Medium Colin Fry

showme2 said:
Malcolm

"I note that the believers here assume they are intellectually superior to the sceptics."

Where do you "note" that from ?

I'm not aware that ANY non-sceptic has made a claim to intellectual superiority. Quite the reverse, in fact. It is (some of) the sceptics who are constantly alleging such intellectual superiority by poo-hooing what others say as ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You've placed your flawed experiences above science. That arrogance shows that you believe yourself to be infallible and above skepticism.
 
I believe that Colin Fry has agreed to testing, provided that the testers will devote the same amount of time to testing that mediums devote to developing their talents - about 10 years. No takers! He won't agree to any testing by partial sceptics, and certainly not by James Randi et al who have a vested financial interest in producing negative results.

Wow, no takers for a 10 year experiment on Colin Fry's powers?! LOL. You must be really, really naive to think that Colin Fry's intentions are geniune. 10 years is alot of money, would Colin Fry fund the research himself? How would Colin Fry repay the 10 years of life back to a scientists if he's found to be fraudulent? A 10 year study is unnecessary to test Colin Fry's superpowers, Colin Fry's claimed powers don't take 10 years to manifest. Do seances last 10 years? Have you personally experienced Colin Fry's powers for 10 years? Why does Colin Fry demand about a decade more of devotion from scientists than he doesn his followers? Does Colin Fry advertise to new recruit believers "in 10 years, you'll be a believer" or is it more like "see me once and you'll believe"?

There is no financial gain for Randi to waste, what could be, the last 10 years of his life chasing white rabbits. Colin Fry's demand is an evasion, not a protocol. You are a fool for seeing it as anything but an evasion.

I can shoot lasers out of my eyes. Don't believe me? Well, test me for 10 years and find out.
 
Think about a 400 year old cottage. If anyone wants to check out the walls for evidence of subsidence I guess they must spend 400 years researching subsidence first. Right?:rolleyes:

I am trying to resist the temptation to be abusive, because I realise that it can be counter productive, but I have to say that anyone that swallows the Colin Fry '10 year' crap really needs their head examined. It takes credulity to an entirely new level.

I have been working in my profession, as a member of a highly prestigious professional body, for almost 20 years. Does anyone really think you would need 20 years of experience to be able to determin whether or not I am what I claim to be ?

Get real.
 
TBK
"""You, however, won't change your mind, despite the evidence. Colin Fry was caught cheating, and you still believe he's a medium."""

Oh good - back to the point.
NO evidence has been produced that Colin Fry has ever cheated.
The result of the investigations of Scole were "inconclusive but concious fraud was unlikely".

So where is your scientific evidence ? And let's have something from the other 25 years. Surely he couldn't fool everyone for 26 years and get caught only ONCE?

SHOWME your evidence and I will believe it - IF it is conclusive - by which I mean "points to a particular conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, rather than the sceptics' insistence on "elimiates ALL other possibilities" which can NEVER be done.

But all you have is - pardon the overused sceptic expression - "anecdotal". That seems to be satisfactory evidence when trying to rubbish Fry's talents, but not satisfactory to establish them
 
showme2 said:
TBK
"""You, however, won't change your mind, despite the evidence. Colin Fry was caught cheating, and you still believe he's a medium."""

Oh good - back to the point.
NO evidence has been produced that Colin Fry has ever cheated.
The result of the investigations of Scole were "inconclusive but concious fraud was unlikely".

So where is your scientific evidence ? And let's have something from the other 25 years. Surely he couldn't fool everyone for 26 years and get caught only ONCE?

SHOWME your evidence and I will believe it - IF it is conclusive - by which I mean "points to a particular conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, rather than the sceptics' insistence on "elimiates ALL other possibilities" which can NEVER be done.

But all you have is - pardon the overused sceptic expression - "anecdotal". That seems to be satisfactory evidence when trying to rubbish Fry's talents, but not satisfactory to establish them
Click to expand...


I would suggest that the burden of proof is on Fry. He is the one claiming that he is able to communicate with the dead. As it is, he is not willing to submit to testing without a ridiculous pre condition.

Incidentaly, as Randi has been investigating aspects of the paranormal for at least 20 years he would certainly fit this condition but I suppose ther are other reasons why Fry won't be tested by Randi. Yeah, sure.

Wake up and smell the coffee, man.
 
There is absolutely NOTHING, other than the will to do it, preventing James Randi from attending a 3-month tour of Colin Fry's all over the UK, recording events as a transcript, and then publishing his conclusions - supported, of course, by rational argument for them.

Why hasn't he done it ?

Too busy ?
 
showme2 said:

Oh good - back to the point.
NO evidence has been produced that Colin Fry has ever cheated.
The result of the investigations of Scole were "inconclusive but concious fraud was unlikely".
Click to expand...

Let's see. Fry caugh red handed waving a trumpet. So either he is a fraud, or there is some michievous dead spirit invading his body and making him act that way. Mmm. Golly, that's a tough one.

And that is not 'evidence' of cheating. So if I am filmed shooting someone dead, and claim that in fact I was invaded by a naughy spirit, then there is 'no evidence' that I committed murder?
 
showme2 said:
There is absolutely NOTHING, other than the will to do it, preventing James Randi from attending a 3-month tour of Colin Fry's all over the UK, recording events as a transcript, and then publishing his conclusions - supported, of course, by rational argument for them.

Why hasn't he done it ?

Too busy ?
Click to expand...

The Randi test would take Fry a couple of days. What's wrong? Too busy?

Don't shift the burden of proof. What Fry and the other so called mediums do can be adequately explained and replicated by a combination of cold and hot reading.

If they want to prove otherwise then agreeing a test with Randi would be a pretty easy way of doing so.

So why no takers?
 
Ronsceptic

On oversimplification of the extremely confused and complex events at Scole 10 years ago rests the whole of your argument.

I can understand your desire for oversimplification, because without it you have nothing.
But it still won't wash as the basis for a case.

It is not even clear whether the trumpet was in his hand.
Unless, of course, you were there. And then there are others who were there who will assure you that it wasn't, and that it fell down on top of him.

No "scientist" would accept the conflicting evidence from Scole as supporting any conclusion. If he did, then it is the scientist who would be accused of fraud.

Bye Bye now for a while. I've got a business to run here !
 

Oh good - back to the point.
NO evidence has been produced that Colin Fry has ever cheated.
The result of the investigations of Scole were "inconclusive but concious fraud was unlikely".

That's BS, he was caught red-handed in the act. It takes a very gullible person to believe that he unconsciouscly had the roped tied in a way that he could undo them, stood up on the table and started to simulate floating trumpets.

So where is your scientific evidence ? And let's have something from the other 25 years. Surely he couldn't fool everyone for 26 years and get caught only ONCE?

Colin won't submit himself to scientific testing. He was caught cheating once, however.

SHOWME your evidence and I will believe it - IF it is conclusive - by which I mean "points to a particular conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, rather than the sceptics' insistence on "elimiates ALL other possibilities" which can NEVER be done.

It is self-evident that Colin was cheating in that incident.


But all you have is - pardon the overused sceptic expression - "anecdotal". That seems to be satisfactory evidence when trying to rubbish Fry's talents, but not satisfactory to establish them

The "anecdote" doesn't defy the laws of physics in anyway, in this instance. One would have to set reality aside to think that Colin wasn't cheating, in that case.
 
showme2 said:

It is not even clear whether the trumpet was in his hand.
Unless, of course, you were there. And then there are others who were there who will assure you that it wasn't, and that it fell down on top of him.

No "scientist" would accept the conflicting evidence from Scole as supporting any conclusion. If he did, then it is the scientist who would be accused of fraud.

Bye Bye now for a while. I've got a business to run here !
Click to expand...

LOL. Of course the scientist would be accused of fraud, by Colin Fry. Oh, and I know of a lady on PalTalk that was there, she said most people there were very upset at Colin Fry that day. I guess they were upset that Colin couldn't control the spirits. :rolleyes:

You have TBS, True-Believer-Syndrome, if Colin Fry came out and said that his years as a medium were all fraudulent, you wouldn't believe him. You think he was forced by some conspiracy group or spirits to say it. It's very sad that people, like you, prefer to see the world as they want it to be rather than what it really is.

You have no doubt that there are spirits and no doubt that Colin Fry is a medium, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support your beliefs.
 
showme2 said:
On oversimplification of the extremely confused and complex events at Scole 10 years ago rests the whole of your argument.
Click to expand...

Not at all. That was simply one highly suggestive incident. My case rests on many things, including the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Fry or any other medium can demonstrate anything which can not be replicated by cold or hot reading, and that they refuse to submit to properly controlled testing.

I hope that any believers in Mediumship in the UK saw the Secrets of The Psychics show on Channel 5 on Friday 10th October. Alastair Cook gave a highly impressive demostation of how a good magician is every bit as convinving as so called TV mediums. The show even featured some clips of Fry for good measure!

On that show one commentator said that 'Medium' sums up these guys, ie it's not very well done, and it is hardly rare these days.:)
 
TBK
"Poll posted in Flame Wars section regarding my ability to post rational and valid arguments. Please vote."


Yes, that's rather like asking 100 members of the Labour Party whether they think it might be a good idea to vote Labour at the next election !

If you expect detailed replies from me, don't pander to the Flame Wars section because their "vote" doesn't count.
Mine does, and in that respect I am a Committee of ONE.

I have held the vote. You lost !
 
showme2 said:
Yes, that's rather like asking 100 members of the Labour Party whether they think it might be a good idea to vote Labour at the next election !
Click to expand...

True. But think how confusing it would be to ask 100 members of the Tory party which way they might vote right now! Or MP's come to that.;)
 
showme2 said:
TBK
"Poll posted in Flame Wars section regarding my ability to post rational and valid arguments. Please vote."


Yes, that's rather like asking 100 members of the Labour Party whether they think it might be a good idea to vote Labour at the next election !

If you expect detailed replies from me, don't pander to the Flame Wars section because their "vote" doesn't count.
Mine does, and in that respect I am a Committee of ONE.

I have held the vote. You lost !
Click to expand...

Oh, well now our vote doesn't count? Because you're right and we're wrong? The cracks in your demeanor are showing.
Although, you're turning out to be as cute as Mayflower, in your own way. :cs:
 
Suezoled

Yep, when the vote is on whether I shall debate with TBK or DeBunk, (or anyone else) there's only ONE vote that counts - mine. And I judge it mostly on manners. Sorry !

RonSceptic
Yeah, I did actually watch "Psychics' Secrets Revealed" - have done since it started.
If one is going to be exposed to possible cheating, it's as well to know how it might be done.
 
thaiboxerken said:


You've placed your flawed experiences above science. That arrogance shows that you believe yourself to be infallible and above skepticism.
Click to expand...

A bit of synchronicity there, TB. I was just about to post that his arrogance was only surpassed by his ability to err.

The tone of his posts is certainly dismissive, overbearing, and doctrinaire. Another woo woo with an axe to grind.

Colin Fry is an illiterate bungler and anyone convinced by his sham must be self-deluded.

Nice one.

malc
 
"You've placed your flawed experiences above science. That arrogance shows that you believe yourself to be infallible and above skepticism. "

You have no knowledge whatever of my experiences. Ergo you cannot know whether or not they are flawed.

I have already acknowledged that I do not claim infallibility.

Science and scepticism are far from the same thing.
 
showme2 said:
Suezoled

Yep, when the vote is on whether I shall debate with TBK or DeBunk, (or anyone else) there's only ONE vote that counts - mine. And I judge it mostly on manners. Sorry !
Click to expand...

So, if the poll comes up with most answers of "NO", you won't gloat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom