John Edward - psychic or what?

[Robin1]

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.)

Foolmewunz....I never claimed to be an angel. However, my sweetness and light, will tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. And a 2nd chance. Even a 3rd chance. After that, in the absence of any regret, and instead the perpetuation of inappropriate behavior, I am done being sweet and will tell it like it is. You "fooled me once..."should be able to relate to that .
Moving on, of course I understand Remie does not agree with me( if you will remember I stopped saving her pina colada and instead drank it : )
In terms, of the research I have done through the years besides personal experience....books , articles, and the Internet....and yes from multiple points of view...of course including James Randi.
Lastly, I am aware of ex minister's background and respect her views which are offered with kindness, which I appreciate.

 

[Resume]

Lastly, I am aware of ex minister's background and respect her views which are offered with kindness, which I appreciate.

What is it?

 

[truethat]

Oh, the way the room was set up was with tables like restaurant tables with random groups of people. I was at a table with three people, for instance, and two of them were together and one was flying solo. It's natural, in that situation, to introduce yourself around so I assume most people would. I can't recall if I did or not - probably, because in case anyone DID turn out to be a plant, I wanted my fake name out there.

I think you are missing the obvious here. He introduced himself to the table as Liam. JE called him Joshua. I am sure that the people at the table had a "BS" look on their faces when he responded as Joshua and JE noticed this. Either way he would win. He told him to take out his DL to show to the table.

IF Joshua was lying to JE JE would win

If Joshua was telling the truth JE would get a dramatic "win" and also confirm his second name.

Think about it.

 

[meg]

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.

I have never tried to mislead you, Robin. I've been trying to get you to think, to analyze your own words, to analyze your own thought process, and to actually argue your case.

Which details must we know before we can correctly calculate the odds of your occurance? You put a whole lot of details into your two paragraphs. Which of these are imperative to this story?

The unimportant but unique event in the life of your friend?
The detail of the time period between your dreams and the events?
The detail of the amount of people you were ordering for at McDonalds?
The detail about your weight has always been a problem?
The detail about your mental dilemma over hamburgers?
The detail about whether you were charged for the big mac or not?
The detail about it being a few months later that you took a cruise?
The detail that you were on a cruise with family?
The detail about the bartender being busy?
The detail about your dilemma about your drink order?
The detail about you like a splash of cranberry juice in your vodka and seltzer?
The detail about bingo being about to start?
The detail about it being the 5th day of the cruise?
The detail about what time it was announced there would be a drawing?
The detail about the drawing was from bingo cards?

If I have missed one (or more) I apologize. It is not intentional.

State your case, Robin. If I have been unfair to your position because I eliminated important details, then please spell it out.

Which details are important?
Why are they important?
How does each one, in your opinion, change the odds of the equation?

 

[LashL]

I don't, but it is unusual for a pizza place to sell cards.

Perhaps, although given the many years of advertising linking pizza to the Creation of Adam painting, I don't think that's particularly compelling.

It also occurs to me (belatedly) while looking back at RemieV's link to the pizza thing, that we have not actually been told in the anecdote that the pizza slices were purchased at a "pizza place" at all. There are no details provided in the anecdote about the location or nature of the store at which the pizza slices and the card were purchased. It may be that they were purchased at a 7/11 or a local restaurant/general store type of place that sells all kinds of things (including pizza slices and greeting cards), or a CostCo or WalMart type of place, for all we know. The anecdote doesn't say.

It says only that pizza places didn't deliver to Jeff's house, that the nearest restaurant was half an hour away, and that the mutual friend picked up pizza slices and a card somewhere between New Hampshire and Jeff's house in Vermont.

Perhaps RemieV can fill in the missing details about the store, its name, its nature, and its location, in order that we can assess the matter and its level of coincidence (and the existence or non-existence of any 'wow' factor) further.

 

[Robin1]

I have never tried to mislead you, Robin. I've been trying to get you to think, to analyze your own words, to analyze your own thought process, and to actually argue your case.

Which details must we know before we can correctly calculate the odds of your occurance? You put a whole lot of details into your two paragraphs. Which of these are imperative to this story?

The unimportant but unique event in the life of your friend?
The detail of the time period between your dreams and the events?
The detail of the amount of people you were ordering for at McDonalds?
The detail about your weight has always been a problem?
The detail about your mental dilemma over hamburgers?
The detail about whether you were charged for the big mac or not?
The detail about it being a few months later that you took a cruise?
The detail that you were on a cruise with family?
The detail about the bartender being busy?
The detail about your dilemma about your drink order?
The detail about you like a splash of cranberry juice in your vodka and seltzer?
The detail about bingo being about to start?
The detail about it being the 5th day of the cruise?
The detail about what time it was announced there would be a drawing?
The detail about the drawing was from bingo cards?

If I have missed one (or more) I apologize. It is not intentional.

State your case, Robin. If I have been unfair to your position because I eliminated important details, then please spell it out.

Which details are important?
Why are they important?
How does each one, in your opinion, change the odds of the equation?

I agree Meg, you were never trying to mislead me...it is indeed others you were trying to mislead. And even still trying to mislead. As for me, you were merely hoping to confuse me , mock me and bully me into leaving...for good. Unfortunately, for you, that just strengthens my resolve to stay. You see Meg, the gut negative feeling I got about you when you posted your TLA winning comment was indeed, spot on. The more you post, the more you prove it.

 

[tsig]

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.

What do you have but a personal experience?

 

[tsig]

Foolmewunz....I never claimed to be an angel. However, my sweetness and light, will tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. And a 2nd chance. Even a 3rd chance. After that, in the absence of any regret, and instead the perpetuation of inappropriate behavior, I am done being sweet and will tell it like it is. You "fooled me once..."should be able to relate to that .
Moving on, of course I understand Remie does not agree with me( if you will remember I stopped saving her pina colada and instead drank it : )
In terms, of the research I have done through the years besides personal experience....books , articles, and the Internet....and yes from multiple points of view...of course including James Randi.
Lastly, I am aware of ex minister's background and respect her views which are offered with kindness, which I appreciate.

That's a two way street.

 

[truethat]

You mean the TLA we all agreed was a brilliant interpretation of what happens with cold readings? I'm sensing that you took it personally, that is understandable, I don't think I remember a TLA that was awarded for snarking someone.

But Robin, you are ignoring direct questions and being petulant, that's not fair. John Edward wouldn't do that....or would he....

 

[Stray Cat]

I agree Meg, you were never trying to mislead me...it is indeed others you were trying to mislead. And even still trying to mislead. As for me, you were merely hoping to confuse me , mock me and bully me into leaving...for good. Unfortunately, for you, that just strengthens my resolve to stay. You see Meg, the gut negative feeling I got about you when you posted your TLA winning comment was indeed, spot on. The more you post, the more you prove it.

A personal attack on Meg in lieu of a substantial answer to her polite, apologetic and exact post is not a good way to go. It would seem to indicate a reluctance on your part to actually engage in discussion to move the subject forwards.

And once again you reiterate the same baseless (though slightly modified) accusation of 'misleading' without addressing what is misleading about anything Meg has written.

Once again your 'gut feeling' is wrong and your intellectual dishonesty abundant.

 

[John Jones]

I agree Meg, you were never trying to mislead me...it is indeed others you were trying to mislead. And even still trying to mislead. As for me, you were merely hoping to confuse me , mock me and bully me into leaving...for good. Unfortunately, for you, that just strengthens my resolve to stay. You see Meg, the gut negative feeling I got about you when you posted your TLA winning comment was indeed, spot on. The more you post, the more you prove it.

 

[Robin1]

You mean the TLA we all agreed was a brilliant interpretation of what happens with cold readings? I'm sensing that you took it personally, that is understandable, I don't think I remember a TLA that was awarded for snarking someone.

But Robin, you are ignoring direct questions and being petulant, that's not fair. John Edward wouldn't do that....or would he....

Truethat, I'm glad you are back . Truly. But, if you consider Meg's award winning comment to be brilliant and you don't see the dark side she needlessly inserted in it, well then , I guess my gut was wrong about you, too.

 

[truethat]

uh oh!!

 

[RemieV]

Perhaps, although given the many years of advertising linking pizza to the Creation of Adam painting, I don't think that's particularly compelling.

It also occurs to me (belatedly) while looking back at RemieV's link to the pizza thing, that we have not actually been told in the anecdote that the pizza slices were purchased at a "pizza place" at all. There are no details provided in the anecdote about the location or nature of the store at which the pizza slices and the card were purchased. It may be that they were purchased at a 7/11 or a local restaurant/general store type of place that sells all kinds of things (including pizza slices and greeting cards), or a CostCo or WalMart type of place, for all we know. The anecdote doesn't say.

It says only that pizza places didn't deliver to Jeff's house, that the nearest restaurant was half an hour away, and that the mutual friend picked up pizza slices and a card somewhere between New Hampshire and Jeff's house in Vermont.

Perhaps RemieV can fill in the missing details about the store, its name, its nature, and its location, in order that we can assess the matter and its level of coincidence (and the existence or non-existence of any 'wow' factor) further.

I don't actually recall what the pizza place was. You'd have to ask Kitty.

 

[FluffyPersian]

For whatever random reason, JE comes up with the name Joshua, and aims it toward Liam's table. Maybe he was intending to work one of Liam's tablemates, and then work Liam's "L" name in later on. Who knows. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that he says the name Joshua and Liam reacts. You said Liam stood up. I am sure that Liam probably reacted in such a way as to make it clear that he was the Joshua. Maybe he stood up really fast. Maybe he reacted like I said before, with surprise and a hand gesture that said "Oh wow, that's me!"

So now JE has something. He KNOWS that Liam has called himself another name. So he rolled with it and pretended he was getting something "weird".

"So, this is weird. I am getting that YOU are Joshua" Well, duh. Joshua just stood up and was obvious.
"Yes" HIT says the audience mentally.
"But you introduced yourself by another name.."
"Yes" HIT two! says the audience mentally
"Hand the microphone to someone else.. What name did this man introduce himself as?"
"Liam" HIT three! says the audience mentally, even though we're still really on number two. This is also an excellent distraction for the audience so they don't think too hard about how JE might know how Liam introduced himself.
Then, as I said before, JE, having a good understanding of names and common nicknames, etc, quickly deducts that Liam is going by his middle name, so he pulls a little showman stunt to make this seem more amazing than it really is.
"Please take out your drivers license and show it to the people at your table"
"Joshua Liam Smith" someone reads out. HOLY SMOKES!!! says the audience mentally, and so does RemieV, because it FEELS like John Edward just knew this guys full name.

And I'm willing to bet that if you asked several true believers what they remember about that incident, at least a few of them would say that they distinctly remember John Edward KNEW this guy's full name, AND that the guy went by his middle name. AMAZING! What are the odds of that???!!

The truth is though, obviously, that he didn't know any such thing. John Edward only knew that Liam did not introduce himself as Joshua.

This was precisely my reaction when I read the first part of the thread. I refrained from posting it since I figured someone else had probably doe so already. (I had only read through page ten.)

Remie, would you please say more about why you believe Meg's cold reading scenario (above) is unrealistic? You've said that Edward couldn't read facial expressions from that far away, but hand gestures are far easier to read.

Also, earlier posts pointed out that Edward may have gestured towards a set of tables rather than that particular table. You say that it was definitely that particular table. But if, as you said, you can't read facial expressions from 40 feet away, how could you tell exactly which table Edward was gesturing at from that distance?

 

[RemieV]

For all the John Edward stuff -

I've relayed the story directly, in conversation, to many, many skeptics including (but not limited to) Banachek, DJ Grothe, Randi, Jeff Wagg, Penn Jillette.

The consensus was that the information was obtained in some untraceable way that is infrequent because Edward is essentially a mentalist who is performing a trick. Once you have a good method for performing a trick, you stick with it. So, if the person is performing a trick that has an actual mechanism, you should be able to see the same TYPE of thing happen with frequency. It just doesn't. The simplest explanation, with all facts in hand, is that this was either the wife's doing or one of Edward's crew came across this tidbit in a very mundane way.

I concentrated on the name thing because it was the clearest. The entire reading of that particular person was quite good. It was abnormally good. No real waffling or anything - just straight to real hits. Keep in mind that during any given show, Edward reads something like 20 people. This means that I have now seen him read forty (having attended two shows). In none of those 39 other readings did Edward get anywhere near anything even remotely good.

Me, Jeff, and Randi have all listened to the tape. Jeff visited the showroom with me so I could point out where everyone was. I followed up with every type of person who was in the room - from souvenir photographers to wait staff. They were all real people; not employed by Edward who didn't give a crap about whether or not Edward was real.

You can start asking me for specifics, but that is just going to lead to confabulation because at this point, you're talking about an event from two years ago. I can only tell you the conclusion we all reached at the time, which was that, somehow or another, Edward was handed this person's information.

 

[RemieV]

This was precisely my reaction when I read the first part of the thread, though I refrained from posting it since I figured someone else had probably posted it later in the thread.

Remie, would you please say more about why you believe Meg's cold reading scenario (above) is unrealistic? You've said that Edward couldn't read facial expressions from that far away, but hand gestures are far easier to read.

Also, earlier posts pointed out that Edward may have gestured towards a set of tables rather than that particular table. You say that it was definitely that particular table. But if, as you said, you can't read facial expressions from 40 feet away, how could you tell exactly which table Edward was gesturing at from that distance?

See, again, we're heading into Confabulation Land here. An event from two years ago, and you expect me to remember why that was unlikely?

I can tell you that the tables were on different levels and staggered. As of right now, I think that he pointed rather than a sweeping gesture or anything; but that might just be because I know it was more specific and can't recall WHY I know that and am therefore just filling in blanks with what SEEMS correct.

 

[LashL]

I don't actually recall what the pizza place was. You'd have to ask Kitty.

Just to clarify, does that also mean that you don't know if the pizza slices and the card were purchased at a "pizza place" at all (as opposed to a more general kind of store that happened to sell pizza slices and cards among other things)?

 

[RemieV]

Just to clarify, does that also mean that you don't know if the pizza slices and the card were purchased at a "pizza place" at all (as opposed to a more general kind of store that happened to sell pizza slices and cards among other things)?

I'm sure I knew at the time - but as with the Edward thing, a whole bunch of time has passed and that particular piece of information has faded away. Hell, that had to have been at least four years ago now. Probably more like five.

By the by, here you go:

 

[truethat]

The thing is, these types of coincidences happen all the time. Robin, why not consider how many times you debated over not eating or drinking something fattening and voila you got one. You say you were in the drive thru talking to yourself then you got a free big mac. You could have accidentally spoken aloud and someone heard you and either tried to be nice or got confused and gave you the big mac because they heard it.

You won a free Pina Colada Well that doesn't sound like God to me or angels or the other side. It sounds pretty negative to me. First of all, feeding your children McDonald's is tantamount to child abuse. You seem to have a weight issue, what kind of "good angel" sabotages your efforts to be healthy?

Wishful thinking.