Proof of Life After Death!!

[Garrette]

Please point me to the cow milk reading. I am interested in JE's actual words as opposed to your interpretation of them.

Not that it matters in regard to JE being a fraud (he is). We have already demonstrated that drinking from the udder is not uncommon.

 

[greybeard]

Read the Michael Prescott article.

James Van Praagh does not come up with those unique, specific, unknowable, personal, hits...which are directed to specific people, not the entire room.

And JE does come up with them...REPEATEDLY.

That article says it all.

I know. I lived it. JE is real.

P.S. I actually saw the JE episode involving the man drinking milk straight from the cow.
JE meant, in that case, drinking milk straight from the cow's udder. As in taking the udder and squirting the milk directly in your mouth.

So you are using the heavily edited television series as proof?

Here is just one persons experience of the recording of an Edward show.

"I was on the John Edward show. He even had a multiple guess "hit" on me that was featured on the show. However, it was edited so that my answer to another question was edited in after one of his questions. In other words, his question and my answer were deliberately mismatched. Only a fraction of what went on in the studio was actually seen in the final 30 minute show. He was wrong about a lot and was very aggressive when somebody failed to acknowledge something he said. Also, his "production assistants" were always around while we waited to get into the studio. They told us to keep very quiet, and they overheard a lot. I think that the whole place is bugged somehow. Also, once in the studio we had to wait around for almost two hours before the show began. Throughout that time everybody was talking about what dead relative of theirs might pop up. Remember that all this occurred under microphones and with cameras already set up. My guess is that he was backstage listening and looking at us all and noting certain readings. When he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he were trying to spot people he recognized. He also had ringers in the audience. I can tell because about fifteen people arrived in a chartered van, and once inside they did not sit together."

I don't know why we are bothering to persuade you anymore though Robin. Although you want to tell the whole world that JE is the real deal, if anyone tries to show you he really isn't, you just put your hands over your ears and sing La La La to block them out.

ETA The whole article that was taken from is worth a read. Link here.

 

[Garrette]

Thanks for that, greybeard. Do you have a link?

 

[jiggeryqua]

And you have ignored all the posters here for whom drinking directly from the udder would be a hit.

We have already demonstrated that drinking from the udder is not uncommon.

No, we've already heard some anecdotes claiming that drinking from the udder is quite common round here. How do we feel about anecdotes as evidence, round here? What's that? Skeptical anecdotes count?

 

[greybeard]

Thanks for that, greybeard. Do you have a link?

See the edit to my post Garrette.

 

[pakeha]

Read the Michael Prescott article.

James Van Praagh does not come up with those unique, specific, unknowable, personal, hits...which are directed to specific people, not the entire room.

And JE does come up with them...REPEATEDLY.

That article says it all.

I know. I lived it. JE is real.

P.S. I actually saw the JE episode involving the man drinking milk straight from the cow.
JE meant, in that case, drinking milk straight from the cow's udder. As in taking the udder and squirting the milk directly in your mouth.

Hi, Robin1.
Of course I read the article.
I'm rather sad you'd take those heavily, heavily edited tv shows as evidence of hits.
That why we've posted up uncut clips of live readings to show you the difference of the effects editing has on these performances.

I'm also one who has drunk milk from a cow's udder. Why is this considered so special?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Read the Michael Prescott article.

James Van Praagh does not come up with those unique, specific, unknowable, personal, hits...which are directed to specific people, not the entire room.

And JE does come up with them...REPEATEDLY.

That article says it all.

I know. I lived it. JE is real.

P.S. I actually saw the JE episode involving the man drinking milk straight from the cow.
JE meant, in that case, drinking milk straight from the cow's udder. As in taking the udder and squirting the milk directly in your mouth.

It's been to the point of ad nausem explained to you, quite extensively how Johnny's con game works. To me there is more then enough evidence to form at least two conclusions so far;

1: You know John Edward is fake but promote him in any way possible for money and or services (free readings, tickets etc)

2: Johnny got his hooks so good into during what I am now convinced was an average cold reading which over time you've embellished greatly, That the notion of that intimate moment being nothing more than the workings of a conman is simply unacceptable.

John Edward is a fraud, fact, I do earnestly hope that if not Robin some lurker reading this thread has had their eyes opened to the truth.

 

[DoomMetal]

Read the Michael Prescott article.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Prescott

Prescott is the man who believes that "ectoplasm" cheesecloth and dolls is real evidence for spirits. And yes he has even claimed the following picture is evidence for the afterlife:

Anyone with some common sense can see that the supposed "spirit" was just a doll.

He has no credibility at all. Quoting him does not help your case.

 

[greybeard]

No, we've already heard some anecdotes claiming that drinking from the udder is quite common round here. How do we feel about anecdotes as evidence, round here? What's that? Skeptical anecdotes count?

Anecdotes should not be taken as proof whatever the source. And I am perfectly aware that the quote in my post 2272 is just an anecdote. When somebody says though that John Edward is the real deal and gives anecdotes to "prove" it and an internet search shows people saying that they have witnessed him cheating and giving examples of how it can be done then we can weigh up all the evidence and decide for ourselves. For myself I am leaning quite heavily in favour of the opinion that JE does not, and cannot, converse with dead people.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Read the Michael Prescott article.

James Van Praagh does not come up with those ¹unique, ²specific, ³unknowable, ⁴personal, hits...which are ^4(a)directed to specific people, not the entire room.

And JE does come up with them...⁵REPEATEDLY.

That article says it all.

I know. I lived it. JE is real.

P.S. I actually saw the JE episode involving the man drinking milk straight from the cow.
JE meant, in that case, drinking milk straight from the cow's udder. As in taking the udder and squirting the milk directly in your mouth.

Highlighting and numbering added.
The highlighted bits are part of the reason you get called dishonest.

 

[Resume]

I know. I lived it. JE is real.

JE is a real something all right.

Read DoomMetal's link concerning Prescott.

 

[Apology]

LOL! A quote from the article greybeard linked for us:

In watching Edward I'm amazed at how blatant he is in stealing lines from medium James Van Praagh. It reminds me of entertainers, commedians, and magicians who go to each others' shows to glean new ideas.

What say you now, Robin? The beloved Edwards not only dedicated his book to Sylvia Browne, but he's stolen some of his lines from the hated Van Praagh.

Since you've ignored the many posts deconstructing the Prescott article provided for you here, I seriously doubt you'll read the Shermer article. However, I'm going to link it for you again, just in case:

Deconstructing the Dead, Crossing Over One More Time to Expose John Edwards, by Michael Shermer

Thanks again to greybeard for providing the link.

 

[GeeMack]

Read the Michael Prescott article.

James Van Praagh does not come up with those unique, specific, unknowable, personal, hits...which are directed to specific people, not the entire room.

Neither does John Edward. But he clearly has the ability to fool some pretty gullible people into believing that's what he does.

And JE does come up with them...REPEATEDLY.

Nope, not true.

I know believe. I lived believe it. I believe JE is real.

Fixed that.

In over 40 years as a performing magician, I often get asked how some magic trick or other works. In almost every case, the answer is already available to the person asking. The process of discovery is actually pretty simple, so pay close attention. Here is how to figure out a method, a natural explanation for virtually any magician's trick: Don't ask yourself, "How did he do that?" That's the wrong question, the wrong place to start, because he didn't do that. Instead ask yourself, "How did he make it look like he did that?" If you ask the right question, the answer is usually pretty easy.

The people who don't figure out the methods, those who continue to believe a con man like John Edward is really magic, are separated from the truth by a thin barrier which can usually be broken by asking the right question. But you have to actually want it. Believers want to believe. There's no accounting for willful ignorance.

 

[pakeha]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Prescott

Prescott is the man who believes that "ectoplasm" cheesecloth and dolls is real evidence for spirits. And yes he has even claimed the following picture is evidence for the afterlife:

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Seance_Doll.jpg[/qimg]

Anyone with some common sense can see that the supposed "spirit" was just a doll.

He has no credibility at all. Quoting him does not help your case.

Ah....
That reminds me of this photo:

 

[abaddon]

In over 40 years as a performing magician, I often get asked how some magic trick or other works. In almost every case, the answer is already available to the person asking. The process of discovery is actually pretty simple, so pay close attention. Here is how to figure out a method, a natural explanation for virtually any magician's trick: Don't ask yourself, "How did he do that?" That's the wrong question, the wrong place to start, because he didn't do that. Instead ask yourself, "How did he make it look like he did that?" If you ask the right question, the answer is usually pretty easy.

I like that. My personal preferred magic is stuff people do for themselves with my hands off. I often respond to queries as to how I did it with "I did nothing, you did it. Tell me how you did it?"

 

[Garrette]

No, we've already heard some anecdotes claiming that drinking from the udder is quite common round here. How do we feel about anecdotes as evidence, round here? What's that? Skeptical anecdotes count?

When anecdotes are presented as evidence, anecdotes may be presented as rebuttal. I am quite happy to discount the milk-from-the-udder anecdotes of skeptics when Robin discounts the pro-JE anecdotes.

There is more I could say about how you are off the mark, such as even skeptics not requiring everything presented by Robin or other believers to be RDBPC studies and so therefore not undermining every non-RDBPC thing the skeptics themselves say, and that the reason we do this is that we want to have conversation here, not exchanges in Nature, but I don't have to go that far to demonstrate your comment is misplaced.

 

[Apology]

Another quote from the Shermer article:

The video clips I was shown make it obvious why Edward does not want raw footage going out to the public--he's not all that good at doing cold readings. Where I estimated Van Praagh's hit rate at between 20-30 percent, Edward's hit rate at between 10-20 percent (the error-range in the estimates is created by the fuzziness of what constitutes a "hit"--more on this in a moment).

So Van Praagh is actually a better cold reader too, Robin. Maybe you should go to Van Praagh's show for a second opinion. You could buy a new microwave just before the show to make sure your Dad has something to talk about

 

[Garrette]

Thanks to greybeard and Apology for the link.

@ GeeMack: You have hit on what I have always told people who want to know how something is done and are serious about it, and you have used almost my exact words.

Don't try to figure out what they did; figure out what they didn't do.

 

[pakeha]

...In over 40 years as a performing magician, I often get asked how some magic trick or other works. In almost every case, the answer is already available to the person asking. The process of discovery is actually pretty simple, so pay close attention. Here is how to figure out a method, a natural explanation for virtually any magician's trick: Don't ask yourself, "How did he do that?" That's the wrong question, the wrong place to start, because he didn't do that. Instead ask yourself, "How did he make it look like he did that?" If you ask the right question, the answer is usually pretty easy. ...

A brilliant post, GeeMack.
Your point about the illusion of a hit is beautifully expressed.

 

[desertgal]

No, we've already heard some anecdotes claiming that drinking from the udder is quite common round here. How do we feel about anecdotes as evidence, round here? What's that? Skeptical anecdotes count?

No, what most people have said is that they have drunk or currently drink unprocessed milk. Only one, I believe, has said they have drunk a squirt of milk from a cow's udder.

It's a fact that unprocessed milk exists. It's a fact that people who live or have spent time in farming/ranching communities often drink unprocessed milk. It's a fact that unprocessed milk is sold from farm stands to people who live in urban/suburban areas. It's even a highly provable theory that kids who have access to cows sometimes drink a squirt of milk from a cow's udder, because cows exist, kids exist, and it's physically possible.

Life after death, contrary to Robin's claim, has never been proven to exist. Subsequently, communication with the dead has never been proven to be possible. But it is a fact that many, many psychics/mediums who claim to communicate with the dead, including John Edward, have been shown to be frauds. It's a fact that cold and hot reading are established techniques. It's fact that many claimed "hits" from psychics have rational explanations which have nothing to do with the paranormal/supernatural.

You are comparing anecdotes about a common natural experience with anecdotes about a supernatural experience, and consider them to be of equal credibility?

Your strawman fu is weak, grasshopper. But, please, do carry on picking nits.