John Edward to co-host on Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show.

Speaking of John “I chat with dead people” Edward, according to this news story he’ll be “crossing over” to the talk-show co-host realm next week.

Edward will be Jimmy Kimmel’s co-host next week and he admits he’s flying without a net.

Usually, Edward merely talks with the dead. However, next week, he’ll also have to talk with celebrities like Jim Belushi, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos and Fischerspooner.

It won’t be easy. Edward says the spirits can move him at any moment and says it’s “quite possible” someone from the other side will want to send a message to an audience member during one of the interviews.

Still, he says he’s learned not to just blurt things out and will wait until the commercial breaks if necessary to deliver his messages.

That’s probably a good idea as you wouldn’t want to shock Jim Belushi by suddenly blurting out the startling revelation that his dead brother John wants to tell him about some new rugs he’ll be getting in the future in the middle of an interview.

Edward won’t predict how his appearance will be received but hopes that it convinces people he’s a real person and “not just that freak who claims to talk with dead people.”

Did he say fake? Oh, wait, he said freak. Well it’s a bit too late for that, John. Probably should have worried about that before you went around charging folks $300 to hear about how their dead relatives have some important popcorn related message to deliver.

Link found via Fark.

16 thoughts on “John Edward to co-host on Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show.

  1. It is narrow minded to assume someone is a fraud just becaus eyou don’t understand and cannot do what they can. Prove he is a fake or leave him alone. Don’t you have anything better to do? John Edward has teh last laugh anyway. He has a tv show, what do you have?

  2. It is narrow minded to assume someone is a fraud just becaus eyou don’t understand and cannot do what they can.

    You’re right, Becky, that would be narrow-minded if I were just assuming he’s a fraud without good reason to think so.

    The problem is I do understand and I could, if I wanted to, do what he does. It’s a skill anyone can learn if they want to spend the time needed to get good at it. I can point you to dozens of professional magicians who can pull the very same trick just as effectively and not a one of them will try to claim they did it because they were in contact with your dead relatives. Hell, I can point you to magicians who do it better than Edward does and still won’t claim it’s because they’re psychic. I’d say you’re the one who doesn’t understand what Edward does in his act.

    Prove he is a fake or leave him alone.

    The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. Edward claims he can speak with the dead so the burden of proof is on him.

    But let’s address your challenge anyway. What would you accept as “proof” that he’s a fake? As I said, I can point you to a number of professional magicians who do the same trick, some even better, without claiming it to be anything other than a trick. Would the testimony of several people who have made a living doing the same trick as Edward be enough to convince you? Doubtful.

    How about if I show you a book that will teach you how to do the same thing Edward does, but it doesn’t claim to develop your “latent psychic abilities” because there’s no such thing. Would pointing you to the book Tradecraft: The Art and Science of Cold Reading be enough to convince you Edward is a fake? Probably not.

    How about a simple application of logic. Accepting for the sake of this argument that there is an after-life, I don’t buy into that idea at all, but for the sake of this argument we’ll say that it does exist; wouldn’t you tend to think that there’d be something way more interesting to do in the after-life than stand around a television studio on the off-chance that a failed ballroom dance instructor will give you the opportunity to tell your loved ones about some trivial event such as new rugs they’ll get in the near future?

    If he’s really talking to dead relatives, how come none of the relatives ever say anything bad about the person they’re talking to? How come you never hear anything like “Your mother said she loves you dearly and she’s doing wonderful on the other side, but she still thinks you’re a dumbass for marrying that lazy-bum of a husband of yours.” Now THAT would be amazing.

    Of course, the logical approach won’t convince you either because you want to believe Edward can talk to the dead and you want to believe that everything is wine and roses once you kick the bucket. He’s telling you exactly what you want to hear and you’d rather live in a comfortable lie than deal with an ugly truth.

    Don’t you have anything better to do?

    What? You don’t think trying to educate folks that they’re being deceived by a fraudulent conman isn’t a worthy past time? I suppose you folks do tend to bring this stupidity upon yourselves. I guess that means you wouldn’t want me to tell you if you were about to spend money for a car that runs on water either. After all, I can’t prove that a car that runs on water doesn’t exist someplace.

    John Edward has teh last laugh anyway. He has a tv show, what do you have?

    He certainly does have the last laugh and at your expense, not mine.

    Yes, Edward does have a TV show. What, pray tell, is that supposed to prove other than he is able to attract enough viewers to justify to TV execs to give him a show? Do you think that by having a show this somehow validates his ability? I suppose the fact that Alan Alda played a doctor on TV and made it look real means you’ll let him perform surgery on you in the near future? Hey, that Doogie Howser sure was wicked with a scalpel too, bet he could work wonders for you!

  3. I think that John Edwards presentation style is a bit lame but that has to do with his lack of training.  I think that you ought to hang out at a Spiritualist church and do it undercover and see what you can dig up.  I visited a church once where nobody knew me and the medium who was doing the service described my uncle and even mentioned the exact date of his death as well as got his first and last name.  Nobody knew me as I had never been to this church before.  He decribed and even moved like my uncle.  It was truly amazing as I at the time DID NOT KNOW some of the facts that this medium related including the date of passing June 15. I asked my mother about it and she was pretty blown away.

    anyway, that is my experience.  The medium didn’t ask me any questions other than asking if they could come to me.  so there is no way in hell that he could have known what he told me and I did not even know some of the things until I asked my mom. 

    Anyway, take care and God Bless you!

    Roger Clark

  4. I agree I have investigated mediumship for years and have had dozens of readings.  While I have met a few who were not that good,  I have been amazed at the specific details that they were able to come up with out of thin air.  I suggest that skeptics visit a good medium and see for themselves as I think that the experience would change their minds!

  5. I’ve had more than one medium attempt to give me a reading including some that others swore were absolutely fantastic at it. So far I have yet to meet a single medium who has demonstrated anything in the way of knowledge they couldn’t have possibly had any way of knowing.

    Are you sure these mediums are telling you what they know or are they just telling you what you want to hear?

  6. I don’t care what you believe, but you don’t have to be so negative and nasty as to what John Edward does.  In the bible Moses was a prohet of God who spoke about visions is he a fake?  I believe John is true to his word and not a phony.  I read up on this, read his books watch the show and I believe what he says.  You have a right to your belief without knocking someone else.

  7. I think instead of being mean spirited and insult people like John Edward, it is important to study their claims with statistical methods. 

    Under a controlled situation, is he able to beat the laws of probability? Roger Clark has a good point. If what he wrote is true, then the chance of the psychic being right about his uncle’s first and last name and exact date of death would be millions to one. If a psychic is able to be this correct within his next one million predictions, then it is statistically significant.

    I think some psychic performers use a combination of real intuition and trickery to maximize performance.

    I really don’t know if there is any study that clearly proves statistical significance on unusually skilled performers such as Edward. I do know of many that disprove psychic ability. But we should be excited if a real psychic is discovered, perhaps shining light on the mind of mankind.

  8. James Randi, world renown performer, writer, and lecturer, has carried a check around in his pocket for more than 30 years.  (It used to be a check for $10,000, I think it’s now $1,000,000.)  He will award this check to anyone who can demonstrate “psychic” abilities which Randi himself cannot DUPLICATE under the same conditions. Nobody has ever collected that money, and this truth speaks for itself.  For a real psychic, it would be an easy million dollars, wouldn’t it?  A lot of people believed in Miss Cleo before she was indicted for mail fraud. 

    Go ahead, have faith in whatever you want, but if you must insist on deciding what’s true and what’s not true based soley on faith, and not science, then be prepared to answer to those who are more scientifically minded, and who require higher standards of proof than “I believe.” 

    The bottom line is this:  When I hear an otherworldly voice, I believe it.  When someone else hears an otherworldly voice and says it wants to talk to me, I keep close track of my wallet.

    Cold Reading is a sideshow ruse that’s been popular among less ethical performers for centuries.  Magicians like myself are familiar with the stories of mentalists and mediums from a bygone era.  Most people haven’t seen a mentalist work, and so along comes John Edward.  Just because this kind of magician hasn’t been popular for a hundred years, and an unsuspecting audience has never seen these tricks before, it does not make him psychic.  It’s still the same sideshow.

    In fairness to him, I’m not entirely sure HE knows he’s cold reading.  Edward may believe that the “hits” are coming from the great beyond, even though the information is coming to him subconsciously in other ways.  Does that make him honest?  If he genuinely believes he has “the power” and still manages to achieve what he does through prosaic means on an entirely subconscious level,  how does that make him any different than the ventriloquist who really believes his dummy is alive?

    I’ve seen the show many times, and I must admit, the TV producers make it look very convincing.  But is it “real”?  Sure.  It’s just not what John Edward says it is—voices of the dead.  It’s an interaction with the living.  And anyone who wants to pay money to see the show, or buy one of his books, please do it because you enjoy it…  not because your life’s decisions hang on John Edwards lips.  He’s just providing comfort and a sense of miracles to people who pay him for it.  Why does he claim it’s real?  It’s his act.  Would you sit and watch it if he started out by saying “What you are about to see is a demonstration of cold reading, and it’s just for fun…  it’s not real.”  You’d be watching Joe Millionaire instead, wouldn’t you?

    I don’t think John Edward has enything to apologize for.  W.C. Fields once said, “Never give a sucker an even break.”  It’s your job not to be a sucker, or you pays your money and you takes your chances, my friends.

  9. Ugh.

    No offense, but alot of you know jack squat about what you are even talking about.

    Let me get this out straight first: I don’t know if he’s real, I don’t know if he’s fake. I read both sides of the story…actually all but Edward’s. I have not read his books, and have only read articles and scientific testing, such as what Gary Swartz has done. I also read articles from CSICOPS, even though frankly, many members of their organization are about as closed-minded as they come. It’s like going to the republican party for information on the democrates: you are always going to hear from people who have already made up their minds. I read both sides because I want to come to fair conclusions.

    Whenever I hear the proof that he is not real, many people go right to the cold reading gig. However I see many flaws in these theories. One, you will notice that many times Johnny-boy has made referances to things that account to barely anyone in the population. Such as a inside joke, certain ‘special’ meanings to the family member, etc. Time after time I hear the statment of ‘how he rattles off names starting with an ‘M’. However, I have noticed several times that he goes father than that…in fact almost all the time, he starts adding to it. ‘M’ becomes ‘Macy’ or ‘Matty’ or something along those lines. Some of the things that have happened during these readings just arn’t covered by the cold reading reasoning. Yes we all may know a Charlie. But how many of you have a joke about onions with your relatives?

    I won’t even bring up the evidence in Swartz’z book which documents alot of this stuff.

    Another interesting thing to think about: in some of the above papers (found at CSICOPS, ones i have read many times) I love how they will disreguard plenty of people who say that John Edward, when they received a reading say that there was absoultly no way he could have known what he did because they did not talk about it at the studio or with him, or sometimes even with anyone, and yet one guy from Time magazine mentions something ‘fishy’ is going on, and BOOM they land all over it as their evidence, disreguarding all personal testemonies, or other such evidence. How is that right?

    I read Hyman’s critique of the experiments that Schwartz did, and it just wasn’t very satisfactory. He talked about the probablility and how there may be fault there, but it doesn’t take a genious to figure out some of the examples were just not very likely to happen. The very first case was a good example, it involved 5 tested mediums and they all came up with similar information even though the mediums were NEVER able to talk with eachother and were being wathced! They set up cameras, they did blind readings where the mediums could not see the person, they did only ‘yes or no’ questioning which provides NO leads. In other words, Swartz tested his ass off on alot of this stuff, though it was not perfect,( but ususally not in ways that would greatly effect the results) in the end the skeptics admitted that ‘fraud was not evident’ however did not rule out cold reading. In several papers I’ve read, the skeptics pointed out all the nagative findings that they could latch onto and totally disreguarded solid notion that something other than cold reading was going on.

    So many bring up Houdini. That ‘Houdini defrauded so many mediums that they must all STILL be fake’. Do you know how those mediums worked? The Fox sisters for example, had this foolisly stupid way of talking to the dead through tapping sounds. It was them tapping under the table it was found. Also, many mediums asked around for information.

    This isn’t the way mediums do it now a days if they are faking, so why do we keep going back to Houdini? Another thing: this was, how many years ago?  I think it’s time we start re-examening things instead of going back to results so long ago-it’s time for a new study.

    It’s not scientific. If you are going to say he’s a fraud, I want some emphirical evidence. I do not want studies of cold reading, i do not want theory. I want TESTS I want NUMBERS.

    Which is why I am more frustrated with people who say ‘it’s fake end of story’. Because they ususally don’t do laberatory testing. In fact, I will quote Hymen (Hymen is BTW, a list of the top debunkers at CSICOPS and has written several papers on cold reading and mediumship) says that the ‘testing of mediumship has no place for orthodox science’. So apparently they will say it’s not true and a bunch of crap, but they will say that it should not be tested scientifically.

    If you want anything near to fair, read ‘The Afterlife Experiments’. (ignore that ‘proof of an afterlife’ on the cover, frankly they just put it on there for book sales-Shwartz himself is still skeptical and says it’s ‘quite a leap to suggest ‘proof’ of an afterlife)

    Then to be fair, go and read ‘How Not to Test a Medium’ By Hymen. Then to be fair go to Swartz’s site which you can find via google and you will find a response to that critique.

    Schwartz is not a member of parapapsychology (a field which is highly suspect) nor is he a member of CSICOPS. He repetedly talks about the importance of scientific testing, and let the ‘results speak’. Of course he is ridiculed for his interest and testing of these subjects, and though it’s still inconclusive, the studies are hinting that there may actually be something to all of this.

    The need for proof may come onto the medium, but I feel that for me to totally cast it away, I need more evidence than what is given. We need to stop generalizing mediumship, we need to start testing. The skeptics who state that this is cold reading have made up their mind that there is no such thing as a person being able to talk to the dead, for if they hadn’t made up their mind they would look at mediums case by case instead of generalizing them all, and come up with some numbers instead of untested hypothesises.

    (another thing to think about: if you want an observation of an assumption, look at the very first paragraphs of Nikell’s paper.

    Constantly mediums have said that the information comes to them in ‘snipits’ and feelings, and emotions and flashes of pictures.

    If the ‘afterlife’ is another dimension like it has always been hypothesised, why do we expect them to talk as if they were in this dimension? Why do we expect it to be as clear as a radio signal?

    That is why, if these abilities are real, they would never pass the James Rhandi test. Rhandi expects results that are as good as me walking up to you and talking to you right now. If we are dealing with a paranomal universe of some sort, it’s just not going to work like that.

    Another thing to also think about: Harry Houdini’s experiment with mediumship after his death. He gave a long string of coded letters and numbers that would later give a sentance, frankly it was quite complex. I don’t know about you but generally the avergae person can’t even contain memory of such a code in real life either. But *shrugs*

    I’m too tired for this argument. But frankly, do your reaserch people. Sheesh.

  10. Actually I’ve done quite a bit of research on the whole talking-to-the-dead routine. I’ve spent time watching Edwards technique and I’ve compared it to the performances by other known magicians who perform the same routine and the truth is Edwards isn’t even that good at cold reading.

    First off you can’t rely on his taped show to provide an accurate picture of his ability as it’s edited. A better indicator are the performances he attempts on live television such as the Larry King show where he doesn’t have the benefit of editing to help out. In these situations his ratio of misses to hits is less than what one would expect from random chance, but all it takes is one good hit to convince folks he’s in contact with “the other side.”

    You bring up Dr. Schwartz and his experiments in trying to test these claims and the fact that many other scientists criticize him unfairly. This is true to an extent, but those scientists and skeptics who have taken an honest look at Dr. Schwartz’s research have found some serious problems with the testing methodology which is part of why he gets such criticisms. It’s clear that Dr. Schwartz isn’t proficient at designing proper double-blind studies and it casts doubt on all of his findings.

    Lastly I find it somewhat amusing that you’re trying to make the argument that the “afterlife” is another dimension where the conditions may be such that normal communication with folks still in this one may be difficult at best. Assuming for the moment that this is true then how is it possible for the “psychics” to get detailed information of any kind at all? Such as the “inside joke” that you mentioned earlier as proof that the psychics must be somehow tapping into another realm.

    What I want to know is even if this limited form of communication is all that’s possible and that any detailed information will come only in small snippets, why haven’t any of the psychics revealed anything in the way of truly important information from the other side? Surely these small snippets would be sufficient to communicate information that would solve any number of murder mysteries still on the books over the years, but it would seem that murder victims have yet to decide to speak to the likes of Edwards as not a single case has been resolved in such a manner. This is just one example of relevant information that has yet to come out of any of Edward’s readings.

    Instead, we get references to inside jokes and predictions of “new carpets” in the future for the people receiving the readings. This is probably the best evidence against the reality of this supposed ability is the fact that nothing of any consequence ever comes out of these readings.

    It would be nice to provide tests and numbers, but I seriously doubt that’s going to happen anytime soon for the simple reason that there’s no benefit in it for the psychics. They know that enough people are out there who have a psychological need to believe their ability is real to ensure they’ll continue to make money regardless of any lack of proof of their claims.

    Sylivia Brown is another talk-to-the-dead psychic who has agreed in the past to be tested by James Randi on Larry King’s show. That was 865 days ago which is almost two and a half years. Since then she has done nothing but make excuse after excuse as to why she’s not gone through with the test. Could it be she doesn’t really want to go through with the test as she’s afraid it may reveal her scam for what it is? She makes millions of dollars off of it every year through book sales and very expensive private readings. Would you jeopardize all of that to try and prove your ability was real?

  11. Just let me say that it is not our place to prove it is or is not real.
    In the way science is advanced it is the one making the calim must show proof.
    And remember,,,,,extrordinary claims require extrordinay proof.
    Just my 2 sence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.