Sorry if this has been addressed already.
What about this guy? Can he really hear from the dead?
In my opinion he is really good at something I’m just not sure what.
He’s good at miking up the audience while they wait and talk and at editing his TV show.
Isn’t it John Edwards of Crossing Over?
I honestly don’t believe any of that stuff. Maybe there’s a few legitimate ones out there, who am I to say, but overall, I think it’s a bunch of hooey. The stuff is so vague it could apply to anything and anybody.
He’s really good at asking laughably vague questions. “I’m seeing an older woman…” “There’s something red about the head…did he have red hair? A red hat? Uh, maybe a fever?” I wish I were exaggerating these.
In a word - QUACK!!!
Hi Aha. Take a look at this book, you may find it interesting.
The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death
- He’s a scam artist. 2. No he can’t hear the dead, they don’t speak.
Think about it, if he could hear the dead, why would he be so vague?
If I were dead, and had a message to get out, why would I tell MR. Edwards “I’m a relative of someone here, I died nastily, and my name starts with a J”.
You wouldn’t. It’s ridiculous.
I believe in the concept, I just agree that Edwards is too vague. I do however believe in the abilities of James Van Praagh ( TALKING TO HEAVEN), and George Anderson, (OUR CHILDREN FOREVER). I have read books from both of these gentlemen and have seen them on talk shows and to me, they are believable. Like I said, I believe in the concept because I think I have witnessed it myself, but that’s another thread.
I’ve seen him live. He’s very interesting. And although some of the information he puts out seems vague, some of it is remarkably accurate (“Tell me you aren’t carrying a brick in your purse?” “I usually carry a paving brick, put I took it out when I changed purses to come here today.”). I’ve seen him contradict the person he’s reading if the information they’re telling him isn’t what he’s getting. Seen him stop and literally badger the person until they get what he’s trying to communicate. If they try to validate stuff he’s putting out and he thinks they’re reaching for it, he won’t let them (“I’m seeing a white dogs with spots. Maybe a dalmation.” We used to have a black lab." “Nope, this is definately a black and white dog.” We used to have a cat…" “No. This is a black and white dog.”) If you read his book (or watch the show) you’ll find out that the way he claims to receive information is symbolic. He’s learned over the years to interpret certain symbols certain ways. It’s when he misinterprets the symbols that he’s off.
Since my faith teaches that the soul is eternal, I don’t have a problem with the concept of communication with the dead. And his philosophy is that you should communicate with your loved ones while they’re living so you don’t need someone like him after they’re gone.
StG
What John Edwards (and every other psychic) does is called ‘Cold Reading’.
You throw out vague hints and wait for the gullible audience to tell you things. Then you triumphantly announce what you’ve just been told as if it were a ‘spirit message’.
See this site for a full explanation:
The site also explains some simpler methods of cheating.
The whole thing is a way of making money out of vulnerable people.
Such psychics are bstrds.
glee-I totally agree with you. I think it’s dispickable (christ I KNOW I spelled that wrong…).
Incedently, what would a warm reading be?
Threads about second-rate carnival acts belong in Cafe Society, which is where I’m moving this.
I get the biggest buzz out of James Randi. I have absolutely no idea if Edwards is legit or just a really good cold reader, or even if his audience is entirely composed of his friends and family - but I think anything is possible. He is pretty interesting to watch, whatever it is he’s doing.
Randi, on the other hand, is a curmudgeon and is so dedicated to proving EVERYTHING is fake that I tend to take his assertations with a grain of salt.
Of course he’s a bit grumpy, as he keeps having to explain the same scams over and over again. His foundation’s purpose is to educate people about these frauds, but all of the perpetrators keep using the same tired gimmicks, so his job can be a bit boring.
At least he’s willing to back it up. Just ask Sylvia Browne. 
How else would you establish whether something like speaking with the dead really works, LifeOnWry?
**QUOTE]I don’t have a problem with the concept of communication with the dead
[/QUOTE]
**
And what would you use? ATT ethereal distance?
No wonder con-men like Edward get rich. The gullibility of the general populace is truly astounding.
I’m sure the junior senator from the great state of North Carolina will be quite surprised to hear that he’s a TV psychic now as well. 
And, lets not confuse John Edward, who sees dead people and seems really insincere, with Jonathan Edwards, the 17th century hell and brimstone New England preacher who seemed very sincere.
Well, as soon as someone dead talks to ME, I suppose. Personally, I think it’s possible - I’ve had some startling experiences that I do not claim are communications with the dead, but I haven’t yet ruled that out.
I know James Randi has proven a number of psychics to be frauds. On the other hand, in some cases he’s merely shown that they COULD be faking it. To me, that is not the same thing.
To a scientifically minded person showing that something could be faked is a very large step in indicating fraud.
If a person claims he can do something (anything really, mind reading, necromantic communications, psychokinetic spoon-bending, etc.) via “supernatural” means (i.e. in a manner in direct contravention of a large body of credible scientifically obtained evidence), and I show I am capable of apparently doing X with no “supernatural” explanation needed, and clearly show how I have done so via “natural” means (i.e. in a manner consistent with a large body of credible scientifically optained evidence), and show that the claimant could have done the same, would that not lead you to presume the high likelyhood that the claimant is a fraud? If not, why not?
Sorry, once it’s been well established that every “psychic” that has been closely examined is a fake, the burden of proof is solidly in their camp. I can’t prove that Sigfried and Roy aren’t really creating tigers out of thin air, but I’ll believe it’s a trick until shown some solid evidence. I don’t have to see proof that every time they perform at Caesars they are violating the known laws of physics.