"The One"

[Perihelion Xanateris]

I figured Randi would be pouncing on this one.

*sigh* Why do I do this? Am I trying to land myself in hospital?


Here we go.


The issue of the first test. Apart from acknowledging that a couple of the psychics found the lost boy in time, Randi completely ignores the fact that there was any success at all, preferring to focus instead on the "vagueness" of statements, the cameraman supposedly pointing the way to where the boy was and the fact that the majority didn't make it in time.

There are several things wrong with this argument.

Firstly: Each psychic was NOT told the location, nor were any nonverbal indicators given. They were only equipped with a map, a photo of the boy and one of his possessions with which to establish an energy signature identification.

Secondly, the reason psychics make vague statements during readings is because psi abilities in general aren't like in the movies. Even though feelings and sensations are strong, they are only feelings and sensations - trying to extract details is like having poor vision and trying to read fine print without your glasses. They were NOT cold reading - to insist otherwise is an insult to those who work hard and often thanklessly in their chosen field.

Thirdly, as Stacey Demarco said, it's hard to do readings when you're under pressure. Ordinarily psychics work in quiet, calm environments; being on stage in a television studio in front of hundreds is quite different - like trying to thread a needle while someone is shouting in your ear.

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard Dawkins is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.

[JoeEllison]

Sounds like you are making excuses for failure, to maintain a belief in frauds. Weak.

[Robert Oz]

The issue of the first test. Apart from acknowledging that a couple of the psychics found the lost boy in time, Randi completely ignores the fact that there was any success at all, preferring to focus instead on the "vagueness" of statements, the cameraman supposedly pointing the way to where the boy was and the fact that the majority didn't make it in time.

There are several things wrong with this argument.

Firstly: Each psychic was NOT told the location, nor were any nonverbal indicators given. They were only equipped with a map, a photo of the boy and one of his possessions with which to establish an energy signature identification.

The fact that the cameraman knew the location of the boy is what made the test useless. Look at the footage. Whether intentional or not, the cameraman filmed differently depending on how close the psychic was. Sometimes the cameraman stayed well back and filmed the psychic going the wrong way (filming from a distance). Sometimes the cameraman stood right in front of the psychic so that if the psychic wanted to continue the way they were going they would have to walk around the cameraman. When the psychic was close, the cameraman was right on his or her tail. Running along with the psychic at top speed. These are the subtle, non-verbal clues that show the test was fundametally flawed.

Secondly, the reason psychics make vague statements during readings is because psi abilities in general aren't like in the movies. Even though feelings and sensations are strong, they are only feelings and sensations - trying to extract details is like having poor vision and trying to read fine print without your glasses. They were NOT cold reading - to insist otherwise is an insult to those who work hard and often thanklessly in their chosen field.

Imagine you saw a man put a woman in a box and saw her in half and then join her back together again. After you saw this, the man said he used occult powers to actually saw her in half and join her together again and there was no trickery involved. Another man does the exact same thing, but says its a mere stage illusion or trick. Who would you believe?

In the same way, whether the psychics are cold reading or not, non-psychic cold readers can re-produce the same results and are indistinguishable from the psychics. Who do you believe? These are old tricks that look and sound exactly like psychic readings. But they are just tricks. If real psychics exist, they must show us something that differentiates them from a cold reader. None have done so yet.

Thirdly, as Stacey Demarco said, it's hard to do readings when you're under pressure. Ordinarily psychics work in quiet, calm environments; being on stage in a television studio in front of hundreds is quite different - like trying to thread a needle while someone is shouting in your ear.

The reason the psychics do better with long reading in a private environment is because they have more time to extract information out of the client and they are more likely to forget the misses over a long 20 minute reading rather than a quick 30 second reading. These techniques are well documented. It's all part of cold reading.

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard Dawkins is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.

I assume you meant Richard Saunders. I can assure you, his opinion has not been swayed at all. Remember he saw the full cold reading and not the 10-20% the viewer at home saw.

Robert.

[Drudgewire]

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard [Saunders] is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.


Keep reaching for that rainbow. Saunders knew he'd sat through a season of parlour tricks and flawed tests. And as mentioned, he was privvy to all the moments edited out of the broadcast portion which would have taken every ounce of "mysticism" out of the contest.

[Susan Gerbic]

Could someone post the link to these videos. All I can find on YouTube is the trailers.

Susan

[leonAzul]

Sorry, I'm late to this party.

What are you on about, Perihelion Xanateris? A frame of reference, perhaps a link to the story, would be helpful ;)

[JoeEllison]

Could someone post the link to these videos. All I can find on YouTube is the trailers.

Susan

Really? Here's the whole thing in parts: http://ca.youtube.com/user/SkepticalEnquirer

[steve s]

Secondly, the reason psychics make vague statements during readings...

I can make vague statements. If they can't do any better than me, they're worthless.


They were NOT cold reading - to insist otherwise is an insult to those who work hard and often thanklessly in their chosen field.


:v:



.... being on stage in a television studio in front of hundreds is quite different - like trying to thread a needle while someone is shouting in your ear.


Funny how they never have any trouble on stage and in front of hundreds when they're in a sympathetic environment such as Montel Williams' show.

Steve S.

[rjh01]

There are two other threads on this subject. See the tags I have just added.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

The reason the psychics do better with long reading in a private environment is because they have more time to extract information out of the client and they are more likely to forget the misses over a long 20 minute reading rather than a quick 30 second reading. These techniques are well documented. It's all part of cold reading.

What a load of crap. Very little - if any - information is extracted from clients other than what is needed to confirm something. For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then they are asking you to confirm a sensation or vision, not trying to cold read you. Now, if you can't confirm anything they ask you, then they really are cold reading and you've got a fake on your hands.

I wonder... can cold reading be done over the Web? If so, then I challenge you to do a fake reading for me, and see how accurate you get. If you can't, then psychics who read over chat and forums have one up over you.

[Mark Felt]

What a load of crap. Very little - if any - information is extracted from clients other than what is needed to confirm something. For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then they are asking you to confirm a sensation or vision, not trying to cold read you. Now, if you can't confirm anything they ask you, then they really are cold reading and you've got a fake on your hands.

An extremely large amount of cold reading is non-verbal. And "I'm getting a sense of X", where the sucker-I mean readee provides the context and significance and additional information and completes the name of the X? That's not exactly psychic.

I wonder... can cold reading be done over the Web?

Yes.

If so, then I challenge you to do a fake reading for me, and see how accurate you get. If you can't, then psychics who read over chat and forums have one up over you.

You should check the accuracy of the psychics who read over chat and forums and get back to us. What's their hit rate for non-vague comments?

[JoeEllison]

What a load of crap. Very little - if any - information is extracted from clients other than what is needed to confirm something. For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then they are asking you to confirm a sensation or vision, not trying to cold read you.
No, they are cold reading. If they weren't, why wouldn't they just make a declaration? Do ghosts have speech impediments? Do they stutter? Are they playing charades?

[Mark Felt]

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard Saunders is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.

I can confirm that the above is utterly false. Check the general paranormal forum, then click on the "The One" thread.

[fuelair]

I figured Randi would be pouncing on this one.

*sigh* Why do I do this? Am I trying to land myself in hospital?


Here we go.


The issue of the first test. Apart from acknowledging that a couple of the psychics found the lost boy in time, Randi completely ignores the fact that there was any success at all, preferring to focus instead on the "vagueness" of statements, the cameraman supposedly pointing the way to where the boy was and the fact that the majority didn't make it in time.

There are several things wrong with this argument.

Firstly: Each psychic was NOT told the location, nor were any nonverbal indicators given. They were only equipped with a map, a photo of the boy and one of his possessions with which to establish an energy signature identification.

Secondly, the reason psychics make vague statements during readings is because psi abilities in general aren't like in the movies. Even though feelings and sensations are strong, they are only feelings and sensations - trying to extract details is like having poor vision and trying to read fine print without your glasses. They were NOT cold reading - to insist otherwise is an insult to those who work hard and often thanklessly in their chosen field.

Thirdly, as Stacey Demarco said, it's hard to do readings when you're under pressure. Ordinarily psychics work in quiet, calm environments; being on stage in a television studio in front of hundreds is quite different - like trying to thread a needle while someone is shouting in your ear.

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard Dawkins is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.
I can - fail is fail is fail.......l......:)

[Twiler]

I have no psychic powers. Here is a reading of Perihelion Xanateris:

Perihelion Xanateris is intelligent, perceptive and has the ability to apply critical thinking to claims concerning psychic power. He has a great understanding of the scientific method, and the motives of sceptics.

Perihelion Xanateris, is any of this reading correct? Bear in mind the difficulty of such an endeavor. I think that any degree of success should be taken as a confirmation of the power of cold readings.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have no psychic powers. Here is a reading of Perihelion Xanateris:

Perihelion Xanateris is intelligent, perceptive and has the ability to apply critical thinking to claims concerning psychic power. He has a great understanding of the scientific method, and the motives of sceptics.

Perihelion Xanateris, is any of this reading correct? Bear in mind the difficulty of such an endeavor. I think that any degree of success should be taken as a confirmation of the power of cold readings.

That's incredible. My name is not Perihelion Xanateris (though I have been known to post under the name of Aphelion Zylophone) but this describes me to a "T". Except the part about intelligence. :boggled:

[Robert Oz]

What a load of crap. Very little - if any - information is extracted from clients other than what is needed to confirm something. For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then they are asking you to confirm a sensation or vision, not trying to cold read you.

Read over what you have written. Firstly, most psychics would go with a more common first initial, like J or S or T. Secondly, with a class of 20 to 30 students (or in the case of a university lecture theatre, possibly over 100), is it psychic to link one of the 26 letters of the alphabet to a person? In fact, a quick experiment I did on the weekend was writing down the members of mine and my wife's immediate family. Just our two families covered ELEVEN letters. The letters covered: A, B, C, D, L, M, R, S, T, W and even V!

We also covered nine months for birthdays. So when a psychic says, "I see a celebration of some sort. Is there a birthday or wedding coming up?" they've got a fantastic chance of getting a hit! Very simple cold reading.

I wonder... can cold reading be done over the Web? If so, then I challenge you to do a fake reading for me, and see how accurate you get. If you can't, then psychics who read over chat and forums have one up over you.

Yes, it is possible to do cold reading over the internet. However, it is very important to the psychic that he or she is reading a believer (or at least someone with an "open mind"). If I were to do a cold reading on you, you would suddenly become a half-decent skeptic and tear the reading apart, as you should be able to tear all psychic readings apart by applying some critical thinking.

Psychic and cold reading literature both advise to stay away from the skeptics. You need to ask yourself why. And it has nothing to do with negative energy and everything to do with seeing through the illusion.

Robert Oz.

[AndyD]

Now, if you can't confirm anything they ask you, then they really are cold reading and you've got a fake on your hands.

Ezio De Angelis claims to love the pressure of cold reading before an audience and thinks it's where he does his best work. He read one sitter for four minutes and recorded not a single hit. In a psychometric reading, he said he was holding car keys when they were, in fact, only house keys. He suggested the owner of the keys was a woman, he wasn't.

I guess you'd call him a fake? He was ultimately a finalist.

"The One" thread in the general forum has covered this show to death. Nettiemoore's notes on the final episode demonstrated the extent to which what was televised bore little resemblance to the reality of what happened in studio. In some cases, contestants read up to four sitters yet only one minute of one sitter's reading made it to air. At five minutes per reading, 95% of the material was left on the cutting room floor.

We also know that for other readings, where a score was recorded on-screen, that we saw all hits yet saw as little as 10-20% of the whole reading. Simple arithmetic tells us NO hits were recorded during the 80-90% that wasn't shown. Add to this that some of the hits were "generic" ("I'm seeing brothers, something about brothers...") and the failure rate is so high as to make the process completely useless for any practical purpose.

So, given that I only got to see the edited version and given that the edited version was heavily edited in favour of the contestants and given that I still didn't see anything that made me think there was something psychic going on - I wonder what the OP thinks would have changed Richard's mind when he was sitting there witnessing failure after failure?

I wonder... can cold reading be done over the Web? If so, then I challenge you to do a fake reading for me, and see how accurate you get. If you can't, then psychics who read over chat and forums have one up over you.

I very much doubt it's possible to cold read someone who doesn't even think there's a possibility you're psychic. We could start, however, with "Do you know anyone, friend, relative, distant relative or colleague - anyone - who has a "J name?". If so, who is it? Have they passed?

As for the "lost boy" test. The area was small and they had 15 minutes each. Only one of seven found the boy in a short time (3 minutes). Richard said he would like to see more. He saw more - failure after failure. No positive result was recorded in ANY other remote viewing test. The woman who found the boy fastest, performed especially poorly in the later sea-container test and Ned Kelly test (ie, she wasn't even a little bit close to target.)

As for the vagueness of readings, I consider that if psychic powers are so vague as to be indistiguishable from good guesses, then the reality or otherwise of their existence is irrelevant.

All shows are availalble here (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ParanormRUs&search_query=the%20one)

Each episode is reviewed on my blog. Link in sig below.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

I have no psychic powers. Here is a reading of Perihelion Xanateris:

Perihelion Xanateris is intelligent, perceptive and has the ability to apply critical thinking to claims concerning psychic power. He has a great understanding of the scientific method, and the motives of sceptics.

Perihelion Xanateris, is any of this reading correct? Bear in mind the difficulty of such an endeavor. I think that any degree of success should be taken as a confirmation of the power of cold readings.

You could easily have inferred that from my posts. If that's what you call cold reading, then well done, you get a gold star.

[Robert Oz]

You could easily have inferred that from my posts.

Perihelion,

Your challenge to cold read you was accompanied by a claim that posters on other forums and chat websites have one up on us if we can't get hits. However, those others could just as easily have obtained information from the web.

As soon as you posted the challenge, I did a quick google on your user name and found posts by you on multiple forums. How can you be so sure anyone else on the internet isn't just cheating, by googling your name? Is it simply because they claim to be using psychic powers? Like my imaginary occult master who can actually saw a woman in half.

I remember a work colleague who said his son was given an incredibly accurate psychic reading by text message and was convinced the reading was genuine. I asked what information was provided to the psychic, and the work colleague said, "Just his full name". I googled the name and immediately found everything the psychic had come up with on one forum website where his son was a poster. We then tested the psychic's gift by asking a question the psychic could not have possibly known. The answer received was a miss.

Robert.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

Perihelion,

Your challenge to cold read you was accompanied by a claim that posters on other forums and chat websites have one up on us if we can't get hits. However, those others could just as easily have obtained information from the web.

As soon as you posted the challenge, I did a quick google on your user name and found posts by you on multiple forums. How can you be so sure anyone else on the internet isn't just cheating, by googling your name? Is it simply because they claim to be using psychic powers? Like my imaginary occult master who can actually saw a woman in half.

I remember a work colleague who said his son was given an incredibly accurate psychic reading by text message and was convinced the reading was genuine. I asked what information was provided to the psychic, and the work colleague said, "Just his full name". I googled the name and immediately found everything the psychic had come up with on one forum website where his son was a poster. We then tested the psychic's gift by asking a question the psychic could not have possibly known. The answer received was a miss.

Robert.

So... you think all psychics do that, do you?

[Robert Oz]

So... you think all psychics do that, do you?


No, I don't think all psychic's do that. There are two types of psychics: the charlatans and the deluded (and I don't mean 'deluded' in a derogatory way).

There are many out there who have picked up the knack of cold reading over months or years of practising. There are many documentated cases of people who convinced themselves of psychic ability and later realised they had picked up cold reading techniques through mimicing other psychics, taking advice from other psychics, reading psychic literature and lots and lots of practice. This includes famous skeptic Ray Hyman.

If the readings you read on other forums are similar to cold reading techniques discussed on many websites and several books on the subject, then it is quite possible the psychic might fall into the 'deluded' category.

If the readings on other forums are much more specific and are not similar to cold reading techniques, it is possible they fall into the 'charlatan' category and are googling details.

Robert.

[Twiler]

You could easily have inferred that from my posts. If that's what you call cold reading, then well done, you get a gold star.

Don't you understand? I have to work from vague feelings in a cruel, deceitful world. Given the negative energy from unbelievers, any success is like a flower in winter and should be admired not mercilessly crushed underfoot.

The idea that I might have extrapolated my suggestions from your posts is indicative of a suspicious nature. I wish for a more open-minded person to present themselves for testing, although I feel that this experiment has already shown conclusive proof.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

No, I don't think all psychic's do that. There are two types of psychics: the charlatans and the deluded (and I don't mean 'deluded' in a derogatory way).

There are many out there who have picked up the knack of cold reading over months or years of practising. There are many documentated cases of people who convinced themselves of psychic ability and later realised they had picked up cold reading techniques through mimicing other psychics, taking advice from other psychics, reading psychic literature and lots and lots of practice. This includes famous skeptic Ray Hyman.

If the readings you read on other forums are similar to cold reading techniques discussed on many websites and several books on the subject, then it is quite possible the psychic might fall into the 'deluded' category.

If the readings on other forums are much more specific and are not similar to cold reading techniques, it is possible they fall into the 'charlatan' category and are googling details.

Robert.


Aaaaand... there's no category for "genuine", right?

Open-mindedness... ur doin it wrong

[Twiler]

Aaaaand... there's no category for "genuine", right?

Open-mindedness... ur doin it wrong

I imagine that categories are added as people appear to fill them.

[Robert Oz]

Aaaaand... there's no category for "genuine", right?

Open-mindedness... ur doin it wrong


Like I said... genuine psychics would have to show us something that differentiates their performance from a cold reader.

If a psychic performs with accuracy that suggests possible cheating, then they need to perform just as well under controlled, double-blind tests. They do not!

Doing it wrong is being open-minded to the point where you take someone at his or her word without requiring evidence before you believe.

Robert.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

Doing it wrong is being open-minded to the point where you take someone at his or her word without requiring evidence before you believe.

Which I don't. However, I am much more inclined to accept evidence that may seem flimsy to more hardened skeptics, mainly because I am much more familiar with the subtle nuances of psi, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify.

[Robert Oz]

Which I don't. However, I am much more inclined to accept evidence that may seem flimsy to more hardened skeptics, mainly because I am much more familiar with the subtle nuances of psi, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify.


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The "subtle nuances of psi... which are so hard to objectively quantify" can be duplicated by performers with no psychic powers whatsoever. We need to see something that tricksters, mentalists and cold readers cannot duplicate. Otherwise, there is just no way of knowing who is genuine and who isn't.

For evidence to be taken seriously by the skeptical community, it needs to be via tests that eliminate the possibility of trickery and are double-blind... it's as simple as that. Anecdotal evidence is not good enough. Personal experience is not good enough. Objective evidence under controlled, double-blind tests is all we have.

Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power. Have you thought of someone just before they call or turn up on your door-step? Have you successfully predicted the flip of a coin or the roll of a die for what seems to be greater than chance results? Have you predicted the sex of an unborn child? I feel you have had at least some of these experience or perhaps similar ones.

I also feel you have had some successful experiences with seances and making some sort of contact with people who have passed. However, you may still be limited in the amount of control you have over your gifts. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. That's just the way psi works.

How has my attempt at a cold reading gone? What if I told you it was the result of genuine psychic powers? I can honestly say, however, I have not searched for information about you over the internet and am unaware of how accurate my reading has been. I have just made some guesses based on the fact that I know you believe in psychic powers. I am curious to know how I went... whether right or wrong.

Robert.

[AndyD]

I am much more inclined to accept evidence that may seem flimsy to more hardened skeptics, mainly because I am much more familiar with the subtle nuances of psi, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify.

...to the point where the phenomena might as well not exist at all.

It's like if I say there is an animal that looks exactly like a Collie Dog but it isn't actually a dog and that I can spot this kind of animal in a dog show. I point to three Collie Dogs in a show and say that, of all the dogs here, including other Collie Dogs, these three are not really dogs at all.

You, I expect, would fail to see the subtle differences that I can and so would probably doubt that I can really see any difference at all. You might also doubt the existence of the kind of beast I claim them to be. I would argue that judges see differences in Collie Dogs all the time, they just haven't realised, yet, that some of them are really pseudo-dogs, not real dogs.

Science could get involved and DNA tests would show the three animals to be dogs, from a scientific standpoint. I, of course, would say that science can't test for the features I can see and that those differences are difficult to even quantify in a way that would make testing practical. I might even suggest that just casting doubt on my belief is enough to make the beast impossible to identify.

Should you believe me? Would you believe me? You probably wouldn't but I am much more inclined to accept evidence that may seem flimsy to more hardened skeptics, mainly because I am much more familiar with the subtle nuances of pseudo-dogs, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify.

See the problem yet? Where does this belief in the unbelievable start and end? Is there really a man in Nigeria who's willing to share $60million with me? Is there really a small "pill" that will save me 20% on my fuel bill? Some people insist these things are true. They even claim to have experienced them first-hand. They understand these things in a way I can't seem to grasp and they remain frustrated by my continued disbelief.

Back to the pseudo-dogs. The point is that, if I can't show any reasonable thing that proves these "dogs" to be anything other than what common sense (and science and evidence) shows them to be, then, for all intents and purposes, they are what common sense (and science and evidence) shows them to be - dogs.

Similarly, if psi is so subtle, so untestable, so unquantifiable and so frail that it cannot be distinguished from normal, every day guessing, cold reading or other application of statistical knowledge (like card counting), then for all intents and purposes, it isn't anything other than what common sense (or science and evidence) shows it to be and therefore, "psi" becomes, at best, a synonym for "guessing". To assume differently requires "blind faith" and that is neither evidence nor convincing and as such, should probably remain personal.

Until someone, somewhere comes up with actual, verifiable, replicable evidence then, for all intents and purposes, psychic phenomena don't exist.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The "subtle nuances of psi... which are so hard to objectively quantify" can be duplicated by performers with no psychic powers whatsoever.

No, they can't. Tricksters can perhaps fool people into thinking it's the same, but it's not.


Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power.

MISS


Have you thought of someone just before they call or turn up on your door-step?

MISS

Have you successfully predicted the flip of a coin or the roll of a die for what seems to be greater than chance results?

MISS


Have you predicted the sex of an unborn child?

Lucky guess. Partial credit.


I also feel you have had some successful experiences with seances and making some sort of contact with people who have passed.

MISS. I'm not a medium.

However, you may still be limited in the amount of control you have over your gifts. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

MISS.


So much for cold reading.

[Robert Oz]

That's very interesting Perihelion. I predicted that you attribute some psychic powers to yourself. You gave that a miss and yet after writing it, I read another thread where you said you successfully predicted a heart condition! Please explain.

If you haven't thought of someone who called soon after, you are one of a few. Many, many people experience this at least from time to time, but most attribute it to coincidence. So, by never experiencing it, you are quite special.

The flip of a coin or roll of a die was an outside guess, and I'll accept that miss.

So you never played around with seances as a kid? Okay. I'll accept that as a miss as well, but find it odd in your case.

You said miss to having a limited gift, but not much control, and again you later posted that you predicted the heart condition for your grandfather and later attributed it to yourself.

I think if I posted the exact same prediction on a psychic forum and you read it, I would have scored higher. Even if I accept misses on the coin flipping, thinking of people before they call and seances, based on your post on the other thread I count two more hits than the one you gave me. Three out of six is better than the psychics on "The One" did.

Robert.

[Mark Felt]

No, they can't. Tricksters can perhaps fool people into thinking it's the same, but it's not.

When they have the same results, yes, they're the same.

Lucky guess. Partial credit.

Oh, irony, you bitch.

[Robert Oz]

Perihelion,

Out of a suspicion that you did not answer my cold reading questions honestly, I have googled your user name on other forums. Please explain the following:

I made a prediction that you felt you have some psychic powers. I also predicted that you do not have total control over these powers - sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

You said that both these predictions were misses and yet:

At http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detaila.html?id=19546, you wrote "Even speaking as a psychic who doesn't chrage for his services, I think these laws are a good idea."

In the JREF forums you wrote "As a Wiccan - and a psychic - I feel the need to defend against undue blanket accusations (eg. "all mediums/psychics/etc are frauds") by impossible skeptics".

You also wrote that you successfully predicted the sex of an unborn child and your own heart condition after missing with your grandfather. Please show how you came to the conclusion that my two predictions about your psychic powers were misses.

I assure you, I was unaware of this information when I made my predictions and only went in search of further information when you labelled them as misses.

I confirm that I got at least three hits out of my six predictions and again highlight that this is better than the psychics performed on "The One". How many of my other predictions did you lie about?

Robert.

[AndyD]

And this...

I've been a skeptic from the beginning. The difference between me and the rest of you is I'm a hell of a lot more open-minded. In other news, yes it's actually possible to be a psychic AND a skeptic! You read it here first!

There are times, believe it or not, when I've questioned my own abilities. The reason I haven't succumbed to those doubts is because I've seen and experienced too much to explain it all away.
{from The One thread in General}

Actually Robert, I'd assumed you were just building a profile of PX, not making predictions - in this case.

I had given PX the benefit of the doubt early on but the lack of honest responses (or relevant responses) over the last couple of days leaves me leaning toward troll - at least on this issue. There just doesn't seem to be any genuine interest in discussing the show. It seems it was just an opportunity to take a swipe at Randi, through Saunders. I think the swing missed.

[Robert Oz]

Actually Robert, I'd assumed you were just building a profile of PX, not making predictions - in this case.


Hi Andy,

I was being honest when I said my predictions were based solely on the exchanges between Perihelion and myself. I thought it was obvious from what he had written to date that he believed he was a psychic.

The rest was pure guessing (but guessing based on the knowledge that he thought he was a psychic).

Perihelion should have just accused me of making educated guessing on information he had already revealed (even indirectly). Instead, he lied and said my predictions about limited psychic power and limited control were misses.

My cold reading went as follows:

"Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power."

This was based on his previous post about being "familiar with the subtle nuances of psi, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify". This could have meant he either believed he was psychic or had read into it enough to "understand" how it works. I made what I thought was the more likely guess.

"Have you thought of someone just before they call or turn up on your door-step?"

This happens to many of us except most of us attribute it to coincidence or confirmation bias.

"Have you successfully predicted the flip of a coin or the roll of a die for what seems to be greater than chance results?"

This was a long shot, but I thought I'd throw it in as a lucky guess. If it was a hit it would be a good hit. Misses are usually forgotten, so why not try.

"Have you predicted the sex of an unborn child?"

This was a hit. I was confident that someone who thought they were psychic would try this from time to time. It seems I was correct in Perihelion's case.

"I feel you have had at least some of these experience or perhaps similar ones."

Perihelion ignored this waiver. I made a get out clause by saying he has experienced at least some of these.

"I also feel you have had some successful experiences with seances and making some sort of contact with people who have passed."

This was another long shot guess, but I am honestly surprised (if it's true) that Perihelion never played around with seances (even as a teenager) considering his interests.

"However, you may still be limited in the amount of control you have over your gifts. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. That's just the way psi works."

All psychics should agree with this one, it can't miss. If the power were not limited it would be an exact science and we would have many, many psychic lottery winners.

That was basically my thought process, and Perihelion lied to make it look worse than it was.

Robert.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

That's very interesting Perihelion. I predicted that you attribute some psychic powers to yourself. You gave that a miss and yet after writing it, I read another thread where you said you successfully predicted a heart condition! Please explain.

If you haven't thought of someone who called soon after, you are one of a few. Many, many people experience this at least from time to time, but most attribute it to coincidence. So, by never experiencing it, you are quite special.

The flip of a coin or roll of a die was an outside guess, and I'll accept that miss.

So you never played around with seances as a kid? Okay. I'll accept that as a miss as well, but find it odd in your case.

You said miss to having a limited gift, but not much control, and again you later posted that you predicted the heart condition for your grandfather and later attributed it to yourself.

I think if I posted the exact same prediction on a psychic forum and you read it, I would have scored higher. Even if I accept misses on the coin flipping, thinking of people before they call and seances, based on your post on the other thread I count two more hits than the one you gave me. Three out of six is better than the psychics on "The One" did.

Robert.

Don't start twisting things around just because you failed. I didn't lie, I answered your questions as honestly as I could.

You said I have limited control over my powers. I don't, but my powers are not as advanced or as well developed as I would like them to be. There's a world of difference there. You didn't say anything about limited power, just limited control.

I gave the hit partial credit because I felt you were just throwing that out based on what others have done in the past. It was little more than a wild guess.

Besides, even if I had done any of the others, would you really be inclined to believe it? Right now, I'm getting a very strong feeling that the answer is no. As impossible skeptics go, you're right up there with Randi and Saunders. I doesn't matter what I say or do, you'll brush it off anyway.

I see you as being behind a brick wall, or a concrete barrier, wearing headphones while soemone's trying to show you something important.

[Robert Oz]

Don't start twisting things around just because you failed. I didn't lie, I answered your questions as honestly as I could.

You said I have limited control over my powers. I don't, but my powers are not as advanced or as well developed as I would like them to be. There's a world of difference there. You didn't say anything about limited power, just limited control.


I seriously doubt you are as strict in your interpretations with "genuine" psychics.

How is "limited control" and "not as advanced or as well developed as I would like them to be" any different? If those words came from a "genuine" psychic you would have sung the success to the high heavens. You either have limited control, no control or unlimited control. Which is it?

Can you turn the gift on at any moment, under any conditions with precise results? That is unlimited control. Therefore, your "control" is limited.

Also, please show us or direct us to a psychic reading that is more precise in wording than the one I provided. I would very much like to read the "psychics" who have one up on us who gave a reading that is so clear that there is no room for doubt.

In fact, I challenge you, Perihelion, to provide a psychic reading that is more precise and definitive than what I provided. Show us how it is done. Show us predictions that cannot be twisted into misses, since you are a "genuine" psychic.

I gave the hit partial credit because I felt you were just throwing that out based on what others have done in the past. It was little more than a wild guess.


I already said all of my predictions were wild guesses. Of course they were guesses, since I do not claim to be psychic! That is not a partial credit, but a precise hit. Again, the exact same words coming from a "genuine" psychic would have been sung to the high heavens as a spectacular hit!

Besides, even if I had done any of the others, would you really be inclined to believe it? Right now, I'm getting a very strong feeling that the answer is no.


Yes, I would believe that you have made successful predictions in the past. I just don't believe there is anything psychic to it. My guess that you guessed the sex of an unborn child was, by all definitions, a correct prediction, but I do not claim to be psychic.

As impossible skeptics go, you're right up there with Randi and Saunders.

Thank you.

I think you are the only person on this forum who would not count at least three of my six predictions as very good hits.

I await your psychic reading with much clearer and precise hits than mine with no room for doubt. Please show us how it's done, Perihelion.

Robert.

[Robert Oz]

You said I have limited control over my powers... You didn't say anything about limited power, just limited control.


Perihelion,

Please explain the above comment based on my first prediction - word for word:

Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power."


Robert.

[AndyD]

Quote:
Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power.
MISS

Robert, I think you've done a spectacular job considering all that negative energy you're being confronted with. I know PX said he was a skeptic but he's looking more like a closed-minded cynic in this exchange.

How can someone who claims to have psychic powers not also claim to have psychic powers?

[Robert Oz]

Robert, I think you've done a spectacular job considering all that negative energy you're being confronted with. I know PX said he was a skeptic but he's looking more like a closed-minded cynic in this exchange.

How can someone who claims to have psychic powers not also claim to have psychic powers?


Thanks AndyD.

I am the first to admit that I am neither psychic nor very good at cold reading. In fact, my cold read of Perihelion was my first attempt and I still did better than the psychics on "The One" who have been doing it for years. I also did not have any feedback from Perihelion, since all six predictions were made in the one post. Person to person, I would be able to back-track and change direction and develop hits, etc.

I am keen to see Perihelion do a better job, since he claims to be a "genuine" psychic and was so disappointed in my effort.

Robert.

[Toke]

There was a danish tv program where they set up fake homepages for 3-4 people, and then made appointments with psychics.

The sitters got messages from beyond with all the false information.:D

Guess cold reading is not as reliable as chekking the victims homepage.

[AndyD]

A link or reference of some king would be good, thanks Toke.

[Toke]

Here you go http://blog.tv2.dk/operation.x/?breadcrumb

It is in danish, like the program. That will be a problem to some here.

I can´t get video clips without an account with the tvstation

[AndyD]

Thanks Toke.

Go here (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.tv2.dk%2Foperation.x %2F%3Fbreadcrumb&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=da&tl=en) for a Google Translation in English. Not super-easy to understand but clear enough to get some idea of what was done.

I wish Australian TV would have the guts to do something like this.

[rjh01]

Producing fake page for psychics to read has been done several times before. I read about it from this forum.

[Robert Oz]

...I challenge you, Perihelion, to provide a psychic reading that is more precise and definitive than what I provided. Show us how it is done. Show us predictions that cannot be twisted into misses, since you are a "genuine" psychic.


Where are you, Perihelion?

I'm still waiting to see what a "genuine" psychic reading looks like. Give me a reading that is more precise and definitive than the one I did on you.

I have no psychic powers and, according to you, you have some. Therefore, you would have to do at least a little better than me. In addition to that, since my readings were not clear enough and you only accept predictions that hit the nail precisely on the head, vague and ambiguous generalisations will not be accepted.

Blow us away with a true psychic reading.

You have implied that there is a noticeable difference between a cold reading and a "genuine" psychic reading. Once you have made your predictions, please outline how it is different to what I came up with.

Robert.

[Robert Oz]

I very much doubt it's possible to cold read someone who doesn't even think there's a possibility you're psychic. We could start, however, with "Do you know anyone, friend, relative, distant relative or colleague - anyone - who has a "J name?". If so, who is it? Have they passed?



AndyD,

The list of hits is getting longer in the cold readings done on Perihelion Xanateris in this thread.

From http://www.mysticminds.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=105.msg279 :

My craft name is Perihelion Xanateris, but you can just call me Jim.

Remarkable accuracy. If we count that, the reading made by Twiler that Perihelion confirmed was accurate and the three hits I came up with, the score is now:

Cold readers: 5
Perihelion Xanateris: 0

To be fair, we're still waiting on Perihelion's predictions.

Robert.

[Mojo]

For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then...


...you make yourself look like a complete idiot (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23845.aspx).

[Crundy]

I think PX has accepted he got his behind well and truly kicked in this thread and is now claiming psychic powers in a new thread without the same embarrasing thread history.

[AndyD]

Originally Posted by AndyD View Post
I very much doubt it's possible to cold read someone who doesn't even think there's a possibility you're psychic. We could start, however, with "Do you know anyone, friend, relative, distant relative or colleague - anyone - who has a "J name?". If so, who is it? Have they passed?

AndyD,

The list of hits is getting longer in the cold readings done on Perihelion Xanateris in this thread.

From http://www.mysticminds.co.uk/forum/i...pic=105.msg279 :

Quote:
My craft name is Perihelion Xanateris, but you can just call me Jim.


My precision continues to astonish me to the point where I think I might be at least as psychic as those I see on TV.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

My precision continues to astonish me to the point where I think I might be at least as psychic as those I see on TV.

Your pigheadedness, meanwhile, has reached a standard level one can reasonably expect for this forum.

[Coveredinbeeees]

Your pigheadedness, meanwhile, has reached a standard level one can reasonably expect for this forum.

Could you point our where he is wrong?

Andy's posts appear to show that most of the guesses which you listed as misses would have required no, or minimal, flexing to be hits. They were certainly well within the range of vagueness and flattery offered by Edwards, Van Prugh and the like. They would, I suspect, have been treated as excellent hits by a person predisposed to believe in clairvoyance during a live reading. The guess you offered partial credit for would have bowled over a live audience.

That you have responded to his pointing this out with a plain insult does nothing to contradict him. Why not explain his error in a calm and reasoned manner so that we can all understand it?

[Coveredinbeeees]

Thanks for the correction in the other thread Robert. I was referring to both Robert and AndyD's predictions and posts above.

[AndyD]

If you go back a few posts you'll see I predicted a Labor Party victory in what turned out to be the closest ever election result in our history. It took over a week for a final result to be delivered.

Just for the record, I can now announce that, despite a massive swing against them, the Labor Party won the most seats of any party in that election.

Another message I was receiving from my spirit guides has also come true overnight though this one, involving legal threats, has been far less fun.

I am serious PX, if I wasn't naturally skeptical, the weird crap that occurs in my mind and life would have me convinced of my abilities. Pigheaded or not, I am that good.

[MattC]

For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then they are asking you to confirm a sensation or vision, not trying to cold read you. Now, if you can't confirm anything they ask you, then they really are cold reading and you've got a fake on your hands.

I don't really understand what your psychic's question is asking.

No, no student in my class has the given name 'V', but there are some named Vivian (several versions of this, 'Vivienne' and 'Vivien' but they're all different spellings of essentially the same name), Veronica, Valerie, and one very lovely lady has the name Valentina. Would my answer then be considered a win for the psychic, given that a strict interpretation of the question leads to a negative answer but a more loose one is affirmative?

~ Matt

(ps: 'V' being such a hard consonant, and such a rare one with American names, we seem to be rather likely to remember someone with that name as opposed to, say, the letter 'A' which is far softer and far less common)

[Wolfman]

Perihelion,

I assume that you're familiar with Derren Brown. He has, on several occasions, been tested by various psychics and psychic organizations, to do things such as read minds, give psychic predictions, tell what someone is writing on a piece of paper in another room, etc. In every case, not only have the people testing him declared him to be psychic, but they have declared him to be better than many other psychics.

Yet he himself states, quite plainly, that he has no psychic powers whatsoever. It is all done through illusion, and understanding of human psychology.

Here is just one of many examples:
G18NfN76bAs
And another great one:
nId00FEiMNY

Now, if a person is able to fake results that are just as good or better than people who claim to have "real" psychic powers, why should I believe those powers are real? Hell, Derren is more convincing than many "real" psychics! All of the psychics in the second video actually testify that they can sense/verify Derren's psychic powers...and more importantly, they never even question if he is faking it or not. Derren had a principle in this series that, if anyone asked him if he was telling the truth, or using tricks, that he would reveal it was all faked.

Not one person even questioned him. He did some neat tricks, and they all believed him.

So it's gonna' take a hell of a lot more than vague assertions, and effects that can be 100% replicated by non-psychics, to convince me there's anything real behind this.