|
Post by xXSpookyXx on May 22, 2008 7:21:31 GMT -11
Introduction How does he do it? How often have you wondered how John Edward is able to communicate with loved ones who have "crossed over"? Well, it's actually easier than John Edward would like to let on. Contrary to his show, Crossing Over, boasting that John Edward has had a "psychic" ability since an early age, what he actually does is called "cold reading." A cold reading is the "sleight of tongue" procedure that fast-talking artists or so-called "Readers" use (as opposed to a "warm reading", where the Reader has actually acquired information about the subject beforehand). Cold reading has many methods whereby the Reader can get out of a blatantly wrong guess with extreme speed. So fast that, unless you listen very carefully or are able to review a transcript of what was actually said during the reading, few would ever notice. Cold reading is used by such other "psychics" or "sensitives" as Sylvia Browne and James Van Praagh (John, Sylvia and James being the three most popular Cold Readers at the moment). All of whom claim to communicate with loved ones who have crossed over. A sample of a cold reading can be found below, together with explanations along the way so that you can see how people are duped into believing the Reader has some form of psychic ability. Is The Studio Rigged? The concerned member of the Crossing Over audience writes..Full article here... www.re-quest.net/entertainment/movies-and-tv/tv/john-edward/
|
|
|
Post by rachbeall on May 22, 2008 8:58:54 GMT -11
Nice thread, Spooky! I actually mentioned him in another thread somewhere on here, so I'm glad you did too!
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on May 22, 2008 9:01:20 GMT -11
I saw so it inspired me to feature him a bit He had always struck me as a very vague cold reader when I've seen his show.
|
|
|
Post by rachbeall on May 22, 2008 9:03:11 GMT -11
Yeah, he never really interested me enough to actually watch his show.....Lol. That kind of stuff just always screamed "con" to me......
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on May 22, 2008 9:28:15 GMT -11
Especially the method he would do it with. It is actually something that any of us could do with an audience...
"I have an S connection.....some one with an S out there? It's a middle aged male...."
Some one in the audience is bound to have a relative or friend of a friend that age group who's first or last name starts with an S and was middle aged.
|
|
|
Post by rachbeall on May 22, 2008 9:33:35 GMT -11
Very true!
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on May 22, 2008 12:26:45 GMT -11
Here are some CSI (formerly known as CSICOP) articles on Edward: Hustling the Bereaved by M. Nisbet: www.csicop.org/genx/edward/Joe Nickel Articles: www.csicop.org/sb/9809/i-files.htmlwww.csicop.org/si/2001-11/i-files.htmlAnd a pissed off Skiffy fan: www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00175.htmlMy take on Edward, J.V.P., and Browne has always been skeptical--but fair. Most researchers seem to be strong disbelievers tautologically in the paranormal--focusing upon the potential motives of the medium or psychic (Nisbet article); or they attempt to show a hint of impropriety in order to logically destroy the entire affair. I feel that if you wish to have any credibility you have to look at all of the data and make an informed scientific opinion. John Edward certainly uses techniques found in cold readings--whether he does this as an intentional misdirection, or as an ignorant approach that he learned when entering into the field of mediumship remains unclear. I think that a researcher should try and envision what paradigm is behind the model of theory they are endorsing--then look at alternatives to that. For example, if Edwards is incorporating cold reading for the purposes of deception--what would be involved? He would be vague, he would rarely be making specific initial references to factual information, etc...This could be tested by looking at the probabilities involved when factual statements (or statements that can be empirically tested) are made. On the other hand: What would happen were actual spiritual contact occuring during Edward's readings? Communication modeling would have to be employed to understand the difficulties that a dead person would have in communicating with a living one. If dead people are talking--what is the exact method they are using, what type of symbols are they using, and how much distortion is being created during their contact. The problem with this is--this information only shows the possible problems in empirical testing; it does not offer any new tests of its own! Most positivistic science will attempt to discretely identify sets of information and a bivalent way to give an answer--then statistically test this. This is what Gary Schwartz attempted to do (rather poorly though), and what many other researchers actually do--statistically test the probability value of factual information found in a reading. I encourage everybody to read the Hyman-Schwartz debate, and some of the alternative methods of testing that science has attempted with mediums. Personally, I tend to fall in the middle--Schwartz is far too much of a believer and a realist in his statistics; Hyman and Co. tend toward the skeptical anti-believer that claims nothing paranormal is real--only they still can't prove it! I believe in a nice well documented methodology that can always be analyzed, changed, and re-worked later on if necessary--a method called science...Belief in one side or the other, without consistent proof, always bothers me. Anybody who tells you that they can easily assess the probabilities of success or failure that John Edwards, Browne, etc...face during a studio reading are full of it. With so many people in the audience, a formal analysis would be far beyond the scope of most researchers--unless set up prior to the show as a formal experiment. Sylvia Browne has been fairly well debunked--she has contradicted observable--factual--events; John Edward has almost done this--but not quite. So while I certainly don't put a great deal of stock in Edwards abilities--I wouldn't call him a fraud until I can prove it! ;D PGA
|
|
|
Post by carson on May 22, 2008 12:45:06 GMT -11
John Edward goes way beyond cold readings. Yes, he starts out with basic information until he can zero in on the person, but then he gets VERY detailed. What he does is not cold reading.
And if he were a fraud, someone on his crew - after all these years - would have said something by now and exposed him. Not one person who has worked with him has come forward to say he is a fraud. Not the cameramen, not the lighting crew, not the "gophers". No one. I truly feel John Edward is the "real deal". But that's JMHO.
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on May 22, 2008 12:49:10 GMT -11
John Edward goes way beyond cold readings. Yes, he starts out with basic information until he can zero in on the person, but then he gets VERY detailed. What he does is not cold reading. And if he were a fraud, someone on his crew - after all these years - would have said something by now and exposed him. Not one person who has worked with him has come forward to say he is a fraud. Not the cameramen, not the lighting crew, not the "gophers". No one. I truly feel John Edward is the "real deal". But that's JMHO. Actually he was caught using information previously gathered during a reading--he read a cameraman and CSI caught him using previous info the researcher heard him get in casual conversation. This is the almost proven to be a fraud claim! He does cold techniques--or ones indistinguishable from cold reading techniques--why I stated what I did in my post. His motives are not really testable--nor of concern to me at this time. I think he is an interesting subject though! PGA
|
|
|
Post by ♥~KarinaKay~♥ on May 25, 2008 1:50:44 GMT -11
It was also revealed that members of Edwards staff would mingle with the audience before the taping of the show and listen to the conversations people had with each other, and that information would be given to Edwards. Wish I had saved my source - sorry!
|
|
Pinkberry
Artemis
I've looked into the eye of this island, and what I saw was beautiful
Posts: 312
|
Post by Pinkberry on May 28, 2008 15:31:44 GMT -11
John Edwards is the worst..I remember watching this show and when he would miss or the person wouldnt acknowledge what he was saying he would say "Oh ok well youll remember when u go home i bet"..wtf, its not like well ever know that you postiively identified who was trying to get through.
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on Jun 1, 2008 8:26:13 GMT -11
It was also revealed that members of Edwards staff would mingle with the audience before the taping of the show and listen to the conversations people had with each other, and that information would be given to Edwards. Wish I had saved my source - sorry! Karina--I think that one of the CSI authors mentioned that in an article--but like you I can't seem to find the exact article--or the source they were quoting! I never can stand a medium that requires heavy financing. I was looking on his website (JE) and noticed that his Vegas shows have tickets going for $175+fees! Why is it it that mediums seem to do sooo well in Sin City?! Also, what are the "fees" involved in a ticket to a JE seminar? Maybe if he reads a "guest" they have to pay connection fees--like AT&T--John is their personal long distance operator! PGA
|
|
|
Post by dreamsinger on Jun 1, 2008 9:35:10 GMT -11
John Edward goes way beyond cold readings. Yes, he starts out with basic information until he can zero in on the person, but then he gets VERY detailed. What he does is not cold reading. And if he were a fraud, someone on his crew - after all these years - would have said something by now and exposed him. Not one person who has worked with him has come forward to say he is a fraud. Not the cameramen, not the lighting crew, not the "gophers". No one. I truly feel John Edward is the "real deal". But that's JMHO. Using the argument of "He's real because his crew hasn't exposed him" is a bad one. How many magicians tricks have been revealed by their assistants? Contracts are an extremely binding. Here's a few things to think about: Let's say a cameraman comes forward and tries to expose the person they work for (this goes for Edward, Magicians or TAPS). The moment the Conman finds out, all they have to do is inform the media that the cameraman is trying to sell trade secrets that they were bound by contract to keep in secret. No media outlet will touch them after that because of the lawsuits that they would incur by being involved in aiding the illegal act. Contracts are a very effective tool. Not only could someone ruin a career in the entertainment industry, but the media will not do anything because they could be sued as well. Speaking out is not an option unless that person simply wishes to put an end to their career. As for Mr. Edward. ABC exposed him for what he is; a charlatan. He use to rely soley on cold reading, but he later took a page out of Van Praagh's book , who stole the idea from Peter Poppof and bugged the audience. Then all you do is seat the people, make them wait a couple of hours and collect the information.
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on Jun 1, 2008 10:54:38 GMT -11
John Edward goes way beyond cold readings. Yes, he starts out with basic information until he can zero in on the person, but then he gets VERY detailed. What he does is not cold reading. And if he were a fraud, someone on his crew - after all these years - would have said something by now and exposed him. Not one person who has worked with him has come forward to say he is a fraud. Not the cameramen, not the lighting crew, not the "gophers". No one. I truly feel John Edward is the "real deal". But that's JMHO. Using the argument of "He's real because his crew hasn't exposed him" is a bad one. How many magicians tricks have been revealed by their assistants? Contracts are an extremely binding. Here's a few things to think about: Let's say a cameraman comes forward and tries to expose the person they work for (this goes for Edward, Magicians or TAPS). The moment the Conman finds out, all they have to do is inform the media that the cameraman is trying to sell trade secrets that they were bound by contract to keep in secret. No media outlet will touch them after that because of the lawsuits that they would incur by being involved in aiding the illegal act. Contracts are a very effective tool. Not only could someone ruin a career in the entertainment industry, but the media will not do anything because they could be sued as well. Speaking out is not an option unless that person simply wishes to put an end to their career. As for Mr. Edward. ABC exposed him for what he is; a charlatan. He use to rely soley on cold reading, but he later took a page out of Van Praagh's book , who stole the idea from Peter Poppof and bugged the audience. Then all you do is seat the people, make them wait a couple of hours and collect the information. Dream, which ABC program are you referring to? I know that the microphone claim was posited by a bunch of skeptics--I didn't realize that someone had proven he was doing this though. This claim was made by the JR foundation, and in the letter Spooky linked at the start of this thread. I do have my suspicions about any medium that claims to get general information about people--for a simple fee people's paper trail can be examined for basic information; for a greater fee a PI can find out all anybody needs to know to do a great hot reading. PGA
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on Jun 1, 2008 10:58:11 GMT -11
I just noticed that as I write my responses on this board I am being bombarded with offers for horoscope, personal psychic readings, etc...
Interesting sponsors
Just a bit of irony... ;D
PGA
|
|