Please Stop Citing "Crossing Over" As Evidence

[Ed]

I challenge anyone to read just one issue of my Casper the Friendly Ghost comics and deny the existence of ghosts!

Are you referring to the Skeptical Inquirer article in which Underdown said performances by JE and JvP witnessed live are indistiguishable from cold reading and were specifically edited to enhance hits and remove misses when broadcast? http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=25563&highlight=inquirer

If I were JE and a fraud, the only editing that I would do is to excise the information gathering build so that my performance would go from some generality to a hit, leaving out the stuff inbetween.

 

[Ed]

2) How you know i.e. have evidence/proof that the producers and JE don’t “produce” the show to make it more compelling?
3) How you know i.e. have evidence/proof that there is no “smoking gun” of creative editing?






(Edited my proves for a processes.)

There MUST be editing, there simply has to be. They probably have at least 3 cameras, the thing is too long to not be edited, even if JE WERE the real deal, a tape unspooling from one camera would be dry as dust. They have to edit. Once they do that, who knows what happens. They sure won't edit to increase the boredom or decrease the "drama"

 

[TLN]

One point that I would like to make on the "editing" issue, is that it is patently obvious to those of us who do watch "Crossing Over" on a regular basis, that the vast majority of the skeptics who post on the JE threads, have little or no personal experience on which to draw that might otherwise help them to discuss this issue with a bit more authority.

Most of you just seem to recite by rote, 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, other than that's what you've always heard about it, and so it must be accurate. Yet, you say all of these things, without really taking a serious look at the show that you are criticizing.

I would challenge any one of you, who has any experience whatsoever with actual editing of video tape, to watch a week's worth of shows, and then come back and report on what you've seen. If you do that, I find it difficult to believe that you would still cite this radical sort of editing as the primary reason that JE does so well in these readings. If you are experienced at this, you will know what to look for in the way of creative editing. I say you will not find a "smoking gun" here.

Which reminds me, does anyone have access to the article that Jim Underdown wrote after attending a session of the "CO" gallery? It would be nice for a change to hear what a critic has to say after actually being there, and witnessing for themselves the "before" and "after" readings. Is this available anywhere for us to access?......neo

Are you even reading this thread?

 

[CFLarsen]

Why in the world would any "JE believer or fan" say that CO "is in fact not edited"? How stupid do you think we are? (No, wait, that last one is just rhetorical--I really don't want to know ).

Of course you don't. Remember the little thing about "not edited for content" that - for some reason - isn't a subset of "not edited"?

Discussing whether or not readings on CO are (1) consistent with JE's claims about the "process"

But the readings are not consistent with JE's claims about the "process". The process changes, depending on the circumstances of each reading.

or (2) consistent or inconsistent with the principles of cold reading is a far cry from using it as "evidence", either for believers or non-believers.

You have not been able to tell us the difference between a cold reader and JE.

"Evidence", TLN? I don't remember any believer here citing CO as "evidence" that JE must be for real, no doubt possible about it at all based solely on the readings he does on this program.

Could you link me to such an argument? I must have missed it.

I think you are pretty unsure of what you mean:

TVTalkshows
Gryphon2(Clancie) 207.175.243.209 05-30-2002 02:25 PM
First, I don't think I've ever referred to "JE's high RATE of special hits". I HAVE told you that I find the special hits persuasive for me. But I'm only speaking for myself on this. Others have told you that they consider special hits along with other factors (which actually may make more sense. The reason I weigh special hits so heavily is because if I ever saw a cold reader able to do that, too, I would doubt JE's explanation. So far, however, he seems on firm ground).

Gryphon2(Clancie) 207.175.243.209 09-03-2002 10:20 PM
JE's info builds around particular deceased people. Its not just "Do you know a Cynthia?" "Yes, she was my neighbor." Then on to something else totally unrelated.

Its not "a few hits, here or there, taken in isolation from everything else" that is persuasive.

Which is it? The special hits that are so "persuasive" for you, or not the "few hits", taken "in isolation"?

Thanks, renata. I do not take that as meaning that CO actually does fictionalizes or misrepresents readings (nor have I ever read anything claiming that other than O'Neill, but I see the point that they hypothetically could. (It probably is more likely describing some of the dramatization--showing a toy that might not be the original that a child was buried with for example).

Come now, Clancie, you know that is not true. What about Instig8r's account of the Malibu Shrimp reading at Westbury, which was chopped into pieces, when it appeared on CO? We should simply dismiss Instig8r's account, because she criticizes JE?

Actually, you posted too quickly, TLN. I had already caught that and edited it down to what I really meant...just "you"....

How long do we have to wait, before you mean what you post? Or should we simply accept that you are allowed to go back and change your posts whenever you feel like, so that you can then criticize people for misunderstanding you?

Don't blame people for relying on what you post. It's hardly their fault that you cannot make up your mind what you mean. But then, it's never your fault anyway, is it?

No, I don't think we can ignore CO completely. Skeptics should find in it a wealth of illustrations of cold reading, and believers should be able to point to patterns of information that come through and are convincingly validated (as commented on by the sitters themselves)--as well as looking at those "special hits" that editing alone simply couldn't just "create".

But we know that these validations are edited. We also don't know if the sitters speak the truth. How can you even begin to call that "convincing"?

How does editing create a hit for "Voula"?

Unless of course, you're implying CO made up the hit, hired actors to validate it, and then filmed a phony license plate illustrating it.

But that's not "using editing".

Try hot reading. You admit that hot reading is a possibility. (why do you always leave out the crucial explanation?)

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, good. I'd be curious as to whether or not Randi feels that believers need to back up every single damn thing they say with scientific evidence.

Only the things that are claimed to be evidence.

RC is right. If we were only permitted to discuss the things relating to mediumship that have been proven scientifically, there would not be very much for us to discuss.

neofight, sometimes I really don't think you understand what you post....

Soooo, let's find out once and for all. Are believers welcome to post here, on this "skeptics' board", or not? .....neo

Believers are most welcome to post here. Just expect to be questioned.

 

[neofight]

Are you referring to the Skeptical Inquirer article in which Underdown said performances by JE and JvP witnessed live are indistiguishable from cold reading and were specifically edited to enhance hits and remove misses when broadcast? http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=25563&highlight=inquirer

Yep. That's probably the one I am referring to. I read the thread you linked, but there's not really much information there, unless I missed a link to the article itself somehow? .....neo

 

[neofight]

Anytime there is a change in POV or lack of continuity, there is an edit, ipso facto. They would have to do that to maintain pace and keep the viewers interest, at the very least.

Agreed. They would sometimes have to do that.

I have no idea what you mean by "radical editing", editing is editing, some stuff goes on the floor, some is pasted in. My only point is that once the tape is monkeyed around with, it is not evidence of anything.

Fine, Ed. And my own point is that if you'd watch the show a few times, you would notice how minimal the editing actually is. In fact, they claim to do less editing now than ever before, in an effort to keep the reading as untouched as possible.

And by radical editing, I'm referring, of course, to the claims that the tapes are chopped up to make a "yes" a "no", and a "no", a "yes". That's a bunch of hooey! ......neo

 

[Loki]

Neofight,

I would challenge any one of you, who has any experience whatsoever with actual editing of video tape, to watch a week's worth of shows, and then come back and report on what you've seen. If you do that, I find it difficult to believe that you would still cite this radical sort of editing as the primary reason that JE does so well in these readings. If you are experienced at this, you will know what to look for in the way of creative editing. I say you will not find a "smoking gun" here.

Two points :

First, you slip easily into "exaggeration for effect". "Actual editing" becomes "radical" for no apparent reason. This comment alone suggests that you either (a) don't understand editing or (b) are simply trying to win a cheap point.

Which leads to ...

Second, the nature of "editing". I have already said before, and it was supported by a professional video editor (sorry - can't remeber the posters name!!!) that "good editing" is "subtle" and "hard to detect". So you're right, no "smoking gun" will be found. A nice catch 22, isn't it - if CO is edited the way I think it is, then we can't tell from looking at the end product.

But in the spirit of trying to answer your direct question (somewhat ironic that I'd suggest this in a thread dedicated to explaining why examining CO too closely is not a good thing to do!) - watch for sequences where the video is on one party (the sitter or JE) but the audio is the other party. Watch how often that happens. That's editing in (at least) it's simplest form, as they construct the viewable sequence from multiple input feeds.

I'll try to watch an episode in the next week or so (JE has - thankfully - a much lower presence on Australian TV nowadays so it's not that easy to catch a show), and I'll try to find you a "smoking gun" - or at least a few pointers on what editing appears to be obvious.

Most of you just seem to recite by rote, 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, other than that's what you've always heard about it, and so it must be accurate. Yet, you say all of these things, without really taking a serious look at the show that you are criticizing.

Again though, and in support of TLN's main point, CO *is* edited, and if it's done well you won't notice this. That's the whole point, and you seem to have it backwards. The default position should be to reject CO as evidence until such time as the objections (editing, etc) have been addressed by JE and the producers. Your argument that skeptics say such things as "must be edited" or "hot reading" without "really taking a serious look" is just plain missing the point. You, me, Claus, TLN, Darat, Clancie - anyone you want to name - cannot take a "serious look" at CO even if we want to, because the show simply does not close the door on "potential cheating".

 

[neofight]

Oh good, another thread about JE.

Just what did we all do with our time before Clancie and neo turned up?

That is a rather good question, RonSceptic! lol .....neo

 

[Loki]

RonSkeptic,

Just what did we all do with our time before Clancie and neo turned up?

I used to "debate" with christians about biblical prophecy. Well, actually, I still do that as well. Oh, and laugh at ICanTakePicturesOfDemons. That was funny...

 

[neofight]

Neo - this does not address the points that have been made here. You appear to be able to know the motivation and thought processes of a lot of posters here who don’t share your belief in JE’s claimed ability to communicate with the dead. To be more personal then I normally am in my responses will comment that it appears to be just an emotional outpouring with no logic or reasoning behind it.

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.

Can you please explain:

1) How you think that CO can be used as evidence for or against JE being able to communicate with the dead?

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.

2) How you know i.e. have evidence/proof that the producers and JE don’t “produce” the show to make it more compelling?

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.

3) How you know i.e. have evidence/proof that there is no “smoking gun” of creative editing?

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

 

[TLN]

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.

Blind faith defined.

 

[Zep]

Neofight, I HAVE watched CO many times (I was forced to - I lost control of the remote!). Each time more ridiculous than the last. Each edit more obvious than the last.

One show seemed to have two different audiences in it (at least, the people in the front row seemed to change suddenly), but no explanation forthcoming. A friend told me that in another show that I missed that JE had three unexplained "changes of shirt" or sweater or whatever he wore.

Not edited for content??? Yeah, right.

 

[renata]

I remember going to a legal seminar a few years back where they drilled lawyers on never allowing clients to accept interviews on shows like 60 minutes. Apparently, they said, most people do not realize that the 10 minute segments we see are actually edited from an hour or so of the interview, and edited so skilfully that many very bright politicians, lawyers and businessmen find themselves being presented in an unsavory light. There is nothing they can do about it, and those people are extremely skilled in public image control- however questions get presented out of order or context, and a certain image gets crafted. And yet people keep doing the interviews, and millions of people keep being fooled.

I also remember how a few years back ABC did an undercover story on a supermarket's meat department. The conditions they claimed to capture were awful, the story aired, the supermarket sued, the jury found for the store. ABC interviewed the jury, and one juror, a little old woman said that even though the camera captured butchers mixing in expired ground meat with the fresh ground meat and selling it to the consumers, she did not believe ABC- because she could not be fooled, she could tell the meat they sold was fresh.

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.

I just imagined a scene in CO editing room. John, this scene is an awful miss! No, we can't edit that out, that would be dishonest, even if we are a commercial enterprise in it to make money.

 

[neofight]

Blind faith defined.

Oh really, TLN? And how many live seminars have you seen that you're such a know-it-all? If you don't even know what a full-length unedited JE reading might look like, who are you to even comment, let alone put a label on me?......neo

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Oh really, TLN? And how many live seminars have you seen that you're such a know-it-all? If you don't even know what a full-length unedited JE reading might look like, who are you to even comment, let alone put a label on me?......neo

Oh, yes, JE seminars, well-known the world over for their proper controls and rigerous scientific testing procedures.

 

[TLN]

If you don't even know what a full-length unedited JE reading might look like, who are you to even comment, let alone put a label on me?......neo

You label yourself with your willful ignoring of other explanations people take the time to patiently explain to you.

Got any full-length unedited Edward readings? I'd love to see one. I've asked Clanice several times and nothing yet.

All this talk of "special hits" that make you think is fine with me, but every time I see one they're fairly mundane and easily explainable.

So no, I haven't been to an Edward seminar. (The last one in the Bay Area (that I was aware of) was the same night as Star Wars Episode II or yeah, I'd have gone. Very crafty of Edward to have his seminar on the night he knew all the geeks would be busy. )

Post one. Go ahead. Hit me with your very best special hit from full length unedited Edward reading. I predict 1) you don't even have such a transcript and 2) you won't take me up on it. But I love being wrong...

But we should probably open a new thread so we don't derail this one further. 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?

 

[neofight]

Neofight, I HAVE watched CO many times (I was forced to - I lost control of the remote!). Each time more ridiculous than the last. Each edit more obvious than the last.

One show seemed to have two different audiences in it (at least, the people in the front row seemed to change suddenly), but no explanation forthcoming. A friend told me that in another show that I missed that JE had three unexplained "changes of shirt" or sweater or whatever he wore.

Not edited for content??? Yeah, right.

Zep, the readings that are shown on any one "CO" show are not necessarily chosen all from one day's taping, althought they usually are. They could, however, conceivably use one reading from one day's taping, and another from some other days taping, which would naturally then show a completely different audience, as well as a different wardrobe selection for JE.

This is especially true when they do follow-up stories, where they show clips from some past reading, interspersed with interviews of the sitter taken at home, or at work etc., with commentary by JE also mixed in. There is no need to offer any explanation for this, since most people familiar with the show would realize what they were watching.

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

 

[TLN]

It's the editing within one specific reading that is of concern.

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?

 

[neofight]

Oh, yes, JE seminars, well-known the world over for their proper controls and rigerous scientific testing procedures.

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