-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Critical Noreen Renier web site closing out
- Thread starter Sherlock
- Start date
Daylightstar
Philosopher
In this youtube video starting at 02:39:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkyov63FnWQ#t=147
Renier is saying:
These so called 'psychic investigations' are a sad and ridiculous joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkyov63FnWQ#t=147
Renier is saying:
It never 'does' in a timely manner
These so called 'psychic investigations' are a sad and ridiculous joke.
"A Mind for Murder" by Noreen Renier (with Naomi Lucks) got an average rating of 4.5/5 on Amazon, which is fairly high.
For comparison, Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions by James Randi (with an introduction by Isaac Asimov), which is, I believe, one of Randi's best known book, got a rating of 4.1/5, which is less.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not sure why this is relevant. First, this thread is not a contest between Renier and Randi, but rather a discussion of claims Renier has made. Second, the popularity of a book on Amazon is based on several factors. Which do you propose is relevant here?
Daylightstar
Philosopher
The number of stars indicates quality. When people see a book title suggesting (like in "Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions") that ESP is a mere "delusion", it is possible that they are not willing to give very high ratings to that book. I have already mentioned on this forum that apparently 41% of Americans believe in ESP: http://www.livescience.com/16748-americans-beliefs-paranormal-infographic.html (I suspect the number of Americans who really believe in ESP is actually much higher, and close to 100%, but they are not necessarily ready to admit it in a poll).
Now, regarding Renier's claims, even if some moderate and polite skepticism is appropriate (and perhaps sometimes even more than that, see Daylightstar's post above), I think they are not necessarily as absurd and illogical as they may seem at first sight. Take for example her "prediction" of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. This idea was probably present in John Hinckley, Jr.'s mind a few hours before he shot at Reagan, and even also perhaps a few months before. Then, Ms. Renier, who is perhaps a sensitive lady with an interest in criminal affairs, could have correctly perceived this idea through ESP or telepathy, way before the crime took place. There is nothing irrational and unscientific here.
Last edited:
Exactly. And unless we are prepared to think someone is sending messages back through time, so that she found out from the future.
But outside of that, your explanation makes the most sense. Of course, regular messages sent from the future has a certain appeal as well, so I'm not yet prepared to abandon the alternative. One should retain a bit of skepticism, after all.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
"Quality" is a perception, Michel, not a number. It's also entirely possible that the only reason Renier's book got a (slightly) higher rating than Randi's is because most of the people who are going to buy and read, then review, the book are the ones already disposed to believe in the nonsense in it; so a higher "quality" rating is just an effect of confirmation bias.
I'm also not sure I understand why you would "suspect" that people would lie in a poll, making it unreliable when its numbers aren't high enough to suit you, but a bookseller's rating system- effectively a slanted poll- would have results that are reliable in confirming the claims of the book being rated.
The only thing I can find as to her actual "prediction" of the assassination attempt on Reagan is here:
Yeah, that's rock solid- he could have had a heart attack, and that "perhaps" is just enough waffle that it would have qualified as a hit. Even something like "I feel Reagan will be shot in the chest" is not all that impressive, since there's a history in America of Presidents being shot, two of them in that general area, one in the back (not to mention the misses, like twice relatively recently with Ford).
She also, apparently, did some sort of presentation at the FBI training facility in Quantico, VA, where, according to an agent there (Robert Ressler, apparently a supporter of her), the "prediction" went something like this:
Two different claims being conflated here, Michel- and the conflation makes a "hit" for one serve as proof for the accuracy of the other.
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Quality of the entertainment value perhaps, not of the quality of the contents itself.
This made me laugh out loud. Sorry to hear you actually believe that.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Naaah, not even quality of entertainment. It's a level of devotion of the sycophants. The one truly negative review of A Mind for Murder is the OP of this thread. I love what John's done over the years, but he obviously has an interest in getting his two cents in on a public review of that particular book. For woo topics the reviewers are always true believers, per-disposed to look at claims and go, "Wow! That confirms what I've believed all along. She's the real deal." We had that adventure with Robin1 and her "skeptical search" for a not phony psychic, which she found when she located the one whose b.s. jibed with her own needs.
Other than everything.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, it is an uncontrolled subjective indication of how much a self-reporting person liked the book.
I noticed a number of the positive reviews for Renier's book said very little about the book and said more about her as a person. In that case would it be irrational to suppose the 5-star rating was a vote for Renier and not for the book?
Similarly among the 1-star reviews for Randi's book I noticed a small number of people who say they failed Randi's test and said little about the book. Would sour grapes be a reasonable explanation for the 1-star rating? A few noted the book was tedious -- fair comment, of course, but whether a book entertains is not an indication of the strength of its allegations of fact. And a few simply scorned Randi for being a skeptic instead of more like them, without saying anything about the book. Are those valid 1-star ratings?
No -- there is nothing less relevant to the Renier claims I'm interested in than how popular her book is on Amazon.
Then she should be able to supply rational and scientific answers to the questions she has been asked. And I don't mean purported proofs of her supernatural abilities. I mean questions of the type a normal person would be asked, and which concern me. "Scientific" in this case may be a loose interpretation, but I would like to hear her quote chapter and verse for the "lies and misrepresentations" she alleges have been said about her. And I would like a substantiation for the alleged crime evidence she presented.
Can you explain why she shouldn't be obliged to provide that?
Sherlock
Muse
Countdown begins to end of February
At the end of February should Ms. Renier not respond here on this forum to the questions posed I will consider a response many people globally are privately discussing. I'm considering all advice seriously.
But this morning I'd like to respond to Ms. Renier’s comment above where she wrote “Here's some evidence for you [about] the airplane [that] commentarybysherlock is always saying I didn't locate. Look at the testimony of 2 FBI agents and my client which are on the front page of my website.”
Okay. The first off-duty FBI agent, Mark Babyak, states in his testimony that the search area he covered (by plane and car) was “following the directions that Noreen had provided us from the standpoint of landmarks, speed, turns, things of this nature.”
Agent Babyak cites a cliff, a rise, a little trading post, and an old Texaco. In fact Renier agreed stating they “followed directions that I provided. . . landmarks, speed, sharp turns, longitude and latitude --- and they saw what I had described." Yet these are all items that best match up with locations up to 12 miles from the crash site. The plane actually crashed alongside a large partially frozen swamp far from mountains, cliffs, or an abandoned Texaco. And it was about a quarter mile from the end of the runway at a small unmanned airport.
Babyak (whose former wife had a brother aboard the plane) states in his testimony “Well, my understanding of what happened after we left is that the following day a resident of the area [Gardner, Massachusetts where the airplane crashed] and his daughter, due to our circling over that area constantly, went out in that area themselves and they found it."
“That’s not true” says Cheryl Wilber, who with her father found the plane and had never heard of Renier until I spoke with them years later. Neither she nor her father ever saw any planes circling above where they found the plane --- which was essentially in their backyard. Any planes would have been circling directly above or within 800’ of their home --- and Babyak testifies he circled for hours.
According to Cheryl "She [Noreen Renier] hasn't a clue what happened, and how she can go out and say all those things [about finding a plane] when she wasn't even there. . . . She's making money on this and including my name . . . and I don't like people lying." (All three of the other eye-witnesses provided similar statements on the CommentarybySherlock web site.)
And the supportive testimony from Renier’s second FBI officer? He knows nothing. He stated to the court that “I have no personal knowledge of the incident.” In fact he noted “I did not, [and] was not directly involved.” During his testimony he admitted his only knowledge of the crash and any events he received “second hand.” Incredibly in his testimony he even admitted telling me that he believed the crash site was in Maryland though “Merrell indicated that it was in Massachusetts, but I thought it was Maryland.” (It was Massachusetts but Renier has also said the crash was in New York and New Hampshire. She may have told Robert Ressler, the second FBI agent here, it was Maryland. She does like to cover all her bases!)
And now 30 years later Ms. Renier amazingly suggests to this forum that these two men are her proof that she was --- as she testified before a jury --- “instrumental” in finding a crashed plane with survivors. My own attorney knew her claims were not truthful. For one thing there were no survivors --- and they had been deemed as immediately dead due to the crash. That attorney (my sister) told the jury that the search and rescue volunteers who actually looked for the plane did so in frigid January snow conditions “and went through snow. They went through a swamp. They went through a heavily wooded area to find that plane. And Ms. Renier has the nerve to sit here on the stand and tell you and I that she, while sitting in a comfortable house in Virginia, found that plane.”
I want to make sure all forum members keep after Ms. Renier to provide by the end of February:
1. The Chain of Custody (CoC) forms to prove her claims that she received real police evidence (bone, bloody from real police agencies versus her own faked props.
2. Any and all specific examples of what she calls “lies and misinformation" on the CommentarybySherlock web site.
3. Any specific information she gave to any law enforcement agencies (with the name of the agency and its location) that lead to the arrest and conviction of criminals. (She’s on record as claiming “I’ve put people in jail” and answering a question about a case with “I put her son in jail.”)
4. A list of the names of the law enforcement agency who supposedly provided her with the police ‘evidence’ of the bone and bloody shirt, and the police agency which provided her a screwdriver from a homicide, and the law enforcement agency which provided her with the bloody towel. (These as part of answering question #8 from the PETER Group web site).
5. The additional answers to the questions posed on the same site.
Thank you. And all comments are appreciated.
At the end of February should Ms. Renier not respond here on this forum to the questions posed I will consider a response many people globally are privately discussing. I'm considering all advice seriously.
But this morning I'd like to respond to Ms. Renier’s comment above where she wrote “Here's some evidence for you [about] the airplane [that] commentarybysherlock is always saying I didn't locate. Look at the testimony of 2 FBI agents and my client which are on the front page of my website.”
Okay. The first off-duty FBI agent, Mark Babyak, states in his testimony that the search area he covered (by plane and car) was “following the directions that Noreen had provided us from the standpoint of landmarks, speed, turns, things of this nature.”
Agent Babyak cites a cliff, a rise, a little trading post, and an old Texaco. In fact Renier agreed stating they “followed directions that I provided. . . landmarks, speed, sharp turns, longitude and latitude --- and they saw what I had described." Yet these are all items that best match up with locations up to 12 miles from the crash site. The plane actually crashed alongside a large partially frozen swamp far from mountains, cliffs, or an abandoned Texaco. And it was about a quarter mile from the end of the runway at a small unmanned airport.
Babyak (whose former wife had a brother aboard the plane) states in his testimony “Well, my understanding of what happened after we left is that the following day a resident of the area [Gardner, Massachusetts where the airplane crashed] and his daughter, due to our circling over that area constantly, went out in that area themselves and they found it."
“That’s not true” says Cheryl Wilber, who with her father found the plane and had never heard of Renier until I spoke with them years later. Neither she nor her father ever saw any planes circling above where they found the plane --- which was essentially in their backyard. Any planes would have been circling directly above or within 800’ of their home --- and Babyak testifies he circled for hours.
According to Cheryl "She [Noreen Renier] hasn't a clue what happened, and how she can go out and say all those things [about finding a plane] when she wasn't even there. . . . She's making money on this and including my name . . . and I don't like people lying." (All three of the other eye-witnesses provided similar statements on the CommentarybySherlock web site.)
And the supportive testimony from Renier’s second FBI officer? He knows nothing. He stated to the court that “I have no personal knowledge of the incident.” In fact he noted “I did not, [and] was not directly involved.” During his testimony he admitted his only knowledge of the crash and any events he received “second hand.” Incredibly in his testimony he even admitted telling me that he believed the crash site was in Maryland though “Merrell indicated that it was in Massachusetts, but I thought it was Maryland.” (It was Massachusetts but Renier has also said the crash was in New York and New Hampshire. She may have told Robert Ressler, the second FBI agent here, it was Maryland. She does like to cover all her bases!)
And now 30 years later Ms. Renier amazingly suggests to this forum that these two men are her proof that she was --- as she testified before a jury --- “instrumental” in finding a crashed plane with survivors. My own attorney knew her claims were not truthful. For one thing there were no survivors --- and they had been deemed as immediately dead due to the crash. That attorney (my sister) told the jury that the search and rescue volunteers who actually looked for the plane did so in frigid January snow conditions “and went through snow. They went through a swamp. They went through a heavily wooded area to find that plane. And Ms. Renier has the nerve to sit here on the stand and tell you and I that she, while sitting in a comfortable house in Virginia, found that plane.”
I want to make sure all forum members keep after Ms. Renier to provide by the end of February:
1. The Chain of Custody (CoC) forms to prove her claims that she received real police evidence (bone, bloody from real police agencies versus her own faked props.
2. Any and all specific examples of what she calls “lies and misinformation" on the CommentarybySherlock web site.
3. Any specific information she gave to any law enforcement agencies (with the name of the agency and its location) that lead to the arrest and conviction of criminals. (She’s on record as claiming “I’ve put people in jail” and answering a question about a case with “I put her son in jail.”)
4. A list of the names of the law enforcement agency who supposedly provided her with the police ‘evidence’ of the bone and bloody shirt, and the police agency which provided her a screwdriver from a homicide, and the law enforcement agency which provided her with the bloody towel. (These as part of answering question #8 from the PETER Group web site).
5. The additional answers to the questions posed on the same site.
Thank you. And all comments are appreciated.
Last edited:
Sure do. What the Detective are saying….https://www.youtube.com/user/nrenier04
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Watched the first of those videos. It talks about how Renier helped solve the Zodiac killer case. It is also very vague. This was in late 60s and early 70s. However the case is unsolved. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac_Killer
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,917
Daylightstar
Philosopher