|   Hey Mtrycrafts (off topic) | pctower
Oct 3, 2003 1:31 PM | | You have made reference to John Edwards in the past. Did you happen to see him on Larry King last night? If you didnt you cant answer this question. If you did, how could you explain that what he does is the result of tickery.
If your answer is that he remains general enough to be safe, my respect for your objectivity will drop considerably.
I had never seen him before last night, nor have I ever ready anything he has written or that was written about him. Last night was my only exposure. We all know that Im an ignorant yeasayer, but he sure left me scratching my head. |
| What he does | RobotCzar
Oct 3, 2003 5:14 PM | | So you believe he communicates with dead people? Really?
I believe he does what some charlatans have been doing for hundreds of years: misleading people who want desperately to talk to dead loved ones. This passes for entertainment, which is pathetic.
Need we even say that John is in no hurry to demonstrate his skills in scientifically controlled tests (that would be double blind, of course).
If you want to know how he does it look up more information on these terms:
Spirtiualism
Cold Reading |
| What he does | pctower
Oct 4, 2003 4:46 AM | | b So you believe he communicates with dead people? Really?
I didn't say that. I made it very clear that my total exposure to him was a one-hour appeararance on Larry King.
Did you see the show? If not, then you're not qualified to answer the question as it was posed, which was simply, based on that one hour show, how does he do it?
I checked out the following explanation of "cold reading":
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_skep_cold.htm
No fair, objective person who saw that show could conclude that article is a satisfactory explanation for what occured during that one hour. |
| You can do better, Phil.... | Monstrous Mike
Oct 3, 2003 5:40 PM | | It is not even necessary to spell it out for you. A simple Google search should give you all the info you need.
BTW, this issue is not nearly as clouded as the cable sonics debate. It has been proven time and time again how guys like Edwards manipulate to achieve their objective.
The cable debate is much more worthy of discussion. Guys like John Edwards are not. |
| You can do better, Phil.... | pctower
Oct 4, 2003 4:47 AM | | Mike:
Did you see the show? |
| Failure is not an option | mtrycrafts
Oct 12, 2003 11:10 PM | | Why do we need to see it to know what he does? How is he different from Sylvia Brown who does the same and did many times on Larry King, and, accepted the Randi challenge over a year ago to be a no show to date.
He, Sylvia, James VanPraag are all the same. Or, one would have conclusively demonstrated otherwise.
Why doesn't Larry King have experts on his show testing them? Failure is not an option. |
| Failure is not an option | pctower
Oct 13, 2003 7:36 AM | | Don't even know who Sylvia is.
Experts? Good suggestion. I doubt we'll see any soon. |
| Failure is not an option | mtrycrafts
Oct 13, 2003 2:45 PM | | Sylvia Brown is another one who does the same readings John Edwards does. John is not alone in that business. |
| By the way | mtrycrafts
Oct 12, 2003 11:11 PM | | No one said they are not very good. They are indeed as people are taken in with ease. |
| By the way | pctower
Oct 13, 2003 7:34 AM | | Good to see you back. I was starting to worry. |
| By the way | mtrycrafts
Oct 13, 2003 2:46 PM | | Thanks. Anyone can have an accident, a premature departure :) |
| You can do better, Phil.... | skeptic
Oct 4, 2003 9:15 AM | | One of the things that makes watching magic tricks enjoyable is not knowing how the tricks are performed. Every magician will tell you that. You can read a few books about it and if you are not a magician, seeing how the illusion works will be enlightening but from then on out, some of the fun is taken out of it when you see them performed again. Only a child or a primitive would think that a slight of hand trick is real. This falls into the same category. Doesn't say much about the common sense of a lot of people. Art Bell made a carreer out of it. Some people prefer to stay children all of their lives. Maybe they're happier that way. Maybe they expect everybody else to be that way too. Maybe that's why they like believing in ghosts, extra terrestrials, and expensive audio cables. |
| You validate the claim. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 4, 2003 4:38 PM | | Phil, Mtry has often equated the cable cult mentality with the mentality that leads people to fall for other scams, like John Edwards. Now you have proven him correct. Nice work. Probably the most conclusive proof of anything I've seen on this board to date.
BTW, the "reality" of what John Edwards has nothing to do with the way your post validates Mtry's claims. You have validated them even if you're right about cables and communicating with the dead. He's still right that the same kind of mentality is involved.
I have an electronic device that lets me hear the dead speak, and if one likes one can talk back to them. The same device with a simple accessory can insure that your loved ones will be able to hear you speak long after you're dead and gone. I'll sell you the complete system for $10k, and if it does not do all I just said it will do I'll refund twice what you've paid. I warn you, this is as much of a rip-off as John Edwards con game, but this device will absolutely do exactly what I just said it will do. Just last night we heard the voices of several people who were dead before we were even born (though none of us felt any desire to speak back to them). Interested? Double your money back if it doesn't perform as I've stated.
R.O.
PS. BTW, the device is known in some circles as a cassette recorder. R.O.
R.O. |
| You validate the claim. | pctower
Oct 5, 2003 1:10 PM | | b Now you have proven him correct. Nice work. Probably the most conclusive proof of anything I've seen on this board to date.
I have proven nothing, as I made no claim. What I think has been proven here is your need to make everyone who in anyway disagrees with you on any point "wrong".
For reasons I explain in the thread above, the rest of your post has nothing to do with anything I'm particularly interested in. |
| Your bias makes you misread 90% of what is said to you. (nt) | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 7, 2003 4:06 PM | | (nt) = no text for people who are too biased to comprehend what others say to them. |
| OK, let's try for some clarification. | pctower
Oct 8, 2003 4:47 PM | | You said:
b You have validated them even if you're right about cables and communicating with the dead.
If I am right about some claim I have made regarding cables, what particular claim of mine am I right about? I thought I had tried to avoid making any claims about cables, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
And, likewise, I would like to know which claim of mine regarding communicating with the dead I would be right about. The only definitive statement I recall ever making about communicating with the dead is that I don't believe it is possible, and I don't think I ever made that specific statement on any audio board.
Personally, I don't believe there is an after-life, so it would be pretty difficult for me to figure out a way that I or any other living person could communicate with something I don't believe exists.
So for me to understand how I have "proven" mtrycrafts correct, I guess I need to ask for clarification on these points. |
| A follow up post.... | Monstrous Mike
Oct 6, 2003 8:31 AM | | After the weekend, I now have a fresh mind to make a further comment on this.
John Edwards is simply like a magician or illusionist. They have figured out a way to do "tricks" that are very difficult, if not impossible to figure out.
The difference is though, that magicians and illusionists acknowledge that they don't actually make things disappear. It is a form of entertainment and I for one, appreciate a good trick.
On the other hand, guys like John Edwards claim that their "tricks" are real and not an illusion. They play on the emotions of people who have lost loved ones. There is no allusion to this being a form of entertainment and people actually believe he can talk to their deceased loved ones. I personally find this despicable.
Nobody will ever be able to "prove" he is not talking to the dead because it is a personal claim. That's the only reason he is still going strong. That and the fact that people really want to believe him.
Sound familiar? |
| A follow up post.... | skeptic
Oct 6, 2003 5:06 PM | | "The difference is though, that magicians and illusionists acknowledge that they don't actually make things disappear. "
People who sell audiophile wires on the other hand are for real. They know exactly how to make your money disappear. Lots of it. Real fast. No illusion.
Phil will never figure Edwards out. How could he? He hasn't even figured out the audio cable scam yet and he's been working on it for years. |
| A follow up post.... | pctower
Oct 6, 2003 8:45 PM | | Maybe someone will come along who wants to discuss the more general topic with you. I don't. I'm not interested in it.
My question as to Edward's appearance on Larry King was not related to his supposedly talking to the dead, although I didn't make that clear. I'm simply curious as to how he could take so many calls in rapid fire succession and discuss such detailed information about otherwise anonymous callers. Apparently no one here saw the the show, so my question will go without any meaningful response.
The fact that a number of people here are willing to suggest answers and express opinions on a particular event they did not witness is a little surprising to me. Not exactly what I would describe as a scholarly, objective approach. |
| And further... | pctower
Oct 6, 2003 8:47 PM | | the fact that certain people seem to want to ascribe certain beliefs to me about the paranormal simply because I ask a question tells me a great deal about their biases and lack of intellectual honesty. |
| Alright, let me be more direct.... | Monstrous Mike
Oct 7, 2003 8:02 AM | | <b>I'm simply curious as to how he could take so many calls in rapid fire succession and discuss such detailed information about otherwise anonymous callers. </b>
He makes a living at doing this so he is obviously very skilled in human communications. The extent of the anonymity of the callers is unknown. Also, people who call in to these things are generally very receptive to being told what they want to hear.
<b>Apparently no one here saw the the show, so my question will go without any meaningful response. </b>
I do not believe it is necessary to have seen the show to comment on it and it is even possible to give a meaningful response based on the little information at hand. I have seen this type of interaction commonly reffered to as "cold reading".
I'm certain that if you talked to him for one minute he could glean lots about your personal life and you would be amazed by it. I have a friend who is an intelligence officer and there are many techniques to extract information without the person even realizing how much he is giving away.
It's not magic or psychic powers, it's simply a people skill. It has been shown quite decisively that if the participant is unwilling, the "cold reader" will not be able to extract any information of use which would indicate to me that he has no psychic powers.
<b>The fact that a number of people here are willing to suggest answers and express opinions on a particular event they did not witness is a little surprising to me. Not exactly what I would describe as a scholarly, objective approach.</b>
I'm not sure how much more scholarly or objective an opinion you are looking for. |
| Alright, let me be more direct.... | pctower
Oct 7, 2003 8:47 AM | | b I'm not sure how much more scholarly or objective an opinion you are looking for.
As I said, what I'm looking for are comments from someone who actually saw the show. In fact, what I was really looking for initially was merely mtrycrafts' comments if he happened to have seen the show.
b The extent of the anonymity of the callers is unknown.
Are you suggesting that Larry King's normal screening procedures were compromised?
b Also, people who call in to these things are generally very receptive to being told what they want to hear.
Of course they are, and that could color to some degree the confirmations they provide of the specifics he discloses. However, the typical audience for Larry King I would assume is far less suggestible than people who actively seek out this sort of thing. Also, that to me is not a satisfactory answer at this point regarding the details he uncovered in caller after caller. It may be the answer, but at this point I think it is merely speculation; particularly because it comes from someone who did not actually see the show.
I place the rest of your comments in the same category - mere speculation.
For the record, I have no answer. As I do not personally believe in psychic phenomena, I certainly am not prepared on the basis of a one-hour show (of which I saw only about 20 minutes) to change my opinion. On the other hand, while I assume there is a rational explanation, nothing I've read in this post seems to be the explanation I can be comfortable with. |
| Correction | pctower
Oct 7, 2003 8:48 AM | | In the last sentence I should have said "thread" rather than "post". |
| Sometimes all we have is speculation....nt | Monstrous Mike
Oct 7, 2003 2:41 PM | | |
| Actually the answer has already been given... | Monstrous Mike
Oct 7, 2003 3:11 PM | | <b>If you did, how could you explain that what he does is the result of tickery. </b>
The answer to that question is "cold reading". That is the objective, scholarly, rational answer.
It appears you are dumbfounded that somebody could do that sort of thing. Perhaps you need to read more about cold reading to fully understand what it is about.
And make no mistake, John Edwards is the current world champion and champions in any discipline can generate awe. |
| And further... | Monstrous Mike
Oct 7, 2003 3:32 PM | | John Edwards has been caught and exposed doing a "hot reading". As opposed to a "cold reading", a "hot reading" is when you already have some personal information about someone without their knowledge. Houdini did this in the 20's by sticking microphones in the audience before the show.
So basically, Edwards used some information about a cameraman that he had learned before a show. He was caught in the act trying to pass off this prior knowledge as some mystical intervention.
"Cold reading" is much harder to prove. The only real way is to describe how it is done and then demonstrate to people how it works.
However, it is unfortunate that due to human nature, people can disregard all of this and still believe he is talking to their dead relatives.
If you think I'm blowing smoke out my ass, then I suggest you buy a book on how to conduct these types of readings and have fun at your parties. |
| And another thing ... | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 15, 2003 7:23 PM | | ... Penn and Teller also examined Edwards work when they did their expose on cold reading, and concluded that he was just running the same old scam people have been using for centuries. Phil doesn't have the time to research the answers he's given, or do the blind tests he says he'll do, probably because that would leave him with no reason to ask dumb questions that are intended only to spark debate. He's looking for argument, not information. Best ignored.
R.O. |
| A follow up post.... | mtrycrafts
Oct 12, 2003 11:25 PM | | b I'm simply curious as to how he could take so many calls in rapid fire succession and discuss such detailed information about otherwise anonymous callers. Apparently no one here saw the the show, so my question will go without any meaningful response.
Sylvia Brown does exately the same performance, and has many times on Larry King. And, it is television and calls are screened and the people who call in make a subjective anayisis how well the response fits their condition. You have no way of checking it out and corroborating it, only what you see on TV. Ones family tree can be very large that his guessing would apply to someplace on that tree.
You are talking many guesses and large applicable database to pick from, even friends or close relatives.
If he can do what you think he does so well, then he can do it under controlled conditions as well. He cannot. |
| re: Hey Mtrycrafts (off topic) | mtrycrafts
Oct 12, 2003 11:04 PM | | Sorry for the long delay. Been away.
No I didn't see him specifically on Larry Kink but he is no different from his other performances or any of the other cold readers out there.
No, it isn't a trick and he doesn't talk to anything or anyone. Yes, he is general and he throws out enough guesses that he can guess some correwctly to a general question. That is the learned opinions of experts in the field of such cold reading and guessing games.
He has been tested but not in a credible manner and he will never sit down to a credible DBT. He has nothing to prove, nothing to gain. |
| By the way | mtrycrafts
Oct 12, 2003 11:34 PM | | some time back another poster posted a similar question about a magic show he saw on TV, how could that be, levitate on camera, and all those other wonderful deeds.
b We all know that Im an ignorant yeasayer, but he sure left me scratching my head.
You are not ignorant. You may not know some things and know a lot about other things. That is just human. :)
I would recommend you start reading the Skeptical Inquirer. They have recently had several articles on this subject and John Edwards and the supposed DBT testing in particular. That same article exposed the connection of the researcher, his background and that John Weilder guru as well. All happen to be at the University of Arizona. You may remember such a post from me asking what is going on there? |
| One more :) | mtrycrafts
Oct 13, 2003 2:52 PM | | Even if I saw the show and could not explain, zero clue, how it is performed, would not mean that John Edwards did in fact have an unexplained gift to do what he does, talking to the dead or fortune telling.
It would mean that 'I' could not explain it and that there may be, are, others on the planet better qualified to explain what and how it is done. :) |
| One more :) | pctower
Oct 13, 2003 6:06 PM | | b Even if I saw the show and could not explain, zero clue, how it is performed, would not mean that John Edwards did in fact have an unexplained gift to do what he does, talking to the dead or fortune telling.
Didn't mean to suggest that a failure to explain would be equivalent to "proof" he had supernatural abilities - far from it.
I was just currious what you thought since you have mentioned him before.
As for the UofA, I have no idea. That's in Tucson, and here in Phoenix we look upon Tucson as our wierd uncle we keep hidden in the back room. |
| One more :) | mtrycrafts
Oct 15, 2003 11:44 PM | | b and here in Phoenix we look upon Tucson as our wierd uncle we keep hidden in the back room.
Not hidden well :)
b I was just currious what you thought since you have mentioned him before.
I have seen him before either on Larry King or other shows. He has been around on TV. I can only follow what the experts on this have to say that it is cold reading and he can get lucky at times. He was tested, poorly I might add. No special talents are evident. But he is good at what he does. Most are.
One thing I'd like to see done in the tests, not on TV, is to have an empty cubicle, no subject, and see what the reading is. |
| |
