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

[voidx]

Posted by NoZed Avenger
Of course, using the same logic as above, merely having the information from the obituaries prior to the readings doesn't -prove- that the dead relatives didn't also visit the medium and give the same information through spiritual means, but . . . . doesn't that begin to stretch credibility just a tad?

Stretched credibility doesn't appear to be too much of a concern it would seem. Hell, even if credibility snaps...you can always tie the ends back together and keep stretching . "See, its fine!".

 

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


What people say they believe and what they actually believe are two different things. You should look at how they argue instead of how they claim to argue, and you will see that it is very different.

I do not presume to know what a person thinks or really feels about an issue. I can only debate claims and statements. I have found it to be a waste of time, for me anyway, to do otherwise.


What constitutes proof of fraud, then?

Using cold-reading? Short of a confession, I would say it's nigh impossible. Hot-reading? Use of false information fed to a medium, as Underdown attempted, computer records of google searches, LexusNexus or the like, etc.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am personally convinced that Edward "cheated" with Tony. Ed's "sniff test" and my own common sense eliminates all other options. But it is not "proof". It is not proof, because it is consistent with Edwards claim of the "process" he uses. And any evaluation of fraud or error must be initially compared to the claim being made.

If a dowser claims that they can unerringly find buried gold, but only in their own back yard, and only when they have two days to prepare with no one observing them, our common sense may cry "Fraud!" but if the claimant does what they say they will do under the conditions they require, it cannot be "proven" no matter how obvious it may seem.

 

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

They admit the possibility, but still make the final decision based on emotion. RC is becoming a skeptic, but the other 2 are believers that have decided the possibility of JE being a cold-reader can be set aside in preference for their beliefs. Do you have any real examples?

I consider all three of those to be "real examples". Even you seem to acknowledge RC as one. Do you require more? But if you're comfortable in assuming you know what people really think and feel, I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise.


One either believes or they don't, a fence-sitter is merely a person that doesn't want to express what their position is.

That is a very narrow-minded conjecture. Do you remember what skepticism is?


I am ignoring nothing I assure you. Although I personally am convinced that Edward did cheat, his reading of Tony, and subsequent explanation of same, is consistent with his claims of the "process" he uses.

ANd that process is called cheating.

Personally, I agree with you. However, there is no proof of this. Please feel free to argue otherwise. What evidence is there to demonstrate that what Edward did in this situation is inconsistent with what a "real medium" could do under the same situation (assuming such a thing as a real medium existed).

It was cheating, point blank. If a person is caught with a smoking gun and has gun splatter on them, it can be assumed that the person pulled the trigger.

That was a bad example. How do you prove the person shot the gun you caught them holding and not some other gun?

JE tried to use the father as a hit.

I agree. Now prove it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I consider all three of those to be "real examples". Even you seem to acknowledge RC as one. Do you require more? But if you're comfortable in assuming you know what people really think and feel, I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

It's obvious how they feel based on what they've posted and their immediate dismissal of any mundane explanations. Clancie and Neo see "special hits" where there are none. They can't fathom that JE is just cold-reading because "it just doesn't feel like it". Neo and Clancie are believers because of emotion. RC is/was a believer based on emotion but is realizing it.


That is a very narrow-minded conjecture. Do you remember what skepticism is?

It is a fact that one either believes something or they don't. There is no in-between.




Personally, I agree with you. However, there is no proof of this. Please feel free to argue otherwise. What evidence is there to demonstrate that what Edward did in this situation is inconsistent with what a "real medium" could do under the same situation (assuming such a thing as a real medium existed).

Since there is NO such thing as a medium, what he was doing was cheating.




That was a bad example. How do you prove the person shot the gun you caught them holding and not some other gun?

Blood and gunpowder splatter pattern that continues from the gun to the person.


I agree. Now prove it.

No need to prove the self-evident.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If a dowser claims that they can unerringly find buried gold, but only in their own back yard, and only when they have two days to prepare with no one observing them, our common sense may cry "Fraud!" but if the claimant does what they say they will do under the conditions they require, it cannot be "proven" no matter how obvious it may seem.

But if the dowser is caught on tape placing the gold in certain locations, then it is proven he is cheating. JE was taped placing the gold.

 

[FutileJester]

Hi Ken,

It is a fact that one either believes something or they don't. There is no in-between.

I just can't agree with this at all. I offer myself as a counter-example. There is effectively nothing, except perhaps my own existence, which I absolutely do or absolutely don't believe in. I may be almost certain about a lot of things, but I have to maintain a kernel of doubt or I would never be able to accept contrary evidence.

In fact I would say that to be 100% sure of anything is almost the anti-definition of a skeptic.

No need to prove the self-evident.

A multitude of religious zealots and snake-oil salesmen would agree with this sentiment completely. THe self-evident has been found wrong too many times. That's why skeptics require proof (to the extent that proof is possible).

 

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Leroy - Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?

Originally posted by CFLarsen Can you find one single explanation they seriously think is possible?

I can't. Hey, if I am wrong, show me.

Silly boy, don't answer a question with a question. Where is the evidence that they dismissed ALL OTHER explanations.

 

[Leroy]

I haven't seen any

Exactly.



Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?

Believers either:

1. Don't know of the mundane explanations, such as cold-reading, hot-reading and such.

OR

2. They know of these explanations and have dismissed them in favor of their beliefs.

That's all there is to it. Look at Clancie and Neo, they know about cold-reading and have dismissed that explanation in favor of their beliefs. They know that JE got caught cheating on 20/20 and have dismissed it in favor of their beliefs.

All believers fall into categories 1 or 2, and sometimes both.

*sigh* stereotyping again? They are believers, therefore [?]

You have some serious biases Theo.

Posted by Instigator - The problem is that JE was not forthcoming with the information that he had met Tony earlier and had a conversation with him about his father's death. JE was willing to allow Dateline to believe that he hadn't spoken to Tony in advance. He did not volunteer the information. He had to be asked about it, and then he finally confessed. This is called lying by omission.

I agree

 

[Leroy]

Leroy, there are many instances when JE gets information for someone who is not there, and has the family in the studio call them up to deliver a message. Not all of these people had tickets but cancelled at the last moment, so I don't see how the Brunelli incident is such a cause of wonderment. ........neo [/B]

posted by Instigator - I was very suspicious of the fact that when Chef Yan-Yan Leone and his cousins from Brunelli's Restaurant on the upper East Side were read on CO, JE began making statements that Yan-Yan knew could be meant for his cousin, Russ Brunelli. JE then had Yan-Yan call Russ at the restaurant, and JE proceeded to read Russ Brunelli over the telephone.

We later learned (in a post-reading segment) that Russ was supposed to be at the CO gallery, and gave up his ticket because he claimed he was too busy at the restaurant. Funny how the reading still went to him, via telephone. (Hint: The restaurant bears his name.)

Doesn't it make you the least bit suspicious? What if JE did a background check on the original ticket holder?

 

[Leroy]

They admit the possibility, but still make the final decision based on emotion.

One either believes or they don't, a fence-sitter is merely a person that doesn't want to express what their position is.

Based on emotion? How about based on personal experience with the man?

When you say "One either believes or they don't" what are you really saying?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Based on emotion? How about based on personal experience with the man?

Emotional.


When you say "One either believes or they don't" what are you really saying?

Exactly what I said. There is no in-between when it comes to belief. One can suspend judgement, but not belief.

 

[thaiboxerken]

*sigh* stereotyping again? They are believers, therefore [?]


It's not just a stereotype, it's an observation. Can you think of any believers that believe in afterlife and mediumship based on scientific evidence?

 

[Leroy]

But a cynic would look at that and go "Hey, ya know, he knows its the cameraman, he knows it's 'Dateline,' ya know wouldn't it be impressive if he could get the cameraman to cry?"

Originally posted by neofight

Hockenberry is absolutely right here. That's exactly what a cynic would say. For them there is no such thing as giving JE the benefit of the doubt here. [/B]

I am not a cynic and I look at that and think, "hmm, hot reading." I can give JE the benefit of a doubt too. Where is your doubt when it comes to JE? Does he do anything that causes you to sometimes doubt him?

 

[Leroy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


What people say they believe and what they actually believe are two different things. You should look at how they argue instead of how they claim to argue, and you will see that it is very different.

I do not presume to know what a person thinks or really feels about an issue. I can only debate claims and statements. I have found it to be a waste of time, for me anyway, to do otherwise.[/B]

Great post Mark! To argue with one on the basis of what we believe they think, is a waste of time. We should concentrate on what we know and not on what we think we know.

 

[Leroy]

It is a fact that one either believes something or they don't. There is no in-between.

No need to prove the self-evident.

Ah, now I understand Thai, he is another black and white person! That explans a lot. Maybe it would be better for us to wait until he has grown up, or been educated before we waste anymore time typing to him.

 

[Leroy]

It is a fact that one either believes something or they don't. There is no in-between.

Hi Ken,

I just can't agree with this at all. I offer myself as a counter-example. There is effectively nothing, except perhaps my own existence, which I absolutely do or absolutely don't believe in. I may be almost certain about a lot of things, but I have to maintain a kernel of doubt or I would never be able to accept contrary evidence.

In fact I would say that to be 100% sure of anything is almost the anti-definition of a skeptic.

No need to prove the self-evident.

A multitude of religious zealots and snake-oil salesmen would agree with this sentiment completely. THe self-evident has been found wrong too many times. That's why skeptics require proof (to the extent that proof is possible). [/B]

BRAVO Futile! I hope that Thai read this post!

 

[FutileJester]

It's not just a stereotype, it's an observation.

Hmmm. Let's say I observe that most black people I encounter like rap music. I then say, 'All black people like rap music, or are consciously suppressing their preference for rap'. This IS NOT a justified statement, and it is indeed a stereotype, not an observation. This is what you're doing. Observing a trend for a group is not an excuse for judging all people of a group to be that way; people are simply far more complicated than this.

 

[FutileJester]

Ah, now I understand Thai, he is another black and white person! That explans a lot.

In a nutshell. The inability to acknowledge shades of gray is the death knell of critial thinking.

BRAVO Futile! I hope that Thai read this post!

Thanks! He skipped it in his last set of responses though, so no high hopes there.

 

[Darat]

Great post Mark! To argue with one on the basis of what we believe they think, is a waste of time. We should concentrate on what we know and not on what we think we know.

I agree with the point that we can't argue about what we believe other people to think, however when people state "X is true" it is sometimes valid to explain why if they think "X is true" then "Y must also be true". I've realised that sometimes people are not aware of some of the implications that their stated beliefs make or require.


A slight change – and back to the thread subject!

I am wondering how anyone can still be quoting CO TV shows as evidence to support what JE claims he can do. We now know that anything (and indeed everything) we see on CO could have been edited or fictionalised. By the agreement the production company makes people sign before they can appear any "evidence" from the show would have to be independently collaborated before we can even begin to assume it hasn't been "fictionalised".

I also think that anyone who starts with an assumption that anything shown on CO is “true” or evidence for JE’s claims should consider the following:

• The show is produced by a “for profit” company
• To be profitable the show has to be able to attract an audience (ratings) that is attractive to advertisers.
• Ratings can be achieved by "better & bigger" shows which could include specials with celebrities or "special" hits. (I admit this is an assumption however I believe there is some evidence to support this. Consider how JE & the other producers totally misjudged the public mood when they tried to use the terrible events of September 11th to their own advantage to create interest/publicity for their show.)
• The show has no obligation to produce a factually accurate retelling of a reading.

With the above I would now say that when anything that may even be considered "special" appears on Crossing Over the reasonable first assumption should be that what was shown is "fictionalised".

(Edited for be to been.)

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

The reasonable first assumption should be that what was shown is "fictionalised".

Hi Darat,

"Fictionalized?" That's a lot different than just saying it's edited.

So....How are you specifically saying they "fictionalize" the CO readings?