READ THIS TO SEE HOW SKEPTICS DECEIVE AND CHEAT YOU. Dr Richard Wiseman seems to be unable to do anything right, you may be asking yourself. He messed up almost every experiment he has done you may think. Well, it certainly looks like he is not a very good paranormal investigator. He has a group of so called scientists in his army of sceptics. Ray Hyman has as recently as tonight, 7 Nov 2004 been on a TV show on Ch4 in UK. It said he was working for the CIA….. Why would the CIA want to employ friends and fellow associates of Dr Wiseman. I am just a humble psychic, I cannot answer this. I am the kind of person who the sceptics despise and put down at every opportunity. Yet, I can find fault with the way this Professor at the University of Hertfordshire in England has conducted most of his scientific work. How can an uneducated fool like me do this? I found the most obvious faults with his fire walking study…….. and what he tried to do to the poor Russian girl Natasha, well you can read about that all over the internet. This was published in the Society of Psychical Research Journal in October 2004 Wiseman Correspondence Fire walking SPR vol 67 No 873 In this article Wiseman concludes that in fire walking when injury is not sustained by firewalkers, nothing paranormal has occurred. He puts it like this.. “The results of this experiment combined with those obtained by Price in 1937, demonstrate that, in the case of fire walking at least, neither divine intervention nor self belief can overcome the principle of physics.” So let us examine what Wiseman did to arrive at this conclusion. Wiseman quotes “ In 1937 Harry Price arranged for an Indian firewalker and fakir named Ahmen Hussain to visit Britain for testing. Price first ask Hussain to walk barefoot over a bed of embers 12 feet long and with a surface temperature of 575 degrees Centigrade. Hussain completed the walk unharmed.” Now, Price then speculated according to Wiseman, that the heat transferred to the feet during this walk was not enough to cause burning. Price then increased the temperature to 740 degrees Centigrade and extended the walk to 20 feet. Now, we are told that in this new trial the fakir suffered burns to his feet. What we are not told is, if Price asked people not claiming this power to walk on fire for 12 feet at 575 degrees to see if they could do it without being burned. The real test would be to see if this could be performed by anyone. If anyone could do it as Price seems to suggest, why are we not told this, as it seems to me the reasonable test would be to compare like with like. I am sure even if a paranormal phenomena does exist, there would always be a point where it stopped working and burning would result. I am sure that the phenomena if it does exist would have boundaries within which it occurred. Most thing in science work within boundaries. So how then did Wiseman replicate this? I am sure he wanted to be able to say that nothing paranormal was going on. Well, Wiseman increased the temperature from 575 degrees and increased the distance from 12 feet, remember the experiment had a positive result for Price and his fakir at these levels. Wiseman increased the distance to 60 feet and the temperature to 700 degrees, I am sure in the hope that his subjects would be burned and he could show the world and BBC TV who were filming this experiment that fire walking had nothing paranormal going on when you did not get burned. Wiseman, if he wanted to conduct a proper scientific experiment and not a circus show should have first established at what point an ordinary person would reasonably be expected to suffer burns and then test to see if those claiming to have some paranormal ability could exceed these parameters without being hurt. As it is Wiseman has established nothing other than, he is not such a Wiseman, in fact he has shown he has been rather unscientific and stupid in this experiment. It also comes as no surprise to me that the SPR review procedure has not seen this flaw in Wiseman’s experiment and has agreed to publish it. As is often the case, Wiseman has moved the goal posts from the claim of being able to walk on fire 12 feet at 575 degrees as Hussain did for Price in 1937 to a position where paranormal or not, one can get a negative result to satisfy his CSICOP friends. I will leave you with this question, Why did Wiseman who always claims to be open minded not just see if the claims of the firewalkers were above what would be expected from the average individual. We still do not have that answer. Chris Robinson Dream Detective and Psychic UK. August 2004. .

PSI EXPERIMENTS AND HOW TO MAKE SURE THEY FAIL CHRIS ROBINSON SPR Paranormal Review Article FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS I have produced what is to most people, including police and scientists, outstanding evidence of what I call dream precognition. This may not be a good description, but at a very early stage I satisfied senior police and intelligence officers who properly monitored me and ensured me that this was genuine psi, and that I was not a participant in the crimes I predicted or provided information about. (More about this can be found at At the same time as I started to become a ‘public psychic’, skeptical paranormal investigators started to try to debunk my work. This troubled the police as they had properly checked me and my background and had satisfied themselves that I was not a criminal or terrorist. They disliked criticism from individuals who had little or no knowledge of police work or our relationship, and had not adequately looked into what I was doing. It was obvious to the police and others that something paranormal was happening. I have now been producing what many call ‘psi evidence’ for almost 20 years and I think it is time to make comments about the conduct of skeptics who claim to conduct open-minded psi research. I hope in this article to encourage debate as to how proper, unbiased and ethically acceptable psi experiments might be conducted in the future. First, I will discuss a paper by Wiseman, West and Stemman (1996), then I will consider a paper by Blackmore (1995) and finally, an investigation into the Russian psychic Natasha Demkina by Wiseman and Hyman (2004; reported in a TV documentary The Girl With X-ray Eyes, Discovery Channel May 2004). The aim of the Wiseman et al. (1996) paper was to test three psychics in detection, and three control subjects who were students who claimed no psychic ability. Two of the psychics were professional psychics, and the third, myself; was reported to have received a large amount of publicity regarding psychic detection. The paper contains a quote from Hertfordshire Police: “When Chris Robinson comes to the police with his dreams, he is taken seriously and the information he passes on to his established contact, Sgt. Richard MacGregor is acted upon immediately”. The paper also states: “The first author contacted Sergeant MacGregor concerning this matter and received confirmation that the above statement was correct (personal communication, 19th December, 1994)”. The design of this Wiseman experiment was that all six were shown three objects, each of which had a connection to a solved crime, and were asked to handle the objects and describe the nature of the crimes. That is not what I had been told I was going to be asked to do on the day of the test. I was asked to dream about each of the objects and send the notes of the dreams to Wiseman, and then on the day of the test I would use this dream content to describe the crime with which each object was associated. What I was presented with was some sort of psychometric test, which involved answering mainly irrelevant questions that had little direct link to the crimes themselves or their motives. These are not the kind of questions that the police would need answers to in order to solve the crimes. An experiment should be set up to follow as closely as possible the actual phenomenon being put to the test, but this was not done in this case. I had previously sent the notes of my dreams that were connected with the objects and the crime by post to Wiseman. When I arrived at the lab in the university I was told that I would not be allowed to use these dream notes. Also, I was told that the objects were not in boxes as I had been led to believe would be the case. I could at this point have walked away and refused to continue, as the rules had been fundamentally changed. I was now being asked to do something that I had never done before and had not been expecting to be asked to do. But (perhaps unadvisedly) I decided not to ‘chicken out’, and not to play into the hands of skeptics whom I thought may be out to destroy all the hard work I and others had done in psi research. I decided to continue. I could still remember some of the details of the dreams, and I felt that if this were a proper and fair test I would at least have got the main details of the unknown crimes correct. For example, I could remember that object A would be linked to a crime of murder, the murder of a woman by, as I put it, a jealous lover. This woman was shot. I had more information in the dreams but the hub was this. For object B, I was sure that the crime was the shooting of a man and I was certain that I was likely to see the murder weapon. My dreams connected with object B were about the murder of a policeman, PC Keith Blakelock. I knew Keith was murdered by a knife so it was not his murder I would be looking at. For object C, I was sure it was a woman who had been killed and I was expecting to see something soft that had been used to stop her breathing, maybe a pillow. I also had a strong link to bottles of milk. Wiseman told us that we would be shown into the studio one at a time and be shown the objects openly displayed on a table. I was told that I was expected to look at, and that if I wanted to, hold the objects, and answer which six of eighteen statements on a sheet of paper were true for each crime. It did not matter how much I knew about the crimes; what I had to know were the answers to specific questions that had been set. That is not how the police would ever work and not how a psychic detective ever works. I do not know of any psychic detectives who claim to be able to answer set questions about crimes, and certainly none that have ever been asked about three separate crimes at the same sitting. In my experience psi does not work that way. I was now confused and was being asked to do something that I had not been expecting to do. How would an Olympic runner feel if suddenly they were asked to ski instead of run 30 seconds before the start of a race? The emotional turmoil produced when presented with such a sudden change of tactic could and most probably would impair judgment, even if only for a short amount of time. Looking back at what I said on the tape of that day and looking at the known details of the crimes, I consider that I did very well. We were not told what kind of crimes we would be asked to look at, nor what or how the objects may connect to any crimes, yet before I even got to the lab, my dreams had told me that A was to do with a woman who was shot, B was connected to a male Police Constable and a shooting, and C was the murder of a woman with something soft, linked to bottles of milk. All of what I call ‘the fundamentals’ were correct; other information may or may not have fitted and in my experience there is always some information that does not seem to fit. The police and I have developed a technique to limit the incorrect information taken from the dreams. What concerns me about experiments like this is the moving of the goal posts and what may be deliberate misrepresentation of what an experiment is actually testing. It was claimed that this experiment was to see if psychics could obtain information about already solved crimes. Now, in all my experience as a psychic detective the police have never asked me for assistance in solved crimes. It strikes me that it is improper to test psychic detectives in a way in which they would never be asked to work. To me this is fundamental. We do not know how psychics obtain their information, yet to me the items in the questionnaire had nothing to do with the actual crimes, and they were not kind of questions the police would ask a psychic detective to answer in a real life investigation. In my view, a close examination of the details given in the appendices of the paper shows how unconnected to the actual crimes most of the questions were. For example, in Crime 2, one question related to a man who pioneered ballistic examinations, Churchill, and it is true that the case in question was the first or one of the first that tested ballistics in a court of law, but it had nothing directly to do with the reason the person was killed. This seems to me an inappropriate question if its purpose was to test whether a psychic can obtain information about the crime. As I see it, it had nothing to do with the murder, at the time of the murder.

So far, after ten years, I have not seen any report on the obvious flaws in this experiment, yet Wiseman seems to me to have used the results to claim that psychic information is not real or at least that the three psychics tested that day are frauds. From reading much of what Wiseman has done, he evidently prefers fraud or delusion as explanation rather than psi. Yet, only a little examination of his and other skeptics’ methodology reveals at least sloppiness in design and at worst deliberate moving of the goal posts. One’s mind boggles as to why a scientist would want to do this. Why would any scientist think that negative results prove something does not exist, when if found only once we know it is real? In my experience psi often works, but it is never 100% to order at the request of an experimenter. I have on occasions been asked to try to provide specific information, like the names of the IRA terrorists who blew up a bank and themselves in St Albans in 1991, and on that occasion I did get the names correct by asking my dreams, but that was a rare occurrence. But, who can blame the police for listening to a man who tells them where and when terrorists will strike and also provides their names? Yet, because of all the negative reports from bad scientific experiments like the one in question here, it is little wonder they want to keep their relationships with psychic detectives secret. So, to sum up this experiment, I conclude that experiments must be conducted exactly as the subjects of the experiments have been told beforehand, and as they have been expecting they will be conducted. Until we understand more about psychic detectives we must do as the police would do and test using unsolved crimes and seek the kind of information that police would seek. This experiment did not do that, and the result was to bring into ridicule those police officers who have been brave enough to explore psi. I now come to another article, which was published in the JSPR, concerning an experiment with myself, conducted by Blackmore (1995). The science and statistics of which were later criticized in a paper by Utts (1996). Dr Blackmore and millions of others had seen me attempt to dream about what was in a box that I was presented with on live TV shows. She cited two of the many times I have done this type of test on TV. I had challenged her on BBC2 TV, the Esther Rantzen Show, to replicate the test, as it was obvious that Blackmore either thought I was cheating or that I had just been lucky on the two shows she had seen me perform on. She accepted the challenge to test my ability to dream what was in a box as I had done on TV. Now a negative result may be taken to mean that the test in question did not work and it is not proof that what we are seeking does not exist. How often does a golfer score a hole in one? Not very often but they do sometimes score them. So when the first golfer scored a hole in one it was proof a hole in one score is possible. I agreed to conduct some preliminary experiments with Blackmore. I had explained to her about what I called dream precognition, but I am not sure she understood what I meant. She suggested that in the first instance she would like to try to see if I could, using my dreams, see what she had placed in a box in her home, and that we could try this for twelve or so times and see what happened. She assured me that this was a preliminary test to see if it mattered whether or not I actually saw the objects in real life as I did when I conducted this test on TV and had been so successful. I explained to Blackmore that in my experience it was vital that I was present when the box was opened and that I saw the contents of the box. I did agree, however, to try this preliminary experiment to find if I could detect what was in the box without ever seeing the objects. I felt that I had nothing to lose by conducting any experiment because the reason I was doing all this was to learn. I was not setting out to make any claim other than that I wanted accurately to report what happens in the box tests. What happened next was more or less what Blackmore reported in her article. There were some irregularities in that objects were not changed on the days it was previously agreed they would be changed, but I did not consider that was much of a problem. I did not expect her to write any articles about the first preliminary experiment, which was to test something I had never tried to do before, and I think I detect glee in her tone of writing that she was able to report that the experiment failed, at least in her estimation. I seem to sense this glee when any of these skeptical scientists report negative results; yet their scientific credentials may be questioned when they do not set up and conduct experiments that faithfully replicate the way in which the person works best, but instead go about testing in a way in which the subject does not normally work. I had explained to Blackmore that when I conduct the box test live on TV it is always the case that I see the objects. I am present when the box is opened. I call this my dream precognition; I do believe that it is at least partly some kind of precognition. I also consider the possibility that other mechanisms, or even outside intelligence, are involved. Blackmore, improperly, did not make it clear that she was reporting an experiment that I had never tried to do and one that we both considered to be a preliminary experiment. I have learned, however, that all too often when skeptical scientists conduct experiments they not only move the goal posts but change the game being played. I am left wondering if there is some strange desire in some skeptical scientists to ensure that genuine and honest psi research is sabotaged. What is obvious to me is that just as a large number of people are fooled by dishonest psychics, perhaps there are equally large numbers of people fooled by bad science and skeptical magicians who think they represent science. I will mention one more case where, in my view, skeptical scientists moved the goal posts and appear to have behaved in a manner not befitting of honest scientists. This is an experiment with the Russian girl Natasha Demkina, which was conducted in the USA in 2004, and is a case similar in many ways to the first two cases that I have mentioned. Natasha was flown from Russia to the USA to be tested by Wiseman and Hyman. My main objection to the experiment with Natasha, which has not been covered by other critics and scientists who have been just as appalled as I am by the way the experiment was conducted, is that she was expected to perform the psychic testing while she must have been totally exhausted from a journey of six thousand miles. I would have expected any psychic experiment to have been conducted when she was rested from her long journey and when she had fully adjusted to the new time zone. I have taken this up with the experimenters, and I have been told that pressures of time and the TV company who filmed the experiment did not allow her to be given time to recover from the journey. I do not think it is acceptable for leading academics to conduct experiments in such unfavorable conditions, where, if the experiment as they see it fails, they are then going to claim the psychic is a fraud or deluded or both. A search of the internet will provide many pages on the controversy with Natasha Demkina, for example see: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/ propaganda/. When I have traveled across the world to conduct experiments, I always allow myself a week to adjust and if this time is not easily going to be available, I take the dream data with me. I seem to have the ability to dream about the tasks I will be asked to do for experiments long before I need to conduct them. In 2001 when I conducted the first Arizona experiments. Read on www.dream-detective.com I asked the dreams to provide the answers weeks before I knew when I was going to the USA. I do this with the Japanese experiments I am involved with as well. One day I hope that some of these experiments will be reported. However, as the standard of investigations of psychic detectives has been so poor, it may be a long time before mainstream scientists are ready to read them. References Blackmore, S. (1995) What’s in the box? An ESP test with Chris Robinson. JSPR 60, 322-324. Wiseman, R., West, D. and Stemman, R. (1996) An experimental test of psychic detection. JSPR 61, 34-45. Utts, J. (1996) Correspondence. JSPR 61, 62

YOU HAVE JUST READ HOW SKEPTICS CHEAT AND LIE TO YOU... THEY HOPE YOU ARE STUPID.. THEY HOPE YOU ARE TO BUSY TO SEE HOW THEY DECEIVE YOU WITH UNSCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS.... AND REPORTS.....  NEVER TRUST  THESE PEOPLE...

YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE AN EXPERIMENT FAIL OR LOOK AS THOUGH IT FAILED....  THATS EASY.... MOST PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE SKEPTICS HAVE LITTLE OR NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OF THE WORD.. TRUTH... JUST SEARCH AND READ WHAT THESE PEOPLE SAY ABOUT GENUINE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFERING ATTITUDES TO THEM.. THEY BEHAVE LIKE THE MUSLIM NUTTERS  WHO KILL AND MAME IN THE NAME OF GOD... SKEPTICS ARE TERRORISTS FIGHTING AGAINST THE TRUTH BEING DISCOVERED JUST LIKE THOSE RELIGIOUS NUTS.... IGNORANCE IS BLISS TO SKEPTICS. THEY WANT TO ENFORCE THAT ON THOSE WHO WANT TO LEARN AND UNDERSTAND.