FBI and Pychics
- Thread starter Suezoled
- Start date
that's why i only brought 1/2 bottle of wine.
Things was, on Paltalk, talked to a woman (was shouted at more like it) who was declaring that the FBI used psychics to solve crimses. she cited several TV shows (yeah, that's a legit source with unbiased info) where people claimed to have done just that.
I want statements about that, or statements about the FBI refuting it.
Things was, on Paltalk, talked to a woman (was shouted at more like it) who was declaring that the FBI used psychics to solve crimses. she cited several TV shows (yeah, that's a legit source with unbiased info) where people claimed to have done just that.
I want statements about that, or statements about the FBI refuting it.
Suezoled,
Lots of psychics claim this. Pat Gagliardo, James van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, John Edward. The list is long, but none has ever produced a single shred of evidence.
Here is a case, where it really is up to the psychics - and their believers - to come up with the evidence. To demand that skeptics prove these psychics wrong is such a travesty, such a monumental example of just how insensitive one can be. It's not a question of disproving, it's a question of proving.
Let the psychics - just one psychic - find a missing person - just one missing person. That's all it takes.
The burden of evidence must lie with the psychics - and with those who believe in them.
I predict - without any kind of paranormal ability - that you will get exactly zero evidence. You might get a few squawks about how skeptics are not "interested". But I think the silence will be deafening.
Not good news for the victims, but who cares, as long as the psychic circus can continue?
Lots of psychics claim this. Pat Gagliardo, James van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, John Edward. The list is long, but none has ever produced a single shred of evidence.
Here is a case, where it really is up to the psychics - and their believers - to come up with the evidence. To demand that skeptics prove these psychics wrong is such a travesty, such a monumental example of just how insensitive one can be. It's not a question of disproving, it's a question of proving.
Let the psychics - just one psychic - find a missing person - just one missing person. That's all it takes.
The burden of evidence must lie with the psychics - and with those who believe in them.
I predict - without any kind of paranormal ability - that you will get exactly zero evidence. You might get a few squawks about how skeptics are not "interested". But I think the silence will be deafening.
Not good news for the victims, but who cares, as long as the psychic circus can continue?
Psiload
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 2,102
CFLarsen said:
Yes, I don't think any psychic ever has definitately found a single missing person or their body. I have found Spepticdictionary has not changed its entries.
I will source that as legit reference if I run into that woman again on Paltalk. Creduloids, even with pretend friends whom they call guardians or spirit guides, are pretty easy to tick off when you tell them "no there's been no documented case of the FBI ever employing a psychic to sucessfully solve a case."
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
And we are talking about killed people here. People dying. Not some warm, fuzzy, teary-eyed reading, where the psychic cold reads his/her way to a few lame "validations".
We are talking flesh and blood here. Dead flesh and blood. Shattered families, incredible pain, agony, suffering. Not to speak of justice.
I simply cannot imagine why anyone would even dream of defending psychics like Sylvia Browne, James van Praagh or John Edward, who all have claimed to have "helped" the police solving crimes, no matter how "appreciating" they are of the readings.
These believers put their own, brief satisfaction above the need to find killers.
And we are talking about killed people here. People dying. Not some warm, fuzzy, teary-eyed reading, where the psychic cold reads his/her way to a few lame "validations".
We are talking flesh and blood here. Dead flesh and blood. Shattered families, incredible pain, agony, suffering. Not to speak of justice.
I simply cannot imagine why anyone would even dream of defending psychics like Sylvia Browne, James van Praagh or John Edward, who all have claimed to have "helped" the police solving crimes, no matter how "appreciating" they are of the readings.
These believers put their own, brief satisfaction above the need to find killers.
Suezoled
I don't know the answer to your question, "How many?" The FBI doesn't make that information public.
What we -do- know is that the FBI does, at times, consult with psychics. The CIA also uses them (as in the now-defunct Star Gate program) also the Lockerbie bombing investigation (see below).
Psychics like Noreen Reiner and Patricia Gagliardo have posted testimonials from police departments; Noreen Reiner was also a guest lecturer at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va.
We know they are used by these investigators to help with their work.
We know that -some- (police, CIA, FBI) investigators do say they find it beneficial to work with psychics.
Beyond that...as far as discrediting their work, without detailed information available to the public, I don't see how one can evaluate the psychics' effectiveness, one way or the other.
(And much of this topic was covered here last month, in http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=7420&highlight=Gagliardo
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
Utts on Psychics, ESP and remote viewing/CIA at UC Davis
CIA remote viewing STAR GATE
CIA used psychics for Lockerbie bombing information
http://www.sundayherald.com/35426
STAR GATE mcmoneagle http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/pub/news/95dec11-nw.html
Posner http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/posnerChapter.htm
Critical, yet informative re: Noreen Reiner and her ties to FBI and support from some police investigators
Reiner’s site http://www.noreenrenier.com/
I don't know the answer to your question, "How many?" The FBI doesn't make that information public.
What we -do- know is that the FBI does, at times, consult with psychics. The CIA also uses them (as in the now-defunct Star Gate program) also the Lockerbie bombing investigation (see below).
Psychics like Noreen Reiner and Patricia Gagliardo have posted testimonials from police departments; Noreen Reiner was also a guest lecturer at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va.
We know they are used by these investigators to help with their work.
We know that -some- (police, CIA, FBI) investigators do say they find it beneficial to work with psychics.
Beyond that...as far as discrediting their work, without detailed information available to the public, I don't see how one can evaluate the psychics' effectiveness, one way or the other.
(And much of this topic was covered here last month, in http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=7420&highlight=Gagliardo
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
Utts on Psychics, ESP and remote viewing/CIA at UC Davis
CIA remote viewing STAR GATE
CIA used psychics for Lockerbie bombing information
http://www.sundayherald.com/35426
STAR GATE mcmoneagle http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/pub/news/95dec11-nw.html
Posner http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/posnerChapter.htm
Critical, yet informative re: Noreen Reiner and her ties to FBI and support from some police investigators
Reiner’s site http://www.noreenrenier.com/
Suezoled said:
Sorry for the obvious response, but have you asked your question to the FBI yet?
Please let us know what they said.I did a search and found http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0103/06/lkl.00.html, where a former FBI negotiator and profiler says that psychics were/are(?) used. Although he is very clear that psychic information alone hasn't solved crimes, but rather has contributed to solving crimes, along with police and other information, just like a consultant's information.
I personally doubt they've actually offered useful information or have been used in an official capacity, although the government has apparently been interested in psychic stuff (remote viewing comes to mind). Here is another good link: http://skepdic.com/psychdet.html.
Clancie said:
It's not a question of how many they use. It's a question of how many psychics have actually solved a crime.
Clancie said:
No, some law enforcement officers might use psychics. Not one single case has ever been solved by the use of a psychic.
Clancie said:
Claims from psychics should not be taken as evidence that they have actually solved crimes.
Clancie said:
Have the psychics solved any crime?
Clancie said:
How so? What are the benefits exactly?
Clancie said:
Bullsh1t. The only thing that matters here, is whether or not the psychics can solve crimes. We have to look at the evidence.
Clancie said:
Indeed. Where is the evidence that Gagliardo has solved any crimes?
Clancie said:
None of the SAIC experiments dealt with solving crimes.
Clancie said:
Was a crime solved, yes or no?
Clancie said:
Was a crime solved, yes or no?
Clancie said:
Was a crime solved, yes or no?
Clancie said:
Did she solve a crime, yes or no?
Clancie said:
Did she solve a crime, yes or no?
Using psychics does not equate that psychics solve crimes.
All we need to see is just one case. Just one case.
Please?
Re: Re: FBI and Pychics
Sorry to be so obvious, but the recent Stossel program clearly stated that the FBI had never solved a crime with the help of a psychic.
Why are these sources always "former"? And why can't we get a precise reference to a specific case where a psychic has actually solved a crime?
Yep, cold war paranoia. That doesn't mean that the psychics have solved a crime.
We need concrete, specific evidence. Everything else is hot air, red herrings, and - quite frankly - pissing on the victims and the families they left behind.
T'ai Chi said:Sorry for the obvious response, but have you asked your question to the FBI yet?
Sorry to be so obvious, but the recent Stossel program clearly stated that the FBI had never solved a crime with the help of a psychic.
T'ai Chi said:
Why are these sources always "former"? And why can't we get a precise reference to a specific case where a psychic has actually solved a crime?
T'ai Chi said:
Yep, cold war paranoia. That doesn't mean that the psychics have solved a crime.
We need concrete, specific evidence. Everything else is hot air, red herrings, and - quite frankly - pissing on the victims and the families they left behind.
Well, I was responding to this part of Suezoled's question, Geni.
That was what I was addressing.
Source? How would you possibly be able to make such a sweeping statement, geni? Do you really know all the cases psychics have worked on and all of the results? I would love to see that source myself!
What is it?
Did I say I was giving "evidence they have actually solved crimes" here, geni?
No, I didn't. Why would I? I don't know whether they did or not (which I think I made very clear in my first post).
I -do- know that some investigators have said they found psychics helpful to their work. That was my point. (And, personally, I feel that if someone finds psychics helpful to them in solving a case...then...why not use them? I'm not an FBI agent or police detective, and I'm not going to second-guess the professionals. If they feel working with a psychic helps an investigation, I say...let them do it).
I don't know, geni. Do you?
I don't know, geni, since I am not someone who has said this--nor do I have access to all the reports on cases using psychics. I recommend that you ask the investigators who say it helps them, IF you're really interested in learning the answers to these questions, that is.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,564
Source? How would you possibly be able to make such a sweeping statement, geni? Do you really know all the cases psychics have worked on and all of the results? I would love to see that source myself!
Since no person can ever cite a case where a psychic actually solved a case, the statement can be considered to be true. It is the default position.
Please try not to shift the burden of evidence onto the position of doubt.
Since no person can ever cite a case where a psychic actually solved a case, the statement can be considered to be true. It is the default position.
Please try not to shift the burden of evidence onto the position of doubt.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,564
"The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the FBI also maintain that psychics have never helped solve a single missing person case."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/US/myths_040322-4.html
Of course, this could be a lie......... but, all it would take is ONE psychic to produce evidence of ONE case that they have solved.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/US/myths_040322-4.html
Of course, this could be a lie......... but, all it would take is ONE psychic to produce evidence of ONE case that they have solved.
Round and round we go. Is it agreeable to most that there are no well documented cases of a pyschic being the over-riding factor in solving a crime? Obviously they try and help with every case, and so I assume they often give information. To those investigators saying they are of assistance, we don't have any idea as to how they assist.
It could be that they simply through their "readings" of information that they allow investigators to look at things from a different angle. It could be that this information is related to facts already known by investigators therefore giving them a sense of reassurance that certain facts might be true. They might simply see mundane things, or concentrate on different ones than the investigators and help that way.
Unfortunately none of these types of assistance requires paranormal abilities whatsoever. Now what would be interesting to see is if large amounts of detailed information of murder scenes, perpetrator descriptions and other such things garnered from a "reading" lead to finding said perpetrator. And that were so convincing and so thorough that they lead to a conviction. I imagine there aren't many of these, and if there are any at all, their hotly debated about how authentic they are.
So who the hell knows one way or the other. The only thing that gives me pause is that I would imagine if a psychic was instrumental in solving such a case it would be very much touted and bandied about. It wouldn't come up in the sense of someone asking a JE or a JVP if they'd ever helped police and getting a "oh yah, I've helped police before, next question?". The performances I've seen and transcripts I've read of the type of information your garden variety psychic gets, I'm very much willing to assume that any information they did get would be next to useless on account of it being far to vague. And really that's all I have to go on for lack of any other information.
So to say psychics have been instrumental in solving cases is as disingenious as saying they've never taken part in investagations and never given some level of assistance to an investigation. One way or the other, figuring out if any of that assistance was purely paranormal in origin seems extremely difficult, and not very voluminous or accessible even if it was. So perhaps we should discuss something that we might have some hope of quantifying.
It could be that they simply through their "readings" of information that they allow investigators to look at things from a different angle. It could be that this information is related to facts already known by investigators therefore giving them a sense of reassurance that certain facts might be true. They might simply see mundane things, or concentrate on different ones than the investigators and help that way.
Unfortunately none of these types of assistance requires paranormal abilities whatsoever. Now what would be interesting to see is if large amounts of detailed information of murder scenes, perpetrator descriptions and other such things garnered from a "reading" lead to finding said perpetrator. And that were so convincing and so thorough that they lead to a conviction. I imagine there aren't many of these, and if there are any at all, their hotly debated about how authentic they are.
So who the hell knows one way or the other. The only thing that gives me pause is that I would imagine if a psychic was instrumental in solving such a case it would be very much touted and bandied about. It wouldn't come up in the sense of someone asking a JE or a JVP if they'd ever helped police and getting a "oh yah, I've helped police before, next question?". The performances I've seen and transcripts I've read of the type of information your garden variety psychic gets, I'm very much willing to assume that any information they did get would be next to useless on account of it being far to vague. And really that's all I have to go on for lack of any other information.
So to say psychics have been instrumental in solving cases is as disingenious as saying they've never taken part in investagations and never given some level of assistance to an investigation. One way or the other, figuring out if any of that assistance was purely paranormal in origin seems extremely difficult, and not very voluminous or accessible even if it was. So perhaps we should discuss something that we might have some hope of quantifying.
Yes, thaiboxerken, Stoessel said this. So..?
Don't you agree it really needs to be sourced? Or at least stated by someone from the FBI, not just stated, unsourced, by Stoessel as a "fact"?Does this reasoning really work for you, tbk? rofl.
If someone makes a sweeping generalization as geni did, "Not one single case has ever been solved by the use of a psychic", well, yes, I think they need to back it up with a source.
You might find it acceptable to just make any old claim or generalization you like, ken, but, frankly, I don't.
The "evidence" (if it exists), exists with the investigators, not with any of us. And (unless geni has that study showing "all psychics" involved in cases) none of us know what that is. We only know that some professionals (police, FBI investigators) -have- said that psychics have been helpful.
That being the case, yes, "doubt" is the appropriate position. We really don't know all the facts needed to make a decision, one way or the other.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,564
Yes, thaiboxerken, Stoessel said this. So..?
Don't you agree it really needs to be sourced? Or at least stated by someone from the FBI, not just stated, unsourced, by Stoessel as a "fact"?Yes, because he cited that the FBI as an organization stated it. If it was a lie, I'd expect that the FBI would challenge his claim. This is also a reputable news program. There is no reason to doubt their statement as it does not require a scientific paridigm shift to support the notion. The notion that FBI cases have been solved by psychics requires evidence. Where is it?
Does this reasoning really work for you, tbk? rofl.
Yes.. do you actually think that a dog has shot laser beams out of it's eyes.
If someone makes a sweeping generalization as geni did, "Not one single case has ever been solved by the use of a psychic", well, yes, I think they need to back it up with a source.
That's because you lack the ability to reason. You are not a reasonable person. I have outlined exactly why the general statement is correct.
The "evidence" (if it exists), exists with the investigators, not with any of us. And (unless geni has that study showing "all psychics" involved in cases) none of us know what that is. We only know that some professionals (police, FBI investigators) -have- said that psychics have been helpful.
You are keeping your "evidence" in an unaccessible place. Most believers do this with most of what they believe in. Psychic evidence doesn't exist because of coverups, the government doesn't want to scare the public, the FBI wants to keep their psychics secret..... etc. It's just excuse after excuse when it comes to the believer's evidence.
That being the case, yes, "doubt" is the appropriate position. We really don't know all the facts needed to make a decision, one way or the other.
I know enough, apparently you are agnostic when it comes to dogs that shoot lasers out of their eyes.