Proof of Life After Death!!

[meg]

Robin,

You and I have argued a lot, and some of it got heated. I really want to start over with you. I just want you to know that I'm trying to write/say this as if I was writing it to my sister, whom I love dearly. I hope that if I say something here that irks you, you will stop and reread this imagining that we are sisters, and I'm right next to you holding your hand while I say it. I am trying to say this as gently and lovingly as I can.


----------

As skeptics, we try to avoid logical fallacies. Because logical fallacies are the way we fool ourselves and others.

OK, I've stated many times that EVERY psychic and medium I have been to thus far I believe is a fake. Except for John Edward. Obviously I know the tricks, I'm experienced, I'm knowledgeable ( in this subject anyway), I have half a brain, I can keep my emotion out of it, etc. Yet, even though I warn people on my blog about the frauds, the deluded, etc. most people here will not even entertain the notion I could be right about JE. Or my personal signs. I do get that you don't know me, so here's my question....is there anyone on this forum that you would respect enough to possibly believe if they came back here telling you that they went to JE and think he could be real? Or they had a personal sign that they think could be real. Would ANYBODY actually make you stop and reevaluate? Say it was Meg, or Resume, or, Garrette, or Pixel, or Foolmewunz or ExMinister, or RSLancastr, or Xterra, etc. ...would any of them or anyone else having a paranormal experience they thought was real, would that make you stop and consider the possibility. Or would you just try to convince them it was just a coincidence. Or memory fail. Or hot reading. Or a lucky guess. Or....

What you are doing here is using a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority, which is where an assertion is deemed true just because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. You are incorrect in thinking that the only reason we don't believe you is because you don't have "authority" here. Or that if someone of "authority" here said they believed in JE, that we would automatically believe it was true.

That's just not true. That's not how critical thinkers work.

We want evidence. Cold hard facts. We want the kind of evidence that comes from a properly blinded scientific experiment.

The reason real scientific experiments are "blinded" is because it is a well known and very real phenomenon that experimenters affect the results of their own experiments to reach the conclusion that they want. In other words, if we are researching a medicine for example, if the researcher knows which person is receiving the real medicine and which person is receiving the fake, they subconsciously pay more attention to the real medicine results that fits their hypothesis, and ignore data about the fake medicine which does not fit their hypothesis. (AKA "cherry picking" and "selective attention") And likewise, if the people taking the medicines know whether they are receiving the real medicine or the fake one, they are likely to feel differently and report different symptoms (or lack of symptoms) just because they know which one they got. (See "placebo effect")

That's why we "double blind" experiments. It is to make sure that neither the researcher, nor the people involved can influence or skew the results.


So let's talk about cold reading. Cold readers require feedback to do what they do. There are two things at work here. The cold reader must get feedback to tell the person what they want to hear. (So he manipulates the experiment by seeing reactions from people and building on those reactions) And the person being read really wants to hear particular things. They are looking for those things and will just ignore all the other things he says that don't fit. (They manipulate the experiment by ignoring data that doesn't fit)

Now let's think about our hypothesis a moment. If John Edward is not cold reading, but instead is really talking to dead people, who, we assume, can go anywhere and see anything, then John Edward should be able to provide accurate readings to people that he cannot see or hear, right? Theoretically, we should be able to set up an experiment where a person quietly sits or stands behind a curtain, and John Edward could then still give them an accurate reading. Right? I mean the dead people should be able to see behind the curtain, right?

And if we were going to double-blind the experiment, we could put headphones on the people so they could not hear JE when he was talking about them. We could have JE do 10 readings on 10 different people. Then have the people watch all 10 readings later, and see if they could tell which one was theirs.

Obviously, JE won't submit himself to testing, so all this is just hypothetical, but I did find this link to a 3 minute video of JE on the Dr Phil show, where they asked him to keep his back turned to the audience. He did receive a little feedback here from Dr Phil, however not nearly the same amount that he usually gets.

Let's look at what happens:

http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1928
Scroll down to the video right below:

One of the criticisms that psychics like John hear is that they use physical cues and visible prompts during readings. See what happens when John does a reading of the audience with his back turned away from them.

Please watch that video, Robin, and let me know what you think of it.

If it is all right with you, I will wait and post my own (rough) transcript and my own impressions until after you have posted your thoughts, because I do not want to influence how you see or what you think about what he is doing.

If you are uncomfortable with that, and would rather I post my analysis first, before you post yours, that's fine, too. Whatever you want. Just let me know.

 

[deaman]

Quite frankly, Garrette, I couldn't possibly care less if you don't believe I really did read both sides of the debate. I also really couldn't possibly care less that you have repeatedly called me purposely dishonest.
And I'll pass on that game.

So, no evidence, no intelligent discussion, no facts one way or the other.

Hmmm......

 

[Robin1]

Speaking of cell phones . . .

I tend to misplace my cell phone a lot, because . . . well, I'm like that; I'm usually doing two things at once, and thinking of four more, and I put the phone down, and ten minutes later I need it and it's gone.

So most of the time, when I find it, I remember what I was doing and why I put it there. But let's say there's one time when I don't. I don't remember going to that place, or even into that room. I can't explain, let's say, how it got there.

Should I give equal weight to these two possibilities?

1) I left it there while doing other things, and forgot about it.
2) Robin used telekinesis and moved it, because she's messing with JREF members.

Of course not; every other time, there's been a normal, logical, reasonable explanation, and there has been no other credible evidence of Robin's using TK.

Same thing with Edward cheating; he's done it every other time, so why should we allow any chance that this time, this one time, is the time he's not?

If I had telekinetic abilities I would be doing a lot worse than just messin' with your cell phone. : )
What's your evidence that John Edward has cheated every other time? Actually I'll accept reliable evidence that he cheated even once! I think I know what you are going to refer to...and I do have an answer for that.

 

[Pixel42]

Top 10 reasons why JE won't participate in the million dollar challenge:
1) He already did participate in scientific testing and proved his abilities in "The Afterlife Experiments." I read both sides of the debate and in no way, shape or form, do I believe the conclusion drawn from those experiments was successfully discredited. You do. I don't.

Then you need to get some education on the scientific method.

There are plenty of people here who can explain the defects in these experiments to you, but you refuse to even discuss the matter.

2) Even if he did participate in the million dollar challenge and once AGAIN proved his abilities...people would desperately try to explain why it doesn't count. See #1.

If he proved his abilities under proper test conditions for the first time (not just the first time for him, but for any psychic) then there will certainly be plenty of people looking closely at the test protocol to see if they can spot problems with it. But if he did it fair and square they won't find any, will they?

3) I'm 100% confident the test and/or results and/or interpretation would be rigged to discount any abilities he would successfully prove.

This shows how little you know about the scientific method. The whole point of using a pre-agreed (by both parties) rigorous test protocol is that it makes cheating by both parties impossible.

4) JE is not a circus animal who has to jump through hoops to prove anything.

If he succeeded he would change the world. The implications would be mindboggling. Someone who could do this and chooses not to for such a childish reason is despicable.

5) JE doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. You believe, great. You don't believe, great.

See my response to 4.

6) He has more important things to do.

More important than changing the world, revolutionising science and correcting the understanding of billions of people? Really? Like what?

7) He already participated in testing and PROVED his abilities. Oh wait, I said that already... But it's worth repeating.

He hasn't proved a damn thing. That's worth repeating even more.

8) James Randi is annoying.
9) James Randi is annoying.
10) James Randi is annoying.

Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.

Being annoying and being right aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[xterra]

Is it me, or hasn't it been an awfully long time since anyone asked Mike a question?

Robin,

The two halves of your question form a non-dichotomous non sequitur.

A) Of course it is you; you wrote the question!

B) This thread has gotten so many responses that your impression of the time interval since Mike was questioned is faulty.

I asked him yesterday, 2 April 2013, in response to his statement that only good things came from spiritual contact, whether the Inquisition was inspired by the Christian God or Satan.

That was here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9121208#post9121208

Mike has not answered the question.

xterra
(who does not capitalize the first letter of his username)

 

[Nay_Sayer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx0Jt2jnLOQ

 

[Robin1]

Robin,

The two halves of your question form a non-dichotomous non sequitur.

A) Of course it is you; you wrote the question!

B) This thread has gotten so many responses that your impression of the time interval since Mike was questioned is faulty.

I asked him yesterday, 2 April 2013, in response to his statement that only good things came from spiritual contact, whether the Inquisition was inspired by the Christian God or Satan.

That was here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9121208#post9121208

Mike has not answered the question.

xterra
(who does not capitalize the first letter of his username)

Uh-oh, yet another joke bomb! I'm dying to explain in detail the humorous message I was trying to get across with the whole "is it me" joke but I can't! Blame Resume!
Perhaps if I rephrased...Is it me, or hasn't it been an EXCRUCIATINGLY long time since anyone asked MIKE a question? If you still don't find it funny I am going to deny I ever said it.
Sorry 'bout the capital "X," xterra. I kept thinking since xterra is technically your name here, that it should follow name rules. But I also thought I knew how to spell pina colada!

 

[godless dave]

That was gold, Jerry, gold! Resume, I'm referring to the whole debate on the Joseph Tittel thread which started with Nay Sayer's proclamation that he is 100% certain each and every psychic and medium is a fraud. Then others agreed. I explained how you can never fairly and accurately evaluate a situation if you go into every new situation 100% certain of your conclusion before you've even begun, and yada, yada, yada, people are still doing it.

Your mistake is in thinking he reached that 100% certainty at the beginning of his investigation, rather than at the end.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Top 10 reasons why JE won't participate in the million dollar challenge:
1) He already did participate in scientific testing and proved his abilities in "The Afterlife Experiments." I read both sides of the debate and in no way, shape or form, do I believe the conclusion drawn from those experiments was successfully discredited. You do. I don't.2) Even if he did participate in the million dollar challenge and once AGAIN proved his abilities...people would desperately try to explain why it doesn't count. See #1.
3) I'm 100% confident the test and/or results and/or interpretation would be rigged to discount any abilities he would successfully prove.
4) JE is not a circus animal who has to jump through hoops to prove anything.
5) JE doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. You believe, great. You don't believe, great.
6) He has more important things to do.
7) He already participated in testing and PROVED his abilities. Oh wait, I said that already... But it's worth repeating.
8) James Randi is annoying.
9) James Randi is annoying.
10) James Randi is annoying.

So when will the rewrite of textbooks and academic courses happen, as well as the Nobel Prizes handed out? Not started on that yet? Has it instead led to a massive scientific interest in medium ship as a field of study? No, it hasn't? Could it be because actual scientists have recognised the experiments as flawed?

 

[godless dave]

First off, thanks for being nice...I do see there were many ways to go with my last statement : ) That being said, I don't think you purposely refuse to see the evidence ...I think you really just don't see it. JE was not the only proof I offered... I seem to remember a personal story or 2 or 3 or 4 or....in here as well.

Does it occur to you that we rejected those stories as evidence because they're not very good evidence for your claim?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Your mistake is in thinking he reached that 100% certainty at the beginning of his investigation, rather than at the end.

Correct, I have been looking into mediums and psychics for the better part of a decade. I gave both sides equal time an consideration.

It was after looking at the compounding evidence that it was very clear to me there are not, have not and there will not be any real psychics or mediums.


Let me relay something I used to believe happened due to faulty memory but then after examining the evidence realized the reality of the situation; I used to tell a ghost story about a weird event that happened, The short version is I saw a man smoking a cigarette then saw it(The cig) start moving to a field with no body during a foggy rainy day. The event seemed so clear, This had to of happened how I remember....right?

Well I get a call from the friend that was with me on that day, We get to talking catching up and I mention the ghost, Only he remembers it a bit different. What he saw was the guy I saw walking through the gate and to his car cig in hand, pretty average.

I was puzzled until my friend came over, He smokes and what I observed was like a brick to the head, The embers from the ash, With a little wind will carry for awhile still lit. you add in some fog and filling in the blanks with just memory and you get your "ghost".

 

[Garrette]

Correct, I have been looking into mediums and psychics for the better part of a decade. I gave both sides equal time an consideration.

It was after looking at the compounding evidence that it was very clear to me there are not, have not and there will not be any real psychics or mediums.


Let me relay something I used to believe happened due to faulty memory but then after examining the evidence realized the reality of the situation; I used to tell a ghost story about a weird event that happened, The short version is I saw a man smoking a cigarette then saw it(The cig) start moving to a field with no body during a foggy rainy day. The event seemed so clear, This had to of happened how I remember....right?

Well I get a call from the friend that was with me on that day, We get to talking catching up and I mention the ghost, Only he remembers it a bit different. What he saw was the guy I saw walking through the gate and to his car cig in hand, pretty average.

I was puzzled until my friend came over, He smokes and what I observed was like a brick to the head, The embers from the ash, With a little wind will carry for awhile still lit. you add in some fog and filling in the blanks with just memory and you get your "ghost".

Cool story. I recall similar stories over the years by others on this forum. One thing about memory I have neglected to emphasize in this thread is how mistaken it is even in the very short term. Magicians and mentalists rely on it in some cases.

As I have said, I am only an amateur and poorly skilled performer, but even I have dumbfounded people. It is difficult to count how many times after a trick that someone will immediately (and I do mean immediately) enthusiastically tell someone "Oh my God! He never touched the deck! How did he do that when he never touched the deck!"

The key, of course, being that I did indeed touch the deck and usually right in front of their eyes. They forget it either because my actions during the effect caused them to take little note of what I was actually doing or because they got wrapped up in believing my own recap when I lyingly said "You've held the deck in your own hands the whole time, so there is no way I can know where your card is." Or a combination, of course.

But sadly, it is apparently only skeptics who have faulty memories...

 

[poblob14]

If I had telekinetic abilities I would be doing a lot worse than just messin' with your cell phone. : )
What's your evidence that John Edward has cheated every other time? Actually I'll accept reliable evidence that he cheated even once! I think I know what you are going to refer to...and I do have an answer for that.

My mistake, I thought you had accepted that position. Going through the thread, I see my memory was faulty (edit: another coincidence, given the last few posts!); you had said that all other "psychics" cheat, but not Edward.

My evidence that Edward cheats is just from watching him; his cold-reading is obvious and awful.

 

[tsig]

Top 10 reasons why JE won't participate in the million dollar challenge:
1) He already did participate in scientific testing and proved his abilities in "The Afterlife Experiments." I read both sides of the debate and in no way, shape or form, do I believe the conclusion drawn from those experiments was successfully discredited. You do. I don't.
2) Even if he did participate in the million dollar challenge and once AGAIN proved his abilities...people would desperately try to explain why it doesn't count. See #1.
3) I'm 100% confident the test and/or results and/or interpretation would be rigged to discount any abilities he would successfully prove.
4) JE is not a circus animal who has to jump through hoops to prove anything.
5) JE doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. You believe, great. You don't believe, great.
6) He has more important things to do.
7) He already participated in testing and PROVED his abilities. Oh wait, I said that already... But it's worth repeating.
8) James Randi is annoying.
9) James Randi is annoying.
10) James Randi is annoying.

You might find this interesting.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/how_not_to_test_mediums_critiquing_the_afterlife_experiments/

 

[tsig]

Yet, when Randi was confronted with trying to figure out how JE knew what he knew (the very impressive hit) at the event Remie went to...his open-minded, fair conclusion came down to....I don't know how JE did it exactly but it MUST be some type of hot reading. I would think if Randi were truly not 100% certain about all psychics and mediums being fakes that a fair conclusion should have been...I believe JE used a hot reading here somehow, someway, but since I can't for the life of me show the mechanism of the hot reading, I therefore cannot say I am certain based on this case that JE did not connect with the dead. Randi could have just as well said JE is not real cause it MUST have been a lucky one in a million guess. Same difference. That's what happens when you go in 100% certain of the conclusion before you've even heard the story. And THAT is a huge disservice to all who then incorrectly think the same way. You're doing it wrong. You're doing it like Randi.

Since there's no evidence that anyone survives death you can't talk to them.

Oh wait, you're saying that the fact that we can talk to them proves they survive death and we know they survived because they can communicate.

 

[Robin1]

Robin,

You and I have argued a lot, and some of it got heated. I really want to start over with you. I just want you to know that I'm trying to write/say this as if I was writing it to my sister, whom I love dearly. I hope that if I say something here that irks you, you will stop and reread this imagining that we are sisters, and I'm right next to you holding your hand while I say it. I am trying to say this as gently and lovingly as I can.


----------

As skeptics, we try to avoid logical fallacies. Because logical fallacies are the way we fool ourselves and others.



What you are doing here is using a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority, which is where an assertion is deemed true just because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. You are incorrect in thinking that the only reason we don't believe you is because you don't have "authority" here. Or that if someone of "authority" here said they believed in JE, that we would automatically believe it was true.

That's just not true. That's not how critical thinkers work.

We want evidence. Cold hard facts. We want the kind of evidence that comes from a properly blinded scientific experiment.

The reason real scientific experiments are "blinded" is because it is a well known and very real phenomenon that experimenters affect the results of their own experiments to reach the conclusion that they want. In other words, if we are researching a medicine for example, if the researcher knows which person is receiving the real medicine and which person is receiving the fake, they subconsciously pay more attention to the real medicine results that fits their hypothesis, and ignore data about the fake medicine which does not fit their hypothesis. (AKA "cherry picking" and "selective attention") And likewise, if the people taking the medicines know whether they are receiving the real medicine or the fake one, they are likely to feel differently and report different symptoms (or lack of symptoms) just because they know which one they got. (See "placebo effect")

That's why we "double blind" experiments. It is to make sure that neither the researcher, nor the people involved can influence or skew the results.


So let's talk about cold reading. Cold readers require feedback to do what they do. There are two things at work here. The cold reader must get feedback to tell the person what they want to hear. (So he manipulates the experiment by seeing reactions from people and building on those reactions) And the person being read really wants to hear particular things. They are looking for those things and will just ignore all the other things he says that don't fit. (They manipulate the experiment by ignoring data that doesn't fit)

Now let's think about our hypothesis a moment. If John Edward is not cold reading, but instead is really talking to dead people, who, we assume, can go anywhere and see anything, then John Edward should be able to provide accurate readings to people that he cannot see or hear, right? Theoretically, we should be able to set up an experiment where a person quietly sits or stands behind a curtain, and John Edward could then still give them an accurate reading. Right? I mean the dead people should be able to see behind the curtain, right?

And if we were going to double-blind the experiment, we could put headphones on the people so they could not hear JE when he was talking about them. We could have JE do 10 readings on 10 different people. Then have the people watch all 10 readings later, and see if they could tell which one was theirs.

Obviously, JE won't submit himself to testing, so all this is just hypothetical, but I did find this link to a 3 minute video of JE on the Dr Phil show, where they asked him to keep his back turned to the audience. He did receive a little feedback here from Dr Phil, however not nearly the same amount that he usually gets.

Let's look at what happens:

http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1928
Scroll down to the video right below:


Please watch that video, Robin, and let me know what you think of it.

If it is all right with you, I will wait and post my own (rough) transcript and my own impressions until after you have posted your thoughts, because I do not want to influence how you see or what you think about what he is doing.

If you are uncomfortable with that, and would rather I post my analysis first, before you post yours, that's fine, too. Whatever you want. Just let me know.

Meg, I really do appreciate the fact that you would like to start over. I would as well. Consider the slate wiped clean. With regard to "Appeal to Authority" I don't think that the only reason people here are not believing me is because I'm me and not somebody like Randi. But I can't help but feel if it was Randi making the claim people would be more open to it. For instance, I believe if Randi said that he didn't give JE any clues, people would accept what he is saying was true because he knows what he's doing. Whereas when I say I didn't give JE any clues, some people here respond by saying that I didn't even realize I was giving clues, or I forgot about the clues I gave etc. But yes, I agree most would require the same kinds of evidence ultimately from Randi as well.
I would rather you posted your assessment of the JE reading first and I respond to it. I did see that show and would like it if you also watched the part where he looks at the audience ( if that part is not in the link you posted). I did try to open it on my iPad but was unable to and will try later on my son's laptop ( if I can pry it out of his hands).
Again, thanks for reaching out.

 

[godless dave]

For instance, if Randi said that he didn't give JE any clues , people would accept what he is saying was true because he knows what he's doing

I wouldn't.

 

[Garrette]

I wouldn't.

Ditto. I might concede that he legitimately thought he gave no clues, but I would not accept the fact of it without much more evidence than his word. It is relatively easy to limit the clues given when one is prepared. It is virtually impossible to eliminate them unless the environment is one which you control, and even then it is far more difficult than it seems.

 

[meg]

Hi Robin,

I will admit that if James Randi or Garrette openly stated that he thought JE was the real deal, I would be willing to look a bit closer. However, if all he had were some anecdotes to put forth as evidence, I would end up just wondering if his mind was starting to go. I would not change my mind just because someone I respect highly said I should.

But, anyway, here's my take on the JE video:

--------------
THIS IS NOT A 100% ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION. IT IS MY BEST SHOT AT TRYING TO CAPTURE EVERYTHING HE WAS SAYING ONLY WATCHING IT THREE TIMES. SOME THINGS I PARAPHRASED BECAUSE I TYPE MUCH SLOWER THAN HE TALKS.

Video here: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1928
Scroll down to the video right below:

One of the criticisms that psychics like John hear is that they use physical cues and visible prompts during readings. See what happens when John does a reading of the audience with his back turned away from them.

-------------
JE: I'm being pulled in that back section. I'm going to keep pointing so you know where I'm going.
[Points to his back and his left.]

JE: I have someone's father who is coming through. They either had lung cancer or its pulmonary related. And I feel like I'm supposed to talk about something about with the anchor. [stops pointing] Maybe it's on their body, or somebody has an anchor with them. But I'm seeing an anchor in some way. In that back section. [points a little different than before, but still to his left] There is a J or G sounding name either living or past that's connected to them. And somebody. That might have came together. Or they might be sitting next each other. There are two people together. Had somebody pass from a hanging. Amd they're telling me to talk about a W sounding name. That's all that's hitting me. But in that back section. [Again points to his left]

[Lady raises her hand. Dr Phil goes over to her]

Dr Phil: So there's something that he said that relates to you.
lady nods yes
Dr Phil: Was it a lot or a little? A lot?
lady nods yes
Dr Phil: Was it the first thing he said about the anchor?
lady nods no
Dr Phil: Was it the second thing he said about the hanging and a W?
Lady nods yes

[Look at the camera angle from where JE is standing. This is not where he was pointing. These people are almost directly behind JE. 5 rows directly behing him. He points again with his left hand much farther left.]

JE: Ok, I have to say from where that person is standing, I have to say this again that there's a father figure connection that I need to acknowledge somebody passing from lung cancer or something in the pulmonary area.
she nods yes.
JE: J or G name connected to it
Nothing
JE: Month of August connected.
Nothing
JE: And then they showed me that somebody passed from a hanging that had a W name connected to it.
she looks away
JE: They're also making me feel that.. I don't know if this person intentionally.. this is gonna sound strange.. There's two.. Two people that crossed themselves over by asphixiation. One person did it with intention, meaning they hung themselves, the other person did it accidentally, I think due to drugs.
[Watch her face. She nods at there are two people that passed. But looks confused and nods no at all the two by asphyxiation, one by drugs thing]
Nothing

Dr Phil: So what is making an impression on you?
Lady: The lung cancer and the hanging.

JE: Did she come with someone else?
[she points to man next to her]
JE: Someone with her with an older male that passed
Man: My father has passed
JE: Is that where the anchor comes in?
Man: He was in the military..
JE: But there's an anchor that they're showing me. The word "anchor" Anchor street? Or they have an anchor connection. Gotta be something about the word "anchor" that they want to bring up.
Nothing

JE: And someone lost a child to you guys. Did you know that?
Man and Woman: [Nothing. Look confused at each other.]
JE: There is a little girl in your section, I think she was in a vehicle accident. Or somebody, a younger female, passed in a car accident right where you're standing..[points right behind him now. Obviously he could hear where they were.]

Another person, in a different section, across the aisle and 6 people farther away [Would be to JE's right. Not right behind him] stands up.
Lady2: My daughter passed from a car accident..


JE: Can I turn around yet?


------------------------

-------------
So let's condense this down.

JE pointed to his left.

JE talked about a father figure who passed of lung cancer or pulmonary cause. This person had a connection to an anchor. This person had a J or G sounding name either living or dead connected to him. The month of August is connected.

JE talked about someone else sitting next to the relative of the first lung cancer/pulmonary death, who had someone that died of a hanging. That hung person has a W name related to him/her.

JE talked about 2 people dying of asphyxiation. One from hanging. The other was drug related.


[note that lung cancer and pulmonary diseases are the 2nd and 3rd leading cause of death in older men. If you combine them together, that is the number 1 killer of old men.]
[note hanging is the most common method of suicide. According to wikipedia hanging accounts for 53% or male suicides and 39% of female suicides]


So who responded strongly to this?

One lady directly behind JE, (not left) had someone who died of lung cancer and someone else who died by hanging. The person beside her also had a father that had passed, but no other "hits".

To JE's left - no
Two different people in the audience - no
Father figure died of lung cancer/pulmonary - yes
Anchor connection - no (and this is a biggee. He talked about it twice at length)
J or G name - no
month of August -no
Person hung him/herself - yes
W name - no
2 people asphyxiated - no
1 from drugs - no


Then JE talked about a little girl or younger female dying from a car accident related to either those same people or someone in the same section as the above people. Note at first JE said "you guys" referring to the earlier people, then later changed it to "in your section"Note that he said "right where you are standing" and pointed directly behind him.

[note road traffic accidents is the number one killer of females under 24]

Who responded to this?

Someone sitting to JE's right, in a different section, who's daughter had passed in a car accident.

Same people - no
Same section - no
Right behind him - no
Young female + car accident - yes


So look hard at this. The only things JE got right here were the things he named that were statistically the most common ways to die.

Older male+lung cancer/pulmonary cause
Suicide + hanging
Young female + car accident

Every other thing he said was wrong.

 

[Robin1]

Hi Robin,

I will admit that if James Randi or Garrette openly stated that he thought JE was the real deal, I would be willing to look a bit closer. However, if all he had were some anecdotes to put forth as evidence, I would end up just wondering if his mind was starting to go. I would not change my mind just because someone I respect highly said I should.

But, anyway, here's my take on the JE video:

--------------
THIS IS NOT A 100% ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION. IT IS MY BEST SHOT AT TRYING TO CAPTURE EVERYTHING HE WAS SAYING ONLY WATCHING IT THREE TIMES. SOME THINGS I PARAPHRASED BECAUSE I TYPE MUCH SLOWER THAN HE TALKS.

Video here: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1928
Scroll down to the video right below:

-------------
JE: I'm being pulled in that back section. I'm going to keep pointing so you know where I'm going.
[Points to his back and his left.]

JE: I have someone's father who is coming through. They either had lung cancer or its pulmonary related. And I feel like I'm supposed to talk about something about with the anchor. [stops pointing] Maybe it's on their body, or somebody has an anchor with them. But I'm seeing an anchor in some way. In that back section. [points a little different than before, but still to his left] There is a J or G sounding name either living or past that's connected to them. And somebody. That might have came together. Or they might be sitting next each other. There are two people together. Had somebody pass from a hanging. Amd they're telling me to talk about a W sounding name. That's all that's hitting me. But in that back section. [Again points to his left]

[Lady raises her hand. Dr Phil goes over to her]

Dr Phil: So there's something that he said that relates to you.
lady nods yes
Dr Phil: Was it a lot or a little? A lot?
lady nods yes
Dr Phil: Was it the first thing he said about the anchor?
lady nods no
Dr Phil: Was it the second thing he said about the hanging and a W?
Lady nods yes

[Look at the camera angle from where JE is standing. This is not where he was pointing. These people are almost directly behind JE. 5 rows directly behing him. He points again with his left hand much farther left.]

JE: Ok, I have to say from where that person is standing, I have to say this again that there's a father figure connection that I need to acknowledge somebody passing from lung cancer or something in the pulmonary area.
she nods yes.
JE: J or G name connected to it
Nothing
JE: Month of August connected.
Nothing
JE: And then they showed me that somebody passed from a hanging that had a W name connected to it.
she looks away
JE: They're also making me feel that.. I don't know if this person intentionally.. this is gonna sound strange.. There's two.. Two people that crossed themselves over by asphixiation. One person did it with intention, meaning they hung themselves, the other person did it accidentally, I think due to drugs.
[Watch her face. She nods at there are two people that passed. But looks confused and nods no at all the two by asphyxiation, one by drugs thing]
Nothing

Dr Phil: So what is making an impression on you?
Lady: The lung cancer and the hanging.

JE: Did she come with someone else?
[she points to man next to her]
JE: Someone with her with an older male that passed
Man: My father has passed
JE: Is that where the anchor comes in?
Man: He was in the military..
JE: But there's an anchor that they're showing me. The word "anchor" Anchor street? Or they have an anchor connection. Gotta be something about the word "anchor" that they want to bring up.
Nothing

JE: And someone lost a child to you guys. Did you know that?
Man and Woman: [Nothing. Look confused at each other.]
JE: There is a little girl in your section, I think she was in a vehicle accident. Or somebody, a younger female, passed in a car accident right where you're standing..[points right behind him now. Obviously he could hear where they were.]

Another person, in a different section, across the aisle and 6 people farther away [Would be to JE's right. Not right behind him] stands up.
Lady2: My daughter passed from a car accident..


JE: Can I turn around yet?


------------------------

-------------
So let's condense this down.

JE pointed to his left.

JE talked about a father figure who passed of lung cancer or pulmonary cause. This person had a connection to an anchor. This person had a J or G sounding name either living or dead connected to him. The month of August is connected.

JE talked about someone else sitting next to the relative of the first lung cancer/pulmonary death, who had someone that died of a hanging. That hung person has a W name related to him/her.

JE talked about 2 people dying of asphyxiation. One from hanging. The other was drug related.


[note that lung cancer and pulmonary diseases are the 2nd and 3rd leading cause of death in older men. If you combine them together, that is the number 1 killer of old men.]
[note hanging is the most common method of suicide. According to wikipedia hanging accounts for 53% or male suicides and 39% of female suicides]


So who responded strongly to this?

One lady directly behind JE, (not left) had someone who died of lung cancer and someone else who died by hanging. The person beside her also had a father that had passed, but no other "hits".

To JE's left - no
Two different people in the audience - no
Father figure died of lung cancer/pulmonary - yes
Anchor connection - no (and this is a biggee. He talked about it twice at length)
J or G name - no
month of August -no
Person hung him/herself - yes
W name - no
2 people asphyxiated - no
1 from drugs - no


Then JE talked about a little girl or younger female dying from a car accident related to either those same people or someone in the same section as the above people. Note at first JE said "you guys" referring to the earlier people, then later changed it to "in your section"Note that he said "right where you are standing" and pointed directly behind him.

[note road traffic accidents is the number one killer of females under 24]

Who responded to this?

Someone sitting to JE's right, in a different section, who's daughter had passed in a car accident.

Same people - no
Same section - no
Right behind him - no
Young female + car accident - yes


So look hard at this. The only things JE got right here were the things he named that were statistically the most common ways to die.

Older male+lung cancer/pulmonary cause
Suicide + hanging
Young female + car accident

Every other thing he said was wrong.

Meg, just reading your post quickly brought back to me what happened after John turned around. I have to watch it again so this is strictly from memory...the anchor connection John kept insisting was there was indeed validated after he turned around and continued reading. As I remember it the guy kept saying no even after JE turned around. But THEN the guy with the "psychic amnesia" remembered he had an ANCHOR TATTOO!!!!!! Remember, same sort of thing happened to my bro where JE kept insisting he had a Valerie Harper connection and my brother with the" psychic amnesia" kept saying no. My bro realized the HUGE connection the next day. But everybody there that night at the JE reading simply thought John was wrong. He wasn't. AND they thought he was wrong about the big tooth in the pocket. He wasn't.
Really you have to watch the whole thing...even the other readings he continued when he turned around. And watch the interviews after the show with people he read. I'll watch it again when I can too.