• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

John Edward in person

Stray Cat said:
Could you tell us what you consider 'sceptc' to mean?


What makes a good crook/criminal is his/her ability to present themselves as 'not the type who would be a crook'
If all robbers walked around with eye masks and striped sweaters, carrying a bag that said 'swag' on it, we'd be less likely to fall for their thieving ways.


Isn't it odd how when people get ripped off by scammers and conmen, they don't detect any evidence of lying, fraud or underhanded deception either... until their money has gone and they realise it.


I went to see Lance Burton and he made one maybe two girls appear from nowhere... My memory is faint because I really wasn't counting... He is a master of misdirection.


I hear the phone services are just as accurate as the 'in person' ones*.
Click to expand...


You have summed up my position quite precisely. I am looking forward to our guest, the alleged skeptic, answering questions about the documented fraud John Edward.
 
Successful con artists do not twist their mustaches and laugh maniacally. I don't see why him being personable makes him a good guy.
 
First of all.
1)test tates mathematical propability. People aren't machines. The score 5/10 could go to 20 and the hit rate would dimish, what then? Till 30 it could disapear below coincidence rate.
Statistics give more or less same score no matter how big is the research. In this occasion it doesn't need to happen like that.
2) I am not entirely sure what will be next after I have given you the name of my Uni. What after? You would need my name, year of my Uni, profesors name etc.
Not confident about it. I might actually prefer if you keep critisizing me as it is your power on the forum anyway no matter what I say.
3) Sceptic nature isn't what this forum represents in the idea. Being sceptical to paranormal evidence isn't the same as just being sceptical cos you can as well demy any evidence whatever it is, then the discussion is pointless.
I know people like that and I am sure you know them too,
I started a discussion with belivers and they belive no matte what, find an explanation in unexplained. More, the explanation changes all the time as long as the context stays in the spirit of beliving. Same thing but opposite.
4) I totaly agree on Edwards being a conman.
It is a tv show. It is less supernatural than watching a switched off tv when you analyze this program.

He needs audience to give him details, then says something not detailed what audience wants to hear.
Hardly unexplained.
 
Last edited:
Js1981 said:
First of all.
1)test tates mathematical propability. People aren't machines. The score 5/10 could go to 20 and the hit rate would dimish, what then? Till 30 it could disapear below coincidence rate.
Statistics give more or less same score no matter how big is the research. In this occasion it doesn't need to happen like that.
Click to expand...

I'm not really clear on what you're saying, but the test would of course require the person to score above chance over enough trials to make the result significant. One or two lucky guesses don't mean anything.

In other words, if there's a 50/50 chance of being right, getting 1 out of 4 guesses right or 3 out of four guesses right wouldn't be significant either way. Getting 75 out of 100 right, would.

If someone can actually do something consistently better than chance, it will show up as significant in enough trials.
 
Yes I think that Randi' test wouldn't be even conclusive fo sceptics.
It merely proves that something or exists or it doesn't.
There is too conditions which could affect a human brain to actually rely on Randi' test even for a scientist.

Going to back to statistics. Statistics don't change depending on proportion: 5 out of 10, 10 out of 20 etc.
What if one test shows 5/10, second 4/10 and thirs 6/10 - already 20 per cent variation, too big for a statistical mistake and random.

Answers also would need to be identical.
What is they are similar, does that count? How similar they need to be?

Test merely states yes or no. What if it was inconclusive, would you repeat it or just score negative?
 
Last edited:
Every JREF test protocol is designed individually for the particular claim being made, but for a claim that involves doing significantly better than chance (e.g. a dowser telling buried barrels of water from buried barrels of sand) the success criteria is set such that the claimant must do significantly better than chance. As I understand it for the preliminary test the claimant must beat odds of 1:1000. No claimant has ever got as far as the second and final test, but the expectation is that the success criteria for that would be as high (making the total odds the claimant has beaten 1:1000000) or, more probably, even higher.

Obviously that means there's a very small chance that someone could win the $1m even without a paranormal ability, but I know I for one would be very impressed if anyone did.
 
Js1981 said:
Yes I think that Randi' test wouldn't be even conclusive fo sceptics.
It merely proves that something or exists or it doesn't.
There is too conditions which could affect a human brain to actually rely on Randi' test even for a scientist.

Going to back to statistics. Statistics don't change depending on proportion: 5 out of 10, 10 out of 20 etc.
What if one test shows 5/10, second 4/10 and thirs 6/10 - already 20 per cent variation, too big for a statistical mistake and random.

Answers also would need to be identical.
What is they are similar, does that count? How similar they need to be?

Test merely states yes or no. What if it was inconclusive, would you repeat it or just score negative?
Click to expand...

:confused: Maybe . . . or . . . maybe not. :boggled:
 
Js1981 said:
It merely proves that something or exists or it doesn't.
Click to expand...

No. If someone passes, it may be strong evidence that the power exists and warrants further study. If they do not pass, it simply means that they did not exhibit the power at that test at that time. It in no way universally disproves the concept.
 
Js1981 said:
2) I am not entirely sure what will be next after I have given you the name of my Uni. What after? You would need my name, year of my Uni, profesors name etc.
Click to expand...
What would happen next would be that I would e-mail the science department and ask them to give me details of the 'tests done on telepathic birds' that they are teaching their students about.
No I don't need your name, maybe your professor's name would help.
As you apparently don't have any desire to find the information to back up your claim, I am willing to give it a go, because I'm open minded enough to take the time to look into it.

Js1981 said:
Not confident about it. I might actually prefer if you keep critisizing me as it is your power on the forum anyway no matter what I say.
Click to expand...
On the contrary... If it turns out that there are tests on telepathic birds as you claim (that are not the tests I already linked to), I will apologise wholeheartedly for doubting you and we could maybe have rational discussion about them.
 
Js1981 said:
First of all.
1)test tates mathematical propability. People aren't machines. The score 5/10 could go to 20 and the hit rate would dimish, what then? Till 30 it could disapear below coincidence rate.
Click to expand...


That's right. That is why the JREF consult statisticians and design protocols with enough trials to make a successful result highly unlikely, thus providing evidence of paranormal powers.
 
Js1981 said:
The most stupid is the medium claim to read through the phone or the tv which have their own magnetic fields interrupting.
Click to expand...

Wrong! The most stupid is the fools who hear about the "service"
and pay real money for it!
 
Someone got my hopes up when I thought I saw "John Edwards in prison" as the thread title. Wish that was the truth, though I doubt it would have much impact on the 'psychic' community (any more than a priest getting arrested for improper behavior would have an impact on the RC church).

As to John Edwards I only knew of the man from his show on SciFi (Is that still running by the way?). I never knew what hot/warm/cold/ readings were, but it was immediately transparent what was going on that I was surprised no one called him out on it.
 
The opening poster has appeared to have vanished. Seacrest out, indeed.
 
seacrest said:
Attended John Edward's seminar recently. Being a healthy skeptic and of inquiring mind, compelled I was to experience JE live. I found him to be personable, natural and genuine. I detected no evidence that he was lying, delusional, or otherwise in need of therapy or psychopharmaceuticals.
He read many people and all but one, maybe two, included substantive validations. I am curious of others in person, group or better yet, private, experiences with JE or with another medium. Some provide their services by phone.
Click to expand...

Others here will say this better than I can, but John Edward is far from pyschic. Once, while watching his TV show many years ago I remember him "psychically" determining that someone in the audience (of over 100 people) had either been in, or was close to someone involved in a motorcycle accident. What are the odds that in over 100 non Amish Americans that someone will be able to make that connection?

Not only is he not genuine, he is so bad at his trade that even a rank amateur like me can pick him out. And he's arrogant on top of it. At least Van Pragh (sp?) has the common decency to show humility while he's defrauding people.

Regarding your observation that he is personable, I can only say the following: Have you ever met a good con man that you didn't like?
 
So “seacrest” joins the forum to make a single post praising JE - “I found him to be personable, natural and genuine. I detected no evidence that he was lying, delusional, or otherwise in need of therapy or psycho pharmaceuticals. He read many people and all but one, maybe two, included substantive validations”.

This person is obviously a JE believer/supporter and is definitely not “a healthy skeptic and of inquiring mind” as falsely claimed.

Does this poster really think that by merely claiming to be “a healthy skeptic and of inquiring mind“ anyone would conclude that JE is actually a nice person with genuine paranormal abilities? Pathetic!
 
ynot said:
Does this poster really think that by merely claiming to be “a healthy skeptic and of inquiring mind“ anyone would conclude that JE is actually a nice person with genuine paranormal abilities? Pathetic!
Click to expand...
Sadly, as the credulous are used to dealing with other credulous people, the answer is probably "yes", they did think some people would believe them without question.
 
seacrest said:
Anybody? Dr. Shermer? Mr. Zwinge? Anybody?
Click to expand...

While Mr. Zwinge's name is embedded in the forum's name he never reads the threads here.

As for seeing John Edward in person, after I saw him get caught cheating on NBC's Dateline, I had no desire to actually pay money to see him perform in person. Of course, if John Edward wants a million dollars for one hours work, he is perfectly welcome to call up Mr. Zwinge and ask for a controlled test.

There are charlatans and then there are charlatans. Making money by preying on grieving people is low - disgustingly low. I have nothing but contempt for this vile professional liar.
 
seacrest said:
Anybody? Dr. Shermer? Mr. Zwinge? Anybody?
Click to expand...


It's always refreshing when honestly mistaken and sincere new posters on these forums make the effort to listen to the other side of the argument and visit the informative links provided about the tricks of the trade these opportunistic charlatans use to strip people of their money.

Thank you, seacrest. Posters such as you are few and far between. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom