Medium Colin Fry

[thaiboxerken]

TBK
Is that a question or a plea ?

No, I won't gloat ......

...... much !

This goes to show that you only acknowledge those things that validate your beliefs. If the poll says YES, you will say it doesn't count. If it says NO, you'll applaud it and probably refer to it in future posts.

 

[Suezoled]

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 !

Who's taking a vote on whether you will debate or not? All I see is the poll in Flame Wars asking if TBK has ever made a good argument.

And judging on manners means you're missing out on a lot. I guess it would be okay to fool someone as long as they were polite about it? Feh. For all you advocate politeness and respect, you don't maintain it. You insult and then expect people to be kind to you anyway. You stack the deck. You appeal to pity.

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

Ah, the "you know nothing about me so you can't judge me I'm a unique person and my experiences are special" tact. I really don't think anyone needs to know anything about you. From the statements you make and the subject matter you use and defend, it's pretty plain what your viewpoint is.

Ah, I see with TBK's poll. One popular vote is "proof." 1000 inconclusive or negative results is a flawed study.

 

[showme2]

TBK
"This goes to show that you only acknowledge those things that validate your beliefs. If the poll says YES, you will say it doesn't count. If it says NO, you'll applaud it and probably refer to it in future posts."

Don't get paranoid before the vote is even in !
I don't actually give a stuff about the vote, and I promise I won't rub your nose in it if it doesn't give you the endorsement you desperately crave.
(We British don't kick a fellow when he's down, old chap, dontcha know?)

 

[showme2]

Suezoled

Oh come on ... please try to keep up. You've only got on poster to keep track of in this so-called debate, while I have to respond to at least 6.

"""Who's taking a vote on whether you will debate or not? All I see is the poll in Flame Wars asking if TBK has ever made a good argument. """"

Check back. Nobody except me is voting on whether I choose to respond or not to TBK, DEBunk, you, or anyone else.

"For all you advocate politeness and respect, you don't maintain it. You insult and then expect people to be kind to you anyway."

I don't expect anyone on this forum to "be kind" to me - though I have encountered more manners and civility from a notable few than I was led to expect.
Like most other people, I tend to return what I receive in kind.
Thus, if you are gratuitously insulting or abusive, I will either return that ... or ignore you, depending on my mood at the time.

 

[Suezoled]

Suezoled

Oh come on ... please try to keep up. You've only got on poster to keep track of in this so-called debate, while I have to respond to at least 6.

"""Who's taking a vote on whether you will debate or not? All I see is the poll in Flame Wars asking if TBK has ever made a good argument. """"

Check back. Nobody except me is voting on whether I choose to respond or not to TBK, DEBunk, you, or anyone else.

*******Oh, so I didn't miss anything. Add straw man to your deck stacking and appeal to pity.**********

"For all you advocate politeness and respect, you don't maintain it. You insult and then expect people to be kind to you anyway."

I don't expect anyone on this forum to "be kind" to me - though I have encountered more manners and civility from a notable few than I was led to expect.
Like most other people, I tend to return what I receive in kind.
Thus, if you are gratuitously insulting or abusive, I will either return that ... or ignore you, depending on my mood at the time.

Suezoled
Oh dear ... another moron who imagines that he's an intellectual.

********Really? What warranted this response in the De-Bunk thread saying he could levitate? I pointed out a logical fallacy, nothing abusive or insulting. *********

 

[Folly]

What would it take to convince you, showme? Just to be clear what I'm asking, I don't mean a general answer about irrefutable evidence, I mean something specific.

I assume if Colin Fry up and said, "yes, it's all been a bunch of tricks, I'm tired of lying about it" you would believe him. I also assume if you went to a seance carrying a little flashlight and caught him moving a trumpet painted with glow in the dark paint, you would doubt Colin's powers as a medium. What else would do it for you?

 

[espritch]

Folly:

What would it take to convince you, showme?

Several posters have asked this question in one form or another. Showme2 has simply ignored it so far. I don't expect this will change anytime soon.

I assume if Colin Fry up and said, "yes, it's all been a bunch of tricks, I'm tired of lying about it" you would believe him. I also assume if you went to a seance carrying a little flashlight and caught him moving a trumpet painted with glow in the dark paint, you would doubt Colin's powers as a medium.

I'd have to say, based on his respone to questions about the Scole event, that if either of these things happened, showme2 would just declare an evil spirit had possessed Colin Fry and caused him to behave that way and take is as more "proof" that Colin Fry is a real psychic. A hard core believer will swallow just about any kind of nonsense to protect his belief system.

P.S. Welcome to the board.

 

[showme2]

Hello Folly

What would it take to "convince me" ?
I am already convinced !
However, I assume from your followup questions that you mean "What would convince me that Colin Fry is a fraud?"

It's a fair question, and it is asked in the right "spirit", if you'll pardon the word (!) So I will answer it fully.

First you ask "If Fry stood up and said "Sorry guys and gals, but I'm fed up lying about it and I've cheated all along", would I accept that he was a fraud ?

The answer is somewhat obvious, isn't it?
OF COURSE I would totally accept what he said ... and I would then turn on him with a venom that was wondrous to behold.
But let's keep it real; that ain't gonna happen is it?

So what else would convince me that he was a fraud?

Any number of circumstances .....

If I turned up at two of his "live" 2-3 hour demonstrations and saw the same faces receiving readings ....

If I analysed his TV readings on a continuous basis (as I do) and concluded that he was Cold Reading (as John Edward is SOME of the time, and Van Praagh is ALL of the time - and that's seeing them at their BEST in an edited environment) ....

If I discovered that he was giving readings to 6ixth Sense Forum users which consisted of information they had revealed in advance on the Forum (and yes, of course I've checked that out!) ....

If I received any documentary evidence that he was (as Van Praagh has been accused of doing - but it's NOT proven) collecting data on people in advance of a show by getting them to answer 7 questions about who they were expecting to hear from etc ...

If I received conclusive evidence that he, or anyone who might be acting on his behalf, had secreted microphones or other "information collectors" in the Green Room before a TV show, or in the bar before a live show ...

If I was presented with any evidence that theatres or other venues were passing on information which could be gleaned from credit cards or other ticket-booking data ....

In fact ANY SIMILAR kind of evidence that ought to be available if he was doing anything that hard-nosed sceptics suggest might explain the phenomena he consistently produces.

But emphatically NOT:
"You are a twat for believing all this crud and, although I have only been around for a mere 23 years and have only just stopped wetting my nappie (diaper), in that time I have learned a lot more than you have in your 59 years, and everything you accept goes against our Great God "Science" and therefore cannot exist" ! !
THAT is not convincing argument. It is simply abuse. It doesn't impress anyone, or change anyone's mind.

I will listen with interest to the arguments of any sceptic who can put his case forward politely, respectfully, and - in the case of Americans - with the excellent manners that my close contact with Americans on account of living near several US bases leads me to expect to be the norm for them
That is precisely why I came to this forum - to see what I could learn.

Jallenecs and one or two other notable exceptions apart, American forum users have let me ... and more importantly their country and their fellow-Americans ... down.

Those are your answers.

I trust you are enlightened ? !

Is there anything I've missed that I OUGHT to be persuaded by?

 

[showme2]

Well espritch,

If you take the trouble to check my response to Folly, you will find that you are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WRONG.

 

[Loki]

showme2,

You said (much) earlier in this thread :

But you have to understand that Colin Fry and people like him have conventionally had a ◊◊◊◊ deal from people who are interested in so-called "scientific testing".

SO why doesn't he do his own? Sorry, but this seems so simple to me :

1. I discover a "talent" in myself that seems "highly unusual".
2. Being genuine in my belief that it's real, I do a little research into the history/details of this "talent".
3. I find a rather confused situation - allegations of fraud and deception, and questions of unethical behaviour.
4. I find that the "doubters" have some simple tests they claim are "impossible" to do unless the talent is real.
5. First thing I do before I go public with this talent is I try to "pass the impossible tests" either by myself, or with the help of some friends. I either fail, in which case I start to doubt the talent is real, or I pass, in which case I'm prepared to go public and announce my talent to the world.

Surely Colin Fry has either (a) *never* tested his abilites at all, or (b) he has tried to conduct/co-operate in tests. If he's never been tested (even proivately), then I find it ridiculous that he can claim to "know" his talent is real - basically, he's too scared to put himself to the test. If he *has* been tested, and passed, then why not repeat the test for anyone who cares to see? If he's been tested (in private), and failed, then he's a fraud.

He's too scared, he's a fraud, or he's playing some silly game of "real, but prefers not to prove it". Take your pick...

 

[showme2]

Loki
Why are you asking me. Why don't you ask HIM ?
(I don't speak on his behalf and am not privy to all of his reasons for doing or not doing something.)

ASK HIM !
He has a website and a forum run by LivingTV.

I can assure you that, provided he is not otherwise tied up with filming or is temporarily abroad, he WILL answer you.

 

[Loki]

showme2,

Good point! I may just ask him.

In the meantime, what would *you think* about someone who didn't bother to conduct any testing of a supposed "talent"?

Suppose I made the claim to you that I can kick a ball (soccer for example) a minimum of 100 metres.

"How do you know you can?" you might ask.

"Because a number of people have seen me kick a ball a long way" I reply.

"So, you claim to be able to kick a ball a long way?" you ask.

"Yes, specifically, more than 100 metres" I reply.

"How do you know it's more than 100 metres?" you ask.

"I just do - look, everyone who's seen me kick says I must be kicking it at least 100 metres" I reply.

"Have you ever actually measured any of your kicks?" you ask.

"No, no need to. Everyone who watches agrees my kicks are more than 100 metres" I reply, somewhat frustrated at your continuing questions.

"So you've never actually bothered to measure a kick, yet you are 100% sure they are always over 100 metres?" you ask.

"Yes, that's correct" I reply.

"Well, surely then you'd have no problems with coming down to the specially marked field and doing a few kicks for me then. That way we can establish this claim beyond doubt. Bring your own measuring devices if you wish, and we'll double check everything" you offer.

"Sorry, not interested. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but I *know* what I can do" I fire back, as I turn a walk away.

What would *you* think of my claim? Would you assume that I can do it, or that I can't? If I took you to a (unmarked) field and kicked a ball "a long way" (which, to your eye, looked like it might be 100 metres) would you be a supporter of my claim that "all my kicks are a minimum of 100 metres"??

 

[thaiboxerken]

If I analysed his TV readings on a continuous basis (as I do) and concluded that he was Cold Reading (as John Edward is SOME of the time, and Van Praagh is ALL of the time - and that's seeing them at their BEST in an edited environment) ....

Hmm.. Clancie seems to think the John Edward doesn't cold read and that he's a geniune medium. I think she has also said that she believes Colin Fry is cold-reading. Now, here you are saying that Colin Fry is geniune and John Edward does cold reading "sometimes".

So, who's wrong here? Maybe you two could find some objective criteria and settle this.

 

[Clancie]

TBK,

Its a good sign that you're trying to post on topic these days (inspired, perhaps, by your ill-fated poll). But here's a good tip if you're aiming for rational discussions now: at least get your facts right!

Posted by thaiboxerken

I think (Clancie) has also said that she believes Colin Fry is cold-reading.

I have never ever called Colin Fry a cold reader. In fact, I've never even seen his work, read a transcript of his readings.....nothing to lead me to an opinion of him as a cold reader...or not!

 

[espritch]

First you ask "If Fry stood up and said "Sorry guys and gals, but I'm fed up lying about it and I've cheated all along", would I accept that he was a fraud ?

The answer is somewhat obvious, isn't it?
OF COURSE I would totally accept what he said ... and I would then turn on him with a venom that was wondrous to behold.
But let's keep it real; that ain't gonna happen is it?

I must agree. That ain’t gonna happen. So your belief system is pretty safe on that count. Of course Folly also mentioned something about you going to a séance with a flashlight. And let’s face it, that ain’t never gonna happen either, because that would threaten your belief system.

If I analysed his TV readings on a continuous basis (as I do) and concluded that he was Cold Reading (as John Edward is SOME of the time, and Van Praagh is ALL of the time - and that's seeing them at their BEST in an edited environment) ....

You actually analyze his TV readings knowing full well the producers have total control over how those are edited? Why?

If I discovered that he was giving readings to 6ixth Sense Forum users which consisted of information they had revealed in advance on the Forum (and yes, of course I've checked that out!) ....

Do you ever think you are, perhaps, devoting just a little too much time to Colin Fry?

If I received any documentary evidence that he was (as Van Praagh has been accused of doing - but it's NOT proven) collecting data on people in advance of a show by getting them to answer 7 questions about who they were expecting to hear from etc ...

If I received conclusive evidence that he, or anyone who might be acting on his behalf, had secreted microphones or other "information collectors" in the Green Room before a TV show, or in the bar before a live show ...

If I was presented with any evidence that theatres or other venues were passing on information which could be gleaned from credit cards or other ticket-booking data ....

Each of these things is possible. Each is also a simpler and more likely explanation for what Mr Fry does than claiming that he speaks to dead people.

You claim you would accept such evidence as proof that Mr. Fry is a fraud if it happened to fall in your lap. But when presented with the rather damming Scole event, you just wave it away with a preposterous theory of mischievous spirits. When Mr. Fry refuses to step up to the plate and test his extraordinary claims under proper test conditions, you find excuses for that as well. I have little doubt you could find equally lame excuses for just about any evidence presented against Mr. Fry.

Fraud is not an extraordinary claim. It happens all the time. It has been frequently proven to happen amongst alleged psychics. You yourself admit Van Praagh is a cold reader. On the other hand, speaking to the dead is an extraordinary claim. And to my knowledge, there has never been a credible test demonstrating that anyone, including Mr Fry, can do it. But rather than work from the assumption that the person making the extraordinary claim needs to prove it, you work from the position that the extraordinary claim is true until definitively proven false.

 

[thaiboxerken]

TBK,
I have never ever called Colin Fry a cold reader. In fact, I've never even seen his work, read a transcript of his readings.....nothing to lead me to an opinion of him as a cold reader...or not!

begin rational argument
I wasn't sure, that's why I said "I think". However, ShowMe still thinks that John Edward is cold-reading some of the time, where you think John Edward is a geniune medium. I don't know if ShowMe's position is that Johnny can only communicate with spirits sometimes and is dishonest only part time, but it seems that you 2 have a little disagreement about John Edward.

So, do you think you two can come up with objective criteria for determining mediumship to settle this?end rational argument

But here's a good tip if you're aiming for rational discussions now: at least get your facts right!


If I thought what I was saying was fact, I wouldn't have used "I think" to start that sentence. Looks like I'm not the only one attacking people here. Then again, you are a stupid woo-woo so I expect that kind of thing. Clancie, the queen of not making a claim.

 

[Clancie]

lol, TBK. I guess the "combination approach" is a start.

Seriously, if you're not sure, rather than say "I think Clancie believes this...." why not just ask? I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate me telling people, "I think TBK believes such and such..." and having my attribution be totally and completely wrong (especially as you might even miss seeing it to correct it).

Beyond that, I -do- find a bit of agreement with Showme2. I think some of what I've seen from JE is indistinguishable from cold reading (but that not -all- of it can be accounted for that way). I think -all- of what I've seen of JVP is, imo, indistinguishable from what I would expect a cold reader to be able to do.

As for Fry...well, it's disappointing that he cheated at SCOLE but Ford cheated and some quite-skeptical investigators still felt he had produced other genuinely evidential communication that could -not- have been obtained by cheating. Whether that's possible or not of Fry, unfortunately, I have no way so far to form an opinion.....

 

[thaiboxerken]

Beyond that, I -do- find a bit of agreement with Showme2. I think some of what I've seen from JE is indistinguishable from cold reading (but that not -all- of it can be accounted for that way). I think -all- of what I've seen of JVP is, imo, indistinguishable from what I would expect a cold reader to be able to do.

So, then... is JE just cheating sometimes because the spirits won't cooperate, or does mediumship merely look like cold reading sometimes?


As for Fry...well, it's disappointing that he cheated at SCOLE but Ford cheated and some quite-skeptical investigators still felt he had produced other genuinely evidential communication that could -not- have been obtained by cheating.

Wouldn't it make more sense to believe that Ford became a better cheater? "Skeptical" investigators can be fooled like anyone else.

Whether that's possible or not of Fry, unfortunately, I have no way so far to form an opinion.....

I do, it's called science. There is no evidence of spirits, let alone people that communicate with them. Because their powers would redefine the very laws of science, these people should submit themselves to scientific testing. Right now, even if these guys are real, they are simply keeping the door open for the frauds to make money. Don't you think objective criteria should be placed on them?

Do you have any objective criteria for determining mediumship?

 

[showme2]

TBK said :
"""Hmm.. Clancie seems to think the John Edward doesn't cold read and that he's a geniune medium. I think she has also said that she believes Colin Fry is cold-reading. Now, here you are saying that Colin Fry is geniune and John Edward does cold reading "sometimes".

So, who's wrong here? Maybe you two could find some objective criteria and settle this. """""


GOOD GOD ! I can hardly believe this ... a calm logical rational and constructive posting from TBK.

And a fair point made too !!!!

Well, I'm astonished. Perhaps he has learned something.
If so TBK, I congratulate you. (And no, I am NOT being facetious.)

To answer your point, though, there is never any physical evidence of Cold Reading. It is a whole range of techniques used on a sitter to give the impression of producing genuine psychic statements, when it is really being done faudulently.
There are more than 10 different angles to Cold Reading, as well as other elements like NLP, and the only way to detect that it is happening is to study the techniques yourself, and then look out for the specific techniques. (It is easier to identify them if you have a transcript of the show, rather than trying to keep up "live".)

So, whether any psychic is Cold Reading or not will always remain a matter of opinion, albeit opinion which can be supported by evidence of the CR techniqes in the transcript.

Cold Reading can be VERY convincing unless you know what uou are looking out for.

 

[RonSceptic]

lol, I think some of what I've seen from JE is indistinguishable from cold reading (but that not -all- of it can be accounted for that way).

And of course none of it is indistinguishable from what can be achieved by hot reading.

So it boils down to opinion. Is it more likely that a skilled perfromer has mastered the art of cold reading, with occassional assists via hot reading, or that dead people turn up on cue at in TV studios to give out vaugue hints about what letter their names start with?

You have come in for some pretty tough responses from posters here because of your stance on JE. I hope that you understand that this is, in part, due to the the depth of revulsion that sceptics feel when discussing 'mediums'.

After all, if one accepts that no spirit communication is taking place (as you apparently do with JVP), then what we are left with is a con man exploiting vunerable berieved people to make millions of dollars. That is totally reprehensible. I certainly makes me angry. Anyone that attempts to give these charlatans credibility, therefore, must expect a rough ride.

As you will remember from earlier threads, personally I don't belive that abusive behaviour progreses arguments at all. I have therefore tried to remain civil despite my disgust at what I see as downright fraud by mediums.

I have followed several of the JE threads and have to say that the only transcript that could not be satisfactoraly explained by cold reading is the one concerning the garage guy, which is so contived that it smacks of a set up.

Everything else is just cold reading. IMHO.