Ghosthunters (UK), Haunted History, Most Haunted Live, Most Haunted (series 4/5), etc. I was a researcher/consultant and occasionally wheeled on as an "expert". The FAQ on the LivingTV forums will confirm this, not that it matters. Hardly relevant to ones arguments about spooks is it?
Did you actually go to the haunted places or were you just a talking head?
I have investigated places all over the UK. In the interests of maintaining a little privacy I'll gladly answer any question, but pm them if answering will reveal much personal detail.
Does that mean I can't make the information public? You keep skirting this.
You are setting up things here. I said it perhaps was a miss on cold reading. And also, if I said before that I could not imagine and now I could even if with more restrictions than you do, what´s the harm? I said I´m not too resistant on changing my mind and beliefs. So what is your point?
Your statement was crystal clear: You could not imagine that this was cold reading. It had to be either fraud - or real.
The "harm", as you put it, is that when you suddenly switch horses midstream, but won't fess up to it. Stand by what you have said, but if you change your stance, be honest about it.
We are talking about performance, human performance. So hits and misses are part of one´s repertoire, be the person a master or a mediocre, speaking about skill.
No, we are talking about an ability. Altea clearly says that she
sees the dead people. She can see the face, she can see the body, she can see the gestures.
Yes, this is inflating chances, I have to agree that this specific detail could have been gambling.
But then, another "hit" bites the dust.
But still you put as if she have a huge % of guessing something right, when perhaps the chance may have been dimmer. Cancer is the second most common cause, but what is exactly the chance of guessing it right? How many ways a person could have died? This is all sparse info, there´s no way to quantify it. You could raise good points in favor of accepting this but still there´s room to be skeptical. You seem to be sure about cold reading in these cases.
You bet we can quantify it: We know exactly how many people die from cancer:
- Heart disease: 654,092
- Cancer: 550,270
- Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147
- Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884
- Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694
- Diabetes: 72,815
- Alzheimer's disease: 65,829
- Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472
- Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762
- Septicemia: 33,464
Source
We'll just take these 10 most common causes, and then, we get a very interesting results. While cancer is the second most common cause, check out how many can be called "chest problems", the reason Altea used in the first reading:
Heart disease, stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and influenze/pneumonia can easily be said to be "chest problems". Add to that, lung cancer - so she gets those too.
Altea is simply going down the list: First, "chest problems", then cancer.
Given that cancer is the second most common cause of death, she does have a huge chance of guessing something right. Why is it
not reasonable to conclude that Altea was guessing,
especially considering that she didn't specify what cancer it was,
and that she had already used a range of the most common cause of death (also unspecified) in an earlier reading?
Hmm that´s not quite it. What we consider or not to be a hit seems not to be based on anything rather than our personal judgement. I´m most impressed with the hits of numbers of things. That´s where I cannot understand up till now, even with the points made by ersby. Guessing things like: "there are two men in your life." is not the same as saying. "no, she was carrying two roses in his hands when he died", when the sitter said: "she was carrying a rose when died." No, it´s not the same thing!! If you want to convince me on the contrary, go ahead, or let it go. But try not flaming me and my supposed "ignorance" because of that.
Nobody is flaming you for your ignorance, but you are criticized for not wanting to understand how cold reading works.
Look again at the diagrams: Altea doesn't give any information except the broadest ones: "Chest problems" and "cancer". It is only after the sitter says "rosebush" that Altea runs with the ball: This time, she guessed right, but she guessed wrong with the "end was quick", and the roof of the house collapsing. Not to speak of the wrong "grandmother" and "someone in the studio".
Look again at the diagrams: Altea starts general, then picks up the feedback she gets from the sitter and then guesses, based on that.
That is what cold reading is all about. Nothing Altea does is inconsistent with cold reading.
Again the distortion identified above, you are making this up.
I'm not making anything up. Your statement was crystal clear.
As it is now, I admit to at least imagine how could it be possible, and the 2 rosebushes issue would have to be a overwhelmingly lucky guess....talk about winning a lottery here!
Not at all: Think about it - she knows that if she guesses wrong (which she did many, many times during the show), people will forget how many times she guessed wrong and fixate on something that the sitter has to connect: Altea guessed two rosebushes, but she never said anything about where it was planted, when it was planted, or if it was planted.
Cold reading.
Oh yeah.
Are you really reading what I´m saying?
Yes, although your waffling makes it hard to understand. No psychic has agreed to, and passed such a test. Why do you blame skeptics for that?
Simply no. I´m trying to say that if you claim this is cold reading than you prove it. You didnt. So it is more tenable saying that you believe this is cold reading and then present your cases. You did, but rather claiming certainty over doubt.
Simply yes. We have given you more than enough information about cold reading for you to understand it. You still refuse to acknowledge that nothing Altea does is inconsistent with cold reading.
Again: I disagree. The caller did not say it. The caller said the gramps was planting 1 rosebush. Hell, how would Altea dare to alter this number just to gamble for a better hit???? It makes no sense, it´s not a good move for a competent cold reader fraud. This is precisely where we do disagree , and you present it as if you were demonstrating how it was possible when you dont!!!!
Sure, I do. Altea only gives the number, but she doesn't say anything about how, when or if it was used.
The sitter has to make the connection. But, in other situations, Altea guesses wrong.
So it was a lucky guess? If it was, wow, lucky lucky Altea (not saying it is impossible). Or she came up with the number two by cold reading? If so, how?
Yes, it was a lucky guess. You consistently forget - or simply ignore - the other instances where she also guessed
but was wrong.
If you don't want to accept that this was a lucky guess, then you have to explain when Altea is using her psychic powers, and when she is guessing right.
Forget about the misses for a while. Focus on the hits. When is it a guess and when is it psi?
I was not judging whether it was or not a spirit. But if you want to know my opinion, if psi exists, she probably is not obtaining this info through the spirit of the dead person, but rather using telepathic ways. In fact anyone could fool Altea saying that her father died when in fact he did not, and still Altea could come up with psi hits (assuming psi exists), even if the father is still alive. I could call for global consciousness for this, if I were to advocate in favor, which is not the case. It´s fringe to talk about it this way. But answering to your question, the miss would have been a miss on psi abilities and not necessarily the wrong spirit or a spirit telling lies.
Oh, dear. You really are a true believer.
If we allow Altea to have a miss on psi abilities in the cases where she guesses wrong, but accept that Altea really has the gift when she guesses right, then we have firmly abandoned any natural explanation. If she is right, she has the gift. If she is wrong, well, she just missed striking a ball.
You are a true believer.
cj, it is interesting that you are being asked about. I'd have thought responsible skepticism would ask only about your claims, if you've made any.
Once again, you assume that paranormal phenomena is the default position. It isn't.
Some unproven purported phenomenon beyond any generally agreed scientific explanation, yet naturalistic, and hence within the scope of future science - as opposed to supernatural. If the Encarta definition added one word "currently" after the colon I'd agree with it.
Mine is a common philosophy of religion usage. However yours is obviously correct in terms of English, so no argument there at all. I don't believe in the reality of the paranormal as defined by Encarta, as you may have gathered...
Why should we accept your home-made definition?
You see, lets take I dunno, a Goblin sighting. If goblin sightings are subsequently explained to only occur to drunks, well thats cool. It was still a paranormal claim. Science has still explained goblins - the phenomena has been explained "away", but its explained. It is paranormal no more. I'd guess 99.9% of these "paranormal phenomena" will be explained away in similar ways...
