Medium Colin Fry

[scepticuk2]

Have any of you seen the debate about the 'media medium' Colin Fry going on on a website that reveals the accusations about fraud mediumship in the past. This guy really knows how to wriggle. Looks like a few sceptics have him on the hop. Well worth a look just to see how he tries to explain away his self evident fraud.

Colin Fry has decided to answer some of his critics and it is turning into a very interesting debate. It really is a hoot. Please take a look.

Here's the link:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/colinfry/

Thanks

Gary Allen
http://members.lycos.co.uk/colinfry/

[Darat]

Originally posted by scepticuk2
…snip…
http://members.lycos.co.uk/colinfry/

Thanks

Gary Allen
http://members.lycos.co.uk/colinfry/


I went to the site and looked in the forum and saw what I think is a post from you i.e.

From the forum at the site Gary links to http://pub14.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=1144043067&cpv=1

Dictionary word for psychic 'someone having mental abilities unexplainable by natural science' and sceptic means 'I can't
accept and I won't accept, no evidence is good enough, pretend the SPR have no evidence in their archives, never mention the Scole report just in case someone twigs it, have selective memory, never mention any of the great minds, writers and artists who believed in the paranormal such as Keats, Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Dante, Goethe, Blake, Newton, Di vinci, Van Dyck, even Churchill to name but a few, ignore any written or anecdotal evidence from history or otherwise, hope the ITC stay biased against the truth, always say the psychic is cold reading, its not a ghost its a breeze, always say 'it's interesting' on tv when you haven't got a bloody clue how to explain it, I know everything and nothing,
editing tv programmes really helps in our argument, spend a lifetime finding no evidence, get paid plenty of public money for so called research, appear on countless tv and radio programmes pretending you are an expert, despite the world and his dog knowing the truth
never admit you really know the paranormal exists, always reduce the old dear to tears on tv programmes like Kilroy by saying its all delusion,
use zener cards as the ultimate test for psychics even though they are about as much use in psychical research as a snowboard in the sahara, only tell the public when you find a fraud and never disclose details of the genuine ones
(cica Wiseman-his book 'testing psychic claimants'), debunk everything in sight, be close minded, join the magic circle and impress your pals down the pub with your box of tricks, write books no one reads and lastly give up the ghost(pardon the pun)
and just remind yourself life is the great unexplained, science isn't the be all and end all and being sceptic is unhealthy when you are blinded by ignorance.



I have looked up the definitions of sceptic many, many times and I've never seen a definition given like yours, what dictionary is it from?

Whilst I am normally willing to give new posters the benefit of the doubt your posts on the site you link to show that you are a closed-minded and very cynical person and therefore I doubt that you are really interested in a full and frank and open debate.

If you are at all interested in an open and honestly motivated debate I would like to understand how you know :


…snip…

The truth is the sceptics know the paranormal exists ie Wiseman 'the scole report' and much evidence held in the vaults of the SPR of which Wiseman sits on the committee or at least he did,
if he does not now.

…snip…


Or is it just hyperbole?

[UKBoy1977]

Absolutely incredible!

Colin Fry holds a seance where he is strapped into a chair. The room is pitch black but then a luminous trumpet starts floating around the room. But someone switches the lights on and there is Colin standing there holding the trumpet!

So what is the official statement from the believers? Some vague rubbish about 'anomalies' occurring from time to time in psychic demonstrations. However they don't for a minute think Colin is guilty of deception. How could he be, he was in a trance at the time?!!

And how to explain the broken straps that should have held him securely in the chair?

Quote :

'In Mr Thompson's opinion the deception was the work of an intruding entity, "who should not have been able to gain entry," and that no conscious fraud was perpetrated by either the organisers or the medium.'

So basically an 'intruding entity' released Colin from the chair and impelled him to start waving the trumpet around.

The power of belief. Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable!!

[Darat]

Originally posted by UKBoy1977
Absolutely incredible!

Colin Fry holds a seance where he is strapped into a chair. The room is pitch black but then a luminous trumpet starts floating around the room. But someone switches the lights on and there is Colin standing there holding the trumpet!

So what is the official statement from the believers? Some vague rubbish about 'anomalies' occurring from time to time in psychic demonstrations. However they don't for a minute think Colin is guilty of deception. How could he be, he was in a trance at the time?!!

And how to explain the broken straps that should have held him securely in the chair?

Quote :

'In Mr Thompson's opinion the deception was the work of an intruding entity, "who should not have been able to gain entry," and that no conscious fraud was perpetrated by either the organisers or the medium.'

So basically an 'intruding entity' released Colin from the chair and impelled him to start waving the trumpet around.

The power of belief. Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable!!

It does pose "believers" with a conundrum to think about.

On the one hand you have perhaps (and as far as I can see only alleged) fraud from a medium such as Colin Fry who in every other way sounds, looks and walks like all the other "genuine" mediums and on the other hand a way has to be found to ignore the possibility that all the others who look, sound and walk like Colin Fry are also (allegedly) frauds.

[Stumpy]

For those of you who don't know who Colin Fry is; he is the British equivalent of John Edwards or Van Praagh (in many ways!).
He has his own TV show on cable. He also claims to be able to perform physical mediumship!
In fairness to him he is willing to engage in on-line discussions with skeptics (unlike the vast majority of mediums). I am currently in the midst of an exchange with him regarding his apparent unwillingness to prove his claims. He also gives an explanation for the "trumpet" incident. If you are interested you can follow the exchange here:

http://www.livingtv.co.uk/ubb/Forum19/HTML/004237.html

A poster on the JREF forum (Druid) has previously ellicited a broader response from Colin Fry in relation to the "trumpet" incident and posted Fry's explanation on this board.

Within the Colin Fry forum generally it is interesting to note the number of threads wherein CF's supporters publicly exchange private information in advance of attending CF's shows. Can't imagine how this might be useful to Mr Fry though! :rolleyes:

Stumpy

[Darat]

Originally posted by Stumpy
For those of you who don't know who Colin Fry is; he is the British equivalent of John Edwards or Van Praagh (in many ways!).
He has his own TV show on cable. He also claims to be able to perform physical mediumship!
In fairness to him he is willing to engage in on-line discussions with skeptics (unlike the vast majority of mediums). I am currently in the midst of an exchange with him regarding his apparent unwillingness to prove his claims. He also gives an explanation for the "trumpet" incident. If you are interested you can follow the exchange here:

http://www.livingtv.co.uk/ubb/Forum19/HTML/004237.html

...snip....

Stumpy

Hi Stumpy - nice reponses and I'm glad to see both you and Colin Fry have ignored the attacks on even discussing this matter by the "believers" on the forum. I'll keep my eye on it but please do post any snippets of interest...

[De_Bunk]

Stumpy...

Im impressed...the exchanges between you and Fry are worth reading all the way through...

But i must admit...at least he actually goes online to try and save his a**

Apart from that, he is completely delusional...

DB

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Apart from that, he is completely delusional...
Delusional? Probably not. He knows full and well what he's doing, he just doesnt want to be caught (actually, he has already been caught, he's just looking for every in and out he can so it looks "genuine").

[showme2]

Oh yes, skepticUK2 ... that'll be the Lycos forum set up to do a hatchet job on Colin Fry, will it ?

You know the one I mean ... the one where anyone saying anything in support of Fry has their IP number banned from the forum very quickly.

Yeah, right. Not worth wasting your time on.

[Psiload]

Posted by UKBoy1977

Quote :

'In Mr Thompson's opinion the deception was the work of an intruding entity, "who should not have been able to gain entry," and that no conscious fraud was perpetrated by either the organisers or the medium.'

So, when my 4-year-old was standing over the smashed vase, and I asked her who had broken it, and she replied, "Mr. Grumpy did it." She was actually telling the truth? Her imaginary friend/intruding entity, Mr. Grumpy was really to blame? I'll have to run right home and apologize for doubting her.

Believerworld is a scary place. :eek:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by showme2
Oh yes, skepticUK2 ... that'll be the Lycos forum set up to do a hatchet job on Colin Fry, will it ?

Colin deserves every "hatchet job" he recieves. I have no sympathy for cheats.

[De_Bunk]

I can't wait till the next time one of his "friends" help out at a seance...

Maybe a hidden Infra-red cam...

Thinking about it...i know some complete and utter bast**d journo's at a couple of national newspapers...I'll see if they're interested...

Just an idea for another story...

Fry is defrauding the general public by claiming he is speaking to the dead. He is making money from his deception and now he's been exposed once...it will only take a second big expose to finish him...especially caught on hidden cam..

And whoever does it....They'll know where to send it...:D

Fry...Who is it...who was it out of your friends that set you up...maybe they are going to do it again...

DB

[showme2]

De bunk
No, actually Colin Fry has not been "exposed" at all - ever.
Allegations are not proof.
Every medium since 1848 has been accused of fraud.

Come back when you know what you're talking about so far as Scole is concerned ... or when one of your journo friends is prepared to back your version of events.

Hey - if you can establish that Colin Fry is a fraud, I can guarantee to get you £100,000 from the News of the World for the exclusive.
So come on - let's hear from you. What evidence do you have ?

[thaiboxerken]

Colin Fry refuses to be tested by CSICOP or JREF. Proof enough that he's a fraud.

[SteveGrenard]

He also refuses to be tested by open minded investigators from the SPR and by Montague Keen. When I arranged for my wife to attend a seance with him and he didn't show up and sent a substitute in his place and she reported back some shenanigans(*) to me, I complained to him and he accused me of "testing" or investigating him as well even though I was not actually doing it. Banned for life from ever seeing him again. He wasn't even present. Oh, and he sent me a refund check which I will keep for posterity and not cash.


(*)She felt the voices of the spirits sounded like a phonograph recording playing. In addition she was upset that she was required to leave her handbag outside the seance room and was not warned in advance this would be required so she could keep her keys, wallet and money in a pocket. One of th aleged spirits to show up was Quentin Crisp whom she knew personally in his NY years. He not only didnt acknowledge her but couldn't answer any questions accurately put to him about Crisp. I heard later this medium did a seance in Australia and Crisp was featured in that as well but the skeptical radio talkshow host down under was convinced it was real. The sitters were also exhorted to sing and sing as loud and boisterously as possible which could have been a ruse to cover up any noises made by the medium in moving from his chair.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by showme2
De bunk
No, actually Colin Fry has not been "exposed" at all - ever.
Allegations are not proof.
Every medium since 1848 has been accused of fraud.

Come back when you know what you're talking about so far as Scole is concerned ... or when one of your journo friends is prepared to back your version of events.

Hey - if you can establish that Colin Fry is a fraud, I can guarantee to get you £100,000 from the News of the World for the exclusive.
So come on - let's hear from you. What evidence do you have ?

I don't understand, showme. If he's genuine, then why not go ahead and take the test? He has everything to gain and nothing to lose: he can get a million dollars. He can get a TON of free publicity. He can set the scientific world on its ear.

If it were me, I'd test in a minute. I could certainly use the million bucks.

[showme2]

He won't take Randi's test because the conditions imposed are so partisan in Randi's favour that nobody will ever be able to claim the money.

And if thaiboxerken's demonstration of logic is typical of skeptics on this forum (see above - "that's proof enough" - it's actually proof of nothing whatever !) well, bang goes any pretence to be looking at these issues "scientifically".

[Martin]

Originally posted by showme2
Every medium since 1848 has been accused of fraudBut not every medium since 1848 has been caught waving a trumpet about in the middle of a session.

[Martin]

Originally posted by showme2
He won't take Randi's test because the conditions imposed are so partisan in Randi's favour that nobody will ever be able to claim the moneyYour evidence for this claim?

[Clancie]

Posted by Martin

Your evidence for this claim?
Martin,

Looking at several aspects of the JREF challenge so far, why would anyone have confidence that JREF could design, conduct, document and honor a scientifically valid test?

For example, suppose we take Randi's proposed "Sylvia Challenge" as a prototype of what Randi considers a good test.

It has several flaws that are stunning, but one of the worst is that there's no safeguard against collusion (either Randi and Sylvia or Randi and the 10 participants, or the 10 participants among themselves).

You may say, "Well, Randi can be trusted", but isn't that one of the flaws with Schwartz's testing, that some of it relies on trust? No scientifically valid test should include "trusting the participants' honesty" as a basic feature.

You might say, "Well, the claimant can help design a better test", but...maybe they feel totally unqualified/incapable of doing that.

Beyond that, the Yellow Bamboo saga (and the lack of adequate documentation of -all- previous preliminary tests conducted by JREF) could raise serious and legitimate doubts for any claimant about the integrity and sincerity of the whole testing process.

[SteveGrenard]

While I will not get into the pros and cons of the JREF test which Clancie has presented and with which I and many others agree.

The issue with Colin Fry is not the JREF test and its shortfalls. It is any testing. He will not agree to be scientifically tested by the Society of Psychical Research investigators. So in Fry's case, while one can go on and on challenging him to JREF, it is a waste of time. Fry's position on recording devices in the seance room (forbidden), infrared video (forbidden) and any form of scientific testing is that it is out of the question.
Fry has tried to accuse me of testing him even though I was not present at a seance he was supposed to be at. More absurdly he was not present either. Now that would have been paranormal action at a distance if he was correct.
Can anyone figure that out?

He will not agree to testing. This is his official position as he has stated in private e-mails to me and to others and it seems to be the position of the organization with which he is involved (Noah's Ark Society) which is devoted to physical mediumship.

[tim]

Mr Fry claims he can speak to the dead.
OK.
He's the one making the claim, so it's up to him to prove it.
If I claim I can drive a car blindfolded and tied up inside a sack you would ask me to prove it - and quite rightly. Why should Mr Fry be exempt from such a process? If he can't show me the proof, he can hardly be surprised when I don't believe him.

[SteveGrenard]

The problem Tim is that clearly Mr. Fry doesnt care whether you, I or anyone believes him or not. He relies on the fact that many people believe in him without stepping up to the plate and being tested.

This is human nature. If you do not believe in your doctor, he doesn't care, go to a different one. If you do not believe in your car mechanic, he doesn't care ...go to different one. If you don't like the way your barber cuts your hair, he could care less and would tell you to try someone else next time. Some people dont feel that they have to prove anything to anyone where their exceptional skills are concerned and CF appears to be no exception........

[tim]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The problem Tim is that clearly Mr. Fry doesnt care whether you, I or anyone believes him or not. He relies on the fact that many people believe in him without stepping up to the plate and being tested.

This is human nature. If you do not believe in your doctor, he doesn't care, go to a different one. If you do not believe in your car mechanic, he doesn't care ...go to different one. If you don't like the way your barber cuts your hair, he could care less and would tell you to try someone else next time. Some people dont feel that they have to prove anything to anyone where their exceptional skills are concerned and CF appears to be no exception........

I understand that. I've discussed the paranormal with many people and there is no doubt in my mind that it is virtually impossible to change the mind of anyone who has entrenched beliefs.
Colin Fry doesn't know, or care, that I exist. He makes a nice living out of what he does, and there are plenty of people prepared to accept everything he says and does at face value. All I can do is make sure he doesn't get any of my hard-earned cash!

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by showme2
He won't take Randi's test because the conditions imposed are so partisan in Randi's favour that nobody will ever be able to claim the money.

I've read the rules: the two of them have to agree together what the test is. Surely you can understand Mr. Randi's wanting stringent testing conditions, considering the frauds in the past (that is not a value judgement).

If Mr. Fry thinks the tests are too stringent, why not ask other experts, get some advice, not on his field of inquiry, but on Scientific Testing standards in general? Surely there is some way to compromise.

Mr. Fry WANTS to prove himself. Until he can pass SOMEBODY's stringent scientific tests, producing reproducable, accurate results, then he's never going to be taken seriously.

[SteveGrenard]

J: If Mr. Fry thinks the tests are too stringent, why not ask other experts, get some advice, not on his field of inquiry, but on Scientific Testing standards in general? Surely there is some way to compromise.


Ans: Mr. Fry doesnt care whether the tests are too stringent. You still don't get it: he rebuffs any requests or attempts to test him. He is NOT interested. He has said so. People within the parapsychological community
have tried to get him to be tested and he has refused. There is absolutely no hope he will ever agree to do it with somebody such as Randi and JREF if he would not allow it by open minded,
objective paranormal investigators.

J: Mr. Fry WANTS to prove himself. Until he can pass SOMEBODY's stringent scientific tests, producing reproducable, accurate results, then he's never going to be taken seriously.

Ans: You should have said "IF Mr Fry wants to prove himself..."

He doesn't.

He believes he is taken seriously by enough people to reject any notion of undergoing any sort of testing. He just doesn't care.

[showme2]

Colin Fry has 1.5 million people watching 6ixth Sense, and can fill a 2000+ theatre wherever he demonstrates his gifts.

Why should he be concerned with obliging a dozen sceptics of THIS forum?

Damned if I would either !!!!

[tim]

Originally posted by showme2
Colin Fry has 1.5 million people watching 6ixth Sense, and can fill a 2000+ theatre wherever he demonstrates his gifts.

Why should he be concerned with obliging a dozen sceptics of THIS forum?

Damned if I would either !!!!

If Mr Fry can do what he says he can, surely it is in his own interest to prove it. If he won't take the Randi challenge, fair enough, but to refuse to demonstrate his abilities to any scientific enquiry? To refuse to be filmed or recorded?
When one takes into consideration Mr Fry's past record, it does tend to point the sceptical community towards a rather unfortunate conclusion.
I would have thought that if Colin Fry is as altruistic as he purports to be he would want to show the world the truth. Sadly this does not seem to be the case.
Still, he's making a lot of money, so why should he care?
Showme2, I repeat my comment previously made - "it is virtually impossible to change the mind of anyone who has entrenched beliefs" - which you clearly hold. We will have to agree to differ on this one I'm afraid.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Looking at several aspects of the JREF challenge so far, why would anyone have confidence that JREF could design, conduct, document and honor a scientifically valid test?

Thoroughly dishonest of you to claim that the Challenge is a "scientifically valid test". Clancie, we have discussed this many times before, and you have always maintained that it is not scientific. Nobody disagrees with you. So, why do you switch now?

Originally posted by Clancie
For example, suppose we take Randi's proposed "Sylvia Challenge" as a prototype of what Randi considers a good test.

No, we can not take this as a "prototype" as each claim has to have a test designed, depending on what claim it is. You know this, yet you choose to ignore it.

Originally posted by Clancie
It has several flaws that are stunning, but one of the worst is that there's no safeguard against collusion (either Randi and Sylvia or Randi and the 10 participants, or the 10 participants among themselves).

True. However, Sylvia has not responded, so it's kind of a moot point....that she didn't even take THIS test is evidence of her genuine fakery, wouldn't you say? It would be SO easy to pass this test, yet she doesn't....

It is very interesting that you choose to attack Randi and not Sylvia on this matter.

Originally posted by Clancie
You may say, "Well, Randi can be trusted", but isn't that one of the flaws with Schwartz's testing, that some of it relies on trust? No scientifically valid test should include "trusting the participants' honesty" as a basic feature.

Strawman. Who claims that Randi can be trusted?

Again, the JREF Challenge does not claim to be scientific. You are misrepresenting - knowingly - here.

Originally posted by Clancie
You might say, "Well, the claimant can help design a better test", but...maybe they feel totally unqualified/incapable of doing that.

You are perfectly aware that a test must be designed so both parties agree to it.

Originally posted by Clancie
Beyond that, the Yellow Bamboo saga (and the lack of adequate documentation of -all- previous preliminary tests conducted by JREF) could raise serious and legitimate doubts for any claimant about the integrity and sincerity of the whole testing process.

Really? Please point out one case where JREF can be blamed. Just one, Clancie.

Let's recap:


You know that the JREF challenge is not claiming to be scientific. Yet, you ignore this.
You know that each claimant must have a specifically designed test. Yet, you ignore this.
You claim that people should trust Randi. Who does this?
You blame JREF, but never produces a single example of how JREF can be blamed.


No attacks, Clancie. I am merely pointing out that you seem to switch viewpoints, depending on the circumstances. And always to attack skeptics.

Always.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He will not agree to testing. This is his official position as he has stated in private e-mails to me and to others and it seems to be the position of the organization with which he is involved (Noah's Ark Society) which is devoted to physical mediumship.

Why do you see this as a problem, while you fully accept your own "Premium Case" (Camille Walsh, who you claim got almost 200 correct statements) refuses any testing whatsoever?

[SteveGrenard]

My case is personal, anecdotal, non-scientific and I invited explanations and got several thought provoking ones. Walsh does not sell books, does not appear on TV, does not, in fact, even make claims, doesn't advertise anywhere and even has an unlisted phone number. She is a private person unlike Fry and Edward. And she comes nowhere near the abuses Fry's modus operandi can foster. (see below).

Fry, and his protege(s) specifically also claim to produce physical phenomena: voices of spirits and physical manifestations during seances. They do this in pitch blackness so there is no way to verify their authenticity. They refuse to allow video, audio or infrared recording of their seances and even search attendees and confiscate their purses and handbags and lock them outside the seance room. They require you to make a reservation, pay by check in advance, provide your address and phone number which they verify by the way. Their entire operation stinks IMHO.
They ask you to book a half dozen seances in advance and schedule you according to a preset schedule over a number of months. Fry e-mailed me to say my wife did not show up as scheduled on a certain date. He was freaking out and furious. I proved to him he had the wrong date (e-mail confirms of a later date). I still am not sure what that was about. He did not show up either. when her date finally came.

I hope this answers your question. My wife and I had a personal experience with Fry which was positively bad whereas the one we had with Walsh was good. Are you defending Fry?

We are shaped by our experiences. I frankly don't care if Fry ever agrees to be tested or that he doesn't wish to be or that he has steadfastly and very publicly has refused to do so. He just does. It proves nothing. Our experience with him was not good and his method is suspicious but it doesn't prove anything either.

Our experience with Walsh was personal, anecdotal and has no scientific value whatsoever. I do not expect anyone to accept iit. It was given as a reason I got interested in this. Nothing more.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
My case is personal, anecdotal, non-scientific and I invited explanations and got several thought provoking ones. Walsh does not sell books, does not appear on TV, does not, in fact, even make claims, doesn't advertise anywhere and even has an unlisted phone number. She is a private person unlike Fry and Edward. And she comes nowhere near the abuses Fry's modus operandi can foster. (see below).

Fry, and his protege(s) specifically also claim to produce physical phenomena: voices of spirits and physical manifestations during seances. They do this in pitch blackness so there is no way to verify their authenticity. They refuse to allow video, audio or infrared recording of their seances and even search attendees and confiscate their purses and handbags and lock them outside the seance room. They require you to make a reservation, pay by check in advance, provide your address and phone nuber which they verify by the way. Their entire operation stinks IMHO.
They ask you to book a half dozen seances in advance and schedule you according to a preset schedule over a number of months. Fry e-mailed me to say my wife did not show up as scheduled on a certain date. He was freaking out and furious. I proved to him he had the wrong date (e-mail confirms of a later date). I still am not sure what that was about. He did not show up either. when her date finally came.

I hope this answers your question. My wife and I had a personal experience with Fry which was positively bad whereas the one we had with Walsh was good. Are you defending Fry?


Steve,

You claim that Camille Walsh gets almost 200 correct statements during your reading. This is a pretty powerful assertion that CW is the real deal, wouldn't you say?

Almost 200 friggin' correct statements? Which psychic gets that, Steve? Never heard of anyone getting anywhere near that.

Is it anecdotal? You bet. But if you want to use this reading of yours, you better come up with some evidence, the way you demand evidence from Colin Fry.

If you do not, then I simply don't understand why you plug it so much. Surely, you are aware of the uselessness of anecdotes? Are you saying (now) that we should not attach any significance to your anecdote?

You also don't question Brian Hurst, when he claims to have been present at seances where physical phenomena have taken place.

You demand from one psychic (who tried to scam you) what you do not demand from others (one, who provided a far-beyond-reason reading and one, who also claims that psychic surgery is real).

You got some 'splainin' to do, Steve. Not just here, but in other threads....

[SteveGrenard]

I have no personal experience with Hurst, I did with Fry. If Hurst were operating like Fry, I would be criticizing him here right now. I don't know Hurst, have never met him and only had a few words with him on-line. I heard some good things about him from people that post here who have attended one of his sessions; however. I have not heard of any personal experiences (other than my own) with Fry.
If Hurst should come along right now and defend Fry, I would have to tell him I disagree based on my experience and his reluctance to work in, at the very least, infra red light or be tested by the SPR.

Walsh has not been asked to be tested by the SPR. If the SPR wishes to test her then we would have to wait and see what she says. Keen, who as you know, is very active as an investigator with the SPR is fully aware of Walsh and my 195 valid pieces of information a communicator spoke out through her.

[CFLarsen]

That's nice, Steve. As usual, you don't address the issues, and your replies creates more questions than answers:


Should we dismiss your admittedly personal anecdote with Camille Walsh, yes or no?
Why do you suddenly need to have had a personal experience with a psychic, before you can determine whether the psychic in question is valid or not?
Is that your reason for not questioning Camille Walsh the same way you question Colin Fry? You have had personal experiences with both, yet you treat them very differently.
Are you aware of the uselessness of personal anecdotes, yes or no?
Are you saying (now) that we should not attach any significance to your anecdote, who tells of a psychic who got almost 200 statements right during a reading?
Does a psychic need to have been asked by SPR, before we can attach any significance to his/her claims?
Do you consider SPR the decisive body of authority in psychic matters?


Please either:

address the questions, or
state that you refuse to answer.

[SteveGrenard]

# Should we dismiss your admittedly personal anecdote with Camille Walsh, yes or no?

Yes. If you wish.



# Why do you suddenly need to have had a personal experience with a psychic, before you can determine whether the psychic in question is valid or not?

Yes. If it were not for this experience, then I would not have accepted the validity of this psosibility.

# Is that your reason for not questioning Camille Walsh the same way you question Colin Fry? You have had personal experiences with both, yet you treat them very differently.

I went to Walsh anonymously. In full daylight. No tricks. No darkened rooms. No claims. No ghostly voices, no sing alongs, no hands touching me in the dark, no prior checking of identities, no pat down searches. She talked in the first person for nearly two hours. I got up, asked her how much; she replied if I wasnt pleased I didnt have to pay her and she refused my money. I gave it to her anyway. Fry, or his protege anyway, did not show up. His group engaged in all of the above. I contacted him to complain and he accused me, without provocation, of testing him, of investigating him. He wasnt even there. We were not anonymous, and even more so should a confederate have searched through my wife's handbag while she was locked inside the seance room and it was locked outside. I have had no further contact with Wlash as I had no reason to.
I did with Fry.


# Are you aware of the uselessness of personal anecdotes, yes or no?

I said this repeatedly. I also gave the reason why I even brought it up. Personal anecdoes are of no use to anyone other than the experiencer(s).


# Are you saying (now) that we should not attach any significance to your anecdote, who tells of a psychic who got almost 200 statements right during a reading?

You are free to do what you want. So is anyone else.


# Does a psychic need to have been asked by SPR, before we can attach any significance to his/her claims?

I do not understand this convoluted question. Psychics have been debunked and validated by the SPR for one hundred and twnety years. I and many others consider them an authrotiy. Skeptics such as Wiseman and Blackmore have pubished in their journal; even Randi had an item in there recently.


# Do you consider SPR the decisive body of authority in psychic matters?

I consider the SPR, and in the US, the SPR's now divorced sister group, the ASPR in that category. There are researchers in this city and nearby with similar credbility for doing this such as Carlos Alvarado, Nancy Zingrone and in Baltimore, Stephen Braude and a few others. I have mentioned Walsh to the PF as well which is the organization founded by Eileen Garrett, to investigate mediumship. So far, insofar as I am aware, no one has expressed an interest to me but since I do not have any contact with Walsh, somebody may've contacted her directly and I do not know if this is true or what may've become of such an offer if it was made.

Added: Since I had this prior experience with Walsh, it would be better if I had no contact or involvement in setting up any scientific investigation of her. This should be self-evident.

[Stumpy]

Steve Wrote:

Fry, and his protege(s) specifically also claim to produce physical phenomena: voices of spirits and physical manifestations during seances. They do this in pitch blackness so there is no way to verify their authenticity. They refuse to allow video, audio or infrared recording of their seances and even search attendees and confiscate their purses and handbags and lock them outside the seance room

Fry will claim that the use of infrared harms him. However it didn't stop him having this photo of him producing ectoplasm taken, using infrared. I think this picture settles the debate once and for all wheteher Fry does or doesn't have mediumistic abilities.....he doesn't!:D

http://www.spiritsinc.co.uk/colin_ectoplasm.html

regards

Stumpy

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks Stumpy.Any woman attending a seance with his group should know they have to leave their purses outside and out of their view. Call me paranoid but this upset me a great deal. This not only gives confederates opportunity to gather info, they could make duplicate latch and car keys as well. They have your name, address and tel number. I am not accusing here or saying this happens. Have you heard of this scam as a detective Stumpy?

It looks like somebody shredded a pillow case and rolled up the strings of cloth..........

maybe this was the incident that made him say infra-red harms him. If this shot was made in the dark w/ IR which does not look like it was, (comparing to the IR shots we make) I'd have to agree it does harm him but not in the way he says it does.

[Stumpy]

SG wrote:

This not only gives confederates opportunity to gather info, they could make duplicate latch and car keys as well. They have your name, address and tel number. I am not accusing here or saying this happens. Have you heard of this scam as a detective Stumpy?

There is a wide belief in the UK sceptic circles that Spiritualist Churches have a network whereby information is exchanged amongst "mediums" regarding punters - I have no evidence for this, it is purely anecdotal, however the experience of your wife would tend to give it some creedence. I have spoken to people who have been to spiritualist meetings, they confirm that coats and bags are often left in an ante-room before they go into the main reading room. They then wait whilst the medium meditates privately in another room!! Tangentally, if you visit the on-line forum for Colin Fry's Sixth Sense programme you will see his supposrters freely and publicly exchanging private information in advance of attending one of Fry's shows. I make no allegations, but one cannot ignore the possibility of "someone" using this information during a reading at a later date.

regards

Stumpy

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by showme2
Colin Fry has 1.5 million people watching 6ixth Sense, and can fill a 2000+ theatre wherever he demonstrates his gifts.

Why should he be concerned with obliging a dozen sceptics of THIS forum?

Damned if I would either !!!!

I find this very sad, frankly. You have no idea how much I WISH it were true: I wish I could have a message from my late father. He was in a delirium when he died, and did not even know who I was, and couldn't understand how much I loved him.

But, unless there is absolute proof that the speaker really is talking to my father, how could I ever know if he's not jerking my chain, just for the sake of the money?

If Mr. Fry were really talking to the dead, then a simple test -- not necessarily Mr. Randi's test, but SOMEBODY's scientifically stringent test -- would surely hurt him not at all, and give him an enormous base of clients to draw from: literally, anybody who has ever suffered the loss of a loved one.

If he's not, if he's faking it, then think about it: he's manipulating the pain and suffering of the people around him and making money off of that, like some sort of ghoul.

I'd rather have the proof than some sweet-smelling lie.

[showme2]

OK - let's forget Randi and his bogus $1million challenge.
What WOULD you accept ?

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by showme2
OK - let's forget Randi and his bogus $1million challenge.
What WOULD you accept ?

A scientifically stringent testing, by a reputable authority, not on mediumship, but on psychology, cold reading, and the scientific method, would be a good place to start. A setup where "cheating" would be impossible, and a true result can be garnered. I want a test that, if it were not actually set up by Mr. Randi, or his fellow magicians, then at least one that they would approve of, if they were part of the testing.

Am I saying that Mr. Fry is a fraud? No. I do have an opinion on the matter, but that is not really germane. The fact is, this sort of mediumship can be faked, without too much difficulty.

The reason we go to magicians, such as Randi, or Penn and Teller, to help us set up such tests is because THEY know how to trip up such tests. They know what to look for, you know? Just like casinos hiring card mechanics to help spot other mechanics. Look, when you are buying a diamond ring, you want it appraised, or certified, right? Why? Because you and I and the average Joe on the street cannot tell the difference, just by looking, between a beautiful and valuable diamond, and a cheap zirconium knockoff. You don't want to be ripped off, naturally! That's why we trust to an expert, be he diamond appraiser for our jewelry, an analyst for our stocks, an accountant for our taxes.

A magician is an expert at fooling people. It's his job!

It's possible to fake being a medium, right? Even you have to grant that it's POSSIBLE. Magicians do it all the time. We want Mr. Fry to take the test, because we know we can be fooled. I do NOT want to be fooled with something as important as this.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by showme2
OK - let's forget Randi and his bogus $1million challenge.
What WOULD you accept ?

Scientific testing with results accepted by the scientific community as a whole, OR, beating the JREF challenge.

[thaiboxerken]

Am I saying that Mr. Fry is a fraud? No. I do have an opinion on the matter, but that is not really germane. The fact is, this sort of mediumship can be faked, without too much difficulty.

Not only that, but there has been no evidence of mediumship that hasn't been faked.

It's possible to fake being a medium, right?

Every successful medium is evidence of this, since there is no such thing as a real medium.

[Small Town Jesus]

Originally posted by Stumpy
Fry will claim that the use of infrared harms him. However it didn't stop him having this photo of him producing ectoplasm taken, using infrared. I think this picture settles the debate once and for all wheteher Fry does or doesn't have mediumistic abilities.....he doesn't!:D

http://www.spiritsinc.co.uk/colin_ectoplasm.html

[/B]

Nice picture. It looks like the guy fell asleep after too much drink and his 'mates' decided to decorate him. :D

Or maybe it was a ghost with a sense of humor. :eek:

STJ

[espritch]

showme2:
Colin Fry has 1.5 million people watching 6ixth Sense, and can fill a 2000+ theatre wherever he demonstrates his gifts.

Why should he be concerned with obliging a dozen sceptics of THIS forum?

Damned if I would either !!!!

I have to agree. If I was a fraud making lots of money scamming the gullible, the last thing in the world I would want to do is risk killing the golden goose by having some skeptic prove I'm a fraud.

I mean, why should he risk being tested when there is a vast herd of willing sheep waiting to be sheared who require no kind of proof at all?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
# Should we dismiss your admittedly personal anecdote with Camille Walsh, yes or no?

Yes. If you wish.

Very well: The best example you got of a paranormal phenomenon, and you admit that it should be dismissed.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
# Why do you suddenly need to have had a personal experience with a psychic, before you can determine whether the psychic in question is valid or not?

Yes. If it were not for this experience, then I would not have accepted the validity of this psosibility.

We hear this reason so often, it is almost a natural law.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
# Is that your reason for not questioning Camille Walsh the same way you question Colin Fry? You have had personal experiences with both, yet you treat them very differently.

I went to Walsh anonymously. In full daylight. No tricks. No darkened rooms. No claims. No ghostly voices, no sing alongs, no hands touching me in the dark, no prior checking of identities, no pat down searches. She talked in the first person for nearly two hours. I got up, asked her how much; she replied if I wasnt pleased I didnt have to pay her and she refused my money. I gave it to her anyway. Fry, or his protege anyway, did not show up. His group engaged in all of the above. I contacted him to complain and he accused me, without provocation, of testing him, of investigating him. He wasnt even there. We were not anonymous, and even more so should a confederate have searched through my wife's handbag while she was locked inside the seance room and it was locked outside. I have had no further contact with Wlash as I had no reason to.
I did with Fry.

Steve, you did not go to Walsh anonymously. You went there through a person who knew both you and Walsh. But I can certainly understand why you doubt Colin Fry. Why don't you doubt Brian Hurst the same way? He also dabbles in ghostly voices, dark seances, and even psychic surgery.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
# Are you aware of the uselessness of personal anecdotes, yes or no?

I said this repeatedly. I also gave the reason why I even brought it up. Personal anecdoes are of no use to anyone other than the experiencer(s).

So, what is left, Steve? You come up with the best you got, and you admit that it is worthless. What is left?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
# Are you saying (now) that we should not attach any significance to your anecdote, who tells of a psychic who got almost 200 statements right during a reading?

You are free to do what you want. So is anyone else.

But you admit that your experience is worthless.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
# Does a psychic need to have been asked by SPR, before we can attach any significance to his/her claims?

I do not understand this convoluted question. Psychics have been debunked and validated by the SPR for one hundred and twnety years. I and many others consider them an authrotiy. Skeptics such as Wiseman and Blackmore have pubished in their journal; even Randi had an item in there recently.

You point to SPR as a reason for you doubting Fry.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
# Do you consider SPR the decisive body of authority in psychic matters?

I consider the SPR, and in the US, the SPR's now divorced sister group, the ASPR in that category. There are researchers in this city and nearby with similar credbility for doing this such as Carlos Alvarado, Nancy Zingrone and in Baltimore, Stephen Braude and a few others. I have mentioned Walsh to the PF as well which is the organization founded by Eileen Garrett, to investigate mediumship. So far, insofar as I am aware, no one has expressed an interest to me but since I do not have any contact with Walsh, somebody may've contacted her directly and I do not know if this is true or what may've become of such an offer if it was made.

I find your lack of interest in pursuing this fantastic medium very telling. Here, you claim, we have a medium who comes up with hardly any misses, right? Just about everything is dead-on (if you'll pardon the pun)? But no, you got up and left, with a worthless anecdote in your pocket.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Added: Since I had this prior experience with Walsh, it would be better if I had no contact or involvement in setting up any scientific investigation of her. This should be self-evident.

Why? You had no problems with Schwartz contacting the mediums at Arizona and participating in his own experiments. Do you still find this procedure acceptable?

[Freda]

F.A.O. SCEPTICUK2

A.K.A "GARY ALLEN" or "PAUL" here on the JREF forum

Whichever name you have as 'flavour of the month' - today -

Whilst trying to round up some of the people on here to go to your pathetic site - squirm out of this one - should be easy for someone who has greater 'magical powers' than anyone ever known.... what was your theatrical name ? The Great Swan ?
( Amend that to the 'Dying Swan'...pleeeeeease !!!)

After your first post here urging the same thing, you denied ever being on this forum as being somewhere you would NEVER go - yet continue to peddle your trash here.....implying that you are a sceptic ..... yet on the site you are attempting to propogate ... you intimate that you are a believer trying to find the truth of the 'alleged' incident regarding Colin Fry.

Come now Scepticuk2/Gary/Paul/Swan - which 'side' ARE you supposed to be on in these debates ?

When inviting people to join you - please make it much clearer to them they are only welcome if they agree with what YOU wish to say; that your site, though inviting people in for debate has nothing to do with the current state of Colin Fry's mediumship at all.... and that, depending upon which hat you are wearing at the time, if the debate is against what you want to say ... they are immediately banned .... not just from posting, but from being able to access the forum altogether, via their IP.

You are having to invent all manner of people as posters, because you cannot get serious debaters to respond to your requests ... well at least not the kind you are wishing to work with.

I have debated on these forums for a long time now, whenever I have seen something that has taken my interest, and one conclusion I have arrived at is that the majority of people posting here are honest basically, even when their opinions differ, and I feel they should also be warned that none of the information you have supplied on your behalf ( i.e. email addresses etc ) bears any resemblance to the truth. YOU yourself are nothing less than one huge fraudulent human specimen.

They do not hold cheats in ANY form in high regard here.

You purport to have mediumsitic powers greater than anyone, and are a healer to boot ..... prove it !!!!

Take the JR test, that you once intimated to me that you could do quite easily. Prove your abilities to the members here .... I challenge you to face James Randi and prove you are what you say you are. You are ready to challenge other people for £50,000 - take up the cudgel for $1,000,000 - I DARE YOU !!!!!!

Freda Watts

(- one of the 'banned' lycos posters, even though I did nothing wrong, and did not resort to uttering the blasphemities I was subjected to, from this atrocious little man without any explanation being given as to why. Bravenet did try to get him to email me but their requests were ignored, and I received an apology that he had falsified the information given to them regarding the contact number they had on their files.)

He really is not worth bothering with. A little fish in a big pond.

[De_Bunk]

Showme2

Quote:

"Come back when you know what you're talking about..."


Yeh..

Right...

Im not the one thats claiming Colin Fry is truly talking to dead people...actually gets them to answer...and then move trumpets around...am i, you delusional moron...

Funny you should mention "The News Of The World"....:D

DB

[showme2]

Abuse is the last resort of someone with an exhausted argument!

[De_Bunk]

Showme2..

If you are referring to me...

I never had an argument to begin with...

I just like laughing at kooks such as yourself...

You see...you actually think Fry is for real...that he can actually communicate with the dead..and manifest spirits that move objects...

That makes you an idiot moronic kookball...nothing else...

Gullible, vunerable, mentally ill people such as yourself, are not worth debating anything with....

I just like laughing at people like you...

Some people pity kooks...fruits...delusional losers...

Me...i laugh my a** off at those less fortunate then myself when it comes to realising the real world..

Exhausted argument...Nah...

I don't waste my time debating with mentally ill people...

You need to visit Shadowlands BB...they believe anything there...

DB

[Freda]

Hi Showme2.. From one kook to another apparently.....

I do not usually reply to this person he is on my ignore list .... but couldn't resist passing remarks at his comments to you ......

DB quote:
[I just like laughing at kooks such as yourself ] ...

They do say that little things please little minds though don't they ?

DB quote:
[You see...you actually think Fry is for real...that he can actually communicate with the dead..and manifest spirits that move objects]...

Don't THINK - KNOW !!!!!

DB quote:
[That makes you an idiot moronic kookball...nothing else] ...

Takes one to know one and at least this one -DB- acts like one too.

DB quote:
[Gullible, vunerable, mentally ill people such as yourself, are not worth debating anything with] ....

Precisely - and I have yet to see you DEBATING anything.

DB quote:
[I just like laughing at people like you ]...

Remember - he who laughs last, laughs the longest.

DB quote:
[Some people pity kooks...fruits...delusional losers] ...

There are a lot of them about and have yet to meet a loser in the 'kook' stakes whilst such people as DB are deluding themselves more than anyone. No sane person would ramble on and on as he does - don't think he know how to change the record on that one.

DB quote:
[Me...i laugh my a** off at those less fortunate then myself when it comes to realising the real world] .....

Can't have got much an a** left by now then ... what a character .... what a challenge to welcome him into the REAL world, when his time comes, as this one is only an illusion man has created for himself.

DB quotes:
[Exhausted argument...Nah] ...
[I don't waste my time debating with mentally ill people]...
[You need to visit Shadowlands BB...they believe anything there]...

He doesn't argue he resorts to insults - and as I have suggested here before - who sounds more mentally ill and in need of incarceration in this Shadlowlands place?

Freda

[hal bidlack]

This post has been reported as overly rude. While it is over the top from my point of view, I do not find that it violates the rules of the forum. Energetic debate is to be expected, and sometimes (usually daily) that results in name calling.

hal

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Showme2..

If you are referring to me...

I never had an argument to begin with...

I just like laughing at kooks such as yourself...

You see...you actually think Fry is for real...that he can actually communicate with the dead..and manifest spirits that move objects...

That makes you an idiot moronic kookball...nothing else...

Gullible, vunerable, mentally ill people such as yourself, are not worth debating anything with....

I just like laughing at people like you...

Some people pity kooks...fruits...delusional losers...

Me...i laugh my a** off at those less fortunate then myself when it comes to realising the real world..

Exhausted argument...Nah...

I don't waste my time debating with mentally ill people...

You need to visit Shadowlands BB...they believe anything there...

DB

[thaiboxerken]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freda

Don't THINK - KNOW !!!!!

That would involve Colin Fry actually having superpowers. He doesn't, therefore ShowMe only THINKS/Believes in this nonsense.


Precisely - and I have yet to see you DEBATING anything.

ShowMe isn't debating either, he is just stating that Colin Fry is a real medium ad-nauseum. He hasn't given ONE iota of evidence that Colin Fry has superpowers, that spirits exist or that there is an afterlife. There is no point in trying to debate woo-woos such as ShowMe, especially after he dismisses Colin Fry's cheating as being trickery of the spirit world.


There are a lot of them about and have yet to meet a loser in the 'kook' stakes whilst such people as DB are deluding themselves more than anyone. No sane person would ramble on and on as he does - don't think he know how to change the record on that one.

What is DB delusional about, precisely?


Can't have got much an a** left by now then ... what a character .... what a challenge to welcome him into the REAL world, when his time comes, as this one is only an illusion man has created for himself.

This is only your delusional belief that isn't supported by any evidence.


He doesn't argue he resorts to insults - and as I have suggested here before - who sounds more mentally ill and in need of incarceration in this Shadlowlands place?

ShowMe is mentally ill, it is evidenced by his beliefs. Even when shown that Colin Fry outright cheated, he convinced himself that it wasn't cheating.. it only "looked like" he cheated because spirits made it that way. THAT is insane.

[showme2]

Hiya Freda

I had already concluded that De Bunk is deficient in civility and manners, to the extent that I no longer choose to respond to his rantings.

And now we have Ken - allegedly a Thai Boxer, but we have seen no evidence of that apart from the possibility that he has been hit in the head more times than is healthy - claiming powers of medical diagnosis in one of the most difficult areas of medicine. There are clearly no bounds to HIS talents.

And of course they ALL claim to be psychic, since they "know" what happened at Scole even when those who were there are not entirely in agreement about what transpired.

I am reminded again that, whilst "he who knows not and knows he knows not is teachable, he who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool" !

[thaiboxerken]

So, I take it that you have no evidence that Colin Fry has superpowers.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by showme2
And now we have Ken - allegedly a Thai Boxer, but we have seen no evidence of that apart from the possibility that he has been hit in the head more times than is healthy - claiming powers of medical diagnosis in one of the most difficult areas of medicine. There are clearly no bounds to HIS talents.

And of course they ALL claim to be psychic, since they "know" what happened at Scole even when those who were there are not entirely in agreement about what transpired.


Are you including me in this generalization? I have not addressed Scole, and have attempted to be as even-handed as I can.

However, I do have to agree about TBK.

[espritch]

Freda:
Don't THINK - KNOW !!!!!

What do you mean when you say “know”? Do you mean “have credible evidence” or do you mean “believe because I want to believe”? The man was caught perpetrating flagrant fraud, and yet you and showme2 seem determined to defend his legitimacy. I can understand why he would scramble to explain away his obvious fraud: he gains direct financial benefit from the ruse. But what do you gain from defending him? I’m really having a difficult time comprehending your motivation here. I mean, is there anything that would convince you he’s a fraud?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by espritch
I mean, is there anything that would convince you he’s a fraud?

No there isn't, espritch. These people place emotion over evidence. There is nothing that will convince some people that Colin Fry is a fraud, not even catching him in the act.

[thaiboxerken]

And of course they ALL claim to be psychic, since they "know" what happened at Scole even when those who were there are not entirely in agreement about what transpired.

Where YOU there?

[showme2]

J
No, I am NOT including you in that ! You have given me no reason to do so.

TBK
In saw Colin Fry demonstrate live in Cambridge during September this year. This was after watching John Edward, James Van Praagh, and Colin Fry for quite some time on their TV programmes, and concluding that Fry was the only one I could not accuse of Cold Reading. (Edward probably is and JVP certainly is.)
I actually went to Cambridge with the intention of discovering how Colin Fry was doing it, and came away convinced that he was genuine. (I also met him briefly after the demonstration and he is one of the most modest and sincere people I have met.)

My wife and I went back the following night to check it out again, and came away with the same conclusion. This after watching him demonstrate for around 5 hours.
I wonder how many on this forum have ever seen Colin Fry demonstrate live. I would guess none. (TV is no good evidentially because the show is edited.)

Of course, none of this will convince YOU, and nor should it. You have to take the trouble to get the evidence for yourself - or not, just as you choose.

But I am concerned that many here have formed an opinion without ever having seen a live demonstration by Colin Fry, and therefore do not really know what they are talking about.

[thaiboxerken]

So, you weren't at the Scole event either? Interesting. You claim that deceptive spirits only made it look like he was cheating. You base this on your own, subjective, experiences with the man. It's obvious that you have some emotional need to believe in Colin Fry, but don't crap all over those that don't share that need. Colin Fry is an entertainer, just like any other medium.

Fry was the only one I could not accuse of Cold Reading. (Edward probably is and JVP certainly is.)

Interesting, since Clancie thinks that Edward isn't cold reading. You believers really aren't consistent with one another, are you?

You can't come up with any objective criteria to determine who's a real medium and who's not, can you?

[thaiboxerken]

My wife and I went back the following night to check it out again, and came away with the same conclusion. This after watching him demonstrate for around 5 hours.

This is merely arrogance, you can't figure out how you were tricked so you believe that you weren't tricked. That's ok, if you're not secure enough to admit that you could've been tricked, then that's your bag.

[De_Bunk]

What...me...rude...blunt...making fun of the kooks...

Who would have thought such a thing...

If you can't stand the heat.....etc..


Anyway...

Showme2 / Freda

You come on this board and claim that Fry truly talks to the dead and they respond....other kooks join you in your delusion...desperately clutching to the hope that they can will carry on after they die because they cannot face the reality of "real life"....Sad, pathetic people...hoping that their demise will lead them to paradise...

Since the beginning of mankind, this has never, ever been proven to be actually true...

Everyday, as technology marches on, it is becoming increasingly easier to understand why there is no such thing.

Church attendances are falling....Children are no longer being sucked into the delusional world of the paranormal...its the age of the Playstation...Computers...CGI in films...

The dawning of a new era of what is real and what is total BS.

People today are increasingly wanting actual proof...not some kook like Fry / Browne / Edward making an half assed attempt at guessing / faking / cold reading.

There is absolutely no reason for the paranormal to exist in any way shape or form. It serves no purpose.

Nothing happens in the evolution of life on Earth, without reason.

That has been proven and shown to be.

As each day passes, its a day closer to the end of this total belief of a big invisible supreme being that lives in the sky...in Ghosts...Goblins..floating trumpets...and all that other complete insanity.

You question my sanity...Im not the one who actually thinks these things are for real.

I believe in what i see to be proven, or logically explained.

Anyone of you kooks care to explain "Why" the paranormal should exist.

I walk this earth and live my life knowing that when i die, i die..thats it..all over..back to the very building blocks of life as floating particles of the elements that make our Universe.

You and people like Freda are being laughed at...and as time passes, will soon be in the minority.

200 yrs ago, people believed in what their religious leaders told them, without question.

Today people are leaving the church in their thousands...They openly abuse the church..

People are becoming sick to death of claims of the afterlife.

Nowadays, people are needing hard, solid, undisputable proof...not some con-mans, delusional word.

Thats what technology and advancement of mankind has brought about, and the children of tomorrow will demand even more answers.

Technology is making it harder and harder for people like Fry and the rest of these lying / delusional morons..they continually have to invent new methods of taking money from weak minded people like you and Freda.

You deserve nothing but pity...

But you wont get that from me.

In my opinion you are the narrow minded. You cannot see past your desperate and pathetic need to think you "carry on" after death.

All i know is this...

More mediums and Psychics have been caught totally faking...than have been proven to be acutally communicating with the dead.

So i go with what has been proven to exist.

Now..you go play in LaLa land, all holding hands round a table in a darkened room...

Lets do lunch...

Yeh..

Right...

DB

[showme2]

tbk
It is indeed my "bag".
And I'm quite happy to carry it, thank you.

Nor do I need guidance from you or anyone else about when I can trust my own judgment.

Let's find out just what you know about this subject shall we ? ...

Name the 11 common elements involved in Cold Reading.
You have 3 minutes. (That's to avoid you looking up the answer on the Net.)

[De_Bunk]

Showme2

D'ya see the post directly above your last one....well do ya...???

DB

[showme2]

De Bunk

Do I WHAT ?

I can see a post from an arrogant individual who thinks he knows all of the answers to numerous questions which have mystified FAR greater minds for thousands of years.
Is that the post you refer to ?

(By the way, I didn't "report" your post. I'm not that thin-skinned. And my normal response to abusive people is to ignore them. Sticks and stones .... etc)

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
My wife and I went back the following night to check it out again, and came away with the same conclusion. This after watching him demonstrate for around 5 hours.

This is merely arrogance, you can't figure out how you were tricked so you believe that you weren't tricked. That's ok, if you're not secure enough to admit that you could've been tricked, then that's your bag.

My advice? Ignore TBK. This is his schtick: bait somebody, then stroke over the posts when they get angry.

Let's go back to the question at hand. You and I were having a sensible discussion before he butted in. Shall we continue?

[Freda]

Esprich,

Having been a member of the NAS since 1993, and attended over 36 seances in that time, I consider myself an authority on what Colin has demonstrated to Ark members, and to the validation of his work.

I have nothing to gain by telling the truth, but I do give credit where it is due. If I had any doubts I can assure you that I would have said so, but I cannot deny what my own ears heard, just to comply with what others think of Colin......

To judge on the say so of someone who has never seen the man at work, is wrong..... yes, I have a copy of a tape recording of a Direct Voice seance taken in Sweden last year. The voices of loved ones who were present at the demonstration can be heard loud and clear in the presence of all the 40 odd people sitting.

These spirit people brought with them the sense of humour they always had, laughed and joked with those who are still precious to them; and as far as the Swedish contingent were concerned, those receiving messages were spoken to in their own language too. There was much laughter during the seance, because the personalities that came through were as they were when here in the body..... all the idiosyncrasies were evident, the different dialects illustrated the difference in each voice that came through.

I have to say too, whilst on the subject, that when Colin demonstrates for the Ark and more especially in the beginning, any fee that was paid went to the Ark .... not into his own pocket...he was actually working at the time in employment.

The trumpets I have seen in some of the seances have been up in the ceiling area, swiftly from one end ot the room to the other. Two at a time and sometimes in opposite directions - not once did either collide with the other - or the fans that were working in the ceiling area at both sides of the room at the same time to keep us all cool.

The small luminous bands are inside the widest end of the trumpets and the luminosity is not seen until the trumpets are flying around, it is not enough to create light within the room. They are cone shaped, 18 inches long and they do NOT extend AT ALL, as has been suggested on this thread somewhere.

It was not proven that he was a fraud, it was alleged that the seance was fraudulent; and until somebody duplicates the exact methods - as described in the investigation - then I have no reason to even consider such an attack on his credibility. I have seen, many here haven't, they are just making assumptions on what they have read.

To anybody who wishes to find out the truth, I would suggest that you group together, add the ingredients as mentioned use a power saw and one other means ( remember two different causes were put forward regarding the breaks of the tywraps)
attempt it first in the daylight to see if it is possible being bound in the same manner - and if you ARE able to do it - then see about repeating the exercise in the dark. Arms and legs tied to the chair don't forget.

All this without making any noise whatsoever too. Some mean feat.

Freda

[De_Bunk]

Showme2...

I never claimed you did report this post...???

Arrogant...you bet...no more than you thinking you can go around spreading your unproven delusions without resistance.

You kooks have had it your own way for far too long...spreading your lies and delusions...poisoning peoples minds with utter rubbish..

People like Fry and all the other people like him are pure evil...

They are duping the public, making money from vunerable people for doing absolutely nothing other than talking....and you support him in this scam.

And you expect me not to be arrogant with the way i reply to kooks...

Belief in a "big invisible being who lives in the sky" plays a major part in what's stopping this planet achieving world peace...

And thats how i see it...

If you believe in the paranormal...then a belief in God must follow...they both have the same amount of "proof"...even more so in religion...its has far more believers...

Anyway...seeing as i don't normally, remotely debate anything with idiots...

Thats all..

DB

[Freda]

Hi Showme2,

See what I mean when I say that they don't have the faintest idea of what goes on in a seance - so how can you possibly explain to someone who cannot comprehend the basics required for sitting during one - or what can happen.

Preconceived ideas - tunnel vision is not condusive at all to obtain physical phenomena but then, as a kook - 'I know nuffin' -

I must say that it has to be some ruddy large table for as many as 75 people to sit round it in one go - do they imagine that the visiting spirits dance on the table then I wonder ? What a shower !!

Freda

[thaiboxerken]

My advice? Ignore TBK. This is his schtick: bait somebody, then stroke over the posts when they get angry.

Let's go back to the question at hand. You and I were having a sensible discussion before he butted in. Shall we continue?

So you actually think that ShowMe's anecdotes are good evidence for mediumship? My entire point is that Show's and his wife's experiences really mean nothing when it comes to establishing reality. Not one person has ever tested postive for mediumship in any credible scientific test. Am I baiting?

ShowMe came in here with a gun's blazing attitude and no facts will change his mind, not even the FACT that Colin Fry was caught cheating.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

My advice? Ignore TBK. This is his schtick: bait somebody, then stroke over the posts when they get angry.

Let's go back to the question at hand. You and I were having a sensible discussion before he butted in. Shall we continue?

So you actually think that ShowMe's anecdotes are good evidence for mediumship? My entire point is that Show's and his wife's experiences really mean nothing when it comes to establishing reality. Not one person has ever tested postive for mediumship in any credible scientific test. Am I baiting?

ShowMe came in here with a gun's blazing attitude and no facts will change his mind, not even the FACT that Colin Fry was caught cheating.

If you wish to address me, infant, please do so in the Flame War section; I have opened a thread for that very purpose. If you care to join me there, then I will be happy to give you all the attention you deserve.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Freda
Having been a member of the NAS since 1993...
Freda
What is NAS?
I was never good in Advanced Arcane Acronym 666.

[thaiboxerken]

I have nothing to gain by telling the truth, but I do give credit where it is due.

You sure do have something to keep, your security blanket. Money isn't the only motivation, neither is fame. Your belief system stays intact and more secure the more often you "validate" mediumship.

If I had any doubts I can assure you that I would have said so, but I cannot deny what my own ears heard, just to comply with what others think of Colin......

Yes, you can't be tricked either. It seems to be a common trait of believers.

To judge on the say so of someone who has never seen the man at work, is wrong.....

There is nothing wrong with not believing in mediumship, even if one has never been to a seance. Once seances are evidenced to work in valid, scientific experiments, I might change my position on this.

yes, I have a copy of a tape recording of a Direct Voice seance taken in Sweden last year. The voices of loved ones who were present at the demonstration can be heard loud and clear in the presence of all the 40 odd people sitting.

A magician's trick, simple.

These spirit people brought with them the sense of humour they always had, laughed and joked with those who are still precious to them; and as far as the Swedish contingent were concerned, those receiving messages were spoken to in their own language too. There was much laughter during the seance, because the personalities that came through were as they were when here in the body..... all the idiosyncrasies were evident, the different dialects illustrated the difference in each voice that came through.

More tricks and show.

I have to say too, whilst on the subject, that when Colin demonstrates for the Ark and more especially in the beginning, any fee that was paid went to the Ark .... not into his own pocket...he was actually working at the time in employment.

So?

The trumpets I have seen in some of the seances have been up in the ceiling area, swiftly from one end ot the room to the other. Two at a time and sometimes in opposite directions - not once did either collide with the other - or the fans that were working in the ceiling area at both sides of the room at the same time to keep us all cool.

Of course not, the wires might get tangled.

The small luminous bands are inside the widest end of the trumpets and the luminosity is not seen until the trumpets are flying around, it is not enough to create light within the room. They are cone shaped, 18 inches long and they do NOT extend AT ALL, as has been suggested on this thread somewhere.

Yet, they are just props for a trick.

It was not proven that he was a fraud, it was alleged that the seance was fraudulent; and until somebody duplicates the exact methods - as described in the investigation - then I have no reason to even consider such an attack on his credibility. I have seen, many here haven't, they are just making assumptions on what they have read.

Except for that one time when he was caught cheating, right?

To anybody who wishes to find out the truth, I would suggest that you group together, add the ingredients as mentioned use a power saw and one other means ( remember two different causes were put forward regarding the breaks of the tywraps)
attempt it first in the daylight to see if it is possible being bound in the same manner - and if you ARE able to do it - then see about repeating the exercise in the dark. Arms and legs tied to the chair don't forget.

Do you actually think Colin Fry's arms and legs are bound so he can't move? It's called illusion, magicians do it all of the time. Rope tricks are some of the easiest ones.


All this without making any noise whatsoever too. Some mean feat.

You mean a little less noise than the background music that is so often played.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by jallenecs


If you wish to address me, infant, please do so in the Flame War section; I have opened a thread for that very purpose. If you care to join me there, then I will be happy to give you all the attention you deserve.

I'll stay in here and point out the fallacies of the Colin Fry fans instead. ;)

[De_Bunk]

Freda..

Quote:

"I have nothing to gain by telling the truth..."



So you have more to gain by telling lies, then..???

DB

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by jallenecs


A scientifically stringent testing, by a reputable authority, not on mediumship, but on psychology, cold reading, and the scientific method, would be a good place to start. A setup where "cheating" would be impossible, and a true result can be garnered. I want a test that, if it were not actually set up by Mr. Randi, or his fellow magicians, then at least one that they would approve of, if they were part of the testing.

Am I saying that Mr. Fry is a fraud? No. I do have an opinion on the matter, but that is not really germane. The fact is, this sort of mediumship can be faked, without too much difficulty.

The reason we go to magicians, such as Randi, or Penn and Teller, to help us set up such tests is because THEY know how to trip up such tests. They know what to look for, you know? Just like casinos hiring card mechanics to help spot other mechanics. Look, when you are buying a diamond ring, you want it appraised, or certified, right? Why? Because you and I and the average Joe on the street cannot tell the difference, just by looking, between a beautiful and valuable diamond, and a cheap zirconium knockoff. You don't want to be ripped off, naturally! That's why we trust to an expert, be he diamond appraiser for our jewelry, an analyst for our stocks, an accountant for our taxes.

A magician is an expert at fooling people. It's his job!

It's possible to fake being a medium, right? Even you have to grant that it's POSSIBLE. Magicians do it all the time. We want Mr. Fry to take the test, because we know we can be fooled. I do NOT want to be fooled with something as important as this.

I repeat my own response, so that we can bypass the stroking maniac, and get back to the discussion at hand, if you are of a mind to, showme.

do you have a response? A question?

[showme2]

jallenecs

Nothing there that I could disagree with !

But you have to understand that Colin Fry and people like him have conventionally had a s**t deal from people who are interested in so-called "scientific testing".

You can therefore understand their reluctance to submit to testing by people who are fundamentally hostile.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by showme2
jallenecs

Nothing there that I could disagree with !

But you have to understand that Colin Fry and people like him have conventionally had a s**t deal from people who are interested in so-called "scientific testing".

You can therefore understand their reluctance to submit to testing by people who are fundamentally hostile.

I can understand that reluctance entirely. But can you understand my position. There can be no room for error, here. Either they are telling the truth, or they are manipulating people's emotions.

There is precedent to believe that such a thing can be faked. Therefore, some testing just makes sense. As Mr. Randi proved back in the seventies, the testing itself can be fooled, so only stringent testing -- supervised by an expert in how to pull off such a fakery -- only makes sense.

Do you not agree?

[showme2]

jallenecs

>>>> "My advice? Ignore TBK. This is his schtick: bait somebody, then stroke over the posts when they get angry.
Let's go back to the question at hand. You and I were having a sensible discussion before he butted in. Shall we continue?" <<<

RESPONSE:
Yeah, you seem to have a reasonable attitude, so I'm with you. Let's do that.

[showme2]

jallenecs
We appear to have crossed posts.
But, yes, I'm still with you, and I don't disagree with anything you have said.
Of COURSE there are charlatans ... there always have been, ever since the Fox sisters in 1848.
That doesn't mean that ALL mediums are charlatans, any more than all financial advisers are charlatans (though most are).
Personally, I have seen the evidence I want, and it convinced me.
It obviously won't convince anyone else, and I don't expect it to do so.
So where do we go from here ?

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by showme2
jallenecs

>>>> "My advice? Ignore TBK. This is his schtick: bait somebody, then stroke over the posts when they get angry.
Let's go back to the question at hand. You and I were having a sensible discussion before he butted in. Shall we continue?" <<<

RESPONSE:
Yeah, you seem to have a reasonable attitude, so I'm with you. Let's do that.

That sounds wonderful to me. But let there be no misunderstandings between us. I am a skeptic; I cannot believe in this, no matter how compelling the desire, until I have proof.

I believe the discussion can continue, in a reasonable manner, despite our different positions. I just did not want to come to you under false colors.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by showme2
jallenecs
We appear to have crossed posts.
But, yes, I'm still with you, and I don't disagree with anything you have said.
Of COURSE there are charlatans ... there always have been, ever since the Fox sisters in 1848.
That doesn't mean that ALL mediums are charlatans, any more than all financial advisers are charlatans (though most are).
Personally, I have seen the evidence I want, and it convinced me.
It obviously won't convince anyone else, and I don't expect it to do so.
So where do we go from here ?

Crossing posts again! Sorry about that!

May I ask you: why did it convince you?

[showme2]

jallenecs
It convinced me because, the kind of information delivered by Fry could only be explained in two ways:-

1. Telepathy with the subjects (But that explains one mystery with another, because nobody has satisfactorily explained how telepathy works - or indeed WHETHER it works)

2. Plants in the audience. But that doesn't hold up because, with the scale of the tour that Fry is doing in the UK, it would need 400 "stooges", and any one of them could go to the tabloid newspapers in the UK (particularly the News of the World) and collect £100,000 for "dishing the dirt" on Colin Fry.

The third option is that what he produces is genuine. Having ruled out the first two, I was left with only the third.

We went along to the second night in Cambridge to make sure that the same people were not coming forward to receive readings. (You see, we are in fact cautious and nowhere near as gullible as some would try to present us as being! I will rule out all of the obvious possibilities before deciding that the guy is genuine. In fact I went to the first night LOOKING to flaw him !)

But, at the end of the day, everyone has to make up their own mind. What bothers me is that the so-called sceptics on this forum (or skeptics if you are a yank!) seem willing to make up their mind without ever seeing Fry demonstrate live.

It's ten minutes to 1am in the UK and I'm off the bed now.
Perhaps we can continue this debate tomorrow.
I'm just delighted to have found someone sensible to debate with. Thanks for that !

[espritch]

Freda:
If I had any doubts I can assure you that I would have said so, but I cannot deny what my own ears heard, just to comply with what others think of Colin......

I have no doubt that you would have indeed told me if you had any doubts. But as a skeptic I tend to have doubts about just about everything, so I find it truly difficult to understand that someone could have absolutely no doubt about something as doubtful as Mr. Fry’s ability to summon the spirits of dead people. This is exactly what I am trying to understand.

yes, I have a copy of a tape recording of a Direct Voice seance taken in Sweden last year. The voices of loved ones who were present at the demonstration can be heard loud and clear in the presence of all the 40 odd people sitting.

You have a copy of a tape? And do you have any tapes made in life of any of the people on this tape for comparison? Does anyone? Did you know any of the people who’s voices are on the tape personally, or are you relying on the testimonies of the participants? Should you? People attending séances tend to do so because they have a strong desire to speak with lost loved ones. Such people tend to be emotionally vulnerable and have a strong need to believe that the medium can do what he claims he can do. There is a lot evidence to support the notion that people tend to see (and hear) what they want to see. It’s one of the reasons I place a lot more trust in double blind experiments than in personal anecdotes – the double blind protocol removes a lot of human foibles from the process.

and as far as the Swedish contingent were concerned, those receiving messages were spoken to in their own language too.

Well, I guess that proves it. No Englishman could ever speak Swedish…oh wait, I’m thinking of my notoriously unilingual fellow Americans. I’m sure it is not quite so far fetched that a European might speak more than one language. :)

The small luminous bands are inside the widest end of the trumpets and the luminosity is not seen until the trumpets are flying around, it is not enough to create light within the room.

It’s curious that the spirits aren’t bothered by the light from these luminous strips. It’s also rather convenient for the medium that they don’t mind an amount of illumination sufficient to allow you to see what the medium wants you to see, but they cannot abide an amount of illumination sufficient to allow you to see what the medium might not want you to see.

It was not proven that he was a fraud, it was alleged that the seance was fraudulent; and until somebody duplicates the exact methods - as described in the investigation - then I have no reason to even consider such an attack on his credibility.

Even Mr Fry himself does not deny that when the lights came on, he was not seated bound to his chair (as any believer would have expected) but rather was free of his bonds and standing (as any skeptic would have expected). Is there any reason a skeptic should believe this was anything other than exactly what it appeared to be?

I have seen, many here haven't, they are just making assumptions on what they have read.

With all due respect, you have not seen. You yourself admit that these séances are held in total darkness and the only things you can see are (as I have already noted) those things the medium wants you to see. Were you at the Scole event? If not, you also are making assumptions on what you have read. If this is not permissible for us, it is not permissible for you either.

Having been a member of the NAS since 1993, and attended over 36 seances in that time, I consider myself an authority on what Colin has demonstrated to Ark members, and to the validation of his work.

This is the thing that bothers me most. You say you have attended 36 séances. Did you ever, in all those 36 séances, even once consider sneaking in a flashlight so you could test the validity of what you were seeing for yourself?

Human senses are easily tricked. Human memory is notoriously unreliable. Mr. Fry cannot do what he claims he can do in a properly designed double blind test. Until he steps up to the plate and proves me wrong, I have no valid reason to believe he is anything other than a lying, self serving fraud. And neither do you.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by showme2
jallenecs
It convinced me because, the kind of information delivered by Fry could only be explained in two ways:-

1. Telepathy with the subjects (But that explains one mystery with another, because nobody has satisfactorily explained how telepathy works - or indeed WHETHER it works)

2. Plants in the audience. But that doesn't hold up because, with the scale of the tour that Fry is doing in the UK, it would need 400 "stooges", and any one of them could go to the tabloid newspapers in the UK (particularly the News of the World) and collect £100,000 for "dishing the dirt" on Colin Fry.

The third option is that what he produces is genuine. Having ruled out the first two, I was left with only the third.

I would NEVER suggest that you are gullible; I've watched magic shows where, even KNOWING that it was a trick, I could not see it. So please, accept this in the manner in which it is intended.....

Perhaps there is a fourth option? Could it be that he is faking it in a way that you aren't able to catch? No, I don't know how somebody would fake it; I'm not a magician or a psychic. But is it somewhere within the realm of possibility? "Cold reading" and "Hot reading" are words bandied about here on this forum quite a lot; perhaps it is a variation on those. Perhaps there are shills; it wouldn't take as many as you may imagine.

Am I saying that's what he's doing? No, I'm not. I have never seen the man perform, so I couldn't begin to tell you what's going on. But the fact that it COULD be faked is enough to make me suspicious. And that little suspicion is enough to make me think that testing just makes sense.

For all the fuss and bother on this forum, it basically boils down to this: You're not an expert; you don't necessarily know what to look for to spot a fake. I'm not an expert either; I don't know what to look for. All I'm saying is, why not let an expert take a look, in a controlled situation (such as stringent scientific testing), because he DOES know what he's looking for.

Reserve judgement about whether he's real or fake, until the testing is done. You're not an expert, you can't KNOW that he's for real, without the test. I can't KNOW he's a fake, without the test. Without the testing, it's all conjecture.

If it's within the realm of possibility that he's faking it, then a test only makes sense. If he is faking, then you are wiser for knowing. If he's not faking, I'll be the first to buy a ticket for England tomorrow, to see the man.


Originally posted by showme2
But, at the end of the day, everyone has to make up their own mind. What bothers me is that the so-called sceptics on this forum (or skeptics if you are a yank!) seem willing to make up their mind without ever seeing Fry demonstrate live.

It's ten minutes to 1am in the UK and I'm off the bed now.
Perhaps we can continue this debate tomorrow.
I'm just delighted to have found someone sensible to debate with. Thanks for that !

A few on this forum (TBK, for example) think me naive for not engaging in virtual bloodshed; they tell me that I will learn in time. They have been here a lot longer than I have; perhaps they are jaded. I hope that experience will not leave me with the impression that attacks are a suitable replacement for reason.

But let me say that most of the people here are reasonable and sensible.

I thank you for your compliment, as well. I hope that you think as well of me by the time we are finished! :p

[Mr Manifesto]

Colin Fry is a lightweight.

I've seen his stuff. It is vague, inconequential, and inconclusive.

Why don't you guys use a REAL medium. Like me! I can tell you anything you want to hear, about anyone, without any cold reading, in as much detail as possible. Only requisite is that the person in question is dead. I'm not a telepath you know!

If you're interested, just PM your credit card number and expiry date to me. You won't be disappointed! It's my guarantee.



MM

-Official Society of Amalgamated Psychics, registration number 4-21-16-5

[showme2]

Hi again jallenecs

Yes, I too have watched magicians at work and it is true that most people are easily deceived by them. That is their business. (We know that Copperfield cannot truly make a Boeing disappear into thin air!)
It would seem that the more intelligent people are, the easier it is to deceive them, because their thinking and responses are more predictable.

I have also watched the UK series “Psychics Secrets Revealed” with Alistair Cook (a magician) because I believe that the best way to avoid being deceived is to understand how it can be done.

I also know quite a bit about Cold Reading because, again for the same reasons, I have made it my business to find out about it so that I can recognise it when it is being deployed.
(In my judgment – and that is all it is, my opinion. I have no evidence because the nature of Cold Reading is that evidence is hard to get other than by analyzing transcripts – John Edward is Cold Reading at least some of the time, and James Van Praagh is doing it blatantly all of the time. I am judging from their edited TV shows, having never seen either demonstrate live, but it may be valid in this instance to do that because any editing is clearly not going to seek to make the psychic look worse!)

The reason I went to check out Colin Fry live at two demonstrations, was that I had concluded that he alone of the three was definitely NOT Cold Reading.

But back to Colin Fry ….
You ask whether perhaps there is a 4th option – that he is faking it in a way that I cannot detect.
Yes, academically, of course there is always that possibility because, as you say, anyone can be fooled by “magicians” and I am not so clever that I know all the ways it might be done, nor so naïve to claim that I could never be tricked.

However, as one of probably few people on this forum who has met and spoken with Colin Fry, my judgment is that he is genuine, extremely sincere, and is not a charlatan. (We make subjective value judgments about all kinds of people on our way through life. Why should a psychic be judged differently?)

With mental mediumship, far the most likely technique is Cold Reading. I have to use my judgment about that as I do in most other aspects of life. I know what I’m looking for, in my judgment he is not deploying it, and I’m not going to accuse Fry of doing it just because I find the alternative (that he is genuine) an affront to long-term contrary beliefs that skeptics have harboured.
Like a true sceptic (!), I would want to see EVIDENCE that he was a fraud. And NOBODY HAS YET PRODUCED ANY, other than vague and over-simplified references to a very confused event at Scole over 10 years ago.
(ONE accusation in 26 years ? Surely those who set out to prove him false can do better than THAT ??? !)

I have studied the report on Scole very carefully and I am not convinced that it offers any proof of anything. (Those who do seek to claim it usually have very scant information about what transpired, and want to simplify everything to the extreme because it suits their argument. Those events were VERY confused and, without going through it all again, what medium would use a different method to cut a second tywrap if he still had the method of cutting the first one in his hand. ? And what medium would be stupid enough to cut them anyway knowing that they will be inspected shortly and the breakages will be obvious? One thing Colin Fry is not, is stupid ! Besides there are easier methods than cutting for a fraudulent medium to free his hands.)

Plants in the audience. No, I don’t give that any credibility. A 3-month tour 4 nights a week with 10 readings each night. That would need around 400 stooges because a heck of a lot of his supporters follow Colin Fry around from one venue to another. (Unlike the States, you can do that in a tiny country like Britain !)
So, if the SAME stooges kept reappearing, they would soon be recognized. (They appear on a huge screen on the stage, so everyone can see what they look like.)
Besides, one of them would certainly have “shopped” Fry by now for the £100,000 that one of the British tabloids would certainly pay for the story. (Certainly the News of the World would pay up, because it absolutely relishes publishing such exposures in any field of human activity.) In my opinion, the logistical problems of using audience plants rule it out.

Colin Fry has declined to undergo “testing” for many reasons that he has explained over and over. I can understand his reluctance to be treated like a “laboratory rat” as he puts it, when the “demands” for testing come from such hostile sources, and especially in view of all the crud he has had to put up with over Scole.

And what is going to be tested, by whom, and how ? The spirit world does not do “requests” with specified individuals coming through and performing on demand.

Whether I would like to see testing done under the sceptics obsessive “controlled conditions”, with infra red cameras and all the rest of it, is totally academic really, because it is Colin Fry’s decision, not mine. I doubt he would listen to my exhortation to submit to it, and the infra red cameras would be useless anyway because 99% of Fry’s demonstrations are done in normal light, as on 6ixth Sense. (He hasn’t done in-the-dark physical mediumship publicly for years now.)

I suspect that the result of any testing would inevitably be inconclusive anyway, and that no result would be convincing to skeptics who simply do not want to be convinced, in the same way that no supporter of Colin Fry is going to be dissuaded from their held views by aggression, abuse, and puerile name-calling by DeBunk and his ilk.

[jallenecs]

Your arguments are quite sensible, of course. And you are absolutely correct on one point: Mr. Fry is never going to take the test, for whatever reason. You can't make him, I can't make him, Mr. Randi can't make him.Without the test, we can never know with absolute surety, whether he if for real.

The question in my mind is, knowing that you'll never know for sure if it's the real thing, or a fake, what do you do now? My position is, "I think he's a fake, but I don't know that for sure." Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume the posture, "I think he's for real, but I don't know that for sure."

In all our debate, I have not asked you to "switch sides," to become a sceptic. It is not my place to make you join whichever side; you have to think what you think, without regard to my opinion.

A classic sceptic does not, as certain stroking maniacs in this forum believe, take the posture of "Nothing's real, and I'll be a jerk about it." A classic sceptic says, "I don't know, and therefore will reserve judgement, and thereby my endorsement, until I know for sure."

That's all I'm asking. Do you agree that the statement, "I think he's for real, but I don't know that for sure" is a sensible position to take?

[showme2]

jallenecs

Thanks for your reply.

You are absolutely right that, without a lot more evidence, I cannot convince you or anyone else that Colin is 100% genuine, and therefore your suggested "position statements" are entirely reasonable for both of us.

I would actually like to have the time (and the finance!) to follow Colin Fry around the country attending transcripting and publishing the content of every demonstration he does. That is what I did on his first live demo I attended. It was difficult to keep up, but it provided a paper record that could be studied later at leisure, without relying on unreliable and selective human memory, and without being carried away by the "wow" factor of rather startling revelations at the time.)

The collective weight of the "evidence" that produced might well be as close as anyone will ever get to confirming the validity of mental mediumship. (Though the hard-nosed sceptics would still say "telepathy" or some other cop-out !)

Contrary to the opinion of some on this forum, I actually do look at these things from a (fairly) sceptical viewpoint. Hence my Username, Showme - an oblique reference to Doubting Thomas and his exhortation to "Show me the holes".

It is therefore quite irritating when DeBunk, TBK and others imply that I might go along to a demonstration and blandly accept everything that is shoved in front of my nose !

I cannot subscribe to their extremely cynical viewpoint that everything involved in this life of ours can be detected by our limited senses, and nothing else can possibly exist. (You have only to look at that lowly creature, the dog, with its superior hearing and superior sense of smell to realise that our own senses are very limited.)
DeBunk and his ilk claim to know all of the answers but in fact "know" bugger all. Far greater minds than theirs have addressed these matters without reaching proveable conclusions.

We can go back 300 years to when everyone was convinced the world was flat and we marvel at their ignorance. Every generation thinks it has reached the pinnacle of human knowledge. But in 300 years time they will look back on US in exactly the same way, and marvel at our ignorance. I therefore set no great store by the "laws of science and physics" as we currently understand them.

By the way, thanks, jallenecs, for a productive discussion. It has been a real pleasure !

Showme2

P.S. On a lighter and more humourous note, look at it this way: If survival of physical death is a reality, DeBunk and TBK are going to look complete idiots when they arrive on "the other side".
In contrast, if I am wrong, I'm never gonna know !!!!

[jallenecs]

It has been a pleasure to speak with you as well, sir. I am glad to have engaged in such a stimulating debate; you really forced me to think out my arguments, which is so much more agreeable than knee-jerk reactions. I don't know that we have resolved on anything; neither of us have "switched sides." Perhaps it is enough that you are willing to qualify your position enough to say, "I'm not sure," and I'm willing to say that I want to know more before I condemn the man entirely.

It would be nice to follow any of these mediums around -- like Mr. Fry, or John Edward -- for an extended period of time, making transcripts of their sessions, getting in-depth interviews with their subjects (before and after the reading), and getting an expert in to watch his techniques. Then maybe we could begin to get at the truth of the matter, since a test is obviously out of the question.

If it is any comfort to you, I have forever impeached my own credibility with some here, by having a religious affiliation (I am Presbyterian). We'll eventually know who's right, one way or the other; I guess patience is what is needed.

I have not had occasion to speak at length with DeBunk, so I do not feel it appropriate for me to address his behavior. As for TBK, well, he's no more a scientific mind than the most out-there New Ager. Just because he's takes the name "sceptic" doesn't mean he isn't arguing as blindly and stubbornly as any believer.

[Clancie]

Hi Jallenecs,

I see the thread seems to be wrapping up, but I hope you won't mind a quick question from me, since you seem like a reasonable new poster here.

I'm interested that you are a Presbyterian. And, if you don't mind commenting on mediumship from your point of view as a Christian , I'd appreciate it. (Just fyi, I'm an atheist, and by many accounts here, a notorious woo-woo due to my idea that "there might be something to mediumship.")

Here's my question and its not for argument's sake; it really interests me.

I understand why atheists would think mediumship is all bunk. If "dead is dead" then there's nothing to communicate with anyway.

But one of the main tenets of Christianity is that there actually is life after death, and soul survival. Not only that, but the Bible offers many accounts, particularly related to the life of Jesus, in which spirits are said to communicate with humans--sometimes directly (ADC) and sometimes through a human intermediary or "medium".

So....my question is....for someone who already believes in an afterlife and soul survival, why would the idea of mediumship seem so implausible? I mean, apart from those Christians who think that humans shouldn't communicate with the deceased (not that its impossible, what is the big deal about spirit communication?

Do you feel that it could be possible to communicate with the deceased, but you just haven't seen evidence that anyone actually does do it? Or, like some skeptics, do you think the idea of spirit communication is definitely ridiculous nonsense? (And, if the latter, from a Christian point of view, why would that be true?)

Just curious, as I've asked several Christians this before, but never seem able to understand why someone would believe in an afterlife and survival of consciousness and yet object so strenously to the possibility of communication of spirits with the living.

[jallenecs]

I would be happy to address your questions, though I am not sure that I am qualified to assuage your curiosity. I am no theologian.

But perhaps this particular thread is not the place to address it. Perhaps the religious forum is more appropriate? I shall go there immediately and open a thread to that effect, if that is good with you.

With your permission, I will post this last post of yours to that new forum, and then answer in another post, just for the sake of smooth continuity; is that acceptable?

[Clancie]

Hi Jallenecs,

Well, it doesn't matter to me, although I'd be surprised if it seems a better fit in "Religion and Philosphy" than in "Paranormal" But, I guess it doesn't matter, as someone can always move it back here easily enough, if it isn't....

[jallenecs]

Check "Mediumship vs. Religion" in the Religion and Philosophy section.

[Garrette]

jallenecs

The question in my mind is, knowing that you'll never know for sure if it's the real thing, or a fake, what do you do now? My position is, "I think he's a fake, but I don't know that for sure." Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume the posture, "I think he's for real, but I don't know that for sure."

--snip--

A classic sceptic does not, as certain stroking maniacs in this forum believe, take the posture of "Nothing's real, and I'll be a jerk about it." A classic sceptic says, "I don't know, and therefore will reserve judgement, and thereby my endorsement, until I know for sure."


On the surface, this seems a reasonable position, but it does not hold unless you believe that experience counts for nothing.

In a historical vacuum, one in which the observer has no knowledge of past theories and speculations nor of their explanatory success or failure, your stance is not only a reasonable position but the only reasonable position.

But we are not in a historical vaccum, and we do have knowledge of past theories and speculations and their explanatory successes and failures.

There is not one reliable example of the paranormal. There are, of course, things that have not been fully explained, but that is far from the same thing.

More tellingly, there is not one coherent theory of the paranormal or any aspect of it. If you follow the JE threads you will see the inconsistencies and backflips performed in the posts of the believers; none agree on exactly what is happening or by what mechanism; even JE himself is inconsistent. The same applies to others.

What is the theory about what Colin Fry is doing? What can he do, with what degree of accuracy, under what circumstances? Fry will not attempt to explain it and showme2 can't (or hasn't, at any rate).

I realize that you think it's childish to use extreme examples, but they are not really so extreme after all, so I will risk another:

If Colin Fry did everything he has done to date, but instead of claiming that he got his information from spirits of the deceased he claimed that he got it from an invisible pink unicorn living in his garage, would you--or any 'real' skeptic--be obliged to take a noncommittal position?

Would I--to be considered a 'real' skeptic--need to say "I think he's a loon, but I'm not sure," or could I just say "He's a loon?"

What about the end-of-the-earthers? Must I say they might be right when they say the world will end in 2012 based on interpretations of the Mayan calendar (or on Revelations when the Mayan theory is debunked or on Druidic prophecy when that is debunked) or can I just say at the outset "Bunk"?

Let Colin Fry and showme2 provide some reliable history and some coherent theory first. When they do that, they will be entitled to claim The Right of "Maybe." Until then, they have to work to earn it.

Just my two dinar.

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly, Garrette. Great post. It does amaze me that believers don't even see the flaws in their own logic. Circular arguments, appeals to ignorance and emotional appeals make up 90% of their paranormal beliefs. Flawed experiences make up the other 10.

[jallenecs]

I don't think it's childish to use extreme examples. I think it's childish to be cruel, mocking, and unkind. I do not know De_Bunk's motivation in this thread, but if it was anything like TBK's statement to me last night,

I've managed to poke fun at, insult and degrade believers. Those are my accomplishments. You might not like my achievements. I, however, accomplish my goals,

then I question his point at all.

I find that I cannot make any headway in a debate if I go into it shouting "Fraud" and "Idiot." Showme is aware of the history of fraud in the paranormal, as well as I am. He stated as much himself. If he were not aware, then he is sure to learn it quite quickly here. I, too, am also aware, and that is part of why I don't believe in it.

It is my personal position that Mr. Fry is a fraud. I haven't SEEN him, but history is against him. I made no secret of that, to Showme or anybody else. But I refuse to be The Authority, or the Thought Police, on something that I have not witnessed personally, not because I believe I'm wrong, but because I feel it would be hubris on my part (that is NOT a value judgement on anybody else who might feel/act differently; this is how MY conscience and I get along).

It is not my position to MAKE Showme, or anybody else, produce evidence for their position, because, frankly, second-hand evidence, received anonymously on an internet BBS counts for little. And I did not need evidence for the purposes of our discussion. If we were talking about evidence, then I would have.

But we were talking about the possibility of doubt. And that is entirely within the realm of the mind, and I feel we managed well enough.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think it's childish to use extreme examples. I think it's childish to be cruel, mocking, and unkind. I do not know De_Bunk's motivation in this thread, but if it was anything like TBK's statement to me last night, then I question his point at all.

Ad-hominem, you should really address the point instead of attacking the motivation.

I find that I cannot make any headway in a debate if I go into it shouting "Fraud" and "Idiot." Showme is aware of the history of fraud in the paranormal, as well as I am. He stated as much himself. If he were not aware, then he is sure to learn it quite quickly here. I, too, am also aware, and that is part of why I don't believe in it.

The difference is that ShowMe is arrogant enough to think that he and his wife could not be fooled by Fry. They seem to think that their personal experience is evidence enough that Fry is a real medium. There is an emotional need involved there where reason and logic play no part.

It is my personal position that Mr. Fry is a fraud.

Not just your personal position, but the position of reality.

I haven't SEEN him, but history is against him. I made no secret of that, to Showme or anybody else. But I refuse to be The Authority, or the Thought Police, on something that I have not witnessed personally, not because I believe I'm wrong, but because I feel it would be hubris on my part (that is NOT a value judgement on anybody else who might feel/act differently; this is how MY conscience and I get along).

That's your choice. I, however, will continue to point out the fallacy and fiction of the paranormal. It's not "my personal position" that mediumship doesn't exist, it's a fact.

It is not my position to MAKE Showme, or anybody else, produce evidence for their position, because, frankly, second-hand evidence, received anonymously on an internet BBS counts for little.

They can't even produce first-hand evidence. They refuse to understand that their mediums evade scientific testing. They refuse to question their beliefs.

And I did not need evidence for the purposes of our discussion. If we were talking about evidence, then I would have.

The purpose of your discussion seems purposeless.

But we were talking about the possibility of doubt. And that is entirely within the realm of the mind, and I feel we managed well enough.

You've instilled no doubt upon the believers in here.

[fsol]

Colin Fry doesn't do cold reading? Not my experience of him I am afraid. I am sure I saw him on a program about psychics not so long ago. They showed a one to one reading between him and a lady who had been told how cold reading works. The result? When faced with a sitter who doesn't give him information, he fails to produce any information about the sitter. Why must those pesky spirits insist on making mediums look like idiots?

[jallenecs]

If you have anything to say to me, Infant, please address it to the Flame Forum.

Thank you.

[thaiboxerken]

You can go ahead and admit that you can't find fallacy in my arguements, Jallenecs. We can also let your silence on the matter speak for you.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You can go ahead and admit that you can't find fallacy in my arguements, Jallenecs. We can also let your silence on the matter speak for you.

What fallacy? I can't find an actual ARGUMENT in your statements. There is only abuse.

The fallacy -- and your sacred cow, by the way -- is that you think you're actually impressing anybody with this act.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by jallenecs


What fallacy? I can't find an actual ARGUMENT in your statements. There is only abuse.

The fallacy -- and your sacred cow, by the way -- is that you think you're actually impressing anybody with this act.

No sacred cow here, I am not here to impress anybody. There is no act going on either. You are as bad as a believer, you see things that just aren't there.

ShowMe is still delusional with no doubts about Colin Fry.

[thaiboxerken]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by showme2
jallenecs
We appear to have crossed posts.
But, yes, I'm still with you, and I don't disagree with anything you have said.
Of COURSE there are charlatans ... there always have been, ever since the Fox sisters in 1848.

Actually longer than that.


That doesn't mean that ALL mediums are charlatans, any more than all financial advisers are charlatans (though most are).

Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.

Personally, I have seen the evidence I want, and it convinced me.

Your own personal delusion and arrogance. You are unable to accept the fact that you can be fooled.

It obviously won't convince anyone else, and I don't expect it to do so.

Yet, here you are trying to convince us.

[showme2]

TBK
"""Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.""""

Well, that is as classic an example of illogical conclusion-reaching as I have seen on any forum. So THAT's how "scientifically you reach conclusions is it ? I pity you.

""""Your own personal delusion and arrogance. You are unable to accept the fact that you can be fooled. """"
If you read the post properly - you can read, I take it? - I have accepted the possibility that I could be fooled, though I regard it as extremely unlikely and have that I have not been fooled.

""""It obviously won't convince anyone else, and I don't expect it to do so.

Yet, here you are trying to convince us.""""
Absolutely wrong, I'm not trying yo convince YOU of anything. Why the hell should I care what YOU think ?

Try to calm down and don't get so angry. You'll develop high blood pressure if you carry on as you are.


__________________

[thaiboxerken]

TBK
"""Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.""""

Well, that is as classic an example of illogical conclusion-reaching as I have seen on any forum. So THAT's how "scientifically you reach conclusions is it ? I pity you.

Yes, scientific conclusions are dependant on science. There is no science to validate the claims of mediums.


If you read the post properly - you can read, I take it? - I have accepted the possibility that I could be fooled, though I regard it as extremely unlikely and have that I have not been fooled.

In other words, you don't believe you were fooled and have no doubts.


Absolutely wrong, I'm not trying yo convince YOU of anything. Why the hell should I care what YOU think ?

Because you want others to catch your insanity, that way you won't feel like your beliefs are weird.

Try to calm down and don't get so angry. You'll develop high blood pressure if you carry on as you are.

LOL. I am hardly angry. I am a bit disturbed by the fact that you are not alone in your delusions of spirits. Oh well, maybe natural selection will get to you yet.

[showme2]

TBK
I would not get into a philosophical debate because you are plainly not up to it ....

--- """Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.""""

Yes, scientific conclusions are dependant on science. There is no science to validate the claims of mediums. " ----

Nobody said anything about "scientifically". I was talking about logic and rational conclusion-reaching. And there is no logical or rational link between your statement "No-one has been validated" and your conclusion that ergo they must all be frauds. You can rationally conclude that ONLY when they have ALL been tested.
(But, as you admit and complain about, they have not all been tested. Therefore your conclusion cannot but be false and illogical.) Logic and "science" are not the same thing.

Enjoyable though this conversation is, I am now off to the pub for a pint or two of excellent British beer.

Keep your spirits up !

[thaiboxerken]

TBK
I would not get into a philosophical debate because you are plainly not up to it ....

Nope, I'm more into this topic of the paranormal.


Nobody said anything about "scientifically". I was talking about logic and rational conclusion-reaching. And there is no logical or rational link between your statement "No-one has been validated" and your conclusion that ergo they must all be frauds. You can rationally conclude that ONLY when they have ALL been tested.

Ah, but my negative assertion is the default position. Until ONE medium has been proven not to be a fraud, they all should be considered frauds. The reason is because many have been shown to be frauds and none have shown to be otherwise. Those that haven't been shown to be frauds have simply evaded testing. One would have to redefine known sciences to accept that a medium could be real, that's why it is not a logical fallacy to state that mediums must be charlatans since none have proven to be real.

Mediums are frauds is as logical of a statement as "pixies don't exist on earth". Even though every concievable place on earth hasn't been explored, it's logical to assume pixies don't exist simply because they haven't turned out in ANY place that people have claimed to see them.

[showme2]

TBK
Ah ! - but once the Pixies have turned up (as have the mediums) you cannot presume that Pixies do not exist until you have tested them all and concluded that they are not Pixies but something else.
THAT is logic and rationality. Not your pseudo-scientific "default position".
(Besides, you were arguing with jallenecs only recently that it was improper to have a default position ! You cannot know either way until it has been tested and proven one way or the other, you were asserting. Do try to be consistent.)

I would not put too much faith in your "science" I'm afraid, because too many blunders have been made by scientists.
One of them said "You will never get energy from the atom" just before the dawning of the atomic age.
Now what was name? .... oh yes - some fella called Einstein!

But you're keeping me away from the pub and some different kind of spirits ..... I'll have a large Scotch for you while I'm there.

[showme2]

TBK
Well, I've had my couple of pints of beer and two Scotches and am disappointed by the lack of any rational response from you to my last post.

All I can say is that I'm impressed by the silence.

Goodnight !

[Aussie Thinker]

Showme2,

If the following is true(and it is)

“The only explanation we EVER have for ANYTHING is a natural one”

Therefore the default position is no supernatural.

This is a “neutral” position or NO Default position.. therefore TBK’s “no default position” assertion is correct.

I can never fathom why people give the supernatural any credence when it has not even the faintest glimmer of proof or evidence…

Why do they have this burning NEED for the Supernatural to exist ???

[showme2]

"" ---- If the following is true(and it is)

“The only explanation we EVER have for ANYTHING is a natural one” ----"

Yes, no argument. That is self-evident.
But you seem to believe that you understand the whole of the "natural" world by applying science to it - or more accurately physics.

And history proves that such an assertion is fallacious in the extreme.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Showme2,

If the following is true(and it is)

“The only explanation we EVER have for ANYTHING is a natural one”

Therefore the default position is no supernatural.

This is a “neutral” position or NO Default position.. therefore TBK’s “no default position” assertion is correct.

I can never fathom why people give the supernatural any credence when it has not even the faintest glimmer of proof or evidence…

Why do they have this burning NEED for the Supernatural to exist ???

Tradition. Fear (of death, of loss, of the wholly capricious and often cruel actions of nature) Grief, self-aggrandisement (I know something that you don't -- or, I am one of the chosen, the elect) moral bankruptcy (morals MUST come from a Higher Authority than Man). Delusion. Fraud.

Those are just some, but generally, as Hume says in his Enquiry, people conduct their lives for the most part governed by custom and nature, not reason.

malc

[The Mighty Thor]

I note that the believers here assume they are intellectually superior to the sceptics.

Methinks they doth protest too much!

The believers in paranormal phenomena have the burden of proof. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required.

Should we believe an extraordinary claim rather than that a man might be deceived or be lying about an experience? No.

As a Presbyterian, jallinecs will probably believe that he is predestined for Grace. He was 'chosen' to be one of the elect. He was not an accident of birth. He will probably also believe in 'the laying on of hands'.

So, it is no surprise that he believes in 'spirits'.

malc

[Garrette]

showme2

Ah ! - but once the Pixies have turned up (as have the mediums) you cannot presume that Pixies do not exist until you have tested them all and concluded that they are not Pixies but something else

Almost agreed. The problem is that neithe pixies nor mediums have shown up.

What has shown up is a bunch of claims.

Sticking with the pixie analogy, we have lots of people saying:
"I have pixies! Believe me!"

Some of the pixie claimants have been obviously debunked.

A few claim to have been proven but upon scrutiny the tests show obvious flaws (ala John Edward and Gary Swartz).

A few from a century or so ago have left intriguing documentation by some investigators. One could reasonably conclude that some of the investigators were in collusion, and that other investigators were unsuitable for the task.

A couple have passed the testing such as it was, or so it would seem. (I'm thinking Daniel Douglas Home). But that's one or two in what are still unconclusive tests from over a century ago; there are no equivalent cases for the present or recent past.

The majority avoid any testing, like Colin Fry.

They haven't earned a default position of doubt or "maybe" any more than the neverending legion of dowsers have earned it.

A lot of claimants to mediumship does not equal credibility.

[showme2]

Malcolm

"I note that the believers here assume they are intellectually superior to the sceptics."

Where do you "note" that from ?

I'm not aware that ANY non-sceptic has made a claim to intellectual superiority. Quite the reverse, in fact. It is (some of) the sceptics who are constantly alleging such intellectual superiority by poo-hooing what others say as ridiculous.

[showme2]

472

I won't normally get into line-by-line debates because they usually simply cause confusion and get nobody anywhere. But this particular post is extremely sensible and worthy of comment.

""""Almost agreed. The problem is that neithe pixies nor mediums have shown up.
What has shown up is a bunch of claims.""""

Almost agreed again. However I am not aware of any Pixies having turned up, but plenty of those claiming to be mediums have. Rationally, you cannot say that because some have been proved fraudulent, they all must be.


""""Some of the pixie claimants have been obviously debunked. """
You mean the medium claimants I think. If so I agree. Indeed MANY of the medium claimants have been exposed as false.

"""""A few claim to have been proven but upon scrutiny the tests show obvious flaws (ala John Edward and Gary Swartz).""""
I agree about Edward. He is giving the distinct impression of Cold Reading at least some of the time.

""""A few from a century or so ago have left intriguing documentation by some investigators. One could reasonably conclude that some of the investigators were in collusion, and that other investigators were unsuitable for the task.""""

Agree with the first part. But your conclusion is neither logical nor rational but unsupported assumption. The "scientific testing" so promoted by sceptics has no place for unsupported asumptions and irrational conclusions.

""""A couple have passed the testing such as it was, or so it would seem. (I'm thinking Daniel Douglas Home). But that's one or two in what are still unconclusive tests from over a century ago; there are no equivalent cases for the present or recent past.""""
Agree with the first part. Leslie Flint was another.
Also agree with the second part. Tests around 100 years ago are probably not to be relied upon.

""""The majority avoid any testing, like Colin Fry.""""
I believe that Colin Fry has agreed to testing, provided that the testers will devote the same amount of time to testing that mediums devote to developing their talents - about 10 years. No takers! He won't agree to any testing by partial sceptics, and certainly not by James Randi et al who have a vested financial interest in producing negative results.

""""They haven't earned a default position of doubt or "maybe" any more than the neverending legion of dowsers have earned it."""
Depends entirely on how you assess "earned". Your criteria aren't the only ones that are acceptable to everybody.

""""A lot of claimants to mediumship does not equal credibility.""""
Nobody said it did !

Nice try - a sensible post here for a change !

[thaiboxerken]

TBK
Ah ! - but once the Pixies have turned up (as have the mediums) you cannot presume that Pixies do not exist until you have tested them all and concluded that they are not Pixies but something else.

No Pixies have ever shown up for scientific testing. Mediums are the same as Pixies, they don't show up for scientific testing. It's because both Pixies and Mediums don't exist.

THAT is logic and rationality. Not your pseudo-scientific "default position".

Hardly, logic dictates that if all there is are stories and anecdotes.. then one should not assume something exists. In fact, one should assume such a thing doesn't exist, since it defies the laws of physics.

(Besides, you were arguing with jallenecs only recently that it was improper to have a default position ! You cannot know either way until it has been tested and proven one way or the other, you were asserting. Do try to be consistent.)

That's your little belief. You can keep it. Default positions are the scientific ones.

I would not put too much faith in your "science" I'm afraid, because too many blunders have been made by scientists.
One of them said "You will never get energy from the atom" just before the dawning of the atomic age.
Now what was name? .... oh yes - some fella called Einstein!

No faith involved in science, just evidence. Oh, that scientists that said "you wil l never" changed his mind after shown evidence. You, however, won't change your mind, despite the evidence. Colin Fry was caught cheating, and you still believe he's a medium.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by showme2
TBK
Well, I've had my couple of pints of beer and two Scotches and am disappointed by the lack of any rational response from you to my last post.

All I can say is that I'm impressed by the silence.

Goodnight !

If you take a look around the forum, I haven't posted anything since you went to the pub. It amazes me how silly believers think that everyone else is on their schedule. Ever consider that maybe I was at a pub and went to bed afterwards?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by showme2
Malcolm

"I note that the believers here assume they are intellectually superior to the sceptics."

Where do you "note" that from ?

I'm not aware that ANY non-sceptic has made a claim to intellectual superiority. Quite the reverse, in fact. It is (some of) the sceptics who are constantly alleging such intellectual superiority by poo-hooing what others say as ridiculous.

You've placed your flawed experiences above science. That arrogance shows that you believe yourself to be infallible and above skepticism.

[thaiboxerken]

I believe that Colin Fry has agreed to testing, provided that the testers will devote the same amount of time to testing that mediums devote to developing their talents - about 10 years. No takers! He won't agree to any testing by partial sceptics, and certainly not by James Randi et al who have a vested financial interest in producing negative results.

Wow, no takers for a 10 year experiment on Colin Fry's powers?! LOL. You must be really, really naive to think that Colin Fry's intentions are geniune. 10 years is alot of money, would Colin Fry fund the research himself? How would Colin Fry repay the 10 years of life back to a scientists if he's found to be fraudulent? A 10 year study is unnecessary to test Colin Fry's superpowers, Colin Fry's claimed powers don't take 10 years to manifest. Do seances last 10 years? Have you personally experienced Colin Fry's powers for 10 years? Why does Colin Fry demand about a decade more of devotion from scientists than he doesn his followers? Does Colin Fry advertise to new recruit believers "in 10 years, you'll be a believer" or is it more like "see me once and you'll believe"?

There is no financial gain for Randi to waste, what could be, the last 10 years of his life chasing white rabbits. Colin Fry's demand is an evasion, not a protocol. You are a fool for seeing it as anything but an evasion.

I can shoot lasers out of my eyes. Don't believe me? Well, test me for 10 years and find out.

[RonSceptic]

Think about a 400 year old cottage. If anyone wants to check out the walls for evidence of subsidence I guess they must spend 400 years researching subsidence first. Right?:rolleyes:

I am trying to resist the temptation to be abusive, because I realise that it can be counter productive, but I have to say that anyone that swallows the Colin Fry '10 year' crap really needs their head examined. It takes credulity to an entirely new level.

I have been working in my profession, as a member of a highly prestigious professional body, for almost 20 years. Does anyone really think you would need 20 years of experience to be able to determin whether or not I am what I claim to be ?

Get real.

[showme2]

TBK
"""You, however, won't change your mind, despite the evidence. Colin Fry was caught cheating, and you still believe he's a medium."""

Oh good - back to the point.
NO evidence has been produced that Colin Fry has ever cheated.
The result of the investigations of Scole were "inconclusive but concious fraud was unlikely".

So where is your scientific evidence ? And let's have something from the other 25 years. Surely he couldn't fool everyone for 26 years and get caught only ONCE?

SHOWME your evidence and I will believe it - IF it is conclusive - by which I mean "points to a particular conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, rather than the sceptics' insistence on "elimiates ALL other possibilities" which can NEVER be done.

But all you have is - pardon the overused sceptic expression - "anecdotal". That seems to be satisfactory evidence when trying to rubbish Fry's talents, but not satisfactory to establish them

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by showme2
TBK
"""You, however, won't change your mind, despite the evidence. Colin Fry was caught cheating, and you still believe he's a medium."""

Oh good - back to the point.
NO evidence has been produced that Colin Fry has ever cheated.
The result of the investigations of Scole were "inconclusive but concious fraud was unlikely".

So where is your scientific evidence ? And let's have something from the other 25 years. Surely he couldn't fool everyone for 26 years and get caught only ONCE?

SHOWME your evidence and I will believe it - IF it is conclusive - by which I mean "points to a particular conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, rather than the sceptics' insistence on "elimiates ALL other possibilities" which can NEVER be done.

But all you have is - pardon the overused sceptic expression - "anecdotal". That seems to be satisfactory evidence when trying to rubbish Fry's talents, but not satisfactory to establish them


I would suggest that the burden of proof is on Fry. He is the one claiming that he is able to communicate with the dead. As it is, he is not willing to submit to testing without a ridiculous pre condition.

Incidentaly, as Randi has been investigating aspects of the paranormal for at least 20 years he would certainly fit this condition but I suppose ther are other reasons why Fry won't be tested by Randi. Yeah, sure.

Wake up and smell the coffee, man.

[showme2]

There is absolutely NOTHING, other than the will to do it, preventing James Randi from attending a 3-month tour of Colin Fry's all over the UK, recording events as a transcript, and then publishing his conclusions - supported, of course, by rational argument for them.

Why hasn't he done it ?

Too busy ?

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by showme2

Oh good - back to the point.
NO evidence has been produced that Colin Fry has ever cheated.
The result of the investigations of Scole were "inconclusive but concious fraud was unlikely".

Let's see. Fry caugh red handed waving a trumpet. So either he is a fraud, or there is some michievous dead spirit invading his body and making him act that way. Mmm. Golly, that's a tough one.

And that is not 'evidence' of cheating. So if I am filmed shooting someone dead, and claim that in fact I was invaded by a naughy spirit, then there is 'no evidence' that I committed murder?

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by showme2
There is absolutely NOTHING, other than the will to do it, preventing James Randi from attending a 3-month tour of Colin Fry's all over the UK, recording events as a transcript, and then publishing his conclusions - supported, of course, by rational argument for them.

Why hasn't he done it ?

Too busy ?

The Randi test would take Fry a couple of days. What's wrong? Too busy?

Don't shift the burden of proof. What Fry and the other so called mediums do can be adequately explained and replicated by a combination of cold and hot reading.

If they want to prove otherwise then agreeing a test with Randi would be a pretty easy way of doing so.

So why no takers?

[showme2]

Ronsceptic

On oversimplification of the extremely confused and complex events at Scole 10 years ago rests the whole of your argument.

I can understand your desire for oversimplification, because without it you have nothing.
But it still won't wash as the basis for a case.

It is not even clear whether the trumpet was in his hand.
Unless, of course, you were there. And then there are others who were there who will assure you that it wasn't, and that it fell down on top of him.

No "scientist" would accept the conflicting evidence from Scole as supporting any conclusion. If he did, then it is the scientist who would be accused of fraud.

Bye Bye now for a while. I've got a business to run here !

[thaiboxerken]

Oh good - back to the point.
NO evidence has been produced that Colin Fry has ever cheated.
The result of the investigations of Scole were "inconclusive but concious fraud was unlikely".

That's BS, he was caught red-handed in the act. It takes a very gullible person to believe that he unconsciouscly had the roped tied in a way that he could undo them, stood up on the table and started to simulate floating trumpets.

So where is your scientific evidence ? And let's have something from the other 25 years. Surely he couldn't fool everyone for 26 years and get caught only ONCE?

Colin won't submit himself to scientific testing. He was caught cheating once, however.

SHOWME your evidence and I will believe it - IF it is conclusive - by which I mean "points to a particular conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, rather than the sceptics' insistence on "elimiates ALL other possibilities" which can NEVER be done.

It is self-evident that Colin was cheating in that incident.


But all you have is - pardon the overused sceptic expression - "anecdotal". That seems to be satisfactory evidence when trying to rubbish Fry's talents, but not satisfactory to establish them

The "anecdote" doesn't defy the laws of physics in anyway, in this instance. One would have to set reality aside to think that Colin wasn't cheating, in that case.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by showme2

It is not even clear whether the trumpet was in his hand.
Unless, of course, you were there. And then there are others who were there who will assure you that it wasn't, and that it fell down on top of him.

No "scientist" would accept the conflicting evidence from Scole as supporting any conclusion. If he did, then it is the scientist who would be accused of fraud.

Bye Bye now for a while. I've got a business to run here !

LOL. Of course the scientist would be accused of fraud, by Colin Fry. Oh, and I know of a lady on PalTalk that was there, she said most people there were very upset at Colin Fry that day. I guess they were upset that Colin couldn't control the spirits. :rolleyes:

You have TBS, True-Believer-Syndrome, if Colin Fry came out and said that his years as a medium were all fraudulent, you wouldn't believe him. You think he was forced by some conspiracy group or spirits to say it. It's very sad that people, like you, prefer to see the world as they want it to be rather than what it really is.

You have no doubt that there are spirits and no doubt that Colin Fry is a medium, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support your beliefs.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by showme2
On oversimplification of the extremely confused and complex events at Scole 10 years ago rests the whole of your argument.


Not at all. That was simply one highly suggestive incident. My case rests on many things, including the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Fry or any other medium can demonstrate anything which can not be replicated by cold or hot reading, and that they refuse to submit to properly controlled testing.

I hope that any believers in Mediumship in the UK saw the Secrets of The Psychics show on Channel 5 on Friday 10th October. Alastair Cook gave a highly impressive demostation of how a good magician is every bit as convinving as so called TV mediums. The show even featured some clips of Fry for good measure!

On that show one commentator said that 'Medium' sums up these guys, ie it's not very well done, and it is hardly rare these days.:)

[showme2]

TBK
"Poll posted in Flame Wars section regarding my ability to post rational and valid arguments. Please vote."


Yes, that's rather like asking 100 members of the Labour Party whether they think it might be a good idea to vote Labour at the next election !

If you expect detailed replies from me, don't pander to the Flame Wars section because their "vote" doesn't count.
Mine does, and in that respect I am a Committee of ONE.

I have held the vote. You lost !

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by showme2
Yes, that's rather like asking 100 members of the Labour Party whether they think it might be a good idea to vote Labour at the next election !

True. But think how confusing it would be to ask 100 members of the Tory party which way they might vote right now! Or MP's come to that.;)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by showme2
TBK
"Poll posted in Flame Wars section regarding my ability to post rational and valid arguments. Please vote."


Yes, that's rather like asking 100 members of the Labour Party whether they think it might be a good idea to vote Labour at the next election !

If you expect detailed replies from me, don't pander to the Flame Wars section because their "vote" doesn't count.
Mine does, and in that respect I am a Committee of ONE.

I have held the vote. You lost !

Oh, well now our vote doesn't count? Because you're right and we're wrong? The cracks in your demeanor are showing.
Although, you're turning out to be as cute as Mayflower, in your own way. :cs:

[showme2]

Suezoled

Yep, when the vote is on whether I shall debate with TBK or DeBunk, (or anyone else) there's only ONE vote that counts - mine. And I judge it mostly on manners. Sorry !

RonSceptic
Yeah, I did actually watch "Psychics' Secrets Revealed" - have done since it started.
If one is going to be exposed to possible cheating, it's as well to know how it might be done.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


You've placed your flawed experiences above science. That arrogance shows that you believe yourself to be infallible and above skepticism.

A bit of synchronicity there, TB. I was just about to post that his arrogance was only surpassed by his ability to err.

The tone of his posts is certainly dismissive, overbearing, and doctrinaire. Another woo woo with an axe to grind.

Colin Fry is an illiterate bungler and anyone convinced by his sham must be self-deluded.

Nice one.

malc

[showme2]

"You've placed your flawed experiences above science. That arrogance shows that you believe yourself to be infallible and above skepticism. "

You have no knowledge whatever of my experiences. Ergo you cannot know whether or not they are flawed.

I have already acknowledged that I do not claim infallibility.

Science and scepticism are far from the same thing.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by showme2
Suezoled

Yep, when the vote is on whether I shall debate with TBK or DeBunk, (or anyone else) there's only ONE vote that counts - mine. And I judge it mostly on manners. Sorry !



So, if the poll comes up with most answers of "NO", you won't gloat?

[showme2]

TBK
Is that a question or a plea ?

No, I won't gloat ......

...... much !

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by showme2
TBK
Is that a question or a plea ?

No, I won't gloat ......

...... much !

This goes to show that you only acknowledge those things that validate your beliefs. If the poll says YES, you will say it doesn't count. If it says NO, you'll applaud it and probably refer to it in future posts.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by showme2
Suezoled

Yep, when the vote is on whether I shall debate with TBK or DeBunk, (or anyone else) there's only ONE vote that counts - mine. And I judge it mostly on manners. Sorry !


Who's taking a vote on whether you will debate or not? All I see is the poll in Flame Wars asking if TBK has ever made a good argument.

And judging on manners means you're missing out on a lot. I guess it would be okay to fool someone as long as they were polite about it? Feh. For all you advocate politeness and respect, you don't maintain it. You insult and then expect people to be kind to you anyway. You stack the deck. You appeal to pity.

You have no knowledge whatever of my experiences. Ergo you cannot know whether or not they are flawed.


Ah, the "you know nothing about me so you can't judge me I'm a unique person and my experiences are special" tact. I really don't think anyone needs to know anything about you. From the statements you make and the subject matter you use and defend, it's pretty plain what your viewpoint is.

Ah, I see with TBK's poll. One popular vote is "proof." 1000 inconclusive or negative results is a flawed study.

[showme2]

TBK
"This goes to show that you only acknowledge those things that validate your beliefs. If the poll says YES, you will say it doesn't count. If it says NO, you'll applaud it and probably refer to it in future posts."

Don't get paranoid before the vote is even in !
I don't actually give a stuff about the vote, and I promise I won't rub your nose in it if it doesn't give you the endorsement you desperately crave.
(We British don't kick a fellow when he's down, old chap, dontcha know?)

[showme2]

Suezoled

Oh come on ... please try to keep up. You've only got on poster to keep track of in this so-called debate, while I have to respond to at least 6.

"""Who's taking a vote on whether you will debate or not? All I see is the poll in Flame Wars asking if TBK has ever made a good argument. """"

Check back. Nobody except me is voting on whether I choose to respond or not to TBK, DEBunk, you, or anyone else.

"For all you advocate politeness and respect, you don't maintain it. You insult and then expect people to be kind to you anyway."

I don't expect anyone on this forum to "be kind" to me - though I have encountered more manners and civility from a notable few than I was led to expect.
Like most other people, I tend to return what I receive in kind.
Thus, if you are gratuitously insulting or abusive, I will either return that ... or ignore you, depending on my mood at the time.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by showme2
Suezoled

Oh come on ... please try to keep up. You've only got on poster to keep track of in this so-called debate, while I have to respond to at least 6.

"""Who's taking a vote on whether you will debate or not? All I see is the poll in Flame Wars asking if TBK has ever made a good argument. """"

Check back. Nobody except me is voting on whether I choose to respond or not to TBK, DEBunk, you, or anyone else.

*******Oh, so I didn't miss anything. Add straw man to your deck stacking and appeal to pity.**********

"For all you advocate politeness and respect, you don't maintain it. You insult and then expect people to be kind to you anyway."

I don't expect anyone on this forum to "be kind" to me - though I have encountered more manners and civility from a notable few than I was led to expect.
Like most other people, I tend to return what I receive in kind.
Thus, if you are gratuitously insulting or abusive, I will either return that ... or ignore you, depending on my mood at the time.
Suezoled
Oh dear ... another moron who imagines that he's an intellectual.

********Really? What warranted this response in the De-Bunk thread saying he could levitate? I pointed out a logical fallacy, nothing abusive or insulting. *********

[Folly]

What would it take to convince you, showme? Just to be clear what I'm asking, I don't mean a general answer about irrefutable evidence, I mean something specific.

I assume if Colin Fry up and said, "yes, it's all been a bunch of tricks, I'm tired of lying about it" you would believe him. I also assume if you went to a seance carrying a little flashlight and caught him moving a trumpet painted with glow in the dark paint, you would doubt Colin's powers as a medium. What else would do it for you?

[espritch]

Folly:
What would it take to convince you, showme?

Several posters have asked this question in one form or another. Showme2 has simply ignored it so far. I don't expect this will change anytime soon.

I assume if Colin Fry up and said, "yes, it's all been a bunch of tricks, I'm tired of lying about it" you would believe him. I also assume if you went to a seance carrying a little flashlight and caught him moving a trumpet painted with glow in the dark paint, you would doubt Colin's powers as a medium.

I'd have to say, based on his respone to questions about the Scole event, that if either of these things happened, showme2 would just declare an evil spirit had possessed Colin Fry and caused him to behave that way and take is as more "proof" that Colin Fry is a real psychic. A hard core believer will swallow just about any kind of nonsense to protect his belief system.

P.S. Welcome to the board. :)

[showme2]

Hello Folly

What would it take to "convince me" ?
I am already convinced !
However, I assume from your followup questions that you mean "What would convince me that Colin Fry is a fraud?"

It's a fair question, and it is asked in the right "spirit", if you'll pardon the word (!) So I will answer it fully.

First you ask "If Fry stood up and said "Sorry guys and gals, but I'm fed up lying about it and I've cheated all along", would I accept that he was a fraud ?

The answer is somewhat obvious, isn't it?
OF COURSE I would totally accept what he said ... and I would then turn on him with a venom that was wondrous to behold.
But let's keep it real; that ain't gonna happen is it?

So what else would convince me that he was a fraud?

Any number of circumstances .....

If I turned up at two of his "live" 2-3 hour demonstrations and saw the same faces receiving readings ....

If I analysed his TV readings on a continuous basis (as I do) and concluded that he was Cold Reading (as John Edward is SOME of the time, and Van Praagh is ALL of the time - and that's seeing them at their BEST in an edited environment) ....

If I discovered that he was giving readings to 6ixth Sense Forum users which consisted of information they had revealed in advance on the Forum (and yes, of course I've checked that out!) ....

If I received any documentary evidence that he was (as Van Praagh has been accused of doing - but it's NOT proven) collecting data on people in advance of a show by getting them to answer 7 questions about who they were expecting to hear from etc ...

If I received conclusive evidence that he, or anyone who might be acting on his behalf, had secreted microphones or other "information collectors" in the Green Room before a TV show, or in the bar before a live show ...

If I was presented with any evidence that theatres or other venues were passing on information which could be gleaned from credit cards or other ticket-booking data ....

In fact ANY SIMILAR kind of evidence that ought to be available if he was doing anything that hard-nosed sceptics suggest might explain the phenomena he consistently produces.

But emphatically NOT:
"You are a twat for believing all this crud and, although I have only been around for a mere 23 years and have only just stopped wetting my nappie (diaper), in that time I have learned a lot more than you have in your 59 years, and everything you accept goes against our Great God "Science" and therefore cannot exist" ! !
THAT is not convincing argument. It is simply abuse. It doesn't impress anyone, or change anyone's mind.

I will listen with interest to the arguments of any sceptic who can put his case forward politely, respectfully, and - in the case of Americans - with the excellent manners that my close contact with Americans on account of living near several US bases leads me to expect to be the norm for them
That is precisely why I came to this forum - to see what I could learn.

Jallenecs and one or two other notable exceptions apart, American forum users have let me ... and more importantly their country and their fellow-Americans ... down.

Those are your answers.

I trust you are enlightened ? !

Is there anything I've missed that I OUGHT to be persuaded by?

[showme2]

Well espritch,

If you take the trouble to check my response to Folly, you will find that you are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WRONG.

[Loki]

showme2,

You said (much) earlier in this thread :
But you have to understand that Colin Fry and people like him have conventionally had a s**t deal from people who are interested in so-called "scientific testing".
SO why doesn't he do his own? Sorry, but this seems so simple to me :

1. I discover a "talent" in myself that seems "highly unusual".
2. Being genuine in my belief that it's real, I do a little research into the history/details of this "talent".
3. I find a rather confused situation - allegations of fraud and deception, and questions of unethical behaviour.
4. I find that the "doubters" have some simple tests they claim are "impossible" to do unless the talent is real.
5. First thing I do before I go public with this talent is I try to "pass the impossible tests" either by myself, or with the help of some friends. I either fail, in which case I start to doubt the talent is real, or I pass, in which case I'm prepared to go public and announce my talent to the world.

Surely Colin Fry has either (a) *never* tested his abilites at all, or (b) he has tried to conduct/co-operate in tests. If he's never been tested (even proivately), then I find it ridiculous that he can claim to "know" his talent is real - basically, he's too scared to put himself to the test. If he *has* been tested, and passed, then why not repeat the test for anyone who cares to see? If he's been tested (in private), and failed, then he's a fraud.

He's too scared, he's a fraud, or he's playing some silly game of "real, but prefers not to prove it". Take your pick...

[showme2]

Loki
Why are you asking me. Why don't you ask HIM ?
(I don't speak on his behalf and am not privy to all of his reasons for doing or not doing something.)

ASK HIM !
He has a website and a forum run by LivingTV.

I can assure you that, provided he is not otherwise tied up with filming or is temporarily abroad, he WILL answer you.

[Loki]

showme2,

Good point! I may just ask him.

In the meantime, what would *you think* about someone who didn't bother to conduct any testing of a supposed "talent"?

Suppose I made the claim to you that I can kick a ball (soccer for example) a minimum of 100 metres.

"How do you know you can?" you might ask.

"Because a number of people have seen me kick a ball a long way" I reply.

"So, you claim to be able to kick a ball a long way?" you ask.

"Yes, specifically, more than 100 metres" I reply.

"How do you know it's more than 100 metres?" you ask.

"I just do - look, everyone who's seen me kick says I must be kicking it at least 100 metres" I reply.

"Have you ever actually measured any of your kicks?" you ask.

"No, no need to. Everyone who watches agrees my kicks are more than 100 metres" I reply, somewhat frustrated at your continuing questions.

"So you've never actually bothered to measure a kick, yet you are 100% sure they are always over 100 metres?" you ask.

"Yes, that's correct" I reply.

"Well, surely then you'd have no problems with coming down to the specially marked field and doing a few kicks for me then. That way we can establish this claim beyond doubt. Bring your own measuring devices if you wish, and we'll double check everything" you offer.

"Sorry, not interested. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but I *know* what I can do" I fire back, as I turn a walk away.

What would *you* think of my claim? Would you assume that I can do it, or that I can't? If I took you to a (unmarked) field and kicked a ball "a long way" (which, to your eye, looked like it might be 100 metres) would you be a supporter of my claim that "all my kicks are a minimum of 100 metres"??

[thaiboxerken]

If I analysed his TV readings on a continuous basis (as I do) and concluded that he was Cold Reading (as John Edward is SOME of the time, and Van Praagh is ALL of the time - and that's seeing them at their BEST in an edited environment) ....

Hmm.. Clancie seems to think the John Edward doesn't cold read and that he's a geniune medium. I think she has also said that she believes Colin Fry is cold-reading. Now, here you are saying that Colin Fry is geniune and John Edward does cold reading "sometimes".

So, who's wrong here? Maybe you two could find some objective criteria and settle this.

[Clancie]

TBK,

Its a good sign that you're trying to post on topic these days (inspired, perhaps, by your ill-fated poll). But here's a good tip if you're aiming for rational discussions now: at least get your facts right! :rolleyes:
Posted by thaiboxerken

I think (Clancie) has also said that she believes Colin Fry is cold-reading.
I have never ever called Colin Fry a cold reader. In fact, I've never even seen his work, read a transcript of his readings.....nothing to lead me to an opinion of him as a cold reader...or not!

[espritch]

First you ask "If Fry stood up and said "Sorry guys and gals, but I'm fed up lying about it and I've cheated all along", would I accept that he was a fraud ?

The answer is somewhat obvious, isn't it?
OF COURSE I would totally accept what he said ... and I would then turn on him with a venom that was wondrous to behold.
But let's keep it real; that ain't gonna happen is it?
I must agree. That ain’t gonna happen. So your belief system is pretty safe on that count. Of course Folly also mentioned something about you going to a séance with a flashlight. And let’s face it, that ain’t never gonna happen either, because that would threaten your belief system.
If I analysed his TV readings on a continuous basis (as I do) and concluded that he was Cold Reading (as John Edward is SOME of the time, and Van Praagh is ALL of the time - and that's seeing them at their BEST in an edited environment) ....
You actually analyze his TV readings knowing full well the producers have total control over how those are edited? Why?
If I discovered that he was giving readings to 6ixth Sense Forum users which consisted of information they had revealed in advance on the Forum (and yes, of course I've checked that out!) ....
Do you ever think you are, perhaps, devoting just a little too much time to Colin Fry?
If I received any documentary evidence that he was (as Van Praagh has been accused of doing - but it's NOT proven) collecting data on people in advance of a show by getting them to answer 7 questions about who they were expecting to hear from etc ...

If I received conclusive evidence that he, or anyone who might be acting on his behalf, had secreted microphones or other "information collectors" in the Green Room before a TV show, or in the bar before a live show ...

If I was presented with any evidence that theatres or other venues were passing on information which could be gleaned from credit cards or other ticket-booking data ....
Each of these things is possible. Each is also a simpler and more likely explanation for what Mr Fry does than claiming that he speaks to dead people.

You claim you would accept such evidence as proof that Mr. Fry is a fraud if it happened to fall in your lap. But when presented with the rather damming Scole event, you just wave it away with a preposterous theory of mischievous spirits. When Mr. Fry refuses to step up to the plate and test his extraordinary claims under proper test conditions, you find excuses for that as well. I have little doubt you could find equally lame excuses for just about any evidence presented against Mr. Fry.

Fraud is not an extraordinary claim. It happens all the time. It has been frequently proven to happen amongst alleged psychics. You yourself admit Van Praagh is a cold reader. On the other hand, speaking to the dead is an extraordinary claim. And to my knowledge, there has never been a credible test demonstrating that anyone, including Mr Fry, can do it. But rather than work from the assumption that the person making the extraordinary claim needs to prove it, you work from the position that the extraordinary claim is true until definitively proven false.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Clancie
TBK,
I have never ever called Colin Fry a cold reader. In fact, I've never even seen his work, read a transcript of his readings.....nothing to lead me to an opinion of him as a cold reader...or not!



begin rational argument
I wasn't sure, that's why I said "I think". However, ShowMe still thinks that John Edward is cold-reading some of the time, where you think John Edward is a geniune medium. I don't know if ShowMe's position is that Johnny can only communicate with spirits sometimes and is dishonest only part time, but it seems that you 2 have a little disagreement about John Edward.

So, do you think you two can come up with objective criteria for determining mediumship to settle this?end rational argument

But here's a good tip if you're aiming for rational discussions now: at least get your facts right!


If I thought what I was saying was fact, I wouldn't have used "I think" to start that sentence. Looks like I'm not the only one attacking people here. Then again, you are a stupid woo-woo so I expect that kind of thing. Clancie, the queen of not making a claim.

[Clancie]

lol, TBK. I guess the "combination approach" is a start.

Seriously, if you're not sure, rather than say "I think Clancie believes this...." why not just ask? I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate me telling people, "I think TBK believes such and such..." and having my attribution be totally and completely wrong (especially as you might even miss seeing it to correct it).

Beyond that, I -do- find a bit of agreement with Showme2. I think some of what I've seen from JE is indistinguishable from cold reading (but that not -all- of it can be accounted for that way). I think -all- of what I've seen of JVP is, imo, indistinguishable from what I would expect a cold reader to be able to do.

As for Fry...well, it's disappointing that he cheated at SCOLE but Ford cheated and some quite-skeptical investigators still felt he had produced other genuinely evidential communication that could -not- have been obtained by cheating. Whether that's possible or not of Fry, unfortunately, I have no way so far to form an opinion.....

[thaiboxerken]

Beyond that, I -do- find a bit of agreement with Showme2. I think some of what I've seen from JE is indistinguishable from cold reading (but that not -all- of it can be accounted for that way). I think -all- of what I've seen of JVP is, imo, indistinguishable from what I would expect a cold reader to be able to do.

So, then... is JE just cheating sometimes because the spirits won't cooperate, or does mediumship merely look like cold reading sometimes?


As for Fry...well, it's disappointing that he cheated at SCOLE but Ford cheated and some quite-skeptical investigators still felt he had produced other genuinely evidential communication that could -not- have been obtained by cheating.

Wouldn't it make more sense to believe that Ford became a better cheater? "Skeptical" investigators can be fooled like anyone else.

Whether that's possible or not of Fry, unfortunately, I have no way so far to form an opinion.....

I do, it's called science. There is no evidence of spirits, let alone people that communicate with them. Because their powers would redefine the very laws of science, these people should submit themselves to scientific testing. Right now, even if these guys are real, they are simply keeping the door open for the frauds to make money. Don't you think objective criteria should be placed on them?

Do you have any objective criteria for determining mediumship?

[showme2]

TBK said :
"""Hmm.. Clancie seems to think the John Edward doesn't cold read and that he's a geniune medium. I think she has also said that she believes Colin Fry is cold-reading. Now, here you are saying that Colin Fry is geniune and John Edward does cold reading "sometimes".

So, who's wrong here? Maybe you two could find some objective criteria and settle this. """""


GOOD GOD ! I can hardly believe this ... a calm logical rational and constructive posting from TBK.

And a fair point made too !!!!

Well, I'm astonished. Perhaps he has learned something.
If so TBK, I congratulate you. (And no, I am NOT being facetious.)

To answer your point, though, there is never any physical evidence of Cold Reading. It is a whole range of techniques used on a sitter to give the impression of producing genuine psychic statements, when it is really being done faudulently.
There are more than 10 different angles to Cold Reading, as well as other elements like NLP, and the only way to detect that it is happening is to study the techniques yourself, and then look out for the specific techniques. (It is easier to identify them if you have a transcript of the show, rather than trying to keep up "live".)

So, whether any psychic is Cold Reading or not will always remain a matter of opinion, albeit opinion which can be supported by evidence of the CR techniqes in the transcript.

Cold Reading can be VERY convincing unless you know what uou are looking out for.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Clancie
lol, I think some of what I've seen from JE is indistinguishable from cold reading (but that not -all- of it can be accounted for that way).

And of course none of it is indistinguishable from what can be achieved by hot reading.

So it boils down to opinion. Is it more likely that a skilled perfromer has mastered the art of cold reading, with occassional assists via hot reading, or that dead people turn up on cue at in TV studios to give out vaugue hints about what letter their names start with?

You have come in for some pretty tough responses from posters here because of your stance on JE. I hope that you understand that this is, in part, due to the the depth of revulsion that sceptics feel when discussing 'mediums'.

After all, if one accepts that no spirit communication is taking place (as you apparently do with JVP), then what we are left with is a con man exploiting vunerable berieved people to make millions of dollars. That is totally reprehensible. I certainly makes me angry. Anyone that attempts to give these charlatans credibility, therefore, must expect a rough ride.

As you will remember from earlier threads, personally I don't belive that abusive behaviour progreses arguments at all. I have therefore tried to remain civil despite my disgust at what I see as downright fraud by mediums.

I have followed several of the JE threads and have to say that the only transcript that could not be satisfactoraly explained by cold reading is the one concerning the garage guy, which is so contived that it smacks of a set up.

Everything else is just cold reading. IMHO.

[Folly]

Thank you for answering, Showme, and not dismissing me based on my chaice of names. Rest assured it has nothing to do with you: I've used it for years.

You said
What would it take to "convince me" ?
I am already convinced !
However, I assume from your followup questions that you mean "What would convince me that Colin Fry is a fraud?"

Indeed.

It's a fair question, and it is asked in the right "spirit", if you'll pardon the word (!) So I will answer it fully.

First you ask "If Fry stood up and said "Sorry guys and gals, but I'm fed up lying about it and I've cheated all along", would I accept that he was a fraud ?

The answer is somewhat obvious, isn't it?
OF COURSE I would totally accept what he said ... and I would then turn on him with a venom that was wondrous to behold.
But let's keep it real; that ain't gonna happen is it?

It certainly seems pretty obvious to me, and I did assume you would think the same, but it's always nice to know. You're the first person that believes in mediums that I've talked to, Showme, and I'm rather slow and plodding in my curiousity. So in that vein...

So what else would convince me that he was a fraud?

Any number of circumstances .....

If I turned up at two of his "live" 2-3 hour demonstrations and saw the same faces receiving readings ....

Right. And you've mentioned you've been to rather a few of them, so whatever he is doing, medium or magician, it's unlikely he's reusing people to do it.

If I analysed his TV readings on a continuous basis (as I do) and concluded that he was Cold Reading (as John Edward is SOME of the time, and Van Praagh is ALL of the time - and that's seeing them at their BEST in an edited environment) ....

Okay.

If I discovered that he was giving readings to 6ixth Sense Forum users which consisted of information they had revealed in advance on the Forum (and yes, of course I've checked that out!) ....

What with possibly having access to registration information, the ability to indistinguishably add plants, and the ability to be busy with other things until I came across a good choice, this would be a sad way to muff things up.

If I received any documentary evidence that he was (as Van Praagh has been accused of doing - but it's NOT proven) collecting data on people in advance of a show by getting them to answer 7 questions about who they were expecting to hear from etc ...

And I assume no one has come forth and said that about they were asked question before one of Fry's shows.

If I received conclusive evidence that he, or anyone who might be acting on his behalf, had secreted microphones or other "information collectors" in the Green Room before a TV show, or in the bar before a live show ...

Another dead giveaway, and another sad one to mess up, with the tiny microphones available today.

If I was presented with any evidence that theatres or other venues were passing on information which could be gleaned from credit cards or other ticket-booking data ....

In fact ANY SIMILAR kind of evidence that ought to be available if he was doing anything that hard-nosed sceptics suggest might explain the phenomena he consistently produces.

Fair enough. Basically any positive evidence that he's doing a stage act, and has slipped up.

As for a Scole-like event (phrased in the way "the lights came on and Fry was holding the trumpet") can I correctly assume that it would be positive evidence as well, were there not controversy over the actual events that occurred at Scole?

But emphatically NOT:
"You are a twat for believing all this crud and, although I have only been around for a mere 23 years and have only just stopped wetting my nappie (diaper), in that time I have learned a lot more than you have in your 59 years, and everything you accept goes against our Great God "Science" and therefore cannot exist" ! !
THAT is not convincing argument. It is simply abuse. It doesn't impress anyone, or change anyone's mind.

Abuse isn't a very good argument, no. Be careful dismissing science though: it's really only based on the assumption that the world behaves in an observable and repeatable fashion, which is a pretty mild assumption (and one that everyone lives by anyway, really.) Current theories can certainly be wrong, but some things would contradict so many other observations that it becomes much more reasonable to assume observer error.

Jallenecs and one or two other notable exceptions apart, American forum users have let me ... and more importantly their country and their fellow-Americans ... down.

Those are your answers.

I trust you are enlightened ? !

Is there anything I've missed that I OUGHT to be persuaded by?

Not off the top of my head. I wasn't actually trying to check your answers against some list in any case. I was really wondering what would convince you that Fry isn't a medium. I would certainly agree with you that any of those would do it.

If I could turn the question upside down, why do you think Fry _is_ a medium?

[showme2]

Folly

Thanks for your comments.
You have joined my brief Approved List !

To clarify, yes, I would accept the incident at Scole IF the facts were clear, which they are certainly not, IF (oh dear, I'm going to use the sceptics' favourite now!!) the scientific examination of the tywraps had shown how both of them could have been cut in the way they were without damage to Fry, and (the rational argument) WHY Colin Fry would be stupid enough to cut them at all when he was absolutely certain to be found out in short order.

What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.

Until then, I had only been examining what he was doing because he was the only one of the "tv mediums" I had watched that I couldn't accuse of Cold Reading, which is the mainstay technique used by most fraudulent psychics.
I therefore wanted to see him demonstrate outside an edited environment.

[De_Bunk]

Showme2

Quote:

"Yep, when the vote is on whether I shall debate with TBK or DeBunk, (or anyone else) there's only ONE vote that counts - mine. And I judge it mostly on manners. Sorry !..."


Oh dear...

Is that the approach you take to Colin Fry's paranormal, god-like powers...

I can see it now...

"Hey...as long as they are polite...they must be telling the truth.."

Way to go...

De_no manners, so i must be talking outta my ass_Bunk

( i'll post again...when i stop levitating around my apartment )

[The Mighty Thor]

Showme2
What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.

We, of course, have to take your word on that. It is only your opinion that the facts were 'non-guessable', for example.

And your failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation? Did you try? How did you rule out:

If I was presented with any evidence that theatres or other venues were passing on information which could be gleaned from credit cards or other ticket-booking data ....

In fact ANY SIMILAR kind of evidence that ought to be available if he was doing anything that hard-nosed sceptics suggest might explain the phenomena he consistently produces.


If I received conclusive evidence that he, or anyone who might be acting on his behalf, had secreted microphones or other "information collectors" in the Green Room before a TV show, or in the bar before a live show ...


If I received any documentary evidence that he was (as Van Praagh has been accused of doing - but it's NOT proven) collecting data on people in advance of a show by getting them to answer 7 questions about who they were expecting to hear from etc ...


If I discovered that he was giving readings to 6ixth Sense Forum users which consisted of information they had revealed in advance on the Forum (and yes, of course I've checked that out!) ....


Did you make enquiries regarding these areas of possible leakage?

Do the forum members register? Do they give their real names? Can you verify that they are all individuals, and not just confederates?

How do you know the 20 people were not actors employed by Colin Fry? Did you check to see if they all arrived on a bus together?

Given your opinion on John Edwards and JVP, you seem to want to give Mr Fry EVERY benefit of the doubt. Why?

malc

[The Mighty Thor]

I wonder how Clancie and Showme2 could reconcile their differences regarding John Edwards?

Could this be the beginning of the Great Psychic Schism of 2003?

Sounds to me like the 'no real Scotsman' fallacy will have to come into play.


malc

[The Mighty Thor]

With regard to the Colin Fry SCOLE debacle -- what explanations do the sceptics have for the 'cut cable ties'?

I don't understand the cable tie bit at all?

If the lights had not gone on, is the theory that, after moving things and touching folk, CF was going to re-tie himself to the chair with other ties?

malc

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by showme2
What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.

Do you happen to have any transcripts of his readings? It would be interesting to see the reality of a 'whole sting of non-guessable facts'.

Having seen some appaulingly bad readings being described as '100 % accurate' by sitters, I think that a smooth cold reader can give the convincing appearance of accuracy live, which you really need to sit down and analyse in the cold light of day to properly evaluate. It is truly incredible how selective one's memory can be in these situations.

[showme2]

Ronsceptic

I think that a smooth cold reader can give the convincing appearance of accuracy live, which you really need to sit down and analyse in the cold light of day to properly evaluate. It is truly incredible how selective one's memory can be in these situations.
_________________


I agree, which is precisely why I did it.

I will see if I can find it, but I thought I had finished with it and it may well have been chucked out.

[thaiboxerken]

So.. no objective criteria for determining mediumship eh? With yours, and Clancie's expertise in such phenomena, I would've thought that something would've come up.

[Folly]

Showme,

Thanks for your comments.
You have joined my brief Approved List

Hopefully I don't join it briefly. :)

To clarify, yes, I would accept the incident at Scole IF the facts were clear, which they are certainly not, IF (oh dear, I'm going to use the sceptics' favourite now!!) the scientific examination of the tywraps had shown how both of them could have been cut in the way they were without damage to Fry, and (the rational argument) WHY Colin Fry would be stupid enough to cut them at all when he was absolutely certain to be found out in short order.

Fair enough. You don't put enough stock in any of the reports to consider it conclusive one way or the other by itself. If things were turned around, I agree that it's extremely unlikely to be accepted as evidence _for_ being a genuine medium. What could have been quite strong evidence has unfortunately been made rather weaker by contention and time.

So it may be anecdotal, but it does seem like a botched session of a stage psychic, tie wraps and all. It could be a different trick for being tied down. Where do the tie wraps come from? Does Colin produce them? Could they be specially prestressed, allowing him to just break them? The two ties might be just a bit different because one tie might have required a bit of extra help from a hidden razor (why not use the razor always? more time to work it from hiding to a usability, and the risk of accidentally dropping it.) Breaking out and then retying yourself would be a nice trick, despite some extra risk, for the reason that you could truly be tied down securely, which would make for a good show: people could check the ties much more thoroughly.

With all of that said, it is still weak evidence. However, remember that observations done in a controlled setting fail to see this phenomenon, and some observations from the hundreds of years worth of scientific observation apparently contradict it in the case of floating objects. Colin could be genuine, but with all of these other observations, there has to be some pretty incontestable evidence for that to remain the rational guess.

As an aside, that's why tests of this should be done in a very strongly controlled environment. If the person being tested is genuine, anything less isn't worth _their_ time, and it doesn't tell anyone else anything.

What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.

Until then, I had only been examining what he was doing because he was the only one of the "tv mediums" I had watched that I couldn't accuse of Cold Reading, which is the mainstay technique used by most fraudulent psychics.
I therefore wanted to see him demonstrate outside an edited environment.

Okay. I hope I don't jump right back out of your list of people you listen to, but I'd have to say there's something missing here.

I know a few card tricks. I see a card trick and I don't know how it works. I know that they're not using whatever tricks I do know. But I don't assume they're doing genuine magic. If you rewrite this, your situation seems to fall into this exact same pattern, except with a different conclusion.

I know something about stage magic psychic shows. I see someone doing a reading, and I don't know how they're doing it. They're not doing cold reading as I know it.

Obviously it's not an exact match, but... What I am missing here? Why do you choose in this case to assume that Colin is genuinely talking to the dead, who are physically manifesting at his behest?

[showme2]

Folly
"""--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your comments.
You have joined my brief Approved List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully I don't join it briefly. """
.................................................. ................................................

Ah, good. Someone with a sense of humour. Nice ! But please don't take my Approved List seriously either.

Oh dear - so many questions, so little time. I'll do my best ...

________________________________________
"What could have been quite strong evidence has unfortunately been made rather weaker by contention and time."
_________________________________________
Yes, sadly. And sceptic misrepresentation, often deliberate, of the content of the report of the investigation, and indeed even of what actually occurred, hasn't helped.


___________________________________________
"It does seem like a botched session of a stage psychic, tie wraps and all."
____________________________________________
Yes, of course it looks that way to anyone hearing the bare bones of the story second hand and possibly edited. But once you have the full story, and the different variations of it, it becomes so confused that anyone could draw any conclusion he chose to draw.
______________________________________________
"It could be a different trick for being tied down."
______________________________________________
Example ?
The method usually used by frauds is removable chair arms. You don't need to cut anything but your hands are free anyway. And there's no evidence later.
Why go to the bother of cutting the tywraps - particularly two different ways - and then having to get fresh tywraps back on both wrists later before the lights go up ?

__________________________________________________ __"Where do the tie wraps come from? Does Colin produce them? "
__________________________________________________ __
No, of course not! Sitters in the circle allow the MEDIUM to produce the ties? I think not !!!
He just turns up as the demonstrating medium. The tywraps (as used by electricians to bind cables) are in a bag of several hundred. They are selected from the bag at random by one of the sitters.
Colin would have to "fix" all of them - or know what kind or colour would be selected, and have "fixed" matching substitutes available. But he doesn't touch them until they are applied to his wrists.

__________________________________________________ __
"Could they be specially prestressed, allowing him to just break them? "
__________________________________________________ __
No, they were not broken, they were cut. One with the physical consequences that would be produced by a high-speed circular saw, the other with those of plastic cut by a heavy guillotine blade. In either instance you need to explain how this could be done without damage to the medium himself.
__________________________________________________ __
"The two ties might be just a bit different because one tie might have required a bit of extra help from a hidden razor (why not use the razor always? more time to work it from hiding to a usability, and the risk of accidentally dropping it.)"
__________________________________________________ __
No, the cuts were made in totally different ways. A copy of the technical specialists report is on the Noah's Ark Society Website if you wish to study it.

__________________________________________________ __
"Breaking out and then retying yourself would be a nice trick, despite some extra risk, for the reason that you could truly be tied down securely, which would make for a good show: people could check the ties much more thoroughly."
__________________________________________________ __
Yes, but I don't see how it could be done. And anyway, it wasn't. They were both cut, so that is academic.

__________________________________________________ __
"Observations done in a controlled setting fail to see this phenomenon, and some observations from the hundreds of years worth of scientific observation apparently contradict it in the case of floating objects. Colin could be genuine, but with all of these other observations, there has to be some pretty incontestable evidence for that to remain the rational guess."
__________________________________________________ __
Well, 150 years observation maybe, if not hundreds. But I wouldn't pay much attention to "scientific observation" of seances back in the Victorian era or even later. The methodology was quite crude. And there are several websites which reveal the tricks some of those mediums got up to - reaching sticks, secret doors, dark clothed accomplices, cheesecloth "ectoplasm" etc.
Floating trumpets have been a feature of seances from Victorian times at least.
Some have been exposed as fraudulent. Many others have not.
Some at least were certainly and blatantly fraudulent, just as some of the so-called spirit photographs of the Victorian era were an absolute joke.
I agree that, with the technology available now, it should be possible to achieve much better, and I would like to see it done. Time will tell.

__________________________________________________ __
"As an aside, that's why tests of this should be done in a very strongly controlled environment. If the person being tested is genuine, anything less isn't worth _their_ time, and it doesn't tell anyone else anything."
__________________________________________________ __
Yes, I'm not opposed to that. Experience shows that, however well "controlled" the environment, someone will come up with some kind of objection to the evidence produced.

__________________________________________________ __
"I know a few card tricks. I see a card trick and I don't know how it works. I know that they're not using whatever tricks I do know. But I don't assume they're doing genuine magic. If you rewrite this, your situation seems to fall into this exact same pattern, except with a different conclusion."
__________________________________________________ __
We are not talking physical tricks here, but the production of information which ostensibly could not be known to the medium.

__________________________________________________ __
"I know something about stage magic psychic shows. I see someone doing a reading, and I don't know how they're doing it. They're not doing cold reading as I know it.
Obviously it's not an exact match, but... What I am missing here? Why do you choose in this case to assume that Colin is genuinely talking to the dead, who are physically manifesting at his behest?"
__________________________________________________ __
Nobody dead is "physically manifesting". Colin hasn't done public physical mediumship for over 10 years now. He demonstrates mental mediumship - a mix of clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience - and in normal light.

He is not Cold Reading, the method of choice for frauds (because you virtually can't get caught).
Stooges in the audience I have dismissed for reasons I have explained at length in other posts.
The nature of the information given does not fit warm or hot reading.
My conclusion is that the phenomena are genuine.

But that will convince nobody but me.
You have to put in the effort to see him demonstrate for 5 hours, and make up your own mind.

I hope this helps.

[The Mighty Thor]

Showme2
What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.



We, of course, have to take your word on that. It is only your opinion that the facts were 'non-guessable', for example.

And your failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation? Did you try? How did you rule out:

If I was presented with any evidence that theatres or other venues were passing on information which could be gleaned from credit cards or other ticket-booking data ....

In fact ANY SIMILAR kind of evidence that ought to be available if he was doing anything that hard-nosed sceptics suggest might explain the phenomena he consistently produces.


If I received conclusive evidence that he, or anyone who might be acting on his behalf, had secreted microphones or other "information collectors" in the Green Room before a TV show, or in the bar before a live show ...


If I received any documentary evidence that he was (as Van Praagh has been accused of doing - but it's NOT proven) collecting data on people in advance of a show by getting them to answer 7 questions about who they were expecting to hear from etc ...


If I discovered that he was giving readings to 6ixth Sense Forum users which consisted of information they had revealed in advance on the Forum (and yes, of course I've checked that out!) ....



Did you make enquiries regarding these areas of possible leakage?

Do the forum members register? Do they give their real names? Can you verify that they are all individuals, and not just confederates?

How do you know the 20 people were not actors employed by Colin Fry? Did you check to see if they all arrived on a bus together?

Given your opinion on John Edwards and JVP, you seem to want to give Mr Fry EVERY benefit of the doubt. Why?

malc

[showme2]

Malc

It's called JUDGMENT.
We all employ it every day of our lives.
Unfortunately, life does not provide us with "controlled conditions" all of the time.
That is where I part company with most sceptics.
Would that every decision we make was subject to "controled conditions"
But life simply is not like that.

[thaiboxerken]

He is not Cold Reading, the method of choice for frauds (because you virtually can't get caught).
Stooges in the audience I have dismissed for reasons I have explained at length in other posts.
The nature of the information given does not fit warm or hot reading.
My conclusion is that the phenomena are genuine.

What objective criteria did you use to arrive at this conclusion?

It seems to me that you simply lke Colin Fry and therefore believe he's authentic.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by showme2
Malc

It's called JUDGMENT.
We all employ it every day of our lives.
Unfortunately, life does not provide us with "controlled conditions" all of the time.
That is where I part company with most sceptics.
Would that every decision we make was subject to "controled conditions"
But life simply is not like that.
Strawman.
No one I know, sceptic or believer, thinks that life provides us with controlled conditions.

But, when it comes to deciding things such as whether or not "pyschics" can talk to the dead you cannot trust your personal subjective judgement - if these effects can't be reproduced under controlled conditions when all possibility of fraud, cold reading etc is eliminated then what are we to think?

[espritch]

showme2:
Experience shows that, however well "controlled" the environment, someone will come up with some kind of objection to the evidence produced.
What experience? Neither Colin Fry nor any other pyschic that I know of has ever passed a test of their abilities in a properly controlled test (have any even tried?). Wouldn't this actually have to happen before you could claim that "experience" shows that such evidence would be rejected?

[SteveGrenard]

........ nor any other pyschic that I know of has ever passed a test of their abilities in a properly controlled test (have any even tried?). Wouldn't this actually have to happen before you could claim that "experience" shows that such evidence would be rejected?

Some 40 psychics/mediums have participated in and "passed" such a test conducted by Robertson and Roy in the U.K. This study will be published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR.

These researchers published a preliminary study, experience and outside critics as well as themselves found aspects of the test wanting, so they published a second paper detailing a revised methodology, and the third paper, using that methodology will be out as above. This is the kind of "experience" that is referred to here.
The odds against chance of the psychics/mediums obtaining the information they did over a range of anonymous random sitters, however, was huge. But given the supposed methodological flaws, we now await the follow-up study with the revised methodology.

I have seen these self serving, arrogant statements befoire -- ooooh "I am not aware of any blah blah..." You are parroting the cynics and closed minded pseudoskeptics with such remarks. You
demonstrate ignorance by your total unfamiliarity of all the studies of mediumship that have taken place, good, bad or indifferent. R&R employed 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls, thus making it not only a modern study but one of the largest and most statisticaly significant ever.
When this one hits the airwaves it will set the pseudoskeptical and cynical movement on it rear.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Some 40 psychics/mediums have participated in and "passed" such a test conducted by Robertson and Roy in the U.K. This study will be published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR.

These researchers published a preliminary study, experience and outside critics as well as themselves found aspects of the test wanting, so they published a second paper detailing a revised methodology, and the third paper, using that methodology will be out as above. This is the kind of "experience" that is referred to here.
The odds against chance of the psychics/mediums obtaining the information they did over a range of anonymous random sitters, however, was huge. But given the supposed methodological flaws, we now await the follow-up study with the revised methodology.

I have seen these self serving, arrogant statements befoire -- ooooh "I am not aware of any blah blah..." You are parroting the cynics and closed minded pseudoskeptics with such remarks. You
demonstrate ignorance by your total unfamiliarity of all the studies of mediumship that have taken place, good, bad or indifferent. R&R employed 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls, thus making it not only a modern study but one of the largest and most statisticaly significant ever.
When this one hits the airwaves it will set the pseudoskeptical and cynical movement on it rear.

Really? It seems to me that nothing has changed:


Claims are made that a paranormal phenomenon is real.

It is announced that a real scientific test will be done.

It is claimed that this real scientific test will show the skeptics wrong, even before the results are in.

The test is performed, under heavy secrecy.

When asked how it went, we see evasive action, excuses, etc. Promises increase, though.

When it finally arrives, serious design flaws are pointed out (some even admitted to), yet these do not detract from the fantastic results.

Strangely enough, the real scientific test shows nothing.

Strangely enough, it is claimed that a new real scientific test will show the skeptics wrong, even before the results are in.

And the charade can continue.

[showme2]

espritch

I don't know how long you have been studying the paranormal and associated phenomena, but I have been doing so since 1959 when I was 16 years old.

Over 40 years examining these matters convinces me to trust my subjective judgment, as I do in almost every other field of life on a daily basis.

If you, on the other hand, do not feel able to trust yours - that's fine. You know yourself and your limitations far better than anyone else.

[showme2]

CFL

Unless you are claiming psychic abilities, let's wait and see when the report is published, shall we ?

Regrettably your post, with its supercilious prejudging of the results of the testing Steve Grenard refers to, is a classic example of why many mediums are not prepared to cooperate with the sceptical community of which you are part.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by showme2
I don't know how long you have been studying the paranormal and associated phenomena, but I have been doing so since 1959 when I was 16 years old.

Over 40 years examining these matters convinces me to trust my subjective judgment, as I do in almost every other field of life on a daily basis.

Perhaps you have heard of Rene Blondlot, who thought he had found N-rays. He trusted his subjective judgment, too, and kept on believing for the rest of his life that N-rays exist. They don't.

Do you think it is possible that you can fool yourself, even for 40 years?

Originally posted by showme2
Unless you are claiming psychic abilities, let's wait and see when the report is published, shall we ?

Yeah, let's. What will your reaction be, if it shows no evidence of paranormal phenomena?

Originally posted by showme2
Regrettably your post, with its supercilious prejudging of the results of the testing Steve Grenard refers to, is a classic example of why many mediums are not prepared to cooperate with the sceptical community of which you are part.

Regrettably, this is a feeble - if classic - excuse. All it takes is one medium - one medium to show he/she is genuine, under proper controlled conditions.

It doesn't have to be with skeptics, all it takes is proper settings. This, we have yet to see happen. After millenia, not a single piece of evidence. No progress, no evidence. Nothing.

How long do you suggest we keep looking for something, until we admit that it is not there? Should we still look for unicorns?

[showme2]

CFL
Well, if we have been waiting for "millenia", 3 more months will hardly break anyone's back will it.

I find your closing remark very worrying.
How long have you been looking for UNICORNS ?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by showme2
Well, if we have been waiting for "millenia", 3 more months will hardly break anyone's back will it.

Have you been listening at all? Are you ignoring this pattern that I described?

Do you really think that in 3 months, we will see definite evidence of a paranormal phenomenon?

Originally posted by showme2
I find your closing remark very worrying. How long have you been looking for UNICORNS ?

Why "worrying"? Could you address the questions?


What will your reaction be, if it shows no evidence of paranormal phenomena?
Have you heard of Blondlot?
Do you think it is possible that you can fool yourself, even for 40 years?
How long do you suggest we keep looking for something, until we admit that it is not there?
Should we still look for unicorns?

I stopped looking for unicorns when it turned out nobody could find them. Can unicorns exist? Sure. Just show me one.

[showme2]

CFL
I find your closing remark very worrying. How long have you been looking for UNICORNS ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why "worrying"? Could you address the questions?

_________________________________________________
.
.
....... Yes, certainly:-

What will your reaction be, if it shows no evidence of paranormal phenomena?
.................. I will think, "Oh S**t, that's disappointing. Those damned sceptics must have fixed the result somehow" .... (Just as the sceptics will similarly accuse the believers if the result is not in their favour)
0000000000000000000000000000000000000

Have you heard of Blondlot?
....................... No, and I don't have time to look them up.
(I'm more into Eric Clapton myself !)
00000000000000000000000000000000000000

Do you think it is possible that you can fool yourself, even for 40 years?
........................ Absolutely not. My inquiries have always been extremely studious and commence from a sceptical standpoint. But I am not so irrevocably committed to a sceptical viewpoint that I will stick to it come what may. The true inquirer does not hold any view that he is not prepared to discard if a better one presents itself.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

How long do you suggest we keep looking for something, until we admit that it is not there?
........................ There's no need to keep looking once you've found it.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Should we still look for unicorns?
........................ I can't advise you. I've never looked for unicorns. But equally I can't say with any certitude that they have never existed. So if you want to keep looking for them, carry on, and let me know if you find one.
(But don't say "There are hundreds of them around. I see people riding them. But the non-believers have cut all their corns off so they look like horses.")
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000


I stopped looking for unicorns when it turned out nobody could find them. Can unicorns exist? Sure. Just show me one.
........................ You just inferred that you were still looking for them !
More seriously, and philosophically, just because you can't find one it doesn't prove they don't exist or have never existed. Perhaps you are not looking in the right place. Or they may have become extinct or evolved into something different. (A horse with a horn isn't that outrageous when you look at the appearance of some of the dinosaurs.)

But unicorns don't have any impact on my life, so I will stick to investigating the so-called paranormal.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
__________________

The major difference between us is that we disagree about what we will accept as "evidence".

[showme2]

Steve

>>>>>>>>
Some 40 psychics/mediums have participated in and "passed" such a test conducted by Robertson and Roy in the U.K. This study will be published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR. <<<<<<<<<<<

Interesting.
Do you have any additional info about this please ?

[geni]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


Some 40 psychics/mediums have participated in and "passed" such a test conducted by Robertson and Roy in the U.K. This study will be published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR.

These researchers published a preliminary study, experience and outside critics as well as themselves found aspects of the test wanting, so they published a second paper detailing a revised methodology, and the third paper, using that methodology will be out as above. This is the kind of "experience" that is referred to here.
The odds against chance of the psychics/mediums obtaining the information they did over a range of anonymous random sitters, however, was huge. But given the supposed methodological flaws, we now await the follow-up study with the revised methodology.




In three months the world may have change forever and I hope it does. Why do I have a feeling it may not have? Still all can do is wait for the paper.

[SteveGrenard]

Robertson and Roy's study has undergone rigorous peer review and the first two parts have been published in the peer reviewed journal of the British SPR (see below) with the third having completed peer review and awaiting publication in January 2004 issue of the JSPR. Abstracts of first two
studies appended below. You need to understand that this material has been presented on this forum before but is yelled and screamed at by the closed mindeds, then ignored and when fresh open minded people come they will not be appraised of this most elementary infomation. Which, of course, is related to Cancie's Complaint that people don't read up and prefer to be influenced by others rather than research such iimportant material themselves.

What is the SPR?

Founded in 1882 by a distinguished group of Cambridge scholars, the Society for Psychical Research was the first of its kind to examine allegedly paranormal phenomena in a scientific and unbiased way. Today the Society continues with its aim of understanding events and abilities commonly described as 'psychic' or 'paranormal' by promoting and supporting important research in this area. Through the publication of scholarly reports and the organisation of educational activities, it acts as a forum for debate and promotes the dissemination of information about current developments in the field. The interdisciplinary nature of the Society's subject matter is reflected in the interests of its former presidents, which include philosophers Henry Sidgwick, C.D. Broad, Henri Bergson and H.H. Price; Prime Minister A.J. Balfour; psychologists William James and F.W.H. Myers; physicists Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge and Lord Rayleigh; physiologist and Nobel Laureate Charles Richet; classicist Gilbert Murray; zoologist Sir Alister Hardy; and parapsychologist J.B.Rhine. (www.spr.ac.uk/ )

ASPR

Their sister group in America was founded 3 years later in 1885 with astronomer Simon Newcomb as president, later became a branch of the British Society for Psychical Research, founded in 1882, and functioned in Boston under the guidance of Richard Hodgson, formerly of Cambridge University, until his death in 1905. A newly-organized and independent ASPR was soon thereafter established in New York with James H. Hyslop, formerly Professor of Logic and Ethics at Columbia Unversity, as its secretary and treasurer. During the years between 1906 and his death in 1920, Professor Hyslop greatly expanded the scope of the Society's work. Publication of the Journal was initiated in 1907 and has continued uninterruptedly to the present.(http://www.aspr.com/)

The close relationship between psychic phenomena and important scientific and philosophical issues is evidenced by the fact that the investigation of such phenomena has enlisted the interest and active participation of a number of outstanding scientists and philosophers. Among the distinguished contributors of the past may be mentioned the physicists Sir William Barrett and Sir Oliver Lodge; the psychologists William James and Gardner Murphy, both of whom played major roles in the development of the ASPR. The contemporary scene in psychical research includes philosophers, psychologists and physicists, many of them on the faculty of distinguished universities and colleges here and abroad.
(http://www.aspr.com/)

This prior discussion on this forum recently occured here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870123832&highlight=robertson+and+roy%2A#post1870123832


Robertson, T.J. & Roy, Archie E. A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE ACCEPTANCE BY NON-RECIPIENTS OF MEDIUMS' STATEMENTS TO RECIPIENTS, Journal 65, 2001, pp. 91-106. Authors' abstract: A test was made of the sceptical hypothesis that the statements made by mediums to recipients are so general that they could as readily be accepted by non-recipients. A two year study involving 10 mediums, 44 recipients and 407 non-recipients ostensibly falsified that hypothesis. The average fraction of the set of statements accepted by the recipient was significantly larger than the average fraction of the same set of statements accepted by non-recipients, the probability of the results being due to chance being 5.37x10-11 . Details are given of the procedure of data collection and analysis and an objective method of weighting the statements is described. A number of non-paranormal factors are listed and assessed as possible reasons for the seeming falsification of the hypothesis, /mental mediumship/survival/experiments/methodology/

Roy, Archie E. & Robertson, T.J. A DOUBLE-BLIND PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING THE RELEVANCE OF A MEDIUM'S STATEMENTS TO A RECIPIENT, Journal 65, 2001, pp. 161-74. Authors' abstract: In a previous study, it was shown that a significantly higher percentage of a set of statements given by a medium to a recipient was accepted by the recipient compared with the percentage of the same set accepted by non-recipients. A number of non-paranormal factors were identified that might diminish the large gap between the acceptability levels of recipients and non-recipients. In the present paper a hard protocol is described that may be used to assess the effect of each factor separately. The protocol's single, double and triple blind nature in testing each factor is discussed, /mental mediumship/survival/experiments/methodology/

----------------------------------------------
Actually if you study the annals of both the Journal of the SPR in Britain and its American counterpart you will find lots of studies confirming the validity of mediumship as well as numerous scientifically investigated case histories.
Alongside these you will also find investigations by well known skeptics such as Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman debunking claims of some psychics or paranormal claims of others; Wiseman also debunked the rope trick and attempted and somewhat suceeded in debunking ghost sounds in a haunted castle. Even James Randi had a rebuttal letter published in its pages recently.


Clearly, however Robertson and Roy, will exemplify one of the largest, most statistically significant and most carefully controlled of any experimental trials/evals of mediums in history. So yes, it is eagerly awaited.

[showme2]

Thanks a lot, Steve.

No doubt there will now be even more "yelling and screaming" from the closed-minded, but we can ignore that.

It's simply par for the course, after all.

[geni]

Originally posted by showme2
Thanks a lot, Steve.

No doubt there will now be even more "yelling and screaming" from the closed-minded, but we can ignore that.

It's simply par for the course, after all.

In three months time one of two things will happen:
Fristly we will be blown away by the evidence and the world of science will change for ever
Secondly the paper will not turn out as strong as you expect and the endless debate will continue

I suspect the second will hapen but then I'm biased.

When I can go into a lab and do something which proves you theory I will be 100% convinced. Untill then I'm going to ask why can't I do this?

[SteveGrenard]

Geni: In three months time one of two things will happen:


Firstly we will be blown away by the evidence and the world of science will change for ever


Secondly the paper will not turn out as strong as you expect and the endless debate will continue

I suspect the second will hapen but then I'm biased.

Answer: Agree with your first two paragraphs. I am glad to see you admit you are biased. Actually bias is a negative trait for any experiment including this kind of experiment. If you should have any sort of bias, it should be bias against bias.


Geni: When I can go into a lab and do something which proves you theory I will be 100% convinced. Untill then I'm going to ask why can't I do this?

Reply: These types of studies involve hard work by a team of persons, in this case 40 preselected mediums of little or no particular fame and enrollment of some 400 anon folks off the street to act as sitters and controls. Hardly an experiment you can walk into a lab and do on a benchtop. You can't do it right off because you need to design the experiment to falsify your hypothesis, set-it up, find the funding, conduct the trials and then subject the results to statistical anlysis. SO no, you can't walk into the lab and do this ...not unless you do the all of the above first. One of the favorite ploys of the close mindeds is to oversimplify a phenomenon, oversimplify what needs to be done to prove it (by so doing they are almost guaranteed to disprove it, thus confirming their bias) and learn as little as possible about it. Why let the facts get in the way of a good debunking, eh? Anyone who does science like this will do bad science. The problem with close mindeds is that they think this branch of science can be reduced to mixing substances in a test tube and observing a reaction. And when it can't be done they say: see, see, I told you.

In this field there are irreducible complexities which must be dealt with, not ignored or thrown out.

PS: I personally have no theories about this. I await this round of studies. My point in bringing them up is to help demonstrate once again Clancie's Complaint: that absence of evidence (in one's personal sphere of knowledge) is NOT, definitely NOT evidence of absence.

[geni]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Reply: These types of studies involve hard work by a team of persons, in this case 40 preselected mediums of little or no particular fame and enrollment of some 400 anon folks off the street to act as sitters and controls. Hardly an experiment you can walk into a lab and do on a benchtop. You can't do it right off because you need to design the experiment to falsify your hypothesis, set-it up, find the funding, conduct the trials and then subject the results to statistical anlysis. SO no, you can't walk into the lab and do this ...not unless you do the all of the above first.

This is valid as far as it goes.

One of the favorite ploys of the close mindeds is to oversimplify a phenomenon, oversimplify what needs to be done to prove it (by so doing they are almost guaranteed to disprove it, thus confirming their bias) and learn as little as possible about it.

Quantum theory is the most complex theory known to man ( with the posible exception of tax avoidence) but I could test a large propertion of this theory by going into the lap and taking the IR spectrum of CO gas. While I admit that the first results will come from the kind of study you are suggesting if the phernemon is real sooner or latter there will be a simple "benchtop" test

Why let the facts get in the way of a good debunking, eh? Anyone who does science like this will do bad science. The problem with close mindeds is that they think this branch of science can be reduced to mixing substances in a test tube and observing a reaction. And when it can't be done they say: see, see, I told you.
In this field there are irreducible complexities which must be dealt with, not ignored or thrown out.
Has it ever been clearly stated precisely what these irreducible complexities are?

[SteveGrenard]

Geni: Has it ever been clearly stated precisely what these irreducible complexities are?

Actually yes. By logician Stephen Braude, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

He actually calls it the "argument from crippling complexity"

Although Braude has explored this in a number of papers, it can be found both as defined as well as in example(s) in:

Braude, S.E. 2003. Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, New York and Oxford. pp. 329. index.

ISBN 0-7425-1472-2

on pages:

86-95, 98-9, 173, 182, 196, 213, 216-18, 222, 227, 283, 285, 305-6.


Even this argument cannot be reduced to a pop definition in 25 words or less which is the sort of demand we have come to expect from the close mindeds and cynics. In any case you might find an investment in the paperback version of the above reference worthwhile assuming your bias permits you to be seriously interested in the subject.

[geni]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Even this argument cannot be reduced to a pop definition in 25 words or less which is the sort of demand we have come to expect from the close mindeds and cynics. In any case you might find an investment in the paperback version of the above reference worthwhile assuming your bias permits you to be seriously interested in the subject.

I think I will try the libiary first.

[SteveGrenard]

Okay Geni. Here's the LCC in pub Catalogue information to help the librarian help you find it or maybe get it on inter-library loan for you. I gave the bibliographic info above.

BF1311.F8 73 2003
133.9'01'3--de21 2002036944

[thaiboxerken]

When this one hits the airwaves it will set the pseudoskeptical and cynical movement on it rear.

LOL. Yea, that's right. Just like Planet-X destroying the Earth, this claim has been made all too often to be taken seriously. I'll tell you what, SG, let's talk about the results of the test AFTER it is accepted into the scientific community as real evidence for mediumship. Right now, you are appealing to ignorance as being scientific evidence of mediumship.

The original "test" was found to have flawed protocols and is therefore rendered invalid.

[Clancie]

Hi Steve,

I just got the Braude book ("Immortal Remains") myself from bn ($25 paperback; $75 hardcover, if anyone's interested).

How do you feel it compares with Gauld?

[SteveGrenard]

I think Braude is more scientific, he uses the obvious faculty of logic as well as philosophy which Braude has and is much less wishy washy than Gauld who seems can't get off the fence. They both consider case histories, including the some of the same high profile ones, and analyze them. Braude often quotes predecessor Gauld when he finds it worthwhile or important. Some of Roy/Keen's high profile case list to Randi are explored in Braude. (20 best cases scenario).

I think that Braude supplants and replaces Gauld and is more heavily referenced and complete compared to Gauld. Braude reaches some DEFINITE conclusions which Gauld didnt seem to get around to such as the relationship between NDEs, OBEs and survival.

At any rate they complement each other and both complement FWH Myer's Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death which is admittedly a tough read (but a challenge as always) because of its Victorian language.

I don't think any cynic, closed minded skeptic or pseudoskeptic can truly debate these issues without thoroughly reading the positions which are embodied in these three books. There are many true skeptics and they are familiar with the evidence on both sides of the debate.


Keen, Schwartz, Robertson/Roy and a host of other investigators have been influenced by these writers. It is absurd to demean or denigrate Schwartz (e.g. Ed slandering him as a fraud) for example without understanding this and the influence of these authors on current research. In order, for example, for Ed (who should know better given his background and position) to slander somebody like Schwartz as a fraud, he would have to indict all these authors, all their references and all their research as well.

edited to add:

I just realized I never read any reviews of the new Braude book which is probably because its so new so after I wrote the above I checked to see if there were any online reviews and found just one which interestingly coincides in some respects with my own viewpoint. It's by a reader in Germany and can be found under the amazon.com entry for this book.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

I don't think any cynic, closed minded skeptic or pseudoskeptic can truly debate these issues without thorughly reading the positions which are embodied in these three books.
Keen, Schwartz, Robertson/Roy and a host of other investigators have been influenced by these writers. It is absurd to demean or denigrate Schwartz (e.g. Ed slandering him as a fraud) for example without understanding this.
Which "cynic, closed-minded skeptics or pseudoskeptics" are you talking about?
As usual, you substitute insults for logic, fallacious logic for reasoning and generally have difficulty understanding that there are those of us who have been reading this pseudoscientific trash for years in the vain hope that there might be something other than fraud, trickery and a vast capacity for self delusion involved.

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry Jeff, unlike you, Larson, Ed, etc I am not taken to insulting people HERE by name. No insult was intended. Surely you admit such cynics, and pseudoskeptics exist? Are you denying their existence?

I will critcise and insult authors, however such as Jaroff or Randi if I feel it is warranted by what they write.

Cynics and pseudoskeps should know who they are but probably do not. Closed mindeds are easily identified, some admitting to their biases.

So, to answer you question specifically: nope, won't go there. Unlike some people, I also do not slander others by name either or call them frauds. I am not rich and powerful enough to do that. After all for a mere hundred and twenty grand a year Ed can hire me to push pencils for him if he wishes. BTW Where do I apply?
And can I work at home?

added:

re-reading your comments above, I can now assume that "some" of you have read Gauld, Myers as well as the new Braude book? I applaud such skeptics for their wilingness to face the issues and to debate intelligently Do tell me if I am correct? Or are you referring to reading pulp in something like FATE magazine? Is this the reading material you refer to? If so, its like getting one's medical knowledge in Reader's Digest or the Star.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I applaud such skeptics for their wilingness to face the issues and to debate intelligently Do tell me if I am correct? Or are you referring to reading pulp in something like FATE magazine? Is this the reading material you refer to? If so, its like getting one's medical knowledge in Reader's Digest or the Star.
No. I'm talking about pseudoscientific journals, like The Noetic Journal.
Watson, Schwartz and Russek (1999) The Theory of Enformed Systems, A Paradigm of Organization and Holistic Systems, 2 (2). p. 159-172.
All you wanted to know about bad science and more.

[SteveGrenard]

Jeff:

If you wish to selectively cull some of the more out-there types of material, that's your privilege. In case you missed it, and I said this several times already, I refer to the studies, investigations and cases publshed in:

The (British) J of Soc Psychial Research (JSPR)

The J Amer Soc Psychial Research (JASPR)

Parapsychology (which I didnt mention but should have)

as well as the three book length sentinel works in this field:

Myers: Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death

Gauld: Mediumship and Survival

and now

Braude: Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death.

these in turn cover the sentinel work of Ian Stevenson, Emeritus Prof and Carlson Chair, Div of Personality Studies, Univ of Va. Stevenson was a past president of the (Brit) SPR and as well as the premier reincarnation researcher in the world. He also studied the interelatedness of this work with mediumship and survival which adds special significance to his work for mediumship and the survival hypothesis. Stevenson set out, as a psychiatrist, to study/investigate and even try to debunk claims of people who say they were reincarnated from prior lives they remember, which led him to consider such areas as drop-ins, posessions and mediumistic communication. I read and in fact own every monograph Stevenson has published and while this is a bit expensive for most, it definitely had an influence on how such cases should be investigated.

If for some reason you were not aware of these resources, consider yourself aware. Would you like me to post their websites as well so you can have more information? Maybe I will do it anyway. That way others can avail themselves of these resources even if you are reading the ION's Noetic Journal, an organization BTW which I resigned in protest from when they came out a few days after 9-11 calling for everyone to turn the other cheek. Please don't insult me and others here with that stuff.

Insofar as Schwartz is concerned, I have read his published papers in the JSPR and accept their validity. This does not mean myself or anyone should agree with everything he wrote in his popular book.

Posted also in a separate thread for emphasis:


Parapsychological Association (an affiliate of the AAAS) at:

www.parapsych.org


Society of Psychical Research (UK)

www.spr.ac.uk

American Society of Psychical Research

www.aspr.com

University of Virginia-Div of Personality Sudies (new website address BTW) at:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.ed...onalitystudies/

[espritch]

Showme2:
don't know how long you have been studying the paranormal and associated phenomena, but I have been doing so since 1959 when I was 16 years old.

Over 40 years examining these matters convinces me to trust my subjective judgment, as I do in almost every other field of life on a daily basis.

Modern physics is founded on two important theories: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Relativity tells us that the mass increases and time slows down as the speed of an object increases, that gravity is a curvature in space-time, that stars can collapse to form black holes with gravity so powerful, even light cannot escape. Quantum Mechanics tells us a particle of matter can exist on one side of an object and suddenly pop right through to the other side (quantum tunneling), that two particles can become entangled so that when separated, if one if changed, the other will instantly reflect the same change regardless of the distance between them (the so called spooky effect), that the very behavior of sub-atomic particles is directly effected by observation.

These theories conflict in a big way with my day to day subjective observations of the world around me. My subjective experience would suggest that both theories are totally nuts. My subjective experience is irrelevant. Both theories have been repeatedly tested and retested for close to 100 years and no test devised has yet proved either theory to be incorrect. Subjective experience is useful in most day to day activities, but the more extraordinary a claim is, the less one should rely on subjective experience to determine it’s veracity. In fact, the most important experiments that have been conducted were ones that disproved assumptions based on subjective experience (like Gallileo’s disproof of Aristotle’s subjective assumption that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones).

SteveGrenard:
Some 40 psychics/mediums have participated in and "passed" such a test conducted by Robertson and Roy in the U.K. This study will be published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR.

These researchers published a preliminary study, experience and outside critics as well as themselves found aspects of the test wanting, so they published a second paper detailing a revised methodology, and the third paper, using that methodology will be out as above.

So. Some psychics/mediums passed a test with a methodology that even the authors admit was flawed. How does this refute the claim that no psychics/mediums have passed a properly controlled test? Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been subjected to literally hundreds of tests and the tests themselves have been subject to tremendous scrutiny to verify that their methodology was proper and that they demonstrated what they were intended to demonstrate. And physicists are still devising ingenious new ways to try to disprove these theories.

But given the supposed methodological flaws, we now await the follow-up study with the revised methodology.

Since the experimenters themselves agreed that the initial studies were flawed, why do you refer to these flaws as “supposed”? I can pretty much guarantee that when the results of the revised test are published, if they show positive results, they will be subjected to even greater scrutiny and criticism than the original study. There will also be calls for replication of results and questions as to what the results actually demonstrate. This isn’t closed mindedness. It’s just how science is done. If you have a problem with that, your problem isn’t with narrow minded skeptics - it’s with the fundamental process of science itself.

Authors' abstract: A test was made of the sceptical hypothesis that the statements made by mediums to recipients are so general that they could as readily be accepted by non-recipients.

Just a comment. The above abstract indicates this experiment is not a test of whether mediums can actually speak with the dead, but rather a test of the supposed “skeptical hypothesis that statements made to recipients are so general that they could as readily be accepted by non-recipients.” This strikes me as a bit of a straw man. Most skeptics would agree that a generic newspaper horoscope is so general it could apply to anyone. However, they would not make such a claim about a cold reading. A good cold reader should be able to produce much more specific guesses. A cold reader starts with rather generic statements and then relies on feedback from the subject to develop more specific guesses. Unless the methodology employed in the experiment includes an effective means to prevent such feedback or account for it’s effect, the methodology will be inherently flawed.

[SteveGrenard]

Before predicting what the follow-up study concludes, it would be wise to wait for it. NO? Or are you so biased as to predict problems you have no way of knowing exist? These authors conducted one study, tightened up on the methodology to eliminate any supposed possible flaws and then re did a new series of cases. They even published the revised methodology as the second paper. They are honest and open minded.

Like everyone else you gotta wait until the Jan 04 issue of the JSPR arrives in our mailboxes or is made available online (which would be after publication for sure).

The negative correlation would be that people not read claim information as valid at the same or greater levels as those who are read. All the 400 subjects get to rate the information. Are you aware of the fact that you need to assess the positive correlates (the information that is given to sitters which is true ) in order to say whether the information for the non-sitters was less, the same or more valid than the read group? Is there something you don't understand about this which the authors may not have explained in their abstract? I guess you would have to read the complete paper if that's the case.

(See James Randi on Sylvia Browne proposal for a mickey mouse version of this design; Randi: 9 non read and 1 read=total statistically insignificant number of 10 people).

I agree with your quantum physics example for more testing We need the funding and interest to conduct thousands of experiments in this field... of all types and designs.

[geni]

Originally posted by espritch
Quantum Mechanics tells us a particle of matter can exist on one side of an object and suddenly pop right through to the other side (quantum tunneling), that two particles can become entangled so that when separated, if one if changed, the other will instantly reflect the same change regardless of the distance between them (the so called spooky effect), that the very behavior of sub-atomic particles is directly effected by observation.


A minor piont but is the particles did not behave like that the microchips in you computer would not work and evey time you struck a match you would get sprayed by gammer rays.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Jeff:If you wish to selectively cull some of the more out-there types of material, that's your privilege.
Yes, that "out there" reference was provided by someone who was going to a lecture by Dean Radin a while back. Remember?

[SteveGrenard]

Radin's book The Conscious Universe is an excellent resource and review as well but not for mediumship or survival.
Thank you for reminding me about it.
It does not, however, address the survival hypothesis in any depth or meaningful way and is more concerned with exceptional human performance and psi effects such as telepathy. Radin runs in a whole different sphere than that which we are talking about here. The only relationship between telepathy between living organisms and mediumship is the hypothesis that mediums obtain information, either from living or deceased sources, via telepathy as well. In the former case this is referred to as the super psi or super ESP hypothesis and is offered as a cause for mediumistic information by people who do not believe the consciousness of those who physically die survives in any manner.

Red herrings aside, I have provided you with the websites of the organizations, individuals and publications which provide in the secular modern, as well as historical sense, the most compelling evidence for survival and mediumship.
I trust you will make some use of them.

[espritch]

Before predicting what the follow-up study concludes, it would be wise to wait for it. NO? Or are you so biased as to predict problems you have no way of knowing exist?

Assuming this was a response to my previous post, where exactly am I claiming to predict anything? The last paragraph merely pointed out a potential problem based on the abstract provided that would need to be closely examined when such results are published. That’s why I presented this as a side comment rather than as part of my basic argument.

I agree like your quantum physics example we need the funding and interest to conduct thousands of experiments in this field of all types and designs.

Thousands of experiments? No. What you need is a single experiment with a methodology that holds up under strict scrutiny, that is replicable, and clearly demonstrates that there is a phenomenon here worthy of further investigation. An experiment of this sort would be one that would clearly falsify a specific phenomenon if it fails, not just one that would falsify an alternative hypothesis (the intent, according to the abstract, of the previously discussed experiment). It would also help if someone could devise a valid theoretical basis for such phenomena - something that preceded experimental evidence for both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics – although this is not essential (theory may follow observation so long as it makes further predictions that can be tested by further observation).

If you can design and conduct such an experiment, and the experiment doesn’t fail, I suspect that you would have no problem getting funding for further research. Heck, perform the experiment for Randi and you've got a million bucks for further research right there. :)

[SteveGrenard]

Ah the old pseudoskeptic ploy: a single experiment. Thats all it would take No, I am afraid not. A single experiment is not statistically significant which is why I agreed with your comparison to the experimental numbers in QP exercises.


A single experiment, if flawed or if perpetrated by a hoaxer or by a non-proficient so-called medium will fail. This is why we need to look at the entire body of evidence, thousands of experiences -- hundreds certainly. Some will be chalked up to fraud, hoaxes, and incompetence. This is NOT as simple or the same as shining a laser light through a jewel or mixing two substances in a test tube. In order to validate in the cognitive sciences larger numbers than 1 are required. Randi knows this so that why his 1 sitter, 9 non-sitters and a single medium (Browne) is mickey mouse. It proves nothing. Browne can be a fake, be real, be having a bad day. The non-sitters can be ringers (he selected them all by the way from responses to his decidedly skeptical website); controlling 9 people and a single sitter would be easy to fake, controlling 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls would be infinitely more difficult. This is what people who suggest the single experiment thesis are afraid of: real results.

If Robertson and Roy rely on one medium and one sitter and one control, it could all be a sham or fail because of many rasons. A large number of trials separates the wheat from the chaf. All can and should be reported but then the statistics supporting the positive and negative outcomes analyzed and broken out separately as well as averaged together. If you had four fake mediums and four proficient ones you could ruin the test. If you had 4 sitters with amnesia or who were colluding and four who were honest you could also skewer your results. Hundreds of trials minimizes such effects. We are not talking here about single claimants or personalities, but the process as a whole.

[thaiboxerken]

controlling 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls would be infinitely more difficult. This is what people who suggest the single experiment thesis are afraid of: real results.

I'm sure Randi could do such a test. If these "scientists" are so sure of their results, maybe they can replicate it for the JREF challenge. What are they afraid of?

[espritch]

Ah the old pseudoskeptic ploy: a single experiment. Thats all it would take No, I am afraid not.

You have no doubt heard about the test performed during a solar eclipse in 1919 by Sir Arthur Eddington, where he measured the bending of the light of a star by the Sun’s gravity. This single experiment was a defining moment for Relativity. Had this observation differed in any significant degree from the predictions, Mr. Einstein would have been forced to go back to the drawing board and Relativity could well have ended up as just another footnote in the big book of failed theories. Of course that single experiment was not in itself enough to prove that Relativity is correct. That is why it was tested again and again and again.

A single experiment cannot definitively prove a claim, but a successful experiment can show that there is something there worth looking into farther. On the other hand, if you can’t devise even one experiment to effectively test your claim, you certainly shouldn’t expect anyone else to waste their time trying to do it for you.
A single experiment is not statistically significant which is why I agreed with your comparison to the experimental numbers in QP exercises.
A single experiment can most certainly be statistically significant, provided it involves enough data points. You do of course realize that all QP experiments are, by definition, statistical. QP isn’t accepted because it passed some meta-analysis of the experiments conducted to test it. It is accepted because it passed every individual experiment thrown at it.
A single experiment, if flawed or if perpetrated by a hoaxer or by a non-proficient so-called medium will fail.
Are you saying you don’t have any way to weed out hoaxers and non-proficient so-called mediums? Then why do you believe that any of them are legitimate? Why should we?

Yes. A single experiment could fail for many reasons. It’s the job of the experimenter to consider those possibilities and design an experiment that avoids those problems so the proposition being tested passes or fails purely on it own merits. If this cannot be done, that should tell you something.

Science is a Darwinian process where observation is the final arbiter of survival. Every theory or claim is one clever experiment away from destruction and only the fittest survive. The goal of the experimental scientist is not to support your pet theory but rather to try to rip it’s entrails out and leave it drowning in a pool of its own blood. It can be a harsh experience for those who are emotionally invested in a certain theory or view of reality, but it’s the only effective way to separate reality from nonsense.

[SteveGrenard]

Again, the cognitive sciences is not QP and it is not bending light. Light bends, we know that when we see it peeking in from around a drawn down set of blinds.

The experiment could be a singular design and Robertson and Roy did that. They have settled on one experiment in that sense. They decided to apply it to multiple mediums, sitters and controls. The statistics will tell the tale and when the paper is published we will have those. Having seen how Randi treated Schwartz, I know for a fact that neither they nor anyone in this field will ever make the mistake Schwartz did by even talking to the man. And yes, I am sure everyone can use the money but is not winnable and enduring Randi's type of invective and ridicule isn't worth finding that out. End of story. Let's not go there, its been rehashed a dozen times here and everywhere.

Everybody is looking for the white crow but as the Rousseaus asked in their paper on c-far is the white crow really what we are after? And is there more than one? Yes. Rare yes, unique, no.

What is a white crow good for? : The Significance of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem for the Philosophy of Parapsychology. (David and Julie Rousseau, 2001)
Paper delivered at the 25th International Conference of the SPR, Cambridge University, UK, 14-16 September 2001



(Right now the only white crow I know is Jeff Corey. )

Can part of the design rely on a pre-vetting of the mediums? Certainly they should have a proven track record, testimonials if you will. By participating it was time for them to put up or shut up. But if certain mediums achieve scores of 100% whereas others barely reach chance then you can see what I mean. We are not dealing with physics or chemistry and you cannot compare them. The social sciences are just not that predictable. The light will always bend if directed in a certain way but a medium doesn't always get the information that is expected or predicted. Its the way it is which is why I guess this work interests mainly psychologists and philosophers and no chemists, biologists or some very few physicists.

This is not a hard science so all your analogies are meaningless in this context. Small sample sizes just won't cut it. Randi knows this (see Sylvia Browne challenge) and I suspect unless they are parroting others, those who suggest attempting to find the so-called white crow (which is really what the challenege is all about) doesn't cut it either. Randi backed out of allowing the Schwartz HBO experiments apply for the prize because I surmise he sat down with some statistical advisors and they figured out there was just a little too much statistically significant data to try and impeach.

[espritch]

Again, the cognitive sciences is not QP and it is not bending light. Light bends, we know that when we see it peeking in from around a drawn down set of blinds.

Strictly speaking, that is a result of scattering, refraction, and reflection and bears no relation to the kind of bending observed by Eddington. But never mind. It really isn’t germane to the discussion at hand. What is germane is whether cognitive science should be held to the same standards of proof as other branches of science. Any real science must have some generally agreed upon standards of evidence. Any real science should provide means of testing a hypothesis and falsifying it. If cognitive science has these tools, then you should be able to apply them to the question of mediumship. If not, why call it a science?

The experiment could be a singular design and Robertson and Roy did that. They have settled on one experiment in that sense. They decided to apply it to multiple mediums, sitters and controls. The statistics will tell the tale and when the paper is published we will have those.

Agreed, but as I already noted, the experiment in question doesn’t try to test the proposition that mediums can talk to the dead. It only tries to test an alternate explanation supposedly offered by skeptics. Disproving an alternate hypothesis is not equivalent to proving your own.

Having seen how Randi treated Schwartz, I know for a fact that neither they nor anyone in this field will ever make the mistake Schwartz did by even talking to the man. And yes, I am sure everyone can use the money but is not winnable and enduring Randi's type of invective and ridicule isn't worth finding that out. End of story.

I don’t know how Randi treated Schwartz so I’m not going to argue the point. This still doesn’t absolve those claiming mediums have the power speak to the dead of the burden of providing credible testable evidence of that claim.

Everybody is looking for the white crow but as the Rousseaus asked in their paper on c-far is the white crow really what we are after? And is there more than one? Yes. Rare yes, unique, no.

I’m not sure what this means. All I’m looking for is credible evidence. I do, however, whince anytime someone brings up Godel’s Theorem. This has to be the most singularly abused theorem in the history of math.

Can part of the design rely on a pre-vetting of the mediums? Certainly they should have a proven track record, testimonials if you will. By participating it was time for them to put up or shut up. But if certain mediums achieve scores of 100% whereas others barely reach chance then you can see what I mean.

Well, if certain mediums achieve scores of 100%, I’d probably concentrate my efforts on devising tests for those mediums as opposed to the ones scoring no better than chance. But that’s just me. In any event, I’m not the one making the claim that mediums can talk to the dead. You are. If you are having a difficult time finding evidence to support the claim, that ought to tell you something.

The social sciences are just not that predictable. The light will always bend if directed in a certain way but a medium doesn't always get the information that is expected or predicted.

Are social sciences science? Do social scientists make hypothesis. Do they have methods they employ to test and falsify these hypothesis? If so, should they not be able to apply those methods to mediums? If not, why call it science?

This is not a hard science so all your analogies are meaningless in this context.

Is it a science at all? If so, my analogies apply. They deal with basic concept of what science is. If these ideas apply equally well to the large scale structure of the universe and the tiniest sub atomic particles, they should certainly apply to mediums. Special pleading doesn’t carry much weight with anyone on this forum.

[SteveGrenard]

The word science conveys nothing special to the study of cognitive abilities other than its original meaning which is "knowledge" related. Ditto for the appellated social sciences. You can construct hypotheses, devise and validate tests or surveys, profiles and questionnaires, self-reported and clinical case histories, objectified ratings scales, all of which can be used to falsify them and apply statistical models to problems in the social sciences. They are still not the same as the physical sciences......by their very definition and because they are defined and comprised of vastly different elements. Anybody with a nick name such as MemeHacker should surely be able to recognize this and back it up.

Are you making the rules here regarding what is or isn't science and further determining that anything using that word has to conform to a common standard? If that is the case there is nothing more to discuss. You will spend the rest of your days running around in circles chasing an elusive tail that does not even exist.

edited to add:

\Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis,
p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. {Conscience}, {Conscious},
{Nice}.]
1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained
truth of facts.

If we conceive God's sight or science, before the
creation, to be extended to all and every part of
the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his
science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity
on anything to come to pass. --Hammond.

Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental
philosophy. --Coleridge.

[SteveGrenard]

Espritch: Agreed, but as I already noted, the experiment in question doesn’t try to test the proposition that mediums can talk to the dead. It only tries to test an alternate explanation supposedly offered by skeptics. Disproving an alternate hypothesis is not equivalent to proving your own.


Response: I don't know the exact numbers and how they will be diviied up in the upcoming publication, but I will throw out some nmbers for the sake of example only.

There are 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls. The 40 mediums will each provide readings under controlled conditions (they wont see the sitter and they cannot hear the sitter) to 5 sitters or 200 people. These readings will be rated by the sitters for accuracy. The 200 people not read (but don't know that -- everyone thinks they will have been read) will be asked to rate the readings of the 200 people who are actually read thinking they were for them.

This supplies the investigators with a plethora of data which ultimately will
do two things:

1. Resolve the accuracy of the readings for those actually read.

2. Determine the degree of accuracy or inaccuracy for those NOT read. If the readings are highly accurate for those not read one can conclude that these mediums achieved their ends through generalization cold readings. They will not be able to hot, cold or warm read any other way since the sitters will be anonymous, assigned by random drawings, and be securely separated from the medium, providing no opportunity for feedback, verbal or visual.

Other data and data streams can also be constructed. We have to await the paper for the complete study.

I trust from the above brief description you can also see why this cannot be reduced to an experiment in light bending or chemistry.

[Loki]

Steve,

I realsie you comments are mostly just snide remarks aimed at Randi, but...

Small sample sizes just won't cut it. Randi knows this (see Sylvia Browne challenge)
...
Randi knows this so that why his 1 sitter, 9 non-sitters and a single medium (Browne) is mickey mouse. It proves nothing. Browne can be a fake, be real, be having a bad day.
I can't really see anyway in which you wouldn't already know this, but I'll lay it out just to be sure.

The JREF Challenge *is* a scientifically conducted/controlled test. The JREF Challenge *is not* scientific research into the paranormal. The purpose of the challenge is not to establish the truth or otherwise of any "paranormal" theory. It's not Ganzfeld research, and doesn't claim to be. It's not a search for a white crow. It's exactly what it says it is - a simple "show me" situation.

Glad you brought up the Sylvia example. You're quite right. If the JREF Challenge was supposed to be asking (and answering) the question "Is mediumship real?" then the protocol that Randi outlined is terrible - essentially useless. But that's condemning the Challenge for being something it never claims to be!

The Sylvia example shows the Challenge as it actually is - in this case, it's asking the question "Can Sylvia Browne reliably produce results above chance"? You say "It proves nothing. Browne can be a fake, be real, be having a bad day." Well, you're wrong. It proves exactly what it sets out to prove. You see, Sylvia was asked, directly "can you pass this test?" She answered "yes". The Challenge sets out to test that answer by Sylvia. The test unambiguously answers the question - if she passes, then she's right. If she fails, then she's wrong.

Either way, a test of Sylvia doesn't prove (if she passes) or disprove (if she fails) anything about mediumship. But that's not the point - it seeks *only* to test Sylvia's own claims. She agreed she can do it. Randi simply asks her to actually do so.

Personally, the only reason I can see why anyone with a "paranormal" ability would refuse the JREF test would be because their control of that ability was wildly, uncontrollably, erratic. If it was that erratic, I'm not sure why they (or anyone else) would be so sure it either exists, or is what it appears to be.

[SteveGrenard]

Loki:

Dont disagree with a single thing you say but please get real. Randi ridicules claimants ad nauseum. His rules make it unwinnable. He is judge, jury and executioner. There is NOW no judging. He can't be sued and he owns your ass. It is the most ridiculous contest imagineable. Its a farce. Anybody who applies is a fool or an idiot. And that includes SB for agreeing to the stupid proposal he foisted on her. She should've said she would get back to him before agreeing. I dont care about the challenge, would be happy to never mention it again but others keeping regurgitating it in conversation any chance they get. This forces me to cover the same reasons, the same ground over and over again until people who don't get it, er, get it. Randi will never accept a 440 person study of mediumship just like he backed out of accepting Schwartz's study. I am surprised he isn't sued more often.

I know this because Randi is a stage act and he is looking for "claimants" for white crow status he can ridicule in his books, lectures, magazine and web columns. He is like a comedien who constantly needs new material. Otherwise he is forced to revisit Geller for all eternity. A study using 5 or 40 mediums doesn't work into his format.

Is there a commission program out there if you sign up people which I am missing out on or something like that?


Who got him the Yellow Bamboo?

I know an ex- MC Drill Sergeant who could knock you over by yelling at you. Just one guy, not a whole cadre of martial arts fighters from Indonesia. Should he apply? Is this paranormal? How much do I get for signing him up?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
His rules make it unwinnable. He is judge, jury and executioner. There is NOW no judging.

This is patently false. And you know it.

The rules have to be agreed upon by both parties together. There is no judging, the numbers should speak for themselves.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Randi will never accept a 440 person study of mediumship just like he backed out of accepting Schwartz's study.

(cough) Do you read what you write, Steve? Do you really think that Randi should merely "accept" Schwartz' study without being able to freely investigate it?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He can't be sued and he owns your ass.
...
I am surprised he isn't sued more often.

Steve, go to bed. You are incoherent.

[Loki]

Steve,

We actuallyagree about quite a bit here!

Except for...
Randi ridicules claimants ad nauseum. His rules make it unwinnable. He is judge, jury and executioner. There is NOW no judging. He can't be sued and he owns your ass. It is the most ridiculous contest imagineable. Its a farce. Anybody who applies is a fool or an idiot.
Totally disagree, Steve. Randi has made a rod for his own back if you can provide a solid claimant. The power of the media won't let Randi survive if he attempted what you claim.

Look, it happened only two months ago here in Australia. The local top rating current affairs program (A Current Affair) arranged for a local "psychic healer" to take the Australian Skeptics $100,000 challenge. Both parties agreed to a simple blinded protocol. The show arranged for the test via a lcoal university. Then the skeptics backed out. The healer claimed victory, the show savaged the skeptics. The end result? - the Australian skeptics were made to look like fools and/or cowards, and the healer was a clear media event winner!! Of course, the healer then agreed to take the test anyway for the show (no $100,000 on the line) and promptly failed!!

So why did the skeptics back out? Well, when the healer failed the test, he was asked "why?" His answer - that the people he had tried to heal had actually been healed but had "not yet felt the effects of his healing" or alternatively he claimed that his "healing energies" may have "bounced around the room" and hit the wrong people.

This is precisely why the skeptics had backed out. They orignally agreed to test the healer, but once they got down to deciding what constituted "success" or "failure" the healer wanted to claim as success any healing by any participant over any time period as being due to "his powers". This is a ridiculuous claim, and completely untestable. So the skeptics withdrew the offer because the healer wanted an open-ended test.

The point of all this? Simply that this was a win for the healer, even though he failed to demonstrate any ability at all! Now, imagine the same scenario - skeptics issue challenge, challenger agrees, skeptics withdraw offer, challenger goes ahead and passes test! Are you seriously suggesting that Randi's credibility could survive such a scenario?

I'll make you an offer. You find a "paranormal talent" that can perform clearly above chance. Work out the protocol, make sure the talent works. I'll put together a deal with a media outlet for a TV special "Psychic Showdown", and we'll put the invite to Randi. If he refuses to put the money up against our simple protocol, we'll do the test live on TV and effectively end his reputation. If he puts the money up, we'll end his reputation and collect the million. How about it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Loki
The point of all this? Simply that this was a win for the healer, even though he failed to demonstrate any ability at all!

I came across a similar case last night (oh, baby, what a night - much more about that later! :)). A dowser insisted that 18 years ago, he had been tested by "some skeptics" who had to "admit" that he passed the test.

When I asked who these skeptics were (because I wanted to investigate it), you know what he answered?

He couldn't remember, because it was 18 years ago! When I asked him how on earth I was going to check his claim, he shrugged and didn't feel it was necessary to investigate. All I had to do was believe him!

These people will claim victory, while leaving out some - shall we say "crucial" information. Like, in reality, they didn't succeed.

They bank on people forgetting. Which is why we must make sure to keep the records... :)

[showme2]

1019

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clancie
lol, I think some of what I've seen from JE is indistinguishable from cold reading (but that not -all- of it can be accounted for that way).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RonSceptic replied:

And of course none of it is indistinguishable from what can be achieved by hot reading.

So it boils down to opinion. Is it more likely that a skilled perfromer has mastered the art of cold reading, with occassional assists via hot reading, or that dead people turn up on cue at in TV studios to give out vaugue hints about what letter their names start with?

.................................................. .................................................. ..

You don't even need to CONSIDER warm or hot reading.

Regrettably, I am forced to agree with RonSceptic here.
The dead turning up and giving "hints" about who they are by revealing the first letter of their name fails to convince anyone.
And when it is Michael Marcel Mabel or Mirabelle it gets ridiculous.

I have watched Edward - and Van Praagh - for a long time on TV (an EDITED environment, remember) and neither would convince anyone with any common sense.

Here is a verbatim demonstration of why ....

JVP: "Has your husband passed over?"

Subject : "Yes"

JVP : "Yes, because he is saying to me "I'm her husband, I'm her husband .... "

Yeah right, do us a favour ! !

I agree that MOST of what John Edward produces appears to be Cold Reading, and that ALL of what James Van Praagh produces appears to be Cold Reading.

But you only need one white crow, and Colin Fry is that crow.

[Loki]

showme2,

But you only need one white crow, and Colin Fry is that crow.
I've seen very little of Colin Fry (he is on air here on cable TV after midnight once a week) - but the little I've seen hasn't been good!

Here is a verbatim demonstration of why ....

JVP: "Has your husband passed over?"

Subject : "Yes"

JVP : "Yes, because he is saying to me "I'm her husband, I'm her husband .... "

Yeah right, do us a favour ! !

I caught the last reading from an episode of "Sixth Sense" a few weeks ago. Fry started by calling for "who had an accident involving a horse..a fall?" The entire audience ignored it. He offered it around the audience, looking for a taker. He added in "woods". After a few moments a woman in her late 20's offered up something like "I had trouble getting on a horse once at a camp."

He jumped on this (despite being only a partial match) and offered up "there were lots of people there?" The woman confirmed it was a camp with school mates. He offered "did you do something embarassing?" The woman shook head, looking puzzled. He offered "what was the thing with the alcohol?" The woman laughed - it had been a camp of 15 year olds, and they had been drinking illegally. He then asked "who is 'x'?" (can't remember the name). The woman had no idea.

The reading dragged on, going nowhere, and eventually Fry was left to explain to the woman that the 'spirit' was from another girl who'd been at the camp. The woman didn't know the spirit very well (explained Fry), but the spirit has grabbed the opportunity to "make contact" when the spirirt recognised someone they had barely known from 15 years ago.

The only impression that the reading left for me was "how bad was the rest of the session if this is the best they kept". It was worse than most of JE's offerings - I've never seen JE forced into a corner where the only way out is to claim "it's a dead aquaintance from 15 years ago!". Fry seemed to lead everything in with a question, and then retrofit the answers by paraphrasing the original question back.

Always dangerous to draw conclusions from too small a pool of evidence - but I must admit that this was so bad I've felt very little reason to give Fry another look.

[showme2]

Loki
Yes, I concede that it is very difficult to form an assessment when the information you are judging it on has been edited. You never know how much crap and "dead air time" has been edited out.

I went to see Fry "live" for two consecutive nights in Cambridge precisely to overcome that problem.

I was convinced by what I saw and heard, but it won't convince you or anyone else.

Why should it? It was MY experience, not yours. So far as you are concerned, it is therefore "anecdotal".

[mummymonkey]

People can speak with the dead?
Holy cow! Grandad, where did you leave the map?

[showme2]

mummymonkey

If that is the best contribution you can make to this debate, just piss off, will you ?
We will make do without your intellectual input.

Contribute something by all means, but moronic comments we can do without.

Clear ?

[Loki]

showme2,

I went to see Fry "live" for two consecutive nights in Cambridge precisely to overcome that problem.

I was convinced by what I saw and heard, ...
My first comment would be that unless you have access to some sort of recording (audio or visual), then these two nights *shouldn't* convince you. I've seen magians fold a woman into a small box right in front of me, then push a sword throguh the box. I was determined to see "the trick". I failed. Does my inability to detemine how I was fooled force me to conclude it was real? The only reason I *know* I was fooled rather than I watched a murder/resurrection is that the magician admits it's a trick.

...but it won't convince you or anyone else.

Why should it? It was MY experience, not yours. So far as you are concerned, it is therefore "anecdotal".
I've been to a reading, and had a few "amazing" hits given to me. Immediately after the reading, I was unable to dismiss these hits from my mind - they seemed "too good". Lucky for me ( bad move by the pyschic) she had allowed (actually, insisted!) on an audio recording. I went home, listened to the entire recording again. Thought about, worked through what was happening. It became obvious that the "good hits" were mostly likely lucky hits, since they were surrounded by a sea of misses. Just like the criticism says, I had (iniitally) over-emphasised the hits,a nd downplayed the misses. Only the ability to go through the session slowly in review revealed just how much I'd done this. It was a learning experience for me - I found that my initial reactions had been "off". I'd entered the reading expecting pure cold reading, and extremely cautious. I left confused by what had happened. If I'd entered as an "interested neutral" or "believer" I think I'd have left raving about the amazing accuracies.

I don't simply dismiss anecdotes - I just think that anyone can be mislead by "once only" events. Review and repetition are required to raise the quality of the evidence.

[showme2]

Loki
Yes, your point is well and truly taken.

We - my wife and I - recorded verbatim what transpired on the first night, and went back on the second night on impluse to check that the same "faces" were not receiving readings.

I don't know why sceptics assume that all others are gullible fools who do not take reasonable precautions against being duped !

[Loki]

showme2,

We - my wife and I - recorded verbatim what transpired on the first night...

...and went back on the second night on impluse to check that the same "faces" were not receiving readings.

I doubt very much that "plants" are used on the medium seminar circuit. Given the minituration and sophistication of modern electronics I'm not sure how you can hope to eliminate "eavesdropping" as a possible explanation.

But again, even the absence of a readily proveable explanation wouldn't mean that Fry's explanation should be accepted on face value. Please explain why your inability to describe how David Copperfield performs his show would support the argument that he realy does perform magic? Perhaps he really does perform true magic, but is afraid of the backlash he might suffer if he revealed his true abilities to humanity. So he hides behind the excuse that "it's a trick". If I've been to see him over two consecutive nights, and still can't see anyway he could do what he does, then haven't I got the same degree of "evidence" as you?

I don't know why sceptics assume that all others are gullible fools who do not take reasonable precautions against being duped
I'll pled guilty to making this assumption. Why do I make it? Because it turns out, time and again, to be correct!

Congratulations if you are the "exception that makes the rule", but in my experience you very much in the minority. If that means that occasionally you get tarred by the same brush as those around you who *don't* take the precautions that you do, then I suggest you take it up with those believers. I'm prepared to accept that you are "unusual" as a supporter of mediumship!

[The Mighty Thor]

Showme2
I agree that MOST of what John Edward produces appears to be Cold Reading, and that ALL of what James Van Praagh produces appears to be Cold Reading. But you only need one white crow, and Colin Fry is that crow.

Showme2's belief here is interesting. He clearly understands the flaws in JE's and JVP's readings. Yet he still believes that Colin Fry is genuine.

He believes this because of two live sessions that he and his wife attended during which they recorded all the readings verbatim. Yet he cannot provide any more details of this study. Had I found personal evidence of mediumship, I think I would have kept my study (anecdotal though it be) to show others.

He seems to be clutching at a last straw with Fry. It's like the anthropological move from pantheism/polytheism to monotheism.

Yet, even if his personal study looked impressive and seemed to validate Fry, Showme2 cannot rule out any of the hot reading techniques others have mentioned earlier:

● Information gathering before the show. Multiple methods and possibilities for this including information given by local mediums who feed off Fry's 'fame' and probably have info on many they know would be likely to turn up for the show. Even a reseracher doing a bit of work on local newspaper reports, Deaths, Births, Marriages, In Memoria, could provide what would appear to be astounding results.

Throw out a lot of hot stuff (hidden mic of researcher to earpiece of medium) to a fairly localised audience, most of them probably believers, and some are bound to hit home. e.g.

Researcher to earpiece: "Ok, Colin, try 'white-haired old lady'. Make a joke about that being very general. Now mention 'Granny Nanna'. I've got a ton of In Memoria posted by the family of a gran who died - date - after a long stay in a hospice (from Thank You to hospice posted below the original death notice). Right! I see we have a hit. The In Memoria were posted by etc." Note: one of the In Memoria was to 'Granny Nanna'

It seems like a lot of bother to go to, but there is a lot of money to be made all the way from the top to the bottom of Randi's pyramid.

Heck! I wonder why I'm sitting here typing when I could make a fortune being a medium! Well, too many scruples and no acting ability, I guess.

Have you thought of these plausible explanations?, Showme2? If so, why do you dismiss them in favour of Colin listening to dead people? Then there's

● Eavesdropping.

● Stooges -- combined with the above, only a few (three?) would be needed to give the show that real killer effect. In a fairly large audience, and given even minimum makeovers, these would be very hard to spot, since they would be 'validating' a different reading than the one from the last show.

So, why do you discount these, Showme2, and choose to believe strongly in Colin Fry? I think you said earlier 90%, but I may be wrong.

I look forward to hearing your reply.

Keep questioning -- I think you're nearly 'cured'.:)

malc

[Garrette]

showme2

mummymonkey

If that is the best contribution you can make to this debate, just piss off, will you ?
We will make do without your intellectual input.

Contribute something by all means, but moronic comments we can do without.

Clear ?



It's clear to me. At risk of not making your "Approved List," I'll elaborate.

It is clear that:

1. You are undeservedly arrogant (arrogance in itself is not a bad thing; just be sure to earn it first)

2. You believe yourself to be the arbiter of all things logical and acceptable

3. You think your admittedly subjective judgment is superior to the methodologies of science

4. You think other people's subjective judgments are insufficient to the task of judging mediums. Unless you'll admit that if I or Folly or someone else here were to go to a demonstration of Colin Fry's and come away convinced he's a fraud.

5. You think your age gives you license to deride.

6. This comment to mummymonkey was completely uncalled for.

That'll do for now.

---

And now, to demonstrate that I can separate opinions about posters from the substance of the post, I'll add this:

Folly is correct. What you are doing in regard to Fry is exactly like his experience with card tricks. You believe yourself incapable of being fooled and conclude that Fry is real. You do this absent any controls to prevent fraud.

You have demonstrated no critical thinking here.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by showme2
mummymonkey

If that is the best contribution you can make to this debate, just piss off, will you ?
We will make do without your intellectual input.

Contribute something by all means, but moronic comments we can do without.

Clear ? Sorry, on reflection it was rather moronic of me to think that people can talk with the dead. How right you are oh wise and intellectual one. Grandad's collection of cigarette cards must remain forever buried. Oh the injustice of it all!

[showme2]

Garrette
483

quote:
"""""""""It is clear that:

1. You are undeservedly arrogant (arrogance in itself is not a bad thing; just be sure to earn it first)
--------I've been called that before, so you might be right.

2. You believe yourself to be the arbiter of all things logical and acceptable
--------No, but when others are being totally ILlogical and IRrational, I shall certainly point it out

3. You think your admittedly subjective judgment is superior to the methodologies of science
---------No, but I think the use of subjective judgment can be perfectly valid for an individual, though he may not expect it to convince others. Very few judgments we make in life are under "controlled conditions" or subject to scientific methodologies. Any in any case, science is just another belief system.

4. You think other people's subjective judgments are insufficient to the task of judging mediums. Unless you'll admit that if I or Folly or someone else here were to go to a demonstration of Colin Fry's and come away convinced he's a fraud.
--------No, I haven't said that at all. You are perfectly entitled to make up your own mind using any criteria you choose. And yes, you probably would decide he is a fraud because you would go there predisposed to reaching that conclusion.

5. You think your age gives you license to deride.
---------It seems to me that most of the derision comes from the skeptic side of the fence. Age has nothing whatever to do with it, though you can't gain valuable experience without getting older unfortunately.

6. This comment to mummymonkey was completely uncalled for.
---------- Yes, you are right. He just caught me at the wrong time with his facetious comment.

"""""""""


By the way, Garrette, all this flattery of yours has just gotta stop.

"To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man.
Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble,
but I'm doing the best that I can" ! :(

[showme2]

mummymonkey

Kindly accept my apologies.
(And put that claymore away!)

[Folly]

Showme,

I'm not going to quote everything you said in response to my last questions this time. It's too big (I'm too wordy!)


First, about the actual events at Scole. I didn't make what I was trying to say very clear. The actual mechanisms that I proposed aren't of particular interest to me. All I was trying to do was suggest that with a little thought, many odd small details can be explained. Basically, I was just saying that the uncontested fact that Fry was not in his chair makes it look like it was a trick, since that's exactly what you would expect to find in that case if you turned the lights on without warning. But the details are lost now, like they generally are (try and get witnesses to agree in a police report of an incident the day before!) so it really is irrelevant, and I should have just left it alone.

As for the observations of hundreds of years, I wasn't talking about observations of seances at all. I was talking about general observations made in the course of scientific study. Observations about the behaviour of forces and mass. They don't match with floating trumpets, and they have been made so many times (consider what processes rely on knowledge of this!) and in so many varied ways. Oddly, with tests of these abilities that go against these observations, the power of the ability always seems to decrease with increasing ability to rule out other explanations. So someone will be able to move a trumpet with the lights off, a cigar case if you don't pay enough attention to the person before the test, and be able to produce a statistically significant non-uniform distribution of die rolls if poor sampling methods are used. Also what you would expect in the case of trickery.

So, yes, absence of positive evidence isn't negative evidence ("just because we havn't seem bigfoot doesn't mean it doesn't exist") but... It certainly constrains the ways in which the positive evidence does occur. Loch Ness has been searched so thoroughly that any Loch Ness monster must be invisible to radar, be able to live for hundreds of years, and have an awfully strange metabolism considering it's size and the usual food required to sustain something that large. It might be there, but you might as well believe in CFLarsen's unicorns, since they're no less unlikely.

Colin may no longer be a physical medium, but when he was, given all of the above, either he was doing tricks, or the generalisation of hundreds of years of observations should now have the restriction "except around Colin Fry." Like the Loch Ness monster, it's not really any more likely than unicorns.

(A quick note about science: it's not a belief, it's a process. The belief is in an objective world that works in observable and repeatable ways. After that, science is just saying "We've seen this, so we think this, which means this other thing should happen. We'll test and see.")


If we ignore the previous physical mediumship, and just look at Colin's current practices, you said

He is not Cold Reading, the method of choice for frauds (because you virtually can't get caught). Stooges in the audience I have dismissed for reasons I have explained at length in other posts. The nature of the information given does not fit warm or hot reading. My conclusion is that the phenomena are genuine.

I'm still missing something. Why _is_ this different than the card trick situation I gave? You say it's not like the cold reading you know, there's no stooges, and it doesn't look like warm or hot reading you could do, so he must be genuine?

[voidx]

Originally posted by showme2
Colin Fry has 1.5 million people watching 6ixth Sense, and can fill a 2000+ theatre wherever he demonstrates his gifts.

Why should he be concerned with obliging a dozen sceptics of THIS forum?

Damned if I would either !!!!
And without him bothering to prove his claims why should we believe a lick of what he says? Always remember statements like these go both ways. He doesn't HAVE to prove himself to me, but I also don't HAVE to believe he communicates with the dead, especially since he doesn't care to prove it.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Loki
showme2,


My first comment would be that unless you have access to some sort of recording (audio or visual), then these two nights *shouldn't* convince you. I've seen magians fold a woman into a small box right in front of me, then push a sword throguh the box. I was determined to see "the trick". I failed. Does my inability to detemine how I was fooled force me to conclude it was real? The only reason I *know* I was fooled rather than I watched a murder/resurrection is that the magician admits it's a trick.


I've been to a reading, and had a few "amazing" hits given to me. Immediately after the reading, I was unable to dismiss these hits from my mind - they seemed "too good". Lucky for me ( bad move by the pyschic) she had allowed (actually, insisted!) on an audio recording. I went home, listened to the entire recording again. Thought about, worked through what was happening. It became obvious that the "good hits" were mostly likely lucky hits, since they were surrounded by a sea of misses. Just like the criticism says, I had (iniitally) over-emphasised the hits,a nd downplayed the misses. Only the ability to go through the session slowly in review revealed just how much I'd done this. It was a learning experience for me - I found that my initial reactions had been "off". I'd entered the reading expecting pure cold reading, and extremely cautious. I left confused by what had happened. If I'd entered as an "interested neutral" or "believer" I think I'd have left raving about the amazing accuracies.

I don't simply dismiss anecdotes - I just think that anyone can be mislead by "once only" events. Review and repetition are required to raise the quality of the evidence.
This is an important point. Many people who lean towards paranormal explanations on this board seem to agree with us on the more obvious and glaring examples of cold-reading by psychics like JE and others, but still believe because of a personal experience at a seminar. While I don't automatically assume they went in blind, how can they be so absolutely sure they weren't misdirected by a clever performer? I wouldn't trust myself not to get duped, and so would record if possible the whole reading to review later. I simply have been given no satisfying and logical reason as to why these live seminars have made them jump to the paranormal explanation, rather than trying to pursue more mundane ones first. The only consistent observation here that I've seen is that people want to believe its true, and so lean that way, and then just keep trying to find holes in mundane explanations to continue their belief.

[Garrette]

showme2,

Not a bad response at all.

Had I more time, though, I'd go into detail about the subjective part of the discussion as it still seems to me you place too much weight on it.