John Edward - psychic or what?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Ummm...

...maybe he's smart enough to keep his "guesses" based on specific mic info just vague enough so as to lead people to jump to the conclusion you just did?

Yeah, getting too good is suspicious. That's why those silly ghost-hunting TV shows never try to cgi a full-bodied apparation because they know full well that even the dimmest of their viewers might call bs on that.

Well, maybe not the dimmest.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Resume

That's why those silly ghost-hunting TV shows never try to cgi a full-bodied apparation because they know full well that even the dimmest of their viewers might call bs on that.

What???

You mean they're not real???

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

What???

You mean they're not real???

No, they're very real...



... That's why in all the years in all the ghost hunting shows, they've never managed to actually find one.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Resume

Don't doubt it. Once upon a time we played in crowded clubs with stage lights in our eyes and we could consistently identify a comely companion with which to occupy our time after the big shoe.

I can second this. One can indeed read facial expressions from 40 or more feet away while under spotlight / stage lighting, especially with suitable motivation.

[meg]

Originally Posted by RemieV

See, again, we run into the skeptic thing where a proposed explanation simply would not work and yet it's very insistently presented. No. Simply no. It doesn't mean Edward is a medium. It wasn't a trick. It was knowledge. Period. I've had endless numbers of famous skeptics/mentalist/magicians review the tape.

Ok, RemieV. Could you please elaborate on what knowledge you believe JE had to have in order to pull this off? Could you please elaborate as to why my proposed explanation simply would not work?

I will try here to address some of the arguments you've already made in this thread.

You have said you think that there is no way that JE could have seen Liam's facial expressions close enough to read, however there are two people here with stage experience that differ with you on that opinion. Could it be possible you are making an assumption about JE's visual abilities that simply is not accurate? Alternatively, could it be possible that JE wears magnifying contacts or glasses ( I know sometimes he wears glasses) that might assist him in seeing things far away? On page one you said that Liam was sixty feet away from Edward. On page 29 you say he was "a good forty feet" away. Is it possible you aren't that great at judging the distance?

You have said that you felt some of the tables you were at, and couldn't find bugs, and that you had someone stationed outside the casino monitoring radio signals. As someone else stated, these activities do not necessarily rule out all electronic surveillance of the area or the audience. A quick gander over here: http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/ca...ras.do?nType=2 tells me there are a number of tiny recording devices that could be hidden around the room or even on people wandering the room, sitting at tables, or waiting in line that could be brought to JE before the show, to peek at before he goes on stage. A month or so ago, when Robin started her other JE thread, I went over and looked at JE's facebook page, website, and read several of his past newsletters. In one of them, he announced a new member of his staff, a uniformed security guard that would be at events. Now, this seems to me to be a very possible way to have someone discretely wandering around gathering information that most people wouldn't even notice, nor remember even seeing.

You have said that there is no way JE could have recording devices because if he did he would be better at his readings. I'm sorry, but this sounds like pure speculation to me, as well as a hasty generalization fallacy. I don't see any reason why he couldn't keep some covertly gained information in his proverbial back pocket, not to use every time, but to use sparingly, only when he was getting a string of misses, and needed a quick "wow".

You have said that you as well as several notable magicians do not believe that JE uses stooges. Could you please elaborate as to exactly what you mean here? By stooges, are you referring to plants in the audience that pretend JE is giving them an amazingly accurate reading? Or are you referring to any assistants or staff whatsoever that might gather and/or feed him information?

You have said that this reading is different because JE used a specific name, instead of using his usual letters and sounds like thing, but that's just not that special. He does use specific names regularly. On this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C1ItcjR_kM , the very first JE video that came up when I googled "John Edward unedited", you can see him do it at 3:13. First he says "they're telling me to say Jenny, or Jennifer" and even then clarifies that to "Jennifer Marie". He even keeps on and on about it for 3 more minutes, even though the client obviously does not recognize that name. John Edward throwing out a name is not an indicator that he knew Liam's name.

[Nay_Sayer]

Originally Posted by meg

Ok, RemieV. Could you please elaborate on what knowledge you believe JE had to have in order to pull this off? Could you please elaborate as to why my proposed explanation simply would not work?

I will try here to address some of the arguments you've already made in this thread.

You have said you think that there is no way that JE could have seen Liam's facial expressions close enough to read, however there are two people here with stage experience that differ with you on that opinion. Could it be possible you are making an assumption about JE's visual abilities that simply is not accurate? Alternatively, could it be possible that JE wears magnifying contacts or glasses ( I know sometimes he wears glasses) that might assist him in seeing things far away? On page one you said that Liam was sixty feet away from Edward. On page 29 you say he was "a good forty feet" away. Is it possible you aren't that great at judging the distance?

You have said that you felt some of the tables you were at, and couldn't find bugs, and that you had someone stationed outside the casino monitoring radio signals. As someone else stated, these activities do not necessarily rule out all electronic surveillance of the area or the audience. A quick gander over here: http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/ca...ras.do?nType=2 tells me there are a number of tiny recording devices that could be hidden around the room or even on people wandering the room, sitting at tables, or waiting in line that could be brought to JE before the show, to peek at before he goes on stage. A month or so ago, when Robin started her other JE thread, I went over and looked at JE's facebook page, website, and read several of his past newsletters. In one of them, he announced a new member of his staff, a uniformed security guard that would be at events. Now, this seems to me to be a very possible way to have someone discretely wandering around gathering information that most people wouldn't even notice, nor remember even seeing.

You have said that there is no way JE could have recording devices because if he did he would be better at his readings. I'm sorry, but this sounds like pure speculation to me, as well as a hasty generalization fallacy. I don't see any reason why he couldn't keep some covertly gained information in his proverbial back pocket, not to use every time, but to use sparingly, only when he was getting a string of misses, and needed a quick "wow".

You have said that you as well as several notable magicians do not believe that JE uses stooges. Could you please elaborate as to exactly what you mean here? By stooges, are you referring to plants in the audience that pretend JE is giving them an amazingly accurate reading? Or are you referring to any assistants or staff whatsoever that might gather and/or feed him information?

You have said that this reading is different because JE used a specific name, instead of using his usual letters and sounds like thing, but that's just not that special. He does use specific names regularly. On this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C1ItcjR_kM , the very first JE video that came up when I googled "John Edward unedited", you can see him do it at 3:13. First he says "they're telling me to say Jenny, or Jennifer" and even then clarifies that to "Jennifer Marie". He even keeps on and on about it for 3 more minutes, even though the client obviously does not recognize that name. John Edward throwing out a name is not an indicator that he knew Liam's name.

A small piggyback here; You can find John Edward doing it in various Youtube clips, After a missed name he will say something to the effect of "Go home and ask your relatives if they know this name." This creates the illusion of a hit and that it was the persons fault for not remembering it(the name).

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

A small piggyback here; You can find John Edward doing it in various Youtube clips, After a missed name he will say something to the effect of "Go home and ask your relatives if they know this name." This creates the illusion of a hit and that it was the persons fault for not remembering it(the name).

"Keep that, it might make sense later."

Welcome to John Edwardville where even the misses are hits!

[Robin1]

Originally Posted by Resume

"Keep that, it might make sense later."

Welcome to John Edwardville where even the misses are hits!

Resume, because even the misses can be, and most likely are.... hits! Remember I addressed "psychic amnesia"... God : ) only knows where, but somewhere here. Remember some of poor John's huge "misses" that were validated (hugely validated!!)afterwards:
1) My brother's Valerie Harper connection
2) Guy with a big tooth in his pocket
3) Hard "G" sounding name

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Resume, because even the misses can be, and most likely are.... hits! Remember I addressed "psychic amnesia"... God : ) only knows where, but somewhere here. Remember some of poor John's huge "misses" that were validated (hugely validated!!)afterwards:
1) My brother's Valerie Harper connection
2) Guy with a big tooth in his pocket
3) Hard "G" sounding name

Retrofitting (postdiction) is awesome! You pays the money and you do the work. John Edward (non-prophet) profits!

This is another cold-reading caper that should give you pause, but won't.

[Robin1]

Originally Posted by meg

Ok, RemieV. Could you please elaborate on what knowledge you believe JE had to have in order to pull this off? Could you please elaborate as to why my proposed explanation simply would not work?

I will try here to address some of the arguments you've already made in this thread.

You have said you think that there is no way that JE could have seen Liam's facial expressions close enough to read, however there are two people here with stage experience that differ with you on that opinion. Could it be possible you are making an assumption about JE's visual abilities that simply is not accurate? Alternatively, could it be possible that JE wears magnifying contacts or glasses ( I know sometimes he wears glasses) that might assist him in seeing things far away? On page one you said that Liam was sixty feet away from Edward. On page 29 you say he was "a good forty feet" away. Is it possible you aren't that great at judging the distance?

You have said that you felt some of the tables you were at, and couldn't find bugs, and that you had someone stationed outside the casino monitoring radio signals. As someone else stated, these activities do not necessarily rule out all electronic surveillance of the area or the audience. A quick gander over here: http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/ca...ras.do?nType=2 tells me there are a number of tiny recording devices that could be hidden around the room or even on people wandering the room, sitting at tables, or waiting in line that could be brought to JE before the show, to peek at before he goes on stage. A month or so ago, when Robin started her other JE thread, I went over and looked at JE's facebook page, website, and read several of his past newsletters. In one of them, he announced a new member of his staff, a uniformed security guard that would be at events. Now, this seems to me to be a very possible way to have someone discretely wandering around gathering information that most people wouldn't even notice, nor remember even seeing.

You have said that there is no way JE could have recording devices because if he did he would be better at his readings. I'm sorry, but this sounds like pure speculation to me, as well as a hasty generalization fallacy. I don't see any reason why he couldn't keep some covertly gained information in his proverbial back pocket, not to use every time, but to use sparingly, only when he was getting a string of misses, and needed a quick "wow".

You have said that you as well as several notable magicians do not believe that JE uses stooges. Could you please elaborate as to exactly what you mean here? By stooges, are you referring to plants in the audience that pretend JE is giving them an amazingly accurate reading? Or are you referring to any assistants or staff whatsoever that might gather and/or feed him information?

You have said that this reading is different because JE used a specific name, instead of using his usual letters and sounds like thing, but that's just not that special. He does use specific names regularly. On this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C1ItcjR_kM , the very first JE video that came up when I googled "John Edward unedited", you can see him do it at 3:13. First he says "they're telling me to say Jenny, or Jennifer" and even then clarifies that to "Jennifer Marie". He even keeps on and on about it for 3 more minutes, even though the client obviously does not recognize that name. John Edward throwing out a name is not an indicator that he knew Liam's name.

Remie, Meg is doing it again!!! Don't even bother. She will either skeptically persist, ad nauseam ,even when previously and repeatedly shown that her scenarios were not realistic. Or my favorite...based on personal experience...she will try to twist (whatever way she can including leaving out details) what you said to fit her own personal agenda. But I am guessing that with you, she will try to leave the intentional mocking and nasty edge out of it. Your call.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Remie, Meg is doing it again!!!

Oh don't be such a tattletale.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by RemieV

The part that makes it "wow" is that no one knew the reasons. It all fell together without anyone being told anything beyond "Hey - can you pick up pizza for Jeff?"

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Which makes the card thing impressive, but still not the rest of it.

I don't think it's surprising at all that a pizza place would have stuff doing a riff on the Creation of Adam painting.

Pizza Hut had a popular advertising campaign using one such riff (going back to ~2003):
http://www.advertolog.com/pizza-hut/...-adam-4996305/

Pizza Rock is known for its own riff on the Creation of Adam painting.
http://pizzarocksacramento.com/cgi-b...&ZONE=PIZZAROK

And, of course, there's this pizza place:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparkyt...at/2561657291/

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing any "wow" factor to this.

[Robin1]

Originally Posted by Resume

Oh don't be such a tattletale.

: )

[meg]

Originally Posted by LashL

I don't think it's surprising at all that a pizza place would have stuff doing a riff on the Creation of Adam painting.

Pizza Hut had a popular advertising campaign using one such riff (going back to ~2003):
http://www.advertolog.com/pizza-hut/...-adam-4996305/

Pizza Rock is known for its own riff on the Creation of Adam painting.
http://pizzarocksacramento.com/cgi-b...&ZONE=PIZZAROK

And, of course, there's this pizza place:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparkyt...at/2561657291/

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing any "wow" factor to this.

And don't forget about this name for a pizza place, which seems to be pretty darned common: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=michelangelos+pizza

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by LashL

I don't think it's surprising at all that a pizza place would have stuff doing a riff on the Creation of Adam painting.

I don't, but it is unusual for a pizza place to sell cards. And the thing that makes it a coincidence is that the pizza was being bought for the express purpose of being a sign from God and a party who knew nothing about the purpose of the pizza independently bought a card in which she wrote a message which explicitly made the pizza a sign from God.

Yes, the Creation of Adam is a very well-known piece of art and there are lots and lots of uses of it in various media for various purposes and, given that image on the card, the message inside the card is the most obvious one to write. But it's still an unlikely thing that all the pieces would fall together the way they did.

Not as impressive a coincidence as it could have been, and not as impressive as Remie and Robin seem to believe it is, but it's still quite a nice coincidence. I think it's a noteworthy thing to have happened.

[Robin1]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I don't, but it is unusual for a pizza place to sell cards. And the thing that makes it a coincidence is that the pizza was being bought for the express purpose of being a sign from God and a party who knew nothing about the purpose of the pizza independently bought a card in which she wrote a message which explicitly made the pizza a sign from God.

Yes, the Creation of Adam is a very well-known piece of art and there are lots and lots of uses of it in various media for various purposes and, given that image on the card, the message inside the card is the most obvious one to write. But it's still an unlikely thing that all the pieces would fall together the way they did.

Not as impressive a coincidence as it could have been, and not as impressive as Remie and Robin seem to believe it is, but it's still quite a nice coincidence. I think it's a noteworthy thing to have happened.

Hallelujah!

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Not as impressive a coincidence as it could have been, and not as impressive as Remie and Robin seem to believe it is, but it's still quite a nice coincidence. I think it's a noteworthy thing to have happened.

That's just what they want you to think...

[meg]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Remie, Meg is doing it again!!! Don't even bother. She will either skeptically persist, ad nauseam ,even when previously and repeatedly shown that her scenarios were not realistic. Or my favorite...based on personal experience...she will try to twist (whatever way she can including leaving out details) what you said to fit her own personal agenda. But I am guessing that with you, she will try to leave the intentional mocking and nasty edge out of it. Your call.

Robin, I think you're not quite understanding what this conversation is about. Nor even this thread.

RemieV has made it very clear that she does not think that Edward is psychic, nor that he is talking to dead people. And she plainly stated that she believes at least sometimes Edward uses hot reading, meaning he actually has some covertly attained information about the client vs just cold reading, where the mentalist kind of "wings" it on the fly and adjusts the reading based on the client's reactions.

In the OP, RemieV posted what she saw as an impressive bit of one of Edward's acts, in which Edward gives out some information that RemieV believes was attained by some covert method, and she asked for input as to how he might have gotten that information.

I think, if I read her posts correctly, that she believes/d that Edward had to have attained TWO pieces of information about the client prior to the beginning of the reading; Liam's first name, as well as the fact that Liam goes by his middle name, a difficult combination of information to attain.

My interpretation of the scenario only involves Edward needing ONE much more easily attainable piece of information.

This is not an argument between skeptic and believer. It is a discussion between skeptics about which method or methods of trickery Edward used.

I am not trying to twist anything, nor am I trying to intentionally leave out important details. I am genuinely and wholeheartedly interested in figuring out how this trick was done.

As to my leaving out some of YOUR details, something I think you don't get is that sometimes in order to analyze the important facets of a story, one needs to put aside some of the details that don't actually add anything meaningful or useful. They are only a distraction.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Remie, Meg is doing it again!!! Don't even bother. She will either skeptically persist, ad nauseam ,even when previously and repeatedly shown that her scenarios were not realistic. Or my favorite...based on personal experience...she will try to twist (whatever way she can including leaving out details) what you said to fit her own personal agenda. But I am guessing that with you, she will try to leave the intentional mocking and nasty edge out of it. Your call.

And thus,.... Proof of Life After Death.

First, please stop personalizing your discussions with or about Meg. It's rather unseemly for someone who's supposed to be spreading sweetness and light, don't you think?

Second, in case you haven't figure it out, you have not found a kindred spirit in Remie. She's made that sort of clear. Instead of looking for allies, why don't you address the actual issues with something more than gut-feeling rationale.

I, for one, would like to know something that's been repeatedly asked.... Just what "research" did you do. From your posts here and on your blog, it seems that your research involved going to a lot of psychics. I suppose, in the right frame of mind, that might be research, but it truly sounds from your posts that you weren't looking to expose frauds so much as you were looking for The One. How much reading, of a critical nature, did you do on these charlatans. Have you seen Randi's famous exposure of Peter Popoff? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff Have you read your Sagan and Gardner and Randi? The Skeptic Wiki?

By the way... Are you aware of why ExMinister refers to herself by that name? We tend to know each others' back story around here, and I'm not sure she properly introduced herself and her personal credentials. (I'll leave it to her to do so if she chooses, but you can find it in her earliest posts here.)

[Robin1]

Originally Posted by meg

Robin, I think you're not quite understanding what this conversation is about. Nor even this thread.

RemieV has made it very clear that she does not think that Edward is psychic, nor that he is talking to dead people. And she plainly stated that she believes at least sometimes Edward uses hot reading, meaning he actually has some covertly attained information about the client vs just cold reading, where the mentalist kind of "wings" it on the fly and adjusts the reading based on the client's reactions.

In the OP, RemieV posted what she saw as an impressive bit of one of Edward's acts, in which Edward gives out some information that RemieV believes was attained by some covert method, and she asked for input as to how he might have gotten that information.

I think, if I read her posts correctly, that she believes/d that Edward had to have attained TWO pieces of information about the client prior to the beginning of the reading; Liam's first name, as well as the fact that Liam goes by his middle name, a difficult combination of information to attain.

My interpretation of the scenario only involves Edward needing ONE much more easily attainable piece of information.

This is not an argument between skeptic and believer. It is a discussion between skeptics about which method or methods of trickery Edward used.

I am not trying to twist anything, nor am I trying to intentionally leave out important details. I am genuinely and wholeheartedly interested in figuring out how this trick was done.

As to my leaving out some of YOUR details, something I think you don't get is that sometimes in order to analyze the important facets of a story, one needs to put aside some of the details that don't actually add anything meaningful or useful. They are only a distraction.

Meg, I get that Remie does not believe what I do. I've stated that earlier in this thread . You seem to have missed that as well. Better question is whether you get what Remie said about a proposed explanation by a skeptic would simply not work yet it is insistently presented? And Meg, the details of my stories were not simply a distraction instead they were integral to the validity of the stories. Do you really not get that? Or are you purposely trying to mislead yet again? You see Meg , I do have your number. The evidence is in your posts.

[Robin1]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

And thus,.... Proof of Life After Death.

First, please stop personalizing your discussions with or about Meg. It's rather unseemly for someone who's supposed to be spreading sweetness and light, don't you think?

Second, in case you haven't figure it out, you have not found a kindred spirit in Remie. She's made that sort of clear. Instead of looking for allies, why don't you address the actual issues with something more than gut-feeling rationale.

I, for one, would like to know something that's been repeatedly asked.... Just what "research" did you do. From your posts here and on your blog, it seems that your research involved going to a lot of psychics. I suppose, in the right frame of mind, that might be research, but it truly sounds from your posts that you weren't looking to expose frauds so much as you were looking for The One. How much reading, of a critical nature, did you do on these charlatans. Have you seen Randi's famous exposure of Peter Popoff? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff Have you read your Sagan and Gardner and Randi? The Skeptic Wiki?

By the way... Are you aware of why ExMinister refers to herself by that name? We tend to know each others' back story around here, and I'm not sure she properly introduced herself and her personal credentials. (I'll leave it to her to do so if she chooses, but you can find it in her earliest posts here.)

Foolmewunz....I never claimed to be an angel. However, my sweetness and light, will tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. And a 2nd chance. Even a 3rd chance. After that, in the absence of any regret, and instead the perpetuation of inappropriate behavior, I am done being sweet and will tell it like it is. You "fooled me once..."should be able to relate to that .
Moving on, of course I understand Remie does not agree with me( if you will remember I stopped saving her pina colada and instead drank it : )
In terms, of the research I have done through the years besides personal experience....books , articles, and the Internet....and yes from multiple points of view...of course including James Randi.
Lastly, I am aware of ex minister's background and respect her views which are offered with kindness, which I appreciate.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Lastly, I am aware of ex minister's background and respect her views which are offered with kindness, which I appreciate.

What is it?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Oh, the way the room was set up was with tables like restaurant tables with random groups of people. I was at a table with three people, for instance, and two of them were together and one was flying solo. It's natural, in that situation, to introduce yourself around so I assume most people would. I can't recall if I did or not - probably, because in case anyone DID turn out to be a plant, I wanted my fake name out there.

I think you are missing the obvious here. He introduced himself to the table as Liam. JE called him Joshua. I am sure that the people at the table had a "BS" look on their faces when he responded as Joshua and JE noticed this. Either way he would win. He told him to take out his DL to show to the table.

IF Joshua was lying to JE JE would win

If Joshua was telling the truth JE would get a dramatic "win" and also confirm his second name.

Think about it.

[meg]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Meg, I get that Remie does not believe what I do. I've stated that earlier in this thread . You seem to have missed that as well. Better question is whether you get what Remie said about a proposed explanation by a skeptic would simply not work yet it is insistently presented? And Meg, the details of my stories were not simply a distraction instead they were integral to the validity of the stories. Do you really not get that? Or are you purposely trying to mislead yet again? You see Meg , I do have your number. The evidence is in your posts.

I have never tried to mislead you, Robin. I've been trying to get you to think, to analyze your own words, to analyze your own thought process, and to actually argue your case.

Which details must we know before we can correctly calculate the odds of your occurance? You put a whole lot of details into your two paragraphs. Which of these are imperative to this story?

The unimportant but unique event in the life of your friend?
The detail of the time period between your dreams and the events?
The detail of the amount of people you were ordering for at McDonalds?
The detail about your weight has always been a problem?
The detail about your mental dilemma over hamburgers?
The detail about whether you were charged for the big mac or not?
The detail about it being a few months later that you took a cruise?
The detail that you were on a cruise with family?
The detail about the bartender being busy?
The detail about your dilemma about your drink order?
The detail about you like a splash of cranberry juice in your vodka and seltzer?
The detail about bingo being about to start?
The detail about it being the 5th day of the cruise?
The detail about what time it was announced there would be a drawing?
The detail about the drawing was from bingo cards?

If I have missed one (or more) I apologize. It is not intentional.

State your case, Robin. If I have been unfair to your position because I eliminated important details, then please spell it out.

Which details are important?
Why are they important?
How does each one, in your opinion, change the odds of the equation?

[LashL]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I don't, but it is unusual for a pizza place to sell cards.

Perhaps, although given the many years of advertising linking pizza to the Creation of Adam painting, I don't think that's particularly compelling.

It also occurs to me (belatedly) while looking back at RemieV's link to the pizza thing, that we have not actually been told in the anecdote that the pizza slices were purchased at a "pizza place" at all. There are no details provided in the anecdote about the location or nature of the store at which the pizza slices and the card were purchased. It may be that they were purchased at a 7/11 or a local restaurant/general store type of place that sells all kinds of things (including pizza slices and greeting cards), or a CostCo or WalMart type of place, for all we know. The anecdote doesn't say.

It says only that pizza places didn't deliver to Jeff's house, that the nearest restaurant was half an hour away, and that the mutual friend picked up pizza slices and a card somewhere between New Hampshire and Jeff's house in Vermont.

Perhaps RemieV can fill in the missing details about the store, its name, its nature, and its location, in order that we can assess the matter and its level of coincidence (and the existence or non-existence of any 'wow' factor) further.

[Robin1]

Originally Posted by meg

I have never tried to mislead you, Robin. I've been trying to get you to think, to analyze your own words, to analyze your own thought process, and to actually argue your case.

Which details must we know before we can correctly calculate the odds of your occurance? You put a whole lot of details into your two paragraphs. Which of these are imperative to this story?

The unimportant but unique event in the life of your friend?
The detail of the time period between your dreams and the events?
The detail of the amount of people you were ordering for at McDonalds?
The detail about your weight has always been a problem?
The detail about your mental dilemma over hamburgers?
The detail about whether you were charged for the big mac or not?
The detail about it being a few months later that you took a cruise?
The detail that you were on a cruise with family?
The detail about the bartender being busy?
The detail about your dilemma about your drink order?
The detail about you like a splash of cranberry juice in your vodka and seltzer?
The detail about bingo being about to start?
The detail about it being the 5th day of the cruise?
The detail about what time it was announced there would be a drawing?
The detail about the drawing was from bingo cards?

If I have missed one (or more) I apologize. It is not intentional.

State your case, Robin. If I have been unfair to your position because I eliminated important details, then please spell it out.

Which details are important?
Why are they important?
How does each one, in your opinion, change the odds of the equation?

I agree Meg, you were never trying to mislead me...it is indeed others you were trying to mislead. And even still trying to mislead. As for me, you were merely hoping to confuse me , mock me and bully me into leaving...for good. Unfortunately, for you, that just strengthens my resolve to stay. You see Meg, the gut negative feeling I got about you when you posted your TLA winning comment was indeed, spot on. The more you post, the more you prove it.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Remie, Meg is doing it again!!! Don't even bother. She will either skeptically persist, ad nauseam ,even when previously and repeatedly shown that her scenarios were not realistic. Or my favorite...based on personal experience...she will try to twist (whatever way she can including leaving out details) what you said to fit her own personal agenda. But I am guessing that with you, she will try to leave the intentional mocking and nasty edge out of it. Your call.

What do you have but a personal experience?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Foolmewunz....I never claimed to be an angel. However, my sweetness and light, will tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. And a 2nd chance. Even a 3rd chance. After that, in the absence of any regret, and instead the perpetuation of inappropriate behavior, I am done being sweet and will tell it like it is. You "fooled me once..."should be able to relate to that .
Moving on, of course I understand Remie does not agree with me( if you will remember I stopped saving her pina colada and instead drank it : )
In terms, of the research I have done through the years besides personal experience....books , articles, and the Internet....and yes from multiple points of view...of course including James Randi.
Lastly, I am aware of ex minister's background and respect her views which are offered with kindness, which I appreciate.

That's a two way street.

[truethat]

You mean the TLA we all agreed was a brilliant interpretation of what happens with cold readings? I'm sensing that you took it personally, that is understandable, I don't think I remember a TLA that was awarded for snarking someone.

But Robin, you are ignoring direct questions and being petulant, that's not fair. John Edward wouldn't do that....or would he....

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

I agree Meg, you were never trying to mislead me...it is indeed others you were trying to mislead. And even still trying to mislead. As for me, you were merely hoping to confuse me , mock me and bully me into leaving...for good. Unfortunately, for you, that just strengthens my resolve to stay. You see Meg, the gut negative feeling I got about you when you posted your TLA winning comment was indeed, spot on. The more you post, the more you prove it.

A personal attack on Meg in lieu of a substantial answer to her polite, apologetic and exact post is not a good way to go. It would seem to indicate a reluctance on your part to actually engage in discussion to move the subject forwards.

And once again you reiterate the same baseless (though slightly modified) accusation of 'misleading' without addressing what is misleading about anything Meg has written.

Once again your 'gut feeling' is wrong and your intellectual dishonesty abundant.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

I agree Meg, you were never trying to mislead me...it is indeed others you were trying to mislead. And even still trying to mislead. As for me, you were merely hoping to confuse me , mock me and bully me into leaving...for good. Unfortunately, for you, that just strengthens my resolve to stay. You see Meg, the gut negative feeling I got about you when you posted your TLA winning comment was indeed, spot on. The more you post, the more you prove it.

[Robin1]

Originally Posted by truethat

You mean the TLA we all agreed was a brilliant interpretation of what happens with cold readings? I'm sensing that you took it personally, that is understandable, I don't think I remember a TLA that was awarded for snarking someone.

But Robin, you are ignoring direct questions and being petulant, that's not fair. John Edward wouldn't do that....or would he....

Truethat, I'm glad you are back . Truly. But, if you consider Meg's award winning comment to be brilliant and you don't see the dark side she needlessly inserted in it, well then , I guess my gut was wrong about you, too.

[truethat]

uh oh!!

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by LashL

Perhaps, although given the many years of advertising linking pizza to the Creation of Adam painting, I don't think that's particularly compelling.

It also occurs to me (belatedly) while looking back at RemieV's link to the pizza thing, that we have not actually been told in the anecdote that the pizza slices were purchased at a "pizza place" at all. There are no details provided in the anecdote about the location or nature of the store at which the pizza slices and the card were purchased. It may be that they were purchased at a 7/11 or a local restaurant/general store type of place that sells all kinds of things (including pizza slices and greeting cards), or a CostCo or WalMart type of place, for all we know. The anecdote doesn't say.

It says only that pizza places didn't deliver to Jeff's house, that the nearest restaurant was half an hour away, and that the mutual friend picked up pizza slices and a card somewhere between New Hampshire and Jeff's house in Vermont.

Perhaps RemieV can fill in the missing details about the store, its name, its nature, and its location, in order that we can assess the matter and its level of coincidence (and the existence or non-existence of any 'wow' factor) further.

I don't actually recall what the pizza place was. You'd have to ask Kitty.

[FluffyPersian]

Originally Posted by meg

For whatever random reason, JE comes up with the name Joshua, and aims it toward Liam's table. Maybe he was intending to work one of Liam's tablemates, and then work Liam's "L" name in later on. Who knows. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that he says the name Joshua and Liam reacts. You said Liam stood up. I am sure that Liam probably reacted in such a way as to make it clear that he was the Joshua. Maybe he stood up really fast. Maybe he reacted like I said before, with surprise and a hand gesture that said "Oh wow, that's me!"

So now JE has something. He KNOWS that Liam has called himself another name. So he rolled with it and pretended he was getting something "weird".

"So, this is weird. I am getting that YOU are Joshua" Well, duh. Joshua just stood up and was obvious.
"Yes" HIT says the audience mentally.
"But you introduced yourself by another name.."
"Yes" HIT two! says the audience mentally
"Hand the microphone to someone else.. What name did this man introduce himself as?"
"Liam" HIT three! says the audience mentally, even though we're still really on number two. This is also an excellent distraction for the audience so they don't think too hard about how JE might know how Liam introduced himself.
Then, as I said before, JE, having a good understanding of names and common nicknames, etc, quickly deducts that Liam is going by his middle name, so he pulls a little showman stunt to make this seem more amazing than it really is.
"Please take out your drivers license and show it to the people at your table"
"Joshua Liam Smith" someone reads out. HOLY SMOKES!!! says the audience mentally, and so does RemieV, because it FEELS like John Edward just knew this guys full name.

And I'm willing to bet that if you asked several true believers what they remember about that incident, at least a few of them would say that they distinctly remember John Edward KNEW this guy's full name, AND that the guy went by his middle name. AMAZING! What are the odds of that???!!

The truth is though, obviously, that he didn't know any such thing. John Edward only knew that Liam did not introduce himself as Joshua.

This was precisely my reaction when I read the first part of the thread. I refrained from posting it since I figured someone else had probably doe so already. (I had only read through page ten.)

Remie, would you please say more about why you believe Meg's cold reading scenario (above) is unrealistic? You've said that Edward couldn't read facial expressions from that far away, but hand gestures are far easier to read.

Also, earlier posts pointed out that Edward may have gestured towards a set of tables rather than that particular table. You say that it was definitely that particular table. But if, as you said, you can't read facial expressions from 40 feet away, how could you tell exactly which table Edward was gesturing at from that distance?

[RemieV]

For all the John Edward stuff -

I've relayed the story directly, in conversation, to many, many skeptics including (but not limited to) Banachek, DJ Grothe, Randi, Jeff Wagg, Penn Jillette.

The consensus was that the information was obtained in some untraceable way that is infrequent because Edward is essentially a mentalist who is performing a trick. Once you have a good method for performing a trick, you stick with it. So, if the person is performing a trick that has an actual mechanism, you should be able to see the same TYPE of thing happen with frequency. It just doesn't. The simplest explanation, with all facts in hand, is that this was either the wife's doing or one of Edward's crew came across this tidbit in a very mundane way.

I concentrated on the name thing because it was the clearest. The entire reading of that particular person was quite good. It was abnormally good. No real waffling or anything - just straight to real hits. Keep in mind that during any given show, Edward reads something like 20 people. This means that I have now seen him read forty (having attended two shows). In none of those 39 other readings did Edward get anywhere near anything even remotely good.

Me, Jeff, and Randi have all listened to the tape. Jeff visited the showroom with me so I could point out where everyone was. I followed up with every type of person who was in the room - from souvenir photographers to wait staff. They were all real people; not employed by Edward who didn't give a crap about whether or not Edward was real.

You can start asking me for specifics, but that is just going to lead to confabulation because at this point, you're talking about an event from two years ago. I can only tell you the conclusion we all reached at the time, which was that, somehow or another, Edward was handed this person's information.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by FluffyPersian

This was precisely my reaction when I read the first part of the thread, though I refrained from posting it since I figured someone else had probably posted it later in the thread.

Remie, would you please say more about why you believe Meg's cold reading scenario (above) is unrealistic? You've said that Edward couldn't read facial expressions from that far away, but hand gestures are far easier to read.

Also, earlier posts pointed out that Edward may have gestured towards a set of tables rather than that particular table. You say that it was definitely that particular table. But if, as you said, you can't read facial expressions from 40 feet away, how could you tell exactly which table Edward was gesturing at from that distance?

See, again, we're heading into Confabulation Land here. An event from two years ago, and you expect me to remember why that was unlikely?

I can tell you that the tables were on different levels and staggered. As of right now, I think that he pointed rather than a sweeping gesture or anything; but that might just be because I know it was more specific and can't recall WHY I know that and am therefore just filling in blanks with what SEEMS correct.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by RemieV

I don't actually recall what the pizza place was. You'd have to ask Kitty.

Just to clarify, does that also mean that you don't know if the pizza slices and the card were purchased at a "pizza place" at all (as opposed to a more general kind of store that happened to sell pizza slices and cards among other things)?

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by LashL

Just to clarify, does that also mean that you don't know if the pizza slices and the card were purchased at a "pizza place" at all (as opposed to a more general kind of store that happened to sell pizza slices and cards among other things)?

I'm sure I knew at the time - but as with the Edward thing, a whole bunch of time has passed and that particular piece of information has faded away. Hell, that had to have been at least four years ago now. Probably more like five.

By the by, here you go:

[truethat]

The thing is, these types of coincidences happen all the time. Robin, why not consider how many times you debated over not eating or drinking something fattening and voila you got one. You say you were in the drive thru talking to yourself then you got a free big mac. You could have accidentally spoken aloud and someone heard you and either tried to be nice or got confused and gave you the big mac because they heard it.

You won a free Pina Colada Well that doesn't sound like God to me or angels or the other side. It sounds pretty negative to me. First of all, feeding your children McDonald's is tantamount to child abuse. You seem to have a weight issue, what kind of "good angel" sabotages your efforts to be healthy?

Wishful thinking.