Why can't a medium PROVE the ability exists?

kylith

What would you have us do other than ask for proof? Does eveyone who is sceptical have to interview everyone who makes claims of talking to the dead in order to be valid in your eyes? I simply cannot believe that your attitude is that if you haven't spent years researching everything then you should stfu because you're not allowed to have an opinion.

Perhaps you should mosey on over to the literature forum and tell them that they're not allowed to have an opion on books unless they've done a masters in English Lit and have interviewed the author.

If your website was the one I suspect it was then I was very sad to see it close. I greatly enjoyed reading the articles. Funnily enough what I liked best was that there was someone out there that was able to do the research that I don't have the time nor resources to do myself.

edwinkane

kylith wrote: »

What would you have us do other than ask for proof? Does eveyone who is sceptical have to interview everyone who makes claims of talking to the dead in order to be valid in your eyes?

The answer to that is something we all have to decide for ourselves. MrJonDonnis has already stated his views, many times, and asking him to state them once again, seems pointless. It's ok to have differing views!

kylith

edwinkane wrote: »

The answer to that is something we all have to decide for ourselves. MrJonDonnis has already stated his views, many times, and asking him to state them once again, seems pointless. It's ok to have differing views!

Fair enough.

Of course it's ok to hold differing views, but to lambast anyone who hasn't done hours of research is just mindboggling to me.


Anyway; mediums: They're a bunch of cowardly backstards afraid to put their money where their mouths are.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Anyway; mediums: They're a bunch of cowardly backstards afraid to put their money where their mouths are.

Can we get your views on fortune cookies ?

MrJonDonnis

kylith wrote: »

I simply cannot believe that your attitude is that if you haven't spent years researching everything then you should stfu because you're not allowed to have an opinion.

No never said any of that at all.

If your website was the one I suspect it was then I was very sad to see it close. I greatly enjoyed reading the articles. Funnily enough what I liked best was that there was someone out there that was able to do the research that I don't have the time nor resources to do myself.

And that was one of the reasons we were so popular.

edwinkane

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

No never said any of that at all.



And that was one of the reasons we were so popular.

Yes, I think you've told us all how popular you were before. Any chance we can get back to the discussion in hand or do you prefer to continue to tell us all how marvellous you are, or were, and so on?

MrJonDonnis

edwinkane wrote: »

Yes, I think you've told us all how popular you were before. Any chance we can get back to the discussion in hand or do you prefer to continue to tell us all how marvellous you are, or were, and so on?

Of course you are right, plenty of time to marvel at my marvelousness another time.

So what was the question?
Oh yeah
"Why can't a medium PROVE the ability exists?"

Answer, because mediumship is impossible.

Ok, Topic closed.

edwinkane

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

Of course you are right, plenty of time to marvel at my marvelousness another time.

So what was the question?
Oh yeah
"Why can't a medium PROVE the ability exists?"

Answer, because mediumship is impossible.

Ok, Topic closed.

If everyone agrees with you, then it probably is closed. I agree and the sceptic (I prefer the english spelling over the american spelling) movement has been quite successful at drawing attention to the charlatans, and the deluded, of the paranormal world.

If only they could make inroads into the charlatans who promote and make money from homoeopathy! thats a real scam.

goat2

and who can prove that this ability does not exist, until then i will question whether it does or does not exist

MrJonDonnis

edwinkane wrote: »

If everyone agrees with you, then it probably is closed. I agree and the sceptic (I prefer the english spelling over the american spelling) movement has been quite successful at drawing attention to the charlatans, and the deluded, of the paranormal world.

If only they could make inroads into the charlatans who promote and make money from homoeopathy! thats a real scam.

Well we are in skeptics corner so yes everyone agrees, no one can prove otherwises.

And yes I did have the www.badhomeopathy.co.uk site, rarely updated these days, but still online.

MrJonDonnis

goat2 wrote: »

and who can prove that this ability does not exist, until then i will question whether it does or does not exist

Lol, I knew this would happen.
I just told you mediumship is impossible.
You can't prove something doesn't exist only that something does.
Psychics and mediums cant prove it exists, therefore case closed.

By your way of thinking, if you cant prove that an invisible loch ness monster smoking a cigar and humming the tune from the A-Team DIDN'T just fly past my window, then you gonna remain open minded to its possibility.

This thinking is wrong,

Mediumship is impossible. Simple. Understand the words from someone who knows

Standman

goat2 wrote: »

and who can prove that this ability does not exist, until then i will question whether it does or does not exist

Well this question has been addressed numerous times on this thread already I think. Do you mean you'd question whether it does or doesn't exist in the same way that one could quesion whether we are all just a figment of someones imagination?

goat2

goat2 wrote: »

and who can prove that this ability does not exist, until then i will question whether it does or does not exist

This is not the question to ask to be honest. But i would like to see a conclusive study to show that this does not exist. Not testing 5 psychics over a 5 year period. But by traveling documenting meeting testing etc. As of yet this has not been done.

MrJonDonnis

Deleted User wrote: »

This is not the question to ask to be honest. But i would like to see a conclusive study to show that this does not exist. Not testing 5 psychics over a 5 year period. But by traveling documenting meeting testing etc. As of yet this has not been done.

I "tested" over 200 mediums over 5 years, and not one of them showed any psychic ability.

I have analysed over a thousand readings, and didn't find one i couldnt easily explain.

Mediumship is impossible, and no medium in history has ever done anything even remotely unexplainable.

MrJonDonnis

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

I "tested" over 200 mediums over 5 years,

So you really have only started then .

MrJonDonnis

Deleted User wrote: »

So you really have only started then .

Nah lol.
I am retired now, there comes a time when you just cant be arsed any more, and thats me and my interest in psychics.
I have seen everything, i know everything, it bores me, so unless a new psychic comes along that makes waves, I doubt I will ever get back into it

edwinkane

Deleted User wrote: »

This is not the question to ask to be honest. But i would like to see a conclusive study to show that this does not exist. Not testing 5 psychics over a 5 year period. But by traveling documenting meeting testing etc. As of yet this has not been done.

I'd like to see just one psychic, out of the thousands who make grandiose claims for themselves, to demonstrate they have psychic abilities. But they won't because they can't. It's a stage act and not a real ability.

And, as a side issue, I'd like one of them to explain why when the make contact withs someone "on the other side" , the person they make contact with isn't able to say "Hello my name is Charles and my wife Doreen in in the audience. I lived in Islington and crashed my red ford mondeo, registration A816 UGC into a lamppost on the Finchley road in 2006", but they are only able to say, apparently, "My name begins with the letter "c" ".

I would like to know what it is about the other side that prevents many of those who come back from telling the psychic information like that above to properly identify themselves, to only tell the psychic the letter their name begins with, but a few minutes later they are able to tell the psychic to let Doreen know that they still love them and are watching over them, with no reticence about using substituting letters for words.

MrJonDonnis

edwinkane wrote: »

I'd like to see just one psychic, out of the thousands who make grandiose claims for themselves, to demonstrate they have psychic abilities. But they won't because they can't. It's a stage act and not a real ability.

And, as a side issue, I'd like one of them to explain why when the make contact withs someone "on the other side" , the person they make contact with isn't able to say "Hello my name is Charles and my wife Doreen in in the audience. I lived in Islington and crashed my red ford mondeo, registration A816 UGC into a lamppost on the Finchley road in 2006", but they are only able to say, apparently, "My name begins with the letter "c" ".

I would like to know what it is about the other side that prevents many of those who come back from telling the psychic information like that above to properly identify themselves, to only tell the psychic the letter their name begins with, but a few minutes later they are able to tell the psychic to let Doreen know that they still love them and are watching over them, with no reticence about using substituting letters for words.

You answered your own question right at the beginning
"It's a stage act and not a real ability."

Simple as that, I wouldn't waste your time on it if I was you

edwinkane

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

You answered your own question right at the beginning
"It's a stage act and not a real ability."

Simple as that, I wouldn't waste your time on it if I was you

I wasn't aware I'd asked a question.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

This is not the question to ask to be honest. But i would like to see a conclusive study to show that this does not exist. Not testing 5 psychics over a 5 year period. But by traveling documenting meeting testing etc. As of yet this has not been done.

How would you define "conclusive"?

Say you test 99.999% of those claiming to have psychic powers. I would imagine the response from believers would simply be you haven't conclusively proved it doesn't exist because you missed the 0.001%.

Seems a rather pointless exercise given that it would impossible to test every single person living or dead who at some point claimed psychic powers.

The onus should be on the psychic to demonstrate their claims are accurate. Until then the rest of us should be working to standard psychics and biology, that say it shouldn't be able to happen.

edwinkane

Wicknight wrote: »

How would you define "conclusive"?

Say you test 99.999% of those claiming to have psychic powers. I would imagine the response from believers would simply be you haven't conclusively proved it doesn't exist because you missed the 0.001%.

Seems a rather pointless exercise given that it would impossible to test every single person living or dead who at some point claimed psychic powers.

The onus should be on the psychic to demonstrate their claims are accurate. Until then the rest of us should be working to standard psychics and biology, that say it shouldn't be able to happen.

As has been pointed out many times, its not possible to "prove" something doesn't exist. And being asked to do so exposes the prejudices of the person asking for the impossible.

You can't "prove" the lock ness monster doesn't exist, or the yeti, or teapots in space. But you can definitely prove they do exist with good evidence.

In science, or academia, or the real world, if someone makes a claim, they have to have evidence to back it up. If they said "well, you prove it isn't true" no one would take them seriously, for very good reasons. It is a childish and immature argument, and an argument used by many children, but not by many adults.

As psychics have had hundreds of years to produce proof based on good evidence, and not a single one has, we all have to draw our own conclusions from that lack of evidence.

goat2

i have seen police programmes on sky, where they use physics to help in locating lost or murdered persons, and in some they give a fairly accurate direction, have any other person been watching these,

kylith

goat2 wrote: »

i have seen police programmes on sky, where they use physics to help in locating lost or murdered persons, and in some they give a fairly accurate direction, have any other person been watching these,

Please either read my earlier post about this or do some Googling. No psychic has EVER given ANY police force information which has lead either to an arrest or to the recovery of a missing person. What they do do is waste police time and prey on grieving families. Police forces do not want psychic's help because they have to investigate any and all information, and psychics waste time that could be better put to use following actual leads as opposed to vague statements like "The letter G...near water".

The only way a psychic is likely to be of any use to the police is if they commited the crime themselves.

Shows on Sky follow one of 2 formats

1) The 'based on the life of real-life psychic investigator' one. This alleges to be based on the adventures of a psychic who claims to have helped solve numerous cases. Possibly they gave useless information on a case that was later solved and are thus claiming credit. Either way the TV programme is pure fiction.

2) The 'investigation' one. This one will be more a reality show and usually follows a couple of psychics as they 'investigate' a disapperance. They will usually wind up in a wood, a lay-by, field or by a lake. One of them will say "I'm getting a very strong feeling that something happened here..." They will not be able to say what kind of feeling or what happened there. They will never, ever jump out of the car and run directly to the site of a burial. They will never pull up outside a house, force their way inside and free kidnapped children. They will never say "I'm getting the spirit of Melissa Johnson, born 22/04/1972. She was bludgeoned to death by Michael Smith; he hid the bloody hammer in his attic and buried her beside the duck pond in the park". They will never have any police officers with them. They will never acutally 'solve' anything, but they will get lots of 'feelings' about 'something'.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Please either read my earlier post about this or do some Googling. No psychic has EVER given ANY police force information which has lead either to an arrest or to the recovery of a missing person.

You didnt look to well then eh Try under your nose.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

You didnt look to well then eh Try under your nose.

Neither my mouth nor my jumper have solved cases either.

Well you made a statement , it is incorrect .

Has a psychic ever given a location for a missing person and they were found ?

Answer is yes

Has a psychic ever given a location to a piece of evidence which has led to a conviction ?

Answer is yes

Has a psychic ever been investigated for knowing too much about a crime ?

Answer is yes

Have the police ever actively approached a psychic to help on an investigation ?

Answer is yes


Were do the psychics get this information ?

Well you could say its a

lucky guess ?

maybe they witnessed the crime and spotted an opportunity

maybe they overheard something and spotted an opportunity

Or maybe they are just better investigators then the police .

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Well you made a statement , it is incorrect .

Has a psychic ever given a location for a missing person and they were found ?

Answer is yes

Has a psychic ever given a location to a piece of evidence which has led to a conviction ?

Answer is yes

Has a psychic ever been investigated for knowing too much about a crime ?

Answer is yes

Have the police ever actively approached a psychic to help on an investigation ?

Answer is yes


Were do the psychics get this information ?

Well you could say its a

lucky guess ?

maybe they witnessed the crime and spotted an opportunity

maybe they overheard something and spotted an opportunity

Or maybe they are just better investigators then the police .

Can you please give me the independant, corroborated, sources for these?

Zombrex

kylith wrote: »

Can you please give me the independant, corroborated, sources for these?

To stop this getting silly you should probably add the clause "who was not himself involved in the crime they were investigating"

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Can you please give me the independant, corroborated, sources for these?

Well that would depend what you want to do with it. But it is out there if you look. Look hard enough you might even have some police will give you their accounts .

Standman

kylith wrote: »

Can you please give me the independant, corroborated, sources for these?

Deleted User wrote: »

Well that would depend what you want to do with it. But it is out there if you look. Look hard enough you might even have some police will give you their accounts .

So in other words, no.