John Edward - psychic or what?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Tommytwonines

Are some of the casino employees/ushers giving JE's team information? Maybe not for every show, depending on who's working, but much of the time?

Very unlikely to be a casino employee. More likely a trusted insider...perhaps a deluded individual who thinks Edward is the real deal in spite of the fact that he's cheating.

Just such an insider was described in "Flim Flam!", working for Uri Geller.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Agreed.

It's a good object lesson in the lengths people will go to to avoid the most obvious explanation, simply because the most obvious explanation goes against everything they've spent years of their lives setting themselves up to represent and defend, no matter what.


In this example, and countless other examples over millenia of reported human history, the evidence would suggest that - shock of all shocks - there are aspects of existence that our current culture of choice on this particular planet does not yet fully understand.
And that therefore - slightly milder shock - the most rational course would be to be scrupulous about maintaining an open-minded outlook (which is, after all, the bedrock of science).

Who's avoiding hot and cold reading in this thread?

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by jadebox

That's correct (if you remove the double-quotes around "no room").

A Wi-Fi transmitter consumes power, has a visible antenna, produces signals that are detectable, and it can be easily demonstrated that information can be exchanged by Wi-Fi.

The brain, however, doesn't consume enough power to transmit information outside the body, it has no antenna, there are no signals radiating from the brain that could transmit information, and there's no evidence that the brain communicates except through actions of the body.

-- Roger

And as we all know, the brain, mind and consciousness are entirely understood.
If ever there was a need for the roll-eyes emoticon, here it is.

(And "the brain doesn't consume enough power to transmit information outside the body"?.. where do you get that from?.. what percentage of the body's blood is dedicated to the brain? .. and how would part of that energy potential compare to, say, the energy requirements for transmission of information after another 20,000 years of development in communications technology?)
Face it, your position is based on ignorance.

[Robert Oz]

This reminds me of a mentalism trick I once tried to perform for fun for some family members. We were discussing Uri Geller and I was trying to demonstrate the peak Geller uses between his fingers when getting someone to draw a picture that he would then replicate.

Due to the prior discussion, the family member in question was very careful not to be fooled and positively made it impossible for me to see what he was drawing by shielding with his free hand. I remember thinking that there was no way I would be able to catch a glimpse of the drawing and figured that I would take a wild guess at what he drew and, when it failed, I would explain that believers aren't as careful as those who know a trick is coming.

Anyway, I told the family member to hold the drawing in front of them and concentrate on it while I tried to read his mind. It just so happened that, luckily, a light coming from behind gave me a brief glimpse of the drawing through the paper. I was able to draw the picture in great detail and amaze my family member.

The point is that sometimes these things just fall into one's lap. It only has to happen once in a blue moon if your doing cold reading shows regularly. Reputation spreads and believers end up with a handful of 'But what about this' stories, congratulating themselves on being able to stump the sceptics.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in such a long career, John Edward has had 20 or 30 'impossible' readings simply by taking advantage of these types of things.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Agreed.

It's a good object lesson in the lengths people will go to to avoid the most obvious explanation...

And the most obvious explanation of something slightly out of the ordinary happening in a Vegas stage act is?

Quote:

..., simply because the most obvious explanation goes against everything they've spent years of their lives setting themselves up to represent and defend, no matter what.

There you go again - jumping at assumptions with no evidence.

Quote:

In this example, and countless other examples over millenia of reported human history, the evidence would suggest that - shock of all shocks - there are aspects of existence that our current culture of choice on this particular planet does not yet fully understand.
And that therefore - slightly milder shock - the most rational course would be to be scrupulous about maintaining an open-minded outlook (which is, after all, the bedrock of science).

Open minded would suggest you look at a number of explanations rather than just one.

Closed minded is an approach like yours where, without any reasoning, you defend the explanation that supports your own world view.

[ynot]

From RemieV’s account of events Edward couldn’t have gotten Liam’s information by cold reading or chance. As well as “revealing” the correct table, first and second name and that he used his second name, Edward also “revealed” other detailed information . . .

Originally Posted by RemieV

Edward then did a reading for Liam. And it was a good reading - really good. At the very least, an excellent exercise in cold reading. But no amount of cold reading would yield something like that. I have seen Edward since, and he did not try the same trick again.

Edward either got all this information directly from Liam (whether he realised it or not) or from some other non-psychic source. I doubt Edward would use information from anyone other than his most trusted employees otherwise he would be too easy to set-up with false information.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Most physicists believe that Einstein's improvement of the Newtonian understanding was no destruction, but was simply that... an improvement.

All of them, I'd have thought.

Communication with dead people, on the other hand, would pose a fair few problems with a lot of what we currently think we understand about the world.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Sceptic Tank

All of them, I'd have thought.

Communication with dead people, on the other hand, would pose a fair few problems with a lot of what we currently think we understand about the world.

It's also important to remember that this kind of struggle between conventional and "new" science, where the "new" science eventually succeeds, is exceedingly rare in modern physics. I can think of two: Einstein's relativities and Max Planck's quanta.

Both were done in the face of serious, inherent problems with the previous models (blackbody radiation and heat capacity of diatomic gases in Planck's case, I don't remember what prompted special and general relativity) and both were backed up by solid mathematics and made testable predictions, which is why they eventually succeeded despite the controversies.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Robert Oz

This reminds me of a mentalism trick I once tried to perform for fun for some family members. We were discussing Uri Geller and I was trying to demonstrate the peak Geller uses between his fingers when getting someone to draw a picture that he would then replicate.

Due to the prior discussion, the family member in question was very careful not to be fooled and positively made it impossible for me to see what he was drawing by shielding with his free hand. I remember thinking that there was no way I would be able to catch a glimpse of the drawing and figured that I would take a wild guess at what he drew and, when it failed, I would explain that believers aren't as careful as those who know a trick is coming.

Anyway, I told the family member to hold the drawing in front of them and concentrate on it while I tried to read his mind. It just so happened that, luckily, a light coming from behind gave me a brief glimpse of the drawing through the paper. I was able to draw the picture in great detail and amaze my family member.

The point is that sometimes these things just fall into one's lap. It only has to happen once in a blue moon if your doing cold reading shows regularly. Reputation spreads and believers end up with a handful of 'But what about this' stories, congratulating themselves on being able to stump the sceptics.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in such a long career, John Edward has had 20 or 30 'impossible' readings simply by taking advantage of these types of things.

When my son was six he played a game with me and layed out his superhero cards and said I should try to find Superman. Without having touched the cards I was able to pick Superman every single time and eventually he was getting quite upset.

He never accepted my "most obvious explanation" that I had X-ray vision and eventually I had to point out he had accidentally slightly bent the Superman card.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Robert Oz

This reminds me of a mentalism trick I once tried to perform for fun for some family members. We were discussing Uri Geller and I was trying to demonstrate the peak Geller uses between his fingers when getting someone to draw a picture that he would then replicate.

Due to the prior discussion, the family member in question was very careful not to be fooled and positively made it impossible for me to see what he was drawing by shielding with his free hand. I remember thinking that there was no way I would be able to catch a glimpse of the drawing and figured that I would take a wild guess at what he drew and, when it failed, I would explain that believers aren't as careful as those who know a trick is coming.

Anyway, I told the family member to hold the drawing in front of them and concentrate on it while I tried to read his mind. It just so happened that, luckily, a light coming from behind gave me a brief glimpse of the drawing through the paper. I was able to draw the picture in great detail and amaze my family member.

I had the exact same thoughts, but without the cool story. The fact that it has only happened once in many shows that RemieV has attended indicates that it is not something he do every show and likely depends more on luck than planning or forethought. He simply took advantage of an opportunity that presented itself.

I think Banacek talked about this once when discussing the Alpha project: sometimes you get lucky and you can't rely on one method for the same trick every time. Having alternative ways to lead or end the trick gives you an out when something is going pear shaped. I think he had several ways of bending a spoon, for example. So if you knew one of them he would just revert to another.

The upshot is that there would be no real way to lay a trap. Even if you found out how he got the info in this case, it wasn't a planned event, so no amount of planning will catch him.

Quote:

The point is that sometimes these things just fall into one's lap. It only has to happen once in a blue moon if your doing cold reading shows regularly. Reputation spreads and believers end up with a handful of 'But what about this' stories, congratulating themselves on being able to stump the sceptics.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in such a long career, John Edward has had 20 or 30 'impossible' readings simply by taking advantage of these types of things.

Given the number of shows he does it would be more surprising if it hadn't happened fairly often.

Finally, the "RemieV is a believer" thing was very telling. Slowing down to read is kinda important if you want people to listen.

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Face it, your position is based on ignorance.

It wouldn't take you more than a half hour of research on the 'net to confirm that what I said was true. But, I know you won't go to the trouble. Too bad.

-- Roger

[Robin]

Originally Posted by ynot

From RemieV’s account of events Edward couldn’t have gotten Liam’s information by cold reading or chance. As well as “revealing” the correct table, first and second name and that he used his second name...

Well he did not "reveal" that it was his first name or second name. He would have gotten a hit if Joshua had been Liam's second name, or a name by which he was previously known or a pen name or an avatar on an internet forum.

Most of the information was hardly secret - for example remieV, sitting at another table, already knew who Liam was, what name he introduced himself by and other things by that point.

I wonder if it was co-incidence that the subject of the most impressive event of the evening introduced himself to RemieV before the show, or maybe he introduced himself to a number of people before the show.

If so and given the amount of information he volunteered to remieV there might have been quite a bit of information disseminated about Liam before the show.

The only thing that Edward knew that RemieV didn't at that point was that Liam had another name - "Joshua".

Quote:

, Edward also “revealed” other detailed information . . .

Originally Posted by RemieV

Edward then did a reading for Liam. And it was a good reading - really good. At the very least, an excellent exercise in cold reading. But no amount of cold reading would yield something like that. I have seen Edward since, and he did not try the same trick again.

I understood the bolded part to refer to the "Joshua" thing rather than the reading itself. She calls the reading and excellent exercise in cold reading. Maybe RemieV could clarify.

We can't really judge anything about the reading without a transcript.

Think of it this way. Suppose Edwards had stood in front on the table and said "Liam" and Liam had stood up and Edwards had stated that Liam had introduced himself as "Liam".

Then it would have been entirely unimpressive, right?

So the only part of information that has to be explained is that Edwards said "Joshua is Liam's name".

[Robin]

RemieV, did you check whether Liam had a Facebook page?

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I had the exact same thoughts, but without the cool story. The fact that it has only happened once in many shows that RemieV has attended indicates that it is not something he do every show and likely depends more on luck than planning or forethought. He simply took advantage of an opportunity that presented itself.

And ... this particular event may not have been unique at all.

Every performance Edward tries to amaze the audience (using a combination of techiques including cold and hot readings). That's his job.

This particular event may seem unique to RemieV only because she got caught up in it. If she hadn't met "Joshua" earlier, she probably wouldn't have thought anything was all that unusual about Edward's performance that evening and she wouldn't have asked about it here.

-- Roger

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

It's also important to remember that this kind of struggle between conventional and "new" science, where the "new" science eventually succeeds, is exceedingly rare in modern physics. I can think of two: Einstein's relativities and Max Planck's quanta.

Both were done in the face of serious, inherent problems with the previous models (blackbody radiation and heat capacity of diatomic gases in Planck's case, I don't remember what prompted special and general relativity) and both were backed up by solid mathematics and made testable predictions, which is why they eventually succeeded despite the controversies.

Absolutely. Of course, it's still possible that we're going to get something that does genuinely have a case to overturn some accepted physics - a quantum theory of gravity, maybe. And Dark Matter and Dark Energy still seem to my wholly uninformed layman's ears like a fudge in order to get the maths to work. But if those things really do supersede our current understanding of the universe, it's not going to make the currently-accepted models "wrong", as such. I mean, E demonstrably does = mc². That's not about to change.

[Robin]

Remiev asked for suggestions about how this was done, here is mine:

Firstly, someone is mingling with the audience lightly disguised using a false name and backstory and possibly carrying a listening device.

This is not far-fetched because we know that there was at least one person mingling with the audience, lightly disguised, using a false name and backstory and carrying a listening device.

So we only need to suppose that an employee of Edward's company was doing just what RemieV was doing.

And we know that Liam is not exactly tight-lipped with strangers.

Secondly there is another employee backstage doing research. We know that there is all sorts of information collected about all sorts of interested parties and onsold to any company who can divvy up the cash.

Or possibly the mingler stops mingling and goes backstage to do the research him/herself.

If this was the case then it would have been entirely unremarkable that Edwards could have found out or at least made a very informed guess about Liam's other name.

I don't say that it is the right one there may be many possible explanations. But it is at least as plausible as a dead guy sending a message from dead guy land to John Edwards about Liam's name.

[ynot]

Some of you seem to be crediting Edward with cold reading abilities that almost equal psychic powers (no I’m not saying you are believers so keep your dummy in). If anyone seriously believes Edward could have cold read Liam given the circumstances RemieV has given (below) then you have no practical cold reading experience or knowledge. It’s not as easy as some seem to think even when circumstances are more favourable.

Originally Posted by RemieV

You must think Edward has some seriously extraordinary eyesight.
Liam was in the lowest tier of tickets - which meant that he was the furthest from the stage. You expect a performer who has lights in his eyes to see (and correctly read to that extent) the facial expressions of an audience member from at least sixty feet away?
Additionally, Edward instructs his audience not to say anything at all. Liam's not saying, "That's my dead father!" was par for the course in that respect. No one responded with that when Edward said things unless he asked them a direct question.

It’s blatantly obvious that Edward had all the information on Liam before the “reading” and knew where he was sitting. The only question that remains is from what of many possible means did he get it? I don't see how we can ever know without a smoking gun. Even if we found out I don't see how RemieV could use it against Edward as it's not something he regularly does according to her.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by ynot

Some of you seem to be crediting Edward with cold reading abilities that almost equals psychic powers (no I’m not saying you are believers so keep your dummy in).

That would only be the case if he did this every night. If he does this once in a blue moon then we are crediting Edwards with being someone who does this for a living and is probably quite good at it and for whom a long shot occasionally pays off.

Quote:

If anyone seriously believes Edward could have cold read Liam given the circumstances RemieV has given (below) then you have no practical cold reading experience or knowledge. It’s not as easy as some seem to think even when circumstances are more favourable.

When you talk about the cold reading, are you referring to the fact that Edwards knew that Joshua was Liams name but did not introduce himself that way? Or are you referring to the reading that, according to RemieV, happened after that?

If you are referring to the subsequent reading then we don't have enough facts about that to know how good it was.

If you are referring to his identifying that Joshua was his name, but not the name he gave to the table then I agree that it was most likely that Edwards had that information in advance, although I would probably need more information to be sure.

Cold reading is hard, but Edwards doesn't get something this impressive every night and sometimes he goes out on a limb and gets flattened.

I remember that once he suggested described a very specific event about someone's pet and when this fell flat he quickly said "Oh, I see, it hasn't happened yet".

It could be that once in every few hundred times going out on a limb like this pays off and it is apparently no big deal when it doesn't and very impressive if it does.

How do we know that Edwards was pointing at that particular table?

He points at a particular direction in the auditorium and says "Joshua" and someone stands up. Presumably there was more than one table in that general direction. We are crediting RemieV with pretty good eyesight too if we say she can be certain that he was pointing at a particular table sixty feet away.

Did Edwards actually mentioned the name "Liam"? That part is unclear. As I read it, he said something like "I have the impression that Joshua is your name but you didn't introduce yourself that way", not mentioning the name "Liam" at all.

Now I am looking at someone about 60 feet away at the moment and I think I could probably read their expressions and body language fairly well. And performers who involve the audience don't normally work with darkened auditoriums and lights in their eyes.

I have set up a few stages and it is quite easy to correctly light someone without dazzling them.

So he could have taken a longshot and if it had not paid off and it had turned out to be a dead relative or friend then Edwards would have said something like "Wow, you two must have been very close for you to be so closely identified with him!".

All that said, I think that it much more likely that he found or came across the information earlier.

Quote:

The only question that remains is from what of many possible means did he get it?

And at this stage not a particularly interesting question, given that there are many ways he could have gotten it.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by RemieV

This was different from that in that I can verify Liam spoke to no one else in line except me. Additionally, I was looking for precisely what you are describing - that was my purpose in being there.

On top of both those things - Liam says that he spoke to no one else. It's possible that he's forgetting, or intentionally ignoring that he did.

Here is something more curious than Edwards' reading. Before the show, the subject of the most impressive event of the night introduces himself and has a chat to the woman with the disguise, false name and false back story who is here to catch Edwards in trickery and introduces himself to nobody else.

[Francine]

Originally Posted by sgf8

Now I've read the entire thread.

NOTE: I notice that Francine is back, I have missed your comments on skepticblog Francine.

Thank you. I haven't checked out the blog in quite a while but am happy to report that I am learning to approach situations with more of a skeptical mindset rather than just believing without evidence.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by plumjam

And as we all know, the brain, mind and consciousness are entirely understood.
If ever there was a need for the roll-eyes emoticon, here it is.

There is a lot to learn still about the brain, mind, etc.

And the way we will learn it is through studying the way it behaves, not the speculative things we think would be really cool if it could do.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Sceptic Tank

Absolutely. Of course, it's still possible that we're going to get something that does genuinely have a case to overturn some accepted physics - a quantum theory of gravity, maybe. And Dark Matter and Dark Energy still seem to my wholly uninformed layman's ears like a fudge in order to get the maths to work. But if those things really do supersede our current understanding of the universe, it's not going to make the currently-accepted models "wrong", as such. I mean, E demonstrably does = mc². That's not about to change.

A quantum theory of gravity is pretty much necessary, we know there are problems with general relativity on certain scales, so it won't really be a "revolution", rather a gigantic leap forward in progress.

Dark energy and dark matter are largely misunderstood. Based on our observational data, they're the best mathematical explanation for certain effects (lensing, galaxy formation, etc). No other theory (modified gravity, for instance) provides a satisfactory explanation.

We also know that dark matter exists to some extent, you may have heard of neutrinos.

[RemieV]

Sorry to have stepped out of the thread for a bit - real life got in the way.

I also think I've probably gotten enough information to move ahead with everything, and am mostly only seeing explanations that have already been discussed in slightly different phrasing.

I did want to mention something that drives me batty, though...

For some reason, skeptics tend to actually ascribe psychology as the root of mentalism acts. Think it over - why do you think that is the explanation?

There is no such person as Sherlock Holmes. The television show 'The Mentalist' doesn't accurately describe how a single one of those tricks works. And 'Lie to Me' is a severely prettied up version of how microexpressions actually work - in that they, at the very least, require close quarters, and for most people (by which I mean 'almost all'), a videocamera.

ynot is absolutely right in saying that the level of logical deduction based upon body language that some in here are saying Edward must have is so close to being psychic that using it as an explanation is nuts.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Robin

Firstly, someone is mingling with the audience lightly disguised using a false name and backstory and possibly carrying a listening device.

This is not far-fetched because we know that there was at least one person mingling with the audience, lightly disguised, using a false name and backstory and carrying a listening device.

So we only need to suppose that an employee of Edward's company was doing just what RemieV was doing.

And we know that Liam is not exactly tight-lipped with strangers.

I wonder if that really isn't his name, but he was conducting an experiment to see if Edward would jump on some false information that was casually tossed about.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Sorry to have stepped out of the thread for a bit - real life got in the way.

I also think I've probably gotten enough information to move ahead with everything, and am mostly only seeing explanations that have already been discussed in slightly different phrasing.

I did want to mention something that drives me batty, though...

For some reason, skeptics tend to actually ascribe psychology as the root of mentalism acts. Think it over - why do you think that is the explanation?...

I'm not sure by what you mean by "psychology" here. In the sense that it is the scientific study of behavior, it obviously would be interested in studying how "mentalism" works, and Ray Hyman, a psychologist, has done so.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Sorry to have stepped out of the thread for a bit - real life got in the way.

I also think I've probably gotten enough information to move ahead with everything, and am mostly only seeing explanations that have already been discussed in slightly different phrasing.

I did want to mention something that drives me batty, though...

For some reason, skeptics tend to actually ascribe psychology as the root of mentalism acts. Think it over - why do you think that is the explanation?

There is no such person as Sherlock Holmes. The television show 'The Mentalist' doesn't accurately describe how a single one of those tricks works. And 'Lie to Me' is a severely prettied up version of how microexpressions actually work - in that they, at the very least, require close quarters, and for most people (by which I mean 'almost all'), a videocamera.

ynot is absolutely right in saying that the level of logical deduction based upon body language that some in here are saying Edward must have is so close to being psychic that using it as an explanation is nuts.

I think TV entertainers like Derren Brown have convinced people that they are actually mentalists and not merely good magicians creating mystique to enhance their act by presenting mentalism to be more than it is in fact. Derren’s theatrical act represents reality no more than CSI does. I suspect some here may argue with that.

[Undesired Walrus]

Remie, given that John Edward is a magician all we can ask is 'how the hell did he do that?'. It doesn't seem all that impressive though, just check a similar thing Derren Brown does here which is far more impressive (around the 2 minute mark):

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Seeing how Derren Brown admits he isn't psychic but achieves something much more extraordinary (but along the same lines at Edward) we can deduce that it's much more likely Edward just does a magic trick similar to Brown rather than actually communicates with the dead. We don't really have to find an answer to 'how the hell did he do that' because we know it's much more likely to be a magic trick.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by RemieV

ynot is absolutely right in saying that the level of logical deduction based upon body language that some in here are saying Edward must have is so close to being psychic that using it as an explanation is nuts.

What, for example, are suggestions that are nuts?

We do a lot of our conversation with facial expressions and body language.

Can you tell - at least some time - from someone's facial expression whether they are puzzled? Whether they are amazed? Whether they are friendly or hostile? When you get to a job interview can you sometimes have a look at the expressions and posture of the interviewers and think - "this is not going to be easy"? Can a teacher sometimes tell that with a new class?

That is the sort of body language and expressions that he would have to read - not "Lie to me" stuff.

I have said before that it is my opinion that Edwards had the information before he spoke to Liam, but it is not impossible that he could have guessed it.

A lot of the people here are way overestimating the amount he would have to guess. He wouldn't have had to guess the first name or the table.

If he points in a particular direction with a sufficiently large audience and says "Joshua" then it will probably mean something to someone - so someone stands up.

Given a subject and a name he next has to make a guess about who "Joshua" is. A dead friend or relative? A living friend or relative? A living or dead pet? His name?

That he might have made a guess of "his name, but not the one he goes by" is a long shot, but as I have said he occasionally does long shots. I have just never seen one pay off before.

But what makes me think he had the information before is that he does not ask Liam to confirm his suspicions. He asks him to hand the microphone to someone to confirm the name he used to introduce himself and then asks him to get out his drivers licence.

This seems to suggest a certain amount of confidence. My best guess is still a mingler - maybe someone at or near his table and possibly there is also someone backstage doing a bit of research.

Minglers have been the standard modus operandi or this kind of act from way back, even before they started pretending to be real.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Everything in this video is Derren being a magician not a mentalist. The “mentalism” is merely misdirection and mystique.

When Derren says - ” I’m telling you to think of A” he’s lying (as magicians do). Whatever letter the lady said would have appeared on the card. The letter is added to the card AFTER the lady says it. I can do this simple trick as well as Derren can and I’m not a professional magician.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Robin

What, for example, are suggestions that are nuts?

That you require it to be explained further than it already has suggests no amount of explanation would be sufficient for you.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by RemieV

And 'Lie to Me' is a severely prettied up version of how microexpressions actually work - in that they, at the very least, require close quarters, and for most people (by which I mean 'almost all'), a videocamera.

And has anybody suggested that Edwards reads microexpressions?

Let me give you an example I used earlier. Edwards is in the middle of a reading and he begins jocularly "Tell me about the ..." mentioning a very specific incident with a pet - I forget the exact details.

So if the subject had smiled then Edwards would have known there was immediate recognition of something and could have reacted accordingly.

As it was the subject didn't say anything or smile which meant no immediate recognition. This could have meant a) it rang a bell but she couldn't recall the details or b) no recognition whatsoever.

Now are you telling me that John Edwards would have been unable to tell the difference?

I think the blank unrecognition was pretty easily readable.

As it was he cut to the excuse pretty quickly.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by ynot

Originally Posted by Robin

What, for example, are suggestions that are nuts?

That you require it to be explained further than it already has suggests no amount of explanation would be sufficient for you.

Thanks for the evasion. That tells me that you are unable to supply the example and probably have not been reading much of what I wrote.

[Robin]

And incidentally, I did not ask for it to be explained further, I asked for examples.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Robin

Thanks for the evasion. That tells me that you are unable to supply the example and probably have not been reading much of what I wrote.

Okay I’ll play your silly game (and it is silly) . . .

We are talking about a specific incident that has been specifically described. Do you understand that?

RemieV said he pointed at a specific table (1 in 25/30 odds).

He then asked from that specific table about the name “Joshua” (1 against all other names of both sexes available odds).

He then said it wasn’t the person’s first name (Don’t know what the odds of that would be but wouldn’t be insignificant)

He then said that the persons first name was Liam (1 against all other male names available odds).

All this happened “from at least sixty feet away” and without Liam or anyone else saying a single word. Edward also didn’t go through the usual it sounds like a J or a K routine. He said both names directly and unequivocally in a relatively short space of time. How is it possible to cold read a name purely from a smile or any body language when questions aren't being asked and answered?

Exactly what information from Liam or anyone else was there in this scenario that Edward could possibly have cold read to get all this informationm so amazingly correct without any leading or mutiple sequence questions ?

I await your detailed and credible explanation with great interest (but I won't hold my breath).

[Robin]

Personally I think it is absolutely nuts that someone sitting in the audience in front of Liam's table, sixty feet away from Edwards would have been able to tell with certainty which table he was pointing at. Especially as she would have had to turn her head to see the table.

But some here have accepted that without demur.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Robin

Personally I think it is absolutely nuts that someone sitting in the audience in front of Liam's table, sixty feet away from Edwards would have been able to tell with certainty which table he was pointing at. Especially as she would have had to turn her head to see the table.

But some here have accepted that without demur.

I’m assuming you’re quite young. At least mentally if not chronologically.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by ynot

Okay I’ll play your silly game (and it is silly) . . .

Let's skip the silly debating tricks and stick to the facts. Most of what you write verifies my suspicion that you did not read what I wrote before.

Quote:

RemieV said he pointed at a specific table (1 in 25/30 odds).

RemieV was sitting in the audience in front of the table and would have had to turn around to see the table.

So do you accept that she would have been able to tell that he was pointing at that specific table sixty feet away from him from her vantage point?

Now that sounds nuts.

Quote:

He then asked from that specific table about the name “Joshua” (1 against all other names of both sexes available odds).

No, he pointed in a particular direction in the audience and said he was getting the name - "Joshua".

The probability that someone in that general direction had some sort of Joshua reference, a dead friend, a relative a pet their own name etc is actually pretty high. That is how these acts work.

Quote:

He then said it wasn’t the person’s first name (Don’t know what the odds of that would be but wouldn’t be insignificant)

No - he didn't say that. He said that it was his name, but not the way he had introduced himself at the table.

That could mean a number of things - for example if he had introduced himself as "Josh" then it would have been a hit.

If it had been his middle name then it would have been a hit. There are more ways than one in which this could have been a hit.

It was a long shot, but you are overstating the impressiveness of the trick by misrepresenting what he said.

Quote:

He then said that the persons first name was Liam (1 against all other male names available odds).

You really didn't read what I said did you? Do you usually agree that people are nuts before you have read what it is that is supposed to have been nuts?

The OP is ambiguous on this matter. It was not clear to me that the name "Liam" was actually mentioned until the person next to him on the table was given the microphone and said it.

That is why I asked RemieV for clarification.

From my reading Edwards said something like "I have the feeling that although Joshua is your name, but you didn't introduce yourself that way at the table".

RemieV - can you clarify?

Quote:

All this happened “from at least sixty feet away” and without Liam or anyone else saying a single word. Edward also didn’t go through the usual it sounds like a J or a K routine. He said both names directly and unequivocally in a relatively short space of time.

Even in a fairly small audience the initial letter routine sometimes throws up more than one response. I imagine that in a largish audience throwing out a full name to a particular section of it will get some sort of response.

Quote:

Exactly what information from Liam or anyone else was there in this scenario that Edward could possibly have cold read to get all this informationm so amazingly correct without any leading or mutiple sequence questions ?

It all depends on the clarification about the "Liam" thing. If he has simply thrown out the name "Joshua" at a particular section of the audience and gotten a response and then guessed that Joshua is the person's name, but not the name he used at the table then all he needs to do is have a look at the guy's response and see if he is on the right track or not.

It seems to me that making guesses and working out whether he is on the right track or not is what John Edwards does for a living.

But if he also mentioned the name "Liam" before hearing it then it would probably have to be prior information.

And as I said before, the theatrical way he confirms his information also suggests prior information.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by ynot

I’m assuming you’re quite young. At least mentally if not chronologically.

Again the vague insult with no details.

So what you are saying is that if I was mentally older then I would realise that if I am sitting some distance away from someone I would be able to tell with great accuracy what they were pointing at, even if the thing they were pointing at was behind me and sixty feet away from the person?

Yes?

[Robin]

An index finger is - what - a couple of inches long?

Or was it a straight arm point? A couple of feet.

[Robin]

All from a brief glance.