The "Process" of John Edward

Lurker,

I have no problems with this being not the strongest evidence - or a smoking gun, if you like. (Typical American phrase!!)

But I sure as heck don't see much evidence against it either - e.g. that JE really is talking to the dead. :)

Is it debatable? Sure! Always!

The thing to remember is, that every time we take a closer look at what JE and other necromancers do, it always speaks in favor of them being fakes.

We never find anything that opens up more possibilities that they are real.

It adds up. Devastatingly so. After so many years, after so many trials, after so many claims, after so many analyses....not a single piece of evidence. But several mountain ranges of contrary evidence.

Man, that should be enough to convince anybody. Sadly, it doesn't. Which is why we are here. Still here.
 
CFLarsen said:
So, why doesn't he throw out names? He can hear full words, terms, he can get clear images, whatever. But not names.

That is what is damning: In everything else, he can get full words. Not names. There, he has to play the game of most common initials. He can do it, because his fans lap it up.
Click to expand...

Claus, what are all these full words and terms that you say JE can get?......neo
 
neofight said:
Claus, what are all these full words and terms that you say JE can get?......neo
Click to expand...

Are you being deliberately dense here? "Cigarettes in a coffin". "Feathers at Niagara". "Voula". All those Americana that leaves everything up to the sitter to interpret.

Why these, and not names? Why not even surnames? You explain that, neofight.
 
Clancie said:
neo,

Is Claus claiming that JE doesn't get names, that he only gets initials? rofl.
Click to expand...

Clancie,

Honestly. If you are that interested in what I post, why don't you just take me off "ignore" and deal with it yourself? Why do you need stooges to deal with your own problems?

This insistence of referring to my posts in an off-handed manner is getting a wee bit tiresome. What do you possibly think you can gain from this? Respect? Don't make me laugh...

If you want to address my points, please do so in a straight-forward manner. What you are doing is simply cowardice. Be honest. Or, at least, try to be.

Why are you so scared of me? Am I really that threatening to you? Do you fear me that much, that you cannot face me?
 
CFLarsen said:
But I sure as heck don't see much evidence against it either - e.g. that JE really is talking to the dead. :)

Is it debatable? Sure! Always!

The thing to remember is, that every time we take a closer look at what JE and other necromancers do, it always speaks in favor of them being fakes.
Click to expand...

I agree that very little evidence points towards mediumship being valid and there is evidence that strongly points towards him being a fake.

So I am glad you agree that the "J" analysis is minor but still another brick in the wall against JE being a true medium.

Lurker
 
Lurker said:

So I am glad you agree that the "J" analysis is minor but still another brick in the wall against JE being a true medium.

Lurker
Click to expand...

I have a hard time seeing how the J analysis shows anything at all.

Could someone explain exactly how it does?
 
T'ai Chi said:


I have a hard time seeing how the J analysis shows anything at all.

Could someone explain exactly how it does?
Click to expand...

Whodini,

It refutes the null hypothesis. JE guessed the most frequent forename initial far more frequently than would be expected.
 
BillHoyt said:

It refutes the null hypothesis. JE guessed the most frequent forename initial far more frequently than would be expected.
Click to expand...

Right, but JE used other high frequency letters less than what was expected. So if we did your analysis with those high frequency letters, we'd probably fail to reject the null hypothesis.
 
Not exactly.

Of those he used less, I didn't see him use it that much less. But the letter "J" was different completely. Yes, it is the most common and expected to be of higher frequency, but JE over used it.

The other letters that were used less were only off by 2 - 3 points, but "J" was over used by 9 points.
 
CFLarsen said:
Lurker,

I have no problems with this being not the strongest evidence - or a smoking gun, if you like. (Typical American phrase!!)

But I sure as heck don't see much evidence against it either - e.g. that JE really is talking to the dead. :)

Is it debatable? Sure! Always!

The thing to remember is, that every time we take a closer look at what JE and other necromancers do, it always speaks in favor of them being fakes.

We never find anything that opens up more possibilities that they are real.

It adds up. Devastatingly so. After so many years, after so many trials, after so many claims, after so many analyses....not a single piece of evidence. But several mountain ranges of contrary evidence.

Man, that should be enough to convince anybody. Sadly, it doesn't. Which is why we are here. Still here.
Click to expand...


And Twenty-Seven pages later..............................................STILL HERE!!!!!!
 
BillHoyt said:

It refutes the null hypothesis. JE guessed the most frequent forename initial far more frequently than would be expected.
Click to expand...
Only when we used your counts. If we used mine or Kerberos, we don't reject the null hypothesis. I don't think that anyone else here has endorsed your counting method. And no, this is not an appeal to popularity. I am pointing out the very loose results of a very loose "peer review" of your methods.
 
Again, it is a very minor point in my opinion. Bill, don't you find it odd that JE seems to use other common letters LESS than we would expect? It is like he did the work to find out from the census that "J" was the most common letter, then he tailored his methods to suit this by using "J" names or "J" sounds with more frequency and ignored other possible common letters. Odd.

Especially since "J" is not THAT much more frequent than its nearest competitors according to the census.

As Bill said, "JE guessed the most frequent forename initial far more frequently than would be expected." This is true, but any conclusions from this are hard to draw. The analysis is incomplete (and flawed).

Lurker
 
I guess what I am having a hard time with, is that I could see it both ways. If JE's letter use is in line with the Census Bureau frequencies, I could see that as being interpreted as cold reading.

On the other hand, if JE's letter use is way off from the Census Bureau frequencies, I could see that, too, as being interpreted as cold reading.

So... which is right??
 
TLN said:


John Edward is a cold reader. :D
Click to expand...

That's a good opinion, but I'd like to analyze the data scientifically.

Have you analyzed any data to come to your conclusion? If you show us the numbers, etc., we'd be most greatful.
 
T'ai Chi said:
That's a good opinion, but I'd like to analyze the data scientifically.

Have you analyzed any data to come to your conclusion? If you show us the numbers, etc., we'd be most greatful.
Click to expand...

How do you plan on doing that with an edited television show? Sorry, nothing scientific about that.

For those of you that haven't heard this before, whatever you saw on "Crossing Over" is absolutely, unequivocally, positively worthless. Get it?

Get this douche in a lab and we'll talk. Oh wait...
 
Posted by TLN

How do you plan on doing that with an edited television show? Sorry, nothing scientific about that.
Click to expand...

Have you even been following the thread, TLN?

The analysis is being done using transcripts of readings from "Larry King Live". :rolleyes:
 
Clancie said:
The analysis is being done using transcripts of readings from "Larry King Live". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Have you been reading my posts Clancie? I was referring to "Crossing Over".

Yes, "Larry King Live" transcripts are an excellent source of data as they're all live. This must be why Edward bombs horribly every time he's on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom