Proof of Life After Death!!

[truethat]

Yep that's pretty much how I figured it, if it was in NYC it would be the NY Post or the Daily News and that's an unusual show. I'd be thinking "How did she get a show on Bway" or wherever it is. It would be like if Suzanne Sommers had a show. Like where did that come from.

And if they had been near times square there may have been advertising and billboards up. One of the thing Edward will do is to say "Keep it in mind, write it down for later" Ala the beaver tooth story.

Had Doug said "Really a Valerie Harper link? Ok" John would have said "Keep it in mind later, your father is telling you to keep an eye open." Then later when they walked around or heard it mentioned it would be "wow!" Just as the reaction to the beaver tooth.

What is interesting (or downright cruel) about this technique is that when the misinformation is caught up, then the person takes it as a sign from the other side and will look around and try to take on meaning in order have some sort of closure.


I sure hope Robin answers my questions.

 

[carlitos]

Robin hasn't left. There's 40 more pages of this good stuff coming. Her brother is going to join too.

 

[Resume]

Robin hasn't left. There's 40 more pages of this good stuff coming. Her brother is going to join too.

Been hot reading have you?

 

[GeeMack]

Ok, Ok...I do know that there is NO way to convince a true non-believer... [...]

There is a way. But it requires objective evidence. You won't do it by insisting that your incredulity and ignorance trumps objective reality. And you won't do it by calling skeptics closed minded, when the truth of the matter is we are open to any number of possibilities, where you seem to be open to only one.

[...] just take my husband - please. C'mon do any of you ever crack a smile? And not all on here are true non-believers. I've said my piece and I do truly thank you for listening. You will not change my mind and I will not change yours... [...]

We were trying to help you learn some critical thinking skills. You've chosen not to accept our offer.

[...] but I am at peace with that. I will leave you with one final thought...please have someone from here go to a reading with John Edward...must be skeptical yet open-minded, thoughtful, and of course knowledgeable ... [...]

Your continued claim of being knowledgeable in the area of fraudulent mediums is laughable. You apparently don't realize there are at least two highly competent, veteran professional or semi-professional magicians in this thread with probably nearly 100 years of research, practical application, and real life experience between them. We are open-minded, thoughtful, and knowledgeable. You are convinced that something is true, something for which no objective evidence exists. That is the antithesis of open-minded, thoughtful, and knowledgeable.

[...] I personally nominate "truethat" because that was the one person on this thread who seemed to really pay close attention to the details I provided and "hear" what I was saying while still remaining skeptical (thank you for that).

Your misunderstanding of skepticism and critical thinking is showing again. Truethat appears to be the least skeptical among us, and the most willing to indulge a believers' fantasies. But you don't really want an objective assessment, do you? You want an ally, a fellow believer, a playmate. In truethat you'd have someone who takes what you say as true rather than recognizing that you just believe it to be true. Good choice, truethat, unless you really want an objective analysis.

But remember a personal reading will be the true indicator. Then, of course, please let me know what happens! Peace.

This appears to be an acknowledgement that you're unable to support your claim. Your admission of failure is accepted.

 

[truethat]

"Truethat tends to be the least skeptical among us" there's that reading comprehension issue rearing it's head again.

I prefer to discuss and debunk based on the scenarios and information given, which I and Remie V have done so far.

You prefer making up reasons why it's not true. That's hardly critical thinking. That's a cop out actually.

 

[RemieV]

By the by, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that John Edward did any research on anyone at all. It's unnecessary, can wind up being costly - or he can simply be caught at it. For the same reasons, I don't believe he's got staff members going through people's possessions in a cloakroom just before the show begins. It's like imagining a solution to the Bullet Catch that's five more steps complicated than it needs to be. Plus, neither time at a John Edward show did I have to sign any documents other than the agreement with the venue itself; nor was I asked to check any possessions; nor open my bag to let them see inside. I was way over-prepared with my arsenal of devices and sneaky stuff than the situation required. I even went through the trouble of creating a false identity - twice - and wearing a series of wigs and altering my makeup and so on and so forth. Looking back, it was all actually kind of funny. Criss Angel has more safeguards on his show than John Edward.

ETA: Before someone thinks I'm a hardened criminal, my version of "creating a false identity" involved having friends purchase my tickets in person at the box office on my behalf using a completely made up name for me. They don't check ID against the name given for the ticketholder, rendering the "You were researched!" argument a bit worthless.

 

[truethat]

By the by, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that John Edward did any research on anyone at all. It's unnecessary, can wind up being costly - or he can simply be caught at it. For the same reasons, I don't believe he's got staff members going through people's possessions in a cloakroom just before the show begins. It's like imagining a solution to the Bullet Catch that's five more steps complicated than it needs to be. Plus, neither time at a John Edward show did I have to sign any documents other than the agreement with the venue itself; nor was I asked to check any possessions; nor open my bag to let them see inside. I was way over-prepared with my arsenal of devices and sneaky stuff than the situation required. I even went through the trouble of creating a false identity - twice - and wearing a series of wigs and altering my makeup and so on and so forth. Looking back, it was all actually kind of funny. Criss Angel has more safeguards on his show than John Edward.

This is exactly what I said pages ago. I'd still like to know if he knew her name. But the idea that he hires people to go digging through garbage and has a pick pocket roaming around and that Robin wouldn't have noticing these tricks is insulting to Robin and others.

It's good that you were there so you can share your perspective with Robin.

I also want to know if in his "Hit" person, how long did he stay with the person as opposed to the not so hitty person.

 

[RemieV]

Oh sorry, truethat, I think I was typing my ETA while you were typing your post.

Here ya go:

ETA: Before someone thinks I'm a hardened criminal, my version of "creating a false identity" involved having friends purchase my tickets in person at the box office on my behalf using a completely made up name for me. They don't check ID against the name given for the ticketholder, rendering the "You were researched!" argument a bit worthless.

 

[truethat]

Yeah I caught it later. That's why I started asking for details, because people blowing off what Robin was saying by MSU (Making Stuff Up) is a very typical pattern on this site. Instead of reading the actual information given and coming to a logical conclusion based on that information people veer off ranting about completely unrelated information.

The fact is, we know that John Edward is not communicating with the dead. But that doesn't mean he isn't able to really accurately read certain people and perhaps pick up on things that others may not normally notice.

If you are the type of person who can do this it's really not so shocking what he's doing because anyone could do it especially if they trained themselves for years. Who knows perhaps Edward even believes he is really picking it up from the dead.

But if you take a man who was raised in the world of psychic abilities and making money off that psychic ability (or supposed psychic ability) he's going to make a run for it.

I do not believe that he would do things that would be so easy to catch out. If he was doing background checks on people I think it would be very obvious. He's picking up on something and going with that and sometimes it works very well and sometimes not.

But that doesn't mean he's talking to spirits from the other side.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have to say Robin I'm a teeny tiny bit cynical in thinking you are being paid to promote John Edward on blogs and forums. If you google your name you've got the same thing over and over again, on your blog, on the Anderson Cooper blog you have a post in a contest to win free tickets to see John Edward.

Just curious why you are promoting him so much? Generally this would be something you would share with your friends and family not tons of people online. I don't get it.

Nice catch. I'd like an answer to that too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, Ok...I do know that there is NO way to convince a true non-believer...just take my husband - please. : ) C'mon do any of you ever crack a smile? And not all on here are true non-believers. I've said my piece and I do truly thank you for listening. You will not change my mind and I will not change yours...but I am at peace with that. I will leave you with one final thought...please have someone from here go to a reading with John Edward...must be skeptical yet open-minded, thoughtful, and of course knowledgeable ...I personally nominate "truethat" because that was the one person on this thread who seemed to really pay close attention to the details I provided and "hear" what I was saying while still remaining skeptical (thank you for that). But remember a personal reading will be the true indicator. Then, of course, please let me know what happens! Peace.

Your assumptions are false.

We're convincible if there were evidence and if cold reading didn't easily explain the events.

You, on the other hand, just keep insisting if we experienced what you did we would be drawing a different conclusion. Yet many of us have seen plenty of John Edward. I used to watch his show all the time.

Who do you suppose is the one not being objective here?

 

[GeeMack]

"Truethat tends to be the least skeptical among us" there's that reading comprehension issue rearing it's head again.

I prefer to discuss and debunk based on the scenarios and information given, which I and Remie V have done so far.

The two main problems with that are that you've accepted what the OP said as if it were true rather than as if she simply believes it to be true, and that to debunk arguments from incredulity and ignorance only requires pointing out that they are, indeed, arguments from incredulity and ignorance. Analyzing arguments from incredulity any further than exposing them only serves to indulge the believers and validate their fantasies.

You prefer making up reasons why it's not true. That's hardly critical thinking. That's a cop out actually.

Nonsense. My position, which I have made clear several times, is that there is no objective evidence to support the OP's claim that there is life after death. That total lack of evidence is a valid reason to not accept it as true. It would be a lie to suggest I made that up. It's just skepticism. It's how reasonable people use the tools of critical thinking and the scientific process to explain the universe we live in. As I said before, if you ever want some help understanding this critical thinking stuff, all you have to do is ask.

 

[truethat]

The two main problems with that are that you've accepted what the OP said as if it were true rather than as if she simply believes it to be true, and that to debunk arguments from incredulity and ignorance only requires pointing out that they are, indeed, arguments from incredulity and ignorance. Analyzing arguments from incredulity any further than exposing them only serves to indulge the believers and validate their fantasies.

Not really. Just because I don't agree with her conclusion doesn't mean I think she's incapable of remembering what happened. What are you? The magic robotic memory person who never gets anything wrong? All memory is fallible. Yours included. I will give her the benefit of the doubt because there is a very simple explanation to what happened. As Garrette so clearly demonstrated, you can take her comments and show her where she is saying one thing and remembering something else.

Nonsense. My position, which I have made clear several times, is that there is no objective evidence to support the OP's claim that there is life after death. That total lack of evidence is a valid reason to not accept it as true. It would be a lie to suggest I made that up. It's just skepticism. It's how reasonable people use the tools of critical thinking and the scientific process to explain the universe we live in. As I said before, if you ever want some help understanding this critical thinking stuff, all you have to do is ask.

No, starting from the position that there is NO evidence for life after death and rejecting any evidence presented to you because you don't believe in it anyway is NOT skepticism. It's called confirmation bias.

If you don't want to engage in the discussion because you don't believe it, that's fine. But do not use confirmation bias to make your arguments and call it critical thinking.

It isn't. This isn't the first time on here that you've refused to discuss the actual information being presented to you because you think you already know what it's all about. That's laziness and BS not critical thinking.

A critical thinker should be able to analyze the information given and to come to a logical conclusion based on that information.

This is why you continually try to refer to me as a "closet Christian" even though it's pretty clear I'm a strong atheist.

You can't wrap your mind around looking at things from a perspective you don't already have.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Why do people assume that skeptics aren't open to new discoveries? I would love, LOVE to think that I could talk to my deceased father, but all evidence leads me to believe that after thousands of years, psychics, seers, etc. are all playing the same shell game. Look behind the curtain, Dorothy.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Ok, Ok...I do know that there is NO way to convince a true non-believer...

What is a "true non-believer"? Most of the people on this forum are skeptics. We skeptics are simply people with a high standard of evidence. We set this high standard of evidence because we are all too aware of the fallibility of human perception and judgement. We are not dogmatically determined to disbelieve your claim, as you seem to be implying. We can be convinced. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And that evidence has to be of an empirical nature. You simply haven't offered us anything but unverified anecdote, the same sort of unverified anecdotes that are offered by people who are absolutely convinced of the veracity of the paranormal claims of people like James Van Praagh.

C'mon do any of you ever crack a smile?

Please stop insinuating that we are not accepting your claims because there is something wrong with us. I invite you to explore the Community sub-forum. You will find a great deal of humor and humanity among the diverse members of this forum.

 

[SezMe]

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.

You're all nothing but a pack of greyhounds. Nothing, I tells ya.

 

[truethat]

totally missed that until now! LOL

 

[SezMe]

Hey cut me some slack I have 3 kids!

Seems odd that your father has three grandkids but wanted to talk about your refrigerator.

 

[Robin1]

truethat...The credit card that I made the John Edward reservations under was my own married name. I made the reservations for all of us so mine was the only actual name on record. I truly find it extremely hard to believe John Edward has people who are hacking into his guests' credit card accounts and then of course getting pictures of people to match to the names and purchases. I would think Mastercard security in itself would prevent this from happening and would show up if my card had indeed been hacked. I would also think that at some point he would have been caught. 75 people in room and no assigned seating. But even if you do think that is exactly what John Edward is doing that still does not explain how he knew my brother (direct statement to him) had a Valerie Harper connection. And even John said it would have to be something meaningful not just that you used to watch Rhoda. That statement went unvalidated that night 'cause Occam Jr. (Doug) didn't make the connection till the next day! Doug explains it best on my blog. And remember I have that annoying "NO TALKING" rule before or during psychic events to rule out microphones or eavesdropping etc. As for my other blog "Is It Just a Dream...Or Something More?"
http://yorktown-somers.patch.com/blog_posts/is-it-just-a-dreamor-something-more
I also have no explanation for how I knew about the "slippers" and the connection to my Nana other than my Nana really did tell me. I see these as connected because if my deceased loved ones can communicate with me through a dream or other signs then why can't John Edward (being a true medium) connect with my deceased loved ones as well. For me one follows the other. But I think for people here they don't believe in life after death AT ALL so there is NO personal communication or communication through a medium possible...and NOTHING I or anyone can say about refrigerators , Valerie Harper or an article called "The Gray Slippers" etc. will ever change that. And that's OK. Peace.
P.S. No I am not getting paid by John Edward. I just like spreading a little Light. : )

 

[GeeMack]

Not really. Just because I don't agree with her conclusion doesn't mean I think she's incapable of remembering what happened.

Uh...

[* Smarmy off topic condescension snipped. *] As Garrette so clearly demonstrated, you can take her comments and show her where she is saying one thing and remembering something else.

Yes, Garrette pointed out that she is saying one thing and remembering something else. That's pretty much the definition of not being able to remember what happened.

No, starting from the position that there is NO evidence for life after death and rejecting any evidence presented to you because you don't believe in it anyway is NOT skepticism. It's called confirmation bias.

No objective evidence has been presented that would support the claim that there is life after death. What has been presented in this thread and on the blog are called anecdotes and arguments from incredulity and ignorance. There is no objective evidence to reject.

If you don't want to engage in the discussion because you don't believe it, that's fine. But do not use confirmation bias to make your arguments and call it critical thinking.

Your continued misunderstanding of the meaning of confirmation bias is noted. I am open to any possibility which can be supported by objective evidence. I don't believe one way or another. It's not a matter of belief for skeptics. The OP's claim may be rejected based on the fact that no objective evidence has been offered to support it.

It isn't. This isn't the first time on here that you've refused to discuss the actual information being presented to you because you think you already know what it's all about. That's laziness and BS not critical thinking.

Don't mistake my lack of willingness to engage the OP in idle chitchat or to indulge her fantasy as lazy. What you believe to be lazy is actually efficiency. The information being provided is a combination of arguments from incredulity and ignorance, anecdotes, not evidence. Continuing to banter with the OP as if that incredulity and ignorance might actually support the claim isn't critical thinking. It's engaging the OP as a playmate. You're welcome to do it, but it has nothing to do with skepticism or objectively analyzing the claim.

A critical thinker should be able to analyze the information given and to come to a logical conclusion based on that information.

I have objectively analyzed the information provided. It's a combination of arguments from incredulity and ignorance. The logical conclusion is that the OP has failed to support the claim that there is life after death.

This is why you continually try to refer to me as a "closet Christian" even though it's pretty clear I'm a strong atheist.

I have never referred to you as a closet Christian, so your claim that I have done so, continually or otherwise, makes you a liar.

You can't wrap your mind around looking at things from a perspective you don't already have.

The perspective I already have is that for a claim to be accepted as true it should be backed with objective evidence. The OP's claim has not been backed with objective evidence. There is no reason to accept it as true.