Interesting JE Hits....

[BillHoyt]

Yeah, Bill. I was really glued to the screen. Didn't miss a minute of it. NOT! What a huge contradiction between my saying that I haven't seen a whole episode of the Pet Psychic and saying that I only saw the show once. Sounds like I'm a real fan, right?

Now, now, neo. Don't strawman me, ma'am. But how like Clancie this is! She says she "looked at it", gave the detailed information that she "saw no lies in it". But, when called out on obvious errors then claims she never looked inside the file, just at the file listing. Impression management at its finest until it goes blewie.

Now you take this from Clancie's playbook. You say "I only saw the show once." Now you say "I have yet to see one whole episode". When called out on this, you start looking like the little naked guy out in the cold watching his member shrink. But, dearheart, I never said you had to be a fan. I never said you had to stay glued through the commercials and such. One just needs to know how you have so much to say, contrasting JE and Sonia when apparently you caught Sonia's show through the discount TV store window while waiting for the bus. Oh, wait, that's not the story, is it? What was it? Oh, that's right. It keeps changing!

Big nothing! I was commenting on why the pets didn't give JE messages directly, as they supposedly did with Sonia. Jerk!

On one occasion you said that. On the other occasion you said "JE has been pretty accurate with many of the pets he has brought through."

So which is it? Do they come through or don't they? Or do you wish to redefine "come through" so that , like "flowing blood" it can mean anything?

I'll stop there for now, so that others can digest what you're doing here. Please answer these questions, neo, with honest answers.

Cheers,

 

[SteveGrenard]

Neo: I'm always telling Claus that he is entirely too literal, Steve. Accuracy is one thing, but you have to be able to use your common sense as well, and it seems that "Literal Larsen" has none. Many of the misunderstandings on this board stem from this trait of his......neo


Reply: I have to question the motivation for this trait. It is evident it is used to confirm one's own biases, cause diversion and overlooks or ignores the real issues and responses. If you are implying he doesn't know he's doing this, I have to disagree. He is fully aware of it. I have seen him not being too literal toward posters he agrees with, for example. Its a rhetorical device, everyone knows it so he should really move on. I would be interested in seeing what else he can come up with.

 

[renata]

Neo, the "big sloppy black dog" reading was rerun on CO yesterday. This was the reading wherein JE supposedy communicated messages from a dead 170 lb. Newfie with hip dysplasia, whose owner had him euthanized. According to JE, the dog spirit was forgiving the owner for not being there when he was put down. In reality, fo course, one only had to watch the reading to discern that it was the live human in the audience who was giving JE the information, which he then re-phrased.

In case you missed that, Neo. Looks like JE talked to the pooch after all.

 

[BillHoyt]

Another point is that people's frames of reference are always broadening. That first quote I made was quite a while ago. When "CO" began, JE didn't get too many pet references, and what he got was vague at times. More recently he has said that since he and his wife have gotten their two Bichon Frise, this area has opened up to him significantly, and he now brings through all sorts of pets and is able to identify them much better than he did before he had his dogs.

This is just such patently apologetic poppycock, I have to address it. Before JE's "frame of refererence" broadened, Sonia's work was cause for questioning her, but now that JE does it too, it is cause to remark on his abilities. Now don't say a word. Just wallow in the hypocrisy.

Cheers,

 

[Clancie]

And, davefoc, I also wanted to address the other part of your question

Posted by davefoc

"If you had the ability to talk to the dead, as you suspect that JE does, would you do something similar to what he does?"

Well, this is a really interesting question and I'm going to give the full range of things I can think of.

There are some things in JE's "presentation" that I personally would completely change if it were me. I would totally redesign the website, making it informative and helpful, not about "product". I would change some of CO--for example, eliminate the standing ovation and cheering in the gallery. I would allow private readings to be taped, and, for me, I would slow the whole "reading process" down to try to get the best link between the sitter and spirit I could. I would also NOT tell sitters "You're wrong" when they couldn't relate to information that I gave them.

I agree with Steve that trance mediums (historically and now) seem to bring forth a higher quality of evidence and more consistently so. But I don't think there's a choice, so I'm assuming for your question that, like JE, I'm a mental medium.

I would continue to read for the large audiences on CO. I believe it helps and comforts many people, just to observe the process. I think it helps with grief to see other people openly talking about it and dealing with it--our society usually doesn't handle these feelings very well as a whole. I think CO can be a bit of a "support group" in that sense.

If JE's legit, then CO is also educational--and I think has raised people's expectations of readings and made them better "consumers" of mediumship, less easy to fall prey to deception. (Just my belief. Claus, don't ask for proof. This is all just me chatting with davefoc about his question. ).

Anyway, I'd do the tv shows, but I don't think I would do the seminars. Too big, too many disappointed people, no educational opportunities that aren't offered already in television, videos and books.

I would definitely write books just like JE does--and make videos-- to help inform people about spirit communication and to offer them information about getting a good reading with a medium and, yes, to give them hope if they are grieving, to let them know that death is not "the end". (This is all assuming, of course, that I believe my ability is for real).

I WOULD help police locate missing people if I was convinced I had that ability (I don't think all mediums consider that a strength, although some obviously do). I would NOT solicit grieving families in order to do this, however, like some mediums do. Nor would I do it as a staged event in front of the cameras (like JVP).

I would probably NOT help identify killers, etc. because I don't think the process of ID-ing someone is 100% reliable--certainly not enough, imo, to risk wrongly implicating an innocent person. (JE says that happened to him).

I would NOT take the Challenge, because based on Randi's design of the Sylvia Test, I think it is just a PR opportunity for JREF, not a legitimate measure of mediumship. Its not science and Randi's not unbiased; I'd avoid it.

I WOULD make myself available to be tested by university researchers--but not just anyone. I'd want a thorough and respected researcher, someone familiar with parapsychology as well as being a meticulous and respected scientist and definitely skilled in conducting controlled tests of this nature and carefully documenting the results. I would look through testing requests that were offered to me, but I wouldn't go canvassing the country trying to find someone willing to do it.

I would also to look into the researcher carefully, and make sure s/he knew what they were doing. For example, I wouldn't want the same experience the mediums had with Schwartz in AZ--giving their time for the first test only to have him say that he'd screwed up and the results weren't scientifically credible after all.

I would also (I hope) regularly give readings free (and at reduced rates) for people who couldn't afford it--although figuring out how to fairly do that would be difficult, I'm sure.

 

[BillHoyt]

In case you missed that, Neo. Looks like JE talked to the pooch after all.

Yeah, Renata. She was really glued to the screen. Didn't miss a minute of it. NOT! What a huge contradiction between her saying that she hasn't seen that whole episode of the CO and saying that JE never has the pets come through. Sounds like she's a real fan, right?

ars est celare artem

Cheers,

 

[Loki]

SteveGrenard,

Does your NY trance medium fail? Are *all* readings 100% accurate? Any idea?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, like Steve said, not impolite at all. These threads move so quickly, its very easy to overlook a question. I appreciate you asking it again.

It is, however, not easy to overlook the many, many questions you do not answer.

Me, too.

Indeed. Don't you find it especially interesting that people can still believe JE is real, when they have seen so much evidence that he is not? And that they can believe that he is real, when there is absolutely no evidence that he is?

You probably already know my answer to this regarding JE. It's that he has submitted to all the scientific tests that have been asked of him, as far as any of us know.

Whoa, that's a gross distortion of the truth. JE has repeatedly made it clear that he doesn't see the need for him to be tested. And surely, you cannot call Schwartz' experiment "scientific". What was so scientific about it?

JE has a huge responsibility in this: He should be banging on the doors of scientists, not the other way around.

I guess we disagree, but I don't expect him to design his tests (he's not qualified), nor hunt the country for someone he knows nothing about who could test him.

Oh? He's not "qualified"? Then how come he suggested a vital part of Schwartz' experiment?

If he was turning down serious and fair researchers, I would think that was bad. But I don't know of anything like that that has been offered to him.

"Serious" and "fair" has nothing to do with it. In science, only the results count. If JE submitted to a test that was poorly designed, the researchers would be heavily critized. Oh, wait! That's what happened!!

As for the cure for cancer, you could look at a doctor's patients. Are they cured by his treatment or not? In JE's case, you could look at his clients. Do they feel they've contacted deceased loved ones or not?

So, the experience is enough, no real results are needed? That means that a scam artist, in your opinion, should be allowed to sell his phony quackery, just as long as (at least some) of his customers are happy.

Amazing that you advocate selling snake oil medicine to sick people.

Unfortunately, their answer to that doesn't "prove" communication has happened (unlike the easily measurable results from cancer treatments).

But a doctor can prove that the cancer is gone. That means your comparison is invalid.

Logic really isn't your big thing.

I'll let the new neo-fib slide...people have grilled her enough. It's clear that she was caught fibbin'...story of her life, it seems.

 

[davefoc]

Thank you to SteveGrenard and Clancie for their responses.

A few comments:

1. Steve seems to be skeptical of JE. I didn't understand that, my error.

2. Steve said:
"I also pointed out that his attitude is that he is not interested in being a lab rat and he couldn't care less what you think or I think. And to skeptics, he has said, and I quote "Bite me." "

It is interesting that you would reference these JE statements. From my view as a skeptic, the remarks seem of no significance, as I would have expected every charlatan to say something similar. I would have noted the inherent dishonesty of them, which possibly you didn't. On one hand he says he doesn't care what you or I think and the other hand he has a television show based on convincing people that he is successfully talking to the dead. He must care what somebody thinks.

3. Steve said:
"...he did submit to some testing ..."

I wasn't aware of this. Are the reports publically available?

4. Steve said:
"...the JREF challenge which is not a scientific test..."

Here is an area where we disagree. I don't know what the basis of this statement is. But by almost any definition that I can imagine, JREF does scientific testing. Perhaps though your definition of scientific is different than mine and if I understood that we would find some common ground on this.

5. Clancie said:
"I WOULD make myself available to be tested by university researchers--but not just anyone. I'd want a thorough and respected researcher, someone familiar with parapsychology as well as being a meticulous and respected scientist and definitely skilled in conducting controlled tests of this nature and carefully documenting the results. I would look through testing requests that were offered to me, but I wouldn't go canvassing the country trying to find someone willing to do it."

A reasonable thought. The point of my question was that if that is what you would do, don't you find it strange that JE hasn't done something similar. Or perhaps he has. You seemed to have suggested that he has undergone some kind of testing. Are these reports available?

 

[davefoc]

Clancie said:

As for the cure for cancer, you could look at a doctor's patients. Are they cured by his treatment or not? In JE's case, you could look at his clients. Do they feel they've contacted deceased loved ones or not?

Unfortunately, their answer to that doesn't "prove" communication has happened (unlike the easily measurable results from cancer treatments).?

I was surprised by your answer here Clancie.

It is very difficult to determine the efficacy of a treatment and a doctor that claimed a successful treatment based only on anecdotal evidence is certainly somebody to be highly suspect of. He would be routinely investigated and probably sanctioned by medical governing bodies.

As to looking at the doctor's patients and determining if they were cured, this would work if the cure was so powerful that the results were obvious and unequivocal. This is essentially never the case and detailed testing is required to determine the efficacy of any real world treatment. A doctor's self serving pronouncements of the benefits of his treatments without studies to back them up seem useless in determining the efficacy of a treatment.

Since even the JE defenders here would agree that his results are equivocal, detailed tests are required if one is to determine the ability of JE to talk to the dead. JE's own reports of successful communication with the dead or anecdotal tales of folks from uncontrolled readings are useless in assessing his abilities. This seems to be obvious to me for both the doctor and JE. I frankly don't understand why you don't agree.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Does your NY trance medium fail? Are *all* readings 100% accurate? Any idea?


Reply: I said my account was anecdotal and based on my personal experience. I met one person a few weeks ago who said she was not happy with her encounter with this medium but she didn't want to go into detail so I am not sure what that meant. I am not investigating or doing a survey of this medium except in idle conversation so I have no idea what the answer to your question is. But I have met people who were astounded by her work. Again, I do not have a valid score card upon which to base any statement other than my own experience. This experience is always given when I am asked what makes me think there is something to this, but for no other reason. And it was given for this reason in this instance.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Dave wrote: It is very difficult to determine the efficacy of a treatment and a doctor that claimed a successful treatment based only on anecdotal evidence is certainly somebody to be highly suspect of. He would be routinely investigated and probably sanctioned by medical governing bodies.

Any scientist claiming a cure for a disease like cancer can do so by publishing large series of detailed case histories in peer reviewed medical journals like JAMA, NEJM, Lancet and the BJM. Any claim of this nature that cannot withstand the rigors of peer review is properly deemed not credible.

Case histories are anecdotal by definition but if there are sufficient numbers of well documented ones they are an accepted means of documenting the results of treatment. I do not mean quacks who self-publish their results on websites, use patient testimonials and the rest of that kind of rubbish. I am talking about getting them accepted and published by mainstream medical journals which are peer reviewed. Unfortunately there is, like it or not and this may surprise many outside the field of medicine, a lot of politics and financial motives associated with such findings which tends to taint the peer review process.
This is particularly the case with non-mainstream remedies which cannot find acceptance because there are no really big bucks to be made by pharmaceutical firms which lavish unbelievable amounts of money on researchers. So I am really out to lunch on this subject and can't be sure if some advances are being ignored for this reason. Some workers in these fields have tried to establish alternative peer reviewed journals to advance their positions which are not under the thumb of pharmaceutical firms that support mainstream medical journals with ad and other money. One such example can be found at the following link
but I am neither qualified or even interested in assessing the
quality of their output. Only find it curious that it is officially ignored by mainstream medicine but is probably read carefully in back rooms by serious drug researchers:

http://www.worldscinet.com/ajcm/ajcm.shtml

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen wrote: Oh? He's not "qualified"? Then how come he suggested a vital part of Schwartz' experiment?

Can you tell us please what vital part of the experiment JE "suggested"?

And also how that a single suggestion qualifies one to design an entire experiment?

Thank you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

I don't understand your unwillingness to investigate this medium further. You, who always hammer on about the necessity of scientific experiments (even claiming to have carried out a few of your own), find a medium with a 100% score....and then leave it at that??

Doesn't that mean that you are not really interested in finding the truth, but prefer to savor the fond memories instead? As you say, it's all just idle conversation?

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you tell us please what vital part of the experiment JE "suggested"?

That Scwhartz used EEG.

And also how that a single suggestion qualifies one to design an entire experiment?

Who said that JE was qualified to design an entire experiment? Strawman.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Now, you can tell me: Who is qualified to design an entire experiment? And why?

Thank you.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen writes:

don't understand your unwillingness to investigate this medium further. You, who always hammer on about the necessity of scientific experiments (even claiming to have carried out a few of your own), find a medium with a 100% score....and then leave it at that??

Doesn't that mean that you are not really interested in finding the truth, but prefer to savor the fond memories instead? As you say, it's all just idle conversation?

------------------------------------------------------------REPLY SEPARATORI

I woud have first appreciated an answer to my two simple questions but, sigh, sigh, I will answer your questions first.

Unwillingness you say? I am not really unwilling so much as I am too busy and I am not funded to do this. Therefore, I cannot issue an invitation to John Edward or any other medium to participate in an investigation. I am also not qualified to do this but I am a small part of a larger group, at multiple centers, that is designing experiments and plannning on doing this. The day an invitation goes out to JE or any other medium that is declined you will be told. So far you are speculating on something which has not ocurred. The decision to do what experiment with what medium is not my own. This is funded research by a recent post-doc at a major university.

In the meantime there is ongoing research being done in the U.K. Holland and elsewhere that proceeds apace. It is a slow, painstaking process that does not give the kind of unscientific, instant gratification promised by the JREF challenge.


There is also a long history of prior investigations and I gave you
three references that will require a fifty dollar outlay on your part to obtain in order to assess these for yourself.

So no, it does not mean I am not really interested in the truth.
Personal experiences are extremely important for any observer and I have conveyed these. You can take them or leave them; indeed, I am not interested in what you think about them. I furnish them for those who ask me a specific question (see above). You have been given the advice to seek some of your own, even an offer of a prepaid ticket to see a medium in Calfiornia when you used to live in NY. You made quick work of shredding that offer so we know you are the one who is really not interested in truth, personal or otherwise.

Now, can you respond to my questions? Thank you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

You're too....busy?? You are standing (potentially) in front of one of the biggest discoveries of all time, and you are too...busy??

Does this everlasting ongoing research ever result in anything?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Unfortunatey I have to make a living,. Will you pay my salary for the next three years to do this? I will get un-busy very quick, Otherwise I will be living in a box in front of a church somewhere.


Are you for real? Or are you all b.s.? And where are the answers to my questions sonny? Your answers as given were insufficient and evasive. You said JE was qualified to design a vital part of the experiment? What was vital about using EEG in this experiment? Do you know?

 

[CFLarsen]

Unfortunatey I have to make a living,. Will you pay my salary for the next three years to do this? I will get un-busy very quick, Otherwise I will be living in a box in front of a church somewhere.

Well, then, have you alerted the psychic researchers about this fantastic, awesome, incredibly precise medium?

Are you for real? Or are you all b.s.? And where are the answers to my questions sonny?

Scroll up. It the pace is too fast for you, just say so.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: Does this everlasting ongoing research ever result in anything?

Rhetorical question but it does have an answer. Visit the various websites where the published results and/or abstracts of Robinson and Roy, Blackmore, Wiseman, Schwartz, Parker and other parpsychological research are published. Visit the JSPR website.

Yes, it results in results which are then published so that others can assess the findings and make up their own minds including, for some unknown reason, yourself. I gave you three references of the results of many many decades of research but you ignore it, now for the fourth or fifth time. So for you, it results in nothing because you wish to ignore answers that fail to confirm your personal biases.