Hello from a non-skeptic

[Robert Oz]

I will, though, point out the following: in 12 years, that makes up to about 630 weeks in total. What are the "random chances" that something like that should have been said to me precisely seven days before Diana's death?

The point has been made by others that it doesn't work that way. It's like claiming the winner of the lottery is psychic because he or she succesfully guessed six numbers. It truly appears remarkable when you ignore every other guess he or she has made in his or her lifetime and all the guesses made by all the other lottery players in their lifetimes.

The question should be:

What are the random chances that a number of things with low probabilities should have been said to someone in the world over the course of 630 weeks and, yet, come true?

Charles, you just happened to be one of these cases. The predictions that don't come true just don't get discussed on internet forums.

The only way to prove that this mundane explanation is not correct is for a medium to pass an objective, controlled test. Where are they?

So I am told that she is expecting another child.

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

I am sitting at a bar, pondering upon a discussion in Carol Bowman's forum as to whether it is not solely we who create the reality around us, wondering if this might be true and that this might perhaps mean that there is no God,

It honestly sounds like a mixture of guessing and cold reading.

Please do a search for "Derren Brown cold reading" and "Derren Brown clown cold reading" on Youtube, Charles. I'd provide the links to the relevent videos, but don't have access to Youtube from this computer.

The two videos I would like you to watch is the one with a picture of a black woman and the one where Derren Brown is disguised as a clown. Watch these videos knowing that Derren Brown is not psychic and then address my earlier question (rephrased here):

If a medium's performance and a cold reader's performance look and sound alike, how does one determine that the medium has genuine powers?

I'm sure the medium herself would jump at the opportunity. The spiritual entities / spiritual guides she works with would not.

Even if she did it for charity or in the interests of spreading truth? Why not?

Would the foundation be willing to pay my air-ticket so we can test the hypothesis of doing the Ouija blindfolded? Personally I do not think that a true spiritual entity responding should need a medium's eyes to do so.

How is it that spirits would not want your medium accepting the million dollar challenge, but don't mind if you do?

Regardless, do the test for your own benefit. Confirm it to yourself. Without money being involved, the spirits have no reason to be hostile.

You say that the spirit does not need your eyes. You also said that you used cut out pieces of paper on a table as your ouija board. Blindfold yourself and get a friend to arrange the letters of the alphabet in a circle, but in random order (rather than A, B, C, D, etc. use F, X, E, M, etc.). See if you can get meaningful messages out of the spirit.

 

[Garrette]

Earlier I said this:

Charles, I began to write up a response to your question, but I won't play your game. I will answer your question in full when you answer mine or admit you can't:

Name one thing that Holohan told the police that they did not already know.

In response to this from Charles:

So this statement made by the police officer is untrue:

One of the detectives present that night, Tony Batters, admits he was astonished. He had been the first cop on the murder scene at Jackie's flat and realised Christine's information was spot-on.

"She decribed everything much as I found it," said Tony, now retired. "She knew the victim's position, some of her injuries and clothing.

"She even knew that in the course of robbing Jackie, the killer had left two of her rings — they would not come off.

"In fact some of Christine's information was unknown to anyone at the time — except the murderer and the victim! When we asked for information about the killer Christine described him in great detail, his age and month of birth, height, skin and hair colouring, tattoos, the type of work he did and mentioned his criminal history.

"She said the victim knew the killer and warned that friends would provide him with an alibi — all now proved right.

"And when her hand wrote the name Pokie it was absolutely spine-chilling. We'd already interviewed Ruark but at that moment I knew we'd got our man."

I realized this morning that I never held up my end of the bargain to answer Charles' question when he answered mine, which he did.

So here's my answer. I will simply quote a letter from Tony Lundy who was Detective Superintendent in charge of the Poole murder investigation initially, meaning during the time that Holohan came forward and spoke to PC Batters. Lundy did not solve the case but put it on hold. 16 years later Detective Chief Inspector Norman McKinlay would reopen the investigation based on advances in forensic technology and formally solve the case.

You can find the letter at this site, which is an excellent one, not only for the Holohan/Poole case, but for others: http://www.tonyyouens.com

(Note: I was conducting my own initial investigation at the same time Tony Youens was conducting his, so my initial conclusions were based on my own research. Tony, however, was much closer physically and was able, with a colleague, to conduct first person interviews and first hand research, and since it is written up clearly on his site, I discarded my own electronic notes in favor of his).

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The following is a letter written by Tony Lundy in March 2004 to the Costa Blanca News. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is reprinted here with his permission.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear Sir,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I refer to the article on Page 17 of March 5-11 edition, part 1 Supernatural.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The murder of Jacqueline Poole was not solved by a psychic called Christine Holohan. You state that, "police at the time had no leads as to who her killer was and had almost given up any hope of solving the murder!"[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tony Batters was never a Detective. He was a beat constable and was the officer who attended the scene when the murder was discovered. Because of his local knowledge and keeness to help, I seconded him to the investigation team. He went to interview Christine Holohan with a Detective Constable and became somewhat obsessed with her views, and remains so![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Anthony Ruark was a local criminal and an associate of the victim and he was a suspect within a day of the murder. He was interviewed and kept in custody on more than one occasion and did not become a suspect because of Holohan.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It was an extremely difficult and complex investigation because of the background of the victim and her numerous criminal associates. The victim had been strangled, beaten, robbed of jewellery and sexually assaulted. There was therefore some forensic evidence available but in those days it was not conclusive evidence. It was possible to eliminate many suspects by blood grouping but not possible to prosecute someone because they were the same blood group as semen found at the scene. This was the case with Ruark. He was always a prime suspect but there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him, much to my disappointmenton behalf of the victim's family.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Christine Holohan gave information without doubt. I have an open mind as to how she obtained this information, but she did not supply anything that advanced the investigation. At the time I used to say to the officers dealing with her: "If she is so in touch with the case could she please tell us where the missing jewellery is." Of course, she could not do so.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unfortunately, we never discovered the whereabouts of the missing items and eventually I had to close down the investigation for the lack of evidence at that time. The file would never be closed.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In my closing report I stated that Ruark was the most likely person to have murdered Jacqueline Poole. I always hoped that advanced forensic testing would lead to the prosecution of Ruark and fortunately this happened. He had many convictions but it was not until the year 2000 that a legal DNA sample from him was available to be used in evidence.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]During the intial investigation Ruark had denied visiting the victim and having any contact with her. Of course, faced with the DNA evidence he had to change his tune and tried a different defence.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I attended the Old Bailey with DCI McKinley and his team. The defence lawyers tried to suggest that Ruark was never a major suspect, but were shocked to discover what had been said in my reports many years ago.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It was very satisfying to convict Ruark after all those years; particularly for the victim's family. Also from a personal point of view, as it was the only major investigation I had not solved in my career[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tony Batters had become obsessed with Christine Holohan. He even travelled to Ireland to appear on television with her and was fully aware of my thoughts on the subject.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]She did not supply anything significant which advanced or assisted the investigation!! That fact is beyond dispute. I could refer you to numerous officers - including Norman McKinley who could confirm what I have said![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yours, TL [/FONT]

So, no, what PC Batters said was not "untrue" in the sense that he lied. It was untrue in the sense that he got hoodwinked and fell for the same cons that smart, honest, and earnest people have been falling for for years.

---

As an aside, regarding comments by Agatha and then me about the jewelry: Holohan met with Batters on the Thursday after the murder. That morning the Ruislip and Northwood Gazette had an article, beginning on the front page, which gave a complete list of the missing jewelry, along with other details of the murder.

Since Holohan lived in Ruislip, just over a mile from where Poole worked and met Ruark, I think it is fair to assume she had access to that Gazette article prior to meeting Batters.

 

[dlorde]

... My youngest son was just three months old. The age difference between him and my daughter is of exactly one year and one week (10 May/17 May). Just quite how often does that happen?

More often than you'd expect, as it happens. You may find Probability Myths, Fallacies & Puzzles of interest.

Turns out she's already pregnant. And you want me to believe it was "mere chance" or a "lucky guess"?

That with cold reading sounds most plausible - see the link above.

Obviously there's no winning with you guys, because your minds are already set!!!!!!!!

It's not a question of winning or losing, it's a question of finding the most plausible explanation for the observations. That's what our minds are set on - and all explanations are provisional pending further evidence.

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

Just out of curiosity, what do you make of that last sentence: 'Pay attention to whom it might be...' ? Why would the medium say that?

You guys really don't know what you are talking about...

Well we're actually trying to establish what you are talking about...

 

[dlorde]

Great! because I am definitely not smart lol

Smart enough to be able change your opinions or beliefs given good evidence and well reasoned argument. That may be the best kind of smart to be.

 

[Dunstan]

On closely bunched births, here is a couple whose children were born on 8/8/08, 9/9/09, and 10/10/10. Aside from the numerical coincidence, that means the children were just a year plus a month and a day apart.

 

[majamin]

It is uncomfortably frustrating to deal with a person that throws the words 'chance' and 'random' around so haphazardly. Nothing in your posts indicate that you know how you would know that some real affect or ability was present. Worse, you seem to think that we're the one positing theories (it's actually you whose posing them).

Please consider the following list of heads (H) and tails (T) one of my students produced by flipping a fair coin. My challenge to you is to explain what is it that is so remarkable about this list.

HTHTTHTHHTHTTHTHHHTTHHTTHTHTTHTHHTHTHTHTTTHTHTHTHHTHTHHTHHHTTTHHTHTHTHTTTHHTHTHHTHTHHTHTHTHHTHTHTHHTTTHTHTHTTHTHTT

I'm hittin' the hay ... hope to see your answer soon, Charles.

So far, I've had two private responses to my challenge (keep 'em coming ). But, alas, still waiting for Charles to comment on it (take your time Charles, I really want it to sink in).

 

[carlitos]

lotto odds

The point has been made by others that it doesn't work that way. It's like claiming the winner of the lottery is psychic because he or she succesfully guessed six numbers. It truly appears remarkable when you ignore every other guess he or she has made in his or her lifetime and all the guesses made by all the other lottery players in their lifetimes.

I rarely play the lotto, but when I do, I always play the numbers 15 through 20. Take the card and color in the 6 dots right in a row. The number of times where the cashier has said "what are the odds of that--six numbers in a row?" is ... disappointing. I tried to make it a bit of a lesson a few times, but without success. My best response seems to be "what are the odds of them picking the same 6 random numbers as a quick pick?" That gets them thinking.

 

[Apology]

Charles: The best way to really examine your beliefs is to set up a simple self-test at home. The Ouija Board claim is the simplest one to test. First, please watch this video:

Ouija Board Test (courtesy Penn & Teller)

Then, gather your friends, some snacks, maybe a bottle of wine, and reproduce the experiment as you see it shown in the above video. If you have, or can borrow, a video camera, you can tape the session so that you can convince your friends as well. For bonus points, remove the Ouija Board and substitute Monopoly, Scrabble, Candyland, or any other board that's the same general size and shape as the Ouija Board and let the good times roll. I'd be especially interested in what the spirits that are trapped in Candyland have to say.

I think it's important to provide links for you to examine. Dlord has provided a very good link (in post 623), as has Garette (in post 622). I'm going to add a link to Derren Brown's Cold Reading experiment for your consideration.

Charles, I think it's important for you to really consider all these links. In the interests of fairness, give them at least as much consideration as you gave to the medium who gave you the Princess Diana prediction. A lot of us here on the JREF forums were thoroughly convinced of the reality of the type of "phenomena" that you're describing, and the type of evidence shown in these links are what convinced us that it simply isn't true.

 

[Loss Leader]

I rarely play the lotto, but when I do, I always play the numbers 15 through 20. Take the card and color in the 6 dots right in a row. The number of times where the cashier has said "what are the odds of that--six numbers in a row?" is ... disappointing. I tried to make it a bit of a lesson a few times, but without success. My best response seems to be "what are the odds of them picking the same 6 random numbers as a quick pick?" That gets them thinking.

I wouldn't play the lottery this way. It's not because it reduces your chance of winning; it has no effect. However, it may increase the chance of other people playing those same numbers. Any pattern is going to have more people playing that pattern. If you win, you'll split your winnings with more people.

 

[AdMan]

I wouldn't play the lottery this way. It's not because it reduces your chance of winning; it has no effect. However, it may increase the chance of other people playing those same numbers. Any pattern is going to have more people playing that pattern. If you win, you'll split your winnings with more people.

Good point. My strategy: don't play lotto at all.

 

[Charles Boden]

Have read your replies and looked at a couple of the links provided. Sounds like a he says/she says kind of situation. Tony Batters says one thing, Tony Lundy says another. We watch programs where police officers and relatives of a crime victim say they were aided by information from a psychic, you all say they were lying because they were after the bucks. You say the Ouija is the result of ideomotor effect, others like myself that it might not be. Whichever way, whatever objectivity I may have desired in the discussion of the issue seems inevitably lost, so it seems senseless and just "beating about the bush" to continue it at this moment. Kindly do not come back to me claiming that I have run away with my tail between my legs, for this is not so. I will be looking up this thread and checking if anything new comes up. I am sure you are all busy people just as I am, and I am indeed appreciative of the tone in which most replies were put forward to me, particularly yours, Garrette. As to the question regarding all the H's and T's, I'm sorry, but you completely lost me there in what exactly it was that you were asking me to reply to.

The "Spiritual Journey" that Wareagle was mentioning, and which you guys once again wished to make a mockery of, as with other points and ponderations in this thread, is inevitably an individual one. To what little I might know, were we indeed intended to all be aware of the answers to the mysteries that are still occult to us, yes indeed this would be the case and perhaps indeed you would find spiritual entities performing such deeds. As far as I know, it is not. I myself took a bollocking once by one for having disclosed certain details on the internet. How could he have known that I did? Your guess is as good as mine.

I never put myself forward as a candidate to any million-dollar test. What I said in my last post was in reply to some of the members here asking me why I didn't.

In saying I would be willing to share more of the events I lived through, which despite your argumentations are still not so easily discarded, what I was in fact also hoping was that I might provide some data as to how it might be possible to find answers. I long for them just as much as some of you here also claim to do so. In my view, though, the time has still not come that we might yet have access to them...

My regards to all of you, and thank you to those who took the time to reply without the BS and the mockery.

Charles

 

[carlitos]

I wouldn't play the lottery this way. It's not because it reduces your chance of winning; it has no effect. However, it may increase the chance of other people playing those same numbers. Any pattern is going to have more people playing that pattern. If you win, you'll split your winnings with more people.

Oh, I agree that it's no effect. Interesting point about a pattern, though. I had never thought of it that way. I haven't played in years, so it's a moot point. Mrs. Carlito buys a few when it's a big jackpot, and it's not affecting our lifestyle a great deal.

Apologies for slight derail.

Charles, it's too bad you won't test the Ouija board. You could learn something and have a lot of fun.

 

[Charles Boden]

Carlitos, as others have done here, you are putting words into my mouth. Never said I wouldn't...

 

[Loss Leader]

In saying I would be willing to share more of the events I lived through, which despite your argumentations are still not so easily discarded, what I was in fact also hoping was that I might provide some data as to how it might be possible to find answers. I long for them just as much as some of you here also claim to do so.

So, nothing learned whatsoever, then? Excellent.

 

[Charles Boden]

On the contrary, Loss Leader. And again you are putting words into my mouth. I cannot instantly discard my own personal experiences so easily, though.

 

[Robert Oz]

Have read your replies and looked at a couple of the links provided.

What is your opinion of Derren Brown's cold reading? Do you not find it convincing? How do you think one should determine a psychic as genuine when Derren's performances seem just as accurate and mind-boggling as a medium's?

You say the Ouija is the result of ideomotor effect, others like myself that it might not be. Whichever way, whatever objectivity I may have desired in the discussion of the issue seems inevitably lost, so it seems senseless and just "beating about the bush" to continue it at this moment.

But, Charles, the ouija board is testable. By simply trying it, you will either confirm some beliefs you have or you might just shake them up a little. Try the mixed up alphabet and blindfold and have a friend record what is being spelled out.

Even if you don't post the results here, I hope you at least give it a go for your own benefit.

My regards to all of you, and thank you to those who took the time to reply without the BS and the mockery.

All the best, Charles.

 

[Nonpareil]

Have read your replies and looked at a couple of the links provided. Sounds like a he says/she says kind of situation. Tony Batters says one thing, Tony Lundy says another. We watch programs where police officers and relatives of a crime victim say they were aided by information from a psychic, you all say they were lying because they were after the bucks.

Not necessarily. They may simply have been wrong.

You say the Ouija is the result of ideomotor effect, others like myself that it might not be.

The difference being that our explanation is backed by evidence.

Whichever way, whatever objectivity I may have desired in the discussion of the issue seems inevitably lost

How so?

In saying I would be willing to share more of the events I lived through, which despite your argumentations are still not so easily discarded

Why not?

We've been over this quite a lot, Charles. The unreliability of memory, the laws of probability, et cetera... what makes you think that your personal experiences are any more valid as evidence than anyone else's?

what I was in fact also hoping was that I might provide some data as to how it might be possible to find answers.

It is possible to find answers. That's the whole point of the million-dollar challenge, as well as the experiments suggested in this thread and the requests for concrete data that you have received.

 

[Garrette]

Have read your replies and looked at a couple of the links provided. Sounds like a he says/she says kind of situation.

First, it's not. Second, if it is, then the default position is not "Oh, well, it must be paranormal."

Tony Batters says one thing, Tony Lundy says another.

Yes, and Tony Lundy was the one in position to know whether or not Holohan helped; he was the one in charge. More importantly, if you checked the site I linked to you will find a copy of Batters' actual notes (redacted at his request to remove details too painful for the victim's family to see). Those notes of his interview with Holohan do not support his conclusion.

We watch programs where police officers and relatives of a crime victim say they were aided by information from a psychic,

Yes, we do; then upon investigation we discover that the claims are unsupported. We also watch programs where people claim they make $100,000 per month using the real estate acquisition method outlined in so-and-so's book for only $39.95. Do you suggest that those are real?

you all say they were lying because they were after the bucks.

No. Please do not change what we say or put words in our mouths. Some lie, most notably most of the self-professed psychics. Some are simply mistaken or deluded like some of the psychics and most/all of those who say they were helped. Batters is closer to the latter; i think I specifically said he is not lying.

You say the Ouija is the result of ideomotor effect, others like myself that it might not be.

Yes, and this is not in the slightest a matter of he said/she said. It is entirely a matter of scientifically demonstrated fact on the one side and repeatedly refuted claims on the other.

Whichever way, whatever objectivity I may have desired in the discussion of the issue seems inevitably lost, so it seems senseless and just "beating about the bush" to continue it at this moment.

I think we must be operating with different definitions of objectivity.

Kindly do not come back to me claiming that I have run away with my tail between my legs, for this is not so.

I won't, but I will point out that most of your points have been satisfactorily explained while the others do not provide the evidence you think.

I will be looking up this thread and checking if anything new comes up. I am sure you are all busy people just as I am, and I am indeed appreciative of the tone in which most replies were put forward to me, particularly yours, Garrette.

And I appreciated yours. I'm far from a perfect poster and have gone over the line more than once, but I try not to.

As to the question regarding all the H's and T's, I'm sorry, but you completely lost me there in what exactly it was that you were asking me to reply to.

I understand his point but haven't figured out the answer. My pm to him was wrong...

My regards to all of you, and thank you to those who took the time to reply without the BS and the mockery.

Best wishes

 

[Charles Boden]

Could you please hold any further posts until I reply to the questions above? Thank you.

 

[Robert Oz]

So far, I've had two private responses to my challenge (keep 'em coming ). But, alas, still waiting for Charles to comment on it (take your time Charles, I really want it to sink in).

The suspense is killing me. Bring on the answer.