Instig8R said:
Also, you need to understand how the process works. Maybe the Mets penant was a symbol, and maybe not. Here's the scoop:
(a) If there is anything Mets-related in the basement, JE gets a hit.
(b) If there is anything Mets-related or sports-realated at all in any part of the house, JE gets a hit.
(c) If there is anything at all on the wall in the basement, JE gets a hit.
(d) If there is nothing sports-related in the sitter's house, there is probably something in a neighbor's house and, JE gets a hit.
(e) If there is nothing Mets or sports-related at all in the household (or the neighbor's household), the sitter has psychic amnesia and, you guessed it, JE gets a hit.
(f) If there is nothing Mets or sports-related at all in the household or the whole neighborhood, JE tells the sitter to write it down, because it will be there in the future.
Now, pay attention, because I don't want to have to teach you this lesson again.
I'm *sure* there's a drinking game in here somewhere. I'd like a drinking game where you can't lose.
Er, win.
Er... where you're certain to get sloshed.
.......neoClancie said:
Here is a list of years that the New York Mets have won the pennant since 1968(2000 is excluded because this pennant was won about 3 months after Shawn's death):
1969
1973
1986
http://www.thebaseballpage.com/stats/postseason/nl_pennant.htm
Since Shawn was not alive in 69 or 73, it's reasonable to guess that if he was a Mets fan, the 1986 pennant would have been the most significant to him... as it was the last to be won during his lifetime. Despite the fact that he would have been only about 4 years old at the time (he was 18 when he died in June 2000), it's the norm for any sports fan... especially those of clubs struggling like the Mets have, to be familiar with their team's last great achievement.
Even if JE did say 1986, it does not lend to any "specialness" the hit may or may not have had.
DeBunk,
Have you read many of neofight's posts on the various JE topics here?
I ask because you may disagree with her ideas about the afterlife and JE's mediumship, but she's certainly looked at so many sources about it, both pro and con, in order to arrive at her conclusions.
Her beliefs in this are based on reasoning not just emotion, even if it isn't the same reasoning that might come from a scientific laboratory. After all, since no such experiment exists for comparison, its all speculative anyway.
But neo is extremely well informed, using the sources available. I think people calling her a "kook" should be at least as well informed about the subject themselves.
(And, yes, of course I realize that many here would use the same word for me, too.
).
Have you read many of neofight's posts on the various JE topics here?
I ask because you may disagree with her ideas about the afterlife and JE's mediumship, but she's certainly looked at so many sources about it, both pro and con, in order to arrive at her conclusions.
Her beliefs in this are based on reasoning not just emotion, even if it isn't the same reasoning that might come from a scientific laboratory. After all, since no such experiment exists for comparison, its all speculative anyway.
But neo is extremely well informed, using the sources available. I think people calling her a "kook" should be at least as well informed about the subject themselves.
(And, yes, of course I realize that many here would use the same word for me, too.
).
CFLarsen said:
Claus, if JE doesn't specify how he gets a particular image, there is no way for us to know for sure how he got it. Many times he will state how he got something. In cases such as the hit about the woman feeling the impression of someone sitting on her bed, JE didn't say how he got it. That is an instance where I might speculate, based on what he has already written or said about the process, how he got that information.
As far as what you said about me wanting people to accept my speculations, who said that I did? I'm simply discussing the issue. Nobody has to accept anything.
If nothing else, I'd guess that I know a lot more than you do about how he says he gets these images/impressions/thoughts.
Established a bond??? Oh please! lol And yes, I did have a good reason to wear that shirt you ninny! Besides it being quite appropriate apparel for the occasion, my main reason for wearing it was so that crowunit (Jeff Corey) could have a way to identify me and Instig8R. He was supposed to meet us for a drink that night, but he stood both of us up. ........neoClancie said:But neo is extremely well informed, using the sources available. I think people calling her a "kook" should be at least as well informed about the subject themselves.
Thank you for your nice words, Clancie!
(And, yes, of course I realize that many here would use the same word for me, too.
Let me know when they do, Clancie, and I'll return the favor! lol .....neo
Posted by Instig8r
Hey, Clancie! I'm well-informed. Can I call her a kook?
lol, g8r. Luckily I know your position on name-calling so I feel quite relaxed in acknowledging that, yes, you are very well informed.
(And thanks for noticing my new avatar! Time for a change, especially as I don't think many people were actually reading the old one anyway.
)Say, neo, we posted the same time on that one (after allowing for my obligatory "code correcting time", lol.
And, btw, I'm going to go dig up the IR fabric calendar hit reading again. I agree it was a hit (though nothing remarkable) but would like to bring it over here, too.
And, unlike JE, Ian's in-person readings at Cal Tech were quite different from Primetime Thursday....no mediumship validations at Cal Tech at all, just misses--and for things not very unique at all, certainly not like a fabric calendar..
And, btw, I'm going to go dig up the IR fabric calendar hit reading again. I agree it was a hit (though nothing remarkable) but would like to bring it over here, too.
And, unlike JE, Ian's in-person readings at Cal Tech were quite different from Primetime Thursday....no mediumship validations at Cal Tech at all, just misses--and for things not very unique at all, certainly not like a fabric calendar..
Clancie said:
Good idea, Clancie. I remember it pretty well, but I wouldn't at all mind re-reading it.
And, unlike JE, Ian's in-person readings at Cal Tech were quite different from Primetime Thursday....no mediumship validations at Cal Tech at all, just misses--and for things not very unique at all, certainly not like a fabric calendar..
So you said. Makes one wonder how he did so well in that ninety seconds of tape that aired in the ABC Primetime Halloween Special, doesn't it?
......neoA few things:
Yes, we really need a transcript, but I'm certain JE got "Mets", not "Yankees", and I also clearly remember that he said 1986. I don't remember how much of it was in the form of a question, though. Would be very interesting to read the transcript.
Neo, I'm not quite sure how JE would get the "sofa/bed" message, but I would think clairvoyance is just as likely as clairsentience. And I still disagree with you about the distinctions you've made about what is an important miss and what isn't, but we can just agree to disagree.
But what I'm now confused about is exactly what he saw/felt, etc. that would get him to say the entire message:
"He (spirit) is telling you that he was really there when you felt him sit next to you on the sofa".
If JE got the message how you described, i.e., got the feeling of a cushion being pushed down next to him, that still wouldn't deliver the entire message that he said. I also can't think of an "image" that he could see that would make him say this sentence either. All I could really accept is that he is actually hearing the spirit say the entire sentence to him. But that doesn't fit with the process.
That's one of the main reasons I'm starting to doubt all of this. In some cases, JE and other mediums bring through such vague information because they are just getting images, but then they invariably say something really specific.
Some examples:
Suzane Northrop tosses out letters, symbols, etc., but then says "they (spirit) are saying that you're usually not this slow" (she loves to say this when a sitter isn't claiming anything). Clearly, she's not getting an image, but is claiming to be getting entire sentences at this point.
Brian Hurst's process is also symbols, but in my reading said "he (my deceased partner) is saying that people are too judgemental in the physical world". Again, an entire sentence. If a spirit can convey something this specific, then why can't they say other things like their entire name?
Same with JE. He gets initials, symbols, etc., but in almost every reading will come through with something very specific and something that is almost impossible to imagine could come through as a symbol or "feeling".
Yes, we really need a transcript, but I'm certain JE got "Mets", not "Yankees", and I also clearly remember that he said 1986. I don't remember how much of it was in the form of a question, though. Would be very interesting to read the transcript.
Neo, I'm not quite sure how JE would get the "sofa/bed" message, but I would think clairvoyance is just as likely as clairsentience. And I still disagree with you about the distinctions you've made about what is an important miss and what isn't, but we can just agree to disagree.
But what I'm now confused about is exactly what he saw/felt, etc. that would get him to say the entire message:
"He (spirit) is telling you that he was really there when you felt him sit next to you on the sofa".
If JE got the message how you described, i.e., got the feeling of a cushion being pushed down next to him, that still wouldn't deliver the entire message that he said. I also can't think of an "image" that he could see that would make him say this sentence either. All I could really accept is that he is actually hearing the spirit say the entire sentence to him. But that doesn't fit with the process.
That's one of the main reasons I'm starting to doubt all of this. In some cases, JE and other mediums bring through such vague information because they are just getting images, but then they invariably say something really specific.
Some examples:
Suzane Northrop tosses out letters, symbols, etc., but then says "they (spirit) are saying that you're usually not this slow" (she loves to say this when a sitter isn't claiming anything). Clearly, she's not getting an image, but is claiming to be getting entire sentences at this point.
Brian Hurst's process is also symbols, but in my reading said "he (my deceased partner) is saying that people are too judgemental in the physical world". Again, an entire sentence. If a spirit can convey something this specific, then why can't they say other things like their entire name?
Same with JE. He gets initials, symbols, etc., but in almost every reading will come through with something very specific and something that is almost impossible to imagine could come through as a symbol or "feeling".
Hi RC,
It's certainly a good question, although could we take Suzane out of the equation? Since you and I both are pretty convinced that she's making up 99% of it (at least) I can't see any benefit in using her as an example, do you? 
I was listening to the Robert Brown tape the other day and he really gives a lot of clear cut sentences, many starting with "He's telling me this...." etc. That seems promising--except many of these are things we've heard or read him say elsewhere.
Its certainly interesting to think about the possibilities:
1. They all are just making up these statements, lock, stock and barrel. (The only counter argument to this is IF the statements contain unusually specific or validating information. If its generalities it isn't evidential anyway, so why bother?
2. Some make it up. Others are genuinely getting pictures, words, symbols, feelings....but not very clearly or not clearly enough to often be able to convey a satisfying communication to the sitter. So they embellish the genuine spirit communication, "pad" it, including shaping it into sentences.
I know you and I talked about this before--again, taking into account the possibility that some mediums do get good information, but pad in a way that is alternately very precise and very inconsistently precise--so the overall effect is puzzling at best.
3. Spirit really communicates exactly that way, at times, in full sentences just like trance mediums do. The problem with that idea is that if mediums can give these very clear and specific (often even philosophical) sentences, then we really should be able to get a lot more out of them than "some sort of a French connection" or "a watch in the drawer".
I favor the "padding" idea, at least for some of them, like Brian. But then, as you and I have talked about before, the natural question is: how much is padding? And how do you know?
It's certainly a good question, although could we take Suzane out of the equation?
Since you and I both are pretty convinced that she's making up 99% of it (at least) I can't see any benefit in using her as an example, do you? I was listening to the Robert Brown tape the other day and he really gives a lot of clear cut sentences, many starting with "He's telling me this...." etc. That seems promising--except many of these are things we've heard or read him say elsewhere.
Its certainly interesting to think about the possibilities:
1. They all are just making up these statements, lock, stock and barrel. (The only counter argument to this is IF the statements contain unusually specific or validating information. If its generalities it isn't evidential anyway, so why bother?
2. Some make it up. Others are genuinely getting pictures, words, symbols, feelings....but not very clearly or not clearly enough to often be able to convey a satisfying communication to the sitter. So they embellish the genuine spirit communication, "pad" it, including shaping it into sentences.
I know you and I talked about this before--again, taking into account the possibility that some mediums do get good information, but pad in a way that is alternately very precise and very inconsistently precise--so the overall effect is puzzling at best.
3. Spirit really communicates exactly that way, at times, in full sentences just like trance mediums do. The problem with that idea is that if mediums can give these very clear and specific (often even philosophical) sentences, then we really should be able to get a lot more out of them than "some sort of a French connection" or "a watch in the drawer".
I favor the "padding" idea, at least for some of them, like Brian. But then, as you and I have talked about before, the natural question is: how much is padding? And how do you know?
dingler44,
Nice work. Nice logic.
Clancie,
If neofight should be taken seriously, because she is "extremely well informed", how come you don't want to take Instig8r (or me!) seriously? Why do you ignore the many, many examples of her flawed memory?
What, if not "just" emotion (and certainly not scientific experiments!) does neofight base her beliefs on?
We can't just take Suzane Northrop "out of the equation". You can't just pick and choose your data, Clancie.
You are also very quick to rule out rational explanations - especially fraud. You don't even consider it.
Why would a real medium need to "pad" anything? If we cannot tell the difference between spirit communication and "padding", how do we know spirit communication has happened at all?
neofight,
You are completely inconsistent in your attempt to explain how you explain how JE gets his hits. I also question your statement that you know more about JE than I do, since you have made one mistake after another, when it comes to remember what JE does. Which I have corrected.
I don't believe you for a second, when you say that you wore the shirt just so people could find you. It would have been so easy for you to pick something that was just as easily recognizable. But no, you chose something that JE would notice.
I am a little unsure of what your stance on the IR reading on ABC Primetime is. Before, you have rejected the idea that IR got a good hit at all - now, you take the exact opposite stance.
It's these contradictions that make it impossible to talk with you. You say one thing, if it fits the bill, then you make a 180 degree turn - provided it fits.
Very inconsistent.
Nice work. Nice logic.
Clancie,
If neofight should be taken seriously, because she is "extremely well informed", how come you don't want to take Instig8r (or me!) seriously? Why do you ignore the many, many examples of her flawed memory?
What, if not "just" emotion (and certainly not scientific experiments!) does neofight base her beliefs on?
We can't just take Suzane Northrop "out of the equation". You can't just pick and choose your data, Clancie.
You are also very quick to rule out rational explanations - especially fraud. You don't even consider it.
Why would a real medium need to "pad" anything? If we cannot tell the difference between spirit communication and "padding", how do we know spirit communication has happened at all?
neofight,
You are completely inconsistent in your attempt to explain how you explain how JE gets his hits. I also question your statement that you know more about JE than I do, since you have made one mistake after another, when it comes to remember what JE does. Which I have corrected.
I don't believe you for a second, when you say that you wore the shirt just so people could find you. It would have been so easy for you to pick something that was just as easily recognizable. But no, you chose something that JE would notice.
I am a little unsure of what your stance on the IR reading on ABC Primetime is. Before, you have rejected the idea that IR got a good hit at all - now, you take the exact opposite stance.
It's these contradictions that make it impossible to talk with you. You say one thing, if it fits the bill, then you make a 180 degree turn - provided it fits.
Very inconsistent.
RonSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 514
RC said:
This is a very good point. It makes the readings so inconsistant that the whole thing just doesn't really ring true.
On the one hand we have mediums delivering very explicit language about the things which are non verifyable, such as this....
"He (spirit) is telling you that he was really there when you felt him sit next to you on the sofa".
However, anything that is immediately verifyable, such as a clear name or address is derrived only at the end of a guessing process that closely resembles cold reading.
Why should that be the case?
Isn't it pretty obvious what is going on here?