Thursday, May 13, 2010

Sylvia Browne's 2010 predictions

Back from a couple of weeks off hanging with my folks I thought I would start off with a nice juicy topic - tearing Sylvia Browne's 2010 predictions into little tiny pieces. Alright, it wouldn't be that juicy since it would be easier than breathing, but it would have been fun.

Of course I soon stumbled into a problem with this - you can't actually read Browne's 2010 predictions in full unless you are a member of her inner circle. And I'll be fucked with a rusty Buick before I give that charlatan any money, even if it is just so I can have the pleasure of showing her to be the useless fraud that she is.


Anyway, you can view her 2009 predictions over on that link and you'll see  a few categories of prediction:

  • the repeated stating of the bleeding obvious
  • the likely to happen but didn't
  • the flat out hopelessly wrong but you could have taken a wild stab at it happening at some point
The simple fact is that her predictions are anything but startling or indicative of something supernatural or psychic happening. Instead, Browne's predictions are pathetically obvious as nothing but hopeful guesses and stating stuff that would be clear to a worm living in a cave at the bottom of the sea.

Go ahead, read the list - most are just flat out wrong and the ones that are right or come close to being right were basically obvious anyway. In fact, looking at the list it is hard to see any predictions she could claim to have been right about without being very generous to her.

Anyway, it is possible to find some details of predictions that Browne makes for 2010 online - no great details and clearly abridged versions of whatever she is hiding from the general public and just for her inner circle (and I am sure hiding the predictions has nothing to do with her then being able to re-write them after the fact this time round).

So, I will take a look at what I can find for her 2010 predictions. What I was really interested in was whether or not Browne was going to claim that she had predicted the Haiti earthquake, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the Eyjafjallajöekull volcano eruptions. Because, and let's be frank, any predictions claimed for 2010 would be as worthless as one of my pubic hairs if they didn't mention these events, wouldn't they?

Browne's 2010 predictions

First I found some details she wrote back in 2008, here.

She writes:

Around 2009 to 2010, I predict Americans will start working on what I like to call our "buts."

A lesser man than me would make some crack about obesity in the USA based on a play on words now, but I won't. I'm above that sort of thing. I don't think there is much to a prediction that American's are going to be working on their butts though.

Damn.

Browne then lists some problems that most societys face - poverty, injustice and corruption. She then 'predicts' that the US will:

develop strong resolve and resources to address these problems and come up with some good solutions.

Oh well. She isn't very good at this is she?
 
But then she gets more specific:
 
I predict a great rise in skin cancer in children until 2010.

Wow, it doesn't get more specific than that does it? And that should be easily verifiable shouldn't it? Of course, even back in 2008 everyone was aware that skin cancer rates were increasing dramatically and that children were at great risk. So this is less of a prediction and more of a re-stating of what everyone knew anyway. If everyone knows it is already happening, it really isn't a prediction Sylvia. Unfortunately the CDC figures I found for skin cancer rates only went up to 2006 so I can't verify accurately whether or not Browne's "prediction" was born out by the figures. I would be surprised if the figures didn't show a rise in skin cancer in children since that has been the trend for some time - but Browne actually said a "great rise" so you also have to question what precisely she means by this. Does she mean a rise that would be over the expected one given the trends? What does "great" mean in this case?

And Browne wouldn't be a fraudulent psychic if she didn't give herself an out from a specific prediction, would she? So she goes on to say:

Then again, people could pay attention - and reverse this prediction right out from under me.

So, in other words, if the "predicted" rise in skin cancer rates in children is born out Browne will claim she predicted it, but if it isn't she will say she predicted that to - so this prediction can never be wrong! How typically convenient.

I predict that it will rain sometime in the next week. But of course it might not. There, psychic prediction 101 for ya. I can claim I was right either way and I can't be wrong.

I predict the President elected sometime between 2008 and 2020 will die in office from a heart attack.

And from the specific to the apparently specfic but not really. Sure it is specific to pick the President as the victim of a heart attack, but if this was written when it looked like McCain might still win, not exactly a shot in the dark is it? Everyone was worried he might pop his clogs while in office - that's why Palin was so terrifying. High stress job and heart attack sometime in a 12 year period. No, not impressed. But we'll be watching Sylvia.

The Vice President who will finish their term will have an unpopular and mistaken intention to declare war on North Korea. By that time, North Korea will have weapons of mass destruction. In the middle of efforts to declare war, I predict the Vice President will be assassinated.


And this just sounds like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. Of course, since this could happen any time in the next ten years I'm sure Browne's intention was that people when they read this were impressed by how specific it was but once 2021 comes round and none of this happened no one will remember it anyway and her reputation marches on undamaged.
 
That's another key to psychic predictions - make them so far in the future everyone forgets what you said so it doesn't matter if you were wrong.
 
Continuing with the Clancy plot Browne says there will be an investigation into the Vice Presidents death (no, really? What a surprise.) and that there will be surprises (gosh, astounding). And there will be accusations of the misuse of funds in politics? Surely not?
 
I predict we can truly say "goodbye" to the common cold in 2009 or 2010.
 
Oh dear, almost three quarters of the way through this prediction and not even close to having an end in sight for the common cold. And why is goodbye in quotes? Sure you can't literally say goodbye to the common cold, but does she mean it will be gone by the end of this year or not? Or are the quotes her get out clause - so she can say she didn't really mean the common cold would be gone? We'll be watching Sylvia. She goes on:

The solution to the common cold involves heat.

Oh good grief - cold must be cured by heat in the simpletons mind - what century are we in? Idiot.

Keep in mind that the body's first response when we develop a cold is to come down with a fever. Many doctors today no longer rush to push patients to take temperature reducing medications when they come down with a fever, unless the fever is dangerous.

OK. One, she isn't correct with her first statement, two she is merely stating the obvious as if it backs up her case, classic woo.

So as the immune system fights a cold with heat, the cure for the common cold certainly may lie in this first signal to heal.

Wow, you mean the clue to fighting the common cold may be in how the body fights the common cold? Nothing gets past this girl. Genius. I'm convinced.

I predict that a small cubicle will become available in doctor's offices sometime in 2009 and it will be heated to a very precise temperature. There may be a special vapor placed into the cubicle. Patients will stand in the cubicle for approximately five minutes and the rhinitis germ will be destroyed.

And a fail. Thanks for playing. Nothing of the sort happened in 2009.

But the fail doesn't end there, and brace yourself for this because I am sure that it will be a huge surprise that Browne is so far off the mark she isn't even in this reality:

The common cold is not usually associated with a fever.

But don't take my word for it.

Money quote:

Usually there is no fever -- in fact, fever and more severe symptoms may indicate that you have the flu and not a cold.


Epic fail Sylvia. Just epic.

The cubicle will become available in 2009 or 2010.

Wait, I thought it was 2009 that the cubicle would become available? Perhaps she was afraid she had been to specific, push the date back and suddenly we are into the realms of people forgetting what she said again. What a surprise.

I predict hypnotic past-life regression will become available through a group of trained psychologists on both the east and west coasts of the U.S.A. in 2009. It will prove to be quite a success and will be widely practiced by 2011.

And this one is a mess isn't it? Past life regression is of course "available" (in the sense that it isn't real but some people pretend to do it), but usually from woos and quacks. No doubt some trained psychologists may even use it or believe in it. And to predict it will be available on both coasts allows her to extend her claim to basically anywhere in the continental United States, very convenient. So this prediction amounts to past life regression will be used by some trained psychologists somewhere in the US between 2009 and 2011 and it will be widely practised. No signs of that last happening yet thankfully.

So, not very impressive so far. But there are more up to date predictions available to. Browne has a YouTube video up that includes a couple of vague 2010 predictions as well. That voice is still scary.

Anyway, what does she predict in this video? Well, not much. First thing I had to laugh at was her stating how hard the last couple of years have been for everyone. Really? Because it doesn't look like she has been suffering that much to me. She is really going to compare herself to someone living hand to mouth in Detroit? Fuck off.

But the predictions, which the video claims were written in November 2009:

President Obama is doing a good job, and we will see when the dust settles, health care will be better for everyone.

Wow. Earth shattering. Who would have been able to predict at the height of the healthcare debate that health care was going to change for everyone? Certainly not me. Go Sylvia. "Everyone is going to be under some kind of really good health care." Gosh, it is almost like she read the bill that said everyone needed to be under some kind of health care. "Really good" would certainly be open to question no doubt. Why is it that rich people assume everyone gets the same health care they do?

Weather is going to be more unpredictable than it has in 25 years.

Weather, unpredictable? What, really? Well I never. And you'd have to ask, does she mean weather or does she mean climate? Of course it is hardly news that weather might be getting more unpredictable since scientists have been saying that global warming will change weather patterns for a while. Nothing earth shattering here.

She also says that this unpredictable weather has to do with the polar tilt. She doesn't say what she means by this of course. And of course we already know what effect polar tilt has on weather - and it ain't changing anytime soon. No doubt she threw this in so she could sound all 'sciency'.

And oh phew - Sylvia says we don't have to worry about 2012. That's a relief, because that had been a real nail biter for me. Then Browne makes some comment about the Maya running out of ink, that's it. Not quite sure why the Maya running out of ink would be relevant since we know they also used inscription on tablets of stone. Idiot. Apparently Browne and her cohorts can't even use something simple like Wikipedia to find out about the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar, Mayan Calendar, or Mayan Script.

Good grief.

Then she throws in some Bible quotes about no-one being able to predict the end of the world. Then she says we aren't going to have the end of the world. Then she says the Bible says the end of the world will come like a thief in the night.

I'm not an expert, but I am pretty sure that somewhere in all that you may, just may, find some contradictions.

"It won't be someone that has written something from thousands of years ago" says Browne. She even includes Nostradamus in this. Again, I'm no expert, but when was the Bible written by someone?

Of course, it is interesting that Browne brings up Bible quotes in relation to predictions, given what the Bible says about people who make predictions. About people who claim to be mediums. After all in Deuteronomy 18:9-12 we find:

When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or  spiritist, or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD...

I guess Browne is not an Old Testament person.

Now Browne gets on to accidents and terrorist activity. It sure would be nice to know about these things, wouldn't it? Terrorist activity hey? So no doubt we can expect a mention of the recent attempted bombing of Times Square. Right? I mean, even an abridged version would warn people about that, wouldn't it?

Oh Jimmy, you are silly. Here's what Browne has to say:

I'm still worried about train travel and now buses as well.

And this in November 2009. Because I am quite sure there has never been any precedent anywhere before for accidents or terrorist attacks involving trains and buses. Like for instance July 2005. Or maybe March 2004. Or pick a year for a bus bombing in Israel. Pick a country and a year for a train accident. But hey, Browne has been saying this for three years (that means she started predicting this AFTER the London and Madrid attacks by the way) and it happens every year. Must be true then. Because I am quite sure that train wrecks and terrorist attacks on public transport are so hard to predict. I would certainly never guess that kind of thing - solid proof she is psychic.

The reason for all these train wrecks? Wobbly tracks apparently. Very serious problem. But never fear Europeans because Sylvia points out the train system is a lot safer in Europe.

Now here's where Sylvia's predictions get really uncanny, and remember this is written in November 2009.

There will be new x-ray equipment at most major airports that is very innovative.

Wow. I can't imagine where she heard about something like that in October 2009 at Manchester International Airport. I mean, it isn't like the TSA has been using backscatter machines at airports in the US since before April 2009 or anything.

Sylvia - it isn't a prediction if it has already fucking happened.

Maybe she doesn't mean these machines that were already in use all over the US the year before she predicts them being used. But no, she describes them as like the ones from 'Total Recall' - so it is these machines that have been around since at least 2006 that she is talking about. Idiot.

Wow, Sylvia thinks we're going to see something that might take a whole body image of you, some time in 2010. So, she's only 4 years behind with her predictions.

And there you have it. No volcano. No oil spill. No earthquake. Of course, I have no doubt that if the 2010 predictions came out for free we'd see these things included after the fact, but the little we do have of Browne's 2010 predictions are laughable or already shown to be wrong.

Psychic powers my arse.

32 comments:

  1. This guy is way better.... http://x-files.wikia.com/wiki/Yappi

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well they do have one thing in common - their psychic powers are fictional!

    Oh snap...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm in the medical field. They actually have something they are working on, experimental of course, much like the cubicle she refers to. Who knows, maybe.......

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous:

    Please use a psuedonym if you choose to post any further comments, all future anonymous ones you make will be deleted.

    As for your comment I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

    Firstly both myself and my wife work in the medical field and we've never heard of this cubicle, now that proves nothing but then without some evidence your comments are basically worthless as well, and without knowing what you do in the medical field there's no reason to even take your word for it - hospital janitors work in the medical field too.

    So, give us something we can look at for this cubicle.

    Second, how much like the cubicle Browne mentions is this device - exactly? Sort of? Vaguely?

    Is it a small cubicle to go in doctors offices, heated to a precise temperature, possibly with some 'special' vapour, that a patient will stand in for 5 minutes to kill the rhinitis germ? Yes, or no?

    Thirdly, Browne predicted this would be in use in 2009. It still isn't in 2010.

    Unfortunately comments like yours are why people think psychics are real and effective in their predictions - the prediction was that this cubicle, which Browne is very specific about, would be in use in 2009 and it isn't - her prediction was wrong, completely wrong. Your comment however gives the impression (whether meant seriously, as a joke or as an afterthought) that she might be right in some vague way because there might be something sometime way past the time of her prediction that might be like what she described - that's the very essence of why people believe psychics, they can shoehorn whatever they want into the prediction and claim success.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great post! I try to look up her predictions every year for a good laugh. I have always come to all the same conclusions you have. lol What a joke! Vague statements, escape clauses, loopholes, and banking on people's ignorance of the news... she's such a scam artist!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Liz. I am still baffled by the number of people who can't see through Browne. Fills me with despair for the future of the human race!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Her ex husband has been interviewed a few times, and he has also stated that she is a fraud, and that none of her claimed credentials are real: past jobs, degrees and extended education, etc. That was immediately a red flag for me (if her insane "predictions" weren't enough, already) because while many people fight a lot when they divorce, I don't know of many who claim their ex is a fraud, and a faker. lol

    ReplyDelete
  8. We are yet to solve the mysteries of this world and it's never that bad to be skeptical and doubt at times, as well as to believe. :)

    love psychic

    ReplyDelete
  9. Highlighted in today's history, June 30th 1894, the London Tower Bridge opens for the first time for public use. It's one of the amazing spectacles that proved the capacity of innovation and the reason to doubt. Let's open our minds to the possibilities. ;)

    arthemismax

    ReplyDelete
  10. love psychic:

    This is not a free advertising space for your nonsense, unless you have something other than mindless platitudes to say further posts will be deleted. The fact that science has not discovered answers for everything does not mean everything is possible. That should be obvious to anyone.

    arthemismax (who was almost certainly love psychic too):

    So your argument is that because mankind was ingenious enough to design Tower Bridge anything is possible? Tower Bridge is one of those amazing spectacles that proved that if you apply the principles of science, maths and engineering logically and add a little human vision then it is possible to achieve great things. It doesn't prove that it might be possible to talk to the dead. And how on earth did it prove the reason to doubt?

    It isn't a triumph of woo, it is a triumph of rationality.

    Further double postings under different names will be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was once a hard core born again christian. Yes i believed blindly and called it faith. When i had questions, the church really didn't have answers. In fact, they preached love and practiced hate for the most part. Then justified nastiness with so called christian love. I looked to Sylvia Browne's books for answers. And yes, I do enjoy her books. However, I do respect and enjoy reading a difference of opinion. It makes me consider more questions and examine my belief system over an over again. With the right questions, we get answers. If we don't question ourselves and others, how are we ever going to grow mentally,emotionally, and spiritually. Thank-you for your blog

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous - please use a nickname or psuedonym to post under in future. Subsequent anonymous comments will be deleted.

    Thank you for your appreciation of the blog but I have to ask, did it actually do any good for you to read this post? If you are still going to enjoy reading Sylvia Browne's books I would suggest not.

    She is quite obviously a charlatan and a fraud who preys on the gullible, weak and needy, and this blog post provides just a tiny sample of the evidence for this. In short, she preaches love but practices hate, both overtly and covertly. The very reasons you cite for turning from religion are present in Browne, so how can it be said you are questioning your beliefs if you continue to enjoy her work?

    You mistake this blog post as if it is merely a difference of opinion - as if facts themselves are matters of personal opinion. They are not.

    It is not my opinion that Sylvia Browne is not a psychic, it is an easily demonstrable fact.

    You have merely swapped one silly belief system for another.

    ReplyDelete
  13. it is MY prediction.. hehe. that no one is allowed to say anything even close to meaning sylvia may be somewhat correct.
    But, psychic or not, thief, or what ever she is, I am still alive because of her. Her books touch me, my soul, When she talks about how she believes things, her words (not of prediction) but of Higher Power and such, gave me the will to live when I was 21 years old and found my husband dead, then found out 13 days later that I was pregnant with his first child.
    a son. Exactly what he wanted. My my dead huband told me that himself.. Low and behold, it was true. My 12 year old boy is here today, healthy as ever. So, just because she throws herself under society's bus, she can keep her books going cuz I have seen things 3 times in my life, premonitions, if u will, that I had witnesses for. And guess what.. They all came true. So, is SHE the only one not psychic? Or are no one psychic? Cuz, I am deffinatly not a crack pot.I may not be the smartest person in the world, and I don't make money from it.. But, I have seen things, and heard things, and I know when my dreams are dreams or premonitions, but its only what they want me to see.. Future life events, I guess, just in case I want to change the course. I believe in... Something.. And, I think her writings make sense, and they put me at ease. As far as her predictions..the only one I ever remembered, well, its not time for that one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous:

    Pick a name to post under if you wish to post further comments - subsequent anonymous comments will be deleted.

    it is MY prediction.. hehe. that no one is allowed to say anything even close to meaning sylvia may be somewhat correct.

    Then you're wrong already. I don't censor the blog - people can say what they want, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I say Sylvia might be somewhat correct, but the "somewhat" means that anyone making guesses or stating the obvious or what has already happened can also be correct.

    Her books touch me, my soul, ... gave me the will to live when I was 21 years old and found my husband dead, then found out 13 days later that I was pregnant with his first child.

    I'm sorry about your husband, but this does nothing but prove what I say about her - she makes money off the vulnerable, and who is to say that you wouldn't have found inspiration or the will to live from other sources, ones that don't lie? She says exactly what people grieving want to hear, and that's why her words seem so personal and prophetic and meaningful. And that's why she makes so much money.

    My my dead huband told me that himself.. Low and behold, it was true.

    Lots of men say they want a son, there's a 50-50 chance of it happening. What was true, exactly?

    So, just because she throws herself under society's bus,

    She makes millions from preying on the vulnerable and weak in society, not throwing herself under any metaphorical bus.

    she can keep her books going cuz I have seen things 3 times in my life, premonitions, if u will, that I had witnesses for.

    So you have a story you can't explain that others saw and that's your evidence that Sylvia Browne isn't a parasite?

    And guess what.. They all came true.

    Big deal. What were they? How likely were they to come true? Were your premonitions exactly what happened, or just sort of like what happened? Do you remember things exactly, or has your memory changed over time? Given the almost innumerable amount of things that could happen at any point of the day, guessing three of them right is not that impressive over the span of a lifetime.

    So, is SHE the only one not psychic? Or are no one psychic?

    I don't know if there is anyone that is psychic, there might be. I can tell you Sylvia Browne certainly isn't.

    Cuz, I am deffinatly not a crack pot.I may not be the smartest person in the world,

    You don't have to be a crackpot to fall for the number of things that can fool us all, and you don't have to be the smartest person in the world to see through the bull shit, you just have to ask the right questions and be willing to listen to the answers, even if they aren't what you wanted to hear.

    But, I have seen things, and heard things

    Me too. But I also know about coincidence, self deception, the fallibility of memory, grief, the power of suggestion, cold reading and all the things that explain what you call premonitions.

    Future life events, I guess, just in case I want to change the course.

    How can you see the future if it never comes to pass because you change it? You are rationalizing a failed premonition by claiming you've changed the course of events and that is why it didn't come true, when what really happened is it was just a dream.

    As far as her predictions..the only one I ever remembered, well, its not time for that one.

    And I guarantee that it either won't come true, it was something that was already happening when she made the prediction, it was something obvious or it was something so vague that it could fit to anything. I listed her predictions above and they were junk, how do you explain that? You can find any number of examples of her falling flat on her face if you are willing to look, how do you explain them?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't understand how people can't see right through her She makes me sick. Did you see the video where she tells the woman her husband drowned...he was a fire fighter and died on 9/11? It's so obvious she's a fake and it sickens me how she preys on the grieving. I wouldn't even bother with Anonymous, Jimmy...waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. wow... ever think that maybe sylvia is right about that man drownding? there was a lot of water being pumped in to those buildings.. who knows if he maybe passed out from the fire then drowned in water, You dont know... and also Sylvia says over and over again that she isnt always 100% right. No one is.... Its ok to have your own thoughts on this. I love Sylvia Browne and I will never change my mind. I hope that you arent as dark minded in life as you have been on here. I will pray that God opens your heart and mind.

      Delete
    3. I really don't have the patience to be polite to someone with an attitude like yours.

      First you come on here and make probably the worst excuse for a psychic's failings I've ever seen: "wow... ever think that maybe sylvia is right about that man drownding [sic]? there was a lot of water being pumped in to those buildings.. who knows if he maybe passed out from the fire then drowned in water" As if you've discovered some moment of pure genius no-one else could have. Did you even think before you typed? What's more likely: killed by the fire in the burning building, killed by being crushed by the 100+ storey burning building which collapsed, or killed by drowning in the burning/collapsing building?

      Don't be so ridiculous. Words fail me in trying to respond to someone who thinks it likely a firefighter drowned in the WTC because of water pumped in to fight the fires. How did he pass out - did his oxygen mask fail? Good grief.

      Then, after making the worst excuse in history for a psychic's failings you say "Sylvia says over and over again that she isnt [sic] always 100% right." - why didn't you just say the man drowning in the WTC was one of those times then, instead of the worst case of ad hoc reasoning I've seen in a long time? Sylvia Browne is right about as often as chance, maybe a bit more if she gets to do some cold, warm or hot reading of the subject. If you don't know what these terms mean, you should go here: The Skeptics Dictionary.

      Then you say, "I love Sylvia Browne and I will never change my mind." How very close minded of you. Having an open mind means being open to the possibility you are wrong, it means being open to evidence that proves you wrong. You just declared you are close minded. Not that we needed any more evidence, you are so convinced she is right you had to convince yourself someone died by drowning in the WTC on 9/11 just because Browne said he died from drowning.

      Then,"I hope that you arent as dark minded in life as you have been on here." What does that even mean? You're the one defending a known liar who cheats grieving people out of money. If anyone is 'dark minded' I'd go with someone defending a crook.

      And finally, "I will pray that God opens your heart and mind." My mind is open, just not so open my brains fall out. Unlike some apparently. But then, how arrogant do you have to be to call others close minded when you declare you won't change your mind on the subject?

      Then we have the pious Christian nonsense. If you were half as religious as you think you are you'd know what the Bible says about psychics, mediums etc. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (that means a part of a book in the Bible, by the way) says: "Let no one be found among you who ... is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord;"

      Oh dear. Your own God apparently doesn't like Sylvia much either. Maybe he is dark minded, or needs someone to pray his heart and mind are opened. But don't take my word for it, do a Google search for "what does the Bible say about psychics".

      Not that you will change your closed mind.

      And one final thing - how do you explain Browne claiming she knew the Sago miners would all be found alive (after it had been announced they were) only for the announcement to turn out to have been a mistake - only one of the miners was alive, whereupon she lied about the whole thing and said she had never thought they were alive? Did they drown and then go back in time just to prove her wrong? Were there monkeys?

      Bye now.

      Delete
  16. I am not trying to be argumentative but you just said that person was closed minded. Do you feel that you are? It seems that your opinion is not going to change either. And you quoted the bible....can you tell me where the bible came from? How do we know that is the word of god. You can believe in god and not the bible can't you? I don't really follow her predictions but the one I have heard that stands out to me is two years prior to it taking place she predicted a tornado in the state of Utah. I, being a resident of Utah, know that tornados don't occur in Utah. I thought for sure she was dead wrong. Our state has essentially 4 walls around us of mountains which block them in a sense. But exactly to the month and year a tornado hit utah, killed several injured many. I found it...to be a little odd that that could be a coincidence. I am not saying she is all knowing or psychic. It just piqued my interest. I very much respect your opinion I am just curious why it bothers you si deeply that people do believe in her. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their beliefs don't affect you. There are many religions and ways of life that people believe in that I think are silly, absurd, ridiculous, etc. But it doesn't affect my life that they practice their beliefs so I yet to pay little attention to it. Frankly if people decide to fork out the money to speak to a "psychic" that is their own poor judgment call. They have access to the same resousces all the rest of us do, yet still choose to believe. So she very well may be a con artist, however the people being conned are free to make their decisions. They can read your very well researched blog and deduct that she is a fraud but they choose not to.

    ReplyDelete
  17. neutral said:

    you just said that person was closed minded. Do you feel that you are? It seems that your opinion is not going to change either.

    Wrong. I explained exactly why she was closed minded - she admits she won't change her mind. I already have - up until round about age 21-23 I was a believer in the possible existence of psychics. Then I gradually stopped and thought about it, and did research. And now I don't believe there are psychics, based on the complete and total lack of reliable evidence. Should such scientifically sound evidence arise, and this is the part people like you don't get, I'd be over the moon about what that would mean for the human race.

    That evidence doesn't exist, and I am fairly confident it never will because psychics only really exist in fictional stories.

    And you quoted the bible....can you tell me where the bible came from?

    More or less.

    How do we know that is the word of god.

    Because the bible says so. It's circular reasoning.

    You can believe in god and not the bible can't you?

    Not the Christian one, no. You'd be doing it very wrong. Anyway, Sylvia Browne does. Now go back and see if you understand why I brought it up.

    the one I have heard that stands out to me is two years prior to it taking place she predicted a tornado in the state of Utah

    Is that really all it takes to convince you?

    I, being a resident of Utah, know that tornados don't occur in Utah.

    Then you, being a resident of Utah, need to get your facts straight. Since there have been about 119 in the last 60 or so years. That's roughly two a year on average, and there has only been 1 fatality in total according to that site. There's never been a multi-fatality tornado in Utah. I'm guessing she did her homework, just enough to not be obvious but to look good if right. Of course - no one remembers the times she predicted tornadoes and was wrong.

    I can find no reference to her predicting the exact date of a tornado in Utah - where is your source for this claim? If all you can do is remember it, then you fail at the important part: You're wrong.

    I can however find lots of people referencing her predictions via Google though - and her predicting tornadoes is pretty standard it seems. My guess is she predicted a tornado would happen somewhere unusual sometime in the near future and that has turned into "exactly predicting the date of a tornado in Utah." Do some research on how memory works, then come back and talk. Or give me a citation and source. Predicting tornadoes will hit somewhere not many people think they will is not hard. I predict a tornado will hit the UK next year. Now go and Google why that would sound impressive but isn't.

    I am just curious why it bothers you si deeply that people do believe in her.

    You're not bothered by people who make money by lying and preying on the grieving and sick? Because it bothers the fuck out of me. Are you that indifferent to your fellow humans?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but their beliefs don't affect you.

    We are not all as self centered as some it would seem, and I don't live in a bubble.

    But it doesn't affect my life that they practice their beliefs so I yet to pay little attention to it.

    Do you live on your own little island with no contact with any other humans? Are you really this naive?

    And then I read the rest of your comment and see you're not naive, just some sort of social darwinian sociopathic idiot. I guess if people fall for a criminal con we should just let that happen then? Think of all the police time we can save not prosecuting fraud and con artists now, because it is all the victims fault. I mean, the victims could just have not fallen for it after all. Why did we prosecute Bernie Madoff anyway? It wasn't his fault his victims invested with him after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tiffany, formally neutralAugust 13, 2012 at 4:56 AM

      I actually don't believe in her at all I just said it was interesting that her prediction was right in something so random for a lack of better words. I think your blog was very well researched, very intelligent, and very true. When I said they don't happen in Utah I was using the term loosely. They do happen just very rarely. And yes she is a con artist and yes something should be done but I also feel that her "followers" should have a little bit more of the intelligence that you obviously have. It's not hard to do your research and see that she is very clearly a fraud. And the comment after mine is absolutely correct. It would be hypocritical of me to say others beliefs shouldn't bother you and then be bothered by yours. I guess I did a bad job of conveying what I was trying to get at. I have the same beliefs as you so I'm not bothered by that aspect. I just felt like maybe you were harsh on some of her fans that commented. I mean, they are the people being conned by her, and if I understand you correctly, you want these people who are being swindled by her to be helped. Those are the people you are in a way sticking up for because they were sucked into her lies. But this is your blog and they are the one posting idiotic comments so I can't tell you not to be hard on them. I just feel bad for people sometimes ( its a terrible habit lol). And the person who commented after you is also correct about me not being neutral. ( thank you for pointing that out). I am not neutral I believe that everthing jb said is 110% correct. I apologize if my comment came across as attacking you. That was not my intention. I applaud you for shedding some light on this woman who is taking thousands of dollars from her followers. Really my main point was that it takes two. If her fans put 10 minutes of research into her befor forking over 850.00 for one hour of basically bullshit, they would be able to avoid being taken advantage of. I just feel like people should be a little smarter than that. Hopefully I was more clear with this comment. And thank you for posting this blog and helping to expose her. : )

      Delete
    2. Oh and thank you for your explination of how she comes up with predictions that makes a lot of sense. It's somewhere you wouldn't necessarily expect a tornado but if she is vague enough and it does end up happening everyone will be "wowed". There is always a logical explination for things like that and I appreciate you sharing it.

      Delete
    3. Tiffany:

      it was interesting that her prediction was right in something so random for a lack of better words.

      But it wasn't right, that's my point - and you are just reinforcing a false position. Unfortunately comments like yours only perpetuate the myth that Syvlia Browne is psychic - a fan or believer in psychics will read this blog and ignore everything I wrote that shows she is not psychic and only remember that you said she was right about a very specific tornado prediction, when in fact she was not right about it at all. It's called confirmation bias, and it is likely your comment will eventually get repeated even though it is completely factually incorrect. That's how the internet works unfortunately.

      I also feel that her "followers" should have a little bit more of the intelligence that you obviously have.

      I am quite sure that a great many of her followers have as much and more intelligence than me - smart people believe weird things and they are good at rationalising them. When you are a believer, you don't expose yourself to the other side and when you do you often ignore it.

      It's not hard to do your research and see that she is very clearly a fraud.

      And yet you yourself didn't and posted a comment that believers can use as supporting evidence for her claims! Don't condemn someone for not doing what you didn't do yourself!

      I just felt like maybe you were harsh on some of her fans that commented.

      Maybe, maybe not. If believers come on here and politely express themselves without name calling and being patronising I will react in kind. If they do those things and show they obviously have not read and understood what I wrote however, I really don't care to be polite when the favour hasn't been returned. Remember - Laura Beth called me closed and dark minded before I responded to her - and she was not merely a believer but a defender of Browne, you go from being a victim to being an accessory to the crime when you do that. And she admitted she would not change her mind no matter what - why should I not be harsh?

      If her fans put 10 minutes of research into her befor forking over 850.00 for one hour of basically bullshit, they would be able to avoid being taken advantage of.

      I agree, but don't condemn people for something you didn't do either! I reserve my harsh comments for Browne and her defenders, reasonable comments I respond to in kind, but as a skeptic I also have found a great many times that people don't like what you have to say, so no matter how polite and reasonable you may be they become angry and aggressive.

      No-one likes hearing they've been fooled, especially when they've spent money.

      Delete
    4. I did do research. I know that there had to be a reasonable explination for it I just for whatever reason couldnt come up with one. What I found intriguing is that she would pick such a random place to predict something when the chances of it coming to pass would be slim. But you were able to provide a good explination for that so the followers still shouldnt have any fuel to support her. She is a fake plain and simple. They can rationalize it all they want but that doesnt make her any more psychic. And yes the people who are calling you closed minded then saying they will never change their mind deserve to get the back lash from you. I agree. Besides this is YOUR blog and if they don't want to hear it or open themselves to a different perspective then why read it at all? And if they do decide to say nasty things then they are welcoming you to retalliate. That is what I really dont understand is why they decided to read it to begin with. They "arent going to change their minds" so why put the time in to read it then comment and say rude things?

      Delete
    5. Tiffany:

      I think you and I have a different definition of research then, since you were even wrong about a tornado killing several people in Utah - two minutes on Google disproved this when I looked. Hell, you can't even show that Browne even made this prediction and you don't seem to know anything about why psychics look like they are making predictions when they aren't, nor anything about the methods of these people. Exactly what did you research?

      As far as I can see, you are not really that far from the people you condemn that follow Browne but don't look into her claims.

      Delete
  18. @neutral

    I am just curious why it bothers you so deeply that Jimmy Blue doesn't believe in her. Correct me if I'm wrong, but his beliefs don't affect you.

    (Recognize any of that?)

    @JB,

    As soon as I saw the name "neutral" I knew it wouldn't be neutral. I must be psychic.... Although don't ask me to use my psychic powers to discern why New Agers always leave comments on blogs they disagree with, telling us we shouldn't be writing about things we disagree with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tiffany, formerly neutralAugust 13, 2012 at 5:03 AM

      Thank you. You are right I am not neutral, that was a bad name to use and I apologize for the confusion. I agree completely that she is a con artist preying on people. And yes that does sound familiar. His beliefs don't bother me, I agree with him. I tried to re explain myself in the reply to his comment. Unfortunately I tend to have a hard time articulating what is going on in my head as I wrote that at about 3 a.m. lol. But thank you for bringing those flaws to my attention!!

      Delete
  19. Tiffany you completely contradicted yourself you were basically having a go at jimmy blue lmao now you have shit yourself at his come back now being a brown noser saying I agree with you jimmy your just as scatter brain as browne if she is the real deal dick smith in Australia has put up a million dollars to be given to any medium world wide that can contact his mother on the other side no medium has come and claimed the money for 8 years meaning they don't exist and can't speak to the dead

    ReplyDelete
  20. I love Sylvia Browne she had inspired me to be a better person. :)
    Even though she can be disliked to some, I can say I will deeply miss her. She taught me to think more about life and be a truth seeker. :) Thank you Sylvia you have given me a wonderful gift.<3 May our presence on this earth be a positive one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If a lying, cheating, fraudulent scam artist who preyed on the sick and grieving made you a better person, I dread to think what sort of person you were before knowing of her.

      Did you ever stop to wonder why Browne's psychic predictions for 2013 were so accurate they didn't mention her own death?

      She was a fake, a phony, a charlatan. She preyed upon people who were desperate, lonely and in pain. And she made millions from them.

      Good riddance, the human race is a better place without her.

      Delete
  21. At Jimmy Blue
    "Then you're wrong already. I don't censor the blog - people can say what they want, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it."
    And yet...
    "This is not a free advertising space for your nonsense, unless you have something other than mindless platitudes to say further posts will be deleted."
    And...
    "Anonymous:

    Pick a name to post under if you wish to post further comments - subsequent anonymous comments will be deleted."
    But yet....
    "AnonymousAugust 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM" didn't get get told they would get deleted. Maybe because they weren't arguing with you?
    You can have your "opinion" all you want but don't be a hypocrite. And talking about Sylvia being full of hate? It seems to be oozing off of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aw, bless your heart. You went to all that trouble to quote mine irrelevant information and still didn't actually post anything that defended Sylvia Browne. What a waste. And very revealing.

      Still, since I'm here let's respond. First, since you appear to have missed it, and it is just a tad bit relevant to what you posted, the comment policy is right up there near the top over on the right of the page, it says:

      "ANONYMOUS comments will now be deleted - pick a user name so readers can identify who said what.

      Content free drivel may get deleted (unless you've provided material for a good old fashioned mocking). Spam gets deleted. The occassional f-bomb will be tolerated. Dissent is encouraged, simply slinging about insults isn't. Expect to be treated how you treat others - if people are treating you like you're a tosser, guess what... "

      It's been there for a long time (complete with spelling errors) - since at least 2010 I think (I forget exactly when I added it). I used to allow anonymous comments at least once - then I got annoyed if they didn't pick a name to post under because it made it hard to follow who was who. It's also a sign of intellectual cowardice that you won't stand by what you wrote, even with an online pseudonym. I've since turned off anonymous comments so I don't even have to tell people to stop writing drive by anonymous shit.

      Now, I really don't censor the blog. Even the most cursory glance would show I have no problem letting people disagree with what I wrote - even when they're an arsehole. I will delete spam, I do that all the time. Here's a really good sign I don't censor the blog. The person who said I would censor them wasn't censored (you can tell because their comment is still there), and neither were you, despite your really pathetic attempts to show I do by quoting my response from the not censored comment. Ta da!

      I don't suppose you understand just how silly you look implying censorship on my part by quoting from a response to a comment that wasn't censored when it claimed it would be, do you?

      If only you were honest enough to provide context to those quotes, then it wouldn't look like you were making a dishonest implication unsupported by the facts.

      Now, I was responding to love psychic because they were posting a spam link to their shitty website under the guise of an actual comment that actually violated my comment policy - I don't allow spam. However, I left it here just on the off chance that it was in fact a genuine comment. You know what your being able to read that comment from love psychic shows? That I don't censor the blog. If you were honest, you would also have seen that they were likely a spammer because of the very next comment that came after them. Even back then I highlighted they were probably a spammer and yet I didn't censor the comments.

      You're not very good at this, are you?

      As for the anonymous comment from August 20, 2012. Yeah, I probably didn't say anything because they were agreeing with me - OR - since they didn't post again I didn't feel the need to say anything since my warning to others was "if you wish to post further comments...". If they had made further comments (and if I had actually responded to them at all), I almost certainly would have asked they use a pseudonym so we could follow who said what. Perhaps, if you actually read what you were posting, you might not look like such a complete tit when you finally hit Publish. Words have meaning, especially if you look at the context.

      Buh-bye now.

      Delete