Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alderbank said:
..for some meanings of respectful :D:D:D
Click to expand...

I saw the easy insult too. I won't personally report any insult to me. I'd rather Scrappy leaves on his own, defeated, than for anyone to leave because they were banned. Then they'll claim elsewhere they were banned because they were right about the paranormal. ☻☺☻
 
Can someone remind me what happened to the original protocol that triggered the Alderbank visit? I had thought it was because flaccon's relatives were unwilling to help.

You may recall the loose protocol was flaccon would be shown a card selected at random from a deck of 52 playing cards, and then she'd have 30 minutes or so to generate a "silent" recording in which she clearly hears the exposed card being identified. She'd make three such recordings for three different cards, then the recordings would be heard by someone else who reliably hears what flaccon hears on these sorts of recordings.

Family may be of no help, but it sounds like scrappy is right for the task.

So, do we already have a protocol, or will the spirits so desperate to show themselves refuse to show themselves?
 
Biscuit said:
Yea I just figured that out as well. This, of course, is more evidence that they are experiencing pareidolia. That they all uniquely hear their own names is rather expected.

It's ironic that in attempting to provide evidence that they are not experiencing pareidolia both scrappy and flaccon have actually created a rather nifty protocol for demonstrating pareidolia. I realize there are easier ways but I just find the irony rather amusing.
Click to expand...

It's great innit? We should use this thread as a demonstration of how claimants shouldn't behave, what claimants should not do and how easy it is to make everyone think that you're as mad as a box of frogs.
 
jsfisher said:
Can someone remind me what happened to the original protocol that triggered the Alderbank visit? I had thought it was because flaccon's relatives were unwilling to help.

You may recall the loose protocol was flaccon would be shown a card selected at random from a deck of 52 playing cards, and then she'd have 30 minutes or so to generate a "silent" recording in which she clearly hears the exposed card being identified. She'd make three such recordings for three different cards, then the recordings would be heard by someone else who reliably hears what flaccon hears on these sorts of recordings.

Family may be of no help, but it sounds like scrappy is right for the task.

So, do we already have a protocol, or will the spirits so desperate to show themselves refuse to show themselves?
Click to expand...

That was one of the goalposts that were moved. We tried that but the spirits refused to cooperate and went in a sulk. Flaccon had a hissy fit after that and claimed that the spirits weren't zoo objects. No, I'd say that they were impersonators of Angelica Pickles from The Rugrats.
 
flaccon said:
..., We don't belong in a circus. I listened in with her and said to her "I doubt you will hear that sentence its too long" She replied "Yes I got that sentence too" ...
Click to expand...
flaccon said:
... a spirit clearly but quietly says "It's evident we don't belong in a circus" ...
Click to expand...
Hilites by Daylightstar
flaccon, do you have in your possession a file in which such a sentence can clearly (and apparently repeatedly) be heard?

If so, I'd like to hear it. Could you email that file (email address via the icon below my post count) to me?
I'll extract the audio and post it here.
 
jsfisher said:
Can someone remind me what happened to the original protocol that triggered the Alderbank visit? I had thought it was because flaccon's relatives were unwilling to help.

You may recall the loose protocol was flaccon would be shown a card selected at random from a deck of 52 playing cards, and then she'd have 30 minutes or so to generate a "silent" recording in which she clearly hears the exposed card being identified. She'd make three such recordings for three different cards, then the recordings would be heard by someone else who reliably hears what flaccon hears on these sorts of recordings.

Family may be of no help, but it sounds like scrappy is right for the task.

So, do we already have a protocol, or will the spirits so desperate to show themselves refuse to show themselves?
Click to expand...

IIRC flaccon tried on her own and was unable to discern the identity of the cards so she rejected that test out right. The in person visit comenced anyway with the idea that her process would be observed and nothing more. This observation would be able to help in determining a protocol. As nothing paranormal was observed at the time no protocol could be determined without an actual claim. We are waiting for the claim.
 
tuxcat said:
And another reason why flaccon doesn't want to find out if she can speak to the dead or not is that she makes money from claiming to do just that. If it was found out that she couldn't she'd lose money.
Click to expand...
This is not a useful remark, and will only convince flaccon that we're just insulting her for the sake of it. She's made it perfectly clear that she only ever charged petrol money.

jsfisher said:
Can someone remind me what happened to the original protocol that triggered the Alderbank visit?
Click to expand...
flaccon heard the spirits say something like "we don't do card tricks" and decided that meant they wouldn't co-operate with such a test and it therefore wasn't worth doing.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
flaccon heard the spirits say something like "we don't do card tricks" and decided that meant they wouldn't co-operate with such a test and it therefore wasn't worth doing.
Click to expand...


So, all we have then are spirits that can reveal no fact not already known to the listener.

flaccon and scrappy: Is that really the case? Please think about what that really means and how significant it is. Have the you learned anything factual, anything at all, from the spirits you didn't already know?
 
Delurking to say that at least I've learned something from this thread: now I know what an MD5 hash is. [/relurking]

Oops, unlurking one more time: flaccon, consider the fact that I have read this entire thread without participating until now. How many others might be doing the same thing? Do you really want all of us to think you are unwilling/unable to work with people to effectively test your claims? You could show the truth (whatever it is) to more than just those interacting with you here.[/relurking again]
 
The protocol thread has been classified as a call out thread and moved to AAH. I guess I can see why. So we'll need to discuss any test protocol in this one.
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
I saw the easy insult too. I won't personally report any insult to me. I'd rather Scrappy leaves on his own, defeated, than for anyone to leave because they were banned. Then they'll claim elsewhere they were banned because they were right about the paranormal. ☻☺☻
Click to expand...

Sorry if you thought that was a insult was not ment as one .
 
Pixel42 said:
The protocol thread has been classified as a call out thread and moved to AAH. I guess I can see why. So we'll need to discuss any test protocol in this one.
Click to expand...

I was in the process of replaying to that thread while it was in the process of being moved and closed. I will omit the quotes from specific posts now in AAH, lest I offend those who hand out yellow cards. The rest reads still ok:


Flaccon was unable or unwilling to state a testable claim on her own in the other thread [i.e. this thread] after many, many pages. This [i.e. the other] thread will fare no better.

I think Pixel42 has the right approach. Feed her vague statements back to her, and then help her narrow them towards something more precise, well-defined, and ultimately testable.
 
Flaccon the first thing to do is to fill out the form in post 3135 and re-upload it once it's been filled in. That way we'll know what you and your spirits can do. That's the only way we'll make any progress.

Scrappy: if you have a paranormal claim and want it tested please fill in the form also and change the name at the top in bold.
 
jsfisher said:
I was in the process of replaying to that thread while it was in the process of being moved and closed. I will omit the quotes from specific posts now in AAH, lest I offend those who hand out yellow cards. The rest reads still ok:


Flaccon was unable or unwilling to state a testable claim on her own in the other thread [i.e. this thread] after many, many pages. This [i.e. the other] thread will fare no better.

I think Pixel42 has the right approach. Feed her vague statements back to her, and then help her narrow them towards something more precise, well-defined, and ultimately testable.
Click to expand...

With a lot of luck she'll fill in the protocol form and reupload it when it's completed. If everyone could download it then they have a reference.

Don't worry if you don't have MS Word; LibreOffice will open it and write it as a .doc without any bother. LO is available for Windows, Mac and all flavours of Linux.
 
flaccon's latest claim was "the spirits can transfer into James Randi's laptop and speak to him". flaccon first needs to confirm that this is the claim she wants tested, or suggest an alternative.

Assuming she wants to run with this one, before we could come up with a test protocol flaccon would need to clarify what it means by specifying the exact sequence of events which she would expect to happen on Randi's laptop when the spirits transfer into it.

We can then discuss whether there are any alternative ways in which that sequence of events could occur, and if so devise ways to rule them out.

Throughout the process we need to keep in mind that clear success criteria are required, and that whether or not they are met must be self evident i.e. no judgement (by Randi or anyone else) must be required.

So flaccon the ball is in your court. (Why yes, I have been watching the tennis ;) )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom