It's on ABC Family. Didn't TLC drop or get rid of their "medium" reality show!??? How do people believe these con artists!??? And get a so called " reality show" as well???

It's neither rare nor well done.

If these people are 'con artists' go to one and only agree to pay if they give you proof/evidence from the 'spirit' they are talking with really is who they claim. That is, by the way, a standard procedure with 'reputable' mediums.

Of course, it is much easier to call someone a 'con artist' than support it with some evidence or proof!

I have not heard of Monica but networks don't just put 'con artists' on without some verification of their abilities ------ isn't that 'common sense' for everyone except atheists on this board?

Here someone(?) is questioning network people, making more money in 1 year than they make in a life time, ability to chose a professional versus a 'con artist'.

Really???????? I think Don summed up this post quite well.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2015 09:54PM by spiritist.

It's called common sense. Something that's lacking in our dumbed down society.

You said: "If these people are 'con artists' go to one and only agree to pay if they give you proof/evidence from the 'spirit' they are talking with really is who they claim. That is, by the way, a standard procedure with 'reputable' mediums."

What kind of proof/evidence can I expect to get from a "reputable" medium? Being a skeptic, I would require specific, objective information. For instance, if the medium claimed to be in contact with my dead maternal grandmother, would the medium be able to tell me what make and model car was the last she drove? Would the medium be able to tell me her birthday and how old she was when she died? How about the name of her favorite song?


You said: "I have not heard of Monica but networks don't just put 'con artists' on without some verification of their abilities ...."

How do networks test the mediums they put on TV? Could you please give specific examples?


Thank you.

Since you 'sound' sincere I will answer a few things but I am getting a strong vibe that you have no intention whatever of going to a medium.

You should not just "expect" but demand 'adequate' proof which is different in each individual's case or simply do not pay.

This should be negotiated before the session but the medium may not be sure who will come and so may not guarantee something specific before the session but that 'proof' will be provided by the spirit that does come.

I can't answer your second question but this is not the first medium to have a series. There is probably a number of tests and for sure one or more pilot tapings to see how the medium does in front of a large group and camera. The medium has to be both a medium and considered a "TV personality/interesting/etc." to actually get a series, in my opinion.

Let me ask the question a different way: What would YOU demand as "adequate" proof of the legitimacy of a medium? What kind of "proof" would you have to see before you paid a medium. Please be specific.

As far as television mediums ... what I've seen are programs that feature claimed mediums who specialize in giving GENERALITIES--nothing as specific as I proposed in my examples: makes and models of cars owned, birthdays, favorite songs. (Do you have examples of TV mediums--or ANY claimed medium for that matter--who actually give SPECIFIC and OBJECTIVE information to people seeking to communicate with the beyond?)

I will remain a skeptic until I see people who claim to have special powers actually delivering correct answers to straightforward questions similar to the ones I proposed.

I can't remember the specific sources (I have read/watched a lot in the last year) however, I remember some people before they went to their appointment, did something unique like took a picture of a certain parent and put it in the trunk of the car and another I think was discussing an important issue with his wife. Others wore or had in their purse or pocket specific items of the passed (necklaces, pins, rings, etc. etc.).

The spirits who came knew and accurately described the unique thing these people did that morning or wore/had that belonged to the passed person or a relative ------ so that was the "proof", something no one except wives or the person alone knew. Others do get names/initials, dates, death information, etc. from what I can remember. Spirits do not give the same information ---- I think there is a reason.


John sort of covers the gamit of 'major' things of 'proof' he got: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcrxeQiOdVg
I am not sure this is fair ----- obviously his big hits not showing how long or hard it was to get these. I think they are pretty specific but maybe we have a difference of opinion. Obviously, John is one of the best but 'reputable' mediums should be pretty good or not charge for their services.

I would want/demand to get something that I believe could not be looked up or appear in an obituary. Certainly something I did that was 'unique' that day or day before would be good and I would ensure there are plenty of 'unique' things I did to give "spirit' plenty to choose from.

If I had TBMs or other believers with me I would definitely want some feedback from 'spirit' what they think of the Mormonism or any other applicable religion now from their perspective.

There may be opportunities to ask for information you want even provide questions (maybe general) in advance, and see if the medium is ok with asking those type of questions but specifically change them to fit the spirit that comes ----- even make it part of the agreement.

I focus more on 'personal experiences' in psychic day to day issues, so the medium, channeling books, 'testimony' books/accounts, etc. etc. come up but that is secondary to my main objective so you may want to look up more Utube videos on John or the Long Island medium, etc. if you want a better picture of what a medium reading is really like ----- but they are taped so maybe not the full sessions.

I think I am still a little skeptical of some things I read or see also but I think that is ok to be skeptical as long as you are somewhat open to the possibility of this stuff. Spirits are quite aware of what they thought about this type of stuff when in a physical existence so they understand our skepticism.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2015 08:56PM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If these people are 'con artists' go to one and
> only agree to pay if they give you proof/evidence
> from the 'spirit' they are talking with really is
> who they claim. That is, by the way, a standard
> procedure with 'reputable' mediums.

Why should anyone go PAY a con artist?
They make claims about "spirits." The burden of proof is on THEM, not on everyone else to prove them wrong (or right). And since they have no evidence for their claims, their claims are worthless. There are no "reputable mediums."

> Of course, it is much easier to call someone a
> 'con artist' than support it with some evidence or
> proof!

The burden of proof is on THEM. And they have no evidence for their claims. How interesting that you demand other people provide evidence, but provide none for YOUR claims...?

> I have not heard of Monica but networks don't just
> put 'con artists' on without some verification of
> their abilities ------ isn't that 'common sense'
> for everyone except atheists on this board?

That has to be the most ignorant and ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Networks put on what they think will attract viewers and sell ads. They don't care about "verification."

Thanks for chiming in to 'prove' my assertion ------- that the 'common sense' of some atheists on this board is neither 'common' nor does it make any sense.

The bible talks about providing 'fruit' to others ---- can't people with 'common sense' notice when someone is providing 'nothing at best but just arguing for who knows what reason" that it is very counter productive to anyone that wants to learn a little about a given area?

We know what you are saying "over and over again" that you want someone to provide you with 'scientific' proof of what they believe ---- it's hasn't happened yet and probably won't. So, we get that so is there any reason to keep that argument going?

Haven't you heard the saying 'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2015 01:08PM by spiritist.

I use to explain to my first born, that changing diapers was not fun, and I encouraged her to learn to use the toilet, or to at least find some way to signal to me when she wanted to poop, so that I could hold her over the toilet while she did her business. But years went by before she finally figured things out.

But it never stopped me from encouraging her to please stop messing in her pants, and I propose that this explains IICHTK efforts. He thinks you're messing your pants. "Spirits" may or may not exist, but the scientific method does exist. To ask that you be exempted from any form of scrutiny, other than your feelings, is pretty much 'messing your pants.'

Or so I opine, with a tad less humility than you'd like.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I propose
> that this explains IICHTK efforts. He thinks
> you're messing your pants. "Spirits" may or may
> not exist, but the scientific method does exist.
> To ask that you be exempted from any form of
> scrutiny, other than your feelings, is pretty much
> 'messing your pants.'

And the rest of us have to smell that mess. It stinks up the joint quite a bit :)

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for chiming in to 'prove' my assertion
> ------- that the 'common sense' of some atheists
> on this board is neither 'common' nor does it make
> any sense.

If you stand on the earth, ignorant of facts, "common sense" will tell you it's flat, and it's the sun that's moving around the earth. Both of which are completely wrong. So much for "common sense." And of course, you had to add the ad-hominem.

> The bible talks about providing 'fruit' to others
> ---- can't people with 'common sense' notice when
> someone is providing 'nothing at best but just
> arguing for who knows what reason" that it is very
> counter productive to anyone that wants to learn a
> little about a given area?

Providing rational reasons to NOT accept the outrageous, unsupported claims of people IS learning about a given area. It's learning to tell bullshit from facts. Which is a very good thing to learn.

> We know what you are saying "over and over again"
> that you want someone to provide you with
> 'scientific' proof of what they believe ---- it's
> hasn't happened yet and probably won't. So, we
> get that so is there any reason to keep that
> argument going?

You should pay more attention -- because I have never once ever demanded anyone provide "scientific proof" for their beliefs. What I've said over and over again is that claims (like these, and yours) that have no supporting evidence have no value, and should be discarded.

And yes, I know it hasn't happened and probably won't. There's a good reason for that -- there isn't any evidence. So why keep arguing these things are valid, when there's no evidence they are? Perhaps you should try taking your own advice...?

> Haven't you heard the saying 'Insanity: doing the
> same thing over and over again and expecting
> different results."

I have heard that. Yet you keep insisting these things are real despite there being no evidence for them. That fits your definition perfectly.

In social psychology, we call it...... bum-tum-tum dum!

"The Common Sense Fallacy!" :D

Most shows and commercials on tv are a con. It's simply entertainment for people who want to watch it. Judging one con and not another isn't useful. I find it all a con,especially the Disney channel. So I avoid it. That way i can ignore the whole thing.

As far as how much work networks do vetting their chosen people to put on the air, two words - JOSH DUGGAR! Need I say more?

But watching Monica the medium is funny. She is entertaining but not to be taken seriously, like the BoM. If it weren't so evil, it would be funny.