FriendsCommunitiesMetaphyiscalHeader
5 voices
6 replies
  • Author
    Posts
  • #63098
    tantavevus
    Participant

    People:

    I’m new to this board but I do feel strongly about John and what he does.

    First of all let me state up front that I am a believer. I believe John is the genuine article. I believe he contacts the enrgies of people that have crossed over, and that they have found a way to communicate with him so he can share their messages.

    That being said. Let me say also that I have not ever read anything by a cynic , or non-believer, that convinces me in any way that John is a fraud.

    They throw around the terms, “Cold Reading”, “Hot Reading”, talk about microphones being hidden in the audience, and claim they have seen cracks in Johns technique, where they could see how he is just a clever mentalist.

    None of it is even close to conclusive, or meaningful, or in anyway casts any real doubts as to John’s abilities. However I’m quite sure it does so for the skeptics.

    The point I want to make here is that no one ever said that what John does cannot be faked. It could be very easily.

    The Sci-Fi channel has the names and addresses of everyone that is coming into the studio on any given day. Reasearch could easily be done on these people, and John could be given information about several people in the audience with which I am sure that John or anyone else could then proceed to give astounding readings.

    This is a fact that is obvious. There is more than one way to produce seemingly the same result.

    Does that statement in any way prove that John is a fraud? Does the fact that someone like the “Amazing Randi” can, using his own sleight of hand techniques, produce simlar readings, show us in any way that John is less than genuine.

    The answer clearly is , No not at all!!

    There are for sure many, many phony psychics, peoples fears about death, and desparate grief over the loss of loved ones, are easy prey for these con artists.

    However does that tell us in any way that John is a fraud? Again the answer is no.

    So then what does John Edward do exactly?

    If you watch him and pay close attention to his readings, it is plain to see that he could not possibly be doing cold readings, he simply comes forth with too much specific fact, without hardly any feedback from the person being read for that to be true.

    His deameanor, personality, technique, and reputation, all indicate
    that he is what he says he is, simply a very gifted medium, very much in touch with the other side.

    Cynics and skeptics will never see this, because they simply aren’t able to. It is a form of prejudice acutallly if you look at it.

    Some people will never believes that Jews, Blacks, or whatever, are good people, no matter what is told to them, what they are shown, their prejudice will never change.

    I believe such is the case when a real medium comes along. No matter what he does, they simply cannot see it as anything else but a fraud.

    That is very , very sad. Because John is really accomplishing something that has never been done before.

    He has a television show where he communicates with the departed, and delivers messages from these souls to their loved ones. It is remarkable that he has acheived such success, respect, and credibility. It is a tribute to his strength of character that he is able to do this.

    Whether we or John realize it or not, he is also changing the way people feel about death. those that watch his program and believe what they see is real, feel better about life, since from Johns work , death is not the end of us at all. We now know thanks to John, that our loved ones who have moved on are still connected to us, and we will always be connected to them.

    This is not insignificant. I believe it is having an effect on the other side as well. They are finding a way to reach out to those they left behind, and tell them, not to worry, everything is OK, we are still here, we will se you again.

    It is a very reassuring message of great hope and love, and if we really see it it for what it is, that message is being given to us not just by John and the spirits that contact him, but from a much higher source.

    The message is one we have heard before from many different sources. The message really never changes it is just delivered to us in different ways. The message is “Have Faith, Do Not Despair”.

    That is my take on the John Edward Phoenomenon.

    I welcome any replies to this post , positive or negative.

    Thanks
    Tantavevus

    #78173
    sgrenard
    Participant

    They throw around the terms, “Cold Reading”, “Hot Reading”, talk about microphones being hidden in the audience, and claim they have seen cracks in Johns technique, where they could see how he is just a clever mentalist.

    None of it is even close to conclusive, or meaningful, or in anyway casts any real doubts as to John’s abilities. However I’m quite sure it does so for the skeptics.

    The point I want to make here is that no one ever said that what John does cannot be faked. It could be very easily.

    The Sci-Fi channel has the names and addresses of everyone that is coming into the studio on any given day. Reasearch could easily be done on these people, and John could be given information about several people in the audience with which I am sure that John or anyone else could then proceed to give astounding readings.

    This is a fact that is obvious. There is more than one way to produce seemingly the same result.

    Reply: The basis for most of this innuendo comes from a fabricated piece of yellow journalism by a retired science editor, Leon Jaroff, who wrote a column “debunking” JE for TIME Magazine.

    Jaroff never visited the set, never interviewed JE, or anyone involved with the program or any sitters in the audience (although he was invited to) and in fact never left Boca Raton, Florida to do this story. He made the obligatory call to the producers asking for comments after he had already filed the piece. He made up everything and then, when TIME editors balked that he needed more than James Randi as a source, Randi produced someone for him. Probably the only person in history to ever complain of a JE reading. Making stuff up is a common tactic of skeptics and cynics. Randi, for example, says he has not seen the data for JE’s testing at the Universitry of Arizona and therefore finds it suspicious. He has been invited to visit there and review the data, in person (an offer which still stands) and
    has refused. He has also refused to even talk with the researchers. But that doesn’t stop him from attacking the research and researchers personally. He typifies the very sort of fraud he is attacking and is an example of the type of close mindedness that would have us all back in the dark ages if it were accepted or allowed to prevail over all. Thankfully it isn’t.

    The information John gets could not be obtained through researching the names and addresses on ticket invitations. Much of information is not in the public domain or anywhere else (personalities, private conversations, etc) save in the hearts and minds and memories of the sitters. Many of the people to whom ticket requests are addressed are not the three or four times as many who accompany the named individual either.

    But what you overlooked, is the fact that John has been tested in a controlled study at the University of Arizona on several occasions. He has also demonstrated ability to read strangers on the telephone in events staged by radio and TV stations and the like. These sitters could not be “researched” even if one wanted to in time for such information to be of any use. So the answer to your statement that such can be “easily” faked is not true. If you consider the qualitative nature of the obscure and highly personal information John Edward provides, none of it can be attributed to any normal or natural means of acquisition.
    You also overlooked John’s work on in-person seminars and public demonstrations with thousands present in general seating. Nobody knows who these people are. I have personally talked to several people chosen to be read. Others have recounted similar personal experiences on this board.

    Does that statement in any way prove that John is a fraud? Does the fact that someone like the “Amazing Randi” can, using his own sleight of hand techniques, produce simlar readings, show us in any way that John is less than genuine.

    Reply: Randi et al have been repeatedly asked to demonstrate cold reading and get the kind of information JE or other genuine mediums get. They can’t get past the first few opening gambits involving identity or names, and causes of death. When challenged they say well, er, they are not really very good at this. But no other cold reader can do this either including professional stage mentalists. When skeptics asked researchers to use cold readers as controls, several high profile cold readers declined, saying they could not get any information in double blind, sitter silent w/sitter absence .. that is, without verbal and visual cues as well as verbal feedback. Good mediums, including JE, have provided evidence that they can do this.

    There are for sure many, many phony psychics, peoples fears about death, and desparate grief over the loss of loved ones, are easy prey for these con artists.

    Reply: We must be careful of these and there are guidelines on this website to help people be sensitive to the possibility of fraud.

    While your points are well taken and speak from your beliefs, you would be happy to know that such beliefs have also been objectively and scientifically validated. For most of us, just knowing is enough but if you need more, there is plenty of research which validates mediumship and ADC whereas all the
    closed minded skeptics and cynics have is their sophist rhetoric.

    Steve Grenard
    http://www.survivalscience.org

    #78200
    Jude
    Participant

    <>

    <>

    We all agree with this, Steve. However, this is not good enough for most cynics and many professed skeptics.

    After having ruled out all possible means of obtaining information about my family prior to my seminar reading, ruling out hot or cold readings, microphones, etc., one closed minded skeptic (more like cynic) used the only ammunition left, and simply stated that the information I had validated was unsubstantiated.

    Since there is no way to substantiate conversation between the sitter and the deceased, it would require trust on the skeptic’s/cynic’s part that the sitter is being honest. That’s the loophole.

    After practically having my integrity called into question, right here at this board, I might add, that’s when I realized that the cynics will always have an out.

    The only way any cynic would be convinced would be to actually experience a reading, and have something only he/she would know come through.

    And what are the chances of that?

    #78208
    tantavevus
    Participant

    You have obviously thought this through better than I and I learned and realized a lot from your reply.

    I do not need more proof, I simply believe, and do not need more convincing. To me John is so very obviously genuine. I really need no further evidence.

    What you said really is true, by the way this is done by John, and the way the Sci-Fi channel handles it, there is no room for doubt that what we are experiencing is genuine

    It just bothers the heck out of me that there is so much criticism and skepticism out there. And they do a totally lously, sloppy, and irresponsible job trying to “debunk” John. It really makes them look worse and John better.

    Anyway. I appreciated your comments very much as they further clarified my thoughts on the matter.

    Thanks Again
    Tantavevus

    #78238
    sgrenard
    Participant

    After having ruled out all possible means of obtaining information about my family prior to my seminar reading, ruling out hot or cold readings, microphones, etc., one closed minded skeptic (more like cynic) used the only ammunition left, and simply stated that the information I had validated was unsubstantiated.

    Reply: Basically TX this person called you a liar or a mental incompetent….only you know the answer to that. But in the aforementioned experimental readings, as much obscure information is furnished, sealed, to investigators prior to the
    readings. This information is kept in the safe but after the reading it serves to substantiate. In personal readings, who cares what the cynic thinks?

    Since there is no way to substantiate conversation between the sitter and the deceased, it would require trust on the skeptic’s/cynic’s part that the sitter is being honest. That’s the loophole.

    Reply: The validity of a reading for personal information almost always relies on the honesty of the sitter.

    After practically having my integrity called into question, right here at this board, I might add, that’s when I realized that the cynics will always have an out.

    Reply: It is their out. They are welcome to it.

    The only way any cynic would be convinced would be to actually experience a reading, and have something only he/she would know come through.

    Reply: While I agree that should be evidential for such a person, I fear, as others have said, that the hard core entrenched cynics and closed minded skeptics whose worldview would be shattered by the validity of this would NOT believe it even if their long deceased grand-mother came up and whacked them on the behind.

    And what are the chances of that?

    Reply: Well we do know a few who have gone that route but even they doubt the the validity of their own observations and still find an out. Again, it matters only to them.

    #78265
    greta
    Participant

    Thank you! Your replies and anecdotal evidence are simply wonderful. I must admit, the cynics can get discouraging, and it occasionally makes me wonder whether it’s a lot of wishful thinking on my part to believe so completely in what John does. It’s wonderful to have your straightforward, fact-based evidence that I’m probably not deluded. And I suppose it’s still okay to maintain that “healthy dose of skepticism” anyway. But your comments are refreshing and very welcome nonetheless.

    So thanks again!

    #78369
    freeloader
    Participant

    Many people don’t want to believe. We’re conditioned from a very young age to question what we can’t see, hear, smell, taste or touch. When I was in high school and questioned Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, I swear the teacher thought I was a freak or something. That’s the same feeling I get from non-believers. They refuse to believe, SHIELDS UP!.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.