I think you have too much credence about the supposed "uuu" hits. Do we have a transcript for any of the readings in which they supposedly occurred? If not, My guess is that they're the result of the psychic arriving, with the mark's help, at something specific over a period of questioning, but the person who related them forgot about the questioning and just remembered "he knew about the nickname."
I think you have too much readiness to divide the world into 'good skeptics, reciting the creed' and 'gullible fools'. I have no 'credence' for the UUU hits, I've just said I'm interested in them. In fact, if you actually read my posts you'll see that my interest is in learning how he pulled them off, not in 'knowing more about this man who can speak to the dead'. It's an interest that stems (as I've repeated above) from my own work as a performer - they seem to be unncessarily risky gambits for a man who also (as shown in the clip linked earlier) plays all the usual games of the 'psychic'.
Of course you have a guess. We've exhaustively covered that angle above too. '
I can't prove how this was done, but it must be a trick, look, there are loads of tricks, we can see him using some in another clip, and most importantly, I have to say they're a trick or I lose credibility round here'. But that's more of the same pseudo-critical thinking. It starts from a position of, essentially, faith: that there is no such ability. Then any effort to show that there might be is hand-waved away with a stock collection of dismissive remarks. But the existence of fakes does not preclude the existence of the real - a waxworks collection does not prove that people are not real.
NOTE: again, this is not an argument that mediumship is anything but a con. It is not an attack on your faith (though you may take such honest observations as an attack if you insist). I have happily acknowledged (again exhaustively, above) that the preponderance of
evidence leaves very little wriggle room for those claiming such an ability. However, I've also repeated
ad nauseum that I am not closed off to compelling evidence of something I do not currently believe in. Also tiresomely repeated above is the kind of response that is all too common here - the 'testing', the shibboleth, that some posters use to divide the world into 'our sort' and 'the wrong sort'. You think I'm the 'wrong sort' ("too much credence")...and that's despite the same evidence against your conclusion being tiresomely repeated in post after post above. As you will. If you can convince me that should matter to me, I might be persuaded to mouth your creed.
It's impossible to do this for every example, of course, but I don't see why you'd give those examples any weight at all without a recorded instance of such a "uuu." Even then there are other possible explanations, like hot reading, but at least if it were recorded we would know it wasn't as simple as "altered by memory to be more awesome than it actually was."
"Impossible"? I'm not sure you meant to use that word. I'm not sure why you think I gave those examples any "weight" at all, though see earlier in this post for my best guess. My remarks have been 'altered by memory to be more damning than they actually were'. I'm
interested in those UUU remarks. Seriously, even Robin has recognised that I don't share her belief, and she's the one everyone's calling gullible. But you've fallen for your own idea that there's a red under every bed, that witches lurk in all the dark corners, that your purpose here is to enlighten those who are not of the faithful. I don't post a cursory dismissal of something that's on the not-approved list, I don't join in the unhealthy monstering of Robin, therefore I must be on the 'other' side. Tough luck, I'm on one of the 'other, other' sides.
I have never seen the imperfection of the world as proof that God doesn't exist. I do have trouble though with believing that God has created the conditions whereby we can communicate with the living and not the dead but he makes am exception for show business "psychics".
You on the other hand seem to be dismissive of this kind of thinking and sceptics opinion of clairvoyants.
OK, firstly, see my remarks immediately above, then actually read my other posts, then if you insist you can continue to use me as a vessel for your imaginary enemy and attack him through me.
I am certainly dismissive of 'this kind of thinking', when that kind of thinking is 'mediumship isnt real because it wouldnt work like that if it was'. If you can't see that's a fatuous argument, never mind. If it helps, try this: "electricity isn't real, because if it was I'd be able to shoot it from my fingers".
But in good JREF tradition, I demand proof of your empty assertion that I am dismissive of "skeptics' opinion of clairvoyants" - though I suppose you could count my dismissal of the kneejerk faithful, the recitation of the creed, if you wish. What you will not find is the dismissal of the
sound arguments. You
will find repeated acknowledgement that the vast preponderance of evidence speaks
against the existence of the paranormal in any of its claimed manifestations. But you won't find that behaviour which only serves to reinforce binary distinctions, the 'arguments' that are nothing more than a badge for the skeptics club, to make sure they dont throw you back among the common people.
False dichotomy. Careful, they'll throw you back among the common people if you keep doing that sort of thing...
Your assertion seems to be that we should keep an open mind about these things.
And yours is that we must keep closed minds?
Do you really think though that when somebody claims that John Edward can speak to the dead we should respond in any other way that to disbelieve it until he presents himself for properly controlled tests?
Do you really think I've done anything else?
