I have noticed on this board when the skeptics call for a cite, and one is given, they never comment on what the cite says about the debate. It’s like it’s invisible to them. Well, here we are calling for a real psychic again after I posted links to real psychics earlier.
http://noreenrenier.com/media/artic...ineresearch.htm
then look here:
First link doesn’t work.
Second link is next to useless. It’s just a general link to something called a “Crime Library”.
Can you give me the name of a real psychic.
How to view the human aura. (Be sure to ground & center first!)
To experience true visions, you need to disconnect from people as much as possible. People are distracting. Becoming rich & famous (especially if you’re a celebrity like John Edwards) means you’re constantly surrounded by people, and therefore too distracted to experience real visions. Therefore, becoming rich & famous is antithetical to experiencing visions. (John Edwards, btw, is a poor example – he’s already been proven to be a total fraud.)
I did not ask how I could view an aura. I asked if you could prove it existed. Assume I’m ‘colorblind’ and cannot see auras. Can you prove to me that they exist?
By the way, John Edwards is not a fraud. He is a senator. John Edward OTOH is fraud.
A politician that isn’t a fraud? Even rarer than genuine psychics.
It’s like the difference between a courtesan and a whore.
I don’t want to put links into lekatt’s mouth, but I believe he was attempting to re-post these two from post 240:
http://noreenrenier.com/media/articles/rhineresearch.htm
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/index.html
The link first goes to the website of self-proclaimed “psychic detective” Noreen Renier (name #1) where one can view a number of viciously-paraphrased testimonials and impressive-sounding unsubstantiated claims. The second goes to a 15-chapter editorial of sorts by a Katherine Ramsland who, among other things, talks about her view of psychic powers in general, historical psychic phenomena, and various works of fiction pertaining to psychics.
Though lekatt has thus far refused to indicate which specific aspects of either source he’d like to discuss, it seems your question of “current psychics” is somewhat addressed by chapter 12 of Ramsland’s article, “The New Psychics.” It chronicles the life and times of Allison Dubois (name #2) who apparently served as the inspiration for the TV series Medium.
As you can imagine, I don’t endorse either individual as a “current real psychic”-- I’m just trying to assist friend lekatt.
You’re not the only noticing things 'round here, bub. Allow me to direct your attention to post 249. I’ll ask again, with added emphásis:
Got any answers yet? Or will it be more of this?
No, no, NO!
Look: you’re supposed to go to those links, read them and return convinced!
You’re NOT supposed to go there, read them critically and come back prepared to discuss them!
:rolleyes:
Typo. My bad. 
Well, if you had genuine dyschromatopsia, you would have to take on faith that red, green, blue, yellow, and all the other shades of visible light and you are one of those rare people who cannot see them. You could also apply science to understand the variant electromagnetic frequencies that stimulate retinal cones which are connected via the optic nerve to the brain’s visual cortex and thus interpreted as color, and therefore reach the conclusion that some part of your visual matrix is defective. However, if you refuse to believe that what I just told you about color perception is the truth, and that everyone who says “red” or “green” is deluded by some conspiracy…then no, I couldn’t convince you that colors exist.
This analogy’s a bit faulty, because what I just described has been accepted & verified as scientific FACT, and color blindness (especially total color blindness) is quite rare. So if 95% of the world perceived color, and 5% do not, it’s easy for those 5% to accept the existence of color without understanding the biological mechanism. Meanwhile, if 5% of the world can see auras, and 95% do not, and there’s no accepted scientific methodology to demonstrate how auras work…then it’s natural to assume those 5% are either deluded or downright mentally ill. In other words, it all comes down to peer pressure.
By the way, I’ve been wondering lately if there’s a link between synesthesia and the ability to read auras.
Turns out I’m not the only one:
http://jeff.zaadz.com/blog/2006/3/the_human_aura_what_is_it
There’s a simpler way to prove the existence of color to a colorblind person. Get a few pieces of cardboard and paint them in equally bright colors. Mark on the back which is which. Then over multiple trials identify the colors by looking at the front. After a while, you get a figure much greater than random chance.
Why not a similar procedure for auras? Assume I can’t see auras. You say you can. There has to be test that could prove it. My first exposure to Randi was a television special that included a test for an aura claimant. The woman picked ten audience members who she said had bright auras that extended at least a foot from their bodies. Randi had them stand behind a wall just an inch or so taller than their heads. The woman failed the test. But, it seems sound to me.
Interesting.
But isn’t synesthesia something that is located in the observer, not the object? Wouldn’t “aura reading” then be a perception, more than an actual, objective property of the person who’s being observed?
Because in that case it would be like saying that a myopic person, by the mere fact of seeing people blurry, had “special powers” instead of saying that because of some property of their eyes their perception of objects is distorted.
Sorry about that link. Here is the correct one and a quote:
As you can see she is a real psychic who works for the FBI and police departments, I have seen her on TV many times and she is very good.
Anyone who says she is not a real psychic probably needs to contact some of the police departments she has worked for and/or the FBI to clearify her credentials.
I know from experience a skeptic will never give up their position no matter how strong the proof may be. But for the record there are psychics and a lot of good psychics. One of them helped me a lot, and I have many friends that are psychics.
Reality won’t go away just because science can’t measure it or because it conflicts with some of science’s doctrine. If they are those who wish to talk intelligently about psychics I would be happy to answer their posts.
If what you say is true, then it’s logical to assume that “aura reading” takes place entirely within the observer’s mind, and therefore no energy transfer takes place. (Which doesn’t explain why aura meters apparently work…but we’ll worry about that later.)
If James Randi had really studied “aura reading” from a New Age/Wiccan perspective, he would know that the FIRST thing you are taught is that you have total control over your aura, you can “allow it to fill the room” or “pull your aura next to your skin” using a simple mental exercise. Also, if auras are truly a synesthetic response (which has yet to be proven) then you must see at least some part of the subject in order to visualize any aura at all.
Therefore one of two conditions must be true:
(1) James Randi is totally ignorant about how auras work, or
(2) James Randi knows exactly how auras work, and deliberately uses methods to make the experiment fail, for the purpose of fulfilling his own self-aggrandizement and perpetuating the myth that psychic science is just a bunch of hocus-pocus.
I suspect (2) to be the case.
Your link goes to an article on divining rods, I don’t see anything about aura meters.
Why should James Randi know how auras behave? He does not believe they exist, since he has seen no evidence of them.
You are claiming that auras behave a certain way, but you still have not shown any evidence that they exist or that you can see them. Surely some experiment can be set up to prove these things.
Lekatt You linked to a page on the "psychic"s own website. Where is the proof? I see a paragraph without cites or evidence.
Well… yes. The thing is, if “aura meters” work (and no, I didn’t see anything about aura meters in your link either), then there would be no reason to link it to a synesthetic response. And if they work, Randi’s actions shouldn’t have an effect on the people who are able to read auras, or even if they did, they would be irrelevant.
Overall, I would see two possibilities:
They are the same thing. Here’s a better link.
We can do that right now, if you like. I don’t always see auras in real life, but I can read them via the Internet. I’m also willing to reveal my methodology and how it pertains to synesthesia and the art of cold reading. (And if your hypothesis is that “aura reading” is merely a shorthand to cold reading…then we’re on the same page. This is all about fighting ignorance, after all.)
And yes, I have synesthesia. 
Previously you stressed the importance of being able to see a body part to read an aura. Now you say you can read them over the internet?
What kind of information do you get from reading auras?
A couple of points: