Hello from a non-skeptic

[Loss Leader]

"Forgive me for coming up to speak to you like this,” he began saying as he approached me, “but I have seen all that you have been going through here in the region above your eyes. This has never happened to me so clearly. Forgive my asking, but why are you drinking like this? Is it because of that woman who left you? You must not do this. You must be stronger. You must think of your son...”

I can induce this memory in any english-speaking college student (except those who go to Georgia Tech, for reasons which are too obvious to state).

 

[Zanders]

I had a problem for a long time (and am still trying to recover from it) where I would take everyone's word for it. I even started a thread here not too long ago (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180282) where I where I freaked out about a bunch of claimed paranormal cases. But an important question is this, why can't these people go prove themselves? There is the "One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge". Or if you think that the challenge is unfair, I'm sure that there are many other ways that they could prove themselves. If somebody has psychic powers that give them the ability to read people's minds, they could easily prove it. All they would have to do is get some respected and trust worthy scientists to sit down with them and tell them facts about their lives or what they are thinking. Why has this not happened yet? And if it has, please link me.

There are events that I can't explain, but until somebody can prove that paranormal events are even possible there is no reason to assume that the paranormal is the only explanation.

For amusement, here is a list of offers to anyone that can demonstrate psychic powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

 

[AdMan]

If somebody has psychic powers that give them the ability to read people's minds, they could easily prove it. All they would have to do is get some respected and trust worthy scientists to sit down with them and tell them facts about their lives or what they are thinking. Why has this not happened yet? And if it has, please link me.

It hasn't, because these powers have never been proven to exist. No need to keep asking about it.

 

[SezMe]

Ouija Board in action.

 

[Pixel42]

Charles, I can certainly understand why the anecdotes you have related on this thread seem so meaningful to you, but the bottom line is that careful application of the scientific method has shown time and time again that such anecdotes are not meaningful. Whether its people behaving exactly like astrological signs say they should, people getting better when they take a homeopathic remedy, tarot card readers making accurate predictions or mediums making intelligent or lucky guesses, whenever actual data has been carefully collected no better-than-chance correlations are ever found.

That is why, in order to reasonably claim that your mediums were right more often than would be expected by chance, you have to (a) calculate how often they would be expected to be right by chance and (b) produce actual figures, collected over a decent period of time (say the 12 years you frequented mediums) which show they were right significantly more often than that. If all you have is a few anecdotes, let alone ones so vague that an unspecified member of an unspecified royal family has to be assumed to be Princess Diana and "within a week" has to be deliberately misinterpreted to mean just over a week, you have nothing.

Digging your heels in and insisting that a scientific finding that has been proved true literally hundreds of times could not possibly apply to you, even though you appear to be a textbook case of it, is frankly childish.

 

[SusanB-M1]

The answer isn't very cheery, I'm afraid.

Thank you for reply and the quote from Charles Boden. I find it puzzling that people think there is just the one alternative to belief and that is nihilism.

Matette, shirley.

Perhaps there is an alternative for elderly female persons!!

Hardly a fair question, in my opinion.

It was not intended to be an opinion for or against, it was a question posed because I did not know the answer.

I am sure that Charles is doing his loving best to pass on to his children all of the tools he thinks they need to be happy and successful adults.

Yes I agree.

And he justifies it by actually believing that his theories are true.

Maybe so, but surely parents should provide their children with a wide range of information and discussion so that they know they will be loved and respected if they choose a different belief or non-belief path. Parents should be prepared to be wrong, to discuss and agree to differ. I think of a poster on another forum whose daughter is, from the evidence of his posts, so indoctrinated already that she will find it very hard, if she chooses to do so, to challenge his controlling attitude. I could on the other hand be entirely wrong.

I can't think of a lower blow than even hinting that there is something wrong with the way someone is raising his children. Phil Plait, I'm sure, would find it in remarkably bad taste.

I am sorry you read my post that way. It just goes to show that a very mild question/comment can be misinterpreted without a personal presence. True, it makes me somewhat sad to see that so many children are still being told that a God (or gods ) is real, but to think that this is goig to change in the near future would be completely unrealistic.

I dislike barbed and hurtful remarks directed at people, having been the subject of such during the years I was married (a lifetime ago now!) and if Charles read my post as such then I am sorry.

I must agree.

I hope the above corrects your impression of what I said.

Susan, you will enjoy Agatha's post #376. It is lovely, as noted by Helen a few posts later.

Anne

Thank you. I will read that in a minute.

I can see this needs some editing, but will have to come back later for that.
Now edited - hope that's better.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I sense that Charles wishes he had not bothered to "shake the all knowing pedestals" and that he may be experiencing the first doubts he has ever felt about the validity of the supernatural. The realization that all the ghosts and goblins are not real should be an empowering and liberating sensation.

Entirely agree.

 

[SusanB-M1]

P.S. to #706 I have now also read #376 and Helen's too.
(I'm away for two weeks now.) Oh, and just to tidy up another point in #706: I was the subject of, should read 'I was the victim of'.

 

[Charles Boden]

Again I have read the replies and appreciate the efforts and the fact that the "mockery" posts have stopped. I have also taken them into serious consideration, believe me. I am not unlike anyone here concerning having doubts and questioning, and your argumentations are very well placed and indeed very valid ones, so naturally, and certainly not for the first time, I am again questioning what I have encountered.

I'll try to reply and comment on what I can regarding your posts.

As for my children, I would never impose on them my own set of beliefs. I want them to be free thinkers and they do not share my beliefs, neither do other members of my family. I have one sister who is a skeptic and another who is a dedicated Protestant church goer. I do no more with them than I have done here. I tell of my experiences and let each draw one's own conclusions as one may. In writing and publishing the story I wrote I again emphasize the same. I wrote it with the purpose of sharing the events that happened to me, not of attempting to convince anyone. And I certainly did not come to this forum with the intent of divulging it.

When I said "give a little shake on your all-knowing pedestals", what I truly meant was that my intention was to bring a reflection upon the possibility and perhaps a little shadow of a doubt upon what is clearly a certainty to most members here - the possibility of the existence of life after death. The possibility that each "individual entanglement of though-consciousness" might retain its individuality even after physical death. Nothing more than that. By reading your posts and the links provided I have come to better understand your reasoning, and am in fact appreciative of them.

The episode with the man in the street is certainly the weakest of any argumentations I have presented, and naturally I questioned whether he had not overheard some conversation with my friends at the bar we had been to and perhaps made use of it. I apologise for the description of it, but please do believe me when I say that I have attempted to remain as faithful to the events as they happened. Could my memory truly have played tricks on me? I think not, but again there might be some truth in this.

As for cold reading, indeed from what I have seen here I agree that there are ways by which this can be done. Does it apply to my case? My most sincere answer to this question would have to be "I don't know", though in as much as I can remember them it doesn't. If I say to you that I cannot recall one single event in which the medium I have mentioned in the 12 years I had contact with her was wrong, you probably wouldn't believe me anyway or would have affirmed that again my memory fails me. Reason why I had not replied to this specific question before.

What I wrote concerning the "collapse of quantum waves into particles" was written based on what I read in a book called "The Holographic Universe" and saw and heard in the film "What the "bleep" do we know?" If this has been proven wrong, again I stand corrected, and if and when my book goes into its next edition I will certainly correct this.

My regards to everyone,

Charles

 

[Garrette]

Hi, Charles. Just a few quick comments on a bit of your last post.

Again I have read the replies and appreciate the efforts and the fact that the "mockery" posts have stopped.

I don't think most of what you interpret as mockery really is mockery. We have a different style and feel here than on most forums, particularly those forums where immediate belief is the norm.

I am again questioning what I have encountered.

I think this is really all we want. Sort of. This, and the commensurate research to answer the doubts.

When I said "give a little shake on your all-knowing pedestals", what I truly meant was that my intention was to bring a reflection upon the possibility and perhaps a little shadow of a doubt upon what is clearly a certainty to most members here - the possibility of the existence of life after death.

The thing is that most on this forum have already been through it, and in the scientific sense still have that doubt. We weren't born as skeptics who have never seen believers or the arguments of believers. Many of us were very hardcore believers with as much exposure as you or anyone to the world of belief and the arguments in support. Some came here as believers and changed their minds after hearing the arguments here. Some have never believed but have delved into it out of curiosity or doubt, only to have their non-belief reinforced. All of us (with perhaps a rare exception) are still open to the possibility of being wrong upon presentation of convincing evidence.

It is that evidence that is not forthcoming. I know that to you your experiences must seem powerful and nearly unique, but I have had my own numerous experiences of at least the same power and uniqueness and have had this discussion since then with other believers who felt the same about their experiences. The ones who come here usually feel that what they present is something we skeptics have never seen before, never looked at before, never heard of before, when in fact we've seen it a hundred times or a thousand, and each time it falls apart under scrutiny.

Please note that by "falls apart" I don't mean that every unexplained claim is completely and irrefutably shown to have a mundane explanation. Rather, I mean that for nearly every claim, mundane explanations are shown to be more likely than paranormal ones, and what is left are at best one or two "I don't knows."

When we get down to the "I don't knows," two different reactions usually happen:

(1) The skeptics say, "I don't know, but that doesn't automatically mean 'paranormality'." and "Your huge case of apparently paranormal phenomena is now reduced to a couple of minor unexplained tangents with no more justification for assuming paranormality than the ancients had for assuming lightning was thrown by gods from the mountaintops."

(2) The believer says "See? You can't explain these two bits of the whole story, so you have no reason to doubt me at all," and then the believer goes back to pointing out those explained portions as if they weren't explained at all.

The possibility that each "individual entanglement of though-consciousness" might retain its individuality even after physical death. Nothing more than that. By reading your posts and the links provided I have come to better understand your reasoning, and am in fact appreciative of them.

This is gratifying to hear. Thanks.

As for cold reading, indeed from what I have seen here I agree that there are ways by which this can be done. Does it apply to my case? My most sincere answer to this question would have to be "I don't know", though in as much as I can remember them it doesn't. If I say to you that I cannot recall one single event in which the medium I have mentioned in the 12 years I had contact with her was wrong, you probably wouldn't believe me anyway or would have affirmed that again my memory fails me. Reason why I had not replied to this specific question before.

I will not be the only one to tell you that I have generated this exact reaction (though not after 12 years of contact) with more than one person. I'm what professional magicians call a hobbyist and a collector/researcher. My knowledge of magic, particularly mentalism which is the field dealing with cold readings, is vast. That said, since I don't perform except occasionally and impromptu to a friend or family member, my skills are limited. Still, I have been accused of "being in league with the devil," and telling people things I could not possibly have known without being psychic, and of never having done X when in fact I did X right in front of their eyes.

People are foolable, Charles, extremely so, and those who are most convinced of their unfoolability are the most foolable. The hardest people to fool: children and the mentally handicapped. The easiest: scientists and believers.

What I wrote concerning the "collapse of quantum waves into particles" was written based on what I read in a book called "The Holographic Universe" and saw and heard in the film "What the "bleep" do we know?" If this has been proven wrong, again I stand corrected, and if and when my book goes into its next edition I will certainly correct this.

I'm not really qualified to comment on Bleep, but I'm aware enough of actual physicist responses to confidently say it is bunk. Regarding "The Holographic Universe," I have that on my shelf right now; it's been a few years since I read it, but I do recall that even as a non-scientist I dissected much of the claims in it on my own. Such books are successful not because they are accurate or factual--though sometimes the authors think they are--but because their audience wants them to be true and so does not really question.

My regards to everyone,

and to you.

 

[Pixel42]

When I said "give a little shake on your all-knowing pedestals", what I truly meant was that my intention was to bring a reflection upon the possibility and perhaps a little shadow of a doubt upon what is clearly a certainty to most members here - the possibility of the existence of life after death.

FWIW I don't rule out the possibility of an afterlife, despite being an atheist. I do not, however, consider the ramblings of mediums to be evidence of its existence.

If I say to you that I cannot recall one single event in which the medium I have mentioned in the 12 years I had contact with her was wrong, you probably wouldn't believe me anyway or would have affirmed that again my memory fails me.

I have no difficulty believing you, and though I think confirmation bias (remembering the hits and forgetting the misses) may indeed be a factor I suspect that the most likely explanation of why you have the impression that she was never wrong is the Forer Effect. The fact that you considered the "death of an unspecified royal" prediction an impressive hit is a textbook example of it.

Did you know that over 90% of any bunch of people, all given exactly the same reading (tarot, astrological, personality etc) but told that it was their personal reading, will rate it as accurate or very accurate? Average score of 4.3 ( plus or minus 0.1) out of 5.

Consider a statement like: "You have just come back from a trip". Obviously for someone who has just returned from a business trip to another country that's a hit, but what about the pensioner who rarely leaves the house, but last month took the bus to the next town to visit her sister? What about the prisoner doing life who six months ago had to be taken to hospital for an X-ray? What counts as "just", what counts as "a trip" will be different for each person ,but if you really think about it it's easy to see how what seems like a very specific statement will be assessed by as many as 90% of people as accurate.

What I wrote concerning the "collapse of quantum waves into particles" was written based on what I read in a book called "The Holographic Universe" and saw and heard in the film "What the "bleep" do we know?"

Oh dear. Both total bollocks, I'm afraid.

My regards to everyone

And mine to you.

 

[Garrette]

As an aside:

Charles, if you want to see how skeptics respond to what might be actual evidence, check out this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188366 entitled Bem's latest experiments.

This is the latest in a years-long series of discussions on actual experiments regarding psi, with real experts digging into the experimental protocols and the statistical methodology and what have you.

Paul C. Anagnostopolous and fls are both highly experienced and trained in research methodology and statistics within their chosen fields. Ersby is a self-educated layman regarding statistics and has performed some very impressive dissections of experimental methodologies and claims. Beth is a professional statistician, I think, and is the one in the group closest to what I would call a believer.

These people disagree, but they look at and discuss actual evidence without rancor.

My personal opinion is that threads like this one have more emotion in them precisely because most of us aren't actual scientists and even when we are the evidence is not gathered or presented in a manner amenable to scientific scrutiny, but we try to act as if it is for the sake of the discussion.

Just a thought.

 

[Pixel42]

What I wrote concerning the "collapse of quantum waves into particles" was written based on what I read in a book called "The Holographic Universe"

Incidentally if you'd like a more credible but still readable introduction to quantum mechanics and some interesting - and not entirely risible - speculation about its implications for consciousness, try this: http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/quantumevolution.htm

 

[John Jones]

I ran wareagle's lottery post through a spell and grammar checker and this was the result:

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

"A word to the wise is deficient." - Norm Crosby

 

[Charles Boden]

Thank you both and thank you for the links. But Pixel, just to clarify this one point:

When the medium approached me during the session, and please excuse me for saying "incorporated with an entity" who presents himself by the name of Lock-Street, the words he used, and I am quite certain of them, were:

"A member of that Royal Family that you have connections to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."

Prior to this event, seven years before to be more precise, the following had happened:

The very first time I sat for a consultation with the medium I have made so many references to, this is what was said:

“Sit yourself down,” she said, and I took my seat upon a wooden stool opposite her at the table, which was covered by a delicate and carefully embroidered white cloth. Multicoloured beads formed a circle at its centre, inside which were the sixteen Cowry shells used for the Búzios psychic readings. A crystal glass, filled with water and containing various different stones and crystals, had been placed upon the table next to a small Indian chandelier, inside which there was a lit candle. She asked me my full name and date of birth, which I gave her. She repeated my full name a few times, while picking up the Búzios shells, shook them and dropped them in the middle of the circle of bead, then seemed for a while to be counting them and analyzing their patterns.

“All that you have been going through is connected to your past.” she said, “Do you believe in past lives?”

“I don't know." I replied, "Is there anything you can tell me about my past lives?” I enquired, with great curiosity.

She once again picked up the Cowry shells she used for the psychic reading, shook them and dropped them in the circle of beads.

“Well,” she continued, “from what I can see here, you descend from a lineage of princes and kings...”

“Oh, really?” I exclaimed, curious at the coincidence with what had been said to me by Luiz Felipe fifteen years before.

“Yes.” she said, “In one of your past lives, you lived in the 17th or 18th century. At that time, you had everything handed to you in trays of silver and gold. This is why you have now come at a level in which your own effort and work will be your only weapons.” And then, after a short pause in which she seemed to be looking into the water in the crystal glass upon her table, she said: “How interesting. The name you had then is the same name as the one you have now...”

Again, it is not easy to describe the absolute state of shock and amazement that this declaration, made by someone who presented herself as a spiritual entity by the name of Aunt Rita, had upon me. I knew as an absolute certain fact that I had never mentioned what had been said to me by Luiz Felipe to my student. I had never previously met the medium who allegedly incorporated this entity. She had no means of knowing very much, if anything at all, about me. In particular it would be very difficult for a woman in Brazil who had not had much schooling to have known anything about a prince from 18th century Scotland who happened to have the same name as I did. This, together with the simply impossible and unbelievable coincidence of being given the same information via two entirely different sources, fifteen years apart, had the impact of a slap across my face. I was stunned. The chances of a coincidence, or that the medium may have managed to get any prior information about me, were in my view non-existent. How could this be, if not the obvious conclusion that it must be a reality? That what I was dealing with was something that could not be explained by any known rational means and that it was true? Could all major lines of religion be in fact referring to the same fundamental truths, despite the minor differences that have always existed between them?

Given this association, and the fact that indeed almost 20 years later I was able to verify that indeed I am genealogically descended from King James IV, makes it very difficult for me to believe that this can be explained by any "cold reading" technique, and certainly that "a member of that Royal Family you have connections to" could not be referring to any other but the one in question. So please forgive me if I cannot take your explanations of such events for granted without giving them some careful consideration.

 

[Garrette]

Given this association, and the fact that indeed almost 20 years later I was able to verify that indeed I am genealogically descended from King James IV, makes it very difficult for me to believe that this can be explained by any "cold reading" technique, and certainly that "a member of that Royal Family you have connections to" could not be referring to any other but the one in question. So please forgive me if I cannot take your explanations of such events for granted without giving them some careful consideration.

Understood, but remember that cold reading is the least of what has been suggested. YOU had a connection to the Stuarts. Who else would this have fit? How many others? More than you think.

More importantly, but less obviously, is that which has been repeatedly emphasized: How many predictions has this medium made over the years? How many were hits and how many were not?

It is within the realm of conceivable possibility that you are correct, but you need to see that it is even more firmly in the realm of probability that there are other explanations.

 

[case#46cw39]

Thank you both and thank you for the links. But Pixel, just to clarify this one point:

When the medium approached me during the session, and please excuse me for saying "incorporated with an entity" who presents himself by the name of Lock-Street, the words he used, and I am quite certain of them, were:

"A member of that Royal Family that you have connections to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."

Prior to this event, seven years before to be more precise, the following had happened:

The very first time I sat for a consultation with the medium I have made so many references to, this is what was said:



Given this association, and the fact that indeed almost 20 years later I was able to verify that indeed I am genealogically descended from King James IV, makes it very difficult for me to believe that this can be explained by any "cold reading" technique, and certainly that "a member of that Royal Family you have connections to" could not be referring to any other but the one in question. So please forgive me if I cannot take your explanations of such events for granted without giving them some careful consideration.

Hi Charles, I'm starting to understand your argument I think:

II. judgment

Premise 1. I observed a medium during a session, and the words he used, and I am quite certain of them, were:

"A member of that Royal Family that you have connections to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."

Premise 2. Diana, a member of the Royal Family of King James IV, died that week.

Premise 3. I observed, almost 20 years later, that indeed I am genealogically descended from King James IV.

III. inference

This medium has the paranormal ability to do paranormal things like predicting a person's history/future without knowing that person.


Well, that's my first attempt at it. Please correct it where I'm wrong.

Edit: Fixed Diana premise.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Given this association, and the fact that indeed almost 20 years later I was able to verify that indeed I am genealogically descended from King James IV, makes it very difficult for me to believe that this can be explained by any "cold reading" technique, and certainly that "a member of that Royal Family you have connections to" could not be referring to any other but the one in question. So please forgive me if I cannot take your explanations of such events for granted without giving them some careful consideration.

Charles, "a member of that Royal Family..." lacks the actual name of that member. It simply can be anyone of that family. Remember, a single person is not what people consider a family. Then, "...you have connections to" does not say that you have to be a descendant of that family. Knowing someone well enough to call her/him a friend is already considered "a connection", for example.

By all means, there is absolutely no way that this prediction refers specifically to Diana. And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly:

1) Many people can be considered descendants to some royal person in the past, from which in turn the current royal family in question descended from. That is, way more people than you think ar in one way or the other related to them.

2) There are good chances that any one of them could have died, especially the older ones. Considering the above, it could also have meant that you were going to die, or even one of your childs. After all, you are "connected" to them, and thus to some extent a member of that family.

3) The given time-frame does not match as well. And again, was too vague. If that medium, or it's spirit-contact, is able to tell who is going to die (which it obviously was not) it should be no problem to give a specific date as well.

Ask yourself the following: a medium claims to have the ability to predict the future. Usually they also claim to have contact to whatever kind of spirits. Now, are these spirits stupid, or why are they unable to say a specific name, date, etc? Or are these mediums too stupid to understand and memorize simple names given to them? How comes that virtually every medium fails to give very specific information most of the time?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Nonpareil]

When I said "give a little shake on your all-knowing pedestals", what I truly meant was that my intention was to bring a reflection upon the possibility and perhaps a little shadow of a doubt upon what is clearly a certainty to most members here - the possibility of the existence of life after death.

We're open to the possibility. We just don't believe it. It's possible, but there's no reason to think that it's true.

If I say to you that I cannot recall one single event in which the medium I have mentioned in the 12 years I had contact with her was wrong, you probably wouldn't believe me anyway or would have affirmed that again my memory fails me.

Well, yes. The latter is probably what we would say, because, again, it is demonstrably true. The human brain is wired to look for patterns, so we naturally remember the things which reaffirm that pattern (in this case, the predictions that came true) and discard the others. It's a well-known failure of the human mind.

When the medium approached me during the session, and please excuse me for saying "incorporated with an entity" who presents himself by the name of Lock-Street, the words he used, and I am quite certain of them, were:

"A member of that Royal Family that you have connections to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."

Yes, we don't doubt that this is what the medium said. What we've tried to explain to you is that this prediction is so ridiculously vague as to be "true" for any person it is ever made to.

I could walk up to my brother and make this prediction right now and have it come true. Why? Because, if you go as far back in your family tree as you did, anyone can be said to have some kind of connection, however tenuous, to upwards of ninety percent of the world's royal families, and there are quite a few. It was simply coincidence that it happened to be Diana that bit it that week. If Diana hadn't died, it could have been almost anyone.

Prior to this event, seven years before to be more precise, the following had happened:

The very first time I sat for a consultation with the medium I have made so many references to, this is what was said:

Given this association, and the fact that indeed almost 20 years later I was able to verify that indeed I am genealogically descended from King James IV, makes it very difficult for me to believe that this can be explained by any "cold reading" technique, and certainly that "a member of that Royal Family you have connections to" could not be referring to any other but the one in question. So please forgive me if I cannot take your explanations of such events for granted without giving them some careful consideration.

What one in question?

That's the thing, Charles. Look at the prediction she made to you. She did not say that you were descended from King James IV. She said that, in a past life, you came from a lineage of princes and kings, and had things handed to you on trays of silver and gold. This is so ridiculously vague as to work in any situation. It could have meant any king or any royal family whatsoever.

Do you understand what I'm saying? The predictions that you heard are deliberately vague so as to be entirely impossible to falsify.

 

[Charles Boden]

By all means, there is absolutely no way that this prediction refers specifically to Diana. And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly:

In a previous post I did mention the fact that if Diana's specific name had been given you would have found me frantically attempting to warn her about what had been said to me, and again running the risk of making an absolute fool of myself!!!

I do understand what you are all saying, believe me. And I do see the reasonings behind your argumentations.

Would it make a difference if I told you that when I went to Scotland with my Dad we came upon a town that was exctly the same as my childhood memory?

I honestly swear upon God's name (and I believe you know that I believe in this) that I am not lying in anything I have said here so far. If you doubt me, by all means, check out the fact that the book I wrote was published three months ago. Why do you think I wrote it? How could I not wish to share all of this? Can I prove what I am saying? Of course not. "Evidence to me personally" is what I have been saying from the start...