John Edward in person

[Stray Cat]

Yes, it's odd that from all the valid and relevant replies that have been offered, the best that seacrest could think to quote was a snippet of their own post isn't it?

Maybe we are all already on "ignore"

 

[bonzo2]

Imagine for one moment being struck by a bus. Or rather 'coming round' after being struck by a bus to see your body on the ground, surrounded by onlookers and a paramedic putting a sheet over your head.

Imagine if you then found someone (a living someone) with whom you could actually communicate. I suspect, even if you were the most even tempered individual when you were alive, you'd follow them day and night, shouting and screaming at them to tell your relatives and friends there was nothing to worry about, that whatever you now were, you were OK.

And no doubt you'd be in a very large crowd of other dead people, from around the world, similarly trying to get their messages through.

This nonsense of faint messages coming through the (a)ether is the complete opposite of what you would think should be the case.

As for anyone being subjected to this cacophony of the dead being 'personable' and 'natural'...only if they'd taken enough drugs.

Interesting view but an alternative perspective would be that the spirit would not want to interfere with another's pathway or earthly experiences. Why do we think that a deceased person's work or journey ends when they die and their sole interest is contacting the living?

 

[Ocelot]

Interesting view but an alternative perspective would be that the spirit would not want to interfere with another's pathway or earthly experiences. Why do we think that a deceased person's work or journey ends when they die and their sole interest is contacting the living?

It is not necessary for Debaser's scenario to work that a deceased person's sole interest is to contact the living. Only that they maintain some interest in the living.

 

[seacrest]

@ post #80 I find personal experience provides the most valuable information.

 

[Pixel42]

I find personal experience provides the most valuable information

Whereas people who have taken the time to check that assumption have discovered that it is not true. Personal experience is actually prone to many kinds of error, thanks to the built-in cognitive biases that we all have. It certainly isn't as reliable a source of information as the sort of careful, methodical research that scientists do.

 

[Resume]

@ post #80 I find personal experience provides the most valuable information.

In regards to what?

 

[Resume]

Interesting view but an alternative perspective would be that the spirit would not want to interfere with another's pathway or earthly experiences. Why do we think that a deceased person's work or journey ends when they die and their sole interest is contacting the living?

And what evidence do you have for this alternative perspective?

 

[seacrest]

@post85 Prove it. JE is in Liverpool this Saturday. I am eager for your findings. Dare to expand your consciousness

 

[Pixel42]

@post85 Prove it.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not on those who are simply asking for objective evidence of that claim.

JE is in Liverpool this Saturday. I am eager for your findings. Dare to expand your consciousness

I've seen cold readers on TV, I don't need to see one in person to know how the tricks are done.

Let JE do his stuff under conditions which exclude cold reading and the other tricks such performers use, and see if he can really guess right more often than would be expected by chance. That's the only performance I'd be interested in attending.

 

[Stray Cat]

@post85 Prove it. JE is in Liverpool this Saturday. I am eager for your findings. Dare to expand your consciousness

If you are his new PR agent or Tour Promoter, you're not doing a very good job of it.

 

[tsig]

Attended John Edward's seminar recently. Being a healthy skeptic and of inquiring mind, compelled I was to experience JE live. I found him to be personable, natural and genuine. I detected no evidence that he was lying, delusional, or otherwise in need of therapy or psychopharmaceuticals.
He read many people and all but one, maybe two, included substantive validations. I am curious of others in person, group or better yet, private, experiences with JE or with another medium. Some provide their services by phone.

@post85 Prove it. JE is in Liverpool this Saturday. I am eager for your findings. Dare to expand your consciousness

You went from claiming to being a healthy skeptic and of inquiring mind to a true believer in only four posts. This may be a record.

 

[Robert Oz]

@ post #80 I find personal experience provides the most valuable information.

Your personal experience would lead you to the same conclusion with a reading from Derren Brown. And then Derren would tell you he isn't psychic and is only cold reading.

 

[seacrest]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not on those who are simply asking for objective evidence of that claim.

The claim is that he is a fraud. I am simply asking for proof. Mr. Zwinge's "expose'" falls far short of the level of proof, where he uses only one reading while conspicuously ignoring thousands.

From Wiki: james randi: Although often referred to as a "debunker," Randi rejects that title owing to its perceived bias, instead describing himself as an "investigator". "Comprehensive scientific INVESTIGATION"

As for JE's claim of mediumship, all one need do is simply see him for objective evidence to satisfy the burden of proof. Unless you're unlike Oz, who appears able to detect a fraud.

Your personal experience would lead you to the same conclusion with a reading from Derren Brown. And then Derren would tell you he isn't psychic and is only cold reading.

The implication being that I couldn't and you could? Then why would you hesitate to see JE to obtain "empirical" evidence that he's a fraud.

 

[steenkh]

As for JE's claim of mediumship, all one need do is simply see him for objective evidence to satisfy the burden of proof.

Why do you think that this is objective evidence? Your experience that convinced you is in no way objective. For truly objective evidence, we would need controls to make sure that fraud is not committed, such as ensuring that there will be no stooges in the audience, that JE does not know who will be in the audience, and that the audience will not be respond to JE's guesses.

 

[yairhol]

The claim is that he is a fraud. I am simply asking for proof. Mr. Zwinge's "expose'" falls far short of the level of proof, where he uses only one reading while conspicuously ignoring thousands.

From Wiki: james randi: Although often referred to as a "debunker," Randi rejects that title owing to its perceived bias, instead describing himself as an "investigator". "Comprehensive scientific INVESTIGATION"

As for JE's claim of mediumship, all one need do is simply see him for objective evidence to satisfy the burden of proof. Unless you're unlike Oz, who appears able to detect a fraud.


The implication being that I couldn't and you could? Then why would you hesitate to see JE to obtain "empirical" evidence that he's a fraud.

Seacrest, try to be less on the offensive side. It makes you read things that have not been written. Robert Oz did not say he can detect a fraud at a show. Simply Derren Brown declares he is a magician and does not do the amazing things he does with magical powers like JE declares.
It takes one to know one. Only an expert magician can detect how tricks are done by other magicians or self declared "psychics" which use magician' tricks.
I'll ask you another thing. If JE is the real deal, why doesn't he take the $1M challenge and humiliate all of us skeptics, then doing with the money as he wishes. Of course he will not need $1M since if he is proven to have magical powers he will probably become one of the richest men in the world.

 

[Robert Oz]

The implication being that I couldn't and you could? Then why would you hesitate to see JE to obtain "empirical" evidence that he's a fraud.

I have seen many of John Edward's shows and television appearances and read many transcripts and readings published in magazines.

They were all easily recognisable as cold reading.

None of them appeared any different than cold reading demonstrations given by mentalists and former con-artists.

Are his live shows magically different from his TV shows, radio appearances and published readings?

I also recognise that I am human and can fall for cons and tricks. I have seen tricks performed by Derren Brown that are utterly mind-boggling and I dread to think how easily he could convince the world that he was a genuine psychic if he was only a little more dishonest.

 

[Robert Oz]

Simply Derren Brown declares he is a magician and does not do the amazing things he does with magical powers like JE declares.

I have seen Derren Brown fan out a complete deck of cards and ask Stephen Fry to run his eyes over them and mentally remember one of the cards while Derren's back was turned. He then immediately picked the card Fry was thinking.

I have seen him ask Stephen Merchant to think of the word 'yes' or 'no' and successfully pick which it was five or six times in a row.

I have seen him point out a location on a map of London that a television host was thinking about.

I have seen him ask a woman to think of any letter in the alphabet while he wrote his prediction on a card that he then sealed in an envelope. When she announced the letter she had in mind, he pulled the card out of the envelope and showed that he had guessed correctly.

I have seen him give cold readings that looked and sounded exactly like John Edward's readings and then reveal to his audience that he is not a psychic.


I could pick how he did the last two tricks. I have no idea how he did the others. It certainly doesn't mean that he was using real magic for the first three and mentalism tricks for the last two.

 

[ynot]

You went from claiming to being a healthy skeptic and of inquiring mind to a true believer in only four posts. This may be a record.

At least he/she (I guess she) is becoming more "honest".

 

[ynot]

I have seen many of John Edward's shows and television appearances and read many transcripts and readings published in magazines.

They were all easily recognisable as cold reading.

None of them appeared any different than cold reading demonstrations given by mentalists and former con-artists.

Are his live shows magically different from his TV shows, radio appearances and published readings?

I also recognise that I am human and can fall for cons and tricks. I have seen tricks performed by Derren Brown that are utterly mind-boggling and I dread to think how easily he could convince the world that he was a genuine psychic if he was only a little more dishonest.

I’m not a professional performer by any means but over the years I’ve learned a few simple but effective “paranormal” tricks and many believers I‘ve “performed” for don‘t believe me when I say I have absolutely no paranormal abilities (even though I assure them I have none). The want to believe in some people is scary and is a good source of income for those with no conscience (I have been tempted).

ETA - I used to tell them how the tricks were done but got fed-up when they said “Oh, it’s just a trick!” and immediately forgot that a couple of seconds earlier they believed I had genuine paranormal abilities. Seems being tricked proves their belief but having the trick exposed doesn’t disprove it even slightly. I no longer tell them how the tricks are done.

 

[Pixel42]

The claim is that he is a fraud. I am simply asking for proof.

No, the original claim - by you - was that he is genuine, even though his performances are indistinguishable from those that can be produced using well known tricks and techniques. That is the claim for which evidence (not proof) is required.

In the UK people who give performances like his are required to make clear that what they are doing is "for entertainment purposes only", so they are not, strictly speaking, frauds but entertainers - magicians. It's up to the people who go to see them whether they take them seriously or not. And that will depend on how easily fooled they are and/or how much they want to believe something which is fairly evidently not true.

As for JE's claim of mediumship, all one need do is simply see him for objective evidence to satisfy the burden of proof.

No, what I'd need to do is see him repeat his stage performance under conditions which carefully and methodically exclude all the ways in which people can be fooled, or can inadvertantly fool themselves. By doing so he would not only silence the sceptics, but win a million dollars (with the prospect of much more to come). Yet he does not do so. Why not?