John Edward's "Crossing Over"

Discuss general aspects of Genii.

Postby Guest » 10/06/01 05:35 AM

how lucky for her. its like she hit the psychic lotto. I am still a skeptic. seems the dream would have been relentless in her mind. how could her psychic ability let her and so many others down not to pursue it. don't the psychics have the ability to tell when certian dreams are more important than others they have. are they not psychic to their own psychic ability? so many forms of fraud in the world what makes cold reading any different? the fine print is interesting though. seems to me that 3rd party info gathering is all that need be said. cold reading is like an urban legend. "oh yes he/she talked to the dead". believers pay for their belief, skeptics shake their head, and the readers go to the bank.
after watching a guy(names changed to protect the guilty) get a waitress crying after about 2 minutes into his cold reading. telling the poor girl all sorts of crap. he left and she continued to cry. like she could have done something different in her life to change the death of someone else. how sad it all was and is. its not for me. my father once told me that an amazing amount of the public has a sweet tooth for
sh!t, this seems to be one of the better examples of it to me.
as far as randi goes I think he has lost it. the last 3 times I have seen him on larry king he was a lump on a log. nothing of the randi of old. he must be tired. he should rethink his apperances and maybe hire a helper, someone who is as fired up as the psychos taking and givin' the calls. all we here about is the test. so few take it. the test seems silly as it is all he has to fall back on. I don't think I have ever heard about one of the top psycho's takin' it.
heres my question .?.how about a fox show on the exposure of cold reading. the masked psychic. how many would be upset by that. how many magicians use cold reading. is it linked to our art, or is it a parasite that
has latched on for the ride?
Scotty
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/06/01 09:11 AM

Ben Harris was talking about 'exploiting peoples stupidity".Well I certainly felt stupid when I paid $10 for something he
marketed called 'The Spooks'[A matchbox and
an elastic band,it never did and never could
have worked.Fantastic layout on the instuction booklet though!
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/06/01 09:32 PM

Hi Mark Y.

I've looked over the thread and can't see where I've discussed "exploiting peoples stupidity."

Onto, "Spooks."

I think you mean an effect called CREEPS.

I'm sorry you couldn't get it working.

But to state that it can't work is incorrect. I'll demo it for you anytime.

The administrator of this forum, Richard Kaufman saw me demo it at an IBM convention years ago as did Max Maven, Bob Farmer, Jay Sankey and others.

You need to experiment and find the right relationship between the band and box. If you don't, the tray will shoot across the room or just sit still. You need to work at this.

I'm also worried that the tone of your letter seems to imply that you felt ripped-off or "taken" in some way. Feel free to return the item to us for a refund (or credit, your choice).

Send it to:

Media T Marketing
Att: Ben Harris
PO Box 86 Northgate 4013
Australia

Cheers

Ben Harris
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/07/01 03:31 AM

Thank you Ben.It was called the'The creeps'
I bought this a good five years ago and I
know your customer service has improved a lot since then.Since you came back into marketing magic.You did lump Edwards,crystels
and Astrology all together as rubbish though
There is a good chance Edwards is
a con but I think there maybe something to
Asrology..Some one talked about America and
free enterprise.Are not some of the bible thumping T.V. stations asking for donations
just as bad as Edwards?.I did love the 'Quarks book! Best Mark
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/07/01 04:01 AM

:eek: For years I was the voice of the syndicated radio program, Your Daily Horoscope. The more I got to know the writer of that show, the more I became fascinated with astrology.

When he was alive, every year on Sinatra's birthday [12/12] I invited an astrologer to my radio show, A Date With Sinatra, to 'tell me about' Frank's next 12 months. In 1997 one of the world's best known astrologers told me Sinatra would die the middle of May 1998.

Lucky guess, or something she read in his chart?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/07/01 06:21 AM

In regards Peter Duffie's comments:

Firstly, for those who don't know, Peter and I duel over subjects like these off and on. We do it in a gentleman-like fashion and with respect for each other's opinions.

That said, I appreciate Peter drawing my attention to Valerie Clarke's supposed prediction of the WTC attack -

Here is the quote:

"I had this dream a while ago and I thought it was a bombing at the World Trade Center. In my dream I was at the World Trade Center wandering the streets – I was in some sort of barricade when the building blew up. At the same time this plane went down behind it. In my dream I was not sure if the plane had gone into the building."


With all due respect, I find it hard to accept this as being an accuarate prediction of the Sept 11 terrorism attack.

To me, you need to read details into it retrospectively in order to create a "hit."

By the psychic's own admission she was not sure about the plane hitting the building.

She also claims the building blew up. It didn't, it collapsed later.

To me, a satisfying prediction would have been:

In Sept 2001, many groups will attempt to overpower planes in the U.S. 4 will succeed. 2 planes will crash into the WTC causing the complete collapse of two towers. The Pentagon will also be hit. One plane will appear to go astray.

If you follow the link Peter gives, you can read all about Valerie, other psychics, and find the comment:

"A psychic cannot be expected to be able to predict any given future event, no matter how significant it might be. The nature of such gifts, which we do not fully understand, itself seems to be unpredictable."

This raises the question...What possible value do psychics have for society?

With respect...

Ben Harris
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/07/01 08:55 AM

Ben is correct: I did see him do "The Creeps" many years ago and it looked great. As Ben has reminded me, a friend staying with me back then tried to learn and had a tough time. That doesn't mean it's not a great trick, just that it's hard to get the feel for making the drawer move slowly.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 19988
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Brian Marks » 10/07/01 09:55 AM

Not only should a psycic be able to predict where the 4 hijacked planes crashed but also names of hijackers, names and events nobody outside the FBI might know at this point and details not yet dicovered by the investigation. Hey if they worked the FBI would use them to prevent crimes and terrorists attacks.
Brian Marks
 
Posts: 918
Joined: 01/30/08 01:00 PM
Location: Nyack, NY

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 10/07/01 10:09 AM

The real question is not whether or not they would be able to predict it, but rather who would listen to them if they did?

Joe Psychic: "Excuse me, President Bush, but I'm getting an impression of two planes flying into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11th around 9am. They will both collapse and man people will die. Another plane will crash into the Pentagon."

Pres. Bush: "Do you have any evidence to back this up? Can you show me documents that prove that people are preparing to do this?"

Joe Psychic: "Well...uh...no...but I have this really vivid picture of it in my head! and it happened in a dream last night, too! I'm telling you, it's gonna happen!"

Pres. Bush: "Security! Get this lunatic outta here! I don't have time for this!"

At least, that's how I see it happening. What's more, after the event actually happened, the psychic would probably be brought in for questioning to find out what his involvement was in the whole scheme and how he could know all the details.

So, even if someone could predict it, I doubt he would be given much credibility.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Guest » 10/07/01 06:16 PM

Hi Jim,

How are ya mate?

You made a wonderful point. Why have we not seen this happen? Could it be that the psychics don't have the conviction to follow through?

If I had been Valerie, and if I had really believed in my own "vision" then I would have almost sent myself to the grave out of sheer distress. Panic-city. I'd have been banging on doors until someone listened. I'd have been frantic. What did Valerie do between June and Sept? How many panic-stricken calls to officials did she make? Bet the answer is ZERO!

Cheers

Ben
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/10/01 07:28 PM

Mofo196: I've deleted your last post in this thread. You're free to say pretty much anything you want on these boards as long as you're not nasty to the other members, who are free to express their opinions. I don't care if you find them bizarre or stupid--keep it to yourself.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 19988
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Brian Marks » 10/10/01 10:58 PM

If psycics predicted the events of 9/11 why didnt they attempt to warn people despite people not believing them? It would strengthen their claims if they made an obvious attempt to warn people and many would begin to listen. Since none made the attempt, I can assume they either dont care or they cant predict the future.

Psycics who predict the past with great accuracy seem to be stuck on making money with 1-800 phone numbers and small shops. Why can they get rich by winning lotteries, betting on sporting events or playing poker? Why must they ask question similiar to cold readings and not just tell us the answers?

Could it be that the FBI dont believe psycics because they dont seem to work in preventing crimes? If they FBI used psycics to read minds, would they need to get a warrent to do so?
Brian Marks
 
Posts: 918
Joined: 01/30/08 01:00 PM
Location: Nyack, NY

Postby Guest » 10/26/01 09:26 AM

Given scam artists like Edward and the TV industry, you just KNEW it had to happen:

'Crossing Over' taps into Sept. 11 tragedy Broadcasting & Cable magazine is reporting that "Crossing Over" host John
Edward "will feature attempts to communicate with victims of the Sept. 11 attacks" in several episodes airing next month during November sweeps. Steve Rosenberg, president of Studios USA domestic syndication, tells B&C the shows "will be done tastefully . . . and won't be exploitative." Rosenberg says "Crossing Over" producers received several phone calls from surviving
family members asking to speak to Edward, who claims to communicate with the dead.
"It seemed wrong not to do it," Rosenberg says. (STARR
Report - NY Post)

:mad:
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/26/01 10:28 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brian Wendell Morton:
[QB]Given scam artists like Edward and the TV industry, you just KNEW it had to happen:

It's been canceled. See post under "How Low Can You Go".
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/27/01 03:01 PM

IPSO FACTO - THE BOY'S A FAKO

If he was genuinely able to contact the dead, the WTC contact show would have gone ahead. Edward would have been consulted by the US Govt to supply early death-toll and details for the devastated families of lost ones, if he was real. It would have been the normal, expected thing to do. IF HE WAS REAL.

If he was REAL, it would not be in "bad taste," it would be "therapeutic."

It is only in "bad taste" because deep down inside we all (including the producers of Edward's show)really know the truth - YOU CANNOT CONVERSE WITH THE DECEASED. Thus, any attempts at exploitation of the WTC incident becomes abhorrent. The truth is now obvious.

It is very interesting social phenomenon in that disaster of this proportion changes the way we treat the reality/illusion divide.

Cheers

Ben Harris
Guest
 

Postby Brian Marks » 10/29/01 01:16 PM

This forum has encouraged me to start reading John Edward's book. He talks about communicating with his dead mother. Before she died of Cancer, they decided on three signs she would use thru a medium to prove that it was the her. One was Springfield, the name of a fictional town in some soap opera. However John Edward mentions the ONLY way the medium could express Springfield would be if the medium was a fan of the soap opera. So they broke it up into Spring and Field to better express it thru a medium.
Brian Marks
 
Posts: 918
Joined: 01/30/08 01:00 PM
Location: Nyack, NY

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/29/01 05:45 PM

I can't believe you guys even find it worthwhile to talk about an [censored] like Edwards.
He should be in jail with all con artists who screw around with people's finanances AND emotions.

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Richard Kaufman ]
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 19988
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 10/30/01 11:15 AM

There is quite a lot of discussion about Edward here: http://www.crossingover.co.uk/chat ... it is very frustrating to read the reasons why people think he is for real especially as some of them are absolutely convinced about his supposed abilities and refuse to listen to sane argument.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 12/11/01 07:47 AM

Growing up I pitched Svengali decks. In the booth next to mine was an old Gypsy who claimed to be able to tell the future, talk to the dead, and cure people of any illness by laying on her hands or chanting an icantation.

I would get sick watching people walking out of this place after handing over stacks of cash.

This is not a regular "con". Most cons rely upon the greed of the mark. In this case the con relys upon taking advatage of another persons suffering.

people who take advatage of the sick and suffering for their own profit are the lowest form of scumbag.

This is not harmless and it isn't about giving people closure. Trust me if a dirt ball like Edward ever got his hands on a cash whale the last thing he'd want to give that person would be closure.

He would be lining up sessions every week and each week would end with a cliff hanger worthy of a 1930's serial. He'd also be trying to get the whale to bring in other whale friends for a good cash blood letting.

Please, I hope none of you kid yourself into thinking anything else.

Best,

Dan[/LIST]
[*]null
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/05/07 08:53 PM

I've always found it intriguing how, prior to the egotistic antics of a certain old Canadian the majority of magic buffs were blown away by Gellar, and later the two or three other flash in the pan types and finally Mr. Edward. Of course, the swill pit of magic (a.k.a. The Magic Cafe) went through and "edited" much of what was there prior to the PEOPLE article... I'll assume this was done so that some jerk like me couldn't point out all those posts there, at the Shadow Digest, the old MoMM, and numerous other sites... where all these present day "experts" couldn't figure it out.

Once the sales presentation was put forth by Mr. R & Co. everyone suddenly lit up and claimed to know and to have known the "truth" all this time.

The other side of the coin is that the majority of "magicians" don't understand that there is a huge chasm of difference between Cold Reading and being a Reader... if you want to get a "taste" of what that is, work with only Millard Longman's PSYCHIC SKILLS WORKSHOP material and the formulas shared in Knepper's MIND READING... toss all that Barnum and Forer CRAP in the round file (where it belongs) and pick up a divination tool or concept you're comfortable with and go for it!

I've had a couple of phone conversations with John Edward prior to the Randi smear campaign... I can assure you, what he shared with me about me and my life wasn't as readily explained as most would like to claim... and "coincidence" (the cynic's favorite cop-out... explanation) isn't even accepted by legitimate science, so let's not go there... nor should we say that I'm just not "educated enough" about how it all works for reasons that more than a few members here can explain to those that haven't a clue as to my specialty within the Mentalism world. ;)

I offer this point of contrast on this issue for a couple of reasons, the biggest of which centers on the fact that anyone wanting to learn how to be a solid Reader, especially from the stage, should watch John Edward religiously... he's one of the best I've ever seen within this kind of setting. By contrast however, Sylvia Brown and James VanPraagh are awesome examples of what not to do with the "Pet Psychic" leading the pack as one of the worse Readers on the planet.

The other reason I have offered this voice of challenge is a bit more "down to earth"... John Edward is not a "Predator" when it comes to his work and thus, not criminal as say Ms. Cleo was. The public places value in what he does... obviously more value than they would seeing something like... Oh... a magician that openly admits that he is acting like a psychic... let's face it, the so-called moral oriented and ethical one is typically pushing his luck asking for $10.00 a seat while Mr. Edward gets between $75.00 and $500.00 a seat... selling out most of the facilities his events are held in.

This man has a hell of a lot to teach us all if we'd just set our prejudices and arrogance off to the side and recognize a few very simple truths; starting with the fact that what he offers does not create "Victims"... it is non-predatory and though there is a spiritual theme running through it, it is sold as an entertainment and as a "Psychic Entertainer" he's proven to be far more successful than most of the experts standing on this side of the proverbial fence... hasn't he?

Shortly after the People magazine article came out John took the time to offer a rebuttal... it was quite interesting in that he revealed the things most of Randi & Company's "explanations" gloss over... starting with the fact that to do and use even half the methods some have theorized he's using, he'd have a staff of at least several hundred if not thousands and a surveillance network that would rival that of most nations. In other words, the methods don't stand up if you look at them from a logical point of view.

I'm one of the few people in this business that admits to being a "believer" of sorts... I'm one of the few that will stand up for the rights of other people to believe, even if it is something I do not personally support or patronize, such as most aspects of organized religion.

When I wrote the two articles for VISIONS eZine about the big mouths and bullies in today's magic world (when it comes to this sort of issue) I received more mail; letters of thanks and appreciation, than I've ever seen in all the years I've been with that publication. 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... even I am guilty of making a pun or two when it comes to certain religious ideas but I am not venomous about such things and I do not allow a person's beliefs (well, other than certain in-humanitarian ideas and racism) get in the way of what I do or how I interact with them.

I don't want this to turn into a typical "jump on the gullible fool" routine, which is so common when I or anyone speaks up in this manner. I just wanted to put some points of view on the table for all to consider -- quietly if possible and free of childish banter.
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 04/06/07 12:20 AM

Craig,

Since you dug up this old thread, I will dig up an old post that, in 2002 when I wrote it, said everything I needed to say about John Edward (and, just for bonus points, his colleague in deception James Van Praagh). Nothing that has occurred over the last four-plus years has changed my thinking on the matter.

I will add, however, a comment on something you said. That JE has no victims.

Someone who pays money under false pretenses, even if they are a believer and does not realize it, is a victim and the perpetrator is still a thief.

I should note that the thread from which my post comes (and to which you contributed as well) was ultimately locked because it became vitriolic. I hope readers of this thread will learn from that one, and keep things under control.

Thanks,
Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5650
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 01:04 AM

So, you're saying that you have knowledge as to the methods of mentalists, but John Edward is a "real" psychic?? There is nothing wrong with belief per se, but mentalism and the entire idea of "spiritualism" is founded upon confessed fraud. I have yet to see anything from JE or anyone else that did not fit with cold reading or other, known methods. What exactly was your purpose in reviving this old thread? We are not likely to be converted...
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 02:03 AM

Although this dicussion focuses on John Edward - it relates in a way to Uri Geller as well.

The magic community has long seen Geller as 'evil' for claiming what he does to be real.

Why is this ?

Why do the magic community generally have a need to preface their presentations with 'what you are about to see is just a trick'

Many laypeople truly do belive that David Blaine levitated - they don't however believe Copperfield can fly. Where does the difference lie ?

Is Geller okay because he only bends spoons ( a harmless activity some may say ) while Edward deals with raw emotion and deceased love ones - or do most feel that anytime you claim what you to do to be real - you are a fraud ?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 06:14 AM

Anytime you claim what you do to be real, if in fact it's not, you are a fraud. That's the very definition of the word, is it not?
Let it be said, however, that, undoubtedly, some frauds are less harmful than others, and some not harmful at all, but that wouldn't make them any less fraudulent.
If you do not like the idea of disclaiming your magical abilities as genuine, then simply do not say one way or the other and let the individuals present arrive at their own conclusions. I've often done this, but whenver asked directly, I always state that I am only performing iluusions and nothing more.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 09:42 AM

The magic community has long seen Geller as 'evil' for claiming what he does to be real.

Why is this ?
Uri Geller has made a life and a career of openly telling people that he has supernatural powers while using magic tricks. He has become rich and famous doing this.
He is no different than any other charlatan psychic.

People may believe whatever they want about David Blaine or David Copperfield, but neither claims supernatural powers. In fact, Copperfield will openly admit that what he does are illusions and will not claim any supernatural powers. (I don't know about Blaine, but I'm pretty sure he would deny special powers as well.)

It's the difference between right and wrong.

Gord
Guest
 

Postby Brian Marks » 04/06/07 11:18 AM

Blaine admites to doing tricks but he loves to mess with people. He does want to blur the line. I have never heard him claim to actually have "the gift".
Brian Marks
 
Posts: 918
Joined: 01/30/08 01:00 PM
Location: Nyack, NY

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 11:31 AM

A while ago after Time magazine and TV Guide came out and said what JE did was a little less than real, there was a great article on some people that went to a taping of his show. Outside of the fact they thought the audience area was "bugged" (nothing new here). The taping took a long time due to all the "misses and fishing".
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 02:03 PM

Bob Cassidy has pointed out more than a few times, that prior to the early and mid-1970s the majority of those that were in fact "Mentalists" NEVER worried about or used Disclaimers, they marketed themselves as being genuine Telepathists, Mind Readers, Clairvoyants, etc. The fact that what they did was for the sake of "Entertainment" was DELIBERATELY down played though alluded to because of the psychology used for doing this sort of work PROPERLY. Magicians want to do tricks where the Mentalists creates a kind of magical experience that defies the idea of trickery in the mind of the typical human being.

I do not, nor do most of my associates, all of whom are noted members of the magic & mentalism trade, are not con artists or swindlers and I'm willing to bet most of us have done far more when it comes to predatory types than most anyone that would condemn us for doing Readings and even Seance programs that take on the taint of being genuine. From a psychological level I still agree with Stephan Minch and many others out there; what we are seeing via our critics is little other than fear and jealousy. Fear in the fact that they don't have the ability within themselves to do it e.g. they must vent. This brings us to the jealousy side of the equation in that "they" do not have the ability to exploit the known tools and aspects of Mentalism to their advantage at the vocational level.

Now I did not "re-open" this thread, it was on top of the current lists and so I replied. But I do want to stress a couple of things...Firstly, I'm all for going after anyone that's a genuine predator I don't care if they call themselves Psychics or if they claim to be the Pope, if they are abusing folks with deliberate intent, bust them! Tar & feather them... Hang'm from the highest tree. BUT LEAVE THE LITTLE GUYS ALONE!

There really are honest people doing honest and very sincere work when it comes to being a Reader or counselor and there are many reasons why the public trusts us over those pedigreed and certified types... but then statistically they trust their barbers, favorite bartenders and total strangers more than they do clerics and shrinks. In all truth, they/we do some good and too, even the shut-eyes out there keep their eyes peeled and their ear's opened when it comes to the more agressive and dangerous predators... the one's that give everyone a bad name.

I do not believe proving or disproving the existence of anything along these lines is important, nor is it our business when it comes to being showmen. As I've expressed elsewhere, it is not our right to step up to the microphone and tell everyone in the room that they are idiots if they believe in Psychics, God or Astrology, etc. and yet, many of you here will defend the right of certain schmucks in magic to do just that vs. taking the more mature and responsible -- honorable -- position in which the patron is respected and there to support us.

In other words, we aren't here to be Evangelists for the Atheists Society or the claims of any one cult that wants everyone as angry and miserable as its founder. That's my one "issue" around the issue.

The contentions held by a rather impressive number of personalities within the more traditional side of magic when it comes to this issue, is what has driven so much of mentalism underground and kept so many of the real "non-commercial" types away from the magic world. The bias and prejudice put forth by the cynical creating that tension within our fellowship that has cost us all far more than they or anyone it will seem, wants to acknowledge. And though there has been an odd sort of agreement in recent years, between the two elements (more out of commercial prospect than anything other), this division still exists and seems to be growing... a fact that has gotten more than a few out there up-set when it comes to the issue of exclusivity and limited release of materials.

But too, more and more of us are pulling back and pulling out. Going back to the old ways of true mentalism vs. these magic shows with psychic-like tricks in them that we see so much of now days.

Anyhow... I don't want this to turn into another mud slinging contest either. Not do I plan on being a batting dummy for all the bullies that want to uphold "the company line" when it comes to such.
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 04/06/07 03:21 PM

Posted by Craig Browning:
Now I did not "re-open" this thread, it was on top of the current lists and so I replied.
As my son says, I call shenanigans! (His genteel way of calling BS!)

To whom did you reply? The last post before your April 5, 2007 post was made December 11, 2001. Unless you are insinuating that someone else posted then inexplicably deleted it prior to my reply to you. There was less than four hours between our posts and I waited before replying to see if anyone else jumped in. Then I decided to search for my old post. Given that I was monitoring the site last night and did not see this thread on the active list until your post, I find that scenario highly unlikely, albeit not completely impossible.

So, before I call your comment completely disingenuous, I would ask that our mystery poster who retrieved this thread from the other side (and then deleted his/her post in the short time between Craigs post and my reply) to please contact me.

Thanks,
Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5650
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Ian Kendall » 04/06/07 03:46 PM

I'm a wee bit concerned about this bit:

There really are honest people doing honest and very sincere work when it comes to being a Reader or counselor and there are many reasons why the public trusts us over those pedigreed and certified types...

Craig, are you saying that we should turn a blind eye as you 'councel' people? Can you let us know your councelling qualifications? I know several people that are professional councellors, and I've seen the training they had to go through. If you are supplying this service to customers without the proper training, under the auspices of 'psychic phenomena' or not, then I think you do need to be tarred and feathered.

However, if you and your colleagues all have taken councelling courses and gained the relevant qualifications I'll be happy to take the tar off the stove.

Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall
 
Posts: 2080
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 07:24 PM

First let me state I don't believe in none of this type of nonsense.

Van Praag (sp?) had, at least a few years ago, a producer who was a magician/mentalist and a nice guy. I asked him point blank if he believed that Van Praag had powers and he replied "Listen, I'm not going to make myself look dumb by saying I believe in that stuff but I will say Van Praag does a good show". Not sure what he meant by that but it does make one wonder.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 07:31 PM

Dustin... I don't know how the thread came to the top of the "new" and active posts list but it did... I don't have time to search through the archives and pull something up just for the sake of doing so. When I logged in, looked over the main menu, this thread was at the top as the most recently posted to... not something I'd done so please stop pointing fingers and accusing me of stirring a pot in said manner.

Ian... I'm not going to play this game as I've already stated and for reasons already stated. However, I do have legit credentials and I have worked as a "real" counselor and I have likewise helped "save" people that were being drugged and cruelly manipulated by some of those legitimate types just as I've helped break up and prosecute the genuine criminals that hide behind a psychic or spiritual cloak. Unlike most cynics of today's world, I've done more than read books; I've literally put my life on the line investigating and helping various law enforcement agencies break up the crooked operators. When I have critics who can stand toe to toe with me on that front, I might give them a bit more value of thought. To date 99% of the opinionated sort in magic have done NOTHING other than read books and magazine articles and chant the various Mantras approved by the JREF.

For the record, I was a Drug & Alcohol Rehab Counselor when I lived in L.A. and likewise worked with Run-Aways and Troubled Teens as well as Grief Counseling. I have a Doctorates Degree in Religion & Metaphysical Philosophy based on Life Honors/Life Achievement. Theology and the study of the world's religions/philosophies has been a "hobby" of mine since I was in Junior High as has Psychology and general human behavior studies. Most all of this and even my passion for magic, stem from a personal quest -- investigation into the surreal, as it were and why certain folks seem to have particular "sensitivities" that are more pronounced than others.

DO NOTE that I do not call any of this "Powers" or "Blessings" or any of the like. I believe that a good 97% of it all can be explained and too, I believe that most of us are guilty of using the wrong terms when it comes to explaining what we see, experience, etc. I've not the space here to explain it all but I do delve into this issue in both, my new PSYCHIC TECHNOLOGIES Manual that was just released and in a couple of my other up-coming books that deal with the art of being an effective Reader.

I'll also point out that when I perform and even when I do Readings or lead a class in "Psychic Development" my real goal is to help my patrons understand how we mislabel and misapply terms, ideas and even the "fantasy" of it all. I get rid of the boogieman and help them see the logical and understand what it seemed mystical and "more" in times long gone by.

I'm not that far "out there" and I'd appreciate it if you would at least act like your minds aren't welded closed when it comes to this issue. The number of you that have shunned and even discolored the honorable work of people like Richard Webster, Herb Dewey, and others of note, who are Readers, who do legit lectures and workshops on this and related topics and who have given to the magic industry at levels few of your more outspoken heroes can match.
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 04/06/07 07:39 PM

I have been contacted and there was another post prior to Craig's. I stand corrected and offer my sincere apologies to Craig for questioning him on his comment on the resurrection of this thread. The worst part is, I deleted the post! It was an obscure political post and I didnt put it together with this thread; but I do remember the post.

My thanks to the member who refreshed my memory and again, apologies to Craig.

Dustin
(Still thinks John Edward is a scoundrel who victimizes his followers under the guise of comfort.)
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5650
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 08:28 PM

Van Praag(sp) uses the same ploys used in the movie "Leap Of Faith" with Steve Martin. Only in the movie the character has a crisis of conscience and turns out, presumably, OK.

I have been accused of being a person with The Power and even after telling this group of fervent believers that i just did tricks they still didn't believe.

If I had gone, became their spiritual leader and demanded money offerings to "Teach" them the way would I be called a charlatan scumbag? Sure and deservedly so. It's humbug I tell ya!

Craig, do you charge for your "teachings" and books? If so, Then I have to question your motives. Obviously, in case one of your students would happen upon any of your posts you need to keep the correct face on. Your monetary future depends on it.

If I am wrong I apologize in advance if not, of course I don't.

Bryan
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 08:36 PM

Anyone here read the crystal ball exercise in Trance-Formations?

Oracles have their place.

Sad to see them used for such base entertainment as watching other people grieve in public.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 08:50 PM

Craig Browning wrote:
Bob Cassidy has pointed out more than a few times, that prior to the early and mid-1970s the majority of those that were in fact "Mentalists" NEVER worried about or used Disclaimers, they marketed themselves as being genuine Telepathists, Mind Readers, Clairvoyants, etc. The fact that what they did was for the sake of "Entertainment" was DELIBERATELY down played though alluded to because of the psychology used for doing this sort of work PROPERLY. Magicians want to do tricks where the Mentalists creates a kind of magical experience that defies the idea of trickery in the mind of the typical human being.
I used to watch Dunninger on television. This would have been in the 1950's. He always used a disclaimer. The reason for it was that there was a movement to ban anything that reeked of fortune-telling, which was illegal in many communities.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/06/07 11:14 PM

I believe David Hoy, though performing a very strong brand of mentalism, would introduce his performances by telling the audience that he was a fraud. Of course, this did nothing to disuade the true believers...
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/07/07 06:06 AM

Most of those listed thus far as "examples" are the higher profile commercial showmen. Seems that we've forgotten about the others involved with Mentalism that worked the trenches vs. the limelight as commercially "safe" product.

Too, I've yet to see where anyone is addressing what Nelson, Flora, Webster and others have been encouraging and selling more than a few books about over the past few generations... seems you all want to side step the fact that this is still part of Mentalism and an active means by which to garner personal income that has been approved of and used regularly since the early 1900s to present.

I find it funny, what people will do and what they ignore when it comes to their hypocrisy.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/07/07 08:03 AM

I don't think anyone here is being hypocritical. I think they're giving their opinions. The majority of us simply do not see any evidence of anything, yet, which goes beyond known techniques and simple intuition, coupled with knowledge and a smidge of creativity.
That's all.
And we happen to believe that to claim one has abilities beyond these at the expense of others' feelings and/or wallet is, well... not cool.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/07/07 09:30 AM

"If you do not like the idea of disclaiming your magical abilities as genuine, then simply do not say one way or the other and let the individuals present arrive at their own conclusions."

Magicians seem to enjoy the above option to ease their conscience. Many of today's mentalists don't provide a disclaimer nor do they say what they do is real. They say nothing at all.

But is the very act of omission the same as claiming what you do to be real if by this very omission many in your audience will believe that you have the 'gift' ?
Guest
 

Next

Return to General