It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Reality of Psi: Leading Journal Publishes Paper Revealing the Evidence

page: 2
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul




Einstein the librarian was mocked by the the scientific establishment at first because he wasn’t part of the scientific establishment at the time.

No, he wasn't a librarian and the rest of what you said is also incorrect.




posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: surfer_soul

That's why science says "ick". Science likes to measure things. If you get my meaning.

You can't blame them for that. It's what they do. Can't measure God. Nope. Can't measure psi. Nope.

Continue doing your praying. Continue with your psi stuff.

Why do you require validation from those you disdain?

Wouldn't the experiments that produce data be a measure?

The issue is more one of interpretation of what the data signifies.

We can measure things that have a possible explanation in God or psychic abilities. We can exclude alternate explanations through experimental design. But we still have to make interpretation of the results. That point, the interpretation, is where science is often inconsistent.

Science's roots in naturalism gives a confirmation bias to interpret observations and experimental results.

Science will accept quite flimsy evidence for naturalistic explanations (for example, that a big bang singularity arose from quantum™ fluctuation) but will reject heavily evidenced but non falsifiable paradigms such as the anthropic principle/s.



Exactly!

Just look at the multiverse or 10^500 false vacua in the String Theory landscape. I order to avoid the obvious fine tuning of the universe, they're content to accepting this Alice in Wonderland nonsense. Anything that feeds their blind materialism.

There's tons of evidence for Psi effects. I do think Researchers in Psi need to forget about debating the Pseudoskeptics anymore and start searching for different mechanisms to explain why we see these effects.

Professor Jessica Utts from the Department of Statistics at University of California, Irvine said this:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance...there is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.

www.ics.uci.edu...



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: surfer_soul




Einstein the librarian was mocked by the the scientific establishment at first because he wasn’t part of the scientific establishment at the time.

No, he wasn't a librarian and the rest of what you said is also incorrect.



Ok he was working as an assistant inspector for the patent office when he was also working on his most famous papers that he published in 1905. So not quite a librarian then, but neither did he have an academic career at that time.


Einstein's third paper that year, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" introduced the special theory of relativity. In the fourth paper, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?” published late in 1905, he showed that from special relativity's postulates, it is possible to deduce the famous equation: E = mc².


However


In November 1915, Einstein presented a series of lectures before the Prussian Academy of Sciences in which he described his theory of gravity, known as general relativity. The final lecture climaxed with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity, Einstein's Field Equations. This was really the defining moment in the career of Albert Einstein. Initially, scientists were skeptical because the general theory of relativity was not derived by experiment or observation, but by pure mathematical reasoning and rational analysis. After the 1919 confirmation of the prediction of how much the light from a star will be bent by the Sun's gravity when it passed close to the Sun, acceptance increased dramatically. On November 7, The Times reported the confirmation, cementing Einstein's fame forever.


I’ve highlighted in bold the point I was trying to make in my previous post.


Though he is now most famous for his work on relativity, at that time his work on general relativity was still disputed, so it was for his earlier work on the photoelectric effect that he was given the Prize. The Nobel committee decided that citing his less-contested theory in the Prize would gain better acceptance from the scientific community.


source

So even Einstein struggled to have his work on general relatively accepted by the scientific community at the time. I appreciate science needs to be as rigorous as possible, but scientists should also not be biased by accepted paradigms that aren’t correct.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

I see no problem with them being skeptical about Einstein’s early work. It is proper procedure to be skeptical until there is Reason to be otherwise.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: CreationBro
Outright denial and logical fallacies such as claiming that a lack of evidence is evidence of lack, etc. have no place in true empiricism. Needless to say, some of us are certain of various evidences.

I think that's part of the problem.

In the same way you are certain about some things other people are certain that those things are not possible.

What we need is scepticism, not certainties, and honesty.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
But we don’t believe because the “evidence” is not there

And I think that's another part of the problem: evidence of what, really?

One thing is accepting that we don't know how or why some things happen, but the evidence that they happen is not evidence of how or why they happen, and I think that in cases like this many (or even most) of the supporters of the non-mainstream ideas try to fit the evidence to their own preconceived ideas of why and how things happen.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: surfer_soul

I see no problem with them being skeptical about Einstein’s early work. It is proper procedure to be skeptical until there is Reason to be otherwise.


I agree but my point is Einstein’s work would have been considered “fringe” at the time by his peers. So what’s fringe today might yet be proved correct such as with the psi phenomenon. It certainly can’t be discredited and ridicule and strawman arguments aren’t helpful for anything.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Woodcarver
But we don’t believe because the “evidence” is not there

And I think that's another part of the problem: evidence of what, really?

One thing is accepting that we don't know how or why some things happen, but the evidence that they happen is not evidence of how or why they happen, and I think that in cases like this many (or even most) of the supporters of the non-mainstream ideas try to fit the evidence to their own preconceived ideas of why and how things happen.


I don't think this is the case at all.

I think the real problem is saying things are mainstream and are non mainstream. Who decides what's mainstream? If you have a bunch of bias people who are hostile to anything they can't explain in the context of materialism, then they will never accept the evidence.

Psi research has a lot of evidence and it's evidence that an effect isn't a statistical anomaly. We do this all of the time throughout different disciplines in Science. We want to know if the effect is real or not so we use the exact same methods that are used in Psi research and some of these methods were created by Psi Researchers.

Cardeña also notes that, despite its current, controversial reputation, the field of psi research has a long history of introducing methods later integrated into psychology (e.g. the first use of randomization, along with systematic use of masking procedures; the first comprehensive use of meta-analysis; study preregistration; pioneering contributions to the psychology of hallucinations, eyewitness reports, and dissociative and hypnotic phenomena). And some of psychology’s most respected names, historically, have also shared an interest in parapsychology, including William James, Hans Berger (inventor of the EEG), Sigmund Freud, and former American Psychological Association (APA) president Gardner Murphy.

www.dailygrail.com...

For instance, if you see a rise in cancer with the use of cell phones you will want to know is this a statistical anomaly or is this a real effect happening across the population.

Here's an example from a recent headline.

Brain tumors on the rise in England, raising cell phone concerns


The incidence rate of aggressive malignant brain tumors in England has more than doubled in recent decades, and a new study questions what could be driving that rise.

The rate of glioblastoma climbed from 2.4 to 5.0 per 100,000 people in England between 1995 and 2015, according to the study, published Wednesday in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health.


So they have identified the effect and they want to know why but here's the kicker. They don't know why. They don't know the cause but they have identified that an effect has occurred. It goes on to say.

The data analyzed in the study only reflect trends in brain cancer cases and do not shed light on why these trends could have occurred, but the researchers pointed to examples of lifestyle factors that they think could have played a role.

BINGO!

This is Psi research. This is exactly what Psi research does. It identifies an effect and then it does experiments to see if that effect is real or is it a statistical anomaly.

For instance, I was watching a special not to long ago about twins. This had nothing to do with Psi but one of the twins started talking about how her and her twin sister always felt it when the other one was hurt or in danger. She then went on to say that one time her twin Sister fell and broke her arm and she was in another city and felt these sharp pains going up and down her left arm and she knew something had happened to her Sister. So she called and found out her Sister fell and broke her left arm.

A blind materialist will say this is just a coincidence and walk away. A Psi Researcher will say we have the tools to study this and see if this is a real effect or not.

So you conduct a study of sets of twins, sets of siblings and sets of strangers. You use the sets of siblings and the sets of strangers as a control group. You then set up test to see if the twins share a connection above chance that the other groups may not have.

If you run these tests and get an effect size above a chance occurrence, you have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the effect may be real.

Over the next 6 years, there have been 250 of these tests done around the world. You do a meta analysis of these studies and find the effect size is the same or very close to the effect size of your original study.

Again, THIS IS SCIENCE.

I agree that Psi research needs to stop debating the skeptics so much and now focus on a mechanism for these real effects. At the end of the day, some people will never accept these things because it goes against their belief in materialism or atheism.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: surfer_soul




Einstein the librarian was mocked by the the scientific establishment at first because he wasn’t part of the scientific establishment at the time.

No, he wasn't a librarian and the rest of what you said is also incorrect.



Ok he was working as an assistant inspector for the patent office when he was also working on his most famous papers that he published in 1905. So not quite a librarian then, but neither did he have an academic career at that time.


Not a librarian AT ALL. Don't try to wiggle out of it. Your statement was 100% wrong. A patent clerk is NOT "not quite a librarian." Also, though he did not have an academic career at the time, he did have his PhD and was obviously academically oriented, as his publications in recognized scientific journals prove. So unless you insist that one must have a professorship before one can be considered academic, that's wrong, too. That skepticism was expressed at a conference is not at all unusual and had nothing to do with his not being an official professor. More than one "academic" read his paper on relativity and realized life would never be the same again. His genius was recognized early on.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: surfer_soul

I see no problem with them being skeptical about Einstein’s early work. It is proper procedure to be skeptical until there is Reason to be otherwise.


I agree but my point is Einstein’s work would have been considered “fringe” at the time by his peers. So what’s fringe today might yet be proved correct such as with the psi phenomenon. It certainly can’t be discredited and ridicule and strawman arguments aren’t helpful for anything.
Yeah, and maybe your uncle is Actually finding quarters behind your ear too.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
I think the real problem is saying things are mainstream and are non mainstream. Who decides what's mainstream?

That's a good question, and from what I have seen the "mainstream" label is applied mostly by those that are against it.


If you have a bunch of bias people who are hostile to anything they can't explain in the context of materialism, then they will never accept the evidence.

Well, we also have a bunch of bias people who are hostile to anything mainstream science explains.

I think it's one of those cases of "I don't like what you say about A, so I don't like any thing you say", and that happens on both sides of this discussion.


Psi research has a lot of evidence and it's evidence that an effect isn't a statistical anomaly.

Once more, evidence of what?

As far as I understand it (I'm not a scientist, I didn't even went to university), to have something proved scientifically you need to have at least a theory, and then you present evidence that proves your theory is correct. Talking about evidence without saying of what is meaningless, and considering how many different topics fall under the "psy" umbrella, saying just "evidence" is nothing.


Here's an example from a recent headline.

You keep on posting the same type of explanation, but that's not what I'm talking about.

In that example, the evidence talked about was evidence of brain tumours being connected to cell phone use. What I said on my post is that people talk about psy evidence without saying what is that evidence supposed to support, like telepathy, telekinesis, whatever.


At the end of the day, some people will never accept these things because it goes against their belief in materialism or atheism.

In the same way some people will never accept the opposite because it goes against their religious beliefs.

What we need is for people to stop putting their opinions about facts and accept that they may be wrong, but I don't think that will happen any time soon. Maybe it will, but my psychic powers are not telling me that.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: surfer_soul

I see no problem with them being skeptical about Einstein’s early work. It is proper procedure to be skeptical until there is Reason to be otherwise.


I agree but my point is Einstein’s work would have been considered “fringe” at the time by his peers. So what’s fringe today might yet be proved correct such as with the psi phenomenon. It certainly can’t be discredited and ridicule and strawman arguments aren’t helpful for anything.
Yeah, and maybe your uncle is Actually finding quarters behind your ear too.


Nice example of strawman and ridicule.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: surfer_soul




Einstein the librarian was mocked by the the scientific establishment at first because he wasn’t part of the scientific establishment at the time.

No, he wasn't a librarian and the rest of what you said is also incorrect.



Ok he was working as an assistant inspector for the patent office when he was also working on his most famous papers that he published in 1905. So not quite a librarian then, but neither did he have an academic career at that time.


Not a librarian AT ALL. Don't try to wiggle out of it. Your statement was 100% wrong. A patent clerk is NOT "not quite a librarian." Also, though he did not have an academic career at the time, he did have his PhD and was obviously academically oriented, as his publications in recognized scientific journals prove. So unless you insist that one must have a professorship before one can be considered academic, that's wrong, too. That skepticism was expressed at a conference is not at all unusual and had nothing to do with his not being an official professor. More than one "academic" read his paper on relativity and realized life would never be the same again. His genius was recognized early on.


I was mistaken about the the librarian thing and admitted it with the follow up post. I was not 100% wrong though as his work was rejected by many until much later. He didn’t gain his PhD until 1905 the same year he published his most famous works.

He was awarded the Nobel prize not for relativity which he is most famous for but for his paper on the photoelectric effect because it was decided by the Nobel committee that citing his less contested theory would gain more acceptance by the scientific community. So his genius was hardly recognised early on as you have it.

The point I was getting at though is that science is an ongoing study and there is still much to learn, for instance it’s still not known why the Placebo effect works, yet it evidently does in some cases.

Now did you have anything to contribute to the thread or did you just jump in to attack me?



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: surfer_soul




Einstein the librarian was mocked by the the scientific establishment at first because he wasn’t part of the scientific establishment at the time.

No, he wasn't a librarian and the rest of what you said is also incorrect.



Ok he was working as an assistant inspector for the patent office when he was also working on his most famous papers that he published in 1905. So not quite a librarian then, but neither did he have an academic career at that time.


Not a librarian AT ALL. Don't try to wiggle out of it. Your statement was 100% wrong. A patent clerk is NOT "not quite a librarian." Also, though he did not have an academic career at the time, he did have his PhD and was obviously academically oriented, as his publications in recognized scientific journals prove. So unless you insist that one must have a professorship before one can be considered academic, that's wrong, too. That skepticism was expressed at a conference is not at all unusual and had nothing to do with his not being an official professor. More than one "academic" read his paper on relativity and realized life would never be the same again. His genius was recognized early on.


The point I was getting at though is that science is an ongoing study and there is still much to learn, for instance it’s still not known why the Placebo effect works, yet it evidently does in some cases.

Now did you have anything to contribute to the thread or did you just jump in to attack me?


What in Heaven's Name does the "Placebo Effect" have to do with a discussion about Einstein? I contributed to this thread pointing out BOTH your claims were erroneous and have no basis in reality. You have posted nothing since then to improve your credibility. You only corrected yourself (halfway) after someone (Phage) pointed out you were incorrect. How you came up with "librarian" is a complete mystery. I can only guess where you pulled that out of.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: surfer_soul

I see no problem with them being skeptical about Einstein’s early work. It is proper procedure to be skeptical until there is Reason to be otherwise.


I agree but my point is Einstein’s work would have been considered “fringe” at the time by his peers. So what’s fringe today might yet be proved correct such as with the psi phenomenon. It certainly can’t be discredited and ridicule and strawman arguments aren’t helpful for anything.
Yeah, and maybe your uncle is Actually finding quarters behind your ear too.


Nice example of strawman and ridicule.
It’s not a strawman, but it is ridicule. Psi phenom has been studied ad nauseum. The only people who are still “studying” are those who would use your naivety you separate you from your cash.

I, on the other hand, am willing to pay anyone $10,000 who can demonstrate real abilities, on demand. I have made this offer many times on these forums and others, but nobody has ever offered to even try. There are plenty of similar rewards being offered, and none have ever been awarded to anyone. I would think that if these abilities were so prevalent in our population that someone would have come forward and become a superstar by now.

You wanna make $10,000? Find someone who can perform some act of psi ability. Otherwise you are talking about fantasyland.
edit on 1-7-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler




What in Heaven's Name does the "Placebo Effect" have to do with a discussion about Einstein?


This isn’t a discussion about Einstein, it’s about psi. The placebo effect is related to psi as it is based on what someone believes. There is also no scientific explanation for it that I’m aware of.

Is it because your an ex librarian that you’re so upset about me wrongly thinking he was? I’m not sure where I got that from either but his ideas were denounced and contested by many in the scientific community, I’m sure some mockery was involved too.

A good read is Bill Bryson’s A Brief History of Everything. I might make a thread on it if I ever get time, but basically scientists are human too, and prone to error and outright deception as much as anyone in any other career.

BTW Phage accused me of needing validation from those I disdain in this thread which is nonsense, and it derailed me in my response. Guess I should have had a breather.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

That’s the trouble I don’t think real psi can be demonstrated on demand, for my money I would bet it’s much more about the workings of the subconscious or even what might be termed the super conscious mind.

You make some good and fair points but if I had super power psi abilities A, I be tempted to keep them to myself and B, I wouldn’t need your money anyway most likely.

But I think most psi isn’t the super power type stuff, (which I don’t really believe in either) but rather much more mundane and relatively insignificant things, but still otherwise unexplainable with our current understanding.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

You said:

Once more, evidence of what?

This herein lies the problem. No matter how much evidence is presented, you will never accept it. I clearly laid out how Psi research works but you still don't see it.

Here's another example.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: differences between men and women


Gender differences in the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) were examined in a meta-analytical review of 90 effect sizes obtained from a sample of 21 double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized studies. Although NRT was more effective for men than placebo at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-ups, the benefits of NRT for women were clearly evident only at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Giving NRT in conjunction with high-intensity nonpharmacological support was more important for women than men. That is, NRT and low support were efficacious for women at only short-term follow-up, and men benefited from NRT at all the follow-ups regardless of the intensity of the adjunct support. The results suggest that long-term maintenance of NRT treatment gains decrease more rapidly for women than men.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This meta analysis shows an effect. It shows a difference between men and women when it comes to nicotine replacement theory. It doesn't know the cause but the effect has been measured.

NOBODY will say the methods used to come to these conclusions isn't Science. These are methods used across multiple scientific disciplines and some of these methods come from Psi research.

Now, I come up with theory that says Precognition is spread out throughout the population. People simply feel the future and it's occurrence will show an effect size greater than chance.

I carry out the experiment with 20 people. They each sit at a computer in separate rooms and they are instructed to pick a card out of 10 cards selected which will be the card that the RNG(random number generator) will select after they make their selection. You don't want them to just randomly pick a card but to see if they can feel what card can be chosen.

After 200 trials of this experiment, you look at the data and you see that random chance can account for 20% of the selections they get right but you see it's at 30%.

So the question is why is this occurring? Is it a real effect or is it just an anomaly?

So you report your findings and it's published.

Seven years pass and there's been 300 of these kinds of experiments carried out throughout the world. You do a meta analysis of all of these studies and you don't get 30%, you get 34%.

So you would have to say precognition is a real effect or there's another reason why this is occurring.

Sadly, there's not enough money given to researchers to find answers to these questions because the materialist who control a lot of the scientific funding will bury their heads in the sand and scream "Woo!" or "Pseudoscience!"

Look at this recent study.

Psychophysical modulation of fringe visibility in a distant double-slit optical system


To investigate von Neumann's proposal that an “extra-physical process” is involved in the measurement of a quantum system, an online experiment was conducted using a double-slit optical system. In a counterbalanced fashion, participants focused their attention toward or away from a feedback signal linked in real time to the double-slit component of an interference pattern. A line camera continuously recorded the interference pattern at 4 Hz, and for each camera image fringe visibility was determined for the central 20 fringes. During 2013 and 2014, a total of 1479 people from 77 countries contributed 2985 test sessions. Over the same period, 5738 sessions were run as controls by a computer programmed to simulate human participants. The results showed that with human observers the fringe visibility at the center of the interference pattern deviated from a null effect by 5.72 sigma (p = 1.05 × 10−8), with the direction of the deviation conforming to the observers' intentions. The same analysis applied to the control data resulted in an overall deviation of −0.17 sigma. After consideration of alternative explanations, these results were found to support von Neumann's conclusion that the mind of the observer is an inextricable part of the measurement process. This type of experiment offers a means of empirically resolving long-standing questions about the role of consciousness in the physical world.


www.ingentaconnect.com...

That shouldn't happen if the wave function has nothing to do with consciousness or human intention. He got a result of 5.72 sigma! With the Higgs Boson it was 5 to 5.9 sigma. Also the direction conformed with the intentions of the observer vs the control group which was at -0.17 sigma.

As a Scientist, should you just stick your head in the sand and scream "Woo!?" Sadly, this is what many of them do because of their belief system.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
This herein lies the problem. No matter how much evidence is presented, you will never accept it.

Let me tell you that your psychic powers are not working, as it looks like you think I don't accept evidence of parapsychological events, when in fact I have seen some myself. Although not statistically relevant they were easily repeated at will.


I clearly laid out how Psi research works but you still don't see it.

You are the one not seeing what I am saying, probably because I didn't explain it well.

Your Precognition example talks about evidence of Precognition (obviously), but what I meant was that when people talk about evidence of parapsychological events they do not talk about a specific event, they talk about general events, and that's not something that can be studied and analysed in the same way as a specific event, as only specific events can be tested and even if one event has enough evidence to show that it really happens it doesn't mean that other events also happen.

That's why I said "evidence of what?" If a study of telepathy gathers evidence that some people have telepathy (or something else with the same result, that's another problem, things need to be clearly defined before being studied) it doesn't mean precognition also happens.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Woodcarver

That’s the trouble I don’t think real psi can be demonstrated on demand, for my money I would bet it’s much more about the workings of the subconscious or even what might be termed the super conscious mind.

You make some good and fair points but if I had super power psi abilities A, I be tempted to keep them to myself and B, I wouldn’t need your money anyway most likely.

But I think most psi isn’t the super power type stuff, (which I don’t really believe in either) but rather much more mundane and relatively insignificant things, but still otherwise unexplainable with our current understanding.
If it can’t be performed on command, then it is no more significant than any of the random thoughts that might pop into your head at any time, And quite literally indistinguishable from random chance, And no more dependable. What is the evolutionary path that this could have developed from? Do any other animals possess psi abilities? Chimps? Bonobos?

Even if you wouldn’t take my money, someone would surely have used their abilities to gain fame. Someone would have. What we do see, are a lot of people faking it and using their abilities to manipulate other humans into believing that they have powers. Like 100% of them. Can you name anyone who has actually made themselves famous by using actual psi abilities? (You will be ridiculed if you bring up anyone who has been shown to be a con).

How many people have made themselves famous by faking it?




top topics



 
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join