Psychics and the art of bad taste

[AndyD]

The bottom of the barrel has surely been scraped clean by now...

Psychics release Claremont killer "indentikit" (http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=103303)

[paximperium]

Sad to say this is not even the bottom of the barrel. They have and will likely continue to do worse.

[lucan]

At least the father understands what is happing and is articulate. Most victims family's are not.

Psychics Scott Russell Hill
Here is a youtube of him pointing to a map in a radio station Nova 93.7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mrY3YrrjZo

Found it here
http://www.truthed.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2674

AndyD: What about
Psychics release killer ‘identikit
As a heading for this thread instead?

[philkensebben]

Don Spiers provided a good example of why psychics are such emotional vultures. When his daughter first went missing, he had loads of people phoning him and explaining that they'd had a dream/vision and his daughter was in such and such a place. Well he checked out everything he could possibly match with what people had described, because he hung onto the thought that 'what if one of them was right and i didnt check'?, such was his understandable desperation to find his daughter. This sad anecdote was printed in an addition of the Australian Skeptics magazine some time ago.

[CFLarsen]

Got'im. (http://images.starpulse.com/AMGPhotos/pic200/drp500/p555/p55558hdznn.jpg)

[AndyD]

I've put a collection of related links (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/10/psychic-indentikit.html) on my blog.

Here's my summary of the event...

[philkensebben]

Ahh AndyD the first link on you're blog has the very story i was thinking of in my earlier post.

[wombatwal]

Here is a link to a forum with someone who was at that event giving a different story.
We need the truth above all else.
What is the truth, I do not know.
http://www.sensingmurder.co.nz/regfrm/viewtopic.php?p=77091#77091

[lionking]

Sorry wal I do not see that the link you posted invalidates the OP's view that psychics are the scum of the earth.

[Whiplash]

Sad to say this is not even the bottom of the barrel. They have and will likely continue to do worse.

The barrel is half empty? ;)

[wombatwal]

Sorry wal I do not see that the link you posted invalidates the OP's view that psychics are the scum of the earth.

Did I say that??
I was just posting an alternate view.
Afterall we are sceptics are we not we are after the truth.

[lionking]

So the alternative view is that the psychics really created a good imagine of the supposed murderer?

The police have said that this is rubbish, so unless you have any evidence it is not an "alternative" at all.

And finally, are you suggesting that if I don't seriously consider claims made by psychics I am not "after the truth"?

If I am mistaking you, please let me know, but it seems that you are giving these parasites too much credence (ie, more than zero).

[wombatwal]

So the alternative view is that the psychics really created a good imagine of the supposed murderer?

The police have said that this is rubbish, so unless you have any evidence it is not an "alternative" at all.

And finally, are you suggesting that if I don't seriously consider claims made by psychics I am not "after the truth"?

If I am mistaking you, please let me know, but it seems that you are giving these parasites too much credence (ie, more than zero).

You sound like a believer to me.

[lionking]

Mind answering my questions?

[wombatwal]

So the alternative view is that the psychics really created a good imagine of the supposed murderer?

The police have said that this is rubbish, so unless you have any evidence it is not an "alternative" at all.

And finally, are you suggesting that if I don't seriously consider claims made by psychics I am not "after the truth"?

If I am mistaking you, please let me know, but it seems that you are giving these parasites too much credence (ie, more than zero).

No

[wombatwal]

You made the statement that the psychics were the scum of the Earth.
Is this all psychics on this planet?
Only the psychics that are the subject of this thread?

[lionking]

I'll go with all. Anyone who gives people in grief or doubt false hope by claiming that they can foresee the future, communicate with the dead or psychically determine what has happened in the past are scum (in my opinion), particularly if they take money for it (that being 99% of them).

They may well be sincere and really believe that they have "the power", but sincere charlatans are still charlatans.

[AndyD]

I responded to wal's questions on my blog and have also responded on the SM forum - but I'll repeat some of it here:

If I had useful information on this or any case, I imagine the police would listen. Of course, it's a conspiracy that sees them repeatedly ignore the very useful information given by psychics. That same conspiracy also seems to prevent the psychics just going to a location and actually finding a body.

Calling Don Spiers a "psychic hater" is a low blow when you consider he actually wasted a lot of time following their directions until finally giving in.

Anyone (from WA) who didn't expect the Claremont case to be discussed at this "event" is beyond credulous. The show was called "Psychic Taskforce" and the advertising said:

"The night will include readings amongst the audience but the high light will be our real time live investigation of a major Western Australian unsolved crime."

Not many such "major unsolved crimes" to choose from.

As for people saying that some of what was said was correct and/or unknown, so what? If it doesn't progress the case then it's irrelevant. Telling people things they already know is a rather useless "gift" and charging $135 a head to publicly discuss a criminal investigation is just perverse.

In my humble opinion of course.

(Oh, and for the record, lionking, I didn't describe anyone as the scum of the Earth - well, not here anyway)

Wal, you seem to be drifting a little away from your usual skeptical stance on this issue. Sure, skepticism can mean considering both sides but it also requires weighing the evidence, not just attributing equal weight to both sides.

In this case, the event was sold-out months ago yet the psychics either didn't reveal supposedly important information (the killer's identity) to the police until show night OR knew the police had dismissed any information they had previously provided but chose to do the show anyway OR could have assumed the police were treating their prior information seriously but were choosing not to release it publicly for some reason - then chose to do the show anyway. None of those alternatives sits well with me. Perhaps there's another possibility that I've missed.

Either way, this case is more than 11 years old. This show was organised months ago and held almost three weeks ago. So, has the murderer been arrested? The answer to that question weighs heavily against the believers' special pleading.

Supposedly there's an email doing the rounds about this event. If anyone gets it, can they please post it here or in my blog comments or link to it somewhere? Thanks.

[lionking]

Sorry Andy D I didn't mean to imply you described psychics in that way. My apologies.

It is still my opinion though.

[wombatwal]

"I have cut the top off your quote for clarity"

They may well be sincere and really believe that they have "the power", but sincere charlatans are still charlatans.

If they are sincere and believe they have the power then they can't be a charlatan.
From wikipedia.
A charlatan (also called swindler) is a person practicing quackery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery) or some similar confidence trick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick) in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_pretenses) or deception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception).
To me they are deluded not charlatans. So to say they are the scum of the earth is a bit rich and probably a belief of yours.
Anyway we are getting nowhere squabbling amongst ourselves.
No Andy, not less sceptical on this topic but yes weighing the evidence. Nowhere have I strayed from that. A good sceptic gets information from all sides then weighes up the evidence. It seems that some people have allready made up their minds possibly based on beliefs.

[lionking]

You cut my quote for clarity? What was unclear about it? Anyway charlatan, swindler, quack and scum are all fair descriptions to me.

The onus is on the supporters of this rubbish to provide evidence. Where is it???

[wombatwal]

You cut my quote for clarity? What was unclear about it? Anyway charlatan, swindler, quack and scum are all fair descriptions to me.

The onus is on the supporters of this rubbish to provide evidence. Where is it???
Are you asking me a question?
If so what is it.

[lionking]

Are you asking me a question?
If so what is it.

Okay, you seem to be, under the guise of "scepticism", defending psychics who purport to solve a murder. This attempt has been condemned by the family of the person murdered as well as the police. Why?

[AndyD]

No Andy, not less sceptical on this topic but yes weighing the evidence. Nowhere have I strayed from that. A good sceptic gets information from all sides then weighes up the evidence. It seems that some people have allready made up their minds possibly based on beliefs.

For sure, but as I said earlier, not all evidence weighs the same at first glance. The simple fact the case remains open means the believers need to produce evidence, not conspiracy theory. A drawing isn't evidence. If it was, I'd be one of the first people police would call to solve crimes. I can draw far better portraits than the Psychic Taskforce came up with.

Even some apparently complimentary comments from ex-officers or friends of the dead mean nothing if the information being acknowledged is neither new nor relevant. Proving you know things about "the case", whether information about victims or suspects, means nothing if you shed no useful light beyond that.

Eleven years is a long time for these people to have collected information from all corners. And if they have, then it's also long enough to repackage it all as new information for the general public. We cannot possibly know what has led them to their conclusion but there's no reason, so far, to assume anything paranormal.

The skeptic's job is not necessarily to debunk but to question the claims. It is also often said that when years of evidence suggests something isn't real, it is perfectly acceptable to disbelieve until irrefutable evidence suggests a change of mind is in order. The fact this case remains open suggests no such evidence exists. If the case is solved soon and it can be shown that the psychic's information was new, inerrant and useful, then, and only then, do we need to give any credence to the claims.

After that, we are in a better position to discuss if their information was obtained by paranormal means. Until then, however, we don't even know their claims are any better than your or my guesses or throwing a dart at a phone book and saying "it was him". The police seem to think they know how useful the information is though.

[wombatwal]

Okay, you seem to be, under the guise of "scepticism", defending psychics who purport to solve a murder. This attempt has been condemned by the family of the person murdered as well as the police. Why?

I have defended no psychic, show me where.
You have come to some outlandish assumptions from what I have posted here. I think your posts are showing you up as a believer, not a sceptic.

[wombatwal]

For sure, but as I said earlier, not all evidence weighs the same at first glance. The simple fact the case remains open means the believers need to produce evidence, not conspiracy theory. A drawing isn't evidence. If it was, I'd be one of the first people police would call to solve crimes. I can draw far better portraits than the Psychic Taskforce came up with.

Even some apparently complimentary comments from ex-officers or friends of the dead mean nothing if the information being acknowledged is neither new nor relevant. Proving you know things about "the case", whether information about victims or suspects, means nothing if you shed no useful light beyond that.

Eleven years is a long time for these people to have collected information from all corners. And if they have, then it's also long enough to repackage it all as new information for the general public. We cannot possibly know what has led them to their conclusion but there's no reason, so far, to assume anything paranormal.

The skeptic's job is not necessarily to debunk but to question the claims. It is also often said that when years of evidence suggests something isn't real, it is perfectly acceptable to disbelieve until irrefutable evidence suggests a change of mind is in order. The fact this case remains open suggests no such evidence exists. If the case is solved soon and it can be shown that the psychic's information was new, inerrant and useful, then, and only then, do we need to give any credence to the claims.

After that, we are in a better position to discuss if their information was obtained by paranormal means. Until then, however, we don't even know their claims are any better than your or my guesses or throwing a dart at a phone book and saying "it was him". The police seem to think they know how useful the information is though.

With you all the way on that Andy.

[lionking]

I have defended no psychic, show me where.
You have come to some outlandish assumptions from what I have posted here. I think your posts are showing you up as a believer, not a sceptic.

Before I address your dubious claim that you have "defended no psychic", please explain what a "believer" is?

[wombatwal]

Before I address your dubious claim that you have "defended no psychic", please explain what a "believer" is?

Believer, go and play your silly games with someone else.

[tim]

Let's just calm down a bit, shall we?

[BirdyBuddy]

Believer, go and play your silly games with someone else.

No, don't dodge. Answer his question.
And please clarify your belief that lionking is a "believer", when clearly he shows he is not.

[BirdyBuddy]

I have defended no psychic, show me where.

You do seem to say that a psychic that is deluded is okay, just not a psychic that is a charlatan:

If they are sincere and believe they have the power then they can't be a charlatan.

That looks like a defense to me.

[Edges]

To me they are deluded not charlatans. So to say they are the scum of the earth is a bit rich and probably a belief of yours.


I'm not sure about that. If I really truly believed that I could cure cancer and charged people $1,000 a pop to do it despite NO evidence that I had ever cured any person of cancer, would I be any less scum than a person who knew they couldn't cure cancer and charged $1,000 a pop to pretend they did? What if I didn't charge but called people I knew had cancer and insisted that they let me cure them or claimed that I cured them despite their protests to the contrary?

Even if these people truly believe that they can tell who killed this poor man's daughter, does that really make it ok for them to first harass the him, then to charge people to hear the "evidence" they believe they have? Especially when it has been proven that psychic efforts in the past on this very case have resulted in wasted money and man hours, as well as causing excessive stress on an already distraught family.

ET fix quote