The "Process" of John Edward

[CFLarsen]

When discussing psychic mediums, the "process" is often referred to. Since there seems to be some confusion as to how this "process" works, I have asked neofight to open a thread about this. She hasn't done so, so I thought I'd be of assistance.

I am aware that mediums seem to have their own "process", which makes it a bit complicated. So, let's concentrate on just one, John Edward.

He is the most debated psychic medium here, mainly because he has some followers who also post here.

To those: The stage is yours. Spill it, so we can learn.

[EdipisReks]

i thought he was just a liar....

[michaellee]

From John Edward's website:
------------------------
Clairaudience (clear hearing) - Ability to hear sounds physically. Sometimes the thoughts are clearer than others.
------------------------
Process defined????

That has to be the most twisted, nonsensical, moronic paragraph ever written, yet I am sure many believers could straighten me out in no time at all.

Start by telling me when the word "physically" changed its connotation to describe "thoughts". And clear ones at that!

Have any of you out there actually read this ?<#%@$?<?

[michaellee]

I can't resist....

Things are coming into focus at the JE website!
-------------------------------------------
Glossary definition:

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

Information I can use at last! For years I was unsure of the methods JE and the dead use to communicate....er... cross over.

"the way they felt at the time of their death....the spirit makes John "feel" what they feel."

I'll wildly guess that the person who died FELT PRETTY LOUSY right at the time of their death. Probably not a red letter day for the family either, but what the hell, some people consider the moment when a person takes that last breath of life as reason to celebrate.

Does John Edward actually "feel what they feel" at the time of their death? If so, he would be smart not to "read" me or my brother's surviving family members. Unless the "feeling" of being crushed to death somehow is pleasant.

Come on John, show us how he felt!. You may qualify for the JREF Million if you can pull this one off. His name use to start with an A- or was it a T? ClearSense what I'm feeling right now and I could start my own show tomorrow on "Clairsentience" and other complete bullsh....

[neofight]

Originally posted by michaellee
From John Edward's website:
------------------------
Clairaudience (clear hearing) - Ability to hear sounds physically. Sometimes the thoughts are clearer than others.
------------------------
Process defined????

That has to be the most twisted, nonsensical, moronic paragraph ever written, yet I am sure many believers could straighten me out in no time at all.

Start by telling me when the word "physically" changed its connotation to describe "thoughts". And clear ones at that!

Have any of you out there actually read this ?<#%@$?<?

Hello, michaellee. Well, I think a good place to start might be to use some of the considerable effort that you put into sarcasm and deriding the whole idea of mediumship into at least attempting to be accurate. Clairaudience is the ability to hear sounds psychically, not physically.

Perhaps you can go back and check your source? Is this the JE website's inaccuracy? Or your own? Could you give us the URL of the website you used please?........neo

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

Instead of focusing on the sarcastic posts, could you explain the process of JE?

You are one of those who consistently refer to this, and it would be marvellous if we could actually find out what it is all about.

That is the purpose of this thread, after all.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
neofight,

Instead of focusing on the sarcastic posts, could you explain the process of JE?

You are one of those who consistently refer to this, and it would be marvellous if we could actually find out what it is all about.

That is the purpose of this thread, after all.

Claus, if after all the time I've already spent posting on the subject of the mediumship process, you still don't at least understand it in theory, then any additional time spent in an effort to enlighten you would surely be a further waste of my valuable time, which is precisely why I didn't bother to start this thread myself. :( ....neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, if after all the time I've already spent posting on the subject of the mediumship process, you still don't at least understand it in theory, then any additional time spent in an effort to enlighten you would surely be a further waste of my valuable time, which is precisely why I didn't bother to start this thread myself. :( ....neo

It's not just me, neo. There are also other people here, where you use the argument of "JE's process" when arguing with them.

If not me, then do it for them.

Or perhaps you feel it is better for you to keep referring to something you will not explain what is? Or perhaps cannot?

[michaellee]

Perhaps you can go back and check your source? Is this the JE website's inaccuracy? Or your own? Could you give us the URL of the website you used please?........neo

Thanks for the response. Those who feel the need to correct and/or inform Website administrators about typos and mistakes on their sites may want to contact(no sarcasm intended) The Sci-Fi Channel's site and JE's site although the link to this particular page was down on JE's site. I have read it there, it is the same page.

Quickly to admit to making mistakes, which I do on occasion, this time my English, eyesight, and spelling capabilities were true. The page in error, according to neofight's review of my post, is located at HERE IS THE LINK (http://www.scifi.com/johnedward/abouttheshow/)

Then click on "GLOSSARY" to open the page.

[CFLarsen]

I like this one (from the Glossary):

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

Hepatitis is not a "blood disorder":

Hepatitis A: is a liver disease caused by the hepatitis A virus (HAV). Hepatitis A can affect anyone. In the United States, hepatitis A can occur in situations ranging from isolated cases of disease to widespread epidemics.

Hepatitis B: is a serious disease caused by a virus that attacks the liver. The virus, which is called hepatitis B virus (HBV), can cause lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and death.

Hepatitis C: is a liver disease caused by the Hepatitis C virus (HCV), which is found in the blood of persons who have the disease. HCV is spread by contact with the blood of an infected person.

Hepatitis D: is a defective virus that needs the hepatitis B virus to exist. Hepatitis D virus (HDV) is found in the blood of persons infected with the virus.

Hepatitis E: is a virus (HEV) transmitted in much the same way as hepatitis A virus. Hepatitis E, however, does not often occur in the United States.

Source: CDC, Hepatitis (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/index.htm)

AIDS is not a "blood disorder":

HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is the virus that causes AIDS. This virus is passed from one person to another through blood-to-blood and sexual contact. In addition, infected pregnant women can pass HIV to their baby during pregnancy or delivery, as well as through breast-feeding. People with HIV have what is called HIV infection. Most of these people will develop AIDS as a result of their HIV infection.

Source: CDC, HIV/AIDS (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq1.htm)

Drug overdose is not a "blood disorder". It's when you..well, overdose on drugs. If these are to be considered "blood disorders", then there are very few medical conditions that do not fall under this category!!

It's amazing that JE can refer to his medical background (even claiming to have saved a life by overriding a doctor), and make these major mistakes.

However, the Glossary is a far cry from explaining the "process". I am still hoping neofight will share her knowledge with the rest of us.

[michaellee]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
----------------------------------------
However, the Glossary is a far cry from explaining the "process". I am still hoping neofight will share her knowledge with the rest of us.
----------------------------------------


A few months back, I posted in one the many JE threads. What I eventually posted was not what I had intended to when I replied. I wanted to know exactly what you know want to know- The Process

At that time, I could not come up with a term or group of words to describe what I was looking for. Process is the key word.

I found that after reading hundreds of JE related posts, none had ever raised the question burning in my mind. I could care less about hits, tickets, seating, successes, claims, cold vs. hot readings etc..

I simply wanted to know HOW, specifically, was JE "performing"-- i.e.. when he claims someone has "crossed", and its a she, and her name starts with a T or an S, and he's "getting" something about a back problem, just how is he obtaining, translating, communicating, hearing, seeing... Dammit! You see my quandry.

Believers dismiss the methods (or process as you call it) JE uses because to define it in the least bit would open a door JE knows would not close.

The process or exact method, if explained in rational, non-psychic terminology, should be very simple to explain. IF there were actually one used. This is his ace in the hole. JE won't give away his process and shouldn't have to- because that would be showing the world how to communicate with the dead. Similar to a magician exposing the trick after it is performed.

Knowing he won't be pressed for these details by followers, JE resorts to the oldest tactic in the world, creating terms, definitions and explanations that only cover the non-earthbound stuff JE claims to be relating. I can't even begin to explain even one of the terms in that Glossary, because noone is supposed to. To strictly define anything, even if possible to do so, would be the end of that belief system followers have grown accustomed to.

The non--believers appear to be left holding the bag playing in this type of arena. How can JE explain something in concrete terms of which we don't want to understand? The believers understand what methods and processes JE uses very well, as do most skeptics. The difference between the groups is clouded by that one area you are hoping neofight will rationally define.

You may be better off calling a tax lawyer or IRS agent and have them define a page or two of the tax code. That probably would be less painful than what awaits this thread.

I am always optimistic and would love to see this issue discussed. Am I on the right track with what you are seeking?

[CFLarsen]

michaellee,

It's not just me. I am sure we all want to learn more.

Let's see if our hopes are fulfilled.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Hepatitis is not a "blood disorder":

AIDS is not a "blood disorder"
Claus,

Like AIDS, some kinds of hepatitis are commonly transmitted through blood. It's not far-fetched for JE to consider them as "blood disorders" when he's giving a reading. He uses "blood disorder" as opposed to causes of death he sees differently like suicide, heart attacks, emphysema/pneumonia, etc.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Like AIDS, some kinds of hepatitis are commonly transmitted through blood. It's not far-fetched for JE to consider them as "blood disorders" when he's giving a reading. He uses "blood disorder" as opposed to causes of death he sees differently like suicide, heart attacks, emphysema/pneumonia, etc.

Which means he generalizes wildly. Which means that if he is a cold reader, his chances of a hit increases dramatically. Agree?

How come he can get "wrong cigarettes in a coffin" but not a name of a disease? You cannot explain the latter using this, unless you also explain the former using the same.

Unless you want to fit the explanation to the situation. But that would be inconsistent, wouldn't it?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Clancie
He uses "blood disorder" as opposed to causes of death he sees differently like suicide, heart attacks, emphysema/pneumonia, etc.
Using that criterion, committing suicide by slashing your wrists would be a "blood disorder".
Almost anything goes!

[michaellee]

Originally posted by Clancie
He uses "blood disorder" as opposed to causes of death he sees differently like suicide, heart attacks,

Excellent! Clancie, you used the word "see" above. Is this sight like mine, or a special one JE has, or something else? In any case, do you know or can you describe this part of JE's communication process for me?

[Clancie]

Michaellee,

You're right. I should have said he "feels" this...since that's the way I remember him describing how he "gets" health info.

re: the process. I think neo has a post up about it already describing it on another thread. If I can find it for you, I'll post it again.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Do you agree that JE generalizes wildly? Which means that if he is a cold reader, his chances of a hit increases dramatically?

How come he can get "wrong cigarettes in a coffin" but not a name of a disease? You cannot explain the latter using this, unless you also explain the former using the same.

Unless you want to fit the explanation to the situation. But that would be inconsistent, wouldn't it?

[Mike D.]

Ok, it's my understanding that spirits usually can't communicate directly through JE, so they must communicate using symbols from JE's own frame of reference that JE has learned may mean certain things that the spirits are trying to communicate. Is this a correct description of this part of the process?

So let's say a spirit, in looking in on a loved one who is still alive, discovers that the loved one is planning to visit one of JE's seminars, is planning to attend a taping of Crossing Over, or is planning to attend a JE seminar. The spirit makes plans to be there as well in hopes that he can send a message through JE to his loved one. The spirit, knowing how JE's type of mediumship works, telepathically taps into JE's mind and studies various symbols and their associations in JE's frame of reference. Then, when the spirit's loved one is being read by JE, the spirit knows what symbols to project into JE's mind to try to get the message across.

Or, does the spirit impart information to JE, which JE's subsconscious mind somehow automatically translates into appropriate symbols from JE's frame of reference?

Does anyone here imagine the process, or at least part of the process, happening anything like the above? It seems like the spirits must have their work cut out for them to try to delve into JE's mind to find appropriate symbols to use. Or perhaps the spirits have built up their own glossary of JE's symbols over time and these are somehow available in the spirit world for study by spirits wishing to use JE to communicate with their loved ones.

[neofight]

Originally posted by michaellee


Thanks for the response. Those who feel the need to correct and/or inform Website administrators about typos and mistakes on their sites may want to contact(no sarcasm intended) The Sci-Fi Channel's site and JE's site although the link to this particular page was down on JE's site. I have read it there, it is the same page.

Thank you, michaellee. I don't usually feel compelled to correct or inform webmasters about editing mistakes either, but in this case, I made an exception and e-mailed his assistant, Carol, about the error.

The least John and his staff could do on his official site would be to insure accuracy in the very place (the glossary) that he attempts to explain mediumship terms. lol

Quickly to admit to making mistakes, which I do on occasion, this time my English, eyesight, and spelling capabilities were true.

Yes they were, michaellee. You quoted it accurately. I'm glad that I left room for that possibility in my post to you, or I'd feel a little foolish about blaming you for the error. And in any case, it is true that we all do make mistakes on occasion. :) .....neo

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

I think you are avoiding the subject of this thread.

Will you - or will you not - tell us how JE's process works? You refer to it frequently, so it would be nice if you would share your knowledge.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Mike D.
Ok, it's my understanding that spirits usually can't communicate directly through JE, so they must communicate using symbols from JE's own frame of reference that JE has learned may mean certain things that the spirits are trying to communicate. Is this a correct description of this part of the process?

So let's say a spirit, in looking in on a loved one who is still alive, discovers that the loved one is planning to visit one of JE's seminars, is planning to attend a taping of Crossing Over, or is planning to attend a JE seminar. The spirit makes plans to be there as well in hopes that he can send a message through JE to his loved one. The spirit, knowing how JE's type of mediumship works, telepathically taps into JE's mind and studies various symbols and their associations in JE's frame of reference. Then, when the spirit's loved one is being read by JE, the spirit knows what symbols to project into JE's mind to try to get the message across.

Or, does the spirit impart information to JE, which JE's subsconscious mind somehow automatically translates into appropriate symbols from JE's frame of reference?

Does anyone here imagine the process, or at least part of the process, happening anything like the above? It seems like the spirits must have their work cut out for them to try to delve into JE's mind to find appropriate symbols to use. Or perhaps the spirits have built up their own glossary of JE's symbols over time and these are somehow available in the spirit world for study by spirits wishing to use JE to communicate with their loved ones.

Hi, Mike. I would tend to agree with you more or less on your explanation of how it is that John gets his messages from spirit. I'm just not entirely sure if the spirits that come through for the sitters give these symbols to John directly, or do they go through his spirit guides, and are they the ones who give John the appropriate symbol within his own frame of reference. Or possibly a combination of both. I know that JE has mentioned his spirit guides helping do this, but whether or not that is true in every case, I don't know.....neo

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by neofight


Hi, Mike. I would tend to agree with you more or less on your explanation of how it is that John gets his messages from spirit. I'm just not entirely sure if the spirits that come through for the sitters give these symbols to John directly, or do they go through his spirit guides, and are they the ones who give John the appropriate symbol within his own frame of reference. Or possibly a combination of both. I know that JE has mentioned his spirit guides helping do this, but whether or not that is true in every case, I don't know.....neo

neo,

I'd completely forgotten about his spirit guides. I guess if the guides do what you say, they might be considered analogous to translators here on earth whose profession is to translate one language into another. A translator, in order to translate his native language into another language, must learn the vocabulary (or symbol system) of the other language. So it would be the task of JE's spirit guides to learn JE's symbol system from his frame of reference, and from that position of expertise, assist those spirits who wish to communicate through John who don't want to undertake learning the symbols themselves.

Mike

[neofight]

Originally posted by michaellee
Originally posted by Clancie

Excellent! Clancie, you used the word "see" above. Is this sight like mine, or a special one JE has, or something else? In any case, do you know or can you describe this part of JE's communication process for me?

No, michaellee, unless you have these psychic abilities, what JE "sees", "hears", "feels", "smells" etc. are not the same as the senses that you perceive through normal physical means, i.e. our five senses.

When John "sees" something, it is like a quick mental image that flashes quickly in his mind. And when he "hears" something, most always it is the same way in which we might "hear" our own thoughts. It is not usually a real voice, although on occasion he has gotten a thought that was so loud in his own head that he almost thought that it was truly audible.

I hope that helps. If you are really as interested in this as you appear to be, michaellee, I would highly recommend that you go to your library and take out a copy of "One Last Time", in which John lays out in detail exactly how he gets these psychic impressions. :) ....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Mike D.


neo,

I'd completely forgotten about his spirit guides. I guess if the guides do what you say, they might be considered analogous to translators here on earth whose profession is to translate one language into another. A translator, in order to translate his native language into another language, must learn the vocabulary (or symbol system) of the other language. So it would be the task of JE's spirit guides to learn JE's symbol system from his frame of reference, and from that position of expertise, assist those spirits who wish to communicate through John who don't want to undertake learning the symbols themselves.

Mike

Right, Mike. Inasmuch as we can at least speculate on the mediumship process from a layman's POV, this makes as much sense to me as anything else. ;) .....neo

[Loki]

Neofight,

I don't usually feel compelled to correct or inform webmasters about editing mistakes either, but in this case, I made an exception and e-mailed his assistant, Carol, about the error.
Did Carol confirm that it is an error?

(Mike D. wrote) : Ok, it's my understanding that spirits usually can't communicate directly through JE, so they must communicate using symbols from JE's own frame of reference that JE has learned may mean certain things that the spirits are trying to communicate.
So the process is about symbols being relayed to JE. These symbols can then have 3 distinct interpretations :

1. Specific. "Niagara Falls" means exactly Niagara Falls. Of course, it doesn't include "what" (been there, going there, married there, watched a video about, etc), but the reference means the actual place/thing.

2. General. "Niagara Falls" means 'or any waterfall'. Also might include towns with "Falls" in the name.

3. Symbolic. "Niagara Falls" is a symbolic reference , such as "your current emotional state is like a river of water rushing towards a Fall".

One problem appears to be that JE is at least sometimes inconsistent in his use of images - the same (or very similar) images can wander between the three categories of interpretation, depending upon the sitter.

And not to harp on too much about this, but surely the most common, universal images shared by the "frames of reference" of the sitters, the spirits, JE, and the spirit guides, would be the 26 letters of the alphabet? What, "A" is too abstract to be shown?

(Edited to add) : Forgot to say that Mike D. makes the statement "communicate using symbols ... (that) may mean certain things". Well, I'd say that the alphabet could be summarised as a process that allows two entities to "communicate using symbols that do mean certain things". It's the entire damn reason we invented the alphabet in the first place. Still, the spirits know best I guess... why use an established and unambiguous communication method when they can spend 27 years with JE developing a far less accurate one.

[Clancie]

A specific falls...a generic falls....yes. But this?
Posted by Loki

"Niagara Falls" is a symbolic reference , such as "your current emotional state is like a river of water rushing towards a Fall".
I can't really think of an example where JE has taken a known and specific place (or even object) and used it to symbolize an emotional state like this. Can you?

[Loki]

Clancie,

I can't really think of an example where JE has taken a known and specific place (or even object) and used it to symbolize an emotional state like this.
Yes, part-way through writing the Niagara Falls example I realised that the third interpretation option was going to be a stretch with Niagara Falls as the image!!! Hard to make "Niagara Falls" into a symbolic reference I guess (though not completely impossible). Has JE ever used Niagara Falls in that sense - I doubt it. However, he does use specific books to indicate symbolic meanings - Neo talks about him using Daneille Steele books to indicate "time to move on", etc. Of course, if the sitter had just been reading that book it would (well, could) become a specific hit; and if she'd been reading some other Steele book it would be a general hit.

A better example (but I can't remeber the reading in detail) was one I saw where JE started with "bike riding - and a car". It seemed pretty clear that he was going for "killed when riding his bike" for a young boy that had died. The mother wasn't biting, so JE seemed to widen to "was riding on the day he died", but eventually had to settle for "riding was a passion". In other words, it drifted from specific, to general, to symbolic. But I have no transcript of this reading - working entirely from (prone to occasional failure) memory. Again, it seems to me that JE gets three guesses out of one statemetn in many cases, since he phrases his statements in a way that allows "interpretation" to resolve the details.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie
A specific falls...a generic falls....yes. But this?

I can't really think of an example where JE has taken a known and specific place (or even object) and used it to symbolize an emotional state like this. Can you?

Nope. Sounds like something that Ian Rowland, Michael Shermer or Mark Edward might say though. :D

And as we already stated somewhere in previous posts, in all the readings that we've seen, and there have been at least a couple hundred of them, we can't recall one other Niagara Falls reference, neither vague, nor specific.......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Loki

However, he does use specific books to indicate symbolic meanings - Neo talks about him using Daneille Steele books to indicate "time to move on", etc. Of course, if the sitter had just been reading that book it would (well, could) become a specific hit; and if she'd been reading some other Steele book it would be a general hit.

Books, and movies. Sometimes he uses the reference to convey an emotion, or an idea. Other times he is shown a certain movie so that he will bring it up to the sitter, because it had a special meaning for them.

For example, John asked one mom whose young daughter had come through, what significance the movie "The Secret Garden" may have had. As it turned out, the woman said that she used to lie with her daughter on the hospital bed, and watch that movie again and again. It was her daughter's favorite movie.

Another time John was reading a middle-aged woman and brought through a young man whom he said felt like a son figure to her. I believe he said that the spirit had taken responsibility for taking his own life, which the woman verified was true.

John told her that he kept getting images of the movie, "Dirty Dancing" and asked why that might be. The woman told him that she had rented it once and wanted this young friend to watch it with her, but he told her it was a "chick flick" or something and didn't want to. In any case, he finally did watch it with her just to make her happy, and in fact, liked it so much that he watched it more than once, and thanked her afterwards for insisting that he did.

John's readings are chock full of these sorts of meaningful hits. I find it impossible to discount them all as cold-reading and lucky guesses.......neo

[RC]

Originally posted by Clancie
A specific falls...a generic falls....yes. But this?

I can't really think of an example where JE has taken a known and specific place (or even object) and used it to symbolize an emotional state like this. Can you?

What about the infamous "green light" reference? JE apparently "see" a green light on a traffic signal and interprets it to mean that the sitter has the "green light" to remarry or find love again?

[RC]

Chiming in on the "AIDS" reference. George Anderson claims to see the word "AIDS" when bringing through someone who died of the disease. That is a lot more specific that getting a so-called "blood disorder" like "leukemia, AIDS, hepatitis" (JE's words, not mine). Also, JE has lumped in "overdose" with these "blood disorders", so it's not very specific, is it?

The medium I went to says that she gets AIDS by getting the feeling of someone who has had a long, drawn out illness (this is actually more accurate than saying it's a blood disorder). She said that it's similar to the feeling she gets of someone who died of cancer. Suzane Northrop also notes in her book "The Seance" that she gets AIDS and cancer the same way. At some point, I wonder if any of them are telling the truth.

[AlienX]

OK so JE is being shown symbols?

You would think over time this simple symbol system would at least evolve into something a bit more useful and reliable.
All we need are 26 "symbols" and were good to go with no pathetic interpretation.

The worst things which actually may sound silly but the really good hits simply reinforce the fact that he is cold reading.
If he can get such good specific hits then why is everything else so pathetic and vague. When taken in context across multiple readings his performance is simply dreadful. Yet as always these people focus on the hits out of context from the rest of the wild stabs in the dark (hoping for an impressive hit) if its a miss then he simply widens out the scope of his question, Lung Cancer - Cancer - a desease - before their time. Why not come from the other direction?

His readings make (ahem!) pathetic reading if he does what he says he can then he needs some proffesional help from a Cryptographer (woohoo! no pun intended - but quite a good one tho :-).

All he then needs to do is get a load of cryptographers (living) to try and contact some dead cryptographers (does cryptography run in families?) and bobs your uncle they can sort out a system that's a bit more useful.

AlienX

[GroundStrength]

He cold reads, then he cold reads some more. Finally, finishing up with some cold reading.

[jim_scotti]

Originally posted by AlienX
OK so JE is being shown symbols?

You would think over time this simple symbol system would at least evolve into something a bit more useful and reliable.
All we need are 26 "symbols" and were good to go with no pathetic interpretation.

The worst things which actually may sound silly but the really good hits simply reinforce the fact that he is cold reading.
If he can get such good specific hits then why is everything else so pathetic and vague. When taken in context across multiple readings his performance is simply dreadful.


I just love the way the spirits Edward communicates with can never be specific. It's always "I'm getting an R or a T.... Is there a Robert or a Tom or Tim in the audience?" How come they are never specific, like "This is for Tim Smith. Your Uncle Charlie wants me to ask you why you squandered the millions he left you on booze and women." :hit:

Jim.

[Clancie]

Posted by JimScotti

It's always "I'm getting an R or a T.... Is there a Robert or a Tom or Tim in the audience?"
Um, JimScotti, that wasn't really JE on "Saturday Night Live", you know that, right? :p

Anyone who watches CO would recognize he doesn't do what you describe above at all, much less "always".

[jim_scotti]

Originally posted by Clancie

Um, JimScotti, that wasn't really JE on "Saturday Night Live", you know that, right? :p

Anyone who watches CO would recognize he doesn't do what you describe above at all, much less "always".

The last time I watched CO, he was doing that. Admittedly, that was a few years ago, so maybe he's changed his MO a little.... None the less, he is usually vague while fishing for hits from his audience, that is, unless he's doing a warm reading based on his spying on the audience prior to the show....

Jim.

[tracer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
AIDS is not a "blood disorder":
Er ... well ... actually, it kinda-sorta is.

While most of the damage to the human immmune system caused by advanced HIV infection takes place in the lymphatic system, some of the leukocytes (white blood cells) will also die off.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie

Um, JimScotti, that wasn't really JE on "Saturday Night Live", you know that, right? :p

Too funny, Clancie!

:dl:

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

Um, JimScotti, that wasn't really JE on "Saturday Night Live", you know that, right? :p

Anyone who watches CO would recognize he doesn't do what you describe above at all, much less "always".

Yes, very witty. Incorrect, though, at least on LKL

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032
Excerpts-comments by JE unless otherwise indicated


big R-connection that comes up connected to you

Where does the Lewis or the Louis or the L-name?

where does the K-name like Karen come up?

There is a C or a K connection directly to you or to this family

And there's some type of connection to B. There's got to be like a Billy or a B in there.

There's a J or a G name that's connected to this also.

there's a J connection to one of them because I'm getting a J connection.

I'm getting an S name. Who's got the SH connection?

I do think that there is a Thomas or a t-connection that's going to be coming up around this in some way.

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.

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.

Is there a Jack or J connection to that?

But they're telling me to bring up the J or G name connected to your family. .{....}Like, somebody's name's, like, John or Jim, it's, like, a short J name. {....} And what's the J or G connection to him?

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

Where does the Cathy (ph), Catherine (ph), C or K name come in?

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.


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.


He wants me to acknowledge that either Charles or that there's a C -- C name that's connected to that family as well

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by tracer
Er ... well ... actually, it kinda-sorta is.

While most of the damage to the human immmune system caused by advanced HIV infection takes place in the lymphatic system, some of the leukocytes (white blood cells) will also die off.

That's like blaming car trouble on the tires.

AIDS is a immune system disease. Blood is a transport for white blood cells, they aren't created there. As a matter of fact, that's all blood is, a transport.

[AlienX]

Thanks for that Renata - it makes pretty dismal reading does it not when extracted from a set of multiple "readings".

When you consider how vague these questions are you have to seriously question when he does get a very specific hit as it's not the norm to be very specific at all.

It's pretty obvious he goes for the "impressive" hit right away but then hedges his bets before they answer by widening the scope. So if his first guess was right it looks very good, also watching for a reaction is useful as you widen the scope.

For me the evidence is pretty damning for cold reading, yet these people simply don't seem to see this at all.
If I was in the 100% belief category I would ignore these examples of blatant cold reading and focus on the odd good hits.

As far as i'm concerned a single case of proved cold reading proves he's a fraud. Here we have multiple examples?.

Don't bore us to references or transcripts of edited shows, the only thing that counts is live unedited stuff - any example of which i've seen so far is simply dreadful.

Despite this more to my shame i'm still a little bit open to the fact that he may do what he says he can - it's possible but looking at the evidence it's very unlikely. Some people are just not open to the possibility that he's a fraud.

AlienX

[voidx]

Quoted by Loki:
And not to harp on too much about this, but surely the most common, universal images shared by the "frames of reference" of the sitters, the spirits, JE, and the spirit guides, would be the 26 letters of the alphabet? What, "A" is too abstract to be shown?
Fine point. This has never been answered to my satisfaction either. Its fantastically convinient that they do not communicate symbolically this way either. You say its all based on JE's frame of reference. They can give him book titles. Then they can give him any damn word they want. Because JE would have a frame of reference for all common english words. Or at least some kind of sign/book/something/anything, so that specific worded messages could be brought across. Admit that its rather convinient that he only gets these strings of words in a message when something is symbolic, like using a book title, but never used to bring across the message, "Grandma cheated on me(grandpa)". If the spirit has all of JE's life as a frame of reference this message could be put across quite easily. I fail to see that we can assum this telepathic method is difficult for the medium. We don't even know how telepathy might work, or how we can prove that it might work. How can all you supporters assume this process of communication is difficult? Maybe its fantastically easy, but we don't know because we only have mediums words to take for it, and of course they want it to be difficult, it allows them to be more vague. Again, I fail to see how you cannot acknowledge this.

[neofight]

Originally posted by AlienX
Don't bore us to references or transcripts of edited shows, the only thing that counts is live unedited stuff - any example of which i've seen so far is simply dreadful.

Hi, AlienX. Why don't you try to catch JE at a seminar the next time he's in your area? Watching the readings live like that might just make you wonder even more. ;)


Some people are just not open to the possibility that he's a fraud.

Well, that's nothing that some good, solid and incontrovertible evidence wouldn't change, AX. :D .....neo

[voidx]

Posted by Neofight:
Hi, AlienX. Why don't you try to catch JE at a seminar the next time he's in your area? Watching the readings live like that might just make you wonder even more.
I think we need to clarify things a little more. Sure we have taped and edit shows, and live and unedited shows (such as LKL), but I think we also need to distinguish when a medium like JE is in an environment of his own control, such as a seminar or taped episode of his show, as opposed to an environment not of his own control such as live on LKL. Even in the seminar, if you want to argue it, he has control of the environment around him ahead of time and so it makes it much harder for the possibility of tampering to be removed, where when he's in a completely third party controlled environment like LKL this can be eliminated more decisively. The very process of walking into the seminar is to walk in on JE's terms. An example of not walking in on his terms would be to have a private reading at a choosing of my location, without JE being given any previous information about me, name, age, acquaintences etc. If one really wants to be objective here, this is really what would need to be done.

[neofight]

Originally posted by voidx
I think we need to clarify things a little more. Sure we have taped and edit shows, and live and unedited shows (such as LKL), but I think we also need to distinguish when a medium like JE is in an environment of his own control, such as a seminar or taped episode of his show,


Whoa! I can see how you might feel that JE has control over his gallery on "Crossing Over", voidx. That is a valid point. But to suggest that JE has any control whatsoever over a seminar audience such as the one that I attended in Philadelphia last Fall, with about 3,500 people, and general seating........sorry, but you are quite mistaken there. You couldn't find a more chaotic venue if you tried. Everyone there is anonymous to JE, so you'll have to do better than that. :rolleyes: .....neo

[renata]

Originally posted by neofight


Whoa! I can see how you might feel that JE has control over his gallery on "Crossing Over", voidx. That is a valid point. But to suggest that JE has any control whatsoever over a seminar audience such as the one that I attended in Philadelphia last Fall, with about 3,500 people, and general seating........sorry, but you are quite mistaken there. You couldn't find a more chaotic venue if you tried. Everyone there is anonymous to JE, so you'll have to do better than that. :rolleyes: .....neo

The problem is, pretty much any environment, even a seminar can be molded to one's advantage. Some of many possibilities include
1. Prior research based on credit card name and address info
2. Microphones or employees in the audience (a la Popoff)
3. Stooges in the audience he goes to when he needs a good hit

Even if none if that is true, pretty much every letter of the alphabet and mode of death is represented in such a large pool. Much easier than a one on one reading. In addition, I do not know if those seminars are taped, and if transcripts are available. If not, it might be difficult for any individual person to hear details of the readings or watch for the appropriate validations.

There is great potential for mischief there. There is great potential for mischief in the show. There is little potential for mischief on LKL, although it is possible some callers are also stooges. However, then LKL staff may be involved, and that is unlikely. I wonder if JE's staff has any say in screening the calls. I note that in one of the readings JE just read a person in the LKL studio, when phone readings were going poorly.

In any event, closing one's eyes to this potential is willfully naive. The fact is, the readings with least potential of cheating are LKL (by no means eliminated though) and they are horrid. There are simply no special hits, and adequate hits are few and far between. One has to wonder why they exist in seminars or CO and not LKL.


Sometimes I think some believers practice smorgasboard skepticism. Let me explain what I mean by that. I have a friend who has dated the same man probably 10 times. Well, they were different people, but exactly the same character. Every time she correctly identifies the character flaws, when relationship is over, and every time she cries, and every time she says she will watch for the signs in the future. But it is no use. All of us know immediately it is yet another incarnation when we meet the new guy. She gets disappointed in the individuals, not the process. She does not see the similarities, the need in herself to go to one after another.

Similarly, some believers go from medium to medium. Medium A turns out to be a fraud, so they turn to Medium B, who bears startling similararities to Medium A, but this time, they are convinced B is real. Then, a few months later, they figure Medium B is a fake, but this time, they got the real one- Medium C! No, this one is not like the others at all, it is the real thing! Six months later- C was a fraud after all, but D, D has gotta be real. Even though ABC &D all do the same shtick, only with some differences, and these mediums all swear up and down one is as genuine as the next and endorse each other. Once, just once I want my friend to stop dating the same man, and stop trying to fool herself that this one is different. I wish the same for the believers who engage in similar self deception. I wish they stop flitting from medium to medium, being progressively disappointed in each. I wish they examine and compare the whole process, the mediums to each other. Otherwise, there will be a lifetime of disappointments and new hopes that they found the new real thing.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Everyone there is anonymous to JE, so you'll have to do better than that. :rolleyes: .....neo

Do you completely rule out the possibility of JE having helpers listening in on the audience?

Do you completely rule out the possibility of "ringers"? It only takes a few hits out of many, many guesses to make people believe JE is a real medium.

Do you completely rule out the possibility of JE badgering the sitters so they validate something that isn't true? We have seen this happen on CO, so why not in a "chaotic" venue?

Do you completely rule out the possibility of sitters not telling the truth? We have seen believers invent hits for JE, so why not at a seminar?

And the most important: Do you have any data that JE doesn't do worse at the seminars than on CO?

[athon]

I've been a scientist long enough to know that all the subjective analysis in the world will yield few answers. We can debate anecdotes and the like until the cows come home - for all it's worth, we are relying on the most flawed tools we have: our own senses and our own logic.

So every time I see one of these debates, I usually scan through it quickly and move on. Until an objective analysis is done on JE's assumed 'talents', only opinions can be made.

I also write spec' fiction as a hobby. It doesn't pay the wages, but it does pass the time. One thing I've learned is that it is easy to make up science, but hard to make it plausible. And it also tells me something else: true science relies not on imagination, but on disappointment and the need to constantly ask 'why?'

Now, in my experience, the modus operandi touted by JE relies on a mix of clairsentience, clairvoyance and clairaudience, no? In other words, he sometimes 'feels emotions, hears sounds or sees images' that are related to the deceased.

My question is 'how'? I'll skip past the incredulous state, and go straight to the assumption that this ability exists. If it does, it has a nature, or it would not interact with our physical reality. If it has a nature, it must rely on physical laws. Nothing even hinting at such an ability - neither the existance of sentience after death nor the ability for a biological function to occur that can interact with a 'meta-physical' (for want of a better term) process.

In other words, until science can begin to describe the processes at work, or even hint at its existance, I'll believe in reality as it is presently described. This does not mean we stop searching - which believers are ready to do.

Athon

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

Similarly, some believers go from medium to medium. Medium A turns out to be a fraud, so they turn to Medium B, who bears startling similararities to Medium A, but this time, they are convinced B is real.

Then, a few months later, they figure Medium B is a fake, but this time, they got the real one- Medium C! No, this one is not like the others at all, it is the real thing! Six months later- C was a fraud after all, but D, D has gotta be real. Even though ABC &D all do the same shtick, only with some differences, and these mediums all swear up and down one is as genuine as the next and endorse each other.
Just curious, renata. Have you actually known --or even read about--people who really follow this pattern (with mediums? I know you're right that it happens with boyfriends/husbands :) )

I ask because in people I've talked with and books I've read about readings, I really haven't seen such a pattern. I have known very few people who "believed in this one, then found out that medium was a fraud" and went to someone else, then repeated that pattern over and over.

The two people I personally know (myself and RC) who questioned mediumship's authenticity, have had their doubts right along and take them to every reading. (I could add that Steve also seems to have done this, though I don't know him personally).

There are books by people who've sought out multiple mediums--but they follow the same questioning pattern the three of us do, too--lots of questions and doubts from the very beginning.

It's an ongoing search, imo, not "Yes, the real deal!" then "No, he's a fake. But this one is the real deal!" and on and on....

Steve and RC have been lucky enough to find mediums that seem quite likely genuine to them (Karen Lundegaard, Robin Winbow, and Camille Walsh). They may have doubts still--I don't know--but its not the process you described of finding a real one, then realizing he/she is a fake, and rushing on to another "real deal".

Have you really known people who did that with mediums? Say, "Yep, 100% real!....Oops, no he was a fake, but this one's real...Oh-oh, wrong again, but....."? :confused:

[voidx]

Originally posted by neofight

Whoa! I can see how you might feel that JE has control over his gallery on "Crossing Over", voidx. That is a valid point. But to suggest that JE has any control whatsoever over a seminar audience such as the one that I attended in Philadelphia last Fall, with about 3,500 people, and general seating........sorry, but you are quite mistaken there. You couldn't find a more chaotic venue if you tried. Everyone there is anonymous to JE, so you'll have to do better than that. .....neo
Good replies by Renata and Athon. Neo, the very fact that it is a chaotic venue precludes the idea that there is any semblance of control in that environment. Now you take that to be zero control for JE to to control the environment, but its also just as valid to say any controls on eliminating the possibility of tampering or cheating are also impossible within that environment. And again, isn't a cold-readers paradise a large seminar crowd? I know you don't believe JE to be a cold-reader, but you do have to acknowledge that if he is, this environment would be quite to his advantage.

Again I think we need to reiterate just how hard, and athon makes a good point, it is to make an objective judgement on these transcripts and readings and what have you. As I've stated many times, I think the basis that the sitter must validate the reading is kind of an essential flaw in this type of mediumship, its far to subjective.

[Clancie]

Telecharge says they do not give out credit card information, btw.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Telecharge says they do not give out credit card information, btw.

Officially, of course. Can you rule out the possibility of a mole? Someone working at Telecharge, making a note - just once in a while?

How do you think newspapers get a large part of their stories? From people contacting the reporters, and very often anonymously.

It is very naive to think that the credit card information cannot find its way back to JE. All it takes is one bad apple.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Officially, of course. Can you rule out the possibility of a mole? Someone working at Telecharge, making a note - just once in a while?
Well, if JE pays a mole at Telecharge to send him people's credit card information so he can research them ahead of time for his readings....then the very least he could do is have more of the (2000 to 3000-person) seminars with assigned seating!!!! :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, if JE pays a mole at Telecharge to send him people's credit card information so he can research them ahead of time for his readings....then the very least he could do is have more of the (2000 to 3000-person) seminars with assigned seating!!!! :rolleyes:

Why don't you just answer the question???

Can you rule out the possibility of a mole?

[voidx]

Telecharge says they do not give out credit card information, btw.
I feel this is deflecting the question a tad. Credit card information wouldn't be the easiest way to gain information. You've got a seminar crowd of 3000! You cannot deny that its entirely possible, with all those people milling around, and probably chatting back and forth, that data could not be procured before hand. JE doesn't have to know who it is, he just needs details, then he can toss them out and see who bites. Whether you think this happens or not, you cannot deny that the possiblity is there, and quite easily so. Again, this puts a rather large dent in just how objectively we can view these readings.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Why don't you just answer the question???

Can you rule out the possibility of a mole?
Claus,

You have the answer to that question, already. Don't you remember? Surely you do!!!

Its in the (inaccurately titled) "No General Seating at JE Seminars" thread.

Of course, you must think JE is a very stupid fraud to go to the trouble to do all that research ahead of time and then let all 2000-3000 people go ahead and sit wherever they want to.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

Just curious, renata. Have you actually known --or even read about--people who really follow this pattern (with mediums? I know you're right that it happens with boyfriends/husbands :) )

I ask because in people I've talked with and books I've read about readings, I really haven't seen such a pattern. I have known very few people who "believed in this one, then found out that medium was a fraud" and went to someone else, then repeated that pattern over and over.

...snip...

Have you really known people who did that with mediums? Say, "Yep, 100% real!....Oops, no he was a fake, but this one's real...Oh-oh, wrong again, but....."? :confused: [/B]

I know of a few people who have followed a very similar pattern to the one Renata describes. (I mention one of these people in an anecdote I've posted about one of my visits to a medium.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
You have the answer to that question, already. Don't you remember? Surely you do!!!

Its in the (inaccurately titled) "No General Seating at JE Seminars" thread.

Where?

Originally posted by Clancie
Of course, you must think JE is a very stupid fraud to go to the trouble to do all that research ahead of time and then let all 2000-3000 people go ahead and sit wherever they want to.

Ever heard of a private detective? Ever heard of scanning the crowd? Heck, even following the mark and pointing out to JE where she sits?

Is that possible, Clancie?

[Clancie]

Where?

I answered this on page 2 of the thread, 9th post down. And then, again, on page 4.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I answered this on page 2 of the thread, 9th post down. And then, again, on page 4.

Thank you.

Once again, you argue solely from the side of believers, leaving out explanations why JE could be fake.

[AlienX]

So Clancie do you think it is at all possible that JE is a fake?

AlienX

[Leroy]

Instead of focusing on the sarcastic posts, could you explain the process of JE?

Claus, she did ask for a source, can you provide one?

Claus, if after all the time I've already spent posting on the subject of the mediumship process, you still don't at least understand it in theory, then any additional time spent in an effort to enlighten you would surely be a further waste of my valuable time, which is precisely why I didn't bother to start this thread myself.

I am interested in the mediumship process. I can't even begin to understand how it is suppose to work.

AIDS is not a "blood disorder": This virus is passed from one person to another through blood-to-blood and sexual contact.

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

Drug overdose? Does John explain what this has to do with blood?

Using that criterion, committing suicide by slashing your wrists would be a "blood disorder".

It would cover quite a bit of territory.

[Leroy]

Do you agree that JE generalizes wildly? Which means that if he is a cold reader, his chances of a hit increases dramatically?

I would agree based on the few episodes I have watched.

How come he can get "wrong cigarettes in a coffin" but not a name of a disease?

Are you saying that he guessed correctly that someone put cigarettes in a coffin and guessed correctly that they were the wrong brand? hmm, interesting.

Does anyone here imagine the process, or at least part of the process, happening anything like the above?

It is hard to imagine the process at all, but I've read where other self-proclaimed mediums said this is how the process works.

Will you - or will you not - tell us how JE's process works? You refer to it frequently, so it would be nice if you would share your knowledge.

What would be better is to post what JE say's about it. I know that JE has mentioned his spirit guides helping do this, but whether or not that is true in every case, I don't know.....neo
Spirit guides :confused: What are spirit guides?

[Clancie]

Posted by AlienX

So Clancie do you think it is at all possible that JE is a fake?
Of course it's possible, AlienX. However, if he's not "the real deal", I do lean more toward "self deluded" than "intentionally fraudulent" though (just my personal choice, based on observing him. But, yes, I could possibly be wrong about that)..

Of course, there's nothing I know about JE that actually makes either of these impossible. I just haven't seen enough to make me feel either one is likely. ("Self deluded" doesn't account for some of the hits--even factoring in cold reading. "Fraudulent" would account for many of the "special hits", but not all, and doesn't jive with other aspects of the way he works, imo).

I consider all three explanations: real, self-deluded, and fraudulent, to be possibilities, yes.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
Claus, she did ask for a source, can you provide one?

She asked michaellee about his sources. Please ask michaellee that question.

Originally posted by Leroy
This virus is passed from one person to another through blood-to-blood and sexual contact.

Not necessarily. The HIV virus (you don't "get" AIDS, it develops when you are HIV positive) can also be transmitted through other means:

How HIV is Transmitted

HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person, by sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who is infected, or, less commonly (and now very rarely in countries where blood is screened for HIV antibodies), through transfusions of infected blood or blood clotting factors. Babies born to HIV-infected women may become infected before or during birth or through breast-feeding after birth.

In the health care setting, workers have been infected with HIV after being stuck with needles containing HIV-infected blood or, less frequently, after infected blood gets into a worker’s open cut or a mucous membrane (for example, the eyes or inside of the nose). There has been only one instance of patients being infected by a health care worker in the United States; this involved HIV transmission from one infected dentist to six patients. Investigations have been completed involving more than 22,000 patients of 63 HIV-infected physicians, surgeons, and dentists, and no other cases of this type of transmission have been identified in the United States.

Source: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/transmission.htm)

Originally posted by Leroy
Drug overdose? Does John explain what this has to do with blood?

Not that I can see.

[Leroy]

When John "sees" something, it is like a quick mental image that flashes quickly in his mind. And when he "hears" something, most always it is the same way in which we might "hear" our own thoughts. It is not usually a real voice, although on occasion he has gotten a thought that was so loud in his own head that he almost thought that it was truly audible.

How do you know this? Is this what he tells in his book?And not to harp on too much about this, but surely the most common, universal images shared by the "frames of reference" of the sitters, the spirits, JE, and the spirit guides, would be the 26 letters of the alphabet? What, "A" is too abstract to be shown?

You bring up an interesting point Loki, why don't these spirits spell it out for him?

Give me an "F"
give me an "I"
give me an "S"
give me an "H"
give me a "Y"

Sorry, I couldn't resist :wink:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Of course it's possible, AlienX. However, if he's not "the real deal", I do lean more toward "self deluded" than "intentionally fraudulent" though (just my personal choice, based on observing him. But, yes, I could possibly be wrong about that)..

Do you feel like explaining why you have changed your attitude about this? Before, you considered it impossible that JE was a crook.

What has made you realize that JE can, in fact, be a crook?

Originally posted by Clancie
Of course, there's nothing I know about JE that actually makes either of these impossible. I just haven't seen enough to make me feel either one is likely. ("Self deluded" doesn't account for some of the hits--even factoring in cold reading. "Fraudulent" would account for many of the "special hits", but not all, and doesn't jive with other aspects of the way he works, imo).

You are very welcome to post those hits that have persuaded you.

Whoa...wait...you did. And that turned out a bit different than you expected. Do you have, say, five All-Time-Smashing hits that we can discuss?

Originally posted by Clancie
I consider all three explanations: real, self-deluded, and fraudulent, to be possibilities, yes.

Your actions belie this. You never argue that JE can be anything else but real. You consistently leave out any explanations that he could be fake. And you ignore, downplay or (try to!) explain away those explanations.

[Leroy]

What I want to know is how anyone can take the show or what John writes, at his word. We are all aware of how editing can make things seem what they are not. Look at the magician who made a jet disappear right in front of our eyes, on tv, that is.

Even if something appears to be a hit, like guessing that someone put a pack of cigarettes in a coffin, and it was the wrong brand, how do we know, without being there and seeing/hearing first hand, what was said prior to that? Perhaps the information was fished from the sitter and we didn't see that part.

I can write a book myself and claim to have super human powers, but that does not mean I really have them.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Before, you considered it impossible that JE was a crook.
Don't lie, Claus. It's ugly.

What did I actually say when the possibility JE was fraudulent was discussed at TVTalk? (I even started a thread about it--and one for the possibility he was self deluded).

Spreading lies is not nice, Claus. tsk, tsk. :rolleyes:

[Leroy]

What about the infamous "green light" reference? JE apparently "see" a green light on a traffic signal and interprets it to mean that the sitter has the "green light" to remarry or find love again?

Finally, reference to an episode I actually saw! Correct me if I am wrong RC, but didn't he ask her prior if she was planning on remarrying, she said "NO" He told her the green light meant that her husband approved of her relationship with someone else, but she stated that she wasn't in a relationship.

I could be wrong, but it seems like the reading was a total flop.

The only thing I will give John is that there have been people who made something fit, for instance he would say that there was a "R" or "Rachel" and the sitter would say "Rochester!" and John would not accept it. If It were me, I'd say "YEP, that's what I meant!" :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Don't lie, Claus. It's ugly.

What did I actually say when the possibility JE was fraudulent was discussed at TVTalk? (I even started a thread about it--and one for the possibility he was self deluded).

Spreading lies is not nice, Claus. tsk, tsk. :rolleyes:

As usual, I back up my claims with evidence:

Thread: "Skeptic or Believer?"
August 06, 2002 01:43 AM
-------------------- -------------
Mel: "I'd say that in BOTH examples you posed the door has been left open to include the possibilty that JE might ~NOT~ be the real deal, but you both believe it IS possible to contact the dead."

G2 (Clancie): True, I guess, since "worst case scenario" (to me) is that JE is self-deluded. But, if that's the case, I can't explain how he gets many of his hits. But not really believing in the afterlife is still the real stumbling block for me regarding ADC. It now SEEMS likely, but its still very difficult to accept.
-------------------- -------------

"Worst case scenario" - your words - to you would be that JE is self-deluded.

Right?

Not even if JE is self-deluded can you explain how he gets many of his hits.

Right?

"Worst case scenario" usually means "nothing else worse than that", leaving no other option for badder thingies. "No other option" usually means "absolutely no chance".

A "worst case scenario" is the bottom of the barrel. The end of the line. Nothing worse than that. Pretty final. Nothing after this. Last station, everybody off.

Right?

To you, there is no chance that JE could be cheating, even if he was shown such. And even if he was, you STILL wouldn't be able to explain some of his hits. And you would (probably) still believe in an afterlife.

Right?

When I posted this on TVTalkshows, you never replied. You just ignored it. As usual.

I think an apology is in order, Clancie. You accused me of lying. I did not.

I am waiting.

[Leroy]

Do you completely rule out the possibility of sitters not telling the truth? We have seen believers invent hits for JE, so why not at a seminar?

I admit that I haven't seen the show for a time, but if my memory is correct I recall many a sitter trying desperately to make things fit.

One more point I will give John is that I noticed he didn't throw things out to an entire audience and let someone grab it, he usually narrowed it down to a few people in one area. He would point to a right hand corner and say that it was for one of those. I found that interesting.

[Leroy]

JE doesn't have to know who it is, he just needs details, then he can toss them out and see who bites.

As I mentioned above, I've not seen JE do this. He will narrow it down to one corner or section of an audience, and I have seen where someone on the other side of the room tried to claim the information and John said it was not for them.

Claus, you asked where Clancie answered the question, careful bud, I just might cut and past your so called answers to Lurkers questions here and see if you can show us where the actual answer is that you claimed to have given :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
One more point I will give John is that I noticed he didn't throw things out to an entire audience and let someone grab it, he usually narrowed it down to a few people in one area. He would point to a right hand corner and say that it was for one of those. I found that interesting.

However, he has been known to throw out a question to the entire audience at the seminars. That he might not do that (I don't know if he has done that at CO, I haven't watched all the shows) at CO, speaks very much in favor of JE having prior knowledge about the audience, especially since we know how the audience is seated.

We know that the audience is seated at CO in groups/sections. JE asks a section.

We know that the audience is not seated at the seminars. JE asks the whole audience.

It doesn't take a genius to see what is going on.

[Clancie]

Claus,

You have Not showed where I say that "JE is fraudulent" is impossible, which is what you're claiming that I think.

I'm waiting for my apology, Claus.

(And, of course...waiting....and waiting....)

[Leroy]

Of course it's possible, AlienX. However, if he's not "the real deal", I do lean more toward "self deluded" than "intentionally fraudulent" though (just my personal choice, based on observing him. But, yes, I could possibly be wrong about that)..

I don't think he is self deluded at all. I think he is well educated and knows exactly what he is doing.

She asked michaellee about his sources. Please ask michaellee that question.

Sorry Claus, my mistake

[Leroy]

As usual, I back up my claims with evidence: :roll:


As clancie said Claus, it isn't nice to lie. Not only do you NOT back them up with evidence, you also fail to answer questions appropriately. Your answer to Lurkers 3 questions was

"VOID" "VOID" "VOID" when they should have been "YES" or "NO" answers. You are good at squirming your way OUT of answering questions and backing up your claims, I will give you that :roll:

You claimed that Clancie considered it impossible that JE was a crook.

Your evidence for that claim does NOT show Clancie stating that. It shows that she has DOUBT, but not that she considered it IMPOSSIBLE.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,

You have Not showed where I say that "JE is fraudulent" is impossible, which is what you're claiming that I think.

I'm waiting for my apology, Claus.

(And, of course...waiting....and waiting....)

Clancie,

OK, two possibilites exist now:
[list=a]
You don't consider the possibility that JE is a crook worse than the possibility that JE is self-deluded.
In which case I am wrong, and you are seriously f*cked up.

You believe that there is something "worse" than "worst", which would redefine a very common English word as well as demolishing the structure of one of the most spoken languages in the world.
In which case I am wrong, and you have a serious credibility problem.
[/list=a]
Which is it, Clancie? a or b?

Or perhaps neither? Perhaps I am actually right? That you have indeed stated that the "worst case scenario" (to me) is that JE is self-deluded."

How else can one interpret that as you cannot possibly imagine JE being a crook??

[voidx]

Posted by Leroy:
The only thing I will give John is that there have been people who made something fit, for instance he would say that there was a "R" or "Rachel" and the sitter would say "Rochester!" and John would not accept it. If It were me, I'd say "YEP, that's what I meant!"
People mention this all the time. In my opinion its one of the smarter things JE does. Of course he doesn't take that hit, its way to obvious the sitter is making a miss fit. He passes on it so no one can accuse him of completely obvious cold-reading. He's not stupid, I'll give him that.

Posted by Leroy:
As I mentioned above, I've not seen JE do this. He will narrow it down to one corner or section of an audience, and I have seen where someone on the other side of the room tried to claim the information and John said it was not for them.
But you have, you just said he tosses the question out to sections of the audience. This is sort of nitpicking. I haven't seem him toss it out to the whole crowd, but I have seen him toss it out to a specific section...well their still pretty much the same thing. And during a seminar, his "sections" are just that much larger. Sure people try and claim them, but he's done it long enough that I'm sure he's good at spotting someone going out of their way to make his guess fit. He wants someone who more authentically think it fits for them, it gives him more potential for a good reading.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by voidx
He wants someone who more authentically think it fits for them, it gives him more potential for a good reading.

Exactly! He knows that he doesn't need a long list of mediocre hits, but only a very short list of impressive ones - if taken at face value and a blind acceptance that his word is final.

He's got everything working for him: Gullible believers who even invent hits for him, and will ignore anything that indicates that he is not a real medium.

Man, I'm in the wrong business....!

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by neofight
Well, that's nothing that some good, solid and incontrovertible evidence wouldn't change, AX. :D .....neo

Ahhh... The old "prove a negative" bit?

Fine. Here's your logic back atcha. Prove JE is not a fraud. Be sure to provide some good, solid and incontrovertible evidence of that while you're at it.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Hazelip


Ahhh... The old "prove a negative" bit?

Fine. Here's your logic back atcha. Prove JE is not a fraud. Be sure to provide some good, solid and incontrovertible evidence of that while you're at it.

Well, Hazelip, since this kind of bickering only leads to a stalemate, let's take a different tack, shall we?

It would not take all that much, actuallly, to convince me that JE might just be a fake. We've been down this road before, so my apologies to those who've heard it too many times, but if you'd like to prove to me that JE is not just cold-reading, you guys have to stop with the excuses already, and go out and find a mentalist who can do the same thing that JE does, as well as he does it.

Simple enough? One would think so, anyhow. That would do it for me, Hazelip. And for Clancie as well, I'd venture to say. How can you not accept this challenge? :confused: How can the whole skeptical community fail to pick up this gauntlet? :D .....neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
We've been down this road before, so my apologies to those who've heard it too many times, but if you'd like to prove to me that JE is not just cold-reading, you guys have to stop with the excuses already, and go out and find a mentalist who can do the same thing that JE does, as well as he does it.

I will post Neil's cold reading tomorrow, and then, you will - as you just promised - go through it and explain why that isn't similar to what JE does.

Originally posted by neofight
How can you not accept this challenge? :confused: How can the whole skeptical community fail to pick up this gauntlet? :D .....neo

It's been picked up before, but you were apparently too busy. Now, you have to pay attention.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I will post Neil's cold reading tomorrow, and then, you will - as you just promised - go through it and explain why that isn't similar to what JE does.

Claus, that would be interesting, but if it's the same one he posted last year, with the references to border collies, Harley-Davidsons, free spirits, lost wedding ring, childhood sickness and dinner with uncle at an Italian restaurant or some such thing, we've already been there, done that. Perhaps it might be fun to post that tvtalkshows thread over here though, just to re-read all the posts. It was an excellent thread with great comments. :) .....neo

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Leroy



The only thing I will give John is that there have been people who made something fit, for instance he would say that there was a "R" or "Rachel" and the sitter would say "Rochester!" and John would not accept it. If It were me, I'd say "YEP, that's what I meant!" :D

Hi, Leroy! In my opinion, this rejection of an easy hit by JE is one of the smartest things he does. Obviously, he gets high marks for showmanship, based on this ploy alone. However, by rejecting the easy hit, everyone else in the audience starts calling out their validations.

If JE accepted the easy hit, he would be missing the opportunity to gather lots of information from other people yet to be read. He later returns to these people and reads them, using the information that they previously called out. At the seminar I attended at Westbury last year, of the few hits he got, many were obtained in this way. While the show is going on, no one seems to notice what he is doing. Later, in the editing session, the parts of the show where the audience is calling info out to him is edited out.

JE isn't doing readings at all. He is doing interrogations, and then feeding the info back to the audience. I maintain that if JE merely accepted all validations, he would deprive himself of an important source of information that he gleans from massive audience feedback from specific sections of the room.

JE is an expert at fast-talking and working a crowd. Most people are so caught up in the excitement of his act, and they just don't notice the obvious.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Hi, Leroy! In my opinion, this rejection of an easy hit by JE is one of the smartest things he does. Obviously, he gets high marks for showmanship, based on this ploy alone. However, by rejecting the easy hit, everyone else in the audience starts calling out their validations.

If JE accepted the easy hit, he would be missing the opportunity to gather lots of information from other people yet to be read. He later returns to these people and reads them, using the information that they previously called out. At the seminar I attended at Westbury last year, of the few hits he got, many were obtained in this way. While the show is going on, no one seems to notice what he is doing. Later, in the editing session, the parts of the show where the audience is calling info out to him is edited out.

Say what? OMG!

:hb: :jaw: :crazy: :con2: :rolleyes:

I'm biting my tongue, Instig8R! :cool: .....neo

[Instig8R]

neo, I have one word for you: Collage!!!

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R
neo, I have one word for you: Collage!!!

What did you say, Instig8R? You liked my collage? Thanks! :D .....neo

:hb: :jaw: :crazy: :con2: :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, that would be interesting, but if it's the same one he posted last year, with the references to border collies, Harley-Davidsons, free spirits, lost wedding ring, childhood sickness and dinner with uncle at an Italian restaurant or some such thing, we've already been there, done that. Perhaps it might be fun to post that tvtalkshows thread over here though, just to re-read all the posts. It was an excellent thread with great comments. :) .....neo

You say that no mentalist can do what JE does.

Then, when I ask you to comment on a transcript that does just that, you back down.

You do this a lot. It seems that you are all talk, neo.

[athon]

I reiterate what I said before:

There are two ways to interpret reality

1) - through viewing and describing with an unbiased language (i.e., mathematics and the scientific method) events of nature, testing for all possible causes, and declaring anything that happens to lay outside of such events as speculative - i.e., not belonging to nature as we see it.

2) - speculating all the possibilities, holding that all are true until science deems otherwise.

In other words, science has no maybes. If the method has been applied, and a theory accumulates evidence that is objective enough, then it becomes reality.

I have not seen anything so far that can be called unbiased, objective evidence in regards to JE. Therefore, his processes are not, in my mind, valid or part of nature. Until it is easier to explain his skills in terms of physics, biology and chemistry than it is in terms of social behaviour and psychology, JE will as far as science is concerned a fraud.

Athon

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


What did you say, Instig8R? You liked my collage? Thanks! :D .....neo

:hb: :jaw: :crazy: :con2: :rolleyes:

Neo, here is what you wrote about the "Malibu Shrimp" reading over at TVTalk last June, before it was rearranged, made into collages, and otherwise EDITED for television:

(neo): "The reading began, as you stated, with John being shown his memory of when a woman he worked with brought in a special crumbcake which she claimed to be the best crumbcake he will ever have tasted. Pre-tasting, John replied that Entenmann's was without a doubt, the best crumbcake he had ever tasted. Well, post-tasting, he agreed that his co-worker was right, and he humbly asked her for the recipe, which she refused to give him, stating that it was a secret recipe that she would not share. He offered her money. He even offered to give her a reading. She wasn't interested.

So that brings us to why he knew to reference a very special secret recipe to this sitter. She acknowledged that she and this other woman (deceased) came up with this secret recipe. A hit. But then you could actually see the moment when John was being let in on another secret, which he immediately passed on to the sitter. He said that "she is telling me that's not true", or words to that effect, and that in fact, their secret recipe was based somehow on her mother's recipe, that it was not ALL their own. The woman was in no hurry to validate this fact, and actually denied it at first. That's when John did his Perry Mason impersonation, and got her to admit that what he said was true.

I freely admit that I was, indeed, one of the believers who applauded this whole thing, and thought that the reading was an exceptional one. I never got the impression that the woman was agreeing to a lie, just to get JE off her case. I think that's ludicrous. Either he was right, or he was wrong. I put my money on his being right. In fact, aside from the fact that I'm sure JE did the courtroom tactic to make the reading more entertaining, I also think it was a way to allow her a simple yes or no answer and move on. Fortunately, this seminar was taped for future airing, so it is my hope that this woman stayed around after the audience left to tape the post-reading analysis. In that case, we will all get to hear her reactions to the reading and any further details she might care to offer.......neo"


If you check the transcript, you will see that there's no mention of Entenmann's. In addition, the "stolen" recipe was the focal point of the reading at the seminar, as borne out by your own reaction. However, thanks to the editing process, the focus of the reading shifted to accommodate the fact that Deborah and her friend used dirty clams in their recipe, and that was the secret. This is revealed in the post-reading segment.

If this reading was any more highly edited, it would have resembled cole slaw.

[Instig8R]

Here is the link to the actual EDITED transcript:

"Malibu Shrimp" - seminar transcript (http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=23967)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Leroy
This virus is passed from one person to another through blood-to-blood and sexual contact.

Claus, I can understand this one.
LeRoy,

I can also understand this one. I understand it as medically wrong. I understand the hepatitus = "blood disorder" claim as medically wrong. I understand these and the inclusion of "drug overdose" as complete weaselling. And a priori weaselling at that!

It looks like JE is reaching back to Edgar Cayce's playbook in mixing medical with quasi-medical with a-word-means-what-I-want-it-to-nothing-more-nothing-less terminology.

Do you understand, LeRoy, that HIV, hepatitus and drug overdoses are not blood disorders?

Cheers,

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

Just curious, renata. Have you actually known --or even read about--people who really follow this pattern (with mediums? I know you're right that it happens with boyfriends/husbands :) )


Yes, of course- why would I have said so if I had not known those people personally. Obviously, my comments were simplified, but I know people who go from belief to disappointment in medium after medium and do not seem to note or be able to explain the similarities between the current "real thing" and the previous" obvious fraud". I also know people who go through other paranormal fads, get disappointed and go to the next one- crystals, homeopathy, iriodilogy, etc. Those people, just like the hapless women who go from same man to same man are unable to examine core beliefs about the new fad, or the new medium and have to be burned again and again.

My comment, however, was merely an aside, and I had hoped the substance of that post and my previous post where I provided quotes of JE throwing out initials, just like on SNL.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by neofight
Well, Hazelip, since this kind of bickering only leads to a stalemate, let's take a different tack, shall we?

It would not take all that much, actuallly, to convince me that JE might just be a fake. We've been down this road before, so my apologies to those who've heard it too many times, but if you'd like to prove to me that JE is not just cold-reading, you guys have to stop with the excuses already, and go out and find a mentalist who can do the same thing that JE does, as well as he does it.

Simple enough? One would think so, anyhow. That would do it for me, Hazelip. And for Clancie as well, I'd venture to say. How can you not accept this challenge? :confused: How can the whole skeptical community fail to pick up this gauntlet? :D .....neo

That would not prove JE a fraud. That would merely prove my skills in locating an accomplished cold reader.

JE is making the claim that he can communicate with the dead. JE has the burden of proof.

You're just flat-out wrong.

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

Yes, of course- why would I have said so if I had not known those people personally. Obviously, my comments were simplified, but I know people who go from belief to disappointment in medium after medium and do not seem to note or be able to explain the similarities between the current "real thing" and the previous" obvious fraud".
Well, the reason I asked is because I'm interested in how these sitters (not just one person, but several) would be able to go from "belief" to "obvious fraud" about mediums, and then repeat that pattern again.

After all, it doesn't sound like the mediums in question have admitted being frauds. So, somehow, these sitters were initially convinced by them, believed their sitting was "the real thing", then reversed themselves and decided instead later on that it was "obvious fraud". And yet they went on tol repeat the process again with other mediums.

Since some critics of mediumship want to have this outcome with believers and often find it very difficult to achieve, I think its an interesting question. What made the believers you know initially believe in their readings and then later on reject those mediums as fraudulent?

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, the reason I asked is because I'm interested in how these sitters (not just one person, but several) would be able to go from "belief" to "obvious fraud" about mediums, and then repeat that pattern again.

After all, it doesn't sound like the mediums in question have admitted being frauds. So, somehow, these sitters were initially convinced by them, believed their sitting was "the real thing", then reversed themselves and decided instead later on that it was "obvious fraud". And yet they went on tol repeat the process again with other mediums.

Since some critics of mediumship want to have this outcome with believers and often find it very difficult to achieve, I think its an interesting question. What made the believers you know initially believe in their readings and then later on reject those mediums as fraudulent?

Yes, I know several people like that. In one instance, a woman, a friend of the family lost her 12 year old boy, her only child. She was not happy in her life and decided to have the child in her late thirties, not married. That was in USSR, where single mothers are not encouraged. She took him to a beach by a river in our town, and he drowned. That was about eight years ago. As you can imagine, the feelings of loss and guilt were tremendous. When she moved to USA, about 5 years ago, she settled in NY. She went to a psychic, with hopes of contacting her son, and the psychic was able to get that she was not married and lost a child. She went several times, and paid progressively more money, as the psychic passed on forgiveness from beyond. She tried to communicate with her son, and, as she tells it, at one point the psychic made a big miss- I do not know the nature of it. At that time she decided the psychic was a fake and was devastated- she thought all the connection was wrong, and she never connected with the boy. At that time, someone n her building recommended a second psychic. This time, the psychic got major things right, and the woman decided she was the real thing. She would see her regularly, and once again get forgiveness. She was so happy, she shared the news with everyone- including my family. It was as if her boy was still alive, she said Leva told me this, and he remembered when we did that. And one day she saw the psychic in a cafe with the neighbor who recommended her, and thought perhaps some information went that way. So she stopped sharing details of her past with the neighbor, and the psychic's magical memories dried up. Fraud 2, she decided. By this time she spent a lot of money. This time she was really, really devastated (speaking of what harm does it do?). She is currently on a medium 3. So far she thinks he is genuine.

There are other people, but I think this is a most stark example.


I do not know what it is in a believer's mentality that causes this pattern, just as I do not know what it is in a woman's mentality who picks the same type of man. In this case, this woman is desperately sad and alone, and she was never able to move on. Whenever I see her when I go to NY, she talks of her boy- I used to babysit him. She never recovered from his death, and she does not have a support system. I assume feelings of guilt and need made her more vulnerable to frauds. But she is not unintelligent, and misses and strange sitations alarm her. But the disappointment that frauds exist does not make her reevaluate mediumship altogether, instead she writes it off.




I am not sure why that pattern is surprising to you. Users on this very board indicated they believe some mediums are real, while some are frauds, and they do not reconcile the fact that
a. To skeptics the shticks are similar
b. The "genuine"mediums seem to endorse the potentially "fake" mediums, and they learn from each other. I have yet to see a famous medium condemn another famous medium. Their scorn seems to be limited to 900 numbers.
c. There have been no people coming forward from crews of mediums some consider fake admitting to fraud.


So whereas not everyone is as vulnerable and taken advantage of as my family friend, there are similar inconsistencies in other believers. I am sure that itself is not unfamiliar to you.


Edited to add
I know Clancie and RC believe some mediums do cold reading, are frauds. I cannot recall the names of the people they think are frauds. If they are frauds, they are doing harm. If they are frauds, then "genuine" mediums should know they are frauds. Why don't the genuine mediums speak up against them? Doctors speak up against fraudulent doctors, because lives are at stake. Lawyers report incompetent or unethical lawyers to the bar, because bad lawyers hurt their profession and hurt clients. Why don't mediums expose bad mediums? If they know isn't it their obligation, to save people from being bilked out of money? And if they can't tell who is genuine or who is not, then who can tell? Shouldn't the professionals know?

You see, someone who claims to be a soldier can spin stories to me, and I might believe them- I was never in the army. But if he tries that with Doubt, or Luke or Hal, who were all in the military, they can expose them. Someone can tell me they are fron London and entertain me with hundreds of stories about England, and I would not know they were lying, as I have never been there. But Darat or Soubrette will immediately expose the fraud. But nobody can pretend to be from USSR and fool me. We all have our expertise areas, we all know some things and don't know others. Shouldn't mediums, of all people know who the frauds are?

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You say that no mentalist can do what JE does.

Then, when I ask you to comment on a transcript that does just that, you back down.

You do this a lot. It seems that you are all talk, neo.

Claus, I'm confused. :confused: You didn't answer my question. Is this a different transcript by Neil? (budddyh) or is this the one that we already commented on?.....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by athon

In other words, science has no maybes. If the method has been applied, and a theory accumulates evidence that is objective enough, then it becomes reality.

Well, if mediumship is indeed real, athon, then it is by definition.....reality. It might be reality that is not acknowledged by some, but it would be reality nonetheless.

I have not seen anything so far that can be called unbiased, objective evidence in regards to JE. Therefore, his processes are not, in my mind, valid or part of nature. Until it is easier to explain his skills in terms of physics, biology and chemistry than it is in terms of social behaviour and psychology, JE will as far as science is concerned a fraud.

Hmmm. That still seems like too harsh a word, when fraud has never been proven. Call me crazy! They do anyhow! :D .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R
If you check the transcript, you will see that there's no mention of Entenmann's. In addition, the "stolen" recipe was the focal point of the reading at the seminar, as borne out by your own reaction. However, thanks to the editing process, the focus of the reading shifted to accommodate the fact that Deborah and her friend used dirty clams in their recipe, and that was the secret. This is revealed in the post-reading segment.

If this reading was any more highly edited, it would have resembled cole slaw.

LOL Instig8R. I hope that I will somehow be inspired to find the right words to respond to your post, because I don't want you to think that I do not "get" the points that you make about editing. I do get them. I'm not that sure, however, that you get my counterpoints.

Now, do I agree with you that the mention of Entenmann's was edited out of the televised reading? Of course I do. What I do not agree with you about, is your contention that the editing out of JE's "Entenmann's" story somehow changes the fact that this was an excellent reading, and that Deborah got plenty of personal validations that her close friend, Helen, came through for her.

The story that JE told about the cake, was a memory that he was being shown, and it was shown to him by Helen, so that he would come out with the words, "secret recipe". THAT is the bottom line. He knew that the spirit that was coming through and the sitter that was supposed to hear from her, shared some experience that had to do with a "secret recipe", so that is what she used to get JE to come to her. And it worked! :)

Now YOU can get all hung up on the fact that the reason JE thought the recipe was secret, was not, in fact, the real reason why it was a secret, but when you do that, you end up missing the whole point. Only Deborah and Helen knew WHY it was a secret. JE wasn't away on vacation with them, was he???

So as it happened, he was off on the reason it was secret, but he was spot on[ with regard to the fact that there WAS a secret recipe, and it had a special meaning for these two friends. That, my friend, 'g8R, is what the readings are all about. Not how or why JE doesn't get every single freakin' nuance of every single stinkin' detail. :D

As for why they edited out that whole long, rather entertaining story that John told us, to lead into this reading, they edited it out because it was not relevant to anything! How was that important to Deborah's reading? Answer? It wasn't!

Now I understand that since you truly believe that JE is nothing less than the devil incarnate, you must attribute the very worst possible and sleazy intentions to this edit. But that's because, as I say, you can't stand the man, and you have the need to play "gotcha". In truth, this stuff is soooo not important.

But you're so caught up in that mindset, that you don't even see what a meaningful experience that was for this woman. There was a lot of good information that came through, that she understood immediately, Instig8R. You witnessed mediumship, but you believe you saw cold-reading, and later, dishonest editing.

And that's the way it is. We were both there. We both saw the same exact event. But we both could not possibly be any further apart in what we make of the whole thing. And there you go. You and I. Skeptic and believer. We are a microcosm of this, and other, JE boards. lol Everything you are thinking about me right now, my friend, I am thinking the same about you! lol

Un-freakin'-believable! :c2: .....neo

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by neofight


Well, if mediumship is indeed real, athon, then it is by definition.....reality. It might be reality that is not acknowledged by some, but it would be reality nonetheless.It is yet proven to be real, neo. Gravity is real, it's proven and scientific. Telekinesis, telepathy, mediumship is not.

Hmmm. That still seems like too harsh a word, when fraud has never been proven. Call me crazy! They do anyhow! :D .....neo Fraud does not need to be proven when cold reading is so obvious. And John Edward is the king of cold reading.

I would like to attach this from Renata, because it is an interesting observation:

If they are frauds, they are doing harm. If they are frauds, then "genuine" mediums should know they are frauds. Why don't the genuine mediums speak up against them? Doctors speak up against fraudulent doctors, because lives are at stake. Lawyers report incompetent or unethical lawyers to the bar, because bad lawyers hurt their profession and hurt clients. Why don't mediums expose bad mediums? If they know isn't it their obligation, to save people from being bilked out of money? And if they can't tell who is genuine or who is not, then who can tell? Shouldn't the professionals know?

[neofight]

Originally posted by Hazelip


That would not prove JE a fraud. That would merely prove my skills in locating an accomplished cold reader.

LOL Hazelip. It wouldn't matter. It's not as easy as you'd like to think. Tell you what! You find someone who can do what JE does, and I'll stop believing. That's a promise! :D

JE is making the claim that he can communicate with the dead. JE has the burden of proof.

Well, that would seem to hinge entirely upon what is more important in JE's mind. Doing the work he loves, and helping people move through their grief and making them understand that our consciousness lives on? Love is forever? Or jumping through hoops to try to get a bunch of his hard-core critics to believe in him? :rolleyes:

You're just flat-out wrong.

Right back atcha, Hazelip! :p ......neo

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight

Well, that would seem to hinge entirely upon what is more important in JE's mind. Doing the work he loves, and helping people move through their grief and making them understand that our consciousness lives on? Love is forever?

Yes, well, one would think that if the above was truly important to JE, then he would allow sitters to make tapes of their experiences during private readings so that they can go back and relive that experience over and over, especially during times of particularly intense grief or when hope starts to fade.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by neofight


LOL Hazelip. It wouldn't matter. It's not as easy as you'd like to think. Tell you what! You find someone who can do what JE does, and I'll stop believing. That's a promise! :DMany, many people do exactly what John Edward does. Some of them are magicians and tell viewers just that. Others don't.

JE is making the claim that he can communicate with the dead. JE has the burden of proof.

Response: Well, that would seem to hinge entirely upon what is more important in JE's mind. Doing the work he loves, and helping people move through their grief and making them understand that our consciousness lives on? Love is forever? Or jumping through hoops to try to get a bunch of his hard-core critics to believe in him? :rolleyes:

You are either being naive or else you have some kind of agenda.

What JE does is exactly what people who want to make a buck or two have been doing for centuries: make money off of other people. If that means invoking their dead uncle, or grandfather, or what the hell ever, they will do it. The fact that you cannot see that is proof that they will continue to do it, year after year, decade after decade.

Oh by the way, I was in touch with your maternal grandmother. She told me to tell you she's very happy and not to worry about your job. Never mind about the gossip, you'll go far eventually.

[neofight]

Originally posted by buki
It is yet proven to be real, neo. Gravity is real, it's proven and scientific. Telekinesis, telepathy, mediumship is not.

So what you are saying, buki, it that before Sir Isaac Newton began pondering the apple falling from the apple tree, gravity did not exist? :eek: Tell me you are not saying that! ;)

Fraud does not need to be proven when cold reading is so obvious. And John Edward is the king of cold reading.

Oh, I see. It's a case of...."Because I say so, that's why! Okay."


I would like to attach this from Renata, because it is an interesting observation:

If they are frauds, they are doing harm. If they are frauds, then "genuine" mediums should know they are frauds. Why don't the genuine mediums speak up against them? Doctors speak up against fraudulent doctors, because lives are at stake. Lawyers report incompetent or unethical lawyers to the bar, because bad lawyers hurt their profession and hurt clients. Why don't mediums expose bad mediums? If they know isn't it their obligation, to save people from being bilked out of money? And if they can't tell who is genuine or who is not, then who can tell? Shouldn't the professionals know?

Yes, buki. It's an interesting observation, and one which comes up from time to time, along with why doesn't JE devote his free time to getting himself scientifically tested, and why doesn't JE find all the missing children, and why doesn't JE go claim Randi's cool million. So we'll add this one to the list, okay?

If JE had to go around trying to please all the demands that you guys would put upon him, he would have precious little time to be doing anything else but.

So why not, instead of planning JE's life for him, and coming up with all these humanitarian projects for JE, why doesn't everyone just go volunteer somewhere at a shelter or a soup-kitchen somewhere, and not worry so much about what JE should be doing with his life. :confused: Personal responsibility folks! What a concept!

Besides, JE has spoken out many times about these fakes who are less than honest and who bilk the public. He has given enough pointers on what you should look for in a medium and in what type of information one should expect them to bring through that should allow an intelligent person to be discerning in their choice of medium....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC


Yes, well, one would think that if the above was truly important to JE, then he would allow sitters to make tapes of their experiences during private readings so that they can go back and relive that experience over and over, especially during times of particularly intense grief or when hope starts to fade.

Yes, RC, I agree. He should allow it. Well, at least the ones who are lucky enough to get read on "CO" will probably tape their show when it airs. :) ...neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by buki
Many, many people do exactly what John Edward does. Some of them are magicians and tell viewers just that. Others don't.

If you say so, buki. :rolleyes:

You are either being naive or else you have some kind of agenda.

Well, I don't think I have an agenda, buki, other than a quest for the truth, so then I must be a Naive Nelly. :D

Oh by the way, I was in touch with your maternal grandmother. She told me to tell you she's very happy and not to worry about your job. Never mind about the gossip, you'll go far eventually.

Damn! For a moment I thought the dear lady was really coming through. lol But then I remembered that I don't have a job. :(
And buki? Don't give up your day job. :D .....neo

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by neofight


So what you are saying, buki, it that before Sir Isaac Newton began pondering the apple falling from the apple tree, gravity did not exist? :eek: Tell me you are not saying that! ;)Interesting sidestep neo. However, gravity is still proven. Psychic abilities are not.

buki: Fraud does not need to be proven when cold reading is so obvious. And John Edward is the king of cold reading.

neo: Oh, I see. It's a case of...."Because I say so, that's why! Okay."

No, it's a case of I call 'em as I see 'em. JE has done nothing at all to show me that he is in any way "psychic". In fact, he's shown me great evidence for classic cold reading.

neo: Yes, buki. It's an interesting observation, and one which comes up from time to time, along with why doesn't JE devote his free time to getting himself scientifically tested, and why doesn't JE find all the missing children, and why doesn't JE go claim Randi's cool million. So we'll add this one to the list, okay?

Sounds good to me. I'll add it to my list as well.

If JE had to go around trying to please all the demands that you guys would put upon him, he would have precious little time to be doing anything else but.

But what? Go around saying "I sense water around you...rushing water...oh and a recipe for hot sauce".

So why not, instead of planning JE's life for him, and coming up with all these humanitarian projects for JE, why doesn't everyone just go volunteer somewhere at a shelter or a soup-kitchen somewhere, and not worry so much about what JE should be doing with his life. :confused: Personal responsibility folks! What a concept!

I've already volunteered most of my life towards disabled people, not that you'd know that about me of course.

I'd like to ask John Edward why he doesn't help people in pain by giving them actual names, actual occupations, actual means of death instead of "I'm sensing a J...could be a K sound..."

Besides, JE has spoken out many times about these fakes who are less than honest and who bilk the public. He has given enough pointers on what you should look for in a medium and in what type of information one should expect them to bring through that should allow an intelligent person to be discerning in their choice of medium....neo

Yeah..."Don't do what I do, I'm making the big bucks and I'll sue you for infringement of property."

[renata]

Originally posted by neofight



Yes, buki. It's an interesting observation, and one which comes up from time to time, along with why doesn't JE devote his free time to getting himself scientifically tested, and why doesn't JE find all the missing children, and why doesn't JE go claim Randi's cool million. So we'll add this one to the list, okay?

If JE had to go around trying to please all the demands that you guys would put upon him, he would have precious little time to be doing anything else but.

So why not, instead of planning JE's life for him, and coming up with all these humanitarian projects for JE, why doesn't everyone just go volunteer somewhere at a shelter or a soup-kitchen somewhere, and not worry so much about what JE should be doing with his life. :confused: Personal responsibility folks! What a concept!

Besides, JE has spoken out many times about these fakes who are less than honest and who bilk the public. He has given enough pointers on what you should look for in a medium and in what type of information one should expect them to bring through that should allow an intelligent person to be discerning in their choice of medium....neo

Are you kidding with this? Are you that callous? Would you say that about a doctor- "why should he expose that a surgeon is a fraud" or about ANY other profession? Are you really that much of an apologist? What is his purpose, then? Aiding and abetting defrauding grieving people- because that is what he does, by nod condemning frauds- even if he is real himself. You would not dare speak that to someone who lost a child. You would not dare say that to our family friend who lives every day in a nightmare, tortured by unscrupulous frauds. My lord, do you even realize what you say?


Please bring an example when JE condemned any medium- by name. Oh, and there are some unanswered questions in the "Interestign JE Hits " thread. Care to answer them? The ones about the "snippets" you never bothered to read.

[athon]

Originally posted by neofight


Well, if mediumship is indeed real, athon, then it is by definition.....reality. It might be reality that is not acknowledged by some, but it would be reality nonetheless.

Reality can exist outside of our awareness, true. But imagine things this way:

A man lives in a room with a small window. Reality is the world outside. He can do two things; one, he can sit and make up images in his head of what is out there. The warmth that comes through the drawn blinds is a dragon's breath, the light a glowing spectre. He could speculate about what is there, and for all the difference it makes, it is real.
Or, he could open the blinds and make objective judgements about what is out there. He could reduce the world into unbiased facts and figures - numbers, statistics, theories validated with arguments. To some, it isn't as pretty as pure speculation, but that new information is useful.

Perhaps JE's talents are based on true phenomena that we have not yet been able to quantify or qualify. But if the science behind his skill has never made its mark on any of the other laws of nature we have been able to deduce, it becomes a dangerous thing to count as 'real'.

Still confused?

Science is cumulative. Each discovery leads on to more understanding of nature. If a foundation is poorly constructed (e.g., a fact is based on assumption and speculation without criticism), further exploration becomes based on a poor scaffold. If JE's talents are true, this has implications. Humans would be able to sense undiscovered manifestations of energy, manifestations that replicate human consciousness after the body has ceased functioning. Which in turn has implications. None of which, in spite of incessant searching, has been demonstrated in any way.

So, are there entire facets of physics yet undiscovered? Is this line of physics that affects only a few like JE so hard to detect, in spite of such far reaching implications? Maybe, but until such details are addressed, scientifically detailed reality as it stands does not include the ability to communicate with the dead.

Maybe it's the down side of science. To become part of our reality, a phenomena must be evaluated according to a method. And pure speculation cannot fill that void.

Athon

[athon]

Originally posted by neofight


So what you are saying, buki, it that before Sir Isaac Newton began pondering the apple falling from the apple tree, gravity did not exist? :eek: Tell me you are not saying that! ;)

You're getting it all mixed up, not to say I'm terribly surprised.

Gravity has always existed as an observation. The inferences of gravity, and its quantification, did not exist before Newton.

It's rather difficult to parallel gravity with JE, because gravity's effect is easy to observe. An apple can fall from a desk. We can all do a simple experiment to show that.
Can JE offer other individuals information that has come from a source external to his own experiences? In direct observation, it might appear so. But objective experiments do not provide much in the way of evidence.

But let's say gravity (always apparent) and JE's 'correct' information (always apparent) are parallel. Until Newton's studies, gravity could have been caused by a giant magnet for all anybody knew. So the implications of gravity could not be relied upon. If we went with the 'giant magnet' theory, the magnet could one day switch poles, and we would all walk around afraid we would float off into space. Subjective reality would be different to what it is today.

Likewise, JE's information has not been quantified or qualified. And until it is, it is not part of our subjective reality.

Athon

[neofight]

Originally posted by athon
Still confused?

Absolutely not, athon, and I appreciate your most eloquent post. :) I understand what you have said, and I do, of course, acknowledge that to date there is no conclusive scientific proof that consciousness survives physical death.

So whilst we are waiting for science to give us these answers, athon, if indeed, it ever does, I simply find that I enjoy debating this issue from the standpoint of whether or not what I see John Edward doing is at least consistent with what he says he can do.

I don't know why I do it. I'm just hooked, I guess. It's fun! lol

In the meantime, I've also got my eyes and ears open to see if some admitted cold-reader/mentalist will ever succeed in doing his thing as well as JE does his. So far, I have to tell you, it isn't looking too good. ;) .....neo

[Loki]

Neofight,

But you're so caught up in that mindset, that you don't even see what a meaningful experience that was for this woman. There was a lot of good information that came through, that she understood immediately, Instig8R
Neo, there are two different points intertwined here....

First, that the woman found the experience "meaningful". I read this as meaning that the woman "gained something positive" from the experience. That may well be true - a few people seem to "gain something positive" from going to see Fleetwood Mac, as difficult as that may be to conceive of (ha - just kidding RC). The woman "gained" whether JE is real or not - so isn't there a benefit here anyway, no matter what he might be? I suppose - but if he's a fraud then it seems like a rather deceitful way to achieve a positive result.

The second point is that the "meaningful experience" is not automatically proof of JE's validity! This has been proven before - people have had their horoscope chart prepared for them, and find it "amazingly" accurate. The chart really seems to fit them, and "lots of good information" is found. Then it's revealed that they've been given the wrong chart! This is one of the easiest tests to run, and astrology repeatedly fails this test. Get JE to read 10 people by simply writing down the symbols/sounds he is "getting", then show all ten readings to the ten sitters, and have them find their own. If you get 10 out of 10 *then* you've got some proof of "relevance".

It's an interesting observation, and one which comes up from time to time, along with why doesn't JE devote his free time to getting himself scientifically tested, and why doesn't JE find all the missing children, and why doesn't JE go claim Randi's cool million. So we'll add this one to the list, okay?

If JE had to go around trying to please all the demands that you guys would put upon him, he would have precious little time to be doing anything else but.
I'm sorry, but I find this ridiculous. The man is making huge amounts of money, yet can't find *1 day* to take a simple test like the above "multiple readings/sitters" test? If he's genuine, he knows he will pass, and the test will *not* be a burden. But he will never take a test like that Neo, no matter how "short" you make the time requirement, because he knows he'll fail. He has nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

...why doesn't JE find all the missing children, ...
Just want to focus in on this ... Why doesn't JE do this? Bring in a family who have had a child missing for a long time - months, perhaps years. Have JE do a reading and see if he can bring through the spirit.. If he can, then at least then the parents would know the child is gone. If he can't, then it offers the parents some hope that the child is still alive. Any idea why JE is *extremely* unlikely to attempt this? (Hint - what if he was wrong...)

You see, this is a big problem I have with so much of this. About 5 years ago we had a 12 year old school girl go missing here in Melbourne. Her mother was distraught, and after a few weeks the police put the mother on TV to make a tearful appeal for the kidnapper to release her daughter. It was, as you would expect, harrowing viewing. Unfortunately, the girl did not turn up. Then, a year later, news broke that the mother had been to see a psychic medium, and had been assured that her daughter was still alive. Because of the high profile of the original disappearance, there was wide spread coverage in the media of the mother, looking desparate/happy (a bizarre mix of emotions). Two months later, the girl's body was found in a paddock - she'd been dead over a year.

What's the point of that tale? Am I saying that because one psychic was wrong, then they are all frauds? No - I'm saying the smart ones like JE stay well away from missing persons cases - again they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Yet the parents in such cases are amongst those who most need to know. Funny how JE won't get involved where his "talents" could produce the greatest good.

[neofight]

Originally posted by athon
You're getting it all mixed up, not to say I'm terribly surprised.

Well, actually, athon, I was only having a little fun, yanking buki's chain. lol I understood his point, and I understand yours. You are incredibly patient and thorough, athon. Are you a teacher?

Another question for you. Have you ever actually watched JE do readings?........neo

[Ceinwyn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by neofight


Absolutely not, athon, and I appreciate your most eloquent post. :) I understand what you have said, and I do, of course, acknowledge that to date there is no conclusive scientific proof that consciousness survives physical death.

So whilst we are waiting for science to give us these answers, athon, if indeed, it ever does, I simply find that I enjoy debating this issue from the standpoint of whether or not what I see John Edward doing is at least consistent with what he says he can do.

What he says he does is a moot point. What he says is totally self-serving to him.

Why you cannot see that, I don't know. Oh wait, maybe I do...

I don't know why I do it. I'm just hooked, I guess. It's fun! lol

And there we have it. Neo doesn't really want to hold up her beliefs. She just does it for fun. Thanks for clarifying that, Neo.

In the meantime, I've also got my eyes and ears open to see if some admitted cold-reader/mentalist will ever succeed in doing his thing as well as JE does his. So far, I have to tell you, it isn't looking too good. ;) .....neo

I won't be waiting for anything. I think I know what your stance is now.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by neofight


Well, actually, athon, I was only having a little fun, yanking buki's chain. lol I understood his point, and I understand yours. You are incredibly patient and thorough, athon. Are you a teacher?

Another question for you. Have you ever actually watched JE do readings?........neo Just a note: I'm female. And it's hard to yank a chain when you've got both hands full of *****. :D

Also I've watched quite a few of JE's shows. Cold reading at its best.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by neofight


So what you are saying, buki, it that before Sir Isaac Newton began pondering the apple falling from the apple tree, gravity did not exist? :eek: Tell me you are not saying that! ;)


*snip*

....neo Ehh? Channeling Franko now??

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by neofight


LOL Hazelip. It wouldn't matter. It's not as easy as you'd like to think. Tell you what! You find someone who can do what JE does, and I'll stop believing. That's a promise! :D

*snip*

......neo But this. Are you saying that the cold reading abilities of somebody else determines whether JE is a medium or not? Are you saying that the World Champion of - well, take you pick - must be using supernatural means since nobody can match him/her?

Maybe JE is the best cold reader in the world, maybe the next best does not reach his knees. So what? Does that prove anything at all?

Hans

[Ceinwyn]

MRC Hans,

It really doesn't matter what neofight thinks, because she herself said she just debates for fun. So whatever JE does, doesn't do, it's all moot.

Also, I have it on faith that JE spends occasional erotic weekends with certain fluffy barnyard animals. But I don't have any evidence for it, so let's just say I'm having fun.

But it could be true. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

[MRC_Hans]

Now you are being bitter ;) However, I do agree that the attitude "I'm not referring to my personal opinion, I'm just having fun debating" IS a tad annoying. And it is moot. If you enter an honest debate, you are obliged to defend the viewpoint you have chosen to represent, whether it is yours or not.

Hans

[Ceinwyn]

Oh, I'm being bitter.

I have watched (lurked, I guess you could say) as many, many arguments have unfolded. I've seen Franko, I've seen that J guy whose name I can't recall, I've seen more idiots post here than I can even count, I've seen the C beams glitter off the shoulder of Orion...

Ok seriously. I've lurked at TVtalk too, for about a year, and what a bunch of numbskulls. I'm not kidding when I say those people have not a skeptical bone in their body. Steve Grenard, I mean you.

The one thing I will say, is that certain people who should know better, oh ok Clancie, should maybe put up or shut up. Yes, I find Clancie to be quite egregious. She posted multiple times in two different threads about herself. Just about herself and how she is blameless in everything. Didn't matter what the topic was, she was right in there being blameless and sticking up for herself. Way to go Clancie, I totally believe you now when you say you don't lie.

Well anyways, I guess that's why I get bitter sometimes. I should probably post in the "I love [your name here] threads, but I just enjoy reading them. So. Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, I'm confused. :confused: You didn't answer my question. Is this a different transcript by Neil? (budddyh) or is this the one that we already commented on?.....neo

What difference does it make? You refuse to evaluate any kind of evidence anyway.

It's Neil's transcript. Which you haven't analyzed. Of course, if you just want to parrot Clancie, say so.

[Leroy]

Stated by CFLARSEN: Before, you considered it impossible that JE was a crook.

Stated by CFLARSEN: Perhaps I am actually right? That you have indeed stated that the "worst case scenario" (to me) is that JE is self-deluded."

If clancie has done this, than show us the paragraph where she did.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


LOL Instig8R. I hope that I will somehow be inspired to find the right words to respond to your post, because I don't want you to think that I do not "get" the points that you make about editing. I do get them. I'm not that sure, however, that you get my counterpoints.

Now, do I agree with you that the mention of Entenmann's was edited out of the televised reading? Of course I do. What I do not agree with you about, is your contention that the editing out of JE's "Entenmann's" story somehow changes the fact that this was an excellent reading, and that Deborah got plenty of personal validations that her close friend, Helen, came through for her.

The story that JE told about the cake, was a memory that he was being shown, and it was shown to him by Helen, so that he would come out with the words, "secret recipe". THAT is the bottom line. He knew that the spirit that was coming through and the sitter that was supposed to hear from her, shared some experience that had to do with a "secret recipe", so that is what she used to get JE to come to her. And it worked! :)

Now YOU can get all hung up on the fact that the reason JE thought the recipe was secret, was not, in fact, the real reason why it was a secret, but when you do that, you end up missing the whole point. Only Deborah and Helen knew WHY it was a secret. JE wasn't away on vacation with them, was he???

So as it happened, he was off on the reason it was secret, but he was spot on[ with regard to the fact that there WAS a secret recipe, and it had a special meaning for these two friends. That, my friend, 'g8R, is what the readings are all about. Not how or why JE doesn't get every single freakin' nuance of every single stinkin' detail. :D

-snip-



Hey, Neo! You made a great effort, but you still missed my main point. I am not as hung-up on the fact that JE deleted mention of his Entenmann's story. I am complaining about the fact that he edited the reading to take the emphasis away from his accusations that Deborah stole the recipe from her mother.

The stolen recipe was central to that reading. JE was absolutely engaged in a full scale interrogation of Deborah, and he eventually badgered her into admitting it. What you wrote about that reading prior to it being broadcast on TV would verify this fact. Here is what you said:

"So that brings us to why he knew to reference a very special secret recipe to this sitter. She acknowledged that she and this other woman (deceased) came up with this secret recipe. A hit. But then you could actually see the moment when John was being let in on another secret, which he immediately passed on to the sitter. He said that "she is telling me that's not true", or words to that effect, and that in fact, their secret recipe was based somehow on her mother's recipe, that it was not ALL their own. The woman was in no hurry to validate this fact, and actually denied it at first. That's when John did his Perry Mason impersonation, and got her to admit that what he said was true."

I, too, remember when JE said that Helen was busting Deborah because the recipe was stolen from her mother... "she's saying that's not true..." ya-da, ya-da. It was a lengthy interrogation -- totally edited out of the final version now.

It now seems that JE badgered Deborah into an admission of something she did not do. In our earlier debate of this reading -- before it was aired -- you tenaciously argued that Deborah admitted taking the recipe from her mother because she DID so, not to get JE to leave her alone. You were adament that JE said she took her mother's recipe, and there's no way she would have admitted it if she had not done so.

It appears that you have changed your recollection of the reading, so that you now agree with the edited version.

Oddly enough, my memory of the reading is consistent with your earlier description of it -- before editing and broadcast. It is your own words that contradict your present position, and that is the point that you seem to be overlooking.

I wonder how many other people are validating things that are untrue, just to satisfy JE? Before Deborah's edited reading appeared on TV, I suggested that she only yielded to get rid of him and you vehemently denied that such a thing took place. Are you still denying that, too?:confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
If clancie has done this, than show us the paragraph where she did.

I posted the evidence here, in this thread, 08-06-2003 03:26 PM.

[Leroy]

People mention this all the time. In my opinion its one of the smarter things JE does. Of course he doesn't take that hit, its way to obvious the sitter is making a miss fit. He passes on it so no one can accuse him of completely obvious cold-reading. He's not stupid, I'll give him that.
That is a good point VoidX.

But you have, you just said he tosses the question out to sections of the audience

Not sections as in one side or middle of an audience, I've seen him point to one section of an audience and narrow it down to
a few people on a bench. But if he has some way of knowing who these people are in advance and has done prior research on them, that would explain it.

He wants someone who more authentically think it fits for them, it gives him more potential for a good reading.

Another good point.

Exactly! He knows that he doesn't need a long list of mediocre hits, but only a very short list of impressive ones - if taken at face value and a blind acceptance that his word is final.

True.
and go out and find a mentalist who can do the same thing that JE does, as well as he does it.

No offense to you, but that shouldn't be too hard to accomplish.

How can the whole skeptical community fail to pick up this gauntlet?

What would it take to make this happen?

However, by rejecting the easy hit, everyone else in the audience starts calling out their validations

True. John doens't seem stupid. And I agree that he is an expert at fast-talking and working a crowd. Add the humor he has, and some compassion and people see him as a genuinly honest person.

[CFLarsen]

Oops, Clancie, you "forgot" this one:

Two possibilites exist now:

[list=a]
You don't consider the possibility that JE is a crook worse than the possibility that JE is self-deluded.
In which case I am wrong, and you are seriously f*cked up.

You believe that there is something "worse" than "worst", which would redefine a very common English word as well as demolishing the structure of one of the most spoken languages in the world.
In which case I am wrong, and you have a serious credibility problem.
[/list=a]
Which is it, Clancie? a or b?

Or perhaps neither? Perhaps I am actually right? That you have indeed stated that the "worst case scenario" (to me) is that JE is self-deluded."

How else can one interpret that as you cannot possibly imagine JE being a crook??

[Leroy]

The reading began, as you stated, with John being shown his memory of when a woman he worked with brought in a special crumbcake which she claimed to be the best crumbcake he will ever have tasted
Instigator, I saw the episode where John talked of the special recipe, are you saying that these women talked to John prior to the reading, and had told him of this special recipe?

Do you understand, LeRoy, that HIV, hepatitus and drug overdoses are not blood disorders?

No one ever stated that they were. I said that I can understand why John sees these things are blood disorders.

"Hepatitis C is spread by blood from an infected person entering the bloodstream of another person. Every drop of blood from an infected person will contain the virus. However, for transmission to occur, the virus must be concentrated (viral load) to pose a threat of infection."



Hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are viruses that are carried in the blood of infected people.

So when John said that he associates these with blood I can understand why.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
No offense to you, but that shouldn't be too hard to accomplish.

It isn't. We have such a transcript. Clancie tried to explain the difference, but failed.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Leroy
..snip...

(Darat: in response to finding someone to replicate JE's act)

What would it take to make this happen?

...snip...

Leroy it has happened - I've seen TV programs, I've read transcripts, I've read articles on it, I've read explanations of cold reading, I've seen a "cold-reader" live, the list goes on.

Time and time we have evidence that a "cold reader" (i.e. someone who fishes for information, makes educated guesses, understands that people aren't unique and knows how to get people to fill in gaps) can produce a reading indistingishable (for content) from that of an unedited (and I'd say even edited) reading from JE.

[Leroy]

And one day she saw the psychic in a cafe with the neighbor who recommended her,

Anytime a neighbor, friend or family member recommends a psychic or medium, the first thing I would worry about is how much of information on my life, these friends and family shared with the psychic.

In this case, this woman is desperately sad and alone Has anyone suggested to this woman that she spend that money on a Counselor?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
Time and time we have evidence that a "cold reader" (i.e. someone who fishes for information, makes educated guesses, understands that people aren't unique and knows how to get people to fill in gaps) can produce a reading indistingishable (for content) from that of an unedited (and I'd say even edited) reading from JE.

You can find an example right here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24940)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Leroy
No one ever stated that they were. I said that I can understand why John sees these things are blood disorders.

"Hepatitis C is spread by blood from an infected person entering the bloodstream of another person. Every drop of blood from an infected person will contain the virus. However, for transmission to occur, the virus must be concentrated (viral load) to pose a threat of infection."

So when John said that he associates these with blood I can understand why.
LeRoy,

Merging various people's quotes, without attribution, makes it more than a bit difficult to see to whom you are responding. Could you please include attributions next time?

These JE apologetics are humorous, but they won't cut muster here. JE and you are confounding the disease with the disease vector. Blood is the vector of these diseases, the way it is transmitted from person to person. Would you refer to influenza as a nose disorder? No. Would you refer to Old Lyme disease as a tick disorder? West Nile, Eastern Equine or malaria as mosquito disorders? No. No. No, and no.

Let us say that, somehow, you will magically say "yes" to all of these questions. That still leaves unexplained drug overdose.

No, I'm afraid this is simply a weasel definition game that, if accepted, allows JE to claim more hits than Sosa. If blood is involved in any way, then "blood disorder" fits.

JE: "I'm seeing red. Red, red, every where. He's showing me blood. Did he die of a blood disorder?"

Gullible: "No, he had cancer."

JE: "But how did he die?"

Gullible: "Well, his heart stopped."

JE: "And his blood, therefore stopped flowing, that's why he's showing me a blood disorder." :rolleyes:

Cheers,

[Leroy]

Maybe JE is the best cold reader in the world, maybe the next best does not reach his knees.

Exactly! Didn't he have years of experience watching his mother deal with psychics and mediums? He had plenty of time to learn from them and to observe what it took to make people they read, believe.

Yes, I find Clancie to be quite egregious. She posted multiple times in two different threads about herself. Just about herself and how she is blameless in everything Show us where she posted this. I've been reading her posts since I came here and I find her to be intelligent, open-minded, and humble, and where she was accused of things, nobody has been able to back up those accusations with proof.

I posted the evidence here, in this thread, 08-06-2003 03:26 PM. I read that pile of crap Claus, and pointed out to you that it didn't any any way show evidence that Clancie made the statement. So if that is all you had, guess we can all assume that you were wrong.

It isn't. We have such a transcript. Clancie tried to explain the difference, but failed. I would like to see that transcript. It has been awhile since I've seen Crossing Over, but as I recall if you saw one show you saw them all.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Leroy
...snip...

I would like to see that transcript. It has been awhile since I've seen Crossing Over, but as I recall if you saw one show you saw them all.

I think Claus is refering to that transcript in his response to my post i.e. here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24940)

[Leroy]

Bill, John said that when he sees blood [while doing his readings] he associates certain illness with this. Aids and Hepatitis C are two of these. I have no problem understanding why he associates Aids and Hep C with blood. Although they are NOT blood disorders. However, I cannot understand how he associates drug overdose with this.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
Show us where she posted this. I've been reading her posts since I came here and I find her to be intelligent, open-minded, and humble, and where she was accused of things, nobody has been able to back up those accusations with proof.

I don't understand why you argue like that, but it does show that you cannot be taken seriously. Clancie has lied, and evidence hereof has been shown. She evades questions, and evidence hereof has been shown. And so on and so forth...

Originally posted by Leroy
I read that pile of crap Claus, and pointed out to you that it didn't any any way show evidence that Clancie made the statement. So if that is all you had, guess we can all assume that you were wrong.

Which one do you believe it is, then, a or b? Is there something worse than "worst", or is it worse to be self-deluded than to be a crook?

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Leroy

Instigator, I saw the episode where John talked of the special recipe, are you saying that these women talked to John prior to the reading, and had told him of this special recipe?


Hi, Leroy! The episode I am referring to was taken from a seminar at Westbury Music Fair in NY last year. JE gave a reading to a woman named Deborah. The central point in that reading was a supposed secret recipe that Deborah shared with her deceased friend, Helen. After Helen was "brought through", JE brought Deborah's mother through, too. At that point, Dead Mom and Dead Helen were "bustin' chops", and let JE in on the secret that Deborah had stolen Mom's recipe.

The stolen recipe aspect of the reading was crucial to the reading. JE practically had to beat a confession out of Deborah, who finally conceded that her secret recipe was, in fact, purloined from her deceased mother.

In the post-reading (and also in the one CO update that was broadcast a few weeks ago), Deborah never mentioned that the secret recipe was based on her mother's cooking in any way. Deborah explained -- in the post-reading segment -- that the recipe was secret because she and Helen had used dirty clams from the beach in the recipe.

My complaint with the editing pertains to the fact that the whole reading was rearranged to accommodate the dirty clams info, as supplied by Deborah -- and to minimize the big, miserable failure of the "recipe stolen from mom".

The proof of this fact is that Neo wrote about this stolen recipe reading, before and after the edited version appeared on TV. I agreed with the version that she wrote about before seeing it on TV. However, she has changed her story to agree with the edited version.

I am bickering with Neo over this, because it is sort of like the Niagara Falls reading, where Neo first insisted that JE got Snuggles the bear, a great hit -- and then adjusted the story to accommodate the new information that it wasn't Snuggles the bear, but claimed it was still a great hit.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Leroy
Bill, John said that when he sees blood [while doing his readings] he associates certain illness with this. Aids and Hepatitis C are two of these. I have no problem understanding why he associates Aids and Hep C with blood. Although they are NOT blood disorders. However, I cannot understand how he associates drug overdose with this.
No, Leroy, John said this:

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

Click glossary at bottom left of this webpage (http://www.scifi.com/johnedward/abouttheshow)

He specifically says "flowing blood" equates to "blood disorder". Then he specifically names several non-blood-disorders along with drug overdoses.

This is a word-smear, a weasel that helps to build up claimed hits.

Cheers,

[Leroy]

Thanks for the link Daret.

One difference I noticed is that JE's reading began somewhere
John: I'm ready to begin. I'm in this area. I don't think I'm with you, (pointing to someone) unless you guys know eachother.

Where did Neils begin? Reader: The spirits are giving me mixed messages... I'm seeing a William or a Bill, and what looks like a whole bunch of border collies. Let me know if I'm on the right track, but this message could be for someone else entirely.

It this the beginning of his reading? It sounds like it wasn't.

I noticed that Neil keeps right on talking if the reader does not grab it right away, where John waits for them to accept, but I found Neils reading more impressive than Johns.

[CFLarsen]

Leroy,

The readings are complete.

[renata]

Originally posted by Leroy


Anytime a neighbor, friend or family member recommends a psychic or medium, the first thing I would worry about is how much of information on my life, these friends and family shared with the psychic.

Has anyone suggested to this woman that she spend that money on a Counselor?

Geez, Leroy, of course we recommended, begged, suggested, pleaded she seek a counselor. But she thinks she is talking to her son through a psychic. She thinks a counselor will not do anything for her. We can't make her do it!

Count another one for "what harm does it do?"

Oh, I forget, real mediums don't give a crap that she gets her heart broken- just like they don't give a crap about missing or murdered children. Passing messages from a dog is much more important.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Leroy
Thanks for the link Daret.

One difference I noticed is that JE's reading began somewhere


Where did Neils begin?

It this the beginning of his reading? It sounds like it wasn't.

I noticed that Neil keeps right on talking if the reader does not grab it right away, where John waits for them to accept, but I found Neils reading more impressive than Johns.

I'm sure I'll quickly be correct if I'm wrong but I think you'll find that Neil's was done via the internet.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Darat
I'm sure I'll quickly be correct if I'm wrong but I think you'll find that Neil's was done via the internet.

Classic typo, Darat. :D

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Leroy,

The readings are complete.

Isn't the JE one from an edited show?

[Leroy]

Clancie has lied, and evidence hereof has been shown. She evades questions, and evidence hereof has been shown. And so on and so forth...

Claus, because you say so, does not make it so. You have ranted these accusations since I came on board, you have claimed proof of this and to this date have not proved any of them.

And I found you to be the one who evaded questions. blah blah blah, you are boring me with this finger pointing. I say prove it or shut up. You have not yet proven clancie to be a liar.



Which one do you believe it is, then, a or b? Is there something worse than "worst", or is it worse to be self-deluded than to be a crook?

The point is claus, you claimed that Clancie SAID that Do you feel like explaining why you have changed your attitude about this? Before, you considered it impossible that JE was a crook.

she considered it impossible that JE was a crook. Why not just say that it is your opinion that this is what she considered and not make it sound like she actually stated that she considered it impossible?



I am bickering with Neo over this, because it is sort of like the Niagara Falls reading, where Neo first insisted that JE got Snuggles the bear, a great hit -- and then adjusted the story to accommodate the new information that it wasn't Snuggles the bear, but claimed it was still a great hit.

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

Bill, your link did not work, but once again, what is your problem. John is not writing a medical dictionary, he is stating what these things mean to him and him only.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
Isn't the JE one from an edited show?

Yes, of course. My fault! :)

Nevertheless, it is telling that even then, Clancie cannot tell the difference. It does ruin one of the most used arguments from the believers' side of the fence that JE is a real medium.

[Darat]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Classic typo, Darat. :D

Look it ain't me fault if me fingers can't keep up with me brain.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Leroy
Bill, your link did not work, but once again, what is your problem. John is not writing a medical dictionary, he is stating what these things mean to him and him only.

Leroy,

Thank you; I've corrected the link.

I've stated the problem several times now. This is a weasel. JE wants us to accept this incredibly wrong and blurry definition so that we accept his claimed hits.

Cheers,

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
Claus, because you say so, does not make it so. You have ranted these accusations since I came on board, you have claimed proof of this and to this date have not proved any of them.

And I found you to be the one who evaded questions. blah blah blah, you are boring me with this finger pointing. I say prove it or shut up. You have not yet proven clancie to be a liar.

Then you deny reality.

Originally posted by Leroy
she considered it impossible that JE was a crook. Why not just say that it is your opinion that this is what she considered and not make it sound like she actually stated that she considered it impossible?

But if she did not consider it impossible, why use the term "worst case scenario"?

There are two options (if Clancie is right)

1) There is something worse than "worst case scenario".
2) Clancie thinks it is worse to be self-deluded than to be a crook.

Which one do you think Clancie meant? You are defending her case, so let's hear the reason.

I have noticed that you avoid this, but I have answered your question. Now please answer mine.

[renata]

Originally posted by Leroy

Bill, your link did not work, but once again, what is your problem. John is not writing a medical dictionary, he is stating what these things mean to him and him only. [/B]


1. JE worked in a hospital and should be capable of telling the difference between major types of causes of death
2. Shouldn't the spirits know what the hell they died of?


His diagnoses from http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032


....

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.
....

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.

....

OK. I'm supposed to let you know that the stroke or whatever this cardiovascular thing that one of them dealt with kind of

....

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

He tries to blur the lines, like Bill said, and he tries to encompass pretty much anything. Can't the spirits show him something more detailed? He gets recipes for shrimp!

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight



So why not, instead of planning JE's life for him, and coming up with all these humanitarian projects for JE, why doesn't everyone just go volunteer somewhere at a shelter or a soup-kitchen somewhere, and not worry so much about what JE should be doing with his life. :confused: Personal responsibility folks! What a concept!


Neo, I forgot to address this issue earlier. People here are not planning JE's life for him. They are merely noting the lack of empathy that he displays.

I am socially conscious. I volunteer several hours a week at an animal shelter, and I work in the social services field with a number of charitable organizations.

As for the concept of "Personal responsibility", I am also able to observe -- up close and personal -- the damage that is done by JE, directly and indirectly. This is because I often work with the bereaved on a one-on-one basis.

JE frequently warns people about all those fake mediums out there, but he doesn't tell us who they are. Likewise, the ones he considers authentic do not really pass the sniff-test, either (i.e., Browne, Northrop, et al). I am often contacted by people who seek bereavement groups. In speaking with the newly bereaved... especially females ... I am amazed at how many of them are also seeking mediums. Some women are upset because they can't get a private reading with JE, and can't get tickets to CO. Eventually, they are taken advantage of by some charlatan.

Yeah, talk to us some more about "personal responsibility"... Who is that person on CO that makes mediumship a mainstream concept????

[RC]

Originally posted by Loki
That may well be true - a few people seem to "gain something positive" from going to see Fleetwood Mac, as difficult as that may be to conceive of (ha - just kidding RC)

:D :D :D

Not just a few people, but about 15,000 every other night since May 6th!! They're having a very successful tour and I couldn't be happier for them!

[Leroy]

The readings are complete.

So when Neil walked out on stage his first words were:

Reader: The spirits are giving me mixed messages... I'm seeing a William or a Bill, and what looks like a whole bunch of border collies. Let me know if I'm on the right track, but this message could be for someone else entirely.

That last sentence makes me think that there is more to this. Where did he begin, did he just come out and point to someone and start the reading?

Geez, Leroy, of course we recommended, begged, suggested, pleaded she seek a counselor

Why the sarcasm? I just wondered if her friends had suggested this, I hope I didn't seem sarcastic, if so, It wasn't meant.

I'm sure I'll quickly be correct if I'm wrong but I think you'll find that Neil's was done via the internet.

As in one of those chat room readings I've seen done?

Wouldn't it be interesting to see a self proclaimed medium and Neil work side by side on stage! I wonder if some believers would change their mind about the medium if this happened and Neil did a better reading. :roll: Clancie cannot tell the difference. It does ruin one of the most used arguments from the believers' side of the fence that JE is a real medium.

Actually, just going by these two readings alone, I feel that Neil did the better reading.I've stated the problem several times now. This is a weasel. JE wants us to accept this incredibly wrong and blurry definition so that we accept his claimed hits.

I agree with you there, but I also see how he gets away with saying that he associates these things with blood. All except the drug overdose, that is outrageous. Then you deny reality. Claus, I won't deny proof, if you have any, prove she lied already, or shut up.

[renata]

Originally posted by Leroy



Why the sarcasm? I just wondered if her friends had suggested this, I hope I didn't seem sarcastic, if so, It wasn't meant.



Leroy PLEASE do not mesh together quotes from several different people without at least attributing names to the quotes!

Sarcasm? There was no sarcasm in my post. I am just baffled you think we may not have suggested that after watching a friend of the family reliving her son's death every day for eight years. We, unlike JE have empathy. You were stating the obvious, and had I been suspicious, I would assume you were being patronizing.

[Leroy]

1. JE worked in a hospital and should be capable of telling the difference between major types of causes of death

John is saying that when he is doing a reading he gets certain images for certain illnesses, blood happens to be what he sees for aids and Hep. I can see where he can get away with that because both affect the blood. I cannot see how he puts drug overdose in there. He tries to blur the lines, like Bill said, and he tries to encompass pretty much anything
I agree

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight
Besides, JE has spoken out many times about these fakes who are less than honest and who bilk the public. He has given enough pointers on what you should look for in a medium and in what type of information one should expect them to bring through that should allow an intelligent person to be discerning in their choice of medium....neo

Yet he still endorses Robert "Page 17" Brown and Suzane "Did Papa smoke, please may I ask" Northrop.

[Darat]

Originally posted by renata


Leroy PLEASE do not mesh together quotes from several different people without at least attributing names to the quotes!...snip...

Can I 'third' this Leroy - I keep having to go back up through the previous posts to see who you are responding to...

[Leroy]

Leroy PLEASE do not mesh together quotes from several different people without at least attributing names to the quotes! These were not quotes dear, they were from websites on the subject of blood viruses.

There was no sarcasm in my post. I am just baffled you think we may not have suggested that after watching a friend of the family reliving her son's death every day for eight years. I must have read your post wrong, I didn't think you knew the women, I thought she was a friend of a friend. My mistake. I also did not catch that it had been eight years.

But, I will always ask, when I hear of someone spending tons of money on psychics to contact dead people, if anyone has offered the person a link to a counselor for grief. If that offends someone I am sorry. I will suggest it incase someone didn't.


I would assume you were being patronizing. Not at all. If I am being sarcastic I will give you this :rolleyes:

[Leroy]

Link to Bloodborne Infectious Diseases (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/bbp/) Another link (http://www.region.peel.on.ca/health/hsexual/htmfiles/stdhepb.htm) And another (http://www.region.peel.on.ca/health/hsexual/htmfiles/stdhepb.htm)

This is why I say that it is easy for John to get by with associating BLOOD with Hep, and Aids. They may not be blood disorders but people associate both with blood.

[renata]

Originally posted by Leroy
These were not quotes dear, they were from websites on the subject of blood viruses.

I (and BillHoyt and Darat) are referring to quotes from at least three different people, including myself in your post. You have a bad habit of responding to several people at once, quoting them yet not attributing names to them. See how it says "originally posted by Leroy"- that is the polite thing to do, especially since you are answering several people at the same time. Dear.



I must have read your post wrong, I didn't think you knew the women, I thought she was a friend of a friend. My mistake. I also did not catch that it had been eight years.

Yes, you read it really wrong, didn't you? I said she was "friend of the family", I said "I know several people like that" "Whenever I see her when I go to NY, she talks of her boy- I used to babysit him."



But, I will always ask, when I hear of someone spending tons of money on psychics to contact dead people, if anyone has offered the person a link to a counselor for grief. If that offends someone I am sorry. I will suggest it incase someone didn't.

I see. Ford Prefect was right about humans stating the very obvious. "Oh dear you seem to have fallen down a thirty-foot well, are you all right?"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
That last sentence makes me think that there is more to this. Where did he begin, did he just come out and point to someone and start the reading?

This is all there is.

Originally posted by Leroy
Claus, I won't deny proof, if you have any, prove she lied already, or shut up.

An 18Mb file Clancie read. Oh, wait. She didn't.

Yet, she knew the content of it. Oh, wait. She didn't.

A sound clip of Graham Bishop, which she claimed she had downloaded some time ago. Oh, wait. The logs showed she had just downloaded it, and never before.

You want me to go on??? How many examples do you want?

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen



An 18Mb file Clancie read. Oh, wait. She didn't.

Yet, she knew the content of it. Oh, wait. She didn't.

A sound clip of Graham Bishop, which she claimed she had downloaded some time ago. Oh, wait. The logs showed she had just downloaded it, and never before.

You want me to go on??? How many examples do you want?


Hey! Flame Wars are a few doors down! :) (Recall, Claus, that is the place I shredded your pride and poured it over my breakfast cereal) Let's not divert the thread, shall we? That goes to all of you.

[CFLarsen]

(farts in renata's general direction)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Leroy
Link to Bloodborne Infectious Diseases (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/bbp/) Another link (http://www.region.peel.on.ca/health/hsexual/htmfiles/stdhepb.htm) And another (http://www.region.peel.on.ca/health/hsexual/htmfiles/stdhepb.htm)

This is why I say that it is easy for John to get by with associating BLOOD with Hep, and Aids. They may not be blood disorders but people associate both with blood.
LeRoy,

Each of those links completely supports what I said earlier:
JE and you are confounding the disease with the disease vector. Blood is the vector of these diseases, the way it is transmitted from person to person. Would you refer to influenza as a nose disorder? No. Would you refer to Old Lyme disease as a tick disorder? West Nile, Eastern Equine or malaria as mosquito disorders? No. No. No, and no.
The fact that "people associate both with blood" simply restates the rationalization for the word-smear JE engages in.

Cheers,

[voidx]

How about this, since its going nowhere. John should rename his "Blood disorder" category to Blood related, or blood transfereable diseases, or just plain "blood". You cannot deny from the stuff presented here Leroy that all the things he states under Blood disorder are not SPECIFICALLY blood disorders, therefore he's being intentionally vague. Just rename the damn category John. I suggest, "I'm pretending to see Red."

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
(farts in renata's general direction)

Albatross! :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Albatross! :D

Lemon curry?

[Jeff Corey]

Crunchy frog?
Slathered with lark's vomit?
Roadkill wombat in a Foster's batter?
LI slugs a la francaise?
When does this ever stop?
I'm feeling a bit peckish.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Crunchy frog?
Slathered with lark's vomit?
Roadkill wombat in a Foster's batter?
LI slugs a la francaise?
When does this ever stop?
I'm feeling a bit peckish.

Well I did eat a chocolate frog once so I suppose it was a crunchy frog and my grandfather bought it for me. And he was always having a lark, in fact I remember my father saying to him "I'm sick of you larking around". And I know he went to Australia when he was younger and he was a drinker so I'm sure he drank Fosters and knowing how tight he was I'm sure he'd have eaten roadkill. He fought in the war in France so I'll ask around if "LI slugs" means anything.

He was in so much suffering at the end, they say the gerbil ate him from the inside out.!

Jeff - this was your attempt at channelling my grandfather? It fits so well, special hit after special hit, I'm sure my grandfather must have been trying to communicate via you. :D

[Loki]

RC,

Not just a few people, but about 15,000 every other night since May 6th!! They're having a very successful tour and I couldn't be happier for them!
America ... so hard to understand!!! :D :D

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Darat


He was in so much suffering at the end, they say the gerbil ate him from the inside out.!

Jeff - this was your attempt at channelling my grandfather? It fits so well, special hit after special hit, I'm sure my grandfather must have been trying to communicate via you. :D
Yes, I was seeing an older impaired person behind you. And am getting a rodentlike feeling in the torso or lower colon. He always thought you were a snivilling little git and always forgot your birthdays. He wants you to know that it's very toasty where he is now and that you can have his collection of Viz magazines and autographed photo of the Fat Slags.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Yes, I was seeing an older impaired person behind you. And am getting a rodentlike feeling in the torso or lower colon. He always thought you were a snivilling little git and always forgot your birthdays. He wants you to know that it's very toasty where he is now and that you can have his collection of Viz magazines and autographed photo of the Fat Slags.

That is so much like him... you've obviously connected with him so strongly so I'm sure you can answer something that we've all wanted to know since he died?

"Where the bloody hell is his collection of Viz magazines? I've turned his house upside down trying to find it!"


(Oh what’s that? Crickets chirping…. ;) )

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Darat


That is so much like him... you've obviously connected with him so strongly so I'm sure you can answer something that we've all wanted to know since he died?

"Where the bloody hell is his collection of Viz magazines? I've turned his house upside down trying to find it!"


(Oh what’s that? Crickets chirping…. ;) )

There's a loose floor board in the attic. You'll also find an interesting collection of french letters. The autographed pic of Sandra and Tracey is hidden behind the group picture of your grandparents at the company picnic. Another incredibly obscene one is secreted behind the picture of his dog, Warren.

[Loki]

Jeff Corey,

...autographed photo of the Fat Slags.
I'm prepared to offer $50. Just one question regarding authenticity - are you sure that cartoon characters can sign autographs?

[RC]

Originally posted by Loki
RC,


America ... so hard to understand!!! :D :D

Look out, Loki, they're heading Down Under next year. :eek:

[Loki]

RC,

Look out, Loki, they're heading Down Under next year.
I have a friend who named her child Rhiannon (lucky it was a girl!!), and who believes that her daughter is Andy Gibb reincarnated!!!!!! I'll pass on the news of the impending tour. Unfortunately, I'll be ... ummm ... working late that night. Oh well!

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Loki
Jeff Corey,


I'm prepared to offer $50. Just one question regarding authenticity - are you sure that cartoon characters can sign autographs?
Actually the provenance of that item has been certified by Roger Melly, the Man on the Telley, who had his knob's end quite vigorously polished by Tracey, Sunday week.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by neofight


Absolutely not, athon, and I appreciate your most eloquent post. :) I understand what you have said, and I do, of course, acknowledge that to date there is no conclusive scientific proof that consciousness survives physical death.

So whilst we are waiting for science to give us these answers, athon, if indeed, it ever does, I simply find that I enjoy debating this issue from the standpoint of whether or not what I see John Edward doing is at least consistent with what he says he can do.

I don't know why I do it. I'm just hooked, I guess. It's fun! lol

In the meantime, I've also got my eyes and ears open to see if some admitted cold-reader/mentalist will ever succeed in doing his thing as well as JE does his. So far, I have to tell you, it isn't looking too good. ;) .....neo

If a better cold-reader is found, great... you admit JE's been duping you all this time.

If a better cold-reader is not found, this means absolutely nothing... it is not evidence for or against JE's claims to communicate with the dead.

[neofight]

Originally posted by dingler44


If a better cold-reader is found, great... you admit JE's been duping you all this time.

If a better cold-reader is not found, this means absolutely nothing... it is not evidence for or against JE's claims to communicate with the dead.

Neither scenario would qualify as real evidence for or against mediumship, dingler44. It's just that finding an admitted cold-reader who can do what JE does would at least give me pause, and I'd have to re-evaluate my stance. It certainly would affect the way I think about JE's authenticity. At the very least, the "doubt" factor would increase greatly for me......neo

[athon]

Originally posted by neofight


Well, actually, athon, I was only having a little fun, yanking buki's chain. lol I understood his point, and I understand yours. You are incredibly patient and thorough, athon. Are you a teacher?

Another question for you. Have you ever actually watched JE do readings?........neo

(sorry - been away for the weekend)

Yeah, I teach science and maths.

I can understand the 'speculate 'cause it's fun' angle, and since I'm also a frustrated spec' fiction writer, I love doing it too. Now to be honest, I haven't read enough of your posts to know where exactly you stand on the belief stakes. I think 'believing' goes too far when people use the shaky foundations I was talking about to make serious decisions - health, mental welfare, finance etc.

If it is all 'let's just consider', then I'm cool with it. Hell, as I said, I love doing it too. But when we condone people encouraging others to make important life decisions based on uncertain foundations, then we have to start asking questions.

Have I ever been to a JE reading? No, I live in Australia, and while we have our own healers, dowsers and other 'unestablished science users' (hows that for a PC term?) JE has only come down once, and that was sold out before I could get tickets.

I have seen his edited programs, and IMHO, nothing substantial can be determined.

Athon

[Leroy]

Posted by Renata: See how it says "originally posted by Leroy"- that is the polite thing to do, especially since you are answering several people at the same time. Dear.

Yes dear, gotcha ;) Posted by Leroy: But, I will always ask, when I hear of someone spending tons of money on psychics to contact dead people, if anyone has offered the person a link to a counselor for grief. If that offends someone I am sorry. I will suggest it incase someone didn't.

Posted by Renata: I see. Ford Prefect was right about humans stating the very obvious. "Oh dear you seem to have fallen down a thirty-foot well, are you all right?"

Do you have a problem? I have made that suggestion to many people and have found that most did NOT SUGGEST counseling, or even think of it. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you get over it.

[Kerberos]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dingler44


If a better cold-reader is found, great... you admit JE's been duping you all this time.

If a better cold-reader is not found, this means absolutely nothing... it is not evidence for or against JE's claims to communicate with the dead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Originally posted by Neofight

Neither scenario would qualify as real evidence for or against mediumship, dingler44. It's just that finding an admitted cold-reader who can do what JE does would at least give me pause, and I'd have to re-evaluate my stance. It certainly would affect the way I think about JE's authenticity. At the very least, the "doubt" factor would increase greatly for me......neo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two problems with this approach. First of all there's no objective way to evaluate a cold reader performing in a non-controlled environment. Secondly CO is edited and JE could use stooges or have prior information about the people he reads, which would give him a non-supernatural edge over a cold-reader.

As for objective evidence I looked over some transcripts of JE readings on the "A count of JE's hits on Larry King Live" thread and found that he rarely "got" names that began with Z, X, Y, U, O, Q, V, W, T, N and F. These are the 11 letters that fewest first names begin with. The chance that this would happen by chance is slightly less than 0.8 %.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Leroy: Claus, I won't deny proof, if you have any, prove she lied already, or shut up.


Posted by CFLarsen: An 18Mb file Clancie read. Oh, wait. She didn't.

Not that again. You point to an 18mb file that you want us to wade through to find the evidence of her lies on our very own? What kind of proof is that? That's like saying, you lied and if anyone wants to see where, just read every thread on this board. Give it a break already. I think if you really had proof that clancie lied you would have cut and pasted the actual lies.

[Leroy]

JE and you are confounding the disease with the disease vector. Blood is the vector of these diseases, the way it is transmitted from person to person. Would you refer to influenza as a nose disorder? No. Would you refer to Old Lyme disease as a tick disorder? West Nile, Eastern Equine or malaria as mosquito disorders? No. No. No, and no.

Hey bill, what is it that you find difficult to comprehend? I am not confounding the disease with the disease vector. I am saying, once again that the reason John Edward gets away with associating Aids and Hep. with blood, is that both affect the blood, okay? And many of his fans don't question what he says.

[Leroy]

Posted by Voidx: You cannot deny from the stuff presented here Leroy that all the things he states under Blood disorder are not SPECIFICALLY blood disorders, therefore he's being intentionally vague.

Who is denying? I stated why he gets away with it.

[Kerberos]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Clancie

Of course, there's nothing I know about JE that actually makes either of these impossible [fraud, self-deluding]. I just haven't seen enough to make me feel either one is likely. ("Self deluded" doesn't account for some of the hits--even factoring in cold reading. "Fraudulent" would account for many of the "special hits", but not all, and doesn't jive with other aspects of the way he works, imo).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What hits can't be explained by fraud and how do you rule out creative editing, luck, stooges etc.? Also what parts of the way JE works aren't consistent with fraud, and why don't you think he would be doing that exactly to give you the impression that he isn't a fraud?

[Clancie]

Posted by kerberos

As for objective evidence I looked over some transcripts of JE readings on the "A count of JE's hits on Larry King Live" thread and found that he rarely "got" names that began with Z, X, Y, U, O, Q, V, W, T, N and F. These are the 11 letters that fewest first names begin with. The chance that this would happen by chance is slightly less than 0.8 %.
Um...and your point is....? :confused:

kerberos,
If most people's names start with the other 15 letters of the alphabet--and JE mostly mentions those letters in his readings--doesn't that make sense? I mean, whether he's fraudulent or legit, those are the names most people would really have, right? Why wouldn't those letters show up more than others in his readings if he's a real medium? :confused:

Compare it with Suzane Northrop who on the two occasions I saw her and kept track, went through every letter of the alphabet except for Q and Z, throwing the names out to the room at large, too, not to a particular person.

That method of working, imo, seems a far more suspect use of the alphabet as it relates to cold reading.

[SteveGrenard]

JE and you are confounding the disease with the disease vector. Blood is the vector of these diseases, the way it is transmitted from person to person.


Reply: While blood is important in the transmission or vectoring of AIDS, the last time I looked, T-Lymphocytes were white blood cells.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
JE and you are confounding the disease with the disease vector. Blood is the vector of these diseases, the way it is transmitted from person to person.


Reply: While blood is important in the transmission or vectoring of AIDS, the last time I looked, T-Lymphocytes were white blood cells.

Gee, I wonder what I meant by "disease vector'? :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Gee, I wonder what I meant by "disease vector'? :rolleyes:

It's "Victor", not "vector". As in "the disease Victor Zammit"... :D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


It's "Victor", not "vector". As in "the disease Victor Zammit"... :D

Should that be "disease victor, zammit!" ?

Cheers,

[CFLarsen]

Of course! ;)

[Kerberos]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Clancie

If most people's names start with the other 15 letters of the alphabet--and JE mostly mentions those letters in his readings--doesn't that make sense? I mean, whether he's fraudulent or legit, those are the names most people would really have, right? Why wouldn't those letters show up more than others in his readings if he's a real medium?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I obviously took that into account. The chance that one of these letters would be used is 14.54%, but they were only used 4 times out of 78 times in the transcripts I read. the chance of getting 4 or less of these is as I said slightly less than 0,8%. This would make perfect sense if JE is a cold reader because he wouldn't want to use names or letters that would have a low probability of a hit, while I'd expect a genuine medium to get names at random. He'd still get common letters more often than rare ones if he was genuine of course, but JE gets rare letters much less frequently than what we should expect from chance alone.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I obviously took that into account. The chance that one of these letters would be used is 14.54%, but they were only used 4 times out of 78 times in the transcripts I read. the chance of getting 4 or less of these is as I said slightly less than 0,8%. This would make perfect sense if JE is a cold reader because he wouldn't want to use names or letters that would have a low probability of a hit, while I'd expect a genuine medium to get names at random. He'd still get common letters more often than rare ones if he was genuine of course, but JE gets rare letters much less frequently than what we should expect from chance alone.

Interesting data analysis, Kerberos. Have you published it? Where did you get the name frequency data?

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
If most people's names start with the other 15 letters of the alphabet--and JE mostly mentions those letters in his readings--doesn't that make sense? I mean, whether he's fraudulent or legit, those are the names most people would really have, right? Why wouldn't those letters show up more than others in his readings if he's a real medium? :confused:[/B]
Clancie,

Do you understand Kerberos' answer?

Cheers,

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Interesting data analysis, Kerberos. Have you published it? Where did you get the name frequency data?

Cheers,

I'm way ahead of you, man.... :D

[Kerberos]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillHoyt

Interesting data analysis, Kerberos. Have you published it? Where did you get the name frequency data?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the easiest would be if I just cross-posted the two relevant posts so first juninho posted this:

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

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I replied:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by me

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

And no I haven't published anywhere since I haven't got a website or anything.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Kerberos

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 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.


Sir! Orville is a most excellent brand of popcorn! Wash your mouth out with micro-brew!

The analysis might be improved with more unedited JE transcripts. (I know. I know.) Also, with a name database derived from U.S. birth records (assuming a U.S. JE performance.) Such data would go a long way toward supporting the JE-is-a-you-know-what hypothesis.

Cheers,

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I'm way ahead of you, man.... :D

Fickle! ;)



Was it only a few days ago someone was asking me to publish my analysis....Tsk tsk. No wrath like a skepticreport contributor scorned, you know.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


The analysis might be improved with more unedited JE transcripts. (I know. I know.)
Cheers,

You're right of course that unedited transcripts are preferable, but I'm not sure they'd think of editing for such things in CO. I actually did include every transcript I could find including two fragments from CO. Without these there were 3 hits out of 73 which has a slightly more than 0.4% chance of happening by chance, but this is just as likely due to coincidence as to editing. I could check it if you or anybody else knew were I could find some transcripts from CO

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Also, with a name database derived from U.S. birth records (assuming a U.S. JE performance.) …



I'm not actually sure which country the data comes from, I just assumed it was from US

Originally posted by BillHoyt


…Such data would go a long way toward supporting the JE-is-a-you-know-what hypothesis.
Cheers,

Surely you're not suggesting that JE is a fraud *gasp* I though the spirits just had problems pronouncing letters like V and W :bgrin:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata


Fickle! ;)



Was it only a few days ago someone was asking me to publish my analysis....Tsk tsk. No wrath like a skepticreport contributor scorned, you know.

Didn't you say you were gone for a very long time?? :p

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Didn't you say you were gone for a very long time?? :p

And you use my absence to solicit other contributors. I see now how it works.



Kerberos, terrific job, by the way! :)

[voidx]

Originally posted by Leroy


Who is denying? I stated why he gets away with it.
Easy. Heh. Ok and so stating why he gets away with it, will you acknowledge that because all these items he lists are not SPECIFICALLY blood disorders, that he is being intentionally vague by using that exact term for his category?

[Thanz]

While Kerberos work on names and letters is interesting, I am surprised at the lack of critical thought with regards to these numbers.

First of all, why are we accepting juninho's numbers as reflective of anything? I don't mean this as a criticism of juninho, but we don't know what the list of forenames that he(?) has is. Is it simply a baby name book, or is it something else? Without knowing the source of the data or even what it means, I don't think that we can meaningfully compare it to JE readings.

Next, 78 guesses is a woefully small sample size. I don't know if we can really glean anything significant from such a small sample. I know that getting transcripts are a problem, and the editing on CO makes gathering data a problem, but let's not get caught doing sloppy work because we agree with the results, hm?

[neofight]

Originally posted by athon


(sorry - been away for the weekend)

Yeah, I teach science and maths.

I can understand the 'speculate 'cause it's fun' angle, and since I'm also a frustrated spec' fiction writer, I love doing it too. Now to be honest, I haven't read enough of your posts to know where exactly you stand on the belief stakes. I think 'believing' goes too far when people use the shaky foundations I was talking about to make serious decisions - health, mental welfare, finance etc.

If it is all 'let's just consider', then I'm cool with it. Hell, as I said, I love doing it too. But when we condone people encouraging others to make important life decisions based on uncertain foundations, then we have to start asking questions..

I gather you are referring to psychics who give out advice to people about such matters? I'm not at all into that kind of stuff. I plan my own life, together with my family. I don't go to strangers to find out what might be happening somewhere down the line.

Have I ever been to a JE reading? No, I live in Australia, and while we have our own healers, dowsers and other 'unestablished science users' (hows that for a PC term?) JE has only come down once, and that was sold out before I could get tickets.

I have seen his edited programs, and IMHO, nothing substantial can be determined.

Fair enough I suppose, athon, if you believe you've seen enough shows upon which to make such a judgement. Nobody ever claimed that his shows were actual hard proof of anything. I would only suggest that there might be something other than cold-reading going on, since no one has yet been able to produce an admitted cold-reader capable of doing readings of the calibre of JE's. Some people see it differently. :) ....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy
Do you have a problem? I have made that suggestion to many people and have found that most did NOT SUGGEST counseling, or even think of it. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you get over it.

Hi, Leroy. Naturally, counseling for people who are grieving can be very helpful, and it's a good suggestion to make if you see people having trouble coping after having endured a loss.

JE is very clear about stating that mediumship might bring some comfort to some, but that it is certainly not a substitute for working through your grief, and can actually be detrimental if a person comes to depend upon frequent readings with mediums, and never deals with the actual loss......neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
JE is very clear about stating that mediumship might bring some comfort to some, but that it is certainly not a substitute for working through your grief, and can actually be detrimental if a person comes to depend upon frequent readings with mediums, and never deals with the actual loss......neo

Then why does he do it?

[SteveGrenard]

TLN: Then why does he do it?

Reply: Do what?

He is very clear on a few things:

1) you can attend a Gallery reading no more than once a year

2) If you get to have a reading by him you are barred for life from ever having another one with him. To enforce this anyone who gets a reading is also barred for life from ever attending another gallery session.

I think, based on these rules, that he practices what he preaches about not becoming reliant on frequent readings with mediums as a way of dealing with grief.

(ref: Information letter sent to to people attending readings. I don't know if he mentions this anywhere else, e.g. his website).

[Jeff Corey]

That's not he did it when he gave pace to face readings here. He had many repeat customers, or, marks is the technical term.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Kerberos


You're right of course that unedited transcripts are preferable, but I'm not sure they'd think of editing for such things in CO. I actually did include every transcript I could find including two fragments from CO. Without these there were 3 hits out of 73 which has a slightly more than 0.4% chance of happening by chance, but this is just as likely due to coincidence as to editing. I could check it if you or anybody else knew were I could find some transcripts from CO

Kerberos, I too think that you would need to include as many transcripts as you could to get a more accurate estimate.

If you do a search over at tvtalkshows.com (http://) you will find some more transcripts, which although are not unedited, probably include just about all the names that came through. That is not really a part of the reading that would be edited out anyhow, as the names are very important.

I'm not actually sure which country the data comes from, I just assumed it was from US

That would be important. It would have to be from the U.S.

Surely you're not suggesting that JE is a fraud *gasp* I though the spirits just had problems pronouncing letters like V and W :bgrin:

LOL I'm sure that wasn't at all what Bill was suggesting, Kerberos. :rolleyes: lol

BTW, I remember the names Willie and/or William coming up in many of JE's readings. I also remember readings with the names Veronica and Victor, as well as Vincent. I agree with you. I think to do it right, you would need to include as many JE reading transcripts as possible.......neo

[SteveGrenard]

How long ago was this? I know that about two years ago he also had a 2 to 3 year waiting list which would also cut down on "frequent" readings by default; however he may not allow repeaters for these anymore either. At one point he had stopped even taking one on one appointments. Does anyone know if he does so and if he allows frequent repeaters or does one have to go to the end of the que?

Can somebody please look up the name Alowishus and tell us how common a U.S. name that is? Thanks.

[neofight]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by neofight
JE is very clear about stating that mediumship might bring some comfort to some, but that it is certainly not a substitute for working through your grief, and can actually be detrimental if a person comes to depend upon frequent readings with mediums, and never deals with the actual loss......neo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by TLN


Then why does he do it?

As Steve just responded, Captain, ;) he doesn't. BTW, did you ever get back to me to say whether or not you were the same Captain TLN that posted for a bit over at tvtalk? :)

And Jeff, he may have given repeat readings years ago, but he no longer does. When your friend's sister went to him back then, was she a deeply grieving person? Or did she go simply out of curiousity and fascination? In other words, for fun? Do you know?.....neo

[TLN]

neo, no one said anything about repeat readings. Why does he do readings at all if it's not supposed to take the place of real "help"?

Originally posted by neofight
BTW, did you ever get back to me to say whether or not you were the same Captain TLN that posted for a bit over at tvtalk? :)

Oh, yes I was.

[Instig8R]

Posted by sgrenard:
Can somebody please look up the name Alowishus and tell us how common a U.S. name that is? Thanks.

The name is Aloysius, although it is pronounced the way you mispelled it.

St. Aloysius (born in Italy in the 1500's) is the patron saint of Catholic youth. Aloysius was supposed to have a military career, but at age 18, he defied his family by joining the Jesuits. I think I still have a medal of St. Aloysius somewhere amid my school memorabilia. Many of our Catholic churches, schools, cemeteries and youth groups are named after him.

A lot of Catholic boys I grew up with chose the name of "Aloysius" as their confirmation name.

Aloysius is a familiar name among Catholics, but not as a first name. Obviously, as an Italian/Irish Catholic, JE would easily have the name in his frame of reference, and he would know who to use it on.

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks for the info on that name. I was actually thinking of the bear which I spelled correctly:

http://www.eliteothers.com/Bid_Bay/alowishus.htm

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


Kerberos, I too think that you would need to include as many transcripts as you could to get a more accurate estimate.

If you do a search over at tvtalkshows.com (http://) you will find some more transcripts, which although are not unedited, probably include just about all the names that came through. That is not really a part of the reading that would be edited out anyhow, as the names are very important.


Hey, Kerberos-- Don't listen to neofight about the editing!

I've never been to the CO Gallery. However, I attended a JE seminar last year, and the readings were later broadcast on CO.

The readings were heavily edited, to make them seem better than they were. Many of the misses were edited out... and that includes missed names.

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN
neo, no one said anything about repeat readings. Why does he do readings at all if it's not supposed to take the place of real "help"?

Well, actually I brought it up, TLN, (repeat readings) in the following quote of mine......

Originally posted by neofight
JE is very clear about stating that mediumship might bring some comfort to some, but that it is certainly not a substitute for working through your grief, and can actually be detrimental if a person comes to depend upon frequent readings with mediums, and never deals with the actual loss......neo

and that was what Jeff was alluding to here......

[quote][b]originally posted by Jeff Corey
That's not he did it when he gave face to face readings here. He had many repeat customers, or, marks is the technical term.

As far as your more general question, why does he do it? He does it because countless people do find comfort in his readings, and many a skeptic has left there after getting read feeling considerably less skeptical than from when they got there.

And although a reading with a medium cannot take the place of grief counseling, TLN, it definitely has it's place as an adjunct to it. Many, many times JE will zero in on a specific problem in a relationship between the deceased and the sitter, and there are many healing messages that are given that actually change people's lives. (I'm guessing you don't watch "Crossing Over" either.) :(

In any case, I didn't mean to suggest that JE doesn't help these people, only that he doesn't want them to depend upon mediumship in lieu of grief counseling. :) .....neo

[Loki]

stevegrenard,

He is very clear on a few things:

1) you can attend a Gallery reading no more than once a year

2) If you get to have a reading by him you are barred for life from ever having another one with him. To enforce this anyone who gets a reading is also barred for life from ever attending another gallery session
Of course, both of these conditions would also protect him from the potentially embarassing situation of reading the same perosn a few years a part, but producing entirely different readings!!

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by neofight
quote:And Jeff, he may have given repeat readings years ago, but he no longer does. When your friend's sister went to him back then, was she a deeply grieving person? Or did she go simply out of curiousity and fascination? In other words, for fun? Do you know?.....neo
Sam's moved upstate and I'll see if I can track her down and ask for specific details.
My recall is that her two sisters and Sam were grieving. Her two sisters started going to Magee's house on Little Plains road, and later at some office near Jericho Turnpike, maye West Hills road, about five years ago and returned a few times, maybe three or four. Then they convinced Sam to go
Sam was livid about her sisters' falling for this.
I met one sister who was with Sam at a local pub almost two years ago. The sister was totally convinced that she wasn't being scammed.
The conversation turned impolite when the sisty ugler screamed at me, "You're nothing but a God Damned atheist."

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Hey, Kerberos-- Don't listen to neofight about the editing!

I've never been to the CO Gallery. However, I attended a JE seminar last year, and the readings were later broadcast on CO.

The readings were heavily edited, to make them seem better than they were. Many of the misses were edited out... and that includes missed names.

Hey, Kerberos! Do whatever you want to, okay? Instig8R has shown that she is by no means an objective observer with regard to John Edward. She has a hatred for him that is bordering on obsessive, and it kind of makes her rant a bit. :D

In any case, the transcripts over at tvtalk were mostly made right from the "CO" show. They are edited the way all "CO" readings are edited, which to Instig8R, means that black is now white, up is now down, left is now right, and yes is now no. In reality, she makes the editing process sound a hell of a lot worse than it is.

Steve has been to a "Crossing Over" taping, and has stated many times that the type of editing that Instig8R claims does not happen.

But we've argued that point here and at tvtalkshows ad nauseum already, so I'll just end with the fact that regardless of what Instig8R thinks is edited out of readings, you can see from the average transcript that there are plenty of names to add to your research. If you don't think they will improve the stats, then just disregard them. Sheeesh! :rolleyes: .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Loki
stevegrenard,


Of course, both of these conditions would also protect him from the potentially embarassing situation of reading the same perosn a few years a part, but producing entirely different readings!!

Well, actually, Loki, it wouldn't matter at all if the person got an entirely different reading years later, provided that all the information that came through in this second reading was also accurate. :p .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

The conversation turned impolite when the sisty ugler screamed at me, "You're nothing but a God Damned atheist."

LOL Jeff. Hard enough to discuss these types of things amongst family and friends, but in a pub no less, where adult beverages were being served? Sounds a bit dangerous to me! :eek: ......neo

[Loki]

Neo,

Well, actually, Loki, it wouldn't matter at all if the person got an entirely different reading years later, provided that all the information that came through in this second reading was also accurate.
Well, neither of us believes that *all* the information JE comes up with is accurate, do we? At the very least, a certain amount of each reading appears to be "not sure - think about it - it will fit eventually". I guess I was thinking of the potential for contradiction. For example, in reading number one he gets "male to the side"; sitter says "brother"; JE says "blood disorder". In reading number two he says "male to the side"; sitter says "brother"; JE says "impact death". Personally, if I had to decide why JE won't allow a person to be read twice on CO and my choices were :

(a) He's concerned that the sitter might be inappropriately using mediumship to handle their grief;
(b) He's concerned that he might contradict himself;

...I'm gonna go with (b) for now! Anyway, this is another simple and quick test that JE could conduct (but for some reason refuses to do so) ... simply read the same 3 people 3 times each (obviously separated by a partition!) in a random order and see if he can get the same "images".

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

It's taken a few days to get around to it, but I wanted to emphasise something Instig8r posted in the "Interesting Hits" thread:

"John: ...Does not care about the whole cigarette thing. My feeling is like, its his torch. He loves it, you know what I'm saying? (Yep) It's like, it's an enjoyment kind of a thing. You you have a child that's getting married?"

Man: She just got married.

John: Okay, he wants me to tell you he was at the wedding. He's acknowleging the wedding. (Okay)"

Now if I understand what you think happened here Neo, it goes something like this :

spirit : "JE, I'm showing/telling you 'wedding'...(image of wedding cake)"
JE : "you have a child that's getting married?"
sitter : "She just got married."
spirit : "JE, I was there!...(image of father with arm around the bride)"
JE : "he was at the wedding..."

The issue is plain - why didn't it go like this :

spirit : "JE, I'm showing/telling you 'wedding' - I was there!...(image of father with arm around the bride)"
JE : "I'm getting a wedding - he was at the wedding of your daughter!"
sitter : "Yes! She just got married."

There's *no* difference between these two examples in terms of "images within JE's frame of reference", or in terms of "sitter validation" or in terms of "spirit wants to send message 'x'". The only difference in is the *order* in which the reading unfolded. The order in the first (the real reading) is identical to how a cold reader would approach it. The second is an unambiguous statement that is either right or wrong - if right, it's a good hit!

Why? Do the spirits like being vague? This spirit delivered the message it wanted, but in a roundabout manner. Very cold-readerish. Why? What part of the process explains this? Isn't it true to say :

1. Cold reading reading explains exactly why.
2. Mediumship cannot explain why - it simply says "it just is".

When you say that you believe there is a process to JE's mediumship, and you have come to accept this because it is "consistent", aren't you forced to admit that there are "inconsistencies" that are explained away by JE as "just is"?

[Loki]

Neofight,

In reality, she makes the editing process sound a hell of a lot worse than it is.
Instig8r may be exaggerating - but how do you know? She has her opinon, you have yours. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between?

Steve has been to a "Crossing Over" taping, and has stated many times that the type of editing that Instig8R claims does not happen
Can you confirm something for me - has Steve actually seen readings from his trip to the Gallery on TV? A few days back it sounded like he was saying that it was his opinion that there would be very little need for editing (except cosmetic). His phrasing made it sound like he didn't actually know, but was simply assuming. And yes, I ahve asked him - ut I didn't understand his answer! What is your understanding - has he actually seen an episode of CO with a reading from this trip to the Gallery?

Unrelated question -what is your personal opinion of the validity of Sylvia Browne? (just curious - not setting any traps!)

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight

Hey, Kerberos! Do whatever you want to, okay? Instig8R has shown that she is by no means an objective observer with regard to John Edward. She has a hatred for him that is bordering on obsessive, and it kind of makes her rant a bit. :D


Neo, no one is fooled by your statement above, even if a laughing smiley accompanies it!

In the "Malibu Shrimp" reading from Westbury, before you viewed the edited-for-TV version, you argued vehemently against my assertion that JE forced the "stolen recipe" validation out of Deborah. Then, when the edited reading appeared on TV, Deborah's forced false confession was minimized. In the post-reading segment, Deborah revealed that the secret was that she and her friend had used dirty claims in the recipe. Now, you have abandoned your prior position, in order to agree with the edited version of the reading. I posted your strong argument {against the forced validation) earlier in this thread, but you have chosen to ignore it.

Likewise, your flexibility with the facts was manifested when you thought Snuggles the bear was a great hit in the "feather in Niagara Falls" reading. When confronted with the fact that JE said and meant Scrunchy the bear, you then stretched the facts and claimed that the reading was even BETTER because of the mistake!

I do not understand why you keep insinuating that I hate JE. I never said I hate JE, and you have no basis to assume my emotional state... unless, of course, you also claim psychic powers.

I suspect that you are manufacturing my emotions in order to devalue my comments and criticisms of JE. Possibly, it is also indicative of your own mindset and bias... You are indirectly revealing how much your cult-like devotion to JE is causing you to distort reality and view his readings as better than they are. ;)

I have been very consistent, both before and after broadcast of the Malibu Shrimp reading. As for you, however:

1. You contradicted my version of the Malibu Shrimp reading...
2. Then, you flip-flopped, and finally,
3.You contradicted your own earlier version of it.

Shall I post it again??? I think you've got a lot of 'splainin' to do!:D

[renata]

Originally posted by Instig8R



I have been very consistent, both before and after broadcast of the Malibu Shrimp reading. As for you, however:

1. You contradicted my version of the Malibu Shrimp reading...
2. Then, you flip-flopped, and finally,
3.You contradicted your own earlier version of it.

Shall I post it again??? I think you've got a lot of 'splainin' to do!:D


Instig8R, I was surprised by Neo's quite strong attack of your motives. I thought believers were upset when skeptics posted ad hominem attacks and assigned motives and would refrain from similar tactics.

I have not observed any particular "hate" or "obsession" from you- although I am not impartial! :) On the contrary, you seem to explore evidence and come up consistently with thorough explanation. (Maybe I just like you because you are Instigator by name, and I am Instigator by nature!;)) Neo, on the other hand has demonstrated a startling willingness to exclude evidence against JE from her worldview, against what appears to be common sense. Witness her classification of the only unedited transcripts of JE as useless and unacceptable.

Since I have not been following the Malibu Shrimp posts quite carefully, can you post the history as you indicated above? Thanks :)

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by renata



Instig8R, I was surprised by Neo's quite strong attack of your motives. I thought believers were upset when skeptics posted ad hominem attacks and assigned motives and would refrain from similar tactics.

-snip-


Since I have not been following the Malibu Shrimp posts quite carefully, can you post the history as you indicated above? Thanks :)



Thanks, renata! When Neo starts presuming my emotions, I know that she has used up all her other arguments!

Before the Malibu Shrimp reading was broadcast on TV, there was a whole running argument about this over at TVTalk. I maintained that JE had browbeaten the confession of "recipe stealing" out of Deborah. Neo insisted that I was wrong... Her insistance was unwavering... until the broadcast version of the reading revealed that the "dirty clams" was why it was a secret recipe.

IMO, neo doesn't want to admit that JE pressures validations out of people, so she'd rather not deal with it. Perhaps I should start a thread about it? It is quite revealing as to who has the problem with bias... and it isn't me!

[neofight]

Originally posted by Loki
......I guess I was thinking of the potential for contradiction. For example, in reading number one he gets "male to the side"; sitter says "brother"; JE says "blood disorder". In reading number two he says "male to the side"; sitter says "brother"; JE says "impact death". Personally, if I had to decide why JE won't allow a person to be read twice on CO and my choices were :

(a) He's concerned that the sitter might be inappropriately using mediumship to handle their grief;
(b) He's concerned that he might contradict himself;

Okay, Loki. I understand how a skeptic would think that. We've discussed this as well over at tvtalk, and I would never say that you'd be irrational to consider that (b) would be the reason he doesn't do repeat readings. It's entirely plausible.

Jeff has said that he's going to try to get some specific information concerning the multiple readings that his friend's sisters got from JE at some private readings. It's been several years since they were read, but perhaps they have some notes that they can share with him, and he with us. :)

...I'm gonna go with (b) for now! Anyway, this is another simple and quick test that JE could conduct (but for some reason refuses to do so) ... simply read the same 3 people 3 times each (obviously separated by a partition!) in a random order and see if he can get the same "images".

Sounds like another good test, Loki. Ever think of getting involved in this investigative field? I bet you and some other skeptics (I won't mention names because I might inadvertently forget one or two) would be able to come up with some good ideas for the testing of mediumship.

Now if I understand what you think happened here Neo, it goes something like this :

spirit : "JE, I'm showing/telling you 'wedding'...(image of wedding cake)"
JE : "you have a child that's getting married?"
sitter : "She just got married."
spirit : "JE, I was there!...(image of father with arm around the bride)"
JE : "he was at the wedding..."

The issue is plain - why didn't it go like this :

spirit : "JE, I'm showing/telling you 'wedding' - I was there!...(image of father with arm around the bride)"
JE : "I'm getting a wedding - he was at the wedding of your daughter!"
sitter : "Yes! She just got married."

There's *no* difference between these two examples in terms of "images within JE's frame of reference", or in terms of "sitter validation" or in terms of "spirit wants to send message 'x'". The only difference in is the *order* in which the reading unfolded. The order in the first (the real reading) is identical to how a cold reader would approach it. The second is an unambiguous statement that is either right or wrong - if right, it's a good hit!

Why? Do the spirits like being vague? This spirit delivered the message it wanted, but in a roundabout manner. Very cold-readerish. Why? What part of the process explains this?

Loki, I'll do my best to explain it. From what I can tell, this........

spirit : "JE, I'm showing/telling you 'wedding' - I was there!...(image of father with arm around the bride)"

......doesn't happen. If a spirit is coming through and showing JE an image of something relating to a wedding, then that's what he gets. That's all he knows. I don't know what JE sees exactly to indicate that he should mention a wedding. Now that he's married, perhaps he now sees his own wedding in his mind's eye. I don't know.

In any case, JE does not always get a sense of time from the spirit. In other words, he might see a wedding, but he has no sense whether this just happened, or is soon going to happen. So he is not literally seeing this father with his arm around his daughter, to indicate that he was at her wedding.

All JE is getting is an image of a wedding, and by that, from trial and error, in his experience, he knows that the spirit is *acknowledging* either that someone just got married, (after his death) or will be getting married in the near future, and in that case, he is again, simply acknowledging that he is aware of it. John expresses this acknowledgment and awareness by saying that the spirit will be, or was already, there at the wedding. And
since he *saw* it, I suppose he was there, in spirit. :)

Isn't it true to say :

1. Cold reading reading explains exactly why.
2. Mediumship cannot explain why - it simply says "it just is".

When you say that you believe there is a process to JE's mediumship, and you have come to accept this because it is "consistent", aren't you forced to admit that there are "inconsistencies" that are explained away by JE as "just is"?

But are they truly inconsistent, Loki? Or do skeptics simply fail to understand and/or accept how unsatisfyingly vague some of these images really are, and how difficult they can be to interpret?

And isn't this wherein lies the rub as they say? My explanation could be the accurate one, but without scientific proof, I certainly wouldn't expect you to buy it. And conversely, cold-reading could account for a lot of what we see, but since I have never ever seen a cold-reader do readings as well as JE, I can't bring myself to accept that as the absolute truth either.

True, you can invoke Occam's razor, and all that jazz, but other than that, believing your unproven conclusion only because the other one isn't an accepted reality, leaves something to be desired to those of us who don't think JE is cold-reading.

There is no proof that you can offer me to show me that a cold-reader can do this. I've been searching for over two years now, and haven't found it, Loki. People like Claus may say that I've seen it, I just haven't accepted it, but give me a little credit here. I know what I'm looking for, and I haven't yet found it.

If Ian Rowland did it, then show me the whole 30 minutes of his readings, so that I can see it too. Skeptics complain that JE doesn't let himself be tested enough. Well, what about the other twenty-eight and a half minutes of tape that was shot? It's already been done. It was all paid for.

Why didn't we get to see it all if it was so convincing? I wrote Randi and asked him if he could get a hold of it. He said no. Ian Rowland told me the same thing. Legalities prevented them from getting it, yadda, yadda, yadda. It belonged to ABC. So there we had the perfect chance to judge a cold-reader's somewhat extenced performance, an extremely rare bit of footage, actually, but alas......we can't. :( ......neo

[Loki]

Neofight,

... but since I have never ever seen a cold-reader do readings as well as JE, I can't bring myself to accept that as the absolute truth either.
Well, we can repeat this forever if we wish, but I *have* seen cold readers do as well as JE does on LKL. I have not seen cold readers do as well as JE does on CO.

[quote]There is no proof that you can offer me to show me that a cold-reader can do this. I've been searching for over two years now, and haven't found it, Loki. People like Claus may say that I've seen it, I just haven't accepted it, but give me a little credit here. I know what I'm looking for, and I haven't yet found it./quote]
I agree that Claus is too quick to dismiss your search - I think you're just looking in the wrong places! If I assume that JE is a fake, then he's been perfecting his routine for decades. I wouldn't expect *any*"walk up" cold reader to match him, and there's no motive for an amateur cold-reader to practice long enoughto gain the experience to match him.

So where can we find a reasonable comparision? Other mediums!! See Neo, even if JE is "good", he does things that look remarkably similar to Northrop, and Browne, and the Pet Psychic - and there's a lot of reason to doubt the veracity of these people. Have I seen someone who (a) I believe is not a medium and (b) who appears to do what JE does? Yes! The names Browne...

[neofight]

Originally posted by Loki
Neofight,

Instig8r may be exaggerating - but how do you know? She has her opinon, you have yours. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between?

Loki, I'm a reasonable person, and I have no problem with each of us having our respective opinions. Hell, I believe that JE is a medium, and she doesn't. Of course we both have different opinions. But then let her state them as her opinions, and not post things like.....

Hey, Kerberos-- Don't listen to neofight about the editing!

......when I'm suggesting to someone where to find some JE transcripts.

Can you confirm something for me - has Steve actually seen readings from his trip to the Gallery on TV? A few days back it sounded like he was saying that it was his opinion that there would be very little need for editing (except cosmetic). His phrasing made it sound like he didn't actually know, but was simply assuming. And yes, I ahve asked him - ut I didn't understand his answer! What is your understanding - has he actually seen an episode of CO with a reading from this trip to the Gallery?

Loki, I can't answer that for sure. I know that I think I finally saw the one reading that he mentions all the time, the one about the woman who denied ever having given music/piano lessons, and who finally admitted (or finally remembered) that she did indeed, give this child who had since died, one or two piano lessons. Whether Steve ever saw any of the readings from that day, I don't know.

What Steve has said, however, is that being there to see all of these readings in person, (read: unedited) it was very clear to him that there were none of those big awful misses in JE's readings that everyone assumes there would be. Nothing that would cause one to say that he was a fake.

In other words, he didn't see anything that would even need to be edited out, except for that reading where the woman wasted all that time denying that she had ever taught music. JE got stuck on that one thing for a long time because of that.

Unrelated question -what is your personal opinion of the validity of Sylvia Browne? (just curious - not setting any traps!)

lol Are you sure? ;) Truthfully, Loki, I dislike saying all that much about Sylvia Browne for the very reason that I don't like when people entirely unfamiliar with JE make rash judgements about him.

I've only ever seen Sylvia on shows like Montel and LKL. I've never been to one of her seminars, and I never even saw her do mediumship, although I believe she does claim to be a medium. A lot of people are turned off by her personality and demeanor.

I read one of her books a couple of years ago. I don't even remember which one. Parts of it were fairly interesting, and other parts, like the ones having to do with what it was like on the otherside, were a bit too much for me.

Truthfully, what I found most compelling about the book, was the introduction by Dr. Melvin Morse, a pediatrician from Washington State who researched ADCs in children. In the introduction, he tells a very interesting story of how he met SB, and if the story is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it would appear that she is a true medium indeed.

That's called a "teaser". lol Anyhow, I don't have the book, so I couldn't go further into detail if I wanted to, and still be accurate. It was a library book. Hope my answer was satisfactory. :) ....neo

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


Loki, I'm a reasonable person, and I have no problem with each of us having our respective opinions. Hell, I believe that JE is a medium, and she doesn't. Of course we both have different opinions. But then let her state them as her opinions, and not post things like.....

"Hey, Kerberos-- Don't listen to neofight about the editing!"

......when I'm suggesting to someone where to find some JE transcripts.

....neo


Neo, I did not just say "Don't listen to neofight about the editing". Did you only read the first line of my post??? I stated my opinion, and I explained why I disagreed with you. I will repeat what I said:

"Hey, Kerberos-- Don't listen to neofight about the editing!

I've never been to the CO Gallery. However, I attended a JE seminar last year, and the readings were later broadcast on CO.

The readings were heavily edited, to make them seem better than they were. Many of the misses were edited out... and that includes missed names. "

In other words, I challenged your opinion, and explained why I disagree with you over the editing... and I can provide evidence to back up my claim of editing in the Malibu Shrimp reading.

Just because someone disagrees with you is not justification for an ad hom... and making up accusations of hatreds and biases about other posters IS an ad hom. Are you trying to deflect attention from the Malibu Shrimp snafu? :D

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Neo, no one is fooled by your statement above, even if a laughing smiley accompanies it!

Actually, Instig8R, if you look closely, my smiley is not laughing. It's gritting it's teeth, because it was a bit P/Oed at your telling
Kerberos, a new poster, to ignore me, and forgetting to put in your own smiley face. :mad: Like I said to Loki, a differing opinion is one thing, but remember that you're not the only one that has one, and yours in not necessarily the one that's correct, so remember to present it as an "opinion".[/b][/quote]

Regarding those two readings you were commenting on, yes, I understand what you are saying, and that you don't buy into the mediumship argument, and so don't accept how telepathy is supposed to work. I get it.

I realize that the inconsistencies that you think you see seem gigantic to you, and you're convinced that they are obvious examples of JE's wiggling, where to me, those differences in perception that would cause JE to say "Scrunchy" instead of "Snuggles" for example, are so irrelevant to anything substantial, that I disregard them entirely. To you, they're misses, so you cannot dismiss them. Understood. We differ.

You obviously believe that is because I've drunk the Koolaide. I suspect it's because I've better grasped the concept of mediumship and telepathic imagery that's involved, and understand its shortcomings.

I do not understand why you keep insinuating that I hate JE. I never said I hate JE, and you have no basis to assume my emotional state... unless, of course, you also claim psychic powers.

No, I have zilch psychic powers, but if you don't in fact hate JE, then I don't have any idea why you would ever use some of the nasty hateful rhetoric that you have used when discussing him. So my mistake then if you don't hate him, but I'm not the only one who's ever commented on your sometimes malicious language.

I suspect that you are manufacturing my emotions in order to devalue my comments and criticisms of JE. Possibly, it is also indicative of your own mindset and bias... You are indirectly revealing how much your cult-like devotion to JE is causing you to distort reality and view his readings as better than they are. ;)

Well, of course you are free to interpret my posts in any way that you like, but in reality, my inability at times to keep our posts impersonal and more even-keeled stems from the fact that you are a close friend of mine of 40+ years, and it's always been a losing battle for me not to overreact to some of the things that you write.

I don't react quite the same way with a "Claus" for instance. I am much more detached when I respond to someone like that, no matter what he writes. I take it from whence it comes. I think that's the problem. With you, I also take it from whence it comes. lol Say good night, Gracie.

[neofight]

Originally posted by renata



Instig8R, I was surprised by Neo's quite strong attack of your motives. I thought believers were upset when skeptics posted ad hominem attacks and assigned motives and would refrain from similar tactics.

I have not observed any particular "hate" or "obsession" from you- although I am not impartial!

True, renata, you are not impartial, but then, who is? Before Instig8R posted here, like many of us, she posted at TVTalkShows. Many of the posts that I referred to were from there, so you would not necessarily have been aware of them.

Neo, on the other hand has demonstrated a startling willingness to exclude evidence against JE from her worldview, against what appears to be common sense.

And what evidence might that be, renata? That tired old "Dateline" show with John Hockenberry? Or the bogus Michael O'Neill testimony? :rolleyes:

Witness her classification of the only unedited transcripts of JE as useless and unacceptable.

Yes, I do find them rather useless and unacceptable, renata. Having seen readings both from edited "CO" shows and unedited JE seminars, I know that the short little aborted readings that JE does on a show like LKL, are not representative of an average JE reading, either edited, or unedited, which is why I don't give them much consideration......neo

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


Actually, Instig8R, if you look closely, my smiley is not laughing. It's gritting it's teeth, because it was a bit P/Oed at your telling
Kerberos, a new poster, to ignore me, and forgetting to put in your own smiley face. :mad: Like I said to Loki, a differing opinion is one thing, but remember that you're not the only one that has one, and yours in not necessarily the one that's correct, so remember to present it as an "opinion".


Neo, it is all opinion here, and I have never claimed otherwise. I should not have to preface every single sentence with "IMO", nor should I be bound by rules that you yourself do not live by.



Originally posted by neofight
No, I have zilch psychic powers, but if you don't in fact hate JE, then I don't have any idea why you would ever use some of the nasty hateful rhetoric that you have used when discussing him. So my mistake then if you don't hate him, but I'm not the only one who's ever commented on your sometimes malicious language.



Neo, this has come up a number of times. Whenever I criticize JE, I wind up being the target of an ad hom. You still seem to think it is justifiable to attack whoever criticizes JE. If we adhere to your rules, JE cannot be discussed, because anyone who utters a negative comment is attacked for doing so. This is a surefire way to stifle meaningful discussion.

It would be very helpful if you would supply me examples of the "nasty hateful rhetoric that I have used in discussing him". That is a very serious allegation on your part. I deny that I have ever engaged in any such behavior.

I do not use malicious language. Your allegation is downright defamatory. I would suggest that you either back-up your claim with evidence of the offensive rhetoric that you charge me with, or withdraw the claim.

Several times at TVTalk, I criticized JE and explained why I thought he was a fraud. However, instead of responding to my criticisms, you paraphrased my criticisms and referred to JE as "lowlife", etc., even though I did not engage in name-calling. Perhaps that is why you believe I was the author of ugly comments that YOU wrote about JE? ...Sort of like a poster's false memory syndrome.

If you look through the threads, I think you will see what I mean.

Friendship or not, these are impersonal debates on forums ... and detachment is the only way to debate an issue. The emotional state of a poster should not be presumed, because it is simply not relevant....

Now, go find those offensive quotes of mine... I'm dying to read them! :)

[renata]

Originally posted by neofight


True, renata, you are not impartial, but then, who is? Before Instig8R posted here, like many of us, she posted at TVTalkShows. Many of the posts that I referred to were from there, so you would not necessarily have been aware of them.



No, but I am sure you can quote from them to substantiate your allegations of "hate" and "obsession"! :)



And what evidence might that be, renata? That tired old "Dateline" show with John Hockenberry? Or the bogus Michael O'Neill testimony? :rolleyes:

Err... read my next sentence...




Yes, I do find them rather useless and unacceptable, renata. Having seen readings both from edited "CO" shows and unedited JE seminars, I know that the short little aborted readings that JE does on a show like LKL, are not representative of an average JE reading, either edited, or unedited, which is why I don't give them much consideration......neo

Neo, you crack me up. They are not "aborted" readings. JE can make them as long or as short as he wants. Nobody made him go there, and he never said those readings would be worse than the ones on CO. Indeed, I believe you have it backwords- those unedited readings are representative of a real JE reading, not the CO readings that are admittedly edited.

You ever seen the Simpsons? The good thing about Simpsons is that you can get examples for any life situations! :)
There is an episode where Homer is accused to sexually harassing the babysitter. He is interviewed for a TV show, "Rock Bottom"

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F06.html

Homer is interviewed on-camera by Godfrey Jones.

Homer: Ehh, someone had to take the babysitter home. Then I noticed she was sitting on the gummi Venus, so I grabbed it off her. Oh, just thinking about that sweet, sweet candy...[moans lustfully] I just wish I had another one right now. But the most importantthing is --
Jones: That was really great Mr. Simpson. We got everything we need.


Later they show the interview

Homer: Somebody had to take the babysitter home. Then I noticed she was sitting on [splice] her sweet [splice] can. [splice] -- o I grab her -- [splice] sweet can. [splice] Oh, just thinking about [splice] her [splice] can [splice] I just wish I had he -- [splice] sweet [splice] sweet [splice] s-s-sweet [splice] can.
Jones: So, Mr. Simpson: you admit you grabbed her can. What do you have to say in your defense?
Homer: [looking lustful in a clearly-paused VCR shot]
Jones: Mr. Simpson, your silence will only incriminate you further. [paused shot of Homer grows larger] No, Mr. Simpson, don't take your anger out on me. Get back! Get back! Mist -- Mr. Simpson -- nooo!
Man: [quickly] Dramatization -- may not have happened.


Of course, above is a joke. But how you can pick an edited version of a show versus an unedited series of readings is unfathomable- and- in my mind against common sense.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight

True, renata, you are not impartial, but then, who is? Before Instig8R posted here, like many of us, she posted at TVTalkShows. Many of the posts that I referred to were from there, so you would not necessarily have been aware of them.


Hey, renata-- I absolutely deny this accusation that I have somehow behaved in a manner that justified the ad hom, and eagerly await the evidence of same.


Originally posted by neofight
Yes, I do find them rather useless and unacceptable, renata. Having seen readings both from edited "CO" shows and unedited JE seminars, I know that the short little aborted readings that JE does on a show like LKL, are not representative of an average JE reading, either edited, or unedited, which is why I don't give them much consideration......neo

Uh, renata, I reiterate that I have seen readings in both venues, I can attest to the fact that the seminar readings are as bad as those on LKL. He needs heavy editing to achieve those readings that impress his fans on CO. Seminars are recalled as being better than they are: The hits are remembered, and the misses are forgotten or minimized.

I am not at all surprised that JE does not allow his private readings to be taped.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


So my mistake then if you don't hate him, but I'm not the only one who's ever commented on your sometimes malicious language.



P.S. I'd also like to know the identities of the other posters that you claim have commented on my "sometimes malicious language". Just who are these nameless posters?

There were some unjustified personal attacks against me by atmytv and by sgrenard over at TVTalk. In response, other posters (like RC and Celter, for example) defended me because the attacks were extremely inappropriate and unjustified. (I believe atmytv apologized and we made up.)

Therefore, I am not sure what other posters you are referring to... and I hope you will supply me with their quotes, too.

You would be doing a huge public service by specifically identifying my offensive malicious language, and demonstrating how other posters have responded to my supposed transgressions.

In the very least, if I am to be maligned, I have a right to know who my accusers are...and since you brought them up... well, "Bring 'em on!" :D

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Thanz

While Kerberos work on names and letters is interesting, I am surprised at the lack of critical thought with regards to these numbers.

First of all, why are we accepting juninho's numbers as reflective of anything? I don't mean this as a criticism of juninho, but we don't know what the list of forenames that he(?) has is. Is it simply a baby name book, or is it something else? Without knowing the source of the data or even what it means, I don't think that we can meaningfully compare it to JE readings.

Next, 78 guesses is a woefully small sample size. I don't know if we can really glean anything significant from such a small sample. I know that getting transcripts are a problem, and the editing on CO makes gathering data a problem, but let's not get caught doing sloppy work because we agree with the results, hm? [/i]

Well I’ve asked Juninho where he got the numbers from, and if the source turn out not to be reliable I hope that some of the American posters can find numbers that are reliable.

As for the number of guesses I included all the transcripts I could find, but Claus has offered to find more. In any case it’s the statistical significancy that counts not the number of guesses, though I’ll admit that I’d never accept evidence in favor of a paranormal phenomenon unless the results were more significant than these.

In any case I hope the results will be more significant when the transcripts Claus finds are included.

quote:
Originally posted by neofight



Kerberos, I too think that you would need to include as many transcripts as you could to get a more accurate estimate.

If you do a search over at tvtalkshows.com you will find some more transcripts, which although are not unedited, probably include just about all the names that came through. That is not really a part of the reading that would be edited out anyhow, as the names are very important. [/i]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Hey, Kerberos-- Don't listen to neofight about the editing!

I've never been to the CO Gallery. However, I attended a JE seminar last year, and the readings were later broadcast on CO.

The readings were heavily edited, to make them seem better than they were. Many of the misses were edited out... and that includes missed names.

Well I can't really know if JE edits names out though the nasty suspicious part of me makes me think that the only part of CO that can be taken on face value is the disclaimer :) . Besides I've read that JE has higher hit-rate for names in CO than in LKL which would suggest editing.

Still I'm not sure if editing the names would change the pattern since they would most likely edit mostly for a high hit-rate though they might favor good hits with rare names too. Time and CO transcripts will tell

Originally posted by neofight


Hey, Kerberos! Do whatever you want to, okay? Instig8R has shown that she is by no means an objective observer with regard to John Edward. She has a hatred for him that is bordering on obsessive, and it kind of makes her rant a bit. [/i]

Ehm.. I’ll just leave you and Instig8R to your flame war and concentrate on the topic, right?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by neofight


Yes, I do find them [LKL readings by JE] rather useless and unacceptable, renata. Having seen readings both from edited "CO" shows and unedited JE seminars, I know that the short little aborted readings that JE does on a show like LKL, are not representative of an average JE reading, either edited, or unedited, which is why I don't give them much consideration......neo [/B]

So essentially you dismiss them because they seem to indicate that JE doesn't have any special powers, and because they don't mesh with your subjective memory of the seminars, where cheating would incidentally be far easier than LKL, though it still would be far from impossible on LKL?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
While Kerberos work on names and letters is interesting, I am surprised at the lack of critical thought with regards to these numbers.
At this point, I would call the analysis "suggestive".
First of all, why are we accepting juninho's numbers as reflective of anything? I don't mean this as a criticism of juninho, but we don't know what the list of forenames that he(?) has is. Is it simply a baby name book, or is it something else? Without knowing the source of the data or even what it means, I don't think that we can meaningfully compare it to JE readings.
As I said, it is "suggestive". Moreover, it should be pursued further with forenames gleaned from U.S birth records (assuming a U.S. JE performance).
Next, 78 guesses is a woefully small sample size. I don't know if we can really glean anything significant from such a small sample. I know that getting transcripts are a problem, and the editing on CO makes gathering data a problem, but let's not get caught doing sloppy work because we agree with the results, hm?
Not true. Depending on the analysis being done and the desired significance level, n=78 can be powerful in the statistical sense.

Cheers,

[juninho]

Originally posted by Kerberos
quote:

I think the easiest would be if I just cross-posted the two relevant posts so first juninho posted this:



Sorry, been away for a few days. I work for a membership orginisation in the UK. We have 8303 members from (mainly) western countries but predominantly the UK. The list of forenames is from that list, so no, its not derived from a "baby book" or suchlike.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by juninho


Sorry, been away for a few days. I work for a membership orginisation in the UK. We have 8303 members from (mainly) western countries but predominantly the UK. The list of forenames is from that list, so no, its not derived from a "baby book" or suchlike.
Juninho,

That means the control population is skewed a bit to UK names and isn't truly representative of US populations. To improve the analysis, we'd need to substitute a good US names list.

Cheers,

[Leroy]

Ok and so stating why he gets away with it, will you acknowledge that because all these items he lists are not SPECIFICALLY blood disorders, that he is being intentionally vague by using that exact term for his category?

No I won't, because I do not know if he is being intentionally vague, or if flowing blood really indicates to him, leukemia, hepatitis, or aids. I've never claimed to be able to read minds.

Now, if you are asking for my opinion as to whether of not John is being intentionally vague, I think he is. JE is very clear about stating that mediumship might bring some comfort to some, but that it is certainly not a substitute for working through your grief, and can actually be detrimental if a person comes to depend upon frequent readings with mediums, and never deals with the actual

Hi Neo. My statement was in response to someone saying that a woman had been to many psychics and spent a lot of money trying to contact a loved one. And John is right, it is not a substitute for working through grief.

Of course, both of these conditions would also protect him from the potentially embarassing situation of reading the same perosn a few years a part, but producing entirely different readings!!

:roll: wouldn't that be embarrassing!

[juninho]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Juninho,

That means the control population is skewed a bit to UK names and isn't truly representative of US populations. To improve the analysis, we'd need to substitute a good US names list.

Cheers,

Fine, but I can only work with what's at hand. But I do think the name distribution will be pretty similiar. China, of course, would be a different matter entirely.

[Leroy]

She has a hatred for him that is bordering on obsessive, and it kind of makes her rant a bit.

Instigator has a hatred for John? Are you certain? I've not detected a hatred in her writings. I feel that she believes him to be a fraud, and has a bit of fun exposing him. Er, trying to expose him.

Well, actually, Loki, it wouldn't matter at all if the person got an entirely different reading years later, provided that all the information that came through in this second reading was also accurate

hmm, good point.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by juninho


Fine, but I can only work with what's at hand. But I do think the name distribution will be pretty similiar. China, of course, would be a different matter entirely.
Juninho,

Please understand that I'm not criticizing the effort so far; I think its great. My aim is to try to improve the analysis and to see what results. If the results hold up with design improvements, and if the statistical design ends up with decent power then you have something that could be published. Maybe it could be used to meet Hal's call for papers at TAM2?

Cheers,

[voidx]

Posted by Leroy
No I won't, because I do not know if he is being intentionally vague, or if flowing blood really indicates to him, leukemia, hepatitis, or aids. I've never claimed to be able to read minds.

Now, if you are asking for my opinion as to whether of not John is being intentionally vague, I think he is.
Thank you, that's all I was trying to clarify. People tend to get sidetracked in here. I understood you were trying to say that you could see how it would be possible for someone to try and group all those diseases under one misnamed category, right or wrong. But that at the end of the day you agree with us that he is most likely being intentionally vague about it, in our opinion of course.

Yes, I do find them rather useless and unacceptable, renata. Having seen readings both from edited "CO" shows and unedited JE seminars, I know that the short little aborted readings that JE does on a show like LKL, are not representative of an average JE reading, either edited, or unedited, which is why I don't give them much consideration......neo
I'd like you to support the assertion that they are prematurely aborted Neo. From reading the transcripts, and from the episode I watched of LKL I saw nothing of this. JE finished up the calls of his own volition except for I think once in one of Renata's transcripts where Larry mentions they have to go to commercial, and if I remember right, he was almost bailing JE out of a bad reading. Point out the transcripts in which its obvious JE's readings on LKL are being cut short please. Its also important to remember that JE seems to have no complaints about the format of doing readings on LKL, he never complains he's being rushed, and he's stated that TV, radio, phone, in person, they do not affect his communication with the spirits. So how is it you've come to see them as useless again? Because they are exactly indictive of an average JE reading.

[Leroy]

Posted by Loki -Well, we can repeat this forever if we wish, but I *have* seen cold readers do as well as JE does on LKL. I have not seen cold readers do as well as JE does on CO.


Why is it that he seems to do so much better on his own show, than on LKL, or other shows? It makes me mighty SUSPICIOUS.

Posted by Instigator - Neo, I did not just say "Don't listen to neofight about the editing". Did you only read the first line of my post??? I will repeat what I said: "Hey, Kerberos-- Don't listen to neofight about the editing!

Either way, you are telling Kerberos not to listen to what Neo says :confused: Saying "Don't listen to someone" no matter what the situation, sounds a bit pushy.