Clancie said:
Actually, I said I might have misrepresented what he claims to do, voidx.
Those examples -were- comparable to Neil's and, like Neil's, I think could pass for "psychic reading" (or psychic cold reading), but not mediumship.
If that was all that JE did (like it was all that Neil did), then I'd say there was no difference.
But, unlike Neil, JE often -does- present messages directly linked to a specific spirit. Which is why, if cold readers can do that too, I'd like to see it.
Clancie, but don't you think that is a matter of phrasing?
A lot of the time on LKL JE attempts to connect to the spirit. Sometimes he does not get a validations, and says "they are telling me". Sometimes he gets a very vague validation- like in the reading with a teacher (that is the 5th one you missed, I reproduced it below), but he uses it anyway, and sometimes caller validates no matter what JE brings through. In the latest JE appearance, JE was bringing through a man, and caller validated her mother! And JE agreed, just said her mother must have been masculine. A several times JE talked in very general terms- "an older female energy"- and waits for the caller to supply the relationship. So a cold reader has to speak the tell tale "words" from the spirits. Furthermore, Neil did mention a spirit, and caller did mention a dead person. Certainly in the Neil reading there was more precision than in many of the LKL JE appearances. In other words, the evidentiary spirit communicator is a red herring. Neil did do what JE did, or better.
Reposting the teacher reading from before
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!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologize that I am not feeling much like tackling any of this right now, and I'm leaving tonight for L.I. to visit family for a couple of days. If I get a chance to post before I get back, I will.
.....neo
