It's not 'hot reading'; that's research before the medium meets the subject. It's not even 'cold reading', that's getting new information during the session.
All it is is making a statement which is very probably true of someone who's visiting a medium.
(And I think they should be the other way round, as well, but for some reason they're not).
I've known people, (who weren't making money from it), who I'm totally sure genuinely believed they were psychic mediums, but I don't believe they were/are. I think they just had/have vivid imaginations and a highly developed intuition about people.
Perhaps Sally is in the main like that - I do believe in psychic gifts and spirits, but she doesn't seem so psychic to me.
Anyway although what her husband and son in law said was really terrible, I think there's an immense amount of hostility around towards psychic mediums - this thread is proof of that - so that I can well believe she might have had "extreme death threats" - from whoever, perhaps even anonymously - and then this guy Mark Tilbrook turns up outside her shows more than once, was it three times, giving out leaflets which imply that she could be a fake- I can understand in that situation John Morgan getting so alarmed for her safety that he lost emotional control and lashed out verbally, and maybe said things to hurt which he didn't actually mean.
So I think Mark Tilbook is also to blame because he was provocative. What else did he expect would happen from his leafletting campaign? I know he was legally allowed to leaflet, but I don't think he should be leafletting outside shows like that.
Now, Mark Tilbrook and Colin Fry sat down on the sofa and there wasn't a bad word between them. I think that's because Colin Fry is a man also, so therefore Mark Tilbrook wouldn't seem as potentially threatening to him as he would to Sally and her family.
Yet another lame attempt to demonise Mark Tilbrook, and infer he was behind the alleged 'death threats'.
It's very clear from the video that John Morgan and his son approached Tilbrook, who was doing nothing more than handing out his leaflets. There was no mention or even insinuation from Morgan that he believed Tilbrook was in any way a threat to his wife...so if your theory is true don't you think he would have mentioned this and challenged him on these threats?
There is no question whatsoever of him being 'protective' of his wife, in a desperate attempt to excuse his foul language, threatening behaviour and homophobic insults.
Furthermore, the fact Sally Morgan has publicly sacked him as her manager hardly shows support for his 'protective' actions, does it?
I have also never seen any documented evidence of threats towards Sally Morgan, but I can understand the hatred. She is taking money from people in the guise of providing comfort, talks in the voice of dead babies, frequently gets things completely wrong in her shows (check out the video of her live on Richard Bacon's radio show...a complete fail).
In fact, the only people I can see with enough motive to wish her harm are perhaps those people she has taken money off and not given them the comfort of their loved ones they may have expected, or just got everything hopelessly wrong. Just a thought...
You contradict yourself. You demand the deceased communicate in a certain way to meet your standards of proof, then decry it being done as irrational/impossible. What method of communicating would you find personally convincing, if any?
There's been plenty of information about the other side passed to sitters, if you're familiar with the research.
BIB - you are claiming that messages from the other side are possible, and there is proof?
Anyway although what her husband and son in law said was really terrible, I think there's an immense amount of hostility around towards psychic mediums - this thread is proof of that - so that I can well believe she might have had "extreme death threats" - from whoever, perhaps even anonymously - and then this guy Mark Tilbrook turns up outside her shows more than once, was it three times, giving out leaflets which imply that she could be a fake- I can understand in that situation John Morgan getting so alarmed for her safety that he lost emotional control and lashed out verbally, and maybe said things to hurt which he didn't actually mean.
A man peacefully standing outside a theatre handing out factually correct leaflets causes someone to be 'alarmed for her safety'?
If his intention was to 'say things to hurt' then that clearly implies that he thinks there is something wrong with being gay, and that someone should be embarrassed to be gay. Sounds to me like he said exactly what he meant.
So I think Mark Tilbook is also to blame because he was provocative. What else did he expect would happen from his leafletting campaign? I know he was legally allowed to leaflet, but I don't think he should be leafletting outside shows like that.
Why not? It seems like the perfect place for him to leaflet. The people going in there are the ones who have parted with their cash to go and see her, so what's wrong with him trying to ensure that they keep an open mind.
The fact of the matter is that Morgan and her family don't like people dealing in facts and rationality. Her use of defamation lawyers to try and shut people up being a perfect example.
BIB - you are claiming that messages from the other side are possible, and there is proof?
I await your evidence with baited breath.
You will be waiting a very long time possibly until all of us posting on this thread are long dead - and then it will not matter!
What I find hilarious is how very dull and mundane the 'messages' from the 'dead' are - nothing about the awesome majesty of the afterlife and the fact that all scientific laws are being broken by such communication.
Nothing about whether a God does indeed exist.
Just some bullshit about how they are very happy or they are watching over Tiddles the cat etc.
Here's another fundamental question about psychics - if they are genuinely in touch with people from the other side, then why do they need to ask people in the audience questions at all?
If they are in contact with a dead person, isn't it reasonable to assume they are being given the basic information about that person, such as their name for example?
It's never really clear from the psychics themselves how the process actually works, what they hear, what they are told, is it?
Therefore everything is always, always extremely vague and needs to be corroborated by the audience.
The only psychics I have ever seen who have actually singled people out, told them their name straight away and more detailed info have turned out to be frauds, using earpieces, information obtained beforehand, plants in the audience etc.
And to echo a point someone made earlier, if these people are genuine, then why don't they submit to tests and examination if they have nothing to hide, and have a genuine talent?
Surely even from a professional point of view, if they were given credence and their abilities confirmed then more people would go and see them?
BIB - you are claiming that messages from the other side are possible, and there is proof?
I await your evidence with baited breath.
I never said it was evidence, how can it be evidence when no one living can corroborate it as they're not over there. And I never claimed that messages from the other side were possible. This was an answer to the question why is their nothing about the afterlife imparted during the readings - whatever the readings are down too - I just commented that there has been. I've never claimed that these phenomena are from an afterlife, although that's a possibility.
You contradict yourself. You demand the deceased communicate in a certain way to meet your standards of proof, then decry it being done as irrational/impossible. What method of communicating would you find personally convincing, if any?
No I dont .Im merely saying if it WERE possible,but it isnt.
There's been plenty of information about the other side passed to sitters, if you're familiar with the research.
The dead do not communicate.End of story.They are dead.
You will be waiting a very long time possibly until all of us posting on this thread are long dead - and then it will not matter!
What I find hilarious is how very dull and mundane the 'messages' from the 'dead' are - nothing about the awesome majesty of the afterlife and the fact that all scientific laws are being broken by such communication.
Nothing about whether a God does indeed exist.
Just some bullshit about how they are very happy or they are watching over Tiddles the cat etc.
Again I have to say you're not really familiar with the literature. theres plenty in the Society for Pychical Research, Frederick Myers communications, etc. try googling it.
No I dont .Im merely saying if it WERE possible,but it isnt.
Is it possible for the dead to communicate with the living. I don't know. Is it possible that a form of ESP appears as the dead communicating with the living, that's probable.
The dead do not communicate.End of story.They are dead.
So you keep saying. I don't find your assertions as to why all that compelling.
It's useless to argue about whether or not the information comes from the deceased as there is no way of knowing. Spiritual people may say yes and others may say the information is accessible via the unconscious or possibly subconscious mind.
Disregarding mediums for the moment, many people report messages or warnings from deceased relatives. Again you can debate with no conclusion, whether the messages are from a spiritual source or the unconscious.
The important aspect is that it is information we normally don't have access to.
It seems as if any reasonable person shouldn't be so resistant to the idea that we can access information that our everyday brain can't.
Is it possible for the dead to communicate with the living. I don't know. Is it possible that a form of ESP appears as the dead communicating with the living, that's probable.
So you keep saying. I don't find your assertions as to why all that compelling.
But none of the research you and others keep pointing to is actual, definitive proof.
We are not interested in ongoing research, or inconclusive research, or as yet unexplained occurences etc.
Therefore until such time as the actual proof is presented to us, by default, and by virtue of the fact that we all know by now all of the tricks these people use...the we will continue to call bullshit on these fraudsters.
But none of the research you and others keep pointing to is actual, definitive proof.
We are not interested in ongoing research, or inconclusive research, or as yet unexplained occurences etc.
Therefore until such time as the actual proof is presented to us, by default, and by virtue of the fact that we all know by now all of the tricks these people use...the we will continue to call bullshit on these fraudsters.
Why do you keep talking about proof?
There is no proof in science.
I've never seen so many unscientific statements on any other subject as I see on this thread.
I've never seen so many unscientific statements on any other subject as I see on this thread.
And I shall continue to demand proof of psychic ability, as practised by Sally Morgan and her ilk.
And lets get real here - you know very well that such claims of communicating with the dead cannot and will never be proven by science. Whatever unusual brain activity is discovered by research is never going to confirm that these people receive messages from the dead.
Hence such people will unfortunately continue to flourish, even though people seem to forget that psychics in reality get things wrong most of the time.
And sadly people like you will continue to quote obscure research and studies, and skirt around the issue of proof of the 'abilities' of these psychics, in a desperate attempt to persuade those of us steeped in reality and possessing basic common sense that there may be something to it.
And I shall continue to demand proof of psychic ability, as practised by Sally Morgan and her ilk.
And lets get real here - you know very well that such claims of communicating with the dead cannot and will never be proven by science. Whatever unusual brain activity is discovered by research is never going to confirm that these people receive messages from the dead.
Hence such people will unfortunately continue to flourish, even though people seem to forget that psychics in reality get things wrong most of the time.
And sadly people like you will continue to quote obscure research and studies, and skirt around the issue of proof of the 'abilities' of these psychics, in a desperate attempt to persuade those of us steeped in reality and possessing basic common sense that there may be something to it.
But none of the research you and others keep pointing to is actual, definitive proof.
Firstly, the research I've pointed to such as Ganzfield, and Remote Viewing, whereby people access information through means other than the accepted five senses, is, by any scientific standard, acceptable evidence. If you demand actual definitive proof then half our recieved scientific wisdom will have to go out the windw.
We are not interested in ongoing research, or inconclusive research, or as yet unexplained occurences etc.
Therefore until such time as the actual proof is presented to us, by default, and by virtue of the fact that we all know by now all of the tricks these people use...the we will continue to call bullshit on these fraudsters.
Good, I hope you'll be calling bullshit on researchers of consciousness, dark matter, gravity, string theory, anasthesia, as these remain inconclusive and some of them evidence free.
skeptic: I want 100% proof
B: that's not scientific though is it?
B or F: there is evidence of xxxx
Skeptic: that's not 100% proof
B: information from mediums does not prove it is from deceased persons
Skeptic: why do you keep saying they can communicate with dead people?
Indeed I do...you have mentioned various studies and scientific research, and though you admit it is not proof, it is clear that you entertain the possibility of psychic ability.
I don't care how closed-minded you think I may be, but such people are clearly frauds who have been wrong and caught out many times.
Firstly, the research I've pointed to such as Ganzfield, and Remote Viewing, whereby people access information through means other than the accepted five senses, is, by any scientific standard, acceptable evidence. If you demand actual definitive proof then half our recieved scientific wisdom will have to go out the windw.
Good, I hope you'll be calling bullshit on researchers of consciousness, dark matter, gravity, string theory, anasthesia, as these remain inconclusive and some of them evidence free.
Remote viewing has been scientifically proven? Where?
And the other items you mention are, as you say, still unproven. I'm not calling bullshit on these because they differ in that they are potentially fascinating studies into interesting 'phenomena'.
If you are trying to suggest that psychic ability, an Edwardian parlour trick that has been exposed time and time again for what it is, well...best of luck with that.
Indeed I do...you have mentioned various studies and scientific research, and though you admit it is not proof, it is clear that you entertain the possibility of psychic ability.
I don't care how closed-minded you think I may be, but such people are clearly frauds who have been wrong and caught out many times.
No you were trying to say that I claimed mediums speak to the dead.
Remote viewing has been scientifically proven? Where?
And the other items you mention are, as you say, still unproven. I'm not calling bullshit on these because they differ in that they are potentially fascinating studies into interesting 'phenomena'.
If you are trying to suggest that psychic ability, an Edwardian parlour trick that has been exposed time and time again for what it is, well...best of luck with that.
So is ESP research, I mean that would be prett fascinating and open up a host of questions if it's established as real, and tell me how is research into RV and Ganzield akin to Edwardian parlour tricks. And stop saying proven, nobody but you is claiming proof just evidence gathered under scientific protocols.
Again I have to say you're not really familiar with the literature. theres plenty in the Society for Pychical Research, Frederick Myers communications, etc. try googling it.
SPR is a very unbiased source obviously^_^
I googled hm and read one article in which he claimed that telekinesis and ectoplasm were genuine. Something tells me further research will lead me to conclude he is as nuts as all the rest
I googled hm and read one article in which he claimed that telekinesis and ectoplasm were genuine. Something tells me further research will lead me to conclude he is as nuts as all the rest
First learn the difference between hot and cold reading and then move on to SPR.
I seriously doubt that they claim evidence of actually channeling the dead.
skeptic: I want 100% proof
B: that's not scientific though is it?
B or F: there is evidence of xxxx
Skeptic: that's not 100% proof
B: information from mediums does not prove it is from deceased persons
Skeptic: why do you keep saying they can communicate with dead people?
Comments
Exactly, evidentially it's not worth much at all.
Yet another lame attempt to demonise Mark Tilbrook, and infer he was behind the alleged 'death threats'.
It's very clear from the video that John Morgan and his son approached Tilbrook, who was doing nothing more than handing out his leaflets. There was no mention or even insinuation from Morgan that he believed Tilbrook was in any way a threat to his wife...so if your theory is true don't you think he would have mentioned this and challenged him on these threats?
There is no question whatsoever of him being 'protective' of his wife, in a desperate attempt to excuse his foul language, threatening behaviour and homophobic insults.
Furthermore, the fact Sally Morgan has publicly sacked him as her manager hardly shows support for his 'protective' actions, does it?
I have also never seen any documented evidence of threats towards Sally Morgan, but I can understand the hatred. She is taking money from people in the guise of providing comfort, talks in the voice of dead babies, frequently gets things completely wrong in her shows (check out the video of her live on Richard Bacon's radio show...a complete fail).
In fact, the only people I can see with enough motive to wish her harm are perhaps those people she has taken money off and not given them the comfort of their loved ones they may have expected, or just got everything hopelessly wrong. Just a thought...
BIB - you are claiming that messages from the other side are possible, and there is proof?
I await your evidence with baited breath.
A man peacefully standing outside a theatre handing out factually correct leaflets causes someone to be 'alarmed for her safety'?
If his intention was to 'say things to hurt' then that clearly implies that he thinks there is something wrong with being gay, and that someone should be embarrassed to be gay. Sounds to me like he said exactly what he meant.
Why not? It seems like the perfect place for him to leaflet. The people going in there are the ones who have parted with their cash to go and see her, so what's wrong with him trying to ensure that they keep an open mind.
The fact of the matter is that Morgan and her family don't like people dealing in facts and rationality. Her use of defamation lawyers to try and shut people up being a perfect example.
You will be waiting a very long time possibly until all of us posting on this thread are long dead - and then it will not matter!
What I find hilarious is how very dull and mundane the 'messages' from the 'dead' are - nothing about the awesome majesty of the afterlife and the fact that all scientific laws are being broken by such communication.
Nothing about whether a God does indeed exist.
Just some bullshit about how they are very happy or they are watching over Tiddles the cat etc.
If they are in contact with a dead person, isn't it reasonable to assume they are being given the basic information about that person, such as their name for example?
It's never really clear from the psychics themselves how the process actually works, what they hear, what they are told, is it?
Therefore everything is always, always extremely vague and needs to be corroborated by the audience.
The only psychics I have ever seen who have actually singled people out, told them their name straight away and more detailed info have turned out to be frauds, using earpieces, information obtained beforehand, plants in the audience etc.
And to echo a point someone made earlier, if these people are genuine, then why don't they submit to tests and examination if they have nothing to hide, and have a genuine talent?
Surely even from a professional point of view, if they were given credence and their abilities confirmed then more people would go and see them?
I never said it was evidence, how can it be evidence when no one living can corroborate it as they're not over there. And I never claimed that messages from the other side were possible. This was an answer to the question why is their nothing about the afterlife imparted during the readings - whatever the readings are down too - I just commented that there has been. I've never claimed that these phenomena are from an afterlife, although that's a possibility.
The dead do not communicate.End of story.They are dead.
Again I have to say you're not really familiar with the literature. theres plenty in the Society for Pychical Research, Frederick Myers communications, etc. try googling it.
Is it possible for the dead to communicate with the living. I don't know. Is it possible that a form of ESP appears as the dead communicating with the living, that's probable.
So you keep saying. I don't find your assertions as to why all that compelling.
Disregarding mediums for the moment, many people report messages or warnings from deceased relatives. Again you can debate with no conclusion, whether the messages are from a spiritual source or the unconscious.
The important aspect is that it is information we normally don't have access to.
It seems as if any reasonable person shouldn't be so resistant to the idea that we can access information that our everyday brain can't.
But none of the research you and others keep pointing to is actual, definitive proof.
We are not interested in ongoing research, or inconclusive research, or as yet unexplained occurences etc.
Therefore until such time as the actual proof is presented to us, by default, and by virtue of the fact that we all know by now all of the tricks these people use...the we will continue to call bullshit on these fraudsters.
Why do you keep talking about proof?
There is no proof in science.
I've never seen so many unscientific statements on any other subject as I see on this thread.
And I shall continue to demand proof of psychic ability, as practised by Sally Morgan and her ilk.
And lets get real here - you know very well that such claims of communicating with the dead cannot and will never be proven by science. Whatever unusual brain activity is discovered by research is never going to confirm that these people receive messages from the dead.
Hence such people will unfortunately continue to flourish, even though people seem to forget that psychics in reality get things wrong most of the time.
And sadly people like you will continue to quote obscure research and studies, and skirt around the issue of proof of the 'abilities' of these psychics, in a desperate attempt to persuade those of us steeped in reality and possessing basic common sense that there may be something to it.
There isn't.
Do you even read the posts before commenting?
Are you addressing the wrong poster?
Firstly, the research I've pointed to such as Ganzfield, and Remote Viewing, whereby people access information through means other than the accepted five senses, is, by any scientific standard, acceptable evidence. If you demand actual definitive proof then half our recieved scientific wisdom will have to go out the windw.
Good, I hope you'll be calling bullshit on researchers of consciousness, dark matter, gravity, string theory, anasthesia, as these remain inconclusive and some of them evidence free.
skeptic: I want 100% proof
B: that's not scientific though is it?
B or F: there is evidence of xxxx
Skeptic: that's not 100% proof
B: information from mediums does not prove it is from deceased persons
Skeptic: why do you keep saying they can communicate with dead people?
Indeed I do...you have mentioned various studies and scientific research, and though you admit it is not proof, it is clear that you entertain the possibility of psychic ability.
I don't care how closed-minded you think I may be, but such people are clearly frauds who have been wrong and caught out many times.
Remote viewing has been scientifically proven? Where?
And the other items you mention are, as you say, still unproven. I'm not calling bullshit on these because they differ in that they are potentially fascinating studies into interesting 'phenomena'.
If you are trying to suggest that psychic ability, an Edwardian parlour trick that has been exposed time and time again for what it is, well...best of luck with that.
No you were trying to say that I claimed mediums speak to the dead.
So is ESP research, I mean that would be prett fascinating and open up a host of questions if it's established as real, and tell me how is research into RV and Ganzield akin to Edwardian parlour tricks. And stop saying proven, nobody but you is claiming proof just evidence gathered under scientific protocols.
SPR is a very unbiased source obviously^_^
I googled hm and read one article in which he claimed that telekinesis and ectoplasm were genuine. Something tells me further research will lead me to conclude he is as nuts as all the rest
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDXwqDF7_U47jMhdDdhiKYA
Interviews with dead people,including Moses!!
First learn the difference between hot and cold reading and then move on to SPR.
I seriously doubt that they claim evidence of actually channeling the dead.
You could have just named me. ->