VIDEO - James Randi Exposes the TRICKERY of Making People 'Believe' (Secrets of the Psychics)

Fascinating look at how people can be convinced of a 'truth', but James Randi shows how TRICKERY can be used to make people 'believe'.

Are psychics able to give information as to Madeleine's whereabouts or are they taking advantage of people's 'need' to believe?

See Randi expose Peter Popoff who claimed to 'cure' people and had psychic ability to know the details of their condition. Randi, using a scanner shows that his wife was telling him the details on a wireless earpiece.

Uri Geller was unable to perform his abilities (famous for bending spoons) on 'The Tonight Show' after Johnny Carson enlisted James Randi to provide the objects and drawings. Randi shows how Uri Geller performed these 'miracles' when in control of the objects used.

See how Horoscopes are interpreted.

James Randi has offered $1,000,000 to anyone willing to 'prove' their ability by undergoing controlled tests. So far no-one has taken him up on his offer!

James Randi Exposes the TRICKERY of Making People 'Believe' (Secrets of the Psychics)

Interesting but I wouldn`t put too much trust in anything James Randi says because of his obsession with condemning anything that`s not scientific - he is a bit narrow minded and limited to a scientific mindset.

No doubt there are people who set out to deceive and they should be exposed, but in general, people who have psychic abilities or believe in things beyond science do not set out purposely to deceive people. Randi goes on as if psychics are all crooked.

Oldartform wrote:Interesting but I wouldn`t put too much trust in anything James Randi says because of his obsession with condemning anything that`s not scientific - he is a bit narrow minded and limited to a scientific mindset.

No doubt there are people who set out to deceive and they should be exposed, but in general, people who have psychic abilities or believe in things beyond science do not set out purposely to deceive people. Randi goes on as if psychics are all crooked.

I agree with everything you have said. There are psychics in the US who have consistently helped law enforcement. Also, there is well documented evidence that both the US and the Soviet used psychics to good effect during the 'Cold War.'

AnnaEsse wrote:

Oldartform wrote:Interesting but I wouldn`t put too much trust in anything James Randi says because of his obsession with condemning anything that`s not scientific - he is a bit narrow minded and limited to a scientific mindset.

No doubt there are people who set out to deceive and they should be exposed, but in general, people who have psychic abilities or believe in things beyond science do not set out purposely to deceive people. Randi goes on as if psychics are all crooked.

I agree with everything you have said. There are psychics in the US who have consistently helped law enforcement. Also, there is well documented evidence that both the US and the Soviet used psychics to good effect during the 'Cold War.'

I feel the same about this man. The astrology experiment was hardly that, you are using twelve variables and need to have a much larger group of people with the same number from each zodiac sign. So invalid experiment imo. Besides, these weren't predictions, they were mostly character traits.
He doesn't touch poltergeists - because they are very well documented.
Then the two Russian ladies, with the Ted Bundy photo. He'd need to do exactly the same experiment with at least ten psychics - and so on.
Picking on the nut case preacher and finding a transmitter - quite a lot of them are fakes and manage without, people are too willing to believe.

To top it all, he wanders about in that monkish cape, to be more interesting?

Randi really showed his ignorance with the astrology experiment - absolutely pathetic. He`s a twat IMO. He doesn`t even realise that amongst any people with talents/abilities, there`s some good and some bad; there`s some excellent psychics, there are some deluded psychics and some con artists. If they were all con artists, the police wouldn`t use them.

tigger wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Oldartform wrote:Interesting but I wouldn`t put too much trust in anything James Randi says because of his obsession with condemning anything that`s not scientific - he is a bit narrow minded and limited to a scientific mindset.

No doubt there are people who set out to deceive and they should be exposed, but in general, people who have psychic abilities or believe in things beyond science do not set out purposely to deceive people. Randi goes on as if psychics are all crooked.

I agree with everything you have said. There are psychics in the US who have consistently helped law enforcement. Also, there is well documented evidence that both the US and the Soviet used psychics to good effect during the 'Cold War.'

I feel the same about this man. The astrology experiment was hardly that, you are using twelve variables and need to have a much larger group of people with the same number from each zodiac sign. So invalid experiment imo. Besides, these weren't predictions, they were mostly character traits.
He doesn't touch poltergeists - because they are very well documented.
Then the two Russian ladies, with the Ted Bundy photo. He'd need to do exactly the same experiment with at least ten psychics - and so on.
Picking on the nut case preacher and finding a transmitter - quite a lot of them are fakes and manage without, people are too willing to believe.

To top it all, he wanders about in that monkish cape, to be more interesting?

Spot on, tigger. The scientist who is credited with the most comprehensive research on astrology is Michel Gauquelin. His sample groups were thousands in number, not just a few.

Gauquelin Answers

Michel answered both challenges (even though the first was an illogical criticism) by collecting a database of 25,000 birth records in Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. (England did not record birth times back then). The results of the replication study with European data were identical and just as significant, showing the same planets in key sectors of the chart correlating with eminence in specific professions. There were some national variations but the result repeated significantly in the same direction as the original studies. A control group of non-specialized professions did not show any affect. The European studies were published in 1960 in Les Hommes et les Artre at the Gauquelin’s own cost.

The Heredity Studies

During the 1960s, the Gauquelins conducted another massive study that examined astrological relationships between parents and their children. The 30,000 size sample of ordinary French citizens and their children revealed that when parents had certain planets in Sectors 1 and 4 of the charts, their children were also likely to have the same planets in the same sectors. The correlations between particular planets – such as the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – were stronger in that order. The significance level was 1 million to 1. Induced or Caesarean births did not show this pattern.

http://astrologynewsservice.com/articles/the-gauquelin-controversy/

My word. Psychics are talented people? Well all you need to do is get one of these talents to go and claim the $1,000,000 then, right? After all, if they're that talented and real, surely they will find it a breeze to demonstrate the merest smidgen of paranormal ability and the million bucks is theirs?

There are crooks, there are plain bad psychics and there are talented con artists all operating in the same field. In some thirty years of looking, with $1,000,000 on offer, the entire RANDI foundation is yet to find a single real psychic and yet you discuss the subject as though these people exist beyond doubt?

I know a certain couple close to all our interests who likewise claim the existence of an as-yet-unproven person and you all can't do enough to shout down their claims as being ridiculous without proof. I suggest you have a bit of a think about the analogy.

C.Edwards wrote:My word. Psychics are talented people? Well all you need to do is get one of these talents to go and claim the $1,000,000 then, right? After all, if they're that talented and real, surely they will find it a breeze to demonstrate the merest smidgen of paranormal ability and the million bucks is theirs?

There are crooks, there are plain bad psychics and there are talented con artists all operating in the same field. In some thirty years of looking, with $1,000,000 on offer, the entire RANDI foundation is yet to find a single real psychic and yet you discuss the subject as though these people exist beyond doubt?

I know a certain couple close to all our interests who likewise claim the existence of an as-yet-unproven person and you all can't do enough to shout down their claims as being ridiculous without proof. I suggest you have a bit of a think about the analogy.

Have you actually read any of the information about the US and Soviet agents using psychics during the 'Cold War,' and to great success? I have and if you haven't, then I suggest you do before you come back offering advice rather than an informed comment.

C.Edwards wrote:My word. Psychics are talented people? Well all you need to do is get one of these talents to go and claim the $1,000,000 then, right? After all, if they're that talented and real, surely they will find it a breeze to demonstrate the merest smidgen of paranormal ability and the million bucks is theirs?

There are crooks, there are plain bad psychics and there are talented con artists all operating in the same field. In some thirty years of looking, with $1,000,000 on offer, the entire RANDI foundation is yet to find a single real psychic and yet you discuss the subject as though these people exist beyond doubt?

I know a certain couple close to all our interests who likewise claim the existence of an as-yet-unproven person and you all can't do enough to shout down their claims as being ridiculous without proof. I suggest you have a bit of a think about the analogy.

I dont get it ?

I take this view to mean that none of us believe the McCanns' claim that there was an abductor as there is no proof but that some people are prepared to accept the credibility of psychics without proof.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I take this view to mean that none of us believe the McCanns' claim that there was an abductor as there is no proof but that some people are prepared to accept the credibility of psychics without proof.

Ah right that could be it.Or it may have alluded to them all being liars ?

I don't know if there are psychics that can truly predict. I have not studied as Anna has.

I am open to the possibility but I am content to be skeptical of the many fakes that have jumped on the bandwagon and it is differentiating them from the ones that may be real that is, I believe, in question.

I respect Anna's knowledge and certainly would never intentionally claim that anyone who believes in them are wrong.

I don't know, and unless a lot of studies are done on individuals used then no-one really knows.

It's not a matter of should we believe in psychics predicting in Madeleine's case or not. It's more about, are the ones chosen truly able to predict.

Whether you like Randi or not, the fact is that he has shown how millions of people have been conned by fraudsters and offers the explanation, showing that even though something appears to be true there could always be an earthly means of explaining it.

Even WITH those examples, people STILL believe in the fraudsters!

That is more to the point about the case, in my opinion...not about trying to decide on something very few of us know anything about.

For me, the likes of Sylvia Brown, John Edwards etc are very clever fraudsters. Noone will ever convince me otherwise. (I apologise to those that disagree with me) BUT they continue to tell their storys and gain fame and money doing it.

They USE the public's inability to question.

I did a TV segment on a show that hosted a psychic once a week. It was their highest rated show and certainly gave the impression that this psychic held these special powers. I asked them how on earth could they host this show with a straight face, expecting the producer to explain how great this person was. She laughed and told me he is one big fake (admittedly in their opinion) but the ratings were so high and viewers would be up in arms if they took him off.

People are very easily taken in and using siimilar techniques is how I believe the McCanns have managed to have people believe their story.

It began with 'she was abducted'. Get that into the minds of everyone possible before they start looking at the parents. People are reticent to admit to being wrong, so they tend to defend their first opinions.

Against all odds and with not a shred of evidence to prove it...with that FIRST claim of abduction followed by the subsequent mantras, the McCanns have managed to convince a large majority of people in the UK of their innocence. A little like Uri Geller (who had me trying to bend spoons!)

Once faced with a REAL test he failed (on the Johnny Carson Show), and yet people still believe him (Randi explains the possible method of bending the spoons)

The McCanns are believed and even though the dogs etc show otherwise , people are still believing them.

The reconstruction would be the test that proves one way or another and they refuse to do it, and people believe their excuses as they don't want to be classified as one of those 'nutters'.....a fool....They want to be one of the 'wise' people....which is why I posted this video as it explains it all succinctly in my opinion.

I don't think being psychic is something you can switch on, it's a sort of sixth sense which you can have no control over. So, from what I've read about psychics, the less they know the better the result. So anyone calling themselves a psychic and performing in public at appointed times doesn't fit the bill imo.

Those two psychics who recently went over to PdL seemed absolute rubbish to me. A river ending in the sea -- errrm yes, all rivers do that. Golf courses they could have seen from the plane (there are four nr. Pdl). Rocks - you don't say.
The whole lot of psychics in circus McCann were terrible. But the interesting thing is that Amanda Hart and Lazarus - both from Wales - were recommended by the family and were over there before the 8th of May, when one or both of them had a vision of Maddie on a boat.
This was taken very seriously by Kate, who gave photographs of the yacht to an LP officer on the 8th of May. Circus McCann in full spin!

So it wasn't a case of the McCanns being invaded by psychics, it was the McCanns who got some 'tame' psychics over right from the start. They've never minded the psychics - more publicity and not a chance in hell of finding the child.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Oldartform wrote:Interesting but I wouldn`t put too much trust in anything James Randi says because of his obsession with condemning anything that`s not scientific - he is a bit narrow minded and limited to a scientific mindset.

No doubt there are people who set out to deceive and they should be exposed, but in general, people who have psychic abilities or believe in things beyond science do not set out purposely to deceive people. Randi goes on as if psychics are all crooked.

I agree with everything you have said. There are psychics in the US who have consistently helped law enforcement. Also, there is well documented evidence that both the US and the Soviet used psychics to good effect during the 'Cold War.'

Randi has been all over Twitter, condemning Homeopathy. Well I happen to know several people who have been really, really helped by homeopathic doctors, where conventional medicinie did not help. They would still be suffering if homeopathy was just banned, and that's exactly what this guy is advocating. Also I think that the Queen might have an opinion on this, don't the Royal Family use homeopathic medicines?

I do think that most "psychics" are frauds, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of there being some with genuine ability and I think to dismiss it so radically is just plain stupid. And not very scientific. REAL scientific minds are always open to the possibilities of new discoveries. If we all had Randi's attitude we would still be thinking that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved round it. The Church at one point tried to have Isaac Newton tried for witchcraft, and electricity was the work of Daemons. Do we really want to go back there?

C.Edwards wrote:My word. Psychics are talented people? Well all you need to do is get one of these talents to go and claim the $1,000,000 then, right? After all, if they're that talented and real, surely they will find it a breeze to demonstrate the merest smidgen of paranormal ability and the million bucks is theirs?

There are crooks, there are plain bad psychics and there are talented con artists all operating in the same field. In some thirty years of looking, with $1,000,000 on offer, the entire RANDI foundation is yet to find a single real psychic and yet you discuss the subject as though these people exist beyond doubt?

I know a certain couple close to all our interests who likewise claim the existence of an as-yet-unproven person and you all can't do enough to shout down their claims as being ridiculous without proof. I suggest you have a bit of a think about the analogy.

What "million bucks"?

Iris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Oldartform wrote:Interesting but I wouldn`t put too much trust in anything James Randi says because of his obsession with condemning anything that`s not scientific - he is a bit narrow minded and limited to a scientific mindset.

No doubt there are people who set out to deceive and they should be exposed, but in general, people who have psychic abilities or believe in things beyond science do not set out purposely to deceive people. Randi goes on as if psychics are all crooked.

I agree with everything you have said. There are psychics in the US who have consistently helped law enforcement. Also, there is well documented evidence that both the US and the Soviet used psychics to good effect during the 'Cold War.'

Randi has been all over Twitter, condemning Homeopathy. Well I happen to know several people who have been really, really helped by homeopathic doctors, where conventional medicinie did not help. They would still be suffering if homeopathy was just banned, and that's exactly what this guy is advocating. Also I think that the Queen might have an opinion on this, don't the Royal Family use homeopathic medicines?

I do think that most "psychics" are frauds, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of there being some with genuine ability and I think to dismiss it so radically is just plain stupid. And not very scientific. REAL scientific minds are always open to the possibilities of new discoveries. If we all had Randi's attitude we would still be thinking that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved round it. The Church at one point tried to have Isaac Newton tried for witchcraft, and electricity was the work of Daemons. Do we really want to go back there?

Randi reminds me of Richard Dawkins: Randi is obsessed with psychics and homeopathy and Dawkins is obsessed with religion. Why don't they both just get on with something more productive? Neither is going to change anyone's mind because neither can prove anything with their brand of mechanistic science.

I have been using homeopathic remedies for many years and shall continue to do so. Of course, people will point out that the placebo effect may be coming into play if someone claims to have been helped by homeopathy and the placebo effect is a wonderful thing. Research has shown that the placebo effect varies according to the route of administration because of the belief that certain methods must have a more powerful effect. By the parenteral route, the placebo effect is 30%, sliding to about 5% for liquids off a spoon. If 100 people were told that they were to be administered a new wonder drug via intravenous infusion, 30% of them would experience improvement even if the iv bag contained nothing but glucose buffered with saline. I would add that animals, like horses, have probably never heard of the placebo effect and I would doubt that they got better with homeopathic medicine because they believed in it.

As for psychics, I've met a few, some have left me absolutely amazed with their apparent insight and some have left me chuckling because they're obvious scam artists. When I lived in Manchester, I went to Southport with a group of women, several of whom went into the tent with a psychic called something like Madame Rosalie. Later on, one of the women recounted how the psychic had told her that she was divorced and still held feelings for her ex-husband and wasn't that amazing? I said 'no,' it wasn't because anyone with a bit of sense could tell that by the fact that she was wearing a wedding and engagement ring on her right hand. So, it was a good bet that she wasn't still married but couldn't let go of everything to do with the marriage.

The placebo effect shows the amazing power of the human mind and I do think there are people who have abilities beyond the five senses. New ways of testing are needed because those abilities are not available to quantify in the same way as the ability to be able to detect a few molecules of a substance in the air by smell or feeling inside a black bag to identify its contents.

The million dollar challenge has never been taken up, due to its very stringent criteria for applying, in fact many people have said that its criteria for results is significantly higher than in most other areas of scientific research and applicants have to jump through many hoops before they can even apply! So Randi's claim that the fact no one has won or even applied to win proves there is no such thing as the paranormal is in fact more fraudulent than anything he claims to debunk.

Here's a link to the myth of the million dollar challenge

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

Given that thoughts are electrical impulses in the brain and thus a form of energy capable of being measured, rather like radio waves, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one brain can pick up the radio waves emitted by another i.e. there is at least a scientific basis upon which the theory could be tested to prove or disprove it. It is patently obvious that at the present time, science has not yet developed or discovered the means of testing required to reach a conclusion one way or the other. This of course continues to leave the door wide open for charlatans of every description to exploit the fears and superstitions of ordinary people, as indeed they have done continually since the stone age. As far as the McCanns' notorious abductor is concerned, to the best of our knowledge there is no scientific basis whatsoever to assume that he/she is anything more than a figment of the McCanns' imagination conceived for the purpose of concealing the true whereabouts of the missing child i.e. no sign of the forced entry through the window which was originally described by various members of the family and aquaintances to have been claimed by GM, no forensic trace in the apartment whatsoever and if one considers the statements of the McCanns and their friends objectively, not even a window of opportunity for an abduction to take place. On the other hand, constant backtracking on and changing of statements to suit the prevailing conditions, the refusal to cooperate with the investigating polices forces and indicative evidence gathered at the scene and from the hire car raise legitimate doubts concerning the McCanns version of events. The McCanns have had five years to use all the means at their disposal i.e. sufficient funding and unlimited access to the media, to put their case and clear their names. They have chosen not to do so, but have behaved rather like charlatans , using every means at their disposal to attempt to close down legitimate discussion, discredit or even annihilate those who question their story. Contrary to what their PR would have us believe, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. This is not only the opinion of the Leicestershire police but is quite clear from the summing up of the Portuguese public prosecutor.

Healy & McCann are not obliged to clear their names, though: Our system for meting out Justice works on the Burden Of Proof principle. They will be only to keenly aware of that and the associated presumption of innocence is there for them to hang their hat on.

Of course, not having been found Guilty doesn't actually mean they aren't - and the rest of us are perfectly entitled to form opinions. Indeed, we jolly well have!

The End Is Nigh wrote:Healy & McCann are not obliged to clear their names, though: Our system for meting out Justice works on the Burden Of Proof principle. They will be only to keenly aware of that and the associated presumption of innocence is there for them to hang their hat on.

Of course, not having been found Guilty doesn't actually mean they aren't - and the rest of us are perfectly entitled to form opinions. Indeed, we jolly well have!

Exactly, which is why they have not been charged with any crime yet and indeed may never face charges in court. There is however a huge difference between the judicial presumption of innocence and the perception of involvement and it is this widespread perception of involvement which the McCanns have been striving to eliminate and continue to strive to eliminate at any cost by using all the regressive means at their disposal that money and influential supporters can buy. They may escape being brought to account in a judicial sense, but by employing the tactics that they have, they have condemned themselves to living under a cloud of suspicion with a very large section of society.

Lioned wrote:

C.Edwards wrote:My word. Psychics are talented people? Well all you need to do is get one of these talents to go and claim the $1,000,000 then, right? After all, if they're that talented and real, surely they will find it a breeze to demonstrate the merest smidgen of paranormal ability and the million bucks is theirs?

There are crooks, there are plain bad psychics and there are talented con artists all operating in the same field. In some thirty years of looking, with $1,000,000 on offer, the entire RANDI foundation is yet to find a single real psychic and yet you discuss the subject as though these people exist beyond doubt?

I know a certain couple close to all our interests who likewise claim the existence of an as-yet-unproven person and you all can't do enough to shout down their claims as being ridiculous without proof. I suggest you have a bit of a think about the analogy.

I dont get it ?

Me neither ............ the only analagy I can see is that between " crooks " ~ " con artists" & the McCanns