Hello from a non-skeptic

[Charles Boden]

Sorry, my remote internet dropped...

Wow, the afterlife must be crawling with beetles.

Why not?

Minstrels sang Charlie is My Darling - unlikely since minstrels were popular in mediaeval times but had almost wholly disappeared by the 18th century, and Charlie is My Darling was written about Bonnie Prince Charlie (1720-1788).

Poor choice of wording, then... Should I say a man with a guitar?

Garrette, I am not out to try to prove anything to anyone. If I could, I'd be going for that million-dollar-prize... I made reference to Pool's case because I came across an article in a local magazine, posted it on Carol Bowman's and a member there gave the link to a thread here in which the case was discussed. Another rather long one, I might add. I have absolutely no problem in saying I am wrong if this proves to be the case.

Will take a little break, but I'll be back later...

 

[Charles Boden]

Someone told you to "Get a life" in this thread - nope, I have checked.

Must have misread it. Am not going to go back through this very long thread to check what was said...

I will, though, point out the following: in 12 years, that makes up to about 630 weeks in total. What are the "random chances" that something like that should have been said to me precisely seven days before Diana's death? If the session I was taking part in went into the early hours of Sunday, the "miss" by a couple of hours, if that, truly makes a difference?

I'll be back later...

Regards to all,

Charles

 

[Garrette]

Garrette, I am not out to try to prove anything to anyone. If I could, I'd be going for that million-dollar-prize... I made reference to Pool's case because I came across an article in a local magazine, posted it on Carol Bowman's and a member there gave the link to a thread here in which the case was discussed. Another rather long one, I might add. I have absolutely no problem in saying I am wrong if this proves to be the case.

No problem. The larger point, if I may be pedantic a bit, is that it is unwise to trust the media regarding reports on the paranormal. Further, it is unwise to trust most reports or claims without going as close to the primary source as possible.

 

[Olowkow]

When you break the setup in pool, what are the chances that all the balls will wind up where they do? Almost vanishingly small, but it happened.

 

[Agatha]

Eight days if the prediction was made on Saturday. I'll let the mathematicians work out the probability given the numbers of members of Royal families around the world and the death rate, and bear in mind we don't have any data on the number of times a death was predicted but it didn't happen.

Poor choice of wording, then... Should I say a man with a guitar?

In 18th Century Scotland? I wouldn't advise it, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Scotland

I am going to bed since I was up till daft o'clock watching the miners' rescue last night, so I will be back in the morning.

Charles, please believe that I am not attacking you. I am challenging your beliefs, but everyone should have their beliefs challenged - we are all, because we are human, prone to believing things without evidence.

 

[Garrette]

I will, though, point out the following: in 12 years, that makes up to about 630 weeks in total. What are the "random chances" that something like that should have been said to me precisely seven days before Diana's death?

You're still using the wrong set to draw your conclusions. That set needs to include, at a minimum:

1. All predictions made by that medium, both successful and unsuccessful
2. All events that could possibly be interpreted to fit the medium's words

We could argue that it should include predictions by all mediums just as we would include the number of lottery ticket purchasers in determining the odds that it would be won during any given draw.

If the session I was taking part in went into the early hours of Sunday,

But it didn't. At least you didn't say it did until now.

the "miss" by a couple of hours, if that, truly makes a difference?

It does. It makes the prediction wrong even if we ignore its vagueness. What you're saying is "This prediction is accurate if we ignore this part that isn't accurate."

 

[3point14]

To answer the question as to what it would take for me to believe that there is no such thing as a psychic, I would have to say that the degree of difficulty is about the same as your believing that there is. No problem there, as far as I can see. We can certainly debate issues and even perhaps become friends despite our differences in belief.
Charles

I do see a problem there, and it is going to be the brick wall you are banging your head against for all of this debate, or, to put it another way, the brick wall that all the skeptics here will be banging their head against when debating with you.

You see, I suspect that all those holding a view opposite to you would be able to give you an exact set of circumstances that would shatter their world view and make them believe in the supernatural. By contrast, you are unable to do so, so what you have here is an unfalsifiable position, and debate and discussion with any view to you changing your mind is moot because your position is not subject to change. A better man than I put it better than I ever could:

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Jonathan Swift​

 

[wareagle]

Perhaps the process of learning, but hardly just a spiritual journey. You will find many skeptics, me among them, who traveled such a path to reach where we are. I'll stack my spiritual and mystical experiences up against nearly anyone's.

How about PERSONAL JOURNEY?

 

[Nonpareil]

I will, though, point out the following: in 12 years, that makes up to about 630 weeks in total. What are the "random chances" that something like that should have been said to me precisely seven days before Diana's death?

The chance of what? That someone, somewhere, will have a prediction made to them that an unnamed member of an unspecified royal family that they had some kind of undetermined connection to would die within the next week?

Pretty good, actually.

 

[Nonpareil]

How about PERSONAL JOURNEY?

Do you have a point that you are trying to make?

 

[Audible Click]

Ah, so we are doubting all and any sources. Agreed, the reference I gave was an article in a sensacionalist paper. I certainly would not have used the same terminology used in the article I posted a link to, but you are saying that her case and that of others we see on TV are all faked inventions. Hmmmm.

I think what you are saying is that anything and everything that might be presented to you as evidence is either a lie or a set up.
Garrette, you know the answer to your question, so why ask? Who is playing games with who here?

Again, could you point out where I said this? I quoted the article. If it is totally erroneous, I stand corrected...

Mr. Boden, I'm quoting you in this post because you seem to be making the assumption that the skeptics in this thread are playing games with you. Generally, the skeptics on this board are quite careful to have legitimate citations when they are presenting facts and links are, almost always, provided. If links are not provided they will be called on it by their fellow skeptics. You made a statement about the Poole case and attempted to back it up with an article taken from a sensationalist newspaper. You accused someone in this thread of saying "Get a life" no one posted that, you also use anecdotes and not facts and seem to expect us to simply accept that when we won't accept that sort of thing from our fellow skeptics. The discussion is marginally interesting to me so I would like to ask you a question. Do you now stand corrected in regard to the article you posted?

 

[Audible Click]

How about PERSONAL JOURNEY?

What about it?

 

[Charles Boden]

It becomes difficult when one has to repeat answers again and again. I did say that I "stand corrected" regarding Jacqueline Pool's case. A good lesson on placing credit on unreliable sources.

Garrette, I did also previously say that the session I was taking part in when I was told that "a member of the Royal family would die that week" went into the early hours of Sunday in a prior post. Given the volume of posts here, I cannot blame you if you did not see it. I still do not see that the fact that what was said to me should not have been within the exact predicted time-span should make that much of a difference, or be quite as relevant as you all claim, but seeing as Diana was already dead at the scene of the accident, although the official announcement of her death was only made much later, I would say that the prediction of "one week" was correct almost to the minute.

At no other moment, in the twelve years I took part in the spiritualist center I have mentioned, was anything similar ever said to me, so forgive me if I don't agree with you on this one. Likewise I was never told of a possible pregnancy except for the occasion in which my wife truly was, and neither she nor I could even have imagined that this was possible.

Granted, I'll take back what I said regarding Jacqueline Pool, but not that which I personally encountered on these two occasions.

As for "not reasoning with a man who does not wish to be reasoned to", I'll just say that I am all for critical thinking and coherent argumentation. Another reason why I came here in the first place. Certainly not to try to sell you guys a book that you would never buy in the first place. Another reason why I never mentioned, nor did I have any intention of mentioning it. In particular because it would have been the first and strongest opposition made to me. A lunatic claiming the possibility of having been Bonnie Prince Charlie in a past lifetime? I would hardly have exposed myself to such an affirmation here if I wanted to maintain any kind of credibility. The link to the book was dug out by one of the members of this forum, and not added by myself. Likewise a quote was given of something I never said here.

I honestly don't know where you guys find the time. It is quite a quest you are all on...

 

[Nonpareil]

Garrette, I did also previously say that the session I was taking part in when I was told that "a member of the Royal family would die that week" went into the early hours of Sunday in a prior post. Given the volume of posts here, I cannot blame you if you did not see it. I still do not see that the fact that what was said to me should not have been within the exact predicted time-span should make that much of a difference, or be quite as relevant as you all claim, but seeing as Diana was already dead at the scene of the accident, although the official announcement of her death was only made much later, I would say that the prediction of "one week" was correct almost to the minute.

No, it wasn't.

Think about this for a second. The prediction was that a member of a royal family would die within that week. Even assuming that the prediction actually was about Diana, it wasn't that she would die in one week. It was that she would die sometime during the next week.

It can't be accurate to "within the minute", because it didn't give a minute. It gave a rather large stretch of time.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette, I did also previously say that the session I was taking part in when I was told that "a member of the Royal family would die that week" went into the early hours of Sunday in a prior post. Given the volume of posts here, I cannot blame you if you did not see it.

Actually, I saw it and forgot. Sorry about that.

I still do not see that the fact that what was said to me should not have been within the exact predicted time-span should make that much of a difference, or be quite as relevant as you all claim, but seeing as Diana was already dead at the scene of the accident, although the official announcement of her death was only made much later, I would say that the prediction of "one week" was correct almost to the minute.

I would agree if the medium had actually said something more specific, like "Princess Diana will be dead in a week." If it were 7 days and 8 hours, I'd still be impressed, IF AND ONLY IF all the other things we're talking about were taken into account.

At no other moment, in the twelve years I took part in the spiritualist center I have mentioned, was anything similar ever said to me, so forgive me if I don't agree with you on this one. Likewise I was never told of a possible pregnancy except for the occasion in which my wife truly was, and neither she nor I could even have imagined that this was possible.

Again, your pool of considered events is far too small. The question isn't what, in toto, she told you. The question (in part) is what, in toto, she told anyone and everyone. Do you think that during those 12 years she was silent except for these predictions?

Granted, I'll take back what I said regarding Jacqueline Pool, but not that which I personally encountered on these two occasions.

Fair enough. Rome wasn't debunked in a day...

 

[Ririon]

Likewise I was never told of a possible pregnancy except for the occasion in which my wife truly was, and neither she nor I could even have imagined that this was possible.

So.. Your parents never took you aside to explain how this works?

A couple has had several children. They are still together, reasonably happily married. A few months after number 3 or 4 was born, it turns out she is pregnant.

This is not something you can not imagine is possible. This is something very likely. I'd throw it in there as a guess if I was faking it as a psychic. I'd probably throw in a lot more guesses, too. You don't strike me as the kind of person who would remember the ones that were wrong.

 

[Apology]

How about PERSONAL JOURNEY?

How about SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY?

 

[Audible Click]

How about SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY?

I saw what you did there.

 

[Garrette]

How about SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY?

Ah, the lovely Ms. Day. Far more pretty and sexy than Marilyn Monroe.

 

[Charles Boden]

Oh, for crying out loud... My youngest son was just three months old. The age difference between him and my daughter is of exactly one year and one week (10 May/17 May). Just quite how often does that happen? So I am told that she is expecting another child. I ask if some confusion is being made and if it is not my three-month-old son she might be seeing. I am told "No, it's another child..." I get home, tell my wife what was said to me, and we take the uttermost care from then on. Turns out she's already pregnant. And you want me to believe it was "mere chance" or a "lucky guess"?

Obviously there's no winning with you guys, because your minds are already set!!!!!!!!

I am told that "a member of that Royal Family you have connections to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..." This was seven years after I had had the confirmation at the age of 30 (therefore 15 years after the episode of the Ouija event) of a possible past lifetime as Bonnie Prince Charlie, and you claim that this prediction was vague? Almost 20 years later I find that I am also genealogically a descendant of King James IV, and still you state that the prediction was vague?

I am sitting at a bar, pondering upon a discussion in Carol Bowman's forum as to whether it is not solely we who create the reality around us, wondering if this might be true and that this might perhaps mean that there is no God, and then in the very first encounter with the medium I have mentioned, incorporated with the spiritual entity who told me of my wife's pregancy, she asks me: "What was that s*** you were thinking? There IS a God..." And you want me to believe in your "random chance" theories? How could she have known what I was thinking???!!!

You guys really don't know what you are talking about...