Sensing bullshit

[Drum]

Ya fake one little moon landing and all of a sudden all of the legitimate moon landings never happened either.

[NotaGoth]

Ya fake one little moon landing and all of a sudden all of the legitimate moon landings never happened either.

you are so awesome

[Mekk]

Neither of those astronauts have left the ground, that's for sure.

[mynameis]

If the psychic or medium or whatever picks up that they've hit something, they will exploit it. They'll then throw a whole lot more "information" out there until something hits again...when that happens your reaction is bigger as this magical person has now hit on two things that they shouldn't have known!

No mate it doesn't work that way, I don't think you have enough knowledge and exposure to back up what you are saying. I know you think and feel it's all bullshit but how many psychic shows have you been to or seen on TV. Not that I am a firm believer or supporter, but I am just open minded to it unless and until I can indefinitely prove it wrong, beyond doubt.

Say for example someone had a brother or sister who had cancer but died in a hiking trip say somewhere in South America. Without much probing what are the possibilities and chances that a psychic would be able to get all of the above information right?

Brother/Sister
Had Cancer
Died in a trip to South America hiking.

Without much effort it can be figured out that the chances of someone getting all that right is one in a few million or billion. So prompting and probing and throwing heaps of information out there until it hits someone is not how it works.

There can be a million different scenarios/circumstances/instances/experiences in ones life. The fact that someone is able to isolate it and narrow it down precisely is what startles me.

All I am getting you and other sceptics to do is to ponder. Think critically, as well as the other side of the coin as well, before you draw any conclusions. We are known to jump to answers without much thought. And in my mind unless something is proven wrong without doubt it cannot be dismissed.

[007XX]

All I am getting you and other sceptics to do is to ponder. Think critically, as well as the other side of the coin as well, before you draw any conclusions. We are known to jump to answers without much thought. And in my mind unless something is proven wrong without doubt it cannot be dismissed.[/FONT][/LEFT]

Yep, I'd tend to be with you on that one...as much as I have witnessed a lot of quacks in my time, I still think there is a margin of possibility for the "real deal" out there, and unless I was able to meet every single people claiming to be mediums and without a doubt proven that every one of them is a fake, then I will keep an open mind and not say that it is impossible.

[MSTRS:Me]

I always have a chuckle at the scenario of..."The crystal is just a bit cloudy - perhaps if you pay me a little more, it will clear (Ka-ching) Ah yes now I see...."
Believe if you want. Anyone with a real psychic ability will not be ripping off suckers on stage or tv.

[Curious_AJ]

it is pretty freaky how some people can narrow things down like that... but I stick with what I say when I say that the people who do it for publicity, are usually fake.. the one's who will give private readings etc etc may be the real deal.. but who really knows if "psychics" exist.. people may just be really god at narrowing things down, or extra good guessors or something of the sort.

[Curious_AJ]

I always have a chuckle at the scenario of..."The crystal is just a bit cloudy - perhaps if you pay me a little more, it will clear (Ka-ching) Ah yes now I see...."
Believe if you want. Anyone with a real psychic ability will not be ripping off suckers on stage or tv.

exactly my point

[Mekk]

No mate it doesn't work that way, I don't think you have enough knowledge and exposure to back up what you are saying. I know you think and feel it's all bullshit but how many psychic shows have you been to or seen on TV. Not that I am a firm believer or supporter, but I am just open minded to it unless and until I can indefinitely prove it wrong, beyond doubt.

You're right in that aspect, a lot of my information is based on reading about these things which may or may not have bias. That's not to say I don't cast a wide net in searching for my information. I reason with the different sources and go with what sounds the most logical or correct to me.

Now, you say it doesn't work that way as if it does another. What is that?

Say for example someone had a brother or sister who had cancer but died in a hiking trip say somewhere in South America. Without much probing what are the possibilities and chances that a psychic would be able to get all of the above information right?

Brother/Sister
Had Cancer
Died in a trip to South America hiking.

Without much effort it can be figured out that the chances of someone getting all that right is one in a few million or billion. So prompting and probing and throwing heaps of information out there until it hits someone is not how it works.

I know not of a psychic who can consistently get results like these. If there are, they are all achieved under their own conditions. When subjected to double-blind tests they all fail miserably.

All I am getting you and other sceptics to do is to ponder. Think critically, as well as the other side of the coin as well, before you draw any conclusions. We are known to jump to answers without much thought. And in my mind unless something is proven wrong without doubt it cannot be dismissed.

To be fair I have spent a lot of time considering these things. The other side of that coin says that it's easy to jump to the conclusion that they're supernatural beings.

What do you need for proof of them being wrong? I would have thought the double-blind tests that they're subjected to and fail over and over would be enough.

[Calo]

Funny how 99% of people who believe in and financially support these quacks are women.

[007XX]

Funny how 99% of people who believe in and financially support these quacks are women.

Very sad, but true...I guess we all want to believe in something.

[Maha]

Neither of those astronauts have left the ground, that's for sure.

They were test pilots before being astronauts so, yeah they left the ground once or twice...

[avgas]

All bullshit aside i hope they aren't doing what they do.
Not all that is perceived good is. Some doors are best left closed, or at least guarded when they are open.

[Mekk]

They were test pilots before being astronauts so, yeah they left the ground once or twice...

I was alluding to the psychics, not real astronauts.

[Wolf]

There was a great expose on so-called psychics I saw quite a while back. Many use accomplices - both as targets in the audience and also to chat with people who're gathered outside waiting to go into a live show:

Accomplice: "This should be good. I'm hoping she'll pick me, I'm hoping to get in touch with my uncle Frim."
unsuspecting mark: "Yeah. I want to find out about my brother, James, who died in the Swiss Alps."
Accomplice: "Wow, that's a bugger. How long ago did that happen?"
mark: "Oh four years ago, now. He was with his friend Bernie and their car went off the road..."

And later on, when the psychic regurgitates it back wiith emotional bullshit and "your brother says he loves you", the mark is so overcome with the experience and how accurate the psychic was, the conversation with the other "member of the audience" before the show started is usually forgotten.

Other tricks:

"I see someone standing behind you. A woman..." (to a younger person: ) "your grandmother" (or to an older person: ) "your mother." Pretty good odds that a younger person's mother is still alive but at least one grand mother is dead. pretty good odds that an older person's mother is dead.

Knowing what names are popular in the past can be handy. Say to any NZer over 60 "I'm getting a name... Harry, or Henry." Unless he's lived in a box all his life, he'll have known a Harry or a Henry or both.

So often a "psychics" target volunteers a lot based on one small apparent "hit"

"I'm sensing a woman near you, she's very motherly (notes brief look of scepticism: mother is probably still alive or not very motherly) but she's not your mother, although she was like a mother to you."

"That'd be aunt Mavis, she was like my second mother. She died 6 years ago."