Psychic Videos

Source : Yahoo AnswersQuestion : do psychics actually believe in what they do?

i think they’re scam artists.

Answer by Terry reinstated
They believe they can seperate you from your $ $ $

Answer by zonkerland
They believe that we are all morons(:
They are about 99.9% correct

Answer by caitlin.CALAMITY
“They believe that we are all morons(:
They are about 99.9% correct”
^^ I must agree with my sister ^^

Answer by smk111
Do people really believe in God? Yes…

Answer by Boba Fett
It’s possible to believe in hocus pocus for which there’s no evidence. Isn’t that what religion is all about?

Answer by soldier of Christ
Not only are they fakes,and fraudes but it is against GODS will to consult these so call psychics they are used by satan to LIE to people.

Answer by SirLoin Stake
It is a responsibility divinely laid upon each of us to bear one another’s burdens, to strengthen one another, to encourage one another, to lift one another, to look for the good in one another, and to emphasize that good.

Answer by Free Thinker
I knew that you were going to ask that…

Answer by Magen
Geez! People are harsh on here. My answer would be that actual, real psychics (people who are genuinely intuitive and can get knowledge about you even when they don’t know you) probably believe very much in what they do. How could they not? It’s happening in their head and they see that they just know things that they couldn’t have known many, many times depending on how many readings they do.

There are scam artists. They usually are very expensive. I found a psychic years ago that I go to and she’s really great. She definitely believes in what she does. She gives a really good explanation on her website of how she does what she does.

You can email her and ask her this question. I’m sure she wouldn’t charge you for a question about this as it is just her opinion–not a reading. If you did want a reading to try her out, it’s only $ 5 (if you’re a first time client). I know she’s not a scam because I’ve gone to her for years and have recommended tons of people–including others on yahoo answers–to her. Also, she barely charges anything for a reading. No one is going to waste their time scamming people out of $ 5 at a time. That’s not worth it.

Answer by hippo
Yes they are scam artists.

Check out this video documentary debunking a psychic:

Also there is a 1 million dollar reward for anyone that can prove that they have paranormal powers, no-one has EVER claimed the prize money and it’s been available for years:

Source : Yahoo AnswersQuestion : Could she be a psychic or have some weird powers?

She predicted allot of things that others didn’t believe in until it actually happens.She seems to know what another person if feeling just by looking at them and she always knows when someone is laying to her.
Whenever she looks at people to long they begin to feel uneasy as if they r kinda scared.
What is all of this there is more that she can do but I am just gonna stick to this right now

Answer by stiggy
no! psychics arent real!

Answer by Sgt. Suave
Psychics don’t exist, so no.

And weirdly enough, if you stare at someone then they won’t feel very comfortable. That’s just a natural response to it.

Answer by Tom
Check out this video, its really helpful.

I answered someone’s question of a similar nature a couple of days ago, showed them this video. They realised they were being scammed by two idiots or ‘psychics’ who told her she was going to die if she didn’t start paying them more!!! Please, open your eyes, for your own sake 🙂
x x x

Answer by Cletus
No. Find out from her what my middle name is.

Answer by Me > You
“She” needs to get out more…

Answer by Callie Halla
She could very well me a psychic. Idk… but if her name is Cassie or Cassandra, that makes sense becuase that’s my name and it is a Greek princess with the gift of prophecy.
Is her name Cassandra or any other variation?

Source : Yahoo AnswersQuestion : Are scientists afraid to study psychic paranormal phenomena?

I started watching this video and wanted to get feedback from others on it. It’s an accademic lecture by a parapsychology researcher. It’s an hour and a half long. If you don’t want to watch it, please don’t bother responding. If you do watch it, please comment on what you think of this issue. Best Answer will only go to someone who actually watches the video and supports their own view of this issue.

Sorry. The question should be “psychic *or* paranormal phenomena”.
Scotdalehigh64, You fail. there’s no way you could’ve watched even a few minutes of that video. Accademics DO study psychic phenomena, just not very often. This debate is about why they don’t study it more often.
The video is actually less than an hour of a fairly entertaining Power Point presentation, followed by a half hour of Q+A. The presentation shows there’s been a small but consistent margin of success in many psi experiments over many years.
Psiexploration, I can’t believe 3 of the haters on here gave you thumbs down. Your answer is perfectly reasonable and supported by facts. It looks like they are the ones who are afraid of ideas that conflict with their own.

Please, anyone who’s interested, come to the Yahoo! Answers – Debate Forum for serious discussions.

Answer by scottsdalehigh64
The answer is simple. Scientists are studying reality, that is, the normal. They don’t waste their time on whatever the paranormal is.

Answer by TR
It’s a bit long, so I didn’t watch all of it. But I am quite familiar with Dean Radin.

I think this claim that they are “afraid” is a little bit too-self serving towards the psi advocates. In fact, I would also suggest that it is a quite naive position to take. Radin seemed to express it as “taboo”, except there is nothing taboo in science. In fact, if something is taboo in science, that’s what scientists are going to gravitate too. Science is all about investigating the unknown.

If they are “afraid”, the “fear” would be about wasting their time on something that will yield no results (psi hasn’t seemed to yield reliable and generally convincing results yet for anyone, which is a problem) when they could be researching other topics which would be far more likely to yield scientifically valuable and useful insights. If there was an inkling that psi was a real phenomena AND that it could be studied and tested and confirmed in a scientifically convincing way, scientists would be all over it. If they couldn’t get it funded, they would be working nights in their free time because there would certainly be a Noble prize for the first researchers to finally demonstrate it.

Fear has nothing to do with it. I think that the simple recognition that they might be wasting years of their life on a wild goose chase is more than enough motivation to steer most scientists away from spending their time on psi research.

Answer by Minerva
(I also answered you in the other section with the duplicate question):

I’ve seen this before and like it a lot, thanks for posting a question about it.
In my own life I’ve explored these subjects and I’ve taken some ridicule for it, but I suppose someone in the University academic system would take a lot more flak for exploring this stuff.
I think Radin understands the fundamental fact that the subject of psi is NOT understood and there are many things that cannot be explained. It would be illogical to abandon exploration of this subject but that is definitely what some people want. And this “taboo” he speaks of has everything to do with the typical human ego control issues that frankly plague the scientific community. They key word is “control”, and you cannot CONTROL psi phenomenon, and it’s not easy to get “repetition”, and so they mock what they do not understand.

Clearly the reductionist scientific scenario has now been debunked by quantum physics, and it’s only a matter of time before everyone catches up. I think Radin and those like him are actually making a huge “dent” in the current paradigm.

I also really respect the fact that he LISTENS to the accounts of witnesses. One things I’ve noticed on YA is the complete lack of any credibility given to those of us who have WITNESSED and experienced this stuff over and over. I’ve posted my story and data about UFOs on here and was told I am a liar by a person who wasn’t even willing to look into it. It’s frustrating sometimes but overall it’s THEIR PROBLEM. They cannot stop me or Dean Radin from exploring and documenting this stuff. Radin has a body of evidence that when examined does hold up to scrutiny and his continuing work ensures there will finally be a breakthrough in this field.

Answer by Kyle S
I do have a rather unique perspective as a Mentalist (magician that performs psychic shows), I also do research into psychic and intuitive abilities. Both culturally and practically. I honestly have had some odd intuitive experiences that makes one pause. I also have been used in double blind tests for the paranormal club at my college.

My view of this is simple there is a cultural taboo that filters down into the scientific worlds. I say that there is an issue with the laughable nature of this field of study. But I think it is Sciences duty to be neutral. Note the CIA Program Stargazer (Remote viewing) there has been “Well established” I have even heard that in modified form Stargazer is still going on till this day. My opinion I agree with him simply because of the fact that there is so little study but the ones that are out there are largely ignored and largely sucessful.

Answer by psiexploration
I have previously watched that video. I don’t think they are afraid to study the phenomena per se in other words I don’t think they fear going insane or falling under a curse.
What they do fear and with good reason is the reaction of their academic peers brought on through ignorance and skeptics media blitz against anything that doesn’t fit into the materialistic philosophy.

Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer in her book “Extraordinary Knowing” talks about her research into the field and the incredible ignorance of her colleagues about the established research in such matters and her uphill battle to get academics (psychologist in particular) to even examine the research.

Philosopher Stephen Braude in his book “The Gold Leaf Lady and other Parapsychological Investigations” openly admits that he did not attempt to undertake the investigation of anything to do with parapsychology until he had obtained tenure at his university.

So, yes even scientist that have decided to study psi were initially scared to study it and some just placed themselves in strong enough positions to be able to pursue their interest others bravely decided not to care and others that have found positive results immediately dropped their research and didn’t pursue the matter in the interest of advancing their professional careers.

It is unfortunate that the public, skeptics (at least pseudo skeptics), and students that have never interacted with a university IRB (Institutional Review Board) or any other university or government funding system don’t understand that science (especially within government agencies and academia) is a highly subjective and very political process.

The idea that positive results (of which there are many) and repeatable experiments (of which there are at least some) would cause a psi researcher that established those (Charles Honorton, Harold Puthoff,Russell Targ) to have fame and fortune and Nobel Prizes thrown at them is to show a complete ignorance of the history of science.

It is not unlike saying that if Galileo had been right science would have embraced him with open arms and he could write himself a check for anything he wanted. Or to suggest that if Edison had really been able to make a phonograph or a long lasting electric light he would have been hailed by all of a science as a hero.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
(Max Planck – Nobel Prize Physics 1918) [link below]


Answer by Gary Y
Short answer: In order to study something, there must be decent evidence that that something actually exists. Otherwise you have nothing to study.

Answer by Mark T
1. It would be fascinating if there were testable psi phenomenon, but simply put this taboo is not entirely unfounded in it’s existence. It serves and important function of keeping genuinely BAD science from finding it’s way into canonical science.

This has the unfortunate effect of making ALL science harder – especially cutting edge science, but this isn’t just cutting edge they are making some fairly radical claims here. So incredible claims require incredible evidence.

Notably, I found that some of his analysis – while well presented to the lay person did have some statistically curious gaps.

There were a few occasions where he suggested statistically significant results but did not then show that data. In a presentation like this, that could be either bad presentation style or an indication that his data might not have been as statistically significant as suggested.

The segment regarding meta-analysis is specious at best.

In the best of cases meta-analysis works only with major caveats. In this circumstance, the number of questions introduced devalue the meta-analysis sufficiently that it is less than compelling evidence.

Furthermore, while control methods are not horrible, double-blind methods and importantly much larger survey sizes would be very helpful. In this way, given the dearth of such larger survey sizes you have concerns. Secondly, there is no population break out other than by gender.

If for instance you wanted to strenuously demonstrate that psi phenomenon were or were not statistically relevant, you may consider a series of demographically differentiated population target surveys.

This would be my first approach – perform a demographic analysis across a broad population to determine if a segment of the broader population is more clinically capable. In this way I’d be fishing for the Pareto Curve (the 80/20 rule) which is a pretty common phenomenon in most natural systems.

So take 100 highly creative, females, 100 highly creative males, 100 regular males and females. Do a study along those lines, and you will probably get some cool data.

Mr. Radin’s clearly well spoken and apparently is interested in genuine analysis.

But this gets to the next question. Reliability.

I’ve spent ALOT of my professional life studying data and one of the things you learn about is whether a result is REALLY significant or just looks that way.

Consider terrorism – often touted as the “cure-all” to our woes about terrorism, is the idea that if given enough resources, and access to information, the government will happily sift through that data, perform a variety of statistical, quantitative and other analyses and identify terrorists by their “electronic” footprint, before they do something ostensibly BAD to the rest of us.

One of the most compelling reasons and efforts was made in the aftermath of 9/11. However there were two fundamental problems which trumped the best efforts and BILLIONS of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-hours invested.

Problem 1. Psi might be considered in the same way data-mining and quantitative analysis have been – they suffer from the same problem…. far too much data, with far too little statistically meaningful results. The case of “Nervous Phil” the diligent NSA analyst who was successfully sorting and sifting through all phone-calls into and out of the US had a serious fundamental flaw.

Every conversation mentioning terrorism becomes a potential positive data-point. What percentage of those potential positives then later become a predictive of a future terrorist event. Because terrorist events of significance are rare, the correlation to data beforehand is not detectable from within the billions of harmless data-points, so you cannot form a model ,even though you have all the data you could hope for beforehand.

This still leaves a secondary problem, presuming you form a predictive model, which makes the problem more absurd, the idea of then demographically profiling on such a rare event, sounds wonderful, but there will be tens of thousands or millions of probable or likely events, such that you essentially are “alerting” so often, that you would need an infinite number of FBI/DHS or whomever agents to sufficiently investigate every possible event.

Without a specific date, location, or other highly specific information, even reliable precognitive abilities would be pretty useless.

Problem 2. Politics – As Suskind points out in his book and others have no doubt discovered, such MASSIVE efforts to use data to effect good results have not always been used in a neutral way.

So when the chips were down in the 2004 Election, Nervous Phil and the NSA were outted on “Meet The Press” as evidence that the administration was doing good things in the name of protecting the people. Al Queda guys apparently watch TV in addition to plotting to destroy western civilization, and noted Mr. Cheney’s remarks.

And simply used a non-electronic 1000 year old, slow but effective secret courier system, rendering our massive investment worthless within days of it’s broadcast on TV.

So who is to suggest that Psi phenomenon would not be misused in this way.

At the end of the day, you really have two problems.

1. Significance – Yes you might be able to predict or perform some other psi task, but would it be important and accurate, or would it just be mildly annoying and troubling. True precognitive psychics would perhaps predict some horrible event, but unless they have time-stamps and specific dates and times, they could always be dismissed as encouraging and cheerleading others to act to effect a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And from the Babylon 5 series – two additional problems

1. Accurate – but only to the specific incident – but not to the context of the event –

2. Homo-Superior – Wouldn’t those with certifiable telepathic ability consider themselves naturally and demonstrably “better” than the rest of us, and that could be considerably dangerous – to non-telepaths or non-psi gifted.

In this way I think it’s perfectly fine to want to improve our species but considering the bloodshed on account of people that just “thought” they were better rather than people that “knew” they were better, it might be best if we concentrated on learning to deal better with each other.

Answer by Kev
Good on him for taking science where it is suppose to go – into the unknown. The numbers say it and something is going on. Academically it is a hard to pursue with a big jump required to get a practical application out of it, but for understanding our experience he is on the money.

As for the taboo, that is one portrayed by the hegemony of the media not the people. This is about power and control not understanding and growing as with similar topics like UFO’s and the soul. Skepticism keeps the dumb ideas out, criticism keeps the good ideas out. The truth is out there, keep searching…

Source : YoutubeWatch this video on Psychic Videos

How to Develop Psychic Abilities | Psychic Abilities


The old occult saying of “Know Thyself” sounds merely like a cliché that seems overused in many circumstances in the occult. What does this term mean? How does knowing yourself and the power of “I” effect you as a person.

I would like to share a short biography of my life as a brief example. I would like to make clear the synopsis of this essay is to essentially show how the Will affects the the magical user through magick, but this is not an summary of playing the victim of ‘poor me.’ There are other people with worse things than what I serve an example of in life, but I only know my experiences from my personal perception.