• 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 Detectives are real

H3LL said:
LOL. I'm going to watch it again tonight. Hehehehe!

I have often thought that if the kid had been replaced with a Richard Prior type of character it would have been a smash.

We'll never know.

.
Click to expand...

Could be worse. It could've been Savage.

"There's always a man in my closet, it costs me a fortune in closet doors."
 
polomontana said:
Just got through watching Psychic Detectives on Court TV and I suggest the person with an open mind watch the repeat tonight.

I will give you a quick overview:

A girl gets killed in a fire and the police suspect her neighbor did it. A psychic talks to the detective and tells him a young white male whith blonde unkempt hair did the crime. The detective tells him that they have a suspect. The psychic says you have the wrong suspect.

The detective takes the psychic to the crime scene and the detective takes notice because the psychic began to subscribe things that only him and his investigators knew. She then told the detective that the criminal came back to the scene and stole the victims white rabbit. The psychic said when you find the white rabbit you will find the killer.

The psychic then followed the criminals energy, like I taked about earlier. She took the police to places that the criminal has visited around the area. The police begin looking for the criminal based on the psychic's description.

The detective calls the psychic back to his office and she tells him that she keeps seeing 2 names, Lucille and Maryland. The narcotics unit is about to investigate a lead that matches the description given by the psychic. The guy lives off Maryland and that's off Lucille.

When they get into the house what do they find under his bed? The white rabbit from the crime scene. When they arrest the guy he's a 17 year old white male with blonde unkempt hair.

It's like the psychic said, they give the police the pieces of the puzzle and the police has to put the puzzle together. The only thing supernatural about psychic ability is that we don't fully understand it yet. If you were to go back in time 2,000 years and clone a sheep, that would be considered a supernatural event by the people from that time period.

There were 3 Psychic Detective shows and you should watch all 3 as they will repeat tonight. That's if your a freethinker.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between open minded, freethinker and taking a psychic detective show as some sort of documentary. Shows like that are filled with logical fallicies. If one analyzes the shows looking at all possiblilites, they never stand up to scientific standards...not even close.

An after the fact psychic detective show is one giant confimation bias. The only answer the show will ever find is that psychic detectives exist and solve cases. Editing and presenting only information favorable can give the illusion of truth if one does not ask more questions--critical thinking questions. A while back, Fox ran their moon hoax show and people believed it...the same people will believe the psychic detective show as they haven't learned to look at the evidence from a scientific point of view.

Scientific study of a subject always attempts to eliminate as many differing theories as possible to narrow in the truth...and Occam's razor typically rules...the simpliest explanation is probably the best. Weighing psychic ability against cold reading techniques, the cold reading explaination wins since the evidence points in that direction.

Anecdote still has no meaning. As I posted before, when psychics solve a few hundred cases with reasonably accurate information, then you will get the attention of people on this board and in the rest of the scientific community. Accuracy must be paramount. Making some guess that has a high chance of being correct without any psychic ability cannot be valid. In one of your examples: Stating that the killer would head south after the murder is a guess that has a 33% chance of being correct...north or east would be the only other choices as no one would expect the killer take a boat out into the pacific ocean. Analyzing all statements is necessary, not just what is presented on the detective show.


glenn
 
CB1 said:
For all of you non-believers and closed minded skeptics, I suggest you watch the following factual documentary and concede that modern science can not show everything. The documentary is called “The Lord of the Rings” and goes into great detail about the lives of Hobbits, Elves, Orcs and Wizards. There are also tons of books on the subject.

Now closed minded skeptics would have us believe that Elves do not exist. I challenge you to come up with some evidence to disprove the existence of Elves. They are immortal and as such, disprove the scientific nonsense that we all just die and turn to dust. The documentary went into a lot of detail about how they are able to sail to the undying lands. I suggest that if you want confirmation, you contact a Mr S Gamgee, who was quite vocal on this show and should be able to tell you all about it. I’m happy to believe what he says, and the burden of proof is on you the skeptics to show he is lying. LOL Checkmate!!!!!
Click to expand...

I did find a (genuine, as far as I could tell) website once that claimed that Tolkien was basically a time-travelling historian or some [rule 8]. As proof, posters there remembered their suffering in past lives as Elves living in concentration camps set up by Morgoth...
 
Glennmr78,

I have gotten the attention of some of the people on this board. They see the obvious flaw in the logic that's being presented in some of the posts and I'm sure more will follow suit.

The logic is this:

I think all the detectives on shows like Forensic Files and Dateline are liars because it's a TV show. I think there liars and stupid. I don't have a shred of evidence to back my claim but everytime one of these shows talks about a police case I refuse to believe it LOL.

Of course that's an argument Reductio Ad Absurdum but this is the illogical thinking of some skeptics.

Why are the detectives on Forensic Files and Dateline any more credible than the detectives on the show Psychic Detectives?

I think I will start my own Million Dollar Prize like James Randi. I will give the skeptic 1 million dollars if you can provide me evidence that every detective on the shows from Psychic Detectives is lying or stupid.

Were not talking about psychics that say the name begins with H. Were talking about psychics who go to the police and tell them the killer went to school with the victim then psychic looks through her yearbook and points out the killer. The police then investigate that person and he confesses to the crime. This is all vouched for by the skeptical detective.
 
polomontana said:
Glennmr78,

I have gotten the attention of some of the people on this board. They see the obvious flaw in the logic that's being presented in some of the posts and I'm sure more will follow suit.

The logic is this:

I think all the detectives on shows like Forensic Files and Dateline are liars because it's a TV show. I think there liars and stupid. I don't have a shred of evidence to back my claim but everytime one of these shows talks about a police case I refuse to believe it LOL.

Of course that's an argument Reductio Ad Absurdum but this is the illogical thinking of some skeptics.

Why are the detectives on Forensic Files and Dateline any more credible than the detectives on the show Psychic Detectives?

I think I will start my own Million Dollar Prize like James Randi. I will give the skeptic 1 million dollars if you can provide me evidence that every detective on the shows from Psychic Detectives is lying or stupid.

Were not talking about psychics that say the name begins with H. Were talking about psychics who go to the police and tell them the killer went to school with the victim then psychic looks through her yearbook and points out the killer. The police then investigate that person and he confesses to the crime. This is all vouched for by the skeptical detective.
Click to expand...

Let's take it again:

Kathlyn Rhea lied about a case.

Regardless of how well you think psychics can do:

Do you still believe that Kathlyn Rhea is psychic? Yes or no.

It's a very simple question. You don't need to give lengthy explanations as to why. Just say either "yes" or "no".
 
Hi Polo,

Can I count on your backing in my aim to have Lord of the Rings excepted as fact by these idiot Skeptics? I'll re-do my post for you.

Cheers

"For all of you non-believers and closed minded skeptics, I suggest you watch the following factual documentary and concede that modern science can not show everything. The documentary is called “The Lord of the Rings” and goes into great detail about the lives of Hobbits, Elves, Orcs and Wizards. There are also tons of books on the subject.

Now closed minded skeptics would have us believe that Elves do not exist. I challenge you to come up with some evidence to disprove the existence of Elves. They are immortal and as such, disprove the scientific nonsense that we all just die and turn to dust. The documentary went into a lot of detail about how they are able to sail to the undying lands. I suggest that if you want confirmation, you contact a Mr S Gamgee, who was quite vocal on this show and should be able to tell you all about it. I’m happy to believe what he says, and the burden of proof is on you the skeptics to show he is lying. LOL Checkmate!!!!! "
 
polomontana said:
(snip)
Were not talking about psychics that say the name begins with H. Were talking about psychics who go to the police and tell them the killer went to school with the victim then psychic looks through her yearbook and points out the killer. The police then investigate that person and he confesses to the crime. This is all vouched for by the skeptical detective.
Click to expand...


Which case are you referring to exactly? Who was the victim? What year was the crime committed? Who were the officers involved? When did the psychic approach the police? Did the psychic get the information through metaphysical means, or through pedestrian means such as physically witnessing the crime? I'm curious to know more details about this.
 
harold,
that would be easy to prove. all you have to do is tell us which specific case you think the psychics solved and we will happily debunk it. hell if you give me the name of the detective and the police department i will personally contact them and find out whether the psychic really did solve the case. i somehow doubt you will pay me a million dollars though because your movie business doesn't seem to be doing too well at the moment. next time you think about naming your movie you might wanto at least check that there hasn't been a much better movie already made with the same name. city of god. lol checkmate! :p
 
polomontana said:
I think I will start my own Million Dollar Prize like James Randi. I will give the skeptic 1 million dollars if you can provide me evidence that every detective on the shows from Psychic Detectives is lying or stupid.
Click to expand...
Oh GOD I'd love to be in the courtroom the first time someone sued you over your refusal to pay and hear your explanation to the judge as to why they didn't qualify. :D
 
Well, I for one refuse to take Harold seriously until he shows some respect for the English language. For language is necessary to demonstrate logic.

Harold, you do realize you suck at spelling and proper word choice, right? The first step is admitting you have a problem.
 
polomontana said:
Glennmr78,

The logic is this:

I think all the detectives on shows like Forensic Files and Dateline are liars because it's a TV show. I think there liars and stupid. I don't have a shred of evidence to back my claim but everytime one of these shows talks about a police case I refuse to believe it LOL.
Click to expand...

No, you don't seem to understand. Please pay attention to this post. To show you really do comprehend English at all, please read carefully:

Anecdote is never evidence. Ever.

Detectives talking about a case on any show, is always just an anecdote. You must also see the documents (that all police departments and courts keep) for cases to see that they are in line with what someone says. Us skeptics are not saying everyone is a liar. We are simply aware that indeed, some people do lie. And others are merely misinformed. Still others fail to remember events accurately. And until you have facts (something made or done) to corroborate the statements they make, it is wise to hold off accepting or rejecting it completely.

Is this logical to you? Or is it just nonsense?
 
Last edited:
With that particular TV show, I would guess that they distorted the data. The detective in charge of the case refused to talk to them. Then they got one of the lesser detectives to say that they had circulated Rhea's sketch (which was copied from an eyewitness sketch). It all comes down to one quote: "without that sketch, I doubt if we would have been able to solve the case."

A comment like that is easy to invoke by leading questions and take out of context. "We had two sketches and we circulated them both. They we similar, but the psychic's actually looked more like the guy we arrested after the tipster contacted us."

"Do you think that the tipster called in because of the sketch?"

"Well, I don't know. We had the other sketch, and I don't know what the tipster knew."

"Is it fair to say you wouldn't have solved the case without Rhea's sketch."

"Yeah, I guess so."

"Could you phrase that as a statement."

"I guess that without that sketch we wouldn't have solved the case."

A little careful editing, and voila.
 
ChristineR said:
"Is it fair to say you wouldn't have solved the case without Rhea's sketch."

"Yeah, I guess so."

"Could you phrase that as a statement."

"I guess that without that sketch we wouldn't have solved the case."

A little careful editing, and voila.
Click to expand...

I sometimes work as a commercial director, and when shooting testimonials, that is EXACTLY how we do it. :D
 
ChristineR said:
With that particular TV show, I would guess that they distorted the data. The detective in charge of the case refused to talk to them. Then they got one of the lesser detectives to say that they had circulated Rhea's sketch (which was copied from an eyewitness sketch). It all comes down to one quote: "without that sketch, I doubt if we would have been able to solve the case."

A comment like that is easy to invoke by leading questions and take out of context. "We had two sketches and we circulated them both. They we similar, but the psychic's actually looked more like the guy we arrested after the tipster contacted us."

"Do you think that the tipster called in because of the sketch?"

"Well, I don't know. We had the other sketch, and I don't know what the tipster knew."

"Is it fair to say you wouldn't have solved the case without Rhea's sketch."

"Yeah, I guess so."

"Could you phrase that as a statement."

"I guess that without that sketch we wouldn't have solved the case."

A little careful editing, and voila.
Click to expand...

This post shows how the skeptic can be delusional:

1. The lead detective didn't refuse to talk to the show. He was on the TV show Psychic Detectives and he was the main detective vouching for Kay Rhea. The Chief of Police was also on the show.

2. The people who wrote the article tried to contact the detective but he was in Iraq. They then talked to his partner who is skeptical but still said, "without using the psychic, we probably would have never solved the case."

3. The the sketches were not similar, they showed both sketches on the show.

4. They didn't release both sketches, just the eyewitness sketch because the original detectives were very skeptical of psychics.

The police were skeptical, and set the sketch aside. Twelve years pass. In 2002, the unsolved case was given to Detectives Brandon Shoemaker and Gary Gass. - from the article

5. Twelve years later the cold case detectives released Kay Rheas sketch. If you would watch the show you would know that the first sketch wasn't any good and they set aside his sketch. The cold case detective then went to the Chief of Police and asked could he circulate the psychics sketch.

The detectives decide to publisize Kay's sketch, and two months later they get a break in the case. They recieved a tip about a man who used to live in Selma who matches Kay's sketch. - from the article

This is again a quote from the skeptical detective:

He went on to talk about the purpose of sketches, that they were used to "eliminate everyone else." Kay's sketch wasn't used like that, it was a direct hit.- from the article

Sorry Christine, your not entitled to make up facts.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
So do YOU have any evidence that disputes the newspaper account about Jordan's accuracy in this case? If so, let's hear it.
Click to expand...

You may choose to believe whatever rubbish you want to, but I am deeply skeptical of the veracity of this "article," as I am of most reports that aren't corroborated by evidence.

FYI, many if not most newspapers also publish horoscopes. We all know how factual they are, don't we?

M.
 
Baron Samedi,

The show was on Psychic Detectives last night. She talked to the police and the police didn't have a suspect. The police didn't even know the victim was dead. The psychic said she was dead, they were treating this as a runaway. The psychic then told them that she was killed by a friend from high school and she looked through her yearbook and pointed out the killer.

The lead detective was on the show and he vouched for the psychic.

The show is called Strange Obsession and a repeat will be on Court TV this weekend.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom