Twitter

Twitter @Wombatwal

Monday, November 23, 2009

Went to a Psychic Show


Well, I have done what a lot of believers have asked all of us sceptics to do, and went to a Psychic show.
I went on Friday night 20/11/09 and saw, Ezio De Angelis.
He is one of the Psychics from "The One".
Here is his interview with Ghost Radio
Ghost Radio interview

The evening started with me entering the building a little nervous. Not because of my first psychic
show, but I was hoping I did not meet someone who I knew, thankfully I did not. I then relaxed.

Inside the foyer there was a long queue waiting to enter the room. I joined the queue and listened
intently.I could not hear anyone talking of who they wanted to connect to if chosen. There did not
seem to be any collecting of information, no stooges etc. So no hot reading in the foyer.

We went into the room and paid our $20 at the door to a woman who I found out at the beginning of the show that she was the partner to the psychic.

There were about 120 to 150 people at the show. This was the estimate of the Psychic and
fairly accurate I would say.That is $2400 to $3000 for just over an hour show, plus some chit chat
after the show. You of course subtract their costs.
There were only two people in the show, the Psychic and his partner.

The women outnumbered the men by at least 10 to 1. Great for meeting chicks.

The show started at around 7.40pm with the women taking the stage and welcoming everyone.
She then introduced the Psychic and he entered, stage right.
He welcomed everyone, acknowledged some people he recognised. Mentioned some other people that are on his Facebook.
He then asked for everyone who is having their first visit to his show to put their hand up.
A lot did, less than half, but still a substantial number. He mentioned that there were an
exceptional number of first timers tonight.

The room was divided up into thirds. There was a centre, left and right block of chairs.

Just as he was about to start the readings he mentioned his, I think he said spirit guide, Marcus.
He said Marcus will be assisting him tonight.
He also mentioned that people being read need to be open to the spirit or it won't work.
He also said that if something that he said fitted you then please put your hand up.
In other words the Psychic process won't work. He mentioned the Psychic process.

His technique was to go to a particular part of the room, centre, left or right, the area that
the spirits apparently sent him then voice usually a persons name and wait for the response
in that particular area of the room.
He did not cast the net wide over the whole room. Sometimes he did stray into another part of the
room if he got no response from the area he initially tried.

Once a connection was made to a name he would ask the person being read who this person was.
The person was then expected to fit the name to him or herself and volunteer the information
on who this person is. Everyone that had a reading volunteered the information 100% of the time.
He would then say another name and wait for the response. The psychic would say this.
"Who is Mary", the person being read would fit the name and volunteer this information.
100% of the readings were like this, all questions, nothing else. it was the usual thing of I am
getting a T name or a John, James, Margaret, Maggie, Marge, the whole show was a series of
questions.The person being read is expected to say who this name fitted, father, mother,
grandmother, aunt, friend, daughter of friend. Some of the connections were obscure and the psychic would then ask the person to ask a third party about this.

Sometimes the Psychic would bring forward a place or thing. Example he was reading two women who were sisters of Italian origin and asked what the chickens were about. They apparently were their deceased fathers chickens. Duh, migrants that do not own chickens.

It got very boring after about 45 minutes of the name game and I found myself looking around the
room at walls, furnishings etc.

There were a couple of occasions when he said something fairly specific that drew a big hit.
The best was when he went to the centre block of chairs and towards the back and said,
"he is getting America and Colorado".
This drew no response whatsoever.
He then mentioned a suicide that elicited 2 responses from that area of the room.
He eventually settled on a woman who said that her sister had commited suicide.
He played this when he said he saw depression, anxiety and psychosis with her.
This elicited a negative from the woman being read.
He then went to the next possibility, a relationship problem, this finally elicited a hit.
The Psychic then asked about the America and Colorado connection.
The woman elicited the fact that she went on holidays with her deceased sister to Los Angeles,
and that they also went to Colorado. The psychic then asked what about Tinkerbell and asked
if she went to Disneyland, this elicited a response in the affirmative.
I don't know how he got the America and Colorado connection, but it was interesting.
I did not detect any great cold reading except the name calling game. I think his system works
well for him and his credulous audience.
The show finished around 9.10pm.

Well, the show was pretty much just throwing out names and getting a response then people
fitting the name to themselves. He said he was talking to the spirits and also giving them
some direction. So I don't know why the spirits would not say I am John, the father of the person
that you are reading. Instead the person getting the reading needed to fit it themselves.
The Psychic also often did not know the name that he presented was deceased or a person
still living.

He was convincing, a bit I suppose to a believer or someone not sure of how a psychic operates,
or not very sceptical.
What I saw on Friday night did not change my mind.
The information he elicited allegedly from the spirits were incredibly mundane and not the sort
of information that you could confirm. Such as, "He is happy now with his family, she is sorry
that she caused great angst in the family because of the suicide.
His stage technique is one of appearing to communicate with the spirits, hearing voices.

I would have loved an unedited video of the evening.
I could give a more informed version.
The memory is not perfect.
I remain extremely sceptical of psychics.

10 comments:

  1. Dear Bruce. I want to thank you for finally proving my husband that sceptics are liars and cheats and not the psychics. We were at the same show and got a message from my son which was mind blowing. The psychic askedthe woman with the microphon to come down the back to Lorraine. I didnt put my hand up because I was wasn't sure if it was a lucky guess. I did not know if it was true or not. It was my first time and I was nervous. He said the lady in the red shirt. That was me. Who is Lorraine. I said I am. He then said a woman ghost with a v name like Val or Valda says hello. My mum was Valda. You ignore this in your review. Why? Cause it proves the psychic was right! He then said she says hi to Bill and David. My husband and son. He stopped then and moved away but came back a couple of seconds later. He said the lady in the red shirt. A young man died in a car crash do you know him. I said yes my son. He said who is Michael. I said that is my dead sons name. He told me other things that were true about him and my family. You ignore these. He asked me if I knew the boy and the name Michael. I did. If it was a guess it was a darn good one! You say these are asking questions but you pretend its not all correct. My husband said anyone who could sit there and hear that and then pretend it didn't happen is a fool or liar. I told him that people like you are just sour and frustrated and blame everyone else for there problems. My son is dead. No psychic can bring him back but that night we were together again for a short while. I found your junk on the computer when I tried to look up his email so I could thank him for giving me a beautiful gift. You and the other sceptics are liars and cheats and a bunch of know it alls. I am so angry at you for being such a terrible person that hates to see anyone else be happy and Im sorry if I ramble on. I am trembling terribly right now because I can see that you people attack anything you dont agree with and you wont agree with me so will probably attack me too but I dont care. But you should pull your head in because you don't know anything and you are to ignorant to learn. I know you will probably delete this right away and I don't care about that either. I only care that you know that even though you think you are so smart you really are a dope. Lorraine.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lorraine. Thank you for reading and replying to my blog.
    For a start. I take exception at your personal attack on me calling me a liar and a cheat. Please attack my arguments but please try and keep the personal abuse out of it, it does not add anything to what you are saying.
    I try and find the truth of situations through the evidence. As of yet there is no scientific
    evidence for the existence of spirits, this does not mean they are not real. I go with the evidence and if the evidence goes there I will then accept that.
    You said (My mum was Valda. You ignore this in your review. Why?
    Cause it proves the psychic was right!)
    I did not ignore this deliberately, see what I said at the end of my piece,
    (I would have loved an unedited video of the evening.I could give a more informed version.
    The memory is not perfect.)
    I do not recall your reading. There was a lot of readings that night and some were to me unexplained as how he got the information, yours obviously fits this. If you recall I said this,
    (There were a couple of occasions when he said something fairly specific that drew a big hit.)
    You then said this,
    (My husband said anyone who could sit
    there and hear that and then pretend it didn't happen is a fool or liar.)
    I am not a fool or a liar, I do not know you or if the psychic knows you or has read for you before so I could not give a credible response.
    You said,
    (I told him that people like you are just sour and frustrated and blame everyone else for there problems.)
    How did you come to this conclusion, you seem to have a lot of preconceived ideas about me
    without even knowing me.
    You continue,
    (You and the other sceptics are liars and cheats and a bunch of know it alls.)
    Here you go again, personal abuse and preconceived ideas.
    You continue,
    (I am trembling terribly right now because I can see that you people
    attack anything you dont agree with and you wont agree with me so will probably attack me too but I dont care.)
    I will not lower myself to personally abuse you, I do not know you, you probably are a very nice person.
    The abuse from you continued, I will not carry on but we all can see from your post earlier.
    I realy encourage your different point of view and personal experience.
    This all adds up to maybe something is going on with these people that call themselves psychics or mediums.
    There needs to be extensive credible scientific investigation into all of this. Unfortunately the established scientific community as far as I can work out does not get much cooperation from these psychics/mediums.
    There has never been any credible scientific evidence to support the possibility that these people have any gifts that they claim to have.
    But of course there are many people like yourself that have personal experience that has made you believe.
    I remain open but very sceptical, but can change readily if the evidence goes down the avenue that these psychics/mediums are real.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You ask for evidence but you ignore evidence. That is not right. Do you remember he also got a womans mothers second name? Clarke with an e. He said clarke with a e. She said her mother always corrected people when she gave her name. Clarke with a e. And her first name Mary. He got Mary Clarke died of cancer. Like my connection with my son he got all names right. If this is a name game as you call it then it is very good. Maybe its not a game but the way ghosts communicate! You ask why cant ghosts say this or that but Enzio said at the start that they don't communicate the way we do. he said that and again you ignore because it doesnt suit you. If I offended you well maybe you need to look at yourself. You say you are offended by me calling you a liar and a cheat but if the shoe fits? You put your poor and ignorant report on bad psychics thats where I found it. I bet you won't put my comment on bad psychis where I expose you for being a poor critic will you? No you wont. Why? Because you don't wont anyone knowing that you mislead everyone by your biased and inaccurate report thats why. My son came through that night. Not in a way that is important to you. But in a way that is true to me. It was wonmderful! Even when you say he wasn't cheating by listening to audience or putting people in the audience he knew and could read for you still put him on that rubbish site. I saw an open kind man trying to help people that night. But you don't care. You cant even offer me sorrow for the loss of my son. If this is where you science leads Bruce then you can have it. No compassion. No goodness. Nothing. Just hate and anger and taking fun at hurting other people with your uninformed opinions. Trying to be big in the eys of people just as small as you. Why ignore everything that is good and then put the good psychic on such a terrible nasty site if you don't want to hurt him? It shows a really really nasty side to you. Thats why I explain to you that you are untrue and false. If not untrue and false then maybe just not very good at being truly observant and you should stick to taking pictures. they seem ok. Maybe if you tried to look into it properly instead of just observing and making yourself an expert you could learn something. This will be my last comment to you. You are not really open as you think you are. You have hurt me far to much by attacking good people who can and do help people such as me even though they must know that people like you with a vested interest will attack them like savage dogs. I hope you are happy with yourself. Because I for one am not. I remain open to sceptics but remain very sceptical that they will accept real evidence if it does not fit their idea of what it should be like. Lorraine

    ReplyDelete
  4. So you want me to put your comments on Bad Psychics.
    Well I will if that is what you want.
    No problems with that.
    My comments about your abuse stands.
    The evidence I require is obviously much more rigorous than what you require.
    This seems a common problem between sceptics and believers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, and by the way Lorraine I also posted this on a believer site.
    Sensing Murder.
    Maybe you could go to there and bad mouth me on that site. You should receive a lot of support their. They all think the same as you, but not as abusive generally.
    Here is the URL to my post.
    http://www.sensingmurder.co.nz/regfrm3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2231

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just found this. Congratulations on holding your cool WW.
    .
    Without a video of the night, it's your admission of flawed memory against the recollections someone who dearly needed to communicate with a dead loved one.
    .
    I recall seeing De Angelis on The One and how amazed the people he read were about his accuracy. But there we had the ability to rewind and see that their recollections were very different from the reality of what happened.
    .
    I remember one woman who was convinced he'd seen her house fire when in fact he'd only said "you're on fire". It wasn't part of the reading at all.
    .
    Another woman was amazed at the hits he got with her when, in fact, she'd told him up front that all the things he'd already said to another woman really applied to her. Naturally he repeated them all and scored points.
    .
    The same applied to people read by the other contestants. All readings were atrocious - and we only got to see the edited highlights of the best readings they did (apparently they read more than one person each time but we only saw part of one reading) - but most of the sitters were very impressed with the accuracy.
    .
    It's sad to think that someone's last memory of a loved one is something handed to them by a circus performer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just found this link from The Age today.

    Wow, seems like Lorraine doesn't need a psychic but a mental health professional. For someone to become so irate over someone else voicing their opinion and to go so over the top with their response speaks of an deeply unstable personality.

    For my own part, I have an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out, I am deeply sceptical about the kind of modus operandi of the psychic you have described - on the other hand my mother used to occasionally visit a family friend who did psychometry, she was told very specific, accurate predictions - she was not charged any money and I don't think her friend does it for a living.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Jac for reading my humble blog.
    I don't think Lorraine needs any mental health care. She is a believer and many believers react in this way when their belief is being challenged.
    Belief is irrational and her response at worst is irrational not mentally ill.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't believe Lorraine needs any mental health care either. I do believe though that what you said touch a nerve, as the article you wrote wasn't accurate. I don't believe one can write a blog when it doesn't contain the full story. Sounds like you only voiced what would enhance your believes and not from a neutral point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't have any beliefs about psychics, I go with the evidence.
    Anonymous.
    There is no evidence for spirits of dead people, so psychics communicating with the dead is highly unlikely.
    If you can give me real evidence of spirits, and that people who call themselves psychics can communicate with them, I will look at this more favorably.
    What full story am I missing?
    Can you enlighten me Anonymous.
    And can you explain why the article was not accurate?

    ReplyDelete