Daily Topic 3/16/09

How do you feel about psychics, mediums, sensitives?

Dave: I am probably one of the group's biggest skeptics, (no jokes about weight, guys). Although I am not skeptical about the possibility of the paranormal, I know that exists, I am very skeptical about some of the evidence I have seen from both clients and other group's websites I have viewed.

We at PPS are very meticulous in both our evidence collection methods and their subsequent analysis. We employ both scientific, mechanical methods of evidence collection and the investigators’ personal observations during the investigation. However, only concrete, recorded evidence is used to determine paranormal occurrences, or is presented to the client. The "feelings" purported sensitives, clairvoyants, etc. obtain cannot be substantiated and therefore are not used.

While I am certain there are those who have honed this innate skill and can actually "see" past events, they are few and far between. The ability for a non-psychic to fabricate these "feelings" is very easy. I feel that employing a true psychic would not be beneficial to an investigation during the actual investigation. The feelings the psychic reported could lead the investigators to center on the psychics impressions instead of the entire area around them and cause them to lose their objectivity. Should a group have access to a true psychic, using them "post-investigation", without any knowledge of either the reported activity, or the results of the investigation could lend either confirmation of findings, or a further insight to the activity at the site.

I would caution anyone considering using either a psychic, or a paranormal investigation group that has staff psychics to think through that decision. In the search for answers to what you are experiencing, feel certain that the help you choose is not reporting something to you that isn't fully factual.


Jake: I do not believe for one second that there can be any credence lent to psychics, mediums and sensitives. I am hardly an expert, but I've never seen any evidence that these people have any skill other than acting. It doesn't help that Miss Cleo and Johnathan Edwards are huge phonies that lend no legitimacy to the being psychic. I feel it's a joke, and I would never personally consider anything a psychic, medium or sensitive says to be true, unless backed up with solid proof.



Rex: I've always been very skeptical when it comes to psychic ability. It seems that every group out there claims to have at least one and even one group in Florida has a psychic cat that they take on investigations. Most of these so-called mediums just state the obvious and treat it as a vision. I'm reminded of an episode of Most Haunted (when I used to watch it) where the world famous Derek Acorah was in the ruins of a church and started in on one of his "visions" and said "I'm sensing a monk" WOW, a monk in a church who would have guessed. The same goes for other tv psychics(Sylvia Brown, John Edward, etc.) who use a method of asking questions and reading people's reactions on where to go next. They also talk rather fast making several ambiguous statements at once, this just plays into the odds that sooner or later they'll get one right. Every now and then we get asked to recommend a "real" psychic or one that isn't a hack, the truth is we haven't found one.