Comment by Victor, 28 May, 2006
In your "Sensing Murder" articles the allegedly rebuttals are technically ‘inadmissible’. They are not worth anything. They are ‘generalities.’ Rebuttals are when each issue, one by one is specifically isolated and dealt with showing that the psychic could not have identified it names and places and using psychic skills.
"Mostly they just cheat. It's a trick. The only difference between psychics and magicians is that the magician will tell you it's a trick." That would be regarded as inadmissible, descriptive, lacking in specificities, lacking in substance.
You just cannot state words to the effect, well the crew could have related the information to the psychics. You will have to PROVE that. When a psychic specifically identifies names and Rebecca states that came from the psychic him/herself you just cannot state, oh well that’s fraud!
Your objection is technically inadmissible in professional debate. Instead, work out the probabilities of that coming by chance. Now, if you add all the correctly identified names, issues, localities and work out the probabilities AND failure by the debunker to show HOW fraud took place, then it would be impossible for the psychic to come up with those names by chance.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 28 May, 2006
We notice on your site Victor in your article regarding "Sensing Murder" you state the following:
"Comment from the defeatists and losers - the deeply entrenched, hardened closed minded debunking skeptics - predictably, "Fraud ... or chance..."! (But could not explain where or when or how 'fraud' took place ...)"
We believe we have explained where fraud did occur and where it had potential to occur. Being a retired lawyer, you seem to base your arguments on the law and court proceedings, yet science, reason and critical thinking is not bound by the law and the outcome is not determined by who can afford the better lawyer. That said, we believe any decent judge would throw out the case for the psychics as totally unreliable and their evidence of talking to ghosts as worse than hearsay. As you say "You just cannot state words to the effect" — the psychics talk to dead people — "You will have to PROVE that."
And we love how you characterise those that don't accept your view:
"no amount of empirical evidence will convince a dumb dumb who does NOT WANT to accept the objective evidence"
Perhaps you could produce some of this empirical evidence, as legal maneuvers won't do it for us.
Comment by Melissa, 22 Jul, 2006
I read with interest your site. I myself had a reading with Deb Webber, she never told me anything, I told her everything and she give me a reading through that. So to prove that maybe she was faking I called her several months later and made out I was pregnant with triplets, owned a hairdressing salon and was with husband no 2, the 1st had passed away. She said one of the triplets would be smaller than the other 2, I would sell my business and invest the money and then work as a mobile h/dresser or for someone else and my dead 1st husband set me up with hubby no 2 and that money would be tight and I would have to get baby clothes from charity. This was all fictional, lies I gave her and yet she still managed to read for me. Says a lot doesn't it. I bet you I could ring her next month and say I'm a clown in a circus and she would be able to give me a reading from that. She's amazing isn't she. I would love to hear what you think.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Jul, 2006
Hi Melissa, thanks for your comments on Deb Webber. I couldn't agree with you more. The client provides all the information to these fake psychics and they then just feed it back to them, a method known as 'cold reading'. I guess that most psychics work on the assumptions that only believers consult them, that the believer will do their utmost to find some meaning in their vague pronouncements and that those of a skeptical nature wouldn't waste their money.
I've often thought of performing the experiment that you've tried but I wasn't sure I could fool the psychic into believing that I really thought he or she had real powers. I've also thought of writing some bogus letter to those psychic pages in the likes of the 'Woman's Weekly' magazine but what would it prove? Only I would know that she was talking rubbish, and I already believe that, but to all the readers it would be another example of her psychic powers.
I love that you were skeptical enough to question where the information from your first reading really came from and to go on and check out your theory by calling her again with a completely bogus persona. Brilliant.
Deb Webber was in New Zealand recently doing a few shows and one Wellington newspaper journalist ridiculed her and noted:
"Two years ago, Australia's "Today Tonight" sent three people to consult Webber. They asked her to contact a dead husband, a dead daughter and a dead sister, respectively. All of these people were fictional, yet Webber managed to get in touch with each of them. That's quite a success rate."
Webber's reply to this embarrassing incident was that sometimes spirits lie. And obviously gullible people believe her as she's still working as a psychic.
A number of years ago US skeptic and magician James Randi setup a scam to demonstrate that the media doesn't check its stories when it comes to the paranormal, supernatural etc. He got an actor to pretend that he could channel the spirit of some long dead person. The actor did public shows in Aussie and went on TV shows like 60 Minutes etc to demonstrate his skills. He was a big hit. Then Randi broke the news that it was all a hoax and everyone was very embarrassed. No one checked the claims that the channeller made, either regarding his descriptions of his past life or of his real claims to fame in the USA. It would have been simple to determine that this guy didn't exist in the US and that everything he claimed was a lie, but no one did. It proved that the media just pump this crap out as entertainment. They often don't take it seriously but unfortunately many viewers do.
However the really amazing thing was that even though Randi and the actor went on 60 Minutes, TV News etc to reveal that it was all a hoax, the actor later revealed that he met several people that refused to accept his confession. They came up to him on the street and apologised for those that attacked his channelling skills. He replied "But I am a fake. I'm just an actor", but they said that they still believed in him. Even the evidence of fraud and a confession is not enough for some believers. It's depressing to think that people this stupid are still allowed to vote and serve on juries.
I assume you've looked at our transcripts for "Sensing Murder" involving Deb Webber. We were going to write up a few more episodes but I'm not sure whether it would be worth our time. As the Randi bit above shows, a million transcripts wouldn't convince a true believer and our example episodes are probably sufficient to convince those of a skeptical nature.
Comment by Lekky, 09 Nov, 2006
Your site is great, keep up the good work!
I would love to see a write up on fundamentalists
(esp christians). If you haven't seen this site yet (Extremeprophetic.com), it might give you inspiration. The "gemstones: real or fake" is good for a laugh.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Nov, 2006
Thanks for your positive comments on our site. We're just putting the finishing touches on an essay looking at Magnetic Therapy. Once that's finished we'll look at writing a bit on fundamentalists. Possibly starting with Ian Wishart. He's written quite a bit on Creationism, Intelligent Design, evil homosexuals etc in his Investigate magazine. Then there's the Destiny Church and the Seventh Day Adventists with their "the End is Nigh" cries, etc. There is just so many to pick on.
I hadn't seen that site you recommended (Extremeprophetic.com) and thought it must be a parody site when I read its homepage. But no, they were serious. Just how gullible, unintelligent or desperate do you have to be to believe this crap? I guess that's the advantage with religion, you don't need good reasons to believe something, just blind faith.
Comment by Roz, 20 Nov, 2006
Hi, I just read your excellent expose of 'Sensing Murder'. I was wondering whether I could use it (with credits given) at badpsychics.com. We've done a little bit on Deb Webber and your article would help to reinforce her lack of psychic abilities.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Nov, 2006
Hi Roz, certainly you may use it. We're happy to play a small part in helping to expose these fake psychics and to encourage people to think critically about what they are seeing.
Comment by Roz, 21 Nov, 2006
Thanks heaps John. Great to find a kindred spirit (if you'll pardon the expression) across the Tasman.
Comment by Christopher, 22 Nov, 2006
Hey there, I'm a member of the Australian Skeptics and wrote some articles here about the Australian version of "Sensing Murder". (I assume your version couldn't possibly be worse than the crap we had here)... I'd like to know a few things about the NZ version of "Sensing Murder"... How many seasons has it had? We only had one season (6 eps) in Australia and they only showed them at random non rating times. Is it still running? (I'm guessing so, though ours isn't) Are the cases honestly "low profile"? As I've said in my articles and on the Wikipedia entry, the Australian cases were all very high profile. Before I deleted it as "non-original content", someone had posted excepts from the NZ show's promotional material in which the producer claimed they were all low profile cases. Have any of the cases been solved since the show? (Regardless of whether the psychics did it)
The thing that really irritates me about the show here in Australia is that the general public remember it as "amazing how they solved all those cases", totally oblivious to the fact that the show solved absolutely none of the cases. I hope you haven't received too much hate mail about your Sensing Murder article. I got a bit, people telling me I was protecting murderers etc. Ahh well. take care, and keep up the good work :-)
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Nov, 2006
Hi Christopher, it's good to hear that there are others out there that can see through the crap that is "Sensing Murder". Although we haven't heard anyone say they thought the program actually solved any murder, plenty have said that the police are following up positive leads from the show and most believe the psychics were amazing in what they revealed. Depressing really. I'm continually surprised at how easily some people are fooled. It's a great pity that we don't teach critical thinking in our schools. I just hope I never end up in a court of law. Imagine if people that can't see the flaws in programs like "Sensing Murder" made up your jury.
Thankfully we haven't had any hate mail regarding our article.
And now on to your questions:
How many seasons has it had?
Only one series I believe, made up of six episodes. Although they didn't mention it, I think the Aussie series and the NZ series were both run as one series here, with alternating countries each week. The format was identical. I'm sure that anything you wrote about the Aussie version would apply to ours as well. They were run in prime time, had quite a following among idiots and the NZ version even won an award at our annual TV awards show.
Is it still running?
No it's not, although according to the following info I discovered on the Net, we have a new series to look forward to this year: TV2's first run of Sensing Murder proved a hit with New Zealand audiences. Series II returns to our screens in 2007 with more chilling episodes...
Are the cases honestly "low profile"?
Difficult to say really. I'm sure they would have been big news at the time, but I personally couldn't remember any of the cases. That's not to say that others couldn't. They did happen one, two or nearly three decades ago, but then murders weren't so common back then, we are a small country and many people do tend to remember them, especially if you live in the city where they occurred as psychic Kelvin Cruickshank did for one of the cases.
Have any of the cases been solved since the show?
No, none have been solved to my knowledge. I'm sure the media would have made a big deal of it if any had been solved. I also guarantee they won't start the next series by recapping what real progress has been made on the cases from the previous series. If any claims are made, they will be as bogus and misleading as the show proper.
I noticed on the Wikipedia page for 'Sensing Murder' that it only mentions the names of three psychics. I have 8 episodes on DVD — 3 NZ and 5 Aussie. In these episodes, psychics Kelvin Cruickshank, Debbie Malone, Sue Nicholson and Deb Webber featured in the NZ series. Psychics Debbie Malone, Scott Russell Hill, Deb Webber, Ruth Wilson and Barbara Neilson featured in the Australian series. Debbie Malone and Deb Webber appeared in both the Australian and the NZ series. There may have been others in other episodes.
Comment by Jane, 24 May, 2007
I am writing with reference to your comments regarding Sensing Murder. Why don't you just calm down a little and have some faith somethings can't be rationally explained. Leave some room in your heart for mystery.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 May, 2007
Hi Jane, you say, "have some faith some things can't be rationally explained." I think you've missed the point of our essay. It was to show that what the psychics appeared to do on 'Sensing Murder' can most definitely be explained rationally. We don't need to have faith in their psychic abilities because we can hear the TV production crew giving them the answers. This is called cheating. We can watch them consistently fail to come up with the names of the victims, or their family and most importantly, the name of the murderer. We can hear the host of the show lying to us and misleading us. There is nothing on the show that can't be explained by reason and critical thinking. Admittedly there are times when the psychic appears to say something surprising but we are never shown what he or she says before or after this statement. The producers of shows like this blankly refuse to give skeptics access to the entire TV footage. We only get to see what was edited for TV. If the psychic abilities are real, then what are the producers hiding?
The most important thing that should be realised about the 'Sensing Murder' show, and numerous others like it, is that the psychics didn't solve one single murder. Not even one. Not even close. They didn't provide one single clue that the police could make use of.
So what has 'Sensing Murder' really achieved? Out of 12 murder cases, not one case has been solved in NZ or Australia. If their psychic abilities are real, why didn't they find at least one murderer? This is a 100% failure rate. There is not one well-documented case worldwide of a psychic solving any crime, and even if there was, there is no denying that none of the 'Sensing Murder' cases have been solved. Even if you do believe that psychic abilities exist, it is perfectly obvious that they weren't used on 'Sensing Murder'. Even if you do support the notion of psychics, there is no good reason to support those featured in 'Sensing Murder'.
You also say in your comment, "Leave some room in your heart for mystery."
If someone stole your life savings, would you be impressed if the police said they weren't going to try and find who did it, instead telling you to "leave some room in your heart for mystery". I suspect you would tell them that you don't want the thief's identity to be a mystery, you want to know who he is and to recover your money. Even with investigation the thief's identity may remain a mystery, but I'm sure you would at least try to resolve it, wanting to determine the cause of your loss if at all possible. Likewise when psychics say they can solve crimes I want to investigate the truth behind their claims. Just like your life savings would be important to you, the fact of whether psychics are scamming me is important to me. I assume that you also would not like to be scammed over some matter.
Today's mysteries remain as mysteries simply because we have not yet solved them, not because we have elected to ignore them, not because we have consciously decided to let them remain as mysteries. We would still be living in caves, afflicted by innumerable diseases and believing in untold superstitions if we had refused to challenge mysteries. And anyway, why are you happy for psychic abilities to remain a mystery, wouldn't you rather science investigate it and declare it real? If psychic abilities really exist they can only benefit from scientific investigation. Instead of being ridiculed, they would be respected. Thus I'm always suspicious of people's motives when they say we shouldn't investigate something. Are you afraid that if science shone it's light on psychics, not only would the mystery disappear, but psychics also?
You also suggest that I calm down a little. I assure you that I am not in the slightest bit angry or agitated over psychics, but I am disappointed and dismayed that intelligent people believe in them, in the same way that intelligent people from past generations believed in fairies and leprechauns. Rather than use faith to reach conclusions as to what is real, as you suggest, we need to use reason.
We design our aircraft and our medicines using reason, not faith. We hope our juries reach decisions using reason, not faith. We hope doctors examine us using reason, not faith, so why should we believe a psychic when he demands we use faith rather than reason to accept his claims? Why the reversal? Shouldn't this make you deeply suspicious?
You may be right Jane, maybe psychics are real, but I'm afraid nothing that they have produced in support of their claims has convinced me, whereas there is a large amount of evidence that indicates psychic ability doesn't exist. I'm not saying that all psychics are cheats, a large proportion probably honestly believe they have some ability, but I believe that not only are they fooling some members of the public, they are fooling themselves as well.
I honestly wish psychics could solve crimes, then we wouldn't need detectives, we wouldn't have unsolved murders or missing children. And only real idiots would commit crimes, having forgotten that psychics would finger them immediately. Crime would be almost non-existent. What a wonderful society that would be. It's strange that psychics haven't already brought this about. After all, they have the power. Don't they?
Comment by Jane, 25 May, 2007
Hi John, thank you for your comments. I believe that a certain number people of people do have the ability to see thing's, in fact I know they can. The reason I am so sure is that from the age of about 5 or 6, I have had visions that have been 100% correct each and every time. I am now 43 and only last year did I eventually build up the confidence to discuss this with religious people, one an Archbishop and the other a Monk/Priest, both distinguished men have dedicated their lives to God. Much to my relief both trusted me as being genuine and assured me that I was having visions (as I already knew) and the Church had known about such things for 2,000 years. They did warn me to take never to take money for it, not to feel special and in fact work all the harder in my relationship with God.
I am a very normal woman, very few people know about the things I have seen as a child, they come at intermittent periods of my life, totally unrequested! So when I say there is mystery in the world that we are not meant to understand or we haven't evolved enough to understand it is from the quite voice of experience. Why I receive these things I don't know and I now accept them as part and parcel of my life. My brother is a Professor of Nuclear Physics and as he say's, always keep an open mind because if we don't we shall never find cures for Cancer and other such mysteries etc. Regarding Sensing Murder, I take your point however if they can even help on just one point and none of us are actually there to know if they have, it is well worth it I think. I know their are many fraudulent people around but if I lost a loved one I would want all the help I could get. For many years Police have called on and used Psychics, Goverments even use them! I just feel that we shouldn't generalise and there are bound to be genuine people out there doing the best to help in whatever way they can, not all are fake!
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 May, 2007
Hi Jane. I can't resist commenting on a couple of things you mentioned. My experience is that psychics and mediums love to say that skeptics have tested them and can't find any trickery, and that they've helped the police solve crimes, but these are all blatant lies I'm afraid. Most psychics refuse to be tested. The very few psychics that have submitted to real testing have either failed miserably or have been caught cheating. Likewise no psychic has ever provided evidence that they have assisted the police. There are many that can prove they have offered advice to the police, but none can prove that this helped solve a crime.
Yes, I agree that some police have used psychics, as have some governments. But no matter what belief someone may have, whether it be prayer, numerology, astrology, divination, reading tea leaves, palm reading, analysing chicken entrails, channelling aliens, voodoo etc, you will be able to find a policeman or government official somewhere in the world that has used this method to try and solve a problem. Chinese officials use Feng Shui. Just because someone is willing to try something different doesn't mean it works. For example someone in Africa could claim that: For many years Police have called on and used people who analyse chicken entrails, Governments even use them! Would you suggest that our police start using chickens just because police in some African villages used them? If they could prove chickens worked that would be different, and so likewise people must first prove that police find psychics effective, not just that they have used their services. I have read scientific surveys that show that psychics employed by police departments in the US are ineffective, disruptive and actually hinder the investigations.
I'm sure you "believe that a certain number of people do have the ability to see thing's". However I don't believe they do. Think of a Muslim that says their god Allah saved their child from some disaster, or a Hindu that says their god Shiva saved their child from another disaster. Would you believe them? This is no different from a psychic saying their advice saved a child from some disaster. Before you believed the Muslim or the Hindu you would demand some evidence that their god was involved, so why not demand evidence from the psychic as well, don't simply take their word for it. You may reply that you've personally seen evidence of psychic abilities, but the Muslim and Hindu would say they have also personally seen evidence of their god's action. You would then reply that they are mistaking certain natural events as god's actions when in fact their imaginary god wasn't involved at all. Their child survived for perfectly rational reasons that didn't involve Allah or Shiva. I would then add that you are also mistaking certain events as psychic when in fact psychic abilities weren't involved at all.
Where a Hindu would say he can see Shiva's handiwork, you would say you can see psychic ability and I would say I can see neither. Which one of us is correct? Which one presents the best case? I see no good evidence that either Shiva or psychic abilities exist, therefore I believe it is reasonable and logical to assume they don't. If new evidence is provided then I will revise my decision, but until then I must put Shiva and psychics in the box alongside fairies, ghosts, leprechauns, demons and healing crystals. I don't believe in Shiva, Allah or psychics for probably the same reasons that you don't believe in Shiva or Allah.
You say you eventually built up the confidence to discuss your psychic abilities with religious people. By all means ask for a religious interpretation, but why only religious people? Did you also ask a skeptic familiar with psychics and ESP (extrasensory perception) or a neuroscientist or a parapsychologist or a doctor or an ordinary psychologist if they could offer an explanation as to what might be happening? As you said, both religious men had dedicated their lives to God, and therefore not into research into the mind, science, ESP or even critical thinking. These are men that are so utterly convinced as to the truth of their belief that they have made a career of it. I have always been amazed when people who develop a doubt over God's existence attempt to resolve this by going to their priest and asking him if God really does exist. Why even bother? You should know that they are naturally going to answer yes. In a similar way they are naturally going to say that what is happening in your mind is to do with your 'relationship with God'. As they said, the Bible is full of people having visions that are caused by God. So they are not going to say there is a rational explanation for yours and risk having you conclude that maybe there was a rational explanation for theirs as well, that God wasn't really involved. You said 'They did warn me to never to take money for it', so how did they explain all the famous psychics and mediums making millions from their visions? Why isn't God punishing them? And if God isn't going to punish psychics, why aren't you making a few dollars? Did you know that James Randi is offering one million US dollars to anyone who can demonstrate psychic abilities? I also wonder why your religious advisors didn't tell you that God actually commands that believers in him have nothing to do with people having visions such as mediums and psychics. In the Bible Leviticus 19:31 commands:
"Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them". Even worse, they should have warned you of the penalty of using these abilities. Leviticus 20:27 commands:
"A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death".
Why didn't these distinguished men tell you these things? Were these men that have dedicated their lives to God not familiar with these commandments or have they taken it upon themselves to decide that God couldn't really have meant these things, and have therefore hidden them from you? So are you having a relationship with God or the priest's version of God? Either way they have told you what was required to keep you in the Church. God forbid that you would go off and ask a skeptic or read a book like Carl Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World'.
A few years ago an associate of mine thought he saw a UFO, but luckily I was there and I was able to explain that it was actually the planet Venus and its apparent erratic movement was caused by a perception problem called autokinesis. It is simply a visual illusion that can occur when you stare at a small, fixed light source for an extended period of time. Lacking my explanation there was a good chance that he would have formed the opinion that he had seen a flying saucer or at least something that couldn't be explained, a mystery. Another example is our ability to see patterns in all manner of things, like animal shapes in clouds. There are many ways the mind can fool us into thinking we have experienced something that is different to what really happened. Like the UFO and the clouds, we need to have access to the rational explanations otherwise we end up thinking we have seen flying saucers, faces in clouds and in case of ESP, visions. Maybe the priests are right, maybe not, but you'll never know until you listen to alternative theories and rationally decide which offers the best explanation. And as I've said, we need to use reason to reach conclusions and not faith, our head and not our heart. As important as our emotions and feelings are, they can lead us astray more often than not.
I'm not denying that many psychics etc really are trying to help. I don't doubt their sincerity and motivation, I just see the method that they use as useless. Think of every Hindu praying to their gods for world peace. Their goal is admirable, but I believe their method of achieving it will be ineffective, simply because I believe their gods don't exist to hear their prayers. You probably agree. Yet Hindus and psychics both swear by their beliefs, disappointed that others can't see that they're real. But until Hindus can show me that their gods exist, I won't be praying to them, and until psychics can show me that their abilities are real, I won't be using their services.
Sorry Jane, but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Like ghosts, alien abduction and healing crystals, I have not seen any evidence that psychic ability is real. In some respect your religious advisors have told you to suppress your visions and concentrate on your relationship with God. My advice would be similar, treat your 'visions' the same way I treat mine, as your mind creating images of the future based on your experiences and knowledge, that sometimes will be correct and sometimes false, and concentrate on this life, not the next.
Comment by Ronda, 10 Jun, 2007
Sorry, but you sound like a conceited bore! Get a life and a real job!! Insulting others doesn't make you smart! Where did you get your education? What degrees of higher education to you have? Bet it's not from an ivy league university or even a real school? You sound like you have some kind of inferiority complex. Seek a real professional, such a psychologist or other mental health provider.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Jun, 2007
Ronda, you state that 'insulting others doesn't make you smart!', yet your email seems to be made up of insult after insult. You insult me regarding my life, my job, my intelligence. You call me a conceited bore. You insult my education, accuse me of not even going to a real school, of having an inferiority complex and suggest I seek professional help for mental problems. Does this string of baseless insults mean neither of us are smart?
As for your suggestion that education is worthless if it's not a degree granted by an 'ivy league university', a little research on your part will show that there are a multitude of reputable universities around the world other than the small handful that make up the 'ivy league universities' in the US northeast. Also I would have thought it pretty obvious that we don't even live in the US. For the record, we live in New Zealand. You have fallen for the fallacy known as the 'argument from authority', blindly assuming that those in authority, in this case those with degrees from your ivy league universities, are always right and everyone without these degrees are automatically wrong. A claim needs to stand up on the facts alone, not on who makes it.
You make no mention of what it was that has upset you, and so even if you do have a valid complaint, we have no idea what it is. If you wish us to reconsider some claim that we have made, you'll have to provide some good evidence that we've got something wrong. We'll listen to well reasoned arguments, but simply calling us names will not suffice.
Comment by Katy, 07 Sep, 2007
I'm guessing that you haven't seen last weeks episode then? ['Sensing Murder - Insight'] Nigel Latta, renowned sceptic and clinical psychologist sat thru the whole thing, the taping, the communicating and the part where the psychic goes to the crime scene (or in this case, the death scene) and was impressed and couldnt fault the team or the medium. Also, how do you explain the names given and the apparent coincidences that the info given by the psychics was info the police kept secret from the public? It justs all seems a bit too correct to assume that its all shit. But i guess we are all entitled to our own opinion, but in this case i believe your opinion is wrong! Lol. Phew glad i got that off my chest!
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Sep, 2007
Katy, me thinks you spoke too soon. We will soon finish and place online our article debunking the Nigel Latta episode. Perhaps you could read that and reconsider your opinion of your "renowned sceptic". At the end of the day however, opinion means little and it's evidence that counts. And at present the evidence indicates that the silly 'Sensing Murder' psychics are pathetic failures, and praise from your "renowned sceptic" has done nothing to change that.
Comment by Barry, 09 Sep, 2007
Hi there, I just stumbled across your website, it's very good, well done. I have a question that you may know the answer to. I have a vague feeling that some NZ Act makes it illegal to profess to be a psychic. And that's the reason why the more savvy of them have a disclaimer "For entertainment only". Can you confirm that? And cite me a reference?
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Sep, 2007
Hi Barry, I believe that you could be right, that psychics charging for their services may have to state 'For Entertainment Purposes Only'. They certainly wouldn't be putting it in if they didn't have to, as it's basically saying 'We're only having fun here, don't take us seriously', which of course is not the message they really what to portray. I'm not sure what the exact law is though, probably something to do with the 'Fair Trading Act' and falsely claiming something works when there is no evidence for such a claim. I'll do a little digging and if I find out anything specific I'll let you know.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Sep, 2007
Barry, further to your question about psychics and the law, we haven't found anything specific to NZ but I did come across some overseas references which are no doubt similar.
The fraudulent mediums act (1951) in the UK
Canadian criminal code
New York State law
I've sent an email to Vicki Hyde, chair of the NZ Skeptics, to see if she can shed any light.
Comment by Barry, 10 Sep, 2007
John, I believe it's buried in some quite obscure place in the Misc Offences Act or maybe even the Crimes Act. Of course, it's likely that they are close to breaching the FTA or CGA as well.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Sep, 2007
Barry, I received the following reply from Vicki at the NZ SKeptics:
This question comes up from time to time and, as far as I know, there's very little consumer protection in NZ. Have been sent this interesting news item: 'Law shuts city psychics'. I wonder how long their crack-down lasted...
I think the tendency to put "for entertainment purposes only" is a means to avoid any suggestion of responsibilty under the Fair Trading Act. It's not that often that Consumer Affairs adds to their Scamwatch list.
Maybe Vicki is right. There are definite laws in places like the US, and most psychics copy their techniques from US psychics etc, so perhaps they've blindly copied their disclaimers as well, believing that they probably apply here in NZ as well. If that's the case it's best to let them continue with this fallacy.
Comment by David, 11 Sep, 2007
Hi, I have written to you before as I have an interest in this stuff. I will declare that I am a skeptic and have no idea if there is life after death. I have thus far not found any evidence that there is life after death in some form. I have just finished watching the 2nd episode of the second season of the series. I feel your arguments debunking the program don't stack up. These psychics are getting every detail correct and conveying (independently) similar new information, I can only come to 2 possible conclusions;
1. these people have the ability to tap into some sort of memory or information belonging to the lives of departed humans.
2. the entire program in contrived with massive cheating, the psychics are scripted and the program edited to make it all look real.
It's not cold reading, i suggest you get a hold of the first 2 episodes, one of the woman psychics is very convincing. It is more like scripting. I know cold reading as I have watched that Jeannette Wilson in action. You skeptics investigate everything with the fundamental belief that all phenomena falls within the current sphere of science, the phycology of the skeptic. For example these psychics are naming the culprits (murderers). If one of these names when confronted admits to the crime, will you believe??? No, you will claim he/she is lying, because it makes a lot less assumptions that he is lying than a TV psychic nabbed him. If this TV show really is contrived, surely someone on the crew can expose the bullshit!
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Sep, 2007
We disagree, David. We've clearly shown that they are not getting " every detail correct and conveying (independently) similar new information". They make many mistakes, are fed information from the film crew and provide no new information that can be verified. Saying that the killer may have had a beard or driven a blue car is not new information, it's just worthless guessing.
You also start off saying you are a skeptic but finish your comment attacking skeptics — "You skeptics investigate everything with the fundamental belief that all phenomena falls within the current sphere of science, the phycology of the skeptic.... If one of these names when confronted admits to the crime, will you believe??? No... " If you are indeed a skeptic then you have just called yourself 'close-minded' and biased. A true skeptic will only be swayed by the evidence. If the evidence conclusively indicates that psychics are truly solving crimes with their paranormal powers then skeptics and scientists will quickly start researching this new phenomenon.
Comment by Nick, 12 Sep, 2007
Hi guys, just a quick note to let you know how much I enjoyed reading your site today! Such clarity! Such wit! Are you planning to do a story on the most recent Sensing Murder, featuring Nigel Latta? For some unaccountable reason, he seems taken by these people (who often are very pleasant and nice in real life). Keep up the good work!
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Sep, 2007
Hi Nick, thanks for your positive comments. It always good to get feedback.
Yes, we are in the process of writing a critique on Nigel Latta's appearance on 'Sensing Murder'. I think he's fooled himself into believing his body language reading skills are all you need to detect fraud, and the 'Sensing Murder' producers exploited his naivety. And yes, these psychics are usually very likeable. In a similar case, I recently visited a surgeon and you couldn't have met a more arrogant and abrupt person, so it's no wonder that people are drawn to natural therapists and other charlatans who are friendly, outgoing and happy to spend ages with them answering all their most basic questions. As my partner always says, people crave attention, and these psychics are happy to oblige. Unfortunately this is also a necessary attribute of scam artists.
Comment by Bruce, 12 Sep, 2007
Good Site. Have a look at this site — www.prophet.co.nz, in particular the avatar course. These guys are out there! This kind of bullshit is unfortunately spreading like a cancer in this country, let's not make it too easy for them. Keep up the good work.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Sep, 2007
Bruce, I had a quick look at the site you mentioned, and I'll read more when I get time, but you're right, it's utter crap. They claim that "Avatar®... works on the principle that you create your own reality through the beliefs that you hold" and "your entire experience is a belief creation, and... you can... create the reality you'd prefer to be living". Does this mean that there are people on the street who for them the Iraq war isn't happening and others that have a reality where all the cute women are naked?
We're always amazed that intelligent people can fall for these scams. A friend of Rachel's, one of our team, actually believed that she also could create her own reality, and when she told Rachel this, her husband had just recently died of cancer at age 57. She wasn't that insensitive to ask her why she created a reality where her beloved husband suffered and died, but this is a perfect example of how people just don't think all that deeply about their silly beliefs.
Our website is just a very small contribution to critical inquiry, but as you say, we do need to start standing up to the spread of bullshit.
Comment by Bruce, 13 Sep, 2007
John, thanks for your reply, through my own personal experience allied with a casual glance at the TV1 Good Morning show I think it is time that the apologists for bullshit were called to face the sticky questions. I would love to initiate a programme of local interest along the lines of Penn & Teller. Working on it.
Comment by David, 19 Sep, 2007
Just a quick comment on last nights episode. Debbie last night made a slip of the tongue that was not edited out. The ghost had not yet told her where it's body was found and Debbie let slip that the body was found in a pool, meaning water. She quickly stopped what she was saying and said "to where the body was located". My conclusion is that Debbie knew at that point that the body was found in a pool of water, how did she know this if the ghost had not told her. She was intermit with the case. Both psychics got absolutely everything correct about the case. Both also made predictions and named a suspect. If they both independently named the same person and that person confesses I will be scratching my head. But I doubt that will happen as that program is a complete fake and needs to be exposed.
Comment by Chris & Dana, 16 Oct, 2007
Sorry didnt really enjoy your site!
Comment by Danielle, 17 Oct, 2007
Hello, I was on the net and stumbled on to your site. I watched Sensing Murder tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it.
As an adult of probably average intelligence, I get that this is an entertainment programme. Its a telly show. It sits alongside the likes of LOST or Desperate Housewives. Its on TVNZ. We know they are morons.
I take the psychics observations with a grain of salt and believe that if there was anything to this the Police would have arrested someone - but this never happens. I watch the show and think nothing more about it until next Tuesday, 8.30pm rolls around and I am sitting in front of the telly again.
Watching Sensing Murder is like reading a trashy novel, listening to the Spice Girls or going to a bad horror flick. It doesn't require any depth of thought or analysis. It sort of empties the brain. This is very relaxing and cheaper than beer or drugs.
I don't quite understand why you take a silly TV2 show so seriously. No one wants to be reminded that this is a load of arse. We just want to sit back and watch the circus.
You are a bunch of killjoy wowsers. Leave my silly beliefs alone. I like them.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 17 Oct, 2007
Hi Danielle, you say 'I watched Sensing Murder tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it'. Good for you. I watch the cartoon 'Family Guy' and thoroughly enjoy it. The difference is I don't believe it's real. Most people that watch Sensing Murder, millions and millions of them, believe it is real. It is these people that our site is aimed towards.
To call it an 'entertainment program' alongside Lost or Desperate Housewives is false. Fictional shows like Medium and Ghost Whisperer are entertainment programs in this genre. 'Sensing Murder' isn't. It features real murder cases, real 'psychics', real policemen and real private investigators trying to find real murderers in real time. By your classification you would have to call 'Crimewatch' an 'entertainment program' as well. What about TV1 News? Is that just entertainment too? Shouldn't we take that seriously either? What about the likes of 'Piha Rescue' and 'Border Security'? Are they just actors reading a script like 'Shortland Street'? The fact is that 'Sensing Murder' sees itself as a psychic version of 'Crimewatch', and it desperately wants to solve these crimes. Remember it won an award for the best Reality TV show, not best comedy or drama. You are fortunate enough to realise it is only crap entertainment but an enormous number of people don't. Those that claim people only go to psychics for 'entertainment purposes' are deluding themselves. For example psychic Kelvin Cruickshank charges a minimum of $300 for a reading. Nobody throws away this sort of money knowing that the psychic is simply making things up to entertain them. Would you go to a fake doctor at $300 a pot just to be entertained with a fake diagnosis? Of course not, so those that say they are just going to psychics for a laugh are lying. They believe.
If you really accept that 'Sensing Murder' is 'a load of arse', then our site hasn't told you anything you didn't already know. It's not as though we're spoiling a movie by revealing the ending. I can't see how our article has ruined it for you since you already acknowledge the show is crap. Entertaining crap but crap nevertheless. Not once do we say people should boycott this program or stop watching entertainment programs.
Also I don't understand how you can believe we take this show seriously. It's just the opposite. We're trying to convince people NOT to take it seriously. You may understand that it's pure B-grade fantasy like Lost or Desperate Housewives but the majority of people that watch it don't. And unfortunately this psychic crap doesn't stop when 'Sensing Murder' finishes, it only begins. Both Deb Webber and Kelvin Cruickshank are doing shows around NZ at present and believers are forking out a fortune to attend. 'Sensing Murder' is just TV advertising for their careers. We couldn't give a stuff who watches 'Sensing Murder'. It's those that give psychics money because of the show that we want to reach. What would you do if a family member asked if you would lend them or even give them $300 plus to have a reading? Would you, like we have tried to do on our website, point out that it's all crap, or would you, like your comment suggests we do, turn a blind eye and say, 'Sure here's $300. Go and be entertained. I'm not a killjoy wowser like some'. Imagine if this family member was spending a fortune on psychics every month, money they could ill afford, would you try and change this frivolous spending or would you say 'I'm going to 'leave their silly beliefs alone'. I suspect, or at least hope, that you would speak out. But why should you be allowed to challenge someone's silly beliefs and not us?
PS. It's also disappointing that you willingly choose to watch programs picked by 'morons', that equate to trash novels and bad movies, those that don't require any depth of thought and that empty the brain. Life's short. Maybe you should look at lifting your game just a little bit.
Comment by Millie, 06 Nov, 2007
Hi, I am doing an inquiry for school. The subject I have have chosen is 'Psychics', and my main question is 'Are they real?'
While doing some research I have found your website. I was wondering if you would help me by answering a few questions so I can include your input in my study. I have attached the four questions I would like you to consider and answer. I hope you can do this for me. Many thanks.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Nov, 2007
Sure Millie, we're happy to. [For those interested in the questions and our answers, we have printed them below.]
'Psychics - Are they real?'
1) Do you have any proof the show Sensing Murder is a set-up or is it just really likely?
There is definitely proof that parts of the show are set-up. There is evidence of the Sensing Murder production team telling the psychics that they are wrong and giving them the correct answer. For example in the episode 'A Bump in the Night' the psychic Kelvin claimed that Alicia had a dog. This was wrong and a member of the production team is heard telling him that she actually had a cat. Sensing Murder claims that the psychics provide all the information but this proves that Sensing Murder actually gives the psychics information, which they swear they never do. If you did this in an exam you would be accused of cheating. In the same episode psychic Deb is looking at and talking about the wrong window and a member of the production team comes over and turns her around to face the correct window and gives her a floor layout of the house. They told Kelvin what to say and now they're telling Deb where to look and what the house looks like inside, even though Deb is supposed to be telling them. In the 'Insight' episode the Sensing Murder production team faked video shots of the hotel psychic Deb pretended to find, of a photo being placed in front of her and of her walking into a house where a death occurred. The director of Sensing Murder admitted to me that they faked these shots and that they also played other shots of Deb in the wrong order, which misled the viewer.
While directors of shows like Shortland Street tell their actors what to say and where to stand and then edit the video footage to get the best effect, Shortland Street is recognised as fiction. The fact that Sensing Murder must also tell their psychics what to say and where to stand and then edit the video footage to get the best effect proves that the psychics are incapable of providing the information the production team needs. They have to fake it. For the Insight episode of Sensing Murder the psychic was filmed giving her reading for 6 hours, yet less than 12 minutes of this was shown on TV. This would indicate that nearly all of what she said had no relation to the case, and even in the 12 minutes we did see there was nothing that the police could use.
The fact that different versions of Sensing Murder screens in 11 countries and yet not one single murder has been solved proves that the psychics are not providing valuable new clues as they claim.
There is no conclusive proof that Sensing Murder is a hoax or deliberate set-up by the production team and psychics but the fact that they have been caught faking parts of the show makes it highly unlikely that psychic ability was involved. If the psychics are real why do they have to fake parts of the show? The production team and psychics may even be convinced that they are being honest in the way they edit the show, but remember that you can be truthful and still be wrong. Children aren't necessarily lying when they say they've seen the real Santa Claus. They just don't realise that adults are tricking them.
Imagine watching a really good magic show on TV. You can detect no evidence of cheating on the part of the magician. It all seems real. Yet when the magician is out on the street he can never perform the same magic. What's most likely — that it's all a trick aided by TV editing or that it's real magic? Why does his magic power disappear in real life? Now ask the same question of the psychics. It all seems real on TV yet they can never solve murders in the real world. What's most likely, that it's all a trick aided by TV editing or that it's real psychic power?
2) Have you ever met a person who says they are psychic? If yes, did they give you any good reason to believe them?
Yes, I've met several people who believed they had various levels of psychic ability and no, none could give me a good reason to believe them. For a start none could demonstrate their psychic ability. They either refused or if they did attempt to demonstrate their powers they failed miserably. Many believed they had limited psychic ability because sometimes they would think of something happening and then it did. This is merely coincidence and happens to everyone at various times. We sometimes get lucky. We also forget the many, many times we think of something happening and it doesn't.
Every reason they gave that they thought pointed to psychic powers actually had simple rational answers that didn't involve spooky things happening. Many were completely unaware that science had good proven answers as to why some things appeared to happen in strange ways. In a similar way people hundreds of years ago thought lightning was caused by angry gods and even then mediums talked to dead people. Now we know there are natural explanations for lightning and what appear to be strange feelings and spooky hunches. Most people have learnt about the cause of lightning but many still need to learn about psychics.
In the USA there is a magician who will give you $1,000,000 if you can demonstrate any sort of paranormal power. Even in NZ, in Wanaka, there is a psychic challenge where you can earn $100,000 by demonstrating psychic ability. No one has passed the test and nearly all the psychics have refused to even take it. They don't have to do anything different to what they do on TV or in stage shows, just get information from spirits. The only difference is that they are not allowed to cheat, and just like in school exams, people take steps to ensure they can't cheat. Nearly all the psychics, even the really famous ones, the ones people say are the best, refuse to take the test. What are they afraid of? The fact that the famous psychics like those on Sensing Murder and the ones I've met all refuse to take these tests is a good reason not to believe them when they say they are psychic.
3) Could you find scientific proof against it?
Is there scientific proof that psychic ability doesn't exist? This is a difficult question because there are many different descriptions of what psychic ability actually is. Psychics are always very vague about what they can and cannot do. Some will say they can see dead people, others that they merely hear voices, others that they see dreamlike visions in their mind, others that they can read minds or predict the future. Others just have a feeling or hunch that they believe is being caused by the spirit of dead people. You can't test for something until psychics and mediums describe exactly what they can and cannot do.
To avoid this problem we have a concept called the Burden of Proof. It is the job of the person who makes a special claim to provide the proof. Since psychics claim they can get information from the spirits of dead people it is their responsibility to provide scientific proof that this is true. If someone claims something you should always ask 'What is your evidence for that?' If your friend says they can fly like Superman or do real magic like Harry Potter, it is their job to provide evidence that their claim is true. They can't just sit on the sofa and say 'You prove I can't fly or do magic'. You can provide what you believe are good reasons why they can't fly but you can't prove conclusively that your friend can't fly. They can merely answer that you have shown why most people can't fly but they are special and can fly. The only way the problem can be finally solved is if they get off the sofa and prove they can fly. It's the same with psychics, the only way is for them to stop hiding on TV shows and prove they can talk to spirits.
Unfortunately no matter what test scientists do which suggests psychic ability doesn't exist, psychics simply say that rule doesn't apply to them. Like your friend sitting on the sofa and refusing to fly, psychics generally refuse to let scientists test them. That's why you only see them on TV shows and stage shows for entertainment. The few psychics that have allowed themselves to be tested have failed miserably. They then say that this is because people that don't believe in them neutralise their powers. Their excuses never end. We can't prove conclusively that Sensing Murder is fake because they refuse to let scientists or skeptics observe their filming. What are they hiding?
Think of scientists and inventors and drug companies. When they make a new discovery they immediately do everything in their power to prove to the world that their discovery, invention or drug really does work. They don't sit back and say 'You prove it doesn't work'. The world correctly ignores people that say this, and yet this is exactly what psychics say, 'You prove we're not talking to spirits'. You should be very suspicious of people that refuse to prove their claims are true.
That said, there is good scientific evidence that souls do not exist and that people do not survive their death. In the past people believed that the brain and the mind were separate things. They believed that your mind — your thoughts, feelings and memories — would happily carry on even if your brain died. Science now knows that if your brain is damaged the mind is damaged as well, showing that the mind is caused by the brain. When your brain dies your mind ceases to exist, it doesn't wonder off to sit on a cloud somewhere. If you wonder what it might be like after you die, one way to think of it is that it's exactly the same as it was before you were born. Do you remember waiting around for millions and billions of years waiting to be born? No, that's because you didn't exist before you were born and you won't exist after you die. Since there is no spirit there is nothing for the psychics to talk to.
At the end the day you can never prove to everyone's satisfaction that psychics aren't real. Even most psychics admit that many psychics are fakes but they insist that they and one or two others are real. Even if you tested one million psychics and proved they were all fakes, you would still get people insisting there were still real psychics out there, we just haven't tested the real ones. One real psychic could prove science wrong, but like fairies and wizards, the real ones stay hidden.
4) Why do you think other people might believe in it?
It's like a small child believing in Santa Claus. It seems to make sense when you're young, but as they learn more about the world they realise that it just couldn't be true. As they grow up children discover that there are no flying reindeer in the world so come to the conclusion that their parents have been tricking them. Adults believing in psychics are like children continuing to believe in Santa even when they grow up. Unfortunately many people believe psychic abilities might be possible because they don't understand much about science, about the brain and the mind and about coincidences. As people learn about these things they realise that belief in psychics is just as silly as the belief in Santa was. But many people, while they may know a lot about their work or cars or rugby, remain childlike in their knowledge of how psychics might work.
TV can appear to make Superman fly and Harry Potter invisible. In the same way it can appear to make psychics talk with dead people. If we were allowed backstage we would see the tricks they use to make Superman fly and Harry Potter invisible, we would also see the tricks they use on Sensing Murder. It is very easy to fool gullible people if you tell them what they are seeing is real, which they do on Sensing Murder. People are convinced that people on TV wouldn't lie to them, yet they do it all the time. Just last week the TV sports quiz show 'Game of Two Halves' admitted that they cheated every week. We are lead to believe that it is a true quiz show between two teams, but they revealed that both teams are told many of the questions before the show. They said they didn't what the sports people to appear stupid by not knowing the answers. This is cheating and deliberate lying to the viewer.
It's easy to make people believe in TV psychics, but why might they believe that they are psychic themselves or their friends are? Mainly because they don't understand about coincidences, about lucky guesses, about educated guesses and body language.
A good example I read about coincidences was someone thinking of a person they hadn't heard from for years and then within five minutes they receive a phone call informing them that this person has died. When this happens to people they believe they must have received some form of psychic communication otherwise how would they have known? It's impossible to just be a coincidence they think. But it's not. Some scientists worked out that this spooky experience happens on average to 65 people in the USA every day. In the same way that you can work out the odds of a coin toss you can work out that by a mere fluke this will happen to 65 people in the USA every day or 23,728 every year. And no doubt many will be convinced that they now have psychic powers, when it was just a coincidence. Even if psychics were real you would still have this many extra people having spooky experiences just as a fluke. Too many people think that just because something is unusual then it must be paranormal. Not so. Lucky guesses are another reason people think something weird has happened when it hasn't. The other night I said to a friend of a friend, someone who believes in psychics, that "Psychics never say things like 'I know that your middle name is Anne'. They are always vague, saying your first name might begin with A or maybe M". She just stared at me and replied "How did you know my middle name is Anne?" The point is I didn't, it was just a lucky guess. Educated guesses and reading body language are more ways that people can give answers that turn out to be correct. Based on what we know about a sports team or someone's skill at maths we can make predictions on how well they'll perform in a match or exam. Based on how old people are, what they're wearing and how they talk we can make guesses on what sort of life they might lead. Unfortunately some people don't realise they're just working these things out in their head, they think that dead people must be giving them information.
Your main question is 'Are they real?' One thing you can do is look around you and ask what would the world be like if psychics were real?
Well for a start, hospitals wouldn't be fill of very expensive scanners for diagnosing illness. Psychics would simply diagnose all illness and disease as they are shown doing on TV and stage. They would phone you in plenty of time telling you that you need to go to hospital for treatment. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the police, SIS, FBI, CIA etc would have replaced all detectives and investigators with psychics. Every crime would be solved. You couldn't hide anything from the psychics and their all-seeing spirits.
Recent history would have been very different. For example two very famous people, Princess Diana and Mother Teresa, both died in the same week yet not one psychic predicted this. Princess Diana had even visited her personal psychic a week before she died and yet nothing was foreseen. Two space shuttles exploded killing all the astronauts without any warning from psychics. No psychic predicted the Sept 11th attack on the World Trade Center or the terrorist attacks in London, Madrid or Bali. No psychic predicted the devastating Asian tsunami on Boxing Day, 2004. No psychic told President George W Bush that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or that the war would not go well.
All these things would have been completely different if psychics were real. None of the terrorist attacks would have happened, there would be no war in Iraq or Afghanistan and thousands of lives and billions of dollars would have been saved. Princess Diana wouldn't have got into that car with a drunk driver and the astronauts would still be alive. Mother Teresa would still be dead but psychics would have saved hundreds of thousands of other lives. As it turned out, they saved none. I don't know about NZ, but in America it is a criminal offence to know that a crime is going to be committed and do nothing about it.
As far as your personal life goes, if psychics and spirits were real they would be spying on you every minute of the day. You would have no secrets. Your parents wouldn't need to ask you where you were going or whom you were meeting, they would merely ask a psychic.
We must also remember that psychics and mediums have been around for thousands of years. They're even mentioned in the Bible, where they were getting things wrong even then. Yet even though they have been practising their art for thousands of years they are just as ineffective as ever. Everything else we have to today that we know works has show massive improvement over the years. Think of medicine, science, technology (planes, cars, computers and cell phones), yet psychic predictions are no more reliable today than they were 2000 years ago. In other words, they are just as false now as they were then.
It's pretty obvious that psychics play no part in the world we live, so like witches and dragons and fairies, we have to assume they aren't real.
Comment by Millie, 16 Nov, 2007
Hi. Thank you very much for the information you gave me. It has helped my inquiry lots.
Comment by David, 27 Nov, 2007
Hi again, I have to congratulate you on your efforts at debunking sensing murder. I have stopped watching the series as it is the same thing over and over. But the fact that these people parade around "cheating" and preying on vulnerable people really annoys me. And either I believe in ghosts or the production team are complicit in some aspects of the cheating. This is fraudulent. And I see that fake Colin Fry is coming here.
The bottom line is, why can't a spirit provide a single piece of information that can be corroborated that could not have come from any other source. And as you point out on some occasions the spirit is very direct and precise with information, on other occasions it's "I get an M name" All of the information is either un testable or has already been reported in newspapers etc.
This may sound a bit dramatic but i really believe the problem humanity faces is the fact that most of the worlds population are lead by religions/beliefs that have about as much truth to them as Deb Webber's ravings. I am not dismissing that there may be phenomena unknown to science but I am yet to see a psychic demonstrate an irrefutable piece of information that would make me believe in an after life.
Sensing murder is just silly, it's pure entertainment, Deb is a cheat and only an intuitive cold reader and the production team have edited the show to make her performance look good.
then again, why not believe in an after life, if it make this life more palatable. i wish i really believed.
Comment by Phill, 09 Dec, 2007
John deeply impressed with your site, and thank goodness someone is out their using their brain rather than swallowing the codswallap that passes for thinking these days. I was very impressed with your essay on Sensing Murder, surely one of the more horrendous examples of entertainment currently on air.
I did not see the Nigel Latta episode, but had watched an earlier one where during Deb's reading a photo fell off the motel room wall and was shown to the camera by the 'producer' (The murder victim in this case had been an amature photographer)
All the best to you all for your future work which I shall look forward to catching up with.
Comment by Kelvin, 12 Dec, 2007
You people are clearly totally ingnorant to life. If you've got nothing better to do than to rubbish good people that are trying to make a differance then how sad are you. When was the last time you yourself tried to make a positve difference in the community. Very Very SAD you must be.
Good luck with your blind one eyed view.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Dec, 2007
Hi Kelvin. Thanks for your comment but we are not ignorant. We are happy to look at any error or mistake that you think we may have made, regarding you or the show, but you don't mention any. You just insult us. You can't make us change our minds by calling us childish names. We challenge you to to prove us wrong. You could do it if you wanted to. Why don't you want to?
And you are wrong, as we are continually trying to make a positive difference, and not just in the community, but the whole world. That's the purpose of our website, exposing people who are trying to rip off others. Helping those that want to know how people are fooling them. And we help people for FREE. Do you help people for free or do you demand money?
Rather than being sad, we are very happy that we can help people, and we've received many comments thanking us for exposing those that push lies and delusions.
Comment by Kelvin, 13 Dec, 2007
Merry Xmas John, have a fab summer and an awesome 08
Comment by Owen, 26 Dec, 2007
Have just found your site... and its great to find there are still some sane people left in the world.
A topic I'm interested in is "Energy and Global Warming" ...the official lines are a hypocritical load of crap and need exposure. Keep up the good work.
Comment by Amanda, 13 Apr, 2008
Hi John, I have just read your critique of an episode of Sensing Murder. I have to confess, I happened upon your site because I was reading about the show (SM) because, in all honesty, I would love for it to be true.
You make some valid points and I was wondering, have you ever considered approaching the producers to ask if you could sit in on the taping of an episode (if they even make it any more)?
You seem to make no bones about the fact that you think it's all bullshit, and you may very well be right, but would you be prepared to do that (sit in and observe) and objectively report what you see?
I would find that very interesting reading indeed. As I say, I would love for all of that to be true, the suggestion that life goes on after death and so forth, but in reality, to have an objective and open-minded (would you describe yourself as open-minded though?) third party observe and state what they saw, without all of the edited, producer-filtered propaganda that the final product is no doubt subject to - would be great.
Your site certainly makes for interesting reading.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 Apr, 2008
Hi Amanda, thanks for you comments regarding Sensing Murder. I'm not sure which critique of ours you read, there are three, but one does feature an allegedly "independent" observer sitting in on the filming of an episode — 'Sensing Murder - Insight' — with Nigel Latta. It didn't work in our view, and since they threatened us with legal action if we didn't remove a couple of screen shots showing them cheating, I doubt that they would welcome us onto their set. I believe they are hoping to make another NZ series, they certainly have plenty of fans. Strangely in Oz, your Sensing Murder series bombed. You're either not as gullible as Kiwis or you have even better things to watch on TV.
Unfortunately there is a lot more required than just being on set and observing the filming. Failing to observe any cheating proves nothing. I've observed magicians and couldn't for the life of me see where they were cheating, but I think you're agree that they were. To catch a magician, and a TV psychic, one would have to have control of the filming, being permitted to set up cameras from all angles, searching the magician/psychic for hidden props and having complete control of the film editing so that no inconvenient pieces were deleted. But a lot more would be required as well. If it was a complete scam between film crew and psychic, they could give the psychic ALL the information she needed before the observer turned up for the filming. The observer would detect NO cheating because all the cheating happened before he arrived. The observer would have to pick someone on his team to select what case the psychic would be doing a reading on. The observer would not be told what this case was, so that they couldn't unintentionally give away information. This is the only way that he would know that no one could past information to the psychic. And there would have to be lots of other safeguards put in place, like having to do several tests, because just by coincidence the psychic may be familiar with the case your colleague chooses.
The thing is, these tests under controlled conditions have already be performed several times on psychics and mediums and they have failed miserably every time. Psychics only appear to work when no one is allowed to watch too closely. And even then they don't really work. Remember that in all the countries where the Sensing Murder series has been produced, not one case has been solved.
Like you "I would love for it to be true". Well parts of it anyway. I'd love for them to be able to finger criminals and find missing people. Life would be much safer. But I would hate the invasion of privacy bit. I'd hate thinking that the psychic/medium across town or across the country could be watching me have sex or on the toilet. I mean we wouldn't stand for our neighbour peeking through our bedroom windows, why should we be happy for a psychic to do it remotely?
You ask "Would you describe yourself as open-minded though?" Most definitely. I've changed my mind on many things over the years when presented with good evidence and reasons to do so. A lot of science is indirectly investigating these areas but to date the evidence is pointing away from psychics being real. It is now up to psychics to prove their case, rather than continually saying "Well, you prove we can't do it." When the newspaper headlines change from "Police catch killer" to "Psychics solve yet another case", then I'll start taking them seriously.
Comment by Amanda, 14 Apr, 2008
Hi John, thanks for your response. Have you guys considered approaching any of the psychics who feature on the show to conduct your own controlled reading? You said that there has been this type of research already done, I'd really like to read something about this previous research, if you could point me in the right direction of some credible sources, that would be great.
Are you aware of any neuroimaging studies or anything along those lines that have been done while a psychic has been doing a reading, anything that might suggest a physiological explanation that may go some way toward enlightening us as to what might be happening (if anything) during a reading?
I agree that a double-blind experiment would absolutely go a long way toward eliminating many of the potential loopholes that could be used to cheat in these types of situations.
Overall, I think the jury is still out on these things (although, to be honest, I think it is, as you say, leaning away from the psychics at this point). I must admit that, as someone who really does want to believe this stuff, I probably don't watch Sensing Murder as objectively as someone who doesn't have quite so much invested might. It would be great viewing if you guys could convince one or more of the psychics to take part in a double-blind experiment - if you have not tried to do this, would you consider doing it? I'm sure there would be a production company out there willing to work with you on that and you'd certainly have an audience.
This is an absolutely fascinating area and I look forward to continued investigation into whether there really is something to it all. Thanks again.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 Apr, 2008
Hi Amanda. Have we considered approaching any of the psychics? No. We've had a couple of emails from two of the psychics and we're not exactly their favourite people. Also we can't afford to do the type of testing that would satisfy the critics, mind you I don't think anything would convince some. And anyway, psychics just DON'T want to be tested. The last thing they want is the world to know that they failed a real test. And if they were going to risk it they would take one of the tests that have enormous rewards if they succeed. For example here are just a few that they could take, and yes, James Randi is offering ONE MILLION DOLLARS for one demonstration of psychic powers:
James Randi $1,000,000 paranormal challenge
$100,000 Psychic Challenge in Wanaka, NZ
Australian Skeptics $100,000 psychic challenge
UK Psychic challenge £12,000
No psychics are lining up to take these controlled tests, several of the famous ones in the States have point blankly refused to take them, and the handful of unknowns that have tried have all failed. It seems the famous psychics that you and I have heard of know perfectly well that they couldn't pass these tests. They won't even risk it for a million dollars but say they can do it every night on TV or stage.
Here are some links to articles that examine the claims of psychics. (At the bottom of our intro Sensing Murder page there are also other links to articles related to Psychics and the Police):
John Edward: Hustling the Bereaved
They See Dead People - Or Do They?
How Not to Test Mediums
Psychic Experiences: Psychic Illusions
Psychic crime detectives: a new test for measuring their successes and failures
We're not aware of any neuroimaging studies of psychics. They may not have even been attempted since scientists would normally say, only once we are sure there is something strange going on in the brain, that can't be explained by more prosaic means, will we go to the expense of neuroimaging etc. Once we eliminate all other possibilities, then we'll look at the brain.
As for making a TV show that would test the psychics, as fascinating as it would be to you and I, unfortunately most people don't want to see this sort thing. They would rather have their mysteries remain mysteries. We've had people email us criticising us for exposing psychics and ruining their enjoyment of Sensing Murder, and others who say they even refuse to read our site in the fear that it would shake their belief in psychics. A few years ago Carl Sagan tried to get the US TV networks to make a show testing all this weird stuff and they said it just wouldn't rate. I don't know if you watch shows like "MythBusters" or "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!" that debunk a lot of this silly stuff, but no one I know outside our group watches them. Most people just aren't interested in reality, whereas we find the real universe far more fascinating than all the make-believe.
You're right, this is an absolutely fascinating area, and all I can suggest is to read not just about psychics, but about physics, biology, probability, philosophy, psychology and critical thinking etc. All subjects which lend themselves to what might be happening in a psychic reading and why science says it's not likely to be true psychic powers.
Comment by Amanda, 15 Apr, 2008
Hi John, thanks for the links, I've had a bit of a look at a couple of them - not a lot of time to do anything more than that.
You suggest I do some reading on areas such as, amongst other things, Psychology - I'm actually a Psych student so believe me, I'm doing plenty of that!
No, I don't watch Penn and Teller, only because in my opinion it is an edited program with a definite agenda, and so, it is as likely as any other, Sensing Murder included, to present its argument in the most favourable light. Those people featured on Penn and Teller might well argue that they were edited or taken out of context too, so I take any of those sorts of shows with a grain of salt.
I'd be interested in your thoughts about Scott Russell Hill, the Australian Psychic Numerologist sometimes included in a cameo type appearance on the NZ version of SM. He used to have a radio show in Adelaide in the 90s and predicted such events as September 11th and the death of Princess Diana (how, where etc). There are tapes of him making these predictions on air before they happened, rather than coming on after the fact and saying, "oh yeah, I knew that would happen." I think that is quite interesting given that his predictions were rather specific. For example, the suggestion that the city affected in the case of September 11th would be New York and that planes would be involved - its not as though he said, "I think there may be some kind of issue with a major American city..." that could mean anything. Anyway, what are your thoughts?
Also, do you believe that life after death may exist, or are you solidly of the opinion that it does not? You have been very clear on your opinion of self-proclaimed psychics who say they are able to speak to the dead, but do you believe that there may be something more for us after we die? Just because you are sceptical about psychics does not necessarily answer the question about your beliefs on life after death - simply on their ability to communicate with the dead.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 Apr, 2008
Hi Amanda, some answers to your questions. It's interesting that you say you don't watch the likes of 'Penn and Teller', feeling that you can't really trust their conclusions. Especially since you suggested we make our own show on psychics. The outcome would be the same. Believers in psychics wouldn't trust our conclusions and wouldn't watch. This is a problem that all shows that are skeptical or critical of some specific claim have, whether it be psychics, the moon landing 'hoax' or Noah's Ark. Those that are partial to the claim either don't watch the show, or if they do, convince themselves that the producers were biased. They say that they're not really open minded to these things. And I would agree that many programs have an agenda and suppress information damaging to their claims. I've seen shows that support belief in alien autopsies, haunted houses, remote viewing, Noah's Ark and other religious topics etc that are embarrassing biased and deceptive. They often have the likes of 55 minutes of comments from believers and 5 minutes of comments from a skeptic or scientist, if any at all. And they almost never let the skeptic question the person making the claim. But I honestly can't say I've seen the same bias in shows made by reputable scientists, academics, skeptics and production companies. But of course you'll ask how do I know I'm not deluding myself, that I simply don't want these things to be true because they conflict with my natural view of the world?
It's like when Christians accuse me of not believing in god because I HATE god. My emotions are blinding me. But this is false. Doctors can't cure everything and cost a fortune, so I'd love to be able to place a crystal on my forehead to cure any disease. I'd love to meet aliens and take a spin in their spaceship. As a teenager I'd have loved to be able to turn invisible and look in the girl's changing rooms. I'd love to be able to psychically find objects I misplace or foresee negative events in my future to avoid. Skeptics DON'T disbelieve these things because we don't want them to be true. We disbelieve them because not only is there no good evidence for them, there IS good evidence that says they are extremely unlikely or downright impossible. Emotion or wishes don't come into it. We simply look at where the evidence points. And when it comes to science, when these guys say something works in a certain way I believe them. Our modern world exists because when scientists say antibiotics work and planes will fly and MRIs will see inside me, they do. Yet when poorly trained or poorly educated people with a product to sell tell me magnetic underlays or prayer will cure disease, or aliens will turn up any day now or ghosts are causing the drafts in my home, they can never prove it. Scientists provide research evidence, quacks provide testimonials. Scientists have proven themselves trustworthy. Psychics, conspiracy theorists and those warning us of the Rapture haven't. The best way to judge any documentary type show is to use critical thinking. Question everything people say. Does it make sense? What aren't they telling us? Are they pushing a product or service that might bias their presentation? Does it match with what I know about science or history or medicine? Do they give their opponents a voice? Yes 'Penn and Teller' are edited and biased. They have a view and they push it. But I have yet to see an episode where they lie or cheat or prevent their opponents from putting their case. And I haven't agreed with their stance on every show, but they do give you enough info to make up your own mind and motivate you to find out more. And yes I did say 'Penn and Teller' was biased, but this doesn't mean it is deceptive. Think of when an astronomer discuses the formation of the solar system. He never mentions how god might have done it. Religious people might then claim that his talk was biased and unbalanced since it didn't give equal time to a religious explanation. They're right, it was biased and unbalanced in a sense, but only because they suggest that the two theories are EQUAL, that they deserve equal time and resources. But this is not the case. A debate would only be truly biased and unbalanced if there were two equally competing 'answers' to a question and only one was considered, the other suppressed. 'Penn and Teller' are 'biased' in the sense that they believe all this paranormal stuff is crap, in that they already have an opinion and haven't gone into it undecided, but not in the sense that they unfairly manipulate their opponents.
You asked for my thoughts on psychic Scott Russell Hill. It needs to be remembered that the week Princess Diana died, so did Mother Teresa, and skeptics had a field day pointing out that NOT ONE psychic worldwide predicted even one of their deaths. Yet the astral plane should have been screaming so much about this that even amateur psychics should have picked up on it. Princess Di even went to her personal psychic the previous week and... nothing! And did we hear Russell Hill claiming that he had predicted Di's death? No. Maybe you heard about it in Oz but the rest of the world didn't. I only heard about his claim late last year on Sensing Murder. I find it unbelievable that someone could predict not just Princess Di's death, but 9/11, the Bali bombings and John F Kennedy Jnr's death as well and that it was never widely publicised. Not on the TV news or in the papers, but only in passing on Sensing Murder 10 years later. What has he predicted since? In another 10 years will he claim that he predicted the 2004 Asian tsunami? And if his prediction was so precise and so clear, why did he do nothing about it? Why not warn Princess Di or President Bush? He obviously wasn't confident about it or even clear what it meant. If he was and did nothing, then this is despicable. He could have saved thousands of lives, plus the lives lost in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the billions of dollars that have been spent since, plus prevented the increased threat of terrorism for everyone. If he really knew, why did he do nothing? And why has he done nothing since?
But let's look at what he actually said on his radio show, well the snippets that he's released anyway:
"John F Kennedy Jnr, I have always felt disaster round him in a plane crash, it's like ahhhh... a light plane..."
Everyone knows that John F Kennedy Jnr was a pilot that was always flying his own light plane, and many people believe that the Kennedy family is the unluckiest family on the planet and so believe another tragedy is just a matter of time. Not if but when. Everyone said they weren't surprised when another Kennedy was struck down. Every psychic was predicting tragedy for the Kennedys. And rich people more often than not fly in their own small, light planes not big public jets. Thus if they're going to be in plane crash, the odds are overwhelming that it will be in a "light plane".
"There's either going to be an earthquake in Bali or a bomb's going to go off because all I see in Bali is buildings on fire and a lot of devastation."
This prediction merely says that at SOME UNSPECIFIED TIME in the future an earthquake OR a bomb might strike Bali. If you wait long enough it CAN'T FAIL but come true, especially the earthquake guess.
"Key times of danger for the World Trade Center and New York in particular is September, October and November of the year 2001. It's like a missile strike or something striking the building from the air."
In a Woman's Day article he acknowledges that terrorists have already tried to blow up the World Trade Center, and this is him simply wondering like everyone else, whether it might happen again. Blowing it up from beneath didn't work, so maybe a missile this time? You don't have to be a psychic to make this guess. People say he got the date right, but actually he only got one in three dates right. Nothing happened in NY in October or November. And these dates cover a full quarter of the year. That's a big window. Plus it was five years before the event would occur, long enough for everyone to have forgotten about it if nothing happened. The world of psychics if overflowing with failed predictions, which they happily ignore, and they concentrate on their one lucky guess. And why didn't he mention Washington and Pennsylvania, the sites of the other 9/11 attacks? Or warn Bush not to go into Iraq?
"With Princess Diana I just feel she is going to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that she could be involved in an accident, I feel in a car... [cut]."
Note he does NOT say that she is going to be KILLED in a car accident, only that she COULD be INVOLVED in one. As could any of us. You may be aware that car accidents are not all that rare. The fact that the rest of his sentence is edited out may have even revealed him saying that it wasn't going to be fatal. And again he doesn't say when or where. If she was still alive today then this open-ended prediction would still be out there, waiting to be quoted if Di was involved in a minor fender bender.
The Woman's Day magazine, who employed Russell Hill, titled their article: "The world's most accurate psychic," and quoted the following as his 9/11 prediction:
"New York will be affected again in an attack... either through or from the air... in September, October and November 2001... The World Trade Center has been attacked once. It can be attacked again."
And yet the recording that Russell Hill quoted earlier is different:
"Key times of danger for the World Trade Center and New York in particular is September, October and November of the year 2001. It's like a missile strike or something striking the building from the air."
Which was his ACTUAL prediction? What were the ACTUAL words? Obviously one has been altered to better reflect what they want it to say. Have they both been altered perhaps? The edited recording was provided by Russell Hill, not an independent source. And what else did Russell Hill say that we don't get to hear. He made these predictions on a radio show called Psychic Saturday Night on the 28 Sep 1996. The readings we heard were only 35 seconds out of probably one, two or three hours of predictions. Out of possibly hours of predictions he could only find 35 seconds worth that he thought had come true!! That's a pathetic success rate. If you or I were given a couple of hours to make continuous educated guesses about what might happen somewhere in the world over the next 10 years, I am extremely confident that a handful, at the very least, would come true. Accidents will befall people, natural disasters will happen, leaders will be assassinated, marriages will spit up. And if we only trumpet the ones that came true, we would appear psychic. If you actually got to verify EVERY prediction that these silly psychics made, you'd find that you and I would have a MUCH BETTER record at predicting what will happen than they did. The Woman's Day article also said: "Aussie's amazing prediction that came true - and new predictions that will shock you." I don't know what his new predictions were, but since we've heard nothing on the news about 'psychic predicts such and such', I guess they were all wrong or he's still waiting for his vague guesses to match up with something. The question is, if he can accurately predict these things, why does he scratch out an existence helping housewives from his home in Adelaide, rather than working for world governments and corporations as an obscenely well-paid and famous consultant?
You ask "Do you believe that life after death may exist?" Of course there may be life after death (there may even be leprechauns), but I don't believe there is. Nearly everyone's conception of life after death and souls etc comes from religion. But I'm an atheist which means that this conveniently scraps this idea. Once you get rid of gods, there's nowhere for souls to go, no one to create and judge souls, no one to reincarnate them as grasshoppers. Without the idea of religion the whole idea of granny sitting around on clouds and keeping an eye on what colour you paint the kitchen collapses. Of course one could argue that souls aren't supernatural in origin, they are just a mysterious part of nature, an immaterial thing that forms the mind using the physical brain — the old idea called mind-brain duality which you've no doubt heard of. But few scientists or philosophers believe this anymore. And neither do I. The mind is created by the brain. When the brain is damaged, the mind suffers. When the brain dies, so does the mind. Someone asked me the other day what I believe it's like when one dies. I asked them to recall what their existence was like BEFORE they were born, and informed them that their existence AFTER their death will be exactly the same. (I can't remember where I first read that explanation but I like it.)
If you haven't already read them, some books I might recommend, as a bit of light relief from your psychology textbooks, would be the following. Your library might have copies. The books by Shermer and Sagan are especially good as an introduction to applying critical thinking, reason and science to weird claims.
"Why People Believe Weird Things ~ Pseudoscience, Superstition, and other confusions of our Time", Michael Shermer
"The Demon-Haunted World ~ Science as a Candle in the Dark", Carl Sagan
"Believing in Magic ~ The Psychology of Superstition", Stuart A. Vyse
"Dying to Live: Near-Death Experiences", Susan Blackmore
"The Skeptics Guide to the Paranormal", Lynne Kelly (An Aussie author)
Comment by Bob, 11 Aug, 2008
If you haven't already done so get a copy of yesterday's Sunday Herald and read the first letter to the editor, written by a Fiona Allen of Papatoetoe. She admits the supposed information gathered by the Sensing Murder psychics is neither factual nor scientific and will never be used in court. Nevertheless the dead do still exist and sceptics will never understand the contact experienced by the psychics. The letter shows how difficult it is to get people to think and approach all subjects with scepticism. Their beliefs are paramount everything else going through deaf ears. With the aid of such people Deb Webber and co. will continue to run laughing to the bank.
Comment by John, 28 Sep, 2008
Great web site. Back here in the USA we've updated the critical overview of TV's psychic detective Noreen Renier (a regular on the Psychic Detectives TV series and also Psychic Investigators, and the only psychic who lectured at the FBI). That critical review is now posted at www.amindformurder.com - Thanks for the solid work.
Comment by Kim, 11 Jan, 2009
I think you should rename your site "septic skeptics" - I've never read such poisonous words. Why don't you try looking at why you're so angry before inflicting it onto the world. It's horrible.
The exchange between a medium and client is priceless. It's called closure. The wonderful thing about it is that the person who has lost someone is the one who is helped and that's the gift of being a medium - the ability to do that is very humbling. I feel sorry for you and your cynicism.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 Jan, 2009
Kim, I suspect you haven't really watched Sensing Murder all that closely have you? The one thing the program never offers is "closure". Nothing is ever resolved. We are never any closer to discovering who the murderer was or where the body is buried. The only ability mediums have is the ability to delude both themselves and their clients. I am not humbled by mediums, I am embarrassed by them, embarrassed that in this enlightened age there are still people who choose superstition over reason. You also say that the "exchange between a medium and client is priceless", yet strangely enough I have never met a medium who couldn't put a quite considerable price on their services. As for me being angry, you confuse anger with contempt.
Comment by Piaras, 02 Apr, 2009
I'm a skeptic. What's with the "Contrary to some of her previous work, she didn't take her clothes off in 'Sensing Murder', which is a shame as it would have improved it considerably."? This kind of crap allows readers to readily dismiss your article(s).
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Apr, 2009
That comment was a dig at Ninox Television, the producers of Sensing Murder, who threatened us with legal action if we didn't remove images of Gibney on Sensing Murder. It was to remind them and their viewers that their serious, straight-laced investigator, was the same woman that in other productions was just as happy to prance around naked. It was to remind fans of Sensing Murder that although she was portrayed as being intimately involved in every murder investigation, she was just a B-grade actress playing a part, reading her lines in an Australian studio. It was just another example of how Ninox Television tried to influence how gullible viewers would relate to the psychics on Sensing Murder. You'd be surprised at how many Sensing Murder supporters actually believe that Gibney was involved in the investigations. And quite frankly, a little nudity on Sensing Murder would have improved it considerably in my view, or perhaps some humour or even some explosions like on MythBusters. Or perhaps a miracle, like solving a murder! It would certainly need some such incentive to make me waste any more time on their fantasy show. And I suspect any reader that dismisses our articles over this little joke has probably already made up their mind and is just looking for an excuse to stop reading.
Comment by Tony, 17 Dec, 2009
Get on the Sensing Murder website now if you can ... Kelvin's in BIG trouble!!!
This is here ... he's been caught cheating on his girlfriend a couple of weeks ago and he is having a baby this month!! All his fans are fuming ... they started the thread using Tiger Woods instead of Kelvin's name ...
This page may also give you some background information on what he has been getting up to.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 19 Dec, 2009
Thanks for the heads up on Kelvin. These people are scum to deceive others the way they do with their paranormal crap so it doesn't surprise me if they are deceiving people in other ways as well.
The Sensing Murder forum link was dead, but this doesn't surprise me either. The administrator would have no doubt deleted it as soon as she realised the damage it was doing to one of their chosen ones. The truth is not a value that is embraced on their forum. It's all about stroking fantasies populated by angels and hugs. No doubt someone will be contacting the Vatican to see how they hid their indiscretions from the public gaze.
Comment by John D, 17 Dec, 2009
Your joking? Kelvin Cruickshank cheating? lol I wonder if they'll call him "Cheatah" like ole' TW?
Comment by Susan, 03 Feb, 2010
I believe Kelvin Cruickshank is more of a ‘mentalist’... (unfortunately nowhere near as good looking as Simon Baker J). If you spend time with him you may see that he reads people’s body language and listens for clues. Assumptions can be made by looking at people. I wonder how many people that have attended or will be attending his shows have emailed the office unwittingly giving details about their loved one ‘in spirit’. I know I have been sucked in the very same way!! When someone books into another show, workshop or trip... all he’d have to do would be to view all the emails from that person and gather the information that he has been GIVEN by the grieving. Funny how he can’t supply the information that WASN’T in the emails... (and in my case... when he tried to it was WRONG!!) and he talks a heck of a lot about our loved one’s ‘love for us’... well of course!... you can’t be wrong there – who wouldn’t want to hear it!! You see examples of these emails from people who have attended his shows on the bottom of his newsletters. Information Technology: the secret friend of the ‘psychics’... people don’t even seem to register that he has access to these emails and they forget they send them, I’m sure!
And he talks... and talks... and talks... about HIMSELF! - The long suffering psychic who puts up with so much to help others – how much he’s been through in his life. Anyone ever stopped to ask... is it true? Is it? Step back and think for yourselves. Don’t believe something because someone has said it... or it’s been written in a book.
Psychics who make money from other people’s misfortune... who get others to pay for their workshops and trips around the globe... ‘meeting’ lots of people (mostly younger women) along the way have a lot to answer for. Perhaps it would be interesting to go back and interview those who have been on his trips... what DID they get out of it? Are they still in contact with him? Why? Why not?
I used to believe this stuff... I was raised on it - After my experiences with him I think it’s all a load of shit. And unfortunately people fall for it... over and over.
Another trick for these ‘psychics’... play on the hearts of people... present yourself as a person with a big heart who wants to help – and who receives a lot of flak for helping others ... that really pulls at the heart-string of the good-hearted women out there... (Hey... doesn’t matter what you do or say off stage when the general public don’t see... the ground work’s been done!)... people believe what they ‘see’ with their own eyes, right?
What he says and does on stage is very different to what he says and does off stage - And his language! He’d make a truckie blush! Where’s the ‘spirituality’ in that? Where’s the "Keeping it real"? Is he a caring, spiritual person with a desire to help others - or isn’t he? What’s the truth... what he says on stage or what he does off stage?
People who make money from those who are desperate for messages from loved ones are parasites.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Feb, 2010
Thanks Susan for your revealing insight into Kelvin Cruickshank and psychic mediums in general. You're right in that most people just aren't aware just how much information they are giving to these people through body language, age, dress and apparently innocent comments, and if you can add to this with information from previous meetings, letters and emails, then these psychic mediums can make it appear as if they have some mysterious power, when they are doing nothing but cheating.
It's a shame that Cruickshank isn't as willing to demonstrate his powers to skeptics as he is to give messages to believers and run workshops etc. But then skeptics aren't willing to pay him to con us. The refusal of psychics and mediums to be tested by skeptics, although they are happy to be 'tested' by believers, should suggest to any intelligent person that they are hiding something. They continually complain to their followers that skeptics and scientists refuse to take them seriously, and yet they actively hide from anyone that might critically evaluate their claims.
I agree with you, these mediums are nothing but parasites, taking advantage of people's grief. However, since most parasites in the natural world don't know what they're doing, there is no thought or reason involved, then to be fair on ordinary parasites, psychic mediums should be labeled devious, shameless, conniving parasites instead.
Comment by Debbie, 05 Feb, 2010
Hi John, I just saw the thread on Kelvin and can't resist contributing.
I'm not sure if you've seen the articles in the NZ Herald or the Western Leader (or online), but I have been contacted by someone in NZ who says that she knows who killed my sister Tracey. She says she is willing to swear an affadavit that everything she has told the police and me is true.
She says she went to Kelvin Cruickshank a few years ago, about something completely unrelated to my sister's murder, but he started saying the names of the two men she says were involved in my sister's murder (she says she already knew that they had killed Tracey), as well as the name of the mother/wife and their address. He told her he had had the same 'visions' (not sure if that's what he calls them) while he was working on Sensing Murder. He told my contact that he was going to go to see the producers, to tell them about what he had 'seen'. And he didn't charge her for the reading, even though he apparently usually charges a few hundred dollars (How much??!!).
Seems strange then, that they went with Deb/Sue's 'murderer'....
I tried to contact Kelvin — several times. Assuming, as you do, that he would want to help me in my grief and my search for the truth. Strangely enough, he never replied to me :).
His PA did, and so did Cinna (Smith — Associate Producer of SM), but he was always abroad, or having babies, or something. I wasn't too fussed, and gave up and forgot about him. Until yesterday, when I received an email from his website. Here's what it said:
I've been feeling pretty depressed lately, but that really made me laugh! I headed my reply 'yes please' and wrote:
5 night Self Discovery Tour
Only 1 place left
Thought the 'yes please' would get my email read.
A couple of months ago I asked Cinna (who is very nice, by the way) how come they went with the Deb/Sue thing when Kelvin had apparently had this 'vision' twice. This was her reply:
It's funny how when I contacted Kelvin (on several occasions) asking for help he ignored me — yet I get contacted when he wants to sell a tour date.
The press would love this!
By the way — I don't need to discover myself. I need the police to discover who murdered my sister.
Please remove my details from your mailing list. I have no time for people like Kelvin Cruickshank.
And that was that. If you think this is worth posting, feel free.
I hope you are well. Sorry for the delay in replying to you — I have only just returned from holiday (where I had no internet access).
The situation with Kelvin, as I recall it was this...
Prior to being filmed, Sensing Murder tested approximately 70 psychics. The psychics were tested to see if they could pick up information about solved cases. During Kelvin's test, (which involved a solved case), he also picked up a young woman with long blonde hair around the woman who was testing him (the associate producer Yvonne Grace). He kept returning to this spirit. At the end of the test reading, the producer pulled out the photo of Tracey, which she had with her in a folder (at that stage the cases for the series had not been selected and Yvonne had a lot of potential case file notes with her). Kelvin believed the girl he was picking up was the girl in the photo — Tracey. I saw this when I reviewed his testing tape. However, he did not go into any details (that I saw) about who may have been responsible. He just gave very general information that she had been murdered. Because his test case involved a totally different case, he was not asked to elaborate on Tracey's case. When it was later decided to feature Tracey's case on Sensing Murder, Kelvin was not selected to investigate because a) he had already seen Tracey's photo and b) he lived in Auckland and we tried as much as possible to select psychics that lived out of the area where a murder happened (to avoid the chance that they would have prior knowledge of a case). When I asked Kelvin recently about his initial test reading, he could recall very little and certainly did not provide any names or detail. I know your contact means well, but I am not sure that she is correct when she says Kelvin named a different person to Deb. He has no memory of this, and I didn't see him mention any names on the test tape.
I totally understand why you refuse to give up hope. There are far too many unanswered questions.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Feb, 2010
Hi Debbie, thanks for your comments. No, I haven't seen the articles you mentioned.
[Note: The case Debbie is referring to was screened on Sensing Murder (January 10, 2006) Episode 1: The Patient Killer — Tracey Ann Patient]
To me, and you as well it seems, the most revealing aspect of your contact with Cruickshank is his greedy and insensitive attempt to get you to attend one of his shows, while at the same time refusing to reveal what he knows about your sister's murder.
Cruickshank supposedly claimed to your contact that he knew details of Tracey's murder, and he is on video tape claiming to the Sensing Murder producers that he knew details of Tracey's murder. But he has evidently not taken this information to the police, and nor is he at all interested in passing this information on to you, even though you have made several attempts to contact him for help. The most humane, caring, sympathetic and ethical action that Cruickshank could make would be to bring Tracey's murderers to justice, using the information and skills he claims to possess. This amazing deed would indirectly also bring him fame, wealth and validation in the eyes of his critics, which he desperately seeks. And yet he refuses to expose the murderers and completely ignores your requests for help. And then he has the arrogance to ask you to attend one of his tours in Fiji, which is nothing other than a thinly veiled request for money. I mean, 5 nights in a 5 star resort, what's that going to cost?
As for your other comments regarding what Cruickshank supposedly knows, like most things involving mediums and psychics, they usually raise more questions than answers.
Evidently your contact has been to the police with what she knows. But how did she know these names? Was she somehow involved in the investigation or were these names of suspects reasonably common knowledge in the community? I suspect that she would most likely have more plausible and believable reasons for accusing two men of murder than simply claiming that a ghost told her or that she saw them in a dream. If so, then the police have no doubt investigated the names given to them and dismissed them or found her accusations to be lacking any real support. If they are not going to take her accusations any further, they are certainly unlikely to take any notice of a medium who merely repeats the same names. For the police to instigate new investigations Cruickshank would have to provide new claims, not simply parrot names that they had already investigated and dismissed.
And if Cruickshank actually believed he knew the names of two murderers, plus the name of the mother/wife and their address, then why didn't he actually go to the police? If you have real, solid information about a murder, you don't talk to your TV producers (or your boss or your neighbour), you talk to the police. Obviously Cruickshank knew that his information was worthless and no better than a guess. With every murder that happens, there are always those in the community that suspect certain people of the crime, but often this is based on nothing more than a gut feeling or distrust of certain people. Thankfully our justice system doesn't allow the police to arrest people simply because someone thinks they 'look' guilty, otherwise our jails would be full of innocent people who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact is that Cruickshank (and other mediums) insist that they are getting their information from the murder victims themselves. These victims naturally know far more about the crime than just the names of their murderers, since they were there when the murder happened, and they evidently got to watch the events that followed from the spirit world. They know where their body was buried, they know where the murder weapon was hidden, they know what cars were used in the crime and they know where any stolen property can now be found. They know who is helping the murderers cover up their actions and they know what false alibis need to be exposed. And yet these murder victims consistently refuse to divulge any of this vital information which could solve their murder. And in fact in nearly all cases they even refuse to name their murderer, even if they knew who they were. Mediums almost never provide a murderer's surname, and if they do suggest a name, they usually only suggest several common Christian names like John or Jim or Jack or something beginning with J, or perhaps S. On the very, very rare occasion that they do provide a name that is linked to the investigation, it is usually because, like the rest of us, they have simply read it in the media or heard it from those close to the investigation. And like the rest of us, they can provide no details other than what they have heard from ordinary sources. And remember that even the Sensing Murder producers refused to use Cruickshank because they feared he was familiar with the murder simply through the media. All these mediums like Cruickshank are desperate to prove their powers and continually complain that the police and skeptics won't take them seriously, and yet they never provide the police or skeptics or even the grieving family with information that could solve the case and provide closure. Even if the police did ignore him, then Cruickshank could simply tell the family or even a skeptic where the body can be found. The police will soon take him seriously if the family finds the body. It's like if I said I could fly like Superman then the world would call me deluded, but one simple demonstration on my part and the world would believe. Likewise all we need from mediums is one simple demonstration that they know things that could only have come from the murder victim rather than the TV News. Why are they not interested in proving their claims? Do they like being called nutcases and con-artists?
As you noted, Cruickshank was not at all interested in solving your sister's murder, nor it seems were the Sensing Murder producers. Cruickshank supposedly had information that could solve a murder, but the producers went with mediums who knew nothing about it. They were simply trying to produce a program that skeptics wouldn't criticise, rather than trying to solve a murder. They were simply out to entertain. They knew that neither Deb, Sue nor Kelvin could produce any real leads, and omitted Kelvin to prevent any complaints that he might have already known of the case. If they believed Kelvin had a real connection with the victim and could have solved the case, they would have used him and made headlines worldwide.
Your contact said that Cruickshank told her the names relating to Tracey's murder after he began working on Sensing Murder, and yet Smith mentions Cruickshank talking about Tracey's murder before he was hired to work on Sensing Murder, during his test. If your contact is correct and Cruickshank came up with these 'visions' while working on Sensing Murder, then it doesn't matter what he said or didn't say on his earlier test tape. The point is, did Cruickshank later go to the producers with this new information and if he did, what was their response then? Or since Cruickshank wasn't going to be involved in this Sensing Murder episode, did the producers naively let him know what the case was and failed to hide case details from him since he wasn't going to be involved? Remember that your contact said that she didn't go to Cruickshank about Tracey's murder, yet she did somehow know the murderer's names. Did she let it be known to Cruickshank that she knew about Tracey, and had the producers innocently mentioned suspect names to Cruickshank which he then passed on to your contact just to impress her?
The Sensing Murder producers continually insist that the mediums were never told what cases they would be investigating. And yet here associate producer Cinna Smith admits in her email that another associate producer revealed to Cruickshank that one of the cases that they were considering for the show concerned Tracey, and showed him a photograph of her. Even though in the end Cruickshank wasn't chosen for this specific case, there was nothing stopping him telling Deb or Sue or other mediums that he knew would be on the show that Tracey's murder was a potential case. Forewarned they could then easily research the case on the chance that it was featured.
Also the Sensing Murder producers seemingly believe that these mediums can peak at face down photographs and into closed, remote places, so why would you take a folder of the potential Sensing Murder cases to a meeting with a prospective medium? Remember that the producers were trying to hide these cases from their prospective mediums. Or were they? Did she have the folder of unsolved cases with which to quiz the mediums as to their knowledge of each case, or maybe even to give them advanced warning of what cases might be worth researching if they got the job? The presence of the folder of unsolved cases and the mediums in the same room is as suspicious as an exam student having a copy of the exam questions under his desk. While you might insist that the case files would be quite secure in a closed folder, this is not the case if the medium really has paranormal powers, and the producers claim that they truly do. And remember that Cruickshank didn't even need these powers, as the producer admits taking out one of these secret murder cases and discussing it with Cruickshank. How many other secret cases were also revealed and discussed?
I had to laugh when Sensing Murder's Cinna Smith ended her email with, 'There are far too many unanswered questions'. When you have a crack team of psychic mediums at your disposal there shouldn't be any unanswered questions. That's what they're there for, it's what they claim to be able to do, to use their paranormal powers to get answers. Smith admits that they aren't getting the required answers, and knows that not one case has been solved by a psychic anywhere in the world, and yet she keeps defending them. Smith and her production team are no different from her team of fraudulent mediums, they are all just exploiting the gullibility of others to make money. Their driving force is greed, not justice.
Comment by Tony, 07 Feb, 2010
Hi John — Good response to Debbie.
So Kelvin is apparently happy to tell a person important details of Tracey’s murder when that person didn’t even ask for the information but when Tracey’s distraught sister proactively requests the same information he ignores her and asks her to buy an expensive trip to Fiji instead. This must be what Kelvin means by "Keep it real".
Re Cinna Smith’s comments . .
Why take a folder containing "a lot of potential case file notes" (including photos) of unsolved cases to testing that only involved solved cases? Doesn’t she realise that genuine psychics have x-ray vision?
Sensing Murder producers claim they use psychics on the show to help investigate unsolved murders because they claim they believe psychics are genuine. Yet when a person that claims to be a psychic (and later becomes one of their stars) claims he has information regarding a particular unsolved case they not only don’t ask him for details of that information they also don’t use him to investigate that case on the show — AMAZING! Obviously the "integrity" of the show is more important to them than helping to solve the case.
Smith’s excuses why Kelvin wasn’t used on the case are pathetic at best . . .
"a) he had already seen Tracey's photo"
So what? They don’t get to see the face side of the photo before they identify and sex, age and name the victim on the show so how could seeing the photo anytime earlier be of any help? How would he know it was the same photo? If he has genuine psychic abilities (as they claim they believe he has) then he could have "seen" the photo in the folder even if it wasn’t actually shown to him. He (and other "genuine psychics") would have also been able to "see" all the other files and photos in the folder as well.
"and b) he lived in Auckland and we tried as much as possible to select psychics that lived out of the area where a murder happened (to avoid the chance that they would have prior knowledge of a case)."
Details of all murder and missing people cases are well documented in the national media (usually including photos). A person living in the general area of a crime doesn’t necessarily have any better or worse knowledge of that crime than anyone else living anywhere in the country. Besides, unsolved murder and missing persons cases are the "bread and butter" of psychics and it’s a safe bet that they keep themselves fully informed on the details of such cases. That they have "no prior knowledge" of any case is a ridiculous claim.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 08 Feb, 2010
Hi Tony, all good points. It quite obvious to you and I and fellow skeptics that Cinna Smith and the rest of the Ninox Television Sensing Murder production team are only in business to make money and really bad reality TV programs. You only have to think of other public events, such as discovering a new medical cure, inventing a new energy source, finding the remains of a Spanish galleon, or even discovering a dead body in your garage as recently happened. These people don't all suddenly suppress their discoveries and rush off to a TV production company to make a reality program that publicises their new found discovery a year or so later. New cures and energy sources are immediately marketed, sunken galleons are immediately researched and the police are immediately informed of dead bodies. These fraudulent TV producers and their compliant mediums know that they have nothing of worth or of merit to go public with, to take to the police or to reveal on the TV News. They know that the only way that they can get money from the public is to deviously wrap up lies and fantasies and have them tearfully delivered by mentally challenged losers in a scam masquerading as fact.
If these mediums could solve murders, or solve anything in fact, then they don't need to wait until a greedy TV producer agrees to employ them before they do so. Why do they only investigate murders during the production of a Sensing Murder episode and not in the months and years between shows? They continually say they are in the business of helping people and of giving grieving families closure, and yet if Sensing Murder doesn't pay them to comment on a murder then they seemingly couldn't care less. They spend their time between Sensing Murder episodes charging a gullible public for the great privilege of simply being in their presence. If Sensing Murder isn't paying them, then all thought of their crime-fighting career is forgotten.
With a new Sensing Murder series due shortly on our screens, it's worth noting once again to readers that Tony has offered the Sensing Murder psychics Kelvin Cruickshank, Sue Nicholson and Deb Webber a psychic challenge. Demonstrate their ability, the same as they are willing to do on every Sensing Murder episode and earn $20,000 each. They have refused. He then offered them $20,000 just to participate, theirs to keep win or lose. None have responded. All they have to do is exactly what they so effortlessly do each week on Sensing Murder and they would walk away with $40,000, or $20,000 if they're having a bad week. Why won't they take the challenge, and why don't their producers who speak so highly of their abilities encourage them to participate? If they feel guilty about making such easy money, then donate it all to a worthy charity of their choice. They obviously have the same confidence in their abilities as we do. They know they would fail and that even $20,000 in their bank account wouldn't make up for their abject failure before their dewy-eyed minions.
I wouldn't even be surprised if Sensing Murder hasn't written it into their employment contract that they are expressly forbidden to take any and all psychic challenges. They know the tricks they have to perform and the lies they have to tell to make their mediums look good on TV. Thus they are perfectly placed to know without doubt that their trained seals would fail any real test miserably, and that this public humiliation would impact badly on the viewer rating of their show. The Sensing Murder producers may be greedy, devious, unethical, exploitive, uncaring and even gullible to various degrees, but they're not completely stupid when it comes to knowing what things they need to hide from their viewers. It will be interesting to see what public interest their new series generates. Like their TV production company that has been placed in receivership, has the show also finally failed in the eyes of the general public?
Comment by Susan, 08 Feb, 2010
Hi Debbie, I just want to say I am so sorry for all that you've been through.
Anyone with a heart who had knowledge of your sister's death would do all they could to help out.
Take care, and take comfort from those who love you. xxx
Comment by Debbie, 10 Feb, 2010
Hi John, [my last attempt at a post disappeared.] I can't remember everything I wrote but the gist of it was that it's the things that my contact tells me she was a witness to in 1976, rather than the things that Kelvin said to her, which interest me. I only wrote to you about Kelvin because I thought it would interest you — and be further proof, if any was needed, that sensing murder is purely 'light entertainment' and should not be taken seriously — although I didn't find it very entertaining to watch an actress portraying Tracey being abducted, murdered and dumped.
We stumbled across the programme by sheer fluke — my husband was channel hopping and he saw my sister's name on the TV. The programme was just starting. It was a case of not wanting to watch but not being able to stop. The producers say they speak to relatives first but they did not speak to, or have approval from, anyone in my family. They tried to contact my parents via the police but my parents did not want to get involved. They have been through enough; they don't need c**p like that. I have advised them not to watch the programme if it ever rears its head on TV again.
By the way, the 'so many unanswered questions' that Cinna refers to are the questions I am waiting for the police to answer, not any questions raised by SM. Unfortunately it appears that the police are trying to discredit my contact (and they are not telling the full truth in the articles I have seen so far, either) — but she has raised many pertinent questions that, for some reason, they seem reluctant to answer.
Anyway, I am aware that this thread is about SM, not my sister's murder.
You may be amused to hear that I received a reply from Kelvin today. He apologised for sending me the invite to Fiji — apparently that was his PA's fault. He also apologised for not replying to my emails. He said they hadn't been passed on to him — apparently that was his (ex) manager's fault.
I haven't replied.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Feb, 2010
Hi Debbie. So psychic medium Kelvin Criuckshank is blaming his PA and manager for making mistakes that he didn't know about. Why is it that these psychics can never detect or be warned about problems happening in their own lives? Shouldn't he have felt a vibe that something wasn't right, or maybe one of his millions of spirits could have dropped a hint?
And now that he has been made aware of your emails and request for the information he has about your sister, I'm assuming he still hasn't offered to provide you with the details? Wouldn't the best apology he could offer be to solve Tracey's murder?
You got a reply because all he cares about is his reputation and how your exposure of his methods might affect ticket sales.
Comment by Debbie, 14 Feb, 2010
Hi John, re your last post — No, he hasn't offered to help. Funny, that....
This is what he wrote to me:
By the way, I'd like to thank to Susan for her kind words. Take care.
I just wanted to apologise for the fact that you received a mass email regarding my Fiji retreat. Several people received this email in error. My new PA accidentally sent it to everyone instead of just those who had requested newsletters and notifications. I am also sorry that none of your emails to me have ever been answered. I have never personally seen or been made aware of them. For the past three years I had a manager who was dealing with my website and all incoming emails. She was instructed to forward emails such as yours onto me. Late last year I discovered this had not been happening. This is one of the reasons I terminated our working relationship. I have slowly been working through the list of emails that have never been responded to.
Many years ago, when I first tested for Sensing Murder, I believe your sister's spirit came to me briefly. I was actually doing a reading on another case as a test but a vision of someone who I believe was Tracey kept coming through. In the end the person who was testing me pulled out a photo of Tracey and asked if this was the girl I was seeing. I picked up a connection with West Auckland and the fact that she had been murdered — I believe by someone she did not know. We did not go into any detail after that (as I was supposed to be doing a reading on another case). I saw the programme, and believe Sue and Deb came up with many interesting leads, which I hope will continue to be followed up.
Comment by Margaret, 11 Mar, 2010
Comment by Tony, 17 Dec, 2009
The above is complete bullsh*te. I posted in that thread and it was about Tiger Woods - it had nothing whatsoever to do with Kelvin Cruickshank. The only truth to what Tony wrote is that Kelvin was expecting a baby. It was removed as there defamatory comments made about Tiger Woods. SM admin posted a thread about the laws to defamation after it was removed.
Get on the Sensing Murder website now if you can ... Kelvin's in BIG trouble!!!
This is here ... he's been caught cheating on his girlfriend a couple of weeks ago and he is having a baby this month!! All his fans are fuming ... they started the thread using Tiger Woods instead of Kelvin's name ...
This page may also give you some background information on what he has been getting up to.
Debbie: She says she went to Kelvin Cruickshank a few years ago, about something completely unrelated to my sister's murder, but he started saying the names of the two men she says were involved in my sister's murder.
Debbie needs to tell the whole story not just part of it. Debbie knows very well that Kelvin didnt just start mentioning details to her "contact". Her contact ASKED Kelvin about Tracey's murder. Debbies "contact" is infact a psychic.
Comment by Missy, 15 Mar, 2010
"Margaret" needs to get her facts straight. If she looked at Debbie’s post, she would see that she said "someone from NZ" went to see Kelvin.. not Debbie herself!
And the Tiger thread: if people read between the lines they could see that a certain beloved man from NZ who has still sucked people in had been doing the dirty on his partner, who he then raved on about his current squeeze being the best thing that happened to him. But obviously Margaret didn’t "get" it. Defamation is untruths.. some people contributing to the Tiger thread knew the truth of what this NZ bloke had been doing. And believe me, they are NOT lies. Period.
What makes me angry is not psychics as such but people that come across one way and hide it from their "supporters" to make it look like they are a perfect person, and after reading some SM posts, it seems that a certain person has probably been in contact with members pleading innocence, which is sad to see.... why can’t people just tell the truth, it’s the ones that don’t know the truth, and eventually get hurt finding out they have been lied to or find out in years to come that their loved one has been lied to about infidelities.
Comment by Margaret, 15 Mar, 2010
Well Missy you need to learn to read -because you seem to have failed to comprehend what I wrote.I'll try to go slow so you understand.
1.Debbie: She says she went to Kelvin Cruickshank a few years ago, about something completely unrelated to my sister's murder, but he started saying the names of the two men she says were involved in my sister's murder.
1.Is a quote from Debbie not from me.Direct quote from Debbie not me -okay??See if you'd read Debbies post properly then you would have known it was her quote.
2.Debbie needs to tell the whole story not just part of it. Debbie knows very well that Kelvin didnt just start mentioning details to her "contact". Her contact ASKED Kelvin about Tracey's murder. Debbies "contact" is infact a psychic.
2.I bolded the bits that are important for you to understand that I am referrering to Debbies contact going to see Kelvin.Not Debbie going to see Kelvin.
Comment by Anonymous-1, 15 Mar, 2010
Margaret, i'm curious - Do you know Debbie personally, or do you know Kelvin Cruickshank personally?
Comment by Kat, 15 Mar, 2010
Hi I would just like to make a comment to the tiger woods thread and what was said on it. WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF ANYONES what Kelvin or Tiger or whoever does in their own PRIVATE life? If you put it all into the context of our own private lives then whatever it is accused he has done is between his partner and him, NO ONE ELSE. My life is my own, what I do in it has nothing to do with anyone and just because Kelvin is seen on a tv screen or stands up in front of the audience makes it no different, he still has a PRIVATE behind closed doors life, like we all do. Next you will be gossiping about how much toliet paper he uses cos you heard rumours about it!! If the private lives of someone else excites you so much then you need more excitement in your own. Oh and for the books, Kelvin is a very gifted psychic and a fully geniune guy, the straws that you lot are grasping at is entertaining though. I have done his workshops and his shows, and he is fully connected from his heart. Top Bloke!!
Comment by Lucie, 16 Mar, 2010
The above is complete bullsh*te. I posted in that thread and it was about Tiger Woods - it had nothing whatsoever to do with Kelvin Cruickshank. The only truth to what Tony wrote is that Kelvin was expecting a baby. It was removed as there defamatory comments made about Tiger Woods. SM admin posted a thread about the laws to defamation after it was removed.
now that's bullshite... if the thread was removed because somethings were posted that were defamatory against Tiger Woods...then half of the SM Board should/would equally be removed, because there have been many, many potentially "defamatory" posts made against other people... e.g. John Edward, Colin Fry, Lisa Williams, Sylvia Brown, Sue Nicholson, Deb Webber...to name but a few...so the question actually is "Why was this particular thread (along with another) removed simultaneously???" ...under SM's Admin's grounds of "Defamation" to Tiger Woods!!!!! Not on your life!!!! I sense something else! For goodness sakes...other media has printed far worse
Comment by Anonymous-1, 16 Mar, 2010
"Comment by Kat, 15 Mar, 2010 Hi I would just like to make a comment to the tiger woods thread and what was said on it. WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF ANYONES what Kelvin or Tiger or whoever does in their own PRIVATE life? If you put it all into the context of our own private lives then whatever it is accused he has done is between his partner and him, NO ONE ELSE. My life is my own, what I do in it has nothing to do with anyone and just because Kelvin is seen on a tv screen or stands up in front of the audience makes it no different, he still has a PRIVATE behind closed doors life, like we all do. Next you will be gossiping about how much toliet paper he uses cos you heard rumours about it!! If the private lives of someone else excites you so much then you need more excitement in your own. Oh and for the books, Kelvin is a very gifted psychic and a fully geniune guy, the straws that you lot are grasping at is entertaining though. I have done his workshops and his shows, and he is fully connected from his heart. Top Bloke!! "
I know for a fact that the allegations ARE TRUE. Yes, this person is a public figure, but what they are doing in private effects other peoples private lives. You comment on gossiping, but this is about a public person affecting other peoples private lives as well! We don't find this issue "exciting", I do not see how you see something this serious as "exciting". Your opinion of "fully genuine" .. this proves that he comes across to some this way, and in reality is very clever and skillful in masking his true other self. And what "straws".. seems you do not have the correct information, you are highly likely being lied to. I feel sorry for you being blinded by the "light". You could have put that money from the workshops etc into someone that actually taught you how to use your intiution. Maybe if you weren't so defensive, you wouldn't be so gullible and you would be able to think outside your closed square.
"Fully connected from his heart".. my opinion is that, that is not the part of the body he likes to connect with. So, to summarise, the facts are facts, not rumours or lies. The issue of the public figure keeping private, unfortunately when other private lives are afffected in this situation, the circle cannot but widen. And lastly Kat condones this type of behavior whether a public figure or not, am I right Kat? In my opinion you must be totally smitten, like these other women who think he is "hot" (so they say on eg.. facebook), and of course a public figure that many get to meet in person, and it is quite silly that you may think its ok for him to do things that are morally wrong but Im sure you would have a different opinion if it was closer to home.
You can actually try if you like to prove his innocence but that is impossible.
Comment by Margaret, 17 Mar, 2010
Anonymous - Even if these allegations are true, what gives you the right to publise them on the internet?? What he does in his private life is his buisness - no one elses. From where I'm sitting it's nothing but sour grapes & typical woman scorned. If it is true, maybe the woman/women concerned need to take stock & have a reality check. The fact that he described himself as single for a very long time should have been a big fat clue to her/them that he wasnt serious about them. When he finally found a nice lady he wanted to commit his life too out come these bitter,deluded fans trying to pull him down and for what??? All because he didnt choose them?? They need to grow up and get some counselling for being so pathetic - as equally pathetic and vengeful as those gold digging whores who sold their storys about Tiger.
Also dont waste your time accusing me of being sweet on him or blinded by any light - I'm a adult I dont have fanatasies about people in the spot light.
Comment by Kat, 17 Mar, 2010
Margaret, I fully agree with your post, this is all coming out from bitterness!!! (Misreading) Anonymous, there are only TWO people that can ever have the FULL facts, everybody else persumes. If it is one of those two people feeding you with these facts then have you heard the others side too? If you are one of these two people then it is low to publicise to the world what goes on in the privacy of TWO grown up CONSENTING adults. Just as low as the talk shows where one person brings the problem they have with a person to the public eye, when they should first take it to that person. Yes he is in the public eye with what he does spiritually, but he is also a human being that deserves the right to a private life behind closed doors. I feel alot of bitterness from your post. You say I condone this behaviour, if the two people are consenting then the consequences of that behaviour sits with them.Your opinion of me being totally smitten is wrong, I believe we are all human and we all have temptations and get ourselves into tempting situations at some point in life, we all make mistakes, we all have a right to say no. I respect him alot. But I am happily married thanks! So nope I am not smitten. I get defensive when people are unfairly judged because of one person's bitterness and then others taking their word only for what went on. Two sides to every story. I am not blinded by light either, another wrong assumption. I see clearly WE ALL have two sides to us, No one is perfect all of the time and may slip up, but once again if two people are consenting then the consequences of their actions sits with them. The only people who know the full truth are those two involved. And prehaps one of those two is now bitter about it all and is stretching the truth to make a bigger deal of it all to get attention after being let down. Life chucks us curve balls to learn from, at some point we have to move on for our own sake. This isn;t worth the energy to carry it on, so I will withdraw from commenting further, it is all old news, time has moved forward, hope for the sake of well being others can too. My opinion of his geniuness still stands, I see him as a human being, he is not perfect, but he is out there helping people to find hope and happiness again in times of alot of sadness and confusion. He is flowing the energy of love from spirit out into the world, and no matter how many people try to stop that through nasty critisism, etc, he keeps going, standing up to all the flack he gets, because he believes others come first, love from spirit and their messages are more important than what he has to endure. I admire his strength and love for spirit and for others who need those messages from spirit before they can heal. This world needs love sweet love, and I will stand behind those that get off their behinds and share it out. We are all humans, non perfect humans, so if you think you are more holy than someone else then yep throw stones, but you will get them back, cos no one is more holy. NO ONE IS PERFECT!
Comment by Anonymous-1, 17 Mar, 2010
I think you will find his name has been mentioned by "Kat" concerning this. There has already been stuff all over the internet as well !
Isn’t it funny how believers have been arriving at a sceptics website. Hmmm. I recall "pinkie pie" on SM as well as another website said oh so very similar words ie "women scorned"...which makes me wonder .. is Margaret.. a certain psychic, or must be very close to one?
There is being "single" and then there is "already in a relationship". I guess it must be a comfort to some people that partners can be very under standing, and I guess in this day and age too there are many who are into open relationships too. I am very confused about these people condoning this behaviour still and blaming it on the other(s) like ? ",deluded fans trying to pull him down and for what??? ".. umm ... fans?????? Who are these people that are deluded, and who are these people who are the "fans? I think you should realise not all women are a fan of yours.. I mean his. This is where the mask comes in, and also denial of close "fans" of his.. I think the guy should get a grip and not use an excuse such as women scorned. All I can say is ..if you are a believer, i guess they would say "what comes around goes around" or ah well, karma will catch up some day.
Comment by RD, 17 Mar, 2010
The Sensing Murder website is quite amusing to watch. I'm surprised no one has complained about how the moderators decides who does and doesn't get banned, for eg the ones which got banned late last year relating to the tiger thread I guess (although not sure why that was), and yet there is one poster who uses the fowlest abusive language against other SM members, and lol, spiritual people post that it is just "creative language". What a joke lol.
Comment by Tony (aka ynot), 18 Mar, 2010
Not that it’s of any great consequence but there seems to be two "Tony’s" posting on this thread and I’m not the one who posted #57 (the "Tiger" post). My view on the matter is that if people put themselves on a pedestal and make a fortune from the public by way of celebrity then they are open game for all the valid criticism they get.
I was a member (ynot) of the SM Forum for a couple of years but got banned without warning or reason. When I politely enquired as to the reason I never got a reply. I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that their forum is about as fair, open and honest as their show.
Comment by Margaret, 18 Mar, 2010
Quote: Isn't it funny how believers have been arriving at a sceptics website. Hmmm. I recall "pinkie pie" on SM as well as another website said oh so very similar words ie "women scorned"...which makes me wonder .. is Margaret.. a certain psychic, or must be very close to one?
Firstly, I'm a fence sitter -not a believer as you put it.Secondly I have never had the username pinkie pie on any site ever.Thirdly I'm about as psychic as a cold fart in a bottle.And finally I am not nor have I ever been close to a psychic -but I do know of one who lives about 20 mintues north of me so does that count as close?? You get a gold star for your outstanding assumputions though.
As for this being all over the internet -who put there huh?? You and your cronies.And just because it's all over the internet does not make it right to repeat it -it shouldnt ever be on here in the 1st place.Frankly I hope the alot of you end up on harassment charges.
What is it exactly you & your cronies hoped to archive by putting this all out there??? Because from a outsider looking in it looks like scorned women trying to get revenge and that is truly pathetic.A mature person who felt aggreived would have taken it up with the person concerned -not blasted it all over the net.
As Kat has said -he isnt perfect, he'd just a normal human being and it's his job that set's him apart from most.He didnt ask to be put on a pedestal.
I've just read you post again Anon -do you think I'm him??? hahaha too funny. Double gold stars for you!!
Comment by Anonymous-1, 18 Mar, 2010
No, i am "not" one of the other "people". I am not bitter, just appalled by this behaviour, by someone that promotes themselves as being all love and all light. It’s hard to see others being deceived, now especially those idolising fans who take their word as gospel. Open your eyes, use sound judgement, don’t be so gullible.
You say stretching the truth? Like i said, the person on the other side is telling you fat woppas, or you are just presuming .
Holy? Me? well no, I am not religious at all. I don’t have any urges to do anything behind my partners back, if I did, i would have made that choice and there must be something wrong in my marriage/relationship for that to happen. But that is just me. Mind you, I am not a public figure. Just look at Tiger Woods, in my opinion people like him use their status to lure women. And in my opinion they can lure them in whichever way they choose, whether it’s a big sob story about their relationship, or money, or whatever.
Oh, and BTW, it was "Margaret" that brought up an old post about the tiger thread on SM.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 Mar, 2010
Reading the above comments concerning Kelvin Cruickshank it appears to us to revolve around two concerns. Is Cruickshank really a genuine guy, and does the public have a right to know what goes on in people's private lives?
The comments on the Sensing Murder forum evidently started with Tiger Woods. In our view, as far as his golf game is concerned, whether he cheats on his wife with porn actresses, cocktail waitresses and numerous other silicone inflated bimbos is irrelevant. In this regard the only thing that Woods is claiming to be is the world's best golfer. However Woods has chosen to go beyond the game of golf and promote himself as a person for monetary gain. Advertisers used Wood's publicly perceived image as a loving family man, and Woods happily accepted their payments of millions of dollars to actively promote that image, claiming again and again that the most important thing to him was his family, his wife and children. More important even than golf. It is this positive public image of Woods combined with his golfing prowess that sold products. No advertiser uses a sportsperson, actor or public figure that is brilliant at what they do but is not all that well liked as a person. The public has to really like and respect the real people used in adverts, over and above their career skills, for them to be successful in promoting products.
But if the public person in an advert is only playing a role, albeit secretly, then they are nothing but an actor. They are pushing a product under false pretences. They are lying, knowing that if they pretend to be a certain character then the public will respond by buying their products. They are effectively saying: You trust me, so you can also trust a product that I recommend. But this trust is built on a lie. When someone's private actions show that their public claims are nothing but a sham, a cunning ploy to market their business and make them rich, then we believe that the public does have a right to know how someone's private and public lives contradict each other.
We buy certain advertised products over others, not only because they appeal to us, but because we believe we can trust the claims made about that product by its spokesperson, whether that is a public figure like Tiger Woods or the company head themselves, such as the Warehouse's Stephen Tindall.
If what people do in their private lives impacts on the image they project in their public lives, then yes the public has a right to be told. If something they do in private doesn't affect how they do their job or how they attract clients to their business, then it should remain private. If for example a person is employed as a financial adviser, then the fact that he likes to wear women's clothing in the privacy of his own bedroom while assembling Star Wars models has no bearing on his ability to be a good financial adviser. However, if it was shown that in his private life he had made numerous personal financial investments, all of which had failed badly, then this knowledge is paramount in helping people decide whether they should use his services.
How does this apply to Kelvin Cruickshank? Does his ability to attract private clients, people to his workshops and an audience to his shows rely on a certain image? We believe it does. Naturally first and foremost he must be seen to be a 'gifted psychic', and this is possibly all that is needed to attract an audience to his shows. But at his shows most people have no personal interaction with him and many leave disappointed with his performance. However private clients and workshops are different and require something extra to keep them enamoured with him and bring about repeat visits.
Psychics are, unfortunately, a dime a dozen, so why do people choose one over another. Available access and perceived ability of course, but time and time again, people rave on about how wonderful a particular psychic is as a person, how caring, loving, helpful, sympathetic and loyal they are. Psychic groupies actually rave on more about the psychics themselves, as real people, than they do about the information that they provide. This is only to be expected since psychics fail to provide any information of value so all that's really left to discuss is the psychic themselves. If you're going to spend time and money with a psychic as a client or at a workshop then you want one that you like and trust. Thus it is crucial for all psychics, and Cruickshank is no exception, to create and maintain a public persona that people feel is caring, loving and trustworthy.
A comment from Kat appears to be typical of how Kelvin is viewed by his fans: 'Kelvin is a very gifted psychic and a fully geniune guy... I have done his workshops and his shows, and he is fully connected from his heart. Top Bloke!!'
Therefore the way Cruickshank treats people in private will be a good indicator of whether the image he presents to clients is real, or merely a fake character that he plays in order to make money. Note that in public, on TV, at his shows and in magazine articles, Cruickshank claims that his goal is to use his mystical powers to comfort people and give them closure, especially the grieving families featured on Sensing Murder. Yet out of the media spotlight Cruickshank spends his time charging clients exorbitant fees for private readings and workshops at Fijian five star resorts. All thought of helping people gain closure is forgotten, as evidenced by his ignoring Debbie's request to pass on what he claimed to know about her sister's murder. From personal experience, we know Cruickshank can be two-faced. Having no doubt been told of our website, he sent us an unsigned insulting email, evidently believing that he had done so anonymously. When we replied saying we knew it was from him, he then replied in a very friendly manner wishing us all the best, and signing it KC this time.
We of course believe that what Cruickshank does is nothing but a crock, and thus he must rely entirely on his persona to attract and keep clients. He gives them nothing of value when it comes to information from 'the other side' and therefore it's their personal interaction with Cruickshank that really colours their memories of their session with him. A positive public image is crucial for Cruickshank to sell his services. If these projected personality and ethical traits don't match those in his private life, then he is selling a lie, and the public has a right to know and decide whether they still want to purchase his services. Also if people feel that they can't believe in the image he presents in public, might they not also start to question the image he is painting of granny in the afterlife?
At the end of the day, the one thing that people really want from Cruickshank and his ilk is information from 'the other side', and if he could provide this then whether he was a nice guy or not wouldn't really matter. Tiger Woods may have lost a lot of respect from the public, but no one can take away the fact that he is a great golfer. But Kelvin is different. He is most definitely deluding people regarding his psychic powers, so if it also turns out that ethically he is not a great person either, then he has lost everything. He is scamming his fans with both his claimed powers and his personality.
Comment by Kat, 20 Mar, 2010
Tiger woods is a professional golfer, and a very good one, what he does with his private time is his business. Kelvin is a professional medium and a very good one, what he does in his private time is his own business. Nope don;t see how they are different SB. What is different is you do not believe in Kelvins psychic abilities (but you do in Tigers golfing abilities), so therefore you think he has to use his good looks and his charms to win people over on a one on one reading? Workshops and oversea retreats and shows etc all have people choosing to go, not being forced to pay up and go. People choose to do them. Most people go to see him for his abilitiy, some may go for more, but can he be blamed for that. Also how many of you single or not seriously involved males would turn down women throwing themselves at you? Male and females are different, males are happy with a bit of something with nothing attatched, women are looking for a man to attatch to, (not all) so has anyone asked these women who are making allegations if they thought there was something everlasting in their supposed encounters with him, did they offer themselves because they wanted a commitment, or were they happy with just a bit of fun.
Seems like the first one giving the anger they have. so is he the only bad one who is using something to get what he wants, don;t think so, someone is throwing their toys out of the cot because they have not got what they want, prehaps they should of cemmented that part first before they supposedly gave something away. And really is he the only bad one supposedly using the public eye to get what he wants, seems like a few people are using the public eye to get back at him and that is just as bad as what they are accusing. So easy to see someone in the public eye as bad when so many hundreds others out there doing the same go unnoticed. That is why it stinks, just cos you are in the public eye does not give away your rights to privacy in your life. His ability is what he is in the public eye for, nothing else, so whatever else happens in his life seperate from his ability is no ones business, just like any other profession. Think people need to look into their own lifes before they cast stones at someone elses, cos I bet there are many dark secrets the public would be interested in only if you are not in the public eye for something you are completely safe, you can keep your hidden secrets underwraps, doesn;t mean you don;t have them eh!! Time for people to move on.News is old.Who else is doing such a good job that they must be brought down before they shake up once grounded beliefs, that we can now move on too.
Comment by Tony, 21 Mar, 2010
Kat - "Tiger woods is a professional golfer, and a very good one"
Correct - Tiger regularly demonstrates his abilities in an open and honest manner and thereby provides credible and obvious evidence of his golfing abilities.
Kat - "what he does with his private time is his business."
Incorrect - Tiger has made his private life part of his business by claiming that he is a dedicated and honest family man that values his family more than golf. This claim has allowed him to secure more lucrative advertising sponsorship contracts than if he had only claimed to be a very good golfer. That his "honest family man" claim has proven to be false gives people the right to criticise his exposed dishonesty and for advertisers to cancel their contracts with him.
Kat - "Kelvin is a professional medium and a very good one"
Unproven - Kelvin has never demonstrated his claimed abilities in an open and honest manner and continues to refuse to do so. That he is a psychic (let alone a good one) is merely the unsubstantiated claim and belief of Kat and other believers.
Kat - "what he does in his private time is his own business."
Incorrect - Kelvin claims to be a special person with a special "God given gift" and he presents himself as being a selfless, nice person that is full of "peace, love and light" and concern for others. Kelvin’s "private person" is what he sells as much as his psychic claims. If any of the accusations claimed against him are true then these claims have been proven to be as false as Tiger’s claims have. Besides - Kelvin’s inappropriate behavior has apparently often occurred on his "retreats" for which people have paid him a substantial amount of money. This is therefore paid time not private time.
If another series of Sensing Murder is produced I wonder if Ninox or TVNZ will continue to pay him for his tainted celebrity that has obviously been built on his less than honest claims and inappropriate practices
Comment by Anonymous-1, 21 Mar, 2010
Very well said re all your comments SB Team! I and many many others would agree.
Obviously the wheels on the bus where KC's cronies are concerned. Mind you, reading other forums, I don't recall seeing more than two people condoning this unprofessional behaviour.
"offer themselves because they wanted a commitment, or were they happy with just a bit of fun. umm.. i'm sorry but you are definitely giving your opinion on tiger here. If you knew facts then you would know that this is not the case for the other women concerned in this case.
If you want to keep protecting him, fine, as you and he wish. But others here have the freedom to voice our concerns. Toodaloo.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Mar, 2010
Thanks for those excellent comments Tony. Saves us the bother of trying to say the same thing.
It's quite ironic that supporters of psychics defend peoples' right to keep their private life private, when the main goal of psychics is to use their mystical powers to covertly intrude into the private lives of others. They either seek out the spirits of the dead and request them to provide unknown information about the private lives of the living, or they directly connect with their targets themselves, using the likes of telepathy, and literally read their thoughts, scan their memories and spy on their lives. People seek out psychics because they are desperate to learn something about someone that they have not been privy to in real life. Psychics are nothing but 'spiritual' private investigators, digging up the information that their clients are desperate to know. Psychics and their clients have as much respect for the private lives of others as does a dog for a lamppost.
The spirits that some psychics (or mediums) claim to talk to are evidently nothing but shameless voyeurs and peeping toms. They can go anywhere undetected and spy on whomever they wish. The concept of a 'private life' is meaningless to spirits. They are not stopped by a door or a lock or a sign saying 'Private Property. Keep Out'. If they were real, they would be in your bedroom, your bathroom, your doctor's office and with you on holiday. The only reason that psychics can claim to gain knowledge from the spirits is because the spirits, and therefore the psychics, have no respect for the private lives of the living. Psychics like Cruickshank are continually telling us during their readings that the spirits are watching over us, and they are only too willing to reveal anything and everything to him, even though he is a complete stranger. If true, the belief that we have a 'private life' is a fallacy. The 'souls' that are privy to every detail of my 'private life' is astronomical compared to the few living souls that don't, and they are more than happy to gossip to the likes of Cruickshank about it.
We also have the psychics that claim to use ESP, telepathy, remote viewing and even those that use divination tools such as astrology, tarot and numerology to open a window into the private lives of others. If real, then a psychic could be reading my thoughts as I type these words, and will be privy to the ideas that I elect not to publish, privy to my private thoughts. Others claim to be able to see what other people are seeing or simply view scenes from a distance. Cruickshank claims to have visions of real time events and places, not just ones from the past. How do we know he doesn't receive visions of his sexy neighbour in the shower? Is that an invasion of privacy? If I did it by spying through a bathroom window it would be a crime, but is it a crime if a psychic does it from his armchair?
And why do people go to these silly workshops run by psychics? Because they have been told that we all possess latent psychic abilities, and if harnessed correctly, they too could tap into this psychic spy network. Then they wouldn't need to pay psychics exorbitant fees for information that isn't in the public arena. They could psychically snoop around and satisfy their curiosity themselves, from the comfort of their own kitchen.
People that truly respect the private lives of others do not seek out psychic detectives. Only those with an insatiable need to know what others are up to and how others feel about them, both dead and alive, resort to psychic snooping.
Thankfully none of this psychic nonsense is real, except in the minds of its believers. Kat's claim that Cruickshank is 'doing such a good job' is like saying 'Sensing Murder' is 'doing such a good job' at solving murders. Every psychic on the planet has proved themselves an abject failure by failing to convincingly demonstrate their claimed skills on the world stage, unlike Tiger Woods. We can all rest easy content in the knowledge that Granny isn't spilling the beans on what happened behind the bike sheds at high school. Much to the annoyance of psychics, our private lives will remain private. Any embarrassing revelations will come from real world sources, like spurned lovers and undeleted text messages.
Comment by Margaret, 21 Mar, 2010
I seriously question the motives of these people who have "come forward".After reading what was posted on the Sm website yesterday, it seems that the woman didnt have the permission of her "friends" were directly effected by a failed fling with Kelvin.It appeared that she had been a friend of Kelvins & was morally offended by how he chose to conduct his private life -why didnt she speak up at the time -why wait so long.Frankly I'm so glad I dont have such judegemental friends as her in my life.Why arent the women directly effected speaking out???
I'd appreciate it if someone would point to the code of conduct book that mediums are meant to follow with regards to how they should conduct their private lives.I'm not a person who buys gossip magazines because I have no interest whatsoever about what celebrities do in their private lives.I believe it is wrong that many people think that because someone is in the spotlight it give them the automatic right to know everything about that persons private life & to pass judgement as they see fit.
It seems the gossip spread by her has had the site closed down -so well done to her for that.Pity she didnt consider all the members who use that site for friendship & those that are having a get together soon-how are they meant to finalise things now??When will she and her cronies be happy, what will it take??
Comment by Susan, 21 Mar, 2010
Kat, you continuously contradict yourself. You say it’s your last post...then you post again. You say people should move on, then you go on about it all again. You keep saying you have to "meet people before making a judgement", yet you have no trouble judging those who have been hurt by Kelvin Cruickshank and have spoken out about their experiences. On the SM board if a person had been vexed by someone and aired their grievances, you would rush to console and comfort, yet on this topic, where your beliefs are challenged, you close off and believe what suits you – in fact, you add to the hurt those people have experienced by implying that they are lying or being bitter. It seems you think that just because it involves Kelvin Cruickshank, the allegations couldn’t possibly be true! That seems like childish, dangerous and very misguided (or possibly brainwashed) logic. Not to mention the fact that you are repeatedly rubbing salt into the wounds of those who have had their lives damaged by Kelvin Cruickshank.
An interesting post you left on SM and similar on this board:
"How many men out there pass up a women throwing themselves at him if he is not seriously involved with someone? Is it right for society only to expose the privacy of those in the public eye and everyone else gets away with alot worse? Do people in the public eye have to be saints, because they are in the public eye? I feel sorry for the people in the public eye cos their life is open for everyone, they do not get the right to privacy we all are entitled by law to, because they are in the public eye."
Who threw themselves at Kelvin? Seriously, is that what you’ve been told? Or is it just a convenient assumption to make you feel comfortable and ‘right’ in your beliefs? And isn’t living with a woman and having a baby with her "seriously involved"? Even if a woman ever did throw herself at Kelvin (and not all of us think he is good looking – extremely charismatic when he wants to be though), does that give him a green light to do what he wants regardless of the emotional wellbeing of his clients? You say with all conviction that all of this is coming out of bitterness...where’s your proof of such a strong statement? Have you met with those involved and gotten the "both sides of the story" that you are so fond of telling others to do? Or do you just believe what you are told by one party and then vehemently defend that one side - without even considering that there may be truth to the allegations? You talk of ‘privacy of those in the public eye’ - apparently it’s ok for him to have articles about his (supposedly wonderful) life published in a magazine (when it suits/benefits him and for a fee) but it’s not ok to question the validity of what is being said, nor is it acceptable to you to present anything remotely negative, even though it’s true. Do you not think that is twisted logic?
It is absolutely right for those of us with a moral conscience to expose people for what/who they are, particularly when they are not what/who they pretend to be regardless of who they are - and especially when they have the capacity to affect many people - The world would be a crappy place to be otherwise. Last I checked there was still freedom of speech and an absolute right by law to tell the truth. Whether people like it or not is of little consequence - the truth is the truth. For me personally, I would rather hear any truth than to be told a lie. There is an interesting quote that comes to mind that fits well: "It doesn’t matter what lie you tell people, as long as it’s what they want to hear"...and unfortunately people make money and misery from that little life motto.
I’m not a fan of dishonesty...and not a fan of keeping my mouth shut to benefit someone with little regard for others’ feelings – I’m not going to let other people have their lives stuffed because some people would rather not hear the truth. Sometimes the truth isn’t nice, sometimes it makes us feel like crap...but the truth is always better than being deceived. At least people then have the information to make an INFORMED CHOICE.
Absolutely people go on his retreats etc, willingly. But do you think people would participate in such a retreat if they knew the ‘host’ had a personal agenda? Perhaps if his true motives were advertised in his promotional emails the number of ‘willing participants’ would dwindle. Again, back to ‘informed choice’. Need I remind you that there are people who have gone on his retreats who wish they had never gone – people who have been disturbed about the ‘lack of professionalism’ displayed? When you pay for a service you expect to get what you signed up for...I don’t see anything in his promotional material that adequately describes a lack of professionalism. The retreats are touted as a place to go to benefit you...not to mess with your head and leave you wishing you had never gone. I for one wish I had never met him.
When you say: "WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF ANYONES what Kelvin or Tiger or whoever does in their own PRIVATE life?" it seems that you have made it your business...you keep going on about it. If you don’t like it you have the option to ignore it – surely someone so convinced that Kelvin is such a ‘good bloke’ would easily dismiss claims to the contrary and "move on" without all the carry on...you have gotten yourself involved in it all, over and over. Why? Do you feel the need to prove your loyalty to him? There is obviously some pay off for you or you wouldn’t do it.
Take this scenario: Would you let a doctor operate on someone you cared about if you knew his success rate was questionable and there was a good chance your loved one would be worse off for having been treated? Or would you ignore those who forewarned you because they were just being "bitter...and let down"? Different? Yes, but very much the same. Haven’t you ever warned someone against doing something that you thought may hurt them? Why? Because you were bitter? Or because you cared enough to get off your backside and warn them? Friendships are made in SM...some people care enough about the people they have met in there to provide information which may save them a lot of hurt down the track – regardless of people who try to discredit them and brand them as "bitter".
You have an enormous emotional investment in Kelvin and to admit that you were wrong would shake your foundations. You just can’t bear to consider it can you? Yet in ordinary circumstances you would heed the warnings of those who have had negative experiences and came forward to prevent others from similar experiences. It makes me wonder if you really know what has been happening.
The point still stands that he draws people in under the rouse of helping the bereaved and extremely vulnerable to move on...his website says that he offers "closure to those who never had the chance to say goodbye", touching words. What is inappropriate is the close relationships he has with some clients. Apparently you don’t think there is a major problem with it. Perhaps that speaks more of your attitude to monogamy than ethics? Anyone in a position of trust, who is employed to assist others – particularly those who are at a low point in their lives and are struggling, has a moral obligation to be professional and to DO NO HARM. Other professionals see fit to do so – appropriate and well-founded laws prevent inappropriate relationships with clients for these professionals – yet he seems to think he has a rite of passage because no law covers his ‘domain’ and you seem to condone this. I can’t fathom how you can attempt to justify his actions by your offhanded remarks..."he’s only human, he’s not perfect". None of us are...and I doubt that anyone is expecting perfection, but neither do they expect someone in his position to use a situation for personal gratification – and continuously present himself as a family orientated, spiritual person who works tirelessly to help others and is "Keeping it real". The word ‘bollocks’ springs to mind.
Many people do seek the services of Kelvin Cruickshank to get closure on an extremely traumatic event. But for someone to use a position of trust for their own personal agenda is not only unethical and deceitful, but harmful. Whether he is in a relationship or not is irrelevant. The ramifications of messing around with the emotional wellbeing of fragile and/or vulnerable people could potentially be enormous. Reason dictates that it is a highly dangerous and unacceptable situation. It is something that I refuse to have on my conscience by keeping quiet.
I would like to think that he has learned something from this ordeal. However I have serious doubts. It appears that the only twisted fragments of his side of the story are coming though you – which clearly state "NO BLAME". Must be rather uncomfortable to be continually used as a hand puppet. You leave me scratching my head. Do you really know what went on Kat?
This has nothing to do with bitterness...it has everything to do with the rights of the public. People have a right to know. If bitterness were a factor a lot more could and would have been said.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Mar, 2010
Some excellent and well stated observations there Susan.
Comment by Anonymous-1, 22 Mar, 2010
Quote by Margaret: "Pity she didnt consider all the members who use that site for friendship & those that are having a get together soon-how are they meant to finalise things now?? When will she and her cronies be happy, what will it take?? "
Dont think you need to worry about this. There is such a thing as Facebook. I'm sure the people going are all sort and all in contact with each other.
Comment by Margaret, 22 Mar, 2010
Susan -are you the same Susan who made the post back in Feb? Considering how you feel did you make a complaint when you returned from the retreat you went to?If not why did you wait so long?If you did what was the outcome?Can you tell us how exactly he damaged your life or the lives of the ones who had a fling?If you are so concerned for the public's safety at the hands of this roving casanova why not take your story to the media?
You are right when you say "living with someone & having a baby together is serious".But howcome all the outrage at how "evil" he is only came to light when he announced his new relationship & baby news??
I'm floored that you are trying to pass blame onto Kat -it makes you sound somewhat unhinged.
I went to one of his shows, it was my choice -no body twisted my arm, no one brainwashed.People choose to go to these things by their own free will.It's pathetic to suggest otherwise.I will add that during that show at no time did he ever mention anything whatsoever about his relationship status.
Question for SillyBeliefs - Your post at no.88 has to be a mickey take?? Surely no rational person would believe any of that twaddle.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Mar, 2010
Margaret, regarding our post #88, of course no rational person believes that mediums can talk to the dead, that spirits are spying on us, that psychics can read the thoughts of others, or any of that other nonsense, or twaddle as you call it. But this twaddle is exactly what psychics, mediums and their followers believe. No believer goes to psychics and forks out good money to learn what they could get from the media or their neighbour for free. They want the private stuff, like is my partner cheating on me, where is the body buried, and did my dead granny really love me?
Comment by Panda, 22 Mar, 2010
In reference to Margarets post 89 – my reply.
It seems that the woman didn't have the permission of her "friends"
If I remember rightly I said that over the last months we had talked about it and I knew how they felt. Let me interpret this for you ... since the December reevelations on SM site (which led to a number of bannings) I had been told by my friends that they were happy for me to tell anyone what had happened as they were both very concerned for other women out there that may think they are alone in going through the same situations.
Why didn't she speak up at the time – why wait so long
I am quite aware there are all sorts of repercussions from this for a number of people and doing this goes totally against the grain for me. I had never intended to publicly declare this information and although Katrinas post almost made Kelvin out to be a saint – I could have just rolled my eyes and moved on.
It was this part of the post that encouraged me to do it. Unfortunately other people do feel they have been let down because they hoped for more when he was single and now they are lashing out but if they honestly ever cared about him as they used to say they did then they would be happy he has found the person he is meant to be with. My post on SM should definitely have cleared any misunderstanding that this was the case with most women.
Why aren't the women directly effected speaking out?
Well in actual fact one of them did in late December on the SM forum only to be banned (along with a number of her supporters) and the site closed for maintenance. And there are a number of other internet forums/blogs out there – what makes you think they aree not speaking out in their own way.
I'd appreciate it if someone would point to the code of conduct book that mediums are meant to follow with regards to how they should conduct their private lives.
I think you will find it is called the book of morals.
I believe it is wrong that many people think that because someone is in the spotlight it gives them the automatic right to know everything about that persons private life and to pass judgement as they see fit.
I merely refer you to the Silly Beliefs Team post 84. I can't say much more than that.
Pity she didn't consider all the members who use that site for friendship and those that are having a get together soon - how are they meant to finalise things now?
Anonymous is quite right – these people are friends and have contact in other ways beside SM. A lot of them have been in contact with me and although they do miss the SM chatting they are very supportive of what I have done. They are intelligent people so I am sure they will sort something out for the future.
Comment by Lucie, 22 Mar, 2010
By Susan, 21 Mar, 2010
"Kat, ... You keep saying you have to "meet people before making a judgement", yet you have no trouble judging those who have been hurt by Kelvin Cruickshank and have spoken out about their experiences. "
... "Have you met with those involved and gotten the "both sides of the story" that you are so fond of telling others to do? Or do you just believe what you are told by one party and then vehemently defend that one side - without even considering that there may be truth to the allegations?"
Kat, your one sided comments lead me to believe that you have NOT met these "victims", nor walked in their shoes...therefore there is no room for your oned-sided Judgement...
Susan: (Kat)..."You say with all conviction that all of this is coming out of bitterness...where’s your proof of such a strong statement?"
Unproven by "Kat; therefore it is ALL only personal assumption, and opinion...
Susan: "It is absolutely right for those of us with a moral conscience to expose people for what/who they are, particularly when they are not what/who they pretend to be regardless of who they are - and especially when they have the capacity to affect many people"
...yes, rather sensible and morally correct by most...
Susan: "... Sometimes the truth isn’t nice, sometimes it makes us feel like crap...but the truth is always better than being deceived. At least people then have the information to make an INFORMED CHOICE."
Informed choice IS a human right, and SHOULD be catered for...
Susan:"...Absolutely people go on his retreats etc, willingly. But do you think people would participate in such a retreat if they knew the ‘host’ had a personal agenda?
"...When you pay for a service you expect to get what you signed up for..."
"The point still stands that he draws people in under the rouse of helping the bereaved and extremely vulnerable to move on...his website says that he offers "closure to those who never had the chance to say goodbye", touching words. What is inappropriate is the close relationships he has with some clients. .."
"... for someone to use a position of trust for their own personal agenda is not only unethical and deceitful, but harmful.
"...Whether he is in a relationship or not is irrelevant. The ramifications of messing around with the emotional wellbeing of fragile and/or vulnerable people could potentially be enormous..."
Personal Life IS totally separate from Professional life... it is totally unethical, and immoral to mix the too when someone is conducting their professional service(s)...
The norm is that all professional services must abide by "codes of conduct" and "ethical guidelines", particularly as ways to ensure a correct and responsible conduct of practice - this includes appropriate professional/client relationships...
Just something else to think about...if what is implied, that sexual relations were had by Mr C on/during these "Professional Retreats"...then surely this could be deemed as acts of Prostitution, could it not? For money did change hands for the "services rendered" whilst on the Retreat!!!! (shock)...
Comment by Kat, 22 Mar, 2010
Totally agree with Margarets post!!! Susan you think there is something in it for me to defend Kelvin, or I have been brainwashed, got that totally wrong! I hate the way people in the publics eye have their private lives talked about so freely, just cos they are in the public eye, and it is not always by choice, I like Margaret don;t by magazines that gossip about others, and I don;t support this in sites either. I have no idea what went on fully and I don;t care about it, what is wrong is the low blow public attacking. If you want to get back at someone, doing it in the public eye is a new trend and a sick one. I hated the way people treated Michael Jackson too. I will voice out for people I have respect for, people may have been hurt but it takes two to tango and if the tango goes wrong then why all the blame on one person, it always takes two. I am not his voice, I have nothing to do with him, I speak out because it is wrong to treat someone like this just cos they sit in the public
eye and you want to get back at them. Grow up. Lots of people hurt out there and they don;t stoop this low. I am over it all, it is old news, and the only reason for continous posts is I react too quickly when people are treated this way cos I hate seeing it. He may also be in the wrong, but leave it all out of the public eye like other people do. Over and out on this.
Comment by Gosman, 23 Mar, 2010
Hi de hey Silly Beliefs team,
As the originator of the now infamous "Tiger" thread on the late and, almost, lamented SM forum I must admit I find it funny that some people are claiming that the threads purpose was merely to discuss the Tiger Woods situation. If people wanted to use it for that purpose that was their choice. I however was attempting to find out a little more about something a little closer to the SM programme than what people though of the infidelities of the World's top Golfer. I was specifically trying to find out who knew what details and their particular views on the allegations. I was also interested in finding out if anyone had anything more than unsubstantiated rumours on the topic.
Comment by Susan, 23 Mar, 2010
Margaret: " Considering how you feel did you make a complaint when you returned from the retreat you went to? If not why did you wait so long ?If you did what was the outcome? Can you tell us how exactly he damaged your life or the lives of the ones who had a fling?...You are right when you say "living with someone & having a baby together is serious". But howcome all the outrage at how "evil" he is only came to light when he announced his new relationship & baby news??"
Margaret, you accuse us of speaking out about things that ‘should be private’ and now you want more information? As I stated earlier, if bitterness were the motive there is a hell of a lot more that could be said. You have failed to explore another possibility – maybe these things ‘came to light’ because some happened WHEN he had a girlfriend and baby on the way. Throws a new light on the glossy mag stories doesn’t it? I’m not here to change your mind. You can believe what you want. But if he ever blows in your ear and tells you how special you are you can refer back to these posts and save yourself a lot of grief, cause you’d be about as special to him as all the rest of the women he’s told the same line to.
Refer to my earlier post – why get yourself so passionately involved in defending him when you don’t know the story? Think outside the square!
I’m not here to feed voyeuristic traits of readers, just to encourage them to question what is said and portrayed.
Comment by Anonymous-1, 23 Mar, 2010
Kat: "I have nothing to do with him"
Really? I find that hard to believe. So do you know either sides of the story? Or are you presuming on both sides?
Kat: "will voice out for people I have respect for, people may have been hurt but it takes two to tango and if the tango goes wrong then why all the blame on one person, it always takes two"
So do you know the other person that was tango-ing and her story? Obviously not. Some of the points trying to be made is that he was focused on using their vulnerability. If you knew their side of the story, do you think you would have the same disrespectful attitude? Do you believe that he should deserve respect and not them?
Margaret – I think the women have more respect for themselves than to go running to the media don’t you think? Why do you think they would do that? Do you honestly think they are after fame and money? What a sad attitude.
Comment by Margaret, 24 Mar, 2010
Panda -I appreciate you taking the time to answer some of my questions.I'm not aware of what's being talked about on other forums regarding this issue.Up until last week I had no idea about any of this business.Another poster from Sm contacted me privately asking about the Tiger thread & what had gone on.Like her, I didnt know anything about what had gone in that thread & as far as we both knew it was just about Tiger -nothing else.But I see from Gos's comments he started that thread to stir it up.
Re: the book of morals -people have different values and morals.I dont see it as my place to impose my morals & values onto another person.That's not to say I'm condoning cheating because I dont, have been hurt that way myself.When it happened in my own life I had to take stock, look at what part I had to play in it.I ignored obivious signs, clung on hoping the relationship would work out -in hindsight I should have walked much sooner.
Whenever I've been confronted with unprofessional behaviour, I've dealt with it by complaining about it direct to the source or to the approiate authority if it was warranted.I've tried to deal with things out in the open and in a up front manner.
I so do not agree with issues such as this being vented in such a public manner,by people effectively remaining hiden by a username on the computer when from what I can see no steps have been taken to sort it out directly with the person involved-I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong with that.
Susan -I've never been a card carrying member of kelvin fan club.I'm not a person who believes in this concept of trusting someone because of the job they do or if they are on TV.I dont understand why anyone would trust someone they dont know, trust is to be earnt and I think it shows a lack of common sense when people trust someone who they see on Tv,the stage or in magazines.
Quote by Susan:"But if he ever blows in your ear and tells you how special you are you can refer back to these posts and save yourself a lot of grief, cause you'd be about as special to him as all the rest of the women he's told the same line to."
What a ridiculous statement to make.I've never met the guy, have no intention to meet the guy.Went to one of his shows as I'd never been to a mediums show before -wasnt that impressed -got slammed on Sm for saying so I might add.And I'm old enough now that I dont fall for anyones fancy patter.Should I ever find myself in the position of being emotionally vunlunerable I would seek help from the approiate agency(s), I would not turn to something so woowoo as a pyschic or a church.One other tiny bit of information for you incase you still think I'm carrying some torch for him or have rose colour glasses on -I'm a lesbian :O)
Comment by Margaret, 24 Mar, 2010
Quote Anonymous: Margaret – I think the women have more respect for themselves than to go running to the media don't you think? Why do you think they would do that? Do you honestly think they are after fame and money? What a sad attitude.
Going to the media does not equal financial gain -as far as I know the likes of Campbell Live & Closeup dont pay for interviews.I feel if they were geniune in wanting to "warn" other women then going out in the open would be they way to do it -not everyone has the internet and in reality there were only a handful of "fans" on the SM site.If they did go to something like Campbell Live etc, then their identity would be protected if thats what they wanted,as that show has done in the past with matters of a sensitive nature.
Comment by Kat, 25 Mar, 2010
Last comment ever on all of this is IT IS ALL SO ONESIDED!!! You lot are all against him no matter what, and as for the person/people involved in the accusations, are they being fully honest, what were there full intentions going on the retreats etc? Some many retreats.!! If someone has expectations from someone and they are not returned then they seem to be blacklisted as bad and evil. Alot of women who met him look to him as a hopeful future partner, he is good looking, and he is a caring sensitive guy, and women love that. You say he uses vulnerabilities of people, well that can go both ways, people can use their vulnerablities to get attention in some cases. So it does not always work one way. The gift he has brings people to him who are grieving, who are missing people who they can no longer contact, he is there hope, he shows he cares, not just cos he has to but because he really does care, he knows what grief feels like, he has empathy, what if he didn;t care, he was a hard nosed person who just shrugged off anyone who came to him after the shows etc, would that make it seem he was more geniune. Nope you would critise him for that too. I am not his voice, and like I said I have nothing to do with him, I respect him, I am happily married and have no interest in him so maybe that makes a difference, I speak out for him because I believe women become fixated on him and want so much more from him than he is wanting to give, he may get caught up in peoples emotions and being human trip over every now and then, but he is not the only human being that is out there that does, I don;t think of him as a saint, he is human, I don;t have rose tinted glasses, I just choose to see people as they really are, everyone has a good and bad side, we just like to concentrate and magnify peoples bad sides in society. I am human I react too much, write too much with not much said in it lol, but so what, I speak out how I see things. I am appalled at how many people back up what someone is saying without fully having any idea of the real experience they have had, just the version the person chooses to have after the bitterness sets in. No one other than those involved were there so who has any right to back them up and speak against someone. This is straight out pack bullying, you all should feel ashamed of yourselves. You wouldn;t do it to his face, so what gives you the right to do it on here!!! As for those who were involved be TOTALLY honest about it all, are you so innocent, are you really the victims in all of this? Be totally 100% honest! You owe it to all the people on here you have taken into your web. You say it is good for women to speak out and I totally agree it is, but only if you are really a victim. Not just cos you want to get back at someone for not giving you what you wanted. For your own well being it is time to be honest to yourselves and to let it go. Raising white flag! I surrender completly, Over and out!
Comment by Panda, 25 Mar, 2010
Whenever I've been confronted with unprofessional behaviour, I've dealt with it by complaining about it direct to the source or to the approiate authority if it was warranted.I've tried to deal with things out in the open and in a up front manner.
Well as I said, after the Vanuatu trip I did email Kelvin and his PA to say that I wasnt overly impressed with how Kelvin conducted himself at the "retreat". This did lead to an invitation to meet but for the whole of that meeting it was Kelvin talking about himself. Also I have had the brunt of Kelvin when I have told him something he did not like - as well as the anger it is just like hitting your head against a brick wall. Nothing he ever does is wrong in his eyes.
As mediumship is not a regulated industry I am at a loss of what the appropriate authority is. I would very much appreciate it if anyone could give me the contact details of an authority that I could talk to. Not just an association that psychics/mediums join to keep in touch but somewhere that may actually take this seriously and have the power to do something about it.
As just a mere "kiwi bloke" "playing around" of course there is nothing anyone can do - so be it. But he is using his mediumship/psychic abilities to get access to these women. It has been stated before - if he was a doctor, nurse, teacher, psycologist, coucellor, life coach .... etc he would be struck off the register. What can you really do with someone who works in an unregulated industry???
Comment by Raphael, 25 Mar, 2010
As a former visitor to the sensing murder forum, who knows of the women making these claims, this is my take on things.
What we have here is:
One vengeful jilted ex-girlfriend - if indeed she was ever that. How do we know a relationship actually took place? Perhaps it was wishful thinking on her part. I have been friends with a 'celebrity' sportsman before who was always facing situations where women said they were dating him. Anyway, even if this woman was kelvin's girlfriend, wasn't he single at the time, so what's the issue there?
Then we have one best friend of the afformentioned jilted ex-girlfriend, Panda, who is upset that her friend was hurt when she was jilted. I've been pissed off when my best mates have been hurt by guys - but would I plaster the guy's name all over the internet? No I would not. Another thing, if Panda was so upset with Kelvin's behavior on retreats, then why has she did she go to three different retreats with him? Sounds like a serial psychic stalker to me...perhaps she also propositioned him and was turned down? That would be a reason why she is being so vengeful would it not?
Thirdly, we have the "mystery woman" who was allegedly having the "affair" with Kelvin - an Australian woman who went on one of Kelvin's retreats. Months, if not a year, later she flew miles across Australia to see one of Kelvin's live shows, where she claims Kelvin "manipulated" her into leaving her husband and kids to be with him. Hmmmm. If that was the case wouldn't Kelvin be with her? Instead he is, according to New Idea anyway, happily shacked up with his girlfriend and new baby. Do you not think this could also be a case of yet another rejected woman seeking revenge?
I find it quite ironic that all these complaints about Kelvin's "behaviour" have only started now that he is hitched. If his behaviour was so shocking would not complaints have been made long ago??
Personally, I think it's disgraceful these women are making these silly allegations hiding behind their computer screens. I know all of their names and am tempted to post them here. But I won't. Because at the end of the day, they are sad, pathetic creatures with obvious mental issues who are loving the attention and sympathy they are getting.
Comment by Leo, 25 Mar, 2010
Raphael - interesting 'take on things' you have there!
Lord knows where you get your information - talk about chinese whispers!
Personally, I think it is disgraceful when someone berates people based on half truths, makes them all out to be vengeful jilted lovers based on this info, then abuses them with name-calling.
"Because at the end of the day, they are sad, pathetic creatures with obvious mental issues who are loving the attention and sympathy they are getting."
I can't imagine what sort of person you are to say such a horrible thing - especially when you seem to have based your opinion on fiction!
As for "loving the attention and sympathy they are getting" nothing could be further from the truth. He has done immense damage to these people's lives (and their families) and I'm sure they wish they'd never met him.
'"silly allegations hiding behind their computer screens"....why would anyone open themselves up to so much additional hurt and angst just for vengence??? As Susan said in an earlier post: " Friendships are made in SM...some people care enough about the people they have met in there to provide information which may save them a lot of hurt down the track – regardless of people who try to discredit them and brand them as "bitter"."
Best you keep your ficticious 'take' to yourself.
Comment by Kat, 25 Mar, 2010
Thank you Raphael for your post, and some truth finally coming out!! Hopefully all this nasty negative stuff can stop.
Comment by Panda, 26 Mar, 2010
To say that some people here are missing the point is an understatement. I reiterate once again – it is not the fact of how many women he has been with or that he cheats on his girlfriends and partners – it is the fact that he is using his supposed mediumship/psychic abilities to get access to these women.
I will again make the point – if he was a doctor, nurse, teacher, psychologist,, councellor, life coach etc, he would be struck off the register never able to practice in that field again. However as he has very cleverly chosen an unregulated industry, it is very hard to lay a complaint against him. Because he is not in a regulated industry, as far as I am aware, in these instances, he has not broken the law so it is not a police matter.
I once again also direct you to post 84 on this site that very effectively points out when private and public life becomes crossed. I will quote one of the many relevant sections:
"A comment from Kat appears to be typical of how Kelvin is viewed by his fans: 'Kelvin is a very gifted psychic and a fully genuine guy... I have donne his workshops and his shows, and he is fully connected from his heart. Top Bloke!!'
Silly Beliefs reply - "Therefore the way Cruickshank treats people in private will be a good indicator of whether the image he presents to clients is real, or merely a fake character that he plays in order to make money"
Now for a little info about myself since it is apparently required. Yes I did go to three of Kelvins "spiritual retreats" and they were all for different reasons – most certainly not to "stalk" Kelvin. I went to Vanuatu because I thought it would be so amazing to spend time with someone as supposedly spiritual as Kelvin and that I could learn so much from him. I will also admit to being taken in by his charisma and falling for him for a time. At that time things didn't add up totally but when you are under his influence you tend to turn a blind eye. However this does not mean I am a woman scorned trying to get revenge. And once again I will say it – I was not impressed with how unprofessional Kelvin was at this retreat and did send an email to him and his manager on our return home. I was not the only one who felt he was unprofessional in his behaviour, comments along these lines have been made in the James Randi Forum confirming this.
The next "retreat" was Samoa. You can ask any of my friends (or at least those that will tell the truth) and they will tell you I was constantly saying I did not want to go because of his previous unprofessionalism. Skeptics – you may want to barf at this point – but basically I was following my gut instinct that I needed to go for some reason. I must admit I had a lovely holiday relaxing, swimming, reading my books and meeting some lovely people. I obviously observed more of Kelvin's behaviour here.
Then I went to Ayers Rock "meditation retreat". I did think it would be a great way to get to the Rock and be amongst its spiritual energy and being among like minded people. Surprisingly enough our interaction with Ayers Rock merely consisted of only a 2 hour visit and then it was back to the pool. This was an afterthought trip and not something that had previously been arranged. On this "meditation" retreat we had two meditations with Kelvin (I note in his latest trip to Fiji they had three – more than we had). I totally admit it has been through Kelvin that I have met some amazing people.
The timing of my original post was merely just that, timing – barf aagain skeptics if you must – but once again it was just following my gut instinct, absolutely nothing to do with fictional stories in magazines.
These types of allegations have been made elsewhere prior to any similar posts being made on the SM site. Once again I give you the link to the following site http://nzglen.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/sensing-murder-sensing-bullshit/ where Patricia talks about her experiences with Kelvin at the time of "finding himself" and while he was still married and with a young child. I copy a part of the post here:
"The Kelvin I new stayed at my house in his van at Waihi Beach a time apparently he found himself spiritually. I did not know nor did the several women he was sleeping with know he had a wife and child, when I found out I kicked his ass to the curb. This person has no integrity, my short stint of knowing Kelvin he belittled my son, told me I had fat legs and would find it hard finding men...Kelvin however, new I had just come out of an abusive relationshhip, I was a mess...Volunerable to preditors such as Kelvin."
I have no idea who this woman is and no link to her whatsoever but feel for her so very much. I will however quote from Kelvins book, page 117 "I parked my van up in the hills behind Waihi – its rugged, wild country up there, rough, craggy farmland that turns to thick dark bush on the hillside.......I just needed to to spend time with myself – a lifetime of running had to stop"
Since my original post a lot more information has been brought to my attention and a lot more experiences have been shared with me by other people. These people are still not ready to come forward and I can totally understand why. There are also a number of fairly obvious people that any journalist worth their salt would be tracking down about now and asking if they would like to comment. So I am sure more will be made public as time goes on.
I would however once again ask if anyone does have information regarding an appropriate authority that could look into this matter then I would be very grateful for those details.
Comment by Anonymous-2, 26 Mar, 2010
"You say he uses vulnerabilities of people, well that can go both ways, people can use their vulnerablities to get attention in some cases. So it does not always work one way. The gift he has brings people to him who are grieving, who are missing people who they can no longer contact, he is there hope, he shows he cares, not just cos he has to but because he really does care, he knows what grief feels like, he has empathy"
It is not just women who seem vulnerable as you can see in the following example. Where in it does Mr Cruickshank show he cares? In what way would this boy be seeking attention? He is fighting for his life. Where does Mr Cruickshank show empathy? Mr Cruickshank certainly provides no hope for this individual. He has caused more harm.
27 Feb 2010
"Kelvin Cruickshank gave my brother a reading many years ago, he has a long history of alcoholism, diagnosed with Schizophrenia and is fighting for his life at this time. Kelvin endorsed my brother's belief that he has a special gift, nowadays he hears things on the TV and radio which aren't there, thinks blow flies are spies for his neighbours and thinks everyone is conspiring against his friends which live in his filthy house "the mice" Sounds funny, but all true, 25 years of solid drinking, pot smoking and a natural paranoid mind will do that to a person. Kelvin told him exactly what he wanted to hear "you're not as crazy as people think you are" This was shortly after Kelvin had come back from the UK after training with Colin Fry. How about I visit kelvin, tap on his shoulder and knock him on his fat ass, do you think he'll see that coming?"
votemenot dot co dot nz
"I am not his voice, and like I said I have nothing to do with him, I respect him, I am happily married and have no interest in him so maybe that makes a difference, I speak out for him because I believe women become fixated on him and want so much more from him"
Mrs Kat, you quote that you have nothing to do with Mr Cruickshank? Why do you send Mr Cruickshank fishing mags then? Could this be fixation maybe?
June 03, 2009, 1:08am
".... Katb thanks for the fishing mags ... I’ll enjoy them when I stop wasting my time on skeptics."
Comment by Kat, 26 Mar, 2010
To clear the fishing mags up before it gets into gossip central, I moved into the house I am in a year ago, on moving in I was getting a subscription of fishing mags the person who just left the house was recieving, this person left no forwarding address, I am not into fishing and knew Kelvin was, I gave him the first one I got when I saw him here in April/May last year when he was here for his show, and told him I would forward the rest as they came in on to him cos they were going to be put in the rubbish otherwise. Nothing exciting in that!! This is negative central and I am for my own health not reentering. These girls have an audience now to filter their anger and frustrations of not getting the desired results they wanted from Kelvin and you guys are all buying their story. At some point people need to be honest, more with themselves so they can move forward again in life.
Comment by Kat, 26 Mar, 2010
I am walking away completly from all of this and want to be 100% honest, and hope other do too. I have nothing to do with Kelvin, I met him on a workshop a couple of years ago. I went to the workshop hoping he could help me to connect to my friend who has passed over when we were younger and I had a lot of guilt about her passing. I didn;t want a reading I wanted an everlasting connection with her, hence the help to connect and workshop. Before this day I was a person who has little trust in anyone or myself. I had lived most my life in fear and had bouts of depression. I knew I had a spiritual side which was shown to me at 6yrs but I spent my life running from it looking for answers anywhere but in me. For some reason that day at the workshop I was awakened again to my spritual side, and from that day my life changed. I am thankful to Kelvin for showing that side to me because now I know who I am. Sounds airy fairy but I have only ever spoken out for Kelvin because I appreciate what he does for people. I am not the only one who has had a positive experience with him, there are thousands who have had their life changed because of his gift and something about him. My intentions was only ever to give back to him what he has given me, but unfortanely it has worked against him and now has been a catylyst for people who have had a bad experience with him. I feel their experience has come from there expectations not being met. I had no expectations from him ever. I believe in Kelvin;s ability and I believe there is a geniune side of him that cannot lie. We all have different experiences in life and they are our own experiences no one elses, I should of kept my opinions to myself but I felt strongly about speking out for him when people spoke against him, cos in my life he has made a HUGE difference. Now I feel shit because in someways I am ruining his life. A pure example of good intentions being judged wrongly. I do not believe Kelvin is the only one at fault in these accusations made against him.
People are not being honest with there intentions, they are angry cos their expectations of a future partner were not met, that is how I see it. I do not speak to Kelvin, have only ever had the odd post of thanks for the mags which were only sent cos they were good fishing mags destined for the rubbish bin. I fully support him and always will cos I have had a good experience, I see the loving side of him, and I believe I am a good judge of character on an energy level and I believe he is straight up, and honest. I trust my judgement. As I said I am walking away, I want no more to do with the public bashing and bullying he is getting, you guys will never accept him and never have and now bitter women have your pity and this is so swarming in harmful negative energy. I am so sorry to Kelvin and others that I may have been the cause of this, my only intention was ever to support a guy who has helped me change my life for the better. Long post, well known for crapping on about nothing, but oh well you get all sorts in life. Over and out. Panda please be honest and all the others, you may feel anger, but you are ruining lives here, time to be completly honest with yourselves, Kelvin is not the bad person you are making him out to be and you know it!!
Comment by Mungbean, 27 Mar, 2010
I totally agree with Rafael. I also have a knowledge of the going ons of the people involved in this.
I believe this animosity comes from a few women scorned who have been and continue to be, totally obsessed with Kelvin.
When will it end? Is seems Panda is finding forums to vent her anger all over the place. Maybe she should really consider the true reasons for this anger.
Go to the appropriate authorities????? For what???
Disappointment at not receiving enough attention from Kelvin would be more like it!.
Panda has obviously spent a great deal of money on every available retreat over a long period of time. Yet she states now that she wasn't satisfied from the first? If she had wanted to visit Ayers rock, she could have gone for a fraction of the cost on a private trip but no, Kelvin wouldn't have been there!.
'totally unhinged' are the words that come to mind!!!
Maybe if the true reasons for such animosity were revealed, these few women on a search and destroy mission would pull back!
Comment by Margaret, 27 Mar, 2010
Panda -I think you have misunderstood me.When I was talking about making complaints to the appropriate authority, I meant for the situations I have had to sort out.I didnt mean you, as you have rightly pointed out there isnt somewhere to turn to for situations that you have faced. It is sad to hear that your complaint directly to his office wasnt treated properly and by the sounds of it you werent offered any form of apology???
Anon-2 -that statement quoted from VMN, smacks of grasping at straws.Do you know if the man -not a boy as you put it-told Kelvin about his long history of chemical abuse & mental illness???As far as I know Kelvin isnt a trained Psychologist or Psyctherapist(sp), unless the man told him all his history -then how exactly is he responsible for damaging this man's life??? It is up to the person who has a mental illness, especially one as serious as that to seek proper help & take their medication. If they are in such a bad way as described then it is up to the family of that man to have him sectioned to get proper treatment & stablised on medication.
But it's much easier to point the blame elsewhere instead of taking responsibility for our own actions.
Comment by Anonymous-1, 27 Mar, 2010
I first would like to say that I am the 'Anonymous-1' from previous posts. Not the above 'Anonymous-2'.
Rapheal. I would be more than happy if you reveal who I am, and at the same time you can come out from your wee computer screen and reveal who you are. Come on, I dare you to.
There are definitely recent posts that are not factual, someone getting their info mixed up, or something. I think you should maybe have refrained from posting if you weren't confident about what you supposedly know, as there are a few question marks in your post.
Kat - why do you post that its your last post then post again and repeating the same BS, I am really really getting sick of the likes of YOU saying that people are infatuated by Mr KC. What nonsense. To me personally, he is a bit on the "heavy" side for my liking, just one quality that happens to be physical, but many other qualities he has is just not appealing to me."Celebs" just don't do anything for me either honey. even tho i'm sure you were not directing these comments at me.
Why do you think these women aren't being honest? Have you talked to them have you? Obviously not.
People still do not get (and probably because they don't have all the truthful information), that the unprofessional behaviour should not be happening. Just because he is a "medium" and teacher in his paid work, doesn't mean that he should not be treated like any other "professional". I have read quite a few cases recently where "professionals" have been disciplined because of these types of actions. Maybe it is time for the "profession" of mediums and whatever else they like to call themselves to be made accountable to a board or whatever. In other professions he would have been "struck off". If others don't speak out, then who can? He at present is accountable to himself. Maybe this is why it is happening. There is no code of conduct. A law unto thyself.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 28 Mar, 2010
At Silly Beliefs our primary gripe with Cruickshank (and his mates) is his claim that the spirits of dead people exist and that he can communicate with them. As skeptics we simply look for evidence of these paranormal claims, and all we find is evidence of cheating and evasion. In this regard we don't care whether Cruickshank is screwing his cute clients, cheating on his taxes, dying his hair blond or is a failed chef. His psychic claims are a scam and thus he is ripping off his clients.
However, skepticism aside, issues of ethics have also arisen around the promotion of his dodgy psychic career. One is whether the public has a right to learn of certain aspects of his private life. We contend that if his actions in private contradict with those he promotes in his public life, then he is merely acting a part to sell his services and those that might use his services have a right to know of his insincerity. The second, and more important one, is how he conducts his relationship between himself and his clients. It seems there have been several allegations of Cruickshank having sexual relationships with paying clients. It matters not if these relationships were consensual. As several have pointed out, it is simply inappropriate and unprofessional. There is no ethical dilemma, Cruickshank would have been wrong to have acted on his hormones. As has been noted, professionals such as doctors, psychologists, teachers, lawyers, counsellors etc are guided by codes of conduct and are censured and penalised for contravening them. The problem with Cruickshank, and mediums in general, is that he is not a 'professional' in a real sense. He is not a 'qualified' psychic medium, and has not undergone considerable training and specialised study in a recognised field. Labelling psychics as professionals is like saying both doctors and people who dress up as Santa Claus in department stores are both professionals. Psychics want to be seen as 'professionals' and certainly have clients, but then so do prostitutes. However there is no legal code of conduct for psychic mediums, no registration body that they must belong to, no qualification that they must possess and no licence is required to peddle their quackery. The fact is that everyone who consults a psychic gets screwed, the difference here is that for some this might be physically as well as financially, intellectually and emotionally.
The first challenge, private life verses public life, will be damaging to Cruickshank, in that potential clients will cancel appointments after realising that his caring, sensitive persona is just a sham to make money. The second challenge of inappropriate conduct towards clients could be damaging to trusting clients who, as has been pointed out, are often at a low point in their lives and struggling emotionally. While the sexual encounter might be fun, the enviable breakup will not be, and it is difficult to see how this encounter will enhance their emotional wellbeing.
We also noticed that post #109 mentioned a strange comment from Cruickshank: 'thanks for the fishing mags ... I'll enjoy them when I stop wasting my time on skeptics.'
In what way is Cruickshank wasting his time on skeptics? Like all psychics and mediums he avoids skeptics like the proverbial plague. He ignores our challenges to test his claims, refuses to answer our queries, criticises us in the media, insults us if we attend his shows and generally runs into the shadows when he senses our presence. He's admitted that he's dyslexic and doesn't like to read, so obviously he's not 'wasting his time' by reading what the likes of Skeptical Inquirer has to say on psychics. The only thing I can think of — if this claim isn't just another lie to his minions — is that instead of relaxing while reading about killing fish, or at least looking at the pictures, he is wasting his time worrying about how skeptics have exposed his scam and how he might hide all this from his public.
Comment by Anonymous-3, 29 Mar, 2010
I am astounded by some peoples comments. I wonder if Kelvin Cruickshank is happy to have this Kat person speaking on his behalf? She seems to have quite an obsession herself by the sounds of it with the man, or certainly seems to be quite worked up by the whole thing. I hope her beliefs don't crumble once she realises the truth, and will take her one sided judgements a little less seriously . I hope she doesn't need to believe in him to believe in herself, as it seems she is more defending herself and her own beliefs when it comes down to it, perhaps it is better to believe the nice fluffy things rather than to realise that life and people are more complex than that? And it doesn't reflect on her that she has had the wool pulled over her eyes a little if that is the case, or to find out that some people are not as perfect as she wanted to think.
And this comment below, taken from her post earlier, it seems a bit egotisical, I very much doubt she has the power to ruin anothers life. I don't know any of the people involved but would think the woman scorned angle is the oldest excuse in the book, and to place blame on those that may be victims is a bit off. i would say take a step back Kat and leave your judgments behind for a bit instead of calling others dis- honest.
"Now I feel shit because in someways I am ruining his life. A pure example of good intentions being judged wrongly. I do not believe Kelvin is the only one at fault in these accusations made against him."
Comment by Margaret, 29 Mar, 2010
Kat -You have nothing to be sorry for.You didnt start this mess, so you have no need to feel bad for defending someone who has had a positive impact on your life.
Comment by Anonymous-4, 29 Mar, 2010
whoever wrote the above [#116],,,is not by me..........someone has just told me about this site and post.........unbeliveable.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 28 Mar, 2010
Note: Since we have received two posts (#116 & 118) both tagged with the same first name but from different sources, suggesting they are different posters, we have relabelled them 'Anonymous-3' and 'Anonymous-4' to avoid confusion.
Comment by Margaret, 29 Mar, 2010
Anon-3 @116 -Leave Kat alone!She is entitled to her own opinions.She's not speaking on behalf of Kelvin, she is just sharing her opinion.Why should her view of him alter just because others have had negative experiences. Dont you think that's a bit High School -ohhhh Betty hates Mary so I'll hate Mary too!!!!
Those that were victims?? Give me a break!!If the worse thing that has ever happened to them is a failed fling, then my word they have lead sheltered lives.
Comment by BJ, 29 Mar, 2010
re post #116
They sent a post (since changed by SB to Anonymous-3) using a very recognisable name for anyone who read the Sensing Murder site, and now it appears from post #118 that poster #116 has lied about the name.
#116 started their post saying "I am astounded by some peoples comments..."
Yeah poster #116, astounded is right!!!
What game of pain are you playing??? Representing yourself as someone else in order to attack others...
Poster #116, reread your post, and then take a good long look in the mirror - I think you will find there is wisdom in your words for you yourself?!
To the Silly Beliefs team, this has gone on long enough? You are acting as a conduit for what appears to be some sad and dishonest people. How can you continue to post material when you cannot verify who is contributing, and you cannot verify the contents of each post?
Your continuation of this thread seems to be encouraging the assassination of not just one persons character?
Your original article sensed a scam? and now it seems you are happy to allow this at times anonymous user contributed crap to continue and to allow some to continue to inflict pain on others without just cause? Scamming truth at the expense of dignity and honesty? Where are your ethics?
Bad taste Silly Beliefs team, get back to your original cause? and no, I have nothing to do with Kelvin Cruickshank or have any contact
with other posters.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 31 Mar, 2010
BJ, you raise some interesting points. I think many posters on this topic forget that we are a skeptic website that is highly critical of all the Sensing Murder psychics and their promoters. We, and no doubt many others that visit our site, already have a negative view of Kelvin Cruickshank. These revelations haven't shocked us or caused us to rethink how he promotes himself. His character was already in the gutter. To paraphrase that Mafia? saying, 'Cruickshank is dead to us'. Consequently those critical of Cruickshank won't harm his business by their posts, since we already refuse to give him our support and recommend others do likewise. And paradoxically it is often those supportive of him that keep this 'scandal' in the limelight, keeping it alive so that those unaware of it might eventually get to hear of it. A bit like the Vatican not knowing when to shut up about 'The Da Vinci Code' and unintentionally giving it unprecedented free publicity.
Also we do not, and can not, verify the source of emails or their contents, eg, we can't verify that you really are called 'BJ' and have nothing to do with Cruickshank or the other posters. We simply have to take your word for it. It is child's play to send email under a bogus name, and numerous people today post under yahoo, gmail etc accounts, such as yourself, that have no connection with an ISP. Every comment we receive is effectively anonymous, even if it is signed 'Joe Bloggs', or as in your case, BJ. We have no idea who any of these people really are, and nor do we want to snoop around and find out. One advantage of the internet is its anonymity, allowing people to make honest comments that they might be reluctant to voice in public.
You have — anonymously — described some of the posters as sad and dishonest, and you evidently reach this conclusion while claiming to have no knowledge of the events. Why do you feel you have the right to express this unsupported opinion while suggesting we delete the opinions of others? And who exactly do you believe are the 'sad and dishonest people', those supporting Cruickshank or those criticising him? If you can answer this question and wish to post that answer then you are no different than all the other posters. You will be posting another opinion that will either support or harm Cruickshank's public persona.
Regarding character assassination, when people claimed that Tiger Woods had cheated on his wife with 19 or more women, it was certainly in direct contrast with his carefully orchestrated public image of the loving and loyal husband, but it was not character assassination because it was all true. Much to the disappointment of his supporters. As for Cruickshank, our reading of the comments would suggest that even those supportive of him appear to begrudgingly acknowledge that he has had sexual relationships with several clients, but their argument is that this should remain personal and private. None of the posters, for or against, mention comments from Cruickshank, on any of these forums, that assert, 'I utterly deny all the allegations made by these women'. 'These events never happened.' 'I have never acted in anything but a professional manner with my clients' (remembering that there is only one 'profession' where 'professionals' have sex with their clients). We don't care whether the women threw themselves at him or he seduced them, whether the relationship went well or ended badly, either way we believe he fell prey to his hormones and entered into inappropriate sexual relationships with some of his clients. Thus this debate around Cruickshank is about ethics. If you accept that these relationships did occur, do you think they were proper and private and typical of professional/client relationships? If you believe these relationships never happened, do you therefore believe all allegations should be ignored and suppressed? As a lesson in where this view can lead us, look how many decades passed while well-meaning people kept insisting that a few sad and dishonest people shouldn't be allowed assassinate the good character of Catholic priests.
Cruickshank has done nothing illegal, and if he feels he has done nothing unethical either, then he has nothing to hide, nothing to suppress, nothing to keep from the women's magazines. I can keep the intimate details of my sex life private while still being perfectly happy to acknowledge that I have a sex life, and in broad terms with whom. Can Cruickshank do the same? Also there is a major difference between embarrassing behaviour and shameful behaviour. I would be embarrassed if intimate details of my sex life were published, but I would not be ashamed, since it is perfectly normal, natural and legal. But if I were cheating on my wife or if I were a doctor having sex with my patients then revelations of this would be shameful to me, and I would do my utmost to keep this activity secret and hidden from the public, and my wife. Cruickshank isn't married or a doctor, but does he still feel that he would need to keep relationships with clients secret? If the secret got out, would he be embarrassed or ashamed? Think of Tiger Woods, when the public discovered that he had been secretly having sex with numerous women, was he simply embarrassed or deeply ashamed?
If Cruickshank has had sexual relationships with his clients and refuses to acknowledge this, not the details of with who and when, but simply that the relationships happened, then he knows or suspects that making these relationships public will harm his reputation. If his supporters know that these relationships with clients occurred and want to keep them suppressed, they likewise know or suspect that they will be damaging to his public persona. And they do appear to be arguing that these client relationships are private, not that they never happened. If both Cruickshank and his supporters feel that there was nothing wrong in his having sexual relationships with clients, then what reasons can they give to want to hide the fact that these relationships, minus the details, happened? Remember that no one is demanding to know the names of the women involved, we don't want to know what the sex was like and whether there are any pictures. The debate is over whether it is ethical for someone that is consulted and looked upon as a 'professional', whether they really are or not, to enter into sexual relationships with his clients, many of whom Cruickshank often claims he is trying to 'help'.
Our broad argument is that if attitudes and behaviour in someone's private life conflict with the cultivated public image they project in order to sell themselves or a product, their the public has a right to know of this hypocrisy and act accordingly. It doesn't just revolve around sex. For example, Cruickshank misleads his clients and supporters with his comment on the fishing magazines: 'I'll enjoy them when I stop wasting my time on skeptics'. He makes this comment solely to create the false image of a crusading psychic striving to convince the skeptics, knowing that his clients want a person confident in their beliefs that is willing to confront the disbelievers. Yet away from the public gaze and the safety of his workshops, he avoids skeptics like I avoid sharks. Big or small, the public when they are paying for a service or product have a right to know when the promoter's public claims don't match their private actions. It is the hiding of these differences between public claims and private reality that permit scams to survive.
All that said, we agree that pretty much all that is going to be said about Cruickshank and his alleged inappropriate behaviour with clients has probably be said. The allegations have been made and his supporters have responded, and now the debate is turning into a tennis rally. Critics of Cruickshank would be better served to approach the media and frequent forums for psychic believers, and supporters should just stop responding and hope the scandal dies a natural death. It is now up to the public to decide whether these relationships happened, and if they did, were they ethical? Having been exposed to arguments from both camps, the choice is now theirs whether to book a reading or a workshop with medium Kelvin Cruickshank, or whether to say they don't care either way as this psychic nonsense is all crap anyway.
Comment by Leo, 31 Mar, 2010
Fantastic reponse SB (122). Superbly put.
I applaud the ladies for speaking their truth - I know it hasn't been easy, but they have acheived their goal in warning others of this predator.
Comment by K, 02 May, 2010
I stumbled upon this website/thread when doing a spontaneous website search to see why the latest series of Sensing Murder had been so short. I must admit, I was a big fan on the show and especially Kelvin. He's very charismatic, isn't he? Recently I even booked to go to one of shows, as one of my best friends died in December, and I would have given ANYTHING to have a message — any message, anything — from my friend — but in the end I couldn't afford to go.
I'm not usually a forums person and I don't usually get involved with these types of things but I want to say it here: Even though I don't know the intimate details of what goes on on these retreats and the nature of the allegations, I think there is a genuine cause for concern in Mr Cruickshank's behaviour. I understand after reading all these comments that this is a website for skeptics of psychic mediums/Sensing Murder and I personally always encourage a healthy debate. But it is ridiculous that there is an argument over whether or not these allegations are true. In my wordly experience almost always — where there's smoke there is fire. You can debate forever over whether it's moral or not moral that Mr Cruickshank cheats on his girlfriend. Some of you say that it is none of our business, that people have a right to their private lives.
Does a pedophile have a right to their private life?
Basing my opinion on everything I have read (and I have done my research) I think it's possible that Mr Cruickshank might just be a predator. And a con man. And judging from his very own comments, almost certainly a narcissist. I'm almost mad at myself for being sucked in. Here's what I suggest. It's pointless debating this between yourselves any longer. Take action. If there are people who have been harmed by Mr Cruickshank and are genuinely concerned that he is a threat and/or dangerous, report it to police. You owe it to society!
There is definitely a story here. I know two excellent journalists. If anyone wants to tell their story I can put you in touch with either of them.
Comment by steve, 30 Mar, 2011
Ive read your web page (silly beliefs) and as a agnostic skeptic would make the following comment:
i have (with an open mind) seen the shows mentioned......
The only 'siily' person worse than a believer in everything is a closed minded idiot who believes in nothing (ie narrow minde) and is scared of what may be the truth.
Try being objective pal
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 31 Mar, 2011
Steve, we were in fact being utterly objective about 'Sensing Murder' and their silly mediums. If you've watched the shows and read our criticisms of them and yet are still of the mind that these morons might be for real, why don't you explain why you're undecided. Insulting us by calling us 'a closed minded idiot who believes in nothing (ie narrow minde) and is scared of what may be the truth' is usually the first sign that you have no reasons or evidence to back up your view. Please tell us where we went wrong in our observations, how our view that they were lying and cheating is mistaken. And how can you seriously say we believe in nothing? For one, you know very well that we believe these programs are bogus. We're not scared of the truth Steve, so please, tell us what it is.
Comment by Therese, 03 May, 2011
Don't forget to add that [American psychic] Nancy Myers is also a big FRAUD .... I had an e-mail reading with her some 2 years ago and it was full of nonsense .... I told her about and she said "she does not lie" but that sometimes things are not immediately perceptible to the recipient .... Make what you like of this but I can guarantee she is a fraud since I did not identify with anything she said.
Well done for exposing these people who make money out of other people's pain and anxieties.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 May, 2011
In our view Therese every single psychic and medium on the planet is a fraud, not one has proved that they can really do what they claim. It's all lies of course, and Nancy Myer, previously known as Nancy Anderson and also Nancy Czetli, is no different from the rest. And when they make a wrong guess during a reading that means nothing to the recipient, of course they blame the recipient for being ignorant about their own life and family history. It's a trick that far too many people fall for and happily hand over money for nothing but vague guesses.
Comment by chrisso, 04 May, 2011
it is quite clear that the silly beliefs team are not going to believe anyone.i have had spiritual or physic experiences but i dont call myself a physic.how do you account for ancient aboriginal or indian spiritual beliefs.imagine an unpolluted secluded race with no outside influence,what do you believe would have them sitting by a camp fire and discovering spiritual encounters.do you believe that an aboriginal thousands of years ago decided it would be a good trick to make up bullshit.i have not seen a ufo but that dosent mean they dont exist.i have not travelled overseas but they tell me it does exist.i once had a spiritual experience with a skeptical mate present,after the shock of the experience he began to illogically explain how it could have happened at the expense of admitting what truly did.that was 30 years ago and so far i have heard no less than ten different explanations as to why he saw what he saw.i have no explanation as to why some experience physic or spiritual encounters but i sure do know that skepticism is just as frustrating to those that have had experiences.and yes i do believe some so called physics are fakes ,it is after all human nature to decieve for reward.one thing i can guantee every skeptic that makes fun of people trying to relay truth will one day find out for themselves and if you dont believe in that it truly is not my problem.i can guarantee one thing silly beliefs and that is if you are given five minutes before execution you will ask the universe or whatever you wish not to call it for help.your time will come see if i am wrong.
Comment by chrisso, 04 May, 2011
dear silly beliefs there are plenty of credible spiritual and physic phenonenom recorded and witnessed through out history.but one of my silly beliefs is that unless a skeptic is present to witness an event then it is not true.the problem of credibility for your sake is that unless you witness it with your eyes its not true.i have gone down this road with many a skeptic and regardless of history recorded evidence nothing will ever satisfy you.i see in your replies your smugness which can be a trap for young players,antagonising answers such as yours only serves as a warning to others that your skepticism shall not be broken,so all i can say to that is good luck and i hope your skepticism serves you well.i see your belief in science what about the big bang theory what aload of crap that is just fanciful did you see that with your eyes ,i bet not so prove that.what about us evolving from apes did you see that what a load of crap.i particularly like the one about the black holes in which we travel new universes a bit fanciful dont you think.you see silly beliefs two can play your game the only difference between you and me is you have a belief in science which you believe is credible where as my account of anything out side science in your eyes is hogwash.science is not an answer to natural and recorded experiences throughout history if anything it is a hindrance.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 May, 2011
Good grief Chrisso, where do we start? You claim that when it comes to 'spiritual or physic experiences' we're 'not going to believe anyone'. This is not true. What we say is that we won't believe weird and mystical tales if there is no good evidence that they are true. Do you believe children when they say they've seen the Tooth Fairy or a monster under their bed? We would hope not, even though they may be adamant that they have seen these things. For the same reasons that you won't believe children's stories, we won't believe similar stories from adults, unless they can produce evidence that something weird really did happen.
In the same vein you say that 'there are plenty of credible spiritual and physic phenonenom recorded and witnessed through out history', but 'regardless of history recorded evidence nothing will ever satisfy you'. There are certainly many spiritual and psychic stories recorded throughout history, but not a single one is credible, not a single one has evidence to support it. You can't just tack the phrase 'recorded evidence' onto an event from history. For example, do you believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven from Jerusalem, that Hercules was the son of Zeus, that Vikings went to Valhalla on dying, that a Hebrew carpenter walked on water or that King Arthur and his wizard Merlin existed? What about the untold people throughout history that have seen leprechauns, witches on broomsticks and devils fornicating with maidens? Just because some ignorant peasant or priest talked about spiritual experiences that they believed they had witnessed doesn't make them true. We know for a fact that all of these things are fiction. You claim that for us, 'unless you witness it with your eyes its not true'. This is obvious nonsense. We can list untold events from history that we never witnessed that we nevertheless believe actually did happen. For example we believe that the Egyptians built the pyramids, that Julius Caesar was killed by Brutus, that Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter and that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, even though we witnessed none of these events. We believe in historical events that are supported by evidence, but not those that have no supporting evidence and/or are clearly fanciful, such as leprechauns and talking to dead people.
You on the other hand claim that you are more than willing to believe things you've never seen based simply on the testimony of someone else. You say that 'i have not seen a ufo but that dosent mean they dont exist. i have not travelled overseas but they tell me it does exist'. But this uncritical attitude allows you to believe all manner of silly beliefs. We could say that we have never seen a pink elephant on roller skates but that doesn't mean they don't exist, right? You say you are willing to believe other countries exist based solely on claims of a neighbour or cousin perhaps, but you then contradict yourself by refusing to believe scientific claims from respected experts in their fields, claims based on solid evidence. You say 'what about the big bang theory what a load of crap that is just fanciful did you see that with your eyes, i bet not so prove that. what about us evolving from apes did you see that what a load of crap'. Why are you suddenly now unwilling to believe what others tell you? There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting the big bang and evolution, and yet you dismiss them out of hand, but you believe UFOs and spirits might exist even though there is not a shred of evidence supporting them. You ask how we can believe in these things since we never saw them happen. You've already told us that you can believe in things you haven't seen, so why do you say we can't? If it's true that not seeing the big bang or evolution happen means that we aren't justified in believing in them, as you say, then this destroys all religion as well, since no one saw gods create the universe and life either. But we don't believe this is what you mean, you just mean that the big bang doesn't count if we weren't there but that this condition doesn't apply to things spiritual. Don't you think that is a bit of a cop out?
We suspect you are believing what you want to believe is true and are ignoring the fact that the modern world is founded on science, not spiritual beliefs. The medium we are using to communicate, the internet, was invented by science, not psychics, science landed man on the moon, not religion, science is curing disease while mystical beliefs are keeping people sick, ignorant and impoverished. You claim that 'science is not an answer to natural and recorded experiences throughout history if anything it is a hindrance', when it is plainly obvious to everyone that the great strength of science is that it has explained the natural world, and showed that the old spiritual answers were embarrassingly wrong, that gods don't hurl lightning bolts, that demons don't cause headaches, that praying doesn't prevent disasters and that hearing voices in our heads is a sign of delusion, not talkative dead people.
You ask 'how do you account for ancient aboriginal or indian spiritual beliefs... do you believe that an aboriginal thousands of years ago decided it would be a good trick to make up bullshit'? Ancient spiritual experiences arose from primitive, ignorant peoples trying to explain their world. We know that many ancient cultures used hallucinatory drinks, substances and fasting etc to place themselves into trances where they imagined they were experiencing the supernatural world and communing with spirits, gods or ancestors. As it turned out nearly everything they thought of did turn out to be wrong, or 'bullshit' as you describe it, but they all believed it at the time. And many still do. But we know that all these ancient peoples hadn't really found a way to communicate with the supernatural, for the very simple reason that they all described different things.
Think about it. When ancient Aborigines, Indians, Hawaiians and Vikings described toothache or death they all described the same thing. And when modern Australian, Indian, American and European scientists independently describe the spectrum of light or the force of gravity they all see the same thing. But when Aborigines, Indians, Hawaiians and Vikings describe what the spiritual world looks like they ALL come up with completely different descriptions. Why is that? Because they're just making it up. If they were all really experiencing a real spiritual world then they should all tell the same story. They don't, not even close. They're like a hundred kids all working on the same maths problem and reaching a hundred different answers. At the very least 99 of them must be wrong. Can you please explain why every culture has arrived at a different view of the spiritual and supernatural world, why most religions don't have gods at all, and of those that do most have multiple gods, with only a handful insisting that only one god is running the show? Unlike science that agrees on a single answer, why is the spiritual world telling a different story to everyone that asks?
You say that you once 'had a spiritual experience', and that you've had 'no less than ten different explanations' as to what might explain it in rational terms, none of which you accept. This would suggest that untold numbers of people who you have told your story to have found it unbelievable and have tried to explain why. That ten different explanations have been offered suggests that the evidence for your experience is so non-existence that many explanations might explain it. Even your friend who was there didn't find the experience in any way convincing. In 30 years it seems only you believe there was something spiritual going on. Since you've happily told so many people about this experience, perhaps you'd be willing to tell us also? We'll never be swayed by spiritual experiences that people keep secret.
And what do you mean by 'spiritual' anyway? Deeply spiritual people flew planes into the Twin Towers, a spiritual group called Heaven's Gate committed mass suicide awaiting aliens, spiritual people have murdered abortion doctors and homosexuals and others withhold medical attention from sick children and pray instead.
Disturbingly you say that 'i can guarantee one thing silly beliefs and that is if you are given five minutes before execution you will ask the universe or whatever you wish not to call it for help. your time will come see if i am wrong'. However you can no more guarantee this threat than I can fly. Why do you think you know that we are all going to be executed, are you a member of some cult with us on a hit list?
Look Chrisso, we are simply looking for the truth, for the best descriptions of how the world works and at present science apparently offers the best. We will happily change our minds, as will science, if a better description is proposed. But almost without fail, those that believe they have a better description, refuse categorically to reveal it in any detail. They talk of an invisible spiritual world, of psychics and mediums, of spirits and souls of dead people, but they refuse to prove or even debate rationally that these things are real. They simply say that they are right and that their dissenters are close minded, dogmatic and smug.
So could you please tell us which historical 'credible spiritual and physic phenonenom' you are referring to, why you didn't think it worth mentioning them, and why aren't they generally accepted? You mentioned your spiritual experience that is for you so compelling, so let us in on the story and details. You were persuaded what you saw was real, why not persuade us? You wrote to us in an attempt to convince, if not us, then some of our readers, that the spiritual world is real. So please, tell us why we are mistaken. We will never concede that there might be something to the spiritual world if psychics and supporters like you keep the details from us. Why are you so secretive? Enlighten us, tell us what we have missed, explain why the Sensing Murder psychics, supposedly the best in Australasia, are right and science is wrong. You have nothing to lose, and by swaying us, everything to gain. Scientists are more than happy to debate and explain their claims, and believers in the spiritual world need to adopt the same stance rather than just saying that scientific theories are crap. That's really not a good argument. So, are you going to reveal the amazing secrets of the spirit world, or like most are you going to say the details are too personal or it's simply not worth your time?
Comment by chrisso, 09 May, 2011
i did not expect you to believe it is just so frustrating when you have had experiences and you no so well that you cant prove.i think proof is in seeing for yourself and if you dont see and choose not to believe than there is really nothing additional i can add.
Comment by chrisso, 09 May, 2011
no i do not belong to any cult i made reference to you knowing before death no matter the circumstances it could be cancer.i am making assumption that you may back a race two ways and call on what you dont believe in.after reading your answer i can see that regardless of any documented proof you will not believe in it.before you call me a religious fanatic ill have you know i belong to no church.and yes scientific theory is just that theory.what about the three children of fatima where a multitude of people including skeptics witnessed unfimiliar phenomenon.what about credible witness accounts of edgar casey.there is plenty of credible accounts but people like you will never be convinced no matter what gets put forward.there is one unmistakable fact and that is that i cannot prove any of my experiences but in saying that it does not make me wrong.for whatever reason spiritual or psychic experience and that of ufo sightings seems to be of a personal nature and the frustration of not being able to prove such encounters can be very demeaning to oneself.i have not been certified as mad as yet but if people choose to believe i am talking nonsense then so be it.i make no excuses for any statement i have made and i am not ashamed or put off in no matter by any answer you or anyone else wishes to make because unfortunately that is the way it is.
Comment by chrisso, 10 May, 2011
chrisso here after reading your reply to me i realised that you and i have something in common.you mention the big bang as being credible where as i should treat you in exactly the same manner as you treat me and ask where is your evidence did you see it and if it is theory then already it has no credibility.you also say that science theory on evolution is credible where as i say again this is theory where is your proof,it is so easy to play the game your way its just that you believe in theory.you also believe in the resources of science when commoners such as myself are left in total confusion when scientist themselves have different opions on matter and in such scientific communities cant agree.i dont believe god created the world in seven days and i dont believe we descended from apes as you would have me believe and again i say where is your evidence.you make light gesture of aboriginal or other cultural beliefs of spiritual encounters and again without being able to show physical evidence you dismiss as hogwash.the way i see it with so many people in history and now reporting such experiences how can a closed minded section of society such as you belong dismiss such claims.have you ever thought that it could be the failure of science itself in its inabilty to proper prove one way or another that spirituality does or does not exist.my firm belief is that science itself is inept in this field and rather than me accept blame for what you call hocus pocus how about i put it back on you theorist and ask a warranted question about your credibility.in reality because i cant personally explain my experiences and the very fact that you derive peoples experiences to have no fact leaves me to believe that all that can be derived from such forums as this is pure debate backed up by no clear evidence by both parties.i would suggest though instead of trashing peoples accounts of what they report as being real why dont you conclusively prove to me being in science that my experiences were false instead of the same old bullshit bullshit scientific nonsense of disbelief.as i have said to you before i too dont believe that all psychics are genuine and in saying that scientific evidence based on theory needs to be questioned for its inabilty to show credible evidence given especially that scientist themslves agree to disagree.we could play this game of non evidential debate forever but for all my failings of evidence science must except its inability to prove me and millions of others experiences as being incorrect.i see the inability of science to prove me wrong or right as being the failure of science and if science is so credible why does it rely so heavily on theory.im sorry silly beliefs but you have failed miserably to convince me of any credibilty on this matter and i believe that it is the inabilty of science to prove one way or another that should be in question.science as you tell it is the end all of credible knowledge but i disagree either tell us we are certified mad for our experiences and offer such proof so that i and millions of others can get on with life.maybe us in the real world are dillusional ,it could be that i have a clear brain disfuction but all i have is what appears to me to have been some experience that was real.if you can prove me to be dillusional through scientific evidence that is not based on theory i will listen to you but untill then if science is not able to prove by way of real evidence than this debate is fanciful on behalf of you and myself.put up your evidence and save your own credibility because mine is not in question to me but your inabilty to prove my experiences fanciful is to be questioned.you are the scientist instead of trashing my and thers experiences how about you on behalf of the scientific community prove me wrong.with kindest regards.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 May, 2011
Thanks for your replies Chrisso. We will respond to each of your comments in the order we recieved them, since this is how we wrote them. First #132. We know that it is frustrating when you can't get people to believe you, even more so when people won't even enter into a discussion about that belief. But as we've said, we won't consider changing our minds if you don't provide any good reasons why we should.
You say that 'proof is in seeing for yourself', but this contradicts your previous comment that you accept that other countries exist even though you haven't seen them. We suspect that there are a million things that you believe exist or have existed even though you've never seen them, eg molecules, piranha, comets, nuclear weapons, Egyptian pyramids, viruses, dinosaurs, William Shakespeare, and even us. We should only believe something exists or has happened when we are provided with good evidence, to claim that 'proof is in seeing' is as false as the old claim that the camera never lies. We read this statement by Victor J Stenger the other day: 'Do you know what is common sense is? It's the human faculty that tells us the world is flat'. The point is that seeing is not believing. Not everything our brain tells us is true. Do you believe what you see at a magic show? After seeing 'Star Wars' at the movies, did you believe that was real? When drunks see pink elephants on the way home from the pub, are they real? They're not real to you since you didn't see them, but are they real for the drunks? When Muslims saw Mohamed flying on his horse or people saw Jesus walking on water, was that proof that Mohamed and Jesus really did these things? Proof requires evidence and often witness testimony is not good evidence. Remember that we only know of leprechauns, fairies and trolls because people claim to have seen them. If 'proof is in seeing for yourself' then these beings are real in some places and times. Do you believe they're real?
You say that if we 'dont see and choose not to believe than there is really nothing additional i can add'. The reason we can't see your argument or choose to believe it is that you refuse to divulge it, even though you say you've been telling it to others for 30 years. We don't even know your story so how can we possibly believe it? You have your frustration, this is ours, that believers say that they have had convincing experiences that validate the spiritual world, but they won't expand on this, they immediately retreat, complaining bitterly that no one will believe them.
Now to comment #133. You claim that 'after reading your answer i can see that regardless of any documented proof you will not believe'. Did you really read our answer? Even you acknowledge that we believe in science, and we gave examples of things we believe from history, and we said we will happily change our minds, as will science, if a better description is proposed. How can you accuse us of rejecting 'documented proof' when you offer no proof whatsoever, let alone documented proof. Saying that you believe in things spiritual and that you've witnessed spooky things is not proof of anything. We don't say we won't believe your story, we simply say we don't believe it at this present time because you refuse to reveal your experience and the reasons that we should believe you. Please don't put the blame on us, implying that you have set forth your evidence and we refuse to look at it. Admit to yourself and the world that others won't believe you simply because you won't give them reason to.
We wouldn't call you a religious fanatic, but you don't have to belong to a church to be religious, and we suspect by your comments that your views of the universe evoke religious answers rather than naturalistic ones. For example, you appear to believe in souls, communicating with the dead, you reject cosmology and evolution and you believe in psychics and Jesus Christ. You certainly sound religious to us, regardless of how you see yourself. By your comment that 'scientific theory is just that, theory', you also show that not only do you not believe science, you don't understand what it's about. You use the layman's use of the word 'theory', meaning a guess, rather than the scientific use, meaning a well-verified explanation. We don't just have the big bang theory and the theory of evolution, we have the theory of gravity, the theory of disease, atomic theory, the theory of light etc. Do you insist that gravity, germs, atoms and light are bogus as well? If not, why do you accept these theories, and reject only those that throw doubt on religious answers?
As for psychic Edgar Cayce and those kids claiming to see the Virgin Mary at Fatima, all nonsense, that's why most people in the world have never heard of them. There is no good reason to believe in their claims and memory of them is fading fast, unlike names such as Einstein and Darwin for example, who did provide proof of their claims. You seem very selective of who you will believe, of who you find to be a credible. You believe three uneducated, religion indoctrinated children in Fatima and a poorly educated photographer called Cayce who produce unsupported testimony, yet you refuse to believe thousands of highly educated scientists who produce experimental proof to support their claims, and even give us technology based on their theories. Technology works because the theories are correct. Do you also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden? You must do because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Holmes, believed in them, and he provided 'documented proof', including photographs, that they existed. If you don't believe Conan Doyle, if he's not credible, why do you believe the kids at Fatima? Stop saying that 'people like you will never be convinced no matter what gets put forward', when you aren't putting anything forward that's has evidence to support it.
You're quite right that your inability to prove your experiences were real doesn't mean they weren't. But you can't expect us to even tentatively support you if you won't even say what they were. Especially since your experiences are evidently contrary to the verifiable experiences everyone else has. It's also revealing that you believe 'spiritual or psychic experience and that of ufo sightings seems to be of a personal nature'. We couldn't agree more. We believe that these experiences are subjective rather than objective, that is, taking place solely in one's mind rather than the external world. This does not mean, as you say, that you're mad, merely that the mind is perhaps misidentifying what it sees. This is especially obvious in UFO sightings, where people combine a knowledge of aliens from movies with an unidentified object in the night sky, for example Venus, and believe they have seen a flying saucer. Likewise religious beliefs convert unusual sightings into religious objects. This is why Christians, such as the kids at Fatima, see the Virgin Mary or Jesus and not Mohamed, and why Hindus never see Jesus during their spiritual experiences. A person's religion or beliefs dictates what they see when confronted with an unusual sight. Christians see Mary, UFO believers see aliens, skeptics see a mystery worth investigating.
You certainly shouldn't feel ashamed or demeaned for describing what you witnessed, as long as you are prepared to describe your experience honestly and factually, and are prepared to consider alternative explanations as to what may have occurred. However, if you enter every discussion with the statement, 'This is what I saw, this is what it was, and I don't want any argument or criticism. I know what I saw'. Taking this stance you can't then criticise people who may not believe you, accusing them of being dogmatic and closed minded, because all you've done is describe yourself.
We're being open minded by asking you to tell us what you experienced (anonymously), and while we may well disagree with your interpretation, at least we are willing to listen. We're not trying to embarrass people, after all, we all once believed in gods and such, and I've seen two UFOs, but scientific and philosophic arguments have swayed us to a certain worldview, and spiritual and religious people have been unable or unwilling to present arguments and evidence that might temp us back to their side. We're sorry, but in our world simply telling us that you sincerely belief in something is not at all convincing.
We'll respond to your latest comment #134 in a day or two.
Comment by chrisso, 10 May, 2011
chrisso again,why you insist on bringing up jesus mohamed and all the other tripe to hinder my point is beyond me.i am simply asking for documented scientific proof that spirituality is false.i am not interested in your belief of my assumptions because every time you have got that wrong.your undying character assasination of people trying to be honest with you is becoming predictable.you say that evidence is what you are after but i cant see that it would make any difference.you say that you want me to outline my said experiences but to what avail.i have been scanning your answers to other letters and it is quite clear to me that nothing will satisfy your undeniable disbelief in anything spiritual.it seems to me that your obsession with fact is clouded by your full trust in scientific theory,it may pay for you to look up theory in the dictionary.i particularly like the explanation of speculation.i find your explanation of reference to spiritual sightings that are dirivative of ones belief system a little to general and lacking the fundamental perception of quality scientific study.you have to understand that i can only make the statement to you about my own spiritual experiences from my own personal accounts.i find it incredible that you can make assumptions of my experiences based on your disbelief of such things.i am in no way obsessed or offended by your theories but i cant believe you would start such a forum without real scientific evidence to substantiate your claims.i have stated to you before that i know i cant prove any of my experiences to you and to suggest i could would be false.i am doing my best to be honest and so far i still have not heard anything credible from you that may suggest i could be dillusional.if i outlined in detail any of my experiences it would be met i am sure with your non compliant belief system and the reality is you cast judgement on something you clearly have no evidence against.you keep demanding argument or evidence on spirituality while not supplying any credible evidence yourself.as i said before prove me wrong with proven scientific evidence and if i am truly dillusional you would be doing me a favour.i will turn the tide on you and ask for your evidence on why my experiences laid out to you or otherwise should adhere to to your way of thinking.you could probably save yourself a lot of time and space if you get right to the point or scientific evidence that supports your silly beliefs forum.if you want to waste time going on about jesus hidus mohamed aliens thats totally up to you but i would really like to press you on credible scientific study that would discredit my experiences.and instead of me outlining any of my experiences so that you can discredit a fact of life experience that i did actually have how about you come good on why you believe people like me and others would lie.do you belive we do it for attention what makes your mind tick the way it does.as i have said before i dont believe in all psychics but i will admit to once going to one that was spot on.i had the reading taped and there was no probing or guessing this psychic was correct all the way.and no she did not case my house or have a detective snoop around for answers.i did not tell her anything at all about myself i let her do the talking.if you dont believe that it really is not my problem i am still waiting for your scientific evidence that may prove me to be dillusional.if you can supply me with good evidence i can free myself of all argument or debate that may be derived as tripe to you.your broard statement of my concern of your judgement of my experiences is quite fanciful it is impliant of you being correct.and i am afraid silly beliefs once again you have failed to convince me of your beliefs.with kindest regards.
Comment by chrisso, 11 May, 2011
dear john as i am signing off anyway id like to share with you what i interpreted from your responses.i have been opposed to organised religion all my life.your answers were no way indifferent to conversations with what i percieve a cult like jehovas witness a scientologist or a fundamental muslim.i would say you are a fundermentalist and judging by your answers i would say that with all fundermentalist you have a closed mind to all suggestive alternates to reasonable thinking outside your own.i because of experience have an inquisitive mind as i seek answers .the difference between you and me is that i choose to be open minded. you dont accept anything outside your fundermentalist mind which causes no concern to me whatsoever.if you dont think you are a fundermentalist go back and look at your answers you seem to have a bee in your bonnett.my correspondence with you is no different to that of a full on jehovas witness.you need to wake and stop being a fundermentalist,you say in one breath you have seen two ufosand i personnally dont have aproblem with that but do you honestly think that your fundermental beliefs are above anyone elses.im sorry john but i believe you have become what you say you dislike a closed minded fundermentalist.the problem for the public is that you cant see the trees for the forest and i think you have been a fundermentalist for to long now for you to even recognise what you have become.but just the same good luck with that your superior attitude it is to much for me to deal with.
Comment by chrisso, 12 May, 2011
to further point out validation of your fundermentalism i would like to address your child like rantings in answer 135.human faculty tells usthe world is flat what the hell silly beliefs.the world was deemed flat until proven otherwise but dont you understand that at the time it was truth even by those who claimed to be intelligent.your rant about pink elephants star wars,muslims,jesus,leprechauns,faires and trolls probably fit with your assumptions of me being uneducated and from a poorer class background,your rants about me being religious are totally false and you say i dont believe in cosmology or evolution ,you really have a problem with sticking to the facts.why dont you just start out your answers to people with i know what you think although that may indicate that you could probably have some psychic powers.you say i dont believe thousands of educated scientist when all i said was i have a problem with big bang and desending from apes.what other psychic powers have you got silly beliefs what will be your next great assumption of my beliefs.and you talk about the worldview by scientific and philosophic argument you probably need to get out a bit more as your psychic powers of self grandeur seem to be decieving you.you probably overlooked the increasing amount of psychological and science based study going on right now based on spirituality.the russians and americans in the cold war era studied these capabilities extensively.i should probably say that i have a problem with your baseless argument and your insistance of hiding behind the skirt of science as you vent your illogical rants.the question of spiritual study on a scientific or psychology bases is still ongoing and if you claim to represent science you would know that.your forum is in itself inconclusive and can not be taken seriously in the name of science as the verdict has not yet been posted.further to that as you insist on holding science to your credit do the right scientific thing and have a look at current studies that are being conducted right now throughout the world regarding spirituality.this is definately my last posting i dont believe you represent science at all and i dont buy your childlike rants.you are a sham silly beliefs and it will omly be a matter of time before the public does recognise this good luck your going to need it
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 May, 2011
Regarding your latest comments Chrisso, let's begin at at #134. You've got sidetracked, changing the subject from spirits to science. Remember that you wrote to us, seemingly about our 'Sensing Murder' and psychics article, in an attempt to defend the spiritual experience. We had exposed these psychics as lying and cheating and failing to solve a single murder inquiry. You don't say whether you agree that the 'Sensing Murder' psychics/mediums are frauds, but you acknowledge that some psychics are and you fail to challenge a single criticism that we made. We asked you to explain why your spiritual experience was real but you have refused. Rather than prove to us that spiritual experiences are real (the purpose of your comments), you have now challenged us to prove that the big bang and evolution really happened, subjects that have nothing to do with spirits and psychics. We did not debunk 'Sensing Murder' with facts about cosmology and evolution, so whether they are credible or not is irrelevant. We could hypothetically say that we have no belief in cosmology and evolution and our arguments that expose psychics would still stand. The topic we are debating is whether the spiritual world exists, and whether it can be experienced, as psychics, mediums, the religious and you claim. We are quite happy to talk about cosmology and evolution, but let's stick with one topic at a time.
But before we leave cosmology and evolution, as this falsehood seems to cloud your views, you claim that 'if it is theory then... it has no credibility'. As we said in our last comment, you have misunderstood what theory means regarding science. All accepted science is based on theories, so if theories are just guesswork and hand waving, then ALL science is bogus, not just cosmology and evolution. If one science discipline falls they all fall. Do you believe ALL science has no credibility? To support your view you state that even scientists claim that these theories lack credibility. You say that 'commoners such as myself are left in total confusion when scientist themselves have different opions... scientific communities cant agree... [and] scientist themslves agree to disagree'. Again you have been mislead. The disagreement is between religion and science or between the paranormal and science, not between science and science. Almost all biologists support evolution and it is the basis of modern biology, genetics and medicine, and almost all astronomers support the big bang. For evidence of this, visit any bookshop and pick up any book on biology or astronomy. Biology books mention only evolution, and make no suggestion that there might be an alternative theory that scientists are looking at, and likewise astronomy books. While a number of decades ago the Steady State theory was discussed alongside the big bang theory, that has now gone and only the big bang theory remains. Scientists are certainly debating the finer details of both evolution and the big bang, but the suggestion that they are arguing over whether they actually happened is pure nonsense. Again, it is religion versus science and not science versus science. If you disagree, please tell us what the alternative scientific theories are that many scientists have stacked up against evolution and the big bang. And don't say creationism (creation by gods), that's religion not science.
You also suggest that we have deviously twisted your view about cosmology and evolution, stating:'you say i dont believe thousands of educated scientist when all i said was i have a problem with big bang and desending from apes'. You didn't simply say 'i have a problem with big bang and desending from apes', you said 'the big bang theory what aload of crap that is just fanciful... what about us evolving from apes... what a load of crap'. You clearly reject the big bang and evolution utterly and totally, so don't pretend you can do this while still believing the scientists that promote these theories.
You go on to say that 'i dont believe god created the world in seven days and i dont believe we descended from apes'. We infer from this that you do believe some god created the world, just not in 7 days. And if evolution is false, this again only leaves gods creating life. And why don't you believe your god 'created the world in seven days', surely you're not going to refer us to scientific knowledge, like the age of the Earth or the Universe or the existence of dinosaurs? Scientific theories aren't credible remember? We openly say that we are atheists and supporters of scientific investigation of the world. Perhaps you could reveal your position, telling us exactly where you stand on gods, souls and spirits, don't just say what you don't believe in, tell us what you do believe in.
You again ask how we can dismiss spiritual experiences 'with so many people in history and now reporting such experiences', although strangely you also ask why we mention ' jesus mohamed and all the other tripe'. We mention them because you talk about historical spiritual experiences and that's what all these were. We can dismiss them, just as you dismiss most of them, because none are credible. You seemingly accept historical spiritual experiences that are made by Christians, eg seeing the Virgin Mary, but immediately dismiss spiritual experiences made by ancient Greeks, eg seeing Zeus, or Muslims, eg seeing Mohamed flying on his horse, or the Irish, eg seeing leprechauns. Once you can understand why the Greeks didn't really see Zeus, you will grasp why Christian kids didn't really see the Virgin Mary. If you insist that the vision of Mary was real, then you must also accept visions of Zeus as plausible, ie not 'tripe'. There is just as much 'evidence' supporting one as the other. A spiritual experience reported in history means all of history, all countries, all peoples, all religions. You view the likes of Zeus and Odin as tripe, but these are the beings that ancient peoples saw in their visions, so how can you believe these people had real spiritual experiences if what they saw is nonsense? Again, it appears that you are merely picking accounts that match your spiritual beliefs and dismissing the rest.
You also ask, 'have you ever thought that it could be the failure of science itself in its inabilty to proper prove one way or another that spirituality does or does not exist'. Science has to its own satisfaction shown that the spiritual world doesn't exist. It's only spiritual believers that still fool themselves into believing that scientists spend their days debating spirituality. In a 1998 survey of the elite US National Academy of Sciences, only 7% of scientists said they believed in a 'personal god'. Scientists have long realised that nature rules our universe, not spirits. That said, innumerable experiments have been performed over the years to investigate claims of the paranormal or claims that praying works etc, and all have failed to reveal a spirit world. Science is sick of wasting its time looking for ghosties and things that go bump in the night. Remember also that the burden of proof rests with those that make special claims. If I say there is an invisible alien on my couch, it is my responsibility to prove this claim, not others to disproof it. If people say that souls exist and we can communicate with dead people, then it is their responsibility to prove their claims, not just sit around and say, 'Well you prove dead people aren't talking to me'.
And this is the stance that you have taken, you repeatedly challenge us to prove that your spiritual experiences had nothing to do with spirits, for example:
'why dont you conclusively prove to me... that my experiences were false'
But even worse than this bogus challenge, you have refused to reveal anything about your spiritual experience. You harp on and on that 'i would really like to press you on credible scientific study that would discredit my experiences', but you steadfastly keep your experiences secret. How can we consider them if we have no idea what they were, not even slightly. We're not psychic you know! We don't know whether you heard voices, saw ghosts, conversed with dead aunts, had sex with demons, had an out-of-body or near death experience, saw tears on a stature of Elvis, prayed for a win at Lotto and won or visited a medium who correctly said your great grandfather was dead. The purpose of a debate is to define your beliefs and to present arguments and evidence that support them. The opposing side considers your claims and likewise presents their beliefs and counter arguments. To debate you must be privy to the details of the opposing argument.
'science must except its inability to prove... [my] experiences as being incorrect.'
'your inabilty to prove my experiences fanciful is to be questioned.'
'instead of trashing my... experiences how about you... prove me wrong.'
You also make this demand: 'i am simply asking for documented scientific proof that spirituality is false'. If you understood the scientific method and the concept of proof you would know that it is unreasonable to demand absolute proof. No one can give you that proof. For a start you refuse to even define what spirituality means to you. We have no idea what we're trying to examine, you won't say what your spiritual experiences were so we are completely in the dark. When we make educated guesses you reply that 'i am not interested in your belief of my assumptions because every time you have got that wrong'. But still no hint from you as to what spiritual means, you're a little like someone who says, 'Guess what I've got behind my back?' We need to know what you're talking about when you say spirituality. Is it talking to the dead, seeing ghosts, ESP, near death experiences, foreseeing the future, messages from god? What is it? Why the big secret?
The second problem with your demand is that it is near impossible to prove a negative, to prove something doesn't exist. It's very easy to prove a positive, eg prove that black sheep exist, all you have to do is produce one. But how could you ever prove that green sheep don't exist for example? No matter how many places you look and fail to find green sheep, I could still say you haven't looked everywhere. I could say there are green sheep on my lawn, and when you come to look, I could say that you've just missed them, they've just left. Having searched the world you might be convinced that green sheep don't exist, but all you can say is that the available evidence suggests that it is highly unlikely that green sheep exist. You can never provide 'documented scientific proof' that they don't exist. Likewise we can't 'prove' that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist, we can only say there is no evidence. Let's look at how this applies to psychics. We can not prove all psychics are false. We can test a million psychics and show that everyone is a fake or deluded, but after this believers can still say, 'Ahh yes, but you haven't tested the old psychic lady that lives in my village'. You admit that there are psychics who are fakes, but still imply that others that haven't been tested might be the real deal. All we can prove is that individual psychics are false or that investigated psychic and spiritual experiences have rational explanations, we can not comment on, let alone prove, that psychics that we have no knowledge of are false. All we can say is that based on the available evidence after testing and examining innumerable psychic experiences, not one has been shown to be real. Thus we can confidently say that it is highly, highly unlikely that psychics are real. But, having said that, psychics can prove conclusively and immediately that they are real. Unlike our problem of proving they are false, they can easily supply 'documented scientific proof' that they are real. Skeptics proving millions of psychics false doesn't prove they might not exist, whereas proving just one psychic to be real would end all debate. So why do psychics refuse to offer this proof, willingly suffering ridicule, scorn and contempt when they could so easily make fools of skeptics and scientists? In the US you can win a million dollars by showing that you have psychic powers. And yet no one bothers to prove us skeptics wrong, not even for a million bucks.
So Chrisso, if this debate is going to be settled, people that have had spiritual or psychic experiences need to realise that only they have the power to demonstrate that this spiritual world exists. We also suspect that religious experiences are part of this group, although we can't be sure since you won't define exactly what you mean. We can give you numerous examples of psychics exposed as fakes or delusional (see our 'Sensing Murder' and Jeanette Wilson articles), we can explain the problems with souls, ghosts, out-of-body and near death experiences, weeping statues, ESP, religious experiences, the afterlife, belief in gods etc, but it is unreasonable and unrealistic to demand 'documented scientific proof' that they are all bogus. We can show that they are no more likely to exist than the Easter Bunny, but we can't prove it categorically. You on the other hand, and all other believers, do have it in your power to prove all these things. The big question is, why won't you? Why do believers sit smugly in their armchairs and demand that skeptics do all the work: 'I really have had psychic or spiritual experiences, you prove I haven't'?
You talk about the 'psychological and science based study going on right now based on spirituality. the russians and americans in the cold war era studied these capabilities extensively'. Yes they did have research into things like ESP and remote viewing, the Americans spent a fortune on a program called 'Stargate', and both sides eventually realised it was all a waste of time and money. The only recent scientific studies that we are aware of research the effectiveness of prayer in healing. They have all shown prayer doesn't have any real effect. We don't deny that research has been and is being preformed, but to date all scientific studies into spirituality and the paranormal have failed to see any spiritual influence. None offer any support to your view.
You complain that 'i still have not heard anything credible from you that may suggest i could be dillusional'. We have never said you were delusional, and since you won't reveal your spiritual experience we couldn't even comment on a rational explanation. In fact only you seem concerned with your mental state. You defend your 'fact of life experience that i did actually have' and ask why we 'people like me and others would lie'? We have never suggested that you didn't have some unusual experience, and are sure you did. We question not that you had an experience but your interpretation of it. When a child claims that they heard a monster outside their window, we believe that they heard something, but we question whether they really heard a monster. There are more options than just real spiritual experience or lying. There is misidentifying what you experienced and there is delusion. We suspect that misidentification is the cause of most spiritual, psychic and religious experiences (and UFO sightings), not deliberate deception or mental illness.
You also give one reason why you won't give us details, that 'it is quite clear to me that nothing will satisfy your undeniable disbelief in anything spiritual', when we keep telling you clearly what will satisfy us: evidence and good reasons. You even admit that 'you say that evidence is what you are after but i cant see that it would make any difference. you say that you want me to outline my said experiences but to what avail.' Chrisso, you keep saying that scientific evidence will convince you, someone who doesn't even believe science is credible, so why don't you think it would convince people like us who love scientific evidence? You are completely unwilling to even give us the benefit of the doubt, to see if we would be swayed by new information. You pretend that you have convincing evidence but are refusing to divulge it on the bogus assertion that we would ignore it. Even if this were the case, other readers on this forum would realise that your argument had merit and would back your criticism of us. However we maintain you are presenting no evidence simply because none exists. You're welcome to prove us wrong. As we say, the burden of proof is with you.
You claim that our 'obsession with fact is clouded by your full trust in scientific theory', and you are almost correct. Our obsession with facts is guided, not clouded, by our trust in the scientific Method, not necessarily scientific theories. Theories can be wrong, it is the method that we have confidence in to deliver a true representation of the world around us. And yes we are obsessed by facts, concerned that facts and not fictions describe our view of reality. It worries us that you are evidently not so concerned with facts when you describe the world.
You insist that you've been 'opposed to organised religion all my life' and 'your rants about me being religious are totally false', and yet reading between the lines, you appear to believe in god, which indicates belief in Judaism, Christianity or Islam, you talk about 'hope beyond your present life', suggesting some sort of afterlife, and since you believe the kids at Fatima you must believe in the Virgin Mary meaning you must believe in Jesus Christ, which suggests it's Christianity. We are forced to read between the lines because you refuse to explain your spiritual beliefs even though you challenge us to prove them false. Even though you don't belong to a church and attend every Sunday, you're still part of organised religion I'm afraid. Their basic beliefs are still influencing your beliefs, laying a foundation for your spiritual experiences. You finish by calling us a 'closed minded fundermentalist' (several times in case we missed it the first time), but let's remember that it is we that have asked to hear about your spiritual experience, that have inquired about your spiritual beliefs, and it is you that have continually refused to offer up information, refused to provide evidence, refused to provide arguments, and have insisted instead that it's our job to prove your undisclosed spiritual experience is false. You do this while modestly describing your attitude: 'i because of experience have an inquisitive mind as i seek answers. the difference between you and me is that i choose to be open minded'. And how do you demonstrate this inquisitiveness, this search for answers, this open mind? You quit the debate saying that it has become 'to much for me to deal with'. This from the person who said 'if you want debate i will give it to you in bucket loads'. Have you discovered that your buckets have holes in them?
Again, we can't entertain new ideas or views if we aren't first told what they are. If you are to convince us that the spiritual world is not a silly belief, then you are going to have to reveal more details. Your insults are certainly not going to sway us. We've changed our minds before, science has changed its view before, but first we need reasons and evidence. We know of true believers that have become atheists and atheists that have become true believers. The challenge is to find and explain the ideas that will bring about change in others.
Comment by chrisso, 13 May, 2011
dear oh dear oh dear silly beliefs it time to play the game your way.for crying out loud have a good look at your answers .again you make assumptions about my beliefs how scientific is that.your assumptions of research on spirituality are wrong surf the net and get real your fudermentalism is defeating your false scientific notion of superior knowledge.you are into character assassination and nothing more your responses are nothing but tripe.millions of people have had experiences and science has not the no how to prove one way or another of its validity or othrewise.you go on about insults have a good look at your assumptions and negative insulting answers should i remind you about fairies and other such nonsense.we are talking about millions of people silly beliefs and you shrug it off with assumptions and character assassinations.i am man enough to admit i cant prove my experiences and you keep egging me on to reveal them to what avail look at your ridiculous answers so far.your beloved science cannot prove wrong any such experience and you know it.it is up to science to prove this fact and so far you have not convinced me of any factual evidence.here is an idea in response to this why dont you make up further assumptions about my beliefs on the side of science and we can all declare you the winner and me the uneducated poverty striken religious nut that you portray me and others to be .your condesending nature does not serve you well it smells more of pure arrogance than any scientific conclusion that i have studied.oh did i mention the word study my gosh how outlandish a person such as my self can be to suggest i may have studied.there you go silly beliefs i saved you that insult. again silly beliefs where is your proof that millions of people are wrong and you are right.i stick to my belief about this site it is a sham with no scientific evidence to support your asumptions and that is all you are about.this site is based on assumptios and character assassination.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 May, 2011
Chrisso, you say that 'again you make assumptions about my beliefs', and all we can say then is this: Stop hiding. This is an anonymous forum, until this comment we didn't even know you were male. Everything we say you respond with: 'That's not what I believe'. If you would explain what you meant by psychic and spiritual experiences and how you view the spiritual world then we could comment solely on those points and not waste time on things that you don't believe in. You know that we're atheists and what that means, but we have no idea what this spiritual world is like that you're trying to defend. Is it like the one 'Sensing Murder' mediums claim, with dead little girls staying little girls for eternity and Granddad watches us have sex? Or is it the way the Aborigines and Indians that you mentioned see it? Or is it the way Edgar Cayce saw it, although since his predictions made last century have turned out to be false, perhaps not? Is it the way the Christians see it or the Muslims or the Hindus? Are out-of-body and near death experiences, haunting ghosts and weeping statues part of your spiritual world? What about reincarnation, past lives and ESP? What god, if any, runs the spiritual plane? In an anonymous forum why are you so reluctant to spell out your view?
You state that our 'assumptions of research on spirituality are wrong surf the net and get real'. We don't deny that people are researching spirituality, just as we don't deny that others are researching numerous other silly things, our point is that none of this research is debunking scientific knowledge, creating new medical cures or landing rovers on Mars. We still have to rely on cell phones rather than telepathy, we still don't get emails from dead relatives.
You claim that 'millions of people have had experiences and science has not the no how to prove one way or another of its validity or othrewise... we are talking about millions of people silly beliefs and you shrug it off'. Yes we do shrug it off. When she was young and naive my niece reckoned she saw Santa in his sleigh, and I shrugged that off too. Maybe you wouldn't, but that's me. Certainly throughout history millions have had spiritual experiences. You've also said that our 'rants about me being religious are totally false', so we'll accept for the moment that you aren't religious. That means you aren't Christian, Moslem, Hindu etc and therefore you obviously don't believe in any of their gods etc. That means that every spiritual experience that Christians, Moslems, Hindus etc have had are false since their spiritual beliefs are false. So right there we have billions of people that are wrong, that have had false experiences with their nonexistent god. Even if you were a Christian say, every spiritual experience that a Moslem, Hindu or Jew has had must be wrong. At the very least only one religion can be correct, so everything other religions believe and experience must be false. Even if not all are, millions of spiritual experiences must be mistaken experiences. As Anatole France said: 'If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing'. You seem to think that truth is arrived at by taking a vote, 'Hands up who has seen ghosts'. In medieval times thousands of people thought they had experienced witches or had experienced sex with demons, but they were wrong. Remember that millions of ancient Egyptians believed in the Sun god Ra and experienced him each day. How can millions be wrong? By your argument they can't, so Ra must be real, since millions saw him. But this is nonsense. Stop pretending that science is still debating whether witches, gods and demons exist. Science looks for evidence, it doesn't ask for a show of hands.
You say that 'i am man enough to admit i cant prove my experiences and you keep egging me on to reveal them... [but I don't, and] ...your beloved science cannot prove wrong any such experience and you know it. it is up to science to prove this fact'. We will say this again Chrisso, very slowly since you seem to have trouble grasping the problem. We, and science, can NEVER prove your experience wrong or false or delusional or even real if we have NO IDEA what your experience was. We can't comment on a secret that we aren't privy to. Just as you can't comment on the hat I got for Xmas, since you've never seen it, we can't comment on your very, very secret spiritual experience. Thus you can rest easy in your bed tonight knowing that science will never debunk your experience because science doesn't know you and your secret even exist.
You say that our site is a sham. We have presented reasons and evidence in our 'Sensing Murder' and Jeanette Wilson articles and in various comments as to why psychics and mediums are bogus. Seemingly that is what brought you to our site. Why don't you dismiss those arguments before you demand more? Just as we say about religion, we see no evidence of gods or need for gods, likewise we can say we see no evidence of psychic or spiritual events and no need to evoke psychic explanations to explain the natural world. The burden is on you to show that a spiritual world is hiding around the corner. But you won't reveal any details of your spiritual experiences or what your spiritual beliefs are, so we can forget about any discussion in that area. Again, as reluctant as you are, if you want us to give our reasons why specific psychic or spiritual events are bogus, you will have to explain what psychic or spiritual events you're talking about. Forget about your experience, as obviously that is too vague to prove anything, but at least be a bit more concise on what spooky things you believe we need to worry about.
Comment by chrisso, 14 May, 2011
like einsteinstheory of relativity quantum physics reveals the universe to be ofa single gigantic field of energy in which matter is just a slowed down form of matter.quantum phisicshas the notion that the existance of an observer is fundermental to the existance of the universe implying that the universe is a product of consciousness.quantum physicist dr david bohm states that primary physical laws cannot be discoveredby a science that attempts to break the world into its parts.dr bohm says about the universe being made up of an interconnected unbroken wholeness.the observer effect of this implies that consciousness underlies all reality which resembles the esoteric concept that all reality is the manifestation of a source associated with some sort of deep spiritual experience or holotropic state.a study by rice university quotes that 20 percent of atheist scientist are spiritual and as an examplethese scientist see both science and spirituality as making without faith.and as as an individual quest for meaning that can never be final.they found spirituality congruent with science and separate from religion. there is considerable evidence that the currant age of material culture is ending as a new structure of consciousness emerges giving birth to the next stage of cultural evolution.it supports an intergrated epistemology that embraces both the rational knowledge of scientific empiricism and the inner knowledge of spiritual experience.
by physicist and noble laureate wolfgang pauli
i consider the ambition of overcoming opposites,including also a synthesis embracing both rational understanding and the mystical existence of unity to be the mythos,spoken or unspoken,of our present day and age.
this embraces both the rational knowledge of scientific empiricism and the inner knowledge of spiritual experience.this view facilitates support for spiritual science of essence,absolutes and unity,an essential complement to the material science. or physics chemistry biology substance relativity and multiplicity.in depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientist at elite universities conducted by rice university concluded that 72 said they have a spirituality that is consistant with science.as i said silly beliefs i have bucket loads but i am sick and tired of your assumptions and character assassinations.i truly believe no matter what i write it will be of no benefit to you as i believe your fundermentalism for your own belief system over rides anything to your contrary.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 May, 2011
You certainly do 'have bucket loads' Chrisso. You say (or you quote someone that says) that the 'the existance of an observer is fundermental to the existance of the universe implying that the universe is a product of consciousness', and that 'the observer effect of this implies that consciousness underlies all reality which resembles the esoteric concept that all reality is the manifestation of a source'. We don't buy this I'm afraid, and this is not how most scientists interpret quantum physics. If human consciousness courtesy of a human observer is required to create reality, then how do you explain the dinosaurs? Humans did not arise until millions of years after the demise of the dinosaurs (in our view anyway, we won't make assumptions about your views), so since there was no human consciousness around when the dinosaurs supposedly existed, this means their reality didn't exist, ergo they didn't exist. Your notion would mean that human consciousness has created the 'reality' of dinosaurs out of imagination. Their buried bones didn't exist until someone imagined them. If you claim that the dinosaur's own consciousness created their reality, then let's move back to when there were only bacteria on Earth. Are bacteria conscious? Or worse still, let's move back to when there was no life on Earth, or even no Earth at all. What created that reality? Or are you saying the Earth and its ancient history, and the universe itself, only became real when human consciousness evolved? It's the old chicken and egg problem. Humans couldn't exist until there was a world for us to live on, and yet the world to live on couldn't exist until humans existed and their consciousness created it. Please explain the solution to this paradox. Which came first, humans or reality?
You quote an article that claims that '20 percent of atheist scientist are spiritual', that 'they found spirituality congruent with science and separate from religion'. You talk about 'the inner knowledge of spiritual experience' and that 'this view facilitates support for spiritual science of essence, absolutes and unity'. What the hell is spiritual science? Again you refuse to say what spiritual means! We read about that study and even though the article itself neglects to define spirituality, it's quite clear that they're not referring to talking to dead people, psychic experiences or seeing ghosts. Let's remember that regardless of what those scientists are referring to, they are still all atheists. Scientist Carl Sagan often talked about spiritual experiences, and yet he was an atheist who wrote extensively debunking what the man on the street called spiritual and psychic experiences. Thus we again ask you to define what YOU mean by spiritual and psychic experiences. Saying a scientist is 'spiritual' is as meaningless as saying a scientist has a 'thing' in his garage. It's like the Christians who claim that Einstein was religious, when he clearly stated he had no belief in a personal god. They merely take a word that he used to mean one thing and they deviously claim that he meant something completely different. How many times do we have to ask, what do YOU mean by spiritual and psychic experiences? You keep saying that 'i am sick and tired of your assumptions', so don't make us guess, step up and explain what you're defending.
And as for claiming that 'there is considerable evidence that the currant age of material culture is ending as a new structure of consciousness emerges giving birth to the next stage of cultural evolution', this is as silly and as blatantly false as claiming that Jedi Knights will soon arrive in their star cruisers and teach us all how to use the Force to transform humanity.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 May, 2011
It's over. Chrisso has sent us another comment (one of several that he doesn't want published for some unknown reason) to reveal that he is again quitting the debate. Evidently because we chose to believe scientific evidence and not the evidence that he has refused to present. Then again, maybe he's also frustrated because we haven't been able to prove or disprove his spiritual experience (solely because he wouldn't reveal any details) or maybe because we aren't able to decide on his mental state, ie, is he delusional? Once again he gave no explanation of what he meant by 'spiritual', so we still have no idea what he was trying to defend. We know that you, like us, may have your own definition of 'spiritual', but we have no idea if they match, and even if they do, we don't know if it matches Chrisso's definition. For example, some would say that a religious experience was a spiritual experience, but Chrisso claims that even atheistic scientists can be spiritual, so obviously for him spiritual doesn't mean religious. But he won't say that, we are forced to imply this by what comments he does make. Likewise religious experiences that Muslims have are not spiritual experiences, nor were ancient Greeks experiencing their gods a spiritual experience. We've just read an article on a professor who lectures on Lord of the Rings saying that he has taken 'up a sort of permanent spiritual residence with Tolkien's imagined Middle-earth'. So 'spiritual' means different things to different people, and until people are willing, or brave enough, to define the flavour of 'spiritual' that they are defending, then further discussion is futile.
We know of people that desperately want to believe, and will no matter what. Could it be that some people so greatly value their spiritual, psychic or religious experiences that they don't want to run the risk of having them explained away, and perhaps subconsciously they believe that the best way to keep their experiences spiritual and mysterious is to keep them hidden? Could it be that any informed debate that might shake their belief is to be shunned and, to justify this position in their own minds, critics are dismissed as closed minded fundamentalists? Do these folk think: 'We needn't feel guilty for refusing to reveal our reasons and evidence, since critics will just ignore it all anyway. We believe, that should be good enough for skeptics too!'
We've often been called closed minded by true believers, we're supposedly unwilling to consider different ideas, unwilling to view psychics and mediums in action, unwilling to examine 'evidence' for weird events. And yet without fail, it is true believers that insult us and tell us to leave when we attend psychic performances, when we ask revealing questions and point out flaws. Many true believers have told us that they have recordings of their psychic readings that prove their claims, and yet every single one has refused to let us hear those recordings. Is that being open minded? We are the ones that often plead with true believers to explain their beliefs, to share their reasons and evidence, to convince us that our naturalistic view of the world is false. We think that many true believers discuss their beliefs only with other believers, and on a very superficial level. They all believe so there is no need to get into any real detail. They say 'Jesus saves', and their fellow believers respond, 'Amen'. They say 'My dead mother communicates to me through a medium', and their fellow believers respond, 'Oh, that's wonderful'. They say 'I've been contacted telepathically by aliens', and their fellow believers respond, 'You're so lucky to have been chosen'. We skeptics on the other hand say, 'What's your evidence to support that claim?' When confronted by skeptics true believers are lost. Probably for the first time they are asked to explain why they believe, and not having had to really defend their belief before, they very quickly discover that statements of faith don't count in the real world. They learn that much of what they had believed made sense, doesn't, and what they believed true, isn't. On this realisation some throw off the shackles of superstition and enter the real world, but many merely invent new excuses to dismiss the arguments of their critics, and the critics themselves.
Our inquiry and rational discussion of their beliefs is the definition of a closed mind they say. Our belief in reason and evidence and quarks and DNA and quasars is fundamentalism, while their blind belief in spooky things and the rejection of science is the sign of an open mind. These folk are fooling no one but themselves. They are becoming frustrated and annoyed because their silly beliefs are fading and becoming increasing difficult to maintain in a world driven by reason, not superstition. Their only recourse is to retreat to the closeted safety of other believers, consoling themselves with the lie that it is the outside world with our vaccines, computers, CAT scanners, space shuttles and democracy that has gone down the wrong path.
Comment by Ross, 17 May, 2011
Hi John, firstly, I must applaud you and the team on your endless patience in this latest thread with Chrisso... outstanding! (I know I would've given up far earlier having seriously damaged my forehead against the nearest wall!!)
Secondly, I think their whole ethos can be explained by the following cartoon.....
Yeah I know it's not brilliant as far as artistic quality goes but I think it sums things up quite nicely here. This cartoon also seems to fit...
(neither cartoon is my own work by the way... I can't draw that well lol)
Keep up the good work
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 May, 2011
Hi Ross, thanks for the cartoons on religious logic. They're excellent, but whether those using this logic would grasp the point is debatable. You'd think they should, but the fact that they keep using this style of argument makes us wonder. And yes, such people do try our patience as well, we have to hold ourselves back from writing what we'd really like to say at times. But it's an interesting and fun challenge to see if you can confound them and expose the flaws in their arguments. Contrary to what these types claim, we are genuinely curious as to why true believers are so committed to their beliefs and are open to the possibility that we might be wrong. We often wonder, why are these people so sincere and certain, might we have missed some vital argument? But on hearing their arguments, or in Chrisso's case, persevering with someone who can't or won't even present their argument, we leave with our views reinforced rather than shaken.
Comment by Graeme, 09 Jun, 2011
Psychic FAILS and embarrasses harmless truck driver.
I am, however, petrified of the moment when a 'psychic' (just once!) lucks on a positive result. It may just happen and it will be held up as proof positive debate closer forever. Statistics are quite hard for most people, including myself, to understand properly.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Jun, 2011
When we first heard that news report of numerous dismembered bodies being found in Texas, there was no mention that a psychic had alerted the police. Only later when they revealed that no bodies had actually been found did we hear that it was all due to a silly psychic. As one of the comments to the article said, 'I can hardly believe that police could be so stupid'. And let's not forget the moronic media for reporting the story worldwide, a story with no factual basis. Revealingly another comment said 'actually psychics work regular with police, even with NZ police', which again shows how stupid many believers are. Apart from the blatant fact that not one crime has been solved worldwide by psychics, believers keep pushing the myth that psychics are solving crimes and a massive conspiracy is covering up the fact.
And yes Graeme, eventually a psychic will by mere luck alone make a correct guess, and people ignorant of coincidence and chance will hail it as proof. Some say it has already happened, if you fudge the details sufficiently, but of course they can't explain why this 'true psychic' can never repeat the feat. You're right that statistics are difficult, but even they should be able to grasp the concept of coincidence. We've all made a lucky shot or guess at some time, the real trick is to keep doing it.
Comment by Bob, 10 May, 2011
There is another aspect to police and psychics. Police are often desperate for information and can't afford to turn away anyone who might know something. People who don't want to be involved will give themselves a false identity while supplying information. Unfortunately that includes nutters who are the bane of the police. Information given by a so called psychic might be genuine. Police can't afford to ignore it. Imagine there were 10 bodies in that house and police had ignored it. The news media are always on the lookout for something to report. A casual remark by someone even low down in a police department might end up on the front page.
Comment by Dan, 25 Aug, 2011
Im naturally a sceptic of everything but I usually go by the premise that if it cant be proved or disproved then there are no grounds for either argument.
It just is... and no matter what spin either side places on this subject there is no way of knowing if its true or not until its been confirmed or quashed.
All I know is that there is more than meets the eye for both arguments and the 5 senses can not be trusted in making judgements on such matters.
For now at least, it seems to me that you're wasting your time and your energy and both should be directed toward something useful because of the above reasons.
But its your life so good luck.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Aug, 2011
Hi Dan. We have a number of problems with your stance. You claim that the existence of souls, ghosts, voyeuristic dead people — whatever you might call them — can't be proved or disproved. We disagree. From a philosophical stance this might be true, but from a rational, practical point it's not. Let's take disproof first. If ghosties exist, and with their ghostie powers chose to hide from us and our instruments, then we might be fooled into concluding that they don't exist. We wouldn't have proved that they don't exist, since they do, but we would be justified in believing that they don't since we have no evidence of their existence. If you say this practical belief is not justified, then you must also argue that we cannot dismiss belief in gods such as Zeus, in toothfairies, in evil trolls under bridges and in gremlins. Just like souls, we can never prove conclusively that these entities don't exist either. Do you make this argument to your friends and family, with equal conviction as you do for souls? If not, why not? Why don't you treat gremlins the same way that you treat souls? Your argument is based solely on whether things can be proven, not on who believes these things. If you treat souls and gremlins differently then this would suggest that your refusal to dismiss souls as you do gremlins is based on emotion and not reason. From a rational perspective, if we have no evidence for the existence of something — be it souls or gremlins — and no good reason why it needs to existence, then we are justified in saying it doesn't exist.
Now let's consider proof of existence. The existence of souls or ghosties could easily be proved. They just have to stop hiding and show themselves. Mediums insist that they are in contact with dead people, and therefore the information that these souls could provide could easily convince even the most skeptical of us. We don't believe dinosaurs still exist and aren't sure about aliens, but the existence of both would be convincingly proven if we stumbled across just one of each. And let's remember that according to mediums and others these souls are not trying to hide from us. Many desperately want to make their presence known. It should be child's play to prove that mediums are talking to dead people, so why has not one medium succeeded in this task? Mediums, like the souls themselves, want us to believe in them. So why do they consistently refuse to offer the proof they claim to have? Would you believe someone who claimed to have a baby dinosaur in his garage, but refused to show you? Mediums are no different, they want us to believe but refuse to show us the proof. They know that they could prove souls exist, but for some reason would rather that we sit on the fence, arguing that we can't prove it one way or the other. Why do they take this stance?
You also present the argument that the reasons for and against the existence of souls are balanced, and that this therefore dictates that we take neither side. This is untrue. There are innumerable excellent reasons why the existence of souls is unlikely, and only a few weak reasons why they might exist. Science can offer proven explanations as to how the world works, and there is no need to evoke souls to help explain some phenomena. Likewise medium after medium has shown to be fraudulent in their behaviour, and none have offered information that could have only come from a supernatural source. Did you know that it can't be proven that the sun will rise tomorrow? And yet nearly everyone accepts that it will, since the overwhelming evidence available suggests it will. Likewise we can't prove souls don't exist yet the overwhelming evidence available suggests that they don't, and mediums do nothing to alter this balance of evidence. The argument for and against souls is not balanced, is not equal, and so we are justified in taking a rational stance and claiming that they don't exist.
You state that 'there is more than meets the eye for both arguments and the 5 senses can not be trusted in making judgements on such matters', and yet it not our senses we use to make judgments. We use reason generated in our mind to make judgments, and our senses merely offer input. Also we now utilise technology to detect things that our senses have no hope of detecting. And still we detect no sign of souls. Again it appears that you are falling back on emotion to make decisions rather than reason.
You also say that 'it seems to me that you're wasting your time and your energy', so we assume from this that you haven't read any of our arguments or the arguments from other skeptics. We say this since you claim that because the debate can't be decided, then reading arguments are a waste of time and energy, so why would you read our article? But without reading our arguments, how can you be confident that you have a valid argument?
Further to this theme, if debating the existence of souls is a waste of time and energy, why did you come to our site, read enough of our article to discover our stance, and then take the time to present your argument? We suspect you have taken the time and effort to challenge us but probably haven't presented your argument to all the sites run by mediums and those supporting the existence in souls. This to us suggests that your stance regarding the existence of souls is not as ambivalent as you try and present. We detect shades of a believer, not a skeptic.
Comment by mikey, 30 Aug, 2011
Dan, just do a web search on "Bertrand Russell — celestial teapot" for a succinct rebuttal of the argument that since you can't prove something doesn't exist there is no argument for saying it doesn't exist.
Comment by Craigstar, 16 Jun, 2012
I think that Chrisso guy tore you so called scientists a new arse, his letters on the 4th and 14th of may 2011 put your theories to bed.
Comment by Craigstar, 16 Jun, 2012
Just because you can't see it, it does not exist ,You can't measure it, you can't sense it, you do not feel it like I can so I am the one who is undone. You make mockery of people like Chrisso who has had spiritual experiences , I have seen many things about life and afterlife but small brained twits like yourself can't yet imagine that it is true.
Comment by Craigstar, 16 Jun, 2012
John seriously get a life man, open the eyes see the spirit in every living thing . Are you just a body and when cark it, that's it. Your sorry body bag will be lying on the deck when you go old son and you will be there looking down and thinking "shit I am a scientist this is not supposed to happen" Good luck old son love ya.
Comment by Craigstar, 16 Jun, 2012
Are you the same joker that gets on the "Get Up " site and lampoons anyone that has a different opinion, going over the other blogs I wonder why anyone bothers having an input, just waiting for "The Lord" to give it the nod or not." You do not know shit from clay" Can you tell me if you love someone how do I believe you. How do you prove you love that person, I can't see it but you are experiencing it, is that not the same game when someone has spiritual contact and you can't see it? Please reply.
Comment by Craigstar, 16 Jun, 2012
Are you seriously deluded re comments 16 may 2011 "Chrisso" the only guys of the planet are you.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Jun, 2012
Hi Craigstar. You say: 'I think that Chrisso guy tore you so called scientists a new arse, his letters... put your theories to bed'. First, we are not scientists, and have never claimed to be. Just because we might know more about science than you do doesn't make us scientists.
As for Chrisso, we saw his comments as nothing but nonsense. You've read his comments, but did you read our replies, it doesn't seem as though you did? He consistently refused to explain his beliefs or produce evidence or say why our view is wrong. Can you do what Chrisso failed to do? After all, you take a similar stance: 'I have seen many things about life and afterlife but small brained twits like yourself can't yet imagine that it is true'. The fact is that our small brains do allow us to imagine that all manner of things might be true, for example leprechauns might be real and Allah might be the one true god, but just because we can imagine something doesn't mean it's true. We don't believe in leprechauns or Allah simply because there is no evidence that they are anything but figments of someone's imagination.
Unlike Chrisso, are you willing to describe these many things you've seen regarding the afterlife? And then provide some reasons why we should believe you. After all, simply saying that you've seen dead people or gods is utterly worthless by itself. For example, I could claim that I've found gold at the end of rainbows, had sex with mermaids, ridden on unicorns, battled evil aliens in the Pegasus Galaxy and played computer games with the Greek god Zeus. Would you believe me? Perhaps you would, but you shouldn't if I can't provide some evidence that I'm not just deluded. It's very easy to say that someone is a small brained twit and that their views are mistaken, but the real challenge is to explain why. Can you do that?
You also accuse us of this childish belief: 'Just because you can't see it, it does not exist'. Why can't believers understand that it's just silly to say this? Especially when you'll probably insist that we believe in atoms, black holes, DNA and evolution, all things that we can't see. We believe in an enormous number of things that we can't personally see or feel, because there is strong evidence that they do exist regardless of whether we can see them. You go on to ask:
'Can you tell me if you love someone how do I believe you. How do you prove you love that person, I can't see it but you are experiencing it, is that not the same game when someone has spiritual contact and you can't see it? Please reply'.
Yet by your previous claim — if I can't see it then it doesn't exist — should I not argue that love doesn't exist, since now you're acknowledging that that I can believe in things I can't see? But love is an emotion created in our mind, it is not something physically transmitted between people or things. For example, I could say I love actress Drew Barrymore, but we've never met and she doesn't even know I exist. Likewise I could say I love chocolate or classical music, but these things don't know anything about love. This is completely different to real communication or contact between two people. That said, you could tell by my behaviour that I appeared to love Drew Barrymore or chocolate, my actions and comments would be evidence that I thought far more of chocolate than broccoli. But I could be lying, and we all know that many, many people have lied about loving other people. When it comes to love, we have to take a person's word as to how they feel. Love is all in a person's mind, and completely private. People might say that we can receive love, but I would argue that others merely act in a certain way towards us and that we can feel this as love. It doesn't matter how much I might love Drew Barrymore, she will never feel that love.
But spiritual contact is completely different to love. This is claimed to be real communication between people, where real information is conveyed. Spiritual contact is similar to a telephone call, in that if you're talking to someone on the phone I can't see or hear the other person, or even know that there is another a person talking to you. You could be pretending, just as children pretend to talk to people on their toy phones. But if the communication is really happening, you will be gaining information, learning things that you didn't know. You can then use this new information to convince me that you were indeed talking to someone, even though I couldn't see or hear them. This is what psychic mediums claim, that they are receiving new information from their spiritual contacts. Mediums regard their communications as just as real as a telephone call is for me, and therefore they should be able to explain what they learnt during their conversation just as I can. But if everything they tell me they learnt from their spiritual contact is just nonsense or can be shown to be wrong, then I'm justified in believing that they are just like children on their toy phones, just making up stories.
You implore me to 'open the eyes see the spirit in every living thing', but I've read widely and travelled the world with eyes wide open and failed to see a spirit in anything. Believers like you wish that I could see the light, but then consistently refuse to provide the evidence you've evidently gained about this other world that I've failed to even glimpse. You've said that I 'do not know shit from clay', so are you going to help me tell the difference? Or like other believers in souls, gods and the afterlife, having insulted me, are you going to flee back to the safety of other believers, regaling them with tales of how your comments left me dumbfounded?
Comment by Craigstar, 20 Jun, 2012
No, I am not retreating and it is entirely up to "you" what you believe much as it is up to other "believers " as you put it. If you do not see the life force in anything living on your world travels then you are indeed a very sad man. But that is your belief and who am I to judge that. My experiences are mine and I for one am not going to put myself out to fry trying to convince someone like you that I actually experienced and continue to experience them today.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Jun, 2012
Thanks for your reply Craigstar, but all you've done is show yourself as a hypocrite. You say that 'it is entirely up to "you" what you believe... that is your belief and who am I to judge that'. And yet it was you who sent us five separate comments, calling us ' seriously deluded... small brained twits... [who] do not know shit from clay'. You implored me to 'seriously get a life man, open the eyes see the spirit in every living thing'. And yet you now have the arrogance to say that you would never judge my beliefs or me? Are you too ignorant to know what it means to judge someone? Your unsolicited comments were deliberately meant to judge and insult my worldview, and while I have no problem with that whatsoever, I find your response when challenged to be defeatist and fearful.
You said that you 'see the spirit in every living thing', and I asked if you could explain or support this claim, or were you, having judged me, going to simply flee back to the safety of other believers. Your reply clearly shows that, tail firmly between your legs, you are going to scuttle away rather than defend your beliefs. You haughtily proclaim that 'My experiences are mine and I for one am not going to put myself out to fry trying to convince someone like you... ' How very brave and unselfish of you! Do you seriously think that we would doubt our views simply because you insult us and tell us that something that you refuse to explain really does exist? You cryptically tell me that 'If you do not see the life force in anything living on your world travels then you are indeed a very sad man'. That's as childish as saying, 'If you do not see fairies at the bottom of your garden then you are indeed a very sad man'. Your silence, your reluctance to show that your belief in some life force is somehow more real than fairies at the bottom of the garden is inexplicable. You obviously believe in this life force, and believe that this belief is important, and yet when given the opportunity to promote it, you take flight. How can you seriously believe that this tactic will have me worried?
You say that 'it is entirely up to "you" what you believe', which is true, so why did you make your comments if not to challenge my beliefs? And I welcome the challenge, but if you don't have the courage and knowledge to support your claims, then you only bolster my conviction that many believers are nothing but angry, ignorant and fearful people who merely strike out with the fury of indignation.
Comment by Jonathan, 21 Jun, 2012
Hi guys, this could be interesting
Jayne Furlong’s skeleton has been found:
It would be interesting to review with regard to Sensing Murders’ information on the case...
Season 2 (2007) (9 October 2007 Episode 6 (#17): Lost For Words...Jayne Furlong 
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Jun, 2012
You're right Jonathan, it would be interesting to see if the psychics said anything that related to this latest development. That said, they can't have given any hint that she was buried in the dunes as it would be all over the media by now: NEWSFLASH: The psychics were correct! Their silence suggests that they said nothing at all or else said something that has now been shown to be completely wrong. But no doubt if asked, they'll still claim, 'See, we told you she had been killed and buried... somewhere'. Like we didn't all know that!
I've got a few Sensing Murder episodes on DVD, but unfortunately I don't think I have that one, and I don't remember any details from it. The Warehouse did have some Sensing Murder DVDs in their bargain bins (although having to pay anything is hardly a bargain), so I must have another look.
UPDATE: On RadioLive Graeme Hill and Vicki Hyde discussed the failure of the psychics regarding this case, and Graeme played audio of the failed predictions. The audio of the interview can be heard here:
Comment by Anonymous-5, 23 Jun, 2012
Shouldn't gloat really because it's such a sad story
But it makes me angry seeing these ghouls trawl through someone's life/death
They "sensed" she was in the Auckland Domain somewhere
The episode is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_lmg3JXw4
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Jun, 2012
Thanks for the episode link. I'm not surprised that the psychics got it wrong again, since when have they ever got it right? And yet looking at the comments on that page, only this one criticised 'Sensing Murder':
'They just found Jaynes body. It was Waaaay outside Auckland city, so both Kelvin & Deb were wrong, I guess they are just full of shit.'
Other morons that commented on the show obviously think it's achieving results:
'Love this show I'm addicted!! Love to see the different ways the psychics work!'
It's scary that these people are allowed to vote, serve on juries and might even hold responsible positions in society.
'This show is awesome. I'm addicted!!! I love your channel. :O)'
I' love these episodes, thanx. I've been totally 24 hrs a day addicted to this show. amazing!'
Comment by Craigstar, 23 Jun, 2012
When you are travelling again drop me a line and you can experience it first hand.
Comment by Craigstar, 23 Jun, 2012
[In reply to comment #160]
No I did not make my comments to change your beliefs, I think that would be in the "very hard basket" but it is very easy to sit back and throw bombs on someone and go on the rants that you do in your replies re "tooth fairies" I especially liked that one. My silence and reluctance, my taking of "flight" are not designed to worry your poor soul. I actually work for a living and have little spare time and I am doing my best to digest your verbal diarrhoea as I am just an average man and the tangents you go on do take some re-reading.
1. Judge someone. you do that in every response when someone does it back?
2. Supporting my claims. I seen it there is my support.
3. I refuse to give evidence of this other world that you have failed to even glimpse. You are an immature soul who's third eye [the brow chakra] and throat chakra are not developed to receive.
4. See the spirit in every living thing. What do you see, a bunch of self indulged humans, cats dogs, birds and an assortment of wildlife that just eat and sleep?
5. Why Chrisso did not prove your view was wrong. Why did he have to, he is just stating what he experiences.
6. Spiritual contact is similar to a telephone call. No it goes through the chakra's I mentioned above and yours do not receive it as you are an immature soul.
Do you believe that your body has an Aura, do you believe in the chakra energy centres on the human body, do you understand where the energy comes from for these chakras? I am going to hazard a guess that you do not believe in them, in that case there is no point explaining "the life" force in someone comes from other sources not just bacon and eggs. That's because you cannot see it.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Jun, 2012
For a start, don't worry about my 'poor soul', you can't affect something that doesn't exist. And don't lose any sleep over the fairies at the bottom of my garden or the aliens hovering over my house either. As for judging someone, we've never said we don't judge the claims people make, we do of course. It was you who said that you would never judge people, immediately after having judged us.
You boldly and proudly state: 'I refuse to give evidence of this other world...', and yet to us you arrogantly say: 'it is very easy to sit back and throw bombs on someone and go on the rants that you do'. But let's remember that we evidently came to your attention because we debunked the nonsense that was 'Sensing Murder', with their silly mediums and talk of an afterlife. Unlike you, we gave very clear reasons and provided evidence that they were frauds, we did not merely rant about their claims. You go on to say I'm 'an immature soul who's third eye [the brow chakra] and throat chakra are not developed to receive'. How can you seriously come out with nonsense like that and then call me immature?
As to how you support your claims regarding the spooky world, you naively say 'I seen it, there is my support'. You obviously have no idea how supporting one's claims in the real world works. It's amazing that most people who believe so strongly in this entire afterlife, souls and chakra energy crap are never willing to explain it or provide any evidence that it is more than superstitious baloney. Can you imagine trusting an engineer queried about the safety of a bridge or a scientist asked if microwave ovens are safe, who replied, 'I refuse to give evidence about that'. You would rightly dismiss them immediately, and yet you spooky world promoters expect us to believe you solely because you won't support your claims. Seemingly, the less you tell us the more you think we should believe you.
Regarding comments from Chrisso, you say, 'Why did he have to [prove your views wrong], he is just stating what he experiences'. This is mistaken for a number of reasons. Chrisso wanted to show we were mistaken, and to do this he had to show his claims were true or that ours were false, neither of which he did. Furthermore he did not state what he experienced. Like you, he refused to divulge his accounts of the spooky world.
You asked what I see when I look at life. I see an amazing diversity of species living in an awe-inspiring universe, and this easily provides enough to give me a life well worth living. I don't feel the desperate need to invent fantasy beings from another world to explain the workings of this world. You saying that spiritual contact 'goes through the chakra's' is as childish as saying Xmas presents go through the hands of Santa's elves. Oh dear, I haven't just burst another bubble for you have I?
Of course I don't believe in your silly auras and chakras, I'm surprised you even need to ask. My doctor has never bothered checking my chakras and I've never been asked to turn down my aura at the movies. And I will likely never believe in them because you and your fellow believers all take the same stance, one of refusing to explain them or showing that they are any more real than gods, fairies and leprechauns. I believe in the material world because scientists go to great lengths performing experiments to prove their theories, and then producing books and TV documentaries to explain what they've found to be true. And their findings become real in technology such as computers, cell phones, vaccines, rovers on Mars and medical scanners. Your clear refusal to explain or support your alternate views will only see them become even more outlandish and ridiculous in nature.
You again repeat the false claim as to why I don't believe in this foolishness of yours: 'That's because you cannot see it'. As I've already explained, I believe in many, many things that I've never seen. I believe that you exist for example. What I don't believe in is fantasies, and you pointedly refuse to show that your claims are anything but.
Comments from you and the likes of Chrisso that challenge our view, and the view of intelligent and educated people in the real world, are an utter waste of time if you continually refuse to show why we are mistaken. All they achieve is to show how weak and empty your claims are. You say you can't change our beliefs because 'I think that would be in the "very hard basket"'. Well, you may have given up, resigned to the fact that the world thinks you're all following silly beliefs, so the rest of us will continue to listen to the likes of scientists who eagerly want to explain their view of the universe.
If you're not even going to try and provide answers, then perhaps you should stop putting your hand up altogether.
Comment by Anne, 01 Oct, 2012
Best of luck with the whole 'after life' thing. Maybe you should check out quantum physics while you're at it. It's a bit scientific so you may not like it much. Factual stuff about atoms and other things we can't see.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Oct, 2012
Anne, we can only assume your comments are meant to be sarcastic, since of course we don't believe in the "whole 'after life' thing". You also haven't grasped much about the purpose of our website if you think we wouldn't like anything that was at all scientific.
You seem to be suggesting that we're childishly claiming that if we can't or haven't seen spooks then they don't exist. You then imply that since science relates 'Factual stuff' concerning 'atoms and other things we can't see', we're being hypocrites for readily accepting their claims of unseen things.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and check out some science, since you can now actually see and photograph individual atoms, the only thing you bothered to give as an example of unseen things that do exist. What you fail to grasp is that science is only willing to posit the existence of unseen elements if there is strong supporting evidence for their likely existence. Science can surmise things like atoms and x-rays and viruses exist because it can see and measure the effects they have on the things we can clearly see. Equally, science rejects elements when evidence for their existence is lacking, eg N-rays and cold fusion, and in this specific case, ethereal spooks.
You are evidently suggesting that we should believe in spooks and the after life simply because it is possible for things to exist that we can't see. This is true, but you must give reasons why we should believe in one unseen thing and not another unseen thing. By this we mean, should we also believe in fairies, trolls, leprechauns, Hindu gods, witches, shape-shifting aliens and telekinesis? Do you believe in all these things, and if not, why not? We would argue that we reject them because there is no scientific evidence for their existence, just as we do for spooks, but you can't use this argument. If a child says they believe in fairies, you must accept that they might exist, for the same reasons you're saying that we should accept spooks.
We reject spooks and the after life because, not only do we not see or hear spooks, we see no indirect evidence that they exist, could exist or even need to exist. Furthermore we see blatant evidence of cheating on behalf of psychic mediums who consistently refuse to support their claims.
You're obviously interested in the Sensing Murder show and its psychics, so perhaps you could explain why not one single murder has been solved, not just in NZ but worldwide. People like yourself defend these people, but none of you are willing to explain why they consistently fail. And not just occasionally, but every single time. And these invisible spooks aren't inanimate things like atoms that can't talk, they can throw furniture around to get our attention and scream out, 'We do exist'. We can detect the presence of atoms that couldn't care less, so why can't we detect the presence of spooks that desperately want to chat?
The simple answer would be that you can't see something that isn't there.
Comment by Anonymous-6, 04 Oct, 2013
My sis in law is friends with Kelvin and he once said he believed George Bush was an Alien..... What a joke
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Oct, 2013
By his own admission, Kelvin has said that he's not very intelligent. The reality is that if people like Kelvin Cruickshank struggle to see how silly one belief is, they will normally likewise embrace all manner of silly beliefs. If people don't have the critical thinking skills to dismiss belief in ghosts or alien abductions or some other nonsense, then they will blindly accept numerous fantasies, even if they contradict each other.
Comment by Anonymous-7, 14 Nov, 2013
I watched sensing murder and found myself believing it to be credible. With this belief and only a hint of scepticism, I attended a live show with Deb Webber. I walked away knowing 100% in my heart that she is a fraud!! She is an entertainer, she is funny, she is a quick thinker but she is NOT psychic. She made no statements, all interactions were questions or fishing for information. The only people she could "contact" were elderly who had bad health. There is a place for people like her. . To offer closure and peace to those trapped in their grief, but she shouldn't be fleecing people of hard earned money to do it. She is a disgraceful cheat!
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 Nov, 2013
I'm pleased to hear that you saw through Deb Webber's act, especially since you attended as a lukewarm believer. Believers often come away from these shows far more convinced that spooky things are indeed going on. A woman I know and her three friends recently went to see medium Kelvin Cruickshank and they came away like giggling groupies who had just met Justin Bieber, and she is now planning where she can catch his next show.
I do agree that there is a place for people like Webber, but unlike you I don't think it's to 'offer closure and peace to those trapped in their grief'. I doubt if the place I have in mind is even legal. I do agree that people trapped in grief need help, but I think lying to them is seldom the best option. Even if these mediums were to offer their silly statements regarding the afterlife free of charge, I dislike the idea that many people can only find peace by being fed a comforting fairy tale. In many cases this notion of gods and an afterlife only makes things more confusing, with grieving people torn with turmoil, questioning why a loved one was taken from them, or why they are being punished by remaining here on Earth, lamenting that it's just not fair. For those of us that don't believe in gods or an afterlife, it's actually far easier to come to terms with death. We settle instead for the real world, a universe where dumb nature decides who dies and when, and that fairness has nothing to do with anything. Unlike the religious and their stories of Hell and a god that waits to judge and punish us, I have no fear of death, and while of course I do miss loved ones who have died, I am comforted by the knowledge that they are not being tortured by some sadistic god, nor are they shuffling around in some heavenly rest home as the mediums usually describe them, with an eternity of senility to look forward to.
But still, it's great that you've seen Webber for the fraud she is, and the blatant scam that ALL psychic mediums are. Go forth and spread the word.
Comment by Cynthia, 03 May, 2014
hey — I was watching sensing murder and laughed my ass off — what a joke, its so obvious to me — they go to a farming community, look around and say well I think the suspect has something to do with agriculture and may wear a hat — I mean duh. I do have a question for you tho — do you believe animals can sense death and disease? and if so how? Did you hear about Oscar the cat that was written up in the New England Journal of Medicine? — I know what I thought, there is a heat or they get warm blankets when they are at that stage, but they said that was not the case. you can post my question on your website if you want, I would love to hear the answer. I love your site it is so dead on, I simply agree with everything you say!
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 May, 2014
Hi Cynthia. Thanks for your comments, and yes, 'Sensing Murder' is a joke, the worrying thing is that many people can't grasp that. I do vaguely remember seeing the Oscar the cat story on the TV news years ago. I've since looked into the story and have written a longer piece that can be read here.
Comment by Anonymous-8, 02 Mar, 2015
Why not open your mind to that which is unexplainable? I'm not saying be a gullible fool as there's much idiocy out there that bears no merit, but psychic phenomenon is genuine I assure you. Don't believe these psychic hotlines or anyone charging money, but give a fair chance to the gifted who help others free of charge. Just because you can't see electricity or magnetism doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right?
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 Mar, 2015
Hi there. You claim that 'psychic phenomenon is genuine I assure you'. You would have been so much more convincing if, rather just say so, you had provided the evidence that has clearly swayed you, but... nothing.
As for your plea: 'Why not open your mind to that which is unexplainable?', although perhaps not meant as such, I see this as an insult, that I'm closed minded and dogmatic, unwilling to consider things I don't want to be real. I've normally found that I'm a lot more open minded than people who express this sentiment. There are many real things in this universe that are currently unexplained and some may even be unexplainable. What caused the Big Bang, how did life first arise, what is consciousness, what is dark matter and dark energy? Why do some people like 'The Lord of the Rings' movies? There are many mysteries out there, and I'm more than willing to consider them, to open my mind to them. And science has never said that psychic phenomena is unexplainable, it's merely said that there is no good evidence that it exists. It's not that psychic phenomena is unexplainable, it's that you can't explain something that doesn't even exist. For something to be unexplainable it must first exist. Skeptics don't blindly dismiss psychic phenomena because we don't understand how it might work, we dismiss it because we see no evidence that it's even real in the first place, and neither you nor the psychics themselves will put any effort into changing our minds. Your simple assurance that it's genuine is weak in the extreme, like a child saying they're sure Santa is real. We need more than an opinion.
And you're not seriously going with that ol' chestnut are you: 'Just because you can't see electricity or magnetism doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right?' We can go two ways with this, from ridiculous to realistic. The ridiculous means that your logic would suggest that we should also argue that fairies and gremlins exist too, since we can't see them either. The realistic view is that while we can't see electricity or magnetism per se, we certainly can see their effects, and very clearly. Try putting your fingers into an electrical socket, or use a magnet to pick up a nail. We shouldn't be worried about whether we can see something, but whether we have good evidence that it is real, and we do have great evidence that electricity is real and zero evidence that psychic phenomena is real. And for some strange reason, psychics are in no hurry to provide any evidence.
You also say that we shouldn't 'believe these psychic hotlines or anyone charging money', the clear implication being that the famous ones we see on TV and travelling around are all fakes, but you implore us to 'give a fair chance to the gifted who help others free of charge', again the implication being that they are the ones with real psychic ability. But this doesn't match the real world. If you think of truly gifted sports people, artists and musicians, they all strive to excel in their field, and they become famous and earn big money in the process. Please name someone that is world class in their field and yet is hiding in their kitchen performing their skills for free to a couple of their neighbours. This is a little like saying we shouldn't believe qualified doctors because they charge for their skills, instead we should seek medical advice from our friends who help free of charge, and their unwillingness to charge signals true ability.
Perhaps you could get back to us with the evidence that has lead you to believe that psychic phenomena is genuine, and we'll genuinely try to open our minds and consider it.
Comment by Ron, 19 May, 2015
You made reference to Kelvin Cruickshank, psychic medium, and another book of his relating to talking to the dead. Some time back I mentioned newsletter type emails I get from Canadian/American psychic Blair Robertson. They still come periodically. He stopped all his predictions that used to accompany emails for reasons unknown to me. They were mostly wrong anyway. I wanted to raise the topic of spirit guides. Robertson sent out to all his recipients a piece on how anyone can connect to deceased loved ones via their spirit guides when you go to bed, by simply asking them to help communicate with the person you name and repeating that name silently as you drift off etc. I guess you have probably looked into the guides topic at some stage. I have personally never tried his suggestion but of course he insists many, many people have succeeded with a nocturnal conversation in varying degrees Difficult finding any evidence on this. We all, you and I included, supposedly have 1 or 2 personal guides. We either become more aware of the communication process or we dismiss the info from them as just random thoughts. There are apparently several ways to link in, like telepathy, knowing, the inner or outer ear and dreams/meditation. I've been told that when you fall asleep you naturally align yourself spiritually. Therefore many see loved ones that have passed over and conversations often occur, but when they awake they say it was just a dream. It all seems very far-fetched I know. Would like to hear your comments on this guides thing even though I reckon have a fair idea of the gist of your response John.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 May, 2015
Well, my quick response would be that I'm an atheist, so of course I don't believe in gods or in a spirit world, meaning that spirit guides don't exist and neither do the spirits of billions and billions of dead people.
Perhaps you might think this a sneaky way of avoiding the question, but it's actually a rational way of viewing the world. Think about it this way. Imagine you were asked if you thought the elves that make the toys for Santa were paid a decent wage. Would you seriously consider that question, or would you simply reply that you don't believe that the aforementioned employer of the elves is real, and thus there are no elves to waste time worrying about. If pushed, would you explain that they first need to produce good evidence that Santa and his workshop is real before you'll look into the plight of the elves? It's the same with spirit guides, I find it difficult to take them seriously when I don't believe their world even exists.
However, I suspect you want some specific comments on whether spirit guides make sense if we were to suspend our disbelief for gods. Even then it doesn't look good.
You say that psychic Blair Robertson has stopped all his predictions, but you noted that 'They were mostly wrong anyway'. But why would most of his predictions be wrong, since if Robertson is an expert at connecting with his spirit guides then his predictions would surely be based on their supernatural advice. So his predictions should have all been unerringly accurate. But they weren't, so were his spirit guides lying to him? Does God allow that, and approve of that? Or is it far more likely that there were no spirit guides and he was simply guessing and getting it wrong?
And when we look at the information that is believed to have been received from these spirit guides or deceased loved ones as we sleep, it's just the same as that gleaned by psychics or those that channel spirits or those that claim to have lived past lives. That is, it's either all nonsense or at the very least no new information is gained. For example, spirit guides never reveal the name of a murderer to a victim's family or reveal where the body is buried. Spirit guides never tell people not to enter into a bad relationship or where to safely invest their money, or warn them of a coming disaster. Spirit guides never tell people something they didn't already know or couldn't have guessed themselves. Usually it's just silly stuff like, your mother loves you or your dad is happy in heaven. No spirit guide warned George Bush not to invade Iraq or told the Nepalese to flee a coming earthquake or has warned a future rape victim not to go down that dark alley. No person goes to sleep knowing no mathematics and wakes up being able to solve quadratic equations, or suddenly discovers they can speak another language. Of course a few people do claim to make predictions based on advice from their spirit guides, but if the odd one comes true they are almost always predictions that anyone could likely make or are an outright lucky guess. If they truly had knowledge of the future then they would consistently make totally surprising predictions that always came true. As we know with astrologer Ken Ring, anyone can make predictions, but no one has shown that their predictions actually come true, let alone that they must have come from an otherworldly source.
And if spirit guides are real, then why are they lying more often than not? By this I mean, why are they planting the belief in sleeping Christians that the Christian heaven is real, and yet at the same time they're assuring sleeping Muslims that Allah is the one true god, while in India they're telling millions of Hindus that their gods are real? Why are spirit guides advising CIA employees on how to spy on the Chinese while yet other spirit guides are guiding the Chinese on how to hack into the Pentagon? Is God deliberately trying to keep humans at odds with each other? If God were dispatching spirit guides to advise and guide us for some greater good then surely their messages would be consistent and everyone would be getting a united vision, but humans are as divided in their views as ever.
As for Robertson explaining 'how anyone can connect to deceased loved ones via their spirit guides when you go to bed', I've read that there might be certain tricks which perhaps increase the odds that you might dream about a certain person, but there is no evidence that you've achieved anything more than that, that is, you're simply dreaming of that person. As for this talk of spirit guides being real, you say that it's 'Difficult finding any evidence on this'. I'd respond by saying that's because it difficult to find what doesn't exist. Think of fairies and leprechauns, while in the past some might have argued that it was difficult to find evidence for them, the reality is that they've never existed.
When you say that you've 'been told that when you fall asleep you naturally align yourself spiritually', I could reply that I've been told that astrologer Ken Ring is a really nice guy and a great weather forecaster, that the moon landing was a hoax, that I should definitely convert to Islam, that it was the Tooth Fairy who left money under my pillow, and that Jews secretly control the world. Frankly I find the belief that you 'align yourself spiritually' when you fall asleep as empty and as lacking in support as if someone were to say that we actually align ourselves with Superman's Fortress of Solitude in the remote Arctic. Easy to say, very difficult to prove.
But let's say that God has indeed developed a communication process involving spirit guides talking to the living for the purpose of guiding and advising us. Then I would say that God is an amazingly pathetic god. Mere human technology can allow me to clearly communicate almost instantly with people on the other side of the planet. But look at god's divine technology. Spirit guides are now targeting over 7 billion people when they fall asleep, night in, night out, and this has been happening for thousands of years, and yet for 99.9999% of the population, the communication is failing. Considering how effectively mere humans can communicate at a distant, with audio and video, hell, we can even record our communications and show it to friends, so why is an all-powerful, all-knowing god so bad at it compared to us? Clearly a god that could make the universe and life could effectively communicate with us if he wished, so believers describing some vague, fleeting thoughts as we sleep as being God's best attempt to pass on advice is an insult to their god.
As thinking humans we all hear voices in our heads, ideas appear from nowhere, and our imagination lets us fantasize about interacting with living people, dead people and fictional people, either while we're dreaming or deliberately while we're awake. And it makes good sense to dismiss these as just a dream or just random thoughts, since there is no good evidence that shows that some of our thoughts are not our own. Why should someone believe that when they dream of talking with a dead parent, then it's really happening, but when they dream of talking with Bugs Bunny or someone that's still alive, then it's clearly all just a dream? They rationally decide that they can't have really been talking with a cartoon character or someone that's still alive and that, they've since learnt, has no knowledge of their conversation, so it was all in their mind after all. But then, throwing rational thinking out the window, they can see no good reason why they still can't have been really conversing with that dead person. Really? A dead person? Because the reality is that there is not a shred of evidence that anyone has ever conversed with the spirit of a dead person, whether in their dreams, through mediums or spaced out on mind-altering drugs. These believers in communicating with the dead are merely describing what they are seeing in their dreams, and frankly, compared to the dreams I've had over the years, they are conjuring up something pretty boring and unimaginative. And at the end of the day, their claims are no more believable than if I said I conversed with a real Bugs Bunny in my dreams, or left my body and travelled to Venus for a pleasant stroll along a Venusian river.
Comment by Anonymous-9, 06 Apr, 2016
I have personally been read by Deb Webber twice! Both times she was correct in her messages. How & time of death. Sex & age. Personal interests etc. Have you personally had a reading with this lady? I gather not. Because if I had & had an open mind & good energy you would not be writing this garbage.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Apr, 2016
What you really mean is that you've been sucked in and taken to the cleaners by Deb Webber twice. I can almost guarantee that Webber told you nothing that you hadn't already unknowingly revealed to her in your conversation and body language. Do you not understand that it's all a trick, like when magicians cut someone in half or pull a rabbit from a hat? Or do you believe that's all real too? If Webber can be so accurate with you, then why has she, and all the other mediums, failed so miserably in solving a single murder case on 'Sensing Murder'? Why can she never reveal real, unknown information when it really matters, but can easily reveal mundane stuff to you that you already knew, and that even an idiot could guess? This is how I imagine your reading went:
Webber: I'm sensing that this person was close to you.
But of course no one wants to connect with someone that wasn't close. Then they can use this type of question:
You: Oh my god, yes. That's amazing!
Webber: She wasn't a teacher, was she?
This question works because even if she wasn't a teacher, it works either way:
You: Yes, she was. Wow, again... amazing!
Webber: She wasn't a teacher, was she?
The reality is that mediums, by asking question after question, get people like you tell to them things about the deceased and then after a lot of waffling, they simply feed it back to you. And you of course have forgotten that you already told them this information, or have at least hinted at it, and the medium by quizzing you has made educated guesses. You may have noticed that mediums always want to converse with their clients, they never insist that they remain quiet, or better still, since facial expressions can give away answers, remain in another room while the medium chats with the deceased. Again, it's all a trick, and that's why mediums fear skeptics and always refuse to be tested or to prove their powers.
You: You're quite right, she wasn't. She was a nurse.
Webber: That makes sense, because, I wasn't getting a teaching vibe, more of a healing vibe.
You: Well, that understandable, because she was a nurse. Gee you're good.
If having an 'open mind' means being gullible and willingly swallowing the bullshit that you clearly do, then I don't ever want to be as open minded as you, and I suspect your mind, as they say, is so open that it's fallen out. And saying I need 'good energy' to be able to be fooled by Webber is as silly and meaningless as saying I need to have a bag of fairy dust to see ghosts. Seriously, you may have had an excuse for such primitive thinking in medieval times, but this is the 21st century. Stop wasting your money on charlatans.
But here's a challenge for you. If you really believe that Webber is the real deal, then step up and prove it. Most people record their readings, so if you have, let us hear it and help convince us of her powers. You can remain anonymous, and we can try and explain your reading, and if we can't, we'll admit that we're mystified, and perhaps even become believers. Simply calling us closed-minded won't sway us, you need to front up with the hard, cold facts that convinced you.
Comment by Tony, 07 Apr, 2016
'open mind & good energy.'
deb webber — sensing murder — sensing bullshit
Comment by Patrick, 07 Apr, 2016
I can only encourage Anonymous-9 to click on the following link and to draw his / her own conclusions.
Cold reading — From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comment by Tony, 07 Apr, 2016
Doesn't have to be just "success" by cold reading. People put a lot of personal information on public social media sites these days.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Apr, 2016
You're quite right Tony, people often lay open their life on social media these days. And to get a reading with professional mediums like Webber will require making an appointment and divulging some identifying information, such as your name (which will reveal your sex) and phone number, and perhaps even your exact address, age group, ethnicity etc, or at least hints that reveal this information. Using these tidbit's it can often be child's play to locate a person on social media or business websites and learn a wealth of facts about their life. And I have no reason to believe that mediums wouldn't avail themselves of this information if, thanks to appointment details and the Internet, they learn their client's identity prior to the reading. It makes the scam much easier. I also doubt if any true believer in this nonsense would ever think of giving a false name so that no prior research could be done on their life by the medium. People going to a medium are like people buying gold hen's teeth off a con man, they just can't comprehend that a friendly stranger would lie to them and cheat them out of their savings.
I remember some years ago I was on an Internet forum discussing mediums and a youngish woman insisted that the supernatural was the only way that such personal information could be obtained. I argued that mediums cheat, she replied that it wasn't possible. Over several comments, I then told her that I sensed she was a teacher, or maybe her husband was teacher, and that they had a young child, and lived in a certain area. She was astounded, insisting that I had psychic powers but was in denial, since how else would I know these personal details which were all correct. I could have been far more precise but I felt that might have revealed my sources. Of course all I had done was to perform a quick Google search with the one or two things she had revealed in her comments and found information about her on various sites. I told her I had cheated, that I wasn't psychic, but to no avail. Another time I was explaining to a friend of a friend how cold reading works, and I said that mediums just guess. They throw out vague statements and let the client fill in the gaps. They might, I said, say that I sense your middle name begins with N ... or perhaps M ... they almost never say that I can clearly sense that it's Margaret. Unfortunately, the response from this person was: How did you know my middle name was Margaret?, she asked, with an expression of utter amazement. Of course I didn't, it was just a guess based on names popular for her age, but now she also is convinced I'm a psychic in denial.
For true believers, I suspect that no amount of explanation and evidence will ever convince them that they're being conned, and mediums are far too wary of skeptics to allow one to sit in on a reading to explain to the client how they're being fooled. I wish too that clients would focus on what the medium never told them, rather than the vague stuff they were told, usually after many, many mistakes. They never reveal, unless they've been able to do prior research, actual names, it's always your 'mother' or your 'grandfather', never 'Diane Marie Bloggs', never can they reveal what their actual address was, or where they worked, it's always 'I feel they had something to do with the land ... or perhaps children', never that they were a nurse at Acme Hospital from 1947 through to 1972. I've never understood how a dead person can clearly say to a medium giving a reading to someone called Susan, 'I'm your client's mother, and I want you to tell her that I still love her dearly', but not, 'I'm Diane Bloggs, Susan's mother, and I have some important information about heredity disease to make her aware of'.
Comment by Ron, 12 Apr, 2016
Hi John. Some recent, and past, comment from you regarding psychics show you have these false, deceitful, very bogus people well and truly taped. You are so "on the button" as I keep finding out, that the reality that they have millions of fans following their every word is, to me, unfathomable.
John, what I think about so often is the disappearance of Malaysian Air flight 370, as a good example, a yardstick if you like. With so many psychics, many well known, acclaimed, with massive following, you would think some of them, at least, would demonstrate their supposed powers/talents/gift to offer real insights or real advice on what happened or its whereabouts. This being the greatest aviation mystery ever, here is their opportunity to show us how genuine this "industry" can prove itself to be. How great it would be for all the grieving families for a start. But no, nothing of any use whatsoever. How odd. There have been weird ramblings from many as to what occurred but please bear with me as I quote 2 well known, "highly acclaimed" psychic examples here.
Firstly, Thomas John, hails from New York, also an author and life coach. Claims he was given the gift of clairvoyance from age 4, to be used responsibly to help people. Says he worked with 2 families who had loved ones on board 370. He says these families actually verified he was in touch with their loved ones. The sessions revealed all were deceased!!! He tells us he had 15 dreams plus, regarding location and circumstances re. flt 370. To prove his abilities in his eyes, angels apparently visited telling him a huge tornado was coming in a year. A yr later Bangladesh was hit by a tropical cyclone killing 138000 people. 2 days before 9/11 he dreamt of burning buildings in N.Y. and people jumping from them. Back to the plane, he says it was terrorism on the ground, engines were sabotaged incl. the radio systems. He often hears the words "explosive decompression", that the plane leaked fuel before takeoff, that it was not hijacked, he sees a struggle, likely the pilots, smoke in cockpit, all died suddenly before impact, its on the bottom of the Indian ocean, a particular govt. was involved at all levels, certain transmissions from the plane have not been released. John, much of this stuff can never be proved. Amazingly, he gives the exact location of the plane as lat 34.741 south, longitude 97.646. But here is the rub, he conveniently states it will be near impossible to find as it sits in an area unreachable due to big mountains and crevices on the sea floor. We are told T.J. is internationally regarded (as what) has done 100's of readings for clients globally and was even on the Dr Phil show. So we better believe this guy, he is the real deal, uh?
Then there are "the psychic twins" Linda and Terry Jamison, with a big following, particularly in Australia. They are reputed to be the only ones who predicted the 9/11 attacks plus they reunite families with their powers and, yes, solved murders, found missing persons, saved marriages, diagnosed illnesses all with their unique gift of "automatic writing". This is when a writers hand forms a message but the person is unaware of what will be written. It is claimed they are also the only predictors of the disappearance of mh370 and the search fiasco that followed, cover-ups etc. After this their website was hacked. Evidence shows someone from the U.S. govt. 4 days after the plane vanished they predicted no mechanical failure or fire, a pilot or a passenger involved in a hijacking, reasons unknown. Maybe a new kind of paradigm of terrorism. May never know what took place. Went into the Indian ocean. They are not optimistic plane will be found, but are hopeful. The journo who wrote their story for Australian womans day said she has been around long enough to know they are genuine and possess real gifts. That story gave them the huge following in oz. Worldwide they have 1000's of believers, however they complain that when they tell authorities of their insights they are made fun of, ignored, hung up on, not believed. They gave bereaved families pat, condescending stuff about how the bodies may never be found, how they must find a way to accept. What gets me is taking advantage through all this to promote their book "Psychic Intelligence", which can help those bereaved to connect with those who crossed to the other side. This is a quote from that book.
"We believe the soul survives death. Every living thing is composed of energy and energy never dies, it simply changes form. Soul is eternal, therefore it continues to exist on another plane after death".
Now that is some food for thought for you John!!. But really so much stuff you could shoot full of holes. Mostly useless jargon that cannot be proved, full of maybes so very suspect yet followers and fans number in the thousands. Makes one despair, it really does.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 Apr, 2016
Hi Ron. That missing plane certainly would be the perfect opportunity for genuine psychics to demonstrate their purported gifts, but not a single one can be bothered. Why are they so apathetic? And by demonstrate I mean 'prove', not merely talk nonsense that any idiot could spout. I've never heard of those psychics, Thomas John or Linda and Terry Jamison, which in itself is revealing, since if they had done even a single psychic thing that intelligent, rational people thought was genuine and important, then they would be world famous and the world as we know it would have changed immensely. They may be 'well known' and 'highly acclaimed' in the backwaters of the deluded psychic world, but if their claims were real they would be well known in the real world.
But it's not just MH370, there are untold mysteries out there that psychics claim to have the abilities to solve, and yet year after year, century after century, they never do. They talk the talk, but they never walk the walk. How many times do they have to fail to solve, not just one mystery, but every mystery, before their followers realise they're being conned?
As for the claims made by Thomas John, it's just so much crap. You say he 'Claims he was given the gift of clairvoyance from age 4, to be used responsibly to help people', and that angels warned him of a killer tornado and of 9/11, where 138,000 and 3,000 people were killed respectively. Knowing that these events were to happen, how many people did he help, how many survived because he used his gift responsibly? Why does no one ask why these psychics only spoke publicly about their visions of tornados, 9/11 and MH370 after they happened? Any fool can talk about what has already happened.
As for the details he provides about MH370, they don't make sense. He says that he's been in touch with dead passengers, and has learnt that the 'engines were sabotaged incl. the radio systems'. How would the passengers, and perhaps even the pilots for that matter, know that the engines and radios were sabotaged? They were in no position to get out and examine them. He says 'that the plane leaked fuel before takeoff, that it was not hijacked', but this suggests that the plan was for it to simply run out of fuel, which means it would have kept to its planned flight path, which is not what happened. He said it wasn't hijacked, that the engines were sabotaged, but then says 'he sees a struggle, likely the pilots, smoke in cockpit, all died suddenly before impact'. This implies that the pilots were attacked, meaning a hijack by someone, perhaps one of the pilots, and that this caused the plane to crash, rather than sabotaged engines. And even if there was smoke in the cockpit, this wouldn't kill the pilots since they would likely have emergency oxygen supplies. Even if they didn't, it wouldn't kill them suddenly, it's smoke, not cyanide. Also inhaling smoke doesn't cause explosive decompression. Nor would smoke in the cockpit have suddenly killed all the passengers, and again, even it did kill crew and passengers, the autopilot would have kept the plane on course, which didn't happen, until it ran out of fuel and crashed. The plane deliberately diverted from its planned course, and neither smoke nor sabotaged engines do that. He says that, 'a particular govt. was involved at all levels', but again, how would talking to dead passengers reveal this, how would they know? Ditto with the plane's location, how would the passengers know where they crashed, all water looks the same, and especially since he said they were all dead before they crashed. Are we to believe that souls are equipped with sophisticated GPS? And why would 'big mountains and crevices on the sea floor' make the wreckage unreachable? A submersible doesn't have to climb the undersea mountain, it just has to sink straight down to the wreckage. He might have been more believable if he said the wreckage was too deep to reach and recover, but that still doesn't mean it's too deep to actually locate it. He also claimed that, 'certain transmissions from the plane have not been released', but this conflicts with his claim that the radio systems were sabotaged, meaning there would have been no transmissions received to later hide. And typical of all psychics, look at what he doesn't reveal. Even though the passengers somehow inexplicably know their exact location, know about the engine and radio sabotage, about a government's involvement and about a struggle in the cockpit, they can't or won't reveal who planned, executed and is still covering up the disappearance of MH370. Why won't they reveal anything crucial that might help the mystery be solved? What are the passengers hiding from us?
As for the account on MH370 by the 'psychic twins', it's just as pathetic. They assert, in clear conflict with our previous psychic, that there was 'no mechanical failure or fire', and that it was indeed a hijacking: 'a pilot or a passenger involved in a hijacking'. And their supernatural contacts have no idea where the plane is, apart from a vague: 'Went into the Indian ocean'. What happened to soul GPS?
So we have two clearly differing accounts of what happened to MH370, supplied supposedly by people that died in the plane, and yet embarrassingly, neither allows us to solve the mystery. If in the seedy psychic world, these are indeed 'well known, "highly acclaimed" psychics', then psychic groupies should, and I'm assuming average intelligence here, realise that at least one account, since they differ, must be wrong, ie, made up, invented, fabricated. They can't both be right. Once they've grasped that one of these psychics is wrong, must be wrong, then they must surely accept that it could be their preferred psychic that is wrong, and if their psychic can be wrong, why can't both psychics be wrong? If it's clear that one psychic must be deluded or lying, why can't they both be? Wouldn't the fact that they're both making it all up be the best explanation as to why neither psychic can provide any useful answers? And it's not just these three psychics, there are literally thousands of psychics with widely differing stories about MH370, and not one of them has solved the mystery, which suggests thousands of devious, lying morons.
You say the 'psychic twins' claim to have 'predicted the 9/11 attacks plus ... solved murders, found missing persons ... diagnosed illnesses all with their unique gift of "automatic writing"', but I guarantee they can't prove a single one of those claims, nor will they be willing to demonstrate their powers by solving a murder or locating a missing person. And why does Australia still have unsolved murders and missing people if they have these powers? Powers that would earn them an obscene fortune, and yet they're nobodies trying to make some money by pushing a silly book. And anyone that believes that 'automatic writing' crap deserves to be ripped off, although I guess it's really no different to your typical psychic, who you could say is doing 'automatic talking'. It's so easy to expose as bogus. If they say that the writing (or spoken answers) are coming from a dead person, say, a pilot or passenger from MH370, then they should be able to convey information that the psychic couldn't reasonably know. For example, a Malaysian pilot should be able to relate technicalities of the aircraft and speak Bahasa Malay, and the passenger, say a neurosurgeon, should be able to say in which hospital she worked and what her children's names were. But no matter how much special and unique information these dead souls possess, they can NEVER pass it on to the psychic. The psychic can only make up stories based on information they've heard on the news and learnt in school. It's the same with those morons that say they're channelling the soul of Napoleon, or in a past life they actually were Napoleon, and yet strangely their Napoleon can't speak French, only English with a bad French accent. I'm just amazed that people can be sucked in by these silly stories, and yet such a large number are.
I have no doubt that these psychics 'complain that when they tell authorities of their insights they are made fun of, ignored, hung up on, not believed'. But this conflicts with their other claim that they've solved murders and located missing persons, since clearly the authorities must have believed them for this to have happened. So which claim is true, have authorities used them to solve murders or do authorities ignore them? Since there is no evidence whatsoever of any psychic worldwide ever solving a murder, or even finding a lost cell phone, clearly the claim that authorities ignore them is the true claim, and the other bogus. Of course no authorities are going to spend a fortune sending a submersible to search at the coordinates provided our first psychic, so even if they're correct they will be ignored. However, it would be child's play to quickly build a solid reputation if you were a genuine psychic, by simply starting small. Using your dead contacts you reveal information to the police about crimes being investigated, and while they will initially ignore you, they'll soon realise that you knew the answers before they did, and will begin to take you more seriously. Solve some unsolved crimes, through the media rather than the police if need be, find some missing people and some buried tressure and the authorities will soon be seeking your opinion. It's a little like me saying I can fly like Superman. If I refuse to demonstrate this unusual skill, then people will ignore me, but prove it just once and the whole world will be wanting to talk to me and see me fly. Psychics need to let us see them fly, not just tell us that they can. Demonstrate their powers and authorities worldwide would be fighting each other to consult with them.
As for the following quote from their book, it's pure pseudoscience, absolute nonsense phrased to appear scientific.
"We believe the soul survives death. Every living thing is composed of energy and energy never dies, it simply changes form. Soul is eternal, therefore it continues to exist on another plane after death".
Saying, 'We believe the soul survives death', is just childish, fanciful thinking, since they can provide no evidence that the soul is even real, let alone survives our death. It's no different to me saying that I believe Mickey Mouse eventually married Minnie Mouse, or that I believe that the fairies at the bottom of my garden are stealing my vegetables. Anyone can make silly claims like this, but there is no good reason to believe them. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence and reasoning that shows that souls (and talking mice and fairies) don't exist at all, they're as imaginary as angels playing harps on clouds.
Implying that the soul is a living thing, they say that 'Every living thing is composed of energy and energy never dies, it simply changes form'. It's true that living things use energy, that energy can't be created or destroyed, and that energy can change forms, but it's not true that 'energy never dies', since energy is not alive in the first place. The batteries in your smartphone and car both contain energy, so are they also alive? When these batteries die, as they are wont to do, does the battery's soul go to another plane? Of course not, it's just stupid to take a scientific concept such as energy and pretend it describes something that has never even been detected. When a rock rolls down a hill its potential energy changes to kinetic energy, and a burning log converts chemical energy into thermal energy, but it's sheer nonsense to assert that an unseen soul made from unknown energy changes form and zips off to some undetected plane. It's as baseless as me asserting that my garden fairies go on vacation to Queenstown every summer.
They also say that the 'Soul is eternal, therefore it continues to exist on another plane after death', but what does that really mean? If the soul is eternal that means it has existed forever, without beginning or end, and if you are your soul, then you have existed forever. So ... how much of forever do you remember? The Crusades, the last Ice Age, the demise of the dinosaurs? Since your soul has apparently lived through all these times, and yet you have no recall, then clearly when your soul survived your innumerable deaths and changed form, this energy change obliterated your soul's memories, making your soul utterly unaware that it has lived before. So now, in the 21st century, when this soul once again finds itself fleeing a dying body, it's memories will again be destroyed. So even if the soul survives the death of the body, it does so oblivious of having lived at all. Of course this means that even if some psychic medium could locate and contact the very soul that once animated your great grandfather, it wouldn't remember anything about that life, just as your soul doesn't remember any of its previous lives. So even if our souls survive our death, mediums can't talk to them and reminisce about old times.
It makes sense that souls should lose their memories, since our psychics tell us that the soul's energy changes form on our death, and when something changes, then, by definition, it can't still be what it was before. For the soul to keep its memories, it would need to exit the body without changing, but we're told it does change. Of course believers in this nonsense might argue that souls don't generally remember previous lives since this is their first outing, they're all virgins. But then why don't they at least remember their existence up to the point that they got chosen to come down to Earth? Trillions and trillions of years of waiting are forgotten. But then if their living energy changes when they leave a body, logically it should also change when they enter a body, resulting again in the loss of all memories.
Then we have the problem with the claim that after our death, our soul zips off and 'continues to exist on another plane'. Clearly this implies that a soul is used to animate a human body once, and once only. When the body dies the soul is retired to another plane. So if a certain soul was used to run a peasant in the Middle Ages, when he died his soul was put out to pasture. Our souls, as some religions believe, are not recycled, they're not placed in another body to live another life, they're one trick ponies. And this makes perfect sense from a psychic medium perspective, since if our souls on our death were plonked, with wiped memories, into a newborn baby, then they would not be residing on this other plane, or in heaven, and in a position to chat to the mediums. But what a mind numbing existence that would be, you've already spent an eternity doing nothing but playing cards with other souls and waving to God, then you run a human body for what by comparison would be like an infinitely small blink of an eye, then it's back to playing cards ... forever. How can people hope that this horribly bleak future is what we have to look forward to? And what a waste of souls it is, to only use them once. By some counts there have been around 110 billion humans born since we evolved, meaning that 103 billion are now milling around on this other plane, bored to death, but of course there is no death to bring them relief, nothing to look forward to. And these billions of souls haven't just existed since humans arrived on the scene, they are eternal, so they've existed not just for the billions of years that the universe has existed, but forever. Waiting, waiting, waiting ... just for their fleetingly brief chance to animate a body, then almost instantly it's back to seeing out eternity. People that dream of an afterlife don't realise how truly terrible it would be after just the first few hundred years. Especially when so much of what we humans enjoy requires a body, eg eating, drinking, sex, sports, lying on the couch etc, and a bodiless soul couldn't experience any of these activities. And watching movies, reading books or spying on humans would just serve to remind the soul of the many pleasures that are now beyond them, forever. If heaven and hell exist, or if this other plane exists, then no matter where you end up, you will have arrived in hell.
But don't worry, there is no evidence for souls or this mysterious other plane of existence. It's truly ignorant, primitive thinking, and it may have made sense in the Middle Ages, but considering what we now know about life and the universe, it is as you say Ron, both unfathomable and despairing that thousands of so-called educated adults can still believe this bullshit.
I perhaps should explain why I accuse these psychics of lying, rather than saying they might be honestly deluded, as some skeptics would. I would agree that most people that believe in psychics and those that believe that they have some psychic abilities are simply ignorant and deluded. However the high profile, professional psychics, like those you mention above and those that appear on TV, these make up a small minority of those believing in the psychic world. Think of a professional psychic touring the country with their show, one psychic on stage and hundreds of believers in the audience. Believers like a weird aunt or that nutty friend of a friend who believe they've had premonitions in dreams that came true will likely never have had their claims serious challenged, nor will they have spent much time thinking about their occasional prophetic dream. They are honestly deluded, they're not trying to profit from their 'gift'. The professional psychics however are immersed in the psychic world, as well as the skeptical world that challenges their claims. These professional psychics can't claim ignorance, they can't say that they haven't heard of cold reading or aren't aware of the many explanations that skeptics give for their apparent tricks. They know that they actively avoid skeptics and that many of their fellow psychics have been exposed as cheats. They will have been given lists by skeptics of all the mistakes they have made in their readings, and they'll know that much of what they said to their clients was wrong, even if the client appeared to agree. They know that they have failed to solve a single murder or locate a missing person, even though they tell their clients something quite different. While their clients may believe that the police call them asking for information, they know that they really don't. Professional psychics simply spend too much time being challenged and exposed by skeptics to be ignorant of the fact that psychics only seem to be able to convince unsophisticated folk, and that their 'gift' consistently fails them when a skeptic asks the questions. They were most likely naïve and honestly deluded when they began their psychic career giving readings to their friends, but their shortcomings and mistakes will have been revealed so many times as a professional that they can no longer plead ignorance. They may still honestly and sincerely believe that a supernatural world exists, but they also know that their claimed connection with it is fake. However, it pays the bills, and what harm does it do if it gives desperate people with credit cards some closure? That's a good thing, right? Lies can help people?
Comment by Ron, 28 Nov, 2016
Hello John. An article hit the news today telling us Kelvin Cruickshank is leaving Sensing Murder. He will appear in one episode of the new series next year then that is it. He says he is following his instincts, that the new series is "different", that he feels he should be doing different things, that when he gets these kinds of feelings he listens to them. Funny he never got any messages telling what a sham and waste of time his involvement has all been for this former chef who has become so popular in kiwiland. I mean, where are the achievements. He says how much he has helped so many families going through hell. By being honest and real? Alicia O’Reilly was a 6 yr old girl stabbed to death in her bed. The case affected him badly. Communicating with her spirit told him what she went through. He went out and vomited afterwards, he tells us, and cried for weeks. What did this do for the family or anyone. I see no evidence of helping solve the murder or anything. The awful details would be found in the reports, not spirits. KC, of course, is not giving up. He sat in on a new show in LA called Hollywood Hauntings which he hopes will come to NZ. Filming involves going to a house where someone was murdered. Production crew had a special camera which can pick up spiritual energy so they detect ghosts. He said, they recorded the energy of the spirits I could see. It was amazing".
Being totally skeptical I tried to find out about this "special" camera thing. No special camera could I find. What did floor me is the loads of stuff being sold out there for ghost hunters, beginners to professionals. One was an EDI, environmental detection instrument 3 in 1. It has an ambient temperature sensor (cold spots can indicate paranormal activity) an Electromagnetic field sensor, most popular ghost hunting tool which is programmed to detect changes in EMF around the device and a geophone which picks up the slightest movement or vibration where device is sitting. But I found this incredible explanation for the camera mystery which surely will change you to a ghost believer John, lol. This is it: Ghosts that can only be seen with cameras are simply phasing into our reality outside the range of visible light that our eyes can see only. Ghosts do this by directing their astral energy bodies into energy strings that are the foundation of matter. The extra energizing of these vibrating strings cause photons, the foundation of electromagnetic radiation, the ultimate source of light in the universe when vibrations are in a certain frequency range. So when a ghost, or similar, phases in they produce radio waves. These may interfere with radio or TV transmissions possibly creating verbal communications from ghosts known as EVP, electronic voice phenomenon. Gaining supernatural strength via environmental energy ghosts then produce microwave radiation causing interference of some electronic devices. The entity then enters the infrared spectrum and therefore can be picked up by cameras, but not the naked eye. However, thermal imaging devices more often pick up infrared manifestations.
Does that make much sense? Would it change ones beliefs?
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 29 Nov, 2016
Hi Ron. It's really depressing that a story about a stupid psychic medium going to hunt ghosts in the US is what the media thinks is important news. By continually giving these idiots exposure the media (who are probably giggling over that fact that such nonsense can increase their ratings) are simply reinforcing to a gullible public that this bullshit is real. Would they report a story about some dingbat who was travelling to Ireland to look for leprechauns, or send a camera crew around to film a woman's backyard where she claimed to have seen fairies? Of course not, so why waste time on ghost stories when they are just ridiculous? The media really erodes the public trust when they simply give the public the stories they want to hear, rather than stories that are important, and even more crucial, actually true.
And contrary to what this article says, Cruickshank isn't actually leaving 'Sensing Murder', since he hasn't worked for that show for over six years. What's actually happened is that Cruickshank has apparently agreed to sign on with a new production company and do one more episode of 'Sensing Murder', then he set his sights on the US market, or as this this article says, 'Top Kiwi psychic Kelvin Cruickshank foresees a big future for himself in the States'. Let's just hope he stays there. As you say, Cruickshank has achieved nothing in his association with 'Sensing Murder', beyond boosting his bank account. The country didn't benefit one iota. One article says that 'Sensing Murder' followed 'a trio of Kiwi and Australian mediums as they investigate high-profile unsolved cases'. But why didn't they add that all their investigations came to naught, since they failed to solve a single case? This is where some reporters, while not lying exactly, nevertheless distort the truth by omitting crucial information. The reporters probably manage any twinges of conscience by thinking, well if some people are stupid enough to believe this crap, then that's their problem.
As for 'this "special" camera thing', you're right to be skeptical. One article quotes Cruickshank as saying that the US 'production crew had special cameras which can "pick up spiritual energy, so they basically detect ghosts"', and another that they had 'an amazing machine that can detect ghosts — no one will have seen anything like it before".' Well of course we haven't because no such device exists.
Just think about this for a moment. Someone has invented a device that detects ghosts, and some people have been trying to do this for thousands of years, and what does this person do? Does he present this device to the scientific community to prove them wrong and line up for a Nobel Prize? Does he reveal and/or sell his device to others that are desperately trying to detect ghosts? Let's understand that proving the existence of ghosts would be a momentous discovery, the world would never be the same again. Could we maintain our atheism if ghosts were shown to be real? Which religion are the ghosts saying is the correct religion? The device could prove which mediums were real and which were fake, and law enforcement worldwide, as well as search and rescue etc, would immediately start employing mediums to provide information and solve untold crimes and mysteries. But none of this happened. Equipped with this amazing and earth-shattering invention its discoverers ignore the scientists and ghost hunters and police departments and go straight to Hollywood. Not to make a film about their discovery, but simply to hire themselves out to some third rate paranormal TV series.
And you're correct Ron, there are a lot of devices being sold to moronic ghost hunters, instruments to detect changes in temperature, EMF, sound, light etc. Not that any of them were made for that purpose, ghost hunters are simply using them and misinterpreting the data they provide. The stupid thing is that if the temperature is colder in one part of a room than another, or an EMF field is stronger in one area than another, or a sound can be heard for which no obvious source can be seen, these idiots claim that these things are evidence of ghosts. Invisible things are causing a temperature or EMF difference, and since ghosts are normally invisible, these morons jump to the bogus and totally unjustified conclusion that ghosts are causing these readings. But the thing is that no one has ever shown that ghosts actually exist, no has proven that ghosts cause temperature or EMF or anything else to change when they are present. No one has offered a theory that since ghosts are made of ectoplasm (for example), and science has shown ectoplasm can only exist at very low temperatures, then clearly if a ghost was present it would affect the ambient temperature of a room. These ignoramuses are merely looking at things they don't understand and screaming, Ghost! They're just naively assuming that if a needle on an instrument moves, and they can't understand why, then it must be a ghost. This is primitive thinking of the highest order.
It's as stupid as seeing the needle on a seismograph move, registering a tremor that we humans can't feel, and arguing that it has detected a ghost, since we all know that earthquakes indicate paranormal activity. Imagine if I argued that every time my wind chimes moved that was proof that fairies had just passed by, or that every time my satellite TV reception faded that was proof that an alien spacecraft had flown between my house and the satellite, interrupting the signal. Hopefully you'd argue that I was jumping to the wrong, and very silly, conclusion. There are very good rational reasons why wind chimes move, temperatures fluctuate, EMF varies and TV signals fade, and just because ghost hunters don't understand what those reasons are, that's no excuse for them to start saying it must be something as silly as ghosts.
As for that bullshit about ghosts phasing into our reality by 'directing their astral energy bodies into energy strings', that's pure pseudoscience, using real scientific terms to frame an explanation that sounds scientific but is nothing but bullshit. It's like me arguing that fairies stay invisible because they utilise natural turbulence in the atmosphere which affects the light reaching our eyes, effects called scintillation and dispersion.
The sad thing is that there are many people in the world, eg the media, Hollywood and those selling expensive ghost hunting equipment, that are intelligent enough and greedy enough to concoct bullshit and sell it to those naïve, gullible and trusting folk that blindly believe much of what they're told.
Comment by Tony, 29 Nov, 2016
Hi John. I see Kelvin Cruickshank has left Sensing Murder after only one episode because it's "different". I suspect the "difference" is that the new production company doesn't secretly provide him and the other Sensing Murder "psychics" with all the case information in advance of them being filmed. Why else would Cruickshank leave a prime-time, top-rating, award-winning show that has made him a "credible psychic", celebrity, and millionaire? I guess the new producers aren't aware of the previous and necessary cheating component that makes the show "work", and they naively believe the "psychics" have some genuine psychic abilities. I wasn't looking forward to the new shows being aired, but now I can't wait to see them if the new shows are honest and keep pretty much the same format as the previous ones. I would love to see the "psychics" attempt to retain their previous 100% "success" at identifying the gender of victims from unseen photos, let alone all the other "amazing" feats they claim to achieve against massive odds.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 29 Nov, 2016
Hi Tony. I too wondered exactly why he'd agree to appear then leave after one episode. The last two series only had 5 episodes each, and we were always told that, 'Each psychic has been filmed non-stop in one day'. So it's not as though Cruickshank would be committed to turning up to work day in day out for perhaps six months or a year. His commitment would be for a mere five days work, which would bring him a considerable fee no doubt, and generate considerable publicity for his private medium business when the series later screened in NZ. It sounds like a no-brainer. And Cruickshank should be well equipped for that.
Cruickshank has apparently been seduced by the big times in LA, but even if working on a show there, surely he could fit in five days work in NZ? Of course he may have been so enamoured with LA and dreams of becoming a real celebrity, albeit a fake one, that he just couldn't wait and immediately quit the show so that he could try and become established in the US.
Of course it may be possible that the new production company expected Cruickshank to be a real psychic medium, and things went sour when he failed to perform. However I doubt that a company with the money and resources to make a new series wouldn't have someone in their management group that wouldn't have said to the others, 'You do realise we would have to cheat to make this work, right? And even if they then fired that guy as a disbeliever, after making the first episode with Cruickshank, and expecting him to really talk to dead people, they would quickly realise that the guy they fired was right, and only by lying and cheating could they make it appear that these silly psychics weren't complete and utter frauds. So I suspect that the new series, after lot of editing, will be just as pathetic as the previous four, and fit for viewing only by those with an IQ under 50. And it goes without saying that not one murder will be solved because of a hint from a ghost.
These silly shows are all about making money, not solving murders, which brings us back to why Cruickshank walked away from easy money. Dishonest money certainly, but that's never worried Cruickshank.
Comment by Tony, 29 Nov, 2016
It's not so much that the new producers would quickly learn that Cruikshank and the other Sensing Murder "psychics" have no actual psychics abilities, it's more that the whole country would quickly learn that as well. Cruikshank is too street-smart to allow that to happen. I guess we will see. The degree of "success" of the "psychics" in the new episodes will reflect the degree of honesty or dishonesty of the new producer(s). I still suspect Baldock and Holland may have some involvement.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 30 Nov, 2016
Yes, you're probably right Tony. I guess we'll have to watch the new series to see how bad it is, even if it means killing off a few brain cells in the process.
Comment by Anonymous-10, 09 Feb, 2017
Hi, I like your posts on Sensing Murder. They are really interesting and detailed. You guys are very experienced writers.
So I've been watching the show with my dad and thought it was great. Until I found this site.
But why don't they ever follow up with if the case was solved or not? I never see it on the news. So if the point of the show is to "solve" the murders, why aren't they ever shown on the news as solved?
Remember the episode where a this person was killed and buried in a hole. And then Kelvin and the show didn't find any body of her when they were digging. And the other psychic said she was buried in a completely different spot!
And the one where Kelvin located the weapon (I think it was the Fallen Angel) buried by a tree, but when they dug they didn't find it.
Also the one where (I have no idea which) but Kelvin talked to the victim's family about that the victim's family loved them or something, which I thought was pretty sad since it's not the truth coming from the victim them self.
Oh yeah and the one where the painting in the room fell down. Simple magician's trick to spook and fascinate viewers.
Lastly, the one where the victim turned her back and wouldn't speak to the physics. Which immediately makes them have character, when it could be shyness, sadness or something. Anyway that was a lame excuse for not giving any information.
When Sensing Murder shows the physics using hand motions, It's all just really random cos I don't understand it. Like in A Bump In The Night, Deb was explaining the bedroom and to me she just looked like she was flapping her hands about pointlessly.
I also notice the physics guilty or nervous grins.
Does the show confirm if it's true or false?
But at least I enjoy (not in a creepy or bad way, but just interested and learning) learning about these murders. Helps you be more aware of your safety.
Thanks, bye and sorry if I offend or mislead or do anything wrong.
P.S sorry I couldn't give a lot of information.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Feb, 2017
Hi, and thanks for your comments. You quite rightly ask why they don't ever follow up with their cases, and reveal whether they were ever solved. You're correct that you've never seen on the news where the 'Sensing Murder' psychics have provided information that closed a case. In fact, to our knowledge, none of the murder cases they investigated have been solved, with or without their help. They don't follow up with updates because embarrassingly for the show and its psychics, of all the murders they investigated and claimed they could solve, the reality is that they haven't solved a single one. And it's even worse than it first appears, because as we've noted, the 'Sensing Murder' program was also made in many other countries, where they looked at completely different cases with different psychics. So not only has 'Sensing Murder' failed in New Zealand and Australia, it has also failed to solve a single murder in the US, the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Romania, Sweden and Norway. Their psychics are just as pathetic as ours, meaning not a single murder has been solved by any psychic worldwide. Of course there are many more psychics investigating murders worldwide that don't work for 'Sensing Murder', but strangely, none of those have solved a single murder either. Of course some claim they have, but they always refuse to produce the evidence, we're expected to just accept their word.
You're right that there are untold examples where the psychics contradict each other, or make claims that are later proven false in the same episode, or give lame excuses for why they have no idea what happened. That's why you notice the physics' guilty or nervous grins, they know they are lying to the camera and are fearful that they might be caught out. And they would be continuously exposed as frauds if it wasn't for the devious editing performed by the show's producers who are cunningly trying to make a show that gullible viewers will believe, and TV channels will buy.
You ask, 'Does the show confirm if it's true or false?' By this I take it that you're wondering if perhaps the show is just made for entertainment purposes, like most reality TV shows, and we're not really expected to take it seriously? However there is no doubt whatsoever that the psychics themselves take it very seriously, they most definitely want viewers to believe that everything they say and do is 100% truthful, that they really are talking to dead people. Of course the show's producers must know it's all fake and an utter scam, because they are hearing the complete nonsense that the psychics are talking and have to edit it out of the episode the viewer eventually sees. We'd also argue that the psychics also know that they're lying, that they're not really talking to dead people, that's why they can never tell us anything important, but the psychics definitely don't want the viewer to know that they're just making stuff up. So the show is of course fake, but the show makes every attempt to assure the viewer that it is most definitely true. The sad reality is that in this world some people lie, and have no problem with lying, especially if they can make money from it.
Comment by Anonymous-10, 10 Feb, 2017
It's really sad what the psychics around the whole world do. The ones in our (/Aussie) Sensing Murder are pretty good actors. They should get grammys; grammys for lying and faking. I'm probably never watching the show again. I only would watch the part about the murder if I do. I must say A Bump in the Night might be Sensing Murder's most failed episode so far. Very unbelievable.
Comment by Anonymous-11, 04 Apr, 2017
You do know Rebecca Gibney is a New Zealander although she now lives in Australia. She was born and grew up in New Zealand so yes she has definately been to New Zealand. She is only an actress and does not pretend to know any information about any cases and everything will be scripted for her. In sensing murder she only sticks to the facts as what she has been told to say
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Apr, 2017
Yes, we are well aware that actress Rebecca Gibney is a New Zealander now living in Australia. When we said that, 'There is no indication that she met any of the psychics, knew anything about the cases or even visited NZ', we were suggesting that she never visited NZ in connection with the murder cases she was describing. She was the face of 'Sensing Murder', she explained and linked the different elements together, and was clearly hired to speak authoritatively about something she likely knew nothing about. She wasn't the faceless narrator that documentaries use. As a popular actress and respected Aussie/Kiwi she was clearly used to lend credibility to the claims the producers had her say. Her appearance was just another example of the show's producers trying to create a sense of realism around pure bullshit.
Comment by Rick, 13 Oct, 2017
Hit on your website by chance.
Ha ha you guys need to write a book.
I laughed so much at some of your comments I ended up reading all your stuff on 'Sensing Murder'.
What a great afternoons read.
Yep they are a complete sham and its amazing how some people get taken in.
Love your work, keep it up.
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 Oct, 2017
Hi Rick. We're glad you enjoyed our exposé of 'Sensing Murder', and yes, it is amazing, and worrying, that so many people don't see it for the nonsense that it is. On the positive side, an attempt to reboot the 'Sensing Murder' series earlier this year thankfully failed to garner much attention. Even the rabid fans of old seemed to have grasped this time around that the silly psychics never, ever, manage to solve a single murder. Maybe a gullible public is finally realising that anyone can say they are talking to the dead, the trick that no one seems to be able to pull off is to get them to talk back.
Comment by Anonymous-12, 04 Sep, 2018
I was at a medium last week and he was able to tell me exactly how my brother died, what I have belonging to him. His likes in music and and how we performed his funeral .. Go figure
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Sep, 2018
I was at a magic show last week and he was able to saw a woman in half, read my mind to determine the card I had secretly chosen, and pull a cute rabbit from an empty hat ... Go figure.
In case you mistake my sarcasm for sincerity, I'll let you into a little known secret. Both mediums and magicians are performing tricks to entertain an audience, and only fools leave believing that something truly spooky happened.
Comment by Peter, 14 Sep, 2018
Hi John !
Do You happen to know more about this case of alleged psychic crime solving ?
The missing person case solved by Sensing Murder psychic Kelvin Cruickshank
I'm intrigued ... Did this guy really get so incredibly lucky ?
Thank You for Your thoughts !
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 Sep, 2018
Hi Peter. The short answer is yes and no. No, Cruickshank most definitely didn't use any spooky psychic abilities to locate a body, but yes, he did get incredibly lucky by making it appear that he did.
The reality is that if you make enough vague guesses about the possible location of missing bodies (or anything really), eventually by the combination of large numbers and simple coincidence you will likely fluke the right answer once in your lifetime, and this will appear very impressive, as long as you don't mention in equal detail the many, many, many previous guesses you got horribly wrong over the previous decades.
Look at what the article said about Cruickshank's psychic prediction record (and the record of all psychics in fact):
'In his 20-plus years as a psychic medium, Kelvin Cruickshank … has been asked many times for help to find missing people, but … the information he provided … hadn't resulted in anyone being located … [so] Kelvin decided a while ago not to get involved in missing person cases … he decided to let them know he couldn't do anything.'
This is Cruickshank being honest, not something that comes naturally to him, but what else could he say? The record speaks for itself, no psychic in the entire world has ever found a body by proven psychic means. Cruickshank goes some way to acknowledging this in the article:
'"From what I understand, this is the first time in New Zealand that a medium has been able to help find a body," says Kelvin.'
Cruickshank is clearly as amazed as everyone else that one of his silly spooky predictions has finally bore fruit.
So did he really locate the body, and prove to a skeptical world that he did? For a start, where was this revolutionary accomplishment reported, an event that could overturn what we know about the world and shake scientific thinking to its core? Not in any scientific journal, not even in the newspapers or on the local TV news, but in the 'New Zealand Woman's Weekly', a magazine dedicated to vacuous celebrities, fashion, cooking and with questionable articles aimed at the gullible. Clearly no reputable news source thought Cruickshank's claim was believable in the slightest, and so it was left to the 'New Zealand Woman's Weekly' to use the claim to entertain it's readers with a spooky ghost story.
Did Cruickshank accurately reveal where the body was? No, all he did was motivate someone into searching some more. The body belonged to an 84 year-old-man with mild dementia named Curly who had disappeared from his Hamilton home. Cruickshank reported that, 'Curly said he was "not too far from home"', which is extremely likely to be the case but at the same time extremely vague. Cruickshank said that, 'I couldn't tell her exactly where he was, but I did know that he was not where they had been looking. He was beside a trickle of water, but not in the river'. Of course, it's common sense that the body wasn't where they had looked, since if it was they would have found it, and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to then realise it must be somewhere else. Again, this is telling us nothing. He then uses a useless phrase favoured by psychics worldwide: 'He was beside a trickle of water', since most every place is near water of some sort, whether it be a creek or pond or underground stream or leaking tap in the laundry. No matter where a body is found, somewhere nearby will be water that the psychic will claim is the water he meant. So again, saying a body is near water is absolutely useless, he might as well have said it's on or near land.
But let's remember that Cruickshank insists that he was chatting with Curly and his dead wife, so the information should be very precise. Cruickshank used Google Maps to find the exact spot, and tells us that, 'I had Curly standing beside me going, 'That's it, that's it.'" It's revealed that Cruickshank 'marked two areas on a map', which were 'around 1.5km from Curly's home and in the opposite direction to the river. Searchers had been there, but not gone down into a steep gully. After combing the area for three hours, Glenn found Curly near a stream in the gully.' The article implies that Cruickshank stated that, 'Many people were surprised that Curly ended up in Tauhara Park because it was still quite a trek from his home'. In my view 1.5km is not a huge distance to walk, Curly had mild dementia, he wasn't bed ridden. Also Cruickshank states that the body was found 'in the opposite direction to the river', with the implication being that only the psychic thought of looking in that area, but the searchers had previously combed part of Tauhara Park, so clearly they didn't think it unlikely that Curly might have gone in that direction or could have walked that distance. They merely missed finding the body, which might speak of incompetence, whereas family members are often more motivated to search areas for longer and to search them again when official searches have been called off.
So Curly pinpointed the spot of his body, saying, That's it, that's it', and it was found near a stream in a gully in Tauhara Park. So why did Cruickshank mark 'two areas on a map' if Curly had verified a single spot, and why didn't Cruickshank mention the identifying words stream, gully and Tauhara Park? Look at the map that Cruickshank provided.
The marked areas cover a considerable area and are not in any way showing precisely where a body is, and note that both areas that Cruickshank has chosen cover bush and park land rather than residential land, since even Cruickshank knows that a body, since it hasn't been found, is therefore far, far more likely to be hidden in bush than lying on someone's front lawn. Also note that we're not shown how much area Cruickshank had encircled on the second bottom area, he has possibly included a vast unseen area, but he's only showing us the part of his map where the body was found. No matter where the body was found, in bush or a backyard garden shed, Cruickshank would claim that was the precise spot he was thinking of. Note also the narrow strip of land that Cruickshank has excluded between the two areas he marked. How could he be so certain about that narrow strip but be so vague about where inside his pink lines the body was? Note that there is no arrow pointing to the gully in Tauhara Park, no X marking the spot. All the idiot Cruickshank has done is to logically say where a body might be, considering the man's age, dementia and that it hasn't been found, and to suggest that people take another look, since clearly the first attempt wasn't good enough. At no time did he give any precise location, and considering he had Google maps and Curly verifying the exact spot, Cruickshank should have been able to give precise GPS coordinates. With the help of Curly and a psychic, it shouldn't have taken Glenn three hours to stumble across the body.
Kelvin Cruickshank is clearly still a fraud.
Comment by Peter, 16 Sep, 2018
...wow, a hell of a detailed reply ! Thank You (again) very much John ! I will be reading it many times. You're such a diligent & thorough man !
Return to Article
Add a Comment