Interesting JE Hits....

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Do Blaine, Copperfield or any other magician have disclaimers after their TV performances?

 

[Darat]

I am being really, really dense here I but want point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?



Edited to add

The above should have said:

I am being really, really dense here but what point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

 

[voidx]

But, she did answer those questions! Maybe you just didn't like the answers.

I'd like to make it clear that Neo restated, or rather clarified her own personal view of the Brain questions. Her contention that artistic and creative ability is mostly based in the RH of the brain appeared to be not the case as per tye article CFL linked, and her idea of telepathy emenating in a similar fashion in the physical brain is also unsupported. She choose on her own to quit debating it because by her own admission its not her area of expertise and she could not answer many of the questions put to her about it. I generally abhor the amount of keeping score of debating points that happens in these threads at times, but I think its important not to glaze over this particular instance. The brain issue, and telepathy being more art than science I think has been quite soundly put down in the context of this discussion.

 

[Thanz]

I am being really, really dense here I but want point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

I don't know about the others, but I was just trying to make the point that all it is is a stage persona, and what they say is just their schtick. I was primarily posting as it seemed that some thought Blaine was more than this.

 

[Instig8R]

Instig8R, since you watch the show at least three times a week, you should be aware that JE often uses the word "see" to denote how he "perceives" or "intuits" or "discerns". There is no way in hell that you can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something, unless he actually describes what it is he is "seeing".

What he is saying in that above quote is that it is his sense that there is another person connected to this sitter who has a similar "L" name. He is being adamant about that point. That does not mean that he is literally "seeing" an "L".

Hey, Neo-- I am amazed at these farfetched excuses! The only defense you haven't tried would be that it depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.

To recap, when JE uses the word "see", it denotes how he "perceives", "intuits" or "discerns", and there is no way we can positively state that he is literally "seeing" something.

However, it is somehow possible for you to make the determination that he is NOT literally seeing something.

Allrighty... Assuming I buy your explanation, please tell me what JE is "seeing" when he claims to "see" AMA, Against Medical Advice. Is he only perceiving, intuiting or discerning AMA??? Because I thought we had finally agreed that JE was "seeing" letters when he sees "AMA".

-snip-

Well of course you are right, Instig8R. Why on earth would I think that JE might better know what he feels are his strengths or weaknesses.

Neo, I used to think that JE knew his own strengths and weaknesses. I thought he knew his chief strength is his ability to b.s. people, so that they won't notice how bad most of his readings are. Now, I'm not so sure. Obviously, you realize how bad those unedited readings are, which is why you refuse to examine them. Soooo, I guess JE's greatest strength is getting people to believe in him, despite how badly he performs.

Have you officially taken the position that any and all facts that do not conform to your beliefs must simply be discarded?

No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.

I guess I just find that foremat as unacceptable as the skeptics, yourself included, find the edited transcripts on "CO". .....neo

Neo, I did not post a "snippet". I posted the very first reading from JE's 9/10/01 appearance on LKL. It was a complete, unedited reading, and it stunk to high heaven, as did those that followed. I don't understand your claim that you didn't check out the thread. You didn't need to check out the thread, because I posted the entire reading here for you to view it.

The LKL reading that I posted here showed JE saying that he was seeing a letter, and he got it wrong. You are insisting that he heard the letter, and completely overlooked the fact that he got it WRONG, regardless of how he claims he got the message, lol.

You are also glossing over the final count for that entire unedited reading: Score: 8 guesses, one weak hit, 7 misses. But I guess that's not important, as long as we accept that he heard the information from the spirits, rather than saw or felt the messages. I guess there was a lot of static on the spirit connection that night... which would also explain why JE didn't know that America would be attacked by terrorists within a few hours after the show ended.

 

[Lurker]

It is not the assumption that magic is real. It is the assumption that David Blaine (and other magicians) like people to believe that it is real. And they do. Or at least, most perform their acts ina manner consistent with this.

David Copperfield likes people to believe that he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. That doesn't mean he did. But he certainly claimed to have done so on the televison special.

Thank you, Thanz. If dingler thought I was operating under that assumption he is wrong. It is all about ENTERTAINMENT. Making something as real as possible heightens the excitement.

Lurker

 

[BillHoyt]

I am being really, really dense here I but want point are you all (thanz, billy, clancie et all) trying to argue when you are discussing what an "entertainment" magician as their "stage-persona" says?

They're trying to blur the lines, Darat. They want to compare Copperfield and Blaine with JE. Copperfield and Blaine do not claim paranormal powers. They say they are performing magic. Copperifield's website clearly says "illusion."

The disingenuous attempt here is to make the lines fuzzy and thereby make magicians seem to be committing the same kind of fraud. It is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

And, Thanz, that is your answer as well: this is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

Cheers,

 

[Clancie]

Posted by BillHoyt

They're trying to blur the lines, Darat. They want to compare Copperfield and Blaine with JE. Copperfield and Blaine do not claim paranormal powers.

Quite false, Bill.

Thanz and Lurker were obviously responding only in the context of dingler44's example of DB referring to "real" levitation. Read more carefully.

The disingenuous attempt here is to make the lines fuzzy and thereby make magicians seem to be committing the same kind of fraud. It is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

Again, not they, Bill. Only me.

And I don't find it "disingenuous" to be interested in some magician/mentalists' own feelings that, even when they are performing a "trick" they sometimes have the feeling that what actually happens is not conforming to natural laws as we know them.

I've mentioned three magician/mentalists who've made that kind of observation.

I find it quite interesting and would like to hear more about it. Naturally, you don't.

No surprises there whatsoever, but please don't categorize other people's statements as something that they're clearly not.

 

[Thanz]

The disingenuous attempt here is to make the lines fuzzy and thereby make magicians seem to be committing the same kind of fraud. It is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

And, Thanz, that is your answer as well: this is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one.

Dude, I have no idea where you are coming from. I made no claim comparing Blaine or Copperfield or any other magician to JE. I was simply comparing Blaine to Copperfield, that's all.

Oh, and here's a newsflash: I don't think that JE is real any more than you do.

You assume too much. I ask for an apology for calling me a weasel.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Fine. Whatever. This whole discussion is not all that important.

In fact, it is a red herring. You brought up Blaine, and so far, you have been very successful in diverting attention from the fact that you have a lot of questions to answer.

Please do so, without any further delay. You have a habit of diversion and delaying, but don't think it will go unnoticed.

 

[BillHoyt]

Quite false, Bill.

Thanz and Lurker were obviously responding only in the context of dingler44's example of DB referring to "real" levitation. Read more carefully.
[/B]
Again, not they, Bill. Only me.

And I don't find it "disingenuous" to be interested in some magician/mentalists' own feelings that, even when they are performing a "trick" they sometimes have the feeling that what actually happens is not conforming to natural laws as we know them.

I've mentioned three magician/mentalists who've made that kind of observation.

I find it quite interesting and would like to hear more about it. Naturally, you don't.

No surprises there whatsoever, but please don't categorize other people's statements as something that they're clearly not. [/B]

I agree that Thanz has separated his comments from yours. Your comments are still disingenuous. As I said before, you are heading for a tu quoque and an attempt to weasel.

I have seen this tripe before and it always smells, clancie. Don't smear magicians with flim-flam artists.

Cheers,

 

[Lurker]

Dude, I have no idea where you are coming from. I made no claim comparing Blaine or Copperfield or any other magician to JE. I was simply comparing Blaine to Copperfield, that's all.

Oh, and here's a newsflash: I don't think that JE is real any more than you do.

You assume too much. I ask for an apology for calling me a weasel.

Same goes for me. But you don't need to apologize for calling me a weasel. I am one. (Insert appropriate weasal noises here from insipid Pauly Shore movies)

Lurker

 

[BillHoyt]

You assume too much. I ask for an apology for calling me a weasel.

I see your other posts in which you clarified the first. I regret that I saw that post as supporting the other crap here. But I did not call you a weasel. I said "this is a tu quoque and a weasel all in one." That referred to the attempt to smear magicians with the flim-flammery of mediums.

Cheers,

 

[Darat]

So - what was this thread about again... ?

 

[voidx]

So - what was this thread about again... ?

Interesting JE hits, which so far have been less than extraordinary. We await more.

 

[davefoc]

Wow, 15 pages, amazing.

Here's a question for Clancie and neofight:

If you had the ability to talk to the dead, as you suspect that JE does, would you do something similar to what he does? That is tout your ability without citing any studies or providing any testable evidence for them.

Or would you do contolled testing of your ability and publish the results to verify that it exists and to convince others that it exists? Even if you were sure your ability existed, wouldn't you at least do controlled studies to search for improvements. For instance JE says distance to the subject doesn't matter. But how would he know without controlled testing?

My thought is that all charlatans would follow the JE approach and most people with legitimate abilities would not. I wonder how you'd feel about a doctor who claimed to be able to cure cancer who presented evidence in the same way that JE does?

 

[dharlow]

I've mentioned three magician/mentalists who've made that kind of observation.

I find it quite interesting and would like to hear more about it. Naturally, you don't.

You might be interested in this link:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/MagWhoEndors.htm

 

[Loki]

Neo,

Apologies if you've answered this (I haven't seen a reply, so that's why I'm asking) - what happens to a reading that goes fro more that 11 minutes in a CO taping session? I'm prepared to accept that whole "30 minutes" thing was just a communication mixup, but given that a 22 minute episode only actually contains 11 minutes of reading(s) then surely there are only three options here :

1. In CO taping sessions, *no* reading ever exceeds 11 minutes;
2. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes, it is not used;
3. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes, it is edited down.

If you accept that #3 is possible, then in *any* epoised of CO in which a single reading occuspies the entire 11 minutes, you no way at all of determining how much editing was done - yet almost certainly *some* content was removed.

If you want to try and use Steve Grenard's argument of "editing probably only removes pauses, etc", then I'll rephrase my options as :

1. In CO taping sessions, *no* reading ever exceeds 11 minutes of content;
2. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes of content, it is not used;
3. If a reading exceeds 11 minutes of content, it is edited down.

Aren' we force to agree that at the very least it's likely that *some* content is removed from *some* longer readings.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by loki

...given that a 22 minute episode only actually contains 11 minutes of reading(s)

Loki,

Did I miss where this "given" fact about CO episodes came from? Source, please?

 

[Loki]

Clancie,

Did I miss where this "given" fact about CO episodes came from? Source, please?

Good question! Source would be the discussion between Claus, SteveGrenard and Neofight. I certainly got the impression that this was an "agreed upon" fact, and I assumed that it was probably something that had been "thrashed out" over at TVTalkShows. Claus certianly seems to think it's a fact. I dont; recall seeing Steve or Neo disputing it.

But if you like, since there's *no* disagreement on the length of a full episode, we can always rewrite the options to be :

1. In CO taping sessions, *no* reading ever exceeds 22 minutes of content;
2. If a reading exceeds 22 minutes of content, it is not used;
3. If a reading exceeds 22 minutes of content, it is edited down.

Now, I'd agree that 22 minute readings are likely to be the exception, not the rule. But really, the truth is that the "11" minute figure is closer to the truth than the "22" isn't it? I await Claus, Steve or Neo to confirm of deny the 11 minute figure!!