The "Process" of John Edward

[Clancie]

Thanks, Steve, for the multiple references re: Jaroff, Shermer et al. You're really great at getting up those links!

I find it astonishing that Bill insists on repeatedly quoting Jaroff

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Jaroff clearly says O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show. None.

Well, if Jaroff says someone he never even met or spoke with had "no preconceived ideas" it certainly must be a fact! No room for doubt there, right, Bill?

As for my idea about O'Neill's "skeptical world view"....well, how many people go see JE and then email their thoughts to JREF? Its great Jaroff "clearly says" so much about CO when he never even attended a taping himself...and never even talked with O'Neill personally.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie, neofight,

Why do you doubt O'Neill/Jaroff when it is said that O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show?

What evidence do you have that Jaroff has gotten the wrong impression of O'Neill's stance? Have you contacted Jaroff? Randi? Anyone? What do you base it on?

That O'Neill and Jaroff are critical of JE, ergo they must be wrong by default??

It looks very much as if you are doubting the things that can cast doubt on JE, but accept anything that will show him to be a real medium. Clancie even has to invent that O'Neill's reading was "good". Without ever having seen a transcript or the actual reading on TV.

What we are seeing here is pure, fanatical believers in action. Somebody should write a psychological thesis on this.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Neo: Well, if Jaroff says someone he never even met or spoke with had "no preconceived ideas" it certainly must be a fact! No room for doubt there, right, Bill?

Jaroff never interviewed or met O'Neill. He called CO the day before the story was to hit the streets and read it to them on the phone. He was invited to come to the studio for himself and see if anything O'Neill allegedly theorized on was true. There was no time and Jaroff refused. Besides Jaroff wasn't even in NY, he was home, in retirement, in Boca Raton, Florida. However TIME was in NYC and if Jaroff wanted to he could have sent some editorial researchers over to the studio which was within walking distance of the TIME offices. All he wanted was a comment from them on the story and he got that in the form of JE doesn't respond to critics, etc. But in this case they did respond. The day after the story appeared they reinforced the "be very quiet" advice to guests by adding, in writing and as a verbal admonition "not to discuss anything which might come up in a reading with JE." This was a very positive response IMHO.



Neo: As for my idea about O'Neill's "skeptical world view"....well, how many people go see JE and then email their thoughts to JREF? Its great Jaroff "clearly says" so much about CO when he never even attended a taping himself...and never even talked with O'Neill personally.

Yes, not only anecdotal but hearsay as well on Jaroff's part. Plus what kind of a reporter (and this man is was a science reporter) doesn't investigate the facts first-hand? Or, if thats not possible, have a trusted aide do so for him (e.g. a TIME editorial staffer).


And neo...........
for some discourse on BAMBOO LOGIC, go to the following site and scroll down to Page 7 (paragraph 27):

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/nick/content/L_&_M_B_lecture_7.pdf

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

I found one LKL transcript from 1998 and collected together JE's initials (same rules I used before). In this one, there were a total of 50 names/initials thrown out by JE, of which 10 were "J"s. That makes the grand totals 28 "J"s in 135 total names/initials. We'd expect to see 18.036 "J"s with this population size. The chances of seeing 28 or more come in at p=.018.

Didn't you use Kerberos's numbers to start with? Which page of this thread are your totals on, if you've used different sources?

For the record, Kerberos already used both of the 1998 transcripts. The LKL one he left out was the most recent one--2003. (He did use "Regis Live" though--and a CO transcript that neo had typed up).

Interesting, Bill. I'd like to know how you got this many names/initials from 1998 (Kerberos's numbers were much like mine. Yours are FAR different). Did you use the little edited clips that LK included from CO? If so, don't you think it should consistently be the "live" readings, as there may be something about the selection process of edited clips that we don't know? Seems best to consistently get it.

Also, did you count "I'm getting an 'R' name--like Rich or Richie or Robbie" as one guess or four? (It is obviously one...a guess on initial "R" followed by some possible examples. Counting it as four different names or initials would be absurd--and not Kerberos's method either, I might add).

You see, Bill, I went and checked the tally, too.

For the first LKL transcript in 1998 (live readings), I got: 17 names and 4 guesses on "J". Very different from your "50 guesses on names and initials and 10 of them J's".

If you used the second LKL transcript, I got 27 names or initials guessed (counting things like "An 'R'--like Rob, Richie, Rich" as one, which makes sense). There was 1 "J" for that reading.

Kerberos tallied 4 LKL appearances, "Regis Live" and a transcript neo had done that was posted here....and came up with a cumulative total of 78 initials and 14 "J's" from a total of six sources.

I'd like to know how you counted just one of his six sources and came up with 50 guesses for names/initials and 10 J's.

Not to mention the fact that, if you used Kerberos's total tally 78 to begin with, you can't tally and add the same transcript in twice.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The evidence for O'Neill's worldview is as follows:

1. He chose to send an e-mail to Randi. Does this mean
he was a Randi fan before hand? hmm that rhymes.
Does Randi have a worldview on this? Did O'Neill agree
with it?

2. O'Neill speculates, truly speculates, on the reason for the
hits JE got for him: hidden mics and eaves-dropping staffers
but then doesnt back this up by stating this was possible
because the stuff JE got was discussed beforehand by
himself and/or his family. He also credited guessing but
with no information as to what was allegedly guessed.

3. He describes reasons he believes his segment was edited
for content BUT provides no details of what that alleged
editing did in terms of details, only in general terms.

This is called being skeptical but it falls short of valid skepticism because of the absence of additional information to back up his
assertions as exemplified in #2 and #3 above.

What is wrong with a worldview that precludes the possibility that JE actually does what he purports to do? Nothing. There are plenty of people like that. What is wrong is then to speculate on
possibilities, giving no proof and failing to back up such remarks with a simple exposition of what hits or details were involved.

 

[Clancie]

Yes, Steve. And, Claus, I speculated that O'Neill was skeptical of JE from the outset and was throwing out every explanation for hot reading he possibly could think of because if the reading was lousy the easiest way to discredit it was to say, "I was read and he came up with nothing. Junk. Typical cold reading that had nothing to do with me."

But...no. Instead O'Neill had to say "cheating/hot reading" as the explanation for the content of his reading. To me, that means the content was probably pretty good--and therefore didn't jive with O'Neill's belief that JE was a fake. If its not dismissed as "cold reading"...hot reading is pretty much the only other choice.

Funny how it doesn't bother Bill or Claus that Jaroff assumes to know O'Neill's state of mind...without even talking with him! Clearly, its Jaroff who should be claiming the million!!!!

And, Steve, could you clarify this for Claus? He repeats it so often.

Posted by CFLarsen on the previous page of this thread

Clancie, you are clearly not capable of understanding English. I simply cannot understand how you can deduct that O'Neill got a good reading from JE.

Didn't Steve confirm that one of O'Neill's answers had been changed to fit a different question?

Steve, do you have some special knowledge of O'Neill's reading that allowed you to "confirm" this claim from O'Neill/Jaroff, et al? (CO denies it).

 

[CFLarsen]

The evidence for O'Neill's worldview is as follows:

1. He chose to send an e-mail to Randi. Does this mean
he was a Randi fan before hand? hmm that rhymes.
Does Randi have a worldview on this? Did O'Neill agree
with it?

Whoa....does this mean that whoever sends Randi email is against JE? Could it be that O'Neill contacted undoubtedly the most famous skeptic and simply told his story?

2. O'Neill speculates, truly speculates, on the reason for the
hits JE got for him: hidden mics and eaves-dropping staffers
but then doesnt back this up by stating this was possible
because the stuff JE got was discussed beforehand by
himself and/or his family. He also credited guessing but
with no information as to what was allegedly guessed.

Why is trying to find mundane explanations "speculation", Steve? Aren't you presupposing that JE is in fact a real medium?

3. He describes reasons he believes his segment was edited
for content BUT provides no details of what that alleged
editing did in terms of details, only in general terms.

We don't know the full content of his email to Randi. Nevertheless, you confirmed that O'Neill's reading was altered from switching a no to a yes.

This is called being skeptical but it falls short of valid skepticism because of the absence of additional information to back up his assertions as exemplified in #2 and #3 above.

I think this might be the best evidence that O'Neill did NOT have preconceived notions and most certainly wasn't a skeptic. If he were, why wouldn't he use what you call "valid" skepticism?

What is wrong with a worldview that precludes the possibility that JE actually does what he purports to do? Nothing. There are plenty of people like that. What is wrong is then to speculate on
possibilities, giving no proof and failing to back up such remarks with a simple exposition of what hits or details were involved.

Where in O'Neill's account do you see that he precludes the possibility that JE actually does what he purports to do? Quite contrary, he says the exact opposite?

Try again, Steve.

 

[CFLarsen]

And, Claus, I speculated that O'Neill was skeptical of JE from the outset and was throwing out every explanation for hot reading he possibly could think of because if the reading was lousy the easiest way to discredit it was to say, "I was read and he came up with nothing. Junk. Typical cold reading that had nothing to do with me."

But...no. Instead O'Neill had to say "cheating/hot reading" as the explanation for the content of his reading. To me, that means the content was probably pretty good--and therefore didn't jive with O'Neill's belief that JE was a fake. If its not dismissed as "cold reading"...hot reading is pretty much the only other choice.

But isn't this what the average Joe would think? That JE was simply using previously obtained material? It speaks against O'Neill being a skeptic from the start, and even while writing to Randi, that he does NOT use the cold reading explanation. Had he gone in as a skeptic, he would have known about cold reading. And mentioned it. He did not.

Funny how it doesn't bother Bill or Claus that Jaroff assumes to know O'Neill's state of mind...without even talking with him! Clearly, its Jaroff who should be claiming the million!!!!

Stop, stop, stop....you don't know what was in that email, and here you go, pretending you do. If Jaroff writes that O'Neill has no preconceived notions, then that's what O'Neill said.

If you have any contrary evidence - or evidence that O'Neill was critical of JE before the taping, please provide it. Put up or shut up.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Clancie first quoting Larsen:

C: Didn't Steve confirm that one of O'Neill's answers had been changed to fit a different question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Clanci: Steve, do you have some special knowledge of O'Neill's reading that allowed you to "confirm" this claim from O'Neill/Jaroff, et al? (CO denies it).


I have no special knowledge. I only have O'Neill's statement as reported by Randi from O'Neill's e-mail. O'Neill CLAIMS that his segment was edited with a single head nod inserted which made it look like he was agreeing with JE when, in fact, he claims he was not. (They allegedly got the head nod from a different response which was a positive response). However, O'Neill does not tell us what it was he disagreed with that editing made it look like he agreed with.

This would be the smoking gun.

For example, and this is hypothetical to be sure, if JE said:

"Your grandpfather's name was Sean"

and it wasn't, and then the editors inserted a nod for a negative head wave or a NO, everyone who knows O'Neill and his family could back this up as an edit job. So where is the smoking gun? What monumental wrong piece of info did JE give that some editor turned into a confirmation? By not telling the public what this was even this assertion is next to meaningless.

CO was able to find the raw footage and program segment O'Neill was on and they carefully examined the aired segment and plotted the responses O'Neill gave against the information JE provided. They found no evidence that editing turned a inaccurate JE-provided piece of info into a true one so they denied this allegation in its entirety. But, in the end, as they commented to Jaroff, they really dont care and would not get bogged down in this. And neither would O'Neill apparently who submerged as fast as Randi surfaced him. There were reporters and feature writers who wanted to follow-up with him; some no doubt contacted Randi to put them in touch. I wanted to talk with O'Neill about this. I was very interested in his experience and I was and remain skeptical of JE. Nada. Nothing. The man doesn't want to talk about it anymore or, perhaps, Randi doesn't want to respond anymore either. I don't know.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

It speaks against O'Neill being a skeptic from the start, and even while writing to Randi, that he does NOT use the cold reading explanation. Had he gone in as a skeptic, he would have known about cold reading. And mentioned it. He did not.

Lol, Claus.

Here's the way O'Neill could have "mentioned cold reading without knowing about it". By writing to Randi something like the following: "He 'read' me, but there were just a lot of names thrown out that I didn't recognize, lots of attempts to fish for information from me and make it into something, lots of things that didn't make sense but which he badgered me into accepting."

In other words...he could have criticized the content of the reading he got and Randi, Jaroff, etc would have recognized all of the above (which I made up, obviously) as classic "cold reading techniques", even if O'Neill didn't.

But, he didn't criticize the content as being bad, Claus--he just tried to explain it away as the product of cheating (indicating to those with an open mind that JE did get hits that had to, from O'Neill's point of view, be "explained" as something other than spirit communication)..

And, for the record, I just can't get over how willing you and Bill are to accept Jaroff basing most of his article about JE on O'Neill's email to Randi, without even checking the source for himself (or even visiting the show to have a look)!!!!

Talk about "hearsay" evidence! But, as neo said, I guess that's okay with you, no problem, just as long as the "hearsay" and second-hand (emailed!) anecdotes are critical of JE.

 

[Lucianarchy]

If Jaroff writes that O'Neill has no preconceived notions, then that's what O'Neill said.

Nope. That's what Jaroff wrote. The two aren't necessarily the same.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Are you saying that O'Neill was wrong about the head nod?

 

[CFLarsen]

Here's the way O'Neill could have "mentioned cold reading without knowing about it". By writing to Randi something like the following: "He 'read' me, but there were just a lot of names thrown out that I didn't recognize, lots of attempts to fish for information from me and make it into something, lots of things that didn't make sense but which he badgered me into accepting."

In other words...he could have criticized the content of the reading he got and Randi, Jaroff, etc would have recognized all of the above (which I made up, obviously) as classic "cold reading techniques", even if O'Neill didn't.

Pure speculation and fabulation.

But, he didn't criticize the content as being bad, Claus--he just tried to explain it away as the product of cheating (indicating to those with an open mind that JE did get hits that had to, from O'Neill's point of view, be "explained" as something other than spirit communication)..

Did he say that the reading was good, Clancie?

And, for the record, I just can't get over how willing you and Bill are to accept Jaroff basing most of his article about JE on O'Neill's email to Randi, without even checking the source for himself (or even visiting the show to have a look)!!!!

What reasons do you have to doubt it, other that it being critical of JE?

Talk about "hearsay" evidence! But, as neo said, I guess that's okay with you, no problem, just as long as the "hearsay" and second-hand (emailed!) anecdotes are critical of JE.

Not at all. But if you want to dismiss this, why don't you dismiss each and every other testimonial about JE being a real medium, then? You don't even raise doubt about them, Clancie.

So far, what you have is speculation and fabulation. No evidence whatsoever. You merely dismiss it because it is critical of JE.

 

[T'ai Chi]

BillHoyt wrote:

Why should I have further discussions about appropriate tests when you apparently think none are appropriate?

I have never said that I think no tests are appropriate. In fact, I've been trying to find an appropriate test.

If continued analysis of JE readings continues to show evidence of cold reading, will you simply fall back to your bizarre and, as yet, unexplained, claim?

That will be evidence against JE's being able to get messages from the dead. I'm all for an appropriate analysis. I'd think that the real question is are all of the high frequency letters used more frequently by JE? What if J is significant, but the rest aren't? That wouldn't really be strong evidence for JE cold reading. JE's cold reads, oh, but only with the letter J. Feel free to prove me wrong and publish your work, perferably in a reputable journal. I'll keep my eyes out for it.

I conclude from your bizarre claim about the necessity for exhaustive testing, that the years of statistical training you claim were for naught. You cannot understand the methods of statistical inference and stand by the claimed need to test each person before you state there are no superpowers. You need to explain this.

I'll have to contact my profs., employer, and clients right away and inform them of your startling discovery. Talk about "bizarre claims".

You will now be ignored for being off topic and getting personal when it is really about certain statistical analysis.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I have what may be a stupid question regarding the stats on letters or names beginning with certain common letters (e.g. J names).

If J, for example, is so commonly used , some are saying that this is why JE uses Js or J names more often in a cold reading gambit compared to say Xs or Zs. Is this correct? Is this the premise?

But exactly because a J or J-name is more common than a X or a Z name, isn't this a rationale for a medium, e.g. JE, to get such names? Don't the dead have the same statistical profiles when it comes to J names as everyone? I have heard the argument that mediums get commonly known things but perhaps it is precisely because they are common. And of course I have heard the speculative argument that they get less common or extremely rare things by guessing and dumb luck. Doesn't the former make statistical and scientific sense and the latter has no scientific basis whatsoever?

So perhaps common things should be mooted and rare things be counted? Oh, but no, then we can fall back on the dumb luck guessing scenario. This is why a compendium of common and rare items, for a single sitter, is often the validating scenario rather than singling out and weighing such items as oners.
Won't the probabilities for a series of facts, some common, some rare, exceed chance if they are correct and fall below chance if they are not?

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

I have a very hard time understanding what you mean. You seem to be changing your mind about this.

An example:

I have no special knowledge. I only have O'Neill's statement as reported by Randi from O'Neill's e-mail.

Yet, you know how the editors have examined the tapings:

CO was able to find the raw footage and program segment O'Neill was on and they carefully examined the aired segment and plotted the responses O'Neill gave against the information JE provided. They found no evidence that editing turned a inaccurate JE-provided piece of info into a true one so they denied this allegation in its entirety. But, in the end, as they commented to Jaroff, they really dont care and would not get bogged down in this.

And, you had this to say earlier:

"Questions for Clancie"
Posted by SteveGrenard on 06-12-2003 09:39 PM:
His only legitimate gripe, which he would know best is because the reading was for him: that the reading was edited to take out a head nod which was negative and replace it (not clear) with nothing or a yes head nod.
Since we have no details we can't even talk about that.

So, was there evidence of the meaning of a nod being changed or not?
Do you have special knowledge or not?

I also have great difficulty sorting out what you mean about the validity of O'Neill's complaint:

(They allegedly got the head nod from a different response which was a positive response)

You reinforce this with:

"Taken in by John Edward"
Posted by SteveGrenard on 06-27-2003 06:47 PM:
Oh, and yes, when the editors patched together the footage from 6 to 8 camera angles they placed a head nod in the wrong place in a reading, an act by the way which was easy to verify and was verified by CO, after inspecting the footage, as NOT being true.

However, you had this to say earlier:

"No general seating at John Edward Seminars"
Posted by SteveGrenard on 05-28-2003 01:12 PM:
There are no assertions in that article that make any sense or which do not contradict each other EXCEPT for the head nod complaint. I, for one, conceded way above that this was the only thing O'Neill was probably right about.

So, how can you concede that O'Neill was probably right about the head nod complaint, when you also say that the editors did not place a head nod in the wrong place in a reading? Those two contradict each other.

 

[SteveGrenard]

No, I am NOT saying O'Neill was wrong about the head nod. I am saying I don't know. How could "I" know if he was right or wrong? I have no special knowledge regarding the head nod.


I am, however, reporting that Crossing Over, the producers,
after subjecting the footage to careful scrutiny are saying he was wrong. The fact that O'Neill has not responded to this nor anything else concerning this, leaves the ball in his court.
I think by now all of us concerned with the O'Neill saga would love to hear what this nod was about in terms of the question or JE-provided info which is alleged to have been rejected but made to look like it was accepted. If it was some undisputable fact like his garndma's name or his father's car or favorite pasttime or whatever, then that would be the smoking gun needed to confirm CO is edited for content. But di we have this info? No. We have silence, and while ignorance may be bliss for some of us, its not the case around here.

.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Steve Grenard

I have what may be a stupid question regarding the stats on letters or names beginning with certain common letters (e.g. J names).

If J, for example, is so commonly used , some are saying that this is why JE uses Js or J names more often in a cold reading gambit compared to say Xs or Zs. Is this correct? Is this the premise?

Steve,

Yes, I'd like to understand what the argument is, too.

And I hope someone can clearly state what they're trying to show about cold reading by using (only) "J" from 78 choices. It seems the idea is that JE uses it more frequently than you would expect from how often it appears in the general population. (And what population is it being compared with now? Is it still that list from the U.K.?)

Also, I know Lurker answered my question, but I didn't understand the answer. If JE gets "J" names more frequently than would be expected and if, hypothetically, each and everyone of them is highly significant for the sitters how does that support the cold reading hypothesis?

I mean, suppose JE is a real medium who, because his own name starts with "J", finds it easier to identify spirit names starting with "J". And if he gets 100 names and 80 of them are "J" names--every single one of them important and significant for the sitter--how does that support cold reading? (hypothetically).

And shouldn't the population sample be large enough that all intials/names could be statistically calculated from the same sample? Somehow, that just seems like a better idea, for comparison purposes. "78"?

If you can't show relevant patterns for other letters, too, maybe results for "J" would just be a fluke. Wouldn't someone naturally want to look at other letters as well?

But, ultimately, I just don't see why this supports cold reading.

 

[SteveGrenard]

C:So, how can you concede that O'Neill was probably right about the head nod complaint, when you also say that the editors did not place a head nod in the wrong place in a reading? Those two contradict each other.


I should have said that I conceded that this is the only thing he COULD have been right about. All his other gripes were subject to sucessful disputation. In the absence of the tape and the facts ourselves, only O'Neill (or his family/friends) could, for example, tell us if the head nod to make something look confirmed was in fact in response to something that was not true. I have no special knowledge of O'Neill's family, I did not see the aired segment in question myself, neither did Randi, Shermer or
Jaroff (or they would've said so but then why ruin a good story),
but if I had to pick out anything from all the claptrap about hidden mics, vanloads of ringers and staff taking copious mental notes and tracking people to their seats so they can be called on during the taping by JE armed with those notes, we would have to dismiss all of it save for his statement about the head nod as being the only thing about which ONeill should have certain knowledge. The fact that he has not shared that with us or with what Randi released, makes it unresolved and, at this point, ostensibly moot.

Its just not a good story as it presently stands.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I am NOT saying O'Neill was wrong about the head nod. I am saying I don't know. How could "I" know if he was right or wrong? I have no special knowledge regarding the head nod.

I am, however, reporting that Crossing Over, the producers, after subjecting the footage to careful scrutiny are saying he was wrong. The fact that O'Neill has not responded to this nor anything else concerning this, leaves the ball in his court.

Your explanation stinks, Steve. You are changing your mind, depending on the circumstances. You claim inside information, then you don't know any more than the rest of us. You hold opposite views, yet denies this.

How did you get this information about the producers going through the tapes? That's not "special knowledge"?

I think by now all of us concerned with the O'Neill saga would love to hear what this nod was about in terms of the question or JE-provided info which is alleged to have been rejected but made to look like it was accepted. If it was some undisputable fact like his garndma's name or his father's car or favorite pasttime or whatever, then that would be the smoking gun needed to confirm CO is edited for content. But di we have this info? No. We have silence, and while ignorance may be bliss for some of us, its not the case around here.

You got that right. The fact that you choose to ignore an anecdote that says JE is a fake but choose to believe the anecdotes that say he is not says a lot about your ability to discern reality from fantasy and wishful thinking.