Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Daylightstar said:
Touché :)
Thank you.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll admit to being a little snarky in my post, but it's not all that often you get a really, really good opportunity to use Let-me-google-that-for-you. Thanks for that, and thanks for taking it well.

:)
 
jsfisher said:
I just pulled a letter got from my GP. No watermark and no logo, but it did have a header giving the address and naming the principals in the practice. And those are the same things I see in the top half of flaccon's letter, plus or minus the correction fluid.
Click to expand...
OK. I will try to set that suspicion aside - no matter how odd I find it. Thanks for the comment.
 
The "Our Team" link on their website gets you to the qualifications of the various partners and salaried GPs.
Of one of the partners the GP's letter gives a D.F.F.P. qualification, where the website gives a D.F.S.R.H. qualification instead.
Not sure what to think of this discrepancy.

There appear to be some (more) discrepancies in this listing also.

The body of the letter remains at (extreme) odds what would one expect from a health care professional.
 
chillzero said:
OK. I will try to set that suspicion aside - no matter how odd I find it. Thanks for the comment.
Click to expand...

I think you should. This is most likely a webcam shot of an nth generation copy.
As such it tells us nothing. Unfortunately for flaccon, the converse is true, it proves nothing.

If JS could mail me the files received, I would happily take a look to see what can be gleaned.
 
Daylightstar said:
The "Our Team" link on their website gets you to the qualifications of the various partners and salaried GPs.
Of one of the partners the GP's letter gives a D.F.F.P. qualification, where the website gives a D.F.S.R.H. qualification instead.
Not sure what to think of this discrepancy.

There appear to be some (more) discrepancies in this listing also.

The body of the letter remains at (extreme) odds what would one expect from a health care professional.
Click to expand...

I'd scan it and upload it if I could be bothered, so that you could see it but having checked (like jsfisher) a letter from my GP, I find it to be pretty much in the same format and on standard A4. I'm happy to declare flaccons letter genuine but seeing as we cannot see what I believe to be crucial text, I think we should be looking for clarification here rather than speculating about it's authenticity.
 
Last edited:
I think the letter is a red herring; all it does is confirm that flaccon told the doctor that she experiences pareidolia - it doesn't help with flaccon's claim. It doesn't help the protocol or the defining of her claim(s) - both of which we need from flaccon before we can proceed with any meaningful test.
 
tuxcat said:
I think the letter is a red herring; all it does is confirm that flaccon told the doctor that she experiences pareidolia - it doesn't help with flaccon's claim. It doesn't help the protocol or the defining of her claim(s) - both of which we need from flaccon before we can proceed with any meaningful test.
Click to expand...


Page 83. No defining of claims. No agreed-upon protocol. Your tenacity impresses me. :cool:
 
abaddon said:
If JS could mail me the files received, I would happily take a look to see what can be gleaned.
Click to expand...

I would be happy to if and only if flaccon agrees. The higher-resolution originals have more bleed-through than flaccon may have realized. I think it only fair she gets a chance to preempt with an "Oops!" before I share the images.
 
jsfisher said:
I would be happy to if and only if flaccon agrees. The higher-resolution originals have more bleed-through than flaccon may have realized. I think it only fair she gets a chance to preempt with an "Oops!" before I share the images.
Click to expand...

As much as I'd love to know what diagnostic clues are hiding under the liquid paper, I understand it's none of our business.

I can imagine how much the docs at that clinic were pestered to end up writing such a letter.
 
tuxcat said:
I think the letter is a red herring; all it does is confirm that flaccon told the doctor that she experiences pareidolia - it doesn't help with flaccon's claim. It doesn't help the protocol or the defining of her claim(s) - both of which we need from flaccon before we can proceed with any meaningful test.
Click to expand...
spot on.
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
As much as I'd love to know what diagnostic clues are hiding under the liquid paper, I understand it's none of our business.

I can imagine how much the docs at that clinic were pestered to end up writing such a letter.
Click to expand...

Why do you think these are diagnostic clues? Perhaps they are the GP seperating him/herself from any suggestion towards validation of flaccon's claims.
 
Daylightstar said:
Why do you think these are diagnostic clues? Perhaps they are the GP seperating him/herself from any suggestion towards validation of flaccon's claims.
Click to expand...

I don't know that that's what lies under the paint. I thought I remembered Flaccon saying there was mention of "disabilities" being covered up in the letter.

Whatever it is, it doesn't help Tracey's case, or she would proudly show it. I'm pretty sure there's nothing backing up the idea that there are spirits in the recordings and drops of blood.
 
Daylightstar said:
Dark text as already given by scrappy was obscured in the letter, why?
Click to expand...

Guess:

Scrappy has a different copy, probably part of the starter kit when you ask Tracey for a "demonstration". He left out the parts he knew flaccon would not approve of showing, but didn't recognize "that Tracey identifies as her late father" as an issue. There is still more to that paragraph.
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
I don't know that that's what lies under the paint. I thought I remembered Flaccon saying there was mention of "disabilities" being covered up in the letter.

Whatever it is, it doesn't help Tracey's case, or she would proudly show it. I'm pretty sure there's nothing backing up the idea that there are spirits in the recordings and drops of blood.
Click to expand...

And it certainly does not appear to be "a strong letter", as scrappy called it:
scrappy said:
... the GP wrote her a strong letter aimed towards the Bishop of Chester , ...
Click to expand...
 
Summary of 83 pages.

Original claim: I make recordings of silence and listen to them at full volume, and the voices of spirits speak to me, and answer my questions in clear, unmistakable sentences. Others can hear the same thing I can.

Evidence presented: A few files that alledgedly have single words on them.

Evalution of evidence: A multitude of forum members listened to the files and heard no words.

Secondary claim: When I first listen to a recording that was recorded on someone else's laptop, their file is altered and they can hear the same thing I can.

Evidence presented. File copied from forum member jsfisher to Robin Roberts' computer then to flaccon's, who listens to the file. Robin confirms that the file has been altered and he can hear his name on it. Allegedly altered file is sent back to jsfisher.

Evaluation of evidence: No change to MD5 hash indicating that the file was not changed from the original. Forum members do not hear Robin's name on the file.

"Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is"

Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller

IXP
 
Last edited:
Maurice Ledifficile said:
Guess:

Scrappy has a different copy, probably part of the starter kit when you ask Tracey for a "demonstration". He left out the parts he knew flaccon would not approve of showing, but didn't recognize "that Tracey identifies as her late father" as an issue. There is still more to that paragraph.
Click to expand...

But like you say, not in support of flaccon's claims.
Perhaps the opposite, and I'd like to see it. It would be better for flaccon if others would see such 'non support'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom