Proof of Life After Death!!

[truethat]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1971721/?page=1

Interesting, with stomach cancer the idea that buying a better refrigerator is something that has already had a study done.

Another one
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/caco/2011/00000022/00000011/00009823

We used an ecological approach to determine the correlation between vegetable, fruit and salt intakes, refrigerator use, and gastric cancer mortality

 

[Garrette]

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.

I would agree that JE frequently and perhaps predominantly does not resort to those methods, but I would be surprised if he does not do it sometimes. In fact, we know he does because of his hot read of the camera man in that expose of however many years ago.

 

[truethat]

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.

The comments were rude considering it is a new poster. Happens all the time on here.

 

[desertgal]

The comments were rude considering it is a new poster. Happens all the time on here.

Which comments? Between her first and second post, there were only two comments. One could be taken as cynical and honest. The second encouraged the OP to critically approach her own topic. She rudely responded that the two posters were completely close minded because neither of them wanted to wade through her blog and hundreds of comments THERE in order to discuss the topic she introduced HERE.

Then we were told that, since she has an advanced degree in library science, she clearly has done more research than anyone else about psychic mediums. Or words to that effect. For an educated woman, her reasoning is a little vague.

Following that, she continually offered "JE really, really is authentic and every other medium is really, really fake" without any attempt at critical discussion, and some juvenile attempts at guilt trips over this thread depriving her children of Christmas presents or some such.

It's true there are times when rudeness happens here unnecessarily. There are other times, such as now, when the newcomer immediately assumes an adversarial position and/or refuses to consider the opposing viewpoints they read, and it tends to put people off.

Yet many people encouraged her to discuss her own topic critically. Several, yourself included, were willing to read about her experience and discuss it if she was willing to post it. She refused.

Her blog and comments, which she wants everyone to read THERE before she will discuss it HERE, don't offer anything but an anecdotal account that she then amends in her comments. There's no transcript of her reading with John Edward. There's not even a date when it took place. Her "discussion" here has contained nothing but "I saw JE. He said this and this and this. Oh, wait, and this and that and this. He was right. He really, really was. If you don't agree with me, you are close minded and wrong."

So, why should she be handled with kid gloves?

 

[truethat]

For someone to dismiss her experience without even reading about it is definitely closed minded. We've made up our minds.

The fair thing to do if you want to reply (which you are not required to do) would be to read the blog and comment back.

There is an epidemic on this site of people deciding to play "sledgehammer the newbie into oblivion" instead of just reading the post and evaluating the information.

Most of us are very familiar with John Edwards and she posted about her experience coming from a cynical point of view. She was very cynical. Then she had an experience that changed her mind.

Obviously she was looking for an experience that would change her mind. And she's believing it. We all have things like this that happen in our lives. There's no need to treat her like an idiot for doing so.

Btw Robin as far as the fingerprints go, that is a very common discussion in buying a new fridge. My sister and I had the exact same one when she didn't get the chrome fridge that she wanted. Fingerprints on chrome are a PITA. So it's not evidence of anything more than common sense.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Most of us are very familiar with John Edwards

Except for his name.

 

[carlitos]

For someone to dismiss her experience without even reading about it is definitely closed minded. We've made up our minds.

The fair thing to do if you want to reply (which you are not required to do) would be to read the blog and comment back.

I prefer Garrette's posts, as they don't "sledgehammer" anyone, merely give her some hints on how this place works. It's not a traffic-builder for your blog; it's a discussion forum. Discuss.

I suspect a drive-by spamming, but just in case:

No, thanks. I will read your links after you sufficiently summarize and discuss it here and read the resources we will provide you to describe confirmation bias, the tricks of mediums like John Edward, and other effects that mislead the unsuspecting into erroneous belief. I also ask that you explain how you, personally, distinguish between fake psychics (I assume you acknowledge that some exist) and the allegedly real psychics like John Edward.

Otherwise, not interested, thanks.

Wow, another completely closed-mind! "Not interested" in even reading my link? How does anyone expect to learn ANYTHING without being open to a new opinion and experience?

I will say it again in a different way: If you wish to discuss your experience here, then discuss it here. If, after hearing your discussion I feel your argument may have merit, I will go to your link, but not before.

Or perhaps I could just post links to the Skeptic's Dictionary. Will your open mind read all of those before we discuss anything?

Or to put it still another way:

This is a discussion forum, not a go-to-this-link-before-I-even-talk-about-the-specifics forum. And I will happily engage you in the proper definition of open vs. closed minded and whether you or I fit that definition more closely.

It's worth noting that the above back-and-forth took place before there was a working link to the OP's blog. None of us closed-minded meanies could have even read it if we had wanted to.

 

[truethat]

We're all adults here. Reading her blog is simple. Click read and come back and post. If you are not willing to read the blog then you shouldn't bother commenting in the thread.

 

[desertgal]

For someone to dismiss her experience without even reading about it is definitely closed minded. We've made up our minds.

Nonsense. Garrette was not "dismissing her experience". Try reading ALL of his post.

The fair thing to do if you want to reply (which you are not required to do) would be to read the blog and comment back.

No, SHE introduced the topic. The fair thing to do would be as Garrette initially suggested:

No, thanks. I will read your links after you sufficiently summarize and discuss it here and read the resources we will provide you to describe confirmation bias, the tricks of mediums like John Edward, and other effects that mislead the unsuspecting into erroneous belief. I also ask that you explain how you, personally, distinguish between fake psychics (I assume you acknowledge that some exist) and the allegedly real psychics like John Edward.

Now, do you find anything unreasonable about his suggestion? We ALL have busy lives. SHE chose to bring the topic here. It's called meeting us all halfway.

There is an epidemic on this site of people deciding to play "sledgehammer the newbie into oblivion" instead of just reading the post and evaluating the information.

Or the OP could simply post the salient points of her experience HERE and invite the members HERE to discuss it HERE. We're not talking about posting a lengthy dissertation. "I saw him, he said this and that and this" would have sufficed. She could have even copy/pasted her own words from her blog. Two clicks.

Most of us are very familiar with John Edwards...

John Edward.

...and she posted about her experience coming from a cynical point of view. She was very cynical. Then she had an experience that changed her mind.

Which she refuses to critically examine.

Obviously she was looking for an experience that would change her mind. And she's believing it. We all have things like this that happen in our lives. There's no need to treat her like an idiot for doing so.

I don't believe anyone here is treating her like an idiot for believing. I believe there are some who are exasperated at her flat refusing to examine her experience critically, and rejecting any attempts by others to do so.

This is a forum dedicated to critical thinking. She came here with no evidence to support her claim, regardless of where the anecdote was posted, and then rejected any effort at critical thinking, either on her own behalf or from other people.

Once again, why should she be treated with kid gloves?

 

[meg]

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.

I would just like to second this recommendation. "The Psychic Mafia" is indeed an excellent and enlightening read about how these tricksters work.

 

[Resume]

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.

Wow, another completely closed-mind! "Not interested" in even reading my link? How does anyone expect to learn ANYTHING without being open to a new opinion and experience?

The comments were rude considering it is a new poster. Happens all the time on here.

Check out her second and third posts.

Seems to be giving what she received in return.

 

[carlitos]

We're all adults here. Reading her blog is simple. Click read and come back and post. If you are not willing to read the blog then you shouldn't bother commenting in the thread.

I'm still not qualified to post here, as I've only read about 100 of the 300+ comments, some of which are quite long.

For all those seeking the "Truth " about life after death as well as the possibility of communicating with those who have crossed over please read about my experience with psychic medium John Edward. You must ALSO read all the comments to get more details and the full picture. Just google "Proof of life after death Yorktown" or here is the direct link:
yorktown-somers.patch.com/blog.../proof-of-life-after-death

 

[Alphaba]

Nicely complementing cold and hot reading, the interwebz can no longer be underestimated. I'm sure many of you already know the following video, but for those who do not it is worth watching "Amazing mind reader reveals his 'gift'":



And to read the explanation.

 

[Resume]

We're all adults here. Reading her blog is simple. Click read and come back and post. If you are not willing to read the blog then you shouldn't bother commenting in the thread.

Her "blog" was slow loading and glitchy for me; a summary wasn't all that difficult a request.

 

[carlitos]

never mind.

 

[truethat]

I'm still not qualified to post here, as I've only read about 100 of the 300+ comments, some of which are quite long.

Not really, it doesn't take that long. It's actually important because in debating her you can see lots of details she misses.

For example her brother Doug, Occam Jr. says that he came to NYC and read in the paper that Valerie Harper was having a show and that there is no way John Edwards could have known that.

Except for the fact that it was in the paper.

So imagine the reading like this


You have a Valerie Harper connection.....Brother didn't buy tickets but remembers reading it in the paper or seeing the billboard for her show, he shrugs and doesn't react because he could care less about Valerie Harper.

So JE moves on to another point. Because he stopped there it was a reaction, it was a hit.


A good way to challenge him would be to say "OH wow! Yes" to almost everything he said and see how the discussion unfolds from there. Because if you can give him clues with your body language he will go right along with it.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

See, all fake medium / fraud function with cold reading or hot reading.

Yeah medium pretend it is not easy , so that they feed you question and you provide them details. For example they say "I see A, P, maybe X" then you answer "Do you mean HA ?" And they answer "yes indeed HA" and then the *perception* stays with the victim that the fraud said the correct statement from the starts. Whcih is why you need the transcript without anything beeing removed / deleted/ summarized you need word for word what you were told. And before you start saying "but not in my case !", the problem is that due to emotional atatchement your brain *already* biased the asnwer whichw ere told to you to match your expectation. That's cold reading.

Hot reading is even worst, they ask a sitter to ask you a few simple question to enable identify you simply research on you (which has become much easier with internet) and find info, and those response are communicated to the fraud. Since the audience is probably fully of people they will always have one or two which are easier to get info from.

Now you pretend you had a *good* reading.

But ehre is the deal : without having a 100% fidel transcript, and without knowing what you told them before and during the seance , all we can tell "cool story bro, but J edward is a fraud he was caught red handed using cold/hot reading". And yourself have no evidence against that, because hey, no real trnascript or say tape showing what was really said.

 

[truethat]

It seems that people are responding to Robin's situation with generalizations that did not occur in her situation. So while it is clear that something was amiss, we can't just toss it altogether with unrelated examples.

In her example she says she didn't give her name. So if she didn't give her name then how did they do research on her?

How were the tickets paid for?

 

[RoboTimbo]

It seems that people are responding to Robin's situation with generalizations that did not occur in her situation. So while it is clear that something was amiss, we can't just toss it altogether with unrelated examples.

In her example she says she didn't give her name. So if she didn't give her name then how did they do research on her?

How were the tickets paid for?

There's nothing at all to be done with it. It's an anecdote. It will be forever unfalsifiable. Just as we were to read all of the comments on her blog, no matter what is asked or suggested, there will be additional details which will explain away whatever the doubt is about.

If she has another session with him and records it, we can at least have something to work with.

All you can say about an anecdote is, "Cool story, bro (or sis)."

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If she has another session with him and records it, we can at least have something to work with.

Except, of course, that she says that she's been to several of his shows so, by now, she'll be a familiar face and he will know details about her.