neofight said:
I disagree, RC. In the case of the Met's item, John was "getting" that it was hanging on the wall through clairvoyance. He was "seeing" it up on the wall. In the example that you mentioned, John was very likely getting the physical feeling one gets when you feel someone sit down next to you, and the cushion/matress depresses. That is clairsentience.
I doubt John knew where this happened exactly, he only knew that the woman had experienced that feeling. I don't know if you will agree with me, but to my mind, those are two different things entirely.......neo
Hi Neo, I don't agree at all.
I don't know why you've stated that it's "very likely" that JE got the above through clairsentience?? How could you possibly know?
I must say that I don't get it. You admantly refuse to acknowledge that IR got a good hit with the old calendar, even though it was meaningful and relevant to the sitter, because he missed on the location. But you give JE credit for hits when he gets the location and/or other key information wrong because of the "process".
As an example, you think it is irrelevant that the "secret" in the infamous Malibu Shrimp recipe has absolutely nothing to do with what JE said it was in the reading. The important thing is that there was indeed a secret, in your opinion. But in the IR reading, you have a completely different standard. Suddenly the details are important. I could use your approach and say it is irrelevant whether or not IR got the location right, the point is that the sitter knew exactly what he was talking about and it was very meaningful.
And regarding the pennant/sticker issue, I'm willing to wager money that it was a sticker. The difference between pennant and sticker might be relevant, and it might not.
Instig8R said:In another gallery reading on CO, JE did his remote viewing stunt, and claimed that he was being shown a map on the wall in the sitter's basement.
In the post-reading segment, the sitter's basement was shown and on the wall was a very poor drawing/painting of a tree, with brown bark and bright green leaves. Superimposed over it was a flowchart, showing the family tree. It was a very poor drawing of the Family Tree, not a map...
...but JE was credited with another unentitled hit...
Of course, even if a picture of Garfield the Cat was on the basement wall, there are some people who would still give JE credit for the hit.
I remember that one, 'g8r. See, even when I was a JE believer, I did take note of "weird" readings. This is one of them. It is true that JE said there was a map, the sitter nodded, but when it came to the post-reading analysis, we learned that it was a family tree.
It is examples like this where I don't understand why IR's hit with the old calendar is brushed off. JE gets details wrong and it's just the process.
I completely understand the argument that we haven't seen enough of IR's work, but to me the fact remains that he was able to get a hit that on the surface seemed rather unusual and was meaningful and relevant to the sitter.
Instig8R said:
Yes, this was a very good hit. I remember this one also. But I think you are remembering it a bit incorrectly. I believe the figure was $19,000. It turned out that the sitter didn't buy the townhouse for that amount (is there anywhere that one can buy property for this amount??), but it was the amount that the sitter had been able to negotiate down from the asking price.
That would be a little harder to research.
Instig8R
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2002
- Messages
- 195
Originally posted by RC
Hi Neo, I don't agree at all.
-snip-
I must say that I don't get it. You admantly refuse to acknowledge that IR got a good hit with the old calendar, even though it was meaningful and relevant to the sitter, because he missed on the location. But you give JE credit for hits when he gets the location and/or other key information wrong because of the "process".
-snip-
These are good points, RC. I become very frustrated when the challenge is frequently issued that an admitted coldreader should be able to perform as well as JE. Then, when one does, a different standard is applied to measure JE's work, giving him an unfair edge.
What goes down in interpretation of JE's readings is the following: JE will give vague clues, naming items. Then, it is up to the sitter to provide a match. Rarely, if ever, is there a direct match. Anyway, sometimes the match is a similar item, sometimes a dissimilar item. However, for JE, it is considered a match, supposedly because JE is only getting symbols.
When neo thought that JE had named Snuggles the Bear in the other reading, she thought it was a great direct hit. When faced with the reality that he had seriously missed on Snuggles, because it was Scrunchy, she said it was even a better hit, because the bear was merely symbolic, and the important point was that Catherine slept with the bear.
However, no such symbolic leeway is allowed for IR's reading and the calendar.
There is a double standard, and I find it unfair.
Instig8R
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2002
- Messages
- 195
RC said:
You may be right about the price, RC. I remember thinking what kind of a dump the place must have been for that amount of money, and I wondered if perhaps it was only the down-payment!
Nevertheless, I was still very impressed at the time. In fact, if you are right about the amount being that which was negotiated down from the asking price, that makes it an even better hit.
The next question becomes one of editing, because I would have to wonder what the sitter said previously (that was edited out) that cued JE into the specific amount.
RC said:
Hi Neo, I don't agree at all.
LOL Really, RC? Darn! I was hoping you would.
RC, you are right, I cannot possible "know" that John got this message about the woman having the sense of someone sitting down next to her, when nobody was there. I don't remember John explaining how he got this hit, but tell me, if mediumship is real, how do you think would be a possible way for JE to get this sort of a hit? Would you be surprised if he got it through clairsentience?
I gave it some thought, and the only two ways that I can come up with, would be the one I stated, JE getting that same physical sensation that the woman got, or possibly a memory of a similar personal experience that John himself had, or that someone else had, either in a movie, book or a tv show.
Right? Can you think of any other manner in which he might have been given this information? If so, how? In any case, if he got it in either of these two ways, he would not necessarily get the sense of where it happened, would he? Couldn't it have been on an easy chair? On a sofa? On a bed? This is telepathy remember. How do you think a spirit might convey this to him?
RC, I don't know how better to explain myself to you. In the hit that you brought up, John was describing the sensation that the woman felt. That was the message. Not the location. John didn't indicate, as he did in the other case, how you enter the house by the front door, and you go to the right into the livingroom, there's a couch to the left, and you were sitting on the couch and you felt the couch depress as though from the weight of someone sitting down next to you.
If that were the case, then I would say that the location was a vital part of that hit, and if the woman then said, no, it happened upstairs in my bedroom while I was sitting on my bed, after John did that whole dramatic intro, then I would have a problem with that.
Ian distinctly said that if you were to go in through the front door, you would see a wall hanging, or a calendar etc. He was wrong. There was no such thing visible after entering from the front door. In fact, it was not visible at all, because it was not on display, but folded up in some chest somewhere. You don't see a difference?
You're right that I feel it's a different standard, RC. When John "takes" you into a house and/or a room like that, he tends to be accurate about the location. It's pretty clear cut.
When John tries to interpret what turns out to be a rather complicated story about why a recipe was secret, it does seem to me to be in a completely different category, with a lot more chance for possible inaccuracy.
Yes you could. As a matter of fact, I believe you already have.
I just don't agree that it's the same thing. I can't argue with that, RC. lol .......neo
Except that he didn't say 1986 did he. You can call it a hit, but remember there are different quality hits. Someone in Long Island having a Mets pendant in the basement, or games room, usually a room common to watch sports in and thus common to have sports memorabilia in is a pretty risk free guess. And in this case, it paid off. As for sticker or pennant. Uh pennat are a pretty unique shape, so was it a pennat shaped sticker? If not then yes this is a detail worth quibbling over. If the sticker didn't look like a pennant, then what the hell was he seeing?neofight said:I don't remember what it was, Clancie, but the image was of a Met's-related item, on the wall, in the basement. That was the reference. That's what Mike validated. Those who want to quibble about whether the item was a sticker, poster, bumper sticker or pennant, are free to do so of course, but I think they are only showing that they can't acknowledge when JE gets a hit. 1986 Mets Championship item........on the wall........in the basement = hit. Period.
So yes, you could call it a hit, but not a very good one. Not one beyond an educated guess. And certainly not impressive to me in the least. Next.
neofight,
You are really beginning to scare me.
I have looked over your posts for the past weeks and realized that your arguments have taken a turn for the worse, a sick twist.
You have become so used to explaining (away!) things for JE that you are now believing that you can emulate his thoughts. Not only are you coming up with excuses, you are now claiming to know how he would explain things that he has never spoken of before.
That you deny reality is one thing. It's bad enough that you can not see the many flaws in your own arguments. We have also gotten used to your constantly inconsistent way of looking at data. That is what could be expected from a believer.
But when you start arguing from what you think JE would have said, and then denies that there could be any other explanation, then it is time for you to stop and wonder if this hasn't gone too far.
If you can find an explanation, it's "JE says that...". If you cannot, then it's "JE feels that...".
Sure, when it is pointed out to you that you cannot possibly know how JE gets his info, you admit it - reluctantly - and then have the gall to ask "What else can it be?" You immediately shift focus from you to your opponent. You want your opponent to explain why it cannot be your fantasies about how JE would think that are wrong.
You don't see a problem with this at all? You don't see that the problem is not your explanation but how you get it?
I don't expect you to. A mad person rarely sees her own madness.
You seem to have accepted some kind of cloned relationship with the image of JE (let's not forget for a second that you have never actually met the guy), where you see yourself merged with him into some freak creature. You not only speak for JE, you now think for JE.
I think your obsession with JE is going overboard. And I think we can safely call it that, judging from the time you spend on him, defending him, keeping yourself up-to-date with his every move, taping his shows (you don't even know how many tapes you have, for chrissakes!), going to his seminars, buying his books, studying them like a maniac.
And why? You are merely "interested" in this? I think that you are the only JE-believer I have ever spoken with, who does not point to a personal loss as the reason for getting interested in this. You seem to have latched on to JE for no other reason than to have something to latch on to.
This is getting to be really freaky.
You are really beginning to scare me.
I have looked over your posts for the past weeks and realized that your arguments have taken a turn for the worse, a sick twist.
You have become so used to explaining (away!) things for JE that you are now believing that you can emulate his thoughts. Not only are you coming up with excuses, you are now claiming to know how he would explain things that he has never spoken of before.
That you deny reality is one thing. It's bad enough that you can not see the many flaws in your own arguments. We have also gotten used to your constantly inconsistent way of looking at data. That is what could be expected from a believer.
But when you start arguing from what you think JE would have said, and then denies that there could be any other explanation, then it is time for you to stop and wonder if this hasn't gone too far.
If you can find an explanation, it's "JE says that...". If you cannot, then it's "JE feels that...".
Sure, when it is pointed out to you that you cannot possibly know how JE gets his info, you admit it - reluctantly - and then have the gall to ask "What else can it be?" You immediately shift focus from you to your opponent. You want your opponent to explain why it cannot be your fantasies about how JE would think that are wrong.
You don't see a problem with this at all? You don't see that the problem is not your explanation but how you get it?
I don't expect you to. A mad person rarely sees her own madness.
You seem to have accepted some kind of cloned relationship with the image of JE (let's not forget for a second that you have never actually met the guy), where you see yourself merged with him into some freak creature. You not only speak for JE, you now think for JE.
I think your obsession with JE is going overboard. And I think we can safely call it that, judging from the time you spend on him, defending him, keeping yourself up-to-date with his every move, taping his shows (you don't even know how many tapes you have, for chrissakes!), going to his seminars, buying his books, studying them like a maniac.
And why? You are merely "interested" in this? I think that you are the only JE-believer I have ever spoken with, who does not point to a personal loss as the reason for getting interested in this. You seem to have latched on to JE for no other reason than to have something to latch on to.
This is getting to be really freaky.
RonSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 514
Clancie said:
Yes it does.
Never heard of a cat called Ginger? Or indeed a person with a nickname Ginger? Very common for a redheaded person I would have thought. How about Basil? Or Rosemary? How about the surname name 'Pepper'? Or Salt?. All of the above are 'hits' for me and would have been taken as such by JE. They all fit JE's criteria just as well, and in most cases better, than a dog called ginger.
Here is how wide the net was cast by JE....
Any person or any animal.
Living or dead.
Name or nickname.
Any spice.
The fact is that the 'hit' involved an animal when JE was clearly talking about a person, that the animal was alive rather than dead, and that it was a name rather than a nickname. The fact that literally any spice would do, makes it pretty clear that it's nothing more than cold reading.
Nothing in the transcript prior to the sitter volunteering the information indicated that JE had any idea that the target was a living dog. Quite the opposite infact.
The clincher is when he then claims that "they're making me feel like I need to bring up the dog". That is a pretty blatent attempt to claim credit for what the sitter has introduced into the reading. That too is a pretty standard cold reading technique.
BTW, I just noticed another miss which I overlooked in my analysis. He suggested that the dog was bought 'after someone had passed'. Again a very, very wide sweep, but another miss nevertheless.
I guess even the world's best cold reader must have an off night now and again.
voidx said:
Actually, voidx, I'm pretty much certain that he did.
When I find the tape, I think you might see that JE was a little bit more specific as to where in the basement this Met's item was hanging. I know he didn't simply say "somewhere in the basement".
Newsflash for voidx! John is not seeing the actual basement/wall/pendant/sticker. He is getting a mental image of something Met's related, on a wall, in a basement.
He is not actually *there* seeing the actual item. It's all imagery, voidx.....neoCFLarsen said:
Claus, if you are referring to the way a grandparent can come through as a parent figure, providing that they played a significant role in the upbringing of the child, JE has spoken about that, several times.
If you are referring to the hit about the woman sensing someone sitting down next to her, when she was alone, then I am simply speculating how it was that JE got that hit, since he did not explain it at the time.
LOL Claus. Do you understand the concept of "speculation"? And I do not deny other explanations. If you notice, I asked RC to offer his own speculative version of how JE got that hit. I am open to hearing all possible explanations. I even listen to your own, but I usually disagree with them, since they all say exactly the same thing.
I was not reluctant at all about admitting that I had no possible way to *know* how JE got that particular hit, Claus. He never stated how he got it, which is why I was speculating in the first place.
I wasn't going to even respond to this post of yours, Claus, because it was so over-the-top, but it was just so dog-gone funny, I just had to. rofl Yes, by all means, we crazies are very much in denial about our insanity. ha ha ha Come on, Claus. Don't you think this is a bit much, even for you?
Oh, and btw, I actually did meet the guy. I met him at the booksigning on Sept. 5. He told me that he really liked my "Bite Me" shirt. lol In any case, Claus. Thanks for your concern for my mental welfare. I find it quite touching!
........neoneofight,
So, when you say "JE feels..." and "JE gets this by clair(X)...", you are merely speculating? You are refusing all other perfectly rational explanations, but want people to accept your speculations?
Don't you realize how ludicrous a position that is?
I don't believe for one moment that you are, in fact, speculating. I didn't see a "I think that JE feels...". No, I truly think that you believe yourself capable of reading JE's mind. You know him so well by now, don't you?
I am sure you had a very good reason to wear that shirt. You got noticed, and now you think you have established a bond.
Thanks for proving my points.
"Against stupidity fight even the Gods in vain"
Old Danish proverb
So, when you say "JE feels..." and "JE gets this by clair(X)...", you are merely speculating? You are refusing all other perfectly rational explanations, but want people to accept your speculations?
Don't you realize how ludicrous a position that is?
I don't believe for one moment that you are, in fact, speculating. I didn't see a "I think that JE feels...". No, I truly think that you believe yourself capable of reading JE's mind. You know him so well by now, don't you?
I am sure you had a very good reason to wear that shirt. You got noticed, and now you think you have established a bond.
Thanks for proving my points.
"Against stupidity fight even the Gods in vain"
Old Danish proverb
I have pretty much zero faith in peoples "pretty much certain's" at this point. Is there a transcript for this reading?neofight said:Actually, voidx, I'm pretty much certain that he did.
Again I'll await a transcript.
Newsflash Neo, he must have gotten imagery of a pennant if he specifically called it a pennant. Wouldn't a poster be a more common sports item to get? But no, everyone says he called quite specifically for a pennant, he must have saw some image of a pennant I would assume. So again, if this sticker, isn't shaped like a pennant, I repeat, what the hell was he seeing? And if he didn't call for a pennant specifically, well, I'd hate to bring up the whole arguement again that he is just being overtly vague.Newsflash for voidx! John is not seeing the actual basement/wall/pendant/sticker. He is getting a mental image of something Met's related, on a wall, in a basement.
I hesitate to say this (this is the "cow" all over again), but I think JE described the stairs leading down to the basement and that the 1986 Mets pennant he mentioned (yes Mets, yes 1986) was, as he described it, on the wall above the stairs on the way down to the room. (And it looked just like a pennant to me, as I remember it, although perhaps it was made of paper).
So, RC, I'll take that wager (although don't I already owe you a drink for the Suzane reading? Or vice versa, I forget. )
Yes, voidx, memory can be fallible and no, we don't have a transcript.
They do rerun it from time to time, though, at least partially and the cameraman went to the house later and photographed the stairs, pennant/sticker, etc. So there are some parts we may be able to confirm one of these days.
The other part of this reading that really touched Michael Kelly was that JE said he had been down into the basement, alone, and held and sniffed his son's sweatshirt or jacket. Kelly, embarrassed, admitted doing that in the post-analysis. He seemed very touched by the reading (and that a kind of detail which, although it could have been "lucky guess", certainly wouldn't have showed up in a newspaper at least ).
So, RC, I'll take that wager (although don't I already owe you a drink for the Suzane reading? Or vice versa, I forget.
)Yes, voidx, memory can be fallible and no, we don't have a transcript.
They do rerun it from time to time, though, at least partially and the cameraman went to the house later and photographed the stairs, pennant/sticker, etc. So there are some parts we may be able to confirm one of these days.The other part of this reading that really touched Michael Kelly was that JE said he had been down into the basement, alone, and held and sniffed his son's sweatshirt or jacket. Kelly, embarrassed, admitted doing that in the post-analysis. He seemed very touched by the reading (and that a kind of detail which, although it could have been "lucky guess", certainly wouldn't have showed up in a newspaper at least
).People store old things down in basements, its probable a grieving father would end up down there alone going through his son's things. The smell of a garment brings back memories of his son, or he's crying holding said item and then smells it. Just doesn't seem all that unlikely given the situation. Of course I'd also like to see how exactly JE came out with this, whether he came right out and said, "I see you downstairs alone, smelling one of your son's sweaters or jacket, that's what I'm being shown", or not.Clancie said:snip...
The other part of this reading that really touched Michael Kelly was that JE said he had been down into the basement, alone, and held and sniffed his son's sweatshirt or jacket. Kelly, embarrassed, admitted doing that in the post-analysis. He seemed very touched by the reading (and that a kind of detail which, although it could have been "lucky guess", certainly wouldn't have showed up in a newspaper at least
Clancie said:
BEEP! Let's take that again, slowly.
A family comes on the show. They get a great reading, with many special hits, e.g. the stairs, the pennant (even Clancie calls it "sticker" again) etc. So, the camera crew comes by....how long after the taping?
This stinks to high heaven. How do we know that:
1) It wasn't a setup?
2) The family didn't put up the pennant/sticker?
Fact is, we don't. And, as we know, JE has the right to edit as he sees fit. It's for entertainment purposes only.
Pah. This proves nothing.
Someone's just gonna have to dig up the transcript again. I remember it as Edward saying it was a Yankees pennant and the man responding that it was a Mets. His father would never have a Yankees pennany up. Or something like that.
Which one of you clever people supplied the transcript last time?
Which one of you clever people supplied the transcript last time?
