[Merged] The One - Australian TV [Archive]

skeptic of oz

10th June 2008, 09:04 PM

Yeah I was going to say how terrible it is for such a show to be on but it's great that a skeptic will be on.
Let's hope that he will be given equal time and a fair hearing. Although if history is any indicator he won't.
Many Oz members of this forum may remember a 1980 " debate" between Don lane and James Randi which they still somehows show highlights of.
Lane talked over Randi the whole time (interview? it was no such thing!)and then told Randi that he could "piss off!" and went to an ad break.
Does any on this forum remember that?
As it turned out Randi was proved right in regards to Geller et al (as usual)and it came to light that one of the paranormal "practictioners" that Lane was defending was actually a close friend of his...:mad:

skeptic of oz

10th June 2008, 09:17 PM

I forgot to mention it before but this is sort of related...
Last week in the Daily Telegraph in the Careers Section there was a profile (they profile people who have made it in various careers) of a woman who was an Astrologer and Tarot Reader!
A major daily newspaper actually had this in their careers section.
How do things get this low?:eye-poppi

Damien Evans

11th June 2008, 08:29 AM

arthwollipot

11th June 2008, 06:07 PM

Well, I don't remember it, since I wasn't alive then, but I've seen the clip, yes.

Certainly not Don Lanes finest hour.Did he have any fine hours?

deverett

11th June 2008, 06:55 PM

Don't expect too much from this.

A good friend of mine who is a magician (definitely not a psychic, nor claiming to be) was sent application materials from the producers and asked to join.

Dave Everett

deverett

11th June 2008, 06:58 PM

I should also point out that this show ran in the UK a few years back.

Another friend of mine was the sceptic, he is a professional magician. He was frustrated every week. He felt he was a token sceptic to give the show some credibility.

Dave Everett

skeptic of oz

12th June 2008, 05:50 AM

Deverett that's exactly what's worrying me.
Michael Shermer was often the "token skeptic"for these sorts of things and this is starting to sound depressingly familiar:(

Why is there always just a "token"skeptic.
Of course. Reason and freethought aren't as good for ratings...

Richard

15th June 2008, 11:10 PM

News of the show...

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+One:+The+Search+for+Australia%27s+ Most+Gifted+Psychic%22&num=20&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B2DVFA_enAU230AU231&filter=0&aq=t

ail

18th June 2008, 03:02 AM

Richard
"...Head of Program Development Brad Lyons echoes Daddo's thoughts saying he's been amazed by the psychics' form in the program to date. 'I'm far from a believer, but I do admit there were several outcomes in the first show that shocked me,...' - By WIN Television Jun 12, 2008

I understand you cannot comment on the show but you may be able to help me with two questions.

1. Do you agree that Brad Lyons is "far from a believer" ?
2. Would you recommend that my children watch this show ?

lionking

18th June 2008, 03:26 AM

Jeez, I thought this stuff was restricted to Foxtel. Give it your best shot Richard, but I am certain it will be edited to make the psychics look good. Sadly, I will now have to watch.

Richard

18th June 2008, 05:11 AM

Magenta

3rd July 2008, 09:07 PM

Just wondering if this is connected to the show mentioned in the OP or if it's a different load of drivel:

A worker at the Ti-Tree Roadhouse, 200 kilometres north of Alice Springs, says a reality TV show was in the area this week trying to find the remains of murdered British backpacker Peter Falconio.

Mr Falconio disappeared from near Barrow Creek in July 2001.

Ti-Tree Roadhouse yardsman Geoff Grant says the production crew of 15, which included between five and eight psychics, stayed in Ti-Tree and flew in and out of Barrow Creek by helicopter for three days.

ABC news (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/04/2294587.htm)

PBTree

3rd July 2008, 09:58 PM

So Richard, is this your way of drumming up business for the show?

Why don't you just tell Ch7 to stick their show where the sun doesn't shine and advertise the fact that you have. Saying that any self-respecting skeptic would be a fool to take on this obviously 'slanted towards psychic ' TV competition?

:)

Richard

4th July 2008, 12:35 AM

ail

4th July 2008, 07:50 AM

Hmmm... so when Randi goes on 'slanted towards psychic' shows to put his case..... oh never mind.

Richard

By this are you suggesting that this show is/will be slanted towards psychics ?

EHocking

4th July 2008, 09:12 AM

Hmmm... so when Randi goes on 'slanted towards psychic' shows to put his case..... oh never mind.well, I hope they dump it to the internet, 'cos I'm not in Oz any more. Good luck with this Richard, you're going to need it if this is the sort of thing you're having to deal with from your co-judge.

"Even though Richard comes across with the scientific stuff, my job is to translate how these people get the messages and what they do, this is their process. For example ? this person is using psychometry that's just as scientific."

My bolding :covereyes

Richard

4th July 2008, 04:42 PM

Richard

By this are you suggesting that this show is/will be slanted towards psychics ?

Very good question. I have not seen the edit of the show but during the production I have been putting the case for science and reason.

rjh01

4th July 2008, 07:36 PM

When will it be shown on TV?

PBTree

4th July 2008, 09:37 PM

Hmmm... so when Randi goes on 'slanted towards psychic' shows to put his case..... oh never mind.

No, when Randi goes on shows, they know they are going to get someone who will show them how these thieving, no conscience frauds do it. He shows the audience that it is something anyone can do. ie "Watch me do this Uri Geller trick".

Is that what you are doing on the show? Are you sitting there saying; "here's how the last competitor did that".

If you can't say that you are actually debunking the people on the show and showing the watchers how they do (or did) it, then I still think you are drumming up business.

I won't be watching because if I saw you sitting there as the resident skeptic, saying "I don't know how they did that" (because you don't know the trick), I would have to throw the coffee table at the tv. That will just make them look all the more believable.

Magenta

4th July 2008, 09:51 PM

OK, to answer my own question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3830921&postcount=26), it is the same show. More info in today's news:

REALITY TV has sunk to a new low, with psychics this week scouring the desert in a competition to find the remains of murdered British backpacker Peter Falconio.

A team from coming Channel 7 show The One stayed for two nights at the Ti-Tree Roadhouse, 200km north of Alice Springs, leaving on Wednesday.

Source (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,23970915-5016681,00.html)

rjh01

5th July 2008, 12:53 AM

I am sure glad I am not associated with that show.

wombatwal

6th July 2008, 04:32 AM

Richard
Would it be possible for you to make a comment on your take on how the show turned out after seeing it on Tuesday night.
I just hope it is not a whitewash on you.

Richard

6th July 2008, 06:23 AM

Richard
Would it be possible for you to make a comment on your take on how the show turned out after seeing it on Tuesday night.
I just hope it is not a whitewash on you.

Thank you. I might let others make comments, others skeptics who were in the audience. We have finished the final show now, just back home from it. I can tell you that I stayed friendly but did not let my guard down. Skeptics in the media do not get a good run, but I hope with this show many, many people will hear me and the points I make. I won't change the mind of the believers, no one can do that, but I know I will reach those on the fence as it were.

ail

6th July 2008, 08:38 AM

I won't be watching because if I saw you sitting there as the resident skeptic, saying "I don't know how they did that" (because you don't know the trick), I would have to throw the coffee table at the tv. That will just make them look all the more believable.

Well better get that coffee table ready because in the TV show promo the only quote from Richard is "well I don't know exactly how she did it..."

brodski

6th July 2008, 09:02 AM

I used my magic quantum crystal energy powers to alter the thread title, do I get to win? Or at least not be eliminated by Richard and his Pigasus air force...

Richard

6th July 2008, 09:22 AM

Well better get that coffee table ready because in the TV show promo the only quote from Richard is "well I don't know exactly how she did it..."

the ... says a lot. Fear not.. on the last show I make it clear.

Miss Cranky Pants

6th July 2008, 10:05 AM

Any chance we can see the show here in the US? Richard ... I am hoping that the truth doesn't get edited out! I very much hope that good things come to you from this show.

Richard

6th July 2008, 04:38 PM

Any chance we can see the show here in the US? Richard ... I am hoping that the truth doesn't get edited out! I very much hope that good things come to you from this show.

The spirits must be mad at me as my digital recorder blew up. I'm sure someone in Australia will record the show and it will end up on a torrent or whatever. I'll know if I have done my job right if I get heckled in the streets by the wo wo crowd.

nettiemoore

6th July 2008, 04:53 PM

I think there's a fair discussion to be had about skeptics appearing on shows like this because we all know the trend is very much to screw us over. But they are going to make this show anyway and better they get an experienced skeptic like Richard than some Channel Seven celebrity to be the token. He knows what he's seeing and can break it down in a few sentences. Just getting the words "cold reading" out there in the public at prime time is valuable. When you google it the top results are all solid skeptical links.

We all know the true believers can rarely be swayed and yeah the "psychics" are going to see a swelling of the bank balance as a result, even after failure. That's going to happen anyway. Talking to other people in the audience, many people are intrigued by the concept and perhaps had had "experiences" of their own but were still able to see the validity of the cold reading explanations once you laid it out for them. We need to have someone up there providing that opportunity, however curtailed by the demands of crappy TV. I think Richard is very brave to put himself in the firing line -- from the mystery-mongers and the skeptics.

I was at the studio for the taping of three episodes, including the finale yesterday, and can say Richard has absolutely nailed the "psychics" in his comments. A bit of "I don't know how she did it but I'm not convinced" in the first episode goes a long way to diffuse the constant "closed minded" criticism (which I loathe, skeptic=open minded by definition, you fools.), and makes the PWNage later more effective. The host and whole production was setting up the "close minded" fallacy as a trap, walking straight into it does nothing for our message in the long term. So, don't sweat the promo grab.

What they choose to show via editing is out of our control but I would personally rather 10% of something than 100% of nothing.

Anyway, if you are going to watch I recommend getting Skeptico's Cold Reading Bingo cards and play along at home. :) I'm not allowed to post the link 'cause I haven't made 15 posts but anyway, google it!

PBTree

6th July 2008, 07:25 PM

The spirits must be mad at me as my digital recorder blew up. I'm sure someone in Australia will record the show and it will end up on a torrent or whatever. I'll know if I have done my job right if I get heckled in the streets by the wo wo crowd.

Can you now research how these people did things you didn't understand and come out in public with the answers? ie This forum, or the daily newspapers/other tv stations.

Or did you sign a "I won't say a word after the show" contract?

nettiemoore

6th July 2008, 07:42 PM

Can you now research how these people did things you didn't understand and come out in public with the answers?

Richard can speak for himself but .... They didn't do anything he doesn't understand and moreover that is not what he is quoted as saying in the promo, which I presume is all you have seen. The exact quote is: "I'm not exactly sure how she did it." Which is a perfectly accurate thing to say if it relates to the "challenge" I am thinking of, which was not a cold reading type one.

Richard

6th July 2008, 10:55 PM

Can you now research how these people did things you didn't understand and come out in public with the answers? ie This forum, or the daily newspapers/other tv stations.

Or did you sign a "I won't say a word after the show" contract?

Yes., good points. I am free to put my case and I did so on the show. What I won't do is blab about what happened on the the show before it goes out as that would be spoilers. Hell, there are lots of people who just want to see what happens each week.

ail

7th July 2008, 01:40 AM

The online voting poll to the question

Are you a believer or a skeptic?

Has Believer at 36% and skeptic at 64% with 1172 respondants

And this is before the show has aired !

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/b/the-one/

rjh01

7th July 2008, 02:21 AM

37 to 63% with 1202 votes. Looks like a few believers voted.

You are allowed to vote often.

Richard

7th July 2008, 03:53 AM

You might like to see what the other judge - Stacey Demarco has to say so far on her blog.

http://themodernwitch.blogspot.com/2008/07/wowbig-reaction-and-it-hasnt-even.html

Wolfman

7th July 2008, 04:17 AM

Personally, I applaud Richard's efforts here.

Not every skeptical appearance has to be about unequivocally debunking psychics or other purveyors of woo. Randi's various shows and demonstrations are a good example...yes, he debunked a number of people quite soundly, but the very nature of his shows meant that A) a lot of woos would simply refuse to appear on his show, and B) the audience that he attracts will tend to be an audience that is already more skeptical.

Richard is working in a different medium. He won't be (I presume) actually debunking these people and showing them up as frauds. But he'll be raising legitimate questions, raising obvious problems, etc. He'll have the chance to appear with people who would never dare to appear with James Randi. And he'll be reaching an audience many of whom would never watch James Randi.

If by his presence on this show, he's able to simply get some small portion of the viewers questioning the abilities of the performers, or looking at the performances more critically, he'll have accomplished something important.

Even more importantly, perhaps, he'll be gaining significantly higher celebrity status; he'll be a recognized face, a recognized name. He'll have many more opportunities to do other appearances at which he'll be able to present his own opinions and beliefs more clearly than might be allowed on this particular TV show. He'll become a defacto spokesman for skepticism, and have the opportunity to reach far, far more people than he does at present.

In the process of doing this, he's also going to be subjecting himself to all sorts of criticism and abuse. Both from the woo community who will condemn him for being closed-minded, and from those in the skeptical community who will berate him for "not doing enough".

Come on, people. The man's already done more to promote skepticism than the majority of members here; and this TV show is going to give him the opportunity to do much more (if not on the TV show itself, then in the many new opportunities he'll get afterwards).

I say kudos to Richard for doing this. I wish that there were more skeptics actually getting involved (and particularly trying to reach out somewhat to the woo communities), rather than sitting on their posteriors and ruminating online with other people who already pretty much believe the same things they do.

Its people like Richard who are going to help the skeptical movement grow and develop.

ail

7th July 2008, 08:43 AM

Richard,

How did it come about that you were involved in the show?

Richard

7th July 2008, 03:47 PM

Richard,

How did it come about that you were involved in the show?

I was asked by the producers after they saw a clip of me on another show. They were after someone who could perform on TV but also knew the topic. They also didn't want someone who would just sit there and say 'it's all BS'.

And I didn't want them to use a fake 'skeptic', a personality or academic who thinks they know how things work. It was hard, very hard. It tested ME more than the contestants I think. I am also alone on the show, the only voice of reason.

PBTree

7th July 2008, 04:16 PM

Good points Wolfman and I hope you are right. :)

Richard

7th July 2008, 05:26 PM

Now it starts...

5LCXDEvOdF0

nettiemoore

7th July 2008, 05:40 PM

Homework for Andrew Daddo:

-- definition of "skeptic"
-- concept of "subjective validation"

Don't come out of your room until you're finished!

flim flam

8th July 2008, 04:42 AM

i have the pleasure of watching "the one" as im typing this. im torn between cheering for richard and kicking the tv screen. cold reading..check!, retrofitting..check!. lots of " you must be open minded.." but only if you're a sceptic, if you're a true bleever you arent being asked to be open to the possibility that its all made up crap. im actually astounded at how rubbish they all are. your average magician could do a far more convincing job. mind you, the "Dr of reiki" looks like steven seagal crossed with a hippy librarian. they are soooooooo bad. im sensing a man/women/dog. you are an old man in your 60's, hmmm must be a heart condition! bingo!. you have a prostate "issue". turns out the old fella doesnt but apparently thats a hit too. lots of asking questions. ooh, this is too funny - "im sensing you have plumbing isses" plumbing issues!!. "is someone having a birthday? she's showing me a cake" bleaugh!!. and surely if they're the best psychics they already know who's going to win?. anyway, i can already tell that i'll be watching the whole series in horrified fascination. kudos to you richard for giving it a go. the look on your face for much of the show is definately worth it. how hard was it not to just sit there rolling your eyes and shouting?. i reckon it's probably the most skeptical it's possible to be on woo friendly commercial television.

hughie522

8th July 2008, 04:45 AM

Well, suffice to say I'm convinced.

I've abandoned all rational thought and converted to woo. No, not really. The first episode of Australia's Most Gifted Psychic aired tonight and, well...

...it's a solid hour of entertainment for those without a skeptical bone in their bodies. For everyone else, it's Psychic Detectives all over again.

If you wanted to write a book on psychic cliches, this would be it. They even did some silly cold reading nonesense with unrestricted feedback. And Richard Saunders was a complete tool of the program. Any credibility he may have had has now been blown completely out of the water.

This is something for the woo woo crowd, and nothing more. There was no attempt to disprove or rationalise anything. It's all, "Well, he was certainly close!" and, "He knew things he couldn't have known!"

Ooh, wow, it's amazing, a miracle, sign me up for a thousand crystals and some applied kinesiology.

Dark days, my friends. Very dark days.

lionking

8th July 2008, 04:51 AM

Despite asking my family to let me know when "The One" is being shown (not being a Channel 7 watcher) I only get to see the tail end. My family tells me that Andrew Daddo looks skeptical as well. Hope so. But good to see you on the big screen Richard.

lionking

8th July 2008, 04:55 AM

Yeah well as much as I do not want to be critical of new members, Richard has done more for skepticism in Australia than most. Who's the tool?

Jonquill

8th July 2008, 04:57 AM

Thanks for the reminder, it's due to be shown in Peth in half an hour's time, I shall attempt to watch it although I can already feel my disgustometer starting to twitch.

deverett

8th July 2008, 04:57 AM

Just finished watching the 1st episode.

The search for the missing boy was problematic. The area was bounded and the "psychics" were told when they had reached a boundary. This limits the search area. Also after the first attempt, even if the camera crew were unaware of the boy's location before, they were for every subsequent search which could possibly bias the results.

Only one moved almost directly towards where the boy was hidden. She said, he's near some burnt trees, well you could look in any direction and find burnt trees.

I found the overhead map misleading. They showed the boy's position as a red dot, but the psychic was always shown as a yellow arrow, almost always pointing towards the boy's position.

The "psychics" should not have been allowed into the search area as almost all of them claimed remote viewing ability and should have limited their work to pointing on a map. That would be their only attempt, instead the format allowed them to keep searching and changing their paths during a 15 minute time limit.

The stage performances later on were rather poor except for the last man who "read" only one person and was making significant hits about fairly specific information. Again without revealing any mentalism methods, I have replicated this but I would generally do it with more than one person.

Dave Everett

wombatwal

8th July 2008, 04:58 AM

Hughie522 I think you are being very unfair to Richard.
We have not seen the whole show, so who knows how much has been edited out, do you?
Richard is in a difficult spot. He cannot be totally anti the woo or he would not be able to be on the show. We need someone who has some sceptical credibility on the show so give him a chance. Lets see how things pan out over the whole series.

Jonquill

8th July 2008, 05:50 AM

First psychic Raylene (?) traipsing through the bush says 'I thought I was going the right way but then I felt something telling me to turn around'- footage of her approaching what appeared to be a steep rocky descent.

Richard

8th July 2008, 06:41 AM

Thanks for the nice comments. Wow.. so long the in studio for 1 hour of TV.

Jonquill

8th July 2008, 06:52 AM

Was that whole area of bush equally easy to travel through?
I had the impression from the film that there were some areas of thicker bush or steep rocky slopes that would not be practical to take a child?
It looked like a big area from above, but on the ground were there some areas that it was obvious that you wouldn't go into?

ail

8th July 2008, 07:27 AM

After first episode

The online voting poll to the question

Are you a believer or a skeptic?

Has Believer at 58% and skeptic at 42% with 2215 respondants

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/b/the-one/ (http://au.tv.yahoo.com/b/the-one/)

Richard,

My perception of the first episode is that it has been heavily edited. Edited to focus on the exciting hits rather than provide a balanced representation of the results.

How would you rank the first episodes editing ?

dustbunny

8th July 2008, 07:41 AM

Richard

8th July 2008, 07:50 AM

How would you rank the first episodes editing ?

Hmmm, hard to say. Yes, much of what was filmed was not shown.. but that's TV. I was not too unhappy with it. Keep watching and remember to keep score of how our contestants do on the location tests.

Nankay

8th July 2008, 11:15 AM

C'mon folks..vote, vote vote

EHocking

8th July 2008, 01:04 PM

C'mon folks..vote, vote voteAn absolutely pointless poll.

You can repeatedly vote with no checks.

So someone with a bit of time on their hands can skew that quite easily - and no doubt will, or has...

wombatwal

8th July 2008, 02:00 PM

In England we had a series called A Sense of Murder (I think that's right) that was made using Australian and New Zealand psychics. It's unlikely we'll get to see the show you mentioned but I was wondering if some of them were used on the show. I can't find any sceptical views about them. Do you know of any helpful websites?

Here is the website for that show.
There are some sceptics in the forum for the show.
http://www.sensingmurder.co.nz/regfrm/

wafonso

8th July 2008, 08:00 PM

The "psychics" should not have been allowed into the search area as almost all of them claimed remote viewing ability and should have limited their work to pointing on a map. That would be their only attempt, instead the format allowed them to keep searching and changing their paths during a 15 minute time limit.

Acting as a bit of a devil's advocate, that's not quite true... "remote viewing" might conceivably mean actually seeing the location one is looking for, and that is not going to tell you where it is, only what it looks like. With that in mind, it makes sense to allow them to look for a place that matches what they allege to be seeing.

That said, yes, they did seem to have a lot of time to search around the area; enough to follow one of the paths all the way to the end and still come back to the correct side. And their cold reading display was simply ridiculous... "do you know any Mary? how about Bob?" Come on!

Jonquill

8th July 2008, 08:48 PM

Amazing how the bloke that ran the fastest was one of the ones to find the kid.

I thought that cold reading was rather good, apart from the first 'Do you know Barbara or Bob?' the old duck seemed to agree with everything else, she agreed with so much in fact that I was starting to wonder if she was the psychic's auntie.

Jonquill

8th July 2008, 09:00 PM

Amanda-Rousetty, Charmaine Wilson, Ezio De Angelis, She D'Montford, Rayleen Kable and Jason Betts are the psychics, who is the seventh?

I have been amusing myself this morning looking for their websites.

nettiemoore

8th July 2008, 09:06 PM

Amanda-Rousetty, Charmaine Wilson, Ezio De Angelis, She D'Montford, Rayleen Kable and Jason Betts are the psychics, who is the seventh?

Mitchell Coombs. Personal psychic to Kyle and Jackie O. :covereyes

Jonquill

8th July 2008, 09:16 PM

Ah, yes thanks, how could I forget him.

Did that She D'Montford claim to be a doctor of anything on the show?

"Shé has an honorary doctorate in religion & philosophy, specializing in Tibetan and Hindu Shamanism and ancient warrior codes as well as a degree in metaphysics."

Sounds dodgy.

nettiemoore

8th July 2008, 09:38 PM

She does call herself Rev. Dr. but can't remember if I've seen from where. Jason Betts also calls himself doctor as he has an honorray PhD from the "Open International University of Complementary Medicines (Sri Lanka)." He has a real maths degree from U. Tas though.

Jonquill

8th July 2008, 09:52 PM

Yes, Jason has a big list of credentials and if you send him some money "in cash or Australia Post Money Order" he can give you a long distance psychic reading or even heal you.
Astounding.

http://www.emeraldalchemy.com/psychic/index.htm

nettiemoore

8th July 2008, 09:57 PM

Ratings (national) report from Crikey.com.au:

Last night's TV ratings
The Winners: Seven News was tops again with 1.560 million, with the Seven's The One: Australia's Most Gifted Psychic at 7.30pm second with 1.468 million (the Daddo factor no doubt), the fresh episodes of Two and a Half Men at 8.30pm to 9.30pm averaged 1.447 million and Today Tonight was 4th with 1.385 million people. Wipeout on Nine at 7.30pm averaged 1.339 million and the second repeat episode of NCIS at 9.30pm averaged 1.318 million. The fresh episode of All Saints at 8.30pm averaged 1.274 million in 8th spot and A Current Affair was 9th with 1.266 million viewers. Nine News was 10th with 1.229 million and Home and Away averaged 1.229 million at 7pm for Seven. The 7pm ABC News was 12th with 1.205 million and the first repeat of NCIS at 8.30pm averaged 1.071 million. The Simpsons repeat at 8pm averaged 1.053 million on Ten in 14th spot and the fresh Simpsons episode at 7.30pm averaged 1.025 million.

Jonquill

8th July 2008, 10:00 PM

What about the woman that claims to help the police solve crimes - there was no mention of that on her website - rather enjoyed her predictions for 2008 though.

http://www.angelbreeze.com.au/?page_id=34

http://www.angelbreeze.com.au/?page_id=23

Cuddles

9th July 2008, 04:54 AM

Two threads on this subject merged. The posts are ordered chronologically, so they may be a bit mixed up. Sorry for any confusion.

Richard

9th July 2008, 10:46 PM

We are trying to find a torrent. My VCR did not work so I don't have the show.

Richard

10th July 2008, 04:28 AM

Right... this might work. Run a torrent search for

the.one1x01.avi

Richard

10th July 2008, 05:36 AM

Sigh... still working on the torrent... for now here are some reports on the show.

http://podblack.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/part-one-of-there-can-be-only-the-one/

http://podblack.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/part-two-of-there-can-be-only-the-one/

PBTree

10th July 2008, 05:10 PM

Why is that nobody ever says to these pyschics,
"ok, you can see the future and dead people etc and you knew well in advance that you were coming on this show".
"can you please sit over there and write down all of the answers to the questions we are going to ask you"?
"here is a map, can you mark the grave of the missing person"?

When you get the stupified look from the contestant, just ask,

"surely you know exactly what we are going to ask"?
"I mean, you are psychic, aren't you"?

:nope: :nope:

arthwollipot

10th July 2008, 07:35 PM

Once again, it comes down to exactly what they claim to be able to do. As Randi says, you can't get a piano player to demonstrate their musical ability by asking them to play a violin.

wafonso

10th July 2008, 08:44 PM

PBTree

10th July 2008, 09:29 PM

Once again, it comes down to exactly what they claim to be able to do. As Randi says, you can't get a piano player to demonstrate their musical ability by asking them to play a violin.

Maybe not but I bet most piano players could hum the tune based upon the violin's sheet music.

You could also get around that by requesting these people explain what they can do before they attend and then tell them there will be a set of questions waiting for them on the show. So bring along their answers.

hughie522

10th July 2008, 11:06 PM

arthwollipot

10th July 2008, 11:14 PM

Maybe not but I bet most piano players could hum the tune based upon the violin's sheet music.

You could also get around that by requesting these people explain what they can do before they attend and then tell them there will be a set of questions waiting for them on the show. So bring along their answers.Yes, this is the normal process for the MDC. Get the claimant to state exactly what it is that they can do, and what conditions would constitute a success.

I'll apologise for labelling Mr. Saunders a tool; I'm sure he's not, but with the way Channel 7 edited it there was certainly the impression that little strings were making him nod at everything that was being said.

I'm easily agitated and every now and then delude myself into believing, 'this time it will be different'.Actually, I read your statement not as saying that Richard was a tool, but as saying that Richard was a "tool of the programme" - ie. a piece of equipment that they use for a specific purpose.

Richard

10th July 2008, 11:38 PM

I'll apologise for labelling Mr. Saunders a tool; I'm sure he's not, but with the way Channel 7 edited it there was certainly the impression that little strings were making him nod at everything that was being said.

I'm easily agitated and every now and then delude myself into believing, 'this time it will be different'.

That's OK. I note that many skeptics are speaking up online about the show. Look, this show won't change much, I just hope it brings more attention to Australian Skeptics. In fact I have media interviews lined up so I will be putting my case.

Remember to keep score on each show and thank you for all your support.

Richard

13th July 2008, 05:48 AM

Right... found a torrent (thanks Amanda)

http://chronictracker.com

you need to sign up, it's simple.. then run a search for

The.One-Australias

Senex

13th July 2008, 07:16 AM

That's OK. I note that many skeptics are speaking up online about the show. Look, this show won't change much, I just hope it brings more attention to Australian Skeptics. In fact I have media interviews lined up so I will be putting my case.

Remember to keep score on each show and thank you for all your support.

As far as I know you are unique for fame as a skeptic without being famous first in another area. I know you perform magic and write but unlike Randi or Hitchens you became a well known skeptic first.

Kudos for your unique career in skepticism! You know you have my non-monetary support from the other side of the world. i'd say a prayer for you but we know that would be a waste of time ;)

AndyD

13th July 2008, 07:19 AM

I've posted a few articles on my opinion of the show's premise and promotion and a review of episode one on my blog (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/).

Direct links to articles:

THE ONE: The search for Australia's most gullible audience (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-search-for-australias-most-gullible.html)
The One: Episode one (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-one.html)
The One: Episode one, take two! (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-one-take-two.html)
A prediction (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/prediction.html)

My call for predictions on the olympians in the upcoming show:
What can we know? (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-can-we-know.html)

Apparently I either can't post pics or this forum doesn't accept them so my "cartoon" here:
The One: A bit of fun (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-bit-of-fun.html)

For those who can't be bothered reading all that, I'll summarise by stating that all promotional material for the show is absolutely closed-minded. There is barely a suggestion that skepticism will even be tolerated in regards to what will be televised. We are told the contests ARE psychics. We are told one judge IS psychic and we are advised to suspend disbelief but, as someone noted above, no one's told to suspend their belief.

Whilst Richard's skepticism was challenged by Daddo, with questions about his willingness to believe and what it would take for him to do so, I don't recall his "psychic" counterpart being asked what it would take for her to abandon her delusions.

Conclusion from episode 1: Credulous whitewash. When Richard says he was alone, he isn't exaggerating. The contestants are against him. The other judge is against him. The host finds him amusing. The ad department can't stand him. The editor apparently despises him. A large part of the viewing audience presumably think he's an idiot. And the spirits have even started screwing up his video equipment!

"Alone" is probably an understatement.

Richard: Unless I misunderstood, you said you've taped the final show. How can this be if the final decision is to be made by public voting? Were only genuine psychics allowed to vote since no one else is in a position to judge the remaining shows. If so, the phones must have been running cold.

On a side note: Is anyone here from Aussie Bad Psychics? If so, can I ask why is there no review of this show on the site? All we're given is some cut and paste promotional material which is anything but skeptical. Not even a one-line dismissal of this nonsense. Is the site all but dead?

I've seen the detailed and humorous reviews at PodBlack's blog (http://podblack.wordpress.com/) and a bit at FlopEaredMule (http://flopearedmule.net/2008/07/andrew-daddo-is-no-harry-houdi.html) but are there any other Aussie blogs covering this stupidity?

Stacey Demarco is certainly making the most of the very positive exposure, using it to promote her services on her blog. (http://themodernwitch.blogspot.com/2008/07/happy-you-enjoyed-it.html)

Gib

13th July 2008, 07:23 AM

Thanks for the torrent Richard, but unfortunately there aren't any seeders. If anyone already has this, can you please hop back onto the torrent, and seed. If you download, please leave your torrent open for a few days for others to download. Thanks !!

nettiemoore

13th July 2008, 03:10 PM

I have the torrent sitting there available for seeding (has been for days) but it isn't. Ugh. I'll try to sort it this afternoon. I'd hate to have to mess with all that port forwarding business again as the last time I did that I nuked my net connection entirely. Other torrents are seeding though, perhaps its something to do with it being a private tracker.

If anyone has knowledge of using Transmission with a Mac and wants to give advice, PM me for the greater skeptical good. :)

Gib

13th July 2008, 03:29 PM

Thanks nettiemoore. I've taken another look and started with another bittorrent client. It seems I was getting an error "Cheating are we?" when using bitcomet, but I'm downloading now I'm using bittornado from 1 seed at 7kbps... Must be a discerning tracker which doesn't like bitcomet.
Cheers!

nettiemoore

13th July 2008, 03:41 PM

Oh well I hope you're seeding off me because being a leecher keeps me up at night.

wafonso

13th July 2008, 09:28 PM

Richard, in case you're still reading this, I was wondering... did you have anything to do with designing the testing procedures?

The reason I ask is that it's very easy to do this wrong. I don't believe most of the population has any idea of how hard it is to design proper testing procedures, and I wouldn't expect the Channel 7 guys to know how to do it either.

For example, do the camera crews know where the thing being looked for is? (they probably do after the first person finds it...) How isolated are the contestants from each other and from the production team before and after the tests? And so on and on...

I couldn't help but noticing that the one person who went straight for the boy was the last one to be tested (assuming they're showing the tests in the order they are recorded).

Jonquill

13th July 2008, 09:50 PM

I watched this program with my husband and I don't know if he was just winding me up but he kept saying things like "That's amazing that they found the kid in all that bush, do you know how hard it is to find someone lost in the bush?" Ignoring the fact that a lot of the 'psychics' first bolted off in the wrong direction.
I like to think he's not a complete idiot but.....

Gib

14th July 2008, 01:01 AM

Thanks nettiemoore, I've got it, have finished being a nasty leecher, and have graduated to a fellow seeder.

SezMe

14th July 2008, 01:46 AM

Richard

14th July 2008, 05:36 AM

Richard, in case you're still reading this, I was wondering... did you have anything to do with designing the testing procedures?

The producers came up with the tests, I cast an eye over them and added some controls where I could. Please remember that these tests are not meant to be scientific as they are not repeated for example. The show is light entertainment and should be viewed as such.

I must say that some folks have told me they thought I came across like no skeptic they have seen on TV. Open to the possibility of the paranormal and not just saying it's all BS. Will I turn to the other side?????? Tune in to find out. :)

AndyD

14th July 2008, 08:01 AM

I read just the first one and, frankly, AndyD, you're being really naive.

Naive? Did I give the impression that I expected the show to be a serious look at the underbelly of the psychic industry? I'll have to ramp up my sarcasm a little ;)

I must say that some folks have told me they thought I came across like no skeptic they have seen on TV. Open to the possibility of the paranormal and not just saying it's all BS.

I'd have to agree. One episode in and it looks like there's eight and a half believers on the show - plus an entirely credulous production team. I hope, for all our sakes, there's a twist that us non-psychics won't see coming :)

I know you can't say much about the show but can you comment, in general, on the way you feel you've been portrayed by TV stations in the past? I ask because I dug up the old "spider on the security camera" story yesterday (I didn't know you were in it because it was before my time on the forums) and was surprised by the soundbytes in which you almost seem to support the idea that the vision is astonishing ("one of the most intriguing viedeos I've ever seen"). And although you initially dismiss the paranormal option, you are then shown saying "it looks like it could be a ghost" and later that it may be "one of the best" videos you've seen of "maybe a paranormal nature".

In the end, a "blob" with two significant rounded parts, one larger than the other and things that look like legs to the point where the whole things looks exactly like a whole, living spider, is delivered to the viewing public as anything but the obvious and the show declares it unsolved, undebunked, inexplicable.

I know it's all about the editing but I'm wondering in what context you end up saying things that seem to lend credence to the woo side once they've spliced it all together? (And who was that forensic video analyst who's apparently never seen a spider before?)

Richard

14th July 2008, 04:40 PM

I know it's all about the editing but I'm wondering in what context you end up saying things that seem to lend credence to the woo side once they've spliced it all together? (And who was that forensic video analyst who's apparently never seen a spider before?)

hmmm.. I said lots of stuff that day and yes, they used what they wanted. I remember thinking it was in fact one of the best videos I'd see as it did look sort of like a ghost... (whatever a ghost looks like) I mean most ghost videos are rubbish. I was also hamming it up but left them with no doubt that it was not a ghost.

I never did find out who the forensic video analyst people were, but they were awful. I mean come on.. it's so clearly something near the camera.

epitide

15th July 2008, 05:44 AM

After seeing the show tonight, I think that it's likely any one could make it through to the final 3 just by flying under the radar. You can progress to the next stage if someone else does badly! Just be being 'Not the worst' you are likely to progress.

wombatwal

15th July 2008, 06:15 AM

Overall a pretty mediocre show 3/10 for entertainment, and that is only because Richard is there.:D:D
The "skykicks" bombed out in the main event of finding something in a container amongst 70 containers. They got 100% wrong. I suppose a 1 in 70 chance is very slim and the result is probably expected through chance.

Jonquill

15th July 2008, 06:52 AM

The shipping container challenge could have been made more fun by comparing their results to a team of trained beagles :D

AndyD

15th July 2008, 07:09 AM

Last week I made a prediction (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/prediction.html) about the show.

My prediction was short and to the point. I did not use a shotgun approach and was anything but vague. I missed the end of the show tonight but I'm advised I was pretty damned close to the way it ended. In fact, if anyone on that show can be considered psychic based on what they've demonstrated, then I might be a master of the Gift and should set up business right away.

Here's my prediction again. (You can check it at the original link (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/prediction.html), since I moved the website yesterday, which was still well before the show was aired).

I predict that the first person to be dismissed from "The One" will not say "I didn't see that coming" but will claim that they had difficulty tuning their powers under the pressure of a studio situation. Stacey Demarco is clouding my vibes a bit but I think she's nodding in agreement. Someone's saying it's tough and they're out of their comfort zone. Damn, Demarco's made it all a bit cloudy with all that nodding. I'm feeling that there was an air of skepticism blocking the channels. I'm receiving an "R" sound and I am also sensing a "woman", but don't ask me why. Oops, I'm also seeing a baby - someone's in for a surprise!

I had no prior knowledge of the outcome and, as far as I know, there was nothing posted on the net prior to me making my prediction. Not that I need a disclaimer since I'm not claiming to be psychic. It was all perfectly reasoned.

Of course, if my prediction bears no resemblance to the way the show finished then it not only proves my lack of psychic ability but confirms the desire of my family to nod in agreement to questions even when they shouldn't (I had to ask them if I was right about this and this and this...)

domofish

15th July 2008, 07:32 AM

Richard

15th July 2008, 07:32 AM

Here is a short clip from the 2nd show.

0VZabTJOu4g

AndyD

15th July 2008, 08:53 AM

My review of most of episode two is here (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-two.html).

I was called away during the final portion so have had to rely on my son's notes.

If you haven't seen the show yet, or read about it, then do a little test. Think of five or six Australian Olympians. Don't try too hard, just the first that come to mind. Write them down before reading the next instruction.

Now check how many on you list are swimmers? How many could you describe as having their arms going around?

Senex

15th July 2008, 09:44 AM

So, that woman sitting next to you is Stacey Demarco, a practicing witch. Any chance that she might invite you and a few of your closest skeptic mates :rolleyes: to a skyclad initiation ceremony in order to induct skeptics into the ways of the dark side? I've always wanted to see the southern constellations during a skyclad ritual. I'm very spiritual that way.

Wouldn't hurt to ask?

Senex

15th July 2008, 09:51 AM

My review of most of episode two is here (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-two.html).

If you haven't seen the show yet, or read about it, then do a little test. Think of five or six Australian Olympians. Don't try too hard, just the first that come to mind. Write them down before reading the next instruction.

Hmmm, this seems to be similar but actually an impossible version of the "think of a country that starts with the letter "D" trick." Even Americans can come up with Denmark, but 5 or 6 Australian Olympians? I remember your female beach volleyball and basketball teams were very pretty and dressed for the hot weather but that's all I got.

AndyD

15th July 2008, 10:13 AM

Hmmm, this seems to be similar but actually an impossible version of the "think of a country that starts with the letter "D" trick." Even Americans can come up with Denmark, but 5 or 6 Australian Olympians? I remember your female beach volleyball and basketball teams were very pretty and dressed for the hot weather but that's all I got.

He he, it probably doesn't work too well in Connecticut. But trust me, even Aussies who aren't interested in sport (like me) could name a bunch of our Olympians. They are national heroes. The great thing is that even without actual names, the psychic guesses (public eye, charity work, career offer, moving arms, purpose, study...) still work due to the similarities of all the sportsters. In fact, you don't even have to use Aussie Olympians, use any you can think of and the guesses are still likely to fit.

Richard

15th July 2008, 04:57 PM

Show 1 and 2 on torrent

http://chronictracker.com

you need to sign up, it's simple.. then run a search for

The.One-Australias

arthwollipot

15th July 2008, 07:54 PM

Hmmm, this seems to be similar but actually an impossible version of the "think of a country that starts with the letter "D" trick." Even Americans can come up with Denmark, but 5 or 6 Australian Olympians? I remember your female beach volleyball and basketball teams were very pretty and dressed for the hot weather but that's all I got.I think that test was designed for Australians. I personally can think of three Australian olympians who aren't swimmers. One is a runner (Cathy Freeman), one a weightlifter (that huge tuna fisherman from Nowra whose name I can't currently recall) and one an equestrian (Andrew Hay). In fact, the only Australian swimmer whose name I can currently recall is Dawn Fraser, and that's going back quite some time. Oh, and there's Shane Gould as well.

devnull

15th July 2008, 08:10 PM

you forgot the shooting guy, Michael something....... :)

arthwollipot

15th July 2008, 09:06 PM

Yep. Forgot him.

Gib

16th July 2008, 02:29 AM

Richard

16th July 2008, 02:32 AM

AndyD

16th July 2008, 03:55 AM

Richard, in the segment where Amanda matched the cross to the Maltese guy, the biggest hit there I think was the "Malta" connection. I've heard of something called a Maltese cross though.

I couldn't see what the item looked like, Amanda hid it from the camera quite well. Was it possibly of Maltese design ?

I agree it was the only thing you could call a hit since it wasn't as general as most of the other guesses and I asked the same question in my review - was it a Maltese Cross? I guess we'll never know.

Interestingly, according to the show's website, Amanda's the only one not reading professionally!

Next week I'll have to tape the show since it's a pain (and a risk) to review from notes and memory. And I can't/won't d/l torrents.

Gib

16th July 2008, 05:30 AM

Yes Richard, I can certainly believe the studio would have been very busy. They were rushing through those readings.

I'll try to go back when I have more time and go frame-by-frame to see if I can identify the pendant. I have gone back quickly to the beginning of the segment where they show all the items on the table, but I couldn't see the cross there. I'll try again.

Another question Richard - is each episode filmed on a separate day ? Is is possible the Maltese guy was sitting in the audience previously, and seen by Amanda actually wearing the cross ?

It would have been pretty easy for the psychics in this test anyway, to identify the people who had items on the table. They're the ones looking thoughtful as the psychic is going through their spiel. We saw that when one of the psychics picked out two women near each other, both of whom had items on the table.

And, of course, it's possible the items were seen by the audience while the psychic was handling them, or even figured out based on how they were being held. For instance, the comb was quite a different shape and size and must have been easy to identify.

AndyD

16th July 2008, 08:00 AM

As podblack cat (http://podblack.com/?p=765)noted in her entertaining review of the show, Charmaine (the one who picked the two women) actually announced to the audience, before making her guesses, that she held a ring. That knocked out a fair chunk of the audience participants and the two women she picked were grinning like audience members at a cold-reading show.

I'm going to go out on a limb, here and now, and put my next prediction here where I can't edit it later.

I'm getting a sadness and feel disappointment. I'm feeling closed in. Locked, caged. I see a father figure but I'm also seeing a woman. The spirits are confused, both vibrant and sad. There's a happy man but there's disappointment. I'm getting an "E'. I see Demarco talking to angels. Again I'm getting a sense that the spirits were uncooperative under test conditions. They did an exceptional job - under the circumstances. I'm getting "middle-age" and wow! A strong female presence! They're telling me she must go. She has to go. I'm not getting a clear message but whoever she is, she is leaving next week. There's a strong ethnic presence and, damn, Demarco is messing things up with all her nodding again. Every time the guides try to tell me something, she chimes in with a comment about difficulty and success. She's impressed but she's blocking the vibe, it's all about the vibe. The vibe, I hear music. The spirits want to talk about the music. This makes no sense to me but they're pointing to the music. Over and out.

If anyone can post a Youtube of the end of episode two - the eviction segment - I'd appreciate it.

Gib

16th July 2008, 04:40 PM

I rewatched Amanda with the Maltese bloke, and it is very difficult to see the cross, but from what I could see, it looked like a normal cross, certainly not what you get with a normal "google images" search of "maltese cross". So I don't understand the Maltese connection. I tried to see if he was in the audience in the previous episode, but couldn't see him.

I checked the hits and misses for him though, and got:
She said "red car", he didn't know about that. Miss.
She said "trains". He works for railways. Hit.
She said the name "mary catherine". His dead mum's name is "mary". Partial hit.
She said "pain in hands". He said he does, because he's a drummer. Hit.
She said "malta". He said his kids are half maltese. Hit
She said "takeaway food". He says he eats too much of it. Hit ?
She said "communication problems". He didn't mention that. Miss.
She said "dry throat in mornings". He didn't mention that. Miss
She said "4 oclock". He said that's when he finishes at work. Hit
She didn't say anything about his back when reading him, but then prompted him on it when speaking to him, and he admitted he had back problems. That was just weird, possibly due to editing ? Or because she knew him, and was reading for him, and forgot she didn't say back problems... I won't class that as hit or miss.

So, that totals 3.5 misses, 5.5 hits. The trains was a lucky hit, the others were very broad, except Malta was a good hit.

Richard

16th July 2008, 04:48 PM

Another question Richard - is each episode filmed on a separate day ? Is is possible the Maltese guy was sitting in the audience previously, and seen by Amanda actually wearing the cross ?

Each show was filmed on a separate day. The studio hours were long. It is possible the man in question was there before, I really have no idea. The contestant were able to pick the item they wanted to use from a table as you saw on the show.

nettiemoore

16th July 2008, 05:53 PM

It's entirely possible the contestants saw specific people with their items. During the break between the morning and the arvo sessions Amanda was wandering out through the audience holding area to get food with her kids so there was no segregation. I think they collected the items earlier in the day but it does show the extremely slack application of "controls", despite Richard's best efforts.

However I strongly doubt it happened since the readings were all quite atrocious -- more so than the edited version shows. We remember "Malta" because it stood out so much as a relatively obscure hit amongst the obvious barnums etc. But of course as we know the cold reading hypothesis explains that better than the psychic hypothesis. :)

Richard

16th July 2008, 06:18 PM

If anyone can post a Youtube of the end of episode two - the eviction segment - I'd appreciate it.

I just found this online.

Ek-DeHr6ruY

Brendy

16th July 2008, 07:57 PM

I just found this online.

Ek-DeHr6ruY

why are the psychics so worried about wether they are going home or not?

Aren't they psychic, can't they sense whether they are the one eliminated or not?

Richard

16th July 2008, 08:39 PM

From some local newspapers

PBTree

16th July 2008, 09:18 PM

From some local newspapers

Nah, sorry. I'm a complete cynic. I think you are still just plugging the show.

Statements such as "will I turn? You will have to tune in".

Posting utubes of the show ("just found [fortuitous] this on the web") when people ask.

Local reports such as this last lot, that are really just ads for the show.

Not saying anything on the show that would convince watchers you are, not only skeptical but completely gobsmacked at how wrong these people are. :nope:

You will have to do a lot better than this to convince me you are there for any other reason than 'being a part of the (paid I presume) entertainment'.

:)

arthwollipot

16th July 2008, 11:23 PM

BTW,

The Maltese Cross (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maltese-Cross-Heraldry.svg)

AndyD

16th July 2008, 11:57 PM

Obviously as a participant in the show, Richard's going to promote it and if he doesn't point us to public information then the only people seeing it and commenting on it will be the believers sent there by the other participants.

I'm thankful for the pointers. It saves me a lot of Googling and gives me something to blog on in regards to the show. That said, I'm equally disappointed at the lack of skepticism put to air so far. It's a whitewash for sure.

However, the Aussie skeptic community can share some blame here. I only starting blogging last week, mostly because of this very show and the fact that I could find almost no one in Australia covering it in any depth. I'm new to the idea of formal skepticism but besides my own and PodBlack's blog coverage of the show so far, I'm not aware of any other blogs covering it to any useful extent. Where are Australia's skeptics and why aren't they making a public statement against nonsense like this?

As Penn and Teller explained (well, Penn did), the thing that got their skeptical show on TV was the fact that it promised a financial return to the station. Nothing more, nothing less. We can't look to commercial TV for reason or morality (they gave us Big Brother - that should tell us all we need to know about motive). So, they have to have reason to deliver shows with a skeptical bias. One look at the poll on The One's website would show any TV exec that their best bet lies with the deluded. According to that poll, we're either seriously outnumbered or apathetic, neither of which bodes well.

Frankly, if this is the level of public support Richard's enjoyed throughout his time heading the Aust. Skeptics, I'm not surprised he's been seduced by the silly side.

So start blogging and/or writing to Channel Seven to demand better. At the very least, show strong support for people who are doing it by leaving comments on my (sorry, their) blog :)

http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/)

I'm open to constructive criticism.

wombatwal

17th July 2008, 12:47 AM

nettiemoore

17th July 2008, 01:25 AM

Richard

17th July 2008, 01:34 AM

Nah, sorry. I'm a complete cynic. I think you are still just plugging the show.

Me??? Never. And don't forget to tune in again on Tuesday night at 7.30pm

wombatwal

17th July 2008, 01:35 AM

Here is another spot where the heroic sceptics are doing battle with those evil believers.
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/b/the-one/11/about-the-show?page=21#comments

nettiemoore

17th July 2008, 02:17 AM

Of course I would love it if Richard got the chance to deliver, in prime time to a national audience of a couple million riveted viewers, a 60 minute monologue to camera forensically dissecting cold reading. I'd also love to spend my life snorting coke from George Clooney's naked thighs.

Ain't neither of these things going to happen. Deal.

I think people need to realise that really this has never really been done before and is only 2/5 over. You don't pull the plug on an experiment less than half the way through just because you get pouty at the results so far. What we have done a lot of before (and we should absolutely keep doing) is blogging our outrage, kvetching on forums and bitching to friends. We know the parametres of that kind of thing and what it can and can't achieve. We don't know that about this yet.

There is not only one single way to reach people and the spread the message. There are any number of different ways. You need to look at it from outside your own point of view, no one on this forum is the show's intended audience. Sure, we know all about what's going on already. We rulz. Why deny others the opportunity to get the thought planted in their heads. Just a little, nagging thought. That's all.

Worst case scenario? Just another stupid psychic show on telly, they are on every single day of the week so one more hardly makes a difference. I think its already been better than that (one line of proper scepticism on telly is better than none) and having seen the live tapings am pretty confident the harder line skeptic position only gets more represented from here.

AndyD

17th July 2008, 03:21 AM

National exposure on the 10th most show of the week vs. a couple of extra blogs read by a dozen people who already agree with you. Anyone care to predict which has the most potential benefit for our ideas?

It's not a matter of equality of coverage, it's a matter of some decent level of coverage of "our" side. It's also not about swaying closed-minded believers. The people who need to find information are the open-minded fence sitters. People who might be taking an active interest for their first time.

Six months ago I knew nothing about global warming denialism, anti-vax activism or the extent of formalised atheism going on around the world. If it wasn't for the skeptical blogosphere, I still wouldn't know. I found the information because I looked for information on pyramid scams. The rest, for me, is history.

When a show like this hits prime time, I'd assume (yes, assume) that some people are likely to go googling for information about it. I think it would be good if they find the skeptical viewpoint heavily represented, especially from Australian bloggers. Logical fallacy or not, it's much easier to sway an opinion if you've got some level of popularity on your side.

imho :)

Marius vanderLubbe

17th July 2008, 06:43 AM

Really, why is anyone expending even one calorie of brain energy even thinking about this train wreck of a show?
What do you expect from it? Reason? Logic? Ptagh!!
Good that Master Saunders is there, but I hardly think that the producers are giving, or likely to give,the voice of reason and logic that he undoutably has anything like equal time.
More like someone for the true believers to hiss at and scorn, between add breaks.
The only thing that this show informs me, is that as one astute observer noted, there is actually room beneath Big Brother.

AndyD

17th July 2008, 08:38 AM

Really, why is anyone expending even one calorie of brain energy even thinking about this train wreck of a show?

Because prime time commercial television is a powerful force and if any of us care about spreading skepticism and defeating mass delusion, it's our duty to point out the flaws to those who can't see them for themselves.

Of course no one here expected a rational, scientific assessment of paranormality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it's flaws though. Consider it an easy workout, especially for those of us who are new to the skeptic movement and who aren't in a position to quote pubmed references to debunk pseudo-sciences.

nettiemoore

17th July 2008, 01:03 PM

If it wasn't for the skeptical blogosphere, I still wouldn't know. I found the information because I looked for information on pyramid scams. The rest, for me, is history.

Absolutely, me too and your blog is great and you should keep doing it (as purveyor of a little read blog myself, I love little read blogs! :D )

BUT it is not the only valid way to spread the message and people who put themselves on the line to try something different should not have the Skeptical Purity Police called out on them. The "More Skeptical Than Thou" line -- very unappealing and can we drop it?

Richard

18th July 2008, 01:27 AM

Marius vanderLubbe

18th July 2008, 04:17 AM

Some good results. People at the car race track came over to meet me as they saw me on TV. Gave me the chance to talk to them about skeptics and our point of view. Turns out one of the women was a client of one of the 'psychics' on the show. They were not mad, they were happy to hear me. Very nice.

Any toe hold that we as logical rational thinkers can gain into the world of the true believer, or indeed the fence sitter, has by its very nature be a good thing.
That they included your good self in this show self is to be commended, even though doubtless it is not out of some overpowering need to seem impartial, or Zenu forbid, provide a focus for the "negative energy" of the TBs, which by the way, can attract viewers. At least the positively charged ones.
But what about when its all over, and the fickle public is searching for the next superparanormalnatural televisual feast, having forgotten, or never learned any lessons in critical thought that you may have introduced them too?
Will it be business as usual for the hordes of the all too uninformed?
Well , yes, it will.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could produce a skepticl version?
"Australia's finest skeptic"
The prizes would be awarded on the basis of how many frauds exposed, ghosts busted, minds opened, quacks castrated and cats saved from trees.
Something like Brian Dunning and co are trying to float in the US and A
As I am still too new, i cannot post links apparently, so The best I can do here is to leave a space in the address. Http: //skeptologists.com/

Seriously, we need to really be on top of our game. Its getting a little crazy out there. Anyone noticed the Papal Mass hysteria in Oz lately? Is that the behavior you want to see in the leaders of the future?
Not me.

AndyD

18th July 2008, 10:47 AM

My initial reaction to Richard's presence on the show was similar to that of many posters - I wished he could just condemn the nonsense before him. But I'm warming to the idea of him doing his way.

How many shows do we have with any skeptics on? We've got "drama" series about various "psychics" solving everyone's problems and even the various "CSI" type shows often hint at paranormal approaches to solving murder when they drift into those ghostly visualisation effects. Some of the key players seem to solve the crimes almost psychically rather than as a result of methodical science. How many shows represent a skeptical (not just a scientific) viewpoint?

So, if Richard can show that skeptics can be friendly, happy, humorous people with a heart (not, I'd assume, the stereotype), maybe that's what it takes to get a skeptical influence on telly. It would be nice to think that his connection with the station could buy some influence down the track for a TV version of his Mystery Investigators. And wouldn't it be great if it was televised in children's prime time?

arthwollipot

20th July 2008, 06:03 PM

Well I am doing battle with those evil believers :D. Talking on the Australian show.
I am on the N.Z. Sensing Murder forum.
http://www.sensingmurder.co.nz/regfrm/viewtopic.php?t=814&start=100
Anyone lend a sceptical hand.I would, but I've never had the intestinal fortitude to actually force myself to sit through an episode of the show.

Some good results. People at the car race track came over to meet me as they saw me on TV. Gave me the chance to talk to them about skeptics and our point of view. Turns out one of the women was a client of one of the 'psychics' on the show. They were not mad, they were happy to hear me. Very nice.Is your new avatar a still from the show? :D

Richard

20th July 2008, 07:51 PM

Is your new avatar a still from the show? :D

Oh yes.. it's me looking very skeptical indeed. :P

The Bad Astronomer

20th July 2008, 09:58 PM

So, if Richard can show that skeptics can be friendly, happy, humorous people with a heart (not, I'd assume, the stereotype), maybe that's what it takes to get a skeptical influence on telly.

DINGDINGDINGDING!

We have a winner!

:-)

Richard

20th July 2008, 10:53 PM

DINGDINGDINGDING!

We have a winner!

That's better than being a weener.

I'll be on MMM radio (Brisbane) at 8.05am Eastern Australian Time.

TRIPLE M – Breakfast - The Cage

Date: Tuesday 22nd July

URL for live feed: http://www.triplem.com.au/brisbane/shows/thecage/

-----------

New promo for this week's show. Ned Kelly was an outlaw in the 19th Century.

Ll_2z4BISnw

EHocking

21st July 2008, 06:07 AM

New promo for this week's show. Ned Kelly was an outlaw in the 19th Century.
Ll_2z4BISnw[cough] bushranger [cough]

AndyD

21st July 2008, 07:13 AM

I love this week's promo, especially Stacey Demarco exclaiming, almost incredulously, how amazed she is that three people found something IN FOUR AN A HALF THOUSAND SQUARE METRES!!!

I had to wait until the ad came on again so I could check what I'd heard. Seriously, I don't think I could make that text big enough or bold enough (or CAPS enough) to reflect her amazement that people could find something in an area a little over......... one acre.

That's one fifth of the size of the block I live on and we often find green(ish) tennis balls on our green(ish) block - without even looking for them.

One acre (4046sqm) is the size of four traditional Aussie suburban housing lots. Unless they're searching for something smaller than a hairclip - or the area is laden with mines - then I think Demarco's exasperation might be a little over the top. It'll be interesting to see how big the area looks on camera - and how fast they can run.

Keep up to date at: http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/

AndyD

21st July 2008, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by AndyD View Post
So, if Richard can show that skeptics can be friendly, happy, humorous people with a heart (not, I'd assume, the stereotype), maybe that's what it takes to get a skeptical influence on telly.
DINGDINGDINGDING!

We have a winner!

:-)

Hey, I missed this earlier. What do I win? :eye-poppi The million? I didn't even say I was psychic. What am I saying?!! Of course I'm psychic and, somehow, I proved it! Bank transfer is acceptable. Do you want my Account details and PIN?

I'm skeptical of the announcement that I actually won anything though and, unlike Richard, I'm not really the friendly, happy, humorous "person with a heart" type skeptic :(

Richard

21st July 2008, 09:09 PM

Sydney Newspaper today.

PBTree

21st July 2008, 09:46 PM

That's better than being a weener.

I'll be on MMM radio (Brisbane) at 8.05am Eastern Australian Time.

TRIPLE M – Breakfast - The Cage

Date: Tuesday 22nd July

URL for live feed: http://www.triplem.com.au/brisbane/shows/thecage/

-----------

New promo for this week's show. Ned Kelly was an outlaw in the 19th Century.

Ll_2z4BISnw

My critique.

Listened to the show. Why did you even bother turning up? We ended up with both Martin and that Sammy woman believing this Madeline person was real. Quotes such as "wow", "how did she do that"?
You should have definitely told her to be quiet when you were talking, as you had the good manners to do that when she was talking. her continuous interruptions made your explanations appear quite weak. I'm sorry to say, you came across as the bumbling skeptic who failed to explain anything.

Surely a loaded question along the lines of;

"Why does Madeline need to say things like, "I see a person whose name begins with a D or a C", surely if she is TALKING to the dead person, this person should know the name of his own brother and/or mother"?

or why not say to the Cage Team, "When the next person rings in and Madeline makes contact with their dead, have the person ringing in remain silent and have Madeline tell the radio audience what the dead person is saying. Then get the caller to remark on what she has said, without any further remarks from Madeline".

Always a good laugh when they can't ask questions.

I was so furious with the show that I actually wrote to them and told them 'grown-ups' should not be so gullible. I also told them how mean these people are when they take money from the lonely and the bereaved. Told them to get hold of some cold reading books and suggested they do a spot on the show where they try out their own cold reading skills. Then they will see how anyone can do it. It just takes practice.

Also told them to look up Sylvia and Shawn Hornbeck if they wanted to see how dangerous these vile people are.

This is twice triple m have done a pyschic/medium show and both times it has turned out being a great ad for them.

We are losing ground, methinks.

:)

Richard

22nd July 2008, 12:58 AM

My critique.

I'm sorry to say, you came across as the bumbling skeptic who failed to explain anything.

I think you are being unfair. It is VERY hard indeed to be put on the spot like that. I did not know before hand that it would be this sort of thing. Anyway, I always could have done better, but you know what, I think I made some good points.

This sort of analysis of cold reading have never been done on Australian radio as far as I know. It's much harder than you think.

Judge for yourselves...

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/files/4MMM.mp3

SimonD

22nd July 2008, 05:09 AM

I think you are being unfair. It is VERY hard indeed to be put on the spot like that. I did not know before hand that it would be this sort of thing.

I don't understand how you could think that commercial radios treatment of skepticism would be any different from commercial television.

What did you expect?

Richard

22nd July 2008, 05:49 AM

I don't understand how you could think that commercial radios treatment of skepticism would be any different from commercial television.

What did you expect?

We had no idea this would happen. I thought it was just going to be an interview about the show and what I do. By the time we got going it was too late. I have asked that this does not happen again.

AndyD

22nd July 2008, 06:53 AM

Well, it seems my psychic powers may rival those of any contestant on The One. Following last week's success in which I predicted Rayleen's eviction, I have had another perfect hit. Here's the prediction again (original prediction at #124 above):

I'm getting a sadness and feel disappointment. I'm feeling closed in. Locked, caged. I see a father figure but I'm also seeing a woman. The spirits are confused, both vibrant and sad. There's a happy man but there's disappointment. I'm getting an "E'. I see Demarco talking to angels. Again I'm getting a sense that the spirits were uncooperative under test conditions. They did an exceptional job - under the circumstances. I'm getting "middle-age" and wow! A strong female presence! They're telling me she must go. She has to go. I'm not getting a clear message but whoever she is, she is leaving next week. There's a strong ethnic presence and, damn, Demarco is messing things up with all her nodding again. Every time the guides try to tell me something, she chimes in with a comment about difficulty and success. She's impressed but she's blocking the vibe, it's all about the vibe. The vibe, I hear music. The spirits want to talk about the music. This makes no sense to me but they're pointing to the music. Over and out.

Now, weeding out all the nonsense, you can clearly see I predicted that "She has to go." I wrote exactly those words. Tonight, She was evicted. Again, Demarco waved away doubts with the standard disclaimer that conditions were difficult and praised what she considered to be success. The music reference was clear to anyone who watched - though I cheated here, as I did with the closed-in feeling. Both the music legends and Ned Kelly prison segments had been advertised.

I'll have more to say at: http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ later tonight (WA time) but the show can be summed up with a fairly short "pffft!"

Richard, your skepticism got much better coverage tonight. Congrats.

Richard

22nd July 2008, 08:03 AM

Thanks to podblack for finding this..

qwU_3g8OKC8

Klippa

22nd July 2008, 08:19 AM

We had no idea this would happen. I thought it was just going to be an interview about the show and what I do. By the time we got going it was too late. I have asked that this does not happen again.

The special pleading from Richard is what I hear from the psychics. Has Richard 'crossed over' or can we please hear more intelligent feed back.

Nankay

22nd July 2008, 08:21 AM

sigh.."Video no longer available."

AndyD

22nd July 2008, 09:06 AM

Try the one on podblack's blog (http://podblack.com/). I assume it's the same?

AndyD

22nd July 2008, 10:50 AM

I just listened to the MMM recording and I can't see the what the complaint is about? Not to seem sycophantic but I think Richard stood up exceptionally well under the circumstances. It's a stark difference from the edited coverage we're seeing on TV (although that wasn't so bad tonight).

If anyone thinks it's easy to do a live debunk under those circumstances, I'd challenge them just to try and take notes during a reading (especially Charmaine's). I was trying tonight during "The One" and I was lost within a couple of sentences. That woman doesn't use a scatter-gun approach, she uses a machine gun! And if you think taking notes is easy, try debunking Charmaine while the grieving parent, sibling or spouse is still on the line and a handful of radio personalities are shouting you down.

While it's most likely true that no true-believers were convinced to disbelieve by that radio segment, I doubt any fence-sitters would have decided to go to the woo either.

I only wish we could see a bit of that Richard Saunders on The One.

Part one of tonight's review of The One, Episode Three is here: http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-three.html

Richard

22nd July 2008, 04:49 PM

sigh.."Video no longer available."

That's odd. More people are posting the shows on youtube now. Run a youtube search for "the one".

Here is the link for part 1 of the first show: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=qwU_3g8OKC8

PBTree

22nd July 2008, 06:45 PM

I think you are being unfair. It is VERY hard indeed to be put on the spot like that. I did not know before hand that it would be this sort of thing. Anyway, I always could have done better, but you know what, I think I made some good points.

This sort of analysis of cold reading have never been done on Australian radio as far as I know. It's much harder than you think.

Judge for yourselves...

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/files/4MMM.mp3

I can understand your frustration and appreciate the predicament you were placed in, but;

Plan the work and work the plan is an old adage.
If you are going to place yourself into the position of being "a renowned skeptic", you need to take guard at all times. Don't attend these sessions without a backup plan. Always go to a session with the view they are going to 'back-door' you.

Nearly all of the posts on this thread that say you are doing a great job, are of the opinion that niceness is the best attitude. Sorry, WRONG. You need to get down and dirty (not angry) with these people and start putting them on the spot. Next time get them to let you do the next caller and you cold read them. "I see a B or is it a D" etc etc. Maybe we will get remarks such as "wow, even skeptics are psychics".

Have a list with you at all times of questions you know (pre-tested) they can't answer. Don't try to wing it, they are very cagey as you know.

When they had the psychic on a couple of weeks ago, I tried to ring in and ask them a question but couldn't get through. This psychic was invited into the show and they sat and asked him questions. I wanted to ask them; "If this chap knew he was coming into the show and that you were going to ask him questions, why didn't he just bring in the answers and show them to you. He's a psychic for sh*t's sake". Just wish now I had got through. These are the sorts of things I feel, put them on the spot.

I may be marking you a bit hard and I'm trying not to be bad mannered but I do think you got everything you deserved by not being prepared.

:)

Richard

22nd July 2008, 07:10 PM

Nearly all of the posts on this thread that say you are doing a great job, are of the opinion that niceness is the best attitude. Sorry, WRONG.

I may be marking you a bit hard and I'm trying not to be bad mannered but I do think you got everything you deserved by not being prepared.

:)

You have a right to comment, but what I would rather hear is your radio interviews so I can learn from your winning tactics.

AndyD

22nd July 2008, 07:33 PM

When they had the psychic on a couple of weeks ago, I tried to ring in and ask them a question but couldn't get through. This psychic was invited into the show and they sat and asked him questions. I wanted to ask them; "If this chap knew he was coming into the show and that you were going to ask him questions, why didn't he just bring in the answers and show them to you. He's a psychic for sh*t's sake". Just wish now I had got through. These are the sorts of things I feel, put them on the spot.

They would just say "It doesn't work like that and these skeptics know it." They might even throw in a few disparaging remarks about how people who don't believe are closed-minded and scared of the truth - and the hosts would agree with them and start poking fun at you. The "psychic" might even offer to pray for you :) The hosts would probably then advise other callers that if they aren't interested in a reading, get off the lines and let the genuine callers through. Psychic 1 : Skeptic Nil. You have to remember the hosts don't have them on with the intent of embarrassing them.

These discussions are very much like political discussions and it's amazing what people can get away with when they avoid the question and change the subject. It's like trying to push a Liberal Party argument on the ABC.

I may be marking you a bit hard and I'm trying not to be bad mannered but I do think you got everything you deserved by not being prepared.

I can only assume I listened to a different interview - the one in which the "psychic" admitted to her own disbelief in a lot of the nonsense that gets passed off as psychic powers. You don't hear that very often (it was a first for me).

nettiemoore

22nd July 2008, 07:39 PM

I wanted to ask them; "If this chap knew he was coming into the show and that you were going to ask him questions, why didn't he just bring in the answers and show them to you. He's a psychic for sh*t's sake". Just wish now I had got through. These are the sorts of things I feel, put them on the spot.

That kind of question will do no good whatsoever. Firstly, you just sound like a smartarse. Secondly, they will just say "Spirit doesn't work that way." Killer question instantly negated. Next caller.

I do not disagree that sticking the boot in can be a valid response, but it is not the only possible valid way to go about this.

Damien Evans

22nd July 2008, 07:48 PM

[cough] bushranger [cough]

bushrangers are outlaws, you know.

Damien Evans

22nd July 2008, 07:54 PM

The special pleading from Richard is what I hear from the psychics. Has Richard 'crossed over' or can we please hear more intelligent feed back.

Normally I'd suggest a person who posted like this was an idiot.

Brendy

22nd July 2008, 08:21 PM

I have a question.

Why didn't this show do an american idol style showing of the preliminary search for psychics? I think it would have been hilarious to see all the types of people that tried to show their abilities. I think maybe the preliminary tests would show that almost all of the people that showed up did a really horrible job and had zero 'hits'. Maybe that's why they didn't tape them?

AndyD

22nd July 2008, 10:08 PM

Why didn't this show do an american idol style showing of the preliminary search for psychics? I think it would have been hilarious to see all the types of people that tried to show their abilities. I think maybe the preliminary tests would show that almost all of the people that showed up did a really horrible job and had zero 'hits'. Maybe that's why they didn't tape them?

I asked that same question and made the same point on my first blog (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-search-for-australias-most-gullible.html) about the show.

Why is it okay for vicious judges to destroy the ambitions of young people and community choirs whose only crime is to think they can sing (and many of them do have potential), yet not okay to give the same treatment to people who already charge good money to supposedly do something which they apparently can not do very well, if at all?

Cold readers are apparently a special breed that TV executives are scared to upset either in fear of poor ratings or because they actually believe it would bring bad karma.

We could write to Channel Seven and ask them to air an "audition" show after this show ends but my spirit guides tell me they didn't video the auditions in a way that would be suitable for editing into a TV format. But if anyone can provide an email address for Seven's Programming manager, I'll send them a note.

PBTree

23rd July 2008, 06:35 PM

You have a right to comment, but what I would rather hear is your radio interviews so I can learn from your winning tactics.

Point taken but that just shows neither of us is winning.

Obviously my comments are a bit too acid (grumpy old man syndrome), so I will apologise and refrain from any further comment.

But just remember, you are the one who is the "renowned Australian skeptic" who gets to appear on these shows. You are the one who started the thread to let us know the shows were on and you were attending as a skeptic representative.

So it behooves you to attend 'prepared', for all things relating to that show. Otherwise the show might as well just call in someone off the street and call them the skeptic.

The point I was trying to make (badly it seems) is that being able to shoot you down and make you look baffled on either of those shows, is probably worth much more to them than proving their ridiculous claims.

:)

nettiemoore

23rd July 2008, 08:22 PM

PBTree

24th July 2008, 12:23 AM

You have asserted Richard hasn't been prepared (for the radio thing or the TV show in general? You seem to be jumping back and forth between the two). I see no evidence for that.

In fact as far as the show goes, I know it is not true.

Have you watched the show? After the first episode no one could say he is portrayed as the skeptic who can't explain anything. Of course he doesn't get time for a worthy monologue on subjective validity but the lines they are leaving in are good for our side.

Nope, didn't assert that at all. Read it again.

""So it behooves you to attend 'prepared', for all things relating to that show. Otherwise the show might as well just call in someone off the street and call them the skeptic.""

We had no idea this would happen. I thought it was just going to be an interview about the show and what I do. By the time we got going it was too late. I have asked that this does not happen again.

I was trying to get across the point that I bet the medium knew exactly what was going to happen on the show and asked all sorts of leading questions before saying yes. Its called self preservation.
__

For my ten cents worth of opinion, I have watched the show and I think that as much as they allow Richard to do/say, I think he is doing fine.

I accept my chastisement and think I was using Richard as the whipping boy to get rid of my grumpiness at those fools. I won't criticise again as I agree with his previous deserved sarcasm (winning tactics). I'm not putting myself out there and until I do, I don't have that right.

:)

nettiemoore

24th July 2008, 02:19 AM

my grumpiness at those fools.

That's certainly something we can all agree with! :)

EHocking

24th July 2008, 01:30 PM

bushrangers are outlaws, you know.Just wanting to edjumukate the wider audience

AndyD

24th July 2008, 08:03 PM

Richard, can you explain who was awarding points in this week's speed-reading exercise and how much of the reading session was edited out?

I ask because it would appear Ezio effectively cheated by switching his focus to a more willing audience member who stated agreement with all previous guesses - which he then quickly repeated to her, scoring points in the process (yes, I know, it's just a dumb TV show). The problem here is that we were told hits had to very precise (and "not the bleeding obvious") and there's no way any of the contestants got precise hits yet they all scored points. Charmaine got a point for guessing a woman's mother used to wear glasses!!! That's like saying saying she wore clothes.

The end result however, for the credulous or non-critical viewer, is an impression that the contestants actually had "precise" hits and therefore psychic powers must be real.

I'm also wondering if the readings were actually much longer in which case I can only assume we didn't see a lot of misses.

AndyD

25th July 2008, 03:14 AM

After reading a comment left on podblack's blog (http://podblack.com/?p=784#comments), I've upadated my blog posts on The One with a comment specifically about this week's "cheating" by Ezio and the ridiculous amount of editing that's going on.

http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-cheats-do-prosper.html

AndyD

26th July 2008, 12:13 AM

Me again (no, I don't have a life)

PBo has posted a comment over at SWIFT pointing to a new Youtube from an audience member at episode TWO of The One. He's unimpressed with the reading his comb received and he explains why.

Go here for the Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER53Ubta7Nc)

Stick to the end to see just how bad She's reading really was and how the miracle of editing made it look "better" (and even that couldn't save it since it was 100% tripe).

Richard

28th July 2008, 08:03 PM

New review of "THE ONE"

-WeJ5XBJpbk

Richard

28th July 2008, 08:36 PM

Richard, can you explain who was awarding points in this week's speed-reading exercise and how much of the reading session was edited out?

Much of the show is edited out for many reasons including time. This fact makes this 'speed reading' hard to comment on for me. All I can say for now is that the show is for entertainment and you cannot really judge too much on what the edited version shows you. You can see for yourself how many 'hits' they got in their 5 minutes.

nettiemoore

28th July 2008, 10:39 PM

Rove is just about the most banal and unfunny person/thing on TV and I sit stony faced through the whole thing if I ever have to watch it but that was very amusing. Sure, making fun of psychics full of FAIL is shooting fish in a barrel - but I could watch it all day. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

PeterB

28th July 2008, 10:53 PM

That's better than being a weener.

I'll be on MMM radio (Brisbane) at 8.05am Eastern Australian Time.

TRIPLE M – Breakfast - The Cage

Date: Tuesday 22nd July

Did you manage to get a recording of the show? When I went on MMM to "debate" a psychic the podcast released by the station left out such parts as me telling the "psychic" how she does her tricks and her denying any knowledge of the expression "cold reading". Also, the time between her being asked to do a reading of me and her refusal was not the instant it appears - she agreed then changed her mind. I attempted to get a full recording from the radio station but I was unsuccessful.

Hear what's left at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/radio/050822mmm.mp3

AndyD

29th July 2008, 01:55 AM

All I can say for now is that the show is for entertainment and you cannot really judge too much on what the edited version shows you.

Hmmm, well, yes and no. WE know that it shouldn't be judged by what goes to air (and I went back and did the calculations and up to 4 minutes of each 5 minute read was edited out) but, other than Amanda, these people are (we are led to believe) operating commercially and what is presented is essentially advertising.

Now, you and I, and everyone here, knows full-well that there's nothing psychic going on in the show - and some of us are having fun (http://www.thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/) pointing it out - but viewers with a credulous bent are being fed a fairy tale and are being told (at a ratio of 8 for to 1 against) that it's all real.

I've spoken recently to some (otherwise rational) friends who think there is something going on in that studio - and they didn't mean BS.

Legend

29th July 2008, 03:20 AM

Tonight's episode will be interesting.

I'm currently working on trying to edit last weeks episode three and I hope to put in a review of this week's episode as James Randi said he'd "consider it". It's fun for me as it's practice for my article writing.

I'm so damn happy that that cow woman She was eliminated. She knows what she's doing is fake, I think a lot of them (possibly not Charmaine) have actually tricked themselves into believing their own powers.

Anyway...I can't wait to have a laugh at 7.30.

Alex.

wombatwal

29th July 2008, 07:17 AM

Richard, this is what you need to do to get the ratings going and get some mongrel into sceptic. Paranormalist-Jim Callahan, Sceptic-Criss Angel.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ebtMDuD4S1M&feature=related
:D:D

RSLancastr

29th July 2008, 07:37 AM

[Charmaine got a point for guessing a woman's mother used to wear glasses!!! That's like saying saying she wore clothes.Wow. Australians either have much poorer eyesight than Americans, or a far more liberal attitude towards the necessity of wearing clothing...

Richard

29th July 2008, 07:58 AM

From tonight's show.....

Medical Intuition

2ex4VbuZ-QE

AndyD

29th July 2008, 08:02 AM

Wow. Australians either have much poorer eyesight than Americans, or a far more liberal attitude towards the necessity of wearing clothing...

I saw a figure somewhere that suggests "almost everyone" over 55 wears glasses, luckily they do all tend to wear clothes - in public at least. Perhaps I did overstate the case a little ;)

On a much better note however - I GOT ANOTHER PREDICTION RIGHT!!!

Part of last week's prediction (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/prediction-iii.html) included:
"I'm getting a "J" and someone is pushing a recliner chair away. One take one leaves three."

Tonight, Jason was evicted. (For non-Aussies, "Jason" is also a major brand of recliner chair)

Tonight's review up at http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/
(http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/)

Damien Evans

29th July 2008, 08:10 AM

Wow. Australians either have much poorer eyesight than Americans, or a far more liberal attitude towards the necessity of wearing clothing...

Probably both.:)

ScottXSI

29th July 2008, 08:40 AM

Just watched the most recent episode and its just more of the same. The psychics had to complete a test where they were given a piece of luggage and had to guess who it belonged to (There was a group of about 20 people)
Naturally all the psychics failed, but there were some close guesses, one of which I'am certain was due to the bag owners facial expression giving the psychic a hint. Then after the test they all had excuses. The female judge gave them all credit even though they failed.

The medical diagnosis was the worst, the only really full on hits were on 2 people who's conditions were obvious just by looking at them. One man had issues with his eyes, (among a myriad of other problems) and another man had suffered a stroke (which you could tell from his facial movements.)
All the rest was just guessing in the general area of the body with no specifications.

I missed the judges comments after the medical test, there seemed to be a disagreement which I wanted to hear.
Richard do you remember what was said?

AndyD

29th July 2008, 09:36 AM

I missed the judges comments after the medical test, there seemed to be a disagreement which I wanted to hear.
Richard do you remember what was said?

I'm not sure if Richard will revise details (or if it's in the video above) so I'll do it for him...

After the medical demonstration, Richard suggests the stroke victim looked a bit like he'd had a stroke. Stacey declares this to be "number 24 out of the skeptics little poo poo book".

Later, after the missing luggage episode, despite the fact that Richard graciously allowed Stacey to mention Acupuncture as if it was a real medical treatment, she took issue with him failing to credulously accept that the failed guessing game he'd just witnessed was a genuine demonstration of psychic power. She then threw in the old "you can't measure love" canard.

One big win for skeptics tonight (although only skeptics will see it) was when Demarco confirmed the Forer effect (I don't think she realised it). From my blog review (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-four.html):

"Saunders agrees that we were seeing "generalities" and Demarco confirms what every skeptic has been arguing for decades - that these vague generalities feel specific to the individual involved. By George, I think she's got it! That is what the entire trick relies on - people think that vague things that apply to almost everyone really apply only to them..."

ScottXSI

29th July 2008, 09:30 PM

AndyD

29th July 2008, 09:55 PM

Thanks AndyD, sounds as if Stacey got a little bit defensive, she probably knew what Richard was going to pick up on since it was so obvious I'm sure most of the audience and home viewers saw it as well. I'm actually surprised that only one of the psychics noticed the stroke victim.

He he :), I'm not. They were pretty hopeless and we only got to see a few seconds of some readings - and some weren't shown at all. I think they only showed Ezio reading two of the five people.

The scary thing is that at least two of them (Amanda and Jason) consider medical intuition to be their strength. More interesting however is a quote from the Aust. Psychics Assoc code of ethics:

"In the process of your readings, you may make reference to legal or medical issues, but you are not to give legal or medical advice. You are to refer clients to suitable people in the above professional categories if that need should arise."

In other words, feel free to make all the vague guesses you like, even if it scares the crap out of the customer, but when you're done tell them to get a useful opinion from someone who actually knows what they're doing. So, although Demarco says science and skeptics have trouble accepting alternative medicine, the peak "psychic" body in the country shares that skepticism.

Senex

29th July 2008, 10:08 PM

I'm surprised that Richard gets knocked here at all for his unique hard work. It's a great start that he is allowed at all -- despite editing -- to appear on a woo show. The people who think he doesn't fight hard enough are undoubtedly curmudgeons who will never get on TV. You have to have a little charisma like Richard and I and a little ability to put up with the pretty woos to make it.

Someday there will be a show sponsored by the JREF where woos are invited to do some woo under controlled conditions. All the woos will hopelessly fail and the ratings will be terrible and other woos will say it didn't mean anything.

The battle against woo is never ending and will never be won. Give Richard credit for getting in the argument and on TV, don't give him an argument for things beyond his control. I suspect there are middle school Australian children writing papers about this show who will become future skeptics.

It's all good.

nettiemoore

29th July 2008, 10:23 PM

I have pages and pages and pages of notes taken during the taping of both the medical intuitive and celebrity reading segments from last night and it goes without saying that I'd be here for hours if I typed out everything left on the editing room floor.

Stuff like, Charmaine flat out said the woman in the medical segment was an ovarian cancer survivor. She's not -- actually, below the knee amputee. The show is totally pushing for her to win though so they wouldn't sabotage her that way. With the soapie actor Paul O'Brien Ezio said "here is a John in spirit" which got him the green orb of approval, however it came out in the chat afterwards that while his father is John, he is NOT DEAD thus not in spirit.

It was good though that the patients nodding and smiling and giving away cues out the wazoo was shown, despite being told they had to give no feedback when someone is standing right in front of you, talking directly to you obviously you can't help giving them direction. The same with the baggage owners in the other segment even though none of them got it right.

Richard got some good lines again -- "they all failed, some just failed more than others." Heh.

ScottXSI

30th July 2008, 02:02 AM

I quite like Richards remarks, he comes across as very observative and patient, plus some of his facial expressions are hilarious.

I'm really hoping the Chaser guys comment on this show when they finally come back on the air

Nettiemoore you should post scans of your notes.

ScottXSI

30th July 2008, 02:04 AM

Damn I did it again

Jonquill

30th July 2008, 02:23 AM

AndyD, thanks for writing that blog, its very handy to be able to spend 10 minutes reading about what happened rather than wasting an hour watching the horrid show myself. Plus I have to argue with my husband while it's on so I miss bits anyway :)

Legend

30th July 2008, 05:41 AM

PBTree

I've only been here for a few days now and I've developed a strong dislike of your ridiculous self-righteous and know-it-all assumptions.

I'm sorry if I came off rude but for you to assert that Richard did a bad job or unaffective job like that is rude itself.

I've recently submitted a review of the show to JR for a SWIFT article.

The most recent episode was an absolute joke and it's just sad that people believe that. The round-a-bout guessing and the way that they danced around the entire anatomy of each subject wand eventually got 'near the area' which was causing trouble.

Basically there were TWO definitely correct guesses. The stroke one, which as Richard pointed out, can be attributed to the lean that the man had and his delayed blinking in one eye and drooped face on one side. The other was the 'tingly foot' which amazingly had NOTHING TO DO WITH A MEDICAL PROBLEM but instead was a sensation that the person was having on stage! How unreal, quickly everyone tell the world, the man has a TINGLY FOOT! A TINGLY FOOT! And the psychic GOT IT RIGHT! Oh my dear Lord! Tell the people. :eye-poppi

Cheers,
Alex.

AndyD

30th July 2008, 06:31 AM

AndyD, thanks for writing that blog,...

You're welcome. If nothing else, it's given me a momentary purpose in life :)

One thing I didn't mention earlier was the encouragement Richard got from the audience when he suggested the stroke sufferer was leaning. As Stacey was starting to diss him, he turned to the audience and asked "am I right?" and there was audible support.

Nicely done Richard and one point to Channel Seven for actually including it.

Half a point extra for Daddo effectively asking Stacey if psychic powers were much use if no one could understand or measure them. This is when she chose not to answer but instead said "you can't measure love".

athon

31st July 2008, 12:47 AM

I've not been on the forums much of late, for many reasons. One major reason is that over the seven-odd years of being on the forum, and the years I've spent researching science communication and education in critical thinking (which includes a lot of homework on why people believe in pseudoscientific and paranormal claims), I've learned a few things. One is that while communities such as this one are fantastic for support and dissemination of information, there is a lot of ignorance on how to address educating people in matters of skepticism and critical thinking.

You're hardly alone here, PB, but you're a perfect example of somebody who has an unrealistic and uninformed view on how to communicate skepticism to the public.

Point taken but that just shows neither of us is winning.

There is no 'winning' or 'losing'. It isn't a dichotomy, and it isn't a war. There is a vast spectrum of people who have a vast spectrum of beliefs for a range of reasons. To think it is about winning over believers is fairly ineffective.

There is, however, communicating an approach in a fashion that makes it appealing. Skeptics in the past have adopted a rather negative public image, one that is automatically labelled as 'disbeliever'. Most people don't get the fact that being skeptical means being a non-believer, which is a subtly different thing. Richard's approach of showing that skepticism is about being truly open minded while demanding good evidence does more good for other skeptical communicators than adopting the old hard-arse approach many have used before.

The show is biased from the start. Richard is well aware of the way media works on this level. The way the show is set up means there is an eventual winning entrant - there is no illusion that this is anything but a freak-show which plays the ol' 'mysterious psychic' drawcard. If given the option of no skeptic at all, of one of the old-guard cynical 'grumpy ol' farts' or Richard, in my opinion Richard's approach would be the one to gain the most benefit in the long run.

Obviously my comments are a bit too acid (grumpy old man syndrome), so I will apologise and refrain from any further comment.I don't feel apologies are necessarily warranted, and I don't mean to single you out. It's as common as muck around here (although there are some shining examples of skeptical communication as well). But the acerbic, aggressive approach of skepticism has done little good in the past.

The point I was trying to make (badly it seems) is that being able to shoot you down and make you look baffled on either of those shows, is probably worth much more to them than proving their ridiculous claims.To those who are hard-boiled believers, sure. The strict social thinking of such beleivers puts them beyond discussion anyway. Yet most of the population don't reflect that, and Richard's approach works well in reaching them.

For people like me, whose job it is to teach critical thinking, Richard's approach is a breath of fresh air that enables me to discuss skepticism far more easily than if Richard dogmatically asserted his 'disbelief'.

Athon

arthwollipot

31st July 2008, 12:53 AM

Well said.

Richard

31st July 2008, 02:17 AM

You cannot measure love you know......

l1BmzB1pcCY

Legend

31st July 2008, 02:25 AM

All I'm going to say is that when I saw what Charmaine said on Tuesday...I laughed my head off. It was so hilarious how she tried to save her wrong guess.

"It was knocking me back". What was? There was no ghost part to this anyway.

Alex.

nettiemoore

31st July 2008, 04:29 AM

You cannot measure love you know......

Excuse #45980 from The Psychics' Book of Pooh Pooh!

Richard

1st August 2008, 06:04 AM

Someone has been busy with youtube! Most if not all of THE ONE.

http://tinyurl.com/5rkvkj

nettiemoore

1st August 2008, 03:35 PM

Hat tip for the above YouTube channel -- I sent the link to Richard but I saw it on AndyD's blog -- so thanks Andy for finding it!

AndyD

2nd August 2008, 05:12 AM

No problem at all, glad to do my bit. I'll repeat my request here that we treat the Youtuber politely as this is a useful resource for us.

Podblack (http://podblack.com/?p=802) has made a suggestion on her blog that we text a vote for Richard to Channel Seven:

PH: 191977 text the name: RICHARD

I don't know if this will even work since I've never texted (if that's a word I hate it) anyone and so l know nothing about it :) It does cost of course (~70c ?) and will likely lead to nothing useful but if anyone feels inclined to mess with the heads of the Channel Seven crew, then give it a go.

Jonquill

2nd August 2008, 05:32 AM

Okay, I'll send a text, when can we do it, now? Or is there a voting time?

AndyD

2nd August 2008, 07:37 AM

I don't know the times. If I find out I'll post but I'd assume until Monday?

I've just posted my latest article (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/08/one-new-low.html) questioning Channel Seven's decision to turn the Falconio murder/mystery into a game show for talentless hacks (they promote it as "the challenge Australia has been waiting for").

Jonquill

2nd August 2008, 08:29 AM

Done, got auto message thanking me for it too.

ScottXSI

3rd August 2008, 08:49 AM

Hahahaha I just texted in my vote for Richard as well. I wonder if they will acknowledge the votes on air.

nettiemoore

3rd August 2008, 01:50 PM

Hahahaha I just texted in my vote for Richard as well. I wonder if they will acknowledge the votes on air.

Don't hold your breath -- the whole thing has finished filming. They filmed three different endings depending on who wins so it's all pre-recorded. I imagine Daddo is already in China preparing for his Olympics hosting gig.

I voted for Richard too -- it will have no effect and it's just giving them money which is what the whole thing is about but it made me feel good to do it. :)

AndyD

4th August 2008, 04:26 AM

Ahhh, that explains Richard's comment a couple of weeks back when he said it was done.

Can you confirm my suspicion that at least five, and probably all seven, contestants took part in the Falconio fiasco even though we'll presumably see only three?

nettiemoore

4th August 2008, 01:29 PM

We only saw brief snippets of the Falconio travesty in the studio -- projected on the big orb, no less -- featuring only the three. Whether more of them went up there, I have no idea. I saw no indication of it.

Richard

4th August 2008, 06:14 PM

Final show airs tonight... here is a segment from morning TV here in Australia.

YxbkZmIh5Ps

PeterB

4th August 2008, 06:49 PM

Final show airs tonight... here is a segment from morning TV here in Australia.

I'm gagging! I don't know how much more of this I can take.:monshocked:

Richard

4th August 2008, 06:54 PM

Here is a radio interview I did this morning. Nice folks, on our side.

07gY2hcMfBk

AndyD

4th August 2008, 08:59 PM

This morning's Sunrise piece was just another credulous promotion of the psychic industry.

One supposedly independent stranger is read, on the quiet, by the three remaining contestants and we get a review put forward by the contestants and confirmed by the "stranger".

Charmaine got an "R" and "John" and "it turns out" this is the stranger's father and father-in-law. It's also my brother and nephew but that's another story.

In the end, if I heard correctly, the supposed stranger is a Reikii practitioner so we had four believers claiming credibility for something we didn't even get to see first hand.

As Orac says, "the stupidity, it burns".

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 12:03 AM

OK, I am putting up all my notes for the finale. It will take a bit because they never shut up, plus deciphering my scrawl after a few weeks is almost a supernatural act in itself. :confused:

Notes:
-- obviously it is difficult to get stuff down especially all the non-verbal cues flying back and forth. I have sometimes noted particularly obvious cases of nodding etc. Also, the audience was specifically directed to answer yes/no. The odd thing I just can't decipher. I was scribbling so hard.

The comments after "--" are things said by the "sitter". I can't claim it is absolutely everything but it is pretty close. "??" is a shortcut for some expression of puzzlement, shaking head or verbal. They were pretty much all believers some quite desperate to make hits so you can assume there was a lot more feedback that what I am able to convey.

They each had I think 10 minutes for these audience readings.

Charmiane -- First Reading

#1 Picks a middle aged lady in the front row (again encouraged to answer yes/no while she is being miked)

Father figure in spirit
-- father

"funny type of bloke", hard to understand, pushed family away, did not get to say goodbye

smoker, lungs affected
--heart, stroke

fluid on lungs
-- "oh, I didn't know that"

two kids
a William
- ??
Look up when you go home

younger person in spirit
-- not grandchild or child "not that I'm aware"

being shown a baby, might not be a child in spirit, might mean someone had a baby or was pregnant at time of death
-- could be husband's sister's daughter (ie niece)

father, tall build not fat but not Arnie
-- very solid

somebody with him who passed with cancer relates to you or him
-- ????

used to wear a cap constantly
the type who goes down the back and you don't see him all day

Robert? Bob?
-- brother

Lyn? Linda? Len?
-- Leonie, husband's brother's wife

Passed?
-- no, divorce (my notes say here "not Kylie??" don't know what that means!)

Darryl? Darren?
-- neighbour who passed

quieter man
anger over death
treated unfairly
you were like family, fed his dog/cat

he thanks you
-- yes (nodding throughout this)
smaller frame
fastidious
yard immaculate
Old screen door
he was proud

had pepper, peppertree, chili
-- orchids

grew vegetables

cancer
-yes

didnt get to say goodbye, in hospital

daughter Marg? Mary?
-- sisters? (neighbours)

liked lollies/licorise -- him or you?

Say hello to Steve, Stephanie, St-name
-- ???? don't think he had children

Someone around him/her (notes unclear) religious, someone carrying Bible

is grandmother in spirit?
-- yes

religious?
-- yes

Stern but nice, definately someone you don't cross
-yes
not small woman
--yes
Thinks a lot about what others think

Patty? Penny? P-name?
-- friend of sitter

Beryl? Nell?
-- Beryl?

appreciated Royal family
--yes

she is telling you you are unsure if you are going in the right direction spiritually

man brown cards (cardigan?) he liked her but never said so
he was tough because he had to give lessons
husband youngest son
-- yes

blonde when young

husband getting like his father
--yes

message to not copy dad

father in law drinker?
--no

husband drinker
-- no

A- name? G- name? Allen?
-- no

Your spirit journey is perfect, Darryl is a big supporter

your birthday July/August?
-- daughter's birthday

Darryl have gnomes?
-- no

ornaments?
-- orchids?

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 12:22 AM

Notes:
In the discussion with Daddo the host after Charmaine's time much was made of the fact the first sitter's name is Joy Anne and Charmaine had mentioned a "J-N" name but as you can see that related to the second women and was to do with dates (January, June) not anyone's name! Just goes to show how the memory can screw things up in a matter of minutes. :eek:
---

Charmaine #2 (goes to other side of the audience)
-- woman, 20s-30s

Tip toe through the tulips song
-- sing it sometimes

Mother figure in spirit
your mum?
Groovy girl, liked loud music

(again reminded to say yes/no "nice and clear")

You have a younger sister?
--no

older?
-- no

Sandra?
-- me (sitter's name)

Mum great teacher
not always positive
likes everything to be just right

didn't get to say goodbye
-- yes

Coughs, lungs affected

She wants you to know it doesn't matter
You speak to her and she hears you
Your mum is buried
-- no

You were regular with flowers
something important with burial

E-C name?
-- Dell? grandmother

Mum and Dell didn't always see eye to eye

small flowers not roses/ crysanthanums, maybe daisies. You planted something for your mother
-- haven't done it yet but want to

Wendy? Wayne? W-name
-- Uncle Wayne, not passed

Dosn't see him much
-- no

been crook
-- yes? (doesn't really know)

Mum passed suddenly
-- no

She won't tell me, I won't push her

J-N name? Jen?
-- don't know

Wayne's wife
-- none. girlfriend?

Cancer

dark hair when younger
-- when I (sitter) was younger

dad and her (mum) had funny things going on, didn't always get on. "mongrel", a cross she had to bear

Who's a nurse?
-- grandmother

Dell, more fastidious, picking up on her every move

Telling me someone passed suddenly with heart attack
-- yes but not recent

2 children in spirit
--yes

Elizabeth?
-- dont know, early child

Who surfs/lifesaves?
-- not now, brother did years ago

Brother's birthday soon or his child's?
- they are Jehovah's Witnesses, no birthdays

another celebration then

Husband into motorbikes or mechanics?
--no

someone around you?
-- no

kids?
-- no, far from it

seeing mechanic things

"I'm really fizzing with you!!"

you have a daughter?
--no

son?
-yes

J...n.. Birthday 16th or June
-- father 16th Jan

Still here?
--yes

he doesn't believe in this stuff
--doubt it

been down since mum passed, his down

you are estranged?
-- not estranged, lives far away

selling up, relocating,change
-- recently

he was with your mum at the end?
--no

SS name, Ross, Melissa
-- not that I can think of

"I'm fading away"

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 12:38 AM

And now, Amanada. aka The World's Worst Cold Reader. At east the gaping minutes of silence make for shorter transcriptions.
--

Amanda

-- she has two people already chosen. Described as "chosen at random" and yet also "asked for volunteers"

#1
middle aged woman, 40s-50s
-- yes a believer

What's your name?
-- (I did not hear the answer, was watching in the green room with the contestants' friends and family and great laughter for some reason, not connected to Amanda. I don't think.)

Your third eye is quite open, a lot of upset stomachs, does that make sense? bloating feeling, stiff neck
When you are flustered you move a lot and move your heard and hands alot --> leads to stiff neck

You wake up not refreshed
-- that's true

Aching in tops of thighs b/c you stand a lot on legs during day
-- at work

emotion of searching
feel connection to younger male
do you have a son?
-- yes

Does this make sense? You are always searching for his path
-- (nod)
you are trying to help to a degree of controlling

he doesn't have a lot of control of his life at the moment?

not making sense to her, will ask spirit guide to help her out

Do you have a granddaughter?
-- no but I have a young friend

8?
-- 9? I met her when she was 8

Daisy or D (another D name I cant read)
-- Daisy, dog in spirit

Daisy plays with her, having fun with this child

Older woman in spirit?
Colleen, Collette C-name?
-- Caroline

older, soft curls, does this make sense
-- (blank look)

"I'll leave that with you"

"She brings the blue sweater." Might make sense to you later.

Colleen is very persistent, grandparent?
-- (blank look) Might be great grandparent, doesn't know name

No, you know this person, "asking them to give speciifc info to help you"

Might have to stop the reading.

Man around you with full beard.
Richard?
Clarry?

Going to leave it there. "Let me know if you realise who Richard is."

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 12:52 AM

Amanda #2 -- Marina, 40s/50s

"Marina, come forward" (knew name already)

left eye more than right, glasses
-- no

That's what causes the headaches

Problem with ears when child
-- my brother did

Bottom row, back teeth
-- yes

Teeth also causes issues with dryness in throat

Blood pressure jumps up and down
-- yes

Back problems, too many years of heels

You have to watch what you eat, bowel problems

watch your wheat

Houseful of people around you, you would like more peace of quiet.

A lot of males around you, son, husband and they talk over the top of each other. Does that make sense to you?

You are a lot strong than you give yourself credit for and they were born to learnf rom your strength. That's why they were born.

Skinny young man, started new job, new path, new direction

cars, "cars bring change of direction" or career

Do you know what male?
-- daughter?

No, male. "skinny little one", or maybe about to do that
-- nephew just got a new car

about to change jobs
-- yes

change in direction, concerning his mother but he is on the right path

A- name
-- Anthony, old brother
(my notes say "was going to say Angela before the woman answered" just my impression) [In feedback after the woman said Anthony was her cousin not brother. She got confused.]

he is the one to worry about. he has great love to give
-- he has a baby

the love just pours out of his heart

Hw is quite concerned about the little one. His partner is stronger than him emotionally. His mother will worry about him but it will all be fine.

There will be a concern with their family, but he will worry about it more than it is worth

Cape something? Cape Cod ... destination?

Is it your husband who is the gardener?
-- NO (emphatic)

Little shovel to plant in garden
-- I dream about a garden

Maybe he needs to spend more time in the garden

Specific messages:
You have sych peace in your heart and you give that to many you touch, more people than you know. You are one of the angels. God bless you.

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 01:03 AM

So, because Amanda was s terrible the producers must have realised they had little material so they got her back for a THIRD reading and specifically told her to pick a male (all the other readings were females, who made up about 90% of the audience). Sadly this also was terrible so I am v. interested to see the editing magic at work.

--
Amanda #3

Male, 30s, Maori/Islander/NZ accent

What's your name?
-- James

Bad right shoulder, goes up to your neck with headaches, whole back thrown out
-- yes

tonsils, this part of throat
-- no

Have you ever had problems with your throat? Feels like been hit
-- as a child was hit in neck

Have trouble connecting to people, but have a big heart, people get put off by you but they adore you. You don't believe in yourself enough.

You could do with a good massage

Cookie jar?
-- I put money in it but other than that, no idea

"look in the cookie jar"

Bottom row of teeth cause grief
-- yes

Person around you who throws negativity on you because they know you can take it, they speak down to you.
-- I do

Older brother or brother figure

Don't worry, its not against you, just letting go of steam

Factory job, lifting

Have you just changed jobs?
-- just shop his shop

No, no a factory ... what's the word .... bgger than normal shop where you store things

change career or job or thinking of moving to pbigger premises
-- yes

OK that's it.

Thumbs up, its the right time now

Is it around the corner or not far?
-- I used to live at my shop, but have moved 40kms away

It is the right move

That's all they have to tell you. Love yourself more.

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 01:15 AM

Ezio
#1
woman, 50s
encourages yes/no responses

Gentleman, problem with lung/breathing. Was that dad?
-- yes

He wants to talk about some things untoward with your own health. In life he would have thought I was a charlatan.

Dave? David D-name.
-- no
Think about it.

Have you been getting shoulder pain?
-- yes

Person passed as a younger child.
Bill?
-- another relative called Bill

Was Bill losing some hair?
-- yes

Card players?
-- yes

Dad liked to drink?
-- yes

Who is W initial? Warren? Wayne?
-- William was his second name

Father, he loves you.

Changing? Moving house?
-- yes

Are you a hoarder?
--yes

Did you clean his stuff out after death?
-- no, his new wife

Showing me women.

James, Jamie
-- friend of mine

Spirits see you with a friend

Something going on with the phones?
-- no, but 3 months ago there was something

He feels he didn't do enough, stand offish.
-- yes

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 01:26 AM

Then Ezio "is drawn to" a certain part of the audience and tries to find a "Ryan connection, surname or relative's name. And gets nothing. Says, I guarantee that afterwards 20 people will come up and tell me of a connection afterwards" (Skeptics, Well, DUH dude thats what WE'VE been saying all along ...!)

Finally a young woman 20s/30s puts us out of misery.

She has a living nephew called Ryan.

-----

Gentleman passed, heart area?
-- yes grandfather.

Father's side?
-- both sides

Stoic gentleman. Did you know him?
-- no

Did they tell you he was stoic?
-- "pretty much"

Ryan his grand son, great grandson?
-- different side of family

Tall one, short one. Stoic and happy go lucky (the two granddads I believe he's talking about)

Older person with hip problem?
Is that grandma?
Trouble walking?
-- yes

European connection?
-- Maltese

Ah, I didn't understand the language, It sounded a bit like Italian.

Relationship issues?
-- yes

M, Maria, Maree, Mary, M initial
I'll let it go if you are not sure

Need to do/change study. Is this for you?
-I think so.

You are exploring options

Knee problems (grandmother)
-- she was paralysed, couldn't walk

English not big language

Chickens?
-- I think at one stage

Keen in garden and house

Renovations but not you. A brother?
-- no brother

Young male,nephew or cousin?
-- I am building a house

Has a water feature been on your mind?
-- no a fishtank

No, not a fishtank

Who is the man heavily involved in the building?
-- my husband

Another gentleman, passed with cancer. Uncle or similar. 10-14 years ago. Go and double check.

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 01:37 AM

Ezio #3

Looking for someone with a "Joe" connection

20s female volunteers, her best friend is Joanna
----

Woman passed with cancer, was that grandma?
-- no has stomach cancer but not passed

Cancer, breast or chest area? At least 20 years

Overseas connection to your family?
-- yes

She's telling me about the stomach

Who has arthritis?
-- grandmother

A lot of people worried about grandma passing but not yet

Big, large lady, could be mother
-- yes

What connection with river?
-- she lives by water

Rose, Rosa, R initial
-- Regina

Pest problem in house, mice
-- not sure
Check

Trying to get through that you want to change directions and she is proud of you, you need to be more creative

Who's George?
-- he was a friend, he is living

Is that an ended friendship?
-- yes

She was showing me separation

What to do with keys?
-- car was fixed, now broken again

Teacher, blackboard
-- I'm studying
Thumb's up for that

Lack of minerals and vitamins, feeling run down?
-- probably stress

Young male, interested in cars
- younger brother and father, and older brother, fascination with cars

Who has recently moved?
-- My brother

She looks after him

You and your brother are different people, chalk and cheese

Legal documents for you. Contracts?
-- nothing at the moment

Might be to do with studying
-- maybe
Step back, before you sign anything

Tony or Anthony?
-- family friend

You have tried to manage your time better and get good at that

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 01:47 AM

Ezio #4

Ezio fishes for a volunteer who has "a Harry connection associated with a Jim."

Volunteer's great grandmother's husband was a Jim and she has a uncle Harry. It took forever to get this volunteer.
--

They were glad you spoke up

Somebody's birthday around this time
-- coming up

Who was Elizabeth/Betty?
problem with ticker?
-- yes (looks not sure)

Aunt

She is showing me an accident, someone injured in a car accident
-- "I know about a car accident"

Who?
-- friend/husband

Piece of jewelery chain/bracelet. Did that pass between you and lady who had accident?
-- (blank look)

Jewelly again

Who is K name? Kim, Kerry?
-- 2 friends called Kerry

Friend of accident lady?
-- no

Kim, not ringing a bell?
-- no Kims

Grandmother, heavy built?

Reg, in spirit?
-- name rings a bell but ...

April significant

Bill sends regards
-- yes

Pain in lower stomach today?
-- recently

Hot water bottle will make it better

Other pieces of jewelry, ring in particular

Jewlery box
Family heirloom

Gentleman hard of hearing. Grandfather?
--yes

Didn't wear hearing aid.

George, Jack in spirit
-- yes

A few family secrets she has resolved in spirit, she thinks you know what she refers to

You have a lot of emotional things. Strong on outside, but feels deeply

Writing?
-- letter writing part of job

Allan or A-?
-- Andrew, her son

Living?
-- no

Knee playing up?
-- it can , time to time

.... runs out of time ...

AndyD

5th August 2008, 03:32 AM

Wow! Thanks nettiemoore. I'll be trawling through these later tonight.

If nothing else, these early notes confirm Amanda's obsession with headaches, teeth and gastric reflux - and Charmaine's inability to home in on anything specific.

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 03:45 AM

It's not letting me edit but I see with the J-N -- it is a name not the date but anyway it is the second woman (Sandra) not the first one (Joy Anne)

The show has started here, I won't spoil the AMAZINGNESSS!!!!!$@#@#@1112! for you west coasters. ;-)

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 04:00 AM

These readings go for about a minute each -- all hits of course. Richard has some good critiques at least.

Ezio: "This journey will make me a better medium" But will it make you a happy medium? Ha ha.

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 04:35 AM

Well thank Christ that's over.

Well sort of. I got into a good convo at work today with someone about cold reading because of it so that was good.

The Falconio thing is just a travesty of course. Since they are all so certain I'm sure they will be devoting themselves fully to this profoundly important search now. In between New Idea columns and FM breakfast shows of course ....

AndyD

5th August 2008, 05:17 AM

Half and hour to wait yet so time for some questions:

What episode were the above notes from? They don't ring any bells at all (probably because it's 80-90% misses) and I don't have ready access to video to check (Youtube takes too long and uses what little bandwidth I have).

Have you got more notes to come? I'm particularly interested in how often Ezio hears "Tony" and sees keys or locks and how often Amanda nearly vomits and feels teeth, throat and head pain?

nettiemoore

5th August 2008, 05:44 AM

The notes are for tonight's episode, but you'll have to be quick and make much use of the pause button because it's so cut up and only a small fraction of the statements made it to air. No more since that was/is the finale. I did have notes for a previous episode but didn't get organise enough to post them.

I was surprised they used some of the readings they did and not others but on reflection I think maybe the level of enthusiasm of the sitters in the postreading interviews may have decided it. They wanted the most validation possible for each. Just a thought.

ScottXSI

5th August 2008, 05:50 AM

Damn I missed it. Going to have to rely on youtube now.

AndyD

5th August 2008, 06:45 AM

I'm glad I found your notes before I watched, it shed a whole new light on just how ridiculously severe the editing was and how plainly closed-minded Demarco's comments were when she went on about hit after hit knowing full well the reads were numerous AND atrocious.

Blogging soon.

Richard

5th August 2008, 06:55 AM

I was at the party for the last show will all the contestants. We laughed and acted like civilized people. Now, it is up to you all to judge for yourself if I have aided or harmed our common goal of science and reason.

Wildy

5th August 2008, 09:24 AM

It was amazing to see how scientific this show was.

I mean beyond Richard there wasn't that much. Unless a phone vote for who people think was the best psychic is deemed scientific by 7.

I think though, it would been so much easier to understand the show if it was on 9.

AndyD

5th August 2008, 10:36 AM

Now, it is up to you all to judge for yourself if I have aided or harmed our common goal of science and reason.

Hmmm, the answer to that is complex. I would say (and have) that you presented yourself admirably and with great diplomacy. I feel you behaved better than your counterpart and explained your thoughts clearly and I absolutely believe you did it the best way it could have been done - on THAT show.

However, as to the "common goal", my gut feeling is the show was so incredibly biased that even if you'd machine-gunned them all down, the editing would have ensured your action had little audience impact. They'd probably have the SFX guys whip up a few apparitions to chase you off the set.

That said, you may have swayed a few fence-sitters who were leaning toward skepticism - though I think the numbers who fell toward the woo would be much, much greater. Of course, had you not been there the show still would have happened and perhaps the scales would be tipped further away from reason.

I have to disagree that it was intended as entertainment. It was a five-episode commercial for the psychic industry. Take a look at the comments section on the Seven website and count how many times Simon Turnbull himself directs people to the APA. If they'd intended it as "entertainment" they'd have done as I suggested in my first blog article on "The One (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-search-for-australias-most-gullible.html)" and had an Ian 'Dicko' Dickson style judge tearing shreds off everyone in the studio.

What I'd like to see now, is a show with a skeptical bias. If you've gained any foothold at Seven that could see that possibility eventuate, then your participation in The One will be well and truly vindicated.

As for partying with the contestants, well, I've shook hands with politicians and used car salesmen and I've worked in advertising so I'm not in a position to comment on that.

In respect of the three recorded endings, did they all guess Charmaine to win just once or did they have three goes at guessing the winner too?

Sparhawk

5th August 2008, 11:31 PM

In general, from a sceptic view the show was pretty fun to watch (a bit like reading Where's Wally).
The off site segments were much better than the cold reading (much harder to edit the fact that no one found the right container).
I didn't like the editing, especially the judges comments, Richard was hardly ever given a rebuttal, with Daddo agreeing with Demarco.

Richard, now that the series has aired will you be giving a more detailed analysis of the show?
After seeing the editing, etc, would you come back for a series 2?

Richard

5th August 2008, 11:45 PM

Beeep... this is Richard's computer. He seems to be out of his skull right now... He thinks he is THE ONE. He may do another series but needs to lie down for a week to recover from this one.

wombatwal

6th August 2008, 01:27 AM

I see that Scott Russell Hill is running right away from these Psychics. I can see why. They were dreadful. Scott Russell Hill allegedly said that he does not know any of the psychics on the show and they were asked to do party tricks which he does not agree with. The believers on the N.Z. Sensing Murder forum are also running away from these psychics.
I wonder how those fantastic :boggled: psychics on sensing murder in N.Z. would go with that format on the One. My guess the same as the Aussie psychics.

nettiemoore

6th August 2008, 01:51 AM

I see that Scott Russell Hill is running right away from these Psychics. I can see why. They were dreadful. Scott Russell Hill allegedly said that he does not know any of the psychics on the show and they were asked to do party tricks which he does not agree with.

Miaow! This is called Attention Deprivation Syndrome. Poor Scott is worried he won't get any gigs on Channel Seven anymore to hawk his stupid books because they will go to their annointed One Charmaine for future woo purposes. If they irritate SRH, I suddenly feel a lot warmer towards Charmaine, Ezio et al. :p

Never mind Scott, there's always ... well, every other channel.

AndyD

6th August 2008, 04:19 AM

Anyone willing to email the NT Police and ask their views on the information they were given and if they intend to act on it? I would but, well, you know how it is.... :rolleyes:

Richard

6th August 2008, 03:20 PM

You can hear an interview with me about the show here:

http://www.ghostradiox.com/theone_insiderscoop.asp

I do give clues about some of the behind-the-scenes goings on.

Sparhawk

6th August 2008, 04:21 PM

Possible title for series 2?
"Another One"

Legend

7th August 2008, 04:59 AM

I listened to that interview, Richard. Once again, you really do handle everything so damn well. If I was ever interviewed I want to come across the same way that you do.

If I was getting interviewed and she got all rude with me like she did towards the end to you, I would've gone crazy at her. With the whole, "then you wouldn't have such a smile on your face, Richard". What a cow bad person.

Cheers,
Alex.

ttguy

7th August 2008, 06:47 AM

The poll at Yahoo 7 is interesting. I swear that when I looked on Tuesday night it was leaning the beliver way. But now it is around 60 40 to the sceptic side.

I wonder if we have any sceptical robots voting. Because I confirm that the vote early vote often adage works for this poll.

I also want to plug my youtube vids of Episode 2 of The One. These vids are re-edited versions of the show that where I stick the knife in to the guessers. It is the show a lot of use here would have liked to make.

I have gone to some trouble to find out exactly what the pobabilities are of getting some of the guesses right. For example I found a great web site in the US that lists the popularity of names given to children for the last 120 years. And Mary has been number 1 or 2 on the list for girls since 1890 to around 1960. Australia would not be much different on this stat I would think. So - yes Mary is a great guess for a psychic to make.

Look at the "thettguy" channel on Youtube www(dot)youtube(dot)com/thettguy

What is good about The One is that it provides footage of the guessers at work. And you can see how banal it all is without having to pay them money.