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

[neofight]

No, it's called lying by omission. JE is in a profession reknowned for fraud and cheating. An honest medium would know the importance of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Well, we obviously have different opinions on this issue, Instg8R. Surprise! No problem. Like Mark Tidwell correctly stated, there is no proof, there is only circumstantial evidence.

I can say from personal experience, that an honest person doesn't always see it coming, and doesn't always think defensively, mainly because they're not expecting to be accused of dishonesty.

And I'm sure the emotion he felt after he was falsely accused was very real. Unfortunately, the damage was already done, and two years later, people are still talking about it. I guess that's because there is a dearth of these sorts of negative stories, so they must keep bringing up the same ones again and again....neo

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Mark Tidwell

I gave you three. Neo, Clancie and RC have all expressed belief in mediumship in general, yet all have also admitted to the possibility of hot/cold reading on the part of several mediums, including Sylvia Brown, Robert Brown, James Van Praagh, Suzanne Northrop and John Edward. (I'll leave it to them to say which applies to who, as their opinions may have changed since last we spoke of it.)

Hi Mark,
Nice to see you around again!

You're right that I still consider it a possibility that all of the above could be cold and/or hot reading (I favor cold more than hot, except in the case of van Praagh where he even acknowledges that he has prior information about the sitters--we just don't know how much.)

It's true I don't think JE hot reads, but I certainly am interested in the argument and pay attention to it. Maybe one day it will ring true to me but so far, it doesn't. And I think if JE were a hot reader he should make cheating easier--assign seats in the gallery and all seminars; get names and addresses in advance for all CO attendees, etc. None of those procedures would arouse suspicion so there's really no reason to cram all that stress and work into a tight 1 to 2 hour time period when he's got a lot of other things to do before going on stage.

I don't think Brown or Northrop hot read sitters either. Suzane got nothing for me anyway, and Robert's information had nothing to do with anything that could be researched.

I think what I've observed of Sylvia, JVP, and Suzane is consistent with what I know of cold reading. Most of Robert's looks like cold and warm reading (I use "warm" meaning somoeone working emotional generalities into hits that fit). RB -may- be a pure cold reader, but if so then he got very very lucky with some of the information that came through for me. I don't know what to think of him, really, although I do feel that he "pads" his readings consciously.

Anyway, I haven't rejected those explanations for any of these mediums, but cold/warm/hot readings just don't seem to consistently explain everything I've observed so far.

Maybe one day they will. Or maybe one day I'll reject cold/warm/hot theories completely and be 100% convinced there's genuine ADC at work.

Posted by Mark Tidwell

No. Fence sitters on this issue abound. There are many whose opinions sway with each new claim and claimant. You can read the opinions of several such people over at tvtalkshows.

Yes, and, TBK, you really should drop over to tvt and read some of the old threads to better acquaint yourself with the reasoning of fence sitters. And at least one of them posts regularly here--Phelps, aka Iamme. Look around, tbk, and I think you may find that for most people this isn't just a clear cut "Yes its true" or "No its false" issue.

 

[voidx]

Hi, voidx. What I was referring to at the time, were studies that I had read about in some of Dr. Melvin Morse's writings. Even though I, personally, do not keep up with all this scientific research, I think I do remember Dr. Morse making references to experiments involving direct electrical stimulation of the right temporal lobe. If you would still like a link to something like that, I'm sure I can find it for you.

I seem to remember someone posting studies that directly contradicted the idea of telepathy being tied to the temporal lobe, or some other logical error that made it incorrect, but sure send it if you like. I'd have to go back and read that thread again, but it seems we all dismissed the lobe arguement because of several good and conclusive points.

Well, like I said, I am not familiar with what studies are or aren't out there, but for purposes of argument here on this board, I don't understand what the problem would be with using the "T" word. After all, mediumship, if it exists, uses psychic images and impressions to convey messages back and forth between a spirit energy and a medium. Another name for these psychic images/impressions would be telepathy, so what's the difference which term we used in our discussions? ......neo

I actually don't care which term you use, and also don't care if you use them in a general debate. All I'm asking is for people to acknowledge..."Well I believe in mediumship, on some level, and mediumship relies on the concept of telepathy, of which there is no clear scientifically proven or accepted theory for, and for whose actual specifics I don't actually know, except for non-scientific hearsay (inconsistent in my opinion) from practicing mediums on how it works. Thats all . I just find it odd that you all assume the existence of telepathy, essentially on faith as there's no solid evidence for it. It just seems that you assume it without questioning it because you cannot explain how it works, but yet its necessary for your belief in mediumship.

Posted by Garrette
voidx,

Got it. Sorry for misunderstanding.

No worries. Heh just didn't want people getting the impression I believed telepathy was real .

 

[CFLarsen]

Hi, voidx. What I was referring to at the time, were studies that I had read about in some of Dr. Melvin Morse's writings. Even though I, personally, do not keep up with all this scientific research, I think I do remember Dr. Morse making references to experiments involving direct electrical stimulation of the right temporal lobe. If you would still like a link to something like that, I'm sure I can find it for you.

...

Well, like I said, I am not familiar with what studies are or aren't out there...

Can you make up your mind?

, but for purposes of argument here on this board, I don't understand what the problem would be with using the "T" word. After all, mediumship, if it exists, uses psychic images and impressions to convey messages back and forth between a spirit energy and a medium. Another name for these psychic images/impressions would be telepathy, so what's the difference which term we used in our discussions? ......neo

You still don't understand. Since nobody knows how telepathy works, how can you use it to explain anything?

Hi, Mark. You're right. It cannot be said that JE absolutely cheated on "Dateline". So what if Tony had expressed a wish earlier that day, for his deceased father to come through? Even on LKL at times the caller opens up with saying that they are hoping to hear from this or that family member. That doesn't mean that JE cannot go on to give that person a valid reading....neo

"What if", you ask? So, you have come so far as to accept if people tell JE in advance who they want to connect with? Isn't that a major problem for you with JVP? Why not with JE?

No, it's called "What's the BFD?", since it would never occur to an honest medium that reading someone spontaneously like that would result in people thinking he had cheated.

Quite contrary, an honest medium would immediately come forward and admit it.

After the fact, using 20-20 hindsight, JE realized that he left himself wide open to this criticism, and I'm sure he wished that he had realized it in time to say something. Had he known in advance that Tony's dad was going to come through, he may have had time to think about the need to avoid the appearance of having cheated.

I'm sure he wished that, too, but for more obvious reasons.

The reading, which consisted of more than one or two messages, would not have been less convincing had JEhad the presence of mind to issue a quick disclaimer before he went on with Tony's reading, so the logic the skeptics use here makes no sense. It would have been no big deal to do so. He didn't do it, because it never occurred to him to do it.

Again, you are reading JE's mind. You know what he thinks, how he reacts, how he behaves.

When did this happen? Two years ago? I can't believe that you guys don't have something more recent to put out there. ......neo

That doesn't make it go away, neofight. Even though you desperately want it to.

Well, we obviously have different opinions on this issue, Instg8R. Surprise! No problem. Like Mark Tidwell correctly stated, there is no proof, there is only circumstantial evidence.

What will it take, then? He was caught red-handed, yet you ignore this.

I can say from personal experience, that an honest person doesn't always see it coming, and doesn't always think defensively, mainly because they're not expecting to be accused of dishonesty.

Could you please stop being so friggin' condescending? You are not the only one who have met honest people, neo, and no honest person would behave like JE did.

And I'm sure the emotion he felt after he was falsely accused was very real. Unfortunately, the damage was already done, and two years later, people are still talking about it. I guess that's because there is a dearth of these sorts of negative stories, so they must keep bringing up the same ones again and again....neo

No, it's because we need to point out that there is evidence that JE hot reads.

I gave you three. Neo, Clancie and RC have all expressed belief in mediumship in general, yet all have also admitted to the possibility of hot/cold reading on the part of several mediums, including Sylvia Brown, Robert Brown, James Van Praagh, Suzanne Northrop and John Edward. (I'll leave it to them to say which applies to who, as their opinions may have changed since last we spoke of it.)

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 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. His actions in that situation, though quite damning, do not constitute proof of fraud. Especially since "Anthony" and "father-figure" are hardly unusual hits for JE.

What constitutes proof of fraud, then?

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.

Not just confessed, he was extremely defensive.

This is called lying by omission.

Yup. Don't forget that JE was in a highly unusual situation: He was being filmed and he couldn't control it. What does he do? He tries to impress the crew by reading one from the "enemy". What better proof that he is real, eh?

Unfortunately, he gets caught. Ouch.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're right that I still consider it a possibility that all of the above could be cold and/or hot reading (I favor cold more than hot, except in the case of van Praagh where he even acknowledges that he has prior information about the sitters--we just don't know how much.)

But the same can be said for JE, when he (hot) read Tony the Cameraman. He also knew in advance. neofight even accepts that JE can have prior information about sitters, that's not a problem anymore.

So, why is it a problem with JVP?

It's true I don't think JE hot reads, but I certainly am interested in the argument and pay attention to it. Maybe one day it will ring true to me but so far, it doesn't.

Even when a blatant expose is shown to you, you still ignore it. Yup, you sure got a long way to go...

And I think if JE were a hot reader he should make cheating easier--assign seats in the gallery and all seminars; get names and addresses in advance for all CO attendees, etc. None of those procedures would arouse suspicion so there's really no reason to cram all that stress and work into a tight 1 to 2 hour time period when he's got a lot of other things to do before going on stage.

Whoa...didn't Steve Grenard tell us that the procedures were changed, due to O'Neill's account?

How do you know what JE does before going on stage?

I don't think Brown or Northrop hot read sitters either. Suzane got nothing for me anyway, and Robert's information had nothing to do with anything that could be researched.

How do you know that? Are you not aware of the many databases out there that contain a wealth of information about people?

Why do you dismiss a psychic medium because you don't like her personae? What does that have to do with the quality of the messages?

I think what I've observed of Sylvia, JVP, and Suzane is consistent with what I know of cold reading. Most of Robert's looks like cold and warm reading (I use "warm" meaning somoeone working emotional generalities into hits that fit). RB -may- be a pure cold reader, but if so then he got very very lucky with some of the information that came through for me. I don't know what to think of him, really, although I do feel that he "pads" his readings consciously.

Please point to the analyses that show that Sylvia, JVP and Suzane cold reads and JE does not.

What, you don't have them? Then we cannot rely on your opinions. Why should your opinion be worth more than others'?

If we cannot distinguish between "padding" and spirit communication, how do we know that spirit communication happens at all?

Anyway, I haven't rejected those explanations for any of these mediums, but cold/warm/hot readings just don't seem to consistently explain everything I've observed so far.

Maybe one day they will. Or maybe one day I'll reject cold/warm/hot theories completely and be 100% convinced there's genuine ADC at work.

That would, indeed, be a miracle.

Yes, and, TBK, you really should drop over to tvt and read some of the old threads to better acquaint yourself with the reasoning of fence sitters. And at least one of them posts regularly here--Phelps, aka Iamme. Look around, tbk, and I think you may find that for most people this isn't just a clear cut "Yes its true" or "No its false" issue.

Then it sure is strange that not more fence sitters post here, eh?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I gave you three. Neo, Clancie and RC have all expressed belief in mediumship in general, yet all have also admitted to the possibility of hot/cold reading on the part of several mediums, including Sylvia Brown, Robert Brown, James Van Praagh, Suzanne Northrop and John Edward. (I'll leave it to them to say which applies to who, as their opinions may have changed since last we spoke of it.)

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?


No. Fence sitters on this issue abound. There are many whose opinions sway with each new claim and claimant. You can read the opinions of several such people over at tvtalkshows.

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

His actions in that situation, though quite damning, do not constitute proof of fraud. Especially since "Anthony" and "father-figure" are hardly unusual hits for JE.

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.

JE tried to use the father as a hit.

 

[Thanz]

Claus -

You keep on hammering away about Tony the cameraman. I admit that I don't know everything about this issue, but it seems that you are making a mountain out of a mound. What, exactly, is the information that you claim JE had prior to the reading? Is it just that his father had died, or is it something else as well? IIRC, there were some other hits in that reading that were impressive (wasn't he the cigarette in the coffin guy?) that need exploring/explanation.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

John Hockenberry: Still, something else happened that night in the group readings. A departed family member does seem to come through loud and clear.

Tape John: Hold on, they're telling me to acknowledge Anthony. Are you waving like that's me? That's you? Really?

John Hockenberry: For, of all people, "Dateline" cameramen Tony Pagano, one of two cameramen shooting our story. John Edward zeros in on the fact that Tony's father has died.

Tape John: Did you not see dad before he passed? Had you either been away or had been distant?

Tape Tony: Yeah I was away.

Tape John: Ok, cause he's making me feel like you need to move past this. Was he a Yankees fan?

Tape Tony: <laughs> No, he'd die again if he heard that.

Tape John: And he's telling me to acknowledge he found the ring. I don't know what this means.

Tape Tony: Well I had a ring that was given to me. I only wore one piece of jewelry beside my wedding ring. And when my dad died, the last time I saw him in the coffin, I took that ring off and put it on his hand.

Tony: He said some things that were very personal that only I knew. Um, and putting the ring on his finger on my dad's finger when he died was really something that I don't think anyone else saw.


........

John Hockenberry: John Edward had made it a point to avoid any contact before that night's session. But remember this footage of Edward dancing? Tony was the cameraman and shot this just hours before the group reading.

You'd met Tony before though, right?

John: Earlier that day? Yeah.

John Hockenberry: They not only had they met, but Tony told John Edward a critical piece of information during the shoot.

You'd spoken to him. Were you aware that his dad had died before you did this reading?

John: I think he, I think earlier in the day he had said something.

John Hockenberry: Well, it makes me feel like, you know, that's fairly significant. I mean, you knew that he had a dead relative and you knew it was the dad.

John: Ok.

John Hockenberry: So that's not some energy coming through, that's something you knew going in. You knew his name was Tony and you knew that his dad had died and you knew he was in the room. Right? That gets you...

John: That's a whole lot of thinking you've got me doing then. Like I said, I react to what's coming through, what I see, hear, and feel. I interpret what I'm seeing, hearing, and feeling and I define it. He raised his hand, it made sense with him, great.

John Hockenberry: 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?"

John: Absolutely not, absolutely not. Not at all.

Source: John Edward on "Dateline"

A clear example of hot reading.

Are you saying that is it OK to use hot reading, if the reading later on turns out a weak hit? JE does not tell Tony that his dad said that he got the ring on his finger, that was filled in by Tony.

Let's not forget the huge miss about the dad being a Yankees fan, either. That's not a blatant attempt at cold reading?

You bet I am hammering away. JE was caught cheating. He hot read Tony Pagano. He tried cold reading as well. There is no doubt about that.

 

[Ed]

The travelling thing was a guess, but a good one. Let's see, a camera man for a network show, think he travels? Hot reading.

Was he a new yorker? Pretty easy to guess. So dad is with the yanks or mets 50:50. Wrong.

Who here has lost a father? Have anything of his? Do any monkeying around with the body before they screwed the lid down? Touch his hand, leave something? Kiss him?

What crap. How does anyone take this seriously?

 

[Thanz]

A clear example of hot reading.

Are you saying that is it OK to use hot reading, if the reading later on turns out a weak hit? JE does not tell Tony that his dad said that he got the ring on his finger, that was filled in by Tony.

First, thanks very much for posting the transcript. I would like to have seen the whole reading - it seems apparent that it was chopped by Dateline, but let's work with what we have.

I am not saying that it is okay that it is fine that JE uses hot reading. I think that the problem here is in the presentation - he acts like it is some sort of surprise that Tony reacted the way he did. If he was upfront about it - mentioned that he had talked to Tony earlier and here his dad was coming through, there wouldn't be a big problem.

As for the "hot" reading portion, it really isn't more than a medium would get at a session. My name is X and I want to hear from Y. We can't score the dad as a hit, obviously, but the rest of the reading we can examine on its own.

Let's not forget the huge miss about the dad being a Yankees fan, either. That's not a blatant attempt at cold reading?

I think that it is totally cold reading. Swing and a miss.

You bet I am hammering away. JE was caught cheating. He hot read Tony Pagano. He tried cold reading as well. There is no doubt about that.

I don't think that it is as severe as you make out. Did he know that Tony's dad died? Yes. Did he then proceed to read Tony? Yes. But it seems to me that all he used the "Hot" info for was to pick the person being read. Not the same at all as the allegations of internet searching, moles at credit card companies and hidden mikes. It is like you caught a kid shoplifting a candy bar and are making out like he is a master thief.

Oh, and on the Ring thing - it seems to be a good hit, but I think it was cold reading as well. If he said the same thing but got no response, he would have just quickly moved on - like the yankees thing.

Just my opinion.

 

[neofight]

John Hockenberry: 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?"

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.

If JE's mediumship is real, and Tony's father saw this as an opportunity to get a message through to his son, the fact that Tony had told John earlier that he'd love to one day hear from his dad could indicate simply that Tony's father heard his son's wistful comment and acted upon it.

Come on you open-minded skeptics! At least keep that door open a sixteenth of an inch, huh! It mades me wonder if I should pity the defendent who gets you on their jury.......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

If JE's mediumship is real, and Tony's father saw this as an opportunity to get a message through to his son, the fact that Tony had told John earlier that he'd love to one day hear from his dad could indicate simply that Tony's father heard his son's wistful comment and acted upon it.

Come on you open-minded skeptics! At least keep that door open a sixteenth of an inch, huh! It mades me wonder if I should pity the defendent who gets you on their jury.......neo

Occam's Razor: Which is more likely, JE hot reading or JE getting spirit communication?

Not a cynic, neofight. A skeptic.

 

[neofight]

I am not saying that it is okay that it is fine that JE uses hot reading. I think that the problem here is in the presentation - he acts like it is some sort of surprise that Tony reacted the way he did. If he was upfront about it - mentioned that he had talked to Tony earlier and here his dad was coming through, there wouldn't be a big problem.

You're right that John acted surprised, Thanz. Not shocked, because this sort of thing does happen on occasion, but surprised initially, since he was looking to the sitters for a validation, and not the cameraman. His reaction to both that, and his reaction to Hockenberry's very direct insinuations seem quite sincere to me. If he is indeed innocent of the allegation, of course he would be defensive.

As you can see from the transcript, JE then simply went on to give Tony the reading, since he claimed the father figure as his own. I agree with you that I would love to see a transcript of the entire reading, including all of Tony's post-reading comments.

Oh, and on the Ring thing - it seems to be a good hit, but I think it was cold reading as well. If he said the same thing but got no response, he would have just quickly moved on - like the yankees thing.

I think the ring hit was decent as well, and as far as the reference to the Yankees, I'd love to ask Tony if perhaps he and his dad has some sort of a running joke about the team that did not come to mind immediately. John's interpretation may have been off-base in that it could have referred to something other than being a Yankee fan.

I'm not making excuses, or saying this as anything factual, but only that oftentimes a follow-up interview is quite interesting to see......neo

 

[voidx]

You're right that John acted surprised, Thanz. Not shocked, because this sort of thing does happen on occasion, but surprised initially, since he was looking to the sitters for a validation, and not the cameraman. His reaction to both that, and his reaction to Hockenberry's very direct insinuations seem quite sincere to me. If he is indeed innocent of the allegation, of course he would be defensive.

That last sentence I would have to disagree with quite strongly. He would be just as defensive if he was trying to be deceitful. Think of a time you've done something, justified in your own mind, and then denied it when asked, same here, potentially. And if he's as good an entertainer as we give him credit for, feigning surprise would hardly be difficult. He had the fathers death, the son's name, he threw out a variation of "Tony" who did you think he was hoping to get? Its just as plausible he used this bit and then feigned surprise when it ended up being Tony. Its not like it'd have to be an Oscar performance or anything.

I think the ring hit was decent as well, and as far as the reference to the Yankees, I'd love to ask Tony if perhaps he and his dad has some sort of a running joke about the team that did not come to mind immediately. John's interpretation may have been off-base in that it could have referred to something other than being a Yankee fan.

I'm not making excuses, or saying this as anything factual, but only that oftentimes a follow-up interview is quite interesting to see......neo [/B]

I'll give that the ring is a decent hit, but completely within the realms of cold-reading. We often place items, jewellery among them on our loved ones when they die in the belief they can take them with them into the afterlife, if you happen to believe in it. So JE took a stab with "ring" and yes, got a pretty decent hit. As for the Yankee thing I have to disagree. While yes he might have forgotten something, more often than not I believe it leaves the door wide open for someone trying to make something fit later that didn't at the time as it is them actually authentically remembering something specific.

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.

JE is asking me to believe in some form of afterlife, in some form of yet unknown, unproven mental communication. He hasn't done anything that I've read or seen so far that leads me to give him a break, or cut him some slack. He wants to posit the paranormal, then he'd better do a bang-up job, sorry.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're right that John acted surprised, Thanz. Not shocked, because this sort of thing does happen on occasion, but surprised initially, since he was looking to the sitters for a validation, and not the cameraman. His reaction to both that, and his reaction to Hockenberry's very direct insinuations seem quite sincere to me. If he is indeed innocent of the allegation, of course he would be defensive.

Do you think it is possible that he acted surprised and was defensive, because he was caught cheating?

If he was caught cheating, how would he react?

As you can see from the transcript, JE then simply went on to give Tony the reading, since he claimed the father figure as his own. I agree with you that I would love to see a transcript of the entire reading, including all of Tony's post-reading comments.

Yeps, it could be great. However, what we got showed JE cheating. No doubt about it.

I think the ring hit was decent as well, and as far as the reference to the Yankees, I'd love to ask Tony if perhaps he and his dad has some sort of a running joke about the team that did not come to mind immediately. John's interpretation may have been off-base in that it could have referred to something other than being a Yankee fan.

Whoa, you are most certainly grasping at straws here! Tony's father was definitely not a Yankee's fan (gee whiz, there was that NY-rooted baseball "symbol" again!). It was a huge miss for JE.

I'm not making excuses, or saying this as anything factual, but only that oftentimes a follow-up interview is quite interesting to see......neo

Sure. How about concentrating on what we got, instead of dreaming about things we don't?

 

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Mark,
Nice to see you around again!

You're right that I still consider it a possibility that all of the above could be cold and/or hot reading (I favor cold more than hot, except in the case of van Praagh where he even acknowledges that he has prior information about the sitters--we just don't know how much.)

It's true I don't think JE hot reads, but I certainly am interested in the argument and pay attention to it. Maybe one day it will ring true to me but so far, it doesn't. And I think if JE were a hot reader he should make cheating easier--assign seats in the gallery and all seminars; get names and addresses in advance for all CO attendees, etc. None of those procedures would arouse suspicion so there's really no reason to cram all that stress and work into a tight 1 to 2 hour time period when he's got a lot of other things to do before going on stage.

Hi, Clancie--

I don't know whose hot-reading theory you are describing above, but it isn't mine. If that is what JE had to go through to hot read the gallery, it is way too much work. It's hard to do, and even if successful, it sets audience expectations at too high a level -- a level which he can't achieve in other venues. Expectations are much lower now, and we still notice how bad JE does in unedited situations like on LKL.

It has never been my theory that JE hot reads regularly on CO. He doesn't need to, since he's a good cold reader and he also has editing control over the finished product. It is my theory that hot reading could account for those occasional special hits, that seem to make people go "hmmmmm".

It is my belief that, for many of JE's better readings, he probably didn't even have to research much. Some of these readings were high profile deaths, and involved families who were very much in the news at the time they were read in the CO gallery.

I think that many people would agree with me that the better readings on CO took place during the first season, when the gallery only contained about 75 people (and no more than 100 people). The show was first broadcast during June/July 2000. Now, let's look at two of the better known readings, which just happened to take place in that time frame:

1. Kelly: The boy was killed in June 2000. The reading took place a few months later, amid plenty of news coverage. The surviving family members (mother, father, sister, brother) were highly profiled in the news before, during and after the time of the reading. They could easily have been recognized from their photographs alone. Having the names in advance makes it a slam dunk. (They lived on Long Island, only about 10 miles away from JE's residence, and the accident happened on Long Island, also.)

2. Acompora: The boy, a la crosse player, was killed in March 2000 at a sporting accident at school in Northport (about 5 miles from JE's residence). It was a freak accident where he was accidentally struck in the chest and his heart stopped. This family, again, received tons of media attention... The investigation of the cause of death went on for months, and the family became politically active and even higher profile. They started a Foundation in their late son's name, and they were responsible for a new law being passed requiring NY schools to have a crash cart on premises to rescuscitate heart attack victims. Again, these folks were in the media so much, that I could recognize them, too, especially if I had their name ahead of time.

What I am trying to explain is that a private investigator isn't needed to unearth information that is commonly known to us Long Islanders. I think that is why the readings may seem better to people from out of state.

In any event, I understand why you tend to discount the theory of JE hot-reading in the CO gallery. However, where do you stand on the videotaped readings that JE did for the families of 9/11 victimes, Kiefer and Puckett, at their Long Island homes, within a few weeks after their deaths? The Puckett reading was even arranged through a mutual family friend of JE.

Do you believe that JE didn't know, in advance, whose homes he was going to? Do you think he was blindfolded in the car, so he wouldn't even know what neighborhood he was in? Bear in mind that Puckett family lived in Glen Cove, (where JE lived and attended school for many years), and Kiefer's home in Franklin Square is not that far away from his home, either. I think these particular readings are highly suspicious for hot reading, and I wondered if you were including them when you ruled out hot-reading theories.

I really can't emphasize JE's regional advantages enough.
Edited to fix my typos!

 

[BNiles]

Well said Instig8R. My thoughts exactly.

 

[CFLarsen]

Instig8R,

Great post. You should write for SkepticReport.

Wait...you do!

How John Edward got two "special hits"

The Many Contradictions of John Edward

So, when's the next article coming? "The Regional Advantages of John Edward".....

 

[Instig8R]

Thank you, thank you very much.

I have always found it extremely unusual that -- especially in the first few months of CO being on the air -- there were so many readings that involve high profile deaths of young people, whose families live practically in JE's own backyard.

There was also JE's gallery reading of the parents of a young suicide victim, a/k/a the "Kauffy" reading. RC has written about it over at TVTalk, because the reading raised his suspicions. Apparently, the boy's parents were very high profile, inasmuch as their son's suicide turned them into activists who started a well known suicide prevention organization.

When young people in my community die suddenly and tragically, most people tend to pay attention to the coverage. If someone like me can recognize these names and faces, I feel that JE is much more likely to do so. After all, he is a psychic-medium, and death is his business. He has a special interest in taking note of these situations.

I know that special arrangements were made for the 9/11 families to receive their at-home readings by JE. As for 9/11 readings in the gallery, however, there haven't been that many 9/11 readings or references since then -- despite the fact that almost 3000 people from the tri-state area were killed that day.

Conversely, we have far fewer deaths of young kids on Long Island.... but the number of readings given to families of young victims (during the first few months of CO) could lead one to believe that there is a very high ratio of kids getting killed here. (Edited to add that their Long Island residences are not mentioned on CO, and therefore this oddity is not noticed by people in other parts of the country.)

The fact that so many high profile readings took place during CO's debut should make everyone a bit suspicious. This was before CO was a hit show. I've known a lot of people who have suffered tragic losses like this, but their response was not to run out and get tickets for a televised seance by JE within a short time after the deaths.

Also, given the way that JE wasn't upfront about his prior conversation with Tony Pagano, the cameraman from Dateline, I have no reason to believe that he would be forthcoming about what knowledge he had of these deceased kids' families in his CO Gallery, either.

It seems that JE is not immune to psychic amnesia, the malady that he created for his audience.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Thank you, thank you very much.

I have always found it extremely unusual that -- especially in the first few months of CO being on the air -- there were so many readings that involve high profile deaths of young people, whose families live practically in JE's own backyard.

[snip]

When young people in my community die suddenly and tragically, most people tend to pay attention to the coverage. If someone like me can recognize these names and faces, I feel that JE is much more likely to do so. After all, he is a psychic-medium, and death is his business. He has a special interest in taking note of these situations.

Good points.

IIRC Several mediums from quite some time ago (turn of the century through the twenties) had large collections of obituaries that they kept over the years. Anyone from their area making an appointment could therefore expect better contact from their relatives. I seem to recall a very old Gardner article mentioning one or two.

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?

NA