Hello from a non-skeptic

[Charles Boden]

Hello everyone,

I hope you will have realized by now that what I am truly after is a serious and unbiased evaluation of the phenomena. I have not as yet bothered to read through what I may have missed here seeing as most of it until what I did read was just BS and offence. In fact, it would be much more pleasant for everyone involved, including the members at Carol's forum to whom I had already provided a link to this thread, if all posts holding no objectivity were deleted.

I am willing to debate the issue further, if done in a friendly and respectable manner, beginning with my own reflections after what I read here concerning the night with the Ouija. Ideomotor caused by the subconscious instead of an actual entity? Very possible, but one of my own personal conclusions is that the "subconscious mind" might be very closely connected to what we could term as the "Soul-Consciousness". Sounds crazy? Well, that's what people also said when they were told that the world was round...

I hope the info in Carol's forum, if taken with the "open-mindedness" that everyone keeps going on about, might add some data or at least that little "food for thought". If we are to begin a serious and objective debate upon the matter, I'll begin with the Ouija episode and cover all of the ones I have mentioned one at a time, for the sake of evaluation and consideration and to better satisfy your "scientific minds". What I would request is that the replies after each post I might make should be limited to a maximum of three on your part. If this truly might interest you, I will ask you to kindly organize yourselves and your questions so that I might be able to reply to them in a coherent and objective manner. As I said, I work an average of 12 hours a day and have a family, so I really don't have a "full time availability" in which I might be able to be entirely at your disposal. I need my own time if we are to do this. Today, for example, I am off to a barbeque as it is a friend's birthday, so I won't be back here again today. I will tomorrow morning. If we can "cut the crap" and try to be objective, depending on what I read here after this reply we will continue or not. I am hoping that what I will read will be as nice, kind and polite as I hope you have all been treated at Carol Bowman's forum. By indicating it, I was also hoping that you will find that not all who might be "believers" are dishonest crooks or dellusional. As I said, there are plenty of normal, respectable and serious people placing an enormous amount of effort and time into attempting to better understand the phenomena. Namely, what must clearly be an association between mediumnity, reincarnation and the afterlife.

Have a great weekend, everyone. I'll be back tomorrow...

Charles

 

[Sean84]

What an enormous crock of....

Oops, only two more posts according to Chuck's Rules.

Make 'em count.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Oh boy. This isn't going to end well.

Charles, you can't make up your own rules for how others are allowed to partake in this thread. That is not how a forum works.

And like I've said several times before, this forum isn't a single entity, but a gathering of individuals. It's ridiculous to ask us to "organize ourselves", as if there was some common principle we could be organized by. And "limiting responses to three"? No, no and no.

What you can do - and this, too, has been pointed out to you several times - is limit your own responses. For example, you don't have to respond to this post. You can just take one or two people you like and respond to their posts while ignoring all others. If other posts bother you, you can use the Ignore function. That way, you won't have to expend energy on chastising people you consider too rude, and can instead concentrate on actual discussion with the people worthy of your time.

Which brings me to the last piece of advice I'd like to give you: drop the attitude. Most of your posts here are dripping with condescension towards skeptics. You may think that adding words like "kindly" to your post makes you polite, but as long as the crux of your argument is how your opponents can do nothing but insult, are not at all objective, should learn to behave themselves and so forth, you're still insulting everyone who has taken part in this thread while flattering yourself. And people don't take kindly to being insulted and brushed off. So all I can say to you is, either start showing some respect to others, or deal with the consequences of being a jerk.

 

[Pixel42]

In fact, it would be much more pleasant for everyone involved, including the members at Carol's forum to whom I had already provided a link to this thread, if all posts holding no objectivity were deleted.

You want almost every post you've made on this thread to be deleted? Are you sure?

By indicating it, I was also hoping that you will find that not all who might be "believers" are dishonest crooks or dellusional.

Back in post #2, less than 15 minutes after you posted the OP, I gave you another possible explanation: that they are simply honestly mistaken, misled by their inbuilt cognitive biases and the law of large numbers. This has been suggested to you over and over again, whilst other sources of perfectly normal and understandable human error (the ideomotor effect, the Forer effect) have been patiently explaind to you, yet you persist in wilfully misrepresenting the sceptical position in this way. As long as you continue to do so there is no hope for a sensible discussion.

 

[Sledge]

Hello everyone,

Hello.

I hope you will have realized by now that what I am truly after is a serious and unbiased evaluation of the phenomena.

No it isn't.

I have not as yet bothered to read through what I may have missed here

Why am I not surprised?

seeing as most of it until what I did read was just BS and offence.

No it wasn't. "Please supply some proof for your claims" =/= "BS and offence."

In fact, it would be much more pleasant for everyone involved, including the members at Carol's forum to whom I had already provided a link to this thread, if all posts holding no objectivity were deleted.

No it wouldn't. Please stop living up to the cliche of the believer who can't handle any criticism of their beliefs.

I am willing to debate the issue further,

No you're not.

if done in a friendly and respectable manner, beginning with my own reflections after what I read here concerning the night with the Ouija. Ideomotor caused by the subconscious instead of an actual entity? Very possible,

Not just possible but what actually happened. Arguing that the Ouija board doesn't work by the ideomotor effect is like arguing my car isn't powered by an internal combustion engine.

but one of my own personal conclusions is that the "subconscious mind" might be very closely connected to what we could term as the "Soul-Consciousness".

You personal conclusion is wrong.

Sounds crazy? Well, that's what people also said when they were told that the world was round...

Yes, it does sound crazy. Now please tell me when you think people were first told the Earth was round.

I hope the info in Carol's forum, if taken with the "open-mindedness" that everyone keeps going on about, might add some data or at least that little "food for thought".

It won't. We're open-minded. What you require is no-minded, if we're to seriously entertain the notion that Ouija boards represent anything other than the ideomotor effect.

If we are to begin a serious and objective debate upon the matter, I'll begin with the Ouija episode and cover all of the ones I have mentioned one at a time, for the sake of evaluation and consideration and to better satisfy your "scientific minds".

Don't bother. We know what the Ouija board is and how it works. You giving us anecdotes about it is pointless. Anecdotes are not evidence. You've been given some very simply tests to try with a Ouija board, why don't you go do that?

What I would request is that the replies after each post I might make should be limited to a maximum of three on your part.

Request denied. This isn't your forum, you don't get to set the rules on taking part. If you want to play in this particular sandpit, you have to play by it's rules.

If this truly might interest you, I will ask you to kindly organize yourselves and your questions so that I might be able to reply to them in a coherent and objective manner.

No.

As I said, I work an average of 12 hours a day and have a family, so I really don't have a "full time availability" in which I might be able to be entirely at your disposal. I need my own time if we are to do this. Today, for example, I am off to a barbeque as it is a friend's birthday, so I won't be back here again today. I will tomorrow morning.

Stop wasting time on Ouija boards and spend it with your family.

If we can "cut the crap" and try to be objective, depending on what I read here after this reply we will continue or not.

The crap and lack of objectivity has been brought by you, a man incapable of realising how a parlour game works. Something for you to consider the next time you break out the Ouija.

I am hoping that what I will read will be as nice, kind and polite as I hope you have all been treated at Carol Bowman's forum.

Nope, nope and nope. People tend to call 'em as they see 'em. Post cobblers about how Ouija boards work and people will probably tell you that you're posting cobblers.

By indicating it, I was also hoping that you will find that not all who might be "believers" are dishonest crooks or dellusional.

Not at all. Many are ignorant or stupid. Some are a combination of two or more of those factors.

As I said, there are plenty of normal, respectable and serious people placing an enormous amount of effort and time into attempting to better understand the phenomena. Namely, what must clearly be an association between mediumnity, reincarnation and the afterlife.

What a waste of time. Go and play with your children.

Have a great weekend, everyone. I'll be back tomorrow...

Charles

My psychic powers tell me you'll be back with a "I see everyone can't be nice, so I'm taking my ball and going home" post.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Has he really just attempted to tell us how we have to behave? And that after he made it clear on that other forum that he is here just to poke at us?

That attitude is just disgusting.

Charles, Ouija is crap. Deal with it. There is nothing to discuss unless you bring very, very good evidence for it. Not just some anecdotes from your woo friends. And definitely not if you think you can tell us how often and what style to post. This is a forum that is mainly populated by skeptics. Lot's of them, for that matter. This is not your kindergarten where you have any position to set the rules.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Not to mention that he was caught lying already. Anyone remember his silly "you put words in my mouth" game?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

As I said, there are plenty of normal, respectable and serious people placing an enormous amount of effort and time into attempting to better understand the phenomena. Namely, what must clearly be an association between mediumnity, reincarnation and the afterlife.

It seemed like such a reasonable post most of the way through only to crash and burn right at the end.

The only association (and it is indeed very clear) between mediumnity (is that really a word), reincarnation and the afterlife is that none of them exist, no matter how normal (whatever that is), respectable and serious the whackos who believe in them may appear to be.



ETA: Oh, yeah. I nearly forgot to comment about this bit:

What I would request is that the replies after each post I might make should be limited to a maximum of three on your part.

 

[Sledge]

It seemed like such a reasonable post most of the way through only to crash and burn right at the end.

Really? I thought it went tits up shortly after "Hello."

 

[Akhenaten]

Really? I thought it went tits up shortly after "Hello."

I have an extraordinary definition of "most of the way through" which actually means "the first two words".

 

[Sledge]

Do you have evidence for your extraordinary defini-

Sorry, wrong thread.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Charles, why don't you try the ouija board experiment suggested to you by several posters on this thread? Provided that it's done properly it doesn't matter if the participants are believers, sceptics or a mixture of the two. Your unwillingness to try this very simple experiment suggests to me that you know the result will be meaningless gibberish.

 

[Garrette]

It is time that I revealed something critical to evaluation of Charles' evidence; it is something I have lived with for a very long time and which I have to my personal shame kept hidden for years.

Don't laugh. This post is not a joke.

Many years ago I worked for Parker Brothers and dealt with the packaging and design of the Ouija Board. At the time, I was firmly convinced of what I have already said in this thread: that the ideomotor effect is responsible for moving the planchette and creating the answers to questions.

I say that I "was" firmly convinced because during my time at Parker Brothers I learned something which shocked me and changed my belief system entirely, though I have kept this change secret until now.

I will be blunt: The ideomotor effect has nothing to do with the Ouija Board. It's fact. Bear with me and remain open-minded and you will come to understand.

I will be blunt again: Spirits and mediums also have nothing to do with the Ouija Board.

The simple truth is this: Roswell.

There. I said it. Roswell. And Freemasons.

You've no idea how much of a relief it is to get this off my chest. I can imagine what you are thinking as you read this, but I must ask again that you keep an open mind as I explain.

Embedded within each Ouija Board and planchette are quantum computers, so advanced and so small that they are undetectable by ordinary means. These computers not only store a vast amount of information on nearly every person on earth (and their ancestors), but they also hold remarkably sensitive detectors and a self-teaching AI.

The basic history is this (I won't go into details because there is no point just yet): The Freemasons found themselves losing power and influence to other secret societies and began searching for a tool to reverse the trend. Along came William Fuld, an employee of the men who patented the Ouija Board in the United States. Roswell not having occurred yet, Fuld was obliged to rely on the Freemason network of operatives to be present at as many Ouija Board sessions as possible. (Incidentally, this was one of the reasons for the popular idea that paranormal phenomena are more convincing when they miss a lot--he couldn't get operatives at every session).

Still, this method proved tedious and expensive, and the Freemason slide into obscurity continued. Then came Roswell. Few realize it, but General Ramey was a Freemason. His fortuitous position as senior officer at the site allowed him access to technology beyond our ken.

The route from Roswell itself to Parker Brothers is a bit too byzantine for discussion here, but suffice it to say that the trip was made and history's greatest mediumnistic hoax was soon in place.

The quantum computers in the Ouija Board are phenomenal, not ony for their ability to determine the sitters, but also for the fact that they can determine the mood of the sitting. Is it a party environment? Great, light-hearted jokes from the board, attributable to a non-existent ideomotor effect. A serious seance with those seeking confirmation of a pre-conceived idea? Easy-peasy: just comb the database and feed back that which is most convincing, modified based on analysis of the continued questions of the sitters.

It goes on, but I think you get the point. I am sorry to have played my part in this hoax, but if I do not post again you will now know why.

I will end this post by reiterating that this post is not a joke (I am serious about that). It may, perhaps, not be accurate, but its purpose is serious. If you have an open-mind you will understand.

 

[Akhenaten]

It is time that I revealed something critical to evaluation of Charles' evidence; it is something I have lived with for a very long time and which I have to my personal shame kept hidden for years.

I've nominated this post, mainly so that when the black helicopters come, as they must, and this thread is expunged from the public record, the truth will still be out there, so to speak.

 

[Garrette]

I've nominated this post, mainly so that when the black helicopters come, as they must, and this thread is expunged from the public record, the truth will still be out there, so to speak.

Much obliged, my liege.

 

[Olowkow]

I hope you will have realized by now that what I am truly after is a serious and unbiased evaluation of the phenomena.

One cannot evaluate a phenomenon until one has evidence of the phenomenon, then a serious and unbiased evaluation of the evidence is in order. Just in case someone neglected to mention this, "anecdotes" are not evidence.
I posted a video of a Ouija demonstration. It contains a simple test that proves, beyond any possible rigging by liberal non-believers, that it is merely a child's toy. I am still hoping Charles will spend a few moments to view this.

 

[AdMan]

I hope you will have realized by now that what I am truly after is a serious and unbiased evaluation of the phenomena.

I can't believe you wrote that with a straight face. You have done nothing to convince us you are after any such thing.

Thought I'd take a poke at those "skeptics"...

Oh, sorry, I'm not supposed to quote you outside of what you write here, correct?

Already this is starting to look like a rehash of the first 20 pages in this thread.

 

[Olowkow]

Oh yes, please, everyone owes it to himself to watch Derren Brown's Ouija board demonstration. If you have never heard of Derren Brown, you might want to search further on this name.

When re-reading my post above, I notice that I used the word "proves". This is perhaps a bit strong, and I would prefer to use the term "provides evidence", then we can evaluate the evidence and determine what it "proves". The test demonstrates that the spirit or some other force is very likely not moving the glass, while the fingers just go along for the ride. It shows clearly using physics that the people are causing the glass to move.

The experiment does not provide evidence that the spirit is not causing the people to act in unison to move the glass. Other simple experiments, already discussed here, can be done to provide evidence that this is not possible.

Taken together, all this evidence can go a long way to proving that the Ouija experience is not due to spirits.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

A child (or [great] grandchild)* of one of James IV's illegitimate daughters may well have married into the Stewarts of Appin, but given that the Dugald, the first Chief of the Stewarts of Appin, was born around 1446 and was formally granted the land in 1470, and that James IV's illegitimate children were born between 1493 and some point prior to 1510, I think the claim that the Stewarts of Appin are descended from an illegitimate daughter of James IV is misleading. The S of A were there first!

*The marriages of all James IV's illegitimate children who survived infancy are known.

I'm baffled by Charles' family tree and suspect that a bit of wishful thinking is at work here.

An enormously detailed genealogical account of the Stewarts of Appin can be found here:

http://www.chuckspeed.com/balquhidder/history/Stewarts_of_Appin.pdf

From it we learn that Duncan, fourth chief of the Stewarts of Appin and grandson of Dugald, married Jonet Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntley. There seems to be some doubt about the date of Duncan's death but Jonet was still alive in 1558.

Now, one of King James IV's illegitimate daughters was Margaret (born c. 1497), whose first husband was Lord John Gordon, son of the 3rd Earl of Huntley. They had three sons including George Gordon (born 1513), who became the 4th Earl of Huntley.

George Gordon married Elizabeth Keith, by whom he had five sons and three daughters. None of the daughters were named Jonet or married into the Stewart of Appin family, although Elizabeth - who died before 1557 - did marry John Stewart, the 4th Earl of Atholl.

The 5th Earl of Huntly, also called George Gordon, had no daughters. Neither did his successor.

I have no idea who the mysterious Jonet Gordon was, but on the basis of a few hours research it doesn't seem that she was an illegitimate granddaughter of King James IV. Perhaps there has been some confusion between the Stewarts of Atholl, into which family Elizabeth Gordon married, and the Stewarts of Appin?

 

[Audible Click]

I thought Mr. Boden was long gone but lo and behold, he's back again with specific instructions on how the discussion in this thread is to be handled. Sorry, Mr. Boden but if you're going to post here you have to follow the forum rules. You don't get to choose the form of debate and you don't own the thread.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Thought I'd take a poke at those "skeptics"...

Oh, sorry, I'm not supposed to quote you outside of what you write here, correct?

Come on, you are merely putting words in his mouth

Greetings,

Chris