@429Cage So you would rather put your whole faith on the proposition that anecdotal cases of psi is evidence of psi? Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not evidence whatsoever. The problem with anecdotes is they come from uncontrolled environments which makes it impossible to distinguish the paranornal from uncontrolled, confounding variables such as selective memory, hindsight bias, etc.
I hate typing errors. I made quite a few when I asked about the laws "Chuck" claimed that psi or talking with the dead would violate. So I ask, what physical laws would psychic phenomena or communicating with the dead violate? State them and cite your list of academia, if it exists. Don't cite a source that simply "says so". Cite sources that specifically present a convincing case for why these things would violate the laws of nature; if you can't, you are simply making unsubstantiated claims.
@429Cage: You should consider giving up the idiot redneck mystic routine in favor of some actual learned skill or talent; maybe automotive specialist or the like.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Mystic? Look, you are truly intolerable. I am a magician, hypnotist and I admit that. I also admit that I have an interest in exploring the possibility of psychic phenomena, etc; I'm not a credulous believer. I realize the possibility for hot reading. If you read everything the website says, it also encourages people to use false names, call from anonymous numbers, send your mail from addresses not your own, etc; Now, those steps will prevent it.
@xChuckNorrisKickx You don't believe in hypnosis? Now hypnosis is demonstrated and well established. It relies on suggestion. Perhaps you are about 150 years behind on medical and scientific knowledge?
@429Cage "Hypnosis" is a pseudoscience. It is not the hypnotist who produces the "effect" but the idiot subject himself who has decided to engage in fantasy role playing. 150 years of medical and scientific knowledge has produced no verifiable mechanism to validate the belief; and it is a belief, nothing more. This also demonstrates how easily confused and willing to believe you are.
@xChuckNorrisKickx You dumbass. Hypnosis works. You are thinking of mesmerism. Even if the subject produces the effects, it still works. Mesmerism is the predecessor to hypnotism, but mesmerism deals with the theory that there is a magnetic force around the human body that the mesmerist can tap into to influence the subject. Hypnosis is well founded, especially as a medical tool. It can be used as a way of inducing numbness, etc;
@429Cage Hypnosis does not "work" imbecile. it is mere placebo and has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is a laughable joke and it does not surprise me that you would beleive in it.
@xChuckNorrisKickx The evidence I am speaking of for hypnosis, is the phenomena of TRANCE (such as natural anesthesia, affirmations, etc;). I do not believe that a hypnotist exerts some "mesmeric force" over the subject; that, my friend, is pseudo science. I believe it is what you are referring to.
@xChuckNorrisKickx It is a psuedoscience because someone from youtube who calls themselves "xChuckNorrisKickx" says so, right? I would like to see your sources. Once I do, I will show you mine and compare the vast evidence in favor of it to what you have. You're idea of what hypnosis is even seems to be flawed.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I agree there. I never said it was not placebo. Are you still referencing mesmerism? Of course hypnotism is a placebo, but it does allow a subject to induce a trance in themselves; the suggestions are accepted and planted subconsciously, then put into expression. Hypnotism is not the same thing as mesmerism; no one has believed that the hypnotist has any influence over the subject, aside from presentation, form and suggestions, in a very long time (at least to my knowledge).
@xChuckNorrisKickx The names do not have to be submitted to the office. I have checked the registration forms, etc; I have went to extremes to investigate mediums, the ones I think are probably frauds and the ones that may not be. I'm more seasoned and experienced than you to judge the alleged "paranormal", so I would appreciate it if you speak with more respect.
@429Cage If someone does not need to submit his name to Anderson's office, how exactly does he register? And let's say he registers with a fake nam and provides an entirely fake address and phone number, etc; do you think that Anderson's people are not going to know that the information is fake? And let's say they don't detect the fake information, how is he supposed to pay? They want a credit care up front, so all this "anonymity" gets thrown out the window.
@xChuckNorrisKickx No. You register with a fake name. Use a different persons address and call from the anonymous number, then use their name and what not. They also don't require a credit card and you don't have to submit any personal information. If you want anonymity, you can get it. Now obviously anonymity doesn't rule out cold and warm reading, but hot reading is prevented.
@429Cage The don't require a credit card? Yet I'm sure that if that is true, which I doubt it is, they certainly will press for one. If most of the audience has given up their information, it's nothing to him to have one or two hold-outs that he might make misses upon. He would explain it away as using the old "I'm not perfect" bullshit. It would also be very easy for him to identify those who provided accurate info and those who did not.
@xChuckNorrisKickx He doesn't do audience readings. Only telephone and private readings. This shows that you are supplying a general definition to him and other mediums, but don't do research on individual ones. Instead you lump them all in a general category. I know the "hits and misses" tricks.
@429Cage Read his fucking website again; notice that he offers "group" rates for "group" readings. Sounds alot like audience readings to me. The "hits and misses" analysis is not a trick you fool. It is the only rational means by which to measure accuracy. Like a typical believer, of course, you don't like counting hits and misses in the case of a psychic because doing so would immediately invalidate your idiot belief.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I'm not a believer; I am a skeptic. I'm on a fence still forming my conclusion. I think my position is the most logical, but you disagree; you are welcome to do so.
@xChuckNorrisKickx If he is not hot reading, which if people follow the suggested steps then HE CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THAT, then he is pulling them from thin air, I assure you. Cold reading, body language, etc; cannot account for that accuracy. Now, a good skeptical argument would be that we don't how many people actually follow the sites suggestions! Many probably don't, which would allow hot reading to be possible. It all depends on the conditions the individual sets up.
@429Cage Wrong again; your "suggested steps" do not prevent hot reading at all. As I've shown, your "suggested steps" still leave information about you in the hands of Anderson's organization. It's no different than simply given Anderson your life's story before going into the group reading.
@xChuckNorrisKickx As you have shown? You haven't shown that. I know all about these tricks, Chuck. Okay. In your "professional opinion", what steps would successfully eliminate hot reading as a possibility? I'm all ears.
@429Cage Have him go to an airport on a random day, meet a randomy chosen neural escort to ensure he makes no attempts at communication, hand them two tickets to a randomly chosen city; in that city, take him immediately to a randomly chosen location in which are 20 randomly chosen people (who he has never met). Give him NO information at all and instruct the people to answer no questions or provide no feedback. Give the reading; run a control group; assess for accuracy.
@xChuckNorrisKickx That is a good group testing method. I think what you are referring to is the possibility that he could glean information from the conversations before the reading begins. You are also trying to eliminate cold reading (and what you suggested is a good start, though I would recommend eliminating any sensory feedback, visual, auditory or whatever). Even what you said is not foil proof. Your experiments would inspire much criticism if they were positive.
@429Cage So you expect me to construct an entire protocol in the limited space available here retard? It is entirely irrelevant anyway. The only thing relevant is your idiot claim that the way that particular psychic fraud conducts his fraudulent business somehow precludes cheating on his part. It does not. Only a credulous clown (you) would believe it does.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Now, the mystic comment actually is shocking. I would hope that you don't think I am some "credulous believer"? I'm very skeptical of everything, especially the paranormal. I'm the type that needs evidence, especially HIGH QUALITY evidence. I have experimented with psychic testing and seances, but that was an attempt to see if any of the reported phenomena could be produced by a group of honest people interested in finding the truth of the alleged phenomena.
@429Cage You've shown yourself time and again to be a credulous believer and also shown common misunderstanding concerning evidence. You also are not very good at assessing whether information may be successfully withheld from a fraud psychic in a setting controlled by the psychic. Basically, you're easily tricked.
@xChuckNorrisKickx No. I beg to differ. Especially since I have carefully evaluated the evidence and evaluated the registration information on Anderson's website. Now, if you want to prove your point, go to wwwDOTgeorgeandersonDOTcom and look at "frequently asked questions" and the registration form. If you find any way that hot reading can be applied when the steps have been applied, then you can talk as if you know what you're talking about.
@429Cage Hot reading can be applied through ANY of the methods provided for contact; ANY of them. Did you even read the website? Once again, it is a high likelyhood that most fools who contact him are hardened believers and gullible twits such as you and will happily fork over all their details to the fraud enabler who answers the phone/email/mail. It is any easy thing to spot the one or two who do not give any details, if that is even possible. How are payments made?
@xChuckNorrisKickx Look it up. If you want to know how payments are made, look it up. They can be made through any of the popular methods, even paypal. If you call me a gullible twit or resort to any other name calling, I will report your sorry ass. I was simply saying that it is possible to ensure anonymity if you follow the suggestions. Now, you are right in saying he could still obtain information if he chatted with the sitters right before the reading. That depends though.
@429Cage Oh no, don't report me, I'm scared. The manner in which that fraud, or any other psychic, conducts business should never be trusted as a means to guarantee anonymity. So long as his group of employees controls the information, how can any rational person assume anonymity? Only the most gullible, religionist, superstitious, and dumbest believers could fall for something so obvious.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I do not assume anonymity, Chucky boy. What I said was closer to "It seems to preclude any prior research on the "mediums" part, if you are to give false information, etc;" I do not "assume" that Anderson, or any other medium is genuine. You do measure these things with hits and misses. You are right; I was simply saying that cold reading partially relies on the typicality of a person "remembering the hits and forgetting the misses". I'm not superstitious in the least.
@xChuckNorrisKickx If the setting is controlled by the psychic, then obviously you will not have "good conditions". However, if you can control particular parts of the reading, such as ensuring your anonymity, that is a good first step. I assure you, I know much more about the things you speak of than you do. And I certainly am not a believer.
@429Cage No it is not. The conditions are equally as "bad" regardless of whether you choose to give your personal information. Once again, the reason for this is that the fraud is gambling that MOST of the participants are gullible dopes who will bleed their hearts out to the fraud enablers who handle his business. It is likely a good gamble for him and it seems to be working. This means he can always spot the few who are trying not to reveal anything.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Again, I think you are under the impression that he does readings before an audience or in a room full of people. That is not the case. Please read my previous comments or investigate his page yourself.
@xChuckNorrisKickx If you want to really see if any phenomena is genuine, I recommend setting up a group of people -some skeptical, some less so- to begin testing the things out for yourself. I've never settled for the experiments and thoughts of others to dictate my opinion; I suggest you follow that example.
@429Cage Why should I? It's a waste of time and effort for a conclusion that is known beforehand. The default position is that ALL psychics are frauds; ALL without reservation. Any who wish to prove otherwise should submit themsevles to scientific testing using controlled, double-blind experiments. None of your "experiments" are valid as evidence, nor are any of your anecdotes. These can be discounted entirely.
@xChuckNorrisKickx That is a very questionable default position. It should not be that way. You can think that, obviously. But you still have to admit that you really "don't know", otherwise you are a "believer in disbelief" and not a real skeptic or scientifically minded person. Anecdotes should not be discounted. A large mass of medical knowledge, for example, is based on anecdotal evidence.
@429Cage Is it a wrong default position to presume that if I let go a brick while on the Earth it will fall towards the Earth? Must I drop a brick on every possible inch of ground to prove it is the case? Of course not because it would overturn the laws of physics if I found a place in which it did not. For any medium to actually be able to contact the dead as each claims, they have violated the fundamental physical laws in the same fashion. Therefore, it is a PROPER position.
@xChuckNorrisKickx What physical laws have they violate if they can? Cite your sources and provide the academia to support your claims. The fact is, we don't know if talking to the dead (if it happens) violates ANY LAWS WHATSOEVER. You can say it does all you want; I would challenge you to prove your position.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Despite that fact that people have questioned the omnipresence of the above law, (they don't know if it exists EVERYWHERE or not) I would ask why you think this removes the possibility of life after death? I'm not talking about mediums now, but the potential that human consciousness survives death. Remember, science is based on observation, so if there are things we observe that cannot be explained by our conventional knowledge, we must seek to expand our theories.
@xChuckNorrisKickx People who see ghosts obviously can't prove it objectively, but when a large number of people in the population report seeing apparitions in times of crisis (meaning they are veridical) the evidential value has to be examined. Even the cases that are well documented WELL EXEED what chance would predict. The evidential value of that is undeniable. Now, they may not be genuine spirits, but telepathic and hallucinatory messages. We don't know.
@429Cage No, the "evidential" value as regards a claim that they saw "ghosts" does not. Anecdotal evidence is to be ignored; it is not reliable and, when it regards the supernatural, it must especially be disregarded. Cases of mass delusion are plentiful. A supernatural cause might be investigated when all other natural casues are eliminated. If any single natural cause may be attributed to the phenomenon, the superstition should be ignored. Mass delusion is a natural cause.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I agree. But time and time again, no rational natural explanation has been uncovered. When cases become collective, the evidential value grows. If a mass of experiences that coincide with real events exists, (for example seeing an apparition of a person at the moment they die) which they do and have since the "Report on the Census of Hallucinations" was first published in the 1890s, then they cannot be simply "discounted" as null.
@429Cage When cases become "collective"?? WTF does that mean? You mean when more people report their delusions? Simply because many people claim to have experieneced/seen something weird does not mean it is real. This is a logical fallacy known as the appeal to popularity. If there is nothing testable, it can and should be ignored. Mass delusion has been studied many times.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Collective cases imply that more than one person saw the alleged "apparition" at the same time. There are possible explanations for some of these, but not the more well documented ones.
@xChuckNorrisKickx People have speculated that these might simply be some weird form of "telepathic hallucination"; even Frank Podmore, one of the greatest skeptics of all time said he thought that was more likely than "genuine spirits" appearing. Podmore and many skeptics (who actually know the research literature) would not deny the strong evidence for telepathy.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Also, these things have a veridical, or "consist nature" with reality that far out does what would be expected by chance. Read the SPR's "Report of the Census of Hallucinations" for more information. If you are going to talk to me, I would appreciate a mutual sense of respect; I certainly know the literature very well. I think people could learn a lot from each other, even with different opinions, if they all would adopt this attitude.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I will agree with you there though. Double blind experiments are a definite MUST for the scientific testing of these things. I would suggest a triple blind protocol, repeated many, many times to provide undeniable evidence for people like you, actually. If you want to find a great series of experiments, I'd recommend looking up "KELLY, Mediumship Study PDF" on google and looking at it. If you don't look it up, your mindset will be fully demonstrated.
@429Cage That's a well known uninteresting "study". She found no evidence of so-called "psi" with rigorous blinding and controls, so she loosened everything up until she got the results she wanted. Dean Radin touts this as a win for the "psi" community of idiot believers. It is not; it's a badly formed joked and not representative of scholarly pursuit and scientific investigation.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I read the study in depth. She didn't loosen the protocol -all she did was give the alleged medium an object (a picture, as bland as possible, etc;) to "connect" with. She simply gave a different object in the two different experiments; they never said the study "proved" anything. It is an area that deserves serious research, even if only for the reason that any concept of "life after death" is an essential thing which we shouldd explore.
("adequately", my bad) As for Osborne Leonard, she was never even called a fraud during her life. Only after her death did anyone begin to speculate on "how she might have tricked Oliver Lodge and others". The problem is that many people who have given arguments against Leonards authenticity have come terribly short of explaining her alleged phenomena. Many have even misrepresented the information (making an examination of the original documents VERY necessary).
Science does not contradict psi. In fact, a majority of the theories in physics and our current understanding of quantum theory can allow for psi to occur. How would you know if the things were there or not? Do you know how many people claim to see apparitions, often seeing them at the time the person dies? The scale of these occurrences suggests that telepathy is the least we need to explain them. I'm in college, by the way, which you might have asked if your head wasn't so far up your own ass.
@429Cage I do know who you are; it's simple. You're a delusional loser who has chosen to believe in superstition while falling for the cheap tricks of no-so-slick con men. "Psi" doesn't exist and the proper words for it are "supernatural" and "superstition". The claim that one can talk to the dead does directly contradict science in every respect, as do ALL supernatural/superstitious claims. There is nothing in quantum theory supporting the supernatural; that is new age bullshit.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I have never chosen to believe in superstition. I was just like you a few years ago, albeit a little more open minded. I am certainly not a loser or gullible. What changed my mind is testing the claims myself. In addition to that, I've studied the scientific evidence for it in more depth than most people can say they have. I am definitely not a "New Ager". By saying it "doesn't exist" does not change the fact that there is good evidence that it does.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I am not a superstitionist, but a rationalist, you arrogant, stupid bitch. I would've said ignorant, but stupidity is a lot different. Ignorance is not knowing what you are talking about; stupidity is not wanting to know. I am very well educated, for the record. So was William James, Carl Jung, Sigmond Freud, Sir William Crookes, J.B. Rhine, Hereward Carrington, Richard Hodgson -all great psychical researchers from history.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Explain what in quantum theory contradicts it? You can say it does all you want until you give proof! I don't take the claims of cynics anymore seriously than I take the claims of psychics. Where is your evidence? If you ask most physicists or quantum theorists, they will say that current knowledge can permit the existence of psi (and I have conversed with a few, even when I was going to UNC to work on my M.S. degree in psychology, which I'm still working on at the moment).
I also have never fallen for tricks. Most of the things that caused me to think their might be something more to these things were personal experiences (i.e., seeing my grandfather's apparition as clearly as any one I've ever seen in September of 2009). You obviously have no room to talk about the experiments I've done or the experiences I've had. The experiments I've done, for the record, effectively eliminate fraud from the equation. I would smack you, but in America we don't hit little girls.
Also, even if mediums can't communicate with the dead, there is some unknown and non-conventional form of communication that allow SOME to get their information. Cases like that of Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne Leonard clearly demonstrate that. No one has ever adequately debunked either of those mediums -and believe me, I've studied this subject a hell of a lot more than you. However, I study everything I can, especially the original accounts. I don't rely on third hand accounts like many do.
@ebrobaru Hi ebrobaru. I remember you! I actually enjoy conversing with you and people like you (who enjoy a respectful debate). Now, I read "Studies in Spiritism" by Stanely Hall and Amy Tanner and enjoyed their perspectives on Piper. However, the two psychologists really didn't study her to see if she really could communicate with the dead or not. They did reaffirm that her trance state was genuine though (something other investigators had done before). They only had six sittings with Piper.
@ebrobaru Piper is a bit of an enigma. She clearly believed in what she could do, even though she admitted that she didn't know what happened when she was in trance (and that she was willing to accept the telepathic explanation just as well as the spirit explanation). I've went through an examination of all the reports and studies on Piper that I could find, including Hodgson's reports. No one has explained her or Leonard away and any attempts to do so have fallen drastically short.
@ebrobaru There were and are many mediums who have not been "explained away". Leonard, Piper, Rosina Thompson, D.D. Home, Stella C, George Anderson, etc; Even some of Palladino's phenomena is difficult to explain away (though I do believe she was fraudulent -personally). I'm not saying that these people are not frauds (whether conscious or unconscious). I am saying that they have never been explained. Whether they are genuine or not is debatable.
@429Cage Palladino was one of the most explained away. Not sure about the others. Anyway, what do you think about current "mediums"? Anyone you think is real?
@ebrobaru Oh god yes. I know that. Eusapia was caught in fraud many times. What I meant was that the seances she held in Naples especially very well controlled. That particular group of seances were attended by two magicians... It's a bit shocking that if she did manage to "pull the wool over their eyes", then she wasn't using the tricks she usually did. Frank Podmore, my favorite skeptical mind, said that she might have had an accomplice aid her in some of the more incredible phenomena.
@ebrobaru Recently, Richard Wiseman raised that possibility again and suggested that her husband might have been the accomplice. It amazes me that distinguished magicians like Carrington were probably fooled by Palladino. Houdini even said that the seances in Naples were some of the best he'd ever read. Some people thought that Palladino cheated whenever she could, but when she was controlled properly, then she would get serious. I tend to disregard that idea, but I suppose it's possible.
@ebrobaru Well, maybe. I think George Anderson is one of the more likely ones to be real. Maybe Gordon Smith, Craig and Jane Hamilton-Parker, etc;. You see, I don't particularly say "yes, they are real." I say "Yes, they might be." I will admit very quickly when I can't explain things away though. I think John Edward is a clear fraud (from what I've seen). The same goes for Sylvia Browne (she's even more obvious; I dislike her with a passion).
@429Cage I enjoy also discussing with you because you do it an adult mature way, unlike many here. Of the ones you mentioned, Gordon Smith is a clear fraud. Just dig a little deeper and you´ll find out. Just go to unbiased threads about him. George Anderson doen´t particularily seem that good to me, but that´s preception. The others, I don´t know them so I can´t comment. But so far, no evidence to suggest anyhting special.
@ebrobaru Well thank you man. I respect your position. You do make a lot of great points. I want to state right here and now though that mediums are not what I would consider the "best evidence" for life after death. Maybe a few good ones are, but I find more compelling evidence from collective cases and parapsychological experimentation. George Anderson actually is one of the best, if not the best modern medium that I've seen.
@ebrobaru I've studied Anderson in some depth and he is definitely one of the most tested modern mediums. Do me a favor, if you will. Go look up "George Anderson" in the search bar and go to part three of the videos about him. Or, you can find the old "Life Afterlife" documentary up here and watch the last half of part 7 and then the first half of part 8. If you observe the reading, he could not have gotten his information through cold reading (though maybe hot reading).
@ebrobaru He actually encourages people on his website to take precautions against hot reading... Which I find interesting. Give me your opinion of the video, if you will.
@429Cage Let me chech the video and I will get back to you. However, I have to tell you that that is one of the typical "outs" that these co called mediums use. They "warn" against others, implying that only himself is the real one.
@ebrobaru Oh no. Anderson doesn't seem to do that. I'm going to copy and paste what is said on his site. He has a business with people working under him as well (he needs this because of the large number of people who go to him for readings). And yeah bro, I know the "ins and outs" of the business. ;) It is a good way to make money though, huh? It's sickening that so many people can take advantage of the bereaved like that. I have seen a few mediums that I am truly baffled by though.
@ebrobaru This is in the question and answer section: Q: You say you do not need any information from me, but I need to give you my name and address to get a confirmation letter. What can I do to ensure that I can be anonymous?
@ebrobaru A pt. 1: George Anderson insists on complete anonymity of each person attending a session or group. This is why we operate 2 separate offices--one holds your appointment and the registration number assigned to you, and the other holds your mailing address without your name.
@429Cage How exactly does this in any way guarantee anonymity? Anderson's own organization controls the data. Why the fuck should any of us ever believe that office 1 is not simply sending the information to office 2 for Anderon's use? How do we know that Anderson does not simply have direct access to all the information coming in? We don't and only a foolish clown would believe that he is not using the information. What a crock of bullshit.
@ebrobaru A pt. 2: We have found, however, that most people see during the session that the information communicated by their loved ones has very little to do with their name and address, and has even less to do with the sitter's life. The session is for the soul to communicate about their existence. We encourage people who are concerned about giving any information to have all their correspondence addressed to a friend, or to a post office box.
@ebrobaru A pt. 3 (final part): We also encourage people to use a false name if it makes them feel better. It is not important to us--when it is time to attends your appointment or group, you need only answer to the name you gave yourself at the time of the enrollment.
@ebrobaru Now these steps will successfully prevent hot reading, if they are followed. After looking through Anderson's readings, many of them seem only explicable in terms of a mix of hot and cold reading, though he does not seem to use cold reading techniques to get his information. I have been cold reading, for recreational fun, for quite a few years now.. And I know how to look out for tricks like that.
@429Cage No they certainly WILL NOT prevent hot reading. Those "steps" simply create a false sense of security in the minds of already credulous believers. Let's put the man in a group of randomly chosen people who have NOT given up any of their information to anyone beforehand and see what happens. He's a classic hot reader fraud.
@ebrobaru Overall, the main thing I've found most interesting is the way he seems to pull names out of thin air. There is none of the "fishing" for information that goes on with him. He constantly and consisely pulls names out of thin air that he correctly places... The name thing alone seems inexplicable, because even if you might get a lucky guess a few times, or even give common names, it is unlikely that you could get accurate names EVERY TIME like that.
@429Cage It's not so interesting considering that he does not "pull names out of thin air". He uses the information the people submitted when they registered, which his office workers gave to him. It's really not interesting at all; it's just ordinary, common fraud.
@ebrobaru But yeah man! Let me know your opinion of that video. Hot reading would be the only logical explanation for that... And if the people exclude that possibility, then I am at a loss. I've noticed that Anderson has received no where near the amount of skepticism that Edwards and others have. If I had to pick a medium that I thought was genuine, he would be at the top of the list.
@ebrobaru I'd say the best place to look for "genuine mediums" is outside the professional medium circuit. I've talked to several people who claim that they have seen spirits throughout their lives (maybe they are prone to hallucinations; maybe not). I agree with Richard Hodgson when he said that "...nearly all professional mediums are a gang of vulgar tricksters who are more or less in league with one another." Where money is involved, fraud will be -even if some phenomena proves authentic.
@429Cage I think that you´re mixing up three different topics here. 1 Psychics, 2 Ghosts, 3. Spiritualism. The first topic doesn´t have to do at all with the other 2. Ghosts? Well, unlikely, but who can know for real? Spititualism? Well, that´s more to do with religion so also a different topic. It just not wise to mix up the possibility of an afterlife, to mediums or psychics
@ebrobaru Well, fair enough. I will agree with you there. Ghosts are more in line with psychical research and anecdotal evidence. In fact, the collective cases of crisis, post-mortem and collective apparitions are what I find to be some of the most compelling evidence. Though the three fields are each a bit different, they do all tie into each other in many ways. Spiritualism is based on psychics and mediums, so I would say they are inseparable.
A lot of women (and people) are bitches when they're drunk. She certainly took it to the extreme end of the "bitch scale" in that show... But she is human. I've acted like an asshole before and I'm sure we all have at certain points... With the exception of Barney and John Lennon, who were all about love! Haha. Though I will not say she is fraudulent, as that would be a big assumption, I will say that she was a bitch on the show and is human, like us all.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Hey, bud. If she's been proven to be a fraud then I won't deny that. I've never seen anything about her being exposed though. You are quite the genius to be able to know all about a person just by reading a comment they made. I never said she wasn't fraudulent. I just said that I wouldn't make the assumption that she was -I would be a clown and gullible retard to do that without evidence, thank you.
@429Cage Then you only professes your ignorance on the subject, which means you should shut the fuck up entirely. There have been many articles written about her and her bullshit claims going back many years. It is not assumption for anyone to now declare her a liar.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Hey, bub. I have not said anything rude to you, so I'd appreciate it if you shut the fuck up. I'm not talking about DuBois specifically. I'm talking about any claims. If there is evidence against it, of course I will evaluate it. As an amateur magician myself, you make a big assumption thinking you know me. I have a very good understanding of cold reading and other "tricks", mate. Many mediums do not seem to rely on those tactics -and I've studied this field extensively.
@xChuckNorrisKickx None of my comments have been "supportive" of DuBois, for the record. I'm definitely not supporting her. I'm simply promoting agnosticism with claims that seem to require investigation -the paranormal especially. Personally, I don't know very much about DuBois. Now if we were talking George Anderson or Gordon Smith, those are two mediums that I cannot readily "explain away". No one has been able to do so, in fact. People can only make assumptions with how they do what they do.
@429Cage Actually Gordon Smith has been "explained away" multiple times. Cold reading is the most effective way to do this, but by no means the only one. You know this of course being an amateur magician
@ebrobaru Yes. I do. But Gordon has not been explained away my friend. Hot reading and cold reading (when generalized) are the two most essential things that have to be looked out for. And I have done a great amount of research into Mr. Smith and he has not been "debunked". People have just made alternate theories about how he gets his information (as opposed to "genuine mediumship"). He has never been proven fraudulent -though he has never been "proven" absolutely genuine either. As you know.
@429Cage I reviewed your channel. It's clear to me now that you're just another foolish believer in super powers and other bogus claims. Get an education and learn something about the world; this might help. "Investigating" ghosts and other bullshit superstitions is a clear waste of time.
@xChuckNorrisKickx How would you know if it is a waste of time when you clearly have never put effort into investigating these things at first hand? You seem to be the credulous boob and derogatory comments only make you look more so. I am a magician. I also believe in some claims, but only things that I have witnessed at first hand. You have no idea what my education is and you seem to know very little about the subject matter you are trying to interject an opinion into. Thank you.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I have a feeling that Randi is your role model. I admire Randi, because even though he has his views, he is as respectful as he can be; that seems to be something you are lacking. Don't battle wits with me you foolish little boy. You have no idea how quickly I will send you back to school.
@429Cage It is impossible to "battle wits" with you because you have none. There is no battle. You should think about actually going to school in the first place; start back in the 9th grade for your remedial education. You are sorely mistaken on most of your idiot concepts. Either that or you can continue skulking around poorly lit homes and graveyards at night in search of things that aren't there like, for instance, ghosts.
@xChuckNorrisKickx You have no idea who I am and you can talk a lot of trash from the safety of your computer chair. If psi exists then it IS NOT SUPERNATURAL, but NATURAL. The fact is that there is so much evidence for many of these things, particularly telepathy, that you fail to realize that you are wrong in saying these things are "impossible". I'm not a "hyper credulous boob", but an open minded, but discerning, seeker of the truth. And you obviously aren't a true skeptic.
@xChuckNorrisKickx No matter the amount of reason and logic that I attempt to pass on, you cover your ears and try to speak over what I'm saying, since you are so convinced in what you believe; you're like a regular religious zealot. I would be much more respectful if you were, but you debate like an immature child. Skepticism implies asking people to "prove it", but also remaining agnostic to the claims. If you say it doesn't exist, then the burden of proof switches to you!
@429Cage Actually, you were "supportive" of dubois the fraud by claiming that you could not assume she was a fraud despite all the evidence that points clearly to this. All mediums can be explained away; it's called cold reading, hot reading, outright lying, etc. Anderson and smith are both known frauds and have been debunked all over the place. It's not an assumption to claim that a person's alleged superpowers are a fraud; it's the proper starting positon idiot.
@429Cage If you believe "many mediums" do not rely on cold or hot reading, then you're clearly a doltish clown and a gullible loser. Also, you clearly said you "wouldn't make the assumption" that she is a fraud. I pointed out to you that you need not make that "assumption" because she has been shown to be a reckless fraud many times. Meanwhile, anyone who does not start out with the position that mediums are frauds needs to have his head examined.
@xChuckNorrisKickx No. You are clearly a typical idiot when it comes to things like this. One of the founding members of CSICOP and many others will back me in saying this; true skepticsm is in being as neutral as possible to the claims. Do not believe them; do not dismiss them.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Let me give you an example that you might be able to wrap your pea brain around! To be a true skeptic is to sit on the fence and say "I don't know". Anything else is unscientific and ignorant. Anyone who claims that they can do something is making a claim and has to prove it. Anyone who is making a claim that they can't has to prove it also, because they are making a claim! To claim it does not exist is just as rash and ignorant as claiming that it does.
@429Cage You're a stumbling idiot; go spam someone else's page you freak. The difference between and ordinary claims and these types of claims are that they are supernatural idiot. It is not in any way a violation of the "show me" principle to immediately brand the psychic a fraud or a delusional. This is because what they are suggesting is actually contrary to the many thousands of pieces of real evidence showing us all that it is impossible idiot.
@429Cage By the way, someone who sits "on the fence" claiming he doesn't "know" is not a "true skeptic"; he's likely someone who doesn't have any actual grasp of the physical sciences or common reason. A skeptic simply says, "I don't believe you or your claim, PROVE IT!" He says this because the massive wieght of science, logic, understanding, scientific prediction, human history, etc., directly contradict the claim. Get it? Or are you too daft once again to grasp this simple concept.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Let me know when you are ready for "lesson two". Maybe if you're respectful, we can actually have an intelligent conversation and discuss evidence. Until then, all I can do is talk down to you as an inferior intellectual; you've proven nothing to the contrary thus far.
@429Cage Your "lessons" are nothing more than the hollow claims of the superstitionist. You would not know or understand "evidence" in any case. "Talk down" all you like; I'm not the one sneaking around graveyards and poorly lit abandoned houses at night looking for ghosts. Just face it; you're a loser, your life is completely boring, you're not very well educated but you would have others think you are, and you're an entirely insignificant person. Perfect harmless prey for psychic cons.
@xChuckNorrisKickx I don't sneak around graveyards, for the record. You have a messed up view of what a real person who is scientifically minded does with these claims. You base your opinions on pop culture and know nothing of real paranormal investigations, at least the ones I've conducted. You are a loser and an idiot for dismissing these things out of hand without properly investigating them and giving them a chance to prove themselves.
@xChuckNorrisKickx Explain how talking to the dead contradicts science? And I've never said I believed in talking to the dead. I simply said it's possible. But the only other explaination for what some mediums do would be telepathy and super psi, which are not new age terms, but terms used in parapsychology. Some parapsychologists are skeptics, so you would be a presumptious fool to call them "gullible losers".
@xChuckNorrisKickx As for being prey for psychic cons, I beg to differ (as will anyone who knows me). I have DEBUNKED a substantial amount of psychics on my own, without having to look up internet articles from biased sites like you do for you information. I am just not afraid to admit that their are things which I CANNOT explain. You sir, are an asshole. I'm assuming you have problems with women as well?
@xChuckNorrisKickx The advantage of being a true skeptic is that you are on the borderline and you make NO CLAIMS. Therefore, based on your neutrality, you have nothing to prove! You, my friend, are not a real skeptic and I can't take you seriously in the least. As for Smith being "debunked", he has not been proven fraudulent; it is only speculated that he might be cheating. It is far from "proven", as you claim.
@429Cage Branding a psychic as a fraud or a delusional performer is not making a claim; it is a characterization of that person based upon many mountains of actual real scientific evidence that suggest the impossibility, or at least high improbability, of those claims. It is the same as dismissing a claim of perpetual motion as either fraud, delusion, or mistake. Only a hyper-credulous boob such as yourself could see it otherwise.
@TheJaredlrice If she did, as you said, pretend to be dramatic for the sake of the reality television show (which is very likely) then how do people know she's not also fake when it comes to being a medium?
Have any of you had the thought that she was told to act like that in order to create drama on the series? Did it ever occur to any of you, now, when so many "reality shows" are debunked and proven to be staged, scripted and rehearsed that she was playing a part, made for her by a writer? I can't believe that there are still people gullible enough to think that reality shows are actually reality.
@TheJaredlrice Why would someone like dubois who attempts to always portray herself as an all-wise all-knowing psychic, a loving mother, an allegedly intelligent author, and a "professional" allow herself to be put into a script that portrays her as an arrogant, dumb, nasty, vindictive, immature drunken cunt? Dubois depends upon her image to sell books and tickets to her stupid shows. Why would she risk that with a script that is supposedly out of character? Your argument doesn't make sense.
@TheJaredlrice Why would someone like dubois who attempts to always portray herself as an all-wise all-knowing psychic, a loving mother, an allegedly intelligent author, and a "professional" allow herself to be put into a script that portrays her as an arrogant, dumb, nasty, vindictive, immature drunken cunt? Dubois depends upon her image to sell books and tickets to her stupid shows. Why would she risk that with a script that is supposedly out of character? Your argument doesn't make sense.
WHAT A HORRIBLE WOMAN THIS PATRICIA ARQUETTE "THE MEDIUM" IS..... SHE WAS INVITED FOR DINNER BY ONE OF THE HOUSEWIVES OF BEVERLY HILLS AND IT WAS REALLY DISTURBING TO SEE HER BEHAVIOUR THAT NIGHT..... SHE IS REALLY STRANGE THAT WOMAN...... SHE NEEDS HELP...... SHE IS DEFINITELY NOT CONNECTED TO THIS WORLD..... I SUPPOSE IT'S BECAUSE SHE SPEAKS ALL DAY TO THE DEAD......HAHAHAHA!!!
she's a real bitch in person...what a cunt..patricia arquette made allison looked like a nun in the series..the real allison is a real mean conniving bum-faced biatch.
"He had a friend whose daughter went missing and I was able to locate her" If "psychics" are saying stuff like that on mainstream media shows, the show should have an obligation to factcheck the story.
On the look for real spiritual guidance?Feel like the real relevant information has been hidden from you?mind reading, astral projection, telekinesis, it is all real.Sleep no more, THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM
It's kinda funny how nonchalant she was about that last part. "Oh, yeah, and I just so happened to locate a missing child... While brushing my teeth, on a Sunday morning...".
inspire734 is right. Sylvia Browne is a manipulator. NO PSYCHIC can tell you your whole life's story. they can pick up on some things and honestly give you some good insight--if they are sincere. that is it. the visions sometimes do NOT even makes sense to a person who is experiencing them. sometimes it takes months to figure it out so how can a psychic figure it out within min.? u just get some insight, u ask trusted ppl for advice, u use ur judgement and facts and you have ur answer.
i do not know her. i did watch the show and i like it but mediums are not like this. if it comes to u--u know it and if not well then too bad. they do not. i also do not think u see damn ppl standing around ur bed. i wish there was a way to measure psychic ability but we do not so we many ppl exaggerating it for their ten min. of fame on t.v.
the show is exaggerated. it is a like a hollywood movie. ok so real mediums are just NOT like this. u just do not have a vision during the time of the case. u might have it months after. no one can ever be this correct.
@ebrobaru sometimes people have visions. they see other people like colored portraits. u close ur eyes and it comes to u. like a flas and then disappears. but i think it takes a while to really figure out who is related to whom. i think that you have to be very spiritually evolved for this. if u do not believe in it at all, then i really cannot convince you. but i will say that not many ppl are evolved enough for mediumship.
@ebrobaru I just think that most mediums are fruads. I just do not think that people with such a talent and gift like being in the limelight. i think in some ways we all are mediums because most of us have at least one close person who has passed away. this show was good but just so exaggerated and fake. i just know that most spiritual ppl do not like putting themselves on display if they have such a talent. it is for guidance and not for money making.
@ebrobaru just because some are fake does not mean they all are. some things just cannot be explained through science. i strongly believe in God and the scientific Branch will NEVER be able to explain HOW ppl get messages through the other side. As I have said before, a vision can come at any time and most likely it will not be at the time the person needs the information to understand the situation at hand. that is the point i am trying to make.
@sairaj1 This is not about God. This is about people claiming to receive messages from the "other side". Yes science can explain how that happens, but first we must make sure it does happen ,and that it´s not a simple trick. I am not discounting the possibility that there may be a true medium out there. The problem is that so far, none has proven it. Even if it was a foreigner it is supposed to be communicating with the so called medium. What´s the problem about giving his name?
@ebrobaru This is also about God. Have you ever seen God? Just because we cannot see or comprehend certain things ACCORDING to the scientific method does not mean we can throw it all away. It is too bad that it cannot be proven through science but at least I am glad that you are not discounting the possibility of true mediums. If it comes to them they see it, but it is very confusing to me if say I see your grandmother's face in my minds eye.It might not mean anything to me but it came to me.
@429Cage So you would rather put your whole faith on the proposition that anecdotal cases of psi is evidence of psi? Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not evidence whatsoever. The problem with anecdotes is they come from uncontrolled environments which makes it impossible to distinguish the paranornal from uncontrolled, confounding variables such as selective memory, hindsight bias, etc.
IceAges14Aces 1 week ago
psychics,what aload of bollocks.evil they are praying on the vunerable
147breaks 1 week ago
She really ruined the character when she came out on RHBH
legallyinsane456 2 weeks ago
I hate typing errors. I made quite a few when I asked about the laws "Chuck" claimed that psi or talking with the dead would violate. So I ask, what physical laws would psychic phenomena or communicating with the dead violate? State them and cite your list of academia, if it exists. Don't cite a source that simply "says so". Cite sources that specifically present a convincing case for why these things would violate the laws of nature; if you can't, you are simply making unsubstantiated claims.
429Cage 3 weeks ago
@429Cage: You should consider giving up the idiot redneck mystic routine in favor of some actual learned skill or talent; maybe automotive specialist or the like.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Mystic? Look, you are truly intolerable. I am a magician, hypnotist and I admit that. I also admit that I have an interest in exploring the possibility of psychic phenomena, etc; I'm not a credulous believer. I realize the possibility for hot reading. If you read everything the website says, it also encourages people to use false names, call from anonymous numbers, send your mail from addresses not your own, etc; Now, those steps will prevent it.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage A "hypnotist"??? HAHAHA!!! Yet more belief in bullshit required. You're Cage the "redneck mystic". That should be your stage name.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx You don't believe in hypnosis? Now hypnosis is demonstrated and well established. It relies on suggestion. Perhaps you are about 150 years behind on medical and scientific knowledge?
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage "Hypnosis" is a pseudoscience. It is not the hypnotist who produces the "effect" but the idiot subject himself who has decided to engage in fantasy role playing. 150 years of medical and scientific knowledge has produced no verifiable mechanism to validate the belief; and it is a belief, nothing more. This also demonstrates how easily confused and willing to believe you are.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx You dumbass. Hypnosis works. You are thinking of mesmerism. Even if the subject produces the effects, it still works. Mesmerism is the predecessor to hypnotism, but mesmerism deals with the theory that there is a magnetic force around the human body that the mesmerist can tap into to influence the subject. Hypnosis is well founded, especially as a medical tool. It can be used as a way of inducing numbness, etc;
429Cage 4 weeks ago
@429Cage Hypnosis does not "work" imbecile. it is mere placebo and has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is a laughable joke and it does not surprise me that you would beleive in it.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 days ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx The evidence I am speaking of for hypnosis, is the phenomena of TRANCE (such as natural anesthesia, affirmations, etc;). I do not believe that a hypnotist exerts some "mesmeric force" over the subject; that, my friend, is pseudo science. I believe it is what you are referring to.
429Cage 1 day ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx It is a psuedoscience because someone from youtube who calls themselves "xChuckNorrisKickx" says so, right? I would like to see your sources. Once I do, I will show you mine and compare the vast evidence in favor of it to what you have. You're idea of what hypnosis is even seems to be flawed.
429Cage 4 weeks ago
@429Cage It is not just merely pseudoscience it is well known and widely ridiculed pseudoscience.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 days ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I agree there. I never said it was not placebo. Are you still referencing mesmerism? Of course hypnotism is a placebo, but it does allow a subject to induce a trance in themselves; the suggestions are accepted and planted subconsciously, then put into expression. Hypnotism is not the same thing as mesmerism; no one has believed that the hypnotist has any influence over the subject, aside from presentation, form and suggestions, in a very long time (at least to my knowledge).
429Cage 1 day ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx The names do not have to be submitted to the office. I have checked the registration forms, etc; I have went to extremes to investigate mediums, the ones I think are probably frauds and the ones that may not be. I'm more seasoned and experienced than you to judge the alleged "paranormal", so I would appreciate it if you speak with more respect.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage If someone does not need to submit his name to Anderson's office, how exactly does he register? And let's say he registers with a fake nam and provides an entirely fake address and phone number, etc; do you think that Anderson's people are not going to know that the information is fake? And let's say they don't detect the fake information, how is he supposed to pay? They want a credit care up front, so all this "anonymity" gets thrown out the window.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx No. You register with a fake name. Use a different persons address and call from the anonymous number, then use their name and what not. They also don't require a credit card and you don't have to submit any personal information. If you want anonymity, you can get it. Now obviously anonymity doesn't rule out cold and warm reading, but hot reading is prevented.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage The don't require a credit card? Yet I'm sure that if that is true, which I doubt it is, they certainly will press for one. If most of the audience has given up their information, it's nothing to him to have one or two hold-outs that he might make misses upon. He would explain it away as using the old "I'm not perfect" bullshit. It would also be very easy for him to identify those who provided accurate info and those who did not.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx He doesn't do audience readings. Only telephone and private readings. This shows that you are supplying a general definition to him and other mediums, but don't do research on individual ones. Instead you lump them all in a general category. I know the "hits and misses" tricks.
429Cage 4 weeks ago
@429Cage Read his fucking website again; notice that he offers "group" rates for "group" readings. Sounds alot like audience readings to me. The "hits and misses" analysis is not a trick you fool. It is the only rational means by which to measure accuracy. Like a typical believer, of course, you don't like counting hits and misses in the case of a psychic because doing so would immediately invalidate your idiot belief.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 days ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I'm not a believer; I am a skeptic. I'm on a fence still forming my conclusion. I think my position is the most logical, but you disagree; you are welcome to do so.
429Cage 1 day ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx If he is not hot reading, which if people follow the suggested steps then HE CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THAT, then he is pulling them from thin air, I assure you. Cold reading, body language, etc; cannot account for that accuracy. Now, a good skeptical argument would be that we don't how many people actually follow the sites suggestions! Many probably don't, which would allow hot reading to be possible. It all depends on the conditions the individual sets up.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Wrong again; your "suggested steps" do not prevent hot reading at all. As I've shown, your "suggested steps" still leave information about you in the hands of Anderson's organization. It's no different than simply given Anderson your life's story before going into the group reading.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx As you have shown? You haven't shown that. I know all about these tricks, Chuck. Okay. In your "professional opinion", what steps would successfully eliminate hot reading as a possibility? I'm all ears.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Have him go to an airport on a random day, meet a randomy chosen neural escort to ensure he makes no attempts at communication, hand them two tickets to a randomly chosen city; in that city, take him immediately to a randomly chosen location in which are 20 randomly chosen people (who he has never met). Give him NO information at all and instruct the people to answer no questions or provide no feedback. Give the reading; run a control group; assess for accuracy.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx That's "randomly" and "neutral"; etc fixing typos, whatever.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx That is a good group testing method. I think what you are referring to is the possibility that he could glean information from the conversations before the reading begins. You are also trying to eliminate cold reading (and what you suggested is a good start, though I would recommend eliminating any sensory feedback, visual, auditory or whatever). Even what you said is not foil proof. Your experiments would inspire much criticism if they were positive.
429Cage 4 weeks ago
@429Cage So you expect me to construct an entire protocol in the limited space available here retard? It is entirely irrelevant anyway. The only thing relevant is your idiot claim that the way that particular psychic fraud conducts his fraudulent business somehow precludes cheating on his part. It does not. Only a credulous clown (you) would believe it does.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 days ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Now, the mystic comment actually is shocking. I would hope that you don't think I am some "credulous believer"? I'm very skeptical of everything, especially the paranormal. I'm the type that needs evidence, especially HIGH QUALITY evidence. I have experimented with psychic testing and seances, but that was an attempt to see if any of the reported phenomena could be produced by a group of honest people interested in finding the truth of the alleged phenomena.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage You've shown yourself time and again to be a credulous believer and also shown common misunderstanding concerning evidence. You also are not very good at assessing whether information may be successfully withheld from a fraud psychic in a setting controlled by the psychic. Basically, you're easily tricked.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx No. I beg to differ. Especially since I have carefully evaluated the evidence and evaluated the registration information on Anderson's website. Now, if you want to prove your point, go to wwwDOTgeorgeandersonDOTcom and look at "frequently asked questions" and the registration form. If you find any way that hot reading can be applied when the steps have been applied, then you can talk as if you know what you're talking about.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Hot reading can be applied through ANY of the methods provided for contact; ANY of them. Did you even read the website? Once again, it is a high likelyhood that most fools who contact him are hardened believers and gullible twits such as you and will happily fork over all their details to the fraud enabler who answers the phone/email/mail. It is any easy thing to spot the one or two who do not give any details, if that is even possible. How are payments made?
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Look it up. If you want to know how payments are made, look it up. They can be made through any of the popular methods, even paypal. If you call me a gullible twit or resort to any other name calling, I will report your sorry ass. I was simply saying that it is possible to ensure anonymity if you follow the suggestions. Now, you are right in saying he could still obtain information if he chatted with the sitters right before the reading. That depends though.
429Cage 4 weeks ago
@429Cage Oh no, don't report me, I'm scared. The manner in which that fraud, or any other psychic, conducts business should never be trusted as a means to guarantee anonymity. So long as his group of employees controls the information, how can any rational person assume anonymity? Only the most gullible, religionist, superstitious, and dumbest believers could fall for something so obvious.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 days ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I do not assume anonymity, Chucky boy. What I said was closer to "It seems to preclude any prior research on the "mediums" part, if you are to give false information, etc;" I do not "assume" that Anderson, or any other medium is genuine. You do measure these things with hits and misses. You are right; I was simply saying that cold reading partially relies on the typicality of a person "remembering the hits and forgetting the misses". I'm not superstitious in the least.
429Cage 1 day ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx If the setting is controlled by the psychic, then obviously you will not have "good conditions". However, if you can control particular parts of the reading, such as ensuring your anonymity, that is a good first step. I assure you, I know much more about the things you speak of than you do. And I certainly am not a believer.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage No it is not. The conditions are equally as "bad" regardless of whether you choose to give your personal information. Once again, the reason for this is that the fraud is gambling that MOST of the participants are gullible dopes who will bleed their hearts out to the fraud enablers who handle his business. It is likely a good gamble for him and it seems to be working. This means he can always spot the few who are trying not to reveal anything.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Again, I think you are under the impression that he does readings before an audience or in a room full of people. That is not the case. Please read my previous comments or investigate his page yourself.
429Cage 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx If you want to really see if any phenomena is genuine, I recommend setting up a group of people -some skeptical, some less so- to begin testing the things out for yourself. I've never settled for the experiments and thoughts of others to dictate my opinion; I suggest you follow that example.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Why should I? It's a waste of time and effort for a conclusion that is known beforehand. The default position is that ALL psychics are frauds; ALL without reservation. Any who wish to prove otherwise should submit themsevles to scientific testing using controlled, double-blind experiments. None of your "experiments" are valid as evidence, nor are any of your anecdotes. These can be discounted entirely.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx That is a very questionable default position. It should not be that way. You can think that, obviously. But you still have to admit that you really "don't know", otherwise you are a "believer in disbelief" and not a real skeptic or scientifically minded person. Anecdotes should not be discounted. A large mass of medical knowledge, for example, is based on anecdotal evidence.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Is it a wrong default position to presume that if I let go a brick while on the Earth it will fall towards the Earth? Must I drop a brick on every possible inch of ground to prove it is the case? Of course not because it would overturn the laws of physics if I found a place in which it did not. For any medium to actually be able to contact the dead as each claims, they have violated the fundamental physical laws in the same fashion. Therefore, it is a PROPER position.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx What physical laws have they violate if they can? Cite your sources and provide the academia to support your claims. The fact is, we don't know if talking to the dead (if it happens) violates ANY LAWS WHATSOEVER. You can say it does all you want; I would challenge you to prove your position.
429Cage 4 weeks ago
@429Cage Try the laws of thermodynamics; no need to go beyond those. Position proved.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 days ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Despite that fact that people have questioned the omnipresence of the above law, (they don't know if it exists EVERYWHERE or not) I would ask why you think this removes the possibility of life after death? I'm not talking about mediums now, but the potential that human consciousness survives death. Remember, science is based on observation, so if there are things we observe that cannot be explained by our conventional knowledge, we must seek to expand our theories.
429Cage 1 day ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx People who see ghosts obviously can't prove it objectively, but when a large number of people in the population report seeing apparitions in times of crisis (meaning they are veridical) the evidential value has to be examined. Even the cases that are well documented WELL EXEED what chance would predict. The evidential value of that is undeniable. Now, they may not be genuine spirits, but telepathic and hallucinatory messages. We don't know.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage No, the "evidential" value as regards a claim that they saw "ghosts" does not. Anecdotal evidence is to be ignored; it is not reliable and, when it regards the supernatural, it must especially be disregarded. Cases of mass delusion are plentiful. A supernatural cause might be investigated when all other natural casues are eliminated. If any single natural cause may be attributed to the phenomenon, the superstition should be ignored. Mass delusion is a natural cause.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I agree. But time and time again, no rational natural explanation has been uncovered. When cases become collective, the evidential value grows. If a mass of experiences that coincide with real events exists, (for example seeing an apparition of a person at the moment they die) which they do and have since the "Report on the Census of Hallucinations" was first published in the 1890s, then they cannot be simply "discounted" as null.
429Cage 4 weeks ago
@429Cage When cases become "collective"?? WTF does that mean? You mean when more people report their delusions? Simply because many people claim to have experieneced/seen something weird does not mean it is real. This is a logical fallacy known as the appeal to popularity. If there is nothing testable, it can and should be ignored. Mass delusion has been studied many times.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 days ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Collective cases imply that more than one person saw the alleged "apparition" at the same time. There are possible explanations for some of these, but not the more well documented ones.
429Cage 1 day ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx People have speculated that these might simply be some weird form of "telepathic hallucination"; even Frank Podmore, one of the greatest skeptics of all time said he thought that was more likely than "genuine spirits" appearing. Podmore and many skeptics (who actually know the research literature) would not deny the strong evidence for telepathy.
429Cage 1 day ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Also, these things have a veridical, or "consist nature" with reality that far out does what would be expected by chance. Read the SPR's "Report of the Census of Hallucinations" for more information. If you are going to talk to me, I would appreciate a mutual sense of respect; I certainly know the literature very well. I think people could learn a lot from each other, even with different opinions, if they all would adopt this attitude.
429Cage 1 day ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I will agree with you there though. Double blind experiments are a definite MUST for the scientific testing of these things. I would suggest a triple blind protocol, repeated many, many times to provide undeniable evidence for people like you, actually. If you want to find a great series of experiments, I'd recommend looking up "KELLY, Mediumship Study PDF" on google and looking at it. If you don't look it up, your mindset will be fully demonstrated.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage That's a well known uninteresting "study". She found no evidence of so-called "psi" with rigorous blinding and controls, so she loosened everything up until she got the results she wanted. Dean Radin touts this as a win for the "psi" community of idiot believers. It is not; it's a badly formed joked and not representative of scholarly pursuit and scientific investigation.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 weeks ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx She did not loosen the controls. Read it. If you read it, what did she do in the experiment? Explain the details?
429Cage 4 weeks ago
@429Cage Of course she loosened the controls; you have a reading comprehension problem. The "study" is bogus.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 days ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I read the study in depth. She didn't loosen the protocol -all she did was give the alleged medium an object (a picture, as bland as possible, etc;) to "connect" with. She simply gave a different object in the two different experiments; they never said the study "proved" anything. It is an area that deserves serious research, even if only for the reason that any concept of "life after death" is an essential thing which we shouldd explore.
429Cage 1 day ago
Comment removed
429Cage 1 month ago
("adequately", my bad) As for Osborne Leonard, she was never even called a fraud during her life. Only after her death did anyone begin to speculate on "how she might have tricked Oliver Lodge and others". The problem is that many people who have given arguments against Leonards authenticity have come terribly short of explaining her alleged phenomena. Many have even misrepresented the information (making an examination of the original documents VERY necessary).
429Cage 1 month ago
Science does not contradict psi. In fact, a majority of the theories in physics and our current understanding of quantum theory can allow for psi to occur. How would you know if the things were there or not? Do you know how many people claim to see apparitions, often seeing them at the time the person dies? The scale of these occurrences suggests that telepathy is the least we need to explain them. I'm in college, by the way, which you might have asked if your head wasn't so far up your own ass.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage I do know who you are; it's simple. You're a delusional loser who has chosen to believe in superstition while falling for the cheap tricks of no-so-slick con men. "Psi" doesn't exist and the proper words for it are "supernatural" and "superstition". The claim that one can talk to the dead does directly contradict science in every respect, as do ALL supernatural/superstitious claims. There is nothing in quantum theory supporting the supernatural; that is new age bullshit.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I have never chosen to believe in superstition. I was just like you a few years ago, albeit a little more open minded. I am certainly not a loser or gullible. What changed my mind is testing the claims myself. In addition to that, I've studied the scientific evidence for it in more depth than most people can say they have. I am definitely not a "New Ager". By saying it "doesn't exist" does not change the fact that there is good evidence that it does.
429Cage 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I am not a superstitionist, but a rationalist, you arrogant, stupid bitch. I would've said ignorant, but stupidity is a lot different. Ignorance is not knowing what you are talking about; stupidity is not wanting to know. I am very well educated, for the record. So was William James, Carl Jung, Sigmond Freud, Sir William Crookes, J.B. Rhine, Hereward Carrington, Richard Hodgson -all great psychical researchers from history.
429Cage 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Explain what in quantum theory contradicts it? You can say it does all you want until you give proof! I don't take the claims of cynics anymore seriously than I take the claims of psychics. Where is your evidence? If you ask most physicists or quantum theorists, they will say that current knowledge can permit the existence of psi (and I have conversed with a few, even when I was going to UNC to work on my M.S. degree in psychology, which I'm still working on at the moment).
429Cage 1 month ago
I also have never fallen for tricks. Most of the things that caused me to think their might be something more to these things were personal experiences (i.e., seeing my grandfather's apparition as clearly as any one I've ever seen in September of 2009). You obviously have no room to talk about the experiments I've done or the experiences I've had. The experiments I've done, for the record, effectively eliminate fraud from the equation. I would smack you, but in America we don't hit little girls.
429Cage 1 month ago
Also, even if mediums can't communicate with the dead, there is some unknown and non-conventional form of communication that allow SOME to get their information. Cases like that of Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne Leonard clearly demonstrate that. No one has ever adequately debunked either of those mediums -and believe me, I've studied this subject a hell of a lot more than you. However, I study everything I can, especially the original accounts. I don't rely on third hand accounts like many do.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage No, thier cases were explained as well as any of those days.
ebrobaru 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Hi ebrobaru. I remember you! I actually enjoy conversing with you and people like you (who enjoy a respectful debate). Now, I read "Studies in Spiritism" by Stanely Hall and Amy Tanner and enjoyed their perspectives on Piper. However, the two psychologists really didn't study her to see if she really could communicate with the dead or not. They did reaffirm that her trance state was genuine though (something other investigators had done before). They only had six sittings with Piper.
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Piper is a bit of an enigma. She clearly believed in what she could do, even though she admitted that she didn't know what happened when she was in trance (and that she was willing to accept the telepathic explanation just as well as the spirit explanation). I've went through an examination of all the reports and studies on Piper that I could find, including Hodgson's reports. No one has explained her or Leonard away and any attempts to do so have fallen drastically short.
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru There were and are many mediums who have not been "explained away". Leonard, Piper, Rosina Thompson, D.D. Home, Stella C, George Anderson, etc; Even some of Palladino's phenomena is difficult to explain away (though I do believe she was fraudulent -personally). I'm not saying that these people are not frauds (whether conscious or unconscious). I am saying that they have never been explained. Whether they are genuine or not is debatable.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Palladino was one of the most explained away. Not sure about the others. Anyway, what do you think about current "mediums"? Anyone you think is real?
ebrobaru 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Oh god yes. I know that. Eusapia was caught in fraud many times. What I meant was that the seances she held in Naples especially very well controlled. That particular group of seances were attended by two magicians... It's a bit shocking that if she did manage to "pull the wool over their eyes", then she wasn't using the tricks she usually did. Frank Podmore, my favorite skeptical mind, said that she might have had an accomplice aid her in some of the more incredible phenomena.
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Recently, Richard Wiseman raised that possibility again and suggested that her husband might have been the accomplice. It amazes me that distinguished magicians like Carrington were probably fooled by Palladino. Houdini even said that the seances in Naples were some of the best he'd ever read. Some people thought that Palladino cheated whenever she could, but when she was controlled properly, then she would get serious. I tend to disregard that idea, but I suppose it's possible.
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Well, maybe. I think George Anderson is one of the more likely ones to be real. Maybe Gordon Smith, Craig and Jane Hamilton-Parker, etc;. You see, I don't particularly say "yes, they are real." I say "Yes, they might be." I will admit very quickly when I can't explain things away though. I think John Edward is a clear fraud (from what I've seen). The same goes for Sylvia Browne (she's even more obvious; I dislike her with a passion).
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage I enjoy also discussing with you because you do it an adult mature way, unlike many here. Of the ones you mentioned, Gordon Smith is a clear fraud. Just dig a little deeper and you´ll find out. Just go to unbiased threads about him. George Anderson doen´t particularily seem that good to me, but that´s preception. The others, I don´t know them so I can´t comment. But so far, no evidence to suggest anyhting special.
ebrobaru 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Well thank you man. I respect your position. You do make a lot of great points. I want to state right here and now though that mediums are not what I would consider the "best evidence" for life after death. Maybe a few good ones are, but I find more compelling evidence from collective cases and parapsychological experimentation. George Anderson actually is one of the best, if not the best modern medium that I've seen.
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru I've studied Anderson in some depth and he is definitely one of the most tested modern mediums. Do me a favor, if you will. Go look up "George Anderson" in the search bar and go to part three of the videos about him. Or, you can find the old "Life Afterlife" documentary up here and watch the last half of part 7 and then the first half of part 8. If you observe the reading, he could not have gotten his information through cold reading (though maybe hot reading).
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru He actually encourages people on his website to take precautions against hot reading... Which I find interesting. Give me your opinion of the video, if you will.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Let me chech the video and I will get back to you. However, I have to tell you that that is one of the typical "outs" that these co called mediums use. They "warn" against others, implying that only himself is the real one.
ebrobaru 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Oh no. Anderson doesn't seem to do that. I'm going to copy and paste what is said on his site. He has a business with people working under him as well (he needs this because of the large number of people who go to him for readings). And yeah bro, I know the "ins and outs" of the business. ;) It is a good way to make money though, huh? It's sickening that so many people can take advantage of the bereaved like that. I have seen a few mediums that I am truly baffled by though.
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru This is in the question and answer section: Q: You say you do not need any information from me, but I need to give you my name and address to get a confirmation letter. What can I do to ensure that I can be anonymous?
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru A pt. 1: George Anderson insists on complete anonymity of each person attending a session or group. This is why we operate 2 separate offices--one holds your appointment and the registration number assigned to you, and the other holds your mailing address without your name.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage How exactly does this in any way guarantee anonymity? Anderson's own organization controls the data. Why the fuck should any of us ever believe that office 1 is not simply sending the information to office 2 for Anderon's use? How do we know that Anderson does not simply have direct access to all the information coming in? We don't and only a foolish clown would believe that he is not using the information. What a crock of bullshit.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@ebrobaru A pt. 2: We have found, however, that most people see during the session that the information communicated by their loved ones has very little to do with their name and address, and has even less to do with the sitter's life. The session is for the soul to communicate about their existence. We encourage people who are concerned about giving any information to have all their correspondence addressed to a friend, or to a post office box.
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru A pt. 3 (final part): We also encourage people to use a false name if it makes them feel better. It is not important to us--when it is time to attends your appointment or group, you need only answer to the name you gave yourself at the time of the enrollment.
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Now these steps will successfully prevent hot reading, if they are followed. After looking through Anderson's readings, many of them seem only explicable in terms of a mix of hot and cold reading, though he does not seem to use cold reading techniques to get his information. I have been cold reading, for recreational fun, for quite a few years now.. And I know how to look out for tricks like that.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage No they certainly WILL NOT prevent hot reading. Those "steps" simply create a false sense of security in the minds of already credulous believers. Let's put the man in a group of randomly chosen people who have NOT given up any of their information to anyone beforehand and see what happens. He's a classic hot reader fraud.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Overall, the main thing I've found most interesting is the way he seems to pull names out of thin air. There is none of the "fishing" for information that goes on with him. He constantly and consisely pulls names out of thin air that he correctly places... The name thing alone seems inexplicable, because even if you might get a lucky guess a few times, or even give common names, it is unlikely that you could get accurate names EVERY TIME like that.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage It's not so interesting considering that he does not "pull names out of thin air". He uses the information the people submitted when they registered, which his office workers gave to him. It's really not interesting at all; it's just ordinary, common fraud.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@ebrobaru But yeah man! Let me know your opinion of that video. Hot reading would be the only logical explanation for that... And if the people exclude that possibility, then I am at a loss. I've noticed that Anderson has received no where near the amount of skepticism that Edwards and others have. If I had to pick a medium that I thought was genuine, he would be at the top of the list.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Please let me know if you receivedmy message?
ebrobaru 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Sorry bro. I haven't been near a computer in days. I will take a look now.
429Cage 1 month ago
@ebrobaru I'd say the best place to look for "genuine mediums" is outside the professional medium circuit. I've talked to several people who claim that they have seen spirits throughout their lives (maybe they are prone to hallucinations; maybe not). I agree with Richard Hodgson when he said that "...nearly all professional mediums are a gang of vulgar tricksters who are more or less in league with one another." Where money is involved, fraud will be -even if some phenomena proves authentic.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage I think that you´re mixing up three different topics here. 1 Psychics, 2 Ghosts, 3. Spiritualism. The first topic doesn´t have to do at all with the other 2. Ghosts? Well, unlikely, but who can know for real? Spititualism? Well, that´s more to do with religion so also a different topic. It just not wise to mix up the possibility of an afterlife, to mediums or psychics
ebrobaru 1 month ago
@ebrobaru Well, fair enough. I will agree with you there. Ghosts are more in line with psychical research and anecdotal evidence. In fact, the collective cases of crisis, post-mortem and collective apparitions are what I find to be some of the most compelling evidence. Though the three fields are each a bit different, they do all tie into each other in many ways. Spiritualism is based on psychics and mediums, so I would say they are inseparable.
429Cage 1 month ago
My mom watches medium on Netflix every day :)
Shabbo78 2 months ago
This chick is such a bitch.
nellieou 2 months ago
Amazing.
CarlosDlgd 3 months ago 2
Stupid medium
TheNoypiAko 3 months ago
what a nasty whore
ProudDemocrat01 3 months ago
A lot of women (and people) are bitches when they're drunk. She certainly took it to the extreme end of the "bitch scale" in that show... But she is human. I've acted like an asshole before and I'm sure we all have at certain points... With the exception of Barney and John Lennon, who were all about love! Haha. Though I will not say she is fraudulent, as that would be a big assumption, I will say that she was a bitch on the show and is human, like us all.
429Cage 3 months ago
@429Cage Then you're a clown and a gullible retard. She's been shown to be a fraud many times.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 months ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Hey, bud. If she's been proven to be a fraud then I won't deny that. I've never seen anything about her being exposed though. You are quite the genius to be able to know all about a person just by reading a comment they made. I never said she wasn't fraudulent. I just said that I wouldn't make the assumption that she was -I would be a clown and gullible retard to do that without evidence, thank you.
429Cage 3 months ago
@429Cage Then you only professes your ignorance on the subject, which means you should shut the fuck up entirely. There have been many articles written about her and her bullshit claims going back many years. It is not assumption for anyone to now declare her a liar.
xChuckNorrisKickx 3 months ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Hey, bub. I have not said anything rude to you, so I'd appreciate it if you shut the fuck up. I'm not talking about DuBois specifically. I'm talking about any claims. If there is evidence against it, of course I will evaluate it. As an amateur magician myself, you make a big assumption thinking you know me. I have a very good understanding of cold reading and other "tricks", mate. Many mediums do not seem to rely on those tactics -and I've studied this field extensively.
429Cage 3 months ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx None of my comments have been "supportive" of DuBois, for the record. I'm definitely not supporting her. I'm simply promoting agnosticism with claims that seem to require investigation -the paranormal especially. Personally, I don't know very much about DuBois. Now if we were talking George Anderson or Gordon Smith, those are two mediums that I cannot readily "explain away". No one has been able to do so, in fact. People can only make assumptions with how they do what they do.
429Cage 3 months ago
@429Cage Actually Gordon Smith has been "explained away" multiple times. Cold reading is the most effective way to do this, but by no means the only one. You know this of course being an amateur magician
ebrobaru 3 months ago
@ebrobaru Yes. I do. But Gordon has not been explained away my friend. Hot reading and cold reading (when generalized) are the two most essential things that have to be looked out for. And I have done a great amount of research into Mr. Smith and he has not been "debunked". People have just made alternate theories about how he gets his information (as opposed to "genuine mediumship"). He has never been proven fraudulent -though he has never been "proven" absolutely genuine either. As you know.
429Cage 3 months ago
@429Cage For example: Gordon Smith debunked skepdic(dot)com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia40(dot)html. You're a credulous boob.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@429Cage I reviewed your channel. It's clear to me now that you're just another foolish believer in super powers and other bogus claims. Get an education and learn something about the world; this might help. "Investigating" ghosts and other bullshit superstitions is a clear waste of time.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx How would you know if it is a waste of time when you clearly have never put effort into investigating these things at first hand? You seem to be the credulous boob and derogatory comments only make you look more so. I am a magician. I also believe in some claims, but only things that I have witnessed at first hand. You have no idea what my education is and you seem to know very little about the subject matter you are trying to interject an opinion into. Thank you.
429Cage 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I have a feeling that Randi is your role model. I admire Randi, because even though he has his views, he is as respectful as he can be; that seems to be something you are lacking. Don't battle wits with me you foolish little boy. You have no idea how quickly I will send you back to school.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage It is impossible to "battle wits" with you because you have none. There is no battle. You should think about actually going to school in the first place; start back in the 9th grade for your remedial education. You are sorely mistaken on most of your idiot concepts. Either that or you can continue skulking around poorly lit homes and graveyards at night in search of things that aren't there like, for instance, ghosts.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx You have no idea who I am and you can talk a lot of trash from the safety of your computer chair. If psi exists then it IS NOT SUPERNATURAL, but NATURAL. The fact is that there is so much evidence for many of these things, particularly telepathy, that you fail to realize that you are wrong in saying these things are "impossible". I'm not a "hyper credulous boob", but an open minded, but discerning, seeker of the truth. And you obviously aren't a true skeptic.
429Cage 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx No matter the amount of reason and logic that I attempt to pass on, you cover your ears and try to speak over what I'm saying, since you are so convinced in what you believe; you're like a regular religious zealot. I would be much more respectful if you were, but you debate like an immature child. Skepticism implies asking people to "prove it", but also remaining agnostic to the claims. If you say it doesn't exist, then the burden of proof switches to you!
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Actually, you were "supportive" of dubois the fraud by claiming that you could not assume she was a fraud despite all the evidence that points clearly to this. All mediums can be explained away; it's called cold reading, hot reading, outright lying, etc. Anderson and smith are both known frauds and have been debunked all over the place. It's not an assumption to claim that a person's alleged superpowers are a fraud; it's the proper starting positon idiot.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@429Cage If you believe "many mediums" do not rely on cold or hot reading, then you're clearly a doltish clown and a gullible loser. Also, you clearly said you "wouldn't make the assumption" that she is a fraud. I pointed out to you that you need not make that "assumption" because she has been shown to be a reckless fraud many times. Meanwhile, anyone who does not start out with the position that mediums are frauds needs to have his head examined.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx No. You are clearly a typical idiot when it comes to things like this. One of the founding members of CSICOP and many others will back me in saying this; true skepticsm is in being as neutral as possible to the claims. Do not believe them; do not dismiss them.
429Cage 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Let me give you an example that you might be able to wrap your pea brain around! To be a true skeptic is to sit on the fence and say "I don't know". Anything else is unscientific and ignorant. Anyone who claims that they can do something is making a claim and has to prove it. Anyone who is making a claim that they can't has to prove it also, because they are making a claim! To claim it does not exist is just as rash and ignorant as claiming that it does.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage You're a stumbling idiot; go spam someone else's page you freak. The difference between and ordinary claims and these types of claims are that they are supernatural idiot. It is not in any way a violation of the "show me" principle to immediately brand the psychic a fraud or a delusional. This is because what they are suggesting is actually contrary to the many thousands of pieces of real evidence showing us all that it is impossible idiot.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@429Cage By the way, someone who sits "on the fence" claiming he doesn't "know" is not a "true skeptic"; he's likely someone who doesn't have any actual grasp of the physical sciences or common reason. A skeptic simply says, "I don't believe you or your claim, PROVE IT!" He says this because the massive wieght of science, logic, understanding, scientific prediction, human history, etc., directly contradict the claim. Get it? Or are you too daft once again to grasp this simple concept.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Let me know when you are ready for "lesson two". Maybe if you're respectful, we can actually have an intelligent conversation and discuss evidence. Until then, all I can do is talk down to you as an inferior intellectual; you've proven nothing to the contrary thus far.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Your "lessons" are nothing more than the hollow claims of the superstitionist. You would not know or understand "evidence" in any case. "Talk down" all you like; I'm not the one sneaking around graveyards and poorly lit abandoned houses at night looking for ghosts. Just face it; you're a loser, your life is completely boring, you're not very well educated but you would have others think you are, and you're an entirely insignificant person. Perfect harmless prey for psychic cons.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx I don't sneak around graveyards, for the record. You have a messed up view of what a real person who is scientifically minded does with these claims. You base your opinions on pop culture and know nothing of real paranormal investigations, at least the ones I've conducted. You are a loser and an idiot for dismissing these things out of hand without properly investigating them and giving them a chance to prove themselves.
429Cage 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx Explain how talking to the dead contradicts science? And I've never said I believed in talking to the dead. I simply said it's possible. But the only other explaination for what some mediums do would be telepathy and super psi, which are not new age terms, but terms used in parapsychology. Some parapsychologists are skeptics, so you would be a presumptious fool to call them "gullible losers".
429Cage 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx As for being prey for psychic cons, I beg to differ (as will anyone who knows me). I have DEBUNKED a substantial amount of psychics on my own, without having to look up internet articles from biased sites like you do for you information. I am just not afraid to admit that their are things which I CANNOT explain. You sir, are an asshole. I'm assuming you have problems with women as well?
429Cage 1 month ago
@xChuckNorrisKickx The advantage of being a true skeptic is that you are on the borderline and you make NO CLAIMS. Therefore, based on your neutrality, you have nothing to prove! You, my friend, are not a real skeptic and I can't take you seriously in the least. As for Smith being "debunked", he has not been proven fraudulent; it is only speculated that he might be cheating. It is far from "proven", as you claim.
429Cage 1 month ago
@429Cage Branding a psychic as a fraud or a delusional performer is not making a claim; it is a characterization of that person based upon many mountains of actual real scientific evidence that suggest the impossibility, or at least high improbability, of those claims. It is the same as dismissing a claim of perpetual motion as either fraud, delusion, or mistake. Only a hyper-credulous boob such as yourself could see it otherwise.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 month ago
you re all retarded
anniemyriamgarant 4 months ago
@TheJaredlrice If she did, as you said, pretend to be dramatic for the sake of the reality television show (which is very likely) then how do people know she's not also fake when it comes to being a medium?
KaiCourage 4 months ago
Have any of you had the thought that she was told to act like that in order to create drama on the series? Did it ever occur to any of you, now, when so many "reality shows" are debunked and proven to be staged, scripted and rehearsed that she was playing a part, made for her by a writer? I can't believe that there are still people gullible enough to think that reality shows are actually reality.
TheJaredlrice 4 months ago
@TheJaredlrice Why would someone like dubois who attempts to always portray herself as an all-wise all-knowing psychic, a loving mother, an allegedly intelligent author, and a "professional" allow herself to be put into a script that portrays her as an arrogant, dumb, nasty, vindictive, immature drunken cunt? Dubois depends upon her image to sell books and tickets to her stupid shows. Why would she risk that with a script that is supposedly out of character? Your argument doesn't make sense.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJaredlrice Why would someone like dubois who attempts to always portray herself as an all-wise all-knowing psychic, a loving mother, an allegedly intelligent author, and a "professional" allow herself to be put into a script that portrays her as an arrogant, dumb, nasty, vindictive, immature drunken cunt? Dubois depends upon her image to sell books and tickets to her stupid shows. Why would she risk that with a script that is supposedly out of character? Your argument doesn't make sense.
xChuckNorrisKickx 4 months ago
the fictional alison is so lovely, much nicer than the real alison
gingerpixie28 4 months ago 3
she's a bitch
Avadore1 4 months ago
she just likes anything that makes her look good. absolutely pathetic
XxGreenDayzxX 5 months ago 8
She needs to stop coloring her hair at home
BonbondeParis 5 months ago 3
not a believer in Allison DuBois~her fake is showing
pacertmh 5 months ago 2
she is NOT a real psycic people!!! she is a total fake and freak.
JUSTBTWNUS1 5 months ago
I'm disturbed at her lies. I wonder how many ppl she wrongfully put in jail by her fake statements.
LexyHaifa 5 months ago
THAT'S NOT WHO YOU ARE ALLISON, THAT'S WHO YOU ARE PRETENDING TO BE!
henrysinaga 5 months ago 8
WHAT A HORRIBLE WOMAN THIS PATRICIA ARQUETTE "THE MEDIUM" IS..... SHE WAS INVITED FOR DINNER BY ONE OF THE HOUSEWIVES OF BEVERLY HILLS AND IT WAS REALLY DISTURBING TO SEE HER BEHAVIOUR THAT NIGHT..... SHE IS REALLY STRANGE THAT WOMAN...... SHE NEEDS HELP...... SHE IS DEFINITELY NOT CONNECTED TO THIS WORLD..... I SUPPOSE IT'S BECAUSE SHE SPEAKS ALL DAY TO THE DEAD......HAHAHAHA!!!
london24681012 5 months ago
she's a real bitch in person...what a cunt..patricia arquette made allison looked like a nun in the series..the real allison is a real mean conniving bum-faced biatch.
fernmeio18 5 months ago
She doesen't look alike her character at all. She looks so much younger on the interview!!
Rianatsu22 5 months ago
"He had a friend whose daughter went missing and I was able to locate her" If "psychics" are saying stuff like that on mainstream media shows, the show should have an obligation to factcheck the story.
Smithpolly 6 months ago
*cough* SCHIZO*cough*.
conday1990 6 months ago
allison should stick to communicating with the dead cause she cant interact with the living..
TheChr1zzy 6 months ago
From what I hear her psychic cred is dubious but hey she brought about the series that I found amazing from start to finish so that's good at least.
Nightman221k 6 months ago
She is a drunk and a fake bitch.
Watch housewifes off beverly hills and see this bitch drunk and smoking a fake sigarette.
She says that she can see things but she did not see how here so called best friend marriage was going under.
MrAgoyvar 6 months ago
@MrAgoyvar are you the best friend? :D
MoreThanWords88 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On the look for real spiritual guidance?Feel like the real relevant information has been hidden from you?mind reading, astral projection, telekinesis, it is all real.Sleep no more, THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM
MrMaryHalpin 7 months ago
It's kinda funny how nonchalant she was about that last part. "Oh, yeah, and I just so happened to locate a missing child... While brushing my teeth, on a Sunday morning...".
TheWrongLefty 7 months ago
inspire734 is right. Sylvia Browne is a manipulator. NO PSYCHIC can tell you your whole life's story. they can pick up on some things and honestly give you some good insight--if they are sincere. that is it. the visions sometimes do NOT even makes sense to a person who is experiencing them. sometimes it takes months to figure it out so how can a psychic figure it out within min.? u just get some insight, u ask trusted ppl for advice, u use ur judgement and facts and you have ur answer.
sairaj1 7 months ago
dead * not damn haha
sairaj1 7 months ago
i do not know her. i did watch the show and i like it but mediums are not like this. if it comes to u--u know it and if not well then too bad. they do not. i also do not think u see damn ppl standing around ur bed. i wish there was a way to measure psychic ability but we do not so we many ppl exaggerating it for their ten min. of fame on t.v.
sairaj1 7 months ago
the show is exaggerated. it is a like a hollywood movie. ok so real mediums are just NOT like this. u just do not have a vision during the time of the case. u might have it months after. no one can ever be this correct.
sairaj1 7 months ago
@sairaj1 What real mediums?
ebrobaru 7 months ago
@ebrobaru sometimes people have visions. they see other people like colored portraits. u close ur eyes and it comes to u. like a flas and then disappears. but i think it takes a while to really figure out who is related to whom. i think that you have to be very spiritually evolved for this. if u do not believe in it at all, then i really cannot convince you. but i will say that not many ppl are evolved enough for mediumship.
sairaj1 7 months ago
@ebrobaru I just think that most mediums are fruads. I just do not think that people with such a talent and gift like being in the limelight. i think in some ways we all are mediums because most of us have at least one close person who has passed away. this show was good but just so exaggerated and fake. i just know that most spiritual ppl do not like putting themselves on display if they have such a talent. it is for guidance and not for money making.
sairaj1 7 months ago
@sairaj1 Well, unfortunately so far, nobody has been able to prove without doubt that they can indeed communicate with the deceased
ebrobaru 7 months ago
@ebrobaru prove whom? you? :)
sairaj1 7 months ago
@sairaj1 No, not me. People that are qualified to determine if it is a fake or not. Scientists, conjurers and such. for example
ebrobaru 7 months ago
@ebrobaru just because some are fake does not mean they all are. some things just cannot be explained through science. i strongly believe in God and the scientific Branch will NEVER be able to explain HOW ppl get messages through the other side. As I have said before, a vision can come at any time and most likely it will not be at the time the person needs the information to understand the situation at hand. that is the point i am trying to make.
sairaj1 7 months ago
@sairaj1 This is not about God. This is about people claiming to receive messages from the "other side". Yes science can explain how that happens, but first we must make sure it does happen ,and that it´s not a simple trick. I am not discounting the possibility that there may be a true medium out there. The problem is that so far, none has proven it. Even if it was a foreigner it is supposed to be communicating with the so called medium. What´s the problem about giving his name?
ebrobaru 7 months ago
@ebrobaru This is also about God. Have you ever seen God? Just because we cannot see or comprehend certain things ACCORDING to the scientific method does not mean we can throw it all away. It is too bad that it cannot be proven through science but at least I am glad that you are not discounting the possibility of true mediums. If it comes to them they see it, but it is very confusing to me if say I see your grandmother's face in my minds eye.It might not mean anything to me but it came to me.
sairaj1 7 months ago