John Edward - psychic or what?

[kedo1981]

I said it better

 

[Sherman Bay]

Forgive me if this idea is buried somewhere in 9 pages. I haven't read them all.

Let's assume that the guy wasn't a plant or shill.

RemieV, my WAG is that something happened that you ignored, but a good magician -- someone of Randi's caliber -- would have picked up on. It's common for an average person to report a trick as he/she interpreted it, but not how it actually happened. Somewhere in your mind is an assumption that wouldn't be supported if we could access a video of your experience.

As a very simple example, someone once told me they saw a girl in a box who turned her head around twice while her body didn't move. How could that happen? Impossible!

Did he actually see her head turn around? Of course not. She was largely wedged in a box and partly covered up. When I examined the video, it was obvious to me that the girl turned her head a little, then the box covered the action, then the back of her head was visible, still turning, then her head came around to the front and she had a crosseyed expression.

The assumption made by the viewer was that the part that looked like the back of her head was the back of her head. Not so. It was probably a wig bolted to the box.

But the viewer didn't say, "I saw a wig where her head should be," but "I saw the back of her head." See how a logical observation can lead to the wrong conclusion?

 

[Tommytwonines]

The actual question was - "How did he do it?"

The answer is - "Any one of a myriad of known and understood non-paranprmal means that have been explained in this thread".

Yup. It looks like the thread's just about done. RemieV/OP?

 

[RemieV]

Sorry, I honestly hadn't looked at this thread since the last time I posted in it. Someone PM'd me asking if I was going to update with the transcript and whatnot. Really, I don't have time anymore, firstly because I just got a new job, and secondly because I was taking hours to write responses to things that had already been discussed to death, and people just hadn't read the nine pages to realize that. This is the response I gave to the PM:

I have not returned to that thread since having the realization that, rather than helping me figure out the methodology, everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know. Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time, and frankly, I have a job and a life. I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic.

And I know - that sounds exactly like something a believer would say in response to demands for evidence. But here's how it's going from my perspective.

Me: Hey! My grandmother is turning eighty, and I'm wondering what to get her for her birthday.

Half the people: Suggestion, suggestion, suggestion.

The other half of the people: She's turning eighty? How do you know?

Me: Well, she was born in such and such year, but that's not really the point.

The same people again: Well, clearly, if we're going to suggest gifts, you have to prove she's really eighty.

Me: Whether or not she's really eighty doesn't alter what I'm doing.

The same people again: Have you actually SEEN her birth certificate?

Me: Yes, I've seen it. So, what do I get her?

The same people again: Well, you're going to need to scan in her birth certificate before we can suggest anything.

Me: ???

My question was NEVER whether or not John Edward was psychic. By the time I posted the OP, I had already determined that he was either warm or hot reading. The question was HOW he was doing it, not whether or not he was. Half the people in the thread gave me suggestions for how he might've warm or hot read, and I have paid attention to those suggestions, and the next time I go to the show, I will have narrowed down that suggestion pool to the ones I find the most likely. Any other discussion, frankly, has nothing to do with what I was asking, and is taking far too much time to address.

Sorry if that's not an interesting enough answer.

-- Remie

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You asked if he was a psychic or what ?

The resounding answer is " what " ?


How he did it is essentialy " magician secret " ; but without a lot of knowledge of all the variables of the interactions of the subject leading up to the encounter, everything is speculation.

Rest assured, that the process that Edward used to appear mystical, included parts and/or combinations of all the techniques discussed in this thread..

" I'm pretty sure Joshua didn't talk to anyone connected to Edward before the event. " & etc., is not evidence to the contrary...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have not returned to that thread since having the realization that, rather than helping me figure out the methodology, everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know. Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time, and frankly, I have a job and a life. I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic.

Right, but we were really only asking you to clarify one thing:

So Liam stood up. One of the ushers brought him a microphone so that he could communicate with Edward. Edward again said that he had gotten the name 'Joshua', and then said that there was something weird about it, because he had the sensation that the name was LIAM's. Then Edward paused for a moment. Liam had not said anything at this time.

And it may very well be that you already know and that there is nothing more you can learn from this thread, but that still leave us wondering what happened. And we want clarification because, like you, we are fascinated to know what really went on.

~~ Paul

 

[ynot]

Sorry, I honestly hadn't looked at this thread since the last time I posted in it. Someone PM'd me asking if I was going to update with the transcript and whatnot. Really, I don't have time anymore, firstly because I just got a new job, and secondly because I was taking hours to write responses to things that had already been discussed to death, and people just hadn't read the nine pages to realize that. This is the response I gave to the PM:

I have not returned to that thread since having the realization that, rather than helping me figure out the methodology, everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know. Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time, and frankly, I have a job and a life. I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic.

And I know - that sounds exactly like something a believer would say in response to demands for evidence. But here's how it's going from my perspective.

Me: Hey! My grandmother is turning eighty, and I'm wondering what to get her for her birthday.

Half the people: Suggestion, suggestion, suggestion.

The other half of the people: She's turning eighty? How do you know?

Me: Well, she was born in such and such year, but that's not really the point.

The same people again: Well, clearly, if we're going to suggest gifts, you have to prove she's really eighty.

Me: Whether or not she's really eighty doesn't alter what I'm doing.

The same people again: Have you actually SEEN her birth certificate?

Me: Yes, I've seen it. So, what do I get her?

The same people again: Well, you're going to need to scan in her birth certificate before we can suggest anything.

Me: ???

My question was NEVER whether or not John Edward was psychic. By the time I posted the OP, I had already determined that he was either warm or hot reading. The question was HOW he was doing it, not whether or not he was. Half the people in the thread gave me suggestions for how he might've warm or hot read, and I have paid attention to those suggestions, and the next time I go to the show, I will have narrowed down that suggestion pool to the ones I find the most likely. Any other discussion, frankly, has nothing to do with what I was asking, and is taking far too much time to address.

Sorry if that's not an interesting enough answer.

-- Remie

Oh dear, that sadly does read to me as a “believerish” copout. Had expected/hoped for something better from someone with RemieV’s sceptical background and experience.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh dear, that sadly does read to me as a “believerish” copout. Had expected/hoped for something better from someone with RemieV’s sceptical background and experience.

I don't think it's a believerish copout, but it does leave us hanging.

~~ Paul

 

[dudalb]

I would say "what" John Edwards is except the mods won't let me....

 

[ynot]

I don't think it's a believerish copout, but it does leave us hanging.

~~ Paul

Why I believe it’s a “believerish copout" . . .

“rather than helping me figure out the methodology”
How can we help to figure out the methodology when we only have RemieV’s memory account of the events? She doesn’t even trust the veracity of this essentially anecdotal account of events herself (see post #290). Providing only anecdotal evidence and expecting others to accept it, and not providing claimed credible evidence, is “believerish”.

“everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know.”
But the point is “everyone” doesn’t know these things. Providing only anecdotal evidence and expecting others to accept it is “believerish”.

“Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time.”
She was only requested to provide a relatively small part of the recording not the whole thing. Wouldn’t require a MASSIVE amount of effort or time and to claim it would is “believerish”.

“I have a job and a life”
Given most people on this forum have a job and a life to use this as some form of excuse is “believerish”. Especially coming from the person that started the thread.

“I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic”
Then stop making comments that don’t reflect that you are a sceptic. Example - “By the time I posted the OP, I had already determined that he was either warm or hot reading.” A sceptic with your experience and knowledge should have “determined” WELL prior to posting the OP that Edward, Oliver and ALL people that claim to have psychic abilities are either cold, warm or hot reading. On what credible grounds is any other scenario possible enough to warrant sceptical consideration?

“And I know - that sounds exactly like something a believer would say“.”
Yep.

“in response to demands for evidence”
Claiming requests for evidence are “demands for evidence” is “believerish”.

“But here's how it's going from my perspective . . .”
Requesting an account of the actual event directly from a recording isn’t in any way related to the ridiculous scenario given. To even suggest it’s similar is “believerish”.

Interpreting requests for credible information as being personal attacks is “believerish”.

Yep, leaves us hanging like any claims unsupported by credible evidence do.

 

[Resume]

I would say "what" John Edwards is except the mods won't let me....

Nah, go ahead. C'mon.

 

[Hitch]

Nah, go ahead. C'mon.

Let's just put it this way, Penn Jillette can't get sued for saying what we think John Edward is on Showtime, but the mods would likely take disciplinary action if we posted it here.

 

[wombatwal]

I have just come across this thread tonight.
Read the whole bloody thing.
And now up in the air like some of you others.
Ynot, RemieV's response at the end of this thread is a bit "believerish", but I don't think she is one, no evidence to say that though.
I think she is just fed up with the thread.
Maybe some of what she said earlier may be a bit inaccurate (not intentionally) and is now backpedaling, but no evidence on my part to say that either.
Unless we have a much better recording of the nights entertainment we will never know.

 

[ynot]

I have just come across this thread tonight.
Read the whole bloody thing.
And now up in the air like some of you others.
Ynot, RemieV's response at the end of this thread is a bit "believerish", but I don't think she is one, no evidence to say that though.
I think she is just fed up with the thread.
Maybe some of what she said earlier may be a bit inaccurate (not intentionally) and is now backpedaling, but no evidence on my part to say that either.
Unless we have a much better recording of the nights entertainment we will never know.

Saying a person is posting in a “believerish” manner isn‘t saying that person is a believer and I have no doubt that RemieV is as much a sceptic as you and I. I’m merely saying that I’m surprised and somewhat disappointed that such a committed, qualified and experienced sceptic as RemieV has posted in this thread in such a “believerish” manner. She should be fully aware of the sceptical nature of this forum and that members expect credible evidence to be presented when it exists. I’m only applying the same standards to RemieV that I would to a believer or any other member. I‘m sure if a believer had started this thread and posted as RemieV has they wouldn‘t have been treated so “kindly“ by some members.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Sorry, I honestly hadn't looked at this thread since the last time I posted in it. Someone PM'd me asking if I was going to update with the transcript and whatnot. Really, I don't have time anymore, firstly because I just got a new job, and secondly because I was taking hours to write responses to things that had already been discussed to death, and people just hadn't read the nine pages to realize that. This is the response I gave to the PM:

I have not returned to that thread since having the realization that, rather than helping me figure out the methodology, everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know. Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time, and frankly, I have a job and a life. I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic.

And I know - that sounds exactly like something a believer would say in response to demands for evidence. But here's how it's going from my perspective.

Me: Hey! My grandmother is turning eighty, and I'm wondering what to get her for her birthday.

Half the people: Suggestion, suggestion, suggestion.

The other half of the people: She's turning eighty? How do you know?

Me: Well, she was born in such and such year, but that's not really the point.

The same people again: Well, clearly, if we're going to suggest gifts, you have to prove she's really eighty.

Me: Whether or not she's really eighty doesn't alter what I'm doing.

The same people again: Have you actually SEEN her birth certificate?

Me: Yes, I've seen it. So, what do I get her?

The same people again: Well, you're going to need to scan in her birth certificate before we can suggest anything.

Me: ???

My question was NEVER whether or not John Edward was psychic. By the time I posted the OP, I had already determined that he was either warm or hot reading. The question was HOW he was doing it, not whether or not he was. Half the people in the thread gave me suggestions for how he might've warm or hot read, and I have paid attention to those suggestions, and the next time I go to the show, I will have narrowed down that suggestion pool to the ones I find the most likely. Any other discussion, frankly, has nothing to do with what I was asking, and is taking far too much time to address.

Sorry if that's not an interesting enough answer.

-- Remie

Would you have titled such a thread "My grandmother - eighty or what?" If you had, would you not have expected such replies?

Despite the unfortunate thread title, you did not address significant, relevant questions to your original post. That left us all hanging very much in speculation. And such speculation and apparent willful neglect to provide reasonable, requested information naturally leads to questions of intent and motivation, especially considering the thread title.

I understand what you were trying to do with this thread, but the unwanted reactions you received seem justified.

 

[wombatwal]

I had a similar experience to RemieV.
In 2009 I went to a psychic show.
It was for a Ezio De Angelis a Sydney Psychic. Who was seen in Australia's TV show "The One" search for Australia's most gifted psychic .
Anyway, he had a few readings that I could not work out how he got the information, apart from hot reading, which was the most rational explanation. He knew a lot of the people at the show, he also communicated with a lot on Facebook.
Below is a link to my humble blog on this. I was abused by one of the believers that went to the same show but I could not remember her reading. She commented on my blog.
My blog on Ezio De Angelis.

 

[Tommytwonines]

Right, but we were really only asking you to clarify one thing:

And it may very well be that you already know and that there is nothing more you can learn from this thread, but that still leave us wondering what happened. And we want clarification because, like you, we are fascinated to know what really went on.

~~ Paul

Absolutely, most of us just want the answer to this one question.

RemieV has made more than 30 other posts in other threads in this forum alone since we asked - again - for clarification to this one simple question, the Liam/Joshua question. She doesn't have the time? How long would it take? 5 minutes?

Why so evasive?

Wait - is she Charles Boden?

 

[neofight]

Well, I'm disappointed as well. I asked RemieV if she were interested in hearing about my own experience at a John Edward seminar that I attended several years ago, and she told me to go ahead, which I did, via PM. I laid it all out in several lengthy PMs over the course of a couple of days, and she never once responded to anything I wrote.

I know she has no obligation to do so of course, but it was disappointing all the same, as I was interested in hearing her theory about how she thought JE could have possibly known the information he gave out that day. The reason I didn't post it here on the forum is because, as I mentioned to her, I'd already been there and done that back then, and wasn't looking to rehash the entire matter here.

 

[neofight]

Bump

 

[Robin1]

Yup, I totally manipulated you into entering this thread with that title. BWAHAHA.

Okay, so, I ran the Challenge for three years, and I get how people who claim to be psychic operate. I've had readings from tons of psychics - both famous and not - and have been able to see through them the vast majority of the time, though I will say that John Oliver is impressive, and the only thing that causes me to discount him is an assumption that can neither be proven nor falsified.

I've also seen psychics do Vegas shows. In person, I mean. These include James Van Praagh and John Edward. Van Praagh was awful. I mean, he couldn't psychic his way out of a paper bag.

Edward, on the other hand, did one thing that was so solid that I was impressed. I can't figure out how he did it. I've mentioned this to skeptics before, and they are going with the "obviously that was a plant" route. I remain unconvinced. So, I'm going to tell you what happened. If you can, tell me how he did it.

I was standing in line for the show. The line for the show went out the theatre doors and into the casino proper - meaning that it was very loud, and that no one was around besides people perhaps fifteen feet away who were gambling at tables. While waiting to get into the show, I only spoke to one person. This man, who was around fifty five years old (I'm guessing) was named, let's say, Liam. (I am picking a name with roughly the same popularity as the real one.)

I spoke to Liam for about five minutes. He was from Canada, and was in town for only three days. He loved John Edward's television shows, and when he got into town and saw the billboards announcing that he would be giving a performance, Liam bought a ticket. He showed me the ticket. I was in the mid-range tier of tickets, and he was in the lowest tier. The ticket said he had paid cash - meaning that he was not comped in by a performer.

So far, three important things:

1) He was from out of town.
2) He bought his ticket spontaneously.
3) He paid cash for it.

We went inside, and Liam took his seat, and I took mine. I could see him from where I was sitting if I turned around. I should add - I was attending the show under a false name, and I was costumed in such a way that I was not recognizable as me. I had a fake backstory that I responded with any time anyone asked me what brought me to the show.

Continuing.

John Edward eventually came out on stage and began his readings. Most of what he said was unverifiable hullaballoo. Until...

He pointed toward the table behind me, where Liam was sitting, and said that he was getting the name 'Joshua'. I am again using a fake name of the same level of popularity. And I don't mean that he said he was getting a 'j' or the name 'Josh' or the feeling of a male presence. I mean that John Edward pointed at the table where Liam was sitting and said he was getting the name Joshua.

So Liam stood up. One of the ushers brought him a microphone so that he could communicate with Edward. Edward again said that he had gotten the name 'Joshua', and then said that there was something weird about it, because he had the sensation that the name was LIAM's. Then Edward paused for a moment. Liam had not said anything at this time. Edward said that, though Liam's name was Joshua, he had not introduced himself that way to the rest of his table. Edward then asked Joshua to hand the microphone over to someone else at the table, and then asked that person what Joshua had introduced himself as. The person said, "Liam."

Edward then asked Joshua to take out his driver's license and show it to everyone else at the table. The driver's license said that his name was Joshua Liam Smith.

So, important facts garnered there:

1) I know that Joshua introduced himself as Liam, because that is how he introduced himself to me. He never intimated in any way that it was his middle name.
2) Edward pulled, out of thin air, not only the guy's real name, but also the fact that the man wasn't using his real name.

Edward then did a reading for Liam. And it was a good reading - really good. At the very least, an excellent exercise in cold reading. But no amount of cold reading would yield something like that. I have seen Edward since, and he did not try the same trick again.

I have an audio recording of all of this, because I had a digital voice recorder hidden in my purse at the time and started recording before I even approached the theatre doors.

Now, because Edward gave me so much information, I have since been able to track down Joshua Liam. He is convinced that Edward is legit, and that he had no way of knowing the information other than psychic abilities. That, of course, means nothing, but I point it out because I want to note that I performed my due diligence. The guy really is from Canada. The guy's name really is Joshua Liam Smith (or something of that type, since I'm not giving real names).

A few other facts besides that:

If you pay cash for a ticket, you do not have to give your name to the box office. They don't even ask for it. That's how, while I was attending that show, my name was Emily. When you pick up a ticket, you do not have to present identification. Not only that, but the box office is run by the casino, not by the staff of the show. It is extraordinarily unlikely that, even if Edward's team asked, the casino would cough up a list of attendees.

Since I was able to get in touch with Liam, he told me that he did not speak to anyone on John Edward's staff. He did not, in fact, speak to anyone at length besides me.

All that said - how do you think he did it?

I will clarify with more information if anyone has questions. As I said - I have the whole show recorded.

RemieV,
I happened upon your thread...and by "happened upon" I mean I was thoroughly and deliberately searching for any and all threads about John Edward on this site! : )
Anyway, pretty amazing story, I agree. Although after a new refrigerator, a Valerie Harper connection, and a tooth in the pocket... I can't say I'm surprised! I am surprised, however, that you are asking people to explain how he did it... I KNOW how he did it and I'm willing to bet you do too! : )