Proof of Life After Death!!

[Garrette]

No, all I was trying to say was that being a librarian OF COURSE I would have thoroughly researched a topic I was so interested in.

I believe that, but I doubt that "thoroughly" is as thorough as you think it is. Allow me a personal example:

I am an amateur magician and mentalist. I have been so all my life. For the past 25 years or so, I have really been far more a researcher and collector than a performer. My library of books, DVDS, lecture notes, monographs, etc., on magic and mentalism is extensive and equal to many professional performers. My collection of professionally made magical items and mentalist items is also extensive. I am a member of multiple online forums that require extensive knowledge of magic and/or mentalism even to join. I have performed the simplest of mental acts and magic acts on the spur of the moment and had people convinced that I am either psychic or in league with the devil. I do not exaggerate; I have been accused of both of those in all sincerity.

And the catch is this: I am not really that good. The people who do this for a living blow me away in what they can do, and it is still possible to fool me. For all of the many thousands of dollars (and it is many, many thousands of dollars) that I have spent acquiring my specialist knowledge, I can still be fooled. Even lesser, unknown performers have occasionally done something that left me scratching my head with no idea how they did it. Sometimes I go out of my way to learn the method; sometimes I let it go and enjoy the wonder.

But never, never, never, do I assume that simply because I cannot figure out how something was done that it must have been REAL magic. I simply assume that I have been fooled by someone whose livelihood depends on the ability to fool people. And then I remember that it really isn't that hard to fool people, not even well-educated laymen.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Let's assume that this is all true. All of it, including how difficult it is to understand the things that the dead are trying to communicate.

Why would your father be trying to communicate to you that you'd just bought a fridge and that your brother had just bought some theatre tickets? Is there not something more meaningful he could communicate?

 

[Robin1]

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.

 

[Resume]

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.

What do the comments have to do with your experience?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Here's the real John Edward.

 

[Robin1]

Already mentioned on this thread that I've been to Van Praagh and in my opinion he is a fake. I actually even mentioned that in the comment section of my blog which of course you have not read.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

you do need to actually read the blog AND All the comments first ...

Robin, in all seriousness, if there are any important points raised after the first few hundred comments, please could you save our scrolling fingers and just describe them briefly here?

 

[Robin1]

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.

 

[Hungry81]

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.

What is the difference between John Edwards and Van praagh? In other words what does John Edwards do that Van Praagh does not that convinces you that one is a fraud over the other?

 

[Agatha]

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.

I have done so.

Bear in mind that we can only go on your memory of what happened at this reading, and human memory is fallible. Even if you took notes at the time, we would still be relying on something that's been filtered through your perceptions rather than a transcript or an unedited video. That's not a criticism of you, it's just the nature of communication and memory.

You say you've researched fake psychics so you will already know some of the techniques that 'mediums' use to fool people into believing they are in touch with spirits.

Was anything said at your reading that you believe could not have been discovered by Edward or his researchers in any other way than by supernatural means?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Communicating with those who have crossed over is not the same as talking to someone on your iphone with a crystal clear connection...and that has been explained in more detail in the comment section of my blog...which is why I will respectfully ask you and all on this thread to ACTUALLY read my blog and ALL the comments because many if not all of your points have ALREADY been addressed there. Then perhaps we can discuss and cover some new ground.

Or, you could plow the new ground here, up front...

I respectfully ask you to explain, here, why your experience with a demonstrated fraud proves that this one time, out of all of history, a living person "communicated" with the dead.

Then perhaps we can discuss your contentions.

 

[Robin1]

It was a different credit card. I am SURE noone with me talked about anything John Edward mentioned! I do refer to myself as being more than a little paranoid in that regard...NO TALKING ALLOWED when I go to these events!

 

[Resume]

Already mentioned on this thread that I've been to Van Praagh and in my opinion he is a fake. I actually even mentioned that in the comment section of my blog which of course you have not read.

Why is he fake and Edward not?

Be specific.

 

[Resume]

It was a different credit card. I am SURE noone with me talked about anything John Edward mentioned! I do refer to myself as being more than a little paranoid in that regard...NO TALKING ALLOWED when I go to these events!

How many of these do you attend?

 

[Slowvehicle]

And I am sorry if I didn't follow the proper etiquette on this thread..it is new to me.

Please do not pretend that it is a question of etiquette. Rather, it is a question of experience. Post the salient parts of your claims here. If you document a demonstrable effect, onr that has not been seen before, that stands up to the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny, then I wlll admit you might have something. Until then, there is no reason, none at all, to even consider JE unique.

 

[Garrette]

Robin, in all seriousness, if there are any important points raised after the first few hundred comments, please could you save our scrolling fingers and just describe them briefly here?

What is the difference between John Edwards and Van praagh? In other words what does John Edwards do that Van Praagh does not that convinces you that one is a fraud over the other?

I have done so.

Bear in mind that we can only go on your memory of what happened at this reading, and human memory is fallible. Even if you took notes at the time, we would still be relying on something that's been filtered through your perceptions rather than a transcript or an unedited video. That's not a criticism of you, it's just the nature of communication and memory.

You say you've researched fake psychics so you will already know some of the techniques that 'mediums' use to fool people into believing they are in touch with spirits.

Was anything said at your reading that you believe could not have been discovered by Edward or his researchers in any other way than by supernatural means?

Or, you could plow the new ground here, up front...

I respectfully ask you to explain, here, why your experience with a demonstrated fraud proves that this one time, out of all of history, a living person "communicated" with the dead.

Then perhaps we can discuss your contentions.

First, it is important to reiterate that JE did not say "you have (or will buy) tickets to Valerie Harper's show;" rather, he said there is "a Valerie Harper connection." More than one thing could fit that, and so it is not accurate to imply that JE knew about the tickets. (I am not saying you are doing this).

Second, it is important to know that there is no transcript, so we don't really know what JE actually said. It matters.

Third, since JE is known for hot reading and for having aides in the queue, there seems to be little real mystery here.

Yet they thought they were informed enough and savvy enough just as you do. How can you be certain that you are not just slightly better informed so that you can rule out some of the frauds but not so well informed that you can rule them all out?

This isn't intended as a snarky or insulting question; I ask it legitimately. How do you know that your specific level of knowledge and your specific level of trust or non-trust is sufficient?

I don't doubt that you believe it to be true, but forgive us for doubting.

There are two levels of difficulty here. First, you are almost certainly remembering something wrong, regardless how certain you are of your memory. Second, it doesn't matter if you have relayed the events with great exactness; they are still unconvincing given the alternate ways to accomplish this separate from being a real psychic/medium.

GBOB's excellent post is merely a start.

And yet there are thousands of people who feel the same way about numerous other prominent psychics, mediums and faith healers, including ones whom you no doubt number among the fakes you've mentioned.

I believe that, but I doubt that "thoroughly" is as thorough as you think it is. Allow me a personal example:

I am an amateur magician and mentalist. I have been so all my life. For the past 25 years or so, I have really been far more a researcher and collector than a performer. My library of books, DVDS, lecture notes, monographs, etc., on magic and mentalism is extensive and equal to many professional performers. My collection of professionally made magical items and mentalist items is also extensive. I am a member of multiple online forums that require extensive knowledge of magic and/or mentalism even to join. I have performed the simplest of mental acts and magic acts on the spur of the moment and had people convinced that I am either psychic or in league with the devil. I do not exaggerate; I have been accused of both of those in all sincerity.

And the catch is this: I am not really that good. The people who do this for a living blow me away in what they can do, and it is still possible to fool me. For all of the many thousands of dollars (and it is many, many thousands of dollars) that I have spent acquiring my specialist knowledge, I can still be fooled. Even lesser, unknown performers have occasionally done something that left me scratching my head with no idea how they did it. Sometimes I go out of my way to learn the method; sometimes I let it go and enjoy the wonder.

But never, never, never, do I assume that simply because I cannot figure out how something was done that it must have been REAL magic. I simply assume that I have been fooled by someone whose livelihood depends on the ability to fool people. And then I remember that it really isn't that hard to fool people, not even well-educated laymen.

What do the comments have to do with your experience?

Why is he fake and Edward not?

Be specific.

How many of these do you attend?

Please do not pretend that it is a question of etiquette. Rather, it is a question of experience. Post the salient parts of your claims here. If you document a demonstrable effect, onr that has not been seen before, that stands up to the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny, then I wlll admit you might have something. Until then, there is no reason, none at all, to even consider JE unique.

These. Your strident insistence that you cannot be fooled is not a convincing argument. What we respect is evidence, not claims.

 

[Garrette]

And a nitpick for the skeptics: It is Edward without an S. Not Edwards.

 

[Robin1]

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.

 

[dafydd]

Wheres Harry Houdini when you need him?

Hang on a sec, I'll channel him.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Perhaps you could actually post a valid link? It's not *that* difficult.

I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but I suspect we will see little more of Robin. I suspect this is another case of a believer deciding that her perception of skeptics as bitter and nasty people with small intellects has been confirmed.

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

If I am so personally invested and so then cannot use my critical thinking skills properly why then do I believe that ALL the other mediums I've been to are fakes?

You're not 100% gullible.

How many of these do you attend?

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