Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cold reading
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
the known tecnique being cold reading? nah i dont think so,, cold reading is a skeptics excuse for being afraid to let go of their prejudice and maybe be afraid that if they did go to a medium , they may have to say they were wrong.
so tell me dave,,, have you ever seen, say, Tony Stockwell or Tj Higgs or Colin Fry or John Edward on TV or anything? surely you dont think they are all cold reading? surely if you watch any of them and the personal info they give reading after reading is "just lucky hits" ?
Ahh come on, it's one thing believing the mediums who sit there face-to-face and trick you with cold reading, but you're not skeptical about TV mediums who have the benefit of being able to edit what makes it onto the finished show?
I suggest you have a read of this to get a bit of insight into how those shows work.Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance. Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather.
While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known.
It was not until weeks after the performance, when O'Neill saw the show on TV, that he began to suspect chicanery. Clips of him nodding yes had been spliced into the videotape after statements with which he remembers disagreeing. In addition, says O'Neill, most of Edward's "misses," both on him and other audience members, had been edited out of the final tape.
Now suspicious, O'Neill recalled that while the audience was waiting to be seated, Edward's aides were scurrying about, striking up conversations and getting people to fill out cards with their name, family tree and other facts. Once inside the auditorium, where each family was directed to preassigned seats, more than an hour passed before show time while "technical difficulties" backstage were corrected.
And what did most of the audience--drawn by the prospect of communicating with their departed relatives--talk about during the delays? Those departed relatives, of course. These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium. (A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)
Another article here, should give you an appreciation of the kind of editing they do.
This is what aired on the show:Van Praagh: You were saved by someone. A car thing, or something where you were . . .
Woman: We actually had a car accident four months after my husband died. And we were in a very bad collision.
Van Praagh: You almost died, honey. Because I'm being told by your husband that you were saved, Ok?
And here's what actually happened:Van Praagh: You almost died, honey. Because I'm being told by your husband that you were spared, you were saved, Ok? You were saved, all right? And I know (3). . . something about Jesus here, Ok? Saved with Jesus, or something about Jesus, and if you believe in Jesus, or a religious element. And I don't know, maybe a church with the name Jesus in it? Or there is something about Jesus. Or there’s . . .
Woman (interrupting): Well, we're Jewish! (Big laugh from the audience.)
You'd probably also have been impressed by Uri Gellar, whose career was (albeit only temporarily, such is the audacity of these people :rolleyes: ) destroyed when he was exposed by James Randi and others:Dave, Heard a medium begin a reading with the statement (to 13 people) that he had a grandma who used to swim in competition, and one person understood that. Now, I think thats a damn impressive thing to try as a 'guess'. Coulda been luck, sure, but if he wanted to do a safe bet cold reading he sure was making it tricky for himself. And I do think it is very unfair to make all the judgements you do without having even seen a demo. Which is usually free in spiritualist centres.
Did he say grandmother, or did he say relative? Do you remember? It certainly broadens the field if it was the latter, but if it were the former then it's a pretty specific claim alright, which leads me to think that he picked it up by other means. For example (as is common for mediums to do), he might have been listening in while people were chatting amongst themselves before the show started. What are the chances that people would be chatting about the deceased relative that they're hoping to contact, at a group reading with other people looking to do the same thing?
I've seen plenty of videos of psychic readings, I don't need to attend one myself to get an idea of what's at play.well, the reason peope always ask IS, i used to have a friend who used to think rollercoasters were ****, yet he had never been on one.
so do you believe in ANYTHING that has never been proven?
Not quite the same thing with rollercoasters, of course that's a silly thing to say since it's a subjective opinion, so you have to actually experience it to form one. Mediums being real is an objective claim about the universe, and there are plenty of reasons to doubt them without ever sitting down with one.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
bipedalhumanoid wrote: »It's funny how people with no real argument revert to appeal to ridicule fallacy and nit picking. I'll take that as an invitation to reciprocate in kind.
if you dont think the points that i have already made is a REAL arguement the what else can i do.bipedalhumanoid wrote: »Well, you could start by actually forming a logical argument. Maybe one that demonstrates how one magic trick is not in the same vain as the other rather than just claiming so.
i would have thought that was painfully obvious?
magic trick --> a magician asks someone to pick a card, the person picks the card, looks at it, careful not to show the magician. he then puts it back in the deck and shuffles. at this stage, the magician picks a balloon from a nearby bunch and pops it,, out falls a card, which is the same as what the person had chosen.
medium reading --> a sitter says helo and sits down. the medium begins by passing messages from loved ones who have passed on. some hits, some misses, the sitter either believes or he doesnt.
simple isnt it. now why dont you explain the differences between football and ice hockey for me.
debunked? by james randi? oh well debunked by the biggest skeptic inn the world,, must be true. has it been debunked by anyone else rather than someone who would not admit to parapsychological happenings even if his own dead grandmother told him to do so.you have a scar or old injury to your left knee. If not you then someone very close to you
no, i dont im afraid, and i cant think off hand of anyone who has. but the difference is, a good medium would say
"i have someone here connected to your father, who has a scar on his left knee"
slightly different, in the sense of, f the person giving the message. ie. the dead person, they would know that the scar would mean something to you and that would be your way to recognise them. also, there would be a message attached to that, eg, the person with the scar tells me that you have been to see his grave 3 times in the past week.
maybe some fake card readers or fotune tellers would say things like that, but not a medium.bipedalhumanoid wrote: »I suppose it would seem that way to those with poor reading comprehension skills.
Put the sentence back in context and try again.
i think thats pretty well put, and absolutly nothing wrong with it. put it this way.
if i had a basin of water with a stone in the bottom of it. yet nobody had ever got to the bottom of the basin to find the stone.
the stone has not been proven to exist, neither has it been proven not to exist. it is only when you drain the water and find no stone, it has been proven NOT to exist. alternativly if somebody goes to the bottom of the basin and finds the stone, then it has been proven to exist.
until then, everyone should be in the "maybe the stone exists" catagorie, do you not think? instead of saying, i have seen no stone, therefore it is stupid to think there is a stone at the bottom of the basin.The sanctuary in dublin have services where demos take place. They send a collection plate around but as in churches you dont have to give anything.
the santuary is near Adamstown/badonnell area and has mediums doing demonstrations on sunday nights from 6:30 - 8 ish. some medums are good, some not so good. you dont have to pay anything at all. you may get a message, you may not, but i wouldnt bring a skeptic friend to the service to try prove anything.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo
Advertisement