For preview only. Get it at

Extraordinary People: The Million Dollar Mind Reader

Ratings: 5.67/10 from 9 users.

The Million Dollar Mind ReaderDerek Ogilvie says he can read the minds of infants who are too young to communicate verbally.

Now he agrees to undergo a series of controlled experiments to test the limits of his alleged abilities.

He even faces the ultimate sceptic in the form of James Randi, an investigator of the paranormal who has offered $1 million to anyone who can provide evidence of the supernatural.

Apparently. "I get little movies played to me, I really do, I'm not a liar, I really, really do," pants the Scotsman, spherical head bobbing like a drowning apple as footage shows the "professional psychic" doing frantic jazz hands while an expressionless toddler batters his thighs with something plastic.

Here, Ogilvie subjects himself to James Randi's "one million dollar psychic challenge", which promises to separate the actually psychic wheat from the transparently cobblers chaff. Unmissable.

More great documentaries

128 Comments / User Reviews

  1. First of all, Randi's challenge is meaningless by scientific standards. It’s not a study and it can’t be replicated. It is entirely controlled by one person who has no scientific experience, is known to have strong views and has published no scientific peer reviewed papers on the subject, The challenge carries no scientific weight whatsoever.

    Even if Randi was actually qualified to administer this type of test(which he is not), the fact remains that the test is NOT scientific or consistent due to several factors. The most important being that he refuses to administer the test to everyone that applies. They are not even given the opportunity to get a pre-screen either. He simply refuses to respond to or acknowledge applications and attempts to accept his challenge. By doing this, the main claim of the challenge, -that no one can pass it and therefore psychic ability does not exist- is voided and any tenuous claims to being scientific are invalidated.

    Skeptics seem to think that this challenge means something; that if psychic ability were real, someone would pass the test. This assumption rests on the belief that this challenge is reasonable and fairly administered. But where is the proof of this? None to this date. Scientific? No. Fair and balanced? NOT even close.
    Oh, and one more thing...Randi is no skeptic, he is simply a non-believer. Or, if it pleases you more, you can call him a Pseudoskeptic (or Pseudosceptic). Pseudoscepticism refers to arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. True scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses" - theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong - without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.

    1. Pretty false. He use to be a magician, and therefore knows how tricks are or could be done. He then replicated the method and can do the same things as the ones doing the tests.

      Even more, is that he invite experts in fields to be judges. He comes up with an experiment, which these people he claims to have some sort of powers is going to do. Then the judge panels tells what they think about the experiment, and the performance of the person undergoing them.

      People saying they CAN do something, got the burden of proof.

      What are you saying is unfair? Got any examples we could discuss?

    2. Yes, he used to be a STAGE magician, nothing more than a slight of the hand. And that makes him qualified to...what? Judge magic shows? It certainly doesn't give him any authority or insight into something he refuses to even consider. All that does, is prove that he has a bias and an extremely unwarranted large ego.

    3. The whole point of skepticism and science is that there is NO authority. Randi is simply applying the scientific process to test the claims, he's not an 'authority' and doesn't claim to be, that would be exactly the opposite of what he's saying.

      You can claim that you know of an invisible flying unicorn that has all the answers to every question in the universe, but it's not detectable. Well, good for you. If I can't detect it, it doesn't impact my life and so I will live as though it is not there. I'll stop short of saying it doesn't exist, because it's not impossible, but effectively it doesn't exist.

      If everyone took your approach of shunning the scientific method, you would NOT be on a computer right now watching this anyway.

    4. I would be thrilled to discuss examples with you. I apologize for the length of time it took me to respond. I had changed email addresses and forgot to update my email alerts for this site. But, if you have any points/topics about this issue you would be interested in discussing, then I would very much enjoy hearing them and discussing. The only thing worse than ignorance is prejudice, and that goes both ways. I would be no better than someone who buries their head in the sand if I were to discount any possibility or alternative thought/idea. After all, the only way we learn about something better is trial and error. I would be very interested in exploring ALL explanations. And that means I have a responsibility to consider all explanations, not simply defend my current thoughts. That, to me, is the only way to have a thought provoking and enlightening conversation. I look forward to doing that and welcome all who wish to do so. I would love to learn as much as I can about all points of view because it helps us all evolve and learn. Changing one's mind is not a crime, nor does it make anyone less intelligent. In fact, it makes us so MUCH MORE intelligent for continually seeking answers.

    5. excuses excuses

    6. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "excuses, excuses". Care to elaborate? As I just stated in response to simon's post: I would be thrilled to discuss examples with you. If you have any points/topics about this issue you would be interested in discussing, then I would very much enjoy hearing them and discussing. The only thing worse than ignorance is prejudice, and that goes both ways. I would be no better than someone who buries their head in the sand if I were to discount any possibility or alternative thought/idea. After all, the only way we learn about something better is trial and error. I would be very interested in exploring ALL explanations. And that means I have a responsibility to consider all explanations, not simply defend my current thoughts. That, to me, is the only way to have a thought provoking and enlightening conversation. I look forward to doing that and welcome all who wish to do so. I would love to learn as much as I can about all points of view because it helps us all evolve...

    7. I would also love to hear actual theories and opinions from those who do not believe that such abilities exist. Alternate explanations that might explain some of the "unexplained". The belief that "the burden of proof is on the claimant" is simply not accurate, scientific or open-minded.

    8. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There's no need to "explain" something that doesn't exist. Prove it exists, then we'll explain it.

  2. How sad. He truly believes he has psychic abilities.

    1. How sad that you truly believe you are in any position to judge these types of phenomenon. You basically want to say something doesn't exist based upon your total lack of information and education topic.

    2. In other words, every possible thing that anyone can possibly claim, does exist.

      So when someone tries to sell you are used car, I suppose you just take their word for everything they say? Don't need to get a mechanic friend to help you out? Don't need to test any of their claims?

      Let me guess, you don't have a very good job, do you... Because you see, no one is going to hire someone like you for a position where decisions have to be made. What do you do? Low level secretary? Supermarket staff? Something like that? Don't expect to get too far in life with an attitude like that, you are what we call "dumb consumers" - a fool and his money are easily parted.

    3. Nice one

  3. There are a lot of unseen things in both the physical brain and in the universe that we do not know how it works.

    1. Absolutely!! !.... (but that doesn't mean there's any such things as 'psychic ability', fairies, leprechauns or gods/god, etc. What it does mean, however, is that the Human psyche is very much prone to deceiving itself!)

  4. After two weeks when the results of the final test rolled in, the professor explained what the EEG scan had found. He said; I quote:"He is involved in a state associated with non-verbal and emotional nature as supposed to a verbal and semantic nature."
    The peculiar thing is, that he claims his psychic abilities were proven right, by
    the professor.
    If you look at the definition of "psychic", you'll see this.

    psy·chic? ?[sahy-kik]
    adjective Also, psy·chi·cal.
    of or pertaining to the human soul or mind; mental ( opposed to physical).
    Psychology . pertaining to or noting mental phenomena.
    outside of natural or scientific knowledge; spiritual.
    of or pertaining to some apparently nonphysical force or agency: psychic research; psychic phenomena.
    sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature.

    As for 1. It says it pertains to the human soul or mind. Mentally.
    If you look for the definition of "soul", you'll see this.

    the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

    "and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part."

    None has been scientifically proved nor acknowledged, so that is a negative.

    For 2, this goes over psychology, which is irrelevant to this post.

    3. "outside of natural or scientific knowledge".

    The definition of knowledge, quotes:" Acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things."

    Acquaintance:"personal knowledge as a result of study, experience".

    Gerald Glock has received knowledge as a result of the study of the test.
    He has achieved facts, truths and/or principles from the EEG scans from Mr Ogelvie's brains.

    As of this I state that both natural and/or scientific knowledge have been achieved in this test.

    As for number 4. "of or pertaining to some apparently nonphysical force or agency".

    1. physical power or strength possessed by a living being.
    Despite the fact that this says "psysical", this is regarding nonphysical force.
    The main point is:"Possessed by a living being."
    He uses his mind. Brainwaves, which is non-physical.

    Last, but certainly not least, number 5.

    I explained non-physical, so I go on to "super-natural".

    of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

    "or being above or beyond what is natural". In his tests Derek proved himself to be equal to random guesses, thus not above, whatsoever.

    " unexplainable by natural law or phenomena".

    Unexplainable, regards of explain:
    verb (used with object)
    to make plain or clear; render understandable or intelligible.

    This test proved answers, made it plain and clear.
    That was quite a story.

    To sum it all up, from my point of view, he is not a psychic, which he says he is. Unless the dictionaries are wrong, this man is.

    I would love to hear other's opinion's about this, and how they think of this man (especially his "psychic" abilities). Please email me at if you do.

    Thank you.

  5. Name one valid argument that confirms his paranormal readings out of Derek's mouth.
    I mostly loved the desperate, just trust me on this, comment as a last resort.

  6. the dead giveaway is how full of show he is.

  7. deadweight

  8. Having studied psychology, my first rabbit hole was the Bell Curve, which lead me to how test are developed. He is correct, they were designed "not" prove he was psychic. My theory starts with "Thoughts are Energy", I think we can all agree on that. He even said, "They were Cold", thus hindering a bias toward the "scientist". He needed warmth and open lines of communication.
    The Brain is an Amazing thing, that we know so little about. Our test we have: test things we truly still don't understand and we correlate the findings to the answers we were originally seeking.
    Being born to Know is a gift and curse, I think he was finding himself and wanting to prove it as well, which is a normal growing phase. I enjoyed watching. I think he by now has understands he isn't the only one, that others have it at different degrees, that trying to prove something to others who seek different answers is working on opposite sides. Above all he is doing good, helping others and finding his own way.

    1. RE the 1 million dollar bet: he said it was "cold" but he got to experience playing with the child beforehand and examining the toys which is more than enough chance to establish a psychic connection if there were such a thing.

    2. It's amazing you got that out of psychology! Having a bachelor cognitive neuroscience bachelor myself, these were not the conclusions I would come to. There are very interesting psychological studies about how we come to our conclusions in relation to talking to self-proclaimed media. Thoughts and energy are both very non-scientific terms. 'Doing good' is not something that is tested, having studied psychology you should only make such a claim after lots of research. To be frank, I doubt your (tewanna) honesty.

  9. Poor, deluded guy. He has confused pretty good cold reading with psychic ability.

  10. Sad, really. I don't get the impression that this man is a shameless huckster (despite the showmanship). He seems to have eaten his own applesauce. Seems like he had little going for himself so he cultivated this special identity as a pre-verbal infant psychic. His 'regular bloke' appeal (doesn't look too smarmy or dodgy) probably helped. Most people who truly want to believe this guy will do so regardless of evidence disproving his claim as a psychic. People seem to want to believe anyone who tells them what they want to hear.

  11. He says "The tests I'm given are designed for me to fail." Well I hate to break it to you buddy, but (even if that were true) if you make a wild claim to society such as this, those are the kind of tests you should be able to pass with ease!

  12. Like all media driven "psychic abilities", this is a crock of s***. Nothing more, nothing less.

  13. Who is D-K ? He makes me smile as he sort of diagnoses himself, aware of his mental process and potential EEG results. I am able to psychic-connect with children. Since I was four years old I have had this or known, I can remember things back to age 3, I have a normal EEG, some people told me I am an "empath" although I do not know what that is. I do not need any experiments and babies are easy to know their mind. I also pick up on distress pretty quick and I work as a Nurse and I stay away from labor and delivery, neonatal jobs because it is too stressful for me as I can't block the whatever you call it, the babies mental fight or flight survival is overwhelming. By the way, I am wondering if 2012 could be significant for the world and what if Arnold's asteroid is real, like part of tribulation ? I really would like to go to heaven and not have to wait around until 2028.
    Speed that asteroid up please.

    1. I'm not ready to go yet so that asteroid, as far as I'm concerned, can selectively kill only those who want to go. For someone who claims to care so much for others, you don't have much sympathy for those of us who may not have the brownie points to get into heaven.

  14. I did not understand the last experiment as there was no control. His brain map was matched with the normal brain in normal conditions. It should have been matched with the normal person when trying to play or talk to child and don't claim to be psychic. I guess that person would also be having same pattern. Moreover, this guy is doing these activities since long time. Even if he is not establishing telepathic connection but trying to do that in time your non-verbal area of brain would show activity. First two experiments were more reliable and he failed badly.

  15. Babies!?!? Not at all actually he is scanning parents reaction to his dialogue. Using babies as a front for his instant connectivity to these dupes is simply a matter of not having any counter point because the children are not capable of refuting his drivel. He is preying on the universal love for our children and the innate desire for us as parents to do more than humanly possible for their children. Thankfully his recommendations are not harmful but be advised he is still very dangerous if interpreted as any more than a novelty performance.

  16. Psychic abilities sound nothing but a bunch of nonsense, until you meet a REAL psychic... I've known one girl, who, over the phone, would tell me the EXACT shape, color and texture of EVERY object I took into my hand while talking to her on the phone! A precise match in every of about 10 cases - what is it - a coincidence, cold reading or some other tricks? Yeah, right!

    1. hey... so u got a million dollar winner there ... fix her up tell her to give you 10% and you go buy a new life and really make it rain !! haha

  17. love his micro movement on the left eye where he says "i really do it" and he involuntarily squints like "do you really belieeve this??"

  18. at 6:30 in the section where the doctor is telling him about the test - there is a guy in the mirror that is there and then not there its funny as they edited the conversation together -

  19. who's the bigger idiot,him or the people who pay him for this bullshit.

  20. i don't know who's the biggest idiot, him or the people that believe this bulls***.

  21. Psychics my ass, they are nothing more than charlatans who use cold reading & other methods of trickery to make money from gullible fools. A fool & his money are soon parted, my mother always used to say & she was right. There is nothing supernatural is this world & never will be, it is no different to they way that religion has been duping gullible people into giving money to the church in a vain hope of going to a non-existent heaven. Scams only work because there are people that are stupid enough to believe them.

    1. that's sad man , you must lead a lonely depressing life.

    2. It would be significantly more helpful for you to understand a topic entirely, then to come to the conclusion you have come to based upon limited knowledge and a nothing more than disdain for one individual that may, or may not, possess any abilities. To me that sounds even more stunted and "stupid" than anyone.

  22. "Not married to his dad". Wow. Because it's not possible that he looked down and noticed no wedding ring. Or noticed a lack of men's coats or clothes on the way in.

    I despise this man SO much.

  23. Yay! James Randi! =) Hopefully he'll put this cunt out of business.

  24. This is totally rediculous. How the hell do you consentrate on your frontal lobe? I mean read babies minds? What is there to read? I don´t think babies think at all, and thats (some of) the beauty of them!

    1. Nothing is rediculous because as babie u can't remember anything and means nothing is possible and also I du believe that babys can think bat u just can't remember bezoause your mint growing and learning and in the same time u forgetting..

  25. his reaction to the test criteria is hilarious, you just know he dropped a log right there.


  27. I think psychic ability is like surfing the waves on the ocean. Some days you get up and ride waves after waves, some days you just catch one or two and some days you just keep falling. But if you never go to the ocean and try to ride the never can surf.
    Is he a psychic? long as he believes times he will convince his audience.

  28. certainly seems interesting, although since he failed the experiment I can't really say I believe him..

  29. Charlie Brooker tears into this guy (not in person) on his Screenwipe program - you can find it on youtube, search "Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe - The Baby Mind Reader".

    Very funny stuff. Derek Ogilvie dispicably exploits a woman's past in an attempt for credibility.

  30. @ Arnold Vinette - Whoa there...that can't be right, the worlds coming to an end in 2012. I just wish you guys would come to some kind of arrangement with these predictions because I just keep getting confused. Arnold, you should form a guild of premonitionists and lay down some rules. You could call it "The End Is Nigh Society" and kick those other dudes into line by making them register their premonition so you can weed out the fakers.

  31. That is one detailed and thourough premonition. Thanks for endlessly entertaining me and other skeptics alike.

  32. I firmly belief in psychics ability having had several premonitions in my life.

    However, I am in no way in the same category as Derek Ogilvie.

    My premonitions are few and far between 7 over 47 years.

    However when a premonition is received it is always correct.

    I cannot explain it nor do I try to other than perhaps my brain is receiving electrical signals and impulses from a future point in time. Meaning that people who receive premonitions of future events are actually receiving electrical signals from their brains at a future point in time.

    And if electrical brain signals can be passed back into time, then logically they should also be able to be passed forward in time. A brain signal received from the past would be perceived as a memory or flash back memory.

    Brain signals received from a future point in time are perceived as premonitions.

    Premonitions are perceived every day by people all over the earth. It is a well recognized part of human capability.

    My last premonition took place on June 12, 2009, while I was on a CalTrains train ride from Sunnyvale to San Francisco. I was off on my unusual bike ride over the Golden Gate Bridge. This premonition was so disturbing that I immediately wrote it down and then notified American President Barack Obama, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

    This premonition was also published in September 2009 to lock in the date and event and copies sent to American President Barack Obama, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

    This premonition will be recorded here as well and if I am correct it will be another premonition that has come true. No prior past premonitions have been so dire, nor so specific in time and place.

    On Friday June 12, 2009 I felt a wave of emotion sweep over me. It was if a tidal wave of emotion that had been swept back in time and for whatever reason I was susceptible to it.

    On August 17, 2028 an asteroid is going to strike the Earth.

    The impact site is to be the Yellowstone National Park area.

    The impact of the asteroid is going to destabilize the Yellowstone Super Caldera causing it to erupt with tremendous force. It will be the largest volcanic eruption in mankind's history.

    All life on the North American continent is to be extinguished in the dual catastrophe. This includes the United States and Canada. I live on the North American continent.

    The safest place to escape the dual catastrophe in North America is in Russia. The specific location is between Yoshkar-Ola and Kirov. I have no idea why, just that this is the safest place on Earth when this dual catastrophe occurs.

    The United States, Canadian and American government have been told to build asteroid fallout shelters in this area and stock them with a minimum of 50 years supply of food.

    The worst part of the catastrophe will be over in 50 years time after which time food should be able to be grown outside again.

    The North American continent will be repopulated in 2128 by the descendents from Russia, Canada and America. The new country is to be called RusCanAmerica. The language spoken will be a hybrid of English and Russian.

    The asteroid fallout shelters will save whatever they can of modern technology.

    The world's population is to be reduced to 1 billion after the event.

    The asteroid strike will not happen without warning.

    The inbound asteroid is to be spotted in the year 2024 by astronomers worldwide.

    The impact site will be officially determined in 2026.

    The impact will occur on August 17, 2028 in or near Yellowstone National Park causing the destabilization and eruption of the Yellowstone Super Caldera.

    The Yellowstone Super Caldera is 200,000 years over due for its next eruption based on historic geological evidence. The Yellowstone Super Caldera is primed and ready to go.

    This asteroid is not associated with the 2029 and 2036 asteroid that is currently being tracked for a possible impact in 2036. This asteroid will enter our solar system from the outside.

    Both the 2024 and 2026 events must take place for this premonition to be true.

    The inbound asteroid is to be spotted in the year 2024 by astronomers worldwide.

    The impact site will be officially determined in 2026.

    As of December 2009, Russia has made plans for an asteroid intercept mission.

    As of February 2010, President Barack Obama has held meetings with asteroid impact specialists.

    Another part of the premonition is that the Canadian Government will do nothing believing that a threat does not exist. To date this is true. The Canadian government has taken no action.

    This is just a premonition. It has no basis in concrete available information at this point.

    Any attempts to deflect this inbound asteroid will fail. How do I know this? Because I have already felt the shock and disbelief of emotions passing like a wave through time. This event has already happened in the future.

    In all past premonition events, I have never been aware of a specific time or place for an event to occur. Only that an event will occur in the near future.

    I do not expect anyone to take this premonition seriously, even I have a hard time with it.

    Never-the-less it is recorded here on December 24, 2010 as a premonition of a future event.

    To date I have never been wrong. Once I experience the premonition of a future event, it has always come to pass.

    Arnold Vinette
    Ottawa, Canada

    1. awesome

    2. hahahaha, awesome! people believe the weirdest sh*t.I am a cognitive neuroscientist and that last guy in the docu is a quack!!!

    3. Arnold you are far too caught up in this day dream my good fellow. I appreciate your concern for others but you are missing the point of man's ability to rise to such an issue. Having four years lead time would make preparation against such an adversary relatively easy. It is only a rock in space and thus it is weightless. True there is a massive velocity to overcome but I put my faith in our ability as scientific creatures to rally together our ingenuity and defeat the threat.

    4. you know i just now remember, that when i was a kid there was an old man in a living in a geriatric home, who one week before the terrorist attack in Argentina he came to the mistress horrified telling her whats gonna happen. he say he saw it inside a prayer book.
      i met the lady and ive met him.
      So i guess this was quite a proof for me.

    5. sadly no one believed him at the time. they though poor old man is going crazy..

    6. Well if the internet is still around in those years, which it bloody well should be, I look forward to checking back with you on that one.

  33. any one that does these things for money is a fake cause the reason behind the reading is to pecure a profit its not to help people if it were he would run a practice like a Doctor and get paid a salary instead he tore the roof off the amount of profit he can make and turned it into a business i f@#$ i hate capitalism

  34. Cold reading has always impressed folks. And what's not to be amazed about? Whether or not the person cannot actually read your brain as he could read words in a novel, there's still something unquestionably astonishing about a individual who can read you in an instant.

  35. So, according to the EEG he's using the part of his brain "associated with emotion and sending and receiving non-verbal communication". COLD READING...body language, verbal manipulation, imagination and emotional connectivity. That's cold reading... this poor b@#$%^& is interpreting it as being some mind blowing thing, and that's exactly what cold reading is. Yes, only very few people percentage-wise can do it, it is not a psychic connection. If that fits your definition of psychic, then anyone can be psychic by learning to cold read.

  36. You think I am James Randi...I'm flattered, thankyou. But no, I am not, just a simple admirer, so getting back to Derek and his test results, the following is why Dr Gluck's EEG readings are proof only of Derek's emotional state, not his psychic ability which you mistakenly think it is and the documentary tries to pass of as true.

    Derek claims that when he’s communicating telepathically he sees images or pictures in his mind and it’s these that he interprets whilst giving a psychic reading. Now, if you accept that Derek does indeed get vivid mental imagery in his mind (and this is nothing unusual) then the results of his EEG scan are consistent with...vivid mental imagery.
    What the results are not consistent with is psychic ability simply because Derek earlier completely failed to show any psychic ability whatsoever. Gluck's EEG results cannot explain an ability that does not exist, but they do demonstrate the heightened emotions which Gluck totally expected from the start and emphasised in his report to Derek...and to you if you were listening.

    Dr Gluck allowed Derek, and you, to confuse his statements as proof positive of psychic ability but, in fact he most likely saw this whole sorry episode as an opportunity to advertise his EEG machine and expertise so he could pay off his house. Why the hell would a scientist have his lab in a broom cupboard if he was getting paid anyway?

    1. I would hold off on being "flattered" that someone would think you were James Randi. But I just don't think you know any better.

  37. Hi Izzy,

    No I am not a psychic or any kind of practitioner but it sounds like you and James Randi go back a bit hey? Or maybe you and he are the same? Derek gave some good advice and had a lot of energy and time for people who really need it and also showed in the last test that he WAS communicating non verbally. I wonder why that threatens you so and you have to speculate about what he charges? Anyway each to his own but I still think the sceptics in this movie are wasting their lives. If people want to call on Derek let them, there are far more dangerous people out there if you want to spend your life fighting something.

  38. @Karen - "Derek has obviously devoted his life to helping young families who obviously pay him very little. What are the skeptics in this movie doing with their lives? I also wonder who YOU would honestly trust if you were forced to spend any amount of time with any of these people? I would choose Derek hands down. I wouldn’t trust the old turkey as far as I could spit at him … Would you? Honestly?"

    Wow, this reasoning is so backward it makes me dizzy. This kind of logic can only come from a sympathetic practitioner, someone who also thinks they might have psychic ability.

    How does taking money from cash strapped gullible women equate to 'helping young families' and why is it 'obvious they pay him little'. If Derek considers himself to be a gifted psychic and is doing house calls, I would speculate he is charging a minimum of 30-40pounds, if not more. In fact, a genuine psychic could not be taken seriously for any less amount. No, Derek has devoted his life to lining his pockets the best way he can without doing an honest days work and is certainly not to be trusted. He seems to be weirdly awkward and no-nonsense with the kids, I certainly would not leave my kids alone with him.

    James Randi, on the other hand, has genuinely and commendably devoted his every waking moment to freely exposing people like Derek for the confidence tricksters they actually are. He does this to minimize the damage done to credulous innocent families who are pressured into giving away their hard earned money for a supernatural service that amounts to nothing more than kind words.

    You have got to ask yourself why Derek's self confessed amazing insights are apparently limited to simple aches and pains, faulty car seats and attention seeking children. These things are not predictions at all, but simply clever observations, so what in the dickens is going on here? If Derek's well rehearsed rhetoric is consistent with predictions of any kind that actually did eventuate, don't you think he could change the world. Indeed, multi-corporate global businesses would fall over themselves to pay Derek not thousands, not even millions, but billions for insider predictions.

    The fact is Derek can't predict a thing, but he can spread false hope and harmfully influence peoples thoughts and decisions by disguising his observational skills as a psychic gift...pathetic.

  39. What is missing with the EEG result is that, if you are a habitual liar, meaning, believing your own BS, you will have the same EEG result. What the result shows is that you cannot say he is a liar because he believes his own lies as the truth. In short, he believes his own b@##$%^&!

  40. Well, as a woman. I find it all to be horse puckey. I think most of them are shams and this one is just delusional. He seems genuinely believing in himself but it all points to what they say. He needs the feedback meaning he isn't reading thoughts, he is constructing a story based on what's logical to their feedback. He just doesn't want to feel unspecial now that he thinks he has a gift and that's why he would put energy into testing it. He really believes he can do it and even 2 tests to 1 against him isn't convincing him because he clung to the 1 for his validation.

    Let's say it were real. If I'm talking to you - even with telepathy - why wouldn't I look at you, all those children were flailing, never seemingly focused on him. He does use large body language and got in people's faces trying to pressure them to say yes! you are right, the couple on the couch showed that. He not only was standing above her but his arms out and leaning over her into what I would consider personal space, the 3 foot or so around you.

  41. I find it interesting/sad that women are more prone to believe in this sort of stuff. Could it be a gullible nature caused by an emphasis on appearance rather than intellect, or do women reason emotionally rather than intellectually, even in cases that call for intellectual reasoning?

    I've talked to several people regarding the cold reading/mystical powers debate, and I find that on the whole, only a very small number of men are willing to believe, whereas the overwhelming majority of women do believe. Then I found that most of the men were able to substantiate their position whereas most of the women got defensive before even uttering a single argument to substantiate theirs.

    So not only do women (that I spoke to) want to believe in this, they won't reflect on any contradictory evidence or arguments I presented, and get defensive as I point out that some didn't even have a reason to believe it, save for watching those shows without feeling like a hypocrite. I just can't respect anyone who believes in something so much and defends it so fiercely (sans actual arguments), without actually knowing why.

    Thank you psychics, you are actively ruining women for me.
    Thank you women, you are actively allowing psychics to ruin women for me.

  42. Derek said exactly what was happening for him - which was only that he was receiving messages and images. He also made it very clear that he subjected himself to these tests because he himself wanted to understand what was happening better. Look at the mothers and children at the start - they are intently watching him and wanting to communicate. It appears to me that he was obviously confused at times who the images were coming from (the mother or child or childminder) but that to me is very understandable.

    If he were the calculating person you claim he would have manipulated the situation much better. The fact that he didn't call it off and then became so obviously distressed and confused actually discredits that idea in my mind.

    If you have every lived day in day out with a toddler you might understand the love and warmth and caring that Derek is bringing into these people's lives (and the very good advice he gives I might add). This in itself precludes him from any kind of psychopath status, where are the victims? His clients are not in fear of him and fear is what the psychopath craves.

    I saw no dark side of Derek - just a man very scared and also very courageous and desperate to understand his own gift better and to have some validation for what he experiences. Very human.

    The last scientist understood. Did you hear him say it would be good to get the kids in and wire them up too? He understood that they were communicating with each other non verbally because he saw that was the part of his brain that was working. How do you fake that? How can the kid he wants to communicate with make a non verbal connection when distressed about being separated from their mother or with that old turkey running around playing Santa Clause?

    Derek has obviously devoted his life to helping young families who obviously pay him very little. What are the skeptics in this movie doing with their lives? I also wonder who YOU would honestly trust if you were forced to spend any amount of time with any of these people? I would choose Derek hands down. I wouldn't trust the old turkey as far as I could spit at him ... Would you? Honestly?

  43. @karen - So why didn't Dereck call a halt to the experiment when it appeared the child was not being co-operative. It would have been acceptable for him to do so but instead he persisted because that's what he would normally do. I think these experiments certainly show that Dereck does in fact cold read the mother.

    Randi keeps it cool with Dereck for the simple reason that Dereck rates right up there on the psychopath's checklist. His well crafted experiment beautifully exposed Derecks true persona and showed just how ineffective, misguided and callously shallow Derecks intuition actually is.

  44. How was Derek meant to communicate with the children when first the children were only reaching out in their minds for their absent parent and second when the old turkey was making such a huge song and dance about being the person the kids attention was on. In my opinion it was the old turkey who was the scammer and knew exactly what he was doing because he fears his intuitive and emotional side and has a very deep and nasty grudge going on.

    Derek was spot on when he said that the tests were designed for him to fail them.

  45. this guy is a liar and intentional fraud. look carefully at his body language, where he pauses when he speaks, his eyes shifting. i call b@##$%^&
    hes an opportunistic businessman, though. and that i can respect

  46. I don't believe this guy is a liar or an intentional fraud. I believe he's cold reading, but he doesn't allow that fact to enter his consciousness because it would be a huge threat to his self-image. In other words, he's in denial. He believes what he does is real, but it isn't.

  47. Dr. Gluck seems like a jerk. In no way does his brain scans validate his 'psychic abilities' and not telling him so is misleading and unethical.

  48. There is something really weird about this doco. Is the narrator misrepresenting outcomes here or am I just imagining it. She appears to be batting for the other team despite the rapidly mounting evidence that Derreck is completely deluded. Why make a blatantly false statement that Dereck is Randi's FIRST psychic case when this is absolutely NOT the case, in fact, why would she point this out at all. She almost seems to be suggesting that we should be aware that Dereck could still be psychic even if Randi failed him, which he does. Dereck makes us aware of his real motivations anyway when he nicely sums up his psychic failure by saying, 'why not have a go at the million dollars anyway' he WAS guessing after all, its just a game to him. And then there is Dr Gluck the 'scientist', the only guy who would refer to Dereck by his first name. Dr Gluck with his EEG machine is akin to a 'back room' scientist who tells Dereck, for the right money, exactly what he wants to hear and is somewhat of a cold reader himself. Well, thanks to this bozo, Dereck has his faith restored and sets off to relieve some more people of their money. This whole last segment is a bit of a stinker with a totally ambiguous judgement by Gluck and mocking twist to the plot. It's just a bit of feel good nonsense tossed in by the producers to confuse and water down the evidence that unequivocally demonstrated Dereck's fraudulent and dishonest behaviour. Like I said, it's weird man.

  49. I think there are charlatans and then in this man's case, I believe he believe's it. Now the last scientist showed there was some brain activity. Fine, I'm not doubting that. What we need is to do more research on people who believe they are psychic and maybe there is a scientific explanation.

    Not that we can show scientifically there are psychics, but that there is a scientific explanation for what's happening. For instance, Derrick's emotional region is what's being triggered. It may be a case of people who have over sensitive empathetic and emotional regions crossed with data storing places in their brain. For instances.

    The neighbor dies. Since Derrick is oversensitive to emotions, i.e. the death of somebody, that part of his brain becomes overactive and he sees the thing that is triggering that and thinks it's a psychic vision, when in reality it's an overactive brain region that is causing hallucinations and the such. Now, this would give the appearance to the person that it is really happening and for them it really is.

    Could reading, maybe these people are good at picking up on small emotional nuances from others and they don't even realize they are doing it. I am in no way a supporter of this c!@#, but there might be an explanation for this c#$%. LOL.

  50. @Sarah : Exactly! Ogilvie was reading the body language of the adult in the room. He had developed a narrative, to help himself explain this gift (and perhaps we can concede that good body language reading is a gift?). So, Derek believes the child is telling him information about the adult, but that is a delusion that Derek has weaved to put his ability in a way that he can understand it.

    We can accept that the scientist, Dr. Gluck, measured something unique in Derek's brain. What we should not accept is that it was esp. Dr. Gluck should have been far more adamant in asserting that distinction.

    By the way, Dr. Gluck was doing a fair amount of cold reading himself, as he was coaching Derek during the initial interview, when Derek was telling Dr. Gluck about his "frontal lobe." Very unscientific.

  51. There is a problem with Dr. Gluck's assessment, if not his measurements:
    1) It was demonstrated that Derek relies on cold reading whatever adult accompanies the child (parent, or lab assistant).
    2) It was not demonstrated that Derek does any reading of any child. Derek claims his readings come from the mind of the child, but nowhere was that claimed ability demonstrated.
    3) It was demonstrated that Derek does not have ESP.

    Therefore, Dr. Gluck is skipping steps when he suggests that he would like to hook up a baby to an EEG at the same time Derek is hooked up to an EEG. Dr. Gluck has jumped to an invalid conclusion. It also seems that Dr. Gluck has not validated his assessment in corroboration with Rand's findings.

    There is a psycho-physiological theory that postulates the possibility of "mirror neurons", which means it could be Derek is sensitive to the non-verbal communication with other adults, hence his ability to register "moles" and aches and pains, etc., of adults that happen to be with the babies. But this is not a psychic ability, and I actually appreciate the Rand test for testing mirror neuron sympathy in the absence of visual cues, i.e., when the target is not in the same room.

    I am also disturbed that Derek misinterpreted Dr. Gluck's brain assessment to validate his "psychic ability." I am troubled that Dr. Gluck did not go through enough rigorous explanation to Derek that his findings in no way suggest something esp or psychic phenomenology. Derek seemd all too eager to latch onto Dr. Gluck's brain testin as confirmation of psychic ability, and I think Dr. Gluck was behaving a little too sensationalist for my liking.

  52. I almost pity the man because he (acted like) he bought his own story. At the end of the day however, he did claim that his dead grandmother appeared to him in a grocery store, gave him telepathic powers, and taught him how to read the minds of infants... and for some strange reason, the infants almost universally seem to be interested in their own mothers' secret birthmarks and problems with the family car.

    You would think that at some point prior to appearing on international TV, you would sit down and critically ask yourself just how reasonable your claims sound to an outside observer. Maybe run a couple trial tests in your basement to double-check the validity and limitations of your own mystical powers?

    Ultimately, he deserved what he got from the lab and Randi. I come close, but cannot quite make myself pity the man. Why? Ask yourself if you think he would return his psychic fees to those families... that's why I don't pity him.

  53. Derek Ogilvie is a fake! Anyone who believes he is not is just a fool like all those stupid parents paying for this guys bullsh*t.

    85 - 90 % of the worlds population are just plain old stupid and this doc proves how dumb most humans are.

  54. The scientist at the end was awful! That test was not at all up to scientific standards. All he could honestly say was that there was activity associated with nonverbal communication going on in the frontal lobe. He completely failed to mention that nonverbal communication includes BODY LANGUAGE, which is exactly what Ogilvie would use if he were cold reading.
    Just to consider telepathy as a possibility would require him to be in a separate room, to distinguish it from other forms of nonverbal communication.

  55. I am skeptic myself, but I have something to say against these tests.

    To stand to the true definition of the word, we also need to take "the powers of science" with a little bit of salt. The point that I am trying to make here is this - Science has limited boundaries, before Einstein's theories, Newton was our boundary. Newton's concept of 'ethereal space' was rejected a 100 years later. Until then, the scientists rejected anything that went against newton. Just until 30 years back we did not even know that plants also have nervous systems, memory and that babies actually start 'learning' language and culture right from their mother's womb.

    Having said this, I DO NOT intend to say that logic and reasoning cannot be applied to the paranormal, all I am trying to underscore is that we cannot conclusively determine such claims solely based on currently known scientific ways. I am an engineering graduate, with firm belief in logical proof, but lets look at our scientific achievements. From what I know science does not have *any* conclusive proof of "emotions". Apart from a few chemicals like dopamine etc which have been found to be the "cause", but we still do not know *Why* does that particular chemical get released only when we see or hear or experience some few exact things.

    I understand, that *many* such claimed psychics, mediators etc are frauds, but maybe a very few of these really posses such powers. So, we have to be careful when we put such claims to test. Something that I noticed in this documentary is that this chap was really uncomfortable before and during the tests.
    Possible explanations? - he knew he was going to be busted OR it maybe a very real and genuine pressure of performing (even world class players have this nervousness, so its justified). This guy claims that he works at the emotional level, so these tests should have been designed to make him comfortable first. In the second test, he complains of the cold-treatment, well even before he said that in the documentary, I realized it from the few shots that were presented. Forget psychics, this sort of an examination should be very well structured, from the perspective of any examinee.

    [Sorry for the long rant, if I did not make sense, I honestly tried to make some sense though. :P ]

  56. How bogus was that last test??

    They should have at least given him another one in a room with no kid.

  57. How boring and sad to see the old dinasauriers thinking that they can measure these fantastic abilities with megaold measurements and standards... who cares if they can measure it or not. It exists and we don´t need you to test it.

  58. This doc proves again that some people will do anything to avoid working for a living.

  59. That guy was owned, he was owned by science.

  60. That I am, my good man... that I am..

  61. @D-K

    You lucky SOB.

  62. Being dutch entitles me to massive quantities of legal weed, and being a government official provides me with enough monetary resources to indulge myself to no end, i'm currently on a 2week weed-sabbatical though..

    I had no idea other doc enthusiast got high on a regular, although every canadian i've spoken to so far, (on kotaku, gamespot and now here) hits the bong quite often. Surprising really..

  63. Funnily enough Epicurus, I checked out of this conversation because I got hold of some really nice weed on Friday and basically, I just couldnt see the screen properly. It all looked very interesting what you were saying but there was no way I could follow. :)

  64. Im in Canada. And it is true, it is amazing watching docs while at work. I even sometimes will hook the computer up to the stereo and watch them over the speakers in the store. usually the cannabis related ones.

  65. From my end it's refreshing to discuss such matters with someone who won't simply dismiss me as a sociopath (although I am exactly that) but rather examines my comments for their logic and offers counterpoints and source material relevant to the topic of the discussion. How rare these traits have become...

    Checking docs while managing a hempshop must and can only be as glorious as it sounds... awesome. I'm always under the default assumption that people online are American, usually turns out this way. Managing a headshop kinda kills that notion, and ignites the flame of curiousity; where do you hail from?

  66. have no idea how refreshing it is to have a GOOD discussion with someone who actually took the time to read the link I gave.

    First off, I manage a Headshop (selling bongs and pipes and hemp goods) and it was mother's day, so dont worry, nothing important was taken up. lol.

    but lets get started, (and this is going to be dull because im going to agree with you)

    you said:

    while you see morality as a means to maximize pleasure for the species, I see it as more of a restraint on the pleasure to maximize the chance of comfortable co-existance.

    EUREKA!! when I said maximize pleasure I SHOULD have qualified it by saying maximum pleasurable CO-EXISTENCE. I absolutely agree with what you see it as here. It is what i meant.

    Then you said:

    Personally, i’m willing to sacrifice comfortable co-existance for personal gain, while this may be perceived as sociopathic behaviour, (frankly, it is) the negative connotations are irrelevant when you stop caring about other people’s judgement.

    This is very objective and honest. If my mirror neurons werent so finely tuned to empathy and sympathy I could easily see myself this way. I dont think there is anything "wrong" with it although you are right it is sociopathic.

    Your entire second post I admireably agree with. Reminds me of all of my favourite television characters; Spock, Data, and Sheldon (The Big Bang Theory) But like I said, Im prone to sympathy and empathy a little too much.

    and your third post is also correct in that the consequences you describe are evident by the societies around us and the issued they have been and are faced with.

    I can't disagree.

  67. Sorry for the triple post everyone, but this particular sentence describes my trouble with group-morality (it's from the link you sent me, Epi)

    "A society might have a morality that takes accepting the traditions and customs of the society, including accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty to the group, as more important than avoiding and preventing harm"

    Morality is group-specific, and for those that unwillingly belong to such a group, it means that ideals and morality are forced onto them, and basic psychology teaches us that resitance will ensue. When a defensive position is met with hostility it turns to offensive behaviour in which certain people may exhibit behaviour contradictory to what is to be desired of them.

    Outcasts have always been targets of ridicule and are often misunderstood, which only reafirms their cultural status. It's basic intolerance of man to assume that anyone who isn't social, must be anti-social, which of course becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  68. Interesting read, btw..

    I'll have to explain this first and foremost though, or you'll simply be lost in my rambling or write me off as a psychopath.

    In my reasoning, my approach to ethical problems, societal problems and actually pretty much anything, I go in without emotional investment/attachment. I judge objectively, nothing is sacred, nothing is more than the sum of it's parts.

    example: a dog's life is equal to a man's life. I reason without influence of morality, and many consider my sense of right and wrong warped, as they reason from society's frame of reference, the views that are forced on them in the early stages of their life, and I don't.

    for instance, if I see 2 cats drowning in one pond, and 1 man/woman in the other, I'd save the cats. A human life is no more sacred than that of a bug. You'll find i'm quite black and white in my way of thinking.

    I realize that my way of thinking could never be used generally, it is simply because i'm different.. possibly defective.. does kinda make me perfect for the position of world leader though.. soo... fingers crossed.

  69. First of all, any thought-provoking discussion is a discussion worth having, unless it could have negative consequences concerning your employment, one would be better off postponing one's rebuttal to one's personal time. ;)

    Secondly, while you see morality as a means to maximize pleasure for the species, I see it as more of a restraint on the pleasure to maximize the chance of comfortable co-existance. Personally, i'm willing to sacrifice comfortable co-existance for personal gain, while this may be perceived as sociopathic behaviour, (frankly, it is) the negative connotations are irrelevant when you stop caring about other people's judgement.

    It's when a person has a personal agenda with goals deviating from the goals that are socially accepted to better the state of the species, that the loose definition of morality raises questions. Their meaning, goal and even relevance come into question with such an individual.

  70. lol so many at work, on a terrible computer and shouldnt even be having this discussion lol.

  71. i really think you would benefit from reading this

    plato . stanford . edu/entries/morality-definition/

    it isnt JUST the definition, but explains many different sources of our morality.

    of course on the base it doesnt seem like our morals are a guide to maximize pleasure and minimize pain when we see certain actions which do the opposite, but of course nothing is universally constant. there will be instances where putting oneself in very unpleasurable situations happens and is seen as moral but ultimately its end is to maximize pleasure for the species.

    of course we would have to differentiate morals and ethics, individual morals, and group morals...etc.

    i really think what you are suggesting is way too narrow and black and white to be used generally.

  72. "these cultures take their morals from what they see as offering the maximum amount of pleasure for as many as possible, while avoiding anything that would take away from the goal to live comfortably and happily."

    Let's break this down for a second, bear with me here. Morals en ethics (which i personally see as a hindrence) aren't designed to simplify our lives, not meant to provide pleasure and the only way to factor in comfort is to equate it to peace of mind. Morals and ethics stem from a pre-concieved notion of righteousness and ultimate justice. They are outdated concepts that derived from the theological persuasion and as such have no clear use for a critical thinker. In my book a critical thinker is as objective as possible, non-dismissive when confronted with opposing sound logic.

    Allow me to make an example; there are numerous tribes/congregations that believe in self-mutilation in order to reach a certain goal. This goal is often `contrived of pagan ritual belief, and seemingly arbitraty results, such as an african boy, enduring 1000 cuts to become a man. This goes against instinct, against everything the nervous system will "tell" that person, the sole motivation is cultural ethics/morals, and the process' perceived result.
    (which, shockingly, is imaginary)

    Our imagination, along with underlying body properties such as the r-complex and indoctrination, allows us to make such leaps of faith. I believe non-human animals (at least most, if not all) are reactional/instinctive beings, eliminating the need for imagination.

    Next to opposable thumbs, imagination makes what I believe to be the grand divider between humans and other animals.
    While your assumption that I use definition 1b is mostly correct, it's not nearly encompassing enough to accurately portray the implications of said definition.

    "we both agree it is not our imagination to avoid pain and displeasure and to seek pleasure" I believe that imagination makes it possible to explore both ends, while instinctive behaviour only allows us to avoid pain and seek pleasure.

    Monogamy is a cause of morality too, and beyond raising an "adaptable and fully equipped" child, serves no purpose.

  73. Jack green that is what i was going to say.

    our morals and ethics are built up mostly by the cultural influences pressed upon us. these cultures take their morals from what they see as offering the maximum amount of pleasure for as many as possible, while avoiding anything that would take away from the goal to live comfortably and happily. i would say these are not based upon our imagination but based upon the reaction of our central nervous system and the organisms (i say this because using animals here is a good example to show that imagination is not needed for morality or ideals) want to survive and reproduce.

    Imagination defined as

    A. The formation of a mental image of something that is neither perceived as real nor present to the senses.
    B. The mental image so formed.
    C. The ability or tendency to form such images.
    2. The ability to confront and deal with reality by using the creative power of the mind; resourcefulness: handled the problems with great imagination.
    3. A traditional or widely held belief or opinion.
    4. Archaic.
    1. An unrealistic idea or notion; a fancy.
    2. A plan or scheme.

    i have been using the first example (1A) of the definition in my words. you seem to be using the second...if that is the case i would say its an awfully bastardized explanation of where we formulate morals and ideals...

    just so we dont get mixed into a game of semantics....we both agree it is not our imagination to avoid pain and displeasure and to seek pleasure....making that greedy thinking coincide with large populations of people is how we form our morals.

  74. @D-K, Epicurus

    I think you need to agree on a definition of imagination.

  75.      “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein Which is true but imagination can also be silly and a waste of tme when a person imagines he talks to ghosts and babies. Even hazardous and dangerous when people belive you. Kind of like a person saying ," I Talked to "god" and he said to kill those who dont wear the same silly hats as us."Thus imagination and ones understanding of whats real and logical are two differant things and some people seem to get them confused.Like this guy and his flock of hens.

  76. Imagination is not just what we play with when our more plastic toys are unavailable, it is and shapes how we interpret the world

  77. But man does not base his frame of reference on reality, although arguably that would be ideal, this is simply not the case. Man forms his frame of reference on ethics, morals and external teachings, however the validity of each of these contributing factors is decided by emotional, subjective reasoning. Quite clearly the opposite of reality as reality is objective and devoid of the "human aspect"

    Seeing as ethics and morals are man-made concepts, every frame of reference is inherently imaginary, as is it's relevance to any given situation. Simply put, a frame of reference is based on rules we make up to allow ourselves to classify and pass judgment based on personal rules. As such, it is imaginary.

    Does require a leap of creative thinking, but there you have it.

  78. i dont understand why you equate imagination with frame of refeence. our imagination is that which we play with when we are just making stuff up. when we come to our morals or ideals they should be grounded in reality thus requiring a good grasp on what reality is.

  79. @Epicurus: But if our imagination and thus frame of reference does not dictate our ideals, then we'd be forced to adopt them from teachings of others, meaning they wouldn't be your personal ideals.

    Ideals should derive from personal contemplation and also should be the result of extensive soul-searching and objective reasoning, although these specific features may be outside the realm of the average person. Actual ideals require reflection and relativation, most people have not the tools/means to utilize these attributes.

  80. asking people to be critical thinkers or logical and rational is not telling them to all be the same.

    imaginations are great, but they shouldnt dictate your life or ideals.

  81. Did anybody else see him cry!? That was funnier than his claims of being psychic. Almost made me feel sorry for him. He really belives in himself. Poor dude. He reminded me of that dude John Edwards. I really feel sorry for all those parents. What a sham to be wasting all that money on nonsense . To each his own I guess. This was funny to watch , though. I liked how they got to the test results quickly and didnt spend the whole time trying to convince us about his " mad skills" as a psychic.They should have shown the second results for the brain scan.

  82. But wouldn't life be boring if we were all the same Epicurus?

  83. @pacha, school would be better. particularly a class on critical thinking and logic.

    and charles, yes I did. im sorry, im sure you are a swell person. but you have been lied to and have bought into it.

  84. Those with impressive conversational prowess, charisma, attention to detail and manipulative abilities can always rely on a job in taking advantage of people's idiocy and our unrelenting flaw of not being able to accept "no answer" as the answer.

    While they prey on the ignorant and easily-manipulated, it's fun how some seem to actually believe their divine capabilities in an attempt to soothe their moral conscience.

    In order to manipulate the masses, they must manipulate themselves.. which is sort of impressive in it's own right, I guess..

  85. Interesting Doc! I suppose to truly enjoy these docs I have to have the self-dicipline to not read the comments first! LOL.

    Oh yeah,


    "Epicurus05/06/2010 at 04:35 right on man, welcome to this amazing site…just watch out for some posters…they can drive you nuts with their lack of education yet their affinity to give their input."

    You didn't have anyone specifically in mind did you? ;-)

  86. Derek came off looking very fake in this doc but it was shown that he was having some kind of non verbal communication at the end.
    Science may be good at testing certain things but it doesn't get the final say in my beliefs.

  87. Cold reading Not telepathy

  88. LOl ya esmuziq how would you know.... and after watching the video what really shows he is cold reading is when he starts cold reading the black lady taking the children in to see him and he claims he is reading the child's mind who is reading the ladies.

    Secondly when he makes claims at the bigging to a family about how they child always wants attention from both parents. If you watch the kid during the mind reading she is always grabbing toys and what not and bringing them to the amazing Randi. It does not take a rocket scientist, or in the case a mind reader, to realise she wants attention all the time.

  89. shows like this are a guilty pleasure of mine. I know it's all fake, but my god I keep watching.

  90. @esmuziq
    Sounds like your next in line for The Amazing Randi. Go for the million if you can read minds, otherwise your comment is ridiculous.

  91. when reading a mind you have to be calm and not ramble like a lunatic

  92. @ Pacha. Spot on mate!

  93. @koolaid and Epicurus
    I think I may have the solution for these uneducated people who dare to voice their opinions.

    Concentration camps.


  94. That guy is totally deluded...
    Look carefully at the scene of the 3rd "scientist" speaking, his eyes say.. "i'm paid to lie"

  95. Epicurus05/06/2010 at 04:35

    "right on man, welcome to this amazing site…just watch out for some posters…they can drive you nuts with their lack of education yet their affinity to give their input."

    So much truth to these words. The worst of the worst of these type of posters seem to congregate here.

  96. or was it "Lucifer?""Non serviam! I will not serve." ??

  97. @Epicurus James Joyce? Good point. I thought of that dude John Edwards when I saw this .It was funny to see him cry when blind study proved him wrong. I would like to see the second scan of his brain activity while the kid was tested too. That would of been nice.

  98. So far The Amazing Randi still has his money....

  99. right on man, welcome to this amazing site...just watch out for some posters...they can drive you nuts with their lack of education yet their affinity to give their input.

  100. Yes, Epi.

  101. non_serviam from Debate Faith??

  102. At the start of the program, Derek claims that he can "speak with the spirits of the dead." Later on, it turns into the ability to "read the minds of children through mental pictures." By the end it is an "unexplained brain activity." Moving the goal post much?