Proof of Life After Death!!

[GeeMack]

How did Johnny know:

He didn't.

How did Johnny know:

He didn't.

 

[desertgal]

Now that you mention it Nay Sayer, I also have some questions about Johnny I want answered.<tedious, repetitive nonsense snipped out of boredom>

Transcripts or it didn't happen.

You are asking Nay Sayer to draw the conclusion that a known fraud isn't a known fraud from incomplete, biased, one sided information. Surely even you know how ridiculous that is.

 

[Robin1]

Transcripts or it didn't happen.

You are asking Nay Sayer to draw the conclusion that a known fraud isn't a known fraud from incomplete, biased, one sided information. Surely even you know how ridiculous that is.

Desertgal, I see you edited out yet another jab at me.

Please stop posting unkind things and then quickly editing them out.

I prefer you jab away...but leave them for all to see.

And then, the truly intelligent readers of the thread, will be able to see your true colors.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Desertgal, I see you edited out yet another jab at me.

Please stop posting unkind things and then quickly editing them out.

I prefer you jab away...but leave them for all to see.

And then, the truly intelligent readers of the thread, will be able to see your true colors.

Poisoning the well. You're immediately suggesting that people who disagree with you aren't intelligent. "Open-minded" does not mean agreeing with anything you read or hear.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Desertgal, I see you edited out yet another jab at me.

Please stop posting unkind things and then quickly editing them out.

I prefer you jab away...but leave them for all to see.

And then, the truly intelligent readers of the thread, will be able to see your true colors.

You tend to ignore the truly intelligent, and the rational, posters...right up until you make another of your revolving-door exits.

But feel free to keep jabbing away--

 

[Robin1]

Poisoning the well. You're immediately suggesting that people who disagree with you aren't intelligent. "Open-minded" does not mean agreeing with anything you read or hear.

Nope. I wasn't suggesting that. At all.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Now that you mention it Nay Sayer, I also have some questions about Johnny I want answered.

How did Johnny know:

1. To say the name Miss Piggy. And it ends up being a family nickname.

2. That someone studied with Bob Ross, the TV artist.
And a picture of a tree was shrunken down.

3. Someone in family drank milk straight from a cow.

4. The comment about the IV being closest thing to a tattoo the deceased would get.
And to mention helping her cross over and acting like her " air traffic controller."


5. Someone dressed up as a tree.

6. A baby's toy was buried with an elderly man.

7. The name Maynard.

8. The sheets not fitting and that the girl should ask her Mom about it.

9. To ask if someone in the woman's family was a shepherd.

10. The clamshell reference.

11. Someone in family read coffee grinds.

12. There was a tattoo of a cross. And it had 3 things around it.
And there were matching tattoos.

13. That 2 people passed and may have been shot.
And to say the word Mayflower(cause he saw Mayflower moving van) and it turns
out those 2 people were shot on Mayflower Ave.

14. Someone in family worked with ice.
And a violent attack on a woman connected to the ice.

15. Swimming with dolphins.

16. Husband and wife used handcuffs.

17. Man abused his neighbor's dog.

More complete details on all of the above can be found in Michael Prescott's article that I provided link to earlier on page 46 post #1820

Oh, a few more questions very similar to the above.
How did Johnny know:

1. About my new refrigerator.

2. My brother's Valerie Harper connection.

3. The big tooth in someone's pocket.

Please read thread for further details on those personal, unique , specific, unknowable gems.

And I do have more of these type questions but I don't want to overwhelm.

Get ready to have your mind blown, Ready? Ok, Here goes, Ahem.

He didn't.

 

[ynot]

Get ready to have your mind blown, Ready? Ok, Here goes, Ahem.

He didn't.

Even if he did, that offers no evidence that any of this information came from a dead person.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Transcripts or it didn't happen.

You are asking Nay Sayer to draw the conclusion that a known fraud isn't a known fraud from incomplete, biased, one sided information. Surely even you know how ridiculous that is.

I draw my personal analysis of John Edward from the evidence available (IE: The video posted earlier and many others easily found on youtube) In case you missed it I even went through the effort of watching a large selection of episodes from his show 'Crossing Over'. I have concluded that he like every other supposed psychic and medium is a fraud, and honestly not even that good at what he does. A good example[of cold reading] would be Darren Brown, His act is far more convincing then Johnny's scatter shot performances and of course he educates those he does the readings for that it's all just a parlor trick.

 

[Robin1]

Even if he did, that offers no evidence that any of this information came from a dead person.

Talk about putting your hands over your ears...

 

[ynot]

Talk about putting your hands over your ears...

Okay, let’s say I’m wrong and you’re right, so educate me. Explain exactly why and how any of the trivial crap you list in any way provides credible evidence it came from a dead person as opposed to any number of possible real-world means. That "JE said so” doesn’t count as credible.

Won’t hold my breath in expectation of a sincere and intelligent answer.

Why would a dead person want anyone to know there’s a tooth in a pocket? Clearly the only purpose of such a lame trick (that others can perform better) is so JE can say - “See I know something I shouldn’t be able to know therefore I’m a genuine psychic that can talk to dead people”. Unless you understand how every magic trick is done I guess you must conclude that magicians are psychics. If not ynot (childish giggle, childish giggle)

It’s sad and pathetic that people like you fall for such an obvious scam.

 

[elipse]

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'. <snip>

...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.

My goodness, this post has a lot of unwarrented assumptions and baseless claims. I believe I will snip and just address the main points at the end. It's almost like you were talking to someone else...oh, wait, that comes later in the post...

"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...<snip>

1. You've attributed posts to me that are not mine. Much of this post responded to someone else's words, but with my name attached. I snipped all of that part.

2. I think you have entirely misunderstood the post I did make. Since I wrote it, I will take 50% of the blame for that just on principle, but I think your expectation of what you thought I would say coloured your reading of what I actually did say.

(It might be the strain of believing yourself to be the only real skeptic in the room that causes part of the comprehension failure, though. I wouldn't rule that out, either. Are you aware how unlikable you appear from your posts? You cannot possibly act the martyr this way in real life.)

Anywho, the ways you misunderstood me are:

A. It.was quite clear to me that you do not believe j e to be authentic,
B. I made none of the absolute statements you assumed I was making, and
C. I was not arguing against the authenticity of the "uuu" statements, but their actual existence.

So pretty much my whole post.

You say that you are a performer, and you are interested in how he does what you are fairly sure is a trick. I'm saying that without a transcript, you don't actually know he's doing anything unusual.

Let's say there's a magician in town (The Great Hoaxini) that does kid's parties. He's fairly good, as that kind of magician goes, with some decent banter surrounding your basic bag of card tricks, juggling, pulling coins from ears, and what have you.

Then one day you hear a kid raving about how the Great Hoaxini did this amazing trick where he had shown the kids a deck of cards upon which the seal had not yet been broken, and how he had made the jack of diamonds jump out of the unopened deck and squirt cider in the kid's ear.

Wow! That's quite an original trick for this guy. You didn't think he had it in him to be so inventive.

So you ask around to see if anyone has video of him doing the trick. No one does. You start going to his shows, but you don't see him do it. You ask the original kid, and it turns out he was late to the party and only heard what the other kids said about the trick. So you decide to wait on buying a gallon of cider and trying to figure out if you can replicate the trick, just until you can verify whether this guy actually does a trick like that in the first place.


If there are unedited transcripts or video of j e making "uuu" statements, I would be interested in them, too. However, I'm not going to just assume their existence without such evidence, lest I wind up in the end with nothing but an ear full of cider.


*internet points for anyone who gets the reference!*

 

[Pixel42]

Transcripts or it didn't happen.

You are asking Nay Sayer to draw the conclusion that a known fraud isn't a known fraud from incomplete, biased, one sided information. Surely even you know how ridiculous that is.

I don't think Robin will ever understand how ridiculous it is to give more credence to impressions obtained via biased and flawed perceptions and memories than to objective evidence.

Okay, let’s say I’m wrong and you’re right, so educate me. Explain exactly why and how any of the trivial crap you list in any way provides credible evidence it came from a dead person as opposed to any number of possible real-world means.

Or indeed hypothetical paranormal means like telepathy or precognition.

 

[ynot]

Or indeed hypothetical paranormal means like telepathy or precognition.

Or aliens from another planet.

 

[desertgal]

Desertgal, I see you edited out yet another jab at me.

Please stop posting unkind things and then quickly editing them out.

No.

I prefer you jab away...but leave them for all to see.

I don't care what you prefer.

And then, the truly intelligent readers of the thread, will be able to see your true colors.

Which just means you don't have a clue.

 

[desertgal]

I draw my personal analysis of John Edward from the evidence available (IE: The video posted earlier and many others easily found on youtube) In case you missed it I even went through the effort of watching a large selection of episodes from his show 'Crossing Over'. I have concluded that he like every other supposed psychic and medium is a fraud, and honestly not even that good at what he does. A good example[of cold reading] would be Darren Brown, His act is far more convincing then Johnny's scatter shot performances and of course he educates those he does the readings for that it's all just a parlor trick.

I agree. My point was that Robin dishonestly demanded you to draw conclusioms from a self concocted list of events she claims to be true.

 

[Garrette]

Now that you mention it Nay Sayer, I also have some questions about Johnny I want answered.

How did Johnny know:

--snip of apparent hits as described in Prescott's article--

More complete details on all of the above can be found in Michael Prescott's article that I provided link to earlier on page 46 post #1820

I dealt with the article in general and several of the specifics in a post in the "Heaven is Real" thread, but I appear to have been ignored.

Here's a link to that post.

And here's a summary of it with one specific example:

Prescott says it is impossible to judge John Edward from edited television shows.

Prescott goes on to judge John Edward from edited television shows.

Prescott says "Therefore all the exchanges that follow are paraphrases, not direct quotations, and are intended only to capture the flavor of the exchanges." (Highlighting is mine).

In other words: This isn't presented as proof; it is just so you get the feeling of the show, but then when you get the feeling I will pretend it is proof.

Prescott blatantly changes what Edward said into something he didn't say to give him greater credit. An example from his list of what Prescott calls the most dramatic hits:

[How did John Edward know about] a sister-in-law's grandfather's glass eye?

But what actually happened (according to Prescott's own, admittedly paraphrased, transcript is far less impressive:

"Edward: Someone had a glass eye? Lost his sight when he was young?

Woman: I don't know about that.

Edward: I'm seeing a glass eye. And maybe an eye patch.

Woman: I don't know.

(Two weeks later, the woman reports having learned that her sister-in-law's grandfather lost an eye when he was young and a (sic) wore a patch, then a glass eye.)"

The entirety of Prescott's article is waffling:

You can't tell anything from an edited show, but I will pretend I can anyway, and when John Edwards says a little bit I will give him credit for a lot.

Oh, a few more questions very similar to the above.
How did Johnny know:

1. About my new refrigerator.

2. My brother's Valerie Harper connection.

3. The big tooth in someone's pocket.

You responded precisely as Prescott did with the added negative that you completely ignore when factual inconsistencies are pointed out and when your misunderstandings of things like confirmation bias are made clear.

Please read thread for further details on those personal, unique , specific, unknowable gems.

They are not unique, specific, unknowable, or even known (by John Edward)

And I do have more of these type questions but I don't want to overwhelm.

Tell me, please: If by some chance it is shown that the items on the list you have provided were not so impressive as you have made them out to be, would it change your mind or would you jump to another list? Is this to become the John Edward whack-a-mole game where your response to every rational scrutiny is Yeah, but what about THIS one?

 

[Garrette]

As a slight aside, I would like to make it clear that I am not among those who think John Edward isn't good at what he does. I also don't think Sylvia Browne isn't good at what she does.

Granted, JE and SB may not be good cold readers (though at times they are), but that isn't what they are trying to be; cold reading is simply one tool they use in trying to convince enough people that they are actual mediums. In that regard, they are very good, regardless if we think they stink at specific techniques, and I think we do not help the case for reason in dwelling too much on their skills at specific methods.

On the other hand, dwelling on specific results is perfectly fine. Someone mentioned Derren Brown earlier, and that's an excellent example, one which I am sure Robin will mostly ignore just as she will not address the Harry Kellar example I provided which is far, far, far more impressive than anything that Robin or Prescott or anyone else has shown that John Edward can do.

 

[jiggeryqua]

My goodness, this post has a lot of unwarrented assumptions and baseless claims. I believe I will snip and just address the main points at the end. It's almost like you were talking to someone else...oh, wait, that comes later in the post...

Here's a baseless claim for you, one of yours:

My goodness, this post has a lot of unwarrented assumptions and baseless claims.

I'll wait for the "main points", shall I?

1. You've attributed posts to me that are not mine. Much of this post responded to someone else's words, but with my name attached. I snipped all of that part.

I don't believe I did. I recall responding to you and to one other poster in the same post, but I'm fairly certain I correctly attributed the various quoted portions. Of course, if I had made a mistake I wouldn't be the first poster to have done so, nor are mistakes only made by people you disagree with. However, you merely make the claim without linking to the post (or as we might say, 'evidence'), so I can't be sure. You can bet I'm not that bothered about looking back.

2. I think you have entirely misunderstood the post I did make. Since I wrote it, I will take 50% of the blame for that just on principle, but I think your expectation of what you thought I would say coloured your reading of what I actually did say.

I think you're wilfully misunderstanding me, for which I take no blame at all. Would you like some evidence of that?

(It might be the strain of believing yourself to be the only real skeptic in the room that causes part of the comprehension failure, though.

There you go.

I do, as I believe you're alluding to, take issue with blind, binary 'skepticism' that involves little more than loudly proclaiming that one doesn't believe in the list of things 'proper' skeptics don't believe in. The sort that, for example, doesn't feel the need to produce evidence in exchanges that are transparently only about insulting another poster, the better to entrench its binarism

I wouldn't rule that out, either. Are you aware how unlikable you appear from your posts? You cannot possibly act the martyr this way in real life.)

Must you really drag this down to personal remarks? It tends to suggest a paucity of actual arguments, to go with the absence of actual evidence.

Anywho, the ways you misunderstood me are:

A. It.was quite clear to me that you do not believe j e to be authentic,
B. I made none of the absolute statements you assumed I was making, and
C. I was not arguing against the authenticity of the "uuu" statements, but their actual existence.

As I said above, you haven't linked to the post nor even helpfully quoted the post number, and since you've presented:

A. No evidence
B. Personal insults
C. An apparant conflict betwen 'authenticity' and 'existence'.

I feel no great no need to respond at length to your baseless claims. Even if that risks me making a post that portrays me as "unlikeable".

You say that you are a performer,

Here, I'll say it again and next time you can come right out and call me a liar, rather than couch it as "You say..."

I am a performer. Bloody good one too.

and you are interested in how he does what you are fairly sure is a trick. I'm saying that without a transcript, you don't actually know he's doing anything unusual.

Indeed, which is why I'm interested in learning more. I want to find out if he is doing anything unusual, but I'm happy to accept (provisionally) that the instances are unusual. Partly because gathering anecdotal evidence, initially, would be considerably easier that way than by kneejerk abusive responses to anyone not parroting your creed.

Let's say there's a magician in town

Let's say I grew up behind one. One a lot better than Hoaxini. Let's say I was reading Randi 40 years before I found this forum. I only suggest that because it's true, and so makes for a better example than your uninformed hypothetical.

until you can verify whether this guy actually does a trick like that in the first place.

Yup, that's what I'm interested in. I won't get that evidence from skeptics here (well, very few of them, to be sure, since most are just kneejerk creeders, thinking they 'do their bit' by insulting outsiders). I might get it from the likes of Robin, one way or another, but certainly not by swallowing anything she says whole. But neither will I get it by sticking my fingers in my ears and chanting "that's not possible!"

If there are unedited transcripts or video of j e making "uuu" statements, I would be interested in them, too.

But you can say with certainty that my interest is damnable gullibility, but your interest is likeable skepticism?

 

[tsig]

My goodness, this post has a lot of unwarrented assumptions and baseless claims. I believe I will snip and just address the main points at the end. It's almost like you were talking to someone else...oh, wait, that comes later in the post...



1. You've attributed posts to me that are not mine. Much of this post responded to someone else's words, but with my name attached. I snipped all of that part.

2. I think you have entirely misunderstood the post I did make. Since I wrote it, I will take 50% of the blame for that just on principle, but I think your expectation of what you thought I would say coloured your reading of what I actually did say.

(It might be the strain of believing yourself to be the only real skeptic in the room that causes part of the comprehension failure, though. I wouldn't rule that out, either. Are you aware how unlikable you appear from your posts? You cannot possibly act the martyr this way in real life.)

Anywho, the ways you misunderstood me are:

A. It.was quite clear to me that you do not believe j e to be authentic,
B. I made none of the absolute statements you assumed I was making, and
C. I was not arguing against the authenticity of the "uuu" statements, but their actual existence.

So pretty much my whole post.

You say that you are a performer, and you are interested in how he does what you are fairly sure is a trick. I'm saying that without a transcript, you don't actually know he's doing anything unusual.

Let's say there's a magician in town (The Great Hoaxini) that does kid's parties. He's fairly good, as that kind of magician goes, with some decent banter surrounding your basic bag of card tricks, juggling, pulling coins from ears, and what have you.

Then one day you hear a kid raving about how the Great Hoaxini did this amazing trick where he had shown the kids a deck of cards upon which the seal had not yet been broken, and how he had made the jack of diamonds jump out of the unopened deck and squirt cider in the kid's ear. Wow! That's quite an original trick for this guy. You didn't think he had it in him to be so inventive.

So you ask around to see if anyone has video of him doing the trick. No one does. You start going to his shows, but you don't see him do it. You ask the original kid, and it turns out he was late to the party and only heard what the other kids said about the trick. So you decide to wait on buying a gallon of cider and trying to figure out if you can replicate the trick, just until you can verify whether this guy actually does a trick like that in the first place.


If there are unedited transcripts or video of j e making "uuu" statements, I would be interested in them, too. However, I'm not going to just assume their existence without such evidence, lest I wind up in the end with nothing but an ear full of cider.


*internet points for anyone who gets the reference!*

I never saw anyone do that trick but I know some guys and dolls who did.