Going to a psychic medium party

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you PM him, he will send you the details. He didn't want to post them in the forum where a Google search could bring them up

He said he wouldn't give the name of the psychic or a link to their website other than by PM, but he also said he'd post a report of the party. It's entirely possible to provide a report without giving any identifying details. If there's going to be no report, then that rather makes this thread pointless, doesn't it?

Also, if he encloses the text within {code} brackets (with square brackets instead of curly), then google will not pick the text up.

 

[Garrette]

I asked for the analysis via pm and received it. In it, he gave his reason for withholding a public display, and I agree with it, though it may be temporary. I won't say more on it.

I'll just say what I told him after reading it: I agree with both his approach and his analysis.

 

[Magrat]

I asked for the analysis via pm and received it. In it, he gave his reason for withholding a public display, and I agree with it, though it may be temporary. I won't say more on it.

I'll just say what I told him after reading it: I agree with both his approach and his analysis.

As do I.

 

[Scorpion]

I've attended many psychic lectures, as long as they were for free, and even played for some private readings in the past. (Research and entertainment purposes only.)

I am betting I have attended far more trance lectures than you, and certainly most of the other people on this thread, who seem to have closed minds.
I attended trance lectures at the spiritualist association in London during the 1970s. Listening to mediums like Ursula Roberts, and Ivy Northage, both now dead. But their writings can be found on the Internet. I also attended White Eagle lodge, and trance lectures by Grace Cook.
I sat in two psychic developing circles one of which was conducted by the medium Trevor Williams, and I went to countless services in spiritualist churches over several decades. I state all this to make clear I did my homework and my views are based on much experience. It took me two years of attending church services to come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation for the evidential messages I received was that the mediums were doing what they said they were doing and getting messages from the spirit world. I base that view on the high quality of messages I received and the fact I was told many things the mediums could not have known. I was aware of cold reading from the start and I did not tell the mediums anything and attempted not to give any body language. Keeping a straight face and not responding to anything I was told. Never the less I received many evidential messages.
I think most people here write off mediums with no experience of them, but if they spent enough time researching psychics they might find their negative opinions would be changed.

 

[Garrette]

I am betting I have attended far more trance lectures than you, and certainly most of the other people on this thread, who seem to have closed minds.
I attended trance lectures at the spiritualist association in London during the 1970s. Listening to mediums like Ursula Roberts, and Ivy Northage, both now dead. But their writings can be found on the Internet. I also attended White Eagle lodge, and trance lectures by Grace Cook.
I sat in two psychic developing circles one of which was conducted by the medium Trevor Williams, and I went to countless services in spiritualist churches over several decades. I state all this to make clear I did my homework and my views are based on much experience. It took me two years of attending church services to come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation for the evidential messages I received was that the mediums were doing what they said they were doing and getting messages from the spirit world. I base that view on the high quality of messages I received and the fact I was told many things the mediums could not have known. I was aware of cold reading from the start and I did not tell the mediums anything and attempted not to give any body language. Keeping a straight face and not responding to anything I was told. Never the less I received many evidential messages.
I think most people here write off mediums with no experience of them, but if they spent enough time researching psychics they might find their negative opinions would be changed.

It is likely that you have attended more such events than I, but that is not a call to jump to a conclusion of closed mindedness on my part (or our parts).

What can you offer as the best evidence to convince us that the conclusion you have reached is the most likely one?

 

[Scorpion]

I have posted my experiences here before and the response was that my memory may be faulty. But I do not think so as I recall one message because it was so evidential. I was told I had a brother that died in the war as a baby, and given his name and the circumstances of his death. I did not believe the medium and answered ' no' to everything she said. But I went home and asked my mother if she had a baby that died in the war and she said 'Yes'. It turned out the medium was accurate in everything she said.
My mother was shocked because she did not believe in spiritualism, and she had never been to the church. I had never seen the medium before because she was visiting the church from out of town. So it begs the question, how could she know these facts?
Besides that message I received many others, but none so surprising.

 

[Garrette]

Understood. I hope you can understand why such a thing is not convincing to others, though, particularly those who are quite familiar with ways in which such things can happen. Bear in mind that I am not saying that any specific one of the following methods is the one that was used, but there would need to be a reason to rule it out.

1. Cold reading: You say you are aware of it. I can accept that, but such knowledge is not a guard in and of itself against falling prey to it. And just as you say that you have more experience with such (apparently) psychic experiences than the rest of us here, and I can say I have more experience with cold reading than you. Even those familiar with it can still be fooled. That said, given the specifics that you recall being mentioned, it may not be in play here. It may, though, because it doesn't just stop at throwing out generalities; it involves expertly following up the responses to those generalities.

2. Faulty memory. Yes, you rule it out, but that means nothing. There are those in this thread who have more knowledge of the research into memory than you likely have. The intensity of feeling of a memory does not guarantee its accuracy. There's more behind this than it seems; in other words, I'm not faulting you as much as it may appear. But faulty memory -- more precisely a memory continually reconstructed with ever recall -- remains near the top of the list.

===

But let's assume that neither cold reading nor faulty memory are at play and the experience unfolded precisely as you remember. What possibilities remain?

3. Hot reading. I do not know what you explained in the previous thread you mentioned, but nothing in this one precludes prior research.

There are actually at least a couple of other things, but I don't want to get into exposure. You'd have to positively rule out all three of the above before even considering actual psychic ability (or mediumship or whatever term you think applies here).

===

Are you aware of the magician Harry Kellar? He was one of the premier magicians at roughly the time of Houdini. He was on a tour overseas when he gave a reading to a man he had never met before. Kellar told the young man that he (the young man) was traveling under an assumed name, and he told him his real name. He told him where he was from in the United States and the name of his parents. He also told him that he was about to receive a letter from his mother.

All of what Kellar told the young man turned out to be true. The man was flabbergasted; there was no one around who knew that his traveling name was false, let alone what his real name was. There was no one who knew where he was from or his parents' names. Most impressively, he had not communicated with his parents in a very long time, and there was no way Kellar could have predicted that a letter was coming from his mother.

All of which is at least as impressive as what you are relating. I would say that the prediction of the letter is more impressive. And Kellar did it without psychic abilities.

Can you demonstrate something to the level of Kellar?

 

[Scorpion]

I can only say I had many evidential messages, which obviously proves nothing to anyone but me. Another medium once told me I had just done a blue and white painting and although I was not aware of it, the spirit world had inspired me to do it. She told me I did not think much of the painting, and that means either she or the spirit world could read my mind with telepathy. Because I am sure I had not talked about the painting to anyone.

 

[Scorpion]

I am aware of some of the criticism debunking mediums. I recently purchased two of Houdini's books ' A magician among the spirits' and 'Miracle mongers and their methods'.

 

[Garrette]

I can only say I had many evidential messages, which obviously proves nothing to anyone but me. Another medium once told me I had just done a blue and white painting and although I was not aware of it, the spirit world had inspired me to do it. She told me I did not think much of the painting, and that means either she or the spirit world could read my mind with telepathy. Because I am sure I had not talked about the painting to anyone.

I'm glad you recognize they are not proof to anyone else. Without discussion of the controls on your experiences, though, I cannot judge why they are convincing to you. Saying "I am sure..." does not constitute a control.

I am aware of some of the criticism debunking mediums. I recently purchased two of Houdini's books ' A magician among the spirits' and 'Miracle mongers and their methods'.

Excellent. Then you will learn some secrets.

 

[FluffyPersian]

Are you aware of the magician Harry Kellar? He was one of the premier magicians at roughly the time of Houdini. He was on a tour overseas when he gave a reading to a man he had never met before. Kellar told the young man that he (the young man) was traveling under an assumed name, and he told him his real name. He told him where he was from in the United States and the name of his parents. He also told him that he was about to receive a letter from his mother.

All of what Kellar told the young man turned out to be true. The man was flabbergasted; there was no one around who knew that his traveling name was false, let alone what his real name was. There was no one who knew where he was from or his parents' names. Most impressively, he had not communicated with his parents in a very long time, and there was no way Kellar could have predicted that a letter was coming from his mother.

That's an interesting story. I did a search but found nothing about the incident you mentioned. The man's accent may have given away the area he was from, but how did Kellar figure out the man's name? It would be difficult to get that from a hot reading, so maybe he had a third party source or made multiple guesses.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am aware of some of the criticism debunking mediums. I recently purchased two of Houdini's books ' A magician among the spirits' and 'Miracle mongers and their methods'.

Allow me to make another recommendation: The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading by Ian Rowland.

 

[Pixel42]

I am betting I have attended far more trance lectures than you, and certainly most of the other people on this thread, who seem to have closed minds.
I attended trance lectures at the spiritualist association in London during the 1970s. Listening to mediums like Ursula Roberts, and Ivy Northage, both now dead. But their writings can be found on the Internet. I also attended White Eagle lodge, and trance lectures by Grace Cook.
I sat in two psychic developing circles one of which was conducted by the medium Trevor Williams, and I went to countless services in spiritualist churches over several decades. I state all this to make clear I did my homework and my views are based on much experience. It took me two years of attending church services to come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation for the evidential messages I received was that the mediums were doing what they said they were doing and getting messages from the spirit world. I base that view on the high quality of messages I received and the fact I was told many things the mediums could not have known. I was aware of cold reading from the start and I did not tell the mediums anything and attempted not to give any body language. Keeping a straight face and not responding to anything I was told. Never the less I received many evidential messages.
I think most people here write off mediums with no experience of them, but if they spent enough time researching psychics they might find their negative opinions would be changed.

I have the same cognitive biases, fallible perceptions and malleable memory as everybody else, and can therefore be just as easily fooled (deliberately or inadvertently) as anybody else. So there's no point in me collecting anecdotal evidence by visiting mediums, because I know it is unreliable. I need objective, scientific evidence to be convinced that a psychic medium is genuine. Whenever anyone investigates these claims using the scientific method to carefully and methodically eliminate all known sources of error, the results are always negative (see, for example, this thread). So I remain unconvinced. And until objective evidence is produced so should you, however much anecdotal evidence you have collected.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I can only say I had many evidential messages, which obviously proves nothing to anyone but me. Another medium once told me I had just done a blue and white painting and although I was not aware of it, the spirit world had inspired me to do it. She told me I did not think much of the painting, and that means either she or the spirit world could read my mind with telepathy. Because I am sure I had not talked about the painting to anyone.

I know that this story was given as an example of the amazing powers of mediums, and so presumably is only part of the entire reading, but I'm left wondering what the point of this was.
If this medium is anything like Ursula Roberts, and her spirit guide Ramadhan, then the aim of this contact with the spirit world is to bring enlightenment to the world.

In them, and with the help of her spirit guide and mentor, Ramadahn, she gently emphasises the spiritual qualities which will, she affirms, help us all to lead a healthier and more peaceful existence. Ursula's teachings encourage mankind to live in harmony and concord: principles in which the world is sadly lacking today. Her teachings explore in a simple way the character and behaviour of the human animal, and how human beings can progress spiritually.

Source

What you are relating here is far from that. It's more like a cheap parlour trick, aimed at impressing you with the medium's special powers. What spiritual purpose was there in telling you something you already knew, but she (supposedly) didn't? How did this benefit you?

 

[Garrette]

That's an interesting story. I did a search but found nothing about the incident you mentioned. The man's accent may have given away the area he was from, but how did Kellar figure out the man's name? It would be difficult to get that from a hot reading, so maybe he had a third party source or made multiple guesses.

It is findable, which is one reason I gave few specifics. More importantly, most people who find out how he did it will be immensely disappointed. Most importantly, in my experience the believers who find out the specific methods for such things invalidly use it to defend their interpretations of their own experience. They will usually say something along the lines of "That obviously isn't what happened in my case, therefore I am justified in claiming real psychic ability for the person I visited."

It profoundly misses the point. Even setting aside faulty memory (which we really cannot do here), there is not just one method for giving the appearance of psychic ability; some of those methods are planned, and some simply take advantage of of elements of the situation that the sitter is unaware of. And they are not static. The methods used today may not be the methods used next week, even with the same sitter.

 

[Darat]

I am betting I have attended far more trance lectures than you, and certainly most of the other people on this thread, who seem to have closed minds.
I attended trance lectures at the spiritualist association in London during the 1970s. Listening to mediums like Ursula Roberts, and Ivy Northage, both now dead. But their writings can be found on the Internet. I also attended White Eagle lodge, and trance lectures by Grace Cook.
I sat in two psychic developing circles one of which was conducted by the medium Trevor Williams, and I went to countless services in spiritualist churches over several decades. I state all this to make clear I did my homework and my views are based on much experience. It took me two years of attending church services to come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation for the evidential messages I received was that the mediums were doing what they said they were doing and getting messages from the spirit world. I base that view on the high quality of messages I received and the fact I was told many things the mediums could not have known. I was aware of cold reading from the start and I did not tell the mediums anything and attempted not to give any body language. Keeping a straight face and not responding to anything I was told. Never the less I received many evidential messages.
I think most people here write off mediums with no experience of them, but if they spent enough time researching psychics they might find their negative opinions would be changed.

My "negative" views came about after my research. And your experiences sound very typical of someone taken in by the charlatans. As you say you attended many events which meant the so called mediums would know hell of a lot about you.

What is the information you claim they couldn't have known?

 

[Darat]

I have posted my experiences here before and the response was that my memory may be faulty. But I do not think so as I recall one message because it was so evidential. I was told I had a brother that died in the war as a baby, and given his name and the circumstances of his death. I did not believe the medium and answered ' no' to everything she said. But I went home and asked my mother if she had a baby that died in the war and she said 'Yes'. It turned out the medium was accurate in everything she said.
My mother was shocked because she did not believe in spiritualism, and she had never been to the church. I had never seen the medium before because she was visiting the church from out of town. So it begs the question, how could she know these facts?
Besides that message I received many others, but none so surprising.

What I find surprising is that no one in your family presumably for decades of your life ever mentioned the dead brother to you. You also say it was a church you attended, we have documentary proof that networks of charlatans exist that pass details on about their victims. Sadly you sound like many of those victims.

 

[Donn]

We had this tango with Scorpion before. All the ifs, ands and buts. It dents not the determined.

 

[stanfr]

What I find surprising is that no one in your family presumably for decades of your life ever mentioned the dead brother to you. You also say it was a church you attended, we have documentary proof that networks of charlatans exist that pass details on about their victims. Sadly you sound like many of those victims.

That doesn't surprise me. Family secrets are sometimes withheld for a variety of reasons.
I would prefer to hear the "circumstances of his death"--that's obviously a point of specificity (which could be very specific or very vague) and despite having that quality, Scorpion is reluctant to mention the details. Depending on the nature of those details, it would probably point towards one of the methods Garrette mentioned--hot,cold reading, or faulty memory.

 

[Darat]

That doesn't surprise me. Family secrets are sometimes withheld for a variety of reasons. I would prefer to hear the "circumstances of his death"--that's obviously a point of specificity (which could be very specific or very vague) and despite having that quality, Scorpion is reluctant to mention the details. Depending on the nature of those details, it would probably point towards one of the methods Garrette mentioned--hot,cold reading, or faulty memory.

No reason was given for it being a "secret"; certainly in the original story we were told there was no emotional drama about this "revelation" it was just one of those things. If it was "just one of those things" there would have been no reason to keep it a secret from the child.