Mrs. Leonard's mediumship

[Mike D.]

(Continuing TLN's education about great mediums of the past!)

Mrs. Leonard is often mentioned along with Mrs. Piper as one of the outstanding mediums of the past. I don't know that much about her, but in case anyone wants to discuss her, I am sharing here a summary I wrote of Stephen Braude's introduction to her mediumship in his book, Immortal Remains. I didn't include all of Braude's points in the summary, so it shouldn't be regarded as representing everything he said about her in his book.

If there is no interest, this thread can cross over into thread heaven!


Braude, Chapter 3, Section 4: Mrs. Leonard's Mediumship

The mediumship of Mrs. Gladys Osborne Leonard (1882 - 1968) is the topic of this section.

As a child, Mrs. Leonard had visions, but these were discouraged by her parents. As a young adult, she pursued a career as an actress, and discovered her abilities as a medium during a table tilting session with fellow actresses, when she fell into a trance. On that occasion, a control personality named Feda spoke through Mrs. Leonard, and Feda remained as Mrs. Leonard's principal control. Feda claimed to have been a young Hindu woman who married an ancestor of Mrs. Leonard, but her existence was never verified. However, Mrs. Leonard remembered her mother mentioning something along those lines. At any rate, Braude writes that Feda "spoke in a high, squeaky voice, with occasional errors in grammar, misunderstandings of words, and consistent eccentricities of pronunciation… . Her personality was distinctively childlike (if not childish), and her relationship with Mrs. Leonard was less than cordial." (Braude, p. 71)

While there are a number of similarities between the mediumship of Mrs. Leonard and the mediumship of Mrs. Piper, Mrs. Leonard was particularly famous for "book tests." Feda, rather than the investigators, is the one who suggested these tests, and they are considered particularly interesting from the standpoint of issues surrounding the issues of survival, telepathy among the living, super-psi, etc.

In a typical book test, Feda, ostensibly speaking on behalf of another spirit communicator, would direct sitters or investigators to a particular location and ask them to look on a certain page in a certain book on a particular bookshelf, and Feda would give the gist of what was supposed to be written on that particular page. A successful book test was supposed to be significant in that it was held that if the sitters did not have prior familiarity with the book used in the test, that that would seem to effectively rule out simple telepathy between Mrs. Leonard and the sitters.

Braude, however, goes on to detail a number of problems with the idea of successful book tests being conclusive evidence for survival. But the notion of super psi seems almost as incredible when we consider the best examples of book tests, unless we take seriously an almost "magic wand" super-psi hypothesis. Furthermore, some book tests involved spirits apparently accurately conveying the locations and contents of books that they themselves would have not had the opportunity to know about while they were alive, so the ability of a spirit to know what was on a particular page in a particular edition of a book would mean that the spirits themselves would have to have some pretty formidable clairvoyant abilities to be able to read the contents of closed physical books on shelves.

Regarding the results of these book tests, we should not assume that they were always successful. For example, during one series of Mrs. Leonard's séances that involved 532 separate book tests, 92 of these were completely successful, and 100 were partially successful. There were 204 total failures, 40 almost complete failures, and 96 were classified as "dubious." However, non-medium control groups were also used, and one control group, for example, was only able to achieve a 2% success rate.

Beyond the statistics, however, lies the impressiveness of the details of the best of the successful cases, and Braude describes some of these.

[CFLarsen]

Thanks for the thread.

I would like to see the "strict protocol" that was used to test Piper with. Does anyone know where we can find a description of it?

[Darat]

The "book tests" sounds like a variant of a trick I've seen several magicians perform.

Any of you amateur magicians out there care to comment?

[Clancie]

Hi Mike,

Your writing about Mrs. Leonard reminds me of an experience that RC described having in a psychic development workshop that he took.

The medium pointed to a tall stack of magazines in the corner of the room and asked one student to choose a number to identify which magazine in the stack they would use for the experiment (tenth, fourth, etc.)

Students knew nothing about the magazine other than its position in the stack. The medium then asked someone to select a page number and everyone was to jot down his or her impressions of what the content of that page was

RC did the experiment, drew a picture on his paper, and said that he was getting impressions of yellow and brown spots and an animal sort of like a tiger but fluffier. He saw a face and oval shapes which he drew on the page.

When they compared his drawing to what was actually on the page (a large fluffly yellow and brown teddy bear with oval paws), it was quite similar and RC himself was surprised that the image he had seen in his mind had looked very much like the bear.

Now, of course, non-believers here will say you could draw face...ovals...describe a fluffy brown and yellow animal and probably get lucky. My comment to them is, "Try it and see for yourself!" :eek:

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Mike,

Your writing about Mrs. Leonard reminds me of an experience that RC described having in a psychic development workshop that he took.

The medium pointed to a tall stack of magazines in the corner of the room and asked one student to choose a number to identify which magazine in the stack they would use for the experiment (tenth, fourth, etc.)

Students knew nothing about the magazine other than its position in the stack. The medium then asked someone to select a page number and everyone was to jot down his or her impressions of what the content of that page was

RC did the experiment, drew a picture on his paper, and said that he was getting impressions of yellow and brown spots and an animal sort of like a tiger but fluffier. He saw a face and oval shapes which he drew on the page.

When they compared his drawing to what was actually on the page (a large fluffly yellow and brown teddy bear with oval paws), it was quite similar and RC himself was surprised that the image he had seen in his mind had looked very much like the bear.

Now, of course, non-believers here will say you could draw face...ovals...describe a fluffy brown and yellow animal and probably get lucky. My comment to them is, "Try it and see for yourself!" :eek:
Did anyone else in the class draw something similiar? Has RC ever replicated this performance again? Ever tried? This is pretty silly I'm sorry. I'm sure everyone could think of of an incident in their life where they were thinking of something odd, and then it happens. Or your watching a movie and you just know what their going to say next or any number of other scenario's. Is it weird, sure it is. Hard to explain, perhaps. Is it indicitive of paranormal psychic powers whatsoever being an isolated incident? Not at all.

[LTC8K6]

So we had one page of one magazine selected at random.

All of the students were trying to draw what was on that one page and one of the students came pretty close.

I am unimpressed.

[renata]

If the book test and magazine page are considering impressive-or indicators of "something", I am very glad Banachek does not claim to be a psychic- he would be a head of a religion by now.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Clancie
Now, of course, non-believers here will say you could draw face...ovals...describe a fluffy brown and yellow animal and probably get lucky. My comment to them is, "Try it and see for yourself!" :eek:

Actually, as a non-believer, I'd have a few other things to say:

1. How do you know this actually happened? From what you've said here, RC himself claims it happened, but is there any verification of this?

2. It sounds very much like a magic trick to me. Seems like the only difference between this feat and the same thing performed by David Copperfield would be that one would claim it was because of supernatural powers. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Valmorian
1. How do you know this actually happened? From what you've said here, RC himself claims it happened, but is there any verification of this?

None whatsoever. It is a simple tale.

However, it is not to be seriously questioned at all. Seriously questioning an event that can be interpreted as paranormal is the first step towards rationality, and believers cannot risk that.

Originally posted by Valmorian
2. It sounds very much like a magic trick to me. Seems like the only difference between this feat and the same thing performed by David Copperfield would be that one would claim it was because of supernatural powers. ;)

It could very well be a trick. "Planting" a certain image is a very effective trick in magic. I've seen Derren Brown do it on TV - to me, as a viewer! I had to study the tape several times before I caught on.

[Clancie]

Well, re: RC. I can understand people dismissing it as "coincidence". Or people who don't know him thinking that it was a trick.

But since I know RC personally and have zero doubt of his integrity (for some people that -is- possible), the latter reason simply isn't a factor to me. (And, Valmorian, the medium documented it to me, not that that probably convinces you any more of its veracity, either. :) ).

As for "luck", well, RC consistently "got" more information than other students during other exercises they were doing as well. ( He had written here before about how he "saw" the names of the medium's grandfathers during a meditation. He didn't make any claims of mediumship, telepathy, etc. for the experience, but others have seen it as that.)

But, I didn't mean to derail this from the subject of Mrs. Leonard--only to give an example of a friend's similar experience.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, re: RC. I can understand people dismissing it as "coincidence". Or people who don't know him thinking that it was a trick.

Trust is irrelevant, Clancie. History is littered with accounts of people being fooled by "friends".

Originally posted by Clancie
But since I know RC personally and have zero doubt of his integrity (for some people that -is- possible), the latter reason simply isn't a factor to me. (And, Valmorian, the medium documented it to me, not that that probably convinces you any more of its veracity, either. :) ).

It is interesting that you place so much faith in another person's integrity, when you have been fooled by a medium.

Originally posted by Clancie
As for "luck", well, RC consistently "got" more information than other students during other exercises they were doing as well. ( He had written here before about how he "saw" the names of the medium's grandfathers during a meditation. He didn't make any claims of mediumship, telepathy, etc. for the experience, but others have seen it as that.)

A common story. John Edward has claimed something similar, before he went pro. However, since RC "consistently" gets more information than other students, where can we see this data? It certainly sounds as if RC has collated data and compared it to the other students.

Originally posted by Clancie
But, I didn't mean to derail this from the subject of Mrs. Leonard--only to give an example of a friend's similar experience.

An experience which is nothing but an anecdote. Worthless as evidence.

[Clancie]

Just to get back on track....

I find the last sentence of Mike's summary so definitive (imo--and I know you all don't agree!!!!) of the puzzle of mediumship--inconsistent results that continue to make mediumship intriguing to me. It seems that, if it exists, mediumship appears in mountains of anecdotal evidence, but is not consistent enough to lend itself to replicable testing.

There is a wealth of demonstrated successes that, to me, look like something other than "cheating" or "lucky guesses". And yet, there is not enough consistency there (i.e. complete consistency) and not enough control possible (imo) over the conditions of sucessful performance that we can -definitely- conclude, "something paranormal is happening here." This is the frustration faced--not by believers or non-believers--but by those of us who feel, "there may be something to this."
Posted by Mike D.

..Regarding the results of these book tests, we should not assume that they were always successful.

For example, during one series of Mrs. Leonard's séances that involved 532 separate book tests, 92 of these were completely successful, and 100 were partially successful. There were 204 total failures, 40 almost complete failures, and 96 were classified as "dubious."

However, non-medium control groups were also used, and one control group, for example, was only able to achieve a 2% success rate.

Beyond the statistics, however, lies the impressiveness of the details of the best of the successful cases, and Braude describes some of these.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Just to get back on track....

I find the last sentence of Mike's summary so definitive (imo--and I know you all don't agree!!!!) of the puzzle of mediumship--inconsistent results that continue to make mediumship intriguing to me. It seems that, if it exists, mediumship appears in mountains of anecdotal evidence, but is not consistent enough to lend itself to replicable testing.

There is a wealth of demonstrated successes that, to me, look like something other than "cheating" or "lucky guesses". And yet, there is not enough consistency there (i.e. complete consistency) and not enough control possible (imo) over the conditions of sucessful performance that we can -definitely- conclude, "something paranormal is happening here." This is the frustration faced--not by believers or non-believers--but by those of us who feel, "there may be something to this."


And...?? Where does this lead us? Where do we go from there?

Sure, there are differences in perception, we all are aware of that. But what, then? It is not enough just to establish a fundamental disagreement over interpretations, we have to determine whether the data is strong enough to support the claim that a paranormal phenomenon has occurred - or not.

Hey, it may be just me, but I am not satisfied with the very shaky data we have seen so far, over the course of more than a hundred years.

Actually, it is not just me. The scientific world is not swayed by these data either. We can claim that what we know is not just defined by science, but what is "knowledge", then?

Superstition? Belief in unicorns? Psychic surgery? Witchcraft?

[magicflute]

ABOUT BOOK TESTS
Book tests are part of the typical diet for a magician performing mentalism. Many of the effects can be quite puzzling and startling to the uninitiated. While I cannot divulge the methods of any particular book test, I VERY highly recommend '13 Steps to Mentalism" by Corinda. This has information about book tests, sealed predictions, cold reading, secret word codes, and just about anything you would need to know about this field. A must have for any skeptic or believer for that matter. Just about any magic shop online will carry it. It will explain alot!

[magicflute]

Originally posted by Clancie
This is the frustration faced--not by believers or non-believers--but by those of us who feel, "there may be something to this."

In order to determine if 'there is something' to anything, you have to learn to recognize when there is nothing. The best way to do this is to learn as much as you can about how these kinds of things are done thru trickery. Then you will be better informed. What one must avoid is making the assumsion that if you can't explain it, then it has to be supernatural. I drive my doctor nuts cause I stop my pulse and he can't figure out how I do it! There is nothing to it, it is really a simple trick, but with a little misdirection and a little slight of hand it is easily accomplished.
Who knows, maybe one day I will find something I will believe in, but until now, I have been disappointed. Early in my teens I used to believe in a lot of weird stuff! Well that is a good story for another time.
If anyone would like I can give you a list of books that should be part of the arsenal of anyone interested in this type of phenomena. Don't go into a battle unarmed!

[Garrette]

For the book test and other mentalist feats, I second magicflute's recommendation of Corrinda.

I would add, very strongly, Barrie Richardson's, Theatre of the Mind.[I]

Clancie, it appears more and more to me that the old saw about psi/mediumship/ac/whatever possibly being real but not consistent enough for testing is just that: an old saw.

First, if it's not consistent enough, then you have [I]absolutely nothing to legitimately supports its validity.

Second, the inconsistency card is only played when someone asks questions. JE thinks he's consistent enough to do a daily show. George Anderson thinks he's consistent enough to schedule expensive sessions. Piper thought she was consistent enough to do thousands of readings and seances.

There is consistency out the wazoo when it comes to psi and the paranormal. Except, tellingly enough, when someone asks questions.

Bunkum.

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Clancie
Just to get back on track....

I find the last sentence of Mike's summary so definitive (imo--and I know you all don't agree!!!!) of the puzzle of mediumship--inconsistent results that continue to make mediumship intriguing to me. It seems that, if it exists, mediumship appears in mountains of anecdotal evidence, but is not consistent enough to lend itself to replicable testing.




You are factually correct in saying there exists mountains of anecdotal evidence for mediumship. It is your conclusion that puzzles me.
You use this to say that because of this we cannot rule out the possibility of mediumship. You're right, we can't. What we can do is use the anecdotes to attract the attention of science in order for the claim to be tested thoroughly.
It is at this point that mediumship has consistently failed to demonstrate replicable results. You then say that even so, we mustn't rule out mediumship.
OK we won't but we will look on the anecdotes a lot more skeptically the next time around - surely that attitude is reasonable? In fact I would argue it is even reasonable to form the assumption that, at least for the time being, mediumship does not exist. Not for any other reason than, as humans living in the real world, we need to know what we can trust and what we can't.
Otherwise what do we do? Believe in everything until it has been definitively disproved, which we know it can never truly be? At some point we have to make a mental cut-off and use our common sense. I personally hit a 'cut-off' long ago with mediumship.
As regards further testing of claims - well why not. I'm pretty sure I know what results we will get but hey - I'm prepared to be wrong.

[The Mighty Thor]

The book tests being described are tricks. The Mrs Leonard version is a very lame and obvious one. The technique has much improved since her time, but it is basically the same con.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Mike,

Your writing about Mrs. Leonard reminds me of an experience that RC described having in a psychic development workshop that he took.

The medium pointed to a tall stack of magazines in the corner of the room and asked one student to choose a number to identify which magazine in the stack they would use for the experiment (tenth, fourth, etc.)

Students knew nothing about the magazine other than its position in the stack. The medium then asked someone to select a page number and everyone was to jot down his or her impressions of what the content of that page was

RC did the experiment, drew a picture on his paper, and said that he was getting impressions of yellow and brown spots and an animal sort of like a tiger but fluffier. He saw a face and oval shapes which he drew on the page.

When they compared his drawing to what was actually on the page (a large fluffly yellow and brown teddy bear with oval paws), it was quite similar and RC himself was surprised that the image he had seen in his mind had looked very much like the bear.

Now, of course, non-believers here will say you could draw face...ovals...describe a fluffy brown and yellow animal and probably get lucky. My comment to them is, "Try it and see for yourself!" :eek:

This is simply a magic trick. It is quite a sophisticated one, and I agree that it looks impressive. But IT IS A TRICK. I can do this trick, and I'm sure Garrette and magicflute can do it too. I'm afraid you were fooled, Clancie. Most people cannot figure out how this is done, but they don't think 'not knowing how it is done' is equal to 'it must be paranormal'.

[Garrette]

Clancie,

malcolmdl is correct. RC's magazine experience is a magic trick.

It's not related in the slightest to cold reading or generalizing from pictures to create a hit where there really was none.

It's a trick. The magician knew the outcome before hand because the magician set it up.

I myself have never performed this trick, but I am aware of at least one way it can be done.

[The Mighty Thor]

In a typical book test, Feda, ostensibly speaking on behalf of another spirit communicator, would direct sitters or investigators to a particular location and ask them to look on a certain page in a certain book on a particular bookshelf, and Feda would give the gist of what was supposed to be written on that particular page. A successful book test was supposed to be significant in that it was held that if the sitters did not have prior familiarity with the book used in the test, that that would seem to effectively rule out simple telepathy between Mrs. Leonard and the sitters.


This confirms my suspicions about the so-called investigators. They are confused by belief in telepethy that 'Feda' sees in the book and 'gives it' to Mrs L. via telepathy. The telepathy is misdirection, but it is perceived to be the miracle effect.

What we actually have is:

Mrs L. directs subject to a particular bookshelve.

Mrs L. Says what book to pick.

Mrs L. Says what page in that book.

Then Mrs L. says something from the page she picks, from the book she picks, from the shelf she picks.

Well, erm, what is wrong with this picture?

[Clancie]

So, Garrette,

Assuming you're right and it's a trick, I have two questions. The first is, are these steps consistent with doing the trick you're thinking of:

10 students sit at the table. The medium points to a stack of 20 magazines in the corner of the room. One student says which number they will work with ("eighth from the top")

Another student chooses a page number ("77")

The students each get blank paper, pencil, crayones and write or draw what they "see" on the page

They describe and show the class what they've drawn or written.

A student gets the magazine from the pile and opens to page 77. It is a brown and gold teddy bear and looks much like the drawing my friend did, which he'd described as a gold and brown fluffy tiger.[/QUOTE]
So...

Q1: Ruling out collusion, are these steps consistent with the magic trick you have in mind?

Q2: In the trick, does the medium have the role of the "magician"?

Q3: Would it make any difference to the trick you have in mind, if everyone in class had brought a magazine, wrapped in paper, random names were drawn and those students stacked their magazines in the corner of the room to use for the "exercise" and then did not participate further? Would it make a difference if the "magician" was unable to see the magazines in advance just like the students who chose the page number couldn't see them in advance?

I had expected someone to mention the "making it fit" idea applied to this activity. But, if there's a trick like this, without revealing any "secret", can you describe the steps as they would appear to an audience?

[Garrette]

Clancie:

Assuming you're right and it's a trick, I have two questions. The first is, are these steps consistent with doing the trick you're thinking of:


Yes.


Clancie:

Q1: Ruling out collusion, are these steps consistent with the magic trick you have in mind?

Q2: In the trick, does the medium have the role of the "magician"?


Yes and yes.


Clancie:

Would it make any difference to the trick you have in mind, if everyone in class had brought a magazine, wrapped in paper, random names were drawn and those students stacked their magazines in the corner of the room to use for the "exercise" and then did not participate further? Would it make a difference if the "magician" was unable to see the magazines in advance just like the students who chose the page number couldn't see them in advance?


To the method I had in mind? Yes, it would make a difference, but these are overcomable, too.
'
Are you suggesting this is the way it was done or are you throwing controls in that were not there?

[Garrette]

Clancie:

But, if there's a trick like this, without revealing any "secret", can you describe the steps as they would appear to an audience?

Like this:

Clancie:

The medium pointed to a tall stack of magazines in the corner of the room and asked one student to choose a number to identify which magazine in the stack they would use for the experiment (tenth, fourth, etc.)

Students knew nothing about the magazine other than its position in the stack. The medium then asked someone to select a page number and everyone was to jot down his or her impressions of what the content of that page was

RC did the experiment, drew a picture on his paper, and said that he was getting impressions of yellow and brown spots and an animal sort of like a tiger but fluffier. He saw a face and oval shapes which he drew on the page.

When they compared his drawing to what was actually on the page (a large fluffly yellow and brown teddy bear with oval paws), it was quite similar and RC himself was surprised that the image he had seen in his mind had looked very much like the bear.


There are lots of ways to make it "appear." This is as good as any.

[Clancie]

Posted by Garrette

Are you suggesting this is the way it was done or are you throwing controls in that were not there?
No, I was adding in controls that I think the medium would be willing to use and wondering if it would make a difference with the trick you had in mind. (I think he'd be willing to randomize the number selection of the magazine and page as well...I'm just wondering if adding those kinds of controls would make a difference in ruling out your trick.

[Garrette]

Fair enough. Sorry for the implication and tone of that question.

To answer what I think the thrust of it is, though, here are the controls that would make it impossible for me to do something along these lines:

1. A location to which I have no previous access (it need not be much access, either)

2. No knowledge of or control over what magazine or book will be used

3. No confederates

4. No direct conversation with any of the audience or participants

5. Never allowed to touch the magazine or book. Ever.

6. Never allowed to touch anything associated with the effect, including the pen, the paper, the stand on which the magazine is placed, etc.

7. No subjective judging of the how well the drawing matches the chosen magazine/book.

Remove just one of those controls, any one, and you re-introduce the possibility that I can fool you. Granted, some are more important to others, but the lack of any of them makes for a flaw.

Remember, I am not a good magician when it comes to technical skills. I've never performed professionally, I haven't truly practiced in years and years. Still, I could probably get away with this one.

Pick someone like magicflute or Brown or any of several other more experienced people here and I imagine they could perform miracles in circumstances that would leave me stymied.

[Mike D.]

See this link for more on Mrs. Leonard's book tests. Includes excerpts from transcripts, etc.

http://www.enformy.com/LeonardCh06.htm

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mike D.
See this link for more on Mrs. Leonard's book tests. Includes excerpts from transcripts, etc.

http://www.enformy.com/LeonardCh06.htm

Ah, good ol' Don Watson's site....ah, the memories... :D

Edited to add:

Don Watson is the man behind the theory of enformed systems. He does not feel it is necessary for him to come up with a positive hypothesis for his theory, nor does he think it important to have a falsifiable hypothesis. He prefers to leave that to somebody else. Even though his theory is by his own acclaim "not only the most fundamental, but the most abstract, scientific theory ever introduced", he doesn't feel the need to spend too much time on it.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Garrette
Fair enough. Sorry for the implication and tone of that question.

To answer what I think the thrust of it is, though, here are the controls that would make it impossible for me to do something along these lines:

1. A location to which I have no previous access (it need not be much access, either)

2. No knowledge of or control over what magazine or book will be used

3. No confederates

4. No direct conversation with any of the audience or participants

5. Never allowed to touch the magazine or book. Ever.

6. Never allowed to touch anything associated with the effect, including the pen, the paper, the stand on which the magazine is placed, etc.

7. No subjective judging of the how well the drawing matches the chosen magazine/book.

Remove just one of those controls, any one, and you re-introduce the possibility that I can fool you. Granted, some are more important to others, but the lack of any of them makes for a flaw.

Remember, I am not a good magician when it comes to technical skills. I've never performed professionally, I haven't truly practiced in years and years. Still, I could probably get away with this one.

Pick someone like magicflute or Brown or any of several other more experienced people here and I imagine they could perform miracles in circumstances that would leave me stymied.

Absolutely! Those controls would foil my method, and I'm just a hobbyist.

But Clancie might start by asking:

1. Why does the magician need to know the 'number' of the mag in the pile?

2. Who arranged the pile? I guess the magician would freak if someone shuffled the pile, or disordered it -- although this is 'recoverable'.

3. Did the picker actually pick a page number at random. I don't think so. It might 'look like they did' however.

4. Did anyone else in the group get anything near as good as the medium/magi?

But, I'm getting dangerously close to exposing the method, and I must remember that I am not Clancie's teacher and neither is she my pupil :)

But enlightenment begins with asking: "What is wrong, or unusual, about this picture?" And trusting someone to the extend Clancie does this fellow is, I'd say, almost dangerous.

[magicflute]

The basic problem with trying to describe a trick that someone else did from a second hand description is next to imposible. You can only give a few suggestions. The reason for this is obvious. Even when it is a first hand description it is still difficult, because a good performer can misdirect you in such a way, that you will remember only that the he wishes you to remember. To demonstrate to people that their memory can be manipulated, I often do a very easy trick, at the end I have everyone describe what what they saw. Then show them what I really did. There is NO slight of hand involved in this simple trick, only verbal misdirection. Yet this is enough to make people forget something they all saw!
I will not try to provide solutions to things that never happened as described. I can only offer opinions based on what I have personally experienced. I can only guess if I did not see it myself, based of the general description and my knowledge of the methods in which similar tricks are performed.
Again, Clancie; please arm yourself with some knowledge on how these things are done and you will be able to analyze many of these tricks yourself. Get the "13 steps to mentalism" By Corinda this explains everything from, books test, to secret codes to cold_reading. If you get this book lots of your questions will be answered.

For the magicians: This can also be done with a swamy gimmick

[The Mighty Thor]

Who is RC?

[Clancie]

4. Did anyone else in the group get anything near as good as the medium/magi?
The medium/magi didn't do anything (other than point out the mags), so I don't understand the question
.
Who is RC?
RC is someone who used to post here (and who's a friend of mine and a couple of others here--not just the "believers"). In the example above, RC was the student in the mediums' psychic development class who drew the picture of the page in the magazine.

[The Mighty Thor]

magicflute: Even when it is a first hand description it is still difficult, because a good performer can misdirect you in such a way, that you will remember only that the he wishes you to remember.

Exactly, magicflute. You are my kind of skeptic!

I think Clancie is describing the methodology (quite well, too) as it looks, not as it actually is. The subtleties are, of course, what make this 'booktest' look so impressive and apparently random.

I saw Geller do the same trick for some footballers in his home (mansion, I might say) and they were all truly freaked. Of course, he didn't say it was a trick!

[The Mighty Thor]

Clancie: RC was the student in the mediums' psychic development class who drew the picture of the page in the magazine.

OIC.

So, you don't think he was 'in on the trick', then?

[Clancie]

Posted by Malcolndl

So, you don't think he was 'in on the trick', then?
No. (Nor do I think it was a trick, knowing the participants as I do).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
No. (Nor do I think it was a trick, knowing the participants as I do).

Perhaps it is time to mention that RC believes that blinking lamps is a paranormal phenomenon (as a message from the dead). He also believes in mediums.

[magicflute]

The most basic principle of doing magic tricks is "Make it seem like REAL magic" If you can't do this then you can't be a magician! And unless you know the tricks of the trade, you are not qualified to detect what is real and what is not. I have a select group of tricks that I do in for believers that seem like miracles (No cards, they associate cards with tricks) they are not easily explained because they depend on misdirection and little known ways in which people react to stimuli. Mind Magic if you will. I tell them that there is nothing supernatural about what I do even if it they are a a loss to explain what happened. I explain that had I wished to present myself as the real thing, they would have believed me. Then I submit to them that those that do present themselves as such may not be as honest. It does not convince everyone but at least I get them thinking, and once in a while I get a few converts.

[magicflute]

Posted by Clancie
No. (Nor do I think it was a trick, knowing the participants as I do).
Clancie make sure you read my previous post. This is your basic problem. You are accepting second hand anecdotal accounts without subjecting them to any analytical scrutiny. This is why people here will not accept your arguments. They are not based on reality.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Clancie

No. (Nor do I think it was a trick, knowing the participants as I do).

Not much more I can say, then, Clancie. I don't want to get in to stormy seas.

Like Mrs Piper and the rest, there are *many* variations on this effect. I admit I did slightly misread your description. But I'm sure it is the same trick with a slight slant.

Other than reproducing the effect in front of you, I guess there is no way to convince you.

[Clancie]

Posted by magicflute

Clancie make sure you read my previous post. This is your basic problem. You are accepting second hand anecdotal accounts without subjecting them to any analytical scrutiny. This is why people here will not accept your arguments. They are not based on reality.
Oh! I think I've just been...

"DISMISSED!"

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Perhaps it is time to mention that RC believes that blinking lamps is a paranormal phenomenon (as a message from the dead). He also believes in mediums.

Oops! OK, thanks. I begin to see. Group re-inforcement???

[Clancie]

He also believes in mediums.
malcolmdl,

Re: your post (quoted) that RC "believes in mediums". Actually that's not true.

He's about 99% convinced of ADC (direct communication), because of his own experiences.

He's on the fence about mediums.

[magicflute]

Actually Clancie I would NEVER dismiss you. You see, I respect the fact that your are willing to stay here and slug it out with us. Unlike people like WWu who comes here and dumps a post and never hangs around to defend his points of view. Even though I do not agree with you, I do not dismiss you.
Besides you do help the cause by your arguments, they permit us to see how a believer's mind works and where the faults in logic or lack there of can be found. This is good training for the new skeptics and believers and for the many that only lurk and do not post. I consider you a valuable asset to this forum and I do NOT say this sarcastically.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Clancie

malcolmdl,

Re: your post (quoted) that RC "believes in mediums". Actually that's not true.

He's about 99% convinced of ADC (direct communication), because of his own experiences.

He's on the fence about mediums.

Fair enough, Clancie. I would say that for my method, he would have had to be 'in on' the trick. Sometimes people think that 'a little white lie' or 'innocent prank' is OK, if it furthers 'the cause.' Or, even if it convinces others that they have burgeoning super powers, to get them a bit of 'credo'. I can't say if RC might be like that -- only you can.

I still have to ask why the 'number' of the mag was asked for?

Could not someone just pick any mag in the pile without announcing its position?

But, I leave it at that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Re: your post (quoted) that RC "believes in mediums".

It was my post, Clancie. You can say that it was mine. You won't die from it.

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually that's not true. He's about 99% convinced of ADC (direct communication), because of his own experiences.

He's on the fence about mediums.

Oh, really? Well...let's see: The "communication" part that RC believe in is about..what? Blinking lamps, right? And RC does not believe in mediums? Need I remind you of RC's and your little tete-a-tete with psychic medium Brian Hurst?

There was no ADC on RC's behalf? His dead partner did not come through?

And...Clancie? The "D" in ADC is "DEATH", not "DIRECT". ADC is "After Death Communication". We are talking about DEAD people here, COMMUNICATING. Not "direct".

[CFLarsen]

(Emphasis mine)

(RC) 198.81.26.232 10-31-2002 08:36 PM
... In both of my readings I got much more detailed info. With Karen, the word "Clarendon" which refers to an inside joke between my partner and me, plus a reference to Amsterdam where we had just had our goodbye trip, and the leak in my ceiling which was a huge deal at the time. With Brian, I got a physical description including ethnicity, plus a reference to something I had just told a friend the week before. Not to mention the old brass phone.
Source: TVTalkshows

That's RC believing in mediums providing ADC. After Death Communication.

Clancie, I cannot believe that you try to claim that RC does not believe in mediums. He is your friend, but you f*ck him over, just so you can claim that I am wrong.

Some friend you are.


Edited to comply with Fair Use, as per Forum rules.

[Clancie]

Posted by malcolmdl

I can't say if RC might be like that -- only you can.
Right. And I'm satisfied he's not. (Yes, I'd even stake my life on it with no qualm at all about doing so. I can't say that about a lot of people, either). But I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. Just perhaps think of how they'd think about a similar experience if it was told to them by someone -they- had equal confidence in.

I still have to ask why the 'number' of the mag was asked for?

Well, I assume it was because if you're remote viewing something you need a target to look at. If they just said, "Page 83" without saying which magazine in the pile it was for, we could just look through 20 magazines at "Page 83" and see if any of our drawings matched.

Having a student specify the location of the "target" magazine in the pile, and having another specfy the page, gave them a specfic page to try to "get" something from.

Could not someone just pick any mag in the pile without announcing its position?
They could. I doubt it would make any difference to the teacher if they each thought of a magazine and a page number and then wrote down what they thought was there.

Having everyone do the same page works better from a teacher/pacing point of view, but I think the medium would have been perfectly willing to have them try it your way.


btw, magicflute and malcolmdl,

I understand you both have some background in magic. Could I ask a bit about your experiences with mediums? Have you ever had one (or more) recommended to you and had a reading?

Just curious what your personal experiences with that aspect of this have been like.

[The Mighty Thor]

Claus: There was no ADC on RC's behalf? His dead partner did not come through?

I'm getting impressions of a kind of Psychic Lonely Hearts Club.

I guess there is money to be made there. I suppose the dead partners could 'vet' the new loves.

"I'm sorry! My late husband does not approve of your inappropriate touching so early in this affair."

That would do it for me :) I'd be off!

[CFLarsen]

Hey, one more:
(RC) 198.81.19.31 10-21-2002 07:22 PM
You know, what I've found interesting about the two readings I've had is that the messages were mainly about things that were happening at the time, or had just happened. Like with Karen, my messages were about the leak in the ceiling and the trip my partner and I had taken right before he died. With Brian, the message was about a trip that I was planning at the time. I didn't have to search my memory too much like many JE sitters do. The "old brass phone" has an immediate connection to my grandfather. Granddad didn't show Brian something that I had done at his house 25 years ago that I probably wouldn't even be able to remember.

Maybe my spirits are a lot more thoughtful for coming through with extremely relevant messages and images, but I continue to think that my readings are way better than many I've seen by JE.


Hey, one more:
(RC) 198.81.19.46 10-16-2002 09:54 AM
For example, the fact that for three months after my partner died, whatever lamp was next to me in the apartment would flicker. If I was in the living room, the living room lamp would flicker. When I was reading in bed, the lamp next to me would flicker. No other lights would flicker. Brand new light bulbs in all lamps. Then it all stops. Then the weekend of the anniversary of his death, I'm reading in bed and the lamp flickers. Hasn't flickered since.

Yes, this proves nothing...but it is interesting to me that this kind of activity happened during these particular times and it is more interesting to me that it doesn't happen during other times. Add that to experiences related by many others and I think there's reason for me to consider the ADC theories.


Hey, here's RC's account of his experience with medium Brian Hurst:
(RC) 66.134.45.132 06-25-2002 12:09 PM
Okay, quickly, here is my experience with Brian Hurst:

I thought Gryphon did a nice job explaining the beginning of the seance.

...

Brian then asked "who's Don". I said I didn't know a Don. He then said he was seeing an old-fashioned brass phone, and went on to describe it a bit. I replied that my grandfather, whose name was Dan, was a phone installer and had given a phone exactly how Brian described to my family several years ago and it remains with the family.

Brian then passed on a message from my partner that I'm choosing not to post because it's quite personal, but it related directly to a conversation I was having with a friend in Maryland one week earlier, and it was a correction by my partner of something I had said. He still has to be right, even from the other side!

That was it. Nothing earth-shattering, no "amazing hits", but very similar to my experience with Karen last year. A nice combination of bringing through some details letting me know he's aware of what's going on right now, and conveying personality.

...

What I also liked about Brian is that he didn't try to provide "amazing" readings for everyone. He literally threw out everything he was seeing/hearing/feeli ng and left it at that. In fact, one woman didn't get a reading at all and he wasn't afraid to say that just wasn't getting anything for her. I think that's how mediumship works.

I highly recommend Brian, especially at a bargain $40. He's up there with Karen as one of my favorite mediums and it's too bad the more "showy" mediums get all the attention.

All from TVTalkshows. I think it is fair to say that RC believes in mediums.

I simply can't believe you, Clancie. You lie at the expense of a friend.

Edited to compy with Fair Use, as per Forum rules.

[The Mighty Thor]

btw, magicflute and malcolmdl,

I understand you both have some background in magic. Could I ask a bit about your experiences with mediums? Have you ever had one (or more) recommended to you and had a reading?

Just curious what your personal experiences with that aspect of this have been like.


__________________

Nah, Clancie. To be honest, I'd have no desire to line the pockets of charlatans. I can't say there isn't 'one white crow' out there, but from what I've read and seen on TV and heard about from others, I very much doubt it. I do know there are plenty of black crows who make *a lot* of money scamming vulnerable folk.

And, before you bring it up, I have *never* believed the 'they don't do it for money' scenario. They all end up at least 'taking donations' of some sort after establishing the slightest of reputations.

[Clancie]

Posted by malcolmdl

They all end up at least 'taking donations' of some sort after establishing the slightest of reputations.
You're wrong on this, malcolm. Quite a few people who feel they can do this, do it for free. Many who are trying to "develop" their abilities, but don't feel they are good enough to charge (or aren't comfortable charging) do it for free.

You may or may not be right that everyone is a black crow. But you are wrong if you think that everyone who does this is knowingly fraudulent and only in it in order to bilk grieving people out of their money.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
You're wrong on this, malcolm. Quite a few people who feel they can do this, do it for free. Many who are trying to "develop" their abilities, but don't feel they are good enough to charge (or aren't comfortable charging) do it for free.

You may or may not be right that everyone is a black crow. But you are wrong if you think that everyone who does this is knowingly fraudulent and only in it in order to bilk grieving people out of their money.

Quite so. They do it for power. Sheer, raw power over grieving people, that are so eager to believe that they will suck up to the mediums, sometimes without ever even knowing anything about the mediums.

Just like you yourself once sucked up to a self-proclaimed medium, in the desperate hope that the medium would give you a reading, Clancie.

Power. That's what drives them. And they are not short of possible victims, all too willing.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Clancie

You're wrong on this, malcolm. Quite a few people who feel they can do this, do it for free. Many who are trying to "develop" their abilities, but don't feel they are good enough to charge (or aren't comfortable charging) do it for free.

You may or may not be right that everyone is a black crow. But you are wrong if you think that everyone who does this is knowingly fraudulent and only in it in order to bilk grieving people out of their money.

Again, fair enough. But these mediums sound like the 'hobbyist' magicians who do stuff for friends etc. If somebody offered me money to do it, I wouldn't refuse :) On second thoughts, I would -- just not a good enough performer. (So, my wife says, anyway. Oh, er, was that about the magic . . .???):)

I'm sure there is a 'social' benefit in mixing with people who hold the same, or very similar, beliefs. And there is the 'credo'. And there is the 'comfort' element that there is an afterlife. It all seems so innocent, but I'll give you a quote:

When people start to believe they have super powers, it won't be long before they begin to believe that you, and I, and anyone who disagrees with them, are inferior beings who are to be used and abused or, ultimately, are to be extinguished by them and their fellow Ubermenschen.

Godwin's Law does not apply.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Quite so. They do it for power. Sheer, raw power over grieving people, that are so eager to believe that they will suck up to the mediums, sometimes without ever even knowing anything about the mediums.

Just like you yourself once sucked up to a self-proclaimed medium, in the desperate hope that the medium would give you a reading, Clancie.

Power. That's what drives them. And they are not short of possible victims, all too willing.

Blimey! That was creepy -- I was just thinking the same thing.:D

[magicflute]

Clancie. It has been my experience that people that do readings and do not charge, do it for attention. Let me tell you a personal story. I mentioned before that I used to believe in a lot of this stuff, when younger. It came from growing up in an environment where "brujeria" (witchcraft) was accepted as a part of life. I used to pretend that I had powers also because I knew I had none and everyone else around me claimed to have them. This made me feel inadequate, so I pretended that I had had paranormal experiences so that I could "belong to the club" much like a kid will take up smoking and drinking to belong to a group if their friends do. I began to 'wake up' after attending a Santeria meeting. This is a ritual where the sitter is taken possesion of by a spirit and begin to prophetize to others, often questions can be asked and answered, prayers offered and spells cast. The possession will often manifest itself by convulsions and spasmodic dancing to the Bata drums. Often the dancer has to be carried away and 'treated' to allow the spirit to leave his body. This 'has' to be done because the spirits are often reluctant to leave the body of the sitter. This meeting was held by a well know 'Babalao' or high priest. The place was packed! Hundreds attended.
As often happens bodily functions must be attended to. I ran over to the bathrooms but they were all full. Needing to relieve myself urgently I ran to the side of the house where a dark corner provided me with some privacy. While taking care of business I heard noises and laughter coming for a nearby window. Curiosity made me peek thru the window where I saw the previous sitter who had been in a trance and the babalao laughing it up making comments on how great the performance had been and making fun of the believers in general. Needless to say I was shocked, and also afraid. These people are often very violent and will not think twice about killing someone. So I very carefully retreated out of there! (I was 16 or 17 years old at the time)
This experience made me reason that maybe I was not talentless but that maybe everyone else making claims was faking like me. I began to investigate on my own. Whenever I attended events like this I would try to sneak around and see what I could find out. Basically I saw the same ruses used over and over again. Many of these ruses are used by mediums now a days with slight variations as I am sure many of them are copied from the brujos.
As time went on I became more skeptical of such claims because the ones I personally investigated had no substance to them. Eventually I started to read books about magic performance and learned about tricks and methods used to achieve what seemed like miracles before. My personal research has not provided with anyone that I could consider even close to being genuine. I certaily would not stake my life on anyone veracity, not even randi!! :D
BTW flickering lights can be easily caused by an airconditioner a refrigerator or any other large appliance, or any small appliance during an electrical brown-out.

Edited to add: This place would hold about 50 to 60 people at one time. But they held meeting two or three times on the weekends. This is how the 'hundreds attended' is arrived at. Although I have been to meetings on the countryside that was attended by hundreds at one time.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by magicflute
BTW flickering lights can be easily caused by an airconditioner a refrigerator or any other large appliance, or any small appliance during an electrical brown-out.

Yeps.

Spiritual Lights - Phase Control (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/phasecontrol.htm)
By Hans Egebo

[Clancie]

Malcolm, your post quotes this...



Just like you yourself once sucked up to a self-proclaimed medium, in the desperate hope that the medium would give you a reading, Clancie.
I assume this is a reference to Brian Hurst, a man who's been a medium for 40+ years and who used to be a poster at the JE/TvTalkshow boards (before Claus's constant badgering, imo, just wore him down. Sadly, they didn't have an "Ignore" feature then. :( ).

Anyway, I liked Brian (who does an interesting demo on the A&E tape about psychics). And, since we were lucky imo to have a working medium to talk with at that board (a mix of skeptics, believers and fence-sitters), I was interested to find out more about Brian's thinking, how he would descibe his work, about his "process"....opportunities that were not fostered by the hostile tone of some responses to him.

Anyway, no "sucking up" was required since Brian gave weekly small group readings in the living room of his home. RC and I merely had to (anonymously) pay $40 for the two hours just like everyone else did.
Posted by malcolmdl

Blimey! That was creepy -- I was just thinking the same thing.
Malcolm,
You can quote Claus, (if you must). But please, please, don't start to channel him! :p

[The Mighty Thor]

magicflute,

All I can say is: Wow! You have become very astute under adverse circumstances. I applaud you!

I'm just watching Fox News (long story -- kinda 'know your enemy') and there seems to have been a cult killing -- two adults, seven children in CA.

[Clancie]

magicflute,

You describe an interesting experience that was eye-opening for you both in terms of fraud and religion. I usually like people who have shown the capability to "think out of the box" in life...so maybe there's hope for us to "disagree but get along" yet (yes, it's the kaffee klatch, Bill! :) ).

I agree a skeptical outlook is always good. (We only disagree, I'm sure, that I have one, too).

And, just fyi, I'm atheistic in terms of religion and have only been on the "maybe there's something to this" side re: mediumship and ADC for the last 2 + years as I've been looking into it in many, many different ways.

[The Mighty Thor]

RC and I merely had to (anonymously) pay $40 for the two hours just like everyone else did.

There's that Mammon-factor, again though, Clancie. Yeah, I know, the guy is giving up his time, needs to be compensated etc. Heard it all before.

Why 'anonymously'?

[Clancie]

Posted by malcolmdl

Why anonymously?
Well, you always try to be anonymous whenever possible to prevent hot reading.

Beyond that, we didn't want him to use anything we'd posted online to have prior knowledge in the readings.


(And I thought $20/hr. was really cheap--even if you didn't get read yourself, it was cheaper than an evening out, quite interesting to observe in person, and quite "different" as an experience).

[The Mighty Thor]

Clancie: I usually like people who have shown the capability to "think out of the box" in life...

You have to be sure thay are not actually 'out of their box', though.:(

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I assume this is a reference to Brian Hurst

Nope. I am referring to this medium, on the SpiritDiscovery board:

Posted by sharon on 07-28-2002 12:37 AM:
Dear spirit discovery friends,
...

There are those mediums that don't charge. I am one of those people, and would consider it a privilege to help your friends and family on the other side give you specific messages so that you will have your proof that they still exist on the other side so to speak...



And your reply (you post as "Irene"):


Posted by Irene on 07-28-2002 01:14 AM:
Sharon,

... but if you are really available for readings, I would be very appreciative of the opportunity to have one.

If this is a possibility, please let me know the next step.
Many thanks,
Irene

So, you suck up to a medium of which you know nothing, which is interesting because you also have this to say:

Posted by Irene on 09-28-2002 01:04 AM:
Yes, internet testimonials are always somewhat suspect, unless you have experience with the people posting and some confidence in their credibility...


Originally posted by Clancie
Well, you always try to be anonymous whenever possible to prevent hot reading.

I find this comment rather incredible, since you chastised me for not going to a reading with Brian Hurst, because I did not want to reveal my personal info.

Edited to comply with Fair Use.

[magicflute]

Clancie, believe it or not Iam not trying to convince you of anything. You are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. What I have been trying to do is to recommend to you that BEFORE you start investigating supernatural phenomena make sure that you are aware how the effects are often achieved thru natural means. From your posts I can see that you are not familiar at all with these methods. You would not try to explore undersea life first hand without first learning to scuba dive. I can tell you from personal experience that unless you are well versed in the knowledge required, you will be fooled! I can be fooled by a performance, but I know what to control for under test conditions that would make it difficult for trickery to be used. I you come away with anything from our discussions then come away with realisation that you should at least read the books I suggested.

[Clancie]

Posted by magicflute

Clancie, believe it or not Iam not trying to convince you of anything. You are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine
We agree on that. (And, just to repeat, for clarity's sake, my belief is, "There might be something to mediumship.")
What I have been trying to do is to recommend to you that BEFORE you start investigating supernatural phenomena make sure that you are aware how the effects are often achieved thru natural means.
Well, I think both can be ongoing, not "either...or". And, frankly, I think I'm at least as familiar with cold reading techniques and theory as anyone here but the practitioners of it (although I -did- have one chance to try to do it myself).

From your posts I can see that you are not familiar at all with these methods
Please list the methods that you can see from my posts I'm not at all familiar with. Seriously. I'm interested to see what you have in mind.

[The Mighty Thor]

Please list the methods that you can see from my posts I'm not at all familiar with. Seriously. I'm interested to see what you have in mind.

Well . . . how booktests work, for one. And you had no suggestions as to how Mrs Piper might have gained information on sitters, other than by paranormal means. (in the Mrs Piper Mediumship thread.)

It's when you *think* that, and become *convinced* that you've ruled cheating out, that you get caught out. Don't you see this? The charlatans are always a step or two ahead of you, Clancie.

Sound a bit like you are fishing for 'mentalism' secrets here.

The books recommended previously are excellent sources.

[magicflute]

Posted by Clancie
Please list the methods that you can see from my posts I'm not at all familiar with. Seriously. I'm interested to see what you have in mind.
Clancie, remember when you mentione the "one ahead method" of reading letters? As other people pointed out. including me; this was not the appropriate method to use in this instance. While I pointed out, thru analysis of the results and thru knowledge of known methods; a probable solution. Had you been familiar with how mentalist accomplish this, you would have offered something more apropos. You even dismissed the method I offered as being "too dificcult" when it is actually very easy to accomplish. If you had read any of the books I suggested you would not even be asking me this question.

[Clancie]

Posted by magicflute

Clancie, remember when you mentione the "one ahead method" of reading letters? As other people pointed out. including me; this was not the appropriate method to use in this instance.
Yes, I was just giving it as an easy way (imo, an easier way) that people use to read supposedly secret info from an envelope when there are several.
. You even dismissed the method I offered as being "too dificcult"
Did I say "difficult"? Well it seemed convoluted to apply something onto the envelope to read through it--and an easier method to detect than some other ways of getting info from an envelope, like the "one envelope ahead" (which is why I mentioned it)
. If you had read any of the books I suggested you would not even be asking me this question.

Nice dodge.

You said "From your posts I can see that you are not familiar at all with these methods." Methods of what? Cold reading? Tricks?

I'm not asking for a list of how they do tricks. I'm asking for the types of things related to mediumship that you think I'm not familiar with.

[The Mighty Thor]

it seemed convoluted

And RV is what? The simple explanation?

People will go to extraordinary lengths to fool others, like in the Scole 'experiment' séances.

[The Mighty Thor]

Clancie: Did I say "difficult"? Well it seemed convoluted to apply something onto the envelope to read through it--and an easier method to detect than some other ways of getting info from an envelope, like the "one envelope ahead" (which is why I mentioned it)


But the method you suggested was totally inappropriate for the circumstances and the effect Mrs Piper was achieving in the case that was under examination. Three people pointed that out to you, but you just ignore this.

magicflute's method was appropriate and fitted the circumstances exactly, even explaining why the reading of the letter was partial and sketchy.

Personally, given the way she was holding the papers to her head with one hand and tossing them aside while her other hand was held suggests simple 'glimpseing' perhaps with the aid of a simple, easily concealed gimmick that you can buy from most magic shops.

You see, even another technique to achieve the same effect without help from an imaginary Dr Phinuit.!!!

[Pyrrho]

A post in this thread has been reported for possible copyright violation, because posts from a message board have been copied and posted. Copyright law is anything but clear on this issue. I cannot make a determination about it at this time. I have been privately asked, by another person, if it would be permissible to post extensive content posted elsewhere, and I informed the person that such material is protected by copyright law, that relevant portions could be posted, with a link to the rest. In addition, Winston Wu was publicly informed by me that such posts are protected by copyright.

In the case here, I have no link to follow, so I cannot determine if complete posts were copied, and I cannot determine the context of the original posts, nor can I determine if permission to use the posted material is explicity denied at the originating website.

I would suggest, however, that persons wishing to copy posts from other message boards consider the possibility that such materials are protected by copyright. Quote relevant portions for discussion, provide a link to the rest, and there is no question regarding fair use. Post messages in full, and we enter a quandary. Or a Gordian Knot, maybe.

[magicflute]

Posted by Clancie
I'm not asking for a list of how they do tricks. I'm asking for the types of things related to mediumship that you think I'm not familiar with.
That's just it Clancie! It's all tricks! But you refuse to even consider this. There are many ways of doing what was described, we have already mentioned several ways in which this can be accomplished. The books I mentioned will show you even more ways. One example, you know NOTHING about book tests, slates, center reads, glimpsing. etc. need I go on?
Just admit to yourself that you need to learn more and you will be the better for it.

[Clancie]

Posted by Pyrrho
Copyright law is anything but clear on this issue. I cannot make a determination about it at this time....

I would suggest, however, that persons wishing to copy posts from other message boards consider the possibility that such materials are protected by copyright.
Hi Pyrrho,

Thanks for addressing this so quickly.

Actually, Pam Blizzard (from Friends of John Edward and Spirit Discovery board) does make it clear that everything posted to her board is copyright protected

Now that I think of it, though, I believe that TVTalk's webmaster says that people can use the info as they wish, as long as they always credit the board.

That said, there seems something somewhat unethical...unsavory...something highly unpleasant...about posting people's posts from other message boards, without their knowledge or consent, here, as Claus has done. (It seems to take it a step farther to attributing posts to them from other boards even when they've posted under a different screen name).

And he gives no links, particularly so there's no way for anyone here to check the original context of anything he quotes.

I don't know if that violates the rules, but imo, it should.

As for the copyright issue, as I say, Pam's board -is- copyright protected. I'm surprised Claus isn't required to delete all of these quotes for that reason--or at least be required to provide a link to it, at a very very minimum.
Posted by Pyrrho

In the case here, I have no link to follow, so I cannot determine if complete posts were copied, and I cannot determine the context of the original posts, nor can I determine if permission to use the posted material is explicity denied at the originating website.

Re-reading this, I don't know why it is acceptable for someone to post quotes like this here, for all the reasons that you list. (And, just to make it clear, neither RC, nor I, nor the owner of the SD board have given Claus any permission to use their quotes out of their original context--posted to other boards--in any way whatsoever).

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Pyrrho,

Thanks for addressing this so quickly.

Actually, Pam Blizzard (from Friends of John Edward and Spirit Discovery board) does make it clear that everything posted to her board is copyright material.

I think Trevor Rieger at TVTalk says people can use it as they wish, as long as they credit the board.

That said, there seems something somewhat unethical...unsavory...something...of posting other people's posts, without their knowledge or consent, here and attributing posts to them even when they're under a different screen name.

I don't know if that violates the rules, but imo, it should.

As for the copyright issue, as I say, Pam's board -is- copyright protected. (And I think the Spirit Discovery board hasn't even been up for months).
I don't think it's likely that we're going to proscribe unethical behavior, or even attempt to define it.

Also, I think a case could be made that the posts fall under "fair use". I personally have no idea where the posts came from; I can't view them in their original context; they are not being used for profit, although that does not grant license for use. All I can really do at this point is what I have done.

[Clancie]

Thank you, Pyrrho.

I will appeal.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thank you, Pyrrho.

I will appeal.
As you wish. It would be helpful if I could see the Terms of Use for the message boards in question.

[magicflute]

Gee Clancie, if you are supposed to have Claus on IGNORE, how are you able to see that he is posting messages from other boards????? Somehow it does not surprise me, you seem to trifle with truth.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, Pam Blizzard (from Friends of John Edward and Spirit Discovery board)...

Who, other than me, said anything about Spirit Discovery?

Originally posted by Clancie
...does make it clear that everything posted to her board is copyright protected

Sorry, Clancie: Pam can not nullify international law.

Originally posted by Clancie
Now that I think of it, though, I believe that TVTalk's webmaster says that people can use the info as they wish, as long as they always credit the board.

Sorry, Clancie: TVTalkshow's webmaster can not nullify international law.

Originally posted by Clancie
That said, there seems something somewhat unethical...unsavory...something highly unpleasant...about posting people's posts from other message boards, without their knowledge or consent, here, as Claus has done. (It seems to take it a step farther to attributing posts to them from other boards even when they've posted under a different screen name).

Who has reposted what I posted, Clancie? Don't tell me that you have taken me off ignore again?

Originally posted by Clancie
And he gives no links, particularly so there's no way for anyone here to check the original context of anything he quotes.

Unfortunately, Pam has put SD together with JohnEdwardTalk.org. That does not mean that you never said what you said, though.

I have the threads in question saved, just as I have the old JREF (well, most of them) saved, too. For reference.

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't know if that violates the rules, but imo, it should.

Of course you think so. It is very embarrassing for you.

Originally posted by Clancie
As for the copyright issue, as I say, Pam's board -is- copyright protected. I'm surprised Claus isn't required to delete all of these quotes for that reason--or at least be required to provide a link to it, at a very very minimum.

Bullsh1t. Again, Pam can not nullify international law.

Originally posted by Clancie
Re-reading this, I don't know why it is acceptable for someone to post quotes like this here, for all the reasons that you list. (And, just to make it clear, neither RC, nor I, nor the owner of the SD board have given Claus any permission to use their quotes out of their original context--posted to other boards--in any way whatsoever).

Perhaps you should worry more about explaining why you can read my posts, without anyone reposting them, or even referring to them.... ;)

Originally posted by Clancie
Thank you, Pyrrho.

I will appeal.

So, it was you all along.... ;)

[The Mighty Thor]

Clancie said: . . . there seems something somewhat unethical...unsavory...something highly unpleasant...

Funny thing, Clancie. These are the exact words I would use about those who profess to be mediums in order to con gullible and emotionally unstable folk out of their hard-earned cash or to try to gain power over them. The ones that magicflute is talking about can be especially 'unsavory', and indeed extremely vicious. I hope he takes care when dealing with them.

It seems to me that people here have put a lot of effort into looking at your proposals, analysing and critiqueing them, and trying to show where you are in error. For example, I had never even heard of Mrs Piper, until you brought her up. I now have a fairly large file on her and the late Victorian/early Edwardian Spiritist Movement. As an academic historian, this has been of great interest to me and helps me to complete a picture of those times, although that period is not my speciality.

As magicflute has said, there has been a great upsurge in this kind of chicanery and charlatanism in recent years. Even my local newspaper has a 'Letters to a Psychic Medium' page -- a full page in a small newspaper that would not carry a small Astronomy (the Sky Tonight, type of thing) section for amateur astronomers for supposed lack of space!

All I have seen from you has been puerile stubborness, dissembling, intransigence, evasion, equivocation, and not a little hostility. You seem to be unwilling to challenge, or accept a challenge to, your irrational belief system. Yet you call yourself a skeptic, which is, in itself, an untruth.

As these threads on Mrs Piper and Mrs Leonard amply demonstrate, you are unable or unwilling to 'go down the path' of testing some of the most outrageous claims for their validity. Do you ever go back and re-read a thread and think 'Well, I was certainly wrong there', or do you just trudge on regardless, repeating the same false claims over and over?

So, what really is your agenda here? If you are thinking of starting a 'mentalist' act dressed up as mediumship, you have even been given what are probably the best references as to how to achieve these effects. If not, I can't think why on earth you are here, because you just don't take anything in that we offer.

I'm sorry if that is a bit brutal, but you are either in denial about this paranormal mumbo jumbo, or you have an agenda that I haven't figured out. I don't think it is unfair for Claus or other experienced board users to point out to new users and lurkers that you don't always tell the truth. And he has backed up his assertion with evidence, although you claim not to read his posts.

Sorry -- but there it is!

I'm thinking: cat . . . pigeons, and an album by Jethro Tull.

[Garrette]

Clancie:

Nor do I think it was a trick, knowing the participants as I do

You knew the medium? I thought this was RC’s story, and you were only someone he told it to.
You knew the other people in the class, too?

All that aside, since you now know that this can be replicated via mundane means (unless you think that I and magicflute are lying—we don’t require a confederate to pull off this stunt) then why do you persist in believing that it was legitimate psi?

There is no explanation I can think of except that you want to continue believing.



Clancie:


No, I was adding in controls that I think the medium would be willing to use and wondering if it would make a difference with the trick you had in mind. (I think he'd be willing to randomize the number selection of the magazine and page as well...I'm just wondering if adding those kinds of controls would make a difference in ruling out your trick.

Let me get this straight, then:

You have second hand information for how it was presented. You have now learned that the manner in which you described the incident can be explained via mundane means.

You now resort to saying that – even though you don’t know the medium and have never seen or heard tell of him operating under more rigorous conditions – you think he’d still be able to do it?

What, exactly, do you base this supposition on? What possible support can you give it?

Does this not demonstrate to you how you are blinding yourself to your bias? I’m biased, but I admit it and work not to let it influence my decisions. Your bias has control, Clancie, and I say this as someone who recognizes you as being intelligent and as being skeptical in other areas.

[The Mighty Thor]

Garrette: All that aside, since you now know that this can be replicated via mundane means (unless you think that I and magicflute are lying—we don’t require a confederate to pull off this stunt) then why do you persist in believing that it was legitimate psi?

I think we three are thinking of the same trick. My method would not NECESSARILY need a confederate, but if the medium stacked the pile and RC did the 'RVing', he would have to be in on the trick and know that it was a trick, methinks.

Do you agree, or am I missing a vital clue? Perhaps Clancie should look into this, since she presents RC as a paragon of virtue and integrity. If she was intentionally deceived, perhaps that would be a starting point in her questioning the motives of her friends.

BTW, was the method revealed in "Theatre of the Mind", one of Penn and Teller's (Playing in Traffic??) books, or in "Magic for Dummies"? :)

[Garrette]

malcolmdl,

I'll pm in a bit with a few specifics (not much, though; I don't have my stuff with me).

Regarding RC: I've never met him personally but engaged in discussions with him and/or involving him on and off for about two years, I suppose.

My opinion matches Clancie's. I do not think RC would like about his impressions. However, I also think he was not fully aware of how he could be fooled.

To his credit, RC did change his mind about John Edward. He began as a fairly staunch defender of JE and eventually came to the conclusion that JE is "probably" fake or at least uses methods close enough to cold reading and other cheating ways that there's no point in making the difference.

RC did not, though, conclude that all mediumship is fake.

He's worth conversing with. He's intelligent, engaging, polite, and honest.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Garrette
malcolmdl,

I'll pm in a bit with a few specifics (not much, though; I don't have my stuff with me).

Regarding RC: I've never met him personally but engaged in discussions with him and/or involving him on and off for about two years, I suppose.

My opinion matches Clancie's. I do not think RC would like about his impressions. However, I also think he was not fully aware of how he could be fooled.

To his credit, RC did change his mind about John Edward. He began as a fairly staunch defender of JE and eventually came to the conclusion that JE is "probably" fake or at least uses methods close enough to cold reading and other cheating ways that there's no point in making the difference.

RC did not, though, conclude that all mediumship is fake.

He's worth conversing with. He's intelligent, engaging, polite, and honest.

Thanks.

It is difficult to glean from Clancie's original description exactly what happened. As magicflute said people's descriptions of such a trick are often confused. They often see only what they want to see, and with expert misdirection, that is exactly what the magician wants them to think they saw.

But the stacked, numbered pile, the need for the page number to be revealed, and a few more subtle details give it away, IMO.

[magicflute]

Posted by Malcolmdl:
I'm thinking: cat . . . pigeons, and an album by Jethro Tull.
Ooooh!! I hope its the one with "Bourre" my favorite piece!

[Luke T.]

Hey, if someone posts stuff they claim came from somewhere else without posting a link to the source, you can always assume they made it up! :D

Rules of evidence as well as rules of international law are at play here. ;)

[magicflute]

Posted by Luke T.
Hey, if someone posts stuff they claim came from somewhere else without posting a link to the source, you can always assume they made it up!
While you could certainly make that argument, it's not always possible to put a link up. The reason is that sometimes the posts are deleted, or aged out. Sometimes the posts are removed simply because the moderators do not like the content, this happens quite often when skeptics are involved in other non-skeptic boards. In this case there is no dispute of the quotes having been made up. As a matter of fact, they ARE validated by the fact the the original poster is not contesting their validy, but the copyright. You certainly cannot claim a copyright on something that never existed!! ;)

[Clancie]

Posted by magicflute

As a matter of fact, they ARE validated by the fact the the original poster is not contesting their validy, but the copyright. You certainly cannot claim a copyright on something that never existed!!
Actually magicflute, I -do- contest everything about quoting this. I am known for not liking quotes out of context (much less from another board)...I have never said I am this person Claus claims me to be...Claus never participated in discussions at the board in question...and, finally, the Spirit Discovery board has been non-existent for months so, yes, he can make up anything he wants to and post it here and attribute it to me and there is absolutely no way to verify or discredit or check it at all.

Here's an example. How would you feel if I wrote here that you've posted at a now non-existent board as "Raymond" and then I quoted all kinds of vulgar things I say that you've written about over there, with no way for anyone to check if it's true or not...to look at the original context and discussion...nothing. And you can deny it all you want, but we all know that once an accusation's been made, it often has a life of its own. Why is this kind of thing acceptable?

I think using posts from another board against someone here is an outrageous tactic, personally. That the message board doesn't even exist any more just makes it all the worse.

I object to it vehemently in every possible way. Desperate and ugly tactics like this do so-called "skeptics" no favors, and, imo, should be repudiated completely.

[The Mighty Thor]

Clancie said: Here's an example. How would you feel if I wrote here that you've posted at a now non-existent board as "Raymond" and then I quoted all kinds of vulgar things I say that you've written about over there, with no way for anyone to check if it's true or not...to look at the original context and discussion...nothing. And you can deny it all you want, but we all know that once an accusation's been made, it often has a life of its own. Why is this kind of thing acceptable?

Well, there are no 'vulgar things' being quoted in this case, Clancie. Claus was just backing up his argument that RC believes in mediumship, and that, therefore, you sometimes tell little porky pies when it suits you.

It's not really 'life or death' in this instance, is it?

Just tell us if RC tends toward the believer side of the spectrum, or is he a 'real hard-nosed skeptic' -- since you seem to know the difference between a real skeptic and a 'slightly woo-challenged skeptic' who is not, therefore, a skeptic.

Playing with the meanings of words is another dishonest tactic, IMO. Calling yourself a skeptic about mediumship is like saying Randi is overcredulous because he says we cannot prove conclusively that there is absolutely no such thing as psi phenomena. Does that make him a believer?

[The Mighty Thor]

magicflute,

Funny enough, it was the album 'Aqualung' that started me doubting and challenging things as a teenager.

"So to my old headmaster, and to anyone who cares,
before I'm through, I'd like to say my prayers:
I don't believe you, you got the whole damned thing all wrong
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday."

And the line:

"Well, you can excommunicate me, on my way to Sunday school"

was just . . . well, brilliant, to a hippy schoolboy wannabe poet who was always being told to get his hair cut:) oooo - Locomotive Breath was HEAVY, man :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually magicflute, I -do- contest everything about quoting this. I am known for not liking quotes out of context (much less from another board)...

Thread: No general seating at John Edward Seminars

Posted by Clancie on 05-21-2003 03:49 PM:

Claus,
Oh, where to begin? lol. Well, at least you got to trot out some of that database of quotes you keep on me, neo and Steve. I'm glad that kind of weird obsession of yours hasn't gone totally to waste!

Re: JE. Please find a quote in your database where I say, "I am definitely certain that JE is the real deal, no doubt whatsoever." (Actually, if you're honest, I think you will find quite a few examples where I say exactly what I claim to have said).

Oops..

Posted by Clancie on 06-11-2003 03:43 PM:
But if you are referring to your posts at TVTalkshows, yes, when you came to TvTalkshows you made claims about JE, but gave no evidence in discussing JE that you had any familiarity at all with his work, CO or his book.

Originally posted by Clancie
I have never said I am this person Claus claims me to be...

Liar.

Posted by Clancie on 02-01-2004 07:36 PM:
Claus, I hope you will think about why, really, you are so obsessed with me, even following me to a board you never post to, like Spirit Discovery.

...

I will say, that from my point of view, your obsession with my posts, with me, in this forum, the other JREF forums, and at two other boards feels very creepy.
Source (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?s=&threadid=34775&perpage=415)

"Irene" from SD is you.

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus never participated in discussions at the board in question...and, finally, the Spirit Discovery board has been non-existent for months so, yes, he can make up anything he wants to and post it here and attribute it to me and there is absolutely no way to verify or discredit or check it at all.

I don't be-f*cking-lieve this... You are accusing me of making up whole posts?? I have invented everything you said on SD?

Why didn't you use this excuse when the SD board was up? Simple: Because people could check it themselves. Now, they can't, so you sow doubt that the posts are real at all.

You really are a piece of work, Clancie.

Originally posted by Clancie
Here's an example. How would you feel if I wrote here that you've posted at a now non-existent board as "Raymond" and then I quoted all kinds of vulgar things I say that you've written about over there, with no way for anyone to check if it's true or not...to look at the original context and discussion...nothing. And you can deny it all you want, but we all know that once an accusation's been made, it often has a life of its own. Why is this kind of thing acceptable?

But even if it does not exist anymore does not mean it did not happen.

Originally posted by Clancie
I think using posts from another board against someone here is an outrageous tactic, personally. That the message board doesn't even exist any more just makes it all the worse.

It is obvious why you think such a "tactic" is "outrageous".

Originally posted by Clancie
I object to it vehemently in every possible way. Desperate and ugly tactics like this do so-called "skeptics" no favors, and, imo, should be repudiated completely.

Your hypocrisy is really mind-blowing.


Edited to comply with Fair Use.

[The Mighty Thor]

Claus,
Oh, where to begin? lol. Well, at least you got to trot out some of that database of quotes you keep on me, neo and Steve. I'm glad that kind of weird obsession of yours hasn't gone totally to waste!


I thought that Claus made it clear that he archives all this stuff. A service to us all, I would think. Of course fibbers don't like 'records', because they get caught out!

Anyway, what are we talking about here? Someone identifying and quoting one fantasy nickname with another fantasy nickname??? Seems kind of petty, don't you think? And the tantrum avoids the issues at hand, of course. Do I detect a pattern here?:p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
I thought that Claus made it clear that he archives all this stuff. A service to us all, I would think. Of course fibbers don't like 'records', because they get caught out!

Anyway, what are we talking about here? Someone identifying and quoting one fantasy nickname with another fantasy nickname??? Seems kind of petty, don't you think? And the tantrum avoids the issues at hand, of course. Do I detect a pattern here?:p

I do believe that Clancie has relied on my archives before.

[The Mighty Thor]

New Commandment:

"When Judgement Day comes, you will be judged only on what you posted on the Internet."

Oh, sh-ugar! There goes my pass to Paradise.:)

[The Mighty Thor]

"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it infamy!"

A Carry On Film.

[CFLarsen]

malcolmdl,

I am actually somewhat surprised that some people are not more careful - or consistent - with what they post.

Sure, they can be just blabber-brains, but personally, I don't think it is the case with most of the posters here. Grenard, Clancie, Lucianarchy, T'ai Chi, etc...they are intelligent enough to know what they are doing.

Trickery and deceit seems to be an integrated part of having a paranormal belief. All the more reasons to keep track.

And again, just because it isn't online does not mean it didn't happen... ;)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
malcolmdl,

I am actually somewhat surprised that some people are not more careful - or consistent - with what they post.

Sure, they can be just blabber-brains, but personally, I don't think it is the case with most of the posters here. Grenard, Clancie, Lucianarchy, T'ai Chi, etc...they are intelligent enough to know what they are doing.

Trickery and deceit seems to be an integrated part of having a paranormal belief. All the more reasons to keep track.

And again, just because it isn't online does not mean it didn't happen... ;)

Yep! Look how Lucianarchy totally blew it in the Fortean Times board. You could, and tried to alert them, but they had to see for themselves. Now they think: 'Maybe those hard heads at the Randi Forum are not as unbalanced and cruel as we thought.' Ersby and Desperado and JamesM did a good job there! But it was Lucianarchy who totally blew it all by himself. Of course, he still claims victory, the snake.

What bothers me is it looks like Luci is the person Luci often quotes who has a PhD. That is kind of frightening, but then we know intellect has nothing to do with being fooled -- or wanting to fool others.:(

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B](Emphasis mine)



That's RC believing in mediums providing ADC. After Death Communication.



How so? I see nothing in that which you quoted where he affirms he believes in ADC's.

[The Mighty Thor]

Looking at the FTMB again, I can't help but think that I was taking part in somebody's "Great Experiment" -- and it wasn't Lucianarchy's!

OK, who is the darned Professor here, then?:) :) :)

:dl:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How so? I see nothing in that which you quoted where he affirms he believes in ADC's.

I'm sure you don't.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
Looking at the FTMB again, I can't help but think that I was taking part in somebody's "Great Experiment" -- and it wasn't Lucianarchy's!

OK, who is the darned Professor here, then?:) :) :)

:dl:

Ah ha! The Professor is Ian, 'posing as a superior intellect.':D

[The Mighty Thor]

Come on, Ian. I set the joke up for you. Say it!:D

[The Mighty Thor]

Clancie, if RC admitted he was taking part 'in a little joke' to get a bit of extra psi cred, would you tell us?

[magicflute]

Clancie, Clancie, Clancie.....hmmmm cought in your own web again...
I consider myself a good judge of character. I always try to see below the surface. I trust my abilities because I have had to bet my life on them more than once. I was raised in NY's South Bronx from 11 to 19 years old. This part of NY is known as one of the worst neighborhoods in the US. Most of my old friends are either dead or in jail. This abilities were developed as a survival skill.

I will not dissect you, but suffice to say had you known that the posts were fictitious, for most people and particularly you; this would have been the major point of the interaction with Phyrro, instead you concentrated on the copyright issue. You are only now making noise about it after Luke T. made a point of it, and I followed-up with my post. You are trying to retrofit the facts to serve yourself. Anyone can see that. It's one of you habits.

Just like when discussing the medium, instead of applying controls to her performance, you were applying them to our explanations, using "what if's" to change the story until we could no longer dispute it. That is why I stopped playing your game and told you that I only investigate things first hand. I did not want to help you improve your stories for the next telling.

I donot need Claus' inputs to formulate my opinion of you. I only truly trust my own. What I have formulated in my mind about you has been based on your postings on this board and it's not a pretty picture.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by magicflute
Clancie, Clancie, Clancie.....hmmmm cought in your own web again...
I consider myself a good judge of character. I always try to see below the surface. I trust my abilities because I have had to bet my life on them more than once. I was raised in NY's South Bronx from 11 to 19 years old. This part of NY is known as one of the worst neighborhoods in the US. Most of my old friends are either dead or in jail. This abilities were developed as a survival skill.

I will not dissect you, but suffice to say had you known that the posts were fictitious, for most people and particularly you; this would have been the major point of the interaction with Phyrro, instead you concentrated on the copyright issue. You are only now making noise about it after Luke T. made a point of it, and I followed-up with my post. You are trying to retrofit the facts to serve yourself. Anyone can see that. It's one of you habits.

Just like when discussing the medium, instead of applying controls to her performance, you were applying them to our explanations, using "what if's" to change the story until we could no longer dispute it. That is why I stopped playing your game and told you that I only investigate things first hand. I did not want to help you improve your stories for the next telling.

I donot need Claus' inputs to formulate my opinion of you. I only truly trust my own. What I have formulated in my mind about you has been based on your postings on this board and it's not a pretty picture.

Clancie had a tantrum, and stamped her little feet;
She screamed 'How dare they! Someone spare me!"
When caught out in deceit.

[Ceinwyn]

No rebuttal from Clancie?

Oh well. Guess I'll wait until the next "paranormal" thread.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by buki
No rebuttal from Clancie?

Oh well. Guess I'll wait until the next "paranormal" thread.

Yep! See:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37410

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by buki
No rebuttal from Clancie?

Oh well. Guess I'll wait until the next "paranormal" thread.

And see http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37643&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Same old same old from Clancie.

[Clancie]

malcolm,
Frankly, I didn't think buki's insults to/about me (here and elsewhere) merit any response.

And I thought your little jingle was frankly sort of idiotic, malcolm. (Just my opinion, of course. I'm sure someone else might have found it devastatingly clever).

Free choice who to interact with here, folks. So, I hope you don't mind too much, malcolm and buki, but I think I'll stick with people whose posts I feel are of more interest, less insulting and more on topic.

But...at least, you always have each other! :)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Clancie
malcolm,
Frankly, I didn't think buki's insults to/about me (here and elsewhere) merit any response.

And I thought your little jingle was frankly sort of idiotic, malcolm. (Just my opinion, of course. I'm sure someone else might have found it devastatingly clever).

Free choice who to interact with here, folks. So, I hope you don't mind too much, malcolm and buki, but I think I'll stick with people whose posts I feel are of more interest, less insulting and more on topic.

But...at least, you always have each other! :)

Very good, Clancie.

However, it was you who insulted everyone in this thread when you rudely 'walked out of the room' just because things were not going your way. It's your right not to read posts that challenge your position. But that will not stop people from posting challenges.

So, on topic:

Do you think that the mundane methods I, and others, listed whereby Mrs Piper might have obtained information about sitters, even 'anonymous' sitters, are more plausible than any paranormal explanation.

Are you impressed by Mrs Leonard's book test?

Did you ask RC if he played a little trick on you?

[magicflute]

Nothing new here, same old pattern for Clancie. When things don't go her way, she claims persecution and storms out. She seems to be a person who needs to believe and no amount of evidence will change her mind. Unfortunately her knowledge of the subject is severely limited, which leaves her exposed to all sorts of trickery.
Even more unfortunate is that she won't recognize this and will not do anything to improve the situation. Almost seems afraid of finding the truth.
Malcolmdl, I am sure RC was in on a gag. I read the description again and selecting a number then picking a magazine from a nice convenient stack smacks of a mentalist trick which you can find in most books on mentalism. If you know the secret then anyone can do it. It takes no skill.
I am sure we will find Clancie in another thread, grasping at straws, and running away when there are none to be had. I hope she wises up and realizes that she is looking for pretty fish in a pool of sharks. If she does not learn to tell the difference, one day they are going to eat her up.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by magicflute
Nothing new here, same old pattern for Clancie. When things don't go her way, she claims persecution and storms out. She seems to be a person who needs to believe and no amount of evidence will change her mind. Unfortunately her knowledge of the subject is severely limited, which leaves her exposed to all sorts of trickery.
Even more unfortunate is that she won't recognize this and will not do anything to improve the situation. Almost seems afraid of finding the truth.
Malcolmdl, I am sure RC was in on a gag. I read the description again and selecting a number then picking a magazine from a nice convenient stack smacks of a mentalist trick which you can find in most books on mentalism. If you know the secret then anyone can do it. It takes no skill.
I am sure we will find Clancie in another thread, grasping at straws, and running away when there are none to be had. I hope she wises up and realizes that she is looking for pretty fish in a pool of sharks. If she does not learn to tell the difference, one day they are going to eat her up.

Absolutely, magicflute. As I said earlier I saw Geller do the magazine trick for some footballers in his own home. At the time I didn't know the method and I thought it was pretty impressive. So it is no disparagement on Clancie that she was fooled. Trouble is that when she is told it is a trick, she still thinks it was paranormal. It's like saying David Blaine can really read minds and levitate, and Copperfield really can fly.

Clancie is so emotionally caught up in this stuff that no matter how many exposés she is given, she chooses to ignore these. I don't know what her agenda is. I wish I did. Maybe she wants to become a medium, to earn a living at it. If so, she would have to learn all the 'tricks of the trade'. Then she must admit to being one of the sharks rather than a 'seeker after truth'.

And then it's:

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive."

More hoops to jump through; more intellectual somersaults.

[The Mighty Thor]

Oh, and to give Clancie some credit, she did describe the magazine test in some detail. So, she only had to ask the impertinent questions to realise it was a trick. As the great Jacob Bronowski said: "You must ask the impertinent questions to get the pertinent answer." But this is where Clancie disconnects.

For example:

Did anyone check to see if the magazines were all different in their content -- not just their outer covers?

Did the medium ask for everyone in the group to shout out a stack position; similarly with page number? Or was it definitely one person chose position and another chose page number?

Who retrieved the magazine from the pile to reveal the image? Was it the medium?

Could the medium see what RC was drawing?

Did anyone check that the mag retrieved was actually from the correct position, and that the page number was as chosen, or did they just look at the image as presented?

Wasn't it rather fortunate that this 'randomly chosen' page actually had a clear image and wasn't a page full of text, or a page with multiple images?

Is RC a friend of the medium?

These are just some of the questions that need to be answered, Clancie. Maybe magicflute has some others.

And maybe if you have cooled off from your bout with Claus, you could give us some answers to satisfy our curiosity.

[Clancie]

malcolmdl and magic flute.

A couple of points.

First, you two show up (out of nowhere in terms of much previous discussion with me) and turn an interesting discussion of Mrs. Leonard into a "Clancie bash". One wonders why. (I think you're trying to fit in, too fast. Friendly advice--wrong approach).

Second, no one owes you anything...you're perfectly entitled to posts lists of insults, lists of questions, demand responses, insult people when they don't answer you...but you're not "entitled" to get a response.

Someone isn't "throwing a tantrum" or "rudely leaving the room" whenever they don't respond to you. (Maybe they just don't like smug know-it-alls who are also condescendingly insulting? Just a thought).

People choose to engage in conversation here or not. It's not required that -any- post of yours get a response. (Don't have a tantrum about it though. Bad for the blood pressure. :p)

Posted by malcolmdl

Clancie is so emotionally caught up in this stuff that no matter how many exposés she is given, she chooses to ignore these.... Maybe she wants to become a medium, to earn a living at it. If so, she would have to learn all the 'tricks of the trade'. Then she must admit to being one of the sharks rather than a 'seeker after truth'.
And this
Posted by magicflute

Nothing new here, same old pattern for Clancie. When things don't go her way, she claims persecution and storms out. She seems to be a person who needs to believe and no amount of evidence will change her mind. Unfortunately her knowledge of the subject is severely limited, which leaves her exposed to all sorts of trickery.

Even more unfortunate is that she won't recognize this and will not do anything to improve the situation....I am sure we will find Clancie in another thread, grasping at straws, and running away when there are none to be had. I hope she wises up and realizes that she is looking for pretty fish in a pool of sharks. If she does not learn to tell the difference, one day they are going to eat her up.

Seriously, I'd have to be just as dumb as you think I am to continue to give either one of you the time of day.

And as for the "skeptical" skills you seem so cocky about? :rolleyes:
Posted by malcolm dl

...if the medium stacked the pile and RC did the 'RVing', he would have to be in on the trick and know that it was a trick, methinks.
....If she was intentionally deceived, perhaps that would be a starting point in her questioning the motives of her friends.
Posted by magic flute

Malcolmdl, I am sure RC was in on a gag.
You both made a lot of suppositions and conclusions about someone you know absolutely nothing about. Nice work! But then again, I think that's your brand of "skepticism".

'Nuff said.
Not interested.
Next?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
And maybe if you have cooled off from your bout with Claus, you could give us some answers to satisfy our curiosity.


Originally posted by Clancie
'Nuff said.
Not interested.
Next?

malcolmdl,

Guess not.

Clancie acts offended, so she doesn't feel the need to answer some very pertinent questions. She's done it before, she did it just now, and she will do it again, the next time some tough questions comes along.

Yawn.

[voidx]

Actually the discussion was quite civil up until the last half of page 2. Magicflute and malcom both while asking you some hard questions, both admitted that you would obviously know more about RC than they. They also realized that for the trick they had in mind, it would have been far more likely if RC was in on it, so they tried to glean if he might possibly be in on it somehow, asking you and also getting some input from Garrette. The thread really seems to have self-destructed when Larsen quoted some posts from another board.

Now here is the curious part, you mentioned that you had never claimed that that person(being quoted from the other board) was you. I found this a kind of odd way of phrasing things. Are you then saying that the person Larsen was quoting is in fact not you? Or is it just that Larsen is quoting you out of context on that board? Or are you saying he's just making it all up in general. They don't know your history with Larsen, and so far you haven't really clarified that very much for them. I'm not saying you have to, but at the same time understand that they will always be a little suspicious unless you do. They were asking you some rather good questions I thought, and it was not their fault the thread spiralled off topic.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

Are you then saying that the person Larsen was quoting is in fact not you? Or is it just that Larsen is quoting you out of context on that board? Or are you saying he's just making it all up in general.
I'm saying that I have seen Claus quote me out of context...and I've seen him use quotes from other threads to totally misrepresent my points (even in the "Questions" thread it happened, but it happens often with him).

Therefore, if I can't check to see if he's quoting me accurately...if I can't check to be sure he got all the wording correct...or see what the context was (and if I can't refer people to the original context which, as you know, I am particular about doing)...then I'm certainly not going to play along with him. If it's not quoted accurately then, as far as I'm concerned, it's not what I said...or what I meant...and therefore it -isn't- "me".

If the original threads were available for us to look at, that would be different. But they're not (as Claus knows all too well).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by voidx
Now here is the curious part, you mentioned that you had never claimed that that person(being quoted from the other board) was you.

Sorry, you are wrong. Clancie did admit to being "Irene" on the SpiritDiscovery board. She later has tried to sow doubt about that, though.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Clancie
malcolmdl and magic flute.

A couple of points.

First, you two show up (out of nowhere in terms of much previous discussion with me) and turn an interesting discussion of Mrs. Leonard into a "Clancie bash". One wonders why. (I think you're trying to fit in, too fast. Friendly advice--wrong approach).

Second, no one owes you anything...you're perfectly entitled to posts lists of insults, lists of questions, demand responses, insult people when they don't answer you...but you're not "entitled" to get a response.

Someone isn't "throwing a tantrum" or "rudely leaving the room" whenever they don't respond to you. (Maybe they just don't like smug know-it-alls who are also condescendingly insulting? Just a thought).

People choose to engage in conversation here or not. It's not required that -any- post of yours get a response. (Don't have a tantrum about it though. Bad for the blood pressure. :p)


And this
[/b]
Seriously, I'd have to be just as dumb as you think I am to continue to give either one of you the time of day.

And as for the "skeptical" skills you seem so cocky about? :rolleyes:
[/b]
[/b]
You both made a lot of suppositions and conclusions about someone you know absolutely nothing about. Nice work! But then again, I think that's your brand of "skepticism".

'Nuff said.
Not interested.
Next? [/B]

Do you ever go back over a thread and see what an absolute fool you make of yourself?

For example, it was you who diverted from Mrs Leonard with your little anecdote. Notice that, Clancie.

Notice also that everyone was answering your questions and trying to solve a puzzle until you took the huff.

Is your agenda to bait new users here and try to scare them away with your awesome wit and powers of reasoning?

If it is, I've got news for you!

I'll continue to post challenges. So will many others. You may not read them or reply to them, but other folk will, and they will soon figure out your dishonest tactics.

Look around, Clancie!

It's not just me and a 'few others' that are challenging your deceptions. Do you think your wacky claims should go unchallenged?

If I'm wrong in my alternative explanations for mediumship, I'd be willing to admit it. You, on the other hand, just refuse to admit that other methods are more likely than paranormal ones. Now you are seeing attacks and plots and persecution all around.

I seem to have hit a raw nerve with you.

Is it the RC thing in this thread that's got you so heated up? Why so sensitive, all of a sudden? After all, you support and praise people who lie about what they do, and who dupe and con people who are grieving and vulnerable or just gullible in general -- like those discussed in the current FBI thread.

I've noticed how venomous you believers get when your position is demolished. I had read a lot of threads before I ever posted. I've read all the 'Ladybrook' stuff -- all the Jacqui Poole stuff, the Grenard/lucianarchy twaddle and much more. So, don't assume I'm not familiar with fraudsters. I am.

You don't have to answer our questions, but sudden retreat and silence speaks volumes. I see your vicious side coming out, Clancie. Others do, too.

Direct me to one thread where you managed to prove a point about paranormal phenomena? The threads all end with you refusing to answer the real tough questions, Clancie. Haven't you noticed that?

I mean, who do you think is a good case for someone who wants to look at the veracity of mediumship?

Is it still Mrs Piper?

Go read that thread again and maybe you will see why people get annoyed at you. You just stamped your feet, walked out, and slammed the door behind you. How rude is that?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm saying that I have seen Claus quote me out of context...and I've seen him use quotes from other threads to totally misrepresent my points (even in the "Questions" thread it happened, but it happens often with him).

Therefore, if I can't check to see if he's quoting me accurately...if I can't check to be sure he got all the wording correct...or see what the context was (and if I can't refer people to the original context which, as you know, I am particular about doing)...then I'm certainly not going to play along with him. If it's not quoted accurately then, as far as I'm concerned, it's not what I said...or what I meant...and therefore it -isn't- "me".

Ok that was a lot of hopping around. I asked a pretty simple question. So yes, the poster from that other board IS you. But you think Larsen is quoting you out of context. This was my problem. Why make this so convoluted and confusing. Why not just say, yes that poster is me, but I believe Larsen is quoting me out of context. Instead you say, "I never "claimed" that was me". Which gives the impression that its possibly not you, and that Larsen is quoting someone else and attributing it to you, which in this case is not true. Reread that second paragraph yourself and see how much of a run-around it appears to be.


If the original threads were available for us to look at, that would be different. But they're not (as Claus knows all too well). [/B]
While I'm inclined to agree that its possible that Larsen could be quoting this completely out of context (I have no idea if he does that or not so I won't comment), it would be far more sensible in my opinion if you didn't confuse the situation further by saying you never "claimed" that poster was you. It was you, so say so. Then you can elaborate on whether the quote is in context or not. Or just simply say, yes thats me, but its quoted out of context and the board doesn't exist anymore so I can't elaborate.

Just an idea.

[Clancie]

voidx,

The point is, all we are online is our words, nothing more.

If the words are wrong, the identity is wrong.

If I quote you at another board and say, "voidx over at JREF in a thread that can't be accessed anymore says that skeptics are stupid" would it be enough to you to say, "Yes, I'm voidx."

Maybe I'm misquoting you. Maybe you said it ironically. Maybe you referred to particular -kinds- of skeptics. Maybe its clearly a different meaning in an entire post or thread. Maybe I've left out a key word or sentence (or you were quoting someone else) that changes the meaning completely from what I've attributed to you.

Point is...if you can't tell whether or not you've really said something--and can't even go have a look at it (and you think that I've been dishonest with your "quotes" in the past)--why would you go ahead and say, "Yes, that's me."

Well, maybe you would say it, but I won't. Imo, the words are all we have. If I could see the thread...check the comments....that would be different. But I can't (as Claus knew full well when he "quoted" them).

And, that's it for me on this one, because I really dislike this thread, with its total ad hominem attack on someone who doesn't even post here and has no idea (fortunately) that he's been the victim of character assassination by people who know absolutely nothing about him or his ideas.

So...that's all. If you think Claus's approach in using "quotes" that can't be checked is a great one....and that he makes a great point in doing this....fine. Great. Draw your own conclusion. Whatever.

[The Mighty Thor]

Clancie said: And, that's it for me on this one, because I really dislike this thread, with its total ad hominem attack on someone who doesn't even post here and has no idea (fortunately) that he's been the victim of character assassination by people who know absolutely nothing about him or his ideas.


There was no character assassination.

Why don't you just ask RC about the mag test? If he says he was not involved with psychic in setting this up and carrying it out, I'll believe him.

What IS the big deal here, Clancie?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen





malcolmdl,

Guess not.

Clancie acts offended, so she doesn't feel the need to answer some very pertinent questions. She's done it before, she did it just now, and she will do it again, the next time some tough questions comes along.

Yawn.

I think she would be well advised not to respond to you, or malcolmdl or magicflute. What pertinent questions do any of you 3 ever ask?? :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think she would be well advised not to respond to you, or malcolmdl or magicflute. What pertinent questions do any of you 3 ever ask?? :rolleyes:

"Questions Clancie does NOT want to answer" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23764)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I think she would be well advised not to respond to you, or malcolmdl or magicflute. What pertinent questions do any of you 3 ever ask?? :rolleyes:

(Yeah, I sensed your interference. What a brilliant tactic --

Ian. 'Hey Clancie, if we're losing an argument, let's just ignore the proponents. After all, we've still got each other . . . and we will always have -- Paris. Now let me tell you about the connection between Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and Berkeley . . .'

Clancie: 'Oooo Ian, you are my hero!')

This from another who would not or could not think of any prosaic ways by which Mrs Piper might have gained fore-knowledge about sitters.

'Pertinent' questions to you must not challenge your beliefs or prove you might be wrong. The more you ignore the real pertinent questions and answers, the ones that challenge and demolish your case, the more pertinent these questions will be to real skeptics who can easily discern your dishonest tactics.

Wouldn't Clancie like to find out if she was cheated or not?

Or if her friend RC was cheated by a con artist? (Valmorian, was it?)

OK, it might destroy one of her 'amazing' anecdotes about psi, but she has plenty more where that one came from.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
voidx,

The point is, all we are online is our words, nothing more.

If the words are wrong, the identity is wrong.

If I quote you at another board and say, "voidx over at JREF in a thread that can't be accessed anymore says that skeptics are stupid" would it be enough to you to say, "Yes, I'm voidx."

But I am voidx. That's my whole point. By admitting that my nick on that board is indeed voidx does not automatically mean I attribute the words quoted to myself. But you wouldn't even clearly state that the nick used in the quote was yours. You left it open to interpretation. I can think of no good reason for this.


Maybe I'm misquoting you. Maybe you said it ironically. Maybe you referred to particular -kinds- of skeptics. Maybe its clearly a different meaning in an entire post or thread. Maybe I've left out a key word or sentence (or you were quoting someone else) that changes the meaning completely from what I've attributed to you.

Maybe. Is this what Larsen did in his quoted examples in this thread? If not, then this is just a question of potential uses and what's the point of that?


Point is...if you can't tell whether or not you've really said something--and can't even go have a look at it (and you think that I've been dishonest with your "quotes" in the past)--why would you go ahead and say, "Yes, that's me."

Because that nick is your nick. As I said, if you explained that the post was quite old, and from a board that you yourself cannot go back to link or view, and that all we can do is trust that Larsen hasn't altered the text, but that you think its misquoting you. Most reasonable people would take that into consideration and not ask you to prove beyond a doubt that's what you said.


Well, maybe you would say it, but I won't. Imo, the words are all we have. If I could see the thread...check the comments....that would be different. But I can't (as Claus knew full well when he "quoted" them).

Is it your impression that what Larsen did in this thread goes against what you might have said? Or are you just causing a raucous because you don't agree with the practice in general, regardless if it misrepresents you in this case?


And, that's it for me on this one, because I really dislike this thread, with its total ad hominem attack on someone who doesn't even post here and has no idea (fortunately) that he's been the victim of character assassination by people who know absolutely nothing about him or his ideas.

Reread the thread and see if this is still your opinion. Its not mine. Magicflute and malcolm basically came to the conclusion for their magic trick to work RC likely would have had to been in on the trick. And so have asked questions in that vien.


So...that's all. If you think Claus's approach in using "quotes" that can't be checked is a great one....and that he makes a great point in doing this....fine. Great. Draw your own conclusion. Whatever.

Never did I say it was a great one. Again never stated this either. Reread my posts. I do think you've used it as a way of taking an off tangent on this topic so as to not discuss the even RC was involved in. That's my conclusion/opinion.

[RC]

Well, hello everyone! I was wondering why my ears were so damn hot....:D

First, Clancie has amazing self-restraint. She and I communicate via email a few times a week and she never once told me this conversation was going on, showing great respect for my desire to limit my online time. I was doing some research this morning after watching "Psychic Detectives" and for some reason felt like seeing what was going at JREF these days.

Second, thanks to Garrette for the nice words on page 3.

In other post, I will clarify what happened in the "magazine" part of my psychic classes.

As background, though, I am neither a hardcore "believer" (although I once was), nor am I a "skeptic" the way most of you define it. I have had 3 good readings with mediums. I have also gone from believing in high-profile mediums like John Edward to leaning much more towards the non-believing side and with a very negative opinion of them.

I do, however, lean strongly toward a belief in the afterlife and the concept of some ability for spirit to communicate directly with loved ones. Yes, the flickering lights are all part of that, although it is much more complicated than how Claus writes about it. But, I'm not here to talk about my ADC's. After 2 1/2 years and moving past my grief, I've settled pretty comfortably in my own ADC belief and faith system and feel no need to debate it.

Also, I certainly wasn't in on any "magic trick". I had nothing to gain by making up such a story. Clancie is far more impressed by it than I am. It was, however, an interesting experience...as was the entire series of classes.

Sadly, the medium who taught the classes (and, yes, we did become friends) passed away last year from breast cancer.

[RC]

Oh, and I don't see any character assassination on me. I think all the questions are reasonable, particularly given that most people don't know who I am.

What happened (pretty close to how Clancie relayed it).

Having failed miserably in the first class (reading auras...I never saw one even though everyone else claimed to be able to see yellows and pinks and purples...guess it's not my strength), I was happy to move to the "telepathy" experiments.

We split in pairs. The teacher gave one person in the pair a stack of index cards with pictures and images on one side. That person would look at the card--without showing the partner--and attempt to "convey" what s/he was seeing via telepathy. I did rather poorly at this exercise, with one exception. At one point, I said that the card had a picture of an old-fashioned red car. That turned out to be false, but the very next card had that exact picture, a red old-fashioned car.

That led Karen (teacher) to try a different experiment. She brought out a stack of magazines, asked me to pick one (by saying "X from the top", and a page number). I don't remember exactly what I said, something like "7th from the top, page 10". Without pulling out that magazine, she asked me to meditate and jot down what I "saw" for that page.

Rather immediately, I envisioned a golden-brown stuffed lion, and drew a picture. Karen pulled out the magazine, opened to the page, and it was a full-page advertisement (can't remember what for, need to check). In this ad was a golden-brown stuffed bear holding a telephone. Yes, I know a bear isn't a lion, but this bear had fur all around its face like a mane, and it was the same exact color.

Anyway, I have a picture of the sketch and the ad, which I will try to post.

Now, do I think this makes me a psychic? Absolutely not, and in fact I haven't thought about this experiment in months. I do think the combination of getting the old-fashioned car (albeit one card off) and this bear/lion was a bit startling...wonder what the odds are...and no one else in the class came even close.

[Clancie]

Hi RC :o
Posted by RC

Oh, and I don't see any character assassination on me. I think all the questions are reasonable, particularly given that most people don't know who I am.
Well, personally, I find this thread infuriating and insulting (which is why I didn't want to waste your time with it), but I'm glad you don't and that you can clarify the details. (And, oh, if only I'd thought to say, "I have a friend who...." But, you've posted it here before so, I didn't think twice about it. :( "Live and learn".)

re: Mrs. Leonard. I still think what Karen did was similar to Mrs. Leonard's demonstration, (which was my whole point in mentioning it in the first place). Just a little illustrative real life anecdote. Oh well.

Anyway, you've made a novel come back! (Sorry about the shock value). I hope you'll stick around (maybe share the one that particularly impressed me--though I know you didn't quite take it the same way that I did.

In any case, good to have you back posting! :)

[RC]

Originally posted by Clancie
(maybe share the one that particularly impressed me--though I know you didn't quite take it the same way that I did.


You mean when ectoplasm spewed out of nose?:D

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by RC
Oh, and I don't see any character assassination on me. I think all the questions are reasonable, particularly given that most people don't know who I am.

What happened (pretty close to how Clancie relayed it).

Having failed miserably in the first class (reading auras...I never saw one even though everyone else claimed to be able to see yellows and pinks and purples...guess it's not my strength), I was happy to move to the "telepathy" experiments.

We split in pairs. The teacher gave one person in the pair a stack of index cards with pictures and images on one side. That person would look at the card--without showing the partner--and attempt to "convey" what s/he was seeing via telepathy. I did rather poorly at this exercise, with one exception. At one point, I said that the card had a picture of an old-fashioned red car. That turned out to be false, but the very next card had that exact picture, a red old-fashioned car.

That led Karen (teacher) to try a different experiment. She brought out a stack of magazines, asked me to pick one (by saying "X from the top", and a page number). I don't remember exactly what I said, something like "7th from the top, page 10". Without pulling out that magazine, she asked me to meditate and jot down what I "saw" for that page.

Rather immediately, I envisioned a golden-brown stuffed lion, and drew a picture. Karen pulled out the magazine, opened to the page, and it was a full-page advertisement (can't remember what for, need to check). In this ad was a golden-brown stuffed bear holding a telephone. Yes, I know a bear isn't a lion, but this bear had fur all around its face like a mane, and it was the same exact color.

Anyway, I have a picture of the sketch and the ad, which I will try to post.

Now, do I think this makes me a psychic? Absolutely not, and in fact I haven't thought about this experiment in months. I do think the combination of getting the old-fashioned car (albeit one card off) and this bear/lion was a bit startling...wonder what the odds are...and no one else in the class came even close.

Thanks for that non-judgmental post, RC. You must be aware that when we were talking about a 'trick', it was important to rule out your participation.

As you can imagine, someone who is familiar with mentalism book tests can see many clues as to how this might have been done, other than psi. The clues have been mentioned in the thread, and a 'magazine test' very similar to this one is available as a trick. As I said, it does seem to be a remarkable coincidence that there even was a clear, discernable image on a random page in a supposed random pile of mags. I suppose most mags are so image intensive nowadays that this is not so much of a problem.

By your tone, I think you'd agree that in such a test, all other feasible methods must be investigated before postulating a supernormal explanation. I see you have no pretentions about it other than mild puzzlement.

If there is a trick in operation, other magicians delight in trying to figure out the method by themselves -- without having to pay for it, to be honest.:) Usually, as amateurs, we pay -- and are often astounded at the simplicity of the method.

Please do not think that any of us here are insensitive to, or are immune from the pain of losing a loved one. I think that that probably stands to reason. Indeed, we all cope in different ways. But we hardheaded skeptics do challenge those who exploit the vulnerability of people who are grieving dreadfully.

For example, I had an aunt who was left penniless after spending a considerable amount of insurance money on mediums after her husband died. It was only through my intervention that she did not remortgage her home. She got no real comfort from her mediums, but got just enough of a glimmer of hope to keep looking, and looking, and looking.

So, I hope you see where I'm coming from.

Anyway, I have a picture of the sketch and the ad, which I will try to post.


I hope you will be able to. It's a fascinating little puzzle. You will notice immediately the slight variations between what you told Clancie, and her description here. That's what happens -- things get passed on and are then re-told with unintentional errors, then retold a la Chinese Whispers.

Good of you to take the time to explain. I would have to think really hard to come up with a mundane explanation for the circumstances you describe. As you have said, pure coincidence is one possibility with reasonably long odds.

Intriguing. I think the magis here will be trying to work it out in light of your description. Do, please, try to post the images.

Thanks.

[Loki]

Greetings RC,

Glad to see you are well.

For the record, I can say that RC is tall, dark, handsome, intelligent, sensitive, caring, alert, engaging, and down right fun to know. In fact, if he'd just get over his silly infatuation with the aging hack Stevie Nicks he'd be the perfect human.

(is that enough RC? For another $50 I'll say even more nice things about you!)

[Ed]

Hi, RC, I trust that you are well.

I guess that if one asks enough people to see something in a specific location every now and then there will be a hit. JE gets hits, right? Unfortunately we only hear about the hits.

RC, ummmmmm this wasn't a stack of Care Bear (tm) magazines, was it?:D

[RC]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
[B] So, I hope you see where I'm coming from.


Of course I do. Funny, my experiences with mediums, while good, are kind of similar to what you described. Interesting/compelling enough to make me think there's something there, yet wanting more...looking for that "perfect" reading. Fortunately, I came to realize that such a reading isn't out there. I spent just as much money and time as I feel comfortable for a unique time in my life.

I will gladly post the pictures, but I believe they need to be hosted on a website, no?

Loki: good to hear from you. You got the first two adjectives wrong (guess you're not a good remote viewer :) ). You might be interested to know that I scored a front row seat for Fleetwood Mac last year and was able to give Ms. Stevie a gift...actually a stuffed bear...isn't that rather spooky...;)

Ed: Absolutely, given enough chances, someone is going to get a hit. I'm not saying otherwise by posting my experience...I'm simply telling the story since it has come up. I do, however, lean more than you obviously do towards the idea that *something* might have been going on beyond pure coincidence, given that I did quite well in other experiments (knowing what was inside a box the next week, and then the mediumship experiment that I know Clancie wants me to write about, but I've done it soooo much). And the funny thing is that no one else in the class did well in a single experiment (except for their claims to see "auras").

That said, even if *something* was going on, I don't know what it is, so I just chalk it up to an interesting experience. If it was paranormal, then who knows if it was remote viewing, or spirit showing me what was in the magazine.

[Loki]

malcolmdl/magicflute,

IMO you will have more 'fruitful' conversations with Clancie if you tread a little lighter. In particular, jumping on her over any small error or inconsistency in her posts from one thread to the next will end up going nowhere. (no, I'm not suggesting you can't point out errors she might make - just suggestng that "how" the errors are pointed out can be important).

Perhaps she should have phrased certain things better, perhaps she should answer some questions that she leaves/avoids/misses. But given the fact that she's often attacked by 4 or 5 different posters simultaneously - and that the "Hammer of the Danes" (Claus) is always in the forefront leading the charge - I think she does well to present her case even semi-coherently. Of course, I also think her conclusions are wrong!

You've made good points in this tread, and referred Clancie to solid reference books where she can (if she wishes) learn more. That's about the best you can achieve.

Clancie does listen and think about what is posted to her - but the history between certain posters on the boards often muddies the conversation.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by RC
Anyway, I have a picture of the sketch and the ad, which I will try to post.

Interesting story. I am looking forward to seeing the pic if/when you get the time.


N/A

[Loki]

RC,

You got the first two adjectives wrong (guess you're not a good remote viewer ).
Perhaps you need to go home and consult with your family and friends ... perhaps you are indeed tall and dark?

Clearly, you don't comprehend the nature of my powers. If you are not currently 'tall' and 'dark' (interesting that you choose not to dispute 'handsome', but hey), then clearly I am remote viewing the future, and you WILL be tall and dark at some stage. I am, after all, never wrong.

Sheesh - you skeptics... you just don't understand, do you.

[RC]

Originally posted by Loki
RC,


Perhaps you need to go home and consult with your family and friends ... perhaps you are indeed tall and dark?

Clearly, you don't comprehend the nature of my powers. If you are not currently 'tall' and 'dark' (interesting that you choose not to dispute 'handsome', but hey), then clearly I am remote viewing the future, and you WILL be tall and dark at some stage. I am, after all, never wrong.

Sheesh - you skeptics... you just don't understand, do you.

:D :D

Actually, I am a bit of a fool with "psychic amnesia". I just went for a walk in the sun, and sure enough I have a bit of a tan!

[The Mighty Thor]

Here is a puzzling example of Mrs Leonard's mediumship for psuedo-psi sleuths to try to figure out a method:

from http://www.enformy.com/LeonardCh07.htm

Charles Drayton Thomas received these newspaper tests in such quantity that reading them, he said, would weary all but the most determined Psychical researcher. Here is one of his simplest examples, given at a sitting December 19, 1919. It was written down just after it was received at 3:10 p.m. and was to be verified in the London Times of the following-day. Thomas writes: Having been directcd to the first page and rather more than one-third down column three, I was asked to look to the left where, almost in a line with that spot, would appear my name an a little above it that of my wife ... And within an inch of those names I was to see my wife's age.

On examining that part of the Times the next day, Thomas saw his first name, Charles, and Clara, his wife's name, within one inch of one another. just one and fiveeighths inches above their name was the number 51, Clara's age until one week before when she had had a birthday.

It was Drayton Thomas' invariable custom to mail a copy of the newspaper tests to the Society for Psychical Research as soon as he received them. He thus documented the fact that the information had been received the day preceding the issue of the paper to which it referred.

In considering the significance of these newspaper tests it is important to know the hour at which they were given. The sitting usually ended by 5:15 p.m., and a copy of the test was mailed to London about 6:00. This was long before the newspaper of the following day had been made up. Thomas ascertained this by visiting the printing office of the Times at 4:30 one afternoon, accompanied by a friend who had obtained the necessary permits. They were shown the galley trays in which the type for the first three columns of the next day's paper was placed as soon as it was set. At that time the trays held barely enough type for one-quarter of a column. As the news copy arrived it was distributed among the various linotype operators and not again collected into one place until it was set on the type trays. The trays would not be completely filled until late in the evening, and the paper was not made up until still later. Thus, on the afternoon of the day before, no one alive knew exactly what item would be in a certain location on a certain page of the next day's Times.

Yet time and time again communicators predicted that such and such an assortment of names and data would appear on a certain area of the front page of the next day's Times. And Drayton Thomas would usually find them there.

Pity she didn't give the winners of horse races, though:(

[The Mighty Thor]

Loki said: Clancie does listen and think about what is posted to her

I'm glad to hear it :) But she is very . . . frustrating, and condescending IMO. I guess she's a school marm, or something:)

What magicflute and I were trying to point out was, that if trickery is involved, there are many methods for a trickster to achieve the same effect. It is the one you can't think of that catches you out.

I think we got caught up in a feud, although I didn't really see anything that Claus posted that was in any way a character assassination of either herself or RC. Indeed, RC has more or less confirmed that what was said represents his position quite well. And now we have a first-hand description of the test.

[RC]

malcolmdl, there is a lot of history among Clancie, Claus, and I.

I have Claus on ignore, so I don't know if there was any hit on me from him or not, nor do I care. All I've read are his quotes that others have posted. I understand that he might have posted something I wrote on Pam Blizzard's board, but given that I've been banned from her boards for well over a year, it must be an old quote and I've changed my beliefs over time, so it wouldn't be a good example.

I don't know that I would call anything a "character assassination", but I did see the quote saying that Clancie sucked up to Brian Hurst to get a reading. Nothing could be further from the truth. Clancie got us a reading by doing what everyone else does, picking up the phone and calling him. She didn't 'suck up' to him, she was pleasant to him.

That said, I'm happy to provide the background on this test and as soon as I find a way to get the pictures posted on a website, I'll get them on this thread.

[Loki]

malcolmdl,

... although I didn't really see anything that Claus posted that was in any way a character assassination of either herself or RC.
I think Claus and Clancie *just know* what the other is getting at, no matter what they actually write in any gven post. Been going on for far too long now ...

What magicflute and I were trying to point out was, that if trickery is involved, there are many methods for a trickster to achieve the same effect. It is the one you can't think of that catches you out.
And I agree. In fact, I've put this exact principle into action in the past few weeks. I've recently learnt a simple 'mentalist' routine - so simple I've also got my 8 year old daughter doing it.

I've done it twice now - once at the office, and again last weekend at a social gathering of friends. So far, I've performed it to 9 adults, and only 1 has figured it out. The other 8 are completely stumped as to how I did it. One guy from work (who occasionally admits to 'sort of' believing in astrology, etc) is REALLY confused. He keeps asking if I'm really doing a trick (implying that he thinks I've actually got some 'hidden power'), and I keep saying "yes it's a trick - anyone can do this". Yet he insists it's utterly impossible, or just plain luck. The thing I find most intriguing about this routine is it's utter simplicity - it requires no preparation, no accomplices, no slight of hand, no props. In other words, a perfect routine for a rank amateur like myself. Yet adults are completely unable to figure out what is happening. Eventually I suppose I'll have to tell the co-worker how it works - just not yet :D

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Loki
malcolmdl,


I think Claus and Clancie *just know* what the other is getting at, no matter what they actually write in any gven post. Been going on for far too long now ...


And I agree. In fact, I've put this exact principle into action in the past few weeks. I've recently learnt a simple 'mentalist' routine - so simple I've also got my 8 year old daughter doing it.

I've done it twice now - once at the office, and again last weekend at a social gathering of friends. So far, I've performed it to 9 adults, and only 1 has figured it out. The other 8 are completely stumped as to how I did it. One guy from work (who occasionally admits to 'sort of' believing in astrology, etc) is REALLY confused. He keeps asking if I'm really doing a trick (implying that he thinks I've actually got some 'hidden power'), and I keep saying "yes it's a trick - anyone can do this". Yet he insists it's utterly impossible, or just plain luck. The thing I find most intriguing about this routine is it's utter simplicity - it requires no preparation, no accomplices, no slight of hand, no props. In other words, a perfect routine for a rank amateur like myself. Yet adults are completely unable to figure out what is happening. Eventually I suppose I'll have to tell the co-worker how it works - just not yet :D

You must tell us what the routine is. We won't reveal the method, but let's see how many can figure it out. Maybe take the 'heat' out of the thread. All folk have to do is say 'I've figured it out' or 'stumped' and we'll rely on their honesty. Or does that need a new thread?

Also, if you want, I'll PM you another very simple but inscrutable mentalist trick that you can get your daughter to do with you as mentalist or vice-versa. I think she will love it! Great fun fooling those 'clever' adults :p

:D :D :D

[The Mighty Thor]

BTW, here's what happens with my demo:

You are out of the room and can't see in the room.

Your daughter lets anyone shuffle an ungimmicked, perfectly ordinary, pack of cards.

She then deals out the top 6 cards face down in a 2x3 grid on the table. Someone in the room picks a card from the six and reveals it for all to see. It is then placed back in its position face down. Your daughter 'sends' you the card, with appropriate mentalist-type concentration and actions.

At a signal, you walk into the room and immediately, with no hesitation, and with no time for any communication with your daughter (folk can watch her), you turn over the correct card.

The cards are not marked in any way whatsoever.

[Loki]

malcolmdl,

You must tell us what the routine is. We won't reveal the method, but let's see how many can figure it out
Perhaps should be a new thread, but I'll post here for now anyway. Rather than explain the routine, I'll just retell the exact events when I did it with my co-worker.

First, I approached his desk, and asked him to choose any 3 items currently on his desk, and to arrange them in a straight line on the desk in front of him. I did not touch the items at any time. He choose a coffee mug on the left, a book in the middle, and a CD on the right.

I turned my back to him, and asked him to concentrate on one item, but to not tell me which one

Then I turned to face him, and offered him the chance to rearrange the 3 items in any order he wished. He moved the book to the left and the mug to the middle.

I turned my back again, and asked him to concentrate on a different item.

I turned to face him, gave him the opportunity to rearrange. He left all 3 items in place.

I turned away, and asked him to concentrate on the final item.

I turned to face him, and offered him a last change to rearrange the items. He moved the book to the right, and the CD to the left.

I then picked up a pen, and wrote something on a piece of paper (he could not see what I wrote), folded it, and gave it to him but told him not to look.

I then asked him to push any two items towards me. He pushed the CD and the mug towards me, leaving the book near him. I asked him to read the piece of paper. It said "book".

I cannot do this more than once with any given person, without (almost certainly) giving away the trick. I am never wrong with the name I write on the paper.

Also, if you want, I'll PM you another very simple but inscrutable mentalist trick that you can get your daughter to do with you as mentalist or vice-versa.
Sure ... PM away!

[Ed]

Originally posted by malcolmdl


You must tell us what the routine is. We won't reveal the method, but let's see how many can figure it out. Maybe take the 'heat' out of the thread. All folk have to do is say 'I've figured it out' or 'stumped' and we'll rely on their honesty. Or does that need a new thread?

Also, if you want, I'll PM you another very simple but inscrutable mentalist trick that you can get your daughter to do with you as mentalist or vice-versa. I think she will love it! Great fun fooling those 'clever' adults :p

:D :D :D

Easy to promise when your PM is not enabled;)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Ed


Easy to promise when your PM is not enabled;)

I usually just enable it when something has come up in a thread and somebody asks me to PM them. Then I turn PM off because, to be honest, although I have a firewall, I'm not sure how secure PM is, virus-wise etc. I also didn't want to be accused of joining any 'bandwagon' via PMs with people I tend to agree with up to now. That way, it should be clear that I'm not merely echoing some 'party line'.

I'm totally paranoid about computer security. I'm getting about 40 of the current e-mail viruses every day. I use mail-washer to delete them at source, but it's a PITA.

Ask Garrette -- he's the only person I've PMed so far, and that was about magic, too. :)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Loki
malcolmdl,


Perhaps should be a new thread, but I'll post here for now anyway. Rather than explain the routine, I'll just retell the exact events when I did it with my co-worker.

First, I approached his desk, and asked him to choose any 3 items currently on his desk, and to arrange them in a straight line on the desk in front of him. I did not touch the items at any time. He choose a coffee mug on the left, a book in the middle, and a CD on the right.

I turned my back to him, and asked him to concentrate on one item, but to not tell me which one

Then I turned to face him, and offered him the chance to rearrange the 3 items in any order he wished. He moved the book to the left and the mug to the middle.

I turned my back again, and asked him to concentrate on a different item.

I turned to face him, gave him the opportunity to rearrange. He left all 3 items in place.

I turned away, and asked him to concentrate on the final item.

I turned to face him, and offered him a last change to rearrange the items. He moved the book to the right, and the CD to the left.

I then picked up a pen, and wrote something on a piece of paper (he could not see what I wrote), folded it, and gave it to him but told him not to look.

I then asked him to push any two items towards me. He pushed the CD and the mug towards me, leaving the book near him. I asked him to read the piece of paper. It said "book".

I cannot do this more than once with any given person, without (almost certainly) giving away the trick. I am never wrong with the name I write on the paper.


Sure ... PM away!

I figured it out.:p complex and clever MC!

[The Mighty Thor]

Sure ... PM away!

Ok. I'm getting too bleary-eyed to write it up, but will PM after you've tried to figure it out a while. That adds to the "I can't believe it's that simple" factor:) I think you will get it.

[magicflute]

Well, I am glad to get back to this thread, unfortunately duty call and I cannot spend much time posting. Busy, busy, busy.
To make matters short, my feelings are about the same as malcolmdl has expressed. As I explained in a previous post, I do not attack people, I attack ideas, if you can' t separate the two then there is a problem. As Voidx mentioned before, the convoluted explanations of the alleged posting on the other boards seemed to me more like evasion than explanation, and that bothered me. But anyway, I rather continue the discussion on this interesting and hopefully instructional subject. Welcome to all new posters and let's get on with the business!

Loki and malcolmdl
Posted by Loki
I then picked up a pen, and wrote something on a piece of paper (he could not see what I wrote), folded it, and gave it to him but told him not to look. etc etc......
This trick is based on a principle called "The Magicians Choice" You can use this principle in many different circumstance to appear to give someone a free choice.

Posted by Malcolmdl

You are out of the room and can't see in the room.

Your daughter lets anyone shuffle an ungimmicked, perfectly ordinary, pack of cards.

She then deals out the top 6 cards face down in a 2x3 grid on the table. Someone in the room picks a card from the six and reveals it for all to see. It is then placed back in its position face down. Your daughter 'sends' you the card, with appropriate mentalist-type concentration and actions.

At a signal, you walk into the room and immediately, with no hesitation, and with no time for any communication with your daughter (folk can watch her), you turn over the correct card.

The cards are not marked in any way whatsoever.


While there are several ways to acomplish this, I know of several methods. I can PM you a couple of methods that you can use and that will alllow you to shift between them so that even people familiar with one method will be fooled by the others.

I also do a fun telepathy trick:

I give a spectator a pack of cards (ungimmiked) the person can freely select ANY card. I concentrate on the card, then I place a phone call, I barely say "hello' to the person on the other end of the line. I hand the phone to the spectator ad the person at the end of the line will tell the spectator, the color, suit and value of the card. The trick is repeatable. This is as close to the real thing as it gets! ;)

By the way I also do an ESP test, using my own methods that will fool anyone. Here is the setup.
I will sit in a room with the tester(not in on the trick). The tester will shuffle the ESP cards, select one and hand it to me. I will consentrate on the cards and "send thoughts" to a person in another room (heck he can be in a different city!) also accompanie by a tester(not in on the trick) We signal that the mental message was send. This can simply be a clang of a bell, a buzzer, a light... nothing that can be used to send codes, better not to use phones or radios so that there is no chance of electronic communications. The light or buzzer or whatever will always sound or look the same. The receiver on the other side will tell the tester his impression, the tester will note the results. The tests can be of any amounts of cards. I can send or receive the thoughts or I can alternate with the other person. I can acchieve 100% most time, I have had people ask me to send a "blank" and I have been accurate with this also. Maybe I can get someone to work with me and show it of at the next JREF getogether.

Well, I have to run of to do shopping.. back later!

[Loki]

magicflute,

This trick is based on a principle called "The Magicians Choice"
Yes, exactly. I mentioned it because it is such a simple and easy trick, yet (so far) has totally confused the people I've performed it for. I have little doubt that if I'd chosen to dress this trick up in appropriate clothing - for instance, telling everyone that I'd been to a 'psychic workshop' and had discovered a "latent talent" - then at least two of the people I've done this for would have concluded I had some gift. Their conclusion would be based largely on the "fact" that they could think of no way in which this could be a simple trick.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by magicflute
Well, I am glad to get back to this thread, unfortunately duty call and I cannot spend much time posting. Busy, busy, busy.
To make matters short, my feelings are about the same as malcolmdl has expressed. As I explained in a previous post, I do not attack people, I attack ideas, if you can' t separate the two then there is a problem. As Voidx mentioned before, the convoluted explanations of the alleged posting on the other boards seemed to me more like evasion than explanation, and that bothered me. But anyway, I rather continue the discussion on this interesting and hopefully instructional subject. Welcome to all new posters and let's get on with the business!

Loki and malcolmdl
Posted by Loki
etc etc......
This trick is based on a principle called "The Magicians Choice" You can use this principle in many different circumstance to appear to give someone a free choice.

Posted by Malcolmdl


While there are several ways to acomplish this, I know of several methods. I can PM you a couple of methods that you can use and that will alllow you to shift between them so that even people familiar with one method will be fooled by the others.

I also do a fun telepathy trick:

I give a spectator a pack of cards (ungimmiked) the person can freely select ANY card. I concentrate on the card, then I place a phone call, I barely say "hello' to the person on the other end of the line. I hand the phone to the spectator ad the person at the end of the line will tell the spectator, the color, suit and value of the card. The trick is repeatable. This is as close to the real thing as it gets! ;)

By the way I also do an ESP test, using my own methods that will fool anyone. Here is the setup.
I will sit in a room with the tester(not in on the trick). The tester will shuffle the ESP cards, select one and hand it to me. I will consentrate on the cards and "send thoughts" to a person in another room (heck he can be in a different city!) also accompanie by a tester(not in on the trick) We signal that the mental message was send. This can simply be a clang of a bell, a buzzer, a light... nothing that can be used to send codes, better not to use phones or radios so that there is no chance of electronic communications. The light or buzzer or whatever will always sound or look the same. The receiver on the other side will tell the tester his impression, the tester will note the results. The tests can be of any amounts of cards. I can send or receive the thoughts or I can alternate with the other person. I can acchieve 100% most time, I have had people ask me to send a "blank" and I have been accurate with this also. Maybe I can get someone to work with me and show it of at the next JREF getogether.

Well, I have to run of to do shopping.. back later!

You just need to answer yes or no, magicflute. Does your last ESP demo need the sender and receiver to be 'temporally in sync'? I mean do they both have to have syncronised timepieces?

Plus, any thoughts on Mrs Leonard's 'Newspaper Tests', an example of which I gave above?

Anyone?

[Loki]

malcolmdl,

... any thoughts on Mrs Leonard's 'Newspaper Tests', an example of which I gave above?
Well, since I'm not a very good mentalist (hey, I only have 1 trick in my bag), I have no idea at all how she could predict the location of two names and a number 24 hours in advance, other than to invoke "dumb luck". So since I don't know how it's done, and luck "seems" unlikely, I can only conclude she was psychic. Well, that's proven it then. We can all go home now...

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by malcolmdl


I figured it out.:p complex and clever MC!

I did, of course, mean Magician's Choice by "MC". I wasn't sure if I was allowed to say it out loud! Just like I usually refer to that favourite tool of psychic surgeons and conjurors alike as a TT.

'We' all know what a TT, or IT, or a DL, or an Elmsley, is. 'The Others' don't, and would not believe the simplistic methods used to apparently achieve 'miracles'.

[magicflute]

Posted by Malcolmdl
You just need to answer yes or no, magicflute. Does your last ESP demo need the sender and receiver to be 'temporally in sync'? I mean do they both have to have syncronised timepieces?
That's one method, but mine is simpler still. requires a little practice but it is almost 100% accurate

[magicflute]

...... on Mrs Leonard's 'Newspaper Tests',

As I have said before, we are assuming the accuracy of the account. As stories are bound to be improved with retelling, all you can do is speculate. Need I remind that this is a stunt also performed by mentalists. This account does give some clues as to "how it might have been" performed. Of course some speculation is required, and although some people may deem them as far fetched, I will later tell you a story about the tactics used by some psychics and mediums to get information on people. I will even tell you something little know about George Anderson.

To begin;
quote:

Charles Drayton Thomas received these newspaper tests in such quantity that reading them, he said, would weary all but the most determined Psychical researcher. Here is one of his simplest examples, given at a sitting December 19, 1919. It was written down just after it was received at 3:10 p.m. and was to be verified in the London Times of the following-day. Thomas writes: Having been directcd to the first page and rather more than one-third down column three, I was asked to look to the left where, almost in a line with that spot, would appear my name an a little above it that of my wife ... And within an inch of those names I was to see my wife's age.

On examining that part of the Times the next day, Thomas saw his first name, Charles, and Clara, his wife's name, within one inch of one another. just one and five eighths inches above their name was the number 51, Clara's age until one week before when she had had a birthday.

It was Drayton Thomas' invariable custom to mail a copy of the newspaper tests to the Society for Psychical Research as soon as he received them. He thus documented the fact that the information had been received the day preceding the issue of the paper to which it referred.

In considering the significance of these newspaper tests it is important to know the hour at which they were given. The sitting usually ended by 5:15 p.m., and a copy of the test was mailed to London about 6:00. This was long before the newspaper of the following day had been made up. Thomas ascertained this by visiting the printing office of the Times at 4:30 one afternoon, accompanied by a friend who had obtained the necessary permits. They were shown the galley trays in which the type for the first three columns of the next day's paper was placed as soon as it was set. At that time the trays held barely enough type for one-quarter of a column. As the news copy arrived it was distributed among the various linotype operators and not again collected into one place until it was set on the type trays. The trays would not be completely filled until late in the evening, and the paper was not made up until still later. Thus, on the afternoon of the day before, no one alive knew exactly what item would be in a certain location on a certain page of the next day's Times.

Yet time and time again communicators predicted that such and such an assortment of names and data would appear on a certain area of the front page of the next day's Times. And Drayton Thomas would usually find them there.


Without seeing a copy of the actual article or of the prediction I can only guess. If I were to attempt this I would need to know at least one of the stories ahead of time. This would require a shill at the newspaper in question. Or at least access to the information which is not impossible. Not all stories are written the same day of publication. Some are written ahead of time, since the gathering of the story would require it. The first thing is that the story obove implies is that because the type is not set, the story has not been written. Front page stories are usually selected before the type is set. This is common practice with any publication. Anyone that has worked in a publishing house can attest to this. Being familiar with the style of the publication also helps. By knowing the story, the customary typeset and column width you can select your words and judge in what positions they will appear. The fact that the prediction was done in less than 24 hrs, points to this. Also the story does not include particulars for other predictions that would allow us to discover commonalities. For example.
Where the guesses always on the front page?
Where the guesses always names of people or just random words?
Was the time frame for the guess always around 24 hrs?
"And Drayton Thomas would usually find them there" this implies that there where also misses. Where the words found in the wrong page or not at all?
This is just my take on this matter, hardly more than a guess, but with so little to work with it is all I can do.

As to the use of shills (confederates) this is a common practice with tricksters of all type. From 3 Card Monte artists to mediums. I remember a particular ruse used by some of the santeros I was involved with. What they would do is this. Someone would call them to make an appoinment for a consultation. The appointment would be given for a week or so in advance. This would allow the shill to gather information on the caller, by visiting the home of the caller pretending to be a salesman, or offering some type of service, etc they would try to gather intelligence. Even if all they got to do is take a quick look thru an open door, this would provide with tons of information about the caller; in particular if the person was well off and for how much to run a scam. This would latter be fed back at the reading as spirit generated. When you consider that the person would be so impressed that they would make return visits allowing the Babalaos(mediums) to run other money grabbing cons, it makes finacial sense to invest the time spent by the shills.

Here is the bit about GA. He used to work for the New York Telephone Company as an operator. (Check my bio) he worked in the same office side by side with my then girlfriend. He practiced his craft with people there until he left for greener pasture. I am told that if you call him for an appointment most time only the first name is asked. Well, I am NOT saying that this is how he does it, but knowing what I know and if I wanted to do his shtick this is what I would do. I would get a friend in Ma Bell to check on calls to my number for the number and time of day of the call. This I could check against my phone log at home. Then have my friend check the records of that number for information on the subscriber. As a business person you can also use this information to do a credit check on a person if you have a business Credit Card account. This will allow you to gather tons of information. At the prices he charges, its a worth while investment to do these thing. Again I DONOT say this is how he does it, but it is how I would do it.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by magicflute
...... on Mrs Leonard's 'Newspaper Tests',

As I have said before, we are assuming the accuracy of the account. As stories are bound to be improved with retelling, all you can do is speculate. Need I remind that this is a stunt also performed by mentalists. This account does give some clues as to "how it might have been" performed. Of course some speculation is required, and although some people may deem them as far fetched, I will later tell you a story about the tactics used by some psychics and mediums to get information on people. I will even tell you something little know about George Anderson.

To begin;
quote:


Without seeing a copy of the actual article or of the prediction I can only guess. If I were to attempt this I would need to know at least one of the stories ahead of time. This would require a shill at the newspaper in question. Or at least access to the information which is not impossible. Not all stories are written the same day of publication. Some are written ahead of time, since the gathering of the story would require it. The first thing is that the story obove implies is that because the type is not set, the story has not been written. Front page stories are usually selected before the type is set. This is common practice with any publication. Anyone that has worked in a publishing house can attest to this. Being familiar with the style of the publication also helps. By knowing the story, the customary typeset and column width you can select your words and judge in what positions they will appear. The fact that the prediction was done in less than 24 hrs, points to this. Also the story does not include particulars for other predictions that would allow us to discover commonalities. For example.
Where the guesses always on the front page?
Where the guesses always names of people or just random words?
Was the time frame for the guess always around 24 hrs?
"And Drayton Thomas would usually find them there" this implies that there where also misses. Where the words found in the wrong page or not at all?
This is just my take on this matter, hardly more than a guess, but with so little to work with it is all I can do.

As to the use of shills (confederates) this is a common practice with tricksters of all type. From 3 Card Monte artists to mediums. I remember a particular ruse used by some of the santeros I was involved with. What they would do is this. Someone would call them to make an appoinment for a consultation. The appointment would be given for a week or so in advance. This would allow the shill to gather information on the caller, by visiting the home of the caller pretending to be a salesman, or offering some type of service, etc they would try to gather intelligence. Even if all they got to do is take a quick look thru an open door, this would provide with tons of information about the caller; in particular if the person was well off and for how much to run a scam. This would latter be fed back at the reading as spirit generated. When you consider that the person would be so impressed that they would make return visits allowing the Babalaos(mediums) to run other money grabbing cons, it makes finacial sense to invest the time spent by the shills.

Here is the bit about GA. He used to work for the New York Telephone Company as an operator. (Check my bio) he worked in the same office side by side with my then girlfriend. He practiced his craft with people there until he left for greener pasture. I am told that if you call him for an appointment most time only the first name is asked. Well, I am NOT saying that this is how he does it, but knowing what I know and if I wanted to do his shtick this is what I would do. I would get a friend in Ma Bell to check on calls to my number for the number and time of day of the call. This I could check against my phone log at home. Then have my friend check the records of that number for information on the subscriber. As a business person you can also use this information to do a credit check on a person if you have a business Credit Card account. This will allow you to gather tons of information. At the prices he charges, its a worth while investment to do these thing. Again I DONOT say this is how he does it, but it is how I would do it.

WOW!

[Garrette]

Very interesting, magicflute.

I sadly doubt, however, that what you have said will have an impact on anyone but fence-sitters.

Regarding your mentalist feat, I was going to pm you with the timepiece solution, too.

Any chance I could get you to fess up privately on the method? I can assure you I will neither reveal it nor perform it unless it's privately and I have your prior permission.

I'll understand if the answer is no.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Garrette
Any chance I could get you to fess up privately on the method? I can assure you I will neither reveal it nor perform it unless it's privately and I have your prior permission.

I'll understand if the answer is no.

There are at least a dozen systems like this for a telephone "wizard." I think there is at least one listed in Scarne's card tricks, and another in Mark Wilson.

N/A

[magicflute]

NoZed, Garrette was refering to the Psi test not the telephone trick. The telephone trick is well know to a lot of magicians. The Psi test method as far as I know is original to me. Although in magic circles similar methods are often developed independently. Which sometimes leads to some name calling! :D

[Garrette]

magicflute's right, NoZed. The phone trick is easy and in a lot of kids and beginners magic books.

The other is impressive; I know at least one way to do it but, as a sort of magical researcher vice performer, am always interested in other ways.

Separate from any revelations, though, this discussion should be of educational interest to those who tend to believe the psychic/mentalist/medium claims of others:

Here we have an effect which, when presented properly, appears miraculous. But immediately there are two admittedly amateur magicians (malcolmdl and me) who know at least one easy way to do it. But the professional trickster knows another way still.

Doesn't that say something? Something significant?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Garrette
magicflute's right, NoZed. The phone trick is easy and in a lot of kids and beginners magic books.

The other is impressive; I know at least one way to do it but, as a sort of magical researcher vice performer, am always interested in other ways.

Separate from any revelations, though, this discussion should be of educational interest to those who tend to believe the psychic/mentalist/medium claims of others:

Here we have an effect which, when presented properly, appears miraculous. But immediately there are two admittedly amateur magicians (malcolmdl and me) who know at least one easy way to do it. But the professional trickster knows another way still.

Doesn't that say something? Something significant?

Yep! That is what I don't get about believers. Magicians and mentalists and stage hypnotists can replicate every effect of so-called psi -- and then some. But we know they are doing tricks.

So, what is so different (apart from the statement of intent) between what believers think are genuine or fraudulent psi effects? If the effects can be demonstrated by an inscrutable but mundane magician's method, then that is surely the most likely and parsimonious explanation of the effects.

When believers see a declared magician at work, or are shown how a supposed psi effect can be done by magicians and mentalists, do they just think "Well, that's one way to do it. But *my favourite* medium doesn't do it that way. He actually channels dead people."

Have you noticed that when any puzzle was put in the mediumship threads asking people to think about how information might be gathered by mundane methods -- not one of those we know to be believers came up with anything until a lengthy list was given, whereupon, they then mumble about some silly trick that usually is far-removed from achieving the desired effect in the circumstances under which it is produced? So, apart from anything else, they don't pay attention to details. They are so ready to be 'awe-inspired' that they don't want to look for the trick.

For some reason, they find it almost impossible to go down that path, because they know that if they do, if they pull that one card out (the joker/trickster), then the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. (Apologies for mixed metaphor! The house of cards was at the end of the other path where the Hobbits live -- a cul de sac, it seems:))

It is no wonder that so many believers are attracted to such a specious philosophy as immaterialism. They actually suffer from the major flaw in this philosophy -- i.e. it/they cannot in the end account for the difference between real objects and illusions, because it/they cannot provide an account of the difference between circumstances in which perceptions are veridical and those in which they are not.

[The Mighty Thor]

Why am I getting that 'towelie' feeling:D

[magicflute]

Here is another quicky way to find out things about a person if you are a psychic and they walk in for an appointment. While they are in your waiting room, send your shill to check out the car they came in.
Let's see what your fertile minds can gather from simply looking at a car.
I'll get it started.
--The make and model, color and year of the car can point to how well off finacially a person is and to his/her preferences.
--The condition of the car can also tell you gobs of info about the driver. Is it dirty? How many dents does it have? Are the tires worn?
--If you can spot the VIN number, there are websites that can give you even more information!

Ok... your turn! :D

[magicflute]

Posted by Malcolmdl

YYep! That is what I don't get about believers. Magicians and mentalists and stage hypnotists can replicate every effect of so-called psi -- and then some. But we know they are doing tricks.

So, what is so different (apart from the statement of intent) between what believers think are genuine or fraudulent psi effects? If the effects can be demonstrated by an inscrutable but mundane magician's method, then that is surely the most likely and parsimonious explanation of the effects.

When believers see a declared magician at work, or are shown how a supposed psi effect can be done by magicians and mentalists, do they just think "Well, that's one way to do it. But *my favourite* medium doesn't do it that way. He actually channels dead people."

Have you noticed that when any puzzle was put in the mediumship threads asking people to think about how information might be gathered by mundane methods -- not one of those we know to be believers came up with anything until a lengthy list was given, whereupon, they then mumble about some silly trick that usually is far-removed from achieving the desired effect in the circumstances under which it is produced? So, apart from anything else, they don't pay attention to details. They are so ready to be 'awe-inspired' that they don't want to look for the trick.

For some reason, they find it almost impossible to go down that path, because they know that if they do, if they pull that one card out (the joker/trickster), then the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. (Apologies for mixed metaphor! The house of cards was at the end of the other path where the Hobbits live -- a cul de sac, it seems)

It is no wonder that so many believers are attracted to such a specious philosophy as immaterialism. They actually suffer from the major flaw in this philosophy -- i.e. it/they cannot in the end account for the difference between real objects and illusions, because it/they cannot provide an account of the difference between circumstances in which perceptions are veridical and those in which they are not.

WOW!! ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by magicflute
Here is another quicky way to find out things about a person if you are a psychic and they walk in for an appointment. While they are in your waiting room, send your shill to check out the car they came in.
Let's see what your fertile minds can gather from simply looking at a car.
I'll get it started.
--The make and model, color and year of the car can point to how well off finacially a person is and to his/her preferences.
--The condition of the car can also tell you gobs of info about the driver. Is it dirty? How many dents does it have? Are the tires worn?
--If you can spot the VIN number, there are websites that can give you even more information!

Ok... your turn! :D

Without even really startiong on the interior and what may be lying around in it (from the last visit to fast food, the last store, the last 6 months oif life in the case of a few friends), the license plate alone can give you the name, address, and related info on the owner.

Personalized plates? Even better.

Bumper stickers.

Wear on the tires.

Radio station visible?

Tapes and CDs in the car?

Books or magazines in the seat?

[magicflute]

Great! Yes , very good, let's hear some more...
Here are a couple of more samples...

-- Any religious articles in the car? Medals, crucifixes, rosaries, statuettes?

-- Toys? Boy, girl or adult type toys?

Come on people! Let's deduce enough information that when added to a little cold reading, we can get hits by the hundreds!
This is a nice experiment, let's keep it going and see what we come up with.

[The Mighty Thor]

"Baby on Board" sign.

Baby/toddler restraint seats.

Open ashtray full of cig butts. (might have health probs:))

Dog guard.

Bloody axe on rear seat (may indicate mental problems:))

[Loki]

Bloody axe on rear seat ...
Hey! You're remote viewing skills are VERY good.

[magicflute]

Here is a few more....

--- Mail from friends, collection agencies, bills?
--- Bottles, cans, candy or candy wrappers

and............

[RC]

Originally posted by magicflute
[BHere is the bit about GA. He used to work for the New York Telephone Company as an operator. (Check my bio) he worked in the same office side by side with my then girlfriend. He practiced his craft with people there until he left for greener pasture. I am told that if you call him for an appointment most time only the first name is asked. Well, I am NOT saying that this is how he does it, but knowing what I know and if I wanted to do his shtick this is what I would do. I would get a friend in Ma Bell to check on calls to my number for the number and time of day of the call. This I could check against my phone log at home. Then have my friend check the records of that number for information on the subscriber. As a business person you can also use this information to do a credit check on a person if you have a business Credit Card account. This will allow you to gather tons of information. At the prices he charges, its a worth while investment to do these thing. Again I DONOT say this is how he does it, but it is how I would do it. [/B]

I actually think it is well-known that GA used to be a phone operator. I've read it in numerous articles.

It's possible that he engages in the above, but I'm pretty familiar with his process for taking appointments. His staff does collect a name and mailing address. However, it states right on GA's website that if people aren't comfortable with that, then they should have someone else call on their behalf and use their name/address. So GA would be researching the wrong person.

I've read a lot of GA transcripts, and his strength definitely lies in getting names (first) and how the person died. This would lead me to believe that if he is hot reading, then he somehow is able to get the identify of the sitter and then researches death certificates.

But if he did credit checks and other background info as suggested above, I think he would give much more specific and unique information than he usually does. Almost all of his hits are first names and cause of death.

[Garrette]

RC,

It would be interesting to see the data on how many of the super hits come from readings of people who made their own reservations as opposed to people who had friends call in for them.

Question: Since he apparently doesn't need the name and address at all, why does he have anybody give any address? Why not just instruct people to call from any random pay phone so they can be given a client number which would be the only identifier GA had for them?

I also wonder how many friends who call in for the actual sitter do not give information away, either during the initial phone call later.

First call:

Caller: Hi. I want to make an appointment for a reading.

Operator: Great. Your name and address, please?

Caller: I'm xxx at yyy.

Operator: Thank you. How will you be paying?

Caller: Umm...can I pay when I get there?

Operator: Will it be you or someone else who pays?

Caller: Well, really it's for {first name only}.

---

Or simply call the friend back later, perhaps in two or three days, and ask for some "information for the files."

Just a thought.

[magicflute]

RC, I barely knew him then and I have never really researched him other than reading about him and talking to some of the people who knew him then, (I was a manager with NYTEL/NYNEX/BELL ATLANTIC/VERIZON 1970-1995) I stick to the current plague infecting the Latin community since it has hit close to home many times and because I have had an extensive background with brujos and santeros. Yet the more I look at others the more I notice the similarities.

I just want to make you aware that as a telephone worker with access to the systems an unscrupulous person can get a hold of more information than you can imagine.

But as I said, if I wanted to do his thing, I could certainly do it and with more detail. Which leads me to point to the fact that you really don't need to give a sitter much. They are pleased to be told a tiny bit of what they already know. Who died and what they died of. You already knew that when you walked in. Then comes the ubiquitous'" "He/she is happy, don't worry, he/she is watching over you." (They never say "I am burning in Hell!!")
Hardly seems worth the fees he charges. I am sure he is does not give a good reading to everyone. He does not need to. Just to a few and his fame will spread. He can always claim that "the spirits are not coming thru" and give them a rain check and himself a chance to do research. This is what the brujos do if someone walks in and they can't get anything on him right away but he looks like a good prospect for some future cash.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a few more item to the car list:
-- Window stickers
-- Electronic equipment (garage door opener, security card, etc)
-- envelops from collection agencies
-- licence plates have month of birth in some states ... good for getting the astrological sign
--groceries
--pills?
--prescriptions?
--tools....
--lotto tickets

Your life history.......

[magicflute]

chirp.....chirp chirp.............chirp!


Hmmmm... just as I thought.

I know some people will claim, "not EVERYBODY does that!!" The point is that if they don't do this, they will do something else. They will look in your car very inconspicuously. Two way I KNOW they use is, binoculars from a window, and sweeping the drive way. If they offer you a free parking area it's even easier to look.

In subsequent posts I will discuss other methods of obtaining information. If you are familiar with any others please contribute.

Knowledge is the best defense against flummery. Share yours.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by magicflute
chirp.....chirp chirp.............chirp!


Hmmmm... just as I thought.

I know some people will claim, "not EVERYBODY does that!!" The point is that if they don't do this, they will do something else. They will look in your car very inconspicuously. Two way I KNOW they use is, binoculars from a window, and sweeping the drive way. If they offer you a free parking area it's even easier to look.

In subsequent posts I will discuss other methods of obtaining information. If you are familiar with any others please contribute.

Knowledge is the best defense against flummery. Share yours.

Actually, magicflute, it's strange you should say: "Two way I KNOW they use is, binoculars from a window, " in this Mrs Leonard thread. Because that is EXACTLY one of the methods I was thinking of on her book tests.

i.e. Spying into a room to spot a book on a shelve in a certain position. Then you buy the book, refer to page xxx, and Lo! A MIRACLE! You don't have to have visited the house.

Other ways were servant cohorts.

An 'innocent' visitor.

'Planting' a book and saying the dead husband referred to it. (see the case in point).

But where are our friendly neighbourhood believers?
Have they nothing to add?
Nothing to say?
Are they completely unable to employ critical thinking?

Are they in denial, suddenly aware that, although they could not think of any alternative methods for mediums to get information on sitters, these methods do exist.

Are they possibly actually beginning to doubt?

Will they ever admit this?

I'm still working on Mrs Piper, and I will present my case in a new thread soon. I hope you and the others here will join in.

[magicflute]

Posted By The Mighty Thor


But where are our friendly neighbourhood believers?
Have they nothing to add?
Nothing to say?
Are they completely unable to employ critical thinking?.

Hehehe, I guess you got the meaning behind the chirping. BTW, that WAS the actual experiment I refered to in an earlier post


I'm still working on Mrs Piper, and I will present my case in a new thread soon. I hope you and the others here will join in.
Count me in!