|
|
Post by conbott on Sept 1, 2008 14:43:30 GMT
I've just read some of your thread and I just want to warn you that it comes across as advertising a medium. I could be wrong but you need to be very careful when it comes to using information in this way. If I was you I'd check with Jon first to make sure it's okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by arwen on Sept 1, 2008 19:48:44 GMT
I've just read some of your thread and I just want to warn you that it comes across as advertising a medium. I could be wrong but you need to be very careful when it comes to using information in this way. If I was you I'd check with Jon first to make sure it's okay. So you can only post names of psychics here if you have something nasty to say about them?  I posted this because it is an example of an investigation of a medium from a journal for paranormal research. I thought it would be interesting for those who claim that they want proper investigation and evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by billhick on Sept 1, 2008 20:12:57 GMT
False propaganda ....... but that's my view
Still no criminal cases from around this beautiful planet Earth that have been solved using ''psychic'' abilities. No evidence as yet
I'm interested if one day there is and it can be proved via monitored and accurate scientific study
However.............All Quiet on the Western Front
|
|
|
|
Post by BeamStalk on Sept 1, 2008 22:58:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by conbott on Sept 2, 2008 12:51:30 GMT
So you can only post names of psychics here if you have something nasty to say about them? I posted this because it is an example of an investigation of a medium from a journal for paranormal research. I thought it would be interesting for those who claim that they want proper investigation and evidence. It's a forum for debate, of course you don't have to be nasty. I've only been here a very short time and have no authority in what is said and done. I was just pointing out that it came across as a psychic solving a crime without sceptical comments to counteract that. There are lots of cases like this one where policemen and women have supported a psychic's claims but without proper analysis or word for word accounts it cannot be classed as genuine. To me it's like when you transcribe a reading and then under relevant statements you add comments to show how it has been done without the use of psychical powers. The police are trained to be vigilant in their duties BUT they are not perfect and a slight miswording of a statement can change something dramatically. I'll use this statement as an example of what I mean. "She's talking about robbery. Jewellery. She's showing me a St Christopher. Chunky bracelet. Her granny gave her something. Her mother gave her some¬thing for Xmas. Very nice. She had some stolen, some left. Was there another ring apart from these two? She's saying Terry, she's asking for Terry."This is what I read from this and it's purely from my perspective. Jewellery is one of the top items stolen in a robbery. Notice how she doesn't state what the grandmother gave her. It is commonplace for grandparents and parents to buy family members, especially females, jewellery as a gift. If she's really talking to the dead womans spirit why can't she say what the jewellery items are? Again in a robbery items are bound to be left in the rush to get out before being caught. Notice the question near the end. A classic cold reading technique. Terry is a common name and the psychic doesn't state the relationshp between him and the deceased, there's a big likelihood that the name Terry could fit somewhere.Like I said earlier it isn't my job to tell you what to do but this is what I see from a sceptical point of view. It's designed to help the vulnerable and grieving to see how easily a psychic can take advantage of a tragic event in their lives. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Sept 3, 2008 16:08:34 GMT
Lyon Playfair and Monty tried really hard to make a case for Christine as an actual genuine psychic/medium. However because they really wanted to believe that totally overlooked the obvious, which is to say she was crap.
Tony Youens has a fantastic article about this particular case. Unlike the LP and Monty scenario though, all facts in his account are verifiable and true.
So you will have to choices here.
1: believe the account that is based on belief and wishful thinking?
2: believe the account which has verifiable facts and is true?
|
|
|
|
Post by arwen on Sept 3, 2008 18:35:45 GMT
That's an interesting article. It's a shame he hasn't finished the comments to the notes, it sort of leaves it hanging. I think some of his conclusions are a little strange, like for instance about the coffee cups - it would be pretty clear to me what was meant with "2 cups in kitchen. 1 washed up. She made cup of coffee". It seems a little deliberately obtuse to suggest that it was so ambigious that it could mean that the entire kitchen only contained 2 cups! The disagreement between the police officers involved seems to reflect the disagreement that is found among the general population - but it seems more natural to me that a police officer would deny and dismiss this kind of input than to approve of and encourage it. In general, I wonder why anyone, unless they were absolutely convinced and felt it was very important, would risk ridicule and ousting by supporting the claims of a medium. In this case, the medium received no reward for putting out this information, and she was very young when it happened, which makes it less likely to me that she could have planned and implemented such a clever fraud. That's something I would have expected from a much older and experienced person. I do wonder why no one would have come out and said that they had told her all this information, if it was such a small community and she was close enough to people who were very close to the victim to get enough information like that. I live in a small community, and if I had to rely on rumors to make observations and statements, I would have it wrong 90% of the time because the rumors are so often fictional. |
|
