Unedited John Edward Transcripts

[BNiles]

Re: Re: Unedited John Edward Transcripts

I've never been to a "CO" taping, and I never taped any of the seminars I've gone to, although I sure wish I had a copy of the half-reading that I got in Philadelphia last Fall.

What exactly is a "half-reading"?

 

[FutileJester]

And, TLN, I agree with you on observer bias. I think skeptics, just like believers exhibit it.

Worth repeating. Accepting that everyone exhibits bias, even ourselves, is necessary to true skepticism. That's why so many mechanisms of science are geared towards reducing the effect of observer bias.

 

[Instig8R]

Observer Bias

Originally posted by TLN
Just for clarity neo, I don't trust skeptics anymore than I do believers on this issue. I need a recording or transcripts made from one. Otherwise the bias of the observers creeps in.

Some of you went to the same seminars and guess what? The believers bought (some of) it and the skeptics didn't. What a surprise.

Just so you don't think I'm bashing believers, I don't trust skeptics either.

Hi, TLN-- I do not dispute that our respective biases can taint our perceptions. However, with respect to the Westbury seminar that neo and I both attended last year, observer bias was not a factor... until after neo saw the edited televised reading several months after the seminar.

The following illustrates one element of the controversy:

1. neo and I both attended the same seminar on May 7, 2002 at Westbury, NY. She wrote her recollection of the Malibu Shrimp reading, which was essentially the same as my recollection.

2. neo and I both agreed that there was a very lengthy interrogation of the sitter, Deborah, regarding a secret recipe.

3. Our only difference of opinion was that I felt that JE pressured Deborah (the sitter) into a false validation (i.e., that she had stolen a secret recipe from her mom). Neo felt that my theory was nonsense, and argued vehemently that there was no false validation by the sitter -- She insisted that JE was right about the recipe being stolen.

Several months later, when the reading was edited for broadcast on TV, there were major revisions. The most significant editing was the removal of most of the lengthy interrogation. Previously, it was the focal point of the reading. After editing, it had little (if any) significance. We then learned, in the post-reading segment, that the recipe was "secret" because it contained dirty claims, and not because Deborah had stolen the recipe from her mom.

After the edited version of the Malibu Shrimp reading was broadcast on TV, I complained that it had been tampered with in a significant way. It no longer matched the reading that neo and I saw at Westbury. At this point, however, neo altered her recollections, in order to defend the edited reading. She continues to defend the edited version, contradicting her earlier written account of what transpired at the seminar.

Therefore, neo is not contradicting my version of the Malibu Shrimp reading that we both saw at Westbury -- she is contradicting her own earlier version of it. Until it was edited for TV, we agreed upon the content.

In essence, neo has revised her own version of what transpired in the Malibu Shrimp reading, in order to conform with the later edited version.

Perhaps I should start a thread with her pre-editing and post-editing comments. It will show that this is not a case of believer-bias -vs- skeptic-bias. This is a case of neo -vs- neo, merely altering her memory to accommodate her belief in JE, even if it flies in the face of the truth.

Is it still "observer bias" when the same observer contradicts herself?

 

[renata]

Re: Observer Bias

Perhaps I should start a thread with her pre-editing and post-editing comments. It will show that this is not a case of believer-bias -vs- skeptic-bias. This is a case of neo -vs- neo, merely altering her memory to accommodate her belief in JE, even if it flies in the fact of the truth.

Is it still "observer bias" when the same observer contradicts herself?

Instig8R, In this thread, http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27500&pagenumber=3 I mentioned your experience because neo was quite angry at the suggestion that believers ignore dishonest editing.

I also explained that one of the reasons I cannot accept her evidence of her conversations of people who were read at CO and who claimed that readings were just "shorter" is because I have seen her apply different standards of evidence based on what results she finds. Most glaring was the LKL readings- poor readings, were useless "snippets" one good hit with cigarettes was spirit communication. I also used your claim that Neo changed her recollection of the seminar.

Neo responded on page 4 of that thread to what I think your beliefs are on this. She says the changes were small and unimportant, JE got great hits, the sitter was happy, and you have skeptic bias. And, she says she is done addressing this issue.


Well, although in the past I was accused of butting in between friends, I am sorry if I am doing it again. Here we have Neo saying skeptics cannot evaluate whether there is editing and quality of the readings, because we did not attend seminars. Here is a skeptic who attended a seminar who testifies to editing, and apparently has proof that there was editing, due to notes taken after the seminar. And it is still not good enough. Maybe not a thread, but can you respond to Neo's post in that other thread and put this issue to bed once and for all?

Here are my questions, just to begin with
-of the seminar readindgs, how many were televised for CO
-how extensive was the editing?
-how did the seminar readings compare to LKL or CO? What were they closer to?
-were you allowed to bring an audio recorder in?

 

[Instig8R]

Neo responded on page 4 of that thread to what I think your beliefs are on this. She says the changes were small and unimportant, JE got great hits, the sitter was happy, and you have skeptic bias. And, she says she is done addressing this issue.

Hi, renata-- In the Malibu Shrimp reading, the editing was very significant and it affected the entire reading. Much of the subtle editing merely removed information conveyed by the sitter to JE, which later formed the basis of what few hits he got. The more blatant editing was done to remove the appearance of some major blunders that JE made. In its original form, the reading stunk to high heaven. In its edited form, it was made to resemble a typical gallery reading on CO.

Fortunately, neo wrote about the Malibu Shrimp reading over at TVT before she saw it edited for television. It confirms my own recollection of the seminar, and not the edited version on TV.

Well, although in the past I was accused of butting in between friends, I am sorry if I am doing it again. Here we have Neo saying skeptics cannot evaluate whether there is editing and quality of the readings, because we did not attend seminars. Here is a skeptic who attended a seminar who testifies to editing, and apparently has proof that there was editing, due to notes taken after the seminar. And it is still not good enough. Maybe not a thread, but can you respond to Neo's post in that other thread and put this issue to bed once and for all?

I don't believe in personalizing arguments in debate. I don't like the fact that you were criticized for speaking your mind, especially when you did not express yourself in an offensive or belligerent way. IMO, there is no need to censor yourself. We are all adults here... I hope!

Originally posted by renata
Here are my questions, just to begin with
-of the seminar readindgs, how many were televised for CO
-how extensive was the editing?
-how did the seminar readings compare to LKL or CO? What were they closer to?
-were you allowed to bring an audio recorder in?

Here are my answers:

-of the seminar readings, several were televised for CO. The two that I have seen were "Malibu Shrimp" and "Girls Gone Wild".

-how extensive was the editing: The "Malibu Shrimp" reading was drastically edited, but the "Girls Gone Wild" reading was not significantly edited. (It was a reading of 4 sisters whose mom died of ovarian cancer -- although JE incorrectly called out for breast cancer, he allowed them to claim the reading.)

-seminar readings compared to LKL or CO: The Malibu Shrimp reading prior to editing was very comparable to a LKL reading (if not worse). The Girls Gone Wild reading was very comparable to a big family reading in the CO Gallery, because JE had lots of sisters to claim initials, significant dates, etc.

-No audio recorders could be brought into the seminar -- There were actually handbag searches -- and the audio quality would not have been good anyway.

 

[neofight]

Re: Re: Observer Bias

.....I also used your claim that Neo changed her recollection of the seminar.

Neo responded on page 4 of that thread to what I think your beliefs are on this. She says the changes were small and unimportant, JE got great hits, the sitter was happy, and you have skeptic bias. And, she says she is done addressing this issue.

Renata, you're right, I did say I was done addressing the "Malibu Shrimp" reading. Neither Instig8R nor myself took notes at this seminar. If Instig8R has notes, she made them hours later, because we didn't go straight home after the seminar, but stopped for coffee afterwards with myself and another friend.

What I would challenge in Instig8R's post, however, is her assertion that I changed my recollectioin of the seminar. I would just say that my "recollection" of the Malibu Shrimp reading is just fine.

It's not that I do not remember the reading, it's that I disagree with Instig8R about the significance of JE's interpretation of "why" this recipe was "secret". He already knew that the spirit wanted him to mention a secret fish or shrimp sauce recipe, so that was very much a hit. The secret recipe did in fact exist, and was something that the two friends did come up with together while on vacation.

He went on to say that he thought that Deborah's mother, also passed, was teasing her, and saying that this recipe was not really her daughter's and her friend's, but was based on one of her own recipes.

Now, here's where Instig8R's point of contention arises. JE was asking Deborah to validate what he said he was getting from her mom, i.e. that the recipe was based on one of her mom's recipes.

Naturally, Deborah knew that the recipe was a secret because she and her friend didn't want to tell their dinner guests that they had used questionable clams in the dish, so she wasn't validating what John was saying until he asked her, (paraphrasing) 'if this were a court of law, and I asked you whether or not you had based this recipe upon one of your mother's recipes, and you had to answer either "yes" or "no", what would you say?' To which she just smiled, and said simply, "yes". And John said, "I rest my case".

This is pretty much why Instig8R has a problem with this reading. She places a lot of importance upon the fact that John thought it was secret for one reason, when in reality it was secret for another reason. She feels that this changes everything. I feel that it's insignificant, mainly because it is entirely possible that Deborah did base her special recipe on something her mother used to make, but that was not the reason for the secrecy.

I find this to be a very trivial point, and don't feel that it should render the entire reading invalid or tampered with as Instig8R does. I think it's called, "Making a mountain out of a molehill" actually, but that's just my own opinion.

And now I swear that I have addressed this reading for the last time. And I really mean it this time! ......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

neo,

It's not about how significant it was to the reading, but about whether or not you changed your opinion, based on what you saw on TV.

You don't have to spend a lot of time addressing this issue, it's a very simple question:

Was the recipe stolen? Just "Yes" or "No".

It could not be more simple.

 

[Instig8R]

-snip-

Naturally, Deborah knew that the recipe was a secret because she and her friend didn't want to tell their dinner guests that they had used questionable clams in the dish, so she wasn't validating what John was saying until he asked her, (paraphrasing) 'if this were a court of law, and I asked you whether or not you had based this recipe upon one of your mother's recipes, and you had to answer either "yes" or "no", what would you say?' To which she just smiled, and said simply, "yes". And John said, "I rest my case".

The interrogation was the highlight of the reading. JE did not merely ask once or twice if Deborah's mom contributed to the recipe. He said that mom was there. He really hammed it up for the audience. He spoke to Deborah like she was a willful, disobedient child, caught with her hand in the cookie jar. In fact, neo herself wrote that she she could actually see the moment when JE was being let in on another secret.

JE made it clear that he was acting on information directly from mom, and he was a man on a mission, with arms folded and foot tapping like a stern parent. Then he switched gears into his prosecutor-mode.

JE's accusation that Deborah stole the recipe from her mother was probably one of the few definite statements he made at the Westbury seminar -- and he was dead wrong about it, and that is why the whole segment was edited out of the televised version of the reading.

This is pretty much why Instig8R has a problem with this reading. She places a lot of importance upon the fact that John thought it was secret for one reason, when in reality it was secret for another reason. She feels that this changes everything. I feel that it's insignificant, mainly because it is entirely possible that Deborah did base her special recipe on something her mother used to make, but that was not the reason for the secrecy.

Actually, I have various other problems with the reading. The only reason that I emphasize the "secret recipe" portion is because I can actually use neo's own comments to verify some of the drastic editing that was done to make this awful reading into something that could be broadcast on TV.

The editing did change the focus of the reading. It also showed JE claiming to have some very definite, precise messages from Deborah's friend and mother. He played this aspect up to the hilt, and then left it all out of the televised version. I believe this had to be done because JE was wrong, and it made him look really bad to coerce a false validation out of Deborah.

This editing also demonstrated that sitters may not always be telling the truth, because JE can manipulate and intimidate them into false validations. The bullying is simply edited out of the reading, and the sitter is too embarrassed or is not given the option to recant in the post-reading segment.

Even though JE will sometimes claim that he may not be interpreting messages correctly, that was not the case in the Malibu Shrimp reading. He was definite, he was aggressive, he was intimidating... and he forced a false validation out of Deborah.

I find this to be a very trivial point, and don't feel that it should render the entire reading invalid or tampered with as Instig8R does. I think it's called, "Making a mountain out of a molehill" actually, but that's just my own opinion.

The tampering with the "recipe" part of the reading is only the tip of the iceberg. The entire reading was monkeyed around with, to make JE appear better than he was.

I focus on the recipe, not to make a "mountain out of a molehill". I focus on the recipe because it is the part of the original reading that neo wrote about before it was edited for television. This serves as verification that it actually occurred, and serves as an example as to the type of editing that takes place.

And now I swear that I have addressed this reading for the last time. And I really mean it this time! ......neo

I never tire of discussing this reading. It gave me great insight into "the process" of JE.

 

[RC]

Neo, I will accept that you don't think the details about the stolen recipe are that important, but then I simply can't accept how you brush off IR's old calendar hit. Either details are important, or they aren't, in my opinion.

 

[Clancie]

Just for the record, here's the part of IR's reading about the calendar (from the transcript neo posted about it at TVT):

Ian Rowland

If I come in to your home door -- would I see a calendar or a wall chart with nothing to do with the current year? It's actually out of date.


Woman:

(very emotional) She gave me a fabric calendar. I still have it.

[note from neo: Who? Possibly her grandma, but it was cut out].


Rowland:

And she made that for you. Okay.


Woman

She GAVE it to me.


Rowland

All Right. I won't go any further with that, but you still have it, don't you?


Woman:

I have it in my hope chest.

Anyway, that's the whole thing about the calendar. Sorry, RC, but after re-reading it, I don't see anything much in this at all. Ian didn't say it was a fabric calendar, didn't say it was in the chest. All he said was it was out of date.

He was wrong that it was made speciially for her.

All he says, essentially, is "somewhere in your house you have an out of date calendar" which, he admits, he often guesses for people just because its so common for people to have one.

He got lucky in doing this because the woman herself described a special calendar to him, so, yes, it showed how an extremely mundane "hit" can be fleshed out by the sitter and therein be given a meaning by the sitter that the "medium" didn't really contribute to it at all. That's a good point about "sitter buy in" and how it can help out a not very exceptional cold reading.

But other than illustrating that point about sitters, I have to agree with neo that IR's "hit" itself was nothing special.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Again, we see this "versatile" attitude towards anything from cold readers. Now, we are supposed to forget that if the sitter validates, it is a hit.

The woman was in tears, Clancie. She acknowledged it was for her. She validated the hit. Therefore, according to the "process" of JE, it is a hit.

Don't forget that the audience thought Rowland was a real psychic medium. They believed it, Clancie. That makes it real.

You also leave out that JE also gets info from the sitter and recycles it.

Of course, Rowland seems to have integrity and a conscience. He also had to reveal he was a fake, so he couldn't go too far.

If you see this as "nothing special", then you really should look again at what kind of hits JE gets.

 

[renata]

Hi, renata-- In the Malibu Shrimp reading, the editing was very significant and it affected the entire reading. Much of the subtle editing merely removed information conveyed by the sitter to JE, which later formed the basis of what few hits he got. The more blatant editing was done to remove the appearance of some major blunders that JE made. In its original form, the reading stunk to high heaven. In its edited form, it was made to resemble a typical gallery reading on CO.

That is what I understood, and that would explain some skeptical suspicions about CO editing.

Fortunately, neo wrote about the Malibu Shrimp reading over at TVT before she saw it edited for television. It confirms my own recollection of the seminar, and not the edited version on TV.

Given Neo's repeated denials, perhaps it is best after all if you posted that info, to settle this once and for all .

I don't believe in personalizing arguments in debate. I don't like the fact that you were criticized for speaking your mind, especially when you did not express yourself in an offensive or belligerent way. IMO, there is no need to censor yourself. We are all adults here... I hope!

Thanks for the support. I did not expect some passions this issue evoked! I guess I must be doing something right!

Here are my answers:

-of the seminar readings, several were televised for CO. The two that I have seen were "Malibu Shrimp" and "Girls Gone Wild".

-how extensive was the editing: The "Malibu Shrimp" reading was drastically edited, but the "Girls Gone Wild" reading was not significantly edited. (It was a reading of 4 sisters whose mom died of ovarian cancer -- although JE incorrectly called out for breast cancer, he allowed them to claim the reading.)

-seminar readings compared to LKL or CO: The Malibu Shrimp reading prior to editing was very comparable to a LKL reading (if not worse). The Girls Gone Wild reading was very comparable to a big family reading in the CO Gallery, because JE had lots of sisters to claim initials, significant dates, etc.

-No audio recorders could be brought into the seminar -- There were actually handbag searches -- and the audio quality would not have been good anyway.

Thanks for the valuable information. I was particularly interested in the handbag searches. Did they explain why audio recorders were not allowed?

Given that constraint, no transcripts from seminars are available. We know no unedited transcripts from CO are available(with the exception of Underdown, which I have not yet seen), so the only ones we have are LKL (I promise to finish the last 2 soon..I have been busy, and I cannot spend more than 30 minutes at them at a time, because I get a headache. Soon, I hope!) So I am not sure where someone can get an unedited transcript. I also am not sure why anyone would admonish an skeptic for not examining one, if JE makes them impossible to obtain! I am also amused that the same person who scolded TLN for not seeing a full length unedited JE transcript refused to look at the only ones that exist, LKL ones, because they were snippets.

 

[RC]

I'm with Claus on this one.

Clancie, I agree that the calendar hit isn't that great, but it's not my point.

I think there is a double standard in how JE's hits are evaluated/weighed compared to this hit by Ian Rowland.

Let's look at the most recent offering of a good hit by JE. He tossed out a date to a sitter, December 17th. The sitter told him that it was the day her dog was born, and *suddenly* JE started getting information about a dog (most of it just regurgitated from what the sitter was telling him).

I could say the same thing you've presented above. JE didn't know anything about a dog, didn't know the significance of the date, in fact didn't know diddly squat, just tossed out a date. Same with IR, didn't know where the calendar was, didn't know it was fabric, didn't know diddly squat.

They both tossed out something and it stuck.

Neo's argument about the Malibu Shrimp reading is that the details don't matter because it was obviously meaningful to the sitter. But that argument ends when looking at IR's reading in which details shouldn't matter because it was obviously meaningful to the sitter. After all, that's the mediumship process, as long as spirits get the medium to say something that makes immediate sense to the sitter.

 

[RC]

I just figured out why IR got the location of the calendar wrong.

Clearly the spirit was using his frame of reference to get him to spit out the very meaningful validation of an old calendar, given to the sitter by her loved one.

So the spirit, using IR's frame of reference, took IR to his own house where he probably has an old calendar on the wall.

IR just got confused about the location, which is understandable since spirit communication isn't exact and the mediumship process isn't perfect.

Isn't this similar to arguments used to explain JE's work?

 

[Darat]

I just figured out why IR got the location of the calendar wrong.

Clearly the spirit was using his frame of reference to get him to spit out the very meaningful validation of an old calendar, given to the sitter by her loved one.

So the spirit, using IR's frame of reference, took IR to his own house where he probably has an old calendar on the wall.

IR just got confused about the location, which is understandable since spirit communication isn't exact and the mediumship process isn't perfect.

Isn't this similar to arguments used to explain JE's work?

I'd say frighteningly so.... but sorry for being cynical I suspect Neo and Clancie will not agree that it is anything like how JE's "process" works...

 

[CFLarsen]

RC,

Not to be flippant, but do you think it is possible that you will come to a similar conclusion about Brian Hurst and Karen Lundegaard, if you investigate thoroughly enough?

If so, why don't you?

You may agree with me on JE, but I still think Dolly Parton sucks.

 

[Clancie]

Hi RC,

Well, if the best hit JE could get in 30 minutes was "If I come to your home door...there's a calendar or a wall chart that's out of date"...and the validation is that somewhere in the house the sitter has an old fabric calendar...well, I can honestly say I wouldn't be impressed.

As for the "dog's birthday", well, that's not a special hit, but I think coming up with a particular date that is significant to the sitter is more difficult (as your experiment here and at TVT illustrated) than saying, "Do you have an out of date calendar or chart?)

In the reading JE did with the Dec 17th date, this is what he also got for that woman (Lela). She doesn't validate until after he's said quite a few things...

paraphrased, summarized for "Lela"

*JE, (addressing a particular person in front of him): older female who's coming through who's claiming to be Mom,

*name like "Gloria" or something with a "G-L" sound (this one, the woman asks if it could be for her, last name "Gabrielli")

*mother figure passed (Yes, her mother in law)

*a person had back surgery (Yes, her cousin, not the mother in law's family)

*March connection or the 3rd of a month (Yes, mother in law's birthday is in March)

*someone drowned (Yes, the mother in law's godchild)

Lela claims reading at about this point in JE's hits; She validates the above and JE goes on....

*Dad passed (Yes)

*Nicholas or Nicky (the name of the cousin who had back surgery's father, i.e. presumably it is the sitter's uncle).

*mom's sister has passed (Yes)

*someone with severe diabetes (Yes, the sitter's mother and brother)

*17th. of December. (Yes, sitter's dog was born then)

*somebody who passed like back in the 60s or the late 50s. Your dad? (sitter says her son died in '66)

Then JE gets a train...mental illness...various other things that are claimed by three women sitting near Lela.

I guess we disagree, RC, but this seems far and away better than what IR got for his sitter--a few vague general hits and "an out of date calendar or wall chart".

 

[RC]

Hi RC,

Well, if the best hit JE could get in 30 minutes was "If I come to your home door...there's a calendar or a wall chart that's out of date"...and the validation is that somewhere in the house the sitter has an old fabric calendar...well, I can honestly say I wouldn't be impressed.

Hi Clancie,

I wouldn't either, but again that's not my point. I'm not addressing IR's body of work vs. JE's. I'm talking specifically about how people choose what details are important and what aren't.

But now that you've brought up that entire reading, I suppose you saw on TVTalk that most of the validations fit me as well, including some very *spot on* ones such as the fact that I was diagnosed with PTSD. Also, JE didn't say "December 17th", he said the 17th, near the end of the year, he thinks it's December. Obviously November would count under this vague "validation" and November 17th is my parent's anniversary. Quite meaningful, I'd say....

 

[RC]

For the benefit of people here, this is the "me too" reading I got from JE. If I were to get this reading from JE, I would think it was pretty good and I would just forget about the drowning question:

John: Right in front, right here (indicating directly in front of him)_ I've got an older female who's coming through who's claiming to be Mom, and I feel there's a name like "Gloria" or something with a "G-L" sound they want me to say._ And they're telling me to say the person had back surgery._ Somebody definitely had this._ There's a March connection or the 3rd of a month has a meaning here also._ And somebody has a cousin that drowned._ It's right in front of me.

RC: My grandmother, "mom figure", has a G-L last name. There are several people in my family who have had back surgery, including my uncle who recently died. My father's birthday is in March, and my grandfather (G-L's husband)'s birthday is May 3rd.

Nobody has drowned that I know.

John:_ And that would be like a contemporary to you._ Okay._ And is your Dad also passed?

RC: No, but both grandfathers, which are always accepted as "father figure"

John:_ Okay._ And there's a connection to someone who's Nicholas or Nicky?

RC: Big hit, my first partner of 7 years.

John:_ Okay._ And I also feel like, connected to your mom, that she's gotta have a sister who's passed because I've got like an aunt who's there for you._ Somebody who I would see as being like your family._ Older female, like mom, not grandmother.

RC: Deceased aunt

John:_ Okay._ Somebody's very diabetic.

RC: Big hit, diabetes rampant in my family

John:_ And the 17th is significant here also for this family._ She's claiming the 17th._ I think it's of December._ It's at the end of the year.

RC: November 17th is my parent's anniversary (end of year, would probably count as a hit)

John:_ I also feel like, I don't know if your Dad's gone like 35 years, but I've got somebody who's gone like back in the 60s or the late 50s._ I don't feel the presence of this man around for a long time._ Do you understand this?

RC: A few males in my family died in the 60's. This is too vague.

John:_ Okay._ Now, they want me to bring up the "train" references for you._ Now I know there's something about trains._ I don't know if somebody works in transportation, or if they....._ There's a train connection.

RC: No train connection in my family

John:_ It's not school buses._ It's a train._ It's specifically like, choo-choo,_ woo-woo._ That kind of a train thing._ As a matter of fact, it's a "high up" railroad._ Somebody did something high up on the railroad._ Like an overpass._ Like they had it built like, when the train goes between two things._ Was there somebody a little like, mentally "off" or unstable?

RC: Yes, mental illness in the family

John:_ Do you know what "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome" is?

RC: Bigtime, was diagnosed with it after my partner died

John:_ Somebody in the family suffer from that?

RC: I did

John:_ There's a husband or a brother who's also here.

RC: My partner

John:_ (addressing Lela)_ I know you lost your son, but I gotta come back over here._ Somebody else lost the younger male._ Up here._ (addressing the same younger woman in row above)_ Is that for you too?
(she nods)_ So you also have a son who's crossed.

RC: No younger male, but JE is switching at this point

 

[RC]

RC,

Not to be flippant, but do you think it is possible that you will come to a similar conclusion about Brian Hurst and Karen Lundegaard, if you investigate thoroughly enough?

If so, why don't you?

You may agree with me on JE, but I still think Dolly Parton sucks.

Dolly Parton is one of the greatest singer/songwriters of all time and just an all-around fantastic woman.

On the other point, I wouldn't be able to say with integrity that the two mediums I went to are for real while everyone else is fake. It's entirely possible I was fooled both times. I've always said the hits I got from both are better than the ones I've seen JE and other give, but that doesn't necessarily mean they came from spirit.

I'm not sure what I will eventually think about those experiences, but for now I'm on the fence on the subject of mediumship with far more doubts and questions than ever before.