Welcome to Krazy Kats - a friendly informal online community discussing life issues that we care about. Open 24/7 for chat & chill. Come and join us!
Umberto Cocopop wrote:It's not clear whether Sally will be challenged annually to not turn up or whether they'll challenge other psychics to not turn up each year.
Ah ha! I think I've detected a very cunning plan.....KitKat wrote:It's apparently going to be an "open shop" to 'psychics' everywhere.
It annoys me to no end when people make a conversation or a situation all about themselves, they hi-jack something with their sense of self importance and you are supposed to be interested despite the fact that there are bigger issues at hand. I mean, seriously, is humanity really that ego driven that every tiny little thing has to suddenly become about certain people and how very wonderfully clever/special/gifted/young/creative/powerful/right they are
In fact I have decided to stop using twitter and facebook for a while because the way people behave and talk and show off is really quite depressing. I don’t have time for my own drama – why the hell would I have time for anyone elses?Especially when it’s usually so superifical?
KitKat wrote:This was long before she had a Blog. I would like to be wrong in this instance (but don't think I am). To give her the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps she has learned through her own experience and that's why she feels so strongly now about the matter.
Umberto Cocopop wrote:Unless it was on UKS, I wouldn't know.
Pixie wrote:KitKat wrote:This was long before she had a Blog. I would like to be wrong in this instance (but don't think I am). To give her the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps she has learned through her own experience and that's why she feels so strongly now about the matter.
Maybe so KK but maybe it would be an idea for her to acknowledge her past mistakes (if this is the case) to show this understanding?
Umberto Cocopop wrote:There's nothing on UKS.
Probably about 3 years ago ... I wouldn't know where to look on there because I can't remember the name of the thread or even who it was about. I just remember it was a long thread.I just searched Hayley's posts and she hardly posted on there and what was there was nothing controversial.KitKat wrote:Well, that's definitely where I read it.
Umberto Cocopop wrote:There's nothing on UKS.
Umberto Cocopop wrote:
If I was a leader in the skeptical community, I'd be very concerned that we were attracting in such mindless hotheads.
Impressive....
I got meself quite excited which brought on a flush
I never deleted content.Pixie wrote:Now.
Doesn't mean that there never was!
But..., but..., but..., I thrive on compliments!Pixie wrote:That's my compliment quota for non-believers used up for the year so make the most of it.
She's become a little bit too full of her own self-importance which I don't care for. From what I am seeing, she is not as 'up for debate' as she would have us believe. I would guess that KK is right but that's going by what I have read.Lol. Erm I am Jon Donnis.This is MY forum!
Whiskers wrote:I don't know how I missed this. Earpiecegate!
This whole story seems to have died a death. Did Sally Morgan sue anyone?
lar-lar wrote:The post you're talking about (and can't find) was on UK'S. Have you gone through your posts kk? That may be the best way to find it as I remember your response to it.
I remember certainly having a response in my head(!) as with a lot of things on that site (and others), but as to responding I really can't remember that at all. What did I say, lar-lar? I'm intrigued now.
KitKat wrote:lol
- Spoiler:
The thread you are trying to access does not exist.
Jamboree wrote:KitKat wrote:lol
- Spoiler:
Can't join in the joke here. I tried to read the link in the spoiler but all i got was this.
The thread you are trying to access does not exist.
Update: Sally Morgan is suing the Daily Mail for defamation
by Kitkat Thu 26 Jan 2012, 12:48
Umberto Cocopop wrote:The piece by Paul Zenon doesn't actually make any specific claim about SM directly.
Obviously, it implies that she, and her ilk, are using trickery similar to that used by magicians/mentalists but I don't know whether an implication is the same as an accusation regarding defamation law.
I think she may have a great deal of trouble winning this one.
... the Daily Mail? There is repetition of those allegations in loads of places all over the net. Does it mean slapping an injunction on every individual and every area and place that repeats or refers to those allegations? I can't really see how that would work.
ratzo wrote:Did the Mail pay up? Anyone know?
PSYCHIC OR NOT… YOU DECIDE.
DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting for one minute that Sally Morgan is not speaking to the dead, telling the truth, getting messages from the deceased, or being anything but honest with her audience. I am merely reporting EXACTLY what happened, and leaving the conclusion to those who read this. In the course of her performance, Morgan stated that what she did was entertainment. Again, I leave the validity of that statement to the reader – draw your own conclusion.
On February 23 2012, I was tasked with attending a performance of Psychic Sally Morgan, and writing a review. On the grounds of what happened, the newspaper decided not to run the review because it would make a big story. It was then handed to their legal people who vetoed it, on the grounds of the fact that there is a current legal dispute between Morgan and a newspaper, and they had no wish to be drawn into the fight. I was told that Sally Morgan has made it clear that if any media outlet suggests that she is a fraud or that she is a liar, then she WILL sue.
So, the story was dropped. However, it was handed to The Sun. They initially seemed very excited, but it was then given to the legal people there… and nothing came of it.
It is worth bearing in mind that in the days prior to the show, I informed a number of people of my intentions, despite the realisation that the odds against my “message” being selected were high, indeed.
So, here is what happened…
On the actual evening of the performance, as the show was closing for the first half, Psychic Sally Morgan had what can only be described as hysterics. She was wailing and squeaking, saying that she could see an explosion… and a man “being thrown in the air.” She seemed to be completely overcome by the horrific vision, stating that she was trying to get it out of her head, but couldn’t. She seemed to be completely overwhelmed by this vision.
There followed the intermission.
After the intermission she came back on stage, still talking about the horrific image she had in her head, and that she had to get it out. She then gave the name “Mark” linked to this explosion. Somebody stood, suggesting it might be him, as his name was Mark and he worked with somebody whose son had been killed in an explosion in Afghanistan.
Sally took it a step further, saying she was getting the name “Tobin” or “Toe-been” something like that…. At which point I stood up, yelled “Up here” and was handed the microphone. The onstage video camera picked me out, so my image now appeared on the backdrop video screen. I was then told that this chap who was killed in the explosion was on the stage with Sally… big explosion… He was sitting on something…. Or hunched over something… Then the explosion…Horrific… Horrible.. blah blah blah.
Now, here’s what Sally didn’t know. A couple of weeks before the show I found her website and I sent a message, saying that I was all excited that she was coming to Edinburgh. Also, I hoped to get a message from Toby “Tobias” Wren, who was killed in an explosion on December 14 while defusing an explosive device.”
On the evening of the show, when you first enter the theatre foyer you are faced with a standee which proclaims “Sally’s Love Letters and Photographs”. Inside, there are stacks of hundreds of “Sally’s Love Letters” and pens. The Love Letters are pieces of card, about 3″x2″ which state: “Ask Sally about a loved one who has passed over and she may pick this card out of her ‘Psychic Orb’ during the evening and come to you with a special message….”
There are literally hundreds of people filling out these slips of paper and placing them in a box. These slips are later taken onto the stage and dumped into the Psychic Orb, which looks like a big, glass fishbowl. Myself and an assistant spent a merry half-hour filling out the slips – all with exactly the same information – “Toby ‘Tobias’ Wren. Killed in an explosion on December 14 while defusing an explosive device.”
What makes this so strange – that Sally had Toby on stage with her – is that the explosion and the character names are actually lifted directly from the fictional death scene of Toby Wren, a character played by Robert Powell in the BBC series “Doomwatch”.
How could she be so distressed by such a horrific scene, when it was a television dramatisation from 1970? How could she get the name of “Toby” and have him stranding beside her – as she told us he was – when, actually, Toby never existed? Remarkable, indeed. Is it possible that she picked up on my psychic thoughts?
Where could that information have come from? Certainly not from the dead spirit of Toby, that’s for sure, because Toby never existed, other than as a fictional character in a BBC drama!
If that IS how she got the information, then passed on a message to me that had the audience gasp in astonishment, then it makes me wonder about the source of the other “messages”.
What I found so distressing about this, as a member of the audience, is that there were whole families turning up, each paying around £25 per person. These were people, some of whom obviously would have found this a financial burden, in the hope of having some sort of contact from a dearly loved mother, father or child.
Seeing Sally Morgan on-stage clutching her chest, acting out the last thoughts of a deceased father, squealing “He’s saying: I don’t want to die. I don’t want to die.” and watching the sobbing reaction of the relatives… Made me feel distnctly uneasy – and that’s putting it lightly. It is the vulnerable and the bereaved who suffer the cruel consequence of all this. I would question the suggestion that this brings comfort to the bereaved.
So, with all that reported: Here is the review :
Sally Morgan
Playhouse Theatre
Stars: 1
Run ended
THE show starts long before the curtain goes up. In a side room there are pens and cards: Sally’s Love Letters. Audience members are invited to fill in a card with information about a loved one who has passed over, with the promise that she may pick that card out of her “Psychic Orb”.
There were a lot of cards being filled out. And the psychic orb looked suspiciously like the fish bowls favoured by fake spiritualists in the past, and by psychological illusionists such as Derren Brown today.
Morgan skipped onto the stage and launched into a long explanation of what she does and how she does it. She took great pains to point out that she has to refer to her performance as a “show” and that it is entertainment, because of legislation and the fact that there is a “lot going on at the moment”. Possibly referring to the upcoming legal case.
And eventually, the performance began. She would throw out names, often as loose as “Shirley… or Shirl… or Sheila. It may be a place name like Sheil.” It seems that the spirits mumble.
There were moments where she got the information bang on. But there were also moments when the answers to her questions drew a long string of “No”s, at times producing giggles from sections of the crowd. There were many more misses than hits.
It was easy to remember that in her previous job Morgan was a dental nurse – because this was like pulling teeth.
Just before the intermission, she was suddenly overcome with shock. She could “see” an explosion. “A man being thrown in the air.” She couldn’t get the horror of it from her mind, but she promised to return to the theme on her return.
And she did. Clearly appalled by what she was “seeing” she offered the name of “Tobin”. Which is when a certain Evening News reviewer found himself in the spotlight. Her message was uncannily accurate. One of the highlights.
Unfortunately, the spirit who was “standing beside her” describing the details – the same details that had been written on a number of Sally’s Love Letters, and emailed earlier that week – was actually a death scene played by the great British actor Robert Powell as Toby Wren in the BBC series “Doomwatch” in 1970. Oops! Didn’t see THAT coming.
Coincidence? Might have been. Either way, it would seem that, for a short while at least, Morgan’s “extraordinary gift” had deserted her. It was a show that left more questions than it offered answers.
to which I must add this little thought-provoking comment: Was this message printed in public on her website. Does the writer have a copy of the message he sent to Sally - that he can produce as hard evidence?Now, here’s what Sally didn’t know. A couple of weeks before the show I found her website and I sent a message, saying that I was all excited that she was coming to Edinburgh. Also, I hoped to get a message from Toby “Tobias” Wren, who was killed in an explosion on December 14 while defusing an explosive device.”
Umberto Cocopop wrote:BTW, a digression regarding Leslie Flint,.....
The world's greatest internet skeptic gets it completely wrong when he implies that Flint wasn't genuine because he doesn't sound like Gandhi. I'm sure that Jon Culshaw could do a more convincing Gandhi but his impersonation is meaningless as evidence of afterlife communication - likewise with Flint.
The only way to do a meaningful test with the recordings is to transcribe them and then use text analysis software to see whether:
A) Flint's use of language (as Gandhi) is the same as Gandhi's;
B) Whether Flint's use of language differs when allegedly channelling other people; and
C) Whether Flint's use of language differs from his normal usage (if such recordings are available).
Analysis software can measure things like verb usage etc., but also idiosyncrasies that individuals have.
In short: it's not about how good an impression sounds but whether the actual content and form of the content matches the original.
This method is ideal for older recordings and texts as the people at the time didn't foresee the development of such techniques.
That's because there's no such thing as psychic powers.
)
As skeptics we should really be asking for more proof of this persons claims.
Which newspaper originally was he commissioned to write the article on?
Why didn’t they speak out during the show?
Is there anyone else who can coroborate this story, someone who was at the show?
Is there any proof that the person who wrote this article didn’t just make it up?
As
skeptics we demand proof from psychics and mediums, yet we seemingly
accept anti-psychic material without question because it fits our
pre-conceived ideas.
I think people like the author of the
article, need to stop hiding behind anonymous blogs, grow a set of
balls, and speak out in a public way.
Provide proof of your claims, then and only then will we have a chanc eto stop people like Sally Morgan
Hmmm. So the article is due to be published in full in The Guardian (presumably giving the reporter's real name? ... and that of his "colleague"?) I wonder ....Evening News. I didn’t speak out because there were people genuinely
upset – (see posts above) Who am I to add to their misery? Yes – I was
with a colleague – and an audience of 3,000. This is NOT “anti-psychic –
it is a report on what happened, I HAVE spoken out in a public way. Buy
The Guardian when the piece comes out… All answered, I think.
JD: "JJs suggestion to me is only valid if the voice he put on sounded like Gandhi."KitKat wrote:Let's see what Mister Know-it-all-world's-greatest-internet-skeptic has to say in response ...
It will be interesting to see how it's worded. If there's a solid evidence trail then this is some very bad news for Sally Morgan but if it's another weak allegation it will make the "witch hunt" claim look more plausible.KitKat wrote:Hmmm. So the article is due to be published in full in The Guardian (presumably giving the reporter's real name? ... and that of his "colleague"?) I wonder ....
Which is completely missing the point!Jon Donnis wrote:I understand the point completely.
I am not gonna waste my time investigating someone who sounds like my Grocer
So we start by knowing the answer.....Jon Donnis wrote:we ALL know the Flint is not really channelling Gandhi
Either way ITS NOT GANDHI. No need to analyse anything.
So to be clear, you expect someone to spend time and effort analysing
speech patterns and all other manner of b*****ks, just to prove what is
the bleeding obvious in the first place?
To investigate Flint further is time wasting stupidity.
If someone wants to reach an informed and evidence-based conclusion on an issue then the only way to do so is to actually examine the evidence* and see what it tells us. Simply yelling "bollocks" is the ramblings of a closed-minded person who thinks they know answers without any need to investigate anything. 'Just knowing' should be left to the psychics.....Jon Donnis wrote:
So to be clear, you expect someone to spend time and effort analysing speech patterns
Again, this shows you haven't understood the point at all.Jon Donnis wrote:
If Flit was channelling an Indian speaking voice, then yes lets examine the grammar, and so on.
Umberto Cocopop wrote:It will be interesting to see how it's worded. If there's a solid evidence trail then this is some very bad news for Sally Morgan but if it's another weak allegation it will make the "witch hunt" claim look more plausible.KitKat wrote:Hmmm. So the article is due to be published in full in The Guardian (presumably giving the reporter's real name? ... and that of his "colleague"?) I wonder ....
“If you think your thoughts are yours and yours alone, think again.
Drew McAdam’s “MindPlay” abilities will blow you away! Even Uri Geller
is impressed by him. Drew McAdam has numerous TV and radio credits to
his name, including a hilarious special guest appearance on Ready Steady Cook where he not only read Ainslie Harriott’s mind but bent all the spoons. Drew is also the subject of the recent BBC series School For Genius and has a regular spot as The Interrogator on the UK’s most popular daytime talk show: The Trisha Goddard Show.”
“Bafflingly brilliant” Evening News (5 stars)
“Mind Master McAdam.” The Mail
badpsychics wrote: Can he not come on her eto reply himself, or does he need his girl friend to speak for him?
KitKat wrote:Post subject: Re: Gandhi vs Gandhi
Posted: Thu, 01 Mar 2012, 3:08 pm
badpsychics wrote: Can he not come on her eto reply himself, or does he need his girl friend to speak for him?
by 
61-BLUES