How info is received. Acorah, Edward and ....Luci

[Peter Jenkins]

I wanted to start a new thread on this, so as not to derail the Luci prediction thread

In Luci's 14 feb prediction he/she claimed a hit because the police headquarters that was blown up was 'backed by the US'. But, if you consider that a hit, How would the information be conveyed that this was a 'western' target. If luci was picking up some psychic vision of an Iraqii police station, wouldn't this look/feel/smell/sound like .....well, like an iraqii police station.

We see this with John Edward. Supposedly getting whole words and phrases when it comes to some generalised pap about how much love the deceased has for the people left behind, but when it comes to a simple christian name, JE has to conduct a complicated sound alike guessing game.

On 'Most Haunted' Derek Acorah occasionally up with a whole christian name (obviously a much better psychic than his american counterparts :) ) and has long dialogues with his 'guide', Sam, who relays marvellous amounts of information - except we never see any information that is provable. Why is that? Luci? Clancie? care to comment

[Nyarlathotep]

I also find it interesting that Luci (and others) can come up with specific dates (i.e. August 4 2004) but can't give even the most rudimentary details of what is supposed to happen beyond 'something awful', not even something as broad as a terrorist attack,a natural disaster, alien invasion or whatever. Pretty odd if you ask me.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I also find it interesting that Luci (and others) can come up with specific dates (i.e. August 4 2004) but can't give even the most rudimentary details of what is supposed to happen beyond 'something awful', not even something as broad as a terrorist attack,a natural disaster, alien invasion or whatever. Pretty odd if you ask me.

Not at all. This is very deliberate, very premeditated.

Con artists like John Edward and Lucianarchy bank on people not noticing that their predictions mean nothing. But they focus on the one fact that is indisputable: The date. Surely, the date was right, right?

That the prediction itself was nothing but vapor has little or no consequence. Also, forget about the number of predictions. Throw enough out there, and something will stick, somehow.

Con artists like John Edward and Lucianarchy bank on people not knowing this.

[Marian]

I had asked in the other thread, and I'll ask here, I'm curious as to the specific process.

Such as (a mythical example) I got up that day had my coffee, sat down at the computer and started to read my email when a sense of overwhelming dread came over me. I saw an explosion and bodies and people screaming and whatever, then I saw the date August 4th float in front of me.

Or whatever.

I've had 'bad feelings' before, and if I acknowledge them and look at them, they have some basis in fact. 'Gut instinct' in my opinion is only people reaching a conclusion based on information but they're not quite sure how they got there. I've heard so many people say 'I just had a bad feeling about that person'...but when you look at WHY, it's pretty damned reasonable. Plus we have built in survival tools, blah blah blah.

However most people don't get 'gut reactions' or 'bad feelings' months in advance. So what I'm asking is for Lucianarchy to describe the course of events s/he experienced on arriving at that prediction.

I've also seen other people mention that Lucianarchy has had predictions before, and I'd ask the same about those...is it always the same process? And are they always so vague?

Otherwise I can make some predictions that I absolutely know are correct. While I've written this post, somewhere in California, a child was beaten. While I've written this post, in the United States somewhere at least one woman was raped. While I've written this post many people throughout the world have died. They're not paranormal perdictions, they're based on what I know of statistical data. It's possible that during the time I took to write this NO child was beaten, but sadly it's unlikely. Or that no woman was raped, again unlikely. :( Or no one died...which would be unbelievably unlikely.

However if I said that Bob Jones of 123 Main Street Anytown USA will die of congestive heart failure at 4:41pm PST (3 hours from the time I write this) then that would be a helluva prediction if it were true. Unless of course I'm writing from 123 Main Street or I happen to have other knowledge about Bob Jones that gives me an 'edge' in that prediction.

Anyway, I'd like to hear the process described.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not at all. This is very deliberate, very premeditated.

Con artists like John Edward and Lucianarchy bank on people not noticing that their predictions mean nothing. But they focus on the one fact that is indisputable: The date. Surely, the date was right, right?

That the prediction itself was nothing but vapor has little or no consequence. Also, forget about the number of predictions. Throw enough out there, and something will stick, somehow.

Con artists like John Edward and Lucianarchy bank on people not knowing this.

True enough. Perhaps I should have used the word "convenient" instead of odd.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I also find it interesting that Luci (and others) can come up with specific dates (i.e. August 4 2004) but can't give even the most rudimentary details of what is supposed to happen beyond 'something awful', not even something as broad as a terrorist attack,a natural disaster, alien invasion or whatever. Pretty odd if you ask me.

Personally I find it lazy. If you're going to go with a prediction why not make it something that sounds more distinct -

"I see an enraged wild boar chasing some terrified cows. It's in an open field, but I'm seeing lots of trees nearby. The leaves are golden and red. From the clues I'm getting, this event will probably happen in Warwickshire this autumn."

- but is still very likely? Why be satisfied with 'something awful'?

[mgdwcb]

What I find interesting are the mediums who appear to hear names or snippets of names and are `being told something' one minute - but are able to see objects or are `being shown something' the next. Such selective powers bemuse me when the medium has to asks the living person why the dead person is showing something (when all the medium has to do is ask the dead person diredctly).

Does anybody know of a medium who only claims to hear or see the dead exclusively rather than a mix of the two?

[Nigel]

I find it interesting that apparently, when you die, you live on in spirit but become incredibly stupid - you can tell JE your name begins with J, but not that your name is Joe. But the deceased certainly can tell you s/he loves you and is now happy. :rolleyes:

Better yet, I don't understand why spirits decide to talk to mediums, and not the people close to them. If my dead father wanted to talk to me, why would he talk to someone like JE, and not me directly?

This is why I asked when I first got here about supernatural laws. If two-way communication with the dead was possible, it should make some sort of sense. Why do only spirits of some people appear to mediums, and not others? What is it that governs the afterlife?

I ask all that for the sake of argument that it's real, which, well...just for the sake of argument.

As for Luci, when I relax (I don't meditate per se, but practice progressive muscle relaxation), I see all kinds of images, and even hear voices. This is the strange part - when I really get relaxed, I'll often hear a voice - usually of someone I don't recognize - saying only a sentence. Having read on the subject, I know the great chances are it's hypnogogic (or hypnopompic) sleep. My point is, what's the difference between imagining voices, sights, etc. when I relax, and what Luci is describing? Neither are real (I'm taking an anti-Luci stand, because I think the Aug 4 prediction is too vague to be of any use). It's simply the mind relaxing, and letting loose with what's in the brain. (That's also taking Luci at face value, that s/he meditates to get these "visions".)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And why is it that some people have a thought or a little experience and put such great meaning into it, while others don't even notice? For example, I take a photograph and see an orb. Why would I decide it was a dead person, as opposed to muttering some annoyed remark and tossing it in the trash?

Perhaps it has something to do with my astoundingly good sig line.

~~ Paul

[DangerousBeliefs]

That's the way it is with all psychics... they're so vague as to be useless.

John Edwards can't say... "Jeff, your father Harold wants you to know that he really liked the black grave stone you picked out."

Instead we get. "There is an older man in your life. I'm getting a "J". Oh, your name is Jeff? Ok, I'm getting a "B". No? No "B"?"

[Nigel]

Yet they come back with "It's not reliable - sometimes I get a clear message, and sometimes I don't. Thank you for visiting, here is your bill for $300."

Can you imagine if other business people worked the same way? You take a suit to the cleaners, and they say, well, the drycleaning process isn't always reliable. Sometimes it works, sometimes it gets part of the stain out, sometimes it doesn't come out at all. But I still expect to be paid this idiotic amount of money.

Or if the auto makers put cars together with the same reliability? Holy sh**! Millions of people would be dead on the roads, and every carmaker would be bankrupt from the lawsuits.

It's reprehensible that lawmakers don't go after these crooks with the same intensity of others. (Though Miss Cleo, the fake Caribbean psychic was caught.)

[voidx]

Most mediums rely on some combination of the 3 Clairs.

Clairvoyance: This is visual cues, seeing objects, letters, numbers, scenes. Often described as being from the mediums frame of reference. As in, if I want to get the idea of football across, I would make you "see" the football game you watched last night.

Clairaudience: This is "hearing". Described generally as whispers and other such things. I've asked before how this is possible because it would be communication via a physical process. The excuse often is that you hear it in your head. Well you don't actually hear things in your head, you imagine them, so are you really "hearing"?

Clairsentience: This is just intuition, or seeing the future, or say possesion perhaps when a trance medium "becomes" the spirit. Or otherwords sensing the presence or thoughts of the spirit.

There are also different types and levels of psychics. There are psychic mediums like John Edwards who always get things from a spirit communicator. There are just plain psychics who through intuition or supposedly telepathy can see the future, or see your own thoughts and feelings, etc. There are trance mediums also, all these types are called mental mediums. Then there are physical mediums. And then there are any possible combinations of all of these. A psychic medium for example can also just have plain psychic powers too. So in cases where we've pointed out there is no spirit communicator with mediums even like John Edwards, believers just fall back that, "oh, that time he must have just been using psychic powers". However Edwards never clarifies this, and it seems unclear that he would even know the difference as he never seems to clarify, "oh, I'm not getting this from a spirit, I'm getting a precognitive image here. I'm using my ESP and I know you really want your girlfriend to leave Chicago."

So would anyone like to count the enormous amount of loopholes and fallbacks inherent in this process of mediumship? The main one is how do you tell your normal imagination from spirit communication? We are usually given a rather unconvincing list of intangibles that enable them to "feel" its coming through psychic powers, and that they just don't have an overactive imagination.

To me this list of categories seems a quite blatant retroactive patch job. Over time everyone and their dog has described different ways of how they "communicate" with the beyond. So now they've just conviniently wrapped them up into tidy categories so it bothers you less that everyone seems to be doing it slightly different. How is a spirit to choose with so many different options of "communication"? No wonder they they sound confused. "Do I show him baseball through clairvoyance and his own frame of reference, or can this one spit slimy snot out his nose so I can make him just form a baseball....decisions decisions!!!"

[richardm]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

On 'Most Haunted' Derek Acorah occasionally up with a whole christian name (obviously a much better psychic than his american counterparts :) ) and has long dialogues with his 'guide', Sam, who relays marvellous amounts of information - except we never see any information that is provable. Why is that?

In fairness, it is a bit of a Catch-22. Assuming that he really can talk to the dead - which he can't, but assume for a moment - if he reveals historical information that is already known, we will accuse him of having read up on it earlier. If he reveals historical information that is not already known, there is obviously no way of corroborrating it.

Luckily, since there is no convincing evidence for people talking to the dead we can safely assert that he either bones up on local history in advance or makes it up as he goes along, secure in the knowledge that nobody can challenge him. (Unless he mistakes Frances for Francis, but that's another story).