Hey

Just a quick hi from me.
I am Jon Donnis, many of you will know who I am, and already have made a snap judgement, that is a shame.

Anyway I doubt I will post here very often if at all, mainly as I am not keen on the phpBB type forums which are a pain to navigate.
Anyway if you ever want to know anything about any modern medium/psychic feel free to ask, mainly cause I probably exposed them!

If you need me you can find me on Twitter @JonDonnis

Hi Jon,

Without wishing to be rude, may I suggest that your remark that many will know who you are and have already made a snap judgement rather smacks of you having made a snap judgement about the people on this forum.

Now, no doubt, many do recognise your name, and are aware of your approach. No doubt, many would disagree with your approach, however, that does not mean that the people on this forum are as biased as you appear to be based on your post here.

I do wonder, however, why you have bothered to become a member of this forum if you don't intend to post and believe (without evidence) that we would be automatically prejudiced against you. The whole point of becoming a member is so that you are able to post and contribute to discussions in a rational and polite way.

On this forum (whatever pain may or may not be involved in navigating it ) we do try to base our opinions on the content of what a member posts. If a post has relevance, and is presented in a courteous way, its value will be assessed on that basis not on any other.

As for your work in exposing modern mediums - by all means do - if they are fraudulent we don't want them in our community either. But, and it is an important proviso, any claims of exposure must always be backed up by hard evidence - not rhetoric and spurious arguments based only on the belief all mediums are fraudulent.

So, Jon Donnis, if you have something useful to contribute, please do so.

Lis ADMIN

Hi Jon,

Welcome onto the site I see you have already contributed on several thread. I remember your involvement on the sadly defunct Spiritualist Chatroom once regarding a certain medium who will remain nameless.

Jim

Lis wrote:Hi Jon,

Without wishing to be rude, may I suggest that your remark that many will know who you are and have already made a snap judgement rather smacks of you having made a snap judgement about the people on this forum.

Of course you are right, I guess it was a pre-emptive strike, I am way too old and cynical these days unfortunately.
I apologise for making the very assumption that everyone always makes about me.

The problem is many users here will have crossed paths with me before, and unfortunately many of them will have been offended by the facxt I will have exposed one of their heroes as fake. But I will give those I dont know a chance, and treat everyone with regards to how they act.

I do wonder, however, why you have bothered to become a member of this forum if you don't intend to post and believe (without evidence) that we would be automatically prejudiced against you. The whole point of becoming a member is so that you are able to post and contribute to discussions in a rational and polite way.

I only joined as my name was mentioned on another thread and I was forwarded here by a member of the middle aged housewives forum (Spiritlove), since I was here I thought I would have a quick nosey around, that is all.

I expect to be banned/delete pretty soon as very rarely do spiritualists like me around, afterall I expose their beliefs and those that they believe in.
With credit to the spiritlove forum that is the ONLY woo forum I have ever joined that have allowed me to post and interact on a full basis, even if they are a bit nuts.

As for your work in exposing modern mediums - by all means do - if they are fraudulent we don't want them in our community either. But, and it is an important proviso, any claims of exposure must always be backed up by hard evidence - not rhetoric and spurious arguments based only on the belief all mediums are fraudulent.

Fair enough, of course I hope you also require the same level of proof with regards to allowing someone to claim a medium is real.
Afterall an anecdote or personal validation is way way far away from being proof of any kind I am sure you will agree

So, Jon Donnis, if you have something useful to contribute, please do so.

I will see what feeds me

JonDonnis wrote:
I apologise for making the very assumption that everyone always makes about me.

The problem is many users here will have crossed paths with me before, and unfortunately many of them will have been offended by the fact I will have exposed one of their heroes as fake. But I will give those I dont know a chance, and treat everyone with regards to how they act. . . . I expect to be banned/delete pretty soon as very rarely do spiritualists like me around, afterall I expose their beliefs and those that they believe in.

As for your work in exposing modern mediums - by all means do - if they are fraudulent we don't want them in our community either. But, and it is an important proviso, any claims of exposure must always be backed up by hard evidence - not rhetoric and spurious arguments based only on the belief all mediums are fraudulent.

Fair enough, of course I hope you also require the same level of proof with regards to allowing someone to claim a medium is real.
Afterall an anecdote or personal validation is way way far away from being proof of any kind I am sure you will agree

Hi Jon,

Apology accepted

If any Spiritualist is offended by you exposing one of their heroes, if in fact, you have, and the evidence you offer is concrete and irrefutable, then they must learn to grit their teeth and bear it, and I, for one will have no complaint! I don't like fraudulent mediums or psychics any more than you do. The difference between us is you assume all are fraudulent while I do not, but I am not so niave as to fail to recognise that there are many out there who are fraudulent and who, because of their actions give our movement a bad name.

As for assuming you will be banned fairly soon, that will depend on what you post and how well you actually expose our beliefs and those we believe in. If you can do it with hard evidence, that is not based on generalised assumptions that all our beliefs and all that those who we see as genuine are fraudulent/in error/false on the basis that in your opinion all mediums must be/are fraudulent, then I, personally, will have no problem with your actions.

As for your final remark, "of course I hope you also require the same level of proof with regards to allowing someone to claim a medium is real," I do in principle agree, however, I am all to aware that what we all might class as hard evidence in this field (both from my perspective, and from yours) is often very hard to find, and in the final analysis, we are often forced to base our positions on what we believe, backed by what evidence we are able to find to substantiate or support or indicate may be the truth. What we, as individuals class as evidence, or indeed, sufficient evidence, is almost always subject to dispute.

From a personal perspective, I don't know whether I could, in hard, cold, scientific terms, prove that I am genuine, not cold-reading, etc., and yet, I do know that I am not fraudulent, deliberately deceiving or dishonest. I doubt that I could prove that to your satisfaction, and on that basis you might argue that I must be fraudulent. Until we can learn to move beyond that level of argument, and try to understand what it is that (in my terms), genuine mediums are able to do, neither those in my camp, or those in yours, will arrive at the truth.

Lis ADMIN

It can only be of service to expose fraudulence in mediumship. However, it does need to be genuine exposure and not innuendo. For example, if a medium is asking questions - which quite rightly is to be avoided, is this ipso facto cold-reading? It doesn't have to be, but if that is what one wants to see, then it is often easy to make that deduction. Particularly if one has already decided that the medium is a fraud, or that all mediums are and always have been.

I would never expect a person to be convinced by the evidence given to someone else. I wouldn't be. Particularly if I do not now the recipient personally.

I have read the badpsychics website and whilst there are some good exposés of purported mediums, there is a lot of ranting and rhetoric it seems to me.

The problem if one assumes that mediumship is impossible, is that everything must as a result be viewed as fraudulent.

Admin wrote:Hi Jon,

Welcome onto the site I see you have already contributed on several thread. I remember your involvement on the sadly defunct Spiritualist Chatroom once regarding a certain medium who will remain nameless.

Jim

Hi Jim.
I dont remember that chatroom, but the I have posted in so many places over the last decade would be crazy to remember every place.

Which medium? Acorah? Fry? Stockwell? Gordon Smith? Sally Morgan? could be almost anyone as I have exposed them all lol

If any Spiritualist is offended by you exposing one of their heroes, if in fact, you have, and the evidence you offer is concrete and irrefutable, then they must learn to grit their teeth and bear it, and I, for one will have no complaint!

Very rarely will any believer in a medium accept any evidence that shows their hero is a fake, because to admit that is to admit you were fooled and no one likes to admit they have been fooled, this is one of the reasons why so many people refuse to report fake mediums to trading standards.

I don't like fraudulent mediums or psychics any more than you do

Name 5 you know are fraudulent! Lets see what kind of person you are in the spiritualist world, someone who speaks out against the frauds, or one who keeps their mouth shut as not to rock the boat.

The difference between us is you assume all are fraudulent while I do not, but I am not so niave as to fail to recognise that there are many out there who are fraudulent and who, because of their actions give our movement a bad name.

You are making an assumption on my position! Naughty naught.

I do not assume all mediums are fraudulent, I follow the facts and the facts alone, my opinion regardless of my experience and knowledge is as fallible as anyone elses. I prefer not to state my opinion on something, because of that very reason.

I can state as a catagorically proven fact that no medium in history has ever to this day proved any claim in a credible, controlled scientific test.
Along with the scientific fact that mediumship is indeed impossible, leads me to the conclusion that anyone who claims to be a medium is either lying or deluded.

Therefore I do NOT assume that all mediums are fraudulent at all, and I would prefer you do not misrepresent me in that manner, I am big enough and ugly enough to be clear myself on what is fact and what is not fact, again my opinion is not important in such discussions.

As for assuming you will be banned fairly soon, that will depend on what you post and how well you actually expose our beliefs and those we believe in.

I am not here to expose anyone's beliefs, people can believe in whatever they choose as long as they themselves are not breaking the law or causing harm to others, if they are then I step in and do my best to stop that belief.

I also do not have a position of respecting anyone's beliefs as no such right is deserved, respecting peoples beliefs has led to more wars and death than anything else.

As for your final remark, "of course I hope you also require the same level of proof with regards to allowing someone to claim a medium is real," I do in principle agree, however, I am all to aware that what we all might class as hard evidence in this field (both from my perspective, and from yours) is often very hard to find, and in the final analysis, we are often forced to base our positions on what we believe, backed by what evidence we are able to find to substantiate or support or indicate may be the truth. What we, as individuals class as evidence, or indeed, sufficient evidence, is almost always subject to dispute.

Which is exactly why subjective opinion should never be classed as worthy evidence.
Did you know in a court of law an eye witness account is the weakest form of evidence!

From a personal perspective, I don't know whether I could, in hard, cold, scientific terms, prove that I am genuine, not cold-reading, etc.

I was unaware you claimed magical Jesus like powers, that makes things more fun.
I hope since you admit you cannot prove in any credible scientific way that anything you claim is real, that you do NOT EVER take a penny from anyone from mediumship, as to do so would be immoral, and in fact illegal.

The very fact you have doubt tells me a hell of a lot about your "level of justification" with regards to where you are on the understanding of how mediumship actually works.

and yet, I do know that I am not fraudulent, deliberately deceiving or dishonest.

Deluded people are sometimes more dangerous than the eyes open mediums, at least an eyes open medium knows what they are doing and are making a conscious decision in the fraud they commit. Deluded or eyes closed mediums are more dangerous because they believe what they do is real, so they have no boundaries, they have no morals to stop them going over a line.

I doubt that I could prove that to your satisfaction, and on that basis you might argue that I must be fraudulent.

My satisfaction doesn't matter, my opinion doesn't matter, all that matters is can you do what you claim if the chance to cheat is removed.
NO MEDIUM IN HISTORY has been able to, so I doubt you could either, therefore it is scientifically and historically sound for me to claim with certainty that you do not communicate with the dead, you have no psychic powers, and that you are either deluded or a deliberate fraud.

Again this is not an opinion, I do not know you, I have no tested you, but I can state such things because history backs me up.

It only takes one real medium to prove mediumship, but then it only takes one invisible flying Loch Ness Monster to fly pass my window smoking a cigar while humming the tune to the A-Team to prove that is possible too!

However ridiculous something is, or however many people believe in something again both are meaningless, it it is a positive and can be done, or a negative and it cannot.

Until we can learn to move beyond that level of argument, and try to understand what it is that (in my terms), genuine mediums are able to do, neither those in my camp, or those in yours, will arrive at the truth.

I reached that point about 5 years ago, I know exactly how pretty much all different types of mediumship and medium work.
I have witnessed all types of mediumship up close and first hand, I have performed most types of mediumship, I truly am unique when I claim I have seen it all and done it all, its one of the reasons I am so cynical these days despite being a skeptic. I dont walk the fence any more. There is simply too much on my side to have any doubt.

But dont get me wrong, I would love to be proven wrong, nothing I enjoy more than learning something new, a new discovery etc.

I just think after 150 years of real scientific study into mediumship, if it hasn't been found by now despite it being so incredibly easy to prove, well it never will will it

obiwan wrote:It can only be of service to expose fraudulence in mediumship. However, it does need to be genuine exposure and not innuendo. For example, if a medium is asking questions - which quite rightly is to be avoided, is this ipso facto cold-reading?

Cold Reading is a catch all term used by skeptics, I dont really like to use it as in general people dont really understand its meaning, you included, but if I use it generally, then yes of course asking questions is "cold reading"

One of the classic methods used by mediums in the modern era is to tell the client to only answer yes or no, if you hear this then you instantly know 100% they are a fraud and know it.
By telling people how to answer the medium is further controlling the reading, it really is a despicable thing to say.

I have read the badpsychics website and whilst there are some good exposés of purported mediums, there is a lot of ranting and rhetoric it seems to me.

Please give me an example of ranting and rhetoric.
Please don't confuse the forum with that of the main site of the past or of the more recently relaunched blog.

The problem if one assumes that mediumship is impossible, is that everything must as a result be viewed as fraudulent.

Why is that a problem?

It is very simple, either a medium can do what they claim or they cannot, so far history has proven pretty catagorically that they can not

Hi Jon,

In Ghost Connections interview,

http://www.ghostconnections.com/Jon%20Donnis.htm

You said "I stopped seeing all mediums as frauds, I learnt that there are many honest mediums out there, just deluded by a lack of knowledge of what they were doing."

My question is, when you went on a mediumship course, what psychic ability did you not use, what happened? what did you mean when you said you learnt about delusion and how to con yourself?

and how long was the course?

I hope one day your prayers are answered and that you have evidence of survival after death.

I understand your skeptisism, and I agree with your work exposing fraudsters.

Jutta

Starling wrote:Hi Jon,

In Ghost Connections interview,



You said "I stopped seeing all mediums as frauds, I learnt that there are many honest mediums out there, just deluded by a lack of knowledge of what they were doing."

NIce to see you doing some research, although that interview is very very old.

My question is, when you went on a mediumship course, what psychic ability did you not use, what happened? what did you mean when you said you learnt about delusion and how to con yourself?

I took part in that course but made one promise, that was not to cheat, and trust me I know how.
Yet I still finished top of the class, I convinced people i was a medium without having any powers but also without cheating.
This is why mediumship is a lot more than just cold reading as many skeptics say.

As to the answers to those questions not enough time to go into it now, I did have a 7 page featured spread covering this in The Skeptic magazine many years ago if you can find that out it has all the answers.

and how long was the course?

That particular course was just 6 months, but I have been studying and taking part in such things for near on a decade.
No other skeptic has done what I have.

I hope one day your prayers are answered and that you have evidence of survival after death.

I do not pray, so doubt they will be answered.
I hope there is life after death, but the more I look the more i am convinced there isn't
To assume we live on after death is an incredibly arrogant position to take.
We are but animals on a tiny planet in an inconceivably large universe.
We are not that important trust me.

I understand your skeptisism, and I agree with your work exposing fraudsters.

Jutta

What if a fraud I exposed happened to be a medium you believed in, then how would you feel

I know exactly what cold-reading is thank you.

I am not bothered whether you think there is ranting or rhetoric on your website or not. Fwiw I was referring the old website I suspect.

The problem with assuming that mediumship is impossible and therefore everything must be fraud, is that even when accurate information is provided it is almost always possible to attribute seemingly accurate information to fraud or imply it is, particularly where the medium concerned is not in a position to respond.

Where you can prove fraud and not just insinuate it, it is always helpful to honest seekers.

obiwan wrote:I know exactly what cold-reading is thank you.

So tell me what it is then and where the term comes from.

I am not bothered whether you think there is ranting or rhetoric on your website or not. Fwiw I was referring the old website I suspect.

You suspect?
So you dont even know what you are reffering too, these are the assumptions I warned Admin that people make about me.

You basically attack me with regards to something you vaguely remember about a website from 3+ years ago!
Wow, well done, your credibility just went through the floor.

The problem with assuming that mediumship is impossible and therefore everything must be fraud, is that even when accurate information is provided it is almost always possible to attribute seemingly accurate information to fraud or imply it is, particularly where the medium concerned is not in a position to respond.

I dont assume that mediumship is impossible, it is a scientific and historical FACT that mediumship is impossible up till today.
Also the word fraud implies someone knows they are doing something fraudulent, that is by far not the case with many mediums, many are simply deluded as to what they can do.

Also with regards to accurate information from mediums, how do you explain the catagorical historical fact that accuracy disappears when the chance to cheat is removed?

Where you can prove fraud and not just insinuate it, it is always helpful to honest seekers.

Instead of proving fraud, something that is incredibly easy to do with mediums and other snake oil salesmen, why cant the thousands of mediums world wide provide just one piece of mediumship that cannot easily be dismissed? Why cant they perform when the chance to cheat is removed?

Spiritualism born out of fraud, and riddled with fraud ever since.

These are not opinions, but historical fact.

[What if a fraud I exposed happened to be a medium you believed in, then how would you feel

JonDonnis


Jon, I feel pissed off, when a medium I believed in is exposed as a fraud,

but it doesn't alter my belief in life after death, because when you have your own evidences, it is enough, that's it, it is as simple as that.




you said

I do not pray, so doubt they will be answered.
I hope there is life after death, but the more I look the more i am convinced there isn't
To assume we live on after death is an incredibly arrogant position to take.
We are but animals on a tiny planet in an inconceivably large universe.
We are not that important trust me.

What do you know about this? you say "trust me"




look I'm sorry but I thought you prayed,

This is from that interview with Ghost Connection,

http://www.ghostconnections.com/Jon%20Donnis.htm

GC – Have you had any experiences yourself that have made you think about the possibility of life after death?

I dont need experiences to think about the possibility of life after death. In fact this athiest prays to god every night that he is wrong about the afterlife, because the last thing I want is to die and thats it.
I want to believe more than anything else, the problem is that I need a bit more proof than a medium talking about those legal papers in an old biscuit tin to convince me.

Jon, I feel pissed off, when a medium I believed in is exposed as a fraud,

but it doesn't alter my belief in life after death, because when you have your own evidences, it is enough, that's it, it is as simple as that.

So obviously this has happened before then, someone you thought was genuine has been shown to be a fraud, can I ask who?
Also no interest in your personal belief in an afterlife, but please do not use the word evidence, as you have not had evidence, you have been convinced very different.

What do you know about this? you say "trust me"

Because it is blooming obvious thats why, why would an ape like us who have only been alive on this planet for a mere fraction of its existence have any kind of importance compared to say a cockroach that has lived on the planet for millions and millions of years unchanged.
If there is an afterlife, Cockroach is king, not humans! So yeah very arrogant to believe in an afterlife in my opinion.

I dont need experiences to think about the possibility of life after death. In fact this athiest prays to god every night that he is wrong about the afterlife, because the last thing I want is to die and thats it.

I was trying to be funny with that comment, obviously went over your head.
Irony?

Her is said about Jon Donnis.

"TBH, I really don't like the crass, tabloid style approach that BadPsychics has taken over the years. It's not skepticism, it's simply spouting the position of non-belief.

Sadly, it gets perceived as a skeptics' website and so only serves to promote the misconception of what skepticism actually is.

So unless Donnis is prepared to learn something about skepticism and clean up his act (and he's never shown the capacity or willingness to do so) I'll be glad to see it remain closed."

and

"One word: Egomania

And part of his MO is to go around joining believers' forums, hurling abuse at them and telling them how 'deluded' they all are! "

google for link these are not lies but of truth. Jon Donnis ok here is link

http and ://bit.ly/14eYUp0

Here is posion from Jon Donnis real. Lies, distortion, flase notions.

http then add ://moh2005.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=medpsy

Jon Donnis saids Leslie Flint fraud. Despikable lies. on many webpages

Google search Jon Donnis Leslie flint pages of lies.

Lars wrote:Her is said about Jon Donnis.

"TBH, I really don't like the crass, tabloid style approach that BadPsychics has taken over the years. It's not skepticism, it's simply spouting the position of non-belief.

Sadly, it gets perceived as a skeptics' website and so only serves to promote the misconception of what skepticism actually is.

So unless Donnis is prepared to learn something about skepticism and clean up his act (and he's never shown the capacity or willingness to do so) I'll be glad to see it remain closed."

and

"One word: Egomania

And part of his MO is to go around joining believers' forums, hurling abuse at them and telling them how 'deluded' they all are! "

google for link these are not lies but of truth. Jon Donnis ok here is link

http and ://bit.ly/14eYUp0

Lol, you realise that the author of that (John Jackson) is a friend of mine dont you?
We have had many disagreements over the years with regards to what skepticism is and should be, he is allowed his opinion, and I mine.

I actually like John and get on well with him, and yes I have said just as bad things about him and his sites as he has me and mine.
We are adults who enjoy a bit of banter, and despite your best tries Lars, you wont "expose" me, or get me to slip up. I have been doing this for way to long to fall for such actions.

Why dont you go back to Zammitt and your other cronies and stop spamming this forum with your nonsense, everyone can see straight through it.

Lars wrote:Jon Donnis saids Leslie Flint fraud. Despikable lies. on many webpages

Google search Jon Donnis Leslie flint pages of lies.

Yes people please do google search that, I stand by EVERYTHING i say on Flint, he is a fraud, even if people like Lars, Zammitt and other people who directly profit from the fraud of Flint and his ilk dont like it!

Lars, you gotta try harder, please try harder, you wont beat me.

Jon Donnis coniunes lies. I make no money from Leslie Flint. If Flint fraud prove it not more posion of lies and blithers.

LIE

Lars

Ok I'm out of this conversation. You're insulting. As for my credibility your opinion is irrelevant.

Lars wrote:Jon Donnis coniunes lies. I make no money from Leslie Flint. If Flint fraud prove it not more posion of lies and blithers.

LIE

Lars

"coniunes", "posion" and "blithers"

I will assume this means continues, poison and erm....?????? Blithers???

You might no make money from Flint but you boss does!! ;-)

obiwan wrote:Ok I'm out of this conversation. You're insulting. As for my credibility your opinion is irrelevant.

Run away, hardly surprising, cant answer my questions. Typical

Hi Jon, I was going to ignore your input, But now your being insulting to folk and thats not nice.
Now I dont know you and have no any intention of getting to know you as I believe that I have found out all I need to know from what I have read here.
So lets see we have a very competitive man who enjoys Beating people with type speak on the internet.
We have a Man that actually tried to develop Mediumship/Psychic.
We have a Man that comes out with all the cold reading/hot reading stuff thats been said a million times before.
Psychologically Speaking Those 3 statements spell out all I need know about you and tell a very interesting story.
I am sorry you were not a very good medium, but not every one can develop to a high standard. I know you were not at a high standard by the way you look at things with cold reading. It tell me thats what you did and you know it.
But with that competitive nature of yours it must of really hurt you not being at a high enough standard to "compete" after all you have to win.
And if you cant win... there must of course be a reason huh? so every1 must be a fake like you.
You talk about people coming out with the same old stuff, But so do you. its all been heard before long before you were born.
James randi challenge.. you know that no one will win that the same as the victor zammit one.. no one will win that either. so lets be fair they both cancel each other out.
you claim to be so good at this stuff,, and yet your clinging to the stuff people been saying for years its not new.. Kinda sounds like the stuff you say about us Mediums doesnt it.
Now you see I quite like Talking to Sceptics.. if its a balanced conversation and if its a real debate, but thats not what you bring here. So why are you here? oh I forgot to win. Well spiritualism is over 100 years old and will still be here in 100 years, and this is a spiritualist forum. So im sorry friend, you cannot win, In time your site and your name will simply fall into cyber emptiness.. and if your right in your view that there is not an afterlife then so will you, Which will kind of make this all pointless, which seems kind of sad. But spiritualism will live on through its history and books and mediums will continue to give evidence of life continuation, it will never be forgotten. so you see. you cannot win, so I guess it will be spiritualism Kicking your behind.
anyway have a nice day