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

[voidx]

Yes, this is what I call "warm reading" and I agree with you Leroy that it can be very compelling for a sitter to hear. JE says he doesn't like to do much of that (other than the occasional roses symbol, etc.) because it doesn't really convince people that the medium isn't just "saying things that would be emotionally true for most people." Instead, he says that he tries to bring out evidential information that a living person would be able to identify as being more specific than "Don't blame yourself for not doing enough", etc.

An admittedly smart call on his part, no matter what everyone might think of JE, he's not stupid. What I'd like to see is something like, "Remember that time son when you knocked your grandmother over during thanksgiving when you were 5 and I yelled at you in front of everyone and belittled you. I always wanted to apologize for that, I over-reacted, but I could just never find a way to approach the subject". You know, a specific event, tied with a specific message of why that event made them so happy, or why they feel remorse for not saying or doing something about said event. This would be an amazing opportunity to say and express things to someone that you never got the chance too while alive, and no spirits seem overly interested in making an attempt even. Now based on the assumed horribly vague process of mediumship communication that JE explains to us this would be hard to get across. Funny thing is, I don't even see any attempts to get something this complex across.

 

[Leroy]

Yes, this is what I call "warm reading" and I agree with you Leroy that it can be very compelling for a sitter to hear. JE says he doesn't like to do much of that (other than the occasional roses symbol, etc.) because it doesn't really convince people that the medium isn't just "saying things that would be emotionally true for most people." Instead, he says that he tries to bring out evidential information that a living person would be able to identify as being more specific than "Don't blame yourself for not doing enough", etc.

If mediumship were real, wouldn't the medium want to say whatever the spirit requested? Something like "Son I am sorry I missed your games" might be insignificant to most people, but might be exactly what this person needed to hear the most.

Of course other things would impress me more, like the first and last name of the deceased, when will a medium ever do that?

 

[voidx]

If mediumship were real, wouldn't the medium want to say whatever the spirit requested? Something like "Son I am sorry I missed your games" might be insignificant to most people, but might be exactly what this person needed to hear the most.

Of course other things would impress me more, like the first and last name of the deceased, when will a medium ever do that?

I'll follow Leroy's lead on this one, let's start small. This is Raoul Gutierez, let me talk to my son.

 

[Leroy]

An admittedly smart call on his part, no matter what everyone might think of JE, he's not stupid. What I'd like to see is something like, "Remember that time son when you knocked your grandmother over during thanksgiving when you were 5 and I yelled at you in front of everyone and belittled you. I always wanted to apologize for that, I over-reacted, but I could just never find a way to approach the subject". You know, a specific event, tied with a specific message of why that event made them so happy, or why they feel remorse for not saying or doing something about said event. This would be an amazing opportunity to say and express things to someone that you never got the chance too while alive, and no spirits seem overly interested in making an attempt even. Now based on the assumed horribly vague process of mediumship communication that JE explains to us this would be hard to get across. Funny thing is, I don't even see any attempts to get something this complex across.

Good post Voidx, and one I totally agree with.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, this is what I call "warm reading" and I agree with you Leroy that it can be very compelling for a sitter to hear.

So, if JE tells a sitter something that will really mean something to the sitter, he is merely warm reading?

JE says he doesn't like to do much of that (other than the occasional roses symbol, etc.) because it doesn't really convince people that the medium isn't just "saying things that would be emotionally true for most people." Instead, he says that he tries to bring out evidential information that a living person would be able to identify as being more specific than "Don't blame yourself for not doing enough", etc.

Whoa, just a second. Are you saying that JE is filtering the messages? That JE is not, to paraphrase McLuhan, the medium, but the message?

How much of JE is in those readings, Clancie? Neofight? Anyone?

Yes, I think she still has an advantage over me, since I have not been to any JE seminars and do not have a clue how he does his live readings. She has seen them done so she does know how he does them.

If you have seen JE on LKL, you know how he does his readings: By methods indistinguishable from cold reading.

What makes you trust neofight? Does she come across as a reliable witness? Does the account of renata weigh in, too? Lurker's?

 

[TLN]

I'll follow Leroy's lead on this one, let's start small. This is Raoul Gutierez, let me talk to my son.

I can assure you that if I hear from my mother from beyond the grave she won't have anything nice to say.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Leroy

If mediumship were real, wouldn't the medium want to say whatever the spirit requested? Something like "Son I am sorry I missed your games" might be insignificant to most people, but might be exactly what this person needed to hear the most.

Well, that's a great point. You're absolutely right, Leroy. (Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for JE quite so freely!) That would be a great question for someone to ask him. I -have- heard him say that he just "gives what I get", so maybe the explanation is more along the lines of him just not ususually getting "sentence-type" messages, though sometimes spirit can impress a feeling or symbolically show him something that he can give an emotional message from (like his own father is shown to him as a symbol of estrangement between father and son/daughter).

Posted by Leroy

Of course other things would impress me more, like the first and last name of the deceased, when will a medium ever do that?

Well, any that hot read can. That would be the easiest kind of information to come up with, I would think.

 

[neofight]

Imagine for a moment that we're married (but don't imagine too deeply--I am really extremely cute while simultaneously being devastatingly handsome) and that the plumbing is broke......

Well, let me just ask you then, Garrette. Was the plumbing already broke before we got married? Or did I marry you knowing that the plumbing was broke? I don't mean to sound shallow, but good looks and cuteness only go so far, ya know what I mean? After all, I have a very healthy libido for a woman my age.

Then again, if there had been full disclosure on your part, and I married you anyway, because you were just so devastatingly handsome and extremely cute and all, and on top of that, a real nice guy, then I guess that was my choice to make, right?

And even if your plumbing broke after we had gotten married, I would not be the type to break my vows, so I would stay by your side despite your plumbing problems, I swear I would.

rofl Sorry, Garrette. I couldn't resist! Anyhow, I am on my way out the door to meet someone for dinner, but I'll check in later on tonight, and see what you're up to, okay? Later, big guy! ......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, that's a great point. You're absolutely right, Leroy. (Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for JE quite so freely!)

So, you have a major problem with neofight, who does seem to be speaking on JE's behalf?

That would be a great question for someone to ask him.

So, why don't you?

I -have- heard him say that he just "gives what I get", so maybe the explanation is more along the lines of him just not ususually getting "sentence-type" messages, though sometimes spirit can impress a feeling or symbolically show him something that he can give an emotional message from (like his own father is shown to him as a symbol of estrangement between father and son/daughter).

Which is it? Is JE filtering the messages or is he not? To what extent?

Well, any that hot read can. That would be the easiest kind of information to come up with, I would think.

It would, indeed. So, if JE comes up with something like that, is he hot reading or not? Or should we accept that JE only gets vague hits, and accept that as "spirit communications"?

 

[renata]

Summary of Neil/JE story so far, as I see it, because I think there are some unanswered questions
I may be missing some posts in the chain, I just tried to grab the gist of the event.


Clancie posts, in part,

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."

TLN answers, in part

Clancie, this is your latest drum beat across many threads. It's simply not true. You have indeed been shown cold reader who can replicate what Edward does with the same degree of success; you simply choose to ignore it.

Leroy picks up on it 9/29, page 12

Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

TLN initially can't locate the cold reading comparison requested

I'm afraid one of the other posters will have to point this out to you as I don't remember the actual thread names. We've reviewed many cold readers here though.

Neo posts, in part

Well, Leroy, I'm not sure which threads TLN is referring to either. I know the 90 seconds of Ian Rowland's performance was heavily edited, down from 30 full minutes, and Neill's on-line attempt at cold-reading was done over a time span of a few days, with some internet researching, so neither of those are really worth anything in the way of being "comparable" to a JE reading, even a LKL JE reading.

Clancie posts, with TLN's quotes interspered within

Thank you, Leroy, for asking him who exactly he had in mind when he stated this as a fact, that I "have been shown cold readers who can replicate what Edward does with the same degree of success". I'd like to know what he's thinking of, too

What can "skeptics" make of his answer to you, though?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Posted by TLN

I'm afraid one of the other posters will have to point this out to you as I don't remember the actual thread names. We've reviewed many cold readers here though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A pretty lame response, when compared with his post above to me, where he is so positive that he knows who these successful cold readers like JE are.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by TLN

I'd be happy to use the search function and find the threads myself
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, I should hope so, TLN, since you're the one who mentioned it to begin with.

Claus posts a saved thread frpm TVTalkshows

I couldn't find it at TVTalkshows, but
here's the saved thread.

After Clancie had difficulty getting the link, TLN posts the readings, and she posts, introducing the allegation that there is no spirit established bringing through the information.

Thanks, TLN but all you had to say was it was Claus's commentary about Neil's reading.

We've rehashed that so many times. Do I need to post my list of differences between Neil and JE....again?

Really, is this the best you folks can come up with? An asynchronous internet reading...over several days...sitter's full name known in advance to the "medium"....admitted attempts at hot reading....no spirit established bringing through the "information"....on and on.....

What's next? A post about Michael O'Neill? Jaroff? Maybe we can rehash the "Tony the cameraman" dispute.

TLN

You can, if you can make observations beyond "style" and focus on substance. Substantively, these two men do the same thing.

Clancie, saying she had a list of 30+ substantive differences between JE and Neil

Obviously you're taking Claus's word that my original (30+) lists of differences were about "style".

If you'd actually read my comments (and they've been linked/posted here at JREF before), you'd see I never once talked about JE or Neil's style as being significant in distinguishing cold reading from JE.

Not once.

Because style can be different among "mediums" as well as "cold readers", but the significant difference between cold reading and mediumship isn't about style. Its insulting to say that is all believers can think of.

TLN, asking Clancie to name substantive difference between Neil and JE

No, I read the threads in question. Your comments were style based, not substance based.

So tell me, in a sentence, what's the difference between these two performances?

Neo, with substantive difference between Neil and JE

TLN, that is the cold-reading done by Neil that I referred to in my other post. The one that he did on-line, over a few days, with some internet research. That is not a spontaneous reading done right on the spot as JE does his readings, so it is hardly comparable to one of his......neo

Claus, trying to refute Neo's proposed difference

Your argument is invalid: You dismiss this reading, because you know how it was done. You don't know how JE does his readings. You have to judge them from the transcripts alone.

If you did not know how the reading what done, could you point out what the difference is between this reading and a JE-reading?

Archangel, following up on "spirit connection" quote by Clancie.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clancie
no spirit established bringing through the "information"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Clancie, you may have answered this before, but what do you mean by this?

I assume you mean that the Reader doesnt give a name to the spirit that is allegedly coming through, because he does say
"READER: The spirits are giving me mixed messages... ".

I havent watched "CO" in well over 12 months, but Im almost positive that there have been cases where JE hasnt named the spirit (ie he has given out initials that havent been "validated" as being the spirits)

Clancie answers

It's not just the lack of a name, Archangel (and "welcome!" ). There is no spirit identification.

No, I don't consider it adequate for any medium to say "I'm getting spirits with you telling me...." Or "there's an older lady, just slightly stout as with age, with shortish graying hair...Do you know who that is, please?"

There is nothing evidential in the above at all. All Neil did was say "I've got spirits here" then go on to give a psychic cold reading, i.e. "This is you and your life."

No spirit connection was established at all.

Thanz responds

Well, of course no spirit connection established. He was cold reading, not dialing the dead. But isn't this just a matter of style here? If he had included a "spirit identification", would the reading have been any different?

Clancie says

Of course it would be different, Thanz. "Spirit identification" is the key to mediumship (or to "cold reading demonstrations just like JE").

In the opinion of many here, JE is just a cold reader, too, like Neil. The point is, whether cold reading or not, if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship (or fake mediumship).

Its not a question of style at all. It is the key difference between mediumship and a "psychic" reading/cold reading.

Then I proceed to give one example, (and later 2 others by me and one more by another poster) of a JE reading on Larry King Live on which, as far as I could tell, there was no spirit connection is established, no spirit communicator established, and then, according to Clancie, no mediumship.


Darat posts at about the same time with a similar point

Clancie - what rates as "spirit identification"? It would seem to me that in a lot of CO's I've seen it is the person who is being read that supplies the "identification", which is exactly what I'd expect to see from a "cold reader".

Looking at the LK transcripts - do you see "mediumship" there?

In the meanwhile, Lurker replies to Neo's comment about Neil's internet searches

Neo, I would not mention Neil's Internet searches as something derogatory about his reading. Remember the Internet search he did came up with the dog reference which turned out to be a miss. Thus, his cold reading was not helped in any way by using the Internet and actually hurt his reading.

Just trying to clear the air so nobody thinks otherwise

Claus then claims Neil did get some sort of spirit identification and also asks whether JE was doing mediumship or psychic reading

This is factually wrong. It doesn't matter if you claim there is no spirit communication, because there is! Neil gets "D-N", a dead relative.

So, Neil was doing a psychic reading? In the LKL example, JE was doing a psychic reading?

If I missed any posts, my apologies

To summarize

TLN claimed there was a cold reader that could replicate JE, and Claus located the Neil cold reading/JE reading comparison
Clancie and Neo claimed there were substantive differences between the readings. Clancie said she previously posted a list of 30+ substantive differences.

Difference 1 (neofight)
On-line, over a few days, with some internet research
Rebuttal 1 (Claus)
Reading is dismissed because there is knowledge on how it is done. As we don't know how JE does his readings, the comparison is invalid
Rebuttal 2 (Lurker)
Internet search and knowing the sitters name provided a miss. It did not help, but rather hurt the reading.

Difference 2 (Clancie)
No spirit connection was established in the Neil reading
Rebuttal 1 (Thanz)
This was a cold reading example, there can be no spirit connection
Answer 1 (Clancie) - quoted almost in full, to preserve the intent of the speaker, as this, I think is the key post in the sequence.

"....Spirit identification" is the key to mediumship (or to "cold reading demonstrations just like JE").

In the opinion of many here, JE is just a cold reader, too, like Neil. The point is, whether cold reading or not, if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship (or fake mediumship).

Its not a question of style at all. It is the key difference between mediumship and a "psychic" reading/cold reading.

Rebuttal 2 (Renata)
I located additional JE readings where, at least according to my untrained eye, I could not locate an identified spirit, no evidence presented for a specific communicator, but rather a more general "they" for the spirits. Is he still doing mediumship in those readings?
Rebuttal 3 (Darat)
What rates as "spirit identification" Is there mediumship in LKL transcripts?
Rebuttal 4 (Claus)
Neil identified a DN spirit. Was JE doing psychic readings in LKL?


So some outstanding questions for anyone who wishes to clear this up. I would hate for this whole thing to come up again a month from now

What are the substantive differences between Neil's and JE's reading?
Is JE doing performing mediumship in the 4 readings on LKL in which I was unable to locate an identified spirit or a spirit communicator?
If he is doing mediumship, and there is an identified communication, with presented evidence, please point it out to me in each reading, as I could not locate it .
If he is doing mediumship without an identified communicator then how is what he doing different than Neil?
If he is not doing mediumship, what is he doing? Psychic reading or cold reading?
If he is doing psychic reading, would you say that is still acceptable method of communication?


I am sure some others will add on, these are just off the top of my head. I just would hate for this topic to slip away, as these topics sometimes do.

 

[TLN]

What are the substantive differences between Neil's and JE's reading?

Indeed.

So some outstanding questions for anyone who wishes to clear this up. I would hate for this whole thing to come up again a month from now

It will.

 

[Clancie]

renata,

re: substantive differences between a JE reading and Neil's...as I say, this has been discussed before. Here's the JREF thread (from 8/08/03) which Claus posted the two readings, my comments, and his responses to what I said.

So, Is JE Really Different From A Cold Reader?

If you remember, it was interesting that you and Thanz both agreed that JE's reading that Claus used for comparison was actually better than Neil's. (Of course, with the usual, "we don't know if or how it was edited" caveat...).


TLN,

Do you have any other cold readers in mind other than Neil? His was quite different than JE's, being PM'd over several days, with the full name of the sitter known to him (and no real information as to whether or not any set up was involved, as voidx's observation about the "gushy" quality of the sitter certainly raise as a legitimate question).

Anyway, you said you were going to find the others of the "many" you say have been presented to me which I have overlooked. How's it going?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

What are the substantive differences between Neil's and JE's reading?

See link above for my previous list.

Posted by renata

Is JE doing performing mediumship in the 4 readings on LKL in which I was unable to locate an identified spirit or a spirit communicator?

I don't have time/concentration to look at them now, but I will and get back to you (feel free to remind me if it takes longer than Friday or so ).

Posted by renata

• If he is doing mediumship, and there is an identified communication, with presented evidence, please point it out to me in each reading, as I could not locate it.
  
• If he is doing mediumship without an identified communicator then how is what he doing different than Neil?
  
• If he is not doing mediumship, what is he doing? Psychic reading or cold reading?
  
• If he is doing psychic reading, would you say that is still acceptable method of communication?

These all have to do with the four LKL readings you cited above. So...same answer as the one above. I don't have time/energy to read through and concentrate on those readings now, but I will in the next day or two.

 

[TLN]

Anyway, you said you were going to find the others of the "many" you say have been presented to me which I have overlooked. How's it going?

Poorly.

 

[renata]

renata,

re: substantive differences between a JE reading and Neil's...as I say, this has been discussed before. Here's the JREF thread (from 8/08/03) which Claus posted the two readings, my comments, and his responses to what I said.

So, Is JE Really Different From A Cold Reader?

Thanks for the thread!

If you remember, it was interesting that you and Thanz both agreed that JE's reading that Claus used for comparison was actually better than Neil's. (Of course, with the usual, "we don't know if or how it was edited" caveat...). [/B]

I do not think that is particularly interesting I do not recall arguing that an unedited cold reader would outperform JE on CO. Perhaps even edited cold reading would not outperform JE on CO, given, once again, that JE has been doing it for a long time, has practiced, has some affinity to it, and has many eager fans and believers. In addition, of course both my analysis of LKL readings and Lurker's and Instig8r's comments that seminar quality was worse than CO make me think that CO is edited quite heavily.

So, in that thread, your differences were

"took place on the Internet"- matter of style, in my opinion. Unless Neil gets a show, it can't be identically compared.

"went on over several days, giving him plenty of time to think of where to go next (e.g. he admitted trying to hot read for "border collies", since he knew the sitter's full name)"- addressed by Lurker above- a miss, rather than a hit

"he did not "bring through" any deceased spirit that was connected to the information he was giving the sitter."- well, neither does JE in several instances, so whereas it does not match JE in this particular instance, we have seen JE do it. Would you address those questions from the list above? I am trying to understand whether JE sometimes does psychic readings instead of mediumship.

"(adding from what's been said here) JE's hits were more specific and unusual for the particular sitter; a better reading" That I agree with, but could be a function of editing- also, this is not a substantive difference between the techniques. The methods appear to be largely similar.

 

[Clancie]

Also wanted to address this....

Re: the issue of No spirit identification in Neil's reading (let's consider JE's a separate issue for now....)

I've explained that means establishing a particular spirit who is recognized by the sitter as communicating with him/her.

Neil does not establish a particular spirit communicating with this sitter at any time in this reading.
According to renata, Claus has claimed Neil does identify a spirit communicating with the sitter and claims this....:

Posted by CFLarsen

This is factually wrong (i.e. my claim there is no spirit identified for the sitter). It doesn't matter if you claim there is no spirit communication, because there is! Neil gets "D-N", a dead relative.

renata,

Claus's above statement is false.(*edited to correct this: false for the one hit below; arguably not spirit communication for the second one NoZed Avenger called my attention to later....)

Here is what Neil actually says (for the first D-N)....

From Neil's reading, regarding D-N....

Neil:

I'm sensing that the 5th of the month or the month of May has a great significance. I'm also seeing a D-n name, so that would be like a Daniel, Donald, Dylan, Donna - who would that be?


Sitter:

My sons name is Dylan, and his birthday is in may

Clearly, the D-N name, "Dylan", is her son who is living. It is not the name of a "deceased relative" as Claus claims*(edited to add...see below for second "D=n" reference....).

Neil also uses an obvious cold reading statement when he starts with “The spirits are giving me mixed messages”

"The spirits are giving me...." does not establish anyone in particular for the sitter and is classic cold reading....as is the hedging on "...giving me mixed messages". No spirit brings through anything evidential. Neil never identifies a particular, recognizable deceased person in any way.

The sitter recognizes this herself when she asks him (shortly after he says this), "Are there any deceased loved ones?? let me know who they are and what they have to say that is what I am truly curious about...please."

edited to add, after reading NoZed Avenger's post below...
Mea culpa. I did not go through the entire Neil reading (yet again) and I apparently missed the "Danny" reference which the woman claimed as a deceased uncle who died when she was a child.

So, this is probably the D-n reference Claus had in mind when he said there was a D-n name (whom the sitter identifies) as a deceased relative. I stand corrected on that.

HOWEVER, she fits several D-n names to her life, and this uncle never identifies himself in any particular way as "coming through", nor does Neil present that the uncle is giving the spirit messages (he doesn't ever say who is telling him this at all).

Also, we really don't know two things about this reading (1) if there was any research involved beyond the things Neil mentioned (he doesn't say one way or the other) and (2) as voidx mentions, why the sitter's typed responses sound rather gushy and contrived.

And, yes, she did know that he was going to do a cold reading demonstration, although (if I remember correctly) he said afterwards he didn't feel good about it because she still kind of thought he had special powers even after he told her otherwise.

 

[renata]

Also wanted to address this....

Re: the issue of No spirit identification in Neil's reading (let's consider JE's a separate issue for now....)

I've explained that means establishing a particular spirit who is recognized by the sitter as communicating with him/her.

Neil does not establish a particular spirit communicating with this sitter at any time in this reading.
According to renata, Claus has claimed Neil does identify a spirit communicating with the sitter and claims this....:

renata,

Claus's above statement is false.

Here is what Neil actually says....



Clearly, the D-N name, "Dylan", is her son who is living. It is not the name of a "deceased relative" as Claus claims.

Well, here is Claus' post in question, quotes from Clancie interspersed

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clancie
It's not just the lack of a name, Archangel (and "welcome!" ). There is no spirit identification.

No, I don't consider it adequate for any medium to say "I'm getting spirits with you telling me...." Or "there's an older lady, just slightly stout as with age, with shortish graying hair...Do you know who that is, please?"

There is nothing evidential in the above at all. All Neil did was say "I've got spirits here" then go on to give a psychic cold reading, i.e. "This is you and your life."

No spirit connection was established at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is factually wrong. It doesn't matter if you claim there is no spirit communication, because there is! Neil gets "D-N", a dead relative.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clancie
Of course it would be different, Thanz. "Spirit identification" is the key to mediumship (or to "cold reading demonstrations just like JE").

In the opinion of many here, JE is just a cold reader, too, like Neil. The point is, whether cold reading or not, if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship (or fake mediumship).

Its not a question of style at all. It is the key difference between mediumship and a "psychic" reading/cold reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, Neil was doing a psychic reading? In the LKL example, JE was doing a psychic reading?

In reviewing the Neil transcript it appears to me that the alleged spirit communicator is merely an older male. There was an uncle Danny who passed away young. I submit the transcript is unclear, as to whether the Dn comment was meant as a deceased spirit communicator, or a living validation. It appears you are interpreting this comment by Neil

I'm also seeing a D-n name, so that would be like a Daniel, Donald, Dylan, Donna - who would that be?

to match with this by the sitter

My sons name is Dylan

However, sitter also said, later one

you had asked about a Daniel and Donald, my uncle Danny passed away when I was young, and Donald is my brother in law in Virgina , how could you know please for sanity sake tell me more!!!

I could see reasonable people interpreting it either way in good faith.

Neil also uses a classic cold reader statement when he starts with “The spirits are giving me mixed messages”

"The spirits are giving me...." does not establish anyone in particular for the sitter and is classic cold reading....as is the hedging on "...giving me mixed messages". No spirit brings through anything evidential. Neil never identifies a particular, recognizable deceased person in any way.

The sitter recognizes this herself when she asks him (shortly after he says this), "Are there any deceased loved ones?? let me know who they are and what they have to say that is what I am truly curious about...please."

Well, I agree this is classic cold reading, being that Neil is a cold reader! This is why I did bring out the JE readings in which he also seems to say "spirits are telling me", because some things in there are so similar to that.


However, although there are no spectacular evidentiary identifiers, Neil's transcript does seem to provide certain validations. In addition to LKL readings I posted here, which seem to have no communicator whatsoever, there are several others from the same thread, which although JE might identify a communicator, there is little or no validation. Just one example, I know you are pretty busy with the four you got! But I just wanted to let you know what I meant. In the reading below, I would presume the communicator would be the uncle, although there is no evidence for it, except for a tremendously general "you're a teacher, or they're a teacher, or somebody's going back to school", which JE claims as evidentiary validation. So even in cases where there is someone who we can at least presume is the identified spirit (even though there is pretty weak evidence for it) the validations can be sparse, yet JE can claim them. So to me that means, so perhaps one of the differences between JE and Neil is that Neil simply did not grab all the credit when he could!

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well let's go back to the callers. We got to Oslo, Norway. Go ahead, caller.
CALLER: Yes, hi. My name is Ola -- o-l-a -- and I wanted to look for my father.
EDWARD: OK, do you have a brother also?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK, why am I seeing another male figure to your side?
CALLER: I don't know.
EDWARD: To your side...
CALLER: My uncle -- or my dad's brother died very young.
EDWARD: OK, because I'm -- so it's not your brother; it's his brother. Was he there before your dad?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, so his brother passed before him.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Does your father or his brother -- they're showing me -- let me tell you what I'm seeing. They're showing me a parallel with names; two people have the same first initial, or two people have the same first name.
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: There's a similarity with names, you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, was somebody there slightly handicapped or mentally retarded?
CALLER: No, not that I know.
EDWARD: OK. What they're showing me -- a couple of things. They're showing me that there's somebody who's, like, slightly handicapped, or physically or mentally impaired -- that's number one -- and two: some type of education symbolism, which would mean that either you're a teacher, or they're a teacher, or somebody's going back to school, or...
CALLER: Well, my father was a teacher.
EDWARD: OK, because they're showing me education symbolism. Again they're just a validation that your dad's around. Who was the pilot?
CALLER: The pilot?
EDWARD: Yes, who, like, flew planes?
CALLER: Not -- nobody. Not that I know.
EDWARD: Just -- I know this might sound strange, but remember that I said this, but I feel like I'm sitting in a cockpit, so to me that means that somebody was a pilot, somebody flew in a plane -- there's some type of plane symbolism that they want me to come across with. I always encourage people -- that they don't understand what I say, to write it down. Again, like I said earlier, I'm not 100- percent accurate. But sometimes they showing me a symbol that I could misinterpret, and it might mean something to you later that you remember about dad.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: All righty, thanks for calling.
CALLER: OK.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Also wanted to address this....
Claus's above statement is false.

Here is what Neil actually says....

[snip]

Clearly, the D-N name, "Dylan", is her son who is living. It is not the name of a "deceased relative" as Claus claims.

IIRC there were three separate D-N names mentioned, of which only one was the living son.

Although I see this as a non-issue in many ways, calling out CFL on this one while omitting the other part, namely:

"... you had asked about a Daniel and Donald, my uncle Danny passed away when I was young, and Donald is my brother in law in Virgina , how could you know please for sanity sake tell me more!!!"

. . . seems problematic. Perhaps it was the uncle who was coming through?

I have an older male with me - he's showing me the letter "P" and telling you not to worry so much about the house and about money. He knows you've had your problems in recent times, but he wants to let you know that there's a much better spell ahead financially. Do you understand that?

This older male -- note, not a father (so uncle would fit) -- is not necessarily named "p," but is just "showing" a P. There was no attempt to follow this up, so it is left ambiguous.

More importantly, there have been half a dozen LKL readings where JE does not identify any specific entity as bringing a message -- is JE not a medium for those sessions?

N/A

 

[Clancie]

NoZed, I missed the second D-n reference and will note so above in my response to CFL.

So,...Yes, she had an uncle who died when she was young as well as various other D-n's. But if this is her uncle bringing through a message, it needs to be identified as such and it wasn't. (Nor is there any information about this person, or any claim he is bringing through information--which, in any case, much of which is already passed....)

 

[Clancie]

Just for added convenience, since it's been said I've been unable to come up with any difference between Neil's reading and JE's, here are my comments as posted earlier, without the added comments by Claus. (If you would like to read them, Claus's responses to them are interspersed on the thread linked above):

From Clancie Part I. "Re: "Why Neil is not 'doing mediumship like JE'"--or, "JE vis-a-vis Neil's Reading" (Btw, I think Neil's is a commendable demonstration of PSYCHIC cold reading, but does not present as mediumship, as I stated on the earlier thread about it already)." Added Note: The following list is of differences it is not a list of judgment of these differences....

1. Neil used the Internet for the reading, over several days

2. Neil knew the sitter's full name (an unusual one) in advance

3. Neil honestly admitted using the Internet to research the sitter (he used "border collies" but what if he also found "Bill Quist", explaining the hit with the husband's name?)"

4. Neil could not see/hear the sitter=no physical cues"

5. Quoting Dogwood, "Neil had the luxury of considerable time to analyze the sitters responses and form his next question, much more than Edward has during a live reading.""

6. Neil uses a lot more "weasel words" than JE: "spirits giving me mixed messages"; "could be for someone else entirely"; "...or at least three who are like children to you"; "I'm not in control of the information I'm getting"; "work with me so it goes better"; "what is your connection to the older male?""

7. Neil also uses Psychic-Babble that JE doesn't, meaningless or universal generalities: "getting a free spirit energy"; "don't worry about house"; "don't worry about money"; "you've had your problems; "better times ahead financially"; "lots of romance in your marriage".."

Part II. JE vs. Neil's Reading: Does it Look Like Spirit Communication...or Not?

1. John begins by communicating with the deceased energy, in this case mentioning a "husband or brother figure." As the reading develops, in fact, the woman has a deceased husband AND a deceased brother. Neil NEVER establishes a deceased person (and therein lies the biggest problem. No mediumship)."

2. Neil starts with the name "Bill", who turns out to be the sitter's LIVING husband."

Neil correctly mentions three LIVING children (or "like children to you") Good psychic cold reading (though it could have been researched).

3. Neil gets 5th of month/5th month. Never a very exciting hit, even to believers, but better if its connected with the deceased and the sitter. Here its connected to the sitter's child. No big deal.

4. "D-n" name. Neil guesses a string of 4 common names--3 boys and a girl. One's the woman's son.

5. "P" name. Again, so what? Could be anybody. With John, the pattern of the entire reading BUILDS and relates to a particular deceased person. Here...its scattershot. So he gets some insignificant hits.

6. "Harley Davidson" -- great try, but a miss.

7."lost wedding ring" is a hit, but he also says, "or you weren't w earing it"--too many possibilities for a hit with these two choices. And, again, where's a "deceased" energy?"

8. Neil claims there's a "deceased older male" teasing her about liking Italian food ("like its your favorite OR SOMETHING). Fishing for "Italian food story". Fishing for some "deceased older male" info."

9. The "childhood injury OR illness OR accident" covers a lot of ground, very vague, likely to fit, but basically yields....nothing."

Part III, John's reading

In JE's reading. he establishes a Pattern of Information that isConnected to the experiences of the sitter and a particular person who has died."

Quite a lot of this information comes from the sitter. What is the difference between this method and cold-reading?

1. JE starts with DECEASED'S energy--identifies it as to the side, "husband/brother". She has both deceased (and John names them later).

2. JE mentions street festivities related to the husband (later: it's recognized by the sitter as the parade)

3. JE gets "Ralph", the name other people call her husband. "Ralph" is also connected to him by his last name, "Ralphaeli", and "Ralph St" where their office is. So a very significant name to the sitter. (Not that common, either. Not like "Bill")."

4. John gets the name "Anthony", her DECEASED brother's name."

5. JE says, "Family of 7". This connects directly to the sitter. She identifies it as HERS.

6. JE says, "Foot problem". JE brings these kinds of things to indicate spirit sees what is happening, "is with you." Not persuasive if on its own, but forming a pattern of connection, it becomes part of the picture. And its a hit. She had several broken toes a couple of months earlier."

7. JE mentions the anniversary just past. "Was that (the deceased husband's)?" Sitter answer, "Yes. Today."

8. JE mentions an "older female" energy. From there to...excellent hit...the husband buried in the same PLOT as an "older female"...his mother."

***********
In conclusion....

In other words, Neil did a great job revealing his sitter's willingness to make a reading fit even when he told her he was a fake, but as far as MEDIUMSHIP, he NEVER created the appearance of communicating with any deceased spirit at all.

His reading included guesses about the living, good and bad. (Interestingly, when he tried for more unique details he missed every time). Many vague, "feel good" phrases, lots of "wiggle room" phrases, several general concerns that are shared by almost everyone. But no survival of conscious was demonstrated at any point. "

In other words, it is NOT "mediumship like JE.