Interesting JE Hits....

[Clancie]

RC,

You're right and I've edited to add in overdose.

re: younger people. Well, the leading cause of death in under 18's by far is accidents. So, actually, I'm always surprised that he mentions illness as much as he does for that age group.

Darat,

re: Stokes and JE. "Clairvoyant, clairaudient, clairsentient".

My understanding is that every medium uses some combination of these as his/her "process".

It sounds like Stokes' (if she's legit, which as neo points out, Randi didn't feel she was), is claiming a process that is highly clairvoyant.

JE claims to be more strongly clairaudient, with clairvoyance showing up in the symbols he sees.

This doesn't seem problematic in itself to me, btw. We non-mediums don't all think alike and cognitive strengths and weaknesses can vary greatly from one person to the next.

It doesn't seem so incredible to me, or invalidate the idea of mediumship, if there are mediums with greater strength in clairvoyance than JE has.

 

[CFLarsen]

When he sees or feels strong awareness of the circulatory system throughout the entire body, that is his personal symbol for someone having "AIDS, hepatitis, or leukemia". *

No, JE sees AIDS as a blood disorder, according to neofight:

TVTalkshows
(neofight) 152.163.189.131 10-29-2002 01:55 PM
We know he (JE) gets lung cancer as blackness to the chest ares, AIDS as toxins in the blood or blood disorder, malaria, who knows, hit by car while crossing street, as a severe impact, not localized as a gunshot would be.

"AIDS as toxins in the blood or blood disorder." Perhaps we could get a comment from neofight. And you.

JE gets a pressure in his chest for heart attack, sees blackness in the lungs for emphysema or lung cancer.

He get a pressure in his chest for heart attack? That's completely opposite of what neofight claims:

TVTalkshows
(neofight) 152.163.201.191 05-14-2002 02:03 PM
Well of course it does, dogwood, if in one article he's quoting things that JVP might say, and then writes another article about John Edward and uses the same type of quotes, something like "do you have a ring or a piece of jewelry on you, please?" Or, "I'm feeling a pain in the chest. "Did he have cancer, please? Because I'm seeing a slow death here." This is JVP's style of speaking, not John Edward's. For Shermer to write about Edward as though he knows what he is talking about, when it's obvious that he doesn't, to me indicates that he has lumped all mediums together and has a pre-disposed tendency to believe that they are all fakes, not based on his own research of the medium's claims, but based upon his anti-paranormal bias.

TVTalkshows
(neofight) 205.188.199.177 05-14-2002 09:52 AM
From the articles that Michael Shermer writes, it is patently obvious that he has nothing but distain for John Edward. As I pointed out on some other thread, he writes negative and demeaning articles about JVP and then reprints basically the same article, simply replacing JVP's name with that of John Edward, not even bothering to re-work the body of the article much. I think that is really tacky and lazy, and does not demonstrate any attempt at all at fairness or objectivity. It's the same old accusations of "cold-reading" and "parlor trick" every time. It's obvious from reading Shermer's commentary that, like the majority of JE's detractors, he does not watch "Crossing Over" yet he feels justified in making these blanket statements as to the validity of JE's claims to mediumship. That just frosts me.

neofight is talking about Shermer's article "Deconstructing the Dead": She claims that Shermer is describing the methods of JVP, not JE.

Clancie, it would seem that you are in direct conflict with what neofight has said. It would also seem that you do not agree with neofight that Shermer misattributed "chest pressures" to JE.

Would you care to comment?

 

[Clancie]

Claus,

Well, (this is going to really surprise you...but it is perfectly conceivable to me that neo could be right and I could be...wrong! Yes it is!

However, I'm not convinced that we actually are disagreeing at all. She said JE gets the four things we all agree on he sees symbolically as "blood disorder".

He also has talked about how it feels in a reading, to get the feeling of blood disorder, i.e. that its kind of a whole-body toxic circulatory feeling he associates with these "blood disorders" as his symbol.

I'm not convinced there's a contradiction at all. Just that we're each mentioning aspects of the same process/symbol/feeling. "Circulating toxins" being his symbol/feeling for "blood disorders" which he categorizes as those four things.

As for the quote....

"Did he have cancer, please? Because I'm seeing a slow death here." This is JVP's style of speaking, not John Edward's.

I agree with neo here, too. And it also sounds like Suzane Northrop with the "please". It doesn't sound like JE at all, and I think its very sloppy of Shermer to mix them up, especially as he's quite familiar with JVP's work.

Likewise, for heart attack. What do you see as contradictory? "Pain in the chest" vs. "pressure in the chest"? I don't see from your quotes what big contradiction there is, Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

re: younger people. Well, the leading cause of death in under 18's by far is accidents. So, actually, I'm always surprised that he mentions illness as much as he does for that age group.

How often does he do this? Can you point to the statistical analysis that proves this?

My understanding is that every medium uses some combination of these as his/her "process".

Problem is that the combinations contradict each other.

It sounds like Stokes' (if she's legit, which as neo points out, Randi didn't feel she was), is claiming a process that is highly clairvoyant.

Why do you all of a sudden point to Randi as someone who is capable of judging if a medium is legit or not, when you don't think he is capable of doing the same re. JE? That is highly inconsistent of you.

JE claims to be more strongly clairaudient, with clairvoyance showing up in the symbols he sees.

Where does he say this? References, please?

This doesn't seem problematic in itself to me, btw. We non-mediums don't all think alike and cognitive strengths and weaknesses can vary greatly from one person to the next.

It doesn't seem so incredible to me, or invalidate the idea of mediumship, if there are mediums with greater strength in clairvoyance than JE has.

But if they contradict each other? It's not just a question of various degrees of the same method.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

Well, (this is going to really surprise you...but it is perfectly conceivable to me that neo could be right and I could be...wrong! Yes it is!

We shall see about that.

However, I'm not convinced that we actually are disagreeing at all.

See?

She said JE gets the four things we all agree on he sees symbolically as "blood disorder".

He also has talked about how it feels in a reading, to get the feeling of blood disorder, i.e. that its kind of a whole-body toxic circulatory feeling he associates with these "blood disorders" as his symbol.

I'm not convinced there's a contradiction at all. Just that we're each mentioning aspects of the same process/symbol/feeling. "Circulating toxins" being his symbol/feeling for "blood disorders" which he categorizes as those four things.

No, Clance, you are talking around this, in order to avoid conflict with neo. There is a clear contradiction between what you say and what neo says.

As for the quote....

I agree with neo here, too. And it also sounds like Suzane Northrop with the "please". It doesn't sound like JE at all, and I think its very sloppy of Shermer to mix them up, especially as he's quite familiar with JVP's work.

Likewise, for heart attack. What do you see as contradictory? "Pain in the chest" vs. "pressure in the chest"? I don't see from your quotes what big contradiction there is, Claus.

But you are saying that JE indeed uses this phrase. Neo claims that he does not. That's not a contradiction??

 

[Darat]

...snip...


This doesn't seem problematic in itself to me, btw. We non-mediums don't all think alike and cognitive strengths and weaknesses can vary greatly from one person to the next.

It doesn't seem so incredible to me, or invalidate the idea of mediumship, if there are mediums with greater strength in clairvoyance than JE has.

But my issue here is the the claim that Neo made, to paraphrase, "there is a process", we have several mediums quoted as disagreeing with Neo over this point, including JE himself.

Whether one medium is better then another is not the point, this is about Neo's apparent insistence that mediums have a process that involves a "frame of reference".

Several of us have provided evidence, in the words of mediums that this is not the case. It's not a big thing and I am sure that Neo will, once she has considered it, realise that the evidence put forward here means that her theory of an established process that includes “frame of reference” is not supported by the evidence.

(And you are now citing and accepting Randi as an authority on mediums? I wonder what he thinks about JE? )

 

[Instig8R]

Seeing Letters -vs- Hearing Letters

I do stand corrected, Neo, and thanks for posting that. Although I keep thinking of an answer he gave once when someone asked what he means by a spirit getting louder and he said that he just sees the letter getting bigger and bigger. This was different than the "T" reading you and I are both referring to. I could have sworn that in his answer he said that he doesn't hear letters but "sees" them. However, since I don't have exact quotes, and you do to back up your point, I will yield to you.

Hey, RC! I think you have yielded too soon. I, too, have distinct recollections of JE being shown letters. I watched CO today, and he was getting the letter "V", and he was mimicking someone writing a big letter "V" with his finger, as though writing on a blackboard. I have seen him do this with other letters, too, and he does it a lot.

If JE is hearing the letters clairaudiently, why does he need to mimick writing them? It always seemed to me that he was trying to show the audience what he was seeing.

I recall JE saying that he had difficulty with the letter "V", but I have no transcript to support my claim.

I have seen JE mimick writing the big "V" in other readings, and he said that there is a big "V" connection over the family.

I do not know why Neo does not remember JE showing us the letters. I, too, have read JE's books, and I know what he says about his method of communicating with the dead. However, what he writes and what he says are often two different things, and he does not offer explanations because his fans do not demand any.

This is a big inconsistency, not to be glossed over and minimized, IMO.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Seeing Letters -vs- Hearing Letters

This is a big inconsistency, not to be glossed over and minimized, IMO.

You know the criterion for what is important about JE: If it in any way diminishes the possibility that he is a real medium, then it is not important.

It will be downplayed, explained away or downright ignored. Or, if that isn't possible, focus will be shifted away from the issue.

It's really very simple. Completely fascinating to watch, though.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Maybe I missed something but is someone saying an overdose is a blood disorder? It is not. The usual drugs used in an overdose are carried to the brain by the plasma or liquid part of the blood, not whole blood, and kill by suppressing respiration, in effect asphyxiating the victim. It would be an unacceptable stretch to consider this a blood disorder. Death is due to respiratory failure by chemical suppression of the respiratory centers. It is neurological. Unlike HIV or leukemnia, the usual drugs used in fatal overdoses have no direct effect on the components of the blood.

 

[neofight]

Re: Seeing Letters -vs- Hearing Letters

I do not know why Neo does not remember JE showing us the letters.

Hello, Instig8R. Tsk tsk! That is not what I said! If you go back and check my posts, I think you will find that I never said what you just claimed I did. I distinctly remember telling RC that I most definitely do recall JE on a couple of occasions stating that he was seeing some letter or other.

I also stated that this was not the more common manner in which he got the letters. Most often he gets them through clairaudience is what I said. Come on now. Let's keep this accurate! .....neo

 

[Darat]

Neo - have you looked into the evidence that seems to disprove your theory about mediums sharing a process that includes "frame of reference"?

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe I missed something but is someone saying an overdose is a blood disorder? It is not. The usual drugs used in an overdose are carried to the brain by the plasma or liquid part of the blood, not whole blood, and kill by suppressing respiration, in effect asphyxiating the victim. It would be an unacceptable stretch to consider this a blood disorder. Death is due to respiratory failure by chemical suppression of the respiratory centers. It is neurological. Unlike HIV or leukemnia, the usual drugs used in fatal overdoses have no direct effect on the components of the blood.

It doesn't matter! If the sitter claims a hit, then it's a hit!

 

[neofight]

Maybe I missed something but is someone saying an overdose is a blood disorder? It is not. The usual drugs used in an overdose are carried to the brain by the plasma or liquid part of the blood, not whole blood, and kill by suppressing respiration, in effect asphyxiating the victim. It would be an unacceptable stretch to consider this a blood disorder. Death is due to respiratory failure by chemical suppression of the respiratory centers. It is neurological. Unlike HIV or leukemnia, the usual drugs used in fatal overdoses have no direct effect on the components of the blood.

Okay. This is not your fault, Steve, but I am going to say this one more time, and only one more time, because this issue that is being discussed on this thread is the biggest NON-issue that we could ever waste our time on.

No, Steve. Nobody is claiming that a drug overdose is technically or medically considered a blood disorder. We are merely saying, Clancie and I, that when JE does a reading, he has learned through experience, that when he sees a certain symbol, it consistently means a certain thing to him, and when he is shown an image of the circulatory system, he has learned, again, through experience, that it indicates that someone either died of AIDS, of leukemia, or of a drug overdose.

It doesn't have to make sense, or be correct. That is not the issue. It is simply the way he knows what health problem to reference. I doubt he picked this symbol by himself. More likely, it was kind of "assigned" to him, and he has gotten to trust what it means.

I'm sure he does not know why he sees this particular symbol, or why it is the same symbol for three obviously different conditions, but nonetheless, that is the symbol he gets for these blood-related (for want of a better word) *disorders*. Irregularities. Problems. Conditions. Call them what you will. If someone has died from any of these *problems*, he will get the same symbol, the circulatory system, to get him to say one of these things, and he is consistently correct with this info......neo

 

[neofight]

Neo - have you looked into the evidence that seems to disprove your theory about mediums sharing a process that includes "frame of reference"?

Darat, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Either that, or we are completely misunderstanding one another. I'll try this again......

Like the word or not, mediumship is a process. For mediums like JE, they get their information from people who have crossed over. They get it psychically. Through telepathy. From spirit.

JE might not get a piece of information in quite the same way as another medium might. Know why? Because the mediumship process, which you feel does not exist, is such that each medium gets his messages in a way that he or she will best understand them. In other words, he gets information within his own frame of reference. That is why they all get it in a unique way. So that it makes sense to THEM.

There is no contradiction here, anywhere. I don't even understand what everyone is agonizing over. It's such a red herring. From what I can guess, you are troubled that some mediums seem to be more clairvoyant than others. They can actually *see* (again, psychically) spirits standing next to the people that they read. Some do, and some don't. Why does that bother you? I'm at a loss here to understand all this big to do over nothing.

Do you feel like trying to explain it to me once more?.....neo

 

[CFLarsen]

neo,

I'm afraid your explanation raises more questions than it provides answers.

E.g., how can JE claim to be a "vehicle", if he and his personal frame of reference are pivotal to the communication between the spirit and the sitter?

We also have to ask how much of JE is in those readings. Don't we run a very high risk of this simply is JE fantasizing (let's be kind and not call him a crook) and the sitter interpreting what he says?

Ìt also means that the spirits can somehow go "into" JE's mind, "read" his personal references, and then convert their own experiences to however he sees it.

Far from explaining it, you are actually providing more ammunition for the skeptic camp. I'm not stopping you, I'm merely saying that you make a very lousy case here.

 

[Darat]

Darat, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Either that, or we are completely misunderstanding one another. I'll try this again......

Like the word or not, mediumship is a process. For mediums like JE, they get their information from people who have crossed over. They get it psychically. Through telepathy. From spirit.

JE might not get a piece of information in quite the same way as another medium might. Know why? Because the mediumship process, which you feel does not exist, is such that each medium gets his messages in a way that he or she will best understand them. In other words, he gets information within his own frame of reference. That is why they all get it in a unique way. So that it makes sense to THEM.

There is no contradiction here, anywhere. I don't even understand what everyone is agonizing over. It's such a red herring. From what I can guess, you are troubled that some mediums seem to be more clairvoyant than others. They can actually *see* (again, psychically) spirits standing next to the people that they read. Some do, and some don't. Why does that bother you? I'm at a loss here to understand all this big to do over nothing.

Do you feel like trying to explain it to me once more?.....neo

Explain what?

That you claim there is a recognisable "process" involved in mediumship? A claim that mediums themselves including John Edward say isn't true!

And that it can with only a few minutes research on the internet be shown that at least a few other well known and claimed by thousands to be real mediums have a totally different "process" then JE to communicate with the dead?

And that you claim is why JE can't get letters etc. "as a rule"?


These are just a few quotes from you many posting in this thread that touches on this "process" idea.

By Neofight (These are extracted from longer posts in this thread that can be found a couple of pages behind this page.)


...snip...

On the other hand, for those of us who believe that it just might be real, this is such a cool validation and it shows exactly how the process of mediumship works. John got the sense of someone dying from a sharp blow to the head, in conjunction with seeing an image of a tame rabbit.

...snip...

As far as I can tell from reading about George Anderson, and from watching James Van Praagh do readings on his show, "Beyond", the process is pretty similar from one medium to another, although I believe that they each have their strong suits as well as their weak areas.

...snip...


Fair question, Loki, but not being a medium myself, I can't really answer it for you. I don't know why mediums don't seem to get letters, but as a rule, they don't.

...snip...


In theory, since the spirits tend to give information that is within the medium's own personal frame of reference, I'd guess that the rabbit, (presumably a white rabbit) was within JE's frame of reference that would indicate something magic or magician-related. JE does not have white boards with the words "magician" or "Uncle Fred" within his own frame of reference.

...snip...


True, sometimes JE does not interpret the image or message perfectly, and it is the sitter who clarifies the subtlety or specificity of the information as it relates to themselves, since they are the only ones who know their friends, family and past experiences, and not JE. I don't believe he is reading the sitters' minds.....neo

...snip...

Neo you may believe you are being rational and objective about JE. However the evidence (in this thread) on this issue of JE's and other mediums "process" is that not only will you ignore facts but that you will also create “rationalisations” that are not supported by facts rather then ever considering that JE cannot not do what he claims he can i.e. communicate with the dead.

 

[neofight]

Instead of relying on your incredibly faulty memory, you should check the threads. Like I do.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, please! Stop lying, Clancie! You know damn well that I was away that weekend - the two days you mentioned. Which I explained to you, and which you have conveniently "forgotten".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, Claus. I took your advice, and I went back and found the relevant thread in which you supposedly went away for the weekend. Funny, but at the time, you made absolutely NO mention of having gone away for the weekend. You simply mention that it was such a nice sunny Sunday that you didn't feel like sitting indoors at a computer. How curious! If you had really gone away for that weekend, it would seem that you would have mentioned that fact to make yourself seem more credible.
Here's the link.

tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25278&perpage=50&highlight=john

And here are the relevant excerpts, although the thread is quite entertaining for anyone who likes to read this stuff. I think we caught Claus in another, uh, inconsistency. First, a little background. Here's what Clancie remembered about this weekend, and my recollection is the same. When Cantata posted after that weekend, he had all three of the answers that we had been begging him for the week before.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, my memory of the thread is that he spent a week or more seemingly unable to discuss any information from JE's books (while still claiming to have read them). Then he disappeared for a weekend (a rare occurrence) and reemerged on Monday or Tuesday eager to show that he was indeed now acquainted with the books, even being able to quote one of them for us!

That's how I remember his "lost weekend" anyway,--that, and that it was pretty funny when he returned.

And, yes, he claimed he had not been reading JE books that weekend, just was "busy" elsewhere. It could be true...of course....all true....

(Cantata, aka Claus)
Post # 40 24.90.221.173 May 20th, 2002 02:07 PM

Back from a nice sunday with no computer.......

The three validations:

1) "Princess"
2) Pooh
3) "Guiding Light"

(truncated)

Post # 54 24.90.221.173 May 20th, 2002 06:00 PM

neo,

You know, I'm getting a little p'd off here. I did NOT "postpone" my response. Contrary to some here, I have an occupation that needs to be taken care of, I have a life outside these boards, and I do certainly NOT want to spend a sunny sunday in front of my computer.

Therefore, I do NOT want to be accused of "postponing" anything. I haven't seen Rain posting here at all, and nobody is complaining about that. Sometimes, we simply don't have time - or inclination - to post. If Rain can not post without comment for a day, then I should be able to do the same.

(truncated)

Post # 71 24.90.221.173 May 21st, 2002 10:02 AM

I did join G2's thread about the three validations. I also explained why I was not online sunday - we haven't had that many sunshiny sundays in NY this year. I gave the three validations after the weekend, and they were correct.

(neo)
So, Claus, why didn't you ever mention to any of us that you had gone away for the weekend? You only mention getting out in the sunshine, and not wanting to spend your Sunday "on-line".

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." .....neo

 

[CFLarsen]

neo,

What, in your post, proves that I was not away??? You don't think that "getting out in the sunshine" does not mean "going away"??

Darat is right: You think you are, oh, so rational and objective, but quite honestly, you come across as a very confused individual. You grasp at straws, and they continue to break, one by one.

Sad, really.

 

[Clancie]

rofl, neo! That walk down memory lane was so much fun! And you were indeed right about the "sunny Sunday". I'm much impressed! Good to have a record of what we'd been asking Claus for...the three validations. Nothing for a week, then...Bingo! Gone and back with all three at once. Too funny.

(P.S. Claus, I read "OLT" in an afternoon and you know what you think of my brain power! Should be a snap for you to "finish the whole book"--or at least have read enough to find the answers, lol--in no time at all!)

Darat,

The claim we're making for "the process" is that all mental mediums use a combination of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience. And that communication takes place telepathically, is difficult to do, and isn't just like sitting in a room talking with someone or showing videos of the family vacation.

Also that the images and sounds a medium hears are somehow being built from things he or she is already familiar with in his own experience. (Some of these he is shown so regularly with such consistency of meaning that JE has come to think of them as symbols that he can interpret confidently to the sitter).

Other mediums also work with a mixture of clairaudience, clairvoyance, and clairsentience. I don't see anything inconsistent in the examples given in this thread. All the mediums I can think of--Altea, GA, van Praagh, JE, and others--seem to consistently say that these are the three "tools" of mediumship, but that they rely on them to varying degrees.

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point. Could you be more specific about how you feel this explanation is inconsistent from one to the other?

 

[neofight]

Explain what?

That you claim there is a recognisable "process" involved in mediumship? A claim that mediums themselves including John Edward say isn't true!

Okay, Darat. I think I am almost at the point where I am ready to throw in the towel. I feel like I am living in Bizarro World. Where exactly do you see mediums, especially JE, but other mediums as well, stating that there is not some sort of a process for mediumship? Could you help me out here, because you are losing me.

And that it can with only a few minutes research on the internet be shown that at least a few other well known and claimed by thousands to be real mediums have a totally different "process" then JE to communicate with the dead?

Oh, so now you are more or less admitting that other mediums do have a process of sorts, only it's a different process from JE's process? Fine, then perhaps now you could show me where I ever said that JE's process was identical to that of every other medium's process. (?) Certainly, they're all doing mediumship, and there are many similarities, but the process has to be personalized to each individual. One medium would not necessarily understand another medium's symbols.

And that you claim is why JE can't get letters etc. "as a rule"?

Yes, I do claim that. John Edward has himself said that he gets most of his initials and names clairaudiently, not clairvoyantly. So it is not me who is making this claim, it is JE himself. (?)

These are just a few quotes from you many posting in this thread that touches on this "process" idea.

"Fair question, Loki, but not being a medium myself, I can't really answer it for you. I don't know why mediums don't seem to get letters, but as a rule, they don't."

Darat, this is the only quote that I would like to clarify. The others I'll let stand. I should not have generalized here and said that mediums don't seem to get letters as a rule, because I am not all that familiar with mediums other than JE. I myself posted just today that George Anderson sees both spirits AND letters/words. (e.g. the word AIDS over the person's head) So I would amend this quote to Loki to read that "I don't know why JE doesn't seem to get letters, but as a rule, he doesn't.

Neo you may believe you are being rational and objective about JE. However the evidence (in this thread) on this issue of JE's and other mediums "process" is that not only will you ignore facts but that you will also create “rationalisations” that are not supported by facts rather then ever considering that JE cannot not do what he claims he can i.e. communicate with the dead.

Well, Darat, you are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I sincerely cannot see how you think you have made this case. I won't belabor the point any further, however, and I would welcome other opinions. I think we are simply talking past eachother somehow. .....neo