Suivi

Re:Re: Voyance et probabilités.


Re: Re: Voyance et probabilités. -- Florence
Postée par Stéphane , Jul 07,2000,10:55 Index  Forum

J'ajoute qu'au Canada 83% des jeunes admettent avoir commis au moins un acte criminel au sens du code. Dans le cas d'enfants issus de familles monoparentales c'est 95% (attention: pas de conclusions hâtives sur l'effet de n'avoir qu'un parent, c'est plus compliqué que ça).

Mais pour considérer seulement les probabilités, qui sont d'ailleurs plutôt hautes, il faut supposer que Michèle n'a donné aucun renseignement, quel qu'il soit, même si ce n'est qu'en posant une question directive (comme «que va-t-il arriver à mon fils»), et n'a renforcé absolument rien au cours de l'entrevue, volontairement ou non. Idéalement, pour ne considérer que les probabilités objectives, il faudrait se présenter à la voyante sans jamais dire quoi que ce soit et lui tourner le dos durant l'entrevue. Il faut aussi supposer que c'était la première fois que Michèle visitait cette voyante, ce qui n'est pas le cas je crois, et qu'elle ne la connaissait ni directement ni indirectement. Enfin, il faut supposer que Michelle nous donne ici TOUTES les prédictions, et non seulement celles qui se sont réalisées.

Ça fait beaucoup à supposer. Je donne deux exemples, tirés mot à mot d'une émission de Larry King où l'auditoire pouvait consulter des médiums au téléphone.
______________________________________________

(1)
CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question for the psychics and mediums is I felt spirit guides around me in the past, but I haven't had any one very close to me like a sibling or a parent die. How can I know who it is who's watching over or guiding me?

VAN PRAAGH: Well, the easiest way that I tell...

BROWNE: You have....

VAN PRAAGH: ... people is before you....

KING: One at a time.

VAN PRAAGH: The easiest way that I tell people is, No. 1, go through your dream state. Before you go to sleep at night, ask them to reveal themselves in your dreams, and you will see them. It happens all the time. Also with people who have passed over, that's another way for you to make communication with them: Ask them to come through the dream state.

Another way, of course, is through meditation as well.

KING: And Sylvia, were you going to add something?

BROWNE: Yes, I go along with James in this one. You can go to a seashore or mentally put your feet in the sand, and ask for "Candice" to come to you, because that really is the name of your guide.

KING: Candice is the name of the guide. Char, do you want to add anything?

MARGOLIS: You know, I was picking up somebody with an E or A initial.

CALLER: No...

MARGOLIS: Do you have anyone...

CALLER: Oh, the E.

MARGOLIS: Deceased.

CALLER: Yes.

MARGOLIS: Is it a female?

CALLER: Yes.

MARGOLIS: Is it E-L?

CALLER: Yes.

MARGOLIS: Like Elizabeth or...

CALLER: Yes.

MARGOLIS: Elizabeth?

CALLER: Yes.

MARGOLIS: That's who I feel is your spirit guide. Is this your grandmother or...

CALLER: Yes.

MARGOLIS: Your grandmother?

CALLER: My grandmother.

MARGOLIS: She's with you always.

KING: OK. You guys are destroying me tonight.

CALLER: Wow.

KING: That's unbelievable.
___________________________________________

Je pense que ça se passe de commentaire. On dit à une personne de se concentrer pour voir son «spirit guide» en rêve. Ça fonctionnera sans doute, puisque c'est dans la nature du rêve même: essayez vous-même. Couchez-vous ce soir en pensant très fort à «Candice». Et de toute manière, «Candice» est parfaitement invérifiable autrement. Ensuite, on tâtonne un peu partout pour ramasser des indices; c'est ce qu'on veut dire quand on parle de «cold reading». Par exemple, notez que les «médiums» devinent toujours un nom avec A, E, L ou M, ce qui couvre la plupart des noms ordinaires, et prennent pour base une famille entière. Et Larry qui sort les yeux des orbites.

(2)

CALLER: My question is for the psychics. My mom died suddenly about eight years ago on Mother's Day. And I was just wondering if they can tell me anything about it.

KING: OK, we'll start with James on this one.

BROWNE: This -- this was...

KING: All right. We'll start -- you start it, Sylvia. Go.

BROWNE: Yes. This looks like it was a vascular problem. It looks like it hit in head and chest.

CALLER: Yes, it was a heart attack.

BROWNE: Well, honey, that is in the chest. That's vascular.

CALLER: Right.

VAN PRAAGH: I also feel that there were some medications this lady was taking, which she was taking for a long period of time before she passed over.

CALLER: Yes, she was taking...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWNE: But old...

VAN PRAAGH: And I also -- excuse me. I also have a sense...

BROWNE: James...

VAN PRAAGH: I also have a sense that she was mixing medication of some sort, and I feel like -- I also feel her breathing was very much troubled, and I feel that she had trouble breathing toward the end. Before she had this heart attack, there was some respiration trouble, too, I feel.

KING: Sylvia, you want to add something?

BROWNE: Yes, because it looks like she was having congestive heart failure, is what you're picking up.

KING: Yes.

BROWNE: She was gradually beginning to fill up with water.

KING: Now hold on, both of you. Is she telling you this now?

BROWNE: Oh yes.

VAN PRAAGH: I'm picking it up just...

BROWNE: She's telling me that.

VAN PRAAGH: ... from -- from her focusing her energy toward me or toward the mind, and she focuses this toward us and then we pick it up.

KING: And she sees her daughter?

VAN PRAAGH: And it's not necessarily limited to one person. It's like a pool, Larry...

BROWNE: Yes.

VAN PRAAGH: And we pick up what's in that pool, and that's how it works.

KING: But her daughter's in Fort Lauderdale...

VAN PRAAGH: But you're not...

KING: ... and you're here.

VAN PRAAGH: And you're limiting yourself...

BROWNE: But there's no time.

VAN PRAAGH: ... to the physical world. There is no sense as physical there...

BROWNE: There's no time.

VAN PRAAGH: ... as we know it, the borders, the walls.

KING: I'm too literal for this.

VAN PRAAGH: You're too literal.

MARGOLIS: Some people believe that the speed of thought is much faster than the speed of light.

CALLER: Can you also tell me if she knows she's a grandmother?

MARGOLIS: Can you what?

KING: Does she know she's a grandmother?

VAN PRAAGH: Yes.

BROWNE: Oh, she knows everything.

MARGOLIS: She knows everything. She knows everything. Will you say just yes or no to me?

CALLER: Sure.

MARGOLIS: Is there somebody close to her that's an A or an M initial? Anyone deceased or living?

CALLER: An A.

MARGOLIS: Is that a female?

CALLER: No.

MARGOLIS: A male A.

CALLER: Yes, male.

MARGOLIS: In his name, is there an N in it or an R?

CALLER: Yes, yes.

MARGOLIS: Is it A-N...

CALLER: No.

MARGOLIS: But is it Alan or -- there's an N in it.

CALLER: Yes.

MARGOLIS: OK. Aaron? I don't know the name.

CALLER: It's Arnold.

MARGOLIS: Arnold, OK.

Is he living?

CALLER: Yes.

MARGOLIS: He watches -- she watches over Arnold. Is this your family?

CALLER: It's my father.

MARGOLIS: Your father. And she wants you to know that when he passes over, she'll be there for him, that you don't have to be sad. You know, that'll be good: When that time comes, she'll be there.

VAN PRAAGH: I just want to say also, there's trouble with his feet. There's trouble with his feet, the father, I'm picking up.

MARGOLIS: Are there?

VAN PRAAGH: I don't know. Is it toenails or...

KING: Does he have foot problems?

CALLER: No.
__________________________________________

Commencez-vous à voir la technique un peu? Une vieille femme meurt «subitement», donc, cardio-vasculaire (cause de mort #1 en Amérique du Nord). Si elle était jeune, on aurait dit accident, probablement accident de la route. Si elle était morte lentement, cancer. Ensuite, c'est le client qui fait tout le travail, et l'information est invérifiable: «she watches over you, everything is fine.» Larry pose une question parfaitement évidente, mais en s'en excusant à l'avance. Les 3 médiums lui expliquent tout de suite qu'il ne faut pas chercher à comprendre, pauvre pomme.

Ce n'est pas tout à fait la même chose avec la voyance, évidemment. Mais la pêche aux renseignements est la même, le biais incroyable des gens qui veulent à tout prix y croire est le même, l'oubli systématique de toutes les erreurs (qui arrivent presque à chaque fois qu'on dit quelque chose de spécifique) est comparable.


Suivi