|
Post by ♥~KarinaKay~♥ on Jun 2, 2008 1:20:40 GMT -11
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 I believe he's referring to Edward's stint on 20/20.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsinger on Jun 2, 2008 15:34:07 GMT -11
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 I may be mistaken, but I believe Nightline did the expose. They caught his crew in the audience wearing microphones. JE's crew claimed they weren't active but it looked that way by what was caught in the control room. Darn! It used to be easy to find but now it keeps giving me John Edwards Hoaxes. Darn those politicians with similar names! I'll see if I can find the Van Praagh article. I think it may have a reference to JE in it.
|
|
|
Post by ♥~KarinaKay~♥ on Jun 3, 2008 4:18:38 GMT -11
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 I may be mistaken, but I believe Nightline did the expose. They caught his crew in the audience wearing microphones. JE's crew claimed they weren't active but it looked that way by what was caught in the control room. Darn! It used to be easy to find but now it keeps giving me John Edwards Hoaxes. Darn those politicians with similar names! I'll see if I can find the Van Praagh article. I think it may have a reference to JE in it. He tried to scam Nightline, too? DANG!!! On 20/20, he was talking to a guest but then turned his attention to a cameraman and said a deceased person wanted to talk to him. The segment was aired on the show. But it was admitted by the cameraman that he had shared those same details with a member of Edward's crew and had no idea they would use them. Guess they thought he'd go along with it.
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on Jun 3, 2008 7:43:20 GMT -11
I may be mistaken, but I believe Nightline did the expose. They caught his crew in the audience wearing microphones. JE's crew claimed they weren't active but it looked that way by what was caught in the control room. Darn! It used to be easy to find but now it keeps giving me John Edwards Hoaxes. Darn those politicians with similar names! I'll see if I can find the Van Praagh article. I think it may have a reference to JE in it. He tried to scam Nightline, too? DANG!!! On 20/20, he was talking to a guest but then turned his attention to a cameraman and said a deceased person wanted to talk to him. The segment was aired on the show. But it was admitted by the cameraman that he had shared those same details with a member of Edward's crew and had no idea they would use them. Guess they thought he'd go along with it. I do remember the cameraman--I think I mentioned that earlier to Carson. I know that members of the audience have mentioned JE's crew coming down to talk with them pre-show (they would have microphones)--I just don't remember it tied to any particular article. It is tough to find these articles with the election on! What needs to be done is for a skeptical group to seed the audience and feed the production staff & Edward with info--similar to the way Most Haunted was debunked. PGA
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Jun 3, 2008 7:50:47 GMT -11
That is not a bad idea. For instance try to sit close to the people that they notice that come off that bus that the letter I shared mentions. Then talk about some aunt or boyfriend, wife, etc that died suddenly, giving details in idle chatter to one of these people and see if lo and behold, Edward starts trying to do that reading. Only in this case, the deceased loved one would be totally fictional.
|
|
|
Post by literarysnob on Jun 3, 2008 8:45:53 GMT -11
On Most Haunted Ciran O'Keef was the Parapsychologist on the program and let it be heard on two separate shows the names of Kreed Kafer and Ric Endles which turned out to be Derrick's bite in the butt!!!
Because both are acronyms for Derrick lies , Derrick Fakes and something else that amounts to Derrick makes crap up and over reacts....and then to top it all there is a YouTube clip that has Yvette on some talk show stating the possessions are fake!!! That's why you don't see possessions any more on the show!!!
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on Jun 3, 2008 8:50:53 GMT -11
That is not a bad idea. For instance try to sit close to the people that they notice that come off that bus that the letter I shared mentions. Then talk about some aunt or boyfriend, wife, etc that died suddenly, giving details in idle chatter to one of these people and see if lo and behold, Edward starts trying to do that reading. Only in this case, the deceased loved one would be totally fictional. This creates an inrefutable claim against old JE--or any medium it is used upon. It is kind of like a post-Manson episode GH--you can logically prove it is fake! Of course if JE was clever enough not to fall for this, further experiments using information seeded onto many sources might be necessary--internet, viewer information surveys, etc...A PI would likely be necessary to uncover the shows usage of credit card info and other data sources to do background checks on their clientele. I always encourage everybody to look on the investigation sites at their own informational paper trail that comes as a result of living in the information age. With a background check JE could have quite a bit of info on his clients prior to a reading--in a seminar format, if a clients info was wrong (due to a similar record by a similar named person, or some other problem) he can immediately claim to be moving to another family. PGA
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Jun 3, 2008 9:11:15 GMT -11
That is not a bad idea. For instance try to sit close to the people that they notice that come off that bus that the letter I shared mentions. Then talk about some aunt or boyfriend, wife, etc that died suddenly, giving details in idle chatter to one of these people and see if lo and behold, Edward starts trying to do that reading. Only in this case, the deceased loved one would be totally fictional. This creates an inrefutable claim against old JE--or any medium it is used upon. It is kind of like a post-Manson episode GH--you can logically prove it is fake! Of course if JE was clever enough not to fall for this, further experiments using information seeded onto many sources might be necessary--internet, viewer information surveys, etc...A PI would likely be necessary to uncover the shows usage of credit card info and other data sources to do background checks on their clientele. I always encourage everybody to look on the investigation sites at their own informational paper trail that comes as a result of living in the information age. With a background check JE could have quite a bit of info on his clients prior to a reading--in a seminar format, if a clients info was wrong (due to a similar record by a similar named person, or some other problem) he can immediately claim to be moving to another family. PGA Excellent ideas indeed!
|
|
|
Post by dreamsinger on Jun 3, 2008 15:23:22 GMT -11
I may be mistaken, but I believe Nightline did the expose. They caught his crew in the audience wearing microphones. JE's crew claimed they weren't active but it looked that way by what was caught in the control room. Darn! It used to be easy to find but now it keeps giving me John Edwards Hoaxes. Darn those politicians with similar names! I'll see if I can find the Van Praagh article. I think it may have a reference to JE in it. He tried to scam Nightline, too? DANG!!! On 20/20, he was talking to a guest but then turned his attention to a cameraman and said a deceased person wanted to talk to him. The segment was aired on the show. But it was admitted by the cameraman that he had shared those same details with a member of Edward's crew and had no idea they would use them. Guess they thought he'd go along with it. That sounds familiar but this one they discussed how the crew was wandering the audience before the show and two appeared to be wearing transmitters. They also talked about the people in the control room became aggressive when they try to get a closer look at what was going on in there, or more accurately they were trying to listen in to see if some of the crew was bugged. Sorry if this is redundant but here's the 20/20 episode KK is talking about: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qghye8J1318
|
|
|
Post by literarysnob on Jun 4, 2008 0:40:38 GMT -11
"Just a big bowl of negative mush trying to poo poo his talent!" And that can out of a reporters mouth???
ha ha ha
|
|
|
Post by ♥~KarinaKay~♥ on Jun 4, 2008 3:08:39 GMT -11
On Most Haunted Ciran O'Keef was the Parapsychologist on the program and let it be heard on two separate shows the names of Kreed Kafer and Ric Endles which turned out to be Derrick's bite in the butt!!! Because both are acronyms for Derrick lies , Derrick Fakes and something else that amounts to Derrick makes crap up and over reacts....and then to top it all there is a YouTube clip that has Yvette on some talk show stating the possessions are fake!!! That's why you don't see possessions any more on the show!!! I just posted the original article about Ciaran when he "outed" Derek in our Most Haunted thread. I didn't want to pull this thread too far off topic. It's a classic.
|
|
nowhammies
Artemis
Big bucks, No Whammies, STOP!
Posts: 392
|
Post by nowhammies on Jun 4, 2008 5:17:24 GMT -11
"Just a big bowl of negative mush trying to poo poo his talent!" And that can out of a reporters mouth??? ha ha ha You feel that was reaching for a metaphor a bit?
|
|
|
Post by literarysnob on Jun 5, 2008 3:26:48 GMT -11
Well, when searching for a metaphor one must at least extend a hand or an arm!!!
Instead he fell face first in his morning bowl of malt-o-meal!!!
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on Jun 5, 2008 7:21:52 GMT -11
He tried to scam Nightline, too? DANG!!! On 20/20, he was talking to a guest but then turned his attention to a cameraman and said a deceased person wanted to talk to him. The segment was aired on the show. But it was admitted by the cameraman that he had shared those same details with a member of Edward's crew and had no idea they would use them. Guess they thought he'd go along with it. That sounds familiar but this one they discussed how the crew was wandering the audience before the show and two appeared to be wearing transmitters. They also talked about the people in the control room became aggressive when they try to get a closer look at what was going on in there, or more accurately they were trying to listen in to see if some of the crew was bugged. Sorry if this is redundant but here's the 20/20 episode KK is talking about: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qghye8J1318Actually, I don't think that is the episode involving the cameraman in question--I believe that episode was featured on his Cross Country show; it was written about by Hyman, Shermer, or one of the other skeptical writers. It was featured in an online skeptical publication, but I can't find the write up that it occured in! There was one factual mistake in the broadcast though--the year long waiting list is for a private reading--the show used a weekly calling schedule that selected participants a few weeks in advance. I think the current JE waiting list for a private reading is so long that he stopped taking additions to it! Good thing too--he charges quite a bit (though not as high as some in the industry). I do like to listen to old Mike Shermer though--he is not a JE fan! However, notice that Shermer's main problems with John Edward's method are the varying degrees of specificity that he recieves messages; no offense to Shermer, but it is highly non-scientific to assume a logical standpoint on an issue that you cannot measure any more accurately than your opposition claims. Simply put--there are many reasons that a speaker would only get simply syllables in one message, with full imagery and names in another. Think about listening to a crowded room of people and trying to pick up on a single conversation--loud people might be more clearly heard, people who are close to the listener might be more understandable, etc...In terms of testability, we cannot assume unproven elements of any research program--by choosing a paradigm in which we can easily debunk a source (such as claiming JE should be able to get consistent messages so clear they wouldn't even be plausible in mundane terms) we are making a straw man out of the data the medium is giving us. Debunking is easy--scientific refutation is difficult. I would choose the latter. PGA
|
|