Explaining colin frys readings [Archive]

Matt

6th July 2007, 02:33 PM

Well I don't know for sure but I can hazzard a guess

When Colin Fry records in Bournemouth in November I confidently predict there will be a woman in the audience.

I'm getting a J

Something like Jane but not Jane Janette! Yes Janette. Janette, you're local aren't you Janette, from near here. yes? Yes I knew you were from <blank> So what is the significance to you of the number 8?

http://www.livingtv.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?threadid=147805

Then there's the upcoming show in Essex. There will be another woman in the audience.

The message I've got is for someone who's travelled travelled a long way to be here. From overseas. Her name is something like Terry. Up the back there Teresa is it. Yes you. Don't be shy. Telle veryone where you've come from today?

Ireland! - well I don't need to be psychic to tell that {cheap laugh at accent}

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index.php?qid=20070620105612AAFzGwT

And I see a wedding in your future? yes It's Your wedding? or per... Yes its Your Wedding and is he here today? No I can tell you he loves you so much. {pause for applause} yes it's a realy sprititual love.

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiguYUOHPieiYakHmJ4JYyLg5gt.?qid=200705 20102933AA1Zt7O

Now Teresa you're converned about a pain aren't you {coyly} in your down belows. Is that right?

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au9FPfCYhqQBknua3k7kY3bg5gt.?qid=200706 24044943AAB4qGP

Well I'm not a doctor so I'm completely unqualified to give you any medical advice, I mean fuggit I'm not even a medium, I'm an exposed fraud but that's not going to stop me risking your life in order to make a few measly quid....

Mongrel

6th July 2007, 06:31 PM

Thanks, i did trying googling but all the sites i found like this one http://www.tonyyouens.com/colinfry.htm say its all cold reading. i don't think it can just be cold reading, some of the information seems too specific. i think he could be using the same trick peter popoff used

Apologies - I shouldn't post before my second cuppa ;)

What I meant was you can get a lot of information about people on the internet just from a name and address. Even more if they use one of the popular networking sites like Myspace or facebook, maybe even a blog...

kennbarlow

8th July 2007, 10:13 PM

cheers guys! :smiley: i didn't know you could find out so much about people on google

JonDonnis

14th July 2007, 02:08 PM

Tony Papard

25th January 2008, 12:45 AM

Keep in mind his TV show is heavily edited too.
The misses are cut out, and the hits left in.

So what mayjust be a random guess that hits, will seem like amazing proof of his powers.

The truth is he uses cold reading and probably a bit of hot reading too

That may well be true, that the misses are edited out, though he seemed pretty accurate when I saw him 'live'. The message he gave me was certainly very accurate.

But cold reading: 'Why do I see a man wearing a balaclava and pajamas?'

Answer from woman in audience: 'That was the outfit my father wore when he was doing decorating!'

Another 'cold reading': 'She's chasing someone down the street with a wooden paddle used for agitating the laundry'

Answer from woman in audience (laughing at the memory): 'That's right, my mother did do that on one occasion'.

An many similar messages. You couldn't make it up - there must be something going on whether it's telepathy or messages from the Other Side.

You wouldn't find such information by googling someone - come on, get real!

If they were plants, or had given the information to Colin beforehand, why has nobody exposed this fraud to the tabloids? They'd get paid well for such an expose.

scoobyjack

25th January 2008, 03:14 AM

That may well be true, that the misses are edited out, though he seemed pretty accurate when I saw him 'live'. The message he gave me was certainly very accurate.

But cold reading: 'Why do I see a man wearing a balaclava and pajamas?'

Answer from woman in audience: 'That was the outfit my father wore when he was doing decorating!'

Another 'cold reading': 'She's chasing someone down the street with a wooden paddle used for agitating the laundry'

Answer from woman in audience (laughing at the memory): 'That's right, my mother did do that on one occasion'.

An many similar messages. You couldn't make it up - there must be something going on whether it's telepathy or messages from the Other Side.

You wouldn't find such information by googling someone - come on, get real!

If they were plants, or had given the information to Colin beforehand, why has nobody exposed this fraud to the tabloids? They'd get paid well for such an expose.

Sorry Tony but these do not constitute anything but 'cold reading' I can relate directly to the second example as I am sure a lot of people could to some degree.

Were I a believer I could also bend some memories to fit the first example; in fact my nephew wore something similar last night whilst he was 'hiding' from me ( in the way small kids think if they cover their eyes you cant see them) last night as I put him to bed. It was not a balaclava but a 'thomas the tank engine' hat pulled over his eyes. However if I believed I could twist the story to fit 'me'.

If he was to say "person 'x', I see your father 'y' painting whilst wearing pyjamas and a balaclava" it would be slightly more plausible, though not proof or unexplainable.

FarSideOfTheMoon

25th January 2008, 07:38 AM

If they were plants, or had given the information to Colin beforehand, why has nobody exposed this fraud to the tabloids? They'd get paid well for such an expose.

Emmm, see Derek Acorah and Kreed Kafer. See the Colin Fry trumpet incident. :trumpet: See stopsylviabrowne.com. See BadPsychics.com. See Watchdog the other night. Plenty of minor media coverage of how fraudulent psychics are.

The truth is the tabloids couldn't care about psychics. Exposing psychics is a niche market. They have plenty of other fish to fry.

Just because we don't see them being exposed weekly in The Sun, doesn't mean they aren't complete cons.

If you think Colin Fry is doing something psychically, you aren't aware of the ability of cold reading combined with basic human psychology, to delude even the smartest of people.

Tony Papard

25th January 2008, 10:15 AM

Emmm, see Derek Acorah and Kreed Kafer. See the Colin Fry trumpet incident. :trumpet: See stopsylvia.com. See BadPsychics.com. See Watchdog the other night. Plenty of minor media coverage of how fraudulent psychics are.

The truth is the tabloids couldn't care about psychics. Exposing psychics is a niche market. They have plenty of other fish to fry.

Just because we don't see them being exposed weekly in The Sun, doesn't mean they aren't complete cons.

If you think Colin Fry is doing something psychically, you aren't aware of the ability of cold reading combined with basic human psychology, to delude even the smartest of people.

Sylvia Browne - fraudulent medium who writes science fiction books and pretends they are accurate descriptions of 'the afterlife'.

Derek Acorah/Sally Morgan - I have yet to be convinced they are genuine mediums. The jury's still out for me with these two.

'Lincoln'/Colin Fry trumpet incident - now 16 years ago, when he was very inexperienced. He claims it was a mischievous entity called Daniel who was responsible. This is of course quite ridiculous if you rule out the possibility of an afterlife. It you admit to the possibility, then it is plausible.

Whatever, I don't see how Colin's very specific messages can be 'cold reading'.

Nor does 'cold reading' even begin to explain messages which have come straight into my head from my deceased life-partner. I asked him to help me find some negatives - next day he told me to look in my larder of all places, and I found them on the top shelf. Another time he told me to look in another cupboard to find a Walkman cover I didn't even know existed - I found it. When I was writing him a post-humous letter I said 'should I stop writing these letters' and next day I got the answer via one of his records which I suddenly had the urge to pull from his collection blindly and at random, without looking at the sleeve, artist or track titles. Immediately Dorothy Squires' voice answered my question by saying my letters kept us 'near while apart'. Coincidence? Well yes, if you accept coincidence after coiincidence after coincidence.

It seems to me it is hardened skeptics who are deluding themselves by refusing to look at the evidence objectively.

vbloke

25th January 2008, 10:46 AM

Sylvia Browne - fraudulent medium who writes science fiction books and pretends they are accurate descriptions of 'the afterlife'.don't forget the fact that her books contradict each other regularly

Derek Acorah/Sally Morgan - I have yet to be convinced they are genuine mediums. The jury's still out for me with these two.If they were genuine, it should be 100% obvious immediately, the fact that you doubt them shows that their abilities are not genuine.

'Lincoln'/Colin Fry trumpet incident - now 16 years ago, when he was very inexperienced. He claims it was a mischievous entity called Daniel who was responsible. This is of course quite ridiculous if you rule out the possibility of an afterlife. It you admit to the possibility, then it is plausible.Either you're a medium or not - inexperienced shouldn't come into it. Either he can cause these things to happen, or he cheats. He was caught cheating. Even the afterlife can't explain that away.

Whatever, I don't see how Colin's very specific messages can be 'cold reading'. You'd be surprised. I suggest you look up cold reading and watch Derren brown at work. You can get VERY specific things from cold reading, as well as confirmation biases on the part of the readee.

Nor does 'cold reading' even begin to explain messages which have come straight into my head from my deceased life-partner. I asked him to help me find some negatives - next day he told me to look in my larder of all places, and I found them on the top shelf. Another time he told me to look in another cupboard to find a Walkman cover I didn't even know existed - I found it. When I was writing him a post-humous letter I said 'should I stop writing these letters' and next day I got the answer via one of his records which I suddenly had the urge to pull from his collection blindly and at random, without looking at the sleeve, artist or track titles. Immediately Dorothy Squires' voice answered my question by saying my letters kept us 'near while apart'. Coincidence? Well yes, if you accept coincidence after coiincidence after coincidence.No they don't, but simple psychology does. How many times have you heard this voice and not found / done what the voice said? People remember hits and forget misses. it's a proven psychological phenomena - no paranormal ability needed.

It seems to me it is hardened skeptics who are deluding themselves by refusing to look at the evidence objectively.Skeptics have no emotional investment in if these phenomena exist or not - we look at the evidence and don't see what you do, as you are emotionally involved and invested in it and see what you want to see, regardless of evidence.

Admin

25th January 2008, 10:51 AM

But cold reading: 'Why do I see a man wearing a balaclava and pajamas?'

Answer from woman in audience: 'That was the outfit my father wore when he was doing decorating!'

That's a prime example of how Cold Reading works!!!

The 'psychics' throws out a question containing some information that has no context.

The audience member (one of many who could make it fit) supplies the meaning and adds more information including context.

The audience member will later recall this incident and say something like this: "the psychic told me about my father and the afterlife must be true because he mentioned the time he was decorating in his balaclava and pyjamas - something the psychic couldn't possibly have known".

That's how the trick of Cold Reading works. It's the client who provides the meaning and context to the reading (!)

What is said and what is remembered are usually quite different. This is why I asked for a recording of your reading from Colin Fry.

FarSideOfTheMoon

25th January 2008, 01:53 PM

It seems to me it is hardened skeptics who are deluding themselves by refusing to look at the evidence objectively.

Tony,

Have you much experience of dealing with skeptics so far, or are you just assuming that they are like this? The people here deal with logic and reason, they don't take a position and stick to it rigidly even in the face or overwhelming evidence. We've seen all these claims before, and there is nothing in your claims that are new. Hence why a recording or transcript would be of interest. There is nothing as infallible as the human mind - and that is difficult for a lot of people to appreciate fully.

dee

25th January 2008, 07:19 PM

FarSideOfTheMoon

25th January 2008, 10:28 PM

This is just embarassing for Colin Fry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrV7A3RECJA

He is channeling his spirit guide Magnus ::).

So embarassing, that he asked Bad Psychics to remove it from their site on the premise of infringement of copyright.

http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=547

More likely, it was only for the consumption of those who believe his crap in the first place as it makes him look like a complete fraud and idiot. Anyone who believes what he is doing is 'real' needs to have a serious think about reality and their place on this earth.

Cuddles

28th January 2008, 11:24 AM

I am pretty sure that I read or have seen something to the effect somewhere that he has the names of his audience in advance. He was sending staff to their addresses to see what they could find out as someone who was doing a survey in the local area.

It was many years ago, so perhaps things have changed now.

I don't know about Colin Fry specifically, but that sort of thing is very common. Anything on TV is immediately suspect since they will have the names, addresses and various other details of everyone who will be there. When simply performing live, there are very often people gong round talking to people beforehand, and there's always the chance to do some research on local events as well. Cold reading is a great explanation for small-time psychics when you can turn up for a reading without booking in advance, but as soon as it becomes a performance ou can guarantee it is warm or hot reading.

jamiefox

23rd March 2008, 05:16 PM

Apologies if this subject has been discussed before, i did a search but couldn't find a similar thread

I have been watching the sixth sense with colin fry. most of what he says is just cold reading but some of the information seems very specific. does anybody know where he gets the specific info from? are the people in the audience asked to fill out forms about themselves or does he get his people to mingle with the audience to find out about them? i think he has a team who find out things without the person knowing,and this team will have the same sort of skills and methods as a private investigator,,

Mongrel

24th March 2008, 11:54 PM

i think he has a team who find out things without the person knowing,and this team will have the same sort of skills and methods as a private investigator,,

Not forgetting, for the younger 'viewers', many people put up all sorts of personal details on blogs and social networking sites. Try a vanity Google and see what turns up O0

Cradle Cap

3rd June 2008, 02:42 PM

Hello, first-time poster, moved to reply to this thread because I'm glad I saw it. I, too, have found myself wondering about the ways psychics acquire their information.

I find some of the 'investigative/Googling' theories upthread slightly fanciful, not to mention logistically prohibitive. But let's say it is the case, then why, with all these fraudulent psychics (and therefore, presumably, thousands of investigators) has there never been a whistle-blower? So for those reasons, I just can't get with that theory.

Cold reading would seem to be the most plausible and logical explanation, and as Derren Brown has shown this can be very effective, but again, this doesn't quite cover all the bases as I think Tony's examples show. I could accept, say, that the balaclava and pyjamas combo might be a lucky hit, but all of those? In one show? Hmm...

What I'd like to know is, has there ever been a case of an ex-psychic or assistant lifting the lid on the game?

Mongrel

3rd June 2008, 03:42 PM

Cradle Cap

3rd June 2008, 04:06 PM

Why? Admittedly not so useful for the big crowd type readings but for a 1 on 1 pre-booked appointment it's potentially very useful.

As for a book "Full Facts of Cold reading" by Ian Rowland is the best one to have, available from his site, http://www.ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/ColdReadingMain1.html

Well, because a psychic working from home would see, say, five clients a day, five days a week. That's 25 people who need investigating. How many of those have detailed biographical information available on the internet? There's absolutely none on me, for example, nor for most of the people I know. Which means investigations have to be launched via other means. A professional investigator, perhaps? Maybe, but that's got to eat into the profits, don't you think? £50 an hour for a reading, top whack. Do you know how much investigators charge per hour? It just doesn't work logistically is what I'm saying.

Thanks for the tip on the cold reading book. I'll look into that.

On edit: Woah, just seen the price! What is it, made of gold or something?

Mulder

3rd June 2008, 04:14 PM

On edit: Woah, just seen the price! What is it, made of gold or something?

Cheap at the price if you're thinking of making a living as a psychic. Might even be able to claim it as a business expense. :smiley:

brodski

3rd June 2008, 04:48 PM

brettdbass

3rd June 2008, 04:51 PM

Take a look at the book “the psychic mafia”, where an ex professional psychic does exactly that, and gives in depth information about the information which spiritualists held on their marks, and shared with each other- as well as revealing all other manner of dirty tricks.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychic-Mafia-M-Lamar-Keene/dp/1573921610

Damn, wish this post had been up 24 hours ago, before I placed my Amazon order!
Where's a good time machine when you need one?

ETA: *gulp* I think I might need a money printing machine as well! :shocked:

brodski

3rd June 2008, 04:54 PM

Damn, wish this post had been up 24 hours ago, before I placed my Amazon order!
Where's a good time machine when you need one?

ETA: *gulp* I think I might need a money printing machine as well! :shocked:

Good lord, I hadn't seen the price of that!

Matt

3rd June 2008, 05:22 PM

But let's say it is the case, then why, with all these fraudulent psychics (and therefore, presumably, thousands of investigators) has there never been a whistle-blower?

Who says there hasn't?

ETA looks like that answer has already been given in full. Please ignore me.

FarSideOfTheMoon

3rd June 2008, 05:29 PM

The power of cold reading and the fallibility of human memory is much underestimated. You don't need that much hot reading to be taking place to get the anecdotal reports of psychic success.

Hot reading is used for the piece de resistance. Cold reading is the bread and butter. By that I mean you will often see a piece of hot reading used as evidence of the greatness of a particular medium, whereas in their normal operation they will just employ cold reading with some or little success.

Sally Morgan is greatest exponent of this, and also Gordon Smith springs to mind.

Cradle Cap

3rd June 2008, 05:35 PM

Mongrel

3rd June 2008, 06:47 PM

Well, because a psychic working from home would see, say, five clients a day, five days a week. That's 25 people who need investigating. How many of those have detailed biographical information available on the internet? There's absolutely none on me, for example, nor for most of the people I know. Which means investigations have to be launched via other means. A professional investigator, perhaps? Maybe, but that's got to eat into the profits, don't you think? £50 an hour for a reading, top whack. Do you know how much investigators charge per hour? It just doesn't work logistically is what I'm saying.

Never said it was the bread and butter investigative source but 10 minutes can get a lot of simple 'throwaway', not deep investigative, facts if a person has an online presence. Whilst it may be a skewed sample as I work for a IT company but I'd say more than 50% of the people at work have a Myspace account or similar. From that you could get favourite band, pet names and a review of the party that they were at last weekend, doesn't sound like a lot but throw a couple of those in to a reading and they're big confirmation hits.

Chuck in another 10 minutes to see if their name turns up in local papers (they're often hard to search through from Google), better at their site and for a minor time investment there's enough small factoids to impress a credulous person.

Cradle Cap

3rd June 2008, 07:35 PM

From that you could get favourite band, pet names and a review of the party that they were at last weekend, doesn't sound like a lot but throw a couple of those in to a reading and they're big confirmation hits.

"Why am I hearing the name Cobain? I can smell vomit in your recent past…"

Hmm, not sure about the MySpace/psychic-client crossover there.

Try it this way. It's often useful to employ this method when thinking about plausibility scenarios.

You're a screenwriter working on a movie. Your central character is a fraudulent psychic and his MO is gathering pre-information on his subjects ('hot reading' I'm getting from here). How do you make that work for the audience? The audience won't buy the MySpace thing because MySpace users just aren't the kind of people who go to psychics. Psychic clients are women, middle-aged, not that computer-savvy. They don't 'do' Myspace. They don't really 'do' much internet at all. They are quite credulous, however. But, here's the thing, the psychic needs to prove to them that he is the genuine article otherwise they'll never come back. How does he do that?

Fiona

3rd June 2008, 09:12 PM

Why do you think psychic clients are middle aged women? Not my experience at all, at least

Mongrel

3rd June 2008, 09:17 PM

Try it this way. It's often useful to employ this method when thinking about plausibility scenarios.

OK :smiley:

You're a screenwriter working on a movie. Your central character is a fraudulent psychic and his MO is gathering pre-information on his subjects ('hot reading' I'm getting from here). How do you make that work for the audience?
Any way you want to, you're the screenwriter, given that I'm watching Smallville at the moment "They look at Myspace" is something that the audience could associate with far easier.

The audience won't buy the MySpace thing because MySpace users just aren't the kind of people who go to psychics.
I'm guessing that you haven't seen the average Myspace user, you can find angel believers, homeopaths, otherkin, furries, goths and Emos - psychics are another drop in the ocean

Psychic clients are women, middle-aged, not that computer-savvy. They don't 'do' Myspace.
Middle aged women doesn't mean not computer savvy. I know plenty of middle aged, and older women, who are perfectly happy using computers, IM programs, HTML templates, Myspace (it is a networking site after all) and can even write better SQL than me. The internet is a great way to keep the family in touch

They don't really 'do' much internet at all.
See above, I'd like to see some evidence for this as my anecdotal data contradicts yours

They are quite credulous, however. But, here's the thing, the psychic needs to prove to them that he is the genuine article otherwise they'll never come back. How does he do that?
As I've said, the internet is one of many tools available, cold readers aren't looking to do an episode of 'This is your Life', they're just after some small factoids that "They couldn't possibly have known!", this establishes credibility far better than "Male in the family, pain, stomach or chest area and D or S..."

Cradle Cap

3rd June 2008, 09:55 PM

I'm guessing that you haven't seen the average Myspace user..."

Fantastic. I still think there's a *public perception* of MySpace as primarily a kids' thing, no doubt fuelled by the recent spate of Myspace party stories. But, as you point out, it has a far more diverse user base. Five seconds' research provides me with this non-anecdotal evidence that should satisfy us both: "30 percent of Facebook users are between the ages of 12 and 24, more than half of MySpace’s visitors are over 35."

We can get round the whole perception thing with some kind of factoid at the beginning, pre-credits. *However*, it does mean we're rather relying on our guy using a single (or generic) source -- 'social networking sites'. What did he do before then? After all, psychics have been around far longer than social networking sites. Maybe on the one hand his job has been made easier by their popularity, but on the other we don't have any evidence to say that psychics have improved during this time. So... we can only have him using Myspace et al *in addition* to his main research. As you say, the internet is one of many tools of research. What are (or more pertinently, pre-SNS, 'were') the others?

Matt

3rd June 2008, 10:03 PM

You're a screenwriter working on a movie. Your central character is a fraudulent psychic and his MO is gathering pre-information on his subjects ('hot reading' I'm getting from here). How do you make that work for the audience? The audience won't buy the MySpace thing because MySpace users just aren't the kind of people who go to psychics. Psychic clients are women, middle-aged, not that computer-savvy. They don't 'do' Myspace. They don't really 'do' much internet at all. They are quite credulous, however. But, here's the thing, the psychic needs to prove to them that he is the genuine article otherwise they'll never come back. How does he do that?

OK others have poo-pooed the idea that there's no chance the client is on myface reuinited or other internet site. But lets just say they don't. £17 per month buys you unlimited online searches of the electoral register. The client is almost certainly there. Now you've got their current and possibly past addresses, also the names of close relatives and house mates. You can go back a few years on that. Not a bad starting point. Genes reunited helps you trace families. You can look up announcements in the hatched, matched and dispatched of their local papers. Another monthly subscription buys credit checks.

I'm not sure but you might be able to subscribe to various Job Search sites as an agent and you might be able to track down their CV - even if they didn't put it online themselves, if they've used an employment agency in that past it could be in the system.

Remeber you don't have to commit to any of this information. Is she that Janet Smith whose mother Belinda Rogers dies two years ago? Lead with I'm getting the name Roger then if Belinda Rogers turns out to be a bust there's still a chance that there's a Roger somewhere.

Check the frequency of names see what the safest bet is.
http://www.thinkbabynames.com/search.php?g=1&t=1&s=Roger

Roger is currently languishing down in position 400 or so in the list of most popular baby names. However 70 years or so it was far more popular. This makes it a good choice for a guess, you're far more likly to get a hit amongst the names of the recently deceased than peopel might suspect from looking at the frequency of the name today.

Belinda (http://www.thinkbabynames.com/search.php?g=0&t=1&s=belinda)has never been particularly popular but the similar sounding Linda is another good choice.

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/search.php?g=0&t=1&s=Linda

So your protagonist manages to track down what she thinks is the mother's name, knows she died about two years ago, cause of death was in the local paper.

She's decided on leading with "I'm getting a name that sounds like Linda, maybe Melinda, no Belinda" Seeing the recognition on her clients face she has it all confirmed. "Yes it's coming through clearly now, definitely Belinda Rogers, died of a heart attack a couple of years ago. She's your mother isn't she sweetie"

Bam! Straight out of the box a massive hit. Your protagonist can whitter on for the rest of the session saying nothing of substance at all. This is all the client will remember.

FarSideOfTheMoon

3rd June 2008, 10:14 PM

Hot reading is forewarned, then? You couldn't give me an example? SM and GS combine the two? If yes, then this leads me back to my original question. How are they compiling the data?

P.S As a 'newbie' I appreciate you guys' patience on this.

Sally Morgan uses hot reading and editing to make her television shows look amazing. However, if you read recent accounts of her shows on BadPsychics.com, you will see that she is far from impressive in the flesh.

Bad Psychics has several transcripts of Gordon Smith readings were he employs simple cold reading techniques.

Mongrel

3rd June 2008, 10:22 PM

*However*, it does mean we're rather relying on our guy using a single (or generic) source -- 'social networking sites'.
The point that I've mentioned several times is that the internet, like any other tool at their disposal, is one item that they can use. There's no one, single way that they do it, there's a whole host of small tricks that they combine for the best result.

Cradle Cap

3rd June 2008, 10:45 PM

The point that I've mentioned several times is that the internet, like any other tool at their disposal, is one item that they can use. There's no one, single way that they do it, there's a whole host of small tricks that they combine for the best result.

Hi, M, I absolutely acknowledged that point in my last post, but won't reiterate my subsequent question as it's been rather excellently tackled by Matt.

Matt, in order to verify some of what you're saying, what we need to do is make an appointment with a psychic (hm, perhaps I should try, all in the name of research). What information do they take? Do we know? One thing that strikes me, psychics must have many appointments who, though not openly sceptical, keep their powder dry, so to speak. Those who refuse to divulge personal details in the first instance, sit with arms crossed during face-to-face meetings. This must be a familiar 'type' of client for our protagonist. I bet he even has a name for them. For the purposes of this exercise let's say he calls them 'the willing unbelievers'. What tactics has he developed to deal with them? Can't hot-read, remember, and he badly needs a hit on this one...

SimonC

4th June 2008, 12:43 AM

One thing that strikes me, psychics must have many appointments who, though not openly sceptical, keep their powder dry, so to speak. Those who refuse to divulge personal details in the first instance, sit with arms crossed during face-to-face meetings. This must be a familiar 'type' of client for our protagonist. I bet he even has a name for them. For the purposes of this exercise let's say he calls them 'the willing unbelievers'. What tactics has he developed to deal with them? Can't hot-read, remember, and he badly needs a hit on this one...

Hi Cradle Cap.

I have actually tried this with supposed psychics, on one or two occasions. The usual get-out, under these circumstances, will be for the 'psychic' to claim that the sitter's reticence is "causing negative vibrations", "making communication difficult", or something similar. There are many ways that this can be expressed, but the implication is always the same; that the unsuccessful session is a result of the sitter's demeanor, rather than the psychic's lack of ability.

Clearly it would be an expensive experiment to try this in a situation where one has to pay for a 'psychic's' time, I did it, however, at a free demonstration of psychic abilities, during a psychic fayre at a local hotel. ( people were invited to pay for in-depth sessions after the free demonstrations ). I didn't remain entirely stony-faced, as that would have been rudely aggressive, but instead responded to statements with simple 'thank you' and 'that's interesting' comments. The 'psychic' tried for a while, with suggestions becoming more and more broad, before stating that I was not 'strongly spiritually linked', then moving on to try another punter...

Matt

4th June 2008, 08:58 AM

Hi, M, I absolutely acknowledged that point in my last post, but won't reiterate my subsequent question as it's been rather excellently tackled by Matt.

Matt, in order to verify some of what you're saying, what we need to do is make an appointment with a psychic (hm, perhaps I should try, all in the name of research). What information do they take? Do we know? One thing that strikes me, psychics must have many appointments who, though not openly sceptical, keep their powder dry, so to speak. Those who refuse to divulge personal details in the first instance, sit with arms crossed during face-to-face meetings. This must be a familiar 'type' of client for our protagonist. I bet he even has a name for them. For the purposes of this exercise let's say he calls them 'the willing unbelievers'. What tactics has he developed to deal with them? Can't hot-read, remember, and he badly needs a hit on this one...

Fake Psychics have a broad range of techniques in thier arsenal. Different psychics may use different techniques in differing circumstances. Techniques that are good for working a room might not be so good one on one. Hot reading is not allways possible. Cold reading is not allways possible. Sometimes all you can do is take a flyer and hope it comes off. Failing is an option. As the old saying goes you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Psychics don't have to. They do just fine fooling just some of the people.

Now you say he badly needs a hit. Why? If there's something special about this client that means they can't just be one of the many that aren't impressed then that constitutes some infomration the reader has and can exploit.

Mulder

4th June 2008, 10:43 AM

... You're a screenwriter working on a movie. Your central character is a fraudulent psychic and his MO is gathering pre-information on his subjects ('hot reading' I'm getting from here). How do you make that work for the audience? ...

Out of interest, are you a screen writer? I ask because you seem very interested in whether a possible audience would find the supposed methods of 'fake' psychics credible.

Cradle Cap

4th June 2008, 11:50 AM

Out of interest, are you a screen writer? I ask because you seem very interested in whether a possible audience would find the supposed methods of 'fake' psychics credible.

No, but I do find this exercise useful when examining grandiose or throwaway statements. Just a way of unpicking things to get at the truth, really. For example, say we set our movie in 1978, pre-internet, what is our guy doing for his hot-readings then? Matt will say 'utilising a broad range of techniques', but how on earth do we show that on screen? We have to have him 'doing' something. What is he doing?

Matt

4th June 2008, 01:20 PM

No, but I do find this exercise useful when examining grandiose or throwaway statements. Just a way of unpicking things to get at the truth, really. For example, say we set our movie in 1978, pre-internet, what is our guy doing for his hot-readings then? Matt will say 'utilising a broad range of techniques', but how on earth do we show that on screen? We have to have him 'doing' something. What is he doing?

The electoral register is searchable at your local library. I was in 1978 too. Local Paper archives would be on Microfiche, again at the library. Register of Births Deaths and Mariages I believe was publicaly available as would be parish registers. In 1978 credit reports would be requested and delivered by post. Back in 1978 tis would have entailed a great deal of work. Worthwile only for targetting a particularly juicy customer. Sucker lists existed back then too, infact this was before regulation that further restircted how such information could be traded. So in some ways a more beneficial time for fraudulent psychics.

If a client was refered their may be information coming from the referrer.

Another form of Hot/Warm reading works with the big crowds. Often the audience is asked to fill in cards giving personal information. The pychics assitants circulate int he corud listening for snippets of information. The convicted psychic Helen Duncan admitted to doing this, though she said it was only to avoid dissapointing her audience when her genuine power was on the wane.

Even without research a face to face reading allows the psychic access to a great deal of infomration. The client's age, gender, manner of dress and from this wealth and social status. It may not seem much to go on but see what can be done with it here.

http://www.tonyyouens.com/sophistry.htm

brettdbass

4th June 2008, 03:19 PM

By far the most famous example of hot reading in action is Randi's debunking of Peter Popoff some years ago.

Here is the evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

The exact techniques described by others on this thread are blatantly being employed.
Popoff made himself a multi-millionaire very quickly with this charade. Randi debunked him at a time when many thousands of people were utterly convinced he was a channel for the power of god. Some time later, Popoff came back with more shams and cons and again many thousands of people bought into it, despite his track record.

Only goes to show how easy it is to fool most of the people all of the time. Also a very good depiction of exactly why I choose to call myself a skeptic.

Mulder

4th June 2008, 03:31 PM

FarSideOfTheMoon

4th June 2008, 03:59 PM

I think the psychics I've met must be particularly useless at hot, cold and even luke warm readings. No psychic has ever told me anything that was even remotely relevant far less correct! Perhaps I'm just unlucky ... or maybe not so easily impressed by poor guesses ...

That's the problem, anytime you debate with psychic followers about how poor a performance was, they will always recommend someone else as 'better' or more 'genuine'. If you get a chance to experience them and witness just how bad they also are, then they will pull another name out of the hat. And so on ad infinitum :-[

Psychics don't impress skeptics because we know the tricks they pull. Even with a little knowledge, the psychic act becomes a farce.

You don't even have to be that gullible to be taken in by psychics, you just need to have no knowledge of the processes at work. That is why cold reading can be so powerful on it's own, even without hot reading. If the psychic gets a few lucky guesses then the punter comes away amazed. If they do a bad reading, there are all manner of excuses employed, such as not getting a connection with the spirits or some other flannel.

SimonC

4th June 2008, 04:58 PM

A couple of other points to bear in mind, Cradle Cap.

The first is that cold readers will very often start fishing for information by basing their statements around three areas that affect virtually everybody - relationships, money and health. If you read transcripts of supposed psychics, you'll very often come across a statement like "I sense that financial issues are on your mind...".

What does 'financial issues' mean? It could be anything from an ongoing, expensive legal matter to the fact that the person lost a tenner in the street. It's almost a guaranteed hit.

The same can be applied to the other topics - who doesn't have some kind of health or relationship issue in their life? If not the person themself then among their family or friends. A cooperative sitter will happily fill in the blanks.

The other point is that local, 'ad in the newsagent window', psychics often get a fair proportion of new clients by referral from current customers. So the sitter says "I wonder if you could see a friend of mine sometime...", and it's perfectly natural for the psychic to respond with a few 'innocent', casual questions - "Is this someone you know from work?", or whatever. The psychic already has a bit of groundwork to use, without the need for any serious research.

Cuddles

5th June 2008, 10:56 AM

Mulder

5th June 2008, 11:02 AM

The media can never quite bring themselves to portray psychics as out and out frauds in movies (unless someone here knows better). I think they're afraid they'll turn off the audience who mostly believe. They may well be right! So, I doubt any such screenplay would ever be made, however credible it might appear.

bobdezon

5th June 2008, 11:34 AM

The only bad psychic (no pun intended) Ive ever seen on film, was the fraud who tried to get Claire to sell her baby in an episode of Lost. People pay for belief, and nobodywill make a movie about fraudulent psychics unless there is a great deal of money involved for them. Psychics are a con, and have been for a long time. They fill a niche in society, even way back in the days of the "oracle of delphi".

Mongrel

5th June 2008, 04:03 PM

Mulder

5th June 2008, 05:19 PM

I've never seen Psych. Do they ever imply that all psychics are fake or that there are 'genuine' ones out there?

Mongrel

5th June 2008, 05:28 PM

I've never seen Psych. Do they ever imply that all psychics are fake or that there are 'genuine' ones out there?

All fake and that the effect can be replicated by an observant person :smiley:

Mulder

5th June 2008, 06:21 PM

It doesn't sound as radical as the screenplay we were considering above. I notice, also, that it's a comedy, so the audience don't have to take it 'seriously'.

I think it unlikely that a serious film or TV drama series would ever star someone who made their living as a psychic and was apparently impressively good, only to be revealed - maybe just to the viewers - as a complete fake. And further, that it would be implied that all their fellow psychics were fakes too and their clients gullible.

Too many members of the audience would feel it was unrealistic. I get the same feeling when watching a programme about a psychic who, inevitably, is always right about almost everything. It is so different to my own experience of psychics (where they are wrong about everything) that I am too annoyed to watch such programmes.

Mongrel

5th June 2008, 07:59 PM

It doesn't sound as radical as the screenplay we were considering above. I notice, also, that it's a comedy, so the audience don't have to take it 'seriously'.

But it can be easier to slip an 'uncomfortable' subject in through comedy than drama

Mulder

6th June 2008, 07:54 AM

But it can be easier to slip an 'uncomfortable' subject in through comedy than drama

I totally agree but it leaves a 'get out clause'. As a comedy, 'believer' viewers can enjoy it while still saying 'it's just a bit of fun but real genuine psychics are quite different ...'.

It's a pity that no one pointed out to viewers, for instance, that Most Haunted was 'just entertainment'. As a result most viewers took it completely seriously. The way something is pitched to the audience makes all the difference to how it is perceived.

Nasib

8th June 2008, 10:31 PM

Bad Psychics has several transcripts of Gordon Smith readings were he employs simple cold reading techniques.

Correction: Bad Psychics has several transcripts of Gordon Smith readings where it is [erroneously] assumed that he is employing cold-reading tricks and implied that these are the methods he uses in order to con people into believing that he is in touch with their deceased relatives. If this were the case, what, pray, might be his motive? Certainly not for monetary gain, as his readings are given freely, without charge, and only to those in obvious need of comfort and confirmation.
Bad Psychic members clearly have difficulty in differentiating between the entertainment aspects of professional mentalists/magicians - and the selfless practices of a genuine medium.

FarSideOfTheMoon

8th June 2008, 10:42 PM

Correction: Bad Psychics has several transcripts of Gordon Smith readings where it is [erroneously] assumed that he is employing cold-reading tricks and implied that these are the methods he uses in order to con people into believing that he is in touch with their deceased relatives. If this were the case, what, pray, might be his motive? Certainly not for monetary gain, as his readings are given freely, without charge, and only to those in obvious need of comfort and confirmation.
Bad Psychic members clearly have difficulty in differentiating between the entertainment aspects of professional mentalists/magicians - and the selfless practices of a genuine medium.

Bollocks, if after reading everything there is about how con artists like Smith work, and you still believe he is doing it by talking to spirits, you are clearly extremely confused.

Here's another one posted today:

http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=784

What parts of that analysis don't you agree with?

Smith doesn't do it for the money? How about this?

An Evening with Gordon Smith
Kirkham
Ticket Price: £12.00 (including book)
Second ticket: £7.00 (without book)

One-Day Intermediate Workshop
Strengthening Your Psychic Skills and Mastering Mediumship
with Gordon Smith and Mary Armour
London
Ticket Price: £75.00

An Evening of Mediumship with Gordon Smith
Bristol
Ticket Price: £20.00

An Evening of Mediumship with Gordon Smith
Kings Lynn
Ticket Price: £20.00

An Evening of Mediumship with Gordon Smith
Irvine
Ticket Price: £20.00

An Evening of Mediumship with Gordon Smith
Leamington Spa
Ticket Price: £20.00 (allocated

His books aren't free either.

Wake up and stop swallowing the gullible pills.

Mongrel

8th June 2008, 10:45 PM

Not forgetting the onus is in CF (or his supporters) to prove that he's not using Cold reading techniques.

SimonC

8th June 2008, 10:46 PM

If this were the case, what, pray, might be his motive?

Self promotion. Those books aren't just going to walk off the shelves in Waterstones...

Nasib

8th June 2008, 10:50 PM

He doesn't need self-promotion; he has been giving such readings for many years, long before Hayhouse got him in their clutches.

Nasib

8th June 2008, 11:17 PM

His books aren't free either.

Well, for goodness sake, of course the books aren't free - and if you take the trouble to actually read some of them you might get some sort of insight into just what it is he does, including why and how he does it.

Nasib

8th June 2008, 11:46 PM

Smith doesn't do it for the money? How about this?

His recent South Africa tour:
Gordon had a great tour (http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/gordon-smith-s-south-africa-tour-t446.html#) of South Africa recently, despite missing his flight (http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/gordon-smith-s-south-africa-tour-t446.html#) there! He appeared on a popular TV show called Spirit (http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/gordon-smith-s-south-africa-tour-t446.html#) Sundae alongside an African Elder who 'speaks' to ancestors.

Gordon also appeared on popular TV talk show 3-Talk with Noeleen where he conducted on-air readings (http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/gordon-smith-s-south-africa-tour-t446.html#) for 45 minutes. The switchboard for the show recorded just over 15,000 calls during the show!

During his South African tour Gordon filmed an hour-long interview in Cape Town with a local spiritual TV show (http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/gordon-smith-s-south-africa-tour-t446.html#) Free Spirit, due to air later this year, as well as a number of radio, newspaper and magazine interviews.

The highlights of the tour were the three events that Gordon hosted in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, all of which were sold out. Many incredible readings came through as well as an extraordinary number of animals (http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/gordon-smith-s-south-africa-tour-t446.html#). Gordon's Advanced Mediumship and Psychic Awareness Workshop in Johannesburg was a great success with all proceeds being donated to NOAH (Nurturing Orphans of AIDS (http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/gordon-smith-s-south-africa-tour-t446.html#) for Humanity).
.

bindeweede

8th June 2008, 11:55 PM

Thanks for quoting "Kitkat".

Nasib

9th June 2008, 12:10 AM

Thanks for quoting "Kitkat".

I am Kitkat :smiley:

bindeweede

9th June 2008, 12:19 AM

I am Kitkat :smiley:

Well, I do tend to be a bit on the slow side.:-[

k-eyed and rainswabs here

Sounds like you had a great night!

bobdezon

9th June 2008, 01:57 AM

Correction: Bad Psychics has several transcripts of Gordon Smith readings

This is true.

where it is [erroneously]

If you are asserting that the possibility he is cold reading is incorrect, then you are very much mistaken. You must admit that he is indeed possibly using cold reading. If he is not, then why are his methods identical to simple cold reading?

assumed that he is employing cold-reading tricks

If it walks like a duck.....................

and implied that these are the methods he uses in order to con people into believing that he is in touch with their deceased relatives.

You make this sound like a bad thing? Of course BP implies he is using cold reading, because unless he actually admits it, then nobody can be 100% sure can they? He could indeed have some superduper Zomg! speshul pwahz, but the evidence for this is yet to manifest itself. He has done nothing different from any other cold reader.

If this were the case, what, pray, might be his motive?

Money, greed, ego, sex, fame or any other basic human desire. Do you think Gorden is some jesus type figure who is completely selfless? Please ::)

Certainly not for monetary gain, as his readings are given freely, without charge, and only to those in obvious need of comfort and confirmation.

Bullshit and you know it, he makes a lot of money from aftersales and promotions.

Bad Psychic members clearly have difficulty in differentiating between the entertainment aspects of professional mentalists/magicians - and the selfless practices of a genuine medium.

Yes, BP do, because there have never been any "geniune mediums" discovered to make a valid comparison. Unless you know a "real one", and can provide evidence that this person exists (who will then be tested etc)

Seriously, please try harder. O0

Anthrax

9th June 2008, 10:14 AM

theres an episode of south park called the biggest douche in the universe that actually shows how those techniques are done in a simple and funny way

Matt

9th June 2008, 10:57 AM

Hi Nasib,

You're right of course, the bad psychics analysis doesn't prove that Gordon's reading contained no psychic elements. However it does prove that any effects were added to by using by non-psychic approaches categorised as cold reading. This can be done unconciously or by accident so there's no need to impugn Gordon's integrity at this stage.

However what it does change one thing. The burden of proof is with Gordon. If he claims he's psychic then the proof must come from him. Without considering the possibility of Cold Reading such readings contribute to this proof. We still wouldn't know if he were a medium, clairvoyant or mind reader, but would know that he had some strange source of information. However if cold reading is considered it provides a potential source of information, the sitter. That reading is therefore no longer evidence for the supernatural, and we're back to square one with Gordon still to provide reliable evidence for his powers.

The question we should ask ourselves is one of human nature. If he could provide such evidence would he? Or would he rather devote his time to the many people whose existing faith in the suprnatural means they require a lower standard of proof.

bobdezon

9th June 2008, 02:54 PM

Well said Matt. O0

FarSideOfTheMoon

9th June 2008, 10:37 PM

.

I apologise for my slightly agressive tone last night. Hung over and sleep deprived. :undecided:

Gordon may be involved in charity work, and if that is the case then I applaud him for it.

Whether or not he is involved in charity work is irrelevant when considering if he has genuine psychic powers or not. It is also irrelevant when considering if he makes money from his psychic career.

People do charity work for different reasons. Some do it because the want to. Some do it because the charity wants a famous name. Some do it because they want their name associated with a charity. I'm not suggesting Gordon Smith is anything other than the first option by the way.

Gordon may not always have made much money from his activities, I couldn't tell you or not because I don't follow him particularly closely. What he will have been doing is the groundwork to get him to the stage where he can make a good income from it. That's the way it works in the arts - you can spend years grafting before getting the breaks. And I believe GS is nothing but a performer.

If he is more than that, there is no evidence in the public domain which indicates that he is genuinely psychic. Every reading which has been analysed reverts to cold/hot reading.

I specifically posted an analysis of one of his readings on the Spiritlove forum because it was requested - but there was zero feedback. I don't think people want to see through Gordon's tricks. Once a believer in him, always a believer as far as I can see.

JonDonnis

10th June 2008, 01:23 PM

I love it how people moan about my site, but do it on other sites.
At least the very clever guys here at UKS can defend BP and sceptism.

As for Gordon Smith, anyone who thinks he doesnt earn a fortune is a fool.

In fact just recently he appeared on Greek TV where Psychiatrist Dr. Daskalopoulos accused Smith of Immoral Tactics

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yr7zB27NfvQ

Unfortunately my Greek is very poor, and on top of that I only know Cypriot style Greek, and this doctor is proper Greek, so makes it even harder for me, I have asked a collegue of mine who works as a teacher in Cyprus to translate it all for me, when/if that gets done i will post full transcript on the site, anyway fun to watch GS squirm

Nasib

10th June 2008, 02:25 PM

I love it how people moan about my site, but do it on other sites.

The selective censorship on BP makes it rather difficult for some to partake in reasonable discussion there.

In fact just recently he appeared on Greek TV where Psychiatrist Dr. Daskalopoulos accused Smith of Immoral Tactics

This rather fortifies my point somewhat of unfounded assumptions being thrown out without the facts, don't you think. Opinions already being bandied around when the contents of this clip are not yet known. ::)
(For all we know [so far] this Dr Daskalopoulos could be discussing the price of cabbage)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yr7zB27NfvQ

Unfortunately my Greek is very poor, and on top of that I only know Cypriot style Greek, and this doctor is proper Greek, so makes it even harder for me, I have asked a collegue of mine who works as a teacher in Cyprus to translate it all for me, when/if that gets done i will post full transcript on the site, anyway fun to watch GS squirm

Just a thought, but it might be a sensible idea to ask the YouTube poster, Goselos, for a translation?

Matt

10th June 2008, 02:50 PM

Hi Nasib,

I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from here.

Just a thought, but it might be a sensible idea to ask the YouTube poster, Goselos, for a translation?

That's Goselos who wrote the following description of the clip on You tube?

Psychiatrist Dr. Daskalopoulos speaks with "psychic" Gordon Smith, live on ANT1 TV ("Tatiana Stefanidou") and accuses the so called "medium" of immoral tactics. Video in Greek, 14-5-2008

To be fair it would seem that this is where Jon is getting his preliminary information so the assumption that Smith is accused of "immoral tactics" isn't really unfounded.

Given that and the fact that Jon says he does speak some Greek and has presumably watched the clip he posted, isn't saying that "the contents of the clip are not yet known" a bit of an unfounded assumption itself?

Maybe I've misunderstood you or you didn't notice the clip description on you tube.

Nasib

10th June 2008, 03:38 PM

Yes, I've seen 'Goselos's' description. There's also another posting of same clip, a slightly longer version, where 'Goselos' has written a similar description. Note also that 'someone' ;) has already put out a request for a translation on both clips, and that request has been up for some time.
All I was suggesting was that going by his/her description, the said 'Goselos' would appear to be in the know as to the contents and therefore the best person to ask?
All the better if Jon is able to get a translation - but he did say "when/if", so that's not a definite.

brettdbass

11th June 2008, 09:34 AM

Is this thread about Colin Fry at all, any more?

Just asking, like...

Nasib

28th June 2008, 11:29 PM

In fact just recently he appeared on Greek TV where Psychiatrist Dr. Daskalopoulos accused Smith of Immoral Tactics

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yr7zB27NfvQ

Thanks to JonDonnis, who did indeed manage to get a transcript; available here: http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/post9360.html#9360 - with feedback.

The content is not on the 'price of cabbage', but you can judge for yourself whether the presumptuous accusations in this instance of "immoral tactics" on the part of Gordon Smith were justified or not.

Meglos

4th January 2009, 02:25 PM

May be Mr Fry operates in the same way as the 'pyscic barber'. Now if you want a personnel reading with the canny scot, you need to fill in an online form stating the reasons you think you deserve a reading. What if audiance members have to do something similiar... Perhaps oh my mother has recently died in a car crash; or she died from lung cancer etc. People would be likely to give all sorts of tit-bits in an attempt to get on the show. Others may write in to the producers there's all sorts of ways the trumpet man could gleam infomation without 'contacting' the spirit world.

FarSideOfTheMoon

4th January 2009, 07:29 PM

I've transcribed a couple of Gordon Smith's videos for BadPsychics. He's not afraid to partake in a bit of hot reading when it suits him. They're all the same.

Nasib

4th January 2009, 11:13 PM

I've transcribed a couple of Gordon Smith's videos for BadPsychics. He's not afraid to partake in a bit of hot reading when it suits him.

Farside, you KNOW that that's not true >:-), and you have no evidence to back up what you're implying there. Why don't you add "in my opinion" to that statement.

FarSideOfTheMoon

5th January 2009, 12:13 PM

Ok, IN MY OPINION, in heavily edited videos, in a professional studio environment, where two separate couples are pre-booked to appear in the videos, where the two couples disclose some personal facts to camera before the reading, where the names and addresses and reasons for being there are already known, the only accurate details that Gordon Smith can reveal are those which can be easily obtained from information already known about the people getting the reading.

Derren Brown does it a lot more convincingly.

hilary shinclair

5th January 2009, 01:14 PM

You only have to see one of these people perform live to realise how much they rely on editing and hot reading when there're in the studio. Derek Acorah is the best example of this: his live performances are utterly rubbish. When he's in the studio he does appear to have magical powers but thats mostly down to Derek cheating.

tolman

7th January 2009, 05:19 PM

...the only accurate details that Gordon Smith can reveal are those which can be easily obtained from information already known about the people getting the reading...
Oh ye of little faith!

Even if non-psychics can do and frequently do do the same thing via mundane means, isn't it still amazing to have a psychic with the wonderful talent of being able to tell people things that they already know?

Dubious Dick

8th January 2009, 11:15 AM

If I understand correctly, Mr. Fry offers special tickets at his performances. These give you the opportunity to have a drink with him before the show. No chance of him picking up info there then!!

Also, when we surveyed audience members prior to his show at the Shaw Theatre in London last November, we were approached by three people asking us to move on from immediately outside the theatre. One stated clearly that she worked for Mr. Fry, although the two guys refused to identify who they worked for. It is only an assumption, but a strong one, that they did not workj for the theatre, and therefore worked for Mr. Fry. No chance that in mingling with the crowd before the show they could be picking up info then!!

So, in the case of Mr. Fry we can safely say there is a very strong probability that he indulges in hot as well as cold reading.

Nasib

8th January 2009, 01:10 PM

... when we surveyed audience members prior to his show at the Shaw Theatre in London last November, we were approached by three people asking us to move on from immediately outside the theatre. One stated clearly that she worked for Mr. Fry, although the two guys refused to identify who they worked for. It is only an assumption, but a strong one, that they did not workj for the theatre, and therefore worked for Mr. Fry. No chance that in mingling with the crowd before the show they could be picking up info then!!

So, in the case of Mr. Fry we can safely say there is a very strong probability that he indulges in hot as well as cold reading.

What was the nature, method and purpose of your 'survey' and who does the 'we' represent?

NorthernSoul

8th January 2009, 01:17 PM

What was the nature, method and purpose of your 'survey' and who does the 'we' represent?

Good question, but I fail to see what bareing that has on the assertion that Colin Fry's staff were talking with audience members before the performance.

Nasib

8th January 2009, 01:25 PM

Good question, but I fail to see what bareing that has on the assertion that Colin Fry's staff were talking with audience members before the performance.

'Assertion' or 'strong assumption' - there is a difference! - and that difference is relevant to my question.

NorthernSoul

8th January 2009, 01:29 PM

'Assertion' or 'strong assumption' - there is a difference! - and that difference is relevant to my question.

I eagerly await your next headache inducing post.

Nasib

8th January 2009, 01:33 PM

I eagerly await your next headache inducing post.

Shall I take it that you can't (or won't) answer my question then?

tolman

8th January 2009, 01:44 PM

Shall I take it that you can't (or won't) answer my question then?
I'd say it was a fair bet that the survey was trying to work out the kinds of people who pay to watch self-proclaimed psychics.

I'd say it was also a fair bet that the survey was couched in fairly neutral language "Have you attended such events before?", "What are your expectations?", "How strongly do you believe in the abilities of psychics?", etc, since anything that was even slightly hostile would be likely to be given short shrift by many of the people who typically attend such events, and would therefore be a waste of time.

NorthernSoul

8th January 2009, 01:49 PM

Shall I take it that you can't (or won't) answer my question then?

I can't since the question wasnt addressed to me but to Dubious Dick, thanks for the headache.

Nasib

8th January 2009, 05:52 PM

NS, I suggest you keep well stocked up with aspirin.

Dubious Dick

8th January 2009, 08:33 PM

What was the nature, method and purpose of your 'survey' and who does the 'we' represent?

Unlike you and the believer set, who rarely answer direct questions, I am happy to oblige.

The survey was a prototype test to guage the motivations of people attending a paid for performance by someone who claims to be able to communicate with the dead.

The method was a well constructed questionnaire which did not prompt or lead the participants.

The purpose in the long run is to construct a case for presentation to the OFT/Trading Standards on the basis that these so called mediums target vulnerable people, and charge money without being able to provide any credible, independent evidence whatsoever for their claimed abilities.

We are a group of skeptics who are very unhappy that, unlike the providers of other goods and services, charlatans like Fry, Smith, Acorah etc are apparently able to trade without any quality control whatsoever.

I remind you that I have previously asked you to name your champion of so called mediumship, and we can then investigate whether they are indeed able to provide any unique, pertinent and important information from a dead person. To date there is not a single bit of reliable evidence anywhere that anyone has this ability.

I will state here and now that if your champion can prove such an ability I will be the first in a long queue of skeptics to apologise for my previous doubt and will re-christen myself Believer Dick, and spread the word like wildfire.

As to my suggestions that people like Fry, Smith etc etc etc use a combination of cold reading and hot reading, the use of stooges and spies in the audience has a long and disreputable history among practitioners of these scams.

There is also the well documented case of Mr. Fry faking a seance with a spirit trumpet stunt. This sort of malarkey has been discredited for many a long year.

I am quite happy to state that Fry is a con artist. You are welcome to pass my post on to him and he is welcome to try to sue me for libel. In fact I would welcome the opportunity to blow apart these scams in a Court of Law, but, as with the Million dollar Challenge, I expect all we will see is avoidance and ad hominem attacks as opposed to engagement with the real issues. The same goes for Smith or anyone else you care to mention.

tolman

8th January 2009, 08:53 PM

There is also the well documented case of Mr. Fry faking a seance with a spirit trumpet stunt. This sort of malarkey has been discredited for many a long year.
Ah, but you're forgetting that special property of psychic abilities which causes them to be miraculously replaced by cheating and whiny excuses whenever anyone looks closely enough.

That special property being, of course, the property of nonexistence.

Nasib

8th January 2009, 09:41 PM

Ouch! Only asking, DD... Phew! That was a reply and a half. Spoken with the fervent [dare I say, blind] fanaticism of a man on a mission.

I remind you that I have previously asked you to name your champion of so called mediumship, and we can then investigate whether they are indeed able to provide any unique, pertinent and important information from a dead person. To date there is not a single bit of reliable evidence anywhere that anyone has this ability.

Yes, you have previously asked - on a number of occasions - the 'champion' question(?) Quite frankly, I don't understand why you keep firing this question at me. I don't have a 'champion', and any reference you make to such is simply something you've conjured up in your own fired up imagination.

Dubious Dick

8th January 2009, 10:25 PM

Ouch! Only asking, DD... Phew! That was a reply and a half. Spoken with the fervent [dare I say, blind] fanaticism of a man on a mission.

Yes, you have previously asked - on a number of occasions - the 'champion' question(?) Quite frankly, I don't understand why you keep firing this question at me. I don't have a 'champion', and any reference you make to such is simply something you've conjured up in your own fired up imagination.

As predicted, the Ad Hom attack, and the avoidance of the question. Guess it's me that's the psychic then.

The question of a champion is simple. You believe. Who are you prepared to put forward as a real medium/psychic for serious examination of their claimed abilities? Unless you can point to someone who you believe is the genuine article, it would seem, as I suspect, that there is no such thing.

And yes, I am on a mission to expose fraud, and what is wrong with that? At least I am not defrauding anyone.

You will note that my fervour is not confined to mediums and psychics. Check out the thread on the ADE 651, for example.

tolman

8th January 2009, 11:26 PM

Ouch! Only asking, DD... Phew! That was a reply and a half. Spoken with the fervent [dare I say, blind] fanaticism of a man on a mission.
Yes, Nasib, of course you're right.

Politely asking people non-leading questions to try to see if they are being misled by people claiming to be psychic is the clear act of a blind fanatic, as is the diabolical trading standards legislation which tries to avoid having fraudsters prey on the emotionally vulnerable, or to stop people pretending to be mystical surgeons pretending to cure people.

Nasib

9th January 2009, 12:15 AM

Yes, Nasib, of course you're right.

Politely asking people non-leading questions to try to see if they are being misled by people claiming to be psychic is the clear act of a blind fanatic, as is the diabolical trading standards legislation which tries to avoid having fraudsters prey on the emotionally vulnerable, or to stop people pretending to be mystical surgeons pretending to cure people.

tolman,

I take it you support the seething sentiments expressed by Dubious Dick, then?

May I ask of you - politely of course, what do you mean by 'non-leading questions' (as opposed to 'leading' questions)?

tolman

9th January 2009, 12:43 AM

May I ask of you - politely of course, what do you mean by 'non-leading questions' (as opposed to 'leading' questions)?
I mean the same thing that most other people mean - that is, non-leading questions are ones which don't presuppose or push people towards any particular answer.

In this case, if someone was trying to find out what the audience believed in general about 'psychic phenomena' and what they had been led to believe about a performer by that performer's publicity, with an eye to seeing if people might be being mislead by claims in advertising, they'd pretty much *have* to be careful not to ask leading questions, otherwise any results they got would be worthless.

DD doesn't just sit down and makes up what he wants to be the truth and then pretend it's true - he actually bothers to go out and try and find out what people think, and for no obvious financial gain.

Give me that over crooked third-rate magicians waving around trumpets and fleecing the gullible anyday.

Dubious Dick

9th January 2009, 10:25 AM

Nasib

9th January 2009, 01:51 PM

Nasib, your attempts to portray me as raving fanatic do not achieve anything. May I suggest that we stick to the point. If you want to engage in debate then you are most welcome. If you want to continue to indulge in very poor attempts at character assassination then you are wasting your time.

Your continued avoidance of direct questions and challenges simply highlights and reinforces the weakness of your faith/belief.

Why are you so afraid to put forward for scrutiny someone who you believe has the powers you have such faith in? As I suggested in a previous post, maybe you are wavering and your faith is shaken? Or maybe you are also a charlatan trying to defend the indefensible fraudulent behaviour of you and other so called mediums and psychics?

DD, any impression portrayed of you as 'raving fanatic' is singularly of your own doing.

Sticking to the point - as Tolman so gallantly put forward in your defence:
DD doesn't just sit down and makes up what he wants to be the truth and then pretend it's true - he actually bothers to go out and try and find out what people think, and for no obvious financial gain.
The emboldened and highlighted portion of that sentence, to my way of thinking, is an admirable and essential quality attributable to any individual who advocates reasoning and understanding. *Understanding Colin Fry's Readings*

As a starting point:
the survey was a prototype test to guage the motivations of people attending a paid for performance by someone who claims to be able to communicate with the dead.
It would be most interesting and advantageous to learn the outcome of such a survey - assuming of course that it has been carried out in a fair and unbiased manner.

Croydon Bob

9th January 2009, 02:17 PM

DD, any impression portrayed of you as 'raving fanatic' is singularly of your own doing.

Rubbish. You have engaged in pathetic personal attacks while totally failing to respond meaningfully to Dick's posts. There's clearly only one 'raving fanatic' on this thread and it's you. Either write something worth reading or crawl back under your rock, this is getting boring.

tolman

9th January 2009, 02:20 PM

DD, any impression portrayed of you as 'raving fanatic' is singularly of your own doing.
I beg to differ with that assertion.

It's perfectly rational to consider fraudulent mediumship (which certainly and obviously exists) to be a despicable practice which preys on the vulnerable for personal gain, just as one would disparage any other kind of criminal fraud.

When the best (indeed, the only) evidence for the existence of real mediums is anecdotal evidence, typically from the same kind of people likely to be taken in by the self-convinced-medium, the charlatan, or the honest magician proving a point, it also seems perfectly rational to adopt the position of disbelieving in the existence of real mediums until somewhat better evidence is forthcoming.

The emboldened and highlighted portion of that sentence, to my way of thinking, is an admirable and essential quality attributable to any individual who advocates reasoning and understanding. *Understanding Colin Fry's Readings*

Could you explain the last bit of that quote - it's not obvious what relation the last 4 words are meant to have with the preceding sentence.

polomint38

9th January 2009, 03:15 PM

Can we have a list of said questions?

Also any data regarding the answers given by those you managed to talk to?

FarSideOfTheMoon

9th January 2009, 05:10 PM

As a starting point:
It would be most interesting and advantageous to learn the outcome of such a survey - assuming of course that it has been carried out in a fair and unbiased manner.

What you mean to say is that you are firstly and foremost interested in the protocol used as opposed to just dismissing or accepting the study based on the outcome. I've got that right, yes?

NorthernSoul

9th January 2009, 05:28 PM

What you mean to say is that you are firstly and foremost interested in the protocol used as opposed to just dismissing or accepting the study based on the outcome. I've got that right, yes?

I doubt it. Irrelevent of the questions asked, should they be posted, if the statistics show anything Nasib's interpretation of the world disagrees with, then she will claim the results have been fabricated or weasel out of it some other way, but I fully support seeing the results of any survey DD has conducted.

tolman

9th January 2009, 06:24 PM

It would be most interesting and advantageous to learn the outcome of such a survey - assuming of course that it has been carried out in a fair and unbiased manner.
Oh, if only Mr Fry's assistants agreed with you. From what DD said, it seems like they were rather keen for the survey not to take place at all.

Of course, that reluctance to allow people to collect information is entirely understandable, even with a survey carried out with the greatest sensitivity and objectivity, since unless the audience are unanimously of the opinion that the psychic stuff is all just a bit of entertainment, and they're only turning up to see someone pretend to be a psychic, it would seem that Mr 'Trumpet Cheat' Fry is profiting financially from the belief of some people that he is actually psychic, and that belief seems likely to have been encouraged to a significant extent by his promotional materials and the claims he makes about his abilities.

Matt

9th January 2009, 07:02 PM

Can we have a list of said questions?

Also any data regarding the answers given by those you managed to talk to?

All in good time. I've collated the data and produced an internal report but it needs tidying up for prime time. Unfortunately I've other priorities at the moment.

Nasib

9th January 2009, 07:04 PM

Rubbish. You have engaged in pathetic personal attacks while totally failing to respond meaningfully to Dick's posts. There's clearly only one 'raving fanatic' on this thread and it's you. Either write something worth reading or crawl back under your rock, this is getting boring.

Croydon Bob,
Don't you think retaliation with ad hom such as this merely nulls the objective of the message you're trying to convey there?
----------------------------------

Tolman said:

Originally Posted by Nasib

The emboldened and highlighted portion of that sentence, to my way of thinking, is an admirable and essential quality attributable to any individual who advocates reasoning and understanding. *Understanding Colin Fry's Readings*

Could you explain the last bit of that quote - it's not obvious what relation the last 4 words are meant to have with the preceding sentence.

Yes, Tolman. It relates to what you said about DD (the bit in red) he actually bothers to go out and try and find out what people think.
and what I was actually trying to say is that I admire that in DD (if only there were more individuals who would do the same) and sticking to the point as DD suggested (the point being the subject of the thread 'Understanding Colin Fry's Readings'), it seems apparent to me [now] that the purpose of the 'survey' is to do just that. i.e. starting with how people judge those readings and the reasons why they go to these events in the first place might go a little way towards 'Understanding Colin Fry's Readings'.

------------------------------------

Farside,
Yes, you've got it right.
------------------------------------

NorthernSoul,
Your silly assumptions are just ... well... silly.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I second Polomint's post (well third it really, because I thought that's what I had already asked!).
.

tolman

9th January 2009, 08:20 PM

DD seems to be interested in understanding Fry's audience, not his readings.

If only one knew exactly who the people were who objected to the survey being done, and what their other responsibilities might have been, that might have gone some way towards explaining Fry's readings, if not in a way that Fry might like.

polomint38

9th January 2009, 08:29 PM

I second Polomint's post (well third it really, because I thought that's what I had already asked!).

I asked this for different reasons than you, do not associate my name with your own, it is an insult.

Nasib

9th January 2009, 09:25 PM

I asked this for different reasons than you, do not associate my name with your own, it is an insult.

1. Oh, I'm pretty much aware of what your reasons are.
2. You don't KNOW what my reasons might be.
3. Whatever the reasons may be, we both agree to the idea.

Result of our "association" - a happy medium. (excuse the pun)

If you choose to take that as an insult, I guess that's your problem to deal with.

ZERO

9th January 2009, 09:45 PM

Nasib,

I too would like to know who you would consider a genuine psychic.

Your reluctance to do so really comes across as evading a difficult question. I think you know whoever you put forward will be shown as a fake.

tolman

9th January 2009, 11:23 PM

Your reluctance to do so really comes across as evading a difficult question. I think you know whoever you put forward will be shown as a fake.
That may be a bit strong.

Just as it's unlikely that anyone Nasib nominated could demonstrate actual psychic ability to an objective and sufficiently aware audience, since that doesn't actually seem to have happened in the past, it may well also be rather unlikely that they'd do anything sufficiently bad to cause Nasib to lose faith in them, let alone the idea of mediumship.

Even when a medium is caught cheating, that's hardly likely to convince people who really want/need to believe - the odd failure can easily be rationalised away, as it frequently has in the past, either as an abberation on the part of someone otherwise genuine, or in more extreme cases as that person turning out to be a fraud, but that having no effect on the believer's belief in any other medium, or mediumship in general.

For heaven's sake, Sylvia Browne is still in business, so there are presumably some fraction of believers around who believe even she is genuinely psychic, which must give hope to all but the most egregiously incompetent charlatans that you really can fool some of the people all of the time.

filippo lippi

10th January 2009, 11:08 AM

Trinoc

10th January 2009, 11:23 AM

Nasib claimed to have powers herself.
Then I presume she knows what the next question is ...

Julia

10th January 2009, 11:32 AM

tolman

10th January 2009, 11:58 AM

I can't help thinking that the reason believers are so loathe to identify even the most outrageously bogus "psychics" or similar con artists as frauds is because they're afraid of creating a domino effect - expose one and you'll inadvertantly expose others who use exactly the same methods to achieve their effects.
Might it not be a more internal matter? Many believers are reluctant to acknowledge to themselves that person X is a fake (unless X is exceptionally incompetent) because that might force them to think about whether the people they believe in are genuine.
Even when they come to think that X is a fake, their coping mechanism might simply be to try and ignore X completely, rather than actually think about them.

If there's some easy way to draw a line between the fake and genuine, it may be easier for a believer to judge the fakes without risking their own belief.
In religion, for example, some people are quite happy, or even eager, to define most/all other religions (or even most/all other varieties of their own religion) as being more or less false or mistaken, as long as there's a simple, thought-free way for them to keep believing that their belief is OK, even when it's obvious to any observer that the justification, arguments and evidence that that believer uses are effectively the same as the ones used by everyone else.
On the other hand, some believers are quite reluctant to judge other believers, possibly because they realise that deep down, their arguments aren't really better than anyone else's, and their particular choice of religion is probably an accident of birth.

Matt

10th January 2009, 12:03 PM

A question for Nasib:

Do you consider Gary Mannion's healing powers to be genuine?

If not, would you be willing to say so on believer forums and thereby help to stop him exploiting people?

I can't help thinking that the reason believers are so loathe to identify even the most outrageously bogus "psychics" or similar con artists as frauds is because they're afraid of creating a domino effect - expose one and you'll inadvertantly expose others who use exactly the same methods to achieve their effects.

http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/locked-thread-gary-mannion-t306-1100.html#14235

I have to say, I saw no evidence whatsoever of any spiritual healing or trance activity taking place in that room.

Doesn't seem to be much evidence of a domino effect on the SpiritLove forum since the believers there started expressing strong doubts about Gary.

Dubious Dick

10th January 2009, 12:04 PM

Julia et al, I think that, to her credit, Nasib (aka KitKat) and others have questioned Mannions validity over on Spiritlove. They seem to be pursuing the line that there are indeed fraudsters/fakes out there, but that some so called mediums/psychics are real and the baduns give the gooduns a bad name. So far I have not found any other denunciations on that site though. Of course, they have a problem because as soon as they do denounce one as a fake, they have to start looking more critically at all of them, and this is a can of worms they must be reluctant to open.

The problem remains that Nasib will not answer the direct question as to who she would put forward as genuine, and continues to try to divert the argument away from testing, to my/our motivations and approach. On one hand she accuses me of blind fanatacism, and then claims this is not a personal attack...go figure! Also you can check out their thread where they attack me following my earlier questions regarding the Consumer Protection regulations and lack of effective implementation/disclaimers. A whole stream of bs about swatting mosquitoes etc. A highly credible response, don't you think?

As to the survey and it's results, Matt has answered the questions about release of the survey and it's results. Must apologise to those of you who have a genuine skeptical interest in this but it would be a serious mistake to allow the psychic community a chance to come up with defences against what we are doing before we can use the knowledge/ information we have gained from what was a preliminary test exercise. Quite good to keep them guessing as well. After all, if they were really psychic, surely they would know what was going on in detail anyway! They could ask their spirit guides to get the info, couldn't they?

It would be interesting to know if Nasib knows Colin Fry personally? That would certainly explain her efforts to get more info on what the survey is all about, and appearances are that she has a need to defend him despite his record as a faker, and cold (probably hot) reader.

I've noticed an interesting correlation between the use of the term 'Reading'. Seems this is a term often used by so called psychics and mediums for what they claim to do. Fits nicely with the terms hot and cold reading i.e. that the 'medium' or 'psychic' is actually reading the sitter and not communicating with dead people at all.

Nasib

10th January 2009, 01:00 PM

No, I don't know Colin Fry. I have no hidden agenda, and my interest in the survey is purely personal.

There is a question elsewhere on these forums 'Do you use skepticism in everyday life?' You might be surprised to learn that my reply to that question would be a firm 'yes'; always have done and always will.

Dubious Dick

10th January 2009, 01:13 PM

Right Nasib, let's get skeptical together. Who do you think really does have medium/psychic powers? Let's apply skepticism properly to them and we can all be jolly happy, non-fanatic, fully sighted skeptics together!!

Nasib

10th January 2009, 01:39 PM

lol, DD - I'm just a little bit sceptical about your motives for asking me that question in this arena. ::)

Trinoc

10th January 2009, 01:42 PM

lol, DD - I'm just a little bit sceptical about your motives for asking me that question in this arena. ::)

For heaven's sake, answer the damned question! Just name ONE psychic of any persuasion that you firmly believe to be genuine!

tolman

10th January 2009, 01:48 PM

lol, DD - I'm just a little bit sceptical about your motives for asking me that question in this arena. ::)

Do you believe DD has the power to make you abandon your belief in a medium who you believe to be genuine *and* who actually is genuine?

If not, what are you worried DD might do?

Trinoc

10th January 2009, 01:55 PM

Do you believe DD has the power to make you abandon your belief in a medium who you believe to be genuine *and* who actually is genuine?

If not, what are you worried DD might do?
DD is really a Warlock pretending to be a skeptic. If you tell him the name of a genuine psychic he can weave a spell that can turn anyone away from the path of true belief and towards the path of doubt that leads to eternal damnation (or at least a life free from any more mystical nonsense).

Matt

10th January 2009, 02:02 PM

http://www.psychic-tv.com/henry-cumming

Dubious Dick

10th January 2009, 02:08 PM

lol, DD - I'm just a little bit sceptical about your motives for asking me that question in this arena. ::)

Not a warlock as suggested. I am the evil satan out to cause turmoil and discord amongst believers. I will bring destruction and death to believers in a fiery pit of hell. Perhaps a bit of toenail extraction beforehand for good measure!!>:D

Look, Nasib, please try to get this straight. As you are a believer, all I am asking you to do is name someone (or more than one person) who you believe really does have psychic/medium powers. It is simply my intention, and that of others here to explore whether these really exist. Of course, we start from a position of not believing since we have no evidence, despite the issue having been around for many a long year, but I am not dissembling when I say that if I see credible, replicable evidence then I will become a believer.

So, once again, over to you. There is no ulterior motive for asking the question on this forum. You are here so I ask here. Oh, and I do not understand what it means to be a little bit skeptical. Either one is skeptical or one is not.

tolman

10th January 2009, 02:10 PM

http://www.psychic-tv.com/henry-cumming

"Henry is a clairvoyant, clairsentient and clairaudient. ... only in the last five years has decided to put it to good use in helping others. He has a very down to earth approach to life"

"Calls cost £1.50 per minute from BT landlines"Seems like he has a fairly down-to earth approach to helping himself.

Dubious Dick

10th January 2009, 02:13 PM

http://www.psychic-tv.com/henry-cumming

Blimey, only £1.50 a minute. What a bargain!!

Matt, Are you answering the question for Nasib?

NorthernSoul

10th January 2009, 04:30 PM

Nasib,

As I understand it, you believe you have psychic powers. What sort of evidence would you accept to demonstrate you don't?

My reason for asking is simple, I want to gauge whether it is worth discussing these subjects with you, or is there nothing that will change your mind.

Julia

10th January 2009, 09:21 PM

"Henry is a clairvoyant, clairsentient and clairaudient. ... only in the last five years has decided to put it to good use in helping others. He has a very down to earth approach to life"

"Calls cost £1.50 per minute from BT landlines"

Yes, but is he clairmultient? :cheesy:

filippo lippi

10th January 2009, 09:41 PM

Nasib describes her powers in this thread

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1808

Pebble

10th January 2009, 11:45 PM

s 'Do you use skepticism in everyday life?' You might be surprised to learn that my reply to that question would be a firm 'yes'; always have done and always will.

From your previous post, referred to above, some questions arise:

The blue-grey aura that Lara has referred to is the Etheric Body, the aura's first layer.

1. Objective evidence that such a layer exists?

The densest part, the easiest layer to see, blue-grey in colour, it extends about two inches out from the physical body.

2. Objective evidence for its colour and depth?

This auric layer acts as a bridge between our physical and subtle bodies.

3. Objective evidence that said layer should it exist conducts anything between the body and outside world?

It contains structures which allow us to absorb ki from the surrounding environment and to process it before it becomes part of the physical body.

4. Objective evidence that said layer has a structure, undertakes active processing, actively absorbs anything, makes anything part of the body?

It also acts as a kind of mould or template for the form which our physical body actually takes, and as such retains its structure after the physical body has 'died'.

5. Objective evidence that said layer has an independent structured existence (having first provided evidence it has a structure), and persists beyond death?

The colour red seen in the aura depending on the density or shade, can indeed denote anger, stress, determination, but can also be a form of heat detection pinpointing an area of the physical body where there may be pain caused by inflammation, swelling of the joints or such other blockages in the overall flow of the body's energy.

6. Objective evidence that said change in colour does occur, and evidence that when compared to standard techniques localises disease with comparable or superior accuracy?

Given your claim to use skepticism in your every day life, and that further posts indicate that the above is an everyday experience for you, care to apply a standard skeptical approach to the above?

As I am confident you will have noted by now, personal testimony, or the opinions of those about you at the time do not meet the required standard for application of a skeptical approach.

Nasib

11th January 2009, 01:18 AM

I was sceptical of DD's motives. I used the word sceptical (with a 'c'). I do believe there is a difference. Why, even amongst the skeptics there is disagreement as to what constitutes true 'skepticism'.

I do not profess to call myself a skeptic, at least not in the terms to which it is usually associated (where matters of a paranormal nature are concerned) - but as to approaching most things in a generally sceptical nature, then yes, I would adhere to that form of scepticism that allows room for constant questioning, exploration, personal experience - and a change of mind based on evidence (and being sceptical as to the source of that evidence). What it doesn't accept is cynicism, dogmatic dictation, third party accounts and 'facts' based on hearsay.

Admin

11th January 2009, 01:39 AM

I was sceptical of DD's motives. I used the word sceptical (with a 'c'). I do believe there is a difference. Why, even amongst the skeptics there is disagreement as to what constitutes true 'skepticism'.

I do not profess to call myself a skeptic, at least not in the terms to which it is usually associated (where matters of a paranormal nature are concerned) - but as to approaching most things in a generally sceptical nature, then yes, I would adhere to that form of scepticism that allows room for constant questioning, exploration, personal experience - and a change of mind based on evidence (and being sceptical as to the source of that evidence). What it doesn't accept is cynicism, dogmatic dictation, third party accounts and 'facts' based on hearsay.

I'm afraid that merely illustrates that you have no idea of what skepticism is at all.

MischiefMonkey

11th January 2009, 02:03 AM

First disclaimer - this in no way is an attack on Nasib.
Second Disclaimer - these are just general thoughts of mine and completely open to utter debunking.

In dog training there is a concept know as 'generalisation'. The meaning of this is, the ability to use knowledge gained in one situation in another situation.

In general, dog's have difficulty 'generalizing'. Teach a 'sit' command in your living room until perfected, then clip on the lead and take the dog to a kerb and ask it to sit and it will look at you gone out. You then have to teach the dog 'Sit at the road sit' separately to 'sit in the lounge'

The sit you taught in your lounge is a good basis and might work(especially if you have a Collie), but can't always be applied elsewhere without additional training.

With believers I have found an inability to 'generalise'. Being shown one 'psychic' such as Mannion, is a fraud, they are unable to 'generalise' the same rational to another.

I'm not comparing believers to dogs, just thinking about 'learning processes' whether dog or human.

Pebble

11th January 2009, 09:40 AM

I was sceptical of DD's motives. I used the word sceptical (with a 'c'). I do believe there is a difference. Why, even amongst the skeptics there is disagreement as to what constitutes true 'skepticism'.

Not sure such a fine distinction (k vs c) has any meaning I can see. As to DD's motives, I would have thought they are so transparent that you might disapprove of them, but scepticism?

SIZE=2]I do not profess to call myself a skeptic, at least not in the terms to which it is usually associated (where matters of a paranormal nature are concerned)

So if I read this correctly, paranormal stuff is a belief, not an area for intellectual inquiry, not disprovable, with no evidence based requirements.

but as to approaching most things in a generally sceptical nature, then yes, I would adhere to that form of scepticism that allows room for constant questioning, exploration, personal experience - and a change of mind based on evidence (and being sceptical as to the source of that evidence).

Room for questioning is a little vague, even in religion there is room for questioning, its just there are limits to toleration of application of evidence. The toleration of said limits is a very luke warm form of scepticism.

it doesn't accept is cynicism, dogmatic dictation, third party accounts and 'facts' based on hearsay.[/SIZE]

Now this confuses me. If stuff to do with the paranormal is not open to the kind of rigorous question I have put, then are you not being dogmatic? Mabey not to others but to yourself.

Scepticism may appear cynical to believers, the difference lies in the ability to change ones mind where the evidence is supportive, and the desire to seek such evidence in an open and unbiased fashion. When, however, considerable evidence is presented by a sceptical person to another, and all independent evidence is continually rejected, the language of the sceptic and cynic can become indistinguishable. I certainly think applying the term cynic to DD is unfair.

Third party accounts - odd this - nothing you have not seen for yourself or replicated yourself, can be accepted?

Trinoc

11th January 2009, 11:22 AM

You're wasting your time, Pebble. It is an axiom of woo belief that objective evidence is not required, and is frequently completely contrary to the "truth" as they see it.

Nasib

11th January 2009, 11:29 AM

John Jackson
I'm afraid that merely illustrates that you have no idea of what skepticism is at all
.

Maybe so, John, but I am trying.

Mischief Monkey
With believers I have found an inability to 'generalise'. Being shown one 'psychic' such as Mannion, is a fraud, they are unable to 'generalise' the same rational to another.

Mischief Monkey,

I recognise what you are saying. I too have found this to be the case with a large percentage of 'believers'. On the other hand, the same thing applies to a portion of the 'skeptic' camp, albeit on a much smaller scale.

The main fault with this 'generalisation' lies in the imaginary definitive line that exists between 'believers' and 'skeptics'. For some, it seems to be a clear case of either/or, with no recognition of a middle ground. I believe the middle ground has an important role to play in helping to break down some of the barriers.

-----------------------------

Pebble,

Ever had one of those days where you wished you'd kept your thoughts to yourself and kept your big trap shut? That's me. What I was trying to convey there has come out twisted and misunderstood. I guess some things are better kept to onesself.

With the best of intentions,
Nasib

Pebble

11th January 2009, 11:54 AM

.

Pebble,

Ever had one of those days where you wished you'd kept your thoughts to yourself and kept your big trap shut? That's me. What I was trying to convey there has come out twisted and misunderstood. I guess some things are better kept to onesself.

With the best of intentions,
Nasib

All the time, if I don't screw up massively at least once a year then I consider that a wasted year. I find that I gain most insight into my 'blind spots' when my guard is down, but I sure kick myself when I do it in public. That's what I like about this forum I can be completely stupid or excessively certain and deal with the consequences in private.

Tim the Mage

11th January 2009, 12:14 PM

I was sceptical of DD's motives. What it doesn't accept is cynicism, dogmatic dictation, third party accounts and 'facts' based on hearsay.

What you call 'scepticism of motives' is, in modern philosophic terms, cynicism. You believe DD's motives to be other that those he has expressed. Scepticism on the other hand (if I may confuse you by describing it in classical terms - but unlike cynicism the understanding has not really changed) is about enquiry rather than motive - so long as the enquiry is conducted fairly the motives of the enquirer are irrelevant:

Scepticism (from the Greek, skeptesthai, 'to examine') is the philosophical view that it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, or to know the world as it 'really' is. The word can also mean a general reluctance to accept anything on face value without sufficient proof. http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/scepticism8.htm

'Skepticism' - as understood here - is the application of that philosophical position to a set of activities in our modern world that might be described as 'beliefs' but which have been persistent in resisting the search for objective proof.

This is demonstrated by your avoidance of the straightforward request for a person or person(s) acknowledged to have psychic powers to submit those powers to fair enquiry. I could be very cynical about your reasons for refusing to assist- or even to direct DD to those who might assist this enquiry. You might also find your way to answering (I think) Mulder's question on another thread regarding the nature of spirit communication.

tolman

11th January 2009, 12:15 PM

With believers I have found an inability to 'generalise'. Being shown one 'psychic' such as Mannion, is a fraud, they are unable to 'generalise' the same rational to another.
It's understandable that someone wouldn't let one person being shown to be a fraud to affect their belief in a second person, if they thought there was real evidence of that second person being genuine, and they'd always thought was of higher quality than the evidence in favour of the first person.

However, a person, even if once believed in only by other people, subsequently being shown to be a fraud should be seen as evidence that frauds can appear credible to at least some people for at least some amount of time.
At the very least, that should cause sensible people to try and think how certain they are that their own judgements of the people they believe in are better than the failed judgements of the people who mistakenly believed in the fraud?
Of course, if someone can maintain a fiction that there are loads of evil raving fanatitical unbelievers desperate to strip them of their faith, that might help them to avoid actually thinking too much about their evidence, which is of course, why that fiction is encouraged by all sorts of religious, spiritual and political belief systems

On the other hand, while there may be some people who follow many psychics/mediums/etc, other people may stick to one or two, presumably because at some level they feel those people are somewhat better than the others.
People in that latter situation might easily feel that one of the others being exposed as a fraud was actually evidence in favour of their own good judgement, and could end up taking it as a slightly positive sign.

It might take an lot of high-profile exposures of fakes to have any overall effect on such a person.

Dubious Dick

12th January 2009, 04:01 PM

Maybe so, John, but I am trying.

Well, that's good to hear!!

What don't you quite understand about the skeptical approach? The sweet thing about it is that is really quite simple. It does not require a complicated and indefinable belief system which cannot provide the same benefits as reality, for it is in reality that we see beauty. It does not require anything other.

The main fault with this 'generalisation' lies in the imaginary definitive line that exists between 'believers' and 'skeptics'. For some, it seems to be a clear case of either/or, with no recognition of a middle ground. I believe the middle ground has an important role to play in helping to break down some of the barriers.
With the best of intentions,
Nasib

It is not either/or! There is no middle ground without the basis of evidence. The line you refer to is a definitive gap of knowledge i.e. believers believe they have knowledge of something but cannot or will not prove they have this knowledge.. Without evidence, skeptics will not believe anything.

There you have your gap. It is only bridgeable in the end if believers bring evidence.

To help with your understanding of skepticism. let me repeat the basic idea that we are not trying to sell you anything. We only, at heart, (despite some of the mickey taking and bemusement we can express at times) espouse a process by which to distinguish between the real and unreal.

We are, I think, trying to become immune to wasting time, energy and money on the least likely theories of the meaning of liff.

Croydon Bob

12th January 2009, 04:33 PM

With believers I have found an inability to 'generalise'. Being shown one 'psychic' such as Mannion, is a fraud, they are unable to 'generalise' the same rational to another.

Yup. I've found the same with the UFOnuts. Every time one sighting is discredited they just move on to the next one. There's always a new video that hasn't been discredited yet; and then, when it has been, there's another new video to believe in. Graham Hancock's followers are also the same. Everything in his first book was rubbish, they know that, haven't you read his latest book with the new theories in it?

Mulder

12th January 2009, 05:14 PM

I think there IS a middle ground between believers and skeptics!

Specifically, I believe that some people have experiences that they interpret as paranormal. It does not mean they are gullible, telling lies or stupid. They are faced with an experience that they don't understand and, because of prior bias from films, TV, books, etc their brains interpret it as paranormal.

The person who sees Venus as an alien spacecraft definitely saw something. They are simply unfamiliar with the planet Venus and they will literally see a space craft. It's because the 'picture in our head' is created only partly from what our eyes see. The rest comes from memory. If something is unfamiliar and/or not seen well, it can be 'substituted' by our brains before we 'see' it. So, the witness literally sees a space craft!

NorthernSoul

12th January 2009, 05:18 PM

Mulder

12th January 2009, 05:25 PM

Forgive me Mulder, how is that an example of a middle ground between skeptics and believers...just sounds like a believer to me...

Ho, ho! I think a believer would point out that in my example the experiencer doesn't see a nuts and bolts spacecraft - it is a misperception generated in their brain. As such, I think they would consider it skeptical.

That's the way the 'middle ground' - you just get zapped from both sides. :smiley:

tolman

12th January 2009, 05:28 PM

Ho, ho! I think a believer would point out that in my example the experiencer doesn't see a nuts and bolts spacecraft - it is a misperception generated in their brain. As such, I think they would consider it skeptical.
I'm confused by that - you say a believer would call someone who thinks they saw a spaceraft a skeptic?

NorthernSoul

12th January 2009, 05:31 PM

Mulders been drinking me thinks.

Mulder

12th January 2009, 05:37 PM

I'm saying that people can have perfectly valid experiences, which they genuinely believe are paranormal, but they may not be what they seem. In the example I gave (which must have got mangled somewhere - sorry), a person was looking at Venus but 'saw' a spacecraft. Their eyes saw Venus but their brain substituted a spacecraft, from their visual memory, because they were not familiar with Venus and believed in UFOs.

It's important to realise that 'seeing' is a brain thing. It uses the output from the eyes but also takes contributions from visual memory when something isn't seen well or is unfamiliar. It's been likened to a virtual reality setup which mixes real pictures with animations.

Sometimes you may think you see a person in your peripheral vision (I've had this several times). As you turn to look at them, they vanish! All you see is a tree that vaguely resembles a human figure! Because peripheral vision isn't that great, your brain turned the tree into a person. As you turned around, the brain realised its mistake so that the person 'vanished'. I'm sure many ghost sightings are just like this.

Croydon Bob

12th January 2009, 05:39 PM

Someone in the middle ground between believer and skeptic is usually called a 'fortean' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortean . At their best they are entertaining and intelligent but all too often they are fence-sitters and believers. The better ones often become skeptics over a period of time.

Admin

12th January 2009, 05:50 PM

I think there IS a middle ground between believers and skeptics!

No. Because 'skeptic' is not the opposite of 'believer'.

It may get used that way by those who don't understand what skepticism is, but they're wrong.

Specifically, I believe that some people have experiences that they interpret as paranormal. It does not mean they are gullible, telling lies or stupid. They are faced with an experience that they don't understand and, because of prior bias from films, TV, books, etc their brains interpret it as paranormal.

Which is exactly what a skeptic's stance would be - we don't doubt the experiences, we question people's interpretation of them.

The person who sees Venus as an alien spacecraft definitely saw something. They are simply unfamiliar with the planet Venus and they will literally see a space craft. It's because the 'picture in our head' is created only partly from what our eyes see. The rest comes from memory. If something is unfamiliar and/or not seen well, it can be 'substituted' by our brains before we 'see' it. So, the witness literally sees a space craft!

Agreed. That's a description of a misattribution. Exactly the sort of possible explanation a skeptic would seek to explain an experience.

SKEPTIC DOES NOT MEAN DISBELIEVER OR DENIER (!)

.

tolman

12th January 2009, 06:39 PM

I'm saying that people can have perfectly valid experiences, which they genuinely believe are paranormal, but they may not be what they seem.
Isn't that rather the definition of a believer, if they continue to think they saw what they thought they saw at the time?
If they come to see what they saw as an illusion, that would indicate they had a reasonable amount of skepticism about them.

It's important to realise that 'seeing' is a brain thing. It uses the output from the eyes but also takes contributions from visual memory when something isn't seen well or is unfamiliar. It's been likened to a virtual reality setup which mixes real pictures with animations.
Quite - arguably, seeing the process of making a model which involves a large amount of the brain generating educated guesses and then eliminating the ones which conflict with visual input.

Sometimes you may think you see a person in your peripheral vision (I've had this several times). As you turn to look at them, they vanish! All you see is a tree that vaguely resembles a human figure! Because peripheral vision isn't that great, your brain turned the tree into a person. As you turned around, the brain realised its mistake so that the person 'vanished'. I'm sure many ghost sightings are just like this.
I had an experience like that myself, probably already described somewhere, while I was tired after a long journey, half-asleep, in an unfamiliar place, answering a beer-fuelled small-hours call of nature, on a dimly-lit and slightly misty riverside campsite, while not wearing my [fairly mild] glasses.
In one sense, it seemed perfectly real, even looking straight at it, yet it didn't cause any curiosity or fear, or stop me carrying on with the call of nature, so obviously, however real it looked, I somehow didn't take it remotely seriously either.

I guess this is a more common experience for children (monsters under the bed, etc), possibly because they just don't have as much accumulated experience of strange things turning out to have perfectly ordinary explanations.

Mulder

12th January 2009, 07:01 PM

No. Because 'skeptic' is not the opposite of 'believer'.

I don't recall saying they were opposite (maybe someone else did upthread). However, I think everyone here would agree they are different, otherwise Dubious Dick and Nasib would agree on lots more things. Thus, if they are not the same, there can still be a 'middle ground' (just as blue isn't red but they're not 'opposite' and purple is in the 'middle').

It may get used that way by those who don't understand what skepticism is, but they're wrong.

Maybe so. There seem to be lots of things that skepticism is NOT but I'm left a little hazy about what it IS.

I'm afraid I pick up my impressions of what it IS from what people here post. There is, for instance, a noticeable tendency to regard stage psychics as frauds. Maybe they are, but I can see how someone could persuade themselves they were psychic and even, innocently, make a career out of it.

Which is exactly what a skeptic's stance would be - we don't doubt the experiences, we question people's interpretation of them.
Agreed. That's a description of a misattribution. Exactly the sort of possible explanation a skeptic would seek to explain an experience.

What I'm describing is normal perception. We all 'misattribute' stuff from time to time without even being aware of it. We might pass someone we know in the street without recognition, despite looking straight at them, because (a) we don't expect them there and (b) they don't acknowledge us.

The point is that people are literally 'seeing' (remember it's a brain thing not an eye thing) things as their brains interpret them, not necessarily as they really are. If you see something you tend to believe it and think of it as real evidence. Thus 'believers' can build up their beliefs on the evidence of what they've seen, even if it is not literally, physically real. A believer may have perfectly good reasons for their belief, backed up with their own (albeit subjective) evidence.

If someone can outline for me the differences between skepticism and belief, I think i could outline a middle ground.

Nasib

12th January 2009, 07:59 PM

Hi,
Various extracted quotes where I am in agreement:

John Jackson
'skeptic' is not the opposite of 'believer'.

Mulder
I think there IS a middle ground between believers and skeptics!

Croydon Bob
Someone in the middle ground between believer and skeptic is usually called a 'fortean'

Me
Why, even amongst the skeptics there is disagreement as to what constitutes true 'skepticism'.

and to Dubious Dick: (I'm a little sce ... er dubious of your motives for your choice of green ink in your reply to me .. (?)

we are not trying to sell you anything. Never even crossed my mind that you were!

DD - Deeply implanted in my being is the memory of the eloquently-phrased outpourings of a fervently passionate, determined soul on a mission ('woo bashing' I believe was the terminology, amongst others ...)
That historical speech sparked a flame in me from whence a personal quest of matching passion has sprung...

The way I see it, the only way to reduce that flame to a flicker would be for us to agree to disagree. x
-----------------------------------------------

Never heard of that geezer, Graham Hancock. Have to look him up.

.

Admin

12th January 2009, 08:04 PM

Mulder, I don't know if you realise this, but there's hardly a single thing that you write that I disagree with!

You often write stuff like in your last post regarding psychological explanations and it could have come straight from me (I'm doing a psychology degree BTW).

Your approach to 'paranormal' claims seems to be a one of acceptance of the experiences, try not to prejudge the outcome, investigate scientifically, and look for normal explanations first and then if not found look for more psychological or unusual but still normal (xenonormal) answers before even entertaining paranormal ones.

That is skepticism in action!

Mulder - you are a skeptic. O0 ;D

Skepticism is a method of inquiry and when we're talking about empirical claims it's basically just the scientific method.

Now I know you don't like links but here's a small article I wrote outlining the misuse of the word 'skeptic'. http://www.ukskeptics.com/cms/on-skeptics-skeptics-and-skeptics/ (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/../cms/on-skeptics-skeptics-and-skeptics/)

I wish skeptics would take note and use the term appropriately as I've been banging on for 2 or 3 years now. Every time someone comes out with something like "are you a believer or a skeptic?" (or equivalent) it simply reinforces the misperception of what skeptics are - and skeptics are often as guilty of doing this as anyone else.

Anyway, when I have my degree I might refer to myself as a scientist instead then I won't need to spend time worrying about semantics etc. ;D

dalriada

12th January 2009, 08:15 PM

Admin

12th January 2009, 08:18 PM

Proof of Telepathy? "PSI" in Action?? >:D;D

;D ;D ;D

Does that mean I can plagiarise his work coz it was really all mine? :ponder:

Tim the Mage

12th January 2009, 09:48 PM

John, I don't particularly wish to prolong the debate but surely 'skepticism' isn't simply a method but is more the desire to apply an empirical method to the exploration of matters that others accept on the basis of belief?

I think this distinction is important as otherwise 'skepticism' simply becomes an adherence to method - difficult to disciminate this from a 'belief'. One does not have to be a sceptic to accept the offer of 'skepticism' presented here, merely to acknowledge the validity of scientific method.

It is perfectly possible for a 'believer' to accept 'skeptical' enquiry and be prepared to change his mind on the basis of that enquiry's outcomes. The problem comes: 1) when the believer refuses to co-operate with 'skeptical' enquiry; 2) when following skeptical enquiry the believer refuses to acknowledge the evidence. Nasib falls into the first of these categories and I have a tendency to stumble into the latter.

Admin

12th January 2009, 10:49 PM

John, I don't particularly wish to prolong the debate but surely 'skepticism' isn't simply a method but is more the desire to apply an empirical method to the exploration of matters that others accept on the basis of belief?

There are many flavours of skepticism but we are what is termed Scientific Skeptics.

I don't quite agree with all in that article as skepticism is what's used to scrutinise mainstream science and it can also be used, perhaps less formally, to assess claims of any kind in all areas of life.

This is my layman's overview: http://www.ukskeptics.com/what_is_skepticism.php

But, of course, that's my take on it and others may disagree.

.

Admin

12th January 2009, 10:53 PM

One thing I will add though and that's that all skeptics' societies agree that skepticism is a method of inquiry and not a position on matters.

Mulder

13th January 2009, 09:23 AM

Mulder, I don't know if you realise this, but there's hardly a single thing that you write that I disagree with!

Does that make me a sock puppet?

You often write stuff like in your last post regarding psychological explanations and it could have come straight from me (I'm doing a psychology degree BTW).

More neuroscience than psychology ...

Your approach to 'paranormal' claims seems to be a one of acceptance of the experiences, try not to prejudge the outcome, investigate scientifically, and look for normal explanations first and then if not found look for more psychological or unusual but still normal (xenonormal) answers before even entertaining paranormal ones.

Can't disagree. On a practical note, it actually works! Despite over 100 years of scientific enquiry into the paranormal, it is still not even proved. By contrast, a few years of looking into the xenonormal has produced great positive results. What was previously inexplicable is now obvious ...

That is skepticism in action! Mulder - you are a skeptic. O0 ;D

Here is where we differ. I regard it as science and myself as an amateur scientist, in the tradition of the great Victorian amateurs (though without the money, recognition, fame and ... hmmm, why do I even bother ....?)

Trinoc

13th January 2009, 10:30 AM

Xenonormal ... that's a new word to me ... I think I might start using it.

On second thoughts, people will probably think I mean zenonormal ... like the sound of one hand clapping.

Dubious Dick

13th January 2009, 12:38 PM

To clarify the clarifications of the clarifications...sorry, just kidding!

When I say there is no middle ground this is meant in the sense that one cannot be only partially skeptical. Either one applies the method of enquiry and acceptance of evidence universally, or one does not. Selectively does not make sense.

It is sometimes very easy to become dismissive of claimed experiences and their interpretations given the history of some types of claims. This may drift into cynicism at times, but that cynicism is often borne of tiredness with the same old circular debate.

Which neatly brings me back to Nasib, who has kindly pointed out some of my more intemperate comments directed at believers and some of their beliefs. Fact is this thread is just a repeat of so many others.

Believer: I believe
Skeptic: In what and what evidence do you have.
Believer: In fairies at the bottom of the garden (simplistic example) and because I have seen them and so have others.
Skeptic: Let's see if you can provide credible proof.
Believer: But I have seen them.
Skeptic: But anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
Believer: Mary saw them too.
Skeptic: More anecdote.
Believer: So did Terry!
Skeptic: Still anecdotal, let's set up some controlled testing to eliminate cheating/misperception.
Believer: Won't work/disappears in a cloud of smoke/endlessly misinterprets what the testing protocol should be/cries foul or a number of other possible evasions.

So Nasib, back to the question. I think that Colin Fry is a fraud who uses cold and hot reading, and poor acting (have you seen Magnus? What a joke!). Certainly would not recommend any believer putting him forward as the real thing. Still, I am interested to know who you or your friends think really might have something.

I would be willing to place a bet that they did not have any abilities as claimed e.g. talking to the dead, but, as before, I am open to persuasion, as a good skeptic should be.

Same question. Who do you really believe in? And don't worry about the green ink. I've no idea what it might symbolise, because only used to distinguish text (so uselss I have not worked out the quoting in separate boxes yet!)

chaggle

13th January 2009, 02:19 PM

(so uselss I have not worked out the quoting in separate boxes yet!)

Me neither! I'm glad it's not only me. Can someone explain? Do you have to do it is a separate document and paste it to here? Sorry - completely off topic I know.

tolman

13th January 2009, 03:28 PM

Me neither! I'm glad it's not only me. Can someone explain? Do you have to do it is a separate document and paste it to here? Sorry - completely off topic I know.
That depends what you mean by separate boxes.

If you just mean having more than one per post, you either copy the (squarebracket)quote=someone;somenumber(closesquar ebracket)
and
(squarebracket)/quote(closesquarebracket)
to surround each block of quoted text.
Or if you're not bothered about saying who quoted what, just select a block of text and hit the quote icon (the one with the square yellow speech bubble with lines in)

You can also modify the opening 'quote' statement of an icon-generated block by adding '=whoever' after the 'quote', so that rather than

Some rabid nonsense about Europeyou get

Some rabid nonsense about Europe

Mulder

13th January 2009, 03:43 PM

Skeptic: But anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Hmmm. Anecdotal evidence IS evidence, surely. And in some circumstances it would be accepted without question. If you wanted to see a particular individual, and I said I'd seen them recently, I think it is likely you'd hurry off in the direction I'd indicated rather than demanding I demonstrate my alleged observation empirically.

I think 'subjective' is probably a better word than 'anecdotal' when talking about paranormal observations. If someone says they've seen a ghost, I have no reason to doubt them (I've seen human figures that were not physically present myself - though I knew they were misperceptions at the time). Rather it is a question of whether that ghost had any objective reality beyond their brain that is interesting.

Mongrel

13th January 2009, 04:08 PM

T (so uselss I have not worked out the quoting in separate boxes yet!)

Me neither! I'm glad it's not only me. Can someone explain? Do you have to do it is a separate document and paste it to here? Sorry - completely off topic I know.

That depends what you mean by separate boxes

You can also use the "Multi-Quote" button http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Mongrel01/stuff%202/MQuote.jpg. Click it in each post you want to quote and click the normal quote button in the last post. You'll get the quotes in sequence and ready to go :smiley:

For what it's worth tolman, if it works here yay!, the noparse tag will allow you to show code without too much mucking about
test

tolman

13th January 2009, 04:16 PM

Mulder, possibly it's a matter of semantics

When someone says they've seen a ghost, unless they seem likely to be pulling your leg, it's reasonable to conclude that they may well have seen something they thought was a ghost, or at least think they've seen something which they thought was a ghost, but that's not actually much evidence for the actual real-world existence of the spirits of the dead.

Indeed, given a long history of many people seeing all sorts of visions of things which seem unlikely to actually exist, it may be perfectly reasonable to conclude that someone is probably mistaken at the very same time as concluding that they are probably genuine in their belief, and even conclude that in general, anecdotal evidence of things people are frequently mistaken about is often unlikely to be of much value.

When it comes to you saying you'd just seen a particular person in the street who I was looking for, I'd have a deal of prior information to help me instantly judge the plausibility of what your said (knowing the person existed, having some idea of their habits and likely locations, etc).
In that situation, the most effective way to determine if you were telling the truth would also help me achieve my goal of seeing the person, so following your directions would tend to be the best option, unless it seemed likely to be costly/dangerous/whatever.

Dubious Dick

13th January 2009, 10:23 PM

Looks like we're back to ghosts again Mulder.

I understand what you are saying. It boils down to the old adage "perception is reality".

Nevertheless, given that you accept it is likely, on current evidence to be misperception, then let us not beat around the bush. Someone says they have seen a ghost. They believe they have seen a ghost. The very strong odds are that they have not seen a spirit of a dead person, but that their brain has been fooled somehow. That means we can simply cut to the quick and see that they have constructed an image or pattern in their brain of something but that is not there in any substance. Therefore they have perceived a ghost but it is not real. Is that o.k in your way of seeing this?

Anyway, Colin Fray is still a fraud and anyone who says otherwise can come outside for a fight...;D

Mulder

14th January 2009, 10:07 AM

Yeh, it's that old 'what is a ghost' stuff again. My definition is 'a person, or animal, witnessed that cannot be physically present'. I know people disagree with that and want to talk about spirits but I'll come to that.

Most ghost cases turn out, on proper investigation, to be misperception. So, a typical case would involve someone catching a glimpse of a figure that, when they looked harder, vanished! Aha, they think, a ghost!

Now it is, of course, a misperception. As well as 'corner of the eye' phenomena, typical conditions suitable for misperception include a quick glance and low light. So why does the witness think 'ghost'? Because, since birth they have (whether consciously or not) been continually subject to the idea of ghosts as spritis.

So, my argument is that the actual ghost here is what someone witnesses, whether an external or internal image (ie hallucination). The 'spirit' element is the witness's interpretation of the ghost.

This may seem like playing with semantics or logic but there IS a point. If we can redefine the popular concept of ghosts from 'spirits' to 'images of non-present human figures', it refelects real life cases (as opposed to the fictional representation). As I'm sure people here realise, changing the meaning of words can cause cultural shifts. It is through such language shifts that popular modes of thought alter. Isn't that what skepticism is about? Or do you people just want to tell ghost witnesses that they are 'seeing things'? Personally, I find misperception exciting and interesting and the more it is publicised, the more people will realise it is an interesting experience. I've started to gather reports recently and even doing that makes people realise that their brains can do some pretty cool stuff.

For the pedantic, my definition still covers 'spirits' since it contains no interpretation of what the image represents.

Admin

14th January 2009, 01:48 PM

Here is where we differ. I regard it as science and myself as an amateur scientist

Well I would say that's a pretty good description of many skeptics.

However, one reason I do make a distinction between scientists and skeptics (where others don't) is that simply being a scientist isn't enough. Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist but he's not a skeptic (IMO) as he argues way, way beyond what the evidence supports.

I regard skepticism as a mixture of 'scientific thinking' (parsimony, consistency, etc.), rationalism (hypotheses have to make sense), and empiricism (theories are justified by the evidence).

Stick to that approach and you're much more likely to end up being right than being wrong.

This is why it does make me laugh somewhat when people proudly claim not to be skeptics! They're either a Woo or don't know what skepticism actually is and they make themselves look like a Woo.

NorthernSoul

14th January 2009, 05:44 PM

Yeh, it's that old 'what is a ghost' stuff again...

I think it's a good definition but, if I decide the ghost (by your definition) is an alien, then you calling my alien a ghost is only going to confuse me. If I decide that the ghost is anything except a spirit does the perception remain a ghost?

Mulder

14th January 2009, 06:00 PM

The definition includes 'human' or 'animal'. You could obviously produce a similar definition for alien.

dandelion

5th May 2010, 01:06 PM

at the end of each sixth sense program a disclaimer is shown on the screen stating for entertainment only.

FarSideOfTheMoon

5th May 2010, 10:53 PM

at the end of each sixth sense program a disclaimer is shown on the screen stating for entertainment only.

It's not very entertaining though.

tolman

5th May 2010, 11:05 PM

It's not very entertaining though.
Who would be entertained by watching a fake medium pretending to talk to the dead relatives of vulnerable people?

Even when it's done by an honest fake, for the purposes of demonstrating how easy it is to trick people, it's still more than a little disturbing.

FarSideOfTheMoon

8th May 2010, 10:55 PM

Who would be entertained by watching a fake medium pretending to talk to the dead relatives of vulnerable people?

Even when it's done by an honest fake, for the purposes of demonstrating how easy it is to trick people, it's still more than a little disturbing.

I find none of them remotely entertaining. The only way to find them entertaining I assume is to believe in what they are doing. Which makes all these 'entertainment only' disclaimers an absurdity.

I've watched Stockwell, Acorah, Fry, Edwards, van Pragh, Smith, Morgan, all of them, multiple times and yet it's just the same crap done badly. Not remotely entertaining.

Actually I tell a lie, this one IS entertaining:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t07UzTcApMI

Nasib

9th May 2010, 10:58 AM

I've watched Stockwell, Acorah, Fry, Edwards, van Pragh, Smith, Morgan, all of them, multiple times and yet it's just the same crap done badly. Not remotely entertaining.

So what's the draw then? If it's not entertainment, what is it that's pulled you to watch them "multiple times" ?

chaggle

9th May 2010, 11:07 AM

Probably the same reason that some of us here read the Daily Mail - research.

Nasib

9th May 2010, 11:10 AM

Multiple times over? :huh:

FarSideOfTheMoon

9th May 2010, 09:11 PM

So what's the draw then? If it's not entertainment, what is it that's pulled you to watch them "multiple times" ?

Because I want to see the 'best' there supposedly is in action. And I want to learn all the psychological and cold reading tricks they employ. I want to see how people willingly go along and fill in the gaps for them. I want to make sure that I'm not missing something that may imply what they do is real. And I want to be able to rewind and watch it again to count the number of misses and guesses.

(And I know the usual reply that the 'best' is in a spiritualist church or some old lady who doesn't take any payments but is just so accurate etc etc).

Nasib

9th May 2010, 11:47 PM

(And I know the usual reply that the 'best' is in a spiritualist church or some old lady who doesn't take any payments but is just so accurate etc etc).

Yes, because there you are getting it in 'real time', i.e. unedited, as it happens.
I don't think I would be wrong in assuming that on the multiple occasions you have 'watched' those mentioned, you've been watching some considerably edited extracts of recordings (edited either for TV or selectively for negative analysis).

Tony Papard

31st May 2010, 03:00 PM

Yes, because there you are getting it in 'real time', i.e. unedited, as it happens.
I don't think I would be wrong in assuming that on the multiple occasions you have 'watched' those mentioned, you've been watching some considerably edited extracts of recordings (edited either for TV or selectively for negative analysis).

I haven't contributed to this very negative discussion, on a very negative skeptics site, for years. However here's a reading I got from Colin Fry in a crowded Fairfield Halls a few years ago:

Colin: I have a woman called Edith who lived to a good old age in relatively good health, then had an accident and deteriorated quite rapidly after that. She is concerned about a renovation to someone's kitchen which has been botched. Someone stood a hot pan on the new working surface and burnt it, then tried to cover up the damage. This damaged bit is on the left as you walk into the kitchen.

That message was for me, one of several thousand in the auditorium. My maternal grandmother (who looked after my mother following her separation from my dad, and whose last words to me were 'Look after your mother') was named Edith, was in quite good health at age 83 and cooked Christmas dinner and Boxing Day dinner, etc. in 1970. Next day she reached for a saucepan on a high shelf in her kitchen, fell and broke her hip. The hip mended in hospital, but she deteriorated rapidly, and died on my birthday in March.

Just before seeing Colin and getting this message all the old people's flats in my mother's sheltered accommodation had had the kitchens renovated by a cowboy firm using cheap materials. What happened in my mother's kitchen was exactly as he described: I stood a hot pan on the new working surface, it burnt it, I covered up the damage initially with sticky tape, then with a table mat and later a glass sheet. The damaged bit is on the left as you enter the kitchen.

Quite obviously 'cold reading' isn't it? And no, I never get messages from my deceased partner or anyone else deceased telling me to look for things somewhere and not finding them, but had two which did tell me where things were put by him before he died. He has also told me the name of a friend's baby (Danielle - accurate), and the name of the main road just off where he moved two days ago (Bexhill Road). These just came into my head telepathically when I was up by my partner's memorial tree, and I didn't know what they meant till I checked them out with my friend, and he confirmed both were accurate.

The afterlife is now a scientific fact. Scientists like Ronald Pearson have mathematical formulae and theories which explain it all. Quantum physics have proved that matter cannot exist without an observer, therefore an 'observer' (disembodied conscious mind) must have preceded all matter, including human or animal brains. Therefore it is proved: Mind or Consciousness is the prime creative/organizing energy and it preceded matter.

We are living in a virtual reality world created by Thought or Mind, which exists eternally and separate from our brains. Our universe is an elaborate illusion. Matter is not solid, as we know, but composed of atoms and sub-atomic particles with large spaces in between. These sub-atomic particles can not only be in several places at once, many thousands of miles apart, but disappear altogether and turn into 'waves of probability' when not being observed. This is basic quantum physics, not religion or science fiction.

Conclusion: Materialism is an outdated concept, because all matter is an elaborate illusion created by Mind. Conscious energy (what Pearsonian science terms the 'i-ther' or intelligent ether permeating everything) is eternal, and creates, organizes and animates matter. We are essentially conscious energy. Thought is the creative power behind the multi-verse. Without Thought or Conscious Energy, matter can't exist. Moreover, energy cannot be destroyed. As Colin Fry says at the end of his demonstrations: Death is the biggest lie ever told.

You'll find out one day. Trouble is, skeptics who don't believe in the after-life are often doomed to a confused post-life existence until they finally accept they are 'dead' and that there is indeed an after-life.

PaulW99

31st May 2010, 04:59 PM

I'm afraid you don't understand the first thing about quantum physics. I would read up on it if I were you. It's fascinating enough as it is, without making things up.

If you were in an audience with several thousand, don't you think there's a good chance that dozens or maybe even hundreds knew an "Edith"? Was the rest tailored to you or did he just continue without feedback?

Admin

31st May 2010, 06:23 PM

I haven't contributed to this very negative discussion, on a very negative skeptics site

How are you defining 'negative' here?

Only I would say that trying to find robust and reliable answers to questions through rational inquiry and evidence is something positive.

Perhaps you see truth as something negative when it doesn't match your belief system?

Colin: I have a woman called Edith who lived to a good old age in relatively good health[.....]

Do you have a recording of this reading?

It's just that one of the reasons that readings can seem so convincing is that what was actually said and how it was said are completely different to how it was interpreted and subsequently remembered.

I'd be surprised if the reading was anything like or as remotely as accurate as you're claiming.

The afterlife is now a scientific fact.

No it isn't.

Quantum physics

::)

have proved that matter cannot exist without an observer

No it hasn't. The idea that things only exist as a wave function until/unless they're observed is a misinterpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics - and the Copenhagen interpretation itself is disputed by many scientists. It's used as a 'model' because it's formulae etc. work, but whether the interpretations of it describes an underlying reality is not known. Personally, I find some of the interpretations to just be as wacky as some of the claims of paranormalists and such like!

therefore an 'observer' (disembodied conscious mind) must have preceded all matter, including human or animal brains. Therefore it is proved: Mind or Consciousness is the prime creative/organizing energy and it preceded matter.

As your premise is false, your conclusion is unsound - nothing has been proved by your argument.

We are living in a virtual reality world created by Thought or Mind, which exists eternally and separate from our brains. Our universe is an elaborate illusion.[.....]

Well, I'd like to congratulate you on not explicitly stating the analogy to the film The Matrix. O0

Conclusion: Materialism is an outdated concept, because all matter is an elaborate illusion created by Mind. Conscious energy (what Pearsonian science terms the 'i-ther' or intelligent ether permeating everything) is eternal, and creates, organizes and animates matter. We are essentially conscious energy. Thought is the creative power behind the multi-verse. Without Thought or Conscious Energy, matter can't exist.

I think you've been reading a somewhat dodgy book!

Try real science.

You'll find out one day. Trouble is, skeptics who don't believe in the after-life are often doomed to a confused post-life existence until they finally accept they are 'dead' and that there is indeed an after-life.

How do you know this? It sounds more like religious insight (i.e. something made up) than real knowledge.

Croydon Bob

31st May 2010, 07:42 PM

However here's a reading I got from Colin Fry in a crowded Fairfield Halls a few years ago:

Derek Acorah's doing the Fairfield Halls on 21 June. As you're obviously an idiot with money to waste why don't you pop along for more third-rate fakery?

Tony Papard

31st May 2010, 10:20 PM

PaulW99 - yes of course there must have been loads of people in that Fairfield Halls audience who knew an old lady called 'Edith'. This is why I didn't put my hand up initially, I was at the back of the balcony. A woman in the stalls claimed the message. But as it went on it became obvious it was really for me, unless other people had a shoddy kitchen renovation, burnt the surface on the left as you came in, and tried to cover the damage afterwards. Colin didn't get any feedback from me as he didn't know I was in the audience, by the time I put my hand up to claim the message this woman had claimed it as soon as she heard the name 'Edith'. Now that's what I call gullible, claiming something before you've heard anything really specific which could only apply to you.

Croydon Bob - I don't make a habit of consulting mediums regularly, but I feel Colin Fry and some others (Tony Stockwell) are well worth a visit. I won't be going to see Derek Acorah.

I've no objection to real skeptics, I'm skeptical myself about various things. For instance I've never attended a physical seance - until I do I am skeptical, even though many people who have attended, including some great scientists, say they provide conclusive evidence of the afterlife. Undoubtedly there are frauds, and some use conjuror's tricks.

The thing is we have to keep an open mind on all things until we are swayed by the evidence. Too many people have closed minds, and won't even examine any evidence which contradicts their beliefs.

I have no beliefs that are not based on evidence. I grant you that this evidence can be interpreted in may ways, but in my view the evidence for survival (the afterlife) is overwhelming. However by 'negative' I mean having a closed mind and refusing to seriously consider evidence. Open-minded skeptics I welcome, closed-minded skeptics are only fooling themselves. I was once convinced death was the end, a traditional atheist. It was a comforting thought - no repercussions, no karma to live out after death, no responsibility for ones actions.

Soviet scientists opened my mind to the possibility of an afterlife (I was a hardline Communist at the time) with some of their discoveries, such as what they termed the 'bioplasma body' of all living things - it seemed remarkably similar to the Spiritualist's 'astral body'. Soviet scientists said the bioplasma body was the blueprint for the physical body.

Both the CIA, KGB and other intelligence services (China is way ahead at the moment) use so-called paranomal means for spying purposes - remote viewing, etc. This means such abilities are real, or they wouldn't be wasting resources on such things.

There are, it is true, disagreements among scientists on all sorts of things. It always takes time for new ideas to be accepted, as they overturn old ones, a lifetime's work often, and vested interests. Whole areas of scientific research might lose their funding if some of these new theories were universally accepted.

However, if the theories and experiments of Pearson and certain quantum physicists prove true, all of orthodox science is in a cul-de-sac. Albert Einsten himself admitted before his death that he believed some of his theories may have been wrong, or badly flawed. Certainly orthodox scientists are tying themselves in knots trying to relate his theories to what is now known about the Universe - for instant constantly expanding, and the mysterious so-called 'dark matter' which they say must make up over 90% of the Universe.

Only time will tell who is right - Pearson or Einstein, and the same for the disagreements among quantum physicists. But a tiny clue could be what fits in best with the Universe as we now know it, including the 'paranormal' evidence.

Anyway I've had my say, you continue to think what you like. In Galileo's day many could not accept the Earth revolved around the Sun and were far more comfortable with it being the center of the Universe.

PaulW99

1st June 2010, 12:03 AM

Jeez, where to begin.....

Hey, don't leave yet, stick around to back up your beliefs and nonchalant dismissal of science.

You have it the wrong way around - it's the skeptics who are open-minded and the terminally gullible who are closed-minded. Take the people who believe in psychics. No matter how many psychics are exposed as frauds, no matter how many of their tricks are explained by simple conjuring, no matter how many of them fail to pass scientific testing of their powers, some people still hold on to the now frankly ludicrous idea that there are genuine ones out there.

Now that is closed-minded.

On the other hand you have the skeptics. If a psychic appeared on tv tomorrow and simply revealed the six numbers of next Saturday's National Lottery then I and most of my fellow skeptics would be immediately convinced of the ability of some to predict the future - if he got it right, of course. That is being open-minded.

PaulW99

1st June 2010, 12:10 AM

Where is this "proof" that you have of the afterlife? Nobody else seems to be sure, but you are?

This "Edith" reading that you had, do you remember what else he said in relation to her? I've been to these things too, it's amazing how much detail they cram in in hopes of getting a hit. People tend to remember the hits and forget the overwhelming number of misses. I don't suppose you have a recording or a transcription?

The woman who "claimed" your Edith, don't you suppose she's also telling people how this guy was amazingly communicating with her dead relative? And you think she's a sucker? Ironic!

That's interesting, that you used to be a communist. Unless you were born in a Communist country, I think that betrays a certain mindset, the ability to believe blindly despite all the evidence to the contrary. When did you stop being a communist, in 1990?

PaulW99

1st June 2010, 12:13 AM

Remote viewing is complete crap, by the way. It has never worked so it's extremely unlikely it ever will. Where do you get your information??

Do you have any paranormal powers?

bindeweede

1st June 2010, 12:32 AM

For instance I've never attended a physical seance - until I do I am skeptical, even though many people who have attended, including some great scientists, say they provide conclusive evidence of the afterlife.

Tony, could you name the "great scientists" please? And if you yourself could provide "conclusive evidence of the afterlife", I would be very interested.

Admin

1st June 2010, 12:53 AM

The thing is we have to keep an open mind on all things until we are swayed by the evidence. Too many people have closed minds, and won't even examine any evidence which contradicts their beliefs.

See: Claims to Open Mindeness (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php) O0

Both the CIA, KGB and other intelligence services (China is way ahead at the moment) use so-called paranomal means for spying purposes - remote viewing, etc. This means such abilities are real, or they wouldn't be wasting resources on such things.

The USA spent $20,000,000 on project Stargate but then closed it due to lack of tangible evidence.

What do you make of that?

Albert Einsten himself admitted before his death that he believed some of his theories may have been wrong, or badly flawed.

Einstein was a scientist and never claimed that any of his theories were true - scientists never do! It's only people who don't understand science that think science offers 'the truth'.

BTW, always, always cast severe doubt on any claim that cites Einstein as a source of support.

Certainly orthodox scientists are tying themselves in knots trying to relate his theories to what is now known about the Universe - for instant constantly expanding, and the mysterious so-called 'dark matter' which they say must make up over 90% of the Universe.

There are unknowns in science and sometimes 'place-holder' names such as 'dark matter' are used to describe them. How does this support the existence of an afterlife - or any other claim for that matter?

Only time will tell who is right - Pearson or Einstein

Sorry but no. There's no 'Pearson or Einstein' dichotomy. It's fairly likely that Einstein's theories will be superseded (or proved wrong) but that doesn't mean that therefore some crackpot theory of the afterlife is proven true.

Anyway I've had my say, you continue to think what you like. In Galileo's day many could not accept the Earth revolved around the Sun and were far more comfortable with it being the center of the Universe.

Yes. Mainly the religious who wanted their beliefs to be true instead of accepting what science was indicating was actually true.

Interesting parallel. O0

Tony Papard

1st June 2010, 04:42 AM

The 'time out' feature on this site means a long message I tried to post was lost, so I'll keep this one shorter.

Spending $20m on a project means there must have been something in it, and agencies/governments are not always upfront about how they are spending our money, projects could be ongoing under another name. Anyway spy satellites are very efficient and more reliable than imprecise remote viewing, at least in clear weather.

Support for an afterlife doesn't come from the proposed existence of dark matter, or the ever-expanding Universe. But these do suggest that orthodox scientific theories are wrong, so at least examining ones which seem to fit the facts would seem to be sensible. Pearson's theories have been published in Russian scientific journals, but not in British ones - too many vested interests here would be upset. His mathematical theory supports all things now considered 'paranormal', including the afterlife.

I would also suggest that if the absence of a conscious observer causes sub-atomic particles to revert to wave function then this means matter (including a brain) cannot exist unless it is being consciously observed. Therefore consciousness must be a form of energy, which of course can only be transformed, not destroyed. And of course it must pre-date matter, and outlast it.

The Edith reading from Colin could have applied to many people in the auditorium until he mentioned far more details, including how she died, the kitchen, the damage, the location of the damage, etc. He also mentioned the difficulty in finding a clean tea-cloth and that they were in a 'recess'. I did find this difficult to place, but my mother hangs her tea-cloths over a unit in the gap between it and the cooker, i.e. a 'recess'.

Another medium told me years ago that he saw me working before a 'rack' of some sort. I said this was wrong, because I was a keyboard operator. He also mentioned someone named Joe who suffered an impact on the chest. This too meant nothing to me.

A day or so later I found myself at work standing before a wire rack of pigeon-holes putting telexes in them, a task I did every day but had forgotten about. Then my mother returned from Dorset having stayed with a distant in-law named Joe (who I didn't know). He'd told her some months before he'd had a cat's eye come out of the road in front of him (ripped out by a lorry's wheels), crash thru the windscreen of his car and hit him on the chest. Obviously he survived the impact and resulting loss of control of the car. So Spirit was not necessarily involved in these two messages, but the medium got the info from somewhere.

I left the Communist Party in 1976 after a second visit to the GDR (East Germany) with my life-partner, and he was pointing out deficiencies I preferred to ignore or gloss over. I remain a democratic Socialist, still think the Communist countries achieved a lot despite the corruption etc., but now take Tony Benn's advice to always make sure you can vote out politicians/governments.

There are tricksters and frauds in all walks of life. Bogus plumbers, gas/electricity meter readers, even quack doctors and bogus surgeons who even have managed to carry out operations I believe. This doesn't mean all in these professions should be dismissed as con artists. The same applies to mediums and psychics.

Some say we all have latent paranormal powers, but few develop them. I've had the odd telepathic message, and a couple of precognotive dreams, but I can't just turn it on like a tap.

Fortune telling is notoriously inaccurate as the future can be altered by our own free will decisions. Spirits do not foretell winning lottery numbers, but many experiments have been conducted with random number selectors and the human mind seems to influence these, producing certain numbers far beyond the realms of pure chance. Such ESP/mind over matter experiments are ongoing.

Scientists, inventors, doctors, etc. (past and present) who conduct(ed) afterlife research, sometimes initially skeptical, and became convinced of survival after death are too numerous to list, but here are just a few:

Sir William Crookes (physicist/chemist), Dr Alfred Russel Wallace (co-originator with Charles Darwin of the natural selection theory), Dr Peter Fenwick, Dr Edgar N. Mitchell S.C.D. (NASA scientist and former astronaut), John Logie Baird (TV pioneer), Thomas Alva Edison, Emmanuel Swedenborg (Swedish scientist), Dr Ron Moody, Sir William Barrett (professor of physics), Dr Harold Puthoff (physicist), Dr Konstantine Radive, Prof. Amit Goswami (professor of physics), Prof. Russell Targ (physicist), Prof. Ernsk Senkowski, Dr Claude Swanson, Prof. Erlender Haraldsson, Dr Michael Sabon, Dr Elizabeth Kuber-Ross, Dr Dean Radin, Prof. James J. Mapes, Dr Robert Hare, Prof. William James,
Dr R. D. Pearson B.Sc., Dr Robert Crookall, Dr T. Glen Hamilton, Dr Carl A. Wickland,
Dr Gustave Geley, Dr Cesare Richet, Prof. Camille, Flammarion, Sir Oliver Lodge (professor of physics), Dr James Hyslop, etc., etc....... need I go on?

The list is growing all the time, they are all over YouTube and the Internet if you look. Do your homework.

Matt

1st June 2010, 10:02 AM

OK I'm going to point out a few things.

The KGB are not using remote viewing, they don't exist any more. As John has pointed out Stargate was closed down for lack of tangible results. If you think £20m is a lot of money to the US military and that sort of spend proves anything then you're a little naive sorry. Read the men who stare at goats for the story of one man's investigation into this area of military research.

Dr R. D. Pearson B.Sc?

Usually somone with a doctorate would have PhD rather then BSc after his name.

I googled and found this. http://www.aboutderbyshire.co.uk/cms/11/ron-pearson-scientific-pr.shtml

So actually he has theories, which allow for the possibility of an afterlife. I'm afraid I've heard from an number of sources that they've re-written Einstein's Laws and so alarm bells go off when I hear this again. However according to this article he hasn't proven his theories, and is begging for 120,000 to do so. More alarm bells. I'm not sure if these experiments are intended to prove his theories about physics or to prove that not only do they allow for life after death but that life after death actually happens.

Also you're wrong about a concious observer being required, an "observer" may be an inanimate instruments or even a natural assemblage.

Furthermore this "observer" does not have to pre-exist.

Finally you're quite right that proving an individual to be a using other means than the paranormal to deliver seemingly paranormal results doesn't not mean that you've proven the entire industry to be fraudulent. I have to accept that. I'd ask you to accept the converse though. Even if you're right about there being an afterlife, that doens't mean that Colin Fry is a genuine medium. Or even that there's not an obvious reason why all mediums like fry produce results that can be reproduced by conjouring tricks from the mentalists armoury. Even if you had a tape of Fry's reading that demonstrated that this wasn't a cold read then you'd have to go some to disprove it being a hot read instead. Fry is after all the physical medium who operating under a different name (Lincoln) was caught when the lights went on having slipped his bonds and waving about a trumpet.

Croydon Bob

1st June 2010, 10:10 AM

Wow. What a lot of nonsense. I can't be bothered to address all of it.

Spending $20m on a project means there must have been something in it, .

By your (stupid) logic, mainstream science wins over the loony stuff then, because the US Govt alone spends hundreds of times that much on real physics, but has given up on the staring at goats and other fantasy.

I would also suggest that if the absence of a conscious observer causes sub-atomic particles to revert to wave function then this means matter (including a brain) cannot exist unless it is being consciously observed. Therefore consciousness must be a form of energy, which of course can only be transformed, not destroyed. And of course it must pre-date matter, and outlast it.

;D Meaningless. You're just exposing your lack of understanding again.

I left the Communist Party in 1976 after a second visit to the GDR (East Germany) with my life-partner, and he was pointing out deficiencies I preferred to ignore or gloss over. I remain a democratic Socialist, still think the Communist countries achieved a lot despite the corruption etc., but now take Tony Benn's advice to always make sure you can vote out politicians/governments.

O0 I'm with you on this one.

There are tricksters and frauds in all walks of life. Bogus plumbers, gas/electricity meter readers, even quack doctors and bogus surgeons who even have managed to carry out operations I believe. This doesn't mean all in these professions should be dismissed as con artists. The same applies to mediums and psychics.

The big difference is that there are plumbers who can do what they claim. I've had my meter read and got a bill based on an accurate reading. The same does not apply to mediums or psychics, none of them are widely accepted to be genuine because none of them can reliably do what they claim every day like an electrician or postman. We can tell who the bogus plumbers were after they've robbed us. Unfortunately some people aren't so good at spotting the bogus medium.

they are all over YouTube and the Internet if you look. Do your homework.

All sorts of crap is all over YouTube. If that's the best you can do then you've failed. Find a YouTube vid by someone who has had scientific papers published and I'll pay attention.

chaggle

1st June 2010, 10:43 AM

A couple of points struck me:

There are tricksters and frauds in all walks of life. Bogus plumbers, gas/electricity meter readers, even quack doctors and bogus surgeons who even have managed to carry out operations I believe. This doesn't mean all in these professions should be dismissed as con artists. The same applies to mediums and psychics.

There are indeed frauds in the areas you have highlighted. But these are very much exceptions to the general situation. The same DOES NOT apply to mediums and psychics - none of whom has ever been shown to have supernatural abilities.

Fortune telling is notoriously inaccurate as the future can be altered by our own free will decisions.

Have you considered the possibility that Fortune Telling is inaccurate because it isn't possible?

Tony Papard

1st June 2010, 12:50 PM

Julia

1st June 2010, 12:51 PM

Bloody hell! The woo is strong with this one...::)

Matt

1st June 2010, 01:42 PM

Thanks everyone for your comments, and Matt for troubling to Google Ron Pearson.

I admit his theories, and all this stuff, is controversial. But possibly worth considering seriously rather than just dismissing. Pearson says physicists and other disciplines are often restricted by convention, and it takes something of an 'outsider' to see the wood for the trees. Alternatively you could take the view that they/we are just talking complete nonsense.

I accept that an 'observer' in the sub-atomic particles/wave function experiments does not have to be a person, but whatever form it takes it must have existed before the sub-atomic particles of matter, or else have come into existence simultaneously.

I don't accept that all mediums are frauds, but most people on this site and other 'skeptics' of this kind obviously do. I just find it very difficult, if not impossible, to dismiss it all as trickery and 'cold reading' or even 'hot reading'.

But if we all thought the same way it would be a dull old world, and I wonder how much progress in various fields would have been made unless some individuals thought 'outside the box'.

You're right with simultaneously, when the particles interact with one another that's what's going on.

Yes there are a fair few who say with conviction that all mediums are frauds. Others are more cautious and simply say that in order to believe in them they need a higher quality of evidence than that available. I have seen a number of mediums attempt to provide better evidence and been disappointed by the results. If you follow John's link from earlier on Open Mindedness (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php) you'll see that it is the Skeptic position that is truly the open minded one: being prepared to change our opinion when new evidence is presented.

DrS

1st June 2010, 01:53 PM

Pearson's "colleague" Michael Roll is responsible for THIS (http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html), which is suggestive of more than a bit of paranoia and less than a bit of rationality on his part.

Here is an extraordinary paradox. Only those who can be relied upon to dismiss the findings and conclusions of our pioneers of radio and television are allowed on radio and television!
Our scientists who support the British pioneers of radio and television - Sir William Crookes (http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/crookes/crookes.html), Sir Oliver Lodge (http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/lodge/lodge-mofe-2007.html) and John Logie Baird - have been blocked from speaking on the radio or appearing on television. Only a handful of local radio presenters have defied this official and unofficial censorship, notably James Whale.
There are two expert opinions as to what so-called paranormal phenomena are, but in this "free" country the British people are only allowed access to the explanation that is politically correct, the first version that is listed below, because it is no danger to the powerful religious and scientific establishments:

Matt

1st June 2010, 02:42 PM

tolman

1st June 2010, 03:05 PM

Remote viewing is complete crap, by the way. It has never worked so it's extremely unlikely it ever will. Where do you get your information??
I'm particularly wondering how anyone knows 'how far ahead China is'?

Personally, I'd have thought that if such powers existed, and if a country was 'way ahead', they'd be pretty keen on not letting other people know.

I wonder if Tony has information on the strength of Chinese signals intelligences, or how good their network of old-fashioned spies on the ground might be?

Or is it just the psychic stuff that somehow ends up being publicised?

Tony Papard

1st June 2010, 04:43 PM

This is the only info I have on China's research in these areas, taken from Victor Zammit's weekly Afterlife Report. Zammit is a former lawyer in Australia who also worked for the intelligence service there:

Those whose business it is to know what the military advanced countries are doing will tell you that some countries - like China and Russia - not only conduct research into the paranormal but use the paranormal for military purposes. China has made significant progress in military/espionage context of 'teleportation' - a quantum physics' paranormal phenomenon. We also know China has made significant advances in psychic espionage (some informed observers estimate they are some 50 years ahead of the West.) China also has the numbers. Those in the 'know' will tell you that any country which masters the paranormal will rule the world - without spending too much funding.

Matt

1st June 2010, 04:47 PM

We know who Victor Zammit is. He's been here and had his arse handed to him on plate..

Have you seen this parody of Victor Dammit (http://www.aaskolnick.com/dammit/)?

Now that we know the source of your opinion that China is investing heavily in psychic research, do you think that we are:

a) More likely to believe it
b) Less likely to believe it

Why do you think that might be?

chaggle

1st June 2010, 04:50 PM