Re: Underdown and Release Form (name changed at request of thread starter)

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R

O.K., then, in the excerpt used, who is the younger energy? Is it the mother figure's son/nephew/grandson/friend's son etc.? Or, is it the sitter's son/nephew/grandson/friend's son etc.?

The way that JE presents the information, it can be interpreted either way... and that's why I feel he is using "wiggle-room" by being deliberately vague.

Well, from the excerpt that you posted, Instig8R, I would say that the younger energy is the mother figure's son/nephew/grandson/friend's son, etc. Here again is the quote....

.....she has her son with her or she's got a younger male figure that has crossed over, but she's got the
younger male who's there. That to me would be like a younger brother, son, grandson. Younger male figure is connected to Mom from what they are showing me.

JE feels that the younger male is definitely connected to the mother energy. Do you have the rest of the transcript? Does the sitter ever determine who these energies are?.......neo

Really? You really feel that JE is being specific in the excerpt that I posted? Yikes!

With regard to who the younger male energy is connected to? Yes.

I still plan on watching for the exact kind of vague statement that I'm really complaining about... but this will do for now, I guess!

I'll keep it in mind as well, Instig8R, while watching the new shows. They begin tomorrow, BTW. ;) ........neo

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


Well, from the excerpt that you posted, Instig8R, I would say that the younger energy is the mother figure's son/nephew/grandson/friend's son, etc. Here again is the quote....

-snip-

JE feels that the younger male is definitely connected to the mother energy. Do you have the rest of the transcript? Does the sitter ever determine who these energies are?.......neo

Neo claims that JE is being specific in the following example, but admits that she doesn’t know who JE is describing either, other than it being a younger male connected to an older female figure (Mom or Mother-in-Law).

Even if I follow neo’s interpretation that the younger male energy would be in relationship to the older female spirit, and not in relationship to the sitter, there is still a very wide net. Here’s the excerpt again:


JOHN EDWARD:

" - Um, I'm going to say that I have an older female that's coming through that to me would be like Mother, or Mother N Law. There's some type of acknowledgement that the month of Feburary has a connection or the 2nd of a month is either a birthday or an anniversary from what they are showing me. Either she is telling me that she has her son with her or she's got a younger male figure that has crossed over, but she's got the younger male who's there. That to me would be like a younger brother, son, grandson. Younger male figure is connected to Mom from what they are showing me. So, I don't know if they are trying to tell me it's your Mother's who's passed, but they are acknowledging the older female. Do you understand that?"

The sitter, a man in the CO Gallery, claimed that the older female could be his deceased mother. Given this fact, and using neo’s interpretation, we can surmise the following: Mom has the younger male figure - connected to her - who’s there.

Accordingly, the younger male figure could be related to the sitter in the following ways:
:
If he is Mom’s younger brother - then he is Sitter’s uncle
If he is Mom’s son – then he is Sitter’s brother
If he is Mom’s grandson - then he is Sitter’s son or nephew

In effect, JE is able to identify that this sitter’s Mom is there. However, JE is unable to discern if it is the sitter’s uncle, brother, nephew or son who is accompanying Mom.

Wow! What confusion! JE can’t tell the sitter’s son from his uncle, his brother or his nephew. Imagine the fights at the funeral parlor over who gets to be the widow? :D

Sometimes, I’m not sure if I’m watching John Edward or Jerry Springer’s show.

[juninho]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
What I want to know is just exactly how much involvement a grandparent has to have in a kids' upbringing, before this kicks in.

As long as it turns a miss into a hit, it doesn't matter to the believers.

It might not be too long until a dog counts as a parent figure in one of JE's readings.

All this talk of animals and telepathy led me to this complete and utter fruitcake Consultations with Gina Palmer (http://www.pawsandclaws.net/commun.html)

Sorry, I realise it's a bit off-topic, but I felt I had to share it. $100 an hour for a telephone consultation - I'm in the wrong job! - What's that tiddles - you would like to tell your owner that you hate them and that crap cat-food they give you - I'll pass on the message.

[RonSceptic]

You would think that will all of this comining through....


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

JOHN EDWARD:

" - Um, I'm going to say that I have an older female that's coming through that to me would be like Mother, or Mother N Law. There's some type of acknowledgement that the month of Feburary has a connection or the 2nd of a month is either a birthday or an anniversary from what they are showing me. Either she is telling me that she has her son with her or she's got a younger male figure that has crossed over, but she's got the younger male who's there. That to me would be like a younger brother, son, grandson. Younger male figure is connected to Mom from what they are showing me. So, I don't know if they are trying to tell me it's your Mother's who's passed, but they are acknowledging the older female. Do you understand that?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...that there would have been ample time for the spirt to have said something simple like 'my name is Freda Smith'. You know a clear statement of fact that could be immediately verified.

Why does it never work that way? How come we get lengthy diatribes about unverifyable generalities, but a something as simple as a full name is impossible to decipher without a question and answer guessing game with the sitter?

Truly odd. Unless of course the medium is cold reading. Then it all makes perfect sense.

[Leroy]

I am aware that it may be a criminal offense punishable by fine and/or imprisonment for anyone to do anything that would rig or anyway influence the outcome of the Program with the intent to deceive the viewing public, and to offer or to accept any information or secret assistance in connection with the Program. I agree that I will not participate in such acts or any deceptive or dishonest acts with respect to the Program, and I shall immediately notify Producer in the event I am approached to undertake any such acts.

This effectively rules out any skeptics. As we know, skeptics have an ability to influence paranormal phenomena, such as necromancy

I read a different meaning into it. I thought it meant that if a sitter was asked by John Edward [for example] to lie about a reading in order to deceive the public, than the sitter agrees to notify the producer and not partake of such a deception.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by juninho
All this talk of animals and telepathy led me to this complete and utter fruitcake Consultations with Gina Palmer (http://www.pawsandclaws.net/commun.html)
I especially loved this:

"Code of Ethics for Interspecies Telepathic Communicators"
...followed by a picture of a grashopper...:D

[Leroy]

posted by Instigator - I was very suspicious of the fact that when Chef Yan-Yan Leone and his cousins from Brunelli's Restaurant on the upper East Side were read on CO, JE began making statements that Yan-Yan knew could be meant for his cousin, Russ Brunelli. JE then had Yan-Yan call Russ at the restaurant, and JE proceeded to read Russ Brunelli over the telephone.

We later learned (in a post-reading segment) that Russ was supposed to be at the CO gallery, and gave up his ticket because he claimed he was too busy at the restaurant. Funny how the reading still went to him, via telephone. (Hint: The restaurant bears his name.)


OUCH! it makes a skeptical mind wonder

Posted by TLN - Clancie, wouldn't the simplest explanation be John Edward isn't really communicating with dead people and that’s why he needs this disclaimer?

Are you suggesting that we should accept the most simplest explanation? What if we did that in all investigations?

[Leroy]

Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather. posted by CFLarsen - Dead grandfather comes through, no matter who in the family attended. Go figure

Good point - If the ticket holder is seated in a specific location that was previously assigned to his family that gave him the ticket, there is reason to be suspicious. The grandfather to this man would have been a family member to the others. JE doesn't say grandfather he usually say's, "Older male figure," that covers a lot of territory - uncle, older brother, father, grandfather.

Of course if the ticket holder was not assigned any specific seating location than I guess it wouldn't be as big a deal.

[Leroy]

by Renata - so although some believers left him, there are some desperate enough they still follow the man who was taped cheating for heaven's sake.

That always amuses me. Take the preacher Jim Baker, after he was caught spending [Gods] money on himself and his animals, thousands of his followers abandoned him - but there were many who stayed right in there and supported him. I suppose they believed he was framed, or lied about. They just wouldn't accept that he could do anything wrong. I guess those few have a need to believe that out-weighs common sense, evidence, etc.

[Leroy]

I've watched plenty of episodes of CO, and what neo is claiming is accurate. I have frequently heard JE state that if grandparents (or other individuals) have a big role in childrearing, then they appear to him as mother-figures or father-figures.



Yes, Neo is correct.

I've heard him say that on many occassions during the shows. And each time I heard him say it was my opinion that it covered his butt. If he say's "father" and it was really the "grandfather" all he has to do is convince the audience and the sitter that they were 'like parents' to the sitter. I am sure that in some cases they were like parents, but I have seen sitters reluctently agree that "yea I guess she was like a mother to me."

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Leroy
I've heard him say that on many occassions during the shows. And each time I heard him say it was my opinion that it covered his butt. If he say's "father" and it was really the "grandfather" all he has to do is convince the audience and the sitter that they were 'like parents' to the sitter. I am sure that in some cases they were like parents, but I have seen sitters reluctently agree that "yea I guess she was like a mother to me."


Wouldn't it be much easier if the spirits just said, 'Hey It's me, Fred Smith!' Then we would know who was 'coming through'. Wonder why that nevr happens? :rolleyes:

[Leroy]

Wouldn't it be much easier if the spirits just said, 'Hey It's me, Fred Smith!' Then we would know who was 'coming through'. Wonder why that nevr happens?

Or at least gave the initials F.R.E.D S.M.I.T.H

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Leroy


Are you suggesting that we should accept the most simplest explanation? What if we did that in all investigations?

Yes, Leroy, that is what we call Occam's Razor. Simple, in this case, really means mundane. We should stick with mundane explanations, or rule them out objectively, before we use explanations that assume JE has superpowers.

[Leroy]

thaiboxerken, your out of school early, or are you typing from class?

We should stick with mundane explanations, or rule them out objectively, before we use explanations that assume JE has superpowers.


I think we should investigate, first, the most obvious explanations, than move on if/when we have evidence that they can be ruled out.

Since some of these believers have had first hand experience and contact with John Edward, perhaps they have already ruled out fraud, and they have moved on to investigate other explanations. Just because you are behind doesn't mean they should wait on you to catch up :roll: *a little humor there incase you missed it*

[voidx]

Originally posted by Garrette
Ummmm, thanks, Darat, I think...

I'm not sure I understand what you posted.

Voidx said (paraphrasing):

"Telepathy exists. There is no evidence it has a physical origin. Therefore its original is supernatural. Do you, neo, concede that this contravenes your belief?"

Neo responded (paraphrasing):

"Telepathy exists. I don't know where it originates. I've obviously said something inconsistent and unsupportable but will back off from it now with the disclaimer that I'm not a scientist. I will not, however, retract the claim itself."

Am I way close or way off?
I'd like to clarify my position here a tad. I'd have to go back and reread that whole thread to get the whole gist, but you're a little off in your summary here. Here is what I was putting to Neo:

IF telepathy exists, then there is still no evidence it has a physical origin, therefore its purely in the realm of the unverifable area of the "supernatural". Would Neo concede that there was zero concrete scientific proof for telepathy in the world as we know it, and that she in fact had to take her belief in telepathy purely on faith as there's no solid evidence for it being linked to the physical self.

She did not come right out and concede this, but did say that she didn't know of any evidence for telepathy and would leave it to the scientists and if she found anything tying telepathy to the physical brain she'd send the information my way. I don't imagine its a surprise that I haven't been sent any articles yet.

The reason its a tad disengenious to keep mentioning telepathy as the process of mediumship is because
A) its been shown you and no one else has any idea how its supposed to work, mediums descriptions don't hold up to any scientific (or hell, even logical) scrutiny so its all just hearsay
B) the entire concept of mediumship relies on the existence of telepathy/psi/esp. Since no one knows how it works, can show evidence it exists, demonstrate it concretely in a scientific setting, then isn't it safe to say that any belief in mediumship is completely wishful thinking and taken on faith at this point in time. There is no solid evidence. We can analyze transcripts till we're blue in the face, and while its kind of fun, it does nothing to prove telepathy. If anything, from all I've seen it simple suggests to me that what JE is doing more and more resembles and fits within the technique of cold-reading.

Basically you can believe in it if you want but I would ask that people believing in it acknowledge there's no solid proof for its existence, that it goes against what we currently know of how our world works, that it relies on an scientifically non-existant and currently unproven form of communication, and that in my opinion it doesn't hold up as reliably as the mundane explantions. So to me that would say that any belief in it, is based on some level of wishing it were true, and looking for evidences to support that.

[Ed]

Originally posted by voidx

I'd like to clarify my position here a tad. I'd have to go back and reread that whole thread to get the whole gist, but you're a little off in your summary here. Here is what I was putting to Neo:

IF telepathy exists, then there is still no evidence it has a physical origin, therefore its purely in the realm of the unverifable area of the "supernatural". Would Neo concede that there was zero concrete scientific proof for telepathy in the world as we know it, and that she in fact had to take her belief in telepathy purely on faith as there's no solid evidence for it being linked to the physical self.



To talk about the origins of something whose existance is questionalbe tends to legitimize it.

[thaiboxerken]

I think we should investigate, first, the most obvious explanations, than move on if/when we have evidence that they can be ruled out.

Yes, the most obvious is that JE does not have superpowers. Is there any evidence that he does have superpowers?


Since some of these believers have had first hand experience and contact with John Edward, perhaps they have already ruled out fraud, and they have moved on to investigate other explanations.

They are believers, they've simply dismissed all other explanations because JE talking to the dead affirms their belief in the afterlife.

Just because you are behind doesn't mean they should wait on you to catch up :roll: *a little humor there incase you missed it*

I'm hardly behind. Fraud on JE's part has not been ruled out objectively. Cold-reading has not been ruled out. According to the laws of parsimony, the mundane explanations MUST be ruled out before one starts looking for paranormal answers.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]
Yes, the most obvious is that JE does not have superpowers. Is there any evidence that he does have superpowers? I haven't seen any

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]
They are believers, they've simply dismissed all other explanations because JE talking to the dead affirms their belief in the afterlife.

Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?


Please give examples.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?

Can you find one single explanation they seriously think is possible?

I can't. Hey, if I am wrong, show me.

[thaiboxerken]

I haven't seen any

Exactly.



Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?

Believers either:

1. Don't know of the mundane explanations, such as cold-reading, hot-reading and such.

OR

2. They know of these explanations and have dismissed them in favor of their beliefs.

That's all there is to it. Look at Clancie and Neo, they know about cold-reading and have dismissed that explanation in favor of their beliefs. They know that JE got caught cheating on 20/20 and have dismissed it in favor of their beliefs.

All believers fall into categories 1 or 2, and sometimes both.

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


That's all there is to it. Look at Clancie and Neo, they know about cold-reading and have dismissed that explanation in favor of their beliefs. They know that JE got caught cheating on 20/20 and have dismissed it in favor of their beliefs.

All believers fall into categories 1 or 2, and sometimes both.

You are quite mistaken tbk. There are a number of people who believe in ADC's but do not fit either of the two categories you describe. Even the infamous Clancie and neo have accepted cold and hot reading as possible explanations in some cases. RC also has modified his opinions of certain mediums over time as he continues to weigh the facts.

And although I personally feel that JE did hot-read Tony the cameraman, it cannot be said absolutely that he was "caught cheating". There is no proof, there is only circumstantial evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

You are quite mistaken tbk. There are a number of people who believe in ADC's but do not fit either of the two categories you describe.

Ok, then give me an example.

Even the infamous Clancie and neo have accepted cold and hot reading as possible explanations in some cases. RC also has modified his opinions of certain mediums over time as he continues to weigh the facts.

One is either a believer or not. Clancie and Neo are believers and, while they admit cold and hot reading are possible, they still dismiss them as explanations and prefer to believe that JE is really having conversations with dead people.

And although I personally feel that JE did hot-read Tony the cameraman, it cannot be said absolutely that he was "caught cheating". There is no proof, there is only circumstantial evidence.

He was caught on tape cheating, that's a fact and not an opinion. Anyone dismissing that as "just circumstantial" evidence is just ignoring facts.

[neofight]

Originally posted by voidx
She did not come right out and concede this, but did say that she didn't know of any evidence for telepathy and would leave it to the scientists and if she found anything tying telepathy to the physical brain she'd send the information my way. I don't imagine its a surprise that I haven't been sent any articles yet.

Hi, voidx. What I was referring to at the time, were studies that I had read about in some of Dr. Melvin Morse's writings. Even though I, personally, do not keep up with all this scientific research, I think I do remember Dr. Morse making references to experiments involving direct electrical stimulation of the right temporal lobe. If you would still like a link to something like that, I'm sure I can find it for you.

The reason its a tad disengenious to keep mentioning telepathy as the process of mediumship is because
A) its been shown you and no one else has any idea how its supposed to work, mediums descriptions don't hold up to any scientific (or hell, even logical) scrutiny so its all just hearsay
B) the entire concept of mediumship relies on the existence of telepathy/psi/esp. Since no one knows how it works, can show evidence it exists, demonstrate it concretely in a scientific setting, then isn't it safe to say that any belief in mediumship is completely wishful thinking and taken on faith at this point in time. There is no solid evidence.

Well, like I said, I am not familiar with what studies are or aren't out there, but for purposes of argument here on this board, I don't understand what the problem would be with using the "T" word. After all, mediumship, if it exists, uses psychic images and impressions to convey messages back and forth between a spirit energy and a medium. Another name for these psychic images/impressions would be telepathy, so what's the difference which term we used in our discussions? :con2: ......neo

[Garrette]

voidx,

Got it. Sorry for misunderstanding.

[neofight]

Originally posted by mark tidwell
And although I personally feel that JE did hot-read Tony the cameraman, it cannot be said absolutely that he was "caught cheating". There is no proof, there is only circumstantial evidence.

Hi, Mark. You're right. It cannot be said that JE absolutely cheated on "Dateline". So what if Tony had expressed a wish earlier that day, for his deceased father to come through? Even on LKL at times the caller opens up with saying that they are hoping to hear from this or that family member. That doesn't mean that JE cannot go on to give that person a valid reading....neo

[Instig8R]

The problem is that JE was not forthcoming with the information that he had met Tony earlier and had a conversation with him about his father's death. JE was willing to allow Dateline to believe that he hadn't spoken to Tony in advance. He did not volunteer the information. He had to be asked about it, and then he finally confessed.

This is called lying by omission.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R

We later learned (in a post-reading segment) that Russ was supposed to be at the CO gallery, and gave up his ticket because he claimed he was too busy at the restaurant. Funny how the reading still went to him, via telephone. (Hint: The restaurant bears his name.)

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


Originally posted by Leroy

OUCH! it makes a skeptical mind wonder


Leroy, there are many instances when JE gets information for someone who is not there, and has the family in the studio call them up to deliver a message. Not all of these people had tickets but cancelled at the last moment, so I don't see how the Brunelli incident is such a cause of wonderment. :) ........neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R
The problem is that JE was not forthcoming with the information that he had met Tony earlier and had a conversation with him about his father's death. JE was willing to allow Dateline to believe that he hadn't spoken to Tony in advance. He did not volunteer the information. He had to be asked about it, and then he finally confessed.

This is called lying by omission.

No, it's called "What's the BFD?", since it would never occur to an honest medium that reading someone spontaneously like that would result in people thinking he had cheated.

After the fact, using 20-20 hindsight, JE realized that he left himself wide open to this criticism, and I'm sure he wished that he had realized it in time to say something. Had he known in advance that Tony's dad was going to come through, he may have had time to think about the need to avoid the appearance of having cheated.

The reading, which consisted of more than one or two messages, would not have been less convincing had JEhad the presence of mind to issue a quick disclaimer before he went on with Tony's reading, so the logic the skeptics use here makes no sense. It would have been no big deal to do so. He didn't do it, because it never occurred to him to do it.


When did this happen? Two years ago? I can't believe that you guys don't have something more recent to put out there. :rolleyes: ......neo

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


No, it's called "What's the BFD?", since it would never occur to an honest medium that reading someone spontaneously like that would result in people thinking he had cheated.


No, it's called lying by omission. JE is in a profession reknowned for fraud and cheating. An honest medium would know the importance of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


You are quite mistaken tbk. There are a number of people who believe in ADC's but do not fit either of the two categories you describe.

Ok, then give me an example.

I gave you three. Neo, Clancie and RC have all expressed belief in mediumship in general, yet all have also admitted to the possibility of hot/cold reading on the part of several mediums, including Sylvia Brown, Robert Brown, James Van Praagh, Suzanne Northrop and John Edward. (I'll leave it to them to say which applies to who, as their opinions may have changed since last we spoke of it.)


One is either a believer or not. Clancie and Neo are believers and, while they admit cold and hot reading are possible, they still dismiss them as explanations and prefer to believe that JE is really having conversations with dead people.

No. Fence sitters on this issue abound. There are many whose opinions sway with each new claim and claimant. You can read the opinions of several such people over at tvtalkshows.



And although I personally feel that JE did hot-read Tony the cameraman, it cannot be said absolutely that he was "caught cheating". There is no proof, there is only circumstantial evidence.

He was caught on tape cheating, that's a fact and not an opinion. Anyone dismissing that as "just circumstantial" evidence is just ignoring facts. [/B]

I am ignoring nothing I assure you. Although I personally am convinced that Edward did cheat, his reading of Tony, and subsequent explanation of same, is consistent with his claims of the "process" he uses. His actions in that situation, though quite damning, do not constitute proof of fraud. Especially since "Anthony" and "father-figure" are hardly unusual hits for JE.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R


No, it's called lying by omission. JE is in a profession reknowned for fraud and cheating. An honest medium would know the importance of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Well, we obviously have different opinions on this issue, Instg8R. Surprise! :) No problem. Like Mark Tidwell correctly stated, there is no proof, there is only circumstantial evidence.

I can say from personal experience, that an honest person doesn't always see it coming, and doesn't always think defensively, mainly because they're not expecting to be accused of dishonesty. :(

And I'm sure the emotion he felt after he was falsely accused was very real. Unfortunately, the damage was already done, and two years later, people are still talking about it. I guess that's because there is a dearth of these sorts of negative stories, so they must keep bringing up the same ones again and again....neo

[Clancie]

Posted by Mark Tidwell

I gave you three. Neo, Clancie and RC have all expressed belief in mediumship in general, yet all have also admitted to the possibility of hot/cold reading on the part of several mediums, including Sylvia Brown, Robert Brown, James Van Praagh, Suzanne Northrop and John Edward. (I'll leave it to them to say which applies to who, as their opinions may have changed since last we spoke of it.)
Hi Mark,
Nice to see you around again! :)

You're right that I still consider it a possibility that all of the above could be cold and/or hot reading (I favor cold more than hot, except in the case of van Praagh where he even acknowledges that he has prior information about the sitters--we just don't know how much.)

It's true I don't think JE hot reads, but I certainly am interested in the argument and pay attention to it. Maybe one day it will ring true to me but so far, it doesn't. And I think if JE were a hot reader he should make cheating easier--assign seats in the gallery and all seminars; get names and addresses in advance for all CO attendees, etc. None of those procedures would arouse suspicion so there's really no reason to cram all that stress and work into a tight 1 to 2 hour time period when he's got a lot of other things to do before going on stage.

I don't think Brown or Northrop hot read sitters either. Suzane got nothing for me anyway, and Robert's information had nothing to do with anything that could be researched.

I think what I've observed of Sylvia, JVP, and Suzane is consistent with what I know of cold reading. Most of Robert's looks like cold and warm reading (I use "warm" meaning somoeone working emotional generalities into hits that fit). RB -may- be a pure cold reader, but if so then he got very very lucky with some of the information that came through for me. I don't know what to think of him, really, although I do feel that he "pads" his readings consciously.

Anyway, I haven't rejected those explanations for any of these mediums, but cold/warm/hot readings just don't seem to consistently explain everything I've observed so far.

Maybe one day they will. :) Or maybe one day I'll reject cold/warm/hot theories completely and be 100% convinced there's genuine ADC at work. :)
Posted by Mark Tidwell

No. Fence sitters on this issue abound. There are many whose opinions sway with each new claim and claimant. You can read the opinions of several such people over at tvtalkshows.

Yes, and, TBK, you really should drop over to tvt and read some of the old threads to better acquaint yourself with the reasoning of fence sitters. And at least one of them posts regularly here--Phelps, aka Iamme. Look around, tbk, and I think you may find that for most people this isn't just a clear cut "Yes its true" or "No its false" issue.

[voidx]

Originally posted by neofight
Hi, voidx. What I was referring to at the time, were studies that I had read about in some of Dr. Melvin Morse's writings. Even though I, personally, do not keep up with all this scientific research, I think I do remember Dr. Morse making references to experiments involving direct electrical stimulation of the right temporal lobe. If you would still like a link to something like that, I'm sure I can find it for you.
I seem to remember someone posting studies that directly contradicted the idea of telepathy being tied to the temporal lobe, or some other logical error that made it incorrect, but sure send it if you like. I'd have to go back and read that thread again, but it seems we all dismissed the lobe arguement because of several good and conclusive points.

Well, like I said, I am not familiar with what studies are or aren't out there, but for purposes of argument here on this board, I don't understand what the problem would be with using the "T" word. After all, mediumship, if it exists, uses psychic images and impressions to convey messages back and forth between a spirit energy and a medium. Another name for these psychic images/impressions would be telepathy, so what's the difference which term we used in our discussions? :con2: ......neo
I actually don't care which term you use, and also don't care if you use them in a general debate. All I'm asking is for people to acknowledge..."Well I believe in mediumship, on some level, and mediumship relies on the concept of telepathy, of which there is no clear scientifically proven or accepted theory for, and for whose actual specifics I don't actually know, except for non-scientific hearsay (inconsistent in my opinion) from practicing mediums on how it works. Thats all :D. I just find it odd that you all assume the existence of telepathy, essentially on faith as there's no solid evidence for it. It just seems that you assume it without questioning it because you cannot explain how it works, but yet its necessary for your belief in mediumship.

Posted by Garrette
voidx,

Got it. Sorry for misunderstanding.
No worries. Heh just didn't want people getting the impression I believed telepathy was real :D.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Hi, voidx. What I was referring to at the time, were studies that I had read about in some of Dr. Melvin Morse's writings. Even though I, personally, do not keep up with all this scientific research, I think I do remember Dr. Morse making references to experiments involving direct electrical stimulation of the right temporal lobe. If you would still like a link to something like that, I'm sure I can find it for you.

...
Originally posted by neofight
Well, like I said, I am not familiar with what studies are or aren't out there...

Can you make up your mind?

Originally posted by neofight
, but for purposes of argument here on this board, I don't understand what the problem would be with using the "T" word. After all, mediumship, if it exists, uses psychic images and impressions to convey messages back and forth between a spirit energy and a medium. Another name for these psychic images/impressions would be telepathy, so what's the difference which term we used in our discussions? :con2: ......neo

You still don't understand. Since nobody knows how telepathy works, how can you use it to explain anything?

Originally posted by neofight
Hi, Mark. You're right. It cannot be said that JE absolutely cheated on "Dateline". So what if Tony had expressed a wish earlier that day, for his deceased father to come through? Even on LKL at times the caller opens up with saying that they are hoping to hear from this or that family member. That doesn't mean that JE cannot go on to give that person a valid reading....neo

"What if", you ask? So, you have come so far as to accept if people tell JE in advance who they want to connect with? Isn't that a major problem for you with JVP? Why not with JE?

Originally posted by neofight
No, it's called "What's the BFD?", since it would never occur to an honest medium that reading someone spontaneously like that would result in people thinking he had cheated.

Quite contrary, an honest medium would immediately come forward and admit it.

Originally posted by neofight
After the fact, using 20-20 hindsight, JE realized that he left himself wide open to this criticism, and I'm sure he wished that he had realized it in time to say something. Had he known in advance that Tony's dad was going to come through, he may have had time to think about the need to avoid the appearance of having cheated.

I'm sure he wished that, too, but for more obvious reasons. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by neofight
The reading, which consisted of more than one or two messages, would not have been less convincing had JEhad the presence of mind to issue a quick disclaimer before he went on with Tony's reading, so the logic the skeptics use here makes no sense. It would have been no big deal to do so. He didn't do it, because it never occurred to him to do it.

Again, you are reading JE's mind. You know what he thinks, how he reacts, how he behaves.

Originally posted by neofight
When did this happen? Two years ago? I can't believe that you guys don't have something more recent to put out there. :rolleyes: ......neo

That doesn't make it go away, neofight. Even though you desperately want it to.

Originally posted by neofight
Well, we obviously have different opinions on this issue, Instg8R. Surprise! :) No problem. Like Mark Tidwell correctly stated, there is no proof, there is only circumstantial evidence.

What will it take, then? He was caught red-handed, yet you ignore this.

Originally posted by neofight
I can say from personal experience, that an honest person doesn't always see it coming, and doesn't always think defensively, mainly because they're not expecting to be accused of dishonesty. :(

Could you please stop being so friggin' condescending? You are not the only one who have met honest people, neo, and no honest person would behave like JE did.

Originally posted by neofight
And I'm sure the emotion he felt after he was falsely accused was very real. Unfortunately, the damage was already done, and two years later, people are still talking about it. I guess that's because there is a dearth of these sorts of negative stories, so they must keep bringing up the same ones again and again....neo

No, it's because we need to point out that there is evidence that JE hot reads.





Originally posted by mark tidwell
I gave you three. Neo, Clancie and RC have all expressed belief in mediumship in general, yet all have also admitted to the possibility of hot/cold reading on the part of several mediums, including Sylvia Brown, Robert Brown, James Van Praagh, Suzanne Northrop and John Edward. (I'll leave it to them to say which applies to who, as their opinions may have changed since last we spoke of it.)

What people say they believe and what they actually believe are two different things. You should look at how they argue instead of how they claim to argue, and you will see that it is very different.

Originally posted by mark tidwell
I am ignoring nothing I assure you. Although I personally am convinced that Edward did cheat, his reading of Tony, and subsequent explanation of same, is consistent with his claims of the "process" he uses. His actions in that situation, though quite damning, do not constitute proof of fraud. Especially since "Anthony" and "father-figure" are hardly unusual hits for JE.

What constitutes proof of fraud, then?



Originally posted by Instig8R
The problem is that JE was not forthcoming with the information that he had met Tony earlier and had a conversation with him about his father's death. JE was willing to allow Dateline to believe that he hadn't spoken to Tony in advance. He did not volunteer the information. He had to be asked about it, and then he finally confessed.

Not just confessed, he was extremely defensive.

Originally posted by Instig8R
This is called lying by omission.

Yup. Don't forget that JE was in a highly unusual situation: He was being filmed and he couldn't control it. What does he do? He tries to impress the crew by reading one from the "enemy". What better proof that he is real, eh?

Unfortunately, he gets caught. Ouch.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
You're right that I still consider it a possibility that all of the above could be cold and/or hot reading (I favor cold more than hot, except in the case of van Praagh where he even acknowledges that he has prior information about the sitters--we just don't know how much.)

But the same can be said for JE, when he (hot) read Tony the Cameraman. He also knew in advance. neofight even accepts that JE can have prior information about sitters, that's not a problem anymore.

So, why is it a problem with JVP?

Originally posted by Clancie
It's true I don't think JE hot reads, but I certainly am interested in the argument and pay attention to it. Maybe one day it will ring true to me but so far, it doesn't.

Even when a blatant expose is shown to you, you still ignore it. Yup, you sure got a long way to go...

Originally posted by Clancie
And I think if JE were a hot reader he should make cheating easier--assign seats in the gallery and all seminars; get names and addresses in advance for all CO attendees, etc. None of those procedures would arouse suspicion so there's really no reason to cram all that stress and work into a tight 1 to 2 hour time period when he's got a lot of other things to do before going on stage.

Whoa...didn't Steve Grenard tell us that the procedures were changed, due to O'Neill's account?

How do you know what JE does before going on stage?

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't think Brown or Northrop hot read sitters either. Suzane got nothing for me anyway, and Robert's information had nothing to do with anything that could be researched.

How do you know that? Are you not aware of the many databases out there that contain a wealth of information about people?

Why do you dismiss a psychic medium because you don't like her personae? What does that have to do with the quality of the messages?

Originally posted by Clancie
I think what I've observed of Sylvia, JVP, and Suzane is consistent with what I know of cold reading. Most of Robert's looks like cold and warm reading (I use "warm" meaning somoeone working emotional generalities into hits that fit). RB -may- be a pure cold reader, but if so then he got very very lucky with some of the information that came through for me. I don't know what to think of him, really, although I do feel that he "pads" his readings consciously.

Please point to the analyses that show that Sylvia, JVP and Suzane cold reads and JE does not.

What, you don't have them? Then we cannot rely on your opinions. Why should your opinion be worth more than others'?

If we cannot distinguish between "padding" and spirit communication, how do we know that spirit communication happens at all?

Originally posted by Clancie
Anyway, I haven't rejected those explanations for any of these mediums, but cold/warm/hot readings just don't seem to consistently explain everything I've observed so far.

Maybe one day they will. :) Or maybe one day I'll reject cold/warm/hot theories completely and be 100% convinced there's genuine ADC at work. :)

That would, indeed, be a miracle.

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, and, TBK, you really should drop over to tvt and read some of the old threads to better acquaint yourself with the reasoning of fence sitters. And at least one of them posts regularly here--Phelps, aka Iamme. Look around, tbk, and I think you may find that for most people this isn't just a clear cut "Yes its true" or "No its false" issue.

Then it sure is strange that not more fence sitters post here, eh?

[thaiboxerken]

I gave you three. Neo, Clancie and RC have all expressed belief in mediumship in general, yet all have also admitted to the possibility of hot/cold reading on the part of several mediums, including Sylvia Brown, Robert Brown, James Van Praagh, Suzanne Northrop and John Edward. (I'll leave it to them to say which applies to who, as their opinions may have changed since last we spoke of it.)

They admit the possibility, but still make the final decision based on emotion. RC is becoming a skeptic, but the other 2 are believers that have decided the possibility of JE being a cold-reader can be set aside in preference for their beliefs. Do you have any real examples?


No. Fence sitters on this issue abound. There are many whose opinions sway with each new claim and claimant. You can read the opinions of several such people over at tvtalkshows.

One either believes or they don't, a fence-sitter is merely a person that doesn't want to express what their position is.


I am ignoring nothing I assure you. Although I personally am convinced that Edward did cheat, his reading of Tony, and subsequent explanation of same, is consistent with his claims of the "process" he uses.

ANd that process is called cheating.

His actions in that situation, though quite damning, do not constitute proof of fraud. Especially since "Anthony" and "father-figure" are hardly unusual hits for JE.

It was cheating, point blank. If a person is caught with a smoking gun and has gun splatter on them, it can be assumed that the person pulled the trigger.

JE tried to use the father as a hit.

[Thanz]

Claus -

You keep on hammering away about Tony the cameraman. I admit that I don't know everything about this issue, but it seems that you are making a mountain out of a mound. What, exactly, is the information that you claim JE had prior to the reading? Is it just that his father had died, or is it something else as well? IIRC, there were some other hits in that reading that were impressive (wasn't he the cigarette in the coffin guy?) that need exploring/explanation.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

John Hockenberry: Still, something else happened that night in the group readings. A departed family member does seem to come through loud and clear.

Tape John: Hold on, they're telling me to acknowledge Anthony. Are you waving like that's me? That's you? Really?

John Hockenberry: For, of all people, "Dateline" cameramen Tony Pagano, one of two cameramen shooting our story. John Edward zeros in on the fact that Tony's father has died.

Tape John: Did you not see dad before he passed? Had you either been away or had been distant?

Tape Tony: Yeah I was away.

Tape John: Ok, cause he's making me feel like you need to move past this. Was he a Yankees fan?

Tape Tony: <laughs> No, he'd die again if he heard that.

Tape John: And he's telling me to acknowledge he found the ring. I don't know what this means.

Tape Tony: Well I had a ring that was given to me. I only wore one piece of jewelry beside my wedding ring. And when my dad died, the last time I saw him in the coffin, I took that ring off and put it on his hand.

Tony: He said some things that were very personal that only I knew. Um, and putting the ring on his finger on my dad's finger when he died was really something that I don't think anyone else saw.


........

John Hockenberry: John Edward had made it a point to avoid any contact before that night's session. But remember this footage of Edward dancing? Tony was the cameraman and shot this just hours before the group reading.

You'd met Tony before though, right?

John: Earlier that day? Yeah.

John Hockenberry: They not only had they met, but Tony told John Edward a critical piece of information during the shoot.

You'd spoken to him. Were you aware that his dad had died before you did this reading?

John: I think he, I think earlier in the day he had said something.

John Hockenberry: Well, it makes me feel like, you know, that's fairly significant. I mean, you knew that he had a dead relative and you knew it was the dad.

John: Ok.

John Hockenberry: So that's not some energy coming through, that's something you knew going in. You knew his name was Tony and you knew that his dad had died and you knew he was in the room. Right? That gets you...

John: That's a whole lot of thinking you've got me doing then. Like I said, I react to what's coming through, what I see, hear, and feel. I interpret what I'm seeing, hearing, and feeling and I define it. He raised his hand, it made sense with him, great.

John Hockenberry: But a cynic would look at that and go "Hey, ya know, he knows its the cameraman, he knows it's 'Dateline,' ya know wouldn't it be impressive if he could get the cameraman to cry?"

John: Absolutely not, absolutely not. Not at all.

Source: John Edward on "Dateline" (http://www.johnedwardfriends.org/transcripts/Dateline111700d.htm)

A clear example of hot reading.

Are you saying that is it OK to use hot reading, if the reading later on turns out a weak hit? JE does not tell Tony that his dad said that he got the ring on his finger, that was filled in by Tony.

Let's not forget the huge miss about the dad being a Yankees fan, either. That's not a blatant attempt at cold reading?

You bet I am hammering away. JE was caught cheating. He hot read Tony Pagano. He tried cold reading as well. There is no doubt about that.

[Ed]

The travelling thing was a guess, but a good one. Let's see, a camera man for a network show, think he travels? Hot reading.

Was he a new yorker? Pretty easy to guess. So dad is with the yanks or mets 50:50. Wrong.

Who here has lost a father? Have anything of his? Do any monkeying around with the body before they screwed the lid down? Touch his hand, leave something? Kiss him?

What crap. How does anyone take this seriously?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

A clear example of hot reading.

Are you saying that is it OK to use hot reading, if the reading later on turns out a weak hit? JE does not tell Tony that his dad said that he got the ring on his finger, that was filled in by Tony.
First, thanks very much for posting the transcript. I would like to have seen the whole reading - it seems apparent that it was chopped by Dateline, but let's work with what we have.

I am not saying that it is okay that it is fine that JE uses hot reading. I think that the problem here is in the presentation - he acts like it is some sort of surprise that Tony reacted the way he did. If he was upfront about it - mentioned that he had talked to Tony earlier and here his dad was coming through, there wouldn't be a big problem.

As for the "hot" reading portion, it really isn't more than a medium would get at a session. My name is X and I want to hear from Y. We can't score the dad as a hit, obviously, but the rest of the reading we can examine on its own.

Let's not forget the huge miss about the dad being a Yankees fan, either. That's not a blatant attempt at cold reading?
I think that it is totally cold reading. Swing and a miss.

You bet I am hammering away. JE was caught cheating. He hot read Tony Pagano. He tried cold reading as well. There is no doubt about that.
I don't think that it is as severe as you make out. Did he know that Tony's dad died? Yes. Did he then proceed to read Tony? Yes. But it seems to me that all he used the "Hot" info for was to pick the person being read. Not the same at all as the allegations of internet searching, moles at credit card companies and hidden mikes. It is like you caught a kid shoplifting a candy bar and are making out like he is a master thief.

Oh, and on the Ring thing - it seems to be a good hit, but I think it was cold reading as well. If he said the same thing but got no response, he would have just quickly moved on - like the yankees thing.

Just my opinion.

[neofight]

John Hockenberry: But a cynic would look at that and go "Hey, ya know, he knows its the cameraman, he knows it's 'Dateline,' ya know wouldn't it be impressive if he could get the cameraman to cry?"

Hockenberry is absolutely right here. That's exactly what a cynic would say. For them there is no such thing as giving JE the benefit of the doubt here.

If JE's mediumship is real, and Tony's father saw this as an opportunity to get a message through to his son, the fact that Tony had told John earlier that he'd love to one day hear from his dad could indicate simply that Tony's father heard his son's wistful comment and acted upon it.

Come on you open-minded skeptics! At least keep that door open a sixteenth of an inch, huh! It mades me wonder if I should pity the defendent who gets you on their jury.......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Hockenberry is absolutely right here. That's exactly what a cynic would say. For them there is no such thing as giving JE the benefit of the doubt here.

If JE's mediumship is real, and Tony's father saw this as an opportunity to get a message through to his son, the fact that Tony had told John earlier that he'd love to one day hear from his dad could indicate simply that Tony's father heard his son's wistful comment and acted upon it.

Come on you open-minded skeptics! At least keep that door open a sixteenth of an inch, huh! It mades me wonder if I should pity the defendent who gets you on their jury.......neo

Occam's Razor: Which is more likely, JE hot reading or JE getting spirit communication?

Not a cynic, neofight. A skeptic.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Thanz
I am not saying that it is okay that it is fine that JE uses hot reading. I think that the problem here is in the presentation - he acts like it is some sort of surprise that Tony reacted the way he did. If he was upfront about it - mentioned that he had talked to Tony earlier and here his dad was coming through, there wouldn't be a big problem.

You're right that John acted surprised, Thanz. Not shocked, because this sort of thing does happen on occasion, but surprised initially, since he was looking to the sitters for a validation, and not the cameraman. His reaction to both that, and his reaction to Hockenberry's very direct insinuations seem quite sincere to me. If he is indeed innocent of the allegation, of course he would be defensive.

As you can see from the transcript, JE then simply went on to give Tony the reading, since he claimed the father figure as his own. I agree with you that I would love to see a transcript of the entire reading, including all of Tony's post-reading comments.

Oh, and on the Ring thing - it seems to be a good hit, but I think it was cold reading as well. If he said the same thing but got no response, he would have just quickly moved on - like the yankees thing.

I think the ring hit was decent as well, and as far as the reference to the Yankees, I'd love to ask Tony if perhaps he and his dad has some sort of a running joke about the team that did not come to mind immediately. John's interpretation may have been off-base in that it could have referred to something other than being a Yankee fan.

I'm not making excuses, or saying this as anything factual, but only that oftentimes a follow-up interview is quite interesting to see......neo

[voidx]

Originally posted by neofight

You're right that John acted surprised, Thanz. Not shocked, because this sort of thing does happen on occasion, but surprised initially, since he was looking to the sitters for a validation, and not the cameraman. His reaction to both that, and his reaction to Hockenberry's very direct insinuations seem quite sincere to me. If he is indeed innocent of the allegation, of course he would be defensive.
That last sentence I would have to disagree with quite strongly. He would be just as defensive if he was trying to be deceitful. Think of a time you've done something, justified in your own mind, and then denied it when asked, same here, potentially. And if he's as good an entertainer as we give him credit for, feigning surprise would hardly be difficult. He had the fathers death, the son's name, he threw out a variation of "Tony" who did you think he was hoping to get? Its just as plausible he used this bit and then feigned surprise when it ended up being Tony. Its not like it'd have to be an Oscar performance or anything.

I think the ring hit was decent as well, and as far as the reference to the Yankees, I'd love to ask Tony if perhaps he and his dad has some sort of a running joke about the team that did not come to mind immediately. John's interpretation may have been off-base in that it could have referred to something other than being a Yankee fan.

I'm not making excuses, or saying this as anything factual, but only that oftentimes a follow-up interview is quite interesting to see......neo [/B]
I'll give that the ring is a decent hit, but completely within the realms of cold-reading. We often place items, jewellery among them on our loved ones when they die in the belief they can take them with them into the afterlife, if you happen to believe in it. So JE took a stab with "ring" and yes, got a pretty decent hit. As for the Yankee thing I have to disagree. While yes he might have forgotten something, more often than not I believe it leaves the door wide open for someone trying to make something fit later that didn't at the time as it is them actually authentically remembering something specific.

Hockenberry is absolutely right here. That's exactly what a cynic would say. For them there is no such thing as giving JE the benefit of the doubt here.
JE is asking me to believe in some form of afterlife, in some form of yet unknown, unproven mental communication. He hasn't done anything that I've read or seen so far that leads me to give him a break, or cut him some slack. He wants to posit the paranormal, then he'd better do a bang-up job, sorry.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
You're right that John acted surprised, Thanz. Not shocked, because this sort of thing does happen on occasion, but surprised initially, since he was looking to the sitters for a validation, and not the cameraman. His reaction to both that, and his reaction to Hockenberry's very direct insinuations seem quite sincere to me. If he is indeed innocent of the allegation, of course he would be defensive.

Do you think it is possible that he acted surprised and was defensive, because he was caught cheating?

If he was caught cheating, how would he react?

Originally posted by neofight
As you can see from the transcript, JE then simply went on to give Tony the reading, since he claimed the father figure as his own. I agree with you that I would love to see a transcript of the entire reading, including all of Tony's post-reading comments.

Yeps, it could be great. However, what we got showed JE cheating. No doubt about it.

Originally posted by neofight
I think the ring hit was decent as well, and as far as the reference to the Yankees, I'd love to ask Tony if perhaps he and his dad has some sort of a running joke about the team that did not come to mind immediately. John's interpretation may have been off-base in that it could have referred to something other than being a Yankee fan.

Whoa, you are most certainly grasping at straws here! Tony's father was definitely not a Yankee's fan (gee whiz, there was that NY-rooted baseball "symbol" again!). It was a huge miss for JE.

Originally posted by neofight
I'm not making excuses, or saying this as anything factual, but only that oftentimes a follow-up interview is quite interesting to see......neo

Sure. How about concentrating on what we got, instead of dreaming about things we don't?

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Mark,
Nice to see you around again! :)

You're right that I still consider it a possibility that all of the above could be cold and/or hot reading (I favor cold more than hot, except in the case of van Praagh where he even acknowledges that he has prior information about the sitters--we just don't know how much.)

It's true I don't think JE hot reads, but I certainly am interested in the argument and pay attention to it. Maybe one day it will ring true to me but so far, it doesn't. And I think if JE were a hot reader he should make cheating easier--assign seats in the gallery and all seminars; get names and addresses in advance for all CO attendees, etc. None of those procedures would arouse suspicion so there's really no reason to cram all that stress and work into a tight 1 to 2 hour time period when he's got a lot of other things to do before going on stage.


Hi, Clancie--

I don't know whose hot-reading theory you are describing above, but it isn't mine. If that is what JE had to go through to hot read the gallery, it is way too much work. It's hard to do, and even if successful, it sets audience expectations at too high a level -- a level which he can't achieve in other venues. Expectations are much lower now, and we still notice how bad JE does in unedited situations like on LKL.

It has never been my theory that JE hot reads regularly on CO. He doesn't need to, since he's a good cold reader and he also has editing control over the finished product. It is my theory that hot reading could account for those occasional special hits, that seem to make people go "hmmmmm".

It is my belief that, for many of JE's better readings, he probably didn't even have to research much. Some of these readings were high profile deaths, and involved families who were very much in the news at the time they were read in the CO gallery.

I think that many people would agree with me that the better readings on CO took place during the first season, when the gallery only contained about 75 people (and no more than 100 people). The show was first broadcast during June/July 2000. Now, let's look at two of the better known readings, which just happened to take place in that time frame:

1. Kelly: The boy was killed in June 2000. The reading took place a few months later, amid plenty of news coverage. The surviving family members (mother, father, sister, brother) were highly profiled in the news before, during and after the time of the reading. They could easily have been recognized from their photographs alone. Having the names in advance makes it a slam dunk. (They lived on Long Island, only about 10 miles away from JE's residence, and the accident happened on Long Island, also.)

2. Acompora: The boy, a la crosse player, was killed in March 2000 at a sporting accident at school in Northport (about 5 miles from JE's residence). It was a freak accident where he was accidentally struck in the chest and his heart stopped. This family, again, received tons of media attention... The investigation of the cause of death went on for months, and the family became politically active and even higher profile. They started a Foundation in their late son's name, and they were responsible for a new law being passed requiring NY schools to have a crash cart on premises to rescuscitate heart attack victims. Again, these folks were in the media so much, that I could recognize them, too, especially if I had their name ahead of time.

What I am trying to explain is that a private investigator isn't needed to unearth information that is commonly known to us Long Islanders. I think that is why the readings may seem better to people from out of state.

In any event, I understand why you tend to discount the theory of JE hot-reading in the CO gallery. However, where do you stand on the videotaped readings that JE did for the families of 9/11 victimes, Kiefer and Puckett, at their Long Island homes, within a few weeks after their deaths? The Puckett reading was even arranged through a mutual family friend of JE.

Do you believe that JE didn't know, in advance, whose homes he was going to? Do you think he was blindfolded in the car, so he wouldn't even know what neighborhood he was in? Bear in mind that Puckett family lived in Glen Cove, (where JE lived and attended school for many years), and Kiefer's home in Franklin Square is not that far away from his home, either. I think these particular readings are highly suspicious for hot reading, and I wondered if you were including them when you ruled out hot-reading theories.

I really can't emphasize JE's regional advantages enough.
Edited to fix my typos!

[BNiles]

Well said Instig8R. My thoughts exactly.

:clap: :j1: :clap: :j1: :clap:

[CFLarsen]

Instig8R,

Great post. You should write for SkepticReport.

Wait...you do!

How John Edward got two "special hits" (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jespecialhits.htm)

The Many Contradictions of John Edward (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jecontradictions.htm)

So, when's the next article coming? "The Regional Advantages of John Edward"..... :)

[Instig8R]

Thank you, thank you very much. ;)

I have always found it extremely unusual that -- especially in the first few months of CO being on the air -- there were so many readings that involve high profile deaths of young people, whose families live practically in JE's own backyard.

There was also JE's gallery reading of the parents of a young suicide victim, a/k/a the "Kauffy" reading. RC has written about it over at TVTalk, because the reading raised his suspicions. Apparently, the boy's parents were very high profile, inasmuch as their son's suicide turned them into activists who started a well known suicide prevention organization.

When young people in my community die suddenly and tragically, most people tend to pay attention to the coverage. If someone like me can recognize these names and faces, I feel that JE is much more likely to do so. After all, he is a psychic-medium, and death is his business. He has a special interest in taking note of these situations.

I know that special arrangements were made for the 9/11 families to receive their at-home readings by JE. As for 9/11 readings in the gallery, however, there haven't been that many 9/11 readings or references since then -- despite the fact that almost 3000 people from the tri-state area were killed that day.

Conversely, we have far fewer deaths of young kids on Long Island.... but the number of readings given to families of young victims (during the first few months of CO) could lead one to believe that there is a very high ratio of kids getting killed here. (Edited to add that their Long Island residences are not mentioned on CO, and therefore this oddity is not noticed by people in other parts of the country.)

The fact that so many high profile readings took place during CO's debut should make everyone a bit suspicious. This was before CO was a hit show. I've known a lot of people who have suffered tragic losses like this, but their response was not to run out and get tickets for a televised seance by JE within a short time after the deaths.

Also, given the way that JE wasn't upfront about his prior conversation with Tony Pagano, the cameraman from Dateline, I have no reason to believe that he would be forthcoming about what knowledge he had of these deceased kids' families in his CO Gallery, either.

It seems that JE is not immune to psychic amnesia, the malady that he created for his audience.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Instig8R
Thank you, thank you very much. ;)

I have always found it extremely unusual that -- especially in the first few months of CO being on the air -- there were so many readings that involve high profile deaths of young people, whose families live practically in JE's own backyard.

[snip]

When young people in my community die suddenly and tragically, most people tend to pay attention to the coverage. If someone like me can recognize these names and faces, I feel that JE is much more likely to do so. After all, he is a psychic-medium, and death is his business. He has a special interest in taking note of these situations.


Good points.

IIRC Several mediums from quite some time ago (turn of the century through the twenties) had large collections of obituaries that they kept over the years. Anyone from their area making an appointment could therefore expect better contact from their relatives. I seem to recall a very old Gardner article mentioning one or two.

Of course, using the same logic as above, merely having the information from the obituaries prior to the readings doesn't -prove- that the dead relatives didn't also visit the medium and give the same information through spiritual means, but . . . . doesn't that begin to stretch credibility just a tad?

NA

[voidx]

Posted by NoZed Avenger
Of course, using the same logic as above, merely having the information from the obituaries prior to the readings doesn't -prove- that the dead relatives didn't also visit the medium and give the same information through spiritual means, but . . . . doesn't that begin to stretch credibility just a tad?
Stretched credibility doesn't appear to be too much of a concern it would seem. Hell, even if credibility snaps...you can always tie the ends back together and keep stretching :). "See, its fine!".

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


What people say they believe and what they actually believe are two different things. You should look at how they argue instead of how they claim to argue, and you will see that it is very different.

I do not presume to know what a person thinks or really feels about an issue. I can only debate claims and statements. I have found it to be a waste of time, for me anyway, to do otherwise.


What constitutes proof of fraud, then?

Using cold-reading? Short of a confession, I would say it's nigh impossible. Hot-reading? Use of false information fed to a medium, as Underdown attempted, computer records of google searches, LexusNexus or the like, etc.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am personally convinced that Edward "cheated" with Tony. Ed's "sniff test" and my own common sense eliminates all other options. But it is not "proof". It is not proof, because it is consistent with Edwards claim of the "process" he uses. And any evaluation of fraud or error must be initially compared to the claim being made.

If a dowser claims that they can unerringly find buried gold, but only in their own back yard, and only when they have two days to prepare with no one observing them, our common sense may cry "Fraud!" but if the claimant does what they say they will do under the conditions they require, it cannot be "proven" no matter how obvious it may seem.

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

They admit the possibility, but still make the final decision based on emotion. RC is becoming a skeptic, but the other 2 are believers that have decided the possibility of JE being a cold-reader can be set aside in preference for their beliefs. Do you have any real examples?

I consider all three of those to be "real examples". Even you seem to acknowledge RC as one. Do you require more? But if you're comfortable in assuming you know what people really think and feel, I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise.


One either believes or they don't, a fence-sitter is merely a person that doesn't want to express what their position is.

That is a very narrow-minded conjecture. Do you remember what skepticism is?


I am ignoring nothing I assure you. Although I personally am convinced that Edward did cheat, his reading of Tony, and subsequent explanation of same, is consistent with his claims of the "process" he uses.

ANd that process is called cheating.

Personally, I agree with you. However, there is no proof of this. Please feel free to argue otherwise. What evidence is there to demonstrate that what Edward did in this situation is inconsistent with what a "real medium" could do under the same situation (assuming such a thing as a real medium existed).

It was cheating, point blank. If a person is caught with a smoking gun and has gun splatter on them, it can be assumed that the person pulled the trigger.

That was a bad example. How do you prove the person shot the gun you caught them holding and not some other gun?

JE tried to use the father as a hit.

I agree. Now prove it.

[thaiboxerken]

I consider all three of those to be "real examples". Even you seem to acknowledge RC as one. Do you require more? But if you're comfortable in assuming you know what people really think and feel, I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

It's obvious how they feel based on what they've posted and their immediate dismissal of any mundane explanations. Clancie and Neo see "special hits" where there are none. They can't fathom that JE is just cold-reading because "it just doesn't feel like it". Neo and Clancie are believers because of emotion. RC is/was a believer based on emotion but is realizing it.


That is a very narrow-minded conjecture. Do you remember what skepticism is?

It is a fact that one either believes something or they don't. There is no in-between.




Personally, I agree with you. However, there is no proof of this. Please feel free to argue otherwise. What evidence is there to demonstrate that what Edward did in this situation is inconsistent with what a "real medium" could do under the same situation (assuming such a thing as a real medium existed).

Since there is NO such thing as a medium, what he was doing was cheating.




That was a bad example. How do you prove the person shot the gun you caught them holding and not some other gun?

Blood and gunpowder splatter pattern that continues from the gun to the person.


I agree. Now prove it.

No need to prove the self-evident.

[thaiboxerken]

If a dowser claims that they can unerringly find buried gold, but only in their own back yard, and only when they have two days to prepare with no one observing them, our common sense may cry "Fraud!" but if the claimant does what they say they will do under the conditions they require, it cannot be "proven" no matter how obvious it may seem.

But if the dowser is caught on tape placing the gold in certain locations, then it is proven he is cheating. JE was taped placing the gold.

[FutileJester]

Hi Ken,

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It is a fact that one either believes something or they don't. There is no in-between.

I just can't agree with this at all. I offer myself as a counter-example. There is effectively nothing, except perhaps my own existence, which I absolutely do or absolutely don't believe in. I may be almost certain about a lot of things, but I have to maintain a kernel of doubt or I would never be able to accept contrary evidence.

In fact I would say that to be 100% sure of anything is almost the anti-definition of a skeptic.

No need to prove the self-evident.

A multitude of religious zealots and snake-oil salesmen would agree with this sentiment completely. THe self-evident has been found wrong too many times. That's why skeptics require proof (to the extent that proof is possible).

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Leroy - Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?

Originally posted by CFLarsen Can you find one single explanation they seriously think is possible?

I can't. Hey, if I am wrong, show me.

Silly boy, don't answer a question with a question. Where is the evidence that they dismissed ALL OTHER explanations.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I haven't seen any

Exactly.



Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?

Believers either:

1. Don't know of the mundane explanations, such as cold-reading, hot-reading and such.

OR

2. They know of these explanations and have dismissed them in favor of their beliefs.

That's all there is to it. Look at Clancie and Neo, they know about cold-reading and have dismissed that explanation in favor of their beliefs. They know that JE got caught cheating on 20/20 and have dismissed it in favor of their beliefs.

All believers fall into categories 1 or 2, and sometimes both.

*sigh* stereotyping again? They are believers, therefore [?]

You have some serious biases Theo.

Posted by Instigator - The problem is that JE was not forthcoming with the information that he had met Tony earlier and had a conversation with him about his father's death. JE was willing to allow Dateline to believe that he hadn't spoken to Tony in advance. He did not volunteer the information. He had to be asked about it, and then he finally confessed. This is called lying by omission.


I agree

[Leroy]

Originally posted by neofight


Leroy, there are many instances when JE gets information for someone who is not there, and has the family in the studio call them up to deliver a message. Not all of these people had tickets but cancelled at the last moment, so I don't see how the Brunelli incident is such a cause of wonderment. :) ........neo [/B]


posted by Instigator - I was very suspicious of the fact that when Chef Yan-Yan Leone and his cousins from Brunelli's Restaurant on the upper East Side were read on CO, JE began making statements that Yan-Yan knew could be meant for his cousin, Russ Brunelli. JE then had Yan-Yan call Russ at the restaurant, and JE proceeded to read Russ Brunelli over the telephone.

We later learned (in a post-reading segment) that Russ was supposed to be at the CO gallery, and gave up his ticket because he claimed he was too busy at the restaurant. Funny how the reading still went to him, via telephone. (Hint: The restaurant bears his name.)

Doesn't it make you the least bit suspicious? What if JE did a background check on the original ticket holder?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]They admit the possibility, but still make the final decision based on emotion.

One either believes or they don't, a fence-sitter is merely a person that doesn't want to express what their position is.


Based on emotion? How about based on personal experience with the man?

When you say "One either believes or they don't" what are you really saying?

[thaiboxerken]

Based on emotion? How about based on personal experience with the man?

Emotional.


When you say "One either believes or they don't" what are you really saying?

Exactly what I said. There is no in-between when it comes to belief. One can suspend judgement, but not belief.

[thaiboxerken]

*sigh* stereotyping again? They are believers, therefore [?]


It's not just a stereotype, it's an observation. Can you think of any believers that believe in afterlife and mediumship based on scientific evidence?

[Leroy]

But a cynic would look at that and go "Hey, ya know, he knows its the cameraman, he knows it's 'Dateline,' ya know wouldn't it be impressive if he could get the cameraman to cry?"


Originally posted by neofight

Hockenberry is absolutely right here. That's exactly what a cynic would say. For them there is no such thing as giving JE the benefit of the doubt here. [/B]

I am not a cynic and I look at that and think, "hmm, hot reading." I can give JE the benefit of a doubt too. Where is your doubt when it comes to JE? Does he do anything that causes you to sometimes doubt him?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by mark tidwell
Originally posted by CFLarsen


What people say they believe and what they actually believe are two different things. You should look at how they argue instead of how they claim to argue, and you will see that it is very different.


[i]I do not presume to know what a person thinks or really feels about an issue. I can only debate claims and statements. I have found it to be a waste of time, for me anyway, to do otherwise.[/B]

Great post Mark! To argue with one on the basis of what we believe they think, is a waste of time. We should concentrate on what we know and not on what we think we know.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]

It is a fact that one either believes something or they don't. There is no in-between.

No need to prove the self-evident.

Ah, now I understand Thai, he is another black and white person! That explans a lot. Maybe it would be better for us to wait until he has grown up, or been educated before we waste anymore time typing to him. :roll:

[Leroy]

It is a fact that one either believes something or they don't. There is no in-between.


Originally posted by FutileJester
Hi Ken,

I just can't agree with this at all. I offer myself as a counter-example. There is effectively nothing, except perhaps my own existence, which I absolutely do or absolutely don't believe in. I may be almost certain about a lot of things, but I have to maintain a kernel of doubt or I would never be able to accept contrary evidence.

In fact I would say that to be 100% sure of anything is almost the anti-definition of a skeptic.



No need to prove the self-evident.

A multitude of religious zealots and snake-oil salesmen would agree with this sentiment completely. THe self-evident has been found wrong too many times. That's why skeptics require proof (to the extent that proof is possible). [/B]


BRAVO Futile! I hope that Thai read this post!

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's not just a stereotype, it's an observation.

Hmmm. Let's say I observe that most black people I encounter like rap music. I then say, 'All black people like rap music, or are consciously suppressing their preference for rap'. This IS NOT a justified statement, and it is indeed a stereotype, not an observation. This is what you're doing. Observing a trend for a group is not an excuse for judging all people of a group to be that way; people are simply far more complicated than this.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Leroy
Ah, now I understand Thai, he is another black and white person! That explans a lot.

In a nutshell. The inability to acknowledge shades of gray is the death knell of critial thinking.

BRAVO Futile! I hope that Thai read this post!

Thanks! He skipped it in his last set of responses though, so no high hopes there. :(

[Darat]

Originally posted by Leroy





Great post Mark! To argue with one on the basis of what we believe they think, is a waste of time. We should concentrate on what we know and not on what we think we know.

I agree with the point that we can't argue about what we believe other people to think, however when people state "X is true" it is sometimes valid to explain why if they think "X is true" then "Y must also be true". I've realised that sometimes people are not aware of some of the implications that their stated beliefs make or require.


A slight change – and back to the thread subject! ;)

I am wondering how anyone can still be quoting CO TV shows as evidence to support what JE claims he can do. We now know that anything (and indeed everything) we see on CO could have been edited or fictionalised. By the agreement the production company makes people sign before they can appear any "evidence" from the show would have to be independently collaborated before we can even begin to assume it hasn't been "fictionalised".

I also think that anyone who starts with an assumption that anything shown on CO is “true” or evidence for JE’s claims should consider the following:


The show is produced by a “for profit” company
To be profitable the show has to be able to attract an audience (ratings) that is attractive to advertisers.
Ratings can be achieved by "better & bigger" shows which could include specials with celebrities or "special" hits. (I admit this is an assumption however I believe there is some evidence to support this. Consider how JE & the other producers totally misjudged the public mood when they tried to use the terrible events of September 11th to their own advantage to create interest/publicity for their show.)
The show has no obligation to produce a factually accurate retelling of a reading.


With the above I would now say that when anything that may even be considered "special" appears on Crossing Over the reasonable first assumption should be that what was shown is "fictionalised".

(Edited for be to been.)

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

The reasonable first assumption should be that what was shown is "fictionalised".
Hi Darat,

"Fictionalized?" That's a lot different than just saying it's edited.

So....How are you specifically saying they "fictionalize" the CO readings? :confused:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
"Fictionalized?" That's a lot different than just saying it's edited.

So....How are you specifically saying they "fictionalize" the CO readings? :confused:

By editing to connect different Edward questions with different answers, making a miss look like a hit. The document leaves the door wide open for this which is why nothing seen on "Crossing Over" is submissable as evidence for or against Edward.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Darat,

"Fictionalized?" That's a lot different than just saying it's edited.

So....How are you specifically saying they "fictionalize" the CO readings? :confused: [/B]

I am not making a claim that they do fictionalise anything just that we now know they reserve that right when they get people to sign the release form. With that in mind we cannot just assume that they don't exercise that right.

That is why I say anything being used from a CO programme as "evidence" for JE's claimed ability to communicate with the dead needs to be independently (i.e. not from the production company) verified that what is shown is an accurate and faithful reproduction (within the remit of TV shows) of what happened.

We now know (thanks to you ;) ) that everything could be "fictionalised", to assume that the producers don't "fictionalise" the show is just that, an assumption.

Don’t forget the words of the release even explicitly mention the word “fiction”, which is why I used “fictionalised”.

From the appearance release supplied by Clancie. – 1st paragraph – bold by me.


…snip…

;it being understood that the program or any derivative works thereof may contain factual and/or fictional scenes, action and dialogue.

…snip…

[voidx]

Originally posted by Leroy

I am not a cynic and I look at that and think, "hmm, hot reading." I can give JE the benefit of a doubt too. Where is your doubt when it comes to JE? Does he do anything that causes you to sometimes doubt him?
This is a fantastic point. Clancie and Neo, care to comment? I was of a mind initially that JE was just cold-reading, and not talking to the dead, although I was as always open to being shown wrong. However in the long course of discussions here I have seen example after example of things that show me that JE seems to be every bit the cold-reader. While you can try and explain away all these things, are you both saying that nothing JE has done has ever caused you even a moments doubt in his abilities? Not the LKL readings, not a poorly done reading? Are you saying at this point you can explain away all his seeming poor performances and have zero doubts in his abilities at all?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's not just a stereotype, it's an observation.

Originally posted by FutileJester


Hmmm. Let's say I observe that most black people I encounter like rap music. I then say, 'All black people like rap music, or are consciously suppressing their preference for rap'. This IS NOT a justified statement, and it is indeed a stereotype, not an observation. This is what you're doing. Observing a trend for a group is not an excuse for judging all people of a group to be that way; people are simply far more complicated than this.

I noticed that Thai didn't comment on this.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
Silly boy, don't answer a question with a question. Where is the evidence that they dismissed ALL OTHER explanations.

First, spare us the condescending tone.

Second, I cannot find any evidence that they accept any other explanation. Usually, when skeptics look for answers, other skeptics help out where they possibly can. Perhaps you could be so kind as to show me where I am wrong?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Darat
[B]I am wondering how anyone can still be quoting CO TV shows as evidence to support what JE claims he can do. We now know that anything (and indeed everything) we see on CO could have been edited or fictionalised. By the agreement the production company makes people sign before they can appear any "evidence" from the show would have to be independently collaborated before we can even begin to assume it hasn't been "fictionalised".



I agree, but I don't think I've met any believers who think that the show is evidence of JE's abilities.


Originally posted by Darat I also think that anyone who starts with an assumption that anything shown on CO is “true” or evidence for JE’s claims should consider the following:

The show is produced by a “for profit” company

To be profitable the show has to be able to attract an audience (ratings) that is attractive to advertisers.

Ratings can be achieved by "better & bigger" shows which could include specials with celebrities or "special" hits. (I admit this is an assumption however I believe there is some evidence to support this. Consider how JE & the other producers totally misjudged the public mood when they tried to use the terrible events of September 11th to their own advantage to create interest/publicity for their show.)

The show has no obligation to produce a factually accurate retelling of a reading.

I agree with that

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Leroy - Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?

Originally posted by CFLarsen Can you find one single explanation they seriously think is possible?

Originally posted by Leroy - Silly boy, don't answer a question with a question. Where is the evidence that they dismissed ALL OTHER explanations.

originally posted by CFLarsen - I cannot find any evidence that they accept any other explanation. Usually, when skeptics look for answers, other skeptics help out where they possibly can. Perhaps you could be so kind as to show me where I am wrong?

You're still are not answering my question. I didn't ask you if you could find evidence that they accept other explanations. I asked where your evidence was that they DISMISSED ALL OTHER explanations?

Just because you can't find any evidence that they accept any other explanation, doesnt' mean that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations, does it?

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

While you can try and explain away all these things, are you both saying that nothing JE has done has ever caused you even a moments doubt in his abilities? Not the LKL readings, not a poorly done reading? Are you saying at this point you can explain away all his seeming poor performances and have zero doubts in his abilities at all?
Hi voidx,

In answer to your question, of course I have doubts about JE. I have doubts about mediumship in general; I've said that many times.

Its just that cold/hot reading doesn't completely make sense to me either as an explanation for some of what JE does--or, more to the point, as an explanation for some things other mediums have done as well.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi voidx,

In answer to your question, of course I have doubts about JE. I have doubts about mediumship in general; I've said that many times.

Its just that cold/hot reading doesn't completely make sense to me either as an explanation for some of what JE does--or, more to the point, as an explanation for some things other mediums have done as well. [/B]
Are there specific readings, cases, that come to mind that caused you doubt that he was using mediumship, and that perhaps he more resembled cold-reading?

[Clancie]

Yes, but you all can think of those examples, too. Much of "CO" could be said to be indistinguishable from cold reading--in isolation. Nothing special to elaborate on about that.

Its the parts that don't fit the cold/hot reading explanations that are of most interest to me. Because I think whatever theory one has--mediumship OR cold/hot warm reading--should be 100% consistent in explaining every aspect of the readings.

And, so far, I haven't seen a theory that has that consistency--not "mediumship" and not "cold/warm/hot reading".

That's why I say, "There may be something to mediumship" rather than, "Mediumship is real."

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Its the parts that don't fit the cold/hot reading explanations that are of most interest to me. Because I think whatever theory one has--mediumship OR cold/hot warm reading--should be 100% consistent in explaining every aspect of the readings.

It's television.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, so far, I haven't seen a theory that has that consistency--not "mediumship" and not "cold/warm/hot reading".

That's why I say, "There may be something to mediumship" rather than, "Mediumship is real."

It's television.

[Clancie]

TLN,

Check out Steve's SPR sources and others. JE and the handful of television mediums are not the only mediums around....

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Check out Steve's SPR sources and others. JE and the handful of television mediums are not the only mediums around....

Sure. Any of them non-anecdotal? Any scientific studies I can view, complete with data and testing procedure?

[CFLarsen]

Did anyone notice that Clancie didn't answer the question? She merely said that she had doubts about JE, she never said what it was.

It can't be cold reading because there is "Nothing special to elaborate on about that." It can't be specific readings, because we can "all can think of those examples, too".

The issue is not what makes Clancie believe there "might" (:rolleyes:) be something to mediumship. The issue is what makes Clancie believe there might not be something to mediumship.

So, what is that? Clancie cannot say. Instead, we get a reversal of the question, the same old tirade, as well as an attempt at redirecting the discussion towards SPR.

Nice try, Clancie.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, but you all can think of those examples, too. Much of "CO" could be said to be indistinguishable from cold reading--in isolation. Nothing special to elaborate on about that.
So you agree then that at times what JE does is indistinguishable from cold reading? In Isolation doesn't make much sense to me. Each reading should stand on its own merits. Either he's talking to the dead or he isn't. I haven't been given a convincing scenario that explains in detail why he should have such difficulty with ADC that he can't understand or comprehend a message everytime. See to me, if he's cold-reading, then yes, it makes sense that he misses sometimes, is average on hits others, and rarely (and I think even you'd agree his "special" hits are rare) he gets a very good hit. If he's communicating with the dead, I don't buy it, I'm not convinced that there's this "the pyschic line is bad" problem.

Its the parts that don't fit the cold/hot reading explanations that are of most interest to me. Because I think whatever theory one has--mediumship OR cold/hot warm reading--should be 100% consistent in explaining every aspect of the readings.
What if as he's cold-reading he luckily hits first try and a very specific piece of info? I don't know, my problem is that you seem more times to be defending JE than critiqueing him, yet to me, Its much more likely he's cold-reading the majority of the time than doing real mediumship, so I'm always confused as to why you lean more in the mediumship direction. Because to me my opinion that he's cold-reading seems much more consistent, than the mediumship angle. Can I safely say you disagree and think that mediumship is the more consistent of the 2 explanations?

And, so far, I haven't seen a theory that has that consistency--not "mediumship" and not "cold/warm/hot reading".

That's why I say, "There may be something to mediumship" rather than, "Mediumship is real." [/B]
Yes but I think this avoids a certain aspect of the question. Which do you find more likely? That its mediumship, or cold-reading. You responses and defences of JE would lead me to believe you lean more towards real mediumship. Me looking at all the available transcripts and LKL readings and the like can't imagine how you could think that's more likely than the cold-reading scenario.

[CFLarsen]

Leroy,

I answered it: I can't find any examples where they accept any other explanation. That is my answer. You may like it or you may not like it. But that is my answer.

Now, please answer mine: Can you show me where I am wrong? Just yes or no.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

So you agree then that at times what JE does is indistinguishable from cold reading?
Yes, I've said that. The difference is that I feel there are various possible explanations for that--only one of them being cold reading.



I haven't been given a convincing scenario that explains in detail why he should have such difficulty with ADC that he can't understand or comprehend a message everytime.
I know. But I think if mediumship is real, there's no reason why communication would be so straightforward and so easy all the time as you expect. It makes sense to me that "the process" would be difficult (if there is a process :) ).


See to me, if he's cold-reading, then yes, it makes sense that he misses sometimes, is average on hits others, and rarely (and I think even you'd agree his "special" hits are rare) he gets a very good hit.
I do agree with you that his great special hits are relatively rare. But I think the hits that don't seem consistent with cold reading techniques are quite commonplace.



Because to me my opinion that he's cold-reading seems much more consistent, than the mediumship angle. Can I safely say you disagree and think that mediumship is the more consistent of the 2 explanations?
No. I think they're both inconsistent.


Yes but I think this avoids a certain aspect of the question. Which do you find more likely? That its mediumship, or cold-reading.
Well, I would have said "cold reading" except that (1) there are many things in his readings that imo aren't explained as cold reading; (2) I find the hot reading theory weak; (3) mediumship remains a possible explanation for the "unexplained".


You responses and defences of JE would lead me to believe you lean more towards real mediumship.
Seriously, I just don't know. You could say it's all cold reading, but to me, when I look at the details of many readings, the things that don't appear to be cold reading have to be explained some other way. I think mediumship remains a possibility and should be considered as such.

[CFLarsen]

Still no answer from Clancie on "What makes you doubt JE"..... :rolleyes:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
You could say it's all cold reading, but to me, when I look at the details of many readings, the things that don't appear to be cold reading have to be explained some other way. I think mediumship remains a possibility and should be considered as such.

I'd love to see just one of these "details" that isn't...
[list=1]
An anecdote
From a television show that wasn’t broadcast live
[/list=1]
Do you have any of those Clancie?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, I've said that. The difference is that I feel there are various possible explanations for that--only one of them being cold reading.
See to me, while I keep my mind open to other possibilities cold-reading makes the most sense. It does not require me to posit the afterlife, telepathy/psi/esp, and it also works perfect for why these performances are poor, where other explanations like mediumship have to start invoking, "not enough time for a good reading", "bad communication with sitter via phone", "not a good format for what JE does". While several are possible, to me, only cold-reading is likely.

I know. But I think if mediumship is real, there's no reason why communication would be so straightforward and so easy all the time as you expect. It makes sense to me that "the process" would be difficult (if there is a process :) ).
So you agree that you've provided nothing that should convince me that mediumship communication should be difficult, yet you still accept it as part of the process. You just turned my question back on me stating that you don't see why it would be straightforward and easy. Why do you think this? What evidences have been provided to you that make you think it should be a difficult process of communication aside from the hearsay of mediums? Why do you accept that it would be difficult? I look at it logically and can't really find a good reason to think it should be so horrible vague and complex like mediums make it out to be. I can't say for sure one way or the other, but nothing has been provided to make me pitch my tent in the difficult communication process camp.

I do agree with you that his great special hits are relatively rare. But I think the hits that don't seem consistent with cold reading techniques are quite commonplace.
On this we clearly disagree. On several transcripts presented on here we've disagreed on just whether or not JE's more run of the mill hits are outside of the possibilities of cold-reading. I can't see how people think they don't fall within the realm of cold-reading. Its likely we'll never convince each other on these particular items as their subjective in a manner to each of our opinions.


No. I think they're both inconsistent.

Obviously, but is one largely more inconsistent than the other in your opinion?

Well, I would have said "cold reading" except that (1) there are many things in his readings that imo aren't explained as cold reading; (2) I find the hot reading theory weak; (3) mediumship remains a possible explanation for the "unexplained".

(1)I've yet to see a convincing list of these items, and am skeptical that they are indeed common enough to be termed "many".
(2)I've never subscribed a whole lot to the hot reading theory myself. Its cannot be ruled out obviously because of a lack of controls, but everything I've seen of JE has been close enough to cold-reading and just lucky guess' within cold-reading, that I haven't had to invoke the hot-reading rule.
(3)I agree its on the list, but its on the bottom of mine.

Seriously, I just don't know. You could say it's all cold reading, but to me, when I look at the details of many readings, the things that don't appear to be cold reading have to be explained some other way. I think mediumship remains a possibility and should be considered as such.
So you're completely divided on the issue? I would say that my position is clear on this, I'm of the opinion that mediumship hasn't been proven and that he's more than likely cold-reading, or using some other mundane technique, and I think this position is clear upon reading my posts. The fact that you've been on the other side of most of my arguements would be seen to me that while you perhaps have doubts, you either think mediumship is potentially more possible, or you want it to be more possible. This is of course my opinion, but from all my discussions with you, I don't see you as one completely split down the middle on whether he's cold-reading or doing mediumship, you've almost always argued from the mediumship angle. Just a personal observation.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

So you agree that you've provided nothing that should convince me that mediumship communication should be difficult, yet you still accept it as part of the process
No, I didn't agree to that. Neo and I have explained how mediumship supposedly works and, if you take the premise as a given (telepathy + clairaudience/sentience/voyance), then we have explained how it would be difficult. I only agree that -you- don't feel its an explanation for how it would be difficult, not that we haven't presented one.
Posted by voidx

Its likely we'll never convince each other on these particular items as their subjective in a manner to each of our opinions.
Well, on that we agree. :)



... but is one largely more inconsistent than the other in your opinion?
I'm not satisfied with inconsistency of any explanation. So...inconsistent is inconsistent. None is acceptable.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

I would say that my position is clear on this, I'm of the opinion that mediumship hasn't been proven
Agreed.


.... and that he's more than likely cold-reading, or using some other mundane technique, and I think this position is clear upon reading my posts. The fact that you've been on the other side of most of my arguements would be seen to me that while you perhaps have doubts, you either think mediumship is potentially more possible, or you want it to be more possible.

Hmmm...well, personally I think it's either (1) mediumship OR (2) cold reading + sitter buy-in OR (3) something I'm totally unaware of to date. I can't pick any of the above with confidence because, as I say, of the inconsistencies that remain whichever of them one chooses.

I find an explanation with inconsistencies that just have to be ignored to make it work...frankly not good enough to accept. :)



This is of course my opinion, but from all my discussions with you, I don't see you as one completely split down the middle on whether he's cold-reading or doing mediumship, you've almost always argued from the mediumship angle. Just a personal observation.
Well, I don't disagree with you there either, really. I would like it to be true, but wishing doesn't make it so. :) Much of what I've read (not talking about JE) and even experienced, plus the above slight personal bias, makes me prefer mediumship as an explanation and prefer to argue it because of that. So, you're right about that, I guess. :)

[voidx]

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


I haven't been given a convincing scenario that explains in detail why he should have such difficulty with ADC that he can't understand or comprehend a message everytime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I know. But I think if mediumship is real, there's no reason why communication would be so straightforward and so easy all the time as you expect. It makes sense to me that "the process" would be difficult (if there is a process ).


No, I didn't agree to that. Neo and I have explained how mediumship supposedly works and, if you take the premise as a given (telepathy + clairaudience/sentience/voyance), then we have explained how it would be difficult. I only agree that -you- don't feel its an explanation for how it would be difficult, not that we haven't presented one.
In the first quote I mentioned that I haven't been given a "convincing" scenario. And to me it seemed that is what you replied "I know" too. Perhaps that's where the confusion set it. Regardless then can I assume that you take your supposed premise of telepathy and its apparent difficulty as what you deem most likely? I had all sorts of doubts and questions over the "process" of mediumship, most recently with clairaudience and how it would work period at all. To me no one can state concretely at all whether the process is difficult or not, you can assume it is, but I think this is shooting yourself in the foot to assume anything about this form of communication at this point as no one can reliably explain or demonstrate it. I guess I'm just confused as why your so willing to assume its difficult when there's really nothing to back that aside from what mediums tell us directly.

I'm not satisfied with inconsistency of any explanation. So...inconsistent is inconsistent. None is acceptable.
This seems overly "black and white" to me. In the course of analyzing transcripts and the like I've seen more inconsistency in the process of mediumship, than I have in the inconsistency of cold-reading. And if no inconsistency is acceptable why don't you bring up more points against mediumship? If that's the case I'd have expected to see you being much more harsh of some of JE's LKL readings because by almost unanimous opinion here they are poor.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Leroy




I noticed that Thai didn't comment on this.

Hmmm. Let's say I observe that most black people I encounter like rap music. I then say, 'All black people like rap music, or are consciously suppressing their preference for rap'. This IS NOT a justified statement, and it is indeed a stereotype, not an observation. This is what you're doing. Observing a trend for a group is not an excuse for judging all people of a group to be that way; people are simply far more complicated than this.

I just saw this because I've been working. Sheesh. Anyway, this example doesn't even come close to my observation of believers.

Can you name ONE believer that doesn't based their belief on emotional reasons? Can you name ONE believer that bases their beliefs on empirical and scientific data?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hmmm...well, personally I think it's either (1) mediumship OR (2) cold reading + sitter buy-in OR (3) something I'm totally unaware of to date. I can't pick any of the above with confidence because, as I say, of the inconsistencies that remain whichever of them one chooses.

I find an explanation with inconsistencies that just have to be ignored to make it work...frankly not good enough to accept. :)
While I agree I find myself ignoring a lot more to make mediumship work than cold-reading. I truly do find it the more inconsistent explanation. Am I also safe in saying the last sentence of the quote above you also apply to mediumship?

Well, I don't disagree with you there either, really. I would like it to be true, but wishing doesn't make it so. :) Much of what I've read (not talking about JE) and even experienced, plus the above slight personal bias, makes me prefer mediumship as an explanation and prefer to argue it because of that. So, you're right about that, I guess. :)
Thanks, I wasn't trying to score a debating point there. But I just felt that this is more what I personally understood your opinion to be. I just wanted to be clear.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Leroy


Just because you can't find any evidence that they accept any other explanation, doesnt' mean that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations, does it?

Sure does, but feel free to prove us wrong by giving evidence that they have accepted the mundane explanation. Oh wait.. if they accepted the mundane explanation, they would not be believers. Whoa, imagine that.

[CFLarsen]

Still no answer from Clancie on "What makes you doubt JE"..... :rolleyes:

Everything is about why rational explanations aren't enough for her. Nothing is about what makes her doubt JE.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I just saw this because I've been working. Sheesh. Anyway, this example doesn't even come close to my observation of believers.

Can you name ONE believer that doesn't based their belief on emotional reasons? Can you name ONE believer that bases their beliefs on empirical and scientific data?

Sure. Gary Schwartz. To the best of my knowledge, based on his publications, he sincerely believes that the evidence points to the existence of an afterlife. Now I know that the immediate response must be that his evidence is seriously flawed (I certainly think it is); nevertheless he thinks it's good and bases his belief on it.

And I know the next response too; that even though he says it's the evidence that convinces him, he really is just seeing the evidence as he wants to see it for emotional reasons. This is possible, but presupposes that we know his mind better than he is willing to tell us. He would be equally justified in saying that you aren't really skeptical because of the evidence, but because of your own emotional biases. After all, this is possible, and he would have as much evidence (none) as we would have for saying it about him. To the best we can know, he is a believer who bases his belief on empirical data.

Ken, you claimed earlier that belief is always either all or nothing. I presented myself as a counter example, as none of my beliefs are all or nothing. Do you still feel that there is only believe/don't believe? If so, do you think I'm lying, or just self-deluded?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by FutileJester
Sure. Gary Schwartz. To the best of my knowledge, based on his publications, he sincerely believes that the evidence points to the existence of an afterlife. Now I know that the immediate response must be that his evidence is seriously flawed (I certainly think it is); nevertheless he thinks it's good and bases his belief on it.

Oops, wrong. GS started out as a believer, then looked for evidence. In "The Afterlife Experiments", he describes how he - many years ago - stands at a hotel window and wonders if his "personal biophotons" go on travelling in the universe, just as the light from stars go on. He refers to "she/he/it/they as a "Grand Organizing Designer". Go figure.

GS also tells of how he "stumbled" upon a hypothesis about how systems store information. He falls for Linda Russek (his "soul mate", whom he was later divorced from - oh, the irony), who gets him hooked on the idea of finding out if this hypothesis is real or not. The "subject spirit"? Russek's own dead father. The "subject sitter"? Russek herself. Bad science from square one.

He sets out to prove that there is a surviving soul. Not if it exists in the first place. As we have seen, he doesn't seriously look for any other explanation.

This "Systemic Memory Theory" has been excellently reviewed by Our Own Marc Berard in Skeptic. (http://www.skeptic.com/archives47.html)

[thaiboxerken]

Sure. Gary Schwartz. To the best of my knowledge, based on his publications, he sincerely believes that the evidence points to the existence of an afterlife. Now I know that the immediate response must be that his evidence is seriously flawed (I certainly think it is); nevertheless he thinks it's good and bases his belief on it.

He might think it's good evidence, but he believes so based on emotion. He has already decided that there is an afterlife and all of his experiments are done to confirm that belief, not to see if that belief is true. There is a difference between science and junk-science, and that emotional bias is one of them. Have any real examples?

And I know the next response too; that even though he says it's the evidence that convinces him, he really is just seeing the evidence as he wants to see it for emotional reasons. This is possible, but presupposes that we know his mind better than he is willing to tell us.

No, it is a conclusion based on the reality that his "evidence" isn't scientific at all. It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and when shown why it's flawed, Schwartz shuts down and refuses to believe that his evidence isn't evidence at all.


He would be equally justified in saying that you aren't really skeptical because of the evidence, but because of your own emotional biases. After all, this is possible, and he would have as much evidence (none) as we would have for saying it about him. To the best we can know, he is a believer who bases his belief on empirical data.

It's not empirical data if it can't stand up to scientific scrutiny.


Ken, you claimed earlier that belief is always either all or nothing. I presented myself as a counter example, as none of my beliefs are all or nothing. Do you still feel that there is only believe/don't believe? If so, do you think I'm lying, or just self-deluded?

You either believe or you don't believe. You are just too stubborn to state your stance in that belief. One can have doubts and still believe.

[Clancie]

re: Schwartz. He may have privately wanted to believe in mediumship for a long time prior to his research; only he would know if that was true.

But based on what he writes, it was his research into mediumship that made him a believer in it.
Posted by thaiboxerken to Futile Jester

You either believe or you don't believe.....One can have doubts and still believe.
:confused:

TBK, do you really think that "doubting" is the same thing as "believing"? :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
But based on what he writes, it was his research into mediumship that made him a believer in it.


This is factually wrong. Anyone who have read "The Afterlife Experiments" would know this.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie
-snip-

Well, I would have said "cold reading" except that (1) there are many things in his readings that imo aren't explained as cold reading; (2) I find the hot reading theory weak; (3) mediumship remains a possible explanation for the "unexplained".

-snip-


Hey, Clancie-- Have you considered that the editing of CO could account for many of the things in JE's readings that aren't explained by other factors?

At the Westbury seminar that I attended last year, the Malibu Shrimp reading was reconstructed for TV, to make JE appear better than he is. Some of JE's questions and comments to Deborah (the sitter) were based upon information that she herself volunteered early on in the reading.

The Malibu Shrimp reading was very lengthy and disjointed. It had to be totally revamped and rearranged to get that "flow" that JE believers consider his strong point. Some parts of the reading (interrogation, really) were even hacked-up into a collage, because there was probably so much wasted footage on Deborah's reading. (It really stunk.)

For example, at the outset, it was Deborah who first volunteered that her father was deceased. Secondly, early on, JE was fishing for occupations, and asked about someone being a priest, or in an advisory position. At one point, Deborah volunteered that her father had been a lawyer. That point didn't make it into the final edited TV version of the reading. However, armed with the "lawyer" information, JE went on to ask Deborah:

* If her father was intense and intimidating;

* "Who used to bang on the table?" (which I perceived to be an immitation of a judge with a gavel, a la "Order in the Court");

* Then, there was JE's famous Perry Mason style dialogue-- a very lengthy interrogation of Deborah, in which he obtained her false confession to the crime of stealing her mother's recipe, a crime she didn't commit.

Somehow, I don't think the above "lawyer-like" references would have been made by JE, had he not been previously fortified with information from Deborah about her late father's profession.

However, the earlier part -- with Deborah volunteering the information about her dad's profession -- was edited out. Thus, JE's later statements were based on facts previously harvested, but the people viewing the reading on TV do not know it. With liberal editing, how can JE not look better than he actually is?

Whatever cannot be explained by cold-warm-hot reading can more easily be explained by editing... and JE's right to construct a work of fiction is provided for in the Appearance Release form.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Instig8R
Whatever cannot be explained by cold-warm-hot reading can more easily be explained by editing... and JE's right to construct a work of fiction is provided for in the Appearance Release form.

I quite agree. But I will bet you a dollar to a used toothpick that Clancie will point to neofight's account as the more reliable... ;)

[TLN]

Originally posted by TLN
I'd love to see just one of these "details" that isn't...
[list=1]
An anecdote
From a television show that wasn’t broadcast live
[/list=1]
Do you have any of those Clancie?

I guess that's a "no".

[neofight]

Originally posted by voidx

That last sentence I would have to disagree with quite strongly. He would be just as defensive if he was trying to be deceitful.

You are absolutely right there, voidx. That was my point. I was responding to those who always cite his defensiveness as some sort of proof of his guilt. I think his reaction would be understandable in either set of circumstances. That's all I'm saying.

I'll give that the ring is a decent hit, but completely within the realms of cold-reading. We often place items, jewellery among them on our loved ones when they die in the belief they can take them with them into the afterlife, if you happen to believe in it. So JE took a stab with "ring" and yes, got a pretty decent hit.

I do agree that this is a pretty common custom, voidx. I just differ from you in that I believe that JE takes these "stabs" and gets these "pretty decent hits", far more often than would an admitted cold-reader. ;) Naturally, I would love to see some sort of comparison done to demonstrate this, but alas, for all the reasons that have been given over time, this does not seem likely to ever happen. :(

JE is asking me to believe in some form of afterlife, in some form of yet unknown, unproven mental communication.


Well, first of all, voidx, I just want to make it clear that JE is not asking you to believe anything whatsoever. ;) Beyond that, I do understand completely how you would not be able to accept the idea of something that has not yet been proven to your own satisfaction. That's exactly how I feel about the claim that a cold-reader is able to replicate the hit ratio and accuracy of someone like JE. Why should I believe that, if nobody can prove it to me?.......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
You are absolutely right there, voidx. That was my point. I was responding to those who always cite his defensiveness as some sort of proof of his guilt. I think his reaction would be understandable in either set of circumstances. That's all I'm saying.

So, you can not determine that his reaction was an indication that he was defensive. You simply don't know.

Originally posted by neofight
I do agree that this is a pretty common custom, voidx. I just differ from you in that I believe that JE takes these "stabs" and gets these "pretty decent hits", far more often than would an admitted cold-reader.

Please present the statistic analyses that show you are right.

What, you don't have them? How can you know this, then?

Originally posted by neofight
Naturally, I would love to see some sort of comparison done to demonstrate this, but alas, for all the reasons that have been given over time, this does not seem likely to ever happen. :(

This is not correct. You have seen demonstrations of cold reading that were indistinguishable from JE's readings. You just keep claiming that they don't exist.

Originally posted by neofight
Well, first of all, voidx, I just want to make it clear that JE is not asking you to believe anything whatsoever. ;) Beyond that, I do understand completely how you would not be able to accept the idea of something that has not yet been proven to your own satisfaction.

You comtinue to misunderstand what this is about. It isn't about things being proven to people's own satisfaction. We are not talking about opinion here, but about seeking to find out what really happens.

I wonder why you still haven't understood the difference.

Originally posted by neofight
That's exactly how I feel about the claim that a cold-reader is able to replicate the hit ratio and accuracy of someone like JE. Why should I believe that, if nobody can prove it to me?.......neo

Well, you have given the reason yourself: You refuse to be convinced that JE is not a real medium.

Because you wilfully shut your eyes, neofight.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R
Thank you, thank you very much. ;)

I have always found it extremely unusual that -- especially in the first few months of CO being on the air -- there were so many readings that involve high profile deaths of young people, whose families live practically in JE's own backyard.

..........The fact that so many high profile readings took place during CO's debut should make everyone a bit suspicious. This was before CO was a hit show. I've known a lot of people who have suffered tragic losses like this, but their response was not to run out and get tickets for a televised seance by JE within a short time after the deaths.

Hi, Instig8R. First off, I would just like to, yet again, point out the glaring double standard that Claus exhibits when he debates this subject. Now had I or Clancie made a similar claim to the one you made above concerning the number of "high-profile" deaths/readings in the early months of "CO", we would be expected to produce some sort of stats to back that claim up. ;) In fact, Claus would undoubtedly have demanded it of us. :D

That being said, however, I think if you consider how difficult it is for a person who does not live on Long Island, or at least in NYS, to get through on the phone, I do not find it at all suspect that there would be many grieving Long Islanders in the gallery make-up. I'm only two hours away in PA, and I have never, ever been able to get anything other than a busy signal or an "all the lines are busy, try again" type of message.

Neither of us have any way of knowing how many LIers are in the gallery at any one taping, but I'd tend to believe that there are plenty......neo

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oops, wrong. GS started out as a believer... He sets out to prove that there is a surviving soul.

Fair enough, mea culpa. Bad example by me.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy
Doesn't it make you the least bit suspicious? What if JE did a background check on the original ticket holder?

Hi, Leroy! I agree with you that such a background check would be entirely possible. Of course it is. I simply argue, based on all of the instances where the same thing occurred, but the person getting the phone call was not an original ticket holder, nor even a family member of the person in the studio being read.

If these people got accurate readings as well, without any opportunity for JE to hot-read them, why would JE have any need to hot-read Russell?......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy
I am not a cynic and I look at that and think, "hmm, hot reading." I can give JE the benefit of a doubt too. Where is your doubt when it comes to JE? Does he do anything that causes you to sometimes doubt him?

I know you can give JE the benefit of the doubt, Leroy. But do you? Have you in this case? That's all I'm saying. If you have, and I missed it, I apologize. :)

If I would see JE do or say something completely inconsistent with what I believe the mediumship process to be, then that might plant a seed of doubt with me. So far, I have not seen this.......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
I know you can give JE the benefit of the doubt, Leroy. But do you? Have you in this case? That's all I'm saying. If you have, and I missed it, I apologize. :)

Excuse me? What "benefit of the doubt"? JE makes a claim that will change everything we know about how the world works, and we have to give him the "benefit of the doubt"? In a trade ridden with crooks, that's asking to be fooled.

We don't have to give JE any benefit of doubt, he has to provide evidence that he can talk to dead people. So far, he can only talk to living ones, which is hardly paranormal.

Originally posted by neofight
If I would see JE do or say something completely inconsistent with what I believe the mediumship process to be, then that might plant a seed of doubt with me. So far, I have not seen this.......neo

But your beliefs about mediumship is literally moulded by whatever JE does, so you will never change your beliefs.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
He might think it's good evidence, but he believes so based on emotion. He has already decided that there is an afterlife and all of his experiments are done to confirm that belief, not to see if that belief is true.

Fair enough, I spoke without enough knowledge. As I think about it I realize I don't have any specific examples. This doesn't change the fact, though, that saying 'all believers... [fill in the blank]' is a statement of prejudice if you do not know all believers. There are undoubtedly hundreds of millions who believe in an afterlife, probably billions. How large of a sample of that has either of us experienced?

It's not empirical data if it can't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

No, it's not scientific data if it can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Empirical just means that it's about something observed rather than something just thought about.

You either believe or you don't believe. You are just too stubborn to state your stance in that belief.

Absolute bulls**t. Take hypnotism. I've heard arguments from many angles about what hypnotism is or is not, what it can or cannot do, and if it even is any real effect at all. At this point I don't know what credence to give hypnosis. I would not scorn people who go to see hypnotists, but neither would I go myself without doing more research. As a true skeptic, my stance about hypnotism is: I DON'T KNOW.

So, since you seem to know more about my mind than I do, and everyone either believes or not, then please enlighten me: do I believe in hypnotism or not? On a similar note, do you believe in superstrings?

[Clancie]

Posted by Futile Jester

thaiboxerken: He (Gary Schwartz) has already decided that there is an afterlife and all of his experiments are done to confirm that belief, not to see if that belief is true.

Futile Jester: Fair enough, I spoke without enough knowledge

TBK, do you have support for what you're claiming? After all, you're not raising the issue of whether or not GS had bias approaching his research (that seems undeniably true).

You're claiming that he began as a believer and conducted experiments just in order to confirm his beliefs--a very damning charge, and not what he says is the truth of the matter at all.

According to Schwartz he proposed a hypothesis about life after death and did experiments to test it. I truly question your statement that "all of his experiments are done to confirm that belief".

Do you have concrete support for your accusation that his position was otherwise than he says?

Here's Schwartz from his book:
Gary Schwartz, "The Afterlife Experiments"

"My growing fear was that if I actually summarized and integrated the entire set of observations, I might be forced to conclude that--at least concerning the specific research mediums we worked with--the skeptics were completely wrong.

...In terms of belief as having confidence--no, I did not have confidence in that reasoned opinion....It was time to tally up the score and see what the data revealed....

....In the experiments, information was consistently retrieved that can best be explained as coming from living souls....That's what the experimental data unmistakably show."

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN


I'd love to see just one of these "details" that isn't...
[list=1]
An anecdote
From a television show that wasn’t broadcast live
[/list=1]
Do you have any of those Clancie?

Oh cut it out, TLN. You're full of bologna! :D If you would really "love" to see that, you would have made it to a JE seminar with general admission (unassigned seating) long before this. You guys just love to carp! ;) ......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
TBK, do you have support for what you're claiming?

I have support for what I am claiming. Funny that you refuse (well, officially!) to read about that...

Originally posted by Clancie
After all, you're not raising the issue of whether or not GS had bias approaching his research (that seems undeniably true).

It sure does.....lots of bias. Don't you find that inherently problematic in a scientist who refuses to let other people look at his data?

Originally posted by Clancie
You're claiming that he began as a believer and conducted experiments just in order to confirm his beliefs--a very damning charge, and not what he says is the truth of the matter at all.

Please point out where GS did not set out to confirm his beliefs.

Originally posted by Clancie
According to Schwartz he proposed a hypothesis about life after death and did experiments to test it. I truly question your statement that "all of his experiments are done to confirm that belief".

Then read the book. Or rather, read the book, and understand what he says.

Originally posted by Clancie
Do you have concrete support for your accusation that his position was otherwise than he says?

Here's Schwartz from his book:


Selective quotations does not prove anything. Read the whole book instead.

Clancie, why don't you give up the charade of pretending to ignore me? Nobody is fooled - you are clearly responding to my posts here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Oh cut it out, TLN. You're full of bologna! :D If you would really "love" to see that, you would have made it to a JE seminar with general admission (unassigned seating) long before this. You guys just love to carp! ;) ......neo

How long did it take you to make it to a seminar with general admission, counting from the day you became a believer? Years, right?

And why does your account differ so violently from what other people have experienced? Why does your account change, depending on what is shown on TV?

Don't be so quick to condemn other people, neofight....it has a tendency to backfire on you...

[neofight]

Originally posted by FutileJester
....even though he says it's the evidence that convinces him, he really is just seeing the evidence as he wants to see it for emotional reasons. This is possible, but presupposes that we know his mind better than he is willing to tell us. He would be equally justified in saying that you aren't really skeptical because of the evidence, but because of your own emotional biases. After all, this is possible, and he would have as much evidence (none) as we would have for saying it about him. To the best we can know, he is a believer who bases his belief on empirical data.


I agree, FJ. You put that very well, and I think that there is a lot of truth to what you've just said here. Unlike yourself, I think that many skeptics only acknowledge bias on the believer side of the debate, and not the bias born of their own preconceived ideas of what is possible and what is not......neo

[thaiboxerken]

There are undoubtedly hundreds of millions who believe in an afterlife, probably billions. How large of a sample of that has either of us experienced?

Hey, just give ONE example of a believer that believes in the afterlife based on scientific evidence and not emotion and I'll admit that I'm wrong.


No, it's not scientific data if it can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Empirical just means that it's about something observed rather than something just thought about.

If it's not scientific, it's worthless, as far as evidence.


I would not scorn people who go to see hypnotists, but neither would I go myself without doing more research. As a true skeptic, my stance about hypnotism is: I DON'T KNOW.

But do you believe it works or not? Knowledge and belief are two entirely different things.


So, since you seem to know more about my mind than I do, and everyone either believes or not, then please enlighten me: do I believe in hypnotism or not?

Not sure, we haven't discussed hypnotism enough to find out. I don't know much about hypnotism, and I don't believe in it myself.


On a similar note, do you believe in superstrings?

I don't believe in superstrings right now, because I'm ignorant of what the theories are, or even what a superstring is. I can't believe in something I know nothing about.

[thaiboxerken]

TBK, do you have support for what you're claiming? After all, you're not raising the issue of whether or not GS had bias approaching his research (that seems undeniably true).

You're claiming that he began as a believer and conducted experiments just in order to confirm his beliefs--a very damning charge, and not what he says is the truth of the matter at all.

According to Schwartz he proposed a hypothesis about life after death and did experiments to test it. I truly question your statement that "all of his experiments are done to confirm that belief".

Do you have concrete support for your accusation that his position was otherwise than he says?



Yes, it's a conclusion based on the flawed studies and experiments he's done. None of them have withstood scientific scrutiny.
Schwartz has either fabricated evidence or tortured data to justify his beliefs and nothing more.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof of the paranormal back on the skeptics again and I won't fall for it. Until Schwartz produces something valid and scientific, that is my conclusion.


He could win the JREF prize and I'll change my mind.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

Clancie:

You're claiming that (Schwartz) began as a believer and conducted experiments just in order to confirm his beliefs--a very damning charge, and not what he says is the truth of the matter at all.

...Do you have concrete support for your accusation that his position was otherwise than he says?


thaiboxerken

You are trying to shift the burden of proof of the paranormal back on the skeptics again and I won't fall for it. Until Schwartz produces something valid and scientific, that is my conclusion.
So your answer to my question, then, is "No". You don't have any support for your accusation except that you feel his research is flawed. Well, sorry to disappoint, but that is not the same thing as what you claimed--that he only researched this in order to support his preexisting belief in mediumship.

If you're going to make these unsupported statements, the least you could do is preface them with something a bit more qualified, such as "I feel that Schwartz did...." rather than presenting it as if its a "statement of fact" when you have no support for it at all.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie


TBK, do you have support for what you're claiming? After all, you're not raising the issue of whether or not GS had bias approaching his research (that seems undeniably true).

You're claiming that he began as a believer and conducted experiments just in order to confirm his beliefs--a very damning charge, and not what he says is the truth of the matter at all.

According to Schwartz he proposed a hypothesis about life after death and did experiments to test it. I truly question your statement that "all of his experiments are done to confirm that belief".

-snip-

I don't know if selective quotes from "The Afterlife Experiments" are evidence of the believer/skeptic mindset of Gary Schwartz. He seems to waffle back-and-forth a lot.

Here is what Schwartz said on Page 8 of his book:

“What kind of God would allow the starlight from distant stars to continue forever, even after the star has ‘died’ – a fundamental premise of contemporary astrophysics – yet would not provide the same opportunity for our personal biophotons”.

The above quote is Schwartz describing his thought processes from years earlier, while a professor at Yale. According to his book, it seems to me that he had a belief system intact for many years. His interest in proving life after death seemed to become energized when he met Linda Russek(?), his co-investigator, who desparately wanted to establish contact with her deceased father.

Under the circumstances, I concluded that Linda was extremely motivated to believe, and Schwartz was extremely motivated to to please her. What resulted were some very flawed studies that were inconclusive, leaving enough doubt (deliberately, I think) to justify more studies, rather than admit outright failure.

[Clancie]

Hi g8r,

Well, I definitely agree with you that Schwartz had a belief system in place regarding "the living energy universe" before researching mediumship--and that he expressed this belief many times, as in the quote that you mention.

But that's not the same as already believing in mediumship, which is what he was specifically researching in the "AE", and what thaiboxerken was claiming he had preexisting belief in.

Posted by Instig8r

...I concluded that Linda was extremely motivated to believe, and Schwartz was extremely motivated to to please her. What resulted were some very flawed studies that were inconclusive, leaving enough doubt (deliberately, I think) to justify more studies, rather than admit outright failure.
I don't disagree with either statement (except I don't think he saw the results as inconclusive--or that the flaws were deliberate. I think they were the sincere result of bias + sloppiness).

But I don't think either one of these observatins really supports tbk's point that Schwartz only researched mediumship in order to prove his pre-existing belief in it to others. I really can't find anything that backs that up in anything he's written--and apparently tbk can't either. :(

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

So your answer to my question, then, is "No". You don't have any support for your accusation except that you feel his research is flawed. Well, sorry to disappoint, but that is not the same thing as what you claimed--that he only researched this in order to support his preexisting belief in mediumship.

If you're going to make these unsupported statements, the least you could do is preface them with something a bit more qualified, such as "I feel that Schwartz did...." rather than presenting it as if its a "statement of fact" when you have no support for it at all.


Schwartz is either incompetant or a liar and fraud. Any professional researcher with as many publications as he has, with as many honorifics and faculity affiliations as he has to make repeated gross and basic errors in research design and execution should be suspended. The support is self evident in his work in the paranormal.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
So your answer to my question, then, is "No". You don't have any support for your accusation except that you feel his research is flawed. Well, sorry to disappoint, but that is not the same thing as what you claimed--that he only researched this in order to support his preexisting belief in mediumship.

Clancie, his research is flawed. Even you agree to this. Instead of beating on people, perhaps you could focus on some issues instead?

Originally posted by Clancie
If you're going to make these unsupported statements, the least you could do is preface them with something a bit more qualified, such as "I feel that Schwartz did...." rather than presenting it as if its a "statement of fact" when you have no support for it at all.

Strange that you don't address neofight this way...

[voidx]

Originally posted by neofight
You are absolutely right there, voidx. That was my point. I was responding to those who always cite his defensiveness as some sort of proof of his guilt. I think his reaction would be understandable in either set of circumstances. That's all I'm saying.
That wasn't clear originally in your post, I'm glad you clarified.

I do agree that this is a pretty common custom, voidx. I just differ from you in that I believe that JE takes these "stabs" and gets these "pretty decent hits", far more often than would an admitted cold-reader. ;) Naturally, I would love to see some sort of comparison done to demonstrate this, but alas, for all the reasons that have been given over time, this does not seem likely to ever happen. :(
Since no cold-reader has the years of experience of JE in doing cold-reading, as I believe he does, you really have no comparison to make. Screw other cold-readers, are his hits against chance? You don't, and have never had a cold-reader with equal years experience to compare to JE, so how did you came by the idea that his hits are somehow above average? For me I'm way to busy trying to patch all the holes in the process' of mediumship to even be bothered with cold-reader show downs at this point. But I find it interesting that a poor JE performance is identical to cold-reading. While I agree we differ in what is behind his guess' and "stabs" in the dark, mine requires a lot less baggage to work.

Well, first of all, voidx, I just want to make it clear that JE is not asking you to believe anything whatsoever. ;)
Semantics. You knew that. To believe what he does, I have to posit all those things. For you to argue the point, and if I was ever to be convinced by it, I'd have to posit all those new found discoveries of our world.

Beyond that, I do understand completely how you would not be able to accept the idea of something that has not yet been proven to your own satisfaction. That's exactly how I feel about the claim that a cold-reader is able to replicate the hit ratio and accuracy of someone like JE. Why should I believe that, if nobody can prove it to me?.......neo
Hmmm the hit ratio. The hit ratio, of which there is no official tally, and of which is subjective to the extreme, and of which even when, in my opinion, good hits are picked apart on here you still disagree and think they are good, it would appear to me that this "hit ratio" and its subjective "accuracy" are very poor units of measure. In my opinion you simply think his hit ratio is good, it is your opinion, there's nothing concrete or official to back this stance up in the first place. Claus is right in the fact that if this is real, our real goal is to verify and understand how it works, if it exists, not just for ourselves, but as to further our understanding of how our world works. And on those fronts, our satisfaction is sorely lacking.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

The hit ratio, of which there is no official tally
Well, voidx, personally I feel comfortable with the tally of LKL that renata did. By combining all hits, weak and strong, his hit rate is at 50%--which seems more realistic than Schwartz's 80+% rating, and also allows for editing the ratio of hits to misses by about 20% more hits/fewer misses on "Crossing Over", which is consistent with ersby's analysis and, imo, makes a lot of sense.

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

As for cold reading...well, I could show you some transcripts from several professional mediums whom I feel rely heavily on cold reading techniques (Suzane Northrop, Jason Oliver are just two).

Their methods and results are quite different from JE, imo.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, voidx, personally I feel comfortable with the tally of LKL that renata did. By combining all hits, weak and strong, it's at 50%--which seems more realistic than Schwartz's 80+% rating, and also allows for editing in about 20% more hits (leaving about 30% misses) on "Crossing Over" according to what ersby wrote.

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

So, JE is no better than a coin toss, and you think he talks to dead people? Amazing...

Originally posted by Clancie
As for cold reading...well, I could show you some transcripts from several professional mediums whom I feel rely heavily on cold reading techniques (Suzane Northrop, Jason Oliver are just two).

Their methods and results are quite different from JE, imo.

Let's see'm.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Ed

Schwartz is either incompetant or a liar and fraud. Any professional researcher with as many publications as he has, with as many honorifics and faculity affiliations as he has to make repeated gross and basic errors in research design and execution should be suspended. The support is self evident in his work in the paranormal.

I would have to pick "liar and fraud". Schwartz is much too intelligent to have made such glaring errors in research design, etc.

When I was an undergrad, I took a class called "Research Methods". One of the course requirements was to actually design a research study. Another project was to design a flawed study. The goal was to make as many errors as possible to confound it. If Gary Schwartz had submitted his Arizona Experiments as a flawed project, my professor would have given him an A+.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

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

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

As for cold reading...well, I could show you some transcripts from several professional mediums whom I feel rely heavily on cold reading techniques (Suzane Northrop, Jason Oliver are just two).

Their methods and results are quite different from JE, imo. [/B]

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

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight


If these people got accurate readings as well, without any opportunity for JE to hot-read them, why would JE have any need to hot-read Russell?......neo

Hi Neo, my theory is that he would need to hot read from time to time in order to have those occasional "amazing hits" that keep people like Clancie (and me to some extent) intrigued.

I realize that you find the overwhelming majority of JE's readings to be "accurate" and you really don't base your belief on him on the "special hits". But I think you are in a fairly small minority, and that group isn't large enough to keep C.O. ratings high enough. I don't mean this disrespectfully; you are part of a group that has come to embrace JE's process.

When I look back on what got me hooked on the show, it was the "special hits". Vuola, meeting Gladys Knight, the Met's pennant, Kauffy. I haven't seen a hit like that in over a year, and the result is I never watch the show anymore.

JE's goal is to keep the show on the air. Why wouldn't he hot read on a very limited basis in order to keep the truly amazing hits coming enough to keep people interested, but not do it so much that it causes suspicion?

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC


Hi Neo, my theory is that he would need to hot read from time to time in order to have those occasional "amazing hits" that keep people like Clancie (and me to some extent) intrigued.

I realize that you find the overwhelming majority of JE's readings to be "accurate" and you really don't base your belief on him on the "special hits". But I think you are in a fairly small minority, and that group isn't large enough to keep C.O. ratings high enough. I don't mean this disrespectfully; you are part of a group that has come to embrace JE's process.

Hi, RC. Well, you're right in that I do not base my level of belief entirely upon those more unusual or unique (amazing) hits. As you say, I do watch and appreciate the mediumship process at work, and I value even the more mundane, but accurate, hits, just as much as the occasional show-stopper.

When I look back on what got me hooked on the show, it was the "special hits". Vuola, meeting Gladys Knight, the Met's pennant, Kauffy. I haven't seen a hit like that in over a year, and the result is I never watch the show anymore.

Actually, RC, I have a theory about that. I believe that we were just a lot more impressionable back then, and those hits that you mentioned really knocked our socks off, so to speak.

I think that the longer we watched, and the more the novelty wore off, the harder it became to impress us. Let's face it, when you see something extraordinary every single day, it's no longer extraordinary. That's my take on the whole matter, anyhow. :)

With yourself, it's kind of a "catch 22". You felt JE was not getting any more of those special hits, so you stopped watching the show. Now, if he gets what you would consider special hits, you won't see them anyhow. :D

I feel that there are still plenty of quite outstanding hits in the new shows, but in a sense, we are spoiled, and we don't even consider them to be special at this point. Such is human nature. ;) ......neo

[CFLarsen]

(oops....post in wrong thread...moved!)

[thaiboxerken]

I feel that there are still plenty of quite outstanding hits in the new shows, but in a sense, we are spoiled, and we don't even consider them to be special at this point. Such is human nature. ......neo

There are no special hits done outside of an objective, controlled test. If JE can perform and win the JREF challenge, I'll consider him special.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Hey, just give ONE example of a believer that believes in the afterlife based on scientific evidence and not emotion and I'll admit that I'm wrong.

So you make a claim, based on anectdotal evidence, and will believe it unless someone else proves it's NOT true. Sounds like a lot of believers I know, and adds some evidence to the idea that you actually hold your views for emotional reasons. After all, there is no scientific study saying that all believers believe for emotional reasons, and non-scientific evidence in worthless, so by your own definitions you hold a belief for no good reason.

If it's not scientific, it's worthless, as far as evidence.

See above. You obviously feel that there are things that can be believed in the absence of scientific evidence.

But do you believe it works or not? Knowledge and belief are two entirely different things.

Knowledge and belief and tightly related. One good definition of belief would be, "knowledge I'm willing to depend on to make decisions". In any case, I'm sure we can agree that only observed behavior should be used to judge belief, not subjective statements. If I believed hypnotism worked I would behave in certain ways (like maybe go see one). If I believed that hypnotism did not work I would behave in other ways (like convincing friends not to waste their money on them, as I currently do for things like homeopathy). I do not behave in either of these ways. How can it be said that I hold either of these positions?

Another thought: take any statement like "All X are Y, and if they don't appear to be Y, they really are but are suppressing it". This is unfalsifiable and should therefore be discarded as unprovable.

I don't believe in superstrings right now, because I'm ignorant of what the theories are, or even what a superstring is. I can't believe in something I know nothing about.

You don't believe because of lack of knowledge? I thought knowledge was an entirely different thing?

You don't believe in superstrings. You also don't believe in god. Why don't you ridicule people for their belief in superstrings, as you do for their belief in god? Could it be that these two statements of disbelief are not really equivalent, that there is some degree of belief beyond "do/don't"?

I'm not saying anything radical here. Just that there are, indeed, shades of gray. This is certainly the common way to view belief, as evidenced by phrases like "strong belief", "weak belief", "I don't know what to believe", etc. Oversimplifying this does skepticism no favors; fence-sitters (who I suppose you think don't exist) are driven from skepticism by arrogant know-it-alls. But if you want to continue throwing ammunition over the wall to your enemies, be my guest.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, what is that? Clancie cannot say. Instead, we get a reversal of the question, the same old tirade, as well as an attempt at redirecting the discussion towards SPR.

Sounds like you ;)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Leroy - Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarsen Can you find one single explanation they seriously think is possible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Leroy - Silly boy, don't answer a question with a question. Where is the evidence that they dismissed ALL OTHER explanations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by CFLarsen - I cannot find any evidence that they accept any other explanation. Usually, when skeptics look for answers, other skeptics help out where they possibly can. Perhaps you could be so kind as to show me where I am wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origninally posted by Leroy - You're still are not answering my question. I didn't ask you if you could find evidence that they accept other explanations. I asked where your evidence was that they DISMISSED ALL OTHER explanations?

Just because you can't find any evidence that they accept any other explanation, doesnt' mean that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations, does it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First you weasel out of answering the questions Lurker asked you, then you weasel out of this one. You are a pro! At least you are good at something ;) ..... and it keeps me amused.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Leroy,

I answered it: I can't find any examples where they accept any other explanation. That is my answer. You may like it or you may not like it. But that is my answer.

Now, please answer mine: Can you show me where I am wrong? Just yes or no.

I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine correctly.

I didn't ask you if you could find evidence that they accept other explanations. I asked where your evidence was that they DISMISSED ALL OTHER explanations?

Just because you can't find any evidence that they accept any other explanation, doesnt' mean that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations, does it?

A YES or NO answer is required here ;)

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I just saw this because I've been working. Sheesh. Anyway, this example doesn't even come close to my observation of believers.
Can you name ONE believer that doesn't based their belief on emotional reasons? Can you name ONE believer that bases their beliefs on empirical and scientific data?

Sure I can. Not anyone you would know. I have a co-worker who was a hard-core skeptic when it came to paranormal things. She would argue till she was blue in the face that it was all nonsense. Then she had some personal experiences with it and is now a believer, not based on emotional reasons, but based on experiences she had. She still won't set foot in the presense of a psychic or medium because she feels that they are con-artists out to make a buck - but she believes people can be psychic, and believes in ADC's. Beliefs based on first hand experience, not emotions.

According to her she believes only because she had the experiences first hand.

I have another friend who believes in OBE's and ADC's because he claims to have experienced both. I've known him for 26 years. I trust him enough to know that he experienced something, and trust that he is not insane, we just happen to disagree on what he experienced.

Posted by Leroy - Just because you can't find any evidence that they accept any other explanation, doesnt' mean that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations, does it?


Posteds by thai - Sure does, but feel free to prove us wrong by giving evidence that they have accepted the mundane explanation.

It sure does? That is your answer? If you can't find evidence of something than it doesn't exist? Give me a break!

[Leroy]

Originally posted by neofight


Hi, Leroy! I agree with you that such a background check would be entirely possible. Of course it is. I simply argue, based on all of the instances where the same thing occurred, but the person getting the phone call was not an original ticket holder, nor even a family member of the person in the studio being read.

If these people got accurate readings as well, without any opportunity for JE to hot-read them, why would JE have any need to hot-read Russell?......neo

But in this case, the call was to the original ticket holder. Wasn't that what Instigator said?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by neofight


I know you can give JE the benefit of the doubt, Leroy. But do you? Have you in this case? That's all I'm saying. If you have, and I missed it, I apologize. :)

If I would see JE do or say something completely inconsistent with what I believe the mediumship process to be, then that might plant a seed of doubt with me. So far, I have not seen this.......neo

Yes I give him a benefit of a doubt, even in this case. I've been wrong before and could be wrong again.

Are you saying is that at this point in time you don't have any doubts about JE? Have you had a reading by him, or met him, or do you base your beliefs in him on what you've seen him do on the show?

[Leroy]

No, it's not scientific data if it can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Empirical just means that it's about something observed rather than something just thought about.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B][B]If it's not scientific, it's worthless, as far as evidence.

I hope you are not serious? All evidence is useful.

by Clancie - So your answer to my question, then, is "No". You don't have any support for your accusation except that you feel his research is flawed. Well, sorry to disappoint, but that is not the same thing as what you claimed--that he only researched this in order to support his preexisting belief in mediumship.

Thai did make the original claim about Schwartz, if he doesn't have any evidence that his claim was true, how can we take him seriously when he makes other similiar claims? His claims are useless without evidence, and the lack of evidence would make it an opinion wouldn't it?

Posted by Ed - Schwartz is either incompetant or a liar and fraud. Any professional researcher with as many publications as he has, with as many honorifics and faculity affiliations as he has to make repeated gross and basic errors in research design and execution should be suspended. The support is self evident in his work in the paranormal.

Is this your opinion, or do you know this for a fact? Is it your opinion/fact based on your belief system, based on hereasay, or based on your personal research of Schwartz?

I don't know who the man is so I don't have an opinion about him

Can you tell me what the repeated gross and basic errors in his research design was, and why it was gross and erroneous ?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by ClancieAs for cold reading...well, I could show you some transcripts from several professional mediums whom I feel rely heavily on cold reading techniques (Suzane Northrop, Jason Oliver are just two). Their methods and results are quite different from JE, imo.


Originally posted by CFLarsen Let's see'm.

I second that.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by FutileJester


So you make a claim, based on anectdotal evidence, and will believe it unless someone else proves it's NOT true. Sounds like a lot of believers I know, and adds some evidence to the idea that you actually hold your views for emotional reasons. After all, there is no scientific study saying that all believers believe for emotional reasons, and non-scientific evidence in worthless, so by your own definitions you hold a belief for no good reason.

[b]

See above. You obviously feel that there are things that can be believed in the absence of scientific evidence.

[b]

Knowledge and belief and tightly related. One good definition of belief would be, "knowledge I'm willing to depend on to make decisions". In any case, I'm sure we can agree that only observed behavior should be used to judge belief, not subjective statements. If I believed hypnotism worked I would behave in certain ways (like maybe go see one). If I believed that hypnotism did not work I would behave in other ways (like convincing friends not to waste their money on them, as I currently do for things like homeopathy). I do not behave in either of these ways. How can it be said that I hold either of these positions?

Another thought: take any statement like "All X are Y, and if they don't appear to be Y, they really are but are suppressing it". This is unfalsifiable and should therefore be discarded as unprovable.

[b]

You don't believe because of lack of knowledge? I thought knowledge was an entirely different thing?

You don't believe in superstrings. You also don't believe in god. Why don't you ridicule people for their belief in superstrings, as you do for their belief in god? Could it be that these two statements of disbelief are not really equivalent, that there is some degree of belief beyond "do/don't"?

I'm not saying anything radical here. Just that there are, indeed, shades of gray. This is certainly the common way to view belief, as evidenced by phrases like "strong belief", "weak belief", "I don't know what to believe", etc. Oversimplifying this does skepticism no favors; fence-sitters (who I suppose you think don't exist) are driven from skepticism by arrogant know-it-alls. But if you want to continue throwing ammunition over the wall to your enemies, be my guest. :clap: I hope you are getting through to him, but I have serious doubts.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Leroy

Is this your opinion, or do you know this for a fact? Is it your opinion/fact based on your belief system, based on hereasay, or based on your personal research of Schwartz?

I don't know who the man is so I don't have an opinion about him

Can you tell me what the repeated gross and basic errors in his research design was, and why it was gross and erroneous ?

I don't know if he is delusional or a liar (which subsumes fraud). It is based on the evidence of his work which has been deconstructed here, repeatedly. Just do a search and see the threads, I assume that they have not been archived yet.

The problems are basic things like control, blinding and the like. The sort of errors that obviate any findings.

[thaiboxerken]

So you make a claim, based on anectdotal evidence, and will believe it unless someone else proves it's NOT true. Sounds like a lot of believers I know, and adds some evidence to the idea that you actually hold your views for emotional reasons. After all, there is no scientific study saying that all believers believe for emotional reasons, and non-scientific evidence in worthless, so by your own definitions you hold a belief for no good reason.

Believers believe based on emotion is not just anectdotal, it's evidenced by the lack of ability for believers to provide ANY scientific evidence for their beliefs. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing ONE believer that has belief in the paranormal based on scientific evidence. My position is falsifiable, unlike those of the believers.


See above. You obviously feel that there are things that can be believed in the absence of scientific evidence.

:rolleyes: I don't believe the above, I have concluded the above based on the beliefs of the believers and the lack of ANY evidence for their beliefs. If believers believed based on scientific evidence, they should have that scientific evidence for all the world to scrutinize. The JREF prize would be awarded by now.


Knowledge and belief and tightly related.

Your saying so doesn't make it so.

One good definition of belief would be, "knowledge I'm willing to depend on to make decisions".

And where did you get this definition?

In any case, I'm sure we can agree that only observed behavior should be used to judge belief, not subjective statements.

It should be a combination of both statements and actions.

If I believed hypnotism worked I would behave in certain ways (like maybe go see one).

Not true, I believe that men landed on the moon, but I have no real desire to go to a space museum.

If I believed that hypnotism did not work I would behave in other ways (like convincing friends not to waste their money on them, as I currently do for things like homeopathy).

I doubt it. I don't believe in a god, but I don't go around telling my friends to not go to church.

I do not behave in either of these ways. How can it be said that I hold either of these positions?

Because one either believes or they don't, it's a yes or no question with no "in between". You simply aren't stating what you believe.

Another thought: take any statement like "All X are Y, and if they don't appear to be Y, they really are but are suppressing it". This is unfalsifiable and should therefore be discarded as unprovable.

My position is falsifiable, just find one believer that believes in the afterlife based on scientific evidence of the afterlife and you'll have shown me to be wrong.


You don't believe because of lack of knowledge? I thought knowledge was an entirely different thing?

It is, why do you try to twist semantics? One cannot believe in something they really don't know about. Do you believe in pollyllywogs?


You don't believe in superstrings. You also don't believe in god. Why don't you ridicule people for their belief in superstrings, as you do for their belief in god?

Because I have never seen a war being started over superstrings.

Could it be that these two statements of disbelief are not really equivalent, that there is some degree of belief beyond "do/don't"?

Nope.

I'm not saying anything radical here.

Well, nothing original.

Just that there are, indeed, shades of gray. This is certainly the common way to view belief, as evidenced by phrases like "strong belief", "weak belief", "I don't know what to believe", etc. Oversimplifying this does skepticism no favors; fence-sitters (who I suppose you think don't exist) are driven from skepticism by arrogant know-it-alls. But if you want to continue throwing ammunition over the wall to your enemies, be my guest.

I'll do that, thanks.

[thaiboxerken]

I hope you are not serious? All evidence is useful.

That's BS. Anectdotes and fabricated evidence are worthless to me when it comes to scientific claims.


Thai did make the original claim about Schwartz, if he doesn't have any evidence that his claim was true, how can we take him seriously when he makes other similiar claims? His claims are useless without evidence, and the lack of evidence would make it an opinion wouldn't it?

Schwartz has been proven to be biased in this forum many, many times. Feel free to do a search here. Randi commentaries also have some things to say about Schwartz.


Is this your opinion, or do you know this for a fact? Is it your opinion/fact based on your belief system, based on hereasay, or based on your personal research of Schwartz?

It's a conclusion.


I don't know who the man is so I don't have an opinion about him

Can you tell me what the repeated gross and basic errors in his research design was, and why it was gross and erroneous ?

Feel free to research Schwartz yourself. Schwartz has not proven himself to be a good scientist and his experiments have not withstood scrutiny, what little of his research he's actually allowed to be reviewed, that is.

It's actually the burden of the person that used Schwartz as an example of a "believer based on scientific evidence" to show that Schwartz actually has scientific evidence. So far, that has not been shown.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy


But in this case, the call was to the original ticket holder. Wasn't that what Instigator said?

Yes, in this case, John read four people that were there in the gallery. I forget all the relationships, but I believe they were all either related or connected to the restaurant. Certain messages came through to John, and then at one point they decided to call Russell at the restaurant to tell him about the reading, and John then proceded to read Russell directly.

My point was that there have been other instances where John asked to call another member of the sitter's family, or a friend of theirs, to give them a message that had come through for them. It has happened every so often. The fact that they were not original ticket holders didn't prevent them from getting accurate messages as well, which is why I discount the hot-reading theory....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy


Yes I give him a benefit of a doubt, even in this case. I've been wrong before and could be wrong again.

Well, I think that's commendable, Leroy. :)

Are you saying is that at this point in time you don't have any doubts about JE? Have you had a reading by him, or met him, or do you base your beliefs in him on what you've seen him do on the show?

I'm saying that at this point in time, I've seen nothing that I would say was credible evidence that JE is a fraud, and many things to suggest that perhaps he may indeed be a true medium, including having watched the show very closely for over two years now, and attending four seminars.

I did just recently meet him as well, but only at a book-signing, so it's not as though I got to talk to him at any great length. I do believe that he is a sincere person, with a lot of integrity, which is just one of the reasons that I think his critics are so far off-base.

I have never had a face-to-face reading with JE, but I do believe that last Fall, in Philadelphia, the second half of a reading JE did for our fellow-poster "atmytv" from tvtalkshows, was meant entirely for me and my husband, who were sitting several rows away from atmytv and his wife.

Bill and Susan understood and validated the first half of the reading that JE gave them, but the second half made absolutely no sense to them whatsoever. Had I been sitting next to them, I definitely would have claimed that reading, but as it was, it was the last reading of the day, and I couldn't get John's attention, or a microphone, so despite the fact that he gave out all sorts of accurate, personal information that I was easily able to validate, I'll always feel badly that I didn't actually get a chance to have him complete the reading for me.

If you are wondering why I would even think that that reading was meant for me, sitting so many rows away, it's because out of over 3,500 people in that tremendous room, atmytv (Bill) was the only person there with whom I had any sort of a connection. He and his wife came in from Maryland for the seminar, and I had met them for the very first time at the escalator, and led them to the two seats that I had someone save for them.

If you have ever seen the show you would know that something like that would be enough for their spirits to bring through my own deceased relatives/friends because to JE, we would be one big family, and that's exactly what appeared to have happened.

I've written about this Philly seminar over at tvtalkshows, if you would want the particulars about what hits JE got for us, or if you'd like, I could PM them to you. They were quite accurate, and included quite a few names, including my own. In any case, to answer your question, it's all these things combined that add to my favorable opinion of JE, and make me think there is something to mediumship. :) ......neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
...including having watched the show very closely for over two years now, and attending four seminars.

I've watched Star Trek since I was a small boy and have attended many Trek Conventions.

Clearly, faster than light travel and teleportation are possible and Heisenberg and Einstein were wrong.

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN


I've watched Star Trek since I was a small boy and have attended many Trek Conventions.


Well then, by all means.....live long and prosper! :rub: .....neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
Well then, by all means.....live long and prosper! :rub: .....neo

Oh, I will, just as long as you understand that we're using the same standard of evidence in our assertions.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
I have never had a face-to-face reading with JE, but I do believe that last Fall, in Philadelphia, the second half of a reading JE did for our fellow-poster "atmytv" from tvtalkshows, was meant entirely for me and my husband, who were sitting several rows away from atmytv and his wife.

Stop, stop.... This doesn't jibe. Since it is entirely up to the sitter to validate (according to the process), the reading was for you. However, somebody also validated the reading, which means - according to the process - that it also was for them.

What does distance has to do with who is read?

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Stop, stop.... This doesn't jibe. Since it is entirely up to the sitter to validate (according to the process), the reading was for you. However, somebody also validated the reading, which means - according to the process - that it also was for them.

What does distance has to do with who is read?

Stop jumping to conclusions, you silly fool! NOBODY ever validated the second half of atmytv's reading. That reading WAS for me. I just wasn't quick enough or loud enough to get JE's attention, so it went unclaimed. Nobody else connected with all of the things that came through. Come on. I'm sure you've seen the "Philly seminar" thread over at tvtalkshows. It's all there on record.

Atmytv told JE that he did not understand anything after a certain point. I understood NOTHING of the first half, because it was for atmytv and his wife. He understood NOTHING of the second half, because it was for my husband and myself. It was "Tom" coming through, my husband's dad.

Man, Claus. I mean, really! Would you jump into my grave as quickly as you jump on me when you think I've said something wrong or inconsistent??? Sheeesh! :rolleyes: .....neo

[thaiboxerken]

Atmytv told JE that he did not understand anything after a certain point. I understood NOTHING of the first half, because it was for atmytv and his wife. He understood NOTHING of the second half, because it was for my husband and myself. It was "Tom" coming through, my husband's dad.

LMAO!! This is hilarious. It's amazing how a believer will twist data to confirm their beliefs. Now the misses in a reading are being attributed to target displacement.

[voidx]

Originally posted by renata


Since my analysis was brought up, I might as well comment. I am a little surprised you chose to combine all the hits. I separated them for a reason. Most of the hits were extremely weak, and some were no better than a coin flip! Such as- is a person alive or dead, is the dead parent mother or father. Those are the kinds of things I deliberated against counting as hits at all, those are the things a medium should know. A lot of them were also very obvious- like a uniform, or a common initial.
Also, for reasons I am not sure I understand you seem to disregard the guesses that were not validated and not scored. I am not at all convinced that not validated hits will break out in the same proportion as the hits and misses. Simply taking them out of the equation artifically inflates JE's hit ratio.
Just to highlight this point from Renata. I must agree completely. Simply saying he got 50% is doing a disservice to Renata's analysis. Most of his hits were very weak, an overwhelming majority of people looking at them thought so and I think it was quite a telling analysis as Neo doesn't want to consider them much, and of which your own analysis seemed to basically score it quite similar to how Renata scored it anyway. For you to bring up her analysis in respect to my comment about the ratio seems rather odd as everyone here was in agreement that it showed JE to be nothing more than cold-reading. Even I don't consider that a comprehensive hit-ratio. I think its enough to show us in this case how indecipherable JE is from cold-reading, and Renata did a great job on it, but its still not a complete tally from all his different venues. So is Renata's hit-ratio the only one you have to go on? Or are there others?

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

[Clancie]

voidx,

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

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

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

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

[TLN]

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

Clancie, this is your latest drum beat across many threads. It's simply not true. You have indeed been shown cold reader who can replicate what Edward does with the same degree of success; you simply choose to ignore it.

Further, have you considered that when you sit down to read a cold reading that you know it's a cold reading and hence are automatically biased against it? I'd love to see you pick out the cold reader blind from several examples.

Please show us the difference between Edward and the cold readers you've been shown without pointing to irrelevant "style" differences. Are the hit ratios worse for the cold reader? Please be specific.

That, or withdraw this claim.

[TLN]

Also, it's unequivocally not up to us to show that a cold reader can do what Edward does; it's up to him to show us he's speaking to dead people.

He can't and he won't. That's really the end of the story.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN
Also, it's unequivocally not up to us to show that a cold reader can do what Edward does; it's up to him to show us he's speaking to dead people.

He can't and he won't. That's really the end of the story.

But its not really the end of the story..because we all keep talking about it.

:hb:

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
voidx,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
But its not really the end of the story..because we all keep talking about it.

Oh, I know. It's the end of the story from an evidentiary point of view. I'm well aware people with continue to discuss it though.

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

...this implies that somehow I endorse the 50% hit rate. I most certainly do not, as I explain above.

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

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

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie


Yes, renata, I'm very aware of that. I thought that was clear, but apparently not. I will make sure it is spelled out as my use of your analysis, not your opinion of what the results show, next time I mention it.

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

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

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


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

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Believers believe based on emotion is not just anectdotal, it's evidenced by the lack of ability for believers to provide ANY scientific evidence for their beliefs.

It's evidenced by a lack of evidence? Please. Another falacy here is false dichotomy; there are more possibilities than "believes based on emotion" and "believes based on science". Leroy posted an example of a man who believed based on personal experience; not a controlled study, not an emotional need. You said you would admit you were wrong if you could be shown one person who believed for other than emotional reasons, yet you ignored Leroy's post.

:rolleyes: I don't believe the above, I have concluded the above based on the beliefs of the believers and the lack of ANY evidence for their beliefs.

You seem to be saying that it's not a 'belief' because it's based on knowledge. But with that definition it's impossible to 'believe based on scientific evidence'! Saying they can't is just another way of spelling out your definition of believe.

Knowledge and belief and tightly related.

Your saying so doesn't make it so.

No, but you certainly write as if you agree with me. The statement, "One cannot believe in something they really don't know about" sure seems to imply a strong connection between knowledge and belief to me.

One good definition of belief would be, "knowledge I'm willing to depend on to make decisions".

And where did you get this definition?

That's what I mean when I say I believe in something. Webster's includes the following in the definition of belief: "partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty".

Not true, I believe that men landed on the moon, but I have no real desire to go to a space museum.
...

I doubt it. I don't believe in a god, but I don't go around telling my friends to not go to church.

Interesting and all, but the fact that you would behave in those ways does not change the fact that I would behave as I said. 'Not true' and 'I doubt it'; do you really think I'm just lying to you about how I feel?

Because one either believes or they don't, it's a yes or no question with no "in between".

Keep saying it, maybe eventually it will be true. Me, Webster, and the countless people who say things like 'I dont' know what to believe' disagree.

You simply aren't stating what you believe.

And again I'm being called a liar. Tell me, what could I possibly say that would convince you that the way I feel is really the way I feel?

My position is falsifiable, just find one believer that believes in the afterlife based on scientific evidence of the afterlife and you'll have shown me to be wrong.

I was talking about your yes/no position on belief. Me: "I neither believe nor disbelieve in hypnotism". You: "Yes you do". Me: "No I don't, if I believed we would expect A, if I disbelieved we would expect B, and we see neither of those". You: "No that's not what we would expect, and anyway you really feel that way you just won't say". :rolleyes:

What would falsify your hypothesis that every person either completely believes or completely disbelieves?


Okay, I know I'm not going to change your mind. But you should realize that at the very least you are using the word 'belief' differently than most people. This entire forum is filled with the nuances and complexities of what people mean when they say they believe. Reducing this to a yes/no impedes understanding and communication. It sure helps divide the world into convenient us/them categories though.

Well, maybe there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who grew up.

[FutileJester]

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

I understand what you're getting at here Clancie, but I think it's a problematic argument at best. If JE is indeed a cold reader, he is undoubtedly be one of the most practiced and capable available. Even a dedicated mentalist performer usually only does a bit of cold reading as part of a varied show. So, the fact (whether it's true or not) that no one cold reads as well as JE is consistent with both hypotheses (genuine mediumship and cold reading), and so is not very useful as evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

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

This is a purely subjective standard of measure. Do you understand, Clancie, that no person will ever compare to JE because you have an infactuation with him? If JE didn't make you wet between your legs, you would think he's fake too.

It's evidenced by a lack of evidence? Please.
It sure is. You can't claim that believers believe based on scientific evidence if there is no scientific evidence.

Another falacy here is false dichotomy; there are more possibilities than "believes based on emotion" and "believes based on science". Leroy posted an example of a man who believed based on personal experience; not a controlled study, not an emotional need.
Believing based on personal experience over controlled studies and science IS an emotional. It is based on pride that the person has, the belief that he can't be tricked and what he experienced MUST have happened because he is infallable.

You said you would admit you were wrong if you could be shown one person who believed for other than emotional reasons, yet you ignored Leroy's post.
He has yet to show an example.
You seem to be saying that it's not a 'belief' because it's based on knowledge. But with that definition it's impossible to 'believe based on scientific evidence'! Saying they can't is just another way of spelling out your definition of believe.
Semantics. I could care less for the semantics game.
That's what I mean when I say I believe in something. Webster's includes the following in the definition of belief: "partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty".
The Webster definition doesn't even come close to your personal definition of belief, I am not going to acknowledge personal definitions.
Interesting and all, but the fact that you would behave in those ways does not change the fact that I would behave as I said. 'Not true' and 'I doubt it'; do you really think I'm just lying to you about how I feel?
First, you made a claim that a person must act upon a belief in order to claim having that belief. I merely showed you that you were wrong. And, yes I do think you are lying about how you feel. You're unwilling to state whether you believe or not.
Tell me, what could I possibly say that would convince you that the way I feel is really the way I feel?
If you came out with the truth and said if you believed or not.
What would falsify your hypothesis that every person either completely believes or completely disbelieves?
The "believe or not believe" statement is only as unfalsifiable as your position that people can be inbetween. My position on the believers and scientific evidence IS falsifiable.
Reducing this to a yes/no impedes understanding and communication. It sure helps divide the world into convenient us/them categories though.
Yep, and it's them that I'm concerned about stopping. I want to stop their spreading of falsehoods and myths.
Well, maybe there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who grew up.
And those who are right, like me.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


But its not really the end of the story..because we all keep talking about it.

:hb:

I'm not sure which you want to protect more: your head or the computer desk. Either way, an understanding of Occam's razor would help you, Whodini.

Cheers,

[Sundog]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If JE didn't make you wet between your legs, you would think he's fake too.


Skepticism at its finest, folks. :rolleyes:

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Sundog

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If JE didn't make you wet between your legs, you would think he's fake too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skepticism at its finest, folks. :rolleyes:

Hardly. C'mon, Thai, that sort of thing is uncalled for. I think you owe Clancie an apology.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Pyrrho


Hardly. C'mon, Thai, that sort of thing is uncalled for. I think you owe Clancie an apology.

You're right, I apologize to the forum. My point still stands though, the claim that "No cold reader is as good as JE" is totally subjective. Clancie's reasoning is emotionally based in this regard and has more to do with her infactuation with JE than mediumship.

[Clancie]

For the record, here's some from Underdown, in "Skeptical Inquirer" Sept/Oct.2003, re: the release form:

"Edward's release had the feel of a document written by someone just accused of cheating. It seemed to focus on representing that attendees had no outside contact with Edward or his staff, or in documenting that fact if they had.

This tone was reinforced vigorously in the studio where we were reminded constantly not to talk about ourselves or those who we were trying to contact. It was as if the specter of Harry Houdini were floating above the stage pointing a finger."
This is what I get out of it, too, frankly. They want to prevent suspicion of collusion with the audience, of set-ups, and of accusations of cheating.

Interestingly, although Underdown's article is about the use of editing, he apparently did not view this release form with the suspicion of some who have posted in this thread--i.e. intended to give CO the right to freely ficitonalize readings in whatever way they want. There's not a word of innuendo or accusation from him about that whatsoever (in fact, I feel quite convinced that he doesn't think such dramatic steps would even be necessary, based on the rest of what he wrote in the article).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
For the record, here's some from Underdown, in "Skeptical Inquirer" Sept/Oct.2003, re: the release form:

This is what I get out of it, too, frankly. They want to prevent suspicion of collusion with the audience, of set-ups, and of accusations of cheating.

Now, why would JE want to protect himself against accusations of cheating, if he could really talk to dead people?

Could he do that, he would not need to protect himself.

Originally posted by Clancie
Interestingly, although Underdown's article is about the use of editing, he apparently did not view this release form with the suspicion of some who have posted in this thread--i.e. intended to give CO the right to freely ficitonalize readings in whatever way they want.

That doesn't change the fact that CO has the right to freely fictionalize readings in whatever way they want.

Originally posted by Clancie
There's not a word of innuendo or accusation from him about that whatsoever (in fact, I feel quite convinced that he doesn't think such dramatic steps would even be necessary, based on the rest of what he wrote in the article).

How do you know that? Pure speculation, founded in a desire to get Underdown to side with you. Nice try. Doesn't work.

[SteveGrenard]

TBK: waffled: "You're right, I apologize to the forum."



You were asked to apologize to Clancie. Please direct a sincere apology to her....
as your rude remark was clearly directed at her, not the forum.

edited to remove incorrect info re another poster ...all these kids , get'em confused.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You were asked to apologize to Clancie. Please direct a sincere apology to her....
as your rude remark was clearly directed at her, not the forum.

Much as you want to, you are not the judge and jury here. If you have complaints, take them to the moderators.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What would your probation officer think of your behavior? Hey, are you allowed to have access to a computer for your probation?

Get your facts straight. TBK is not the one with the probation officer, it is LordKenneth. Now, you apologize to TBK of this accusation. And drop your veiled threats, too.

But it is nice to see you are in favor of apologies now: What about your own apology to renata for false accusations of misattributions? Or your apology to MRC Hans for the "testee" slip? Or to Brown for misquoting?

Or to me, for insinuating that I moved back to Denmark because you claim that Denmark has laxer laws on pedophilia?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
edited to remove incorrect info re another poster ...all these kids , get'em confused.

Not enough. You accused TBK of having a probation officer, which means he is guilty of a crime. That deserves more than a condescending quip, Steve.

TBK,

I also think an apology to Clancie is in order. We don't know if she is among those women who finds JE attractive. Be a true skeptic and admit your mistake.

(Edited to suit an American audience...sheeesh...)

[thaiboxerken]

You were asked to apologize to Clancie. Please direct a sincere apology to her....
as your rude remark was clearly directed at her, not the forum.

BITE ME.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

TBK,

I also think an apology to Clancie is in order. We don't know if she is among those women who finds JE attractive. Be a true skeptic and admit your mistake.


I apologized to the forum, of which Clancie is a part of. Oh, and Clancie is infactuated with JE as evidenced by her vigilante defense of everything JE.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
And, yes I do think you are lying about how you feel. You're unwilling to state whether you believe or not.


I see we could have saved a whole lot of time here. Not much point in having a discussion if anything I say in support of my position will automatically be considered a lie.

Tell me, what could I possibly say that would convince you that the way I feel is really the way I feel?
If you came out with the truth and said if you believed or not.

"Nothing would convince me otherwise". The cry of the true Believer.

I'm done. Be well.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by FutileJester


I see we could have saved a whole lot of time here. Not much point in having a discussion if anything I say in support of my position will automatically be considered a lie.

-snip-

I'm done. Be well.

Hi, FutileJester--

I have to believe that everyone who posts here does so in good faith, or I wouldn't bother spending any time here.

I do not consider your statements about your position to be false. I hope you will continue to post here. :)

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Instig8R
Hi, FutileJester--

I have to believe that everyone who posts here does so in good faith, or I wouldn't bother spending any time here.

I do not consider your statements about your position to be false. I hope you will continue to post here. :)

Thanks for the vote of confidence instig8r. Not to worry, I have no plans to leave, just to refine my filter a bit. :)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Clancie

Interestingly, although Underdown's article is about the use of editing, he apparently did not view this release form with the suspicion of some who have posted in this thread--i.e. intended to give CO the right to freely ficitonalize readings in whatever way they want.

I don't know if I was included in the above statement, but I have never made any accusation nor intended any innuendo about fictionalizing readings.

All I said was that the show reserves the right to do so. I am only interpreting the language on the contract, not trying to make a case for what is being done as practice.

N/A

[Clancie]

Hi No Zed Avenger,

No, I didn’t have your comments in mind when I posted the above. I was thinking of what Darat and TLN wrote in response to my question….
Posted by TLN

By editing to connect different Edward questions with different answers, making a miss look like a hit. The document leaves the door wide open for this....

And these from Darat,
Posted by Darat

I am not making a claim that they do fictionalise anything just that we now know they reserve that right when they get people to sign the release form. With that in mind we cannot just assume that they don't exercise that right....

We now know (thanks to you ) that everything could be "fictionalised", to assume that the producers don't "fictionalise" the show is just that, an assumption.
Posted by Darat

We now know that anything (and indeed everything) we see on CO could have been edited or fictionalised.….

…With the above I would now say that when anything that may even be considered "special" appears on Crossing Over the reasonable first assumption should be that what was shown is "fictionalised".

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi No Zed Avenger,

No, I didn’t have your comments in mind when I posted the above. I was thinking of what Darat and TLN wrote in response to my question…

I also quite clearly stated that although we can't know unequivocally that this goes on, we can't rule it out. Hence, CO isn't a valuable body of evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

I see we could have saved a whole lot of time here. Not much point in having a discussion if anything I say in support of my position will automatically be considered a lie.



It's about time you shut up.


"Nothing would convince me otherwise". The cry of the true Believer.


Insult noted and filed.

[voidx]

Originally posted by FutileJester


I understand what you're getting at here Clancie, but I think it's a problematic argument at best. If JE is indeed a cold reader, he is undoubtedly be one of the most practiced and capable available. Even a dedicated mentalist performer usually only does a bit of cold reading as part of a varied show. So, the fact (whether it's true or not) that no one cold reads as well as JE is consistent with both hypotheses (genuine mediumship and cold reading), and so is not very useful as evidence.
Excellent point, which I've tried to make a few times, but never came out as clearly as this :D. This cold-reader as good as JE business doesn't work either way very well, and its not really evidence of anything. If JE is a cold-reader, then he is one of the best and has one of the largest bodies of experience, for current cold-readers. Cold-reading is not paranormal, but it is a skill, one perfected and honed over years of experience and practice, so if JE is cold-reading (and I believe he is), then it would be quite difficult finding any admitted cold-reader to replicate him exactly. Besides as we've seen with our difference in opinions over how the hits, weak or strong, have been tallied by different parties here, it would be impossible in my mind that we would agree on our subjective opinions on any comparable cold-reader to JE anyway.

Posted by Clancie:
In the absence of any "deceiver" demonstrating cold reading in any comparable way that I know of, I don't know how you can say, "I think its enough to show us how indecipherable JE is from cold reading."
As for the last part of this sentence its easy. We have a definition of what cold-reading entails, how the process works and JE resembles this, no one can deny it. You think his "consistency" and "special hits" are what seperate him from cold-reading, and move him towards a paranormal explanation. I believe their just results of his years of practice and experience at cold-reading. The process of gaining information from the sitter is explained just as adequately by cold-reading as by your potential belief in ADC so I'm perfectly justified in making the above statement.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Ed


I don't know if he is delusional or a liar (which subsumes fraud). It is based on the evidence of his work which has been deconstructed here, repeatedly. Just do a search and see the threads, I assume that they have not been archived yet.

The problems are basic things like control, blinding and the like. The sort of errors that obviate any findings.

Thanx for the tip, I will look for the link.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I hope you are not serious? All evidence is useful.

That's BS. Anectdotes and fabricated evidence are worthless to me when it comes to scientific claims.



Anectdotal evidence may be worthless to you, but not worthless to serious investigators.

Originally posted by NeoMy point was that there have been other instances where John asked to call another member of the sitter's family, or a friend of theirs, to give them a message that had come through for them. It has happened every so often. The fact that they were not original ticket holders didn't prevent them from getting accurate messages as well, which is why I discount the hot-reading theory

That is what I would like to see, live, not on television. With time and funds permitting, I plan to do that in the future.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Leroy
Anectdotal evidence may be worthless to you, but not worthless to serious investigators.
What serious investigators?
Shirley, you're joking.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

What serious investigators?
Shirley, you're joking.

And don't call me "surely". Wait... never mind.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by neofight


I'm saying that at this point in time, I've seen nothing that I would say was credible evidence that JE is a fraud, and many things to suggest that perhaps he may indeed be a true medium, including having watched the show very closely for over two years now, and attending four seminars.

I've written about this Philly seminar over at tvtalkshows, if you would want the particulars about what hits JE got for us, or if you'd like, I could PM them to you. They were quite accurate, and included quite a few names, including my own. In any case, to answer your question, it's all these things combined that add to my favorable opinion of JE, and make me think there is something to mediumship. :) ......neo

At least you are not basing your entire opinion on JE from the shows. But even going to seminars, unless I had personal readings from JE I don't think I could put much faith in the readings others received, especially those who were desperate to hear from a someone they'd lost.

I am still willing to listen, with an open mind.

I would like to read what you have on the Philly seminar, go ahead and PM them to me please. I don't get online every day, but will read them whenever I return.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by TLN


Clancie, this is your latest drum beat across many threads. It's simply not true. You have indeed been shown cold reader who can replicate what Edward does with the same degree of success; you simply choose to ignore it.

Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

[Leroy]

posted by FutileJester - Well, maybe there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who grew up.

:roll: Or those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who are more educated than to believe that.

I am always amused when I meet people who think in black and white.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This is a purely subjective standard of measure. Do you understand, Clancie, that no person will ever compare to JE because you have an infactuation with him? If JE didn't make you wet between your legs, you would think he's fake too. [/B]

Speaking of people who base their beliefs on emotions, you make judgement calls based on your emotions. Here you are saying that Clancie has an infatuation with JE - where do you get off making a statement like that? You base that on your own biases toward her for being a believer. You shouldn't allow your emotions to rule your life like that ;)

[Leroy]

posted by thaiboxerken - If JE didn't make you wet between your legs, you would think he's fake too.

posted by Sundog - Skepticism at its finest, folks.

You have to understand that Thai doesn't ('think'), he ('reacts') emotionally to the things that he reads.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy


Anectdotal evidence may be worthless to you, but not worthless to serious investigators.

That is what I would like to see, live, not on television. With time and funds permitting, I plan to do that in the future.

Hey, Leroy! I think that's really great, and I'd love to see someone as open-minded as you or Mike D., Loki, Mark Tidwell, Sundog and certain other skeptics, take up a serous project like this...... :clap: .....neo

My apologies to the fair-minded skeptics that I neglected to mention. I know there are plenty more out there. ;)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Leroy
Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

I'm afraid one of the other posters will have to point this out to you as I don't remember the actual thread names. We've reviewed many cold readers here though.

Now, comparing those cold readers to Edward is problematic to say the least since the only Edward content we get is edited, save for Larry King Live.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


TBK,

I also think an apology to Clancie is in order. We don't know if she is among those women who finds JE attractive. Be a true skeptic and admit your mistake.


Thank you CFLarsen, just when I think you are all BS, you do something like this and make my day! You can't be all bad :roll:

Thai's response to apologizing is "BITE ME." I guess we can expect that kind of immaturity from him :( He isn't quite mature enough to apologize directly to Clancie. I think his emotions rule his life.

posted by thai - Insult noted and filed.

Whoa there, you're counting insults. What was that wet between the legs insult you spat at Clancie? An insult.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Leroy
Thai's response to apologizing is "BITE ME." I guess we can expect that kind of immaturity from him :( He isn't quite mature enough to apologize directly to Clancie. I think his emotions rule his life.

Remember, it's your choice as to which posters to focus on.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy


At least you are not basing your entire opinion on JE from the shows. But even going to seminars, unless I had personal readings from JE I don't think I could put much faith in the readings others received, especially those who were desperate to hear from a someone they'd lost.

I am still willing to listen, with an open mind.

I would like to read what you have on the Philly seminar, go ahead and PM them to me please. I don't get online every day, but will read them whenever I return.

Hi, Leroy. I could simply send you the thread from over at tvtalkshows, (but that's an awful lot of reading) or I when I have a few extra minutes, I will summarize my own experience for you and PM you with it. Your choice. Or perhaps I will do both. :) ...neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
Hey, Leroy! I think that's really great, and I'd love to see someone as open-minded as you or Mike D., Loki, Mark Tidwell, Sundog and certain other skeptics, take up a serous project like this...... :clap: .....neo

I see. So, anyone you wish to ignore isn't "open-minded", correct?

neo, does it bother you that none of the above mentioned skeptics believe in John Edward's powers?

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Leroy


Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.
As you wish -


http://www.johnedward.net/Capture_00177.jpg

John Edward
.................................................. .................................................. ....

http://www.johnedward.net/Capture_00177.jpg

Cold reader

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy

Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

originally posted by TLN
I'm afraid one of the other posters will have to point this out to you as I don't remember the actual thread names. We've reviewed many cold readers here though.

Well, Leroy, I'm not sure which threads TLN is referring to either. I know the 90 seconds of Ian Rowland's performance was heavily edited, down from 30 full minutes, and Neill's on-line attempt at cold-reading was done over a time span of a few days, with some internet researching, so neither of those are really worth anything in the way of being "comparable" to a JE reading, even a LKL JE reading.

Now, not for nothin', but I feel compelled once again to point out the double standard that believers are subject to here at JREF. TLN just made a claim here........

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TLN


Clancie, this is your latest drum beat across many threads. It's simply not true. You have indeed been shown cold reader who can replicate what Edward does with the same degree of success; you simply choose to ignore it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if I had made a similar claim, or had Clancie done so, the skeptics would demand from us that we back up our claim immediately, or face incessant badgering, and the threat of having a new thread begun, with our name in it, listing what claims or questions we had not addressed to their satisfaction.

Just wanted to point that out. :D .......neo

[TLN]

There's no double standard here neo. I'd be happy to use the search function and find the threads myself and post them here so you can ignore them again.

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN


I see. So, anyone you wish to ignore isn't "open-minded", correct?

What? Didn't I apologize to those fair-minded skeptics that I may have left out? They know who they are.

neo, does it bother you that none of the above mentioned skeptics believe in John Edward's powers?

No it does not. Should it? It's enough that they are fair, and that they are interested in researching the possibility that he could be real. Look what ridicule Dr. Schwartz is subjected to because he is perceived as someone who either already did, or badly wanted to, believe. What is your point exactly? :confused: .....neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
What is your point exactly?

My point is none of them think there's a possibility that Edward might be real.

So tell me, what makes them open-minded and another skeptic not?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

What serious investigators?
Shirley, you're joking.

When doctors use experimental drugs and treatments on patients, they rely on anecdotal evidence from these patients to see what side effects, if any, the patients suffer.

How could they evaluate without the use of anecdotal evidence?

They rely on the 'testimonies' of the patients to find out if a drug causes pain, or nausea. If 88% of these patients taking the same drug, are experiencing nausea, than the anecdotal evidence is beneficial. It may not 'prove' anything, but it is not useless.

Anecdotal evidence is used often and is the source of much of our knowledge of synthetic medicines.

and stop calling me Shirley! :roll:

[Leroy]

Originally posted by TLN


Now, comparing those cold readers to Edward is problematic to say the least since the only Edward content we get is edited, save for Larry King Live.

You're right. Why can't we use the LKL transcript?

Originally posted by TLN
[B]Remember, it's your choice as to which posters to focus on.

Yes it is my choice.

Thai represents the skeptical side of the board, which means he is representing the skeptics. As a skeptic I do not want to be associated with that kind of behavior.

If I employ someone to represent my company, and that person is rude to customers, they have set a bad example for the company. That person makes the entire company look bad. If I don't speak out against that behavior than I am silently supporting it, and I don't support it.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Leroy
You're right. Why can't we use the LKL transcript?

We can and have. Renata's already done an extensive thread on those.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by neofight


Hi, Leroy. I could simply send you the thread from over at tvtalkshows, (but that's an awful lot of reading) or I when I have a few extra minutes, I will summarize my own experience for you and PM you with it. Your choice. Or perhaps I will do both. :) ...neo

I'd rather have the summary of your experience - thanx!

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Dragon

As you wish -


http://www.johnedward.net/Capture_00177.jpg

John Edward
.................................................. .................................................. ....

http://www.johnedward.net/Capture_00177.jpg

Cold reader :dl: I spit out my coffee when I saw that!

[Clancie]

Originally posted by TLN


Clancie, this is your latest drum beat across many threads. It's simply not true. You have indeed been shown cold reader who can replicate what Edward does with the same degree of success; you simply choose to ignore it.
Thank you, Leroy, for asking him who exactly he had in mind when he stated this as a fact, that I "have been shown cold readers who can replicate what Edward does with the same degree of success". I'd like to know what he's thinking of, too

What can "skeptics" make of his answer to you, though?
[Posted by TLN

I'm afraid one of the other posters will have to point this out to you as I don't remember the actual thread names. We've reviewed many cold readers here though.
A pretty lame response, when compared with his post above to me, where he is so positive that he knows who these successful cold readers like JE are.
Posted by TLN

I'd be happy to use the search function and find the threads myself
Well, I should hope so, TLN, since you're the one who mentioned it to begin with. :rolleyes:

[renata]

Originally posted by TLN


We can and have. Renata's already done an extensive thread on those.

Leroy, here is the thread
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032&highlight=count

I have been (very slowly!) working on two additional transcripts from 1998, and apparently JE will be on LKL Thursday, and I will do a similar rough workup as well.

As you will note, the thread suffers from some drift in the middle, but it has some very valuable observations.

It is the only unedited transcripts of JE's work available. Everything else we have is either edited, like in CO, and according to some people, it is edited in JE's favor to exclude the misses and make it look better than it is. In addition, on LKL possibilities of any mischief are minimized, unlike in studio or seminar audience. I, along with other skeptics have long argued that those are the only samples of readings worth analyzing, because in all others, we simply cannot rule out cheating or editing. Of course, not surprisingly, some believers disagree.

So, check it out, and I will add to that thread soon. I have been hoping to finish everything by last Friday, but life interferes with my hobbies. :D


Edited to say-technically, there are some other transcripts of JE's work. Apparently, there used to be readings on Wayne Brady show, but now the site that hosted them took them down. Also, Underdown recorded CO and wrote an article, which I have not read, so I do not know if he posted the transcript there. So I am correcting myself and saying- only it is the only unedited transcripts of JE's work available to us that I know of :).

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
A pretty lame response, when compared with his post above to me, where he is so positive that he knows who these successful cold readers like JE are.

Thanks Clancie, but I have a job that I'm trying to do. Nevertheless, I will find them and point them out to you.

All so you can ignore them... again.

[Clancie]

btw Leroy....

Thank you for your comments to thaiboxerken. I'm sure, like Steve and Sundog, you're just wasting your time, though. He just doesn't have any class whatsoever, as far as I can tell.

As for Claus, well, at least he changed his original post on that "subject", which good as it wasn't any better than TBK's. I guess someone--maybe a mod--PM'd him to, as he later added when he edited, "clean it up for an American audience...sheesh".

That was a good call whoever made it, and I appreciated the change, since I thought with those two posts this forum had reached a new low as far as insults to JE "believers" goes....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
Anectdotal evidence may be worthless to you, but not worthless to serious investigators.

Do you consider investigating anecdotes about unicorns "serious"?

Originally posted by Leroy
Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

I couldn't find it at TVTalkshows, but here's the saved thread. (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/coldreading.htm)

Originally posted by neofight
Hi, Leroy. I could simply send you the thread from over at tvtalkshows, (but that's an awful lot of reading) or I when I have a few extra minutes, I will summarize my own experience for you and PM you with it. Your choice. Or perhaps I will do both. :) ...neo

No, neo. Let's not trust your memory, because it has been shown to be incredibly biased towards JE being a real medium.

Let's not trust your memory, OK?

Originally posted by neofight
Now, if I had made a similar claim, or had Clancie done so, the skeptics would demand from us that we back up our claim immediately, or face incessant badgering, and the threat of having a new thread begun, with our name in it, listing what claims or questions we had not addressed to their satisfaction.

Just wanted to point that out. :D .......neo

neo, you are incredibly hypocritical here. You merely dismiss the examples put before you - for no valid reason, and then claim they never existed.

[TLN]

Found one! :D

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I couldn't find it at TVTalkshows, but here's the saved thread. (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/coldreading.htm)

[Clancie]

What's the thread called? I can't get the link.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by TLN


My point is none of them think there's a possibility that Edward might be real.

So tell me, what makes them open-minded and another skeptic not?

I don't believe that John Edward is a medium, I don't believe in mediumship, but I never say never. I mean, I won't say never. :)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
What's the thread called? I can't get the link.

Oh, for the love of...

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

Compare: a JE reading and a cold-reading


<Cantata> 24.90.212.207 06-25-2002 02:19 PM
First, the JE reading:

==> My comments

John: I'm ready to begin. I'm in this area. I don't think I'm with you, (pointing to someone) unless you guys know eachother. I've a male figure who's coming through that would be husband or brother, but it's a male figure that's coming through in this area. So it's gotta be the husband/brother figure over here. Do you understand this?

==> "Unless you guys know each other"? JE is making his guess dependent on the relations of two sitters, and NOT from the spirits.
==> "Male figure, husband, brother or husband-brother "type". Which means any male figure.

Woman: Yes.

==> Not a hit. Sitter is merely acknowledging that she understands what JE is saying.

John: Is that with you?

==> Fishing for information. This is in no way spirit communication!

Woman: Um hmm, husband.

==> Seems like her husband has died. How old is this woman? Is she old enough to have a dead husband? Unknown.

John: Who's crossed?

==> Fishing for information.

Woman: Yes.

==> Not a hit. Sitter is providing the information, not JE.

John: Okay, if you can just say yes or no. I also want to acknowledge that there's some type of either block party or some type of street fair or house party like where everybody's partying outside in the street. Did he do this, or was he involved with this?

==> Who hasn't? Sheesh, I have gone to these many times a year, in both Europe and the U.S.

Woman: No.

==> But not this one. A miss.

John: Are you sure?

==> Huh?? JE is pressuring for validation - a secure hit turns sour.

Woman: Yes.

==> Confirmation of a miss.

John: (looking askance) I'm gonna disagree with ya! (laughter) Where's Anthony?

==> Oh, no? He sure disagrees with people at times!!
==> Tony the Camera Man. "Not Tony, but Anthony". JE uses this a lot,for a reason: Anthony is the 22nd most common male name in the US.

Woman: Anthony's my brother, passed.

==> A half-hit. JE never says anything about the relation the sitter has with Anthony.
==> Additional information given by sitter: Brother is dead.

John: Anthony's here with him, because he's telling me to acknowledge Anthony. And Ralph.

==> Not a hit! Sitter has just told JE that Anthony is dead.
==> Ralph, being the 62nd most common male name...

Woman: Well my name is Raphaeli. They called my husband Ralph. Some people did. His name was Frank.

==> The last name cannot be considered a hit.
==> I would question the validity of a sitter who claims a husband being called "Ralph", him being a Frank. Why would people do that?

John: Wait a minute! YOUR name is Raphaeli and they called HIM Ralph?

==> Fishing for information.

Woman: No no, no no. Our last name was Raphaeli, but a lot of people called him Ralph.

==> Repeating her last statement.

John: Okay, cause I'm hearing "Ralph".

==> So he says....

Woman: It's Frank, his name was Frank.

==> Sitter actually denies her previous statement?

John: Well, he's coming through as Ralph to me.

==> And we all know JE is not wrong, ever...

Woman: (laughs) Okay.

==> Not an admission, sitter is merely acknowledging that JE says this.

John: Okay, I don't know what he means by this. I have to interpret this as either a street feast, a festival, a block party, but he's acknowledging the festivities in the street, where cars would normally be parked. He's got me at some type of street festival or street fair. He's telling me to acknowledge that either YOU have the older sister who's passed, HE'S got the older sister who's passed, or he's with mom, but he's got older female who's there. He's putting a big "V" over the family which means that somebody has the "V" name, okay? Because he's telling me to acknowledge the "V", and he's also making me feel that the month of June is his birthday, your birthday, but there's a celebration in the sixth month, which would be a happy birthday or congratulations in June.

==> Elaborating on the previously denied "street feast, festival" lead. Including cars (obvious!), too.
==> JE is asking for: Sitter's older dead sister OR husband's older dead sister OR husband's dead mother. Further widening the field by saying ANY older female is with him.
==> JE does not qualify at all who has a V-name. Could be living, could be dead.
==> June can be husband's birthday, sitter's birthday or simply a "celebration" - any birthday or congratulations. June is, of course, the month where a lot of students graduate, giving reasons to celebrate.

Woman: No.

==> Not one single hit!

John: Uh, yes! (making a funny face) (audience laughs)

==> Didn't JE just claim he wouldn't disagree with the sitter? He turns a *series* of misses into a joke on the sitter. Nice...

Woman: No, I have a party coming up, but there's not a street fair.

==> Sitter tries to fit the information. Also, gives information in the process.

John: No, there's some type of street thing. There's some type of festival. There's something that he wants me to acknowledge that he was part of, he planned, YOU were part of, YOU planned.

==> Keeps on pressing for the street thing....

Woman: Oh, it was a Memorial Mass Parade, just last week.

==> A hit? In the sense that Memorial Day is pretty well known...

John: For him?

==> Fishing for information.

Woman: Well, for deceased members of an American Legion Post, yeah.

==> Sitter providing a LOT of information in one sentence!

(John turns, laughing, to a member of the stage crew who had just handed him a microphone and said....) "You should not have given this to me at this moment." (laughter) "This can be hurled!" (more laughter)

==> Making fun of people. Nice....

Woman: Well, I could throw it back! (still more laughter)

==> Turning the tables. Not much psychic amnesia here, eh?

John: Street fair! Street festival! No, seriously, you marched in a parade in honor of people who have passed? (laughter) Who has the family of seven?

==> Fishing for information.

Woman: Uh, I'm one of seven.....but there's no "V"!

==> A hit. Families a few decades ago were much larger than today.

John: There is!

==> Insisting that he is right!

Woman: (looking very sheepish) Yeah, my Aunt Vera -- I was talking to her yesterday. (laughing) She lives in California! Yes.

==> Aunt Vera (who could be on the sitter's side, and not the husband's side)! More information given by sitter: Aunt Vera is alive, well, and lives in California!

John: He's also telling me that either your anniversary just passed or there's like a wedding anniversary that he's telling me, OR an anniversary of a death that just passed. He's acknowledging a red rose. Do you understand that?

==> In a family of this size and age, there is BOUND to be something that can fit into this!

Woman: Yes.

==> Technically not a hit, though: Sitter is agreeing that she understands what JE is saying.

John: Was that his?

==> Guessing - JE might have seen a facial expression. We don't know.

Woman: (touching her throat and clearly fighting back tears) Yes....today.

==> Lucky hit!

(audience responds sympathetically)

John: And I'm sorry to be personal, but did you bury him with his mother?

==> Fishing for information.

Woman: Same plot.

==> It's not uncommon to be buried with your family.

John: What does that mean? Same cemetary?

==> A plot is a much smaller area, yet JE can't help widening the field....

Woman: Yeah, same plot.

==> Confirmation of what sitter just said.

John: Okay, then they're together. He's showing me a big bouquet of pink roses. When I see that, that's their way of expressing their love to you, so he's passing this on. He's asking about your foot or your ankle, so I don't know if you're having a problem with it now, but he's acknowledging the foot or the ankle.

==> "Then they're together" is not a hit.
==> Pink roses again. Non-committal, yet comforting.
==> Foot or ankle problems are common in elderly people. Their bones get weaker, especially in women.

Woman: (Laughing) I broke a couple of toes a couple of months ago. (Sounding a bit worried) What else does he see?

==> Figures....

(John makes a face like, you SHOULD be worried, to tease her, audience laughs)

==> JE doesn't answer.

John: He wasn't a big hugger?

==> Fishing for information.

Woman: Yes, he was.

==> A clear miss.

John: I don't know if he's trying to tell me that the thing that you had the--the thing that bothered you most about his passing--not THE thing, but ONE of the things, is that you didn't get a chance to hug him goodbye.

==> Who gets a chance to really say goodbye?

Woman: True.

==> An expected hit.

John: Okay, he's telling me to acknowledge, "Here is a hug for ya!" (audience reacts with a big AW) Alrighty? Thank you!

==> Sure, hubby can hug! Sitter told JE!

(John goes up into the bleachers and gives the woman a big hug)

==> How cute...

POST ANALYSIS

Woman: Ralph--yes, a lot of peole made the common mistake of thinking his name was Ralph because two reasons, our last name, and also our office was located on Ralph Street. Still is. We were both big huggers, but towards the end he was in too much pain, you couldn't even touch him. So that, that was--it was lost. The last part was lost. I came here today, I have to admit, very skeptical. But I am no longer skeptical.

==> Whoa, TWO connections! Nobody calls me by the streetname I live on, though...
==> Skeptical? She would be more skeptical, if she could read the transcript. Extremely few hits, LOTS of fishing and many misses.


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





<Cantata> 24.90.212.207 06-25-2002 02:20 PM
Then, the cold-reader (Neil's script).

==> My comments

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

==> William (most Williams are called Bill) is the 5th most common male name. No specific relations are suggested.
==> Border collies is pretty specific.
==> The common excuse that it could be for someone else.

SITTER: I do have a Bill in my life , no border collies though...

==> Pretty vague: "in my life".
==> Dogs a miss.

READER: I'm seeing three children, or at least three who are like children to you. Who would they be? And Bill, he wouldn't be your husband?

==> Widening the field: Sitter's two kids could have a very good friend, or one kid could have two very good friends.
==> Fishing for information about the relation of "Bill".

SITTER: How do you know how many kids I have... yes Bill is my husband and yes I have 3 kids do tell more, any deceased loved ones?? let me know who they are and what they have to say that is what I am truly curious about...please

==> A good hit! Bill AND three kids.
==> Sitter professes the will to believe and to fit information.

READER: Remember, I'm not in control of the information I'm getting so the people who you want to hear from might not be the ones who actually come through. As long as you work with me we can make this reading go so much better.

==> Common excuse: If something goes wrong, it sure isn't the reader's fault!
==> A not-so-subtle hint that if the sitter wants anything out of this, she'd better cooperate!

READER: I'm sensing that the 5th of the month or the month of May has a great significance. I'm also seeing a D-n name, so that would be like a Daniel, Donald, Dylan, Donna - who would that be?

==> JE uses the "5"-trick a lot.
==> JE also uses this two-letter combination or sound-alike. "Daniel" is the 12th mostcommon male name, "Donald" the 15th, "Dylan" is 546 and "Donna" the 17th most common female name.

READER: Do you like to ride? I'm definitely seeing a Harley Davidson - y'know Easy Rider-type stuff - but maybe you have a connection to a Harley as a person's name instead. Either way there's a free spirit personality associated with that.

==> "Ride" can mean in a car, a bike, a motorbike, a train, a horse, a rollercoaster. Probably some more.
==> The "Harley" is widened to be a person as well.
==> "Free spirit" is the final option, should all else fail.

READER: I have an older male with me - he's showing me the letter "P" and telling you not to worry so much about the house and about money. He knows you've had your problems in recent times, but he wants to let you know that there's a much better spell ahead financially. Do you understand that?

==> "Older male" can mean anybody, "P" can mean anything and worrying about the house is for *every* house owner.
==> Who hasn't had "problems in recent times"?
==> The "financial" promise is just that. Not a hit.

SITTER: My sons name is Dylan, and his birthday is in may and my older son was born on the 5th, also I do have an older p name does he tell you more,, the Harley is my husband and I-and I have a niece Hailey.. kinda the same .. come to think of it not just my husbands name is Bill but my cousin who passed name is Bill,, you know things that only my husband and I know... so you have me at 70% believing right now...

==> "Dylan" is a hit (three other very common names)
==> Sitter fits the unqualified "May" connection.
==> "Older son" is NOT a hit - the "older male" the reader is talking about is "with" him and showing him "P" - ergo the older male is dead.
==> "Harley" is a hit - albeit unqualified, and from either a bike, name OR "free spirit".
==> "Hailey" is a stretch, and an indication of how far the sitter will go to make the information fit.
==> Cousin "Bill" *could* be the "William" first mentioned, but why should we attach significance to that, and ignore the miss with the border collies?
==> What does the reader know that only the sitter and her husband knows??

READER: No, it's not your niece Hailey, the Harley is an acknowledgement of you and your husband. I can tell there has been a lot of romance in your marriage. Was there a time though that you had lost your wedding ring or you weren't wearing it?

==> Reader simply restates what sitter has said.
==> "A lot of romance" is something everybody wishes for.
==> Losing one's wedding ring is not very uncommon.

READER: Tell me more about the "P" person they're telling me to acknowledge and what is that connection to the older male? He's asking me to teasing you about the Italian food (like it's your favorite or something).

==> Looking again for the "P" person. Could be a first name, could be a last name.
==> The "older male" was the husband or maybe the cousin, and he has a P connection?

READER: On a personal note, I'm also sensing back when you were younger I can see some kind of illness, an injury or an accident - not a normal minor childhood thing, but something serious. I seem to sense your parents and people around you were more concerned at the time then they needed to be because everything turned out OK in the end.

==> Kids get hurt or sick, sometimes seriously.

SITTER: Yes I lost my wedding ring- WOW YOUR SPOOKING ME OUT!! AND THE P name is my godfather-uncle, yes I love Italian food, yes a lot of romance and still madly in love with my husband ..but yaw know.. family stuff. Dont remember ever being sick when I was little , did break a leg , and knocked a tooth out my mom cried all day... you had asked about a Daniel and Donald, my uncle Danny passed away when I was young, and Donald is my brother in law in Virgina , how could you know please for sanity sake tell me more!!!

==> Lost wedding ring: A hit.
==> P-name is sitter's godfather-uncle (which is NOT on her husband's side!), so the "Bill" connection must be the cousin.
==> Italian food is very popular, but we never hear about why the uncle should tease the sitter about it.
==> "Lot" of romance? How much is a "lot"?
==> Childhood illness: A miss. A broken leg and a knocked-out tooth is hardly cause for excessive concern.
==> "Danny" is made into a triple-hit now (from the D-n guess): First, it was "Dylan", now the connection is ALSO "Daniel". As well as Donald, the brother in law. But the reader did not mention 3 connections. Sitter is trying to fit the information.
==> Sitter provides information: "Virginia".

[Clancie]

Thanks, TLN :rolleyes: but all you had to say was it was Claus's commentary about Neil's reading.

We've rehashed that so many times. Do I need to post my list of differences between Neil and JE....again?

Really, is this the best you folks can come up with? An asynchronous internet reading...over several days...sitter's full name known in advance to the "medium"....admitted attempts at hot reading....no spirit established bringing through the "information"....on and on.....

What's next? A post about Michael O'Neill? Jaroff? Maybe we can rehash the "Tony the cameraman" dispute. :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
What's the thread called? I can't get the link.

For some reason, Clancie never manages to "get" the links I provide. She has absolutely no problems with any other links.

Go figure...

Originally posted by Clancie
We've rehashed that so many times. Do I need to post my list of differences between Neil and JE....again?

Oh, please do. Please do!

Originally posted by Clancie
What's next? A post about Michael O'Neill? Jaroff? Maybe we can rehash the "Tony the cameraman" dispute. :rolleyes:

Why not? You merely dismiss anything we come up with, without even attempting to refute it.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by renata


Leroy, here is the thread
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032&highlight=count


Thanx.

I thought it was a terrible reading.

He leaves the door wide open when he say's older male figure. That could be a cousin, brother, father, grandfather, father-in-law, brother-in-law, etc.

How can he go wrong here? Even if I were a believer, I'd find this suspicious.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
We've rehashed that so many times. Do I need to post my list of differences between Neil and JE....again?

You can, if you can make observations beyond "style" and focus on substance. Substantively, these two men do the same thing.

[Clancie]

Obviously you're taking Claus's word that my original (30+) lists of differences were about "style".

If you'd actually read my comments (and they've been linked/posted here at JREF before), you'd see I never once talked about JE or Neil's style as being significant in distinguishing cold reading from JE.

Not once.

Because style can be different among "mediums" as well as "cold readers", but the significant difference between cold reading and mediumship isn't about style. Its insulting to say that is all believers can think of.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by TLN


Compare: a JE reading and a cold-reading

<Cantata> 24.90.212.207 06-25-2002 02:19 PM
First, the JE reading:

John: I'm ready to begin. I'm in this area. I don't think I'm with you, (pointing to someone) unless you guys know eachother. I've a male figure who's coming through that would be husband or brother, but it's a male figure that's coming through in this area. So it's gotta be the husband/brother figure over here. Do you understand this?

Woman: Yes.

John: Is that with you?

Woman: Um hmm, husband.

John: Who's crossed?

Woman: Yes.

John: Okay, if you can just say yes or no. I also want to acknowledge that there's some type of either block party or some type of street fair or house party like where everybody's partying outside in the street. Did he do this, or was he involved with this?

Woman: No.

John: Are you sure?

Woman: Yes.

John: (looking askance) I'm gonna disagree with ya! (laughter) Where's Anthony?

Woman: Anthony's my brother, passed.

John: Anthony's here with him, because he's telling me to acknowledge Anthony. And Ralph.

Woman: Well my name is Raphaeli. They called my husband Ralph. Some people did. His name was Frank.

John: Wait a minute! YOUR name is Raphaeli and they called HIM Ralph?

Woman: No no, no no. Our last name was Raphaeli, but a lot of people called him Ralph.

John: Okay, cause I'm hearing "Ralph".

Woman: It's Frank, his name was Frank.

John: Well, he's coming through as Ralph to me.

Woman: (laughs) Okay.

John: Okay, I don't know what he means by this. I have to interpret this as either a street feast, a festival, a block party, but he's acknowledging the festivities in the street, where cars would normally be parked. He's got me at some type of street festival or street fair. He's telling me to acknowledge that either YOU have the older sister who's passed, HE'S got the older sister who's passed, or he's with mom, but he's got older female who's there. He's putting a big "V" over the family which means that somebody has the "V" name, okay? Because he's telling me to acknowledge the "V", and he's also making me feel that the month of June is his birthday, your birthday, but there's a celebration in the sixth month, which would be a happy birthday or congratulations in June.

Woman: No.

John: Uh, yes! (making a funny face) (audience laughs)

Woman: No, I have a party coming up, but there's not a street fair.

John: No, there's some type of street thing. There's some type of festival. There's something that he wants me to acknowledge that he was part of, he planned, YOU were part of, YOU planned.

Woman: Oh, it was a Memorial Mass Parade, just last week.

John: For him?

Woman: Well, for deceased members of an American Legion Post, yeah.

(John turns, laughing, to a member of the stage crew who had just handed him a microphone and said....) "You should not have given this to me at this moment." (laughter) "This can be hurled!" (more laughter)

Woman: Well, I could throw it back! (still more laughter)

John: Street fair! Street festival! No, seriously, you marched in a parade in honor of people who have passed? (laughter) Who has the family of seven?

Woman: Uh, I'm one of seven.....but there's no "V"!

John: There is!

Woman: (looking very sheepish) Yeah, my Aunt Vera -- I was talking to her yesterday. (laughing) She lives in California! Yes.

John: He's also telling me that either your anniversary just passed or there's like a wedding anniversary that he's telling me, OR an anniversary of a death that just passed. He's acknowledging a red rose. Do you understand that?

Woman: Yes.

John: Was that his?

Woman: (touching her throat and clearly fighting back tears) Yes....today.

(audience responds sympathetically)

John: And I'm sorry to be personal, but did you bury him with his mother?

Woman: Same plot.

John: What does that mean? Same cemetary?

Woman: Yeah, same plot.

John: Okay, then they're together. He's showing me a big bouquet of pink roses. When I see that, that's their way of expressing their love to you, so he's passing this on. He's asking about your foot or your ankle, so I don't know if you're having a problem with it now, but he's acknowledging the foot or the ankle.

Woman: (Laughing) I broke a couple of toes a couple of months ago. (Sounding a bit worried) What else does he see?

(John makes a face like, you SHOULD be worried, to tease her, audience laughs)

John: He wasn't a big hugger?

Woman: Yes, he was.

John: I don't know if he's trying to tell me that the thing that you had the--the thing that bothered you most about his passing--not THE thing, but ONE of the things, is that you didn't get a chance to hug him goodbye.

Woman: True.

John: Okay, he's telling me to acknowledge, "Here is a hug for ya!" (audience reacts with a big AW) Alrighty? Thank you!

(John goes up into the bleachers and gives the woman a big hug)

POST ANALYSIS

Woman: Ralph--yes, a lot of peole made the common mistake of thinking his name was Ralph because two reasons, our last name, and also our office was located on Ralph Street. Still is. We were both big huggers, but towards the end he was in too much pain, you couldn't even touch him. So that, that was--it was lost. The last part was lost. I came here today, I have to admit, very skeptical. But I am no longer skeptical.


<Cantata> 24.90.212.207 06-25-2002 02:20 PM
Then, the cold-reader (Neil's script).

==> My comments

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

SITTER: I do have a Bill in my life , no border collies though...

READER: I'm seeing three children, or at least three who are like children to you. Who would they be? And Bill, he wouldn't be your husband?

SITTER: How do you know how many kids I have... yes Bill is my husband and yes I have 3 kids do tell more, any deceased loved ones?? let me know who they are and what they have to say that is what I am truly curious about...please

READER: Remember, I'm not in control of the information I'm getting so the people who you want to hear from might not be the ones who actually come through. As long as you work with me we can make this reading go so much better.

READER: I'm sensing that the 5th of the month or the month of May has a great significance. I'm also seeing a D-n name, so that would be like a Daniel, Donald, Dylan, Donna - who would that be?

READER: Do you like to ride? I'm definitely seeing a Harley Davidson - y'know Easy Rider-type stuff - but maybe you have a connection to a Harley as a person's name instead. Either way there's a free spirit personality associated with that.

READER: I have an older male with me - he's showing me the letter "P" and telling you not to worry so much about the house and about money. He knows you've had your problems in recent times, but he wants to let you know that there's a much better spell ahead financially. Do you understand that?

SITTER: My sons name is Dylan, and his birthday is in may and my older son was born on the 5th, also I do have an older p name does he tell you more,, the Harley is my husband and I-and I have a niece Hailey.. kinda the same .. come to think of it not just my husbands name is Bill but my cousin who passed name is Bill,, you know things that only my husband and I know... so you have me at 70% believing right now...

READER: No, it's not your niece Hailey, the Harley is an acknowledgement of you and your husband. I can tell there has been a lot of romance in your marriage. Was there a time though that you had lost your wedding ring or you weren't wearing it?

READER: Tell me more about the "P" person they're telling me to acknowledge and what is that connection to the older male? He's asking me to teasing you about the Italian food (like it's your favorite or something).

READER: On a personal note, I'm also sensing back when you were younger I can see some kind of illness, an injury or an accident - not a normal minor childhood thing, but something serious. I seem to sense your parents and people around you were more concerned at the time then they needed to be because everything turned out OK in the end.

SITTER: Yes I lost my wedding ring- WOW YOUR SPOOKING ME OUT!! AND THE P name is my godfather-uncle, yes I love Italian food, yes a lot of romance and still madly in love with my husband ..but yaw know.. family stuff. Dont remember ever being sick when I was little , did break a leg , and knocked a tooth out my mom cried all day... you had asked about a Daniel and Donald, my uncle Danny passed away when I was young, and Donald is my brother in law in Virgina , how could you know please for sanity sake tell me more!!!



Finally, a transcript from a show that I actually viewed! I omitted cantata's opinions. I figure that it is easier to form my own opinion if I am not influenced by someone else's.

I will remark later.

[renata]

Originally posted by Leroy


Thanx.

I thought it was a terrible reading.

He leaves the door wide open when he say's older male figure. That could be a cousin, brother, father, grandfather, father-in-law, brother-in-law, etc.

How can he go wrong here? Even if I were a believer, I'd find this suspicious.

Leroy- it was about 30 terrible readings! ;) Did you read the whole thing?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Obviously you're taking Claus's word that my original (30+) lists of differences were about "style".

If you'd actually read my comments (and they've been linked/posted here at JREF before), you'd see I never once talked about JE or Neil's style as being significant in distinguishing cold reading from JE.

Not once.

No, I read the threads in question. Your comments were style based, not substance based.

So tell me, in a sentence, what's the difference between these two performances?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
As for Claus, well, at least he changed his original post on that "subject", which good as it wasn't any better than TBK's. I guess someone--maybe a mod--PM'd him to, as he later added when he edited, "clean it up for an American audience...sheesh".

That was a good call whoever made it, and I appreciated the change, since I thought with those two posts this forum had reached a new low as far as insults to JE "believers" goes....

First, no moderator pointed it out. I realized it myself. I do have some experience with American prejudice and narrowmindedness, you know. I learned a lot from you.

Second, could you tell us what I did write? If you can, I will explain why I changed it. If you cannot, then how can you determine that is wasn't "any better than TBK's"?

Let's hear it, Clancie: What did I write??

(Oh, and thanks for taking me off ignore....once again...you can stop pretending you are ignoring my posts now...)

[Leroy]

btw - if any of you got this thread to open Skeptic Report (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/coldreading.htm) you will see that the

==> My comments were from Cantata.

<Cantata> 24.90.212.207 06-25-2002 02:19 PM - ==> My comments

And although I agree with a few of his comments, I watched this episode so I have formed my own opinion based on that fact.

This sitter was a tough cookie. She didn't seem eager to be read, and wasn't anxious to have things fit as I think the typical sitter is. She seemed embarrassed when she remembered the Memorial Mass Parade that they'd had a week earlier.

I still have a hard time taking any of it seriously since it is edited tv.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Leroy
I still have a hard time taking any of it seriously since it is edited tv.

Indeed. So Clancie, is Leroy still open-minded?

[Leroy]

http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/coldreading.htm

<Cantata> 24.90.212.207 06-25-2002 02:19 PM

==> Cantata said - Seems like her husband has died. How old is this woman? Is she old enough to have a dead husband? Unknown.

If I remember it accurately, I think the woman was in her late 50's, or early 60's.



==> The last name cannot be considered a hit. ==> I would question the validity of a sitter who claims a husband being called "Ralph", him being a Frank. Why would people do that?

She explained that it was because his last name was Raphaeli. They called him by his last name, only a shortened version.

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

Indeed. So Clancie, is Leroy still open-minded?
Yes, TLN, I haven't seen any reason to think otherwise.

(and, neo, as you said, you missed a bunch of people with that list....but, I won't add to it because I'm sure I'd forget some, too. :) ).

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, TLN, I haven't seen any reason to think otherwise.

Where do you draw the line and how can you tell who's on either side of it? Am I open-minded?

[voidx]

In my opinion the comparison isn't strictly necessary, look at JE's reading on its own, its easily within the confines of cold-reading. He comes out with a street party/feast/fair, and won't let it go. Something HE planned or was a part of. Over and over to no validation from the sitter, then the typical broadening comes in. Street party/fair/festival that YOU were a part of, YOU planned. Any excuse as to why his process of mediumship confused who was a part of this festival, or who may have planned it? So after more prodding she gives him Memorial Mass Parade. Now lets recap. He intially says HE was a part of, HE planned, both complete misses, he was not a part of nor planned the memorial parade. SHE was a part of, SHE planned. She states there was a parade. She didn't plan it that we know of, and we don't know that she was a PART of it, she may have merely attended the parade. He asks if the parade was in honour of him, and she doesn't verify this persay but answers, well for deceased members of AN American Legion Post. She doesn't specify that he was a part of this Legion Post, or that he was being honoured as a deceased member of said Legion, although one could argue that its implied. So this is a clear example of fishing for information, then broadening when the reader did not validate, and then narrowing (in honour of him?) when the sitter did provide information. Then he has the gall to make fun of her like he knew all along, and she was not remembering right.

Heres another disingenious bit in this reading. JE comes out stating he's getting a male figure, sitter provides the dead husband info, but no name. Then JE fishes out Anthony and gets a hit, then he says the following:

John: Anthony's here with him, because he's telling me to acknowledge Anthony. And Ralph.
Now explain to me that if he's already established that he's talking with the woman's dead husband, and the spirit should seamingly have caught this as information as well, why does the spirit ask her to acknowledge him by a nickname? Their asking me to acknowledge Ralph....he IS Ralph, err Frank so why not say, he's asking you to acknowledge Anthony and himself? Does this not raise any alarms with anyone? JE was fishing for another person named Ralph, he was not expecting it to be the validated spirits nickname. Look at that above sentence logically and explain why the spirit would refer to itself in such a manner, when the connection that he was the sitters dead husband was already established.

Next he comes out earlier with the older female "V" name would could have been the Aunt, however, when he narrows and gets a hit on the "family of 7" this no longer makes sense. The sitter validates that she is one of 7, when she says there's no V, she means none of her other siblings have a "V" name which is in fact correct as far as we know. JE uses his earlier tactic of simply trying to embarrass her and she balks and fits the information for him with Aunt Vera, how is not part of the family of 7, not that JE clarifies this tidbit for us because then it wouldn't make any sense.

Then there's normal inconsistency. JE states intially:
John: He's also telling me that either your anniversary just passed or there's like a wedding anniversary that he's telling me, OR an anniversary of a death that just passed. He's acknowledging a red rose. Do you understand that?
A red rose. But then right after this statement he continues with this one:
John: Okay, then they're together. He's showing me a big bouquet of pink roses. When I see that, that's their way of expressing their love to you, so he's passing this on. He's asking about your foot or your ankle, so I don't know if you're having a problem with it now, but he's acknowledging the foot or the ankle.
Now the roses are pink. Now some might drag out the normal bally-hoo of his not clairwhateverly seeing pink right the first time, or mistaking red for pink, or pink for red. But since he doesn't clarify or correct himself at all I'm of the opinion that he forgot what color he said the rose was intially, and therefore changed it unwittingly, OR knew full well he called it red the first time and nonchalantly screwed up and called it pink the second time as a way of broadening the information. Either way, another small inconsistency that I'm sure most people missed.

Then he fishes out that the guy hated hugs, wrong, he loved hugs. Then he goes off on a bunch of tripe about her not getting to hug him goodbye, he covers his ass here by mentioning its not the big regret, just one of many potential regrets of things she didn't get to do before he passed. Then JE gives her a hug, plays to the crowd and the emotions and guess what, no one probably even remembers that he got it completely wrong to begin with.

Now, onto Neils reading. I do have a few concerns. Were the sitters known to Neil? Or did they know he was cold-reading, or were they given the impression that he was a real medium? Were they believers before hand? The reason I ask is that a few statements made by the sitter give me the impression that they were just saying things that made them sound like obvious believers. Here are a few examples:

SITTER: My sons name is Dylan, and his birthday is in may and my older son was born on the 5th, also I do have an older p name does he tell you more,, the Harley is my husband and I-and I have a niece Hailey.. kinda the same .. come to think of it not just my husbands name is Bill but my cousin who passed name is Bill,, you know things that only my husband and I know... so you have me at 70% believing right now...
The last sentence especially, can you think of anyone that would make such a statement as to a percentage of their believing? Do they at this point know that Neil is cold reading?

SITTER: Yes I lost my wedding ring- WOW YOUR SPOOKING ME OUT!! AND THE P name is my godfather-uncle, yes I love Italian food, yes a lot of romance and still madly in love with my husband ..but yaw know.. family stuff. Dont remember ever being sick when I was little , did break a leg , and knocked a tooth out my mom cried all day... you had asked about a Daniel and Donald, my uncle Danny passed away when I was young, and Donald is my brother in law in Virgina , how could you know please for sanity sake tell me more!!!
The bolded parts. I'm sorry, these sound awfully forced or scripted to me. I realize people sense of grammar is often a little hazy over IRC or any other type of chat media, but does this not raise alarm bells for anyone else?

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN
Found one! :D



TLN, that is the cold-reading done by Neil that I referred to in my other post. The one that he did on-line, over a few days, with some internet research. That is not a spontaneous reading done right on the spot as JE does his readings, so it is hardly comparable to one of his......neo

[Archangel]

Originally posted by neofight


TLN, that is the cold-reading done by Neil that I referred to in my other post. The one that he did on-line, over a few days, with some internet research. That is not a spontaneous reading done right on the spot as JE does his readings, so it is hardly comparable to one of his......neo

Except for the fact, that the only reason it took a few days, seems to have been for the unavailability of either party, had it been done in a studio, Neil would have been referred to as the new JE.
The fact that Neil had exactly the same info as JE gets and a similar resource pool actually goes to show that JE isnt that good IMHO

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy
This sitter was a tough cookie. She didn't seem eager to be read, and wasn't anxious to have things fit as I think the typical sitter is. She seemed embarrassed when she remembered the Memorial Mass Parade that they'd had a week earlier.

I still have a hard time taking any of it seriously since it is edited tv.

Originally posted by TLN


Indeed. So Clancie, is Leroy still open-minded?

Well, I've said that I thought that Leroy is open-minded, and I see nothing in his post to suggest that he's not.

He conceded that the woman sitter was quite skeptical of the whole thing, and she certainly didn't go out of her way to make anything fit, as Leroy pointed out. He actually saw this show, which I believe helps to give some extra perspective to the written word.

Leroy is honest enough to say that the fact that there's a chance that the reading was edited prevents him from accepting it as evidence, which we all agree is a reasonable stance, even though I personally do not believe there is extensive editing on most of these "CO" readings at all.

That's why I encourage that skeptics go see JE do readings in an unedited format, so they can judge for themselves whether or not he depends upon editing to make his readings good, or if he does just as well live.

Steve, Lurker and Mark have all attested to the fact that they didn't see much of a difference between the quality of readings they watched on the edited television show, and readings they saw JE give in person both at the "CO" taping that Steve went to, and the two separate seminars that Lurker and Mark attended.......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN


Where do you draw the line and how can you tell who's on either side of it? Am I open-minded?

You are probably the best judge of that, TLN. ;) .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by voidx

A red rose............

Now the roses are pink. Now some might drag out the normal bally-hoo of his not clairwhateverly seeing pink right the first time, or mistaking red for pink, or pink for red. But since he doesn't clarify or correct himself at all I'm of the opinion that he forgot what color he said the rose was intially, and therefore changed it unwittingly, OR knew full well he called it red the first time and nonchalantly screwed up and called it pink the second time as a way of broadening the information. Either way, another small inconsistency that I'm sure most people missed.

Voidx, there was no screw up about the color of the rose. They are completely different symbols that JE gets. When he saw the red rose, to him it meant that someone's wedding anniversary or anniversary of a death was referenced. The woman acknowledged this, and said that that very day was her wedding anniversary. Thats what a red rose symbolizes to JE, as opposed to a white rose which stands for a birthday.

The bouquet of pink roses, however, is just a symbol of love that the spirit energy offers to their loved one. Sometimes JE sees these roses with thorns on their stems, which indicates that in life, the spirit was not really capable of expressing that love in a demonstrative way, for whatever reason.

Short on time, but wanted to at least address that one point.

Oh all right. Maybe just one more........ ;)

Then he fishes out that the guy hated hugs, wrong, he loved hugs. Then he goes off on a bunch of tripe about her not getting to hug him goodbye, he covers his ass here by mentioning its not the big regret, just one of many potential regrets of things she didn't get to do before he passed. Then JE gives her a hug, plays to the crowd and the emotions and guess what, no one probably even remembers that he got it completely wrong to begin with.

Okay. I guess you could look at it like that, voidx. But should JE be a real medium, it's also possible that what he says is true, and these messages, which he gets by seeing telepathic symbols, are just difficult to interpret at times.

Let's say that the spirit wanted to reference the fact that towards the end, he and his wife could not even enjoy a nice hug between them, and this was important to them, because they used to hug a lot.

How would he convey that message to JE? Perhaps he showed JE an image of two people hugging, with a big "X" going through it, to indicate that. Can't you see how JE might interpret that as meaning that he just was not a hugger in life?

So come on, voidx. You can't really say with impugnity, as you did, that he got it completely wrong to begin with. That's not being quite fair......neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
You are probably the best judge of that, TLN. ;) .....neo

Actually, I would be the worst judge of that.

[Garrette]

Neo,

I'm not trying to be vicious, but this is just silly:

Perhaps he showed JE an image of two people hugging, with a big "X" going through it,

Spirits can put a bix X through an image, but they can't spell a name?

This is apologetics at its finest...or worst.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
TLN, that is the cold-reading done by Neil that I referred to in my other post. The one that he did on-line, over a few days, with some internet research. That is not a spontaneous reading done right on the spot as JE does his readings, so it is hardly comparable to one of his......neo

Your argument is invalid: You dismiss this reading, because you know how it was done. You don't know how JE does his readings. You have to judge them from the transcripts alone.

If you did not know how the reading what done, could you point out what the difference is between this reading and a JE-reading?

[Archangel]

Originally posted by Clancie
no spirit established bringing through the "information"

Clancie, you may have answered this before, but what do you mean by this?

I assume you mean that the Reader doesnt give a name to the spirit that is allegedly coming through, because he does say
"READER: The spirits are giving me mixed messages... ".

I havent watched "CO" in well over 12 months, but Im almost positive that there have been cases where JE hasnt named the spirit (ie he has given out initials that havent been "validated" as being the spirits)

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

Actually, I would be the worst judge of that (my own open mindedness).
Hmmm, TLN, are you saying that if others perceived you as not being open-minded about this, you wouldn't dispute it?
Posted by Archangel

Clancie, you may have answered this before, but what do you mean by this ("no spirit established bringing through the "information")

I assume you mean that the Reader doesnt give a name to the spirit that is allegedly coming through, because he does say
"READER: The spirits are giving me mixed messages... ".

I havent watched "CO" in well over 12 months, but Im almost positive that there have been cases where JE hasnt named the spirit (ie he has given out initials that havent been "validated" as being the spirits)?
It's not just the lack of a name, Archangel (and "welcome!" :) ). There is no spirit identification.

No, I don't consider it adequate for any medium to say "I'm getting spirits with you telling me...." Or "there's an older lady, just slightly stout as with age, with shortish graying hair...Do you know who that is, please?"

There is nothing evidential in the above at all. All Neil did was say "I've got spirits here" then go on to give a psychic cold reading, i.e. "This is you and your life."

No spirit connection was established at all.

[voidx]

Originally posted by neofight
Voidx, there was no screw up about the color of the rose. They are completely different symbols that JE gets. When he saw the red rose, to him it meant that someone's wedding anniversary or anniversary of a death was referenced. The woman acknowledged this, and said that that very day was her wedding anniversary. Thats what a red rose symbolizes to JE, as opposed to a white rose which stands for a birthday.

The bouquet of pink roses, however, is just a symbol of love that the spirit energy offers to their loved one. Sometimes JE sees these roses with thorns on their stems, which indicates that in life, the spirit was not really capable of expressing that love in a demonstrative way, for whatever reason.
This is a tad ridiculous. Firstly he's said to be "acknowledging" a red rose. Now I suppose you think this means that he's acknowledging the red rose symbol of JE's as a symbol for birthday/wedding anniversary/recent death. Well gee that sure is vague and covers a lot of ground. And how exactly do spirits know JE's symbol system? Do they get JE symbol translation books? Or is this again all part of the magically vague "process" of telepathy mediumship? In this case JE says the spirit is acknowledging a red rose, so that would inidicate JE showed him a red rose, and he acknowledged it as the JE symbol du jour he is trying to get across. So I guess my question is, when the spirit comes through, how does it know a red rose means birthday/anniversary/recent death to JE? And if they just give the birthday/anniversary/recent death to JE, how does his "mediumship" translate this into red roses? How does it know what connects with what?

Short on time, but wanted to at least address that one point.

Oh all right. Maybe just one more........ ;)

Okay. I guess you could look at it like that, voidx. But should JE be a real medium, it's also possible that what he says is true, and these messages, which he gets by seeing telepathic symbols, are just difficult to interpret at times.
Sure its a possibility, but even you can't deny that my way of looking at it is entirely more likely. I've been given nothing, absolutely nothing except hearsay of mediums that this process of communication is difficult, I'm sorry, I'm not buying it until you can show me something more convincing.

Let's say that the spirit wanted to reference the fact that towards the end, he and his wife could not even enjoy a nice hug between them, and this was important to them, because they used to hug a lot.
Just so we don't forget, this information was provided entirely by the sitter, just a reminder.

How would he convey that message to JE? Perhaps he showed JE an image of two people hugging, with a big "X" going through it, to indicate that. Can't you see how JE might interpret that as meaning that he just was not a hugger in life?
Are you actually serious? This is the most ridiculous thing I think I've heard yet I'm sorry. Hears an idea, why not show a woman trying to hug a man on a hospital bed, and he cringes in pain when she tries and she looks sad because of it. Gee, wouldn't that have been so much easier? How would showing that be harder, or less possible than this silly 2 hugging people with an X over them idea? If spirits can go to those lengths of imagery, why not show the scene I depicted above? Any explanation? I'm thoroughly unconvinced of the difficulty of this process of communication still, sorry.

So come on, voidx. You can't really say with impugnity, as you did, that he got it completely wrong to begin with. That's not being quite fair......neo
I refuse to give JE slack here. He guessed. What did he guess? What did he say? "He wasn't a big hugger?" this is a very definite statement, and it was completely wrong. He didn't say, "he is telling me something about not being able to hug you, or not liking hugging because of pain?". No he said he didn't like hugs, and this statement is wrong. I'm being quite fair in my opinion. I'll perhaps even concede that the rose colours are part of some vague JE symbol process of mediumship, although I find it inconsistent and rather ridiculous, but this above example is a clear out and out miss. Any attempt to see it differently in my opinion is as mentioned, apologetics.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Clancie
It's not just the lack of a name, Archangel (and "welcome!" :) ). There is no spirit identification.

No, I don't consider it adequate for any medium to say "I'm getting spirits with you telling me...." Or "there's an older lady, just slightly stout as with age, with shortish graying hair...Do you know who that is, please?"

There is nothing evidential in the above at all. All Neil did was say "I've got spirits here" then go on to give a psychic cold reading, i.e. "This is you and your life."

No spirit connection was established at all.
Well, of course no spirit connection established. He was cold reading, not dialing the dead. But isn't this just a matter of style here? If he had included a "spirit identification", would the reading have been any different?

[Clancie]

Posted by Thanz

Well, of course no spirit connection established. He was cold reading, not dialing the dead. But isn't this just a matter of style here? If he had included a "spirit identification", would the reading have been any different?
Of course it would be different, Thanz. "Spirit identification" is the key to mediumship (or to "cold reading demonstrations just like JE").

In the opinion of many here, JE is just a cold reader, too, like Neil. The point is, whether cold reading or not, if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship (or fake mediumship).

Its not a question of style at all. It is the key difference between mediumship and a "psychic" reading/cold reading.

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, of course no spirit connection established. He was cold reading, not dialing the dead. But isn't this just a matter of style here? If he had included a "spirit identification", would the reading have been any different?

Good point, Thanz.

Originally posted by Clancie

Of course it would be different, Thanz. "Spirit identification" is the key to mediumship (or to "cold reading demonstrations just like JE").

In the opinion of many here, JE is just a cold reader, too, like Neil. The point is, whether cold reading or not, if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship (or fake mediumship).

Its not a question of style at all. It is the key difference between mediumship and a "psychic" reading/cold reading.

There are some JE readings when no spirit connection is established. One example

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


All JE is saying "They' re showing me". No spirit communicator established. Not mediumship

[Darat]

mshipOriginally posted by Clancie

Of course it would be different, Thanz. "Spirit identification" is the key to mediumship (or to "cold reading demonstrations just like JE").

In the opinion of many here, JE is just a cold reader, too, like Neil. The point is, whether cold reading or not, if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship (or fake mediumship).

Its not a question of style at all. It is the key difference between mediumship and a "psychic" reading/cold reading.

Clancie - what rates as "spirit identification"? It would seem to me that in a lot of CO's I've seen it is the person who is being read that supplies the "identification", which is exactly what I'd expect to see from a "cold reader".

Looking at the LK transcripts - do you see "mediumship" there?

(Sorry for being a bit of a hit and run poster but very (busy at the moment.)

[Leroy]

Originally posted by voidx
[B]He comes out with a street party/feast/fair, and won't let it go. Something HE planned or was a part of-------------------------------------------- Street party/fair/festival that YOU were a part of, YOU planned. Any excuse as to why his process of mediumship confused who was a part of this festival, or who may have planned it?

In the actual show, that was spoken of as something John wasn't sure about, first he said "Did he do this, or was he involved with this?" than he said, "HE PLANNED?" or "YOU PLANNED? as questions, which in my opinion opens the door wider by putting both HE and SHE, in there. It gives it a bigger chance of being validated. But, I think it's risky for a cold reader to say "planned street party" not too many of us PLAN street parties.


She didn't plan it that we know of, and we don't know that she was a PART of it, she may have merely attended the parade.

True, and most of us attend a parade at least once a year.


Heres another disingenious bit in this reading. JE comes out stating he's getting a male figure, sitter provides the dead husband info, but no name. Then JE fishes out Anthony and gets a hit, then he says the following:

What do you mean "Fishes out" he didn't fish for that name, he stated it matter of factly, "John: (looking askance) I'm gonna disagree with ya! (laughter) Where's Anthony?" "Woman: Anthony's my brother, passed."

No fishing there, probably a lucky guess, or prior investigation?


Now explain to me that if he's already established that he's talking with the woman's dead husband, and the spirit should seamingly have caught this as information as well, why does the spirit ask her to acknowledge him by a nickname? Their asking me to acknowledge Ralph

Ralph was what he was called, not Frank. His friends didn't call him Frank they called him Ralph, short for his last name Raphaeli. If my fathers name was Robert, but all of his life he was called Bob, I'd be suspicious if JE said "Robert is coming through"

"JE was fishing for another person named Ralph, he was not expecting it to be the validated spirits nickname."

How do you know he wasn't expectiong it to be validated? If he did prior research [ I say IF ] than he may have known the mans last name was Raphaeli, and Ralph was a good shortened version to use. He may have had inside info also that they nicknamed him Ralph. When you say JE wasn't expecting the name to be validated, you confuse me, how would you know what JE expected or didn't expect?

He's putting a big "V" over the family which means that somebody has the "V" name, okay?

To a believer this may seem like a hit. A "V" name!, but notice he leaves it open to the entire family, he doesn't say the immediate family, he say's the family. I bet if we search we can all find someone in the family with a V name. I can think of two as I type this, in my family.

Now the roses are pink.

A red rose marked their anniversary, [which was clear in the episode] pink roses meant love, if I remember the show correctly. They always showed him pink roses to express their love to the living, even if they never gave a rose in their lifetime :roll: in this show, he said that he was showing him a red rose which meant an anniversary of something, [their anniversary was that day] then he was showing pink roses to express his love. Even if their anniversary had not been that day people who believe would still say it fit because they had an anniversary sometime during the year, so JE can't lose with that one either.

[QUOTE]
Then he fishes out that the guy hated hugs, wrong, he loved hugs. Then he goes off on a bunch of tripe about her not getting to hug him goodbye, he covers his ass here by mentioning its not the big regret, just one of many potential regrets of things she didn't get to do before he passed. Then JE gives her a hug, plays to the crowd and the emotions and guess what, no one probably even remembers that he got it completely wrong to begin with.[/QUOTE}

I agree, that was way off base.