Deconstructing The Dead: Cross Over - One Last Time To Expose Medium John Edward

The Skeptic ^ | 4/02 | Michael Shermer

[blackdragon]

And just how do you know he's a fraud? Personally, I believe that J.E.M is not a fraud. And a lot of the American people feel the same as I do. First, he is not in full control of the editing, the producers are. Secondly, there is a clash of worlds here...the producers are taught to produce the show, not post-produce the show as John is trying his damndest to make them do. Third, there is a rule in the editing room that John is trying to get them to follow, "Edit for time, not content." If you would like more on my View of John Edward, email me at blackdragon2034ce@hotmail.com

[blackdragon]

Why do you think it is on Sci-Fi? Sci-Fi, Short for Science Fiction. Also, Studios USA, the syndicater of Sci-Fi, was somewhat interested from the beginning, when John tried to get his show off the ground.

[blackdragon]

I see dead people too. P.S. Not "people", energies.

[blackdragon]

Yeah, if they're a fruad. If they're genuine, Like Mr. McGee, then there's no problem. P.S. He has requested that answers be "yes/no" only unless he states otherwise. So, if Mr. McGee (b.k.a. John Edward) is a fraud, why would he insist on "yes/no" answers only?

[blackdragon]

Correction, one of 2. John is on Sunday-Thursday from 2300 hrs. to 0000 hrs. (EDT). Also on Monday-Friday from 1300 to 1400 hrs. on select Fox stations. Oh, if you want frauds, James Van Praagh has started a "spin-off" of "Crossing Over", entitled "Beyond". I believe this stuff, and believe in John, but yet right off the bat felt that James was not real.

[Flying Circus]

Why did you ping me to a long dead thread and tell me the time of a show I have less than zero interest in watching? Edward is, at best, a con-man with a modicum of talent for cold-talking. You are deluded if you think his show is anything good.

[discostu]

Because y/n answer require a different type of question, one that's more vague and allows the charlatan to range in on the 'reading'. Doesn't the fact that he uses an assumed name tell you everything you need to know?

[blackdragon]

What "assumed name" would you be talking about? His 'legal' name (John N.M.I. Edward) or his birth name (John Edward McGee)?

[blackdragon]

Because my psychic gudies were telling me to. That and it doesn't really matter how long ago it was. But I guess I will shut up now, only because of this belief of "Everyone is entitled to their own belief, and own opinion." I "know" John is not a fraud, that's all that matters to me. If you believe otherwise, so be it.

[The Electrician]

Having been a science fiction enthusiast for thirty years or so, I have a good understanding of what other science fiction enthusiasts are interested in and what they are not interested in, and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that there is a big difference between SciFi/Fantasy and the John Edward brand of con-artistry. That's why I expect that it is a big channel-turner for the regular SciFi Channel viewers - and I doubt that they return after that show ends - I rarely do.

If it is doing well in ratings, it is because it is attracting a different viewership demographic (which might be what the USA Network programmers have in mind, although I would question why they would so eagerly chase away their regular viewers) - perhaps they get more of a Rosie/Jerry Springer audience - whereas the typical SciFi Channel viewer has changed channels to TNN or Discovery or TLC or whatever.

[discostu]

You're the one that listed him as having an AKA. I notice you put quotes around "legal", does that mean he hasn't legally changed his name? That would make John Edwards an assumed name under standard legal definition.

He's a quack, he's a charlatan, he's a hoax, and he's not even real good at it. Check the pet psychic on Animal Planet, she's a much better cold reader, not nearly as telegraphed and transparent. And she has a British accent (which is probably just as fake as the readings, but what the heck) which immediately gives her bonus cool points.

[Cobra Man]

You work for Sci-Fi channel. Why in hell are they cancelling FARSCAPE!!!!????

[blackdragon]

Not "A.K.A.". He does not use his birth name any more. To be honest, I do not recall way I put SINGLE quotes around legal. (single, having a different meaning than the double that most people use.) But I am not stating he is using an "assumed" name. Just listing his birth name to better clairify which so-called "assumed name" you would be referring to. Also, he can not tell based on body language, facial expressions, or whatnot whether he is "on the right track", because he doesn't ever look at the Gallery members during the reading. With all that said, and my tangets over with (for now), back to clairifing my previous question: "What so-called 'assumed name' would you be referring to?" And, even though it's a common error, it's not "Edwards", it's "Edward". Oh, (back to more tangets.) I can't check out the "Animal Pyschic" on Animal Planet because I don't have Cable or Sat. TV. Plus, I personally believe that (based on my assumptions) you can't really read an animal. Except for Homo Sapien Sapiens. Also, (and I quote)"He's a quack, he's a charlatan, he's a hoax, and he's not even real good at it." ... Of course he's not good at being fake, because he's real. I would presume you know that he has done seminars and other given things (private and celeb readings, phone readings, net chats--with the occasional reading due to an energy despirately wanting to deliver a message to someone still in the physical world, etc.) How can he fake the things there, too? I'm lost. Or maybe unknowenly in the "top 20%". Hopefully not. I do know though that you, and everyone else that has replied to this subject-matter against John Edward are in the "Bottom 20%". Those that support him, for the most part, are in the "Middle 60%". "Now, what the hell do you mean with all this 20-60-20 bs?", you may ask. Simple. Top 20% = those that believe it so much, that they would believe YOU if you desided to say "Uncle so-and-so said that he's ok". The bottom 20% = tough skeptics that most pyschic, like John, would not even waste the time or energy to try to explain how the process works and whatnot. The middle 60% = those that believe in ADC (after-death-communication), but yet, have enough skeptism that they can tell the difference between John Edward and James Van Praagh. (John = real, James = hoax) I would love to waste more of my time and energy on this, but I have places to go, people to read (and see), research on Pyschic Mediumship to do. One last thing though: "don't forget to Communicate to your loved ones, Appriciate them for who they are, and Validate their importance in your life every chance you get. So a medium like myself, doesn't have to do it for you. I'm Black Dragón, and I'll see you next time here on 'Crossing Over'."

[blackdragon]

You do, I don't. Although, I USE to. But times, and religious preferances have changed. I do believe though that there are some con-artist out there, like Van Praagh. But not Edward.

[discostu]

In proper grammatics all single quote means is that text your quoting had a quote in it. Out here in internet land it usually just means you're being lazy about hitting the shift key, something I do myself.

You listed his birth name and what he's going by before I ever said anything about an assumed name. You said "So, if Mr. McGee (b.k.a. John Edward)", looks like an assumed name to me.

You obviously don't know how the cold reading scam works. A cold reader needs NOTHING from his victim other than yes/ no answers. They need never see the victim, they don't even need to hear their voice, you can do it with lights on a switch that the victim controls from halfway around the world. It's all about hunting and pecking and playing the averages. I remember a beautiful example of this from him where he started off saying the late husband had planted a garden for the woman being "read", and slowly but surely with yes's and no's this garden eventually became a painting of flowers in a vase. It's just like playing 20 questions: garden: no, plants: no, I'm seeing flowers: yes, but these were special: yes, you still have them: yes, purple: not sure, I see a vase: huh, something about purple flowers in a vase: well there's a painting. Now if you're a sucker, like our victim who later professed how amazed she was that he "knew" about the painting all you remember is the last part. If you've studied stage magic it's a simple cold reading scam, playing averages, using vague statement and letting the victim fill in their own blanks. The punchline is that these people want to believe so no matter how hard he struggles to get the right answer they'll always walk out remembering that he did get it, not how hard he struggled.

It's too bad you can't see the show on AP. I don't know whether animals or man can be "read" but I do know that both the "British" lady on AP and John Whatever the hell his name is today are 100% FAKE, total CHARLATANS, and anybody that believes either of them should never invest in real estate. Here's some light reading:
http://www.factsource.com/cut/coldreading.html
http://skepdic.com/coldread.html
http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/
http://www.blgoldberg.com/PSYCHICS.htm

You're right, I am "bottom 20%", I'm am a STRONG skeptic, for a very good reason, I know how these scams work and I know how to spot the scammers. To me there are two types of psychics in this world: ones I can tell you how they're doing it and ones I can't. If I can spot how they're doing it I know with absolute certainty they're a fake. If I can't then I'm open to the possibility they might not be a fake. I spotted how John does his stuff when I changed channels to the Simpsons about 2 minutes too early and first saw this clown in action. He's a hunt and peck vaguery massager, arguably the least skilled of the forms of "psychic". You're not middle 60, you're a born sucker. Edward is transparent, any idiot with 5 minutes of "training" could do what he does. It's painfully obvious how he ranges in on answers, he runs it just like the game 20 questions we all played as kids, only he knows the first few answers (it's a person, and they're dead). If he was really psychic he could have TOLD that woman it was a painting instead of starting in the garden.

[discostu]

Here's some excerpts from an excellent deconstruction of Edward's charlatanism. Of course you'll probably claim that CSICOP are bottom 20%ers, but among those of us that think scamming greaving people should be an offense punishable by death CSICOP is good people.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/i-files.html

By contrast, today's spirits-whom John Edward and his fellow mediums supposedly contact-seem to have poor memories and difficulty communicating. For example, in one of his on-air séances (on Larry King Live, June 19, 1998), Edward said: "I feel like there's a J- or G-sounding name attached to this." He also perceived "Linda or Lindy or Leslie; who's this L name?" Again, he got a "Maggie or Margie, or some M-G-sounding name," and yet again heard from "either Ellen or Helen, or Eleanore-it's like an Ellen-sounding name." Gone is the clear-speaking eloquence of yore; the dead now seem to mumble.

The "psychic" can obtain clues by observing dress and body language (noting expressions that indicate when one is on or off track), asking questions (which if correct will appear as "hits" but otherwise will seem innocent queries), and inviting the subject to interpret the vague statements offered. For example, nearly anyone can respond to the mention of a common object (like a ring or watch) with a personal recollection that can seem to transform the mention into a hit. (For more on cold reading see Gresham 1953; Hyman 1977; Nickell 2000.)

Now suspicious, O'Neill recalled that while the audience was waiting to be seated, Edward's aides were scurrying about, striking up conversations and getting people to fill out cards with their name, family tree and other facts. Once inside the auditorium, where each family was directed to preassigned seats, more than an hour passed before show time while "technical difficulties" backstage were corrected.

Be that as it may, on Dateline Edward was actually caught in an attempt to pass off previously gained knowledge as spirit revelation. During the session he said of the spirits, "They're telling me to acknowledge Anthony," and when the cameraman signaled that was his name, Edward seemed surprised, asking "That's you? Really?" He further queried: "Had you not seen Dad before he passed? Had you either been away or been distanced?"...
HOCKENBERRY: So were you aware that his dad had died before you did his reading?
Mr. EDWARD: I think he-I think earlier in the-in the day, he had said something.
HOCKENBERRY: It makes me feel like, you know, that that's fairly significant. I mean, you knew that he had a dead relative and you knew it was the dad.
Mr. EDWARD: OK.
HOCKENBERRY: So that's not some energy coming through, that's something you knew going in. You knew his name was Tony and you knew that his dad had died and you knew that he was in the room, right? That gets you . . .
Mr. EDWARD: That's a whole lot of thinking you got me doing, then. Like I said, I react to what's coming through, what I see, hear and feel. I interpret what I'm seeing hearing and feeling, and I define it. He raised his hand, it made sense for him. Great.
HOCKENBERRY: But a cynic would look at that and go, 'Hey,' you know, 'He knows it's the cameraman, he knows it's DATELINE. You know, wouldn't that be impressive if he can get the cameraman to cry?'
Mr. EDWARD: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Not at all.

Another session-for an episode of Crossing Over attended by a reporter for The New York Times Magazine , Chris Ballard (2001)-had Edward "hitting well below 50 percent for the day." Indeed, he twice spent "upward of 20 minutes stuck on one person, shooting blanks but not accepting the negative responses." This is a common technique: persisting in an attempt to redeem error, cajoling or even browbeating a sitter (as Sylvia Browne often does), or at least making the incorrect responses seem the person's fault. "Do not not honor him!" Edward exclaimed at one point, then (according to Ballard) "staring down the bewildered man."

Still another ploy used by Edward and his fellow "psychic mediums" is to suggest that people who cannot acknowledge a hit may find a connection later. "Write this down," an insistent Edward sometimes says, or in some other way suggests the person study the apparent miss. He may become even more insistent, the positive reinforcement diverting attention from the failure and giving the person an opportunity to find some adaptable meaning later (Nickell 1998).

[discostu]

Some good stuff on how it works, a general outline
http://www.voy.com/87504/24.html

And some more in depth coverage diretly relating to Johnnieboy
http://host.randi.org/jr/020102.html (note this is from the site of another great skeptic, James Randi, who BTW does cold readings much more convincingly than John Edward has achieved even in his dreams. Here's the actual text.

The first thing our charlatan does is pick a root for some common names. Once he said, "I'm sensing a 'P' connection . . . Is there a Peter, Patrick or Patricia involved in some way?" Just today, he started a séance with, "I'm getting an 'S-A' connection . . . Sam or Sally?" Now, since he says this in front of a full studio, no kidding some gullible schmuck is going to yell out, "Yeah, I've got a dead Uncle Pete!"

The second thing you should notice (if you lose a bet, say, and have to watch the show) is that a lot of times he's simply wrong . He'll have a quick "flash" of intuition, then backpedal to something more generic when it doesn't work. In today's episode, he was in the middle of talking to some couple's dead relatives, then suddenly blurted out, "Who died in the car crash?" The couple didn't know. Then he quickly said, "Yes, it's not a car crash but an impact on the head . . . Was someone hit on the head in some way?" And the astonished lady responded that that's how her father had died. So you see, he can make incredibly precise guesses without penalty; if he's right, he's a genius, and if he's wrong, well, what do you expect? It's tough talking to dead people.

Another of this guy's tricks is to start with something very precise and then broaden it until he catches something. So today, he was talking to three people. He started with, "I'm sensing that someone is upset over the family business [pause] A dispute, someone feeling they weren't treated fairly in some manner?" One of the women piped in, "Well yes, that would be our aunts. Many of us felt they didn't leave their money the way they should have." Don't you see? This had nothing to do with a family business. And it didn't involve a single person feeling cheated, but a group. But wow, he was pretty close anyway, what with talking to a group of strangers. How intriguing this John Edward is! (As a postscript, after the lady mentioned the disputed wills, Johnny knowingly said, "And this was a planned thing, wasn't it?" No kidding, John. We're talking about wills here.)

Finally, keep in mind that the people who jump in are the ones who want to believe. For example, after he said he was sensing a Sam or Sally, the lady in question shook her head. But then another woman in that same row volunteered, "My father was named Sam!" Without missing a beat, our wonderboy said, "This isn't unusual. Did the two of you come together?" Of course they did; that's why they were sitting together! But of course, the studio audience took away from this the fact that he "knew" about this other lady's dad, not that he had completely missed when he guessed the lady he was talking to had a Sam or Sally in her family. All right, I'm done wasting my time with this fraud. I'll speak of him again only when he runs for office.

[spectre]

"Animal Psychic or Pet Psychic" is an interesting program. She alledgely communicates with dead and/or live pets. For example, she says "your cat doesn't like his food bowl next to his litter box...he's telling me"...(LOL!)

I'm not saying I believe in her abilities...it's just different...:~)

sw

[The Electrician]

You work for Sci-Fi channel.

I do? Not the last time that I checked...