Proof of Life After Death!!

[Stellafane]

Again, as an utter amateur on my very first try I managed to convince someone I was psychic, all the while insisting I wasn't. So why should I believe that someone such as JE, with vastly more experience who does this for a living, cannot do the same, especially when (1) hits are remembered and misses left on the cutting room floor, and (2) vague "hits" are embellished upon retelling until they sound much more amazing than they originally were?

It is a serious question: why should I believe JE needs psychic ability to do what others have done without it?

 

[Robin1]

Again, as an utter amateur on my very first try I managed to convince someone I was psychic, all the while insisting I wasn't. So why should I believe that someone such as JE, with vastly more experience who does this for a living, cannot do the same, especially when (1) hits are remembered and misses left on the cutting room floor, and (2) vague "hits" are embellished upon retelling until they sound much more amazing than they originally were?

It is a serious question: why should I believe JE needs psychic ability to do what others have done without it?

Others haven't even come close to coming up with the kinds of stuff (unknowable, specific, personal, unique) John Edward comes up with.

And he comes up with that stuff REPEATEDLY.

 

[Garrette]

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

How did Johnny know:

Mostly as people have already said, John Edward didn’t know these things. He threw out generalities that could apply to many things and which, more importantly, could be dropped and left alone if no one latched on to them (yes, yes, I now that sometimes John Edward insists that he has a hit and the subject is wrong).

But I’ll give it a go, and for sake of this post I will assume that there is nothing suspicious going on, like the occasional hot reading or simply the gathering of visual clues when speaking with the subject, though that puts me at a disadvantage already, because you can tell from Prescott’s admittedly paraphrased transcripts that there is much of the interchange left out, so by the time Edward has uttered these phrases he has already gathered information about the subject.

I will also indicate whether the particular statement would be a hit if I were the subject.

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

Now, now, Robin. First, everything that Prescott put in quotation marks is a paraphrase, and this bit isn’t even a paraphrase of Edward directly. Rather, it is a short phrase in a summary by yet another author (Chris Ballard). In short, this item isn’t even second-hand; it’s third-hand with absolutely no details.

Nonetheless, let’s look at it. Here is Prescott, quoting Ballard about the Miss Piggy statement:

“…mentioning a peculiar family nickname like ‘Miss Piggy’…”

That’s it, in its entirety. We know exactly nothing about the circumstance or what was said by whom, but I can all but guarantee that Edward did not say “Your sister’s nickname was Miss Piggy.” Rather, he said something like “I’m seeing Miss Piggy,” which could be interpreted as a hit for anything, nickname or not.

In fact, if I were the subject and he said he were seeing Miss Piggy, it would be a hit.

Not impressive.

2. That someone studied with Bob Ross, the TV artist.

And a picture of a tree was shrunken down.

Let’s break this down:

Edward: Did someone here study with Bob Ross, the TV artist? … I’m getting Bob Ross. I’m also getting a picture of a tree, shrunken down. It was big. Now, it’s small.

Woman: My Mom took lessons from Bob Ross.

Stop there. Edward asked if someone here studied with Bob Ross. The answer: No. John Edward was wrong yet he gets credit because some who was not there fit the bill.

Here’s the rest of the woman’s answer:

Woman: One of her paintings was a tree. It was too big for the album, so I had it reduced.

Impressive? No, because Edward did not make it specific; the woman did. There need not be an album involved nor a reduced painting involved for Edward to have been credited with a hit. The mere fact that someone paints trees means that there was a big tree that has been shrunken down to fit the canvas. The rest of the information, completely volunteered by the subject, was just icing. This doesn’t even take into account the ellipse (it’s Prescott’s, not mine). It generally indicates something left out. What did Prescott leave out, if anything? It could make all the difference in the world. Not that it has to, of course, since the hit isn’t impressive after all.

Further, I know a lot of people who – while they did not study in person with Bob Ross – watched his shows almost daily and would consider themselves his students, so even Edward’s opening question is not as specific as it seems.

So I give this a “mostly a hit” in regard to me. If the subject had kept to the specifics of the question, i.e., someone HERE, then I would call it a miss for me, but since the sitter expanded it to someone NOT HERE, then I could also call it a hit.

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

He asked a question and got a yes. It applies to me, too, though, and I wager it applies to lots of people. It applies to both my parents and most of my relatives. It applies to people in every place I have ever lived or worked (which includes much of the United States, some of East Asia, much of Western Europe, and parts of the Middle East).

Once again, not impressive.

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."

Edward: When they marked her skin for the IV, she said it was the closest she’d ever get to having a tattoo?

Man: That’s what she said exactly.

Edward: And you had to be sort of the “air traffic control” for her passing?

Man: The doc told us that I would be her air traffic control. That’s the phrase he used.

The bit about the tattoo doesn’t impress me. There is obviously conversation that has gone on before this so Edward already has some information about the deceased, and people make jokes about something being a tattoo quite often.

That said, the air traffic controller bit is impressive. Again, assuming that nothing of importance is left out, it’s a very nice hit indeed.

Note, however, that a frequent explanation for the vagueness of most of what Edward says is that “it doesn’t work that way,” i.e., the spirits don’t hold a conversation with the medium; instead, they provide images or sounds. Yet here we have what must have come from lengthy phrases. “she said it was the closest she’d ever get to having a tattoo” does not come from an image, nor does “you had to be sort of the air traffic control for her passing.”

5. Someone dressed up as a tree.

Yes. Edward said “someone dressed up as a tree?” Note that it is a question according to Prescott. It is not a statement; it is a question, and it is not specific. “Someone.” Sometime. Somewhere.

The sitter supplied details about dad and a Christmas tree. This statement would be a hit, multiple times, for me.

Not impressive.

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

Edward: Was there a baby’s toy buried with him?”

Woman: A stuffed bunny. My daughter’s.

First, it was a question, not a statement. As always, it would have been passed by if not accepted or, if not – if Edward had insisted that the woman think about it later and it came back as a hit – then it would seem even more impressive when it is banal.

It’s a hit for me. Placing beloved items in coffins with loved ones is not uncommon.

7. The name Maynard.

Edward: I’m getting the name Maynard.

Man: That’s my girlfriend’s last name.[/quote]Specifics provided by the subject. It would work if it were an uncle’s middle name, the town where someone was born or went to school, or dozens of other things.

And it’s a hit for me. A rather large one, in fact.

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

Something about buying sheets for the dead – not a bedspread, definitely sheets – but they don’t fit… It’s for your mom, I think.

Not bad. I don’t have any information on buying of sheets that don’t fit. I doubt that simply buying them is all that rare, particularly for family members and doubly particularly if it’s for a child (in this case possibly a grown child). There is more info here than Prescott has shared.

But to be consistent: Not a hit for me and moderately impressive.

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

Yes, Edward asked that. He was wrong. Instead, the subject stretched the question to fit a father who joked about being a shepherd in order to make the very tired joke of “Get the flock out of here.” Thousands upon thousands of people make that joke, and like the father here, they are not shepherds.

It’s a miss, but if I can stretch it like the subject did it would be a hit for me, too.

10. The clamshell reference.

Yes. Another wrong one.

Edward: I’m seeing a clam, a big clamshell opening up.

Man: I work under water. My friend [the deceased] used to say I went clamming. It’s not really clamming, but that’s what he called it.

It wasn’t a large clamshell opening up, it was clamming, so it’s wrong, but let’s give it to him. After all, the spirit who said “you will have to act as air traffic controller” cannot also be expected to say “clamming, even though you didn’t clam.”

It would not be a hit if I were the subject.

11. Someone in family read coffee grinds.

Note the “someone” again. Could be anybody, including long lost great aunts, but okay, he got coffee grOUnds instead of tea leaves which would be more expected. Or would it? Google just a bit and see how common coffee ground reading is, particularly those from Turkey and the Middle East. But I said I would assume John Edward wasn’t getting information based on the appearance of the sitter so we’ll let that go.

Not impressive. Not a hit for me.

12. There was a tattoo of a cross. And it had 3 things around it.

And there were matching tattoos.

Edward: I see a tattoo of a cross, bleeding.

He was right about the cross, which is not uncommon, particularly since he did not specify on whom he saw it. He was wrong about the bleeding.

Edward: There are three things around the cross.

Yes, three “things.” The things would not even have to be part of the tattoo to qualify, but Edward gets lucky because the sitter tells him there are angels. The spirits who can tell someone he must act as an air traffic controller not only can’t say “three angels,” they can’t show him an image of three angels near a cross.

Edward: Like there are two, and they match?

It’s a question, not a statement. She confirms that she and her daughter have matching tattoos which seems somewhat impressive until you realize that:

a. Matching tattoos aren’t that uncommon

b. Edward did not say who had the matching ones; it could have been the subject and the deceased, the subject and someone else living, the subject herself (two tattoos of the same thing on different parts of the body).

c. And most tellingly, this revelation did not come until after the subject volunteered the information that she got the tattoo in honor of the deceased. If I were doing this as a completely cold read, you can bet I would guess a matching tattoo, though I would be thinking that it matched with one on the deceased which I guarantee you is what Edward was thinking.

Not impressive, though also not a hit for me.

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.

Edward: Two people passed with a sudden impact. Might have been shot.

Might also have been hit by a car. This is not an impressive hit at all. Edward would have accepted it, and been counted just as accurate by you and the subject, if it had been a car accident.

The Mayflower hit is only impressive if you ignore that it would have counted as a hit if the person had said that yes she had “moved around then.” It’s not a specific hit; it’s a generality that the subject made fit.

14. Someone in family worked with ice.

And a violent attack on a woman connected to the ice.

Edward: Someone in the family worked with ice – like, packing up ice?

Woman: Our grandfather worked in an ice house.

Edward: There was an attack on a woman – a violent attack.

Woman: He was accused of that.

Edward: A body on ice…Like, a murder, and the body was left on ice…

Woman (uneasy): There may have been.

He starts with generalities: “someone.” It’s a question and not a statement.

He did not associate the attack with ice until the woman confirmed its association with the man who worked in the ice house.

She did not confirm it. There “may” have been. Now the “uneasy” bit that Prescott put in could be accurate or Prescott could be mistaken. If accurate, it could mean at least a couple of things: (1) Edward was completely accurate, and the woman was uncomfortable discussing it, especially publicly. (2) Edward wasn’t accurate, and the woman was trying not to lose the connection she thought she had.

Don’t get me wrong. Of all the apparent hits listed, this is the one that I would find most effective were I the subject and had I eliminated everything but cold reading as a possibility. But even with that, it still boils down to Edward asking a question, the woman providing information, Edward building on it, and the woman not really confirming it.

Hardly the proof you claim. Still, it would not have been a hit for me.

15. Swimming with dolphins.

Edward: There’s a connection with a dolphin. Swimming with dolphins?

Woman: We took a trip last year where we went swimming with dolphins.

Again, it’s vague, and it’s a question, not a statement. And this is one of the more laughable of the bunch. A connection with dolphins can be anything; Edward would have been credited with a hit if the woman pulled out a dolphin necklace or said her daughter’s dolphin drawings were hanging on the refrigerator or her father used to love the old “Flipper” television show. And swimming with dolphins is far from uncommon these days, particularly among those who can travel such as those who pay for travel and tickets to see John Edward.

It would be a hit for me, too.

16. Husband and wife used handcuffs.

Edward: I don’t know how to say this, but did you and your husband do something involving…handcuffs?

Woman (very embarrassed): Yes.

This would be a hit in three different ways for me and my wife, and only one of those three ways is in the way you are thinking.

17. Man abused his neighbor's dog.

There was a neighbor’s dog…I don’t want to use the word torture, but you…abused this dog.”

Man: Yes.

A very gutsy thing to say, I’ll give him credit for that, and if there was absolutely no informational input, then quite impressive except that we don’t have the full transcript, do we? What was said just before this? As you so often say, Robin, “read the whole thing.” Give me the transcript of the whole exchange and this one might impress me. Until then, the best I can say is that it would not be a hit for me.

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

Except that the details don’t really support your case (or Prescott’s) as I have made clear. It is wishful thinking.

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.

Asked and answered repeatedly. You simply don’t care for the answers though you can’t refute them.


ETA: Does anyone know why the editor splits some of the quotations into two quotations: I previewed repeatedly and took out the internal quotations that made some of them into doubles, but the forum puts them back.

 

[Garrette]

Others haven't even come close to coming up with the kinds of stuff (unknowable, specific, personal, unique) John Edward comes up with.

Except that this isn't true. Will you ever address the Harry Kellar stuff I posted or the Derren Brown videos?

Perhaps you would care to read Mark Edwards' "Confessions of a Conflicted Medium."

And he comes up with that stuff REPEATEDLY.

So does Derren Brown. So do astrologers and numerologists. So do good salesmen.

 

[Stellafane]

Others haven't even come close to coming up with the kinds of stuff (unknowable, specific, personal, unique) John Edward comes up with.

As others have pointed out, this simply isn't true.

...And he comes up with that stuff REPEATEDLY.

And he repeatedly misses. The fact that he can apply well-practiced techniques to different subjects on different occasions only means he's reasonably competent at it, nothing more.

In any case, you say that JE is capable of coming up with stuff that is "unknowable, specific, personal, unique." Well, so did I, on my very first try:

• Specific: I predicted when my friend's injury would occur, and what part of the body would be affected.
• Personal: I predicted it would happen to him personally.
• Unique: I predicted the "could have been much worse" part that the doctor who treated my friend repeated word-for-word.
• Unknowable: It hadn't even happened yet!

And that was just me, a rank amateur. So again, I must repeat: Why should I believe JE requires psychic powers to do something I did on my first attempt?

 

[Robin1]

As others have pointed out, this simply isn't true.



And he repeatedly misses. The fact that he can apply well-practiced techniques to different subjects on different occasions only means he's reasonably competent at it, nothing more.

In any case, you say that JE is capable of coming up with stuff that is "unknowable, specific, personal, unique." Well, so did I, on my very first try:

• Specific: I predicted when my friend's injury would occur, and what part of the body would be affected.
• Personal: I predicted it would happen to him personally.
• Unique: I predicted the "could have been much worse" part that the doctor who treated my friend repeated word-for-word.
• Unknowable: It hadn't even happened yet!

And that was just me, a rank amateur. So again, I must repeat: Why should I believe JE requires psychic powers to do something I did on my first attempt?

I might say "cool story" to you but I really don't see how people here could consider stuff like that as even being in the same ballpark as the stuff John Edward comes up with.

Who is actually hitting balls out of that park... Repeatedly.

 

[deaman]

I might say "cool story" to you but I really don't see how people here could consider stuff like that as even being in the same ballpark as the stuff John Edward comes up with.

Who is actually hitting balls out of that park... Repeatedly.

No.

 

[Garrette]

I might say "cool story" to you but I really don't see how people here could consider stuff like that as even being in the same ballpark as the stuff John Edward comes up with.

Who is actually hitting balls out of that park... Repeatedly.

You may ignore this, but I trust lurkers will not:

No. John Edward does not hit out of the park. What he does is far, far less impressive than what Harry Kellar did and what Derren Brown still does. Derren Brown does it repeatedly. There are others.

Please by all means, compare anything at all that John Edward has done with what Harry Kellar did. Then compare anything at all that John Edward has done with the video of Derren Brown you were provided long ago and which you continue to ignore.

Failing that, just address my comments about Prescott's article. After all, you asked us to read it.

Prescott repeatedly asks "How did John Edward know x?" then makes it apparent with his own words that John Edward did not know x; rather, the subject provided the details which Prescott gives credit for.

Is that the standard of your evidence? The best that you have? A bunch of edited television shows (the Derren Brown video is unedited, btw), the analysis of which contradicts itself?

 

[carlitos]

I'd like to think that Robin1 is receiving some kind of compensation for her efforts, but "shilling on an obscure internet forum" seems so unlikely in that context. Robin1, do you write about this stuff anywhere else?

 

[desertgal]

C'mon, folks. By this point, you must be aware Robin is not worth your time.

 

[abaddon]

Others haven't even come close to coming up with the kinds of stuff (unknowable, specific, personal, unique) John Edward comes up with.

And he comes up with that stuff REPEATEDLY.

Explain this then. Link.

I know this was posted before. You simply ignored it.

 

[Raab]

I might say "cool story" to you but I really don't see how people here could consider stuff like that as even being in the same ballpark as the stuff John Edward comes up with.

You don't see it for the same reason you believe JE is a real medium, because you're bias. Not only is the example in the same ballpark, he even used the same bat and ball!

 

[Stellafane]

I might say "cool story" to you but I really don't see how people here could consider stuff like that as even being in the same ballpark as the stuff John Edward comes up with.

By your own criteria -- unknowable, specific, personal, unique -- what I did was every bit as difficult and impressive as anything JE has done. Indeed, if anything I was working under a handicap, since JE can theoretically pick up on cues and hints provided by his subject, whereas I could not since I was predicting a future event that neither I nor my subject knew was going to occur. But not only did I get it 100% right (at least as far as my subject was concerned); I even predicted the timing to the correct week! (I'd be happy to explain how I did it, if it isn't already obvious to everyone.)

The only thing JE has on me is he's done it more than once, while I basically shrugged, thought "well, that was easy" and then went on to better things that don't involve duping the gullible. But as has been pointed out, other stage performers routinely beat JE at his own game, without claiming paranormal abilities. So my question remains: Why should I believe that JE has psychic abilities when others, including rank amateurs such as myself, can do equally impressive tricks via normal means?

 

[Robin1]

Explain this then. Link.

I know this was posted before. You simply ignored it.

Did you make a mistake in linking the video I just watched?

'Cause it only proves why John Edward is indeed real.

Honestly, it's frustrating because it feels like I'm talking and talking and most here are not really "hearing" what I'm saying at all.

At all.

 

[Robin1]

By your own criteria -- unknowable, specific, personal, unique -- what I did was every bit as difficult and impressive as anything JE has done. Indeed, if anything I was working under a handicap, since JE can theoretically pick up on cues and hints provided by his subject, whereas I could not since I was predicting a future event that neither I nor my subject knew was going to occur. But not only did I get it 100% right (at least as far as my subject was concerned); I even predicted the timing to the correct week! (I'd be happy to explain how I did it, if it isn't already obvious to everyone.)

The only thing JE has on me is he's done it more than once, while I basically shrugged, thought "well, that was easy" and then went on to better things that don't involve duping the gullible. But as has been pointed out, other stage performers routinely beat JE at his own game, without claiming paranormal abilities. So my question remains: Why should I believe that JE has psychic abilities when others, including rank amateurs such as myself, can do equally impressive tricks via normal means?

You can't. You haven't. You never will.

Nor will ANY stage performers ever come up with anything like John Edward has....REPEATEDLY.

Please stop claiming the long list of JE's TRULY unique, unknowable, specific, and personal hits are comparable on ANY level, to the story you told about yourself.

Please stop saying a fake could do it.

And do it REPEATEDLY.

Never.

Ever.

Now, I'm goin' to buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack.

 

[carlitos]

Paid shill it is, then.

 

[Mister Earl]

John Edwards is a real medium in the same way my Dodge Stratus is a fully capable antibomber fighter platform. It only looks that way if you're stone drunk.

 

[carlitos]

"Older, younger or the same age" was pretty funny on that video. Well, yeah, that narrows it down.

 

[Garrette]

You can't. You haven't. You never will.

Nor will ANY stage performers ever come up with anything like John Edward has....REPEATEDLY.

Please stop claiming the long list of JE's TRULY unique, unknowable, specific, and personal hits are comparable on ANY level, to the story you told about yourself.

Please stop trying to say a fake could do it.

And do it REPEATEDLY.

Never.

Ever.

Now, I'm goin' to buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack.

1. Derren Brown does it repeatedly.

2. Harry Kellar's feat, regardless if repeated or not, far exceeds anything John Edward has done or is capable of doing. Edward isn't in Kellar's league.

3. Your repeated insistence on this factually and demonstrably incorrect appraisal of John Edward demonstrates, again, that you do not understand the things you insist you understand, i.e., confirmation bias, the law of large numbers, etc. (Alternatively, it demonstrates "paid shill," though I doubt that).

4. Your refusal to address the specific comments made when people take the time to read what you request they read (i.e., my dissection of Prescott's article) demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty on your part.

It doesn't matter one whit to me if you ever change your mind, Robin. Right now, posting in this manner amuses me, and I trust that the vast majority of lurkers will take away from this thread that John Edward is a fraud. He is.

And as regards your earlier complaint that you have been attacked for your belief -- that is untrue. Your belief has been attacked. Your intellectual honesty has been questioned when you have demonstrated a lack of it. And your arguments have been shown to be hollow. None of that is an attack on you, and it certainly is not an attack because of your belief. It is a discussion of your supposed evidence, and that evidence has been found wanting, as has your ability to weigh it.


ETA: I don't think that the demonstrated intellectual dishonesty is, for the most part, intentional. I think it is an artefact of the immense desire to believe.

 

[Stellafane]

You can't. You haven't. You never will.

Ah, but I already did, and denying it won't change that fact I'm afraid.

...Nor will ANY stage performers ever come up with anything like John Edward has....REPEATEDLY.

But they have...repeatedly.

...Please stop claiming the long list of JE's TRULY unique, unknowable, specific, and personal hits are comparable on ANY level, to the story you told about yourself.

Sorry to put it so bluntly, but why should I? Based on your say-so alone? After all, by your own criteria I did it, and with one hand tied behind my back...I predicted the future while JE appears to confine himself to predicting the past.

...Please stop saying a fake could do it.

And do it REPEATEDLY.

Never.

Ever.

Again, why should I? It's the truth. We can debate whether or not JE is a fake, since I cannot prove that he is. What is not open for debate, however, is the fact that others routinely perform feats at least as equally impressive as JE's, repeatedly, and do so without resorting to paranormal claims. Whether or not you want to hear that, it's a demonstrable fact.