thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,611
I have concluded that Neo is insane.
Interesting JE Hits....
- Thread starter Clancie
- Start date
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Neofight,
Isn't this the "final straw" ? Fron the JE website glossary:
So, apparently the rules of of JE mediumship include :
Rule 17, Subsection 11, Clause 9 : The 10 symbols used to represent the decimal counting system can be received clearly and without confusion. Sitter will then need to find the relevance of this recieved number, but the number itself is unambiguous.
Rule 22, Subsection 14, Clause 17 (Addendum 4A) : The 26 symbols used to represent the English alphabet cannot be received as a general rule. Occasional excepts will occur, but this is extremely rare.
Rule 26, Subsection 5, Clause 3 : Alphabet-based information such as names, will be received "clairaudiently" as a single syllable phoneticly sounded "audio-flash".
Okay. You're prepared to use you reason and logic to examine JE readings and conclude that the hits are "too strong/frequent" to be cold reading, and that "editing", "warm/hot reading", "sitter error" and "sitter buy-in" are insufficient or unacceptable explanations to bridge the gap between cold-reading and JE_reading. But then you're prepared to "switch off" your logic and reason and accept that JE and the spirit world can exhange numbers freely and at will, but cannot exchange letters at all. It's your choice, but I can see *no* reason to accept the "number - yes/letters no" argument *except* that you've already decided it's true.
Here's an idea! Since numbers are so clear and easy, why don't the spirits send JE numbers corresponding to letters?
JE : "I'm getting a male spirit 'above' you. And he's showing me a 2, and a 13 - that would be the letters 'B' and 'M'. The spirit's intiails are B. M."
Sitter : "Yes- I'm Brian Martin's daughter!!"
You *need* to explain this Neo - why are numbers readily and cleary available to JE, but letters are not? And by explain, I mean to yourself, not to me. What logic or reason can you think of for this? I can see only one - to preserve JE's career. Care to offer *any* other?
Isn't this the "final straw" ? Fron the JE website glossary:
Well, it appears that the spirits can send, unambiguously, numbers through to JE. I've never heard him talk about "an 'S' number...six, or seven?" It's *always* a precise statement - "what's the significance of the number '8'?"
So, apparently the rules of of JE mediumship include :
Rule 17, Subsection 11, Clause 9 : The 10 symbols used to represent the decimal counting system can be received clearly and without confusion. Sitter will then need to find the relevance of this recieved number, but the number itself is unambiguous.
Rule 22, Subsection 14, Clause 17 (Addendum 4A) : The 26 symbols used to represent the English alphabet cannot be received as a general rule. Occasional excepts will occur, but this is extremely rare.
Rule 26, Subsection 5, Clause 3 : Alphabet-based information such as names, will be received "clairaudiently" as a single syllable phoneticly sounded "audio-flash".
Okay. You're prepared to use you reason and logic to examine JE readings and conclude that the hits are "too strong/frequent" to be cold reading, and that "editing", "warm/hot reading", "sitter error" and "sitter buy-in" are insufficient or unacceptable explanations to bridge the gap between cold-reading and JE_reading. But then you're prepared to "switch off" your logic and reason and accept that JE and the spirit world can exhange numbers freely and at will, but cannot exchange letters at all. It's your choice, but I can see *no* reason to accept the "number - yes/letters no" argument *except* that you've already decided it's true.
Here's an idea! Since numbers are so clear and easy, why don't the spirits send JE numbers corresponding to letters?
JE : "I'm getting a male spirit 'above' you. And he's showing me a 2, and a 13 - that would be the letters 'B' and 'M'. The spirit's intiails are B. M."
Sitter : "Yes- I'm Brian Martin's daughter!!"
You *need* to explain this Neo - why are numbers readily and cleary available to JE, but letters are not? And by explain, I mean to yourself, not to me. What logic or reason can you think of for this? I can see only one - to preserve JE's career. Care to offer *any* other?
Well, Loki,
Hot reading (and it would need to be research beyond what's in an obituary) could go far to "fill in the gaps" on many readings. But there's no evidence that JE hot reads on CO.
Even skeptics who've known people who worked on the show (Jim Underdown; Mark, who posts here), have not heard any rumors or suspicions from these people of hot-reading.
So...yes, so far that isn't a very viable explanation, imo.
And, TLN,
I think neo and I have both responded to Darat's last post in some detail. What points do you feel still haven't been addressed?
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Clancie,
But editing can't explain seminars, personal readings, or LKL. LKL looks just like cold-reading to me, nothing more and nothing less. "Sitter error/buy-in" seems a real possibility in the seminar situation, and warm/hot reading is a possibility. It's *critical* to realise that an accusation of warm/hot reading does not mean that *every hit*is because of this. I just can't see anyway you can eliminate the possibility that *some* of the hits in a seminar session are due to warm/hot reading - and you and Neo both admit that the single greatest piece of data that persuades you is the "frequency and quality" of the hits.
This is a bit redundant, since I'm sure you understand this, but for me the argument is simple :
1. Result appears to be "beyond cold-reading";
2. Claim is made that the result *must* be ADC;
3. Mundane explanations such as warm/hot reading have not been eliminated by the claimant;
4. Therefore, claim cannot be accepted as proven.
It's that simple really - as long as the person making the claim has made no effort to prove that mundane explanations are not applicable, then the claim doesn't deserve to be considered as "proven" in any true sense. Of course, I think that the very first premise is also still "unproven" - perhaps cold readers can do this, we just don't know for sure! You and Neo, despite the fact you think you are basing your position on logic and reason, are in fact simply "choosing to believe". That's fine - you can do so, it's a free world. But you have no evidential argument *until* you address the mundane explanations by showing they do not apply.
Hmmm...wandered a bit off track there!
Can I ask you - what does the "I can get numbers perfectly, and letters not at all" argument do for you? Numbers and letters are *nothing more than agreed upon symbols*. A communication system worked out and agreed upon by humans to enable them to understand each other. JE unquestioningly gets numbers clear as day. He can't get letters at all. The entire process, as described by you and Neo, is one of "communication via symbols within JE's frame of reference" - that's a description of what an alphabet is!! Any thoughts on this?
As far as CO is concerned, my preferred explanation is editing. It *does* occur, we just don't know how/why. I find Steve Grenard's argument about the editing to be extremely weak - editing is a subtle art. Small changes to produce large results. To say that "I was in the studio, and there was very little I think would be edited out" is to completely miss the point.
But editing can't explain seminars, personal readings, or LKL. LKL looks just like cold-reading to me, nothing more and nothing less. "Sitter error/buy-in" seems a real possibility in the seminar situation, and warm/hot reading is a possibility. It's *critical* to realise that an accusation of warm/hot reading does not mean that *every hit*is because of this. I just can't see anyway you can eliminate the possibility that *some* of the hits in a seminar session are due to warm/hot reading - and you and Neo both admit that the single greatest piece of data that persuades you is the "frequency and quality" of the hits.
This is a bit redundant, since I'm sure you understand this, but for me the argument is simple :
1. Result appears to be "beyond cold-reading";
2. Claim is made that the result *must* be ADC;
3. Mundane explanations such as warm/hot reading have not been eliminated by the claimant;
4. Therefore, claim cannot be accepted as proven.
It's that simple really - as long as the person making the claim has made no effort to prove that mundane explanations are not applicable, then the claim doesn't deserve to be considered as "proven" in any true sense. Of course, I think that the very first premise is also still "unproven" - perhaps cold readers can do this, we just don't know for sure! You and Neo, despite the fact you think you are basing your position on logic and reason, are in fact simply "choosing to believe". That's fine - you can do so, it's a free world. But you have no evidential argument *until* you address the mundane explanations by showing they do not apply.
Hmmm...wandered a bit off track there!
Can I ask you - what does the "I can get numbers perfectly, and letters not at all" argument do for you? Numbers and letters are *nothing more than agreed upon symbols*. A communication system worked out and agreed upon by humans to enable them to understand each other. JE unquestioningly gets numbers clear as day. He can't get letters at all. The entire process, as described by you and Neo, is one of "communication via symbols within JE's frame of reference" - that's a description of what an alphabet is!! Any thoughts on this?
Clancie said:
Clancie, you've taken Loki's quote completely out of context. He wasn't even trying to assert the warm/hot reading argument. He was illustrating what he saw as inconsistent reasoning on Neo's part. Why are you even responding to this? It was addressed specifically to Neo. Are you some sort of lap dog?
I'm literally blown away at how you took a small segment of Loki's post, formed it into an argument he wasn't making and then criticized it. If you need to respond, why don't you respond to the points Loki is making?
Seriously... what the hell is going on in here? Neo was right about one thing - this thread is turning into Bizzaro World.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Loki -- just to make a few facts in your comments absolutely clear. You sorta merge warm and hot reading. Of course they could both apply but they are nowhere near each other or related even though they convey a sense of heat. Warm reading is the medium providing guess information based on a sitter's appearance, tone of voice, emotional status, dress, jewelry (e.g. wedding ring; obvious keepsakes), accent, body language .... factors he/she can use to try and guess something about the sitter and their deceased relatives. Hot reading is prior research on a sitter based on foreknowledge of their name, address and what's out there in the public or private record that a good detective can find about a subject. If a medium provides highly personal, very specific and extremely accurate information that is not anywhere in a public archive, hot reading does not apply. If the medium is separated physically from the sitter, warm reading is difficult and may be impossible. If the medium and sitter are anonymous to each then hot reading is impossible. If a medium does not ask or require to be asked questions or solicits assents or nays from a sitter then cold reading, the game of 20 questions, pigeon holing and fishing is not occurring. You are only left with guessing, the weakest argument of all when the guesses are accurate and the probabilities confer huge odds against. Ev en if the guesses were based on warm reading as defined above.
The quality of a hit must be studied and takes slight precedence of hit/miss ratios. Based on my own experience I would demand nothing less than 100% accuracy.
Since none of these including the editing issue can be controlled for JE on his television show or other factors in any venue then only secure scientific experiments with sitters and mediums can validate the process. Discussing these other forms of vaidation is neither objective or scientific. And even since telepathy has been validated by research in many instances, it does not prove a particular medium in a particular venue outside the "lab" is real or not.
With respect to your mentioning my remarks about my experience at a taping. I have watched JE for almost two years, nightly in fact, before getting the chance to get into a taping thanks to an out of state person who scored their own hit with CO's telephone call in lottery. I said that I did not see any misses or other problems with any of the readings JE gave when I was there in person and what I have seen on air. I admit this is a subjective opinion so consider it in the category of any book or movie reviewer giving their opinion.
The quality of a hit must be studied and takes slight precedence of hit/miss ratios. Based on my own experience I would demand nothing less than 100% accuracy.
Since none of these including the editing issue can be controlled for JE on his television show or other factors in any venue then only secure scientific experiments with sitters and mediums can validate the process. Discussing these other forms of vaidation is neither objective or scientific. And even since telepathy has been validated by research in many instances, it does not prove a particular medium in a particular venue outside the "lab" is real or not.
With respect to your mentioning my remarks about my experience at a taping. I have watched JE for almost two years, nightly in fact, before getting the chance to get into a taping thanks to an out of state person who scored their own hit with CO's telephone call in lottery. I said that I did not see any misses or other problems with any of the readings JE gave when I was there in person and what I have seen on air. I admit this is a subjective opinion so consider it in the category of any book or movie reviewer giving their opinion.
Wow, dingler44, I might ask you the same.
If Loki wants to just have a response from neo, I'm sure he'll let me know. I figured, since she's not around to answer, that he wouldn't mind another "believer" jumping into the fray.
But, if he only wants to discuss this with her...and/ or feels I'm totally missing his points..don't you think he'll let me know himself?
I don't have a problem with that, but as much as you think I'm being presumptuous giving my two cents on their discussion, well....
Steve,
Good point about the need to separate warm from hot reading. So different....
Clancie said:Wow, dingler44, I might ask you the same.
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
If you might ask me the same - why don't you ask - and then provide some reason? Oh you think the reason is because I called you on your ludicrous post?
Again, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
You are truly amazing Clancie. I call you on your silly diversion tactics and what do you do? divert
You took a quote out of context and criticized it for a meaning it did not have. Can't you acknowledge that?
SteveGrenard said:
First, can you source this definition so everyone can confirm it?
Second, if SG's definition is accurate, it sounds like JE does a lot of warm reading. Even when he's doing a terrible job reading people over the phone for LKL, he gets the callers tone of voice. And obviously he has easy observation of the rest of the characteristics you mention when reading in person. (no point here, just an observation)
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
D44: First, can you source this definition so everyone can confirm it?
These definitions, including warm reading, appear in about every skeptic tome there is on the subject. Start with the skeptic dicitionary online. I think the url is skepdic.something.
What's second again? Oh yes. JE warm reading. Yes in his venues he has this opportunity so you must weigh the probabilities of his guesses, if he is guessing or you assume he is, against what he can get from the sitter in the way of clues
These definitions, including warm reading, appear in about every skeptic tome there is on the subject. Start with the skeptic dicitionary online. I think the url is skepdic.something.What's second again? Oh yes. JE warm reading. Yes in his venues he has this opportunity so you must weigh the probabilities of his guesses, if he is guessing or you assume he is, against what he can get from the sitter in the way of clues
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
SteveGrenard,
You and I both agree this damages his credibility. No more to be said, really.
Purely a shorthand way of saying "other forms of reading that aren't strictly cold reading". Yes, they are different. Perhaps you're right, and "warm" needs to be associated more with "cold" rather than "hot". Anyway, I was just following the general flow of these discussions, in which "warm/hot" are normally rejected by JE supporters.
"The public archive" is only one way this can be done. I strongly suspect that in the reading I went to, the psychic was able to produce a few strong hits (one in particular) because a friend of mine (a) booked the reading for me and (b) went for readings with the psychic on a regular basis. I suspect that I may have "come up" in the readings of my friend, and that part way through my reading the 'psychic' suddenly realised that I was the person that had been mentioned in other readings. A strong hit followed shortly - one that seems to defy cold reading, or any searchable "public archive" information. Nevertheless, it appears to me that hot reading is a viable explanation for the hit in my reading.
Well, strictly speaking a 3rd party may act as a "knowledge go-between" so that the medium can in all honesty say "I do not know the identity of the sitter", and yet still know some details. But I take your point - hot reading means that the identity of the sitter must be know to the medium or someone associated with the medium.
Yes.
Yes. My main point above.
Nice try Steve! Nope, nope, and nope. I'll see your Steve's SlipperySlope and raise you a Hyman's Razor.
We are in agreement then! I see what you are saying, and I'll repeat my point - it's largely irrelevant, since editing is a topic that goes far beyond "removing misses". I could also argue against your "memory" of the original versus the screened segment, and against the clear bias you bring into the "subjective" process (at the time of viewing you were in the "yes" camp already). But I'll content myself to simply repeat that I think "editing" is far more subtle than is being allowed for here. JE of course can prove me wrong in an instant - just release unedited footage for "research pruposes". Won't happen.
You and I both agree this damages his credibility. No more to be said, really.
I agree with you that editing could be an extremely powerful tool (though not in the way O'Neill says, having to change a "no" to a "yes")
That's why I wonder why we still haven't heard from Jim Underdown? His whole point in taping CO live (last winter) was to compare the edited and unedited versions. This would be a huge contribution to knowing about JE's mediumship, and its been over 8 months already. I wonder if editing didn't show the results he expected? Or if there's some other reason for the delay?
I agree that subjectivity is important to look at. (And without the post-analysis interviews, CO would be much less compelling). But I think this is going to be less a factor when JE gets hits that are highly specific and unique. Also, I've seen sitters say they don't recognize the information, or don't think a reading is for them. I think its not clear how likely false validations are.
Just repeating what Steve said, about needing to separate these two.
Well, I'm not sure about this. I think I lean more toward being persuaded by the "overall pattern of information he brings through for the sitter" combined with the "special hits" that can't, imo by explained as warm or cold reading and which there is no evidence of hot reading (or even, at times, a way to get them through hot reading).
I don't disagree exactly. I don't think mediumship is "proven". But I do think there seems "more to it" than has adequately been explained by the critics--not just in JE's mediumship, but other mediums who've been observed as well.
True, because we haven't seen any demonstrate that they could. Maybe one day someone will.
Actually, I argue the believers side, because I think there are aspects of mediumship that have not been adequately explained by mundane means, despite many, many efforts in that direction. To me, that means it all shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand as obviously just fraud, or just "cold/warm/hot" reading techniques.
There are things about mediumship that aren't completely accounted for by the mundane that are offered.. Until I see they do fit with a mundane explanation, I'll continue to be interested in the various possible explanations (including ADC).
Well, re: letters. Letters we use are symbols--symbols for sounds, nothing more. We take symbols for sounds, form them into words, and assign those abstract combinations of letters a meaning that we understand to represent something else. When you think about it, a written alphabet is quite a sophisticated and complex communication tool.
On the other hand, JE hears some sounds, sees some images, gets a physical feeling, and tries to piece together a meaning from it. Quite a different language "process", much less sophisticated than spelling words out.
As for numbers, I'm actually not sure how he gets numbers. I'll look into it and see if I can find out.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
L: Anyway, I was just following the general flow of these discussions, in which "warm/hot" are normally rejected by JE supporters.
Its really not possible to reject warm reading since his sitters are, well, sitting there in front of him. If he posits guesses based on this, then he does so. You need to take the guesses and not only determine the relevance to any "warm" cues he can get but also determine them on a probablistic basis. Some really obscure, uncommon name or disease or geographic location comes to mind where JE is concerned.
L: "The public archive" is only one way this can be done. I strongly suspect that in the reading I went to, the psychic was able to produce a few strong hits (one in particular) because a friend of mine (a) booked the reading for me and (b) went for readings with the psychic on a regular basis. I suspect that I may have "come up" in the readings of my friend, and that part way through my reading the 'psychic' suddenly realised that I was the person that had been mentioned in other readings. A strong hit followed shortly - one that seems to defy cold reading, or any searchable "public archive" information. Nevertheless, it appears to me that hot reading is a viable explanation for the hit in my reading.
You need then to discuss this in earnest with your friend who has seen this medium before. Did he or she give the medium your full name in advance? Did they discuss any losses you had? I agree a third person can tip off a phony medium, even without meaning to.
L:"Well, strictly speaking a 3rd party may act as a "knowledge go-between" so that the medium can in all honesty say "I do not know the identity of the sitter", and yet still know some details. But I take your point - hot reading means that the identity of the sitter must be know to the medium or someone associated with the medium.
Well by being completey anonymous to each other, I also mean that nobody who knows the sitter (e.g. you) on a personal basis has discussed you or identified you to the medium beforehand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S: And even since telepathy has been validated by research in many instances,...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L: Nice try Steve! Nope, nope, and nope. I'll see your Steve's SlipperySlope and raise you a Hyman's Razor.
Reply: That's all we got to invalidate ganzfeld/auto-ganzfeld experiments: Hyman's razor. The body of evidence supporting telepathy as possible is overwhelming in my opinion and a single researcher, Ray Hyman, who has looked at such experiments says they were just fine and dandy but there has got to be a flaw or flaws but can't prove what they are is just one razor that doesn't cut it.
L: We are in agreement then! I see what you are saying, and I'll epeat my point - it's largely irrelevant, since editing is a topic that goes far beyond "removing misses". I could also argue against your "memory" of the original versus the screened segment, and against the clear bias you bring into the "subjective" process (at the time of viewing you were in the "yes" camp already). But I'll content myself to simply repeat that I think "editing" is far more subtle than is being allowed for here. JE of course can prove me wrong in an instant - just release unedited footage for "research pruposes". Won't happen.
You and I both agree this damages his credibility. No more to be said, really.
My memory could, singularly be faulty but I was there with three other people and we all took notes and compared them immediately afterwards. I was there with a a NY based parapsychologist, an interior designer and a no-nonsense, level headed housewife from the midwest who scored the tickets.
From the public's perspective I agree such possibilities damages JE's credibility for the few critical thinkers among us who are astute enough to consider them. I, many others and even Schwartz considers JE's unwillingness to record even his private sessions as also damaging JE's credibility and he has been told as much. There is no argument there from me as well as from Gary Schwartz. But JE doesn't care. What did he say: "Bite me..."?? Oh well. This is why discussing him is a monumental waste of time. We should be discussing the process and there is a multifaceted process rather than one personality who may or may not be a complete fraud or delusional but clever enough to make this work. Frankly if he does edit his tapes for content and doesn't allow his private sessions to be taped, then I think delusional is off the table.
Its really not possible to reject warm reading since his sitters are, well, sitting there in front of him. If he posits guesses based on this, then he does so. You need to take the guesses and not only determine the relevance to any "warm" cues he can get but also determine them on a probablistic basis. Some really obscure, uncommon name or disease or geographic location comes to mind where JE is concerned.
L: "The public archive" is only one way this can be done. I strongly suspect that in the reading I went to, the psychic was able to produce a few strong hits (one in particular) because a friend of mine (a) booked the reading for me and (b) went for readings with the psychic on a regular basis. I suspect that I may have "come up" in the readings of my friend, and that part way through my reading the 'psychic' suddenly realised that I was the person that had been mentioned in other readings. A strong hit followed shortly - one that seems to defy cold reading, or any searchable "public archive" information. Nevertheless, it appears to me that hot reading is a viable explanation for the hit in my reading.
You need then to discuss this in earnest with your friend who has seen this medium before. Did he or she give the medium your full name in advance? Did they discuss any losses you had? I agree a third person can tip off a phony medium, even without meaning to.
L:"Well, strictly speaking a 3rd party may act as a "knowledge go-between" so that the medium can in all honesty say "I do not know the identity of the sitter", and yet still know some details. But I take your point - hot reading means that the identity of the sitter must be know to the medium or someone associated with the medium.
Well by being completey anonymous to each other, I also mean that nobody who knows the sitter (e.g. you) on a personal basis has discussed you or identified you to the medium beforehand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S: And even since telepathy has been validated by research in many instances,...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L: Nice try Steve! Nope, nope, and nope. I'll see your Steve's SlipperySlope and raise you a Hyman's Razor.
Reply: That's all we got to invalidate ganzfeld/auto-ganzfeld experiments: Hyman's razor. The body of evidence supporting telepathy as possible is overwhelming in my opinion and a single researcher, Ray Hyman, who has looked at such experiments says they were just fine and dandy but there has got to be a flaw or flaws but can't prove what they are is just one razor that doesn't cut it.
L: We are in agreement then! I see what you are saying, and I'll epeat my point - it's largely irrelevant, since editing is a topic that goes far beyond "removing misses". I could also argue against your "memory" of the original versus the screened segment, and against the clear bias you bring into the "subjective" process (at the time of viewing you were in the "yes" camp already). But I'll content myself to simply repeat that I think "editing" is far more subtle than is being allowed for here. JE of course can prove me wrong in an instant - just release unedited footage for "research pruposes". Won't happen.
You and I both agree this damages his credibility. No more to be said, really.
My memory could, singularly be faulty but I was there with three other people and we all took notes and compared them immediately afterwards. I was there with a a NY based parapsychologist, an interior designer and a no-nonsense, level headed housewife from the midwest who scored the tickets.
From the public's perspective I agree such possibilities damages JE's credibility for the few critical thinkers among us who are astute enough to consider them. I, many others and even Schwartz considers JE's unwillingness to record even his private sessions as also damaging JE's credibility and he has been told as much. There is no argument there from me as well as from Gary Schwartz. But JE doesn't care. What did he say: "Bite me..."?? Oh well. This is why discussing him is a monumental waste of time. We should be discussing the process and there is a multifaceted process rather than one personality who may or may not be a complete fraud or delusional but clever enough to make this work. Frankly if he does edit his tapes for content and doesn't allow his private sessions to be taped, then I think delusional is off the table.
Instig8R
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2002
- Messages
- 195
Re: Re: Seeing Letters -vs- Hearing Letters
Hi, Neo! I'm all for accuracy! Perhaps I should have said that I don't know why you don't recall how frequently JE says he sees letters.
You are claiming that JE "gets" the letters through clairaudience, with very few exceptions. I do not understand how you can possibly make such a claim. I feel that you are minimizing the number of times that it actually happens, merely because you do not question what JE claims in his books.
I feel that RC yielded the argument to you, because he had no evidence, but neither do you! You haven't supplied evidence to refute his argument, except to repeat a paragraph from JE's book, wherein he claims to hear letters clairaudiently. I do not consider JE's written explanation to be a good source of evidence.
If you pay close attention to what JE is doing during gallery readings, you will notice that he seldom divulges the method of communication. For example, he mostly asks open-ended questions, like "Who has the 'J' name?". When something isn't validated, he will then go into further detail, and he will use his index finger to "write" the letter on an imaginary blackboard.
JE will also say that he is seeing a letter. In one reading, he even went so far as to tell the sitter that "they're putting a 'JO' over you".
And, let's not forget the famous line, "They're showing me 'AMA', which means the person acted 'against medical advice'."
I believe that JE wrote his off-the-wall explanation of being oriented towards hearing letters, rather than seeing letters, for a reason: It gives him more wiggle room. However, if you watch his performances with a critical eye, you will see that JE deviates from his "hearing" method a lot more often than you think. I am suggesting that you forget about what he wrote in his books, and simply watch him and listen to him.
Given that the CO readings are heavily edited, we really cannot know for sure how many times JE claims to "hear" letters or "see" letters. However, JE has demonstrated that he CAN receive written letter symbols during readings. It has occurred enough for a case to be made that JE would get clearer messages from beyond if he would only use a typewriter or a ouija board.
neofight said:
Hello, Instig8R. Tsk tsk! That is not what I said!If you go back and check my posts, I think you will find that I never said what you just claimed I did. I distinctly remember telling RC that I most definitely do recall JE on a couple of occasions stating that he was seeing some letter or other.
I also stated that this was not the more common manner in which he got the letters. Most often he gets them through clairaudience is what I said. Come on now. Let's keep this accurate!
Hi, Neo! I'm all for accuracy! Perhaps I should have said that I don't know why you don't recall how frequently JE says he sees letters.
You are claiming that JE "gets" the letters through clairaudience, with very few exceptions. I do not understand how you can possibly make such a claim. I feel that you are minimizing the number of times that it actually happens, merely because you do not question what JE claims in his books.
I feel that RC yielded the argument to you, because he had no evidence, but neither do you! You haven't supplied evidence to refute his argument, except to repeat a paragraph from JE's book, wherein he claims to hear letters clairaudiently. I do not consider JE's written explanation to be a good source of evidence.
If you pay close attention to what JE is doing during gallery readings, you will notice that he seldom divulges the method of communication. For example, he mostly asks open-ended questions, like "Who has the 'J' name?". When something isn't validated, he will then go into further detail, and he will use his index finger to "write" the letter on an imaginary blackboard.
JE will also say that he is seeing a letter. In one reading, he even went so far as to tell the sitter that "they're putting a 'JO' over you".
And, let's not forget the famous line, "They're showing me 'AMA', which means the person acted 'against medical advice'."
I believe that JE wrote his off-the-wall explanation of being oriented towards hearing letters, rather than seeing letters, for a reason: It gives him more wiggle room. However, if you watch his performances with a critical eye, you will see that JE deviates from his "hearing" method a lot more often than you think. I am suggesting that you forget about what he wrote in his books, and simply watch him and listen to him.
Given that the CO readings are heavily edited, we really cannot know for sure how many times JE claims to "hear" letters or "see" letters. However, JE has demonstrated that he CAN receive written letter symbols during readings. It has occurred enough for a case to be made that JE would get clearer messages from beyond if he would only use a typewriter or a ouija board.