Log in

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


Pages : 1 2 [3]

Leroy
30th September 2003, 09:25 AM
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

I have to agree with Neo on this one. To do a real comparison we would need to have unedited tapes of readings done by both parties. Readings that were done in front of an audience.

neofight
30th September 2003, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by voidx

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?

Voidx, I have to say something to you that I'm afraid you will take the wrong way, so I'll preface my response by saying that I truly mean no disrespect whatsoever. I'm just being frank, okay?

Reading your above comments, I realize that there is absolutely no sense trying to discuss this subject with you because there is just too much about mediumship and the way it's professed to work, that you know nothing about.

Now, that does not mean that you have to agree with everything a believer says, or that you have to buy into the idea that there is anything real about mediumship, because that would not be necessary in order to discuss it intelligently.

What I am trying to say, however, is that unless you at least have a elementary grasp of how the process is supposed to work, regardless of whether or not you accept the concept, it's impossible to debate it with you.

I would respectfully suggest that if you are interested in discussing this topic, you go to the library and get some sort of a primer on mediumship, JE's "One Last Time" or anything else that would bring you up to speed on how a mental medium like JE gets images which he then has to interpret into messages for the sitter. This book would answer just about all of the questions that you asked above.

I'm assuming that those questions are sincere on your part and that you would really like to know the answers to them, although I admit that your referring to these symbols as "ridiculous" might indicate otherwise. In any case, if you simply want to call them ridiculous, and have no desire to look further into what it is that mediums claim to do, then what can I say?

And, btw, I believe that birthdays are represented by a "white" rose, not a "red" one. ;) ......neo

Leroy
30th September 2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by NeoSteve, 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

Are they believers in mediumship, skeptics, or in-between?

Originally posted by Garrette - Spirits can put a bix X through an image, but they can't spell a name?

That is a good point.

renata
30th September 2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


Are they believers in mediumship, skeptics, or in-between?





Leroy,

Mark Tidwell and Lurker are skeptics. SteveGrenard is a believer in some types of mediumship. I do know they went to seminars, but do not recall their individual impressions of them, perhaps it is best to ask them to comment on their impressions. Another person who went to a seminar is Instig8r. I asked her in this thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27590 Just so you know, one of the readings is very contentious on this board, and there is a lot of disagreement between Neo and Instig8r who were at the same seminar as to how much editing went on. It is not my intentions to stir it up, but you might as well know that not everybody comes out of the seminar with the same opinion! You have been warned :)

Here are my questions, just to begin with
-of the seminar readindgs, how many were televised for CO
-how extensive was the editing?
-how did the seminar readings compare to LKL or CO? What were they closer to?
-were you allowed to bring an audio recorder in?


This is what she said


-of the seminar readings, several were televised for CO. The two that I have seen were "Malibu Shrimp" and "Girls Gone Wild".

-how extensive was the editing: The "Malibu Shrimp" reading was drastically edited, but the "Girls Gone Wild" reading was not significantly edited. (It was a reading of 4 sisters whose mom died of ovarian cancer -- although JE incorrectly called out for breast cancer, he allowed them to claim the reading.)

-seminar readings compared to LKL or CO: The Malibu Shrimp reading prior to editing was very comparable to a LKL reading (if not worse). The Girls Gone Wild reading was very comparable to a big family reading in the CO Gallery, because JE had lots of sisters to claim initials, significant dates, etc.

-No audio recorders could be brought into the seminar -- There were actually handbag searches -- and the audio quality would not have been good anyway.

Lurker
30th September 2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by neofight

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.



Neo, I would not mention Neil's Internet searches as something derogatory about his reading. Remember the Internet search he did came up with the dog reference which turned out to be a miss. Thus, his cold reading was not helped in any way by using the Internet and actually hurt his reading.

Just trying to clear the air so nobody thinks otherwise.

Lurker

voidx
30th September 2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by neofight


Voidx, I have to say something to you that I'm afraid you will take the wrong way, so I'll preface my response by saying that I truly mean no disrespect whatsoever. I'm just being frank, okay?

Reading your above comments, I realize that there is absolutely no sense trying to discuss this subject with you because there is just too much about mediumship and the way it's professed to work, that you know nothing about.

Now, that does not mean that you have to agree with everything a believer says, or that you have to buy into the idea that there is anything real about mediumship, because that would not be necessary in order to discuss it intelligently.

What I am trying to say, however, is that unless you at least have a elementary grasp of how the process is supposed to work, regardless of whether or not you accept the concept, it's impossible to debate it with you.

I would respectfully suggest that if you are interested in discussing this topic, you go to the library and get some sort of a primer on mediumship, JE's "One Last Time" or anything else that would bring you up to speed on how a mental medium like JE gets images which he then has to interpret into messages for the sitter. This book would answer just about all of the questions that you asked above.

I'm assuming that those questions are sincere on your part and that you would really like to know the answers to them, although I admit that your referring to these symbols as "ridiculous" might indicate otherwise. In any case, if you simply want to call them ridiculous, and have no desire to look further into what it is that mediums claim to do, then what can I say?

And, btw, I believe that birthdays are represented by a "white" rose, not a "red" one. ;) ......neo
Firstly, nice job of concentrating on one point of my reply, while ignoring all the others. I realize how the symbols works, the problem being is that I'm looking in depth to see why they work or how. Yes when a spirit brings across anniversary JE gets the mental frame of reference of a red rose, when its love its pink, birthday white, yah got it, and actually Leroy was much more helpful in clarifying that than yourself. Regardless, I understand that he gets symbols in his frame of reference, its not rocket science. My problem being is, how is all this achieved? You probably think I'm way overthinking this, but if this is a real process then it should make sense, and you having read his books should be able to shed some light for me. Does the spirit consciously know that when they send JE the message of anniversary that he will see a red rose? Do they send him the message for anniversary, or do they send him the red rose? Do the spirits do all the communicating then? From all I've seen it appears so, they show stuff to JE and he interprets it for them, can he do nothing to prompt them back? If its a form of communication I don't see why not. What stops this from happening if anything, do you know yourself? Yes, I've been told many times to go educate myself by buying John's book and boning up on what he says the process is, but I've got a good grasp of the basics, more than enough to debate with you on here. So my above questions, can you answer them being someone who has read his books? Can you also answer my question regarding your hypothetical hugging people crossed out example? You chide me above for not knowing the "process" so explain to me why my scenario could not have been pictured, and why you think yours could have.

CFLarsen
30th September 2003, 10:14 AM
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.

This is factually wrong. It doesn't matter if you claim there is no spirit communication, because there is! Neil gets "D-N", a dead relative.

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.

So, Neil was doing a psychic reading? In the LKL example, JE was doing a psychic reading?

Lurker
30th September 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by neofight

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

I had expected there to be a lot more misses in the live seminar that I attended. But there were still plenty of misses and really no "special hits".

I went into the seminar very, very skeptical. I came out skeptical. I still think JE is a fraud but I am a bit less sure of my conclusion and would like to see more corroboration either way.

My wife went in a believer and now she is a skeptic. Funny that, huh?

Lurker

neofight
30th September 2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Lurker


Neo, I would not mention Neil's Internet searches as something derogatory about his reading. Remember the Internet search he did came up with the dog reference which turned out to be a miss. Thus, his cold reading was not helped in any way by using the Internet and actually hurt his reading.

Just trying to clear the air so nobody thinks otherwise.

Lurker

Understood, Lurker. I was just pointing out the differences between the two. I think the two formats were too different to make true comparisons is all. :) ......neo

voidx
30th September 2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
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.
Yes and as I've said I think sometimes JE does take a risk, with the way many people dismiss his misses its perhaps not as risky as we might think for him to take a chance on something, and to note, in this case, it did NOT pay off, she, nor he had anything to do with the planning that we know of.

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?
I could have used a better term, what I meant is he just threw the name out there, and got a hit.

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"
Your missing my point. I realize his friends called him Ralph based on his last name. This is what I'm getting at. At the start of the reading JE goes:
...snip...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?
and the sitter replies:
Woman: Um hmm, husband.
ok? So we've established that this male spirit is likely her dead husband. Now I know you want to further validate this with a name, but technically the spirit would see that his wife accepted the communication with JE so I don't see why if this process is real he would go about trying to give his nickname. Now. The spirit gives him the name of her dead brother, why, who knows. She validates it for JE and tells him its her dead brother, and THEN JE says, cuz he's there with Anthony. Now again why the spirit didn't make this obvious in the first place is beyond me but whatever. Then JE says this:

John: Anthony's here with him, because he's telling me to acknowledge Anthony. And Ralph.[quote]
If I'm a spirit, and my name is Tim and this is me talking to JE in this scenario I wouldn't say, "Anthony's with me and would you please acknowledge Anthony and Tim." I'd likely say ,"Anthony an myself", since my wife has already guessed its her dead husband (me) and she's already gotten my miscilaneous clue of her dead brothers name. Call it semantics if you like, but to me that doesn't read like the spirit meant the second name to be connected to himself.

[quote]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?
Lazy typing on my part then, add "I wouldn't think JE..." in front of it. To me that sentence just doesn't read like the second name was meant for the spirit, it looked to me like he was just tossing out a second name, whoever it might belong too. I agree that if he had prior knowledge of the last name that would make this easy to dismiss, but while not being able to rule that possibility out, I also cannot assume it too strongly either.

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.[quote]
I got that the "V" over the family meant a "V" name in the family. I reread this part of the reading. JE referred to the family of 7 only, it was the sitter that then said, yes, I'm 1 of 7, but there's no "V" meaning none of her siblings had "V" names. JE didn't relate the "V" to the 1 of 7, so my mistake. But yes I agree, its very broad to toss a single letter out for a whole family.

[quote]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.
Yes this became clear to me after re-reading the transcript, and your post. Although I still question how the base of this frame of reference type of communication works.

CFLarsen
30th September 2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by neofight
Understood, Lurker. I was just pointing out the differences between the two. I think the two formats were too different to make true comparisons is all. :) ......neo

Wrong. You cannot rule out Neil's reading solely because you know how it was done. You don't know how JE does his readings, so it would be very unfair of you to dismiss Neil's reading because of this.

We have to look at the readings as they are. What, then, is the difference?

neofight
30th September 2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by voidx

Firstly, nice job of concentrating on one point of my reply, while ignoring all the others.

Sorry, voidx. I kind of purposely didn't address all of what you wrote, because frankly, I felt like.....where would I begin?

But okay, that being said, I'll try to address some of what you asked then, but I just made a couple of lengthy posts, and I really got some other things to do today. lol

Anyhow, okay, since you say you do understand how the symbols work, that he is shown images of things within his own frame of reference, (not rocket science, true, but a bit esoteric none-the-less) let's see what else you are asking here......

Okay, you ask how is this all achieved? Well, as far as I remember, and Clancie can jump in here and correct me if I get anything wrong, it is, indeed, the spirits who are letting John know what they want to reference.

John has talked about this, and he says that some spirits seem to be stronger energies, and are better at conveying messages than other spirits. Kind of like here on earth. Some people can just communicate better than others.

He's also said that his own spirit guides, whom he refers to as "the boys" are helpful in deciding which images to send to JE, from within the "file cabinet" of his own life experences and knowledge of pop culture etc.

Does the spirit consciously know that when they send JE the message of anniversary that he will see a red rose? Do they send him the message for anniversary, or do they send him the red rose?

Not to presume that I know definitively one way or another, voidx, I believe, as I stated above, that they probably are helped by JE's guides in this respect, so it makes sense that the spirits who are connected to people other than JE, probably send him thoughts about what they want to say, and that is somehow translated into something that JE can relate to and understand.

.....can he do nothing to prompt them back? If its a form of communication I don't see why not. What stops this from happening if anything, do you know yourself?

From everything that I've heard JE say, voidx, I'd have to say that yes, he can and does do his best, telepathically, to prompt them. Oftentimes when the sitter appears to be stuck, and is having trouble identifying a spirit energy, or validating some piece of information, John says that he does mentally ask them to give him something more to help clear the "logjam", and more often than not, they do that, and the reading then progresses.

Can you also answer my question regarding your hypothetical hugging people crossed out example? You chide me above for not knowing the "process" so explain to me why my scenario could not have been pictured, and why you think yours could have.

Okay, I'll do my best. Most of the time, from everything I've ever heard John say, he does not have visions. That is, he does not actually have a "video-like" insight into the memories and experiences of other people, alive or dead. He only can envision his own past, and scenes from movies, references from books, music, plays, life etc. So, unless he can be shown, say a scene from a movie that he saw, and remembered, where, as you describe, "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."

Unless John actually has a similar memory on which he can draw, voidx, this would seem to be quite a complicated image for a spirit to convey to him. Would it have been so much easier for him to understand if this were possible? Of course. But from everything I hear about this process, "easy" is not one of the words I ever hear thrown around.

As far as my hypothetical "still" image of two people hugging with an "X" superimposed over it, the reason I said that was because I do remember John once describing some image, I do not remember what it was, with a big "X" over it. So, although John did not specify what he actually saw in this particular case, I was just speculating on what it might have been.

I hope that helped, voidx, and again, I really did not mean to blow off your questions earlier. I just thought from my cursory reading of your post, that you were a bit under-informed about the subject, and it was not worth my while to engage with you on those points. Perhaps that was not the case. :) ......neo

Archangel
30th September 2003, 02:42 PM
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. [/B]

Ok I dont want to be pedantic about this (I dont think the forum needs another Claus or TBK), but what is the difference between that and:

CALLER: Hello?
EDWARD: Hello.
KING: Hello.
CALLER: Good. How are you doing, John?
EDWARD: I'm doing good.
CALLER: Good. I'm just seeing if you can connect with anything?
EDWARD: The first thing -- actually, a couple of things. Somebody's got a nickname after a spice, like pepper?
CALLER: I'm sorry?
EDWARD: Somebody has a nickname after a spice, like pepper? Who's got a spice name?
CALLER: Spice name? Don't know.
EDWARD: Salty or pepper, cinnamon.
CALLER: Oh, my dog.
EDWARD: OK. What's the name?
CALLER: Her name is Ginger.
EDWARD: Has that dog passed?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK. Then you got that dog after somebody passed. Because they're making me feel like I need to bring up the dog, because they're bringing up the spice name. I'm also going to tell you that -- I think what I'm supposed to tell you is that there is either there's a boyfriend who passed for you, or a husband that's passed for you. But I don't feel it now.


Which is an excerpt from Renatas thread on JEs LKL appearance (taken from here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032&highlight=ginger))

In this reading JE doesnt mention that he is getting "spirit energies", and the "energy" he appears to get is actually a living dog, and in the reading itself he doesnt actually refer to bringing through anyone who is deceased (although he does reference "the energy" as mentioning a male to the callers side).

So the argument that you seem to be making (and I may be wrong here) is either;

1) that Neil was an admitted cold reader and thus didnt have "spirit energies" coming through, but JE claims to be a medium, thus unless it can be proven that he is cold reading/hot reading, he really is getting "spirit energies" and should be given the benefit of the doubt in his readings?
or
2) that JE is really a medium, but his "powers" come and go and so he needs to fill in his readings with some Cold Reading?

If its the former, why should JE get this benefit of the doubt? if its the latter, how do we distinguish between his Cold Reading and his "powers" especially when they look so similar?

btw thanks for the welcome.

voidx
30th September 2003, 02:59 PM
2) that JE is really a medium, but his "powers" come and go and so he needs to fill in his readings with some Cold Reading?
Good point. We've seen many examples of JE resembling cold-reading, in the LKL transcripts in particular. However I rather doubt it will be admitted that its a possibility he's filling in with cold-reading. Its always suggested that the LKL format is not conducive for good JE readings, so its not his fault yah know. I would actually give believers more credit if they subscribed to an opinion like the one above. "Ok that one was obviously nothing special, he probably just cold-read on that one, but this one over here I think is special".

voidx
30th September 2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by neofight
Sorry, voidx. I kind of purposely didn't address all of what you wrote, because frankly, I felt like.....where would I begin?

But okay, that being said, I'll try to address some of what you asked then, but I just made a couple of lengthy posts, and I really got some other things to do today. lol

Anyhow, okay, since you say you do understand how the symbols work, that he is shown images of things within his own frame of reference, (not rocket science, true, but a bit esoteric none-the-less) let's see what else you are asking here......

Okay, you ask how is this all achieved? Well, as far as I remember, and Clancie can jump in here and correct me if I get anything wrong, it is, indeed, the spirits who are letting John know what they want to reference.

John has talked about this, and he says that some spirits seem to be stronger energies, and are better at conveying messages than other spirits. Kind of like here on earth. Some people can just communicate better than others.

He's also said that his own spirit guides, whom he refers to as "the boys" are helpful in deciding which images to send to JE, from within the "file cabinet" of his own life experences and knowledge of pop culture etc.
The problem with how strong a person's communication is usually has very little to do with how they physically communicate, its usually a problem of what they communicate that makes someone better at communication than another. I still fail to see how this explains any of his "I'm getting a G connection, Garry, Gene, George?" tidbits. I know you have no way of answering this, you only have JE's take on it, but it does not make a bunch of sense that the spirit should have this amount of difficulty relaying a name or what have you to JE.

Not to presume that I know definitively one way or another, voidx, I believe, as I stated above, that they probably are helped by JE's guides in this respect, so it makes sense that the spirits who are connected to people other than JE, probably send him thoughts about what they want to say, and that is somehow translated into something that JE can relate to and understand.
So its your tentative position then that either the spirits themselves, or spirits that act as guides on JE's behalf choose the frame of reference that JE gets, so rather than pass on information about a birthday, they pass on the white rose to him, knowing he'll know what its to signify correct? If not the spirits then what does the translating, this isn't clear. And it appears you're not super clear on how it is achieved either, which is what I was trying to get at all along.

From everything that I've heard JE say, voidx, I'd have to say that yes, he can and does do his best, telepathically, to prompt them. Oftentimes when the sitter appears to be stuck, and is having trouble identifying a spirit energy, or validating some piece of information, John says that he does mentally ask them to give him something more to help clear the "logjam", and more often than not, they do that, and the reading then progresses.
Any example at all where JE acknowledges that he is indeed prompting the spirits for additional, or rather, clear references? I've never seen an inkling of this in the LKL appearances and transcripts I've seen so far. One would think there'd be one example of him going, "I'm having some trouble with their references, I'm asking them for something more clear...hold on...yes, I'm getting blahblahblah". He does it all in his head and never acknowledges that he does so except when asked about it later, I find this odd.

Okay, I'll do my best. Most of the time, from everything I've ever heard John say, he does not have visions. That is, he does not actually have a "video-like" insight into the memories and experiences of other people, alive or dead. He only can envision his own past, and scenes from movies, references from books, music, plays, life etc. So, unless he can be shown, say a scene from a movie that he saw, and remembered, where, as you describe, "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."
Yes we've been over his frame of reference thing before and I'm quite clear on it, but it seemed like you weren't following this when you mentioned your example.

Unless John actually has a similar memory on which he can draw, voidx, this would seem to be quite a complicated image for a spirit to convey to him. Would it have been so much easier for him to understand if this were possible? Of course. But from everything I hear about this process, "easy" is not one of the words I ever hear thrown around.
I'm sure some movie reference/book section/play/life experience could easily be put together to create a mostly coherent recreation of this event. At the very least something could have been given to him that would have been clearer than him interpreting, "He wasn't a big hugger?" which was completely wrong.

As far as my hypothetical "still" image of two people hugging with an "X" superimposed over it, the reason I said that was because I do remember John once describing some image, I do not remember what it was, with a big "X" over it. So, although John did not specify what he actually saw in this particular case, I was just speculating on what it might have been.
Ahhh but he would have had to have some frame of reference for the superimposed "X". Are you then assuming that somewhere in his life experience JE has come across a "No hugging" sign depicting to people hugging and then crossed out? Come on, as complicated as mine might seem, it'd be easier to reference than what you suggest in your hypothetical situation, why not just admit that he most likely was just completely wrong in this instance.

neofight
30th September 2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Archangel

In this reading JE doesnt mention that he is getting "spirit energies", and the "energy" he appears to get is actually a living dog, and in the reading itself he doesnt actually refer to bringing through anyone who is deceased (although he does reference "the energy" as mentioning a male to the callers side).


Hello, Archangel! :) Actually, if you look both at the beginning of the reading, and the end, it appears that JE is initially getting two pieces of information. Here are the two quotes......

EDWARD: The first thing -- actually, a couple of things. Somebody's got a nickname after a spice, like pepper?

AND......

EDWARD: OK. Then you got that dog after somebody passed. Because they're making me feel like I need to bring up the dog, because they're bringing up the spice name. I'm also going to tell you that -- I think what I'm supposed to tell you is that there is either there's a boyfriend who passed for you, or a husband that's passed for you. But I don't feel it now.

Here's how I understand what occurred. John began the reading, and it looks like he got the sense of a male figure to the side, either husband or boyfriend, AND he was getting something about a "spice" name. Those are the two things that he referenced.

He was probably not necessarily expecting that the spice name had to do with a dog, so when the sitter finally connected the spice name with her dog, he got distracted by that, asking if the dog was living etc., and by then he was losing the connection with the spirit energy. He mentioned it anyway, but it looks like nothing else was coming through by then.

BTW, several times now I have seen John get names of pets, without knowing that it's a pet name. And he's right, from the many times it's happened on "CO", the spirit energy will often times make a mention of a pet that has been acquired after they passed, just to acknowledge that they see what is going on around their family.....neo

Ed
30th September 2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by neofight


BTW, several times now I have seen John get names of pets, without knowing that it's a pet name. And he's right, from the many times it's happened on "CO", the spirit energy will often times make a mention of a pet that has been acquired after they passed, just to acknowledge that they see what is going on around their family.....neo

That is to say that the mark fills in the blanks, no?

Jeff Corey
30th September 2003, 04:32 PM
Fact. Edward has been proven to do hot reading. Tony the cameraman.
Fact: His cold reading is cheesey when given no feedback. Larry King.
And I'm getting an M or a N and what does the number seven mean?

Iamme
30th September 2003, 06:20 PM
Everybody has a right to their opinion. I guess J.E. hasn't been caught OFTEN enough, or it is contested...whether or not he was ever caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so to speak. JE was tested at U of A with other noted mediums and was considered to have done respectably well, I guess.

So, what do we have to go on that is of concrete proof and requires no anecdotal evidence: The shows own disclaimer. It ends by saying that the show is not even INTENDED to be a factual statement in any way, and is for entertainment purposes only. And, that third parties have been relied upon, heavily. HELLO!!!!! Anybody home?

That's not much less than the show saying that the show is a put on. We have argued this disclaimer. Believers believe that it is necessary. *I* believe they could have said that the intent of the show is real, but that JE, the producers, network, etc. are not liable for any interpretations derived from the readings. But NOOOOOOO....they have to tell us it's not even INTENDED to be factual statement!

How can you argue on JE's behalf when they tell you right out, that....oh, forget it.

SteveGrenard
30th September 2003, 07:16 PM
Who are the third parties?

Garrette
30th September 2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by neofight

What I am trying to say, however, is that unless you at least have a elementary grasp of how the process is supposed to work, regardless of whether or not you accept the concept, it's impossible to debate it with you.

Neo, I know you posted this for Voidx, but I'm going to jump in.

I disagree. (sooprize sooprize sooprize...)

Voidx (I think) and I (I know) might refer to 'the process' to indicate that your descriptions of it are inconsistent, but the thrust of our arguments is that the result is not what you or JE claim it to be.

Imagine for a moment that we're married (but don't imagine too deeply--I am really extremely cute while simultaneously being devastatingly handsome) and that the plumbing is broke. We hire a new plumber, conveniently named JE, to fix the pipes because there is no water coming out of the tap.

"Wife" sez I. "Wife, this plumber has not plumbed at all, there are but a few drops coming from the tap, and they come exceeding slow and unpredictable."

"But, husband," sez you, "unless you've looked at the pipes and seen the flow from the main line under the street, then memorized the inventory of JE's tools in his little red box, you can't possibly understand how he actually has plumbed."

"Nonsense, woman. He said he could make water flow normally from the tap, and it isn't happening. He's a fraud. A non-plumber. Sure, he carries a monkeywrench, and sure he can point to the main feed coming into the house, but there is no water flowing from the tap!"

"Yes there is, husband. You admitted yourself there are a few drops."

"Nemmind."


----

Process is irrelevant. What does he claim to do? Does he do it?

I think I'll ask this question in another thread; you and Clancie are perhaps the only two who can help get it started. Hope you'll join.

CFLarsen
30th September 2003, 09:26 PM
neofight,

Where in the Ginger reading does spirit communication occur?

renata
30th September 2003, 11:49 PM
I located additional JE readings where, at least according to my untrained eye, I could not locate an identified spirit, no evidence presented for a specific communicator, but rather a more general "they" for the spirits. Is he still doing mediumship in those readings?





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


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

voidx
1st October 2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Garrette


Neo, I know you posted this for Voidx, but I'm going to jump in.

I disagree. (sooprize sooprize sooprize...)

Voidx (I think) and I (I know) might refer to 'the process' to indicate that your descriptions of it are inconsistent, but the thrust of our arguments is that the result is not what you or JE claim it to be.

Imagine for a moment that we're married (but don't imagine too deeply--I am really extremely cute while simultaneously being devastatingly handsome) and that the plumbing is broke. We hire a new plumber, conveniently named JE, to fix the pipes because there is no water coming out of the tap.

"Wife" sez I. "Wife, this plumber has not plumbed at all, there are but a few drops coming from the tap, and they come exceeding slow and unpredictable."

"But, husband," sez you, "unless you've looked at the pipes and seen the flow from the main line under the street, then memorized the inventory of JE's tools in his little red box, you can't possibly understand how he actually has plumbed."

"Nonsense, woman. He said he could make water flow normally from the tap, and it isn't happening. He's a fraud. A non-plumber. Sure, he carries a monkeywrench, and sure he can point to the main feed coming into the house, but there is no water flowing from the tap!"

"Yes there is, husband. You admitted yourself there are a few drops."

"Nemmind."


----

Process is irrelevant. What does he claim to do? Does he do it?

I think I'll ask this question in another thread; you and Clancie are perhaps the only two who can help get it started. Hope you'll join.
I agree with this post although at times I do indeed concetrate more on the specifics of the process as I find people just assume it works and is consistent and fine, and there have been many examples where I've thought this wasn't so. No one really bothered trying to clarify for me in another thread (will have to find the link) about my questions of how clairaudience specifically works, when you think about it, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. But yes JE makes claims as to what he does, and if he isn't doing them on a consistent basis, then that's a problem. To me he's not coming through with these big special hits I always hear about.

voidx
1st October 2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by renata
I located additional JE readings where, at least according to my untrained eye, I could not locate an identified spirit, no evidence presented for a specific communicator, but rather a more general "they" for the spirits. Is he still doing mediumship in those readings?
Dead on Renata, as far as I can tell. JE does not validate or identify a specific spirit entity in either of these readings. Clancie, I'd be curious to hear your explanation for this. Also note in the second reading, a sitter asks a specific question, wanting an answer. JE avoids it entirely. I'd be curious to tally this as well. For every specific question JE is presented with by the sitter, how many times does he even attempt to answer it, and how many times does he avoid it completely. Its obvious why he would avoid it, because missing the answer on such a question would outweigh any benefit of getting it right I would think. He plays it safe and floats "spirit communication difficulties". Also another example of his imagery. He couldn't explain it any better than outside fire, a fire thing? This is as clear an image as he frame of reference could provide? What possible message would they be trying to get across? I'm finding that people spend a huge amount of time seeing how the imagery either fits or doesn't fit for the sitter, but sometimes you need to take a step back and just look at the imagery he's describing and ask, "what the hell?".

renata
1st October 2003, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by voidx

I agree with this post although at times I do indeed concetrate more on the specifics of the process as I find people just assume it works and is consistent and fine, and there have been many examples where I've thought this wasn't so. No one really bothered trying to clarify for me in another thread (will have to find the link) about my questions of how clairaudience specifically works, when you think about it, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. But yes JE makes claims as to what he does, and if he isn't doing them on a consistent basis, then that's a problem. To me he's not coming through with these big special hits I always hear about.

Voidx, with paranormal claims, I frequently feel we work backwards. One approach I personally find useful is this:

1. Describe what JE does- in this case, the process, based on current understanding of mediumship and his descriptions of it
2. Make any predictions as to what how you expect him to perform, given understanding of the process.
3. Observe what JE does, so in this case, LKL, etc
4. Does what he do match with what he is supposed to be doing? Do we see the hits?
5. Revise 1 and 2 as necessary, repeat

(not quite strictly scientific, but orderly, at least for me)

Instead what we sometimes see happening is kind of the reverse
1. Watch CO, see a reading
2. Describe the process based on the hit and prior knowledge
3. See a reading that does not match symbols previously seen (like the man who does not like to hug- two people hugging with a rex X)
4. Add a new wrinkle to the process
5. And so on.

In this case, it seems people are working backwards. In other words, the process is becoming more and more complicated, layers of rationalizations are added, all discrepancies explained away retroactively or ignored.

Of course, on the skeptic side, sometimes we also see this
1. Set out to prove JE is a fraud
2. Repeat :)

Iamme
1st October 2003, 08:12 AM
Steve grenard---The third parties are: Newspaper obits columns...Or neighbors of the to-be sitter who gave their name and address out to get tickets and the show calls the neighbor up to 'ask questions' about the sitters...or the microphone holder...or the fake fuller Brush salesman that comes up to the door of the sitters house to peek inside the house and note what is hanging on the walls or mantles, like Mets banners, or Disney World memorabilia...and the sitters themselves.

I believe one could argue that JE is the first party; The network/show/producers are the second party; anybody else is the third party. (One and two could be switched).

:D . The smiley face is for Neofight. Hi Neo! Go get 'em!

renata
1st October 2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by voidx

Also note in the second reading, a sitter asks a specific question, wanting an answer. JE avoids it entirely. I'd be curious to tally this as well. For every specific question JE is presented with by the sitter, how many times does he even attempt to answer it, and how many times does he avoid it completely. Its obvious why he would avoid it, because missing the answer on such a question would outweigh any benefit of getting it right I would think.

Hey! Post in the count thread, you :)

One of the several glaring trends is that almost always the caller tells JE who they want to connect with, and almost inevitably he does not connect with the person who they want. I suspect it is indeed because he tries to get away from areas that are too specific.

Sometimes, he actually gets snippy about it
CALLER: Hi, my name is Julie, and I'm trying to contact my mom.
EDWARD: OK, Julie, the first thing that's coming through is not your mom. Sorry, sometimes I gotta talk to them; I'm not an operator; I can't place calls.

But this is why there is a danger to connect to someone caller has in mind, instead of dictating his own energies to the caller. You see, there might be weirdnesses about the person the caller wants to contact with, and JE might teeter on the brink of disaster, like he did here.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let's go back to the lines. Let's go to Nazareth, Pennsylvania. Go ahead, caller. Nazareth, Pennsylvania? I think we've lost...
CALLER: Hi, this is Denise. I'd like to get in touch with my brother Brian.
EDWARD: Hi Denise, how are you?
CALLER: Good, how are you?
EDWARD: Who's got the M-name like Michael?
CALLER: Which name?
EDWARD: Like Michael?
CALLER: No one that's passed away.
EDWARD: That's OK. Is there a living Michael or Mike?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Did your brother know Mike or Michael?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, because he's making the reference to Mike or Michael.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Why is he showing me you having his sock? Do you have his socks?
CALLER: My brother's?
EDWARD: Yes.
CALLER: No. He was a baby when he passed.
EDWARD: That doesn't matter. Do you have his socks?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: He's making -- booties? He's making me feel like there's something that would be connected to the feet -- there's something that they want me to acknowledge for you. So that, to me, would be socks, or booties, or -- it's not shoes; it's got a soft feeling to it. That's what comes through in relationship to this.
I'm glad you called, because this is something I want to say, if you're -- if this was a baby brother that might have been 1 years old, 3 years old, 3 months old, I have no idea -- the energy is not that age on the other side. We age here in the body physically, and we age on the other side through experience and energy. However if they do come through, they might come through -- if a child was 5 years old when they passed on Earth, and it's five years later, and they go -- the parents might go for a reading, the child might come through to the medium as a 10-year-old, or might choose to come through as the 5- year-old that it was. So it's just an example.


For further analysis of this and other readings- http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032&perpage=40&pagenumber=4
:)

No more hijacking of this thread with this issue.



I would like to get the explanation about the spirit communicator, though, as it appears the key to mediumship is missing from at least 4 JE readings posted here.

Leroy
1st October 2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by renata


Leroy,

Mark Tidwell and Lurker are skeptics. SteveGrenard is a believer in some types of mediumship. I do know they went to seminars, but do not recall their individual impressions of them, perhaps it is best to ask them to comment on their impressions. Another person who went to a seminar is Instig8r. I asked her in this thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27590 Just so you know, one of the readings is very contentious on this board, and there is a lot of disagreement between Neo and Instig8r who were at the same seminar as to how much editing went on. It is not my intentions to stir it up, but you might as well know that not everybody comes out of the seminar with the same opinion! You have been warned :)

I am interested in hearing from the skeptics who attended these seminars. It is interesting that Instigator and Neo both came out with different views. I think that is common though, both probably went in looking for different things. My opinion is that if you go in as a believer you will be looking for things to validate your beliefs, and if you go in as a skeptic you will be looking for all of the tricks.

renata
1st October 2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


I am interested in hearing from the skeptics who attended these seminars. It is interesting that Instigator and Neo both came out with different views. I think that is common though, both probably went in looking for different things. My opinion is that if you go in as a believer you will be looking for things to validate your beliefs, and if you go in as a skeptic you will be looking for all of the tricks.

Lurker posted very detailed notes of the seminar he went to here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27913 I thought it was fascinating. I think a thread asking seminar attendees some same questions to compare and contrast their impressions would be interesting, but there are about half dozen active JE threads right now. Perhaps in a week :)

By the way, (cue shameless plug) I finally finished 2 more LKL transcrips http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032&pagenumber=4 if you would like to see more examples of unedited readings :)

alfaniner
1st October 2003, 08:47 AM
I believe JE is scheduled to be on Larry King Live tomorrow (Thursday). I can't wait. (Well, actually I'll wait for the transcripts -- just watching that fraud JE bugs me.)

Leroy
1st October 2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Lurker


I had expected there to be a lot more misses in the live seminar that I attended. But there were still plenty of misses and really no "special hits".

I went into the seminar very, very skeptical. I came out skeptical. I still think JE is a fraud but I am a bit less sure of my conclusion and would like to see more corroboration either way.

My wife went in a believer and now she is a skeptic. Funny that, huh?

Lurker

That's a kicker! You went in extremely skeptical and came out less skeptical, she went in as a believer and came out a skeptic.
:roll:

Leroy
1st October 2003, 09:30 AM
So we've established that this male spirit is likely her dead husband. Now I know you want to further validate this with a name, but technically the spirit would see that his wife accepted the communication with JE so I don't see why if this process is real he would go about trying to give his nickname. Now.

If this all were real and I were the spirit trying to communicate with my living son. I would want to validate exactly who I was so as to leave no doubt for my son. Just getting through that this is a "father" figure wouldn't be enough, in my opinion. I know my son would wonder later if It were really me, so I would want to get that through up front "This is dad, Leroy."



The spirit gives him the name of her dead brother, why, who knows

According to JE, it is the spirits way of validating that the information is for this person. As he put it "That's just his way of confirming that I am with the right person." On readings like this one, I can't help but wonder how much investigation JE does prior to the readings. But I have a suspicious mind.

I wouldn't say, "Anthony's with me and would you please acknowledge Anthony and Tim." I'd likely say ,"Anthony an myself", since my wife has already guessed its her dead husband (me) and she's already gotten my miscilaneous clue of her dead brothers name

We're all different. I would handle probably much like JE described. I'd mention every name my son knew of, like Jake, your grandfather, Maria, your grandmother, Lizzy, your great aunt, to make sure my son had little doubt left about whether I was really coming through.

Lets say I died, found out that my beliefs were incorrect, and that I could communicate a message back to my son through another living person. Knowing my son shares my beliefs and is a skeptic, I know that if someone told him that a male father figure was coming through, that wouldn't be enough. Even giving my name as Leroy would still leave doubt with my son. I would want to give every name of every person we both knew so my son would finally be convinced that it was real. I would try and give details of specific events that were significant to both of us. At least that is how I think I would be.


To me that sentence just doesn't read like the second name was meant for the spirit, it looked to me like he was just tossing out a second name, whoever it might belong too.

He might have been. If the sitter didn't verify it, someone close by probably would have, I guess I was thinking more on the lines of him having prior information, but I agree that he gets lucky guesses.

Leroy
1st October 2003, 09:41 AM
originally posted by CFLarseon - Wrong. You cannot rule out Neil's reading solely because you know how it was done. You don't know how JE does his readings, so it would be very unfair of you to dismiss Neil's reading because of this.

You would be correct in that statement if Neo did not know how JE's readings were done, but she has stated numerous times that she has attended several of his seminars so she does know how at least some of his readings are done. BTW, several times now I have seen John get names of pets, without knowing that it's a pet name. And he's right, from the many times it's happened on "CO", the spirit energy will often times make a mention of a pet that has been acquired after they passed, just to acknowledge that they see what is going on around their family.....neo

Neo, I admit that I haven't seen the show in awhile, but I don't recall JE getting 'exact' names of pets. He came close but I don't remember any occasions where the names matched perfectly. For example he might say "Pepi" when the name was "Pepper." or he may have said he was seeing salt and pepper and a pets name was pepper.


posted by lamme - *I* believe they could have said that the intent of the show is real, but that JE, the producers, network, etc. are not liable for any interpretations derived from the readings.

That is true. ;)

Leroy
1st October 2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by renata

I think a thread asking seminar attendees some same questions to compare and contrast their impressions would be interesting, but there are about half dozen active JE threads right now. Perhaps in a week :)

By the way, (cue shameless plug) I finally finished 2 more LKL transcrips http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032&pagenumber=4 if you would like to see more examples of unedited readings :)

That is an excellant idea!

Yes, I'd like to see more examples. So far I am not impressed with any of his LKL readings.

voidx
1st October 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
[B]

If this all were real and I were the spirit trying to communicate with my living son. I would want to validate exactly who I was so as to leave no doubt for my son. Just getting through that this is a "father" figure wouldn't be enough, in my opinion. I know my son would wonder later if It were really me, so I would want to get that through up front "This is dad, Leroy."

According to JE, it is the spirits way of validating that the information is for this person. As he put it "That's just his way of confirming that I am with the right person." On readings like this one, I can't help but wonder how much investigation JE does prior to the readings. But I have a suspicious mind.

We're all different. I would handle probably much like JE described. I'd mention every name my son knew of, like Jake, your grandfather, Maria, your grandmother, Lizzy, your great aunt, to make sure my son had little doubt left about whether I was really coming through.

Lets say I died, found out that my beliefs were incorrect, and that I could communicate a message back to my son through another living person. Knowing my son shares my beliefs and is a skeptic, I know that if someone told him that a male father figure was coming through, that wouldn't be enough. Even giving my name as Leroy would still leave doubt with my son. I would want to give every name of every person we both knew so my son would finally be convinced that it was real. I would try and give details of specific events that were significant to both of us. At least that is how I think I would be.
I see where you're coming from. And I'll agree that makes some sense. However, my big problem with JE readings in general is that this is always where it seems to end. They toss out names, they validate, they verify using names and objects and other things who their talking too, and then...JE says their ok and their watching. So you as this newly dead spirit goes through all this malarky identifying yourself to your son, so that you can pass on...I'm Ok, I'm here, and I'm watching. Seems rather pointless doesn't it?

CFLarsen
1st October 2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
You would be correct in that statement if Neo did not know how JE's readings were done, but she has stated numerous times that she has attended several of his seminars so she does know how at least some of his readings are done.

Does she? Judging from her account of what goes on at the seminars, compared to others, I think it is safe to say that neofight is incredibly biased in favor of JE getting the best of his readings.

Leroy
1st October 2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by voidx

I see where you're coming from. And I'll agree that makes some sense. However, my big problem with JE readings in general is that this is always where it seems to end. They toss out names, they validate, they verify using names and objects and other things who their talking too, and then...JE says their ok and their watching. So you as this newly dead spirit goes through all this malarky identifying yourself to your son, so that you can pass on...I'm Ok, I'm here, and I'm watching. Seems rather pointless doesn't it?

It does seem pointless in most of the readings I have seen. I wonder why, if such communication is possible, that there isn't more. What about "Son I am sorry that I wasn't there for you while you were growing up." "Sorry I missed all of your games." "btw, I hid $1000.00 under the floor board at the top of the stairs." :roll:

Clancie
1st October 2003, 12:31 PM
Posted by Leroy

What about "Son I am sorry that I wasn't there for you while you were growing up."
Yes, this is what I call "warm reading" and I agree with you Leroy that it can be very compelling for a sitter to hear. JE says he doesn't like to do much of that (other than the occasional roses symbol, etc.) because it doesn't really convince people that the medium isn't just "saying things that would be emotionally true for most people." Instead, he says that he tries to bring out evidential information that a living person would be able to identify as being more specific than "Don't blame yourself for not doing enough", etc.

Leroy
1st October 2003, 12:43 PM
originially posted by CFLarsen - Does she? Judging from her account of what goes on at the seminars, compared to others, I think it is safe to say that neofight is incredibly biased in favor of JE getting the best of his readings.

Yes, I think she still has an advantage over me, since I have not been to any JE seminars and do not have a clue how he does his live readings. She has seen them done so she does know how he does them.

I haven't posted much to Neo or read many of her post, but from the short conversations we have had, I think she is a bit biased concerning JE. But perhaps if I had been to as many seminars as she has, I might be a little more biased too ...... against him :D

voidx
1st October 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, this is what I call "warm reading" and I agree with you Leroy that it can be very compelling for a sitter to hear. JE says he doesn't like to do much of that (other than the occasional roses symbol, etc.) because it doesn't really convince people that the medium isn't just "saying things that would be emotionally true for most people." Instead, he says that he tries to bring out evidential information that a living person would be able to identify as being more specific than "Don't blame yourself for not doing enough", etc.
An admittedly smart call on his part, no matter what everyone might think of JE, he's not stupid. What I'd like to see is something like, "Remember that time son when you knocked your grandmother over during thanksgiving when you were 5 and I yelled at you in front of everyone and belittled you. I always wanted to apologize for that, I over-reacted, but I could just never find a way to approach the subject". You know, a specific event, tied with a specific message of why that event made them so happy, or why they feel remorse for not saying or doing something about said event. This would be an amazing opportunity to say and express things to someone that you never got the chance too while alive, and no spirits seem overly interested in making an attempt even. Now based on the assumed horribly vague process of mediumship communication that JE explains to us this would be hard to get across. Funny thing is, I don't even see any attempts to get something this complex across.

Leroy
1st October 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, this is what I call "warm reading" and I agree with you Leroy that it can be very compelling for a sitter to hear. JE says he doesn't like to do much of that (other than the occasional roses symbol, etc.) because it doesn't really convince people that the medium isn't just "saying things that would be emotionally true for most people." Instead, he says that he tries to bring out evidential information that a living person would be able to identify as being more specific than "Don't blame yourself for not doing enough", etc.

If mediumship were real, wouldn't the medium want to say whatever the spirit requested? Something like "Son I am sorry I missed your games" might be insignificant to most people, but might be exactly what this person needed to hear the most.

Of course other things would impress me more, like the first and last name of the deceased, when will a medium ever do that? :confused:

voidx
1st October 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Leroy


If mediumship were real, wouldn't the medium want to say whatever the spirit requested? Something like "Son I am sorry I missed your games" might be insignificant to most people, but might be exactly what this person needed to hear the most.

Of course other things would impress me more, like the first and last name of the deceased, when will a medium ever do that? :confused:
I'll follow Leroy's lead on this one, let's start small. This is Raoul Gutierez, let me talk to my son. :D

Leroy
1st October 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by voidx

An admittedly smart call on his part, no matter what everyone might think of JE, he's not stupid. What I'd like to see is something like, "Remember that time son when you knocked your grandmother over during thanksgiving when you were 5 and I yelled at you in front of everyone and belittled you. I always wanted to apologize for that, I over-reacted, but I could just never find a way to approach the subject". You know, a specific event, tied with a specific message of why that event made them so happy, or why they feel remorse for not saying or doing something about said event. This would be an amazing opportunity to say and express things to someone that you never got the chance too while alive, and no spirits seem overly interested in making an attempt even. Now based on the assumed horribly vague process of mediumship communication that JE explains to us this would be hard to get across. Funny thing is, I don't even see any attempts to get something this complex across.

Good post Voidx, and one I totally agree with.

CFLarsen
1st October 2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, this is what I call "warm reading" and I agree with you Leroy that it can be very compelling for a sitter to hear.

So, if JE tells a sitter something that will really mean something to the sitter, he is merely warm reading?

Originally posted by Clancie
JE says he doesn't like to do much of that (other than the occasional roses symbol, etc.) because it doesn't really convince people that the medium isn't just "saying things that would be emotionally true for most people." Instead, he says that he tries to bring out evidential information that a living person would be able to identify as being more specific than "Don't blame yourself for not doing enough", etc.

Whoa, just a second. Are you saying that JE is filtering the messages? That JE is not, to paraphrase McLuhan, the medium, but the message?

How much of JE is in those readings, Clancie? Neofight? Anyone?

Originally posted by Leroy
Yes, I think she still has an advantage over me, since I have not been to any JE seminars and do not have a clue how he does his live readings. She has seen them done so she does know how he does them.

If you have seen JE on LKL, you know how he does his readings: By methods indistinguishable from cold reading.

What makes you trust neofight? Does she come across as a reliable witness? Does the account of renata weigh in, too? Lurker's?

TLN
1st October 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by voidx
I'll follow Leroy's lead on this one, let's start small. This is Raoul Gutierez, let me talk to my son. :D

I can assure you that if I hear from my mother from beyond the grave she won't have anything nice to say. :D

Clancie
1st October 2003, 02:05 PM
Posted by Leroy

If mediumship were real, wouldn't the medium want to say whatever the spirit requested? Something like "Son I am sorry I missed your games" might be insignificant to most people, but might be exactly what this person needed to hear the most.
Well, that's a great point. You're absolutely right, Leroy. (Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for JE quite so freely!) That would be a great question for someone to ask him. I -have- heard him say that he just "gives what I get", so maybe the explanation is more along the lines of him just not ususually getting "sentence-type" messages, though sometimes spirit can impress a feeling or symbolically show him something that he can give an emotional message from (like his own father is shown to him as a symbol of estrangement between father and son/daughter).

Posted by Leroy

Of course other things would impress me more, like the first and last name of the deceased, when will a medium ever do that?
Well, any that hot read can. :D That would be the easiest kind of information to come up with, I would think.

neofight
1st October 2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Garrette

Imagine for a moment that we're married (but don't imagine too deeply--I am really extremely cute while simultaneously being devastatingly handsome) and that the plumbing is broke......


Well, let me just ask you then, Garrette. Was the plumbing already broke before we got married? Or did I marry you knowing that the plumbing was broke? I don't mean to sound shallow, but good looks and cuteness only go so far, ya know what I mean? After all, I have a very healthy libido for a woman my age.

Then again, if there had been full disclosure on your part, and I married you anyway, because you were just so devastatingly handsome and extremely cute and all, and on top of that, a real nice guy, then I guess that was my choice to make, right?

And even if your plumbing broke after we had gotten married, I would not be the type to break my vows, so I would stay by your side despite your plumbing problems, I swear I would. ;)

rofl Sorry, Garrette. I couldn't resist! :D Anyhow, I am on my way out the door to meet someone for dinner, but I'll check in later on tonight, and see what you're up to, okay? Later, big guy! ;) ......neo

CFLarsen
1st October 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Clancie
Well, that's a great point. You're absolutely right, Leroy. (Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for JE quite so freely!)

So, you have a major problem with neofight, who does seem to be speaking on JE's behalf?

Originally posted by Clancie
That would be a great question for someone to ask him.

So, why don't you?

Originally posted by Clancie
I -have- heard him say that he just "gives what I get", so maybe the explanation is more along the lines of him just not ususually getting "sentence-type" messages, though sometimes spirit can impress a feeling or symbolically show him something that he can give an emotional message from (like his own father is shown to him as a symbol of estrangement between father and son/daughter).

Which is it? Is JE filtering the messages or is he not? To what extent?

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, any that hot read can. :D That would be the easiest kind of information to come up with, I would think.

It would, indeed. So, if JE comes up with something like that, is he hot reading or not? Or should we accept that JE only gets vague hits, and accept that as "spirit communications"?

renata
1st October 2003, 04:15 PM
Summary of Neil/JE story so far, as I see it, because I think there are some unanswered questions :)
I may be missing some posts in the chain, I just tried to grab the gist of the event.


Clancie posts, in part,
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 answers, in part


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.


Leroy picks up on it 9/29, page 12


Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

TLN initially can't locate the cold reading comparison requested



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.



Neo posts, in part


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.


Clancie posts, with TLN's quotes interspered within



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?

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

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



Claus posts a saved thread frpm TVTalkshows


I couldn't find it at TVTalkshows, but
here's the saved thread (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/coldreading.htm).


After Clancie had difficulty getting the link, TLN posts the readings, and she posts, introducing the allegation that there is no spirit established bringing through the information.

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:



TLN


You can, if you can make observations beyond "style" and focus on substance. Substantively, these two men do the same thing.

Clancie, saying she had a list of 30+ substantive differences between JE and Neil



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.

TLN, asking Clancie to name substantive difference between Neil and JE


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?


Neo, with substantive difference between Neil and JE


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

Claus, trying to refute Neo's proposed difference


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, following up on "spirit connection" quote by Clancie.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 answers




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.

Thanz responds


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 says



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.

Then I proceed to give one example, (and later 2 others by me and one more by another poster) of a JE reading on Larry King Live on which, as far as I could tell, there was no spirit connection is established, no spirit communicator established, and then, according to Clancie, no mediumship.


Darat posts at about the same time with a similar point

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?



In the meanwhile, Lurker replies to Neo's comment about Neil's internet searches

Neo, I would not mention Neil's Internet searches as something derogatory about his reading. Remember the Internet search he did came up with the dog reference which turned out to be a miss. Thus, his cold reading was not helped in any way by using the Internet and actually hurt his reading.

Just trying to clear the air so nobody thinks otherwise


Claus then claims Neil did get some sort of spirit identification and also asks whether JE was doing mediumship or psychic reading



This is factually wrong. It doesn't matter if you claim there is no spirit communication, because there is! Neil gets "D-N", a dead relative.

So, Neil was doing a psychic reading? In the LKL example, JE was doing a psychic reading?



If I missed any posts, my apologies

To summarize

TLN claimed there was a cold reader that could replicate JE, and Claus located the Neil cold reading/JE reading comparison
Clancie and Neo claimed there were substantive differences between the readings. Clancie said she previously posted a list of 30+ substantive differences.

Difference 1 (neofight)
On-line, over a few days, with some internet research
Rebuttal 1 (Claus)
Reading is dismissed because there is knowledge on how it is done. As we don't know how JE does his readings, the comparison is invalid
Rebuttal 2 (Lurker)
Internet search and knowing the sitters name provided a miss. It did not help, but rather hurt the reading.

Difference 2 (Clancie)
No spirit connection was established in the Neil reading
Rebuttal 1 (Thanz)
This was a cold reading example, there can be no spirit connection
Answer 1 (Clancie) - quoted almost in full, to preserve the intent of the speaker, as this, I think is the key post in the sequence.
"....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.
Rebuttal 2 (Renata)
I located additional JE readings where, at least according to my untrained eye, I could not locate an identified spirit, no evidence presented for a specific communicator, but rather a more general "they" for the spirits. Is he still doing mediumship in those readings?
Rebuttal 3 (Darat)
What rates as "spirit identification" Is there mediumship in LKL transcripts?
Rebuttal 4 (Claus)
Neil identified a DN spirit. Was JE doing psychic readings in LKL?


So some outstanding questions for anyone who wishes to clear this up. I would hate for this whole thing to come up again a month from now :)

What are the substantive differences between Neil's and JE's reading?
Is JE doing performing mediumship in the 4 readings on LKL in which I was unable to locate an identified spirit or a spirit communicator?
If he is doing mediumship, and there is an identified communication, with presented evidence, please point it out to me in each reading, as I could not locate it :).
If he is doing mediumship without an identified communicator then how is what he doing different than Neil?
If he is not doing mediumship, what is he doing? Psychic reading or cold reading?
If he is doing psychic reading, would you say that is still acceptable method of communication?


I am sure some others will add on, these are just off the top of my head. I just would hate for this topic to slip away, as these topics sometimes do.

TLN
1st October 2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by renata
What are the substantive differences between Neil's and JE's reading?

Indeed.

Originally posted by renata
So some outstanding questions for anyone who wishes to clear this up. I would hate for this whole thing to come up again a month from now :)

It will. :)

Clancie
1st October 2003, 04:27 PM
renata,

re: substantive differences between a JE reading and Neil's...as I say, this has been discussed before. Here's the JREF thread (from 8/08/03) which Claus posted the two readings, my comments, and his responses to what I said.

So, Is JE Really Different From A Cold Reader? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=24940&highlight=Neil+Cold+reading)

If you remember, it was interesting that you and Thanz both agreed that JE's reading that Claus used for comparison was actually better than Neil's. (Of course, with the usual, "we don't know if or how it was edited" caveat...).


TLN,

Do you have any other cold readers in mind other than Neil? His was quite different than JE's, being PM'd over several days, with the full name of the sitter known to him (and no real information as to whether or not any set up was involved, as voidx's observation about the "gushy" quality of the sitter certainly raise as a legitimate question).

Anyway, you said you were going to find the others of the "many" you say have been presented to me which I have overlooked. How's it going? :)

Clancie
1st October 2003, 04:35 PM
Posted by renata

What are the substantive differences between Neil's and JE's reading?
See link above for my previous list.
Posted by renata

Is JE doing performing mediumship in the 4 readings on LKL in which I was unable to locate an identified spirit or a spirit communicator?
I don't have time/concentration to look at them now, but I will and get back to you (feel free to remind me if it takes longer than Friday or so:) ).
Posted by renata

If he is doing mediumship, and there is an identified communication, with presented evidence, please point it out to me in each reading, as I could not locate it.

If he is doing mediumship without an identified communicator then how is what he doing different than Neil?

If he is not doing mediumship, what is he doing? Psychic reading or cold reading?

If he is doing psychic reading, would you say that is still acceptable method of communication?
These all have to do with the four LKL readings you cited above. So...same answer as the one above. I don't have time/energy to read through and concentrate on those readings now, but I will in the next day or two.

TLN
1st October 2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Clancie
Anyway, you said you were going to find the others of the "many" you say have been presented to me which I have overlooked. How's it going? :)

Poorly.

renata
1st October 2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Clancie
renata,

re: substantive differences between a JE reading and Neil's...as I say, this has been discussed before. Here's the JREF thread (from 8/08/03) which Claus posted the two readings, my comments, and his responses to what I said.

So, Is JE Really Different From A Cold Reader? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=24940&highlight=Neil+Cold+reading)




Thanks for the thread! :)



If you remember, it was interesting that you and Thanz both agreed that JE's reading that Claus used for comparison was actually better than Neil's. (Of course, with the usual, "we don't know if or how it was edited" caveat...). [/B]

I do not think that is particularly interesting :) I do not recall arguing that an unedited cold reader would outperform JE on CO. Perhaps even edited cold reading would not outperform JE on CO, given, once again, that JE has been doing it for a long time, has practiced, has some affinity to it, and has many eager fans and believers. In addition, of course both my analysis of LKL readings and Lurker's and Instig8r's comments that seminar quality was worse than CO make me think that CO is edited quite heavily.

So, in that thread, your differences were

"took place on the Internet"- matter of style, in my opinion. Unless Neil gets a show, it can't be identically compared.

"went on over several days, giving him plenty of time to think of where to go next (e.g. he admitted trying to hot read for "border collies", since he knew the sitter's full name)"- addressed by Lurker above- a miss, rather than a hit

"he did not "bring through" any deceased spirit that was connected to the information he was giving the sitter."- well, neither does JE in several instances, so whereas it does not match JE in this particular instance, we have seen JE do it. Would you address those questions from the list above? I am trying to understand whether JE sometimes does psychic readings instead of mediumship.

"(adding from what's been said here) JE's hits were more specific and unusual for the particular sitter; a better reading" That I agree with, but could be a function of editing- also, this is not a substantive difference between the techniques. The methods appear to be largely similar.

Clancie
1st October 2003, 04:55 PM
Also wanted to address this....

Re: the issue of No spirit identification in Neil's reading (let's consider JE's a separate issue for now....)

I've explained that means establishing a particular spirit who is recognized by the sitter as communicating with him/her.

Neil does not establish a particular spirit communicating with this sitter at any time in this reading.
According to renata, Claus has claimed Neil does identify a spirit communicating with the sitter and claims this....:
Posted by CFLarsen

This is factually wrong (i.e. my claim there is no spirit identified for the sitter). It doesn't matter if you claim there is no spirit communication, because there is! Neil gets "D-N", a dead relative.

renata,

Claus's above statement is false.(*edited to correct this: false for the one hit below; arguably not spirit communication for the second one NoZed Avenger called my attention to later....)

Here is what Neil actually says (for the first D-N)....

From Neil's reading, regarding D-N....

Neil:

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?


Sitter:

My sons name is Dylan, and his birthday is in may

Clearly, the D-N name, "Dylan", is her son who is living. It is not the name of a "deceased relative" as Claus claims*(edited to add...see below for second "D=n" reference....).

Neil also uses an obvious cold reading statement when he starts with “The spirits are giving me mixed messages”

"The spirits are giving me...." does not establish anyone in particular for the sitter and is classic cold reading....as is the hedging on "...giving me mixed messages". No spirit brings through anything evidential. Neil never identifies a particular, recognizable deceased person in any way.

The sitter recognizes this herself when she asks him (shortly after he says this), "Are there 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."

edited to add, after reading NoZed Avenger's post below...
Mea culpa. I did not go through the entire Neil reading (yet again) and I apparently missed the "Danny" reference which the woman claimed as a deceased uncle who died when she was a child.

So, this is probably the D-n reference Claus had in mind when he said there was a D-n name (whom the sitter identifies) as a deceased relative. I stand corrected on that.

HOWEVER, she fits several D-n names to her life, and this uncle never identifies himself in any particular way as "coming through", nor does Neil present that the uncle is giving the spirit messages (he doesn't ever say who is telling him this at all).

Also, we really don't know two things about this reading (1) if there was any research involved beyond the things Neil mentioned (he doesn't say one way or the other) and (2) as voidx mentions, why the sitter's typed responses sound rather gushy and contrived.

And, yes, she did know that he was going to do a cold reading demonstration, although (if I remember correctly) he said afterwards he didn't feel good about it because she still kind of thought he had special powers even after he told her otherwise.

renata
1st October 2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Clancie
Also wanted to address this....

Re: the issue of No spirit identification in Neil's reading (let's consider JE's a separate issue for now....)

I've explained that means establishing a particular spirit who is recognized by the sitter as communicating with him/her.

Neil does not establish a particular spirit communicating with this sitter at any time in this reading.
According to renata, Claus has claimed Neil does identify a spirit communicating with the sitter and claims this....:

renata,

Claus's above statement is false.

Here is what Neil actually says....



Clearly, the D-N name, "Dylan", is her son who is living. It is not the name of a "deceased relative" as Claus claims.




Well, here is Claus' post in question, quotes from Clancie interspersed



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



This is factually wrong. It doesn't matter if you claim there is no spirit communication, because there is! Neil gets "D-N", a dead relative.


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



So, Neil was doing a psychic reading? In the LKL example, JE was doing a psychic reading?




In reviewing the Neil transcript it appears to me that the alleged spirit communicator is merely an older male. There was an uncle Danny who passed away young. I submit the transcript is unclear, as to whether the Dn comment was meant as a deceased spirit communicator, or a living validation. It appears you are interpreting this comment by Neil

I'm also seeing a D-n name, so that would be like a Daniel, Donald, Dylan, Donna - who would that be?

to match with this by the sitter

My sons name is Dylan

However, sitter also said, later one


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!!!

I could see reasonable people interpreting it either way in good faith.



Neil also uses a classic cold reader statement when he starts with “The spirits are giving me mixed messages”

"The spirits are giving me...." does not establish anyone in particular for the sitter and is classic cold reading....as is the hedging on "...giving me mixed messages". No spirit brings through anything evidential. Neil never identifies a particular, recognizable deceased person in any way.

The sitter recognizes this herself when she asks him (shortly after he says this), "Are there 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."

Well, I agree this is classic cold reading, being that Neil is a cold reader!:) This is why I did bring out the JE readings in which he also seems to say "spirits are telling me", because some things in there are so similar to that.


However, although there are no spectacular evidentiary identifiers, Neil's transcript does seem to provide certain validations. In addition to LKL readings I posted here, which seem to have no communicator whatsoever, there are several others from the same thread, which although JE might identify a communicator, there is little or no validation. Just one example, I know you are pretty busy with the four you got! But I just wanted to let you know what I meant. In the reading below, I would presume the communicator would be the uncle, although there is no evidence for it, except for a tremendously general "you're a teacher, or they're a teacher, or somebody's going back to school", which JE claims as evidentiary validation. So even in cases where there is someone who we can at least presume is the identified spirit (even though there is pretty weak evidence for it) the validations can be sparse, yet JE can claim them. So to me that means, so perhaps one of the differences between JE and Neil is that Neil simply did not grab all the credit when he could! :)

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

NoZed Avenger
1st October 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Clancie
Also wanted to address this....
Claus's above statement is false.

Here is what Neil actually says....

[snip]

Clearly, the D-N name, "Dylan", is her son who is living. It is not the name of a "deceased relative" as Claus claims.


IIRC there were three separate D-N names mentioned, of which only one was the living son.

Although I see this as a non-issue in many ways, calling out CFL on this one while omitting the other part, namely: "... 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!!!" . . . seems problematic. Perhaps it was the uncle who was coming through?

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?

This older male -- note, not a father (so uncle would fit) -- is not necessarily named "p," but is just "showing" a P. There was no attempt to follow this up, so it is left ambiguous.

More importantly, there have been half a dozen LKL readings where JE does not identify any specific entity as bringing a message -- is JE not a medium for those sessions?

N/A

Clancie
1st October 2003, 05:44 PM
NoZed, I missed the second D-n reference and will note so above in my response to CFL.

So,...Yes, she had an uncle who died when she was young as well as various other D-n's. But if this is her uncle bringing through a message, it needs to be identified as such and it wasn't. (Nor is there any information about this person, or any claim he is bringing through information--which, in any case, much of which is already passed....)

Clancie
1st October 2003, 05:46 PM
Just for added convenience, since it's been said I've been unable to come up with any difference between Neil's reading and JE's, here are my comments as posted earlier, without the added comments by Claus. (If you would like to read them, Claus's responses to them are interspersed on the thread linked above):
From Clancie Part I. "Re: "Why Neil is not 'doing mediumship like JE'"--or, "JE vis-a-vis Neil's Reading" (Btw, I think Neil's is a commendable demonstration of PSYCHIC cold reading, but does not present as mediumship, as I stated on the earlier thread about it already)." Added Note: The following list is of differences it is not a list of judgment of these differences....

1. Neil used the Internet for the reading, over several days

2. Neil knew the sitter's full name (an unusual one) in advance

3. Neil honestly admitted using the Internet to research the sitter (he used "border collies" but what if he also found "Bill Quist", explaining the hit with the husband's name?)"

4. Neil could not see/hear the sitter=no physical cues"

5. Quoting Dogwood, "Neil had the luxury of considerable time to analyze the sitters responses and form his next question, much more than Edward has during a live reading.""

6. Neil uses a lot more "weasel words" than JE: "spirits giving me mixed messages"; "could be for someone else entirely"; "...or at least three who are like children to you"; "I'm not in control of the information I'm getting"; "work with me so it goes better"; "what is your connection to the older male?""

7. Neil also uses Psychic-Babble that JE doesn't, meaningless or universal generalities: "getting a free spirit energy"; "don't worry about house"; "don't worry about money"; "you've had your problems; "better times ahead financially"; "lots of romance in your marriage".."

Part II. JE vs. Neil's Reading: Does it Look Like Spirit Communication...or Not?

1. John begins by communicating with the deceased energy, in this case mentioning a "husband or brother figure." As the reading develops, in fact, the woman has a deceased husband AND a deceased brother. Neil NEVER establishes a deceased person (and therein lies the biggest problem. No mediumship)."

2. Neil starts with the name "Bill", who turns out to be the sitter's LIVING husband."

Neil correctly mentions three LIVING children (or "like children to you") Good psychic cold reading (though it could have been researched).

3. Neil gets 5th of month/5th month. Never a very exciting hit, even to believers, but better if its connected with the deceased and the sitter. Here its connected to the sitter's child. No big deal.

4. "D-n" name. Neil guesses a string of 4 common names--3 boys and a girl. One's the woman's son.

5. "P" name. Again, so what? Could be anybody. With John, the pattern of the entire reading BUILDS and relates to a particular deceased person. Here...its scattershot. So he gets some insignificant hits.

6. "Harley Davidson" -- great try, but a miss.

7."lost wedding ring" is a hit, but he also says, "or you weren't w earing it"--too many possibilities for a hit with these two choices. And, again, where's a "deceased" energy?"

8. Neil claims there's a "deceased older male" teasing her about liking Italian food ("like its your favorite OR SOMETHING). Fishing for "Italian food story". Fishing for some "deceased older male" info."

9. The "childhood injury OR illness OR accident" covers a lot of ground, very vague, likely to fit, but basically yields....nothing."

Part III, John's reading

In JE's reading. he establishes a Pattern of Information that isConnected to the experiences of the sitter and a particular person who has died."

Quite a lot of this information comes from the sitter. What is the difference between this method and cold-reading?

1. JE starts with DECEASED'S energy--identifies it as to the side, "husband/brother". She has both deceased (and John names them later).

2. JE mentions street festivities related to the husband (later: it's recognized by the sitter as the parade)

3. JE gets "Ralph", the name other people call her husband. "Ralph" is also connected to him by his last name, "Ralphaeli", and "Ralph St" where their office is. So a very significant name to the sitter. (Not that common, either. Not like "Bill")."

4. John gets the name "Anthony", her DECEASED brother's name."

5. JE says, "Family of 7". This connects directly to the sitter. She identifies it as HERS.

6. JE says, "Foot problem". JE brings these kinds of things to indicate spirit sees what is happening, "is with you." Not persuasive if on its own, but forming a pattern of connection, it becomes part of the picture. And its a hit. She had several broken toes a couple of months earlier."

7. JE mentions the anniversary just past. "Was that (the deceased husband's)?" Sitter answer, "Yes. Today."

8. JE mentions an "older female" energy. From there to...excellent hit...the husband buried in the same PLOT as an "older female"...his mother."

***********
In conclusion....

In other words, Neil did a great job revealing his sitter's willingness to make a reading fit even when he told her he was a fake, but as far as MEDIUMSHIP, he NEVER created the appearance of communicating with any deceased spirit at all.

His reading included guesses about the living, good and bad. (Interestingly, when he tried for more unique details he missed every time). Many vague, "feel good" phrases, lots of "wiggle room" phrases, several general concerns that are shared by almost everyone. But no survival of conscious was demonstrated at any point. "

In other words, it is NOT "mediumship like JE.

CFLarsen
2nd October 2003, 12:45 AM
Clancie,

Let's recap:


You are unable to read the links that indicate JE is a fake, but have no problems with your own, indicating that JE is not.

You seem to think it is unimportant to note that JE can - and does - edit the readings.

You ask for evidence, but when you get it, you merely ask for more, or shift focus to something else, usually completely unrelated.

You simply don't address the issues.

You point to your own arguments why Neil's reading is not comparable to JE's, while failing to address the criticisms of them. You seem to believe that your points are final, and cannot - and haven't - been refuted.

You also ignore that Neil brought a spirit through. This is not opinion or forgetfulness, it is pure deceit on your part.

You constantly move the goalposts: Since when does JE have to establish communication with a particular spirit? Quite contrary, JE specifically says that he does not control who gets through.

You also keep piling on new demands: Does JE ever bring a spirit through without anything "evidential" coming through? Must JE (not the sitter!) identify a "particular, recognizable deceased person in any way"? What if he doesn't?

Another new demand is that there also has to be identification that this is for person X and not person Y. Before, you only claimed that there had to be spirit communication in order for a reading to be real.

You see it as a problem that the sitter in a cold reading session want to know if there are deceased loved ones, while you fail to address it when a sitter is read by JE.

You don't bother to check, before you say I make false statements. No apologies from you, either.

You point out that Neil says "the spirits are giving me mixed messages", but fail to address when JE says "they are telling me". What is the difference?

You point out that Neil's statement can fit more than one person, while you ignore that JE throws out statements that do the same.

You point out that since you know how Neil did his reading, it is not "the same" as JE, but ignore that you do not know if JE does what Neil did, even though JE has ample time and permission to do it.

You point to people's will to believe, but don't apply this to people who believe in JE.

See a pattern here? You never apply the points of your complaints about Neil's reading to what JE does. This shows you are singularly biased in favor of JE being a real medium.

thaiboxerken
2nd October 2003, 04:28 AM
See a pattern here? You never apply the points of your complaints about Neil's reading to what JE does. This shows you are singularly biased in favor of JE being a real medium.

It's been pointed out, numerous times, that Clancie has an exclusive standard for JE. It's because she has the hots for him.

Lurker
2nd October 2003, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by voidx

I'll follow Leroy's lead on this one, let's start small. This is Raoul Gutierez, let me talk to my son. :D

Now I would be truly impressed if JE brought through, "I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Lurker

neofight
2nd October 2003, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Lurker


Now I would be truly impressed if JE brought through, "I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Lurker

Hi, Lurker! "Princess Bride" is an excellent movie! ;)

I just finished reading through this thread, and I have to admit, it's given me a headache. Of course, it could also have something to do with all the merlot I drank last night, followed up by an Irish Coffee. lol

Anyhow, Clancie you did a good job responding here, but I'll bet you are feeling rather drained by now. There are simply too many skeptics, and too few believers here. :( I apologize that I am not feeling much like tackling any of this right now, and I'm leaving tonight for L.I. to visit family for a couple of days. If I get a chance to post before I get back, I will.

And renata? I've come to the conclusion that you simply have too much time on your hands. lol I can't believe those summaries you made. I will try to go through those JE transcripts eventually, in order to pick out the "spirit identification" where I can find it. :) .....neo

CFLarsen
2nd October 2003, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's been pointed out, numerous times, that Clancie has an exclusive standard for JE. It's because she has the hots for him.

We do not know this. What we do know is that Clancie has an emotional reason for wanting JE to be a real medium. She shares this with almost every other JE-fan(atic).

I think the only one who has professed a belief in JE without this emotional reason is neofight. Whether she has the hots for JE is a good question. Her wearing a "Bite Me" shirt when meeting him, so he would notice her (and neo was very happy to inform us that he did) speaks in favor of it. Her calling him "John" and pretending to be able to read his mind is another.

But, we don't know for sure.

CFLarsen
2nd October 2003, 06:41 AM
Honestly, neofight, don't you think you should at least try to make an effort here? Haven't you been asking for these transcripts and more material, so we all could see how JE is really talking to dead people?

When you get it, you simply back out with lame excuses. I really think renata's work deserves much more attention, especially from you believers.

Clancie is curiously enough not much interested either.

Very curious, this refusal to address the issues.

Clancie
2nd October 2003, 07:14 AM
Posted by neofight

Anyhow, Clancie you did a good job responding here, but I'll bet you are feeling rather drained by now.
My whole print out of the first transcripts and related relevant discussions, ersby's article, etc. was 300 pages and I went through it all. Drained by it? You've got that right! :) (I know renata had the more time consuming part than I did, but...she is younger, you know. :) Plus she said it went quickly....I still can't understand how since it took me forever just reading and making notes, but...more power to her! :)


There are simply too many skeptics, and too few believers here.
Indeed. :) I don't notice any of the skeptics going through all the transcripts in detail to analyze and comment. But I feel I've done my share with the first batch....

I apologize that I am not feeling much like tackling any of this right now, and I'm leaving tonight for L.I. to visit family for a couple of days. If I get a chance to post before I get back, I will.

Well, I don't think you're obligated in any way, neo. It's great renata wanted to do this, they're an excellent record and maybe Claus will archive it all at Skeptic Report and somehow generate comments and appreciation from others. Its a valuable record of JE's live performances.

But, as you say, I've done my bit and you're right, it was pretty exhausting. And its not like we asked for renata to do all this work; nor made any commitment to go point by point through them all when she finished (no one asked if we even wanted to do that).

renata did this for her own reasons and its very commendable. But I don't see that requires an obligation for me...or for you...to somehow have to spend hours and hours to become familiar with all the details...analyze....respond, etc. I don't remember lots of skeptics who read through all the pages generated by the 3 transcripts last time and came up with lots of detailed feedback. This is only 2 transcripts. Even skeptics could surely have a go at it. Its not all about us.


I'm leaving tonight for L.I. to visit family for a couple of days
You're under no obligations here. It's not a job or anything. :)

Have a great time!

Flo
2nd October 2003, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by neofight

Anyhow, Clancie you did a good job responding here, but I'll bet you are feeling rather drained by now.

[snip]

And renata? I've come to the conclusion that you simply have too much time on your hands. lol I can't believe those summaries you made.

:id:



There are simply too many skeptics, and too few believers here.

And on a skeptic's board, too ! :rolleyes:

CFLarsen
2nd October 2003, 07:35 AM
Clancie,

So, you have read through it and you have the notes. Yet, you back down and don't want to do any more of this, even though you complain that you didn't see "any skeptics" analyzing renata's work.

Again, we see that you leave the work to others, while coming up with all sorts of excuses why you don't do any yourself.

You can rest assured that I will go through at least some of the transcripts. I rest assured that it will be ignored by you and neofight.

Your silence speaks volumes.

voidx
2nd October 2003, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...
His was quite different than JE's, being PM'd over several days, with the full name of the sitter known to him (and no real information as to whether or not any set up was involved, as voidx's observation about the "gushy" quality of the sitter certainly raise as a legitimate question).

And that slightly contrived response of the sitter in Neil's reading still gives me pause. However, Renata et als. question of an identified spirit communicator in JE's reading is also highly important, probably moreso as he claims real mediumship abilities. I know your busy and all, but it doesn't take long to look through a couple transcripts and quickly see if he specifically identifies and then validates a spirit communicator. The reason we're asking you or Neo to do this for us is because being more on the believers side yourself we can skip a lot of hassle and have you point out exactly where, with your understandings of JE's process where this spirit identification takes place within these readings, and then we can discuss the validity of them. The reason at least me myself am not adding my own in depth analysis is that I agree entirely with Renata's, so why rehash. While stating you're drained and don't want to go over this right now I also noticed you made several non-brief posts further discussing your stated differences between Neil's reading and JE's. I myself feel you could have used that same period of time reading those 4 transcripts, which are not that long, and answering the specific question put to Neo and yourself. That being, in those transcripts, in your opinions, where does JE identify a specific spirit, and then validate that spirit?

renata
2nd October 2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by neofight

Hi, Lurker! "Princess Bride" is an excellent movie!

I just finished reading through this thread, and I have to admit, it's given me a headache. Of course, it could also have something to do with all the merlot I drank last night, followed up by an Irish Coffee. lol

Anyhow, Clancie you did a good job responding here, but I'll bet you are feeling rather drained by now. There are simply too many skeptics, and too few believers here. I apologize that I am not feeling much like tackling any of this right now, and I'm leaving tonight for L.I. to visit family for a couple of days. If I get a chance to post before I get back, I will.

And renata? I've come to the conclusion that you simply have too much time on your hands. lol I can't believe those summaries you made. I will try to go through those JE transcripts eventually, in order to pick out the "spirit identification" where I can find it. .....neo


Luckily, I do not come to you for advice how to spend my time :) I don't comment on your transription of tapes of edited CO shows, for example, although I imagine they are also time consuming.

I do not consider keep a discussion on track a waste of time, myself.

Just start with the 5 LKL readings on this thread and where you can to the evidential spirit communicator. Remeber, " if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship"

Originally posted by Clancie

My whole print out of the first transcripts and related relevant discussions, ersby's article, etc. was 300 pages and I went through it all. Drained by it? You've got that right! :) (I know renata had the more time consuming part than I did, but...she is younger, you know. :) Plus she said it went quickly....I still can't understand how since it took me forever just reading and making notes, but...more power to her! :)

Indeed. :) I don't notice any of the skeptics going through all the transcripts in detail to analyze and comment. But I feel I've done my share with the first batch....


Well, I don't think you're obligated in any way, neo. It's great renata wanted to do this, they're an excellent record and maybe Claus will archive it all at Skeptic Report and somehow generate comments and appreciation from others. Its a valuable record of JE's live performances.

But, as you say, I've done my bit and you're right, it was pretty exhausting. And its not like we asked for renata to do all this work; nor made any commitment to go point by point through them all when she finished (no one asked if we even wanted to do that).


renata did this for her own reasons and its very commendable. But I don't see that requires an obligation for me...or for you...to somehow have to spend hours and hours to become familiar with all the details...analyze....respond, etc. I don't remember lots of skeptics who read through all the pages generated by the 3 transcripts last time and came up with lots of detailed feedback. This is only 2 transcripts. Even skeptics could surely have a go at it. Its not all about us.

You're under no obligations here. It's not a job or anything. :)

Have a great time!

Yes, Clancie it did not take me too long. I am a fast reader, I guess. :)

Yes, I wanted to do it, because I felt thjat analyzing one or two interesting JE hit on CO, on a seminar, or even on LKL is useless. For one thing, CO is edited, seminars shown on CO also edited, and picking one reading out of many on LKL may be luck. I kept asking people to explain to me the big difference in reading quality between LKL and CO? The whole reason I did them was because Neo said in this thread
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23922&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

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

When Claus pointed out that there is no way to learn such a frequency in an edited format, I had the idea to do the count on LKL. I wanted to do the count because as a skeptic I wanted to rely on data not a single edited reading. When I started doing the count I had no idea what his hit rate would be. I just counted. And, being a skeptic, I understand there is bias in interpreting the results, so I repeatedly asked others to reevaluate the transcripts as they see fit.

No skeptic or believer is obligated to read them or comment on them. However, I suppose I would find it strange to have a many page discussion of a CO transcript and dismiss this.

You mentioned that in the count thread as well, that skeptics did not go through the transcripts in detail. I do not know how you can assume that, many skeptics counted on particulars of the transcripts, some on overall impression. I mean just because Neo did not post in that thread, I do not assume she did not read it all.

If Claus chooses to archive it at SR, he has my permission. I already got plenty of praise for it, I did not do it for this. But I think it is a little more than a "Its a valuable record of JE's live performances. " It is also a tool to see how in some cases indistinguishible he is from cold readers. The count makes it obvious to see how misses are charitably forgotten, and hits are inflated and entered into lore. The count also disallows the selective use of a single lucky reading from LKL- because there will always be an anomalous reading.

But if you do not wish to examine the only examples we have of unedited JE readings and discuss edited hits instead, that is your prerogative. It does appear the less control JE has over the presentation of his readings the more they look like cold readings.


However, I will use that thread as my information storage to check against any claims about JE. So at this point, as indicated before, I am interested in 5 LKL readings on this thread and where you can point to the evidential spirit communicator. Remeber, " if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship" . Since Clancie brought that up as the difference between JE and Neil, it seems important that there appear to be cases JE does not have them. Yet another use for that thread, I guess.

Clancie
3rd October 2003, 04:47 PM
Posted by renata

But if you do not wish to examine the only examples we have of unedited JE readings
Ummm....I went through all of the first three LKL transcripts you did (a total of 300 hard copy pages, including some related posts here and ersby's related comments). I went through them thoroughly, not cursorily (1) because I thought your effort warranted more than "just a glance" and (2) because the argument against JE on LKL required really being familiar with the content of each reading--not just glancing at them (yes, voidx, that is very time-consuming).

So...I feel I've already done more to go through them than anyone here other than you, renata, at least from what I can tell from posts. And I found it mind-numbingly BORING!!!! to be perfectly honest. Somewhere around page 100 I realized that there is no way I could have counted all the hits/misses/non-validations in each and every reading. Honestly...really....just reading carefully through it all was painfully tedious. So I really -do- commend you for making the commitment to do it...just for knowledge sake. I'm not being flippant. I'm sincere.

I also do not want to print and analyze through 2 (or three) more LKL appearances, nor do I feel obligated to do it because someone has posted the results. Maybe one day I will, but I don't even want to say that, because there are people who will take that and nag and nag. So...no promises this time around....

As for looking at the four readings from LKL to see if there is "spirit identification" or not....I said I'd do it and I will.

Clancie
3rd October 2003, 05:38 PM
Posted by renata
There are some JE readings when no spirit connection is established.
I found four. Did you say 5? If so, can you tell which one is missing? Here are the four I saw. LKL Reading # 1

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.

JE says “They’re showing me the state of Virginia….” He has enough info to say he’s getting it from the sister, but he doesn’t.

So, I agree. He claims evidential information is coming through (mostly misses), but does not identify a particular spirit to the sitter in this LKL reading.

LKL Reading # 2

KING: Old Bridge, New Jersey, hello.

CALLER: Hi. This is Peter.

KING: Hi, Peter.

CALLER: I'm looking about -- asking about my brother Michael.

EDWARD: OK, hold on Peter. Again, I get a lot of information through dates. The first thing that's coming through is I'm getting the feeling that April or the fourth of a month holds some type of a meaning. In the family does April have a meaning? Birthday or anniversary?

CALLER: No.

EDWARD: On your mom's side of the family, Peter. They're telling me "April."

CALLER: Not that I know of.

EDWARD: Hold that thought. On your mom's side of the family there's an older female who has crossed over. It's either her aunt or your grandmother. There's an M-sounding name that's attached to this, besides your brother, who you said is Michael,

CALLER: Mavis.

EDWARD: And they're telling me that there's something to do with the fourth month or the fourth of a month, and I'm also getting the feeling of being out of state, so I don't know if your brother was away from you or at a distance from you, but I see something as being debilitating and affecting the body. But I think your brother is OK.

CALLER: That's good to know.

EDWARD: All righty. Also, there's a congratulations going out to the family, which is either a happy birthday or some sort of a wedding thing that's coming out.

KING: Now that comes through you how?

EDWARD: I see pictures. Like the pink rose on the video is their way of expressing their love. When I see like a white flower, that means happy birthday or congratulations.

Reading #2, JE again says, “And they're telling me that there's something to do with the fourth month or the fourth of a month." So, no, no spirit identification established here, although again, he has enough to attribute all this to the father. However, he doesn’t.

*Note: Interestingly the caller asks how he gets it and he replies “I see pictures”. He does not say, “spirit shows me…” or “your father shows me….”. I realize that spirit communication (perhaps it is his spirit guides instead) is understood…however, yes, I agree….a cold reader could do the same.

Next….
LKL Reading #3

KING: Easton, Pennsylvania, hello.

CALLER: Hi, this is Cindy. I would like to talk with my grandfather and ask him a question.

KING: Can she ask him a question?

EDWARD: She can if he comes through.

KING: What's the question?

CALLER: I just want to know if he can see if we're going to have any kids in the future.

EDWARD: The first thing that I'm seeing is they're talking about -- and don't get alarmed, I think this has already happened -- they're talking about something burning. I don't know if there was a burning thing or if somebody had a fire in their house, or this is going back a few years. But they're telling me to talk about something that I would see as being like a fire or a barn fire or some type of a fire- type thing. Is there anything that used to happen in the backyard or something that he used to do?

CALLER: No.

EDWARD: Some type of outside fire or a fire thing?

CALLER: No.

EDWARD: OK. This is what t they're talking about something burning hey're showing me, so remember what the symbol is to me, I'm interpreting this as being some type of fire, or like fire-thing, but that's what's coming through. As soon as you -- as soon as I listened to your voice, and I'm tuning into your vibration, this is what's coming through. And I know you're asking me about kids, but I'm seeing boxes, and when they show me boxes it's their way of telling me that you're moving. Or that there's a move that's coming up.

CALLER: Uh-huh, yes, we just moved.

EDWARD: c OK, so that's a confirmation of what they're telling me.

KING: But his -- her late grandfather couldn't tell her if she's going to have children or not.

EDWARD: I'm not getting...

KING: Or could he?

EDWARD: He could. He could.

KING: The spirits would know that.

EDWARD: They could come through and say stuff like that.
Here JE says, “OK, so that's a confirmation of what they're telling me.[/QUOTE] So, yes, I agree that a cold reader could use the same phrase.

Note: Again JE comments on “the process”, saying, “….as soon as I listened to your voice, and I'm tuning into your vibration, this is what's coming through.” This is what I consider that psychics do. (One possibility….perhaps he relies on psychic skills as well as mediumship on LKL????)

LKL Reading #4

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let's go back to the lines. Let's go to Nazareth, Pennsylvania. Go ahead, caller. Nazareth, Pennsylvania? I think we've lost..

CALLER: Hi, this is Denise. I'd like to get in touch with my brother Brian.

EDWARD: Hi Denise, how are you?

CALLER: Good, how are you?

EDWARD: Who's got the M-name like Michael?

CALLER: Which name?

EDWARD: Like Michael?

CALLER: No one that's passed away.

EDWARD: That's OK. Is there a living Michael or Mike?

CALLER: Yes.

EDWARD: OK. Did your brother know Mike or Michael?

CALLER: Yes.

EDWARD: OK, because he's making the reference to Mike or Michael.

CALLER: OK.

EDWARD: Why is he showing me you having his sock? Do you have his socks?

CALLER: My brother's?

EDWARD: Yes.

CALLER: No. He was a baby when he passed.

EDWARD: That doesn't matter. Do you have his socks?

CALLER: No.

EDWARD: He's making -- booties? He's making me feel like there's something that would be connected to the feet -- there's something that they want me to acknowledge for you. So that, to me, would be socks, or booties, or -- it's not shoes; it's got a soft feeling to it. That's what comes through in relationship to this.

I'm glad you called, because this is something I want to say, if you're -- if this was a baby brother that might have been 1 years old, 3 years old, 3 months old, I have no idea -- the energy is not that age on the other side. We age here in the body physically, and we age on the other side through experience and energy. However if they do come through, they might come through -- if a child was 5 years old when they passed on Earth, and it's five years later, and they go -- the parents might go for a reading, the child might come through to the medium as a 10-year-old, or might choose to come through as the 5- year-old that it was. So it's just an example
Okay, this is a little different. JE says, “OK, because he's making the reference to Mike or Michael,” meaning the message is from her brother. However, your question is “could a cold reader say the same thing?” and the answer would be “Yes”, imo, because the sitter has already told him that her brother has died

So…my conclusions based on these few LKL readings? The best I can offer on JE’s behalf is this sounds more like psychic readings than mediumship in terms of identifying spirit. Maybe he uses his psychic ability more with phone readings? (Just a thought. :) ) And, yes, Neil could easily claim the same.....

My other observation is that these sample readings, imo, do not establish a spirit communicating with the callers. On JE’s side, I can only think of two possilities for this: (1) he may rely more on psychic abilities on LKL than we know, especially for the bad readings we all admit he gets in this format, and (2) perhaps I don’t understand his process and am wrong that he identifies a particular spirit to the sitter. Since he does have spirit guides, perhaps these are the “they” that are referenced here. (Of course, again, nothing would prevent a cold reader from doing exactly the same thing and probably achieving pretty much the same result that we see with these).

So...does this mean JE is just a cold reader? I don’t know….Its always possible, and these readings don’t look evidential, but I wouldn’t decide he was cold reading based on only four 30 second readings on LKL…..If his readings consistently looked like this, live and unedited, I’d think probably “yes”…..

CFLarsen
4th October 2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Clancie
(Reading #1)
So, I agree. He claims evidential information is coming through (mostly misses), but does not identify a particular spirit to the sitter in this LKL reading.

....

Reading #2, JE again says, “And they're telling me that there's something to do with the fourth month or the fourth of a month." So, no, no spirit identification established here, although again, he has enough to attribute all this to the father. However, he doesn’t.

....

(Reading #3)
Here JE says, “OK, so that's a confirmation of what they're telling me. So, yes, I agree that a cold reader could use the same phrase.

Note: Again JE comments on “the process”, saying, “….as soon as I listened to your voice, and I'm tuning into your vibration, this is what's coming through.” This is what I consider that psychics do. (One possibility….perhaps he relies on psychic skills as well as mediumship on LKL????)

....

(Reading #4)
Okay, this is a little different. JE says, “OK, because he's making the reference to Mike or Michael,” meaning the message is from her brother. However, your question is “could a cold reader say the same thing?” and the answer would be “Yes”, imo, because the sitter has already told him that her brother has died


Conclusion: Nowhere does JE get a spirit. He is not talking to dead people here.

....so, what's he doing?

Originally posted by Clancie
So…my conclusions based on these few LKL readings? The best I can offer on JE’s behalf is this sounds more like psychic readings than mediumship in terms of identifying spirit. Maybe he uses his psychic ability more with phone readings? (Just a thought. ) And, yes, Neil could easily claim the same.....

What is the difference between "psychic ability" and "cold reading"?

Originally posted by Clancie
My other observation is that these sample readings, imo, do not establish a spirit communicating with the callers. On JE’s side, I can only think of two possilities for this: (1) he may rely more on psychic abilities on LKL than we know, especially for the bad readings we all admit he gets in this format, and (2) perhaps I don’t understand his process and am wrong that he identifies a particular spirit to the sitter. Since he does have spirit guides, perhaps these are the “they” that are referenced here. (Of course, again, nothing would prevent a cold reader from doing exactly the same thing and probably achieving pretty much the same result that we see with these).

So, why isn't JE cold reading here?

You cannot establish it as a fact that JE has "spirit guides". That is only part of the package JE is selling you. And they are not "sample readings", they are unedited readings, in which JE bombs. We know that JE edits his readings, and that he looks considerably better that way. Let's keep that in mind.

Originally posted by Clancie
So...does this mean JE is just a cold reader? I don’t know….Its always possible, and these readings don’t look evidential, but I wouldn’t decide he was cold reading based on only four 30 second readings on LKL…..If his readings consistently looked like this, live and unedited, I’d think probably “yes”…..

Moving the goalposts once again. Before, only "spirit communication" was required. Now, it has to be long, unedited, and "psychic ability" is allowed, even though you cannot distinguish between that and cold reading. You simply demand conditions that you know cannot be met.

So....

You have admitted that JE does not talk to dead people here. Regardless of what you might think of the format, JE is there on LKL to talk to dead people. JE does not complain once about that description. People call the show to get him to communicate with their dead relatives. He does not. Instead, you say, JE is using his "psychic ability".

It's very simple, Clancie:

If psychic mediumship is not cold reading because of "spirit communication", then what is the difference between psychic ability and cold reading?

Leroy
6th October 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by CFLarsen If you have seen JE on LKL, you know how he does his readings: By methods indistinguishable from cold reading.

Are you saying that we can trust what we see on television, and that we don't need to see a live reading? Do you trust what you see on television to be unedited, unfiltered, exactly as you see it?

I think that the person who is at a seminar, seeing live, unedited readings, has the advantages, and certainly knows much more about what JE does and how he does it, than I do. That doesn't mean that I trust that the person is not bias.

Leroy
6th October 2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by CFlarsen What makes you trust neofight? Does she come across as a reliable witness? Does the account of renata weigh in, too? Lurker's?

Trust? Can you elaborate? I trust that she knows a lot more about JE than I do, for the simple fact that she has been to numerous seminars he has given, and she has read his book. That doesn't mean that trust that she is right. She may be biased when it comes to JE. That bias may cause her to overlook things in his readings that others might see.

Originally posted by ClancieWell, any that hot read can. That would be the easiest kind of information to come up with, I would think.

What I find hard to understand is how JE can {SEE} pink roses, {Salami} and other things, yet he can't see the alphabet, like {JOSH COLLINS}. It does not make sense to me. Readings would be so much more accurate if he'd just say the name he was seeing, instead of a street fair, or roses, or the rosary.

voidx
6th October 2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
I think that the person who is at a seminar, seeing live, unedited readings, has the advantages, and certainly knows much more about what JE does and how he does it, than I do. That doesn't mean that I trust that the person is not bias.
I think this should be rephrased as, knows more, as far as they understand it, as to what it is JE claims he does. This is an important distinction to make. This last episode has shown us that much. It was stated, quite confidently that if a spirit communicator was not identified, it was not verifiable mediumship. When shown that JE himself does not do this consistently Clancie had to state that she might not have been perfectly clear on what he states he can do in this regard. I would also like to remind everyone that this point was quite a strong one in why JE's compared to Neils readings were superior. I'd like this rescinded in a form. You can still argue that Neils might be more generalized, or that the sitter at times seems overly joyous in her interactions with Neil, but Neil not identifying a spirit communicator cannot in of it self be counted as a negative against him in that case. Also being live at a reading goes both ways. In one case yes you can see firsthand how he does things and keep track and tally them before they are edited, however, you are also stepping into JE's arena of influence, and you might be affected by the presentation as a whole and miss out on things, or be distracted from them, like at any good magic show. Just something to remember I think.

Clancie
6th October 2003, 10:03 AM
Posted by voidx

When shown that JE himself does not do this consistently Clancie had to state that she might not have been perfectly clear on what he states he can do in this regard. I would also like to remind everyone that this point was quite a strong one in why JE's compared to Neils readings were superior.
Actually, I said I might have misrepresented what he claims to do, voidx.

Those examples -were- comparable to Neil's and, like Neil's, I think could pass for "psychic reading" (or psychic cold reading), but not mediumship.

If that was all that JE did (like it was all that Neil did), then I'd say there was no difference.

But, unlike Neil, JE often -does- present messages directly linked to a specific spirit. Which is why, if cold readers can do that too, I'd like to see it.

renata
6th October 2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


Are you saying that we can trust what we see on television, and that we don't need to see a live reading? Do you trust what you see on television to be unedited, unfiltered, exactly as you see it?

I think that the person who is at a seminar, seeing live, unedited readings, has the advantages, and certainly knows much more about what JE does and how he does it, than I do. That doesn't mean that I trust that the person is not bias.

Leroy, JE appearances on Larry King Live are live television, unedited, and we have transcripts of it. However, when people go to seminars, they are not allowed to record them, so we are only allowed to rely on memory, and people's impressions differ. Crossing over cannot be relied on, because it is edited. So while some television (edited) cannot be relied on, LKL (Larry King Live) is unedited, unfiltered, just like we see it, and more reliable than memory and recollection of one person at a seminar.

renata
6th October 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Clancie

Actually, I said I might have misrepresented what he claims to do, voidx.

Those examples -were- comparable to Neil's and, like Neil's, I think could pass for "psychic reading" (or psychic cold reading), but not mediumship.

If that was all that JE did (like it was all that Neil did), then I'd say there was no difference.

But, unlike Neil, JE often -does- present messages directly linked to a specific spirit. Which is why, if cold readers can do that too, I'd like to see it.

Clancie, but don't you think that is a matter of phrasing?

A lot of the time on LKL JE attempts to connect to the spirit. Sometimes he does not get a validations, and says "they are telling me". Sometimes he gets a very vague validation- like in the reading with a teacher (that is the 5th one you missed, I reproduced it below), but he uses it anyway, and sometimes caller validates no matter what JE brings through. In the latest JE appearance, JE was bringing through a man, and caller validated her mother! And JE agreed, just said her mother must have been masculine. A several times JE talked in very general terms- "an older female energy"- and waits for the caller to supply the relationship. So a cold reader has to speak the tell tale "words" from the spirits. Furthermore, Neil did mention a spirit, and caller did mention a dead person. Certainly in the Neil reading there was more precision than in many of the LKL JE appearances. In other words, the evidentiary spirit communicator is a red herring. Neil did do what JE did, or better.

Reposting the teacher reading from before

However, although there are no spectacular evidentiary identifiers, Neil's transcript does seem to provide certain validations. In addition to LKL readings I posted here, which seem to have no communicator whatsoever, there are several others from the same thread, which although JE might identify a communicator, there is little or no validation. Just one example, I know you are pretty busy with the four you got! But I just wanted to let you know what I meant. In the reading below, I would presume the communicator would be the uncle, although there is no evidence for it, except for a tremendously general "you're a teacher, or they're a teacher, or somebody's going back to school", which JE claims as evidentiary validation. So even in cases where there is someone who we can at least presume is the identified spirit (even though there is pretty weak evidence for it) the validations can be sparse, yet JE can claim them. So to me that means, so perhaps one of the differences between JE and Neil is that Neil simply did not grab all the credit when he could!


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

Leroy
6th October 2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Voidx Also being live at a reading goes both ways. In one case yes you can see firsthand how he does things and keep track and tally them before they are edited, however, you are also stepping into JE's arena of influence, and you might be affected by the presentation as a whole and miss out on things, or be distracted from them, like at any good magic show. Just something to remember I think.

Thats a good point, one I never thought of.

Clancie Posted

1. Neil used the Internet for the reading, over several days

2. Neil knew the sitter's full name (an unusual one) in advance

3. Neil honestly admitted using the Internet to research the sitter (he used "border collies" but what if he also found "Bill Quist", explaining the hit with the husband's name?)"

4. Neil could not see/hear the sitter=no physical cues"

5. Quoting Dogwood, "Neil had the luxury of considerable time to analyze the sitters responses and form his next question, much more than Edward has during a live reading.""

6. Neil uses a lot more "weasel words" than JE: "spirits giving me mixed messages"; "could be for someone else entirely"; "...or at least three who are like children to you"; "I'm not in control of the information I'm getting"; "work with me so it goes better"; "what is your connection to the older male?""

7. Neil also uses Psychic-Babble that JE doesn't, meaningless or universal generalities: "getting a free spirit energy"; "don't worry about house"; "don't worry about money"; "you've had your problems; "better times ahead financially"; "lots of romance in your marriage".."

I agree with those that are in blue. I have to give her credit for those.

I don't think the JE verses Cold Reader can be compared fairly unless they both Read before a live audience. If one is reading before a live audience, and the other is reading over the internet in a space of three days, with time to do research, I don't think that is fair.

If it were the opposite, JE was doing the reading online over a space of three days, and the other person had to read before a live audience I feel certain that many skeptics would shout "NOT FAIR." I know I would.

NoZed Avenger
6th October 2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Clancie

If that was all that JE did (like it was all that Neil did), then I'd say there was no difference.

But, unlike Neil, JE often -does- present messages directly linked to a specific spirit. Which is why, if cold readers can do that too, I'd like to see it.

I must admit that I do not see the big distinction that you make with regard to a "specific" spirit or how it helps distinguish cold reading from true psychic/mediumistic ability.

I can see -- in limited circumstances -- that this type of information might be considered a specific, "quality" hit. I.e., if the medium, without prompting, says "I am getting your father, James" and that is validated, then it is a stronger "hit." But it seems to be just one more area of hits or misses - not really different than any other.

A series of "I am getting an older man. It could be your brother, or your parents' brother, or the brother of someone important to you. I am getting an 'M' connection, too" type readings seems every bit as cold-readerish as any other vague hit. Even if you can say that the above makes the reading a "medium" one rather than a "psychic" one, what's the real difference that helps us distinguish either from a cold reading version of the same thing?

It seems to be a distinction without difference, with regard to the real question: Can it be distinguished from cold reading?

N/A

Leroy
6th October 2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by renata


Leroy, JE appearances on Larry King Live are live television, unedited, and we have transcripts of it. However, when people go to seminars, they are not allowed to record them, so we are only allowed to rely on memory, and people's impressions differ. Crossing over cannot be relied on, because it is edited. So while some television (edited) cannot be relied on, LKL (Larry King Live) is unedited, unfiltered, just like we see it, and more reliable than memory and recollection of one person at a seminar.

I read those transcripts from LKL and I can't help but feel that something is missing, something got cut off during commercial break maybe?

I still say that I have been to Zero JE seminars or shows, and I haven't read anything he has written from front to back. I seldom watch the show, so, I consider Neo more of a J.E. Expert than myself. Why should I pretend to know more about JE than she does? My opinions of J.E. are based on my own belief system, and what little I have seen of him. Hers is based on her belief system and the fact that she has done much reading, and attended many seminars of his. I give her credit for that.

renata
6th October 2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


I read those transcripts from LKL and I can't help but feel that something is missing, something got cut off during commercial break maybe?

I still say that I have been to Zero JE seminars or shows, and I haven't read anything he has written from front to back. I seldom watch the show, so, I consider Neo more of a J.E. Expert than myself. Why should I pretend to know more about JE than she does? My opinions of J.E. are based on my own belief system, and what little I have seen of him. Hers is based on her belief system and the fact that she has done much reading, and attended many seminars of his. I give her credit for that.

Leroy, it is a live one hour interview show on CNN. Have you ever seen it? I only listed the readings themselves, from where the call begins to where the ends, I cut out the chatter, but the links to the complete shows are in the thread. Nothing is missing.

voidx
6th October 2003, 10:40 AM
Posted by me:
When shown that JE himself does not do this consistently Clancie had to state that she might not have been perfectly clear on what he states he can do in this regard.

Posted by Clancie:
Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, I said I might have misrepresented what he claims to do, voidx.
I'm rather unclear how my statement is different from yours. I stated that you might not have been perfectly clear (misinterpreted) what JE states he can do ("claims" he can do).

Posted by Clancie:
Those examples -were- comparable to Neil's and, like Neil's, I think could pass for "psychic reading" (or psychic cold reading), but not mediumship.

If that was all that JE did (like it was all that Neil did), then I'd say there was no difference.

But, unlike Neil, JE often -does- present messages directly linked to a specific spirit. Which is why, if cold readers can do that too, I'd like to see it.
Yes, sometimes JE does get messages linked to specific spirits, but we're not talking about those at this point in time. We were discussing the ones in which he does NOT specify a specific spirit, and were asking for an explanation for THOSE readings in particular. And the idea that perhaps their psychic rather than mediumistic seems rather weak and unconvincing to myself personally. As I stated before it appears to me that psychic abilities are just a fall-back for when mediumship abilities fail in their stated consistency. And again...where does the information come from that is garnered in a "psychic" sense? sitters mind? The future? What is meant by getting things "intuitively"?

Edited to add a thumbs up to NoZed Avengers post.

renata
6th October 2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by voidx
And again...where does the information come from that is garnered in a "psychic" sense? sitters mind? The future? What is meant by getting things "intuitively"?

That is a good point. Where did he get all that information- fire, etc. He did not claim not to connect, like he did with some other callers. So, obviously he saw something. So if he got it "psychicly" was he reading the callers, or the future? I mean this kind of throws the whole process, the whole "key to mediumship" out the window.

voidx
6th October 2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by renata


That is a good point. Where did he get all that information- fire, etc. He did not claim not to connect, like he did with some other callers. So, obviously he saw something. So if he got it "psychicly" was he reading the callers, or the future? I mean this kind of throws the whole process, the whole "key to mediumship" out the window.
My main problem with the "psychic" fallback to "medimship" is that he never states when, if ever, he's switched. We never get an example of, "Oh..hold on...I've lost my spirit connection, however, I'm seeing, I'm feeling psychically something about fire as it pertains to you." I've not seen an example of this. If JE knows he uses both styles of communication, then he knows when he's using one over the other as for one he's connected to a spirit, and the other he's not, so why does he not state this or clarify this during the reading? Its just not a valid excuse in my books, and its not consistent in my opinion with any of the transcripts or LKL appearances I've watched him do.

Clancie
6th October 2003, 10:51 AM
Yes, sometimes JE does get messages linked to specific spirits, but we're not talking about those at this point in time. We were discussing the ones in which he does NOT specify a specific spirit, and were asking for an explanation for THOSE readings in particular.
I understand that. I just think its important to point out that, unlike Neil, JE apparently does both.

Thanz
6th October 2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Clancie

I understand that. I just think its important to point out that, unlike Neil, JE apparently does both.
Clancie -

I think that you are really struggling here. Neil only did the one reading (as far as I know) and I really do believe that it is a matter of style.

I think that it is always the sitter who specifically identifies the "spirit" that comes through. JE will make a suggestion (older male, or male to the side, or whatever) but it is the sitter that will say "that is my husband, Robert". Once the sitter makes the connection, then JE can simply say that the information comes from the specific deceased relative. If no specific connection is made, JE can just use "they are telling me". It makes a difference only in style.

So, you agree that some of what JE does on LKL is indistinguishable from cold reading. If we accept that a specific spirit is a matter of style, I submit that all of what we see on LKL is indistinguishable from cold reading. I could be forgetting something, but I don't recall any "dazzle shots" from LKL.

What does that leave us with? CO, seminars, and private readings. We have already discussed how the editing of CO makes it problematic at best, and useless at worst, as evidence of any JE abilities. I haven't been to a seminar myself, but the opinions of those that have tend to vary in the extreme. And quite frankly, the prohibition on recording devices in a private reading disturbs me. I can see no reason for it other than JE counting on confirmation bias and he doesn't want an analysis done of the reading by the sitter.

The evidence in favour of JE is, shall we say, sparse. Keep arguing in favour of him though, if you wish, as we need some people to tilt at the windmill thinking it is a dragon. If we all just said "hey that's a windmill" it would get quite boring around here. :)

voidx
6th October 2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Clancie

I understand that. I just think its important to point out that, unlike Neil, JE apparently does both.
Fair enough, so long as we bold and bracket "apparently" :D.

Posted by Clancie
Those examples -were- comparable to Neil's and, like Neil's, I think could pass for "psychic reading" (or psychic cold reading), but not mediumship.
What's psychic cold reading? Is it not just cold reading? Is there any difference? To me I'd have to ask this question, that if those examples are comparable to Neil's, how do you explain them? I've not heard psychic cold reading brought up until now. If their comparable, then he's pretty much cold reading isn't he? If their comparable and produce the same results, why posit the paranormal for these examples?

If that was all that JE did (like it was all that Neil did), then I'd say there was no difference.
While I realize that its the special hits and other points that tip your belief towards JE I find this a little odd. Surely you must have a clear excuse or idea as to what happens, or whats going on in these examples where he appears to produce nothing more significant than normal cold reading? If I was you, I know this would cause me hesitation and questions. Perhaps you're explaining what "psychic cold reading" is will clarify this for me.

But, unlike Neil, JE often -does- present messages directly linked to a specific spirit. Which is why, if cold readers can do that too, I'd like to see it.
I'd like to see it done too, just for the sake of seeing them do it exactly as JE does it. But it would hardly be convincing evidence of anything for either side.

Leroy
7th October 2003, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by renata


Leroy, it is a live one hour interview show on CNN. Have you ever seen it? I only listed the readings themselves, from where the call begins to where the ends, I cut out the chatter, but the links to the complete shows are in the thread. Nothing is missing.

Nothing is missing according to what you viewed, live and unedited. They have breaks, what happens during those? I still say that seeing him live, in person, would be more of an advantage. You can take in everything, not just what the camera angles reveil. Body language, facial expressions (not just what the camera shows). And a phone reading and live face to face reading would surely be different. I don't put much into anything I view on television, be it live and unedited, or pre-recorded and edited, but that's just me.

Leroy
7th October 2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by renata


So if he got it "psychicly" was he reading the callers, or the future? I mean this kind of throws the whole process, the whole "key to mediumship" out the window.

How does it throw the whole key to mediumship out the window? Is there a claim that mediums cannot be psychic too? Where does the term Psychic Medium come from? Does JE claim to be a psychic medium? If my memory is not failing, didn't they introduce JE as a Psychic Medium on CO?

CFLarsen
7th October 2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
Nothing is missing according to what you viewed, live and unedited. They have breaks, what happens during those? I still say that seeing him live, in person, would be more of an advantage. You can take in everything, not just what the camera angles reveil. Body language, facial expressions (not just what the camera shows). And a phone reading and live face to face reading would surely be different. I don't put much into anything I view on television, be it live and unedited, or pre-recorded and edited, but that's just me.

Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. It is far better to have everything recorded.

There is no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself.

Leroy
7th October 2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by CFLarsen


Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. It is far better to have everything recorded.


Damned right it is good to have everything recorded. But if I had the choice of watching something that someone else recorded, or seeing it live, I would rather see it live. What have I missed during the recording? What happened during break? What expressions did I miss when the camera was filming someone else's face?


Originally posted by CFLarsen


There is no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself.

Not everyone is so easily fooled, sorry if that has been a problem in your life ;)

voidx
7th October 2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


How does it throw the whole key to mediumship out the window? Is there a claim that mediums cannot be psychic too? Where does the term Psychic Medium come from? Does JE claim to be a psychic medium? If my memory is not failing, didn't they introduce JE as a Psychic Medium on CO?
It was being claimed that without spirit communicator identification, there could be no true verifiable mediumship involved. What Renata is getting (correct me if I'm wrong) at is that if he gets things psychically sometimes instead, and this information is garnered from the callers mind or the future or wherever and NOT a spirit, then this whole claim about what makes true mediumship would seem to be full of logical holes and easy outs.

BillHoyt
7th October 2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
Not everyone is so easily fooled, sorry if that has been a problem in your life ;)
Excellent suggestion, leroy. Perhaps you should bring this to the attention of all those science-administrator-types who keep funding studies that attempt to confirm or refute previous findings. Let them know that if they just picked better scientists the first time they wouldn't have papers needing confirmation or refutation. It is so easy! :eek:

renata
7th October 2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


How does it throw the whole key to mediumship out the window? Is there a claim that mediums cannot be psychic too? Where does the term Psychic Medium come from? Does JE claim to be a psychic medium? If my memory is not failing, didn't they introduce JE as a Psychic Medium on CO?

Leroy, read back in this thread. Particularly this post 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.

As there was no spirit identification, there was no mediumship. The whole question is if JE was not doing mediumship during those 4 LKL reading, what was he doing? Just "psychic" readings?

Leroy
7th October 2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by voidx

It was being claimed that without spirit communicator identification, there could be no true verifiable mediumship involved. What Renata is getting (correct me if I'm wrong) at is that if he gets things psychically sometimes instead, and this information is garnered from the callers mind or the future or wherever and NOT a spirit, then this whole claim about what makes true mediumship would seem to be full of logical holes and easy outs.

Now that I can agree with, full of holes and easy outs.

renata
7th October 2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


Nothing is missing according to what you viewed, live and unedited. They have breaks, what happens during those? I still say that seeing him live, in person, would be more of an advantage. You can take in everything, not just what the camera angles reveil. Body language, facial expressions (not just what the camera shows). And a phone reading and live face to face reading would surely be different. I don't put much into anything I view on television, be it live and unedited, or pre-recorded and edited, but that's just me.

Have you ever seen the Larry King Live, Leroy? The callers call in during the show, not the breaks. Since JE is the only guest, the camera is always on JE and LK. I do not see how their talk during breaks is going to influence what happens during call in readings, which is the only thing we are looking at.

As to live readings- JE does not allow even one on one readings be taped, or seminar readings. Witness memory is notoriously unreliable, and I do not see how you can expect to catch everything in a room with thousands of people, eager to catch JE's attention, where you are not allowed to examine the transcript later. Furthermore,whereas the phone readings are one on one, in a huge room, a comment- Richard, James, Lung Cancer, son in a car accident, etc are a guaranteed hit by somebody. And still, Instig8r and Lurker say the quality is quite worse than CO.

Leroy
7th October 2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt

Excellent suggestion, leroy. Perhaps you should bring this to the attention of all those science-administrator-types who keep funding studies that attempt to confirm or refute previous findings. Let them know that if they just picked better scientists the first time they wouldn't have papers needing confirmation or refutation. It is so easy! :eek:

:roll: Whoa there charlie. It wasn't suggested that nobody could be fooled. Read CF's statement again

There is no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself.

There is NO WAY, I will definetly be suckered!! It sounds like this poor man has been fooled many times and is now paranoid.

We all make mistakes, we have all been fooled at one time or another, but that doesn't mean I will be fooled by a professional scam artist each time I come across one, and I have come across many.

You sound as paranoid as your buddy.

Mike D.
7th October 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by voidx

It was being claimed that without spirit communicator identification, there could be no true verifiable mediumship involved. What Renata is getting (correct me if I'm wrong) at is that if he gets things psychically sometimes instead, and this information is garnered from the callers mind or the future or wherever and NOT a spirit, then this whole claim about what makes true mediumship would seem to be full of logical holes and easy outs.

voidx,

It seems to me that once one admits that someone calling himself or herself a medium has psychic abilities, then it becomes very difficult to prove that any information provided by that medium actually comes from a deceased person. The medium could well be using psychic abilities (if they exist) to tap information about the deceased that exists in the minds of living persons, and then subconsciously dramatize that information as though a spirit is communicating. In fact, there have been cases where it has been claimed that people have gone to mediums and held strongly in mind a fictional character of their own creating, only to have the medium seemingly convey messages from that fictional character during the seance.

Mike

BillHoyt
7th October 2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


:roll: Whoa there charlie. It wasn't suggested that nobody could be fooled. Read CF's statement again



There is NO WAY, I will definetly be suckered!! It sounds like this poor man has been fooled many times and is now paranoid.

We all make mistakes, we have all been fooled at one time or another, but that doesn't mean I will be fooled by a professional scam artist each time I come across one, and I have come across many.

You sound as paranoid as your buddy.

LeRoy,

Look up on your screen there. That's it. To the right. See those glasses and that face? I wonder why a professional magician was moved to dedicate his life to a foundation dedicated to teaching people how not to be fooled. Have any thoughts on that?

Cheers,

Leroy
7th October 2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by renata


As there was no spirit identification, there was no mediumship. The whole question is if JE was not doing mediumship during those 4 LKL reading, what was he doing? Just "psychic" readings?

A medium is suppose to be able to communicate with the deceased, and reveal direct messages from them about past related events, a psychic is supposed to be able to tell you your future, heath related problems, or about your love life {future}. They are two seperate things. If JE was doing psychic readings, according to the definition of psychic he would only be taping into the future, not the past?

The whole business of psychic, medium, or psychic medium is confusing.

Yeah, what was JE doing on LKL?

Leroy
7th October 2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt


LeRoy,

Look up on your screen there. That's it. To the right. See those glasses and that face? I wonder why a professional magician was moved to dedicate his life to a foundation dedicated to teaching people how not to be fooled. Have any thoughts on that?

Cheers,

Are you saying that you agree with CFLarsen

posted by CFLarsen - There is no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself.

I will definetly be suckered, no if's and's or buts?

What are you trying to say there bill? Or are you just getting overly emotional about nothing?

renata
7th October 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


:roll: Whoa there charlie. It wasn't suggested that nobody could be fooled. Read CF's statement again



There is NO WAY, I will definetly be suckered!! It sounds like this poor man has been fooled many times and is now paranoid.

We all make mistakes, we have all been fooled at one time or another, but that doesn't mean I will be fooled by a professional scam artist each time I come across one, and I have come across many.

You sound as paranoid as your buddy.

Leroy, previously I was an insurance fraud investigator. I have seen and busted a lot of fraud, a lot of scams and a lot of tricks. A lot. And I have had magicians perform card tricks 6 inches from my eyes and they fool me. And I was watching! The point is- you gotta know your strengths. A kid with a magic kit could fool me- one friend once called me the best magic audience, and I hope he meant it as a compliment :). I know magicians and scam artists practice their art for years, and I see them for 3 minutes. Who has the edge? The best thing to do is to avoid scam artists altogether, because the thing they love the most is people who they think can beat them, as they tend to be the fatter mark. Read O'Henry for examples.

Leroy
7th October 2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt


LeRoy,

Look up on your screen there. That's it. To the right. See those glasses and that face? I wonder why a professional magician was moved to dedicate his life to a foundation dedicated to teaching people how not to be fooled. Have any thoughts on that?

Cheers,

Bill, Are you saying that you agree with CFLarsen

posted by CFLarsen - There is no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself.

I will definetly be suckered, no if's and's or buts?

What are you trying to say there bill? Or are you just getting overly emotional about nothing?

renata
7th October 2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


A medium is suppose to be able to communicate with the deceased, and reveal direct messages from them about past related events, a psychic is supposed to be able to tell you your future, heath related problems, or about your love life {future}. They are two seperate things. If JE was doing psychic readings, according to the definition of psychic he would only be taping into the future, not the past?

The whole business of psychic, medium, or psychic medium is confusing.

Yeah, what was JE doing on LKL?

The whole point, Leroy, is that in the examples I provided JE did NOT connect with the deceased. So, the next question is- what did he do? He did NOT say he was not getting a connection. Where was he getting the message from, because we know it was not from the deceased.

Leroy
7th October 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by renata


Leroy, previously I was an insurance fraud investigator. I have seen and busted a lot of fraud, a lot of scams and a lot of tricks. A lot. And I have had magicians perform card tricks 6 inches from my eyes and they fool me. And I was watching! The point is- you gotta know your strengths. A kid with a magic kit could fool me- one friend once called me the best magic audience, and I hope he meant it as a compliment :). I know magicians and scam artists practice their art for years, and I see them for 3 minutes. Who has the edge? The best thing to do is to avoid scam artists altogether, because the thing they love the most is people who they think can beat them, as they tend to be the fatter mark. Read O'Henry for examples.

So what are you saying Renata, are you agreeing with CFLarsen?

QUOTE]posted by CFLarsen - There is [no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself. [/QUOTE]

You and Bill seem to be missing some KEY WORDS in CFLarsen's statement, or maybe you are deliberately overlooking them ;)

CFLarsen
7th October 2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
Damned right it is good to have everything recorded. But if I had the choice of watching something that someone else recorded, or seeing it live, I would rather see it live. What have I missed during the recording? What happened during break? What expressions did I miss when the camera was filming someone else's face?

All valid points. But do you trust your memory, Leroy? In a setting such as a JE seminar?

Originally posted by Leroy
Not everyone is so easily fooled, sorry if that has been a problem in your life ;)

Are you saying that you are not fooled by professional scam artists?

Originally posted by Leroy
There is NO WAY, I will definetly be suckered!! It sounds like this poor man has been fooled many times and is now paranoid.

Paranoid? No, simply aware of how unreliable human memory is. And yes, you will definitely be suckered. Can you explain each and every magic trick you have ever seen?

Originally posted by Leroy
We all make mistakes, we have all been fooled at one time or another, but that doesn't mean I will be fooled by a professional scam artist each time I come across one, and I have come across many.

Now you are backing down from your previous claim. How do you know you are scammed in the first place?

(And you can stop your attempts at trying to impose my point on other posters here. Strawman, pure and simple.)

voidx
7th October 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Mike D.
voidx,

It seems to me that once one admits that someone calling himself or herself a medium has psychic abilities, then it becomes very difficult to prove that any information provided by that medium actually comes from a deceased person.
It becomes difficult for us to tell I agree, but if they really had these abilities, the medium/psychic themselves should be quite easily able to tell which source they are gaining information from. So why don't they clarify this?

The medium could well be using psychic abilities (if they exist) to tap information about the deceased that exists in the minds of living persons, and then subconsciously dramatize that information as though a spirit is communicating.
Possible. Just as possible that their described process of mediumship has tripped itself up, and they have no "spirit communicator" and so they fall back on "psychic" abilities to explain what they did. Although they do not confirm this during the reading, but would say this at a later date if questioned about it. Again, we only have the mediums/psychics word on this.

In fact, there have been cases where it has been claimed that people have gone to mediums and held strongly in mind a fictional character of their own creating, only to have the medium seemingly convey messages from that fictional character during the seance.
I'm sure there are such claims. To me, when we move into "psychic" abilities, the water gets muddied. Things are felt intuitively, the "future" is put through and other more obscure details. "pyschic" abilities, in my opinion, are a perfect fallback for mediumship as they are more generalized and vague and much harder to verify or validate. So in the end I agree with you, it is harder to tell which is why I think this "out" is included in their repetoire, its vagueness makes it pretty much fool-proof.

BillHoyt
7th October 2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Leroy


Are you saying that you agree with CFLarsen

posted by CFLarsen - There is no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself.

I will definetly be suckered, no if's and's or buts?

What are you trying to say there bill? Or are you just getting overly emotional about nothing?
Look up on your screen there. That's it. To the right. See those glasses and that face? I wonder why a professional magician was moved to dedicate his life to a foundation dedicated to teaching people how not to be fooled. Have any thoughts on that?

Leroy
8th October 2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]

All valid points. But do you trust your memory, Leroy? In a setting such as a JE seminar?

To a certain point. I would have a good memory of the things I was looking for, (and of course I would take notes and have others with me to take notes) but I am certain I would miss other things that wasn't on my list to pay attention to. I have an eye for certain things, and miss others, we all do.


Are you saying that you are not fooled by professional scam artists?

Lets make this simple, do you think that I will ALWAYS be suckered? As your statement seems to say

posted by CFLarsen - There is [no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself

posted by CFLARSEN - And yes, you will definitely be suckered.

*LOL* Definitly? Now that amuses me! I work with people on a daily basis who are scammed out of everything they own. These people lose their homes to scam artists. Anyone can be scammed at one point or another, but, education, and common sense save some of us from being suckered. Some of us are not nearly as paranoid as others about being tricked.

[/QUOTE]How do you know you are scammed in the first place?[/QUOTE]

It's statements like the one above that convince me that some people do not possess common sense. :roll:

Leroy
8th October 2003, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt

Look up on your screen there. That's it. To the right. See those glasses and that face? I wonder why a professional magician was moved to dedicate his life to a foundation dedicated to teaching people how not to be fooled. Have any thoughts on that?

:D That's good Bill, when you don't have an answer, just repeat yourself, saves you from having to answer any questions that might be difficult.

BillHoyt
8th October 2003, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


:D That's good Bill, when you don't have an answer, just repeat yourself, saves you from having to answer any questions that might be difficult.

That was my answer. It is my answer. I made no claims, Leroy. You objected to Claus' statement. I asked you, and ask you again, why a professional magician founded JREF. Exploring this question may give you some insight into Claus' comment.

Leroy
8th October 2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt


That was my answer. It is my answer. I made no claims, Leroy. You objected to Claus' statement. I asked you, and ask you again, why a professional magician founded JREF. Exploring this question may give you some insight into Claus' comment.


posted by CFLarsen - There is [no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself


What does James Randi have to do with CFLarsens statement that I will ALWAYS be suckered by a scam artists? In your mind, does Mr. Randi's life somehow verify that Mr. Larsen is correct that I will ALWAYS be suckered?

How does Mr. Larsen know that, is he psychic?

I will DEFINITLY be suckered?

To make such a statement as Mr. Larsen made, one would have to be PSYCHIC ;) How does he know I will definetly be suckered?

I commented to his quote because he stated it as a matter of fact that there was NO WAY I COULD SEE THROUGH A SCAM ARTIST. I will BE SUCKERED. Now, if you don't see anything wrong with that quote, I guess there isn't much I can say to you.

BillHoyt
8th October 2003, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
What does James Randi have to do with CFLarsens statement that I will ALWAYS be suckered by a scam artists? In your mind, does Mr. Randi's life somehow verify that Mr. Larsen is correct that I will ALWAYS be suckered?
You are strawmanning Claus' comment and trying to put that straw in my mouth. :rolleyes:

voidx
8th October 2003, 08:06 AM
Cripes people! Here's a thought. There are different degree's to which one can be "suckered" or "scammed". Some people are taken in by credit card scams, some aren't. Some may be taken in by certain aspects of it, but not as a whole. Basically its not black and white all the time. Go to a magic show and out of 10 tricks, you might actually gleem how 1 or 2 are done by prior knowledge and observation, but you might get fooled by the other 8, having no idea how they were done. There is a clarification to be made here, you can be tricked while knowing the whole time you are being tricked, you just can't say how it was done. Then there are also times when you don't know you're being tricked at all by putting too much faith in the trickster, usually sub-consciously. It depends on the person as to what degree they are "suckered" or "scammed" and sometimes even if you don't think you will be, when the time comes it turns out that you are distracted and tricked anyway. There is no blanket statement that applies here, so if you can all agree to this, then I'd say we move on.

Leroy
8th October 2003, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by voidx

There are different degree's to which one can be "suckered" or "scammed". Some people are taken in by credit card scams, some aren't. Some may be taken in by certain aspects of it, but not as a whole. Basically its not black and white all the time. Go to a magic show and out of 10 tricks, you might actually gleem how 1 or 2 are done by prior knowledge and observation, but you might get fooled by the other 8, having no idea how they were done. There is a clarification to be made here, you can be tricked while knowing the whole time you are being tricked, you just can't say how it was done. Then there are also times when you don't know you're being tricked at all by putting too much faith in the trickster, usually sub-consciously. It depends on the person as to what degree they are "suckered" or "scammed" and sometimes even if you don't think you will be, when the time comes it turns out that you are distracted and tricked anyway. There is no blanket statement that applies here, so if you can all agree to this, then I'd say we move on.
:

Thank you voidx! This is what I was hoping that Bill would be able to see. Even if he does, I doubt that he can admit that there are big flaws in this statement

posted by CFLarsen - There is [no way you will be able to keep up with a professional scam artist. You will be suckered, if you rely on yourself

BillHoyt
8th October 2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
This is what I was hoping that Bill would be able to see. Even if he does, I doubt that he can admit that there are big flaws in this statement


Leroy,

I have NEVER made a statement regarding Claus' statement. I commented on your response to Claus. Your shadowboxing exercise will only give you raw knuckles.

CFLarsen
8th October 2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
To a certain point. I would have a good memory of the things I was looking for, (and of course I would take notes and have others with me to take notes) but I am certain I would miss other things that wasn't on my list to pay attention to. I have an eye for certain things, and miss others, we all do.

Yes, we all do. However, you seemed very certain that you wouldn't miss anything. The things you miss are the things that are meant for you to miss them. That's why memory is so unreliable, especially when dealing with a scam artist.

Originally posted by Leroy
Lets make this simple, do you think that I will ALWAYS be suckered? As your statement seems to say

Unless you are able to get behind the scenes, or you already know what the trick is, you are much more likely to be suckered.

Don't overestimate yourself. You are much more likely to be suckered, if you do.

Originally posted by Leroy
*LOL* Definitly? Now that amuses me! I work with people on a daily basis who are scammed out of everything they own. These people lose their homes to scam artists. Anyone can be scammed at one point or another, but, education, and common sense save some of us from being suckered. Some of us are not nearly as paranoid as others about being tricked.

Try asking the people who were scammed, if they thought they were educated enough or had enough common sense not to be suckered. What do you think they will answer?

Originally posted by Leroy
It's statements like the one above that convince me that some people do not possess common sense. :roll:

Please answer the question, or state that you refuse to answer it. Forum rules, Leroy.

Leroy
10th October 2003, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt

Leroy,

I have NEVER made a statement regarding Claus' statement. I commented on your response to Claus. Your shadowboxing exercise will only give you raw knuckles.

Bill, I bet it is hard for you to keep up with what goes on in that head of yours. Yes you commented on my response to Claus. Your comment suggested that he was right, since it lacked any wording that suggested otherwise ;)


Originally posted by CFLarsen However, you seemed very certain that you wouldn't miss anything.

I do? Where? Please point out the sentence or paragraph that has you convinced of this and I will clear it up for you ;)


Originally posted by CFLarsen - Unless you are able to get behind the scenes, or you already know what the trick is, you are much more likely to be suckered.

Let me ask you something CF. Are you talking of just magicians, or all scam artists out there in this world?


Originally posted by CFLarsen - Don't overestimate yourself. You are much more likely to be suckered, if you do.

Now that statement I can agree with ;)

Try asking the people who were scammed, if they thought they were educated enough or had enough common sense not to be suckered. What do you think they will answer?

I have asked each and everyone of my clients how they got suckered, and I always hear the same things, "I just wasn't thinking" "I believed he was honest" "I thought they were a reputable company" and the number one reply was "I didn't ask questions. Most of it boils down to lack of understanding, and lack of education.

That is speaking only of one kind of scam artist. One being scammed by a medium or psychic, could be for the same reasons, lack of education , or a desire to believe, or many other things.


[i]originally posted by CFLarsen - Please answer the question, or state that you refuse to answer it. Forum rules, Leroy :dl: Look whose talking about answering questions! That's what I love about you CFLarsen, you are one of a kind!

BillHoyt
10th October 2003, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
Yes you commented on my response to Claus. Your comment suggested that he was right, since it lacked any wording that suggested otherwise ;)

Why do you think the Pope sh**s in the woods? I don't get it.

Cheers,

Leroy
10th October 2003, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt


Why do you think the Pope sh**s in the woods? I don't get it.

Cheers, That's alright Bill. I get the feeling that you don't get a lot of things. It's not a big deal :rolleyes:

BillHoyt
10th October 2003, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Leroy
That's alright Bill. I get the feeling that you don't get a lot of things. It's not a big deal :rolleyes:

Okay, so you did say the Pope sh**s in the woods. Why?

Leroy
10th October 2003, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt


Okay, so you did say the Pope sh**s in the woods. Why?

Bill, do you ever get tired of your own nonsense? :rolleyes:

BillHoyt
10th October 2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


Bill, do you ever get tired of your own nonsense? :rolleyes:

What ARE you talking about? Your comment suggested the Pope sh**s in the woods, since it lacked any wording that suggested otherwise. ;)

Cheers,

BillHoyt
10th October 2003, 07:52 AM
Do you ever tire of your own nonsensical illogic?

UnTrickaBLe
2nd June 2004, 03:52 AM
In for later. :D