Randi and "The Psychic Challenge"

[Clancie]

Well, Dragon was right. Randi was the "world famous debunker" who appeared with a UK medium on Discovery Channel's "The Psychic Challenge" last week. It sounds....quite contentious, to say the least.

Just wanted to point out, to anyone interested, that Randi has some comments about the experience at the end of this week's "Commentary". Here's a brief excerpt:
James Randi "Commentary":

"...For now I'll tell you that this experience demonstrated for me once more just how angry, frantic, and hateful the believers in life-after-death can be — and are — when their beliefs are threatened by the facts.

I was faced with frustrated people who watched their favorite notions and practitioners of spiritualism go down in flames. Any questioning of their delusions threatens their security, enrages them, and drives them to desperation.

It was astonishing to see one of Britain's current crop of "spiritualists" working on a member of the studio audience, and using every one of the standard "cold reading" techniques that Ian Rowland so clearly delineates in his book, "

It was almost as if this were a demonstration of how to appear to be psychic, based on Rowland's instructions! The "fishing" techniques, rushing from one non-responsive reaction to another of the same without giving the victim a chance to say "no," stalling and apologizing for obviously wrong guesses, and re-phrasing a question to allow for a better "fit" to an otherwise missed guess — all were quite evident.

I'd expected better from this "psychic medium," but then I realized that he didn't have to be good, if his audience were really in need of affirmation of their hopes.....

[TLN]

Randi's a contentious man. What part, if any, of the commentary do you have a problem with?

[Clancie]

Well, nothing he says is unexpected. I don't have a "problem" with it, TLN--he certainly "puts it out there"--I merely shared it for those who might not have seen it yet.

However, I would like to hear more details of the actual event (including the name of the medium). He says he'll write more later.

Beyond that, from his own description, he sounds as if he may have come across as quite rude and abrasive. If so, whether that made him an effective representative for his position--or not--will be interesting to see.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Beyond that, from his own description, he sounds as if he may have come across as quite rude and abrasive.

Yeah, Randi's certainly both of those...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by TLN
Randi's a contentious man. What part, if any, of the commentary do you have a problem with?

Oh, no, TLN, certain skeptical posters on JREF are contentious. Clancie then clearly distinguishes their behavior from Randi's. Randi used to eat believers for lunch, but now he's gone strict vegetarian. He only eats a macrowootic diet.

Cheers,

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I note that you don't even know the name of the medium, yet you have decided that Randi's actions are not all that nice.

You attack a skeptic without knowing the full story. If it concerns a medium, you immediately take the side of the medium, without knowing who the medium is.

You are approaching neo's level of shrill fanaticism.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancie
Beyond that, from his own description, he sounds as if he may have come across as quite rude and abrasive. If so, whether that made him an effective representative for his position--or not--will be interesting to see.

I'd seriously be interested in a proposed scenario, for politely telling a person, who would have you believe that they communicate with the dead, that they are full of crap, while remaining ' an effective representative for his position'..


We all know that medium debunking is little more than backslapping entertainment among skeptics, and to remind the mediums that we ( the skeptics ), are not going to go away..
It's not going to cause any successfull medium, to go back to school and prepare for another vocation, or raise the I.Q. of any of their victims. Why should it ( medium debunking ) be polite?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why should it ( medium debunking ) be polite?

Oh, Diogenes, you misunderstand. Believers don't necessarily want skeptics to be polite. They may simply want to whine that they aren't polite. Why?

o They might then make skeptics appear to be mean, rude, old closed-minded men. This sells well with John & Jane Public,

o They then might play a disinformation brinksmanship game that allows them to make drive-by assertions, try to defend it, and then squeal "impolite! rude! hounding!" lound and long when backed into an irrational corner,

o Even when skeptics aren't impolite, they might still be tempted to squeal loudly when they anticipate they are about to get backed into an irrational corner. Other believers might respond to the squeal and, on herd instinct, come to the rescue.

I'm not saying we've actually witnessed these behaviors here. Not at all. Just outlining the possibilities. That's all.

Cheers,

[Marc]

Randi also talked about it a little on the webcast last night. Yup, he might be rude and abrasive at times, but he still is much more curtious than some of the believers that confront him.

In part of the show Randi was to do a little cold reading act, but he told the producers it is likely the audience would recognize him. The producers didn't think it likely, but turns out Randi was right. (Think he said the Horizon episode had just repeated the previous week, and his picture appeared in some papers) That clip of a letter in the commentary is not very different from the response he got from some audience members.


Ok, it's anecdotal, but it has been my experience that as rude as some skeptics can get, it does not compare to the venom spewed by some believers. For example I've been told that I am a tool of satan and incapable of love. :rolleyes:

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

I note that you don't even know the name of the medium, yet you have decided that Randi's actions are not all that nice.
Did you at least read the "Commentary" before rushing to criticize me, Claus?

From the way he described the event, I don't think Randi himself would have the least objection to my characterization (nor does it have anything to do with who the medium was :rolleyes: )

[Clancie]

Posted by marc

In part of the show Randi was to do a little cold reading act, but he told the producers it is likely the audience would recognize him. The producers didn't think it likely, but turns out Randi was right.
So...no cold reading demonstration then? ....Again. (sigh).

Since they already invited him as the "most famous paranormal debunker in the world", wouldn't it make sense to disguise him for cold reading purposes? So...nothing. Again.
Posted by marc

Ok, it's anecdotal, but it has been my experience that as rude as some skeptics can get, it does not compare to the venom spewed by some believers. For example I've been told that I am a tool of satan and incapable of love.
Well, that's comparable to some nasty things that have been said to me. I don't disagree with the idea that there are always people "over the top" on both sides of any issue.

However, generally speaking, I think Spiritualists (whether its real or just an actl) generally come across as kind, caring, even reasonable people (note: Altea vs. Randi on LKL).

I just wonder if Kurtz/Shermer/Underdown's ways aren't a bit more effective in "making the case"--i.e. raising doubt for believers and pushing the fence sitters toward skepticism. But, as CFL will no doubt point out, Randi hasn't asked me for PR advice.....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

Did you at least read the "Commentary" before rushing to criticize me, Claus?

From the way he described the event, I don't think Randi himself would have the least objection to my characterization (nor does it have anything to do with who the medium was :rolleyes: ) [/B]

How can you possibly know what other people think, Clancie? We see this with neo as well: She also believes she can tell what goes on in other people's heads....

What, exactly, was your point of opening this thread?

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Oh, no, TLN, certain skeptical posters on JREF are contentious. Clancie then clearly distinguishes their behavior from Randi's.
And just when I thought I was getting used to "HoytSpeak". What are you talking about, Bill? :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I note that you are able to switch sides, depending on the situation. Now, Shermer is all OK.

If you want to do a tally on rude skeptics and rude believers, why don't we go to Pam's site? Do you want to look at TVTalkshows?

I think it is a bit premature of you to assert that no cold-reading took place. You haven't even seen the show!

[Clancie]

Claus,

I've been complimentary of Shermer in the past. It's nothing new.

re: my purpose. See my first two posts in the thread, (particularly the second paragraphs of each). :rolleyes:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

And just when I thought I was getting used to "HoytSpeak". What are you talking about, Bill? :confused:

Clancie,

I just find this juxtaposition interesting, that's all:

"Well, Dragon was right. Randi was the "world famous debunker" who appeared with a UK medium on Discovery Channel's "The Psychic Challenge" last week. It sounds....quite contentious, to say the least."



"Unlike you, Randi welcomes non-skeptics to discuss at this board (read the Introduction to the Forum link).

Its too bad that you feel my point of view justifies incessant rudeness and nasty personal attacks from you and Claus instead of discussion that focuses on the topic of a thread."
giggle (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870042385&highlight=Randi+welcomes#post1870042385)

You see, Clancie, whining aside, Claus and I (and others) are very much in line with Randi and with JREF. We are all immensely interested in instilling rational thought in people and tremendously irritated with those who wish to drag us back to the dark ages. In fact, we all sometimes show our claws when dark side advocates simply keep spouting bunk.

Cheer

[CFLarsen]

You have also criticized Shermer.

So, you ask for opinions of others and you want to learn more about the show?

That's it?

Re. the first: Do you have an opinion of this yourself? Do you think it is possible for you to form an opinion before anyone else state theirs?

Re. the second: Don't you think it is a superfluous statement? You know that the show isn't aired yet. You know that Randi most likely cannot (and shouldn't!) discuss a show that isn't broadcast yet.

Does this have anything to do with you and neo being buried in other threads? Just wanted to know.

You also have a project, long overdue, hanging over your head, you know......

[MRC_Hans]

Randi IS an abrasive and grumpy old man. That may or may not be productive, but this is not about Randi or anybody else, this is about FACTS. And the facts are not benificial to mediums and people like that.

Fact is that the work of mediums is consistent with cold reading.

Fact is that mediums only supply two categories of information:

1) What sitters already know.

2) What nobody can verify.

Hans

[Dragon]

I tried to get tickets to this show (as I suspected Randi was involved) but it was fully booked.

As part of the on-line application you were asked to say a bit about your beliefs etc. Now, I was up front about being a sceptic because I calculated that they would be looking for balance and that more believers than sceptics would apply, thus increasing my chances.
From the tone of Randi's initial comments that assumption may have been wrong.
Next time I'll try telling porkies.

No doubt we'll see when the show is broadcast.

:)

[Clancie]

Posted by MRC Hans

Fact is that mediums only supply two categories of information:

1) What sitters already know.

2) What nobody can verify.
Actually, MRC Hans, whether mediumship is real or bogus, what you have stated above isn't a fact at all, as numerous well documented examples show.

And if one's goal is to communicate effectively with the target audience, then I think the style of presentation is an interesting issue. (Of course, Randi's goal may be "preaching to the converted" in which case...my guess is that he's very effective).

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, MRC Hans, whether mediumship is real or bogus, what you have stated above isn't a fact at all, as numerous well documented examples show.

Really? Where?

[Clancie]

Keene, for one. Ford, for another.

[MRC_Hans]

Please elaborate. Those names mean nothing to me.

Hans

[BillHoyt]

<MARQUEE>ATTENTION! Those underlined thingies below Clancie's quotes are not quotes from Clancie. Neither are they Clancie's words. Nor titles of threads! They are my sarcastic comments on Clancie's claim. Do not be alarmed. She is a whiner who prefers to divert when caught in a lie. Do not be alarmed. Crack open a good microbrew and have a good laugh. A little bit of Edam and some good crackers will also help.</marquee>


Originally posted by Clancie
I've been complimentary of Shermer in the past. It's nothing new.

On this board? Let's do a search and see...

"I hope its more than just the tired old clip of van Praagh pumping the woman for information at the commercial break and then showing him using it later. (That, plus Nickells...yep, that's new and exciting. And. what else? Shermer, Kurtz, O'Neill and Jaroff? My eyes are glazing over already...)

But one can hope there'll be some research to it, something original rather than just "old wine in a new bottle"...."
Eyes glazing over shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303153&highlight=Shermer#post303153)

"So, if Shermer can do this, why isn't it videotaped so others can learn from it? Why would skeptics just continiue to rely on heresay that (other?) cold readers can duplicate what JE does--or do it even better?

I can't understand why the claim that cold readers do this persists, the opportunity to document it is there, and no one provides evidence of doing it."

And...Shermer?! It doesn't get more accessible to taped documentation than that. (btw, where'd you see him?)"
Come on, Shermer, cough up the evidence! (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=437373&highlight=Shermer#post437373)

"Shermer doing a "mediumship demo better than JE" on television????"
Either Shermer is a liar or you are lying about Shermer! (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=437417&highlight=Shermer#post437417[/url)

"I appreciate people who have made the effort on their own to look into this, as you describe doing, not just accept and repeat a preconceived idea-- or whatever Shermer, Jaroff, Randi, etc. have said about it."
Move over, Jimmy Buffet, Shermer is one of the real parrot head heads (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869991188&highlight=Shermer#post1869991188)

"Shermer's Conclusion: I have no psychic ability and there's not a shred of evidence it's real. That I could do so well with only a day's preparation shows how vulnerable people are to these effective techniques.
...
Note: The day of taping was set weeks in advance. Shermer chose to prep 24 hours ahead rather than for "a couple of weeks". Intentionally lowering the bar? You decide.
Shermer intentionally lowers the bar (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870001167&highlight=Shermer#post1870001167)

"It sounds like he was good at fishing for info and finding out things through conversation (not hard to do, imo), and also occasionally got good mileage out of Rowland's list of "generalities for everyone", but other than that...not much, imo."
Not much to Shermer, I'd say (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870001320&highlight=Shermer#post1870001320)

"Obviously he thought his readings were very successful and he believes he has the potential to be a successful cold reader with a tv show just like JE, but I saw nothing impressive at all about them."
Unimpressive and self-deluded (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870002164&highlight=Shermer#post1870002164)

"Shermer thinks he's done a great job. It's his smugness in the face of these "nothing much" reading (imo) that that particularly annoys me. But then, that's nothing new with cold readers' claims about how easy it is to give good readings."
Smug Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870003010&highlight=Shermer#post1870003010)

You know, my fingers are getting tired. I'm having a tough time finding evidence for your claim. Maybe you can help? Perhaps, by compliment, you mean you defended him when you said that oh, yes, he was fit to eat with the pigs?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Keene, for one. Ford, for another.

Huh?

Clancie, can you point to a single scientific experiment, independently replicated with viewable data and testing protocol, that proves the claims of mediums?

[CFLarsen]

BillHoyt,

Ahm proud of you, son! Ah tawt you well! :)

[Marc]

Originally posted by Clancie

So...no cold reading demonstration then? ....Again. (sigh).

Since they already invited him as the "most famous paranormal debunker in the world", wouldn't it make sense to disguise him for cold reading purposes? So...nothing. Again.

On the contrary, they got some actor and gave him a quick course on cold reading that day, sent him in and he wowed the audence. :D



Well, that's comparable to some nasty things that have been said to me. I don't disagree with the idea that there are always people "over the top" on both sides of any issue.
I find one side to have many that go "over the top" and are far more vicious than even the angriest person on the other side

[Clancie]

Well, marc, I'd have to disagree. But obviously our experiences are different.

And...Bill...did you actually find all of those yourself? Should I dust for fingerprints? :rolleyes: I've said I've been complimentary of Shermer in the past, and I have. I'll find some quotes, if you doubt my word.

And, in the interest of not "accidentally" confusing anyone, could you annotate your quotes so that it is crystal clear that the cutesy little "topic headings" at the bottom of each quote are yours, not mine--and not the title of an actual thread? Thank you.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Are you dismissing marc's experiences?

Do you acknowledge that those are your quotes? Where are your "complimentary" quotes about Shermer? Perhaps you have a comparative analysis?

Could you actually address some of the questions put to you?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
And...Bill...did you actually find all of those yourself? Should I dust for fingerprints? :rolleyes:

And, in the interest of not confusing anyone, could you annotate it so that it is crystal clear that the cutesy little "topic headings" at the bottom of each quote are yours, not mine--or the title of an actual thread? Thank you.
Those cutesy titles are links to your posts, Clancie.

And, yes, it is difficult for me to use search engines. But I don't do too badly considering I'm a bouncer at a local strip club.

So where are the "compliments"?

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

James Randi "Commentary":

"...For now I'll tell you that this experience demonstrated for me once more just how angry, frantic, and hateful the believers in life-after-death can be — and are — when their beliefs are threatened by the facts".



One keeps hearing skeptics talk about these mysterious facts which supposedly refute the survival hypothesis. But what are these mysterious facts? Does anyone have the remotest idea?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
One keeps hearing skeptics talk about these mysterious facts which supposedly refute the survival hypothesis. But what are these mysterious facts? Does anyone have the remotest idea?

You seem to be suffering from the delusion that people have to "refute" a hypothesis. It is actually up to the proponents of said hypothesis to provide evidence for it.

Got any?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


One keeps hearing skeptics talk about these mysterious facts which supposedly refute the survival hypothesis. But what are these mysterious facts? Does anyone have the remotest idea?

It starts, first and foremost, with an "O" and is not available from Schick, Bic or Gillette.

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Posted by marc

On the contrary, they got some actor and gave him a quick course on cold reading that day, sent him in and he wowed the audence.
Marc,

I missed this before. Fantastic! So, at last we will hopefully have a cold reading demonstration to observe (and an audience of believers to observe it with). I can't wait....

And, Bill....

I notice you don't actually answer the question of whether you found all these quotes yourself.

I also notice you are refusing to annotate your post so that it is clear (1) those are not my words captioning it at the bottom; and (2) they are not actual thread titles.

Not annotating it right there at the top of your post is, imo, very dishonest of you, Bill. Very misleading and very dishonest and apparently intentionally so! :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You seem to be suffering from the delusion that people have to "refute" a hypothesis. It is actually up to the proponents of said hypothesis to provide evidence for it.

Got any?

Ah! There is no such evidence refuting the survival hypothesis then. I thought so.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Ah! There is no such evidence refuting the survival hypothesis then. I thought so. [French accent]Read very carefully, as I will say this only once[/French accent]: The fact is that there is no evidence for the "survival hypothesis".

Hans

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
And, Bill....

I notice you don't actually answer the question of whether you found all these quotes yourself.
Clancie,

Go to search. Put your name in the user name box, and "Schermer" in the search terms box. It was really difficult to figure out, especially on a friday afternoon at the strip club. :rolleyes:
I also notice you are refusing to annotate your post so that it is clear (1) those are not my words captioning it at the bottom; and (2) they are not actual thread titles.

Not annotating it right there at the top of your post is, imo, very dishonest of you, Bill. Very misleading and very dishonest and apparently intentionally so! :eek:

How's this:

<MARQUEE>ATTENTION! Those underlined thingies below Clancie's quotes are not quotes from Clancie. Neither are they Clancie's words. Nor titles of threads! They are my sarcastic comments on Clancie's claim. Do not be alarmed. She is a whiner who prefers to divert when caught in a lie. Do not be alarmed. Crack open a good microbrew and have a good laugh. A little bit of Edam and some good crackers will also help.</marquee>

Cheers,

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Ah! There is no such evidence refuting the survival hypothesis then. I thought so.

http://www.americanfamilytraditions.com/Arlington_National_Cemetary_NR4_WEB.jpg

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Ah! There is no such evidence refuting the survival hypothesis then. I thought so.

It starts, first and foremost, with an "O" and is not available from Schick, Bic or Gillette.

[MRC_Hans]

<MARQUEE>Wheee! I just love that. Now for speculating on some deft uses for it! . . . . . . . . . . Mmmm, I wonder it it would work in my signature.</marquee>

Hans

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ah! There is no such evidence refuting the survival hypothesis then. I thought so.

Of course there is. Nobody has ever come back from the grave to tell us otherwise.

Now, do you acknowledge this? Just yes or no.

If no, please provide your own evidence - in a separate thread, please. Let's not hijack this one.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
[French accent]Read very carefully, as I will say this only once[/French accent]: The fact is that there is no evidence for the "survival hypothesis".

Hans

You can keep saying this till your blue in the face, but it ain't going to change the facts. The plain fact of the matter is that you and other skeptics are either bare-faced liars, or are extremely ignorant on this subject. Go do some research and decease with your inane ignorant assertions.

For a start you can read a brief adumbration of the various types of evidence here (http://www.instituteofnoeticsciences.com/Ions/publications/review_archives/32/issue32_12.html)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Diogenes


http://www.americanfamilytraditions.com/Arlington_National_Cemetary_NR4_WEB.jpg

Presupposes materialist metaphysic therefore begs the question.

[CFLarsen]

Interesting Ian,

Please open a new thread on this. Do not hijack this one, please.

[TLN]

Ian, prove to me there's no Santa Claus.

[Interesting Ian]

As Michael Grosso says in the link I provided:


The evidence suggestive of life after death is considerable, daunting in its complexity and suggestiveness. Yet conclusive solutions elude us, and, as William James once said, nature seems determined in this department of knowledge to continually baffle us. However, I think we can say this: The more we probe the evidence suggestive of an afterlife, the more we are driven to the conclusion that either human beings possess quite remarkable abilities-abilities that demand a drastic extension of the common view of human potential-or that some human beings in fact do survive bodily death.

[Cleon]

I see where Randi's coming from.

I mean, is there a polite way of saying "You're defrauding people out of their money using 2-cent gimmicks and tricks?"

Frankly, I'm amazed Randi's been as reserved as he has been. Some folks would be up there swearing and screaming at the charlatans.

[BillHoyt]

Yo, I wanna send a shout outta Clancie. Yo, is Clancie in da house?

And, if she is, has she yet found anything she posted at JREF that supports this claim:
I've been complimentary of Shermer in the past. It's nothing new.
The evidence to the contrary seemed to mount suddenly.

I have to get back to work. Monique is almost up, she's got a wicked all-over tan, and some of these guys may get a bit wild. I'll look in from time to time, though.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

*bump*

Hi, Clancie, you've posted six times since my last post here. I hope you're not running from your own thread because you can't support your own claims about your own posts or anything like that. Right?

Please support your claim you've said complimentary things about Shermer. Or acknowledge Claus' observation that you seem to have switched sides suddenly. Or, state you believe you've said nice things even though there is no evidence here in your JREF posts. Or, state that you refuse to answer the question. You know, standard JREF, not koffee klatch, rules.

Cheers,

[Kerberos]

Which channel is going to send the show?

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Which channel is going to send the show?

Channel 4 in the UK and the Discovery Channel,

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Ah! There is no such evidence refuting the survival hypothesis then. I thought so.


No, of course not. Nobody is claiming there is. Or should, at least.

There IS, however, a better, more simple explanation... that humans die at death.

Don't confuse the fact that people not coming back from the dead with evidence against the hypothesis, Claus. It simply points to a simple explanation-- Ian's little "life-after-death" theory can be slashed apart with occam's razor (it postulates the existence of a soul, etc, that have no evidence can are not necessary to explain things).

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Dragon


Channel 4 in the UK and the Discovery Channel,

And when?

[Dragon]

Don't know. Nothing specific on the Channel 4 website yet.

[BillHoyt]

<marquee>Yo, I wanna send a shout outta Clancie. Yo, is Clancie in da house?</marquee>

[mummymonkey]

The show's just finished. Anybody else watch it?

[Clancie]

Posted by mummymonkey
The show's just finished. Anybody else watch it?
"Finished?" :confused: And...what'd you think?

Also, who was the medium? (Please, I hope not Colin Frye).

[mummymonkey]

The fraud was a guy called Keith Charles (http://www.keith-charles.com/bio.html).
The audience was very hostile and the host was incredibly naive.
Randi did a nice card trick.

[Clancie]

I've never heard of Keith Charles, mummymonkey. Thanks for the link. Interestingly, Charles is a former policeman and now a "psychic detective". He was going to give up his psychic work after his son was killed in a traffic accident, but claims that contact with his son persuaded him to continue to help others. Here's a little about his background, from that link:

Keith Charles joined the Metropolitan Police at 17. After his training at Hendon Police College, he went to Cannon Row, in central London, where his duties ranged from guarding Prime Ministers at 10 Downing Street, members of the Royal Family at Buckingham Palace, to walking the late Queen Mother round her beautiful garden.

During his 32 years, Keith was assigned to the Fraud Squad, Hotel Burglary Squad and Murder Squads. He has investigated all manner of crimes from indecency to aggravated assaults.

He is probably Britain's foremost psychic detective. Police and investigators on both sides of the Atlantic call in Keith to help them with information from a very unusual source - the spirit world....his recent best-selling paperback book, PSYCHIC DETECTIVE demonstrates how he brings his extraordinary gift to bear on some of the most enduring mysteries of our time.

[BillHoyt]

Clancie,

Are you or are you not going to provide evidence that you said anything complimentary about Shermer? Yes or no.

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Hi Bill,

Probably not. Actually, I don't think most of my quotes that you posted were particularly negative--at least they showed that I obviously recognize him as a leading critic.

And you missed the post where I promo'ed here (free of charge) his upcoming CSICOP event at Cal Tech (I also attended it).

Maybe I feel I've posted positively about him because I've devoted a whole thread to his Skeptic article. (And, after all, I tried to represent his points and point of view fairly). I thought it was very commendable of him to attempt cold reading and shared his experiences. Did I not say that? Maybe not, since it seemed obvious from starting that thread in the first place.

You probably wouldn't count this (and I'm not going to go to TVTalk to hunt for it), but on a more personal note, I have said that I find Shermer far more attractive than John Edward (this was in response to people saying that believers "believe" in JE just because he's good looking. When I first started watching CO I didn't think JE was good looking at all. I always liked Shermer's looks....).

But maybe this isn't complimentary enough for you...and its not going to be documented if you need that because I don't feel like doing a big search to find something so inconsequential.

For the record, I also think he's a more effective debunker than Randi when he appears in talk show formats (I can't remember the one with the psychics), because he makes his points while still seeming pleasant.

Just my opinion, though. If its not good enough for you then, fine. Consider me a liar and that I've never said, written or thought anything positive about Shermer at all. It really makes no difference one way or the other.

P.S. I stopped finding him as attractive when he started talking about how much he likes Ayn Rand's ideas. Just so you know. (Like you really care) :p

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Dragon


Channel 4 in the UK and the Discovery Channel,

Cool I can take Discovery, thanks.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
The show's just finished. Anybody else watch it?

What the show has already been sent? In the commentary it said it would be sent in a few weeks.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Are you going to provide evidence of any of your claims? Are you going to argue any of your viewpoints?

I'd just like to know, because right now, it seems like you want to distance yourself from your previous posts.

I see, however, that you have energy enough to seek information about a psychic detective you have never heard of, who has been on a show you haven't seen.

You sure have a strange way of prioritizing your energies. You don't want to debate what you know, only that which you don't.

[mummymonkey]

Kerberos
What the show has already been sent? In the commentary it said it would be sent in a few weeks.
It was on Discovery last night. I think it's on CH4 next week.
I didn't think it was that good. The audience was clearly loaded in the believers favour. They took regular polls to see what proportion of the audience were believers and at the end of the show the believers share had increased! This was despite showing a clip of the best psychic performance being given by an actor with 2 hours training on cold reading. The idea of the challenge was a good one, but they shouldn't have got Randi to do it. He's too well known.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

It was on Discovery last night.

To bad, I'd have liked to see it and I can't take CH4. Ohh well I'll probably survive.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Just my opinion, though. If its not good enough for you then, fine. Consider me a liar and that I've never said, written or thought anything positive about Shermer at all. It really makes no difference one way or the other.
Fair enough. Nothing complimentary on JREF, then.

Cheers,

[Zep]

Originally posted by Clancie
I've never heard of Keith Charles, mummymonkey. Thanks for the link. Interestingly, Charles is a former policeman and now a "psychic detective". He was going to give up his psychic work after his son was killed in a traffic accident, but claims that contact with his son persuaded him to continue to help others. Here's a little about his background, from that link:
Here's some more from that link:
Keith graduating from Police Training Collage, HendonNow isn't that nice that he graduated from a picture made from bits and pieces... And right near the COLLEGE where they train the coppers! :D

[fsol]

From here http://www.channel4.com/listings/C4/index.jsp?offset=5&position=5

Saturday 23rd August.


20:00
Psychic Night
Living With The Dead
Living with the Dead looks at the spectacular growth in the number of people visiting psychics and those interested in psychic phenomena. The high point of this trend was the attempt earlier this year to contact Princess Diana through a sance, screened on an American pay-per-view channel.
_
21:00
Psychic Night
Ultimate Psychic Challenge
For the first time on British television, a well-known, respected psychic goes head-to-head with a professional sceptic in a unique challenge to prove their beliefs. Filmed in front of a live studio audience, Keith Charles, known as the psychic detective, and James Randi, who travels around the States exposing evangelists and psychics whom he believes are frauds, attempt to lay each other's arguments to rest once and for all.
_


22:30
Psychic Night:
Top Ten Ways To Contact The Dead
A look at the dos and don'ts for those wishing to commune with the dead - a kind of 'Which Witch'. The methods of contacting the spirit world investigated by the programme include Scrying, Sances, Ouija Boards, Spirit Summoning by White Magic, Past Life Regression, Trance Channelling, Transfiguration, Voodoo, Electronic Voice Phenomena and Afterlife Telegrams.
_

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


It starts, first and foremost, with an "O" and is not available from Schick, Bic or Gillette.

Cheers,
Mr. Hoyt -

Since you love to nitpick at others, I feel compelled to point out that Interesting Ian asked for facts. Occam's Razor is not a "fact" itself, nor does it supply any "facts". It is simply a logical tool.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Mr. Hoyt -

Since you love to nitpick at others, I feel compelled to point out that Interesting Ian asked for facts. Occam's Razor is not a "fact" itself, nor does it supply any "facts". It is simply a logical tool.

I said, Thanz, "it starts, first and foremost, with an "O"". That is, exactly, where it starts. Occam's razor directs us to select hypotheses parsimoniously to fit the observed facts. One of those facts is the absence of evidence provided by the billions of our ancesotrs, none of which have yet popped out of the grave. That's just for starters. And, Thanz, this point has been made, pictorially (and humorously) already.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I said, Thanz, "it starts, first and foremost, with an "O"". That is, exactly, where it starts. Occam's razor directs us to select hypotheses parsimoniously to fit the observed facts.
I am well aware of what Occam's razor directs. I am also aware that you did not provide any of these observed facts, which is what Ian was asking for.
One of those facts is the absence of evidence provided by the billions of our ancesotrs, none of which have yet popped out of the grave. That's just for starters.
Why did you not say this then? He clearly was asking for facts, not a reference to a method.

Why does it seem that you never quite answer any questions? You are very frustrating to deal with as you seem to never come out and just SAY something. You obliquely point to it, and fashion yourself as some sort of socratic teacher.

If someone asks you a question, please consider just answering it in clear and concise language. IMO, your current posting style makes you come off as incredibly smug and annoying. If you really want to help people understand things, explain them in clear language. We are not your students, and you are not our professor.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

I am well aware of what Occam's razor directs. I am also aware that you did not provide any of these observed facts, which is what Ian was asking for.
[B]
Why did you not say this then? He clearly was asking for facts, not a reference to a method.

Why does it seem that you never quite answer any questions? You are very frustrating to deal with as you seem to never come out and just SAY something. You obliquely point to it, and fashion yourself as some sort of socratic teacher.

If someone asks you a question, please consider just answering it in clear and concise language. IMO, your current posting style makes you come off as incredibly smug and annoying. If you really want to help people understand things, explain them in clear language. We are not your students, and you are not our professor.
I think you're missing two essential points here: 1) With Occam's razor as an essential part of science, one does not need to marshall evidence to refute hypotheses already excluded! 2) I have, and others have, explained these basic principles until we are blue in the face. I try not to repeat myself, but to try different avenues with each new opportunity to get the messages across.

I know I annoy you. How about we stick to the subject matters at hand? Are you okay with the idea that there was no need for evidence in this case? Or does that also annoy you. If so, why?

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dragon
Don't know. Nothing specific on the Channel 4 website yet.

There's some psychic night on ch 4 on Saturday. Programme on from 9pm to 9.30pm about Randi putting some guy called Keith Charles to the test. Who the hell is Keith Charles??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
The fraud was a guy called Keith Charles (http://www.keith-charles.com/bio.html).
The audience was very hostile and the host was incredibly naive.
Randi did a nice card trick.

Card trick?? Who the hell is interested in card tricks?? :rolleyes: I've got bad vibes about this programme. Oh well, what the hell, only on 30 mins.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

It was on Discovery last night. I think it's on CH4 next week.
I didn't think it was that good. The audience was clearly loaded in the believers favour. They took regular polls to see what proportion of the audience were believers and at the end of the show the believers share had increased! This was despite showing a clip of the best psychic performance being given by an actor with 2 hours training on cold reading. The idea of the challenge was a good one, but they shouldn't have got Randi to do it. He's too well known.

If it's cold reading then it's not a psychic performance! :eek: The pertinent point is, did he do as well as the alleged genuine psychic? If the believers share increased this then might suggest that the performance wasn't as good notwithstanding what you have said. But I'll see the programme myself in 5 days time.

[AlienX]

I suppose Randi after all these years of reasoning seeing people willfully ignoring any evidence that counters their belief is pretty frustrating don't you think. Especially when he has exposed many of thes frauds over the years. Personally after every single investigation resulting in failure then it's bound to be difficult to take the next medium etc at face value.

Randi is pretty well known for exposing these frauds and you would expect people with high belief levels to "know the enemy" sp to speak.

So far all the mediums go down in flames when scrutinised. People can and do reproduce these "performances" without any help from the spirit world.

Look at JE and his readings on LKL, pure and simple cold reading. If he's cold reading then it's not a great leap to realise he just cold reads all the time (+warm and hot).

As for no evidence of "fraud", simply looking at the readings and comparing them to cold reading is evidence. You would at lest expect a different MO and returned info but you don't seem that.

OK so there could be life after death and mediums could exist, just all the ones i've seen so far certainly don't see to be.

IMO what's wrong with some harsh words to a criminal because that's what they are.

AlienX

[mummymonkey]

Interesting Ian
If it's cold reading then it's not a psychic performance
Well spotted Ian. I should have put quotes round "psychic performance". Thank you for the correction. The "psychic performance" of the fraudster was abysmal. He didn't get a single hit on the chosen subject and had to open up to the audience. There he found a believer willing to give him the information he required to continue with the cold reading demonstration.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by AlienX


So far all the mediums go down in flames when scrutinised. People can and do reproduce these "performances" without any help from the spirit world.



Where is your evidence for this? Could you supply appropriate references? Does this include all mediums past and present? Your assertion is contrary to what I've read up on the subject.



Look at JE and his readings on LKL, pure and simple cold reading. If he's cold reading then it's not a great leap to realise he just cold reads all the time (+warm and hot).



Naming one individual who you feel is a fraud is a far cry from your above assertion.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

Well spotted Ian. I should have put quotes round "psychic performance". Thank you for the correction. The "psychic performance" of the fraudster was abysmal. He didn't get a single hit on the chosen subject and had to open up to the audience. There he found a believer willing to give him the information he required to continue with the cold reading demonstration. [/B]

Who? The actor or the alleged real psychic?

If the latter and if he was so abysmal then I find it appalling they should have chosen this guy.

[mummymonkey]

Hi Ian. I'm talking about the fraudster/liar, not the actor.
To be fair to the fraudster/liar he was only abysmal when asked to perform under conditions that meant he couldn't get any feedback from his subject. No cold-reader should have to put up with that. If the actor had worked under those conditions I'm sure he would have been just as crap. Mind you, judging by the audience reaction, it didn't seem to matter. They just kept right on believing. Amazing eh?

[AlienX]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Where is your evidence for this? Could you supply appropriate references? Does this include all mediums past and present? Your assertion is contrary to what I've read up on the subject.



Naming one individual who you feel is a fraud is a far cry from your above assertion.

JE is considered among many believers to be the "real deal". I'm no specialist but upon reading the LKL transcripts there isn't anything there I consider to be anything but "cold reading".
The format of not being able to see the "victim" and the short timespan allowed for each reading would favor real mediumship and not cold reading - JE fails on all fronts in virtually every single reading. Thus from these readings I suggest the strong possibility that JE is a fraud. (See Renats Transcripts)

As for evidence of fraudulent psychics, well we have our very own resident James Randi here who has exposed many over the years. (see Randis discussions about the various "mediums" he's investigated).

Not a single "psychic" has ever passed even the preliminary basic entry tests for the Randi challenge. (Err the money is still in the bank)

I will not deny the possibility of life after death, but when the believers best example is JE then you have to seriuosly question what all the others are like. (See Renats transcripts of the LKL readings, if the king is dead then where does that leave the others?)

Is JE et al talking to the dead.. doesn't seem very likely i'm afraid.

What do I wan't as proof?

Well the Randi test seems to cover the bases, but ultimately I would like short readings with NO response from a sitter that the medium can't see. Long readings with feedback invalidate the reading as the longer the reading goes on the more information the "medium" can gleen (pretty straight forward that - i'm not sure you would require any evidence to make this assumption with a good degree of accuracy)

OK Ian you claim to know and have great depth of knowledge about the subject - would you care to point out the most damning evidence that all this is just fakes and frauds.

As far as i'm concerned you can't simply selectivly look at +ve data, where is the negative data that you have discounted as being incorrect?

Really if the +ve experiments are correct then perhaps you could post your evidence or opinions as to why the -ve stuff is incorrect.

So could you point me in the direction of some real mediums ?

TA

AlienX

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie
For the record, I also think he's a more effective debunker than Randi when he appears in talk show formats (I can't remember the one with the psychics), because he makes his points while still seeming pleasant.

Not that I would expect Hoyt and friends to believe me, Clancie, but I do remember you posting something to that effect, most likely over at TVTalkShows. :D .......neo

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by neofight


Not that I would expect Hoyt and friends to believe me, Clancie, but I do remember you posting something to that effect, most likely over at TVTalkShows. :D .......neo

Fair enough. So, let's trot it out. Give us the thread, date & time, please.

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Thanks, neo. :) But of course we're not going to bother looking it up for Bill (and frankly I find the TVT searches as irritating as you do :( ). I've said my piece and promo'd Shermer's event here, devoted a thread to his article. Whether I've said other good things about Shermer or not is an extremely inconsequential topic to spend search--or discussion--time on. If Bill doubts the opinion I've given and wants to make an issue of it again and again...well, so be it.

And, Bill, I notice you never did give a direct answer to whether you dredged up all those quotes of mine. I didn't ask how to do a search here, which is quite obvious. The question was if you found those all on your own or if I should dust for fingerprints. It certainly seemed interestingly uncharacteristic of you. Just wondering--and interested in how you repeatedly dodged the question (saying it is easy to do is not the same as saying that you did it)....:rolleyes:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thanks, neo. :) But of course we're not going to bother looking it up for Bill (and frankly I find the TVT searches as irritating as you do :( ). I've said my piece and promo'd Shermer's event here, devoted a thread to his article. Whether I've said other good things about Shermer or not is an extremely inconsequential topic to spend search--or discussion--time on. If Bill doubts the opinion I've given and wants to make an issue of it again and again...well, so be it.

Very good, then you refuse to back up your claim. Case closed.

And, Bill, I notice you never did give a direct answer to whether you dredged up all those quotes of mine. I didn't ask how to do a search here, which is quite obvious. The question was if you found those all on your own or if I should dust for fingerprints. It certainly seemed interestingly uncharacteristic of you. Just wondering--and interested in how you repeatedly dodged the question (saying it is easy to do is not the same as saying that you did it)....:rolleyes:

I am personally insulted that you would think I wouldn't know how to do a simple search of the forum. Your arrogance and apparently snotty attitude toward me simply because I'm a strip-club bouncer is uncalled for and absolutely uncivil. How insulting.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thanks, neo. :) But of course we're not going to bother looking it up for Bill (and frankly I find the TVT searches as irritating as you do :( ). I've said my piece and promo'd Shermer's event here, devoted a thread to his article. Whether I've said other good things about Shermer or not is an extremely inconsequential topic to spend search--or discussion--time on. If Bill doubts the opinion I've given and wants to make an issue of it again and again...well, so be it.

"So be it"?

It's not a question of being "bothered" to look it up "for Bill". It's a question of you and neo backing up your own claims with evidence. Don't you and neo ask people to do just that? Why do you think other rules should apply to you?

Do you understand why people find you and neo hypocritical?

Originally posted by Clancie
And, Bill, I notice you never did give a direct answer to whether you dredged up all those quotes of mine. I didn't ask how to do a search here, which is quite obvious. The question was if you found those all on your own or if I should dust for fingerprints. It certainly seemed interestingly uncharacteristic of you. Just wondering--and interested in how you repeatedly dodged the question (saying it is easy to do is not the same as saying that you did it)....:rolleyes:

What difference does it make who "dredged" up your quotes? They are there, they are yours. And you have admitted defeat in trying to find quotes that prove you right.

Stop changing the subject. Stop shifting the onus. The onus is entirely on you to back up your claims.

It is "quite obvious" that you cannot do that - which, of course, you have admitted. That's why I find it disingenious of you to ask of others what you refuse to give yourself.

And you can cut out the perpetual condescending attitude. It does nothing to help you here.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Randi's a contentious man. What part, if any, of the commentary do you have a problem with?

I've just seen the programme, and I simply cannot fit anything that Randi said into what I saw.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
The show's just finished. Anybody else watch it?

Yes I've just seen it. I couldn't believe that the number of unbelievers went up! :eek: The number of believers went up as well though, but even so! Quite incredible :confused:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
The fraud was a guy called Keith Charles (http://www.keith-charles.com/bio.html).
The audience was very hostile and the host was incredibly naive.
Randi did a nice card trick.

Yeah, using his own deck of cards! What the hell that was supposed to prove is quite beyond me.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes I've just seen it. I couldn't believe that the number of unbelievers went up! :eek: The number of believers went up as well though, but even so! Quite incredible :confused:

The number of believers rose from 44% at the start of the show and after James Randi had his chance to sway them with his amazing conjouring skills and skepticism, the figure rose to 55%!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

It was on Discovery last night. I think it's on CH4 next week.
I didn't think it was that good. The audience was clearly loaded in the believers favour. They took regular polls to see what proportion of the audience were believers and at the end of the show the believers share had increased! This was despite showing a clip of the best psychic performance being given by an actor with 2 hours training on cold reading. The idea of the challenge was a good one, but they shouldn't have got Randi to do it. He's too well known.

After that bit the number of believers went down and the unbelievers went up. Overall the medium (Keith Charles) got information which was too accurate to be explained by cold reading. So it's not surprising the number of believers went up. What I found astounding is the number of unbelievers went up as well!

BTW I myself at the beginning was undecided but felt inclined to vote for the believer option by the end of the programme. But I think the possibility that the medium could have got the information by telepathy is a significant possibility. Then there's the hot reading worry.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


There's some psychic night on ch 4 on Saturday. Programme on from 9pm to 9.30pm about Randi putting some guy called Keith Charles to the test. Who the hell is Keith Charles??

The bloody Sunday Times TV guide got it wrong! It was actually on for 1 and a half hours! :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Card trick?? Who the hell is interested in card tricks?? :rolleyes: I've got bad vibes about this programme. Oh well, what the hell, only on 30 mins.

No, it was on 90 mins :eek:

[Mendor]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The number of believers rose from 44% at the start of the show and after James Randi had his chance to sway them with his amazing conjouring skills and skepticism, the figure rose to 55%! Actually, directly after Randi did his bit, the non-believer figure rose and (IIRC) the believer figure dropped (slightly). Only after Charles was wheeled in did the believer figure start to rise again. All this would seem to indicate is that the vote was swayed by whatever in the programme directly preceded that vote.

And in any case, as Randi himself pointed out, science is not decided by votes.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If it's cold reading then it's not a psychic performance! :eek: The pertinent point is, did he do as well as the alleged genuine psychic? If the believers share increased this then might suggest that the performance wasn't as good notwithstanding what you have said. But I'll see the programme myself in 5 days time.

No, absolutely nowhere near.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

Well spotted Ian. I should have put quotes round "psychic performance". Thank you for the correction. The "psychic performance" of the fraudster was abysmal. He didn't get a single hit on the chosen subject and had to open up to the audience. There he found a believer willing to give him the information he required to continue with the cold reading demonstration. [/B]

Who are you talking about here?? It's clear that you aren't talking about Keith Charles, so who are you talking about?? :confused:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Who? The actor or the alleged real psychic?

If the latter and if he was so abysmal then I find it appalling they should have chosen this guy.

He can't be talking about the real psychic since most of the stuff was specific and spot on.

[Mendor]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Who are you talking about here?? It's clear that you aren't talking about Keith Charles, so who are you talking about?? :confused: That's exactly who he's talking about. When Charles and the person he was reading were separated by a screen, and Charles couldn't get feedback, he bombed. He got one hit, and that was "a woman". He had to go to the audience ("Do you have a scar on your left wrist? ...No? Is there anyone in the audience who has a scar or mark on their left wrist?") - and then, of course, he could get feedback.

(and of course there's going to be somebody in an audience of 100 with a scar or mark on their left wrist!)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
[B]Hi Ian. I'm talking about the fraudster/liar, not the actor.



It's you that is the dispicable liar. But what else to expect from a d*ckhead skeptic?? :rolleyes:



To be fair to the fraudster/liar he was only abysmal when asked to perform under conditions that meant he couldn't get any feedback from his subject.



He got some things apparently wrong there, but he gave sufficient detail which rendered the cold reading hypothesis unlikely (albeit possible).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mendor


And in any case, as Randi himself pointed out, science is not decided by votes. [/B]

When he said that I was baffled. Who on earth was maintaining otherwise?? :eek: :confused:

[TwoShanks]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It's you that is the dispicable liar. But what else to expect from a d*ckhead skeptic?? :rolleyes:



Are you being sarcastic here?

I'm completely astonished that anyone could think that the "psychic" man was genuine, especially in light of the "screen test".

Then again I find it's unwise to underestimate the gullibility of people.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TwoShanks


Are you being sarcastic here?

I'm completely astonished that anyone could think that the "psychic" man was genuine, especially in light of the "screen test".

Then again I find it's unwise to underestimate the gullibility of people.

He might not be. But from looking at his performance as a whole it would need to have been done by hot reading rather than cold reading.

[Mike D.]

Montague Keen comments on this program:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mike D.
Montague Keen comments on this program:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

Thanks for the link Mike. Hmmmm, this is interesting:


1. The edited version omitted his first futile but extended attempts at cold reading which was so unsuccessful that the embarrassed floor manager had to announce a technical fault and stop the show.


I wondered why he was hot reading rather than cold reading. Now I know! LOL

[T'ai Chi]

Apparently Randi's cold reading/whatever wasn't too good, judging by a report.

Maybe Schwartz is right in challenging debunkers to 'take a seat in the chair' like mediums do? In real situations (not kids parties or at skeptics concentions) with all the controls, can skeptics apply their cold reading?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Apparently Randi's cold reading/whatever wasn't too good, judging by a report.

Maybe Schwartz is right in challenging debunkers to 'take a seat in the chair' like mediums do? In real situations (not kids parties or at skeptics concentions) with all the controls, can skeptics apply their cold reading?

You still claiming to be a geophysicist/statistician? And still reasoning this poorly? Wow. How ya doin on an answer to why we need to test everybody for superpowers before we have confidence there ain't any, geophysicist/statistician?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Mendor
And in any case, as Randi himself pointed out, science is not decided by votes.

Neither is science decided by entertainment and Challenges.

[mummymonkey]

Ian
It's you that is the dispicable liar. But what else to expect from a d*ckhead skeptic?? Oh dear, you seem upset. I can understand that. When your faith is so obviously undermined it must be a frightening experience. Have you tried The Samaritans?

[fsol]

Overall the medium (Keith Charles) got information which was too accurate to be explained by cold reading.

Overall? You seem to be forgetting the misses here Ian. Unless somehow you were watching a different show to me.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Neither is science decided by entertainment and Challenges.
O frapjous day! We're back on this topic again. It seems to me that your claim we must test each and every person before we can say there aren't superpowers is quite relevant here. So, in light of your claim, please explain how science tests these things and what on earth the mechanism for "deciding" them is? Looking forward to your exegesis.

Cheers,

[Marc]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Apparently Randi's cold reading/whatever wasn't too good, judging by a report.

As was explained much earlier in this thread the audience knew Randi wasn't a medium. He had talked to the producers about wearing a disguise, but they felt he wouldn't need one. Unfortunatly a repeat of his appearance on Horizon had aired the week before, and his picture was in the paper. Kinda hard to do a cold reading when everyone knows it is a trick and most of the audience is hostile towrads you.

According to Randi one of the more hostile people towards him managed to get read by the 'true' medium, and automatically agreed to whatever the person said.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
Oh dear, you seem upset. I can understand that. When your faith is so obviously undermined it must be a frightening experience. Have you tried The Samaritans?

As I said I was originally in the undecided camp, and with some hesitation went over to the believers camp. (although of course I most certainly believed in life after death before the programme). I don't believe that the medium could have acheived his result by cold reading (maybe by hot reading I don't know). I'm perplexed that skeptics say that he could! What I'm failing to understand is how cold reading can give a load of specific information?? :eek: You seem to be bestowing a magical status to cold reading. As Montague Keen says who was on the programme:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm


His (ie the medium) on-floor readings were likewise impressive, save when an opaque screen precluded sight of a studio guinea pig.



&


The programme ended with a slightly botched experiment in psychometric reading by Charles for which there was quite inadequate time, and then an entertaining card trick by Randi, who stated that everything Charles had told the audience could be attributed to cold reading, a statement so grotesquely at variance with his own performance as to be risible.




[/quote]

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by fsol


Overall? You seem to be forgetting the misses here Ian. Unless somehow you were watching a different show to me.

No I'm not forgetting the misses. Or at least not all of them. Obviously I wouldn't know if I was forgetting some of them! LOL I just wish I'd recorded the damn programme so I could go over it again, but my TV guide said it only lasted 30 mins so decided it wasn't worth the bother.

Anyway, as far as I can recall the misses were not sufficient in number to render the cold reading hypothesis plausible. The only way it could be, would be if they heavily edited out the unsuccessful "guesses". But from reading this (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm) it most certaionly does not appear to be the case. Indeed, on the contrary, it seems the programme was somewhat unfairly biased towards the sceptical point of view. Just read that web page!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Marc
[B]

As was explained much earlier in this thread the audience knew Randi wasn't a medium. He had talked to the producers about wearing a disguise, but they felt he wouldn't need one. Unfortunatly a repeat of his appearance on Horizon had aired the week before, and his picture was in the paper. Kinda hard to do a cold reading when everyone knows it is a trick and most of the audience is hostile towrads you.



Nobody I have ever spoke to has heard of him. Why didn't they get someone on who is able to do some decent cold reading? I'd be very interested in seeing a cold reader seemingly miraculously giving loads of specific information.

[walthrup48]

For those who missed it ...

Transcription: Keith Charles' reading of Tracy on the Ultimate Psychic Challenge (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/Reading.html)

[trotsky]

We all must have been watching a different show.
anyone who thinks that fraud got any real hits is an idiot of the highest order.
even in the taped bit when he obviously knew the second girl he was still rubbish.

no hits at all on the first girl and at the end she said he was right about everything....WHAT?
what i remember of his poor readings the funny bits:

fraud: "did you come here with a friend, a girl"?

"yeah a friend"

fraud: "yeah, i knew that because.." spirits etc ...no you didn't you just asked her
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no hits on the man behind the screen therefore "has anyone in the audience got a scar and identifies with what i said"?


"yes i do" obviously a womans voice


fraud: "yes i see a woman , a grandmother"

"well no , an auntie"

fraud: "i see cancer below the stomach and 2 hospitals"

no answer.

host :" did you identify with what he said"

" yes, well, my aunts name began with a B"

so the 2 names he suggested at the start begining with B were wrong all the guesses were wrong and she identified with it cos her aunts name started with a B, well that's convinced me then. duh

seriously lame

the fat woman in the audience annoyed me when whe was hissing and booing all the time at randi. also telling everyone he was a fraud when he was cold reading , no doubt.


the best bit was the fact that the actor was the best 'psychic' there. how do they explain that, i was waiting for someone to say he must be psychic. lol

other highlights: the fat woman fraud lying about things she got right on here reading and being corrected by her victim and the skeptic.

the host telling a girl in the audience that she had identified with some guesswork by the fraud, when she just said she hadn't.

lame show could have been good.

then needed to tape the frauds and have randi or that other guy explaining step by step for the brain dead what was going on because they speak quickly to gloss over misses , this should have been explained.


msg for anyone who will whinge about the above:

they are my opinions of what happened and are accurate as i remember them. they are in no way exact transcribed passages. they are for ammusement factor only on how crap frauds are in reality ,and should not be referenced or critiqued as if they are a valid study of the frauds on that program. i'm sure someone will do a much better job later (spellings and grammer etc), i on the other hand must go outside in the sun to get a tan and chat up ladies.
cheers trotsky

[trotsky]

We all must have been watching a different show.
anyone who thinks that fraud got any real hits is an idiot of the highest order.
even in the taped bit when he obviously knew the second girl he was still rubbish.

no hits at all on the first girl and at the end she said he was right about everything....WHAT?
what i remember of his poor readings the funny bits:

fraud: "did you come here with a friend, a girl"?

"yeah a friend"

fraud: "yeah, i knew that because.." spirits etc ...no you didn't you just asked her
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no hits on the man behind the screen therefore "has anyone in the audience got a scar and identifies with what i said"?


"yes i do" obviously a womans voice


fraud: "yes i see a woman , a grandmother"

"well no , an auntie"

fraud: "i see cancer below the stomach and 2 hospitals"

no answer.

host :" did you identify with what he said"

" yes, well, my aunts name began with a B"

so the 2 names he suggested at the start begining with B were wrong all the guesses were wrong and she identified with it cos her aunts name started with a B, well that's convinced me then. duh

seriously lame

the fat woman in the audience annoyed me when whe was hissing and booing all the time at randi. also telling everyone he was a fraud when he was cold reading , no doubt.


the best bit was the fact that the actor was the best 'psychic' there. how do they explain that, i was waiting for someone to say he must be psychic. lol

other highlights: the fat woman fraud lying about things she got right on here reading and being corrected by her victim and the skeptic.

the host telling a girl in the audience that she had identified with some guesswork by the fraud, when she just said she hadn't.

lame show could have been good.

then needed to tape the frauds and have randi or that other guy explaining step by step for the brain dead what was going on because they speak quickly to gloss over misses , this should have been explained.


msg for anyone who will whinge about the above:

they are my opinions of what happened and are accurate as i remember them. they are in no way exact transcribed passages. they are for ammusement factor only on how crap frauds are in reality ,and should not be referenced or critiqued as if they are a valid study of the frauds on that program. i'm sure someone will do a much better job later (spellings and grammer etc), i on the other hand must go outside in the sun to get a tan and chat up ladies.
cheers trotsky

[fsol]

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

His appearance in person was preceded by a clip in which Philadelphia police officials testified to their conviction that Charles could help trace missing persons. His on-floor readings were likewise impressive, save when an opaque screen precluded sight of a studio guinea pig.

The police haven't actually found the missing person have they? And I think the above transcript puts the lie to "impressive" reading. If that is what counts as an impressive reading then...

I was given very little time to deal even with the first and last question, but had virtually no opportunity to explain the steps that had been taken both in the distant past and at present to eliminate all of the sensory clues on which skeptics like Randi continued to dwell, and to indicate the measure and importance of the recent work of Roy, Robertson and Schwartz, with which I had assumed the programme to be essentially concerned.

Strange how when "sensory clues" were removed on the show, the "medium" failed completely.

The medium herself, from the front row of the audience, protested most vehemently that by omitting much more evidential material the extract of her filmed sitting had given a false impression, stigmatising her as a fake.

It is interesting how the author then ommits to mention the rebuttle of the sitter herself to some of the "mediums" protestations.

If you are going to try and argue about unfair weighting of time for the opposing viewpoints in someone elses work, then you should at least have the decency to do so in an article of the quality you expect from others. Why should I trust his account, when he ommits important points himself?

[Clancie]

Interesting transcript, Jim the Brit. Thanks for it.

I'm not sure what I think of it. Seems like Charles got minimal sitter feedback and still managed to pull off quite a lot of hits. Most of the information seemed very generic to me (and a lot of "me toos"). Common names, but then again, they were relevant to the sitter.

He seemed to have some misses along the way, but then they fit after all...like the ring, and the photo near the stairs. I wish they'd talked with Tracy a bit more about the content of it all. Did either of the "debunkers" analyze it and comment on it to her afterwards?

Did Charles ever address specific questions about cold reading techniques and how a sitter would distinguish cold reading from "the real thing"?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Marc

As was explained much earlier in this thread the audience knew Randi wasn't a medium. He had talked to the producers about wearing a disguise, but they felt he wouldn't need one. Unfortunatly a repeat of his appearance on Horizon had aired the week before, and his picture was in the paper. Kinda hard to do a cold reading when everyone knows it is a trick and most of the audience is hostile towrads you.


Gee, you think Randi would have known that that was going to happen? Why would he even attempt to do a cold reading if the possibility that the audience could recognize him existed??

I wouldn't say most of the audience was hostile. There was a pretty even mix of believers and non believers+folks on the fence.

[Clancie]

I find it a little odd that they had Randi start with his so-called cold reading demonstration, knowing full well that he already had all the information ready for his hot reading demonstration with the same audience.

What's with that? :confused:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Clancie
I find it a little odd that they had Randi start with his so-called cold reading demonstration, knowing full well that he already had all the information ready for his hot reading demonstration with the same audience.

What's with that? :confused:

It would seem logical to debunk with a CR first, as Randi could say that he didn't have to go and do things like hire PD's, snoops, background searches etc, and show off his amazing cold reading skills. As it sounds like he couldn't perform them well enough, then perhaps he had to 'fall back' on a HR.

If debunking the mediums was his aim, then he flopped. Big time.

His card magic is brilliant though, as is his stage presence. I do hope Randi lives to 'cross over' in this lifetime. He'd make a fantastic 'Born Again' believer in the media. But his skeptic routine's run a bit thin though.

[fsol]

Gee, you think Randi would have known that that was going to happen? Why would he even attempt to do a cold reading if the possibility that the audience could recognize him existed??

I assume you read the bit of Marcs post that you quoted?

He seemed to have some misses along the way, but then they fit after all...like the ring, and the photo near the stairs.

Amazing, who'd of thought that a daughter would be given one of her mothers rings, or that she might have a photo of her parents in the hall of her home?

Now considering the sitter was clearly wearing a largish ring and the initial guess was about a ring that "she would wear." and the "hit" comes after a nice long string of spectacular misses. I wouldn't really say that it "fits afterall" is justification. Of course it fitted afterall ,because the hit wasn't related to his initial guess (based on the fact that she was clearly wearing a large ring), but rather a nice bit of wriggling after the misses.

In regards to the photo I particularily like the exchange about the decorating. Where he misses and then says well he "don't wanna know" about the timescale even though he bought it up in the first place.

The responce of the sitter at the end is frankly terrifying. A complete disregard for the fiddled fits and the misses. Whatever happened to the connection with the 21st or 22nd of August? Didn't she remember saying that no she hadn't moved any furniture?

[asthmatic camel]

As the American police have had no success tracing Sleepy after taking advice from psychic detective Keith Charles, I wonder when they will begin searching for Dopey, Happy and Grumpy ?

Regards,

AC.

[Ersby]

My analysis of the transcript. How anyone can think this isn't cold reading is beyond me. To keep things short, I've only commented on the main points.

. . . .

KC: Tracy? Hello, Tracy.

I'm going to describe a gentleman that I have here that's making communication with me. He feels like a father figure to you, he's a gentleman that would have passed over with a heart attack. I don't know who Michael is within the family

T: [LOOKS TAKEN ABACK]

Nothing special here. He starts with an older male who died of a heart attack. Heart attacks claim around a third of males over 55. Michael has been a popular name for the best part of the century. Since “in the family” covers several people, the odds of a hit are good.

. . . .

KC: He also telling me, I know this sounds a strange thing and I've gotta go with what he gives me, there's a pet that you've recently lost as well because he's talking about having a pet.

T: [LOOKS TAKEN ABACK]

Good use of cold reading technique. I’ve used it myself: preface a perfectly ordinary but slightly unlikely statement with “I know this sounds strange”. If it’s a hit, he’s heightened the sense of amazement. If not, not to worry: the disclaimer acts as if to soften the blow. He already said this sounds strange, maybe he’s misinterpreting it.

KC: And you've either buried this pet in the garden and made a mistake of it or whatever you've done with this pet is unusual. I'm sorry to say that but that's how he's bringing it up. Now, he's also talking about Michael, he's making reference to Michael, and there's a John. I don't know if it's Michael, if John is, if he is Michael John or Michael and John but he's putting Michael and John together, would you understand that?

T: [NODS]

We never learn about the pet. John is another very common name. Later the sitter describes that there’s a rift between the John and the Michael. He finishes with asking if the sitter if she understands, so we can’t be sure if the sitter is nodding in reply to that, or in reference to the content of his guess. He follows up with a guess about “August” that falls a bit flat.

. . . .

KC: And - he's making me feel that when he went to heaven, alright, with this heart condition, it wasn't the first heart attack, heart problem that he had. He would have visited two hospitals or he'd have been into hospital twice over his heart condition. Would you understand this please

T: [NODS]

I repeat, how can anyone think this is not cold reading? One of the best tricks there is: In the face of a death by heart attack or cancer, ask if it happened twice. There’s a good chance of a hit, while at the same time sounding very specific. The next bit is some waffle as he tries to hone in on a story – fellings of guilt – that he can use to spice up the reading. He also talks about her left foot.

. . . .


KC: Are you sure? He is showing me, like, where you would keep your, I don't wanna be rude, jewelry bits - that's how he's describing it and there is a ring in there that is either fractured or broken that belongs not to you but to another lady and he's talking about your Mum.

T: [NODS]

KC: Would you understand that?

T: [NODS]

So the ring isn’t worn although at first he said it was, and it isn’t her mother’s despite his original assertion, and she hasn’t moved the furniture in her bedroom recently (nice guess, though. I’ll have to remember that myself.) Finally he lands a guess about her having a broken ring that belongs to someone else. It’s location isn’t really anything special: a ring is often kept with other jewellery. Plus, the ring is meaningless. It’s just mentioned in passing: a sure sign of cold reading.

. . . .

KC: Now, can I come to the bottom of your stairs? He's talking about either you've just redecorated or just done something at the bottom of the stairs like painting or doing, done something there, and he was watching you and you saw him there. Cos there's a photograph, you know where the bottom of the stairs is, there is a photograph very close to there of him,

T: [LOOKS TAKEN ABACK]

KC: is there not?

T: [NODS]

“A photo at the bottom of the stairs” is nice. That could mean anywhere in the hallway, but appears to be specific. Locations of photos (on tables or mantelpieces, in folders or envelopes) are good fodder for cold readers. The rest is taken up with “the message”: “he forgives you”. But for what? The split in the family is such an easy guess, it’s barely worth mentioning. A divorce, bad feelings, large distance between family members. All these are acceptable hits to that guess. The medium’s last guess about decorating is messy and unresolved as he rushes towards some kind of summing up. Maybe he was told to finish by the floor manager.

. . .


(the presenter): Let me just have a quick word with Tracy. You look really emotional. How much of that really felt as though it was (ringing?) true?

T: All of it

Ladies and gentlemen, the power of cold reading! The presenter compounds the impression by talking about “three things that were completely right”, which is a woeful misinterpretation. Those three things were: an older male who died of a heart attack, a rift in the family, a Michael in the family and then a John linked to Michael. This is the kind of information that is entirely possible to guess, with no recourse to after death communication or hot reading.

[CFLarsen]

Ersby,

Good walkthrough.

Key question is: Why is this NOT spirit communication, "like" John Edward does?

Don't tell me! I already know what Clancie will say: "It's not like John Edward, because it isn't John Edward", followed by the inevitable ":rolleyes:"-smiley.

OK, she might not say it, but that's what she means.... ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ersby
[B]My analysis of the transcript. How anyone can think this isn't cold reading is beyond me. To keep things short, I've only commented on the main points.



I haven't read your comments, but I feel it is a bit unfair to choose one of the lesser impressive performances in that programme. What about choosing the one with the 2 young ladies for example?

[Ersby]

I only had the one transcript: the one that JimTheBrit provided. I don't know anything about the sitting you mention, though I would say that with two sitters the medium's chances are doubled.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ersby
My analysis of the transcript. How anyone can think this isn't cold reading is beyond me. To keep things short, I've only commented on the main points.

. . . .

KC: Tracy? Hello, Tracy.

I'm going to describe a gentleman that I have here that's making communication with me. He feels like a father figure to you, he's a gentleman that would have passed over with a heart attack. I don't know who Michael is within the family

T: [LOOKS TAKEN ABACK]

Nothing special here. He starts with an older male who died of a heart attack. Heart attacks claim around a third of males over 55. Michael has been a popular name for the best part of the century. Since “in the family” covers several people, the odds of a hit are good.

. . . .



Yes agreed. That could easily be cold reading.



KC: He also telling me, I know this sounds a strange thing and I've gotta go with what he gives me, there's a pet that you've recently lost as well because he's talking about having a pet.

T: [LOOKS TAKEN ABACK]

Good use of cold reading technique.



I have never seen a cold reader apart from that guy on the programme who only had about an hour training, but saying that you've had a pet that has recently died wouldn't be what I would have thought a cold reader would have said. It's too specific. What percentage of the general population has recently lost a pet?




I’ve used it myself: preface a perfectly ordinary but slightly unlikely statement with “I know this sounds strange”. If it’s a hit, he’s heightened the sense of amazement. If not, not to worry: the disclaimer acts as if to soften the blow. He already said this sounds strange, maybe he’s misinterpreting it.[/i]



Well maybe he is, but that is wholly irrelevant. We are purely concerned with how much stuff he gets right and how much he gets wrong. If he had got it wrong, I'm sure that neither you or I would feel disposed to actually call it anything but a miss.



KC: And you've either buried this pet in the garden and made a mistake of it or whatever you've done with this pet is unusual. I'm sorry to say that but that's how he's bringing it up. Now, he's also talking about Michael, he's making reference to Michael, and there's a John. I don't know if it's Michael, if John is, if he is Michael John or Michael and John but he's putting Michael and John together, would you understand that?

T: [NODS]

We never learn about the pet.



We do learn about the pet. She said at the end "I've just had a pet put down as well, put to sleep, it was a dog". So that was a relatively impressive hit. Now I would say putting down a pet is not all that unusual (he mentioned something unusual about its death)? But perhaps the circumstances leading to that decision were unusual. Unfortunately we simply do not know. This is the problem with these crappy programmes. All too subjective, not enough detailed feedback on what he precisely got right and what was precisely wrong. The subject of course will be less likely to point out the misses. Anything less than a proper scientific investigation is unsatisfactory. Having said all that, I feel that the unusual thing with the pet probably should count as neither a hit or miss.



John is another very common name.



Yes agreed. Nevertheless for him to state that there is both a Michael and a John, that they know each other and both knew the deceased is not quite so unimpressive. Say half a chance each that the average person knows a Michael fairly well, and half a chance that the average person knows a John fairly well, which would mean a quarter of a chance that they know both a Michael and a John. For the Michael and John both to know each other fairly well takes it slightly less than a quarter. So something to bear in mind.


Later the sitter describes that there’s a rift between the John and the Michael. He finishes with asking if the sitter if she understands, so we can’t be sure if the sitter is nodding in reply to that, or in reference to the content of his guess. He follows up with a guess about “August” that falls a bit flat.[/i]



No reaction with the August date so even if was of some significance it didn't seem to mean much to her. So chalk that up as a miss. On the other hand I think that the sitter nodding was acknowledging he was roughly right about Michael and John (which she confirms at the end anyway).



KC: And - he's making me feel that when he went to heaven, alright, with this heart condition, it wasn't the first heart attack, heart problem that he had. He would have visited two hospitals or he'd have been into hospital twice over his heart condition. Would you understand this please

T: [NODS]

I repeat, how can anyone think this is not cold reading?



I have to say I'm perplexed at your statement here. She just nodded meaning he got it right! :eek: He had a heart condition for which he went into hospital twice. Probably not all that unusual in and of itself. But its a question of adding up all these probabilities which by themselves might not be impressive, but might be considered impressive as a whole (but wait for my conclusion).



One of the best tricks there is: In the face of a death by heart attack or cancer, ask if it happened twice.



Going into hospital twice for a heart condition is very common? I have no idea. These are the sort of things I have no idea about :)


There’s a good chance of a hit, while at the same time sounding very specific. The next bit is some waffle as he tries to hone in on a story – fellings of guilt – that he can use to spice up the reading. He also talks about her left foot.[/i]


No reaction there to her left foot. So probably a miss I would imagine.



KC: Are you sure? He is showing me, like, where you would keep your, I don't wanna be rude, jewelry bits - that's how he's describing it and there is a ring in there that is either fractured or broken that belongs not to you but to another lady and he's talking about your Mum.

T: [NODS]

KC: Would you understand that?

T: [NODS]

So the ring isn’t worn although at first he said it was, and it isn’t her mother’s despite his original assertion,



Yes the ring issue seems, at least at first, to be a clear miss, although I was perplexed when after a lot of shaking of her head she eventually nods. Clearly he has it wrong about her having her mothers ring, but nevertheless she has a ring that belongs to another lady . . .hmmmm. What I want to know is whether this ring is indeed either fractured or broken. She nods her head, but maybe she's only nodding her head in acknowledgement that she has in her possession some ladies ring? Also we don't get to find out whether there is some sort of close connection between this lady and her mother which might account for his confusion.

This is the problem. We simply do not get to find out so many things!. I mean it's utterly preposterous that the audience are expected to decide whether he is really communicating wioth the dead, when we don't get to find out these things!! :eek: Absolutely utterly ridiculous. :mad:



and she hasn’t moved the furniture in her bedroom recently (nice guess, though. I’ll have to remember that myself.)



Yes this seems to be a clear miss. I wouldn't have thought it advisable for a cold reader to guess at this though. I mean how often do people move their furniture around in their bedroom?? :eek:


Finally he lands a guess about her having a broken ring that belongs to someone else.


So you think he got it right about the ring being broken? Well if he did I think that has got to be considered fairly impressive but I'm not convinced you're right!



It’s location isn’t really anything special: a ring is often kept with other jewellery. Plus, the ring is meaningless. It’s just mentioned in passing: a sure sign of cold reading.[/i]



Surely we lack the information whether the ring is meaningful or not? I mean she was shaking her head at the assertion that it was her mother's. So we simply don't have the requissette information here. As usual! ;)

. . . .

KC: Now, can I come to the bottom of your stairs? He's talking about either you've just redecorated or just done something at the bottom of the stairs like painting or doing, done something there, and he was watching you and you saw him there. Cos there's a photograph, you know where the bottom of the stairs is, there is a photograph very close to there of him,

T: [LOOKS TAKEN ABACK]

KC: is there not?

T: [NODS]

[i]“A photo at the bottom of the stairs” is nice. That could mean anywhere in the hallway, but appears to be specific.



Well he used the words "very close to there" so I think maybe you're being a bit unreasonable here. I have to say I think this is a fairly impressive hit. I mean what would the odds be of having a photograph of the deceased person very near the bottom of the stairs. 1 in 100 perhaps?? She also confirmed that the place there hadn't just been decorated but had been decorated "recently". It depends I suppose on what she means by "recently". So perhaps fairly impressive, but yet once again we lack the information. Maybe she's saying recently even though it was some years ago in order to psychologically square her beliefs with what the medium is saying?




The split in the family is such an easy guess, it’s barely worth mentioning. A divorce, bad feelings, large distance between family members. All these are acceptable hits to that guess.



Agreed on that.




(the presenter): Let me just have a quick word with Tracy. You look really emotional. How much of that really felt as though it was (ringing?) true?

T: All of it

[i]Ladies and gentlemen, the power of cold reading!





Well . . . er . .I dunno about cold reading . . er . . but I have to admit this completely perplexes me! :confused: We know he didn't get everything right even if only the guess about her having her mothers ring. Hmmmm . . does that mean that some I chalked up as misses were really hits?? Or maybe those I chalked up as hits were really misses!! :eek: Hell I don't know. I just wish I understood more about how normal peoples minds tick :(


In conclusion I feel we definitely are lacking another information to conclude that it was definitely cold reading. On the surface it appears he got a few things right and these taken together as a whole are sufficiently unlikely to make the cold reading hypothesis somewhat unlikely.

Having said all that I simply have reservations that all her nods can be taken to mean that he was definitely correct.

So in conclusion I feel that most probably it was either hot reading/anomalous cognition rather than (purely) cold reading. And as I mentioned there was another reading which I seem to remember being somewhat more impressive.

[walthrup48]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I haven't read your comments, but I feel it is a bit unfair to choose one of the lesser impressive performances in that programme. What about choosing the one with the 2 young ladies for example?

Transcript: Keith Charles' reading of the two women on the Ultimate Psychic Challenge (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/Reading2.html)

Question: If the spirit only gave him a 'B', how did he know the name was Bianca? Hmmmmmm.

[Ersby]

Thanks for your input, Ian. However, there’s one thing that doesn’t seem quite right. I said the guess about going into hospital twice is an established cold reading technique (which it is, concerning cancer and heart conditions) to which you replied “I have to say I'm perplexed at your statement here. She just nodded meaning he got it right!” With cold reading it is possible to get things right, you know. That’s why it’s clever.

And I’m not sure about your analysis on the Michael/John thing. The medium said nothing about the sitter knowing John. She had to know he existed, sure, but not as a friend or anything. John was linked to Michael, either as a part of a name or a friend, not to the sitter.

When I said “we never learn about the pet”, I was referring to its unusual circumstances that the medium alluded to. This, if it had been a hit, would have been a good hit (although not fantastic, it’s a bit too vague) but it wasn’t (or at least we never find out). The cold reading technique I was illustrating was the “the sounds strange” thing he put at the front of his statement.

To say the reading can’t be only cold reading so must be hot reading or after death communication (or super psi, or anomalous cognition etc) is to miss the point. I hesitate to mention Okham’s Razor because I’ve noticed people seem to get quite uppity when it’s mentioned, but this is a clear case of not needing two complicated explanations (hot reading, AC) when one simple elegant explanation (cold reading) perfectly fits the bill. Perhaps you could point to the bits that must have been, in your opinion, hot reading or AC.

Mind you, I’m saying all this without having read the new transcript. Maybe that’ll make me turn everything I’ve said around. We’ll see.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ersby
Thanks for your input, Ian. However, there’s one thing that doesn’t seem quite right. I said the guess about going into hospital twice is an established cold reading technique (which it is, concerning cancer and heart conditions) to which you replied “I have to say I'm perplexed at your statement here. She just nodded meaning he got it right!” With cold reading it is possible to get things right, you know. That’s why it’s clever.

And I’m not sure about your analysis on the Michael/John thing. The medium said nothing about the sitter knowing John. She had to know he existed, sure, but not as a friend or anything. John was linked to Michael, either as a part of a name or a friend, not to the sitter.

When I said “we never learn about the pet”, I was referring to its unusual circumstances that the medium alluded to. This, if it had been a hit, would have been a good hit (although not fantastic, it’s a bit too vague) but it wasn’t (or at least we never find out). The cold reading technique I was illustrating was the “the sounds strange” thing he put at the front of his statement.

To say the reading can’t be only cold reading so must be hot reading or after death communication (or super psi, or anomalous cognition etc) is to miss the point. I hesitate to mention Okham’s Razor because I’ve noticed people seem to get quite uppity when it’s mentioned, but this is a clear case of not needing two complicated explanations (hot reading, AC) when one simple elegant explanation (cold reading) perfectly fits the bill. Perhaps you could point to the bits that must have been, in your opinion, hot reading or AC.

Mind you, I’m saying all this without having read the new transcript. Maybe that’ll make me turn everything I’ve said around. We’ll see.

First of all I too haven't read the new transcript. I know I saw the programme but can't really remember what was said now. :) Do you want to go through the transcript like you did with the other one? Then maybe I can comment on your comments again :)

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that it couldn't be cold reading. Just that considering it as a whole I felt it was unlikely. Nothing in isolation he said made it all that unlikely, rather the statements taken all together. But I reiterate my point we do not really know what he got right and wrong do we? I mean she said at the end that he was totally right, but she wasn't nodding her head all the time! It's incredibly difficult to come to a definitive conclusion here. Certainly you haven't established it was pure cold reading. To say that it is conceivable that it is cold reading is satisfactory to me. To say that is the most likely explanation isn't.

Ockhams razor. Yeah I get seriously pissed off when people mention it. People on here clearly are completely clueless as to what it means and simply assume that materialiosm is the most parsimionious position therefore it must be correct. In essence by claiming that materialism is the more simple position they are begging the question. More to the point the most parsimious explanation has to actually be an explanation. Under the materialist metaphysic consciousness is simply tacked onto the world.

You actually need some arguments as to why purely cold reading is the most reasonable. I'm mildly surprised you completely discount the possibility of hot reading to be honest. He did pick the female out.

[fsol]

I would say there might have been a bit of warm reading going on. Possibly with the picking out of the lady, and most probably with the initial guess about the ring.

The two sitter transcript is interesting particularily with regards to the second sitter. The problem is can we take Charles statement of not knowing the sitters seriously or not. On the face of it it would be nice to think so, but a more cynical person might say that if he makes his living out of decieving people, how can we trust anything he says?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by fsol
I would say there might have been a bit of warm reading going on. Possibly with the picking out of the lady, and most probably with the initial guess about the ring.

The two sitter transcript is interesting particularily with regards to the second sitter. The problem is can we take Charles statement of not knowing the sitters seriously or not. On the face of it it would be nice to think so, but a more cynical person might say that if he makes his living out of decieving people, how can we trust anything he says?

Warm reading? Is that the same as hot reading? I think I might have vaguely heard they're different?

Obviously it's going to be basically impossible to establish whether any warm or hot reading is going on. All we can do is go through the transcripts and see if cold reading is plausible. Having seen the programme I thought on the whole cold reading was inadequate although I'm not saying that the readings could not possibly be purely cold reading. But everyone else says absolutely definitely cold reading. :confused:

[Ersby]

Well, the second transcript looks a bit dodgy to me. The whole thing about "Bianca" suddenly being turned into "B" (because it looks more psychic?) worries me. As does the mediums statement that he never met them before this day which strikes me as a carefully worded non-answer. Seems like they've already spoken, which makes it hot reading. Hot reading bores me: there's no skill involved.

As for why is the first reading a cold reading: because it follows the form. Look at the guesses: Michael, a dead pet, John, a ring, two visits to the hospital. Nothing deviates from what you'd expect. I think it's a cold reading because it looks like one and it quacks like one. I dislike hot reading as an explanation because it's unnecessary and difficult to prove, and it leads to people saying things like "Ah, you've no evidence of hot reading, it must be ADC!" and of course, it was actually just cold reading all along.

[fsol]

My understanding of warm reading and it might be wrong, is that it is the use of visual clues to reinforce the cold reading technique. So if some one is wearing a ring it might make sense to ask about it. "Did your mum give you a ring that you wear?" Or something like that.

[SteveGrenard]

Warm reading includes visual cues such as dress, yes jewelry and body language. It can also include subtleties such as intonation of voice, accent and visible reactions (e.g. squeezing the hand of the friend or relative sitting adjacent). Perceiving the sitters appearance, including ethnicity also is warm reading.

Hot reading is a reading guided by prior knowledge/research of the sitter and/or their deceased oved ones.

Hot and warm reading are different.

[fsol]

Thanks Steve that's what I thought.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by fsol
Thanks Steve that's what I thought.

So is noting someone nodding their head warm reading?

[SteveGrenard]

Ian: So is noting someone nodding their head warm reading?

It could be if an answer was not demanded but given anyway by the sitter with a head nod, even a slight hint of a yes recognition. If an answer was demanded by the medium, then a head nod is a Yes and shaking is a No. However yes/no, head nods, etc. are all conceivably sub-routines of cold reading which depends on fishing, casting the net so to speak, playing the game of 20 Questions (or "I've Got a Secret" or "What's My Line"). Other subroutines of cold reading include using generalizations to locate specifics, the name game, pigeon holing (when info given by a sitter is returned later in the reading by the medium and claimed as a hit) and similar poys. The Forer effect is one of these as well.

Transcripts can do little or nothing to tell us here if warm reading was used but may be suggestive of cold reading in some cases.
Accusations of hot reading require primie facie evidence.

One of the best tests of mediumship, therefore, scientifically, is a totally silent and visually non-responsive, preferably non-local sitter where medium and sitter are anonymous to each other.
Some variations incude using proxies, book tests and of course tests like the cross correspondences.

When we read and dissect transcripts done face to face, one on one or in front of groups, or over the phone w/verbal feedback, this also doesnt necessarily mean a specific medium is a fake but that the potential for chicanery is present. Add to this recipe the fact that such transcripts are almost always done in front of audience, are accompanied by visual or verbal feedback and possibly subject to editing if we are looking at a video of the event, means that there is absolutely no scientific validity to what we conclude about them. Its a waste of time.

[fsol]

Steve, forgetting the TV program and the transcripts etc. Is Keith Charles considered authentic in, I don't know how you would put it, paranormal circles, if there is such a thing? Is he thought of as a good example of a medium, in the way that JE seems to be?

[Starrman]

Ladies and gentlemen, the power of cold reading! The presenter compounds the impression by talking about “three things that were completely right”, which is a woeful misinterpretation. Those three things were: an older male who died of a heart attack, a rift in the family, a Michael in the family and then a John linked to Michael. This is the kind of information that is entirely possible to guess, with no recourse to after death communication or hot reading.

Of course, it has been independantly verified that all of what he said and she agreed to was true. There is no other possible reason why she would say that the reading was true, right?

All we have is one person saying 'yep, that guy was dead on.' - Doesn't that bother anyone?

[SteveGrenard]

f: forgetting the TV program and the transcripts etc. Is Keith Charles considered authentic in, I don't know how you would put it, paranormal circles, if there is such a thing? Is he thought of as a good example of a medium, in the way that JE seems to be?

I have never heard of him before now, have never seen him, have only read JimtheBrit's transcript of what he did for British TV (is he an American? yes/no???? ) and, as I said above, I don't think we should base our conclusions one way or the other on transcripts and TV shows. So the answer is: ? ...don't know

[fsol]

Ok cheers. Incidentally he is British.

[SteveGrenard]

Of course, it has been independantly verified that all of what he said and she agreed to was true. There is no other possible reason why she would say that the reading was true, right?

All we have is one person saying 'yep, that guy was dead on.' - Doesn't that bother anyone?


In answer to this question, #1 (lst para) ..hopefully not. But then who knows.

This is yet another reason why we cannot scientifically determine the veridicality of this public, televised performance. There are too many things we do not know. This is what bothers me, not whether or not this woman was being truthful or not. If she wasn't, it is her problem. She has family and friends who will have seen her and if she was lying she has to take their heat, not ours.

[T'ai Chi]

Cold reading: I'm getting a male with a D, do you understand that?

Warm reading: Derrik?, yes, Derik is telling you he is OK.

Hot reading: Derrik lives on 325 SW Oakmont St. in a tan house with a 1984 Honda, license number jxg154.

[Starrman]

This is yet another reason why we cannot scientifically determine the veridicality of this public, televised performance. There are too many things we do not know. This is what bothers me, not whether or not this woman was being truthful or not. If she wasn't, it is her problem. She has family and friends who will have seen her and if she was lying she has to take their heat, not ours

Steve,

Do you agree that it is more likely that she is lying than JE received the information from a dead person?

[Freda]

At the risk of having my head chewed off yet again, I have to say that I must have been looking at a different channel that evening.

The info that JR passed on in his report was nothing like that which I saw.

One lady WAS angry at the way ALL mediums are labelled with the same tag when it comes to giving evidence, and she quite rightly passed her opinions on this. I did not witness any hate unless it was all done after filming had finished. I did not hear any hissing, and I wish I had taped it as I was going to initially.

It has been said so often here on these forums that mediums, who are doing the work correctly cannot call anybody back, they have no control over who comes through. It was proved that those in the spirit world chose to elaborate on this when they controlled the experiment that was attempted.

How do we know that those who took part in the experiments weren't planted in the audience ? We don't - any more than any of you skeptics argue to suit your purpose !

The only two 'frauds' that I saw were those purporting to be who they weren't, and I certainly would not be a believer if all I had to go on was what JR came out with.

The farce of JR trying to make believe he was someone else to start with ... was ludicrous .... he is too well known to be able to carry that off with any degree of success.

Testaments as to the character of Keith Charles and his mediumistic gifts were made by American Police, and with his mediumship - he did not let anything go until whatever he was being told by the other side was corroborated on this side. It is easy to say no - until further details are given that jog one's memory. There was no hot or cold reading - nor even lukewarm. It was genuine communication - and Randi's final comments on TV were that it had been very interesting. He did not denounce anyone or pass comment .... and the only time he lost his cool was when he thought KC was inferring that through his magic he was doing exactly what he has continually accused mediums of doing.

The whole show was more of a damp squib than a challenge !!!

JR came across to me as a very frail old man, who may soon be finding out about the next world for himself.

The card trick bore no relevance to the challenge - a pathetic attempt but very clever, of trying to pass the buck a little.

On closing, I would just like to draw your attention to something I came across when researching Conan Doyle the other day.......

Doyle and Houdini knew each other well. Houdini's lawyer, Bernard Ernst, even wrote a book about their relationship, Houdini and Conan Doyle. They met in England in 1920. Both had been introduced to spiritualism years before, during which time they remained sympathetic skeptics before becoming intensely interested in the subject after the death of a loved one, in Houdini's case his mother, Cecelia Weiss, in 1913. Both men had read widely about spiritualism, but Houdini's research, unlike Doyle's, led him to the conclusion that, while some mediums were probably sincere, most were definitely frauds.
Being a former medium undoubtedly gave Houdini an initial advantage that Doyle did not have when they started their research. Ashamed to admit it later in life, during their salad days Houdini and wife Bessie had made ends meet by posing as mediums and bilking credulous clients. Houdini therefore had first-hand experience, as Williams and Epstein recount, of "collecting... data from local graveyards, from the medium's 'bluebook' giving pertinent facts about ardent believers in various communities, or by posing as a traveling salesman and stealing glances at the family Bible while a housewife examined his wares." Houdini was also a magician -- an expert at convincing people that they are seeing something that is not real -- giving him another advantage. When Houdini attended a seance, he knew better than most people what to look for if the medium turned out to be a fraud.
"[M]any of the things that seem wonderful to most men are the everyday commonplace of my business," Houdini once wrote. But, as Williams and Epstein add, "Houdini's ‘everyday commonplace’ all seemed 'wonderful' to Sir Arthur, and although -- like Houdini -- he was eager to expose fraudulent mediums, he was less able to see how fraud might be accomplished.

With emphasis being placed on these few lines ......

Ashamed to admit it later in life, during their salad days Houdini and wife Bessie had made ends meet by posing as mediums and bilking credulous clients. Houdini therefore had first-hand experience, as Williams and Epstein recount, of "collecting... data from local graveyards, from the medium's 'bluebook' giving pertinent facts about ardent believers in various communities, or by posing as a traveling salesman and stealing glances at the family Bible while a housewife examined his wares."

I wonder if this is where 'cold reading' orginated from ??? :wink:

[SteveGrenard]

Starrman: Do you agree that it is more likely that she is lying than JE received the information from a dead person?


JE? I thought we are talking about KC? So much for cross connections. I am glad you asked this and your previous
remark about whether she is lying as questions because that is exactly what they are, questions. I will not speculate as to whether or not this person was or is lying. Either way, it is not
evidential or scientific to take the unsubstantiated word of a sitter, or accept the information from a medium when it is being given as a demonstration in front of a large number of people and then taped for replay on television.

The following conditions are necessary to prove or disprove the verdicality of a medium's statements:

1. Confirm medium and sitter are mutually anonymous

2. Do not allow the sitter or medium to verbally or visually
interact

3. Prefer that the medium and sitter are non-local to each other

4. And yes, it would be a good idea to have the medium's information rated by other persons familiar with the deceased and/or sitter in addition to the sitter him or herself. (Alternatively a comprehensive questionnaire can be given to the sitter in advance).

5. In a series with multiple mediums and sitters, pairing should be made by drawing names randomly.

These conditions require a reliable academic investigation subject to internal peer review, oversight and IRB approval. Then , based on the results, one can be convinced the medium is either a fake or is genuine.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard



JE? I thought we are talking about KC? So much for cross connections. I am glad you asked this and your previous
remark about whether she is lying as questions because that is exactly what they are, questions. I will not speculate as to whether or not this person was or is lying. Either way, it is not
evidential or scientific to take the unsubstantiated word of a sitter, or accept the information from a medium when it is being given as a demonstration in front of a large number of people and then taped for replay on television.

The following conditions are necessary to prove or disprove the verdicality of a medium's statements:

1. Confirm medium and sitter are mutually anonymous

2. Do not allow the sitter or medium to verbally or visually
interact

3. Prefer that the medium and sitter are non-local to each other

4. And yes, it would be a good idea to have the medium's information rated by other persons familiar with the deceased and/or sitter in addition to the sitter him or herself. (Alternatively a comprehensive questionnaire can be given to the sitter in advance).

5. In a series with multiple mediums and sitters, pairing should be made by drawing names randomly.

These conditions require a reliable academic investigation subject to internal peer review, oversight and IRB approval. Then , based on the results, one can be convinced the medium is either a fake or is genuine.

Steve,

I agree with all your observations wholeheartedly.

[Clancie]

Steve,

I think your protocol is a good one, although it unclear to me whether, if mental mediums are unsuccessful without verbal contact it would mean they were fraudulent.

Also, not sure about this part.

Posted by Steve Grenard

Then , based on the results, one can be convinced the medium is either a fake or is genuine.
But to know that, wouldn't we need to compare the results with an established standard of some sort (like good guesswork, cold reading, results)?

Also, it probably doesn't rule out telepathy, or that "after image" idea.

I guess so far I'm just very pessimistic that scientific testing would be able to prove mediumship is real, no matter what is done.

[Starrman]

JE? I thought we are talking about KC?

Oops, yes I was talking about this specific reading from KC. My fingers are just used to typing 'JE' in these forums.

I will not speculate as to whether or not this person was or is lying.

I was just wondering if you thought that it was more likely that she was lying. As you know there are other possible explanations. Let me rephrase, do you think that communication with the dead is the least likely of the explanations offered?

These conditions require a reliable academic investigation subject to internal peer review, oversight and IRB approval. Then , based on the results, one can be convinced the medium is either a fake or is genuine.

I would go one step futher and say it would be subject to all peer review (not just internal), and would have to be replicated.

Who knows, maybe someday.

[SteveGrenard]

Starr: I was just wondering if you thought that it was more likely that she was lying. As you know there are other possible explanations. Let me rephrase, do you think that communication with the dead is the least likely of the explanations offered?


There are also more parsimonious explanations for the sun rising in the morning than the actual one.(*) Least OR MORE likely or most parsimonious or simplest does not necessary mean that those explanations are true or are the correct ones.


(*)5 year old who told me "God turns on the light switch in the morning and the sun shines. At night he shuts it off" This child must have been studying Occam's Razor as you can't get much more parsimonious than this.

[SteveGrenard]

Clancie asks: I think your protocol is a good one, although it unclear to me whether, if mental mediums are unsuccessful without verbal contact it would mean they were fraudulent.

Mental mediums have already demonstrated their abilities in sitter silent, non-local one on one readings. Some do so commercially via telephone and the internet. Once the identity of the communicator has been established for a specific sitter, there is no reason why a mental medium needs to ask questions except under several circumstances: performing on a platform in front of a large crowd and to "entertain" or make their work more interesting for a TV audience .... neither of which has any scientific validity or necessity. There is some debate as to whether so-called mental mediums are not also using meditation and a trance state to get information and whether or not those we see on TV do not go into and out of these mini-trances to achieve exactly what trance mediums do who, in one on ones for no audience, routinely do. Any medium who asks questions after perfecting the identity of the communicator runs the risk of being accused of cold reading.

Of course it doesn't automatically follow that those we see who ask questions or visualize sitters are cheats but they cannot prove they are not cheats either.



Also, not sure about this part.
But to know that, wouldn't we need to compare the results with an established standard of some sort (like good guesswork, cold reading, results)?

Nobody knows what those standards are or should be or so it would seem. Exceeding chance or probability for a particular fact is one way to gauge this. If, in fact, there is a clear channel between a previously perfected communicator and a medium, there is no reason why all the specific informatin obtained should not be 100% accurate when validated afterwards through careful analysis by a sitter, investigator and sitter's friends and relatives
...a panel so to speak.



Also, it probably doesn't rule out telepathy, or that "after image" idea.

Telepathy with the living or a deceased may still require a meditative or trance state, at least for the recipient (e.g. medium). Telepathy per se is not being ruled out, it is posited as the mechanism by which mediumship actually can occur if, in fact, it does occur.

I guess so far I'm just very pessimistic that scientific testing would be able to prove mediumship is real, no matter what is done.

I agree ... this is clearly one of the most devilishly challenging objectives to accomplish.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Freda


It has been said so often here on these forums that mediums, who are doing the work correctly cannot call anybody back, they have no control over who comes through.

In which case it's very odd that if you pay a medium for a private sitting your dead relatives will pop up on demand in a matter of seconds.

:rolleyes:

[RonSceptic]

Regarding KC's cold reading...... Just out of interest is there anyone reading this who does NOT know of a friend or relative who has died of cancer or heart problems?

And is there anyone that does NOT have a friend or relative called Michael or John? And how about 'Dave' another punt he made, albeit a miss.

And finally is ther anyone that does Not have a female friend or relative with a 'b' sound somewhere in their name? He was more specific with 'Linda' but that was a miss too.

I recall he even tried the old 'father figure' chestnut at one point.

Let's face it. This was cold reading. Pretty good cold reading. But cold reading nevertheless.

As far as his pyschic detective credentials go we were presented with the name of a person who has not infact been located and for whom no evidence was presented linking that individual with the crime in anyway. Is that really the best they could come up with? How about a case he has solved?

The most interesting aspect of the entire show was how convinced some of the sitters were by the readings which were actualy littered with guesses and misses. Selective memory indeed. But then the thought of a deceased loved one sending messages to you must be of such immence emotional force that you can understand why these sitters react that way. The desire to beleive in mediumship is clearly a very potent force.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Mental mediums have already demonstrated their abilities in sitter silent, non-local one on one readings.

Abilities to do what, Steve?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
[B]Regarding KC's cold reading...... Just out of interest is there anyone reading this who does NOT know of a friend or relative who has died of cancer or heart problems?


Emmm, not so far as I am aware.



Let's face it. This was cold reading. Pretty good cold reading. But cold reading nevertheless.



Surely a cold reading is inconsistent with very specific statements eg a particular article of furniture was put into your bedroom last weekend and is in this certain position relative to your bed.

[fsol]

Surely a cold reading is inconsistent with very specific statements eg a particular article of furniture was put into your bedroom last weekend and is in this certain position relative to your bed.

Maybe if the statement was correct. It wasn't.

[The Don]

Mrs Don found that the readings were pretty accurate.... for her.

Maybe her psychic energy was messing around with the studio audience, some days after the test was conducted

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Emmm, not so far as I am aware.



Congratulations. But I would suggest that naming two of the biggest, if not THE two biggest, causes of death is likely to score a hit with most people.



Surely a cold reading is inconsistent with very specific statements eg a particular article of furniture was put into your bedroom last weekend and is in this certain position relative to your bed.

If you are talking about the bedroom furniture moving incident, it was specifically refuted several times by the sitter despite considerable bullying by the medium.

It is certainly possible to score specific hits with cold reading. Were there any elements of his reading that you would say were not possible to achieve by cold reading methods?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


If you are talking about the bedroom furniture moving incident, it was specifically refuted several times by the sitter despite considerable bullying by the medium.



That of course is irrelevant. We are not asking has it been proved that the alleged medium was not using cold reading. We are asking if the reading was suggestive of cold reading. Throwing out guesses of a very specific nature does not seem to me to be suggestive of cold reading, regardless of whether they are a hit or a miss.




It is certainly possible to score specific hits with cold reading. Were there any elements of his reading that you would say were not possible to achieve by cold reading methods?

No I would not say this, as I have already made very clear. Just that, with the appropriate caveats about what a silly programme it was and how it is utterly impossible to come to any reliable judgement, the cold reading hypothesis on the whole seemed to me to be improbable (albeit not vastly improbable).

[fsol]

So a hypothetical person can do a cold reading, throw in a couple of specific guesses for appearences sake, miss completely with the specifics and you would say that it wasn't a cold reading performance because of the specific guesses.

Is that right?

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Throwing out guesses of a very specific nature does not seem to me to be suggestive of cold reading, regardless of whether they are a hit or a miss.


Why not? You saw the sitters attesting to the accuracy of the readings despite the misses. 'All of It' was the response of the woman asked to comment on the accuracy of the reading which contained the miss about the bedroom furniture. Misses get forgotten. The hits get remembered. That's why cold readers take chances with more exotic guesses from time to time. Taken out of context any hits of a more unusual nature are then touted as strong evidence of paranormal power.



No I would not say this, as I have already made very clear. Just that, with the appropriate caveats about what a silly programme it was and how it is utterly impossible to come to any reliable judgement, the cold reading hypothesis on the whole seemed to me to be improbable (albeit not vastly improbable).

So can you give some examples of the hits on the show for which you consider a cold reading explanation is improbable?

[Ersby]

I said before that “moving the furniture in your bedroom” was a good guess, and this is a neat demonstration of why. It’s such a strange thing to say that it’s not the kind of thing anyone would guess if they were playing the odds, therefore something else must be going on. It’s one of those things that, if used properly (personally I’d hold it back for a sitter who’d already admitted a desire to change or an unhappiness with their life) it can really look as if it’s a guess that the medium “can’t possibly have known”.

The whole thing about cold reading is that you have to give the impression that you’re receiving information from the other side. If people don’t believe that from the start, then you’re sunk, so in many ways it’s the most important part. That’s why something a bit off the wall is necessary, or to persist with a miss several times as if the spirits are insisting that what they’re saying is true (and also to give time to massage the guess into something different and let the sitter think about the subject).

[Stevie -G-]

If KC was really in contact with a relative of Tracy, how come he couldn't provide the name of the sitter, the name of the relative, or the relationship between the relative and sitter? If he could have provided these, then this would have been a powerful demonstration that he wasn't cold-reading (which was part of the reason for him being there - to convince people he wasn't cold-reading).

As soon as he asked for her name, I became suspicious, and it didn't get much better from there on...


Stevie -G-

[davidhorman]

If KC was really in contact with a relative of Tracy, how come he couldn't provide the name of the sitter, the name of the relative, or the relationship between the relative and sitter?

I was thinking about this the other day. If he spat out accurate, detailed information, it would (to me) look like he'd obviously cheated. The more vague the reader is, the less obvious it is that they're not really getting the information from the other side.

That's why Uri Geller sticks to bending spoons with his psychic powers, and not cutting women in half or flying over the Grand Canyon (anyone remember that?).

David

[Stevie -G-]

That's a good point by davidhorman - the more vague the reading, the more convincing it is that it is a genuine psychic feat!

Randi's hot reading in the programme was perhaps less convincing as a demonstration of psychic ability than it could have been because it was so accurate and detailed.


Stevie -G-

[Dragon]

Keith Charles was dead right about one thing - his colleagues in the police thought he was a joke!

(and, yes, I did once work at the same station as he did)

[Clancie]

Posted by Dragon

Keith Charles was dead right about one thing - his colleagues in the police thought he was a joke!

(and, yes, I did once work at the same station as he did)
Really, Dragon? That's pretty interesting. Was he known for claiming to use psychic skills even then (but seen by others to fail)? Fraudulent? Self deluded? What's your take on it from first hand experience?

I thought I'd read that he didn't "come out" as a psychic until after he left the police profession. But I could be remembering it wrong. Can you say any more about it? I'd never heard of him before this program. :confused:

[Clancie]

ersby,

I'm always interested in your cold reading observations. OT, but did you ever get the JE tapes neo sent first to Kuma? I'm just curious to read what you'd think from watching CO (and, no, I'm not thinking it'll be any less like cr when you see it). Have you seen it yet?

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Clancie

Really, Dragon? That's pretty interesting. Was he known for claiming to use psychic skills even then (but seen by others to fail)? Fraudulent? Self deluded? What's your take on it from first hand experience?

I thought I'd read that he didn't "come out" as a psychic until after he left the police profession. But I could be remembering it wrong. Can you say any more about it? I'd never heard of him before this program. :confused:

He had actually given interviews about his experiences while he was still a serving officer and may even have written about them himself. He started using the name "Charles" which is not his real surname (middle name, possibly) to give a degree of anonymity. Certainly he was the butt of more than a few jokes in the CID office where he was working when I knew him (he made reference to this in the programme).
I only knew him slightly just before he retired, but my guess is that he is more self-deluded than fraudulent.

[Dragon]

Keith Charles does have the inevitable website (http://www.keith-charles.com/index.html) - for what its worth.

[homunculus]

I saw the program, it was screened as part of Channel 4s highly publicized "Ghost Night". Randi was very charming and only snapped once - when the medium (I forget his name) accused him, as a magician, of "decieving people for a living" (or something like that).

Perhaps the reason some of the audience reacted so aggressively to HIM, was that one of the performances of the medium was actually quite good. He reduced a woman to tears, and got hit after hit. Blue-arsed luck or preparation, I don't know, but Randi was blithely unimpressed with the whole performance.

(I noticed that the medium told the woman she had "tried to contact him [the spirit] before", so perhaps she had been to one of his own readings before...?]

To people not familair with the techniques being employed, it is easy to see how Randi might of come across as a bit arrogant and closed-minded.

Having said that, he performed Out of This World (original Paul Curry version) at the end of the show, which is a classic effect ;)

Paul.

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Clancie
ersby,

I'm always interested in your cold reading observations. OT, but did you ever get the JE tapes neo sent first to Kuma? I'm just curious to read what you'd think from watching CO (and, no, I'm not thinking it'll be any less like cr when you see it). Have you seen it yet?

No, I never got any tapes. I've only ever seen one episode of Crossing Over. It was as I'd expected from the transcript escept JE talks a lot fast than I'd thought.

[Dub]

Originally posted by homunculus
I saw the program, it was screened as part of Channel 4s highly publicized "Ghost Night". Randi was very charming and only snapped once - when the medium (I forget his name) accused him, as a magician, of "decieving people for a living" (or something like that).

Perhaps the reason some of the audience reacted so aggressively to HIM, was that one of the performances of the medium was actually quite good. He reduced a woman to tears, and got hit after hit. Blue-arsed luck or preparation, I don't know, but Randi was blithely unimpressed with the whole performance.

(I noticed that the medium told the woman she had "tried to contact him [the spirit] before", so perhaps she had been to one of his own readings before...?]

To people not familair with the techniques being employed, it is easy to see how Randi might of come across as a bit arrogant and closed-minded.

Having said that, he performed Out of This World (original Paul Curry version) at the end of the show, which is a classic effect ;)

Paul.

Personally, I dont think the 'medium' performed especially well. While he did manage to reduce the woman to tears, which alot of mediums do, I didnt see anything particularly impressive in his act. He used the typical cold-reading techniques. Firstly, he scanned the audience for someone with some sort of relation to a person with a name begining with... After homing in on the particualr women he started his reading proper. Gogin on memory, she had disagreements with:

The wardrobe - which he kept probing her as if it was her that was 'wrong'
The decorating of the stairs 'recently' - she initially said no, he then allowed the term 'recently' to be many years ago (10 I think?) and the term 'decorating' to be simply a little bit of painting. Again on this line he kept probing her until he got a 'hit' - no matter how weak.
An operation to her foot - this she denied having completely.

I think there were several others, however I forgot to tape it and am going on memory alone. At the end of the reading however, despite some weak hits and some total misses, the woman replied that the reading was 'totally accurate'.

The medium performed even worse during the screen reading - in which he had no replies, other than yes or no, from the target. Finally, I was pretty unimpressed by the police case he was involved in. Judging by the ontroduction at the begining of the show I was expecting him to have solved the case when the investigation had failed. All he managed to get however was the name 'sleeply'. After asking a person on the street near the murder scene who sleepy where they replied that they hadnt seen him for a while. Thats it. We dont know who sleepy is, where he is now, if he even knew the victim. Infact we dont even know if 'sleepy' exists. Perhaps many people have the nickname sleepy, or the men they were questioned assumed that 'sleepy' was someone they knew of that sleeps all day. Who knows :)