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. Grav