Looking for Skeptics

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Yes, I know what she said:

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}since this is what I have quoted several times.

That's why I have been asking her to email me that file, so I could hear this purported spirit clearly but quietly say: "It's evident we don't belong in a circus" or the earlier version "we don't belong in a circus".

If you could remind her to email that file to me, then I can have a look at the file.
(10 seconds ago I had not received anything from her)

You wont hear it' its hiding behind a frequency .

 

[Daylightstar]

You wont hear it' its hiding behind a frequency .

I'll look behind the frequency ....

 

[IXP]

If it is hiding behind a frequency we can simply filter out that frequency. Then is will be clear and unmistakable, and the world will be saved! Hurrah!

IXP

 

[scrappy]

Vortigern99

At some point between the above-quoted post (from the previous page of this thread) and his new posts on this page, Mr Roberts has learned how to punctuate correctly.

Pointing out grammar mistakes is as useless as constant accusations , hence why we are on page 86 .

 

[Donn]

She said the sentence was clear but very quiet, Mr's S heard it. There is the same sentence said in an electronic voice, loud but behind a frequency.

Good good, then she won't mind emailing that file to Daylightstar? Yeah?

 

[Donn]

Pointing out grammar mistakes is as useless as constant accusations , hence why we are on page 86 .

Oh, some windmills are worth a tilt.

 

[Alderbank]

Yes, I know what she said:

... a spirit clearly but quietly says "It's evident we don't belong in a circus" ...

since this is what I have quoted several times.

That's why I have been asking her to email me that file, so I could hear this purported spirit clearly but quietly say: "It's evident we don't belong in a circus" or the earlier version "we don't belong in a circus".

If you could remind her to email that file to me, then I can have a look at the file.
(10 seconds ago I had not received anything from her)

Daylightstar, your ellipses make this look like a statement but the unabridged quote in post #3819 is actually a hypothetical question

So even if a spirit clearly but quietly says "It's evident we don't belong in a circus" this is still Paredolia? All the explanations they come out with, whilst others are present, is still Paredolia?

 

[iknownothing]

So if recordings were made and transcribed by flaccon alone, after which the recording was delivered to you and you listened and transcribed it alone, the two transcriptions would exactly match. Is this correct?

Unless the spirits alter the recordings when different people listen. (I don't know if that's what she means about spirits altering recordings.)

Renaming the file Wimbledon, is using power of suggestion, on a file that has been wrongly titled. It is very misleading. As I said, this recording you have made a mistake with, has been recorded at my home with the Rev C. Her file titled evidence, is one made at her home back in December.

So your entire beef is that he changed the title of the recording -- which he explained his reasoning for. Is that what you meant by saying:

And the rest what you have written is wrong and badly misguides the group .

That implies that you are accusing him of more than just changing one title. ("the rest what you have written"). Is there anything else at all that you object to?

 

[Alderbank]

Pointing out grammar mistakes is as useless as constant accusations , hence why we are on page 86 .

scrappy, be in no doubt that the reason we are on page 87 and still without a claim or protocol is because of your refusal to answer posts such this one:

I am sorry if you feel that what I have written is wrong and badly misguides the group. When you say 'this post' which do one you mean? I welcome your disagreement. That is how we will progress. However the courtesy here is to repost and take it apart point by point and explain why it is wrong.


I realise that both you and flaccon have a thing about file names. The file which I renamed 'Wimbledon' was actually called 'Evidence' by flaccon when she gave it to me so you are also wrong about the name. Others here will understand why I renamed it.

So please quote the post or posts which badly misguides the group and add your corrections. I think I can say that we will all look forward to reading what you have to say.

 

[scrappy]

Unless the spirits alter the recordings when different people listen. (I don't know if that's what she means about spirits altering recordings.)



So your entire beef is that he changed the title of the recording -- which he explained his reasoning for. Is that what you meant by saying:



That implies that you are accusing him of more than just changing one title. ("the rest what you have written"). Is there anything else at all that you object to?

Alderbank has created another story in hash 3345. I did'ent phone Flaccon with excitement at all. She phoned me asking what on earth I sent her. Please refer to hash 3342 of what really happened.

 

[Daylightstar]

Daylightstar, your ellipses make this look like a statement but the unabridged quote in post #3819 is actually a hypothetical question

It's most certainly not a hypothetical question, it concerns the sentence a Mrs S was claimed by flaccon to also have heard in a recording ... minus the "It's evident" perhaps.

The question was a statement of claim.

 

[pakeha]

The first 6 years were the years that I witnessed what the spirit was doing to other members of my family. I witnessed it and reported it to the local Bishop, and they dealt with it.

Could you explain how they dealt with it, please?

...Flaccon has recently informed me that the spirit said, if these forms of contact are not good enough, they will enter into her television (they politely used the word "invade") ...

That poor woman.

Anyway, how's the protocol shaping?

 

[Alderbank]

It's most certainly not a hypothetical question, it concerns the sentence a Mrs S was claimed by flaccon to also have heard in a recording ... minus the "It's evident" perhaps.

The question was a statement of claim.

Some people would say that a question is not a statement and vice versa. It ends in a question mark so it is a question and it begins 'so even if...' therefore it is hypothetical.

This site takes no prisoners. If my grammar is wrong I'm sure I will be corrected

ETA Sorry, derail over. Did somebody mention 'protocol'?

 

[Biscuit]

Pointing out grammar mistakes is as useless as constant accusations , hence why we are on page 86 .

I agree with you. It's as pointless as repeating the same claim over and over again without any evidence to support the conclusion. That is why we are on page 87.

I don't think anyone here doubts that voices are being heard. What we doubt is the conclusion that the voices are spirits. How do you intend to validate the conclusion that the voices are spirits?

ETA: We don't doubt your conclusion because we are close minded or being mean. We doubt it because there is zero objective and verifiable evidence for the existence of "spirits" in the first place yet alone any evidence for the specific claims made by yourself and flaccon.

 

[IXP]

I don't think anyone here doubts that voices are being heard. What we doubt is the conclusion that the voices are spirits. How do you intend to validate the conclusion that the voices are spirits?

I think most of us doubt that voices are being heard. I think random noise is being heard and interpreted as voices. And I am able to do so myself, if I force it. But I would never say that they were actually voices.

IXP

 

[Vortigern99]

Pointing out grammar mistakes is as useless as constant accusations , hence why we are on page 86 .

I'm pointing out the discrepancies in your posting, Mr Roberts, which call into question the validity of your contributions here. We're on page 86 because you and Tracey avoid questions, refuse to state plainly your claims, ignore pointed criticism, neglect to agree upon or even suggest any testing protocols, yammer about inconsequential nonsense, and provide no clarification of your vague non-sequitur assertions.

EDIT: or rather, page 87

 

[Daylightstar]

Some people would say that a question is not a statement and vice versa. It ends in a question mark so it is a question and it begins 'so even if...' therefore it is hypothetical.

This site takes no prisoners. If my grammar is wrong I'm sure I will be corrected

ETA Sorry, derail over. Did somebody mention 'protocol'?

It would have been cleaner if I had quoted the first time that claim appeared, from this post.

 

[Alderbank]

flaccon,

If you are having trouble making a long post of your full claim, try a sequence of short ones, instead.

When stating your claim or claims, try to leave out as much interpretation as possible. For example, "the spirits alter the file'' is interpretative. The heart of the matter is that the file was altered. So, focus on that: In what observable way was it changed, and what effect did the change have?

Early on, you had the claim the voices you heard in the recordings were clear and distinct. You have since backed off that claim, but as statements of claims go, that one wasn't bad. You have also claimed the spirits can see what you see. Not so good a claim; it focuses on what you interpret is going on, not any sort of observable event.

I think the current claim is something like this: An audio file with no voices discernible by scrappy when first played on his computer when later played back after flaccon listens to a copy of the same file on her computer will match whatever flaccon heard.

Notice I dropped out all the spirits doing things to files and computers. That may well be what is happening, but we need to focus on the observable for now.

Is that what is being claimed? It seems to match what scrappy was saying. If it is, then the obvious follow-on question is does scrappy have to be told what you heard before he can hear it, too?

If the answer is no, then we have the basis for a protocol maybe. If yes, on the other hand, well, you should think about the implications that would have.

scrappy, this was a very good suggestion which was made yesterday. You have not commented so far. What do you think about it? Shall we give it a try?

 

[Biscuit]

I think most of us doubt that voices are being heard. I think random noise is being heard and interpreted as voices. And I am able to do so myself, if I force it. But I would never say that they were actually voices.

IXP

Fair enough.

I was hoping to drive home the idea of testing the origin of the voices instead of just repeating the claim of voices.

 

[Alderbank]

It would have been cleaner if I had quoted the first time that claim appeared, from this post.

It's a great question and I'd love to know the answer as well. Are you there, flaccon?