John Edward - psychic or what?

[RemieV]

Robin -

I understand your point about not being heard. For much of the original thread I started regarding my experience at the John Edward show, people thought that when I shot down a theory it was because I wanted it to turn out he was psychic. That wasn't the case - I was simply trying to pin down a probable mechanism. And if the mechanism presented was improbable, it was in turn shot down. It was because the folks who responded that way thought that I had an internal dichotomy wherein I believed that if an explanation didn't apply, I therefore must believe he's psychic - when in actual fact I simply wanted to return to the show and test the mechanism and didn't have enough money to buy fifteen zillion tickets to the show to test them all, as it would be smarter to hone in on the one that was PROBABLE.

I also understand that, in most cases, it isn't possible for anyone on the board to provide a suitable explanation. This isn't because there isn't one; just that they aren't privy to all details. And when something DOES come up that is a huuuuuuge coincidence, I think the answer is simply that it is a coincidence.

I've got yet another for instance.

When I was a teenager, all of my friends were those new agey believerish types. I wasn't really, but I did play along like I was; probably because it made all of us feel special or whatever.

I was on the phone with one of my believer friends, and he told me I should try to astral project or somesuch and see what he was doing. I said, "You're brushing your eyebrows with your toothbrush."

He was. How weird is THAT, am I right?

And I could look at that and say I was psychic, except I know I wasn't. I didn't actually astral project; I didn't have some crystal clear thing in my mind. I just say random stuff. Often. Because when it lands, it's pretty funny.

 

[Robin1]

Robin,

Did you in fact go back to check the posts about your intuitions? If not, would you please do that now and let me know what you find.

ETA I am trying to help you decide just how much your intuition has helped you in this forum. We can both go back and look. We might not always agree on the significance of what we find, but we can find it.

Thank you.

xterra

Xterra, I need to sleep! But I will go over the references to my gut that I remember offhand...the question about whether kerikiwi was intentionally trying to imply I was lying. I did say I could be wrong as well. I tried to make peace...am I sure I was wrong, no. But i could be, so I gave her the benefit of the doubt. As for Remie, I would have thought I was almost completely wrong until earlier today when she linked her pizza story. In it she says something to the effect of her not being a complete atheist, which could be what my intuition picked up on earlier. In regard to the man with millions of aliases on my blog, my intuition did tell me something was wrong with so many nasty posts and the stories he fabricated about John Edward, which is why I investigated him further. It is explained in greater detail in the comments, but i knew something was off. But I also saw the evidence in the posts itself using common sense. I'll look back tomorrow to see if I missed any other references that I made to my "gut." Good night to all

 

[Robin1]

Robin -

I understand your point about not being heard. For much of the original thread I started regarding my experience at the John Edward show, people thought that when I shot down a theory it was because I wanted it to turn out he was psychic. That wasn't the case - I was simply trying to pin down a probable mechanism. And if the mechanism presented was improbable, it was in turn shot down. It was because the folks who responded that way thought that I had an internal dichotomy wherein I believed that if an explanation didn't apply, I therefore must believe he's psychic - when in actual fact I simply wanted to return to the show and test the mechanism and didn't have enough money to buy fifteen zillion tickets to the show to test them all, as it would be smarter to hone in on the one that was PROBABLE.

I also understand that, in most cases, it isn't possible for anyone on the board to provide a suitable explanation. This isn't because there isn't one; just that they aren't privy to all details. And when something DOES come up that is a huuuuuuge coincidence, I think the answer is simply that it is a coincidence.

I've got yet another for instance.

When I was a teenager, all of my friends were those new agey believerish types. I wasn't really, but I did play along like I was; probably because it made all of us feel special or whatever.

I was on the phone with one of my believer friends, and he told me I should try to astral project or somesuch and see what he was doing. I said, "You're brushing your eyebrows with your toothbrush."

He was. How weird is THAT, am I right?

And I could look at that and say I was psychic, except I know I wasn't. I didn't actually astral project; I didn't have some crystal clear thing in my mind. I just say random stuff. Often. Because when it lands, it's pretty funny.

Remie, my question is why does such unusual random stuff pop into your mind and then happen to be correct on more than a few occasions? What makes it pop? Coincidence? I don't think so. Especially the pizza story. Obviously you analyze all first, but if your last resort explanation always comes down to coincidence then my question is... Is there any coincidence to you that would be so odd that you would actually ever entertain the idea of psychic/supernatural causes? Cause if you say "no", no coincidence no matter how big (pizza story!!!) or odd etc. would make me entertain that idea... that means to me that you are not letting yourself ever be truly "open" to new possibilities. 'Cause coincidence will always remain your fail-safe. Just my perspective.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think I'll concede a "possible/probable" on the 34 aliases...

... because there's a certain similarity to a lot of them, and if the sign-up location is the same, it'd be a bit much of a coincidence to have thirty-four posters with snarky-arsed names posting 4 or 5 line posts with equal snark. Some of them don't fit the pattern, but Robin's theory could be accurate to a certain extent.

Robin, but that's what you get for signing up to blog on a site that has zero security. How about here? I think you've probably found more than 34 people here (without snarky or personally directed screen names) who are very pointed in their disagreement with you.

Over on your blog responses you've settled into a little group hug thing with your tiny Greek Chorus of true believers. That seems to be to your liking because you've returned to the comments cheerfully after deciding at least seven times that you weren't going to post any longer due to all the negativity. Is that a fair analysis?

I also find it rather curious that you dismiss out of hand as a made up story, the tale of hot reading that one commenter sent in. I'm not sure I'd believe it, either. Not because I don't think he hot reads (he was noted to have done so over a decade ago), but because I doubt that one of the few people who've pulled such a hoax on Edward would show up on your sparsely attended little blog. (And I think they'd have more credible details to add.) But I'm curious why you accept that as a falsehood so readily, yet expect us all to accept your nonsense as "Proof of Life After Death". Your story has no more credibility than his/hers did. Nor does your brother's tale (if that's your brother and not you).

 

[pakeha]

Carlitos, Ok, you were never implying I was lying...I'm sorry I misunderstood. However, I believe,the computer evidence I presented and explained in detail most certainly should have been enough to prove my point anyway. Yes, I know, you disagree.

I've followed this discussion and have the following suggestion:
Contact the blog server and arrange, if possible get the IP of those comments you feel are the product of cyber-bullying.
Get the IP if possible and report it to the appropriate authorities in your country.

I consider cyber-bullying to be potentially very harmful, perhaps not to you, Robin, but possibly to another this person may decide to target in the future.

To you, it is. You weren't there, it didn't happen to you.
Before I posted it and repeatedly since I reiterated I don't expect it to mean much to others.
So you are only stating the painfully obvious. However it would also be foolish to think all the explanations of fallacious logic should be accepted by me and cause me to dismiss what I witnessed.

Well, batvette, other than your reported attempts to develop your mental powers, what you witnessed was that someone returned to your door.

What we witness is your insistence this was due to telepathy.
In any case, we're agreed JE is a fraud.

 

[Robin1]

... because there's a certain similarity to a lot of them, and if the sign-up location is the same, it'd be a bit much of a coincidence to have thirty-four posters with snarky-arsed names posting 4 or 5 line posts with equal snark. Some of them don't fit the pattern, but Robin's theory could be accurate to a certain extent.

Robin, but that's what you get for signing up to blog on a site that has zero security. How about here? I think you've probably found more than 34 people here (without snarky or personally directed screen names) who are very pointed in their disagreement with you.

Over on your blog responses you've settled into a little group hug thing with your tiny Greek Chorus of true believers. That seems to be to your liking because you've returned to the comments cheerfully after deciding at least seven times that you weren't going to post any longer due to all the negativity. Is that a fair analysis?

I also find it rather curious that you dismiss out of hand as a made up story, the tale of hot reading that one commenter sent in. I'm not sure I'd believe it, either. Not because I don't think he hot reads (he was noted to have done so over a decade ago), but because I doubt that one of the few people who've pulled such a hoax on Edward would show up on your sparsely attended little blog. (And I think they'd have more credible details to add.) But I'm curious why you accept that as a falsehood so readily, yet expect us all to accept your nonsense as "Proof of Life After Death". Your story has no more credibility than his/hers did. Nor does your brother's tale (if that's your brother and not you).

Foolmewunz, if there were 34 people on this particular forum that agreed with me I would consider that "off" as well! Even 1 would be "off' : ) I tried to explain in the comments of the blog why I didn't believe the alias claiming John used hot reading. The wording , style of what John supposedly said just didn't fit him. If John were trying to deliver that fake message he would have still sounded like him doing it. And the aliases did try to mix it up a bit but that is part of the art of the con. Underlying theme remained. And I felt they were off! Agreed that, without knowing my brother and I, you don't know if our stories are credible. That's for you to decide. Although, I do believe you should be able to tell that I did not write my brother's comments...he's much smarter and way better writer, funnier too! But I guess that could all be part of the con ... : )

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I was on the phone with one of my believer friends, and he told me I should try to astral project or somesuch and see what he was doing. I said, "You're brushing your eyebrows with your toothbrush."

He was. How weird is THAT, am I right?

Not to lapse from skeptical to cynical, but...

...how do you know what he was doing - that he was actually brushing his eyebrows with a toothbrush? If you were on the phone, he could have confirmed practically anything you said. Maybe he was just goofing with you.

Possible?

 

[batvette]

I've followed this discussion and have the following suggestion:
Contact the blog server and arrange, if possible get the IP of those comments you feel are the product of cyber-bullying.
Get the IP if possible and report it to the appropriate authorities in your country.

I consider cyber-bullying to be potentially very harmful, perhaps not to you, Robin, but possibly to another this person may decide to target in the future.





Well, batvette, other than your reported attempts to develop your mental powers, what you witnessed was that someone returned to your door.

What we witness is your insistence this was due to telepathy.
In any case, we're agreed JE is a fraud.

Fair enough, though (assuming you allow my belief I have an accurate recollection of this event) I can't shelve it as merely someone returning to my door as when she did she threw the door open, looked at me and exclaimed "What!" and stated that she believed she'd responded to me asking her to come back. When I asked her if she'd really "heard" me calling her she realized it was something other than that.
I think you can understand what motivates my stubborn adherence to this (since I do respond well to valid arguments, see some of my replies in this topic: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250454 and note I did accept an explanation for my second example as non paranormal) since her simple statement appears to be a response directly in reply to what I tried to project to her.
I'm even open to the "missing signals" argument that since we had a mutual belief we shared a "psychic connection" it could lead to her telling herself I might call her back by projecting a thought.
However I don't think that is the reasonable or plausible alternative explanation I would be open to accepting since it had been some time since we had discussed any of that (months) and I had never discussed attempting anything like this with her.

Am I describing something I believe happened because I believed I could make it happen?

Maybe so but I am also under the impression that if it's real that is a prerequisite for the ability to do it- for the both of us.

So sorry I can't project this to any of you.

But toward the goal of ending this argument with something accomplished, can you imagine any way, in light of these possible limitations: that it could be something which requires both subjects belief in it, and be something which could require an emotional status which translates for a need or necessity for it- meaning you couldn't do it on a whim-

Is there any way I could have documented this as other than an anecdotal event? I'm thinking even if I pulled out a camera and recorded myself telling the camera I'm going to do it, then do it, it could be argued we set the whole thing up.

Call it special pleading but I just don't see how we could ever replicate this satisfactorily if it's spontaneous and rare. I'd like to know how otherwise. Perhaps it's time for me to try it on others and if I failed enough times I would just shut the heck up about what I thought I could do rather than what I thought I once did.
It will take some time. I guess I will have to ask individuals whether they believe in telepathy, wait some time so the thought is not recent, get the desire to fornicate with them and try it.
Probably not going to work with my male friends. But hey MDC! Is it worth it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Perhaps it's time for me to try it on others and if I failed enough times I would just shut the heck up about what I thought I could do rather than what I thought I once did.

Yes, testing it would be the only way to have any chance of establishing what is or is not true. You've got a starting point, in that you used Silva's techniques in order to initiate this claimed contact. Seems to me that the logical place to start would be in finding others who also use his techniques.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Call it special pleading but I just don't see how we could ever replicate this satisfactorily if it's spontaneous and rare.

The question to ask yourself is...

...is it exactly rare enough to be accounted for by chance?

That's the null hypothesis and it would take statistically significant evidence to establish a real phenomenon.

And I'm fully open to such evidence - its just been aggravatingly difficult to pin down.

 

[RemieV]

Not to lapse from skeptical to cynical, but...

...how do you know what he was doing - that he was actually brushing his eyebrows with a toothbrush? If you were on the phone, he could have confirmed practically anything you said. Maybe he was just goofing with you.

Possible?

No, and that's what I mean about the skeptical view being "It didn't happen!" and not always applying. Of course there's no way I can KNOW, but the thing is that he was embarrassed by it. It was the equivalent of me saying "You're pooping your pants!" Trust me on this - when you wander through life saying bizarre things because it's funny, you'll wind up with a lot of similar stories and awed people. Try enough angles, and you get a lot of seemingly impossible hits. Although if you've read the first date story, sometimes it's not a good thing.

 

[The Norseman]

Carlitos, you signed up from the Yorktown-somers site. Easy to know. Patch is national you can sign in from anywhere no matter where you actually are as long as Patch covers that area. But to be fair the most likely towns to read it are nearby. My blog was rated on most popular blog lists in over 25 different towns all at once...it was featured in estimating 40 towns. It is still on most popular list in some towns. No way all 34 nasty posts or posts that attempted to lie about John were from the single same town. Read on... Guy pretty much admits it and keeps doing it even after I call him on it! Why are you still questioning this ? It is obvious!

Carlitos, Your reasoning about the sign up for patch is wrong...you are signed in from whichever town (estimated 40 could be more didn't check every town) that ever featured my blog that you happen to link to and sign in to comment on. I gave you link to the Yorktown feature thus you signed in from there thus you signed in under yorktown. Also you could just sign in your name from anywhere on a different blog or story etc.and that becomes your original reference point of origin for other comments. As for the library if someone left my blog on at a computer terminal in the library then 33 other people would have to sit at the same terminal at different times and want to read my blog and comment and be nasty or lie...And that also assumes no one else will sit at that terminal and sign off and want to do one of a billion other things on the Internet. 34 people in a row sit down at the same terminal in that library all wanting to read my blog and comment on it and lie or be nasty. That explains it. or not. But even if you still don't believe any of that, the evidence that I was right about the fake also comes from the fake himself in the back and forth that follows. So you didn't need to think my computer interpretation was right to believe me at all. You simply choose not to.
And again I understand why some people will choose not to believe me. But that also would make any type of future discussions pointless.

Carlitos, Ok, you were never implying I was lying...I'm sorry I misunderstood. However, I believe,the computer evidence I presented and explained in detail most certainly should have been enough to prove my point anyway. Yes, I know, you disagree.

You've already demonstrated you don't know nearly enough about computers to make any credible claims that you provided "computer evidence" that's accurate and compelling.

This more than amply demonstrates that you form an opinion and then seek to have it "proven" rather than accepting where the evidence leads.

 

[RemieV]

By the by, Robin - nothing 'pops' into my mind. That phrasing makes it sound like it's coming from somewhere. I think. That's all. No otherworldly creature is doing my thinking for me.

 

[eerok]

This more than amply demonstrates that you form an opinion and then seek to have it "proven" rather than accepting where the evidence leads.

And this is how the standard paranormal claim plays out: first there's an ambiguous event, then a far-fetched explanation, then arbitrary dismissal of more reasonable explanations. Usually the story morphs as the teller ducks and weaves around the facts, getting more and more complicated.

So we end up with stories like how someone's father crossed the cosmic gulf between life and death to confirm that they bought a refrigerator.

There is zero evidence to establish the existence of an afterlife, there is zero evidence to establish the existence of telepathy, and there is zero evidence to establish that, given an afterlife and telepathy, it would be possible to commune with the dead. (Note that "to establish" here means to provide strong, consistent, available, unambiguous evidence).

And yet we are expected to accept that the most reasonable explanation for a trivial coincidence in a vaudeville setting is that the vaudeville showman can channel dead people.

 

[ExMinister]

Robin, would you consider reading Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World? I really think it might give you some insight into the way many of the people on this forum think, and why. It was a book that had a profound effect on my own way of thinking.

I think it only fair to acknowledge that sometimes the dismissals of the explanations offered aren't arbitrary if they don't seem reasonable to the person with the experience.

Sometimes, as in Batvette's case, it may well be coincidence. The memory suggestion was a good one. Perhaps in his case, though, his memory of the event really is fairly intact.

In which case, it's possible that some other factor played a part in the situation that is forever lost in time.

It's quite possible that the true explanation would be something none of us, including Batvette, could have thought of. Because memory, even if fairly accurate, is still going to be selective.

I think it is particularly challenging to deal well with claim's like Batvette's and Robin's about things that happened in the past. With Robin's, I see coincidence in the Big Mac and Pina Colada stories - and not even suprising ones, as Meg pointed out. I can't help wonder at the library story with Robin having trained in the library sciences, but who knows. Too much time has passed. With Batvette, as he himself acknowledged, it seemed quite likely that the bathroom window story could be explained by perfectly nonparanormal signals given off by his friends. As far as the girl returning, who knows?

It's like the story of my son's psychic accuracy. I tell it in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203395&highlight=exminister

One of the experiences in that thread was told by Bell. I hope he or she doesn't mind if I quote it:

I have a tin biscuit can which I use to store my cat's dry food in. The can is in my cupboard in the kitchen. One day I noted the can had shifted inside the cupboard and was standing on the edge of the shelf. I shoved it back, thinking that maybe it got shifted by some shaking of the cupboard, or maybe I didn't put it in far enough in the first place. Next day, same story. And it continued for a couple of days, at which I began to wonder and investigated. Turns out, the bag with cat food, which was also on the shelf, but behind the tin, got pulled forward by the drawer that was on top of the cupboard, and subsequently pushed the tin forward. So, no poltergeist.

This forum could spend all day offering rational explanations for Bell's poltergeist biscuit can and my kids' psychic ability, including faulty memory (which is just as reasonable an explanation as any), or the fact that it, in my kids' case, may have been just dumb luck, but in fact no one would likely have guessed the real explanation because I personally am unlikely to have known it myself.

If Bell believed in poltergeists and had still been telling that story to this day, who could have guessed, years later, there was a bag of cat food moving with the drawer?

 

[UTLonghorn]

"John Edward -psychic or what?"

I'm going to have to go with what.

 

[Robin1]

Robin, would you consider reading Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World? I really think it might give you some insight into the way many of the people on this forum think, and why. It was a book that had a profound effect on my own way of thinking.

I think it only fair to acknowledge that sometimes the dismissals of the explanations offered aren't arbitrary if they don't seem reasonable to the person with the experience.

Sometimes, as in Batvette's case, it may well be coincidence. The memory suggestion was a good one. Perhaps in his case, though, his memory of the event really is fairly intact.

In which case, it's possible that some other factor played a part in the situation that is forever lost in time.

It's quite possible that the true explanation would be something none of us, including Batvette, could have thought of. Because memory, even if fairly accurate, is still going to be selective.

I think it is particularly challenging to deal well with claim's like Batvette's and Robin's about things that happened in the past. With Robin's, I see coincidence in the Big Mac and Pina Colada stories - and not even suprising ones, as Meg pointed out. I can't help wonder at the library story with Robin having trained in the library sciences, but who knows. Too much time has passed. With Batvette, as he himself acknowledged, it seemed quite likely that the bathroom window story could be explained by perfectly nonparanormal signals given off by his friends. As far as the girl returning, who knows?

It's like the story of my son's psychic accuracy. I tell it in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203395&highlight=exminister

One of the experiences in that thread was told by Bell. I hope he or she doesn't mind if I quote it:



This forum could spend all day offering rational explanations for Bell's poltergeist biscuit can and my kids' psychic ability, including faulty memory (which is just as reasonable an explanation as any), or the fact that it, in my kids' case, may have been just dumb luck, but in fact no one would likely have guessed the real explanation because I personally am unlikely to have known it myself.

If Bell believed in poltergeists and had still been telling that story to this day, who could have guessed, years later, there was a bag of cat food moving with the drawer?

Ex minister, I will definitely look into the book you mentioned. Kinda funny 'cause right now I am reading "Heaven is for Real". .. No surprise there : ) I read your Headbanz story and the Mysterious Case of the Moving Cat Food...I do love stories like that and then trying to figure out the explanation is fun! Even more fun when the explanation indeed turns out to be the supernatural : )

 

[ExMinister]

Ex minister, I will definitely look into the book you mentioned. Kinda funny 'cause right now I am reading "Heaven is for Real". .. No surprise there : ) I read your Headbanz story and the Mysterious Case of the Moving Cat Food...I do love stories like that and then trying to figure out the explanation is fun! Even more fun when the explanation indeed turns out to be the supernatural : )

Of course, in my case, the fun is in finding the NON-supernatural explanations for things I might previously have considered supernatural.

ETA: If you are interested in skepticism and critical thinking, you might also enjoy James Randi's book Flim Flam. I would also highly recommend The Invisible Gorilla and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us

 

[xterra]

Robin,

Here are the posts in this thread that I think you should review, with respect to whether you can trust your intuitions. There are 57 of them.

(I was going to post the relevant parts of each one, but decided not to do that. ETA #2, I did copy them, however.)

ETA not all of them are by you.

360 (This was your first entry into the thread, when you said you would bet RemieV agreed with you. I think it's at the bottom of page 9.)
376
378
386
389
405
415
418
425
430
440
476
488
498
524
531
552
556
587
595
600
601
615
682
684
687
690
694
697
702
743
773
798
812
847
867
883
891
905
906
917
923
927
930
944
950
954
962
970
975
986
995
1002
1016
1019
1021
1022

 

[meg]

xterra, I don't believe you should always just trust your gut (intuition I like better too), sometimes yes, sometimes no, but most of the time, not all, you need to first use reason and knowledge and experience and common sense. If after that you are still undecided, yes I would trust my intuition. I do realize you can still be wrong. But for the most part I think not. Example , when my Mom got the library reserve card in the mail ( that is how they did it then) with my Dad's name and book he would love etc...I wanted "proof" that was a real sign so I actually called the main headquarters of the library system to discuss how that could have happened. And I called the library it originated from and spoke with a few employees who worked in that area. You must always investigate and just be open to other possibilities. But at some point, yes, you must make a decision as to what you believe is more likely. And be open to new information that could change your assessment later on as well. I am such an annoying skeptic I even asked my Nana to prove to me she was there while I was "dreaming!"
http://yorktown-somers.patch.com/blog_posts/is-it-just-a-dreamor-something-more
...
snip

The thing is, Robin, good intuition comes from common sense, experience and past knowledge. There's an old saying, he's "flying by the seat of his pants", which in aviation lingo means you are flying blind, without instruments. When it is dark, or you are in clouds, without instruments, it is very difficult to tell whether you are flying straight and level, or whether you are actually turning, climbing, descending or just going round in circles. A skilled pilot, however, who's had many many hours in the cockpit, can actually sense, from how his/her butt sits in the seat, and which side has pressure and which doesn't, etc, they can actually discern what the attitude of the plane is, and can, in an emergency "fly by the seat of their pants".

Intuition, or a "gut feeling", is always based on your own experience and knowledge. It is the act of "knowing" something without being able to immediately reason out why you know it, or how you came to it. Those people with the most experience in a field will have a much more trustworthy "gut feeling" than novices. Imagine that you've got, say, a minor medical question. You ask three different friends, one is a chef, one is a teacher, and one is a nurse. All have been at their jobs a long time. And every one of them says, "I don't know for sure, but my gut says ______." Which one are you most likely to listen to? My money says you'd pick the one with the medical training.


You claimed when you first came over here, that you had "done your research" on mediums, but it turns out you've really done no research at all. You just went to several, hoping one would "wow" you, and when one finally did, you claimed he was therefore "real". That's kind of like saying you know a lot about magic tricks because you've gone to see several magicians. Or that you know a lot about cooking because you've been to lots of restaurants.

Now you are trying to claim that you yourself have performed some kind of skeptical analysis of these events you claim are examples of ESP, or messages from dead people, or god.. I'm really not sure what paranormal claim you are making, but I can assure you that you are not using the critical thinking skills necessary to call yourself a skeptic.

For instance, let's look at what we know are true facts.

1. People do lie. Almost everyone lies at one time or another. From little bitty white lies to huge stinkers. People often fib a bit when telling stories to make them more interesting, or to make themselves look better. Sometimes they don't even realize that they're fibbing. (see #5)

2. Computer glitches do happen. Whether it is from user error (a librarian clicked on the wrong customer name or transposed some numbers on a library card), or a programming error, these things happen, and they happen often enough that they are not particularly uncommon. As a matter of fact, this month I have received more than 10 emails from Best Buy addressed to a different person in a different state regarding his account, recent receipts, purchases, delivery dates, etc, apparently because he and I have the same phone number, with different area codes.

3. Fast food restaurant employees make errors, and give people the wrong food, or less food, or extra food quite often.

4. Cruise ships give away lots of pina coladas. It is their most popular drink.

5. People really don't remember things very well. It is a well known fact. There is lots and lots of research about it, many good books on the subject. This is why eye witness accounts and anecdotal evidence are not considered to be very good evidence. As I've said before, we don't actually remember things, we recreate the memory and change it a little every time we tell the story.

6. Coincidences happen. All the time. Our brains are pattern seeking machines, and we look for patterns everywhere, which means we sometimes see patterns where no real pattern exists.


Because you are not thinking critically about this yet, (stick around, you'll get the hang of it.) you have chosen to disregard at least 6 possible logical, reasonable and quite plausible fact based explanations for your "experiences", and chosen a supernatural unproven and completely inplausible explanation instead.

Do you really expect any reasonable person to believe your experiences are anything more than coincidence just because you say you had a dream about some dead people? People dream crazy things all the time. I had an amazingly vivid dream not long ago, in which I could speak French fluently and with ease. I'm sorry, but your dream means nothing. Nor does the fact that you had the dream somehow make your coincidental experiences somehow more than coincidences.

You ask us to trust your gut, your intuition, but I say you don't have enough experience or knowledge of the material to have a trustworthy gut feeling. You are truly flying blind here, and you don't have the experience to fly by the seat of your pants.

Since joining the discussion in your other John Edward thread, I decided to do a bit more of my own research. So here's what I've been reading (or rereading, in some cases) the last few weeks:

Psychic Blues by Mark Edward
The Dead Do Not Talk by Julien J Proskauer
Psychic Mafia by M Lamar Keene
Behind the Scenes with Mediums by David P Abott
13 Steps to Mentalism by Corinda
Annemann's Practical Mental Effects, edited by John J Crimmins, Jr
Red Hot Cold Reading by Herb Dewey and Thomas Seville, PhD

After reading these, would you like to know what my gut tells me about John Edward?

That John Edward is a highly skilled mentalist, meaning he uses a good knowledge of human psychology, misdirection, cold reading techniques, impressive memory skills, plants in the audience, a trustworthy staff, and some elaborately designed and orchestrated trickery in order to seemingly magicly pluck things like refrigerators and Valerie Harper tickets right out of his audience's heads with the same skill and flare as Penn and Teller can catch bullets in their teeth or pull coins out of the air. His act is further aided by an audience eager to applaud every hit and immediately forget every miss.

What are the odds that he actually talks to dead people? My gut says about the same odds as me speaking perfect fluent French.

Zéro absolu.