George Anderson and Allison Dubois-are they frauds?

[No-where-man]

Ever heard of mediums like George Anderson and Allison Dubois?
I watched George Anderson on TV and they said that at least 75% of what he said about any dead person was correct.
Are both George Anderson and Allison Dubois frauds?

 

[No-where-man]

Ever heard of mediums like George Anderson and Allison Dubois?
I watched George Anderson on TV and they said that at least 75% of what he said about any dead person was correct.
Are both George Anderson and Allison Dubois frauds?

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?

 

[SGT]

For a good analysis of the actings of thes and other scammers read
http://www.skepdic.com/medium.html

 

[Terri Clark]

mediums

I 've had what I call telling dreams.Their not pleasant and have always been pretty accurate.I don't ask for it to happen,it just does.Im very new on a computer so I am a slow typer,I apolgise for this please bear with me.If someone out there can explian this please do!I do not claim in any way that I am a medium,but it seems someone is telling me something.I whould prefer this did not happen!

 

[SGT]

I 've had what I call telling dreams.Their not pleasant and have always been pretty accurate.I don't ask for it to happen,it just does.Im very new on a computer so I am a slow typer,I apolgise for this please bear with me.If someone out there can explian this please do!I do not claim in any way that I am a medium,but it seems someone is telling me something.I whould prefer this did not happen!

Every person has an average of 250 dreams per night. So we have around 7500 dreams every month.
Of course we don´t remember them all, but even if we remember only two dreams each day, there will be 60 dreams in one month. Most of them have nothing to do with any actual event and we forget them. But once in a while something happens that can be associated to a previous dream, so it seems prophetic to us.

 

[setAI]

umm- Allison DuBois is a fictitious character played by Patricia Arquette - ummmmmm :shy:

 

[Evo]

umm- Allison DuBois is a fictitious character played by Patricia Arquette - ummmmmm :shy:

No, Allison DuBois is a real person, the tv show is based on her.

http://phoenix.about.com/od/famous/a/dubois.htm

 

[setAI]

No, Allison DuBois is a real person, the tv show is based on her.

http://phoenix.about.com/od/famous/a/dubois.htm

I forgot to thank you for that info Evo- my wife and I are fans of the TV show and it was really cool to find out that it was based on a real person!

 

[treed]

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.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It's all B.S.

The "readers" are just good at reading people (their clothes, their expressions, conversations they were having before sitting down), and going off wild guesses. The fact is that people are really easy to fool when they WANT to be fooled. It may be difficult to spot the trick if you're not looking for it, but there is one there whether you're aware of it or not.

P&T BS had a good episode on the subject. One interesting test they did is have a guy play "characters" when going to get read by a few psychics. For one, he dressed as a "successful business man" and was acting streesed out while talking on the phone before he went into the room with the reader. The "psychic" of course said that he was stressed out, worked a lot, and should probably take a step back. Next, he went to a psychic dressed as an "out of work loser" with the tequila breath and everything. This next psychic said he needed to reevaluate his life, and he won't get a job if he never tries. Strange that the very same man went from working too hard to needing to find a job in the space of a few hours... Finally he dressed as a "suburban married man" and talked on the phone with an imaginary wife before going into the room with the psychic. The Psychic said he had a loving relationship and that there were many happy years ahead of him. Yet, the actor is, nor had he ever been, married.

The result of this test is obvious, since if there was anything to these psychics' claimed abilities their readings would have at least been similar regardless of the man's clothes or actions in the waiting room.

They also talked about the television shows with psychics that seem to be really good at guessing things about people... alomst supernaturally so. Basically, anyone in the audience has to sign a non-disclosure agreement that is a mile long and pretty much bullet proof, but the taping is a three-hour affair, where the final show is only about 40 minutes long. I wonder what the NDA is meant to hide? Obviously they edit out the misses on the part of the psychic, while they keep the guesses that hit. Also, the psychic will go out into the crowd before taping and start trying to collect information any way they can, either through quick questions, or idle conversation. Heck the people even fill out short biographies of themselves for the "psychic" to pore over before the shooting. Then, the psychic walks right up to the person during taping and blurts out something like "I have heard something from your dead mother" to which the audience thinks "how the heck did he know he wanted to talk to his dead mother?!" In fact, he collected the information earlier and has pulled it out to look good on TV.

It's all smoke and mirrors, nothing but a little trickery and some smart reading of people.

 

[tourmaline]

Mech_Engineer, that's simply not true. Without doubt, there are many fraudulent people out there claiming to have psychic abilities and to "speak to the dead." But everyone cannot be simplistically grouped under that designation. I'm okay with the idea that there is no afterlife, but there are actually scientific studies suggesting that there may indeed be. These published studies, and the very interesting backstories surrounding them, are contained in the 2002 book "The Afterlife Experiments" by Dr. Gary E. Schwartz (who, incidentally, received his doctorate from Harvard, and has been a professor at, and director of the Psychophysiology Center at, Yale University). In the book, Scwhartz studies 5 or 6 top mediums, including John Edward and George Anderson, and goes to great lengths to make sure that no possibility of "cold reading" or contamination could occur (including completely masking the voices of the subject being read, and of course completely seperating the medium from the subject, etc.). The results are impressive indeed. Aanyone who is interested in a truly scientific treatment of mediumship would be well served to read the book or locate the published scientific studies.

There is a big difference between skepticism and cynicism. Unfortunately, many who call themselves skeptics are actually cynics -- e.g. they have their mind made up and anything that suggests otherwise is BS and anything that confirms their beliefs are considered to be "solid science." I encourage anyone reading this to not fall into that trap. I am very much a skeptic -- and I let controlled, scientific evidence speak for itself.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm okay with the idea that there is no afterlife, but there are actually scientific studies suggesting that there may indeed be.

Can you provide citations for peer-reviewed work? What does "may indeed be" mean?

These published studies, and the very interesting backstories surrounding them, are contained in the 2002 book "The Afterlife Experiments" by Dr. Gary E. Schwartz (who, incidentally, received his doctorate from Harvard, and has been a professor at, and director of the Psychophysiology Center at, Yale University).

Make that "had been". He went from Yale to the U of AZ nearly twenty years ago.

After leaving Yale, he married Linda Russek, who was devastated by the death of her father, and wanted to find out if there was a way to communicate with him. This is the motive for all of Schwartz's subsequent work - hardly makes it easy to see him as a dispassionate investigator.

In the book, Scwhartz studies 5 or 6 top mediums, including John Edward and George Anderson, and goes to great lengths to make sure that no possibility of "cold reading" or contamination could occur (including completely masking the voices of the subject being read, and of course completely seperating the medium from the subject, etc.). The results are impressive indeed.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.html

First, I will list here the major types of flaws in the experiments described in his first four reports (I will deal with the fifth report separately below):

1. Inappropriate control comparisons
2. Inadequate precautions against fraud and sensory leakage
3. Reliance on non-standardized, untested dependent variables
4. Failure to use double-blind procedures
5. Inadequate "blinding" even in what he calls "single blind" experiments
6. Failure to independently check on facts the sitters endorsed as true
7. Use of plausibility arguments to substitute for actual controls

The preceding list refers to defects in the conduct of the experiments and in the gathering of the data. Other very serious problems appear in the way Schwartz interprets and presents the results of his research. These include:

8. The confusion of exploratory with confirmatory findings
9. The calculation of conditional probabilities that are inappropriate and grossly misleading
10. Creating non-falsifiable outcomes by reinterpreting failures as successes
11. Inflating significance levels by failing to adjust for multiple testing and by treating unplanned comparisons as if they were planned.

Other problems involve failure to use adequate randomization procedures, using only sitters who are predisposed to the survival hypothesis, inappropriate statistical tests, and other common defects that plague new research programs. Even if the research program were not compromised by these defects, the claims being made would require replication by independent investigators. Perhaps Schwartz's most serious misconception is seen in his attempt to shift the burden of proof from himself to the skeptics.

The worst mistake made by Schwartz and his colleagues was to publish the results they have obtained so far. Instead, they should have first tried to gather evidence for their hypothesis that would meet generally accepted scientific criteria. By submitting their very inadequate studies to public scrutiny and by demanding that skeptics "explain away" their defective data, they have lost credibility. In addition, the journals that did accept these studies for publication and Schwartz's panel of Friendly Devil's Advocates have also suffered greatly in credibility.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Gokul, Csicop is hardly a scientific resource. In fact it looks to me like they're selling a book.

 

[russ_watters]

Mech_Engineer, that's simply not true. Without doubt, there are many fraudulent people out there claiming to have psychic abilities and to "speak to the dead." But everyone cannot be simplistically grouped under that designation.

Yah, actually, every single one of them can be. None have ever passed tests of the type M_E described.

...John Edward...

Never heard of that other guy, but John Edward makes me physically ill. He's among the worst - and most obvious - frauds I've ever seen. Here's a site that goes through the terms and conditions for being on his show. They coach you to contribute to the cold reading: http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/06/13/probability/index.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul, Csicop is hardly a scientific resource.

What scientific resource publishes critiques of pop sci books?

 

[keeneyed]

Every person has an average of 250 dreams per night. So we have around 7500 dreams every month.
Of course we don´t remember them all, but even if we remember only two dreams each day, there will be 60 dreams in one month. Most of them have nothing to do with any actual event and we forget them. But once in a while something happens that can be associated to a previous dream, so it seems prophetic to us.

The numbers may add up but the supposition doesnt, as far as I'm concerned.
I too have had too many dreams that unfold within a day or so. I don't fit the day into the dream or the dream into the day. It works out that way, despite me. This precog, if you will, is not limited to dreams. It is a burden. A burden to "know", yet a privilege to effect the outcome, sometimes, with prayer.

 

[Burnsys]

Just a couple of relevant videos from randi on the subject:

James Randi Debunks Peter Popoff Faith Healer


James Randi and Doris Collins "Cold Reader"

 

[Chronos]

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. Randi still has his million dollars laying on the table for the taking. Connect the dots.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Or, if such things exist, psychic phenomena cannot be produced on demand.

To debunk obvious charlatans is not to discredit all claims.

 

[SGT]

The numbers may add up but the supposition doesnt, as far as I'm concerned.
I too have had too many dreams that unfold within a day or so. I don't fit the day into the dream or the dream into the day. It works out that way, despite me. This precog, if you will, is not limited to dreams. It is a burden. A burden to "know", yet a privilege to effect the outcome, sometimes, with prayer.

How many of those prophetic dreams do you have every month? How many dreams do you have that are not prophetic?
You probably have a statistics for the former, but not for the latest. You naturally forget the dreams that don´t come true. This is called selective thinking.

 

[SGT]

Or, if such things exist, psychic phenomena cannot be produced on demand.

To debunk obvious charlatans is not to discredit all claims.

Of course not. You can´t prove a universal negative. Even if you could debunk every alleged psychic phenomenon, this would not prove that psychic phenomena don´t exist.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point is that there are compelling claims that are completely separate from the TV psychics. They cannot all be lumped together.

I am impressed by some police cases where "psychics" found bodies.

 

[setAI]

How many of those prophetic dreams do you have every month? How many dreams do you have that are not prophetic?
You probably have a statistics for the former, but not for the latest. You naturally forget the dreams that don´t come true. This is called selective thinking.

a comment about selective biases: there is an obvious fallacy about selective bias that I never see discussed when you consider the detail of a precognitive event- looking at the body of anecdotal accounts- most precog events are not merely just another dream or random thought- when witnesses describe experiencing themselves a precog dream/vision or are present when someone else has one they usually describe a VERY INTENSE and UNIQUE sensation of alarm/anxiety/euphoria- and CERTAINTY that they saw something true- a feeling that overrides even the most rational thinkers with an overpowering sense of doom or importance- when one only considers these intense events/dreams one finds that an overwhelming majority of them were nontrivially accurate-

the error is in simply in thinking that a selection bias from all the normal experiences should be considered- the intensity of the feeling of such an event does not come into being AFTER it seems it was accurate- there simply isn't many cases of such a powerful mental event turning out to be false- it is only the random and forgettable experiences in which a selection bias could be observed- if ACTUAL precog events where prone to a selection bias there should be many cases where we experience profound life-changing visions that turn out false- but this doesn't happen really at all- except in diagnosed schizoid disorders- one simply does not see or hear about people who are rational educated and level-headed experiencing a singular intense precog event that turns out completely false- yet there are millions of reports of people having unique and powerful experiences like nothing they had ever experienced that turn out accurate

 

[Burnsys]

Or, if such things exist, psychic phenomena cannot be produced on demand.

Volcano eruptions and tornados also can't be produced on demand, but we have plenty of documented evidence of their existence

 

[SGT]

...
yet there are millions of reports of people having unique and powerful experiences like nothing they had ever experienced that turn out accurate

Do you have a citation for those millions of reports? A simgle one in which the life changing vision has been reporter prior the event?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Volcano eruptions and tornados also can't be produced on demand, but we have plenty of documented evidence of their existence

Volcanos are tornados are a little hard to miss.

 

[omamel]

Life Changing Vision

Do you have a citation for those millions of reports? A simgle one in which the life changing vision has been reporter prior the event?

I can not provide a citation for millions of reports, but I can share with you 2 personal experiences which were not life changing, but were none the less profound.

The first occurred when I was a 7 year old living in Riverside California. One night I had a vivid dream about burning garbage in an incenerator including a comic book that I owned at the time. In my dream I did not recognize the house or neighborhood in which we lived, but when I woke up the next morning I told my parents about the dream describing all of the details I could recall including the house numbers. A few months later we moved to Fort Collins, Colorado. Our first house there was a nondescript box of a house. About 6 months later we moved to another house on the other side of town. My mother sent me across the street to the incenerator. As I emptied the bag of garbage into the flames out came the comic book I had first noticed in my dream. I looked up and saw the full front of our house for the first time. It was the house of my dream including the numbers and surrounding homes. I excitedly called to my dad in the front yard. I reminded him of the dream and he started pointing out details from the dream that he recalled such as the plants in the yard and my brother's tricycle in the front yard.

Several years later as a married mother of two small children I moved with my husband to Fort Meade Maryland. A few days after we moved in I had a dream about going to an apartment for an informal get together. I dreamed all of the details of the apartment and building inside and out, where we parked, the people and food at the party, and the conversation. I even dreamed about the host, a man I had never met, sitting on a plaid sofa and asking the names of our children and as he crossed his legs I could see his argyle socks. The dream was so detailed and so vivid that when I woke up I shared every detail with my husband.

That Sunday on the way home from church my husband said that he had run into a friend of his from California who was also stationed at Fort Meade. Kevin, my husband's friend who I had never met, had invited us to his apartment Monday evening for a small get together. As soon as we parked in front of the building we both knew it was the place I had seen in my dream. When Kevin opened the apartment door he looked exactly as I had described to my husband including glasses and a haircut which were new since my husband had seen him on Sunday and all of the other people and food and conversation were exactly what I had dreamed right down to the plaid sofa, conversation, crossed legs, and argyle socks.

I have no explanation for what I experienced and I did not have dreams that I needed to act on or had any significance in any way. There is no scientific evidence for what I dreamed, only my word and the words of my dad and husband. I would be interested in others' ideas regarding those types of experiences.

 

[Zeckery]

My Reading with George Anderson

Ever heard of mediums like George Anderson and Allison Dubois?
I watched George Anderson on TV and they said that at least 75% of what he said about any dead person was correct.
Are both George Anderson and Allison Dubois frauds?

I had a reading with George Anderson in 2004 after I lost a loved one to suicide. He immediately told me my grandmother had come through and said how close we had been (true). He knew she was Hispanic, though I look totally caucasion. He then said the "loved one I was hoping ot hear from was present" and had taken their own life (true), and that we had shared pets together that were also on the other side (true).

He then said my loved one said thank you for the tree memorial (true - it was a poem read at the memorial using a tree as a metaphor)... There were many, many more incredible details including names of other people I knew that had passed and I recorded the session on audio tape.

I was encouraged when booking to use a fake name, and I provided no details beforehand. Anderson was pretty much on-target about everything - including the little details that only myself and my departed loved ones shared. This man is the real thing, without any doubt whatsoever in my mind, but everyone has to decide for themselves.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I had a reading with George Anderson in 2004...

Cold readings are never that specific. I'm quite sure the "psychic" mined data about you before beginning the "reading," whether you were aware of it or not.

 

[russ_watters]

...or perhaps holes were filled-in by Zeckery during the reading. As we've discussed, the key to a good cold reading is to lead the subject to providing the answers without realizing they are doing it. Since we don't get to see/hear what exactly happened, though, it is tough to evaluate the claim.

 

[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.