Live TV Exorcism

[Azrael 5]

Channel 4 bosses plan first live TV exorcism.A new programme plans to show an exorcism for the first time on British television, the Daily Mirror reports.

But religious leaders have slammed the idea and said Channel 4's show, Exorcism, could be "very dangerous".

The programme is being pitched as a serious scientific experiment as industry regulator Ofcom prohibits "actual demonstrations of exorcisms and occult practices" on TV.

A Channel 4 insider told the newspaper: "The aim is to stage an exorcism for television to test the science involved.

"It would involve the church and leading scientists and we'd monitor precisely what happens."

Sky is also planning its own show, When Exorcisms Go Wrong, using home video footage.

But Church of England bishop, Dominic Walker, warned against such programmes.

"People who need this sort of help are nearly always psychologically vulnerable people," he said.

"Such an experiment could be very dangerous."

A BBC spoof on ghosts screened 13 years ago was blamed for the suicide of a Nottingham teenager.

"This sounds very dangerous and will cause considerable unease," said John Beyer of the watchdog Mediawatch.

"People in broadcasting never learn anything - they don't consider how it will affect the audience. This is not only ill-advised, it could be harmful."

However, a spokesman for Sky defended the idea, saying: "It is intended to be a thought-provoking exploration of a controversial subject."

A live seance on Channel 4 last year caused 700 complaints.


Supposed to screen this month.;)

[JimTheBrit]

Next week, apparently.

[Janice]

The Independent says it will be on Thursday, 24th February at 11pm.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Janice
The Independent says it will be on Thursday, 24th February at 11pm.

Originally posted by Janice
I had no idea of the reception on this website, that's why I am not going to waste any more of my time on it. The reason I did not join before, is that I have a life, and I don't spend all my time on forums. I will therefore leave you to debate amongst yourselves.
:D

[Janice]

Azrael, if I choose to view other parts of the forum that are particular interest (other than paranormal) I will do so, the above thread simply gave an answer to a question. You can post whatever you like, but in future I will just ignore them. I have nothing more to say to you, or the other members who have portrayed themself in the same manner.:)

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
(snip)
A BBC spoof on ghosts screened 13 years ago was blamed for the suicide of a Nottingham teenager.

Does anybody here have any info about this?

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by SwissSkeptic
Does anybody here have any info about this? http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/ghostwatch.html

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/ghostwatch.html

Thanks a lot!

[Temp3st]

Originally posted by Janice
Azrael,... You can post whatever you like, but in future I will just ignore them. I have nothing more to say to you, or the other members who have portrayed themself in the same manner.:)

Yet you keep on replying to these posts you are supposed to be ignoring.
Just like you keep using this forum that you have supposedly left.

How is that really exiting life that you are supposed to have by the way?

[Hantai]

I remember the show, it was very well produced, *too* well in fact, at moments it was marginally believable even to a serious skeptic. It certainly isn't too farfetched to think an emotionally fragile person watching this stuff and thinking it to be real might might respond in some extreme fashion.

[Ashles]

Ghostwatch was really scary. It was, as Hentai says, almost too well done.
Only the terrible acting of the researcher in the studio was really badly done.

It's available on DVD now. If you get past the cheesy studio setting and atmosphere it becomes quite creepy.

[Hantai]

*cough* That's Hantai with an 'a' please, entirely different word with an entirely different meaning :P.

As for bad acting, the problem with it is that when you're told you're looking at something real and live you'll often just ascribe it to stage fright. Can't believe they're selling it on DVD, I would've thought that'd be one exploit they'd be anxious to forget ever happened..

[Janice]

Azrael / Temp3st - these posts are nothing more than examples of 'Forum Bullying', I am not crying victim, as you have said that others have done on this forum, the only people you are insulting are new members that come to the forum and read this thread, the people who have posted decent replies on this threads and yourselves, it outlines perfectly how you have the inability to cease arguments, there are about 7 - 8 users on this forum, who use the same principles, as I said you are only showing yourselves up, and no on else.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by Janice
(snip)

Will you stop trolling if I ask you nicely? Please?

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Janice
Azrael, if I choose to view other parts of the forum that are particular interest (other than paranormal) I will do so, the above thread simply gave an answer to a question. You can post whatever you like, but in future I will just ignore them. I have nothing more to say to you, or the other members who have portrayed themself in the same manner.:)

So you're staying, but you're not talking to anyone anymore?

[jj]

Originally posted by Janice
Azrael / Temp3st - these posts are nothing more than examples of 'Forum Bullying', I am not crying victim, as you have said that others have done on this forum, the only people you are insulting are new members that come to the forum and read this thread, the people who have posted decent replies on this threads and yourselves, it outlines perfectly how you have the inability to cease arguments, there are about 7 - 8 users on this forum, who use the same principles, as I said you are only showing yourselves up, and no on else.

Look, now, any number of people have attempted, politely, to engage you, and all you've done is cried about the least accomodating of the lot. You haven't engaged anyone, rather you've simply complained about the people you appear to dislike the most, and then used that complaint as an excuse to fail to respond to the many people who have tried to engage you.

Until you show a willingness to engage others in discussion, and you show a willingness to provide things like evidence that others can evaluate for themselves, you ARE just playing victim. You cited Claus as the reason you won't reply any more in the thread you started, but a number of other people have tried to engage you, and you haven't even acknowledged their existance. That's rude of you, to say the least. Why not engage some of the people who've tried to get you to explain what you're talking about, rather than be rude and simply ignore the polite people, while complaining about the ones you percieve as impolite?

[Janice]

JJ - apologies to those I have not replied to, but if I had replied to every post I would have been on here 24-7. My initial post on this thread is "a willingness to engage others in discussion", the posts from Azrael and Temp3st are not perceptions of insults they are in FACT insults.

I am sure that if you trailed through all of the posts, that other people have replied to that showed a belief in the afterlife.

Here is a prediction for you: The next person that comes to this part of the forum and shows an interest in the afterlife, will be met with the same insults, from the same users, if they fail to provide the EVIDENCE they seek, will be labelled delusional trolls and liars, oh and the much loved phrase woo woo, and then be accused of crying victim.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Janice
JJ - apologies to those I have not replied to, but if I had replied to every post I would have been on here 24-7. My initial post on this thread is "a willingness to engage others in discussion", the posts from Azrael and Temp3st are not perceptions of insults they are in FACT insults.

I am sure that if you trailed through all of the posts, that other people have replied to that showed a belief in the afterlife.

Here is a prediction for you: The next person that comes to this part of the forum and shows an interest in the afterlife, will be met with the same insults, from the same users, if they fail to provide the EVIDENCE they seek, will be labelled delusional trolls and liars, oh and the much loved phrase woo woo, and then be accused of crying victim.

Well, if the woo fits share it...

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Janice
:snip: paraphrase "Please help me, I don't understand how to get attention any other way!"

Images, underlines, smilies, bold, capital letters... evidence of an obvious effort to draw negative attention to yourself. Negative attention fuels your negative self image, so you try to draw more negative attention to compensate for it. Or maybe you need the rush of feeling that you're the center of attention, even if it's hostile attention. Or maybe you're lashing out because this board is threatening your worldview and the forum members here don't pull any punches. It might all be psychobabble, but it seems to me something is very wrong in your world and you see the JREF forum as the place to vent your frustrations.

This all seems like a cry for help now, or at least reflects that you're having trouble coping with some serious issues in your life. I'm willing to give you positive attention if you'll earn it. Trust me, it's a lot more fun than the attention you're attracting now.

I suggest we all try to hear the underlying cry for help and ignore the rest.

[Azrael 5]

I dont care if Im unpopular so go away Janice.Its a paranomal forum,if you cant bring anything to the table then you're wasting time.Did you think you could just post any old tripe and we'd say"OOh thats nice" We want evidence,and maybe its just me-but I want the mediums name you consulted.
Maybe you'd be more at home in the "Tv,film entertainment"forum,they're happy to dicuss fiction and fantasy all the time.:)

[Hantai]

HEY!! That's ENOUGH! Here's what *I* see here, and you'd all do well to step back, take a deep breath and realize that I'm on the outside of this argument so I *MIGHT* have a slightly uncluttered view than the rest of you.

1. Azrael posts a worthwhile heads up about some serious Woo about to materialize on C4.

2. Janice post a RELEVANT, ON-TOPIC, and USEFUL, piece of information, namely the scheduling data for the show in question.

3. World+dog piles on to Janice for something she may have said in a past thread, this is of course unprovoked (all she did HERE was post scheduling info!) and competely OFF-TOPIC in this particular thread.

4. inevitably this causes the entire thread to degenerate into a fight, and all opportunity for those of us who want to have an ON-TOPOC discussion has effectively been destroyed. Well done folks, well done indeed. In the pursuit of a personal vendetta you've trashed a good line of discussion and REDUCED the amount of viable EDUCATION gainable from this thread.


People, GET OVER YOURSELVES, this isn't even about whether or not you've been wrongs at some point anymore, are you completely incapable of seeing that these sorts of attacks are harming the entire purpose of this forums existence?? Are you so intent on pursuing vendettas that you simply CANNOT refrain from posting off-topic and ruining threads???

Oh and one more thing, I have NOT read back into whatever may or may nto have happened with Janice in the past, this is simply because I believe in judging a person fresh on the actions I witness myself, and the first thing I witnessed her doing is providing me with a piece of useful information that allowed me to shedule a recording of this show (and don't tell me it's not worth watching, ALWAYS watch what the woo mongers are feeding to their viewers, it's vital information!) Which is more than most everyone else whose joined this slugfest.

Furthermore I note a particular comment that implies that simply showing INTEREST in the POSSIBILITY of an afterlife is a form of 'woo'. That sort of argument is extremely falacious, it is directly contradictory to good science to state negative proof, you CANNOT say there is no afterlife, you can only say there is no viable PROOF of an afterlife, the possibility of an afterlife very much still exists and is simply impossible to disprove, merely investigating that possibility is not a woo infection, wanting to know more is not a woo infection, blindly BELIEVING that the dead talk to Sylvia Browne or whomever else is woo infection. Get the difference? Because if you don't you're a very poor skeptic indeed, your bias is preventing you from maintaining an open mind moderated by good science and instead forcing you into incorrect unscientific conclusions, and are therefore as much in the wrong forum as a woo monger would be!

[arthwollipot]

I suspect that given the nature of this forum, a lot of the long-term posters have become very tired of seeing the same old claims, bringing up the same old refutations, and repeating everything over and over again. Being a veteran poster in a couple of places myself I have felt this frustration. It is hard on a newbie, because it is even harder for the 'vets' to politely notify said newbie that their claim has been considered and dismissed in the past.

[Azrael 5]

I dont think after 11 posts Hantai you can tell others what to do.Janice brought everything on herself!;)

[Hantai]

There is no excuse for trashing a thread's initial purpose and harming the forum as a whole in pursuit of vendetta, and if you believe my post count on this particular forum to be a measure of my forum administration experience you are erring significantly.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hantai
There is no excuse for trashing a thread's initial purpose and harming the forum as a whole in pursuit of vendetta, and if you believe my post count on this particular forum to be a measure of my forum administration experience you are erring significantly.

Well, yes, I think that several sides of this debate are in fact making that point, not just you.

I do appreciate the information on when the program will show, of course since it's in the UK I don't get to see it (I'm not sure I'd watch it anyhow, it reeks of ethical issues to me). On the other hand, several people, including me, have tried to engage Janice, and been unsuccessful.

While she may or may not have something to object to about the way that some of the people who have called "troll" have reacted, she, herself, has acted objectionably in not engaging the people who have politely asked her for some evidence and clarification of her own challenge, in particular her authority to assume a particular kind of paranormal event in the question itself, when in fact the existance of such events are as of yet undemonstrated in neutral settings.

[Hantai]

Even assuming you are entirely correct about Janice (respectfully however, my own experience strongly suggests otherwise) my point is that THIS thread had nothing to do with any issues that may or may not exist with Janice and that there is no excuse for introducing them HERE in the first place simply because she chose to post, her post was on topic, the subsequent attack was NOT, she may or may not have "brought this on herself" somewhere else, but in this thread she was RELEVANT and NON-PROVOCATIVE, there was no reason to veer off topic with an assault and the result of this veering off topic has been the destruction of the thread's original purpose. THAT is not excusable, if there's to be a 'Janice' debate it should sit in a thread centric on her so as not to polute the entirety of the remainder of this forum with arguments, this further allows Janice to choose whether she wants any part of that particular argument without impacting her ability to otherwise enjoy the forums. I say again, I am not criticizing your right to slag people off, I think it's an awful and childish thing to do, but if you feel you must then by all means, feel free, but keep it the hell out of unrelated threads and let them continue their own existence on topic, to do otherwise is to ultimately destroy this forum.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hantai
my point is that THIS thread had nothing to do with any issues that may or may not exist with Janice

If I understand correctly, I am not to learn from experience?

Now, note I was not the person who chose to attack Janice, nor was I the one who raised other issues until they were already under discussion, and what I did was to explain what I saw the problem as being.

That would seem, then, that my attempt to communicate is what you regard as a way to "destroy the forum". I frankly think it's unreasonable of you to imply that attempting to open a line of communication is somehow destructive.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Hantai
Even assuming you are entirely correct about Janice (respectfully however, my own experience strongly suggests otherwise)

One thing that may have misled you is people reacting as if they were personally insulted when Janice appeared to make the generic statement "there are about 7 - 8 users on this forum, who use the same principles". She isn't. She, in fact, keeps a list, randomly swears at this named list, and then claims to be leaving the forum to prevent people from responding. (I used to be on the list, then for unknown reasons fell off it. This post will put me back, I'm sure).


but in this thread she was RELEVANT and NON-PROVOCATIVE,


Her first post may have been, and if you reread the initial replies, they weren't particularly harsh either. Her second post in context was delibaretely provocative.

there was no reason to veer off topic with an assault and the result of this veering off topic has been the destruction of the thread's original purpose.

You are aware you are chastising the thread starter for derailing this topic? Don't you think Azrael is the person who gets to decide if it matters?

but keep it the hell out of unrelated threads and let them continue their own existence on topic, to do otherwise is to ultimately destroy this forum. [/B]

If you have experience with multiple forums, then you are aware that each forum has its own ethos as to acceptable and appropriate behaviour. Typically in stable boards, this behaviour is influenced by the long standing members. You, at a dozen odd posts and two months, are not long standing. I, at 300 odd posts and almost a year, am not long standing. On a board where you are still considered somewhat of a newbie if you weren't here when it started, don't you think they have a pretty good idea of what is and isn't destructive to the forum?

Perhaps this forum is simply more community oriented than the one's you are used too - posters are assumed to be familiar with the majority of threads by default. For instance, people would mention 1inChrist expecting you to know who he is, despite the fact that he did the majority of his posting on a different board (R&P) months ago. Janice's behaviour affects everyone, and forgiving her past behaviour because she happens to be on a new thread is a little counterproductive.

[Traveller]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
I dont think after 11 posts Hantai you can tell others what to do.)

As a new member myself Azrael, I would appreciate knowing how many posts I would need to make before I could tell you what to do. Is there some sort of a sliding scale perhaps? I mean, could I venture some mild criticism of you after x posts, some more trenchant comments after 3x and finally tell you what to do after - well, you tell me.

[Hantai]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards

You are aware you are chastising the thread starter for derailing this topic? Don't you think Azrael is the person who gets to decide if it matters?


Absolutely not no, Azrael is as bound as anyone else in this forum by duty towards the community, this means doing what's best to promote the community's good image and it's goal of advancing knowledge. The fracas in this thread has created a situation where a new reader coming by the thread and wanting to find out about the subject line's suggested topic instead ends up being greeted for the most part by other people's irrelevant arguments. How many people get put off by this sort of thing and simply leave again with a bad impression of the entire place and of skeptics in general, more than you'd imagine I can promise you that, and they're usually good people who'd otherwise become major contributors if that's the reason they leave! Every single time a thread devolves into a fight like this rather than stick to its topic you

a. destroy a central point of information regarding the thread's desginated topic.
b. portray this community as being vindictive and vicious.
c. portray skeptics as more interested in starting a fight than pursuing viable knowledge over woo.
d. Add a black mark the REAL troublemakers can use to call James Randi vindictive/false/argumentative/whatever on the basis of his followers' action. (Not it is NOT relevant that he has near 0 presence in the forums, you think that dispenses you from being on your best behaviour when you're posting under the JREF banner? That he's somehow magically dissasociated from the organization's name in the eyes of the real enemy?)

I honestly don't know how many more ways I can convey the harm you're doing to the entire skeptic cause with this sort of behaviour. I mean for pete's sake all I'm saying is TRY to actually demonstrate that you're a clearer thinker than a woo monger by using relevant and appropriately targetted logic and rather than randomly located personal attacks, how exactly is that a bad thing?? There is in fact only one scenario where acting in a more adult and controlled manner IS actually a bad thing to you, and that's if your precious ego appears to be bruised by a show of restraint, well get over it! I'm seeing elitism and cliquery at work here and that too is unspeakably harmful coming from a community that's SUPPOSED to be smart enough to be beyond that.

[RamblingOnwards]

Hantai,

Yes, posting in a controlled, mature and rational way is a good aim. Three things:

1. We are individuals. The majority of us consider ourselves to be skeptics, but a minority strongly and vocally disagree with most things that Randi says. We are conversing here with friends and enemies, not attempting to write propoganda. We are not Randi's fifth column. We do not venerate him as the leader of our cult. If someone judges him by our behaviour, then they are so out of touch with reality that nothing we did would change things.

2. There are factors in play here which you admitted you didn't take the time to investigate. Your argument seems to be that a lurker could have done a similar thing. Yes, they could have. They could also have done a search on 'janice' to see what all the fuss was about before jumping to conclusions.

3. Please reread your 'HEY!! That's ENOUGH!' post. Would you reagrd that as a model of non-confrontational, polite and rational discourse?

[Hantai]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
Hantai,

Yes, posting in a controlled, mature and rational way is a good aim. Three things:

1. We are individuals. The majority of us consider ourselves to be skeptics, but a minority strongly and vocally disagree with most things that Randi says. We are conversing here with friends and enemies, not attempting to write propoganda. We are not Randi's fifth column. We do not venerate him as the leader of our cult. If someone judges him by our behaviour, then they are so out of touch with reality that nothing we did would change things.

And you're saying that (bold) somehow DOESN'T describe the worst of the woo mongers and true believers? :P That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about, you act like kids you fuel the real nutballs' fires.

2. There are factors in play here which you admitted you didn't take the time to investigate. Your argument seems to be that a lurker could have done a similar thing. Yes, they could have. They could also have done a search on 'janice' to see what all the fuss was about before jumping to conclusions.

You fail to track my point, I didn't refuse to look into the history and jump to conclusions, I've refused to do so at this time because the conclusions in question have no relevance to the problem. My primary point is that a thread with no relevance to the problem has been trashed by dragging the problem into it, this is inexcusable now and would still be if Hitler himself were alive and posting here. Keep... It... Out... Of.... Unrelated... THREADS. History does NOT matter on that one single point!

3. Please reread your 'HEY!! That's ENOUGH!' post. Would you reagrd that as a model of non-confrontational, polite and rational discourse?

I regard it as what's said to a group of people who are currently acting like children but of whom I expected so much more as fellow intelligent, educated, sensible adults. Or were my hopes in that regard deluded? You tell me.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Hantai
And you're saying that (bold) somehow DOESN'T describe the worst of the woo mongers and true believers? :P That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about, you act like kids you fuel the real nutballs' fires.

Absolutely anything we did would fuel the real nutball's fires. Why should we care what they think of us?


You fail to track my point, I didn't refuse to look into the history and jump to conclusions, I've refused to do so at this time because the conclusions in question have no relevance to the problem. My primary point is that a thread with no relevance to the problem has been trashed by dragging the problem into it, this is inexcusable now and would still be if Hitler himself were alive and posting here. Keep... It... Out... Of.... Unrelated... THREADS. History does NOT matter on that one single point!


You failed to track mine. It wasn't an unrelated point. It was a post immediately after saying she would no longer post. When else should it have been commented on? Or do you believe that taking note of when people lie is in itself rude or useless? I'd think many people would disagree. Are you saying we should condone poor behaviour because it isn't as bad on this thread as it has been on previous? Whyever not?

I repeat a previous point - your view of a forum seems to regard individual threads as being almost sperate entities. This is a common and sensible approach on the really large forums such as slashdot. This forum, however, acts more as a community. Each new thread is simply a continuation of the conversation we are already engaged in. I have seen people jump from thread to thread, some of them concurrent, and some of them on different boards, while continuing the same line of conversation.


I regard it as what's said to a group of people who are currently acting like children but of whom I expected so much more as fellow intelligent, educated, sensible adults. Or were my hopes in that regard deluded? You tell me.

I hope that people will use standard punctutation - italics for occasional emphasis, single exclamation and question marks, colours only for humour, and so on. I hope that people will post objections in a reasoned, well-informed way. I hope that people will reserve confrontation, insults, and accusations until after they've tried alternate methods. I hope people will have the grace to acknowledge when they are wrong. I hope that people will send me large quantities of money. Are my hopes deluded?

[Azrael 5]

Just a heads up! 11.05pm tonight Channel 4.;)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Just a heads up! 11.05pm tonight Channel 4.;)

I found a good link here

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/body/exorcism.html

At the bottom is a link to the work of Dr Andrew Newberg. I have just ordered his book:
"Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief"
Andrew Newberg; Paperback; £6.73

which looks very interesting.

But if science can prove that the "spiritual" is created by electro-chemical processes in our brains, what will this information mean to the true believer?

There is more on the theory of god as a biological artifact of the brain here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5133279-111414,00.html

[The Mighty Thor]

The Church of Scotland and exorcism:

It is hoped the work could lead to patients who are tormented but not diagnosed with psychiatric disorders being referred to the Church.

However, some psychiatrists and mental health campaigners feel the Church's move smacks of the medieval demonisation of health problems and could add to the stigma surrounding mental illness.

Called the Deliverance Group, the new committee has grown out of the Church of Scotland's board of social responsibility, which describes itself as the country's largest volunteer social work agency and employs 1600 people.

Over the next 12 months it will examine how other churches help people through exorcism, consider how to tackle scepticism and how to resource ministers to do more work in this area. A report outlining its conclusions will go to the general assembly.

Douglas Irving, convener of the group, which met for the first time last week, said guidelines on how to help the possessed were last drawn up in 1976 and needed to be reviewed.

He said: "There is a perceived need on the part of our study group to revisit this subject because we believe that the present understanding of the Church of Scotland in relation to this area of ministry is wanting. In view of the present climate, with so much abuse and cult activity, we need to revisit it."

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/2561

[ThwartedEfforts]

If anyone from the UK is reading here, 'The Real Exorcist' is on CH4 now.

[Odin]

Is the priest who made the comment about "seeing the eyes of those with demons" possesed himself?
His eyes look wierd... :D

[ThwartedEfforts]

I liked the way they opened the window to let the devil out. Had the bedroom door been open, presumably they would have called downstairs and have someone open the front door for him instead?

PS They all seem slightly nuts to me.

[JimTheBrit]

Begone from my screen, thou accursed dramatic reconstructions. Thou art an abomination and doth try to tempt me from critical thought.

Edit: Also, thou art slightly hammy at times.

[merseyviews]

This is going to be dreadful, an attention-seeking born-again christian and the doctor off "this morning".

[Azrael 5]

The Exorcism has only been on 10 mins and already has slid into nonsense:with a Reverend saying God was "without a shadow of a doubt" working through him to cast out demonic forces!
Wasnt this programme supposed to scientific???:(

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by merseyviews
This is going to be dreadful, an attention-seeking born-again christian and the doctor off "this morning".
Kristan Guru-Murphy wasnt the doctor on "This Morning"! Lol.That was Raj Persaud-they look a little similiar,granted.;)

[merseyviews]

Ouch, Really?
He's another rent-a-quote tv bod though. Watchdog?

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Wasnt this programme supposed to scientific???:( There's lots of computer screens showing colourful graphics and the possessed volunteer has wires attached to his head. How more scientific could it get? ;)

Go on Krishnan, ask Trevor the charismatic Christian how many tooth fillings he's seen turn to gold. I dare ya.

Edit:

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Kristan Guru-Murphy wasnt the doctor on "This Morning"! Lol.That was Raj Persaud-they look a little similiar,granted.Yikes, you ain't the only one who got caught out by that, merseyviews.

[merseyviews]

They should of got richard madeley to do the show, He's good at making spirits disappear. Boom Boom.

[Hantai]

Note that the "squigly lines" (I quote the good doctor there) are being monitored on a Windows machine. Thus the first sign we should see that there's a real demonic possession being exorcised here should be a BSOD.

[Hantai]

Two unanswerable questions that trouble me so far:

1. They're taking an EEG reading whilst he prays silently. How do they know he's not actually rehearsing his upcoming role in One Night in Paris Vol 2 instead of praying?

2. They've got readings for him reading the bible both aloud and silently, why isn't there a control for him reading something more mundane?

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by merseyviews
They should of got richard madeley to do the show, He's good at making spirits disappear. Boom Boom.
:D :D :D :D

Never get a decent E.E.G reading from Judy,she shakes too much...
Guru-Murphy was once presenter on Newsround,I think(kids news programme-so well qualified!)
Oh...please,Lord Jesus this that the other!!! Looks like someone raided the DR.Who props department and strung it round his neck? Where's the green vomit?;)

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Hantai
Note that the "squigly lines" (I quote the good doctor there) are being monitored on a Windows machine. Thus the first sign we should see that there's a real demonic possession being exorcised here should be a BSOD.
BSOD?

[Hantai]

BlueScreen Of Death, it's what happens when Windows crashes.

[Hantai]

For the benefit of those not watching, earlier on one Father Pat Collins noted that in his experience this isn't actually going to be an exorcism but rather a much lesser ritual termed a Deliverance. He's entirely correct, in spite of Rev. Newport's claim that the two rituals are essentially the same what's happening on this show does not in fact qualify as a full blown exorcism ritual.

Edit: Canon Lisle Ryder concurs, this was not what he'd call an exorcism.

Re-Edit: Rev. Parsons ALSO wouldn't call that an exorcism. Basically so far no one not involved either directly or indirectly with Newport is willing to call this a proper exorcism, let alone comment on any so-called demons.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
There's lots of computer screens showing colourful graphics and the possessed volunteer has wires attached to his head. How more scientific could it get? ;)

Hey, it worked for Gary Schwartz.

Wait... uh, no it didn't.

[merseyviews]

They are going to pinpoint a section of the E.E.G. where it moves a bit and that will be the moment of deliverence or whatever. He only had to cough and the EEG went bananas before.

Table-tipping ahahaha

[Azrael 5]

Its not what Id call anything other than some deluded vicar,building his part.When does Derren Brown come on...?;)

[Azrael 5]

The helpline going to be flloded with people after this:
"You took off a repeat of Friends..for this?":D

[Odin]

Did I miss the part where something interesting actually happens...

Apparently the demons cooperated with the experiment and made things easy!

[Azrael 5]

The subject says he feels no different,didnt feel anything leave him.So big success,so far!:D

[merseyviews]

In one respect it is a shame more people won't have seen this rubbish. The God carriers haven't come off too well have they.

[Hantai]

Owell, at this point the results are more or less completely irrelevant, simply because they're not nalyzing the ritual we were told they would be. Scientifically speaking there may still be some value in this insofar as studying psyhological healing and impact on the mind via religious ritual, but from a personal interest point of view... *yyaawwnn*! We been conned possibly in the most unexpected way, rather than an obviously nonsense or poorly faked exorcism there was simply no exorcism to begin with :P.

[Hantai]

Another question that'll probably never be answered.. Do they have EEG traces for someone undergoing conventional psychotherapy to compare against?

[merseyviews]

That was a bit of a slating from the experts then. Is it wrong for me to hate Born-agains?

[Azrael 5]

Seeing as the subject believed he was possessed anyway,he was highly suggestible.So along comes a "respected " expert Rev. who does his bit and this could subconciously effect any possible output.Also it was an anxiety inducing atmosphere,which would also affect results(nervousness,stress).Nice to hear someone mention the placebo effect,and have it ignored.

[The Mighty Thor]

Oh well. The Carlin and Bacardi Breezer ads were funny.

Did I hear correctly -- that Colin (the subject's) wife is also a "caster out of demons." ??? * (see below) Sounds to me like the cult recruitment comment might be right. Maybe the minister and Colin's wife are . . . nah, good Christians don't do that, do they?

Surprisingly, the scientists looked wierder than the believers :)

The born-again woman with the feathers looked like a right little neb. She was very agitated because she felt like belting the unbelievers and heretics, but thought twice about it so she wouldn't have to go through any more of the rev's weird "sessions".

Now, if they'd had Derek Acorah as subject -- what a fine piece of demon getting out we might have seen.

*(see next post for corrections)

[The Mighty Thor]

Sorry - last post I got mixed up.

It was Trevor Newport's (the minister) wife who was in the audience. So, it's a family business. ;)

I liked the bit where it was suggested that Colin and Trevor were acting out, like in hypnotism, with Colin being coached to respond in a particular way. (Dr Glenn Wilson)

Trevor Newport says "That didn't happen. I didn't coach him. We didn't collaborate, in that sense. I simply asked him if there was anything particular . . ."

Yet Colin has been seeing the rev for FOUR YEARS.

Yeah, somebody was "extracting the Djinn, here." i.e. Taking the Mickey.:(

I think Colin was B.A.I., very suggestible, probably with a troubled past.

Note that the Rev uses a psychology term in his casting out -- what Colin wanted removed (according to Trev, the Rev) was "fear" and "paranoia".

Why "paranoia" when he has been certified sane by three psychiatrists? Has Trevor told Colin that he must be paranoid?

Watch the next gripping episode:

"Colin falls asleep in front of the TV, and the dog pees on his slippers!"

[DeVega]

Watch the next gripping episode:

"Colin falls asleep in front of the TV, and the dog pees on his slippers!"

ROFL, Mighty Thor!!!

I only watched the programme before - The Real Exorcist - and about the first ten minutes of the "Exorcism" It just struck me as such a pathetic mixture of credulous people and a risable situation that I couldn't watch it any longer. I had the impression that the presenter was fighting the urge to laugh the whole time (I guess 'corpsing' might have been appropriate!;) ) Even the Vicar who was to do the ritual looked about to give into a fit of giggles - although, I guess that could have been nerves... - and did they have to pick someone called Trevor? No offence to Trevors out there but the name lacks a certain gravitas necessary for communing with demons!

;)


Oh - and how come the possessed person was just sitting there passively waiting for his interview? Don't you think the demons might have been a bit narked at being cast out on national television? Why didn't he start thrashing about the studio? That would have been far more entertaining! I thought it was hilarious when the minister admitted to having exorcised Colin many times before! He's a bit rubbish eh?

I was surprised that I actually felt bored by it.:( But there, we go...

The programme before about the "Real Exorcist" raised other concerns. That poor boy. What started out possibly as a prank became a nightmare. They locked him away in that institution... It is interesting that he is now a scientist as an adult & claims to have no memory of that summer. I think I'd repress it too...

DeVega

[Odin]

the ministers claim that Colin was a good subject as he was a calm person is quite humourous considering that there were supposed to be demons posessing him. Why did it matter what Colin was like if there was an external influence (the demon or whatever) controlling him?

Have there been any complaints or anything? :D

[andycal]

Haven't read the whole thread here, but just to point out, the possessed guy was well known to the priest (or whatever he was).

He was on the radio during the day talking about how he'd been 'delivered' before.

Obviously not a permanent fix then this exorcism lark - good business if you can get it...

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by andycal
He was on the radio during the day talking about how he'd been 'delivered' before.Which programme/station was he on?

[The Mighty Thor]

I suppose the only disturbing thing about the whole thing was the linking of the "real" exorcism case and the studio farce.

The "real" case, as de Vega said, was a case of religious fanatics who were totally out of their depth in dealing with a pubescent boy who was seeking attention. When adults take such "supernatural games" by youngsters seriously, somebody usually gets hurt. The priest warning about the dangers of using an ouija board and contacting spirits is nothing but propaganda. It's all part of the "you must believe in God and therfore in Satan" philosophy. However, the warning could be sound in the sense of "you shouldn't dabble in the occult if you are mentally insecure." We all know how the mind can play tricks on us, and that imagination can run wild given the right circumstances. "Charismatic" churches rely on this hysteria effect.

The whole possession idea should be offensive to anyone concerned about the mentally ill. It implies that "ill" means "bad". It is obscurantist and immoral to say people get sick because they are somehow "bad", or because they don't follow a particular credo.

Let's not forget which group was first targetted for elimination by the Nazis -- it was the mentally ill.

[andycal]

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
Which programme/station was he on?

Radio 5, Victoria someone show. It's probably on listen again.

[jambo372]

It would have helped if they actually had someone who was possessed to exorcise.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Looks like a far more interesting story was on the BBC.

Exorcisms on children involving beating the demons out of them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4294417.stm

Video link on the website.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Looks like a far more interesting story was on the BBC.

Exorcisms on children involving beating the demons out of them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4294417.stm

Video link on the website.

So, we are witnessing a disturbing trend here. Colin and Trev were laughable -- your link is a different matter.

cf. the "What's the harm?" thread :(

[Stitch]

Originally posted by jambo372
It would have helped if they actually had someone who was possessed to exorcise.

I'm all for that. How do you propose we scientifically test for possession cf. a mental disorder?

[DeVega]

Maybe that link should be added to the "Where's the Harm" thread? It will bump the thread back up too...

A worrying trend indeed - especially since the "charismatic" churches are becoming so popular now here in the UK.

Cheers
DeVega

[AngrySteve]

This is being discussed right now on Talksport, Mike Dickin show

www.talksport.net

internet feed available, but be quick !!

[Kopji]

Yeah, this kind of stuff is discouraging. Is it any wonder that it is deemed better to become a 'respected psychic', than to admit to yourself or others that you might have a mental illness?

Promoting the notion that people can be possessed by demons on public television echoes to the dark ages.