The "Process" of John Edward

[Clancie]

Claus,

Take out your copy of "Crossing Over". In it, JE talks about how the producers looked into O'Neill's allegation after the Jaroff article came out.

Steve didn't say he accepted every word of the producers. He made the valid point that O'Neill could provide details of what exactly is the alleged hit (or alleged miss) that he claims was supposedly misrepresented in the CO broadcast.

However, as Steve noted, O'Neill hasn't given any specifics about the alleged misleading editing at all.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Walt,

I agree with your description of cold reading. But I'm a little perplexed at your request. Exactly that analysis is what we're talking about. No hits or misses, just frequencies of initials guesse versus their frequencies in the population at large.

Cheers,

Bill,

Don't worry about my question. I submitted this just before heading out, and while walking to the theatre I realized I answer my own question in the last paragraph (and it had already been answered elsewhere - stupid moment by me).

I do have one question? Given that the US census may not be an accurate demographic of a JE audience, how sensitive is the p value to variation in the distribution of J's? Suppose J frequency in his audience demographic was 1 or 2% higher, what happens to p?

I expect very little variation but I'm not entirely sure.

Walt

 

[SteveGrenard]

larsen:

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.

Anecdotes are valid only when there are a lot of them and the facts they support provide weight. Take case histories of infectious diseases as an example. They are all anecdotes but if there are hundreds or thousands of them, health authorities sit up and take notice. A single case or a few cases are not as worrisome except perhaps as harbingers. The same is true of mediumship, reicncarnation case, NDEs, mediumship sessions, telepathy/ESP trials. There are tens of thousands of positive examples and almost no evidence to refute them other than worldview and bias not that I expect anyone with a contrarian worldview needs to prove a negative. I have always gone along with that.

Keep in mind that the O'Neill account was, at the time released, the only case of its kind and up to now there are perhaps one other as well of people such as Underdown who were out to investigate and debunk JE. Even this differs from O'Neill which if we are to believe Randi (and there is no reason not to) that this was a spontaneous case of a random chance attendance at a CO taping where a sitter had one and only one possibly valid objection regarding a head nod. Out of the thousands of people JE has read this is the only one. It has no weight whatsoever.
Secondly, I was, am and no doubt will continue to be personally skeptical of JE as an individual so don't presume to tell me what I accept or don't accept. However, I am not skeptical of other mediums and you know about that. Nor has anyone who has had an encounter with such mediums. Unfortunately you will not open yourself up to such an encounter, either personally or when it was handed to you on a silver platter all expenses paid.
Your loss.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

You gotta be kidding.

You choose to discard O'Neill's account, only from speculation and because O'Neill is critical of JE.

You choose to believe what John Edward says about an investigation that could possibly be damaging to his own reputation as a real medium.

How can you be so biased in favor of JE being a real medium and still refer to yourself as a non-believer? You cannot possibly argue that you are considering the data from an unbiased viewpoint.

Oh, you "forgot" a few:

• Did O'Neill say the reading was good?
• What reasons do you have to doubt O'Neill's account, other that it being critical of JE?
• Isn't O'Neill's reaction what we could expect from an average Joe?
• How do you know what was in O'Neill's email?
• How do you know that O'Neill said he didn't have any preconceived notions about JE?
• 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?

I'm just nipping this in the bud, Clancie, so you won't have to be "hounded" with these questions.

So, please either:

• address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
• state that you refuse to answer.

 

[CFLarsen]

Anecdotes are valid only when there are a lot of them and the facts they support provide weight. Take case histories of infectious diseases as an example. They are all anecdotes but if there are hundreds or thousands of them, health authorities sit up and take notice. A single case or a few cases are not as worrisome except perhaps as harbingers. The same is true of mediumship, reicncarnation case, NDEs, mediumship sessions, telepathy/ESP trials. There are tens of thousands of positive examples and almost no evidence to refute them other than worldview and bias not that I expect anyone with a contrarian worldview needs to prove a negative. I have always gone along with that.

Steve, there are also hundred or thousands of anecdotes that UFO abductions are real. That satanic cults are sacrificing babies. That people can walk through walls. Any paranormal belief could easily round up many, many anecdotes.

Do you think that UFO abductions are real, Steve? That satanic cults are sacrificing babies?

Keep in mind that the O'Neill account was, at the time released, the only case of its kind and up to now there are perhaps one other as well of people such as Underdown who were out to investigate and debunk JE. Even this differs from O'Neill which if we are to believe Randi (and there is no reason not to) that this was a spontaneous case of a random chance attendance at a CO taping where a sitter had one and only one possibly valid objection regarding a head nod. Out of the thousands of people JE has read this is the only one. It has no weight whatsoever.

Why are you leaving out Instig8r, Jeff Corey and the others you know have been to JE performances and are critical of him? You are aware of these, yet you "choose" to ignore them.

Secondly, I was, am and no doubt will continue to be personally skeptical of JE as an individual so don't presume to tell me what I accept or don't accept. However, I am not skeptical of other mediums and you know about that. Nor has anyone who has had an encounter with such mediums.

This is not correct. It's a flat-out lie, Steve.

Unfortunately you will not open yourself up to such an encounter, either personally or when it was handed to you on a silver platter all expenses paid. Your loss.

Strange that you "forgot" to include the little fact that I had to give up my personal info to get there.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Strange that you "forgot" to include the little fact that I had to give up my personal info to get there.

What your name? Claus Larsen on a plane ticket, Now that you are back in Denmark, tell me how many Claus Larsen's live there and in the rest of the world? You think your name makes you unique? Claus Larsen is almost John Smith for a Scandinavian.
Put your name into Google. I did. You'll get 73,000 hits.

Also this was when you were using a fake screen name, Cantata, for whatever reason and you were accusing me of being anonymous by using my real first initial and last name which you do here (CFLarsen). So what if you had to give out your name? We could have discounted or mooted any info you got related to name or nationality. There would still have been other areas to validate or discard.

I did not leave out Inst8r or Jeff Corey. These two and no doubt many others did not randomly get a chance to attend a taping of CO (as O'Neill was). They bought tickets to pubic peformances. They were highly skeptical beforehand. They were in the class I cited as Underdown so they were not forgotten. This is a lie.
Please retract this lie immediately.

 

[Lucianarchy]

That satanic cults are sacrificing babies?

"What I can say is I now believe that ritual-abuse programming is widespread, is systematic, is very organized from highly esoteric information which is published nowhere, has not been on any book or talk show, that we have found all around this country and at least one foreign country."
http://mentalhealth.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.heart7.net/green.html

Herein is the lecture by D.C.Hammond, originally entitled "Hypnosis in MPD: Ritual Abuse," but now usually known as the "Greenbaum Speech," delivered at the Fourth Annual Eastern Regional Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality, Thursday June 25, 1992, at the Radisson Plaza Hotel, Mark Center, Alexandria, Virginia. Sponsored by the Center for Abuse Recovery & Empowerment, The Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C. Both a tape and a transcript were at one time available from Audio Transcripts of Alexandria, Virginia (800-338-2111). Tapes and transcripts of other sessions from the conference are still being sold but -- understandably -- not this one. The transcript below was made from a privately made tape of the original lecture.
The single most remarkable thing about this speech is how little one has heard of it in the years since its original delivery. It is recommended that one reads far enough at least until one finds why it's called "the Greenbaum speech."
In the introduction the following background information is given for D. Corydon Hammond:

B.S. M.S. Ph.D (Counseling Psychology) from the University of Utah
Diplomate in Clinical Hypnosis, the American Board of Psychological Hypnosis
Diplomate in Sex Therapy, the American Board of Sexology
Clinical Supervisor and Board Examiner, American Board of Sexology
Diplomate in Marital and Sex Therapy, American Board of Family Psychology
Licensed Psychologist, Licensed Marital Therapist, Licensed Family Therapist, State of Utah
Research Associate Professor of Physical Medicine an Rehabilitation, Utah School of Medicine
Director and Founder of the Sex and Marital Therapy Clinic, University of Utah.
Adjunct Associate Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Utah
Abstract Editor, The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis
Advising Editor and Founding Member, Editorial Board, The Ericsonian Monograph
Referee, The Journal of Abnormal Psychology
1989 Presidential Award of Merit, American Society of Clinical Hypnosis
1990 Urban Sector Award, American Society of Clinical Hypnosis
Current [now Past] President, American Society of Clinical Hypnosis

http://mentalhealth.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.heart7.net/green.html

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

If you could stick to the truth, instead of trying to change reality, it would so much more productive.

• First, the "offer" was before I moved back to Denmark.
• Second, travelling under a false name after 9-11 would have severe consequences for me, especially since I was not an American citizen.
• Third, Claus Larsen is not the "John Smith" for a Scandinavian. You either lie or speak from ignorance.
• Fourth, you did initiate an anonymous smear email spam campaign against JREF, based on your prudish attempts at silencing your critics.
• Fifth, giving out my name is only the first step of finding information about me. You know this is very possible, yet you ignore it.
• Sixth, you did leave out Instig8r and Jeff Corey. Don't lie, Steve. I didn't. You shouldn't either.

If you have anything to complain about, e.g. smearing your name, I urge you to contact the moderators, whose verdict I will most certainly comply with.

Go ahead. I called you a liar. If you do not take action against this, you should realize that people will see this as an acknowledgment that I was right.

 

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

Please give one confirmed source of a satanic cult sacrificing a baby.

 

[SteveGrenard]

As usual you are avoiding the issue of using your name to get on a plane to see a medium, an offer which was made to you. You ignore the fact info related just to that name could be mooted. You ignore the fact that there are many thousands of Claus Larsens, including no doubt many hundreds just in the U.S. You think that any medium using a computer could get your parent's names, your grandparent's names and other highly personal information, especially emanating from a foreign country (Denmark) and expect us to believe if he did so, he would do it by researching your not very unique name on the internet? You are more paranoid than I thought but I dont think its paranoia, I think you were afraid that you would have to face the truth that there may be something to mediumship which you might find impossible to explain. Is this right? I am sure if you wanted to you could get referrals to mediums in Denmark and see one anonymously.

I answered the question re Corey and Inst8r. Go back and read that answer. They do not compare with O'Neill. O'Neill, we are told by Jaroff and which you insist is true, had no preconceived notions. Are you saying that persons who are members of NYASK do not have preconceived notions? Are you saying Corey and Inst8r randomly got chance tickets to attend a CO taping? If
so, you are mistaken. They did not. Therefore you lied. You took their presence at fee paid seminars to be the same as O'Neill's accidental presence at a non-fee CO taping. Very different indeed.
Try and be as much a stickler for literal interpretations as you are when they suit your biases and convenience. So, please retract your lie concerning this.

 

[BillHoyt]

Hoyt is fond of using the cargo cult card which was thought up by Richard Feynman in a commencement address at CalTech back in 1974.

Its on the web for anyone interested:

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

It was "thought up" by the natives of New Guinea. Reports go back at least as far as Jens Bjerre's 1956 writings.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

You know very well how easy it is to find information about people online. I am not paranoid, I am simply aware of how easy it is.

Do you want to know how easy it is? I got your name, address, phone number, interests, a lot of personal info about you. You want to talk about sleep apnea or reptiles, Steve? You want to talk about selling real estate almost three years ago in Staten Island, high ranch, 8 rooms plus garage, 100 X 50+, detached, Steve? Or your call for people "who have psychic abilities who work professionally or paraprofessionally as mediums, psychics or remote viewers and who wish to help find missing persons and solve other heinous crimes"?

Dang, Steve, your whole life is out there, ready to be plucked by an unscrupulous cold reader. Just thank your deity that I am not one.

If you have anything to complain about, e.g. smearing your name, I urge you to contact the moderators, whose verdict I will most certainly comply with.

Go ahead. I called you a liar. If you do not take action against this, you should realize that people will see this as an acknowledgment that I was right.

This is the second time I urge you to do this.

 

[BillHoyt]

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

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. [/B]

Clancie,

Are you not a native speaker of English? I never said anything approximating what you say here. YOU are the one who said O'Neill had a preconceived worldview. I have offered contrary information. You have offered.. oh, yeah.. squat.

 

[BillHoyt]

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?

We don't care about wading through the nonsense associated with JE's hit claims. He claims he is getting real information from real dead folk These dead folk should be calling out names that match the names of real folk, dead or alive. Therefore we should see a distribution of initials that match with initials fo real folk, dead or alive. Therefore, seeing JE call out too many of the most frequent initial says we must reject the null hypothesis that the names he calls correspond with the distribution of real names.

 

[BillHoyt]

I do have one question? Given that the US census may not be an accurate demographic of a JE audience, how sensitive is the p value to variation in the distribution of J's? Suppose J frequency in his audience demographic was 1 or 2% higher, what happens to p?

I expect very little variation but I'm not entirely sure.

Walt

I don't know how accurately JE's audience reflects the U.S. population at large. But concern for this is one thing that motivated people here to get U.S census figures for control.

Cheers,

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

YOU (Clancie) are the one who said O'Neill had a preconceived worldview. I have offered contrary information. You have offered.. oh, yeah.. squat.

Actually, I used O'Neill's comments about hot reading in support of my point (and the total absence of any comments from O'Neill criticizing the evidential information that JE gave him).

For your part, you keep mentioning....Jaroff (a man who never even talked with O'Neill) claiming....stating as a fact (without a shred of support)....that O'Neill had --in Jaroff's words--"no preconceived ideas".

And what makes you think Jaroff was qualified to claim such a thing about a man he'd never even communicated with, Bill? You keep stating it as if it's supposed to show us something. It shows, in your words to me, ....squat.

And, Bill, I hope you're not going to "overlook" the questions about your numbers for the 1998 LKL reading. I find them very...puzzling...to say the least!

 

[BillHoyt]

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?[/b]

No. Try reading the posts.

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).

I didn't use the same set Kerberos used. I used transcripts renata posted here at JREF. I specifically left out any heavily edited CO stuff. Read the posts on this thread.

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.

Yeah. Interesting how you make an assumption and then build it up! Try reading the posts.

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).

Obviously one? And a guess of "a C or a K name" is obviously, what? How about "an Ellen or Helen?" Now what? I posted my counting rules earlier in this thread. Try reading them.

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

Tally them again after reading the whys and wherefores of my counting rules.

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.

Oh, wow, thanks for the newsflash about not counting a transcript over. I would never have thought of that.

One last time, before you make a fool of yourself: read my posts. They outline what I counted, how I counted and why.

 

[Clancie]

Claus,

In addition to not being at a taping of CO, another difference between Instig8r and Jeff vis a vis O'Neill is....that neither Instig8r nor Jeff Corey received a reading from JE.

O'Neill did get a reading, and his lack of critical comment about the content of it (and instead spending time trying to think of ways JE could have cheated to get the information he brought through for him), to me, speaks volumes.

 

[Instig8R]

Claus,

In addition to not being at a taping of CO, another difference between Instig8r and Jeff vis a vis O'Neill is....that neither Instig8r nor Jeff Corey received a reading from JE.

Actually, Clancie, I did attend a taping of CO. The seminar at Westbury Music Fair was videotaped, heavily edited, and then broadcast on television.

And, I guess I can also claim that I received a reading, although in a roundabout sort of way. The "Malibu Shrimp" reading, as performed live at Westbury, did not suit me at all. However, the edited version fit me like a glove.

Go figure!

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Instig8r

Actually, Clancie, I did attend a taping of CO. The seminar at Westbury Music Fair was videotaped, heavily edited, and then broadcast on television.

Well......I think a seminar of 2000 people taped and edited for broadcast is a bit different from a CO taping with an audience of 200...but I understand your point.

And, I guess I can also claim that I received a reading, although in a roundabout sort of way. The "Malibu Shrimp" reading, as performed live at Westbury, did not suit me at all. However, the edited version fit me like a glove.

Mmmm.....Not quite your own reading like O'Neill got, g8r. Sorry. But you ARE the acknowledged "Queen of the 'Me-Toos"!