Interesting JE Hits....

[neofight]

I seem to remember that once John asserted that someone had known someone who owned a pet rabbit and was killed by a sharp blow to the head. Turns out they knew someone who was a magician who was killed when someone whacked him with a pipe or similar object. The exact dialogue has slipped my mind, so maybe it was just more of his usual hunting and pecking. If not, I should remind you that some people say he has spies and hidden mikes in his audience....

Hi, DeistKillerof Smurfs. lol Great name.

First of all, I guess I missed this particular show, but I would just like to say that this is precisely the kind of a great hit that continues to fascinate me.

For those who do not even accept the [possibility that mediumship is exactly what John says it is, with images, and symbolism that is subject to interpretation by the medium, none of this will ever make the least bit of sense.

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.

He misinterpreted it to mean thatsomeone's pet rabbit died this way, when in reality the pet rabbit was a typical symbol for a magician. How many times must this sort of thing happen before it is given at least a modicum of consideration?

As far as JE's "spies", and hidden mikes, I'm sorry, but at this point, after all this time, how can you even suggest something like that with a straight face? If you were read, and the medium simply regurgitated everything you had just said within the past hour or so, how much value would YOU put on such a reading? Let's be serious here. .........neo

 

[neofight]

They will lie - or not tell the truth - because of at least two reasons: Stage fright (Steve Grenard witnessed such an event), and the desire to make JE look real.

To even suggest that this theory would account for anything but the tiniest percentage of sitter reactions, is really off-base, Claus. People validate the information because it is significant to them, and because it makes perfect sense. They understand it. Most of the time, they understand it immediately.

This nonsense that you are suggesting, about sitters lying, is, imo, just that. Nonsense........neo

 

[neofight]

Again, seems like we're missing the start of this reading. Did he already establish that he was trying to communicate with the Father/Grandpa? If so, his use of the word "his" is hardly significant. Also look at the top, are there 2 unidentified females? At first they mention the tree in the backyard...then when JE reiterates the question, it changes to a tree in the cemetary. Is their backyard in the cemetary? What's going on here? Sorry, this just isn't clear to me. As it reads sure "you cut down "his" tree" seems impressive, but like most people, if they'd started out going...I wanna talk to daddy...then its not impressive in the least. I reserve judgement of this being a good hit until a full transcript can be provided, sorry.

Well, it's always preferable to read the whole transcript, voidx, but this still would appear to be a pretty good hit.

Who knows why the sitter's initial comment mentioned the tree in the backyard. It's possible that they had just removed a tree, but when John repeated his statement, emphasizing that it was his tree, the sitters then realized that it was the tree in the cemetery that John had to be referring to, because it was directly related to their loved one.......neo

 

[neofight]

Well, there's a definite discrepancy between his reading and his follow up comments months later. I think its attributable to the embarrassment he suffered after the reading aired. Perhaps you explain it as "not telling the truth" in the original sitting--or, alternatively, in the follow up. I guess if you'd seen both of them, it might be easier for you to say one way or the other.

True, Clancie. It was very obvious that even after so many years had passed since this embarrassing childhood moment, this guy still hung his head and covered his face, etc.

If you remember, he said that he had gotten his mother to stop telling the story to everyone she met, because he was at an awkward age and he was totally humiliated by it. She did stop telling it when he was a teenager btw, but couldn't resist this one last time on "Crossing Over", and her son welcomed the reference this time because it meant something special to him.....neo

 

[CFLarsen]

neo,

Can you read the mind of other people? Are you such a good judge of character, that you can determine what reasons people have for answering the way they do, based on a few moments of an edited TV-show?

You can try to explain it away, but the fact remains: The sitter did not tell the truth during the reading. That you simply dismiss the possibility of this happening more often than a "tiniest percentage" of the time is staggering: You really must be a mind-reader!

We cannot trust sitters, and we don't know when they tell the truth. It's that simple, neo.

Are you willing to discuss JE's "process" in another thread? You refer to it all the time, and you seem to be very knowledgable about it.

 

[Darat]

To even suggest that this theory would account for anything but the tiniest percentage of sitter reactions, is really off-base, Claus. People validate the information because it is significant to them, and because it makes perfect sense. They understand it. Most of the time, they understand it immediately.

This nonsense that you are suggesting, about sitters lying, is, imo, just that. Nonsense........neo

Neo you may not like the word lie however as has been shown (if the excerpts shown here are correct) a sitter did make shall I say mistakes with their recollections and we are left with two accounts which do contradict each other slightly.

No matter how this is excused it is compelling evidence that sitters validations can not be taken as necessarily being 100% accurate.

Or do you disagree and state that every sitters’ recollection and validation is 100% correct and consistent across any time span.

I would also add that it is a well known phenomenon that memory is not a reliable tool here is an excerpt from a on-line police magazine dealing with eye witnesses – which is what we are doing when we look at how much credit we can take from “post-show validations”.

(Just as an aside since JEs refuses to allow recordings to be made … hmmm… of his readings then all post-show recollections have to be treated with a grain of salt since the sitters themselves don’t have anything else but memory to go on.)

http://www.polfed.org/magazine/01_2001/01_2001_eyewitness.htm

It has long been recognized that there may be value in the testimony of eye-witnesses to crime. It must, however, also be recognize that eye witnesses are not infallible. Mistakes can be made and those mistakes militate against the most rigorous justice that can be available for those who allegedly have committed offences. Identification is a tricky issue, reports

So not to lose track of the various bits I’ve rambled on about I think my questions to you are

Do you claim that all validations are 100% accurate and consistent across anytime span?

Do you accept that recollections from memory are an unreliable way to determine the truth of an event or in this case a reading by JE?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

the fact remains: The sitter did not tell the truth during the reading

No, Claus. Actually that's not the "fact".

The fact, as Darat points out, is that there are two interviews with the sitter that differ on some details. To me, having seen both of them, these differences seem obviously due to the sitter's acute embarrassment after the reading aired. Having seen them both, it was apparent to me that he changed details in order to make it less embarrassing.

However, changed or not, it wasn't as if he validated something that didn't happen. In both instances, he still admitted there was an embarrassing incident for him as a child...that he was at a farm...that he started to go drink "milk" from the "cow" which his parents teased him about for years to come.

Essentially a hit? Seems so to me.

Was what JE said essentially validated both times by the sitter? Seems so to me.

As for the bigger question: is memory subjective? Yes. Should that invalidate sitters' validations? I don't see why it should.

And my question for those who think scientific testing is the only way to prove mediumship...how would you propose to get rid of the subjectivity of any validations in a scientific test?

How would you test what mediums do without using validations from the sitters?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, Claus. Actually that's not the "fact".

The fact, as Darat points out, is that there are two interviews with the sitter that differ on some details. To me, having seen both of them, these differences seem obviously due to the sitter's acute embarrassment after the reading aired. Having seen them both, it was apparent to me that he changed details in order to make it less embarrassing.

"Differ on some details", Clancie? It's not "details", it's what makes the hit a hit.

"Differences", Clancie? It doesn't matter why the sitter does not tell the truth during the reading. What matters is that he does not tell the truth.

"Changed details", Clancie? How far will you go to invent excuses?

However, changed or not, it wasn't as if he validated something that didn't happen. In both instances, he still admitted there was an embarrassing incident for him as a child...that he was at a farm...that he started to go drink "milk" from the "cow" which his parents teased him about for years to come.

BEEP! He didn't validate something that didn't happen? It was a cow, Clancie! The sitter first said it wasn't, then said it was. How do you explain that little "detail"?

Essentially a hit? Seems so to me.

Yes. What doesn't?

Was what JE said essentially validated both times by the sitter? Seems so to me.

"Essentially"? Why do you gloss over this "detail", when you focus on "details" in other readings? It seems to me that you are once again highly inconsistent in the way you evaluate JE's hits.

As for the bigger question: is memory subjective? Yes. Should that invalidate sitters' validations? I don't see why it should.

Huh? The sitter gives two opposite "validations", and this shouldn't invalidate his validations? What, pray tell, will invalidate a sitters validation, Clancie?

And my question for those who think scientific testing is the only way to prove mediumship...how would you propose to get rid of the subjectivity of any validations in a scientific test?

How would you test what mediums do without using validations from the sitters?

Simple: Go back and check if the sitter remembers correctly. Get independent confirmation. Eliminate cheating (e.g. that the family members have time to correlate their stories).

The fact - and it is a fact - remains:

We cannot trust the sitters. They change their stories.

I know why you struggle so hard to salvage this, Clancie: If we cannot rely on the sitters, then there are no more reasons for you to believe that JE is real.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

It doesn't matter why the sitter does not tell the truth during the reading. What matters is that he does not tell the truth.

Why are you so insistent he didn't tell the truth during the reading, Claus? How can you be so certain his original version was wrong (i.e. "not a cow").

In any case, as I said, he validated what JE said as a hit both times. He never said, "Well, we didn't go to a farm. I didn't have such an embarrassment. I just felt a lot of pressure to say something when JE was talking to me." Never said that at all.

Posted by CFLarsen

Simple: Go back and check if the sitter remembers correctly. Get independent confirmation. [Clancie: Such as...?]...Eliminate cheating (e.g. that the family members have time to correlate their stories).

The last item is particularly interesting, Claus, as even with the "cemetery/tree" hit, validated by several family members without opportunity to correlate their story, you still dismiss it.

I really don't think other family members would convince you. Would it really?

Posted by CFLarsen

We cannot trust the sitters.

Fine. You know where you're coming from then. And that is...That there is nothing in mediumship--or in the history of research into mediumship--that would even open your eyes to the possibility it is real if you operate from the premise that sitters' validations are always worthless.

Posted by CFLarsen

If we cannot rely on the sitters, then there are no more reasons for you to believe that JE is real.

See above.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why are you so insistent he didn't tell the truth during the reading, Claus? How can you be so certain his original version was wrong (i.e. "not a cow").

Listen, Clancie: He changes his story, OK? You said so yourself. Ergo, one of the versions - the reading or the follow-up - has to be false.

Both cannot be true. Unless you are able to double-think.

In any case, as I said, he validated what JE said as a hit both times. He never said, "Well, we didn't go to a farm. I didn't have such an embarrassment. I just felt a lot of pressure to say something when JE was talking to me." Never said that at all.

Nobody claimed that. However, he did feel a lot of pressure, which resulted in him not telling the truth during the reading.

The last item is particularly interesting, Claus, as even with the "cemetery/tree" hit, validated by several family members without opportunity to correlate their story, you still dismiss it.

No, I dismiss it because it is not unique at all. How do you know that JE couldn't see they were Jews? Even if he couldn't, guessing that someone is Jewish in New York is not difficult at all. Over 1 million Jews live there.

I really don't think other family members would convince you. Would it really?

Sure, if we knew they hadn't had time to "synchronize" their stories.

Fine. You know where you're coming from then. And that is...That there is nothing in mediumship--or in the history of research into mediumship--that would even open your eyes to the possibility it is real if you operate from the premise that sitters' validations are always worthless.

No, that is a gross misrepresentation of my view. I have never ever claimed that mediumship is impossible. You know that, Clancie.

I am simply unable to distinguish between JE and a cold-reader. And so are you.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Listen, Clancie: He changes his story, OK? You said so yourself. Ergo, one of the versions - the reading or the follow-up - has to be false.

Fine. One or the other then. He went toward a "cow" or another animal. Whatever. Both sets of comments validated the basics of JE's reading.

Posted by CFLarsen

...which resulted in him not telling the truth during the reading.

Could you stop stating this as a fact, Claus? It's annoying. Please re-read your own post above for better understanding of the issue.

Posted by CFLarsen

I have never ever claimed that mediumship is impossible.

Well, let's face it. If your position is that every sitter's validation can't be trusted, then there's no way you could ever even consider mediumship to be real, imo. There's just no way you would ever have any information that is validated whatsoever.

Its a forgone conclusion, Claus. No way.

 

[CFLarsen]

Fine. One or the other then. He went toward a "cow" or another animal. Whatever. Both sets of comments validated the basics of JE's reading.

So you are saying that two contradicting statements can still serve as validation for the same hit.

Fascinating.

Could you stop stating this as a fact, Claus? It's annoying. Please re-read your own post above for better understanding of the issue.

But it is a fact, Clancie: He did tell the truth during the follow-up, didn't he? How can he then also tell the truth, when his statements contradict each other?

Well, let's face it. If your position is that every sitter's validation can't be trusted, then there's no way you could ever even consider mediumship to be real, imo. There's just no way you would ever have any information that is validated whatsoever.

No, that is not correct. I look at each reading and evaluate it separately. Then, I collate the results.

Why are you so much against independent verification, Clancie? Why do you insist that the memory of the sitter is good enough, even though you admit it can be faulty? It seems to be as if you believe that whatever is remembered is also what actually happened, but at the same time also believe (and rightly so) that memory is faulty.

How can you deal with this double-thinking in your everyday life?

Its a forgone conclusion, Claus. No way.

I see you have closed your mind to this. You are very wrong. It is not a foregone conclusion. I am very open to the possibility of mediumship. I just don't see any evidence of it.

 

[Clancie]

Okay, if you think sitters validations can't be trusted, but mediumship may be real, then here's the problem.....


What kinds of evidence in a reading would convince you that mediumship was real?

And how would that information be validated to your satisfaction?

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, if you think sitters validations can't be trusted, but mediumship may be real, then here's the problem.....

Why? You yourself have admitted that memory is faulty and that the sitters do not tell the truth during readings.

If anybody has a problem, it most certainly is you.

What kinds of evidence in a reading would convince you that mediumship was real?

And how would that information be validated to your satisfaction?

I told you: Independent verification. Why are you so against that? You place all your faith in the sitters, even though you admit they can - and do - make mistakes.

 

[neofight]

Fine. You know where you're coming from then. And that is...That there is nothing in mediumship--or in the history of research into mediumship--that would even open your eyes to the possibility it is real if you operate from the premise that sitters' validations are always worthless.

BINGO! Clancie, I have no doubt in my own mind that you have just hit the nail on the head. And in Claus' own mind, I think he probably does believe that he is quite objective about mediumship, but I honestly don't see any evidence of that whatsoever.

Something else that I see as being problematic where Claus is concerned is that since he is an extremely literal sort of individual, it is just about impossible for him to embrace or even begin to grasp the less than literal aspects of mediumship. Let's face it, the imagery or symbolism that is inherent in mediumship is totally unacceptable to him. Let me give you a for instance.....

Let's just say that in a reading, John talks about someone falling off a horse on a merry-go-round and bumping their head. Perhaps that happened to him (JE) as a kid, and the father spirit coming through "showed" John that memory to get him to bring this up with a sitter.

Now say this sitter at some point in his life had gone horseback riding with his dad, and got thrown off his horse and hit his head, and his deceased dad wanted to reference that event to his son as a form of validation to prove to him that he is there.

I think Claus would most likely have a problem accepting this as a valid confirmation, since one example is a carnival ride, and one is a real horse, thereby entirely missing the point, and the great hit. Not to mention the fact that in Claus' world, we would not even be able to accept the sitter's word that he was indeed thrown from a horse, because he might just be lying, or misremembering the whole thing.

Perhaps that is not the perfect example, but I hope you, and Claus, do catch my drift. I think that because mediumship cannot be exact, Claus will not ever be able to accept that it might be real. He claims otherwise, but I believe that his claim to open-mindedness is lip service, plain and simple......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

neo,

I do "catch" your "drift". Why don't you open a thread where we can discuss the "process" of John Edward's type of mediumship?

I do, however, object to you casting me as a close-minded person. I am very open-minded to the possibility of any paranormal phenomenon.

But just because I do not accept the very low standards you accept does not make my mind closed.

Open a thread on the process of JE and I'll be there.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

I am very open-minded to the possibility of any paranormal phenomenon.

"Any", meaning "psychic surgery" as well?

Posted by CFLarsen

I object to you casting me as a close-minded person

I don't think neo did that at all, Claus. She just summarized your views and what you want to see from mediums to get you to think of it differently.

Seems her summary is accurate and fair, too. Do you disagree with any of the particulars of her example?

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Any", meaning "psychic surgery" as well?

I'm as open-minded as CFL. Just have one of these superbeings validated by the scientific community or even pass the JREF challenge and I'll believe there is something more to it than the mundane.

 

[Pyrrho]

"Any", meaning "psychic surgery" as well?

I'm as open-minded as CFL. Just have one of these superbeings validated by the scientific community or even pass the JREF challenge and I'll believe there is something more to it than the mundane.

Now, I'm not open-minded at all about this crap. It all purports to violate the laws of nature, and to be open-minded about any of it means that I must disgregard what I've learned and what I know to be true, and not only that, but I must disgregard hundreds of years of scientific work. In addition, I must suspend the belief that I can be fooled, and I must also give the benefit of the doubt to delusional and/or conniving, clever people who just don't deserve it.

After-death-communication? Psychic surgery? Spoonbending? Remote viewing? It's all nonsense. To entertain that these notions are at all possible means lying to myself, and I just won't do that anymore.

 

[thaiboxerken]

After-death-communication? Psychic surgery? Spoonbending? Remote viewing? It's all nonsense. To entertain that these notions are at all possible means lying to myself, and I just won't do that anymore.

Well.. I'm thinking that if there was actual evidence of this nonsense, you'd probably believe it. Since it's all anecdotes, stories and fabrications that all go against current scientific knowledge, you don't believe. Neither do I. I'm "open-minded" but only if the screwballs can actually produce real evidence. Much in the quantum fields are hard for me to believe, but they are find out alot with scientific method. The same cannot be said of the paranormalists.

But.. requiring evidence, scientific method and honesty makes us skeptics "close minded" according to the woo-woos.