• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Psychic Sally morgan caught cheating?

commandlinegamer said:
That makes perfect sense to me. While I don't believe SM is psychic I don't see that she has been proved not to be either.

I looked at Hayley Stevens' blog. She describes herself as a ghost hunter who doesn't hunt ghosts. In other words, tries to find a rational explanation for that which others would say is supernatural. Doesn't sound like a believer in the paranormal to me, but to be fair I only skimmed her site.
Click to expand...

she's definitely not a believer. She's a skeptic who frequently speaks at skeptics events and conferences including QEDCon, organized Bath Skeptics In The Pub, and does a podcast on the paranormal with Merseyside Skeptics.
 
Pixel42 said:
As you say, the evidence is that neither pointing and laughing nor rational factual argument is effective on those who are emotionally invested in a belief.

A more interesting question is therefore which, if either, is more effective on the undecided.
Click to expand...


Well this is the key issue: how can skeptics communicate information in an educational manner effectively?

This would be a good debate and it would be nice to see the 'big guns' (the well-funded skeptics' organizations) spending a bit of money on it and giving some guidance.

Unfortunately, some of the methods that work don't lead to any recognition or publicity so may not be good as fund raising activities.
 
snuffkin said:
Thanks for that KeriKiwi. Also, it's just occurred to me, if it was as long as ten years ago, perhaps she was then known as Michelle West (her real name). So he wouldn't perhaps recall Sally Morgan as we know her now. Oooh! So maybe there could be some footage...
Click to expand...

Hard to know why the woman changed her name. Numerology or some other woo-based consideration?

dlorde said:
I thought his (tongue-in-cheek) alternative explanation for the overheard prompting was amusing:
Quote:
.. I have heard from in-house theatre crews who have hosted big-name psychic shows that they were surprised to see the shows follow a fairly tight structure and an oddly similar script every night: therefore another possible explanation could be that the whispering was indeed cheekiness from the lighting technicians who were just pre-empting what they knew was coming next, having seen the show so many times.
Click to expand...

It sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, actually. And it's probably an explanation Michelle/Sally would be loathe to admit.

Anyway- what's to be done with this woman and her ilk?
How far can or should public shame go?
I'm not comfortable with that twitter campaign involving the exposure of her phone number and address. Sally/Michelle could have family members or employees who might be affected by such a disclosure.
 
John Jackson said:
So you're not open to argument or evidence regarding something that contradicts your conclusion?

See how it all works - or doesn't? :D
Click to expand...

I'm open to argument; I'm not convinced by the one you're making. I have come to no conclusion yet as to the efficacy of a reasoned argument "turning" a true believer in and of that argument itself. But that's not my whole point either.

See how that works?

Plus, my problem with pointing out that psychics who prey on bereaved are like vultures is that it's insulting to vultures.
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
Hard to know why the woman changed her name. Numerology or some other woo-based consideration?
Click to expand...

From the Express:
Born Michelle West in 1951 to a stern mother and a violent father (replaced early on with a similarly fierce stepfather) she says she did not have a particularly happy childhood.

She left school without any qualifications, married too early and was barely out of her teens when she gave birth to her first daughter.

She decided to become Sally because she liked the name and life took a turn for the better when she met John Morgan at 22.
Click to expand...

So, she's been Sally Morgan since about 1973.
 
Resume said:
Plus, my problem with pointing out that psychics who prey on bereaved are like vultures is that it's insulting to vultures.
Click to expand...


The problem with coming out with stuff like that is that it makes you look like a narrow-minded fanatic who's making a very emotionally-charged point rather than a rational one. You'll never persuade anyone of anything if you approach the issue like that.
 
pakeha said:
Hard to know why the woman changed her name. Numerology or some other woo-based consideration?
Click to expand...

I'm hesitant to post this for fear that someone will interpret me as defending Sally Morgan, but people change their names all the time for all sorts of reasons. This isn't the Randall Zwinge Educational Foundation, after all.
 
zooterkin said:
From the Express:


So, she's been Sally Morgan since about 1973.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info!

Lamuella said:
I'm hesitant to post this for fear that someone will interpret me as defending Sally Morgan, but people change their names all the time for all sorts of reasons. This isn't the Randall Zwinge Educational Foundation, after all.
Click to expand...

Indeed it isn't, Lamuella!
And the truth is that Sally Morgan by any other name would still be an entertainer posing as someone who communicates with the dead.
 
John Jackson said:
The problem with coming out with stuff like that is that it makes you look like a narrow-minded fanatic who's making a very emotionally-charged point rather than a rational one. You'll never persuade anyone of anything if you approach the issue like that.
Click to expand...

Lighten up Francis. Got 40 years into this whole skeptical whohaw, might have some insights you haven't discovered yet. In fact, I'm certain I do.
 
Resume said:
Lighten up Francis. Got 40 years into this whole skeptical whohaw, might have some insights you haven't discovered yet. In fact, I'm certain I do.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm......

I laughed at that but I'm not quite sure whether it's because you're being serious or because you're not.

It was funny all the same!
 
hey Resume, I reckon I beat you in the Ad Hom contest. You're only amusing, while I am adorable!
 
snuffkin said:
Hayley Stevens/Project Barnum, almost looks like a believer too.
Click to expand...

If I were a 'believer' would that make me a bad person? If not, why is it even a discussion point? If so, that's a pretty crap way to view other people.

Hayley on Twitter: "I think a lot of people think its proof she is fake now. All it is, is proof she didn't take a test."
Click to expand...

Yes I said that. I was stating a fact. That makes me a believer?

ProjectBarnum on Twitter: "however, we don't intend to harass & always clearly state that. We love psychics (just not fake ones)."
Click to expand...

sense of humour fail much? I don't know if you've noticed, but Project Barnum is a bit tongue-in-cheek in the way it communicates on twitter etc.

Some people will see that attitude is too wishy washy.
Click to expand...

Good for them. At Project Barnum we're quite happy with how we're doing things, and if others think 'the nasty skeptic' method is better, good for them. However, a lot of people have been telling me how I'm doing things wrong while doing nothing themselves. Says a lot, I believe.

By the way, I'm not a 'believer', and a quick look on my website would have showed you that, especially the bit where I write:

"I’m an atheist, a humanist, a skeptic and a ghost hunter who doesn’t hunt for ghosts. By that, I mean I am skeptical of paranormal claims and search for more plausible causes for strange things people witness."
Click to expand...
 
We all seem to be on the same side, just with different methods of confronting her. Personally I agree with lamuella , the general public will not see the fraud angle, just nasty people harassing an old lady trying to make a buck. Most people will read the byline in the daily mail, make a quick judgement and carry on. This is what hurts us, PR, we want it on our side, not hers.

Targeting people going to her show with info works much better for our goals, as it sows seeds of doubt in her money base, if her fans become doubtful and pass that message on, it hurts her more than we can directly. Just look at the fans who first brought this to light. Like they have not told there friends about the fraud and passed on the message.
 
Last edited:
We all seem to be on the same side, just with different methods of confronting her. Personally I agree with lamuella , the general public will not see the fraud angle, just nasty people harassing an old lady trying to make a buck. Most people will read the byline in the daily mail, make a quick judgement and carry on. This is what hurts us, PR, we want it on our side, not hers.
Click to expand...

The problem is we think Logical and we cannot understand why Logic fails to work.
the answer is to think like a Public Relations person.

This is one thing used.
1. REPEAT WORD ASSOCIATION with something bad. In every statement about Sally say the word Poppoff again and again. "Sally Morgan has been Poppoff". "Sally Morgan has a Poppoff in her ear"

It is all here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations
 
Last edited:
snuffkin said:
Thanks for that KeriKiwi. Also, it's just occurred to me, if it was as long as ten years ago, perhaps she was then known as Michelle West (her real name). So he wouldn't perhaps recall Sally Morgan as we know her now. Oooh! So maybe there could be some footage...
Click to expand...

I've just seen Derren Brown's latest program, the experiments, featuring the lucky dog. It features a small segment with Sally Morgan. Derren's either got a bad memory or didn't want to say anything until the programme had aired.
 
monoman said:
I've just seen Derren Brown's latest program, the experiments, featuring the lucky dog. It features a small segment with Sally Morgan. Derren's either got a bad memory or didn't want to say anything until the programme had aired.
Click to expand...
Having just seen it myself, I'd err on the side that he didn't want to say anything which would ruin the experiment before it aired, especially since she was giving credence to an invention of his (including asserting that the "dog's spirit" was in a "vortex" with his "owner's spirit" near the statue). Especially since it also isn't the same segment as she was alleging, she (or her son-in-law, if memory serves) was claiming that she'd given him a reading in person that was too good or... something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom