22MOON.COM
You can see the whole Earth from the Moon!

        

The Art Of 

Cold Reading

by James Randi

The currently-popular “psychics” 

like Sylvia Browne, 

James Van Praagh, 

and John Edward, 

who are getting so much 

TV spaceon Montel Williams, 

Larry King, and other shows, 

employ a technique known as 

“cold reading.” 

They tell the subjects nothing, 

but make guesses, 

put out suggestions, 

and ask questions. 

This is a very deceptive art, 

and the unwary observer may 

come away believing that 

unknown data was developed

 by some wondrous means. 

Not so.

.

Examples: 

“I get an older man here” 

is a question, a suggestion, 

and a guess by the “reader,” 

who expects some 

reaction from the subject, 

and usually gets it. 

That reaction may just be a nod, 

the actual name of a person, 

or an identification 

(brother, husband, grandfather), 

but it is supplied BY THE SUBJECT, 

not by the reader. 

“They’re saying, ‘Bob,’ or ‘Robert.’ 

Do you recognize this person?” 

is another question, 

suggestion, and guess. 

If there’s a Bob or Robert, 

the subject will amplify 

the identification. 

But if there’s no Bob or 

Robert immediately recognized, 

the reader passes right on, 

after commenting that Bob 

is there alright, 

but not recognized right now. 

If any Bob is remembered later, 

that is incorporated into the spiel. 

You should observe and 

listen to a video of a reading.

.

                          JAMES VAN PRAAGH

.

.

In one such by Van Praagh, 

prepared by the “48 Hours” 

TV program, 

a reading that lasted 60 minutes, 

we found only TWO actual 

statements made, 

and 260 questions asked. 

Both actual statements–

guesses–were wrong. 

Van Praagh was looking for 

the name of the woman’s 

deceased husband, 

and he came up with it by asking, 

“Do you know anyone named, 

Jack?” 

The woman answered, 

“Yes! Jack, my husband!” 

But Van Praagh didn’t identify 

“Jack” at all. 

He asked her if SHE 

would identify him. 

By that time, 

Van Praagh had already tried 

on her 26 other men’s names–

all wrong. But, the woman–

the subject–

forgot about those failures, 

because they were not 

important to her. 

“Jack” was important.

.

The readers have a way of leading 

the subject to believe that they 

knew something they didn’t. 

Example:

Reader: “Did your husband linger on in the hospital, or did he pass quickly?”Subject: “Oh, he died almost immediately!”

Reader: “Yes, because he’s saying to me, 

`I didn’t suffer. I was spared any pain.'”

It’s strange that the reader 

(Van Praagh, in this example) 

had to ask that question…..

And remember, these readers 

often go out and interview the 

audience members when they’re 

on line waiting to get into the 

studio or auditorium. 

That technique was employed 

by the very successful reader 

Doris Stokes. 

She would feed back any data 

she got as if she were refreshing 

her memory of what had 

been told her. 

“Are you the lady who has 

a passed-on sister, dearie?” 

would of course receive 

assent from the victim, 

and ahhhs from the audience. 

Also, 

a person who approaches 

the reader before the TV show 

or auditorium meeting and says 

she has a question about her 

deceased grandmother, 

can then later be selected out 

of the audience when they’re 

on-camera or during the 

live encounter, 

and can then be asked, 

“Is your question about 

your grandmother?” 

and that appears–

to everyone else–

like a bang-on “hit.” 

Or, 

and this is very subtle indeed, 

people in the studio or 

auditorium audience–

usually seated up front 

for best visibility–

are sometimes those who 

have already been to the 

“psychic” for a private reading, 

and have then been asked 

to show up later to occupy 

reserved seats at the public 

in-person gathering 

“to develop more information” 

using the “collective power 

of the assembled audience.” 

The reader then repeats 

previously-gleaned data, 

and that appears miraculous 

both to the audience in the 

studio and at home, watching, 

or elsewhere in the auditorium 

audience.

.

                          SYLVIA BROWN

.

.

.

We tested Sylvia Browne in 1989, 

on live TV, and she failed miserably. 

On that occasion, 

she was not allowed to speak 

to anyone in advance, 

or to be asked or told anything 

in advance. 

The audience was told to 

only answer “yes” or “no,” 

when asked a DIRECT question, 

and Sylvia bombed out big-time. 

She blamed it all on bad vibrations…. 

Van Praagh and Edward have 

not responded to our offer 

to test them–

for the million-dollar prize, even.

.

So, you see, 

it’s your perception of what’s 

actually being done, 

rather that the reality of 

the procedure, 

and your ignorance of other 

subtle clues and methods, 

that misleads you in your 

observations of these “psychics.”.

.

                          LISA WILLIAMS

.

               Life Among The Dead TV show

.

.

I’ll give you one example of 

something I did when I was 

performing as a mentalist 

in Toronto, my home town, 

at the age of 18. 

(I hasten to add here that 

I would ALWAYS thoroughly 

disclaim any genuine powers, 

before and after my show.) 

They had a huge auditorium 

filled with reserved seats, 

just about every one of them 

occupied by eager subjects. 

It was some sort of a charity affair, 

and seats were expensive. 

After I got rolling with the various 

moving objects and blindfolded 

duplication-of-handwriting stunts 

(spoonbending was not yet 

a popular miracle!) 

I stopped abruptly and pointed 

to a lady in the third-row aisle seat. 

“I’m led to say to you that 

I get a middle name of ‘Rose’ 

for you, madame!” 

I cried. 

Her gasp verified that I was right.

“And that name is more 

than significant to you.” 

She leaned forward. 

.

“I see a clock, 

a very old clock, 

and on the dial three pink roses?” 

She started to speak, 

and I silenced her by raising my hand. 

“But this is a strange clock. 

It can’t tell the time!” 

By now, the poor woman was 

about to pass out in excitement. 

“Why is it useless? 

I see two arrows, or darts…

They’re metal,

and they’re broken…Ah! I see! 

These are the hands of that clock, 

and they’ve come off the clock face, 

and are lying together behind

 the glass cover of the clock dial! 

Is that right?” 

The woman was standing, 

mouth open, nodding vigorously. 

She was awe-struck, 

and the applause was 

vigorous indeed. 

.

How was it done? 

A lucky guess? 

No. 

Planning.

T.K. Lawson, my buddy, 

had been working with that charity. 

He was the one who got me 

the gig (a contracted appearance). 

And he also went through several 

neighborhoods selling tickets 

to likely donors. 

He had sold tickets CC-20 and 

CC-22 to this lady, 

and she’d invited him into her 

living-room while she made 

out a check to pay for the tickets. 

He observed that the “rose” 

theme was everywhere, 

and an embroidered “sampler” 

was framed by the door, 

with the woman’s full name on it. 

That clock was by the fireplace. 

T.K. noted these facts, 

and reported them to me. 

I must tell you that together we 

intercepted that dear lady as 

she left after the show, 

and explained to her how I’d been 

“psychic.” 

She was highly entertained 

with the explanation, 

and grateful for our caring 

to tell her.

I somehow don’t think that Browne, 

Edward, and Van Praagh would 

trouble to do such a thing. 

But, after all, they say they’re 

REALLY “speaking with the dead.”

I’m amazed at how much death 

affects people who undergo 

the process. 

It makes them really 

stupid and forgetful. 

Whenever I’ve asked any 

psychics–or spiritualists–

to contact my paternal grandmother, 

it seems she doesn’t remember 

such basics as the name of 

her husband, 

or the name of her church–

both important elements in 

her life while she was “here.” 

Now that she’s “there,” 

her rather prodigious intellect 

has left her quite completely.

.

.

.

 

 

.

.