Hello from a non-skeptic

[Gao]

“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.”

The problem with this is that you could never prove this wrong. The medium could have said this to anyone.

It should also be noted that they didn't actually claim that you were ever a member of the royal family directly, just that in you descended from royalty and that you had a past life where you were very rich sometime within a 200 year period. That's really very little information, and it's impossible to prove any of it wrong. It's really very common for supposed psychics/mediums/etc. to make vague, unfalsifiable statements that sound specific if you don't think too hard about them, and this looks rather run of the mill.

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...”

You sure the medium didn't just happen to remember that England has had a king named Charles before? Heck, I'm sure that there were plenty of rich people with at least some distant royal connection in the world over these 200 years with a common name like that would fit, so this is again another really vague and useless prediction.

Nothing here shows any knowledge whatsoever of the Ouija incident or your past life belief at all.

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,

Plenty of people are decended from royalty, and most people really wouldn't have any way of checking/ Even if you had a long family tree that had no such connection, they could just say that a king had an affair with a female ancestor of yours. This perfectly fits what I'd expect out of a cold reading. If they were specific on the connection, you might have at least a little bit of something, but they were about as vague as could be.

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.

Don't conflate these two predictions. They were two unrelated predictions, and the first one was vague enough to tell you virtually nothing. The second could have applied to most of the royal families in Europe, as they were all connected, and as pointed out earlier, there was a better than 1 in 200 chance that a member of the British royal family would die anyway, and far rarer things happen every day. Please also look at my stopped clock example from page 15 for why a handful of even specific predictions aren't particularly helpful.

 

[Christian Klippel]

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!!!

So what? This has nothing to do with the undeniable fact that the prediction was way too generic and vague.

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?

Why should it? I know many people who said things like "That was strange. I visited/met/saw X which i think to remember from my childhood" although they were confident to never have been there, or met that person before, or saw whatever it is before. Heck, it even happens to me sometimes. But that is not a memory of some previous life. No, at least the times when i asked in my family, it was simply that those things have been talked about between them when i was a child, i simply picked up and for whatever reason i remembered it years later.

And here comes the important part: my memories have been distorted and corrupted in a way that made it appear as some kind of "Deja Vu", as if i was there before, etc. It is simply my mind which had played tricks on me, simply because my memory is as fallible as anyone else's. The same applies to most of my friends who shared such stories with me. Only a very, very few actually believe it to be a memory of some previous life.

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.

No one here accuses of lying. We simply point out that these things are most likely not what you think they are.

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...

Writing a book about something does not make that something true by default. "Papier ist geduldig", as we say here in Germany. It simply means that you deemed some topic important enough to write a book about it. However, the problem seems to be that you refuse to think rationally about these events. Because, if you would, it is highly likely that you would have come to the same conclusion as we have. And if you came to the conclusion you arrived at, after rationally thinking and examination, you would have solid evidence that you could present.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[John Jones]

This is not proper Tarzan dialect. It should be:

"I no see why people can't learn anything."

Tarzan not use pronouns!

 

[carlitos]

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

I think that it's safe to say that every single person of European descent who lives in the Americas has a connection to at least one royal family. Every time we elect a new US president, some genealogist tells us how he's related to the queen of England.

Just one example - George Bush, president of the United States from 1988-1992, is a 13th cousin twice-removed from Queen Elizabeth II of England.

Even Barack Obama, who is half Kenyan, has a "connection" to the British royal family.
link

Obama's political bona fides started with the Declaration of Independence. Francis Lightfoot Lee of Virginia, Caesar Rodney of Delaware, Pennsylvanian Robert Morris and Georgia's Button Gwinnett were all signatories to the declaration and are all ancestors of Obama's. He is related to at least three men who came to America on the Mayflower.

There is also a high probability that he is related to Queen Elizabeth of England, since they both descend from Dorothy Ann Tracy (1563-1612).

Barack Obama grew up in Hawaii, where he no doubt has a "connection" to the Hawaiian royal family.

Expand this logic to all of the royal families in all of the world, and I guarantee that no human being doesn't have something so nebulous as a "connection" to a royal family. Moreover, people die all the time.

What you witnessed is a vague prediction that you confirmed with the benefit of hindsight. If I were doing a cold reading, I'd also ask you to "pay attention to who this might be," because (as noted above) people are extremely likely to find that their reading is accurate (confirmation bias). Your being "on the lookout" for a connection increases the likelihood that you'd find this "connection," and this increases the potential future income for the "psychic." They aren't stupid, you know; they want repeat customers. This is a much simpler and likely explanation than anything paranormal or psychic.

I won't ask any questions, since we have been asked not to do so.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

I'm content that you quite sincerely believe that you're telling the truth, but the trouble is that you've grossly misinformed yourself.

I don't think that's the same as lying, but the ultimate outcome is indistinguishable, no matter how noble and pure your motives.

 

[Pixel42]

There are about 30 official members of the British Royal Family alone, and one of them was very elderly, so the odds of a hit even if you restrict it to just that family aren't as low as you might think, though obviously the medium lucked out in a big way.

But the question I want you to consider, Charles, is this: how would you have reacted if neither Diana nor the Queen Mother had died, if in fact no significant death in the British Royal Family had been reported? Would you have done some research to see if any of the more obscure members of the family (or people who were related but not official members) had popped their clogs? Would you have gone back to the medium and asked why the prediction they made had not come true? If you had and they'd said it was obviously an illegitimate member of the family or something similar, would you have accepted that as a reasonable explanation and carried on believing in them?

Please try to think yourself back to a week after the prediction was made, just before Princess Diana was killed, when the time interval for the prediction was already up. Were you already planning to do some research, or talk to the medium about the prediction? Or did you only even remember the prediction when you heard that Diana had died?

 

[carlitos]

I'd still like to know why Charles Boden assumed it was the British royal family, since that wasn't the prediction at all. "A member of a royal family that you have a connection to," in psychic-speak, could be confirmed with any of these:

• An acquaintance named "rey" or "rex"
• Someone in the neighborhood named King, Reyna, de los Reyes, Duke, etc.
• Someone in Regina, SK
• Any member of the house of Stuart, Tudor, etc. who had some undefined "connection" to Charles Boden
• Any descendant of royalty (from anywhere) that had a loose connection to Charles Boden
• Someone from a family named "Royal" or with a business named something royal, like King's auto parts or Royal Jell-o, again who had a "connection" to Charles Boden

I could make this list 100 items long, and it illustrates the type of "proof" applied to psychic predictions cold reading in hindsight.

 

[Nonpareil]

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!!!

Which is irrelevant to whether or not the prediction was correct. It wasn't, because it was so ridiculously vague that it's nigh-impossible that it wouldn't come true.

 

[Agatha]

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?

Would that be the same Scotland in which you were born, and in which you lived up to the age of three?

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...

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you are lying. What we are saying is that for every instance of "the paranormal" you have described, there are rational, non-supernatural explanations.

 

[SezMe]

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

What is the likelihood that she would have told you that you were fresh meat and this is the first life cycle for you. How dull. How uninteresting. There's nothing there to raise her esteem in your eyes.

Similarly, what is the chance of her saying you were descended from a washerwoman and that horrible leech that lives in his mother's basement across the street? What's in it for her in that scenario? Nothing. You're not going to be much interested in what else she has to say and you're sure not to tell all your friends about her amazing capabilities. And you're sure as hell not going to write a book that includes her.

Same with Forehead Man. Would you have given him a second thought if he had merely observed that, "Hey, buddy, you're a worthless, drunken lout. Get your poop together." Nope.

Heed the phrase: Follow the money (and ego) and you'll find your answers.

 

[iknownothing]

Charles: I don't believe you've responded to this, but I might have missed it, so forgive me if you have.

It has been pointed out to you quite a few times, that being descended from royalty some 500 years in the past is very common. Lots of people, if not most, could probably find some family connection to royalty that recent or more. Do you accept that? If so, then do you accept that your claimed "connection" to the current British royals is very, very weak? I'm guessing you are about 15 generations removed from James IV, who is probably about 15 generations removed from Diana, which makes you about 30 generations removed. Which is enough to be nothing at all.

Like I said before, would they claim a connection to you?

What if a member of a Hawaiian royal family had died that week, on the very island where you had spent a nice vacation 10 years earlier? Or a member of the Swedish royal family whose aunt has a vacation home in the town you were born? (I'm making that up of course.) The word "connection" is open to any interpretation you want to stamp on it after the fact.

In other words: I'm sorry, you aren't really connected to the royal family except in your imagination.

 

[iknownothing]

Also:

“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.”

This is another attempt to make something meaningful that isn't.

The vast majority of people ever born have had to live by their own effort and work. It's not because we're all former royalty. It's because that's life. There's no need to go finding metaphysical explanations for why life's tough.

 

[Apology]

Charles: I don't believe you've responded to this, but I might have missed it, so forgive me if you have.

It has been pointed out to you quite a few times, that being descended from royalty some 500 years in the past is very common. Lots of people, if not most, could probably find some family connection to royalty that recent or more. Do you accept that? If so, then do you accept that your claimed "connection" to the current British royals is very, very weak? I'm guessing you are about 15 generations removed from James IV, who is probably about 15 generations removed from Diana, which makes you about 30 generations removed. Which is enough to be nothing at all.

Like I said before, would they claim a connection to you?

What if a member of a Hawaiian royal family had died that week, on the very island where you had spent a nice vacation 10 years earlier? Or a member of the Swedish royal family whose aunt has a vacation home in the town you were born? (I'm making that up of course.) The word "connection" is open to any interpretation you want to stamp on it after the fact.

In other words: I'm sorry, you aren't really connected to the royal family except in your imagination.

What if he collected those ghastly plates from the Franklyn Mint with pictures of the British Royal family on them, or the even more popular mugs? People who collect such things do feel "connected" to the British Royal Family and would certainly count that as a "hit". If you include such memorabilia, nearly everyone in the world has such a "connection" to the British Royal family---including me. I have a lovely tin box that commemorates the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway between Canada and the U.S. in 1959, and it features a portrait of Betty and Phil on top; ergo I am also "connected" to the British Royal Family.

 

[Akhenaten]

Jeepers. I've got jars and jars of coins here and every one of them has Liz's head on it.

I must be practically next in line for the throne.

I'll just go and read up on what Nostradamus has to say about this . . .

 

[dlorde]

I don't recall if this link has been posted yet, but for disturbing evidence of the malleability of memory, check out How Much Of Your Memory Is True?.

I've known that memory can be unreliable for years, but research of this type has made me realise just how much 'unreliable' understates the case... reinterpreting many of my more unusual or cherished early memories in the light of this research has been an eye-opener. Some could not have happened as I remember them, some are probably conflations of separate events, and some I think may actually be recollections of dreams...

It seems to me that a thread like this, in which the proponent of the paranormal is encouraged to recall the experiences repeatedly and in increasing detail, is likely to cause those memories to be reinforced and exaggerated in the direction of the proponent's current bias. Which suggests that unless the proponent gains some understanding of the potential problems with their interpretation very early in the thread, it may actually be counterproductive.

Just speculating...

 

[Charles Boden]

Would that be the same Scotland in which you were born, and in which you lived up to the age of three?

Point taken, and here is the answer to the implied question:

Seven years after the day with Aunt Rita, in the summer of 1997, my father paid me a ticket to England and took me by car to Scotland with the intention of visiting Leven, the town in Scotland where he had lived and where I was born. While we were driving towards Edinburgh, from a distance I saw a small town on the road that leads to the capital called Biggar. The sight of the entrance to this small town, from the road that we were on as we approached it, hit me like a blow in the stomach. The vision of its row of houses, forming a curve into the main street, was literally exactly the same as the vision of the town which had been in my memory ever since childhood.

“Had we ever passed through this town before, Dad?” I asked him, thinking I might have seen it before, “When I was a child, I mean...”

“Oh no,” he said, “whenever you, your Mum and I went down to Liverpool to see your grandparents, we always took the train, which takes a different route.”

We decided to stop in the town for a pub lunch, and when I asked e owner of the pub if he knew anything about the history of the town, he handed me a tourist brochure with some information about Biggar. I thanked him and sat back next to my father. As I began to read through it, I first read that the famous rebel William Wallace had once been through the town, and then, as I read further, that Bonnie Prince Charlie had also been through the town, where his army had camped in its outskirts after their retreat from Derby.

Guys, as I said I am truly considering your explanations for the various episodes I came upon. As I said at the beginning of this thread, it is not one individual event that took me to believeing in what I believe, but the sheer volume of so many.

Upon pondering over the episode with the Ouija, what came to mind was the fact that we had tried before and nothing similar had ever happened. Were it truly the result of the ideomotor effect, wouldn't it have been likely that it would have? Also, as I said, at four in the morning the glass stopped moving after Luiz Felipe (or the ideomotor effect) said goodbye. We did try to get it to move again, but with no result. How could the ideomotor effect apply to this?

As I said to you, my full name is Charles Edward Stuart Boden. My father gave me my name after Prince Charles Edward Stuart (1720-1788), so what was said concerning my having "the same now" was far from vague.

When I was told what I was concerning Diana's death, there was no doubt in my mind as to which Royal Family was being referred to, and yes, throughout that week I was in the expectation of whatever news might come out concerning this, only to find myself waking up in the middle of the night, turning on the TV, running through its channels and coming upon the CNN channel at the precise moment in which the news was being given of her accident. I really don't know what the percentage of chances of this happening might be, but it certainly does not seem vague to me. Neither was the prediction concerning my wife's pregnancy.

I am aware that even if I present you with more of what I consider "evidences", they will still be promptly discarded. The only piece of evidence that I might be able to provide you with is this one, seeing as it is one that I have never been able to verify and perhaps someone here might be able to:

On the night of that same day, while staying at a small hotel in Edinburgh, and perhaps influenced by our visit to Linlithgow Palace that day, I had a dream which to me was clearly related to what I truly believe may have been a past lifetime of mine, about an event of which, when I had the dream, I had not yet read where it might have happened in the book. In truth, it is an episode that to this day, amidst all the research I have done into Prince Charlie’s history, I have still never read or heard about anywhere:

In the dream, I was sitting at a wooden table with a young lady and some companions having lunch when a shepherd boy came rushing in to tell us that some redcoats had just landed close by. The young lady, our companions and I hurried to pick up our things and rush down to where we had left a boat anchored at a loch. When we got to it, the young girl remembered that she had forgotten her hat inside the hut, and rushed back to fetch it, despite our need of making haste, saying: “No, I must go and fetch it. That hat will save us yet...” After a short while of anxious expectation, in which one of the ladies sitting in the boat was saying: “How can a girl be so vain? What can possibly have gotten into her? Fancy keeping us waiting here at a time such as this just because of some silly hat...”, we finally saw her running back down the pathway towards the boat with her hat in her hand. It was a green hat, with light-green veils on either side which could be tied under her chin. When she reached us, I helped her by carrying her into the boat so that she would not get her red and green dress wet. With her lifted in my arms, I stared into her eyes, somewhat stunned by her courage and by her pretty, smiling face. And, when we rowed off, the young lady would use her hat, as though to shade off the sun, to hide both her and my faces from the onlookers at the banks of the loch...

I would love to be able to know if this episode ever happened and if there is any reference anywhere to Flora's hat. Likewise if any golden bracelet was ever found in the grounds of where I believe was the Pallazo Savelli in Albany. If not proof, I believe they would be quite legitimate validations.

IF reincarnation is a reality, and I have encountered countless cases which seem to back this up, including, yes, Dr Ian Stevenson's research, as well as several others in Carol Bowman's forum (www.childpastlives.org) it is almost inevitable that some of us will have lived a "famous" past life. It is of absolutely no relevance to me as to whom I might have been, only the fact that I might have been, with all the wondrous implications that would go with it. The only advantage I might have, in my point of view, is in the fact that his life is so well documented, which makes it easier for me to be able to find possible associations.

Hope I am not boring you all...

Charles

 

[SezMe]

When I was told what I was concerning Diana's death, ...

You weren't told of Diana's death...according to you. Why do you keep this up?

Hope I am not boring you all...

What is more sad than failed hopes.

 

[Garrette]

Were it truly the result of the ideomotor effect, wouldn't it have been likely that it would have?

No. It is at least partially dependent on atmosphere and expectations, not to mention the mix of participants and participant expectations.

Also, as I said, at four in the morning the glass stopped moving after Luiz Felipe (or the ideomotor effect) said goodbye.

So it stopped when you expected it to stop.

We did try to get it to move again, but with no result.

Tried? You attempted to replicate the ideomotor effect? By doing consciously that which is subconscious?

How could the ideomotor effect apply to this?

Quite precisely.

Charles, I've said this in another fashion before, and I'll say it again here:

You are following the exact behavior of other believers whose stories don't hold up: I know the ideomotor effect exists but it doesn't apply in my case, not because I took any real precautions against it and certainly not because I've actually studied the ideomotor effect but because, well heck, it just doesn't seem like it's possible.

When I was told what I was concerning Diana's death,

If your case is truly as strong as you claim it is, then why are you reluctant to present the facts consistently and clearly? Does it matter that the medium never said "Diana?" If not, why do you continue to indicate that she did?

I really don't know what the percentage of chances of this happening might be, but it certainly does not seem vague to me. Neither was the prediction concerning my wife's pregnancy.

It never does seem vague to those who have been taken in by it; that's the point.

IF reincarnation is a reality, and I have encountered countless cases which seem to back this up,

There are countless cases which seem to back up every conceivable claim you care to think of; seeming to back up a claim and actually backing up a claim are two entirely different things.

How much scrutiny have you applied to these countless cases? Is it more than you applied to the Poole case?

including, yes, Dr Ian Stevenson's research,

Stevenson is convincing, not least because he is also sincere. I am not as expert on him as others in this forum, but it is my opinion that he is not a huckster, and he does have some legitimate credentials. His research, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. He fell into the trap of wanting his hypothesis to be true and finding ways to interpret facts to make it true. In doing so, he crossed the line in some of his cases of actually misrepresenting facts; the ones I recall are the birthmarks-indicating-wounds-from-previous-lives; some of the key birthmarks were only in the same position as the previous wounds in the same way that I live in the same house as my neighbor across the street.

as well as several others in Carol Bowman's forum (www.childpastlives.org) it is almost inevitable that some of us will have lived a "famous" past life. It is of absolutely no relevance to me as to whom I might have been, only the fact that I might have been, with all the wondrous implications that would go with it. The only advantage I might have, in my point of view, is in the fact that his life is so well documented, which makes it easier for me to be able to find possible associations.

I am not familiar with Carol Bowman or her forum, but the highlighted part should give you pause in regard to her objectivity.

 

[dlorde]

I would love to be able to know if this episode ever happened and if there is any reference anywhere to Flora's hat. Likewise if any golden bracelet was ever found in the grounds of where I believe was the Pallazo Savelli in Albany. If not proof, I believe they would be quite legitimate validations.

The problem here is temporal - if there is a reference to Flora's hat somewhere, or a golden bracelet found in the Pallazo Savelli in Albany, and it was known (academically or publicly) prior to your dream, a plausible explanation is that you might have encountered this information at some point but were or had become consciously unaware of it, prior to it emerging in your dream(s).

If, however, either of these were to be discovered after your dream(s), it would be another matter.

So as it stands, they're just vivid dreams.They only merit further interest if the information they appear to contain was not available at the time.

Hope I am not boring you all...

Not at all. You seem to be coming to terms with the rigour of sceptical inquiry. A major point to bear in mind is that the perceived number of unusual incidents has no bearing on the likely explanation of any particular incident. If you have adopted a mindset or have beliefs that give credence to certain paranormal phenomena, then it is expected that you will interpret a larger number of experiences as paranormal than someone who doesn't have such a mindset. You can't boost the validity of one event by trying to link it to different events at a different times, unless they are explicitly related, i.e. by direct and unambiguous reference. Treat each event separately and analyse it independently of the others, and you may find that the whole becomes less convincing.

As the intriguing physicist Richard Feynman said (of science): "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

 

[Fast Eddie B]

A member of that Royal Family that you have connections to is going to die this week.

That's exactly the type of vague pronouncement for which cold readers are famous.

What could "have connections to" mean?

You read it to mean, or at least include, "related".

Would not someone who had worked on a documentary about a royal be "connected"?

Or involved with the medical care or finances or business dealings or...?

It really could mean anything. And that's the stock-in-trade of cold readers.