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

[Clancie]

For the record, here's some from Underdown, in "Skeptical Inquirer" Sept/Oct.2003, re: the release form:

"Edward's release had the feel of a document written by someone just accused of cheating. It seemed to focus on representing that attendees had no outside contact with Edward or his staff, or in documenting that fact if they had.

This tone was reinforced vigorously in the studio where we were reminded constantly not to talk about ourselves or those who we were trying to contact. It was as if the specter of Harry Houdini were floating above the stage pointing a finger."

This is what I get out of it, too, frankly. They want to prevent suspicion of collusion with the audience, of set-ups, and of accusations of cheating.

Interestingly, although Underdown's article is about the use of editing, he apparently did not view this release form with the suspicion of some who have posted in this thread--i.e. intended to give CO the right to freely ficitonalize readings in whatever way they want. There's not a word of innuendo or accusation from him about that whatsoever (in fact, I feel quite convinced that he doesn't think such dramatic steps would even be necessary, based on the rest of what he wrote in the article).

 

[CFLarsen]

For the record, here's some from Underdown, in "Skeptical Inquirer" Sept/Oct.2003, re: the release form:

This is what I get out of it, too, frankly. They want to prevent suspicion of collusion with the audience, of set-ups, and of accusations of cheating.

Now, why would JE want to protect himself against accusations of cheating, if he could really talk to dead people?

Could he do that, he would not need to protect himself.

Interestingly, although Underdown's article is about the use of editing, he apparently did not view this release form with the suspicion of some who have posted in this thread--i.e. intended to give CO the right to freely ficitonalize readings in whatever way they want.

That doesn't change the fact that CO has the right to freely fictionalize readings in whatever way they want.

There's not a word of innuendo or accusation from him about that whatsoever (in fact, I feel quite convinced that he doesn't think such dramatic steps would even be necessary, based on the rest of what he wrote in the article).

How do you know that? Pure speculation, founded in a desire to get Underdown to side with you. Nice try. Doesn't work.

 

[SteveGrenard]

TBK: waffled: "You're right, I apologize to the forum."



You were asked to apologize to Clancie. Please direct a sincere apology to her....
as your rude remark was clearly directed at her, not the forum.

edited to remove incorrect info re another poster ...all these kids , get'em confused.

 

[CFLarsen]

You were asked to apologize to Clancie. Please direct a sincere apology to her....
as your rude remark was clearly directed at her, not the forum.

Much as you want to, you are not the judge and jury here. If you have complaints, take them to the moderators.

What would your probation officer think of your behavior? Hey, are you allowed to have access to a computer for your probation?

Get your facts straight. TBK is not the one with the probation officer, it is LordKenneth. Now, you apologize to TBK of this accusation. And drop your veiled threats, too.

But it is nice to see you are in favor of apologies now: What about your own apology to renata for false accusations of misattributions? Or your apology to MRC Hans for the "testee" slip? Or to Brown for misquoting?

Or to me, for insinuating that I moved back to Denmark because you claim that Denmark has laxer laws on pedophilia?

 

[CFLarsen]

edited to remove incorrect info re another poster ...all these kids , get'em confused.

Not enough. You accused TBK of having a probation officer, which means he is guilty of a crime. That deserves more than a condescending quip, Steve.

TBK,

I also think an apology to Clancie is in order. We don't know if she is among those women who finds JE attractive. Be a true skeptic and admit your mistake.

(Edited to suit an American audience...sheeesh...)

 

[thaiboxerken]

You were asked to apologize to Clancie. Please direct a sincere apology to her....
as your rude remark was clearly directed at her, not the forum.

BITE ME.

 

[thaiboxerken]

TBK,

I also think an apology to Clancie is in order. We don't know if she is among those women who finds JE attractive. Be a true skeptic and admit your mistake.

I apologized to the forum, of which Clancie is a part of. Oh, and Clancie is infactuated with JE as evidenced by her vigilante defense of everything JE.

 

[FutileJester]

And, yes I do think you are lying about how you feel. You're unwilling to state whether you believe or not.

I see we could have saved a whole lot of time here. Not much point in having a discussion if anything I say in support of my position will automatically be considered a lie.

Tell me, what could I possibly say that would convince you that the way I feel is really the way I feel?
If you came out with the truth and said if you believed or not.

"Nothing would convince me otherwise". The cry of the true Believer.

I'm done. Be well.

 

[Instig8R]

I see we could have saved a whole lot of time here. Not much point in having a discussion if anything I say in support of my position will automatically be considered a lie.

-snip-

I'm done. Be well.

Hi, FutileJester--

I have to believe that everyone who posts here does so in good faith, or I wouldn't bother spending any time here.

I do not consider your statements about your position to be false. I hope you will continue to post here.

 

[FutileJester]

Hi, FutileJester--

I have to believe that everyone who posts here does so in good faith, or I wouldn't bother spending any time here.

I do not consider your statements about your position to be false. I hope you will continue to post here.

Thanks for the vote of confidence instig8r. Not to worry, I have no plans to leave, just to refine my filter a bit.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Interestingly, although Underdown's article is about the use of editing, he apparently did not view this release form with the suspicion of some who have posted in this thread--i.e. intended to give CO the right to freely ficitonalize readings in whatever way they want.

I don't know if I was included in the above statement, but I have never made any accusation nor intended any innuendo about fictionalizing readings.

All I said was that the show reserves the right to do so. I am only interpreting the language on the contract, not trying to make a case for what is being done as practice.

N/A

 

[Clancie]

Hi No Zed Avenger,

No, I didn’t have your comments in mind when I posted the above. I was thinking of what Darat and TLN wrote in response to my question….

Posted by TLN

By editing to connect different Edward questions with different answers, making a miss look like a hit. The document leaves the door wide open for this....

And these from Darat,

Posted by Darat

I am not making a claim that they do fictionalise anything just that we now know they reserve that right when they get people to sign the release form. With that in mind we cannot just assume that they don't exercise that right....

We now know (thanks to you ) that everything could be "fictionalised", to assume that the producers don't "fictionalise" the show is just that, an assumption.

Posted by Darat

We now know that anything (and indeed everything) we see on CO could have been edited or fictionalised.….

…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".

 

[TLN]

Hi No Zed Avenger,

No, I didn’t have your comments in mind when I posted the above. I was thinking of what Darat and TLN wrote in response to my question…

I also quite clearly stated that although we can't know unequivocally that this goes on, we can't rule it out. Hence, CO isn't a valuable body of evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I see we could have saved a whole lot of time here. Not much point in having a discussion if anything I say in support of my position will automatically be considered a lie.



It's about time you shut up.


"Nothing would convince me otherwise". The cry of the true Believer.


Insult noted and filed.

 

[voidx]

I understand what you're getting at here Clancie, but I think it's a problematic argument at best. If JE is indeed a cold reader, he is undoubtedly be one of the most practiced and capable available. Even a dedicated mentalist performer usually only does a bit of cold reading as part of a varied show. So, the fact (whether it's true or not) that no one cold reads as well as JE is consistent with both hypotheses (genuine mediumship and cold reading), and so is not very useful as evidence.

Excellent point, which I've tried to make a few times, but never came out as clearly as this . This cold-reader as good as JE business doesn't work either way very well, and its not really evidence of anything. If JE is a cold-reader, then he is one of the best and has one of the largest bodies of experience, for current cold-readers. Cold-reading is not paranormal, but it is a skill, one perfected and honed over years of experience and practice, so if JE is cold-reading (and I believe he is), then it would be quite difficult finding any admitted cold-reader to replicate him exactly. Besides as we've seen with our difference in opinions over how the hits, weak or strong, have been tallied by different parties here, it would be impossible in my mind that we would agree on our subjective opinions on any comparable cold-reader to JE anyway.

Posted by Clancie:
In the absence of any "deceiver" demonstrating cold reading in any comparable way that I know of, I don't know how you can say, "I think its enough to show us how indecipherable JE is from cold reading."

As for the last part of this sentence its easy. We have a definition of what cold-reading entails, how the process works and JE resembles this, no one can deny it. You think his "consistency" and "special hits" are what seperate him from cold-reading, and move him towards a paranormal explanation. I believe their just results of his years of practice and experience at cold-reading. The process of gaining information from the sitter is explained just as adequately by cold-reading as by your potential belief in ADC so I'm perfectly justified in making the above statement.

 

[Leroy]

I don't know if he is delusional or a liar (which subsumes fraud). It is based on the evidence of his work which has been deconstructed here, repeatedly. Just do a search and see the threads, I assume that they have not been archived yet.

The problems are basic things like control, blinding and the like. The sort of errors that obviate any findings.

Thanx for the tip, I will look for the link.

 

[Leroy]

I hope you are not serious? All evidence is useful.

That's BS. Anectdotes and fabricated evidence are worthless to me when it comes to scientific claims.

Anectdotal evidence may be worthless to you, but not worthless to serious investigators.

Originally posted by NeoMy point was that there have been other instances where John asked to call another member of the sitter's family, or a friend of theirs, to give them a message that had come through for them. It has happened every so often. The fact that they were not original ticket holders didn't prevent them from getting accurate messages as well, which is why I discount the hot-reading theory

That is what I would like to see, live, not on television. With time and funds permitting, I plan to do that in the future.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Anectdotal evidence may be worthless to you, but not worthless to serious investigators.

What serious investigators?
Shirley, you're joking.

 

[BillHoyt]

What serious investigators?
Shirley, you're joking.

And don't call me "surely". Wait... never mind.

 

[Leroy]

I'm saying that at this point in time, I've seen nothing that I would say was credible evidence that JE is a fraud, and many things to suggest that perhaps he may indeed be a true medium, including having watched the show very closely for over two years now, and attending four seminars.

I've written about this Philly seminar over at tvtalkshows, if you would want the particulars about what hits JE got for us, or if you'd like, I could PM them to you. They were quite accurate, and included quite a few names, including my own. In any case, to answer your question, it's all these things combined that add to my favorable opinion of JE, and make me think there is something to mediumship. ......neo

At least you are not basing your entire opinion on JE from the shows. But even going to seminars, unless I had personal readings from JE I don't think I could put much faith in the readings others received, especially those who were desperate to hear from a someone they'd lost.

I am still willing to listen, with an open mind.

I would like to read what you have on the Philly seminar, go ahead and PM them to me please. I don't get online every day, but will read them whenever I return.