Psychics

dacouch

Nearlyold wrote: »

I always find it odd that those who have passed on to the "Spirit World" never seem able to simply state their name and where they lived but rather always indulge in bizarre guessing games with their loved ones still on earth of "the name sounds something like" or "I died of something to do with my upper torso" or "I was keen on the outdoors" variety in order to identify themselves

The spirits do tend to be old people who have died and we all know how they love a game of charades

robatwork

midnitegremlin wrote: »

Has anyone been scammed by a psychic?

Yes.

Everyone who has been to one.

robatwork

I also get annoyed that psychics is a word very similar to physics yet could hardly be more opposite. Physics being the study of what IS. And how everything functions.

Psychics being 100% dysfunctional.

no1catman

It's typical that whenever this sort of query comes up, anyone who dares to have had a good validated experience is rubbished.


If all psychics were fraudulent as some here believe, no one would go to them at all.
But in any work of life you have some good at what they do, and others not.
Just because I've had a few bad experiences with cowboy builders doesn't mean all builders are con-men! Estate Agents don't have a good reputation, but I'm sure there are ones with integrity.


If people say the psychic gave them information that wasn't a generalisation, that there recognised as valid - who has the right to rubbish that. Just because, it can't be logically explained doesn't automatically invalidate it.

RuthnJasper

no1catman wrote: »

It's typical that whenever this sort of query comes up, anyone who dares to have had a good validated experience is rubbished.


If all psychics were fraudulent as some here believe, no one would go to them at all.
But in any work of life you have some good at what they do, and others not.
Just because I've had a few bad experiences with cowboy builders doesn't mean all builders are con-men! Estate Agents don't have a good reputation, but I'm sure there are ones with integrity.


If people say the psychic gave them information that wasn't a generalisation, that there recognised as valid - who has the right to rubbish that. Just because, it can't be logically explained doesn't automatically invalidate it.

You make a good point - and I don't necessarily disagree. But, by the same token, just because it cannot be logically explained; it doesn't automatically validate it.


But my mind is open to the possibilities - except where "information" which cannot be guaranteed, explained or justified, yet which purportedly comes from the dead to the bereaved is given in return for money.

forgotmyname

Faith177 wrote: »

Each to their own but I am a firm believe in the supernatural and I do believe that some people do have gifts just unfortunately not all the ones who claim too are telling the truth

The medium you visited certainly has gifts, you gifted them some money.


Other family member are infactuated with the most haunted shows etc. That Derek guy makes my skin crawl. So fake.

I like how they say we take him to somewhere he doesnt know so he could not prepare which turned out to be a lie anyway.

I would place money on him being quite a historian, with a wide knowledge of haunted building and places along with the stories that go with them.

Initially it was just like him giving the history of the place but then he started being posessed and being so fake he made my skin crawl.

What we need is another psychic to sue him on behalf of all the spirits he mentioned publicly. I may watch that....

Nearlyold

no1catman wrote: »

It's typical that whenever this sort of query comes up, anyone who dares to have had a good validated experience is rubbished.


If all psychics were fraudulent as some here believe, no one would go to them at all.
But in any work of life you have some good at what they do, and others not.
Just because I've had a few bad experiences with cowboy builders doesn't mean all builders are con-men! Estate Agents don't have a good reputation, but I'm sure there are ones with integrity.

If people say the psychic gave them information that wasn't a generalisation, that there recognised as valid - who has the right to rubbish that. Just because, it can't be logically explained doesn't automatically invalidate it.

But it can be logically explained, mediums/psychics use a well known technique called cold reading. Transcripts of readings, where the subject is sure they were given information that wasn't a generalisation, demonstrate the technique quite clearly with the use of initial "Barnum statements" (something for everyone), switching, and a much higher number of misses than the subject affirms to. Subjects have also volunteered much more information than they realise.

There are of course good and bad Psychics, Derren Brown (who of course makes no claim to supernatural powers) would have made a very good "psychic" should he have chosen to follow that particular career path.

Poppie68

MarkBargain wrote: »

It's part of the routine to appear to add credibility. Out of interest, where was this information supposed to be coming from? Did she claim to be reading your mind or speaking to a dead spirit? If she told you something you think she could not have known, what was it?

I have deleted my posts as it contained personal information that at the time I was happy to give. I will not allow my very GENUINE and positive experience to be used by some to ridicule me or others.
While science may of failed to prove psychics abilities it's also failed to disprove them either.

Poppie68

robatwork wrote: »

I also get annoyed that psychics is a word very similar to physics yet could hardly be more opposite. Physics being the study of what IS. And how everything functions.

Psychics being 100% dysfunctional.

Can you prove psychics are 100% dysfunctional? Have you tried it?

Poppie68

MarkBargain wrote: »

There are techniques for doing readings. Take the accident prediction, we all have accidents all the time, most of them are minor but she said your Dad would recover so any minor slip, trip or paper cut over the coming weeks could be taken to prove the prediction had come true. If he happened to have a more major accident, that would also be seen as a true prediction. Win, win.

If it could be done, it would be proven and verifiable under scientific conditions.

Reason for deletion given in previous post.