• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

I was reading this thread and noticed this inconsistancy in Connie's posts:

In Connie's post #381

"I`ve not manipulated with the voices, I stíll have the original taping on my recorder."

Followed by her post #382

"Back at the hotel I got some of the irrelevant noices away with a program called Wawepad. When I played the voices slowly another voices said something else!"

So Connie has in fact manipulated the voices to obtain a predetermined result as she makes it clear in later posts that the "evidence" cannot be heard when the recording is played normally.
 
Last edited:
GzuzKryzt said:
The thread title is "CONNIE SONNE, Dowser". Many of the posts in this thread seem to me - at best - tangents of tangents to the OP.

I expressed my chagrin that this seems a recurring theme in many threads of this subforum. This was meant as a bit of a challenge to people to actually say something.
Click to expand...

No. Actually, you misunderstood my post, ranted a bit, we pointed it out and you got upset, instead of just leaving it at "I misunderstood". That would have sufficed.

GzuzKryzt said:
It could also be that I found nothing of interest to me in these posts. Perhaps other forumites view this differently and this thread helped them in some way.
Click to expand...

Then why are you reading these posts, let alone replying? Seems odd...
 
laca said:
No. Actually, you misunderstood my post, ranted a bit, we pointed it out and you got upset, instead of just leaving it at "I misunderstood". That would have sufficed.
Click to expand...

That would have sufficed. I don't think I would describe my behaviour as you did.

laca said:
Then why are you reading these posts, let alone replying? Seems odd...
Click to expand...

I want to learn. See new angles. A different point of view. And challenge people to help me learn by actually saying something.

Let's leave it at that because it seems fairly off-topic.
 
Linda,

Perhaps I should clarify my position.

Let us consider X such that
1) there is no evidence for X
2) there is no plausibility for X

In my opinion, no evidence and no plauibility for X does not preclude X from existing. Therefore, it is unjustifiable to proclaim that:

"THERE IS NO X"

I am happy to say only that "there is no evidence and no plausibility for X". And I take your position that, as a result, X will have no practical influence on my life whatsoever unless and untill that situation changes.


Relying on the absence of evidence alone:
Physx was happy to dismiss anything for which there is merely no evidence. In response, I said that, in 440BC Greece, there was no evidence that atoms existed and, on that basis, he would have proclaimed that "There are no atoms". He would, of course, have been wrong.
But, as you rightly point out, atoms are not actually implausible so the situation with atoms is not the same as the situation with paranormal phenomena which lack both evidence and plausibility. I accept that.


The aether:
I have to clarify again that I was referring to the hypothesis that posits the aether as an absolute reference frame. The result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is incompatible with an absolute reference frame and is therefore postive evidence that the aether does not exist. By this definition of the aether, your argument (that it means only that the aether does not exist in the space in which the experiment took place) is false.


regards,
BillyJoe
 
Last edited:
laca said:
Do you really think there can be positive evidence against paranormal abilities? How about positive evidence against the pink unicorn?
Click to expand...
Well yeah. There hasn't been a horse that was born with a horn in the middle of its head that is also pink. You can go look at all the horses on this planet to prove it. I guess an albino horse might look pinkish, depending on how long its hair is though? Again, you can go look at all the horses on the planet to see if this is case.
 
connie sonne said:
Hi out there...now I know why Banacheck was "the card handler". I have been cheated. I did find the right cards. And there is one more thing. At the stage, Banacheck said to me BEFORE he even looked in the envelope I had cut...and here is spade ace, the one you looked for!!!! I first hit me now about that ....but maybe you can see it yourself if someone get the video. I don`t care about the money, that wasn`t the reason why I came. So no matter what you think out there......I was CHEATED!!!!!

Connie
Click to expand...


Darned conspiracists! They always give a good plot away, just like Larry Silverstein when he said "pull it" - they just don't know when to keep their mouths shut.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Originally Posted by laca
Do you really think there can be positive evidence against paranormal abilities? How about positive evidence against the pink unicorn?
Click to expand...
Well yeah. There hasn't been a horse that was born with a horn in the middle of its head that is also pink. You can go look at all the horses on this planet to prove it. I guess an albino horse might look pinkish, depending on how long its hair is though? Again, you can go look at all the horses on the planet to see if this is case.
Click to expand...


He means evidence that proves that it does not exist.
 
connie Sonne, failed claimant

Thanks, Björn Toulouse for reposting the lady's own words.

I did find the right cards.
Click to expand...

Is the lady claiming the cards she 'dowsed' were switched?
When?
 
BillyJoe said:
Linda,

Perhaps I should clarify my position.

Let us consider X such that
1) there is no evidence for X
2) there is no plausibility for X

In my opinion, no evidence and no plauibility for X does not preclude X from existing. Therefore, it is unjustifiable to proclaim that:

"THERE IS NO X"

I am happy to say only that "there is no evidence and no plausibility for X". And I take your position that, as a result, X will have no practical influence on my life whatsoever unless and untill that situation changes.
Click to expand...

My position is that the statement "there is no X" has the same meaning as "there is no evidence and no plausibility for X". I don't think it could mean anything else.

Relying on the absence of evidence alone:
Physx was happy to dismiss anything for which there is merely no evidence.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? Phyx only said that Connie did not have paranormal abilities. You said yourself that paranormal abilities lack evidence and plausibility.

The aether:
I have to clarify again that I was referring to the hypothesis that posits the aether as an absolute reference frame. The result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is incompatible with an absolute reference frame and is therefore postive evidence that the aether does not exist. By this definition of the aether, your argument (that it means only that the aether does not exist in the space in which the experiment took place) is false.

regards,
BillyJoe
Click to expand...

So if I said, "the aether does not exist", you would similarly chastize me as you did phyz?

If so, what do you think "x does not exist" means?

Linda
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Well yeah. There hasn't been a horse that was born with a horn in the middle of its head that is also pink. You can go look at all the horses on this planet to prove it. I guess an albino horse might look pinkish, depending on how long its hair is though? Again, you can go look at all the horses on the planet to see if this is case.
Click to expand...

No, you cannot look at all the horses. Also, who said anything about it existing on this planet? It can be floating in space for all I know...
 
fls said:
My position is that the statement "there is no X" has the same meaning as "there is no evidence and no plausibility for X". I don't think it could mean anything else.
Click to expand...

"there is no evidence and no plausibility for X" does not exclude the possibility that, nevertheless, X could still exist.
"there is no X" means categorically that X does not exist based on the fact that, at the present time, there is no evidence and no plausibility for X. I don't think that is a justifiable conclusion.

How do you know that? Phyx only said that Connie did not have paranormal abilities. You said yourself that paranormal abilities lack evidence and plausibility.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I mischaracterised his opinion. I would have to go back and look. Or perhaps he's still around to tell us.

So if I said, "the aether does not exist", you would similarly chastize me as you did phyz?
Click to expand...
No, because there is positive evidence that the aether, by the definition I have given, does not exist.

If so, what do you think "x does not exist" means?
Click to expand...
"x does not exist" means exactly what it says "x does not exist". Bnd it seems to based on there being, at the present time, no evidence and no plausibility for X and I think that reasoning is flawed. X could still exist despite there being no evidence and no plausibility at the present time.

BJ
 
Last edited:
Billy Joe,

Can you give me an example of something that we think exists for which there is no evidence or plausibility? It would help me to understand why you think a distinction can be made.

Linda
 
Maybe it would help if I rephrase the question:

Can you give me an example of something that we now know exists for which there was previously no evidence or plausibility?

A quantum fluctuation would be one example.
 
fls said:
Billy Joe,

Can you give me an example of something that we think exists for which there is no evidence or plausibility? It would help me to understand why you think a distinction can be made.

Linda
Click to expand...

There is not much evidence for gravity waves. Yet we think they exist.
 
BillyJoe said:
Maybe it would help if I rephrase the question:

Can you give me an example of something that we now know exists for which there was previously no evidence or plausibility?

A quantum fluctuation would be one example.
Click to expand...

Okay, that helps. What were quantum fluctuations called before we knew they existed?

Linda
 
Last edited:
BillyJoe said:
"there is no evidence and no plausibility for X" does not exclude the possibility that, nevertheless, X could still exist.
"there is no X" means categorically that X does not exist based on the fact that, at the present time, there is no evidence and no plausibility for X. I don't think that is a justifiable conclusion.
Click to expand...

Depends on how pedantic you want to get. In strict mode, you are absolutely right.

BillyJoe said:
"x does not exist" means exactly what it says "x does not exist". Bnd it seems to based on there being, at the present time, no evidence and no plausibility for X and I think that reasoning is flawed. X could still exist despite there being no evidence and no plausibility at the present time.

BJ
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm sure there were plenty of examples during history to support this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom