Why can't a medium PROVE the ability exists?

Cavehill Red · 01-02-2011 05:19PM

PMOOB wrote: »

I am waiting for the Newspaper headline "Psychic wins Lottery"

Apparently when Piers Morgan was the editor of the Daily Mirror, he called Mystic Meg in for a meeting and said to her: "As you no doubt already know, you're sacked."

Package · 01-02-2011 06:11PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

What the hell are you on about? I'm starting to think i'm not conversing with a balanced individual.

its called sarcasme and you obviosly dont seem to get it

MrStuffins wrote: »

I had no idea you were any kind of medium. This is why I asked.

ok , fair enough, point retracted.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Way off! If you're looking to do this as a career i wouldn't give up the day job!

well i guess you wouldnt tell the truth if it was right anyway

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nope, not at all! You see, footballing, boxing, languages.......... these are all things to be learned and need to be practiced.

However, speaking to the dead is not like this, it is a gift or a "6th sense".

it is neither a gift Nor a 6th sense. it is names the sixth sense as a term of endearment, and it is an ABILITY that we all have,, it whether you choose to develop it or not is the key. The brain is a muscle, and must be used like any other muscle or it loses ability, mediums can clear their mind so its not cluttered up with having to buy cat food, or Johns coming round for dinner on friday night,. this, coupled with trust in yourself and lots of practise is what increases your ability to recieve messages from spirit. it is names the sixth sense as a term of endearment.

MrStuffins wrote: »

There really is no point in speaking to you any more! You compare gravity to mediumship, learning a language to mediumship, you don't believe in the Moon Landings :rolleyes:

i didnt compare gravity to mediumship, i used an analogy which you obviosly dont have the brains to pick up on. and yes, learning a language is like mediumship. It takes concentration, skill, technique, time, practice, resilience, and the ability to be able to understand and repeat what you hear.

Package · 01-02-2011 06:15PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Apparently when Piers Morgan was the editor of the Daily Mirror, he called Mystic Meg in for a meeting and said to her: "As you no doubt already know, you're sacked."

:D:D

strobe · 01-02-2011 06:47PM

Oryx wrote: »

Specifics would be easy enough to handle, I can ask you to list things like height, age, cause of death, if they are mentioned in the reading. The more random stuff we may only discover once it is put on the main thread, but like you say, we can ask you to put down anything you think may be relevant.

The main thing I would like is that it doesnt scare off people who would want to try this out, to see if theres anything in it, without putting their name up there! It could be really good if we get a few people contributing.

Well that all sounds grand to me so. I guess I'll leave it with you and see if we get any interest from people in doing the readings? Hope we do, kind of looking forward to it now.

Penn · 22-02-2011 10:21AM

I think Derek Acorah has proved that it works. This is from an interview with him in the Mirror today:

His dad never believed a word of it but has since apologised and admitted he was wrong (from the other side, obv).

"Dad's dead? Wait.... I hear him now.... Yes.... He's saying that I was right all along.... and now he's telling me his wife's name.... I can't quite make it out.... No, he's gone".

20-03-2011 12:08AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nope, not at all! You see, footballing, boxing, languages.......... these are all things to be learned and need to be practiced.

However, speaking to the dead is not like this, it is a gift or a "6th sense".

As with all senses, either you can see or you can't, you can hear or you can't, you can smell or you can't.

No amount of training is gonna make Stevie Wonder see again!

There really is no point in speaking to you any more! You compare gravity to mediumship, learning a language to mediumship, you don't believe in the Moon Landings :rolleyes:

How many mediums have you tested ? I am asking this as you seem to have done alot of work on this , i would like to hear what it is.

MrStuffins · 21-03-2011 11:30AM

Deleted User wrote: »

How many mediums have you tested ? I am asking this as you seem to have done alot of work on this , i would like to hear what it is.

Well, before I answer, whether or not I have done extensive work on this or not is a moot point! It does not take away from the fact that supporters of Mediums are very busy answering questions with questions, answering questions with "maybes", giving wishy washy explanations as to why mediums are inaccurate when they are, but shouting from the rooftops when they are "accurate" (seem accurate).

But to your answer, I have "tested" 2. Both were informal tests but very straight forward and yoelded expected results. I have not done "a lot of work on this" but this doesn't matter in this case. So there's no point in using the fact that I haven't got a Masters Degree in Medium Testing to try to make your own points more valid, whatever they may be!

21-03-2011 03:14PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

But to your answer, I have "tested" 2. Both were informal tests but very straight forward and yoelded expected results. I have not done "a lot of work on this" but this doesn't matter in this case. So there's no point in using the fact that I haven't got a Masters Degree in Medium Testing to try to make your own points more valid, whatever they may be!

You do sound passionate about it , why dont you do more ??

MrStuffins · 21-03-2011 03:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You do sound passionate about it , why dont you do more ??

A myriad of reasons, including: Most mediums won't take a test and the fact that I have better things to do!

maccored · 21-03-2011 04:08PM

poor wee mediums - they're always getting harassed round here. Easy targets though.

mcmoustache · 21-03-2011 05:09PM

maccored wrote: »

poor wee mediums - they're always getting harassed round here. Easy targets though.

They certainly are. Assuming for a moment that ghosts exist and need to communicate with "our world", why would they speak to mediums in such a way that makes them look indistinguishable from cold/hot readers? "Hi Medium, i'm a ghost. My name starts with J. It could be John, Jim or Tim or Tom or something. Did a member of your audience say they know a Tim? OK then my name is Tim. I'm going to have you guess another name for the craic. Starts with M, sounds like 'Hairy'..... come on now you can guess.....Mary - excellent. Your prize is the knowledge that a Mary who died and is happy on the other side and want's her relatives not to worry"

I'd imagine that there is a decent-sized section of the paranormal investigation community who would have serious doubts about mediums too. Many of them take a fairly scientific approach to their investigations so they'd probably see mediums for the frauds and deluded crayturs that they are. So skeptics and paranormalists can unite in a round of medium-bashing

Dave! · 21-03-2011 05:31PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'd imagine that there is a decent-sized section of the paranormal investigation community who would have serious doubts about mediums too. Many of them take a fairly scientific approach to their investigations so they'd probably see mediums for the frauds and deluded crayturs that they are. So skeptics and paranormalists can unite in a round of medium-bashing

The problem I've noticed is that there's a bit of snobbery among paranormal enthusiasts when it comes to mediums... If I reference John Edwards or Sylvia Browne, then they'll jump down my throat and tell me that those are obviously fakes -- I mean, look at the cold reading they're doing, it's so obvious! Then they'll go to some oul wan in the Phoenix Park and come out singing their praises and referring them to others, saying how accurate they are, they're the real thing, they tell me stuff they couldn't possibly know, etc.

Ask one of John Edward's victims, they'll tell you the exact same thing. Incidentally have a session with Derren Brown or Ian Rowland, and I'll wager you'll come out thinking they have magic powers too, both noted skeptics.

maccored · 21-03-2011 05:40PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

They certainly are. Assuming for a moment that ghosts exist and need to communicate with "our world", why would they speak to mediums in such a way that makes them look indistinguishable from cold/hot readers? "Hi Medium, i'm a ghost. My name starts with J. It could be John, Jim or Tim or Tom or something. Did a member of your audience say they know a Tim? OK then my name is Tim. I'm going to have you guess another name for the craic. Starts with M, sounds like 'Hairy'..... come on now you can guess.....Mary - excellent. Your prize is the knowledge that a Mary who died and is happy on the other side and want's her relatives not to worry"

I'd imagine that there is a decent-sized section of the paranormal investigation community who would have serious doubts about mediums too. Many of them take a fairly scientific approach to their investigations so they'd probably see mediums for the frauds and deluded crayturs that they are. So skeptics and paranormalists can unite in a round of medium-bashing

my point is you lot dont seem to do anything else in here bar slag off mediums. theres more to scepticism than that. Plus you miss the point that if even one medium in the whole world is geniune, then you dont have a point anymore.

Dave! · 21-03-2011 05:51PM

maccored wrote: »

my point is you lot dont seem to do anything else in here bar slag off mediums. theres more to scepticism than that. Plus you miss the point that if even one medium in the whole world is geniune, then you dont have a point anymore.

I don't think anyone misses the point, they just don't think it's very insightful

If just one goldfish can talk, then your lack of belief in talking goldfish will have been completely undermined!

Now just find me a talking goldfish...

maccored · 21-03-2011 06:07PM

gee dave - thats a really 'insightful' post you got there alright. As I have said before, some confuse 'cynic' with 'skeptic'. basically, skeptisim is about more than the obvious fact that many mediums are fake.

Dave! · 21-03-2011 06:10PM

Yeah it's more about the obvious fact that all mediums are fake, whether they realise it or not

mcmoustache · 21-03-2011 06:38PM

maccored wrote: »

my point is you lot dont seem to do anything else in here bar slag off mediums. theres more to scepticism than that. Plus you miss the point that if even one medium in the whole world is geniune, then you dont have a point anymore.

I mostly just lurk here so I can't speak for all the skeptics but it looks to me like most types of hogwash get slagged off in this skeptical forum. Mediums would of course get the most slagging in a thread with the kind of title that this one has.

In general though, I think mediums are easy targets. So many of them have been debunked and those who haven't just haven't been investigated yet. That's a big claim I know and it could be rubbished by just one medium getting confirmed as genuine but as soon as one has been confirmed speaking to the dead, I'll eat my hat*. Just one from the tens of thousands around the world.

Another thing that I think inspires pee-pulling is what most mediums claim to do. They tell people stuff that has happened to them in the past and believers clap when they guess correctly and ignore the mistakes when they get it wrong. "He got a few things wrong but most of it was correct - especially about my sick relative". That's not an actual quote from a believer but it's not uncommon. What I'm getting at is that telling you about stuff that happened to you in the past, stuff that you already know, has no useful function. It seems to be done as some sort of proof of ability before the predictions.

I know that the above refers to a certain type of medium and not all types but this type is very common and is quite funny when you don't believe.

*My hat is made from tortilla.

MrStuffins · 21-03-2011 06:49PM

This should all be very very simple.

"Medium eh? Prove it! Oh you can't, then stop claiming to be something you can't prove"

the fact that mediumship requires "belief" should be a massive red light. I shouldn't need to believe no more than when I get my car fixed and I have to "believe" that the Mechanic can do what he says he can do.

mcmoustache · 21-03-2011 07:01PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

This should all be very very simple.

"Medium eh? Prove it! Oh you can't, then stop claiming to be something you can't prove"

the fact that mediumship requires "belief" should be a massive red light. I shouldn't need to believe no more than when I get my car fixed and I have to "believe" that the Mechanic can do what he says he can do.

Ah, but a mechanic deals with the material world so you can't compare him to the medium. A medium deals with the spirit world, you see and the spirit world doesn't deal with facts. Only vague generalities and charades. Now, I'll complete the circle of logic by pointing out that you need to believe in the spirit world in order to see the difference.

You're correct though. It is incredibly easy to test the accuracy of a medium against a cold-reader. It has been done plenty of times (against obvious fakes, obviously) and skeptical magicians tend to be far better. Still, one would think that with the shear number of mediums in the world that at least one could be verified. Just one, that's all. That would wipe the condescending grin off my smug face.

21-03-2011 08:51PM

Dave! wrote: »

The problem I've noticed is that there's a bit of snobbery among paranormal enthusiasts when it comes to mediums... If I reference John Edwards or Sylvia Browne, then they'll jump down my throat and tell me that those are obviously fakes -- I mean, look at the cold reading they're doing, it's so obvious! Then they'll go to some oul wan in the Phoenix Park and come out singing their praises and referring them to others, saying how accurate they are, they're the real thing, they tell me stuff they couldn't possibly know, etc.

Ask one of John Edward's victims, they'll tell you the exact same thing. Incidentally have a session with Derren Brown or Ian Rowland, and I'll wager you'll come out thinking they have magic powers too, both noted skeptics.

Yeah i agree with some of this , i call it "The Best Take Away Theory"
Ever know those people who tell you that there is the best take away somewhere they are going . They do the same with mediums.

But again your bringing up TV shows John Edwards and Derrin Brown . I can easily re-create a John Edwards show , and i can easily re-create a Derrin Brown show. I am not psychic or a cold reader.

But lets look at Derrin Browns investigation into Psychics . There are millions of people claiming to be psychic, there are thousands of people who are practicing psychics . Derrin Brown investigates 3 of them :rolleyes:

Derrin falls into the same category as Derrick Achorah a star of a TV show .

Yes its an entertaining so but not really an investigation. What i would love to see is a documentary made over years investigating loads.

Dave! · 21-03-2011 09:32PM

Or, psychics could just volunteer themselves to any of the skeptical organisations and scientists around the world, who would be only too happy to design a test for them. Job done.

MrStuffins · 21-03-2011 11:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But lets look at Derrin Browns investigation into Psychics . There are millions of people claiming to be psychic, there are thousands of people who are practicing psychics . Derrin Brown investigates 3 of them :rolleyes:

Fine, but all of them were fake as sh*t!

in fact, any "psychic" or "Medium" who has ever been tested has been found out to be full of sh*t! Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I can give you multiple examples of instances where psychics were found to have no powers at all. If you or anybody can show me ONE instance where someone was PROVEN to have psychic ability, please let us know.

The best we've had so far is "Sure my Auntie Mary went once and sure wasn't yer man able to tell her she had a cat and the cat's name was Felix".

mcmoustache · 22-03-2011 02:52AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Fine, but all of them were fake as sh*t!

in fact, any "psychic" or "Medium" who has ever been tested has been found out to be full of sh*t! Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
.

That would be countered by "Only the fakes have been tested. There are other proper mediums out there." I would bet that even if half of all psychics were tested that people would still believe that only the fakes were tested and that there are real ones yet to be tested. What's stopping these people?

MrStuffins · 22-03-2011 11:49AM

mcmoustache wrote: »

MrStuffins wrote: »

Fine, but all of them were fake as sh*t!

in fact, any "psychic" or "Medium" who has ever been tested has been found out to be full of sh*t! Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
./QUOTE]

That would be countered by "Only the fakes have been tested. There are other proper mediums out there." I would bet that even if half of all psychics were tested that people would still believe that only the fakes were tested and that there are real ones yet to be tested. What's stopping these people?

Well wouldn't that be a "sample"?

Imagine the statistic "100% of people tested were shown to need food and water in able to survive". Obviously they used a "sample" of people, they didn't test EVERY person.

It would be like saying "Well, they only tested people who need sustanance, the ones who don't need food and water simply werent tested"

Ziycon · 22-03-2011 02:03PM

I'm not talking sides but why would militarys around the would pump millions into physic research(back in the 50s,60s & 70s) and the local law enforcement agencies use physics for cold cases/serial killers etc if there was no ground for it being plausible.

These decisions wouldn't have been made lightly as all these military programs have to be approved for financing etc, with numerous layers of red tape.

edwinkane · 22-03-2011 02:23PM

Ziycon wrote: »

I'm not talking sides but why would militarys around the would pump millions into physic research(back in the 50s,60s & 70s) and the local law enforcement agencies use physics for cold cases/serial killers etc if there was no ground for it being plausible.

These decisions wouldn't have been made lightly as all these military programs have to be approved for financing etc, with numerous layers of red tape.

Is your argument that, because some military organisations did some psychic research, and because some law enforcement agencies have "used" ( whatever that means) psychics in an attempt to solve cases, then both of those proves the existence of psychic powers?

22-03-2011 02:36PM

Dave! wrote: »

Or, psychics could just volunteer themselves to any of the skeptical organisations and scientists around the world, who would be only too happy to design a test for them. Job done.

Why would psychics volunteer themselves to organisations who make money selling magazines and video discrediting them ? If a psychic were to prove them wrong then the industry is dead .

Ziycon · 22-03-2011 02:38PM

edwinkane wrote: »

Is your argument that, because some military organisations did some psychic research, and because some law enforcement agencies have "used" ( whatever that means) psychics in an attempt to solve cases, then both of those proves the existence of psychic powers?

No, all I'm saying is why would they go to the trouble if there was no positive outcome for them, sure I'm well aware that they spend millions/billions on projects that get dumped by the waste side but the physic research went on for years, a lot longer then it should have if they found nothing.

edwinkane · 22-03-2011 02:49PM

Ziycon wrote: »

No, all I'm saying is why would they go to the trouble if there was no positive outcome for them, sure I'm well aware that they spend millions/billions on projects that get dumped by the waste side but the physic research went on for years, a lot longer then it should have if they found nothing.

I'm not sure anyone on here would know why various military organisations might have undertaken psychic research, or why it went on a "lot longer" than it "should" have. Why do you ask, if not to imply that there must have been some proof obtained, but you are unable to say?

If someone is a genuine psychic, then they can quite easily demonstrate it. That no psychic can demonstrate their abilities with any degree of accuracy or consistency, is more telling than your nudge nudge wink wink military research that went on too long so there must be something in it nudge nudge wink wink.

Dave! · 22-03-2011 02:58PM

Ziycon wrote: »

I'm not talking sides but why would militarys around the would pump millions into physic research(back in the 50s,60s & 70s) and the local law enforcement agencies use physics for cold cases/serial killers etc if there was no ground for it being plausible.

These decisions wouldn't have been made lightly as all these military programs have to be approved for financing etc, with numerous layers of red tape.

Who are all the "militaries around the world"? The US researched it alright, probably because of the Cold War and they wanted to get any angle they could find. Didn't hurt that they had Albert Stubblebine supporting the research, a man who believed he could turn invisible and walk through walls (he bumped his nose many times).

You'll note that in 1995 the project was transferred to the CIA, who determined immediately that it was a waste of money:

Congress had ordered the agency to take over Star Gate last year and conduct a study of its effectiveness. "There's no documented evidence it had any value to the intelligence community," says David Goslin, of the American Institute for Research, which the CIA hired to do the study.

Local law enforcement consult psychics from time to time because, just like everyone else, police are superstitious and when they get desperate they'll do anything to help with a case.

Why can't a medium PROVE the ability exists?

Comments