I have to post my frustrations! Some of you will have subjected yourself to the "Antiques Ghostshow" with our old mate Derek "Kreed Kafer" Acorah; it's the most blatant example of hot reading I have ever witnessed on TV. I've seen two antiques "appraised" so far by both Acorah and the (in)credulous antiques experts, and his results have been stunning "hits", apparently backed up by subsequent historical research:
1) A mahogany chest owned by a Sgt William Slater, Royal Marines, who was frequently stationed overseas (can't resist a "duh" at that last!).
2) A mourning locket associated with a grand building in Brittany, France, and a name of De la salle.
Unfortunately, all of the information needed to make these statements was provided by the objects' owners, JUST before Acorah came on! For the chest, the "Sergeant" and Slater aspects of the name were given (so Acorah only needed to guess "William", a very common name), as was the fact that he was a Royal Marine (who by definition are often on ships far away!). For the locket, the woman told the presenter and experts that her relative had been shot on steps of a famous French building whose name escapes me (though I don't think it was in Brittany), and unless my memory fails me, she gave the de la Salle name as well!.
Now, the implication was that Acorah was not privy to the introductory spiel from the owners, but fact is that they did not state that he wasn't, and if he wasn't in the next room, he was damn close by. The only explanation for him repeating back the information given by the owners, is that that's exactly what he was doing. The audacity of this amazes me.
The historical research left much to be desired, clearly intended to go over the same ground the owners had already covered (hence why they knew something of the object's history already), but appearing to the believer or the casual viewer to support "thin air" conclusions drawn by Acorah. Where they tried to confirm his extrapolations, e.g. that the chest went with Sgt Slater on board ship, one military expert informed them that it was not military issue, simply because chests weren't issued to soldiers but rather were private purchase. The presenter (clearly a woo) was triumphant that this meant the chest COULD have been Slater's cabin trunk. Well, yes of couse it could have been. It could also have been a Vicar's underpants chest! Utter failure of logic.
Sorry, this has turned into a rant. It's frustrating that this programme is apparently too lazy to even employ cold reading, because you can't analyse what's being said to demonstrate that that's what it is. I have a certain measure of respect for good cold reading, but this appeared to be outright cheating of a kind I've never seen made into an entire TV show!
Here is one of the participants insisting that no collusion took place. Any thoughts?
1) A mahogany chest owned by a Sgt William Slater, Royal Marines, who was frequently stationed overseas (can't resist a "duh" at that last!).
2) A mourning locket associated with a grand building in Brittany, France, and a name of De la salle.
Unfortunately, all of the information needed to make these statements was provided by the objects' owners, JUST before Acorah came on! For the chest, the "Sergeant" and Slater aspects of the name were given (so Acorah only needed to guess "William", a very common name), as was the fact that he was a Royal Marine (who by definition are often on ships far away!). For the locket, the woman told the presenter and experts that her relative had been shot on steps of a famous French building whose name escapes me (though I don't think it was in Brittany), and unless my memory fails me, she gave the de la Salle name as well!.
Now, the implication was that Acorah was not privy to the introductory spiel from the owners, but fact is that they did not state that he wasn't, and if he wasn't in the next room, he was damn close by. The only explanation for him repeating back the information given by the owners, is that that's exactly what he was doing. The audacity of this amazes me.
The historical research left much to be desired, clearly intended to go over the same ground the owners had already covered (hence why they knew something of the object's history already), but appearing to the believer or the casual viewer to support "thin air" conclusions drawn by Acorah. Where they tried to confirm his extrapolations, e.g. that the chest went with Sgt Slater on board ship, one military expert informed them that it was not military issue, simply because chests weren't issued to soldiers but rather were private purchase. The presenter (clearly a woo) was triumphant that this meant the chest COULD have been Slater's cabin trunk. Well, yes of couse it could have been. It could also have been a Vicar's underpants chest! Utter failure of logic.
Sorry, this has turned into a rant. It's frustrating that this programme is apparently too lazy to even employ cold reading, because you can't analyse what's being said to demonstrate that that's what it is. I have a certain measure of respect for good cold reading, but this appeared to be outright cheating of a kind I've never seen made into an entire TV show!
Here is one of the participants insisting that no collusion took place. Any thoughts?
Last edited:
