CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

[Pixel42]

I don't quite understand this.
Could anyone point me to where I can learn about this 'slow play' phenomena?
I'm not sure what it's called.

It's called electronic voice phenomena. Slowing down the recording is not necessary to produce apparently meaningful sounds, though obviously it increases the chances of doing so eventually.

http://www.skepdic.com/evp.html

 

[steenkh]

My understanding is that the ideomotor effect can use such clues to produce small muscle movements without the conscious awareness of the dowser. So by ensuring no such clues are available you starve the ideomotor effect of the information needed to produce unexpected accuracy.

http://www.skepdic.com/ideomotor.html

I concede the point. Thank you!

 

[steenkh]

It's called electronic voice phenomena. Slowing down the recording is not necessary to produce apparently meaningful sounds, though obviously it increases the chances of doing so eventually.

http://www.skepdic.com/evp.html

So, what Connie has been doing with her tape recording is to see if new apparently new voices appear when the tape is played slowly? It sounds to me as if she is also trying to imply ghosts or otherwordly entities are involved in the abduction of Madeleine because this is what EVP is usually used to signify!

 

[fls]

The negative result of this test does not allow you to conclude that Connie does not have any paranormal abilities.
Neither does it allow you to conclude that she does not have the particular claimed ability that was being tested.
In fact, all you can say is that, on this occasion, and under these particular circumstances, Connie was unable to demonstrate her claimed ability.

In more scientific terms: the null hypothesis has not been disproven.
The null hypothesis is that "Connie does not have the claimed ability".
The negative outcome of this test of her claimed ability means that the null hypothesis - that "Connie does not have the claimed ability" - has not been disproven.)

regards,
BillyJoe

I think that you are coming at this from the wrong direction. It is true that there is more room for missing an effect than there is for finding an effect, so that a conclusion that an effect is not present is less reliable than if one had been found. However, what is really at issue here is whether or not the information that Connie used to form the idea that she had paranormal abilities is present. Since that information was present and did not support Connie's conclusion that it represented paranormal knowledge, one can conclude that it was false for Connie to think that she had paranormal abilities in the first place.

Linda

 

[pakeha]

Connie Sonne

Thanks for the link and explanation, Pixel42.
An interesting site.
I also found this
209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:z7tGK32HBhQJaranormal.about.com/b/2007/06/30/cemetery-lights-and-evp.htm+slow+play+audio+psychic+phenomena&cd=8&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es

Steenkh-it rather looks that way.
Still, I lost the plot when the dog signalled the house.
I can't get it out of my head someone could actually go to Portugal, believe this experience to be of interest to the police and not immediately report the possibility a hi-profile missing girl could be in a house they knew about.
And then bring it in to a dicussion about 'cheating' at TAM7 over a year later.
I'm new, obviously.

so new I can't banish the smiley from the non-link I found.

 

[phyz]

The negative result of this test does not allow you to conclude that Connie does not have any paranormal abilities.
Neither does it allow you to conclude that she does not have the particular claimed ability that was being tested.
In fact, all you can say is that, on this occasion, and under these particular circumstances, Connie was unable to demonstrate her claimed ability.

In more scientific terms: the null hypothesis has not been disproven.
The null hypothesis is that "Connie does not have the claimed ability".
The negative outcome of this test of her claimed ability means that the null hypothesis - that "Connie does not have the claimed ability" - has not been disproven.)

regards,
BillyJoe

Fair enough. Though the line in my post wasn't intended to be an exact statement of the MDC result. It was a personal reflection based on what I had seen. In fact, the manner in which I wrote the line was not so bold as to masquerade as a conclusion:

The clearly observable evidence suggests you have no paranormal/supernatural/psychic abilities.

I used a "weasel word" because I know the type of eagle-eye forumites who post here! And because I had to to be accurate.

I fear I came close to treading on a trip-wire that you were watching for. To their credit, no other posters wandered anywhere near it. No worries though; I wasn't attempting to make a definitive conclusion of the MDC. I leave that to others, and I think yours was much better suited to that purpose.

My statement holds up OK on its own: What I have observed of Connie Sonne leads me to believe she has no "connection" (to use her term). That's different from from a conclusion that categorically states she has no connection.

Oh and Scrut--don't discourage her. My popcorn is popped and I'm trying to enjoy the show. Each of Connie's posts makes the picture... clearer.

 

[Empress]

Welcome to the JREF, pakeha.

Is this the link you're trying to post?
http://paranormal.about.com/b/2007/06/30/cemetery-lights-and-evp.htm

 

[SkepticScott]

Why not? Even the statistical odds of 1:1000 of winning the $1M prize are better than playing the lottery.

The odds are set at 1:1000 to pass the preliminary test by chance, and 1:1000000 to pass the final test test by chance, for a total chance of 1:1000000000 of winning by chance.

 

[ejk]

The odds are set at 1:1000 to pass the preliminary test by chance, and 1:1000000 to pass the final test test by chance, for a total chance of 1:1000000 of winning by chance.

Either I'm reading this wrong or there's a math problem here. If the odds are 1:1000 (1 to one thousand) on the preliminary test, and 1:1,000,000 (1 to one million) on the final, aren't the odds that someone randomly passes both consecutively 1 to (1000*1,000,000) or 1,000,000,000 (one billion)?

 

[BartiDdu]

the null hypothesis has not been disproven.
The null hypothesis is that "Connie does not have the claimed ability".
The negative outcome of this test of her claimed ability means that the null hypothesis - that "Connie does not have the claimed ability" - has not been disproven.)

On this I believe there's no room for disagreement.

Sometimes I ponder what the point of the million dollar challenge is if even the claimants who fail spectacularly, as this one did, don't even stop to think that maybe that is because paranormal powers are not real.

Because the test could never have proven that.

However, the 'pondering' here was not about proof. Just as many of us here believe it immensely unlikely that such powers exist on the basis that there's no reason to believe they do, unless those such as Connie Sonne were married so strongly to their delusions, it would not be unreasonable to expect them to question their premises on the evidence of such a failure.

 

[steenkh]

The odds are set at 1:1000 to pass the preliminary test by chance, and 1:1000000 to pass the final test test by chance, for a total chance of 1:1000000 of winning by chance.

This is not what has been communicated by the JREF. In fact, it has been stated that the protocol will be exactly the same on the second test as on the first, though possibly with more controls like cameras or whatever, in place. If the odds for each test is 1:1000, then the combined odds would be 1:1 million.

However, it happens often that the JREF has not insisted on odds of 1:1000 for a test. Lower odds have been accepted, and even suggested during protocol negotiation.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Dear Connie, I am a paranormal claimant myself so I really listen to what you have to say and I consider it carefully before I conclude one way or another, as opposed to some Skeptics here who might be pre-determined to see things one way only. But I regret to say that your story about Madeleine sounds like delusions about conspiracy theories. Not specifically because you claim to have gone to Portugal based on some intuitive hunch, only to find that the reason you were there was to see Madeleine, nor because of the voice recording itself, but what reveals reason for concern is that you seem to think that the JREF, the people working with your MDC, and the Danish television are all part of some global kidnapping cover-up. I fail to see that and I also have no reason to doubt that the MDC and the IIG West Challenge are real challenges and with real prizes.

The reason the JREF did not address your claims recarding the voice recording and Madeleine's case was because the evidence you claimed to have is insufficient and unreliable, and also because the JREF and the IIG West do not deal with these things. You also say that you were promised an hour for the MDC Preliminary Test and that you weren't given a full hour. The reason if you did not spend an hour on the test is because you finished the test in less than an hour and not because of some conspiracy against you. Don't you see that? This is another reason why you come across as delusional.

If you really do think that the JREF treated you unfair, the claim of dowsing for cards is a very straightforward one and if you have this skill you can demonstrate it and verify it with almost anyone, especially with someone local to your area in Denmark. It does not have to be the JREF! Find any scientist who is willing to let you try this test with them.

And Connie, be very careful when you express paranormal claims that could be harmful or distressing to people whether the information you give turns out to be right or wrong, especially with what you said would be the fate of Madeleine.

We don't want another one of these,

Or we'll have to have another one of these,
http://www.stopsylvia.com/

 

[steenkh]

I fail to see that and I have no reason to think that the MDC and the IIG West Challenge are real challenges and with real prizes.

Huh?

The first part of the sentence has no connection to the second part, and the second part is a very serious accusation. If Connie Sonne has been duped to spend a lot of her money travelling to Las Vegas for a bogus test with no "real prize", she would have grounds for suing the JREF. Can you substantiate your accusation?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

steenkh, a simple type-o that I caught as I was re-reading the post and fixed it before I even read your post!
It now says,

I fail to see that and I also have no reason to doubt that the MDC and the IIG West Challenge are real challenges and with real prizes.

I do think the challenges and the prizes are real!

 

[SkepticScott]

Either I'm reading this wrong or there's a math problem here.

Or a typo on my part. I originally wrote "1e9" but figured that may confuse people, so I rewrote it just before lunch. I was in a hurry and mistyped. I meant 1:1000000000. I'm sorry for the confusion.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

The problem of course is that such people think the self-testing they have done is equivalent to the sort of test JREF will do. Read her description of how she convinced her parents again:

I found it interesting in her account of that event that she had the foresight to include the two "g"s necessary to spell her father's name correctly.

 

[Pixel42]

I found it interesting in her account of that event that she had the foresight to include the two "g"s necessary to spell her father's name correctly.

Huh?

A dowsing pendulum can indicate the same card twice, you know.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The man(who kept M) said:

...because they PUNISHED you....

when you play that slow(normally speed is 1,0) 0,6, another voice says :

he is HURTING me here...

Where Maddie said:

why it means DOUBLEKICK...(in normal speed), another voice says :

why you GO AWAY, when you play it slowly(0,6)
It is so clearly, but NOONE has mentioned it.

Also Bart Farkas and Mark Edward got it sunday - but NOONE has mentioned it! Instead Mark Edward wrote nasty things about me.

At that time, in december 2007 and several times last year, I of cause gave it all to the police, and also FBI( they have probably the best labs in the world)....but JUST silence.

And you know why??? Because NONE of the, including James Randi and IIG want me to get through. They

This smacks of moving the goalposts, Ms. Sonne. I thought we were discussing your claims to be able to do psychic dowsing (or something to that effect). In fact, the preliminary test by the JREF was set up specifically to test your dowsing claims, not claims about EVP.

So why are you now suddenly talking about EVP? More importantly, why are you continuing to make further insinuations about the honesty of the JREF people in regards to your new EVP claims? This smacks of poisoning the well.

Please stick to the topic at hand, Ms. Sonne.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

Huh?

A dowsing pendulum can indicate the same card twice, you know.

Sorry. You're right.

I was thinking of the same sort of set-up as at the preliminary challenge, where the cards are removed from the assortment as soon as they are chosen, not a ouija board sort of set-up.

Back to lurking.

 

[Marcus]

Either I'm reading this wrong or there's a math problem here. If the odds are 1:1000 (1 to one thousand) on the preliminary test, and 1:1,000,000 (1 to one million) on the final, aren't the odds that someone randomly passes both consecutively 1 to (1000*1,000,000) or 1,000,000,000 (one billion)?

The mods have clarified this before. The overall odds of 1 million to 1 can be satisfied by passing both the prelimaniry and final tests each with 1000:1 odds. The numbers aren't baked in stone, though, some challenges cannot even be quantified in this way.

Edited to add: I see that Steenkh has already covered this, never mind.