• 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.

FBI and Pychics

Posted by Suezoled

They (psychics) are shown time and time again they have not helped solve a case.
Click to expand...
Say it all you like, Suezoled, but it's still a fact that, rightly or wrongly, some police detectives say differently--that they have found psychics helpful in solving crimes.

As for van Zandt and the FBI. His comments don't seem the "official FBI position", but are just personal feelings about it, based on his own work experience and observations. So...????

After all, many police don't think psychics are of any value either--that doesn't mean none of them find them helpful. (We know that some do).

Van Zandt still didn't confirm what Stoessel said, that the FBI's official position is psychics have never helped solve a crime. (And, personally, I don't think there is an official FBI statement like that, which is my point--i.e. it's not okay to make things up just because that's how you want it to be).
 
Ed said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cynical
Take it easy, CF. Just when I thought you were beginning to settle down and enjoy life, you now appear to be going off the deep end....indeed, you sound as if you are once again in the advance stages of paranoia.

It is not that at all, simply the effects of the long Danish winters. Soon the ice sledges will break thru with ample supplies of Aquavit and all will be well

Claus, if people want to think that psychics help solve cases, what is it to YOU? Why do you take this so seriously? If you keep up this compulsive behavior of yours, you will end up having a stroke before your time.

Because they enable these soulless vampiric bastards in their neverending quest to sow misery, that's why.

and...Claus has had 16 strokes and he is fit as a fiddle.

What are you trying to PROVE, Cantata? You'll never be able to prove that psychics CAN'T solve cases, so why don't you give it up, and live a little. You know, wine, women and song.

They have never solved one and they should burn in the deepest regions of hell. And those that enable them should be one level up.
Click to expand...

It is a pity that Law Enforcement Agencies don't prosecute these parasites under 'wasting police time' or 'wilfully obstructing justice'.

I'd like to see them in court.

I wonder if Cynical would be so tolerant if he was Mr Wells or a member of a family that had been cruelly duped by one of these vultures in tragic circumstances?

How would he feel if a local psychic falsely identified him as a criminal to a believer who passes the info on as if true, setting off a wave of hysteria leading him and his family to be hounded out of his community with a stigma attached to his name forevermore?

These people are not benign, or quaint, or eccentric.

They are dangerous, power-hungry, spiteful, money-grabbing frauds, and those who support them and justify their lies should be ashamed of themselves.

Claus is correct: this psychic nonsense is malignant and should be exposed and challenged at every occurrence.
 
BTW, with all due immodesty, I noticed that the harmful things I objected to with Rhea's work would have been eliminated if the government had enacted the regulations on psychics that I've suggested in the past.

To that list, I would add one more: that if a psychic takes money for finding a missing person, and does not come up with a tangible physical link to that person (at least), the money is fully refunded to the client.

Psychics aren't going to be outlawed and consumers will always have the right to seek out their services if they want them. That's why regulation, by law, is the best solution.
 
Here's my police psychic story. In 1980, in San Angelo, Texas, a 20 year old girl was murdered and the jewelry store where she worked was robbed. It made an impression on me because I was about the same age, and lived in the same town. The case went unsolved.

Then a couple of years ago, there was a break in the case, which I'll get to later. Friends of mine were forwarding me the newspaper articles about it, and one of the first ones talked about the history of the case. It said that shortly after the murder, a psychic told police that the murder weapon (a gun) could be found in the river a couple of miles from the scene, near where a major street bridge crosses it. It said the police searched the river and found the gun. This got my attention, since I was unaware that a psychic had ever given police anything so concrete (even though this guess would be one of the more obvious things to say).

A few days later, another article cleared it up. The police had searched the river and found a gun, but it was not the murder weapon. It was a gun that had been there for a good 20 years before the murder.

So if someone had read only the first article, he would have the strong impression that the psychic had made a contribution to the case! I bet things like this happen often.

By the way, the case was solved with DNA. The police had the murderer's blood, where he was cut on some glass, and had saved it as evidence. A couple of years ago, they started a program to check DNA in evidence against DNA from known criminals, and they found a match in this case. Of course, the rest of the facts linking him fell into place once they knew where to look.
 
Clancie said:

Say it all you like, Suezoled, but it's still a fact that, rightly or wrongly, some police detectives say differently--that they have found psychics helpful in solving crimes.

As for van Zandt and the FBI. His comments don't seem the "official FBI position", but are just personal feelings about it, based on his own work experience and observations. So...????

After all, many police don't think psychics are of any value either--that doesn't mean none of them find them helpful. (We know that some do).

Van Zandt still didn't confirm what Stoessel said, that the FBI's official position is psychics have never helped solve a crime. (And, personally, I don't think there is an official FBI statement like that, which is my point--i.e. it's not okay to make things up just because that's how you want it to be).
Click to expand...

You really have got to be joking, Clancie.

How on earth can you say "i.e. it's not okay to make things up just because that's how you want it to be)" with a straight face? You must realise the damage these people do to grieving, vulnerable people. In your heart of hearts you must know!
 
Clancie said:
Say it all you like, Suezoled, but it's still a fact that, rightly or wrongly, some police detectives say differently--that they have found psychics helpful in solving crimes.

BTW, with all due immodesty, I noticed that the harmful things I objected to with Rhea's work would have been eliminated if the government had enacted the regulations on psychics that I've suggested in the past.

To that list, I would add one more: that if a psychic takes money for finding a missing person, and does not come up with a tangible physical link to that person (at least), the money is fully refunded to the client.

Psychics aren't going to be outlawed and consumers will always have the right to seek out their services if they want them. That's why regulation, by law, is the best solution.
Click to expand...

Say it all you like, Clancie, but it's still a fact that, rightly or wrongly, there is not a single documented case where a psychic was given credit for helping to solve an FBI case. of missing or dead persons. The only thing I've found are the words of the pyschics saying yes, but others say no. Police DO use psychis; some to flush out the creduloids, some to send a red herring.

As for regulation: regulation can only be done on phenomena that is known to exist. Psyshics have not, in all of the years of human evolution, offically proven themselves to be legit. You keep advocating something that can't be done because the the those who claim paranormal powers themselves change the definition for every situation.
 
Clancie said:
Say it all you like, Suezoled, but it's still a fact that, rightly or wrongly, some police detectives say differently--that they have found psychics helpful in solving crimes.
Click to expand...

Why can't these police detectives be tracked down? Why can't we know what cases the psychics have been "helpful" with? What does "helpful" mean?

You are arguing this point, why don't you find out?

Clancie said:
As for van Zandt and the FBI. His comments don't seem the "official FBI position", but are just personal feelings about it, based on his own work experience and observations. So...????
Click to expand...

You dismiss van Zandt, while you believe what anonymous police officers say. Zandt doesn't state his "personal feelings". He talks from professional experience, Clancie. But, since he is not saying what you want to hear, you dismiss him.

What about the organizations devoted to finding missing kids? Those statements are official, are you just going to ignore those, too?

Clancie said:
After all, many police don't think psychics are of any value either--that doesn't mean none of them find them helpful. (We know that some do).
Click to expand...

"Helpful", how exactly?

Clancie said:
Van Zandt still didn't confirm what Stoessel said, that the FBI's official position is psychics have never helped solve a crime. (And, personally, I don't think there is an official FBI statement like that, which is my point--i.e. it's not okay to make things up just because that's how you want it to be).
Click to expand...

I have contacted Stossel, let's see what we find out.
 
Posted by Suezoled

As for regulation: regulation can only be done on phenomena that is known to exist
Click to expand...
Yes, in this case, the phenomena of the "Psychic Business".

I really don't understand the position that it is better to do nothing to protect consumers because psychics aren't real anyway and regulating them gives the wrong message.

But I know you're not the only one who feels that way. It seems pretty common. I just think if protecting consumers is the most important goal (which is my feeling), that it's better to do something on their behalf than nothing.
 
Clancie said:

Yes, in this case, the phenomena of the "Psychic Business".

I really don't understand the position that it is better to do nothing to protect consumers because psychics aren't real anyway and regulating them gives the wrong message.

But I know you're not the only one who feels that way. It seems pretty common. I just think if protecting consumers is the most important goal (which is my feeling), that it's better to do something on their behalf than nothing.
Click to expand...

That has got to be one of the most specious arguments for a waste of public money I have ever heard.
 
Clancie said:

Yes, in this case, the phenomena of the "Psychic Business".

I really don't understand the position that it is better to do nothing to protect consumers because psychics aren't real anyway and regulating them gives the wrong message.

But I know you're not the only one who feels that way. It seems pretty common. I just think if protecting consumers is the most important goal (which is my feeling), that it's better to do something on their behalf than nothing.
Click to expand...

The Department for the Registration of Genuine Psychics (DRGP) is to be expanded. They are currently interviewing applicants for the post of Witchfinder General.:p
 
CFLarsen said:

You are arguing this point, why don't you find out?
Click to expand...

Believers never want to do the research. They say that because we are the ones questioning, we are the ones who should find out. (Sigh.)

Just like when they post things "as proof" and say that they have a source but don't remember what that source is ...

And the House of Cards comes a-fallin' down.
 
Clancie said:

Yes, in this case, the phenomena of the "Psychic Business".

I really don't understand the position that it is better to do nothing to protect consumers because psychics aren't real anyway and regulating them gives the wrong message.

...snip....
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of doing nothing. If they are operating as a business then they should be treated as any other business and therefore is no need to regulate them separately.

In the UK we have local authority departments (Trading Standards) that deal with businesses that falsely advertise, do not do what the consumer contracts them to do and so on.

And it has to matter that they can be proven to do what they say they can do before you can regulate them, otherwise what are you regulating? For a start a commonly accepted meaning for “a psychic”, “a medium” et cetera would be required, you can’t legislate without definitions!

Back to the subject of this thread, do you believe or not that psychics can provide the information that subsequently is used to solve a criminal case?

(Edited for speling misteak.)
 
I asked this question to ABC:

My question is about the FBI - you mentioned that the FBI had said that no psychic had helped solve a single missing person case. Is this the official position by the FBI?
Click to expand...

This just in (very quick, kudos to ABC!):

"The FBI maintain that psychics have never helped solve a single missing person case." Yes, that is the official statement by the FBI.

Thanks for your interest,

Melissa Cornick
Click to expand...
 
I always find discussions like this interesting because of how much believers have to stretch to make it plausible.

By this I mean of the literally and figuratively thousands of denials by authorities that psychics have been helpful in the solving of crimes, the best believers are ever able to do is:
1. Cast aspersions on the veracity of police in general (i.e. we [believers] know psychics help, so police must be lying).
2. At best cite a handful of very murky cases were information seems to be conflicting, but where a psychic might have helped.

I note this because in these murky cases, it is mere assertion that a psychic helped -- usually the assertion of the so-called psychic, some "un-named" (and therefore more credible how?) source, some disgruntled source no longer affiliated with he case or the police department, etc.

In short...the vast body of evidence -- thousands of cases -- suggest no help, where as one or two suggest (at best) maybe, possibly, kind of, etc. Now, one solid case where all parties agree -- i.e. a police captain stands up and says, "Its weird all right, but we couldn't have done it without psychic X...she told us where to look, and there was the body (and we know she didn't have anything to do with the case because she was in Nigeria at the time and had no connection to the parties involved) might begin to have many rethink. But that doesn't happen. Further, even a single instance, in the case of all the contrary evidence, is pretty low proof of a phenomena, it merely suggests that better examination of the case might be in order.

Anyway, clearly, the credulous want to believe, and that is all that it takes...because the reality of the phenomenon must be being repressed by police and authorities who know better and would rather use outdated police methods for solving crimes rather than letting psychics do their stuff...
 
malcolmdl said:
Is there a current concensus among psychics regarding the wherabouts of Osama bin Laden?
Click to expand...

Not heard a peep out of PSI TECH, nothing's come up from them yet. But I suppose that is not surprising as I'm sure the government, CIA, Majestic 57 varieties or whoever has employed them is asking them to keep quiet about it.

(Claus - did a search on "psi tech" on Google and your article came up as the 5 link, that's good going.)


(Edited for sense.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom