Please Stop Citing "Crossing Over" As Evidence

[Zep]

Zep,

Yes, editing can be very powerful. But the problem with your example is that the "sitter" would know the editing had radically changed the meaning. She would know she was not yellow, and the whole thing had really been about yellow flowers.

For a good example of deceptive editing, there is Laura Ballweg's analysis of how deceptively Dateline edited their program about JE.....

Just because Dateline "influenced" a story, doesn't mean JE doesn't also. Wrong target.

Clancie and Neo, I'll try to find the extant examples of people complaining about JE's highly edited broadcasts of their own readings with him on his TV show. Some people were ropeable over the mauling their sessions got. A few turned 180 degrees on JE, from rabid supporter to rabid detractor.

Then again there were also others who agreed that JE had edited their readings also, but that "he kept the good bits in". In other words, they WANTED to believe JE's "hits," so they were prepared to allow the "misses" to be edited out because they were not important to them.

And any hits are highly suspect anyway - the sitters often literally convince themselves that JE is right, on the flimsiest of pretexts. And "old man" has GOT to be "my father," so it's a 100% hit for them because they WANT it to be so badly. In law, it's called "leading the witness".

Unfortunately, a proper scientific study MUST count the misses as well, plus analyse the hits for dispassionate viability. Hence the JE show is discountable as anything like "evidence". And I don't even think it's entertaining!!!

 

[Walter Wayne]

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.

Thats not what I said. The first part of the statement you're adressing points out what we need in order to be able to get any positive evidence from it.

The second part points out one reason we wouldn't accept it, even if the individual readings are shown unedited. We need all the readings unedited, otherwise it is to easy for him to load the statistics.

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?

No, I wouldn't.

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 ?

I mentioned non-verbal clues in my post.

Walt

 

[neofight]

Instig8R said

Blah, Blah, Blah! Instig8R said. Oh well then! I guess it must be true, because, after all, Instig8R said!

It seems to directly impact your comment about believers and dishonest editing. Would you like to comment on what she said as well as explain your change in your version of Malibu Shrimp before and after viewing it on television.

Renata, I've already explained this more times than I needed to, and have no desire to keep repeating it over and over again.

Instig8R and I have very different opinions of this reading. We differ entirely on the significance of the material that was edited out. I'm sure that Deborah, the woman who got the reading, was very satisfied with the tape of her reading. Many good validations came through from her friend, and it was a very upbeat reading.

What Instig8R keeps harping on, ad nauseaum is the fact that although JE knew that there was some matter of a secret recipe for shrimp or fish connected to this woman and her deceased best friend, he was not 100% correct in his interpretation of why the recipe was secret. Big whoopi do!

Nevermind that there were good, solid hits galore throughout that entire reading, and JE knew about this secret shrimp recipe. That doesn't count. Because JE got one small part of the reading a bit wrong, Instig8R goes on to suggest that the whole reading is drastically rearranged to make it look better than it really was, and that's not true.

The only thing I conceded after viewing the edited version on television was that yes, it was probably true that JE was not correct in his interpretation of why the recipe was secret. That affected the rest of the reading, not at all.

This is the last time that I'm ever going to address this reading. It's been rehashed over and over again, and I'm sick of it. Instig8R has her view of that reading, and I have mine. If I have a bias on the believer side, it's for damn sure that she has her own bias on the skeptic side. If you wish to accept her view over mine, Ed bless you. That's fine with me........neo

 

[Walter Wayne]

Before I hit the sack I am going to make a few points.

Nowhere have I used the term "scientific evidence". The reason for this is that often in life we make judgement on the verasity of statements without visiting a lab. True we prefer controlled experiments, but life doesn't always cooperate. Evidence produced outside of a lab is more difficult to interpret and "experiments" harder to control forcing us to weight our conclusions appropriately.

What are basic rules in the lab that we can apply to any evidence. Number 1 is "beware of bias". Historians often have to try figure out events from ancient texts. Any historian worth his weight will consider that events in a book are description by a human writer and not a snap shot of what happened. In trying to reduce the influence of bias, we devalue accounts provided by people who have vested interests in a specific interpretation unless they can corroborate the account by other means.

Does this mean that any edited, biased account is thrown out? Not necessarily. We rarely trust a biased source to proove their own point but if they can't proove it we take it as evidence of either a poor ability to present an argument or as evidence that their argument is false. Take the statement I made at the beginning of this thread.
- I tend to think that the poor performance on a show that he has editorial power on is evidence of an even poorer hit rate.
His own potential bias in fact ruins the show for positive evidence of his abilities. They do not ruin the shows potential as negative evidence of his abilities (why would he and his producers make him seem worse than he is).

So one may say "It isn't fair that you more faith in the shows negative evidence than its positive evidence." Well guess what? It is JEs choice how the show is produced. Why do you think Randi used outside people and predetermined appraisal method in his Homeopathy special? To minimize the potential for bias in the show, and thus maximize the value of the evidence gathered.

Lets assume that JE did several perfect readings in his show. Why do we not value that as positive evidence of mediumship. Because we can't rule out many other ways to achieve that in the uncontrolled environment (as his show is currently presented).

So why does JE choose to remain in an environment where no reliable proof of his mediumship can be produced? Perhaps the same reason all the other mediums do the same thing? Note that all the time that he doesn't take a definitive test, he is able to convince people of his abilities by suspect methods far easier than if he had proof of dishonesty generally available.

I understand the hang-up on "lab" produced evidence when trying to get absolute affirmation of a phenomenon. But as skeptics we must be willing to work with what little evidence is available when exposing frauds, as most frauds have a distaste for well controlled experiments.

I, like Renata, think that the what little JE has provided us is enough to convict him

Walt

Edited for language clarity.

 

[Darat]

I don't understand, Darat. Are you arguing then that you and most of the posters here who argue from the skeptic's standpoint actually do watch "CO" enough so as to discuss the show with at least some degree of familiarity? I'd been given the impression that this was not true in most cases.

I don't claim to know what the other posters on this forum do with their time.

Since by evidence, I would guess you mean "scientific" evidence, then of course you must know that I do not think that "CO" would serve as real evidence of JE being able to communicate with the dead.

So if CO is not "real" evidence what is it beyond an entertainment show?

Although I do accept the fact that my evidence of this, would not constitute your evidence, Darat, since it would only be anecdotal for you, I am satisfied, after reviewing both unedited seminar readings AND edited "CO" readings, that the sort of editing that is suggested by skeptics, is simply not done. I don't expect that to satisfy you, or any other skeptic, but since I have a mind of my own, I can come to my own conclusions on this question, and it does satisfy me.

I haven't seen in this thread anyone suggesting that your "radical" editing happens only that it is a possibility that we cannot rule out.

I think you have misunderstood the thrust of my argument/reasoning. Which is "There remains a possibility that anything we see on CO could be altered before it is broadcast". Please note I just say a possibility not that it is altered. Unless a CO show is independently verified to be an accurate representation of a reading then it should not just be assumed to be an accurate representation.

See above. There is simply no need for it. JE's readings are just fine without any creative editing.........neo

Unfortunately the only "unedited" readings I have access to are the LK transcripts and I see nothing but some vague comments and questions from JE.


(Formating edited, suggestion to suggesting.)

 

[Loki]

I agree with Walt!

 

[Mike D.]

So why does JE choose to remain in an environment where no reliable proof of his mediumship can be produced? Perhaps the same reason all the other mediums do the same thing?

Walt,

You might find the following interesting:

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/robertsonroy2.htm

Mike

 

[Thanz]

If you signed the agreement, you are legally bound to keep silent about it.

Where, specifically, does the agreement say this?

 

[Starrman]

all of the usual litany about cold-reading/hot-reading/selective editing/reluctance on the part of the sitter to make JE look bad/poor memory, and all of the other cliched allegations that you throw around without any basis whatsoever for saying it

Weather or not it is a cliche is irrelevant. The reason I throw these around is that it is FAR more likely that these are the reasons JE is on TV. Until you show me something from his show that cannot be explained by these techniques, there is no reason to add talkative spirits to the equation.

IMHO, this is a solid reason for saying these things. What justification do you have for your stance, which is (correct me if I am wrong); 'well, I can't explain it so JE must really be conversing with dead people'. That is called an argument from ignorance.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Where, specifically, does the agreement say this?

"I waive any rights I might have to review, inspect or approve any uses of my paricipation in and appearance on the program in which I participate in or appear.

It is understood that the program or any related works may contain factual and/or fictional scenes. Oh, and you waive rights for slander or libel based on that."

 

[Thanz]

"I waive any rights I might have to review, inspect or approve any uses of my paricipation in and appearance on the program in which I participate in or appear.

It is understood that the program or any related works may contain factual and/or fictional scenes. Oh, and you waive rights for slander or libel based on that."

Not exactly a direct quote.

Nothin in there says that you cannot discuss what happened in a reading you participated in. There is no non-disclosure clause.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"I waive any rights I might have to review..."

What do you think this means, then?

 

[Thanz]

"I waive any rights I might have to review..."

What do you think this means, then?

It means you have no right to review what goes on the air, or any input into the decision as to what goes on the air. It is about creative control of the program, not anything to do with post airing comments.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It means you have no right to review what goes on the air, or any input into the decision as to what goes on the air.

In other words, talk about it.

It is about creative control of the program, not anything to do with post airing comments.

In other words, ruin the entertainment value of their program by talking bad about the reading.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Zep

Clancie and Neo, I'll try to find the extant examples of people complaining about JE's highly edited broadcasts of their own readings with him on his TV show. Some people were ropeable over the mauling their sessions got. A few turned 180 degrees on JE, from rabid supporter to rabid detractor.

Then again there were also others who agreed that JE had edited their readings also, but that "he kept the good bits in". In other words, they WANTED to believe JE's "hits," so they were prepared to allow the "misses" to be edited out because they were not important to them.

Yes, Zep, I'd appreciate seeing all of these comments from so many people who are dissatisfied with "the mauling their sessions got". I thought I'd read pretty much all of the criticism, but I guess not, because what you describe above is news to me.

I'll look forward to seeing your post, with the information about all these sitters who are so unhappy with their JE readings....

 

[Thanz]

It means you have no right to review what goes on the air, or any input into the decision as to what goes on the air.

In other words, talk about it.

It is about creative control of the program, not anything to do with post airing comments.

In other words, ruin the entertainment value of their program by talking bad about the reading.

TBK, you are completely out to lunch here.

There is nothing in the contract that says that people who were on the show cannot talk about their experience on the show.

 

[TLN]

TBK, you are completely out to lunch here.

There is nothing in the contract that says that people who were on the show cannot talk about their experience on the show.

You're right Thanz.

Too bad it's a completely irrelevant observation. "Crossing Over" is fiction and worthless body of evidence.

Next subject.

 

[thaiboxerken]

TBK, you are completely out to lunch here.

There is nothing in the contract that says that people who were on the show cannot talk about their experience on the show.

That's how you read it, I read it differently. Maybe a legal professional can clear it up for us.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

You're right Thanz.

Too bad it's a completely irrelevant observation. "Crossing Over" is fiction and worthless body of evidence.

Next subject.

No, TLN, it is not a "worthless observation" for Thanz to point out that what Thaiboxerken said about the release form is actually completely untrue. Truth is actually very relevant to this discussion.

Again, TBK said

Posted by Thaiboxerken

If you signed the agreement, you are legally bound to keep silent about it.

It is important for him to understand that this statement of his is false. I'm glad Thanz took the time to clear that up for him--and for anyone else who might be equally confused.

P.S. thaiboxerken, Thanz is a lawyer. He is perfectly capable of interpreting this simple three page contract....

 

[CFLarsen]

P.S. thaiboxerken, Thanz is a lawyer. He is perfectly capable of interpreting this simple three page contract....

P.S. Clancie, Thanz had this to say about the contract:

Anywhoo, I am mostly a commercial litigator. Thankfully, I have not had to argue about these releases.

You are alway very fast - too fast - to establish what you think is reality.