# John Edward's Crossing Over

1. Aug 29, 2003

### Phobos

Staff Emeritus
In the current version of http://www.skeptic.com (about half-way down the page) there is an interesting article about John Edward & his show "Crossing Over".

Having seen bits of the show, my eyes are nearly permanently rolled into the back of my head due to the obvious "fishing" trip he takes with the audience. ("...is there someone in the audience whose name begins with "A"?...no, wait...the spirits say it's 'B'...")

If the article is correct, then his cheating (blatent hoax) makes it even worse.

2. Aug 29, 2003

### Greg Bernhardt

Very interesting phobos, thanks for the tip. I always wanted to know how Edwards might have ran the show and the tricks he used.

3. Aug 30, 2003

### zoobyshoe

Very cool article. Its all there,
so now I think I'm going to become
a psychic medium! 

4. Aug 30, 2003

### Zero

I wish I had the ability to keep a straight face...I could make a mint!

5. Sep 1, 2003

### Staff: Mentor

Though entertaining to some, this just makes me mad. He's profiting by exploiting the loss of people's loved ones. Miss Cleo was shut down by the FEDS - he should be too.

6. Sep 2, 2003

### Artman

Re: Re: John Edward's Crossing Over

Bet she didn't see that coming.

7. Sep 2, 2003

### Sunfist

But, of course, he easily gets away with it because he has that whole "it's just entertainment" clause in his show. I mean, what can you do when his lawyer says, "We say it's only entertainment every single episode". Sure, it's fine print, but that's how fine print works.

8. Sep 3, 2003

### Zantra

I saw a special about him that competely debunks his show, and shows how he runs decoys to the houses of people off the guest list. I'm not a believer in psychic phenomenon anyhow.

9. Sep 3, 2003

### Staff: Mentor

I've heard that too(and other things like bugging the rooms the guests wait in to pick up info), but it really doesn't matter. Actually, that just makes him a mediocre psychic. An average psychic can work strictly from the information the subject gives him/her. So that just makes John Edwards a fraud of below average talent.

10. Dec 9, 2003

### Suz

John Edward

[zz)]

I saw a show recently that was NOT about John Edward, but in fact about tricks that were used when FILMING the show in question - magicians, mediums, clairvoyants and the like. When John Edward goes on tour to a different country let's say........you really think he has a staff of people trekking off around the country in question digging up info on people who have bought tickets?! People come from all over the place to see him in 'concert'. Gimme a break.

11. Dec 11, 2003

### confutatis

This is always a controversial topic. I certainly don't like this guy for the fact that he makes tons of money out of innocent victims, but you can't easily explain what he does. If it were that simple anyone could do it; that there are very few people who are capable of doing what John Edwards does, that is something not easily explained.

I happen to have my own speculative theory. I believe it's possible to capture faint electromagnetic signals from another person's brain. Sort of like radio interference. It would be difficult to establish this experimentally, but there's tons of anedoctal evidence for the existence of some "mind-reading" phenomenon among human beings. My wife and I, for instance, are often astonished when we find ourselves thinking about the same subject at the same time, for no reason at all.

Anyway, that in itself is a bit beside the point. What's really interesting about the "mind reading" theory is that it's the best way to debunk people like Edwards. I'm quite sure they would all agree that it's possible to read people's minds; after all, what are they claiming to do other than read dead people's minds? So once they agree mind reading is real, then they can be confronted with the need to prove that they are not reading the minds of living people, rather than their dead relatives. That would be tough.

Whether mind reading really happens or not could be established later. The important thing, in my opinion, is to stop those clowns from making fortunes out of peoeple's bereavement. That is just disgusting.

12. Dec 11, 2003

### Suz

It's called 'Supply and Demand' it's akin to a Boutique selling clothes to people who wish to buy them.......he does what he does because people whether you like it or not, wish to purchase what he 'sells' - that doesn't make him disgusting in the least - it would be nice if he did it for nothing - but that doesn't pay the mortgage now does it? Or do all of you who have posted on here work for nothing? Thought not.

13. Dec 11, 2003

### megashawn

Well, I heard his show last night (tv for noise while using pc) and they said tickets were free.

Sure he's still getting paid, but I don't think he makes his money directly off the vict, I mean audience.

14. Dec 11, 2003

### Phobos

Staff Emeritus
I would think that many intelligent people could do it (cold reading), but it takes a lot of practice (e.g., learning how to properly phrase things, knowing what kind of body language/visual cues to look for, learning to play the odds, etc.). That's not something many people are willing to invest the time into.

I agree...but I suppose those people believe their money was well spent. I'm more concerned about the (seemingly) growing acceptance/belief in of this kind of thing.

15. Dec 12, 2003

### confutatis

I don't think it's a matter of training, I think it's a matter of talent. Very few people can play the guitar like Eric Clapton; being a successful psychic is not different in my opinion.

Growing acceptance in what? People have always believed in the afterlife, and most cultures have some form of ritual to communicate with the dead. In a society obsessed with technology, celebrity, and financial success, it's only natural that a successful TV host gets to perform the rituals.

La plus ça change, la plus ça même... or something like that.

16. Dec 12, 2003

Staff Emeritus
There was a psychology professor (at, I seem to remember, a university in Pennsylvania) who taught himself to do it and impressed investigators. He claimed he could teach "anybody" to do it, but I am sure there is talent involved too. I have seen learning styles divided into perceptive and receptive, meaning people who pick up surface details easily versus people who can only perceive what they have an internal structure for. I don't think receptive people could learn the trick.

17. Dec 12, 2003

### Phobos

Staff Emeritus
Yes, some people would be better at it that others. But my point is that its a non-mystical skill. Mr. Edward is not talking with dead Mr. Smith, he is deducing that there is a dead Mr. Smith because Mrs. Smith is at his show with her kids and no husband or wedding ring in sight. It is also a safe bet that Mrs. Smith would be glad to hear, and would not question a claim, that Mr. Smith is doing well.

Granted, for Humanity's duration in spacetime. But on a smaller scale (say, Americans over the past 100 years), there is a growing acceptance of mysticism. I can dig up some stats if you want.

18. Dec 12, 2003

### confutatis

Point taken!
I suppose you're right about that too, but I wonder why you see that as a problem. Mysticism is just as natural an instinct for humans as things like sexuality or aesthetics. That is in fact closely related to my view on this pop-psychic crap: let people believe they can talk to the dead, but make sure they understand that if John Edwards can do it, then so can John Smith.

19. Dec 12, 2003

### BigRedDot

John Edwards is THE BIGGEST DOUCHE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!

20. Dec 12, 2003

### Suz

It's JOHN EDWARD no S - i think you have just disproved your theory on who is the 'biggest'.

21. Dec 12, 2003

### BigRedDot

Well, I rather take it as a point of pride that I got it wrong. The Southpark quote I left above is certainly more than enough brain cells to waste on this guy.

22. Dec 12, 2003

### Suz

To have any idea on how many cells to waste on him, you must have taken the time to watch him at some point - so the interest was there.
If you want to really know who to scoff at- may i suggest you tear yourself away from Southpark and sneak a peak at Colin Fry from the UK - now he is pitiful to watch, see or listen to, and not worthy of your brain cells.

23. Dec 13, 2003

### looneytunes

It's South Park people, South Park.

24. Dec 15, 2003

### Phobos

Staff Emeritus
I agree that human nature easily takes up mysticism and that people should be free to believe what they want. But I have many concerns about it. For example, when they start teaching it to my kids in school or if it starts to cause harm...like a doctor who gives an inferior herbal medicine or a parent who refuses medical treatment for their kids, or the killing of endangered species for their supposed magical healing properties (rhino horns, etc.), etc.. It gets scarier as human technology grows. Consider bioterrorism for example. Carl Sagan summed it up well...

"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."

Last edited: Dec 15, 2003
25. Jan 3, 2004

### Vosh

No, he's still disgusting and so are all capitalist who make mountains of money exploiting their gullible fellow man. Actually, what is trully disgusting is that the majority of mankind was born to be stupid, weak and easily exploited. If we don't want to live in the same neighborhoods as the primitive masses then we have to trick those millions into sending us a few dollars each; painless for them, it's only a few dollars, but added up means millions for a John Edward and all the other capitalists who know better than to want to spend their lives *workin' at a jahb* (to make money for the bosses retirement).

If aliens ever make contact it will consist of a picture of one slapping his hand to his forehead. "The Three Stooges" are the best representation of Earthkind taken as a whole!