Please Stop Citing "Crossing Over" As Evidence

[Lord Kenneth]

Neo, no matter what we say we do not know exactly what has been cut.

Is this your idea of proper scientific evidence... edited tapes? It doesn't matter what you think is cut or not, we still can't be sure and your personal opinion on how well JE does his readings at seminars does not matter.

For proper, acceptable scientific evidence we need real scientific tests, not some television show on the sci-fi (note, fi stands for fiction) network which may or may not be edited to make JE look more or less legit. Anything else is practically anecdote.

Is this your cup of tea, evidence-wise? A man talking about special abilities without offering a damn shred of evidence-- a man who is not being scientifically tested under proper controls? And you're willing to believe him, something totally new, something that would shake the foundations of science, our knowledge, without these necessary experiments?

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Lord Kenneth, nobody has ever claimed that seminar venues are synonymous with science labs, have they???

Still, with thousands of people in the audience, and general admission, I know you're not suggesting that JE is hot-reading all these people, right? .....neo

But to believe something so extraordinary, so groundbreaking without experiments certainly says something.

You're right, and all the people in the audience can't be wrong when they see the lady in the box get sawed in half.

 

[Walter Wayne]

In any case, that is not the sort of editing that should be troubling to anyone. It doesn't really matter if they mix and match readings from different tapings within the one "CO" show. It's the editing within one specific reading that is of concern......neo

Mixing and matching readings should concern us. Why?

1. When he edits it becomes difficult to tell what he edited out. If he does a two hour sessions, we want three shows 44 min. shows which shows readings in order with edits. We want a split screen so we can see facial expressions of readee's as he talks to them so we can see what info is sent back. Even if he doesn't edit an individual reading based on scripts you have seen, what readings don't we see that may have gone wrong and what non-verbal clues may we miss from the subjects on the show.

2. Context is important. Even if chooses to show everything he could do a show that is "best of" by mix and match. This presents the illusion of a good day, where he is well attuned to the spirits that day. This in spite of the fact that he never had a day that was statistically that good. One only needs a few good examples to convert people, then let their own mind fill in the rest.

Walt

 

[neofight]

The point is- people will believe what they want to believe. People who take lie detecter tests believe they will beat them. People who go on 60 minutes think they will be able to get their story out correctly. The little old lady on the jury thought she had the power to tell fresh ground meat from expired ground meat, so much so she disregarded camera evidence. Neofight believes her participation in a seminar (Paging Instg8r, Malibu shrimp!) and watching CO allows her to discern the type of editing that goes on.

Yes, renata. I'm sure most of us are aware of the things that you have pointed out. We've seen the same programs, and have heard many people complain of having been duped by being quoted out of context. I realize that slick editing exists, and that some people are unscrupulous. Obviously you all believe this of JE. I'm sure it's no surprise to you that I disagree.

My point, which by now I have given up on anyone ever understanding, is not that I can discern the type of editing that goes on, but that having witnessed plenty of unedited readings, I realize that JE gets these hits on a regular basis. His readings are usually quite accurate.

So if for instance, you watch a live reading, and observe the hits, then SO WHAT if they later shorten the reading and cut it down from fifteen minutes to twelve, or even ten? The hits are still hits, minus the superfluous footage that isn't necessary anyhow.

And I'm not saying to edit out all of the misses either, should there be any. I know for a fact, from talking with people who have gotten readings on "CO", that even some additional hits are sometimes edited out, to make the reading fit within the time constraints. Some skeptics don't want to hear that, but it's true. Some readings are just too long, and need to be trimmed. As long as the editing is not done in such a way as to change misses into hits, or remove misses entirely, then I have no problem with it.

Do I consider these readings to be proof that JE is communicating with those who are no longer with us? For the umpthteeth time, no, I do not. ......neo

 

[TLN]

Obviously you all believe this of JE.

No I don't (not exactly). See above.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Do I consider these readings to be proof that JE is communicating with those who are no longer with us? For the umpthteeth time, no, I do not. ......neo

Then why do you believe something so scientifically revolutionary?

 

[neofight]

A concern that we cannot rule out when evaluating Edward's alleged powers.

I'm not saying with absolute certainty that any clever editing does go on within specific readings to match up questions and answers for a more impressive demonstration; but we cannot rule it out as the producers reserve this right and it's common-sense knowledge about TV.

Can you address this single point without wandering all over?

I thought I already had, numerous times. No we cannot rule it out. Do I believe they do it? Or even need to do it? No, I do not. Do I think the disclaimer is significant? No I do not. It's a bunch of legal jargon that the lawyers have put in, and anyone who thinks that even JE's most ardent fans would stand by silently while their entire readings have been rearranged to dishonestly represent something that never even happened in the first place, are out of their ever-lovin' minds! .....neo

 

[Instig8R]

Here is what I already posted on another thread, regarding JE's creative use of editing, based upon the live seminar that I attended at Westbury, NY, last year:

Originally posted by Instig8R

At the Westbury seminar that I attended last year, the Malibu Shrimp reading was reconstructed for TV, to make JE appear better than he is. Some of JE's questions and comments to Deborah (the sitter) were based upon information that she herself volunteered early on in the reading.

The Malibu Shrimp reading was very lengthy and disjointed. It had to be totally revamped and rearranged to get that "flow" that JE believers consider his strong point. Some parts of the reading (interrogation, really) were even hacked-up into a collage, because there was probably so much wasted footage on Deborah's reading. (It really stunk.)

For example, at the outset, it was Deborah who first volunteered that her father was deceased. Secondly, early on, JE was fishing for occupations, and asked about someone being a priest, or in an advisory position. At one point, Deborah volunteered that her father had been a lawyer. That point didn't make it into the final edited TV version of the reading. However, armed with the "lawyer" information, JE went on to ask Deborah:

* If her father was intense and intimidating;

* "Who used to bang on the table?" (which I perceived to be an immitation of a judge with a gavel, a la "Order in the Court");

* Then, there was JE's famous Perry Mason style dialogue-- a very lengthy interrogation of Deborah, in which he obtained her false confession to the crime of stealing her mother's recipe, a crime she didn't commit.

Somehow, I don't think the above "lawyer-like" references would have been made by JE, had he not been previously fortified with information from Deborah about her late father's profession.

However, the earlier part -- with Deborah volunteering the information about her dad's profession -- was edited out. Thus, JE's later statements were based on facts previously harvested, but the people viewing the reading on TV do not know it. With liberal editing, how can JE not look better than he actually is?

Whatever cannot be explained by cold-warm-hot reading can more easily be explained by editing... and JE's right to construct a work of fiction is provided for in the Appearance Release form.

I don't think CO's editing is so blatant as to change a sitter's negative answer to an affirmative one. I think the editing is done to eliminate the obvious harvesting of information, as outlined above. The result is that many of JE's questons might appear to be coming from "out of the blue", when they are really based on information volunteered by the sitter.

Of course, my version of the JE seminar contradicts neo's version of his performance. However, neo's version of the Malibu Shrimp reading changed after she viewed it on TV. Her pre-broadcast comments were modified to conform to the televised version of the reading.

JE's seminar performance at Westbury was like one long Larry King Live reading, without the dialtone.

 

[TLN]

It's a bunch of legal jargon that the lawyers have put in, and anyone who thinks that even JE's most ardent fans would stand by silently while their entire readings have been rearranged to dishonestly represent something that never even happened in the first place, are out of their ever-lovin' minds! .....neo

Why is that and what exactly makes you '' about the proposition?

Also, since you agree we can't rule it out, do you also agree that "Crossing Over" is a worthless body of evidence in evaluating Edward's alleged powers?

 

[Clancie]

re: editing and CO...

Doesn't anyone here have the Sept/Oct issue of SI?

Jim Underdown went to a taping of CO (with a hidden tape recorder) for the expressed purpose of comparing JE's live readings with the edited ones.

His article presenting his conclusions about this is in this month's Skeptical Inquirer. Doesn't anyone know what his conclusions are? And if he uses the transcripts he made to give examples of editing vs. non-editing in his article?

I think someone who occasionally posts here mentioned the article a while back, but not with a whole lot of detail.

Underdown already has done a lot of work to compare live and unedited CO readings. It would be nice if someone could summarize his conclusions.....

 

[TLN]

re: editing and CO...

Doesn't anyone here have the Sept/Oct issue of SI?

Jim Underdown went to a taping of CO (with a hidden tape recorder) for the expressed purpose of comparing JE's live readings with the edited ones.

His article presenting his conclusions about this is in this month's Skeptical Inquirer. Doesn't anyone know what his conclusions are? And if he uses the transcripts he made to give examples of editing vs. non-editing in his article?

I think someone who occasionally posts here mentioned the article a while back, but not in very specific terms.

Underdown did a lot of work to compare live and unedited CO readings already. It would be nice if someone could summarize his conclusions.....

None of which is the issue at hand. We can talk about that here in the thread already dedicated to that topic.

 

[neofight]

Mixing and matching readings should concern us. Why?

1. When he edits it becomes difficult to tell what he edited out. If he does a two hour sessions, we want three shows 44 min. shows which shows readings in order with edits. We want a split screen so we can see facial expressions of readee's as he talks to them so we can see what info is sent back. Even if he doesn't edit an individual reading based on scripts you have seen, what readings don't we see that may have gone wrong and what non-verbal clues may we miss from the subjects on the show.

LOL WW! You realize that even if JE agreed to do the program exactly how you laid it out here, no skeptic would be any closer to being satisfied than they are right now.

2. Context is important. Even if chooses to show everything he could do a show that is "best of" by mix and match. This presents the illusion of a good day, where he is well attuned to the spirits that day. This in spite of the fact that he never had a day that was statistically that good. One only needs a few good examples to convert people, then let their own mind fill in the rest.

I understand what you are saying, Walt, but again, nothing JE could do to meet your demands would ever amount to scientific evidence anyhow, wouldn't you agree?

As far as what you, and others, have said about verbal clues, to be fair to JE, I've often seen a sitter start to offer a little too much information, and JE immediately tries to shut them up with something like......."Uh uh uh uh uh! My job! Let me give the information to you, so that it will be more meaningful." He likes to get it out first, which only makes sense.......neo

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Thanks for avoiding my comments, Neo.

Silly believers.

 

[neofight]

Why is that and what exactly makes you '' about the proposition?

You're kidding, right, Captain? What makes me mad is that some skeptics would believe that this kind of dishonest editing is going on on a regular basis, and nobody has enough character to expose the man. That is just about the most insulting thing I can think of. Even worse than being told that I'm the personification of blind faith!

Also, since you agree we can't rule it out, do you also agree that "Crossing Over" is a worthless body of evidence in evaluating Edward's alleged powers?

YES! YES! YES! I do agree!!! Do I need to write it in my own blood before it's accepted??? Sheeesh! Where's my Advil?

Still, I do enjoy discussing these readings, as do many other posters, and until your side can come up with some admitted cold-reader who is capable of doing what JE does, I'm afraid that I just won't buy into that particular theory.

And couldn't someone have warned me that Instig8R was coming to post about the Malibu Shrimp reading yet again? I barely had time to wrap my head with ducktape to keep it from exploding! Gee, thanks, renata! ......neo

 

[Clancie]

Clancie:

Jim Underdown went to a taping of CO (with a hidden tape recorder) for the expressed purpose of comparing JE's live readings with the edited ones.

....Underdown already has done a lot of work to compare live and unedited CO readings. It would be nice if someone could summarize his conclusions.....


TLN:

None of which is the issue at hand. We can talk about that here in the thread already dedicated to that topic

TLN,

Please stop being such a control freak. Its annoying, especiially as you don't seem to be paying attention to your own posts in this thread--many of which, fyi, are about how editing might effect readings on CO. Why aren't you interested in the possibility that Underdown's research might answer your every question?

posted by TLN

I'm not saying with absolute certainty that any clever editing does go on within specific readings to match up questions and answers for a more impressive demonstration; but we cannot rule it out as the producers reserve this right and it's common-sense knowledge about TV.

posted by TLN

Got any full-length unedited Edward readings? I'd love to see one.

posted by TLN

Speaking of which, neo, do you think an edited television program where the producers reserve the right to create fictitious scenes should qualify as evidence towards an incredibly extraordinary claim?

posted by TLN

It’s also edited television. It’s also edited television where the producers reserve the right to create “fictional” events.

posted by TLN

No Edward believer or fan will address the point of this post unless it's to say that "Crossing Over" is in fact not edited.

posted by TLN

May I see a "special hit" that editing couldn't create please?

posted by TLN

But that's exactly my point: There is no such thing as a "special hit" on an edited television show where the producers reserve the right to create works of fiction.

All these posts by you on the issue of whether editing changes the meaning of live readings on CO--exactly the point of Underdown's research.

Not to mention all the posts on edited vs. unedited issues by Loki, Instig8r, neo, Walter Wayne....but you never rebuked them as "off topic", did you.

Take your own advice, TLN...."Focus".

 

[KelvinG]

My approach to JE is now simple. I used to indulge in some discussions regarding JE, although not nearly as frequently as some members on this board.
And like many others, I would get annoyed, frustrated, and sometimes even angry at the believers who opposed many of my comments and opinions.

However, I stopped one day and said to myself "Has any of the believers on this site ever said anything that made me even slightly convinced that JE might be a real medium." The answer was NO.
Do I anticipate that a believer might say something in the future that might make me believe JE is a real medium. The answer is still very likely NO.
Real scientific evidence is all I will accept. I doubt JE will ever be involved in legitimate scientific experiments.

That said, I figured what was the point in continuing such futile discussions.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by KelvinG

However, I stopped one day and said to myself "Has any of the believers on this site ever said anything that made me even slightly convinced that JE might be a real medium." The answer was NO.

Do I anticipate that a believer might say something in the future that might make me believe JE is a real medium. The answer is still very likely NO.

Real scientific evidence is all I will accept. I doubt JE will ever be involved in legitimate scientific experiments.

That said, I figured what was the point in continuing such futile discussions.

Kelvin,

That's a very interesting point (one I will think more about, as it is probably true of most? all? skeptics at this board. ).

Here's my question, apart from JE, do you think there's anything that could make you consider mediumship* is real other than scientific experiments in a laboratory condition?

*not JE, but others

 

[thaiboxerken]

Here's my question, apart from JE, do you think there's anything that could make you consider mediumship* is real other than scientific experiments in a laboratory condition?

Personally, for me, there is only one challenge that might get me to consider it outside of scientitific experiments and that would be the JREF challenge. Then again, that is still a controlled experiment.

 

[neofight]

Neo, no matter what we say we do not know exactly what has been cut.

I'll give you that, LK.

Is this your idea of proper scientific evidence... edited tapes? It doesn't matter what you think is cut or not, we still can't be sure and your personal opinion on how well JE does his readings at seminars does not matter.

I can't argue with that either. Of course, it does matter to me.

For proper, acceptable scientific evidence we need real scientific tests, not some television show on the sci-fi (note, fi stands for fiction) network which may or may not be edited to make JE look more or less legit. Anything else is practically anecdote.

For scientific proof, scientific tests would be required, yes. Thank you for stating the obvious. BTW, only the re-runs are on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Is this your cup of tea, evidence-wise? A man talking about special abilities without offering a damn shred of evidence-- a man who is not being scientifically tested under proper controls? And you're willing to believe him, something totally new, something that would shake the foundations of science, our knowledge, without these necessary experiments?

Lord Kenneth, I have not come to believe in mediumship, to the extent that I do lean towards believing in it, simply because JE says it's true. There are several reasons that, considered all together, push me in that direction. I do think in time, that is, IF everyone can agree on the protocol to be used, mediumship might be scientifically proven to exist. I think that even then, some might still deny it, but, hey! That's not my problem.....neo

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do I consider these readings to be proof that JE is communicating with those who are no longer with us? For the umpthteeth time, no, I do not. ......neo

Then why do you believe JE is communicating with the dead?