29 replies to this topic

[roseanna]

Hi

I was just wondering, what criteria different people would use to decide on whether a medium is a genuine or fake.

Sometime fakes are very obvious, as I've seen some I won't name on TV flooding the hopeful recipient with various names, letters, family details, etc. until they finally get a "hit". Sometimes though, I really can't decide. For example, when a TV show tells you the psychic knew no prior details about a case beforehand, can you trust their "hits" then, or should you still be wary in case the show has edited out all the "wrong" information the psychic came up with?

Just looking for opinions, or dead giveaways really.

PS Just to clarify I do believe genuine psychics exist, so this is not meant to offend anyone with this gift.

[wuwei]

Hi,

TV psychics are of course under more scrutiny than others and to my knowledge have been shown to be deceptive. The medium of TV allows for a lot of opportunity not only up front (pre-interviews and questionnaires, live mics in the studio prior to the show) and in the delivered product (editing). It isn't hard to take 5 hours of raw footage and turn that around into 22 minutes of compelling TV.

I suggest taking a look at this article, it may help fill in the gaps.

Wuwei

[Vampchick21]

Moving this to Skeptics, as it's better suited to that forum.

[CaveRat2]

Best way is to simply test their accuracy. As far as TV goes, I would not believe anything just because it's on TV. You have to remember TV has both the motive and ability to alter evidence and outcome either by direct alteration or editting of data. Often they call such changes "recreations", and people accept that they do this in the name of portraying actual events This may be an accepted practice, but such recreations are not hard evidence. They simply show one person's opinion of what happened.

So the criterea would be to test a medium under controlled conditions with both believers and skeptics present. Both can then review the results and make a determination of validity based on the outcome.

[Cautious-Psychic13]

It is tough to know whose a fake when psychics and mediums come in so many varieties and with so many gifts. Fakes of all types are out there not just in the paranormal fields. It would be hard to just ask them questions you want the answer to. I prefer the person to sit in front of me, look me in the eyes for as long as they are comfortable then I close my eyes and relate what I feel. As I am mostly an empathic medium I don't see the spirit but I can feel thier thoughts and emotions. I get no words or pictures I describe very often yet I know the feel of the relationship,whether your family, lover, enemy or intruder. I feel your reaction to thier presence even if you don't think your having one things like that. It is nothing that I could prove except by your reaction to the information I give back.

I believe mediums should be paid if asked to use thier gift for your gain or to help you BUT I would not trust somone who approached you asking for large fees without an invatation. For me I would never ask for money if I knew something someone needed to hear. I believe it is not right to withhold information that belongs to someone else.

In the end if it doesn't feel 100% get another opinion and never part with more money then you can EASILY afford to part with if asked.

[Ike]

I think one way, is when they act like they have no idea what they're doing. True mediums wouldn't ask for payment if your house was haunted and you were in need. But like what Cautious-Psychic said, payment is in use for personal gain. I'm a young, inexpierenced medium, but I can tell fake from true, although, fake is more common on television ;P

[Gosman]

Ike, on Nov 3 2008, 05:24 AM, said:

I think one way, is when they act like they have no idea what they're doing. True mediums wouldn't ask for payment if your house was haunted and you were in need. But like what Cautious-Psychic said, payment is in use for personal gain.

Just because they may act in an unethical way doesn't necessarily mean they are faking. An ambulance chasing Lawyer can still be good at practicing the law for example.

Ike, on Nov 3 2008, 05:24 AM, said:

I'm a young, inexpierenced medium, but I can tell fake from true, although, fake is more common on television ;P

How can you tell fake from real then? Can you name the television psychics you believe are fake and the reason you think they are?

[JimDe]

The History Channel DVD box set on Mediums (New Release).

http://shop.history....the-unexplained

[Gosman]

So if they have appeared on the History Channel they are genuine and if they haven't they are not???

What does this DVD have to do with helping to identify genuine versus fake psychics/mediums?

[Cautious-Psychic13]

On another site someone was comparing Ghost shows and used the idea that because Ghost Hunters was on Scifi it was science fiction but Most Haunted was real because it was on the Travel Channel. People have called me a fake and I have not believed others are genuine and have said so. As the saying goes Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. If you believe in your own intelligence go with your gut. It seldom leads you wrong. That you asked the question Roseanna shows your intelligence.

[JimDe]

Quote

So if they have appeared on the History Channel they are genuine and if they haven't they are not???

Is someone trying to put words in my mouth? Did I say that?

Quote

What does this DVD have to do with helping to identify genuine versus fake psychics/mediums?

It’s called researching the subject matter; you got a better idea?

...then put it up.

[Gosman]

JimDe, on Nov 17 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

Is someone trying to put words in my mouth? Did I say that?

Actually you didn't say anyrthing as all you did was provide a link to a site selling DVD's.

If someone posts a link that is not the same as making a point unless the person posting the links expand on the reason why they posted it. Hence the reason I questioned the point you were making (notice the question marks).

JimDe, on Nov 17 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

It’s called researching the subject matter; you got a better idea?
...then put it up.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you think the History Channel Documentary is a good way of identifying if Psychics are real or not.

As for identifying a better way of finding out, I have a few ideas ;-)

[Gosman]

Cautious-Psychic13, on Nov 17 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

... As the saying goes Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. If you believe in your own intelligence go with your gut. It seldom leads you wrong....

Have you evidence that it seldom leads you wrong?

I am curious about this because there are a multitude of Religions out there and they can't all be right. For example I know that many Muslims believe that Christians are deluded and equally there are lots of Christians that think Muslims are deluded. Now both these groups of people are surely relying on their own intelligence to decide if something is correct. So which group is wrong then?

[thesameones]

CaveRat, on Oct 28 2008, 09:21 AM, said:

Best way is to simply test their accuracy. As far as TV goes, I would not believe anything just because it's on TV. You have to remember TV has both the motive and ability to alter evidence and outcome either by direct alteration or editting of data. Often they call such changes "recreations", and people accept that they do this in the name of portraying actual events This may be an accepted practice, but such recreations are not hard evidence. They simply show one person's opinion of what happened.

So the criterea would be to test a medium under controlled conditions with both believers and skeptics present. Both can then review the results and make a determination of validity based on the outcome.

Dear one, please. Certainly most people realize that television media is for profit business. They sell what they believe people will cash into. The reward, viewing and sponsor revenue. Television is entertainment, drama. I personally am certain that the populace is aware of this. To assume the position of the elite and surmise that the general population is stupid as a result of not being drown in money is simply stupid. People are spiritual and in touch with their own reality.

[thesameones]

Gosman, on Nov 17 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

Cautious-Psychic13, on Nov 17 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

... As the saying goes Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. If you believe in your own intelligence go with your gut. It seldom leads you wrong....

Have you evidence that it seldom leads you wrong?

I am curious about this because there are a multitude of Religions out there and they can't all be right. For example I know that many Muslims believe that Christians are deluded and equally there are lots of Christians that think Muslims are deluded. Now both these groups of people are surely relying on their own intelligence to decide if something is correct. So which group is wrong then?

Those you speak of within your reference are in the practice of faith, not of faith; and they are not a group, but a person or persons who have caused a impact on your thinking. There is a distinct difference. There are many within religion who are spiritual and faithful, but not "simply practicing faith". I do understand that if you are young you may be searching your existence with question. Perhaps even if your existence is not young. Just the same it's important to be aware that the world out side our selves is vast and profound. Even if another confesses part of their private connection with the Creator and the spirit, the debt of another man (or woman's) soul is a mystery. One's connection to the Creator and to the spiritual knowledge and experience of our perpetual existence is a deeply personal and profound mystery. You are not entitled to proof of what lies in another's mind and soul.

Go easy on Jimmy. He has experienced many revelation known only to him. Jimmy, shame on you for forgetting where you should stand and taking such offense.

Hugs.