Mod+ 238. WHY SKEPTICS ARE WRONG… ABOUT PSYCHICS & MEDIUMS

#21
I find spiritualism and mediumship more convincing than any incidental evidence I have seen for ghosts.
That's interesting. How do you feel about the Long Island Medium Theresa Caputo? I've watched her on Netflicks and have found her to be very impressive. It's like she can pull personal details about people's lives, the kind of details that are just not recorded by databases. The kind of information that is almost from an invisible observer point of view. What do you think?
 
#22
It's like she can pull personal details about people's lives, the kind of details that are just not recorded by databases. The kind of information that is almost from an invisible observer point of view. What do you think?
I think mediums will tell you time after time that they are conversing with the deceased, some even to a degree that they are sometimes harassed by them.

Those who side with annihilation will just say that its N-degrees of telepathy (assuming they don't cling to cold reading, as is favored now.)
 
#23
I think mediums will tell you time after time that they are conversing with the deceased, some even to a degree that they are sometimes harassed by them.

Those who side with annihilation will just say that its N-degrees of telepathy (assuming they don't cling to cold reading, as is favored now.)
Telepathy is a paranormal phenomenon; therefore, it can't be claimed by materialist-skeptics. As for cold reading, yeah there are times when the medium hasn't warmed up yet or gotten "the signal", so they have to use cold reading techniques. I suppose there might even be a miffed spirit guide that let's a medium "do it themselves" because they keep claiming all the credit. Also, the way they eliminate telepathy as an explanation is that they substitute the sitter with a substitute who will just take notes.
 
C

chuck.drake

#24
That's interesting. How do you feel about the Long Island Medium Theresa Caputo? I've watched her on Netflicks and have found her to be very impressive. It's like she can pull personal details about people's lives, the kind of details that are just not recorded by databases. The kind of information that is almost from an invisible observer point of view. What do you think?
I have watched Long Island Medium on Netflix with my wife. I find the show interesting, but there isn't any information online about how the show is filmed. It is clear that the family segments are scripted at the level of reality shows. In other words it seems like they have a loose script and then "act like themselves." I enjoy the family dynamics and Theresa seems like a genuine and likable person. It is clear that the mediumship segments are highly edited since her readings are one hour and the average reading time on screen is probably three minutes. If it were made clear that the reading segments were videotaped during the reading and not recreated, then I think that would really help the credibility of the show. The people who are sitting certainly display real emotion and when they express surprise about the detailed nature of the readings they seem genuine.

I don't really have much personal doubt about the idea that something that is currently unexplainable is happening with mediumship. I have seen several group readings at a local spiritualist church and have seen some remarkable readings. I also accept the validity of the mediums who participate on this forum. I know some others can't do that and that's cool.
 
#25
I have watched Long Island Medium on Netflix with my wife. I find the show interesting, but there isn't any information online about how the show is filmed. It is clear that the family segments are scripted at the level of reality shows. In other words it seems like they have a loose script and then "act like themselves." I enjoy the family dynamics and Theresa seems like a genuine and likable person. It is clear that the mediumship segments are highly edited since her readings are one hour and the average reading time on screen is probably three minutes. If it were made clear that the reading segments were videotaped during the reading and not recreated, then I think that would really help the credibility of the show. The people who are sitting certainly display real emotion and when they express surprise about the detailed nature of the readings they seem genuine.

I don't really have much personal doubt about the idea that something that is currently unexplainable is happening with mediumship. I have seen several group readings at a local spiritualist church and have seen some remarkable readings. I also accept the validity of the mediums who participate on this forum. I know some others can't do that and that's cool.
I guess if you didn't give the family a script, they would just stand around fumbling. I hadn't thought of it, but it might be the case that the video tape editors have to look for those "gold nuggets" in which LIM Tarressa says something amazing. The rest of the reading is probably too personal and not appropriate for TV viewers. Or it could be the case that TV viewers just don't have the time to sift through all of the video of hour long readings. I mean, I've had personal experiences of getting very meaningful information from mediums.

By the way, the same thing is done at the LHC collider. They have to sift through a huge amount of collisions before they find that "gold nugget" Higgs boson. The same thing is also done with evidence of ghosts where ghost hunters have to view about a weeks worth of video to find evidence of ghosts.
 
Last edited:
C

chuck.drake

#26
I guess if you didn't give the family a script, they would just stand around fumbling. I hadn't thought of it, but it might be the case that the video tape editors have to look for those "gold nuggets" in which LIM Tarressa says something amazing. The rest of the reading is probably too personal and not appropriate for TV viewers. Or it could be the case that TV viewers just don't have the time to sift through all of the video of hour long readings. I mean, I've had personal experiences of getting very meaningful information from mediums.

By the way, the same thing is done at the LHC collider. They have to sift through a huge amount of collisions before they find that "gold nugget" Higgs boson. The same thing is also done with evidence of ghosts where ghost hunters have to view about a weeks worth of video to find evidence of ghosts.
I agree. If the hits she is relating in the videos are actual hits recorded "live" during a reading then she is a remarkable medium. I think you would need to know someone who was on set producing the show who was willing to talk to really find out how the readings are filmed, whether they are "live" or recreated.
 
#27
I guess if you didn't give the family a script, they would just stand around fumbling. I hadn't thought of it, but it might be the case that the video tape editors have to look for those "gold nuggets" in which LIM Tarressa says something amazing. The rest of the reading is probably too personal and not appropriate for TV viewers. Or it could be the case that TV viewers just don't have the time to sift through all of the video of hour long readings. I mean, I've had personal experiences of getting very meaningful information from mediums.

By the way, the same thing is done at the LHC collider. They have to sift through a huge amount of collisions before they find that "gold nugget" Higgs boson. The same thing is also done with evidence of ghosts where ghost hunters have to view about a weeks worth of video to find evidence of ghosts.
Here's a big difference; with the LHC collider they were able to prove that the HB really exists, and that is accepted by everybody in the world, not disputed by the Chinese or Japanese academies of science or anybody else.
On the other hand, your ''personal experiences'' with mediums are just anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence; a whole lot of anecdotes are not evidence.
 
#28
D.Shropshire said:
Here's a big difference; with the LHC collider they were able to prove that the HB really exists, and that is accepted by everybody in the world, not disputed by the Chinese or Japanese academies of science or anybody else. On the other hand, your ''personal experiences'' with mediums are just anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence; a whole lot of anecdotes are not evidence.
It's not possible to walk up to a total stranger and tell them personal information, with confidence, about passed on loved ones or highly specific details about personal loved ones without paranormal means, I think your confusing anecdotes with testimony. The legal system uses testimony today and for last couple thousand years. The military calls it debriefing. Tell me what you saw.
 
#29
When you say you're 'convinced', that sounds like you're saying you'll believe it in spite of you admitting there is no evidence. Interfering with them mind? Isn't that what we usually call 'imagining', or 'pretending'? ''Registering on the physical background''? Isn't that what we usually call 'being real'?
I've seen ghostly phenomena along with my wife. As neither of us routinely mistake red lights for green or street furniture for dead people, it's necessary to explain our sighting in more meaningful terms than imagination, if by that word you mean false. Other people I know well have also seen apparitions, people who'd be described as expert witnesses in court. Why do we not routinely project ghostly phenomena onto the backdrop of our lives? Why did we jointly see them? I don't know, but pretending doesn't match the experience.
 
#30
I meant the message, not the scratches. Maybe it got deleted by mistake.
Re scratches; if somebody got scratched and don't know why, you're jumping to conclusions if you say it was ghosts, that's false logic. What if it was some devil, or what if you just psched yourself into like as we know people can do with stigmata, etc.
If I thought you would take the time to watch the video, I would take the time to find the video where the exorcist is doing an exorcism and gets scratched, then the home owner gets scratched. The home owner had a look of pain on her face and told the cameraman that it burned, then they pulled up her shirt and showed fresh scratches. Then she said she had to get out of there. It happened on other episodes. If you have Netflicks and you tell me that you'll look at it, I'll find the specific episodes and the times when the events happen.

Claims about being attacked by ghosts are just unsubstantiated anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence of anything. Thousands of anecdotes do not constitute evidence. For example, thousands of old maids have claimed to have been kidnapped by ETs and held as sex slaves, but exactly none have ever been proven.
Do you think that covering yourself with a sheet is evidence of ghosts?
There does seem to be a lot of anecdotes, a ton of personal testimony. Even I've seen a black cloaked entity when I was a kid. My mom saw the same entity throughout her life. I didn't believe it until I saw it. I swear upon my personal integrity that I did see this black cloaked entity as a ten year old. When I did, and it was a clear crisp figure, probably because of the adrenalin I was experiencing, my skepticism faded away because I saw it. I know you will disregard my experience because you have never or experienced such things; or if you have, it was a trivial experience.

I think what is confusing the materialist atheists is particle-wave duality. Particles are so substantial, but quantum waves are so ghostly. And the idea that a quantum wave could be alive and act like a ghost is something that would require direct experience with. You should talk to the paranormal investigators in your area if you can come along as an observer. Perhaps you should speak to whatever spirits might be watching you, and ask them to reveal themselves. I know the naughty ones have no moral problem with scaring you. I think you should throw caution to the wind and buy a Ouija board. If it's immoral to suggest it, I will go ahead and accept the karma for suggesting it.
 
#31
So far you haven't used anything to convince skeptics that any of the various types of ghosts exist. BTW, how many sorts do you recognize? We know, for example, that some christians accept the 'holy ghost', while others don't. Do you accept the holy ghost?
I've experienced the Holy Ghost. I still consider myself a Theosophist/spiritualist. But I don't mind being thought of as a Christian.
 
C

chuck.drake

#32
No problem, you and your wife and 'other people' have said they've seen apparitions; that adds up to a lot of anecdotes, but too bad anecdotes are not evidence that something exists.
Masses of anecdotes surrounding specific unexplained phenomena are not evidence that something exists. But they are evidence that something unexplained may exist.
 
#33
No problem, you and your wife and 'other people' have said they've seen apparitions; that adds up to a lot of anecdotes, but too bad anecdotes are not evidence that something exists.
Not too bad, because I'm not out to convince you of anything, least of all introduce a new category of evidence. When it comes to personal experiences, anecdote is the gold standard. Consciousness, the only certainty, is itself entirely anecdotal. In comparison to consciousness, all evidence is conditional.
 
#34
So far you haven't used anything to convince skeptics that any of the various types of ghosts exist. BTW, how many sorts do you recognize? We know, for example, that some Christians accept the 'holy ghost', while others don't. Do you accept the holy ghost?
I definitely think you should get a Ouija board. Take it down to the local cemetery, at night when there is quiet and you won't be disturbed, and you should seek out communication with a spirit. An abandoned prison or sanitarium would be better. You should definitely open yourself up to the experience. Since ghosts don't exist as you say, then there is no need for caution.
 
C

chuck.drake

#35
Yes, and all you would have to do is prove it, and then I'll go along too. What would we call though, people who believe even though no evidence exists, or in spite of evidenve? Irrational, right?
I think most people on this site err on the side that unexplained phenomena may exist. I don't see how that equals belief.
 
#36
It's also ridiculous to suggest I speak to some 'spirit', since no spirits have even been shown to exist. I know my Irish neighbour speaks to a Leprechaun, or does he just think he does?
Your logic is faulty. You wouldn't know that anything existed unless you looked to see for yourself. Since you are afraid to look for a spirit, then you will probably not be bothered by any.
 
#38
Ouija boards are also flakey pseudo-science. But if fact I have been in cemetaries at night, and have had no problems at all. I used to regularly take a short cut, even as a little kid. No ghosts, no spirits, no nothing.
Let's talk about consciousness. Would you consider that flakey? On second thoughts scrub that. I'm assuming you're an escapee from JREF out for a recreational drive-by.
 
#39
I'm new here so don't know about most people, I made specific rebuttals to individuals who made specific claims, like the guy who first said he could guarantee, then was sure, then said we would have to wait for evidence.
Not true at all, I know that the bacteria e-coli exists, not because I have seen any myself, but because others have PROVEN it does. That's very different.
Do you believe e-coli exists for some other reason?
I've seen bacteria under a microscope. I've seen a black cloaked entity. What's your point?

A Ouija board is a communication device that spirits are known to use. Just because you think it's hokey does not change that fact.
 
#40
You only claim evidence, but can't show it. You believe in spite of evidence, and your belief is religious based, not rational but dogmatic.
You don't have to visit the zoo to know that elephants and tigers exist because you believe that they exist.

But you should visit the cemetery, with a Ouija board, to find out if spirits exist. Of course fear is a legitimate reason not to go.
 
Top