Psychic (Sylvia Browne) Who Said Amanda Berry Was Dead Silent After Berry Is Found Alive

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

Last edited Wed May 8, 2013, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

A year after Amanda Berry disappeared in Cleveland, her mother appeared on "The Montel Williams Show" to speak to a psychic about what happened to her daughter.

Psychic Sylvia Browne, who has made a career of televised psychic readings, told Louwanna Miller on a 2004 episode of the show that her daughter was dead, causing Miller to break down in tears on the show's set.

"She's not alive, honey," Browne told Miller on the show, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper. "Your daughter's not the kind who wouldn't call."

Miller told the newspaper that she believed "98 percent" in what Browne told her. Miller died a year later from heart failure.

On Monday, Berry was found alive after she broke free from a home in Cleveland where she says she has been kept for the past decade.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-berrys-mom-told-pyschic-sylvia-browne-berry/story?id=19126853#.UYnnn44Tt1M

Yet another reason to hate this charlatan, and to hate Montel Williams and Larry King for their constant efforts over the years to legitimize her.

---
The always awesome James Randi weighs in:

How blatant liars like Browne can survive such exposure is the mystery to which I still have no answer, except that folks out there just seem to prefer to have fantasy and deception rule them…

Folks, I seriously suggest that each reader of this news write to or call your local newspaper editors, radio and TV stations, to express your concern at the dismay, sorrow, and grief that Browne creates. That way, we just might attract enough attention to this taloned fraud. Please consider spending a few moments on this, will you? News persons will react to their consumers' comments, believe me. Encourage them to publicize this latest Browne farce…

You’ll be striking a blow for rationality and reason by doing this.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2113-yet-another-sylvia-browne-fiasco.html

[Warpy]

1. The crazy old bat has probably lawyered up

I can see the making of a lawsuit here.

[Smarmie Doofus]

227. LOL. Do psychics have to have malpractice insurance now? n/t

[Warpy]

236. Hardly, it's the very definition of malpractice

but they can still be sued, especially when they've harvested as many media dollars as Brown has.

Whether or not that suit would be successful, it would cost her. A lawyer would be engaged to talk with another lawyer to make it all go away.

[Scootaloo]

251. Nope, no chance of lawsuit

Legally, "psychics" are just treated as entertainers, or people who give off-the-cuff advice. She's as legally responsible for the mother's death as a fortune cookie or a gossipy person in the checkout lane.

No lawsuit; but she and all the cackling frauds like her deserve a good dragging through a hog lagoon - mud's too good for 'em

[Zorra]

2. Browne was counting on probability. Bad business, selling snake oil. nt

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

3. She has since taken down her Facebook page

as it was turning into this:

[JoDog]

13. I was one of the herd

that ripped her a new one on Facebook. I don't think she even has enough of a soul to be ashamed of herself.

[Dr. Strange]

25. When asked why she took the Facebook page down, she said...

"I had to. I couldn't believe the things people were saying about me. I was shocked. It really took me by surprise. It's almost like I didn't see it coming."

[LonePirate]

26. A psychic says "It's almost like I didn't see it coming."

That's hilarious, especially because she suggests she saw the backlash coming and still left her page up until the backlash arrived and she took it down.

[Dr. Strange]

27. Well, she didn't really say it.

I made it up.

Although given that the quote appeared on her page and someone was able to screencap it before it was taken down, it's pretty clear that Browne did not, in fact, see it coming.

[Orrex]

52. Dr. Strange is a heartless brute; you should never believe anything he writes.

Except that stuff about his sigline. That's pretty cool, I guess.

[msanthrope]

108. I truly miss your more inventive siglines. Damn the bastards who couldn't keep up! nt

[Orrex]

109. .

[Dr. Strange]

215. What is Ignored saying about me now?

He lies!

[Orrex]

237. That's it. You're back on Ignore!

Or are you?

[Dr. Strange]

252. Shut up!

I'm Ignoring you so hard right now!

[DCKit]

4. Y'all don't undersand... she was not dead, but subsumed by her abductor/rapist.

Totally makes sense in the asstral world.

[longship]

5. Newage wackaloonery!

That word, newage (rhymes with sewage), describes precisely where Sylvia Browne lives.

She is a horrible person by any standard. She preys on people who have lost friends or family. Sylvia Browne is a fucking vulture, picking at the bones of those who have lost those close to them.

Remember Shawn Hornbeck? Watch Sylvia work over his parents.

BTW, Shawn was also found alive after years of captivity after that wench Sylvia told his parents he was dead.

She's a disgusting, horrible person.

[Politicalboi]

6. As long as Faux News is still on

She can be on too. I don't like those kind of people, but I also don't believe ANYONE is psychic. Perhaps the psychic never should have said her daughter was dead, but it's the mother who believed it. What makes this fraud any different than Faux News? They both, Faux and psychic should be ashamed of themselves, but it's how they make their money, by fooling people.

I just can't believe people believe this crap. Just like I can't believe some people still fall for the lottery e-mail scams. After all we've been shown about these frauds, some still believe their case is different. How do people fall for these.

[MotherPetrie]

7. She's a fraud, but there is nothing awesome about Randi.

[CrawlingChaos]

8. Completely agree on both Browne and Randi (nt)

[Logical]

22. Name your issue with Randi! n-t

[CrawlingChaos]

124. Well, his famous "Million Dollar Challenge" was a fraud, for one thing

It was always rigged in Randi's favor, and the extraordinarily complex rules kept changing as needed to make sure no challenger would have a fair shot at the prize. Then when a researcher with telepathic dogs posed a real threat despite Randi's shenanigans, the challenge was withdrawn entirely. IMO that makes him almost as much of a charlatan as the hucksters he exposes.

I also think he's played a role in the rise of authoritarian pseudo-skepticism - the phenomenon of people running around idiotically screaming "woo!" every time anyone questions the official account of something, no matter how rational the line of inquiry may be. His forum is a hotbed of that. Clearly, if there's a buck in it for Randi, he's OK with it.

[Chiyo-chichi]

136. That is patent nonsense. All of it.

Anyone who claims to be able to demonstrate paranormal ability has the opportunity to agree to the testing criteria in advance. It just has to be scientific. And there's the rub.

[CrawlingChaos]

141. Clearly you're not familiar with the particulars

It was more like a rigged carnival game than a scientific experiment. The events surrounding the telepathic dog challengers made it absolutely clear that the contest was a fraud. Nothing "scientific" about that.

[Chiyo-chichi]

150. I'd be glad to read up on the particulars if you can point me to a link.

I've done some Googling, but are you talking about Rupert Sheldrake, Alex Tsakiris, or another case?

[CrawlingChaos]

164. Here you go

I'm pressed for time but here's one overview I was able to find quickly:

http://stevevolk.com/archives/1040

Randi is just not honest. Another poster brought up his involvement in an identity theft scandal, which would tend to underscore that.

[William Seger]

225. "In defense of Sheldrake" says all you need to know

... or it would if you do some research on Sheldrake on non-woo sites. Sheldrake's excuses for refusing to take the Million Dollar Challenge are laughable, but in Sheldrake's case, Randi and the Challenge are really irrelevant because Sheldrake claims to be a serious scientist and is already doing experiments. It certainly is not Randi's fault that Sheldrake has consistently failed to convince non-gullible scientists that any of his implausible hypotheses have any credibility whatsoever. Sheldrake just brushes off their criticisms of his experiments and analysis techniques and -- like all pseudo-scientists -- accuses them of just being too dogmatic to accept his amazing discoveries. That is bullshit: Investigating new phenomenon is what scientists do, and any time that some promising field of research opens up, there is no shortage of scientists eager to make a name for themselves by jumping on it.

The reason that woo-peddlers hate Randi is clear: His Challenge points out the fact that they are unable to prove their claims. But that's all it does; it's not the reason for the failures.

Don't be so gullible.

[CrawlingChaos]

244. Well, that was a substance-free rebuttal

You didn't address any of the issues raised in the link I posted.

The Million Dollar Challenge IS a fraud. Randi himself admitted as much to an interviewer when he said "I always have an out" - meaning, no one's ever going to be allowed to win.

So who's being gullible here?

[William Seger]

255. Read it again: It wan't intended as a rebuttal

Why should I rebut something after explaining why it's irrelevant? I see that you don't care to address why that's so, but the "issues raised in the link" can certainly be rebutted (at the risk of giving you an excuse to again ignore my point):

The Challenge begins with a red herring:

Randi boasts that the protocols of each test must be “mutually agreed upon.” But the only terms he agrees to insist that applicants obtain results beyond what would be demanded to determine scientific significance.

No, that's not a "red herring," but what Volk is trying to imply is that Randi will always insist on results that are impossible to produce. But just think about that for a minute: If we're talking about a phenomenon that's real, what's the reason that convincing results cannot be produced? The Challenge is for the claimant to provide convincing evidence of a paranormal claim in a series of only two tests, so yes, the terms should be tough to meet, to rule out chance and/or systematic procedural flaws. Otherwise, the results aren't convincing. If you want to win a million dollars by getting lucky, play the lottery. Actually, Volk appears to be trying to pull a fast one himself by confounding "statistical significance" with "scientific significance." In a single test, a result with 95% confidence of not being the result of chance -- i.e. odds of 1 in 20 of a chance result -- are sometimes (but not always) considered to be "statistically significant." However, such a result would never be considered "scientifically significant" because it simply doesn't rule out a chance result or a systematic flaw in the test. Such results would only be considered "scientifically significant" if they were repeatable to a degree that provides a far higher confidence level. And in fact, in recent years there has been quite a bit of controversy about scientists putting too much faith in statistical analysis, because statistical inferencing requires subtle assumptions that are difficult or impossible to verify.

The preliminary test, which must be passed before an applicant can try for the million, demands odds against chance of 1,000 to 1. The second test, to win the million, requires the applicant to show results at better than a million to one against chance.

Actually, there aren't any predefined "demands" for the odds in a test, but I believe odds of 1000 to 1 are generally used as a rule of thumb. Why is that a problem if the phenomenon is real? But anyway, if a particular test did have odds of 1000 to 1, then passing the same test again would be odds of a million to 1. However, since no one has ever passed a preliminary test, the odds for the second test have never mattered, so Volk's "million to one" point is moot.

The result is that an applicant can—and did—achieve statistically significant positive results, yet was deemed to “fail” the challenge

And again, a "statistically significant" result in a single test (which was 50 to 1 in his "and did" link) is not nearly the convincing evidence rightly required for the Challenge, for good reason.

“In the ganzfeld telepathy test the meta-analytic hit rate with unselected subjects is 32% where chance expectation is 25%. If that 32% hit rate is the ‘real’ telepathy effect, then for us to have a 99% chance of getting a significant effect at p < 0.005, we would need to run 989 trials. One ganzfeld session lasts about 1.5 hours, or about 1,483 total hours. Previous experiments show that it is not advisable to run more than one session per day. So we have to potentially recruit 989 x 2 people to participate, an experimenter who will spend 4+ years running these people day in and day out, and at the end we’ll end up with p < 0.005. Randi will say those results aren’t good enough, because you could get such a result by chance 5 in 1,000 times. Thus, he will require odds against chance of at least a million to 1 to pay out $1 million, and then the amount of time and money it would take to get a significant result would be far in excess of $1 million.”

What a shame that such an elusive phenomenon is unsuitable for the Challenge, but that simply allows me to redirect back to my point: Forget about Randi and the Challenge, then. What's the reason that Sheldrake can't convince other scientists that he's on to something? The reason is right there in the excuse for Randi-bashing: The claimed phenomenon is apparenlty so weak that it's virtually impossible to prove that it actually exists.

<Edit to add a good link that rebuts Volk's article>

[CrawlingChaos]

257. You can spend your whole day attempting to obfuscate if you wish, but...

The fact is, the challenge goes way beyond scientific rigor. It's a tilted table. And if it's fair, why does Randi "always have an out", as he, himself, has stated? This bogus challenge should not be touted as proof or disproof of anything.

Randi absolutely lied about having tested Sheldrake's claims, and he lied about the results of these non-existent tests. In fact, he ultimately had to admit lying about it. Who would trust a person like that? (well, you, apparently)

[William Seger]

260. LMAO, I thought you wanted a rebuttal

(Actually, I suspected that you didn't.)

> And if it's fair, why does Randi "always have an out", as he, himself, has stated?

Actually, that's a partial quote and it's taken out of context. What he actually said was "I always have an out; I'm right!" In the context that it was given, it was just a snarky comment meaning that he simply didn't believe anyone would ever pass the Challenge because he would insure that there was no cheating or trickery or delusion. It's revealing that you want to use that out-of-context partial quote as proof that Randi is unfair, but the closest you can get to giving an actual example is Volk's belief that a 98% confidence level ought to be good enough to win the million dollars.

> This bogus challenge should not be touted as proof or disproof of anything.

Wrong, but it is important to be careful about what it proves, especially in the context of the OP: One thing it proves is that blatant frauds like Sylvia Browne and John Edward know that taking the Challenge would be the end of their very lucrative careers as phony mediums and psychics. The other thing it has proved, many times, is that some people who believe they have paranormal abilities are simply self-deluded.

[CrawlingChaos]

267. And your source is - once again - Randi himself

Randi later claimed to have been taken out of context and added the "I'm right" part, but it was not in the original interview, according to what I've read.

See here:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Organskeptics/index.html

"For many years this "prize" has been Randi's stock-in-trade as a media skeptic, but even some other skeptics are skeptical about its value as anything but a publicity stunt. For example, CSICOP founding member Dennis Rawlins pointed out that not only does Randi act as "policeman, judge and jury" but quoted him as saying "I always have an out"! (Fate, October 1981). A leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view"

[William Seger]

269. So you prove Randi is lying by assuming Randi is lying

Good job.

[Logical]

172. Bullshit! Point me to a documented example! And if his million dollar deal....

Was a fraud, point me to scientific proof that would have won it? I bet you don't have jack shit!

[CrawlingChaos]

177. See post #164 above

[William Seger]

229. Anyone who thinks the Challenge is a "fraud" is perfectly free

... to provide the world with whatever evidence they think proves their claims. The excuses for refusing or failing the Challenge do not also serve as excuses for being unable to prove the claims. The Challenge simply points out the repeated failures to do that, even when offered a large reward.

[derby378]

234. Our local skeptic's orgnanization has a paranormal challenge, too

I haven't been active with them for some time, but they've got at least $10K for anyone who can prove their claims of paranormal feats. So far, no successful claims.

Besides, I've always enjoyed this little gem from Tim Minchin which explains the whole problem accurately:

[CrawlingChaos]

243. I was not weighing in on the validity of paranormal claims

I was specifically addressing the dishonest nature of James Randi's character and the fact that his famous Million Dollar Challenge is a fraud. You have done nothing but parrot Randi's own BS. Why do you suppose Randi feels he needs to cheat? Maybe he's a secret "woo-believer", otherwise why not demonstrate the courage of his convictions and make the challenge fair and above-board? Then it would mean something. You should really use your critical thinking skills and find yourself another hero to worship.

[William Seger]

246. And I was not weighing in on the invalidity or your ad hominem

... because in addition to being fundamentally wrong, it's completely irrelevant. I've been following the Challenge and its detractors for a very long time, and sorry, but it isn't hard to figure out the real reason why woo peddlers and their fans hate Randi so much. The Challenge is not a fraud and I have seen absolutely no evidence that Randi "feels he needs to cheat." You are the one who is parroting what some woo-peddler told you.

[CrawlingChaos]

248. Oh man, that's a HOOT!

Just looking at your posts in this thread, it's just one ad hominem after another! Like dishing it out but can't take it, huh?

In response to your ad hominem "woo peddler" attack against me, I can tell you that I don't follow paranormal research at all, nor is it an area of interest to me. Was the site I linked to a "woo-peddler"? No, it certainly was not.

How can anyone take you seriously when you hurl insults and do not argue honestly?

[William Seger]

256. You think you can toss out stuff like this...

> ...the dishonest nature of James Randi's character and the fact that his famous Million Dollar Challenge is a fraud...

...and apparently think that what's been offered in this thread is sufficient substantiation, then yes, I'm guessing that the reason for that is that you are a woo-fan, despite your disclaimer. The point remains that Randi calls attention to the fact that people who make paranormal claims are manifestly unable to prove them, and that point doesn't disappear simply because you ignore it and accuse me of "just one ad hominem after another."

[CrawlingChaos]

258. Irrational ad hominem

My opinion of Randi is based on evidence that he is a liar, which includes his own admissions.

You have accused me of being a "woo-fan" based on the fact that I have a low opinion of Randi.

Is this your idea of logic?

[William Seger]

262. First, you have given no evidence that Randi is a liar

I forgot to answer to that claim, but this is what your reference is really all about:

Sheldrake continued:

"Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: 'Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by.' This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."

Not true. A colleague of mine in Europe told me that he'd seen the tape record, and that he and his colleagues presented a version of it to some students who were asked to record each time the dog was activated. The dog never stopped, reacting to passers-by in the street, cars, any unusual noise and any sort of distraction. The only portion of tape that I was able to see was the section that Sheldrake saw fit to publish, the limited sector that indicated -- to his selective gaze -- the point he wanted to prove. Dr. Sheldrake, may we see the entire video record, so that we may repeat that student evaluation with persons who are, in your view, qualified to see it? I promise that I'll stay behind in Florida, and I'll not put out those "negative vibes" that I'm sure you feel would affect the test. Or are those tapes now lost, or perhaps not available for legal reasons?

So, Randi's "lie" was that he said "we see..." when he should have said "a colleague of mine in Europe saw..." Randi did not claim "I saw..."

> You have accused me of being a "woo-fan" based on the fact that I have a low opinion of Randi. Is this your idea of logic?

Actually, what I said was, "I'm guessing..." which is simply to say, if I could place a bet on it in Vegas, I'd take short odds.

[CrawlingChaos]

265. Oh look, a copy-and-paste directly from Randi's website

Something you declined to mention. Here's your oh-so-objective source:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/795-the-sheldrake-kerfluffle.html

Randi's previous statements were exposed as false, so he concocted this obvious smokescreen.

What were you saying about people being gullible?

[William Seger]

268. "declined to mention"

LOL, that's about on par with you accusations against Randi, but although I did forget the link to that article, it was pretty danged obvious that I was quoting Randi, wasn't it. Sorry about that, but as you can see from the posting history, I accidentally hit post instead of preview before I was finished and had to go back to edit it, but I forgot to add the link.

It's also pretty obvious what Randi really meant by the partial quote that you took out of context, "I always have an out; I'm right!" And it's obvious that Randi did not say "I saw" the doggy movie, since Sheldrake quoted what he actually said. This stuff has been floating around the Randi-hating sites for years, and no, I didn't gullibly accept what Randi said: I looked into the claims and counter-claims for myself, which is why I am fairly confident that you will not be able to substantiate your claim that Randi lied. It is clear to me that you have not really looked into those claims -- you seem to know little about the substance of them -- and just rely on what your read on the Randi-hating sites to accuse Randi of lying, so prove me wrong before you accuse me of being gullible.

If you got distracted by Sheldrake's parsing of what Randi said, while ignoring what the people who DID see the movie said about it, and decide that Randi is the dishonest one, then yes, you are gullible. If you think Randi's "unfairness" is the reason that Sheldrake is considered a crackpot by his peers, then yes, you are gullible.

[CrawlingChaos]

270. It appears all you can offer is what comes straight out of Randi's piehole

Seriously, that's all you've got. Anyone who says otherwise, even if they have documentation of their claims, is dismissed as a "Randi-hater".

You understand what confirmation bias is, don't you?

[William Seger]

271. Bullshit, you don't have any "documentation" that Randi lied

You made an accusation that you can't substantiate, and the best you can do it keep repeating it.

Just keep beating that dead horse, and maybe nobody will realize that even if your accusation WAS true, that would not be a "defense of Sheldrake" and his manifest inability to prove to serious scientists that he isn't a crackpot.

Here's another thing: Randi isn't even involved with the Challenge these days. What's Sheldrake's excuse now?

<Edit to clarify, before we go 'round the barn again> If you accuse someone of lying, it's your responsibility to substantiate it. Nobody is required to prove that the person is not lying.

[CrawlingChaos]

273. Randi's lies are documented. Let me help you with this...

At this link you will find numerous examples of Randi's lies. It's a bit long, but well worth the read:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2013/03/wow.html

Here's an excerpt about the Sheldrake incident:

"Storr proceeds to the notorious incident in which Randi dismissed Sheldrake’s dog experiments by claiming he had performed similar experiments that disproved Sheldrake’s thesis. In the ensuing controversy, Randi eventually had to back down to the extent of saying that the experiments were purely informal and that the data (which he had previously offered to share) had been lost.

In the interview, Randi at first hedges on the question of whether he said he had performed experiments:

“I must admit to you that I don’t recall having said that these tests were even done. But I’m willing to see the evidence for it.”

“I have these emails.”

“Oh.”

When I ask for a second time what prompted him to do these tests, his memory stages a sudden recovery. “Curiosity,” he says. “I’m an experimenter.” He remembers the name of the dog and its breed and that the experiment was “very informal. I napped most of the time.”

When I press him about his treatment of Sheldrake, he insists that he didn’t lie because when he made the offer to send the information, the data hadn’t yet been lost. But he says that they were swept away in Hurricane Wilma, which happened in 2005 – four years before he stated that the data was available. And in the email, he tells Sheldrake a different story still – that the flood took place in 1998. {p. 364}"

[William Seger]

276. Here, let me help YOU out

Someone else insinuating that Randi lied is not "documentation" that he did, in fact, lie.

However, you seem to have missed a recent example that at least comes closer to your accusation. In Storr's book, he recounts Randi's reply to a question about statements on his Swift blog about believing that drugs should be legalized and drug users should be allowed to "do themselves in" by overdosing. Storr said, "But it’s Social Darwinism." Randi replied, "The survival of the fittest, yes. The strong survive."

That's an appalling thing to believe and to say, for sure, and I certainly won't defend Randi for saying it. But after the book was published, Randi denied saying that he was a Social Darwinist, when in fact the recorded interview proves that following Storr's suggestion that his opinion amounted to Social Darwinism, Randi did say "I'm a believer in Social Darwinism." So, Randi's denial was either a lie or a very faulty memory. It hardly matter, really, because what Randi had written on his blog and did say about drug users in the interview was an example of Social Darwinist thinking, whether or not he used the specific term, so the denial was disingenuous at the very least.

So I cannot defend Randi's denial, but he has since retracted the denial, although he still maintains that he does not recall that part of the interview, and he claims that at the time he was not really familiar with the precise historical meaning of the term:

The unfair suggestion that Mr. Storr tried to provoke me, or that he’s a “bad guy,” is something I must dismiss, since I believe I would have remembered that sort of behavior. In any case, I now know much more about the described encounter, and I maintain that I would never have said I was a Social Darwinist, since I only recently learned in detail what that term really means, and in fact I was quite ignorant of the history of the movement organized around that false idea.

Neither you nor I can say if that disclaimer is a lie or a further evasion, and the only weak defense of Randi's denial of what he specifically said in the interview is that we are talking about an 84-year-old man and an interview that was several years ago, so his memory could have been faulty. But as I said above, I'll admit that his denial of using the specific term was disingenuous in any case. However, the issue we are discussing here is Randi's honesty, and Randi did retract his denial and furthermore has recanted his position on drugs:

I’m well aware that I sometimes “shoot from the hip” and speak on things about which I know very little. In this present situation, I published my personal opinions about drug addiction without knowing very much about the neuroscience behind addiction, or the addiction recovery field. Not only did I say some deeply regrettable and insensitive things, but as I’ve learned more about the questions and issues at hand, I accept that I have been wrongheaded on a number of topics related to these issues. Even at 84, I’m still learning. Please bear with me, folks.

In a recent Tweet, Shorr was gracious enough to say:

Much kudos to James Randi for retracting his statement about our interview. I'm surprised and impressed. Good on him.

So there you go, a documented example of Randi lying, either in fact or spirit, but I have also documented that he retracted his statements, both about the interview and his beliefs about drug users.

So now that we have firmly established that Randi is an imperfect human being, I wonder if you will be so kind as to address my original issue which you continue to evade, which is that it's completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not paranormal claims have been or can be proved. As I said, anyone who doubts the fairness of the Paranormal Challenge is perfectly free to ignore it and instead provide whatever evidence they feel proves their claims. And yet, after any amount of Randi-bashing that you can dig up, those claims remain unproved. Again, what the Challenge really does is to call public attention to that fact, and I do believe that most people "get it," which is exactly why woo-peddlers instead want to focus on Randi.

[CrawlingChaos]

277. I know it's hard to face the truth about your hero

But there it is nevertheless. He's a nasty little piece of work. He has about as much integrity as Sylvia Browne has psychic powers (mea culpas when you're caught and cornered don't count for squat, btw).

To quote a beloved character from Game of Thrones - I understand how this game is played. No matter how much I back up my statements, you will claim it's insufficient - to infinity. And you will attempt to shift the topic to an issue I never addressed, as you have done in the bizarre post above.

Over the years I've observed that, generally speaking, the more quickly someone resorts to personal insults in an argument, the weaker their position. I have to say your posts in this thread are a prime example of that phenomenon.

[William Seger]

281. Oh, bullshit

> He's a nasty little piece of work. He has about as much integrity as Sylvia Browne has psychic powers

What bullshit, and it's still crystal clear what the agenda is of people who say crap like that.

> (mea culpas when you're caught and cornered don't count for squat, btw)

Uh-huh, tell that to Sylvia Browne. Or Uri Geller. Or Peter Popoff, or W.V. Grant, or Ernest Angley, or that guy who sold $47M of "bomb detectors" after Randi had already exposed the fraud when he tried to sell them to the US Army. But Randi did retract his denial and recant his position on drug users, which disproves your nasty comment above.

> No matter how much I back up my statements, you will claim it's insufficient - to infinity.

LOL, you didn't back up your statements with anything of substance; I did, and with something you weren't even aware of when you were flinging around your accusations based on insinuation and hearsay. And since it was a trivial issue completely unrelated to his work exposing frauds and self-deluded people, you still don't have anything that justifies your nasty comment above.

> And you will attempt to shift the topic to an issue I never addressed, as you have done in the bizarre post above.

And you never will address it, because you want to afford crackpots like Sheldrake a lame excuse for avoiding the Challenge, but pissing on Randi is the best you can do. I know how that game is played.

[joshcryer]

272. There are only 8 rules and most concern intellectual property.

The main three rules are "we and the applicant will decide upon the conditions," a "preliminary test must be done," and "you can't apply again for 12 months." Obviously the Preliminary Test allows the foundation to come up with an explanation, but if the powers are supernatural, then said explanation will not be forthcoming and therefore the foundation will be unable to do anything about it and will be forced to pay up.

[William Seger]

9. I don't know anyone who has done more in the fight against bullshit peddling

Bullshit that's ignored doesn't disappear; it propagates.

[MotherPetrie]

33. Randi is the flip side of the arrogantly ignorant, self-aggrandizing coin

He's nothing but a huckster. Just like Browne.

[backscatter712]

42. How? Be specific. n/t

[William Seger]

57. What is he 'arrogantly ignorant' of?

Talking to the dead? ESP? Telekinesis? Dowsing? Homeopathy? What's your favorite woo-woo that he dissed?

[MattBaggins]

68. Not even in an alternate reality

[edhopper]

17. Nothing awesome about the man who exposed

Yuri Gellar, Homeopathy, Peter Popoff and countless others?

He is totally awesome.

[MotherPetrie]

34. No, nothing awesome at all -- Randi's tactics are questionable, his results are too.

Randi determines his results in advance and makes sure his "research" matches them. Just like Sylvia. It's been very profitable for them both.

[backscatter712]

40. Citation needed.

Link to how Randi's tactics or results are questionable.

[Bradical79]

53. You're not making any sense equating the two.

From what I've seen of Randi, he does a good job showing exactly how con-men/women are committing their frauds. Since you can't name one single specific example, it sounds more like you want to maintain a certain fantasy worldview that has been exposed as BS at some point.

[immoderate]

54. I've know of Randi for more than 40 years, and personally for the last ten...

How do you think he has fooled me?

--imm

[samsingh]

62. i think Randi is great - but i'm curious about

the paranormal. Sceptics keep denying everything. believers keep accepting everything.

i'd like to see some open-minded and intelligent discussion on the subject.

[immoderate]

66. As far as I can tell, paranormal means make-believe.

At least every encounter I've had so far supports that.

Randi still offers the million dollar prize. He is meticulously fair about the requirements. Nobody has claimed it. The "pros" avoid it. The applicants are mostly deluded about their abilities, or their level of skill with illusion.

--imm

[samsingh]

71. i do see and experience some unexplained stuff

[Orrex]

98. The response to such "stuff" should be "that's unexplained."

Instead, many people too often assume a supernatural agency beyond these quirky occurrences, in much the same way that some people see conspiracy behind everything from the Boston bombing to the Cleveland 911 dispatcher's tone of voice.

If a person experiences a weird event, that person should seek an explanation and should be prepared to conclude "I don't know" if an explanation can't be found. It's always a mistake to leap from "I don't know" to "it must be something supernatural."

[snooper2]

133. Take the remote out from under the couch cushion

The "ghosts" in your TV will go away

[msanthrope]

240. Okay---so I'm watching Salem's Lot on the TV.....and this scene comes on.....

Right after it ended, the TV goes off. I think I peed a little.

It was the cat's ass settling on the couch cushion....where the remote was.

Good times, good times....

[William Seger]

69. "Open minded" simply means you're willing to accept proof

There's a huge difference between denying that paranormal things exist and denying that anyone has ever demonstrated any convincing proof. The great thing about Randi's Challenge is that it cuts right to the heart of that difference: Show some quantifiable proof under controlled conditions and win a million dollars.

[edhopper]

70. Extraodinary claims require

Extraordinary evidence.
To date there is no reliable evidence that the paranormal exists.
Skeptics do not deny everything, they use reason and simply ask for the evidence that any of these things exist.
If you have a discussion with a believer and a skeptic you would soon see who is close minded.

[pokerfan]

96. The Economic Argument

[MADem]

115. Dowsing? For oil and gas?

Look what Google turned up!!!!!

http://www.prospectingoilandgas.com/
http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/dowsing-in-the-21st-century/
http://www.george-applegate.co.uk/services.html
http://www.southcoastwater.co.uk/FAQs-dowsing-for-water.html
http://www.dowsers.org/conferences/national-convention/dowsing-schools

Who is hiring these people? They're making a living, obviously.

I can't fathom how it works, but there are a bunch of 'em on the internet!

[pokerfan]

142. True

The comic should have allowed for hucksters and con artists. Those guys make a killing.

http://skepdic.com/dowsing.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Scientific_appraisal
http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dowsing.html
http://sciencefocus.com/qa/there-any-scientific-evidence-dowsing

[backscatter712]

143. Not to mention the grifter who just got a prison sentence for selling dowsing-rod "bomb detectors".

Always remember the law of Barnum...

[forestpath]

117. There's no proof God does either. Eeryone who claims God exists needs to provide

PROOF.

See how that works?

[edhopper]

132. This is one of the basic arguments for atheist

so yes I would like to see proof that God exist.

But beyond that it is a irrelevant argument.
All these paranormal claims are about something that is observable and should have a verifiable result.
They fail to show any positive results.

See how that works.

[William Seger]

65. Ah, I see now

You're not really familiar with how the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge is conducted, but you're read one of the Standard Excuses that charlatans use for not taking it. Here's a tip: People who make excuses (like Browne and her ilk) know that they are frauds. People who believe they really do have paranormal powers are eager to win the money. Randi's "research" is simply to give them an opportunity to prove their claims, and he has every right to demand controlled experiments with quantifiable results -- that's the whole point of it.

[MADem]

95. He was involved in knowingly shielding an identity thief not too long ago.

His name and fame were instrumental in getting the guy an easy sentence.

I'm betting the guy whose identity was stolen doesn't think the thief or Randi are particularly awesome.

My honest view of Randi is that he was a magician who wasn't making it on the circuit, and he found that there was money to be made by taking the opposite tack--exposing the tricks of the trade. He figured out quick that there was good money in skepticism and he ran with it. I'm betting if he had become a top tier magic man, he wouldn't be in this line of work he's in now.

It's interesting stuff, but I can see why some people in the magic business detect a stink of sour grapes about him.

[zerosumgame0005]

113. cite?

[MADem]

121. Here--and all over google.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-11-03/news/fl-amazing-randi-jose-alvarez-plea-20111103_1_identity-theft-guilty-plea-plea-deal

Alvarez's true name is Deyvi Pena, and he is the longtime companion of magician James "The Amazing" Randi, 83, a renowned professional skeptic who has dedicated his life to debunking people who profess to have paranormal powers.

Pena, 49, was arrested Sept. 8 under the name "John Doe" at the Plantation home he shares with Randi. He was charged with using the name, date of birth and Social Security number of a New York man to travel the world on a United States passport first issued to him in 1987.

The Venezuelan native's trial on the federal charges, which are punishable by up to 12 years in prison, was set to begin as soon as next week, but his attorney, Susan Dmitrovsky, won a postponement until January while she negotiates a plea deal with prosecutors.

The guy got a sweet plea deal--six months of house arrest, three years probation. If he was the companion of Joe Sixpack, he'd be doing time in the federal pen, after which he'd be deported to VZ. It's who ya know...!

[backscatter712]

146. So is Randi himself guilty of any crimes, or is he just guilty of helping out a friend facing jail?

Chances are if it was one of your good friends facing jail and deportation, even if he'd been caught dead to rights, you might put in a good word for the judge, or help out with the attorney bills.

What has Randi himself done? Don't speculate. Document. What has Randi himself done?

[MADem]

163. This wasn't simply a good friend.

It was his domestic partner, his boyfriend, who worked for him under a DIFFERENT NAME previously. They were together for decades, not days or weeks or months.

He knew. He was a knowing accessory to this guy's identity theft. Here, a member of the "skeptical" community (ya learn something new every day) lays it out for you:

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33025

So Randi knew him as David Pena. And then Randi lived with him as Jose Alvarez for many years.


Another discussion on the same subject: http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14826 This comment has a cite, down in the weeds:

The judge was satisfied only after hearing Pena and Randi testify under oath. Randi told the judge he had seen Pena's Venezuelan passport years ago. Pena said he used the fraudulent U.S. passport to travel Europe.


When you know of a crime and don't report it, that makes you an accessory. And that's what he was, and is.

It is problematic for a guy who trades in exposing frauds to be the knowing accessory to an act of fraud, himself. At the least, it makes him a bit of a .... hypocrite.

Unless we're in the business of ranking fraud, and deciding which frauds are good, and which are not so good...

There's just plenty of bullshitting to go around, IMO.

[backscatter712]

199. OK, so he's gay and has an undocumented immigrant boyfriend. Why should we disrespect him? n/t

[MADem]

202. Not because he's gay. Not even because he has an "undocumented immigrant boyfriend."

Who the fuck thinks like that? Why did you even post that? Indictment by inference? It wouldn't matter if his boyfriend was a girlfriend, if that's what you're trying to insinuate.

He did knowingly participate in a cover-up and facilitated this guy's identity theft.

He knew what his name was and what his nationality was. He knew the guy had a 'bad' passport and identity. He lived with the guy for over twenty years--he didn't claim ignorance; he testified to the judge that he saw the guy's original passport from VZ.

He was dishonest. When people are dishonest they can't claim the high ground as 'fraud debunkers' when they engage in fraudulent activity themselves.

[backscatter712]

207. What he did was protect a loved one from deportation.

There are millions of undocumented people living in this country who have to do the same damned thing that Randi and his boyfriend did, because if they didn't, they'd be forcibly separated from each other. Millions of families are torn apart, and the one thing that keeps them together is if the undocumented person in the family does something like identity theft, just to be able to find a job and work.

Our immigration system is brain-damaged, racist and creates an entire underclass of "illegal" people.

Perhaps you're insinuating that Randi should have been a good German and ratted him out for deportation and possible homophobic violence in his home country?

The more I look at this case, the more I think it likely I would have done the same thing Randi did.

[MADem]

209. What he did was participate in a fraud, and make life a living hell for the real owner of the name.

It's not like he couldn't have helped the guy without resorting to theft. Knowing about it, covering it up, travelling with the guy on phony papers all those years.

Please. Born at night, not last night. There are ways to get around that stuff--especially if the person had a J-O-B and an employer.

And Randi's boyfriend had those. He had a VERY well-known employer who could pay him sufficiently so that he'd not be a drag on society.

I'm not insinuating anything--I'm saying, quite clearly, that the guy should have applied for citizenship a long time ago, not waited until he was in a fix and his passport and visa had expired.

[forestpath]

118. Yep, he's guilty of fraud and deception himself.

[Chiyo-chichi]

140. I think he's pretty well respected in the magic community.

And as for your bet that if Randi had had a more successful career in magic, he wouldn't have gone into the debunking business... ever hear of this guy?

[MADem]

149. Well, it's probably not appropriate to compare him to Houdini.

Sure, they're both supernatural claims debunkers, but Houdini also practiced his escapology and magic until the day he died--that was his bread and butter. He was an extremely physical performer.

Of course, Randi is old now but even when he was young I never saw him getting as physical as Houdini did, even back in his earlier years on Carson. He wasn't the Hardest Working Man in the Magic Biz, ever. He debunked parlor tricks, mostly, the "pick a card, any card" shit, Uri Geller doing the spoon bending, or the Carnac The Magnificent type "message in an envelope" cons.

I'll bet if he started telling the trade secrets of the popular illusionists they wouldn't like him quite so much.

[Chiyo-chichi]

154. I wasn't comparing Randi to Houdini.

You said of Randi "I'm betting if he had become a top tier magic man, he wouldn't be in this line of work he's in now."

I simply pointed out that the top tier magic man of all time was also a debunker. So there you go.

And by the way, exposing mediums was as much Houdini's bread & butter as anything in the 20s. Often his act was half magic and half expose.

And I'll say again that I believe that Randi is fairly universally respected in the magic community.

[MADem]

156. But debunking wasn't his bread and butter, as I noted--it was more like a sideline, whereas, with

this Randi feller, it's the Main Event.

People didn't come to hear Houdini debunk--that was "filler" to justify the ticket price.

The people came to watch Houdini die in a tank of water. They came for the drama, the ticking clock, the danger, the possibility of him expiring right there before their eyes...so they could say "I was there!!!!"--not for a demonstration of "Here's how so-and-so pretends to do such-n-such." That's fluff.

Again, he'll be "respected" amongst magicians so long as he doesn't give away their best illusions.

[Chiyo-chichi]

162. It wasn't fulff in the 1920s when the Spiritualism Movement was flourishing.

They did indeed come to hear him debunk. It packed in audiences.

And it wasn't a sideline when Houdini would attend a spiritualist's show in disguise, stand up mid-show, rip off his disguise, and expose the spiritualist's methods. It was a mission about which he was passionate. There was as much drama in that as in the water torture cell or the milk can escape.

[MADem]

165. How many would "pack in" if he didn't end the night locked in a trunk or upside-down in a tank?

Come on...we know the answer to that.

He may have been "passionate" but it was NOT how he 'made' his money. He made his money doing very physical, frightening things that got the adrenalin of the crowd going.

And that is what most people think of when they think "Houdini"--they think "escape artist," not "Carnac debunker."

[Logical]

179. Are you claiming Randi was art of a cover-up? Please be clear. So criminal? n-t

[MADem]

185. Before you continue to waste EVERYONE's time here, I would suggest you get off your behind and

read the links that are cited throughout this thread. It's not a claim. It's proven.

Randi ADMITTED that he knew the guy was using a fake name--to a FEDERAL JUDGE.

He ADMITTED that his domestic partner once went by another name, and that he saw the guy's Venezuelan passport.

He was an accessory to the deception--he travelled with the guy, knowing he was using a passport in a name and nationality that wasn't his. He knew that his boyfriend was using fake documentation.

Now, go read the links. Read the ones about his "Million Dollar Challenge" too. The guy is not all that. There's fraud a-plenty to go around.

[Logical]

189. Please name the pseudo-science you think scientists would accept as truth. One that....

would pass a scientific study.

[MADem]

196. WTF are you talking about? Now, you're babbling and changing the subject.

I gave you specific instances of fraud. I am not interested in exploring the collected histories or theoretical approaches to matters of science or paranormal activity with regard to either individual being discussed here. AFAIAK, they're BOTH entertainers with sketchy records when it comes to veracity.

Fraud is fraud, and like I said, there's plenty of it to go around.

[Logical]

197. Really? So you think Randi and Brown are equally frauds? I bet you are a woo woo fan!! n-t

[MADem]

205. Yes, I do think that a fraud is a fraud, but the one with the woowoo here isn't me.

You not only can't read people, you shouldn't bet--you'll lose your shirt.

[Logical]

219. LOL, so all I got out of you in this thread is.....

Sylvia Brown = James Randi. Doubt many people in the USA agree with that twisted logic.
And Randi is a a criminal who has never been charged with a crime.
If Randi made a mistake on the roommate and lets say ONE mistake on one PSI study, he still debunked 1000s of idiots.
His ratio of debunking vs. Brown's ratio of predictions, I pick Randi. You think they are equal.

I think the ass kicking you took from everyone maybe surprised you.

[MADem]

221. Randi didn't make a mistake--he cut a deal.

And no one is charging the psychic with a crime, are they?

Why? Because she never forced anyone to give her money.

It's not a contest, you know.

I haven't taken an "ass kicking" from anyone--but then, I keep forgetting. You cannot read people. Your screen name is the opposite of your conduct here, too.

[Logical]

222. LOL, Randi = Browne and you "can read people". n-t

[MADem]

223. No, I said you CAN'T read people. Follow along, now! nt

[Logical]

191. I said criminal? What crime did he commit? n-t

[MADem]

193. He's an accessory to identity theft, a federal crime.

He wasn't indicted, but he admitted that he knew in federal court.

[Logical]

195. LOL, so no charges. But he is a criminal? Deep thinker I see. n-t

[MADem]

200. He absolutely is a criminal. He broke a law, and he could be vulnerable to federal charges, if

the DOJ wanted to bother. I'm betting his advanced age and willingness to testify truthfully about his boyfriend's real name and Venezuelan passport didn't hurt when the rubber met the road.

If it were your identity that had been stolen, if the IRS was hounding YOU for years for unpaid taxes, if you had to miss your sister's Caribbean wedding because "Randi's" boyfriend took out a passport in your name, I don't think you'd be "LOL" ing.... but it's all hilarious when it is someone else's misery, is that it?

And "deep thinker?" Really? That's your "insult?" Because you just couldn't have a conversation--you HAD to include the snark and the slam, didn't you?

Did it make you feel cool to flip that retort off?

Like a real tough guy, eh?

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, now.

[Logical]

201. Temper temper. So Brown who steals $1000s from sad depressed people = Randi. Yes. Deep Thinker! n-t

[MADem]

203. You really cannot read people!

Temper?

I am, I'm sorry to admit, chucking a bit at you. You're behaving like a piqued and pouting teen.

Pssst--it's not a becoming look for you, just saying...

[Logical]

21. Please expand on your bullshit comment! Details please! What...

Is wrong with Randi?

[MotherPetrie]

35. He's nothing but a huckster. Just like Browne.

[backscatter712]

48. You still have yet to back up your claims! n/t

[MattBaggins]

72. How is he a huckster? just one example please

[Logical]

170. Lol, examples? I will be waiting! n-t

[SidDithers]

31. "She's a fraud"...

There, I fixed it for you.

Sid

[MotherPetrie]

36. "Randi and Browne are both self-promoting frauds." There I fixed it for you.

[SidDithers]

38. ROFL. I'd expect no less from you...

Sid

[Bradical79]

56. You are being dishonest.

It's very easy to explain how Browne is a fraud. You on the other hand can't do the same with Randi. You won't even attempt it.

[MADem]

100. Google Jose Luis Alvarez.

That was a big fraud to the guy whose identity was stolen--apparently he missed his sister's wedding because he couln't get a passport. Randi was in the thick of that mess, knew about it, and used his name and reputation to get the guy a reduced sentence.

[William Seger]

119. Really?

> Randi was in the thick of that mess, knew about it, and used his name and reputation to get the guy a reduced sentence.

Are you psychic, too. or is guilt by association just the best you can do?

[MADem]

123. More than association--they lived together.

They worked together while the guy was using a completely different name, too.

He was either in the thick of it, or he is beyond stupid.

I don't think he's stupid.

At the end of it all, Randi claimed that the guy "didn't do any harm" and that's why he deserved a light sentence.

I say tell that to the guy whose identity was stolen, who was denied a passport and thus unable to attend a family wedding. If I were that guy, I'd think about suing for some very real damages.

[Logical]

180. Publish your name on this post. I am sure Randi would like to sue you! n-t

[MADem]

182. What, pray tell, will he sue me about? Repeating stuff that's in all the newspapers? nt

[backscatter712]

192. So Randi's guilty of little more than being gay and having an undocumented immigrant boyfriend.

You act like I should disrespect him for this.

[MADem]

208. No. You need to read his testimony to the judge. He admitted knowedge of the identity theft.

It's really interesting how you're throwing out this "gay" and "undocumented immigrant" meme.

Surely YOU don't have a problem with that, do you? Because you keep tossing it out like you think it is bait.

Makes me wonder why you would do that--or would think anyone would rise to it. What kind of people do you hang out with?

[edhopper]

228. Yes i read it

he thought the person whose identity he adopted was dead and he did do to escape a life threatening existence in Venezuela.

Your absolute proof that Randi is every bit as bad as Browne is just a load of steaming crap.

[MADem]

231. So stealing from the DEAD is an "excuse" to you! Now we know your moral compass!

I think the funeral director had best not leave you alone with Aunt Millie, then...!

He didn't even TRY to apply for asylum; he just went straight to ripping off an innocent victim and making the guy's life miserable for over two decades.

And your last nasty little sentence--like most of your others directed at me-- is really "alert worthy"---but I don't stoop to that sort of childish or petty level, not even to shut someone up.

I leave your comments be, so that everyone can see them and know you for what you are.

[edhopper]

241. And you continue to equate

Randi thinking his dear friend using a (presumed) dead persons ID with a perpetual scammer and con artist like Browne.

It's really revealing you keep minimizing all Browne has done her whole life and making this on incident to end all and be all of Randi's career.

Let me know when Brown wins a MacArthur Fellowship.

[MADem]

247. Over two decades he was a party to fraud. And if he could do that, he could also lie

about knowing if the real Jose Alvarez was dead or not. He has broken trust.

Who's 'minimizing all Browne has done?'

She asks for money to tell people bullshit and people pay her. They've seen her operate on TV. They know what they are getting. She does not steal it from them. She does not take it without telling them her price up front. Obviously, her customers love to hear her stories, otherwise they'd be lining up on television and on the internet to complain about how terrible a "psychic" she was.

The only complaints I am hearing about her are from people who NEVER USED HER SERVICES. Even the family of the kidnapped woman won't say a bad word about her, despite your efforts to paint her in a bad light.

And she never advertised herself as a "fraud debunker."

If she had, that would be a very different situation.

Look, you can call what she does bullshit, but I think some people regard it as therapy. Why? Because it is based on THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM. It's a belief system that The Amazing Fraudster doesn't share, so he denigrates it.

One thing I've learned about people who believe in different things, calling them names isn't going to persuade them to change their course. Randi, who has shown himself to be a party to fraud while purporting to debunk it, is only preaching to the choir. And as for raking in the dough, check out the prices to attend his "The Amazing Meeting" -- an annual event. He gets five hundred bucks from every sucker attendee at that thing--and that's before they start attending the pay-to-go parties and buy souveniers. Talk about a payday!

I don't think Browne wants a MacArthur Fellowship. I don't think she deserves one, either. But I don't think she's stealing anything from her customers--they know what the price is, and what they're going to get, BEFORE they take out their checkbook.

Jose Alvarez, a teacher's aide from the Bronx, NY, never knew what hit him...for over twenty frigging years. He was NOT GIVEN A CHOICE. And Randi was a party to that. There's no getting away from it.

[edhopper]

249. Your response

clarifies how you view the work of Randi and the corrupt scamming of Browne.
Nice priorities on who you support.

Now we know.

[MADem]

250. Yes, it does. I think he's a hypocrite, and a fraudster. If he can lie about that one big thing,

then he's no paragon of virtue or "truth-telling." Everything he's said and done is now suspect and irrevocably tainted. His actions demonstrate that his character is very questionable. What else has he done to "get his way?" By his actions we know him.

As for Browne, she bullshits people, too, and she always has--we've seen her do it on television for decades, now. But she doesn't steal from them unawares or force them to give her money--they write a check of their own free will, knowing exactly what they're getting (or not getting, depending on one's perspective).

I won't give a red cent to either one, so take from that what you will. I think my priorities are entirely appropriate. I really don't care for thieves--and I think identity thieves are amongst the lowest of the low.

[Dorian Gray]

254. I have no problem with what you think of him

but in your attacks on him, you're really skimming over the fact that Browne is a trickster and fraud. She focuses on grieving people to earn her money. It's much worse that what you purport Randi has done.

[MADem]

259. I am not attacking him. Recounting what he did--serving as an accomplice to fraud--is not

an 'attack.' I am not skimming over Browne's "sins" either--I'm simply saying she puts her stuff out there, not that I'd buy it (I have a discerning eye), and people ARE given a choice. Jose from the Bronx had no choice. That was wrong. You're trying to infer that one rip-off artist is somehow better than the other--I don't buy that one bit, in fact, when someone stakes their reputation on being "anti-fraud," it's extreme irony when they participate in that kind of conduct.

It's also ironic that in defense of someone who purports to be a skeptic, interested in only the "truth," that the truth seems to hurt his champions so much, to the point that anyone who dares point out what the guy did gets the business. Some of the nasty and foul-mouthed comments directed right at me in this thread are very illustrative and they don't cover the Randi cheerleaders in anything suggesting glory.

I never paid much attention to him before this, but the visceral anger I'm getting for daring to criticize this guy who advertised himself as a Fraud Exposer for participating in what absolutely was a fraud makes me wonder if he's something akin to a cult leader.

IMO, at the least, his "brand" has been irrevocably sullied.

[Dorian Gray]

261. Like I said

I don't care about him all that much. Sure, he supported his loved one's fraudulent activities. That sucks. I get it.

I just see Brown as more than a dishonest entertainer. Perhaps it's because my Mother In Law went to a psychic after my sister in law was hit by a car and killed last autumn. They offer "answers" the "comfort" the remaining family members. And they do it to make a buck. It's preying on grief in order to make money. Some are more manipulative than others.

In theory, I have no problem allowing adults to spend their money on what they want. But when you see the people who want a medium to help them? They are a vast majority grieving. People who are desperate for answers and don't know where to turn. Taking advantage of that is horrible. And that's why this story has hit so many people negatively.

I don't think she should be arrested or sued. But if this opens people's eyes to psychics and mediums to show that they're nothing more than fraudsters, I'm happy.

[MADem]

266. Of course they are manipulative. Plastic surgeons are, too. So are people who sell self-help

books, or get-rich-quick books, or Scientology books....buy my book, it will change your life! And people do buy the book, they read it, they want more. Idiots line up around the block to go to "seminars" where the things they believe are reinforced by a charismatic leader.

PT Barnum said it--There's one born every minute. There's not a damn thing any of us can do about it. Adults are adults, and some have a strong internal desire to "believe"--in Sylvia Browne's ability, or in the "rightness" of James Randi's grousing. They both have acolytes who are parted from their cash on a regular basis, make no mistake. They're both all about the Benjamins. But we can't tell grown-ups what's good for them. That's what being an adult is all about. And some adults get something out of these interactions, the same way people "get something" out of a visit to the witch doctor in primitive societies.

However, there's a difference between being a charlatan who sells either belief in the supernatural (with expensive "individual readings&quot or "I Am The Way and The Light" Skepticism (and the five hundred dollar seminars that suckers line up to attend) and actually stealing someone's identity, and/or aiding and abetting that activity. Both of these elderly people might well be con artists and shit-sellers, but only one helped someone to steal an innocent man's identity. And the one who did that is the guy who is telling everyone else how "opposed to fraudsters" he is. It's a cognitive dissonance problem.

[Dorian Gray]

274. I have nothing else to argue about here

bc I'm not a fan of Randi. The only thing I know about him is what's been written about in this thread. I just despise psychics personally because one has tried to take advantage of my family in a time of deep grieving. It took a lot of convincing on my part and my husband's for my MIL not to invite the woman into her home.

[edhopper]

74. Obviuosly a believer in woo

who is mad that Randi exposed the bullshit behind her belief.

[Javaman]

79. so far you have provided nothing in the way to back up your claim...

however, there is countless evidence to support the fact that browne is nothing but a bullshit artist.

I would love to see, like many have asked you here, to provide proof of your claims against Randi.

we are all waiting.

[EOTE]

85. Randi always provides proof to back up his assertions.

You provide nothing of the sort, not even an attempt. Until you provide even an inkling of what upsets you about Randi rather than your words which are devoid of any context or meaning, people will continue to think what they will of him. Educated people understand that he's a fraud fighter. The more ignorant tend to dislike him because he attacks their favorite pseudoscience.

[Orsino]

116. Pull any page from any of Randi's writing...

...and you'll find more service to humanity than in the public output of any thousand so-called psychics. "Both sides do it" fails in this context, as it does most other places on this site.

[backscatter712]

39. Expand on this. How is James Randi not awesome?

He's got huge skeptic cred, having debunked Yuri Geller, Peter Popoff and countless other hucksters.

[Occulus]

44. She can't, that's why she's cowardly failed to respond to ANYone asking that

All she can do is make the claim. She can't back it up with one single thing.

Which puts her in same column as... Sylvia Browne, and all that attaches to her. Maybe she'll self-delete the posts and thus complete the comparison.

[MADem]

101. How do you know the poster is still online? Just because you are doesn't mean

that the poster hasn't logged off and gone to do 'real world' things.

Calling someone "cowardly" is really uncivil. This is just a discussion about a psychic who shot off her mouth, and a guy who makes a very healthy living as a debunker (who used to make his money deceiving people himself, with magic tricks), and nothing more.

Throwing dramatic insults around, and demanding "self deletes" is just dumb and rude--who would want to respond to you when you're being so snippy and shitty?

[Bradical79]

49. I don't see what's wrong with Randy

Please explain?

[Brother Buzz]

73. James Randi would totally agree with you

[Dorian Gray]

10. They are parasites

feeding on other's pain. My mother in law saw a psychic shortly after my sister in law passed in October. I got angry at the obvious manipulation and fishing this woman did, and made MIL promise not to see her again.

I don't want to go into the crazy claims she made bc it boils my blood pressure. But they are charlatans and feed on the pain of the grieving.

[justiceischeap]

11. The thing about Brown and her popularity is this

People who believe in her, need to because she is their hope. If she tells them their person is alive, they don't have to believe the unbelievable. I know that isn't the case with Amanda Berry and her mother but for others it is.

Psychics are no more than a therapist to most people. They develop relationships with their psychics and in some ways that's helpful to that person. A good "psychic" gives general life advice tailored for that person and it can be helpful if followed as it's given... advice.

[Posteritatis]

12. When are we going to start seeing psychics nailed with fraud charges? (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

14. And newspaper horoscopes too.

I can't tell you how many times I expected to meet someone new, or experience a positive development at my job, and it simply hasn't happened.

[Logical]

23. So true. and idiots still believe it!

[RebelOne]

59. Well, newspaper horoscopes are only for fun. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

63. NOW you tell me. (nt)

[MADem]

64. Never. There's always a caveat to their work that says something like

"For entertainment purposes only" or something like that.

That said, I think everyone's psychic--some people most certainly bullshit, and pretend to be able to "read minds," but I think everyone has had a psychic or paranormal moment or two in their lives.

It's when people try to make money off it that I think it becomes problematic.

[siligut]

91. I pretty much agree with you

So many factors come into play, but taking money from people seems to throw dirt on any ability and then the deviousness begins.

[Blue_Tires]

126. You might as well charge David Copperfield for fraud

when it is proven he doesn't use "real" magic

[Berlum]

134. Right after the weather forecasters are nailed with fraud

Someone did a study a few years back. The newspaper astro columns were statistically much more accurate than newspaper weather forecasts.

[edhopper]

148. A study somewhere some time back, WOW!

Can't argue with that.

Of course the astro columns seem accurate, ever hear of the Barnum effect?

BTW Astrology has been shown to lack any accvuracy.

http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/horoscopes-fun-but-utterly-fallible-25533/

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034263.html

See I actually sit the studies.

[Posteritatis]

168. Yeeeah, I'm calling bullshit on that claim. (nt)

[Katashi_itto]

15. Thanks for posting this! I am using the concept as a motivator for a scientist in a script that I

am finishing for a supernatural thriller.

This is perfect. I was wondering what would be a good motive for my protagonist.

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. How dare that woman sully the sterling reputation of...psychics.

I mean, give me a fucking break, DU. You're holding
someone like her accountable?

Show of hands: how many of you have pending litigation
against the Guess Your Weight guy at the carnival, after
rejecting his out of court settlement offer of a snowglobe?

[edhopper]

18. Of course she is a

reprehensible fraud. But our ire should be turned to any in the media who legitimize her by airing her bullshit.

[MADem]

76. Well, Justin Beiber tells everyone he's a "singer"....but I take issue with that.

I don't think the poor little kid can sing to save his life. He sounds like a cat with his paw caught in the door.


He also calls himself an "entertainer." I am not entertained!!!

Yet television airs his crap, because there are some people out there who want to see it.

Where should I file my lawsuit?

I think people should go to the court of the remote, and push the button, and make all the crap they don't want to see disappear from the screen!

[edhopper]

82. Where in my post do I say anything about a lawsuit

I simply point out that legitimate broadcasters, as people like Larry King and CNN claim they are, have no place giving air time and promoting frauds like Browne.

[MADem]

99. Well, what's a better way to "express our ire" as you put it?

Shall we write strongly worded letters? They'll wipe their asses on them. So long as ratings are good, your "ire" and two bucks will get you a cheap cuppa coffee.

But lawsuits...! Lawsuits get the attention of people!

Seriously, though, Larry King has had more idiots on his show than can be named in a brief post; Sylvia Browne, like Randi James, are ENTERTAINERS. If you are not entertained, change the doggone channel.

Caveat emptor all around. Your remote is your friend!

[edhopper]

135. Your continued comparison of Randi and Browne

are insulting and just full of shit.
Your limited view of what can be done is myopic.
I guess you just want us all to drink a big cup of STFU.

[MADem]

137. Because you say so? Look at yourself!

You're MAD....because I am not cheering for your team! (Here is a hint, Bright Eyes--I am not cheering for the "other" team either...).

You say I am "full of shit" because I won't give you the old Plus One or the Thumbs Up!!!

You call my "view" ..."limited" and "myopic"... only because I don't AGREE with you!



Then you say that I want you to drink a big cup of STFU when I didn't say any such thing!

You're just a huge barrel of can't-discuss-anything sunshine today, aren't you?

You also are in the running for the rudest, crudest, most uncivil post on this thread!

Heckuva job, sport!

[edhopper]

144. Jeez

[img][/img]

[MADem]

155. Why are you showing me your lapel label, you rude fellow, you!

I don't need to see that to see you coming a mile away!

Your comments are unintentionally hilarious. I know you don't want to hear that, but it's the truth. Even your rank rudeness is amusing, in a kind of sad and "clueless" way.

I'm sorry you don't have friends. Maybe if you're a bit more cheery, and perhaps a bit less nasty towards others, you'll make some, eventually, one day....

[edhopper]

174. just

[img][/img]

[MADem]

178. Don't cry. Try being nicer to people, instead of insulting them for no reason or cause.

It's what adults do, you know.

[LanternWaste]

19. almost as odd as who we choose not to hold accountable.

"ive me a fucking break, DU. You're holding someone like her accountable?..."

Almost as odd as who we choose not to hold accountable...

[Logical]

24. Really? Tat is your comparison? n-t

[Dreamer Tatum]

88. Yeah, really.

Both rely on stupidity and suspended disbelief.

[blogslut]

97. I once stumped the guess-my-age guy at the State Fair

I won a framed unicorn/rainbow print. It was awesome.

[progressoid]

20. I told our local library that they should put her books in the fiction section.

The librarian didn't get it.

[edhopper]

29. They are self help

in that she helps herself to a lot of scammed money.

[Nye Bevan]

28. Her website has been closed due to unforeseen circumstances (nt)

[polly7]

30. When we lost our Karley from complications with an illness, we were beyond desperate.

My sister actually contacted Syvia Browne just for anything she could give us letting us know he was 'ok'. Of course she never got back to us, but we spent night after night trying to find anyone that could help us understand he really wasn't just gone. Not being a religious family, it's very difficult to lose someone without hope they're in a better place. After reading up on some of the scammers I'm so damn glad we never met with one, as I believe it would have made the whole situation worse, if that were possible. I hate that Sylvia Browne took that last bit of hope from Louwanna Miller, and I 100% agree that broken hearts kill.

[William Seger]

80. Browne would have charged you $850 for a phone "reading"

... which would have a half-hour of "cold reading" (trying to convince you that she was getting information from the deceased when she was really getting it from you), followed by assurances that everything is cool on the "other side."

[Buzz Clik]

32. Isn't "silent" best? Who asked her opinion in the first place?

We're a nation of idiots.

[leftyladyfrommo]

37. This wasn't Sylvia Browne's fault.

She didn't cause these women to be kidnapped or hurt. I don't understand why so much anger is being blasted her way.

She is an entertainer. I don't care for her. I don't believe in her. But a lot of people think she is entertaining. And I doubt that very many people actually believe in her predictions. She's wrong so much of the time that it should be obvious that she doesn't know anything about anything. If you watch her on Montel she is never right. The people she gives answers to just stand there silent, shaking their heads because none of what she says makes any sense to them.

Granted, she should have just stayed out of something so serious. It was dumb and thoughtless to tell the families of these people stuff when she had no idea what had really happened. It was grandstanding.

But she didn't cause these women to be abducted and held prisoner.

People need to aim all their anger at the men who did this.

[backscatter712]

41. She's a parasite that feeds off the vulnerable. Case in point: Amanda's mother. n/t

[sibelian]

43. I think we can be angry with lots of things at once.

We can be angry with the kidnappers and Sylvia Browne at the same time, I think. If two different people do two different bad things then I think it's okay to be disturbed by both of the bad things.

[Dorian Gray]

51. If she's performing

as a medium, speaking to people in the beyond? That's not entertainment. That's feeding on people's grief to make a buck.

And it's despicable.

[redqueen]

93. +1

[Blue_Tires]

128. despicable, yes, but it IS her job...

No different from faith healers, etc. etc...

I must be different, because in my 36 years I've never, ever, ever seen the role of "psychics" or "mediums" as anything other than "separate suckers from their $$$$$"

I never knew there were modern people who ever treated those folks as genuine and credible...

[Dorian Gray]

131. I've said it elsewhere in this thread

the people most vulnerable to them are people who have lost people close to them. My mother in law was introduced to a psychic within a month of my sister in law passing away this past Fall. I was horrified at the crap she told me the psychic told her. It was all bullshit trying to separate her from her money, but it was all stuff she wanted to hear.

She implied that my sister in law had money hidden and she would help her find it for a fee. She told my mother in law all the things a mother wants to hear about her dead daughter, to try to get money from her. And my MIL didn't see it. This is how they work.

And they are trying to separate suckers from their money. That's exactly what they are doing. But people grieving aren't truly suckers. They're grieving and looking for answers and closure and peace. They are hoping to hear that their child/parent/spouse/friend/family member isn't in pain or hurting.

Their job is to be a scam artist and scam people out of their money.

[Bradical79]

58. It's not entertainment

It may be entertaining to some, but that clearly isn't her intent.

[MADem]

111. Her intent is to make money. Like Cher. Or Justin Beiber. Or the Amazing Randi.

All of whom are entertainers.

None of whom do it out of the goodness of their hearts, unless it can be written off as a tax break.

[Orrex]

60. "People need to aim all their anger at the men who did this. "

No one has argued otherwise. The men are vile and deserve the full punishment allowed by law.

However, Sylvia Browne is also vile in a different way, exploiting the fears and pain of countless people reaching for answers. She passes herself off not as an entertainer (as you suggest) but as an actual psychic, and she rakes in tons of money from the credulous and the desperate.

She is a parasite, a charlatan, and a thief, and in the current case she lied to the now deceased mother of one of the victims, purely for her own gain. It is entirely appropriate to be angry at Browne even while we are angry at the men who imprisoned their victims.

[JoDog]

67. I do believe it is possible

for some people to be able to perceive the world in a way that is different or more acute than that of the majority of the population. To me, it's like the difference between a normal AM/FM radio and a HAM radio: they operate on the same principles, but one can communicate on more frequencies than the other.

In human beings, we call such things "psychic abilities". I have had too many personal experiences with them to deny that such exists. What disgusts me is when people pretend to have those abilities or pretend to have stronger powers than they really do and purposefully start fleecing vulnerable people.

I have a dear friend who I believe has some psychic ability. She refuses to get involved in missing persons cases or anything that involves contacting the dead. The chance that she could cause damage to the missing person's or deceased's loved ones is simply too great. As she views it, such things are reckless.

Browne, however, apparently takes a very different view. She does cold reads (watch a few episodes of the TV show "The Mentalist"--it gives a better explanation than I can here) and goes with probability. She has no problem reading for highly charged and emotional cases. Browne, if she has any at all, uses her gifts irresponsibly.

[William Seger]

81. $850 for a half-hour of "entertainment"? (n/t)

[MADem]

125. Some people pay more for less time with a prostitute.

That's "entertainment" of a sort, too.

George Bush gets way more than that for a brief speech in front of a bunch of corporate bozos. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/20/bush_rakes_in_speaking_fees.html

That's "entertainment," too! So they say....

[EOTE]

89. No, she just exploited and sickened her loved ones for profit.

If we can't react to horrible, sickening, disgusting people like Browne without hearing defenses like "Hey, at least she's not a rapist and murderer.", we're truly fucked as a country. And you are very wrong. If a good number of people didn't believe in her predictions, she wouldn't have a career fucking over those same ignorant jackasses.

[MADem]

129. Oh, stop making sense!

The game is afoot! The Poutragers are playing the IreMeisters at the DU Stadium, the score is tied, and the spectators are lusting for blood!!!



Far be it from us to inject any reason into the conversation...a side must be taken, pom-poms must be waved, and a team must be cheered on... We're Number One, You're Number Two!!!

[markpkessinger]

171. Nobody here has accused Ms. Browne of causing the women to be kindapped or hurt . . .

. . . So, let's dispense with that straw man, shall we? People are criticizing Browne over what she did to Amanda Berry's mother: she took away a desperate mother's last hope. It takes a special kind of vile to do that. She didn't have to pretend to have knowledge she didn't have. But then, if she had honestly said, "I don't know," it might have caused people to begin to realize she was running a scam. More generally, we are criticizing Browne for what she does to desperate, grieving people all the time: she exploits their grief for personal gain.

To be clear, I don't entirely discount the possibility of psychic phenomena (although I think if they do exist, there is nothing supernatural about them at all, but rather that they simply have not yet been understood or explained). I know someone -- a person who is almost like a sister to me -- who claims to have some psychic abilities (which she claims she inherited from her mother). I can't say for sure, other than that I have witnessed some rather uncanny things where this person is concerned. My friend is from, and lives in, Melbourne, Australia. She belongs to a group of folks who likewise believe themselves to be endowed with psychic abilities. But their group maintains, as a matter of ethics, a strice refusal by any of its members to ever accept any kind of payment in exchange for information they obtain using these abilities. As she put it to me once, "We believe these abilities are gifts to be used for the betterment of humanity; they are not ours to profit from." She added that she, and members of her organization, regard it has a hallmark of a fraudster to take any kind of personal gain from the use of purported psychic abilities.

[Iggo]

233. You think it's entertaining to be told that your kidnapped daughter is dead?

Or just to watch someone being told that?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. I would just assume never buy into people like Browne

I can see that people want to believe, to have somebody be able to tell them *something* so that they can be at peace. People don't like unanswered questions and are desperate for somebody to give them answers and people like Sylvia Browne help fill that void. Unfortunately, it can lead to situations like this when they are ripped off, exploited, and/or given- like in this case- simply wrong answers by people whom really have no special abilities and/or answers.

[treestar]

46. We all make mistakes

No one can be perfect in their professional performance!

Especially in her "profession."

[forestpath]

47. Sylvia Browne is a fraud, and I see zero difference between her and any other religion.

[William Seger]

84. Big difference: She KNOWS she's a fraud

That's why she won't take the Million Dollar Challenge.

[forestpath]

122. That's beside the point. It's about providing PROOF and NO belief system can do that.

[bigwillq]

50. I don't understand how any one can really believe

any of these TV personalities. They only want your money.

[MADem]

55. Not defending this psychic, but she did qualify the comment with

"Your daughter's not the kind who wouldn't call."

In other words, she's saying that the child wouldn't deliberately run away and leave the mother worrying. I think the focus on most youngsters, when they disappear as teens from their homes, is that they're headed for some anonymous city where they will live under a bridge or somewhere--at least that's how the TV shows shop it.

[LisaL]

61. She "clarified" that after saying "She is not alive, honey."

Which her mother unfortunatley believed.

[MADem]

77. Well, the mother is dead now, and it's impolite to speak ill of the dead.

But suffice it to say that people make choices, and she chose to take advice from this particular woman, for whatever reason. She maybe should have tried the "Crossing Over" guy, or the Long Island one.

There's no lawsuit there. There's no "Standards and Practices" or license process for psychics. They're ENTERTAINERS. Like Wayne Newton. Like Justin Beiber. You can't sue them when they suck, either.

[LisaL]

86. I am not suggesting that there is a lawsuit here.

I am suggesting that telling someone their child is dead is a low thing to do.

[MADem]

92. Well, I don't think she did it to be mean or cruel or "low."

I'm betting she believed it to be true.

Now the only issue or question is what the basis of her belief was--a bad hunch? A guess? An assumption about the child's character, taken to what she thought was a logical conclusion?

It takes two to participate in those sorts of interactions.

[MattBaggins]

105. Those two groups

are not operating from the same frame now are they?

[MADem]

107. Well of course not--but they're both in the same "picture."

You have someone seeking psychic intervention on the one hand, and a psychic on the other, and a talk show host.

All three are getting paid. No one is being forced to participate. Everyone wants something out of the interaction. Are some "wants" more "noble" than others? Perhaps. But the entire spectacle involves consenting adults in a voluntary interaction.

People don't go on TV for free, unless they're talking to a reporter on the street for the news.

That's Entertainment!

[MattBaggins]

75. Why is Montel Williams getting a free pass in this

He peddled this fraud for ratings as well. He used people in pain for his own personal gain.

Can't stand Montel either.

[MADem]

102. Because he, like Randi and Sylvia, are "entertainers."

There's no law that says entertainers have to treat the families of grieving people with kid gloves. No one put a gun in their backs and forced them to take an appearance fee and go on that show.

It's entertainment. Take it--all of it--with a large grain of salt.

If it offends, grab the remote.

[MattBaggins]

103. Hmmm is there another option?

I don't know, something crazy like discussing it on a discussion board?

But thanks for your libertarian scolding. Wouldn't have made it through the day without at least one good old fashioned "Libersplainin".

[MADem]

110. I am not going to grab a torch and pitchfork and go after

Montel Williams, who is making a living in his own way, just like Randi James and Sylvia Browne, and not breaking any laws.

What's "libertarian" about refusing to excoriate someone for engaging in a completely legal activity? What's wrong with expecting people to use the judgment they possess to make decisions about who to interact with and what to believe?

See, what's happening here is that I am "discussing it on a discussion board," but you don't like my POV, so you're the one who is "scolding" me.

And that's a bit silly, IMO.

I am not threatened if your opinion differs from mine, you know. You shouldn't get all upset just because my view of this matter differs from yours, but that is what seems to be happening, here.

[tkmorris]

120. Well, he's shilling for Payday loan joints now so...

He clearly has no ethics whatsoever. Nor much of a career.

[MADem]

130. Maybe he needs money to pay his medical bills.

He's a breast cancer survivor with multiple sclerosis.

[Enrique]

188. he shouldn't

he should be held more accountable than the psychic, imo. Along with his production company and all the stations that air his trash.

By accountable i don't mean anything legal, I just mean they should be called out.

[TeeYiYi]

78. "Psychic Defective: Sylvia Browne’s History of Failure"...

There was a time when I was fascinated by Sylvia Browne.
Now I get outraged by her and my blood pressure goes up...

Psychic Defective: Sylvia Browne’s History of Failure

Ryan Shaffer and Agatha Jadwiszczok
Volume 34.2, March / April 2010

The most extensive study of alleged psychic Sylvia Browne’s predictions about missing persons and murder cases reveals a strange discrepancy: despite her repeated claim to be more than 85 percent correct, it seems that Browne has not even been mostly correct about a single case.

<snip>

Browne’s predictions have a history of being wrong or unhelpful. In the course of this research, we examined a variety of sources to study Browne’s involvement with law enforcement. Browne was sometimes paid by families of the victims, charged at least one police department $400, and received money as well as publicity from her appearances on television. She is a member of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and, as reported in 2004, earned a minimum of $847 for each talk show appearance. Yet in all these cases, Browne has never supplied independent proof that she has ever helped law enforcement. More than that, she is repeatedly wrong. During the Sago Mining Disaster, she claimed the miners were alive when they were actually dead. She also said Richard Kneebone was alive in Canada, but his decomposed body was discovered a few days later in California. More recently, she predicted that a 9/11 firefighter was alive, but his body was found in the World Trade Center rubble two weeks later.

Sometimes Browne is not only wrong but also tells suffering families horrible things. In 1999, Browne did a reading for Opal Jo Jennings’ grandmother, who wanted to know what happened to Jennings, a six-year-old abducted from her front yard in Texas. Browne told the grandmother, “She’s . . . not . . . dead. But what bothers me—now I’ve never heard of this before, but for some reason, she was taken and put into some kind of a slavery thing and taken into Japan. The place is Kukouro. Or Kukoura.” Browne was wrong. Child molester Richard Lee Franks was charged with the kidnapping that same year and convicted the following year. Jennings’ remains were discovered in 2003. Medical examiners concluded that “Opal was killed by trauma to the head with[in] several hours of her abduction.”

Missing person Holly Krewson was a similar case, one in which Browne needlessly tainted the memories of a family’s loved one on national television. In 2002, Browne told Holly’s mother, “She is in Los Angeles, and when she was calling you, she was on drugs. But she’s still alive.” Browne also said that the girl was a dancer in an “adult entertainment nightclub,” and “you might get a Christmas card postmarked Los Angeles.” Holly’s family made regular visits to the Los Angeles area, scanning the clubs for their missing loved one, but to no avail. Holly’s mother, Gwendolyn Krewson, died of an aneurysm in 2003. Three years later, Holly’s body was identified. As it turned out, Holly was murdered, and her body was discovered in 1996. The remains were only identified as Holly in 2006, after sitting in the medical examiners office for ten years. Needless to say, Browne was completely wrong in every aspect of the case and hurt an already devastated family.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_defective_sylvia_brownes_history_of_failure/

TYY

[Dash87]

83. Hack! Hack!

Hair ball in my throat.

[Dreamer Tatum]

87. I have the same problem with Punxsutawney Phil

Total fraud. Confiscate whatever twigs he has and toss him in prison.

[galileoreloaded]

90. who gives a shit? nt

[SidDithers]

94. This thread is incomplete...

without SpiralHawk going on about Randi and "scientific materialism".



Sid

[MattBaggins]

104. Calcified scientific materialism

you keep forgetting calcified.

[SidDithers]

106. Last time, I promise...

Next time I'll remember.

Sid

[ScreamingMeemie]

158. What's a real shame is that the perp's of the thread that led to SpiralHawk

(a welcome member of the Sports forum) getting banned were not banned themselves for posting about woo.

And have yet to grow up.

[SidDithers]

160. It's OK. I feel like SpiralHawk is still with us, in some strange, magical way...nt

Sid

[zappaman]

112. Great thread!

The Browne supporters are a hoot!
WOO!
HOO!

[zerosumgame0005]

114. does anyone doubt if Sylvia

had been in Charles Ramsey's place that day those girls would never have been heard from?

[Skip Intro]

127. Statement from Sylvia on this, via her website:

Sylvia's Statement on Amanda Berry
For nearly six decades, Sylvia Browne has dedicated her life to helping others as a spiritual psychic and guide. She has been called upon to assist individuals, families, and law enforcement agencies across the U.S. and Canada on hundreds of high profile criminal investigations. She has received numerous commendations for the positive impact her contributions have provided, resulting in important information and leads that have ultimately led to the closure of major investigations.

"For more than 50 years as a spiritual psychic and guide, when called upon to either help authorities with missing person cases or to help families with questions about their loved ones, I have been more right than wrong. If ever there was a time to be grateful and relieved for being mistaken, this is that time. Only God is right all the time. My heart goes out to Amanda Berry, her family, the other victims and their families. I wish you a peaceful recovery." - Sylvia Browne

Sherry Cole, Amanda Berry's cousin reached out to Sylvia this morning to let her know that she supports her, loves her, knows Sylvia never claims to be 100% right, but wanted to let her know that she was accurate in her description of the perpetrators at the time.

"Our family in no way blames Sylvia. This doesn't change anything. We still love her and believe in her." ­ Sherry Cole

http://www.sylviabrowne.com/amanda-berry

[MADem]

139. UH OH.....the game has been called due to rain on the parade!!!!

The "git Sylvia for being an accessory after the fact" crew will be distraught to hear this!

She needs to be punished along with the Castro Brothers, doncha know!

I think this thread rather Seinfeldian--a lot of stuff about pretty much nothing!!!

[backscatter712]

147. What can I say? This story shows the accuracy level of "psychics".

Brown told Amanda's mother that Amanda was dead. Turns out she wasn't. I'd call that a psychic EPIC FAIL, wouldn't you?

[MADem]

152. Sure. But so what? I have to laugh at everyone getting so poutraged at this old woman...

like she's an associate after the fact and responsible for that woman's death, just because she said that the daughter must be dead because she wasn't the type who wouldn't call her own mother. The family, apparently, agreed that the important piece had to do with the character of the daughter.

There's plenty of hyperbolic bullshitting all round, I'd say! A surfeit of deep ire and anger, over what? People here, apparently, are far more upset and invested in an angry POV than the family that is directly concerned with this matter.

They'll just have to round up the torches and pitchforks and head for the next target....is Dionne Warwick still available? Why didn't she save Whitney? Where were the damn psychic friends when that shit went down? Get her!!!

[EvilAL]

161. I never cared for any of them,

all psychics, from the psychic friends network to miss cleo to John Edwards to van praagh and the list goes on, KNOW they are frauds. People believe them. The problem here is that these people went to Sylvia for HELP and ANSWERS and since Sylvia knows she is full of shit and still had the fucking nerve to say she wasn't alive, when she obviously didn't have a fucking clue, is WRONG!! She shouldn't be allowed to do this to people. The more exposure she gets as being a fraud, the more people stand up for her and start attacking the people exposing her. Sad.

[MADem]

166. Just another day at DU Stadium, where the Battle of the Opposing Forces on Any Frigging Subject

plows on!

If the family of the kidnapped woman doesn't have a problem with Sylvia (and here they are, saying they don't), it's not my job to get all poutraged for them and carry water they don't want carried. If no one cares about the Amazing Randi's participation in immigration fraud and identity theft, same deal.

I will say that it is hypocritical to call one thing "the worst thing EVAH!!!! EVAH, I tell ya!!!" and then try to dismiss the other as "Oh well, he didn't know; the poor guy didn't hurt anyone, blah, blah, bullshit..." when there was very real "hurt" when the guy whose identity was stolen was prevented from attending a family wedding because the fraudster boyfriend of Randi had a passport in his name.

Fraud is fraud. Let the debunker who is without sin cast the first stone!

[edhopper]

175. For someone who "isn't taking sides"

and finds both to be equal frauds. And finds this whole discussion trivial.
You have spent an amazing amount of time here defending Browne, attacking Randi and proclaiming how uninteresting this thread is.

Curious.

[MADem]

181. I am not "defending" Browne at all. And I am not "attacking" Randi either.

Why the need to use such dramatic, hyperbolic language?

I am simply pointing out a few facts.

First, psychics are entertainers. This is a fact. They aren't scientists, there is no federal certification for them. They are booked as ENTERTAINMENT, not medical practitioners. If you want to believe that Doogie Hauser is a real doctor, that's on you.

Second, the kidnapped woman's family has no problem with this psychic. This is fact. They said so, and it's been cited in this thread.

Third, The Amazing Randi has been involved in fraud--this, too, is fact. He admitted he'd seen his domestic partner's Venezuelan passport to a judge. He knew that his boyfriend was using someone else's identity. He's known for twenty years. That's pretty big fraud, if you ask me.

Finally--I never said I found the discussion "trivial." I will say I find it typical. DU Cage Match, with people getting pissed off, shirty, insulting, taking sides, doubling down, and all of that fun shit-flinging--over something that the kidnapped woman and her family don't give a shit about. Using the name and bona fides of another guy who once discredited the woman, like he's some kind of Deciding Oracle, when it turns out he's liar and a fraud himself. Irony, anyone?

What's "curious" is why you want to make this all about me. Over and over again, with your little "Ooooh, here's some adolescent snark" pictures and "full of shit" well....rage-ish comments. Very odd, that. If you don't like my contributions to the thread, put me on ignore or just wave me off. You don't HAVE TO deal with me, or call me names like you've been doing throughout this thread in a most uncivil fashion (notice I don't return the favor, in vain hope that you'll perhaps one day start to model some semblance of civil behavior here--not holding my breath, but hope springs eternal...).

I happen to like facts and context and fairness. I'm not on any "team" here--I'm simply reporting from the sky box above the field.

[LisaL]

184. Amanda's mother is dead.

She is the one who was devastated after "psychic" told her Amanda was dead.
How would she feel about this psychic? I guess we will never know.

[MADem]

186. Oh, and since you were Amanda's mother's very best friend, we should take your word about how

devastated she was, not the relatives of Amanda's mother. I think I'll take their word before yours, thanks anyway.

Please. Give it a rest. And read the links in this thread. Start with the one with the statement from the family.

[LisaL]

198. You don't have to take my word.

There are published reports about Amanda's mother being devastated after psychic told her Amanda was dead.

[MADem]

204. I promise you, I won't. But I will read with interest all these "published reports" just as soon as

you post them for us to read. I'm sure they'll cite the psychic personally as the cause of the her devastation, too, n'est pas?

[LisaL]

210. Here.

"Miller said she returned devastated from the show, taped this month in New York.

“I lost it,” she said.

Miller said she believes “98 percent” in Browne."

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/05/amanda_berry_is_dead_psychic_t.html

[MADem]

217. I guess this was the two percent.

“Please don’t misunderstand me. I still don’t want to believe it. I want to have hope but, after a year and a half, what else is there?” Miller said. “It seems like the God-honest truth. My daughter would always call home.”

[edhopper]

194. And Obama is guilty of treason

because he "hung out" with Bill Ayers.

We've all seen that kind of character assassination.

It also has zero to do with his Challenge or Browne's fraudulent life.

Those are the "facts"

[MADem]

206. You haven't read the links, and the testimony to the federal judge by your hero, have you?

Otherwise you'd know this isn't a question of "association," it's a question of your buddy testifying in federal court to his knowledge of the fraud.

Ooops! Do your homework, now. And quit with the cheap shots--particularly when you are having no success hitting the mark.

[EvilAL]

176. I don't want to debate Randi.

All I think is he's doing the world a service by exposing these assholes. If you want real fraud with her name on it, look into the 1.5 million dollar gold mine scam that sent her ex-husband to jail and her on probation using her 'psychic powers' to scam people. or the checks she bounced and many others. This is just her best scam, because she can always say something to defend herself and stick a little disclaimer on there. I have a problem with people like Sylvia Browne using people's grief and suffering to turn a buck. James Randi doesn't do that. I didn't want to get into a huge argument over who's a fraud and who's not. Sylvia Browne is a fucking predator and piece of shit in my opinion. She's a proven fraud. I don't know how that can be defended. It's in black and white, there's no doubt about it.

[MADem]

190. Well, gee, more fraud. So? Like I have said, repeatedly, there's PLENTY of fraud by both of these

oldsters. She's a proven fraud, he's a proven fraud. Whoopie!

The only lesson here is that fraud isn't just the province of the young. Both of 'em have a lotta miles on 'em, and they've got it down to a science. Caveat emptor.

[EvilAL]

211. Who has Randi personally lied to and ripped off?

I mean really. The identity theft thing? He didn't steal anything, maybe he was associated with it, maybe he knew about it, but that would be ONE thing, that's not directly on him either, he was never arrested or fuck all. Sylvia has done it to hundreds of thousands of people for millions of dollars. I don't think that's the same thing at all.

[backscatter712]

212. +1.

Even assuming the worst, Randi's a fucking saint compared to Sylvia Browne, Peter Popoff, Yuri Geller and all the other bullshit artists ripping off the public with their woo.

[MADem]

220. Those psychics' customers have a choice--to pay or not to pay. They choose to pay that woman, and

others, to tell them what they want to hear. It's a form of prostitution, certainly, but no one is being robbed--they're writing the checks because they want to believe, and they want to be told "sweet nothings" to make them feel better. In the case of Amanda's mother, she received an appearance fee to appear on Montel's show, and didn't pay a cent to the psychic. Montel paid the psychic to appear on the show as well.

Jose Alvarez of the Bronx, NY, a teacher's aide, did not have a choice about having his identity taken from him, and his life was tossed into tumult for over two decades, because of a fraud that Randi knew was being perpetrated. Randi, a supposed fraud debunker, was a party to a serious fraud that deprived an innocent man of peace of mind, prevented him from obtaining a passport and attending his own sister's wedding, delayed issuance of his drivers license on more than one occasion, resulted in ongoing harassment by the IRS for the wages and unpaid taxes of Randi's boyfriend, and caused his bank account to be frozen more than once. Randi knew his partner since he was a teenager--he knew him by his real name, he saw his Venezuelan passport. Randi knew he wasn't Jose Alvarez. He knew he wasn't a US citizen. He traveled with the guy on his illegally-obtained passport. He aided and abetted his partner's fraud.

And two wrongs never make a right. There are no saints here, fucking or otherwise.

[EvilAL]

230. Ok, that's fine,

Randi's boyfriend committed fraud, Randi didn't turn him in so Randi is guilty of what exactly? Not turning him in? Fine, if you think that's the same thing then you're entitled to that opinion.
The reason people pay Sylvia is because she lies to obtain the money, she has no qualms about telling people their children are dead when she KNOWS she hasn't a fucking clue. People crying and breaking down doesn't phase her one bit. She knows, and if she's wrong, ooops, no apologies, just some lame fuckin excuse. Also if Montel pays them to go on the show, Sylvia must know in advance and can prepare her schtick to appear more accurate, but not in this case, or one time a lady said her husband died and they never found his body, so Sylvia says, matter of factly, that they won't find his body because he's in water. This lady obviously believes(d) that Sylvia had some super-human ability to talk to the dead or see things we can't. The lady explains that he was in one of the twin towers when it fell, and sylvia is acting all stupid like 'why do I see him in water gasping for air' (nice), then says it must be from when the firemen were fighting the fire and that's that. She wasn't wrong you see, just confused. The man was crushed by a building, but he drowned when the firefighters started using their hoses.
She does this all the time to people and they eat it up. Randi deserves a shitload more respect than Sylvia Browne does, especially if you want to talk about lies and fraud.
I never made the claim Randi was perfect, I respect him for exposing these charlatans.

[MADem]

232. If you believe Sylvia and pay her money, that's on YOU.

On television, they advertise expensive potions that claim to "reduce the visible signs of aging."

Do you believe that, too? Because, you know, the cosmetic company has some "super duper" ability to make a magic wrinkles invisibility cloak, or something?

Neither Sylvia nor the cosmetic company sneaks in and steals from your wallet while you are not looking. They don't rob you unawares of your cash, your livelihood, your ability to conduct yourself unmolested, or your ability to travel freely around the world. They tell you they can do something for you, and unless you are an incredibly dumb consumer (and there's no law against that), you check it out, watch others as they use the "product," and then you make the decision as to whether or not that product might work for you. I'll wager NO ONE gives that woman money without already having seen her on TV.

Randi and his partner, though, they didn't ask that frigging teacher's aide in the Bronx if he'd like to have his identity taken from him, so the IRS could hassle him and the FBI accuse HIM of being illegal, so that he had to miss his sister's wedding, and he would be prevented from getting a license and having his bank account stolen and his credit destroyed so he couldn't buy a lousy apartment.

You're sitting there giving me examples of how "stupid" this woman Sylvia is, and then you're getting mad that she "duped" people with her stories. Well, if she's all that stupid, the people who are giving her money to hear her tell them things that cannot possibly be true, based on what they know, are stupider still--and that's true even if they've had a tragedy. You cannot fix other people's 'stupid.' Neither can I. Personally, I think people who overspend on shoes are "stupid"--but I'm not going to tell them they're wasting their money on overpriced footwear, if it gives them some kind of thrill, or even satisfaction. Fools and their money are soon parted.

Again, she didn't take people's money unawares. They knew up-front what they were getting (or not getting, depending on one's POV). She's been on TV, everyone has seen her "operate," and she didn't sneak the money away from them, like Randi and Deyvi did to the real Jose Alvarez's identity. If people gave her money they had a good idea of what kind of "performance" they were going to get for it.

Also, Sylvia's not in the fraud debunking business. Randi claims to be. Don't you think, if you claim to be a fraud debunker, that you'd stay as far away from anything that smelled like fraud or deceit yourself, just to keep those hands clean?

And since when do two wrongs make a right?

Stealing is WRONG. No excuse for it. Randi and Deyvi stole from Jose Alvarez, for over two decades.

[EvilAL]

253. Sylivia claims to speak to the dead,

Randi says she can't speak to the dead. Randi is correct. Even if Randi stole a million dollars from someone, he would still be correct about psychics. Is it hypocritical to defraud or allow someone to defraud someone while debunking paranormal fraudsters? Ya, I suppose. It doesn't change the fact that he is correct about Sylvia Browne and all the other paranormal bastards. Doing one wrong thing doesn't negate all his work in debunking people that claim to have supernatural powers, not one bit. I just find it funny that just because Randi is right, he's not allowed to be right because of something else he did totally unrelated to psychic and paranormal scams. I'm not gonna put him under a microscope, there's no need to, he's not claiming to be able to speak to the dead for money. I'm sure he could set up shop and fool a ton of people by pretending to be psychic, and I guess that would be ok, because, fuck the stupid people.
Sylvia Browne agreed to take Randi's million dollar challenge, on Larry King I think it was, she had nothing to fear and since she didn't need the money she could donate it or whatever. Then guess what, she backed out, why? She said Randi was a godless atheist, so she didn't want to be tested by HIM. When it's not even him that does the actual testing. Van Praagh, Edwards, Long Island Medium all refused as well. Why are they so scared of James Randi? because they KNOW they are fakes, nobody can speak to the dead.

[MADem]

264. Randi is a guy who claims to be a debunker of fraud who participated in a fraud for twenty years.

Sylvia is a woman who claims to be a psychic who can see dead people, and some people pay her money because they believe in that paranormal stuff. It's like believing that a priest or other religious person has a Hotline To God. Randi can tell them all he wants that their belief is "wrong" or "bad" or "stupid," and they'll tell him to take a hike. Belief is a strong thing and people who believe are invested in it. Mocking it or denigrating it often makes it stronger.

Frankly, they're both bullshitters. Randi can't prove that what these people believe isn't true, no matter how lousy at the task Sylvia Browne might be. He can play parlor games about how 'some' tricksters "do it," but he can't prove that the ability doesn't exist. And Sylvia is clearly--based on her lousy track record-- not the best psychic, if such an ability even exists (and no one can prove that it doesn't--or does, yet, anyway).

And the "Two wrongs make a right" argument -- as I have said elsewhere in this thread -- doesn't work with me. Here is the truth about the two of them in three words--they both suck.

Bullshitting senior citizens, the two of them. They give old people a bad name.

But the one with the most to lose here is Randi. Sylvia's constituency are invested in their belief system, and they are unlikely to be swayed, anymore than someone who is invested in a religion will leave it because Randi tells them it's fake or phony. Randi's acolytes are supposed to be against fraud in all forms, and their leader's own behavior is a source of serious cognitive dissonance. He put himself forward as the guy who was "without sin" and thus entitled to cast the first stone. It's obvious, based on his conduct, the fact that he hired this guy nearly thirty years ago as "Venezuelan Deyvi Pena" and then, over twenty years ago, put him on the Board of Directors of his personal foundation as "Bronx native Jose Alvarez," that he was involved in fraud up to his eyeballs.

[EvilAL]

275. Alright, we've made

our arguments here. I just applaud Randi for his work in debunking the paranormal, I really do not like psychics because they take money from people through deceit.
I see your points, and see where you are coming from, but to me I can still have some respect for Randi even through the fraud thing, I can't muster up any respect for Browne and her ilk.
I don't see the point in going around and around on this topic anymore, thank you for the conversation.

[MADem]

218. Jose Alvarez of the Bronx, NY.

He aided and abetted the theft of that guy's peace of mind for over twenty years. For decades, the IRS harassed that guy for unpaid taxes out of Florida when he lived in NY. His bank account was frozen. He had trouble renewing his driver's license. He missed his sister's wedding because they wouldn't give him a passport to go to it, because Randi's partner had been issued the one he should have gotten, renewed it several times, and was using it to fly round the world with Randi--and Randi knew that the guy with the passport wasn't an American, but a Venezuelan with a stolen name and an invalid passport.

That's on Randi, like it or not. He knew this identity thief since he was a teenager, using a different name, and he knew that he didn't wake up magically one morning and suddenly morph into Jose Luis Alvarez of the Bronx, NY.

The psychic lady doesn't make her living purporting to be a fraud debunker. Randi does, and he participated--knowingly-- in a fraud. This guy worked for him, they traveled together, the partner using the phony passport, and they were a family unit.

They're both bullshitters, but here's the big difference--the psychic entertainer doesn't force people to give her money, they do it on their own because they get something out of the interaction. Her customers may be stupid, but stupidity isn't a crime, and spending money on stupid things that make them feel better isn't a crime, either.

The real Jose Alvarez wasn't given a choice. It wasn't a victimless crime in his case--and Randi testified in the trial to the truth of what he knew, which probably helped him to not be charged.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-09-09/news/fl-artist-jose-alvarez-identity-theft-20110908_1_alvarez-first-identity-theft-jose-luis-alvarez

Besides, I've never been a fan of the philosophy that two wrongs ever make a right.

[MattBaggins]

214. Hyperbolic much

[MADem]

216. Yes, you are, indeed. nt

[EvilAL]

157. Not only does it show the 'accuracy',

it shows how gullible people truly are. Kissing her ass after she proved to be a fraud... again!

[LisaL]

183. The only description I could find is that she claimed the suspect was a young guy, 21-22.

How can it possibly be considered accurate? 10 years ago the suspect was 42.

[CreekDog]

151. Sylvia has dedicated herself to making money off bogus predictions

And marketing a psychic ability she doesn't have. She hurts people this way and needs to stop.

[LisaL]

167. How exactly was Sylvia accurate in her description of perpetrators at the time?

[Mariana]

278. They were male? nt.

[TeamPooka]

138. Turns out Amanda's alive and the psychic's career is dead. #oops

[Mariana]

279. No, her career isn't dead.

Most likely, she'll get more calls - and make more money - than before.

[TeamPooka]

280. facepalm

[KamaAina]

145. EPIC FAIL.

[DesertFlower]

153. sylvia browne has been wrong before.

i wouldn't pay attention to anything she says. i would ask suzane northrup who was my spiritual teacher in new york. she's famous now too.

http://suzanenorthrop.com/

[snooper2]

239. ROFL

People here REALLY fall for this crap LOL


For over 30 years, internationally acclaimed Medium, Grief & Bereavement Expert, TV and Radio host and Author of 3 books to date, Suzane Northrop has helped thousands worldwide to recover and heal from the loss of loved ones by bridging the gap between the world of the living and the spiritual world where the departed reside. In addition to her top selling books, Everything Happens for a Reason (now published in 4 languages) and Second Chance: Healing Messages from the Afterlife, Suzane is breaking new ground yet again with her most recent release, A Medium’s Cookbook: Recipes for the Soul.



Since there is no "afterlife" or "spirit world", by definition everything else these grifters say or do is bunk--

[lpbk2713]

159. Charlatan

At least P T Barnum entertained the suckers while he used them. And he didn't break their hearts.

[MADem]

169. You mean, like the real Jose Alvarez's heart was broken when he couldn't attend his sister's wedding

because Randi's boyfriend had stolen his identity?

And Randi knew that he had done that?

There's plenty of heartbreak to go around...and more than one charlatan under discussion!

[WeekendWarrior]

173. Well, duh

James Randi: "How blatant liars like Browne can survive such exposure is the mystery to which I still have no answer, except that folks out there just seem to prefer to have fantasy and deception rule them…"

We have entire societies based on this. We've gone to war over this. Humankind has ALWAYS been ruled by fantasy and deception. Why would it be much of a stretch that someone like Browne can fail with impunity?

[GoneOffShore]

187. Ah Sylvia Shoemaker Dufresne Beck Browne

Such a charlatan and a vulture. Actually, comparing her to a vulture is unfair to vultures.

And if I was dead, I would not talk to her!

[Apophis]

224. Um, could it be because she's a damn fraud?

[Smarmie Doofus]

226. I DO believe in spooks. I DO believe in spooks.

I DO
I DO
I DO
I DO
I DO believe in spooks.

[Sheldon Cooper]

235. Holy crap the outrage over Sylvia Brown is hilarious.

[CBGLuthier]

238. Nowadays she makes a living sucking Montel's juicer's juice down with a smile

Her and Montel both can rot in hell. Fucking Grifters.

[geomon666]

263. This woman has been proven to be a fraud many times now.

Yet people still give her money and exposure. I don't get it.