• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of Life After Death!!

Last edited:
meg said:
Ok. I will assume that you are telling the truth and the tattoo came out.

But let's think about this.

Statistics again.

Most old men are veterans.

In the military there are 4 branches. Army, Airforce, Navy, Marines.

If you had to pick a symbol that might be meaningful to the most old men, what would you pick?

Edited to add: And the Coast Guard. I forgot the Coast Guard.

http://thelyricwriter.hubpages.com/hub/Anchor-Tattoos-And-Meanings-Anchor-Tattoo-Ideas-And-Designs
Click to expand...
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry. Let's all watch the whole thing and then talk about it.
 
Last edited:
meg said:
Ok. I will assume that you are telling the truth and the tattoo came out.

But let's think about this.

Statistics again.

Most old men are veterans.

In the military there are 4 branches. Army, Airforce, Navy, Marines.

If you had to pick a symbol that might be meaningful to the most old men, what would you pick?

Edited to add: And the Coast Guard. I forgot the Coast Guard.

http://thelyricwriter.hubpages.com/hub/Anchor-Tattoos-And-Meanings-Anchor-Tattoo-Ideas-And-Designs
Click to expand...


Keep in mind, too, John Edward attributed his whole initial flood to one deceased individual. Only later did he expand it out to two, and then three, people.

(It also would not surprise me if the anchor tattoo was a false memory--the tattoo was real, but of something else. Given the probably age of the deceased, a tattoo while in the military is likely, but an anchor tattoo for someone not in the Navy, unlikely. Had the deceased been in the Navy, the man would have said "Navy", not "Military", in response to John Edward's insistence on the anchor connection.)
 
It's probably just a common tattoo, but I can't help imagining John Edward standing there with his back to the audience saying "anchor" repeatedly, and thinking, "You dumb shmuck, it's right there on your shoulder! I saw it the first time I scanned the audience!"

That's assuming the anchor was on an audience member and not on the dearly departed, of course.
 
Last edited:
Robin1 said:
Uh-oh, yet another joke bomb! [...] If you still don't find it funny I am going to deny I ever said it.
Click to expand...


Said what? (Don't you see that the two halves have nothing to do with each other, and don't constitute a joke?)

More importantly, Mike still has not answered the question I asked upthread. I won't raise it in his "Holistic" thread unless it becomes relevant there. But it's interesting that he ignores what he can't answer. In this case, he doesn't even try to hand-wave it away.

For the record, I don't think you are lying nor do I think you're a shill for JE. But I do believe you are in error in thinking (a) that he communicates with dead people, and therefore (b) that his act is based on a real psychic ability.


I WANT telepathy to exist; think of the money I could save on telephone bills!
 
meg said:
I cannot find a link to the whole show anywhere. Can you?
Click to expand...
Son on laptop. Other son has fever. I think I gettin' fever. Ugh. I might be out of this one for awhile. Will do my best. If anyone finds working link please post. Thank you!
 
An anchor tattoo? Really?

The old man was the only squid on the LST without one. The only one.

ETA: he'd say swabbie. WWII you know.
 
Last edited:
How can John Edward even fail? I mean if any number of those details can be spread across any number of people...I'm sure he'd like it if he threw out a bunch of detail that all turned out to apply to one person, but nobody seems too bothered if it turns out to apply to like 8 different people, either living or deceased...
 
pakeha said:
The posts reveal even an incapacity to read sig lines without a helping hand, so it would seem.



Thanks for the link, tsig.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reposting this link. I missed it the first time around.

Robin, how is it that you can read that and not have anything change with regard to your opinion on Schwartz? I mean that sincerely.
 
I won't try to sugar coat this, Robin hasn't responded to my (infrequent) posts anyway.

John Edward believers are beyond gullible, so much so that a description is needed to exceed those used for believers in astrology, homeopathy, and UFAO's.

My suggestion would be for you to read some of the John Edward threads on this site. I'm sure they won't change your feeling, or intuition, or whatever, but they will help you to understand why he is so thoroughly discredited.
 
ExMinister said:
Thanks for reposting this link. I missed it the first time around.

Robin, how is it that you can read that and not have anything change with regard to your opinion on Schwartz? I mean that sincerely.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you can look at the source....CSI, Skeptical Inquirer...and truly believe the topic would be evaluated in a completely unbiased manner. Yes, I know that works both ways.
 
Last edited:
Robin1 said:
I'm not sure how you can look at the source....CSI, Skeptical Inquirer...and truly believe the topic would be evaluated in a completely unbiased manner. Yes, I know that works both ways.
Click to expand...

If Schwartz actually verified psychic ability don't you think he'd be a household name?
 
Robin1 said:
I'm not sure how you can look at the source....CSI, Skeptical Inquirer...and truly believe the topic would be evaluated in a completely unbiased manner. Yes, I know that works both ways.
Click to expand...
There is little doubt that the CSI staff in general and Joe Nickell in particular have a bias against belief in the supernatural. They do not, however, have a bias against evidence supporting the supernatural. Even if they did, it would not matter so long as they show their work and it withstands scrutiny. That's what they do. Compare it to Schwartz who shows almost none of his work, and the small portion he does show falls apart under scrutiny.

That's how science and skepticism work -- not by removing bias since that's impossible, but by working first to limit its influence on the investigation.
 
Robin1 said:
I'm not sure how you can look at the source....CSI, Skeptical Inquirer...and truly believe the topic would be evaluated in a completely unbiased manner. Yes, I know that works both ways.
Click to expand...

If you know that works both ways, why ask a pointless question?

Fact is, you haven't provided proof of LAD. Not even close.:rolleyes:
 
Marcus said:
I won't try to sugar coat this, Robin hasn't responded to my (infrequent) posts anyway.

John Edward believers are beyond gullible, so much so that a description is needed to exceed those used for believers in astrology, homeopathy, and UFAO's.

My suggestion would be for you to read some of the John Edward threads on this site. I'm sure they won't change your feeling, or intuition, or whatever, but they will help you to understand why he is so thoroughly discredited.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ, I don't think JE has been thoroughly discredited on this forum...at all. Thoroughly crucified perhaps, but not thoroughly discredited.
 
Robin1 said:
I beg to differ, I don't think JE has been thoroughly discredited on this forum...at all. Thoroughly crucified perhaps, but not thoroughly discredited.
Click to expand...

Could JE contact Jesus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom