John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 8th, 2007, 9:55 am

I've always wondered how these book learned cynics would fair if placed into a genuine "Haunted" or "Occult" based setting for a night or two
I would do just fine, especially considering there is no such thing as a ghost. Also, you shouldn't assume that "occult" necessarily implies a "spooky" setting. I am a serious student of the occult, I simply refuse to believe in these two, wholly unsubstantiated phenomena.

Physically speaking, what are you suggesting is happening in these "real" psychic events? If information is travelling from one place to another, then something ( an electromagnetic wave or a particle) would have to be moving across space-time Information Theory tells us this. What is sending, carrying, and receiving the information? The answer...nothing.

Look, no one here (I hope) thinks that a man ( or woman) can "really" pull coins out of thin air or levitate or that red and black cards have trouble mixing when you shuffle a deck, so why have you allowed yourself to be sucked in by this one particular type of effect?? Why do you feel this is more feasible than the cut and restored rope or the ambitious card?

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 8th, 2007, 12:03 pm

Brown Hornet (John R) wrote:

quote: More historical anecdotal trivia: I have a book written by Dunninger himself, entitled What's on Your Mind? written for the public, in which Dunninger distances himself from fraudulent Mediums, Fortune-tellers and fake mind-readers (he describes Kreskin in great detail without actually naming him) and goes on to deny using trickery in his performances.

WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND was published in 1944 when Kreskin was just 9 years old. You likely mean DUNNINGER'S SECRETS published thirty years later, in 1974. Both were written by Walter Gibson.
Well now that's right Richard, thanks for that. Dunninger's Secrets is right next to What's on Your Mind? on my bookshelf.

As I recall, an excerpt from SECRETS was included in an issue of the Old School version of MAGIC magazine back in the 70's, including the quote "I READ MINDS!"

John R

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 8th, 2007, 12:40 pm

As an empiricist, I made decisions and form opinions based on evidence. There are propositions about which I have no opinion because I have not seen and examined the evidence. On other matters, I have seen the evidence - or the lack thereof - and hold what I believe are valid and defensible opinions based on facts. Upon the presentation of more and better facts I am free to change my opinion.

One cannot simply make a statement about the reality of phenomena that is not open to scientific scrutiny and claim its reality, demanding that the skeptics prove it wrong. It is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence for the validity of that claim.

As an example, Charles and Frances Hunter, a husband and wife faith healing team claimed on television that they had healed four broken spinal columns. This would have made news worldwide, but despite repeated requests for evidence, they provided nothing but a wild claim. If they could do what they claim the do, one would think they would be in hospitals 12 hours a day instead of large auditoriums bilking the desperate out of their hard earned money.

I was at one of their meetings as part of my investigation years ago and saw a woman faint. She was revived within moments. This incident was later described by Frances Hunter in front of the entire group as a possible resurrection. Complete nonsense, but accepted uncritically by those who believed in magical thinking.

Now, with respect to readers, it is entirely possible for a caring and compassionate individual to give good advice to a receptive client. I believe that Corinda (or some other authority) made the observation that many people went to readers (as opposed to psychotherapists) to be given permission to do what they already knew they had to do in a given problem. Good advice is good advice.

Some will hold the psychotherapeutic industry as being the standard bearers of good advice, when that is not necessarily the case. Back in 1977 M. Smith and G. Glass published a meta-study of 375 previous studies that showed that psychotherapy worked. Smith and Glass also learned that the therapists credentials Ph.D., M.D., or no advanced degree at all was unrelated to the effectiveness of therapy, nor was the length of therapy related to its success, nor was the type of therapy given related to its effectiveness.

Giving good advice is not evidence of psychic abilities. If youre a reader and you claim to give good advice, fine, I dont have a problem with that. Just dont tell me that spirits from Summerland whisper in your ear. Thats a story and a claim, not evidence.

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 8th, 2007, 12:50 pm

Craig taps into the infinite and gets a message from the Happy Summerland that tells him to say the following about those who disagree>>>But hey, we have a bunch of non-scientists following another non-scientist simply because none of them want to believe in anything.>>>

Reader's jibber-jabber. Assumes facts not in evidence, then provide a generalized conclusion.

Craig also writes>>> granted, this is another reason for jealousy and loathing those that don't play by the magician's rules... after all, these folks are making an exceptional living doing what most of you haven't the guts to do... >>>

Or, perhaps, the arrogance to assume that we can "help" people by pretending to have supernatural abilities?

Craig, your post is FULL of straw-man arguments. It isn't convincing, and it's unbecoming.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to do a SHOW and give demonstrations of your psychic abilites AS ENTERTAINMENT, I would never have a beef. A show is a show, and if you want to leave out ANY kind of disclaimer, so what?

It's when you, and people like you, "cross over", if you will, and start "advising" people using methods employed in deception that it cecomes intolerable and, to my mind, criminal. I believe the reasons this happens are twofold..

1)Most "Psychic Entertainers" can't make a living entertaining, so they use what they know to supplement their income.

2)Once they get a taste of the awe their "Readings" can provoke in people, they get addicted to the ego stroke.

Why can't you respect MY beliefs? (There's no emoticon sufficient to express the depth of sarcasm in the previous sentence.)

P&L
D

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 8th, 2007, 3:34 pm

Craig writes>>>Randi & Co. have had their two and half decades of terror on this battle front.>>>

That is far and away the most ridiculous statement ever typed. "Terror"?!?! Not even CLOSE.

Additionally, someone mentioned Herb Dewey in a favorable context. Herb Dewey, as part of his "reading" would find out the first three numbers of a sitter's Social Security number. Later in the reading, he would say "I also see you have unfinished business in (Insert state named gleaned from the SS#)." His sitters gave him credit for an ability he DID NOT POSSESS, and therefore gave more credence to his "reading."

No matter how you want to dress it up as "belief", THAT, my friends, is f-r-a-u-d.

P&L
D

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 8th, 2007, 8:28 pm

Craig taps into the infinite and gets a message from the Happy Summerland that tells him to say the following about those who disagree>>>But hey, we have a bunch of non-scientists following another non-scientist simply because none of them want to believe in anything.>>>

Reader's jibber-jabber. Assumes facts not in evidence, then provide a generalized conclusion.
Firstly, I never claimed to tap into Summerland or any such source... that's you (an obvious cynic) trying to paint me as being some sort of nut job. Of course you're saying the facts are in evidence in that you don't want to look at the facts... such as the FACT that Randi is NOT a papered and pedigreed "Scientist" nor are his tests anywhere near being legit from the scientific perspective and standards common to most of the world. But then Randi and those of his cult would quickly slander any real pedigreed scientist that don't support their agenda... Randi even threatened at least one Nobel Prize Winning Physicist with physical harm when it came to the issue of quantum physics.


Craig also writes>>> granted, this is another reason for jealousy and loathing those that don't play by the magician's rules... after all, these folks are making an exceptional living doing what most of you haven't the guts to do... >>>

Or, perhaps, the arrogance to assume that we can "help" people by pretending to have supernatural abilities?
I haven't such arrogance but rather letter upon letter of praise and appreciation from clients and years of being encouraged to do this kind of work as a vocation (vs. free of charge, which was the case for well over a decade) by noted professionals in the counseling industry, both clerical as well as psychiatric.

It's when you, and people like you, "cross over", if you will, and start "advising" people using methods employed in deception that it cecomes intolerable and, to my mind, criminal. I believe the reasons this happens are twofold..
To begin with, a huge number of the people that came into mentalism without any connections to stage magic, were those that did Readings or had dealings with Psychic type research to begin with. I was doing Readings long before I ever ventured into Mentalism. It is part of my own spiritual perspective but you would have me denounce one or the other it would seem.

Truth of the matter remains that I am not being predatory when I do Readings. I don't thing Richard Webster or any handful of others we all know and talk about, all of whom do Readings... none of whom are ardent criminals or immoral individuals by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that you, as both a cynic and magicians, detest the fact that this is part of the Mentalist's craft, that many of us embrace it and its simplicity vs. chasing the corporate gigs and club dates like all the magic hacks of the world do and more importantly, you hate the fact that we can cultivate a support network for our shows in a way that is easier and far more substantial than the typical magician is capable of doing.

Tell me, if it is so wrong and so usury, why do so many magicians want to learn how to do Readings? Why do so many of you want to use Runes and Tarot Cards in your acts now days, or do Seance shows?

Is Brother Shadow's HAVE SEANCE WILL TRAVEL a con?

It's sold as the real deal as are all three of Docc Hilford's Seance routines in THE $1,000.00 SEANCE manuscript and a handful of others I can think of.

No... magicians and cynics want their cake and eat it too. Jamie Swiss will kick you out of his club for doing a Palm Reading.. but he's turn right around and do one with some chick he wants to bed down that night... who is doing the greater harm in that case, your fellow cynic or someone like me that detests such antics and the people that do them?

I've never once taken advantage of a client and yet, I know of magicians that brag about screwing over patrons on shows and over-charging. I know magicians that "supplement" their income throwing the cards on the streets or hosting poker games and all sorts of other CONS that are far less honorable and more predatory than what I and my fellows do in this craft. So to coin a phrase, you guys may want to get your own house in order before tossing stones at those of us that are actually doing good in this world vs. ruining the image of magic and magicians by being two-faced hypocrites.

1)Most "Psychic Entertainers" can't make a living entertaining, so they use what they know to supplement their income.

2)Once they get a taste of the awe their "Readings" can provoke in people, they get addicted to the ego stroke.
Well, you obviously haven't a clue as to the kind of money most Readers actually make a year... you don't get rich from it unless you're running a razzle or doing a book promotion. Most Readers average between $25,000.00 to maybe $35,000.00 a year if they are not doing lectures, classes, etc.

I'll toss you another bone... the big names like Edward and VanPraagh are seen by most of the die-hard believers, as frauds. Not that they use trickery but that they betrayed their "calling" for the sake of fame & fortune. I've been told this by several Spiritualists and New Age types... it was a point of view that surprised me to say the least.

Why can't you respect MY beliefs? (There's no emoticon sufficient to express the depth of sarcasm in the previous sentence.)

P&L
Actually if you read what I say and what I've been saying for years now on VISIONS and other sources, I do respect what you believe to a degree. Thing is, that's a two way street and you and most other cynics act like it's a one way or no way flow.

Again, I've not met a single cynic that's put their life on the line to go after the actual criminals out there and Peter Popoff ain't what I'm talk'n here.

I have a book in the works that outlines my own exploits as well as reference to other investigations into dangerous cult groups as well as Psychic/Spiritualist type operators... stuff that makes the famed Psychic Mafia idea look like child's play... investigations where people get killed. But you won't see Randi or his minions taking on that kind of deal... that would require some genuine tenacity and BALLS along side honor.

So until I do meet someone that can match my merit and credentials on that plane, I don't think most of you have any ground to stand on in that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to what is immoral, unethical and dangerous vs. something that's innocent and productive when it comes to the greater picture of community concern.

This one simple truth is why I so loathe most of the armchair experts that when to piss on the psychic issue. For none of you that I'm aware of have ever put your life on the line for the sake of consumer protection and actually prosecuting the real crooks. So maybe you can mull that thought over a bit vs. trying to attack me and make me look like the chump. :D

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 3:51 am

If you can tap into whatever it is that you tap into to get your information, why not tell me something that you couldn't know without a special connection.

It's simple really...just prove it. How much do I have to pay for you to prove to me you are what you say you are?

Bryan

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 5:45 am

If there were anything about the shared reality we all live in that was even close to what the spiritualist/medium/psychic believers want to believe... the experimental evidence would be almost trivial to produce.

By virtue of a well recorded preponderance of lack of evidence and long history of fraudulent attempts to offer evidence most sane practical people relegate any discussion of the issue to "fiction", "well intended fantasy" or similar.

But when we get to "he said my long dead uncle wanted me to..." we are talking about a relatively solid case for a serious question of mental competency, or so says the invisible rabbit on my desk.

Science itself does not dismiss the issue of "spirits" or "communication with the dead" and awaits experimental protocol and statistically meaningful results which come with a reasonable degree of confidence. Science is not a religion and just a process for open discussion of our best guess model of what exists. If you can offer experimental protocol and evidence for adding "spirits" to the model... let's hear about it. Interested folks can read about the "scientific method" in their schoolbooks or use the Wikipedia for a quick look at the ideas.

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 5:50 am

Ok... why don't you go see a movie for the first first time but instead of the two hours it normally takes to see the whole thing, you see it all in under a seconds time...

... now, with pin point accuracy reveal the entire plot, name names, exact actions, clothing, etc. You can't vary in the least.

This is exactly what some Psychic describe and why information isn't pin point accurate... it's generally impossible to do even with photographic memory. But then the wise and cunning cynics of the world know this and use it to their advantage and acts of manipulation as well. They also use the "prove it to me" mode of pressure at deliberate psychological levels so as to confuse the mind of their target/victims and force it to shut down... especially given the fact that most who believe and support this point of view tend to be far more passive than I am and thus, easier to use a fear ploy to make cow down and shut up... it's as I mentioned to JR above, you guys hate being confronted by the truth or the facts in that it takes you off your game.

I'm just encouraging you all to do the very same thing... step up to the plate and lay your lives on the line in the name of what you believe and go after something other than the soft and controlled targets you tend to rally around. If you are so serious and sincere about how wrong and cruel and "unreal" all this stuff is, then put your actions where your big mouths are and stop copping out on that old line of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"... you all know that's a cop out, let it go, get on you best boots and step in it!

I've found myself looking at the wrong end of a 357 power wand more than once during this sort of work... When was the last time any of you experts went that far in following your convictions in protecting the consumer from the bad guys?

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 6:37 am

Craig,

Why do you respond as if personally attacked when others tell you that their worlds don't have room or evidence for what you believe in?

Nobody here (sane-adult) is going to deny you any aspect of your personal internal reality as you experience it.

More puzzled than usual,

Jon

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 8:33 am

I'd love to read the published accounts of your adventures on the other end of a .357 magic wand, Craig. Where might I find them? Or, at least, court testimony from the cases you've been involved in? How about a testimonial from the police department(s) you helped?

Questions, have you ever used methods also used by mentalists and/or magicians to enhance a reading? What do you think of Herb Dewey's readings, and the fact that he enhaced them with deception, a la the aforementioned Social Security numbers/Home State revelation?

Finally, I find your "movie-in-a-second" analogy a bit disturbing. If your "ability" is that tenuous and difficult to interpret, how can you, in good conscience, charge people money for it?

P&L
D

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 8:38 am

Craig bosasts>>>So until I do meet someone that can match my merit and credentials on that plane, I don't think most of you have any ground to stand on in that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to what is immoral, unethical and dangerous vs. something that's innocent and productive when it comes to the greater picture of community concern.>>>>

*sigh* Another straw-man argument.

D

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 10:44 am

While imaginative, Craig's example of a film doesn't hold water for people familiar with writing for television or film. I often amuse my wife by watching the first few moments of a television show and name the murderer. I do this sometimes before the murder has been committed yet I know who the killer is. I often supply dialog before it is spoken.

Do I do this by "psychic" means? No. I know the structure of television and how people talk. Supplying dialog that follows from previous dialog is a matter of experience and logic.

Second, much of this discussion would evaporate if our main protagonist understood the Scientific Method and the nature of evidence in the scientific sense of the word.

User avatar
Steve Bryant
Posts: 1947
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Ballantine
Location: Bloomington IN
Contact:

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Steve Bryant » April 9th, 2007, 12:35 pm

Jamie Swiss will kick you out of his club for doing a Palm Reading.. but he's turn right around and do one with some chick he wants to bed down that night.
Whoa! I hope Jamy is going to publish his work on how to bed down chicks with magic.

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 2:39 pm

I'd love to read the published accounts of your adventures on the other end of a .357 magic wand, Craig. Where might I find them? Or, at least, court testimony from the cases you've been involved in? How about a testimonial from the police department(s) you helped?
As I said previously, the book is being worked on... not just my experiences but that of others as well.

Questions, have you ever used methods also used by mentalists and/or magicians to enhance a reading? What do you think of Herb Dewey's readings, and the fact that he enhaced them with deception, a la the aforementioned Social Security numbers/Home State revelation?
What you describe are magic tricks... If I am hired to entertain folks as a Reader I do my best to cheat at every level anyone else here would do and then some. On the other hand, if I am being hired as a consultant I don't go anywhere near a cheat of any sort outside the application of common oracle systems just like any other Reader.

Being a Reader does not mean you are a "Psychic"... it means you are READING THE ORACLE itself based on the guidelines or "science" if you would, that said oracle is based on. I likewise employ my intuition... I DO NOT CLAIM TO HAVE SPECIAL POWERS OR ABILITIES... which is what you are assuming and trying to imposed into what I and others do. Cynic's love to impose their limited understanding as to what we do vs. opening their mind wide enough to actually hear what we say and what we actually claim vs. what you want to say we claim.

Two or three times now you have "insisted" that I use this or that trick when a.) You've never seen me do a Reading; and b.) You are basing your charges on what you have been taught to believe vs. what is genuine and very common within the older traditions of Mentalism.

I like Herb's material just as I like what I've learned from Nelson, Webster, Knepper and many others... now if you are so aware and so concerned, why aren't you attacking them for what they have made available to you and everyone here over the years based on the actual work they do in the field as Readers?

You keep saying I have Straw Men arguments and the real clincher is, you've not yet clarified how I'm so different from these noted veterans and honored contributors of Mentalism.

I'm not going to continue down this path for many reasons, the biggest being that none of us need to deal with the drama that frequently unfolds around this kind of "discussion". Secondly, I have grown tired of trying to lubricate the rusted closed steel traps of the magic world and get them to open up a bit and simply accept the fact that not everyone with a deck of tarot cards in hand is out there trying to take advantage of people and some of of us actually do look out for the consumer as well as the naive.

I've said it many times in the this thread over the past few days... I'm all for busting the crooks but I don't think it's anyone's business what I believe or any one else. More so, I know that it is not your right or obligation to call me or anyone else an fool or an idiot due to our beliefs and understandings and yet I have been called such, albeit indirectly via terms like "matured adults" and so forth... it's as if anyone with a belief is childish or immature?

I find that to be quite an interesting point of view as I'm certain others would as well.

Oh, David... your perspective on the film analogy is something I can fully understand but though you can explain the plot and possibly who done what to whom... you can't possibly fill in the details... you can offer a vague, albeit educated profile about what the film is and some of the key elements, but you cant possibly give the same kind of pin-point unwavering accuracy the skeptical expect every "psychic" to deliver without fail time and again.

Bottom line is, it's time for folks to start respecting other people's beliefs and experiences and stop with this selfish and arrogant rampage so many in magic think to be their right to wage. It's going to backfire on you and when it does it's going to hurt the entire industry in a way no one's expecting... or for that matter, gives a damn about presently (or so it would seem).


Finally, I find your "movie-in-a-second" analogy a bit disturbing. If your "ability" is that tenuous and difficult to interpret, how can you, in good conscience, charge people money for it?

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 3:36 pm

Craig wrote:
Bottom line is, it's time for folks to start respecting other people's beliefs and experiences and stop with this selfish and arrogant rampage so many in magic think to be their right to wage.
_________________________________
One moment...there is a vast gulf between a belief and a claim and a services rendered for cash based on a claim and/or exploiting a belief. That is what I think were talking about.

In this country we are free to believe anything we want and I support that. However, it is another thing entirely when someone claims they heal the sick and the infirm and can do it for a donation. At that point ethical people must speak up.unless you believe our society should be based on every man for himself?

Anyone can talk to the dead. The problem arises when someone claims the dead talk back through them. This is a claim that exploits peoples fears and insecurities. Apart from anything else, it is a consumers right to get what they are paying for. If someone claims to talk for the dead an extraordinary claim they should be required to step up and prove it if they are taking money or goods or anything in return for this service. It has nothing to do with beliefs, and everything to do with consumers getting what they are paying for..unless youre against that.which I dont think you are.

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 4:09 pm

My view, is that anyone who charges money to tell people how they should live their lives/what is wrong with them/problems in their past is ethically bankrupt.

It's a con, a trick, a swiz.

Whether 'special powers' are claimed or otherwise is totally immaterial, because the readee will asume those powers - even if explicitly told said powers do no exist.

Taking money from strangers to do a 'reading' of any kind, using any techniques (or nonexistant powers) is just wrong.

In this day and age, the church is dead and people are desperate for guidance. For a path. For an answer to unanswerable questions. Anyone who claims they can provide these services for money is at best a charlatan and at worst an immoral con artist.

IMHO, as ever.

Damian

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7257
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 9th, 2007, 4:29 pm

Posted by Craig Browning:
Of course you're saying the facts are in evidence in that you don't want to look at the facts... such as the FACT that Randi is NOT a papered and pedigreed "Scientist" nor are his tests anywhere near being legit from the scientific perspective and standards common to most of the world. But then Randi and those of his cult would quickly slander any real pedigreed scientist that don't support their agenda... Randi even threatened at least one Nobel Prize Winning Physicist with physical harm when it came to the issue of quantum physics.
James Randi has never claimed to be a scientist.

James Randi neither designs nor conducts the tests; he leaves that to experts, scientists, and, yes, even those being tested. Your assertions about the tests are the usual falsehoods that Randi-bashers pull out of their wallet when confronted by the FACT (to borrow your emphasis) that no one has ever passed.

I am unaware of a cult being run by James Randi.

Scientists who stray from scientific method are no longer scientists regardless of their pedigree. One example would be Gary Schwartz, who has clearly turned his back on science. After all, if he really did have the scientific proof he claims, he would have made a rather big splash in the world by now. Whats he waiting for? Apparently his proof does not stand up to the scientific scrutiny of his peers.

I am not in a position to make comment on your other claim regarding Randi. I have let Mr. Randi know and leave it up to him to comment should he care to.

My simple test still remains unanswered: Why doesnt a medium have his/her spirit guide contact the spirit any one of many murder victims and let the world know who committed the crime and, in many cases, where their physical remains are hidden (the discovery of which could lead to admissible physical evidence that could bring the culprit to justice)?

Dustin

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 4:57 pm

Extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary proof. When someone claims to be able to do something that violates the commonly accepted laws of physics, well then, yes, extraordinary, precise, and accurate evidence must be supplied to support the claim.

I was at the auditions for psychics for one of Randis big television specials. I wasnt part of the production team, just there to observe. A number of people showed up and nearly all of them were true believers in what they could do. They werent frauds, they were simply deceiving themselves over what they were doing. Some believe they could do things that could be tested.

This, of course, is one of the main virtues of the Scientific Method with a well-designed experimental protocol eliminating the possibility that we are fooling ourselvesor being fooled by others. Nature is consistent, but humans can apply artifice.

One who auditioned was a scientific astrologer. He was marvelously arrogant about what he could do. He was told about what the test would consist of and he said he would do well, make that absolutely certain he would do well. As he left we could see he was thinking how to spend the prize money.

At the taping he submitted to the test hed agreed to before, a test not designed by Randi but by experts who knew how to set up a test. If the guy could do what he claimed, hed pass the test and win the prize. He didnt get one correct answer. I remember Ray Hyman mentioning that statistically, he should have gotten at least one in twelve by simply guessing. He didnt even get that. So, he couldnt do what he claimed he could do, at least at that test. He had no complaints before the test.

A close friend of mine, Shawn Carlson, did a large test of professional and amateur astrologers, about 30 if memory serves. All of them agreed to the protocol before the test began. Not one of them did better than one in three on the test, which was the same result had they simply guessed. A few who did not understand what that meant insisted that they had passed because they were 30% correct.

His results were published in Nature, something of an accomplishment for an undergrad.

The point is there are plenty of fair tests that can be applied to people who make claims, tests and experiments that eliminate human artifice. Unfortunately, as Project Alpha made clear, scientists are too trusting and often incapable of guarding against deliberate fraud.

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 5:09 pm

I read over and over that if we want proof we have to wait till his book comes out and I suppose we would have to pay for the book. That makes all of this nothing more than promo work for the book, creating a buyer base just because of the controversy. This is and has been a viable marketing ploy.

Would it be so bad if you proved just one thing to us, after all that would make me buy your book. nothing less will make me buy your book or give it anything more than my own negative slant.

So, you will sell more books if you just prove that you have any power. C'mon just a little proof nothing earthshaking just a small thing.like win Randi's challenge.

Bryan

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 5:34 pm

This entire discussion has saddened me, and I'm not sure why. I need to give the matter some serious thought. :confused:

John r

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 9th, 2007, 9:53 pm

This is a forum for sleight-of-hand and magic talk..

When you start talking about non-physical reality in THIS forum...

it's outside sleight-of-hand and magic talk.

It ain't appropriate.

Disagree?

I'm a soto zen priest.

Are you gonna argue religion with me?

What kind? Yours against mine?

Why?

I'm here for sleight -of -hand (and as a Genii subscriber )

Is this " battle of the belief systems" ?

No!

I'm (currently) practicing a near-perfect bottom deal.

And near-perfect zazen.

So what?

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 12:28 am

Craig Browning:
I have a Doctorates Degree ... based on Life Honors/Life Achievement.
Randi is NOT a papered and pedigreed "Scientist"
Uhh, takes one to know one????

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 5:38 am

Craig said>>>I like Herb's material just as I like what I've learned from Nelson, Webster, Knepper and many others... now if you are so aware and so concerned, why aren't you attacking them for what they have made available to you and everyone here over the years based on the actual work they do in the field as Readers?>>>

And there it is, an endorsement of fraud.

>>>>You keep saying I have Straw Men arguments and the real clincher is, you've not yet clarified how I'm so different from these noted veterans and honored contributors of Mentalism. >>>

When/if they used techiques of deception, as Dewey did, they were frauds. I place you squarely in their pantheon. Congrats.

'>>>Being a Reader does not mean you are a "Psychic"... it means you are READING THE ORACLE itself based on the guidelines or "science" if you would, that said oracle is based on. I likewise employ my intuition... I DO NOT CLAIM TO HAVE SPECIAL POWERS OR ABILITIES>>>

I love it when people try to apply the term 'science' to something that has NO resemblance to science in order to legitimize it. As for 'intuition' "c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference," I'd say the last part fits you to a "T". At least that's what my 'oracular system and intuition" tells me.

>>>>Bottom line is, it's time for folks to start respecting other people's beliefs and experiences>>>

No, it isn't. There has never been any conclusive proof that such beliefs ad "experiences" are valid. I don't have to "respect" the belief that the eart is flat, even though some people cling to it.

Also, you said magicians are jealous of readers who have this great marketing avenue for their shows. Fair enough...how many hard tickets are you currently selling to your shows based on your readings?

D

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 8:09 am

This is a forum for sleight-of-hand and magic talk..

When you start talking about non-physical reality in THIS forum...

it's outside sleight-of-hand and magic talk.

It ain't appropriate.

Disagree?

I'm a soto zen priest.
Namaste Tim,

Agreed. A discussion of this kind is uncomfortable under these circumstances and in my opinion has gotten out of control. I'm a Theravadan Buddhist, once studied for the robe but decided in favor of lay practice. I too, do a near perfect bottom deal. I work as a mentalist and hypnotist. I also come here to discuss sleight of hand and magic -- my hobby, and to get away from the serious stuff. I've followed this discussion with great fascination, however. I've learned things about people whom I thought I knew. I've also broadened my understanding of the dynamics of magician/mentalist relations. Although in 30 years of professional performance, I thought I had seen it all, there seems to be new facets to everything. Fascinating.

It's good to meet you Tim. Thanks for your wise words _/|\_

Gasso,

John R

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7257
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 10th, 2007, 11:10 am

The discussion here is about psychics, mediums, and the paranormal. I have deleted posts that were blatantly religious in nature.

This site is dedicated to all types of magic, its history, and even kindred arts (we have had threads on juggling for example).

This discussion is well within the purview of this site and to say otherwise is nave, ignorant, or just plain shortsighted.

There is no doubt that passions are running high; they always do with this type of discussion. But I am not yet at the point where Im ready to lock it.

Dustin

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 11:25 am

Dustin wrote: (we have had threads on juggling for example).

--

Sorry about that Dustin!

:)

Damian

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 11:43 am

There's no need to be unpleasant or insulting, Dustin. I'm neither naive, ignorant nor shortsighted, although there has been a great deal of these qualities bandied about during the past few days. My comments on this forum have always been polite and I've tried to be helpful. However, It's become clear that mentalists are barely tolerated here. I've learned a lot from these exchanges and I thank everyone. It's been fun while it lasted.

You know where to find me,

John R

Ian Kendall
Posts: 2631
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Ian Kendall » April 10th, 2007, 12:13 pm

Mentalists are fine - it's the people who claim to be using supernatural phenomena to council people while charging money that are under scrutiny here.

Take care, Ian

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7257
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 10th, 2007, 12:47 pm

John,

Being nave, ignorant or shortsighted isnt necessarily bad. There are countless subjects in this old world of which I am one or all of these things. Of the three I listed, I allow you to make your choice, or provide a fourth or fifth (etc.) reason.

That said, I am not the one who agreed with Mr. Furneaux who claimed this conversation was not appropriate on this site. Hes wrong, so you are wrong. If I am wrong, help me out. You will have to tell me why you agree that this conversation is not within the boundaries of this site.

I cannot think of any other reasons, other than the three I listed, why someone would think that it isnt suitable. Of those three I listed, I allow you to make your choice, or provide a fourth or fifth (etc.) reason.

That it is uncomfortable for you is not a reason such a discussion cant be conducted here. Its only a reason for you not to participate.

Clowning and kid magic make me uncomfortable so, for the most part, I choose to avoid those conversations. Thats because I am mostly ignorant and shortsightedand happily so I might addof these aspects of the craft. But the threads they generate, like this conversation, are appropriate conversation here.

We have an entire Forum devoted to menatlism here, so to say that mentalists are barely tolerated here falls under what I would consider ignorant. Its not an insult; you apparently dont participate enough to know that many conversations are carried out here by many fine mentalists. Since you are not a stupid person, you must be ignorant of the facts; nothing wrong with that. Check out the Menatlism Forum; you might enjoy it there.

Dustin

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 1:11 pm

Re Jim Coles: I have never said that there is no god. I have only challenged anyone to prove that there IS a god Minerva, Jehovah, Loki, ANY deity. I cannot prove there is no god; others say there is, so I simply say, prove it and win the million-dollar prize Silence

Re Craig Browning: What sort of a fantasy life does he lead? Ive known a good number of Nobel Laureates, but (a) never one who said he believed in gods or devils, and (b) I never threatened any one of these except that I tried to get Brian Josephson to live up to his agreement with me and the American Physical Society, which he chose to handle by breaking off communication with us and retreating. That confrontation had nothing to do with quantum physics, which Browning may believe refers to a type of laxative. But since he doesnt name the Nobel Winning Physicist hes blathering about, this may not be what hes referring to. And, as he knows, any and all of the tests we have tried to conduct and have conducted, were developed by legitimate scientists, not by me. I have never claimed to have any academic standing except for an honorary degree from the University of Indianapolis, and Ive repeatedly stated that I have no formal scientific standing or expertise.

Im weary of responding to these canards, issued by individuals who know nothing about their subject.

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 3:28 pm

Mr. Randi, perhaps youve never said there is no god in as many words, but I find challenging the religious to provide proof of something which is a matter of faith to be a very miniscule distinction. Ill stand by my assertion that it isnt the place of a magician to be dismissive of anothers religious beliefs, and for an entertainer to adopt such a role is utterly and ridiculously presumptuous. The job of the magician, at least to my way of thinking, is to provide mystery, not to systematically and scornfully condemn it.

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 3:36 pm

Jim Coles wrote something about people saying religion was nonsense.

Jim, I cannot remember anyone writing that.

The jist of this thread is people are pissed at people that charge money to council people using cold reading techniques.

Craig Browning seems to think this is an ok thing to do.

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7257
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 10th, 2007, 4:13 pm

Lets be careful here.

Damian (mrgoat) is correct regarding what this thread is about.

We are questioning the scientific veracity of the paranormal (psychics, mediums, reader, astrologists, etc.) not religious faith.

Randi was only saying what he believes, thus correcting what was said about/for him on this site. Its something he has to do quite often given some people tend to misquote and misinterpret him for reasons known only to them.

Dustin

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 4:28 pm

My statements were made in response to Craig Browning writing:

"The reason is very simple; many are sick and tired of the evangelic spirit found in magic now days that is supportive of a strong atheist view... the negation of faith or belief at any level..."

I happen to be one of the people sick of said attitude for the reasons Ive already expressed. I think Mr. Randis comments speak for themselves in regard to the veracity of what I was saying. As you feel Im off topic, Dustin, Ill say no more about it. I apologize if I was out of line.

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 4:54 pm

There's a very useful idea sometimes called "as if".

What are the ethics of using someone's "as if" to affect their material wealth and conduct toward others?

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 4:55 pm

I am puzzled by Jim Coles restating Craigs observation: The reason is very simple; many are sick and tired of the evangelic spirit found in magic now days that is supportive of a strong atheist view... the negation of faith or belief at any level..." Jim is apparently one of the people sick and tired.

Other than Penn and Teller, who are Craig and Jim talking about? Would either of you deny P&T the same First Amendment rights that you and the religious have in this country because you disagree with them?

It is important to note that the amount of time that P&T have on their cable show is miniscule when compared to the tsunami of religious programming television. There are entire cable systems created for religious purposes.

And Randis position is perfectly reasonable as with any proposition or claim, he asks for proof. Whats wrong with that?

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7257
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 10th, 2007, 5:40 pm

Again, lets tread very lightly; the envelope is straining and the boss is watching.

Jim, I understand your point. But I would disagree with any claim that there is a strong feeling in the magic community either way (for or against a religious belief system). I suspect that, if anything, its half and half at most. But its more likely to be closer to that of the population in general, which is a preponderance of people who believe in a deity of some kind. There are a lot more books on evangelical magic than there is on atheistic magic!

I also disagree with your comment that its not the place of an entertainer to use his/her position to question, by being dismissive or what have you, someones beliefs (religious or otherwise).

Cant it be said that evangelical magicians are being dismissive of fervent atheists when they deliver their message of faith?

Like it or not, its a freedom they have and it is no ones place to tell them to stop. Frankly, I think that celebrities who voice their political views at every opportunity should be muzzled. But I cant have it done (nor should I be able to), so I have to either listen to them, or ignore them. (And yes, they do it in performance be it concerts or projects they choose, etc.)

So the same thing must be said for magicians. Ultimately, if their audience turns on them for their beliefs, they will also lose their pulpit.

Dustin

Guest

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Guest » April 10th, 2007, 7:57 pm

I think all this pales in comparison to one of the major questions that had been plaguing Western Society for some time. Fortunately, we live in a time when this question can be answered with complete certainty: Who is the father of Anna Nicole Smith's child?

Larry Burkhead..who also scored a Guinness World Record for the biggest I told you so in history.
;)

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7257
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 10th, 2007, 8:41 pm

I told you it wasn't me.

I feel so vindicated!


Return to “General”