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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

From the forum at the site Gary links to http://pub14.bravenet.com/forum/show...44043067&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 :

Quote:

…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]

Quote:

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!

Stumpy

[Darat]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

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...

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 Ł100,000 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]

Quote:

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 Ł100,000 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]

Quote:

Originally posted by showme2
Every medium since 1848 has been accused of fraud

But not every medium since 1848 has been caught waving a trumpet about in the middle of a session.

[Martin]

Quote:

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

Your evidence for this claim?

[Clancie]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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!

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:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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 ?