Interesting JE Hits....

[SteveGrenard]

D: I also agree that this site would seem to support that JE uses a "process" that is common in mediumship (especially if her claim of teaching JE is true).Yet I find I am still not able to find the words of mediums who describe their communication as "symbols" and within a "personal frame of reference", I haven't found one yet. And I have looked for them, well at least on the web.

Reply: I guess you gotta take the course to find out what these symbols are. Or yes, if you accept her claim of JE being a student, it is evident that the symbology she teaches forms a part of JE's repetoire as well as that of others whom she also teaches. It is about the best evidence you are going to find which helps to answer your question.

Alternatively if we want to know what those symbols are we can take them out of JE's repeptoire as they were furnished above and spend the rest of our lives looking for mediums who also use them. Me personally, I have never met a medium who used them but I have only met 3 in person and maybe 6 or 7 by internet acquaintance who I considered real. I met and had experiences with a lot of bad ones and one downright fraud. The mediums who read for myself and my wife who were in the valid category were both trances and didn't use symbols. The deceased spoke through them, in the first person and everything he said was 100% accurate for him or us. There was NO "they're showing me" or "they're telling me" or who's this or what's that type of questions from the medium. No pink or white roses. No refrences to movies or old TV shows. No ups, unders or sides. LOL. And there were no questions at all. Which I guess says that different mediums and different influences (e.g. teachers) have different processes. Is the pink rose or other symbol processes valid or is the process of trance mediumship without symbols or questions more valid? Is symbology part of the patter for a showman like JE, enabling generalizations as symbolized by pink roses , etc to creep into a reading? I don't know but perhaps.

Anxious to try my experiment with id'ing the spirit up front, I brought a photo line up with me of three people of the same age, two were relatives and bore a family resemblance, one was the deceased. The third bore a slight resemblance and was a friend.

After going into a trance, the three photos laid out on the desk, the medium pointed at the one of the deceased and says "That's me." Not "that's him." He never once said his name but didn't have to and why would he anyway? There were no initials, no vague causes of death, in fact no cause of death at all., I knew how he died and he knew I didnt need him to tell me.

 

[voidx]

Anxious to try my experiment with id'ing the spirit up front, I brought a photo line up with me of three people of the same age, two were relatives and bore a family resemblance, one was the deceased. The third bore a slight resemblance and was a friend.

Any research tried a version of this ID'ing approach? That can show it on a consistent basis? Seems rather foolproof from a medium perspective if its true. In this one case he had a 1 in 3 chance, 2 of which bore more of a resemblance, so maybe more like 1 in 2. Were they all the same gender? And did the medium know exactly who you were hoping to contact? I'm surprised this isn't used more often, seems like it would be quicker to validate who the spirit was, so they could then move on to the actual message.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Neo claims that JE has a "process", that is a common mediumship technique and that the reason he cannot get some of the detail people ask from him is because of this process. His communciation "process" is that gets his information via symbols which have to be within his "personal frame of reference".

I still cannot find any other medium that describe their "process" of mediumship as symbols within a personal frame of reference - this seems quite unique to JE.

Well, Darat, perhaps you're saying your question is more for neo then, than for me?

If so, then just for my own understanding, I'm still curious about what you're trying to say. Am I correctly understanding your position re: my questions above (what I think you're saying is in italics below):

1. Are you asking for examples of how other mediums use clairvoyance?

No (Just guessing; not sure what you think about it = ?)

2. That is the "process" I'm referring to (clairvoyance + clairaudience + clairsentience). CV is based in images, some of which are repeated so often that they can be seen as symbolic for a particular medium.

So...apart from what neo thinks, do you understand this is what the "process" means to me?

Yes (?)

3. Is this contradictory in any way with what JE and others do, do you think?

No (?)

4. Are you disputing that other mediums also use clairvoyance and asking for examples?

No (?)

5. Are you looking for examples that other mediums see images repeated for them like JE says he does ( that is, using images that are meaningful for them--which I think is what neo means by "frame of reference?

Yes, looking for examples. (?).

6. Are you trying to get examples of how other mediums see the same image often enough that it becomes symbolic for them?

Yes (?)

7. Are you asking for examples of mediums using the same images JE sees as meaningful to him)?

No (?)

In other words, you can see I'm not really sure where you're coming from with this topic at all, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

If you could tell me how you would answer 1-7 I know it would be very helpful in answering you (maybe helpful for neo as well)! . Tx.


P.S. And yes, "develop", given its double meaning with cold reading, was not the best choice .

 

[voidx]

Posted by Clancie:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
btw, voidx, I may have some other live and unedited readings that we can actually watch here, but will post them next week when neo's back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is it next week yet?

Did these ever get posted?

 

[Darat]

This is getting complicated – I apologise in advance if my cutting and pasting and attributing is a bit sloppy – want to do this post as quickly as possible.

Well, Darat, perhaps you're saying your question is more for neo then, than for me?

Yes my questions are directed at Neo and her position – I do understand you share a lot of Neo’s view regarding JE but this seems to be a point of difference between the two of you.

If so, then just for my own understanding, I'm still curious about what you're trying to say. Am I correctly understanding your position re: my questions above (what I think you're saying is in italics below):

1. Are you asking for examples of how other mediums use clairvoyance?

No (Just guessing; not sure what you think about it = ?)

No – I was just using some very successful and well known mediums own words to demonstrate that they don’t seem to make a reference to “symbols” and a “personal frame of reference”.

2. That is the "process" I'm referring to (clairvoyance + clairaudience + clairsentience). CV is based in images, some of which are repeated so often that they can be seen as symbolic for a particular medium.

So...apart from what neo thinks, do you understand this is what the "process" means to me?

Yes (?)

Yes I think understand your idea of how it all works – as I say I’m trying not to confuse this issue with any of my opinions and beliefs for or against any medium. That would confuse matters even more (if possible).

3. Is this contradictory in any way with what JE and others do, do you think?

No (?)

I’ve no problem with what any of the mediums say they do or how they say they do it this is about Neo’s theory of how the mediumship process works with special reference to JE.

4. Are you disputing that other mediums also use clairvoyance and asking for examples?

No (?)

No not disputing anything about what mediums say they do or say.

5. Are you looking for examples that other mediums see images repeated for them like JE says he does ( that is, using images that are meaningful for them--which I think is what neo means by "frame of reference?

Yes, looking for examples. (?).

Yes – I want to see how other mediums that use the “process” Neo see’s in JE readings use it in their readings.

6. Are you trying to get examples of how other mediums see the same image often enough that it becomes symbolic for them?

Yes (?)

Or looking for that type of explanation from a medium….

7. Are you asking for examples of mediums using the same images JE sees as meaningful to him)?

No (?)

Well I wouldn’t expect to see the same symbols having the same meaning for someone else otherwise what would “personal frame of reference” have to do with the “process”?

In other words, you can see I'm not really sure where you're coming from with this topic at all, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

If you could tell me how you would answer 1-8 I know it would be very helpful in answering you (maybe helpful for neo as well)! . Tx.


P.S. And yes, "develop", given its double meaning with cold reading, was not the best choice .

Fair enough I do want my points to be understood and am willing to try and clear up any confusion I’m causing.

 

[SteveGrenard]

V: Any research tried a version of this ID'ing approach? That can show it on a consistent basis? Seems rather foolproof from a medium perspective if its true. In this one case he had a 1 in 3 chance, 2 of which bore more of a resemblance, so maybe more like 1 in 2. Were they all the same gender? And did the medium know exactly who you were hoping to contact? I'm surprised this isn't used more often, seems like it would be quicker to validate who the spirit was, so they could then move on to the actual message.


Reply: To my knowledge this has never been tried before in a research setting nor in any setting up front. I agree the odds were low. The pictures were all of same gender ..... the deceased and his cousin almost look like twins. The third party bore a slight resemblance and was a friend of the deceased. He didn't acknowledge him. I was anonymous to the medium. The medium did not know who I was trying to contact but may've surmised that after seeing the photos. I didn' t have enough similar line up photos of different people to use so I was stuck with what I could get. I wasn't really interested in seeing if the medium could guess the person, I was more interested in gauging the
reaction (in first person: "That's me" as opposed to "that's him").
I was also interested in confirming the identity of the spirit I wanted to contact and having received that confirmation, I had no reason to assume there would be any misses whatsoever. There weren't any. I will not disclose everything he talked about through this trance but it was specific things about the house, about the dogs, he identified my father who died before he was born as being with him, other deceased family members, some of whom died a long time ago including a great grandmother in 1938. He did identify these by name. He talked also about his pets, all accurate as to their name (e.g. Rambo is here....Rambo was his black lab who died a year after he did, probably of melancholia) and so forth. It was mostly about meeting dead relatives, many of whom he never knew in life. It was fascinating
and accurate. He called these by their first names and their relationships such as Grandma Sophie (died in 1938). He called my wifes father "Big Daddy" which was his nick-name. He died when he was only 15 so knew this nick-name.

The medium did not know me from Adam. I paid cash. Used a untraceable trunk line at my institution to make the appointment
and gave only my first name. He told me where his RayBans were hidden (they were where he said they would be). And what blew me away was he said "Thank's for the pin" The night before I came home with some Flag lapel pins given out at work. I stuck one in his picture frame.

I did not say a word. Just took notes, pages of them and never looked up or even nodded. The medium appeared to be asleep while talking and had her eyes closed but, of course, could have peeked (Randi's favoirite hypothesis: peeking)

I think this should be used routinely. It puts the onus on the non-trance medium to say "Yes, I have this person here." The trance would say "That's me." If they indeed confirm the identity a lot of cold reading and the game of 20 questions can be avoided. You can get down to the nitty gritty info which should all be 100%. On TV JE and others seem to waste most of their time establishing identities. On LKL the phone calls are 20 to 30 seconds and then cut off by switch King has. It's ridiculous
to base anything on these performances. They're hardly scratching the surface and are a waste of time.

I am trying to get this idea in front of some researchers who plan to move ahead over the next few years with more mediumship trials. I definitely believe it would be a good thing. Some skeptics as well as believers disagree., however. I cannot fathom their rationale. Some say to me "Getting the identity is part of what the medium should do" I say how, by asking questions? I don't get it I guess.

 

[voidx]

I am trying to get this idea in front of some researchers who plan to move ahead over the next few years with more mediumship trials. I definitely believe it would be a good thing. Some skeptics as well as believers disagree., however. I cannot fathom their rationale. Some say to me "Getting the identity is part of what the medium should do" I say how, by asking questions? I don't get it I guess.

Well logistically, it would be hard to not give the medium a hint. I would think a good way would be to bring the medium in, give him no visual look at the sitter, give him an array of photo's, of both varying age and gender. And have him identify the spirit before continuing. Then letting them continue on with the reading. First off it would be instant verification of the correct spirit so to speak. And even if he got the picture wrong, it would still be interesting to see if the reading fit the sitter. If done properly I think it could be effective. Obviously this seems to conflict with the different "styles" of mediumship, the concept of which seems odd to me in the first place. Whats the general believers opinion in trance mediums which seem to operate on possession of a form rather than Clairvoyance/audience/sentience? It seems trance mediums are entirely different, and use an entirely different process from whatever you called JE type mediums. Seems a tad inconsistent no?

 

[Clancie]

Thank you, Darat. That helped a great deal.

I see your questions are for neo, not me (and, no surprise, I'm not disappointed in the least! )

Since she's not around, I thought of two things from a reading I had with Robert Brown that might be of interest to you.

At one point he said, "I see boxes, and whenever I see boxes that's my symbol for someone moving." (Interestingly, this is also JE's symbol for moving).

Later, he said, "She's putting a small bag on your lap--small bag, means a small trip, just two or three days."

Anyway, I don't want to argue if these could be classic cold reading techniques (obviously, they could). I only mention it as an example of another medium who did say that he sees images that symbolized something else to him, something that perhaps conforms to the idea of clairvoyant symbols within his own "frame of reference".


Voidx,

Yes, its already "next week", but several JE threads are active and some have been bumped up. I thought I'd wait till things "die down" (no pun ) before putting up the JE readings (assuming they'll post okay. I'm hopeful.... )

 

[SteveGrenard]

V: Well logistically, it would be hard to not give the medium a hint. I would think a good way would be to bring the medium in, give him no visual look at the sitter, give him an array of photo's, of both varying age and gender. And have him identify the spirit before continuing. Then letting them continue on with the reading. First off it would be instant verification of the correct spirit so to speak.


Reply: This is excellent input. I will make this a part of my proposal and call it the Voidx Modification. Thank you and I
mean that sincerely! My intent is exactly as you state: to provide unequivocal instant identification and skip the b.s.

V: And even if he got the picture wrong, it would still be interesting to see if the reading fit the sitter. If done properly I think it could be effective.

Reply: If they got the picture wrong and the reading still fit the sitter, I would call this invalid. Please expand on why this possibility could still be effective? or valid?


V: Obviously this seems to conflict with the different "styles" of mediumship, the concept of which seems odd to me in the first place.

Reply: I think Neo, Clanci and now myself as well as others here (e.g. MikeD) have been trying to say that for eons. Take any profession, any artist, any sportsfigure, any actor, any singer,
geez, even any physician or dentist, and you will find different styles. It may seem odd to you but it isn't.


V: Whats the general believers opinion in trance mediums which seem to operate on possession of a form rather than Clairvoyance/audience/sentience?

Reply: Trance mediums allow the deceased to use them as public address systems, to use their vocal apparatus. The information apparently somehow telepathically enters centers in the brain for speech and are spit out as fast as they enter. Remember spirits have no vocal cords, no speech centers or brains of their own, and are allegedly just clusters of consciousness, memories and related information floating in the atmosphere not unlike EM waves: radio or television signals. They need a terminus (e.g. TV or radio receiver ) to pick them up and convert them to intelligble speech. Trances may also see, hear and feel but usually work
this way. There is some debate that all mediumship and telepathy involves some sort of trance or "semi-trance" state.

The other type of mediumship is called mental mediumship. The medium does not allow their thoughts to be entirely taken over by the communicator and instead filter them. To me it is far less evidential, tainted by such excuses as frame of reference and laden with symbology which may not be real, just imagined by the medium.

Trance mediums:

1. ask no questions
2. work while self hypnotized or partly asleep with eyes closed
3. just speak continuously as if they were the deceased
4. don't grope for identities
5. reflect the personality and knowledge of the deceased as if you were talking to them rather than to a third party (e.g. JE) who says he is interpreting. I don't want JE to interpret for me.
Sorry.


V: It seems trance mediums are entirely different, and use an entirely different process from whatever you called JE type mediums. Seems a tad inconsistent no?

Reply: JE et al are mental mediums or semi-trances. Trance mediums ARE entirely different. The second trance was encountered by my wife who is British while I am an American.
Our deceased was born in the UK but lived in the states most of his life and spoke wth an American, New York accent. You can't infer this from my wife's speech which is very British. The English trance medium she went to not only got the deceased but he effected changes in his tone of voice to that of an American accent and did so for over 1 hour. Its on tape and being studied by a lingistic expert right now. The medium had no idea that my wife, who used her maiden name, had any connection to a deceased who spoke with an American accent. They were both in the UK. She told him nothing and I stayed far away from the encounter and had nothing to do with setting it up.

It is not inconsistent. If you are familiar with the literature on this subject and have read serious, scholarly books such as Gauld's on Mediumship or the more recent book by Prof.Stephen Braude of the Univ of Maryland: Immortal Remains, you would be made aware of the numerous different kinds of mediumship there are. So in the world of all things mediumistic it is not inconsistent. Drawing the same analogy above there are among doctors different specialists, among car mechanics different specialists and among artists different specialists. What is so unusual about having diffeent types of mediumship?

 

[voidx]

V: And even if he got the picture wrong, it would still be interesting to see if the reading fit the sitter. If done properly I think it could be effective.

Reply: If they got the picture wrong and the reading still fit the sitter, I would call this invalid. Please expand on why this possibility could still be effective? or valid?

Sorry, wasn't clear there. I would also label it as invalid just as you would. But it would be effective in perhaps further showing how readings can be made to fit the sitter, or can be validated by the sitter even if the intial spirit identification is wrong. One way or the other, it would either prove my point of view, or yours, or at least give some objective data one way or the other.

It is not inconsistent. If you are familiar with the literature on this subject and have read serious, scholarly books such as Gauld's on Mediumship or the more recent book by Prof.Stephen Braude of the Univ of Maryland: Immortal Remains, you would be made aware of the numerous different kinds of mediumship there are. So in the world of all things mediumistic it is not inconsistent. Drawing the same analogy above there are among doctors different specialists, among car mechanics different specialists and among artists different specialists. What is so unusual about having diffeent types of mediumship?

I look at it differently. Yes there are different types of doctors and mechanics who specialize in certain area's. However, a normal mechanic, and a specialized mechanic would still agree on all the base principles of how a car runs, or to use the word of the day, the "process" by which an automobile runs. Same goes with the doctor analogy, whether your a heart specialist, or a brain surgeon, your understanding of the basic principles of how the known process' of the human body work would be the same. To me, it seems as if these different styles of mediumship do not agree in their base "process" of how the communication works. I suppose it could be argued that trance mediums just give total control of their voice, or whichever of the 3 clairvoyance/audience/sentience senses would be responsible for communication by voice, and let the spirit talk directly, but to me it seems a little thin in the credibility department.

 

[neofight]

Man, I'm in the wrong time zone!

A bit busy this morning, so I'll just focus on a minor thing: If anyone wants the full threads (not just the snippet neo presented) of my purported dishonesty, they are available for inspection.

Carry on. This is great skepticism.

Hi, Claus. Perhaps you still had sleep in your eyes and didn't see it, but I did include a link for the referenced thread, Claus, and I even encouraged anyone who was interested to go and read it. I did, and it was well worth the time as it put me in a most excellent humor for the better part of the day. ......neo

 

[SteveGrenard]

VOIDX: I look at it differently. Yes there are different types of doctors and mechanics who specialize in certain area's. However, a normal mechanic, and a specialized mechanic would still agree on all the base principles of how a car runs, or to use the word of the day, the "process" by which an automobile runs. Same goes with the doctor analogy, whether your a heart specialist, or a brain surgeon, your understanding of the basic principles of how the known process' of the human body work would be the same. To me, it seems as if these different styles of mediumship do not agree in their base "process" of how the communication works. I suppose it could be argued that trance mediums just give total control of their voice, or whichever of the 3 clairvoyance/audience/sentience senses would be responsible for communication by voice, and let the spirit talk directly, but to me it seems a little thin in the credibility department.

Reply: To this, I can reply that this is an emerging field. Perhaps based on physics about which many have theorized but also about which little has been conclusively determined so I have no
doubt and wonder little why basic causality(ies) has/have not been established for this. I seriously doubt that platform mediums like JE have anything other than the most rudimentary facts re these considerations so I hardly expect them to understand the math. And while I don't wish to be picky, you omitted the analogy to artists, musicians, actors, et al who certainly operate on different basic underlying motivations and have diverse objectives.

I think I have seen this example mentioned as well..............that laypersons know things like cars, if you put oil and gasoline in them, and start them up take you places but few people who operate such machines know anything about how they really work.

 

[neofight]

Just for the record, I personally think neo's right in talking about a process of communication that is commonly used by mediums.

I thought she was referrring to the blend of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience that all mediums seem to share, although they may have different preferences and strengths within those three.

So...neo, Are you saying the "mediumship process" is something other than this? To me, it seems that all mediums I can think of say that they use a mixture of the above, including clairvoyance (and clairvoyance is based on images--some of which can assume a consistent symbolism for a particular medium).

I really don't understand what their question is. Do you? [/B]

No, Clancie. No I don't. I thought it was clear that we were totally in agreement as to what was meant by "process". And I'm sure that we are. ......neo

 

[neofight]

Clearly what neo meant was that for each and every medium they will have their own unique process.

Lurker, thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Which really brings into question why she mentioned process at all. If each is unique then there really is nothing to learn from one medium to another.

Well, Lurker, I use the word process, because that is the word that JE uses, and uses very frequently, as those of us who do watch "Crossing Over" can attest to.

As far as mediums not learning from other mediums, I would not say that is necessarily true. After all, Brian Hurst was James Van Praagh's mentor.

And JE had Shelley Peck, another medium, as a close friend in his life, although she's no longer alive. And of Sandy Anastasi, in his list of acknowledgements in the front of "OLT" JE had this to say.

Sandy Anastasi: The one and only "teacher" I had in developing my abilities...thank you for teaching me to be humble, and that it is okay to be wrong. Your guidance has been the foundation upon which I built and developed my abilities.

But in general, Lurker, you are correct in what you thought I meant. Every true psychic medium is unique, and so it goes to follow that their respective mediumship styles and abilities are also unique. Which, imo, is precisely why all the predominently "left side of the brain" users have such a difficult time with this whole subject. ....neo

 

[neofight]

I diasagree. Neo seems to have used (and did so in her last post to me) that getting "symbols" in the manner claimed by JE is part of the process of mediumship whereas the evidence seems to be that JE is pretty unique in his descriptions of his process (compared to other mediums).

Darat, I can only go by the mediums that I know the most about, which would be JE, GA and JVP, although GA and JVP might both be stronger clairvoyantly than JE, in the sense that they have both spoken of being able to see the spirit during readings, if not always, than at least some of the time. For JE, these days, this would be an extremely rare occurance.

In fact, not too long ago, during one of the "CO" readings, he did mention that he kept getting a quick visual glimpse of a man who was standing behind the sitter. He commented at the time on how very rare that was for him.....neo

 

[neofight]

Clancie,

What part of "the "symbol process" of JE" don't you understand? Look in the glossary that JE uses and that he has on his SciFi-site. Look in his books.

JE gets a white rose for congratulations, numbers for important dates, etc.

Do other mediums use this "symbol process" too?

Stop faking ignorance, stop your incessant stalling and get to the friggin' point!

(Funny how this always happens when you have a tough job ahead of you....)

Oh Claus! Why don't you just go back to bed. You are getting cranky again.

Clancie isn't faking ignorance OR stalling. She's trying to clarify what it is that Darat is asking her for, since we seem to be having a difficult time understanding eachother for some reason......neo

 

[neofight]

Re: Re: John Edward was Taught by Others

Thank you for this reference Steve, .....

Yes, Steve. My thanks as well. I'm catching up on reading this thread, and responding to the posts as I get to them. I posted something about Sandy Anastasi as well because I remembered JE mentioning her and crediting her with being his teacher.

As a follow up to this I take it that you (and Neo if she agrees this supports her theory that JE uses the process of mediumship) accept this site as an authority on mediumship?

I do accept Sandy's site, Darat......neo

 

[SteveGrenard]

NEO: Yes, Steve. My thanks as well. I'm catching up on reading this thread, and responding to the posts as I get to them. I posted something about Sandy Anastasi as well because I remembered JE mentioning her and crediting her with being his teacher.


Reply: Yes. But Darat questionned, as he rightfully should have, whether or not her (SandyA's) site and claim that she had taught JE was valid. I also recall JE acknowledging her as his one and only teacher. Thanks for finding that. Although I knew of Sandy's use of symbols in her work teaching mediums, JE included, but others as well, Darat managed to surf the site and found this on his own. I think that pretty well sums up the origins of JE's process and use of symbols.

 

[neofight]

Yes my questions are directed at Neo and her position – I do understand you share a lot of Neo’s view regarding JE but this seems to be a point of difference between the two of you.

No, that is not accurate, Darat. From what I can tell, Clancie (Gryphon2) and I have been posting on the same boards for about a year and a half now, and we are both quite familiar with the other's understanding of this issue.

Hell, we could probably even complete one another's sentences by now, if we tried. There is no point of difference between us concerning the mediumship process that I am aware of.

No – I was just using some very successful and well known mediums own words to demonstrate that they don’t seem to make a reference to “symbols” and a “personal frame of reference”.

Well, aside from having heard a little about Doris Stokes, I am really not familiar with those mediums, and I have no idea how they tend to get their messages from spirit.

I’ve no problem with what any of the mediums say they do or how they say they do it this is about Neo’s theory of how the mediumship process works with special reference to JE.

Darat, I don't know that "theory" would be the right word to use. It's not MY theory. I only know what I have observed from watching and listening to JE on "CO", from attending four of his seminars, and from reading all of his books. Not being a medium myself, I have no first-hand experience of how mediumship works.

Yes – I want to see how other mediums that use the “process” Neo see’s in JE readings use it in their readings.

Well, I'm guessing that you've probably not seen James Van Praagh's tv show, "Beyond"? His mediumship seems similar to JE. So does that of George Anderson. In fact, he has a whole glossary of his symbols in one of the books I have.

Clancie was read by British mediums Brian Hurst, and Robert Brown, and I don't know that their "process" was all that different from that of JE, so I know that JE's type of process using symbols and images is not strictly an American thing, Darat.

I don't know what else I could say to you to convince you that whatever discrepency you thought you had detected in my posts concerning the process of mediumship, was just mistaken......neo

 

[neofight]

I had no reason to assume there would be any misses whatsoever. There weren't any. I will not disclose everything he talked about through this trance but it was specific things about the house, about the dogs, he identified my father who died before he was born as being with him, other deceased family members, some of whom died a long time ago including a great grandmother in 1938. He did identify these by name. He talked also about his pets, all accurate as to their name (e.g. Rambo is here....Rambo was his black lab who died a year after he did, probably of melancholia) and so forth. It was mostly about meeting dead relatives, many of whom he never knew in life. It was fascinating
and accurate. He called these by their first names and their relationships such as Grandma Sophie (died in 1938). He called my wifes father "Big Daddy" which was his nick-name. He died when he was only 15 so knew this nick-name.

The medium did not know me from Adam. I paid cash. Used a untraceable trunk line at my institution to make the appointment
and gave only my first name. He told me where his RayBans were hidden (they were where he said they would be). And what blew me away was he said "Thank's for the pin" The night before I came home with some Flag lapel pins given out at work. I stuck one in his picture frame.

I did not say a word. Just took notes, pages of them and never looked up or even nodded. The medium appeared to be asleep while talking and had her eyes closed but, of course, could have peeked (Randi's favoirite hypothesis: peeking)

Hi, Steve. What I find absolutely amazing is why all, or at least some of those skeptics out there who are so darned sure that there is nothing to this stuff, why they don't attempt to get a reading by someone like this trance medium that you went to.

It would seem such a great opportunity for them to see for themselves what a powerful experience this could be. It boggles my mind that they don't do this, especially when they have such a great testimony as you've just given. ....neo