Medium Colin Fry

[Folly]

Thank you for answering, Showme, and not dismissing me based on my chaice of names. Rest assured it has nothing to do with you: I've used it for years.

You said
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?"

Indeed.

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?

It certainly seems pretty obvious to me, and I did assume you would think the same, but it's always nice to know. You're the first person that believes in mediums that I've talked to, Showme, and I'm rather slow and plodding in my curiousity. So in that vein...

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 ....

Right. And you've mentioned you've been to rather a few of them, so whatever he is doing, medium or magician, it's unlikely he's reusing people to do it.

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) ....

Okay.

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!) ....

What with possibly having access to registration information, the ability to indistinguishably add plants, and the ability to be busy with other things until I came across a good choice, this would be a sad way to muff things up.

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 ...

And I assume no one has come forth and said that about they were asked question before one of Fry's shows.

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 ...

Another dead giveaway, and another sad one to mess up, with the tiny microphones available today.

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.

Fair enough. Basically any positive evidence that he's doing a stage act, and has slipped up.

As for a Scole-like event (phrased in the way "the lights came on and Fry was holding the trumpet") can I correctly assume that it would be positive evidence as well, were there not controversy over the actual events that occurred at Scole?

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.

Abuse isn't a very good argument, no. Be careful dismissing science though: it's really only based on the assumption that the world behaves in an observable and repeatable fashion, which is a pretty mild assumption (and one that everyone lives by anyway, really.) Current theories can certainly be wrong, but some things would contradict so many other observations that it becomes much more reasonable to assume observer error.

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?

Not off the top of my head. I wasn't actually trying to check your answers against some list in any case. I was really wondering what would convince you that Fry isn't a medium. I would certainly agree with you that any of those would do it.

If I could turn the question upside down, why do you think Fry _is_ a medium?

 

[showme2]

Folly

Thanks for your comments.
You have joined my brief Approved List !

To clarify, yes, I would accept the incident at Scole IF the facts were clear, which they are certainly not, IF (oh dear, I'm going to use the sceptics' favourite now!!) the scientific examination of the tywraps had shown how both of them could have been cut in the way they were without damage to Fry, and (the rational argument) WHY Colin Fry would be stupid enough to cut them at all when he was absolutely certain to be found out in short order.

What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.

Until then, I had only been examining what he was doing because he was the only one of the "tv mediums" I had watched that I couldn't accuse of Cold Reading, which is the mainstay technique used by most fraudulent psychics.
I therefore wanted to see him demonstrate outside an edited environment.

 

[De_Bunk]

Showme2

Quote:

"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 !..."


Oh dear...

Is that the approach you take to Colin Fry's paranormal, god-like powers...

I can see it now...

"Hey...as long as they are polite...they must be telling the truth.."

Way to go...

De_no manners, so i must be talking outta my ass_Bunk

( i'll post again...when i stop levitating around my apartment )

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Showme2
What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.

We, of course, have to take your word on that. It is only your opinion that the facts were 'non-guessable', for example.

And your failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation? Did you try? How did you rule out:

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.


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 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 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!) ....

Did you make enquiries regarding these areas of possible leakage?

Do the forum members register? Do they give their real names? Can you verify that they are all individuals, and not just confederates?

How do you know the 20 people were not actors employed by Colin Fry? Did you check to see if they all arrived on a bus together?

Given your opinion on John Edwards and JVP, you seem to want to give Mr Fry EVERY benefit of the doubt. Why?

malc

 

[The Mighty Thor]

I wonder how Clancie and Showme2 could reconcile their differences regarding John Edwards?

Could this be the beginning of the Great Psychic Schism of 2003?

Sounds to me like the 'no real Scotsman' fallacy will have to come into play.


malc

 

[The Mighty Thor]

With regard to the Colin Fry SCOLE debacle -- what explanations do the sceptics have for the 'cut cable ties'?

I don't understand the cable tie bit at all?

If the lights had not gone on, is the theory that, after moving things and touching folk, CF was going to re-tie himself to the chair with other ties?

malc

 

[RonSceptic]

What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.

Do you happen to have any transcripts of his readings? It would be interesting to see the reality of a 'whole sting of non-guessable facts'.

Having seen some appaulingly bad readings being described as '100 % accurate' by sitters, I think that a smooth cold reader can give the convincing appearance of accuracy live, which you really need to sit down and analyse in the cold light of day to properly evaluate. It is truly incredible how selective one's memory can be in these situations.

 

[showme2]

Ronsceptic

I think that a smooth cold reader can give the convincing appearance of accuracy live, which you really need to sit down and analyse in the cold light of day to properly evaluate. It is truly incredible how selective one's memory can be in these situations.
_________________


I agree, which is precisely why I did it.

I will see if I can find it, but I thought I had finished with it and it may well have been chucked out.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So.. no objective criteria for determining mediumship eh? With yours, and Clancie's expertise in such phenomena, I would've thought that something would've come up.

 

[Folly]

Showme,

Thanks for your comments.
You have joined my brief Approved List

Hopefully I don't join it briefly.

To clarify, yes, I would accept the incident at Scole IF the facts were clear, which they are certainly not, IF (oh dear, I'm going to use the sceptics' favourite now!!) the scientific examination of the tywraps had shown how both of them could have been cut in the way they were without damage to Fry, and (the rational argument) WHY Colin Fry would be stupid enough to cut them at all when he was absolutely certain to be found out in short order.

Fair enough. You don't put enough stock in any of the reports to consider it conclusive one way or the other by itself. If things were turned around, I agree that it's extremely unlikely to be accepted as evidence _for_ being a genuine medium. What could have been quite strong evidence has unfortunately been made rather weaker by contention and time.

So it may be anecdotal, but it does seem like a botched session of a stage psychic, tie wraps and all. It could be a different trick for being tied down. Where do the tie wraps come from? Does Colin produce them? Could they be specially prestressed, allowing him to just break them? The two ties might be just a bit different because one tie might have required a bit of extra help from a hidden razor (why not use the razor always? more time to work it from hiding to a usability, and the risk of accidentally dropping it.) Breaking out and then retying yourself would be a nice trick, despite some extra risk, for the reason that you could truly be tied down securely, which would make for a good show: people could check the ties much more thoroughly.

With all of that said, it is still weak evidence. However, remember that observations done in a controlled setting fail to see this phenomenon, and some observations from the hundreds of years worth of scientific observation apparently contradict it in the case of floating objects. Colin could be genuine, but with all of these other observations, there has to be some pretty incontestable evidence for that to remain the rational guess.

As an aside, that's why tests of this should be done in a very strongly controlled environment. If the person being tested is genuine, anything less isn't worth _their_ time, and it doesn't tell anyone else anything.

What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.

Until then, I had only been examining what he was doing because he was the only one of the "tv mediums" I had watched that I couldn't accuse of Cold Reading, which is the mainstay technique used by most fraudulent psychics.
I therefore wanted to see him demonstrate outside an edited environment.

Okay. I hope I don't jump right back out of your list of people you listen to, but I'd have to say there's something missing here.

I know a few card tricks. I see a card trick and I don't know how it works. I know that they're not using whatever tricks I do know. But I don't assume they're doing genuine magic. If you rewrite this, your situation seems to fall into this exact same pattern, except with a different conclusion.

I know something about stage magic psychic shows. I see someone doing a reading, and I don't know how they're doing it. They're not doing cold reading as I know it.

Obviously it's not an exact match, but... What I am missing here? Why do you choose in this case to assume that Colin is genuinely talking to the dead, who are physically manifesting at his behest?

 

[showme2]

Folly
"""--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your comments.
You have joined my brief Approved List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully I don't join it briefly. """
..................................................................................................

Ah, good. Someone with a sense of humour. Nice ! But please don't take my Approved List seriously either.

Oh dear - so many questions, so little time. I'll do my best ...

________________________________________
"What could have been quite strong evidence has unfortunately been made rather weaker by contention and time."
_________________________________________
Yes, sadly. And sceptic misrepresentation, often deliberate, of the content of the report of the investigation, and indeed even of what actually occurred, hasn't helped.


___________________________________________
"It does seem like a botched session of a stage psychic, tie wraps and all."
____________________________________________
Yes, of course it looks that way to anyone hearing the bare bones of the story second hand and possibly edited. But once you have the full story, and the different variations of it, it becomes so confused that anyone could draw any conclusion he chose to draw.
______________________________________________
"It could be a different trick for being tied down."
______________________________________________
Example ?
The method usually used by frauds is removable chair arms. You don't need to cut anything but your hands are free anyway. And there's no evidence later.
Why go to the bother of cutting the tywraps - particularly two different ways - and then having to get fresh tywraps back on both wrists later before the lights go up ?

____________________________________________________"Where do the tie wraps come from? Does Colin produce them? "
____________________________________________________
No, of course not! Sitters in the circle allow the MEDIUM to produce the ties? I think not !!!
He just turns up as the demonstrating medium. The tywraps (as used by electricians to bind cables) are in a bag of several hundred. They are selected from the bag at random by one of the sitters.
Colin would have to "fix" all of them - or know what kind or colour would be selected, and have "fixed" matching substitutes available. But he doesn't touch them until they are applied to his wrists.

____________________________________________________
"Could they be specially prestressed, allowing him to just break them? "
____________________________________________________
No, they were not broken, they were cut. One with the physical consequences that would be produced by a high-speed circular saw, the other with those of plastic cut by a heavy guillotine blade. In either instance you need to explain how this could be done without damage to the medium himself.
____________________________________________________
"The two ties might be just a bit different because one tie might have required a bit of extra help from a hidden razor (why not use the razor always? more time to work it from hiding to a usability, and the risk of accidentally dropping it.)"
____________________________________________________
No, the cuts were made in totally different ways. A copy of the technical specialists report is on the Noah's Ark Society Website if you wish to study it.

____________________________________________________
"Breaking out and then retying yourself would be a nice trick, despite some extra risk, for the reason that you could truly be tied down securely, which would make for a good show: people could check the ties much more thoroughly."
____________________________________________________
Yes, but I don't see how it could be done. And anyway, it wasn't. They were both cut, so that is academic.

____________________________________________________
"Observations done in a controlled setting fail to see this phenomenon, and some observations from the hundreds of years worth of scientific observation apparently contradict it in the case of floating objects. Colin could be genuine, but with all of these other observations, there has to be some pretty incontestable evidence for that to remain the rational guess."
____________________________________________________
Well, 150 years observation maybe, if not hundreds. But I wouldn't pay much attention to "scientific observation" of seances back in the Victorian era or even later. The methodology was quite crude. And there are several websites which reveal the tricks some of those mediums got up to - reaching sticks, secret doors, dark clothed accomplices, cheesecloth "ectoplasm" etc.
Floating trumpets have been a feature of seances from Victorian times at least.
Some have been exposed as fraudulent. Many others have not.
Some at least were certainly and blatantly fraudulent, just as some of the so-called spirit photographs of the Victorian era were an absolute joke.
I agree that, with the technology available now, it should be possible to achieve much better, and I would like to see it done. Time will tell.

____________________________________________________
"As an aside, that's why tests of this should be done in a very strongly controlled environment. If the person being tested is genuine, anything less isn't worth _their_ time, and it doesn't tell anyone else anything."
____________________________________________________
Yes, I'm not opposed to that. Experience shows that, however well "controlled" the environment, someone will come up with some kind of objection to the evidence produced.

____________________________________________________
"I know a few card tricks. I see a card trick and I don't know how it works. I know that they're not using whatever tricks I do know. But I don't assume they're doing genuine magic. If you rewrite this, your situation seems to fall into this exact same pattern, except with a different conclusion."
____________________________________________________
We are not talking physical tricks here, but the production of information which ostensibly could not be known to the medium.

____________________________________________________
"I know something about stage magic psychic shows. I see someone doing a reading, and I don't know how they're doing it. They're not doing cold reading as I know it.
Obviously it's not an exact match, but... What I am missing here? Why do you choose in this case to assume that Colin is genuinely talking to the dead, who are physically manifesting at his behest?"
____________________________________________________
Nobody dead is "physically manifesting". Colin hasn't done public physical mediumship for over 10 years now. He demonstrates mental mediumship - a mix of clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience - and in normal light.

He is not Cold Reading, the method of choice for frauds (because you virtually can't get caught).
Stooges in the audience I have dismissed for reasons I have explained at length in other posts.
The nature of the information given does not fit warm or hot reading.
My conclusion is that the phenomena are genuine.

But that will convince nobody but me.
You have to put in the effort to see him demonstrate for 5 hours, and make up your own mind.

I hope this helps.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Showme2
What convinced me that he is a medium? The production of a whole string of non-guessable facts to 20 people at "live" demonstrations on two consecutive nights, and my failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation.

We, of course, have to take your word on that. It is only your opinion that the facts were 'non-guessable', for example.

And your failure to come up with an alternative plausible explanation? Did you try? How did you rule out:

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.


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 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 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!) ....

Did you make enquiries regarding these areas of possible leakage?

Do the forum members register? Do they give their real names? Can you verify that they are all individuals, and not just confederates?

How do you know the 20 people were not actors employed by Colin Fry? Did you check to see if they all arrived on a bus together?

Given your opinion on John Edwards and JVP, you seem to want to give Mr Fry EVERY benefit of the doubt. Why?

malc

 

[showme2]

Malc

It's called JUDGMENT.
We all employ it every day of our lives.
Unfortunately, life does not provide us with "controlled conditions" all of the time.
That is where I part company with most sceptics.
Would that every decision we make was subject to "controled conditions"
But life simply is not like that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He is not Cold Reading, the method of choice for frauds (because you virtually can't get caught).
Stooges in the audience I have dismissed for reasons I have explained at length in other posts.
The nature of the information given does not fit warm or hot reading.
My conclusion is that the phenomena are genuine.

What objective criteria did you use to arrive at this conclusion?

It seems to me that you simply lke Colin Fry and therefore believe he's authentic.

 

[Dragon]

Malc

It's called JUDGMENT.
We all employ it every day of our lives.
Unfortunately, life does not provide us with "controlled conditions" all of the time.
That is where I part company with most sceptics.
Would that every decision we make was subject to "controled conditions"
But life simply is not like that.

Strawman.
No one I know, sceptic or believer, thinks that life provides us with controlled conditions.

But, when it comes to deciding things such as whether or not "pyschics" can talk to the dead you cannot trust your personal subjective judgement - if these effects can't be reproduced under controlled conditions when all possibility of fraud, cold reading etc is eliminated then what are we to think?

 

[espritch]

showme2:

Experience shows that, however well "controlled" the environment, someone will come up with some kind of objection to the evidence produced.

What experience? Neither Colin Fry nor any other pyschic that I know of has ever passed a test of their abilities in a properly controlled test (have any even tried?). Wouldn't this actually have to happen before you could claim that "experience" shows that such evidence would be rejected?

 

[SteveGrenard]

........ nor any other pyschic that I know of has ever passed a test of their abilities in a properly controlled test (have any even tried?). Wouldn't this actually have to happen before you could claim that "experience" shows that such evidence would be rejected?

Some 40 psychics/mediums have participated in and "passed" such a test conducted by Robertson and Roy in the U.K. This study will be published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR.

These researchers published a preliminary study, experience and outside critics as well as themselves found aspects of the test wanting, so they published a second paper detailing a revised methodology, and the third paper, using that methodology will be out as above. This is the kind of "experience" that is referred to here.
The odds against chance of the psychics/mediums obtaining the information they did over a range of anonymous random sitters, however, was huge. But given the supposed methodological flaws, we now await the follow-up study with the revised methodology.

I have seen these self serving, arrogant statements befoire -- ooooh "I am not aware of any blah blah..." You are parroting the cynics and closed minded pseudoskeptics with such remarks. You
demonstrate ignorance by your total unfamiliarity of all the studies of mediumship that have taken place, good, bad or indifferent. R&R employed 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls, thus making it not only a modern study but one of the largest and most statisticaly significant ever.
When this one hits the airwaves it will set the pseudoskeptical and cynical movement on it rear.

 

[CFLarsen]

Some 40 psychics/mediums have participated in and "passed" such a test conducted by Robertson and Roy in the U.K. This study will be published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR.

These researchers published a preliminary study, experience and outside critics as well as themselves found aspects of the test wanting, so they published a second paper detailing a revised methodology, and the third paper, using that methodology will be out as above. This is the kind of "experience" that is referred to here.
The odds against chance of the psychics/mediums obtaining the information they did over a range of anonymous random sitters, however, was huge. But given the supposed methodological flaws, we now await the follow-up study with the revised methodology.

I have seen these self serving, arrogant statements befoire -- ooooh "I am not aware of any blah blah..." You are parroting the cynics and closed minded pseudoskeptics with such remarks. You
demonstrate ignorance by your total unfamiliarity of all the studies of mediumship that have taken place, good, bad or indifferent. R&R employed 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls, thus making it not only a modern study but one of the largest and most statisticaly significant ever.
When this one hits the airwaves it will set the pseudoskeptical and cynical movement on it rear.

Really? It seems to me that nothing has changed:

• Claims are made that a paranormal phenomenon is real.
  
• It is announced that a real scientific test will be done.
  
• It is claimed that this real scientific test will show the skeptics wrong, even before the results are in.
  
• The test is performed, under heavy secrecy.
  
• When asked how it went, we see evasive action, excuses, etc. Promises increase, though.
  
• When it finally arrives, serious design flaws are pointed out (some even admitted to), yet these do not detract from the fantastic results.
  
• Strangely enough, the real scientific test shows nothing.
  
• Strangely enough, it is claimed that a new real scientific test will show the skeptics wrong, even before the results are in.

And the charade can continue.

 

[showme2]

espritch

I don't know how long you have been studying the paranormal and associated phenomena, but I have been doing so since 1959 when I was 16 years old.

Over 40 years examining these matters convinces me to trust my subjective judgment, as I do in almost every other field of life on a daily basis.

If you, on the other hand, do not feel able to trust yours - that's fine. You know yourself and your limitations far better than anyone else.

 

[showme2]

CFL

Unless you are claiming psychic abilities, let's wait and see when the report is published, shall we ?

Regrettably your post, with its supercilious prejudging of the results of the testing Steve Grenard refers to, is a classic example of why many mediums are not prepared to cooperate with the sceptical community of which you are part.