Do you believe in ghosts? post your experiences - Page 4

cosmicdave · #91 (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I've covered this. You are wrong.
Science can measure them.

Science can also measure taste.

But you cant make a machine to replicate tasting something. Science can also measure brain waves and sight. So its all relative.

Neverfly · #92 (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose

I remember when you said you wanted to run around in public in a pink tutu, yodeling show tunes, while doing pirouettes.

If you can hold him to that, I've got the camera at the ready.

LotusExcelle · #93 (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 01:53 PM

Cold read.

cosmicdave · #94 (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Ok, one more post - I can't help myself.

Can someone, please, explain to me- What IS this elusive thing we cannot measure with our Measure-a-scopes?!?!

Someone tell me

What, exactly, is this "thing" we are unable to "measure?"

If I see a ghost, understanding the principles of spectrophotometry, I know that I can make measurements of light.
Yet, that turns up nothing. If I say I heard the ghost burp- I can measure sound - yet nothing appears on our 'sound-a-scopes.'
Next we get out all kinds of electrical transfer-o-meters and knick knacks and paddywhacks and scan the area throroughly for all electrical fields, magnetic fields, freaking neutrinos- Whatever!

Nothing.

So what IS this unmeasurable something that creates light and sound that we are perfectly capable of measuring, calculating and studying etc- and yet we can't?

I know that no one has answered me about why a digital camera magically takes pictures of ghosts like an analog camera ( I didn't expect a response to that anyway) but I really would like to know- Why is it that no matter how much we can scan and measure and turn up Nada- you only need to claim that in spite of the fact we can measure light and sound and electrical and chemical - we just can't measure those Same Things if made by a myth?

I could guess.

It might fall into similar a category as Van Rijn's Elf.

This post just goes to show that you are uninformed. If you cared to just watch one of the latest Ghost Investigation programs such as 'Ghost Hunters International', you would see that their studies are carried out with infrared heat meters, EMF meters, night sight cameras and many other scientific equipment. Not only have they caught temperature drops in places that there shouldn't be any, and odd pictures, they have also caught EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) on tape. Voices that answer questions posed to them that were not evident in the room when those questions were asked.

Also, at this point I am going to ask you a leading question. Do you believe in religion or the Bible?

Neverfly · #95 (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

But you cant make a machine to replicate tasting something. Science can also measure brain waves and sight. So its all relative.

They can be tested, measured, analyzed and described in chemical and electrical processes.
This is what's known as a Red Herring. You are trying to lead the reader off on a wild goose chase that has no basis in reality.

Given the current state of electronics, robotics and technology, I would not be the least bit surprised if there was a machine that can recognize "taste."
Even if we don't have one now, doesn't mean we can't. With further study, we are perfectly capable of it.

Neverfly · #96 (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

This post just goes to show that you are uninformed.

This accusation is an assumption on your part that is unwarranted and casts doubt on any psychic ability you might think you have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

If you cared to just watch one of the latest Ghost Investigation programs such as 'Ghost Hunters International',

I have watched a great many of these programs and can even one up ya: I am a plumber. I used to work for ROTO ROOTER. Does ROTO ROOTER ring a bell for ya?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

you would see that their studies are carried out with infrared heat meters, EMF meters, night sight cameras and many other scientific equipment.

Oh so now you are contradicting your claims that ghosts can't be measured? Backpedaling are we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Not only have they caught temperature drops in places that there shouldn't be any,

Under what basis do you claim there shouldn't be any? Have you studied fluid mechanics?
Do you have any idea at all if there shouldn't be any? You don't do you...? You have no idea. You are just claiming there shouldn't be. You don't know anything about transference of heat? Differential? warm and cold pressure in air?
If you stop by for a demonstration, I can work some magic with some MAPP gas, a turbo torch, some cans and a bucket of water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

and odd pictures,

I've taken many odd pictures. I may be an adept and accomplished plumber, I am not so great with a camera.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

they have also caught EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) on tape. Voices that answer questions posed to them that were not evident in the room when those questions were asked.

Links? Proof? Back this claim up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Also, at this point I am going to ask you a leading question. Do you believe in religion or the Bible?

I don't find this relevant to this particular topic. Although it may have an application in the broader sense, the topic is strictly Ghosts. Let's please stay on topic.

CharlieCalifornia · #97 (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

...they have also caught EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) on tape. Voices that answer questions posed to them that were not evident in the room when those questions were asked.

My guess is that you missed my previous post. For your convenience i will repeat it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieCalifornia

Voices are the result when air is passed through our vocal chords. Being incorporal, how do ghosts produce vocalizations without vocal chords?

Can you answer my question?

Moose · #98 (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Ok then, lets put you in exactly the same situation. Get one of your buddies to invite around one of his friends that you have never met and who you dont know what his name is. Put him on a chair in your living room and then tell him what his surname is on the very first try. Don't ask him any questions, just give him information that you are getting about him and then come back and tell me if you were right.

This is precisely the point I'm trying to make: I can easily set something up so that a third party witness, you for example, will see precisely these results.

It may well be true that I've never met him, he'll not have met me before, but if I were to tell you that I don't know his family name, it would quite simply be a lie. I could also avoid lying by letting you jump to the conclusion that I have no pre-knowledge of his name simply by asking him: "Have we met before? So we don't know each other?"

Yet another technique psychics use is to get someone else to ask the questions for them, so they can get the victim to confirm that "yes, we've never met, and I've never told you the information you've just recited back to me".

Von Praag often puts shills in the waiting room before a show, who'll "compare stories" with other guests. That information is collected and used.

Peter Popoff uses information, names and addresses, he gets from donation and prayer cards, which are submitted before the show.

Quote:

Then go onto tell him about his grandmother, the name of the street where she lived and the number of her house. You can even tell him the colour of the front door. Remember that you cannot ask any questions.

I wouldn't need to. If she had ever owned a house in a nearby community, the deed transfer is part of that community's public records and isn't especially hard to get a hold of. If I wanted to really freak you out, and had some time to burn, I'd find the oldest, loneliest neighbor I could who could tell me all about the nice lady who "lived there and once saved my life", in the hopes I might be able to get some information I could use to "locate her descendants to thank them".

Quote:

Now can you see the difference?

Do you?

I am not a stage magician (my fingers aren't anywhere near nimble enough for that sort of work), I don't do psychic performances (I'm not a skilled public speaker), and I'm not willing to abuse the trust of other people (ethics, I has them.)

And yet I feel quite comfortable sitting here telling you how I could, if I were so inclined, duplicate everything you've said in this thread through trickery.

Ultimately, Dave, you're going to have to draw your own conclusions.

Quote:

And as for the motorcyclist example, I don't think you guys quite understand how a spiritualist church meeting works? The motorcyclists father turned up one week and was unknown to anybody in the circle.

Many psychics get their information from the people who go out and invite new guests to the circle. It may well be true that nobody there had ever met this guy, but that your brother had heard all about him already. "Yeah, I invited this nice man Joe Random to our group. Poor guy, his son died in a motorcycle accident over on 5th and main last year when somebody tboned him right by the traffic light. I hope he comes."

If I were faking this sort of thing for fun and profit, I'd be using this technique when possible. A few spectacularly successful hot reads does wonders for how well later cold reading appears to work.

Look at Sylvia Browne, for example. She's a terrible cold reader, and managed to make wildly spectacular misses on TV. And yet, she's making millions at it on the talk-show circuit, because she was able to build her street cred through means other than cold-reading.

Incidentally, you can see a few examples of the apparent-3rd-party hot read in the pilot episode of Penn and Teller's unnameable show.

Quote:

This is how it works. You sit in a circle and go into meditation, then a stranger is asked to sit within the circle and the head medium goes around the circle asking what messages they got for that person. Some come up with nothing and others come up with very specific evidence. Things like dates of anniversaries, names, ways in which a relative died or places that they lived.

And all the time this person isn't even saying anything until the reading is over. Now, if you or anybody else can do that on your own by simple body language, I will be the first person to buy you a beer.

Yeah, that would be pretty spectacular, if that's all that was really happening. If I were doing it, however, there would be more happening in the background that you would never know about.

Oh, and, if you've ransacked the drawer for the scissors, then for those three months, they'd been placed elsewhere and forgotten. But then I've already described that possibility.

Moose · #99 (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

But you cant make a machine to replicate tasting something. Science can also measure brain waves and sight. So its all relative.

About ten seconds of Googling (with Yahoo's search engine) led me to:

http://www.nus.edu.sg/corporate/rese...esearch130.htm

Quote:

In fact, Assoc Prof Chang has developed an "artificial tongue" when he was with New York University before joining NUS in 2007. Dubbed the "New York tongue I" it is an artificial tongue which boasts 47 sensors, able to distinguish numorous flavours and detect compounds with accuracy that even the human tongue cannot match.

Moose · #**100** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

Ok, here is a good example. Look at a fan that is off, and you can see the blades. Turn the fan on and let it spin. Although the blades are still there you cannot see them because they are spinning at a faster vibration. You know that the blades are there but because they are vibrating or spinning at a higher speed, your eye cannot perceive what it is seeing. Now imagine if you could train your eye to see the blade at the higher vibration. That is how mediumship works.

First off, what you're describing how fast the fan's blades are revolving, not vibrating.

Second, yes, the fan's blades blur because the cones in our eyes have a relatively slow refresh rate. It's a bit like taking a picture with slow film and a shaky hand. You can still see the blades, even on a propeller-driven aircraft, if you squint and wave your slightly open fingers very quickly across your field of vision. It breaks up the blurring by restricting how much blade motion your eyes have to deal with during a single refresh.

You can actually use the same technique to observe satellite overflies during daylight hours, without optics. It's hard to do because you pretty much have to know where the satellite is going to be before you try it, but there's nothing like hearing the Ooohs of kids when you teach 'em to spot one that way. Great party trick, too.

I'll take a look at the transcript after I get some work done. Real life beacons.

cosmicdave · #**101** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Evidence?
Post links please. Citations.
I have heard a FEW claims that he changed the rules when the 'psychic passed' the test. But under further scrutiny it is shown to be a bitter claimant that didn't make the grade trying to raise doubts AFTER he had already failed. This happens in most any competition time to time, including the Olympics etc. Someone feels cheated after the fact and tries to claim that they actually were. Maybe in their minds, it really seems so.
Another instance was where the test itself had a fault- and Randi saw to it that fault was corrected. After that, the "psychic" AGREED to continue with the corrections in place. But after failing the challenge, changed his mind and tried to cry foul.
I, too, will look for citations and links along side yours CosmicDave

Randi is, as Whirlpool illustrated above, very familiar with the Illusionist tricks. They are not completely different fields. You claiming that they are does not make it so.
Magicians (that claim True Magic) and Mediums both require a special plane, a spirit world, paranormal or supernatural powers of divine intervention. They are birds of a feather.

As far as Randi predicting a UFO landing that never happened, I don't know anything about the story. But that sounds very out of character for Randi and I would guess that you are completely misrepresenting what actually happened.

ETA: Cosmicdave, you seem to be cherry picking what statements and questions will you address and which you won't.
Will you please answer (from above):
1.) Why digital Cameras are able to photograph ghosts? (post 17)
2.) What is the mysterious immeasurable "thing?" (post 72)
You are not required to answer those questions, of course and if you refuse to do so or ignore them still, I will simply accept that as an inability on your part to answer them.

Here is some info about Randi's rudiculous expectations to claim the $1 Million. http://www.dailygrail.com/features/t...llar-challenge

Also here's a nice quote:

Chris Carter, author of Parapsychology and the Skeptics:

'If Randi were genuinely interested in testing unusual claims, then he would also not insist upon odds of at least one million to one against chance for the results. Anyone familiar with scientific studies will be aware that experimental results against chance of say, 800,000 to one would be considered extraordinary; but results this high would be, according to Randi, a “failure.” '

And to answer your question. How can I give you an answer why both analogue and digital cameras can film ghosts when neither you or I know exactly what ghosts are?

LotusExcelle · #**102** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:33 PM

We are getting into optics and recording media issues here - and I'm willing to bet I could explain 99% of these "ghosts" on film as motion blur other other such easy-to-reproduce techniques.

cosmicdave · #**103** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

They can be tested, measured, analyzed and described in chemical and electrical processes.
This is what's known as a Red Herring. You are trying to lead the reader off on a wild goose chase that has no basis in reality.

Given the current state of electronics, robotics and technology, I would not be the least bit surprised if there was a machine that can recognize "taste."
Even if we don't have one now, doesn't mean we can't. With further study, we are perfectly capable of it.

Aaaah, so whats to say that in the future science can't make a machine that can see ghosts? Can you see my point?

Peace Makes Plenty · #**104** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:50 PM

Cosmicdave, that was a fairly standard cold read, throw out vague shots (I sense <foo>) and see what sticks. Nothing remarkable in that at all, give me any name and it could refer to any number of people that are in my aquaintance, why do you think its in any way special? I notice that he never dwells on any subject for any length of time, and there is no detailed information. That one about the anniversary/wedding in May is a classic example of a vague shot in the dark.

Quote:

***and there is some type of anniversary in the month of May

yes I know a couple Roger's

***birthday or death or something, wedding, some sort of event from May

Again, i would ask your brother to attempt a reading here, that would show that he has this ability, and we could go some way to examining the claims.

cosmicdave · #**105** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This accusation is an assumption on your part that is unwarranted and casts doubt on any psychic ability you might think you have.

I am not claiming that I have any psychic ability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I have watched a great many of these programs and can even one up ya: I am a plumber. I used to work for ROTO ROOTER. Does ROTO ROOTER ring a bell for ya?

Sorry, I dont live in the USA. I don't know what your talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Oh so now you are contradicting your claims that ghosts can't be measured? Backpedaling are we?

Where did I say that? I think that was your claim, not mine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Under what basis do you claim there shouldn't be any? Have you studied fluid mechanics?
Do you have any idea at all if there shouldn't be any? You don't do you...? You have no idea. You are just claiming there shouldn't be. You don't know anything about transference of heat? Differential? warm and cold pressure in air?
If you stop by for a demonstration, I can work some magic with some MAPP gas, a turbo torch, some cans and a bucket of water.

OK, take a basic temperature reading of the room your in. Unless you have a window or door open, I would guess that the temperature reading would be pretty constant, with maybe a dip of a degree. In the cases shown on these shows the temperature has dropped considerably. In fact, on some of our ghost investigations we have had rapid drops of temperatures too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Links? Proof? Back this claim up.

Its on the show every week. Try tuning in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I don't find this relevant to this particular topic. Although it may have an application in the broader sense, the topic is strictly Ghosts. Let's please stay on topic.

How convenient. I just want to know if you believe in religion or not? My answer still pertains to ghosts and demons.

farmerjumperdon · #**106** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

As I said earlier, cold reading is the art of craftily asking questions indirectly to get your answers. I know for a fact that my brother does not do this.

Let me give you a few examples.

If you think cold reading requires that questions be asked and answwered, then you are not up on the subject.

As for the examples, interesting anecdotes at best, possibly mixed in with a couple lucky guesses; and most likely reliant on a bit of forehand knowledge.

The problem with believing this kind of stuff is that so many that have made similar claims have been proven to be frauds. In fact; not one - - not one single claimant - - not just few mind you, but not one single claimant ever ever ever - - has been able to substantiate said power with a demonstration where they can be proven to be operating totally blind.

cosmicdave · #**107** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieCalifornia

My guess is that you missed my previous post. For your convenience i will repeat it.

Can you answer my question?

I simply don't know. Its better to say that then deny phenomenon that have been scientifically recorded.

CharlieCalifornia · #**108** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:53 PM

Question answered

Moose · #**109** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

'If Randi were genuinely interested in testing unusual claims, then he would also not insist upon odds of at least one million to one against chance for the results. Anyone familiar with scientific studies will be aware that experimental results against chance of say, 800,000 to one would be considered extraordinary; but results this high would be, according to Randi, a “failure.” '

Which is a ridiculous statement on its face, if you're at all knowledgeable about how the challenge works.

Preliminary challenges are usually designed around odds of about 1 in 10,000. Nobody has ever passed (or come close to passing) the preliminary challenge. Carter's whining about 800,000:1 odds vs 1,000,000:1 odds is really irrelevant.

It's not about winning by random chance (although, for people like Carter, it really is), it's about being able to distinguish the results from a random control sample.

Randi expresses it as odds because it's easier for most people to understand, but what he's really talking about is statistical confidence. That is to say, are the results "different" (which is a statistical term with a specific definition) from what we can expect from random chance in 99.99% of every sample run?

In any case, most applicants claim 100% accuracy. If a claimant can do what they say they can do, "the odds" aren't relevant.

Ultimately, the effect this has on the protocol is little more than, given the accuracy rating claimed by the "psychic", how many trials need to be run so we can be sure of a positive result. With dowsing, for the preliminary challenge, it usually works out to 10 trials, one glass of water or gold coin, ten buckets, and IIRC, getting more than 5 right, although don't quote me on that last bit.

Remember that before the trial is actually run, the claimant must agree on video that the protocol is fair and the testing conditions correct before the test takes place. The claimant must again agree, on video, after the test is run but before the results are revealed. This is why double-blinding is so important in these things. Nobody, not the claimant, not JREF, not the proctors ever know the results before this point.

cosmicdave · #**110** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose

This is precisely the point I'm trying to make: I can easily set something up so that a third party witness, you for example, will see precisely these results.

It may well be true that I've never met him, he'll not have met me before, but if I were to tell you that I don't know his family name, it would quite simply be a lie. I could also avoid lying by letting you jump to the conclusion that I have no pre-knowledge of his name simply by asking him: "Have we met before? So we don't know each other?"

Yet another technique psychics use is to get someone else to ask the questions for them, so they can get the victim to confirm that "yes, we've never met, and I've never told you the information you've just recited back to me".

Von Praag often puts shills in the waiting room before a show, who'll "compare stories" with other guests. That information is collected and used.

Peter Popoff uses information, names and addresses, he gets from donation and prayer cards, which are submitted before the show.

I wouldn't need to. If she had ever owned a house in a nearby community, the deed transfer is part of that community's public records and isn't especially hard to get a hold of. If I wanted to really freak you out, and had some time to burn, I'd find the oldest, loneliest neighbor I could who could tell me all about the nice lady who "lived there and once saved my life", in the hopes I might be able to get some information I could use to "locate her descendants to thank them".

Do you?

I am not a stage magician (my fingers aren't anywhere near nimble enough for that sort of work), I don't do psychic performances (I'm not a skilled public speaker), and I'm not willing to abuse the trust of other people (ethics, I has them.)

And yet I feel quite comfortable sitting here telling you how I could, if I were so inclined, duplicate everything you've said in this thread through trickery.

Ultimately, Dave, you're going to have to draw your own conclusions.

Many psychics get their information from the people who go out and invite new guests to the circle. It may well be true that nobody there had ever met this guy, but that your brother had heard all about him already. "Yeah, I invited this nice man Joe Random to our group. Poor guy, his son died in a motorcycle accident over on 5th and main last year when somebody tboned him right by the traffic light. I hope he comes."

If I were faking this sort of thing for fun and profit, I'd be using this technique when possible. A few spectacularly successful hot reads does wonders for how well later cold reading appears to work.

Look at Sylvia Browne, for example. She's a terrible cold reader, and managed to make wildly spectacular misses on TV. And yet, she's making millions at it on the talk-show circuit, because she was able to build her street cred through means other than cold-reading.

Incidentally, you can see a few examples of the apparent-3rd-party hot read in the pilot episode of Penn and Teller's unnameable show.

Yeah, that would be pretty spectacular, if that's all that was really happening. If I were doing it, however, there would be more happening in the background that you would never know about.

Oh, and, if you've ransacked the drawer for the scissors, then for those three months, they'd been placed elsewhere and forgotten. But then I've already described that possibility.

I can see where your going wrong now. You are comparing my brothers situation with TV psychics who get paid to do this for a living. My brother has never asked for money and the people that he gives the readings to are unknown to him. Yes of course if you had the time you could investigate your subject and find out all sorts of information, but that is not the case. If you were over here then I would invite you to go along and see it at his church so that you could see that no trickery was involved.

I have given you the evidence exactly how it happened and you have tried to turn it on its head so that my brother already knew the person, investigated his background and then did the reading. That is not the truth.

Also take into consideration the 'bottle top' incident. My brother had no knowledge even of where they stayed and yet precisely described where they stayed.

As for the scissors - I have told you exactly what happened. They were not moved from the drawer but reappeared in them without anybody putting them back.

cosmicdave · #**111** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose

About ten seconds of Googling (with Yahoo's search engine) led me to:

http://www.nus.edu.sg/corporate/rese...esearch130.htm

OK, and that is a recent discovery which science is making all the time. One day science will have the tools to see ghosts all the time and you will all say 'well I never.'

LotusExcelle · #**112** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:02 PM

This is truly absurd. Are you listening to yourself, Cosmicdave? You are skipping over or ignoring all the basics of proving a theory.

CharlieCalifornia · #**113** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

I simply don't know.

Yet you accept that it happens without reservation?

Quote:

Its better to say that then deny phenomenon that have been scientifically recorded.

Would you agree that because a sound was recorded doesn't mean that it was produced by a ghost? That to do so would be your assumption?

cosmicdave · #**114** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Makes Plenty

Cosmicdave, that was a fairly standard cold read, throw out vague shots (I sense <foo>) and see what sticks. Nothing remarkable in that at all, give me any name and it could refer to any number of people that are in my aquaintance, why do you think its in any way special? I notice that he never dwells on any subject for any length of time, and there is no detailed information. That one about the anniversary/wedding in May is a classic example of a vague shot in the dark.

Again, i would ask your brother to attempt a reading here, that would show that he has this ability, and we could go some way to examining the claims.

That is just one brief extract. What about the ladies ear, the red on her tyres or the brakes on her car? how common is that? What about the picture that he described or the unusual names like 'Ging.'

Lets be honest here - there was not one single question asked where this lady said 'No, I can't take that.'

LotusExcelle · #**115** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:08 PM

Brush up on your cold reading understanding. It was, as stated, a classic cold read.

Spock Jenkins · #**116** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:10 PM

What I noticed about the cold reading provided is that most answers were supplied by the person being read, not by the person doing the reading.

Pain in the ear becomes jaw surgery. Could easily become, "My son had an ear infection." In the case provided, left or right was a lucky coin flip - but the person being read could just as easily have ignored it.

Seems most people wear glasses these days. The fact that a person has glasses and does not wear them as often as they should is no surprise. The person being read could just as easily say, "You know, I haven't been to the eye doctor in forever. I should probably get my eyes checked." Hit!

The person who lost their leg in a motorcycle accident was confirmed as a person missing a leg. The how was never confirmed. My grandfather lost both legs - that could be a hit. My father lost the use of his legs - that could be a hit. Neither lost them in a motorcycle accident, but that was never confirmed or denied by the person being read either.

Names were completed by the person being read. What I mean is, the reader never said, "Your neighbors name is Rory". He just provided the name. I used to work with a "Rory" at an old job. I have a neighbor named Roger. "Alice" was changed to "Alica" by the person being read.

If I were inclined to believe - most of the things mentioned by the person being read could have been made to fit me as well.

People also reveal things about themselves that they don't recall revealing. I surprised Neverfly once when I revealed his height in another thread some time back. I don't know his real name and we've never met outside of this forum.

Moose · #**117** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

I have given you the evidence exactly how it happened and you have tried to turn it on its head so that my brother already knew the person, investigated his background and then did the reading. That is not the truth.

Again, I don't know your brother. You didn't ask how he did it. That's not a question I can answer. You asked how he "could have" done it. And as I said before, that's the question I answered.

And as it's very true that many psychics have been caught hot reading (James Randi has a rather good collection of these videos), it's not unreasonable for me to keep the possibility of shenanigans firmly on the table. I don't have anything against you personally, Dave, but I don't know you any better than I know your brother. I can't simply take your word for these things. I'm going to need evidence. Your anecdotes are not evidence. My anecdotes are useful as counter-examples, but again, they're not evidence.

If you really want to get to the bottom of this, encourage your brother to apply for James Randi's Million Dollar Prize. If he can do what you say he can do, he'll have no trouble winning it. A scientific test with the proper controls to prevent cheating would convince me. And if your brother isn't cheating, he'll have no problem with that.

CharlieCalifornia · #**118** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose

Your anecdotes are not evidence.

Moose is correct.

cosmicdave · #**119** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose

Which is a ridiculous statement on its face, if you're at all knowledgeable about how the challenge works.

Preliminary challenges are usually designed around odds of about 1 in 10,000. Nobody has ever passed (or come close to passing) the preliminary challenge. Carter's whining about 800,000:1 odds vs 1,000,000:1 odds is really irrelevant.

It's not about winning by random chance (although, for people like Carter, it really is), it's about being able to distinguish the results from a random control sample.

Randi expresses it as odds because it's easier for most people to understand, but what he's really talking about is statistical confidence. That is to say, are the results "different" (which is a statistical term with a specific definition) from what we can expect from random chance in 99.99% of every sample run?

In any case, most applicants claim 100% accuracy. If a claimant can do what they say they can do, "the odds" aren't relevant.

Ultimately, the effect this has on the protocol is little more than, given the accuracy rating claimed by the "psychic", how many trials need to be run so we can be sure of a positive result. With dowsing, for the preliminary challenge, it usually works out to 10 trials, one glass of water or gold coin, ten buckets, and IIRC, getting more than 5 right, although don't quote me on that last bit.

Remember that before the trial is actually run, the claimant must agree on video that the protocol is fair and the testing conditions correct before the test takes place. The claimant must again agree, on video, after the test is run but before the results are revealed. This is why double-blinding is so important in these things. Nobody, not the claimant, not JREF, not the proctors ever know the results before this point.

I dont know of any psychic or medium who would claim to be 100% accurate. After all, you are getting messages that come from many spirits talking at once and that could be for anyone in the room. As far as Randi's test goes. Its a bit like asking a snooker player to prove time and time again that they could hit a 147 break just because they have done it in the past.

Do you know that it took almost a year of going to spiritualist church before my brother got his first message? Please do not club genuine mediums together in the same group as TV mediums such as Derek Acorah, Jonathon Edwards or Van Praag. They are in it for the money.

One of the 7 rules of philosophy of the National Spiritualist Church is personal responsibility. No real medium worth anything would even require payment for their services. Nor could they tell you next weeks lottery results.

Spock Jenkins · #**120** (**permalink**) 07-July-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicdave

That is just one brief extract. What about the ladies ear, the red on her tyres or the brakes on her car? how common is that? What about the picture that he described or the unusual names like 'Ging.'

Lets be honest here - there was not one single question asked where this lady said 'No, I can't take that.'

There weren't any questions that were denied, but every question was completed by the person being read.

Event in May? Who doesn't know somebody with a May birthday? My mother's birthday is in May. I had a black cat once. I've got cream colored tiles in my kitchen. The vast majority of cats have green eyes, particularly black cats.

I've got a vehicle that's overdue for a brake job. Who doesn't?

This guy was reading me! It's incredible.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode