Sylvia Brown Is Back with “Afterlives of the Rich and Famous”
Friday, February 11th, 2011You may remember Sylvia Browne as the self-proclaimed psychic who managed to stay in the spotlight despite repeatedly being ridiculously wrong in damn near all of her predictions and providing entirely wrong information on missing persons to desperate loved ones. One of her most infamous incidents was claiming that Shawn Hornbeck was dead and that she even knew some details of the location of his body – Hornbeck later turned up alive. After this was revealed by our friend Robert Lancaster, Browne faced a harsh backlash in the media.
She had been a regular on the Montel Williams Show, but since the show went off the air, she has not been as prominent in the media. She has, however, tried to maintain as much of a presence as she can and has continued to promote her books and speaking engagements.
It seems she has a new (and unexpectedly pathetic) pitch. Inexplicably some media outlets continue to take her seriously enough to actually devote some precious air time to the fraudulent bitch.
She does not exactly look or sound good. Not that she ever really did…
In some ways, this route represents a safer scheme for Browne. Her claims are still sensational and touch on something that plenty of stupid people are very interested in: celebrity gossip. However, it’s also not falsifiable and can’t result in the kind of direct damage that claiming to know the location of a missing person can. The persons in question are not alive and can’t refute what Browne claims, and although the remote possibility of their estate suing may exist, that seems to be unlikely since there’s really no way to prove anything one way or another.
I do feel rather bad for the poor woman reporter who had to maintain a straight face and pretend to take this all seriously. I can’t imagine what she was thinking, but it may well have been “a masters in journalism and years of trying to work my way up and this is what I’m left doing.”
It still amazes me that the media will devote precious airtime to this pathetic joke. The public may not exactly be very skeptical when it comes to choosing what they watch, but I have to believe that most people can see through this BS.

Throw cameras into the mix and some people tend to get rather excited over things they see in the sky. All cameras have limits to their resolution and if an object is small enough it will only show up as an nondescript dot. Cameras also have limits to their light sensitivity, resulting in image degradation in dark conditions. In addition to this, consumer cameras are really not designed to capture images of distant objects against a dark background and thus their internal gain and auto-focus systems as well as zoom optics can result in some very severe distortions. Cameras can also introduce things like reflections or lens flare into images, and if the photographer does not hold the camera steady enough, motion blur can turn a point of light into a line or swirl.










