• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sylvia Browne - Split from: "Is troy a typical debunker"

Aphelion said:
Killtown is disgraceful, but I think he's a disinfo artist. Killtown does make one good point though, you lot harass Sylvia Brown.

And you can prove she isn't psychic? Proceed.
You lot are saying shes a con artist. Could I see your proof of this?

Somebody posted earlier that Sylvia is making millions from what she does, so why would she need Randi's million bucks?

Why does she need to prove anything? People are free to pay for her services or not. If she was so bad she would run out of customers.

I dont have any proof they are disinfo agents.

Now could I see your proof she isnt psychic? Proceed.

... it is up to Val Mclatchley to prove her photo is genuine. Is that what you are saying?

You still haven't answered why a woman whos making millions needs Randi's million?

Can you prove she cant perform paranormal acts?

Why should she jump through hoops just to shut up a man who harasses her? If I was in her position I wouldn't take the challenge.

Im not harassing killtown or Nico, thats the difference.

If you are going to harass her then its up to you to prove she cant.

By your logic, it is up to Val to prove her photo is real.

She has nothing to prove to anybody. She does not claim to be 100% accurate and her clients enter into transactions willingly. If you have evidence of criminality, please hand it to the police. Put up or shut up.

As I said earlier, she doesn't need the million dollars, so why on earth should she take the challenge.

But i'm not presumptious enough to right her off as a quack. I can't prove she doesn't have this power.

When sad people gossip about me I feed the gossip to see how obsessed they can be. Sylvia doesn't care what you think of her.

When will you be taking your evidence of her criminality to the police?

If you deplore liars do you not think there might be people more deserving of your efforts. Like the government, for example? Leave the woman alone.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that Aphelion is acting as a shill for Ms. Browne. I wonder how much she would pay me to post messages in her defense.
 
I've only been around here for a little while, but it does seem that the same arguments keep coming up which eventually get the same answers, in terms of logic.

You cannot prove a negative. We cannot prove that Browne does not have psychic powers. Maybe she does and simply chooses to publicly make incorrect predictions.

You CAN prove that a positive statement to be false. If Browne says that she "can't get every prediction right and can't be 100%" but publicly says that she is at least 80% correct...and it turns out that it's 50% if she's lucky (FAR less than that looking at her predictions) we can then say that her statement has been disproven. She is therefore either a con-artist or a real, honest to goodness psychic who chooses not to give correct predictions all the time.

Add on to that the fact that what she does can be done by anyone using cold-reading techniques who are not using any supernatural means and somehow her claim falls that much shorter of credibility.

I may not be able to prove that she isn't a psychic, but I think I can show that she is more likely a con-artist or just a really, horribly crappy psychic of some sort. And since her crappy predictions put her at pretty much the statistical norm at best, can we even call it "supernatural"?
 
Aphelion said:
I didn't make a claim. You lot are saying shes a con artist. Could I see your proof of this?
Click to expand...

I'm a human being, but I can fly. I am able to defeat gravity. I soar through the air without aid of wings or hollow bones. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong; and do it without me taking part in the test.
 
Aphelion said:
I dont have any proof they are disinfo agents. Now could I see your proof she isnt psychic? Proceed.
Click to expand...

I am a psychic and she is not. Prove me wrong talk one. Proceed Please???

It came to me in a vision just as you posted! She is not a... it just comes to me.

If only you could prove me wrong you have got it. She is a fraud too. You may want to see a dictionary to help you understand why she is a fraud.
 
I'm going to call Alphelion out as satire at this point, and well done satire!

The part about not allowing a Sylvia Browne's fraud conviction as evidence that she may be a fraud was brilliant!
 
Juustin said:
I'm a human being, but I can fly. I am able to defeat gravity. I soar through the air without aid of wings or hollow bones. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong; and do it without me taking part in the test.
Click to expand...


I do believe you.
 
Juustin said:
I'm going to call Alphelion out as satire at this point, and well done satire!

The part about not allowing a Sylvia Browne's fraud conviction as evidence that she may be a fraud was brilliant!
Click to expand...

This is not satire. You cannot convict someone based on a previous conviction. Earlier today in the conspiracy forum, Mr Wolfshade told me that I cannot take into account any previous government scams when considering their possible involvement in 911.

Why do Jrefers make up the rules as they go along?
 
Aphelion said:
This is not satire. You cannot convict someone based on a previous conviction. Earlier today in the conspiracy forum, Mr Wolfshade told me that I cannot take into account any previous government scams when considering their possible involvement in 911.

Why do Jrefers make up the rules as they go along?
Click to expand...
In which post did I say that?
 
Aphelion said:
This is not satire. You cannot convict someone based on a previous conviction. Earlier today in the conspiracy forum, Mr Wolfshade told me that I cannot take into account any previous government scams when considering their possible involvement in 911.

Why do Jrefers make up the rules as they go along?
Click to expand...

Jrefers? Where have I heard that before?
 
Aphelion said:
I do believe you.
Click to expand...

Great. Now that we've established my abilities and expertise with human flight, my hourly rate is $1,500.00. I spent approximately 45 seconds typing out the original message, which breaks down to $18.75. I'll send you a private message with my paypal address.

Each explanation also comes with a survey regarding how well you understand human flight after your lesson, and some information about our ministry, The Holy Church of the Suspension of Disbelief.
 
Aphelion said:
This is not satire. You cannot convict someone based on a previous conviction. Earlier today in the conspiracy forum, Mr Wolfshade told me that I cannot take into account any previous government scams when considering their possible involvement in 911.

Why do Jrefers make up the rules as they go along?
Click to expand...

You are correct, Aphelion. It is an ad hominem argument to say that Browne is a fraud concerning her psychic claims (that she has them) because she was convicted of fraud not concerning her claims. That's an illogical argument. One can be true without the other being true.

And it's an equally illogical argument to say that 9/11 was a government "scam" because of any other fraud that the government had perpetuated previous (or even on the very same day). The proof of one does not logically prove the truth of another.
 
Last edited:
VulcanWay said:
You are correct, Aphelion. It is an ad hominem argument to say that Browne is a fraud concerning her psychic claims (that she has them) because she was convicted of fraud not concerning her claims. That's an illogical argument. One can be true without the other being true.

And it's an equally illogical argument to say that 9/11 was a government "scam" because of any other fraud that the government had perpetuated previous (or even on the very same day). The proof of one does not logically prove the truth of another.
Click to expand...
However, Browne's prior convictions of fraud are relevant evidence to a current discussion of fraudulent activity and the evidence being compiled on www.stopsylviabrowne.com is in no way limited to only looking at her prior conviction.

The way it is being used is not an ad hom fallacy because no one is saying:
P1: Sylvia Browne claims she is psychic
P2: Sylvia Browne was convicted of fraud
C: Sylvia Browne is not psychic

What is being said is (overly simplistic summary):
P1: Sylvia Browne is committing fraud
P2: Sylvia Browne was convicted of fraud
C: Sylvia Brown is committing fraud
 
Aphelion said:
If you have evidence of criminality, please hand it to the police. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

This, from a guy who goes on and on about how "9/11 was an inside job" on the internet, but can't be bothered to fire off an email with his "mountains of evidence" to the New York City District Attorney's office, nor the New York State Attorney General, nor the friggin sheriff of Mayberry.

Do you know how many [real] journalists and their editors would eat the eyeballs of a homeless child for the opportunity to break what would be THE biggest news story ever told? They would instantly win every single award the award-giving community has to offer, would become unfathomably rich and influential overnight, and their names would become immortal household words.

So, if you have evidence of criminality, please hand it to the police. Put up or shut up.
 
I'm pretty sure, in the eyes of a Troofer, that the New York City District Attorney's office, the New York State Attorney General, and the Sheriff of Mayberry are all in on it. That's the problem. Where do you publish your findings? All of the major media was obviously in on it as well.

Not to mention all the 9/11 insiders who caused the drop in the stock market yesterday, obviously to distract the public from finding out what really happened.
 
Arkan, thanks for the reply! I'm new and I think I have been spending too much time in the religion and philosophy forum here at JREF to be commenting on this thread. Over there it's all about how, for example, logically you cannot say that there is no god (aside from anything Biblical, etc, the idea being that if there was a god and it created the universe and did nothing else afterwards, for example, you couldn't logically prove that such a thing did not exist). I was applying the same reasoning here - maybe Browne is indeed an honest to goodness psychic but chooses to give incorrect predictions. You really can't prove that wrong from a logical point of view.

The fact is that even if it were the case that she is a psychic but chose to give bad predictions, her clients are paying her under the premise that she is at least at the 80% rating that she touts and she is not living up to that promise in her predictions to them.

Aphelion is right in that using an ad hominem argument is illogical. We cannot say that because she was convicted of fraud before makes her guilty in this case out of hand. What we can say is that she alleges a certain success rate, people don't pay her $700/hour for mistakes, and she is not living up to her claims that they are paying her for.

Under common law, you need three things to be convicted of fraud: a material false statement made with the intent to deceive (either she isn't a psychic or she is mis-predicts to get her such a low percentage of "hits" - both have the intent to deceive), a victim's reliance on the statement (I'd say that if her clients spend $700/hour for her readings, they are relying on her statement to be true in terms of accuracy and future decisions, etc), and damages (she doesn't read for free).
 
Last edited:
Bingo Uruk. She can't or won't prove that her abilities are real. She did agree to the challenge, is she afraid to take Randi's money? She's taken millions from others. If she can retire, she will. As long as people are willing to believe, she'll take their money. Once a fraud, always a fraud.
 
VulcanWay said:
Arkan, thanks for the reply! I'm new and I think I have been spending too much time in the religion and philosophy forum here at JREF to be commenting on this thread. Over there it's all about how, for example, logically you cannot say that there is no god (aside from anything Biblical, etc, the idea being that if there was a god and it created the universe and did nothing else afterwards, for example, you couldn't logically prove that such a thing did not exist). I was applying the same reasoning here - maybe Browne is indeed an honest to goodness psychic but chooses to give incorrect predictions. You really can't prove that wrong from a logical point of view.
Click to expand...
Quite correct. Proving a negative is generally not possible.

VulcanWay said:
The fact is that even if it were the case that she is a psychic but chose to give bad predictions, her clients are paying her under the premise that she is at least at the 80% rating that she touts and she is not living up to that promise in her predictions to them.
Click to expand...
She claims 80% accuracy. If she does not meet that accuracy, whether by poor cold/warm/hot-reading, by choice, or by her "angels" telling her bad info, is moot. If she doesn't meet the accuracy claim, then the claim is fraudulant.

VulcanWay said:
Aphelion is right in that using an ad hominem argument is illogical. We cannot say that because she was convicted of fraud before makes her guilty in this case out of hand.
Click to expand...
And no one is doing so. What is being said, is that it is relevant evidence that further substantiates the claim that she is a fraud.

VulcanWay said:
What we can say is that she alleges a certain success rate, people don't pay her $700/hour for mistakes, and she is not living up to her claims that they are paying her for.
Click to expand...
Check out her more "successful" readings. They are text-book cold-reading technique. I'd also recommend checking out M. Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, he does an excellent job explaining how people remember hits and forget misses.

VulcanWay said:
Under common law, you need three things to be convicted of fraud: a material false statement made with the intent to deceive (either she isn't a psychic or she is mis-predicts to get her such a low percentage of "hits" - both have the intent to deceive), a victim's reliance on the statement (I'd say that if her clients spend $700/hour for her readings, they are relying on her statement to be true in terms of accuracy and future decisions, etc), and damages (she doesn't read for free).
Click to expand...
And such evidence is being compiled by Randi and RLancaster.
 
VulcanWay said:
You are correct, Aphelion. It is an ad hominem argument to say that Browne is a fraud concerning her psychic claims (that she has them) because she was convicted of fraud not concerning her claims. That's an illogical argument. One can be true without the other being true.
Click to expand...


But, the conviction for fraud did touch on her alledged psychic abilities:

Sylvia Brown claimed to have strong psychic "feelings" that the mine would pay off.

Instead of paying for the mine, the complaint alleges that the Browns transferred at least $27,000 in investment money to an account maintained on behalf of the Nirvana Foundation for Psychic Research, which the Browns founded in 1974. One month after the transfer, in April 1988, the Browns declared bankruptcy in the mining venture, the complaint said.
Click to expand...

Sylvia Brown, 57, denied she ever told anyone that she had good feelings about the venture, maintaining she was duped by her former husband. In her probation report, she said, "I am sorry beyond words that I was so stupid as not to find out what other people were doing in my name," she said.

...
Based on Sylvia Brown's psychic "good feelings" about the gold content in the ground, the investors were told that the venture seemed a "good thing" and could yield revenue ranging from $4,000 to $26,000 a day, court records indicate.
Click to expand...



So I think this doesn't count as an ad hom argument, as it clearly shows her willingness to use her "gifts" to fleece people of money, and direct that money to her other psychic programs, and to then lie about it.

So I think this case is directly relevant.

As for this:

Aphelion said:
Horatius if you are going to introduce a previous conviction of hers as evidence then I will introduce previous lies by the government as evidence of 911 being an inside job.
Click to expand...

I think most would agree that such previous lies are evidence. They're just not compelling evidence, for reasons best left to argue in the CT forum. I'll just mention that the activities of a single, identifiable person can't really be compared to the actions of a large entity composed of many individuals.
 
I do see your point, Horatius. I think it can still be said that if she lied to carry off the fraud for which she was convicted doesn't prove that she is not a psychic from a logical standpoint. It does prove that she told whatever lie was necessary to carry off a fraudulent sale.

My argument up there was not whether she was committing fraud, but rather can you prove that she is not psychic. I do agree that she is committing fraud from a legal standpoint, but in the strictist logical sense (like my existance of god thing above) cannot prove that she is lacks psychic abilities.
 
Arkan, I think that I can say that we are in agreement (even if I may not have gotten it across correctly) - your comments in each case (except the ad hominem, where you take the next step) echo the points that I was trying to make.
 
VulcanWay said:
Arkan, I think that I can say that we are in agreement (even if I may not have gotten it across correctly) - your comments in each case (except the ad hominem, where you take the next step) echo the points that I was trying to make.
Click to expand...
"Close enough for gov't work" as it were.
 
Aphelion:

The key point here is that what Sylvia Browne claims to be able to do are easily replicated by numerous people using perfectly mundane methods of cold (and hot) reading. Her results seem entirely consistent with this approach and therefore it is unnecessary to claim she has paranormal abilities to explain what she does and the results she gets.

Now if she does have such powers it is up to her to demonstrate that the results she gets are in fact from paranormal sources, and to explain why she does no better than a cold reader would do in these circumstances. If she cannot do that then what reason do we have to suppose she does anything but cold reading? And if it is just cold reading she relies upon, then she IS a fraud and should be stopped before she hurts anyone else.

The claims against Sylvia Browne are not speculations that stumble upon coinciding evidence, they are claims based upon experience and knowledge of the psychic industry and the evidence of Sylvia's track record. The evidence suggests the conclusion, not the other way around. We have done the first part - now it is up to Sylvia to put up or shut up.
 
VulcanWay said:
I do see your point, Horatius. I think it can still be said that if she lied to carry off the fraud for which she was convicted doesn't prove that she is not a psychic from a logical standpoint. It does prove that she told whatever lie was necessary to carry off a fraudulent sale.

My argument up there was not whether she was committing fraud, but rather can you prove that she is not psychic. I do agree that she is committing fraud from a legal standpoint, but in the strictist logical sense (like my existance of god thing above) cannot prove that she is lacks psychic abilities.
Click to expand...

Yes, in the strictest sense, we can't conclusively prove she isn't psychic, but I think we can "look at the track record". A person with a demonstrated history of lying for financial gain is asking us to believe something pretty unreasonable, on nothing better than her word, and against a lot of evidence to the contrary.

It wouldn't (and probably shouldn't) stand up in court, but I think we as individuals have enough evidence that we can decide the burden of proof is now on her to prove she isn't lying.
 
Having 1 vs. 100 on tonight, I saw that Alison Dubois was eliminated at one point. Bob Saget mentioned that the TV Show "Medium" was based on her life, and asked if she knew that the contestant she was going against would get as far as he had. She said "Of course I knew that! I just thought I'd get a little farther myself."

Yeah, like she predicted the guy's progress beforehand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom