Psychic detectives, both "real" and fictional, are currently hot. They have been publicized on Larry King Live and seen in the new hit NBC television show Medium, which recently beat the science-based drama CSI:Miami in the ratings. Yet a close examination of psychic detectives suggests they are better at finding publicity than missing persons.A common pattern occurs in high-profile missing persons cases (such as Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart, and countless others): dozens or hundreds of "psychics" offer tips (for free or for pay), yet when police follow up on the information, the vast majority of it ––or all of it––turns out to be wrong. One trick psychics use is to give very vague information open to later interpretation (most missing persons are likely to be found "near water," even if it’s a lake, puddle, river, drainage pipe, etc.). They also use information already available through normal means, and make so many different guesses that some will almost certainly be right. Police must follow up on all tips, including those from dubious sources, thus wasting precious hours and police manpower. When bodies are found it is always through accident or police work. Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there is not a single documented case of a missing person being found or recovered due solely to psychic information. That doesn’t stop them from trying, though. In addition to Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson, psychic information failed to recover Brooke Wilberger, a Brigham Young University student who missing since May 24, 2004. Police said they have received more than 500 tips from alleged psychics. As of this writing her body has not been found. Psychics also failed to recover Lori Kay Hacking, the pregnant Salt Lake City woman missing since July 19, 2004. Her husband eventually directed police to a local landfill, where Hacking’s body was found.

The search for Hacking was joined by the parents of Elizabeth Smart, the girl who vanished from her home in 2002. After Smart was kidnapped, nearly a thousand psychics contacted the Smart family and police, offering their visions, information, and evidence. These tips, like all the rest, were investigated and followed up. Not a single piece of evidence from all those psychics led to the girl’s recovery; instead Smart’s abductors were recognized by two alert couples in a Salt Lake City suburb. News reports, quick thinking, and handy telephones rescued Smart, not psychic powers.

View: Full Article | Source: Live Science

Not one??? I find that statistic just as dubious as those they are debunking

Why! I am so shocked!

It makes sense, though. Even if there are a few people with genuine psychic insights into these cases, they are going to be so overwhelmed by the number of wannabe psychics that they're going to get lost.

And, ask yourself, if you had a sudden, vivid image of a murder or murder victim or whatever, would YOU call the police and tell them about it? I know I wouldn't!

I am willingly to believe in many things that others do not but I have always been a little dubious of Psychics, there have been just far too many fakes out there trying to make money!

A "Psychic's" guide to success is to follow the philosophy of P.T. Barnum's "There's a sucker born every minute". Why is it the every single time psychic phenomena is given a chance to prove itself under scientific investigation it fails to produce? And everytime a psychic fails the test they try to dismiss it as "not being the right conditions", "not feeling well that day", or "too much negative energy in the room".

Don't get me wrong, it is fascinating stuff, but I also love to watch David Copperfield, will sometimes thumb through the Weekly World News when in the checkout line, love science fiction and fantasy.

Well, to be fair, there is a good chance that psychic ability simply does not lend itself well to test conditions. After all, if placed in a room with cameras, monitoring equipment, and several openly skeptical scientists and challenged to prove one's virility, many a healthy man would "fail to produce". Also, given that cryptasthesia is so poorly understood, it could be that the proof they are seeking is simply inappropriate. You can't catch stars in a fishing net and lay them out on the table, but that doesn't mean they are a figment of your imagination.

That said, I think a good rule of thumb is that the more money that's changing hands the less chance there is that there's anything to it.

Also, and I know this isn't really fair because everyone is different, but I've had some flashes of insight myself from time to time. I worked at a fast food restaurant for years and there were times when I would just *know* what people were going to order before they did, even if it was something weird. Sometimes that feeling would last for a few minutes, sometimes for an entire shift. When I got that feeling I was almost always right, BUT, I could never *summon* the feeling. It just happened sometimes and I had no control over it. So I tend to doubt people who tell me they can predict things at will.

i'll have a Big Mac



but i bet you knew i was going to say that


but seriously you make an excellent point about "stage fright"

i believe there are people that have psychic abilityand it also seems likely to me they dont come forward for fear of being treated like lab rats

I can understand that some people may get stage fright as was suggested, but statistically it just doesn't make sense that 100% of the time scientific tests fail because the "psychic" has stage fright or whatever other excuse they come up with, especially with there being such a broad variety of psychic phenomena to test.

All it would take is one person to prove this and in all of human history there has never been a psychic yet that has passed the scientific test. Not all testing conditions even require the stereotypical sterile environment surrounded by frowning scientists, cameras, and scary electronic equipment. Some scientific tests can be simple statistical analysis under a small set of controlled conditions which are only there to prevent trickery.


I know you aren't being literal, but even stars can be scientifically proven. I would have to say that there is more scientific/mathmatical evidence to prove the existence of God than there is to prove psychic phenomena and you can't get much more metaphysical than that.

If you read the studies done at the University of Arizona, Allison Dubois has an 85% success rate on her predictions. Thats better than most people get in their High school Science Tests. Of course if you don't believe this will mean nothing ether . RIGHT?

Has anyone here ever hear of Dorothy Allison. She had a high success rate and she only ask for the person requesting her help to pay for her trip there, and for her room and board, she was on a fixed income and couldn't afford the extra expense. I think that she is the only one that I actually believed had any psychic ability at all.

The so called studies done at the University of Arizona were conducted by a known kook "scientist" who's methods of investigation are dubious at best. In regards to the study on Dubois, Schwartz has refused to allow the scientific communtity to scrutinize the statements Dubois made during the psychic readings. Because of this, it is impossible to determine whether most of Dubois' statements had a naturally high probability of being correct built into them to bolster her rating. Another problem is not being able to tell whether some of Dubois' readings were intentionally open-ended to interpretation by the person being read.

Here's a great example of this that comes straight from Schwartz's research, where he received a "psychic" reading from Dubois.
How in the world does "I don't walk alone" say anything about a wheelchair? If I was thinking about my dear departed grandmother, I could just as easily interpret that as meaning my grandmother has been rejoined with my grandfather who passed away a few years earlier than her. Since she was so lonely after grandpa's death, it would certainly seem accurate to hear her want to make a point of saying she no longer "walks alone" because she now walks with grandpa. Any other one of you reading this can probably think of someone you could connect such a generic statement to.

This Professor Schwartz is a looney. He wants so badly to believe that his methodology has been tainted beyond it's ability to be taken seriously. Present proof from a legitimate (and unbiasedly skeptical) scientist and then maybe you'd have something, but good luck on that one.

I just watched a show on Australia tv last night called sensing murder.

It was very good and the psychics they used picked up so much information, they even gave the police extra information which has been proven correct in regards to a 30yr old crime.
I'd love to hear a skeptics view on it.