'The Man Who Paints The Future' with Randi

[Star Of The Sea]

Just saw the above show on Channel 5 here in the UK. Now, this was hands down the best show on the paranormal I've ever seen! It had everything: James Randi, Chris French, the Koestler Institute in Edinburgh, photographic analysis of photos taken in front of a bank's clock, statistical analysis, experimental investigation..... a great show, and a very interesting case indeed... Randi said something like 'this is a very intriguing case' and as always offered the million dollar test... the program didn't say if David Mandell would take it up though (wonder what the protocol would be). Randi's main assessment that the paintings could be interpreted in many different ways was the subject of the English skeptic Chris French's test in a psychology lab where subjects were shown the pictures and asked to choose between two interpretations: David's own one, and another similar event... David's interpretation was overwhelmingly favoured, interestingly. The other sceptical position was that of a misunderstanding of probability and the possibilty that only the 'hits' were shown and most paintings were not shown if they didn't match... a possiblity as the artist did not catalogue his work properly.

All in all David Mandell came across as a sincere and fascinating character, and the sceptics, Randi included, came across with considerable dignity, accepting that the claim had not been disproved by their investigations to date, merely offering alternative explainations: no hubris as 'baby sceptics' (like some on this board :p ) would have come out with. Great stuff.

What annoys me though is that there was nothing about this show on the JREF site! :mad: If I had known about it I would have videotaped it! We got told often enough about the Korean shows that most will never see, why not this one?

And no, no transcript or further synopsis, too busy, sorry. Others may though.

Luke

[Julia]

I'm afraid I don't understand. What was it that was attempting
to be proved? What were the photos or painting depicting?

[Star Of The Sea]

The paintings were of dreams that the artist had that he claimed were premonitions. He would then photograph himself holding the painting in front of a bank's clock to verify when he painted it- a protocol that Randi was impressed by. He did get a number of 'hits' which were sometimes extremely impressive, especially the Tokyo Subway sarin attack which he described in meticulous detail. Randi didn't comment on that one unfortunately.

Luke

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea
The paintings were of dreams that the artist had that he claimed were premonitions. He would then photograph himself holding the painting in front of a bank's clock to verify when he painted it- a protocol that Randi was impressed by. He did get a number of 'hits' which were sometimes extremely impressive, especially the Tokyo Subway sarin attack which he described in meticulous detail. Randi didn't comment on that one unfortunately.



If it were so accurate would you expect him to! ;)

[Ladewig]

Do you have a website with further descriptions? I tried searching on "David Mandell" but it is a relatively common name.

[Peach Jr.]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Do you have a website with further descriptions? I tried searching on "David Mandell" but it is a relatively common name.

This sounds really interesting. I'd also love to see a website with his paintings. Can the show be downloaded for viewing as well?

[Star Of The Sea]

:( Sigh, sadly I couldn't find anything about him on the internet despite many different searches. Not surprising really: he's just a London pensioner and, in the polygraph test, he was asked questions like 'do you do this for attention?', 'do you have anyone helping you?' and 'do you do this to make money?' all of which he answered 'no' to and the polygraph suggested he was telling the truth. So I wouldn't really expect him to have a website. The sceptic Chris French, who conducted one of the tests on him, is all over the internet though: try a google search for "chris french" parapsychology for a start. As for downloading it, search for it, someone somewhere might have put it up although it's a long shot: the programme was called 'The Man That Paints The Future' and it was part of the 'Extraordinary People' series on Channel 5.

I remember reading an article about Mandell in Fortean Times last year on the aniversary of September 11th, the only other time I have come across him. He did a painting that did resemble the twin towers collapsing (with differences) but what was interesting was that he took the photo in front of the bank clock on the previous September 11th. Randi had a hard time talking about this one, but made good points about how the buildings did not collapse in the way Mandell painted them and that it was a matter of interpretation.

This element of interpretation was the basis of Chris French's experiment where he got 20 subjects in the lab to view the pictures and choose the interpretation the thought most resembled the painting, and for 31 out of 40 paintings, the subjects favoured Mandell's interpretation to the other interpretations given, also of real life events. Chris French went as far as to call this 'statistically very significant' and he designed the experiment himself so he didn't have any complaints about that, which he often does to devastating effect for other parapsychology experiments. So the 'it's just interpretation' theory seems to be disproved by this experiment, but sadly no other convincing theories were put forward by the sceptics.

If you want to know anything else about the program while it is still fresh in my mind then feel free to ask, can't be too verbose about it though. Someone should email Randi about it..... and ask why it wasn't publicised on the website. The cynic in me can't resist speculating that it was maybe because he didn't do much decisive debunking this time? Probably just my cynicism, but he has gone on and on about the Korean programmes that no one will ever see, and of course the Horizon homeopathy one, and even on Friday he talked about some Danish TV programme he wasn't even in, so why the hell not this one!?


Luke

[Soubrette]

Luke

I only had one problem with the protocol for the test regarding the choice of two interpretations for each picture. The interpretation made by David Mandell was the most publicised. For example the one specifically explained was the Concorde crash in France. However there was another Russian crash in (I think) 1974 where a Russian plane so like Concorde that it was nicknamed Koncordski (sp?) had crashed in France. However most people wouldn't remember that one - they would remember the most recent.

I don't know how you could factor this into an experiment though:(

As to the Tokyo one - I noticed they focused on very specific bits of the painting - three of four parts in particular. I would have liked to have seen all of it - to see if indeed all of it fitted the incident :)

Finally - the average person on the streets intuitive grasp of statistics was scary :eek:

Otherwise I agree with the excellent points you make in your first post.

I personally didn't find it enough to be convincing :p But enough to be interesting :D

Sou

[Star Of The Sea]

Soubrette,

Yes, it is true that the Mandell interpretation was usually the most well-known one, and of course for some of the paintings it was difficult to find a similar 'control' interpretation- for example the September 11 one. But like you said, it's hard to come up with a methodology to correct this.

Ha ha, yes you're right, the street survey was really eye-opening, where loads of people said you were more likely to get ten sixes on ten dice if you rolled them all together instead of one after the other :eek:

There was lots of small text on the Tokyo one that was not shown, it did seem to concentrate on the text that was most relevent. Still a good hit though.


Yep, I'm also not convinced, but it was interesting that he passed most tests that almost every other 'psychic' has flunked badly: polygraph lie detector, photographic analysis, experimentation etc. If he's genuine, it would be the biggest discovery of all time: if he's not genuine, then he is a tough nut to crack for the sceptics and forces them to get real, and raise their game a bit to find out the truth, Either way, it's good stuff. :)
Luke

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea


Ha ha, yes you're right, the street survey was really eye-opening, where loads of people said you were more likely to get ten sixes on ten dice if you rolled them all together instead of one after the other :eek:



Was it only the "woo woo's" who thought this?

Actually I would have thought they would have said it was less likely. Oh well, I've never been able to understand the bizarre way that most other people's minds work.

Missed that part of the programme cos only saw last 15 minutes! :mad:

[Peach Jr.]

Star of the Sea,

Thanks for the info. I didn't fimd anything on the painter (or the shows:( ),
but did find some stuff of Chris French. Pretty interesting guy...

Do you think the shows would be broadcast on BBC America? Could be a long shot, but my sister/brother-in-law get that on their cable - perhaps it might be shown later or repeated there. Have to ask them...

Thanks again.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


Was it only the "woo woo's" who thought this?

Actually I would have thought they would have said it was less likely. Oh well, I've never been able to understand the bizarre way that most other people's minds work.

Missed that part of the programme cos only saw last 15 minutes! :mad:

Interestingly enough - the programme stated that those more likely to believe in - dammit I can't remember the exact phrase used :mad: but paranormal phenomena sticks in my mind, were less likely to understand the nature of statistics.

However they could just have been referring to the paintings in particular or the paranormal in general - I can't remember. Also they didn't go into any more details than just the dice question - so I'm unclear how they found out people's beliefs and if their grasp of statistics was done on just that one dice question.

I'm sure that will help reinforce your own beliefs ;)

Sou

[Soubrette]

Oh the only info I could come up with for this programme was the C5 website where you could send off for a factsheet.

to buy factsheet? Well... click on factsheets ;) (http://www.channel5.co.uk/)

But no further details I'm afraid - sorry all :(

Sou

[WildCat]

It seems to me it would be very easy to fake the date on a photograph of a bank's clock - especially if it is a digital clock. Bright numbers, black background, I could photoshop any date/time you'd like on it.

[kittynh]

It sounds interesting...but I still think about what use is it?

Even if he did paint the future, are the paintings accurate enough to do anything other than after the fact say, "oh, interesting..."

Polygraphs are a joke, I could pass one in a hearbeat (little joke). They are more a psychological tool than anything else.

Shoot I missed that I wanted to see it out of skeptical curiousity.
I am so :( now.

So was the outcome that artist did foretell future events in paintings?

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by WildCat
It seems to me it would be very easy to fake the date on a photograph of a bank's clock - especially if it is a digital clock. Bright numbers, black background, I could photoshop any date/time you'd like on it.

The negatives were analysed. And an expert said he thought it unlikely they were doctored.

Also there was one nice detail where he'd picked up a date on a poster behind him.

The Bank clock didn't have a year on - but negatives have codes on or something which matched the years claimed plus that date on the poster had a year on it.

Finally the bank staff were asked and they confirmed that the painter comes in about once a month and one of the staff takes a picture of him plus his painting.

I'm inclined to believe that he (the painter) isn't trying to perpetrate a fraud. I'm also inclined to believe in view of the fact that we weren't shown all of the paintings in detail that he's had some lucky hits in his 200 odd paintings. But I still find it interesting :)

Oh Kitty - there was definitely an after the fact interpretation for all of them - except one. The last dream he had whilst doing the programme seemed to fit an aircrash happening at one of the London airports. He did phone them with his concerns. Although the painting seemed to match the scenery pretty well there was no detail though - so it seems that any crash could well fit that painting - I would have been interested to know the statistics for crashes at that runway (it was a small one - not one of the main ones :))

Sou

[Q-Source]

Why the JREF did not mention anything about the programme? :mad:

O.K. I videotaped most of the programme :p , especifically from the moment Randi appeared.

I did not find David Mandell interesting AT ALL !

His paintings are so so vague, only someone who wants to see a meaning on them will find a meaning.

They are exactly like those UFOs fuzzy pictures, absolutely nothing clear.

Furthermore, I think many people take his word for it. I really doubt that he wrote the text about Tokyo's subway before the event. How could we know that it was written before?. There is no way.

[bjornart]

I have the same question. In this case where, obviously, interpretation is a big thing, what is the evidence that Mandell interpreted his works correctly before the incidents they supposedly predict?

That someone choses Mandell's interpretation of the paintings as a premonition of some well published event over the alternate interpretation that they were of some less known event tells us nothing, except that Mandell and the audience read the same news.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Why the JREF did not mention anything about the programme? :mad:

O.K. I videotaped most of the programme :p , especifically from the moment Randi appeared.

I did not find David Mandell interesting AT ALL !

His paintings are so so vague, only someone who wants to see a meaning on them will find a meaning.

They are exactly like those UFOs fuzzy pictures, absolutely nothing clear.

Furthermore, I think many people take his word for it. I really doubt that he wrote the text about Tokyo's subway before the event. How could we know that it was written before?. There is no way.

Hmmmm I think you've made a slight contradiction here Q :)

First you are saying that anyone who wants to see a meaning will find a meaning - but then you're discounting what seem to be amazing hits by assuming he cheated :D

Either they're really vague or he's cheating - it can't really be both can it?

And the idea that he was cheating was explored in a lie detector test which he passed. Of course he could have been coached by Derren Brown or a sociopath - but I think that would come under Occam's razor wouldn't it? Surely it's more parsimonious to assume he passed because he believes he is telling the truth.

And he could have written the Toyko stuff after the event (that mis-spelling of Tokyo a clever ploy to put us off ;)) but he did have his pictures photographed so he was taking the chance that the writing would be discernable if it was clearly different from the photo.

And the twin towers one was good - don't forget it was also photographed on Sept 11th - presumably the day after he's painted it :)

Sou

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by bjornart
I have the same question. In this case where, obviously, interpretation is a big thing, what is the evidence that Mandell interpreted his works correctly before the incidents they supposedly predict?

That someone choses Mandell's interpretation of the paintings as a premonition of some well published event over the alternate interpretation that they were of some less known event tells us nothing, except that Mandell and the audience read the same news.


I would say, this about sums it up..

[Ersby]

Interesting, but I'd need to see more details, blah de blah.

btw, are we sure that the twin towers picture was the only picture put into the vault on Sept 11?

[Soapy Sam]

Star of the Sea- "Stella Maris?" - Would that be the west end of Glasgow?

Having no TV, I missed this- all I know about it is this thread.

Apart from the TV programme, have you seen any of these dream paintings? Has this chap actual records of publishing interpretations prior to events as opposed to post hoc interpretation?

I too would be interested to know why the programme was not (IF it was not) discussed in JR's weekly commentary. I see JR as an interesting person, as fallible as the rest of us , but with things to say worth hearing and admirable professional standards. If he has said little about this, perhaps
a) He saw nothing worthy of comment
or
b)He found this more than normally interesting.

It would be interesting to hear which, if either. I do know that TV schedules can be capricious; an item recorded today may be broadcast in 2013. JR may simply not have known about the broadcast schedules. Be interested to know more.

[kittynh]

I would like to add for those of you who have never had an interview with the print or television media, they edit heavily and often slant news to a point they are trying to make. I remember Joe Nickell was interviewed once for an hour for a Discovery channel program - and it was edited down to about 2 minutes. Two minutes of him saying, "well, I can't explain that..." cutting off him saying, "I need more information." The things he could explain, were totally gone.

I think Sou it would be great if you could keep us updated about the airport picture, and if a plane crashes. Though even if he knew an exact date, I don't think it would change anything. It's sort of the case of being a Cassandra. Does he sell his paintings? I imagine after the tv show he could get quite a lot for them. I can't tell you as an artist how I love sharing gallery space with some celebrity who picked up a paintbrush - but fame (even tv fame) sells. At least he could make some money off of this.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by kittynh
I would like to add for those of you who have never had an interview with the print or television media, they edit heavily and often slant news to a point they are trying to make. I remember Joe Nickell was interviewed once for an hour for a Discovery channel program - and it was edited down to about 2 minutes. Two minutes of him saying, "well, I can't explain that..." cutting off him saying, "I need more information." The things he could explain, were totally gone.

I didn't get that impression with this though - although there was much there that I personally would have liked to have seen more of :)


Originally posted by kittynh
it would be great if you could keep us updated about the airport picture, and if a plane crashes. Though even if he knew an exact date, I don't think it would change anything. It's sort of the case of being a Cassandra. Does he sell his paintings? I imagine after the tv show he could get quite a lot for them. I can't tell you as an artist how I love sharing gallery space with some celebrity who picked up a paintbrush - but fame (even tv fame) sells. At least he could make some money off of this.

As far as I know the only monetary gain mentioned was that he occasionally gets paid for interviews. I seem to remember that it was specifically mentioned that he doesn't sell his paintings of his dreams I believe and that he doesn't make money directly from his "clairvoyance" - Q_Source maybe able to confirm that as she has it on video:)

I'm sure all of us Britfolk will keep an eye out for an accident at the airport - again, not having a copy of the programme I can't remember which one (possibly London Airport or something) but Q maybe able to post the details now and then it can be seen if it is confirmed at some point in the future, although the future stretches an awful long way ;)

And to the issue of whether he fortells the future from his paintings or just post hocs them - here is something from the Radio Times dated 22-28 March 2003 (last weeks ;)) (pg 114)

Future Tense

"Five years ago I was quite sceptical and set out to make a humourous documentary about what you might call psychic detectives, but David Mandell completely floored me," says James Cutler, producer of The Man Who Paints the Future (9:00pm Five)
"He's always told me, for instance, that the Twin Towers in New York were going to collapse and he had a detailed picture showing that." Mandell, a retired lecturer, lives in a modest flat. "He has a sort of other-wordliness and naivety," says Cutler. "That could be the mark of an accomplished conman, but we've subjected David and his pictures to as many scientific tests as we can. I don't know whether David sees the future, but I do believe his dreams show him things that match future events. It's up to the viewers to make up their own minds"



Sou

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Soubrette

First you are saying that anyone who wants to see a meaning will find a meaning - but then you're discounting what seem to be amazing hits by assuming he cheated

Amazing hits???

I think it is a matter of interpretation. To me, he did not make any hit because he never made any premonition. He just presented all the "evidence" after the event ocurred. I cannot trust on pictures and anecdotal evidence. That's not how Science and critical thinking work.


Either they're really vague or he's cheating - it can't really be both can it?

He can do both. Why not?


And the idea that he was cheating was explored in a lie detector test which he passed. Of course he could have been coached by Derren Brown or a sociopath - but I think that would come under Occam's razor wouldn't it? Surely it's more parsimonious to assume he passed because he believes he is telling the truth.

Exactly, a lie detector does not prove anything.


And he could have written the Toyko stuff after the event (that mis-spelling of Tokyo a clever ploy to put us off ;)) but he did have his pictures photographed so he was taking the chance that the writing would be discernable if it was clearly different from the photo.

He did have his photograph taken but ten metres away. Ridiculous.

Why on Earth he doesn't take clear photographs of his paintings and texts instead of fuzzy pictures? Because in this way, he can add anything later.


And the twin towers one was good - don't forget it was also photographed on Sept 11th - presumably the day after he's painted it

Why was it a good one?, I just saw two unclear builings inclined to the right side of the painting. The twin towers collapse downwards!

[Soubrette]

All quotes in bold originally posted by Q-Source


Amazing hits???

I think it is a matter of interpretation. To me, he did not make any hit because he never made any premonition. He just presented all the "evidence" after the event ocurred. I cannot trust on pictures and anecdotal evidence. That's not how Science and critical thinking work.

I think that both the Twin Towers one and the Tokyo picture were good hits. Also the Dunblane one and the Concorde one were interesting but not so good.

Perhaps you should explain how science works to the scientists who appeared in the programme who did believe in David Mandell :p

And critical thinking to my mind means keeping an open mind on interesting phenomena. Like I said - this wasn't convincing evidence to me, but it was interesting. Even the guy who devised the psychological tests said he's like to do further tests with the artist.

He can do both. Why not?

Because they are almost diametrically opposite. Why would he cheat and be vague enough to appeal to anyone? Why not go with one strategy? If he cheats to make himself look good - why not do it all the time? If he's vague enough that his pictures can fit any scenario then why take the risk of cheating?

Exactly, a lie detector does not prove anything.

But added to the other evidence - the confirmation of the bank staff, the examination of the negatives by an expert, the words of the producer in one of my later posts from the radio times, these all indicate that he is probably not lying. A lie detector test is merely part of the overall picture imo.

He did have his photograph taken but ten metres away. Ridiculous.

Why on Earth he doesn't take clear photographs of his paintings and texts instead of fuzzy pictures? Because in this way, he can add anything later.

So if he's a cheat then why is there no evidence of this? The only evidence that you seem to be saying is that some of his hits are so good that he must have cheated on them. That's post hoc theorising surely? Personally I think it's more likely to be a statistical thing - he's painted over 200 pictures and we only got to really look at 4 and even then not too closely. But my hypothesis can be tested - if the other 200 pictures were closely examined - can yours? Good science says it should :)


Why was it a good one?, I just saw two unclear builings inclined to the right side of the painting. The twin towers collapse downwards!

It was a recognisable painting. In the blurb reproduced above he also said before the Towers collapsed that they would - a rare instance of talking about an event before it happened.

Personally I'm happy to say I'm not convinced but I think it does scepticism no favours to just dismiss some of his more interesting hits as cheating unless you have actual evidence. Many people believe they can dowse for instance - they're not necessarily fraudulent.

Sou
(Edited to add - I mean they're not necessarily fraudulent in their belief they can douse :o i.e. they genuinely believe they can douse :p

[chillzero]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea
If he's genuine, it would be the biggest discovery of all time

Can you tell me, how so?
This information when matched with events all comes after the fact. I would class this the biggest discovery of all time if the infomation provided in the pictures can be of some use.

[Loki]

Sou,

Coupla things ...

And the idea that he was cheating was explored in a lie detector test which he passed.
I've read several bits and pieces over the past few years that have basically condemned polygraphs (lie detectors) as useless. The attitude seemed to be that the only people who take them at all seriously are (a) the general public, mainly because they don't know any better; (b) the people who make them (obviously!); and (c) various law enforcement agencies who have to justify the money spent on equipment and training. In short, lie detectors don't work.

...the words of the producer in one of my later posts from the radio times,...

"He's always told me, for instance, that the Twin Towers in New York were going to collapse and he had a detailed picture showing that."

I'd be careful here, for two reasons.

First, the man is the producer, so he has a ready motive to 'stretch the truth' (or just plain lie) about something like this.

Second, I think this kind of 'retelling' is fraught with human error. Perhaps the artist and the producer *did* discuss the Twin Towers and the painting a few years ago. However, imagine that the artist actually said "something is going to happen to some tall buildings, like the Twin Towers for example". It's very easy to see how the producer, when recalling this conversation could change "something will happen" into "collapse" and "like the Twin Towers" into "the Twin Towers". Just a theory, of course, but I've seen this subtle shifting of language happened more than once!

Basically, the producer must be treated with a fair deal of skepticism, I think (purely as a precaution!)

[Soubrette]

I think there was no evidence that David Mandell was cheating :)

The only evidence that has been put forward on this thread is that some of the hits are so good he must be cheating.

My preferred hypothesis is the statistical likelihood of hits and the vagueness of the pictures.

I take your point on the lie detector test but it was just one of several tests they did and there was no evidence of cheating in any of them.

Also Loki - don't forget that the producer made this programme because of a programme he's make before. David Mandell must have made some kind of impression on him.

Like I said I found the programme interesting but unconvincing. However I find the hypothesis that David Mandell is some kind of cheat or fraud unconvincing too.

That's the only point I'm trying to make here :)

And why haven't you answered my response to you in the Materialism thread *pouting*

Sou

[edthedoc]

The crucial point here is the other 200 or so paintings. If these were "misses" and only the 4 shown were "hits" then that doesn't strike me as a good hit rate, but more likely chance. It does seem very difficult to perform any decent statistical study because so much is open to interpretation.

Not enough evidence to convince.

[tim]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea
Just saw the above show on Channel 5 here in the UK. Now, this was hands down the best show on the paranormal I've ever seen! It had everything: James Randi, Chris French, the Koestler Institute in Edinburgh, photographic analysis of photos taken in front of a bank's clock, statistical analysis, experimental investigation..... a great show, and a very interesting case indeed... Randi said something like 'this is a very intriguing case' and as always offered the million dollar test... the program didn't say if David Mandell would take it up though (wonder what the protocol would be). Randi's main assessment that the paintings could be interpreted in many different ways was the subject of the English skeptic Chris French's test in a psychology lab where subjects were shown the pictures and asked to choose between two interpretations: David's own one, and another similar event... David's interpretation was overwhelmingly favoured, interestingly. The other sceptical position was that of a misunderstanding of probability and the possibilty that only the 'hits' were shown and most paintings were not shown if they didn't match... a possiblity as the artist did not catalogue his work properly.

All in all David Mandell came across as a sincere and fascinating character, and the sceptics, Randi included, came across with considerable dignity, accepting that the claim had not been disproved by their investigations to date, merely offering alternative explainations: no hubris as 'baby sceptics' (like some on this board :p ) would have come out with. Great stuff.

What annoys me though is that there was nothing about this show on the JREF site! :mad: If I had known about it I would have videotaped it! We got told often enough about the Korean shows that most will never see, why not this one?

And no, no transcript or further synopsis, too busy, sorry. Others may though.

Luke

Hi Star - I did post a notice on the board two or three days before the programme was on. Guess you missed it!

[Q-Source]

Q-Source
Why on Earth he doesn't take clear photographs of his paintings and texts instead of fuzzy pictures? Because in this way, he can add anything later.

Soubrette
So if he's a cheat then why is there no evidence of this? The only evidence that you seem to be saying is that some of his hits are so good that he must have cheated on them. That's post hoc theorising surely?

Don't put words in my mouth.

I am not saying that his hits are so good that he must be cheating.

His hits are not good at all. They seemed to be good to the people who want to see something in the paintings. I don't see any relevant thing on them.

I don't see any clear evidence that the painting was representing the collapse of the twin towers in NYC. Where are the airplanes?
why do they seem to fall to the right side?

Science does not have to prove that he is cheating. HE HAS to prove that he is capable of seeing the future. And the only possible way to do this is by presenting a premonition BEFORE the event takes place, not after the event.

[Ersby]

I think cheating is an emotive word, and is entirely unecessary as an explanation.

But now I know there are 200 paintings floating around, I think it's clear what's going on.

First, I don't see why it's interesting that someone predicts the future, or to be more exact: predicts future newsworthy events. There are certain aspects of historical/newsworthy events that many of them share. It's possible, for example, to put together a "prediction" that'll come "true", somewere in the world, in the next few days.

The terrain here is level, I feel, and I'm looking at a structure going up. It's a manmade structure, and there are people inside, men and women. This seems to be an urban environment, since I'm aware of other structures nearby. The people here are focused on one thing, and there is talking and shouting. I can smell burning, and there's a booming or roaring sound. Something loud. There are people outside, too. There is a source of light of heat, and a sense of energy, of movement in all directions.

This is so vague it doesn't mean anything, but something like it (more or less, since a few of the statements are likely to be misses) will happen very soon. And this works even when there's no war going on. If you add some details about location or what have you. you're going to have to wait a little longer. But then, if you have 200 such predictions, then that's not going to be a problem.

Given enough data and enough time you can find "predictions" in anything. Nostradamians do it all the time, and I noticed recently it can be done with the London A-Z. Take Adolf Hitler. There's no Hitler Road/Street/whatever in London, but there is a Hither Green Lane (which is certainly close enough for most Nostradamians, so it'll serve us now). This road junctions with...

Courthill Road (Churchill?)
Canada Gardens (Canada=North America)
George Road (King George, monarch of UK at the time)
Theodore Road (Theodore Roosevelt, president of the US at the time)
Havard Road (Roosevelt went to Harvard)

Is this interesting? The chances against it happen are astronomical, after all. Does this show the London A-Z can predict the future?

Did the programme ask what the next big event was going to be? I would've thought that would be a good test of any prediction: to be made and understood before the event takes place.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Don't put words in my mouth.

I am not saying that his hits are so good that he must be cheating.

His hits are not good at all. They seemed to be good to the people who want to see something in the paintings. I don't see any relevant thing on them.

I don't see any clear evidence that the painting was representing the collapse of the twin towers in NYC. Where are the airplanes?
why do they seem to fall to the right side?

Science does not have to prove that he is cheating. HE HAS to prove that he is capable of seeing the future. And the only possible way to do this is by presenting a premonition BEFORE the event takes place, not after the event.

I'm sorry Q but saying that someone can add anything afterwards to me is saying that they are cheating.

Please can you explain what you meant by that since I have obviously misunderstood you.

Sou
(Edited to add I am talking specifically about the Tokyo picture here)

[wert]

Originally posted by Soubrette


I'm sorry Q but saying that someone can add anything afterwards to me is saying that they are cheating.No.

He is simply pointing out the possibility of cheating.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by wert
No.

He is simply pointing out the possibility of cheating.


Q_Source is a lady :)

And I think she pointed out the possibility somewhat stronger than that :)

Originally posted by Q-Source
Furthermore, I think many people take his word for it. I really doubt that he wrote the text about Tokyo's subway before the event. How could we know that it was written before?. There is no way.

Sou

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Soubrette
[B]

Q_Source is a lady :)



Yea, a sexy intelligent young lady :D A materialist and atheist perhaps. But I can live with that! :D

[wert]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Q_Source is a lady :)Noted.


And I think she pointed out the possibility somewhat stronger than that :)



Sou Hm, still doesn't invalidate the ladies point now does it?

To honestly assess the situation, one must take into account as many factors as possible.

Cheating is certainly a possible (and potentially relevant) factor.

Your opinion of how q-source expresses this possibility has little relevance to the actual point at hand. :)

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by wert
Noted.


Hm, still doesn't invalidate the ladies point now does it?

To honestly assess the situation, one must take into account as many factors as possible.

Cheating is certainly a possible (and potentially relevant) factor.

Your opinion of how q-source expresses this possibility has little relevance to the actual point at hand. :)

Except there was no positive evidence that he cheated - that is the only point I'm trying to make :)

I think to assume cheating isn't actually very sceptical in this instance. Although to admit there is a possibility is very fair.

I personally feel there is a possibility but it doesn't seem very likely on the evidence we were given.

Sou

[wert]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Except there was no positive evidence that he cheated - that is the only point I'm trying to make :)Argument from ignorance. Without proper controls, we have no way of knowing whether he cheated or not. The "evidence" presented in no way denies the possibility of cheating. :)

I think to assume cheating isn't actually very sceptical in this instance. I'm not assuming it at all.

Although to admit there is a possibility is very fair. Yes, it is.


I personally feel there is a possibility but it doesn't seem very likely on the evidence we were given.

Sou The evidence was fairly weak. Even his best "hits" are vague and easily explained by other than paranormal means. Not seeing the text clearly beforehand IMHO makes it fairly useless as "evidence".

Vague, subjective paintings and text coupled with anecdotal "evidence" presented "after the fact" hardly makes for a strong case.

He has to prove his case to us. Preferably with better controls than merely taking a picture.

Until he does so, I'll say his case is interesting, but not necessarily compelling from an evidentiary point of view.

Some might want to believe him because he seems sincere or whatever, but I won't extend that "benefit of the doubt" without harder evidence and more compelling control conditions.

[Soubrette]

Wert

I think we agree :p

We have no way of knowing whether he cheated or not except that they subjected his photos to an expert's scrutiny, they checked out the bank staff who confirmed he comes in about once a month, they did a lie detector test (which may or may not be worthless :)).

So there is no positive evidence he cheated and some weak evidence he did not.

It therefore seems illogical to me to assume he cheated. It seems far more logical to me to assume that he didn't (on view of the weak evidence that he didn't) but admit there is the possibility he may have.

And as you know I agree with you (again) the evidence was far from conclusive as to his clairvoyance - but this is a separate issue as to whether he is perpetrating a deliberate fraud.

And of course we were rather rudely discussing Q_Sources take on the situation - and why I felt she was wrong to assume he was cheating. (Although I'm willing to totally apologise if I've misinterpreted her Tokyo comments that I've quoted)

Sou

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ersby
Given enough data and enough time you can find "predictions" in anything. Nostradamians do it all the time, and I noticed recently it can be done with the London A-Z. Take Adolf Hitler. There's no Hitler Road/Street/whatever in London, but there is a Hither Green Lane (which is certainly close enough for most Nostradamians, so it'll serve us now). This road junctions with...

Courthill Road (Churchill?)
Canada Gardens (Canada=North America)
George Road (King George, monarch of UK at the time)
Theodore Road (Theodore Roosevelt, president of the US at the time)
Havard Road (Roosevelt went to Harvard)

Is this interesting? The chances against it happen are astronomical, after all. Does this show the London A-Z can predict the future?

Apparently the London A-Z cannot even predict the past. The President in question was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not Theodore. :D

[Q-Source]

Sou

The evidence that he presented is inconclusive.
The text about the attack in Tokyo's subways has no way to be proven.

O.K. I retract from saying that he could be cheating. I have no way to know that. However, it does not mean that the possibility does not exist.

The point that we should be discussing is whether or not his claim is true: that he can predict future events, instead of discussing whether or not he cheated.

The fact is that he hasn't been able to prove his claims because he has left (deliberately or not) a wide range of gaps that does not help in any way to support his supernatural abilities.

[wert]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Wert

I think we agree :pSort of.

We have no way of knowing whether he cheated or not except that they subjected his photos to an expert's scrutiny, they checked out the bank staff who confirmed he comes in about once a month, they did a lie detector test (which may or may not be worthless :)).As "controls", all of the above are weak and easily circumvented.

So there is no positive evidence he cheated and some weak evidence he did not.See above. With such weak and easily circumvented controls, one is hard pressed to see it as even "weak" evidence.

It therefore seems illogical to me to assume he cheated. I see no hard core claims to this in any of Q's posts.

It seems far more logical to me to assume that he didn't (on view of the weak evidence that he didn't) but admit there is the possibility he may have.Why assume at all? Simply test him with better controls and see if his paranormal powers hold up.

If they do, give the man Randi's Million bucks! :)


And as you know I agree with you (again) the evidence was far from conclusive as to his clairvoyance -Try as I might, I saw very little that could actually be considered "evidence".

but this is a separate issue as to whether he is perpetrating a deliberate fraud.I could care less. Test him properly and then we'll find out eh?

And of course we were rather rudely discussing Q_Sources take on the situation - and why I felt she was wrong to assume he was cheating.I think you are misinterpeting her.

(Although I'm willing to totally apologise if I've misinterpreted her Tokyo comments that I've quoted)

Sou You might just have to. Raising the possibility of cheating doesn't mean one is making the accusation of cheating. And anyways, who cares? It's merely opinion.

Let him take Randi's test and see how his precognitive talents fare. :)

[wert]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Sou

O.K. I retract from saying that he could be cheating. I have no way to know that. However, it does not mean that the possibility does not exist. You shouldn't retract this at all.

You're quite correct in stating that nothing in the special precludes the possibility of cheating.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by wert
You shouldn't retract this at all.

You're quite correct in stating that nothing in the special precludes the possibility of cheating.

I am saying that the possibility that he could have cheated exists.

In fact this is what I really think. However, to be fair, we have the alternative possibility that he was not cheating.

That's why we cannot establish with 100% accuracy in this regard.
My original take on this was that he could have cheated as you correctly noted.

[kittynh]

So thinking of the thread I told me kids to remember what they dreamt last night, and then paint a picture of it.

In the next few months there will be a big train wreck.

A bridge is going to fall down, cars will fall off.

There will be pink and yellow cats flying around.

Someone is going to Disney and will meet CInderella.

Someone is going swimming and will meet talking fish (maybe that carp mentioned in Randi's commentary)

There is going to be a lot of fighting in a war, and a big tank is going to run people down.

this is just a sampling....

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Apparently the London A-Z cannot even predict the past. The President in question was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not Theodore. :D

I realised that just as I went to bed last night. Bah. Still, if it were Nostradamus I'm sure someone would come up with an explanation.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Apparently the London A-Z cannot even predict the past. The President in question was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not Theodore. :D

But he went to Harvard too!:D So this discrepancy merely reflects fallible human interpretation of the sacred text!

[imagineNoReligion]

I haven't seen the TV program, but it occurs to me that I could paint a whole bunch of paintings depicting vague scenes of destruction, either depicting actual monuments or well known buildings or scenes of aircraft, train, shipping disasters. I could then photograph each of these paintings in front of a clock. Eventually one of my "premonitions" would come true. I could then claim to have psychic powers, after the event. Of course I would never divulge how many of my paintings, i.e. premonitions did not come to pass.

It would be far more impressive if I made my whole collection of paintings available for inspection and then demonstrated over a period of time that a statistically significant number of my premonitions actually came true.

Furthermore I do not think that it would be satisfying, for me to have a vague collection of paintings that could be arguably attributed to just about any event. A reasonable description would need to be applied to each painting.

It always amazes me how many people claim to have predicted an event, after the event has happened.

[Star Of The Sea]

Mandell did make a prediction of an event to happen in the future- a plane crash/ attack at an airport with water either side of the runway and strange angular buildings nearby.. he decided the closest that fitted this description was London City Airport, one of few airports that fit the description... he called the British Aviation Authority to tell them about his dream painting.

[kittynh]

So he called the airport, actually that sounds way more like Bostons Logan airport. Far more than London!!!!

Does he actually know where it will be? And what are they supposed to do? Cancel all flights? This guy have a date, or type of plane in mind? Are they supposed to get more emergency vehicles (most airports are well equiped already)? So let's see, a crash at London, or Boston, or hmmm, that also sounds like the airport at Hong Kong... and by George, he's done it. But what good is it? I'm strongly of the belief that nature has purpose. The point of this is what?

[imagineNoReligion]

It could also fit the description of La Guardia.

[davefoc]

Seems like imagineNoReligion did a pretty good job of summing up the situation to me.

On the topic of polygraphy, I'd just like to add that I pretty much agree with most of the posters here, it's a load of crap and not worthy of being put forth as evidence of anything except the notion that a lot of people can fool themselves into believing anything if they have a vested interest. Here's one of a few antipolygraphy web sites:
http://antipolygraph.org/

[Jethro]

Of course, when the inevitable accident at an airport happens, Mandell will claim his painting predicted it.

[JimTheBrit]

For anyone who's interested, I've just received the programme series' booklet. Extracts on David Mandell can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/Main.html

Edited for typo

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Luke

I only had one problem with the protocol for the test regarding the choice of two interpretations for each picture. The interpretation made by David Mandell was the most publicised. For example the one specifically explained was the Concorde crash in France. However there was another Russian crash in (I think) 1974 where a Russian plane so like Concorde that it was nicknamed Koncordski (sp?) had crashed in France. However most people wouldn't remember that one - they would remember the most recent.

I don't know how you could factor this into an experiment though:(

As to the Tokyo one - I noticed they focused on very specific bits of the painting - three of four parts in particular. I would have liked to have seen all of it - to see if indeed all of it fitted the incident :)

Finally - the average person on the streets intuitive grasp of statistics was scary :eek:

Otherwise I agree with the excellent points you make in your first post.

I personally didn't find it enough to be convincing :p But enough to be interesting :D

Sou

You are a smiley FIEND.

[allanb]

Originally posted by Soubrette


I'm inclined to believe that he (the painter) isn't trying to perpetrate a fraud. I'm also inclined to believe in view of the fact that we weren't shown all of the paintings in detail that he's had some lucky hits in his 200 odd paintings.


This is exactly why I'm not impressed. How many newsworthy events are there in the world in a year? Impossible to quantify, but let's conservatively say a few tens of thousands. If he's done 200 paintings, it's not surprising that some of them turned out to be similar to some subsequent event - in fact, it would be amazing if that didn't happen.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Randi's main assessment that the paintings could be interpreted in many different ways was the subject of the English skeptic Chris French's test in a psychology lab where subjects were shown the pictures and asked to choose between two interpretations: David's own one, and another similar event... David's interpretation was overwhelmingly favoured, interestingly.

I also saw that on the science channel and it seemed interesting. The problem is though, with that expiriment is that the pictures were supposedly an abstract of a well known public event. So the person could chose a random/meaningless interpretation or a more relevant/meaningful one.

Like if I saw an abstract of towers crumbling I'd think "Twin Towers" as opposed to other interpretations after the fact. Not due to any clarity but due to my own preference.

A proper controlled experiment would have dealt with a fairly unknown event.

[asthmatic camel]

"English skeptic Chris French's test in a psychology lab where subjects were shown the pictures and asked to choose between two interpretations: David's own one, and another similar event... David's interpretation was overwhelmingly favoured, interestingly"

What concerns me about this is that the subjects were actually given Mandell's interpretation in the first place. If his paintings are so convincing then why were the subjects not asked to provide their own interpretation, without cues? A statistically significant result under these conditions would indeed be interesting.

Regards,

asthmatic camel

[Cinorjer]

What the man's doing is called "mining for data", and it's not that hard to understand. There's an unlimited supply of events to choose from, given no time constraints and certainly no definition of what constitutes a predictable event. Gee, did the guy paint something involving a plane crash? Isn't it amazing that he eventually a plane crashed and "proved" his painting was predictive?

As for the tall buildings falling over, it would have been counted as a "hit" if any tall buildings anywhere had been destroyed in any way, such as an earthquake.

The guy sounds more self-deluded than conartist, since the picture in front of the clock doesn't prove exactly what day he stood there with the painting. Why not just take a good picture of the painting next to a newspaper with the front page clearly readable? He should also take a clear picture that shows every detail of every painting. After all, the trick isn't waiting until after the event to paint them. That's misdirection. All he has to do is wait for some event to happen that seems to match one of his paintings, then trumpet it as a "hit".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What time is shown on the bank clock?

~~ Paul

[Jon_in_london]

As I posted in the other thread on this, did the program ever verify that he actually painted the pictures before the events?

If not then the whole thing is meaningless.

[Azrael 5]

This programme is repeated on Discovery early tomorrow:2.00am and 3.00am on Discovery +1.For those who didnt see Channel 5.:)

[JimTheBrit]

... and the scans of Mandell's "Concorde crash" (big (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/Mandell-ConcordeBig.jpg) / small (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/Mandell-ConcordeSmall.jpg)) and "WTC destruction (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/Mandell-NY.jpg)" paintings (taken from the booklet accompanying the series) are still available to view.

Edit: Trivia bite: The programme on Mandell is part of the same series that will be broadcasting "psychic" Dennis Mackenzie's recent trip to Witchita (http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/9786873.htm) (if the details in the linked article are correct).

[mummymonkey]

Unless I had a premonition some time ago, this programme is a repeat. Which makes his London City Airport crash prediction wrong.

[Aussie Thinker]

Important to note… WTC had ALREADY been attacked once before.. a serious attempt had been made to “bring down� the structures.

Mandells painting show ONE building collapsing into another (exactly like the previous attack intended)

If I painted 200 vague pictures of events I am DAMN sure I would get more than 4 acceptable “hits�

Kittnh,

Can I do a test on your Kids paintings..

In the next few months there will be a big train wreck.

Boy Under 10

A bridge is going to fall down, cars will fall off.

Same boy

There will be pink and yellow cats flying around.

Girl under 8

Someone is going to Disney and will meet CInderella.

Girl 9-12

Someone is going swimming and will meet talking fish (maybe that carp mentioned in Randi's commentary)

Same girl

There is going to be a lot of fighting in a war, and a big tank is going to run people down.

Boy over 10 ?

I assume you have 2 kids a boy about 10 and a girl about 8 ?

[Chateaubriand]

Isn't this all just an equivalent to the "I have a name with the letter A" trick used by psychics? The man obviously produces lots of paintings and he and the rest of us give the paintings significance and meaning? This Mandell fellow makes a first selection so we are shown only those paintings that could mean something and the rest is up to us?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

[JPK]

Looking at the picture of the towers, I still say it looks more like dominoes falling over and the guy aprears to be sitting in front of a third domino.

JPK
edited to add. I just looked at the latest picture and where as the guy isn't sitting in front of it anymore, it still looks like he painted over a third building perhaps even a forth.

[Azrael 5]

His "twin towers" painting could be attributed to any disaster:earthquake,landslide,bomb attack etc.I also feel there was an insinuation of darkness(the way the tower windows were brightly painted as if lit up).So had 9/11 not happened,he could have brought it out today and claimed it was Japan!:) Why didnt he caption his paintngs with the date of disaster? Why are psychic powers so vague?Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Hamhawk714]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
What the man's doing is called "mining for data", and it's not that hard to understand. There's an unlimited supply of events to choose from, given no time constraints and certainly no definition of what constitutes a predictable event. Gee, did the guy paint something involving a plane crash? Isn't it amazing that he eventually a plane crashed and "proved" his painting was predictive

The guy sounds more self-deluded than conartist, since the picture in front of the clock doesn't prove exactly what day he stood there with the painting. Why not just take a good picture of the painting next to a newspaper with the front page clearly readable? He should also take a clear picture that shows every detail of every painting. After all, the trick isn't waiting until after the event to paint them. That's misdirection. All he has to do is wait for some event to happen that seems to match one of his pai
ntings, then trumpet it as a "hit".

What good would taking a picture with a newspaper do?I've got newspapers from the late 80's,not a bit yellowed either.maybe I should paint a picture of a bearded hermit living in a one room A frame cabin tinkering with gun powder and shrapnel while typing a 36 page letter to the NY Times. ;) :con2: