How Does JE Receive Messages?

[CFLarsen]

Why would anyone not think this was cold reading?

Exactly. It would be interesting to hear if the believers consider this After Death Communication. Where's the dead person/animal/plant in this? Nobody has died, for chrissakes! So what is JE doing here??

Cold reading. Pure and simple. Nothing more. Only a person in complete denial would say otherwise.

 

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight

Garrette, for the most part, when we use the term "cold-reader" on these boards, I think we take it for granted that the cold-reading can encompass all three, cold/warm/hot reading. At least I do, and I know a lot of us do. I was not trying to imply something that was not accurate. I think most of us figure that a cold-reader can use any and all of the three methods mentioned. Let's consider that a given so we're on the same page.

When I use the term "cold-reading", I mean cold-reading only. I think it gets complicated when we use the term cold-reader to encompass all three methods of being a fake medium.

I believe that JE is mostly cold-reading, augmented somewhat by warm-reading and enhanced greatly by editing.

I also believe that hot-reading could account for those occasional, sporadic "special hits". I believe this is plausible, because of the lack of controls to insure anonymity of the sitters who are read on CO.

I have frequently seen my position on JE being incorrectly characterized as though my theory was one of mostly hot-reading. If the term cold-reading encompassed all 3 methods, it would not be necessary for me to keep making the same clarification.

IMO, if we want to reduce confusion and miscommunications, we need to be specific, and not use mix-and-match terminology.

 

[BNiles]

Hi Bill,
You must be new around here! No one ever holds back to a "believer", no matter how many times its already been said! That's a basic debate principle!
[/B]
Could you rephrase this? For some reason, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

If you think I made up a rationalization for JE, I didn't. I just repeated how he explains his own "process" of getting information (including names) as a mix of clairaudience and clairvoyance.

People here may think he's excelled at coming up with rationalizations for cold reading, but I'm pointing out that whether we agree or not about the "rationalization" part, he is consistent. [/B]

My apologies...When I said "You come up with wonderful explanations ..." I didn't intend it to mean you (Clancie) specifically. I should have said "believers".

To clarify, my point is that a believer will rationalize a possible method and state it as such. Then, upon hearing this method, another believer may take it for more then just a laymen’s opinion and repeat it. This process becomes very dangerous because it has the tendency to grow in both size and tenacity...ie, "I've heard that several times now, it must be true."

Where as I appreciate your and others candor and opinion of the possible process, we must not forget that it is only opinion, and not verifiable by science. Which, to your credit, you have also stated. We would be doing both you (Clancie) and this thread a great disservice by placing any meaningful credence on any of our layman opinions.

 

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight
Because he does readings at seminars as well, Garrette. Some of these venues are general admission. Even Lurker and Mark (dogwood) have gone to seminars and have said that they don't see much difference at all between the readings that they witnessed live and unedited, and the ones that they see on "CO". So you don't have to take a believer's word for it, Garrette. In my case, I do not believe that he needs to cheat, and I don't see any evidence that he does.

Hi, neo-- The seminars that Lurker and Mark attended were not videotaped for later broadcast. I wonder what Lurker and Mark would have said if they had later viewed the readings after being edited for TV.

Immediately after I attended the Westbury Seminar last year, I, too, stated that it was very similar to CO, (i.e., mostly cold-reading). I later viewed the readings on TV, after editing, and was shocked by the drastic changes. By your own admission, the editing of the "Malibu Shrimp" reading caused it to be rearranged so that the central issue was lost. Also, a false (forced) validation from the sitter was minimized.

Furthermore, we now know that Appearance Releases are signed by the sitters in all venues, so that they have consented to their readings being rearranged, and there is nothing they can do about it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Furthermore, we now know that Appearance Releases are signed by the sitters in all venues, so that they have consented to their readings being rearranged, and there is nothing they can do about it.

The difference is that for the shows, the releases are signed before the readings. At the seminars, they are signed after.

I wonder how that works, legally. If they don't sign, they'll just throw out the readings?

Talk about editing!

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Niles

To clarify, my point is that a believer will rationalize a possible method and state it as such. Then, upon hearing this method, another believer may take it for more then just a laymen’s opinion and repeat it. This process becomes very dangerous because it has the tendency to grow in both size and tenacity...ie, "I've heard that several times now, it must be true."

Okay, Bill Niles, now I know what you meant. Tx for clarifying.

My only comment would be that when neo or I "rationalize a possible method and state it as such" our intent is to share what JE (or another specific medium) actually describes as his process during the readings, and show how "the process" can apply to a particular reading.

Yes, that's speculative, but JE has written a lot about how he "gets" information, and yet many of his critics haven't the faintest idea of how he has explained it. So....yes, rationalization it may well be, but in our case, its not something we have made up to explain what we think he does. Its his own description of the process; we just try to show how it explains certain types of information that he shares.

I certainly don't mind if people are critical....or are convinced that he's a total fraud. But I also think that anyone holding such strong opinions of his work should at least know what it is that he is claiming to do, and how he says "the process" works. I think it is important, for believers and skeptics alike, to evaluate his consistency within that framework.

Beyond that, not being a medium myself, I try not to offer much "creative rationalization" of my own. And, yes, "not verified by science" i.e. lab testing....true.

But I do think that doesn't change the fact that his critics should at least know what he says his process is, and how he describes it working in his readings.

 

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I wonder how that works, legally. If they don't sign, they'll just throw out the readings?

Absolutely, CFLarsen-- The people who are read at the videotaped seminars are gathered together afterwards. The necessary paperwork is then completed. If the people refuse to sign a release, their readings cannot be used on television.

 

[Clancie]

Has anyone with concerns about editing read through Underdown's article in Skeptical Inquirer?

His intent was to compare the edited and live versions of CO. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm surprised there's not more discussion at this board about his conclusions.

 

[CFLarsen]

But I do think that doesn't change the fact that his critics should at least know what he says his process is, and how he describes it working in his readings.

But we are aware of the "process": Whenever JE claims he receives the messages in a certain way, we can be sure that it will change, depending on the circumstances.

Which is exactly how a cold reader would work. And, as we know, nobody - not even you - has been able to tell the difference between a cold reader and JE.

Has anyone with concerns about editing read through Underdown's article in Skeptical Inquirer?

His intent was to compare the edited and live versions of CO. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm surprised there's not more discussion at this board about his conclusions.

Could you stop trying to derail threads?? You seem to do this whenever the questions get too tough. Quite often, actually.

 

[voidx]

Well this reading is quite a disaster. So let's pass on the blame by saying that it's 'probably not who you want to hear from.' In other words you don't want contact with this person, that's why I'm not having much luck here.

Why would anyone not think this was cold reading?

Fantastic post Ron. Another horrible JE transcript, in my opinion. I'd like to know Clancie and Neo's opinions of this reading. Can you both dismiss Ron's comments here? Can you give a good explanation as to how this might be a good reading by JE, or better yet, how a paranormal explanation fits better than the cold-reading one in this case. Again, its so telling, he does a crap reading, and it resembles cold-reading to a tee. I can't see how you could refuse to acknowledge this. If I thought he was geniune, which I don't, and then saw readings like this that exactly resemble cold-reading, it would place doubts in my mind about his abilities, does it do so for the both of you? If its truly paranormal and fantastic in its hits, which I've not seen a convincing transcript yet myself, why does it resemble cold-reading so absolutely when its a bad reading? Why do the process' seem so similiar in those cases? In my opinion because they are the same.

And as far as clairaudience goes, how the hell does that work? He "hears" it. Now some might go the route of saying he hears it in his mind, but to me that's not really hearing anything. If I hear someone's voice in my mind, its my memory of what their voice sounds like, I think. And this is important. I'm not actually hearing anything, its horribly vague, I'm just trying to remember a voice, and at least for myself I can't do it. If I then hear the person talk I kind of go, yah thats what I remember them sounding like, but I don't really have any physical comparison of the voices since I can't record what I "hear" in my brain. So to me, if JE says he hears it, he must physically hear it, which of course is impossible as it would be able to be detected. I know this goes the telepathic route and his clairaudience actually happens in his mind, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. Pretend to hear your mothers voice in your head saying something to you. Doesn't feel like the experience of "hearing" anything does it, its just your brain playing around. So to me this would be like feeling your mother say something to you in what you image her voice to sound like, but you don't actually hear her voice at all. So to me you can toss out clairaudience, maybe it makes more sense as just a goofy subset of clairvoyance, or maybe its all nonsense .

 

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight

Yes, I hear that cold-reading allegation thrown around all the time, Garrette. It must be nice having that to fall back on as a pat explanation that you can use, yet never actually have to back up by finding an admitted cold-reader that can do what JE can do. (sigh) If all he's doing is faking it, then it really shouldn't be all that difficult for a Michael Shermer or an Ian Rowland to be able to replicate what it is that he does, wouldn't you agree?

This would only be a fair challenge under the following circumsances:

(a) Allow an admitted cold-reader to have access to audience identities in advance, and allow the admitted cold-reader unlimited editing control over the readings that are finally broadcast.

(b) Allow an admitted cold-reader to do telephone readings on Larry King Live, and then compare the 'phone readings to those done by JE in the same unedited format on LKL.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

He "hears" it. Now some might go the route of saying he hears it in his mind, but to me that's not really hearing anything. If I hear someone's voice in my mind, its my memory of what their voice sounds like, I think....I know this goes the telepathic route and his clairaudience actually happens in his mind, but that just doesn't make any sense to me.

Hi voidx,
Not ignoring the first part of your question, but I'll have to get back to it when I have a little more time.

For now, I just wanted to mention that JE says he sometimes can hear a deceased person's voice, but rarely. Usually, the way he hears a "voice" is the same way we do when we read silently, or think. It's his own voice that he hears.

So...you can see that, if that really was true, it could be very difficult to separate things you're thinking on your own, from things you're being "told" by spirit. (Assuming the premise is a given...for the sake of discussion. )

 

[BNiles]

When I use the term "cold-reading", I mean cold-reading only. I think it gets complicated when we use the term cold-reader to encompass all three methods of being a fake medium.
...snip...
IMO, if we want to reduce confusion and miscommunications, we need to be specific, and not use mix-and-match terminology. [/B]

I have to agree here. As I was trying to catch up my reading of this thread, I could hardly wait to reply. Then I came across this post by Instig8R and was glad that someone agreed enough to post it.

I don't combine cold, warm & hot reading into one, as they certainly imply different things. If I said the JE was cold reading, no one would say, "but he didn't collect any info ahead of time!" This is because that would imply hot reading. I think that we get into arguments on this threads because someone is assuming a different meaning.

The only term I would accept as meaning cold, warm & hot reading would be "Mediumship".

 

[voidx]

Hi voidx,
Not ignoring the first part of your question, but I'll have to get back to it when I have a little more time.

For now, I just wanted to mention that JE says he sometimes can hear a deceased person's voice, but rarely. Usually, the way he hears a "voice" is the same way we do when we read silently, or think. It's his own voice that he hears.

So...you can see that, if that really was true, it could be very difficult to separate things you're thinking on your own, from things you're being "told" by spirit. (Assuming the premise is a given...for the sake of discussion. ) [/B]

I was expecting the final point to come from either you or Neo. My point was again that you're not actually "hearing" at all. I just looked down at a piece of paper and read in my mind Statement of Account. Did I hear anything? No. Did I just think of the words? Yes. Is this hearing? No. So how is it again that JE can confuse "hearing" Ellen and Helen? He doesn't "hear" it, no body does in their mind. See my problem now? Its claimed he has problem deciphering what he "hears" but that only comes into play if he's physically "hearing" which he is not. So how is this loophole explained? If I thought Ellen, I'd think Ellen. If a spirit sent Helen to me, I'd think Helen. The process of how he "hears" is not clear and is not consistent in this sense. Any explanations? I don't care if it happens rarely either, it happens, and has a supposed process'. Does it make sense? I'm not clear that it does.

I also await your response to the first question. I don't see that there would need to be a lot of time spent on it. If its a good reading, or there's a paranormal explanation that works better, it should be consistent with the process, and therefore easy to describe. If you agree it looks like cold-reading, its even easier. You could at least tell me if you think its a good reading or not, or if its cold-reading or not, and then follow that up with a detailed description when there's time.

 

[RC]

Voidx, you bring up a good point and one I haven't considered before. In a transcript recently posted on TVTalkshows, JE tossed out a "G-L" name, then proceeded to offer "Gloria". He wound up accepting a last name, Gabrielli. This of course sounds nothing like Gloria. If he "heard" this name the way we "hear" ourselves when we are thinking or reading, I really don't understand how he could be so off and would only get a "G-L" sound. Particularly if he is "hearing" this information in his own voice.

 

[voidx]

Voidx, you bring up a good point and one I haven't considered before. In a transcript recently posted on TVTalkshows, JE tossed out a "G-L" name, then proceeded to offer "Gloria". He wound up accepting a last name, Gabrielli. This of course sounds nothing like Gloria. If he "heard" this name the way we "hear" ourselves when we are thinking or reading, I really don't understand how he could be so off and would only get a "G-L" sound. Particularly if he is "hearing" this information in his own voice.

Its one that only just dawned on me recently as well. Everyone here should try it for themselves. Think or "silent read" stuff in your head, pretend to do it in different voices of people you know. You obviously don't hear anything, you think of hearing. I might think I thinking of my mothers voice saying something, but that doesn't mean I hear it, or have problems deciphering it because consiously or subconsiously I'm putting the words in "her" mouth. Phonetic problems, in my opinion, do not apply to clairaudience, whatever the hell it is, its not clearly defined. As in you're example. He wouldn't physically hear "G-L", or "Gloria", he would think of "hearing" them. Or a spirit would be sending him the thought of "hearing" them. Phonetics again do not apply. So if the spirit is sending the thought of "silent reading" why send G-L? Why not send "Gabrielli"? If anyone can explain to me how specifically this clairaudience works, then perhaps I'll take back this contention. To me however its just another sign of how little people have actually thought through what JE or any medium is actually doing when they say they are receiving stuff clairwhateverly. We get, he "hears" like when you silent read, but does that make sense with what he gets while "hearing"? It seems not too.

 

[dingler44]

Doesn't feel like the experience of "hearing" anything does it, its just your brain playing around. So to me this would be like feeling your mother say something to you in what you image her voice to sound like, but you don't actually hear her voice at all.

Damn playful minds... mine has had the same song on repeat for about 45 minutes now.

"Mind - hey... Mind are you listening to me? Turn off that racket I'm trying to read!"


**music**

"Mind, I'm begging you please... just let me read for the next half hour and then I'll take you home where we can listen to your song with Ear and Ear. I know they're getting bored out of their minds."


**more of the same music**

"Damnit."

 

[BNiles]

voidx,

I think this goes back to what we touched on earlier about the process being explained by laymen. JE may very well have attempted to give an explanation of his "powers", and he will stick with these explanations until questions arise about their contradictory nature. Then they are clarified by being redefined into something a little more palatable. As I stated before, this can also result from offering a generalized explanation to "test the waters" so to speak, and letting others argue for it or against it. Once it is well received it becomes gospel to believers, and repeated as truth.

Art of the Con 101 - Let your believers defend you.

Sometimes its clairaudible, sometimes its clairvoyance, sometimes its clear nonsense. They send him images, but they never send an image of their whole name. Like a person has never seen an image of their name before. They speak to me but I don't hear it because it's just their voice in my head. Yet the voice only says an initial and its not always the right one. They can't connect with you, I'm sorry. Why? Because I'm not giving you enough feedback, that's why.

Sorry for the rant...JMO

 

[Clancie]

From LKL

"Somebody has a nickname after a spice, like pepper? Who's got a spice name? CALLER: Spice name? Don't know.

EDWARD: Salty or pepper, cinnamon."

Well, that seems okay to me, frankly.

Posted by RonSkeptic

JE starts by asking the caller if 'somebody' has a nickname related to a spice. Just think how wide a guess that is. How many spices are there? Anyone will do.

What do we get? The sitter tells JE that it's a dog called ginger.

Well, Ron, I look at it a little differently. He's getting some sort of symbol for spice, and like an initial of a name, is giving examples of possibilities. Assuming he's seeing a spice bottle, the spices he names are examples of possibilities, not individual guesses. And "Cinnamon" jogs the sitters memory to "Ginger", her dog.

I don't count the various spices as misses.

And there is a hit imo, since somebody important to the sitter (a beloved pet) does have a spice name.

Yes, it's a name, not as JE says a nickname (since he's probably seeing the "spice symbol" and assuming its for a person). That doesn't seem like a miss to me.

RonSkeptic,

You say this casts a very wide net. Maybe. Maybe not.

After all, how many people would this be significant for? I can't think of somebody closely connected with me (living or dead) who has a spice name, but maybe it seems commonplace to you.

JE mentioned it to this sitter and she -did- have a close connection to a spice name. Just cold reading? I dunno. Could you have done it?

I agree that the "male figure"--boyfriend or husband--was a miss.

But, I'm interested that you take the rest of the reading and say that JE is just broadening it to give it every chance to fit.

Posted by RonSkeptic

"Well that covers just about every male on the planet with the exception of a few computer geeks and the catholic clergy. For 'somebody' read 'anybody'"

Well, let me turn that around a bit, Ron. If its so very broad, it must seem very odd to people here that the sitter can't make any connection whatsoever, especially since we hear these callers are "believers", eager to do anything to "make it fit" for JE. Why can't she do this?

My contention is that if JE had more time for the reading, we might have found out why. That's why the follow-ups on CO are so beneficial--because, given time to process what they're hearing, sitters often do realize they have a deceased close male to the side after all--"Oh, my fiance"--but after the reading is over. Is that because its genuine and people need more than 30 seconds to understand what he's saying to them? Or, as you think, because given enough time, believers will just "make it fit"?

Posted by Ron Skeptic

How could anyone think this is not cold reading?

Well,... I think the spice thing is okay and the rest could be indistinguishable from cold reading, yes.

HOWEVER, I feel this may not be related to JE as much as it is problems with the LKL format--mainly, that it (1) requires JE to complete readings in 30-60 seconds, which is not the way he normally works; (2) LK doesn't ask about validations, and (3) there is no follow up with the sitters to see how they actually responded to the reading and information, etc.

In addition, that entire night was plagued with unusually bad audio problems with the phones. People may find me mentioning this to be just "an excuse"., but its right there in the transcript and was even more obvious while watching it.

If a sitter can't hear well, it might explain why opportunities to validate things, including a "a male figure" didn't happen.

Just my two cents for a contrary viewpoint, RonSkeptic and voidx. Since you asked.

 

[Instig8R]

Posted by RonSkeptic
JE starts by asking the caller if 'somebody' (clearly a reference to a person, not an animal) has a nickname related to a spice. Just think how wide a guess that is. How many spices are there? Anyone will do. Any person, or apparemtly any pet would do.

What do we get? The sitter tells JE that it's a dog called ginger.

Hmmm. A spice name, eh? Was "Basil the Garage Guy" in the building down the block, parking cars?