I believe that many ‘mediums’ or psychics believe they can talk to the dead and I truely believe that many are very skilled at something. We are currently enjoying a TV programme called ‘Sensing Murder’ where old unsolved murder cases use mediums to try to discover what happened - it is surprisingly compelling as at least new ideas come to light and the police follow them up. The programme gets about 50 psychics and test them, before chosing the best two for each case. However, I want to know if there have been any who have confessed to not having any special powers and to not being able to talk to the dead?
There are any number of showman “psychics” who do the “talking to the dead” act and who don’t try to pretend it’s anything more than a clever stunt.
Read here for a discussion which mentions at least one cold reader of that description.
Our very own ianzin has written a book on the subject, and does or has done cold reading acts which he certainly doesn’t pretend to rely on anything paranormal. His website is www.ianrowland.com.
I think I have heard of people who maintained the facade that it was real, but then subsequently admitted it wasn’t but I can’t think of their names. I’ll repeat your final question over on Randi’s board, they tend to be good at this sort of thing over there. If ianzin pops in he may know of examples.
Pshychics involved in solving murder cases might truly believe they have some supernatural gift (it reminds me of a case in France where a psychic guessed right and ended up in custody until it was established she had nothing to do with the murder). They just have to use a pendulum and a map and point at some random place they “feel” is the correct one.
On the other hand, as I understand it, “speaking with the dead” involves special techniques and training. So, I doubt these ones believe in their “pshychic powers”. They’re just crooks.
Darat over on Randi’s boards came up with the goods real quick.
I give you Lamar Keane
I don’t have all the details, but I remember reading a ‘confessions of a fortune teller’ type thing in the Canadian reader’s guide many years back. (Is there any difference between a fortune teller and medium/psychic? 
)
Anyway, she admitted pretty easily that she had no real connection to the forces of destiny or any other supernatural powers, though a lot of her customers believed that she did. Explained a lot of the ‘tricks of her trade’ – which lined up pretty well with more recent cold-reading debunking stuff I’ve seen on the net.
It’s called “con artistry.”
Perhaps you could name one psychic who has demonstrated a special power!
Here’s one who hasn’t owned up, despite being exposed:
‘Many people may remember the scandal several years ago involving Peter Popoff. James Randi and his crew discovered he was using a hidden transmitter to get “words of knowledge” on people in the crowd. The voice of “God” turned out to be none other than his wife. He was publicly exposed on the Johnny Carson show about 10 years ago.’
I would be very very shocked to learn that any entirely new never-before-considered-by-the-police ideas come to light; and further, that any of these new ideas are shown to be the means to solve the case.
Remember that this is a TV show. About “mediums” finding criminals. They are going to write and edit the show to promote the stated premise of the show.
As far as pschics who admitted they weren’t psychic after all, isn’t there a member here who worked as a psychic and said the whole thing was a crock - that she wasn’t psychic at all, just good at talking to people and getting them to tell her what she wanted to know? I might be thinking of a different board.
From Randi’s site, here’s the experience of (actress) Kari Coleman. It’s an interesting and somewhat emotional read. Imagine telling someone who’s just poured their heart out to you that you’ve just been tricking them the whole time.
Excerpt:
I think it is more than that - they have very good knowledge of things such as age, popular names by decades, most popular illnesses etc and they can put this information together easily. They could look at someone in an audience and guess who they have come to hear from purely on age.
The psychics used for solving crime, can spot areas where a body might be dragged by looking at the road side etc.
The ‘Sensing Murder’ series is more than likely edited, but the police are real police and the psychics do come up with suggestions that the police decide to check out. I used to watch that British bloke Colin Fry to guess his cold reading techniques and ‘Sensing Murder’ is just compelling in comparison.
It’s actually much, much more than just that and it’s a very interesting subject. Check out Ian Rowland’s (ianzin) excellent book which is linked above.
It would be cool if they told the 50 assembled “psychics” that only 2 were chosen, and only those two should return for work, but never tell who the lucky two are.
The most compelling concept through this thread is the reference to the “true believer syndrome.” I’ve often wondered why people choose to believe what seem to be such far-fetched notions, when there are an infinite number of alternatives from which to choose. But they adhere to some of them for reasons that just don’t make sense to me and I do think that there’s something that science needs to explore. E.g. - given the enormity of the universe, the number of stars, the distances between them, the possibility of intelligent life on some random planet someplace, what would be the chances that some civilization got into a vehicle, travelled across one of those distances, chose to secretly descend to Earth one night, scratch some shapes in the side of a mountain, and then leave, never to be seen or heard from again? Or make some lovely little circles in a farmer’s field and take off? Or abduct a couple from East Jesus, Nebraska, poke them for a few days, and then put them back down, and then leave, never to be heard from again? Or zoom around in the sky over Arizona and then disappear? They came all this way for that? Why do people land on these particular explanations and then stubbornly stick with them, as if these are the only “logical” explanations for things they don’t understand. Yep - someone needs to look into this “true believer syndrome.” It’s a very interesting phenomenon, and one I’d wager is not unrelated to belief in God. But maybe that’s a different thread. xo, C.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking if any psyhics have ever admitted to being frauds?
Have they reviewed the book ‘the afterlife experiments’? The experimenter controlled for cold reading in those experiments.
Yes - have any come clean about not actually being able to talk to spirits,
(given that many truely believe they do).
Some more hardline skeptical propaganda. Nothing but bias here—move along. Man you guys have some deepseated insecurities.
The one thing about livin’ in
Santa Carla I never could stomach…
All the damn skeptics.
Are you saying that you believe in psychic powers? What leads you to say that people in this thread have deepseated insecurities - I don’t understand.
And they can get the audience to fill out questionnaires beforehand giving all this information, including “why have you come?” “who do you want to contact?” :rolleyes:
I know of no case where a psychic helped the police. Do you?
'Geberth depended upon the fatuous claims of Noreen Renier, an Orlando, Florida, “police psychic” who was featured on an episode of the short-lived TV series, “Put to the Test,” featuring naive “investigators” who would be unlikely to find a bowling ball in a bathtub in full sunlight. The show did, however, provide an excellent example of just how bad the “readings” of the operators actually are, and how much wishful thinking, enhancement of vague statements, and sheer invention, enter into making the data appear to work.
As Dr. Gary Posner of the Tampa Bay Skeptics pointed out in his review of this program, Renier provided a description of a murderer that was so far off the mark – except for the gender – that it would require an incredible amount of imagination to make it fit the perpetrator. As for providing a psychic impression of the crime scene, which was in a small California community, Renier trotted out the usual can’t-miss statements. In a stroke of divine inspiration, Renier said about the house, “It seems that there’s a lot of white in it.” Wow. What more can I say? But there’s more: “And there’s some strong slant . . . with the roof. . . .” Double wow. How does the woman DO it? Then she offered, “A house, or church, or a house near a church . . .”
The mind boggles at the perception and sensitivity of this inspired psychic…’
http://www.randi.org/jr/07-02-2000.html
'If there is any ability on the part of a psychic to supply law enforcement officials with relevant data which might assist in obtaining the solution to a crime, that ability should be cultivated and used. To find out if psychics could assist the police, American psychologist Dr. Martin Reiser conducted two extensive investigations into the use of psychics by the Los Angeles Police Department for that purpose. After several years of research, his conclusion was that psychics could contribute nothing useful to police work. “Psychics come out of the woodwork during cases which the media become heavily involved in,” he says.
Part of Dr. Reiser’s experimentation involved weapons used in homicide cases. These were mixed in with “virgin” items as controls, and it was found that the psychics were unable to differentiate among them.
Inspector Edward Ellison of the U.K.'s Scotland Yard, in response to statements by psychics that they regularly worked with them, reported that:
1. Scotland Yard never approach psychics for information.
2. There are no official “police psychics” in England.
3. The Yard does not endorse psychics in any way.
4. There is no recorded instance in England of any psychic solving a criminal case or providing evidence or information that led directly to its solution.'
I just looked (breifly) at the website for the book. It doesn’t appear that the experimenter actually did control for cold reading, as the subject was allowed to answer yes/no questions from the readers.
Additionally, the experimenter didn’t control for anything else (for instance, by having admitted non-psychics do a cold reading of the subject, and comparing their ‘accuracy’ to that of the reputed psychics.) The readers ‘accuracy’ was determined by the subject afterwards, rather than having any objective scoring system.
All these studies show is that grieving subjects of accomplished cold readers will score the reading as accurate. That’s no surprise, but it’s a psychological phenomenon, not a psychic one.