IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Two-fer | Main | The gift of doubt »

Comments

No matter what kind of hits are obtained, no matter how specific they are or how unlikely or how meaningful to the sitter, they can still be rationalized away by a determined doubter.

Michael, I often have doubts about my own experiences. I try very hard to rationalize them away. I’ve asked one researcher who I sometimes pass messages of this sort on to if maybe I just guess things about people and my imagination takes over and creates a ghost for me to see and make sense of what I’m guessing. The researcher said that might be possible, although he did add that I hit on things really well sometimes. I’ve never met him in person or even talked to him by phone, so I don’t have the usual cold reading clues available. I just seem to get visits from his ghost friend. But it makes me feel better sometimes to think that it could just be my imagination combined with lucky guesses about stuff.

As I watched every show that john Edwards did and know a couple of people that have been on that show there were times that Edwards got hits that even the sitter knew nothing about. The sitter had to go and do research and then find out that Edwards was right on and the sitter knew nothing about this aspect of his or her relatives or friends lives.

I must state that I came upon one of this first shows by accident as I was channel surfing and was at that time a real skeptic about the abilities of mediums. I consider john Edwards a lower level medium compared to what my research has revealed about mediums that lived between 1850 and the early to middle 1900’s.

His show crossing over caused me to start my research into spiritualism, which I had avoided for almost ten years. This aspect of my research has proven to be very beneficial to my research into the mysteries of life.

One of my interests is how the human mind can deceive itself into believing it knows facts in spite of the evidence. The ultra skeptic is as entrenched in his or her beliefs as the fundamentalist religious person. Two sides of the same coin and neither side have a clue they share this common attribute.

"I came upon one of his first shows by accident as I was channel surfing and was at that time a real skeptic about the abilities of mediums... His show crossing over caused me to start my research into spiritualism"

The same thing happened to me. I started reading about Edward and mediumship because I wanted to debunk the whole thing. I thought the "trick" must be easily explained. But as I searched skeptical Web sites, it became clear to me that their explanations were typically vague, generic, and unconvincing.

One skeptic wrote that Edward's "act" consisted of walking around a dark studio shouting out vague generalities to groups of people. Anyone who actually saw the show knew that this description was not accurate. Other skeptics came up with elaborate theories about a team of assistants "working" the crowd before the show. There was no evidence to support this idea, and it was contradicted by the testimony of people who attended the show. Moreover, a scam like that would surely go public as soon as one of the flunkies decided to sell a tell-all story to the tabloids. And it wouldn't explain Edward's results when being tested under controlled conditions.

"Michael, I often have doubts about my own experiences."

As I'll argue in my next post, doubt can be healthy - maybe even essential for proper psychological balance. It keeps us grounded. (That's the short version for you.)

Michael, are you between books at the moment? The volume you have been churning out on the blog lately has been astonishing and highly enjoyable.

Of course you'll probably start a new one and you'll be back to once or twice a week!

I seem to have been on a roll lately! I don't know why.

Actually I don't write books anymore. The publishing business has become an inhospitable environment for most fiction writers. Nowadays I focus on investing. Maybe I need this blog as a creative outlet!

Skeptics are such bird brains.

(drum roll and cymbal crash)

This blog is something I check every day so I'm definitely enjoying the updates

For what it's worth, my sister produces reality TV shows for a National network, is/was totally ambivalent about all of this stuff, (as in - not even on the radar) and ended up, due to work scheduling nearby and professional courtesy, being "gifted" a whole bunch of passes to see John Edward in NYC a few years ago.

She went in with a few of her co-workers, just to sort of pass the day, and sat in the audience.

Without question, the friends who she went in with were pretty much hardcore disbelievers - and from my understanding, were sort of debating whether or not is was so silly....as to skip altogether.

The bottom line is, not only did John Edward hone in on one of the people in her group, but went into incredible detail about a whole bunch of family members that were deceased, and even brought up the fact that the whole group was sort of deriding coming into the show in the first place.

It was pretty spooky - I forget some of the details - but my sister told me about later when she saw me reading on his books. She was sort of noncommittal about what she thought it all meant - but was sure there was no "leakage" from the company she worked for - or any plant in the audience or any bugging or other nefarious nonsense.

It certainly convinced her - and she ain't easy to convince of much..:-)

"Actually I don't write books anymore. The publishing business has become an inhospitable environment for most fiction writers."

What do you find is going on from your perspective? Are the contracts not available or impecunious? Are there just too many authors?

Do you know of Cory Doctorow? He seems to understand the "modern" publishing environment.

"Why free ebooks should be part of the plot for writers"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/18/free-ebooks-cory-doctorow

Do you have any unpublished manuscripts? Why not self publish? There are several internet based services where you pay a small prep fee and then each book is produced when it is ordered by the consumer at no cost to the author. (You have to be careful though, some of the service agreememts transfer the copyright to the "publisher"/printer - but not all of them. The linked article recommends lulu.com so that is probably okay.)

From my own perspective, I can say I haven't paid for fiction in a long time. There is so much public domain English literature from the past and so many "unpublished" authors giving their work away for free - both on the internet that I do all my reading on my pda.

Have you thought of trying to write a book on the subject of spirituality or parapsychology? Is the environment for those subjects any better than for fiction?

Off topic:
Michael, in an earlier blog you were talking about ectoplasm and materialization.
If you go to survivalebooks.org, there is a one hour video by Tom Harrison where he talks about his mother, Minnie Harrison,who was a materialization medium, from England.
Minnie had a weekly home circle, called the Saturday Night Club, and achieved outstanding results. I think that you would find it interesting. Also, if you go to survivalafterdeath.org/uk and then go to photographs, there are photos from Dr. Glen Hamilton's collection of ectoplasm forming miniature faces. Survivalebooks.org has has a link to the audio recording of the actual session of the Saturday Night Club.

If you are researching into mediumship or survival after death, I think that one of the best books is called "The Medium's Book" by Allan Kardec. This is an old book but well worth reading.

Off Topic:

William,
You recommended "Testimony of Light". Have you read, "The Mistress" by the same author, Helen Greaves?

Zetic chick:
Regarding psychic operations, many years ago I also had an operation by George Chapman for a medical condition. He operated on my astral/etheric body and from what I can remember, it was as if he was in an operating theatre. When it was over, there were no physical signs that the operation had taken place, other than a slight readness. As far as I know, in Brazil, there is a medium called "John of God" who does psychic operations on the physical body. If you are interested in this type of healing, there is a healer in Canada, called Adam. His website is dreamhealer.com. He performs energy healing and there is one in England called, Matthew Manning,(matthewmanning.com) who also does energy healing. The last two had lots of paranormal experiences in their early years.

Sorry...typos.

meant to say - "other than a slight redness"

Even when skeptics personally experience something extraordinary, they remain in denial.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/11/08/third.man/index.html

This made me laugh. Skeptics trying so hard to rationalize something can be rather humorous at times. Some people's non-beliefs are as strong as some other people's beliefs.

William,
”You recommended "Testimony of Light". Have you read, "The Mistress" by the same author, Helen Greaves?”

Hmmm unable to find a book called the mistress by Helen greaves. Do you have a link?

“Sevigny says the experience didn't make him religious. He sees himself as a scientist and has little use for organized religion ("Organized religion and organized crime share a number of parallels").
"I don't give it great thought," he said. "I'm not a spiritual person. I don't say it was God or a guardian angel. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry."
These are interesting comments as I believe most atheists are atheists because of their anti religion stance. To them the paranormal and religion are all in the same system of beliefs. Appartently a phd in chemistry overrules any personal paranormal evidence and that he feels a need to support his existing beliefs and his peers beliefs in spite of his personal experiences.
This is a case of beliefs overwhelming personal experiences and evidence.

A PhD is no guarantee against tunnel vision or a fear of embarrassment from our peers. I suspect the more education one obtains the greater is the tunnel vision in one particular area of knowledge.

“This made me laugh. Skeptics trying so hard to rationalize something can be rather humorous at times. Some people's non-beliefs are as strong as some other people's beliefs.”

Well stated. Some debunkers that come on TV as experts come up with some interesting explanations for mysterious phenomena. What I want to see is a debunker read a group of sitters like a john Edwards does live on national TV using what they call cold reading. I have heard randi tried it once in England and it went so bad they had to stop the taping.

In the UK another interesting medium is Colin Fry. I have watched a few of his programmes "Sixth Sense" and found elements of them which are hard to explain unless there is a team of researchers uncovering a great deal of trivial family information some how. For example, in one programme I recall Fry talking to a young man about his father. At the end he simply said "I have no idea what this means but I am seeing a blue ford anglia". The man looked stunned and said this was the first car he ever owned and that his father had bought it for him.
Curious.

"I have heard randi tried it once in England and it went so bad they had to stop the taping."

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/keen/randi.htm

"The edited version [of the TV show] omitted his first futile but extended attempts at cold reading which was so unsuccessful that the embarrassed floor manager had to announce a technical fault and stop the show. "

"What I want to see is a debunker read a group of sitters like a john Edwards does live on national TV using what they call cold reading."

That would be great...if they did it right. The problem is, they probably wouldn't do it right. They would use all the excuses they make up for it. They would have someone do some research on some people, have a couple of a people planted in the audience, and use a lot acting skills and quick talking to stage the whole thing. The would probably claim that because they could fake the whole thing, all psychic experiences must be fake. That's a debunker's dogma; if something can be faked, then it must always be faked.

I have seen John Edward live on two occasions in two different cities in the UK. I found him to be as warm , funny and engaging as he is on TV. He came out with some amazing stuff . One of the ladies he read was sitting next to me and the information she received was quite specific. Several times there were gasps from the audience as he hit on stuff.
The best thing was that I came out of the theatre feeling so uplifted even though I wasn't read myself.

A relative of mine has also seen him live in the US and had a similar experience.

As far as skeptics saying certain statements could apply to anyone - I often amuse myself by trying to apply the readings to myself but they never do fit me !

"Are the contracts not available or impecunious?"

The (pocket-size) paperback end of the business is pretty much dead. Since many novels were published only in paperback, and most novels made the bulk of their money in paperback, the end of paperbacks has meant a vast reduction in the amount of fiction that is published.

"Why not self publish?"

There's no money in it. But I'll look at the link you provided. A friend of mine published a print-on-demand book through I-Universe, but it did not sell many copies. I do think print-on-demand is the wave of the future, though -- along with e-books, of course.

"From my own perspective, I can say I haven't paid for fiction in a long time."

I no longer read much fiction myself. I do read classics and an occasional historical novel, but that's about it. Yes, the amount of free material on the Web makes it easy to read for free. I transfer a lot of online material to Sony Reader. I could probably do all my reading that way if I wanted to.

"Have you thought of trying to write a book on the subject of spirituality or parapsychology? Is the environment for those subjects any better than for fiction?"

Probably not, unless the author is a TV personality like (shudder) Sylvia Browne. "New Age" books are another category, like fiction, that is doing poorly. Actually all categories are doing poorly -- except vampire books, which are very popular for some unknown reason.

"in an earlier blog you were talking about ectoplasm and materialization."

Since the thread for that post is still open, it might be better to comment on it there.

"there is a one hour video by Tom Harrison where he talks about his mother, Minnie Harrison,who was a materialization medium, from England."

I've read Harrison's book. I found it hard to disbelieve him because he seemed so sincere, and because his mother's failing health would have made it difficult or impossible for her to impersonate the spirits. However, there's no independent corroboration of what happened, so it doesn't count as scientific evidence.

"Also, if you go to survivalafterdeath.org/uk and then go to photographs, there are photos from Dr. Glen Hamilton's collection of ectoplasm forming miniature faces."

I've seen those photos and recently downloaded Hamilton's book from that site. Haven't read it yet. The faces look like photos or drawings, though. Very flat, not too convincing. Michael Tymn argues that this unreal appearance is the result of an incomplete or inadequate materialization. Could be, but it still doesn't fill me with confidence when such poor results are obtained.

"Survivalebooks.org has has a link to the audio recording of the actual session of the Saturday Night Club."

I've heard that. It's interesting, but again, given the informal conditions, it can't be cited as proof or evidence in any scientific sense.

"one of the best books is called 'The Medium's Book' by Allan Kardec."

I've read some of that. Many people think highly of it. As I recall, the spirits' discussions of scientific matters didn't seem to correlate very well with modern scientific knowledge, which made me doubtful of the validity of the material. If the stuff that can be checked isn't right, how can we have confidence in the other stuff?

"Actually all categories are doing poorly -- except vampire books, which are very popular for some unknown reason." - Michael Prescott
--------------------------------------------

Okay, I admit it, I'm into vampire books and movies. I was into Vampires before being into Vampires was cool. I had read all of Anne Rice's Vampire books plus her Witching books, Cry To Heaven, Ramses the Damned, etc. I'm not sure why I am endlessly fascinated by vampires? Maybe I find them tintillating? Perhaps it is the hint of sexuality? I loved True Blood on HBO and can't wait till it comes back. I saw Twilight but didn't like it as much as Anne Rice's Vampires. It wasn't dark enough and came across as a bit wimpy compared to Lestat and Loius and Armand and Claudia. Okay, I'll stifle myself......

“As far as skeptics saying certain statements could apply to anyone - I often amuse myself by trying to apply the readings to myself but they never do fit me !”

If their readings could apply to anyone then why don’t the skeptics do such readings to prove they can apply to anyone? They also say John Edwards was doing cold reading and anyone can learn to do that. Well if anyone could learn why don’t he or she learn and do that to prove their point and make lots of money also.

There are no end in the number of excuses they must have to protect their materialistic paradigm at all cost in the same manner a religious person must protect their religious beliefs. I think the materialistic paradigm is more powerful than many but not all religious beliefs.

One unexplained phenomena and their whole system of beliefs and their materialistic paradigm goes sliding down a very steep slope.

The materialistic paradigm has profound control over what we deem some of the best scientists in the world. There is a huge difference between intellectual aptitude and divine intelligence. And until we have knowledge of this difference we will continue to turn science into scientism.

Being open to new evidence is not so easy and is often very mentality painful. We have seen this on this blog and others the need to keep one’s beliefs intact in spite of the evidence. I suspect myself included; that is the power of beliefs and paradigms and other modes of being in the world of consciousness.

"I'm into vampire books and movies"

Many people are, apparently. The only vampire TV show I've watched was "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," which I liked a lot - not so much for the vamps, but for the dialogue and plotting.

"Horror of Dracula," the British movie that introduced Christopher Lee in the role, is quite good, as are a couple of the sequels. Peter Cushing made a great Van Helsing.

The Bela Lugosi "Dracula" certainly has its moments, though in some ways the Spanish-language version that was shot on the same sets with a different cast and crew is actually superior.

The silent film "Nosferatu," a ripoff of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula," is also highly effective and features Max Schreck as the screen's creepiest bloodsucker.

I don't hate the genre, but I don't understand why it has become so ubiquitous. Perhaps the idea of being forever young and sexually charged appeals to people.

So I guess Steve Jobs was right:

"Today he had a wide range of observations on the industry, including the Amazon Kindle book reader, which he said would go nowhere largely because Americans have stopped reading.

“It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore,” he said. “Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.”"

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/the-passion-of-steve-jobs/

"The (pocket-size) paperback end of the business is pretty much dead.
...
Actually all categories are doing poorly -- except vampire books, which are very popular for some unknown reason."

You mean people aren't buying right?

Do you think its the recession or a long term trend?

I suppose people are on-line now-a-days when they would have been reading in the past?

"It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore"

They don't read books. Interestingly people are writing a lot more: texting, blogging, tweeting, commenting, etc.

"Do you think its the recession or a long term trend?"

Long-term trend. It started before the recession.

I disagree with Jobs that people aren't reading. As another commenter says, they are reading - and writing - a lot of online stuff. However, book sales are dropping steeply.

I think Kindle and its equivalents will do very well, but much of the content will originate as online material -- blogs, fan fiction, etc.

Web piracy is also contributing to the death of publishing. A vast number of copyrighted works are being pirated and exchanged through file-sharing networks.

"Interestingly people are writing a lot more: texting, blogging, tweeting, commenting, etc."

Yeah, but so much of it is folderol. It's a planet of chattering teeth with nothing to say. A bootcamp for zen MASTERS.

"I seem to have been on a roll lately! I don't know why."

Would it be possible for you to add a comments atom or rss feed to your blog?

"Long-term trend. It started before the recession."

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/average-tv-viewing-for-2008-09-tv-season-at-all-time-high/

"For the 2008-2009 TV season, the amount of television watched reached an all-time high as Americans spent four hours and 49 minutes a day on average in front of the TV, up four minutes from last year and up 20% from 10 years ago. The average household watched eight hours and 21 minutes a day on average, also at an all-time high."

I love that old horse chestnut about the team of cohorts supposedly monitoring things the audience're saying when, if there really were such assistants, not only would they be exhibiting on the spot surveillance skills surpassing those of Mossad themselves but any of 'em could make a quick half a mill' by going to the papers with their stories, not to mention the likes of Edwards and Acorah'd be bankrupt just trying to maintain their income, never mind making a buck themselves.

The other thing about Edwards, whenever I used to watch his show, was how he'd endlessly interrupt anyone telling him something and say, "No, you don't tell me - I tell you!"

I know from past personal experience that whenever you're receiving - shall we say, eldritch data? - the last thing you want is someone interfering with your reception - and some ill-intentioned people even go out their way deliberately trying to confuse you.

Whether or not there's life after death - and I've had endless interactions with the likes of my late father and still can't claim this proves there's definitely life after death - one thing I'm personally certain of is there's some sort of realm from which all data possible can be retrieved, and I suspect it's this place where so called (idiot) savants also pluck the likes of their amazing mathematical answers from.

P.S. Re: your alleged 'snarkiness', Michael - one of the supposed hallmarks you're making progress on/in the Path/the Way/the Work/the Art/the Craft, etc., is you begin to appreciate losing your sharp edges, those often cruel and unnecessarily assertive tendencies one tends to mistake for indispensable aspects of ourselves if we're to survive in a seemingly endlessly hostile world.

A commenter above states:

"If their readings could apply to anyone then why don’t the skeptics do such readings to prove they can apply to anyone? They also say John Edwards was doing cold reading and anyone can learn to do that. Well if anyone could learn why don’t he or she learn and do that to prove their point and make lots of money also."

There are very many who do this, and make money to boot--they bill themselves as mentalists and magicians, and many of them are just as skilled as Edwards as the methods of cold reading and related tools. It is a very real and easily studied phenomenon--just see Banachek, for instance, if you'd like to see what these practical tools can do in skilled hands.

Their methods are not supernatural or rocket science, just good psychology and knowledge of how mind and memory operate.

There is one main difference between mentalists and Edwards, however: mentalists tell their audiences what they are witnessing is not supernatural. Those like Edwards who practice these things and tell people they are in contact with the dead are taking advantage of grieving people and deserve nothing but ignominy for that unethical behavior.

The methods of science call for proving, not disproving. If I claim to have just seen a fairy, the burden of proof is on me--I'd better be able to produce Tinkerbell pronto or you have no reason to believe me. (I did not, however, just see a fairy.)

If Edwards is real, he can submit to testing and pass with flying colors. Instead, he just goes on practicing something that looks in every way exactly like the time-honored methods of mentalism. Until he does otherwise, there is no reason at all to believe he engages in something supernatural.

"If Edwards is real, he can submit to testing and pass with flying colors."

He was tested by Gary Schwartz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward

Gary Schwartz, a psychologist and researcher in the controversial field of parapsychology, designed and administered a series of tests for Edward and several other mediums to verify their paranormal claims and published his belief that Edward's abilities were genuine in his book The Afterlife Experiments.[13]


Needless to say, people's opinions about this can be predicted by their prior assumptions about the possibility of mediumship.

Re: the testing--interesting! Thanks for that. Sorry about the typo (Edward, not Edwards). Sounds like a start, anyway. I'll withhold judgment absent peer review, but not rule out the possibility of a success. If it's really supernatural talent, it will continue to stand up to examination, and then we'd get somewhere interesting indeed.

"If it's really supernatural talent, it will continue to stand up to examination, and then we'd get somewhere interesting indeed." - Seamus
--------------------------

LOL! No we won't. There will always be doubters and believers. The doubters will continue to doubt and the believers will continue to believe. Psychic Mediums have been tested since the late 19th Century and have done remarkably well, over and over again, yet we still have plenty of scoffers that nitpick and find fault with the testing. Duality and separation are inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe and I believe it's that way for a reason.

"The doubters will continue to doubt and the believers will continue to believe."

No doubt true, but there are plenty of folks like me who, given evidence that stands up to peer review by scientists, would be forced to remove this from the realm of doubt and belief (i.e., faith) and put it in the realm of undeniably quantifiable phenomenon. It's a huge difference!

"No doubt true, but there are plenty of folks like me who, given evidence that stands up to peer review by scientists"

It's not a question of peer review by scientists anymore, that goal post has been met. The new goal post is higher standards of evidence than other areas of science".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

"Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced:[26]
"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." Richard Wiseman Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28–29 [26]"

Wiseman was not just referring to remote viewing but other forms of psi:

(Dean Radin recently linked to this clarification on his blog)

http://podblack.com/2009/09/dr-richard-wiseman-on-remote-viewing-in-the-daily-mail-clarification/

“It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP – that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc as well. I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim.”

I'd be very cautious about pushing what Edwards or Von Praagh do as evidence of the paranormal, because mentalists can perform some extraordinary mind tricks that will also leave you befuddled, and yet we know they are not performing real magic.

I think it's best when your induction into belief comes from experiences which do not depend on the career of another person around whom the phenomenon is professionally centered.

And regarding your career as author, MP, why not write a book about your personal exploration into the paranormal and what you find, something along the lines of The Men Who Stare At Goats? By combining your interests, even if it doesn't sell you'll get something valuable out of the experience either way.

Sorry for jumping into the conversation late:

Regarding people reading online: Michael, your solution is to write e-books. Tada ;)

Or go into film or documentaries. You'd be good at that.

"I'd be very cautious about pushing what Edwards or Von Praagh do as evidence of the paranormal, because mentalists can perform some extraordinary mind tricks that will also leave you befuddled, and yet we know they are not performing real magic."

If an entertainer is doing cold reading, a transcript of the reading will show it. They make general statements, get information from the sitter, and use other techniques that are transparent if you know what to look for.

The type of information produced by a real medium is specific and unprompted and can't be explained by cold reading.

Jeez, where to begin? It is a fact that John Edwards is simply a "cold reader." I am familiar with cold reading techniques and spent many fun evenings demonstrating to believers what he was doing. When someone is a demonstrable fake -- as far as the claim of possessing supernatural powers -- and has inexplicable hits (i.e., giving information not obviously gathered by cold reading methods), may we then logically surmise that this demonstrates an astounding ability to communicate with the dead? Definitely not. If a person uses one form of trickery (cold reading claiming to be communication with the dead), we may logically surmise other forms of trickery are in play. Based on similar operations to John's, two pop readily to mind. One: the use of a plant in the audience now and then, or, two: the use of stooges who mingle with the audience pre show (in the lobby, in the bathrooms,in the ticket lines, etc., and pick up information which is then passed to the mentalist/faith-healer. Everyone from so-called faith-healers to mentalists in carny shows (of which John Edwards is simply a modern version) use both of these techniques.

The gullibility of the American public never ceases to amaze me. The idea that the spirits can't provide more than the basic phonetics of a decease's first name -- (Edward's) "I'm getting an R sound . . . Randy? Ryan? Ray? . . . Roy?" (finally, a woman shouts out), "Good lord! My cousin Roy died last month!" -- should be enough to make most intelligent people flee the auditorium. Isn't the Book Of Life explicit about a decease's name?

If John Edwards should run for political office, perhaps by channeling the spirit of JFK, he would probably be a shoe-in for president. Now that I know you "believe" in an obvious faker like John Edwards, your credibility has dropped 80 percent. Sir, you are flat out, hands down gullible! How could you be so dumb? Your biggest error is assuming a cold reader wouldn't resort to other nefarious means to defraud the gullible.

Cool story bro. Anyways, John EdwardS (the plural) IS an open cold reader, John EdWARD (the singular) claims not to be. Who are we talking about here?

I'd like to see a transcript of a John Edward reading which proves he is doing cold reading.

Is there one on-line?

Thanks

I think M P's literary achievements are already sufficiently impressive, whether or not he writes another line.
What I would give to have that many published novels under my belt. I'm stuggling to get my 'first' looked at.

"If John Edwards should run for political office ..."

He did! In fact, he was a senator from North Carolina for one term, and was John Kerry's vice presidential running mate in 2004.

Or did you mean John Edward (no "s")?

You can't be much of an expert if you don't even know the guy's name.

Whether Edward is legit or not, I can't say for sure, but I have no doubt that better-tested mediums like Leonora Piper, Gladys Osborne Leonard, and Eileen Garrett were legitimate. By legitimate, I mean they had psi abilities that allowed them to obtain information they couldn't have obtained normally. Look at the R-101 case, the Bobby Newlove case, the book and newspaper readings, etc.

My guess is that Edward is legitimate, but since he hasn't been tested nearly as thoroughly as the three ladies I mentioned, I can't be sure.

(stuggling...oh dear) ...and you can tell why !

The comments to this entry are closed.