View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 27 Sep 2009, 03:01

ciscop wrote::lol: :lol:
do you really have links to pet psychics in your myspace?
wow !!! :lol: :lol:

And the most gullible award goes to... :?:


(oh, i found a link in your myspace to paranormal pets, is that it?.. pet psychics are way funnier..¨your dog has serious issues... he is telling me.. his mom was a bitch¨ :lol: :lol: .. ooh and i am reading the links on your website mickey!.. lots of interesting stuff).


See? You are just like ProfWag: ignorant and presumptuous. The only reference to "pet psychics" I found on my Myspace profile is that of a news article titled 'Paranormal Pets Wanted' (http://rodeo.cincinnati.com/getlocal/gpstory.aspx?id=100112&sid=154527). It's news; it's entertainment; but go on believing/deflecting what you want, distorting the facts, using faulty logic. It's what you guys do best. People with brains will realize I have a section on my profile that contains links to many various news items. That doesn't mean I support or endorse them. They are there simply to entertain and inform, not profess my beliefs. Hell, this very forum topic--which I created--is titled 'Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"', not "I support fraudulent psychics," but that doesn't matter to you guys; you'll find a news article on my profile about psychics and presume--or purposefully state--I'm suddenly a psychic apologist. What blatant ignorance and lack of intelligence that shows on your part. You guys use so many different and obvious ways to deflect your shortcomings that it's a wonder why you guys continue to embarrass yourselves as often as you do.

Here's the link to the News section that supposedly "demonstrates my belief in 'pet psychics':" http://www.myspace.com/quantumparanormal#paranormalnews Let me find the right word to use to describe you accordingly..... dunce.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA






Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ciscop » 27 Sep 2009, 04:58

i guess this is another time you chose to forget that i already stated that i didnt found references to pet psychics on your website but paranormal pets... see? you dont read what i write neither.
but i dont care, i like you the way you are, you are fun :D

but... is kind of funny what you are doing now
i understand it is your website and you can and should post whatever you want
however.. it is quite intriguing that you post all this woo propaganda and when you get call on the BS you say ¨i do not endorse them, i just share them¨

how convenient :lol:
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 27 Sep 2009, 06:23

ciscop wrote:i guess this is another time you chose to forget that i already stated that i didnt found references to pet psychics on your website but paranormal pets... see? you dont read what i write neither.


Here's what I said: "The only reference to 'pet psychics' I found on my Myspace profile is that of a news article titled 'Paranormal Pets Wanted'. It's news; it's entertainment; ..." Where in my previous post do I say anything about it mattering whether or not you meant 'Pet Psychics' or 'Paranormal Pets'? I doesn't matter. No where did I mention I had a problem with you mentioning 'pet psychics' versus 'paranormal pets'. The point I was making is that those things are news items, regardless of whether or not they're about 'Pet Psychics' or 'Paranormal Pets' or anything else. Having them on my profile does not mean I believe in 'paranormal pets', 'pet psychics, or any of the other paranormal news items shown there. See? That's what I mean by your lack of intelligence. You don't read critically nor think logically.

ciscop wrote:it is quite intriguing that you post all this woo propaganda and when you get call on the BS you say


Show me this propaganda. What's the cause? What am I promoting? Where is it? What "BS" did I get "called on?" Show me it. What's interesting is how I supposedly "have some cause to promote" on my Myspace profile despite the fact that I created this topic, one titled 'Another example of a fraudulent "psychic', yet I supposedly "support" these psychics. What's your IQ? 50?
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 27 Sep 2009, 07:42

Quantum, please allow me to explain myself for just a moment. As I have alluded too, and I believe you have fairly picked up on, I have a prejudice against psychics, astrologers, mediums, and other people who have no ability or no professional background to be giving advice or reaffirming a family's deceased relatives. I truly think it is a crime and gullable people across the world continue to give money to these people because they believe they have special abilities. This prejedice came to fuition several years ago when members of my family were spending money on these people when in fact, they should have been using their money in a better manner. Even though I had been a magician in the past and understand many of the tricks employed by "paranormalists" (for lack of a better term), my explanations to my family couldn't sway them from spending the occasional $35 for a 15 minute card reading. So, I set out to find the truth and try to explain the fakers. Using your own terms, what I am really searching for are any "good apples." I believe that might also explain my involvment in this forum.
Having said all of that, what I am really interested in is finding the truth of abilities of people who claim to be "Psychic Advisors," "Mediums," and the like.
Your presentation of psi is quite interesting information, and I have learned from your posts, but the evidence that has been presented doesn't do much for my primary interest of research into the paranormal. I want to find out if there is any substance to these people's claims. Radin's, Schwartz, etc. all have put years and years of research into their interests, yet they have not positively shown me much of anything that supports those that claim to have "special abilities." Again, I have not been convinced that Radin's, Utts', etc. positive results from their experiments have any bearing whatsoever on the psychic abilities of Geller, Browne, Dubois, or thousands of other self-proclaimed "Psychics." On a side note, I will admit that I am most interested in the upcoming study of channeling that Schwartz is heading up at Arizona, however, I hope that his test protocols are solid this time around. His last experiments have more holes in them than Al Pacino in Scarface. (My belief only based on what I have read in admittiedly biased articles, though I would be interested to hear if you believe Schwartz' previous research in mediums is considered "empirical data.")
I appreciate you calling me "ignorant" rather than "stupid," but even the tame name calling doesn't really help your side of the debate. It seems obvious to me that you have much more time to follow paranormal research. I don't have that luxury of time and my interest in the paranormal is simply a fleeting hobby and not a life-style. I leave it to people like yourself, Radin, Sherman, Wiseman, and others who are more of an expert in this field than I to provide the evidence that allows me to formulate my opinion of what I'm most interested in. And yes, I formulated an opinion of you and your views from your website. If you were truly interested in fair research and debate, you would have included in your links of recommended readings to include books by Wiseman, Gardner, Shermer, etc. They are missing. That leads me to believe that you not only are set in your views, but don't want others to have opposing views, regardless of what opposing evidence to your views may be out there.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 27 Sep 2009, 07:47

quantumparanormal wrote:
Show me this propaganda. What's the cause? What am I promoting? Where is it? What "BS" did I get "called on?" Show me it. What's interesting is how I supposedly "have some cause to promote" on my Myspace profile despite the fact that I created this topic, one titled 'Another example of a fraudulent "psychic', yet I supposedly "support" these psychics. What's your IQ? 50?

Sorry to interject here again. Here is your first post in this topic: "These bad apples sure make it bad for the rest of the bunch."
There is just no other way, that I can see anyhow, to interpret this statement to mean anything other than you support, or at least proclaim the existance of, "good psychics."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ciscop » 27 Sep 2009, 09:03

There is just no other way, that I can see anyhow, to interpret this statement to mean anything other than you support, or at least proclaim the existance of, "good psychics."

ooh.. believe me
he will find a way to understand it in another way so he thinks he made a point which he hardly does
believers are awesome at delluding themselves

and 2nd.. profwag, i have never addressed before i think, but you were a magician??
do you still perform? i do ! (not my day profession, but i do perform for events and stuff like that as mentalist)
is cool to find another magician with ethics.. i have an aunt and a grandmother that believe deeply on this kind of stuff and is hard to tell them.. IS ONLY A TRICK.. (even when i show them how the trick was done, they couldnt believe me althought i did fool them with the same trick the healer did).

and just to add to what profwag said.. im here to have fun AAAAAAAAAAAAAAND to create new routines based on this kind of stuff
since i do part time mentalism, i like to take real examples of studies such as rhine studies .. to create routines and give them a background of course i will always refer to them as pseudo sciences, since that is all that they are.
currently im writing a routine based on radin´s enhaced chocolate.. i find the premise is so irrational that is funny and i think i can do something with it
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby NinjaPuppy » 27 Sep 2009, 10:23

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:
Show me this propaganda. What's the cause? What am I promoting? Where is it? What "BS" did I get "called on?" Show me it. What's interesting is how I supposedly "have some cause to promote" on my Myspace profile despite the fact that I created this topic, one titled 'Another example of a fraudulent "psychic', yet I supposedly "support" these psychics. What's your IQ? 50?

Sorry to interject here again. Here is your first post in this topic: "These bad apples sure make it bad for the rest of the bunch."
There is just no other way, that I can see anyhow, to interpret this statement to mean anything other than you support, or at least proclaim the existance of, "good psychics."


ProfWag- Did you not yourself, give your own personal definition of a 'good psychic'?

ProfWag wrote: IMHO, a good psychic would be a psychic that does whatever they claim to do. A bad psychic is one who is fraudulent and/or essentially “steals” money. My interpretation anyway.


Doesn't that suggest that 'good psychics' might actually exist? Of course, that definition would make me an excellent psychic because I don't claim to be able to do anything of a paranormal nature nor do I claim to possess any related skills. Heck, I can't even do a simple child's magic trick without screwing it up. Of course I do happen to be left handed and I have been accused of being the devil's handmaiden because of, it by a wild pack of Catholic nuns. But that was about 45 years and many Popes ago. :roll:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 27 Sep 2009, 19:20

NinjaPuppy wrote:[
ProfWag- Did you not yourself, give your own personal definition of a 'good psychic'?

ProfWag wrote: IMHO, a good psychic would be a psychic that does whatever they claim to do. A bad psychic is one who is fraudulent and/or essentially “steals” money. My interpretation anyway.


Doesn't that suggest that 'good psychics' might actually exist? Of course, that definition would make me an excellent psychic because I don't claim to be able to do anything of a paranormal nature nor do I claim to possess any related skills. Heck, I can't even do a simple child's magic trick without screwing it up. Of course I do happen to be left handed and I have been accused of being the devil's handmaiden because of, it by a wild pack of Catholic nuns. But that was about 45 years and many Popes ago. :roll:

Yes, I did say that and yes, I believe that still. If a psychic claims they can communicate with the dead, and can do it, then that would be a good psychic. If a psychic claims they can foretell the future, and does it, then that would be a good psychic. If a psychic claims they can find dead bodies, and can do it, then that would be a good psychic. If a "psychic advisor" claims they can give advice on love, money, and careers, then that is an uncertified counselor. I haven't figured out yet what is paranormal about giving advice.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 27 Sep 2009, 19:28

ciscop wrote:[

and 2nd.. profwag, i have never addressed before i think, but you were a magician??
do you still perform? i do ! (not my day profession, but i do perform for events and stuff like that as mentalist)
is cool to find another magician with ethics.. i have an aunt and a grandmother that believe deeply on this kind of stuff and is hard to tell them.. IS ONLY A TRICK.. (even when i show them how the trick was done, they couldnt believe me althought i did fool them with the same trick the healer did).

and just to add to what profwag said.. im here to have fun AAAAAAAAAAAAAAND to create new routines based on this kind of stuff
since i do part time mentalism, i like to take real examples of studies such as rhine studies .. to create routines and give them a background of course i will always refer to them as pseudo sciences, since that is all that they are.
currently im writing a routine based on radin´s enhaced chocolate.. i find the premise is so irrational that is funny and i think i can do something with it

Sounds like the chocolate thing has possibilities! Yes, I was a magician many, many moons ago. I worked my way through school doing parlor and close-up shows. Unfortunately, two things happened to me. After I joined the military, I traveled so much and lived in barracks that I had no place to store my stuff and couldn't build up a reputation before I was moving on. A few years after that, I developed the shakes when doing close up. Not sure why as I don't shake at any other time than when doing close up. In fact, just last weekend when I was with family, they wanted me to do some of my old impromptu stuff and low and behold, I still had the shakes. So, I don't do it any more, however, it's still my favorite form of entertainment. I did get through Out of This World with them however. That simple card trick can make the most hardened skeptic a believer. I've thought about building an illusion show now that I've settled down, but my location already has two illusion shows (I live in a tourist trap town) so the market is already saturated. But who knows, maybe someday.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 27 Sep 2009, 23:49

ProfWag wrote:Quantum, please allow me to explain myself for just a moment. As I have alluded too, and I believe you have fairly picked up on, I have a prejudice against psychics, astrologers, mediums, and other people who have no ability or no professional background to be giving advice or reaffirming a family's deceased relatives. I truly think it is a crime and gullable people across the world continue to give money to these people because they believe they have special abilities. This prejedice came to fuition several years ago when members of my family were spending money on these people when in fact, they should have been using their money in a better manner. Even though I had been a magician in the past and understand many of the tricks employed by "paranormalists" (for lack of a better term), my explanations to my family couldn't sway them from spending the occasional $35 for a 15 minute card reading. So, I set out to find the truth and try to explain the fakers. Using your own terms, what I am really searching for are any "good apples." I believe that might also explain my involvment in this forum.
Having said all of that, what I am really interested in is finding the truth of abilities of people who claim to be "Psychic Advisors," "Mediums," and the like.
Your presentation of psi is quite interesting information, and I have learned from your posts, but the evidence that has been presented doesn't do much for my primary interest of research into the paranormal. I want to find out if there is any substance to these people's claims. Radin's, Schwartz, etc. all have put years and years of research into their interests, yet they have not positively shown me much of anything that supports those that claim to have "special abilities." Again, I have not been convinced that Radin's, Utts', etc. positive results from their experiments have any bearing whatsoever on the psychic abilities of Geller, Browne, Dubois, or thousands of other self-proclaimed "Psychics." On a side note, I will admit that I am most interested in the upcoming study of channeling that Schwartz is heading up at Arizona, however, I hope that his test protocols are solid this time around. His last experiments have more holes in them than Al Pacino in Scarface. (My belief only based on what I have read in admittiedly biased articles, though I would be interested to hear if you believe Schwartz' previous research in mediums is considered "empirical data.")
I appreciate you calling me "ignorant" rather than "stupid," but even the tame name calling doesn't really help your side of the debate. It seems obvious to me that you have much more time to follow paranormal research. I don't have that luxury of time and my interest in the paranormal is simply a fleeting hobby and not a life-style. I leave it to people like yourself, Radin, Sherman, Wiseman, and others who are more of an expert in this field than I to provide the evidence that allows me to formulate my opinion of what I'm most interested in. And yes, I formulated an opinion of you and your views from your website. If you were truly interested in fair research and debate, you would have included in your links of recommended readings to include books by Wiseman, Gardner, Shermer, etc. They are missing. That leads me to believe that you not only are set in your views, but don't want others to have opposing views, regardless of what opposing evidence to your views may be out there.


Typically, I'd respond to the irrelevant topics discussed above, but in the interest of staying on topic, I won't, as none of what you discuss above substantiates your claim that "that phenomenon [about psychics] has not been proven up to the present time." I'll copy and paste what I mentioned above, in that longer post:

For #9 [your claim] to be correct, you would have to empirically falsify every single claim ever made by a psychic, then you'd have to take that empirical evidence and convince all of humanity that it proves psychics can't do what they claim they can. Have you done this? I'm going to guess you haven't. Also, you can't expect to take a few failed experiments or a few fraudulent events involving a few psychics' claims and apply those failures to the entire database of psychics' claims, which is exactly what you've done. That's just not logically possible. What you can do, however, and for example, is use a few failed psychic experiments or a few fraudulent claims to demonstrate that some psychics can't perform the abilities they claim they can, specifically the ones tested in those experiments or those found to have committed fraud, but, again, you can't apply the failures of a few to all psychics. The problem with your claim is that it's so broad, general, and far-reaching that it cannot be substantiated with empirical data. In other words, it's simply impossible to achieve.

A more proper claim would've been "that phenomenon [about psychics] has not been proven to me up to the present time," or "I believe that phenomenon [about psychics] has not been proven up to the present time." That way, you are constraining your claim to the point where it's your claim, not humanity's claim.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 28 Sep 2009, 00:25

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:
Show me this propaganda. What's the cause? What am I promoting? Where is it? What "BS" did I get "called on?" Show me it. What's interesting is how I supposedly "have some cause to promote" on my Myspace profile despite the fact that I created this topic, one titled 'Another example of a fraudulent "psychic', yet I supposedly "support" these psychics. What's your IQ? 50?

Sorry to interject here again. Here is your first post in this topic: "These bad apples sure make it bad for the rest of the bunch."
There is just no other way, that I can see anyhow, to interpret this statement to mean anything other than you support, or at least proclaim the existance of, "good psychics."


I've already addressed what I meant when I said that statement earlier, which is that the few fraudulent psychics make it look bad for the entire field of parapsychology, not that there are some "good" psychics out there, but I can see why you'd interpret it what way--it does seem that way. Nevertheless, I've explained myself. By you bringing this issue up again, it doesn't in any way substantiate your claim that "that phenomenon [about psychics] has not been proven up to the present time."

Regardless of what I meant, let's say for the sake of argument that I indeed meant there are a few "good" psychics. I would have to support my claim via empirical data. The difference between you and I, however, is that I wouldn't go so far as to claim, for example, the following: "It's been proven that there are good psychics." That claim is too broad, too general, and too far-reaching, as in essence what I'm doing is speaking for all of humanity, and that's an obvious fallacy. Similarly, in that example, what I'm claiming is that all of humanity has agreed with me that there is "proof" good psychics exist. I would never do such a thing. I'm careful not to be making such irresponsible, irrational, illogical, and unfalsifiable claims.

Additionally, "good" is a subjective quality. There's nothing objective about the word "good" when dealing with the question of whether or not a particular psychic is "good." Therefore, you could not logically prove that for all of humanity, there are no "good" psychics, nor could you otherwise. It's an unfalsifiable claim. You, however, could convince yourself there are no "good" psychics, but not logically. It would be a belief you hold, not a fact. Do you remember studying ethics in graduate school? It goes into some length about the words "good" and "bad," two very subjective qualities of whose meanings vary from person to person. "Good" and "bad" are not logical definitions; therefore, you cannot use them in logical contexts or claims.

Again, if you employ simple logical faculties, this all makes sense.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 28 Sep 2009, 00:48

Yes, I know ethics. I have taught it at the collegiate level.
Thanks for clarifyiing your statement. To be sure I understand, essentially, you're not claiming that there are non-fraudulent psychics, just that there is evidence to suggest that psi may exist. This, to me, really appears to be a much different claim than your original statement. The reason I ask this is that if you know of a non-fraudulent psychic, I would like to see the evidence for this non-fraudulent psychic. I would like to be clear in my mind that you either know of a person who is a non-fraudulent psychic and have evidence for this which I would like to see or that there COULD BE non-fraudulent psychics out there who simply don't want their abilities tested by Scientific American for $2,500, the Independent Investigations Group for $50,000, or $15,000 from the Swedish Humanist Association, just to name a few, that simply don't want the money or wouldn't want it donated to a worthy study.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 28 Sep 2009, 01:00

ProfWag wrote:Yes, I did say that and yes, I believe that still. If a psychic claims they can communicate with the dead, and can do it, then that would be a good psychic. If a psychic claims they can foretell the future, and does it, then that would be a good psychic. If a psychic claims they can find dead bodies, and can do it, then that would be a good psychic. If a "psychic advisor" claims they can give advice on love, money, and careers, then that is an uncertified counselor. I haven't figured out yet what is paranormal about giving advice.


I have a personal bias against psychics/mediums claiming they can communicate with discarnate humans. The problem is that the source of the information cannot be empirically determined. This is a problem I have with most of what "ghost hunters" do in their investigation. For example--and I give ghost hunters a lot of flack for this, ghost hunters will typically take to their investigations voice recorders, EMF meters, cameras, and thermometers. When these devices behave anomalously, many of them will assume discarnate humans are the cause. That's an obvious error in judgment, as the source cannot be ascertained with certainty. Since discarnate humans are invisible, it's not possible to determine if they are present at the time of these anomalies, nor can you have some form of dialog with them to ascertain their identity or involvement. Therefore, any claim that discarnate humans are causing these device anomalies is unfalsifiable and, therefore, neither true nor untrue--we simply don't know (unless, of course, we can find obvious natural causes for the anomalies).

Similarly, the same problem applies to mediums/psychics. We simply cannot know for sure whether or not the sources of their psychical impressions are indeed discarnate humans. The sources could very well be cues, psi, or even plain guesses. A very good example of psi at work is in a story Charles Tart told about a sister having gone to a medium regarding her brother, whom she hadn't seen in many years. He'd gone off to war, and she assumed he'd been killed. The medium told the sister he had died in the war and had given her details about it. It later turned out the brother was alive and married with children. What the sister believed happened to her brother, in detail, is what the medium had "picked up." In other words, the sister's expectation of what had happened to her brother was exactly what the medium told her happened to him, suggesting the medium psychically perceived the sister's thoughts, not the brother's. Or perhaps the medium simply guessed, and that just so happened to coincidentally coincide with the sister's expectations.

Regardless of the source of information, to qualify as "good" for me, a psychic would have to be tested in a highly controlled, highly blinded, laboratory environment, much like several have via Gary Schwartz's various experiments. Then, if the psychics got repeatable "hits" more often than not, that medium would qualify as a "good" medium in my book, regardless of from where the information came. However, as is the case with the word "good," what qualifies as a "hit" is also subjective, and it depends on the sitter rating the information. Each person will judge a "hit" based on his or her own subjective qualifications. Besides hit rates being subjectively correlated with the sitters/raters, because psychic perceptions are often vague, unclear, and unpredictable, the hit rates mediums/psychics get are often small, albeit statistically significant in some cases. I'm not really into mediumship research, so I can't comment specifically about the data that's out there. I do, however, have a few books and papers archived that I can bring up for evaluation.

Regardless of what qualifies a medium/psychic as "good," I personally have a distaste for frauds, which is why I brought up this topic in the first place.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ciscop » 28 Sep 2009, 01:11

about the shakes i got them all the time if i am performing for magicians
and sometimes when doing new unproved routines or new methods (i get like an adrenaline rush and my heart starts speeding up)
which doesnt help to play the character i want to present, what i figure it out
is that by doing first a sleight of hand ¨free¨ magic trick i build confidence in myself at that moment and then i can move to some harder stuff
at least that works for me
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ciscop » 28 Sep 2009, 07:30

Regardless of the source of information, to qualify as "good" for me, a psychic would have to be tested in a highly controlled, highly blinded, laboratory environment, much like several have via Gary Schwartz's various experiments.


Gary Schwartz? you also endorse that conman?

yes of course he did those ¨highly blinded, controlled, laboratory environment studies¨...
not even the mediums he ¨tested¨ want to be affiliated with him

:lol:

somehow i know you will deflect and dismiss this, call it psychic intuition
:-D
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

PreviousNext

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron