• 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!!

OccamJr2 said:
...he was successful in pinpointing personal details about some subjects that would be impossible to explain away with tricks.
Click to expand...


That's a pretty strong statement. What makes you an expert to determine this?
 
I don't get it. Wouldn't THE ONE have risen to the occasion in some fashion? Shouldn't dear old dad have been there in the background, clamoring to JE to get another message through? Were there no pina coladas or Big Macs in the area? Didn't you guys misplace a favored dish towel that he could've located for you?

OccamJr and Robin,
C'mon! You guys are brighter than this. Why would JE need to paper the house with True BelieversTM? THE ONE surely has THE GIFT and should be able to help even those who don't have their chakras aligned with their chi. The View is very popular. They have no trouble filling that theater. JE needs to get believers in because he knows they'll play the game when he cold reads. This wasn't a special offer as a treat for his fans, it was a special offer for JE to be able to put the gullible butts in seats.
I'll be interested in seeing the televised version. I'd like to see the feeble misses of Char and the spot-on hits of JE. Personally, I'm betting they both throw out a lot of rapid-fire cold reading b.s.
 
OccamJr2 said:
Garrette, it was an invitation to enter a lottery via an email sent by John Edward which someone upthread has already described. However all communication, via phone and email, after that came from ABC and those connected with The View, including the tickets. The show producers did tell all of us there were over 20,000 entries.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Sorry I missed the earlier email bit.

To clarify: how did they get your email to invite you, what information was exchanged, and how did you physically get the tickets?
 
OccamJr2 said:
And, unfortunately, nothing stupendous occurred that would give us good reason to challenge any of your assertions about cold/hot reading techniques, etc. that many fake mediums employ, but he was successful in pinpointing personal details about some subjects that would be impossible to explain away with tricks.
Click to expand...
What details did he pinpoint that were impossible to explain away with tricks?

Are you saying that you were able to eliminate the possibility of a 'hot' reading, and that your subsequent analysis of the transcript shows that the details were not volunteered by the marks themselves?
 
steenkh said:
What details did he pinpoint that were impossible to explain away with tricks?

Are you saying that you were able to eliminate the possibility of a 'hot' reading, and that your subsequent analysis of the transcript shows that the details were not volunteered by the marks themselves?
Click to expand...
Exactly. There are also other factors to consider, one of which is quite a common JE thing:

Do you understand?

Horribly misleading question. Placed strategically, it elicits a Yes response which the sitter means to say that he understands the comment, not that there is merit to it, but which the remainder of the audience takes to mean agreement, giving JE a hit in everyone's eyes but the sitter himself.

Then, of course, confirmation bias, law of large numbers, etc., etc., etc.

But for now, I am trying to pin down the hot reading aspect, hence my questions regarding specifics surrounding how the tickets are awarded and delivered. All the more important, I think, because from OJ2's description, he was chosen by JE (he forgot his name on television, yes?). Interesting to see the links to the session from the OP and just why Robin and OJ2 not only got tickets but also got read again.
 
OccamJr2 said:
I realize all of you have been clamoring and chomping at the bit for precious details of our View experience, but Robin, unfortunately, has been down for the count with a raging fever and I have been hiding under the covers and attempting to recover from the humiliation I endured on national, network television. What ever do you mean humiliation, Occam, Jr? Oh, it might have had something to do with my NOT REMEMBERING MY OWN NAME on camera?
Suffice it to say, we were decidedly underwhelmed by the readings which were actually mostly done by Char Margolis, the other medium on the show. I never was impressed with her dyed blonde hair or her abilities at all and she certainly did nothing to change my mind about her that day. John, however, did his thing for which I well know you all have stock explanations. And, unfortunately, nothing stupendous occurred that would give us good reason to challenge any of your assertions about cold/hot reading techniques, etc. that many fake mediums employ, but he was successful in pinpointing personal details about some subjects that would be impossible to explain away with tricks. All things considered, including our previous experience debated here ad nauseum, we still believe he is the real deal, my own personal View debacle, notwithstanding. Damn that Barbara Walters and her ridiculous idea to start this show 15 years ago!
Click to expand...

OccamJr2 said:
Garrette, it was an invitation to enter a lottery via an email sent by John Edward which someone upthread has already described. However all communication, via phone and email, after that came from ABC and those connected with The View, including the tickets. The show producers did tell all of us there were over 20,000 entries.
Click to expand...

Hi, OccamJr2.
Thanks for sharing that account of your experiences!
Did you get a transcript of the show?
A viewing date?
 
OccamJr2 said:
And, unfortunately, nothing stupendous occurred that would give us good reason to challenge any of your assertions about cold/hot reading techniques, etc. that many fake mediums employ, but he was successful in pinpointing personal details about some subjects that would be impossible to explain away with tricks.
Click to expand...
You have contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Either nothing happened which could not be explained in the usual, non-paranormal, ways, or something happened which would be impossible to explain in any of those ways. Which was it? And if the latter, precisely what happened that you think can only be explained by a genuine paranormal ability?
 
OccamJr2 said:
Garrette, it was an invitation to enter a lottery via an email sent by John Edward which someone upthread has already described. However all communication, via phone and email, after that came from ABC and those connected with The View, including the tickets. The show producers did tell all of us there were over 20,000 entries.
Click to expand...


What was reported up-thread was that there was an open invitation to anyone to apply to John Edward's very own ticket lottery. You have provided additional information. Not only did John Edward require you provide him personal information to get in on his ticket deal, he actively recruited who he wanted in the pool.

No coincidence there. Nope.
 
Whistleblowers have described how some of these scumbags keep the letters people send them begging them to contact their deceased loved ones, filed by location. Then, when they're about to make an appearance in a particular city, they dig out the letters from that area and send out a few complimentary tickets. So they know that a particular person is in the audience, and (thanks to the letter) lots about the dead loved one they can just feed back to them. Bastards.
 
I am already on John Edward's mailing list and receive periodic emails from him. That is how I received the invitation to submit for the lottery to be in The View audience. I provided my name and phone number. I was notified I had won 2 tickets via an email from ABC / The View. ABC also used the phone number I provided to call me and confirm my attendance. Tickets were attached to the email from ABC. From what I could gather at the taping, 100 of us were selected via the lottery ad the other @100 people in the audience had either been on The View ticket waiting list or were VIPs connected to ABC in some way.
 
And that raises no suspicion of the possibility of research prior to the show, thus enabling the apparently impossible knowledge of personal details?
 
Please, for god's sake, don't misunderstand! As I said before, although there were a few moments that true believers might acknowledge as real, we witnessed nothing extraordinary enough to bring to this challenging forum to newly debate. Or, as my clown sister would say, there were no startlingly specific, personal, unknowable, John's trademark hits in regard to our reading or any readings we witnessed on that damn show, The View. I never liked Barbara Walters, btw. It is only those types of hits, because we personally and unforgettably experienced them ourselves in the past, that we would ever offer as proof of John's ability. And discussion of anything less is a waste of all our time and would open us up to undue mockery and disdain. Oh wait, that's already happened on this site!

Seriously though, Robin is now torn on whether to deliver a message to someone else, without what she would require as "proof." It is up to her if upon her return from exile she chooses to talk about it. For now, she has chosen not to pass along the message and I concur. You'll see how it all played out if they air our portion and, with my luck, they will.
 
OccamJr2 said:
there were no startlingly specific, personal, unknowable, John's trademark hits in regard to our reading or any readings we witnessed on that damn show, The View.
Click to expand...
Just FYI: this colloquial use of the word "trademark" is usually used to indicate something the person does so often he/she is known for it. In Edwards case, what he is known for is a small number of "hits" which are unspecific, general and easily guessed, large numbers of misses which his marks instantly forget, and a very small number of slightly more accurate lucky guesses. So it sounds like this show featured Edward very much producing his trademark performance.
 
OccamJr2 said:
Please, for god's sake, don't misunderstand! As I said before, although there were a few moments that true believers might acknowledge as real, we witnessed nothing extraordinary enough to bring to this challenging forum to newly debate. Or, as my clown sister would say, there were no startlingly specific, personal, unknowable, John's trademark hits in regard to our reading or any readings we witnessed on that damn show, The View. I never liked Barbara Walters, btw. It is only those types of hits, because we personally and unforgettably experienced them ourselves in the past, that we would ever offer as proof of John's ability. And discussion of anything less is a waste of all our time and would open us up to undue mockery and disdain. Oh wait, that's already happened on this site!

Seriously though, Robin is now torn on whether to deliver a message to someone else, without what she would require as "proof." It is up to her if upon her return from exile she chooses to talk about it. For now, she has chosen not to pass along the message and I concur. You'll see how it all played out if they air our portion and, with my luck, they will.
Click to expand...
Pass along a message? To someone here?

Thanks for the post. You indicate that JE was good enough to reinforce the belief of True Believers but not you or Robin. I will ask again what has been asked in various forms in this thread but never answered other than with the unsupported claim of UUU hits:

By what criteria do you distinguish between hits that convince True Believers and hits that convince you?

Specifically, how do you eliminate the following as possibilities:

1. Hot reading

2. Cold reading

3. Confirmation bias

4. Faulty memory

5. The law of large numbers

That last one is especially apropos here given JE's poor performance. To state that something would be too long on odds to be a hit by chance you need to count all of JE's guesses ( or a statistically sufficient sample) and compare the hit to miss ratio against the expected ratio given both chance and an in-depth knowledge of demographics.

Of course, before that you would have to go even more basic and define what constitutes a hit.

Have you or Robin attempted any of this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom