This morning, I made a telephone call to Star Crystals & Healing in Oadby, Leicester, who were hosting a psychic for the day to do "readings". Cold?
Thanks to the recent Consumer Protections from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007, "psychics" need to advertise their services as for "scientific experiments" unless they have evidence to back them up. As Joanne Jordan did not do this, I assumed she must be a genuine psychic with proven powers - so I phoned to check. The lady on the phone insisted that this "psychic" was for real. So I booked a session. And recorded it.
Rather unsurprisingly, if you don't tell Joanne Jordan, Psychic Medium everything, apparently she can't get it from either the cards or the dead.
After about 15 minutes (12:36 on the MP3 linked below) of Joanne not producing anything relevant and insisting that it works better if the communication was two-way, I got a bit bored and decided to see what happened if I fed her some false information. "Psychic baiting" is the term used for this by Ian Rowland, author of the excellent Full Facts Book Of Cold Reading.
Joanne Jordan was soon making contact with my father who died of cancer (he's currently on holiday in France and to my knowledge, cancer free and alive).
What was most worrying however, was when Joanne Jordan was telling me that the cards were showing that someone very close to me was lying to me, and implying that it was my wife. For a typical gullible punter, this could have destroyed their relationship. They'd be living in a state of permanent suspicion to their partner simply because this woman is able to get away with charging £35 to make stuff up.
So - is Joanne Jordan a Fraudulent Psychic Medium or is she just self-deluded? I'm not really sure. But even if it's the later, she's certainly guilty of charging for her "powers" before properly checking she's got them. As I've shown, it's not difficult to do a simple test.
You can hear the MP3 here: http://www.mediafire.com/?tg1mcmgwwa0
Simon partly runs a small software company by day and campaigns against pseudo-science and other nonsense by night.
Posts
48 comments:
Excellent post. Time after time, it is shown that if a psychic doesn't have the chance to cold or hot read they have nothing to say. She may well be deluded (and thats being kind) in that she starts off her party trick and her friends tell her she must be psychic. And she believes it.
On the other hand, she may be a knowing fraud. Either way, she should stop. Psychics are not guidance/grievance/marriage counsellors, nor are they private detectives. They should stop trying to involve themselves in people's lives and get a proper job.
Just had a very kind note from Ian Rowland, Author of probably the best book on Cold Reading, the technique used by fake psychics.
Dear Simon,
Thank you SO much for having taken the trouble to do this, and for letting me (and the world) hear the spectacular results. You were BRILLIANT. I thought the whole thing was pretty good, but when she started offering you a choice of cards and talking about unicorns and fairies, well, I just lost it completely. It was hysterical. I truly have no idea how you managed to keep a straight face during that part. The ‘baiting’ bit worked very, very well, and you handled the ‘reveal’ part at the end superbly, if I may say so. Absolutely first-rate stuff.
I have never seriously advocated that people should go around ‘psychic-baiting’. When I first added that part to the book I thought it was clear I was writing tongue-in-cheek, and in the most recent edition I added a note to make this clear, and to resolve any misunderstandings. But that having been said, when someone goes through with the experiment and does it as well as you did, in such an intelligent and non-prejudicial way, I would say that it constitutes a valuable piece of investigative journalism. At no point were you rude or offensive, or anything less than perfectly polite and well-mannered, which I approve of and think is the right approach. You were not confrontational or aggressive. I would say that you were never prejudicial, unfair or closed-minded at ANY point, although some would disagree and take the view that supplying one falsehood about your father was aggressive / prejudicial / unfair or otherwise illegitimate. After all, if you feed false information about your symptoms to a doctor, he’ll give you a wrong diagnosis.
I thought it was wonderful. I had a look around the rest of your site. Good luck with the fatwa.
Cheers,
- Ian
Kudos on the comment from Ian Rowland! I must say that I disagree with the comment about giving a false symptom to a doctor. In the case of a doctor, if you say your arm hurts the doctor will go to your arm - s/he will look for physical symptoms to treat.
In the case of a psychic, they allegedly already know what's wrong. If they are genuine, they should be able to see through any falsehoods and call you on them.
The fact that your fakery went undetected would tend to point to the fact that you saw a fraud/deluded person.
thanks xavierp. I 1/2 agree with you. The psychic doesn't claim to know everything; even from the MP3 you can hear that "it works better if the communication is 2 way".
However, I think what provides evidence to the fraud/delusion hypothesis is the psychic's confirmation.
If you lied to a doctor by wrongly claiming that you'd had a pacemaker fitted, then he examined you and said "yes, I can independently verify the pacemaker" then you'd have sufficient evidence to show that at least on one occasion, the doc had no idea what he was talking about.
The psychic claimed to communicate with my dead father. He's alive. Case dismissed.
Yeah, I think the chat with your "dead" father is a bit of a giveaway. The normal get out is that if you lie to the spirits, they will play along/lie back. Which sounds a bit stupid to me - if a dead relative really wanted to get in touch with me, I doubt they'd waste everyone's time by playing stupid games!
There are a lot of questions and a lot of "I hope this makes sense to you" in there - very much casting about to make you respond and give her more information.
The other hypothesis is that once you're dead, you develop a great sense of humour and wish to communicate with your relatives via a medium, passing the message: "try April" .... "OK, May" ........ "how about August; does that mean anything"?
I totally disagree with your summary of Joanne Jordan
I have attended many group sessions where Joanne Jordan has performed as a medium. I have been astonished at the detail and accuracy of her readings – and so have others. Joanne Jordan in my opinion is a very professional person who, without doubt has been gifted with very special powers. Without these powers, it would have been impossible to recall the level of detail (including names and places etc.) I have seen her deliver to complete strangers.
Patrick Davison
Pat:
Cold reading is a very powerful technique and people regularly leave cold reading sessions fully convinced that they've seen psychic powers. Your story fits perfectly with my hypothesis that Joanne is simply cold reading – this is exactly the sort of anecdote I’d expect from someone who has visited a cold reader. Of course, we’d expect the same from someone who had psychic powers too.
Can I suggest that at this moment you don't actually know whether it was cold reading, psychic powers or something else because you have not attempted to eliminate the possibility of cold reading when visiting Joanne Jordan?
If you are open-minded enough to consider there is a chance you might be wrong, can I suggest you visit JJ again, but this time eliminating the possibility of cold reading?
Bring someone who JJ has never met before, someone who she has no clue about. Put this person behind a curtain and ask them to be quiet during the reading. This will eliminate the possibility of cold reading.
Record the reading, then listen to it again writing down all of the claims. See how many match the person, and how many match others.
If JJ has any contact whatsoever with the person, or is informed anything about them, cancel and then start again with someone else.
If you are open-minded enough to try this, I'd be more than happy to consult with you to ensure the proper controls are in place. Either way, I'd love to hear the results.
Simon
With the title of “Adventures in Nonsense” would this suggest to readers that you are contributing a fair and balanced personal opinion on the subject and only highlighting certain mediums whom you feel are not worthy of the title, or are you a sceptic and wish to expose and discredit the whole profession? I suppose I am asking - do you believe in the spiritual world?
Patrick Davison
Patrick,
You are asking a loaded question by giving me the choice between "contributing a fair and balanced personal opinion" or "being a sceptic".
To have a fair and balanced opinion, it would require someone not only to have visited a psychic, but to have done so under fairly controlled conditions instead of walking in blindly. It would require someone to have studied evidence against the existence of a spirit world as well as for. It would require someone who was well read on cold reading and other techniques that can be used to simulate psychic ability. It would require someone to understand areas of psychology related to psychic belief. It would require someone with an understanding of epistemology. It would require someone who has looked at scientific research into psychic abilities. It would require someone who understood the arguments on both sides.
So - yes, I think my opinion is fair and balanced. Yes, I am a sceptic. No, I don’t believe in the spirit world.
But if evidence for the existence of the spirit world was presented to me – evidence that was stronger than the vast amount of evidence against, then I’ll change my mind.
You didn’t answer my question – are you open minded enough to put Joanne Jordan to the test, or will you carry on believing based on a personal experience?
Simon.
Simon
Regardless of the content of your response, to which I will summarise at some stage, the question of your fair assessment of the subject contains little or no credibility - particularly now having admitted to being a sceptic. The result of which basically means that any medium you decide to target will be condemned before trial according to “your opinion”. Let me once again emphasise – “your opinion”.
Pat: I think you've confused scepticism (looking at the evidence and taking an opinion based upon it) with cynicism (rejecting everything).
I think you've also confused "my opinion", which is of no value whatsoever, with the apparent evidence - which is significant.
I have been to see Joanne Jordan on numerous occasions and I feel that you have been particularly unfair in the way that you have treated this person. Based on the evidence stated on your blog if you do not wish to go and see a psychic then you simply do not go. It’s your choice you choose to go and have reading, when I last looked we all had the freedom of choice. The person then chooses to take away from that what they wish. Who are we to argue that spirits do not exists or the comfort that readings provide when loved ones have passed away. Jo is the last person that would involve herself in anyone’s life unless asked to do so. Jo has never pushed anything onto me in the time that she has been reading for me. I would totally recommend Jo as a reader and I would not let this man’s cynicism cloud your judgement as he clearly does not know what he is talking about and should therefore not cause distress to anyone. We are all entitled to our own opinions and the question is should we keep them to ourselves Simon!!
Phillipe:
Unfair in what way? Why did I visit Joanne Jordan and ask for a reading? She advertised that she had psychic powers. That’s a claim worth checking out.
I allowed her to demonstrate them (most of her customers do not do this as they allow her to cold read). By claiming she was in touch with my dead father (who is alive), she proved conclusively that either she cannot tell the difference between being in contact with a spirit and her imagination, or that she tells lies. What other conclusion can you draw?
By telling me that “someone is not telling the truth” in reference to a close personal relationship, she also demonstrated that she is willing to tell people things that could potentially ruin their relationships.
When people make claims that are untrue, and can be shown clearly to be untrue, and are quite willing to cause harm then I have no problem in exposing them for what they are.
If I visited Joanne Jordan and she demonstrated psychic powers, I would have blogged this too. It would be incredible.
Have you actually listened to the MP3?
Simon
I have viewed with interest the comments being posted and your responses.
Referring to the purpose of the site, I think it’s fair to say that anyone prepared to publicly expose themselves with extreme opinions and comments, as you have, highlights a distinct lack of integrity, education and compassion.
In the first instance, you disgraced yourself by accusing someone of being “fraudulent or deluded”. Casting a comment so degrading and disrespectful would only be used by anyone, with a reasonable level of decency, in the extremist of cases - and only then, when a considerable amount of research and evidence would support and justify such a remark. By your own admission, a brief reading from Joanne Jordan and no doubt other mediums led you to use these words. Why, if you claim only to be interested in the facts, do you spend little time obtaining them?
It also seems you are quite content to rest your obtruse opinions behind certain so called protective barriers – i.e., you insist on being called a “sceptic” not a “cynic”.
Do you understand what this implies?
You are foolishly playing with words Simon without understanding their true meaning. You once again demonstrate a lack of accurate research and add further doubts to your integrity.
To quote:- Pat: I think you've confused scepticism (looking at the evidence and taking an opinion based upon it) with cynicism (rejecting everything).
Whilst your basic knowledge permits you to feel comfortable with a precise division of your understanding of the words, ironically both true definitions seem to fit perfectly with your profile:-
A sceptic is one who doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind. A person of skeptical temperament is unconvinced of the truth of a particular fact or theory.
A cynic is one who sarcastically discredits the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions. One who is churlish (person of low birth: peasant: ill-bred) incredulous (unbelieving) and sneering (expression or suggestion of derision or disparagement).
My advise to you is:- Shut that big mouth of yours – Dump your conceited arrogance - Get an education – Learn how to research properly – Understand the implications of Scepticism – Stop making a public fool of yourself - Show more respect to yourself and others - Stop forcing your juvenile and limited opinions on people and GROW UP.
As Sole Anderson would say “Do it now Dude”
Perhaps when you realise how out of order you are, you will offer a public apology to Joanne Jordan and others you have targeted.
Patrick Davison
Patrick:
I'm not sure you could call my opinions "extreme" seeing as they are completely in line with current scientific thinking.
"Why, if you claim only to be interested in the facts, do you spend little time obtaining them?"
The amount of time I spent "obtaining the facts" was small, but adequate to demonstrate the point.
When Joanne Jordan was claiming to be in communication with my dead father (who is alive), she conclusively demonstrated that on at least one occasion she is willing to claim to be in contact with the dead when we know she cannot be. If what I discovered when I visited Joanne Jordan went against current scientific thinking, then yes - it would be worth significant further research. Seeing as it fits perfectly in line with current scientific thinking then I'm not sure it's worth further research. I'm happy to do further tests though if Joanne Jordan is willing.
I'd be the "person of skeptical temperament" according to your definition.
I call myself a "sceptic" because I believe that scientific scepticism is the best method of figuring out what is true.
I'm sceptical of psychic claims because (i) I have looked at the evidence for psychic powers with an open mind and come to the conclusion that I should provisionally reject the claim, and (ii) if new evidence comes to light that is stronger than the current evidence against psychic powers, I will change my mind.
What evidence would make you change your mind Patrick?
With regard to the apology, it is quite easy for Joanne Jordan to prove me to be wrong. I'll even give up my free time to help her design a test that enables her to prove me wrong. There is nothing that excites me more than the possibility of being wrong, if she does have genuine psychic powers that would be amazing to me.
If she passes the test, I'll happily apologise.
Hello Simon
My name is Tim and I happen to be Joanne's son in law.
I know you will just wave my comments off and say i'm biased but for you to say my mother in law is evil shows you have make the worsed character evaluation in history!
I have never known anyone more caring and selfless in my entire life.
Comming from someone who would go on some personal vendetta of character assasination I think it laughable.
Tim:
OK, I think that's a fair comment Tim.
While I'm unsure whether this is self-delusion or an outright scam, it wasn't fair for me to use this word. I've removed the word from my original post.
Still, I do think there is something morally wrong in not putting your claims to the test before charging people money for them - especially when you are telling people "someone's not telling the truth" in relation to a personal relationship. That could really cause a lot of harm.
Simon.
I have had several readings with Joanne; I have never had to ‘give’ her any of my personal details regarding my life, my family or my past.
The information I received from Joanne during my readings would have been impossible for her to obtain anywhere else, it being intensely private and not something that would even be discussed with best friends!.
I have recommended Joanne to many of my friends and colleagues in the past and will continue to do so.
And just for the record, I do not consider myself to be deluded!!
Linda: See response above dated 12 October 2008 09:40. I've covered this point already.
Hi guys, my name is Jon, and I own and run the UK's largest and most respected sceptical site www.badpsychics.com
It seems many of the people who have left comments here are unaware of the tricks psychics use.
They dont need to research you, some do, but in general they dont need to. Cold reading is enough to convince most people, especially those already willing to believe.
I am also interested at how instead of people critisising Simons words and experiences with Joanne, they instead resort to childish insults, hardly love and light is it guys.
On my site we have looked at so many psychics, we pride ourselves on being able to show anyone how any reading has been achieved.
I challenge ANYONE on here to provide me with a recording of a reading i cant explain.
You guys need to remember that anecdotes are not evidence, they are just stories of something that happened.
Many times i have listened to anecdotes of readings which sounded amazing, yet when i actually listen to the reading myself its a much different story.
People make things fit, they forget the misses and concentrate on the hits.
Even with Joanne Jordan, we took the recording supplied by Simon, we spent hours transcribing it and then analysing it, just to show people the truth behind such things
http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=852
Read that article, hell even her son in law, read it, learn the truth about her.
Maybe she is deluded and believes in it all, or maybe she is a crook.
Either way the evidence is right in front of you and anyone with a critical thinking and open mind can see that Joanne is no more than a typical cold reading wannabe.
I have just passed my first test!!! As you know I have been doing what I call "Stone" cold readings - where I announce up front rather than afterwards that it is all bullshit.
I was in a hippy new-age shop to buy some Tarot cards (props) yesterday and did a read on the moronic sales assistant: overheard a brief conversation he had with a colleague, planted a few suggestions in the small talk and then went to work. Got a higher than average strike rate and even though I explained exactly how I did it, he refused to accept the reasons and thought I had a "gift" and that I was in denial about it. You can do nothing for these morons and I don't wish to. But I am feeling fucking smug!
Simon,
Interesting to see you have been embarrassed to realise the term “Evil” was too strong a word to use and subsequently removed it from the site. Would you like to explain the reasons why you chose to use this word in the first place?
Patrick Davison
People posting on here to defend this reading obviously have no knowledge of cold reading and basic human psychology which these alleged psychics use.
Joanne told him if he responded he'd get more out of it, why should that make a difference? If she can channel a Father who isn't really dead then I'm sure she can piece together the information she thinks she is receiving in her head. I think it would be worth the believer's time to look up Barnum and Forer effects to see how these people work.
For the record I have no problem calling someone like Joanne evil.
To rape the memory of the dead is a crime, and a sick one in my book.
ANYONE who charges someone to speak to their own dead relative who isn't really there, is evil in mybook.
It is a downright dispicable act, and I think the word evil is applicable in this case.
Jon Donni
www.badpsychics.com
Pat you seem quite an angry person and have taken umbrage at someone attacking, as you see your beliefs. This is natural but perhaps consider the insidious actions psychics practice. They prey on the grief stricken and the vulnerable. In my appreciation there 'gift' is no more than delusion or fraud. I come to this opinion in an open frame of mind, considering the evidence. I have yet to see evidence of a true psychic but I am open minded enough to accept it if the evidence presents itself. Your anger derives from your close minded approach. You are too willing to believe and do not accept alternative or seek other explanations. I also think Joanne ranks low in cold reading abilities which any person can do with practice.
Having listened to the recording it's clear that Joanne Jordan's reading failed. I can think of three reasons why this might have happened:
1. She had an off-day. It happens to everyone. If this was the case then perhaps she would do better in a second reading? Simon has already stated that he would be happy to have one, and it would give Joanne an opportunity to prove herself.
2. Simon's sceptical mind was somehow blocking her mental powers (the same problem that Uri Geller suffers from).
3. Simon was preventing the use of cold reading by refusing to give her information about himself.
So which one do you think it was? Or are there other reasons I haven't thought of? I'm particularly interested to hear the responses of the believers.
This woman failed to do what she claims she can. In fact, she did more than that...she basically admitted she can't do what she claims unless the sitter provides all the answers.
Hmmm.....
You people that supposedly have so much faith in her (all family are you?), open your minds to the reality of what's happening. She's fake or deluded. Probably a bit of both.
I've listed to a number of readings before, and that ranks amongst the worst.
You all behave like a bunch of moronic psychopaths that target individuals with futile attempts to hold them to ransom. Good luck. 50% of people in this country believe in the spiritual world. Who really cares if you do or not!
Joanne Jordan has nothing to prove. Knowing Joanne as I do, she is extremely unlikely to enter in to any ridiculous contest with anyone, particularly sceptics! What is the point?
A sceptics mind is already made up, so don’t try and fool anyone by leading them to believe you are anything other than a herd of hungry animals hunting in packs.
As it happens, I do not believe in the spiritual world, but enjoy the occasional card reading to stimulate my curiosity. As I have previously stated, Joannes accuracy is uncanny. Put that down to which ever source of information you wish.
Yes it’s true to say her recorded reading was very poor, but hardly surprising when you consider the sort of vibes Simon Perry was giving her, not to mention his intimidation.
He wouldn’t have been that brave with me.
Again Simon, would you like to tell me why you originally used the term “Evil” to describe Joanne?
Seems to me that Joanne Jorden does
have something to prove, as she has asked friends and family to come on here and defender her.
So tell us Pat Davison, where did you get your information from stating that 50% of people in this country believe in cold readings, or is it just the case that like cold readings you make it up as you go along
Pat,
You are seeking explanations as to why Simon used the word evil, then go on to call those who wish to disbelieve 'moronic psychopaths'. As I stated before you are angry because you beliefs are being challenged. You say you do not believe in the spiritual world but you will give payment to a psychic where the techniques are well established tricks. Would you believe Derren Brown has a 'gift' because he could provide you with accurate information in the same way a so called psychic could.
Of course this could all be dismissed as entertainment if these psychics did not charge money for there 'gift' but all we see is repeated exploitation of the weak, vulnerable and the grief-stricken for profit. Now evil is a strong word but what would you call con men who prey on elderly people and trick them out of money? In my mind they are the same. Now I am sure Joanne is a nice person but her act is a sham which she should recognise. It would be nice if you could take a deep breath and debate with us. I kind of think you know the truth and the truth hurts.
Originally posted by: Pat Davison
"You all behave like a bunch of moronic psychopaths that target individuals with futile attempts to hold them to ransom."
Nice insulting there Pat, Im sure you win many arguments using that childish ad hominem tactic. Pray tell exactly how a sceptical and accurate report on an experience, is designed to "hold somebody to ransom"?
"Good luck. 50% of people in this country believe in the spiritual world. Who really cares if you do or not!"
You get those statistics from where? or is that another guess? I suppose if you do not care for people who do not believe in "the spiritual world", then conversly those people should not care about your opinion also? Fairs, fair right?
"Joanne Jordan has nothing to prove."
She claims to how powers, do you think she is exempt from demonstrating such powers when challenged? Why does she have this privilege?
"Knowing Joanne as I do, she is extremely unlikely to enter in to any ridiculous contest with anyone, particularly sceptics! What is the point?"
Yes I understand, she cannot prove she has any supernatural ability, what would be the point of pretending she has? Oh yes, now I remember, its for £35 quid a pop isnt it?
"A sceptics mind is already made up, so don’t try and fool anyone by leading them to believe you are anything other than a herd of hungry animals hunting in packs."
Clearly you lack the intelligence to distinguish the difference between a "sceptic" and a "cynic". May I suggest you purchase a dictionary instead of paying for readings? Please feel free to completely ignore this advice, I mean coming from a "hungry pack animal" and all.
"As it happens, I do not believe in the spiritual world, but enjoy the occasional card reading to stimulate my curiosity."
justification for idiocy?
"As I have previously stated, Joannes accuracy is uncanny. Put that down to which ever source of information you wish."
I will. Its cold reading, thanks.
"Yes it’s true to say her recorded reading was very poor, but hardly surprising when you consider the sort of vibes Simon Perry was giving her, not to mention his intimidation."
Vibes and intimidation? Ok firstly there is no such thing as negative vibes. Yes you can feel discomfort if you are in the presence of a person in a bad mood, but this is an emotional response. It is not some actual physical energy that radiates from the person. I also thought simon was quite cool calm and collected, I did not sense any hostility at all, so where exactly was the intimidation? She certainly didnt sound intimidated to me.
"He wouldn’t have been that brave with me."
Yes, I am sure you would have anecdoted him to death.
"Again Simon, would you like to tell me why you originally used the term “Evil” to describe Joanne?"
Maybe because psychics, mediums, tarot card readers, psychometrists, reiki masters and all the other assorted fraudulent or credulous people who charge people money for imaginary benefits are infact evil. Con artists pure and simple. Whether this is intentional fraud, or credulousness is irrelevant.
simon
I don't feel equiped to comment on the moral rights and wrongs of what Jo does for a living.
However, Jo informs me that she never charged you a penny for your reading and would never charge anyone that was not completly satisfied.
Don One: Of course she couldn't charge me; she was caught red handed not being able to supply the service she promised. She does, however, charge money if she is able to fool her customers into believing she has psychic powers.
It’s not a question of whether or not her customers are satisfied, she is fooling them into being satisfied.
Pat: I used the word "evil" originally because Joanne is exploiting gullible people for money while they are grieving. She may think she’s got real powers, or it may be a deliberate con – I don’t know. For some people, the word “evil” may imply that Joanne Jordan is deliberately intending to do evil. I removed the word to avoid people making this misinterpretation.
I should highlight though, that by this misinterpretation it would also be unfair to describe the 9/11 hijackers as evil. They too almost certainly believed that what they were doing was morally righteous. Their only mistake was their gullibility in believing specific passages in the Koran. Which leads me to the moral of the story: check your facts.
Been reading these comments with interest. Posters seem split 50/50.
To sumamrise the comments there are 3 possible scenarios.
1. Joanne is a faker.
2. Joanne is genuine but had an off day.
3. Simon's negativity affected the reading.
1. Can be easily proved/denied. If Joanne is genuine she would have no hesitation in arranging a second reading with Simon. Failure to do so is proof enough for me that she is a fake.
2.If a second or third reading is given and is more successful it will prove Joanne simply had an off day.
3. The hard core believers out there will of course point out that any reading with Simon will fail because of his aura. If so I would like to know why this is so.
As I understand it Mediums communicate direct with spirit or through their guide, they don't channel it through the sitter. In which case why does it matter how the sitter feels?
I am neither believer nor sceptic (although by definition I suppose if i'm not a believer then I must be a sceptic) I prefer myself to say I have an open mind. Surely though even true hard core belovers must accept that some psychics ae not genuine but simply con artists jumping on the badn wagon. It happens in all walsk of life you get genuine as well as cowboy builders for example. Surely it'd the duty of believers to expose frauds who discredit the psychic movement. I'm not saying Joanne is one of these but she owes to everyone to prove otherwise by holding a second reading.
Hi Simon,
Just like to say well done. What an excellent blog.
For my money, you have clearly demonstrated that an alleged 'psychic' tried and failed to use cold reading techniques and pass it off as a psychic reading.
I always find it funny how these 'psychics' need so many questions answered and a lot of feedback from the mark, I mean customer, to be able to provide information back.
Surely, a real psychic could get every bit of information they need from the dead they are alleged to contact?
Although in your case, it would have been better if Joanne had just used the phone to call your dad. Lol!
First class blog! To those saying it was "unfair" on Joanne, perhaps you could elaborate on HOW it was unfair?
The woman is clearly cold reading, or at least attempting to, very badly. The rubbish she is spouting could apply to half the population of the planet.
I'm delighted to hear your father is alive and well.. I'm sure he does want to apologize, probably for not being dead!
How ANYONE can fall for this crap is beyond me.. those of you defending this lunatic need to check yourself into the nearest psychiatrist, because you are clearly as barmy as she is!
As an afterthought, having read a little deeper, I feel I must address one of Pat Davison's comments, that she "has nothing to prove", I believe she does, and so, apparently, does the law.
I was a nurse for many years. Would you have felt completely comfortable if I performed a surgical procedure on you, if I hadn't proved myself capable, and earned my diploma? Or would you prefer someone turning up at the nearest hospital and telling them "I'm a nurse, honest guv"? Of course not. No one practices medicine, or nursing without qualifications; proof that they are up to the job.
So called, and self professed, "psychics" should be equally accountable, as the emotional damage they can do often far outweights the physical damage my hypothetical bogus nurse might do.
Great post Simon and well done. Nothing in the reading suggests she is a genuine psychic. It seems to be full of guess work, misinformation and cold reading. The questions that has to be asked is whether she is a scam artist or genuinly believes in her own abilities. If it was merely an off day then it must have been a hell of a day. Thanks for alerting us and nice one.
Well done Simon. Joanne - you are a charlatan or a loony. Do your worst. Oops - you've already done it.
I have read the comments posted for and against Joanne Jordan and i have to say that from my experience i have nothing but praise for joanne,ok lets hear it, come on, get it off your chests,what will it be this time, heres another mug? like a bunch of petty little school boys.
I bet most of you are spouting off without even going to see her, you are mostly going by this recording made by one sad induvidual,who i bet was bullied at school and who probably dosn't have a wife/girlfriend/boyfriend or whatever, if he did he might not have so much time on his hands to be able to write this drivel i've been reading, i bet you are a real barrel of laughs at home, and those of you that agree with him are no better, get a life a make some friends, oh i forgot, you have cyber friends dont you,sorry?
when i saw joanne i gave her no prompting and i'd never met her,now she told me things that she had no way of knowing from research or from anyone i know,things like unusual names and events so random to anyone else were to accurate to have been plucked out of the air.
I went half out of curiosity and half searching for information on personal topics, i didnt have to give any details as the answers were forthcoming from her, i like to think myself as an intelligent person and would not allow myself to be duped by doing so.
Look, psychic mediums are not a new thing and i'm sure we've heard all this stuff before, if you dont like the opera,dont watch opera, if you dont like eastenders,dont watch eastenders, if you dont believe in psychics,dont pay to go to a psychic, except you didnt pay did you, how often do you do that, whose conning who here? cant wait for the replies,go on slag me off, you know its your lifes work to.
Quite a rant mylo.
Did you listen to the reading?
Do you have a point to make other than anecdotes and insults?
You could perhaps start by explaining why, if she is for real, she told me she that she was in contact with someone who was alive.
Perhaps you could also explain why, she told me my relationship was full of lies.
You said you visited her. What steps did you take to prevent cold reading? Did you record the reading so that you aren't reliant on that unreliable human memory that cold readers are known to exploit?
Have you read the comments that have already explained what cold reading is?
If you've got a point to make, let's hear it. Pointless insults are boring.
To Simon
oh simon,simon,simon
never has the phrase "simple simon" been so apt than when describing you.
please read on.
i'm not sure what exactly you were expecting from this reading, other than what you got.
in your intro to this site you say that joanne told you that your wife was having an affair,well she didnt actually say your wife as you wouldnt say if you were in a relationship or not.
she said someone was not being truthful and that could be anyone in the relationship,or it maybe an affair,or it could be in business,maybe a partnership where trust was important and you needed to gard yourself. but you missed these points out in your intro,unsurprisingly.
you will find that certain things maynot be relevant at present,but maybe not right now, something will happen that wil be like someone has just turned a light on and it will smack you square in the face,you'll see.
she also said someone is being childish,you dont have to be a psychic to work out who that is!
if you visit a psychic who, as part of her readings uses cards of any kind, which, you are not heard objecting to her using,then you cant complain when you dont like what you are told.
at no stage did you tell her that you didnt want to be told of any aspect of your life or your family. she told you Four times that she can only say what she see's,and you can be heard yourself telling her to say what she see's,well HELLO! you went to a psychic,if you are not prepared for what you will hear,DONT GO!
on the subject of your father,joanne's words were "i'm getting an elderly gentleman,has someone passed in the last Two years,someone close to you,was it cancer?"
you can clearly be heard to say "my father" which as it now turns out was an outright lie, you call it "baiting" which you should be ashamed of yourself for,using your own father as bait for an experiment,i think we're getting a clearer picture of you now,just how low can you go?
by your own admission you told her that this was your father,without her personally knowing him,why would she think she had anyone else,you confirmed the connection,for all intent and purposess you led her to believe this was your father,she is not to blame for this,you are.
it may not have been your father but someone at present you cant connect with right now,do some family research,you maybe surprised what you find out.
getting back to the relationship thing,you are heard bringing up the subject EIGHT (8) times,just how insecure are you? i think joanne was so damned acurate,so spot on in some areas that its scared the crap out of you,and its made you look at youself, anyway if you are married or in a relationship,how would know if you were being cheated on,it maybe happening right now,or maybe its going to,remember that smack in the face? maybe it'll be you.
at the end of the reading you are heard saying " i said that i wanted to know if you were for real " i'm sorry but at which stage are you heard saying that beforhand,i missed that?
you used your own recorder to record the reading,which joanne didnt object to,but at which stage is she heard giving you her permission to use her voice for public broardcast?
you are also displaying her business card on this site,at which stage is she heard giving you her permission to use it in this way as she has the sole copywrite to that card,including the photo,wording and layout,you have also blanked out her phone number which breeches copywrite laws.
you are on very thin ice with this,you will be cought out,
remember that smack in the face? lets hope its a legal one, or better still from your father.
Hmmm - Simon, at all times in this running commentary, you have remained calm and factually answered all the relevant legitimate (& illegitimate) points, while Joanna's supporters seem to have devolved into insults and rants.
Bravo on your patience, Simon.
I have had a reading from Joanne Jordan and many other psychics in the past.
She was very accurate and did not fish for information from me, I only confirmed information when it was provided and was spot on.
This is not an exact science, and any communication that does take place is not on the same level of communication experienced between people who are alive.
You are often provided with images, thoughts and need to decipher the message. We are spirits enjoying a physical life, and not living beings waiting for a spirit life.
All will be revealed to believers and non-believers a like when you pass over.
Did you realize not unlike a star we are energy, and that energy cannot be destroyed. It is said that we have all part of the big bang from the creation of the universe inside of us.
Don't be too quick to dismiss and make fun of things you don't necessarily understand, there are many things that science cannot prove, and this is one of them.
Closed minds and closed results I'm afraid. For all of you who are non believers you will be in for a shock one day.
Chris
Simon,
I like many others, when reading this blog, admire your patience and rational thought when being faced with unfair, defensive insults. Your test was clearly scientific and logical. There is no possible rational way in which someone claiming to be able to speak to a specific dead person can communicate with that 'spirit' when that person has not even died. It is ludacris and irrational to suggest that she was having an 'off day', as no matter how unfocused that person may be, they simply can not say that they are speaking to a non existent dead spirit without being either deluded or puposefully lying.
It is funny the lack of reason and intellegence these desperate defenders of Joanne Jordan are. This is narrow mindedness at its pinnacle. I admire your persistence and patience when investigating psychic claims, and replying to the the gullible half-wits that defend blatent fraundulent/deluded psychics.
Craig
Please will people learn the meaning of scepticism. - "cough" Pat
Post a Comment