Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Psychic mediums Sally Morgan and Lisa Wiliams

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DirectorDave
    replied
    Originally posted by Rubyretro View Post
    Dave -I love 'magic tricks' , too...I 'm not much good at them myself, but I'm fascinated to know some, and to go and watch someone very clever put them into practice.

    ( I remember the fab ending of Woody Allen's 'Shadows and Fog' -do you know that ? Great 'Ripperish' film by the way).

    ps -"smilies are canned laughter"...too true.
    Not seen it Rub.....but I might retifiy that over the weekend!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sally
    replied
    Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
    Hi Guys,
    I am sure the majority of mediums , believe in what they are doing , that is giving relatives of the dead, peace of mind, and comfort, in believing their loved ones are still present in their lives.
    That satisfaction is very rewarding to anyone who has lost a loved one.
    Are the mediums using a variety of tricks in doing this?
    Most likely yes..but read the small print on every physic TV show, and Theatre performance..
    ''Solely for entertainment purpose''.
    That sums it all up.
    Regards Richard.
    Hi Richard

    They have to state that by law; as do all who offer professional psychic services - so its less of a get out clause than a legal obligation.

    I neither believe nor disbelieve in either view regarding psychic mediumship. There are a lot of people out there offering a broad spectrum of services - its not just about contacting the dead. It is abundantly clear to me that many 'psychics' are confidence tricksters. They are people who sell hope in a jar using a variety of tricks reliant on obtaining personal information from their client - not so difficult to obtain as you'd think; most of the time people give it willingly.

    That said, the fact that there are doubtless fraudsters out there doesn't prove that all such people are fakes -that is flawed reasoning. Perhaps they are, perhaps not. Those that claim (loudly, usually) that all psychics are fakes in fact have just as much personal belief invested in the matter as those who believe in psychics

    I prefer to keep an open mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • HelenaWojtczak
    replied
    Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
    Hi Guys,
    I am sure the majority of mediums , believe in what they are doing , that is giving relatives of the dead, peace of mind, and comfort, in believing their loved ones are still present in their lives.
    That satisfaction is very rewarding to anyone who has lost a loved one.
    Are the mediums using a variety of tricks in doing this?
    Most likely yes..but read the small print on every physic TV show, and Theatre performance..
    ''Solely for entertainment purpose''.
    That sums it all up.
    Regards Richard.
    A bit like priests telling us to pray to god, that god is with us,Jesus is watching over us... and the New Agers and their spirit guides.

    The only thing is, Richard, these stage mediums never seem to give an actual message other than, "I am ok and I love you", or to tell the person that they used to live in a house with a black door, something they already knew

    Leave a comment:


  • richardnunweek
    replied
    Hi Guys,
    I am sure the majority of mediums , believe in what they are doing , that is giving relatives of the dead, peace of mind, and comfort, in believing their loved ones are still present in their lives.
    That satisfaction is very rewarding to anyone who has lost a loved one.
    Are the mediums using a variety of tricks in doing this?
    Most likely yes..but read the small print on every physic TV show, and Theatre performance..
    ''Solely for entertainment purpose''.
    That sums it all up.
    Regards Richard.

    Leave a comment:


  • HelenaWojtczak
    replied
    Originally posted by brummie View Post
    If Williams reading was 'private' how do we know how the information was arrived at i.e how much hit and miss,how much leading of the person and just how accurate the reading actually was without the person filling in details and basically hearing what they wanted to hear.
    Yes, exactly, this is one of the reasons why I don't trust those private readings. Plus like I said before, there is social compliance. If the psychic is a celebrity herself and associates with even bigger ones, "nice" people would not think it "nice" to show her up.

    I would, though. I wish they'd come and see me - I wouldn't let them get away with anything and I would not "leak" anything. That would be interfering with the experiment!

    Helena

    Leave a comment:


  • HelenaWojtczak
    replied
    Originally posted by Rubyretro View Post
    people will bend themselves to make the cards apply...because they'd like to believe it.

    There is fun in watching people's reactions to certain cards and so homing in on those ones with subtle questions -which are not recognised as leading questions. It is a skill.
    Hi Ruby

    I've given much thought myself to the "social compliance" side of those who claim mediumship. A boyfriend a few years ago believed in mediumship and because I didn't he took me along to spiritualist church to see a series of guest mediums convey "messages from the dead" to members of the audience, in an attempt to convince me.

    Of course, what I really needed was to get a message myself, containing information that the visiting medium could not possibly have known; but, predictably, that did not happen. I was however able to witness about fifty instances of others in the audience receiving these messages and of course I studied them very closely to see if they were providing the medium with information.

    Where the "social compliance" comes in, I think, is that people want to be nice to the visiting medium, so maybe they agreed with everything s/he said whether it was accurate or not. Because of the possibility of this, in the end the results of my experiment were inconclusive.

    So, I still haven't seen anything that convinces me.

    Helena
    Last edited by HelenaWojtczak; 08-08-2012, 05:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HelenaWojtczak
    replied
    Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
    I'm more a masturbator than a mathematician
    You said it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rubyretro
    replied
    Dave -I love 'magic tricks' , too...I 'm not much good at them myself, but I'm fascinated to know some, and to go and watch someone very clever put them into practice.

    ( I remember the fab ending of Woody Allen's 'Shadows and Fog' -do you know that ? Great 'Ripperish' film by the way).

    ps -"smilies are canned laughter"...too true.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
    "Sally" came to my town a couple of times....sold out a 1000 capacity venue each time.

    Every single one of them are charlatans exploiting vunerable people....but in truth they are no worse or better than evey Preist, Shamen, Rabbi or Imam on the planet.
    Dave,

    I agree with every word you've said. If guys like Darren Brown can do exactly what all of them can do, and better, and admits that it's just simple parlor games, then it all is. Recently and American speaker to the dead came out with a book saying that he was a charlatan as are all others. the problem is, people want to believe in this because it gives them hope for themselves. It isn't about the departed. It's about hoping the departed are out there because it will mean they have a chance. The worst offenders are the TV ghost chasers. What a load of crap. It makes me laugh at how easily people are buffaloed.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • DirectorDave
    replied
    Rubyretro, I also like cards.....I like doing card tricks.....I even mention the word magic when doing them.....it's fun to con people, to know something they don't....but to exploit them like these con merchants do is wrong.

    I started to book "Sally" tickets for the Alhambra, Dunfermline.....26 not including booking fee.....everytime I have attended the Alhambra to see bands or a show I have been able to pick tickets up at the booking office on the night.....but not with Sally....only options posted out (So they have your address) or email (So they have your email, facebook, twitter etc.).

    26 x 1000.....I'm more a masturbator than a mathematician but I think that comes to a tidy sum for one show.....not including books, DVD's, TV apperances....well you get the picture.

    It's not the people that belive in these people that are the problem.....they are clearly daft enough to believe anything and are beyond help.....it's the one who know it is a load of guff that don't believe they would go "that far" that keep the semblence of belief that these people know things they couldn't possibly know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rubyretro
    replied
    I'm with you, Dave -I should think booking info (it would be very interesting to know what info was asked for when booking), numbered seats, google etc.

    I, too, think that the answer is researchers who are part of the team (and well paid) that are a more likely solution than accomplices in each town.

    At any rate, I have already recounted my first hand experiences of these sort of mediums. But they were before the days of computer research, and so less sophisticated.

    I am going to tell you something that may surprise you now, since I am extremely cynical about all the esoteric stuff -one of my hobbies is reading tarot cards.

    I don't believe that tarot cards will give any 'psychic' answers to anyone, but I am fascinated in trying them out on people to see how the cards can be applied to almost anyone's life, and how people will bend themselves to make the cards apply...because they'd like to believe it.

    There is fun in watching people's reactions to certain cards and so homing in on those ones with subtle questions -which are not recognised as leading questions. It is a skill.

    So far I've only done it for friends, and for fun, but I have thought of dressing up in a rather eccentric way and trying it out on strangers out of curiosity about how much I could 'play them' (I hasten to add that I thought of doing this as a fun thing at charity events, and not to rip people off -also I think that there is an unspoken rule never to tell people anything bad to upset them, but rather to be upbeat if thought provoking).

    Leave a comment:


  • brummie
    replied
    [/quote]

    The thing is, it's not all hit and miss. I've watched many of both Williams's and Morgan's public and private readings and they do get a LOT of things correct, particularly names, not just one but four or five connected with the same person. Morgan knew that a woman was four weeks pregnant, which was till then a secret. In private readings Williams knew all about a woman's dead husband, how and where he died etc. [/QUOTE]







    If its the same footage I saw with two 'celebrities' when she told one of them she was pregnant, it is fairly common knowledge,certainly readily available in any of the myriad of celebrity mags that she was in a relationship. Even before she mentioned a baby I was thinking to myself I bet she mentions having children,and believe me I have no psychic ability whatsoever.Fact is a woman of that age in a serious relationship it is extremely likely that at some point in the future a child would be involved (just which dead person would tell you about a pregnancy I can't imagine),and I have to say no one in the room seemed more shocked than the 'psychic' herself to hear the news!Incidentaly she never said the woman was pregnant, merely that she had 'seen a baby' and as I say that is not too difficult to predict.
    If Williams reading was 'private' how do we know how the information was arrived at i.e how much hit and miss,how much leading of the person and just how accurate the rading actually was without the person filling in details and basically hearing what they wanted to hear. I imagine if someone rings up and asks for a private reading they do so expecting to hear from someone specific and presumably leave a contact name and adress for the psychic. In an age where so many people live there lives online Facebook,Twitter whatever I imagine it would be not to diificult to research someones background.

    Leave a comment:


  • brummie
    replied
    Originally posted by HelenaWojtczak View Post
    This is my point exactly.

    The idea that a fake who was about to carry out a tour of Britain would somehow find people in all the different towns (by advertising in the local paper, perhaps?), employ them to trace the homes of people intending to attend her public events, rake through their bins in the hope that inside those bins will be written details of their dead relations, and then pass all this information to the fake, who must then locate these people within a few seconds, inside a theatre of 1,000 people, and enforce the silence of all these paid accomplices, is equally as unlikely as the possibility of speaking to the dead.

    On a purely financial basis it would cost more to employ such accomplices the length and breadth of Britain than the income from the tour.

    Helena
    I confess I'm at a loss to know why you think these accomplacies need to be changed in every town? Who exactly is going to recognise them from one theatre to another? Even those women in Ireland who were aware of someone feeding information to the stage through an earpiece only heard voices and didn't see faces.
    Second point why would they need to trace adresses of people attending the shows? The vast majority of people attending the show are people who do believe and are usually there expecting to 'hear' from someone in particular. They discuss this with friends/relatives whoever has accompanied them, in the foyer or in the theatre bar while waiting for the performance to start and if the medium wanted to accomplacies could wander around the room picking up enough significant information to provide a way in for the performer.
    Third point the performer doesn't have to locate the victim in the audience just put out 1 or 2 snippets of information and they stand up and identify themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • DirectorDave
    replied
    Originally posted by HelenaWojtczak View Post
    This is my point exactly.

    The idea that a fake would somehow find people in other towns (by advertising in the local paper, perhaps?), employ them to trace the homes of people intending to attend her public events, rake through their bins in the hope that inside those bins will be written details of their dead relations, and then pass all this information to the fake, who must then locate these people within a few seconds, inside a theatre of 1,000 people, is equally as unlikely as the possibility of speaking to the dead.

    Helena
    So they wouldn't go that far?

    Why rake through bins for info on dead relations, or who is going to attend? you could do all that sitting at a computer keyboard? Or even looking at the ticket booking informatrion.

    Why employ people in every town? they take their experts on the road with them.

    They Have got you Helena.....you don't really believe it.....but you refuse to accept that they would go "that far" for thousands and thousands of pounds.

    Leave a comment:


  • HelenaWojtczak
    replied
    Originally posted by Sally View Post
    Has anybody considered how hard it would actually be to operate a system using accomplices?

    I'm quite happy to accept it as a possibility if somebody explains to me how it would work.
    This is my point exactly.

    The idea that a fake who was about to carry out a tour of Britain would somehow find people in all the different towns (by advertising in the local paper, perhaps?), employ them to trace the homes of people intending to attend her public events, rake through their bins in the hope that inside those bins will be written details of their dead relations, and then pass all this information to the fake, who must then locate these people within a few seconds, inside a theatre of 1,000 people, and enforce the silence of all these paid accomplices, is equally as unlikely as the possibility of speaking to the dead.

    On a purely financial basis it would cost more to employ such accomplices the length and breadth of Britain than the income from the tour. And the number of temporary accomplices would be growing every year, how do the fakes prevent them from speaking to the press? I mean, someone might earn 100 for snooping (if the above-described snooping was even possible and effective, which it isn't) but the press might pay 10,000 for the story which would discredit the fake medium.

    Helena
    Last edited by HelenaWojtczak; 08-08-2012, 02:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X