# data[].attributes.body
Michael O'Neill, a New York City Marketing manager stated that during the John Edward show, he took multiple guesses before arriving to the correct answer. This website is a evident for a red flag called confirmation bias. John Edward uses multiple questioning to receive information from the individual to turn it around and state it back. This makes the individual believe that the medium is giving them information they don't know about but have unknowingly given the information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
opyright 2001 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic magazine (

CROSSING OVER ONE LAST TIME TO EXPOSE MEDIUM JOHN EDWARD

By Michael Shermer

History is not just one damn thing after another, it is also the same damn thing over and over--time's arrow and time's cycle. Fads come and go, in clothing, cars, and psychics. In the 1970s it was Uri Geller, in the 1980s it was Shirley MacLaine, in the 1990s it was James Van Praagh, and to kick off the new millennium it is John Edward. Edward's star is rising rapidly with a hit daily television series "Crossing Over" on the Sci Fi network and a New York Times best selling book "One Last Time." He has appeared, unopposed, on Larry King Live and has been featured on Dateline, Entertainment Tonight, and an HBO special. He is so hot that his television show is about to make the jump to network television, as he is soon to go opposite Oprah in CBS's afternoon lineup.

Last month Skeptic magazine was the first national publication to run an expose of John Edward in James "The Amazing" Randi's column (in Vol. 8, #3, now on newsstands and bookstores or at www.skeptic.com), a story that was picked up this week by Time magazine, who featured a full-page article on what is rapidly becoming the Edward phenomenon. There is, in reality, nothing new here. Same story, different names. In watching Edward I'm amazed at how blatant he is in stealing lines from medium James Van Praagh. It reminds me of entertainers, commedians, and magicians who go to each others' shows to glean new ideas.

Time's reporter Leon Jaroff, quoting from the Skeptic article, wrote a skeptical piece in which he reported the experiences of an audience member from an Edward taping. His name is Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, who reported his experiences as follows (quoting from the Skeptic article)

"I was on the John Edward show. He even had a multiple guess "hit" on me that was featured on the show. However, it was edited so that my answer to another question was edited in after one of his questions. In other words, his question and my answer were deliberately mismatched. Only a fraction of what went on in the studio was actually seen in the final 30 minute show. He was wrong about a lot and was very aggressive when somebody failed to acknowledge something he said. Also, his "production assistants" were always around while we waited to get into the studio. They told us to keep very quiet, and they overheard a lot. I think that the whole place is bugged somehow. Also, once in the studio we had to wait around for almost two hours before the show began. Throughout that time everybody was talking about what dead relative of theirs might pop up. Remember that all this occurred under microphones and with cameras already set up. My guess is that he was backstage listening and looking at us all and noting certain readings. When he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he were trying to spot people he recognized. He also had ringers in the audience. I can tell because about fifteen people arrived in a chartered van, and once inside they did not sit together."

Last week an ABC television producer flew out from New York to film me for an investigation of Edward they are conducting. The segment began as a "puff piece" (as she called it), but a chance encounter in the ABC cafeteria with 20/20 correspondent Bill Ritter, with whom I worked on an expose of medium James Van Praagh a few years ago, tipped her off that Edward was, in fact, a Van Praagh clone and that his talking to the dead was nothing more than the old magicians' cold reading trick. After waching the 20/20 piece the producer immediately realized what was really going on inside Edward's studio. She began to ask a few probing questions and was promptly cut off by Edward and his producers. ABC was told they would not be allowed to film inside the studio and that they, the Sci Fi network, would provide edited clips that ABC could use. The ABC producer became suspicious, and then skeptical. She has been trying to get an interview with Edward to confront him with my critiques, but they continue to put her off. In fact, she just phoned to tell me that Edward's publicist just left a message on her voice mail (with a date and time) stating that Edward was not available for an interview because he is out of state, yet the producer just caught him on television live in studio on CBS New York! Something fishy is going on here and I know what it is.

The video clips I was shown make it obvious why Edward does not want raw footage going out to the public--he's not all that good at doing cold readings. Where I estimated Van Praagh's hit rate at between 20-30 percent, Edward's hit rate at between 10-20 percent (the error-range in the estimates is created by the fuzziness of what constitutes a "hit"--more on this in a moment). The advantage Edward has over Van Praagh is his verbal alacrity. Van Praagh is Ferrari fast, but Edward is driving an Indy-500 racer. In the opening minute of the first reading captured on film by the ABC camera, I counted over one statement per second (ABC was allowed to film in the control room under the guise of filming the hardworking staff, and instead filmed Edward on the monitor in the raw). Think about that--in one minute Edward riffles through 60 names, dates, colors, diseases, conditions, situations, relatives, and the like. It goes so fast that you have to stop tape, rewind, and go back to catch them all. When he does come up for air the studio audience members to whom he is speaking look like deer in the headlights. In the edited tape provided by Edward we caught a number of editing mistakes, where he appears to be starting a reading on someone but makes reference to something they said "earlier." Oops!

Edward begins by selecting a section of the studio audience of about 20 people, saying things like "I'm getting a George over here. I don't know what this means. George could be someone who passed over, he could be someone here, he could be someone that you know," etc. Of course such generalizations lead to a "hit" where someone indeed knows a George, or is related to a George, or is a George. Now that he's targeted his mark, the real reading begins in which Edward employs cold reading, warm reading, and hot reading techniques.

1. Cold Reading. The first thing to know is that John Edward, like all other psychic mediums, does not do the reading--his subjects do. He asks them questions and they give him answers. "I'm getting a P name. Who is this please?" "He's showing me something red. What is this please?" And so on. This is what is known in the mentalism trade as cold reading, where you literally "read" someone "cold," knowing nothing about them. You ask lots of questions and make numerous statements, some general and some specific, and sees what sticks. Most of the time Edward is wrong. If the subjects have time they visibly nod their heads "no." But Edward is so fast that they usually only have the time or impetus to acknowledge the hits. And Edward only needs an occasional strike to convince his clientele he is genuine.

2. Warm Reading. This is utilizing known principles of psychology that apply to nearly everyone. For example, most grieving people will wear a piece of jewelry that has a connection to their loved one. Katie Couric on The Today Show, for example, after her husband died, wore his ring on a necklace when she returned to the show. Edward knows this about mourning people and will say something like "do you have a ring or a piece of jewelry on you, please?" His subject cannot believe her ears and nods enthusiastically in the affirmative. He says "thank you," and moves on as if he had just divined this from heaven. Most people also keep a photograph of their loved one either on them or near their bed, and Edward will take credit for this specific hit that actually applies to most people.

Edward is facile at determining the cause of death by focusing either on the chest or head areas, and then exploring whether it was a slow or sudden end. He works his way down through these possibilities as if he were following a computer flow chart and then fills in the blanks. "I'm feeling a pain in the chest." If he gets a positive nod, he continues. "Did he have cancer, please? Because I'm seeing a slow death here." If he gets the nod, he takes the hit. If the subject hesitates at all, he will quickly shift to heart attack. If it is the head, he goes for stroke or head injury from an automobile accident or fall. Statistically speaking there are only half a dozen ways most of us die, so with just a little probing, and the verbal and nonverbal cues of his subject, he can appear to get far more hits than he is really getting.

3. Hot Reading. Sometimes psychic mediums cheat by obtaining information on a subject ahead of time. I do not know if Edward does research or uses shills in the audience to get information on people, or even plants in the audience on which to do readings, but in my investigation of James Van Praagh I discovered from numerous television producers that he consciously and deliberately pumps them for information about his subjects ahead of time, then uses that information to deceive the viewing public that he got it from heaven.

The ABC producer also asked me to do a reading on her. "You know absolutely nothing about me so let's see how well this works." After reviewing the Edward tapes I did a ten minute reading on her. She sat there dropped jawed and wide eyed, counting my hits. She proclaimed that I was unbelievably accurate. How did I do it? Let's just say I utilized all three of the above techniques. After the show airs on ABC New York this week (Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday I'm told) I'll reveal the details in another posting. Most of the time, however, mediums do not need to cheat. The reason has to do with the psychology of belief. This stuff works because the people who go to mediums want it to work (remember, they do the readings, not the mediums).

The simplest explanation for how mediums can get away with such an outrageous claim as the ability to talk to the dead is that they are dealing with a subject the likes of which it would be hard to top for tragedy and finality--death. Sooner or later we all will face this inevitability, starting, in the normal course of events, with the loss of our parents, then siblings and friends, and eventually ourselves. It is a grim outcome under the best of circumstances, made all the worse when death comes early or accidentally to those whose "time was not up." As those who traffic in the business of loss, death, and grief know all too well, we are often at our most vulnerable at such times. Giving deep thought to this reality can cause the most controlled and rational among us to succumb to our emotions.

The reason John Edward, James Van Praagh, and the other so-called mediums are unethical and dangerous is that they are not helping anyone in what they are doing. They are simply preying on the emotions of grieving people. As all loss, death, and grief counselors know, the best way to deal with death is to face it head on. Death is a part of life, and pretending that the dead are gathering in a television studio in New York to talk twaddle with a former ballroom-dance instructor is an insult to the intelligence and humanity of the living.
www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. Michael Shermer is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Director of the Skeptics Society, the host of the Skeptics Science Lecture Series at Caltech, and a monthly columnist for Scientific American.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Expose of John Edward - Deconstructing the Dead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
opyright 2001 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic magazine ( CROSSING OVER ONE LAST TIME TO EXPOSE MEDIUM JOHN EDWARD By Michael Shermer History is not just one damn thing after another, it is also the same damn thing over and over--time's arrow and time's cycle.

# data[].attributes.body
Timothy Campbell, an executive of the Ontario Skeptics Society for Critical Inquiry, states that physics use a magician trick called cold reading to predict the future and talked to the dead. This is a form of confirmation bias. Using small hints and receiving information from the individual, mediums are just sending back the information fed to them. By doing this trick one can seem to have known information the victim does not.

# data[].attributes.body
Van Praagh and John Edward were two famous mediums in the late 2000. The red flag present in this article is proof by verbosity. For example, Van Praagh's exciting and most intense readings are done in the clients house, where one can find a lot of information from the surroundings. Another example, is the fact that Van Praagh's producers send s text message to whom ever bought tickets to Van Praagh's show, asking for whom they want to talk to and what their story is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The hosts' charm and style, a pliable audience conditioned to readily overlook misses, and some judicious editing of the videotape are all that's really necessary to explain the seemingly impressive results of TV shows like John Edward's Crossing Over and James Van Praagh's Beyond.

John Edward MaGee Jr. (known as John Edward) and James Van Praagh are probably the two most famous mediums in the United States today. Their shows Crossing Over and Beyond, respectively, were both running in the fall and winter of 2002-2003. Both syndicated shows had their host speaking with (or "reading") audiences (or "sitters") and claiming to make connections with the deceased friends and/or family of the audience members. Some of the shows featured readings of celebrities or individuals with special stories to tell.

Both mediums enjoy considerable success. Van Praagh sells lots of books and has a number of celebrities as clients.

Edward, also, hawks books, and has been on the air since June of 2000. Both men continue to play to large audiences around the country. Even Skeptical Inquirer has included articles about them. ( 1)

Last August, when Van Praagh started taping Beyond a few blocks from the Center for Inquiry-West in Hollywood, our homegrown Independent Investigations Group (IIG) sprang into action. (The IIG consists of a dedicated group of inquirers who participate with CFI-West staff in hands-on investigations.)

Hot Reading

James Van Praagh

Several IIG members attended two separate Beyond tapings, descending in groups of seven or eight to the studio after a briefing at CFI-West. We split up into smaller groups with our well-hidden recording gear, and went to work.

Before the actual tape date, a number of us who had requested tickets received phone calls from Van Praagh's production people asking who we wanted to contact and what our story was. These calls seemed to be searching for candidates for the more intense, one-on-one readings Van Praagh included in each show.

On the day of the tapings, we split up in order to have a better chance of spotting plants in line as the audience waited outside the studio. We all signed fake names on the voluminous release form (see below), and engaged in conversations about fictitious friends and relatives. If any of these stories made their way into a reading, we'd know the information had been obtained somewhere in or near the studio.

Upon entering the studio, we noticed standard audience microphones hanging from the ceiling, and speakers placed along the floors. We also monitored both Van Praagh's and his warm-up woman's pre-show conversations. That proved to be interesting.

While phone-interviewing audience members might be a conduit of information to Van Praagh, it's also consistent with the best interest of the producer trying to find compelling content. Indeed, Van Praagh's in-studio readings were so unimpressive that our suspicions of hot reading were lowered. If he had his researchers gleaning spicy tidbits for his readings, they weren't doing a very good job, for he often struggled in his efforts. Some of the remote one-on-one segments were more impressive, but those generally took place in the sitter's homes where many clues to his or her life might be noticeable. We don't know if producers leaked information to Van Praagh or not, and we never saw raw footage of what went on at the remote tapings. Editing, as I will discuss later, could have played a crucial role.

We saw no evidence of spies in line trying to draw information from people. We gave no information beyond the contact data on the release form. None of our fake names or stories turned up in readings. Before Van Praagh's taping began, loud music was played which would have made it extremely difficult to hear a conversation from the audience microphones.

Van Praagh was guilty of at least one cheat that could be considered a hot read. Before tape was rolling, he signed some books and was chatting with members of the audience. He learned during one conversation that a woman in the audience was from Italy. When the cameras were rolling, he asked who in that section was from another country. If one hadn't seen the earlier conversation, the woman raising her hand in the affirmative would have been impressive, when in fact he knew quite well what the response would be.

John Edward

I attended a taping of John Edward's Crossing Over in Queens, New York, alone in November of 2002. Crossing Over looked like a production that had a few years under its belt. There was a waiting room instead of a long line outside, the security was a little better (I had to show a real I.D.), and they seemed to run a much tighter ship, though I did get my pocket-sized digital recorder inside with no problem.

Again, there were no indications of anyone I saw collecting information. Edward, too, played music fairly loudly, making it tough to hear normal conversation. And again, none of his readings contained the kind of specific information that would raise an eyebrow of suspicion. In fact, during most of the show I witnessed, John Edward was a bad cold reader. He, too, struggled to get hits, and in one attempt shot off nearly forty guesses before finding any significant targets.

Both Edward and Van Praagh potentially have a big advantage when they shoot special segments with celebrities. Many famous people have reams of biographical information available on the Internet that would at least aid in a session with a medium. We saw no direct evidence that such information was being used, but it's certainly out there for the taking.

Cold Reading

Cold reading, in a nutshell, is an interactive technique where one fishes for information while giving the appearance of receiving that information from supernatural sources. Both of these men rattle off gobs of guesses until they find a vein of hits with one of their audience members. They are very adept at steering out of dead ends and helping the crowd forgive and forget their mistakes.

In the context of a studio audience full of people, cold reading is not very impressive. Consider that the audience at each of the tapings we witnessed consisted of about 200 people, in three sections of sixty-to-seventy each. If the average person's address book holds about 150 people ( 2) (mine has well over 300), we can probably be safe in presuming that we actually know many more people than those whose numbers we have. But let's use the 150 figure as a very conservative estimate of an active database from which most people have to draw.

This means that when John Edward or James Van Praagh asks a section of his audience, "Who's Margaret?" he is hoping there is a Margaret in the 10,000 people in the database of that section. If there is no answer, they open the question up to the whole audience's database of over 30,000 people! Would it be surprising for there to be a dozen Margarets in such a large sample?

I submit that these databases are so large that they explain the occasional amazing-sounding home run of a hit. I saw John Edward swinging for the fence by asking who died from getting hit by lightning. When no one answered even after he amended the guess to mere electrocution, he remarked that you'd think you'd remember if you knew someone who passed from something like that.

Let's not forget that when a medium initiates a conversation with an audience member or group of members, he enjoys the benefit of visually appraising whomever he's speaking with. When conversing with a group of ladies over sixty, Edward guessed the names Helen and Margaret as the peers and parents of the women, not Tiffany or Courtney, names more likely to be given to younger people. Any good cold reader uses visual clues to refine his guessing.

John Edward in the studio of his show Crossing Over on the Sci-Fi channel on July 7, 2000. Edward chats with recently and not so recently departed people during the course of the show. © Frances M. Roberts

Audience Preparation

Both shows went through a lot of effort to get their audiences in the right frame of mind before taping. People came to the tapings to contact a dead loved one. The Crossing Over instructions put it bluntly. "If you feel you will be too embarrassed, too frazzled, or just not interested, we ask that you give up your seat to someone who is anxious for a reading."

The audience was admonished not to expect to be read, and that some things the host would say would make sense, others wouldn't. Much of the pre-show rhetoric seemed to be aimed at keeping our expectations low. Both men were very self-effacing, charming, and good-humored, endearing themselves to the audience.

The eight-page letter Edward sent out to his audience included sections entitled "Information For A Positive Session" and "Recommended Things To Think About." The latter began with the subsection "Know your entire family tree." He reminds us to remember dates, to visualize spouse's families, estranged family, and stepfamilies-even pets. Your personal database, after all, is only as good as your ability to recall it.

After a rather New Agey, meditative preface, Van Praagh's warm-up person was emphatic about reacting openly to what James was saying. How's he supposed to know if he's on the right track? she might as well have said.

Please Release Me . . .

Anyone attending either Crossing Over or Beyond had to sign a four-page appearance release. (Standard releases are one page.) Edward's release had the feel of a document written by someone just accused of cheating. It seemed to focus on representing that attendees had no outside contact with Edward or his staff, or in documenting that fact if they had. This tone was reinforced vigorously in the studio where we were reminded constantly not to talk about ourselves or those who we were trying to contact. It was as if the specter of Harry Houdini were floating above the stage pointing a finger.

Van Praagh's release-also four pages-included a nondisclosure section that reads in part: "Neither anyone acting on my behalf, nor I . . . shall speak to any newspaper reporter, print or television journalist or other media representative or source about any aspect of my participation in the Series. . . ."

Cut, Cut, Cut and Print

We decided that the best way to see if any editing wizardry was taking place on these shows was to record segments of the live taping and compare those to the edited versions America saw on the air. What we found was one of the keys to the TV psychic kingdom.

I have some experience sitting in an editing room trying to turn large amounts of raw videotape into small amounts of polished gold. So I know that virtually everything you see on TV has been precisely edited for both time and content. We cannot indict these programs for editing the footage recorded in the studios, but it should be understood that the aired tape does not represent how the readings went in the studio. The aired versions of these programs show a much more successful account of the readings. Here are two examples.

This is what aired...

Van Praagh: You were saved by someone. A car thing, or something where you were . . .

Woman: We actually had a car accident four months after my husband died. And we were in a very bad collision.

Van Praagh: You almost died, honey. Because I'm being told by your husband that you were saved, Ok?

This is what happened:

Van Praagh: You almost died, honey. Because I'm being told by your husband that you were spared, you were saved, Ok? You were saved, all right? And I know ( 3). . . something about Jesus here, Ok? Saved with Jesus, or something about Jesus, and if you believe in Jesus, or a religious element. And I don't know, maybe a church with the name Jesus in it? Or there is something about Jesus. Or there's . . .

Woman (interrupting): Well, we're Jewish! (Big laugh from the audience.)

John Edward's editor fine-tuned many of the dead-ends out of a reading riddled with misses. Here, the italicized parts never made it to air.

Edward: Ok, just so you know in my reference, how I got it was a funny thing. So whatever race you went to go see, that you had taped, something funny happened at it, because I would have thought you went to a comedy show. Ok. Just so you know that you viewed it, he viewed it as a funny thing. Ok.

Now the twenty-sixth is significant your grounding birthday anniversary but there's a twenty-sixth connection. I also feel like I don't know if . . . I think there's a Michael that's passed as well. I know your Michael's [to the woman] here, but I've got a Michael who's passed who's connected here as well. And I think he either had cerebral palsy, or he had like a neural muscular disease.
It's a name like Michael or Mark, Mick, an "M" name I feel like he like cerebral palsy, he had something like spina bifida-there's like that kind of a feeling. Are you sure it's not for you? That's not for you? . . .
Man: No

Edward: Positive?

Man: Positive.

Edward: He's with you or behind you, but he's right here. Who would have like a penny or a like coin that's like laminated or saved?

Woman: I would.

Edward: Then this is for you guys. So somehow you guys are connected to this kid. Or to this-it might not have been a kid, but he feels like he's a kid to me. There's an "M."

We saw James Van Praagh stop tape during a one-on-one, prearranged reading after missing all but one of his first six or seven guesses. He then restarted the tape and used the one correct guess at the beginning of the new session. I think most people would call that cheating. Skeptics and television viewers everywhere should be mindful that a good editor can make a pitcher bat a thousand, magician David Blaine levitate above a sidewalk, and a former-dance instructor sound like he's conversing with dead people.

Television psychics generally have a pretty good recipe for appearing to possess paranormal ability. Large audiences gobble up these unreality shows like popcorn.

Skeptics have been served these hot and cold reading techniques for ages, and we saw nothing new or surprising in their methods. The "hit" rate we witnessed for both John Edward and James Van Praagh was disappointing at best. But the fat got "cleaned up in post" (production), as they say in Hollywood.

The mixture of a well-prepared and uncritical audience made it easy to create an atmosphere of cooperation and success in the studio. Strict appearance releases and competent editing made it easy to keep the lid on mistakes and make the medium seem impressive.

Postscript

Apparently, Hollywood wasn't big enough for both men; mega-distributor Tribune Media Services dropped James Van Praagh in January 2003. Trade magazine Daily Variety said it best with their headline, " Beyond Sees White Light."

Acknowledgments

Thanks go out to the members of the Independent Investigations Group who participated in this investigation, with special thanks to Milt Timmons and Margery Kimbrough for help with transcription, and to Roger Schlueter for editorial notes.

1. See Joe Nickell's Speaking to the Dead? In the November/December 2001 SI. Also, Ray Hyman's "How Not to Test Mediums" (SI January/ February 2003) strongly critiqued the so-called 'Afterlife' experiments that made use of mediums including John Edward.

2. According to Matt Ridley, author of The Origins of Virtue (Penguin Viking 1996).

3. Here, Van Praagh is saying, "I know" to some unseen voice or spirit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
They See Dead People - Or Do They?: An Investigation of Television Mediums - CSI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The hosts' charm and style, a pliable audience conditioned to readily overlook misses, and some judicious editing of the videotape are all that's really necessary to explain the seemingly impressive results of TV shows like John Edward's Crossing Over and James Van Praagh's Beyond. John Edward MaGee Jr.

# data[].attributes.body
In this video James Randi the famous skeptic, debunks many individuals who seem to read minds, predict the future and bend spoons. A famous mind reader and spoon bender named Uri Geller was debunked on the tonight show when the producers did not allow anyone associated with Uri Geller to touch the spoons and items used for the show. Uri Geller was therefore unable to bend the items and predict them. The reason of believe is perception or observation. By previously bending and weakening the spoon, Uri Geller is able to apply a little bit of focus to make the perception of him melting medal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff

# data[].attributes.body
In this video the host debunks mediums by making up a fake story, presenting it online and decorating the area according to the story to see if the mediums have read the fake story and predict the same thing. This evident of a red flag called proof by verbosity. By receiving the information ahead of time the mediums are restating the information they received as a reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC 3 Bullsh!t detectors exposes three mediums

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BBC 3 Bullsh!t detectors exposes three mediums

# data[].attributes.body
In this instance video a famous medium called ,Theresa Caputo, debunks a skeptic in one of readings. During one of her readings she has a skeptic and all of a sudden her voice recorder stops and restarts. Mystical energy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Brian voices his skepticism, the tape recorder stops and starts on its own. Watch LONG ISLAND MEDIUM Sundays @ 10/9c | For more, visit http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/long-island-medium/#mkcpgn=yttlc1

# data[].attributes.body
This picture depicts the emotional connections, mediums use to talk to the spirits. The reason of belief is emotional connections. Judging by ones emotions and reactions mediums can use emotions to predict certain occurrence in one's life.

# data[].attributes.body
This picture states various questions or statements asked commonly in a medium reading. The read flag most evident in this image is confirmation bias. By asking simple questions like "has someone passed over recently that was close to you?" can make one believe that mediums are real. Without critically thinking how common in one's life path someone close can pass away, vulnerable individuals get pulled into believing mediums.

# data[].attributes.headline
The passed over individuals are not available at the moment. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The passed over individuals are not available at the moment. 

# data[].attributes.body
This picture is a depiction of the criticism of mediums in a humors form.  The reason why people believe weird things is because of agenticity.  For example, Mediums use spirits as a higher power to predict the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Skyler Brown and Narmata Jeyachandran