Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
flaccon said:
No I don't. I did at first, I thought they were the desperate ones, and that's clearly not the case. They'll choose to do what they choose to do, and who to do it with. I've no control over that.
Click to expand...

So the ghosts choose to do what they want, with whom they want, as long as objective standards are not involved.

Strange.
 
Pixel42 said:
What's ridiculous is attributing meaning to obvious examples of pareidolia in the absence of objective evidence.

If your voices are really predicting the future then you can design an objective test protocol to prove it. But whenever this is suggested your voices make excuses and get upset, which suggests that at some level you know they are all in your imagination.
Click to expand...

They really are, and I can't design them anything. These are not imaginary voices, and I accept that you believe them to be.
I can't tell them what to do or how to act, it's very the opposite.
 
Loss Leader said:
I'll up it to a cool million if you can produce proof within 72 hours.

Do I have a million dollars?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=681&pictureid=8600[/qimg]

Yes.
Click to expand...

Let me know what constitutes as proof and I'll do my best.
 
Biscuit said:
If your investigators conclude that nothing paranormal is occurring what will your next step be?
Click to expand...
Not much danger of that - paranormal investigators wouldn't last long if they went around not finding the paranormal, now would they?


flaccon said:
I don't know how the press work, so I've no idea a time.
Click to expand...
Ask the reporter - they usually have some idea of when the story is scheduled to run.
 
barehl said:
I could post similar pictures from my house. As I recall, flaccon doesn't see my posts because she has me blocked. That's too bad. I know half a dozen different methods for getting rid of pesky ghosts. Also, you can stop demonic influences from getting out onto the internet by using a spirit trap.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't actually block anyone. What folk make of the evidence is their right to do so.
 
Last edited:
flaccon said:
They really are, and I can't design them anything. These are not imaginary voices, and I accept that you believe them to be.
I can't tell them what to do or how to act, it's very the opposite.
Click to expand...
Without objective evidence you can't be sure the voices are predicting the future, that is just your perception which may or may not be accurate. Lots of people perceive, for example, predictions made by astrologers and psychics to be more accurate than would be expected by chance, but objective testing proves they are not.

Give us some examples of what you consider were successful predictions and we might be able to design an objective test protocol for you.
 
flaccon said:
I wouldn't actually block anyone. What folk make of the truth evidence is their right to do so.
Click to expand...

You should have said "evidence" instead of "truth" since truth implies that you made up your mind before you saw the evidence. This is your first reply to me in this thread so you must be finding my posts annoying. And, if you actually believed what you've said, you would have been curious about things I've mentioned. BTW, after mentioning the broken jewelry, most here have already diagnosed you with a form of Munchausens.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
Without objective evidence you can't be sure the voices are predicting the future, that is just your perception which may or may not be accurate. Lots of people perceive, for example, predictions made by astrologers and psychics to be more accurate than would be expected by chance, but objective testing proves they are not.

Give us some examples of what you consider were successful predictions and we might be able to design an objective test protocol for you.
Click to expand...

I don't need help with a protocol. I had to move on from there.

Example;
Message date-stamped 30th Sept (Rob's PC)
"If you listen, - - - - - - will soon get pregnant"
Message date-stamped 12th Oct (New PC) "Tracey, - - - - - 's pregnant"
Actual announcement of pregnancy - 22nd Oct.

Example.
Message date-stamped 16th Jan -
"A bolt of lightening striking.. a brazillian statue"

Example. Message date-stamped August 2013
"They're gassing the people"
 
If you think those are convincing examples of predictions you certainly need help designing an objective test protocol. The only one that's at all impressive is the middle one.

ETA And that's assuming that the words were heard before the event, not made out afterwards in a recording made earlier.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
If you think those are convincing examples of predictions you certainly need help designing an objective test protocol. The only one that's at all impressive is the middle one.
Click to expand...

I really don't find any of it impressive. I don't need the help for a test but thanks. Once it's exposed (by whatever means) my jobs done and I'm back to being me again.

ETA, Yes the words were made out before the events took place. The latter I'm unsure of. I heard it clear enough but had no idea what they were implying. It was 3 weeks later when I heard about the gassings.
 
Last edited:
flaccon said:
I don't need help with a protocol. I had to move on from there.

Example;
Message date-stamped 30th Sept (Rob's PC)
"If you listen, - - - - - - will soon get pregnant"
Message date-stamped 12th Oct (New PC) "Tracey, - - - - - 's pregnant"
Actual announcement of pregnancy - 22nd Oct.

Example.
Message date-stamped 16th Jan -
"A bolt of lightening striking.. a brazillian statue"

Example. Message date-stamped August 2013
"They're gassing the people"
Click to expand...


For all of these date-stamped messages, when did you actually listen to the message and determine it said what you claim? For example, the October 12 message, did you decide it said someone was pregnant before October 22?
 
flaccon said:
I really don't find any of it impressive. I don't need the help for a test but thanks. Once it's exposed (by whatever means) my jobs done and I'm back to being me again.
Click to expand...
There's only one means of proving (or disproving) what you believe to be true: objective testing. In its absence no rational person will take your claims seriously, even if you do manage to get them reported in the press.
 
barehl said:
You should have said "evidence" instead of "truth" since truth implies that you made up your mind before you saw the evidence. This is your first reply to me in this thread so you must be finding my posts annoying. And, if you actually believed what you've said, you would have been curious about things I've mentioned. BTW, after mentioning the broken jewelry, most here have already diagnosed you with a form of Munchausens.
Click to expand...

Then be satisfied with your medical assumptions and stop giving me attention. The moment this is exposed you won't see me for dust anyway. Or hear from me personally again. So that's your Munchausens out the equasion.
 
Pixel42 said:
There's only one means of proving (or disproving) what you believe to be true: objective testing. In its absence no rational person will take your claims seriously, even if you do manage to get them reported in the press.
Click to expand...

Rome wasn't built in a day, the press is a good enough start
 
jsfisher said:
For all of these date-stamped messages, when did you actually listen to the message and determine it said what you claim? For example, the October 12 message, did you decide it said someone was pregnant before October 22?
Click to expand...

I ignored the first message because the woman had not long had a child. I asked her sister (on the 12th Oct) after hearing that "-----" was now actually pregnant. She said no chance of that. On the 22nd it was announced that "----" was 2 weeks pregnant
 
Last edited:
flaccon said:
They've broken near every piece of jewellery I own. My diamonds are also internally smashed up. They were telling me that they were going to break a mountain. To prove this ability, they told me to check my diamonds. They want to break a diamond at the ASKE challenge competition. Bit far fetched isn'it. However far fetched, I'm only going to say what I know to be true, and of course evident until scientifically proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

flaccon said:
Sorry Mojo, I was replying to "what are you talking about now" I replied "same as yesterday" I've not actually met with ASKE yet.
Click to expand...

flaccon said:
I am not at all surprised by rejection, nor am I put off by it. I'll not be denying the truth simply cos you can't deal with it.
Click to expand...

That is not rejection. There is nothing to reject. All you have done is present baseless claims. You decline to identify the "investigators", the newspaper, the reporter, your supporters, the groups around the world, the evidence you have, nothing.
 
flaccon said:
Rome wasn't built in a day, the press is a good enough start
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that a local newspaper reporting that some family claims dead relatives are talking to them through their computer speakers is evidence of paranormal activity? Really? Newspapers have human interest pieces on such nonsense all the time. What does that mean? What value does that have? If a newspaper reported that people are using homeopathy, should that be considered evidence of the pharmacological effect of homeopathy?

Why is the press a good place to start? "The Press" prints absurd nonsense everyday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom