The JREF on ABC's Primetime Nightline!

[Brian Thompson]

Be sure to watch psychics put to the JREF test on ABC's Primetime Nightline Wednesday, 8/17 at 10pm EST!

The JREF is a big part of this "Beyond Belief" special on psychic abilities. Will someone win our Million Dollar Challenge?

http://bit.ly/mXh7Hz

 

[Almo]

Will someone win our Million Dollar Challenge?

I wouldn't bet on it!!

 

[rjh01]

Will the forum even get a mention?

 

[wardenclyffe]

Someone applied and was tested for the MDC on this TV show? Really?

Ward

 

[Azrael 5]

Anyone record this to disc and send across the pond??

 

[Brian Thompson]

Here's a lengthy clip: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/psychic-detectives-put-test-14320969

 

[Almo]

Part to first ad break... pretty good!

 

[ranson]

The problem I'm seeing so far is that there was no mention as to whether the "applicants" agreed that the protocols would be reasonable tests of their abilities. Currently, the "out" I see them all having was "this isn't what I said I could do".

Except for van Praagh. They chewed him up pretty good for the length of the segment.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What a disgusting last segment.

 

[jimtron]

I just finished watching part two (testing the palm reader and tarot card reader, and the living and dead test). I'm afraid that segment is going to leave lots of room for believers to cry foul. With the living and dead test, I don't remember them showing the guy claiming to be able to do such a thing. I think they should show the claimant making a very specific claim, and like the MDC, then have them agree to a protocol. With the palm reader, she was working with crude looking photo copies of hands--of course believers are going to say that's not the same as looking at a live hand, as the reader claimed.

Still, glad to see Randi and Banacek on TV doing their best (I'm guessing the producers didn't make it easy for them to make their case).

eta: the consultant to Psychic Kids (or whatever that TV show is called):

(paraphrasing)
interviewer: were any of those kids traumatized (by their experiencing demons etc, and possibly encouraged by their parents)?
consultant: the children I worked with were beautiful kids with high IQs

wtf, didn't answer question

 

[Milbrandt]

Anyone record this to disc and send across the pond??

I second this. I can only watch segments, but they're not complete and stop quite abruptly. If I click on the video for the complete episode, it says I can't watch because I'm not in the US.
The first part about Van Praagh is also on youtube and complete, but not the other parts.

I liked what I've seen so far though, not the usual "wow it's amazing what he can do" type of show.

 

[Hitch]

Someone applied and was tested for the MDC on this TV show? Really?

Ward

I think they bypassed the normal application and screening process for the sake of getting three spectacular failures on national television back to back.

 

[rwerdja]

Thought that they didn't make it clear that it was Banacheck that "saw" the yellow school bus toy over his head .. If you didn't get that, you'd think it was a psychic with "powers." Also, the last interviewer was pathetic. When they talked about his dead mom, he melted, and wanted to believe... not much in the way of skeptical reporting. Thought Banacheck and Randi were fabulous. Just wish they were given more time to talk. (check the floor of the editing room) Overall, left an impression that it could be real .. not as definitive as I'd have liked.

 

[Brown]

I just finished watching part two (testing the palm reader and tarot card reader, and the living and dead test). I'm afraid that segment is going to leave lots of room for believers to cry foul. With the living and dead test, I don't remember them showing the guy claiming to be able to do such a thing. I think they should show the claimant making a very specific claim, and like the MDC, then have them agree to a protocol. With the palm reader, she was working with crude looking photo copies of hands--of course believers are going to say that's not the same as looking at a live hand, as the reader claimed.

I would be astonished if there wasn't some sort of positive recititation by the participants that the test they were about to take was fair (or perhaps even suggested by themselves!). A positive recitiation is more than them taking the test without an objection.

In the past, test subjects have been asked: Can you do this? If we give you pictures of hands rather than the hands themselves, and cover the targets' hands with mittens, can you still do it? Can you to find a picture of one deceased person from among a random collection of a dozen pictures in folders and envelopes?

It is not necessary to say to the participants anything like, "You will not be allowed to complain after the test that the test is unfair." Rather, it is more important to get them on the record that the test appears to be fair and they feel they CAN succeed at it. Afterwards, they can cry foul all they want, but JREF can point out that before and during the exam, there were no cries of foul.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Thought that they didn't make it clear that it was Banacheck that "saw" the yellow school bus toy over his head .. If you didn't get that, you'd think it was a psychic with "powers."

I take exception to shows that juxtapose a "real" psychic with a magician doing the same trick, but fail to explain how the magician did it. This means, to a typical audience, that while the magician might be performing using mundane powers, and the psychic might be using supernormal ones, the opposite might be true, and we are given insufficient knowledge to distinguish.

I think it hurts the skeptic cause, and this show, while not the worst, was far from what it could have been. Too many stones were unturned.

 

[Swagomatic]

It was great to see Randi and Banacheck on prime time TV. I just wish they would have put the skeptical segment on last - that ending part with Alison Dubois was just atrocious.

I thought it was hilarious that one of the "testees" was wearing a Power Balance bracelet.

 

[Brown]

I take exception to shows that juxtapose a "real" psychic with a magician doing the same trick, but fail to explain how the magician did it. This means, to a typical audience, that while the magician might be performing using mundane powers, and the psychic might be using supernormal ones, the opposite might be true, and we are given insufficient knowledge to distinguish.

I think it hurts the skeptic cause, and this show, while not the worst, was far from what it could have been. Too many stones were unturned.

Very often, magicians don't do the same trick. They do BETTER tricks: more baffling, under seemingly greater controls, under more difficult conditions, and with fewer miscues. By comparsion, those who try to pass trickery off as supernatural powers are amateurs, and usually not very skilled amateurs at that.

It is important to point out a significant number of self-proclaimed psychics do NOT use trickery at all. Rather, they simply do not have the abilities that they think they have. When put to a test, their claimed abilities just don't show up. They may have deceived themselves, they do not consciously try to deceive anyone.

 

[Brown]

I take exception to shows that juxtapose a "real" psychic with a magician doing the same trick, but fail to explain how the magician did it. This means, to a typical audience, that while the magician might be performing using mundane powers, and the psychic might be using supernormal ones, the opposite might be true, and we are given insufficient knowledge to distinguish.

I discuss the metal blindfold here:

The metal blindfold is substantially identical to the Osterlind metal blindfold (I take no stand, however, on who invented the concept). A few of the effects were shown, but the full effect of the trick was not.

The blindfold has no secret holes or mirrors. It is exactly what it appears to be. It cannot be seen through. It does have holes near the upper corners, but those are there to receive an elastic strap to hold the apparatus on the head, and they cannot be seen through. Some smart-alecks out there might say, "Ah, but you can peek underneath the blindfold along your nose," but a performer may actually ask one or more spectators to try on the blindfold and see for themselves whether peeking is possible. They find that the metal sits snugly along the bridge of the nose and does not permit peeking. Sure, the performer can peek if he nudges the blindfold up a bit, but at no time during the performance does the performer ever touch the blindfold with either hand, even to scratch an itch or make an "innocent" adjustment, and the spectator may at any time demand to see whether the blindfold is still snugly in place.

Yet, as Banachek showed, the performer somehow DOES see. There are no stooges, no special effects, no secret optics on the apparatus, no electronics. What seems to be impossible is shown to be quite possible, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that supernatural capabilities are at work.

This trick--and it IS a trick--could easily be more convincing of supernatural capability than any of the other "psychic" feats on the show.

Those who don't know the secrets might not be enlightened by this explanation, while those who do might think I came perilously close to giving those secrets away.

 

[Cleon]

My one complaint is that they never mentioned the fact that MDC applicants agree to the test protocols before the test is performed.

 

[Denver]

Considering all the other news magazine stories of psychic claims, this was probably the best one I've ever seen. ABC should get some kudos for it. Not to mention Sylvia Browne was mentioned in the same sentence with the word "infamous".