BBC Exposes Psychics

[pavs]

YouTube - BBC 3 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ detectors exposes three mediums

Thoughts?

Disclaimer: Genuinely interested in discussion, not trying to start a flame war and I personally don't believe in psychics.

[codenamesmiley]

AWESOME!! However, I am positive that he only posted the findings he set out to find. I bet he had some psychics or mediums walk thru and give something that had nothing to do with the made up story, and were probably accurate in the real history. Do you think they would make it on to a phoney psychic expose film? Probably not.

I think it is important to circulate this, as I feel that many psychics do cheat.

Just the same way that other people will manipulate and abuse certain situations. "Guns don't kill people..people kill people" that being said...Just because there are a few out there that abuse their title...does not mean that there aren't authentic mediums out there that do an honest evaluation. Just the same way, that I don't think that everyone should be banned from owning a gun, just because there are a few out there that would use it to kill or rob a person.

I probably wouldn't believe in them myself, If I didn't personally have to live a daily existance of being, "the gifted".

Thanks for sharing this. I will be sharing this link, with a few people that actually know the first medium that was in that film.

Blessings,
Rebecca

[jay78]

Not trying to start a flame war? To be honest, at least in my opinion, you sound like a wolf in sheep's clothing but that's not the point of this post.

Exposing 3 psychics does not expose all psychics. Exposing 3 doctors who are fraudelent does not mean all doctors are fraudelent. Exposing 3 unlicensed drivers does not mean all drivers are unlicensed.

Personally, I have witnessed way too much psychic phenomenon to believe that it is all phoney. And psychic abilities HAVE been documented and researched and proved. At least certain ones, anyways.

Google Noetic Science. Or watch what the bleep. Or talk to countless of quantum physicists who whole-heartedly believe after years of research and studies in other dimensions and life after death and all this psychic stuff.

But aside from proof or no proof, why post this, especially on Steve and Erin's (who makes a living as a psychic) message board?

Like I said, wolf in sheep's clothing, but maybe I'm wrong.

[KazeCraven]

Paranormal experiences do not lend themselves to 'proof'. This is an area where, for several reasons, we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt without your help.

First of all, yes, if the person has something to gain for proving something is false, not only is he likely to attract people that are frauds, but also he's liable to skew the results, or innocently see only what he wants to see.

Furthermore, the people who are really psychic are likely to smell duplicity (or feel intuitively the duplicity) from a mile away, and go off to help people rather than waste their time with people who want to prove them wrong.

Lastly, sixth sense ability appears to draw on energy from a completely different dimension than we are in, if it exists. (which means it may or may not lend itself to the natural laws we know of)


To illustrate why people should not bother trying to apply logic to the paranormal, read a book like The Afterlife Experiments, then read the long, drawn out critic responses on why it's an invalid study. Rationals need not apply.

[Erin Pavlina]

To those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
To those who do believe, no proof is necessary.

This sort of thing has been discussed on these boards frequently. It always ends the same. the skeptics walk away unconvinced, and the believers walk away still believing.

Unless you're looking to change your mind, you'll find no evidence to support the change.

People are exactly where they're supposed to be. We must be content to let them be where they are. it is only when they ask for help in understanding something and truly want to understand that you should endeavor to educate them.

[pavs]

Originally Posted by jay78

Not trying to start a flame war? To be honest, at least in my opinion, you sound like a wolf in sheep's clothing but that's not the point of this post.

Exposing 3 psychics does not expose all psychics. Exposing 3 doctors who are fraudelent does not mean all doctors are fraudelent. Exposing 3 unlicensed drivers does not mean all drivers are unlicensed.

Personally, I have witnessed way too much psychic phenomenon to believe that it is all phoney. And psychic abilities HAVE been documented and researched and proved. At least certain ones, anyways.

Google Noetic Science. Or watch what the bleep. Or talk to countless of quantum physicists who whole-heartedly believe after years of research and studies in other dimensions and life after death and all this psychic stuff.

But aside from proof or no proof, why post this, especially on Steve and Erin's (who makes a living as a psychic) message board?

Like I said, wolf in sheep's clothing, but maybe I'm wrong.

I am not trying to troll or flame. If that was my intention than I wouldn't go through 80% of Steve's blog (its a lot of reading) and just finished reading his first book (300+ pages).

Where do you suggest I should post this video to discuss? In a forum where everyone disagrees with it so that we can all make fun of it or post it in a place where there are people with, more or less, equal amount of opposite views?

I disagree with Steve in his paranormal belief, his vegan beliefs. But I very strongly relate to his personal development ideals and his belief (and practice) that people should live a conscious life.

I think being critical to ideas and beliefs are a strong part of personal development. No one should accept things for the way it is, they should be able to discuss it, reason it, convince it, rationalize it, argue it even in matters like psychic reading. Shying away from discussing things, whether you believe it or not, is not a sign of a smart person.

Smart people don't accept things for what it is, or there wouldn't be much of personal development.



ps. just realized this post was moved to the correct sub-form. thanks. Sorry for posting it on the wrong sub-forum.

[Nex]

It is not really big news that three guys that call themselves mediums turn out to be frauds. I am surprised they didn't caught more.

[pavs]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

To those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
To those who do believe, no proof is necessary.

This sort of thing has been discussed on these boards frequently. It always ends the same. the skeptics walk away unconvinced, and the believers walk away still believing.

Unless you're looking to change your mind, you'll find no evidence to support the change.

People are exactly where they're supposed to be. We must be content to let them be where they are. it is only when they ask for help in understanding something and truly want to understand that you should endeavor to educate them.

Erin, thanks for taking the time to reply.

I had the impression that Steve and you are atheists. Which is why, I thought, you guys are in a unique position to discuss the subject of psychic reading and paranormal phenomena.

If psy. and para. is anything like religion and one should believe it the way it is "just because", then you are right there is no point in discussing it.

Its just that I have a very hard time accepting that someone as smart as Steve would be into something like paranormal and psychic without any rational reasoning and "just because".

[codenamesmiley]

Originally Posted by jay78

Not trying to start a flame war? To be honest, at least in my opinion, you sound like a wolf in sheep's clothing but that's not the point of this post.

Exposing 3 psychics does not expose all psychics. Exposing 3 doctors who are fraudelent does not mean all doctors are fraudelent. Exposing 3 unlicensed drivers does not mean all drivers are unlicensed.

Personally, I have witnessed way too much psychic phenomenon to believe that it is all phoney. And psychic abilities HAVE been documented and researched and proved. At least certain ones, anyways.

Google Noetic Science. Or watch what the bleep. Or talk to countless of quantum physicists who whole-heartedly believe after years of research and studies in other dimensions and life after death and all this psychic stuff.

But aside from proof or no proof, why post this, especially on Steve and Erin's (who makes a living as a psychic) message board?

Like I said, wolf in sheep's clothing, but maybe I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by jay78

all this psychic stuff.

But aside from proof or no proof, why post this, especially on Steve and Erin's (who makes a living as a psychic) message board?

Like I said, wolf in sheep's clothing, but maybe I'm wrong.

Jay,

I really do not see any problem with the healthy skepticism behind this post.

From what I have seen in these forums, Both Steve AND Erin tend to support things like not getting scammed by a phoney and Erin even posts advice ALL THE TIME, pertaining to how to find an authentic psychic.

This forum encourages "healthy disagreement" as long as it don't lead to irate, judgement or insults. Healthy skepticism is a wonderful tool for learning. and usually what we learn is to always keep an open mind.)

I feel that you are preaching to the choir, when you feel the need to defend people who have already obviously established and proven themselves.

pavs does not appear to be a "wolf in sheeps clothing" because it was made clear of the DISBELIEF in psychics in the original post.

Blessings,
Rebecca

[Erin Pavlina]

Pavs, we are not religious, that's true. We don't adhere to a religion. But I wouldn't say we are atheists. we are spiritual and we adhere to our own experiences and the beliefs that arise from them. we think everyone should be free to decide for themselves what is real for them and what isn't. Reality is not the same for everyone.

You should read about how Steve came to believe in the paranormal after not believing in it or having any experiences with it for most of his life. I actually think his tale is more interesting than mine as I was really born this way and he came to it through experience.

On these forums it's totally okay to bring up topics for discussion where some people will agree and some disagree. All we ask is that people not troll, bait, attack each other personally, and be respectful. So far, so good.

I know you're not calling all psychics frauds, as you have probably not had readings with everyone who claims to be psychic so you couldn't make a blanket statement like that. What we all probably want to know is... do you want someone to convince you that psychic abilities are real? Or are you seeking to get confirmation that psychics are frauds by hearing what others who believe that have to say about it? What is your reason for posting this one video?

Once we know what you're looking for you'll probably get some interesting discussion going.

[jay78]

Originally Posted by pavs

ps. just realized this post was moved to the correct sub-form. thanks. Sorry for posting it on the wrong sub-forum.

When I read your post, you had posted it under the "Erin Pavlina" section of the forum, which I thought was kinda tacky, hence the "wolf in sheep's clothing" remark.

[pavs]

Originally Posted by codenamesmiley

Jay,

I really do not see any problem with the healthy skepticism behind this post.

From what I have seen in these forums, Both Steve AND Erin tend to support things like not getting scammed by a phoney and Erin even posts advice ALL THE TIME, pertaining to how to find an authentic psychic.

This forum encourages "healthy disagreement" as long as it don't lead to irate, judgement or insults. Healthy skepticism is a wonderful tool for learning. and usually what we learn is to always keep an open mind.)

I feel that you are preaching to the choir, when you feel the need to defend people who have already obviously established and proven themselves.

pavs does not appear to be a "wolf in sheeps clothing" because it was made clear of the DISBELIEF in psychics in the original post.

Blessings,
Rebecca

Thanks for the support. You are right, my original intention was to discuss and understand how smart people can believe in paranormal activities, with a healthy dose of skepticism. I am open to the idea that I might be wrong, but I need reasons for it and open to discuss (and try to understand) it.

[Albalida]

To those who don't believe, no proof is possible. To those who do believe, no proof is necessary.

Actually, I disagree. People once thought that the velocity of an object was its mass simply multiplied by its speed. That the speed needed to be squared was met with ridicule and opposition, it would be a hundred years before this would be accepted, but proof was possible to non-believers. This vis viva or life-force was considered paranormal back then. I think everything paranormal today is either fake... or penultimately normal.

As for the believers, for whom no proof is necessary... well, what if personal experience is proof. Then those who believe something without making experience necessary, would be vulnerable to gullibility. That's a rather shallow and silly way to live.


As for the video itself... well, I can buy into fictional characters making an impression on some otherworldly plane-- since I've experienced that myself-- but I would think any medium worth money ought to be able to tell the difference between a ghost and a tulpa.

When that medium makes the excuse of telepathic broadcasting-- well, why didn't he also pick up on "They're totally acting out this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I totally made up," that must have been on the forefront of the host's mind?

[MmeIntentional]

Well I am not surprised one bit.

I used to work as a clairvoyant psychic medium for 20 years, done spiritualist churches platform work. worked with the church be hind the stage etc, belonged to the spiritualist churches org and union etc I was into it BIG TIME it was my life! I had a name for myself. I was always open minded and didn't take things at face value. I was even doing cold readings without knowing. I then called myself a Mentalist because i felt comfortable with that. However I never used guides or used any of the jargon nor did I pretend that I could predict the future but lots of things happened where a lot of things came true. Anyways I don't want to waffle on about it but it is all a pile of ♥♥♥♥♥ !!!!! The spiritualist movement in the UK broke up years ago. Now you have the churches and some known frauds working together to keep the movement going.

However saying all that I still enjoy the paranormal very much!

I would say each to their own but I just gave my 2 cents worth

[pavs]

Originally Posted by jay78

When I read your post, you had posted it under the "Erin Pavlina" section of the forum, which I thought was kinda tacky, hence the "wolf in sheep's clothing" remark.

Yes, that was an honest mistake, didn't realize I was posting it on the wrong tab in my browser. After posting it there was no way (for me) to move it.

[pavs]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Pavs, we are not religious, that's true. We don't adhere to a religion. But I wouldn't say we are atheists. we are spiritual and we adhere to our own experiences and the beliefs that arise from them. we think everyone should be free to decide for themselves what is real for them and what isn't. Reality is not the same for everyone.

I agree with you on this, that's what makes us humans so interesting because we have our own understanding of reality. Both conventional and unconventional.

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

You should read about how Steve came to believe in the paranormal after not believing in it or having any experiences with it for most of his life. I actually think his tale is more interesting than mine as I was really born this way and he came to it through experience.

Even though I read a big chunk of Steve's blog I intentionally left out most articles about spiritual/paranormal and vegan posts because I thought it would negatively effect me when reading his personal development posts and take them (and him) seriously. If you (or anyone else) could point me to the post where he discussed about his transition to paranormal beliefs - that would be great.

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

On these forums it's totally okay to bring up topics for discussion where some people will agree and some disagree. All we ask is that people not troll, bait, attack each other personally, and be respectful. So far, so good.

I am usually good at controlling myself when it comes to personal attacks and try my best to be respectful as often as possible. If I go out of line (after all I am human), feel free to give me a warning.

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

I know you're not calling all psychics frauds, as you have probably not had readings with everyone who claims to be psychic so you couldn't make a blanket statement like that. What we all probably want to know is... do you want someone to convince you that psychic abilities are real? Or are you seeking to get confirmation that psychics are frauds by hearing what others who believe that have to say about it? What is your reason for posting this one video?

Once we know what you're looking for you'll probably get some interesting discussion going.

Actually, to be honest, before reading Steve's blog I was 100% sure that all psychics are frauds - both from personal expereince and second hand accounts. After reading this blog I am open to the idea that I might be wrong and there is something I might be missing something (though not very enthusiastic about the possibility).

In simple words, I am skeptic. I am open to the idea of other possibilities.

The reason I am posting this video:
I have been willing to open a discussion about this to people who are willing to discuss this (not everyone is willing to discuss this type of things and gets easily offended which makes it harder to talk about). I couldn't think of the right approach to start a discussion here, so when I found this video today on one of my favorite website (reddit.com - it should still be in the front page as of this writing) the first thing that came to my mind is to post this video here and try and see if I can start a discussion.

That's my story.

[Erin Pavlina]

I would suggest you listen to our Being Psychic podcast. That's the one I can think of off hand. A lot of people really got a lot out of it, especially skeptics. Steve explains how he came to experience the paranormal.

One big thing for me is I want to demystify the whole process. I'm not one of those people with a crystal ball and turban or crystals all over my house (I do love a pretty crystal though... just saying)

I think what people would like to see from you is simply an open mind. You can't know if psychic phenomenon is real unless you're willing to read about it, study it, learn about it. You won't fall victim to brainwashing, so what do you have to fear? Start with the podcast, see how you feel then.

Go to Steve's audio page: Steve Pavlina Audio

[pavs]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

I would suggest you listen to our Being Psychic podcast. That's the one I can think of off hand. A lot of people really got a lot out of it, especially skeptics. Steve explains how he came to experience the paranormal.

One big thing for me is I want to demystify the whole process. I'm not one of those people with a crystal ball and turban or crystals all over my house (I do love a pretty crystal though... just saying)

I think what people would like to see from you is simply an open mind. You can't know if psychic phenomenon is real unless you're willing to read about it, study it, learn about it. You won't fall victim to brainwashing, so what do you have to fear? Start with the podcast, see how you feel then.

Go to Steve's audio page: Steve Pavlina Audio

Thanks, I will definitely check it out later tonight. I remember listening to most of his podcasts - I think this is one of the few I skipped because of the title. I think I am fairly open minded and willing to invest my time to study it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[codenamesmiley]

YAY!!!!!!

I guess it is safe to say that this particular thread is indeed becomming quite effective. (Not what I had originally anticipated. Glad I was wrong.)


Blessings,
Rebecca

[floslib]

For the OP, I present an article I've linked numerous times for skeptics, because I think it's a good place to start: How to Prove Psychic Abilities Are Real. There are tons of links to research in support of psychic abilities and paranormal phenomena on that page. It may or may not convince you, but there's definitely a lot to go over and think about.

For the record, I'm a practicing skeptical psychic, which means I'm doing my best to learn, and I think I'm getting somewhere, but I haven't got results strong enough to be sure of myself in performing any kind of psychic ability. I think I'm doing something useful, because otherwise there's a lot of coincidence going around. Of course, this video about coincidence is quick to point out that things we think are uncommon are actually quite common, so that's not a surefire sign either. I think they go too far in saying all paranormal explanations are wrong, but it's still good information to have on hand in making a call on what you believe.

The other thing is, as mentioned before, showing it's possible to cheat doesn't mean everyone cheats. Yes, there are frauds out there. But, having experienced some strange things myself, as well as being given a spontaneous reading in a psychic gift shop that was quite accurate, I find it very hard to believe psychics don't exist. I've seen enough evidence that I think this needs to be investigated further. Before that can happen, I think we need to shed the taboo on investigating the paranormal that seems to exist. Many scientists don't want to buck the establishment and risk their careers on trying to prove the paranormal, and many psychics believe you simply can't prove it.

This brings me to my next point, which is a response to this:

Originally Posted by KazeCraven

Paranormal experiences do not lend themselves to 'evidence'. This is an area where, for several reasons, you cannot go too far with just logic.

I don't think this is entirely true. You may not be able to study the process (yet), but you can study the results. Check out this informal experiment with a Geiger counter measuring psychic energy as one example. In this example, you wouldn't be able to prove what caused the results, but you could prove that the results are there, and there is no understood cause for those results. This assumes actually setting up a controlled experiment, but I'd say what they did is pretty good for a home experiment.

The same thing would hold true for other phenomena. You may not be able to prove the process (whether it be psychic energy, God, spirits, or whatever), but you could prove something was happening, and that it's not currently explainable by our understanding of scientific laws, so it needs further investigating to find out what makes it work like that.

Of course, we don't need to have psychic abilities proven in order to use them. We just have to be careful not to think we're doing something we aren't, and not to be tricked by the ones who are con artists.

[Erin Pavlina]

Paranormal just means we don't understand it yet. It's outside of the norm. I'm sure many years ago people didn't understand lots of things, like atoms, gravity, and all the physics stuff. But they continued to investigate phenomenon until they found the source. What was seen as para-normal now became quite normal.

Being psychic is not about being supernatural or having mystical powers. It's about using other ways of obtaining information (through energy) and learning how to interpret the signals you're getting. Sometimes I get a transmission and I can't make sense of it, or I interpret it wrong. It's not an exact science. But the more you practice and the more you work on your translation skills, the better you become and the easier it becomes.

If you're looking at the tip of the iceberg and saying, "No way there's anything more to it" and you're unwilling to stick your head in the water to see the big old iceberg under the tip, you're missing out on some information, some truth. so when others claim that the iceberg is huge and you only see the tip, you're gonna think they're daft, loony, fake, crazy, etc. All we ask is that you look under the tip and then start asking questions about what you see.

[bluedragon]

That's right. Skeptics often don't take skepticism far enough, they only apply it to a particular aspect that they already decided to disagree with. But they don't question popular media such as BBC or other scientific experiments, although those experiments are often not conducted in a comprehensive manner - they may be 100% accurate, but what matters is not only the accuracy, but also the SCOPE of the experiment. Sometimes, it focuses on so little, that it ends up proving nothing. And they are often based on a lack of understanding for how certain "paranormal" phenomena are even supposed to work, if they do. They test them in ways which are doomed to failure, in ways which will inevitably lead to only one conclusion, given the nature of certain paranormal abilities, although these abilities may actually work.

[KazeCraven]

Originally Posted by floslib

This brings me to my next point, which is a response to this:


I don't think this is entirely true. You may not be able to study the process (yet), but you can study the results. Check out this informal experiment with a Geiger counter measuring psychic energy as one example. In this example, you wouldn't be able to prove what caused the results, but you could prove that the results are there, and there is no understood cause for those results. This assumes actually setting up a controlled experiment, but I'd say what they did is pretty good for a home experiment.

The same thing would hold true for other phenomena. You may not be able to prove the process (whether it be psychic energy, God, spirits, or whatever), but you could prove something was happening, and that it's not currently explainable by our understanding of scientific laws, so it needs further investigating to find out what makes it work like that.

Of course, we don't need to have psychic abilities proven in order to use them. We just have to be careful not to think we're doing something we aren't, and not to be tricked by the ones who are con artists.

Curses, I've been quoted.

First of all, I mistated that. What I meant is that it doesn't lend itself to objective 'proof'. So now that I've gotten my word choice out of the way, I think we're in agreement.

All I meant is that you can't show it to someone who needs to be proven it, and you can't prove it's false to someone who needs to be proven it. I have to admit, I got pretty angry when I saw this post after recently realizing that my argument for 'proving' that paranormal experiences were true hinged on very flawed logical assumptions. And pretty much any experiment you do, scientists will be able to either point out some flaw in the experiment or drown you out with long-winded explanations of logical fallacies and where the experiment could have gone wrong, etc. Which is why no one can 'prove' it.

Though I hope you can understand why so many people are so quick to dismiss logic. It's not that we don't think logic is optional, it's just that people who use logic often aren't able to boil it down so that they get to the point of exactly why something is illogical or invalidated by logic. And I used to love working with logical systems.

[Angela]

I believe that some people are very, very good intuitively -- they're really good thin-slicers -- and that it is a natural human ability that some people have an affinity for or deliberately nurture in themselves. I don't think there is anything supernatural about this ability -- nothing beyond the physical world is required as an explanation for the source of what intuitives provide, that I've seen so far.

I think that sometimes the impressions that intuitive people get and communicate are often represented with supernatural symbols -- like angels, guides, entities, gods, and demons, but the source of these impressions is the very natural unconscious mind. That's fine with me. Intuitive people who don't think of themselves as "psychics" often use a whole different vocabulary of symbolism, and that can work really well, too. I can trust myself to get the learnings and other value that comes with listening intuitively for intuition.

I don't think it's important that I believe that the source of what Erin tells me is my "guides" -- her intuition is so reliable a fountain of value for me and the nature of the source of that value doesn't change it one way or another. Same thing with "channelers" like Esther Hicks.

If the material wasn't accurate or helpful, I wouldn't necessarily assume the person was a fraud; I might just evaluate them to be doing the best with the intuitive resources they've got, and operating within a win/win intention. People get better by practicing being in rapport with their unconscious mind, and I don't expect a beginner to provide as much value as an experienced practitioner. I think of it as getting a haircut from a student at a beauty school. And with some, like Sylvia Browne, for instance, my evaluation is that her intention is win/lose -- I don't see value in what she provides but I do see self-serving "darkworker." That's fine, too -- it just doesn't work for me.

I am open to learning and understanding more, though, and if an intuitive person told me something that felt to me like it went beyond what is possible in the natural world, I would love it! As a matter of fact, I've got an appointment next week with someone who has been described by someone I trust as a that kind of psychic, someone who imparts convincingly supernatural ability, and am looking forward to receiving whatever it is she provides (natural OR supernatural). After finding out more about her, I am totally trusting that whatever it is, it's done by her with a bold win/win intention and that she is a person who makes a positive difference in the world. I'll let you know how that goes.

So, what I'm saying is that successfully consulting with a psychic and getting value (or anyone else you could consult with!) has less to do with trusting that person than it does with trusting yourself.

[MichaelP]

Originally Posted by pavs

Its just that I have a very hard time accepting that someone as smart as Steve would be into something like paranormal and psychic without any rational reasoning and "just because".

You remain mindful and openminded, you gather experiences, you put them together, and make a decision. Belief is a decision. As for "smart"...LOL...maybe it takes a smart person to filter and remember the experiences that lead to belief and connect the dots. It is based on logic. It's just that some people insist that everyone use one system of logic. There is no limit except what you yourself impose, or accept from some outside "authority".

[pavs]

Just wanted to update that I have listened to the podcast - read some of Steve's blog post about psychic and I feel like I just lost a huge amount of respect for him.

I have nothing more to say or add to this discussion. You can lock this thread or delete it. Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply and participate in this thread.

[codenamesmiley]

Originally Posted by KazeCraven

. I have to admit, I got pretty angry when I saw this post after recently realizing that my argument for 'proving' that paranormal experiences were true hinged on very flawed logical assumptions.

I apologize if you felt angry after watching this post. My intent was not to anger anyone or discredit anyone. I just think that it is equally important to show people that there are scammers out there, as it is to show them that it is authentically something that some people can indeeddo.

You don't have to convince me that it is real.

Another point is that some people will view this man on here running the show, as a unhealthy skeptic that offends most of the people making an attempt to do good with their abilities. Anyone that has any talent as a psychic or any other abilities, will have to deal with people like this along the way. It is educational for everyone, and while somewhat controversial....necessary.

Blessings to you,
Rebecca

[newmark]

A very funny video, but of course it proves nothing about the truth of psychic phenomena.

[Aleksander Krstic]

Perhaps they picked up the "angry" trying to convience people in this.

[KazeCraven]

I don't see why anyone tries to prove these sorts of things. Most people are quite aware that some 'psychics' are actually scammers. And the people who really really ARE completely naive and in the dark about the issue are most likely not going to be convinced and most likely will just get upset about someone challenging their beliefs.

Btw, just to clarify, I proved myself wrong by trying the logic route, so this didn't invalidate the research I did, it just seemed bigoted, and similar to the type of thing that invalidated my research. My research also wouldn't 'prove' anything, even if the whole study was carried out to the letter (of the scientific method that is). Only this one was much easier to attack because I didn't have to refute pages and pages of logic.