John Edward Sets Off The Baloney Detector

[CFLarsen]

I think this post of neofight's is definitely one to be filled away and brought up as many times as possible. It's a belter.

I find it incredibly sad. I've debated with neo (and Clancie) for more than a year now, and it has been like a game of chess, where neo had to jump from square to square, with ever diminishing room to move.

Now, she's finally backed in a corner, from which she cannot escape. What happens now, is a very good question.

It's so sad when a person rejects reason in favor of blind belief.

 

[neofight]

Lot of less interesting details to anyone? What the heck are you talking about, these readings are in there very nature meant to be personal to the sitter.

Of course they need to be personal to the sitter, juninho. The point that I was making is that at the same time, ratings count, and they can't have readings that drag on and on and make the viewers' eyes glaze over.

So its perfectly acceptable then for JE to say: "Do you know a Geoff?"

Sitter: "No"

JE: "Do you know a Kevin?"

Sitter: "No"

etc. etc. until

JE: "Do you know a Mark?"

Sitter: "Yes that was my Grandfather's name"

And, in your words, when the " long drawn-out parts where the sitter is trying to connect the dots and fails." are excluded it becomes;

JE: "Do you know a Mark?"

Sitter: "Yes that was my Grandfather's name"

Do you not see how bad this can appear? You're virtually stating that the man is a fraud and the whole CO with.. is a sham.

Hoisted on one's own petard me thinks.

Well, methinks that theethinks wrong.

Of course I would not consider that to be at all acceptable, juninho . Not by any means. That scenario is a pretty big leap from the kind of editing that I am talking about. And if you are of the opinion that this is the type of stuff that is edited out of a JE reading, then I'm here to tell you that you are grossly mistaken.

I've been to four seminars over the last couple of years, juninho, and I've never heard JE carry on in such a haphazzard manner with names. It doesn't happen, and I'm sure that Mark Tidwell and Lurker, and possibly even Instig8R, all skeptics who have attended seminars, would agree with me on that point.......neo

 

[TLN]

Of course I would not consider that to be at all acceptable, juninho . Not by any means. That scenario is a pretty big leap from the kind of editing that I am talking about. And if you are of the opinion that this is the type of stuff that is edited out of a JE reading, then I'm here to tell you that you are grossly mistaken.

I've been to four seminars over the last couple of years, juninho, and I've never heard JE carry on in such a haphazzard manner with names. It doesn't happen, and I'm sure that Mark Tidwell and Lurker, and possibly even Instig8R, all skeptics who have attended seminars, would agree with me on that point.......neo

Editing on "Crossing Over" is irrelevant.

What goes on in seminars is irrelevant.

Where's the scientific research?

And where am I loosing everyone?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Editing on "Crossing Over" is irrelevant.

What goes on in seminars is irrelevant.

Where's the scientific research?

And where am I loosing everyone?

Yea, it's like they are using testmonies and anecdotes to try and convince us that JE is a real superbeing.

 

[TLN]

Yea, it's like they are using testmonies and anecdotes to try and convince us that JE is a real superbeing.

Exactly.

The show's over kids. Any have any real evidence to offer, or just more bland stories?

 

[neofight]

neofight,

First, I would like you to drop the insults. They are quite unnecessary and only reflect badly on yourself. I'm not the only one you hurl insults at, so don't even try this "I only do it because it's Claus!" crap.

Claus, empower yourself! The matter of whether or not I will continue to insult you remains right in you own hands, right where it's always been. You post civilly to me, and I will post civilly to you. Agreed?

Second - I have to admit that your post stunned me. You admit freely that the misses are edited out, because they don't make the show "flow".

And where exactly did I say that the misses are edited out, Claus? Don't expect me not to insult you, if you can't even quote me correctly. It tries my patience.

You want to argue that the things that are edited out are not "interesting" to anyone but the sitters - yet you forget that nobody really cares what JE gets a hit with. All that matters is that he does get hit - that's what you are saying. What spiritual meaning could it possibly give you that a sitter, unknown to you, can validate a recipe? We don't know these people, so why should any of their validations mean anything to us? What matters is, that they can validate, right?

Yes, exactly. What matters is that they can validate the messages that JE gives them. That is the most important thing. The "Malibu Shrimp" reading was quite an excellent reading, with a lot of good and unusual hits that meant something special to the sitter.

I'm sure that the woman read, Deborah I think her name was, absolutely felt that John had brought through messages from her dear friend, as well as from her mom, and whomever else came through that day. But it also made for interesting tv. It would have been a lot less interesting, however, if for instance, all of the footage of other audience members trying to claim the reading was included in the segment that aired on "CO". It would only detract from the reading.

The essence of this reading was that Deborah's close friend of many years came through. The spirit energy brought up a special
secret recipe to JE so that he would know what to reference for the sitter. He knew that it was secret, and he knew it had to do with shrimp and/or fish.

That was how Deborah knew the reading might be for her, because she was no doubt hoping to hear from her good friend who had died, and they shared a story about a secret shrimp recipe. That is the essence of how JE found the right sitter. The kind of stuff that someone like Instig8R gets hung up on, imo is really not the great big discrepency that she so vehemently believes it to be.

Third, you are flat-out lying when you say that the readings are not rearranged to "misrepresent" anything. By your own account, we know this is happening. You retold the Malibu Shrimp reading in one way, and - after the reading had been edited to show something different - you changed your account to fit it.

See above. Once the reading had been aired, along with Deborah's additional comments, it became clear that what JE got wrong about the secret recipe was basically the "reason" that it was secret.

He interpreted the message he had gotten from Deborah's mom as meaning that it was a secret because it was based upon one of her (the mother's) own recipes, but that turned out to be not the case. According to Deborah, it was a secret mainly because she and her friend used clams in the recipe that they were not 100% sure were safe to eat.

That was the reason that they kept the recipe secret. It was a matter of misinterpreting the message. Deborah cleared this up in her post-reading comments. Knowing how subjective mediumship supposedly is, I do not place the same importance upon this misinterpretation as Instig8R obviously does.

Fourth, that is not just what I mean about "edited for content". Don't try to imagine you can read my mind. What I mean is: Misses edited out. Silences edited out. Hits rearranged. Sentences rearranged. It's a puzzle, meant to make JE look good. It's entertainment, neo.

Claus, it's very likely that a little of everything is edited out to make it fit into the allotted program time. I see misses left in the reading as well. I know that hits are edited out also. I believe they do their best to edit in such a way that is fair and representative of the average reading. I don't buy into this claim by some, yourself included it seems, with only the goal of making JE "look good". The evidence does not support this allegation.

You have gone from pure belief to monstrous fanaticism.

Stop insulting me, Claus, or I will have to go back to responding to you in kind. .......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, empower yourself! The matter of whether or not I will continue to insult you remains right in you own hands, right where it's always been. You post civilly to me, and I will post civilly to you. Agreed?

Fine with me.

And where exactly did I say that the misses are edited out, Claus? Don't expect me not to insult you, if you can't even keep quote me correctly. It tries my patience.

I could be mistaken: Are you saying that each and every miss is left in???

Yes, exactly. What matters is that they can validate the messages that JE gives them. That is the most important thing. The "Malibu Shrimp" reading was quite an excellent reading, with a lot of good and unusual hits that meant something special to the sitter.

But that reading in particular was edited to change the original outcome, wasn't it? You yourself have admitted to this.

I'm sure that the woman read, Deborah I think her name was, absolutely felt that John had brought through messages from her dear friend, as well as from her mom, and whomever else came through that day. But it also made for interesting tv. It would have been a lot less interesting, however, if for instance, all of the footage of other audience members trying to claim the reading was included in the segment that aired on "CO". It would only detract from the reading.

How could you possibly know what other people "felt"?? Are you a mindreader?

How can a general guess that results in many people claiming it be "detracting"? That is evidence of JE throwing out a general guess, isn't it??

The essence of this reading was that Deborah's close friend of many years came through. The spirit energy brought up a special secret recipe to JE so that he would know what to reference for the sitter. He knew that it was secret, and he knew it had to do with shrimp and/or fish.

No, it was not about her close friend coming through. It was about the recipe being crucial to the reading. You are on a total retreat here, neo.....it's pathetic to observe.

That was how Deborah knew the reading might be for her, because she was no doubt hoping to hear from her good friend who had died, and they shared a story about a secret shrimp recipe. That is the essence of how JE found the right sitter. The kind of stuff that someone like Instig8R gets hung up on, imo is really not the great big discrepency that she so vehemently believes it to be.

Are you insane, neo? I am not saying this to be insulting, but could you please look over what you have said regarding this reading?

See above. Once the reading had been aired, along with Deborah's additional comments, it became clear that what JE got wrong about the secret recipe was basically the "reason" that it was secret.

Yet, you had a quite different opinion of what happened, and - at that time - there was no chance you could be wrong, was there?

Can you find a quote or something that indicates the preliminary state of your original viewpoint?

He interpreted the message he had gotten from Deborah's mom as meaning that it was a secret because it was based upon one of her (the mother's) own recipes, but that turned out to be not the case. According to Deborah, it was a secret mainly because she and her friend used clams in the recipe that they were not 100% sure were safe to eat.

So, JE can interpret wrong? Did he make it clear that he was wrong during the seminar? No? Did people not walk away with a false impression of JE's skills, then?

That was the reason that they kept the recipe secret. It was a matter of misinterpreting the message. Deborah cleared this up in her post-reading comments. Knowing how subjective mediumship supposedly is, I do not place the same importance upon this misinterpretation as Instig8R obviously does.

Obviously, you do not. Tell me, do you ever place any importance upon anything that might make JE look bad?

Claus, it's very likely that a little of everything is edited out to make it fit into the allotted program time. I see misses left in the reading as well. I know that hits are edited out also. I believe they do their best to edit in such a way that is fair and representative of the average reading. I don't buy into this claim by some, yourself included it seems, with only the goal of making JE "look good". The evidence does not support this allegation.

But we do not see the full readings. What evidence do you have that a "representative" reading is portrayed?

Didn't you just say that no misses are edited out? It seems you are very confused.

Stop insulting me, Claus, or I will have to go back to responding to you in kind. .......neo

I am perfectly happy with keeping a truce. However, stating that you are a monstrous fanatic is not an insult. It is merely speaking the truth.

 

[TLN]

The show's over kids. Any have any real evidence to offer, or just more bland stories?

I didn't think so...

 

[voidx]

The show's over kids. Any have any real evidence to offer, or just more bland stories?

I've asked for similiar things as well TLN and never received them. I've been referenced to the www.survivalafterdeath.org site and other such things, because I've often asked after evidences of some form of telepathic/psi/esp communication, and also a solid and agreed upon theory as to how it is supposed to work. I've read nothing concrete on the issue however. The main gist of going over and over the transcripts seems to be an effort to show that what JE does, does not fit within the confines of cold reading. Of course this is pretty futile, I agree, but I know for myself in the process I haven't been shown anything that couldn't be explained by cold-reading, or something else mundane. So if anything this constant battling over the transcripts has merely cemented my opinion so far that there is no scientific evidence for it, and that it doesn't appear to be close to bursting forth on us anytime soon.

 

[jim_scotti]

He interpreted the message he had gotten from Deborah's mom as meaning that it was a secret because it was based upon one of her (the mother's) own recipes, but that turned out to be not the case. According to Deborah, it was a secret mainly because she and her friend used clams in the recipe that they were not 100% sure were safe to eat.

That was the reason that they kept the recipe secret. It was a matter of misinterpreting the message. Deborah cleared this up in her post-reading comments. Knowing how subjective mediumship supposedly is, I do not place the same importance upon this misinterpretation as Instig8R obviously does.

How come this sounds just like cold reading? It sounds to me that JE went fishing ( ), got in the ballpark with a rather general question for pretty much anyone in the audience (and a question that could be interpreted favorably as either fish or shrimp), and then let Deborah (or whatever her name was) fill in the details with a little bit of creative prompting by JE. Deborah clears up the misinterpretation (i.e. a prompt by JE that didn't fit very well) for JE as well as telling the whole story. JE just sits back and rakes in the money from his gullible audience. A textbook case of cold reading.

Jim.

 

[CFLarsen]

jim_scotti,

I agree. I cannot tell the difference between this and cold reading.

Perhaps neofight - who is an expert in telling the difference between what JE does and what a cold reader does - could enlighten us?

And the rest of the world....

neofight, why is this not cold reading?

 

[neofight]

Not that it cannot be subjective, that it is entirely subjective at this point. And you're missing my other point. You often toss at us the idea that we're not taking the viewpoint of believers. I've been careful to do that when presenting other views. Now take a step into my shoes. Believers argue that there is a process to mediumship, and indeed there must be, but everytime you try and nail down similiarities in this process between mediums, it doesn't jive.

Correct, voidx. But that's because you are persisting in thinking that the mediumship process is a "one size fits all" sort of a thing, when it clearly is not. You are dealing with individuals, on both this side, and the other side.

Then we get instances where JE contradicts himself in how his own process works. This is intentionally vague, as is your explanation. "They have no control I think", to me is an excuse for, they can say it works however they want, cuz telepathy is subjective. Again we're assuming its a difficult and subjective process, but since no one knows how it might even potentially work, the actual communication process, then taking these mediums at their word is purely ancedoytle, and again you must admit that you're belief in mediumship is based upon equal parts faith and "science cannot account for this yet", and on nothing factual.

Could you list these contradictions? Other than that, I do not really disagree with what you have written here. There really is nothing factual as you say, on which to base this belief. However, on the equal parts "faith" and "science cannot account for this yet", I would say that each of those weighs in at 25% each, with the remaining 50% based upon my not ever having seen an admitted cold-reader able to do as well.

So are you saying you haven't posted anything in the "The process of John Edward" thread? Care to retract that statement? I know where it was posted orginally and by whom, doesn't change the fact that its still a JE quote, unless you're admitting its not an accurate quote, what does it matter? Aside from not answering the question.

Of course I have posted there. What is it that you wanted me to respond to?

How many spirits in a 20 minute reading then, on average. Does he stop part way through readings to rest, being this is oh so strenous? He still says it can only be sustained for a few minutes, so what, can he get 4 spirits in one sitting? 5? Any transcripts to support this? I quite refuse to take anyones word on this without some kind of backup.

I can't say that I've ever counted how many spirits come through in any one reading, but I'm working on a "CO" transcript that I am going to post over at TVTalkShows, and I'll count them for you when I'm done. Have you never seen the show, that you thought that only one spirit comes through for each sitter?

A young grieving woman seeks to contact her obviously recently dead fiance and JE brings through the ultra amazing message of, see a counselor, I think you're considering suicide. Wow. Who would have thunk it! This is exactly my problem. How is this a good hit? This is just plain old deductive reasoning, now if the message had included some detail about her specific thoughts of when and where and how she was committing suicide it would be somewhat more impressive. And while we're on this, what if she only ever thought of suicide? Can spirits read our minds? Or do they simply observe us? I don't think anyone has clarified this either. I'm sorry, I just fail to see if you're at least considering the possibility that JE might be a cold-reader, which if you're objective, you'll always keep in mind, and still consider this hit significant. The chances of her being suicidal over her fiances death are probably pretty good.

Come on, voidx. I'm sure there are at least as many women who've lost husbands or fiances who do not consider suicide as there are that do. Can you imagine how the woman would have reacted if this had been the furthest thing from the truth? Oh, right. Then it would have been edited out of the reading. See, I'm thinking like a skeptic, okay?

Ok fine given, now quit deflecting. I'm not talking about when they don't get the person their trying to contact, I'm talking about when they do. And besides, I think this is again another fine tactic by JE. If he's a cold-reader, and a smart one, then he realizes he can't take the bait of, "I want to talk to my mother" all the time because its to obvious he's just taking information from the sitter. I think you'll notice most times when the sitter comes out and blurts out at the start who they want to talk to, JE doesn't grab it, its to obvious, so he goes for a different, although still closely related relative. One that could potentially know most of the same things, and again potentially bring across whatever validation the sitter is seeking. You can't deny that everyone going there is looking to hear something specific from someone in particular. I believe this is just a smart tactic by JE to find a round about way of giving it to them sometimes without taking the initial information of, "I want to talk to my mom".

Well, actually, voidx, it's only on those quickie telephone readings on LKL that the sitter is allowed sometimes to mention who it is that they would want to contact. That does not happen in the full-length readings that John does.

I will say, though, that in the post-reading comments that are taped, the sitter will very often state that they came there thinking that if they were read, they wanted their loved one to mention a particular thing, or reference a specific event, etc. that would prove to them that this is real, and very often, they mention that it did indeed come through.

So you agree that the length of the readings, and how JE handles them could be seen either way then? That its possible he's using the time to simple use cold-reading and observation to hone in on the sitter. That it is in fact every bit as possible as the paranormal explanation, despite your own personal opinion.

Of course I agree that they could be seen either way. I respect opinions that differ with my own. I would only ask that the critic try to watch the show more than once or twice before debating it, so that they could at least speak from some experience and with some familiarity with JE's readings.

Not that we have any way of verifying besides the sitters own recolletion of how good these hits were, which relies far to heavily on their own subjective opinion of the reading, which makes them basically irrelevant. I bet the good hits that were left out in her opinion were not as good as the few "left" in. This paragraph itself shows us that yes it is edited for content. Here we have potential good hits that could help us analyze his ability more, yet their cut.

Yes, well, it is only a half-hour show afterall. With eight minutes of commercials.

And you seem to miss why this is important to us. I have no idea or proof that JE intentionally changes the meaning of readings with his editing, but it wouldn't surprise me. However, I by no means cannot rule it out, and in some cases must suspect it quite strongly. Less than interesting details would include misses neo, and fishing for information which would make it much more obvious that what JE is doing resembles cold-reading. Its of interest to people skeptical of his abilities. Those dots that fail to connect are again misses, which if there are more misses before the dot gets connected, its obvious he's cold-reading.

No, actually I do understand why you would prefer, for the sake of evaluatioin, to see unedited readings rather than edited readings. That is why I always suggest that skeptics try to attend at least one live seminar, because then you can get a better idea of the kind of stuff that I'm talking about that gets edited out.

The essence is not intact if all we get is the moment when JE's misses turn to hits.

I didn't mean to imply that everything leading up to a hit gets edited out, voidx, because it isn't. But if there is a lot of repetition for instance, or a lot of time wasted before something clicks for the sitter, that would be the kind of stuff I'm referring to. It would not necessarily be misses that I'm talkling about.

You've called Claus to task for basing all of his assumptions on the fact he thinks JE is a fraud. Don't you think you're doing the same here by refusing to see why any missing content, good or bad, does not give us the true essence of the reading? Because while it makes for far better viewing for the masses, its at the same time potentially bad viewing for anyone trying to analyze or criticize what he does.

As I said. I understand this. But "CO" does have time limitations. That's why I suggest seeing a seminar. The LKL telephone readings, however, are not the ideal format, imo....neo

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

...would make it much more obvious that what JE is doing resembles cold-reading. Its of interest to people skeptical of his abilities. Those dots that fail to connect are again misses, which if there are more misses before the dot gets connected, its obvious he's cold-reading. .

You know, voidx, this is what is most puzzling to me about the whole Michael O'Neill case--the opportunity this admitted critic had to expose JE's cold reading--but he didn't do it.

O'Neill emailed Shermer his list of speculations to "show" that JE was a fake. He came up with...hidden microphones...a van of suspected ringers...assistants "mingling"...editing that changed a head shake into a nod.

What he didn't mention, however, is anything about the poor content of JE's reading. After all, O'Neill was read right there on CO that day. Why doesn't he talk about the information JE gave him?

What an opportunity! He could use his own reading with JE to show...miss after miss...examples of JE fishing for information and trying to make it fit....things O'Neill said before the show that JE was repeating onstage....names and relatives that "came through" but never really existed.....and on and on.

Instead, O'Neill offers no critique of the content of his reading whatsoever. He just makes hypotheses about "hidden microphones". Know what that makes it look like, voidx? It looks very much like JE did an excellent reading for the skeptical O'Neill and it didn't fit into O'Neill's worldview so he's looking elsewhere (hidden mikes) to try to explain it.

I find it really strange that he emailed all his suspicions to CSICOP, but didn't even try to debunk JE based on the content of the reading he got from him. That is extremely odd to me, given O'Neill's point of view--and his obvious intention to show that JE is just a cold/hot reader.

Don't you find it strange that he never mentions any flaws in the reading itself?

 

[CFLarsen]

Don't you find it strange that he never mentions any flaws in the reading itself?

He did. He pointed out - and Steve has confirmed this - that a miss was edited into a hit. That's very serious, don't you think?

Clancie, instead of spending energy on speculating on something we will probably never know, why don't you focus on what we do know? It seems very much like you are trying to come up with something to criticize, to discuss, so we won't have to deal with what we do know. You have a lot of pending issues and some very hard questions to answer, yet you keep on harping on moot issues, even opening new threads.

Are you trying to bury those issues and questions with moot fluff?

What you find "strange" is strange. What you don't find "strange" is even stranger.

 

[BillHoyt]

Clancie,

Perhaps you can help us out here. I read your post thoroughly, and have found numerous problems with it. Something seems a bit awry with your facts. Below is a handful of your claims and excerpts from Leon Jaroff’s article. Please consider each pair a question requiring an answer, and please either:
o address the question, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
o state that, despite the evidence to the contrary, you still wish to believe what you claimed, or
o state that you refuse to answer.

I will number them for your convenience.I will also color them for you, in this fashion: Clancie, Jaroff I have also included one of my own corrections to a clear factual error. This will be in normal color.


“It looks very much like JE did an excellent reading for the skeptical O'Neill and it didn't fit into O'Neill's worldview so he's looking elsewhere (hidden mikes) to try to explain it.”

”Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance.

”What he didn't mention, however, is anything about the poor content of JE's reading. After all, O'Neill was read right there on CO that day. Why doesn't he talk about the information JE gave him?”

”While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known.”

”I find it really strange that he emailed all his suspicions to CSICOP, but didn't even try to debunk JE based on the content of the reading he got from him.

"O'Neill emailed Shermer his list of speculations to "show" that JE was a fake."

"Meanwhile, O'Neill e-mailed his suspicions to the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the Amazing Randi, a magician and skeptic, had been tracking Edward's career."

Please note that Shermer is not with CSICOP, and that, therefore your two quotes about emails above are not merely dead wrong (because O’Neill emailed Randi), but are absolutely contradictory.

Jaroff article

Cheers,

 

[CFLarsen]

BillHoyt,

Good work.

 

[BillHoyt]

BillHoyt,

Good work.

Like taking candy from a baby. The whining afterward is about the same, too.

Cheers,

 

[CFLarsen]

We can even boil it down to "Yes/No"-answers, for Clancie's convenience:

• Did O'Neill have any preconceived notions about this?
• Did O'Neill talk about the information JE gave him?
• Did O'Neill mail CSICOP?
• Did O'Neill mail Shermer?

Four easy question. Four very hard answers.

We can also ask Clancie this:

• What indicates that JE gave O'Neill an "excellent" reading?
• What do we know about O'Neill's "worldview"?

Clancie, please either:

• address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
• state that, despite the evidence to the contrary, you still wish to believe what you claimed, or
• state that you refuse to answer.

 

[Instig8R]

Well, when have I ever demanded direct quotes or anything of that nature from you? Or Clancie? Or Steve? I have taken you at your word. I see no reason to not take Instg8r at his (her?) word.

If you dispute what Instig8r has said about JE's claimed abilities, take it up with Instig8r. In the meantime, take careful note that I said "If" (as you have pointed out).

So, now I am left with Instig8r saying A, and you saying B, with neither backing it up with quotes. I think that I'll just stick with what I have said previously.

Hi, Thanz-- Unlike neo, I always back-up my claims. I feel it is the ethical thing to do. I hope the following will suffice:

Carson Daly interview on 3/13/02:

Carson Daly: "Do you -- and I mean this in all seriousness, do you ever speak with famous dead people?"

John Edward: "I speak with famous dead people if their relatives come see me"

I think it is safe to say that JE has made enough very specific claims about his abilities. Accordingly, it should be easy to devise a specific test, just for him.

 

[voidx]

Correct, voidx. But that's because you are persisting in thinking that the mediumship process is a "one size fits all" sort of a thing, when it clearly is not. You are dealing with individuals, on both this side, and the other side.

All I'm asking for is consistency. By being, "I make up my own size regardless of everyone elses", its so vague that actually defining a method of mediumship as this point is totally pointless. No one knows how it works, so it is not "clearly" wrong to assume a "one size fits all" concept, which you're still missing. They can all have their own slight variations of technique I suppose, but they must all operate on the same basis of process. Whether mental or trance or whatever, they all are using telepathy/esp/psi which must operate at its most fundamental level in a similar fashion. All other forms of communication do, and I can't see so far how this base consistency carries through to mediumship. As for the last sentence in the above quote. What's that supposed to mean exactly? Obviously its a medium and a spirit. Is this an explanation why its different for every medium? Does every spirit communicate differently? What are you getting at here?

Could you list these contradictions? Other than that, I do not really disagree with what you have written here. There really is nothing factual as you say, on which to base this belief. However, on the equal parts "faith" and "science cannot account for this yet", I would say that each of those weighs in at 25% each, with the remaining 50% based upon my not ever having seen an admitted cold-reader able to do as well.

Sigh. JE lists himself, that a communication can only be sustained for a matter of minutes, yet he by your admission does readings that last 20 minutes and longer. Now you've added onto that, that he communicates with more than one spirit during that time to get those sittings. I've asked how many in a 20 minutes reading. I've asked for a transcript to show this so I can get a better idea. Every reading lasting more than several minutes must show him switching communication to another spirit because by his own admission he couldn't sustain it any longer. Is this completely consistent throughout all his readings? As for the last part, its up to you if that's what you consider such an overwhelming factor in you're belief. But from what I've seen, its merely a difference of experience and practice as far as I can tell between cold-readers and JE.

Of course I have posted there. What is it that you wanted me to respond to?

Go back and read the post a little closer. You've answered it here anyway. But you hadn't responded to it in that previous thread.

I can't say that I've ever counted how many spirits come through in any one reading, but I'm working on a "CO" transcript that I am going to post over at TVTalkShows, and I'll count them for you when I'm done. Have you never seen the show, that you thought that only one spirit comes through for each sitter?

Do you have a ballpark for how many spirits come through on an average reading for the show you watch all the time? You gave the impression above that you did. I would very much appreciate a count.

Come on, voidx. I'm sure there are at least as many women who've lost husbands or fiances who do not consider suicide as there are that do. Can you imagine how the woman would have reacted if this had been the furthest thing from the truth? Oh, right. Then it would have been edited out of the reading. See, I'm thinking like a skeptic, okay?

Exactly, its 50/50. Either they've contemplated it or not. Could he not have gotten a hint to this based upon her reactions to him bringing through her fiance? So if you admit that its one way or the other, 50%, can you still sit there and consider it a good hit? I would think not. Her potential reaction doesn't matter, he got it right, he was taking an educated risk. I have never stated it would then be edited out. I said I could never discount the possibility that it might be. Don't take others arguements with you and Clancie on here and apply them to me please. You don't have a problem with skeptics, you have problems with individual people, settle them with them thank you.

Well, actually, voidx, it's only on those quickie telephone readings on LKL that the sitter is allowed sometimes to mention who it is that they would want to contact. That does not happen in the full-length readings that John does.

Yet it is allowed, and when done so fits into my little hypothesis doesn't it. You cannot discount what happens on LKL, just becaue you think the conditions aren't in JE's favour. He goes on there, he reads, he doesn't complain, and so you must objectively look at what happens there. While you could try and argue it being less objective in you're opinion, you cannot discount it as useless, sorry. It NEVER happens in full-length readings? Positive?

I will say, though, that in the post-reading comments that are taped, the sitter will very often state that they came there thinking that if they were read, they wanted their loved one to mention a particular thing, or reference a specific event, etc. that would prove to them that this is real, and very often, they mention that it did indeed come through.

Thank you. That is what I'm referring too. They have a memory in mind, and that if JE can bring through this remembered experience, then they validate their experience in real. The spirit does not pass on a textual message directed in a speaking manner directly to the sitter. The communicate through shared experiences, of which stated above the sitter often is seeking beforehand. So again, no, "Hey I'm a spirit and this is the exact sentence I want to say to Kelly" happens.

Of course I agree that they could be seen either way. I respect opinions that differ with my own. I would only ask that the critic try to watch the show more than once or twice before debating it, so that they could at least speak from some experience and with some familiarity with JE's readings.

Fair enough, the problem being the few times I've seen JE, there has been nothing there that has prompted me to watch him on a regular basis. Where you came away with an impression he's doing something truly unexplained and probably paranormal, I came away with the impression that what he does very much resembles cold-reading, or at the very least, nothing convinced me what he was doing might be paranormal in nature. I only have so much time in a day like most people. But when I see such vast inconsistency in process, and even in performance, I don't need to watch every show to start picking some logical holes in what he says he's doing.

Yes, well, it is only a half-hour show afterall. With eight minutes of commercials.

Exactly and as such, with the agreed upon editing that can occur, whatever its nature, makes it no better a source for analyzing JE than the LKL readings are in your opinion. See you discount LKL because its not enough time for JE to do his readings. And CO is a problem for us because its edited and potential misses are left out, or less impressive hits, only leaving us with the significant hits, so LKL in your opinion is as bad as CO in our opinion.

No, actually I do understand why you would prefer, for the sake of evaluatioin, to see unedited readings rather than edited readings. That is why I always suggest that skeptics try to attend at least one live seminar, because then you can get a better idea of the kind of stuff that I'm talking about that gets edited out.

Well living in Canada I'm not about to go hop on a plane and pay out for a JE seminar, especially since the performances I have seen have left me so unimpressed that it would be a waste of time on my part. You still seem to forget that the seminar is not a tamper proof arena either. I'd be walking into a situation of JE's choosing and potential control. Just like going to the magician, I'm not going to be able to glean anything about his tricks, doesn't change the fact I consider them tricks. At the end of the day I simply don't care enough to disillusion you of your belief in JE to go attend a seminar.

I didn't mean to imply that everything leading up to a hit gets edited out, voidx, because it isn't. But if there is a lot of repetition for instance, or a lot of time wasted before something clicks for the sitter, that would be the kind of stuff I'm referring to. It would not necessarily be misses that I'm talkling about.

True, but I still cannot rule out the possibility that it is misses that are not included, and in fact with squeezing that much content into the timeslot of a show, would have to assume must happen.

As I said. I understand this. But "CO" does have time limitations. That's why I suggest seeing a seminar. The LKL telephone readings, however, are not the ideal format, imo....neo

In your opinion. I don't thing myself, or anyone else has so far been given good reason to not believe their just as objective in their own way as you think CO is. And since I have many other hobbies and limited cash and am never going to a JE seminar, we might as well put that one to rest I suppose.