears, it's time to switch channels.

Charlie (that's entertainment!) Monoxide

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Clancie's excuse is that Larry King's bad breath disrupted his powers... :rolleyes:

LK's got powers, too? But his breath is his own kryptonite? Whoa!

Cheers,

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


LK's got powers, too? But his breath is his own kryptonite? Whoa!

Cheers,

"His", meaning JE's. Wasn't that obvious? I thought it was implied.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Starrman
That took a lot of time to read - so I edited them down a bit. What do you think about them now?

*snip*What is your point? This looks like what we call "stacking the deck".

HAns

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


"His", meaning JE's. Wasn't that obvious? I thought it was implied.

It was a joke, sir, about the ambiguity of the sentence. :D

Cheers,

[RC]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
This is a good hit - not because she speaks to his picture but because he clearly mentions picture in the kitchen.



You are more generous that I would be. Yes, JE says picture in the kitchen, but after the sitter asks him to repeat he says "like in the kitchen". At that point, the sitter says "yes". I don't think we know for sure that the picture this sitter talks to is indeed in her kitchen.

I've seen JE's work enough...and plenty of follow-ups...to learn that what appears to be a great hit really isn't once we get the details from the sitter. In this case, the sitter very well could have just said yes simply because she does talk to the dead person's picture and just ignored the kitchen part. And I think that talking to a dead person's picture can't be very unusual; I do it all the time.

Renata, nice job. I've always thought JE stinks on LKL which is one of the reasons I started to doubt his claims.

[ImpyTimpy]

Well, the kitchen certainly seemed interesting to me but as you put it, it doesn't mean he got a hit. Although using what I had I had to score it as a good hit.

However if you take a look at the reading I quoted I pointed out he becomes very vague and confusing, seemingly throwing the sitter right off - the sitter doesn't know what he's talking about so he or she just agrees it seems.

In light of this, the kitchen seems like a lucky hit while the rest is clear cut cold reading.

Originally posted by RC


You are more generous that I would be. Yes, JE says picture in the kitchen, but after the sitter asks him to repeat he says "like in the kitchen". At that point, the sitter says "yes". I don't think we know for sure that the picture this sitter talks to is indeed in her kitchen.

I've seen JE's work enough...and plenty of follow-ups...to learn that what appears to be a great hit really isn't once we get the details from the sitter. In this case, the sitter very well could have just said yes simply because she does talk to the dead person's picture and just ignored the kitchen part. And I think that talking to a dead person's picture can't be very unusual; I do it all the time.

Renata, nice job. I've always thought JE stinks on LKL which is one of the reasons I started to doubt his claims.

[voidx]

Great work Renata. You know what I'd like to see at this point. Regardless of their opinions of his seminars and of CO, I'd like to see believers acknowledge that these transcripts fit perfectly well within the confines of cold-reading and guesswork. They do, its impossible to deny in my mind if you're reading them with a critical eye. Until they post transcripts of seminars or special hits, I think they have to at least acknowledge these transcripts are cold reading, or at the very least, incredibly similar to cold reading. I become even less impressed with JE's abilities.

[NoZed Avenger]

A lot of work, Renata -- take a cookie out of petty cash.

NA

[AlienX]

Well that turned into a long read ;-) - interesting stuff.

I think JE actually deserves some respect as he clearly demonstrates how difficult cold reading actually is yet he never gives up and persists.

Though this is by telephone and thus it's harder to read the sitters reaction (non verbal) hence I would assume worse hit rates.

Originally I had some serious doubts about mediumship and the self proffessed king of it seems to be simply cold reading - badly.

Thanks for that renata, we have multiple examples of cold reading here - but as we have seen all he has to do is get lucky once and a while for the believers to reinforce their belief and parade it around as proof. See the one or two examples of really impressive hits - if you throw enough darts you'll hit bullseye at some point. If just one of the above reading was good then all the rest would suddenly not exist at all ;-)

I'm in the UK and see little of JE but I was under the impression that his readings were impressive, well i'd hate to see a poor medium, what do they do tell the sitter they are really dead, yet when they point out that they are actually alive they will insist that they are and should check after the show?

Ta again Renata, though all the believers will conveniently "forgive and forget this" and wait for the next lucky hit (thats what its looking like now anyway).

AlienX

[RC]

Voidx, will you settle for that statement from a former believer? I will always remember September 6, 2003 as the day my belief in JE started to decline. The reason? I watched his performance on LKL and realized for the first time that his work resembled everything I had learned about cold reading with absolutely no exceptions.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by RC
Voidx, will you settle for that statement from a former believer? I will always remember September 6, 2003 as the day my belief in JE started to decline. The reason? I watched his performance on LKL and realized for the first time that his work resembled everything I had learned about cold reading with absolutely no exceptions.

Wow! Precognitive retroactive skepticism!
Someone should win a million bucks!

[RC]

OOOPS!

2002:o

[renata]

Originally posted by AlienX

Thanks for that renata, we have multiple examples of cold reading here - but as we have seen all he has to do is get lucky once and a while for the believers to reinforce their belief and parade it around as proof. See the one or two examples of really impressive hits - if you throw enough darts you'll hit bullseye at some point. If just one of the above reading was good then all the rest would suddenly not exist at all ;-)



Indeed we already saw a part of this here. Clancie, in this thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23120 used a somewhat modified version of the Timothy reading (reproduced again below) to compare to cold reading done by Ersby. I assume she picked this reading because it was one of the best on LKL. However, picking one somewhat successful reading out of dozens of much less impressive ones inflates the impression of his success.

Clancie's version
Sitter: Are you getting my father?
Medium: I can't always get the person you want, unfortunately. I might not be able to get your father for you.
Sitter: Okay.
Medium: What's your name?
Sitter: Collese
Medium: I'm getting a younger male that I would see as being to your side, someone who has died.
It could be that you've lost a friend or a cousin or that somebody around you lost a brother, but there's like a younger male who has died.
Sitter: (no comment)
Medium: And it is illness related. It's somebody who had either leukemia or AIDS, but it's a blood disease that they passed from.
Sitter: OK.
Medium: And there has got to be some type of connection to the month of July for this family.
I also feel like it's either where you live, where you grew up, or who you grew up with. But I feel like it's somebody that I would spend time with.
I am not getting your dad, though.
I do think that there is a Thomas or a "T"-connection that's going to be coming up around this in some way.
Are you not originally from where you are living now?
Sitter: Right.
Medium: OK. I feel like it's where you are originally from, or where you would be originally from is where this is connected.
So growing up around where you lived, somebody that you would have some type of contact with is where this is connected to. So that's what I'm getting as I talk to you.
Sitter: Well, I had a brother named Tim who died before I was born. He passed from leukemia.


Unedited version

CALLER: Hi. Hi, Larry. Hi, John.
EDWARD: How are you?
CALLER: I'm good.
EDWARD: How can I help you?
CALLER: What can you tell me about my dad?
EDWARD: Well, first of all, whenever I do this, especially live like this, I can only tell you that -- I can only pass on to you what it is that I'm getting. I might not connect with your dad.
CALLER: That's great.
EDWARD: OK. I will just listen to what's coming through, I may be able to connect with him. What's your first name?
CALLER: Collese (ph).
EDWARD: Put your dad on hold for one second, OK? Sometimes I connect with people that you're not expecting to hear from, and this might be an example of that. I'm being told that there is some type of younger male that I would see as being to your side, who has crossed. And that to me I would see as being like a contemporary to you. So I don't know if you've lost a friend or if you have got a cousin or somebody around you lost a brother, but there's like a younger male who passed. And it is illness related. It's somebody who had either leukemia or AIDS, but it's a blood disease that they passed from.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: And there has got to be some type of connection to the month of July for this family. I feel like it's either where you live, where you grew up, or who you grew up with. But I feel like it's somebody that I would spend time with. I am not connecting with your dad. I just wanted to say that right from the get-go and say that this is what's coming through. I do think that there is a Thomas or a t-connection that's going to be coming up around this in some way.
Are you not originally from where you are calling me from?
CALLER: Correct.
EDWARD: OK. I feel like it's where you are originally from, or where you would be originally from is where this is connected. So growing up around where you lived, somebody that you would have some type of contact with is where this is connected to. So that's what I'm getting as I talk to you.
KING: Does that cross with anything you have, ma'am?
CALLER: I had a brother who died before I was born who had leukemia, named Tim.
EDWARD: So that would be your contemporary. So it happened where you grew up originally, correct?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: So I am not connecting with your dad. That would be the male figure to your side. When I say to your side, that to me is a sibling or a contemporary.

[NoZed Avenger]

EDWARD: How can I help you?

EDWARD: Go ahead.



But I thought we weren't supposed to give him any information?

How can I help you?

Why not: "Tell me something I can use," or "Throw me a fricking bone here, people?" ?

NA

[NoZed Avenger]

Tote up the number of times a fair amount of information is given by the caller before anything else happens:

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.

CALLER: Hi, John. I would like to ask about my mother.

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.

CALLER: I'm trying to connect with my aunt.

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.

CALLER: I'm trying to find out about my husband.

CALLER: Hi, Mr. Edward.
I don't know, I don't have any particular question, I don't want to take up too much of the time that way but I wondered if you could kind of pick up on something that neither one of my parents are around I come from a very large family so maybe you've got some insight.

CALLER: Hi, John. Hi, Larry. I was just wondering if you could talk to my mom and my grandmother?

EDWARD: Go ahead.
CALLER: My father passed away two years ago, and its really hard for me to believe in an after life. I mean, I've been very religious person, but is there anything that you can tell me?

CALLER: And thank you and I just wondered if you could get in touch with my husband.



And while we're at it, what's with King prompting for information, himself?


KING: What's the question, Alma?
CALLER: I'd just like to see if I could communicate with my sister.


And I missed this exchange on the first read through:

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 li[e] to John. There is.


Oh. The caller must be lying about knowing Bill, because JE says so. Thank you, Mr. Neutral observer. I guess that this must be counted as a hit, because JE and King insist that it is so, regardless of the answers.

In fact, using that criteria, I have just judged 100% of each reading a hit, completely at odds with Renata's interpretation.

NA

[Starrman]

Oh. The caller must be lying about knowing Bill, because JE says so.

This is where I nearly want to give up even thinking about this stuff. Don't forget JE also psychic, and that Bill could be someone the caller has yet to meet, someone one of the caller's friend knows, someone the caller met on a bus, someone in the building across the street from where the caller works, Larry King's errand boy, the camera man's dog, or just about anybody on the face of the GD Earth named Bill!

He can't lose! Not until people wake up and realize that you don't need ghosts to explain what he does.

[voidx]

Voidx, will you settle for that statement from a former believer?
Heh its a start :). But I wouldn't say I'd settle for just that :D.

[AlienX]

One thing which bothers me is the type of hits and misses we get.

Sometimes they are very specific indeed and do look good when taken out of context of the fact that most of the info is either vague wild misses or searching questions.

The thing which stands out for me is the fact that normally a specific is backed by a general. He seems to try a specific then expand upon it prior to any feedback - so hell say stulff like -- lung cancer then cancer then a desease, so that's covering the bases in my book if someone died before their time and it's not an accident.

Yes I will admit that if he does what he says he can then maybe it's difficult but it still just smacks of playing percentages. If my first couple of specific guesses are wide of the mark then hopefully my really wide general will cover it - if not then i'll change tack or the worst of it tell the "sitter" they are wrong?

I just don't get it when he's all vague about stuff then very specific about stuff that can't be validated, for example saying things like it's definitely not your Dad etc - everything else seems so confused and vague how can he be so sure about things like this?

No the more I look at this and think about it the more I am unable to justify JE's claims at all. It's cold reading - I don't see anything anywhere in these examples of anything but.

How can you compare the few "readings" done by a novice cold reader to a specific selection from what distinctly appears to be a proffessional cold reader (if he cold reads then you can expect he will also cheat and hot read).

Another thing which is wierd is that fact that the JE fans seem to flock to threads that relate to a specific good reading - presented with multiple examples accross the board they don't wan't to know? - it's not a thread saying JE is a fraud it simply presents the data - yes it's interpreted but you would expect at least a challenge to that.

AlienX

[renata]

Bump

I was hoping for a more discussion, as I believe this is the only impartial example of JE's work that exists.

[AlienX]

Try posting a single out of context hit... now that gets the believers jumping around and posting.

They wisely chose to ignore this post and obviously decided to not feed the fire, why bump the post the quicker it vanishes the better - out of sight out of mind so to speak.

The believers are simply too closed minded to entertain the possibility that he's a fraud, when presented with raw data.. well as you can see this very good thread goes totally ignored.

There is little for them to complain about as all you have done is post the transcripts and it gives a basically balanced view.

The only way to ensure responses is to post flawed arguments that allows people to respond and point out the flaws. It's either that or verbally attack someone specific enough to annoy them into posting.

Remember logic and reasoning are not used by these people, you can't be logical or reasonable and expect any form of response - they don't understand it.

AlienX

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by AlienX
Remember logic and reasoning are not used by these people, you can't be logical or reasonable and expect any form of response - they don't understand it.

Although I fully agree with the rest, I don't agree with the last. They don't want to understand it. If they accepted reality, they would be forced to re-evaluate a lot more than just their belief in a sexy TV medium.

So, they refuse to even entertain the idea that JE could be wrong. Sure, they pay lip service, but as we have seen here, nothing - and I really mean nothing - will sway them.

Their own argumentation is full of holes and their evidence non-existent. They demand that others prove them wrong, and when that happens, they simply ignore the evidence, move the goal posts, divert attention to other issues, and shift the onus of evidence to skeptics.

Nothing will sway them. It is absolutely fascinating to observe.

[juninho]

Originally posted by juninho

It would be interesting to see if he ever has started with the "I see an X (or a Q, Y or Z) that is important to you..." line. Statistically, names beginning with these letters are unlikely but the number of readings he has done over time, surely one of these letters must have been the first to "boom" out of the ether at him.

I know I'm quoting myself but I've just conducted an analysis of the forenames of a list of people that I've got (sample size 8303) and this is the result of what letter of the alphabet their name begins with;

A 795
B 253
C 532
D 625
E 253
F 146
G 338
H 247
I 177
J 896
K 350
L 262
M 719
N 239
O 42
P 573
Q 4
R 611
S 642
T 214
U 9
V 85
W 186
X 14
Y 72
Z 19

If you take the letters Z, X, Y, U, O and Q collectively it comes to 160 incidences or 1.92%. Therefore, I would expect JE to start with "I am getting a (Z, X, Y, U, O or Q) in approximately 1 in 50 readings. Is this borne out in reality? If you also include V the percentage increases to 2.95% or roughly 1 in 34 readings.

If anyone can be bothered to have a look through any available transcripts it might be quite revealing.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by juninho
If anyone can be bothered to have a look through any available transcripts it might be quite revealing.

Even though both Clancie and neo refers to statistical data, they don't have it. But I'd be willing to publish the analysis on SkepticReport...(hint, hint, anyone? :))

[voidx]

Originally posted by renata
Bump

I was hoping for a more discussion, as I believe this is the only impartial example of JE's work that exists.
It is surprising that we have not seen the JE supporters make an appearance in this thread. I agree Renata, the LKL are the most unbiased and tamper-free as possible readings of JE, and consequently his worst, resembling cold-reading exactly. Despite many differently worded posts from me, none of them have acknowledged how bad these readings are. They will not say, yes, these are bad readings. Rather they go on about the conditions being bad on LKL for JE, even though according to JE's own words it should not matter...bad phone lines being an example. They simply will not come out and say, yes, the LKL readings are poor and very much resemble cold reading, but the CO readings are much better. They will no say this, and to me that is very telling. No one trying to look at this objectively in my opinion can deny the cold reading nature of JE's LKL readings.

[Lurker]

Wow! Thanks Renata for a through analysis of the LKL transcripts. I too note the dearth of believers posting to this thread. I think the LKL transcripts are quite revealing.

Believers, why are the CO and LKL transcripts so different in how effective JE is? Is this not a strong indication that JE is cold-reading on LKL? Or are his skills reduced for some reason? Does he address this in any of his books?

Lurker

[Clancie]

renata,

Like others have said, this was a great idea, to take the time to go through all the JE readings and evaluate what the actual hits and misses were. I may quibble with some of the calculations, but I can tell that you definitely were making every effort to be very fair in determining what was a hit and a miss and providing an accurate tally. What a lot of work! And an important contribution to the discussion of cold reading.

Posted by voidx

It is surprising that we have not seen the JE supporters make an appearance in this thread.
Not really, voidx. After all, there are only three of us who might jump in to do that, and its going to take a lot more time and effort than just reading through it all once (which, to date, is all I've personally done).

The questions renata's analysis has raised about cold reading are important ones. I'm going to respond to them and hope Steve or neo will, too.

[Clancie]

Posted by AlienX

Remember logic and reasoning are not used by these people [the believers here], you can't be logical or reasonable and expect any form of response - they don't understand it.
Posted by CFLarsen

Although I fully agree with the rest, I don't agree with the last. They [the believers here] don't want to understand it. If they accepted reality, they would be forced to re-evaluate a lot more than just their belief in a sexy TV medium.

So, they refuse to even entertain the idea that JE could be wrong. Sure, they pay lip service, but as we have seen here, nothing - and I really mean nothing - will sway them.

Their own argumentation is full of holes and their evidence non-existent. They demand that others prove them wrong, and when that happens, they simply ignore the evidence, move the goal posts, divert attention to other issues, and shift the onus of evidence to skeptics.

Nothing will sway them. It is absolutely fascinating to observe.

Of course, on the other hand, it's posts like these that really make me say, "Why bother?" :rolleyes:

Anyway, more later about the LKL readings...for anyone who's actually interested.....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Of course, on the other hand, it's posts like these that really make me say, "Why bother?" :rolleyes:

There you go again, getting all personal....

Originally posted by Clancie
Anyway, more later about the LKL readings...for anyone who's actually interested.....

Stop being so condescending, Clancie. It is very unbecoming and quite detrimental to your own claims about yourself.

[AlienX]

Originally posted by Clancie

[/B]
Of course, on the other hand, it's posts like these that really make me say, "Why bother?" :rolleyes:

Anyway, more later about the LKL readings...for anyone who's actually interested..... [/B]

In the same post I say :-
"The only way to ensure responses is to post flawed arguments that allows people to respond and point out the flaws. It's either that or verbally attack someone specific enough to annoy them into posting."

Followed by a verbal attack - the one I came up with was the first off the top of my head ;-)

Don't you understand that was the whole reason behind the line in the first place - to invoke a response?.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong in the fact - I am interested in what you think of this thread, If I wasn't I wouldn't have tried to bait a response (general discussion wasn't working). If I genuinely didn't care what you or the other few "believers" thought I genuinely would not bother.

This thread in my opinion shows pretty conclusivly that JE is either a fraud or just plain rubbish - It will be interesting to see how a true 100% believer accounts for this performance. I thought Renata was being generous tbh.

What's your opinion of these reading?, i think they are very poor and are too much like cold reading to be explained by anything else, but i'm open to the fact that I may have missed something.

Ta

AlienX

[renata]

Man, this thread is just unloved! Bumping it for comments :)

[voidx]

Originally posted by renata
Man, this thread is just unloved! Bumping it for comments :)
Heh I'd have to agree Renata.

Posted by Clancie:
The questions renata's analysis has raised about cold reading are important ones. I'm going to respond to them and hope Steve or neo will, too.
So do you plan to respond and comment on them or not?

Posted by Clancie:
Of course, on the other hand, it's posts like these that really make me say, "Why bother?"
Ignore them then and concentrate on the valid points this thread raises.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

So do you plan to respond and comment on them or not?
Yes, I do. As soon as I have finished going over all the transcripts as well as renata's scoring. Skeptics can skim it and comment about bits and pieces. But reading through all of the transcripts--as well as understanding her scoring for each one and whether it seems valid--is quite time-consuming.

I'll post when I'm finished, voidx, and have something to say. :)

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, I do. As soon as I have finished going over all the transcripts as well as renata's scoring. Skeptics can skim it and comment about bits and pieces. But reading through all of the transcripts--as well as understanding her scoring for each one and whether it seems valid--is quite time-consuming.

I'll post when I'm finished, voidx, and have something to say. :)

Yes, it was time consuming. Perhaps you can offer your own scoring, to compare with mine? I would like to know what you make of the readings.

And, as to "skimming"= let's not divert the issue, OK? So far the only analysis of LKL was done by skeptics. It took two weeks of bumping this thread to even get a comment from a believer. So I think your analysis will be spectacular, considering the time you are spending on it! :) In the meanwhile, I shall bump it every other day or so.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, I do. As soon as I have finished going over all the transcripts as well as renata's scoring. Skeptics can skim it and comment about bits and pieces. But reading through all of the transcripts--as well as understanding her scoring for each one and whether it seems valid--is quite time-consuming.

Strawman: You say that skeptics do a lousy job, while you do not. So far, I have seen many more skeptics analyze transcripts far better than you have ever done.

Originally posted by Clancie
I'll post when I'm finished, voidx, and have something to say. :)

Just don't spend too much time on other threads, then. It might be seen as an evasion of this issue....

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, I do. As soon as I have finished going over all the transcripts as well as renata's scoring. Skeptics can skim it and comment about bits and pieces. But reading through all of the transcripts--as well as understanding her scoring for each one and whether it seems valid--is quite time-consuming.

I'll post when I'm finished, voidx, and have something to say. :)
That's fine. But I like to follow up as I'm still waiting for these:
Voidx,

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

[Clancie]

So, voidx, you're impatient for me to put up the other JE readings? Is that the hint there?

I could, but I thought I'd wait until renata's work gets a bit more attention.

And, Claus, not that skeptics "do a lousy job". I didn't say that. Only that many can still make reasonable comments (as they have in this thread) by looking at a couple of readings...some of the scoring...or even skimming the whole thing and pulling out points of interest here and there.

My point was that skeptics can still comment on this without actually going carefully through each and every reading and really looking in detail at each and every point of scoring. That method won't work, if you're responding as a believer.

My point is that it takes time--not as much time as it did for renata to do it, by a longshot I'm sure, but still...considerable.

[voidx]

Posted by Clancie:
So, voidx, you're impatient for me to put up the other JE readings? Is that the hint there?
I'm merely reminding you is all. If I thought you were stalling I'd come out and say so. I just wasn't clear as to when you meant to post them. I just know that for myself, I even forgot what thread I'd asked that question of you in. With 5 threads going its easy to lose track.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
So, voidx, you're impatient for me to put up the other JE readings? Is that the hint there?

No hint. You promised a long time ago you would. So where are they???

Originally posted by Clancie
I could, but I thought I'd wait until renata's work gets a bit more attention.

renata is waiting for believers to comment. There is no reason to wait for others. Do your own bit, Clancie. You are merely stalling. As usual.

Originally posted by Clancie
My point was that skeptics can still comment on this without actually going carefully through each and every reading and really looking in detail at each and every point of scoring. That method won't work, if you're responding as a believer.

renata went through complete readings. Please acknowledge that, and get on with it!

Originally posted by Clancie
My point is that it takes time--not as much time as it did for renata to do it, by a longshot I'm sure, but still...considerable.

Sure, fine. Stop stalling and do it, then!

[Clancie]

rofl, Claus.

You're so funny, especially when I think how often you say (inaccurately, btw) that I am "demanding" someone to do this or that.

In your case, whether its demanding I post my readings from Brian, or demanding I "Stop stalling and do it, then!" when it comes to (at least an hour more of uninterrupted time) for renata's transcripts...no one at this board is even half as presumptuous and demanding as you! :p

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, I do. As soon as I have finished going over all the transcripts as well as renata's scoring. Skeptics can skim it and comment about bits and pieces. But reading through all of the transcripts--as well as understanding her scoring for each one and whether it seems valid--is quite time-consuming.

I'll post when I'm finished, voidx, and have something to say. :)

Wow you've assumed you know that everyone else has skimmed the transcripts... as well as turning that into a lumped criticism of skeptics.

You will sink to any level won't you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
rofl, Claus.

You're so funny, especially when I think how often you say (inaccurately, btw) that I am "demanding" someone to do this or that.

In your case, whether its demanding I post my readings from Brian, or demanding I "Stop stalling and do it, then!" when it comes to (at least an hour more of uninterrupted time) for renata's transcripts...no one at this board is even half as presumptuous and demanding as you! :p

Yeah, whatever. Quit stalling. Get on with it.

[Kerberos]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by juninho

If you take the letters Z, X, Y, U, O and Q collectively it comes to 160 incidences or 1.92%. Therefore, I would expect JE to start with "I am getting a (Z, X, Y, U, O or Q) in approximately 1 in 50 readings. Is this borne out in reality? If you also include V the percentage increases to 2.95% or roughly 1 in 34 readings.

If anyone can be bothered to have a look through any available transcripts it might be quite revealing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, I’ve been lurking for a couple of weeks, and since I have way to much spare time I did a search on the internet finding transcripts for John Edwards from the following sources

John Edward reading from the “So, is JE really that different from a cold reader?” thread

Part of Crossing Over 5/7, 2002

30/10-00 Regis Live

19/6-98 Larry King Live

30/10-98 Larry King Live

10/9-01 Larry King Live

9/6-02 Larry King Live

I then took the first letter of every name he guessed and added them together and got the following

A: 7
B: 3
C: 7
D: 2
E: 5
F: 1
G: 3
H: 4
I: 0
J: 14
K 6
L: 6
M: 7
N: 0
O: 0
P: 2
Q: 0
R: 4
S: 4
T: 2
U: 0
V: 1
W: 0
X: 0
Y: 0
Z: 0

Total 78

It was a fairly quick count so I might have missed some.

Including only one of the letter Z, X, Y, U, O or Q and V where we would expect two but this is hardly statistically significant so I included W, T, N, I and F. The probability of getting one of these is 14,54% yet there are only 4 hits out of 78. The chance of getting 4 or less by chance is 0,8%.

To be totally fair to JE an O-name did come up in JKL 30/10-98 but it wasn't actually a guess of a name JE was simply "seeing" popcorns and said "What's the reference to the popcorn with him -- he's showing me by popping corn, in popcorn -- unless his name is Orville.". Orville is apparently a brand of popcorns.

Edited to include I

[CFLarsen]

Orville Redenbacher is a huge brand of popcorn in the US.

I find it exceedingly interesting that both Clancie and neo point to the great number of special hits as a reason for them to believe in JE, yet refuse to actually dig into the matter.

I know it's bad form to quote oneself, but:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Even though both Clancie and neo refers to statistical data, they don't have it.

Despite a promise from Clancie days ago (and not a peep from neo) to go through the transcripts, nothing has happened. Instead Clancie chooses to use her time complaining about personal attacks on herself - while attacking others personally.

It is by now very clear that neither Clancie or neo wish to actually look into this. Now, we have a chance to get some real, statistical data to discuss, but no. Renata's work is, apparently, not of any real interest to believers.

They want to refer to statistical data, but when the data is there, they slink away and hide from the glaring light of truth. Are they afraid of what they might find?

You bet.

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Despite a promise from Clancie days ago (and not a peep from neo) to go through the transcripts, nothing has happened. Instead Clancie chooses to use her time complaining about personal attacks on herself - while attacking others personally.

It is by now very clear that neither Clancie or neo wish to actually look into this. Now, we have a chance to get some real, statistical data to discuss, but no. Renata's work is, apparently, not of any real interest to believers.

They want to refer to statistical data, but when the data is there, they slink away and hide from the glaring light of truth. Are they afraid of what they might find?

You bet.

Well, Claus, Neo did say she found this useless and LKL format unacceptable, so she did not check out the thread.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870039166&highlight=%2Asnipp%2A#post1870039166

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

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

Several people indicated that these were not snippets, but full readings where possibility of editing and mischief and misrepresentation were minimized, but I must have missed her response to that. As an aside this - I know they they are useless, but I am not checking out the thread reminds me when Bob Dole used to condemn movies for sex and violence he did not see :)

Clancie, in the meanwhile said here that she is working hard on analysis of the transcripts. I am looking forward to seeing it, because I think it must be very detailed. I am sure we shall see it soon. I think it is best if she does her independent review, and compare it with mine. Mine, as you recall was done very quickly, and so I am fully open to a more detailed and thorough analysis.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
Well, Claus, Neo did say she found this useless and LKL format unacceptable, so she did not check out the thread.

I stand corrected. :)

I wonder why neo insists that the format at the seminars - where no edited is possible - is acceptable, when LKL is not. Both are live, and at the seminars, there's even the confusion of a huge crowd. So everything speaks in favor of using LKL.

Originally posted by renata
Several people indicated that these were not snippets, but full readings where possibility of editing and mischief and misrepresentation were minimized, but I must have missed her response to that.

So did everyone else. There was none. neo apparently does not have the guts to come out and admit she was wrong.

Originally posted by renata
As an aside this - I know they they are useless, but I am not checking out the thread reminds me when Bob Dole used to condemn movies for sex and violence he did not see :)

Useless? I don't think so. Judging from what I have seen on TVTalkshows, transcripts are very much of interest.

Originally posted by renata
Clancie, in the meanwhile said here that she is working hard on analysis of the transcripts. I am looking forward to seeing it, because I think it must be very detailed. I am sure we shall see it soon. I think it is best if she does her independent review, and compare it with mine. Mine, as you recall was done very quickly, and so I am fully open to a more detailed and thorough analysis.

I am sure you will keep reminding her. Also, don't forget those other things she promised us....

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen




Useless? I don't think so. Judging from what I have seen on TVTalkshows, transcripts are very much of interest.



You misunderstood. I do not think they are useless, Neo does. I thought it was amusing she decided they are useless even though she did not check out the thread, much like Dole condemned movies he did not see :)



As to reminding Clancie- I will be leaving for a lenghty trip in a few days, and was hoping to get the analysis before I go. But, hopefully, it will be there in September when I get back. Same with Steve, who does not seem to want to respond to me on another thread.

[Clancie]

Hi renata,

I haven't forgotten. It's really the "thinking and organizing part" that takes the time--I'm not even really challenging your scoring of the hits and misses at all. Just spending time thinking about the points you were making.

The hardest part is to not write a 5 page essay in response, but to somehow organize it into something readable--and SHORT enough--for a message board. I've got an idea though and hope to post later today.

I hope we'll have a chance to discuss it before you leave. :)

[SteveGrenard]

Renata:

Everything you want to know about the topic we discussed elsewhere can be found on the following official U.S. government federal website:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

Thank you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Renata:

Everything you want to know about the topic we discussed elsewhere can be found on the following official U.S. government federal website:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

Thank you.

Antoher evasive action from Steve.... :rolleyes:

[SteveGrenard]

Renata:

Everything you want to know about the topic we discussed elsewhere can be found on the following official U.S. government federal website:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/


You're welcome

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Renata:

Everything you want to know about the topic we discussed elsewhere can be found on the following official U.S. government federal website:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/


You're welcome

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24321&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

That thread, Steve. Not the HIPAA. You seem to have accused me of some things I did not do, and then disappeared. I bumped it again, for your convenience. Look forward to your answer!

[SteveGrenard]

I hope I have answered your complaint Renata. My complaint was that you misinterpreted my position. I have tried to make it clearer. Why do you insist that I am somehow enamored of the pet psychic and her phoney ability to read fish and lizards and snakes when I made my opinion on this as clear as I possibly could. on that score. You don't know me or you would know what my opinion is of JE is as well but if you are listening to Larsen, that is your problem. Yes, I am upset when everyone acts like Claus Larsen and now, if you insist in your futuile attempts to misattribute and misinterpret what I said, I just won't bother to answer you because it is basically useless as it is with Larsen et al.

Have a nice trip.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I hope I have answered your complaint Renata. My complaint was that you misinterpreted my position. I have tried to make it clearer. Why do you insist that I am somehow enamored of the pet psychic and her phoney ability to read fish and lizards and snakes when I made my opinion on this as clear as I possibly could. on that score. You don't know me or you would know what my opinion is of JE is as well but if you are listening to Larsen, that is your problem. Yes, I am upset when everyone acts like Claus Larsen and now, if you insist in your futuile attempts to misattribute and misinterpret what I said, I just won't bother to answer you because it is basically useless as it is with Larsen et al.

Have a nice trip.

Steve,

You clearly misrepresented what renata said. You don't want to admit this. Now, you withdraw by claiming it is futile to bother with her.

You are a pony with very few tricks.

[renata]

Tsk, Tsk Steve. Remember, no ad hominem attacks. In your post you managed to attack two posters with one smear. That was not very nice. Recall my problem with your original post was that you attacked me there as well- quite baselessly. I can only assume you did so because I pointed out your errors. Anyway, I shall discontinue hijacking of this thread (because this thread has a very specific purpose) and shall answer you in the thread I linked to above.
I will copy this answer as well as your comment there.

I am going on my trip in 2 days, so I am still holding out hope for an on topic analysis from a believer here before I go! :):)

[SteveGrenard]

Tsk tsk Renata. Claus has ALREADY broken his pledge not to use ad hom attacks on myself, Neo and Clanci since he originaly made it. Much worse than a polite pointing out of a misattribution. You seriously believe this is an ad hom attack? Lol. :lets see what insut do we have above? Oh yes, one/few trick pony implication. I resent being called a trick pony. How about you? Would you like to be called that? Thats nothing. You've seen nothing that Larsen is capable of. He's a skunk. In reference to yourself, I was merely pointing out that you MISattributed or misinterpreted what I said. I do not intend, however, as above, to continue a hopeless discussion with you when you can't acknowledge this simple fact or allow me to clarify it. It is obvious this is not your intention. Either stop being so cryptic or just stop
cause that is what I am doing.

I consider myself as having answered you.

If you cant find that answer, keep looking.

Have a nice trip. Be safe.

[PinkRabbit]

Okay, I'm just a lurker on this thread (find the subject fascinating, but I must confess, I find JE so stultifyingly inane that I can't get through more than five minutes of the actual show), so maybe I'm missing something, and I'll apologize in advance for adding to the hijacking factor.

But this is really bugging me ... um ... what does Claus' behavior (or misbehavior, if one believes it to be so) have to do with how Steve Grenard speaks to Renata and whether or not he answers her questions?

Seriously, I'm just very confused on that point. I could understand it if Steve had listed how, at least in his mind, Renata had treated him badly, been rude or something, but why is she responsible for Claus' behavior and how does Claus' alleged ad homs justify being rude to Renata.

Barb

[renata]

All of you- get thee to the other thread!!

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24321&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

My post is 7/31, 9:34 am PST.

I see Steve posted an answer, but I need a little time to answer, I shall do so later tonight.

PinkRabbit- Claus and Steve have very long history. I have publically spoken out against animosity and ad hom attacks by all parties. Indeed I requested a truce, which both parties agreed to and which was broken almost immediately- and, frankly I do not care who started who what and when. I am tired of old grudges and requested a debate on the issues.

For reasons I do not understand, Steve chose to accuse me of misquoting him and misattributing comments to him in the other thread- an accusation I believe to be false. That is the accusation I replied to on 7/31, and to which he replied today. In the meanwhile here he has decided to continue his accusations about my misrepresentation of his views in the other thread- accusations he has yet to substantiate.

Anyway... I shall respond to him there, and will appreciate if everyone shall do the same.

Thanks in advance. :)

[AlienX]

OK so we have a beliver(s) who have actually posted in this thread yet so far they have not actually managed to comment on the actual point yet.

I'm not certain how you can possibly ignore this thread, even if you don't agree with the post analysis by Renata the transcripts are there in full. What better chance than to look at these readings all together?

It doens't matter if you don't think the format is acceptable, as far as I can tell we have a very good scenario - a reading (multiple) that is 1:1 where JE can't see the sitter and get any visual information.

I was pretty skeptical prior to finding these boards, since my brief time here all i've done is move even further away from believeing.
You don't really see the skeptics here backing away from threads which show +ve data now do you?. I'm not certain what I expected - at least I was hoping for some data that would make me seriously question the viewpoint I had come to adopt in the past few years - yet there hasn't been a single thing which has made me really sit up and take notice :-(

As far as i'm concerned if your not willing to consider data showing the opposite to what you think then your closed minded.

Here we have unedited transcripts that deserve discussion - it's JE in the raw so to speak - what better data are we going to get?

For me this data is pretty much cut and dried cold reading - but i'm open to anything that this isn't the mechanism being used here - Neo won't comment and we can read into that what we like - Clancie will comment and it will be very interesting to hear her slant on this and how it can be explained that this is anything but cold reading (I think it's poor becasue he can't get any visual clues off the sitter - See the magician/mentalist Derren Brown for how useful seeing your sitter is)

AlienX

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I guess it is obvious why believers will not look at Renata's good work, but rather pick up old bickerings, since those transcripts painfully clearly demonstrate that:

- JE is an entertainer doing cold reading and his technique isn't even very sophisticated.

- Even when he obtains hits, there is nothing interesting disclosed.

- There is absolutely no reason to assume JE has any paranormal abilities.

That said, several people would serve the cause of skepticism better if they could hold their temper. One of the great weaknesses of woowoos is their tendency to make ad hominem and to yell at people. No reason to mimick them, if you can help it.

Hans

[Darat]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
...snip...

That said, several people would serve the cause of skepticism better if they could hold their temper. One of the great weaknesses of woowoos is their tendency to make ad hominem and to yell at people. No reason to mimick them, if you can help it.

Hans

I would just say we all seem to have a tendency when getting frustrated etc. to lose our cool, I don;t think it is just a "tendency" of one particular group.

Saying that I really would like Clancie and Neo to really look at this thread and Renata's work as I am interested to understand how they can interpret the "hits data" to support their conclusion that JE can communicate with the dead.

[michaellee]

Thanks to Renata's painstaking work, it was easy for me to review the readings quickly. Regardless if you believe in JE or not, a few things are clearly evident, at least from the sessions Renata reviewed.

JE should be sued immediately for the disclaimer used on his show. Specifically the part "entertainment purposes". The possibility that JE actually communicates with the dead is MUCH greater than the stretch of calling the 3 sessions Renata posted "entertainment". Boring, tired and pathetic- yes- entertainment- NO.

Either JE is not very good at interpreting things the dead folks say, or the dead folks I.Q's and memory retention levels dropped down to those of their still living relatives.

JE should record one reading on tape, and take a vacation. My suggested recorded reading:

..An older male figure has passed..
..a related event occurred around a holiday..
..passed due to a disease or an accident..
..the number 1, or day 1, or month of January, or a multiple of 1 has some meaning..
..I see a book or photo album, periodical, magazine or newspaper..
..somebody is pregnant..
..somebody is in uniform..
..somebody close by is difficult to get along with..
..who has the leg, knee, ankle, or foot problem or handicap?..
..He says for you to fix the thing that is broken..
..He says not to stress out so much, especially around the holidays..
..He says to finish what you started..
..He says the beloved family pet is doing fine..
..He says the entire dead family is doing just great and not to worry..

At least this reading would get more hits. Entertaining?
Time for a career change JE.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi renata,

I haven't forgotten. It's really the "thinking and organizing part" that takes the time--I'm not even really challenging your scoring of the hits and misses at all. Just spending time thinking about the points you were making.

The hardest part is to not write a 5 page essay in response, but to somehow organize it into something readable--and SHORT enough--for a message board. I've got an idea though and hope to post later today.

I hope we'll have a chance to discuss it before you leave. :)

I hoped we would get to discuss it before I leave too. Any luck?

[renata]

Well, Clancie, it looks like you did not get the chance to post that message you mentioned three days ago.

See you in September! I know the analysis you will post will be spectacular- you would have five full weeks to have worked on it by the time I get back! :)


Edited to add: A small request- in my absence, will some kind skeptics bump this thread every other day or so? I would not want it to slip and get buried and forgotten :D

[Clancie]

renata,

Well, I'm sorry :(, but it wasn't meant to be. I thought I'd have it up and running by now, but I don't seem to be getting the needed "umph". I'm sure getting the blaster worm on Monday didn't help. .

Anyway, our discussion would undoubtedly need more than a day anyway.

We'll "talk" more when you get back. (I think my post about the LKL readings is going to be pretty anti-climactic anyway, just judging from my notes so far). "Spectacular"? Hardly. And I don't think I'll wait for Sept to post it (though, of course, one never knows....)

In any case, have a great trip!:cool:
Posted by renata

A small request- in my absence, will some kind skeptics bump this thread every other day or so? I would not want it to slip and get buried and forgotten
Well, I'm sure Claus will be happy to do the honors, if needed.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
renata,

Well, I'm sorry :(, but it wasn't meant to be. I thought I'd have it up and running by now, but I don't seem to be getting the needed "umph". I'm sure getting the blaster worm on Monday didn't help. .

Anyway, our discussion would undoubtedly need more than a day anyway.

We'll "talk" more when you get back. (I think my post about the LKL readings is going to be pretty anti-climactic anyway, just judging from my notes so far). "Spectacular"? Hardly. And I don't think I'll wait for Sept to post it (though, of course, one never knows....)

In any case, have a great trip!:cool:

Ahh, good to see you are working on it. I assumed it would be detailed because you mentioned previously how you wanted to examine it closely. Sure, post it as soon as it is ready, I will just jump in the discussion when I get back! I may also get some internet access on my trip, and may look in here or there.

[CFLarsen]

Patterns of evasion

(Quotes are from various threads)

Originally posted by Clancie 07-25-2003 07:26 PM
There are at least four threads that I very much want to comment on ASAP (Renata's on "JE's hits/misses"; Cleopatra's on the right to believe, and MRC Hans' 1 question--as well as revisiting the many added posts in the "JE hits" thread that I started two days ago).

tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...t ock...tick...tock...

Originally posted by Clancie 08-05-2003 12:57 PM
Anyway, more later about the LKL readings...for anyone who's actually interested.....

tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...t ock...tick...tock...

Originally posted by Clancie 08-07-2003 12:59 PM
As soon as I have finished going over all the transcripts as well as renata's scoring. Skeptics can skim it and comment about bits and pieces. But reading through all of the transcripts--as well as understanding her scoring for each one and whether it seems valid--is quite time-consuming.

tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...t ock...tick...tock...

Originally posted by Clancie 08-07-2003 01:26 PM
My point was that skeptics can still comment on this without actually going carefully through each and every reading and really looking in detail at each and every point of scoring. That method won't work, if you're responding as a believer.

My point is that it takes time--not as much time as it did for renata to do it, by a longshot I'm sure, but still...considerable.

tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...t ock...tick...tock...

Originally posted by Clancie 08-10-2003 02:39 PM
It's really the "thinking and organizing part" that takes the time--I'm not even really challenging your scoring of the hits and misses at all. Just spending time thinking about the points you were making.

The hardest part is to not write a 5 page essay in response, but to somehow organize it into something readable--and SHORT enough--for a message board. I've got an idea though and hope to post later today.

tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...t ock...tick...tock...

Originally posted by Clancie 08-14-2003 02:28 AM
(I think my post about the LKL readings is going to be pretty anti-climactic anyway, just judging from my notes so far). "Spectacular"? Hardly. And I don't think I'll wait for Sept to post it (though, of course, one never knows....)

Looks like Clancie is stalling again, whenever it comes to actually looking at JE's readings. Funny how her work will not be all that good anymore. Perhaps Clancie has actually realized that JE is not as good as she thought him to be. Better cover one's behind.

It once took Clancie two months to fulfill her promise to do the same on TVTalkshows. Let's hope it doesn't take that long this time...

[voidx]

If Claus doesn't bump it I will. I find this one of the more reasonable threads as there's little bickering, and also that its got some useful analysis. I'll be interested to read your analysis Clancie, to get a different perspective perhaps on these readings.

[voidx]

*bump*

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by renata

Edited to add: A small request- in my absence, will some kind skeptics bump this thread every other day or so? I would not want it to slip and get buried and forgotten :D

*Bump*

[voidx]

Le Bump.

[Clancie]

I. Renata's Tally

I did spot checks here and there--had an occasional quibble, nothing very significant--and overall felt she did a thorough, fair and very commendable job.

II. Results: hits and misses.

I found her reasons for not counting hits and misses for certain comments valid. She accurately totalled the "Not Validated" as well and I agree that they can't be counted for or against JE. (My guess is that, if validated, they would probably break about the same proportion as hits and misses generally did--but that's just a guess.

I added renata's totals for all hits together, whether "weak" or "strong" and compared the total with the total "misses".

Transcript #1 Hits: 38 Misses: 38

Transcript #2 Hits: 34 Misses: 19 (poor audio plagued this program)

Transcript #3 Hits: 21 Misses: 29 (apparently a good in studio reading occurred for a friend of someone who worked for the show, but LK regarded it as an unwelcome distraction and did not adequately elaborate on the validations)

Total hits: 93

Total misses: 86

This is roughly 50% hits, about the same total that ersby got for his tally of the LKL readings.

I find 50% a very probable hit rate for JE. More comments to follow.....

[dissonance]

Clancie, do you have the weak hits/strong hits totals seperately? I'd like to look at those numbers, as I think there's a pretty big difference between the two types of hits, and if you already have the numbers broken down then I don't have to go through and do it myself.

I'm a lazy, lazy girl. :)

Edited because, duh, Renata has those totals in her original posts.

Clancie, I don't think you can legitimately combine the two types of hits together, as the weak hits are things that strike me as pretty general guesses or things that have a very high probability of being hits.

[Clancie]

III. Comments

Re: quantity. In terms of quantity of hits, the 50% hit rate seems reasonable to me, even outside of LKL. I would consider it a baseline comparison for an admitted cold reader working under similar circumstances.

Re: quality. Its not the area of quantity but quality that the greatest LK contrast is vis a vis CO and seminars. Naturally skeptics attribute this to lucky guesses...hot reading...editing or some combination thereof.

That's one possibility. What are some others?

LK's time constraint (usually under 1 minute per reading) makes it difficult for JE to get details beyond the "establishment' of energy. (Skeptics, naturally, say this is a cold reader technique, getting sitter feedback to bring out more details. Those of us who think that he gets special hits without getting the info from the sitter, see the way he works as keying in on a particular energy, establishing the "basics", then going beyond that--when he is given time to. On LKL's format, he doesn't get much time.

JE may be more effective in person. In the Feb. 2003 readings, JE was getting information that fit for a guest visitng someone in the studio. LK regarded it as a distraction from the callers and had him do the reading during the break so the woman would get the information and leave. Had LK understood "the process" better, JE could have done the reading live and it might have been far more compelling than the 30 secs of phones.

Transcripts aren't accurate. Not a big thing but worth mentioning. They are probably done mechanically and often have missed words, ungrammatical mistakes, and misspellings that can effect the meanings.

Was JE "better" before he became so commercial? I remember a special hit (cigarettes in the coffin) from the 1998 transcript. No special hits in these. Other than just "he got lucky before", if he's legit, he may lose some of the gift as he becomes more commercial. That is widely alleged to happen among mediums.

Technical difficulties. The night of Transcript #2 there were continual audio problems from beginning to end.

He has gotten better working face to face without even realizing it. It is possible that he still thinks it doesn't make any difference to the readings--that the energy comes through f2f or by phone--but perhaps all the seminars and CO's as well as continued private readings have strengthened his ability f2f disproportionately and he isn't even fully aware of it yet.

[Clancie]

Posted by dissonance

Clancie, I don't think you can legitimately combine the two types of hits together, as the weak hits are things that strike me as pretty general guesses or things that have a very high probability of being hits.
Hi dissonance,

Yes, I expect some will object to that, but that was also ersby's method and he arrived at 49% for LKL which no one has objected to. So, I think the two independent approaches by two different skeptics support each other's conclusion, and I have no problem accepting the 50% after looking through both of their analyses. I realize others may disagree, though.

As for the quality, well, you can say that its nothing that wouldn't be expected from cold reading. If so, then that's what cold readers should be able to do for comparison--50% hits with similar information on names, initials, cause of death, etc. A good baseline, imo.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Re: quantity. In terms of quantity of hits, the 50% hit rate seems reasonable to me, even outside of LKL. I would consider it a baseline comparison for an admitted cold reader working under similar circumstances.

Moving the goalposts. Now, it has to be "under similar circumstances". Can you please define precisely what these are, unless we run the very likely risk of you simply saying later "Nah, not exactly the same thing"?

You've done it before.

Originally posted by Clancie
Re: quality. Its not the area of quantity but quality that the greatest LK contrast is vis a vis CO and seminars. Naturally skeptics attribute this to lucky guesses...hot reading...editing or some combination thereof.

That's one possibility.

Yup, and the most likely one. Lucky guesses are a part of cold reading. JE has been caught hot reading. The shows are edited for both time and content.

There is no need to invoke a paranormal explanation. Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by Clancie


LK's time constraint (usually under 1 minute per reading) makes it difficult for JE to get details beyond the "establishment' of energy. (Skeptics, naturally, say this is a cold reader technique, getting sitter feedback to bring out more details. Those of us who think that he gets special hits without getting the info from the sitter, see the way he works as keying in on a particular energy, establishing the "basics", then going beyond that--when he is given time to. On LKL's format, he doesn't get much time.

As we know, a cold reader must also work his way to a good result. Therefore, you cannot use this as an argument that JE is not cold reading.

What is the difference between what JE does here ("keying in on a particular energy") and what a cold reader does ("getting sitter feedback to bring out more details")?

Originally posted by Clancie
JE may be more effective in person. In the Feb. 2003 readings, JE was getting information that fit for a guest visitng someone in the studio. LK regarded it as a distraction from the callers and had him do the reading during the break so the woman would get the information and leave. Had LK understood "the process" better, JE could have done the reading live and it might have been far more compelling than the 30 secs of phones.

Speculative, to say the least. We are dealing with facts here, Clancie, not speculations.

Originally posted by Clancie
Transcripts aren't accurate. Not a big thing but worth mentioning. They are probably done mechanically and often have missed words, ungrammatical mistakes, and misspellings that can effect the meanings.

Moving the goalposts. You have never used this argument on TVTalkshows (if you have, I'd love to see it). As I recall, you have often recommended neofight for her work.

Originally posted by Clancie
Was JE "better" before he became so commercial? I remember a special hit (cigarettes in the coffin) from the 1998 transcript. No special hits in these. Other than just "he got lucky before", if he's legit, he may lose some of the gift as he becomes more commercial. That is widely alleged to happen among mediums.

Speculative, to say the least. You have nothing to back this up with.

Originally posted by Clancie
Technical difficulties. The night of Transcript #2 there were continual audio problems from beginning to end.

Moving the goalposts. You have never used this argument on TVTalkshows (if you have, I'd love to see it).

Why should this make a reading worse? Do spirits depend on whether a microphone works? (Careful with that answer... :D)

Originally posted by Clancie

He has gotten better working face to face without even realizing it. It is possible that he still thinks it doesn't make any difference to the readings--that the energy comes through f2f or by phone--but perhaps all the seminars and CO's as well as continued private readings have strengthened his ability f2f disproportionately and he isn't even fully aware of it yet.

Speculative, to say the least. He could also have gotten better at cold reading. As we know, cold reading also depends on visual cues. This could easily explain it.

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, I expect some will object to that, but that was also ersby's method and he arrived at 49% for LKL which no one has objected to. So, I think the two independent approaches by two different skeptics support each other's conclusion, and I have no problem accepting the 50% after looking through both of their analyses. I realize others may disagree, though.

I also agree that you cannot merely add the weak hits and the strong hits. You need better understanding of statistics. Do you agree with renata's tally of weak hits and strong hits?

Originally posted by Clancie
As for the quality, well, you can say that its nothing that wouldn't be expected from cold reading. If so, then that's what cold readers should be able to do for comparison--50% hits with similar information on names, initials, cause of death, etc. A good baseline, imo.

Do you admit that Ersby did as well as JE? That a cold reader has replicated what JE does?

===========================================
Tally:

Moving the goalposts: 3
Speculation: 3
Pending questions:


Please define precisely what "under similar circumstances" means.
What is the difference between what JE does ("keying in on a particular energy") and what a cold reader does ("getting sitter feedback to bring out more details")?
Why should bad audio make a reading worse? Do spirits depend on whether a microphone works?
Do you agree with renata's tally of weak hits and strong hits?
Do you admit that Ersby did as well as JE? That a cold reader has replicated what JE does?

[Darat]

Clancie- I know you and Claus have "issues" ;) , to say the least, however can I ask you to try and ignore them and consider the substance of his post? I believe he does make some very important comments and I think answering the questions he raises from your post would be very useful.

[juryjone]

Originally posted by Clancie
Those of us who think that he gets special hits without getting the info from the sitter, see the way he works as keying in on a particular energy, establishing the "basics", then going beyond that--when he is given time to.

Excuse me, Clancie, since I have not read all of your posts - but when did you become a believer? I thought that you had insisted all along that you were a skeptic, arguing the side of the believer. Now you say that you are in the group that thinks JE gets special hits - believes in his abilities.

The post that your quote comes from is full of speculation (which you deride skeptics for indulging in). Can't you see that if a reasonable person is presented with two sets of speculation - one which presents an explanation concurrent with knowledge both of physical laws and of human nature (that it is human nature to want to feel important, and to believe in whatever makes us feel good) versus an explanation that violates knowledge of both, that it would be prudent to choose the first explanation? (Whew - what a sentence!)

Let me put it this way - if a person I've met hands me her business card from an apparently empty hand, I will not assume she is a witch, I will assume she is a magician. Similarly, if a person I've just met tells me that my grandmother tells him from beyond the grave that she's happy to now be with her husband, who passed several years earlier, I don't consider him to be actually talking to my grandmother, even though the fact that she passed several years after my grandfather is correct. He can pull any number of "special" facts from his hat, and I am not going to believe that he is a medium, because the mundane explanations are so much more likely to be true that it is not prudent for me to assume otherwise.

If we are trying to argue the absolute truth of mediumship here, I'm afraid we will never arrive at a conclusion, because we're trying to argue what goes on in another person's head - something that is ultimately unknowable. However, if we are arguing relative certainty, then I'm afraid that you should give up the believer's argument. It just doesn't make sense.

Tell me something. Do you believe everything you see claimed in commercials? I would guess not, since you seem to be an intelligent person. After all, why would you believe what someone tells you when you know that they have a financial stake in you believing them? When it is easy for them to lie, because they know that no matter how many people catch the lie, there will always be someone who will believe them?

Why is JE any different than Madison Avenue?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by juryjone
Excuse me, Clancie, since I have not read all of your posts - but when did you become a believer? I thought that you had insisted all along that you were a skeptic, arguing the side of the believer. Now you say that you are in the group that thinks JE gets special hits - believes in his abilities.

This must have happened very recently. Clancie has argued not that many days ago that she was not a believer.

I wonder what made her change her mind.

[Clancie]

Hi Juryjone,

You're right. I say I'm on the fence, but argue the side of believer because, generally speaking, I think its more interesting and that there are issues that shouldn't be dismissed, things that support my view (which is, "there may be something to mediumship").

The comments above were about renata's analysis. I was trying to show that, yes, I agree that the analysis of JE on LKL could be seen as a good argument for skeptics...because it is live and unedited.

I don't know what Claus's big problem with my response is. Of course its speculation. I don't think the LKL "proves" that JE is a cold reader. I think a 50% hit rate is okay. As for the quality (which renata only briefly touched on in the beginning), I volunteered that it doesn't seem as good as CO. I've offered possible reasons for that (in addition to "fraud" and "cold reader").

Posted by CFLarsen

Do you admit that Ersby did as well as JE? That a cold reader has replicated what JE does?
Claus, I was referring to ersby's article--you know, the one in Skeptic Report. :rolleyes:

As for Neill's cold reading. You keep saying I've added on "similar circumstances" as a criteria for comparison with JE but I haven't. I've said that an Internet reading over several days (including hot reading opportunities) was very different from JE from the beginning. (Not that it matters, except in your world of black and white. What difference does it make if people do get new ideas...insights...whatever...over the course of time? Why would you always need to discredit that somehow--ie. "You never said before...." "Moving the goalposts..." etc. etc).

And, Darat,

Claus wears me down. If you find one of his questions to be particularly interesting, could you just re-post it? I can't read his lists of "pick, pick, pick" any more. They bring on a huge sense of ...let's be nice and call it fatigue. Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Take your pick. Don't let others choose for you.

Stand up for yourself.

[juninho]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Juninho,

You're right. I say I'm on the fence, but argue the side of believer because, generally speaking, I think its more interesting and that there are issues that shouldn't be dismissed, things that support my view (which is, "there may be something to mediumship").


Do what? Please try and respond to the person who posted the question(s) or am I missing something?

[juryjone]

Juninho: I believe she was responding to me, although she doesn't seem to have answered any of my questions.

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Juninho,

You're right. I say I'm on the fence, but argue the side of believer because, generally speaking, I think its more interesting and that there are issues that shouldn't be dismissed, things that support my view (which is, "there may be something to mediumship").

You can argue the side of the believer without saying that you personally believe. Yet that's what you said in the quote I posted above. So. You "say" you're on the fence, but are you?

The comments above were about renata's analysis. I was trying to show that, yes, I agree that the analysis of JE on LKL could be seen as a good argument for skeptics...because it is live and unedited.

Whoa, wait a minute. Are you sure you want to say this? Because this would imply that any analysis that would not be good for a skeptic would be readings that were edited. It seems to imply that the reason he fails to have good results (that might convince a skeptic) was they were unedited. Maybe you meant that in a different way than how I'm reading it.

I don't know what Claus's big problem with my response is. Of course its speculation. I don't think the LKL "proves" that JE is a cold reader. I think a 50% hit rate is okay. As for the quality (which renata only briefly touched on in the beginning), I volunteered that it doesn't seem as good as CO. I've offered possible reasons for that (in addition to "fraud" and "cold reader").


You say "of couse it's speculation". But why speculate a paranormal explanation when a normal one suffices? And why should you have to make excuses for the man? If "time constraints" and having readings "in person" and "inaccurate transcripts" affect his ability to perform, why doesn't he say that up front instead of apologists coming along afterwards? Perhaps he doesn't know about these limitations? Well, here's an idea - why doesn't he get tested so we can identify when and when he can't perform?

[Lurker]

Clancie:

Thanks for your response on this thread. I enjoyed reading it, even if much of it was speculation. Speculation similar to "microphones in the audience", "plants in the audience", "internet searches" and so on. All speculation. Some want to dismiss it as speculation while others take it for what it is.

I am perplexed about you saying you are not a believer. In the time that I have known you here and at TVTALK I would have thought you were an avowed believer.

Confused,

Lurker

[Clancie]

juryjone & juninho,

Sorry for the mix up. I guess I need my coffee. :)
Posted by juryjone

You "say" you're on the fence, but are you?[QUOTE][B]Yes. I lean toward the side of believers, based partially on JE (live and on CO), partially on reading about studies done on other mediums (Piper, Home, Palladino), reading about the work of other mediums (particularly Ford), and having medium readings of my own.

I find much of the above to be compelling, but still not conclusive.
Yes, I'm on the fence, with the idea that "There may be something to mediumship."
[QUOTE][B]Posted by juryjone

Clancie: The comments above were about renata's analysis. I was trying to show that, yes, I agree that the analysis of JE on LKL could be seen as a good argument for skeptics...because it is live and unedited.

Juryjone: Whoa, wait a minute. Are you sure you want to say this? Because this would imply that any analysis that would not be good for a skeptic would be readings that were edited. It seems to imply that the reason he fails to have good results (that might convince a skeptic) was they were unedited. Maybe you meant that in a different way than how I'm reading it.
Well, I meant what I said--that since skeptics say JE looks better on CO because its edited to make him look better...that analyzing transcripts helps support their case if they find live and unedited readings to critique, readings which they can use to compare with CO and say that the results on CO are better because of editing. That is the argument, isn't it?
Posted by juryjone
And why should you have to make excuses for the man? If "time constraints" and having readings "in person" and "inaccurate transcripts" affect his ability to perform, why doesn't he say that up front instead of apologists coming along afterwards? Perhaps he doesn't know about these limitations?
I was asked to respond to renata's analysis and I did. If people dismiss it as just "making excuses", I can't say I'd be very surprised. I'm well aware that offering "possible alternatives to the cold reading hypothesis" is viewed here as "making excuses".

As for JE...I've never seen JE pick apart readings like his critics do. He pretty much just says, "I get what I get and pass it on. I can interpret it incorrectly--the process is difficult--but I get what I get."

Since he doesn't respond to criticism--and its out there--that leaves room for "apologists" who feel they understand the process, to hypothesize about it instead. (And, as I say, I don't find anything so awful about a 50 % hit rate live and unedited).
Well, here's an idea - why doesn't he get tested so we can identify when and when he can't perform?
He's been tested by the only credible (i.e....university affiliated... published in academic journals...recognized for work in the field of parapsychology...etc.) researcher we know of who's asked him, juryjone.

[voidx]

Originally posted by juninho


Do what? Please try and respond to the person who posted the question(s) or am I missing something?
Seems as though she got your name mixed up with JuryJone's. Whose post made an excellent point by the way, one I've touched on myself. Its hard to make believers acknowledge that what JE does resembles cold-reading. If they do, they also instantly discount it with the quality arguement. But I've not seen in all the transcripts so far, a quality hit that was so extraordinary, that it defied all cold-reading, or other mundane explanations. We currently cannot disprove or prove mediumship, but based upon what we do know, it resembles the mundane explanations so closely that I'm still puzzled as to why believers in general are so quick to discount them, and go hunting for validation of a paranormal explanation. A solution looking for a problem if you ask me.

Posted by Clancie:
Re: quantity. In terms of quantity of hits, the 50% hit rate seems reasonable to me, even outside of LKL. I would consider it a baseline comparison for an admitted cold reader working under similar circumstances.
Would you also agree that the quality of JE readings on LKL or consistent with what a cold-reader would achieve under similar conditions? Do you consider any of the LKL hits...special?

Posted by Clancie:
LK's time constraint (usually under 1 minute per reading) makes it difficult for JE to get details beyond the "establishment' of energy. (Skeptics, naturally, say this is a cold reader technique, getting sitter feedback to bring out more details. Those of us who think that he gets special hits without getting the info from the sitter, see the way he works as keying in on a particular energy, establishing the "basics", then going beyond that--when he is given time to. On LKL's format, he doesn't get much time.
Claus does have a point. It's pure speculation that this time restraint makes JE's mediumship skills more difficult. We cannot assume this. But again this whole point speaks back to juryjone's comment. If you acknowledge what skeptics would see this as...a cold reader doing poorly in a time constrained environement, where normally in his own environment, his "quality" is much better is so very indictive and consistent with the idea that JE is potentially cold-reading that it would seem to make more sense that this would be you're first assumption. Rather than talking about keying in on a particular energy and establishing the "basics", these sound pretty vague.

Posted by Clancie:
JE may be more effective in person. In the Feb. 2003 readings, JE was getting information that fit for a guest visitng someone in the studio. LK regarded it as a distraction from the callers and had him do the reading during the break so the woman would get the information and leave. Had LK understood "the process" better, JE could have done the reading live and it might have been far more compelling than the 30 secs of phones.
Again this explanation works just as well if he's cold-reading, thus in person gives him visual clues to work with as well, again, why assume a paranormal explanation first?

Posted by Clancie:Transcripts aren't accurate. Not a big thing but worth mentioning. They are probably done mechanically and often have missed words, ungrammatical mistakes, and misspellings that can effect the meanings.
Obviously you acknowledge this is just as true for CO and Seminar transcripts or ancedoytle accounts, doesn't really count as a strike against the LKL readings in comparison to the CO and seminar ones, as they all suffer from the same potential problem.

Posted by Clancie:
Was JE "better" before he became so commercial? I remember a special hit (cigarettes in the coffin) from the 1998 transcript. No special hits in these. Other than just "he got lucky before", if he's legit, he may lose some of the gift as he becomes more commercial. That is widely alleged to happen among mediums.
Widely alleged doesn't do much for me. Why does it happen? Any reason? Besides the obvious...oh back when no one knew who he was, and there are less transcripts and objective data with which to judge his pre-success readings...he was awesome. Please acknowledge what a hugely convinient out this is for mediums.

Posted by Clancie:
Technical difficulties. The night of Transcript #2 there were continual audio problems from beginning to end.
The transcript showed some, but I didn't get the sense it was from beginning to end. Is this just something you remember from watching this specific show? Or do you think the transcript supports this?


Posted by Clancie:
He has gotten better working face to face without even realizing it. It is possible that he still thinks it doesn't make any difference to the readings--that the energy comes through f2f or by phone--but perhaps all the seminars and CO's as well as continued private readings have strengthened his ability f2f disproportionately and he isn't even fully aware of it yet.
Again this could also be construed as him improving his cold-reading skills. So why the paranormal explanation first? What makes it so compelling?

[voidx]

Posted by Clancie:
Well, I meant what I said--that since skeptics say JE looks better on CO because its edited to make him look better...that analyzing transcripts helps support their case if they find live and unedited readings to critique, readings which they can use to compare with CO and say that the results on CO are better because of editing. That is the argument, isn't it?
That's perhaps part of it, but for me, the more fundamental question is this. On LKL when JE does poorly, and I'm thinking you agree here, he very much resembles a cold-reader, in fact exactly like a cold-reader. So is this not telling? In an environment not within his direct control and with no face to face visual cues, he looks every bit a cold-reader. Why do you think this is? He fishes for information, he's vague at first and then hones in with the small amount of time he has to become more specific. What, if anything, in the LKL transcripts would convince you that JE is a real medium and not a cold-reader? Is there anything?

[Clancie]

Posted by Lurker

Thanks for your response on this thread. I enjoyed reading it, even if much of it was speculation. Speculation similar to "microphones in the audience", "plants in the audience", "internet searches" and so on. All speculation. Some want to dismiss it as speculation while others take it for what it is.

Speculation? Yes, I agree. And I know it can be dismissed easily that way if people want to do so--or choose to invoke Occam's Razor rather than saying "what if?" or..."are there other possibilities"?....

btw, do people feel that renata and ersby's 50% hit rate on Larry King Live is proof that JE's a cold reader? I wonder how can we judge that with certainty from this hit rate alone? :confused:


I am perplexed about you saying you are not a believer. In the time that I have known you here and at TVTALK I would have thought you were an avowed believer.
Well, I've tried to explain it. I argue the side of the believer because (1) its more interesting to me, frankly (2) I -do- lean toward it, (3) I think there results in mediumship that can't be dismissed as cold/warm/hot reading; (4) I wanted to test the arguments out vis a vis criticism.

Over in Community, Claus started a thread a few weeks back asking me why I didn't think I was a believer, so there are some posts about it there. The bottom line basically is that if I actually "believed" in all this I'd feel differently than I do (like having religious faith or not). I don't consider myself a "believer" because I still have my doubts, basically. But I think the case for mediumship & ADC can't just be dismissed, either. I feel there are many things that critics call "anecdotal" but which I take seriously and have not seen adequately explained. And those are the points that interest me most.

[voidx]

Posted by Clancie:
Bottom line: if I actually "believed" I'd feel differently than I do. I don't "believe" because I still have my doubts, basically. But I think the case for mediumship & ADC can't just be dismissed, either. I feel there are many things that critics call "anecdotal" but which I take seriously and have not seen adequately explained.
See this is where you lose me though. There is no solid proofs of ADC or mediumship, and while we can't really discount them, they seem unlikely based upon our current understanding of the world around us. Now my question is this: knowing the rather unsupported concepts of mediumship and ADC why do you lean to a paranormal explanation, rather than a mundane one? You must have some basis for choosing this particular route? I just don't see how you can see it as more likely than a mundane explanation, that simply hasn't been explained as yet.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

Now my question is this: knowing the rather unsupported concepts of mediumship and ADC why do you lean to a paranormal explanation, rather than a mundane one? You must have some basis for choosing this particular route?
Well, so far the "mundane explanations" don't seem to adequately account for everything that has been observed, in my opinion. For example, Mrs. Piper was very carefully studied for over 27 years and the SPR researchers never found any evidence of cheating. The information she brought through while in trance also does not conform to what we know of cold reading techniques. That's just one example of something that "has not been adequately explained", imo.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, so far the "mundane explanations" don't seem to adequately account for everything that has been observed, in my opinion. For example, Mrs. Piper was very carefully studied for over 27 years and the SPR researchers never found any evidence of cheating. The information she brought through while in trance also does not conform to what we know of cold reading techniques. That's just one example of something that "has not been adequately explained", imo. [/B]
Ok, fine and good for Mrs. Piper, what does that have to do with JE? I'm seeing this a lot lately. At some point JE gets replaced by mediumship in the process of the conversation, and then when I ask the above question I get Mrs. Piper. Let's stick to the analysis of JE here. I'm not as familiar with Mrs. Piper anyway, but the real question is, how is it that you find the mundane explanations so poorly able to explain JE that you assume a paranormal explanation? I haven't seen anything so far in all our threads about him up to date.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Speculation? Yes, I agree. And I know it can be dismissed easily that way if people want to do so--or choose to invoke Occam's Razor rather than saying "what if?" or..."are there other possibilities"?....

Then you don't understand the purpose of Occam's Razor. Why do you need to invent paranormal explanations, when there are perfectly rational explanations?

Originally posted by Clancie
btw, do people feel that renata and ersby's 50% hit rate on Larry King Live is proof that JE's a cold reader? I wonder how can we judge that with certainty from this hit rate alone? :confused:

Huh? Isn't that what you have been trying to say earlier?

"In terms of quantity of hits, the 50% hit rate seems reasonable to me, even outside of LKL. I would consider it a baseline comparison for an admitted cold reader working under similar circumstances."

Right?

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I've tried to explain it. I argue the side of the believer because (1) its more interesting to me, frankly (2) I -do- lean toward it, (3) I think there results in mediumship that can't be dismissed as cold/warm/hot reading; (4) I wanted to test the arguments out vis a vis criticism.

You have failed in explaining why JE is not a fake.

Originally posted by Clancie
Over in Community, Claus started a thread a few weeks back asking me why I didn't think I was a believer, so there are some posts about it there. The bottom line basically is that if I actually "believed" in all this I'd feel differently than I do (like having religious faith or not). I don't consider myself a "believer" because I still have my doubts, basically. But I think the case for mediumship & ADC can't just be dismissed, either. I feel there are many things that critics call "anecdotal" but which I take seriously and have not seen adequately explained. And those are the points that interest me most.

It sounds very much like you are trying to fool yourself here. You argue from a believer's POV, yet you deny that you are a believer.

How do you know how you would "feel" if you were a believer? How does a believer "feel"?

You have been presented, time and again, with perfectly rational explanations. You just choose to deny them.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, so far the "mundane explanations" don't seem to adequately account for everything that has been observed, in my opinion. For example, Mrs. Piper was very carefully studied for over 27 years and the SPR researchers never found any evidence of cheating. The information she brought through while in trance also does not conform to what we know of cold reading techniques. That's just one example of something that "has not been adequately explained", imo.

We are discussing why you seem to believe in JE, not why you seem to believe in Mrs. Piper. I find it incredible that you can wonder about a medium being real, whom you haven't experienced for yourself. Don't shift the focus now...

Just making sure you won't forget them:


Please define precisely what "under similar circumstances" means.
What is the difference between what JE does ("keying in on a particular energy") and what a cold reader does ("getting sitter feedback to bring out more details")?
Why should bad audio make a reading worse? Do spirits depend on whether a microphone works?
Do you agree with renata's tally of weak hits and strong hits?

[Clancie]

voidx,

I thought your question was regarding "mundane explanations for mediumship", not only about JE.

Well, if JE were the only reputed medium in the history of the world, the case for mediumship probably wouldn't be stronger than the case for the "mundane"--cold/warm/hot reading + sitter buy in + editing.

However, he's not the only medium ever mentioned or studied and what he claims to do is, in many ways, consistent with what others have done--things which have not been explained by "the mundane".

JE interests me because (1) he was my first introduction to mediumship; (2) it was only after watching him for several weeks that I thought he was doing something that I couldn't account for by mundane means (unless there was good evidence of hot reading--and, to me, there isn't); (3) I'm very interested in the "special hits", as I don't see compelling mundane explanations offered for them (doesn't mean there aren't any; I just haven't found them).

However, JE could be just a gifted cold reader (imo, if so, probably self deluded not an intentional fraud--but that's another issue), and it still wouldn't discredit the work of everyone else, particularly trance mediums whose evidence seems of generally better quality than JE or other mental mediums I've seen.

There are also other mental mediums--Brian Hurst and Karen Lundegaard--whose readings, imo, were more "evidential" than JE's. Yes, this is anecdotal. No, I don't expect anyone else to find it intriguing or compelling. But unlike skeptics here, I -do- find the anecdotal accounts worth looking at, particularly from sitters whom I find personally credible.

[Thanz]

Not directed to me, but on the theory that some answers are better than no answers, I'll give my view here.

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Pending questions:


Please define precisely what "under similar circumstances" means.
Is this really that hard? Look at what JE does. Have acold reader do it. That means, either a series of short calls (like on LKL), or a seminar type setting, or a taped program that can be edited later. The last is the least useful, just as CO is the least useful for evaluating JE. In all cases, however, the readings are done in real time, not extended over days by correspondence.

What is the difference between what JE does ("keying in on a particular energy") and what a cold reader does ("getting sitter feedback to bring out more details")?
I am not sure what you mean here. In one case, the medium is getting information from the sitter. In the other, he is getting information from the "spirit energies". If you are asking how you can tell them apart, I don't think you can.
Why should bad audio make a reading worse? Do spirits depend on whether a microphone works?
Very good questions. I don't think it should, unless JE needs the feedback in order to "help focus the energies". Of course, if that is the case, how would we EVER distinguish between cold reading and mediumship?
Do you admit that Ersby did as well as JE? That a cold reader has replicated what JE does?

I don't think so, given that the reading by ersby was done via correspondence. I'd want to compare someone like Rowland doing his thing in real time for a better analysis.

BTW, why does it matter whether Clancie has made the argument before at TVTalkshows? I would have thought you would welcome new arguments rather than the same responses over and over.

[BPSCG]

Two comments:

1) Regarding the speculation about why JE does better on CO than on LKL: I think it's pretty obvious, based on my having watched CO just once. On CO, he throws out a name or an initial to the audience - as opposed to a single caller on LKL - and asks if that means anything to anyone. Asking an audience instead of one person has to increase his chances dramatically. He could probably throw out "I'm getting someone whose three-legged dog's initials are 'XQ'" and still count on a hit.

2) While I found this thread, particularly Renata's research, to be fascinating, I just wonder if it really doesn't amount to a lot of navel-gazing.

Maybe I missed it, but for all the time and effort people have invested in this topic, I doubt that anyone has looked at Renata's numbers and said, "Hmmm, looks like I was wrong about JE all along; he's really just doing a bunch of carnival tricks". Sharing this research here strikes me as being a case of "preaching to the choir"; the vast majority of the posters here were convinced JE is a fraud a long time ago.

The question is, how do you get this out to the rest of the credulous world? Get it on PBS's Nova, get it on Penn and Teller's program, get it in Parade magazine, get it on LKL (as if), get it out of here and into the public eye.

[Clancie]

BPSCG,

I don't think skeptics do a very good job at all of knocking down JE--really making a great public case.

When I was looking for an "explanation" for JE's readings, I found Shermer, Nickells, Jaroff, Dateline...all very flawed. Likewise, Penn and Teller discredited themselves with the stupid attempt to discredit JE by indicating he had something to hide not letting their cameras into his seminar. In reality, as they know, that was perfectly common practice (one they themselves use while on stage, too, I'm sure).

Jim Underdown criticized JE at TAM, but apparently (according to participant's accounts), mixed up JVP and JE's release forms--misinformation that other skeptics then repeat as if its fact.

I'm curious about Underdown's Sept article in Skeptical Inquirer, but surprised that instead of focusing it on Co (which is needed) he apparently broadens it to JVP and others as well. Will that strengthen or weaken the criticism of JE? My prediction is that it will weaken it--perhaps because he doesn't have the data he hoped he would to make a focused and devastating case about "editing and CO".

But at least he went to a CO taping--as other prominent skeptics should have done, long ago. (And Underdown is based in California, not even New York). Where are the books? The great magazine article/expose? There's been 4 years of CO and still...nothing much at all.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
voidx,

I thought your question was regarding "mundane explanations for mediumship", not only about JE.

Well, if JE were the only reputed medium in the history of the world, the case for mediumship probably wouldn't be stronger than the case for the "mundane"--cold/warm/hot reading + sitter buy in + editing.

However, he's not the only medium ever mentioned or studied and what he claims to do is, in many ways, consistent with what others have done--things which have not been explained by "the mundane".

JE interests me because (1) he was my first introduction to mediumship; (2) it was only after watching him for several weeks that I thought he was doing something that I couldn't account for by mundane means (unless there was good evidence of hot reading--and, to me, there isn't); (3) I'm very interested in the "special hits", as I don't see compelling mundane explanations offered for them (doesn't mean there aren't any; I just haven't found them).

However, JE could be just a gifted cold reader (imo, if so, probably self deluded not an intentional fraud--but that's another issue), and it still wouldn't discredit the work of everyone else, particularly trance mediums whose evidence seems of generally better quality than JE or other mental mediums I've seen.

There are also other mental mediums--Brian Hurst and Karen Lundegaard--whose readings, imo, were more "evidential" than JE's. Yes, this is anecdotal. No, I don't expect anyone else to find it intriguing or compelling. But unlike skeptics here, I -do- find the anecdotal accounts worth looking at, particularly from sitters whom I find personally credible.
I'll admit to sometimes tossing in mediumship as a whole in place of JE. But I find it frustrating. I ask some pointed questions about JE, about what it is that makes him such a good example of mediumship, then mediumship gets discussed, and when I asked pointedly I get referred to turn of the century Mrs. Piper. I have several direct questions I've asked regarding JE, I'd like to know what you're comments on them are. You seem to admit his LKL readings aren't very good, will you admit that they are indistinguishable from cold-reading on LKL? I'm not interested in CO or seminars for the moment, just what this thread is concentrating on. I take it from the above quote that if JE was the only medium the case for mediumship would be prett flimsy, but since there is other support in your opinion for mediumship, he gets some leeway. That is how I'm interpreting you're statement. It seems to me because you personally have had experiences which seem to validate mediumship more, your willing to give JE the benefit of the doubt, regardless of poor, cold-reading performances such as on LKL. As for his "special hits" I've still not seen any posted transcripts of them, so I cannot comment. But I can comment on everything that has been posted so far, and its unimpressive, I fail to see how the transcripts in these threads hint more strongly towards the paranormal, than they do to the mundane. Do you disagree? And if so, which transcripts posted here would you site as you're examples?

[voidx]

Posted by Clancie:
But at least he went to a CO taping--as other prominent skeptics should have done, long ago. (And Underdown is based in California, not even New York). Where are the books? The great magazine article/expose? There's been 4 years of CO and still...nothing much at all.
Probably in the same place as any proof of the afterlife, or any scientifically provable form of telepathy/esp/psi. Except people have been working on that for over a 100 years now.

[voidx]

Here's a fine comment by Joseph Kennedy in response to James Hyslop regarding a trance medium they were analyzing that I think sums up what I'm getting at quite well.

The difference between you and me in regard to the subliminal seems to be in this: that I am not thus far constrained to believe that there is anything more, while you evidently posit a spirit behind the subliminal. I do not say that the subliminal is an ultimate explanation. The hypnotic subliminal, the dream subliminal and other varieties are, or course, mysterious. I do not deny this but my point is that I am not thus far impelled to bridge the chasm between the subliminal and the spirit world and thus posit spirit motivation. I do not deny it. You seem to be convinced. I speak only for myself.

quoted from this page here:
http://www.und.edu/instruct/kesmith/kennedy/Sci_Psy_Seance.htm
in part IV.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't think the LKL "proves" that JE is a cold reader. I think a 50% hit rate is okay. As for the quality (which renata only briefly touched on in the beginning), I volunteered that it doesn't seem as good as CO. I've offered possible reasons for that (in addition to "fraud" and "cold reader").

I don't see how you can say a 50% hit is okay, and in the same breath say the quality was poor.

Let me extend a big thanks to Renata for the work she's done on the transcripts and hit ratio of LKL. The effort was clear and well received by skeptics & believers alike.

I took the liberty (and some may disagree) to reevaluate the percentages to score the weak hits as half. Lets face it, even the believers don't see much quality in them. In any case, I am open to criticism on how I got my percentages, and welcome any input on how to fairly score something as subjective as this.

Here it goes:
28 weak hits becomes 14. 97 guesses becomes 83. total hits becomes 24.

38 Misses = 46%
24 Hits = 29%
15 Not validated = 18%
6 Not scored = 7%
Total = 100%

If quality is given any weighting at all, it shows a very poor over all scoring. Comparable to any "Cold Reader".

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Clancie
When I was looking for an "explanation" for JE's readings, I found Shermer, Nickells, Jaroff, Dateline...all very flawed. Likewise, Penn and Teller discredited themselves with the stupid attempt to discredit JE by indicating he had something to hide not letting their cameras into his seminar. In reality, as they know, that was perfectly common practice (one they themselves use while on stage, too, I'm sure). When you were looking did you look here (http://www.ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/FFColdReadingmain.php). This tells you how he does it and even how he gets his 'special' hits

[AlienX]

So we have a list of reasons (excuses really) as to why the readings are terrible. Yet JE still goes on the show? - but all he will ever need is one really good hit ever and that will be it tbh.
Nice odds i suppose, keep going on the show he's bound to get a good hit sometime and all the other abysmal readings forgotten.

All of your explanitions Clancie are explainable and to be expected from cold reading also. Thus I do thank you for your response but i've still not even remotely changed my position on this issue. Unless of course you could point out any difference that you would consider to not be eplainable by cold reading.

For me I feel the quality of the telephone readings simply shows the importance of visual clues (Derren Brown as pointed out by Lothian discusses this).

As Derren Brown is not known in the US it would be very interesting for him to have a go at a group of believers over there and get their reaction. All i've ever seen him do is pretty short accurate readings (not <1 min though) - but I doub't he could do anything without being able to see the target or get any feedback - exactly what we are seeing with JE here.

Also I would suspect that DB may indeed analyse JE at some point as he's writing books on cold reading. I bet he would make a packet if his finding were +ve or -ve for JE.. we can only hope i suppose I would value this guys analysis better than Renatas (sorry Renata ;-) - this guy does this stuff and obviously knows his subject very well.

Didn't JE say that the distance or phone made no difference - how can you say it does then - that's not even speculation that is directly countering statments made by JE.

Also if you say it takes a long time to "sort out the energies" or whatever then why does JE sometimes get really good hits to start with - this is totally counter to what you are saying???



AlienX

[voidx]

Posted by AlienX
Didn't JE say that the distance or phone made no difference - how can you say it does then - that's not even speculation that is directly countering statments made by JE.
Yup and it was quoted by someone in one of these threads, I thought it was neofight actually. I've asked this same question several times and never received an adequate answer.

[Instig8R]

Looks like renata has returned! I'm bumping up this thread as a welcome back gift.

To recap, Neo stated (on the "Interesting Hits" thread) she found these LKL readings useless and the LKL format unacceptable, so she did not check out the thread. In fact, neo referred to these unedited LKL readings as snippets.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870039166&highlight=%2Asnipp%2A#post1870039166

However, over at TVTalkshows (on a thread called "JE sucks on Larry King"), neofight actually defended the quality of readings on the first half of LKL show broadcast on 9/6/02. In fact, here is what neo posted on 9/7/02:


(Gryphon)
"I thought JE got worse as the hour went on--which I'd like to think was due to fatigue"

(neofight)
"You know, Gryphon. I think you are right. I re-watched the first two segments of LKL before, and after reviewing them, I decided they really were not as bad as I had thought at first. In fact, had he stopped right there, I don't think it could have been considered that bad a showing.

Unfortunately, as we know, it did NOT stop there, so the overall feeling I had after sitting through the whole hour, was one of disappointment. I think we were probably really hoping that every reading would be a "knock your sox off, kick-ass" reading, and so we felt really let down when this turned out not to be the case.

I do agree that the readings got progressively worse. I'll try to force myself to watch the second half at another time. :) .....neo"

How about that? Less than a year ago, neo claimed that during the first half of the show, there were decent readings... Now, when renata's analysis reveals just how bad these readings were, neo has denounced them as snippets, unworthy of even considering.

What a difference a year makes...

[neofight]

Hello, Instig8R! Very appropriate username, btw. :)

Anyhow, I just happened to see your name on this thread that you bumped up, so naturally, I decided to see what my good friend was up to, and lo and behold, what a surprise! It was a post about me, even though I haven't even been posting on this thread. :confused: That's when it occurred to me that I could probably come up with an even better username for you, but then, that's another story. lol

Anyhow, I won't go on and on, because I've already stated many times that I do not believe that the call-in telephone format is the ideal way to conduct readings, but I just wanted to clarify a few things.

First, I believe that JE is most likely a real medium. Nothing I've seen to date has convinced me that he is a fraud. Secondly, nothing that you've just posted in my quotes is inconsistent with anything I've said. I have seen JE get some rather good hits over the phone. Nonetheless, I still don't feel that these readings can compare to an in-person reading . That's just how I feel.

I was on Long Island last week, and heard JE do an hour on WPLJ-FM, on the Scott and Todd Show, and those (mini) readings were very average. If you or any other Long Islander heard the show, you would have heard JE acknowledge the fact that during these readings in particular, there is a very small window of opportunity for a spirit to come through. Each call only lasts a minute or two, if that. I maintain that readings that last until the spirit has no more to say, are much more complete and accurate as a rule, than are these phone readings.....neo

[voidx]

Posted by neofight:
I was on Long Island last week, and heard JE do an hour on WPLJ-FM, on the Scott and Todd Show, and those (mini) readings were very average. If you or any other Long Islander heard the show, you would have heard JE acknowledge the fact that during these readings in particular, there is a very small window of opportunity for a spirit to come through. Each call only lasts a minute or two, if that. I maintain that readings that last until the spirit has no more to say, are much more complete and accurate as a rule, than are these phone readings.....neo
Let's remember a few things here though. It has been previously quoted that JE has previously stated that phone, TV, in person does nothing to affect the communication with spirits, and up till now has not as far as I know made any complaint about the talkshow phone format for readings. Now after what appears to me to be session after session of poor to no-better-than-coldreading phone sessions on talkshows, he is now starting to state that there is not enough time in this format to perhaps get a good reading. Note this was not his position before, and that he has progressed to this opinion in all appearances. It looks to me like someone trying to give themselves some leway in a format their starting to realize does not show them at their best. When originally they had no outward objections. I find this telling. Also the last sentence of the quote above can work just as well this way. "Each call only lasts a minute or two, if that. I maintain that cold-readings that last until the medium has no more to say or fish from the sitter, are much more likely to be complete and accurate as a rule, than are these phone readings." Since I've seen nothing so far to convince me of JE's incredible abilities, this simple mundane explanation continues to suffice for his poor talkshow phone readings, so why posit the paranormal?

[BNiles]

Absolutely right voidx!

I still don't understand how people continue to make excuses for poor performance and not see that these excuses are exactly what cold readers do. If they can't fire away vast numbers of questions at the sitter, and if they can't see the sitter’s expressions or jesters their performance goes right out the window.

And this bit about "I've seen JE get some pretty good hits over the phone" is just so tired. We've all heard that even a blind monkey gets a banana once in awhile.

[Thanz]

Bump for ease of reference. Can't let Renata's good work to get too buried!

[Psiload]

Originally posted by BNiles
Absolutely right voidx!

I still don't understand how people continue to make excuses for poor performance and not see that these excuses are exactly what cold readers do. If they can't fire away vast numbers of questions at the sitter, and if they can't see the sitter’s expressions or jesters their performance goes right out the window.

And this bit about "I've seen JE get some pretty good hits over the phone" is just so tired. We've all heard that even a blind monkey gets a banana once in awhile.

And a broken clock will get two good hits each and every day.

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz
Bump for ease of reference. Can't let Renata's good work to get too buried!

Damn you, Thanz! :D I am behind on my promised 2 other readings!!! Today...I promise.. (again!). OK, no more posts here until I post the analysis!

JE is supposed to be on LKL this Thursday, so I am told, so 3 more readings to examine in the next seven days :)

And here is a teaser: the 1998 readings are somewhat different in style than later readings. Quite interesting, actually :)

[renata]

http://www.johnedward.net/lkl_1030.htm

I noticed some changes from the later readings. One major change appeared to be more blatand direct questions, and braver guesses. That produced greater hits, but also bigger misses. However, since I scale the hits (strong, regular, weak) but do not scale the misses, that may not be readily apparent from the final scoring. But if you read the actual transcripts and compare, you will see what I mean. He asks much more direct questions, and either gets seriously rebuffed, or gets pretty good hits. Later, he got much more general. There are many ways to interpret that phenomena. Being a cynic, I would say that in 1998 he had less to lose, and could be more brave with his guesses, knowing spectacular hits would enter the lore (as the cigarette hit did) and the spectacular misses would be forgotten. However, now, being an industry he simply cannot ask the same direct questions and make the same leaping guesses he did then. Of course, that is just one cynical theory, I am sure there are many others. :)


Here is a reading from 1998. Greta Van Susteren guest hosting. Unfortunately, the transcript was not on CNN, so I am unable to verify how accurate it is. However, I have not seen any signs that it has been tampered with in any way. Once again, this is a rough count of his guesses and hits. Here is a reminder of how I did the work.

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. Some were not validated by the sitter. 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, or a very common name
- a number, usually 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
-A lot of questions
-a lot of information provided by callers smoothly transformed into information provided by JE later on in the reading.

Our guest tonight is John Edward who talks to the dead and our first caller is from Havertown, Pennsylvania. Go ahead, caller.
CALLER: Hello.
VAN SUSTEREN: Hello. Go ahead, caller.
CALLER: Hello.
VAN SUSTEREN: Caller, go ahead. Do you have a question for John?
CALLER: Yes. Could you tell me anything about Richard?
EDWARD: OK, the first thing I have to say...
CALLER: I can't hear you.
EDWARD: The first thing I have to say is that I can't always connect with who you want to connect with. What's your first name?
CALLER: I can't hear you, John.
EDWARD: OK. Well, let me just try to give you what I am hearing. I am not connecting with who you're asking me to. I am not connecting with the name Richard. I am connecting with a female figure that I am seeing to your side. To your side to me would be somebody that is a sister figure. That is somebody who could be a sister-in-law, could be a friend that was very close to you, she stands by your side to me. She's making me feel like there's a Ellen, Helen, Eleanor, or Eileen, a "l" sounding name to me who has crossed over. Can you hear me now?
CALLER: Just about. But I can't tie in Helen or Eileen.
EDWARD: OK, I want you to remember that I said this -- like I said not always do I get the name correctly, but I must say that what I am hearing is an "l" sounding name that's in relationship with you. Is there a husband figure for you who has crossed over?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: I am also getting a male figure to your side, but it's different from this one. It's on different sides of the family from what I am feeling. And there's also talk about younger, like a child who has crossed over or somebody that I would see as being below you. That's what's being acknowledged. Is Richard your son?
CALLER: No nephew.
EDWARD: To me it's a younger male figure that I'm being shown. I get my information in like a family tree. Above would be older to the side would be like a contemporary and below would be younger. So to me a son, son-in-law, nephew, grandson to me falls below. There's that kind of connection.
I have to tell you that connected to this is this other male figure who has crossed over. I don't know if they're trying to tell me that this would be a brother -- they're insisting that this is like a male like a husband or brother who has crossed over to you. It's different from the "l" sound that I'm hearing. That's what's coming through and they would all be coming through together. They're also talking about somebody with diabetes or something elevated in the blood -- is this for you?
CALLER: No that would have been for Richard.
EDWARD: The elevation in the blood -- something wrong with his blood.
CALLER: Yes he had hemophilia.
EDWARD: OK because they're showing me something very symbolic with the blood. And they're showing me the month of May which means either there's a birthday or anniversary or something about May -- do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Is this a birthday there?
CALLER: No, that was when he died.
EDWARD: There's two things that are there though. Around his death date there's something that I would see as being a celebration also. He's showing me a white flower -- when I see a white flower that means happy birthday or congratulations. He's telling me it's around the time he passes. That's what he showing me so I'm putting it in the same month. They're coming together. Did you ever have any -- did you like raise him or something or did he ever live near you?
CALLER: No, no he lived in another state.
EDWARD: Why is he putting you in his house -- he's putting you in the residence from what I am seeing?
CALLER: Me putting -- he was putting me in his house?
EDWARD: Yes.
CALLER: Well, he was trying to. His wife divorced him and he was paralyzed in a wheelchair.
EDWARD: We're you going to be in his house?
CALLER: No, but he asked me if I could.
EDWARD: OK because he's making the reference -- he's telling me symbolically to talk about you being connected to him and the house. This is his way of trying to validate for you. He's telling me you need to watch your circulation or your legs on one side. I don't know if this is something that's going on...
CALLER: Yes, I have a bad ankle.
EDWARD: But he's making me feel like you need to watch this on one side. I don't mean to sound like I don't believe you, but you really don't have a husband who has passed?
CALLER: Nope.
EDWARD: Well, there is a male figure who is coming through who is claiming to be, like, your husband or to be like a romantic figure or somebody that would be connected to you.
CALLER: I have a friend, but I mean, there's nothing romantic about it, just like -- it's almost like a brother.
EDWARD: OK, well let me tell you something, this person had some very...
CALLER: Not a husband.
EDWARD: This person had some very sweet feelings for you.
CALLER: Yes, we're friends. We're just friend-friends.
EDWARD: What's the -- let me just make sure this is him. What's the reference to the popcorn with him -- he's showing me by popping corn, in popcorn -- unless his name is Orville.
CALLER: I don't know.
EDWARD: Make sure -- just write this down. He's showing me popcorn, and to me it's something he's trying to make a reference to you regarding popcorn.
CALLER: Popcorn.
EDWARD: These are the people that are coming through. Please know that your nephew is OK.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Thank you for calling.


Caller wants to connect with Richard, but does not identify who Richard is. A very poor reading.

Guesses
-female to the side -sister, sister in law or a friend (my lord, how wide a net could he cast?) Not validated
-Helen or Ellen (remember infamous Helen or Ellen from the other readings? She is haunting him! Still a miss. )
- l sounding name- making it broader, miss
-husband figure who crossed. Was Richard her husband? Ooops, no. Miss
-male figure to the side. not validated
-direct question- is Richard her son- and a miss. Darn! I could almost feel for John at this point. Who the hell does this woman want to connect with if not her husband or her son?
-now back to another male figure that is crossed, not validated
-diabetes for the sitter- miss, that is for the Richard. But notice how JE takes a miss -diabetes for the sitter and smoothly appropriates into a information for Richard, as if he passed that information himself, instead of just getting that from the sitter.
-Birthday or celebration in May- no, that is when he died. Miss. Which is when JE tries to convince the caller she is wrong.
-Did she raise him or did they live near each other. Another miss, they lived near each other.
-Richard was putting caller in his house. I am scoring this a hit, even though Richard merely asked the caller to come to the house. It seemed a validation to the caller
-watch circulation or legs- weak hit, sitter has a bad ankle. Very common ailment, especially in someone older
-husband who passed (again)-miss
-romantic male who is coming through- miss
-popcorn -miss

15 guesses
10 misses
1 hit
1 weak hit
3 not validated





VAN SUSTEREN: John Edward, the author of One Last Time, a psychic medium, is here taking your calls. And we're going to go to the caller from Gainesville, Georgia. Go ahead Gainesville.
CALLER: Hi, my name's Debbie. I would like to reach either my stepmother or...
EDWARD: Stop there.
CALLER: ... or my grandfather.
EDWARD: OK, stop there. Let me just see what I connect with Debbie. Debbie, they're showing me the number eight. Whenever I see the number eight that would indicate either the eighth or 18th of a month has a meaning, or the eight month itself has some type of meaning. Do you have a son Debbie?
CALLER: No, I do not.
EDWARD: OK, I want to talk about a younger male who's still living around you. That would be somebody that's belower than you.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Which would be either a nephew or a grandson, but like there's a younger male that they want me to talk about. And they're making me feel like there's either going to be -- there -- this is going to be coming up. There's some type of legal thing, whether it's a court case a -- it could be a traffic violation, I have no idea what this is -- but there's some type of legality, and I feel like you're going to somehow be involved with this. That's the first thing that I'm seeing. OK?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: The other thing that's coming through is there is an older female that's coming through that I see passing from either lung cancer or emphysema, or something that I would see as being affect -- breast cancer -- something affecting the chest area, do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes, I do.
EDWARD: OK. There's two of them.
CALLER: I only know of one.
EDWARD: There's two -- well, there's two coming through together, but they're not above -- they're on the same level. So, there's a mother figure that comes through who also, I believe, has a sister figure that's there. They're telling me to tell you something that sounds -- to me it sounds like it's a weird b-b name like either Bobo, or -- something b-b, but it's not like a regular name. It's not like Bobby, it's not like Babs or Barbara. It's something like -- there's two bs that I'm hearing together: "buh, buh." It's like a double-syllable-sounding name that comes up in relationship with this. And they're also showing me the month of April.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: But that's connected to your dad. Is your dad still here?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: What's going on in April around him?
CALLER: That was my stepmother's birthday -- April.
EDWARD: Did he always forget this?
CALLER: I don't know.
EDWARD: OK, because this woman is coming through and she's telling me to make sure that you let your dad know "April" like that, like -- that has an important meaning. And this -- she's telling me again -- does she have a sister who's passed?
CALLER: She has a sister living.
EDWARD: Well -- no, she's telling me she's got somebody who's there with her.
CALLER: Not to my knowledge.
EDWARD: OK. Just -- if you can, just write this stuff down. She does show me that she's got a female figure to the side that's there. Was there a lack of communication with her before she passed?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: I'm going to disagree. She's showing me that she was not able to speak with you prior to her passing.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, I'm -- OK, because she's making me feel like one of the things that bothers you is that you do not have the opportunity to speak with her the way you used to, you know what I'm saying?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: She's making me feel like you guys would have been known either for having -- I don't want to -- and I'm not passing judgment on your relationship, but I feel like this is not a mother-daughter relationship that, you know, you guys went shopping all the time. You had your moments where you were close, but she's making me feel like there were moments where you would have liked to have gone back for that. And she's telling me to let you know that she tried to be the best person for you that she could have. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes, I do.
EDWARD: OK. She's telling me just to let you know that she's around, and she's making me feel like either you just went to Hawaii, you're going to Hawaii, she's showing me something Hawaiian. Are you going to a luau? I don't know if you -- I don't know what this is, but there's something Hawaiian or southern -- South Pacific that she's showing me. But just know that she's OK and that she's around.
CALLER: All right.
EDWARD: Thank you.
CALLER: Thank you.


Caller wants to connect with her stepmother or her grandfather. Reading is mediocre


Guesses
-number 8 -the old numbers game again. Not validated
-son-miss. Notice he asks her a direct question
-younger male, living- nephew or grandson.Not validated.
-legal thing- court or traffic violation. Not validated.
-older female passing through lung cancer or emphysema or breast cancer or (my favorite) something in the chest area. How general can you get. And to spread it a little wider, he asks if the caller "understands". Weak hit, as we see below.
-two of them- presumedly of those women. Miss, woman knows only of one. This is a common cold reading tactic, if a cold reader thinks a sitter is hooked on something general enough, they frequently multiply by two. In this case, it is a miss.
-B name Not validated.
-April -weak hit, step mother's birthday.
-Connected to father, Not scoring Notice another immediate direct question after- whether the father is still alive.
-father forgot birthday- Not validated. This should have been such an easy hit- it is such an easy human trait. I imagine this comment elicits chuckles and embarassed nods at seminars. Did not work this time.
-Step mother had a dead sister- Another direct question, but this time a miss.
-Lack of communication before her death. Miss. Another common trait, playing into guilt, especially with a stepmother. Who hasn't felt guilty after loss of a loved one that they have not told them everything they should have? Not this time. And here JE badgers callers into agreeing with him, using the knowledge that she was a stepmother.
-Hawaii. Not validated.

Guesses 13
6 Not validated
4 misses
2 weak hits
1 not scored




VAN SUSTEREN: Thank you. We have another caller from Manhattan Beach, California. Go ahead, caller.
CALLER: Hi, my name is Brigit, and I'd like to talk to my friend Duana (ph).
EDWARD: Brigit, has your mom passed?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. You're getting your mom first.
CALLER: All right. Great.
EDWARD: She's making a -- I hate to talk about jewelry. The reason why I hate to talk about jewelry, is because every single person has a piece of -- I think, has a piece of jewelry from somebody that's passed down, but your mom wants me to talk about a ring. Do you have her ring?
CALLER: Yes, I do.
EDWARD: OK, did you have it on today and took it off?
CALLER: No, I never take it off.
EDWARD: OK, why is she -- no. She's telling me that you had this on, you took it off, and then you put it back on. She's trying to show me that she was around you when you did this.
CALLER: Well, I did that with Duana's ring.
EDWARD: OK, did your mother know her?
CALLER: Oh, very well, yes.
EDWARD: OK, this is called "leading in," because they're telling me to talk about the ring being on, the ring coming on. Which is the one with the amethyst or the purple stone?
CALLER: My mother.
EDWARD: OK, your mom and Duana are coming through together. Was one -- did one of them have an overweight problem or a weight problem?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, because they're telling me to tease you and say, like, where they are now they don't have to worry about their weight.
CALLER: Great.
EDWARD: All righty. Also they're telling me to talk about the swollen ankle and foot -- that there's a problem with the foot. I think it's more on the right side; don't hold me to it. But there's a problem with a swollen ankle or foot that they're telling me to talk -- your dad's there too?
CALLER: Probably.
EDWARD: OK, because they're telling me that your dad is coming through.
CALLER: Great.
EDWARD: Was he not always around?
CALLER: Well, he was around most of the time, yes.
EDWARD: OK.
CALLER: He traveled a lot.
EDWARD: Well, your dad is making me feel like he wasn't exactly the family man.
CALLER: Oh he was -- no, he was a family man.
EDWARD: He's not showing me like he was there for dinner at 5:00, let's put it that way.
CALLER: Well, sometimes he was there for dinner at 6:00.
(LAUGHTER)
EDWARD: That -- no, but what he's trying -- what he's showing me -- who's got the Jet -- Jack -- Jackie -- Jacqueline -- Jacks -- Jackson -- there's a j-sounding name that they're trying to -- this is around your dad.
CALLER: That doesn't ring a bell at all. I'll write it down.
EDWARD: OK, connected to your dad. They're telling me Jackie. He's telling me this is somebody that I would see as either being his brother or cousin that's connected to him who's also with him. All righty?
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: But your dad, your mom and your friend are coming through together. The validation that they're using are the rings, and they're just saying that they see this as an opportunity to let you know that. Were you planning -- I know it's Halloween, but were you planning on going to either a costume party, or was there some type of a joke about being a nun?
CALLER: I was in the convent for a while.
EDWARD: OK.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well let me just stop you right there because we need to take a break. We'll be right back with more with John Edward. Stay with us.


Caller wants to connect with her friend. A fascinating reading, lots of hits, but some funny confusion also.

Guesses
-mom passed-hit. Note yet another direct question.
-mother's ring-weak hit. It is extremely common to have jewelry from relatives, especially for daughters to have rings from mothers and grandmothers.
-did caller take the ring off?-miss, caller never takes it off. JE tries to convince caller she did it, she stretches this to her friend's ring, which she did it with. Then JE asks if they knew each other, which caller confirms. Notice how he uses that information, which caller provides to later say they are coming through together, whereas in the beginning, he claimed her mother was coming through.
-amethyst, purple stone- hit, mother's ring
-overweight-hit
-problem with foot- not validated
-is dad dead- caller says probably. This is where it gets fascinating. If someone asks a person if her father is dead, and she says probably, it stands to reason she and her father are estranged, and she does not know whether he is alive or dead, but assumes he is dead, but does not particularly care for him. A genuine medium, would know if the father is alive or dead. A cold reader would run with the estranged father direction. This creates for some really interesting dialogue. Weak hit. Notice this was another direct question, a weak confirmation, and a "because they are telling me he is there".
-Father not always around-Miss
-Father not a family man-Miss
-Did not come to dinner on time- Miss. JE is almost begging for some help there- going after the "probably" hint. No help. Caller is not going down that path. Finally he abandons that path.
-J name around the father-Miss
-joke about a nun- Strong Hit. Caller was in a convent. This hit pretty much floored me at first. This seemed a huge hit, so I am giving it my first and only strong hit classification so far. However, I do want to say, that a lot of other possibilities could have fit. JE qualified it with Haloween party, costume party, so costumes fit. I also assume jokes about being shy or not dating would have fit. But I am scoring this a strong hit nonetheless.



Guesses 12
1 Not validated
3 Hits
5 Misses
2 Weak hits
1 Strong Hit


VAN SUSTEREN: All right let's go back to our callers. We have someone from Bluefield, Virginia. Go ahead, caller from Bluefield, Virginia.
CALLER: My name is Lynn, and I am looking for my husband.
EDWARD: Hi, Lynn, how are you doing?
CALLER: All right.
EDWARD: Has he recently passed?
CALLER: It has been a couple of years.
EDWARD: OK. Well, he's making me see the anniversary then, so I don't know if the anniversary either just passed or if it's coming -- he's showing me a red rose basically and a red rose marks the anniversary of a death or the anniversary of a wedding. And he's putting it around now. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: He's telling me to talk about his father -- was there an alcohol problem in the family?
CALLER: Oh, yes.
EDWARD: OK because this is very severe.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Did this affect him also?
CALLER: Oh, yes.
EDWARD: He's making me feel because of -- he's showing me pink roses. Whenever I see pink roses, it's their way of expressing their love to you. He's putting thorns on it. When they put thorns on the roses it's their way letting me know that in life he might not have been as emotionally expressive to you as you needed. And this is my feeling of him saying, he's sorry.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Did you find him -- like was he found dead?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, he's apologizing for this -- because I know it's something you're having a hard time. He's making me feel like I failed him which is how you were feeling. And he's telling me that you can't feel like this. He wants you to let it go, do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Now does he have a rifle or shotgun?
CALLER: Yes, he did.
EDWARD: He's telling me to talk about this rifle or shotgun -- this might sound really strange, it's just symbolic -- did you ever sleep with this?
CALLER: I slept with his pistols.
EDWARD: You slept with his guns?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK because he's putting the guns on the bed for me. I am not a gun person, but he's making it big that's why I'm saying it's like a rifle or shotgun. He's using this as a validation to show me that you're doing this. Basically he wants you to let this go, do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Who's got the name that sounds like Cleo, Claire, it's a "c" or "k" sounding name with an "l" -- is that an aunt or grandmother.
CALLER: His grandmother.
EDWARD: OK, they're all coming through together. Please know that he's OK. I say that a lot. People always say to me, is everybody OK? And basically it's a feeling that they give me of being content and at peace and that's what I want to share with you -- please know that he's OK.


Caller wants to connect with husband. Good reading.

Gusses
-Husband passed recently-Miss, it has been several years
-aniversary of a death or a wedding- does a caller "understand"-not scoring the understandings
-alcohol problem in the family- hit
-severe alcohol problem- not scoring, direct derivation of caller's reaction "oh yes". Same with the problem affecting him- simple derivation. Some emotional expression- pink roses, did not express the love- pretty much true of any relationship.
-was he found dead- hit. This a strange comment. He starts asking if the caller founf him, and switches in midsentence to ask if he was found dead, so it is unclear what the caller is saying yes to. I assume almost everyone who dies is found dead at some point, so I am unsure exactly what the point is, but I am scoring this a hit.
-Did the husband have a rifle or a shotgun-hit. Does anyone know how common it is for someone in Virginia to own a rifle or a shotgun?
-Caller slept with husband's gun- hit. Well, this one I can't explain at all. I am a city girl. Can someone tell me how common it is for someone to sleep with guns in? I am also not sure if sleeping with guns means having them on the bedstand, under a pillow or just cuddling with them. Another interesting thing is that here, once again we have this pattern- a question- a validation- a justification from JE. Notice how he says, after she validates "because he's putting the guns on the bed for me". This is what Van Praagh does quite often as well.
-Cleo, Claire, C, K, sounding name with an L- weak hit, grandmother. Widens the net considerably


8 guesses
4 hits
1 miss
1 weak hit
2 not scored



VAN SUSTEREN: Maybe working out. I don't know if I have any experience work out, but let's go back to the callers. Let's go to Avon Park, Florida. Go ahead.
CALLER: Hello.
VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead.
CALLER: Hi, this is Billy. I would like to know about my husband Tom.
EDWARD: Billy, is there a Sarah around you?
CALLER: Sarah, no.
EDWARD: Who has the s-a sounding name?
CALLER: I can't think of anyone.
EDWARD: OK. Hold on. I don't think I'm connected with your husband just yet. Is there somebody like a neighbor who just passed, or somebody around you who just passed like two, three months ago?
CALLER: My brother-in-law.
EDWARD: Just passed.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. He's who's coming through. Does he have a son?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK, there's a younger male -- unless he's the younger male. Is he younger than you?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, because he's telling me to say younger male. He's telling me to acknowledge that he's the person who's coming through. Was he out of your state?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Who's north of you -- actually to him? Who's north of him?
CALLER: Well, I live north of him.
EDWARD: All right. This is who's coming through for you. He's telling me to acknowledge he just passed. This is what I refer to as their way of ringing once. You know when somebody leaves your house and you say, "Do me a favor, just ring once when you get there so I know you got home OK." This is his way of ringing once so people know he's there and that he's OK. Was his passing very abrupt?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, because he's making me feel like he was here, and then he just passed. Either he had like an aneurysm or a heart attack, or -- it was like he was here, and then he was gone. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Right.
EDWARD: Was he found outside? Or did he die outside?
CALLER: No,.
EDWARD: Why is he taking you outside? Like walking through a field or he's like walking through an open area.
CALLER: I don't know.
EDWARD: It's like a golf course he's showing me, but it's a grassy place. It's not like -- it's not trimmed like a golf course would be, but it's got that kind of feeling. I know it's not your husband, but this is who's coming through around you.
CALLER: I don't know.

Caller wants to connect with her husband.
-Sarah "around"- miss
-S sounding name- widening the net- miss
-neighbor who passed, or someone else who recently passed 2-3 months ago -weak hit brother in law. Again, can't the spirit tell a difference between a neighbor and a brother in law?
-brother in law's son- miss
-younger male- miss
-brother in law is the younger male- very weak hit. My lord, how is this spirit telling him this? The spirit not only can't tell the difference between a neighbor and a brother in law but can't tell the difference between whether the spirit has a child and whether the spirit is younger than the caller?
-spirit out of state- miss. Man, this spirit is one prankster
-Who is north of the spirit? Weak hit. Note another question! Turns out the caller is. But JE takes it as a validation- I guess by this time he will take anything he can :)
-passing very abrupt- Weak hit. This is what I call a 50/50 guess. A death is either abrupt or not. In this case, given that this is a younger man with no children, it is more likely it was abrupt.
-Aneurism or heart attack-Not validated, caller "understands"
-found or dead outside- miss
-walking through a field, open area-miss, caller does not connect with that

12 Guesses
1 not validated
7 misses
4 weak hits






VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well let's -- thank you, Billy for calling. Let's go on. Let's go to our next caller from New York. Go ahead, New York.
CALLER: Hello.
VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, hi. My name is Julia. I would like to know about my parents.
EDWARD: Hey, Julia, how are you?
CALLER: Good.
EDWARD: Julia, I'm getting three people around you. Is there a Marie?
CALLER: My aunt, but I don't think she's dead. She's still alive.
EDWARD: They're acknowledging Mary or Marie connected to you. This to me would be like a grandmother or a great-aunt.
CALLER: Not that I recall.
EDWARD: It's on your mom's side of the family.
CALLER: It could have been an aunt, but I don't think she's passed away yet.
EDWARD: OK. Well, there showing me, on your mom's side of the family, that there's an m-a-r sounding name that comes through. They're also talking about Anna or Ann. Who's...
CALLER: That's my mother.
EDWARD: OK. You're mom is coming through. She's telling me to let you know that she's here. And she's also showing me pink roses, and like I said earlier, when I see a pink rose, it's their way of expressing their love. Is there a dog that's passed also?
CALLER: A long time ago.
EDWARD: She's got a dog with her.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: She wanted to let you know that the dog is there? Do you make a habit of drinking out of her mug?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Why is she showing me a mug?
CALLER: I don't know.
EDWARD: All right, let me tell you -- specifically, my grandmother had a certain mug that she used to like or specialize. She used to love to drink out of this one mug, and that's what she's showing me, unless she wants me to tell you the name Josephine, but she's telling me -- she's showing me my grandmother, but I see her drinking out of the mug. That's what's being shown. Your mom is coming through, and she's telling me to let you know she's here, and she's telling me to talk about February. What does the 2nd month mean?
CALLER: Not that I know at the moment, that I can remember.
EDWARD: Connected to your dad.
CALLER: He passed away in December, 23 years ago.
EDWARD: No. He's -- they're telling me the number two and it's around your dad, which means the second month has a meaning or the second of a month in connection with him. And they're also telling me Frances or Frank.
CALLER: Yes, that was his sister.
EDWARD: Is she passed?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Those are the three people that are coming through: your dad, your mom and your aunt. They're all coming through together. They're seeing this as being their way of letting you know that they're here. They've got a younger female who's there with them, which, to me, would mean that one of them might have miscarried and it was a girl.
CALLER: Yes. My mother.
EDWARD: OK. Well, they have the younger female that's there. There's a big party coming up for you. Do you know this?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Well, I hope I'm not blowing, like, a surprise or something. I'm sorry if I am, but there's a gathering and it's not Thanksgiving and it's not the holidays. It is a family gathering that is coming up, and they're telling me to let you know that they will be there. By the way, they like the new rugs.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have some new rugs?
CALLER: Well, I didn't buy one yet. Maybe it's going to be happening.
VAN SUSTEREN: But you currently don't have any new rugs.
CALLER: Not yet.
VAN SUSTEREN: What does that mean, John? I mean, she doesn't have any new rugs.
EDWARD: They're showing me new rugs being put in. I mean, I see somebody, like, actually putting in rugs on the floor. So, there's new rugs coming.
VAN SUSTEREN: What does that mean, though, if she doesn't get rugs? What does that mean?
EDWARD: It means I was wrong.
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, is it unusual to be wrong?
EDWARD: Not a bit.
VAN SUSTEREN: That doesn't bother you at all.

Caller wants to get in touch with her parents

-three people-not validated. Now caller already told him 2 people are dead. It is not a stretch to think someone else- an aunt, a grandparent, someone else is dead. In fact, it is virtually a certainty
-Marie- miss. JE does not specify if Marie is alive or dead. Caller connects with an alive aunt. I would have scored it a weak hit, but JE insists it is a grandmother or great aunt, on mom's side of the family.
-Anna -hit, mother, the person caller wanted to connect with
-dog that has passed- weak hit, almost everyone has got a pet.
-caller drings out of drinking out of mother's mug-miss.
-february, 2nd month- miss
-connected to father- miss, father died in December
-Frances, Frank- Father's sister, weak hit
-father's sister dead- weak hit, once again, 50/50 guess. Interestingly, he then says, she is one of the 3 that was coming through. Then why did he just ask if she pass? Didn't he know? And why did he call her Frances or Frank? Does the aunt not know if she is a man or a woman?
-miscarriege-hit, caller's mother miscarried. The miscarried child is there.
-Big party coming for the caller- miss, converted into a prediction of a surprise party.
-Spirits like the new rugs. -miss. This is one of the wild ass guesses I referred to in the beginning of my post. It seems to me, JE is more prone in this appearance to make them. Sometimes they paid off, sometimes they do not. Of course, if they don't, he either just predicts them, or glosses over them. Note that even in the ones where he got hits, he always left himself an out.


12 Guesses
1 not validated
2 hits
6 misses
3 weak hits


VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well let's go back to the callers. We got to Oslo, Norway. Go ahead, caller.
CALLER: Yes, hi. My name is Ola -- o-l-a -- and I wanted to look for my father.
EDWARD: OK, do you have a brother also?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK, why am I seeing another male figure to your side?
CALLER: I don't know.
EDWARD: To your side...
CALLER: My uncle -- or my dad's brother died very young.
EDWARD: OK, because I'm -- so it's not your brother; it's his brother. Was he there before your dad?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, so his brother passed before him.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Does your father or his brother -- they're showing me -- let me tell you what I'm seeing. They're showing me a parallel with names; two people have the same first initial, or two people have the same first name.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: There's a similarity with names, you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, was somebody there slightly handicapped or mentally retarded?
CALLER: No, not that I know.
EDWARD: OK. What they're showing me -- a couple of things. They're showing me that there's somebody who's, like, slightly handicapped, or physically or mentally impaired -- that's number one -- and two: some type of education symbolism, which would mean that either you're a teacher, or they're a teacher, or somebody's going back to school, or...
CALLER: Well, my father was a teacher.
EDWARD: OK, because they're showing me education symbolism. Again they're just a validation that your dad's around. Who was the pilot?
CALLER: The pilot?
EDWARD: Yes, who, like, flew planes?
CALLER: Not -- nobody. Not that I know.
EDWARD: Just -- I know this might sound strange, but remember that I said this, but I feel like I'm sitting in a cockpit, so to me that means that somebody was a pilot, somebody flew in a plane -- there's some type of plane symbolism that they want me to come across with. I always encourage people -- that they don't understand what I say, to write it down. Again, like I said earlier, I'm not 100- percent accurate. But sometimes they showing me a symbol that I could misinterpret, and it might mean something to you later that you remember about dad.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: All righty, thanks for calling.
CALLER: OK.



Caller wants to connect with her falter.

-Does caller have a brother-miss
-male figure to the side- caller does not know. Then she says her father's brother died very young. However, I thought that would be her uncle, so that would be above her, not to her side? Caller makes it fit, weak hit.
-JE repeats back that uncle died before father- not scoring, as obviously is uncle died " very young" he died before caller's father.
-similarity with names- weak hit, very vague
-slight handicap or mental retardation- miss
-education symbol, either caller, is a teacher, or someone is a teacher, or someone is going back to school- weak hit, father is a teacher. Weak hit, because the net is very wide.
-someone is a pilot- miss

7 Guesses
3 misses
3 weak hits
1 not scored

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let's go back to the lines. Let's go to Nazareth, Pennsylvania. Go ahead, caller. Nazareth, Pennsylvania? I think we've lost...
CALLER: Hi, this is Denise. I'd like to get in touch with my brother Brian.
EDWARD: Hi Denise, how are you?
CALLER: Good, how are you?
EDWARD: Who's got the M-name like Michael?
CALLER: Which name?
EDWARD: Like Michael?
CALLER: No one that's passed away.
EDWARD: That's OK. Is there a living Michael or Mike?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Did your brother know Mike or Michael?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, because he's making the reference to Mike or Michael.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Why is he showing me you having his sock? Do you have his socks?
CALLER: My brother's?
EDWARD: Yes.
CALLER: No. He was a baby when he passed.
EDWARD: That doesn't matter. Do you have his socks?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: He's making -- booties? He's making me feel like there's something that would be connected to the feet -- there's something that they want me to acknowledge for you. So that, to me, would be socks, or booties, or -- it's not shoes; it's got a soft feeling to it. That's what comes through in relationship to this.
I'm glad you called, because this is something I want to say, if you're -- if this was a baby brother that might have been 1 years old, 3 years old, 3 months old, I have no idea -- the energy is not that age on the other side. We age here in the body physically, and we age on the other side through experience and energy. However if they do come through, they might come through -- if a child was 5 years old when they passed on Earth, and it's five years later, and they go -- the parents might go for a reading, the child might come through to the medium as a 10-year-old, or might choose to come through as the 5- year-old that it was. So it's just an example.
VAN SUSTEREN: John, when you drive down the street do you get, like, unwanted communications? I mean, here tonight you're taking phone calls, but I mean like do these just come to you any given time?
EDWARD: Sometimes. I mean now it's to the point that I can develop it -- I mean, I have developed it that I can turn it on and off. There are times where I don't want to do this, and I wind up doing it. And there are times where I really, really want to do it -- like I'll be on a show like this, or on a radio show, and I'm, like, going "Hello," and it's not happening. Because it's not up to me. This is not about me. This is about them and the person that I'm reading. And I'm just the telephone. I just pass it on. I just try to deliver what I'm seeing, hearing and feeling. Because I believe that their message is 100 percent accurate. I can really royally mess it up by misinterpreting it.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we need to take a break. We'll be right back with John Edward. Stay with us.

Caller wants to connect with her brother. Interesting and sad reading...

-Michael name- weak hit, nobody dead. JE tries to connect it to caller's brother, to see if the brother knew a Michael. Someone try to show me somebody who does NOT know a Michael. This inquiry withers on the vine
-caller has her brother's socks-miss, but- valuable info, callers tells JE her brother was a baby when he passed. And then JE asks if someone has his booties. Then he goes into a discourse about how babies age on the other side, and even though they might have died an infant, they might come through to the medium as a 10 year old, and ends the reading, leaving one to wonder how well a dead baby knew Michael. It is a nice cushion, though, for anyone who is curious about how a medium could not tell a baby's energy from energy of an adult. Good thing caller told JE her brother was a baby when she did, before he started making any potentially embarassing comments.



2 Guesses
1 weak hit
1 miss


VAN SUSTEREN: Let's go back to the callers, go to San Diego, California. Go ahead, San Diego.
CALLER: Hello.
VAN SUSTEREN: Hello, go ahead.
CALLER: Hi, this is Katie (ph).
EDWARD: Hi, Katie, how are you?
CALLER: I would like to know about my mother.
EDWARD: OK.
CALLER: I can't hear you.
EDWARD: I'm actually not connecting with -- I can't connect with you, I'm not feeling anything coming through.

Katie wants to connect with her mother, JE is not with her, no reading.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right let's go back to the phone lines -- Jamaica, New York. Go ahead, Jamaica.
CALLER: Hi, my name is Joyce. I would like to know about my father.
EDWARD: Joyce.
CALLER: Hello.
EDWARD: Joyce.
CALLER: Hi.
EDWARD: Hi, how are you?
CALLER: I am fine.
EDWARD: I am getting a lot of stuff -- hold on. Why are they showing me July? Is there a birthday in July?
CALLER: No -- yes, there is my fiancee.
EDWARD: Did your dad not know him?
CALLER: No, he didn't.
EDWARD: OK. Your dad is telling me to acknowledge July as being a very important month in reference to you. Does the 6th or 16th of July mean something to you?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: I want you to remember that, I think it will -- I think. They're showing me the 6th or 16th but they're putting of the same month. This person that's coming through is making me feel like I need to reference your fiancee or your boyfriend. They're showing me three years. I don't know if you were together three years, if you're going to get married in three years, if your dad is gone three years -- but I know I am supposed to be talking about a block of three years.
And I do want to acknowledge that I think that your dad will be at the events that are coming up in your life which may be a pending marriage. Were you guys contemplating not getting married but living together?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Well, there's going to be an opportunity for you to do that, where you might commit with each other but yet put the wedding off a little later -- just so you know, that's what I am saying. They're also telling me to tell you Bobby or Bob -- Who is this? .
CALLER: Robert?
EDWARD: OK.
CALLER: That was my ex-fiancee.
EDWARD: I -- again, whenever something negative comes through, the reason why it comes through to me is so that we can prevent it or better deal with it. One of my recommendations for you is to do -- I am going to take you back to math -- I want you to find the common denominator between the fiance you have now and the ex-person because your dad is saying that this needs to be looked at.
CALLER: Oh, my God, he just called. He's trying to get back into my life.
EDWARD: Well, your dad is showing me a yellow light flashing which means caution.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: All right, so just be careful. Does he have a big ego?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Because he's making me feel like this is like a danger zone for you -- so just be careful and know your dad is watching over you.
CALLER: Thank you very much.
EDWARD: You got it.

Caller wants to connect with her father
-July, birthday- weak hit.- fiance's birthday
-did father know fiance.- weak hit. Well, this is one of this instances in which I think JE is quite skillful. Caller wants to connect with her father. She tells him she has a fiance. It is not a leap to ask whether her dad knew the fiance. Good judge of psychology.
-6, 16th of July- miss
-3 years- not validated. But once again, it is not uncommon for a relationship to last 3 years until marriage.
-Dad will be at the wedding in spirit- not scoring, just a sweet sentimental thing. I think it is what the caller needed to hear.
-Were the callers planning to live together-miss. A common enough occurrence, but did not happen.
-Bobby or Bob- weak hit- ex fiancee and an opportunity for a little drama.
-father warns agains the ex- weak hit. Caller is all excited because the ex called her. However, there does not need to be an flashing yellow caution sign from the beyond there. For one thing, the father does not say- beware of the ex, named Bob. JE first says- who is Bob? Then- look into him, and finally, be careful! In addition, if there is a current fiancee, and an ex fiancee, that is pretty much a recipe for caution.
-ex-fiancee has a big ego- weak hit. Well, this was pretty much gathered from the fact that he is an ex, and from caller's reactions.

9 Guesses
1 not validated
2 misses
5 weak hits
1 not scored


VAN SUSTEREN: Oh, good. OK. Well, let's go back to the phone lines to White Swan, Washington for a call. Go ahead, White Swan.
EDWARD: Actually I'm supposed to tell you that...
CALLER: Hi, my...
VAN SUSTEREN: Hold on one second, White Swan, we have to get one more statement from John on this.
EDWARD: I'm actually supposed to tell you that if you wanted to attend that, you need to call Ticket Master and tell them Ticket Master Broadway for November 13. Sorry.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK, good. We're back to you now White Swan. Go ahead.
CALLER: Hi. My name is Sunita (ph), and I'd like try to contact my kids.
EDWARD: OK. Your first name?
CALLER: My name is Sunita.
EDWARD: OK. Did you lose a daughter?
CALLER: Yes, I did.
EDWARD: OK. I've been waiting for you to call. I was saying earlier there was a younger female that I was feeling that was coming through. Were there three pregnancies that you lost?
CALLER: Yes, I did.
EDWARD: OK. The first thing -- all I'm going to be able to tell you is that I'm getting the energy of a younger girl that's coming through, and I feel like there's some type of connection -- bear with me for a second. I'm seeing my wife's doll. My wife had a doll when she was a young girl that was a -- she called it Mimi, and it was a blonde-haired, pigtailed doll. Do you have this? Do you have something similar to this?
CALLER: I have a lot of her dolls.
EDWARD: Well, she's making reference to one doll that I would see as being specific to her. And she's making me feel like this would be something that would either be on your bureau night stand by your bed...
CALLER: Oh, yes, that's -- yes, I do have it.
EDWARD: OK. This is her way -- I'm asking her, because I know we don't have a lot of time, to give me one thing that I can share with you so that you know that this is her and that she's around. And she's telling me to let you know this. She's also indicating -- did somebody recently have a breast scare around you?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK. Just -- again, I'm not a doctor, I can't diagnose -- they're just, they're making me feel like something irritated in the chest area, so if this, you know, if this was for you, I would see a doctor or just check this out. This is an area -- unless this is what she passed from or something that happened here, but she's pointing to her neck and head. Why? What affected your daughter's neck area and going to her head?
CALLER: She died of a drug overdose.
EDWARD: Why is she pointing to her neck?
CALLER: I have no idea.
EDWARD: OK. What I'm being shown, literally, is like the back of the neck going up towards the ear, this area's -- I don't know if there's a scar there or if there's something that is there that she wants me to acknowledge. Please remember that I said this, but this is what's coming through. Does somebody have a baby now?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Because she's telling me to acknowledge watching over the child.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: All righty?
CALLER: Did you have any luck contacting my son?
EDWARD: I'm not connecting with your son, I'm sorry. But what I like to say is just know that they usually are together.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, John. Thank you very much.
EDWARD: Thank you so much.

Caller wants to connect with her kids. One of saddest readings on LKL I have seen. Caller, by her first sentence obviously tells John that more that at least 2 children died.

-dead daugher-weak hit, 50/50. JE knows caller lost several children, chances are, daughter among them.
-3 lost pregnancies- weak hit, caller already said at least 2 lost children, common tactic to add one
-blonde, pig tailed doll- not scoring, caller says she has a lot of her daughter's dolls, as any mother who lost a daughter would. She does not seem to connect with a particular type of doll JE is describing
-a doll on a bureau night stand by the bed-weak hit- once again, seems obvious that a mother who lost a daughter would keep one or several dolls by her bed.
-breast scare-miss
-daughter's neck area and going to her head- miss, daughter died of a drug overdose.
-daughter pointing to her neck, again, scar- miss, caller has no idea.
-somebody has a baby-weak hit, at any point someone in almost anybody's surroundings has a baby

Guesses 8
3 misses
4 weak hits
1 not scored


Total:
10 readings, not including one reading that was immediately aborted
98 guesses
42 misses, or 42.9%
10 hits, or 10.2%
26 weak hits or 26.5%
13 not validated or 13.3 %
6 not scored or 6.1%
1 strong hit ot 1%

Please feel free to analyze readings yourself and perform your own count. I would be interested to compare other people's counts to mine.

[renata]

http://www.nytix.com/TVShows/NewYork/JohnEdward/transcripts/

Aired June 19, 1998 - 9:00 p.m. ET

And, no, I am not giggling over the fact CNN identifies JE as "JOHN EDWARD, ALLEGED PSYCHIC"

KING: We're back with John Edward. We're going to go to your phone calls. This is the video; we'll be giving you that number again. But first, let's have some calls for the psychic medium and lecturer. Elizabeth, New Jersey, hello.
CALLER: Yes, hello.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: Hi, I can't believe I got through.
KING: You're through. Go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, John, I listen to you all the time on "Scott and Todd."
EDWARD: Oh, my friends.
CALLER: I'm calling about my mother.
EDWARD: OK, stop right there. Your first name?
CALLER: Linda.
KING: Just give us your name and who you're asking for.
CALLER: My mother.
EDWARD: OK, Linda, the first thing I want talk about is, I know you're looking for your mom but I'm getting an older male who's also there on the other side. I feel like this is somebody who would be above you, which means it's like a father figure, or an uncle, and he passes from either lung cancer or emphysema, tuberculosis; it's all problems in the chest area. OK, that's the first thing. And I feel like there's a J or a G-sounding name attached to this.
CALLER: That's my mother.
EDWARD: She's got a very dominant personality.
CALLER: That's my mother. Her first name starts with G and she had emphysema.
EDWARD: Hold on. Does the month of August have a meaning for her, or the 8th of a month?
CALLER: Not that I know of.
EDWARD: OK, I want you to write this down, because she's telling me to say "eight" then. I have to tell you that this is coming through so strong there's a male, it's got a very dominant energy, but this is how I'm interpreting it, and she's telling me to talk about "eight." "Eight" to me would indicate that the month of August has a meaning, or that the eighth of a month has a meaning. She's telling me that there's a father-figure that's there, so I don't know if your father's passed but there's a father-type figure...
CALLER: No, my father -- I just spoke to him on my son's phone and he wanted me to ask...
EDWARD: Wait a second.
KING: He's nodding, yeah, your mother was tough.
EDWARD: There's a father figure...
KING: I can see your father, yeah.
EDWARD: ... who's with her, from what she's showing me.
CALLER: Her father?
EDWARD: It's not her father. It's connected to you. So I don't know if there's a father-in-law for you who's passed, but there's a father-figure who's there. It's a male figure who's there.
KING: But the important thing is, how is she doing?
EDWARD: Your mom is fine and I think it's important that you know that she was around -- somebody missed seeing her from what she's showing me, and she's telling me to let you know that.


Caller wants to get in touch with her mother. Caller is a fan, who listens to JE

-Older male, father figure on an uncle- miss, it is a mother
-lung cancer or emphysema, tuberculosis; problems in the chest area.- stretched weak hit, "chest problems"
J or a G-sounding name- stretched weak hit" Now this is interesting. JE is bringing through a man, caller validates for a mother. Do the spirits not know their own gender? Caller makes things fit. Interestingly, JE accepts it my saying mother had a dominant personality. Well, if all the women with dominant personalities came through as male energies, really no point in differentiating between male and female energies, is there?
-August, 8- miss
-father who passed- miss, father alive. One of those 50/50 guesses which did not work.

Guesses 5
3 misses
2 weak hits

KING: Old Bridge, New Jersey, hello.
CALLER: Hi. This is Peter.
KING: Hi, Peter.
CALLER: I'm looking about -- asking about my brother Michael.
EDWARD: OK, hold on Peter. Again, I get a lot of information through dates. The first thing that's coming through is I'm getting the feeling that April or the fourth of a month holds some type of a meaning. In the family does April have a meaning? Birthday or anniversary?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: On your mom's side of the family, Peter. They're telling me "April."
CALLER: Not that I know of.
EDWARD: Hold that thought. On your mom's side of the family there's an older female who has crossed over. It's either her aunt or your grandmother. There's an M-sounding name that's attached to this, besides your brother, who you said is Michael,
CALLER: Mavis.
EDWARD: And they're telling me that there's something to do with the fourth month or the fourth of a month, and I'm also getting the feeling of being out of state, so I don't know if your brother was away from you or at a distance from you, but I see something as being debilitating and affecting the body. But I think your brother is OK.
CALLER: That's good to know.
EDWARD: All righty. Also, there's a congratulations going out to the family, which is either a happy birthday or some sort of a wedding thing that's coming out.
KING: Now that comes through you how?
EDWARD: I see pictures. Like the pink rose on the video is their way of expressing their love. When I see like a white flower, that means happy birthday or congratulations.


Caller wants to connect with his brother
-April or fourth has meaning- miss
-mom's side of the family, April- miss
-older female who crossed, aunt or grandmother, M sounding name- weak hit, Mavis
-out of state- not validated
-debilitating and affecting the body-not validated
-congratulations to the family- wedding or birthday-not validated

6 guesses
2 misses
3 not validated
1 weak hit



KING: Easton, Pennsylvania, hello.
CALLER: Hi, this is Cindy. I would like to talk with my grandfather and ask him a question.
KING: Can she ask him a question?
EDWARD: She can if he comes through.
KING: What's the question?
CALLER: I just want to know if he can see if we're going to have any kids in the future.
EDWARD: The first thing that I'm seeing is they're talking about -- and don't get alarmed, I think this has already happened -- they're talking about something burning. I don't know if there was a burning thing or if somebody had a fire in their house, or this is going back a few years. But they're telling me to talk about something that I would see as being like a fire or a barn fire or some type of a fire- type thing. Is there anything that used to happen in the backyard or something that he used to do?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Some type of outside fire or a fire thing?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK. This is what they're showing me, so remember what the symbol is to me, I'm interpreting this as being some type of fire, or like fire-thing, but that's what's coming through. As soon as you -- as soon as I listened to your voice, and I'm tuning into your vibration, this is what's coming through. And I know you're asking me about kids, but I'm seeing boxes, and when they show me boxes it's their way of telling me that you're moving. Or that there's a move that's coming up.
CALLER: Uh-huh, yes, we just moved.
EDWARD: OK, so that's a confirmation of what they're telling me.
KING: But his -- her late grandfather couldn't tell her if she's going to have children or not.
EDWARD: I'm not getting...
KING: Or could he?
EDWARD: He could. He could.
KING: The spirits would know that.
EDWARD: They could come through and say stuff like that.

Caller wants to ask her grandather if she will have kids.

-spirits talk about a fire in the house- miss
-fire in the backyard, outside- miss
-future move- caller just moved. JE immediatel switches gear and says that is a validation, even though he just said there is a move coming up. Is that a miss? A hit? I am not scoring this.


3 Guesses
2 misses
1 not scored



KING:.... Northport, New York, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Jackie; I'm looking for my grandmother.
EDWARD: Hey Jackie, how ya doing? Um, the first thing I'm getting is I'm getting an M-sounding name; that's maybe like a Mary or Marie. Is that on your mom's side of the family?
CALLER: Um, no.
EDWARD: No, I'm saying is this the grandmother on your mom's side of the family?
CALLER: Augustine.
EDWARD: No, is this your grandmother on your mom's side of the family?
CALLER: yes it is; I'm sorry.
EDWARD: OK. Connected to her, she's talking about M-A-R. That's maybe like a Mary or Maureen, a Margaret; it's an M-A-R sounding name.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: She's also telling me that there's a younger male figure who has crossed over who is there also. I don't see if this is a cousin or -- it's a younger male figure who's passed.
CALLER: She had a baby that died.
EDWARD: OK, well she's got him who's with her. Um, she's also waving a flag at me, so I don't know if she passed around July 4th, or there's some type of governmental holiday that she passes around, 'cause I don't think she's buried with the flag. But she's waving a flag around me, so I want you to know that. And what it symbolizes to me would be that the person passes around something significant like a Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, Labor Day, there's some type of like a governmental holiday that she's showing me. Now, does your -- is this -- this is your mom's mom?
CALLER: My mom's mom.
EDWARD: Is there an Anne in that family?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Who is the Anne?
CALLER: Her niece.
EDWARD: OK, do you know if she just miscarried or if somebody's just lost a baby there?
CALLER: Not that I know of.
EDWARD: OK, 'cause they're making me feel like, besides the child that she was talking about, there's another child who's also over there in that side of the family. Please let them know the child is OK.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: And they're also talking about November or the 11th, something about the 11th. 'Cause she's showing me "11."
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: But she's telling me to let you know that she's OK, and let your mom know.
KING: Do you see a miscarriage, or do you feel it? How could you come up with miscarriage?
EDWARD: OK, my background -- I used to work in a hospital -- so a lot of my health care information comes through very, very clear to me from different parts -- from seeing different parts of a hospital. And it's just an image of something that I see that I can identify with.
KING: And how did Anne come into you?
EDWARD: I saw my aunt.


Caller wants to connect with grandmother
-M sounding name, like Mary or Marie, mom's side of the family- miss
-younger male figure that passed- weak hit, it is not surprising that an elderly woman had a younger relative who died. It turns out to be a baby.
-passed around July 4 or governmental holiday-not validated
-mom's mom, weak hit, 50/50
-Anne in the family, weak hit, common name, her niece
-Did Anne just lose a child or miscarry- miss
-November 11- not validated

Guesses 7
2 not validated
2 miss
3 weak hits



KING: To Morrisville, Pennsylvania, hello.
CALLER: Hi. My name is Toni and I'm trying to contact my mother.
EDWARD: OK, Toni, the first thing I want to talk about is I'm seeing pink roses and I see thorns on these roses. Now bear with me, here. When I see pink roses it's their way of expressing their love to you. When I see thorns on it, it lets me know that there are issues that were not settled or complete before your mother passed, OK.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: I'm also feeling that there is a something that affects her mind that would either stop her from being able to communicate with you in the way that she needed to, or something that would affect your being able to communicate with her, OK. This is what's being told -- this is what's being shown to me. They're also talking about either Josie or Joey or something with a J-O sounding name. Is that connected to her?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Does she have a brother who's passed?
CALLER: A long time ago.
EDWARD: OK, 'cause she's telling me to tell you that she was greeted by the brother. Also, somebody's missing a finger or had a deformity attached to a finger; do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, is that your dad?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: It's an older male though; who is this?
CALLER: Possibly could be an uncle.
EDWARD: OK, she's also talking about the male who had the drinking problem, because she's showing me a beer mug. Whenever they shows me that, I always joke around and say "They're hanging out at the Other Side pub."
CALLER: That was my brother.
EDWARD: OK. Is he also there?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, can you please know that your mom, your brother, her brother; they're all coming through together. Did somebody there commit suicide?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. 'Cause they're telling me to let you know that they're OK also. And to tell me to wish you a happy birthday. Is your birthday coming up in the next week?
CALLER: Not mine, my sister's.
EDWARD: OK, they're jumping up and down about this birthday. They're saying Linda or Lindy or Leslie; who's this L name?
CALLER: No L name.
EDWARD: OK. When they show me L, it's gonna be like an L- sounding name, like Lisa or Len or -- when they come through with names, it's either who they are, who they're with, or "Please say hello to." They're also -- they also have a, you'll laugh, but they're making me hear a dog, so that means there's a dog who's passed also. So your mom's telling me to let you know that the dog is with her.
CALLER: She had a dog that passed.
EDWARD: All righty. But your mom's great.
KING: Thank you. What a phony; he got everything wrong there. Missed everything. All right. We'll keep him with us. John Edward is the guest. More phone calls after this.


Caller wants to contact her mother
-Issues that were not settled before mother passed- not validated
-someting that affected mother's mind before she died and stopped her from communicating- not validated
-Josie or Joey or something with a J-O sounding name connected to her mother- weak hit, very vague
-mother has a brother that is passed- hit, caller validates a long time ago
-missing a finger, or a finger deformity- not scoring, caller " understands"
-is the deformity caller's father- miss. At this point, JE flat out asks the caller who the man with the deformed finger is- caller says it could be an uncle, making me think she does not know who it is.
- man with a drinking problem- weak hit in almost every family there is someone with a drinking problem. At this time, caller supplies valuable info. She says it was her brother, and JE follows up, confirming whether he has passed. And then he tells her that her brother is coming through with the rest of her family. Well, then why did he have to ask her whether he passed, if her brother was coming through in the first place?
-Someone commited suicide- weak hit, once again vague
-caller's birthday- weak hit, not caller's her sisters, but JE claims it anyway.
-or Lindy or Leslie, L name-miss, JE broadens it to Len.
-dead dog- weak hit, dead pets are common


Guesses 11
2 misses
1 hit
5 weak hits
2 not validated
1 not scored



KING: By the way, when you order that tape, in the tape comes information as to where John Edward is lecturing and where you can reach him. To Coram, New York, hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, my mother passed away, quite a while ago, and I'd like to get in touch with her.
KING: What's your name?
CALLER: My name is Karen.
EDWARD: OK, Karen, the first thing that's coming through is not your mother, but I want to tell you that there's another female figure who is older than you, who's making you feel like she either helped raise you, or was around when you were growing up -- is coming through. And she tells me she either passed from breast cancer or lung cancer. I see blackness in the chest area, but I don't think that this is related to you. I think that this might be either a friend's mother or a mother-in-law -- I don't feel like there's a blood connection here.
CALLER: My stepmother.
EDWARD: OK, because I don't feel like there's a blood connection -- is she passed?
CALLER: She just passed away recently.
KING: From what?
CALLER: Lung cancer.
EDWARD: OK. Please, you need to -- this is important. I feel like somebody is questioning the medical care that this woman received, and they're saying that there was nothing wrong here. OK, this is what's being shown to me. Now, is there a Ganette or a Janet --
CALLER: Janet.
EDWARD: Who's this?
CALLER: That's my stepsister.
EDWARD: OK. She's living, though?
CALLER: Yes, she is.
EDWARD: She's out of your state?
CALLER: She's out-of-state.
EDWARD: Can you please let her know that mom came through? I feel like there is a lot of tears and a lot of crying over -- either missing seeing her before she passed, or not getting a chance to say good-bye, which is very, very important. But I think what we need to do here is clean the slate for her; and there is an issue about relationships, or about being involved with the wrong person, or not liking her husband or something like that. I don't know what this is, but I feel like you need to let go of all this stuff, and let her know that she's OK; and that she's got Maggie or Margie, or some sort of M-G-sounding name, who's with her, and know that she's OK.
CALLER: OK, I'm not sure about the MG.
EDWARD: Remember what I said -- it's an M-G-sounding name -- not just Mary -- its like Margie or Maggie.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: All righty. Thanks for calling.
KING: Maybe she liked monosodium glutamate. (LAUGHTER)


Caller wants to get in touch with her mother, who died a long time ago.

-Another woman coming through, friend's mother or mother in law - hit, stepmother. Interesting, because caller indicated mother died a long time ago, not surprising to guess that someone else played a big role in her life- like an aunt or a stepmother. Also curiously, JE has to ask whether she has passed- once again, if she is coming through, shouldn't he know?
-lung cancer, chest, breast cancer- hit, stepmother died from lung cancer
-questioning the medical care stepmother received-not validated
-Gannette or Janet- hit, step sister, and JE asks if she living. One has to wonder he keeps asking?
-She is out of state- weak hit, 50/50
-Maggie or Margie, M-G-sounding name-miss

Guesses 6
1 miss
3 hits
1 weak hit
1 not validated






KING: Secaucus, New Jersey. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, my name is Julie, and I'm trying to contact my mom.
EDWARD: OK, Julie, the first thing that's coming through is not your mom. Sorry, sometimes I gotta talk to them; I'm not an operator; I can't place calls. What is coming through is a younger male figure, who is passed over, and I feel like he passes because of a car accident, or because of an impact to his body -- something that impacts his body. He's telling me, "He's connected to R" -- like Rich or Richie or Robbie; and he's connected to somebody beneath you. So I don't know if you have a son, and this is a son's friend who's trying to come through to his family. But there's somebody younger coming through like this; and it's in your area, it's not out-of-state. It's not far away --
KING: Do you know anything about that?
CALLER: No, I don't.
EDWARD: I want you to remember this. This is really important, because many times clients come to me and you wind up becoming the medium; you become the messenger. But it's important that you let the family know that he's with the older male, which is either his father, but most likely going to be his grandfather. And I think -- to let you know this -- they either died in the same month or their birthday's -- there is a parallel between dates or months, which would mean -- he died in the grandfather's birth month, or vice versa, or something connected like this. But the biggest connection is the R -- like Richie or Rickie -- or there's that kind of R connection that comes up.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: When you find this out, you can -- you know -- let them know here, or let me know, but--
KING: What about her mother?
EDWARD: I'm not getting her mom. That's what is coming through.

Caller wants to contact her mom, and the whole reading is one big miss.

-younger male figure-miss
-passes because of a car accident, or because of an impact to his body-miss
-connected to R, like Rich- miss
-connected to somebody beneath caller-miss
-son's friend coming through- miss
-somebody local, not out of state-miss
--he is with an older male, father or grandfather-miss
-they died same month-miss

8 Guesses
8 misses



KING: Elizabeth, New Jersey, Hello.
CALLER: Hi, my name is Kathy, I'd like to talk to my mother.
EDWARD: Kathy, did your mom pass from congestive heart failure?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: I'm seeing congestive heart failure, filling up with fluids, a lot of problems in the chest, but it's heart-related. That's what's coming through.
CALLER: Probably, yeah; towards the end.
EDWARD: OK. Did they have to make it -- was there -- this is strange -- did they have to make a split-decision at the end, whether or not to treat her -- or something?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. She's telling me that -- they didn't do this, correct?
CALLER: They did.
EDWARD: This is incomplete, from what she's making me feel, like something was not done or something was not completely done; and she's telling me it's OK. She's telling me either Ellen or Helen, or Eleonore --it's like an Ellen-sounding name; and she's making feel like it's either -- hello to -- or it's who she's with -- or some type of connection to this name, from what she's acknowledging. Do you understand this?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: She's also showing me my birthday, which is in October, so it's something symbolic to October for her, from what she's also acknowledging; all righty, so I don't know if there's a birthday -- I think it's around the 16th or the 6th, from what she's showing me.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Write the date down. It's October -- it's around the 6th or the 16th. OK. It's the 10th month, and it's around the 6th. She's fine, and I feel like she's OK.

Caller wants to talk to her mother
-mom passed from congestive heart failure-miss
-JE presses-filling up with fluids, a lot of problems in the chest, but it's heart-related- Caller folds " probably, towards the end" I guess towards the end everybody's heart gives out. Not scoring
-Split decision at the end to treat or not to treat- JE already knows the woman's mother was ill. Pretty much everyone has to make a split decision to treat or not to treat. Weak hit.
-Spirit tells him they did not treat her- Oopsie, spirit is wrong! Miss. One of those 50/50s.
-Ellen or Helen-(again with the Ellen or Helen. Can we go one LKL reading without an Ellen or Helen? Is an Ellen or Helen haunting the LKL set?) Not validated, caller "understands"
-October, 16, 6- not validated


Guesses 6
2 misses
1 weak hit
2 not validated
1 not scored



KING: Again, if you're calling about the tape and the information, it's 1-800-967-4100. They do have operators standing by. We're taking calls for John Edward, and the tape is called "One Last Time: After Death Communication." Back to the phone calls. Rio de Janeiro. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, my name is Dennis, and I lost my father three months ago.
EDWARD: OK, Dennis, hold on. Was he in a different country from you?
CALLER: No. He was in a distant city.
EDWARD: OK -- I'm sorry, did you say he was away from you?
CALLER: He was in a distant city, yeah.
KING: A distant city?
EDWARD: What's coming through is I'm feeling that there is a distance, but I feel like it's a pretty big distance. That's why I thought it might have been a different country. This is going to sound really strange: did anybody around you pass like in a plane crash or in an accident that they were up high and then fell down -- or was high and then went low?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: I want to you remember this -- because I'm getting it really strongly -- they're making me feel somebody being up high, passing because of an impact, and then falling. There's normally to me what I perceive to being a plane crash.
KING: What about his father?
EDWARD: I'm not getting his father.


Caller from Rio de Janeiro wants to get in touch with his recently deceased father.

-Was father in a different country- miss. Another interesting one. Caller is from Rio. It is not unreasonable to believe that a man named Dennis is not a native of Rio, and his father lived in a different country. But- no cigar.
-plane crash-miss

Guesses 2
2 misses


KING: OK. We can't do everyone. Fallon, Nevada. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. This is Pam, and I'm calling about my grandfather, who passed away about 50 years ago.
EDWARD: Okay, Pam, there's somebody more recent, who also crossed over -- about three years -- three or four years ago -- and I feel this is somebody, to the side, someone like a husband, a brother, a brother-in-law. It's a male figure, that I feel has crossed over. He passes because of something that affects his head area. It's either brain tumors, or an aneurysm, or an embolism; something that goes to the head. It's more physiological, from what they're showing me. Do you understand this?
CALLER: Uh-huh.
EDWARD: OK. It's important that his family hears from him, because they keep teasing him: well, if you were there, you'd be able to do this. And he's telling me: he's trying to do this. They're not listening. So if you can get that message across to them; there is something regarding a phone -- I think he's trying to do something with them, either over an answering machine, or a phone. But it's got his likeness, so it's probably and answering machine. Pass that on. Is Jimmy connected to you, or is that to that family?
CALLER: No, un-huh.
EDWARD: It sound like they're saying: Jimmy, I'm going to leave that with you, but put it to that family. Again, when it comes (INAUDIBLE)
KING: Not her mother?
EDWARD: I'm not getting -- I'm not getting who she's looking for.
KING: There's no explai -- explanation of that?
EDWARD: No, there's--
KING: It's on her dime.
EDWARD: That's right. It's a party line.

Caller wants to get in touch with her grandfather who died 50 years ago

-someone who died 3-4 years ago- not validated, Caller says -Uh-huh, and I do not know if it is a yes or a no.
-husband, a brother, a brother-in-law-not validated
-head area-brain tumors, or an aneurysm, or an embolism-not validated
-Jimmy-miss

4 guesses
1 miss
3 not validated

KING: New Milford, New Jersey, hello.
CALLER: Yes, hello. Hi, john.
EDWARD: Hi. How are you?
CALLER: This is Charlene, and I'm trying to reach my mom.
EDWARD: OK, Charlene. Is dad also passed?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Did dad go first?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Dad is coming through first.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Dad is telling me to talk about -- does he have a badge, or do you have a badge?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Who has got the shield or the badge -- who is in the police? Or there's some sort of badge that they're showing me.
CALLER: No one that I'm aware of.
EDWARD: Yes, you do. They're showing me the father figure, and they're telling me to talk about the badge. Is there a second father, like is there a father-in-law who has also crossed?
CALLER: A grandfather.
EDWARD: No, like a father-in-law -- or an uncle who has passed? It's an older male, but not that old?
CALLER: Older male, but not that old, with a badge.
EDWARD: Who had the leg missing?
CALLER: Nobody that I know.
EDWARD: Yes, you do. There's somebody coming through, and they're making my leg feel like it's not here.
CALLER: OK, well -- well, my aunt is still living, and she did have a problem with her leg, almost losing it when she was younger.
EDWARD: That's not what I'm seeing. This is a male figure, who has crossed over; he's talking about the leg, which means it's either not here, or he was paralyzed and couldn't use it. He's talking about being an older male, which is above you; which is like a father, a father-in-law --he's telling me to show you the badge. Like, the badge is the clue here. The badge is the thing that's supposed to validate who he is. That's what's coming through. However, you're looking for you mom, but these are the people that are coming through with her.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Do you have roses, or something, a flower that's pressed of hers?
KING: Hello? I don't know what happened to the call. I'm sorry -- I didn't cut you off, so I don't know what happened.


Callers wants to reach her mother

-did father also die- weak hit, 50/50
-did father go first- miss, once again, 50/50
-did father or caller have a badge- miss
-someone was in police, or any badge whatsoever- miss. This, once again widening the net- now any relative and any badge will do.
-father in law who died- miss- caller says grandfather, JE rejects stretched hit, is looking for an uncle or father in law
-missing leg- miss. Caller once again trying to make it fit to an aunt almost losing a leg
-roses or flowers- call gets interrupted before caller responds not a viable guess

Guesses 6
5 misses
1 weak hit


Point Pleasant, New Jersey, hello.
CALLER: Hi, John. How are you? My name is Gene; I'm looking for my mother and my brother. I'm a little nervous.
EDWARD: That's OK. Makes two of us. Is there a Katherine or Kathleen connected to you?
CALLER: My brother's name was Keith.
EDWARD: I'll take that. Sounds the same to me. Do you guys have the same birthday or something?
CALLER: Mine was in January; his was in November.
EDWARD: What's the similarity in dates -- that he's showing me?
CALLER: I don't know. Mine was -- his was November 9th; mine is January 2nd.
EDWARD: Nope, that's not it. There's a similarity -- there's a parallel between dates. I similarities between -- between you and your brother, from what' being acknowledged to me. Is his middle name with a J?
CALLER: His middle name was Michael.
EDWARD: Who's got the J name?
CALLER: My wife's name is Joan.
EDWARD: Is she new to the family from when one of them passed? Hold on. Let me just say this. They're welcoming somebody to the family, like they need to welcome somebody; and they want you to know that they see this person as being part of the family now, and they're connecting this to a J. It's a J-sounding name. Did somebody just have a baby or something?
CALLER: No, but neither one of them knew my wife -- or met my wife -- before they passed -- well, my brother did.
EDWARD: OK. I want to tell you that they're acknowledging your wife, but they also want to tell you congratulations; because there's a baby coming.
CALLER: That's surprising.
EDWARD: They're rocking a baby for me, which means that there's a baby that's coming to the family -- and they're telling me DN -- like Donna or Dan -- or something, like Diane. There's a DN-sounding name that coming through. Who had cancer?
CALLER: My mother.
EDWARD: Was she misdiagnosed?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. She's telling me she had it twice; she's telling me it was in two separate parts of the body. Is this true?
CALLER: Yes. Yes. She had it in her back, and then she had it in her breasts.
EDWARD: OK. She's telling me to tease about you the slippers. I don't know if you have her slippers -- or if you bought her, like, funky slippers -- like pullover's, or something. But she's showing me something about slippers or feet, and it's like a funny thing; and she's, like, trying to be humorous with me. She's got a very comical feeling; she's very light-hearted. She letting me to let you know that she's OK, and that she also acknowledges your wife; and your wife's father, I believe, is there. Is that true?
CALLER: No, he hasn't passed. No.
EDWARD: There's an older male on your wife's side of the family, connected to the J, who is there.
CALLER: I don't know.
EDWARD: Remember, I said this: the guy passes from either a vascular thing, like a stroke, or it's an embolism.
KING: Well, you were nervous when you called in. Right?
CALLER: I'm even more nervous now.
KING: Why? You're going to be a father. I think you ought to go tell her.
CALLER: All right. OK?
KING: And name the kid with a J. What the hell? Or the Kidd will be born on the 9th. Who knows? We'll be right back with John Edward. Don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)


Caller is looking for mother and brother

-Katherine or Kathleen- weak hit, caller suggests Keith, JE accepts
-same birthday- miss, November and January
-similar dates-miss, 9th and 2nd
-brother's middle name J- miss, middle name Michael
-J name- JE fishes for anyone with a J name, gets a weak hit, Caller's wife name is Joan
-welcoming someone to the family, connected with the J name-weak hit, family did not know wife
-did someone have a baby- miss
-a baby is coming-miss- caller's reaction is peculiar "That's surprising" It appears if a baby is coming, he is not planning on it
-DN name- not validated
-someone with cancer- weak hit, caller's mother. Very common ailment, and JE just asks the caller who had it.
-Was mother misdiagnosed- hit
-mother had the cancer twice- hit, she had it in her back and breasts. I am not familiar with cancer statistics and how common to have it in two places
-slippers teasing- not validated
- wife's father passed- miss. Another 50/50 gone wrong, another thing JE should know.
-older male on wife's side of the family, connected to J who passed- not validated, caller does not know
-that man passed from a vascular thing, like a stroke, or an embolism - not validated, caller does not know

Guesses 16 guesses
6 misses
2 hits
4 weak hits
4 not validated


KING: Zurich, Switzerland for John Edward, hello.
CALLER: Yes, hello, my name's Kathleen. I'm looking for a student of mine.
KING: A student?
EDWARD: I'm not making a connection with you. I'm not feeling anything, although, however, I feel like that there's -- I said it earlier, I'm seeing boxes. When I see boxes, that indicates that somebody's moved or is moving. Usually the person that I'm speaking to. I'm feeling that, and I'm getting more life stuff now, around you. Something affecting, like, the emotions and relationship and that kind of stuff. I'm not getting anything from the other side.
CALLER: OK.

Caller wants to connect with her student, JE is not getting anything except indication of a move, no reading is made.

KING: Thank you very much. To Brooklyn, New York, hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: Hi, John.
EDWARD: Hi, how ya doing?
CALLER: OK, thanks. I'm looking to find my nephew and my dad.
EDWARD: OK, I believe it's your nephew that's coming through, 'cause I was getting this before we even came back from break. I was getting a younger male figure. I thought it was a son, though. Is it gonna be two years that he's gone?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Yeah, he's been trying to come through to me while we were on commercial break here.
CALLER: He came to before about the badge, too.
EDWARD: That was -- he's telling me -- hold on a second -- he's telling me to talk about "two," which that means he's gone in the last two years.
CALLER: Yeah.
EDWARD: He's telling me to talk about -- I know this is gonna sound really common, but he's telling me to talk about Joe or J-O like John or Joey or -- this feels like it's somebody that's connected directly to him, somebody that he wants to acknowledge. Now, is this -- is this your sister's son?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, because he's telling me that his mother is your sister.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: And she's still here, correct?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Is his dad and him separated? Or was there a problem with their relationship?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. It's very important that dad knows that he does not harbor any ill feelings, and that he knows that his father was proud of him. This is really, really important.
CALLER: Right.
EDWARD: Again, you need to stress this. Who's Anthony or Antoinette? Or -- who's the AN name?
CALLER: Antoinette is a neighbor of his.
EDWARD: OK.
CALLER: A neighbor of my sister's, rather.
EDWARD: OK. She's still here, though, right?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, 'cause they're telling me it sounds like Anthony. Do you know if Antoinette lost her husband?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: There's a male figure who's connected -- not to your family, but to the long AN-sounding name. I see it to the AN side, which would be a husband or a brother-figure who has passed who's also coming through. But your nephew's telling me to let you know that he's OK. He's he's got a big mouth. Was he like that when he was alive?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, 'cause he's telling me he's like Martha Raye.
CALLER: Yeah; he kids around a lot.
EDWARD: OK. He's also telling me to talk about painting the house, or painting the inside of the house, not doing a painting. And that somebody messed up doing this, and he's laughing at this.
CALLER: Uh-huh.
KING: By the way, before you came on, he said to me, "There's a young person who died, who's coming through."
CALLER: Larry, I'm with U.S. Customs; I meet you all the time when you come through.
KING: You're the guy. I haven't gone through U.S. Customs in years, but I feel U.S. Customs. Anyway -- little joke there, folks. .

Caller wants to connect with nephew and father
-two years since death- hit. At this point caller claims a previous reading about the badge. Recall the badge reading was for an older male, yet this caller claims the reading anyway
-Joe or J-O like John or Joe- not validated
-sister's son- weak hit. It is either a son of a brother, or son of a sister. Once again, 50/50
-his mother still alive- weak hit, 50/50
-his father and he separated, bad relationship- weak hit
-Anthony or Antoinette, AN name? -weak hit- Antoinette is a neighbor of his mother.
-Neighbor of his mother is still alive- weak hit, 50/50.
-Neighbor of his mother lost her husband- miss
-Neighbor of his mother has a husband or brother figure coming through- not validated
-Nephew had a big mouth- weak hit. Show me a nephew whose uncle does not say he does not have a big mouth sometimes
-Painting or not painting the house- not validated

Guesses 11
1 miss
1 hit
6 weak hits
3 not validated







Terre Haute, Indiana, hello
CALLER: Hello. This is Gloria, and I lost two sons in the past four years.
KING: Oh, my God.
CALLER: Could you tell me anything?
EDWARD: I can try, Gloria. The first thing that I'm -- the first thing that I'm feeling is that they're showing me the letter S, which would indicate that either the person who has crossed over is an S-sounding name or there's somebody connected here who's an S. Gloria, is your dad passed?
CALLER: 'Scuse me?
EDWARD: Is your father passed?
CALLER: Yes, he died.
EDWARD: OK. Was your dad not your dad?
CALLER: No, he was my dad.
EDWARD: OK. Was there somebody else who was like a father who wasn't your father?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: I have two father-figures coming' through, and one's telling me that he was your father, and one's telling me he was like your father but wasn't your father. That's just what's coming through as I'm getting this. They're telling me to -- they're -- they're showing me a nun. Is there somebody in the family who would be of the cloth or who would be religious who's passed?
CALLER: No there isn't.
EDWARD: OK, I want you to remember this, 'cause symbolically if they're showing me a nun, there's somebody who is very, very religious, or extremely spiritual, but I'm going more towards religious, who's passed, who's coming through with these two male figures. Again, I know you're looking for one of your -- looking for you sons, but I'm only feeling one younger male figure who's coming through, not both. Did one of them pass because of either an asphyxiation, or was out of it and passes in their sleep or something?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. That's the one that's coming through, 'cause I see everything going black. They're telling me to call out to Chrissy or Kristen or Chris, who is the C or K?
CALLER: Um, I don't know.
EDWARD: OK, remember this and put it in his frame of reference. He's telling me to say -- it sounds like this -- it sounds like Chris to me, but he's coming through with your father. That's what's coming through.


Caller tells JE she lost 2 sons in 4 years. Sad reading
-S name- not validated
- father passed- weak hit, 50/50
-father not her father (I am assuming adoption or stepfather)- miss
-2 father figures-not validated
-nun-miss. This is curious, considering the strong hit from the other reading. Maybe the nun guess is not as unusal as I thought
-asphyxiation, or death in their sleep- weak hit, very vague
-Chrissy or Kristen or Chris, or C or K- miss


Guesses 7
3 misses
2 not validates
2 weak hits



North Babylon, New York, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Bill, my mother.
KING: It's -- his name is John.
CALLER: John.
KING: I understand. It's OK. Your name is Bill -- you're calling yourself again, Bill, see.
CALLER: I always do that.
KING: All right. John -- his mother.
EDWARD: All right. The first thing that's coming through is they're showing me number three, and that to me indicates that the third of the month means something, or the third month, March, holds a meaning to the family. Either birthday or an anniversary.
CALLER: The third is my birthday.
EDWARD: The third is your birthday, OK. Again, that's just a validation of your mom coming through. Was there a problem with her right foot?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Who had the infection on their foot?
CALLER: Nobody I know of.
EDWARD: OK. They're showing...
CALLER: My wife does now.
EDWARD: She's got that happening right now?
KING: Nobody you know of, except your wife. OK, Bill, go ahead.
EDWARD: Your mom is coming though. Can you make sure -- I know this is going to sound strange and it might be nothing, but I'm seeing a caution about this. Can you make sure your wife gets that checked out?
CALLER: OK, thank you.
EDWARD: Is she taking care of this?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: And congratulations on the new vehicle.

Caller wants to get in touch with his mother

-Number 3- weak hit, birthday
-problem with mother's right foot- miss
-someone else has the infection on their foot- weak hit, caller's wife may have an infection. This is a classic stretch by the medium. Had it been a hit, it would have been a good one, as it is not, any infection would do. I suspect he would have accepted a pet.
-congratulation on a new vehicle- not validated

Guesses 4
2 weak hits
1 miss
1 not validated


KING: Salem, Virginia, hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: This is Sherri (ph); I lost my husband about a year and a half ago.
EDWARD: OK, Sherri, the first thing that's coming through is I'm seeing a red rose, and a red rose to me marks an anniversary of a death or a wedding. Did your husband pass, either around your own wedding anniversary or around the anniversary of someone else's death?
CALLER: He passed close to my birthday.
EDWARD: OK, 'cause what he's showing me is that he passes around a special date, or something that you would celebrate. Do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. He's telling me -- this is strange, but did you bury him with cigarettes?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. He's telling me -- I know this is going to sound strange -- was this the wrong brand?
CALLER: Yeah.
EDWARD: He's joking with you. He's making me feel like...
KING: Wait a minute, wait a minute. OK. He was buried with the wrong brand than what he smoked?
CALLER: Yes.
KING: OK. Was any of the Republican -- never mind, I was gonna say if the Republican majority was at the funeral, since they're very involved in this. How did you see that?
EDWARD: They just showed me cigarettes and they put a line through it, and like a red circle like "no smoking" and -- but I feel like I needed to acknowledge that the cigarettes were there.
KING: So that can't be a wild guess. I mean -- that's can't be a wild guess. And he's doing all right?
EDWARD: He's fine.


The famous cigarette reading. Caller lost her husband a year and a half prior to the call.
-did husband pass near wedding anniversary or around anniversary of someone else's death- miss, husband passed around caller's birthday. In yet another example of smoothly shifting gears, JE now appropriates that information.
-Did she bury him with cigarettes- another strong hit. Once again, we do not know if the woman had a strong cough, and I do not know how common that is. I do know it is common for mourners to bury people with mementos- children with toys, women with favorite jewelry. I have not been in any smoker funerals.
-were the cigarettes the wrong brand- yes. Now the reasons I am scoring this a regular hit as opposed to a strong hit is a deduction. If this was a funeral where friends of the dead man are placing cigarette packs in the coffin, as a memento, it would make sense, they would place their own brand.


Guesses 3
1 miss
1 hit
1 strong hit





KING: Last call, very quickly, Boca Raton, Florida, hello.
CALLER: Hi, this is Maria. I'm looking for my father.
EDWARD: Hey, Maria. How ya doing?
KING: You've got 30 seconds.
EDWARD: The first thing that they're showing me is -- are you getting married or did somebody just get married?
CALLER: I'm getting married.
EDWARD: Congratulations from your dad. He'll be there.
CALLER: Thank you.
EDWARD: He wants you to know that. You're gonna change -- I don't know if you've changed the date or you're gonna change the date, but he's showing me something about the date. But he's just telling me to let you know that he will be there.

Caller wants to connect with her father

-Is caller or somebody getting or just got married- weak hit, wide net, caller will get married
-Caller will change the date- not validated
-Caller's father will be there- sweet, nice thing to say, not scoring

3 Guesses
1 weak hit
1 not validated
1 not scored

Overall


17 readings, not counting the aborted reading
108 guesses
8 hits or 7.4 %
29 weak hits or 26.9%
43 misses or 39.8%
23 not validated or 21.3%
4 not scored or 3.7%
1 strong hit or 9%


All 5 LKL readings so far

Total guesses 476
48 hits, 10.1%
118 weak hits 24.8%
171 misses 35.9%
102 not validated 21.4%
35 not scored 7.4%
2 strong hits .4%

I am told JE is supposed to be on LKL Thursday, so I hope to add that transcript in as well. Furthermore, if someone knows the call in number (I can never find it) perhaps some people can call in and ask JE some questions, like that caller did Sylvia Browne.

I also want to reiterate that although I am a skeptic, I tried to be as fair as possible. However, I fully realize my count may reflect bias. Because of that I made sure to "show my work":). I encourage people to do their own counts and compare them with mine. However, if you have a bone to pick with only one reading, that won't matter much- I scored almost 500 guesses, and had my own right or wrong approach. So if I made a math mistake or misread a transcript, let me know. But if you have a problem with my whole approach, I think it best if an alternate is proposed, and we can compare results :)

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
I. Renata's Tally

I did spot checks here and there--had an occasional quibble, nothing very significant--and overall felt she did a thorough, fair and very commendable job.

II. Results: hits and misses.

I found her reasons for not counting hits and misses for certain comments valid. She accurately totalled the "Not Validated" as well and I agree that they can't be counted for or against JE. (My guess is that, if validated, they would probably break about the same proportion as hits and misses generally did--but that's just a guess.

I added renata's totals for all hits together, whether "weak" or "strong" and compared the total with the total "misses".

Transcript #1 Hits: 38 Misses: 38

Transcript #2 Hits: 34 Misses: 19 (poor audio plagued this program)

Transcript #3 Hits: 21 Misses: 29 (apparently a good in studio reading occurred for a friend of someone who worked for the show, but LK regarded it as an unwelcome distraction and did not adequately elaborate on the validations)

Total hits: 93

Total misses: 86

This is roughly 50% hits, about the same total that ersby got for his tally of the LKL readings.

I find 50% a very probable hit rate for JE. More comments to follow.....

I addressed this elsewhere, so I will just repost an exchange from that thread.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26642&perpage=40&pagenumber=11



I am a little surprised you chose to combine all the hits. I separated them for a reason. Most of the hits were extremely weak, and some were no better than a coin flip! Such as- is a person alive or dead, is the dead parent mother or father. Those are the kinds of things I deliberated against counting as hits at all, those are the things a medium should know. A lot of them were also very obvious- like a uniform, or a common initial.
Also, for reasons I am not sure I understand you seem to disregard the guesses that were not validated and not scored. I am not at all convinced that not validated hits will break out in the same proportion as the hits and misses. Simply taking them out of the equation artifically inflates JE's hit ratio.

Voidx agreed, saying

Just to highlight this point from Renata. I must agree completely. Simply saying he got 50% is doing a disservice to Renata's analysis. Most of his hits were very weak, an overwhelming majority of people looking at them thought so and I think it was quite a telling analysis as Neo doesn't want to consider them much, and of which your own analysis seemed to basically score it quite similar to how Renata scored it anyway. For you to bring up her analysis in respect to my comment about the ratio seems rather odd as everyone here was in agreement that it showed JE to be nothing more than cold-reading. Even I don't consider that a comprehensive hit-ratio. I think its enough to show us in this case how indecipherable JE is from cold-reading, and Renata did a great job on it, but its still not a complete tally from all his different venues. So is Renata's hit-ratio the only one you have to go on? Or are there others?

As for other mediums transcripts appearing to look more like cold-reading, its a distraction if you ask me. I've not been shown yet why JE's shouldn't be considered indecipherable from cold-reading, why would I be concerned with moving onto another medium when I've not been convinced of this one yet?

Later on, Clancie replied to voidx

voidx,

I can understand if someone else wouldn't count all JE's hits together, as I did. However, my approach is not invalid from a skeptical point of view--ersby, a skeptic who's done a lot to look into cold reading--previously used a simllar method in his analysis of JE's hits.

I feel its arguably just fine to count all hits together and to discard the things we can't score as most likely following the same break (50/50). I understand you and renata disagree with that--probably others do, too--but I'm comfortable with it and it also seems consistent with explaining a different ratio of hits/misses on CO in a way I feel makes sense. Likewise seems more reasonable than Schwartz's results, allowing for the easily inflated scoring system he used.

Others aren't required to agree with me, of course, and vice versa.

In the absence of any "deceiver" demonstrating cold reading in any comparable way that I know of, I don't know how you can say, "I think its enough to show us how indecipherable JE is from cold reading."



and I wrote

The data is there for a reason. If you choose to discard some of it it to artificially inflate JE's hit rate you may. Of course, someone could also discard the weak hits altogether and come out with a hit rate 10%,, 22% and 3% for each of the 3 readings respectively. But if you choose to continue citing the 50% hit rate I will make sure to point out that according to my analysis, you are misinterpreting the data to artificially inflate it. I also think, as I just pointed out in another post in another thread that you are not being quite so generous with cold readers as you are with JE.

You see, when you said

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, voidx, personally I feel comfortable with the tally of LKL that renata did. By combining all hits, weak and strong, his hit rate is at 50%--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



this implies that somehow I endorse the 50% hit rate. I most certainly do not, as I explain above. I did quite a bit of work on the transcripts, and I did not pick and choose for lucky or unlucky hits. I took the data I had, and I do not like it usurped or misinterpreted. So if you feel compelled to mention it in the future, I will feel compelled to mention how I feel you interpret the data to inflate JE's hit rate, and how in my interpretation of my analysis JE is indistinguishible from a cold reader and a fraud.

Clancie replied, and, the resolution part 1

Yes, renata, I'm very aware of that. I thought that was clear in my post, but apparently it isn't.

I will make sure it is spelled out clearly, no room for doubt, as my use of your analysis, not your opinion of what the results show the hit rate to be, the next time I mention it.

And, the resolution part 2
Clarification- the quote by Clancie in this post is the reason for my original post. My quote incorporates her earlier post, which seems to have caused some confusion to Clancie, making her think the posts are out of order. Indeed, this is a part of my final message, as an example of what I felt was a quote that did not differentiate between my analysis and Clancie's reinterpretation of it to produce the 50% hit rate. Please refer to the link above if there are any further questions.


I felt your quote did not make it clear that your interpretation of my analysis was at odds with it. I am glad that in the future you will be careful to differentiate them.

Here it is again

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, voidx, personally I feel comfortable with the tally of LKL that renata did. By combining all hits, weak and strong, his hit rate is at 50%--which seems more realistic than Schwartz's 80+% rating, and also allows for editing the ratio of hits to misses by about 20% more hits/fewer misses on "Crossing Over", which is consistent with ersby's analysis and, imo, makes a lot of sense.

All that seems pretty reasonable and consistent to me. I feel comfortable accepting those numbers as "official" enough.

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



I did see you attribute the tally to me, but you did not clearly flag the 50% hit as your own unique reinterpitation of my tally. Now that it has been straightened out, I am sure I will not have to mention it again.


Although this ended as a sharp exchange, I wanted to bring it here. For one thing, due to my absence, I did not get the opportunity to respond to the thread after I got back from the trip, and it did take a bit when I got back. Furthermore, I was a little startled when I saw a rather generous recalculation of the LKL readings not only unchallenged but also used, in conjunction with my work. I am a tad of a stickler about these types of things, I fear.

edited to give appropriate credit for resolution and to clarify some subsequent chronology confusion

[Clancie]

renata,

Isn't my post above out of order? Wasn't my quote that I've requoted below part of the resolution", i.e. it was my response to your complaint above (and timewise followed my post to voidx that you requote at the end)? I don't understand why you quote my response and then requote your complaint? :confused:

I believe this post from me was my last comment about it and should be sequenced as such above.....
Posted by Clancie

Yes, renata, I'm very aware of that. I thought that was clear in my post, but apparently it isn't.

I will make sure it is spelled out clearly, no room for doubt, as my use of your analysis, not your opinion of what the results show the hit rate to be, the next time I mention it.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
renata,

Isn't my post above out of order? Wasn't my quote that I've requoted below part of the resolution", i.e. it was my response to your complaint above (and timewise followed my post to voidx that you requote at the end)? I don't understand why you quote my response and then requote your complaint? :confused:

I believe this post from me was my last comment about it and should be sequenced as such above.....


No, it is not out of order. The post you are quoting above, is indeed your last post, posted at 6:36 PM PST Sept 25.

My post, immediately following, and the final post of the entire exchange, posted at 6:38 PM PST Sept 25 incorporates your earlier quote as an example of what I felt inappropriate attribution. I can see how this might be confusion, but if you look in the original thread, it will become clearer.

However, you are correct that your final post was indeed part of the mutual resolution- I stated my problem, and you agreed to delineate your position more clearly in the future. I will correct my above post accordingly, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Stop changing the issue. Address the analyses renata did instead.

[SteveGrenard]

JE on LKL Again

Thursday night, 10/2/03, at 6pm PST on CNN's Larry King Live, John Edward will be interviewed again and take your calls.

On the West Coast, Larry King Live starts at 6pm and then replays again at midnight. Check local listings for different time zones.

Some cable TV systems in the UK and Europe also carry the program much later in the night or in what would be early AM
Friday, 10/3/03.

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
JE on LKL Again

Thursday night, 10/2/03, at 6pm PST on CNN's Larry King Live, John Edward will be interviewed again and take your calls.

On the West Coast, Larry King Live starts at 6pm and then replays again at midnight. Check local listings for different time zones.

Some cable TV systems in the UK and Europe also carry the program much later in the night or in what would be early AM
Friday, 10/3/03.

Thanks, Steve

I will do my usual count when the transcript comes up on the CNN site, which is usually a few hours after the show.
And at least in LA, Larry King also replays at 9 PM PST.

Does anyone have the call in number, so people can try to get through?

[lofgoernost]

Originally posted by Lazy Renata

I will do my usual count when the transcript comes up on the CNN site, which is usually a few hours after the show. And at least in LA, Larry King also replays at 9PM PST.

Enough with these delays. Please try and get these things on the board promptly.

;)

Is there a wicked evil grin smiley?



p.s. Great work!