Re: Underdown and Release Form (name changed at request of thread starter)

[neofight]

Second, my real point is this:

If the original ticket-holder had not gotten sick and had instead gone to the taping, and JE had said the same thing he had said to the neighbor who DID attend, then it is reasonable, given hits from other shows, that the ticket-holder would have validated it as a hit, saying something like "Yes! That's my neighbor's son! She really wanted to come today!" (You could even leave off the last bit).

Garrette, reading that, I think it's a safe guess that you do not really watch the show all that often. That's not exactly how it happens. Let me respond.....

Of course it is entirely possible that the woman's son would see an opportunity to get a message to his grieving mom, Garrette. This sort of thing happens all the time. But if that were to happen, John first would have had to come up with either the mom's name/initial or the son's name/initial, or possibly both. He might even have been shown how the woman's son died, so that the woman who got the reading would have been able to make the connection to her neighbor.

Without that additional information, I doubt it would have gone anywhere. There is no reason to even believe that this woman had told anyone else about hearing her son's voice. She could very well have kept that private, so if her son wanted to let her know that he was around, he would have had to come up with a few validations that the neighbor would have understood, otherwise it would have been meaningless.

I think you and others would still have counted it as a hit.

Does that suggest anything to you? That the same information given to two different people would be counted just as strongly as a hit?

I hope you are understanding what I am saying here. It's not a one size fits all type of thing. In either case, it would still be the same spirit coming through for his mom, either directly or indirectly.

If the spirit gave JE enough information to get the neighbor to understand who the message was for, (names, dates, cause of death etc.) then of course I would count that as a hit. It would be an excellent validation if the other pieces all fit.........neo

 

[neofight]

Just a clarification. O'Neill was given an extra ticket from family members:

That's fine. What does it matter who gave him the ticket? His name was not known two weeks in advance was my point. No one knows who the other three people are until they get to the studio.

Dead grandfather comes through, no matter who in the family attended. Go figure.

Well, depending upon who was there, he may not have come through as a grandfather. If Michael O'Neill's grandmother was there, the spirit could have come through to her as a male figure to the side.

If Michael's parents were there, he could have come through as a father figure. What's your point exactly?

Incredible. Simply incredible....

Come on, Claus! You call that head-banging? Put some feeling into it! Hit it a little harder! neo

 

[Garrette]

Dearest neo,

I beg to differ.

Garrette, reading that, I think it's a safe guess that you do not really watch the show all that often. That's not exactly how it happens. Let me respond.....

True for the last 9 or 10 months.

Not true before then. The total number of shows I have watched is at least 50, possibly as high as 80. But that's an estimate.

The transcripts I've read probably number about the same. Do they count?

And, yes, that is exactly how it happens.

Of course it is entirely possible that the woman's son would see an opportunity to get a message to his grieving mom, Garrette. This sort of thing happens all the time. But if that were to happen, John first would have had to come up with either the mom's name/initial or the son's name/initial, or possibly both. He might even have been shown how the woman's son died, so that the woman who got the reading would have been able to make the connection to her neighbor.

No.

For it to happen, we would only need (and I'm making this up, but if you insist it is not consistent with JE's method, then you're being disingenuous at best):

JE: Is there a male figure?

Sitter: {No response}

JE: I'm getting a male figure, to the side, or possibly a younger male figure. Do you understand?

Sitter: {hesitantly} Yeeess...

JE: Because I'm definitely getting a male, and a younger male, to the side. That usually means a brother or cousin or friend, unless it's younger, then maybe a nephew. It's very definite...

Sitter: I don't have a brother or cousin.

JE: But someone younger who's passed? A male?

Sitter: Possibly

JE: Because that's definitely there. A younger male who has passed, someone you knew?

Sitter: My neighbor's son died last summer.

And on it goes from there.

Now simply restructure JE's comments if the sitter was the neighbor instead and had not said "I don't have a brother or cousin" but had said:

Sitter: My son died

And voila.

Same 'spirit', same start, same degree of 'hit' regardless of the sitter.

This is Sitters' Bias. Forer Effect, maybe.

There is no doubt.

The same applies to the O'Neill reading, as CFLarsen demonstrated. The dead grandfather would have replied to any of the family members.

So the bit about tickets being given to unknown members does little to disprove warm or hot reading or sitter's bias.

People don't (or at least rarely do) go to a complete stranger with whom they have nothing in common and say "I can't go to CO today; want my ticket?"

They go to someone they know, i.e, someone in the same circle of acquaintences, someone possibly or probably with at least some commonality of relatives, someone with similar pool of knowledge regarding deceased persons and friends.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Neo
That's fine. What does it matter who gave him the ticket? His name was not known two weeks in advance was my point. No one knows who the other three people are until they get to the studio.

It matters a great deal. See my previous post.

 

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

As usual, you ignore the dangerous parts. In this case, JE being able to find the very same information he got through the spirits on the Internet.

 

[Thanz]

My point is that the wording indicates that purporting to be a psychic (insert appropriate paranormal thing here) when in fact one is not is illegal. IE. real psychics are OK. I guess that the law was PC in it's day, not wanting to offend the "True" psychics.

I don't know how you get this interpretation from the wording used. To me, it seems clear that the law assumes that all "Psychics" are fake, and that without the "entertainment" wording, you can be prosecuted. As long as you "hold yourself out as", which would apply to "True" psychics and fakers. (How's that for a false dichotomy? )

 

[Thanz]

As usual, you ignore the dangerous parts. In this case, JE being able to find the very same information he got through the spirits on the Internet.

That may be, but how likely is it? Does someone like JE actually have the time to do this himself? And if not, does he have someone that he can trust enough not to spill the beans here? It seems awfully risky to cheat in this way when you can do just fine with cold reading.

I think that the most logical explanation for what happens on JE is that he is cold reading the audience, and he can then edit whatever he gets to make up some good readings. The procedures in place - the "i have not cheated" parts of the release, the "no talking" rule, etc., are all smoke and mirrors to attempt to convince people that he is not cheating in a hot reading sense. I don't think that he is - or if he is, it is very sparing - and it just distracts from the fact that the whole act is a cheat.

Just my two cents.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Awfully risky?

The vast majority of his fans don't know that the information can be found. And those that do, ignore it. JE himself ignores any criticism whatsoever.

Where's the risk? All he needs is a special hit from time to time. Consider the many readings he does. Then, consider how many special hits there are. Not that many, eh? Those that are investigated turn out to be pretty mundane. A few can be explained by Internet searches.

He can get away with cold reading most of the time, but he needs those "stellar" performances to really make his audience wet their panties.

 

[Thanz]

If he can do the searches himself, then the risk is minimal.

However, if he has staffers doing research, then it is quite risky. Those staffers will have him over a barrel. It is not the kind of situation that he would want to be in. If just one of them gets angry at him, or develops a conscience, the he would be screwed. That is what I mean by risky.

 

[FutileJester]

However, if he has staffers doing research, then it is quite risky. Those staffers will have him over a barrel. It is not the kind of situation that he would want to be in. If just one of them gets angry at him, or develops a conscience, the he would be screwed.

I don't think anything at all would change if a staffer spilled the beans. Believers would doubt him, doubters would believe him. I seem to recall reading about one of Uri Geller's former (disgruntled) assistants admitting to helping him cheat, and it didn't do anything to Geller's continued success.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Futile Jester

I don't think anything at all would change if a staffer spilled the beans. Believers would doubt him, doubters would believe him.

Hi Futile Jester,
I think of all the negative comments about believers, this is the one that always irks me the most, the idea that we are so desperate to believe that no revelation of cheating would sway us in the slightest.

You may not accept it, but I can tell you that isn't true. If it was a credible claim, with examples that made sense (i.e. not someone anonymously calling a radio station in Australia about it), I think JE's career would pretty much be destroyed. Certainly people like me would not "believe" in him any more and I think many would completely lose their belief in any medium.

Posted by Futile Jester

I seem to recall reading about one of Uri Geller's former (disgruntled) assistants admitting to helping him cheat, and it didn't do anything to Geller's continued success.

I've never heard this about Geller. Source?

 

[CFLarsen]

Hi Futile Jester,
I think of all the negative comments about believers, this is the one that always irks me the most, the idea that we are so desperate to believe that no revelation of cheating would sway us in the slightest.

You may not accept it, but I can tell you that isn't true. If it was a credible claim, with examples that made sense (i.e. not someone anonymously calling a radio station in Australia about it), I think JE's career would pretty much be destroyed. Certainly people like me would not "believe" in him any more and I think many would completely lose their belief in any medium.

Clancie? Hello??

Does TONY THE CAMERAMAN ring a bell?

JE admitted to hot reading, Clancie. He was caught cheating.

Futile Jester is very correct. You close your eyes to flat-out fraud.

 

[renata]

If he can do the searches himself, then the risk is minimal.

However, if he has staffers doing research, then it is quite risky. Those staffers will have him over a barrel. It is not the kind of situation that he would want to be in. If just one of them gets angry at him, or develops a conscience, the he would be screwed. That is what I mean by risky.

Peter Popoff had staffers and his wife doing overt cheating, and they did not develop a conscience. And, he was busted, quite clearly and he enjoys a revival right now, so although some believers left him, there are some desperate enough they still follow the man who was taped cheating for heaven's sake.

Similarly, the people some believers here think are frauds- like Browne and van Praagh never had any staffers do an expose on them either. I seriously suspect the staffers sign a very interesting employment contract. Wouldn't we want to get our hands on that, right, Thanz?

 

[Thanz]

Peter Popoff had staffers and his wife doing overt cheating, and they did not develop a conscience. And, he was busted, quite clearly and he enjoys a revival right now, so although some believers left him, there are some desperate enough they still follow the man who was taped cheating for heaven's sake.

I agree that there will always be some believers who will never be swayed, no matter what happens, as long as the fraudster promises to be better or denies the fraud or whatever. I am not sure that the show could survive such a scandal, but JE would still be bilking people off air.

Similarly, the people some believers here think are frauds- like Browne and van Praagh never had any staffers do an expose on them either. I seriously suspect the staffers sign a very interesting employment contract. Wouldn't we want to get our hands on that, right, Thanz?

I would love to see such a contract. Would make for very interesting reading, indeed!

As for Browne and Van Praagh, I don't have any experience with JVP so I can't comment. By Browne seems to be just so bad that it is hard to imagine believing in her. Also, she tends to make more predictions about the future - which turn out to be false, of course - so it is easier to spot the fakery.

 

[renata]

I agree that there will always be some believers who will never be swayed, no matter what happens, as long as the fraudster promises to be better or denies the fraud or whatever. I am not sure that the show could survive such a scandal, but JE would still be bilking people off air.

I think some believers justify occasional cheating. Something like- he was tired, he was in bad form it was OK to cheat that day. Indeed I believe I had a similar conversation with SteveGrenard here, where he compared psi to baseball, and occasional revelation of cheating to a corked bat. So even if JE gets caught cheating, like I submit he did with Tony the cameraman, some believers will write that off. I also submit they make rationalizations to what I think are repeated abysmal performances on LKL. So, frankly I do not know what would be sufficient for a believer to become a non believer. You see, that has puzzled me from day one- some believers believe in this medium but not that, but to me they are all substantially similar.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869957751&highlight=cork*#post1869957751

posted by Steve Grenard, first part quoting me, then partial comment by Steve
Renata: I think I understand what you say. It is kind of like being an athlete but using steoroids to supplement performance. Having talent and then supplementing it to achieve a spectacular effect. But how will you ever know whether he has any ability at all, if you think his readings may be a combination of cold reading, hot reading and perhaps genuine ability.

Or a corked bat. Can we compare JE to Mickey Mantle? Why not?
If Mantle was at bat one year just ten times and got 8 hits, his average would be 80%. If he was at bat 300 times and got 100 hits then it would drop to 33.3%. In truth Mantle's performance varied considerably over the years .. in 1960 his hit rate was 27%.

According to Radin in his chapter on replication psi is like baseball.
He says all forms of human performance varies widely. I don't think anyone can disagree. Even a master pianist misses a note now and then. If you guys want to hold JE to a higher standard than Samy Sosa so be it.

I would love to see such a contract. Would make for very interesting reading, indeed!

Oh yes... Imagine the fine analysis that could be done there. I am trying not to salivate

As for Browne and Van Praagh, I don't have any experience with JVP so I can't comment. By Browne seems to be just so bad that it is hard to imagine believing in her. Also, she tends to make more predictions about the future - which turn out to be false, of course - so it is easier to spot the fakery.

And yet people shell out hundreds of dollars to be read by Browne, buy her books, she appears on Larry King, Montel, other shows. And believers in her also do not seem to be bothered by the fact that her predictions have not come true. And, of course, not a single expose from an employee. And, to be honest, to me what she does and what JE does look substantially similar- maybe she is doing a polka and he a samba, but it is still dancing. It is substantially the same thing, to me.

 

[FutileJester]

Hi Futile Jester,
I think of all the negative comments about believers, this is the one that always irks me the most, the idea that we are so desperate to believe that no revelation of cheating would sway us in the slightest.

You may not accept it, but I can tell you that isn't true. If it was a credible claim, with examples that made sense (i.e. not someone anonymously calling a radio station in Australia about it), I think JE's career would pretty much be destroyed. Certainly people like me would not "believe" in him any more and I think many would completely lose their belief in any medium.

Hi Clancie,

I admit I stated that in terms that were perhaps too absolute, for which I apologize. I'm sure many people will in fact be swayed by appropriate evidence, and I have no reason to believe you wouldn't be one of them. I believe I'm on firm ground, though, in saying that overall popularity can survive even repeated accusations of cheating. Geller's been popular for decades despite his repeated exposures (see below). And as Claus pointed out, JE is not free from insider accusations either.

I've never heard this about Geller. Source?

Here is a bio which contains the following:

Further evidence that Geller falsely claimed to possess psychic powers came from his former manager Yasha Katz, who confessed on Italian TV to helping Geller cheat after being taught a gesture code using certain hand signals and a cigarette, and Hannah Shtrang revealed Geller’s methods to the press in Israel.

He's also purportedly actually been caught on camera cheating. And many still believe.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

I seriously suspect the staffers sign a very interesting employment contract.

Well, not on CO, they don't.

According to Underdown (who has a friend who works on the show), there is no such agreement that CO staffers are required to sign.

 

[TLN]

According to Underdown (who has a friend who works on the show), there is no such agreement that CO staffers are required to sign.

Anecdotal.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Futile Jester

I admit I stated that in terms that were perhaps too absolute, for which I apologize.

Well, yes, but thanks for recognizing it.

Posted by Futile Jester

I'm sure many people will in fact be swayed by appropriate evidence, and I have no reason to believe you wouldn't be one of them.

You may be one of the few people at this board who feels that way, but I appreciate you saying it as I'm convinced that is the case.

Posted by Futile Jester

I believe I'm on firm ground, though, in saying that overall popularity can survive even repeated accusations of cheating.

Well, I agree that the tv show would be gone (read in CO, the book, how freaked out the parent company was by Jaroff's really weak story. An actual expose would be devastating--to the program.

But I agree with you that some people would continue to believe (Arthur Ford is a good example). And there are always new people who aren't familiar with the past exposes (I think this is somewhat true with Geller, for example--and thank you for the reference ).

And as Claus pointed out, JE is not free from insider accusations either.

Well, I assume you're referring to "Tony the Cameraman" which was not an "insider accusation". Tony was a "Dateline" cameraman (who apparently really liked his reading and did not think he was lied to). There are various interpretations of that incident...but lets not go into that for the umpteenth time!

Point is....no CO staffer has come forward with allegations of cheating (and turnover on television is quick with no real "whistle blowers" fears, especially for a show that most people probably feel is a fraud anyway).

But I agree with your basic premise--that some people will believe, no matter what. I just think it has to be recognized that not all "JE believers" would fall into that "blind follower" mold.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Posted by renata

I seriously suspect the staffers sign a very interesting employment contract.

Seriously and extremely anecdotal