Charles J Sibley Using Murdered Children To Further His Own Agenda

In what most go down as one of the sickest stunts we have ever witnessed on BadPsychics, Psychic Charles J Sibley has used the images of murdered children to advertise both himself and a petition.

Rarely do we come across anything so sick and twisted as this, and I am practically speechless.

Here are the specific images he has used.

And possibly the most distasteful of all

I want the world to see and know what kind of a person Charles J Sibley is.

His video was originally hosted at the link below, he removed it after we exposed it.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5qIHnDHnkrE

On the Youtube comments area Sibley had responded to someone who described the video as

Quote:
This is probably the most repulsive video I've ever seen on YouTube or indeed anywhere else. Sibley's exploitation of murdered children to further his 'career' is beneath contempt.

He replied with

Quote:
What i say in this video about Murdered Children.. is `TRUE` And you do not know that `DO YOU`? `NO YOU DONT`. But mediums all over the world know it TRUE. I am not saying this at all to further my 'career, `A Medium is not my career` Open your mind or go away.. Charlie..

A second disgusted poster said

Quote:
This is sick, you should be ashamed!

And as ever Charles simply replies with his usual level of arrogance

Quote:
I am not sick because spirits mums, dads, Children in the spirit world ask me to do this video. The Spirit world wants to be heard to?

And they want there families to know that they are there to? WHAT IS SO SICK ABOUT THAT????

So Charles is claiming that these poor murdered children have ASKED him to make this video.

Well now Sibley has removed his video from Youtube and also from MySpace.

I am going to leave this article up until Charles Sibley makes a public apology to the families of the dead children he used in this shameless self promotion, and also until he admits these children have NEVER spoken to him, and never asked for his help in any way.

UPDATE: 26/08/17
To this day as far as I know Charles Sibley has NEVER apologised for any of this.

I have kept a copy of the video as evidence which you can watch below. Images start at about 2m40s

Sensing Bullshit - Psychic Deb Webber Exposed.

By Jon Donnis

On August 13th, 2004 Australian Channel 7 broadcast a show called "Caught on Hidden Camera" but this wasn't a Beadles About type show, instead it was an exposure of one of Australia's best known Psychics.

They set Deb Webber up, by letting her give readings to three people, psychologist Michelle Smith, Tahlia and Joshua.

Deb then continued to communicate with dead people, who simply never existed.

But before we get into the exposure, lets take a quick look at Deb Webber herself.

Just 2 years ago, Deb Webber was a simply a single mother living in the Sunshine Coast area of Queensland. She was living by way of a pension.

But it seems she found a way to make much more money, from her humble beginnings she now charges $200 per hour to talk to YOUR dead relatives.

Just think about that for a second, she is charging YOU money so YOU can speak to your own dead relatives. Surely no one would want to pay that? Well they do, and in their droves.

On Debs promotional video she even talks to the famous dead, and Michael Hutchence makes an appearence during a reading for his brother Rhett.

But Deb is not without her critics, of which I am one of course.

Just think of what type of person is likely to visit Deb, the recently bereaved are always going to be vunerable people. And it wouldn't take much to be able to convince a person in such a state that you areindeed speaking to their dead relatives. Afterall who likes to think that once you're dead, you're dead.

One of Debs quotes when asked about sceptisism is:
"I don't judge the butcher, because I can't cut meat,"

Hang on a second Deb, Butchers actually do something that can be seen and measured.
Yes you will have good and bad butchers, but the fact they cut meat is not in question, it is only their skill.

So lets get back to the exposure, and first up is Psychologist Michelle Smith.
Michelle is single, but creates a dead husband for Deb to speak to.

And Deb obliges, she even manages to speak to this imaginary dead husband on more than one occasion!

Now that is an amazing skill, reminds me of a certain Derek Acorah!

Anyway Michelle later reveals.
"I never had a husband,"

"She saw two large dogs, a large house and property, I have none of those things."

Deb Webbers response to this is:
"If they lie to me, well it's like the spirits do it back to them,"

"All I can say is: people tell me I can do it."

Hang on, why would the spirits lie back to the clients through Deb? if this truly is the case, how can Deb ever trust what she receives? the truth is she can't.

Her other defence is that people tell her she can do it, well if I tell you Deb you can fly, will you go jump off the Sydney Harbour Bridge?

No didn't think so.

Deb was also tested with two other sitters. 
Next up was Joshua who invented a dead daughter and yet again Deb was able to fully communicate with this imaginary spirit.

And finally Tahlia who said she wanted to communicate with her dead sister, but as you have already guessed this dead sister simply did not exist. And yet amazingly Deb Webber was able to communicate with her.

Deb again defends herself.
"It's the truth,"

"I'm 100 per cent truthful - I only say what I'm getting back and I can't explain what I'm getting."

"I help more people than I hurt and I don't want to harm anyone."

Well Deb you claim to be truthful, yet you have been caught talking to spirits who never existed, and on more than one occasion too.

Your claims that if you lie to spirit they will lie back is simply ridiculous. If you were truly speaking to the dead, then should't you be able to tell who is real and who is not?


By Jon Donnis

You can now watch the associated videos below

Charles Sibley - An Analysis

Originally published 20th September 2007

By Jon Donnis

We have featured Charles J Sibley a few times before on BP, purely cause his trance mediumship is so unbelievably awful, it made us laugh.

But Charley boy released a video where he talked about Cold Reading and how he did not use it.

I decided to therefore look at one of his readings, as you can imagine this is not as easy as you would have thought as we have to reply on Charley boy himself to provide the material.

Luckily he has done just that.

I will show you the video so you can watch for yourself, then after I will print the transcript with my own comments interjected.

VIDEO REMOVED

Next we have the transcript, the normal formatted text is the words of Charley, comments in brackets are those of the sitter, and the comments on bold are my own.

Thanks to Meercat for the transcript:

Transcript
This is a reading for a few people and er Im trying this out you know, er, to prove to you people of what abilities Ive got you know and we'll see how it goes you know. Anyway, we'll start with this gentleman here, erm. Im picking up a er, er er a mother figure here right I feel it a great grandmother yeah, its your mothers nan, I know you dont know this is whos coming through at the moment. She was a very sort of timid woman erm, and you have got a lot of her in you, you got a lot of you in her, you know,her personality.

Ok we have started, first thing to notice is that Charles has decided to pick on a great grandmother, someone who without doubt would have been dead along time, and that the sitter is unlikely to have known.

Charles also fills in the reading with a very strange comment about her having a lot of him in her, and a lot of her in him, what does this actually mean?

And youve also, its your mum its your mum to a T as well.

So now it is his mum who is like the G'Grandmother? Make your mind up Charles, so far all we have is a lot of filller and no real substance

And why they talking about it is to your mum, they know what you want to hear but we'll come to that in a minute.

Why not come to it now? Charles has a very annoying knack of rambling on and on without actually saying anything.

Erm, but your mum at the moment you know she sort of, er what is it, you know, you know she worries a lot dont you (yeah) yeah, erm she worries she worries in a sense like that she creates worries there not really worries but she creates worries she assumes this and that is gonna happen yeah (yeah) but she doesnt erm, know its gonna happen and when usually it dont even happen that way anyway. (yeah). And shes doing her own head in and she shes what you call a a worry creator they're not even worries. you know your mums like that anyway dont you (yeah I do yeah).

Charles seriously expects us to accept this as evidence, in around 130 words, Charles has told us that the sitters mum likes to worry! I could and just did say the same thing in 5 words! but then I am not being paid by the hour like Charles is.

Erm, apart from that shes sound in every other way. but erm, the hospital, not too long ago she was at the hospital (erm) theres something about going to the hospital anyway, it doesn't matter but if you ask your mum you'll probably know, you probably dont know, but er they mention the hospital, thats erm, er, its probably er time for a check up to do with some check up that shes on, a time before you know what I mean (Yeah I do) They not telling me what it is, but erm, just ask your mum. Erm.

More rambling, and again he says a lot without actually saying anything. Something incredibly vague about going to the hospital? Come on Charley you claim to be speaking to the dead, so why can't you just be clear?

Apart from that, er your Dad, erm, your dad works very hard, or something, too hard, (yeah thats right yeah)

Notice the confirmation by the sitter, this now gives Charleys the opportunity to enhance his original statement

yeah, he is a work fanatic and he never gives in, he always on the go and this that and the other and he never even stops to have a breather, he's always up out and out you go.

As I said, because of the confirmation from the sitter, Charles expands on his original statement.

And he never sits still, hes always fidgeting and, you know what I mean, hes that type of person and hes been like that all his life, (yeah, yeah) but er hes not getting any younger you see

Well we already established the father likes to work, so it is common sense that he is not gonna be a sit about, relaxing type of guy.
I also love the comment about the father not getting any younger!
Classic line! In fact I would love to hear a psychic make a comment along the lines of "Your dad he is getting younger every day, never been as healthy and fit in his life"

and these up here, they want you to mention it to your dad that he needs to learn to slow down cause when he gets older he will find it very hard when he gets to a stage where he cant rush around like that anymore, hes all right now, hes not old, but he needs to, erm, learn to slow down, and you know yourself, he never does. (no...).

More rambling from Charles, just repeating himself over and over to make the reading last longer. Simply stating the obvious, and remember this all comes from the original confirmation from the sitter about the father working hard, if the sitter had not replied in such a manner, the next few minutes of Charles reading would never have happened.

He's always rushing around, And who takes after him? You do dont you? (yeah)

Here is some more of that cold reading that Charles claims he does not do, he asks the sitter a question, and the sitter replies in the confirmatory manner, I wonder if Charles will now use this information that the sitter has provided and run with it, if he does then this is pure unadulterated cold reading

You can't sit still. you know what I mean.

Of course he knows what he means, the sitter just told Charles!

But then again, youre a younger than him, but now you've heard this it doesnt pay to be rushing around.

Well if the sitter was older than his dad i would be amazed!

As you get older it can pay to, you know it can lead to bad nerves, to trying to settle down or even going to sleep when youre older. It'll all backfire on you like, your dad.

Hang on, when has it been established that this lifestyle has backfired on his dad?

I mean you dads alright sleeping cause with him rushing around, but, with your dad rushing here there and everywhere he does actually miss other details and he forgets, "Oh love I forgot about that yeah, er you know i'll, i'll ", you know what I mean and hes like that isnt he (he is like that yeah) but thats cause hes rushing and hes too fast up here. he needs to slow down cause he will have problems when he's older.

So now Charles in contradicting himself, he has previously stated that all this work had backfired on the dad, yet now he is saying it will affect him in the future, basically what Charles is doing is covering all of his bases, making sure that whatever he says he will probably be right

Apart from that your dads dead sound and hes a very good man and he'll help anyone in need you know and your like him, and you are a lot like him and youve been told your like him.

Notice how EVERYTHING in the above paragraph, Charles only knew AFTER the sitter had told him. This is classic cold reading, something Charles claims he does not do.

And er but you have got a lot more than your mum in you what you have with him. you know, Cause your mum, the shyness, er you, your mum, is like that, she has a thing that, she does have a phobia about people, you dont have that phobia but you do.

My favourite of all of Charles ramblings, just read it again, might take you a few times to even vaguely understand it, but the last line is the best.
"You dont have that phobia, but you do"
WHAT THE HELL! lol.
Charles is that really proof that you are speaking to the dead.

Without doubt one of the most ridiculous things ever to come out of a psychics mouth ever.

"Hey Meercat, you dont like cheese, but you do"

You know what Im on about (yeah)

Amazingly the sitter claims to have understood that! Or could it be that the sitter has been so confused with all the rambling that he is now just blindly agreeing in the hope it will lead to a sooner end to the reading

And this phobia is sort of like if you come to contact with someone erm even a girl for instance, more so with girls like, but er, even when you met Danny *points towards camera* you wouldnt have erm you know approached Danny cause he was the type to approach you.

This now points towards a bit of hot reading, or even body language reading, Charles has been able to watch the sitter and how he has interacted with people since coming in for the reading. He now tries to pass off this knowledge as psychic, when clearly it is not.
It is not hard to spot if someone is a bit shy around people

And he broke the ice if you know what I mean. (yeah) and you love people like that, because you wouldnt even have a mate now, you wouldnt even have mates if people didnt do that.

Charley-boy is really sticking the knife into this poor mans back, way to build up the confidence Charley

Its this thing, the shyness in you that you dont like, you couldnt be like your mate Danny you know what I mean, er, you know what Im saying (yeah I do know what your saying). You havnt got that in you, but er, just bite your tongue and do it you know what I mean, but, your mum was like that when she was younger, but, you know, thats where youre like your mum, that shyness, and that bit of phobia, of having the bottle to talk to someone.

Again more rambling by Charles, based on what he knows purely through observation

I mean when your Dad, and you can ask your mum and dad, when your dad first approached your mum er years ago like when they first met, and all that, your mum nearly had a heart attack.

We now have the problem where the sitter cannot in fact confirm or deny what Charles is saying, so the sitter must "take that with him" and ask others, of course by then Charles is long gone, the reading has been paid for, and there is no recourse, a classic technique used by mediums as a way to further enhance the reading.

If the person goes away and asks about the comment and the psychic was wrong, then "oh well he was wrong", if the psychic was right, this further convinces the sitter, it is a no lose situation for the psychic, which is why this technique of going away with something is used so often.

you know, and er, you know, she, er, you know, but he grew on her but it took a long time for your mum to get that bottle to actually even trust your dad, you know what I mean (yeah)

Although a confirmationary "yeah" he is in fact only answering Charles question about "knowing what he means" again another technique used by psychics to make the reading seem more real.
Some psychics also use the "do you understand what i am saying" sentence. You may understand the psychic, but not agree with what he is saying, but as you may have been asked to only answer yes or no, you answer yes.

Which in your case you know, being a male like, you know erm , I mean, you went, you went out with a girl, you've been out with a girl havnt you yeah? (yeah)

Again Charles is asking a question here, which the sitter gives an answer to, next Charles will expand

and this girl, erm, I dont mean to ask you questions like did you go out with a girl, I mean I should tell you you go out with a girl its just the way it comes out, dont worry about it, erm, its just for these sceptic people, *point at camera* you know what I mean.

Are you pointing at us Charles? If so you are making a fool of yourself, and are in fact proving your lack of psychic ability with your inane rambling.

Erm, but, these, erm, .... when you were going out with her, theres always a thing in the back of your mind, and youve never really been dirtied on, you know what I mean, (yeah) but, you, with that girl you were thinking, she's with someone else, or you know, the that sense of not trusting a bird, you know.

Again more rambling, remember that the sitter was the one that told Charles he had been out with a girl, and not the other way, although you would expect most men at the age of the sitter to have gone out with a girl.

You probably heard so many stuff off people you know, of being dishonest and all that, you know what I mean, but its probably backfired on you and you dont know how to trust any bird. But these girls, that girl especially, erm, she was sound in her own way but she was a little kid. she, she was, was too immature for your liking, you were, usually girls grow up faster than lads, you know what I mean, but in this case it was the other way round, you know, she was very immature where as you were mature, you know, and er, you know but, thats why it didnt work out really, because she was, she was right, and she was a bit of a flirter, you know, and you did find her out yeah (yeah) you know but, one thing and another, you know, and, because that did happen, you have got 'cause youve had this thing that she was a bit of a flirter, erm, its sticks here and now you dont, its getting worser this not trusting birds now, you know, cause youve sort of been rejected, the worsest thing that can happen to somebody,

More rambling by Charles here, he is just telling the sitter what he wants to here about any random woman who has rejected him in the past. Pure filler here by Charles

but theres always someone out there and theyre assuring you now, your great great granny this is, right, If you talk you your mum about your great granny, erm, she was a very, arrogant, very, really old fashioned, well should would be cause she was born in the 1800's you know,

LOL I think Charles actually realises here how bloody obvious some of what he is saying is, someone from the 1800's who was old fashioned. WOW!

erm very old fashioned and really arrogant and she wouldnt mess about, you know, and she'd even hit men before today, you know, and erm, your mum, she was that type of person, very, very big and, er, really broad woman, really, you'd class her as a man from the back, you know what I mean, (yeah) and she could handle herself good style with, you know what I mean (yeah, yeah) ask your mum anyway, its a bit er.

Again hard for the sitter to really verify any of this due to the fact it is unlikely he even knew his G'Grandmother, so Charles is very much on safe ground here

Your mum, your mums not really sceptic about life after death cause she does talk, erm, you know, er, to people, or wish upon a star or what whatever you want but she does believe that the is a heaven you know (yeah thats right yeah).

I would say that most people of that generation would have some belief in heaven, Charles is just vague enough here that he has a pretty good chance of being at least partly right, which he was

Whereas your Dads like you, you know what I mean, which most men are more sceptic usually than women.

Again Charles is pointing out again the obvious, at least he is kind of admitting it too

Erm, but apart from that theyre reassuring you that erm, theres someone called Jane, alright, Jane, Janet, erm, we'll get it right, Jane. But whats the Janet?

Here we go back into cold reading territories, notice how he ends with the question "Whats the Janet"

Well, bare these names, Jane, Janet. You knows J's, Jane, remember Jane and remember Janet right. Now why they give you these because in the near future you will come across these names right, and these'll be very compatible for you, right, like your soul mate yeah you know what I mean (yeah) you cant have two soul mates but you can, because theyre really compatible for you and one of them , Jane, is on your wavelength and got your sort of interests and she very, erm, easy going, a bit on the quiet side but she's got a bit of bottle, you know what Im saying, (yeah) which you havnt got a lot of bottle so, she has, you know what I mean (yeah), which you need someone with a bit of bottle you know what I mean. Erm. so remember that, and erm, why, why theyre given you these names is because you cant be a mind reader getting a girl can you and er,

So noticing the lack of facial acknowledgement on the sitter, Charles moves this imaginary character to the future, which of course is safe as it cant be denied. Pure cold reading again by Charles

even your mate Danny has told you about er, you know going to a club or getting a bird, you know, but you wont meet these birds like that youll meet 'em or *unknown word/s* er, er, er a place where you wouldnt even thought youd meet them you know what Im saying, through someone else and it wont be Danny.

Hang on, isn't Danny the cameraman, this is all starting to sound a bit strange, at first I thought Charles was just using Danny as an example before, but now it seems that Danny is in fact friends with the sitter which is interesting.

I wonder what Charles connection to the sitter is too? Very suspicious in my opinion

You know, erm, but it'll work out for you but once you hear them names, trust them ok because they will not do the dirty on you, because one of them, er ,J-Jane, shes had erm, it done to her shes actually been, her fellas been unfaithful to her, er, quite a few times, and shes just had enough and shes on her own now and shes been on her own about six months, and shes the same age as you and everything, and er, so you'll get on dead fine with her, yeah (yeah)

Well thats great, this Jane is pretty much described as an emotional wreck, had the dirty done on her, and so on. Maybe the sitter should avoid jane, and try and find someone without a load of emotional baggage

erm and I know your a bit sceptic and this that and the other, but, when you come across, you, you, when these people do meet up with you , which they will, erm, you know, you'll believe in life after death a lot more when that happens, even when, you know, anyway just remember that.

Well if the sitter wasn't a sceptic before this reading, he should be now, after what was without doubt the worst reading I have read in a long long time.

and er, we cant have it too long we'll be running out, we wont have any tape left for this lady. *points to person off camera* erm, but theres, er theres er I dont know what this is, they showing me a tiger for some reason I dont know what why that is, a lion, theyre showing me a lion you know, that sort of stuff, you. You know why Im getting that? A lion, tiger? (Maybe to do with martial arts that I do)

A lion/tiger? What doe sthat have to do with martial arts? I wonder if when Charles came into the house, he saw a martial arts costume with a tiger/lion logo on it?

Oh Yeah! (unknown word/s) Oh anyway but , it could be, dont worry about it.

Don't worry we wont worry about it

Erm, but before they go they want to say erm....... no they dont, thats all they got to say to you anyway

Classic line there

er thats thats all Im getting them telling me to go away, they told me to go over hear now. erm but mention all them things to your mum ( I will do yeah).
*to camera* Alright, put it off a minute.

Camera is now off, I wonder what is going on while the camera is off?

Er, well we havnt finished yet, just finishing off, *mutters*, erm, what your, what your great granny was saying here shes saying why she come back like that to say you know er, that a Jane and Janet, not your mums name, right, why she comes back, because, you do have this thing in you which you right, which you always, everyone questions something, but, you even, you, you look for, youre a fault finder you are you know what I mean (yeah) and you look for faults in other people, (yeah) and, you, you look for too much detail in other people instead of just going with the flow, you know what Im saying (yeah yeah) and this is why she come over back the way she did to tell you because you'd even question them but its only a point that you do it with too many people, (yeah) you know and Danny knows what Im on about as well and you do have this thing of picking faults out in people, you know, and theyre telling you to stop doing it, nobodys perfect, not even you. Alright. We'll leave it at that.

I thought the spirits were telling him to go away? Yet he comes back with another rambling piece of rubbish.

I am sorry Charles, but I witnessed no evidence of survival in that reading. I did witness cold reading though.

In fact I challenge any believer to watch that video and tell me they were convinced, it really was that bad.

Oh well, that was an hour of my life wasted.
But if it helps people see through this man then maybe it was worth it.

By Jon Donnis

Derek Acorah And The Berry Pomeroy Incident - Proof Derek Was Told In Advance

Originally Published 16th September 2007

By Jon Donnis

On the 14th of March 2005, Most Haunted Live was on their third night of one of their usual events, themed as "Terror at Torbay".

Lets have a quick recap of what happened that night.

As it was the third night, it was the usual grand finale, with crewmembers dropping like flies.

Yvette claimed to feel ill, complaining about her breathing, and eventually collapsed.

John also felt ill and was removed by Andy the security guy.

Stuart "Uncle Fester" Torrevill attacked Karl, Derek and Andy and was then dragged out by security.

And of course good old Degsie got possessed and was yet another dragged out.

What a lot of people don't know was that night there was also another person present, that being a reporter from The Guardian!

Kinda makes sense now all that over acting don't you think?

Well in the article written by that reporter, he had asked Derek about claims made by this very site that he had indeed known that he was to visit Berry Pomeroy, here is what was said.

Quote:

As for the history in a twist, Derek said spirits were not just tied to the one room, or even place, they would come and visit when a medium was around. And the date confusions? "That to me is not so important as a communication and what has been said. I'm sorry, I'm not a historian. I haven't got a library of knowledge, I'm just an ordinary guy, OK, that uses the gifts of what I do, and whatever comes through, I don't check it ... I just say it as it comes, with conviction." The conversation suggesting prior knowledge of Berry Pomeroy never happened, he said, "but I'll stand accountable for that if it's so ...

Source www.guardian.co.uk

Now its the last line of that quote you need to read again.

Quote:

The conversation suggesting prior knowledge of Berry Pomeroy never happened, he said, "but I'll stand accountable for that if it's so ..

Well how about I offer some proof that that conversation did indeed happen. 

Below is a secretly recorded audio clip of the rehersals for that nights action. Listen all the way to the end and you will clearly hear Derek Acorah being told of the location

YOUTUBE CLIP REMOVED DUE TO A LEGAL CLAIM BY ANTIX PRODUCTIONS
It has been claimed many many times on Most Haunted that the mediums never have any prior knowledge of the specific locations they are to visit. Yet here we have proof that this is not the case.

Now Derek Acorah claimed he would stand accountable, something which he has never done.

Derek has since left Most Haunted of his own accord, his career seems to be unsinkable, he has his own show, sell out tours, best selling books.

The question is, what on earth do we have to do to show the believers that all is not what it seems.

As for Most Haunted, well if they were telling the mediums back in 2005 the locations, do you really think they are not telling them now?

Of course they are.

By Jon Donnis

Extraordinary People - Chris Robinson, Dream Detective

On September 10th 2007, Channel 5 in the UK we had a another episode in the "Extraordinary People" series, this time featuring Chris Robinson, a man who claims he dreams the future.

Forum member Pharmcat who has met Chris decided to write up her opinions of the show, and the man.

This man actually sees events before they happen. “I actually see very very clearly what will happen”. Apparently for the “7/7 bombings” he was in the tunnel, saw the flash, smelled the smell of the underground. Smells more like b*llsh*t to me, Chris, but carry on. He has apparently “amazed an American academic”. That would be Gary Schwarz then. Oh dear. One person in the military is convinced. Well excuse me for not being overwhelmed, but that leaves the other 1112683 people in the military unconvinced, not really convincing me yet, Chris. Oh, and he’s famous in Japan. So is Astroboy, and I don’t believe in him, either. Obligatory appearance by Chris French I see, unfortunately now on too many programmes to appear totally convincing any more, but this time I suspect I may agree with most of what he says.

God, they could have warned us there would be a shot of Mr R. cheerfully exclaiming “let’s go to bed”. I may be mentally scarred for some time.

And onto the big question – is it coincidence, or can he really dream the future. I know which side my pillow is on, but let’s watch and see.

“Everybody I know that’s dead has come to talk to me” intones Mr R. “I’ve got 2 children from a previous relationship, and their grandfather hanged himself”. I can sympathise. “In a dream 4 nights before he did it, I saw him do it”. And……… oh, that’s it. Silly me, I expected some sort of corroborative evidence.
“I can see something that happens next Wednesday” states Mr R with utmost confidence. Tell us the lottery results then.

Apparently this extraordinary talent has been manifesting for the last 20 years, usually dreams of death and disaster. Must be a happy chap to know. If you meet him down the shops and he says “I had a dream about you last night” I’d suggest locking yourself in a bombproof bunker for a week or two. Actually, come to think of it, I’d do that anyway if I saw him lurking on the horizon, never mind if he’d been dreaming or not.

His first precognitive dream was of a radioactive mushroom cloud that was heading towards England from the east. 5 days later we heard about Chernobyl. Now, colour me sceptical, but I was in secondary school in the early 80’s, and most of our lessons scared the cr*p out of us – in biology we learnt about the effects of radiation if the Russians dropped a nuclear bomb on us, in history we talked about how we’d all die if the Russians dropped a nuclear bomb on us, half the pop songs in the charts were about nuclear war. For those of you as old as me, remember Wah! Heat and 7 Minutes to Midnight? It was an unusual night if I DIDN’T dream about a mushroom cloud coming over to kill us all. But while the rest of us put the event of Chernobyl down to a mild realisation of our worst fears, Mr R ascribed it a special precognitive significance.

The announcer then tells us how Mr R is a lucid dreamer, a skill only possessed by 1 in 2000 people. Ah, so he can remember a lot more of his dreams than us mere mortals. Which means he can fit a lot more of them to events that subsequently happen. But apparently lucid dreamers can plan their dreams before they go to sleep. So does he plan for disasters to happen? Is he not the Dream Detective, but in fact the Antichrist, planning disasters that his dreams bring to life?

No, it apparently involves writing down a question, then going to sleep, then upon waking comparing the dreams with the question he has asked. Which begs the question, what on earth do the questions say? Now me, my question would be along the lines of “what are the numbers for the midweek draw”, but I’m shallow like that. Mr R’s must be along the lines of “show me horribly maimed and dying people screaming in agony”. Nice.

Now we are given insight into the inner workings of Mr R’s mind. Apparently everything is symbolic in dreams. OK, let’s listen to this, it could be a Freudian’s wet dream. Dogs = terrorists. Snow and ice = imminent danger. Anything made of dead animals (including meat) = carnage, dead people. If he sees all 3 in a dream, he knows to expect something dreadful. Presumably if he walks out of his house and sees a dog run over by a car that has skidded on a patch of ice, he must have dreamt about Osama bin Laden blowing up Parliament (or maybe Battersea dog’s home).

Mr R’s dreams apparently began after a near death experience, caused by open heart surgery for a congenital heart defect. After the surgery, he started having his dreams about being in another world and seeing things that haven’t happened yet. Personally it sounds more like they left him without oxygen for a bit too long on the operating table, but that’s a personal view…….

5 years ago a MORI poll showed that 50% of the population believe in precognitive dreams. Well that makes it true then. Despite this, no academics were interested. Wonder why. But then (trumpet fanfare) …….. ad break!!! Time for a bar of chocolate to keep me going.

Return to Mr R gently snoozing in the soft glow of nightvision. “I’m often asked what it’s like in my nighttime world”. Er, actually we’re not that interested (I’m actually a little scared at the thought). “The only way I can describe it, is when I go to sleep I’m like Dr Who”. Nooooooooo, ruined my fantasies forever. Every time I get to that just dozing off stage, and David Tennant is reaching out his hand to take me into the Tardis, aaarrggh – there’s Chris Robinson. Thanks a lot. “I can travel backwards and forwards, in time and space, and see things that other people can’t”. Isn’t this just dreaming, that everyone on the planet experiences? Difference is, the rest of us wake up and think bugger, time to get up for work and forget about our dreams (unless it involves David Tennant and a Tardis of course). Only a small minority of people obsess over their dreams and attempt to fit them into future events (after the events have happened of course).

Now a small aside here, but have you ever tried to write down your dreams when you wake up? I have, and I’ve given up because the sheer volume of information that goes through your head in even a short dream has left me feeling I could write a 10,000 word essay just to write up all the significant facts in one single dream. So if I write down everything I dream, I’d class it as more paranormal if I COULDN’T fit something in a dream to an event (after the event has happened). Anyway, back to the story……

Mr R’s whole life is now apparently taken up with ways of understanding his dreams to try and prevent further terrorist attacks. Here’s a thought – leave the police to concentrate their efforts on finding terrorists instead of having to waste time documenting the ramblings of a middle aged man who dreams.
And so, in the absence of any interest from the UK, onto the renowned Professor Gary Schwartz. For those of you who have not heard of Professor Schwartz before, a Google search will provide you with hours of entertaining reading.

“I shall go to university if I live long enough, and become clever” says Mr R. I wouldn’t bet on that last part. Mr R was asked to dream about an unknown location that he would be taken to the next day. He was asked to identify the main features of each location before he visited them. “The further along we went, the more powerful the evidence was” states Prof S, “and also the more unbelievable the evidence was”. Well you said it. Prof S was convinced that Mr R had identified the identifying features of all 10 locations. Hang on, where is the detail about the scientific protocols used in the experiment? Oh, I forgot, there weren’t any. Mr R took his notes along to all the sites and pulled out anything that looked correct. Anything that didn’t look correct was ignored. Way to do scientific research!

Prof S then goes on to describe how the dreamstate is actually something that allows us to open up to the little pink fairies or some such, and allow us access to information we can’t normally access. (Sounds of pharmcat ripping up all her scientific journal articles on sleep research, should have known sleep was nothing to do with evolving, adaptation, restoration, brain plasticity, it’s all actually to do with psychic emanations from the ether. Glad my exam paper was marked before I found that one out!!).

Saturday, 8th September 2001. A nightmare of planes crashing into tall buildings. 1000s of people dying. Prof S forgot about it, as it wasn’t part of the Arizona experiment. We all know which event happened next. A shocked and traumatised Prof S describes how if they’d realised the event may have been prevented. Now, forgive me if I put my skeptic hat on again, but if they were ignoring the dreams as not relevant, then after 9/11 taking notice of them, I suggest that they were retrofitting facts, and “remembering” parts of the dreams that were not actually there. A bit like how people can remember film of a traumatic event, when actually the film never existed (think it was carried out a few years ago using film of the Bali bombing – quite a few people “remembered” seeing video of the bombing, although actually there was no video (please look this one up on the internet, I know there was footage of the second Bali bombing, this experiment was done before that one took place, don’t believe without references etc).

But it’s OK, as apparently millions of people who watch a Japanese crime show believe in Mr R. Hoorah! The voice over lady vocalises what I’m thinking – a game show is not going to convince people. Ooh, look, Goldsmith’s. Must mean Chris French is coming back on. I suddenly have a strange sense of deja-vu. Either I’ve dreamt of this programme, or Chris French sits at the desk with the alien in a jar for every TV appearance he does (well, he doesn’t in Haunted Homes but I suppose Mia Dolan is a close second to an alien in a jar).

And, true to form, we get the announcement of “Psychic vs Scientist”. Battle lines drawn. Sigh. With that attitude, neither side will ever believe the other. So much for open mindedness. Speaking of which, I think any notions I had of it have long since gone with this sad display of lack of evidence. Ha, ha, like the “but what if it’s all bullshit” card on the wall. Oh apparently Chris F makes mistakes by being sceptical and scientific. So there you are in a nutshell, use science and it doesn’t work. This obviously means something completely different to Mr R than to the rest of us. To us it means IT DOESN’T WORK. To him, it does work, you’re all wrong. I feel like gently patting him on the head and saying “there, there” in a calm and unthreatening manner. Or maybe just hitting him with a baseball bat, quicker, more effective and damn it more fun.

The protocol for this experiment involves 6 different locations, only one of which will be visited each day. An independent observer will examine Chris R’s dream notes and decide which of the locations they best describe. The actual location to be visited will be decided randomly by the roll of a die (not DICE!!! God, when will people learn English!). If the dream location and actual location are deemed to match, this will count as a hit. The experiment will be repeated 3 times to ensure any hit is not mere coincidence. Chris F talks about how amazing it would be if Chris R’s talent proves to be real, all the time with the air of a wolf in grandma’s bed, beckoning the little girl with the red hood to come over and give her grandma a kiss.

Dream 1 – paint, white, sheets, painted all white. It was an artists school acquaintance’s house. He could paint and draw anything. The independent judge rated this closest to the house of a painter, called the house of dreams. The roll of the die produced location number 2, somewhere totally different. As he is being led into the location, Mr R starts backpedalling frantically, telling how his dreams show disasters not what he is doing now. On being shown the location, a cocktail bar made of ice, Mr R deems this a hit, as he is surrounded by white (the ice of the bar). Actually it’s transparent, but don’t let the facts get in your way Mr R. Or the fact that the independent judge deemed it a miss. Because it only works when you score it, doesn’t it (apart from that experiment with Susan Blackmore, when you got it wrong on the majority of occasions, even with 48 pages of notes and scoring yourself. It took some doing to get that so badly wrong). Chris F states the obvious – Mr R would have fitted his dream to any of the locations. But apparently it should be a hit, as white sheets relates to sheets of ice. Or 10 sheets to the wind, as they’re in a bar.

Day 2. Wish I was asleep at this point. Dream 2 is an observer dream, with Mr R watching other people. I’m sure there’s a name for people who do that. “I’m rolling or unrolling something. That could be rolls of paper in a printing works. Somebody’s now made a pie, so it could have been pastry. And we then put this pie in the oven. And there was a joke about not putting the oven on for too long so you don’t burn it. And I see these faces of people go past me”. The independent observer decided this was location number 1, in Fleet Street with historic links to the printing industry. The die lead them to a city farm. This should be good, let me try and psychically predict this one……… pie, rabbit, rabbits in the farm. Rolling something, rolling a cow? Even Chris R gives up on this one and admits a miss.

Night 3. “In a sort of a room. There are people that are sort of people. In big letters I’ve put DEAD. There were glass cups and glasses. Now cups is always the same – cups mean dead people. The observer selected location 1 again, St Bride’s crypt. The die indeed selected location 1. One hit then. Not terribly spectacular.
But, Mr R has an explanation. Apparently the information is bandwidth limited, you’re only seeing a silhouette of the information, you can’t tell what pattern is on the shirt, how many buttons it’s got. But you can see the outline of the event. Presumably that’s why it’s so easy to fit a dream to multiple happenings.

So, bored with a small chubby dreamer, we move onto the Arlington Institute and Stargate. The problem with everything that John Peterson says is that you’re rooting for him to start with, he’s willing to experiment and see if there is really is something unusual going on (http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/node/333 - WHETHEReport). But then you realise he’s basing his hopes on people like Mr R, and your heart drops.

Back to reality, and Mr R’s semi in Dunstable. Where he is practising as, you guessed it, a Psychic Detective. He is being asked to look for a plane, which apparently went missing with the pilot and a passenger in Arizona. Mr R apparently thinks he can help. Now I may be being a bit dense here, but if he dreams things, surely he can do this from the comfort of his own bed? But apparently not, a trip to Arizona is needed. Apparently Mr R needs a random object to match with his dream. This will apparently give a clue as to the location of the missing plane. The object turns out to be a teething ring with a silver bear attached. This matches with part of a drawing that Mr R did the previous night (but the drawing could also match a multitude of objects, I think he was going for a key myself……). The dreaming required solitude apparently, so off to the static caravan (oh the glamorous life of the dream detective). Mr R shows us the notes that predict the 7/7 bombing – all 300 pages of them. Sigh. “Someone shouting, lost power, it’s as if it had lost power” – back to the plane again. “Not really a great leap to deduce that when a plane is missing. Camera, with roll film, 120 roll film. Instruments going funny just before crash. Something sheared off or fell off in the engine. To do with 3 and 120, I think it’s some sort of heading”.

Ah, time for a bit of dream practice. The film crew select a place and Mr R will dream of it. Is anyone else bored yet, I’m near suicide here. “360 degrees, a chart, circular”. After a long journey Mr R seems to suggest he thinks they are going round in circles, but actually it’s some sort of park with mushroomy circular sculptures, where Mr R is astonished that even the bins are circular. Most are, I think you’ll find.

Oh get on with it, I’m really, really, really getting bored now. Ooh, look they’re flying over a crater – that could have been your circular thing earlier as well. Look – the steering wheel’s circular as well! And the wheels on the car are circular! Oh my God!!! Sorry, got carried away there. So, the family of the missing girl in the plane do not allow the camera crew to film the first few meetings. Which means we have no idea what they’ve told him. So the whole thing is pointless from a proof point of view. A bit of justification for the trip to Arizona from Mr R - Ooh, Mr R is correct, there’s a place called Bear Circle! OMG, he’s so accurate!!! He’s now asking to be shown how to get to where the girl is from Bear Circle. So she’s not actually in Bear Circle. Just how convoluted can this get? Next dream, a lady saying you have to take me home. He’s doing cold reading now, what a nasty manipulative man!

The first 3 hours of flying (half Mr R’s flight plan, so obviously a fairly large search area) showed nothing. He’s now sleeping with some of the missing girl’s possessions. I’m sure there’s a name for that as well. I feel I’m missing something here, there’s something gone on that’s not being shown. I know this always happens on TV, but I really feel that we’re not being told the whole story here. Anyway, back to the search. Mr R spots something glinting in the sunlight. Unfortunately too late, 3 helicopter pilots found the site the day before and reported it to the authorities. So if I believed in psychic powers, I’d say that Mr R actually picked up on the pilot’s thoughts. But breathe easy, he hadn’t as the debris the helicopter pilots found was nothing to do with the crash, so another miss by Mr R. But hey, he got a free holiday in Arizona out of it. But nothing puts off the pig-headed Mr R who still insists the ability exists, even if he can’t prove it.

And one day, if you’re really good, I’ll tell you what the fabulous Mr R is like off camera………

By Forum Member "Pharmcat"


Further Reading
When Tony Youens Tested Chris Robinson
http://www.tonyyouens.com/Commentary010607.htm#dream

Haunting Evidence (Court TV): Natalee Holloway Investigation

By Pat Dunn
What: Haunting Evidence
Where: Court TV
Episode title: "Missing in Paradise"

The second season of Court TV's psychic detective series "Haunting Evidence" opened with an inquiry into the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, a young American woman who vanished while on a trip to Aruba. Her case made news around the world, as the police investigation failed to locate her body. Three young men who were questioned in her case were all released, and the case remains unsolved, two years later.

Psychic profiler Carla Baron, medium John J. Oliver and paranormal investigator Patrick Burns all traveled first to Natalee's hometown, where Baron and Oliver visited the honor student and cheerleader's high-school, while Burns visited with Natalee's mother and picked up some articles of clothing which had been worn by Natalee in Aruba.

The team next went to Aruba and tried to retrace Natalee's footsteps, beginning with the nightclub, Carlos and Charlie's, where she had partied on the night of her disappearance. They next went to a "fisherman's hut" on a beach which was said to be the last place that she had been seen. The program relied a good deal on recreations of what the psychics were saying had happened, showing an actress portraying Natalee dancing and drinking, then later leaving with a young man, etc. Carla began to feel uncomfortable with the images she was picking up, and more than once broke off her psychic session.

After both Carla and John visit the sites, and even view the area from the air, they are ready for an attempt to contact Natalee's spirit. Patrick's equipment, including a "tri-field" detector, is set up on the beach by the fisherman's hut. Both Carla and John are going to do the attempt at the same time. The editing of the program seems to show them alternating with relaying their impressions, almost taking turns telling the story, and one can't help wondering if they were not improvising with each other. As the story continued, Patrick indicated he was getting "spikes" on the tri-field. He soon offered each psychic an article of Natalee's clothing to assist them with their contact sessions.

The story both Carla and John tell is that Natalee was happy in Aruba, and had enjoyed being with her friends. The she had met a young man, a local, at the nightclub. He may have drugged her drink, or she may had overindulged, but at any rate she was escorted from the club by this man, separated from her friends. He may have had companions with him, but sent them away and took Natalee to a secluded place on the beach, where he raped her when she refused his advances. Later, he found he could not get a response from her, and went away, leaving her to die. He returned several hours later and removed the body. It was possible that a "person in a position of power" helped the young man cover up the crime.

John described the suspect's features in detail, and the program showed us a sketch artist's version of the man' face. They recapped their points for the police, suggesting they re-interview people at the nightclub for witnesses to Natalee's departure, look into the theory that she was drugged, look for the man in the sketch, and look for someone who knew him and is ready to "crack" and tell the truth.

It is clear that Natalee's family lack closure, and that they are cooperating with this program. While it would be wonderful if the Haunting Evidence team could actually help solve this tragic case, it is difficult to watch this sensationalized episode and not wince at the dramatics.

By Pat Dunn

Charles Sibley Gives James Randi Tarot Card Reading

Originally Published 31st August 2007

By baronvon

Well…everyone’s favourite hapless “medium” Charles Sibley is back with a new string added to his (frankly useless) bow. The brittle string is question is tarot card reading. Now, old Charlie has mentioned them before in his other videos but it’s only been in recent weeks where videos of him demonstrating this “ability” have come to surface…not to mention the fact that yesterday I realised that he has FOUR youtube accounts…and that’s not even including the ones he uses to post false positive testimonials about his work.

Now, before we get started let me just make it clear that I don’t know the mechanics of how tarot cards “work” but seeing as the vast majority of “mediums” ask us to judge them on their results (which is surprising as the results are unanimously poor) I’ll just analyse Charlie’s findings rather the all the dubious, alleged spiritual mathematics he used in order to come to his conclusions.

The subject of this “tarot reading” is James Randi.



Quote:

“Hello, this is Charlie, this is…to learn people the meaning of tarot cards and it’s also gives you an idea of certain celebrities. You know, mixed with numberology - the power of numbers because erm…your name and date of birth is no accident believe me…and all these tarot cards always fit to the people’s personality as you’ll see. And you look these tarot cards up anywhere and you’ll see that the meanings are there, it’s amazing how they work.”

Ok now this is just window dressing to make the process seem vaguely scientific, of course it’s not but adding a postfix to a word such as “ology” it gives the illusion to the audience that what the “medium” is saying has some tried and tested merit. 

Also it’s worth pointing out that by doing this “readings” for well known people isn’t exactly difficult as their personalities are in the free public domain for all to see. I could give a vaguely accurate “reading” of a well known person using no psychic powers whatsoever…come to think of it, nearly everybody could.
Quote:

“Anyway, this one is to do with erm…James Randi and as you can see from his name there on the chart it adds up to, in numberology, it adds up to seven – which is a chariot. A chariot can represent a lot of things like all these tarot card can. It’s to do with trying erm…successing (??) in life, victory, to do with war, to do with opinions and one opinion against another…you know?”

So basically what you’re saying about James Randi is that he wants to be successful and that he has the odd clash of opinion with someone else. Blimey, that would apply to me as well. In fact it’d apply to most of the population. Uncanny eh?
Quote:

“It also represents a lack of control and…erm…but it is to do with like successing (again - ??) in life and the horses on the chariot represent erm…control, balance…you know? Negative and positive and stuff like this…”

Ok, now this part is absolutely ridiculous. First he says that the chariot represents a lack of control and then goes onto say that the horses represent control. Talk about covering all bases…especially as the next thing he says is “Negative and positive and stuff like this…” It’s like me saying that someone could be a male or could be a female.
Quote:

“But I would say that this card to chariots…I would say that even though he’s had a lot of success you know, he’s also had a lot of struggle to get that success”

Success is never easy…unless you’ve got absurdly rich parents and even then it’s not a guarantee. So far this reading is about as enlightening and profound as an episode of ‘Hector’s House’.
Quote:

“Two frames of mind if you wanna put it that way, represented by the two horses, could never make his mind up or…but he gets a decision in the end like if it’s good or bad.”

Again…unbelievably general and vague from Charlie, although is it just me or is he trying to subtly have a dig at Randi’s stance on the paranormal with this statement?
Quote:

“And his card is ruled by cancer…which cancer represent by the moon…cancer can represent slyness, erm…working in the night…if you know what I’m trying to say. You can use your imagination.”

Again he resorts to having sly digs at Randi’s alleged character which at times borders on defamation. The “use your imagination” comment is slightly amusing too, it’s like a desperate plea for the listener to rack their brains to try and make any sort of correlation with what he’s just said. Most “mediums” encourage you to do this but the majority of them don’t resort to blatant pleas like Charlieboy here.
Quote:

“And they also represent the crab which, as you know, a crab doesn’t walk straight it walks round sideways you know? And erm…it sort of goes round things arse about tit (??) if you wanna put it that way.”

More absolute dross spouted by Charlie here…although bizarrely enough this statement would better suit “mediums” than James Randi. Afterall, Randi directly challenges “psychics” to prove their supposed abilities whilst the “psychics” tend to mess around (or scuttle around if you want to keep the crab analogy) in order to avoid taking the challenge. Pretty ironic really.

Quote:

“Cancer’s can also be sly, President Bush has this in his reading and that says a lot if you look at his. And that does go with President Bush and this does go with James Randi as well. To get to this success that he got in life he basically erm…not all dishonest but the majority of it is.”

Again, more completely unfounded accusations about Randi’s personality and work. I’d ask him to back up his ridiculous claims with solid evidence but since he never responds to any of my questions I sent via youtube I doubt I’d get very far.
Quote:

“You look up the star signs or these tarot cards it does tell you that mean (??) and it’s amazing how it fits.”

Oh indeed, it’s absolutely amazing…amazing in its absurdity.

Quote:

“And as you can see as it goes onto his birth…erm you add all that up and it comes to eight and the eight is a strength card. What’s so interesting about this one is if you look at his date of birth…well the strength card is represented by Leo cos that’s what James Randi is. And if you look at his star sign apart (??) from being a Leo, the ruler is strength. And when these cards repeat theirselves, if they repeat Leo twice and the strength card twice that tells a lot, you do have a lot more inflictions they are stronger. And erm, the strength card that represents self control or lack of self control…to do with a fighting life against other people or himself. Having willpower to do with whatever he wants to do…and it is very strong, he’s had a really…a lot of struggling in his life to do with a lot of things and I mean a lot of things. He had a lot of struggles and even a lot of enemies with the chariots and also this. I mean if you look at the picture in the tarot cards (unintelligible) the lion…it says a lot.”

Despite Charlie’s claims of “it says a lot” Charlie actually says nothing of any substance here. Again notice the “the strength card that represents self control or lack of self control” quote which once more covers all possibilities. It’s no wonder “mediums” get the odd hit, half the stuff they say can’t possibly be wrong whoever it supposedly applies to.

Also isn’t it funny how Randi’s only enemies seem to be the frauds he sets out to expose?
Quote:

“and they’re very straightforward people…that’s what James Randi is. But he can be too straightforward. They’re that straightforward and have that much confidence and stuff like that but there’s a very negative streak there with Leo all the time. And Leos have a lack of judging situations wrong as well and they also make a lot of enemies because of their straightforwardness…they always say things which are later on…sort of regret what they say. They don’t always get it right before they open their mouth.”

Again, notice the sly attacks of Randi. Curiously enough Charlie seems to suggest that Randi regrets what he’s said about “psychics” in the past…which is absolute nonsense. He seems so intent of putting words into Randi’s mouth that it wouldn’t surprise me that when he eventually pops his clogs he’ll be “channelled” by someone like Charlie saying that he was wrong about mediums and spirits…sad but there are people out there who would attempt to piss on a dead man’s work and beliefs for their own personal gain.
Quote:

“Well I said, it is very strong this Leo and the strength card is very strong indeed. He’s had a lot of problems in his life. You look at his name and birth added together as well which it adds up to fifteen if you work it out…the devil card and the lovers card put down to the number six. And erm…very interesting really that is as well, the devil is suffering to do with a lot of things. It represents some of the things that James Randi does and a lot of people think he’s a good man in one way and he’s not in another…but he is to some people but he’s got more enemies than he can handle.”

Just more nonsense here by Charlie, note how he associates the devil with Randi in another poor attempt to discredit him. I’d also say that the “more enemies than he can handle” statement is incorrect based on the facts that the vast majority of “mediums” seem absolutely terrified of him, Charlie included.

Quote:

“I mean, James Randi will probably say “oh no, that doesn’t go with me, it’s a load of crap” but if you look at it and look it all up it makes a lot of sense”

Not counting the slyness and the other unfounded veiled accusations…I reckon he’d concede that some of it would apply to him. Why’s that you ask? It’s because some of the stuff Charlie has come out with is so general it’d apply to almost every entity on the planet. Those statements weren’t a result of mystical powers, just an incredibly basic grasp of human nature.

Quote:

“and the type of person he is, I mean the devil…an evil, and I’ve always said he’s an evil man and a lot of people say and it’s amazing the way that fits him and strength, he’s had a lot of problems a really lot of problems in life and he’s made a lot of enemies…and the strength card really states that by repeating itself twice.”

Once more he reiterates that James Randi is an evil man and what does he base that accusation on? Well, nothing…aside from personal opinion (brought about from fear of being exposed most likely) masked under the guise of a “tarot reading”.

Quote:

“And Leo…also repeats itself twice which makes it stronger again, he’s definitely a pure Leo. And cancer being in there…sly…the devil card being there…also says a lot you know? He’s had suffering himself and he’s also other people round him suffer.”

Yet again he makes tiresome claims about Randi being “sly” and such…although I’d say the only people he makes suffer are the charlatans who spend their lives conning people with the whole “psychic” charade…which I’d say is a good thing given the morality of these people.

So there you have it, another analysis of the one person who truly fits the title of “Bad Psychic”. We should be grateful he’s around really because his appalling attempts at “psychic readings” are so easy to pick apart it helps highlight the techniques used by more cunning “psychics” for all to see.

Incidentally, if Charlie ever reads he should feel free to send me (or anyone on the site for that matter) his “amazing evidence” of the afterlife he supposedly has. Although I suspect he’ll ignore that invitation just like he’s been ignoring my messages for the last couple of months or so.

But anyway, is this a true indication of psychic powers...or is it just a thinly veiled attack on a certain individual created without the use of any paranormal abilities whatsoever?

That's up to you to decide I guess...although I'll be gobsmacked if you think it's anything other than the latter...

By baronvon

Carla Baron

The Independent Investigations Group has been examining the public claims of Carla Baron – a self-proclaimed "psychic detective" who has solved fifty cases in the past twenty years.

The Full Report of her and her claims can be read on the IIG Site.

http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/carla_baron/carla_report.html

Charles J Sibley Responds To James Randis Exposure Of Maureen Flynn

By Jon-boy Donnis
Our good friend Charlie boy is back, and although about 15 years late, he has decided to respond to a video we posted on here a while ago.

The video in question was Maureen Flynn On James Randis Psychic Investigator


Now lets take a look at Charlie boys response.
Again notice how he denies cold reading even exists!

Unfortunately Charlie removed his video but luckily forum member Baronvon has transcribed this whole video.

---

Hello this is Charlie: this is a response to James Randi and the Medium. Why I’m doing this video is to make people understand that there’s no such thing as cold reading, mediums work in the way they work and James Randi thinks that every medium is a fraud and there’s no such thing and there’s no convincing him and there’s probably no convincing a lot of people. What people don’t understand is a medium, there’s so many spirits around a medium and when a medium asks questions “can you take Doris?” or Jim or whatever, they’re just seeing if they’ve got the right thoughts and it’s not theirs…because it’s very hard you know to actually suss out the thoughts of spirits and the thoughts of yourself…and this is where some mediums do get confused, like I said, you’re seeing if you’ve got the right thoughts plus it starts the vibrations on if somebody says yes and then the rest of the information comes through. 

I mean, if you look at it logically, if you’ve got a room full of people, you must have been in that situation where you’re trying to tune into three people at the same time and they’re all making conversations with you and you can’t concentrate on one – it’s very hard. 

But that’s what…it’s even worse sussing out the thoughts of a spirit and the thoughts of yourself. But erm…anyway I’ll go through this video and I’ll give you an example.

See, Mrs Flynn starts of asking the audience if anyone could take the name Taylor – the lad said yes and after she’d done that she gave facts with that name and he died of a heart condition. She said “does it make sense?” and he said “yeah”. Now there you go but the thing is, at the end when they done the percentages to do with this name called Taylor, there was 30% of people who could have took the name Taylor and there was 55% who could actually relate to the condition of the granddad.. But the thing is, the percentage of Taylors…what James Randi didn’t do is he should have asked err…the names with Taylor is actually linked to do with a heart condition and he didn’t say that. Then there’s 55% of people who actually relate to the heart condition of someone dieing…doesn’t mean it’s the name Taylor so…you can go on forever.

And as it goes on he then…the lad couldn’t take any of the other names…you know erm…Doris and Jim or James…and what was happening there is basically she was picking up other spirits to do with the next erm…person and erm…that’s what was happening and that the spirit was butting in and like I said to you before that’s where some mediums get confused.

And as you can see as she goes onto the woman…she was very shocked. She was a non believer or slight non believer and she was picking up facts to do with that woman. And this is why it’s not cold reading, it’s nothing to do with names or anything, she was given facts to think over (unintelligible). She was actually…was shocked, she was very shocked at what she was getting. She was right again, so…where’s the cold reading? It’s nothing to do with that. But what James Randi didn’t do again…is he done a percentage on that lad, but he didn’t do it on that woman. I wonder why eh? Because…she was very shocked…(unintelligible) even though she had the erm, you know…there was less evidence to do with that lad than there was with that woman. You know…I’d like to hear off that woman err…just put her on the end of the video you could ask her what she thought. She could talk about that she was very shocked.

Like I said there’s no such thing as cold reading, there really isn’t…and James Randi and all…a lot of sceptic people, there’s people that’ll never believe…and like I said, why I’m doing this video is to make people understand, and it’s very sad really because spirits, believe it or not, try very, very hard to work through any human being so they can let their family know that their soul actually lives on. And this is where the sad part is and this is what makes me mad about it, that you can’t make everyone believe – this is why people should be open minded, you know…it is very sad and when there’s likes of James Randi and people like that…just imagine loads of spirits and they want people that’s upset down here at someone dieing…it’s very sad.

If they don’t want to accept it they should be open minded to the possibility…there is life after death, believe me, I know…and thousands of other mediums know…and there’s been surveys all over to world, to do with life after death and they know a lot more than James Randi, badpsychics.com…and loads of other people.

‘Cos people will never believe really…but this reading really is…erm, a very good reading. What another thing people do not understand is when you’re doing a demonstration with an audience it’s a lot harder for a medium, it really is and there’s some that give demonstrations and they get, like that fella said at the end of this video that they can get 80% of whatever you know? I mean she got…I’d give her a rating of something like 80% out of 100 with that woman and that lad. Considering she give only two readings there, if she went on she’d probably give a better demonstration.

I mean if that woman…or even that lad was actually in a private reading on their own, people are better off with a private reading if they’re sceptic. It’s simple as that. (unintelligible) in an audience, it doesn’t mean you get what you want and people do think “well that could be someone else” and this is what James Randi’s working on.

I mean even the system to do with James Randi with ten people…erm, it could work. But you need the types of people who are from all different walks of life, it’s simple as that. I mean I’ve (unintelligible) some good private readings better than demonstrations and most mediums can…and most people who believe in life after death…usually have actually had a private reading, and that should say a lot.

I mean people go on about the James Randi challenge you know? But mediums won’t go in for it for a couple of reasons. And one reason anyone can wave a cheque in the air but even if there was evidence out of these ten people, James Randi’ll say “well you still can’t prove that this comes from dead people” ‘cos James Randi thinks that’s everything’s a trick that can’t be explained. He is an evil man, believe me, and that’s why mediums don’t bother with him. People say “well it doesn’t matter if he’s evil” but he hasn’t got the money anyway. There’s no such thing as cold reading whatsoever.

The only thing that cold reading, James Randi started it off or whoever did, is there is frauds around and you’ve got to suss out the bad from the good…and I’m doing all these videos because the mediums get slagged off, if you wanna put that way, on badpsychic.com and James Randi, he’s picking on the wrong people. You’ve got to suss out the bad from the good and James Randi and badpsychic.com will never do that because they don’t understand how mediumships work. And it’s even like him on badspsychic.com, I mean he said he went through a course and he’s a medium and he does understand it…but he’s lying! Because if he was a medium or he went through a course he wouldn’t be sceptic. You know what I’m saying? Doesn’t make sense does it? I mean James Randi and him are both liars. They really are.

But it is hard for mediums to working out spirit’s thoughts from their thoughts, it’s very hard, it really is. Like I just mentioned before, there’s no way this was a cold reading this video, she done a good demonstration, but all you people should be open minded and a lot of sceptic people say “well we are open minded” but they’re not.

At the end there was erm…a reading which she gave to a gentleman you know? James Randi said there was thirty seven names mentioned and he could only take nine out of that private reading. I agree with her where she said he was satisfied with the reading and a lot of stuff made sense…and it’s nothing to do with all the names she give. There’s reasons for giving all these names, when you pick up names, it doesn’t matter how it is, he could have a family history going back through a few hundred years and all them names could just come through because other people around him know them people. You put facts with them names what that gentleman got and he was satisfied.

Anyway, we’ll leave it at that, god bless.

---

Baronvon has also written a response to this latest offering by Charlie boy, and I am happy to publish it below.

---

By Baronvon
The great man of comedy himself, Charles Sibley, treats us to another delightful ramble about how sceptics are all liars that know nothing about anything and that James Randi is the anti-christ etc. However, whilst listening it did strike me that his “explanations” and “counter-claims” to sceptical criticism where pretty much textbook retorts as far as mediums go. Fair enough, his delivery is about as convincing as the tooth fairy myth and due to this lack of conviction he probably won’t convince anyone, but I saw it as a half decent opportunity to address these archetypal medium comebacks one by one and, as you can see, I’ve done so below.

Quote:

“Why I’m doing this video is to make people understand that there’s no such thing as cold reading,”

Ok, lets just stop right there and address this straight away, there is such thing as cold reading, it’s well documented (Ian Rowland has written a comprehensive guide on it) and it’s a technique used by just about every medium as far as I can tell, including Charlieboy.

Quote:

“What people don’t understand is a medium, there’s so many spirits around a medium and when a medium asks questions “can you take Doris?” or Jim or whatever, they’re just seeing if they’ve got the right thoughts and it’s not theirs…because it’s very hard you know to actually suss out the thoughts of spirits and the thoughts of yourself…and this is where some mediums do get confused, like I said, you’re seeing if you’ve got the right thoughts plus it starts the vibrations on if somebody says yes and then the rest of the information comes through.”

Mediums often tend to blame the “spirits” for these unclear messages, in fact they blame anyone but themselves. Curiously enough Charlie’s ‘spiritual explanation’ runs directly parallel with a basic cold reading technique whereby you chuck out various (often ludicrously common) names in the hope that the sitter or an audience member will be able to relate to it. If someone can lay claim to the “spirit” you can then proceed with the reading, often by spewing other general information. The confusing “spirits” explanation is pretty poor to say the least although unfortunately, believers in mediums will probably buy it.

Quote:

“See, Mrs Flynn starts of asking the audience if anyone could take the name Taylor – the lad said yes and after she’d done that she gave facts with that name and he died of a heart condition. She said “does it make sense?” and he said “yeah”. Now there you go”

And here is an example of a general statement that follows the name fishing. Charlie states that she not only pinpointed the name “Taylor” (which is an extremely common surname, not far behind the likes of “Smith and “Jones”) but also that the person in question died of a heart condition. Now, if you watch the video again you’ll see that not only did the sitter not specifically confirm that the heart condition was the cause of death (he seemed to confirm that the grandfather statement was correct which again, was not a hard guess for Ms Flynn to make) but Maureen also didn’t just state a heat condition, she also stated that the lungs might have had something to do with it. So in reality she said that an elderly man either died from any form of heart condition or something to do with the lungs. As usual with “psychic readings”, extremely general statements and not anywhere near as specific as Charlie makes it sound when he’s giving his analysis…

Quote:

“at the end when they done the percentages to do with this name called Taylor, there was 30% of people who could have took the name Taylor and there was 55% who could actually relate to the condition of the granddad.. But the thing is, the percentage of Taylors…what James Randi didn’t do is he should have asked err…the names with Taylor is actually linked to do with a heart condition and he didn’t say that. Then there’s 55% of people who actually relate to the heart condition of someone dieing…doesn’t mean it’s the name Taylor so…you can go on forever.”

He then goes on about percentages but there no real point pointing out the flaws in his logic. They were all very general, could-apply-to-almost-anyone statements and the heart condition was never specifically confirmed by the sitter so Charlie’s argument doesn’t really have any real merit.

Quote:

“And as it goes on he then…the lad couldn’t take any of the other names…you know erm…Doris and Jim or James…and what was happening there is basically she was picking up other spirits to do with the next erm…person and erm…that’s what was happening and that the spirit was butting in and like I said to you before that’s where some mediums get confused.”

Yet again, more excuses as to why it’s all the spirit’s fault when they totally flunk elements of their readings. Once again, Charlie doesn’t give a fair picture of what really went on in the video. Maureen threw out a variety of ‘D’ names such as “Doreen” and “Dorothy” to go with her “Doris” statement. You’ll notice that around the same time the woman claims Doris there’s also a bloke at the back of the audience with his hand up trying to claim it. However Maureen had already pinpointed her target so she pressed on with her although it’s a safe bet that she’d have spouted out the same statements regardless of which of the two people she chose. Despite what Charlie or any psychic will try and tell you it all smacks of textbook cold reading.

Quote:

“And as you can see as she goes onto the woman…she was very shocked. She was a non believer or slight non believer and she was picking up facts to do with that woman. And this is why it’s not cold reading, it’s nothing to do with names or anything, she was given facts to think over (unintelligible). She was actually…was shocked, she was very shocked at what she was getting. She was right again, so…where’s the cold reading? It’s nothing to do with that. But what James Randi didn’t do again…is he done a percentage on that lad, but he didn’t do it on that woman. I wonder why eh? Because…she was very shocked…(unintelligible) even though she had the erm, you know…there was less evidence to do with that lad than there was with that woman. You know…I’d like to hear off that woman err…just put her on the end of the video you could ask her what she thought. She could talk about that she was very shocked.”

You can’t argue against that she looked a tad surprised but let’s look at things again. For a start the woman claims the name “Doris” only for the medium to then go on a completely different tangent altogether. She then does the typical trick of making veiled statements that are in reality very general but if any correlation can be made by the sitter, they suddenly seem pretty specific She not only didn’t state that it was her husband that died in an accident she also got the name wrong initially only for the sitter to make the correction to James which, although mentioned earlier, is still a very common name. 

Also if she really was talking to the dead then surely she wouldn’t have had to do all the “who’s Jimmy?” fishing beforehand and gone straight to the woman instead? But, seeing as to the untrained eye cold reading such as this can seem very impressive Charlie immediately capitalises on it as if it’s real evidence when that’s simply not the case. Remember, just because the woman was a “non believer” that doesn’t mean she clued up about cold reading techniques…

Quote:

“Like I said there’s no such thing as cold reading, there really isn’t…and James Randi and all…a lot of sceptic people, there’s people that’ll never believe…and like I said, why I’m doing this video is to make people understand, and it’s very sad really because spirits, believe it or not, try very, very hard to work through any human being so they can let their family know that their soul actually lives on. And this is where the sad part is and this is what makes me mad about it, that you can’t make everyone believe – this is why people should be open minded, you know…it is very sad and when there’s likes of James Randi and people like that…just imagine loads of spirits and they want people that’s upset down here at someone dieing…it’s very sad.”

Once again he makes the daft “no such thing as cold reading” statement but we’ll overlook that for now as he then plays the emotion card. He states how it’s a great shame that some people dismiss life after death when all the spirits are trying to do is tell their loved ones back on earth that they’re safe and happy. Citing the “comfort” argument is a pretty standard thing for mediums to do as they believe that this is something that sceptics can’t argue against. I’ll use personal experience to answer this one. 

My Grandma died prematurely when I was very young. Sadly I don’t have many memories of her as I was so young at the time and didn’t understand the magnitude of what had happened. I wish that she was still around, of course I do, and I wish I’d had the chance to get to know her better before she died. But that’s not to say that I’ll settle for some scumbag medium to make up a load of rubbish about her, pissing on what little, precious memories I have in the process. 

And what for? Comfort? Not for me thanks, I’d rather settle for real memories, not some fabricated nonsense that someone made up at the drop of the hat, I’d rather that her life was not cheapened. It’s heartless and exploitative of the medium if nothing else.

Quote:

“If they don’t want to accept it they should be open minded to the possibility…there is life after death, believe me, I know…and thousands of other mediums know…and there’s been surveys all over to world, to do with life after death and they know a lot more than James Randi, badpsychics.com…and loads of other people.”

Surveys? So what? That doesn’t prove anything, it’s not verifiable and it’s certainly not valid evidence. I’ve noticed that Charlie often says that us sceptics “know nothing” on a very regular basis. He reminds me of an accused defendant, feverishly trying to convince himself that his prosecutors know nothing whist he awaits trial. He sounds pretty worried if you ask me…

Quote:

“‘Cos people will never believe really…but this reading really is…erm, a very good reading. What another thing people do not understand is when you’re doing a demonstration with an audience it’s a lot harder for a medium, it really is and there’s some that give demonstrations and they get, like that fella said at the end of this video that they can get 80% of whatever you know? I mean she got…I’d give her a rating of something like 80% out of 100 with that woman and that lad. Considering she give only two readings there, if she went on she’d probably give a better demonstration.”

You think that was a good reading Charlie? I thought it was horrendous.

Quote:

“and most people who believe in life after death…usually have actually had a private reading, and that should say a lot.”

Not really, people that have readings usually tend to believe in that sort of stuff to start with so that statement isn’t anything groundbreaking.

Quote:

“I mean people go on about the James Randi challenge you know? But mediums won’t go in for it for a couple of reasons. And one reason anyone can wave a cheque in the air but even if there was evidence out of these ten people, James Randi’ll say “well you still can’t prove that this comes from dead people” ‘cos James Randi thinks that’s everything’s a trick that can’t be explained. He is an evil man, believe me, and that’s why mediums don’t bother with him. People say “well it doesn’t matter if he’s evil” but he hasn’t got the money anyway. There’s no such thing as cold reading whatsoever.”

Right, personal attacks on Randi really make me very angry indeed. He’s not an evil man, he comes across as a dedicated and genuinely caring man, just watch the video on youtube where he explains why he examines paranormal claims, that should show anyone that deep down he’s an inherently good man. 

Secondly, James Randi would be quite willing to believe in the afterlife and psychic ability providing he’s given solid evidence. I heard somewhere that he once said that it’d be worth paying a million dollars if it led to them finding a true psychic. And yes, he does have the money, he’s proved it so don’t give us that. The above is essentially a stereotypical reason “psychics” give as to why they won’t take the challenge…personally I think it’s because they’re all frauds.

Quote:

“on badpsychic.com and James Randi, he’s picking on the wrong people. You’ve got to suss out the bad from the good and James Randi and badpsychic.com will never do that because they don’t understand how mediumships work.”

So you admit there are some bad mediums Charlie? Wouldn’t this disprove your claim that cold reading doesn’t exist? And, unfortunately for you, James Randi and the Badpsychics community know exactly how “mediumship” works.

Quote:

“And it’s even like him on badspsychic.com, I mean he said he went through a course and he’s a medium and he does understand it…but he’s lying!”

I’m sure Jon is heartbroken by your accusations.

Reply by Jon: For the record I did indeed complete a mediumship course, so to call me a liar is in fact libellous. I have NEVER claimed to be a medium, so again you are misrepresenting me.
It is simple, I completed a mediumship course, top of the class, I NEVER cheated, and I never spoke to spirit. Is this plain enough for you?

I stood on a stage and gave readings, probably to more people than you do. I was SUCCESSFUL, but I never cheated.
Yes cold reading can be used, but self delusion and good old fashioned lucky guesses are all you need sometimes.

Quote:

“You know what I’m saying? Doesn’t make sense does it?”

No, you’re right. What you are saying doesn’t make any sense at all, mainly because it’s smells like the same as the excuses all mediums seem to make.

Quote:

“but all you people should be open minded and a lot of sceptic people say “well we are open minded” but they’re not.”

Oddly enough the general definition of being “open minded” doesn’t mean that you unquestioningly believe any old nonsense that you hear about. It means you’re open to possibilities but, in the case of sceptics anyway, that you require evidence of something first.

Quote:

“At the end there was erm…a reading which she gave to a gentleman you know? James Randi said there was thirty seven names mentioned and he could only take nine out of that private reading. I agree with her where she said he was satisfied with the reading and a lot of stuff made sense…and it’s nothing to do with all the names she give. There’s reasons for giving all these names, when you pick up names, it doesn’t matter how it is, he could have a family history going back through a few hundred years and all them names could just come through because other people around him know them people. You put facts with them names what that gentleman got and he was satisfied.”

A lot of stuff will have made sense to him because he wouldn’t have been educated on cold reading techniques. If she was really psychic she wouldn’t have such a poor hit rate. Charlie’s right though, there is a reason for giving all these names, it’s because they’re not really psychic and they need to throw out as many names as possible in the hope that the sitter will relate to one in some way. And the large family history excuse is so laughable it’s not even worth addressing.

So yes, that’s my analysis of a typical “psychic excuse”. Rather longwinded but Charlie seems to excel in long winded droning sessions. Maybe he just bores his subjects into submission they become too apathetic to disagree with what he’s saying. This isn’t a one man crusade against Charlie of course, his “mediumship” has provided us with many a laugh, it just so happens that he’s not exactly the most cunning medium around and therefore his excuses and “evidence” is rather easy to pick to pieces in order to educate to demonstrate how these people work.

So, before you consider going to see a medium…consider this first, and if that’s not good enough look at the other articles on this site.

You may just reconsider.