Posted: 10/25/2001 12:11:07 PM EDT
| I just heard that this guy wanted to do his show with some of the victims of the WTC bombing- I don't believe that the guy is legit, and there are too many coincidences/ stuff he could have learned before the show about these people. I think he is a well meaning man, but he has no real psychic powers to talk to dead people. What a con-man! |
|
I've read a story once that described some stuff he does. Every show is delayed due to "technical difficulty." While the audience is sitting there waiting, they are talking about who they want to hear from. They are also being recorded. One man claimed that he answered "yes" to only a few questions, but the rest were all TOTALLY wrong. Well, the show was edited to show him saying "yes, that is correct (and stuff like that)" to almost every question. Edwards is a big phoney, and he plays off of what others [i]want[/i] to hear. |
|
My father in law insists that he is real, but I have watched several times, and find it ridiculously fake. I could figue out all of his psychic revelations by doing internet research on those people. I think that he searches their private history before the show, using their names/address from the ticket orders. Some people have common names, and that is why he is often not right the first or second time. The guy is, at best, a well meaning man who wants to make families feel better about their loss. At worst, he is a snake who preys on peoples' emotions to make a profit. He strikes me as a conman. |
|
Wife dragged me to see him in person shortly after our daughter died. Wife was looking for some conformation that an after life existed. Tough losing a loved one and not having a firm belief of a life after. He never contacted with us in the crowd. It made my wife feel better because she believed he was being contacted by people who had "crossed over". I left $20+ poorer. |
|
The thought of that guy doing a show w/ wtc survivors makes me sick! He better make no profit on it. It's a technique called "cold reading". If he talked to the audience before the show and already knew something about them, then it's "warm reading". Ever notice he ask more questions than making actual statements? If you count the "hits" versus the "misses", you'll realize he's extremely bad at what he does. The credulus audience are so eager to believe they'll make the proper feedback and yell out the "answer" at the faintest clue ("I see the letter J...", "YES, his name was Joe!!!"). SNL did a spoof on him that was pretty much to the point. Cold reading wouldn't work if the "victim" has a poker face and refuse to give the reader "clues". For the skeptical few, the likes of John Edward does not impress anyone. [url]http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.skepdic.com/coldread.html[/url] [url]http://www.skepdic.com/vanpraagh.html[/url] Van Praagh had been hailed as the worst cold reader that fooled the most people. [url]http://www.csicop.org/genx/edward/index.html[/url] |
| Hey 4R77, thanks for the good links...I've forwarded them to my father-in-law, who insists that Edward is legit. I hope this convinces him, but I think that losing his father 10 years ago has made him WANT to believe in this shit. It really is sad to see such a fraud as Edward getting syndication. |