Proof of Life After Death!!

[often mrunderstood]

Imagine what information one could get from a person's facebook account for example (or youtube).

I have heard that some people will even post stupid, mundane things there. Like the purchase of a new appliance. (not saying that happened here, but it could be a great source for things they "couldn't know")

Still waiting for a reason to go to your blog. Talking to the dead. Sheesh!

 

[LashL]

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.

Yeah, that does indeed look pretty abysmal to me, too. I mean, seriously. He asks her early on whether there's anyone else there and she looks to her left and says her son is in the other room. Five minutes later, after non-stop high speed chatter in which he throws all kinds of other nonsense into the mix, JE asks her if she has a little boy. She says he's not little. Then he pretends that it's her dead parents referring to the 'younger male'. Then he asks if there's a room to her left - as if she hadn't just telegraphed that already when she specifically said she had a son in the other room while looking to her left.

No, her grandfather didn't hang himself. That becomes 'intubation' (only after her already telling him that two of her family members died of cancer, and there's a pretty good chance of intubation being involved). Then he suggests that she was there while her mother was intubated (she wasn't) and he goes on as if she had actually said yes instead of no and tells her that her mother wants her to know that it wasn't as bad as it looked, didn't hurt.

Nobody named Jennifer or Jenny or Jenna Marie or Jenny Margaret.

No pink roses; it's a snow globe from Disney. He asks if it has some connection to her mother or sister. Well, gee, this woman is there for the specific purpose of "connecting" with her dead relatives so what are the odds that the thing she has in front of her while she's doing this might have something to do with her dead relatives?

He's wrong about which of her sister and her mother died first.

She says that she was at Disney with her sister and that they used a motorized cart for her sister and he comes up with the stunning revelation that they didn't have to wait in line. Duh.

No pirate connection. Then he yaks about being at Disney with his own grandmother on the pirate ride.

McDonald's - no. So he yaks about his own fast food crap.

Fast food holiday - no. So he yaks about his own food hangups and his own childhood and his own family some more.

Pretty pathetic, really.

 

[truethat]

Reading the blog is actually interesting, Robin explains more detail.

Here's the thing about the Valerie Harper connection. He said "there's a Valerie Harper connection" not "You just bought tickets to Valerie Harper's show"

Now even if he didn't look up tourists coming in to buy tickets, which I don't think he could have done so quickly, he didn't say tickets.

Valerie Harper was an actress on the Mary Tyler Moore show, she's not a super famous actress but she was on a popular show. The tickets were a coincidence.

Years ago I worked in my ex husband's thrift store and I had an incident like this happen where a couple walked in and were looking around the store. I had never met them before and went up to the man who was looking through shirts. I had just recently moved the "pink men's shirts" to another section. He was looking and not actually looking at the shirts but scanning the rack, so I went up and asked him if he was looking for the pink man's shirts. He did a double take and called his wife up and said it was a sign. He was looking at the shirts but the mother had just died and requested that she be buried in a pink shirt. He took it as a psychic connection.

A sign from mom.

 

[Garrette]

I have nothing to do with the Patch news site other than my blog...ANYONE...no jokes please : )...can blog for free and I get nothing back from it...

Okay. I withdraw my implications to the contrary. Thanks for straightening that out.

unless of course you count the sheer satisfaction of knowing I may be spreading a little "Light"....

Satisfaction of some sort is, I suppose, the main reason nearly everyone goes on the internet.

As far as John Edward goes...my description is accurate ...

I believe that you think it is accurate, and I acknowledge that it is possible it is accurate, but I insist that it is likely not accurate. In fact, it can't really be accurate since you haven't even provided close paraphrases. The verbiage matters. The specifics matter. Tell me, please, in all your research about mediums and cold reading did you run across much about the fallibility and malleability of memory? It is pertinent, too.

you think it must not be...so we agree to disagree.

Not really. See above.

Now if anyone is willing to read my other blog involving my deceased Nana "Is it Just a Dream...Or Something More?"
I would be very curious to hear your explanation of how I knew about the slippers. Assuming of course you don't think my Nana told me herself. And with this crowd I'd say that's a pretty safe bet! : )
http://yorktown-somers.patch.com/blog_posts/is-it-just-a-dreamor-something-more

Please don't do this. Far too many believers come here and play the psychic version of whack-a-mole. Pick your best "proof" and stick with it. When you can't defend the best proof, admit it, but don't just pretend the discussion never happened and run off to another example that is suddenly the best proof.

Here is my perception of your position and discussion so far. Despite how I know it must seem, it is not meant as an insult. I am sure that you felt when you came here that you had covered all the logical and rational bases and were being open and fair about everything.


I have proof of life after death.

I have demands on my time, but you skeptics don't, so do my work for me.

I have experience of these things, but you skeptics don't.

Those who believe in psychics I don't believe in are wrong.

Those who don't believe in psychics I believe in are wrong.

I am not closed-minded but you skeptics are.

I want to talk about Gary Schwartz's book unless you skeptics actually know something about it.

I cannot be fooled but you guys are the arrogant ones.

Well, okay, when pressed for details I admit that my anecdote is indistinguishable from a contradictory anecdote but you skeptics should at least consider it anyway even though I won't consider the possibility I am wrong.


I reiterate that this post really isn't an insult. You seem intelligent enough and quite pleasant and definitely sincere. Yet you seem simultaneously to suffer from the myopia of the believers who mistakenly think that emotional significance coupled with a layman's knowledge of psychic readings are sufficient to defend against self deception. They are not.

As someone on your blog states, though with different intent: "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." That includes ways to be fooled and to fool yourself.

 

[Robin1]

Sorry forgot to sign off earlier...like I said new to this. Will be back when I can. Didn't realize quite what I was getting into here... : )

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, now my kids are going to be mad...Why are there no presents Mommy?...well darlings Mommy got obsessed and trapped on a life after death thread...
K... NO way for John Edward to know about fridge or Valerie Harper connection or tooth in pocket...no talking about any of it before or during event...NO We did NOT offer ANY info to John or hints while being read...we didn't fill out any forms or talk to anyone there. Seating was random. Fridge and Valerie Harper statements made directly to me and my brother NOT thrown out to the entire group of 75 people just waiting for someone to bite. THAT is the proof...problem is not lack of proof but the lack of ability of some to even entertain the notion of life after death could ever be a possibility...EVER. Cause most certainly if you coud entertain that ridiculous notion you could also entertain the notion that communication is possible. NOW, I gonna go Chris..oh forget it..I gonna sit here and wait for responses...

You really don't want to look at how cold reading works, do you?

Edward throws out generalities and believers fill in the specifics. It's very convincing but it's also done by magicians who disclose how it is done after fooling an audience into thinking, "How could he/she possibly have known that?"

 

[truethat]

Well come back. We're not new to this. A person who makes a living at psychic readings from beyond has done research and dedicates his or her time to focusing on the readability of people. Not just the individual but the crowd.

Any public speaker does the same thing. I teach adults and I always can tell when a person doesn't understand what I am talking about. I will regularly bring in information about the students themselves to help them understand the topic from a more personal perspective.

When I go to do presentations my first question is always "who is the audience." I try to find out information and "read the room."

Ex. If talk about an anecdote about raising kids and I see people smile in a knowing way or shake their head I know they have kids. If someone looks bored I think they don't. I'm usually 99 % correct in doing this.

Even comedians do this.

 

[Garrette]

Reading the blog is actually interesting, Robin explains more detail.

Here's the thing about the Valerie Harper connection. He said "there's a Valerie Harper connection" not "You just bought tickets to Valerie Harper's show"

Now even if he didn't look up tourists coming in to buy tickets, which I don't think he could have done so quickly, he didn't say tickets.

Valerie Harper was an actress on the Mary Tyler Moore show, she's not a super famous actress but she was on a popular show. The tickets were a coincidence.

Years ago I worked in my ex husband's thrift store and I had an incident like this happen where a couple walked in and were looking around the store. I had never met them before and went up to the man who was looking through shirts. I had just recently moved the "pink men's shirts" to another section. He was looking and not actually looking at the shirts but scanning the rack, so I went up and asked him if he was looking for the pink man's shirts. He did a double take and called his wife up and said it was a sign. He was looking at the shirts but the mother had just died and requested that she be buried in a pink shirt. He took it as a psychic connection.

A sign from mom.

I mentioned before that according to Robin JE did not specifically say anything about tickets or a Broadway show. Not only was Valerie Harper on the MTM Show, she had her own two shows after that and was a pretty big television name for a while. Given that Robin herself is just about in that generation that would know Valerie Harper (a few years older would be better but not necessary), I assume her brother is in the same age range, possibly older. That means if he simply admitted liking any of the three shows that were fairly popular in the late 60s and the 70s it would have been a hit.

Robin, can you confirm, please, that you don't want to talk about The Afterlife Experiments? I don't want to presume anything; you may simply be overwhelmed with the number of responses. If you do want to talk about it, I can try to find the previous analyses I have done on the book.

 

[carlitos]

Sorry forgot to sign off earlier...like I said new to this. Will be back when I can. Didn't realize quite what I was getting into here... : )

You don't have to "sign on" or "sign off" in a thread. As you can see, it continues merrily along in your absence. Post whenever you like.

 

[Nessie]

The basic Wikipedia entries on readings and John Edward contains details of him being found out

"A 2001 Time article reported that psychic John Edward allegedly used hot reading on his television show, Crossing Over, where an audience member who received a reading was suspicious of prior behavior from Edward's aides, who had struck up conversations with audience members and asked them to fill out cards detailing their family trees.[5] In December 2001, Edward was alleged to have used foreknowledge to hot read in an interview on the television show Dateline, where a reading for a cameraman was based on knowledge gained in conversation some hours previously, yet presented as if he was unaware of the cameraman's background"

and a lack of accuracy

"Choosing the first reading from a two hour tape of edited shows as a sample, magician and skeptic James Randi found that just three of twenty three statements made by Edward were confirmed as correct by the audience member being read, and the three statements that were correct were also trivial and nondescript.[17]"

Sorry Robin, but all you have is one experience which has been shown to be right using a technique that has been exposed ages ago. Also for Wikipedia this time from the entry on cold readings

"Some performers who use cold reading are honest about their use of the technique. Lynne Kelly, Kari Coleman,[7] Ian Rowland,[8] and Derren Brown[9] have used these techniques at either private fortune-telling sessions or open forum "talking with the dead" sessions in the manner of those who claim to be genuine mediums. Only after receiving acclaim and applause from their audience do they reveal that they needed no psychic power for the performance, only a sound knowledge of psychology and cold reading.

In an episode of his Trick of the Mind series broadcast in March 2006, Derren Brown showed how easily people can be influenced through cold reading techniques by repeating Bertram Forer's famous demonstration of the personal validation fallacy, or Forer effect."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward

 

[Garrette]

The basic Wikipedia entries on readings and John Edward contains details of him being found out

"A 2001 Time article reported that psychic John Edward allegedly used hot reading on his television show, Crossing Over, where an audience member who received a reading was suspicious of prior behavior from Edward's aides, who had struck up conversations with audience members and asked them to fill out cards detailing their family trees.[5] In December 2001, Edward was alleged to have used foreknowledge to hot read in an interview on the television show Dateline, where a reading for a cameraman was based on knowledge gained in conversation some hours previously, yet presented as if he was unaware of the cameraman's background"

and a lack of accuracy

"Choosing the first reading from a two hour tape of edited shows as a sample, magician and skeptic James Randi found that just three of twenty three statements made by Edward were confirmed as correct by the audience member being read, and the three statements that were correct were also trivial and nondescript.[17]"

Sorry Robin, but all you have is one experience which has been shown to be right using a technique that has been exposed ages ago. Also for Wikipedia this time from the entry on cold readings

This is important.

Robin, do you think John Edward is always authentic or has he ever cheated in some way?

If so, why, and how do you tell the difference?

If not, how do you explain the misses such as in the linked video?

 

[Nessie]

Sorry forgot to sign off earlier...like I said new to this. Will be back when I can. Didn't realize quite what I was getting into here... : )

I hope we have not upset you, but I suspect we probably have by our actions. Forums can be pretty harsh places to discuss something close to your heart.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Robin, any chance that you'll go back to John Edward for another session? If so, an accurate transcript of exactly what was said would be very helpful in showing others that he isn't simply cold reading, that he is genuinely getting his information from beyond and not pumping you for it. A recording would be awesome.

Just go to youtube. Edward had a TV program for a while. There is plenty of evidence he's just a good cold reader.

 

[quarky]

Yeah, that does indeed look pretty abysmal to me, too. I mean, seriously. He asks her early on whether there's anyone else there and she looks to her left and says her son is in the other room. Five minutes later, after non-stop high speed chatter in which he throws all kinds of other nonsense into the mix, JE asks her if she has a little boy. She says he's not little. Then he pretends that it's her dead parents referring to the 'younger male'. Then he asks if there's a room to her left - as if she hadn't just telegraphed that already when she specifically said she had a son in the other room while looking to her left.

No, her grandfather didn't hang himself. That becomes 'intubation' (only after her already telling him that two of her family members died of cancer, and there's a pretty good chance of intubation being involved). Then he suggests that she was there while her mother was intubated (she wasn't) and he goes on as if she had actually said yes instead of no and tells her that her mother wants her to know that it wasn't as bad as it looked, didn't hurt.

Nobody named Jennifer or Jenny or Jenna Marie or Jenny Margaret.

No pink roses; it's a snow globe from Disney. He asks if it has some connection to her mother or sister. Well, gee, this woman is there for the specific purpose of "connecting" with her dead relatives so what are the odds that the thing she has in front of her while she's doing this might have something to do with her dead relatives?

He's wrong about which of her sister and her mother died first.

She says that she was at Disney with her sister and that they used a motorized cart for her sister and he comes up with the stunning revelation that they didn't have to wait in line. Duh.

No pirate connection. Then he yaks about being at Disney with his own grandmother on the pirate ride.

McDonald's - no. So he yaks about his own fast food crap.

Fast food holiday - no. So he yaks about his own food hangups and his own childhood and his own family some more.

Pretty pathetic, really.

What really amazed me was that the caller seemed ok with it.

The only analogy I can come up with is a defense of a Catholic priest who only molested my child a little bit.

 

[meg]

Has anyone else ever noticed that when you see pictures of John Edward doing his schtik, the audience never seems to be encumbered with the trappings that people normally always have with them, like hats, coats, jackets, scarves, purses, etc? Where do you suppose all that stuff is?

It seems to me, that if I had recently bought a refrigerator, chances are quite good that I might still have a receipt, an ad flier, or maybe an extended service warranty paper in my purse or jacket pocket. And likewise, if I had just called my friend and talked about booking tickets for a Valerie Harper show, there might very well be a note in my jacket pocket about that, or maybe a news clipping about the Valerie Harper show, or an ad for the show.

Charlatans has used the "have assistants search the coat room" trick to find out "amazing" things about their audience for 150 years. I don't see why John Edward couldn't use a similar tactic. I read somewhere that at least some audiences had to go through bag scanning and x ray machine lines in order to get into the show. Perhaps these lines/machines were there looking for more than just guns..

Just a thought.

 

[truethat]

What is interesting to me and very telling in John Edwards video where he bombs completely is that he didn't say "I'm not really able to get a read on you." Obviously he couldn't read the woman. If a person is a true psychic he's not going to go down a path that he doesn't see clearly. In this case is shows me that he is feeling his way blind most of the time anyway and so by the time it became really apparent that he didn't have a clue, he was too invested to back out.

This indicates that he operates the same way every single time. Otherwise he would have recognized his limitations immediately.

 

[GeeMack]

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

What do you think this is? A discussion about poltergeists? Alien craft? Looking through people's clothing and flesh to see their kidneys inside them?

 

[Garrette]

Has anyone else ever noticed that when you see pictures of John Edwards doing his schtik, the audience never seems to be encumbered with the trappings that people normally always have with them, like hats, coats, jackets, scarves, purses, etc? Where do you suppose all that stuff is?

It seems to me, that if I had recently bought a refrigerator, chances are quite good that I might still have a receipt, an ad flier, or maybe an extended service warranty paper in my purse or jacket pocket. And likewise, if I had just called my friend and talked about booking tickets for a Valerie Harper show, there might very well be a note in my jacket pocket about that, or maybe a news clipping about the Valerie Harper show, or an ad for the show.

Charlatans has used the "have assistants search the coat room" trick to find out "amazing" things about their audience for 150 years. I don't see why John Edwards couldn't use a similar tactic. I read somewhere that at least some audiences had to go through bag scanning and x ray machine lines in order to get into the show. Perhaps these lines/machines were there looking for more than just guns..

Just a thought.

I don't know if that applies to JE's group sessions or not, but you are correct about the general method. They also send assistants to look in cars parked out front. I recommend Lamar Keene's "The Psychic Mafia." There's more out there, too, but that is an excellent starting point.

Also, I understand that "Psychic Blues" by Mark Edward is worth a read. I have not personally read it yet, but it is on my list.

 

[truethat]

Has anyone else ever noticed that when you see pictures of John Edwards doing his schtik, the audience never seems to be encumbered with the trappings that people normally always have with them, like hats, coats, jackets, scarves, purses, etc? Where do you suppose all that stuff is?

It seems to me, that if I had recently bought a refrigerator, chances are quite good that I might still have a receipt, an ad flier, or maybe an extended service warranty paper in my purse or jacket pocket. And likewise, if I had just called my friend and talked about booking tickets for a Valerie Harper show, there might very well be a note in my jacket pocket about that, or maybe a news clipping about the Valerie Harper show, or an ad for the show.

Charlatans has used the "have assistants search the coat room" trick to find out "amazing" things about their audience for 150 years. I don't see why John Edwards couldn't use a similar tactic. I read somewhere that at least some audiences had to go through bag scanning and x ray machine lines in order to get into the show. Perhaps these lines/machines were there looking for more than just guns..

Just a thought.

In my own personal experience as a teacher, this is completely unnecessary to do. If you can read people, most people are pretty predictable. It's not just reading the person, it's reading a room. I read the room all the time when I teach in order to create a meaningful connection and build trust with my students.

Watching another person's reaction to a conversation to the person you are talking to, gives information about that person as well.

Because I'm hearing impaired I pay much more attention to what's going on with the people in the room by body language than an average teacher does.

Ex. A person picks up their water bottle, sees it is empty and puts it back down. That's a clue to take a break, if they want water perhaps others do as well.

Little tiny things that you can simply observe go far in reading your clients.

If I did this for a living I could make a fortune I am sure. The key is the eagerness with which the client approaches the situation.

I doubt that if JE was resorting to such covert methods that by now someone would not have revealed them either by anonymous comments online or whatnot.

You don't need to be sneaky in order to read people. You don't need to look them up online or anything like that.

 

[desertgal]

I'm quite interested in your experience and I hope you don't let the rabid dog cynics here throw you off of returning. I really resent the snide attitude that people have towards new members.

Yeah. Those cynics. Going all snide after the OP decided they were close minded after only one post. How dare those rapid dogs? It would've been much more reasonable for them to suggest that the OP share and discuss her story HERE.

Oh, wait. Seems most of them did exactly that.