david hobbs
|
John Donnis saysApparently all mediums fail to perform when all opportunities to cheat are removed.
I am trying to work out what he means by all opportunities.
I am not coming at this from a defensive attitude and as I have stated in the past I like a lot of what Bad Psychics have to say.
I simply wonder what he means.
Perhaps I should ask him.
|
david hobbs
|
Bobedezon on Bad Psychics has responded to my question and I have
much respect for his opinions so I await his reply with great interest.
|
david hobbs
|
Jon and and Bobedezon at Bad Psychics kindly responded to my request and I hope they won't mind me putting it on here
Quote....
When a psychic does a double blind test they always fail.
There is no recorded instance in history of a double blind test where a psychic has passed.
Double blind means neither the psychic nor the person doing the testing can know the answers until after the test.
This is done to avoid operator bias, which is where the person doing the test may have their own beliefs which could influence the result.
Many psychics over the years have passed tests, but when the chance to cheat is completely removed they always fail. 100% of the time, No exceptions yet
|
Raymond
|
It's a pity there isn't a test to see just what Donnis is earning from peddling all this bullsh*t.
|
david hobbs
|
Fair enough Raymond.
But is he correct or not.
I suspect that he is because he has a pretty high profile and would not want to look foolish.
Does anyone have any evidence counter to Jon's claims?
|
meiah
|
My take on it is that psychics are often readers. They need a point of refernece to start from. That is not cheating, it is following a thread. With no thread, there is nothing to follow.
(What do I know, I am not psychic)
|
Raymond
|
Also, morons like Donnis have to state clearly what it is they're tryng to prove ( or disprove ).
Psychic ability is not (and never will be) a science. There isn't a set formula that will make it work.
It requires inspiration not science, and if that's what Pennis is looking for then he'll never find it.
Although I expect a slippery git like him is well aware of this and knows that by hanging this carrot on a stick will keep all his moron members sending him "donations" by the bucket load.
|
david hobbs
|
I have to differ just a little with your view Raymond because far viewing is a well documented activity and I think the people running it on behalf of governments need to be scientifically based.
I may be wrong of course but science would I feel have played a part in trying to enhance the performance of people like Inigo Swann. I believe that they used a set formula.
Obviously this is not a double blind test because the people running it would know what the target to be viewed was.
On the subject of donations the last GHE site was vast and very busy indeed.
We placed a donor plea on there to fund equipment and in over a year didn't receive a brass farthing.
I am still interested to know if anyone has input on the double blind testing of mediums.
|
david hobbs
|
| meiah wrote: | My take on it is that psychics are often readers. They need a point of refernece to start from. That is not cheating, it is following a thread. With no thread, there is nothing to follow.
(What do I know, I am not psychic) |
Again how do we fit premonition into this idea.
We all know people who have had them unbidden and accurate.
How does that work?
|
meiah
|
| david hobbs wrote: | | meiah wrote: | My take on it is that psychics are often readers. They need a point of refernece to start from. That is not cheating, it is following a thread. With no thread, there is nothing to follow.
(What do I know, I am not psychic) |
Again how do we fit premonition into this idea.
We all know people who have had then unbidden and accurate.
How does that work? |
Following threads, again. We tend to view time as linear, going from here to there, as a way of measuring events. We view it that way because a physical being, we have a start and end point (life and death).
If we take the view that all possibilities exist equally, then they exist now. Just because they haven't happenned yet in our physical world, does not mean that they do not exist. By following the likely events that will bring them into being, we can follow through to likely outcomes (possibilities).
Perhaps?
|
evergreen
|
I don't understand the drive behind debunkering psychics.....
as for double blind information... I can only refer to personal experiences as a psychic...
I have one case where I have managed to bring through the birth father of a woman (whom I told was adopted - though this she did know ) and find siblings she didn't' know.... she has investigated and has actually found two of the siblings and made contact her father had passed but he gave his name and where she was buried .. she tracked this all down and it appears so far to be accurate information
I have another more simple example -
when I did a passed over medium reading for a young lady and brought her grandmother through she told me that there was her and two boys in the photo.... the young woman insisted there were many siblings and the only photo she had was one all of them together or just her grandmother alone....
she caught up with me months later to let me know that she had found a photo in her fathers things of her grandmother and two great uncles it was black and white and exactly as it had been described
what about when you tell people where lost things are ???
is that what you mean by double blind ????
I am sure psychic do these things all the time for people
|
Raymond
|
| evergreen wrote: | | I don't understand the drive behind debunkering psychics..... |
In this case it's so people like Donnis can make a bit of a name for himself. He probably has an incredibly small penis or something.
As I've said before, I'm all for getting rid of fake mediums, but Donnis and his crew seem to want to get rid of all mediums.
I'm sure they'd have us strapped to a pole as set on fire if they had their way but as they can't they make up a load of pseudo-science bullsh*t to impress their gimp members on their websites.
|
david hobbs
|
| David Hobbs wrote: | Jon and and Bobedezon at Bad Psychics kindly responded to my request and I hope they won't mind me putting it on here
Quote....
When a psychic does a double blind test they always fail.
There is no recorded instance in history of a double blind test where a psychic has passed.
Double blind means neither the psychic nor the person doing the testing can know the answers until after the test.
This is done to avoid operator bias, which is where the person doing the test may have their own beliefs which could influence the result.
Many psychics over the years have passed tests, but when the chance to cheat is completely removed they always fail. 100% of the time, No exceptions yet |
All good input so far, but let's look at what Jon said..............quote
Double blind means neither the psychic nor the person doing the testing can know the answers until after the test.
Now correct me if I am wrong but The biggest debunker of them all James Randi knows exactly what the elements of his challenges are so how valid are his results if at all.............
Quote.............
Many psychics over the years have passed tests, but when the chance to cheat is completely removed they always fail. 100% of the time, No exceptions yet...........
So psychics have passed tests. And here we arrive back to the chance to cheat phrase. I have noticed that the great debunker's are mostly stage magicians or illusionists ie Randi, Harry Houdini, Derren Brown. Now could it just be that they cheat  ...........
Quote...........
Double blind means neither the psychic nor the person doing the testing can know the answers until after the test.
To me this is fundamental. Firstly I cannot find these tests so I shall have to ask Jon to point me in the right direction. We have all evidenced occasions of knowing that of which we or those around us had no prior knowledge. But perhaps that is not mediumistic. Grey area really.........
At the end of the day I feel that both the paranormal and the debunker fraternity are entrenched in belief.
This belief arouses the strongest of reactions (take a look at their website)
My overall feeling is that Jon will replace Randi who is an old man and when he does I shall give him my congratulations on his business acumen.
|
evergreen
|
Honestly David have some conviction please ... now you are questioning something that you know to be honourable (on the whole) ....... its not the name that matters it is the results......
perhaps we cannot prove existence after death I for one am not interested in that at all.... maybe what we should be questioning is the idea that mediums focus on proving something that cannot be proven in this plane why should mediumship be just about evidence of survival?
|
david hobbs
|
| evergreen wrote: | Honestly David have some conviction please ... now you are questioning something that you know to be honourable (on the whole) ....... its not the name that matters it is the results......
perhaps we cannot prove existence after death I for one am not interested in that at all.... maybe what we should be questioning is the idea that mediums focus on proving something that cannot be proven in this plane why should mediumship be just about evidence of survival? |
Evergreen you know by now that I ask myself questions all of the time.
Nothing can change the experiences that I have had and nothing will ever stop me asking questions of myself.
Conviction?
Once I know something I have ceased to learn!
|
meiah
|
Why is this something that cannot be proven? Just because it hadn't been yet....aboslutely....to everyones satisfaction?
|
evergreen
|
good point Meiah....
David didnt' mean to sound so offensive its just that sometimes it just feels like fence sitting.. though I go through phases myself of think surely there need not be a fence and I can just ride both sides 
|
david hobbs
|
| meiah wrote: | | Why is this something that cannot be proved? Just because it hadn't been yet....aboslutely....to everyones satisfaction? |
It cannot be proved Meiah because there are non as blind as they who will not see.
Unless you have a method of proving survival that I have not heard about.
I have to ask what constitutes proof of survival?
|
david hobbs
|
| evergreen wrote: | good point Meiah....
David didnt' mean to sound so offensive its just that sometimes it just feels like fence sitting.. though I go through phases myself of think surely there need not be a fence and I can just ride both sides |
Bit like that myself
|
meiah
|
| david hobbs wrote: | | meiah wrote: | | Why is this something that cannot be proved? Just because it hadn't been yet....aboslutely....to everyones satisfaction? |
It cannot be proved Meiah because there are non as blind as they who will not see.
Unless you have a method of proving survival that I have not heard about.
I have to ask what constitutes proof of survival? |
I think I asked this before a while back. I have to ask, what is survival?
If we are talking about survival of the individual, the self, the seperate consciousness or awareness, then that may be a very different question than survival.
|
|
|
