FBI and Pychics

[Darat]

yes, he is near water.

or somewhere there has been water.

 

[headscratcher4]

Indeed, one wonders whether the psychics out there-- as thy are not, on principal putting in for the Randi Prize -- are helping the FBI find sleeper Al Qeda cells. I mean, these are live people plotting and sending out all kinds of living vibrations...it should be easy, and it would be very patriotic. What a great proof, how embarassing to skeptics if the FBI were to say we found this cell thanks to a psychic...

What's that, crickets chirping?

 

[renata]

Indeed, one wonders whether the psychics out there-- as thy are not, on principal putting in for the Randi Prize -- are helping the FBI find sleeper Al Qeda cells. I mean, these are live people plotting and sending out all kinds of living vibrations...it should be easy, and it would be very patriotic. What a great proof, how embarassing to skeptics if the FBI were to say we found this cell thanks to a psychic...

What's that, crickets chirping?

They would find them too, if not for all you damn skeptics putting out negative vibes and interfering with their efforts because you do not want them to succeed. Not only are you cynics, you are unpatriotic ones, too. I hope Ashcroft hears about this!


Or alternatively- they are working with FBI, but FBI is such a credit hog!

Or- they are working with FBI, but they want their privacy, so they asked FBI to keep their involvement under wraps.

Or- if it was revealed they worked with FBI cynics would just mock their effors (like you did with Reagan & astrology) and interfere with the ongoing investigation.

 

[CFLarsen]

malcolmdl,

I know. I deserve it. I mean...you wouldn't believe the work that is involved with writing an email...!

So, now it's official. According to the FBI, "psychics have never helped solve a single missing person case."

So, the question is, what is it that psychics do, that is so "helpful"?

Darat,

The first three (well, the first two are the same site) are PSI TECH themselves, then Randi's commentary, then SkepticReport. Hehehehe...

 

[Ed]

First off, this claim does not pass the sniff test, period.

We are asking the wrong question. It is not do these frauds help the cops, it is do they ever solve crimes. Now, let us consider Eliz. Smart. If some of these bloodsucking vampires actually knew where she was, would their first inclination be to go to the cops? Absolutely not. They would get a local news crew and lead them to the kid. Ever see this? No. Why do they invoke the cops? Cuz the cops won't talk officially about cases. As always in the world of woo, the results of an investigation will be equivical, designedly so.

I really wonder about the sanity of people who believe this crap.

 

[CFLarsen]

I really wonder about the sanity of people who believe this crap.

I'm not sure it's that simple: Sane vs. insane, rationality vs. irrationality, or even a case of cognitive dissonance. I am more inclined towards a truly staggering lack of empathy, almost at a sociopathetic level.

I am neither a psychologist or psychiatrist, but it does seem to me that these believers exhibit a two-faced behavior here, which they are fully aware of: On one hand, they emphasize the need for consoling the grieving ones, especially themselves. They need this, so skeptics can just bugger off! On the other hand, they are completely indifferent to the pain of those, who would benefit more from the services of the psychics. They want the services all to themselves, and they don't care about the rest of the world.

Look at how the news was received that John Edward's show "Crossing Over" was cancelled: Was it taken as a major blow to his credibility and popularity (when the show went on the air, it was taken as a stamp of approval that mediumship was real)? No, the believers were happy, because now "John" (they talk about him as if he was their close friend) could give even more private readings!

Isn't that great? John has a syndicated show! Our beliefs are vindicated!

Isn't that great? John's show is cancelled! Now he can do more for us!

Try "sociopaths", Ed. I think that is closer than "insane". These believers are fully aware of what they are doing, they are not crazy. They just don't give a damn.

 

[alfaniner]

Do these people have no decency?

Oleron,

No, they don't, and neither have those who believe in them.

...

Let's see one single case solved by a psychic.

Just one.

Well, I don't fault the people who are ignorant of the way psychics work, and are desperate. I do rally against those who are wilfully ignorant, though.

And with the vast majority of psychics claiming to help the police, chances are one of them may get very close on a lucky guess. I think we need more than "one".

 

[Ed]

Well, I don't fault the people who are ignorant of the way psychics work, and are desperate. I do rally against those who are wilfully ignorant, though.

I do. Gravity is down, stars are up and dead is dead. Wishful thinking notwithstanding.

Do these idiots think Dawn of the Living Dead is a documentary?

Clancie, would you address this?

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is,--Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.

 

[voidx]

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.

Its bad because it sets a precedent. Everyone else would use it as an example of how a phenomenon that is not proven to exist can be regulated based upon the fact that people make a "business" of it. It sets the precedent for me to say, "When I rub your head, it may or may not alleviate all of your cancer. This is not proven at all, however, I am running my services in a business sense, and I have customers so its not required I prove what I'm doing, merely regulate me on my "business" practices. But we cannot regulate that which we do not know the process or attributes for. We cannot regulate or license practioners of said business because we've no concept of how they would be verified. This is a band-aid fix, and it wouldn't work well because any claim against a regulated psychic would be so open to interpretation, that we couldn't prevent consumers themselves from saying everytime. Oh I received no valid info, so give me my money back. It would be a total mess in my opinion.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

I'm not sure it's that simple: Sane vs. insane, rationality vs. irrationality, or even a case of cognitive dissonance. I am more inclined towards a truly staggering lack of empathy, almost at a sociopathetic level.

I am neither a psychologist or psychiatrist, but it does seem to me that these believers exhibit a two-faced behavior here, which they are fully aware of: On one hand, they emphasize the need for consoling the grieving ones, especially themselves. They need this, so skeptics can just bugger off! On the other hand, they are completely indifferent to the pain of those, who would benefit more from the services of the psychics. They want the services all to themselves, and they don't care about the rest of the world.

Look at how the news was received that John Edward's show "Crossing Over" was cancelled: Was it taken as a major blow to his credibility and popularity (when the show went on the air, it was taken as a stamp of approval that mediumship was real)? No, the believers were happy, because now "John" (they talk about him as if he was their close friend) could give even more private readings!

Isn't that great? John has a syndicated show! Our beliefs are vindicated!

Isn't that great? John's show is cancelled! Now he can do more for us!

Try "sociopaths", Ed. I think that is closer than "insane". These believers are fully aware of what they are doing, they are not crazy. They just don't give a damn.

Under 'spirit possession', The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought says:

". . . Spirit possession may express illness or mental instability, but it can also represent a claim to social recognition. Lewis suggested (Ecstatic Religion, 1971) that it was used by the peripheral or powerless (for example, women) to attain a social role and status. . ."

Could this be why so many male mediums come across as rather effeminate?

 

[coalesce]

or somewhere there has been water.

...or maybe drank some water.

I just saw this past weekend a show on TechTV called "The Critical Eye" hosted by William B. Davis. It covered exactly this topic of psychics assisting detectives, and they, too, pointed out the official position from the Center for Missing and Exploited Children that there is not one documented case of a psychic having found one missing child.

The program pointed out that police have used psychics in the past, but mainly to help confirm their suspicions about suspects. They were used as an adjunct to physical evdience, not as a substitute.

And I thiink that this thread should be the first highlighted as in Forum Spotlight. A casual browser might look at this, see the thread title (something they're probably familiar with), and see the evidence plainly laid out with credible links, not just third-hand anecdotes or personal beliefs, that psychic detectives just don't work.

Michael

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

I do. Gravity is down, stars are up and dead is dead. Wishful thinking notwithstanding.

Do these idiots think Dawn of the Living Dead is a documentary?

Clancie, would you address this?

Why, Ed? I can't see that it has anything to do (at all) with the point I'm making.

Again, whether they're right or wrong (and we can't know), the fact is that some police investigators do find working with psychics helpful.

Or are you disputing my point, Ed? There seem to be an awful lot of straw man arguments here that have nothing to do with my point at all.



And I know the official position of the Center for Missing and Exploited Children is that psychics have never found a missing child (which is why I haven't challenged that part of Stoessel's comment).

But I'd still like to see some actual citation from an FBI website, or at least an FBI spokesman, establishing that Stoessel's statement is the official position of the FBI itself, namely, that "psychics have never helped solve a single case." I thought in the past their policy has always been "no comment", so this would be quite a change.

And I'd like to have some primary source given for Stoessel's statement (especially as the FBI -has- had psychics as guest lecturers at the FBI Academy in Quantico). In other words, I'd like an -FBI- source for a -FBI- attribution. Why is that so hard to find?

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

Uh, if some law enforcement agencies consult with psychics, I doubt those same law enforcement agencies would prosecute them for wasting police time or wilfully obstructing justice.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Near water? hah, shows what you know. Osama is near sand.

And I'd like to have a reliable source for statement (especially as the FBI -has- had psychics as guest lecturers at the FBI Academy in Quantico). In other words, I'd like an -FBI- source for a -FBI- attribution. Why is that so hard to find?

I'd like to see that too Clancie.

 

[CFLarsen]

And I'd like to have a reliable source for statement (especially as the FBI -has- had psychics as guest lecturers at the FBI Academy in Quantico).

The question is not whether law enforcement agencies have used psychics. The question is whether these psychics have solved any crimes at all.

In other words, I'd like an -FBI- source for a -FBI- attribution. Why is that so hard to find?

I'd like to see that too Clancie.

It's not "hard to find". ABC, a major news network asked, and the FBI replied.

You two are not saying that ABC is lying, are you? ABC is lying, when they say that the official statement by the FBI says that "psychics have never helped solve a single missing person case"?

Do you two realize just how serious an allegation that is?

OK, dear Americans - time out: I need to know this:

Is it legal to claim that the FBI has stated something, when the FBI hasn't?

What would happen to ABC - a major news network - if they claimed this falsely?

I think we are not just looking at an "NBC Pinto" incident here, we are looking at deliberate falsification of a statement by the FBI. That's got to be much, much more serious.

 

[Clancie]

Well, I called the Online Print Media Unit in the FBI Office of Public Affairs. I was told that they know of -no- official FBI position on the use of psychics. I mentioned the ABC quote and she said, "As far as I know, the FBI takes no position on the use of psychics."

Perhaps someone will get the ABC source. (?)

 

[Ed]

Someone could write a letter and ask.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, I called the Online Print Media Unit in the FBI Office of Public Affairs. I was told that they know of -no- official FBI position on the use of psychics. I mentioned the ABC quote and she said, "As far as I know, the FBI takes no position on the use of psychics."

If ABC has lied, then I suspect we will see a formal complaint from the FBI, as well as a public retraction from ABC.

Perhaps someone will get the ABC source. (?)

As if you hadn't seen my post....

Oh, well...if you still want to play that game, making yourself a liar.... Will someone please repost for Clancie, so she can still pretend to have me on ignore?

Just bear in mind that while I have a named source, Clancie has not informed us of who she spoke with.

 

[Darat]

From http://www.fbi.gov/employment/faq.htm (bold by me)

...snip...

National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime

I just want to be an FBI "Profiler," where do I begin the application process?
You first need to realize the FBI does not have a job called "Profiler." The tasks commonly associated with "profiling" are performed by Supervisory Special Agents assigned to the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) at Quantico, Virginia. These FBI Special Agents don't get vibes or experience psychic flashes while walking around fresh crime scenes. It is an exciting world of investigation and research—a world of inductive and deductive reasoning; crime-solving experience; and knowledge of criminal behavior, facts, and statistical probabilities.

In addition to constructing "profiles" (descriptions of the traits and characteristics of unknown offenders in specific cases), the NCAVC staff provides many services to law enforcement agencies around the world. These services include major case management advice; threat assessment; and strategies for investigation, interviewing, or prosecution.

...snip...

I know, I know - but I found it funny.

 

[Darat]

Well, I called the Online Print Media Unit in the FBI Office of Public Affairs. I was told that they know of -no- official FBI position on the use of psychics. I mentioned the ABC quote and she said, "As far as I know, the FBI takes no position on the use of psychics."

Perhaps someone will get the ABC source. (?)

As an experiment why don't you ring up and ask does the FBI have an official position on say "chemtrails"?