John Edward - psychic or what?

[Resume]

Ummm...

...maybe he's smart enough to keep his "guesses" based on specific mic info just vague enough so as to lead people to jump to the conclusion you just did?

Yeah, getting too good is suspicious. That's why those silly ghost-hunting TV shows never try to cgi a full-bodied apparation because they know full well that even the dimmest of their viewers might call bs on that.

Well, maybe not the dimmest.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

That's why those silly ghost-hunting TV shows never try to cgi a full-bodied apparation because they know full well that even the dimmest of their viewers might call bs on that.

What???

You mean they're not real???

 

[Stray Cat]

What???

You mean they're not real???

No, they're very real...



... That's why in all the years in all the ghost hunting shows, they've never managed to actually find one.

 

[carlitos]

Don't doubt it. Once upon a time we played in crowded clubs with stage lights in our eyes and we could consistently identify a comely companion with which to occupy our time after the big shoe.

I can second this. One can indeed read facial expressions from 40 or more feet away while under spotlight / stage lighting, especially with suitable motivation.

 

[meg]

See, again, we run into the skeptic thing where a proposed explanation simply would not work and yet it's very insistently presented. No. Simply no. It doesn't mean Edward is a medium. It wasn't a trick. It was knowledge. Period. I've had endless numbers of famous skeptics/mentalist/magicians review the tape.

Ok, RemieV. Could you please elaborate on what knowledge you believe JE had to have in order to pull this off? Could you please elaborate as to why my proposed explanation simply would not work?

I will try here to address some of the arguments you've already made in this thread.

You have said you think that there is no way that JE could have seen Liam's facial expressions close enough to read, however there are two people here with stage experience that differ with you on that opinion. Could it be possible you are making an assumption about JE's visual abilities that simply is not accurate? Alternatively, could it be possible that JE wears magnifying contacts or glasses ( I know sometimes he wears glasses) that might assist him in seeing things far away? On page one you said that Liam was sixty feet away from Edward. On page 29 you say he was "a good forty feet" away. Is it possible you aren't that great at judging the distance?

You have said that you felt some of the tables you were at, and couldn't find bugs, and that you had someone stationed outside the casino monitoring radio signals. As someone else stated, these activities do not necessarily rule out all electronic surveillance of the area or the audience. A quick gander over here: http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/category/hidden+cameras/spy+cameras.do?nType=2 tells me there are a number of tiny recording devices that could be hidden around the room or even on people wandering the room, sitting at tables, or waiting in line that could be brought to JE before the show, to peek at before he goes on stage. A month or so ago, when Robin started her other JE thread, I went over and looked at JE's facebook page, website, and read several of his past newsletters. In one of them, he announced a new member of his staff, a uniformed security guard that would be at events. Now, this seems to me to be a very possible way to have someone discretely wandering around gathering information that most people wouldn't even notice, nor remember even seeing.

You have said that there is no way JE could have recording devices because if he did he would be better at his readings. I'm sorry, but this sounds like pure speculation to me, as well as a hasty generalization fallacy. I don't see any reason why he couldn't keep some covertly gained information in his proverbial back pocket, not to use every time, but to use sparingly, only when he was getting a string of misses, and needed a quick "wow".

You have said that you as well as several notable magicians do not believe that JE uses stooges. Could you please elaborate as to exactly what you mean here? By stooges, are you referring to plants in the audience that pretend JE is giving them an amazingly accurate reading? Or are you referring to any assistants or staff whatsoever that might gather and/or feed him information?

You have said that this reading is different because JE used a specific name, instead of using his usual letters and sounds like thing, but that's just not that special. He does use specific names regularly. On this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C1ItcjR_kM , the very first JE video that came up when I googled "John Edward unedited", you can see him do it at 3:13. First he says "they're telling me to say Jenny, or Jennifer" and even then clarifies that to "Jennifer Marie". He even keeps on and on about it for 3 more minutes, even though the client obviously does not recognize that name. John Edward throwing out a name is not an indicator that he knew Liam's name.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Ok, RemieV. Could you please elaborate on what knowledge you believe JE had to have in order to pull this off? Could you please elaborate as to why my proposed explanation simply would not work?

I will try here to address some of the arguments you've already made in this thread.

You have said you think that there is no way that JE could have seen Liam's facial expressions close enough to read, however there are two people here with stage experience that differ with you on that opinion. Could it be possible you are making an assumption about JE's visual abilities that simply is not accurate? Alternatively, could it be possible that JE wears magnifying contacts or glasses ( I know sometimes he wears glasses) that might assist him in seeing things far away? On page one you said that Liam was sixty feet away from Edward. On page 29 you say he was "a good forty feet" away. Is it possible you aren't that great at judging the distance?

You have said that you felt some of the tables you were at, and couldn't find bugs, and that you had someone stationed outside the casino monitoring radio signals. As someone else stated, these activities do not necessarily rule out all electronic surveillance of the area or the audience. A quick gander over here: http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/category/hidden+cameras/spy+cameras.do?nType=2 tells me there are a number of tiny recording devices that could be hidden around the room or even on people wandering the room, sitting at tables, or waiting in line that could be brought to JE before the show, to peek at before he goes on stage. A month or so ago, when Robin started her other JE thread, I went over and looked at JE's facebook page, website, and read several of his past newsletters. In one of them, he announced a new member of his staff, a uniformed security guard that would be at events. Now, this seems to me to be a very possible way to have someone discretely wandering around gathering information that most people wouldn't even notice, nor remember even seeing.

You have said that there is no way JE could have recording devices because if he did he would be better at his readings. I'm sorry, but this sounds like pure speculation to me, as well as a hasty generalization fallacy. I don't see any reason why he couldn't keep some covertly gained information in his proverbial back pocket, not to use every time, but to use sparingly, only when he was getting a string of misses, and needed a quick "wow".

You have said that you as well as several notable magicians do not believe that JE uses stooges. Could you please elaborate as to exactly what you mean here? By stooges, are you referring to plants in the audience that pretend JE is giving them an amazingly accurate reading? Or are you referring to any assistants or staff whatsoever that might gather and/or feed him information?

You have said that this reading is different because JE used a specific name, instead of using his usual letters and sounds like thing, but that's just not that special. He does use specific names regularly. On this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C1ItcjR_kM , the very first JE video that came up when I googled "John Edward unedited", you can see him do it at 3:13. First he says "they're telling me to say Jenny, or Jennifer" and even then clarifies that to "Jennifer Marie". He even keeps on and on about it for 3 more minutes, even though the client obviously does not recognize that name. John Edward throwing out a name is not an indicator that he knew Liam's name.

A small piggyback here; You can find John Edward doing it in various Youtube clips, After a missed name he will say something to the effect of "Go home and ask your relatives if they know this name." This creates the illusion of a hit and that it was the persons fault for not remembering it(the name).

 

[Resume]

A small piggyback here; You can find John Edward doing it in various Youtube clips, After a missed name he will say something to the effect of "Go home and ask your relatives if they know this name." This creates the illusion of a hit and that it was the persons fault for not remembering it(the name).

"Keep that, it might make sense later."

Welcome to John Edwardville where even the misses are hits!

 

[Robin1]

"Keep that, it might make sense later."

Welcome to John Edwardville where even the misses are hits!

Resume, because even the misses can be, and most likely are.... hits! Remember I addressed "psychic amnesia"... God : ) only knows where, but somewhere here. Remember some of poor John's huge "misses" that were validated (hugely validated!!)afterwards:
1) My brother's Valerie Harper connection
2) Guy with a big tooth in his pocket
3) Hard "G" sounding name

 

[Resume]

Resume, because even the misses can be, and most likely are.... hits! Remember I addressed "psychic amnesia"... God : ) only knows where, but somewhere here. Remember some of poor John's huge "misses" that were validated (hugely validated!!)afterwards:
1) My brother's Valerie Harper connection
2) Guy with a big tooth in his pocket
3) Hard "G" sounding name

Retrofitting (postdiction) is awesome! You pays the money and you do the work. John Edward (non-prophet) profits!

This is another cold-reading caper that should give you pause, but won't.

 

[Robin1]

Ok, RemieV. Could you please elaborate on what knowledge you believe JE had to have in order to pull this off? Could you please elaborate as to why my proposed explanation simply would not work?

I will try here to address some of the arguments you've already made in this thread.

You have said you think that there is no way that JE could have seen Liam's facial expressions close enough to read, however there are two people here with stage experience that differ with you on that opinion. Could it be possible you are making an assumption about JE's visual abilities that simply is not accurate? Alternatively, could it be possible that JE wears magnifying contacts or glasses ( I know sometimes he wears glasses) that might assist him in seeing things far away? On page one you said that Liam was sixty feet away from Edward. On page 29 you say he was "a good forty feet" away. Is it possible you aren't that great at judging the distance?

You have said that you felt some of the tables you were at, and couldn't find bugs, and that you had someone stationed outside the casino monitoring radio signals. As someone else stated, these activities do not necessarily rule out all electronic surveillance of the area or the audience. A quick gander over here: http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/category/hidden+cameras/spy+cameras.do?nType=2 tells me there are a number of tiny recording devices that could be hidden around the room or even on people wandering the room, sitting at tables, or waiting in line that could be brought to JE before the show, to peek at before he goes on stage. A month or so ago, when Robin started her other JE thread, I went over and looked at JE's facebook page, website, and read several of his past newsletters. In one of them, he announced a new member of his staff, a uniformed security guard that would be at events. Now, this seems to me to be a very possible way to have someone discretely wandering around gathering information that most people wouldn't even notice, nor remember even seeing.

You have said that there is no way JE could have recording devices because if he did he would be better at his readings. I'm sorry, but this sounds like pure speculation to me, as well as a hasty generalization fallacy. I don't see any reason why he couldn't keep some covertly gained information in his proverbial back pocket, not to use every time, but to use sparingly, only when he was getting a string of misses, and needed a quick "wow".

You have said that you as well as several notable magicians do not believe that JE uses stooges. Could you please elaborate as to exactly what you mean here? By stooges, are you referring to plants in the audience that pretend JE is giving them an amazingly accurate reading? Or are you referring to any assistants or staff whatsoever that might gather and/or feed him information?

You have said that this reading is different because JE used a specific name, instead of using his usual letters and sounds like thing, but that's just not that special. He does use specific names regularly. On this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C1ItcjR_kM , the very first JE video that came up when I googled "John Edward unedited", you can see him do it at 3:13. First he says "they're telling me to say Jenny, or Jennifer" and even then clarifies that to "Jennifer Marie". He even keeps on and on about it for 3 more minutes, even though the client obviously does not recognize that name. John Edward throwing out a name is not an indicator that he knew Liam's name.

Remie, Meg is doing it again!!! Don't even bother. She will either skeptically persist, ad nauseam ,even when previously and repeatedly shown that her scenarios were not realistic. Or my favorite...based on personal experience...she will try to twist (whatever way she can including leaving out details) what you said to fit her own personal agenda. But I am guessing that with you, she will try to leave the intentional mocking and nasty edge out of it. Your call.

 

[Resume]

Remie, Meg is doing it again!!!

Oh don't be such a tattletale.

 

[LashL]

The part that makes it "wow" is that no one knew the reasons. It all fell together without anyone being told anything beyond "Hey - can you pick up pizza for Jeff?"

Which makes the card thing impressive, but still not the rest of it.

I don't think it's surprising at all that a pizza place would have stuff doing a riff on the Creation of Adam painting.

Pizza Hut had a popular advertising campaign using one such riff (going back to ~2003):
http://www.advertolog.com/pizza-hut/print-outdoor/creation-of-adam-4996305/

Pizza Rock is known for its own riff on the Creation of Adam painting.
http://pizzarocksacramento.com/cgi-bin/DJgallery.cgi?INDEX=1&MAX=250&T=gallery.html&ZONE=PIZZAROK

And, of course, there's this pizza place:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparkytheneoncat/2561657291/

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing any "wow" factor to this.

 

[Robin1]

Oh don't be such a tattletale.

: )

 

[meg]

I don't think it's surprising at all that a pizza place would have stuff doing a riff on the Creation of Adam painting.

Pizza Hut had a popular advertising campaign using one such riff (going back to ~2003):
http://www.advertolog.com/pizza-hut/print-outdoor/creation-of-adam-4996305/

Pizza Rock is known for its own riff on the Creation of Adam painting.
http://pizzarocksacramento.com/cgi-bin/DJgallery.cgi?INDEX=1&MAX=250&T=gallery.html&ZONE=PIZZAROK

And, of course, there's this pizza place:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparkytheneoncat/2561657291/

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing any "wow" factor to this.

And don't forget about this name for a pizza place, which seems to be pretty darned common: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=michelangelos+pizza

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't think it's surprising at all that a pizza place would have stuff doing a riff on the Creation of Adam painting.

I don't, but it is unusual for a pizza place to sell cards. And the thing that makes it a coincidence is that the pizza was being bought for the express purpose of being a sign from God and a party who knew nothing about the purpose of the pizza independently bought a card in which she wrote a message which explicitly made the pizza a sign from God.

Yes, the Creation of Adam is a very well-known piece of art and there are lots and lots of uses of it in various media for various purposes and, given that image on the card, the message inside the card is the most obvious one to write. But it's still an unlikely thing that all the pieces would fall together the way they did.

Not as impressive a coincidence as it could have been, and not as impressive as Remie and Robin seem to believe it is, but it's still quite a nice coincidence. I think it's a noteworthy thing to have happened.

 

[Robin1]

I don't, but it is unusual for a pizza place to sell cards. And the thing that makes it a coincidence is that the pizza was being bought for the express purpose of being a sign from God and a party who knew nothing about the purpose of the pizza independently bought a card in which she wrote a message which explicitly made the pizza a sign from God.

Yes, the Creation of Adam is a very well-known piece of art and there are lots and lots of uses of it in various media for various purposes and, given that image on the card, the message inside the card is the most obvious one to write. But it's still an unlikely thing that all the pieces would fall together the way they did.

Not as impressive a coincidence as it could have been, and not as impressive as Remie and Robin seem to believe it is, but it's still quite a nice coincidence. I think it's a noteworthy thing to have happened.

Hallelujah!

 

[dlorde]

Not as impressive a coincidence as it could have been, and not as impressive as Remie and Robin seem to believe it is, but it's still quite a nice coincidence. I think it's a noteworthy thing to have happened.

That's just what they want you to think...

 

[meg]

Remie, Meg is doing it again!!! Don't even bother. She will either skeptically persist, ad nauseam ,even when previously and repeatedly shown that her scenarios were not realistic. Or my favorite...based on personal experience...she will try to twist (whatever way she can including leaving out details) what you said to fit her own personal agenda. But I am guessing that with you, she will try to leave the intentional mocking and nasty edge out of it. Your call.

Robin, I think you're not quite understanding what this conversation is about. Nor even this thread.

RemieV has made it very clear that she does not think that Edward is psychic, nor that he is talking to dead people. And she plainly stated that she believes at least sometimes Edward uses hot reading, meaning he actually has some covertly attained information about the client vs just cold reading, where the mentalist kind of "wings" it on the fly and adjusts the reading based on the client's reactions.

In the OP, RemieV posted what she saw as an impressive bit of one of Edward's acts, in which Edward gives out some information that RemieV believes was attained by some covert method, and she asked for input as to how he might have gotten that information.

I think, if I read her posts correctly, that she believes/d that Edward had to have attained TWO pieces of information about the client prior to the beginning of the reading; Liam's first name, as well as the fact that Liam goes by his middle name, a difficult combination of information to attain.

My interpretation of the scenario only involves Edward needing ONE much more easily attainable piece of information.

This is not an argument between skeptic and believer. It is a discussion between skeptics about which method or methods of trickery Edward used.

I am not trying to twist anything, nor am I trying to intentionally leave out important details. I am genuinely and wholeheartedly interested in figuring out how this trick was done.

As to my leaving out some of YOUR details, something I think you don't get is that sometimes in order to analyze the important facets of a story, one needs to put aside some of the details that don't actually add anything meaningful or useful. They are only a distraction.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Remie, Meg is doing it again!!! Don't even bother. She will either skeptically persist, ad nauseam ,even when previously and repeatedly shown that her scenarios were not realistic. Or my favorite...based on personal experience...she will try to twist (whatever way she can including leaving out details) what you said to fit her own personal agenda. But I am guessing that with you, she will try to leave the intentional mocking and nasty edge out of it. Your call.

And thus,.... Proof of Life After Death.

First, please stop personalizing your discussions with or about Meg. It's rather unseemly for someone who's supposed to be spreading sweetness and light, don't you think?

Second, in case you haven't figure it out, you have not found a kindred spirit in Remie. She's made that sort of clear. Instead of looking for allies, why don't you address the actual issues with something more than gut-feeling rationale.

I, for one, would like to know something that's been repeatedly asked.... Just what "research" did you do. From your posts here and on your blog, it seems that your research involved going to a lot of psychics. I suppose, in the right frame of mind, that might be research, but it truly sounds from your posts that you weren't looking to expose frauds so much as you were looking for The One. How much reading, of a critical nature, did you do on these charlatans. Have you seen Randi's famous exposure of Peter Popoff? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff Have you read your Sagan and Gardner and Randi? The Skeptic Wiki?

By the way... Are you aware of why ExMinister refers to herself by that name? We tend to know each others' back story around here, and I'm not sure she properly introduced herself and her personal credentials. (I'll leave it to her to do so if she chooses, but you can find it in her earliest posts here.)

 

[Robin1]

Robin, I think you're not quite understanding what this conversation is about. Nor even this thread.

RemieV has made it very clear that she does not think that Edward is psychic, nor that he is talking to dead people. And she plainly stated that she believes at least sometimes Edward uses hot reading, meaning he actually has some covertly attained information about the client vs just cold reading, where the mentalist kind of "wings" it on the fly and adjusts the reading based on the client's reactions.

In the OP, RemieV posted what she saw as an impressive bit of one of Edward's acts, in which Edward gives out some information that RemieV believes was attained by some covert method, and she asked for input as to how he might have gotten that information.

I think, if I read her posts correctly, that she believes/d that Edward had to have attained TWO pieces of information about the client prior to the beginning of the reading; Liam's first name, as well as the fact that Liam goes by his middle name, a difficult combination of information to attain.

My interpretation of the scenario only involves Edward needing ONE much more easily attainable piece of information.

This is not an argument between skeptic and believer. It is a discussion between skeptics about which method or methods of trickery Edward used.

I am not trying to twist anything, nor am I trying to intentionally leave out important details. I am genuinely and wholeheartedly interested in figuring out how this trick was done.

As to my leaving out some of YOUR details, something I think you don't get is that sometimes in order to analyze the important facets of a story, one needs to put aside some of the details that don't actually add anything meaningful or useful. They are only a distraction.

Meg, I get that Remie does not believe what I do. I've stated that earlier in this thread . You seem to have missed that as well. Better question is whether you get what Remie said about a proposed explanation by a skeptic would simply not work yet it is insistently presented? And Meg, the details of my stories were not simply a distraction instead they were integral to the validity of the stories. Do you really not get that? Or are you purposely trying to mislead yet again? You see Meg , I do have your number. The evidence is in your posts.