How Does JE Receive Messages?

[neofight]

Neo, the stolen recipe was central to that reading, and it was a lengthy, full scale interrogation of Deborah. JE actually said he had Mom there, along with Helen. According to JE, it was Mom who had busted her, upset that she never got her share of recognition for her part of the secret recipe.

Here is what you wrote about that reading prior to it being broadcast on TV:

"So that brings us to why he knew to reference a very special secret recipe to this sitter. She acknowledged that she and this other woman (deceased) came up with this secret recipe. A hit. But then you could actually see the moment when John was being let in on another secret, which he immediately passed on to the sitter. He said that "she is telling me that's not true", or words to that effect, and that in fact, their secret recipe was based somehow on her mother's recipe, that it was not ALL their own. The woman was in no hurry to validate this fact, and actually denied it at first. That's when John did his Perry Mason impersonation, and got her to admit that what he said was true."

Exactly, Instig8R. I remember the reading quite well, thank you very much. I do clearly remember the moment when John smiled and said that Deborah's mom was indicating that the secret recipe was based on one of her own recipes. Whatever he was being shown, he interpreted it, rightly or wrongly, to mean that.

As it turned out, Deborah admitted that, although her mom was a good cook, the "real" secret about the Malibu Shrimp recipe was that she and her best friend had used the clams they found right on the beach.

Neo, if this was such a small, unimportant part of the entire reading, then why is it the only part that you remembered enough to write about after the seminar?

You still don't get it, Instig8R. HOW was this such an integral part of this reading exactly? If JE misinterpreted a portion of a message, how does that translate into rendering the whole reading invalid or untruthful, or even rearranged? It doesn't. You may disagree. I still think you're wrong.

It's not as though Deborah's mom was able to have a complete detailed conversation with JE so that she could clearly explain all of her thoughts. I don't know what symbol or image she used when John talked about "busting" her daughter. All I know is that she did her best at conveying the message, and JE did his best at interpreting it, and that's all anyone can do.

The fact that JE got some nuance of one of the reading's messages wrong, changes none of the other very valid messages that were delivered to Deborah, and in fact, I still count the "secret recipe" hit among them, secret being the operative word. Deborah understood perfectly. Instig8R does not need to.....neo

 

[neofight]

That's essentially correct neo, but you're forgetting that I think the readings on CO are crap to begin with.

lol Mark. That's all right. I don't mind your being honest. I know and respect how you feel about mediumship.

Other's though, feel that the edited shows from "Crossing Over" are much better because of the fact that they are edited. You and Lurker have both been to a seminar, and have both stated that there was not a heck of a big difference between the quality of the two. That was my only point.

Nice to *see* you, btw. Hope your new job is going well.......neo

 

[neofight]

Actually, neo, what you posted was an anecdote, with no place where specific references can be checked. If you keep this sort of thing up, this thread could easily turn into another "milk-from-the-cow" thread.

No it won't, Instig8R. I'll spend a solid week going through my old tapes before I let that happen again. lo

Neo, I concede that I could be remembering the discussion incorrectly. However, I do know that 1969 and 1986 Mets stickers and banners are very popular on Long Island. The Mets suck, but they have a large fan-base here on LI.

JE might be a Mets fan, too, or perhaps his friends are. As a Long Islander, JE would surely know (as even I know) that 1969 and 1986 were the years that they won the World Series.

Yes, Instig8R. Thanks so much for your sports commentary, but it's actually totally irrelevant to what I was discussing with Garrette. My point was that John said that the Met's related item was on the wall, and he told everyone which wall it was on. He didn't say it was hanging on the wall, and then accept from Mike that it was actually on the bumper of his car, or buried away in a closet or something. I'm not all that interested in sportstalk. .....neo

 

[Instig8R]

Yes, Instig8R. Thanks so much for your sports commentary, but it's actually totally irrelevant to what I was discussing with Garrette. My point was that John said that the Met's related item was on the wall, and he told everyone which wall it was on. He didn't say it was hanging on the wall, and then accept from Mike that it was actually on the bumper of his car, or buried away in a closet or something. I'm not all that interested in sportstalk. .....neo

Hey, Neo-- If you had read my entire response, I don't think you would have made the above comment about the Mets memorabilia in closets or at other locations. Here is what I said:

Without a transcript, this is a total waste of time. However, even if we had a transcript, how good a hit is a Mets sticker in the Laundry Room in the home of Long Island sports fans? Not very good, if there are Mets stickers and memorabilia in various other rooms in the house. (I'll bet the Kelly boys had lots of Mets junk and other sports souveniers in their bedrooms, just like other boys on Long Island.)

My point is that lots of kids have sports pennants on the walls of their bedrooms. On Long Island, the baseball team of preference seems to be the Mets.

Having a Mets pennant on the wall in the lower level of the house or in the laundry room isn't terribly unique. However, I suspect that if JE did his "remote viewing" routine and took the family into the garage or the boys' bedrooms instead, there probably would have been sports memorabilia there, too.

The local newspapers widely reported this boy's death and his love of sports. The info could be found on the internet, too. Even though this death ococurred a couple of years ago, the boy and his family were again written about in Newsday just a few months ago. It was that horrific.

As far as I'm concerned, this "Mets"' hit could have been obtained by cold, warm or hot reading. Because the identities of the audience is known by JE in advance, I simply can't take it seriously.

Also, I don't believe -- not for one minute -- that if we later learned that the Mets sticker was in a closet, that you would not give JE credit for the hit, anyway.

 

[Instig8R]

lol Mark. That's all right. I don't mind your being honest. I know and respect how you feel about mediumship.

Hey, neo-- Are you suggesting that Mark's feelings about JE are tainted and less valid, due to his overall feelings about mediumship? If not, why mention it?

Originally posted by neofight
Other's though, feel that the edited shows from "Crossing Over" are much better because of the fact that they are edited. You and Lurker have both been to a seminar, and have both stated that there was not a heck of a big difference between the quality of the two. That was my only point.

I would like to clarify -- again -- that just like Mark and Lurker, I didn't think there was a big difference between JE's seminar performance and his performance on CO... until I saw the Malibu Shrimp reading, edited for television.

I expected the big fishing expeditions, before the sitter was selected, to be edited out. What I did not expect was the total overhaul of readings, changing the focal points, changing the context, all to make readings appear better than they were.

And, now we know that sitters consent to this deception, in writing.

 

[Instig8R]

Exactly, Instig8R. I remember the reading quite well, thank you very much. I do clearly remember the moment when John smiled and said that Deborah's mom was indicating that the secret recipe was based on one of her own recipes. Whatever he was being shown, he interpreted it, rightly or wrongly, to mean that.

He said that Mom was there, and that the recipe was based on something that she used to make. Mom was "busting" her for not giving credit for her contribution to the recipe. He was suggesting a very stern Mom, taking Deborah to task for stealing her recipe. Deborah kept denying it, over and over, while JE kept hammering away at it... all the while, depicting Mom as being miffed. Do you think JE was just hamming it up, to make the reading more entertaining?

As it turned out, Deborah admitted that, although her mom was a good cook, the "real" secret about the Malibu Shrimp recipe was that she and her best friend had used the clams they found right on the beach.

So, why do you think that Mom was telling JE, showing JE, or making JE feel that she was somehow miffed about her daughter stealing her recipe and not giving her credit for it? And, better yet, why do you think that Deborah, after all that badgering by JE, finally admitted to something that wasn't true?

You still don't get it, Instig8R. HOW was this such an integral part of this reading exactly? If JE misinterpreted a portion of a message, how does that translate into rendering the whole reading invalid or untruthful, or even rearranged? It doesn't. You may disagree. I still think you're wrong.

The entire reading was a mess... Mostly things that couldn't be validated, surrounded by a hodgepodge of disconnected validations, at least one of which was false. It was a total fraud, with information gained from Deborah at the start of the reading omitted, so that the remainder of the reconstructed reading seemed better than it was.

It's not as though Deborah's mom was able to have a complete detailed conversation with JE so that she could clearly explain all of her thoughts. I don't know what symbol or image she used when John talked about "busting" her daughter. All I know is that she did her best at conveying the message, and JE did his best at interpreting it, and that's all anyone can do.

Then, why was Deborah's mom feigning annoyance about her recipe being used, without her being given proper credit for it? Are you saying that she knew the girls had used dirty clams, and didn't know how to convey the message? How do you suppose she conveyed to him her recipe being stolen from her?

The fact that JE got some nuance of one of the reading's messages wrong, changes none of the other very valid messages that were delivered to Deborah, and in fact, I still count the "secret recipe" hit among them, secret being the operative word. Deborah understood perfectly. Instig8R does not need to.....neo

It was a bad reading. JE's editors had to hack it up and reconstruct it to make it seem better than it was. Prior to that, the secret recipe and JE's cross-examination of Deborah were the only coherent parts of it. They are the only parts that you remembered after attending the seminar. In fact, (prior to broadcast), when I argued that I felt Deborah's confession was forced, you argued vigorously against my opinion. You were that sure about it. And, now, it seems that you've changed your mind to agree with the edited version.

Under these circumstances, even I could deliver a good reading... provided I am entitled to have JE's editors clean it up.

 

[RC]

Any other regular "CO" watchers remember this? Feel free to jump in here.......neo

Yes, your recollection is accurate, Neo. JE did indeed "take" us down to the basement, and talked about the Met's banner on the wall. He never said it was in the laundry room or anything like that, but he clearly got that there was a Met's banner on a wall in the basement.

One clarification, which is up to everyone to decide for him/herself on the importance: JE said "Mets pennant" and it turned out to be a bumpersticker. Those who believe in the process will say that's irrelevant, those who don't will think differently I'm sure.

Neo, moving on to your statement that JE is always accurate with locations. I'll bet I can come up with a list of times he was wrong about the location, but it was still a hit in some way. As a start, there was the time JE said that when the sitter felt her husband sit down next to her on the sofa. She said "yes", but in the post-reading analysis she said that she had felt him next to her in the BED.

I remember this one well because I've had the same ADC, but I did notice that JE got the piece of furniture wrong.

My question to you: is it relevant that JE got the location wrong? If not, then how is that different than IR and the old calendar? Seems to me that in both cases, the "medium" was able to bring through something that immediately resonated with the sitter in a meaningful way, but they both got the location wrong.

 

[Instig8R]

In another gallery reading on CO, JE did his remote viewing stunt, and claimed that he was being shown a map on the wall in the sitter's basement.

In the post-reading segment, the sitter's basement was shown and on the wall was a very poor drawing/painting of a tree, with brown bark and bright green leaves. Superimposed over it was a flowchart, showing the family tree. It was a very poor drawing of the Family Tree, not a map...

...but JE was credited with another unentitled hit...

Of course, even if a picture of Garfield the Cat was on the basement wall, there are some people who would still give JE credit for the hit.

 

[CFLarsen]

If JE can see a Mets pennant, and there is a Mets bumper sticker (!), doesn't this mean that this wasn't a symbol?

JE can actually see the things that the sitters validate? If this is a hit, then the whole "symbol" argument falls flat.

Yet another inconsistency. We're gearing up for yet another excuse.

 

[Instig8R]

If JE can see a Mets pennant, and there is a Mets bumper sticker (!), doesn't this mean that this wasn't a symbol?

JE can actually see the things that the sitters validate? If this is a hit, then the whole "symbol" argument falls flat.

Yet another inconsistency. We're gearing up for yet another excuse.

LOL, CFLarsen! Of course, you have to understand that you might be accused of being too literal.

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.

 

[CFLarsen]

Instig8R,

I will bet that these rules will be changed, depending on the circumstances JE is in.

 

[Instig8R]

Congratulations, CFLarsen-- You have earned an "A+" in "Psychic-Mediumship, 101".

 

[Clancie]

RC,

I've heard it was a bumper sticker before, but it sure looked like a pennant to me. Are you sure it was a bumper sticker?

and, g8r, I don't remember any visual clues that indicated Mike Kelly was a big Mets fan. Could be, sure, but then why doesn't JE say that every time a NY father (or son) comes to the Gallery for a reading?

On the contrary, he rarely gives sports references to his mostly NY audience (which is consistent with his claim that he knows next to nothing about sports. ).

 

[neofight]

Hey, Neo-- If you had read my entire response, I don't think you would have made the above comment about the Mets memorabilia in closets or at other locations. Here is what I said:

My point is that lots of kids have sports pennants on the walls of their bedrooms. On Long Island, the baseball team of preference seems to be the Mets.

Having a Mets pennant on the wall in the lower level of the house or in the laundry room isn't terribly unique. However, I suspect that if JE did his "remote viewing" routine and took the family into the garage or the boys' bedrooms instead, there probably would have been sports memorabilia there, too.

Actually, Instig8R, I did read your entire response, and you make it quite clear that you can't bring yourself to give JE credit for getting a good hit. It's okay. I am resigned to that fact, and it doesn't even bother me anymore. I've gotten beyond it.

Also, I don't believe -- not for one minute -- that if we later learned that the Mets sticker was in a closet, that you would not give JE credit for the hit, anyway.

lol Well, you'd be quite wrong about that as well, 'g8R. If JE wants credit for saying that there's a Mets item on the wall, then it needs to be on the wall. Moreover, it really needs to be on the wall that he says that it's on. ......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

I've heard it was a bumper sticker before, but it sure looked like a pennant to me. Are you sure it was a bumper sticker?

No, it "sure" did not look like a pennant to you. At least, not previously, on TVTalkshows:

TVTalkshows
(Gryphon2/Clancie) 207.175.243.209 10-27-2002 09:35 AM
RC,
If it was some kind of sticker, it was a pretty big one, right? I mean, what I'm remembering wasn't like a little decal stuck on the wall. If it wasn't an actual pennant, wasn't it a pretty large banner-type thing?

Just curious about memory, basically. For example, the narrow stairs from that reading, for some reason, are still very vivid in my mind. The image of the pennant/banner/stick er is less clear, but I do picture it as fairly large--kind of a "special purchase" thing--whereas "sticker" makes me think of a smaller and more ordinary type of commemorative object.

You could not even remember what it looked like. Now, "it sure looked like a pennant" to you.

How versatile your memory is.

and, g8r, I don't remember any visual clues that indicated Mike Kelly was a big Mets fan. Could be, sure, but then why doesn't JE say that every time a NY father (or son) comes to the Gallery for a reading?

He doesn't have to, and you know it. His believers (and you are included) will accept the vaguest reference, only once, and make it into a rule.

On the contrary, he rarely gives sports references to his mostly NY audience (which is consistent with his claim that he knows next to nothing about sports. ).

Please point to the statistical analyses that show how often JE uses sports references.

What, don't have them? Then your point is invalid. We cannot work from your imagination. We have just seen how versatile it is.

 

[neofight]

Yes, your recollection is accurate, Neo. JE did indeed "take" us down to the basement, and talked about the Met's banner on the wall. He never said it was in the laundry room or anything like that, but he clearly got that there was a Met's banner on a wall in the basement.

One clarification, which is up to everyone to decide for him/herself on the importance: JE said "Mets pennant" and it turned out to be a bumpersticker. Those who believe in the process will say that's irrelevant, those who don't will think differently I'm sure.

Thanks for your recollection, RC. We pretty much remember it the same way then, but of course, it's always nice to have the exact wording so that we can all have the chance to appraise it fairly, and I will do my best to find that particular reading so that I can post it here. Thanks again.

As far as it being a Met's bumper sticker, and not a Met's banner, I'm among those who do not think that sort of difference is relevant. Being that he was getting the impression that it was on the wall, I think it's natural to assume that it was a pennant. Actually, I'm not sure that JE was adamant about what the item was exactly, but only that it was a sports-related item, and he mentioned the Mets, and said that it might even have the date of their championship, which would make a lot of sense.

Neo, moving on to your statement that JE is always accurate with locations. I'll bet I can come up with a list of times he was wrong about the location, but it was still a hit in some way. As a start, there was the time JE said that when the sitter felt her husband sit down next to her on the sofa. She said "yes", but in the post-reading analysis she said that she had felt him next to her in the BED.

I remember this one well because I've had the same ADC, but I did notice that JE got the piece of furniture wrong.

My question to you: is it relevant that JE got the location wrong? If not, then how is that different than IR and the old calendar? Seems to me that in both cases, the "medium" was able to bring through something that immediately resonated with the sitter in a meaningful way, but they both got the location wrong.

I disagree, RC. In the case of the Met's item, John was "getting" that it was hanging on the wall through clairvoyance. He was "seeing" it up on the wall. In the example that you mentioned, John was very likely getting the physical feeling one gets when you feel someone sit down next to you, and the cushion/matress depresses. That is clairsentience.

I doubt John knew where this happened exactly, he only knew that the woman had experienced that feeling. I don't know if you will agree with me, but to my mind, those are two different things entirely. ......neo

 

[neofight]

RC,

I've heard it was a bumper sticker before, but it sure looked like a pennant to me. Are you sure it was a bumper sticker?

I don't remember what it was, Clancie, but the image was of a Met's-related item, on the wall, in the basement. That was the reference. That's what Mike validated. Those who want to quibble about whether the item was a sticker, poster, bumper sticker or pennant, are free to do so of course, but I think they are only showing that they can't acknowledge when JE gets a hit. 1986 Mets Championship item........on the wall........in the basement = hit. Period.

On the contrary, he rarely gives sports references to his mostly NY audience (which is consistent with his claim that he knows next to nothing about sports. ).

And that is also true, Clancie. He doesn't get all that many sports references because he is not a big sports fan.......neo

 

[Instig8R]

Actually, Instig8R, I did read your entire response, and you make it quite clear that you can't bring yourself to give JE credit for getting a good hit. It's okay. I am resigned to that fact, and it doesn't even bother me anymore. I've gotten beyond it.

Neo, that's just not true. One of the hits that truly impressed me was some time ago, when JE did a gallery reading and knew that the sitter had recently purchased (or sold) a Town House for the sum of $30,000. I was impressed as hell.

Not long after that, I learned that JE also knew the names and addresses of 25% of the gallery at least 2 weeks before their appearances on CO; and 100% of the audience at least 2 hours before.

This fact changes everything, IMO. The easiest records to obtain are real estate records and sale prices of properties.

lol Well, you'd be quite wrong about that as well, 'g8R. If JE wants credit for saying that there's a Mets item on the wall, then it needs to be on the wall. Moreover, it really needs to be on the wall that he says that it's on. ......neo

I would have more confidence in your assertion, except that I've already witnessed your willingness to stretch things to accommodate JE's hit ratio. Reminder: Shopright's Scrunchie the Bear got morphed into the fabric softner's Snuggles the Bear... Two totally unrelated creatures.

 

[Instig8R]

and, g8r, I don't remember any visual clues that indicated Mike Kelly was a big Mets fan. Could be, sure, but then why doesn't JE say that every time a NY father (or son) comes to the Gallery for a reading?

Clancie, as for visual cues, JE could have recognized this family from their photographs in the newspapers and on the tv news. This was a notorious drunk-driving tragedy on Long Island. The boy was killed only a few months before the CO gallery reading of his family.

The case was still in the news at the time the boy's family was read in the CO gallery, because of the widely publicized criminal proceedings against the driver of the car. The case is still in the news here.

The news coverage included lots of photographs of the family and friends, with lots of references to the boy's love of sports. He was a freshman in college, and involved in sports at school, too.

On the contrary, he rarely gives sports references to his mostly NY audience (which is consistent with his claim that he knows next to nothing about sports. ).

I know next to nothing about sports, too. However, I am a Long Islander, and I know that I am in Mets-country. I'm sure that JE knew at least that much, Besides, I have seen it written (on his website, perhaps) that he had a normal childhood on Long Island, playing ball, going out for pizza, etc. He isn't a stupid guy, and I'm sure he knows which team most LIers favor.

Also, I think sports have come up in other readings. However, I can only remember one time, but JE did give a Mets reference-- He asked a sitter what was significant about the Mets, and the sitter said he and his brother used to argue about the Mets.

 

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight
Thanks for your recollection, RC. We pretty much remember it the same way then, but of course, it's always nice to have the exact wording so that we can all have the chance to appraise it fairly, and I will do my best to find that particular reading so that I can post it here. Thanks again.

I never saw this reading on CO. However, given that this is another edited reading, I don't know how evidential it can be considered.

Originally posted by neofight
As far as it being a Met's bumper sticker, and not a Met's banner, I'm among those who do not think that sort of difference is relevant. Being that he was getting the impression that it was on the wall, I think it's natural to assume that it was a pennant. Actually, I'm not sure that JE was adamant about what the item was exactly, but only that it was a sports-related item, and he mentioned the Mets, and said that it might even have the date of their championship, which would make a lot of sense.

I think it is silly to quibble about whether it was a Mets sticker or a Mets pennant. I also think it is silly to quibble about whether it was on a wall or not... I didn't see the family being read in the gallery, but I did see various photographs of them. The boy, in particular, looked like a very athletic kid. Being from Long Island, I would have guessed that he was a Mets fan, and had sports stuff all over the house, too, just like my friends' kids have.

JE didn't have to be a psychic-medium to hone in on this sort of information. Could have been cold, warm or hot reading -- or a combination of all three.

IMO, an edited transcript is not going to solve anything, especially when there are physical sources of information, such as: photographs of a deceased boy, when and how he died, pictures of his home, his family, his short, tragic life story, etc.

Now, if this had been an unedited JE reading, performed on Larry King Live, then I'd sit up and take notice!