Looking for Skeptics

[Mojo]

then stop sniping at her, she is not a liar, and why do you avoid to explain the chewing gum story .

Tracey herself has said that she covers the lens (I've already posted about this once but you seem to have missed it):

Yes I cover the lens so I don't see myself all the time.

Exactly what she covers it with is trivial and unimportant.

 

[abaddon]

I think the unstated assumption is that the files are copies of the same original, hashed to spot changes. To have an MD5 hash collision in these circumstances seems incredibly unlikely.

But I'm no expert in this.

An MD5 fail is so far out that it is ridicuously improbabble. MD5 is sufficient as a first order exclusion of alteration or changes of any kind barring something wildly improbabble.

If such alteration is claimed, resulting in an identical MD5 for an altered file, we can simply level up to a better algorithm. Bear in mind that this becomes a new claim. The spirits can alter a file while retaining the same MD5.

ETA: Yay shift key fail. MD% means nothing to anyone.

 

[Mojo]

2818
Alderbank agreed for Tuesday ,

Yes, at 12:06pm and 12:25.

Tracy was not on line to confirm this .

Except when she posted in the thread at 1:27pm, 1:48pm, 1:54pm, 2:01pm, and 2:05pm, all on the same page as Alderbank's posts. Either she was on line at the time or we have another potential claim for the MDC.

Yes , Alderbank phonend Tracy unexpectedly at app 5.30pm and Tracy agreed with 90 mins notice .

Unexpectedly, unless she happened to have read the thread that she replied to five times between 1:27 and 2:05.

 

[dlorde]

It also shows she was lying about giving the letter to the bishop:

Unless the bishop sent or handed it back...

But I agree that the number of inaccuracies, contradictions, convenient coincidences, and the rejection of reasonable test protocols, makes the whole thing a toxic mess.

I don't think there is a testable claim in this. It's just some people hearing voices as some people are prone to do, and interpreting them as something they are not.

Nothing to hear here; move along now, please.

 

[abaddon]

Tracey herself has said that she covers the lens (I've already posted about this once but you seem to have missed it):


Exactly what she covers it with is trivial and unimportant.

Correct. You can cover the lens with whatever you wish. Bubblegum, cardboard, plastic cup whatever. The important point is that the lens is covered. Once the lens is covered, it's covered. What flaccon seems to miss, is that it makes no difference. The camera, once covered, will still record what it sees. What flaccon will get is a recording of darkness when the lens is covered. Fundamentally, the lens does not care what is before it, but records it anyway. Covering the lens is no different than closing your eyes and, say, claiming the cops are not in your house if you close your eyes, or your house is not actually on fire if you close your eyes, or your leg is not broken despite you being able to see it at an unexpected angle. A triumph of belief over certainty.

 

[dlorde]

Correct. You can cover the lens with whatever you wish. Bubblegum, cardboard, plastic cup whatever. The important point is that the lens is covered. Once the lens is covered, it's covered. What flaccon seems to miss, is that it makes no difference. The camera, once covered, will still record what it sees. What flaccon will get is a recording of darkness when the lens is covered. Fundamentally, the lens does not care what is before it, but records it anyway. Covering the lens is no different than closing your eyes and, say, claiming the cops are not in your house if you close your eyes, or your house is not actually on fire if you close your eyes, or your leg is not broken despite you being able to see it at an unexpected angle. A triumph of belief over certainty.

I don't see why all the fuss about it. She said she covers it so she doesn't keep seeing herself on the video. Of course, this raises the question of why she doesn't just record audio only, but it's now clear that such technicalities are beyond her.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

To clarify: I should not speak for anyone else, but it is obvious to me that the "chewing gum" reference was just a fun way of saying she covers the lens.

Iirc, she tapes a bit of cardboard over the lens "so she doesn't have to look at herself all the time". Something like that. The chewing gum bit is one the most irrelevant pieces of information to discuss on this thread. Get over it.

I am taking the liberty to assume that the bits that were whited out from the letter are the bits exposing the GP's concern for her mental health.

Scrappy:

I think we can handle talking to Tracey ourselves when she can connect again. How about speaking for yourself for a while?

I would like to smugly point out that the previous few posts on chewing gum were ninjaed by me three pages ago. Put them apples in your pipe.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Maurice Ledifficile #2754
I nod in agreement. Well said.

ETA Wen I wrote that, I did not realise there were so many subsequent pages to listen to!

It's never too late to compliment one of my posts. ☻


[I'm sure it was #2755 though]

 

[Orphia Nay]

Post 2755, and well said it is too:

Welcome back.

Please note that the fine folks here are trying to help you. Our explanations to you referring to technical issues with your computer, pareidolia and imaginative interpretation are all based on strong science and grounded in reality. You, on the other hand, have nothing but stories which don’t stand up to any scrutiny.

So far, you have formulated very few actual claims other than that you hear spirits and can recognize some of them. When you did make further claims, like “the spirits can hear”, “the spirits can see”, you then backtracked and said it wasn’t so. I can’t say you have been very honest with us. I hope you realize how much your claims change from one day to the next.

As far as I know, you are the one doing all the lying. Your shills, who evidently can’t string a few words together and make any sort of sense, are the only people who ever hear anything in your nonsensical “recordings”

I do not believe one bit that anyone has heard the same sentences you hear. No one here can, but Roberts and Bulger can... Sure buddy!

You offer no evidence for any of your claims. My stance on your experience is simple. You can choose to learn from your experience, accept that the events in your life are not due to demons and spirits, and move along; or you can go on playing make-believe with your inarticulate friends.

But you will need more than words to convince anyone here that you are honest, straightforward and willing to learn anything. The skeptics here were ready to accept a new reality, if you could demonstrate the veracity of your claims. You have failed. None of your recordings show anything special, let alone supernatural.

Face it, it’s time for you to consider accepting the difficult challenges you had to face in your life. Your father will not speak to you through electronic defects. You will not help anyone connect with spirits, although you could convince a few uninformed individuals to play along.

Playing the victim and accusing Alderbank of being dishonest will not help your situation. This thread is alive because it is interesting and intensely dramatic, but people will not go on forever trying to help you unless you start being honest yourself.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Unless the bishop sent or handed it back...

If the bishop handed it back, she would have had it when she'd said she didn't have it.

But yes, the bishop could have posted it back in between when she said she gave it to the bishop and when it was uploaded.

But I agree that the number of inaccuracies, contradictions, convenient coincidences, and the rejection of reasonable test protocols, makes the whole thing a toxic mess.

I don't think there is a testable claim in this. It's just some people hearing voices as some people are prone to do, and interpreting them as something they are not.

Nothing to hear here; move along now, please.

Nope, there's no testable claim, but it's fun seeing all the comments and questions, and the dodging and ignoring same.

Seriously, I do still have a small hope that flaccon will take an interest in the fascinating world of human fallibility and critical thinking. I'm an eternal optimist.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I don't like the odds, but I'll remain optimistic as well.


Tracey, come to the bright side. Bring cookies. ☻☺☻

 

[pakeha]

^
I saw what you did' there !

flaccon emailed me two JPG files. She had taken snapshots of the top and bottom parts of the letter. The originals were 1.3 MB a piece, so I rescaled them to a more storage-friendly resolution, and here they are....

Click to enlarge. The redacting was hers.

Yes.
The letter, as given, is a most curious document.
Why does Tracey think it's proof of anything?

Tracy was reluctant to upload it but posters requested it .

scrappy, that doesn't answer my question you know.

It appears to be an OBGYN.



I agree. No matter how you parse it, the redacted sentences cannot refer to a disability, it wouldn't make sense. Well... it would make sense if each of the paragraphs were related by a single disability, and I can only think of one type of disability which would factor in to each paragraph.

Quite.

I don't know what kind of medical doctor uses this type of language in a professional letter, but someone should be reviewing every diagnosis he's ever made.

I agree with you there.

...

Doctor slang is a dying art

Thanks for the link!

 

[SusanB-M1]

Post 2755, and well said it is too:

Thank you for posting that!

 

[Pixel42]

I don't think there is a testable claim in this. It's just some people hearing voices as some people are prone to do, and interpreting them as something they are not.

Nothing to hear here; move along now, please.

Agreed.

The irony is that we, unlike her GP and the bishop, are both willing and able to help her. But the help we can give her is not the kind she wants. She wants validation of her (and her friends') interpretation of their experiences, and we can only help her to invalidate it.

 

[laca]

You failed to quote where I posted, in that very post, that I was fully aware of the exceptions. If you really want to get into a debate about encryption and it's flaws, sure. But that would be off topic for this thread. Rest assured, I would bury you on that topic. I code this muck for a living.

You're right, I was reading on my phone and wasn't paying much attention. However, that last remark of yours invalidates the whole paragraph and you sounded like it was not a real issue.

And btw, bury me? What are you, 13? Also, hashing is not encryption. I know, I know, you'll bury me. Still, try to be precise in your use of terms, not everyone here is an expert like you and they might get the wrong idea. Like with the MD5.

 

[laca]

I think the unstated assumption is that the files are copies of the same original, hashed to spot changes. To have an MD5 hash collision in these circumstances seems incredibly unlikely.

But I'm no expert in this.

Yeah, extremely unlikely, unless it's deliberate.

 

[abaddon]

You're right, I was reading on my phone and wasn't paying much attention. However, that last remark of yours invalidates the whole paragraph and you sounded like it was not a real issue.

As to your first, fair enough, it cannot be understated how much I despise phone browsing for this very reason. As for your second, wrong. MD5 is really encryption.

And btw, bury me? What are you, 13?

Yup, I have a certain long term intimacy with encryption. And I am 44 if you must know.

Also, hashing is not encryption.

It most certainly is, and if you cannot figure out why, you don't get the priviledge of having an opinion.

I know, I know, you'll bury me. Still, try to be precise in your use of terms, not everyone here is an expert like you and they might get the wrong idea. Like with the MD5.

Precision is essential. In any crypto discussion lack of precision is disaster. You should know this.

 

[abaddon]

This thread is going nowhere fast. Flaccon is absent, and by the tone of her posts, in the grips of a hissy fit of some sort, scrappy will not answer any question whatsoever, dblue flat out stated no questions would be answered then vanished.

All we have are the various audio files, which have nothing, in terms of voices.

 

[Mojo]

This thread is going nowhere fast. Flaccon is absent, and by the tone of her posts, in the grips of a hissy fit of some sort...

Arrives looking for skeptical input, gets polite skeptical input and doesn't like it, starts changing claims and moviing goalposts, receives less polite skeptical input, takes offence, vanishes, returns to complain about how horrible everyone has been. This is a pattern I'm sure I've seen before.

I've seen "can't post because computer/interwebs is broken" before as well.

And idiosyncratic punctuation.

 

[tuxcat]

This thread is going nowhere fast. Flaccon is absent, and by the tone of her posts, in the grips of a hissy fit of some sort, scrappy will not answer any question whatsoever, dblue flat out stated no questions would be answered then vanished.

All we have are the various audio files, which have nothing, in terms of voices.

Flaccon is quite incapable of giving us a straightforward answer to the questions. 75 pages of special pleadings, goalpost shifting and strawmen has resulted in no protocol. She found skeptics, she just didn't want to hear the truth. I don't think she's a troll but I do think she's got a severe delusional disorder and suffers from hallucinations. Needs a psychiatrist rather than a gynae!