John Edward - psychic or what?

[dafydd]

You have no evidence whatsoever my recollection of this event was faulty.

You have no evidence that it is not faulty.

 

[carlitos]

You've not even provided any examples of people who could not remember how they heard about 9/11. The point is destroyed simply because I recall exactly how I heard.

Just forget about it, okay? You don't have to be convinced of anything.

Actually, there was a peer – reviewed article posted about how people did not remember details of 9/11. Maybe you should go back and read it instead of being defensive. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "destroyed."

 

[kerikiwi]

I. Don't. Care.

You have no evidence whatsoever my recollection of this event was faulty.

You think I don't get some "point" you think is all important.

Whoopee!

You've not even provided any examples of people who could not remember how they heard about 9/11. The point is destroyed simply because I recall exactly how I heard.

Just forget about it, okay? You don't have to be convinced of anything.

Did you actually read the articles which were linked?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

After 20 pages the answer is still what or more accurately no.

John Edward is not a psychic or medium, Neither of these things exist.

I feel for Robin, The loss of a loved one can be devastating and the notion that one could have just one more conversation is sometimes too tempting to pass up. I can only urge you to really look at all the evidence exposing the con game of mediums before giving another dime to them.

 

[oody]

No doubt you have evidence for such a sweeping statement. I live in Belgium and I don't know anyone who believes in the existence of a god.

Cool! I just googled up this factoid: "Christianity, in particular Catholicism, is the biggest religion in Belgium with about 57% of the population adhering to the Catholic Church"^WP
So if you know 20 Belgians none of whom is religious, you seem to have beaten odds of over a million to one!

 

[dafydd]

Cool! I just googled up this factoid: "Christianity, in particular Catholicism, is the biggest religion in Belgium with about 57% of the population adhering to the Catholic Church"^WP
So if you know 20 Belgians none of whom is religious, you seem to have beaten odds of over a million to one!

You don't live here, I do and have for a long time. the country is officially Catholic, most people when filling in a form would put down their religion as Catholic, but that's as far as it goes. I know a great dealm ore than twenty people. I don't know anyone who goes to church. Google is not really a good way to look at the world.
As you can see, Belgium is high on the list of non-church attenders.

 

[Garrette]

*Lest you think me arrogant and superior for editing this,

Nope. While my ego might take a bit of a beating when I need help communicating, I recognize that it helps. No worries.

I will tell you that I have taught college-level composition and writing course (among other subjects) for probably more than half your life.

And you expect me to trust your memory on that???

 

[Garrette]

I. Don't. Care.

You have no evidence whatsoever my recollection of this event was faulty.

You think I don't get some "point" you think is all important.

Whoopee!

You've not even provided any examples of people who could not remember how they heard about 9/11. The point is destroyed simply because I recall exactly how I heard.

Just forget about it, okay? You don't have to be convinced of anything.

Another staggering miss of the point. Again.

Let me boil it down. Your entire position is this, and I do not exaggerate:

It is more likely that telepathy exists than it is that my memory is faulty.

 

[dlorde]

You have no evidence whatsoever my recollection of this event was faulty.

No-one has, that's the point; there's no way to tell how much of it is accurate, and the chances are it's less than you think.

Check out the reliability of memory - these articles made me think twice about my own memories:

How Much of Your Memory is True?
What Did Eyewitnesses Really See?
False Autobiographical Memories.
How Memories are Distorted and Inverted.
The Memory Doctor.
Seven Sins of Memory.

 

[xterra]

Nope. While my ego might take a bit of a beating when I need help communicating, I recognize that it helps. No worries.

And you expect me to trust your memory on that???

I didn't think you would mind. (That is, the comment wasn't directed at you.)

Memory?? Memory? I don't remember where I put it ... or if I had one ETA when I arrived here.

 

[oody]

You don't live here, I do and have for a long time. the country is officially Catholic, most people when filling in a form would put down their religion as Catholic, but that's as far as it goes. I know a great dealm ore than twenty people. I don't know anyone who goes to church. Google is not really a good way to look at the world.
As you can see, Belgium is high on the list of non-church attenders.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2340950df57cc7ccc6.gif[/qimg]

Yeah, about 50%. My statistical analysis stands, despite these contortions applied to the meaning of "belief in God". Why not just admit that your flip statement cannot stand up to the sort of scrutiny your statements apply to others?

 

[batvette]

Did you actually read the articles which were linked?

Note my desire to end this off topic banter, why can't you just let this go?

If you'd read my replies you wouldn't be asking this. Said replies provided quotes from each author concerning their own recollection of how they first heard about 9/11. I could not have provided those self refuting quotes if I had not read the articles to find them.
Was it reading comprehension or memory failure which has resulted in your missing this obvious evidence I must have read these articles to find these statements by these authors? It's becoming clear why you believe your argument seems so valuable.
Kindly stop this line of pointless questioning which has become tantamount to trolling.

 

[kerikiwi]

Note my desire to end this off topic banter, why can't you just let this go?

If you'd read my replies you wouldn't be asking this. Said replies provided quotes from each author concerning their own recollection of how they first heard about 9/11. I could not have provided those self refuting quotes if I had not read the articles to find them.
Was it reading comprehension or memory failure which has resulted in your missing this obvious evidence I must have read these articles to find these statements by these authors? It's becoming clear why you believe your argument seems so valuable.
Kindly stop this line of pointless questioning which has become tantamount to trolling.

Yes, I will stop the line of pointed questioning now that I have an answer.
It is clear that you have failed utterly to understand the articles.
You also have failed to understand my questions, since you refer to them as my 'argument'.
I have made no argument.

 

[batvette]

Another staggering miss of the point. Again.

Let me boil it down. Your entire position is this, and I do not exaggerate:

It is more likely that telepathy exists than it is that my memory is faulty.

I accept the faults of the human memory, even to an extent my own.

This was not an overly complex or lengthy event, and involved just two people and scant minutes. Although spontaneous, it was something I meant to do, it wasn't an accident or crime I was forced to recollect later.

Let me provide the point nobody has addressed yet:

Faulty memory does not provide for the vast shift of factors which would be required to accept the other offered explanations.

You'd have to say I forgot that this woman was really in love with me and returned on her own initiative for an evening of mad passion, instead of what I'm sure of which is that she had a boyfriend, we never so much as shared a kiss, not then or ever, and she left a minute after her return. Considering the whole reason I attempted this is to cause what you would theorize I'm forgetting, this is beyond a joke.

If you'd care to rationalize this...

Furthermore you'd have to theorize I am forgetting something else happened other than her acknowledging this was an event of telepathy from myself to her both immediately and several weeks later.

What's with the insistence I be convinced it didn't happen? It's obvious none of you will ever have anything to do with any of this, yet that's not enough.

This was an accomplishment of such significance had I thought to document it I may be pocketing a million dollars by now... why on earth would you assume I should not have it reserved as one of the more memorable things I have ever experienced? Why would you assume I did not go over it in my mind many times to assure myself I had done what I thought I did? Why do you think I brought it up with her weeks later?
No I don't have the kind of character that would "dramatize" or embellish this to have a great story to impress anyone. I've always assumed anyone could do this if exposed to the techniques at an early age and the factors of necessity and a special candidate aligned with their being attentive to it if it happened. That was the first time it ever happened so obviously to me.


Don't believe it! I don't want you to have what I do. Now I know how special I am. Now I beg of you, back off or I just might squint hard and turn you into a small cube of dust and let the engineering dept. lose another red shirted crew member. LOL!

 

[eerok]

Now I know how special I am.

Quite the contrary, those who prefer a cherished belief to objective reality are all too common.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Bayvette,

Those who are theorizing that you have mistaken memories are actually cutting you some slack - giving you a break, as it were. It's human to have mistaken memories or to augment memories. It seems highly likely to some of us that that's what must have happened. Because, frankly, otherwise your anecdote reads like a fabrication - the kind of stuff you tell impressionable borderline believers to get them all nodding like bobble-head dolls. I've seen it with believers and discussions of dreams, astrology, near-death experiences, ghosts and spirits, faith healing, etc...

Funny how none of those anecdotes are ever provable and all we have to go on is the word of someone we don't know and have no reason to trust.

 

[batvette]

Yes, I will stop the line of pointed questioning now that I have an answer.
It is clear that you have failed utterly to understand the articles.
You also have failed to understand my questions, since you refer to them as my 'argument'.
I have made no argument.

Oh okay I don't understand the flawed and irrelevant articles by authors whose own offered personal anecdotes don't even support the premise of the article.

The articles cite studies which state that people were asked how they heard about the 9/11 attacks, and go on to discuss how survey respondents changed details about their stories. The provided details about the studies never cite any examples of how these details could change the basic fact of how one heard about the attacks. The authors both suggest some vagueness about their own stories but then go on to provide a clear account of how they heard about the 9/11 attacks which no details changed at all. Even a user who tried to dog pile into the discussion committed the same logical fallacy, offering superfluous details they claim they may be in error about, yet stating:

Most people on the forums who were involved in debunking conspiradroids can tell you exactly where they were when they heard the news or first learned of the events. And that probably applies to most people presently over 30.

I can tell you exactly. Not only is it etched in my memory, but I've written it down, here, in 911CT threads and I told the story in October of 2001 in a radio interview with friends in Taipei. Putting it into a narrative early, I'm fairly sure I have all the major details correct.

I was at my desk when we heard the first hit and turned around in time (must've been a second) to see the flames and debris shooting out of the south side of WTC1. That's pretty hard to forget.

Basis of articles:

They’ve shown, for instance, that subjects have dramatically changed their recollection of how they first learned about the attacks.

In light of the authors' own clear recollection about how they learned of the 9/11 attacks it is patently obvious the articles are a sham. The studies may not be as flawed, it's possible the authors erred in their summaries, but I caught this error right off the bat and have repeated this over and over.


I have never offered I have a "perfect" memory nor that some small details may not be subject to slight drift over the years. Nothing which alters the basic story. Just as your articles' authors and all the sycophants who chimed in proved and testified to, despite suggestions of the most vague nature otherwise.

Surely this falls on deaf ears and will continue to do so, and whether this argument remains here or is banished to some board of the forum netherworld, the fact I have had to provide these quotes repeatedly from my opponent's own links, just to have people try and argue that the clothes people wore or which of many employees came or went were relevant, or asking repeatedly if I had read the articles when so many posts make that painfully obvious- will provide a documented example for any impartial observer of the nature of objective discourse offered by each side.

When all you had to do to win the argument was agree with me that what is significant to me should not be worth 2 cents to you.

 

[RemieV]

I only want to know Remie's current thoughts on John Edward because I see myself in her...as in a knowledgeable skeptic yet one who recognizes when something unusual is happening. Also, it seems to me that many on here know her and would respect her opinion more than they would a stranger. She may draw a different conclusion than me but I'm still curious. My gut tells me that she will not be able to state that she is certain John Edward is a fraud. Even if I'm wrong, I'd still like to know her answer. And I would trust she is being truthful...so I wouldn't attempt to backpedal. I would simply agree to disagree.

I would be extremely disinclined to say I'm "certain" of anything. I would hope no one twists that; it's just I'm not a big fan of certainty because it strikes me that most people who walk around being certain all the time are fools.

If we could rephrase the question such that you are curious what I BELIEVE, things become a lot easier.

What I believe is that this thread should never have been merged, because somehow it turned into a swamp of crap. My original reason for posting the thread over a year ago was to ask around and see if anyone could come up with a plausible mechanism to an extremely particular piece of information John Edward managed to, seemingly, pull straight out of his butt. Or the ether. Or whatever. Essentially, I was saying, "Here is this trick I saw. How would you go about performing the same trick?"

No one was able to give an answer that was in the least bit plausible. A bunch of stuff about credit cards and background checks and plants - it's just not feasible in the real world. No Las Vegas casino employee is going to toss John Edward information on their guests. It just ain't gonna happen. That's fantasy thinking. Sure, it's much more probable than psychics being real, but it still doesn't stand as an explanation - particularly since Edward's readings mostly suck.

And what he did when I saw him would be significant IF John Edward was able to perform with the same degree of accuracy over and over again, pretty much all the time.

But he isn't. That has been illustrated. I'll probably never know the mechanism for how he came about the ONE piece of information he has ever given that was scarily accurate because, more than likely, the explanation is mundane - like that guy's wife called up John Edward's crew and was like "Hey, how about you impress my husband real hard in your show."

See, there would be absolutely no way for me to track that, but it is worlds - and I mean many, MANY worlds more likely than him being psychic, because the brutal fact is he is honest to god just not that good. I've been to his show twice now, and read transcripts of many others, and he quite simply doesn't 'hit' that well.

And, Robin, I have read your experience, and I completely understand why you would want to believe in him. But, and this is completely objective as I have no horse in this race (being certain of nothing), it isn't terribly impressive. And I mean even just by comparison to what John Edward does on a regular basis - completely excluding the major hit he got, which I witnessed.

What I mean is that what he did for you sounds exactly like cold reading, and I believe that the reason you feel it stands as a major hit is because you DO have a horse in the race.

I know you believe you ARE being objective, and that we are alike in that - but the fact is that I didn't go see Edward wanting to contact a real person. I went under a false name with a false backstory, and there was absolutely nothing he could say that would've gotten to me. THAT is objectivity.

The difference between our stories is simply that I was looking for a mechanism when I posted, and you aren't. Rather than believe in Edward, truly step back and look at what he claimed and how he could've gotten there.

 

[John Jones]

Oh okay I don't understand the flawed and irrelevant articles by authors whose own offered personal anecdotes don't even support the premise of the article.

The articles cite studies which state that people were asked how they heard about the 9/11 attacks, and go on to discuss how survey respondents changed details about their stories. The provided details about the studies never cite any examples of how these details could change the basic fact of how one heard about the attacks. The authors both suggest some vagueness about their own stories but then go on to provide a clear account of how they heard about the 9/11 attacks which no details changed at all. Even a user who tried to dog pile into the discussion committed the same logical fallacy, offering superfluous details they claim they may be in error about, yet stating:





Quote:
Most people on the forums who were involved in debunking conspiradroids can tell you exactly where they were when they heard the news or first learned of the events. And that probably applies to most people presently over 30.

I can tell you exactly. Not only is it etched in my memory, but I've written it down, here, in 911CT threads and I told the story in October of 2001 in a radio interview with friends in Taipei. Putting it into a narrative early, I'm fairly sure I have all the major details correct.

I was at my desk when we heard the first hit and turned around in time (must've been a second) to see the flames and debris shooting out of the south side of WTC1. That's pretty hard to forget.
Basis of articles:

They’ve shown, for instance, that subjects have dramatically changed their recollection of how they first learned about the attacks.

In light of the authors' own clear recollection about how they learned of the 9/11 attacks it is patently obvious the articles are a sham. The studies may not be as flawed, it's possible the authors erred in their summaries, but I caught this error right off the bat and have repeated this over and over.


I have never offered I have a "perfect" memory nor that some small details may not be subject to slight drift over the years. Nothing which alters the basic story. Just as your articles' authors and all the sycophants who chimed in proved and testified to, despite suggestions of the most vague nature otherwise.

Surely this falls on deaf ears and will continue to do so, and whether this argument remains here or is banished to some board of the forum netherworld, the fact I have had to provide these quotes repeatedly from my opponent's own links, just to have people try and argue that the clothes people wore or which of many employees came or went were relevant, or asking repeatedly if I had read the articles when so many posts make that painfully obvious- will provide a documented example for any impartial observer of the nature of objective discourse offered by each side.

When all you had to do to win the argument was agree with me that what is significant to me should not be worth 2 cents to you.

Can you make your point in one or two short paragraphs?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Remie - my bad... the threads weren't merged. Either someone suggested that the discussion should be moved to the existing John Edward thread or they dropped in from Robin's "Proof of life after death" thread, I believe. But minus the "merged" part - replace it with "bumped" for this true believer stuff - I think your post settles Robins illusion that you were hovering on the edging of going over to the dark side (they don't have cookies, nor make double chocolate gelato which I'm currently making for my cafe, so don't let them tempt you).