George Anderson and Allison Dubois-are they frauds?

[annie100]

Still not sure what I believe. Want to believe that my dog and others are waiting for me--but just not sure. Have never had a reading, but not sure about that either.

 

[VFrost]

I realize that this thread was started years ago, but if you google "Medium George Anderson" it shows right up at the top, so I felt compelled to sign up, sign in and comment. I have NEVER seen George Anderson on any t.v. program, or in person. In actuality I have only finished 3/4 of his book Lessons From Light and I am moved beyond belief. Before you go calling him a fake or a fraud, try reading his story. His messages of hope to the bereaved, and to anyone else who is just curious, are AMAZING. I actually wrote to his website to tell them I learned so much about "Life" in reading his book that I feel it is life changing. Don't be skeptical until you read at least one of his books, and then tell me you are still skeptical. We all miss so many signs from the hereafter. This is your chance to get a small glimpse of peace through his eyes.

 

[hokie1]

Holy guacamole! My dad always told me that just because it was in print did not make it true. Looking for a book such as you mention and finding someone who vindicates your point of view is doing what comes naturally to all people. Finding what you believe is supporting evidence and avoiding contrary evidence is being human.

I have no doubt that George Anderson is a great entertainer. That's what he is.

People have been swayed since at least Rhine's time at Duke. The experiments and testing were intoxicating to say the least. Then again the results were never duplicated. Was Rhine duped? Probably.

Messages of hope, messages of amazement, messages of courage, life, healing, personal bravery, messages of trust and good feelings are the essence of all this since well before words could be written.

Is it wrong if it makes us feel good? Is it wrong if it makes us happy? No, not at all. Is it wrong to call it science or factual? Probably. So why go there.

 

[VFrost]

Holy guacamole! My dad always told me that just because it was in print did not make it true.

I absolutely agree with the above statement. I have always told my children not to believe everything they hear on television, print, or out of someone's mouth, but sometimes the things you DO believe, must come only from FAITH! Unfortunately, I realize this forum is dedicated to science, but even scientists can't explain everything. But if you want to add some science here, I have since finished reading Lessons From the Light and am now on to George Anderson's book Walking In the Garden of Souls.

There are several times that Mr. Anderson has allowed himself to be challenged or "experimented" on when he is "discerning" or reading someone. At one university they hooked him up to all kinds of things that could read brain waves. They found that when he was speaking to a soul in the hereafter that his brain waves were registering a "sleep state" even though he was completely awake.

Another thing that Mr. Anderson says about skeptics is that generally they will remain skeptics even if given proof, that is a message from a loved one passed on that might be information only they would know. I believe that some people don't want to believe anything and that is their choice in this life. Again, I suggest anyone who wants to criticize or be skeptical of Mr. Anderson should read one of his books first. I wasn't "looking" for this book, or any type of book like this, but it came my way and I read it. I am blessed for that, but that is another "faith" issue so I will finish up on that note. The funny thing that he says that the souls say about skeptics is that "they will all have to come to the hereafter someday, and then they will have their proof".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I absolutely agree with the above statement. I have always told my children not to believe everything they hear on television, print, or out of someone's mouth, but sometimes the things you DO believe, must come only from FAITH! Unfortunately, I realize this forum is dedicated to science, but even scientists can't explain everything. But if you want to add some science here, I have since finished reading Lessons From the Light and am now on to George Anderson's book Walking In the Garden of Souls.

How does reading someone's book qualify as science?

There are several times that Mr. Anderson has allowed himself to be challenged or "experimented" on when he is "discerning" or reading someone. At one university they hooked him up to all kinds of things that could read brain waves. They found that when he was speaking to a soul in the hereafter that his brain waves were registering a "sleep state" even though he was completely awake.

We will need a credible reference for this; ie a published paper or professional reference and not something from one his books or his website. How do you know he didn't just make this up?

Another thing that Mr. Anderson says about skeptics is that generally they will remain skeptics even if given proof, that is a message from a loved one passed on that might be information only they would know.

There are well known techniques for "cold reading". There are also tricks that can be used to convince people of things that aren't true by obtaining information secretly - a bit of research, a hidden microphone, planted audience members...

I believe that some people don't want to believe anything and that is their choice in this life. Again, I suggest anyone who wants to criticize or be skeptical of Mr. Anderson should read one of his books first. I wasn't "looking" for this book, or any type of book like this, but it came my way and I read it. I am blessed for that, but that is another "faith" issue so I will finish up on that note. The funny thing that he says that the souls say about skeptics is that "they will all have to come to the hereafter someday, and then they will have their proof".

Before I read somebody's book I want to know that he's legitimate. What proof can you offer that he is anything but a con artist? Do you have any information beyond what you read in his books? It would be one thing if you attended a reading and he impressed you with personal information, but you are promoting this guy based on a book that he wrote. Why do you believe any of it?

I allowed you one post without objection. But if you are going to defend this guy, we need more than your warm and fuzzy feelings.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Medium is back on TV tonight! I can't wait!

 

[Evo]

Medium is back on TV tonight! I can't wait!

I know, I saw that!

 

[hokie1]

..., but sometimes the things you DO believe, must come only from FAITH! Unfortunately, I realize this forum is dedicated to science, but even scientists can't explain everything.


Another thing that Mr. Anderson says about skeptics is that generally they will remain skeptics even if given proof, ...".

The inability to explain things is common. Just because an observed phenomenon can't be explained does not mean that anything extraordinary is happening. Magic acts are made to entertain with slight of hand tricks, vanishings, perceived dismemberment, and even mind reading.

Before DNA was understood should we have called it mystical?
Before nuclear processes were understood was the sun mystical or supernatural?
Before Archimedes was flotation a supernatural event?

There is a difference between a nay sayer and a skeptic. Apparently Anderson would like to confuse the two. Skeptics take the view that Anderson is an entertainer, and not demonstrating the existence of some unknown force in the universe. Nay sayers just say no.

Science revels in those that make the big breakthroughs. To put it in crude terms, these are the people that have shown that the establishment is off base and wrong. There is much praise for those that fix things: Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton.

 

[sarcarja]

This subject is very interesting to me. I don't believe any of the senstionalist TV mediums are genuine, but I have had a personal experience with a medium that really scared me. My wife and I were visiting friends in Florida on vacation and went to a large flee market. We happened upon a medium offering tarot and readings. I did a session with her for a lark to see what would happen. Only $25 so what the heck. I asked for a reading rather than tarot cards and she agreed. With no prior conversation whatsoever, she took my hands and started telling me about my personal life. For example, I have three children, two by my wife and one from a former relationship. She said "I see three children, two are very close and one stands far away" Needless to say, I paid close attention to the rest of the reading and it shook my beliefs about this to the core.

I am 100% sure my friends had no prior contact with her and in fact did not know about my third son at all. I was the only one doing a reading so no one preceded me that could divulge any details.I stress again there was zero conversation with the medium prior to the reading so she had no clue whatsoever about any of the detials of my life.

So, the bottom line for me is that these kinds of "abilities" cannot be dismissed entirely.

I saw this and realized this was an old post but, I wanted to reply. I had an over the phone reading by George Anderson a few years ago. I must say it was almost 100% accurate...it contained information about both my dead father and mother that I do not believe George could have obtained from any source. The fact that he actualy quoted my father as saying he was not Ward Cleaver was amazingly accurate for reasons I will not disclose. The fact that he knew which of my aunt's had acted as my surrogate mother was amazing. The fact that he finaly realized that my mother's passing from heart trouble was actualy a suicide was also very impressive. But, the fact that he was told at the end of the reading, which he did not know why, to tell me his favorite opera was Aida was amazing since my wife's name is Aida. I must agree with you not to dismiss entirely things we do not understand. Of course it would not matter what anyone said if you choose to believe or not to believe the choice will be entirely your own.

 

[Hollywisdon]

George Anderson is the real thing. I didn`t believe him either until I had it proven to me. I went with a friend who`s mother and father had passed. They didn`t give their real names and he knew things that no one could have known. Some people really have this ability. How many times have you thought of someone that you haven`t talked with or seen in years and then they call or you run into them, or the minute you get over someone you dated, they call. The world has amazing things going on that we can`t explain and so many people like to not believe just because they can`t understand it. We only use a tiny percentage of our brains. George Anderson was sick as a child with a high fever and they think this might have activated more of his brain to work. He has seen spirits since he was a child. I`ve seen 2 spirits that I know of and I never believed in them until I saw what I saw. I`ve confided in only a few close friends about this and a few of them too have seen odd things. It`s been proven that energy can not be destroyed and we are made up of energy. Believe. I`m not saying to go see George Anderson. I`m just saying to keep your mind open to it and see what happens. Talk out loud to your loved ones that passed. Look for little signs. I had lights go out the night someone I was close to with passed. It only happened that one night on the day he passed. Years before he and I talked about giving each other a sign by turning lights off if one of us passed. The night that it happened, I felt someone was in the room with me. I had just turned the lights on and then and the lights went out by themselves. I turned them back on and they haven`t ever gone out since. Other things have happened the same week. I know it sounds crazy to some. I would have thought the same. I`m a believer now.

 

[sjm123]

The most disgousting thing that I've seen on Anderson's TV seanses was when he said "you(dead) sister says goodbye to you and she says she must cross the line to the other world,now she is disappeared on the other side".That's rubbish,I know that he is lying when he said that.
Anyone can say that.
Any other thoughts?

Instead of doubting, try going to George. I found him to be not 75% accurate, but more like 99%.

 

[sjm123]

I have gone to George a few times throughout the years, and he was always accurate and gave information he would have had no way of knowing unless he was told by family that had passed. He is truly gifted. I think it's very unfair for people to make statements that he is lying. If they would go to him for a reading, they would see for themselves he is the real thing.

 

[JaredJames]

Perhaps one of the more scientific members of PF should go see him and report back? Set it up like a secret experiment. False names, backgrounds etc. See how he does. Not exactly difficult to test is it.

Maybe even give a name of a person who is known to have someone close who has just died, see if they suddenly start reeling off details of that persons loved ones not your own.

Really easy to test, if he was nearby to me I'd do it.

 

[imiyakawa]

Many studies have been done, and many tax dollars spent seeking the 'men in black'. They all come up empty. Either the real psychics have an aversion to being rigorously tested, or they do not exist.

What you said is completely false.

http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

"empty" apparently means a p-value of 1.1^10E5.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps one of the more scientific members of PF should go see him and report back? Set it up like a secret experiment. False names, backgrounds etc. See how he does. Not exactly difficult to test is it.

Maybe even give a name of a person who is known to have someone close who has just died, see if they suddenly start reeling off details of that persons loved ones not your own.

Really easy to test, if he was nearby to me I'd do it.

I saw him giving a cold reading on tv. It was SO incredibly bad. He'd make some vague statement then the person would start spewing out information, and at the least would nod, or looked confused or look exited, leading him down a certain path. After the reading the person had no idea how much information they had given away, and how vague most of what he'd said had been. They were amazed. I was amazed too, that they were so oblivious to what had actually happened.

 

[FlexGunship]

Instead of doubting, try going to George. I found him to be not 75% accurate, but more like 99%.

Interesting... may I propose an alternative?! Confirmation bias and age-old cold readings.

James Randi did a test for this by recording a meeting with a psychic. Afterwards he compared the list of names on the tape to the list of names remembered by the "mark."

When asked how many names were mentioned turning the "reading" the customer said: "about ten, maybe a dozen." When asked how many of the names were "hits" the customer said: "about 8, she wasn't right all the time."

James Randi then proceeds to read off something in excess of 37 names which were all from the tape. He then says that the psychic had asked for names that started with "N or L" for which the customer gave no connection. In this case, he remember the correct number of hits (about 9) but forgot all of the terrible terrible misses. Even when confronted with the FACTS, the customer remains indignant.

Once again, the only thing that is 99% certain here, is that humans are poor observers.

Here is the video for your enjoyment: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=1CJbOAvfMf8)

P.S. You should really enjoy the psychic's face when Randi is reading off name after name. It's one of those rare pleasures: she knows that she's been outed.

 

[JaredJames]

Here is the video for your enjoyment: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=1CJbOAvfMf8

Her face is priceless, and her (and the audience - psychologist excluded) explanation more so.

 

[FlexGunship]

Her face is priceless, and her (and the audience - psychologist excluded) explanation more so.

I've never felt "fooled" by psychics. I don't know why.

"I'm getting a name... it's something like Juh... Juh... John? Jake? John or Jake. Jack. Mack. Mike, Michael, Michelle, Marvin, Max, Martha. Uh, it's an M or an N sound... maybe Nate, Nick, Nancy..."

"OH MY GOD! Nancy is my cousin's friend's dead wife! HOW DID YOU KNOW!?"

 

[FlexGunship]

Perhaps one of the more scientific members of PF should go see him and report back? Set it up like a secret experiment. False names, backgrounds etc. See how he does. Not exactly difficult to test is it.

Maybe even give a name of a person who is known to have someone close who has just died, see if they suddenly start reeling off details of that persons loved ones not your own.

Really easy to test, if he was nearby to me I'd do it.

Double blind test. Simple. Give the psychic 10 profiles. Send in one person at a time with a bag over their head (to hide any facial reaction); if they're really psychic, I'm sure a bag over the head won't block out the ghostly voices of dead relatives. Have them do a reading for each person and match up the profiles. Have the profiles and matches collected by an independent third party.

That's just the first thing that came to mind (you should also perform the test with pictures on the profiles and with no bags on the head to see how many right answers the psychics get at that point).

As for disproving psychics in general. I'm a big fan of the "haunted house" test (works for ghost hunters, too).

Arrange for 10 houses to be available. 1 is "haunted", and the other 9 are not (perhaps they are all new homes but one of them has seen a grisly murder). Allow for an investigation of each.

Perform the same thing, but tell them which house is haunted before hand and see how accurate they are.

I think you will find that ghost hunters and psychics will find ghosts and spirits anywhere you tell them to.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm actually liking the look of something coming up on TV in the UK over halloween.

They're taking a group of scientists one night and ghost hunters the next to study a "haunted" location and then comparing the findings.

Although, without strict conditions I see the oportunity for a bit of foul play. So a pinch of salt may be required.

That aside, I completely agree with those sort of tests. If someone was truly psychic then why can't they claim the Randi prize? The excuses are what make me laugh more than anything. There's always a reason it doesn't work.

For another test I was thinking about pure fabrication. Get a new building (fairly new hotel or something - 10 year old) and claim it's just been renovated. Then spread some rumours about hauntings (fake website or two? some wiki entries - the sort of things a quick search on the place would flag up and perhaps have the crew tell of weird things they experienced). Do some interviews with "witnesses" (actors of course) claiming to have experienced stuff there. Then, bring in psychics and see what they find. I wonder if they'd collaborate the stories and start "speaking" to the ghosts?

If no ones watched it, there's a good Derren Brown episode (recent one) where he speaks to mediums and does a cold reading with one to compare results (he was better than the medium).
The medium actually surprised him at one point by telling one of the people being interviewed that they drove a mini. Derren was quite impressed when she confirmed this. That is until his cameraman told him that this woman had pulled up next to the medium in her mini whilst he was stood outside (which he denied seeing), and then they even showed the footage of it happening and he still claimed he saw nothing.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm actually liking the look of something coming up on TV in the UK over halloween.

They're taking a group of scientists one night and ghost hunters the next to study a "haunted" location and then comparing the findings.

Although, without strict conditions I see the oportunity for a bit of foul play. So a pinch of salt may be required.

Yikes! If they hand-picked the scientists, they're likely to cause a "woo-woo" uproar when the "scientists" confirm haunted happenings. And then every even-minded person in the world will need to be on the defense.

Those kinds of shows are often poison for the minds of the public.

 

[Vagn]

Mediums and Psychics are good at reading people, if you've ever tried people watching or watched the newest Sherlock Holmes then you'll no what I mean. You can tell some information about a person from how they carry themselves, how they sit and how they talk, what sort of contact they have with you, all a psychic doesis pick up on this information and then ask leading questions and judge how accurate it is by the persons response. I'd like to see a reading with an actor, similar to the one posted earlier in the thread, where the person takes on a certain guise, to try and trick the psychic.

I'm actually liking the look of something coming up on TV in the UK over halloween.

They're taking a group of scientists one night and ghost hunters the next to study a "haunted" location and then comparing the findings.

Although, without strict conditions I see the oportunity for a bit of foul play. So a pinch of salt may be required.

Out of curiosity, what channel is it on and when? It sounds quite interesting.

 

[JaredJames]

Out of curiosity, what channel is it on and when? It sounds quite interesting.

It's halloween weekend. 9PM Living TV.

This is the show:
http://www.livingtv.co.uk/shows/paranormal-investigation-live.php

Should be good for entertainment if nothing else.

 

[mugaliens]

So 2012 garbage is locked but this thread isn't? What's the difference? They're both garbage.

 

[FlexGunship]

So 2012 garbage is locked but this thread isn't? What's the difference? They're both garbage.

The particular types of "garbage" that get thread-locked will often be influenced by the thread-locker's conception of "garbage."

 

[patzy]

I consider myself a 'skeptic' but again, try and keep an open mind. I admit, I didn't read all the posts in this thread, but so many spoke of people being able to read, faces, mannerisms, clothing etc etc. How about via telephone readings? How does a person read anything...except perhaps voice inflection/s..but if the 'medium' asks for NO info..calls not knowing the person they are calling (as with george anderson...you can get a reading under anyone's name, switch the person he will talk to. ) I had read about george over the years and was intrigued. Persons like Sylvia Browne, John Edwards etc...have always left me cold. (Browne takes the cake in that arena...brrrrr! I saw her live years ago and she was rude, bad mouthed others etc..even if she possessed a gift I'd steer clear of her. not that I believe she does as she blatently asks the person what they want to know and whom they want to hear from...say wha?) Back to George, after years of reading, considering and seeing him in San Francisco as just a member of the audience..no reading...I finally popped for a reading via the telephone. He was right on about my Brother and Father having passed, who passed first. the issues physically my brother had, what areas of the body were affected..he brought up people that were friends of my parents so not directly connected to me. Spoke of an Ed and Eddie (father and son...son had committed suicide years before his father passed from natural causes) Brought up issues between me and my Father..who would even guess these things..things so personal? At the end of the call he became more personal and 'knew' I had cats and my situation in life at that time...since I originally opted for a reading when I lived in one area and then received the call at an entirely different area/town...so no P.I.s tracking me down as some folks have suggested on other threads re: george.Imagine paying P.I.s to track down everyone who has a reading from george...the cost would be prohibitive and silly to say the least as again, one can reserve a reading and send another in the reservers place. Many ways one can try and 'trip up' george...I came away impressed and plan to opt for another phone call as my Mother passed away 6 years ago and this will be the next 'test' for george, to see if my Mom comes through and for him to tell me how she passed. I've lost 3 friends in the past 8 years and that will be another test.
So if anyone has made me think again, that I have all the answers as a skeptic, it is george.

 

[Chronos]

That sounds like the 'truth' of the past, present and future is out there - floating around in some sort of 'aether' accessible to the 'gifted'. I find that explanation ... unsatisfying. So, give me the winning numbers for next weeks powerball. I would consider that compelling evidence.

 

[patzy]

Lol...don't we all wish for that. (winning Lotto numbers)


...but your answer just ignores my post..addressing nothing.

I presented a more difficult scenario for a 'psychic' to prove themselves...(don't doubt, I still question)besides one would imagine the 'other side' would not be interested in such things as the Lotto, (and perhaps have no access to such knowledge) but given a conduit to 'loved ones' would rather try and let them know by passing along shared knowledge, to confirm they are 'there', to the recipient.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I consider myself a 'skeptic' but again, try and keep an open mind.

I have to say this is a baffling statement. A skeptic is someone who strives to keep an open mind, its not a case of "I'm a skeptic but".

I admit, I didn't read all the posts in this thread, but so many spoke of people being able to read, faces, mannerisms, clothing etc etc. How about via telephone readings?

Cold reading can still work on the telephone, it can work in nearly any medium. You just rely less on what you can see and more in what the person says and how they say it. For example:

Psychic: I'm sensing you've had some loss in the past (most people who call psychics will do so because they have lost someone, especially when the psychic advertises mediumship. Furthermore the sentance is amazingly ambiguous, it could apply to anyone. "Loss" could mean bereavement but not necessarily, you could be going through a hard time because you've lost your job or partner. "The past" is equally vague and could literally mean any time in your life).

Then they just work from there. The biggest point to remember is that there have been endless studies into psychics and there are a multitude of opportunities for psychics to prove themselves (think Randi) but none ever has. I mean, if there really were psychics with this good a track record who can prove themselves with a simple phone call then why isn't our civilisation built around them? Why aren't investors snapping them up to predict how the market will work? Why aren't governments bringing them in for similar reasons?

I finally popped for a reading via the telephone...

This whole example shows that you need to look into what it means to be a skeptic more. So you've had an experience that you can't explain (and it's not the job of the people of this forum to explain it either). In that case you have an unknown phenomenon. It does not lead credence to the idea that some people are magic. Until there is some reasonable evidence that psychic powers exist using it as an explanation for something is fallacious.

I presented a more difficult scenario for a 'psychic' to prove themselves...(don't doubt, I still question)besides one would imagine the 'other side' would not be interested in such things as the Lotto, (and perhaps have no access to such knowledge) but given a conduit to 'loved ones' would rather try and let them know by passing along shared knowledge, to confirm they are 'there', to the recipient.

Why would you "imagine" anything like that? If I were dead but somehow still alive in some magic afterlife and could somehow observe this world you can bet your bottom dollar I will try everything to get things like the lotto numbers to my remaining family.

Secondly if the world is teeming with dead people who can be communicated with somehow then it should be easy for psychics to exchange information with each other from afar. Simply put them in separate locations, get one psychic to locate a willing dead participant, give him a random message and get that dead person to find the other psychic and give him the message. Again as I said above, if things like this were true we would have confirmed them and built our societies around them centuries ago.

 

[rectifryer]

I think the important key here is that no psychic actually introduces new information that can be validated outside both parties.