What Psychic Powers?

Part 2  (continued from Part 1)

(From:  Edwards, H. 1997, A Skeptic's Casebook,  Chapter 7, pp 178-189

(Investigator #229,  2026  July)

Necromancing

Back in the winter of 1993, I wrote a short article for the Skeptic entitled 'Pop Psychic Pabulum' in which I expressed the opinion that some women are their own worst enemies, referring to the female editors of womens' magazines who, by including astrology, numerology, past lives, aura readings, talks with the departed, and various other columns of psychic pabulum, feed their readers a load of drivel, underestimate their intelligence, and do nothing to encourage critical thinking.

The exception was lta, a magazine published by Ita Buttrose, who aimed at the more mature reader by not including the above nor any gossip concerning the British royal family. The result—advertisers would not support her and the magazine folded.

To my mind this reflects more on the advertisers than the readership, for they are aware of the fact that people who are not encouraged to be critical thinkers will also be more susceptible to the ploys used to sell their products.

The July 1994 issue of Women's Weekly included half-a-dozen pages of what I can only call an insult to a person's intelligence—The Moon and your Moods by Karen Mooregold, a chart supposedly representing the ebb and flow of one's moods; and the Psychic Secrets of your Initials by the Women's Weekly's 'amazing' new clairvoyant Bridget Pluis, who also uses her 'psychic' powers to advise readers on their present lives, reveal what the future holds, and pass on special messages from the 'other side'. (Bridget incidentally broadcasts  from  9 pm to midnight each Sunday on Sydney's 2UE and Brisbane's 4BC. She also makes regular club appearances throughout NSW.)

To solicit a message from the other side, (via the Women's Weekly), all that was required was to ask Bridget a question. For personal advice a photo signed on the back was required and confirmation that the person was still alive. Apart from the fact that Bridget claimed to have had some remarkable talents she still needed a photo to give her some clues and was evidently aware that she could be caught out by someone sending her a photograph of a deceased person.

The response to a young man who sent in his photo was 'The message I pick up for you is from a great-aunt ... take care in September she advises.' One reader, who sent a photo of her dog was concerned that her pet Rosie looked so sad and asked. 'can you tell me what she's thinking?' Answer, 'This beautiful old soul is a born worrier. If there isn't a ready-made worry, she'll invent one. She likes her owners to be reliable, punctual and demonstrative so she can reply in kind. Very protective of the family, she will bark when strangers arrive, but apart from that she's the perfect lady. She assumes that it goes without saying that she's one of the family and would be horrified if a trip was planned without her.' Apart from being mainly a 'cold-reading' for a typical dog, to my mind the expression on the dog's face said it all—'What a load of crap!'

Dear Bridget,
I am a regular listener to your programme on 2UE and am overawed at your clairvoyant ability.
Your new column in the Women's Weekly is a wonderful innovation and will no doubt help so many people seeking assistance from the other side.
I too have a worrying problem, a death-bed promise I have been unable to keep, but knowing that you can communicate
with the deceased I feel confident that you are the only person in the world who can help me.
My uncle Jim Sones died recently and on his death bed he made me promise that I would give his prized possession—a solid gold half Hunter watch to his youngest son, the sole surviving member of his family whom he hadn't seen in thirty years. Unfortunately he expired before he could tell me where my cousin lives.
Would you please contact him and ask for the address.

Now in case anyone thinks I'm not giving Bridget a fair chance, remember that she claims only to need a person's Christian name (and in some instances not even that) to establish instant communication with any one of the billions on the 'other side'. Furthermore, in this instance it relates to a fairly recent death and  it's  a very uncommon surname, so uncommon in fact, that there is not a single entry under that name in the entire Sydney telephone directory and only half a dozen in the London directory. All she has to do was ask a simple question of a readily identifiable person and come up with the right answer to prove whether she can do what she claims.

Well surprise, surprise, two months later I received the following hand-written reply on lilac notepaper:

Dear Harry,
I thank you for your confidence in me but I am unable to give you the information you require. I feel your cousin lives in Nth. Queensland but that's as close as I can get.
LoveBridget. xxx

Ignoring the contradiction, why couldn't she help? After all she earns a substantial part of her living supposedly contacting the dead, and unlike other enquirers who give only the barest indication of whom they wish to contact, such as a Christian name or a star sign, I provided some very specific detail. How close was her guess? I can state categorically that Bridget certainly did not contact my late uncle Jim (who lived in England) otherwise he would have told her that he has never owned a gold half Hunter watch, that he and I were on opposite sides of the world when he died, and that for the past forty years, his youngest son (my cousin), with whom he communicated regularly, has lived and still lives in Salisbury, Zimbabwe!

Necromancy 'is the art or practice of pretended communication with the dead', and although I was confident that my previous test of Bridget was fairly conclusive I hoped for another chance—it came in October 1995, when I was offered what was to have been a face to face opportunity by Sydney's TV Channel 7, to confront Bridget during one of her club appearances. I cautioned that proponents of the paranormal were somewhat averse to those who may be inclined to ask awkward questions about their claimed psychic abilities, and expressed the doubt that Australia's answer to the late Doris Stokes would agree.

About two weeks later I was contacted again and my assumption was confirmed—Bridget flatly refused to have me in the vicinity while she performed. Why not? I asked myself. Perhaps it's because a sceptic's negative vibrations cause static on the frequency she uses to contact the spirits of those passed on. Or maybe the auras of those she was reading would become distorted in my presence and give faulty impressions. Or was it simply that it would be bad for business to have someone publicly question her alleged mediumistic ability? I suggested that if one of Bridget's performances could be video taped, I could then view it and comment, thus achieving the same result. Proceeding along those lines on September 25, I passed judgment on such a tape during an interview at Channel 7's studios.

Divine intervention

The performance was held at an unnamed RSL club, before an audience of over four hundred predominantly middle-aged and elderly women, each of whom had paid ten dollars for the privilege of attending, ostensibly to receive messages from their departed. A rate of pay enough to make the average QC look like a charity worker.

Introduced as Australia's most high profile psychic, the fifty-four-year-old grandmother from Yass waltzed down the well trodden road of other mediums who have claimed to communicate with those dwelling in the hereafter, and she was totally in command. The smiles and nods of affirmation far out numbered the occasional apologetic shaking head, the latter simply ignored, passed over or utilised to the medium's advantage. My general reaction was a mixture of amazement that people could be taken in so easily and, when seeing an elderly and recently bereaved lady brought to tears by a reference to her late husband, sympathy and disgust.

Bridget claims that her role is as an interpreter between this world and the next and that she is an instrument of a higher power—someone who takes over her spirit and soul to enable her to deliver messages from beyond the grave to her fans. She claims to hear a voice, and then a picture forms in her mind which, if true, is a mental condition worthy of psychiatric treatment.

This of course is the manner in which all so called channelers abrogate any responsibility for what they say—the 'wisdom' dispensed supposedly comes from an omniscient source. If any credence could be had in the claim of a divine hotline, such a facility would be of enormous value in solving murder crimes—simply contact the deceased victim and ask for information. As Bridget appeared to have no trouble in instantly contacting the spirits of anyone and everyone without any information other than a Christian name, why is she not putting her talents to better use than music hall entertainment?

As an aside, Bridget's fans seem totally oblivious of the fact that instant communication within or without our own galaxy is not  possible due to the time it takes for electromagnetic propagation to travel the distances—a question and answer format over the same distance as the sun for instance would take sixteen minutes. Considering that the hereafter-yet to be discovered must be an awful long way away, the concept of instant communication becomes even more ludicrous.

Modus Operandi.

Unfortunately, in some instances 'hearing voices' has a downside—those heard by Joan of Arc for example, were responsible for her being burned at the stake, and many are the victims of psychotic murderers who killed at the behest of their 'voices'. On the other hand, as in the case of Bridget Pluis and Oral Roberts, they can be money spinners, the latter collecting eight million dollars after God told  him to ask his flock to cough up!

Bridget's modus operandi was nothing new and as transparent as the Emperor's new clothes. She would pluck a name out of the air and then look around to find someone who possibly had some affinity with that name. Thereafter, it was a game of question and answer with Bridget asking the questions and the nominee supplying the answers. Exactly the reverse of 'psychic' ability. Most individuals would have living or dead parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces, nephews and countless friends and acquaintances, therefore, a gathering of four hundred plus people would provide a data bank averaging in excess of ten thousand names with some form of association on which to draw. Thus if Bridget tried to associate a name with a particular person and it proved to be wrong, she could rest assured that someone else in the room would acknowledge the name thus giving her the opportunity to change tack and continue her line of patter.

Often she would call out several names saying, 'I get the name Jack or John, or it may be Jim or Jake, does anyone know a Jack, John, Jim or Jake?' This of course immediately increases her chances of a hit.  At the meeting one of the names Bridget came up with was 'Harry' (maybe I was on her mind!) and approaching a very elderly woman said, 'Harry's hubby? (pause) He's passed over? (woman nods and tears appeared in her eyes). How long ago darling?' 'Seven months' (woman burst into tears). 'Seven months, well he's done a very good
job to get back so quickly.'

Achieving this type of reaction is acclaimed by Bridget as 'consoling the bereaved'. 'If you bring them to tears it helps relieve all that pent up hurt' she says.

But is this evidence of communication with the departed? I think not. The lady was unaccompanied by a male, wore a wedding ring, and would have been in her late seventies. Although one could safely assume that she was a widow, Bridget 'the clairvoyant' not only had  to ask whether Harry was her hubby, but also whether he had passed on! And then, 'how long ago?' She told the woman nothing new, gave her no consoling message, and merely upset the lady by rekindling fond memories of a lost loved one.

Inanities were commonplace in a previous life! Just that, no more, no less. The reaction? Not how do you know or what evidence can you give me—just a silly grin and a nod!

It is very evident throughout Bridget's club appearances and listening to her on 2UE's Cosmic Connections, that no information is ever forthcoming that would allow confirmation of her claim to be able to communicate with the dead.

The 'messages' are confined to banalities such as, 'Hubby is well and sends his love.' 'Mother is with friends and is happy', or 'Grandma is looking after you.' At best, the only clue she has is a Christian name or a relationship to work with, and in some cases, only a star sign with which to identify those in the nether world. Even when given more than enough detail, as in my personal encounter, the 'high profile psychic' didn't have a clue. Furthermore, I have yet to hear an enquirer on her radio programme or to read of one in Bridget's Women's Weekly column, give sufficient detail to identify the departed or to ask any questions that would authenticate the identity of the alleged respondent. Yet none of this appears to faze her fans. Members of the audience interviewed after the show all believed her to be genuine.

What harm does it do?

One question frequently asked of skeptics, not only in respect of necromancing, but of other branches of the paranormal, is, 'What harm does it do?'

Confining the answer to the subject under discussion, apart from deceiving people and taking their money under false pretences, psychics engender a false trust in themselves. People come to rely on them for advice, and in some cases, become dependent on them. Therein lies the danger. Advice is being sought from those with no professional expertise or qualifications, and such advice is no better or worse than that given by your taxi driver, friendly bartender or next door neighbour. Should that advice not turn out to be to one's  advantage few people seek recourse due to embarrassment.

Moral, ethical and legal ramifications.

The Bridget Pluis TV segment in which I appeared was of six minutes duration out of which I was allotted fifteen seconds to comment. Despite my being limited to a token appearance, and assuming the chronological sequence of events on the tape to be correct, after I had viewed the tape Bridget was given a second bite at the apple when interviewed on her property at Yass. Asked to comment on the sceptical attitude, Bridget had this to say:

'If it makes them (the Skeptics) feel good, it's not their time yet to be enlightened ... I don't have to defend myself, it's my job. If they don't like it, then they have a problem.'

Well Bridget, I believe I'm enlightened enough to question one who makes an extraordinary claim such as yours, and am of the opinion, that anyone who appears to practise the art of deception should be obliged to defend what they do in order to satisfy the moral, ethical and legal expectations of our society. Failure to honour that obligation serves only to suggest that the claims made are those of a charlatan. Given the legal requirements under the Trade  Practices and Fair Trading Legislation, it would seem to me that anyone promoting as fact a claimed ability to receive messages from the dead and charging a fee to pass on those messages is sailing very close to the wind. Under Section l78BB of the Crimes Act, obtaining money by false or misleading statements which are known to be false or misleading could render that person liable to imprisonment for five years. As there is absolutely no evidence to support Bridget's claim that she can receive messages from other than the live and conscious, she can only be perceived as advertising and providing a non-existent service and, therefore, is in breaking the law.

US$500,000 up for grabs

In addition to Australian Skeptics standing offer of thirty thousand dollars, recent pledges made by sceptical groups around the world have made available a sum in excess of five hundred thousand dollars US to be awarded to any person who, under mutually agreed upon controlled test conditions, can prove the truth of any paranormal claim. As this includes the ability to communicate with the spirits of the dead, any reticence to accept such a magnanimous offer by one who claims  'it's her job', can only be viewed with extreme suspicion.

In my opinion, a refusal would be a tacit admission by one seemingly perpetrating a fraudulent act, that they are unable to substantiate their claim.

Past failure

Bridget Pluis' past record as a psychic is, to say the least, unimpressive. While living in Canberra and practising as a psychic in 1986, sixteen of her predictions for that year were published in the January 1986 issue of the Canberra Times. After excluding two  of the predictions that were either too vague or too predictable, she got one hit out of the fourteen, and of that two-part prediction one part was obvious and the other part wrong!

Bridget's psychic choice—Count Chivas to win the 1995 Melbourne cup (broadcast on radio station 2UE the Sunday evening prior to the race) did not run a place. I wonder how many of her estimated two hundred thousand radio fans did their dough?

Prior to publication in the Skeptic March 1996, comments were invited from Bridget Pluis; the Editor-in-Chief of Women's Weekly, and the producer of Radio 2UE's Cosmic Connections. There were no replies.

'Tele-psychics'

Another example of the way people are ripped off is the 'Tele-psychic' hotline, where people ring for advice from so-called 'qualified' psychics at five dollars per minute. The 'psychics', who are instructed to keep their clients talking for as long as possible to run up the bill, read their 'advice' from prepared scripts. One pensioner I heard of was kept talking for an hour and a half and received a bill for four hundred and fifty dollars. Another exposed on Channel 7's Today Tonight show incurred a telephone bill of over eleven thousand dollars! (Full details of this scam can be read in Chapter 1l).

The conclusion, Part 3, of "What Psychic Powers?" (pages 189-206) is scheduled for publication in Investigator #230

Investigator Magazine