Medium Colin Fry

showme2,

But you only need one white crow, and Colin Fry is that crow.
Click to expand...
I've seen very little of Colin Fry (he is on air here on cable TV after midnight once a week) - but the little I've seen hasn't been good!

Here is a verbatim demonstration of why ....

JVP: "Has your husband passed over?"

Subject : "Yes"

JVP : "Yes, because he is saying to me "I'm her husband, I'm her husband .... "

Yeah right, do us a favour ! !
Click to expand...
I caught the last reading from an episode of "Sixth Sense" a few weeks ago. Fry started by calling for "who had an accident involving a horse..a fall?" The entire audience ignored it. He offered it around the audience, looking for a taker. He added in "woods". After a few moments a woman in her late 20's offered up something like "I had trouble getting on a horse once at a camp."

He jumped on this (despite being only a partial match) and offered up "there were lots of people there?" The woman confirmed it was a camp with school mates. He offered "did you do something embarassing?" The woman shook head, looking puzzled. He offered "what was the thing with the alcohol?" The woman laughed - it had been a camp of 15 year olds, and they had been drinking illegally. He then asked "who is 'x'?" (can't remember the name). The woman had no idea.

The reading dragged on, going nowhere, and eventually Fry was left to explain to the woman that the 'spirit' was from another girl who'd been at the camp. The woman didn't know the spirit very well (explained Fry), but the spirit has grabbed the opportunity to "make contact" when the spirirt recognised someone they had barely known from 15 years ago.

The only impression that the reading left for me was "how bad was the rest of the session if this is the best they kept". It was worse than most of JE's offerings - I've never seen JE forced into a corner where the only way out is to claim "it's a dead aquaintance from 15 years ago!". Fry seemed to lead everything in with a question, and then retrofit the answers by paraphrasing the original question back.

Always dangerous to draw conclusions from too small a pool of evidence - but I must admit that this was so bad I've felt very little reason to give Fry another look.
 
Loki
Yes, I concede that it is very difficult to form an assessment when the information you are judging it on has been edited. You never know how much crap and "dead air time" has been edited out.

I went to see Fry "live" for two consecutive nights in Cambridge precisely to overcome that problem.

I was convinced by what I saw and heard, but it won't convince you or anyone else.

Why should it? It was MY experience, not yours. So far as you are concerned, it is therefore "anecdotal".
 
mummymonkey

If that is the best contribution you can make to this debate, just piss off, will you ?
We will make do without your intellectual input.

Contribute something by all means, but moronic comments we can do without.

Clear ?
 
showme2,

I went to see Fry "live" for two consecutive nights in Cambridge precisely to overcome that problem.

I was convinced by what I saw and heard, ...
Click to expand...
My first comment would be that unless you have access to some sort of recording (audio or visual), then these two nights *shouldn't* convince you. I've seen magians fold a woman into a small box right in front of me, then push a sword throguh the box. I was determined to see "the trick". I failed. Does my inability to detemine how I was fooled force me to conclude it was real? The only reason I *know* I was fooled rather than I watched a murder/resurrection is that the magician admits it's a trick.

...but it won't convince you or anyone else.

Why should it? It was MY experience, not yours. So far as you are concerned, it is therefore "anecdotal".
Click to expand...
I've been to a reading, and had a few "amazing" hits given to me. Immediately after the reading, I was unable to dismiss these hits from my mind - they seemed "too good". Lucky for me ( bad move by the pyschic) she had allowed (actually, insisted!) on an audio recording. I went home, listened to the entire recording again. Thought about, worked through what was happening. It became obvious that the "good hits" were mostly likely lucky hits, since they were surrounded by a sea of misses. Just like the criticism says, I had (iniitally) over-emphasised the hits,a nd downplayed the misses. Only the ability to go through the session slowly in review revealed just how much I'd done this. It was a learning experience for me - I found that my initial reactions had been "off". I'd entered the reading expecting pure cold reading, and extremely cautious. I left confused by what had happened. If I'd entered as an "interested neutral" or "believer" I think I'd have left raving about the amazing accuracies.

I don't simply dismiss anecdotes - I just think that anyone can be mislead by "once only" events. Review and repetition are required to raise the quality of the evidence.
 
Loki
Yes, your point is well and truly taken.

We - my wife and I - recorded verbatim what transpired on the first night, and went back on the second night on impluse to check that the same "faces" were not receiving readings.

I don't know why sceptics assume that all others are gullible fools who do not take reasonable precautions against being duped !
 
showme2,

We - my wife and I - recorded verbatim what transpired on the first night...
Click to expand...

...and went back on the second night on impluse to check that the same "faces" were not receiving readings.
Click to expand...
I doubt very much that "plants" are used on the medium seminar circuit. Given the minituration and sophistication of modern electronics I'm not sure how you can hope to eliminate "eavesdropping" as a possible explanation.

But again, even the absence of a readily proveable explanation wouldn't mean that Fry's explanation should be accepted on face value. Please explain why your inability to describe how David Copperfield performs his show would support the argument that he realy does perform magic? Perhaps he really does perform true magic, but is afraid of the backlash he might suffer if he revealed his true abilities to humanity. So he hides behind the excuse that "it's a trick". If I've been to see him over two consecutive nights, and still can't see anyway he could do what he does, then haven't I got the same degree of "evidence" as you?

I don't know why sceptics assume that all others are gullible fools who do not take reasonable precautions against being duped
Click to expand...
I'll pled guilty to making this assumption. Why do I make it? Because it turns out, time and again, to be correct!

Congratulations if you are the "exception that makes the rule", but in my experience you very much in the minority. If that means that occasionally you get tarred by the same brush as those around you who *don't* take the precautions that you do, then I suggest you take it up with those believers. I'm prepared to accept that you are "unusual" as a supporter of mediumship!
 
Showme2
I agree that MOST of what John Edward produces appears to be Cold Reading, and that ALL of what James Van Praagh produces appears to be Cold Reading. But you only need one white crow, and Colin Fry is that crow.
Click to expand...

Showme2's belief here is interesting. He clearly understands the flaws in JE's and JVP's readings. Yet he still believes that Colin Fry is genuine.

He believes this because of two live sessions that he and his wife attended during which they recorded all the readings verbatim. Yet he cannot provide any more details of this study. Had I found personal evidence of mediumship, I think I would have kept my study (anecdotal though it be) to show others.

He seems to be clutching at a last straw with Fry. It's like the anthropological move from pantheism/polytheism to monotheism.

Yet, even if his personal study looked impressive and seemed to validate Fry, Showme2 cannot rule out any of the hot reading techniques others have mentioned earlier:

● Information gathering before the show. Multiple methods and possibilities for this including information given by local mediums who feed off Fry's 'fame' and probably have info on many they know would be likely to turn up for the show. Even a reseracher doing a bit of work on local newspaper reports, Deaths, Births, Marriages, In Memoria, could provide what would appear to be astounding results.

Throw out a lot of hot stuff (hidden mic of researcher to earpiece of medium) to a fairly localised audience, most of them probably believers, and some are bound to hit home. e.g.

Researcher to earpiece: "Ok, Colin, try 'white-haired old lady'. Make a joke about that being very general. Now mention 'Granny Nanna'. I've got a ton of In Memoria posted by the family of a gran who died - date - after a long stay in a hospice (from Thank You to hospice posted below the original death notice). Right! I see we have a hit. The In Memoria were posted by etc." Note: one of the In Memoria was to 'Granny Nanna'

It seems like a lot of bother to go to, but there is a lot of money to be made all the way from the top to the bottom of Randi's pyramid.

Heck! I wonder why I'm sitting here typing when I could make a fortune being a medium! Well, too many scruples and no acting ability, I guess.

Have you thought of these plausible explanations?, Showme2? If so, why do you dismiss them in favour of Colin listening to dead people? Then there's

● Eavesdropping.

● Stooges -- combined with the above, only a few (three?) would be needed to give the show that real killer effect. In a fairly large audience, and given even minimum makeovers, these would be very hard to spot, since they would be 'validating' a different reading than the one from the last show.

So, why do you discount these, Showme2, and choose to believe strongly in Colin Fry? I think you said earlier 90%, but I may be wrong.

I look forward to hearing your reply.

Keep questioning -- I think you're nearly 'cured'.:)

malc
 
showme2

mummymonkey

If that is the best contribution you can make to this debate, just piss off, will you ?
We will make do without your intellectual input.

Contribute something by all means, but moronic comments we can do without.

Clear ?
Click to expand...

It's clear to me. At risk of not making your "Approved List," I'll elaborate.

It is clear that:

1. You are undeservedly arrogant (arrogance in itself is not a bad thing; just be sure to earn it first)

2. You believe yourself to be the arbiter of all things logical and acceptable

3. You think your admittedly subjective judgment is superior to the methodologies of science

4. You think other people's subjective judgments are insufficient to the task of judging mediums. Unless you'll admit that if I or Folly or someone else here were to go to a demonstration of Colin Fry's and come away convinced he's a fraud.

5. You think your age gives you license to deride.

6. This comment to mummymonkey was completely uncalled for.

That'll do for now.

---

And now, to demonstrate that I can separate opinions about posters from the substance of the post, I'll add this:

Folly is correct. What you are doing in regard to Fry is exactly like his experience with card tricks. You believe yourself incapable of being fooled and conclude that Fry is real. You do this absent any controls to prevent fraud.

You have demonstrated no critical thinking here.
 
showme2 said:
mummymonkey

If that is the best contribution you can make to this debate, just piss off, will you ?
We will make do without your intellectual input.

Contribute something by all means, but moronic comments we can do without.

Clear ?
Click to expand...
Sorry, on reflection it was rather moronic of me to think that people can talk with the dead. How right you are oh wise and intellectual one. Grandad's collection of cigarette cards must remain forever buried. Oh the injustice of it all!
 
Garrette
483

quote:
"""""""""It is clear that:

1. You are undeservedly arrogant (arrogance in itself is not a bad thing; just be sure to earn it first)
--------I've been called that before, so you might be right.

2. You believe yourself to be the arbiter of all things logical and acceptable
--------No, but when others are being totally ILlogical and IRrational, I shall certainly point it out

3. You think your admittedly subjective judgment is superior to the methodologies of science
---------No, but I think the use of subjective judgment can be perfectly valid for an individual, though he may not expect it to convince others. Very few judgments we make in life are under "controlled conditions" or subject to scientific methodologies. Any in any case, science is just another belief system.

4. You think other people's subjective judgments are insufficient to the task of judging mediums. Unless you'll admit that if I or Folly or someone else here were to go to a demonstration of Colin Fry's and come away convinced he's a fraud.
--------No, I haven't said that at all. You are perfectly entitled to make up your own mind using any criteria you choose. And yes, you probably would decide he is a fraud because you would go there predisposed to reaching that conclusion.

5. You think your age gives you license to deride.
---------It seems to me that most of the derision comes from the skeptic side of the fence. Age has nothing whatever to do with it, though you can't gain valuable experience without getting older unfortunately.

6. This comment to mummymonkey was completely uncalled for.
---------- Yes, you are right. He just caught me at the wrong time with his facetious comment.

"""""""""


By the way, Garrette, all this flattery of yours has just gotta stop.

"To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man.
Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble,
but I'm doing the best that I can" ! :(
 
Showme,

I'm not going to quote everything you said in response to my last questions this time. It's too big (I'm too wordy!)


First, about the actual events at Scole. I didn't make what I was trying to say very clear. The actual mechanisms that I proposed aren't of particular interest to me. All I was trying to do was suggest that with a little thought, many odd small details can be explained. Basically, I was just saying that the uncontested fact that Fry was not in his chair makes it look like it was a trick, since that's exactly what you would expect to find in that case if you turned the lights on without warning. But the details are lost now, like they generally are (try and get witnesses to agree in a police report of an incident the day before!) so it really is irrelevant, and I should have just left it alone.

As for the observations of hundreds of years, I wasn't talking about observations of seances at all. I was talking about general observations made in the course of scientific study. Observations about the behaviour of forces and mass. They don't match with floating trumpets, and they have been made so many times (consider what processes rely on knowledge of this!) and in so many varied ways. Oddly, with tests of these abilities that go against these observations, the power of the ability always seems to decrease with increasing ability to rule out other explanations. So someone will be able to move a trumpet with the lights off, a cigar case if you don't pay enough attention to the person before the test, and be able to produce a statistically significant non-uniform distribution of die rolls if poor sampling methods are used. Also what you would expect in the case of trickery.

So, yes, absence of positive evidence isn't negative evidence ("just because we havn't seem bigfoot doesn't mean it doesn't exist") but... It certainly constrains the ways in which the positive evidence does occur. Loch Ness has been searched so thoroughly that any Loch Ness monster must be invisible to radar, be able to live for hundreds of years, and have an awfully strange metabolism considering it's size and the usual food required to sustain something that large. It might be there, but you might as well believe in CFLarsen's unicorns, since they're no less unlikely.

Colin may no longer be a physical medium, but when he was, given all of the above, either he was doing tricks, or the generalisation of hundreds of years of observations should now have the restriction "except around Colin Fry." Like the Loch Ness monster, it's not really any more likely than unicorns.

(A quick note about science: it's not a belief, it's a process. The belief is in an objective world that works in observable and repeatable ways. After that, science is just saying "We've seen this, so we think this, which means this other thing should happen. We'll test and see.")


If we ignore the previous physical mediumship, and just look at Colin's current practices, you said

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.
Click to expand...

I'm still missing something. Why _is_ this different than the card trick situation I gave? You say it's not like the cold reading you know, there's no stooges, and it doesn't look like warm or hot reading you could do, so he must be genuine?
 
showme2 said:
Colin Fry has 1.5 million people watching 6ixth Sense, and can fill a 2000+ theatre wherever he demonstrates his gifts.

Why should he be concerned with obliging a dozen sceptics of THIS forum?

Damned if I would either !!!!
Click to expand...
And without him bothering to prove his claims why should we believe a lick of what he says? Always remember statements like these go both ways. He doesn't HAVE to prove himself to me, but I also don't HAVE to believe he communicates with the dead, especially since he doesn't care to prove it.
 
Loki said:
showme2,


My first comment would be that unless you have access to some sort of recording (audio or visual), then these two nights *shouldn't* convince you. I've seen magians fold a woman into a small box right in front of me, then push a sword throguh the box. I was determined to see "the trick". I failed. Does my inability to detemine how I was fooled force me to conclude it was real? The only reason I *know* I was fooled rather than I watched a murder/resurrection is that the magician admits it's a trick.


I've been to a reading, and had a few "amazing" hits given to me. Immediately after the reading, I was unable to dismiss these hits from my mind - they seemed "too good". Lucky for me ( bad move by the pyschic) she had allowed (actually, insisted!) on an audio recording. I went home, listened to the entire recording again. Thought about, worked through what was happening. It became obvious that the "good hits" were mostly likely lucky hits, since they were surrounded by a sea of misses. Just like the criticism says, I had (iniitally) over-emphasised the hits,a nd downplayed the misses. Only the ability to go through the session slowly in review revealed just how much I'd done this. It was a learning experience for me - I found that my initial reactions had been "off". I'd entered the reading expecting pure cold reading, and extremely cautious. I left confused by what had happened. If I'd entered as an "interested neutral" or "believer" I think I'd have left raving about the amazing accuracies.

I don't simply dismiss anecdotes - I just think that anyone can be mislead by "once only" events. Review and repetition are required to raise the quality of the evidence.
Click to expand...
This is an important point. Many people who lean towards paranormal explanations on this board seem to agree with us on the more obvious and glaring examples of cold-reading by psychics like JE and others, but still believe because of a personal experience at a seminar. While I don't automatically assume they went in blind, how can they be so absolutely sure they weren't misdirected by a clever performer? I wouldn't trust myself not to get duped, and so would record if possible the whole reading to review later. I simply have been given no satisfying and logical reason as to why these live seminars have made them jump to the paranormal explanation, rather than trying to pursue more mundane ones first. The only consistent observation here that I've seen is that people want to believe its true, and so lean that way, and then just keep trying to find holes in mundane explanations to continue their belief.
 
showme2,

Not a bad response at all.

Had I more time, though, I'd go into detail about the subjective part of the discussion as it still seems to me you place too much weight on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom