Proof of Life After Death!!

[shuttlt]

I'm curious. If John Edwards can communicate with the dead, then something about reality, physics, etc, etc, etc.. is very different to the way it is understood by the majority of the forum. Is the claim that this only applies to John Edwards, or that communicating with the dead (and what ever else is different in this parallel universe) is more common?

Either way, I'm curious that nobody with this talent has bothered/is able to do this under controlled conditions where the possibility of cold/hot reading is removed. Does John Edwards want most people to think his is a fraud? Does he not care that many people don't realize/believe that there is life after death?

The alternative explanation is that if he does have these powers it is actually very, very hard to tell what he is doing from cold reading/hot reading. In which case, how come you seem to be able to tell so easily?

It's like homeopathy... I just don't see how one can simultaneously hold the position that one should try it for oneself because it self evidently works, and also claim that it is quite impossible to test in a way that rules out the possibility of it being made up nonsense.

[Agatha]

That video that Foster Zygote posted is very telling. There were no hits at all, everything Edward said was guesswork (and not particularly good guesswork at that) and very clear cold reading. The host appeared to be impressed with the snowglobe but what JE was actually talking about was "something" on the table - his first guess was pink roses - and then he got Ginger to show him it. He never stated what it was at all, and then he used that to make a further guess about Disney.

Was your reading similar to that, Robin? Lots and lots of rapid fire talk, many different ideas thrown out at once so you concentrate on the one thing that's close though not exact, and he picks up on that and runs with it.

[Robin1]

If you find someone who had a personal reading with John Edward and considers him a fraud that would not trump my own personal belief of the validity of MY experience. Mostly because I do not KNOW that person or their credibility or their motives or their general intelligence or if they have an open mind or their ability to recount the reading accurately or their ability to make the connection right away (EX. Tooth Guy" and Valerie Harper) Which I KNOW you are thinking are some of the exact same reasons you can't believe me! I get that. Ironic, but I get it. All I can do is tell my story. And hopefully crack open the door of a closed-mind...

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

If you find someone who had a personal reading with John Edward and considers him a fraud that would not trump my own personal belief of the validity of MY experience. Mostly because I do not KNOW that person or their credibility or their motives or their general intelligence or if they have an open mind or their ability to recount the reading accurately or their ability to make the connection right away (EX. Tooth Guy" and Valerie Harper) Which I KNOW you are thinking are some of the exact same reasons you can't believe me! I get that. Ironic, but I get it. All I can do is tell my story. And hopefully crack open the door of a closed-mind...

...but you haven't told your story...you have insisted that I go read it, and endless commentaries (many of which, apparently, do not support your contentions), on your blog.

Why not tell your story here? Is there a reason you are so insistent on drumming up traffic to your blog?

[shuttlt]

Why do you think John Edward doesn't want the world to know he doesn't do what he does in the way all the other psychics do?

[Hungry81]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

What is most obvious to me about Van Praagh in my opinion is his use of cold (perhaps hot too but can't say for sure) reading techniques. Quite disconcerting to witness the fishing and the information which people unwittingly give him and how he tries to turn it around and make it seem new. He gives lots of general info and names and attempts to build on that. Does someone here have a ring of the deceased? And never once saw him give any unusual "he couldn't have known" pieces of information. My brother Occam JR. (see my blog and comments) actually were texting back and forth about just walking out of the event but then it mercifully ended on it's own. Was quite painful..But yes many there were complete believers.

Ok Is this similar to what John Edwards was doing at your reading?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx0Jt2jnLOQ

It is an example of cold reading. Observe how he is trying to convert misses into hits. Observe how he is asking questions of the audiance even though the ghost is supposed to be telling him this information.

observe how the audiance members are filling him in, and observe how he is talking quickly and backtracking when he needs to.

a couple of interesting refrences: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iBwhgbFvnw

And: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EBqlpJb1Xg

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

He gives lots of general info and names and attempts to build on that.

Sort of like saying that there's someone there whose name contains an "ST" sound, and having an audience member relate that to the name of "Salvatore"?

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

If you find someone who had a personal reading with John Edward and considers him a fraud that would not trump my own personal belief of the validity of MY experience. Mostly because I do not KNOW that person or their credibility or their motives or their general intelligence or if they have an open mind or their ability to recount the reading accurately or their ability to make the connection right away (EX. Tooth Guy" and Valerie Harper) Which I KNOW you are thinking are some of the exact same reasons you can't believe me! I get that. Ironic, but I get it. All I can do is tell my story. And hopefully crack open the door of a closed-mind...

Well, tell your story then. What did John Edward say that was correct, and what did he say which was wrong, or inapplicable to you? Did your reading resemble the one in the video Foster Zygote linked to in that JE talked very fast, went backwards and forwards, repeated himself with subtle changes until you indicated something was correct? Or was your reading different in some way?

How did the refrigerator conversation, the Pearl Harbour connection, and the Valerie Harper connection come about? What exactly was said by JE and by you or your brother?

Similarly, how did you find out that the tooth guy in fact had a tooth in his pocket, and who was he?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Ironic, but I get it. All I can do is tell my story. And hopefully crack open the door of a closed-mind...

In regard to irony, you apparently don't get it.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

If you find someone who had a personal reading with John Edward and considers him a fraud that would not trump my own personal belief of the validity of MY experience. Mostly because I do not KNOW that person or their credibility or their motives or their general intelligence or if they have an open mind or their ability to recount the reading accurately or their ability to make the connection right away (EX. Tooth Guy" and Valerie Harper) Which I KNOW you are thinking are some of the exact same reasons you can't believe me! I get that. Ironic, but I get it. All I can do is tell my story. And hopefully crack open the door of a closed-mind...

Then you admit that you do not have proof but instead have belief, subjectively derived.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Or possibly she's just looking to drive traffic to her blog. She's spammed this rubbish elsewhere.


You're not 100% gullible.


If she attends such events she's probably been sucker listed.

All of which had occurred to me, particularly since I had to close two ads within a few seconds of arriving at the site.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Considering the rapidity of your response I must guess you did not actually read the blog or any of the comments. The truth is... a completely closed-mind is a very dangerous mindset.

He's just cold reading and not even the best I've seen. What he does is nothing, it's just a sideshow trick.

[Robin1]

Garrette , Jack by the Hedge, as well as everyone on this thread...I am very curious if you believe in life after death at all? If yes, do you believe that our own deceased loved ones can communicate with us through dreams, signs etc.? Now, IF I were brave I would then refer you all to another one of my blogs (Is It Just A Dream...Or Something More?) but judging by the response I got to my "Proof of Life After Death" blog I am afraid you all would have a conniption! : )

[jond]

Robin, in regards to being open minded: is there anything that would convince you that John Edward is a fraud like all the other "psychics" out there? If not, then this discussion won't proceed very far. The skeptics have indicated what would convince them, and thus far you haven't presented anything remotely credible as evidence. And yet you have accused them of being close minded. So, how about it? What would it take to convince you that he is faking it?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Garrette , Jack by the Hedge, as well as everyone on this thread...I am very curious if you believe in life after death at all? If yes, do you believe that our own deceased loved ones can communicate with us through dreams, signs etc.? Now, IF I were brave I would then refer you all to another one of my blogs (Is It Just A Dream...Or Something More?) but judging by the response I got to my "Proof of Life After Death" blog I am afraid you all would have a conniption! : )

I do not, though I used to, and I have investigated various claims, including some touted as absolute definitive final irrefutable truth. I have found it wanting.

Linking to your blog is fine. Linking to it without summarizing key points here and expecting us to cull through pages and pages or through hundreds of mostly irrelevant comments is not okay. You can use your link as support but not as a means to avoid discussion.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

What is most obvious to me about Van Praagh in my opinion is his use of cold (perhaps hot too but can't say for sure) reading techniques. Quite disconcerting to witness the fishing and the information which people unwittingly give him and how he tries to turn it around and make it seem new. He gives lots of general info and names and attempts to build on that. Does someone here have a ring of the deceased? And never once saw him give any unusual "he couldn't have known" pieces of information. My brother Occam JR. (see my blog and comments) actually were texting back and forth about just walking out of the event but then it mercifully ended on it's own. Was quite painful..But yes many there were complete believers.

How is that any different from the video of John Edward I just linked to?

[carlitos]

In the library, they have books on how to use punctuation.

[Nay_Sayer]

I stopped at "Because you don't buy into the fraud I do you're close minded"

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

If you find someone who had a personal reading with John Edward and considers him a fraud that would not trump my own personal belief of the validity of MY experience. Mostly because I do not KNOW that person or their credibility or their motives or their general intelligence or if they have an open mind or their ability to recount the reading accurately or their ability to make the connection right away (EX. Tooth Guy" and Valerie Harper) Which I KNOW you are thinking are some of the exact same reasons you can't believe me! I get that. Ironic, but I get it. All I can do is tell my story. And hopefully crack open the door of a closed-mind...

My mind is quite open. I have changed my mind more than once on deeply held beliefs, despite the commensurate emotional turmoil and in some cases the personal cost.

I am intrigued that you admit that your story has no more value than a contradictory story from someone you do not know yet you feel it is sufficient to "crack open" a mind. I suggest that actual evidence that is distinguishable from anecdote would be more effective.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Actually my MLS degree and experience working as a librarian the past 23 years is a good indicator that perhaps I already have done a lot of research about fake mediums and the ways they try to trick people.

No, they are indicators that you might know something about libraries. But perhaps not about getting your verbs and subjects to agree.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Yes, actually I would love to discuss the ways in which you think John Edward was able to trick me into thinking he could communicate with my deceased Dad...BUT you do need to actually read the blog AND All the comments first before we can actually have that discussion.

Why doesn't your deceased dad just talk to you if he has something he wants you to know? Is he just waiting around for an opportunity to communicate? Seems like a shabby afterlife.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Garrette , Jack by the Hedge, as well as everyone on this thread...I am very curious if you believe in life after death at all?

No, I don't. I'm entirely convinced there is no such thing.

Quote:

Now, IF I were brave I would then refer you all to another one of my blogs (Is It Just A Dream...Or Something More?) but judging by the response I got to my "Proof of Life After Death" blog I am afraid you all would have a conniption! : )

I doubt that. I'm aware that some people do believe in life after death and it doesn't upset me that they do, I just think the idea is make-believe. My only problem with your "Proof of life after death" blog is that it doesn't contain anything I think remotely deserves to be called 'proof'.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

If you find someone who had a personal reading with John Edward and considers him a fraud that would not trump my own personal belief of the validity of MY experience. Mostly because I do not KNOW that person or their credibility or their motives or their general intelligence or if they have an open mind or their ability to recount the reading accurately or their ability to make the connection right away (EX. Tooth Guy" and Valerie Harper) Which I KNOW you are thinking are some of the exact same reasons you can't believe me! I get that. Ironic, but I get it. All I can do is tell my story. And hopefully crack open the door of a closed-mind...

There it is "Admit my woo is true or you are close-minded".

Do you know how many woos say that? All of them.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by tsig

There it is "Admit my woo is true or you are close-minded".

Do you know how many woos say that? All of them.

I have a belief, he has an opinion, you have a closed mind.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Now, IF I were brave I would then refer you all to another one of my blogs (Is It Just A Dream...Or Something More?) but judging by the response I got to my "Proof of Life After Death" blog I am afraid you all would have a conniption! : )

If you were brave you'd answer the questions which have been put to you in this thread, honestly and openly, rather than ignoring them and then trying to change the subject.

[Robin1]

Look, I understand not knowing me makes it hard to believe anything I say is true or accurate. Perhaps you all should nominate one truly open-minded trustworthy skeptic from this thread to go to a small event with John Edward (Small thus increasing your chance of getting read.) and then see what happens...but you do need the reading to be a direct one to you and be open to it and be willing to reflect on it later. With regard to pointing people to my blog and ALL the comments...it has mostly all been said and questioned and answered there already so that saves me the time of having to do it all over again! Hey cut me some slack I have 3 kids! Also I must say some of the comments and back and forth should give a chuckle to anyone interested in the subject. And no I have personally nothing to gain from people reading my blog. But of course if you have a question or point that was not adequately addressed there then we can discuss it here. Now I'm off to go Christmas shopping for those 3 kids. Peace.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

The comments explain the experience in greater detail as well as give answers to people who point out the tricks of the trade with regard to my experience.

Let me guess.

1. You fully describe your experience to the best of your recollection

2. A comment is made suggesting a plausible mundane explanation for what you described

3. You add a detail to your story that you didn't bother to mention in your original description which appears to rule out that explanation

4. Goto 2

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Look, I understand not knowing me makes it hard to believe anything I say is true or accurate. Perhaps you all should nominate one truly open-minded trustworthy skeptic from this thread to go to a small event with John Edward (Small thus increasing your chance of getting read.) and then see what happens..

I think JREFer Remie V attended a John Edward . . . whatever you want to call them. You might do a search.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Look, I understand not knowing me makes it hard to believe anything I say is true or accurate. Perhaps you all should nominate one truly open-minded trustworthy skeptic from this thread to go to a small event with John Edward (Small thus increasing your chance of getting read.) and then see what happens...but you do need the reading to be a direct one to you and be open to it and be willing to reflect on it later.

No, what we need is for Edward to do a series of of say 10 readings under controlled conditions where mundane sources of information like cold and hot reading are carefully eliminated, and for each subject to be given all 10 readings and asked to pick out the one they think is theirs. Only if significantly more subjects correctly identify their reading than would be expected by chance would you have anything approaching evidence, let alone proof, that he's not a fraud.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

No, what we need is for Edward to do a series of of say 10 readings under controlled conditions where mundane sources of information like cold and hot reading are carefully eliminated, and for each subject to be given all 10 readings and asked to pick out the one they think is theirs. Only if significantly more subjects correctly identify their reading than would be expected by chance would you have anything approaching evidence, let alone proof, that he's not a fraud.

If only someone would offer him some substantial incentive to demonstrate his paranormal abilities under scientifically controlled conditions, I'm certain that he would be eager to accept such an offer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Being that I know just as much if not more about the tricks fake mediums use the reason you should seriously examine (and you do need to read ALL the comments for the full picture) my experience with John Edward is the fact that I ACTUALLY had a reading with him whereas I'm guessing most here have not. I have the knowledge of what to look for in a fake medium AND all my experiences with mediums(lots... including James Van Praagh) and in my opinion they were all fake. Except for John Edward. You have the knowledge minus the actual personal experience with John Edward which makes me a more qualified judge.

Edward uses classic cold reading. He's very good at it. If you know what to look for in a fake medium, how did you miss such obvious fishing?

Quote:

He gave a lot of correct information about my dad such as family names and that his name has an ST sound...his name was Salvatore. And correct information about my dad having a problem with his brain. Impressive but I was not totally convinced. UNTIL.... He said my dad told him I just bought a new refrigerator. Yes I had just bought a new refrigerator 2 weeks before! AND THEN ...John told my brother that my dad is telling him he has a Valerie Harper connection. My brother had just bought tickets to her Broadway show that same day! And let me not forget to mention that John saw a Pearl Harbor day connection...my birthday is December 7th.

By saying "a connection" or an "ST sound", the cold reader lets the believer fill in any number of blanks, tricking the believer into thinking the psychic was specific.

I'd guess the refrigerator was brought up by similar fishing but we don't have the exact transcript. However, you have given us enough information about your reading, and more than a few of us have seen Edward in action. After all, he did have a TV show for a while.


I happen to think Edward does some good as a grief counselor. My skeptic friends, however, pretty much believe he does more harm than good and they are probably right.

BTW, welcome to the forum and don't let the less than polite reactions chase you away. People tend to react to enthusiastic declarations of the supernatural being real because we have usually heard it many times before.

[Robin1]

Boy, it is hard to walk away from this thread...almost addicting it is. That was my Yoda talk. I must add that John Edward HAS already participated in a scientific controlled study!! Please refer to the book "The After Life Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death " by Gary E Schwartz. Now I goin' Christmas shopping...

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Boy, it is hard to walk away from this thread...almost addicting it is. That was my Yoda talk. I must add that John Edward HAS already participated in a scientific controlled study!! Please refer to the book "The After Life Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death " by Gary E Schwartz. Now I goin' Christmas shopping...

Goodie! This happens to be one of the things I investigated long ago, as have others on this forum. The book is a travesty of shoddy investigation, improper protocol, confirmation bias, and downright cheating. The statistical analysis Gary Schwartz uses would earn him a failing grade at a college 101 level class. Given that he is a Harvard graduate it is difficult to conclude that he doesn't know this which means he understands he is presenting folderol. The John Edward portion of that was rife with holes.

Anyway, have fun Christmas shopping.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Boy, it is hard to walk away from this thread...almost addicting it is. That was my Yoda talk. I must add that John Edward HAS already participated in a scientific controlled study!! Please refer to the book "The After Life Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death " by Gary E Schwartz. Now I goin' Christmas shopping...

What Schwartz does could not remotely be described as a scientific controlled study. For example he makes no attempt to eliminate the Forer Effect.

[Nessie]

From Robin's blog

"I searched for comfort wanting to know for sure my dad still existed and was a part of all of our lives. This in turn led me to psychic mediums in search of proof. I attended psychic fairs, conferences, and had some private readings as well. What I learned is something I always knew in my heart...your soul lives on, love truly is eternal, and your deceased loved one is closer than you know!"

So you were not open minded, you wanted it to work. You kept going because...

"What I also learned unfortunately is that there are plenty of fake "psychic mediums" out there pretending to connect with your loved ones. I for one am not easily fooled by the fishing and general statements and questions and answers of fake mediums. The biggest test...I have to be told something very specific to me by the medium that there is no way he could have known unless my father told him."

...so you were not convinced of any of them until....

"....John Edward. His comments directed to me only as I stood there were spot on. He gave a lot of correct information about my dad...."

So finally you met one you were convinced by as he came out with the type of information you were looking for, details you say no one else could know.

But, random on its own could account for that, go to loads of mediums and random says you will meet one who can give you the information you were looking for. Meanwhile others will not have got the information they were looking for from Mr Edward and so will be off finding solace with the mediums you say are fake.

For Mr Edward to be truly convincing he would have to be spot on with way, way more than just you and all the others would have to be wrong all the time. You must understand that and realise that is why you have had the reaction so far you have had.

When you said your initial doubts faded as....

"He gave a lot of correct information about my dad such as family names and that his name has an ST sound...his name was Salvatore. And correct information about my dad having a problem with his brain. Impressive but I was not totally convinced. UNTIL.... He said my dad told him I just bought a new refrigerator....."

..we see a medium doing the usual medium tricks and with you he got on a roll and so you are convinced.

But it is not scientific at all to take that one occasion and to then declare he is a true medium. He needs to do it again and again and again under very rigorous conditions. It is not closed minded to say, we want more evidence before Mr Edward is declared a true medium who really can talk to the dead.

Welcome to a sceptic's forum and see how we function.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

What Schwartz does could not remotely be described as a scientific controlled study. For example he makes no attempt to eliminate the Forer Effect.

None of his experiments are double-blinded. For John Edward specifically the screen is set up so that Edward can peek the sitter. And I think it was Edward (it's been a while; I'll have to get my book down later) who completely totally and utterly blew a reading but Schwartz himself salvaged it by saying the reading applied to him instead.

ETA: I hope, Robin, that you are beginning to realize that you have not entered a den of novices. We know the subject. Many of us know the subject far better than many or most believers. If you still doubt, try opening an astrology thread....

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Robin Stettnisch

Boy, it is hard to walk away from this thread...almost addicting it is. That was my Yoda talk. I must add that John Edward HAS already participated in a scientific controlled study!! Please refer to the book "The After Life Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death " by Gary E Schwartz. Now I goin' Christmas shopping...

http://paranormal.about.com/library/.../aa093002a.htm

''The early experiments were conducted much like John Edward's "private sittings," if you've seen his popular TV show "Crossing Over with John Edward." In this situation, the medium sits facing a "sitter," whom he or she has never met, and proceeds to apparently receive information from a deceased friend or relative of the sitter. The medium is often able to relay initials, names, dates and specific incidents relevant to the sitter and the deceased. In Schwartz's tests, each medium had a session with the same sitter, and the experiment was repeated with several sitters. The sitters were instructed to reply to any questions from the mediums with either a yes or no, with no elaboration. All "messages" from the deceased were carefully recorded - videotaped, in fact (some of the sessions were shown on a program for HBO) - and then later analyzed, point by point, for accuracy. Accuracy was scored on a hit-or-miss scale in the range of -3 to +3:

-3: a complete miss
-2: a probable miss
-1: a possible miss
+1: a possible hit
+3: a definite hit

How well did the mediums do? The results showed that the mediums ranged from 77 to 95 percent accuracy! Their average for +3 hits was 83 percent!

But is this proof of contact with consciousness that exists after death? Or are the mediums just good guessers? ''

For ''good guessers'' read ''good cold readers''.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Here's the real John Edward.

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

OMG!

I've never actually watched one of these 'readings' before.
I don't know why I checked out your link.
Was that one abnormally bad, or is it more typical?

I've (obviously) never played around with this sort of manipulation, but I honestly feel I could have done much better than JE on that one.

Still, the 'client', or mark, or whatever they are called, seemed OK with his effort.

Good god, man!
Is this normal in the psychic realm?

[dafydd]

''Another response by a scientist, after having read how Gary Schwartz omits most of his data when submitting a paper for publication in one of the third-tier journals he publishes in, would be to laugh until his horse split his sides with his two-edged Occamite sword. No reputable scientist would bother trying to replicate the shams that Schwartz has participated in. You have read my review of his work, haven't you?''

http://www.skepdic.com/comments/schwartzcom.html


''Gary Schwartz validates mediums with about as much care as Pope John Paul II validated saints. In his Afterlife Experiments, Schwartz anoints John Edward and Laurie Campbell on the basis of a few readings that dazzle the former Harvard professor. Never mind that Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman don't see anything in the readings that can't be explained by cold or hot reading. Schwartz dismisses his critics as super-skeptics and is convinced that these mediums are the real thing. He is the self-proclaimed expert on the subject''

http://www.skepdic.com/essays/gsandsv.html

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by quarky

OMG!

I've never actually watched one of these 'readings' before.
I don't know why I checked out your link.
Was that one abnormally bad, or is it more typical?

I've (obviously) never played around with this sort of manipulation, but I honestly feel I could have done much better than JE on that one.

Still, the 'client', or mark, or whatever they are called, seemed OK with his effort.

Good god, man!
Is this normal in the psychic realm?

There is nothing else in the psychic realm.