Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Thank god we have come out of the dark ages

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102293 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2012 - 10:16 AM


Quote: Don't sound that unreasonable to me - we could use it today to lock up Derek Accorah, psychic Sally and all those other frauds who pray on the bereaved.


I want to agree with you but the trouble is: how do you prove they are frauds? (though Derek does have a little bit of questionable form)
"Psychic Sally" recently came under suspicion in connection with alleged radio transmissions between her and a behind the scenes assistant. However, I suppose these transmissions could have been simply for purposes of staging the show in a polished manner.
I may be being too kind to the psychics but it really is difficult to prove the veracity of their claims one way or the other (though I'm a little suspicious).
I think there should be a spate of "Panorama" type programmes that follow up the claims of these psychics by interviewing, those who have received psychic readings to see if various predictions have come true and indeed to confirm that the recipient's actually still believe in the powers of those psychics.
I'm amazed that there hasn't been much more follow-up investigation into programmes like "Most Haunted" etc.
Maybe the TV companies just prefer to take the public for mugs - which they so frequently do - and continue broadcasting paranormal stuff without any serious attempt at verification.
Of course, even if follow-up investigatory programmes were produced, there is still no guarantee that even these programmes would be honest and unbiased (the Panorama programme on 9/11 comes to mind - an absolute travesty of honest and unbiased investigation into the actual facts - but that's for another topic!).

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
16 Jun 2012 - 10:16 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Jestertheclown
16 Jun 2012 - 10:20 AM

Garth, surely you're not serious?

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102293 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2012 - 10:31 AM


Quote: Garth, surely you're not serious?

Hi, Jester.
Do you mean: Is any of my comment serious or are you referring to any specific part of my rather lengthy post?

Jestertheclown
16 Jun 2012 - 11:07 AM

I meant, is any part of your comment serious?
Surely you don't believe for a moment that any of these people are genuine?
These so-called 'psychics' have been around for centuries and whilst plenty of them have been de-bunked as charlatans, I can't think of a single one that's ever been able to prove that they're telling the truth.
As for following up shows like 'Most haunted,' which my ten year old daughter thinks is hilarious, I rather doubt that any serious journalist would be likely to want to put his or her name to it.
It's just another shallow, puerile TV show, typical of the abysmal quality that sadly, people are prepared to accept these days.

collywobles
16 Jun 2012 - 11:31 AM

Yep!

monstersnowman
16 Jun 2012 - 11:45 AM

These charlatans have been around forever and ever form of deception has been uncovered in massive numbers. Even our modern day performers like Acorah are CLEARLY shown to be faking yet some still ask for proof, as if to suggest we should still have an open mind and that the industry still has a shred of reputation and integrity. The fakes are unveiled all the time, the methods are well documented, even probably in 'how to ...' books, the claims by these fraudsters are still unsubstantiated, the inconsistencies of their claims are there to be mocked by all but the dim whittled, and we even have performers openly doing the fakery for a very successful living and happily saying they have no powers (Derren Brown), yet we still need to prove once and for all that it's not real?? It can never be proved one way or the other until you prove every person is faking because each new person convinces someone that they DO have a power, but surely for the love of god we can't seriously still really believe in these fakers in spite of ALL the proven faking ... surely not ...

monstersnowman
16 Jun 2012 - 12:12 PM

People still believe in fairies you know .. Honestly !!! Grin

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102293 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2012 - 12:59 PM


Quote: I meant, is any part of your comment serious?
Surely you don't believe for a moment that any of these people are genuine?
These so-called 'psychics' have been around for centuries and whilst plenty of them have been de-bunked as charlatans, I can't think of a single one that's ever been able to prove that they're telling the truth.
As for following up shows like 'Most haunted,' which my ten year old daughter thinks is hilarious, I rather doubt that any serious journalist would be likely to want to put his or her name to it.
It's just another shallow, puerile TV show, typical of the abysmal quality that sadly, people are prepared to accept these days.

But where in my post do I say that I believe in psychics?
If you read my post again you will see that I am merely saying that if we are sceptical, as I am, it is up to us to prove that psychics are false - and whether they are delusional or downright dishonest. I don't think we are making enough effort to reveal evidence to dismiss all of their their claims.
I take the philosopher's stance (admittedly an armchair philosopherWink not to take anything for granted and that everything should be questioned.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139544 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2012 - 1:10 PM

Whilst I agree these people are probably charlatans who prey on the vulnerable (and/or airheaded! Grin) it is difficult to convince those who have actually visited a psychic - to whom they are total strangers - and been told very specific things that the psychic couldn't possibly know even with a bit of 'cold reading', e.g. that their deceased mother is wondering what happened to that lovely sapphire and ruby ring she gave you.

Be honest............ however sceptical you may be at a distance, wouldn't your jaw drop to the floor if a psychic came out with something like that? Especially if you had gone and lost the ring! Lol! Wink

Jestertheclown
16 Jun 2012 - 1:19 PM


Quote: Be honest............ however sceptical you may be at a distance, wouldn't your jaw drop to the floor if a psychic came out with something like that? Especially if you had gone and lost the ring! Lol! Wink

Sorry CB but I wouldn't believe for a moment that it wasn't some kind of (possibly elaborate) set-up.
I once had a friend, she's moved away now, who believed in all this claptrap and more than once, a group of us went to see one of these fraudsters performing, in a pub of all places.
They always seemed to know something that they couldn't possibly know and my friend was sucked in every time (at about 25.00 a throw) but there was one occasion when their fount of knowledge suddenly dried up when a far less gullible and far more burly builder friend took the chair and directly challenged him.

Last Modified By Jestertheclown at 16 Jun 2012 - 1:19 PM
Jestertheclown
16 Jun 2012 - 1:22 PM


Quote: it is up to us to prove that psychics are false - and whether they are delusional or downright dishonest.


People have been exposing these fakes for as long as they've existed.

It's conceivable that some of them are delusional, it's a strong probability that almost all of them are dishonest.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139544 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2012 - 1:24 PM

Performing to an audience is one thing. We all know about cold reading and the "psychics" often get things wrong there and then. But in a one-to-one situation, without an audience to entertain, I still suspect most would be gobsmacked.

And if you went to a psychic in the first place, you would be in a different state of mind.

Jestertheclown
16 Jun 2012 - 1:31 PM


Quote: And if you went to a psychic in the first place, you would be in a different state of mind.

That's true enough, I guess.

My friend, the one that fell for it all, was dopey enough to be sucked into visiting a psychic, although I don't think that she ever did and would have been a good candidate for that scenario. They could have taken her to the cleaners.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139544 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2012 - 1:37 PM

So long as you have people who are in some sort of state of mental distress, either mild or severe, there will always be a proportion of them who seek some sort of comfort or resolution from a psychic. So psychics, who have probably been with us since the dawn of humanity, probably always will be with us.

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102293 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2012 - 1:45 PM


Quote: People have been exposing these fakes for as long as they've existed.

It's conceivable that some of them are delusional, it's a strong probability that almost all of them are dishonest.

I think you may well be right but then again there are many cases that have not been explained (though I share your scepticism and think that it is quite likely these cases could be found to be false if they were only followed up properly.
I think it is important to always keep an open mind: For instance, in the case of 9/11, I went along with the official explanation like most of other people because I'm very sceptical of conspiracy theories. However, the reality is, if many reputable scientists are to be believed, that the official report on the 9/11 affair is completely riddled with flaws, contradictions and downright untruths. Consequently, I'm being sceptical about the claims of both camps - in other words, I don't quite know what to think - so much is down to how much truth may be lost in reporting the views or 'facts' from both camps. This is why I'm personally outraged by the BBC (Biased Broadcasting Corporation) for their disgraceful negligence in questioning the 'official' version of events which on so many counts produce an entirely spurious account of the facts (several of these 'official' facts are contradictory).Sad

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.