ChatGPT - I asked this new AI to write a 2000 word article exposing how psychics perform their tricks

I thought I would check out the new AI that has been in the news called ChatGPT, and I made a simple request.

Write a 2000 word article exposing how psychics perform their tricks.

Here is the result.

Psychics are individuals who claim to have the ability to perceive and communicate with the supernatural, or to possess other extraordinary powers such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition. Many people believe in the abilities of psychics and seek out their services for guidance, healing, or other forms of assistance. However, the claims of psychics are often met with skepticism and disbelief by those who view their abilities as fraudulent or superstitious.

There are various ways in which psychics may appear to perform their tricks and convince others of their powers. Some psychics may use cold reading techniques, in which they use subtle cues and generalizations to make educated guesses about their clients and their lives. For example, a psychic may ask leading questions or make broad statements that are likely to be true for many people, and then present these guesses as specific revelations or insights.

Other psychics may use hot reading techniques, in which they gather information about their clients before their sessions through research, observation, or other means. For example, a psychic may use information from social media profiles, news articles, or public records to learn about their clients and their lives, and then present this information as supernatural revelations during their sessions.

Another common trick used by psychics is the use of props or other tools to create the illusion of supernatural abilities. For example, a psychic may use a crystal ball, tarot cards, or other objects to make it seem as if they are receiving messages or insights from the other side. In reality, these objects may be used as distractions or props to help the psychic direct the conversation and control the flow of information.

Psychics may also use psychological manipulation techniques to influence the beliefs and behavior of their clients. For example, they may use techniques such as hypnosis, suggestion, or even mild forms of brainwashing to alter the perceptions and memories of their clients. This can make it difficult for clients to critically evaluate the accuracy or validity of the information provided by the psychic, and can lead to a false sense of belief in their powers.

In conclusion, the tricks used by psychics to appear to have supernatural powers are varied and varied. While some psychics may genuinely believe in their abilities, many use techniques such as cold reading, hot reading, props, and psychological manipulation to create the illusion of supernatural abilities and convince their clients of their powers. It is important for individuals seeking the services of psychics to be aware of these techniques and to approach such claims with a healthy level of skepticism.

FROM THE VAULT: Spirit Orbs Real or Rubbish? by Scipios

Proofseekers was a short lived site I ran in the mid 2000s. I happened across a back up for it today on a disk during a clear out. I posted an image on my twitter to see if anyone remembered it, and someone asked if I could republish the article on Orbs, so here it is, unedited as it was published in 2006. Enjoy.
 
Introduction.
    I have a theory that everyone, and certainly everyone reading this, has at least 2 old books of ghost stories sitting on a shelf somewhere collecting dust. And these won’t be fictional ghosts, these will be books detailing apparent apparitions witnessed by real people in real places across the world. And somewhere among those pages will be many photos of ghosts mostly, if not all, in black and white. There will be ghosts in upstairs windows, climbing stairs, peering over peoples shoulders, sitting on sofas, playing on the beach and crouched in the back of a car. Well maybe not playing on the beach., but you will be hard pressed to find any photo of an apparently paranormal phenomena that isn’t described as a ghost. And then there’s all the bygone TV programmes, telling tales of apparitions like grey ladies and hooded figures, monks, soldiers, dead queens and beheaded riders. But these old books and TV shows all share one missing element that sets them aside from the mass of ghostly media that is appearing with more and more regularity today. And that’s orbs. They were unheard of. If, as you flick through some of the photos in these books, you spot an orb or two, you can put money on it that they won’t be mentioned in the text, or if they are they won’t have any appreciable paranormal connection. So why are orbs so popular today? Why are orbs constantly being shown as evidence of the paranormal and, if they do exist as spirits, why didn’t they show themselves to us before? And another intriguing question, how come they can only be seen by the camera?

So what’s an orb? A ghost hunters approach.
    There are thousands of photographs in existence showing orbs with their colour, shape, size and brightness varying from picture to picture. Some of these pictures show countless orbs in the same field of view, others show just one or two orbs, some show orbs pictured around people, who are seemingly oblivious to their paranormal visitors. But unfortunately photographic evidence is all we have. The interpretation of this evidence and the opinions of what orbs are vary enormously. But all the websites that I visited while researching this topic seem to have one thing in common. They all express the view that orbs are indeed paranormal and that you can get confused with other more simplistic explanations the like of which I will delve into later. Some of the more common conclusions are that orbs are entities, physical manifestations of the dead that have somehow managed to form a sphere and appear to us. They may bring along a message (for orbs emit sound), and this may be picked up as EVP if you’re lucky. To visually record an orb you may have some success with an ordinary 35mm SLR but this is rare. A digital camera or camcorder is best suited to the task.

    You may have noticed that I haven’t explained what an orb actually is, just what it represents. And here is where the spirit theory starts to break down because no-one actually knows for sure. There are many, many opinions over what orbs are. The most common is that it is a sphere of energy, presumably light or at least generating light, but that’s where the evidence sort of tails off into contradictions and personal opinions, being described as anything from ‘separate life forms’ to ‘elf lights’ to amazing structures that have a magnetosphere and an ‘ionic displacement layer’, whatever that is.

To be or not to be…….
    There seems to be an increasing number of sites stressing the reader and future orb hunter to be careful when sorting fact from fantasy. Dust, pollen, moisture and small flying insects can all be misinterpreted as orbs. So how do you spot an orb? Well it’s orb shaped and shows up when you take a picture, simple. Well you’d think so but you’d be wrong. As previously mentioned orbs come in a variety of colours and shapes, but are these all genuine orbs or something else? One website describes ‘true’ orbs as ‘….bright and consistent in brightness throughout’. Another states that they are ‘….invisible to the naked eye but showing up on film’. One website says ‘….they can be completely transparent’ while another states ‘….false orb's are easily identified by the fact that they are very pale white or blue in color and/or they can be transparent.’ And another says ‘….orb light is so faint and delicate it isn't visible to the naked eye when there is another light source in the vicinity and background visible.’ True orbs can’t fit all these descriptions surely. Most websites stick by their own interpretation of course and go on to warn about orb pictures you see on other websites.

The popularity of orbs
    So why are orbs so popular nowadays, whatever happened to misty ghost photos? Well they still exist but orbs, it seems, are captured much more easily on film. And here I must pause and make the distinction between film and a CCD. Ordinary, regular 35mm cameras use film, sensitive to light in the visible spectrum. A digital camera uses a CCD or charged coupled device which is a light sensitive chip. The majority of orbs are captured using digital cameras, 35mm cameras have been known to capture orbs but photos are few and far between. A digital camera is a necessity nowadays, because of portable interchangeable memory media it can capture an almost unlimited number of shots which can be reviewed and deleted or stored on the spot. No more waiting around picking out the best shot and wasting valuable time changing films. And no more anxious hours or even days spent waiting for your photos to come back from the lab, possibly ruined by an exuberant lab tech. The digital camera is definitely the way to go and anyone who’s anyone in the world of the paranormal has one, not to mention the ordinary man in the street who cares not one jot about spooks but upon capturing strange happenings on his camera decides to investigate and ends up uploading them onto a paranormal website. But apart from the sheer weight in numbers of digital cameras out there could there be another explanation for the rise in orb photos? Surely ghosts are now no longer camera shy because they like the idea of appearing on the internet?

Problems with your spook snapper.
    Let’s get one thing straight. Most people whether they believe in orbs or not are agreed that anomalies can creep in to your photographs. Dust particles are a favourite so I’ll try not to go into too much detail here explaining this one. Particles of anything close to the lens will be out of focus (see Fig.1)

    The area between the lens and the focal plane inside of which particles are out of focus varies with the lens that is on your camera but can vary from a couple of inches to a foot. Unless you pay out for a top of the range model, digital cameras invariably have the flash situated very close to the lens so illuminating everything within it’s immediate field of view. When the flash goes off, these out of focus particles are illuminated and picked up by the camera as orbs, or out of focus fuzzy round blobs to you and me. The same thing happens with flying insects except they may be captured as fuzzy blobs with motion blur and are generally brighter as there is a solid body and shiny wings for the light to reflect off. Other anomalies can be reflections from other objects in the field of view as well as internal reflections and optical aberrations within the lens including refraction. All this shows why it’s no coincidence that orbs really came into the limelight after digital cameras came on the scene. So why are orbs constantly being put forward as evidence when these problems are known to exist? That’s easy, because real orbs are being photographed. So with that in mind let’s get down to some serious ‘real orb’ investigation.

Why can’t we see real orbs with the naked eye?
    Any orb supporter will tell you that real orbs cannot be seen with the naked eye, they can only be picked up by cameras. So to start with let’s talk a little about the human eye. The sensitivity of film in a camera, or the CCD in a digital camera, is measured as an ISO number. The higher the ISO, the more sensitive the recording plane. ISO 100 is generally okay for photos outside on a bright day. Move up to 400 for a dull day and 600 or even 800 at night. Digital cameras will usually choose their own ISO depending on conditions and will use flash whenever possible. The ISO of the human eye during the day is a measly 1 but at night, once the eye becomes dark adapted (after approximately 30 minutes), it shoots up to abut 800.1 The eye detects differences in contrast with a huge dynamic range whereas a camera is an absolute detector over a much smaller range. The upshot of all this is that unless you go for a time exposure with a high ISO the human eye is much more sensitive than a camera. It also has a much wider field of view than a camera which results in an effective megapixel equivalence of nearly 600.2 Consider the sharpness of photos you get from your 6 or even 3 megapixel camera and you can see that the human eye really is an impressive light recorder.

    But of course that still hasn’t answered the question, why can’t the human eye see these things but the camera can? Well when we are talking about dust or insects, the human eye can see them as long as it’s given a chance. With flash photography the duration of the flash itself isn’t usually long enough for the eye to find and focus on its target. As far as the visible spectrum is concerned film cameras cover the same range and can see the same visible light that we can. The same goes for digital cameras. So if it’s a real orb shining with it’s own visible light we’d be able to see it just as easily as the camera. If it’s picked up by the cameras flash or other source of light, then the ‘orb’ is reflecting light and isn’t an orb at all. Of course some orb hunters know all this but that doesn’t put them off. They put forward an interesting argument which is: digital cameras see into the infra red, optical cameras don’t and neither does the human eye, therefore real orbs must be emitting light in the infra red. So let’s take a closer look at this one.

Near and far nanometres
    Stay with me, this looks a little complicated at first glance but it really isn’t, just remember the figures, that’s what’s important in this bit. The wavelengths of visible light, that is light which is detectable by the human eye, range from about 390 nanometres (nm) to about 720 (see Fig.2).

Below 390 is the ultra violet range and above 720 is the infrared range (IR), we cannot see these ranges except with special equipment. The range we are concerned with here is the near IR as the CCD in a digital camera can ‘see’ the near IR range of 720 to about 1200nm. At around 1200nm the sensitivity of a CCD drops off abruptly and from 1200 and up we are hitting the IR to far IR ranges. These ranges are concerned with light that is produced by the emission of heat, anything from lava flows to the human body and is outside the scope of digital cameras and this discussion. So, a CCD in a digital camera can detect visible light from 390 to 720nm and the near IR from about 720 to 1200nm.

    IR light is everywhere, mostly in sunlight reflected off the objects around us, we can’t see it but your digital camera can. Of course this could play havoc when trying to use your camera to take ordinary everyday photos of the kids or that strange looking dog from down the road that keeps sniffing your gate, so you don’t want any of this nasty reflected IR contamination finding its way onto your photos. Well, the clever camera people got round this by fitting an IR filter behind the lens. This is called an Internal Infrared Cut Filter (IIRC) and blocks out the vast majority of IR light. You’ll find the newer digital cameras let in less IR light than do the older ones but none of them let in enough so as to mess up your holiday shots.3

But if some can get in then why can’t the supposed IR light from an orb?
    Well, the only IR light that’s going to get through your filter is a very bright source. You can test this out with any TV remote, these operate at 900 to 950nm. Point your camera at the business end of your remote and press a button. The LCD screen on your camera should show the remote with a flashing light at the centre (see Fig.3).

    If the light appears white and is very bright then your camera is probably an older model that hasn’t got a top notch IIRC. If the light is fairly dim and appears red then you’ve got a very good IIRC filter fitted, one that’s letting in less than 0.1 per cent of the emitted IR light from the remote.

    But doesn’t that prove that your camera, however good, is registering some IR light and is therefore able to take pictures of these infrared orbs?

    No. The remote is a very bright IR source which is why the camera picks it up and displays it on the LCD (note that the picture had to be taken in the dark for the light source to show up properly). If orbs were indeed emitting IR they would have to be so bright that they too are picked up on the display. Alas this is not the case. Orbs are only discovered when the picture is taken, more often than not while using flash which is another reason we know they’re not emitting IR. You can test this principle out for yourself as well. While you have your camera pointed at the remote which is still happily flashing away, take a picture of it without flash. You will get a picture of exactly what you saw on the display, a remote with a small bright light source at the centre. Now take the same photo but with the flash enabled. You’ll get a nice picture of a remote but with no flashing IR light (see Fig.4).

    That’s because visible light washes out the IR light source. And we all know that the vast majority of orb pictures are taken at night and so need a flash. Any resulting orb pictures taken cannot therefore be of objects emitting IR. (For comparison Fig.5 is the same as Fig.4 but without the remote being activated).

So what does all this mean for spirit orbs?
    It means that the orbs that you capture with your camera are not entities and are not emitting any light, visible or otherwise. They are anomalies, dust, aberrations, insects or other particles caught inside the field of view of the camera, lit up by reflected light and recorded onto the cameras CCD. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the theory that orbs are physical manifestations of spirits. But if one day you happen to spot a bright, moving source of orb shaped light be assured it won’t be dust and it probably won’t be an insect. Get that camera out, you never know, it just might be your great aunt Edna popped in from another dimension, take a few pictures and get them on the net.

Was I too Harsh On Spiritualist Churches?

A couple of weeks ago I replied to a lengthy comment left somewhere on the site. You can read that at http://www.badpsychics.com/2022/06/a-public-reply-to-private.html if you so choose.

Well I enjoyed writing that reply and despite the site being without regular updates these days, it got a moderate amount of views. So I thought I would do it again, purely to pass ten minutes of my times.

As before, I will reply in RED BOLD lettering, since that asserts my dominance over the internet stranger.

He or she replied to an article exposing the secrets behind Spiritualist Churches that I wrote some time ago.

Enjoy:

---

I only came to post one comment.

Just one? That's a shame.

Your site should be called bad sceptic (which is a shame, given such great work you have done!).

There is a compliment in there somewhere. Did you know that a site once called BadSceptics was indeed set up, with the sole intention of attacking me and "debunking" my work. And would you like to know who created it? It was none other than Gwen Johnson, the wife of Derek Acorah. Yep it's true, go ask her. Of course the site flopped because well, you cant take me on and win, that is just impossible.

Now, do I doubt that there are fraudulent psychics and mediums out there? Oh, absolutely not. There are fraudulent everything's out there basically. I am grateful, having perused this site for many years for the articles that do contain evidence. I remove this publishers self indulgence and congratulatory tones for doing so because the facts you are left with are indeed helpful to help identify those simply who knowingly, or indeed unknowingly - with heartfelt good intent - are not performing feats that they believe to be.

Ok this is a good start. Although I would hardly call the UK's greatest and most knowledgeable Skeptic (me) self indulgent and self congratulatory. That doesn't sound like the great Jon Donnis at all, in fact Jon Donnis is known for how humble he is, in fact he is probably the greatest at being humble. You should also hear the way he says "Chyna".

I am a sceptic, I hold doubt, and enjoy the research and find my belief switching to various degrees! This is a field it is very wise indeed to retain one's sense of proportion during deeply emotional times.

Sceptic, using that spelling, I really associate with climate sceptics, I don't know why, I always just preferred the spelling with a K. That hard K just feels better. Although if you are a sceptic or skeptic, your "belief" should never change, for being a skeptic should have little to do with beliefs, and everything to do with facts and logic.

I have been to churches, and had quite remarkable experiences, with never having been there before. I have heard recordings of readings that were utterly extraordinary. I have seen obvious fakes exposed, and not so obvious - some by this website itself.

I have also been to Spiritualist Churches as has been documented on this site, I have personally received around 300 face to face readings over 2 decades, and analysed north of 3000 readings given to others. I have also seen and heard readings that you would describe as "utterly extraordinary", the difference between me and you however is that when faced with something utterly extraordinary, I didn't just accept it at face value, instead I delved deeper, I discovered the secrets to how it was done, and much like any trick, when you know how it is done, it stops appearing to be magic.

This article however was like reading a conspiracy website. There is, inevitably, some extreme version of truth in certain circumstances. And I applaud work you have done in exposing genuine fakery.

Just a quick reminder that his comment was a reply to an article exposing the secrets used in Spiritualist Churches.

I am unsure how revealing secrets can be conflated with a conspiracy theory. As a skeptic, when presented by two options, the first being based on logic and critical thinking, and the second being one of magic and leaps of faith, to choose anything but the first one, makes you the conspiracy theorist.

I am reminded of Occam's razor

"a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities."

What is more likely? A spiritualist medium is gaining their information from non psychic means, that are clear to see, or that they are breaking the laws of physics to pass on a message from the dead?

But to tarnish an entire element of spiritual connection that people have had long before you were around, and will be long long after this broadly bitter article is left to the confines of a web time machine, speaks of an arrogance only befitting of someone who is not open to potential - and is a closed minded so as they minds to be welded shut.

I do not tarnish the believers, for they have been fooled, they are the victims, I tarnish those behind the scam, the ones that collect the information and pass it to the spiritualist medium, and then take donations from the victims, or allow them to book private readings. 

To truly be a skeptic you must be open minded by definition, to be closed minded means your mind has been made up and wont be changed. I often hear the line "he told me something he had no way of knowing, and nothing you say will change my belief". Those are the words of someone closed minded.

For me to ask questions, and be prepared to investigate and find out the truth, regardless of where that may lead me, is the definition of being open minded.

This is a common mistake of the believer, as they project their own closed mindedness on to those who dare question their fantastical claims.

There stories myriad, nurses who have seen people visiting patients before they pass. The inner knowings of things and acting upon them.

(Googles the meaning of the world myriad)

Yes there are plenty of stories that are incredible, that does not make them true.

1 million people could line up side by side on a beach, in the dead of a clear night, look up to the full moon, and every single one would describe a moon that appeared bigger than usual. And every single one of them would be wrong, and a simple experiment would prove it. (Get your phone out, and take a photo of the moon, quickly goes back to normal size) This is the moon illusion, and yes even when you understand why and how it happens, you will still see the illusion. Plentyful stories do not have to equate to reality, but instead can relate to just a common mistake, delusion, or misconception.

What a cold world yours must be, bereft of any richness of genuine connection.

My world is being surrounded by friends and family, my world is enjoying myself, travelling abroad and meeting new people. I have looked into the eyes of loved ones, and said goodbye knowing they would soon die. Those memories are some of the strongest I have, there is no coldness to those memories.

And, I am not writing this for you.

Oh now you tell me. Cheers mate.

I am writing it for those who are seeking to find truth and may stop at such writings as this, and I would say continue your own journey. Take with you the knowledge of fakery that this person has donated kindly to the world (with genuine thanks), but balance this with the knowledge that the likelihood of a richness of human experience to be known at this point, compared to that we may come to know, is an adventure in true human spirit.

All I ever ask people is to make up their own minds, to be in ownership of as much knowledge as possible. Never to just take my word for something, but to listen and then find out for themselves.

I have no interest in people treating me like an infallible person, I want to be challenged, I want to be questioned, and I hope that people use the type of skepticism I promote, to be skeptical of what I say, for I am just a stranger on the internet. This is what I stand for. 

Let me see this man debunk the placebo affect, for example. Of course, something is much easier to reference but until when was this truly testable?

Why would I debunk the placebo effect? I believe the placebo effect is a strong and real thing. In fact scientific studies have proven that even if you tell someone they are on a placebo, if you give them twice the dosage of the placebo, it will work better than a single dosage of the placebo. The human mind is an amazing thing, and the placebo effect actually explains much of how alternative medicine can have an effect on people, and why people believe in it.

There may come a time when we look back at the frauds and debunkers with equal disgruntlement, or perhaps even humour, and wonder how we allowed ourselves to be taken in so greatly by either.

Or, perhaps, we will simply celebrate our progress as we gain further understanding of the true depths of what it means to be human.

And, after seeing and experiencing much strangeness, and using scepticism and debunking (in its truest sense) to be left with things that do indeed appear quite peculiar, I feel it may become a little bit "Project Blue Book".

I agree.

Where the huge majority of things can be explained away by unusual weather, or perhaps website, phenomena - but there will remain a few cases for which those true inquisitors of the nature of what it is to truly be, will seek out with interest.

There will always remain phenomena that we cant explain, that is the very nature of science. Science does not have all the answers and never will, not to mention the politicisation of science, and how scientists get paid, means that we often need to be as skeptical of scientific claims, as we are of paranormal and supernatural ones. 

And, in defiance of this absolutist article - if you should receive such an instinct as to call someone for no good reason, don't let articles like this stop you.

I would also be willing, should I be a gambler which I am not, to opine that whilst seeking to rightly discredit fakes, he has used his own "instinct" to gain the information needed to publish this website.

Now, wouldn't that be the most intriguing of ironies.

I have no problem with people seeking out psychics etc, my issue is solely with payment, do not pay a psychic a penny. Do not give them anything. If you find yourself in a weak moment, and you pay one for a reading, then damn sure fight to get a refund.

As for instincts, I have very strong instincts, I go with my "gut feeling" all the time, but understand that my instincts are based on decades of experience and knowledge, which means things that might be hard to understand for a newbie, come second nature to me, watching a psychic perform, and knowing within minutes if not seconds the techniques they are using to fool people, I understand the cadence of how they speak, the vocabulary they use, the hand movements, the eye movements, everything. I am so familiar with the tricks, that my instincts tend to be spot on when it comes to such people.

I would look forward to him responding say he has never once followed a hunch he had...

My hunches are based on experience and knowledge, that are now second nature to me. It is nothing magical. Think of it like a mechanic who can just listen to a car engine, and will instantly know it is a problem with the alternator. Just from a slight tone change in the noise of the engine. He is not a psychic, he cant even really tell you how he knows, he just does, because he has spent 20 years fixing cars.

Whatever brought you to this website, particularly if it was through pain, I do hope you find peace.

And that is what I try to do, because seeking out psychics and mediums, in that desperate need for "one final message" is the last thing you need to do to find peace, and in fact creates a dependency that not only extends the grieving process, in some cases makes it never ending.

From someone who used to eating people for breakfast, who claim to eat people for breakfast. ;)

Thank you for your comments, I hope you appreciate my reply, and perhaps I will make you think about things a little different.

Jon Donnis 

A Public Reply to "Private Investigations Scotland "

I recently received a notification of a comment left on this site from a group calling themselves "Private Investigations Scotland". I have never heard of them, nor am I particularly interesting in knowing anything about them. But I do think everyone has a right to speak, and a right to criticise me, but in doing that I have a right to reply.

Now instead of replying direct to the comment, which means that Private Investigations Scotland are unlikely to see it, and anyone else with the same criticisms also wont see it, I thought I would take the rare chance to reply publicly. So here I am.

Below is their message, with my replies and comments in red bold lettering.

----

The way you talk to people is disgusting! Your ego and clearly past hurt from a fake psychics has caused you to try and get national fame exposing fakes.

In your opinion, the way I talk is disgusting, I however like to think of it as "straight talking", an opinion direct from me, that does not "pussyfoot" around, or placate to fragile sensibilities, I have never been hurt from a "fake psychic", or anyone claiming paranormal or supernatural powers. In fact over the years I have considered a number of people who make such claims to be close friends of mine.

I am also curious as to your claim that I try to get "national fame exposing fakes". To this day I still turn down media requests, and in the last two years, I can only think of one time I gave a quote to a reporter, and even then I insisted purely on the name of the site being credited and not me, however they insisted they had to use my name. There was no photo of me, anywhere in the piece. And in fact you would need to go back over 15 years to find any photo of me included in any article I have wrote, or any article where I was interviewed. And even then the photo I am wearing a cap and black sunglasses, and the picture is from afar.

For someone who seeks national fame, I clearly am going about it terribly, since YOU have no idea what I look like, nor do you even know my name. When ITV's This Morning TV show approached me to appear as a guest skeptic in a segment, I turned it down and gave them the details of someone else. In fact I turned down over 100 such appearances, appearances I should say offered a fee. For example Ch4's Richard and Judy show offered £750 plus travel costs.

So to clarify, I have no interest in "National Fame", not now, not ever. Feel free to check my social media, there are no photos of me, no show reels, no "booking" email, no manager or agent. Nothing.

And this is the first original article to appear on this site in years and years.

The issue is you yourself disappeared soon after you were proved wrong! Everyone has intuition, it's that gut feeling inside you that tells you something isn't right. People call that psychic ability.

So one minute you are claiming that I seek national fame, and the next you admit I disappeared. Make your mind up. Hang on a second, are you a fake psychic trying to "read" me here, and therefore literally covered both sides of a claim, so you can appear to be right? Did you really think that would work on me?

As for being proven wrong, by who? I literally claim a 100% record when challenging psychics or mediums. So who on earth is claiming they proved me wrong? 

As for intuition, yes people do have intuition, mainly women, and specifically mothers. This is mainly due to the bond that a mother will have with their baby, and is something that a man does not have.

Nothing to do with psychic ability though, you could compare it to walking into your house and noticing that something feels wrong, and then you realise that a plant pot has been moved. You are so used to subconsciously absorbing the details around you, on a near constant basis, that when something is out of place, your subconscious realises it almost before you do. Or when you sit in your car and the seat or mirrors have been moved a few centimetres. You just "know". 

Again nothing psychic, just how your brain works.

I do believe some people use parts of their brain others do not that allows them to predict things and read energy very well. The only thing I doubt is that people can talk to the dead. When you are dead you have no consciousness and you need just that to communicate.

So you are a skeptic of the claims of mediums, why are you a bigot to mediumship and spiritualists?

There is no evidence that a psychic or anyone who claims such powers has access to a part of the brain that others do not, that is just a nonsense claim that has no basis in reality, and is just something low IQ people say, usually when they are trying to take money from you.

There will be an explanation for people who can read energy and use that to predict or appear to predict events, I'm just not sure that its mediumship. However the people who do this likley do believe they are getting it from deceased people.

Boy did this quickly turn from an attack on me to a boring lecture. Why on earth would you sit down and write this nonsense out, and then send it to me. I have done this over 2 decades, do you really think you are telling me something I haven't heard a millions times before?

Perhaps you should put your efforts into learning to speak to people properly because that's the reason you have no friends, no relationship and you spend your days playing on the computer.

There we go back to insulting me, that is what I prefer, not interested in lectures.

You are literally writing messages to a complete stranger on the internet, I am guessing the irony of your comment flies straight above your head. As for playing on my computer, yes please do check out my gaming site at www.gamingcouchpotato.co.uk where I review video games! I actually get paid to do that, can you believe it!

As for speaking to people, I actually speak 5 languages, and enjoy speaking to people from all over the world, in fact I probably speak too much. I am single though, so you got me there.

You have time after time told people they aren't bound by any laws and that is compleate rubbish!

Not sure what you are referring to here. I have in fact said the opposite, and encouraged people to report fake psychics and mediums. Why would I do that if I have also said such people aren't bound by any laws?

For the past half-century, 'genuine' mediums have been protected by the 1951 Fraudulent Mediums Act, under which prosecutors had to prove fraud and dishonest intent to secure a criminal conviction, which was difficult. There have been fewer than 10 convictions in the past 20 years. With that protection gone, there will now be nothing between the medium and the trading standards officer - and no need to prove fraud. Instead it will be up to the trader, in this case the medium, to prove they did not mislead, coerce or take advantage of any 'vulnerable' consumers.

Partially correct, in fact it was ME and THIS website that got the Government to kick out the 1951 act, so that psychics and mediums would legally come under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations instead. I think that was 2008. And would legally put psychics and mediums in the same boat as any trader. Which is why I have been encouraging people since that very day to report mediums and psychics to trading standards, their local police and so on.

Now they have to add disclaimers if they charge for their services, no matter what!

Fact Check: False

A real psychic or medium does NOT need to use any such disclaimer. A real psychic or medium can advertise themselves in any way they choose as long as it matches what they do.

Only FAKE psychics or mediums will feel the need to use the "For Entertainment Purpose Only" disclaimer, and even then that is not a legal loophole for them to get out of being sued or taken to court.

The BCAP codes section 15.5 set out by Ofgem requires all advertising mediums to state it is for entertainment only! 👇

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/14-15/33/enacted

Nope, that is for the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, and does not cover The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. A real psychic or medium does NOT need to add a "For Entertainment Purposes Only disclaimer.

The reason why you believe this, is because fake psychics needed a way to use the disclaimer, but then try to blame someone else, in other words a wink and a nod to their victim, that they are the real deal, but the disclaimer is forced upon them, previously they claimed it was part of some made up EU law, since Brexit they just say they are forced by the Government.

The whole reason why I worked to have the FMA 1951 repealed, was for this very reason, that mediums and psychics were using that disclaimer as a way to get out of being prosecuted for their crimes.

The current law is clear, it is "Protection from Unfair Trading", so does not matter if it is "for entertainment purposes only", the law protects the consumer, if they feel they have been conned. It is that simple.

And with that I think I have answered your points pretty clearly.

My advise to you is to stick to your little forums and social media, and don't try to shake the hornets nest. I am in retirement from exposing psychics right now, I stay nice and quiet, and perhaps it is best for the industry that you love if it stays that way. 

Jon Donnis. 
ps. See me on the next season of Britains Got Talent, as I try to get that national fame I am so desperate for. 

Interview with James Randi from 2009

Interview conducted by BadPsychics member Phil Jenkins in 2009.

Following the sad passing of the Amazing Randi I thought I'd republish this interview that we conducted in 2009......

Background.

The Blackpool Magic Convention is world's biggest annual convention of its type; regularly attracting over 3500 magicians from around the globe. For three days attendees are treated to performances and lectures from some of the worlds leading conjurors including Jeff McBride, Rudy Coby, Wayne Dobson and James Randi.

I was lucky enough to catch up with James Randi in the main concourse of the Winter Gardens and he kindly answered a couple of questions.

Question = Q

James Randi = JR

Q. Have you heard of the Badpsychics website?

JR. Yes.

Q. Do you think that it's a worthwhile venture or do you think we're fighting a battle we can't win?

JR. Unfortunately, I can't answer that. For me to give a specific answer I'd have to do some research into the website; in order to see how successful it had been in the past at achieving its goals. Having said that, anything that helps to educate people can't be a bad thing.

Q. Last year Uri Geller was presented with a 'Services to Magic' award what do you make of that? (This was a question that I heard several times over the weekend)

JR. Geller would accept an award for being the 'best dog in show' if it meant publicity. What you must remember is that it was presented to him by David Berglas (former President of the Magic Circle) who's a friend of his. What I can't understand is why David has started to take his side; after all David Berglas was the first person in the UK to expose Geller for what he is… a fake. I've not seen David for sometime but I certainly intend to put him on the spot when I do.

It's also interesting to note that Geller is starting to change his stance. He no longer wants to be called a Psychic instead he prefers the term Mystifier. Personally, I think he's created a monster that he can longer control. Over the years various governments, companies, etc have spent millions of dollars researching his claims. Just imagine what these organisations would do to Geller if he was to ever admit that he doesn't have any special powers; that he'd lied to them. I can see the lawyers queuing up now. A similar thing happened to the Fox sisters (spirit rapping) and Elsie Wright & Frances Griffiths (Cottingley Fairies) once the monster was out of it's cage they couldn't stop it.

Q. Do you believe in God?

JR. In my view atheists fall in to two categories; those who do not believe full stop and those who are willing to believe should they be presented with sufficient evidence. I would say that I fall into the second category. As it is I don't see any evidence for an afterlife.

Q. Do you think that there are any special powers be they magic, psychic or esp, that might be proven over the next 15 years and are there any mysteries you can't explain??

JR. Yes, there's one… Sophia Loren! How the hell she can look so good at her age is a mystery to me (laughs). To answer the first part of your question… no. I don't believe that anything like that will ever be proven.

Q. What do you make of faith healers?

JR. These are some of the worst kind of Woo merchants. Over the years I've had lots of visits from people asking for help after one of their relatives got involved with one of these individuals. The stories are very sad "Mother has given all her money to a faith healer, she's penniless" etc. I'll offer advice where I can but often they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Not only that but many people won't go to court because it would mean admitting they've be duped.

One of the worst healers I came across was Peter Popoff who was making approximately $4 million dollars a year 'curing' people. I took Steven Shaw (better known as the mentalist Banachek) and a camera team from the BBC to investigate one of his meetings; what we found was absolutely disgraceful. Steven managed to get close to Popoff and quickly reported back that he (Popoff) was using an ear piece. We quickly set up a scanner and started to monitor the venue, within seconds we started to pick up transmissions that were being sent to Popoff by his wife. She was giving him the details of various people in the audience; what their name was, where they were sitting, what was wrong with them, etc all of which Popoff would repeat out loud to the amazed audience. Some of what was broadcast was sickening racist comments that I won't repeat here. Another thing which emerged was the use of wheelchairs as a gimmick. People would be wheeled onto the stage and subsequently cured; rising from the wheelchair and walking away. Only problem with this was that these people didn't need a wheelchair; they were just put in one in order to get them onto the stage. Then Popoff worked his magic on them and to the audience it looked like he'd cured them. The final thing we found was possibly the worst of all. In order to gain access to the venue you had to be vetted by Popoff's security team who were under strict instructions not to allow any seriously ill people in to the building. We filmed a mother with her 8 year old son who was seriously ill being refused entry; she was absolutely desperate and had been following Popoff around in the hope of meeting him but was always denied access. Finally, out of shear desperation she pushed past the security guards and managed to confront Popoff. She pleaded with him to help her child. Placing his hand on the child he said "God cure this child, I know you're busy so if you can't do it right now can you do it some time in the future. Whether it's in half an hour, a week or years from now cure this child'. What a cop out! The woman was then hustled away and thrown outside. We had the whole episode captured on film and were prepared to expose Popoff but then his lawyers contacted the BBC and threatened to sue them if they showed the footage. This would hold up the film for years and would be extremely costly; the BBC backed off and the film was never shown. Fortunately, I was able to arrange for some footage to be shown on the Tonight Show and this time we were able to include the prompting from his wife. In 1987 Peter Popoff filed for bankruptcy.

Q. Have you ever been threatened?

JR. Yes, lots of times usually by telephone or email. I just pass the information on to the FBI. Sometimes I'll get a call back saying the 'problem' has been dealt with.

Q. Can you tell us about the TV series you had in the UK in the 80's?

JR. The programme was called James Randi - Psychic Investigator which I believe was wrong. I am not a psychic investigator I am an investigator of psychics; but it was their programme so I had to go along with it.

I'm amazed we had so many people apply for the programme considering what it was we were setting out to achieve, i.e., to expose fraudulent mediums etc. Some of the candidates did get quite volatile when things didn't go their way.

I remember we had a Psychic Medium called Maureen Flynn appear on the show. She did a sitting for one of her clients; it was typical cold reading. Afterwards we interviewed the client to see how accurate she had been and he said how good she was. One of the questions we asked him was 'how many names did she bring up'. The gentleman was adamant that she had only brought up about 6 names and that most were a hit. We then showed him a transcript of the sitting and pointed out that 37 names had in fact been mentioned. He still wouldn't listen; which just goes to show how difficult it is to change the views of a believer.

Q. How do I enter the Million Dollar Challenge?

JR. It's quite simple. You fill out the form on the JREF website and send it in. Basically, you have to tell us what you can do and with what accuracy. If you are accepted to take the challenge you must first take a preliminary test and if you score high enough on that you are then invited to take the main challenge for the million dollars. To date no one has gotten past the first test.

Also, I should like to mention that there have been many claims by psychic, mediums, etc that the million dollars doesn't exist. Well, I can assure you that it does and anyone can apply for proof just by asking. The fact of the matter is that none of the psychics, etc who are making this claim have ever asked to see the proof.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to take this opportunity to thank James Randi for his time.

Interview conducted by BadPsychics member Phil Jenkins in 2009.