How Does JE Receive Messages?

[patnray]

We don't know some things that are relevant to this discussion:

How common are double names or nicknames? I suspect in a large group the odds are good that at least one person knows someone with a double name...

How often does JE throw out a possible double name? And how often does he fail to get a positive response?

Cold readers know facts most of us never even think about, like the most common names by country and decade, or what percent of people have an out of date calendar hanging in their house.

Often believers will claim a "hit" was too specific to be by chance, but they can't tell you what the odds actually are...

 

[Clancie]

Posted by patnray

How common are double names or nicknames? I suspect in a large group the odds are good that at least one person knows someone with a double name...

Just wanted to add...the "Yan Yan" reading took place in the "sofa area" with JE and four sitters.

 

[CFLarsen]

Just wanted to add...the "Yan Yan" reading took place in the "sofa area" with JE and four sitters.

...and the relevance of this is....?

 

[voidx]

Annnnnnnnnd............here is the full transcript of that reading:



Strangely enough, Clancie chose not to show us the embarrassing parts:

• The dog wasn't dead.
• JE claims he has to bring up a dog - but the sitter tells him it's a dog.
• JE claims a dead boyfriend or husband - of "somebody". This is never acknowledged.

Most damning of all: There is absolutely no acknowledged contact with anybody who died here! According to Clancie, this means that it wasn't a reading at all. She brushed off Neil's cold reading transcript for this reason (although erroneously), so it is quite amazing that she doesn't brush off this reading, too.

But then, this is a JE reading...so I guess it's OK in Clancie's book...

I'm going to have to agree with the sentiment of Claus' post here. JE didn't know it was a dog until after it was verified by the sitter, then he includes that in his spiel. This is cold-reading, explain to me how it is not. He didn't mention a dog before, just somebody, and now after she mentions Ginger the dog, now the spirits are asking him to bring up the dog. This is plain as day. At the very least you'd have to acknowledge that the dog itself is not really a hit, JE just seized upon the dog aspect after it was supplied by the sitter. Also, the entire transcript does change the sentiment of the whole reading. At the end of the quote listed by Clancie it would appear that he got a hit on her dead dog Ginger. But after we find the dog isn't dead, and then we get to see JE flounder about with a bunch of fishing about that provides no hits for him. I'm not saying Clancie did this on purpose, but it is another reason why posted transcripts make me a little leary. You never know what you might be missing.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx
At the end of the quote listed by Clancie it would appear that he got a hit on her dead dog Ginger.

Please re-read my post, voidx. I specifically mentioned--before quoting it--that the dog was living. I didn't think the rest of the reading was germane to my point to Laedwig, but did not want to leave with the impression that there was a hit for a dead dog.

Posted by voidx

But after we find the dog isn't dead, and then we get to see JE flounder about with a bunch of fishing about that provides no hits for him. I'm not saying Clancie did this on purpose, but it is another reason why posted transcripts make me a little leary. You never know what you might be missing.

Well, I appreciate you not saying I'm being intentionally deceptive. However, please read the post I was responding to--Laedwig's post was my total point in putting up the "spice" transcript exactly as the "spice references" were phrased.

I wasn't making any point about JE getting a hit or a miss or giving a good reading or a bad one by posting this.

My total and sole intent was to make sure that Laedwig didn't confuse Claus's "flight of fantasy" (re: "Chile") with the actual JE reading about spices. I just wanted to show what JE's "spice" wording was, and that it had nothing at all to do with the country someone came from.

Only the dialogue about spice leading up to "Ginger" was what was important in terms of correcting the impression Claus may have inadvertently given about "Chile" being developed into a hit in a JE reading.

The rest of the transcript, imo, was unnecessary to include to illustrate that point.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yet you "chose" to leave out the part where JE cold reads. Or maybe you just forgot. Or didn't think it was important....

Clancie, you are not fooling anyone here. Well, maybe those who are already fooled.

(And, please, stop referring to my posts while still claiming to be ignoring me. Do you really think people are that stupid?)

 

[voidx]

Please re-read my post, voidx. I specifically mentioned--before quoting it--that the dog was living. I didn't think the rest of the reading was germane to my point to Laedwig, but did not want to leave with the impression that there was a hit for a dead dog.

Aww I see where you mention it now, and I apologize. However, would it not have been just as easy to quote the whole transcript, The full transcript was about twice as long, but still not long at all as far as most of these posts go.

Well, I appreciate you not saying I'm being intentionally deceptive. However, please read the post I was responding to--Laedwig's post was my total point in putting up the "spice" transcript exactly as the "spice references" were phrased.

I wasn't making any point about JE getting a hit or a miss or giving a good reading or a bad one by posting this.

Understood. But aside from that it is interesting to see JE pick up on the dog bit after it was supplied by the sitter. I don't want to be one derailing threads, but what is you're opinion of that, do you consider this a good reading?

My total and sole intent was to make sure that Laedwig didn't confuse Claus's "flight of fantasy" (re: "Chile") with the actual JE reading about spices. I just wanted to show what JE's "spice" wording was, and that it had nothing at all to do with the country someone came from.

Understood. I thought it was quite obvious that Claus was making a joke and being sarcastic, but laedwig may not have caught that.

Only the dialogue about spice leading up to "Ginger" was what was important in terms of correcting the impression Claus may have inadvertently given about "Chile" being developed into a hit in a JE reading.

The rest of the transcript, imo, was unnecessary to include to illustrate that point.

While I agree that to correct Claus and make sure there was no confusion, that's all you had to post, you're still posting a transcript. Regardless people will read it, and assume its the full transcript, like I did intially, with a grain of salt, as this has happened before where it turned out to not be the full transcript. I know I missed intially the part where you mentioned it was the spice "part" of the transcript. I'd maybe make sure you mention next time that it is not the complete transcript(like a disclaimer) or just post the whole transcript, just to avoid any confusion period with people like me .

 

[RC]

Garrette, you have asked a very good question. I have long wondered how JE "gets" some of these validations. For example, a few months ago he asked the sitter if there was an "inanimate object" outside her house that she had given a name to. That was so vague, yet trying to be specific, that for the life of me I have no idea what JE possibly could have seen/heard/felt, etc.

Anyway, it is so simple to get an answer to our questions. JE could just tell us in advance what he is clairseeing/feeling/hearing without trying to "translate" and ask questions. I wonder why he doesn't do that?

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
(JE-fans get a collective orgasm)

Collective orgasms? You get collective orgasms as part of the process?

Damn....could be worth going after all.

 

[Garrette]

Hi, RC,

Long time since we talked.

Yes, I agree it would be much simpler and more convincing if JE would tell us beforehand. This point doesn't seem to sink in, though.

I also find posts like Clancie's to be post hoc apologetics. It's been a while since I read JE's One Last Time, but I quoted more than once on tvtalkshows the bit JE wrote in his introduction that he "talks to the dead." The stuff about images and impressions and all came later as questions arose.

 

[neofight]

Collective orgasms? You get collective orgasms as part of the process?

Damn....could be worth going after all.

LOL Down, boy!

To get back to your question, Garrette, about how it is that JE knows to mention that there is a double name reference, Instig8R stated that "neo" claims that John gets name clairaudiently.

I just wanted to clarify to you, since she failed to do so, that it is directly from JE that we know that he gets most names that way. He wrote about it in his book, "One Last Time". Just so you know that "neo" is not the source.

With regard to the Yan-Yan name, however, I would tend to agree with Clancie. I don't think JE specified exactly what he was seeing that time, but I think he would get that impression of a double name from clairvoyance. He might, for instance, see the Flintstone's cartoon character Bam-Bam or something, or his Aunt or Uncle Jo-Jo as Clancie said. He didn't get the name "Yan", so I doubt he got "Yan-Yan" clairaudiently.......neo

 

[Garrette]

Thanks, neo, but I know about OLT. Just referenced it on another thread.

I understand how it is possible to explain--after the fact--how JE got what he got using clairwhatever.

I trust you understand how it must also then be possible to explain--after the fact--how he got what he got using mundane methods.

Since both are possible, I trust you also understand why I and others dismiss the clair--- explanations.

At least until JE starts doing something not explainable otherwise.

 

[Garrette]

Oh, and one more thing, that I also mention on the other thread.

In the introduction to OLT, JE doesn't say he works clairaudiently. He says, and I quote (from memory) "I talk to the dead."

In my mind, there's a significant difference.

 

[neofight]

Thanks, neo, but I know about OLT. Just referenced it on another thread.

Yes, I just saw that.

I understand how it is possible to explain--after the fact--how JE got what he got using clairwhatever.

Well, I don't know that it's after the fact exactly, Garrette, since he has already stated on record what a good portion of his symbols are, and how the process works for him. It's no secret really. Besides what is in the book, he is constantly explaining on "CO" and at his seminars about some of the images that he gets.

I trust you understand how it must also then be possible to explain--after the fact--how he got what he got using mundane methods.

Yes, I hear that cold-reading allegation thrown around all the time, Garrette. It must be nice having that to fall back on as a pat explanation that you can use, yet never actually have to back up by finding an admitted cold-reader that can do what JE can do. (sigh) If all he's doing is faking it, then it really shouldn't be all that difficult for a Michael Shermer or an Ian Rowland to be able to replicate what it is that he does, wouldn't you agree?

Since both are possible, I trust you also understand why I and others dismiss the clair--- explanations.

Like I say, saying that it is possible, and demonstrating that it is possible, are two entirely different things, Garrette. .....neo

 

[neofight]

Oh, and one more thing, that I also mention on the other thread.

In the introduction to OLT, JE doesn't say he works clairaudiently. He says, and I quote (from memory) "I talk to the dead."

In my mind, there's a significant difference.

Well, if my memory serves me well, Garrette, I believe he follows that statement up with saying that it's actually more accurate to say that they speak to him. lol

But come on now. That is just the introduction. He goes into a lot of detail about the process in the book, and certainly does mention clairaudience. I don't understand what you said to RC about the images and impressions coming later. Do you feel that this is some sort of inconsistency or contradiction here or something? And if so.....how so? What is this significant difference you speak of? .......neo

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by neofight:

Yes, I hear that cold-reading allegation thrown around all the time, Garrette. It must be nice having that to fall back on as a pat explanation that you can use, yet never actually have to back up by finding an admitted cold-reader that can do what JE can do. (sigh) If all he's doing is faking it, then it really shouldn't be all that difficult for a Michael Shermer or an Ian Rowland to be able to replicate what it is that he does, wouldn't you agree?

I'll hit the most important part first, because it gets glossed over, ignored, or whatever all the time:

I have never said, and I do not believe most doubters of JE have said, that cold reading is the only explanation. Please stop implying it is. JE can cold read, warm read, and hot read. He could in theory plant stooges (no, I'm not accusing him of this; I am accusing him of the other three, though).

You've said yourself that the two hours before the show is sufficient time to allow research to happen. That makes it hot reading, then, if he takes advantage of the opportunity.

You have yet to show why we should believe JE does NOT take advantage of the opportunity.

JE is not a one trick pony, and I ain't either.

Next, I have agreed on other forums that finding an admitted cold reader to duplicate what JE does in an extended format has proven impossible, at least for me.

Skeptics have also:

1. Explained the reasoning (i.e., the moral repugnance at abusing someone's emotions in such a manner). Don't dismiss this out of hand as I think you are wont to do. There are many things that many people can do, including me, that we choose not to for moral/ethical reasons. As a security professional in real life, I can defeat some decent security systems, yet I don't. I can discover the average computer user's password with a bit of research and patience, but I don't. I can also beat hell out of most people I know, though they would never believe it (I'm not a big guy), but I don't.

2. Pointed to the admittedly abbreviated Ian Rowland demonstration, which, imo, you have not refuted as a replication of JE, except in length.

3. Demonstrated, after initial claims to the contrary, that what is remembered as a JE hit is most often a sitter providing information.

4. Shown that CO is edited.


You (or perhaps Gryphon) asked me once to put myself in JE's shoes as if he were legitimate, and then to ask myself if what he says about how spirits communicate is true wouldn't I legitimately
give the same sorts of readings JE gives?

I answered with a qualified yes.

But I asked a question in return which you (and/or Gryphon) never answered, so I'll ask again.

Put yourself in the shoes of a fraud who uses the methods we skeptics claim and the methods in Ian Rowland's book and the methods described in Derren Brown's books and Banachek's writings. Then ask yourself this: Wouldn't you also give the same sorts of readings JE gives?

If you answer yes, and I think--if you are honest--that you must, then why do you choose the 'talking-with-the-dead' answer?


----

Regarding OLT:

I'll take you at your word that JE mentions clairaudience; it's been a long time since I read it.

My point about the other processes coming later is that, unless my memory is more faulty than I want to admit, JE doesn't talk about seeing images in that book.

More tellingly, iirc, he makes it apparent that he does not engage in telepathy and does not commune with the living.

But when he gets hits that cannot be explained by "talking to the dead" other explanations creep in:

-He sees pictures
-He gets impressions or feelings
-He talks to living dogs

---

Before you dismiss what can be done by someone without psychic powers, do what DeBunk and others have suggested a few times. Try it yourself.

You probably don't need anymore preparation than what you can find on the internet, but if you need confidence, then buy a few books.

Then learn some demographic data; you don't need lots.

Then learn how to act.

Then grow one humongous set of balls.

Then set your conscience aside.

Then give readings.

See what happens.

Throw up.

Decide not to do it again.

 

[neofight]

I'll hit the most important part first, because it gets glossed over, ignored, or whatever all the time:

I have never said, and I do not believe most doubters of JE have said, that cold reading is the only explanation. Please stop implying it is. JE can cold read, warm read, and hot read. He could in theory plant stooges (no, I'm not accusing him of this; I am accusing him of the other three, though).

Garrette, for the most part, when we use the term "cold-reader" on these boards, I think we take it for granted that the cold-reading can encompass all three, cold/warm/hot reading. At least I do, and I know a lot of us do. I was not trying to imply something that was not accurate. I think most of us figure that a cold-reader can use any and all of the three methods mentioned. Let's consider that a given so we're on the same page.

You've said yourself that the two hours before the show is sufficient time to allow research to happen. That makes it hot reading, then, if he takes advantage of the opportunity.

That would absolutely be hot-reading. Agreed.

You have yet to show why we should believe JE does NOT take advantage of the opportunity.

Because he does readings at seminars as well, Garrette. Some of these venues are general admission. Even Lurker and Mark (dogwood) have gone to seminars and have said that they don't see much difference at all between the readings that they witnessed live and unedited, and the ones that they see on "CO". So you don't have to take a believer's word for it, Garrette. In my case, I do not believe that he needs to cheat, and I don't see any evidence that he does.

Next, I have agreed on other forums that finding an admitted cold reader to duplicate what JE does in an extended format has proven impossible, at least for me.

Yes, it is impossible. We've been looking a long time. I remember one of the mentalists, perhaps it was Michael Shermer, but I'm not certain, saying once that he could probably get up to JE's speed with very little practice. I think he said within a month or so.

Skeptics have also:

1. Explained the reasoning (i.e., the moral repugnance at abusing someone's emotions in such a manner). Don't dismiss this out of hand as I think you are wont to do. There are many things that many people can do, including me, that we choose not to for moral/ethical reasons.

But I'm not sure that can still be said, Garrette, since Ian Rowland did do thirty minutes of readings, and Mark Edward did some as well.

2. Pointed to the admittedly abbreviated Ian Rowland demonstration, which, imo, you have not refuted as a replication of JE, except in length.

Well, can you blame me for not being overly impressed with a few seconds of tape? There's absolutely no way to make a valid comparison between Ian Rowland's snippet and a full JE reading, so I actually do refute it as a replication of JE. I didn't feel that his best hit was as good as a JE hit, either. I've discussed it elsewhere.

3. Demonstrated, after initial claims to the contrary, that what is remembered as a JE hit is most often a sitter providing information.

I disagree with that as well, Garrette. I think most of us are pretty realistic and consistent in how we evaluate JE's hits.

4. Shown that CO is edited.

If you watched the show carefully, Garrette, I think you'd agree that there is minimal editing. I feel that this is another allegation that is very much over-used, which is why people who are truly interested in the subject should try to attend at least one seminar, so that they could see for themselves what an unedited reading looks like.

You (or perhaps Gryphon) asked me once to put myself in JE's shoes as if he were legitimate, and then to ask myself if what he says about how spirits communicate is true wouldn't I legitimately
give the same sorts of readings JE gives?

I answered with a qualified yes.

But I asked a question in return which you (and/or Gryphon) never answered, so I'll ask again.

Put yourself in the shoes of a fraud who uses the methods we skeptics claim and the methods in Ian Rowland's book and the methods described in Derren Brown's books and Banachek's writings. Then ask yourself this: Wouldn't you also give the same sorts of readings JE gives?

If you answer yes, and I think--if you are honest--that you must, then why do you choose the 'talking-with-the-dead' answer?

Garrette, I'm sorry if I missed this question on some thread, but I have actually answered the same question many times on various threads. My answer is that I will agree that to someone who is not very familiar with mediumship, non-mediums, on the surface, might appear to be giving the same sort of reading that JE gives.

In other words, I think they might have very limited success in imitating JE. What I will not say, is that they can fool someone who is very familiar with mediumship, who watches and listens closely, and they most certainly could not successfully pull off a reading session that lasted more than a couple of minutes.

You may scoff at what I just said, but I stand by it.

Regarding OLT:

I'll take you at your word that JE mentions clairaudience; it's been a long time since I read it.

My point about the other processes coming later is that, unless my memory is more faulty than I want to admit, JE doesn't talk about seeing images in that book.

Garrette, no offense, but your memory is atrocious in this case. If you have the book, give it a quick read, and you will see exactly how far off base your memory really is.

More tellingly, iirc, he makes it apparent that he does not engage in telepathy and does not commune with the living.

I do not know what you mean here. Mediumship is done telepathically, just not with living persons.

But when he gets hits that cannot be explained by "talking to the dead" other explanations creep in:

-He sees pictures
-He gets impressions or feelings
-He talks to living dogs

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. He telepathically *hears* thoughts in his head, and receives images, impressions/feelings etc. The source of these impressions/images, is the other side. There are no other explanations that he makes.

Before you dismiss what can be done by someone without psychic powers, do what DeBunk and others have suggested a few times. Try it yourself.

LOL Garrette. I already know, for a myriad of reasons, I would not be good at cold-reading. Just for the record, I have no psychic abilities either. lol ........neo

 

[Garrette]

neo,

since it has been a long time since I read OLT and since, no, I don't have my copy available, I will defer to you on what's in it and retract my statements regarding what JE says.

---

I will now understand what you mean when you say cold reading. Thanks for clarifying and apologies for misunderstanding.

I will, however, continue to point out the difference for anyone reading who is not familiar with the other terms or your use of this term. Since so much hinges on how things are defined (or how they are not defined by JE) I think this is important.

---

Telepathy with dead people? Am I misunderstanding the term telepathy? You seem to be using it as an umbrella for all the different clairs? Am I mistaken?

---

You're playing both sides of the fence with Ian Rowland.

You're saying you're not satisfied with the short snippet shown on television, but that the 30 minutes doesn't equate to what JE does. How do you know?

And I saw the discussions about the snippet. It most certainly equates to what JE does. You just deny it.

The old calendar hit is as impressive as the stuff from JE.

---

I'm not aware of Shermer's claim, but I don't doubt it. Did he said he WOULD practice a month and duplicate JE or that he COULD do it? I imagine he said would and not could, for the reasons I stated.

---

Yes, I understand you believe JE doesn't have to cheat.

You KNOW he has the opportunity to do so (including cold reading, in its strict definition as one form of cheating).

You BELIEVE he does not.

 

[Garrette]

Oh, and Neo,

It is impossible to find an admitted cold reader to duplicate for an extended time what JE does because--as demonstrated by their admission of cold reading--they have a conscience.

That may strike you as a low blow regarding JE, but it is my belief regarding him. Which belief, btw, has at least as much evidence as your belief that he is legitimate.

 

[RonSceptic]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALLER: Good. I'm just seeing if you can connect with anything?

EDWARD: The first thing -- actually, a couple of things. Somebody's got a nickname after a spice, like pepper?

CALLER: I'm sorry?

EDWARD: Somebody has a nickname after a spice, like pepper? Who's got a spice name?

CALLER: Spice name? Don't know.

EDWARD: Salty or pepper, cinnamon.

CALLER: Oh, my dog.

EDWARD: OK. What's the name?

CALLER: Her name is Ginger.

EDWARD: Has that dog passed?

CALLER: No.

EDWARD: OK. Then you got that dog after somebody passed. Because they're making me feel like I need to bring up the dog, because they're bringing up the spice name. I'm also going to tell you that -- I think what I'm supposed to tell you is that there is either there's a boyfriend who passed for you, or a husband that's passed for you. But I don't feel it now.

CALLER: No?

EDWARD: Remember what I'm saying, OK? There's a male figure that has passed, but it's not a now thing. I'm not predicting it, it happened already, it would be somebody that would be connected to your side, but there's a love bond that's there.

To me, it's not a brother, it's like -- it doesn't feel like a brother to me. It feels like it's somebody's boyfriend or feels like somebody's husband. But it's like somebody that you were involved with, or somebody who was involved on that level who has passed that I'm getting this connection to. That's what's coming through. Probably not who you want to hear from, I'm sorry.

But the reference does come through, first and foremost, to the spice connection. Sorry.

CALLER: OK. All right.

KING: Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is classic, but very poor cold reading.

JE starts by asking the caller if 'somebody' (clearly a reference to a person, not an animal) has a nickname related to a spice. Just think how wide a guess that is. How many spices are there? Anyone will do. Any person, or apparemtly any pet would do.

What do we get? The sitter tells JE that it's a dog called ginger.

The pepper guess is a miss.
Salty is a miss.
Cinnamon is a miss.
Its not a person at all.
It's a name, not a 'nickname' as stated by JE.


JE askes if the dog is dead. That's a miss.

Boyfried is a miss.
Husband is a miss.

Let's make a vaugue reference to 'not a now thing' so as to capture any previous event ever. Still no hit.

Ok, lets continue to fish....
Somebody connected to your side. Miss.
Love bond thing. Miss.

JE then broadens out to 'male figure'. That's about as wide as you can get.

Male figure is a miss.

So now he really broadens it even further...

'Somebody's' Husband. Miss.
'Somebody's ' Boyfriend. Miss.

Well that covers just about every male on the planet with the exception of a few computer geeks and the catholic clergy. For 'somebody' read 'anybody'

Still no hits. So lets have another punt...
Someone you were involved with. That could cover just about any male friend or relative. Miss

Keep going, but get a little more vaugue...
Someone who was involved 'on that level'. What does that mean? Any male you have ever known? Or any male know to anyone you have ever known? Miss.

Well this reading is quite a disaster. So let's pass on the blame by saying that it's 'probably not who you want to hear from.' In other words you don't want contact with this person, that's why I'm not having much luck here.


Why would anyone not think this was cold reading?