"Real Psychics" Television Show on Paranormal TV

[4gjosue]

Hey Fat-ass! Do you see my penis rising?!?!?!

[archiecraig]

It surprises me people actually believe this stuff! If she actually is amazingly accurate the production crew are using stooges - otherwise there wouldn't be a worthwhile show.

[VampireBloodiKiss]

She's not a real 'psychic'.

[ebrobaru]

@VampireBloodiKiss there´s no such a thing

[SuckDeezNutzBitch]

@ebrobaru No good parents? hahahaha you made my day man. You are a youtube scientist. A person in which acts as if to it all, than tries to put peoples beliefs and thoughts to shame, giving those people the illusion that you are smart, when in reality, you have no clue what you are talking about. Only morons or people without any true understanding of the subject mock it, usually for lack of proof. But real scientists study and try to understand it, not mock it like children :)

[ebrobaru]

@SuckDeezNutzBitch Please direct me to any serious study about indigo children

[SuckDeezNutzBitch]

@theELUSIV Have you now? That may be true, BUT, they're are actual psychics out there my friend.. Indigo children

[ebrobaru]

@SuckDeezNutzBitch No they´re not. Indigo is just an elaboration of no good parents

[theELUSIV]

EPIC FAIL. I have studied psychic reading in great depth, it is the art of mentalism each question is strategicly asked so there can be more tham 1x correct answer.

Alot of the questions answered will give the answer for the next 2 questions.

Reading body language & noting changes in voice pitch & hesitations are all major contributions to creating the ilusion of psychic ability. Don't be fooled

[Airmanf7]

She is a gifted guesser. "I feel like you have a lot of intuition"!? P.T. Barnum would have loved that.

[llam89]

@Airmanf7 I hate to admit this but you are right. As much as I want to believe in psychics, almost every psychic I have encountered always say that you have great intuition. No doubt, since if you are a caller, chances are you believe in a strong psychic intuition, therefore it will ring true to you

[Robikus]

@llam89 In my experience those who come to me for a reading with too much faith skew what I say as much as those who are skeptical. It's best to approach it with an open mind, not bent on any expectation. I think it's also important to remember even a good psychic gets it wrong sometimes. No one is 100% in any field.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus So then how is that different from a "normal" person? Anyone can venture guesses, some will beright, some will be wrong

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru But true psychic insight is when you come up with something totally out of the blue and it relates. I saw goodyear tires in a love reading once, I had no clue what it meant, so I told the woman I'm seeing 'tires' I didn't mention 'goodyear', she told me a guy who liked her worked for Goodyear Tire, that is far to random to have been a guess. How many of my querents do you think have an admirer working for Goodyear? You may want to look at Sheldrake's experiments sometime.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus What you are talking about is very common. See how you didn´t tell this person that a guy working at Goodyear liked her. You told her "tires", and she filled in the blanks. She could have said that her car had Goodyear tires, or that her father likes tires or whatever. If she hadn´t confirmed abything, you would just let it go by and forget about it. You could do that with any phrase "candles, snowmen, skis" whatever. She would fill in the blank

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru But she didn't say 'firestone' or 'Michelin' tires and the connection in her love reading was specifically about someone who adored her who worked at 'goodyear' tire. That is why I left out the brandname, the fact that she confirmed it indicates a connection. You are also not giving my credit for the experience, that part you have to experience to understand. Sometimes what I get feel like a 'maybe' sometimes more certain, this was in the area of more certain. Not filling in a blank.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru You are talking about 'cold reading' and I do not do that. I also want to say that I am as skeptical about my reading as anyone else, maybe more so. I saw another gal in college and she confirmed that, has I reversed these insights I would have been wrong in that the one gal had no relation to tires and the other to college. Consider this, if these insights are real, how would we know or prove so? I understand your skepticism, but many who have watched my readings agree I'm good at it.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus It´s easy to prove these insights. Just make a simple yet precise specific prediction that can be checked upon.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru And seeing Goodyear Tires in a love reading where a woman's admirer works at Goodyear tire isn't simple and precise?

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus No, as I have explained it was the woman that filled in the blanks, not you telling her specifics. The same could have had applied to any particular item

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru So you are claiming that if I see 'Goodyear tires' in any love reading it will always apply to their admirer??????? That's a bit of a stretch. How much more specific do you want? An employee number?

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus THat would be a start. I would like for you to say "This fellow, whose number is X, and works at the Goodyear Plant likes you"

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru I have to be honest, that level of detail is a fantasy. So I guess it's a judgement call. I know from experience there is something to this, but skeptics like you will always want outlandish amounts of detail. Until you've worked with it directly you won't know.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus I have worked "directly" as you say so I know perfectly well what´s going on. No, it´s not a judgement call. It´s a fact or not. Simple as that. Skeptics like me want some credible proof before believing that you can "see" the future. That, to be honest, is the fantasy

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Can you explain to me exactly what a psychic sees then?

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Look at Sheldrake's work, there is all the evidence you need.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus I am very familiar with Sheldrake´s work. A "skeptic" that only critizice other skeptics, not these pseudoparanormal claims. No, sorry, that´s no evidence at all. Try again

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru I'm confused, what data of Sheldrake's do you question? All of it? And how have you worked 'directly' with psychics and psi ability?

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru I'm beginning to believe no amount of evidence would satisfy you as you sound more like a 'debunker' than a genuine skeptic. When I bring up Sheldrake you do not refer to his data but to his writings on skepticism. Have you looked a Sheldrake's data? You don't seem to be very open minded, you have not once allowed for a possibility of psi, instead claiming that your view is right and any other is flawed when you can't possibly know. I am willing to accept many possibilities.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru It would be one thing to say 'it is possible some one is filling in the blanks' but you declare that to be the truth, where is your evidence that no psi is occurring? Beyond your 'opinion' where is your proof that is the case? Proof works both directions, you must validate your claims as well. Otherwise you are simply stating another possibility. Can you prove no psi happens? The Sheldrake data speaks for itself as does that of Dean Radin.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus Sheldrake´s and Radin´s data are the epitomy of cheerypicking. No, as usual you have it backwards. You are the one claiming something, then it is you that should prove it, not the other way around. It´s call "burden of proof". Look it up. By simple logic you can´t prove a negative.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru actually that's not how science works at all. What 'cheerypicking' has been done? Where is your evidence for this? Show me the data that has been 'cheerypicked'.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru And the 'proving a negative' idea is sophomoric, proving negatives is done all of the time. This only shows you aren't as sophisticated in your understanding of logic as you believe yourself to be. I think you need to do more study on what science and logic is before drawing any further conclusions for yourself. You have proven yourself to be dreadfully inadequate in reason and your understanding of science. Will prove so in my next post.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru From Wiki: " Notable skeptic James Randi sometimes uses the catchphrase "you can't prove a negative".[3] He uses the example of looking for Santa Claus as an unprovable negative. According to philosopher Steven Hales, no logician actually believes this, and the rule is an oversimplification. As explained above, depending on circumstances, one can be just as confident about a negative as a positive.[2]"  /wiki/Evidence_of_absence

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru However you did say by 'simple logic', which proves by your own words you have an overly simplified perspective that belies truth. What I have posted from wiki should prove even to you that your 'simple logic' is not real logic but an oversimplified point of view you more than likely got from the media personality that is James Randi. Perhaps you should try getting a real education and think for yourself.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus The fact that you get your info from Wiki speaks volumes about you. Ah, another James Randi basher. Well, I understand, someone that brings some light into stupid superstitions and that threaten your belief system will automatically becomes an aggressive. Real education? Yeah right. Too bad that common sense can´t be bought at the supermarket. That would be very helpful to you

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Actually I have a certain respect for a lot of Randi's positions. But he is not the end all and be all of skepticism. Now please, show your evidence for the 'cheerypicking'.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus I am not sying that Randi has the final word in skepticism, but it´s a good place to start. If you are fanmiliar with Sheldrake´s work, then you should also be familiar with the criticism he has received because of his methods. How about you show me first your evidence for the existence of psi. Not just a lot of numbers that just looks to confuse, like Radin´s work.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru It's pretty clear to me that when 25% is the expected random result and the actual results for a number of tests range from 35% to 45% some level of psi is occurring. Radin in particular invites his method to be criticized so that it can be improved and any non psi caused results can be eliminated.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru But you are the one making the claim of 'cheerypicking' so it is upon you to support your claim. Show me the data set and then what he's 'cheerypicked' and I'll concede you may have a point. But if data results are separated because a different trial was done under different circumstances, that is not cherry-picking, that would be a different result set.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Also, are you familiar with the story of Sheldrake being flat out lied to by Randi? That's a good one. youtube/YB3SAD-gHTc

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus I am familiar with what Sheldrake claims. No surprises there. You can read criticism to Radin´s work in many sources. Just look for flaws of meta analysis and you´ll find them. In any case you are deviating from the main topic, and that is if you can prove what you claim.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru I've given you examples and numbers even, guess your just blowing smoke with nothing to show for it to support what you say.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru And a 15% to 20% deviation in what is expected from a random result is scientifically significant. If you don't understand that then you don't understand science and there is no hope for your understanding.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus Again, you are cherrypicking data. You pick up whatever you like, and not the complete picture. Anyway, it´s very simple, you just want to hide the fact that you have no proof whatsoever, under numbers and opinions, Nothing new with you

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru WTF!!!, I've given numbers. You are ignoring them and you are the one refusing to show what was 'cheerypicked'. You are clearing acting like a pseudo-skeptic. 

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus A "pseudo-Skeptic"? Another term used by believers in anything. No, the numbers you have given me have been refuted over and over. Try again

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Refuted, what does that mean, if you refute 2+2=4 that doesn't make it untrue. You have failed to show any evidence that the scientific studies are invalid. You insult insinuating I am a 'believer in anything' is sad. You clearly don't know me. But since turn about is fair play I will say you are like a baby robin, all mouth and full of shit. You provide no information, and claim to be right because someone somewhere refutes valid evidence. You position is groundless.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus Those are not "scientific" studies. Those are biased confirmations. It´s really very simple. Can you produce evidence on what you claim or not?

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru I have, I've given you the numbers, You are rejecting them for no good reason other than here-say. You have provided nothing. Do you even know what makes a study scientific? I don't think you do. You just keep saying over and over it's not true but you provide no evidence what so ever. Lame.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus Nope, I showed you why they don´t work, not said by me but by experts. In any case, you are the one blowing hot air. You say that psychics are real, then prove it. Or is it only your belief?

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru I've given you numbers and studies, you haven't put up anything, you just say, 'it been refuted' where is the proof the studies I've talked about 'cheerypicked', you have provided nothing. I think the problem is you really don't understand how the scientific process works. If you did you would be posting information about the data, not just say 'this guy' or 'that guy' disagrees and thinking that is an honest rebuttal of the data. Address the 15%-20% deviance from random selection.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus Yeah, and I have shown you that those "studies" were flawed and biased. How about giving me some studies of an independent source?

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru You have not shown me they were flawed, you only shown me others said they were, you did not show they were flawed in the context of the data. Again, back to the data, that is how science works. Where is the flaw? As far as independent study, that's looking like a trap, first tell me how you define independent study. If you mean unbiased, the studies shown have been, but the result by definition can be bias. That's kind of the point of science, to differentiate.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Independent study typically means not funded by a corporation or entity who could profit from the result. Most scientist would lose their jobs and be ousted from their position for doing such work. A college study by a tenured scientist is independent as I see it. I think you're grasping at straws at this point, I can tell you would say any study that shows positive results for psi is bias, that's the way psuedo-skeptics work.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Show some numbers, real numbers, and you may have a point, until you can show numbers you are not doing science, you are just being a whiny little be-outch.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus check any serious study and you´ll see. I mean serious, not the ones you mention

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru The studies I've mentioned are serious studies. Radin and Sheldrake are peer reviewed. And again, no numbers. Where are these studies and to they they take the sheep/goat effect in consideration? You are all talk and no data.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus No, those are not serious studies. Serious studies are double blind and peer reviewed, unlike these two. You are the one claiming something, then it´s up to you to prove it, not the other way around

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Once again, the studies were double blind, and peer reviewed. I'm on the side of the scientists, you're on the side of conjurers like Randi. Give it up, you've lost this argument by failing to show any data where as I have shown data proving psi and discussed numbers. YOU LOSE!!! Now go whine to someone else who may be dense enough to swallow your swill.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus No, those studies were not double blind. You are on the science of science? Sure, whatever you say. I wonder why nobody else, in any study, has been able to recreate those numbers you mention.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru There are three reproducing those kinds of numbers. Where are your numbers?

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Well three I'm aware of, actually many more lesser known than Sheldrake, Radin and Bem. Again, show some numbers or you are just whining.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Besides you are putting too much emphasis on DB, Sheldrake has used it, but in cases where you have a 'random' expected by mathematics, it would seem unnecessary. :"A survey of science departments at 11 British Universities confirmed that blind procedures are rare in most branches of the physical and biological sciences. They are neither used nor taught in 22 out of 23 physics and chemistry

departments, or in 14 out of 16 biochemistry and molecular biology departments." -Sheldrake

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus so because they are not taught, then they shouldn´t be used? Sorry, but your logic is flawed

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru No, you missed the point, it is not as mandatory is some would say. You are using it in attempt to score a point in an argument but you apparently don't understand the role of DB in science. When a random result of 25% is the 'chance' result and 45% is the actual result why do you need a DB study? The maths are the DB in a sense. You are good at 'argument' but poor with the facts. You could be a great philosophy but I'm afraid you'd make a poor scientist.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru No, you missed the point, it is not as mandatory as some would say. You are using it in attempt to score a point in an argument but you apparently don't understand the role of DB in science. When a random result of 25% is the 'chance' result and 45% is the actual result why do you need a DB study? The maths are the DB in a sense. You are good at 'argument' but poor with the facts. You could be a great philosopher but I'm afraid you'd make a poor scientist.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus Now you are using the same fallacy as them in those "studies". It´s not up to you to decide if db is used or not, otherwise the study is void

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Bullocks!

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Please explain then how a double blind experiment can be preformed in astronomy? Making a point here that not all experiments can include a DB element. How would you propose DB be used in the predictive caller test? Really, 1 of 4 people is calling a subject, the subject guesses or uses intuition to predict who is calling and the results measured. If you had a second group what would they have to do to be 'blind' in this respect? In this experiment the 25% ratio is the measure.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Some experimentation lends itself to DB and some does not. In medical studies its very useful since you need a control group to measure the substance being tested for against. In other experimentation it would not add to the validity of the result. It depends on the type of experiment.

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru The fact that this needs to be explained to you shows you really don't understand the scientific process as well as you have been led to believe. James Randi is not a scientist.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus I never said that Randi was a scientist, nor he. Don´t try to deviate the conversation

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru Then address the points I've made on DB. From your arguments I suspect Randi is where you get your information on science since it is so far off.

[ebrobaru]

@Robikus You suspect too many things. 

[Robikus]

@ebrobaru See, numbers and data show what's really going on, not just rants from conjurers.

[Robikus]

@llam89 I only tell tell people that if I sense it, most don't if they did why would they be consulting a psychic?

[PSYCHICFOREVER1]

Dawn Carr is a wonderful psychic medium, I am also a Psychic Medium and have been doing it rfor over 30 years.

[karachan1977]

argument about what I am or am not doing, but I would say some people ARE gifted. Why am I not rich? Well...unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and I am not always consistant. I am sh*t at predicting major world events. I get incomplete information. I misinterpret messages. There are a lot of human variables involved and what skeptics repeatedly fail to understand is that many gifted people are not magic 8 balls. That's the way it goes.

[ebrobaru]

@karachan1977 Gifted people yes. But not on this matter

[karachan1977]

Actually, I have no idea how someone could "plan" a psychic reading over the phone. I do phone readings, myself. I don't always tell people what the want to hear, but I have gotten very specific. Without any information, I have been able to tell people what kind of job they did, specific people at work they had conflicts with and what the conflicts wee about. A few times, I was able to give names. I sometimes tell people how their loved ones died. Of course, we can get into a circular..

[mjklable]

what a stupid show

[drumsforhands]

I think if a Psychic goes public and is big. They aren't real, they just get good at guessing! Anyone is going to agree, if it's something good about them! If it's done over the phone it's easy to plan. You met her before she knows a little of your backstory. Telling you about past lives Make up w/e you want!

[k0smon]

@drumsforhands ::: To get 'good at guessing' requires psychic ability.

[austin33309]

funny, if one really had psychic powers, why would they have to answer peoples questions over the phone? money would never be an issue for a real psychic who could actually predict upcoming events.

[pittyshants]

James Randi has no intention of setting anyone up for sucess on his show and wouldnt believe evidence if it hit him in the face. People don't go on his show because Randi will never fork over a million dollars or believe anything. Why would anyone go on his show so he can smear them. This lady seems fake or inaccurate, But read the "Afterlife Experiments" for real proof by Gary Schwartz.

[ebrobaru]

@pittyshants "Afterlife Experiments" was a joke. Nobody in its right mind has ever taken seriously the work of Schwartz

[Ghost13Whisperer]

I don't believe most psychics who do this as a "job" or sort of make it public, but there is something kind of different about her....can't put my finger on it....

[angrymail123]

I planned on making a summer trip to MA to see Dawn at one of her gatherings, while I went to the Cape, But an "out of the blue" offer of a trip to Sedona came along instead, like she predicted in my phone reading with her last year. If you are in the area she is worth meeting.

[Angelhaven95]

OMG, Please do not waste your money on these lies. Its called cold reading and its been debunked for years. If anyone were really psychic, they would have taken James Randi's million dollar challenge years ago.

[angrymail123]

Dawn was in the state of MA. I was in Florida, we were on the phone. She couldn't cold read me. I didn't talk, but let her do the reading. Until the end, when she asked if I had any questions. I have the "gift" too, but depending on your emotional mood it is hard to read for yourself. You have your limited beliefs and I'll keep my multidimensional beliefs. PS-some people don't believe Jesus is the son of God either- it is called having faith in the impossible. Good luck.

[drumsforhands]

@angrymail123 Did you win the Mexican Lottery To!?