• 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

1) I don't state that it intercepts telepathy I state that it interceps any signal. Just check yourself, receiver equipment wires lying around one on the other mixed with other ones create enough electromagnetism to intercept the signal- a fact, check, measure, whatever you want.

2) Jref context is set by a set magician debunking psychics and mediumship. Real excersises merely state that for example: twins sense eachother being seperatly in different rooms in better score than a mathematical propability. A dog sense if his owner wants to play with him, go for a walk etc etc in a higher rate than a mathematical propability.
The best scores were actually noted whitin talkin birds being hidden behind a screen while pictures including words they knew were being shown and the bird(parrot) was saying correct word in a high hitting rate.
That is about that. What did you expect X-Men movie with people reading mind? Randi' test debunks performing psychics and mediums and it has little to do with the actual science.

3) well basing that a healer gets to people using his own energy and actually can do it, a human being wouldn't have enough energy to affect a single human being not mentioning whole crawd or adress the impact to 10th raw at the back etc - impossible.

Person like that creates a placebo effect at best.
There is lots of work done in that direction debunking lots of common beliefs like: coffee helps to focus better, pain killers release lots of cause etc.
It is a short term working perception.
 
1)twins sense each other being seperatly in different rooms in better score than a mathematical propability.

Really? I'm very intrested in twins. Do you have a link to studies on this twins effect?
 
The best scores were actually noted whitin talkin birds being hidden behind a screen while pictures including words they knew were being shown and the bird(parrot) was saying correct word in a high hitting rate.

Too many lols to put in a single post here.

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/

Mmmmm....Amiee Morgana... A friend of Rupert Sheldrake :eek:
He's an expert in ignoring confirmation bias isn't he?

This is a bit funny too: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/on-dangers-telepathic.php
 
Last edited:
Too many lols to put in a single post here.

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/

Mmmmm....Amiee Morgana... A friend of Rupert Sheldrake :eek:
He's an expert in ignoring confirmation bias isn't he?

This is a bit funny too: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/on-dangers-telepathic.php

You are actually wrong.
I am not biased I merely state what I learned at shool 20yrs ago.
You need to understand that not everything sensationalist is worth looking at.
Yes, lol at sensationalists pseudo-scientist who heard something and repeating with double cheking.

There are great French, Asian, Russian studies not everything what appears on US tv is final and definiete.
 
There are great French, Asian, Russian studies not everything what appears on US tv is final and definiete.
So instead of having me running around the internet and finding relevant stuff that fits the description you give, only for you to say "no, not that one", could you just give us a clue as to where these French, Asian and Russian studies are or who did them?

BTW: I don't watch US TV, we get a much stronger signal from the UK transmitters here in England (when the signal isn't being blocked by telepathic messages from talking parrots). :)
 
I am really sorry as english isn't my first language and never studied scientific terms in english.

Don't worry about that.

Even though this is a predominately English speaking board, there are many of us that can converse in other languages. I am fluent also in French, German and Spanish. There are many others that can handle Portuguese, Japanese, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Japanese, Chinese, Dutch, etc.

The Hindi folks here seem to be pushing Homeopathy, so we ignore them.

There are also a few folks that claim some knowledge of this old language called 'strain. We treat them with the disdain that they deserve.

V.
 
So instead of having me running around the internet and finding relevant stuff that fits the description you give, only for you to say "no, not that one", could you just give us a clue as to where these French, Asian and Russian studies are or who did them?

BTW: I don't watch US TV, we get a much stronger signal from the UK transmitters here in England (when the signal isn't being blocked by telepathic messages from talking parrots). :)

Unfortunetaly I would need to point you to my school books which were in Polish, I don't think that would be much help.
So please find your time to study otherwise your conclusion is as shallow as empirical conclusion by belivers- pretty much wasted discussion. I merely stated that results were higher than mathematical probality. Anomalies happen, I am sorry if someone expected someone reading other people mind as a proof.
I witnessed a study once concluded with a mother and daughter who claimed could feel each others moods.
One was asked by a student to picture herself in a white church, the other could see a white tower like a church tower - the closest I ever got to see something interesting during my time, can be explained but at least it wasn't boring lol.

Going back to the subject- I am sorry to drift from it.

Besides cold reading there is sure co-operation with someone from the audience.
Has that guy production credits for his shows? You know some supposly mediums only agree for a seance as long as whole circle is filled by their friends.

In one and one persuasion can be great. It is much easier when the audience wants to be persuaded. Derren Brown - I am sure everyone knows did a very old trick in media, he explained that buying a random thing and then making a receiver believe that this is a gift he/she wanted is a better idea than trying to guess what people want to get.
A very old trick, people always fall for it.
This guy could practise it to, audience feed him after cold reading and then he just says something out of blue what people want to here.
 
Last edited:
For a moment, I was very happy.

I thought the title of this thread was "John Edwards in jail".
 
Unfortunetaly I would need to point you to my school books which were in Polish, I don't think that would be much help.
They taught you stuff in school that doesn't exist, except for in your school books?
Wow... what a crazy system that would be. And I thought only Religious Schools taught from books full of fairy tales. :)

So please find your time to study otherwise your conclusion is as shallow as empirical conclusion by belivers-
No actually, I'm not inclined to go on a wild goose chase looking for stuff that most likely doesn't exist, you made the claim that these tests were done legitimately, The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. I'm sure if these studies do exist, someone around here will have come across them at some point (maybe they went to the same school as you :rolleyes:). Oddly, the only study I found mentioned on the interweb is the study done by Sheldrakes friend (and she doesn't cite any other studies either)... so rather less than credible then.

I merely stated that results were higher than mathematical probality.
Yes, in the daft study I linked to, the result was the same (apparently), however, if the protocols and data gathering and analysis are approached incorrectly and experimenter bias is not properly and objectively accounted for, it's no surprise that someone who believes in nonsense can develop a test that proves their nonsense to other people who believe in the same nonsense.
 
1twins sense eachother being seperatly in different rooms in better score than a mathematical propability.

i'm going to ignore the rest of the crap, and focus on this: do you have any evidence for this whatsoever? no? okay then.
 
Last edited:
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.

Just to confirm your view, go see him again and record the whole thing (video and audio). Then come back here with the recording and then we can deconstruct what happened and perhaps validate your POV.
 
Jref context is set by a set magician debunking psychics and mediumship. Real excersises merely state that for example: twins sense eachother being seperatly in different rooms in better score than a mathematical propability.


A test of twins sensing each other's presence in separate rooms would be eligible for the JREF million dollar challenge. Further, the JREF demands self-evident results that don't rely on subjective judgment. A statistical result greater than probability would predict is precisely the kind of measurement of success the JREF would welcome in a suggested protocol.

The JREF is not only about debunking psychics and mediums. It is about objectively testing any and all paranormal claims as long as it is safe to do so.
 
1) I don't state that it intercepts telepathy I state that it interceps any signal. Just check yourself, receiver equipment wires lying around one on the other mixed with other ones create enough electromagnetism to intercept the signal- a fact, check, measure, whatever you want.

2) Jref context is set by a set magician debunking psychics and mediumship. Real excersises merely state that for example: twins sense eachother being seperatly in different rooms in better score than a mathematical propability. A dog sense if his owner wants to play with him, go for a walk etc etc in a higher rate than a mathematical propability.
The best scores were actually noted whitin talkin birds being hidden behind a screen while pictures including words they knew were being shown and the bird(parrot) was saying correct word in a high hitting rate.
That is about that. What did you expect X-Men movie with people reading mind? Randi' test debunks performing psychics and mediums and it has little to do with the actual science.

3) well basing that a healer gets to people using his own energy and actually can do it, a human being wouldn't have enough energy to affect a single human being not mentioning whole crawd or adress the impact to 10th raw at the back etc - impossible.

Person like that creates a placebo effect at best.
There is lots of work done in that direction debunking lots of common beliefs like: coffee helps to focus better, pain killers release lots of cause etc.
It is a short term working perception.
With no offense (honest) I have to ask if English is your first language - and, in all honesty, if it is not, you are doing better in it than I could in any other language. But: if it is or isn't, you need to work on your phrasing a bit (for example, if I am not missing anything due to the situation, I rephrase your #3 above: 3)Well, assuming that a healer affects people by using his own energy , he would not have enough energy to affect one person not to mention a whole crowd - and it would be impossible for him to affect a person in the 10th row or more back for the same reason - as his own energy only would not have that reach.):)
 
I know I am sorry, english isn't my first language.
I learned general communication but not specic words, I would have problems shopping for equipment for instance as it isn't a part of labguage you learn at english lessons.

For the other poster:
Do you want me to tell you the name of the school?
Your conclusion is made up. You said something then you concluded that you are right(why not, right?) and then contradited my post based on the fact that you allow yourself to be more right than other people(why not again?)
Hardly a scientific discussion.

And no, twins having higher propability than a mathematical coincindence wouldn't pass the test.
Have you actually read the conditions or you are sceptical in nature and ignore evidence assuming that being sceptical equals being correct?
 
Do you want me to tell you the name of the school?
Yes please , that would at least be something. Maybe they know where these tests were done and who by.

Your conclusion is made up.
I haven't really reached a conclusion. I have only been able to find one study of the type you mentioned (telepathic birds). Now I have a conclusion about that particular study based upon what I've read and what I understand of it. The studies that you are talking about although I doubt exist, I'm willing to accept that they do as soon as evidence that they do is provided. Only after I've had a chance to study them can I reach a conclusion about their veracity.
 
How many people accidentally read the thread title "John Edward in prison" and then were utterly disappointed when they opened the thread?

ETA: oh, there's one :D

For a moment, I was very happy.

I thought the title of this thread was "John Edwards in jail".
 
And no, twins having higher propability than a mathematical coincindence wouldn't pass the test.
Have you actually read the conditions or you are sceptical in nature and ignore evidence assuming that being sceptical equals being correct?


Oh, yes, it certainly would pass the test!

The claim certainly fits into the category of 'paranormal' as defined in the JREF Challenge FAQ as 'not scientifically explainable'.
Source: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-faq.html

Statistically significant results are accepted and encouraged methods of determining success, such as the binomial probabilities used to determine success in a marital telepathy protocol developed in 2006.
Source: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57362

The JREF may and often does consult statisticians in negotiating protocols.
Source: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

So, which part of the claim do you think would be rejected by the JREF?
 

Back
Top Bottom