• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Critic’s “Top 15” claims by psychic detective Noreen Renier

Rodney: "I congratulate you on a mathematical breakthrough: "My numbers 1,2, and 7 equal 9 when totaled." You forgot you must compensate for the shift between our world and that of those contacted in the hereafter. That's a loss of one. This lack of your understanding only further verifies that you are stuck in a limited realm of current understanding. But I'll leave you to prove the scientiific basis for anything other than a drift factor of 1.
 
Rodney said:
So, who's right -- Posner, who was not involved in the investigation, but who after-the-fact attempted to discredit Renier; or Slaughter, who directed the investigation from Day 1?
Click to expand...

Nobody knows. But Slaughter's demonstrably made statements which contradict reality, whereas Posner hasn't.
 
Inviting Gary Posner to tackle Rodney's doubts

I for one am certain that Renier's total lack of credibility has been showcased now across her books, her claims, and in court rooms. That determination has now been made by police agencies, officers, her latest federal court judge, and several eye-witnesses. And Rodney apparently doesn't want to question any of it as highlighted at http://www.commentarybysherlock.com/commentarybysherlock/runwaypart1.asp and also indexed at http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/IndepthRenier.html

That Rodney wishes to overlook all of this material and still pretend that there must be droplets of truth and paranormal ability yet to be found --- even amid the dam break waters already analyzed --- so be it. I leave him to wallow in the delusions of credibility that he seeks.

I have however just e-mailed Gary Posner to make him aware of the question about when the railroad tracks were found. As he is clearly the investigative on-site authority on this case we'll see if he replies.
 
Sherlock said:
I have however just e-mailed Gary Posner to make him aware of the question about when the railroad tracks were found. As he is clearly the investigative on-site authority on this case we'll see if he replies.
Click to expand...
I look forward to his response.
 
PIC-13---Fairbanks-Morse-Pa.jpg

Something has caught my attention. Police Chief Slaughter mentions seeing the old “wooden” truck Fairbanks Morris scale. I happen to know that the spelling should be Fairbanks – Morse, a highly diversified company from 1830 that continues to operate today in manufacturing scales as Fairbanks Intalogix Technology.

I began to wonder why someone would abandon such a scale near a quarry, and why such a scale would ever resemble a bridge. Wood quarry scales were introduced in mass volumes about 1865 by Fairbanks – Morse and a picture of a reconditioned "wooden" one is shown at http://www.ci.kirkwood.mo.us/content/2014/historic-kirkwood-train-station.aspx

The first thing you notice is that this traditional Fairbanks-Morse “railroad scale” does not resemble a bridge. It’s very small and compact and resembles a large hand cart. Yet this is the standard Fairbanks-Morse railroad scale. Now notice the photo attached here. It too does not resemble a bridge.

This represents the Fairbanks – Morse scales that were also upright and a few of which were embedded into level concrete platforms. Even fewer yet of these types were designed to measure materials on rails --- small 18" rails typically used with rolling carts to weigh materials for construction or blasting --- with the only wood being the wooden rail ties that held the “tracks” leading up to the scale, not on or near the scale itself.

If you think of railroad cars (like freight trains) you're entirely off base here --- as I suspect someone wanted you to be who came up with the "looks like a bridge" concept. Such scales were not designed by Fairbanks-Morse as the full-size rail tracks are not raised since you would like to “glide” the heavy material --- typically 20-70 tons per ore car --- over the scale, not raise them up to a scale.

So the first problem we have is why a “wooden” scale would not be like the one in the linked photo as that is in fact the standard Fairbanks-Morse rail scale.

Even if just slightly larger, the biggest “wooden” versions still resembled a small cart like shown in the linked photo or when embedded in concrete housings the level platform was not much larger than an quarry or mining ore car --- think Indiana Jones. And even these larger versions had large upright round “scale faces” like shown here in the photo above. (Thanks and credit for use of this image to TradeWestSales.com)

They don’t look like a bridge either, but might have been abandoned as many were embedded in a concrete base. Some were mounted and protected inside small open sheds that the rail cars passed through --- but nothing resembling a bridge. And typically not much more than 5' long!

You will note something else in the photo of the “cart” version shown in the link. It has wheels. And the wheels are likely set at 18” apart --- the typical distance between the steel rails for most ore cars used near a quarry. Fairbanks-Morse scales used to weigh loading supplies were based on 18” wide rails that were just 2 ½” tall --- versus 7” high and 50 ½” wide for a standard railroad rail.

This then brings up the question of what were the “rails” found at the quarry? Though it’s less likely there were also 3’ wide gauge rails used on some quarry tramways.

However the more massive scales for such 3’ or 50 ½” wide rails would not have been constructed using a base of wood as the weight is up to 70 tons for a full-size filled ore car. Such scales didn’t use wood as part of the scale or ties over the scale for good reasons.

This then takes us back to the “wooden” Fairbanks-Morse upright “cart” scale (typically from 120 to 400 pounds plus an optional concrete base like the largest one shown here.

But again neither these cart versions or the larger “platform” 3’ gauge or 50 ½” gauge scale resemble a bridge. And only the smaller “cart” version is made of wood.

This is truly disturbing. How does one confuse a “cart” or an upright scale with a bridge? And is the “railroad” track in fact just 2” tall x 18” wide quarry ore car track for a dumper-system to a (likely) conveyer system? If so --- and it seems highly likely if we believe the brand named and the "wooden" remark --- then it has nothing to do with a railroad, a railway, or a train. And another claim is likely bogus.

And if full-size railroad gauge --- how does a flat platform scale for 70 ton ore cars resemble a bridge? Indeed how could an elevated “flexible” weigh scale hold a 70-ton ore car? And why was such a thing connected to Fairbanks Morse --- who did design trains, but not wooden scales for such weights and sizes.

Nothing resembling a "bridge" makes sense when connected to an abandoned Fairbanks Morse scale, unless the "bridge" is likely a good deal less than 5' across to handle an "ore cart length" with a specially designed scale for limits up to 20 tons.

Someone it seems may have a lot of facts wrong or be telling a tall story. And even the tall story is likely to be close to just 6 feet tall in the middle and only about 34” - 47" across. That's not a bridge. It's a delusion.
 
Last edited:
And just in case anyone wants to argue that a Fairbanks Morse truck scale that was made of wood could look like a bridge, take a good look at the image at http://www.flickr.com/photos/80854523@N00/3676157492/ or at http://www.rockanddirt.com/equipment-for-sale/FAIRBANKS/10X75/invnum=33035909

Typically the wood versions were 9-14 feet long x 10' wide --- the days before super dump trucks and wider than 14' seperation of axles --- and the wooden beds were virtually level with the ground. The larger 12-14' wide x 16-75' long more modern versions were made of steel and likely came well after the close of the quarry, and in any case are NOT made of wood.

And why would any modern steel 40-75' scales be abandoned??? They'd be scrapped more likely.

More likely what was seen (if not related to ore cars) was a very old wooden 9-13' length one at ground level --- or 2" above "ground" as it's typically built over an even smaller reinforced pit. But even if 13' long and on level ground it isn't a bridge. It's a wooden spot on the ground. The footprint of a Honda Accord is over 16' long. This is near 3' less. It's the length from the steering wheel to the back license plate.

Perhaps someone near the quarry can take a picture. I for one don't anticipate seeing a "bridge" but a very small, very flat, wooden spot on the ground. Because that's what it is.

That's not a bridge. It doesn't look like a bridge. Even a bird wouldn't think it was a bridge. It would be hard to confuse it with even one side of a bridge since it's on flat ground. It's some metal frames sticking above ground.

A bridge less than the length of a Honda Accord and level with the ground --- a bridge? How about a flattened car port? Excuse me --- a flattened half of a car port!

And then the question becomes exactly how far away from the quarry was such a truck weighing scale. I suspect we're talking a great deal of distance as the loading of trucks would be after the conveyer system using the ore cars, or near the loading of trucks with overhead pick-up and loading systems. Those typically because they are mounted more permanently are some distance from the "hole" of the quarry.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock said:
Perhaps someone near the quarry can take a picture. I for one don't anticipate seeing a "bridge" but a very small, very flat, wooden spot on the ground.
Click to expand...
Again, I recommend that anyone interested view the video that Posner posted. You can judge for yourself whether the object in question resembles a bridge.
 
The abandoned weigh station on the video was likely shot from its side while standing in the gulley between the off-ramp to the weigh station and the main highway. Typically a distance of about 25-40'. If you are standing 5-10' down in a gulley then even normal pavement above with or without a guard rail would look like a bridge.

Particularly at the angle and low-light shot in the video. The "sparkle" is likely from metallic side supports, or just the shine from the end of a damp or smooth 6" - 10" side layer of asphalt. And very likely the only part of the abandoned weigh station of this type that was constructed of the wood is the wooden operator "shed" shown on the video which also housed the scale readout --- ones much like my photos. The "pit" for this type of scale mechanism was less than 4' square. And as the shimmer on the video shows this wasn't a wood plank topped weigh station, but sun-shine sparkle asphalt or concrete. Finally the State of Florida operated its weigh stations on highways to measure trucks that might damage the roads if overweight. This places the abandoned weigh station in question --- not a bridge by any means other than when shot from a gulley for effect --- on state land, not in the quarry. So just how far from the quarry was this flat asphalt covered roadway with a small and narrow weigh platform --- again about the footprint of a Honda Accord?

Well now, just how far does it have to be to be connected as a bridge to the same quarry? 500 feet? 1500' feet? A mile? Two miles? Five miles? This is Florida after all with real bridges almost everywhere. Not weigh stations.

Rodney --- you tell us. How far would this abandoned state weigh station need to be from the quarry to qualify in your mind as a "hit" that its a bridge? And while your at it examine the TV news reporter walking down that abandoned rail line. Notice the lack of rails on both sides? And the distance between where a rail might be? Does that look like 50 1/2" between rails? Or is this simply the 3' track that provided ore cars to the conveyer system? I smell a TV station that tried its best to make things look remarkable using angles, low lighting near sunset, and a reporter walking along a ore-carrier line. And as others have indicated, if you go looking hard for match-ups you are bound to find them.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock said:
Well now, just how far does it have to be to be connected as a bridge to the same quarry? 500 feet? 1500' feet? A mile? Two miles? Five miles? This is Florida after all with real bridges almost everywhere. Not weigh stations.
Click to expand...
Renier stated; "We're not too far from an old bridge. . . . Either it's been decayed or it's broken or it's not used." So, while it would been more accurate to add the word "weigh" before "bridge", her description is an accurate characterization of a nearby truck scale that is no longer in use -- truck scales are also known as "weigh bridges." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_scale

Sherlock said:
And while your at it examine the TV news reporter walking down that abandoned rail line. Notice the lack of rails on both sides? And the distance between where a rail might be? Does that look like 50 1/2" between rails? Or is this simply the 3' track that provided ore cars to the conveyer system?
Click to expand...
Renier simply stated: "There's a railroad track that goes through there," so what's your point -- that she should have been more specific as to the nature of the track?
 
Rodney said:
Again, I recommend that anyone interested view the video that Posner posted. You can judge for yourself whether the object in question resembles a bridge.
Click to expand...

Whether it resembles a bridge or not is irrelevant. It's not a bridge.

Rodney said:
Renier stated; "We're not too far from an old bridge. . . . Either it's been decayed or it's broken or it's not used."
Click to expand...

She also said it was called "The Old Bridge". Which it wasn't, because it's not a bridge.

So, while it would been more accurate to add the word "weigh" before "bridge"[...]
Click to expand...

Except it wouldn't have been accurate for her or anyone else involved in the case, because weigh bridges aren't called weigh bridges in the US, they're called truck scales.

Renier simply stated: "There's a railroad track that goes through there," so what's your point -- that she should have been more specific as to the nature of the track?
Click to expand...

If it is a track for an ore cart, then it's not a railroad. A railroad is what trains go on. So if it's a track for an ore cart, then it's not a hit, because it's not what Renier predicted would be there.

And if you're going to count a track for an ore cart as a hit when talking about a quarry, then you might as well count the sky as a hit, too. It would be just as unusual a find.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Whether it resembles a bridge or not is irrelevant. It's not a bridge.

She also said it was called "The Old Bridge". Which it wasn't, because it's not a bridge.

Except it wouldn't have been accurate for her or anyone else involved in the case, because weigh bridges aren't called weigh bridges in the US, they're called truck scales.
Click to expand...
Squeegee Beckenheim riddle:

"When is a bridge not a bridge"?

A. "When it's a weigh bridge."

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
If it is a track for an ore cart, then it's not a railroad. A railroad is what trains go on. So if it's a track for an ore cart, then it's not a hit, because it's not what Renier predicted would be there.

And if you're going to count a track for an ore cart as a hit when talking about a quarry, then you might as well count the sky as a hit, too. It would be just as unusual a find.
Click to expand...
First, it's not clear that the track that was discovered was used for an ore cart rather than for a railroad. Second, even if it was, to give Renier no credit because she inserted the word "railroad" before "track" is no more logical than to give her no credit because she failed to insert the word "weigh" before "bridge." Third, how did Renier know that Norman Lewis wound up in a quarry? Even if the police had taken seriously the handyman's belated and contradictory account that Lewis had been suicidal before his disappearance (and there's no evidence that they did), the handyman never pinpointed a quarry. Rather, he said that Lewis had told him that "he would find a river or pit" and that Lewis also alluded to "pits and canals." So, if the police believed that account, they would have narrowed the search down only to dozens of rivers, pits, and canals.
 
Rodney said:
Squeegee Beckenheim riddle:

"When is a bridge not a bridge"?

A. "When it's a weigh bridge."
Click to expand...

It's just the truth. If she'd seen a monkey and they found a monkey nut or a monkey puzzle tree would you count that as a hit, too?

First, it's not clear that the track that was discovered was used for an ore cart rather than for a railroad.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was. But it's good that you are now admitting that there might not even have been a train track there.

Second, even if it was, to give Renier no credit because she inserted the word "railroad" before "track" is no more logical than to give her no credit because she failed to insert the word "weigh" before "bridge."
Click to expand...

You're right, it's no more logical. It's also no less logical. It is exactly the same amount of logical - perfectly. If she didn't mean railroad, she shouldn't have said railroad. If she didn't mean bridge she shouldn't have said bridge.

Third, how did Renier know that Norman Lewis wound up in a quarry?
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you ask me questions like this, I'm still never going to be psychic.

But why don't you tell us your answer? How did Renier know where the body was, in your opinion?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's just the truth. If she'd seen a monkey and they found a monkey nut or a monkey puzzle tree would you count that as a hit, too?
Click to expand...
The problem here is that you're looking at this as an old or nothing, yes or no proposition. On a scale of 1-5, I would give Renier's statement that -- "We're not too far from an old bridge. . . . Either it's been decayed or it's broken or it's not used" -- a 4. Now, if she'd seen a monkey and they found a monkey nut or a monkey puzzle tree, I would give that a 2. To simply say "fail" because she didn't insert the word "weigh" before bridge doesn't make sense to me nor, I would suggest, to 90% of the world's population.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I didn't say it was. But it's good that you are now admitting that there might not even have been a train track there.
Click to expand...
Again, it's just a matter of degree as to how accurate Renier's statement was that "There's a railroad track that goes through there."

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You're right, it's no more logical. It's also no less logical. It is exactly the same amount of logical - perfectly. If she didn't mean railroad, she shouldn't have said railroad. If she didn't mean bridge she shouldn't have said bridge.
Click to expand...
We still don't know that "railroad" was inaccurate, and "bridge" was accurate -- just an incomplete description.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
No matter how many times you ask me questions like this, I'm still never going to be psychic.

But why don't you tell us your answer? How did Renier know where the body was, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
As I stated in Post # 95 on this thread, I think she was privy to some information that eluded the police. Did that information come via paranormal means? I'm certainly open to that possibility, but I also can't dismiss the possibility that she had some non-paranormal inside information. I think the least likely possibility by far is that she just got lucky.
 
Noreen Renier

Late Tuesday evening Gary Posner posted a late 4/19/2011 "Update" at
www.gpposner.com/Williston-forum-reply.html

which clearly contradicts Slaughter's timeline. At this point I'm going to drop out of the continual narrowing of the discussion down to a point which was not even one of those which began this thread. Attempting to find rational explanations for Noreen Renier's cryptic "psychic" visions is a sad state of affairs. Whether the truck weigh station can be seen as a bridge, or the rails found reflect railroad rather than ore carrier use are not the real questions. And the answer as to whether her credibility is worth further consideration has been reached by consensus. One doesn't see hundreds of law enforcement agencies begging for her assistance and coming forward publicly with their support.
 
Rodney said:
The problem here is that you're looking at this as an old or nothing, yes or no proposition.
Click to expand...

Which it is. If we're to score something as a hit, it should actually be a hit. If something doesn't fit what she said, then it doesn't fit what she says, no matter how much you, or anybody else, tries to twist it to fit.

To simply say "fail" because she didn't insert the word "weigh" before bridge doesn't make sense to me nor, I would suggest, to 90% of the world's population.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make it right. Especially as, as I've pointed out already, "weigh bridge" isn't even an American term. I'd be surprised if Renier has even ever heard the term. You belatedly latching on to the fact that a weigh bridge is called a weigh bridge in other countries and claiming that that makes it a hit doesn't make the clue better.

Again, it's just a matter of degree as to how accurate Renier's statement was that "There's a railroad track that goes through there."
Click to expand...

Which, if it's not a railroad track, is wrong.

We still don't know that "railroad" was inaccurate, and "bridge" was accurate -- just an incomplete description.
Click to expand...

Yes we do.

As I stated in Post # 95 on this thread, I think she was privy to some information that eluded the police. Did that information come via paranormal means? I'm certainly open to that possibility, but I also can't dismiss the possibility that she had some non-paranormal inside information. I think the least likely possibility by far is that she just got lucky.
Click to expand...

Let's have some unfuzzying, shall we? What percentage probability would you assign to all three possibilities?
 
Sherlock said:
Late Tuesday evening Gary Posner posted a late 4/19/2011 "Update" at
www.gpposner.com/Williston-forum-reply.html

which clearly contradicts Slaughter's timeline.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Posner's timeline relies only on a newspaper article that was published the day after Norman Lewis's body was found. Frequently, such "breaking news" articles don't have all of the facts straight. Moreover, if the article is right, the question arises: "Why was the Whitehurst pit, and only the Whitehurst pit, searched?" Posner's timeline does not answer that question. In his case study, he states:

"Following Renier's reading, did the police zero-in on one quarry to which Noreen's directions pointed? Hewitt says on Sightings that he 'walked around probably 30 quarries' before deciding that the Whitehurst pit most closely matched the totality of Renier's clues. Perhaps that was his reason for having the Navy divers scour that one pit, which did result in Lewis' body and truck being recovered. But his initial rationale for concentrating on the Whitehurst pit was described this way in his report filed six days after Renier's reading: '. . . the Whitehurst pits are an obvious first impression . . . being the closest and the most accessible from the Lewis residence.' (Although the 'eastern' pit was fenced off by this time, it had been easily accessible when Lewis disappeared, and it is half as far from Lewis' home as is Whitehurst.)

"As for this 'eastern' pit, a person with some inside knowledge of the police investigation (who allowed me to tape our conversation but requests anonymity) told me that this had been the 'prime target for the investigation' immediately following Renier's reading. 'They didn't think there was a [railroad] track [at Whitehurst].'"

So what caused the police to change their prime target from the eastern pit to the Whitehurst pit? Slaughter's timeline makes sense of this:

"Several months passed, and Hewitt was still on the hunt for Norman Lewis. By now, though, Hewitt had zeroed in on an old phosphate pit with cliffs, a couple of miles from Lewis's home. He found a steel rail in a heavily wooded area near the pit, but no railroad bed. The pit was located in the general direction from Lewis's house that Renier's hand-drawn map had shown.

"'One day, Brian's roaming around up there in the woods,' said Slaughter, 'and he finds a pile of red bricks. He went back to the rail he discovered earlier, started digging and found an old railroad bed underneath it. I called Levy County Sheriff's Department divers to come over and work the pit. But they came up empty. The pit had water in it 30 to 40 feet deep and was covered in vegetation.

"'So I'm up there at the pit with Brian after this, wondering where we go next, and I happen to look just right through the woods and see an old Fairbanks Morris Scale. It was a wooden truck scale that could be confused for a bridge.'

"Slaughter's confidence grew, and he got some Navy demolition divers to dive the pit on their off time. On their second day, they got a hit while using a magnetometer."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom