hehehe.. religions are just myths.. but a TV PSYCHIC.. phwoar.. different kettle of fish :)

Just because he has decided to go on TV doesn't mean that should affect your view of whether or not he actually has abilities. You know if you were psychic you'd make dough with it too.

Are you religious?

oh he's got abilities.. he's very good at what he does. but his audience is grieving middle aged supernaturalists. Not a hard task to routinely win them over, these are people that want to believe.. hell people believe that aliens are visiting us and that elvis still lives. As far as im concerned im glad these people are being kept busy in front of the tv with this sort of stuff instead of wandering around outside.

If you believe that all of us have a spirit then it would not seem to be impossible to talk to one after it had left someones body. I dont know if John Edward can or not.
You cant prove scientifically that people possess intuition so does that mean people dont have it. Some in the absense of absolute, positive, verfiable proof dont believe anything.

No, I don't believe that we all have a spirit or a soul or anything else that isn't part of the physical world, for that matter.

But even if we did, we'd still need a brain to communicate.

Exactly. This is why he talks so fast during his "reading." The fast talk is designed to gloss over the mistakes ... so people will only rememember the few "hits" ... after they indicate that he's gotten something right ...

Of course, video editing is even better ... cause you can eliminate the mistakes all together ...

It's called "retrofitting" ... emphasizing the few accurate predictions and conveniently forgetting the vast majority of mistakes ...

I can't believe people are actually posting about this nonsense and taking it seriously ...

But it just goes to show how many suckers there are out there ...

I'm watching John do a seminar show right now in Chicago. So no one at the seminar gets to see "video editing". He does these shows for hours on end.

He just told a woman he was seeing missing toes for her husband, and she confirmed that his toes were aputated. I don't care if John missed some of the things he came up with, specific hits like that are 1 in a million odds, and it shows something is going on. You don't get aputated toes by cold reading or "retrofitting"

Psychics are bogus. I once told a psychic I was a man. If he was really psychic he would have been able to tell that I'm a tranny.

And this woman was just a "random" member of the audience ...

Not a step up ... LOL

If you believe that, fine ... it's your money ...

Obviously people have a need to believe in this stuff ... That's why the psychic industry is arguably bigger than the porn industry ...

I'm getting a vision ... with BIG $$$$$ signs ...

Forget porn ... I'm becoming a psychic ... LMAO!

:1orglaugh

You can't just change your opinion on what John is doing. You said that he is simply cold reading and the retrofitting is what makes him look accurate. I presented you with proof of something that could not be cold reading, and you say the member of the audience was planted. That is a seperate debate on whether that is happening. Does this mean I convinced you that John isn't just cold reading people, and now you think the audience members are fake? I want to be clear on what exactly it is that you're skeptical about. You're changing your answer
:winkwink:

Why would he use cold reading techniques on plants?

Why wouldnt he? it makes others believe and once they do, mass amounts of idiots start watching the show (no offense) and advertising goes up and so does his paycheck...... i bet most of the people are plants...... If you look at history and apply it to these type of shows/seminars..... its proven like 5 years after the fact when no one cares anymore that most of the people were plants.... Its just to get the audience riled up....

I don't think you understand my question. I'm saying that John wouldn't NEED to use old fashioned cold reading techniques on people if they were working with him. He would just go by the script. Right?

There's no set pattern or procedure. I was just citing one example.

A wide variety of techniques are used ... including good old fashioned fakery ...

There's even online training and "schools" for this ... where a wide variety of tricks are taught ...

But hey ... if you need to believe and enjoy believing it ... what the hell ...

Or, if this is a joke thread ... and you're just jerking us around ... believe me, I'm laughing too

I don't think the fact that something CAN be faked proves that everyone doing it is a fake. I'm sure there is literature teaching you how to con people into thinking you can do many things, but that doesn't mean everyone in all those professions is also a fraud. That kind of logic is flawed, I'm sure you can admit.

Don't tell me I need to believe. I am very far from needing to believe.

I am still officially agnostic even after seeing probably 100 episodes of John Edward's show and realizing that it is more likely than not that he getting his information from somewhere we don't understand.

That's what's great about being agnostic, you admit that you don't understand everything, and you are open minded. You sound like an atheist? Are you? Being skeptical is one thing, but being cynical and close minded is unhealthy (in my opinion).

Well, logic tells me that if these people were really psychic ... they wouldn't need to be hustling for money ...

They would have made their fortunes by now ... in the stock market or some other financial endeavor where they could predict success ...

Hell ... if I was really psychic ... I would retire and be on an island by now ...

P.S. You did admit that he missed some things at this seminar .... that is a telltale sign ... believe it or not ...

Maybe you're confusing being able to connect with energies that have passed with being omnipotent. Maybe stock market tips aren't something he gets? He claims to connect with people that have died, not KNOW EVERYTHING.

Of course he's going to misenterpret things that he hears/sees, or say something that doesn't make sense to the person he's reading at the time. You think something like correctly telling someone their husband had amputates toes is null and void because he also mentioned there is a November 20th connection that made no sense to the woman? Maybe she couldn't think of it, or maybe he just fucked that part up. I don't think it devalues the fact that he hit something with 1 in a million odds right before that.

You still haven't answered if you're atheist. From your logic, I'm guessing you are.

Have you ever seen the Street Magician David Blaine? He has this neat trick where he levitates off the ground in the middle of the street. It's pretty amazing and actually looks like he is defying gravity. He also has another trick where he rips the head off of a Chicken and reattaches it! If you've ever seen them they knock your socks off.

Now tell me, what is the difference between believing that David Blaine can levitate and resurrect dead Chickens and believing John Edwards can communicate with the dead? There really isn't any, they both take blind faith. Blind because information on how their tricks are done is readily available.

No one believe what magicians do is real because we know it's all a simple trick of slight of hand, smoke and mirrors, misdirection, etc. It's a great performance but at the end of the day we know their not Warlocks or Witches.

Again I ask, what is the difference between a Magician and a Psychic? We know how psychic perform, we know their tricks, and we know the psychology of the people who use them. Why is it that you don't believe in magic yet you'll believe a Man can talk to the dead using a technique used by charlatans for centuries?

The only evidence you have is anecdotal and the only evidence we have is scientific research and first hand experience.

Go sell your blind faith somewhere else because we?re not buying it here.

I believe in evidence and scientific fact ...

I acknowledge that spiritual things may exist ...

But until it's proven, I don't believe in it ...

If that makes me an atheist ... then so be it ...

it's real!!

Maybe the best way is to just go to one of these shows and see for your self. I bet you would change your mind after really going to a real physic like Sylvia Browne. And John Edwards has been tested over and over enen by skeptics at several universities knowone has been able to prove him as a fake. He hit on shit noone would know. But for each is there own I belive in physics but very few of them exist most are frauds.

Here is a simple, fair test which would prove Edwards abilities beyond reasonable doubt, but which he will never agree to.

No one has claimed Edwards should know everything, but he should be able to communicate what these dead people he is talking to know. The test is easy and obvious. Get someone whose deceased relative worked for the CDC and ask him, through John, what the deceased relative thinks of some new and obscure development in viral epidemology. You could do the same with a Doctor, Lawyer, or anyone in any field that requires specialized knowledge not generally avalible to outsiders.

Ever wonder why Edwards does all the talking and audience members are not allowed to ask these sorts of uncomfortable questions? Now you know.

Oh, and I'd still like to hear what exactly you find unfair about James Randi's testing process for paranormal abilities.

As far as the issue of belief goes, the fact Edwards and his ilk refuse to prove their abilities in controlled environments with fair, objective tests is reasonable 'face value' evidence that they are full of shit. It would be one thing if the tests were obviously unreasonable and designed to make the psychic fail, but I think you know as well as I do that the opposite is true.

What you are seeing here is the process of induction, not unreasonable skepticism. If your past experience tells you that someone making claim X is always associated with fraud, then you are going to be inordinately skeptical of people who make that claim in the future.

Fact is that so many psychics have been exposed as frauds in the past that people have come to believe (reasonably..) that the burden of proof falls 100% on the psychic to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are real. Given the sordid history of John Edwards types, I wouldn't be expecting to convice anyone until you have evidence which is absolutely unimpeachable.

Looks like you just haven't researched John that much, which is fine, so I'll explain some things.

John has actually done many things in controlled environments. He was part of a study at a university where they hooked him up to machines when he read people. I also saw a special on MSNBC about psychics, and there was part where they had people who claimed to be psychics sit in a room while people would come in and sit behind them. The psychic would then just start speaking about whatever he was seeing, and the person didn't respond at all. The person who was read was then asked to go look at the tape and grade the accuracy of their reading. MSNBC said that the psychics they tested (John Edward was one of them) had an accuracy rating that was somewhere in the 80% range (don't remember exactly), and other people that tried had less than 40% accuracy. This is with no cold reading, not even seeing the person or hearing them.

The reason I said Randi obviously doesn't want to give away his million dollars is because he refuses to look at studies just like these that have been performed on psychics like John. If scientifically proving that John can give a reading that is twice as accurate as a normal person, without even seeing or hearing the random person he is reading...if that is not proof, what would be?

You must not watch the show much. He does Q&A very frequently during the show's readings and at seminars, to take a break. Just because you don't recall seeing things doesn't mean you should say that he refuses to do them. You did that with the "controlled tests" thing too.

See....here's someone who is aware of the situation before making broad claims.

um the university and tests you are talking about is "Soul Science research at the University of Arizona's Human Energy Systems Laboratory" lol - he never even did a double-blind test!!!!!!!!

you must really want to believe to be using a guy who's regarded as a joke, and who's funding is tied up in proving these things to be true as your standard of proof - no medium has EVER passed an impartial scientific inquiry as to their abilities.. the randi prize should be EASY for anyone even half psychic.. thing is. IT DOESN'T EXIST.

heres edward in his "rigorous" testing environment..:
http://www.randi.org/images/03-23-01-edwardlab.jpg

what you mean because he agrees with you lol!!!!

Hilarious, I saw that shit on the Discovery channel. And some psychiatrist hooking John Edwards up to an EEG proves what exactly? That he actually has brainwaves? lol. Morons.

And what "studies" might those be? Attaching some wires to his head while he cold reads a subject?

The only thing that "study" proves is the depth of your credulity.

Why would Randi "look at" someone elses study for this shit? Christ, if your going to whine about the guy being unfair at least READ his fucking site first. Randi has his own well defined testing process that must be satisfied for the million dollars to be paid out. The testing process is neither biased nor unfair, and the only reason Edwards and his ilk are afraid to take it is because they would be exposed as frauds.

Man, face it... for some reason you desperately WANT to believe. If you just wanted to know the truth you would be in favour of rigorous testing.

The difference is that David Blaine is a magician. Everyone knows that it's tricks. John Edward doesn't claim that what he is doing is tricks, so it is open for debate. And I will revert to my previous statement that just because some people are cons doesn't neccisarily damn everyone else.

I don't have "blind faith". If you had read my posts, you would have understood that I am agnostic, I believe in no religion because I think there is no way to tell what is true and what is not. I have watched many episodes of John's show and I have come to the conclusion that I find it more likely than not that he is getting his information in some way that normal people can't. I'm not "selling" anything. That is my opinion, my conclusion. You are entitled to your opinion, and I started this thread because I am interested in your opinion. If you're not interested in my opinion, don't read it. But don't tell me to go somewhere else :321GFY

I saw him do a double blind test on the MSNBC show. Just because you didn't see something doesn't mean there's no way it could have happened. You know the sun rises in Asia every day too, even though you don't see it happen.

Since when does having an opinion make me desperate?

I'm not in favor of rigorous testing? What the hell are you talking about?

No, the double-blind test that I explained in that same post, that you cut out of my quotes when you responded.

I saw a woman get cut in half on tv the other day too. Until theres been some credible testing it's just a hoax mate. Seriously if he could actually do it, if it was ACTUALLY SCIENTIFICALLY proven possible. the US government would have him in clamps in some NSA dungeon asking muslim ghosts where binladen is, or dead terrorists what they know about bomb plans.
the fact is, he's a charlatan making money of the vulnerable and the gullible. and good luck to him.

I like how you say it's a "fact" when it is your opinion. If I said that it was a "fact" that he can communicate with the dead, you guys would have my nuts for breakfast.

when you attack the fair test of randi's but go on about tv stunts i think it's pretty obvious where you stand on rigorous testing.

How can you do a double blind controlled study to prove someone talks to the dead? Don't be a fool.

There are a number of easy, obvious tests that one could perform to substantiate someones ability to communicate with the dead. I illustrated one of them in my first post. None of the"studies" contain these obvious ways of deciding whether Edwards is telling the truth because he would never agree to subject himself to them. He knows that if he did, he'd be out of a job.

Now, lets use our brains here. Why would someone avoid subjecting himself to an obvious and direct way of knowing for sure whether he is telling truth or not in favor of the ambiguous "studies" that you cited, which will always leave room for doubt? Hmmm...

i like how i say it too. the burden of proof doesn't rest on me. as it hasn't been scientifically proven he can do it, it's a FACT that he's a charlatan.