• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How to explain this fact?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cris said:
I have other evidence recorded in books.
Does this forum accept this kind of evidence?
Click to expand...

Is your "other evidence" about this particular incident? If not, how is it relevant? After all, you can hardly honestly chastise others for "generalizing" about how this sort of trickery is usually accomplished while offering only the same sort of generality about "spirits" doing it.

In any case, I think evidence from books is ok as long as it's properly attributed and not a book-length excerpt.
 
turingtest said:
Is your "other evidence" about this particular incident? If not, how is it relevant? After all, you can hardly honestly chastise others for "generalizing" about how this sort of trickery is usually accomplished while offering only the same sort of generality about "spirits" doing it.

In any case, I think evidence from books is ok as long as it's properly attributed and not a book-length excerpt.
Click to expand...

not
It's about other facts.
much evidence recorded in books
19th and 20th century books and even 21st century books
 
Cris said:
If evidence recorded in books is not allowed in this forum, then it is best not to continue. I have books with a lot of evidence.
Click to expand...
Anecdotes are not evidence, so books full of anecdotes are not evidence. Properly conducted scientific tests are evidence, so books which describe such tests are evidence. So it really depends on the books.

It's very easy for people to inadvertently fool themselves into believing things which aren't true, that's why the scientific method had to be invented. If all you have is anecdotes then you should not be convinced by them; you certainly have no chance of convincing us with them.
 
Cris said:
not
It's about other facts.
much evidence recorded in books
19th and 20th century books and even 21st century books
Click to expand...

Then not relevant. If you want an explanation of a particular incident, then only evidence from it is acceptable.

Let's just start with the basic story itself; as presented, it's not really clear how it happened. Did the medium single out the father, say something like "I have a message from your dead daughter, and here's a picture of her to prove it's her spirit"? Or was it more like "here's a picture of a young lady, does anyone here recognize her?" and then the father claimed the recognition and gave the details of her death?

In either case, the fact that the father was the only one there who could verify the likeness isn't really the strong point for your "spirits did it!" claim that you seem to think it is. Can you see why?
 
autumn1971 said:
Did the “medium” just draw a portrait and ask if looked like any dead loved ones?

That’s the simple way.

If he knew that it was a dead relative of the father, well that’s even easier.
Click to expand...



This is the big thing. There's a significant difference between telling the father in advance that you're going to draw a picture of his dead daughter and drawing a picture of a person and then asking a group of 20 people if anyone recognizes it as a dead relative. It's the same as saying you're getting a message from someone whose name starts with "H" and asking if anyone has a dead relative whose name starts with that letter.

"That picture looks like my dead aunt. She died when she was 90, but I once saw a photo of her when she was 20, and that kind of looks like her. I guess there's no reason why her ghost would stay old."
 
Last edited:
Cris said:
I have other evidence recorded in books.
Does this forum accept this kind of evidence?
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say the forum doesn't accept evidence that's vaguely alluded to but never actually presented.

But, of course, that's not the game we're playing here, is it? The game is one of increasing specificity of invention based on the counter-examples suggested. It's analogous to the Monty Python cheese shop game, in which one player has to ask for a new type of cheese each turn and the other has to make up a new excuse as to why they don't have any. You start with a very brief and detail-free outline of a situation and say, "Prove that wasn't genuine ESP!" And then, as scenarios are presented in which there's a perfectly normal explanation for the initial scenario, you make up more and more specific evidence, so we go from "This guy drew a picture that looked a bit like this other guy's dead daughter," but eventually we get to "A blind medium with no fingers drew a picture of the adopted daughter of someone he's known never to have been on the same continent as beforehand who doesn't know how to use computers and hasn't ever heard of the Internet and when we compared it to a photo of her nine out of ten professional art critics consulted in a double-blind test couldn't tell which was which." At which point your expectation is that the nasty skeptics will say "OK, we give in, you've disproved the very concept of scientific law," so you storm off in a huff when we say "Bollocks, you're making it up as you go along." Which is, of course, equivalent to the bit in the Cheese Shop sketch where the costomer gets sick of the whole thing and shoots the shopkeeper, but without the fatal violence aspect (because that sort of thing is frowned on round here).

Dave
 
Last edited:
Cris said:
it was all unexpected.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Did you know the father prior to the occurrence? Did you know the twenty alleged witnesses prior to the occurrence? Did you know the medium prior to the occurrence? How can you be sure the whole thing wasn't staged for the benefit of some of the people there, including you?

it happened in the year 2002.
Click to expand...

And you expect someone else, 17 years later and a continent away, to be able to determine what happened merely from your poorly-recalled version of the facts? You're far too ham-fisted in your attempts to set skeptics up for failure.

In American culture everything is trick and magic.
You can't think the cause is always magic.
Click to expand...

In this forum, I and others have provided quite a bit of evidence that so-called mediumship is just a set of fairly well-known tricks. You've provided no evidence of any other conclusion.
 
JayUtah said:
How do you know? Did you know the father prior to the occurrence? Did you know the twenty alleged witnesses prior to the occurrence? Did you know the medium prior to the occurrence? How can you be sure the whole thing wasn't staged for the benefit of some of the people there, including you?



And you expect someone else, 17 years later and a continent away, to be able to determine what happened merely from your poorly-recalled version of the facts? You're far too ham-fisted in your attempts to set skeptics up for failure.



In this forum, I and others have provided quite a bit of evidence that so-called mediumship is just a set of fairly well-known tricks. You've provided no evidence of any other conclusion.
Click to expand...

can i cite evidence of books in the language in portuguese?
you will have to translate to english.
I want you to analyze this evidence
the plural of anecdotes is data or evidence
 
Loss Leader said:
But I'm asking specifically for you to provide evidence for people to study.

Where did this drawing session take place? What was the date? Who was the medium? Who was the father? How do you know this actually happened? Were you a witness? If so, please describe step by step exactly what you saw. Do you have contact information for any of the people? What was the name of the daughter? When did she die? How old was she at the time of death? How old was she in the drawing? Can you provide a copy of the drawing? Is there any way for anyone on this forum to verify that any of these events ever occurred?

All of these would be pieces of evidence which we could study. If you don't let give us evidence to study, we cannot tell you our opinions.

A person perfected cold-fusion at room temperature, providing millions of times more energy from a glass of water than from a tanker full of crude oil. This was verified by the father of a young girl.

How could this have been possible?

If you say you don't know because you need more details, are you just appealing to ignorance?

Once again, I demand you explain how this could have been possible.

What is your native language? Would it be helpful if someone here communicated with you in that language?
Click to expand...

can i cite evidence of books in the language in portuguese?
you will have to translate to english.
I want you to analyze this evidence
the plural of anecdotes is data or evidence
 
Cris said:
not. It's about other facts.
Click to expand...

Then you're changing the subject. You recited an anecdote nearly twenty years old and demanded that the members here explain it. They offered several possibilities based on the scant facts you were able to provide. But then you demanded they give more specific answers. They said they would need more evidence from you or others and asked you to assist in providing it. You refused. Moreover, you tried to ridicule your critics for allegedly applying abjective reasoning -- both misdefining and misapplying the term -- in the vacuum of evidence you insisted should prevail.

It seems your critics have bested you. They didn't fall into your trap no matter how ineptly you laid it. So now you want to move on as if the whole thing never happened?

much evidence recorded in books
19th and 20th century books and even 21st century books
Click to expand...

Evidence or anecdote? Note the qualification Pixel42 applied. Writing down an anecdote in a book does not turn it into evidence. If you want to talk about evidence of the paranormal generally, start a different thread for that. It looks to me like you're trying to distract from your failure in this thread by changing the subject.
 
Cris said:
I want you to analyze this evidence.
Click to expand...

You didn't respond to a single item Loss Leader brought up in his post. You just copied the same response you gave to me, which asks if you can take this discussion in a different direction.

For me, the answer is no. If you want to advocate for supernatural occurrences in general, and cite books (in any language) as evidence, then start a different thread. This thread is for you to discuss the story you told about the drawing of the daughter. We have asked you to provide the evidence we will need in order to analyze and study it. So far you have refused. Do you acknowledge that your refusal to answer questions is why your critics have properly declined to discuss it further?
 
JayUtah said:
Then you're changing the subject. You recited an anecdote nearly twenty years old and demanded that the members here explain it. They offered several possibilities based on the scant facts you were able to provide. But then you demanded they give more specific answers. They said they would need more evidence from you or others and asked you to assist in providing it. You refused. Moreover, you tried to ridicule your critics for allegedly applying abjective reasoning -- both misdefining and misapplying the term -- in the vacuum of evidence you insisted should prevail.

It seems your critics have bested you. They didn't fall into your trap no matter how ineptly you laid it. So now you want to move on as if the whole thing never happened?



Evidence or anecdote? Note the qualification Pixel42 applied. Writing down an anecdote in a book does not turn it into evidence. If you want to talk about evidence of the paranormal generally, start a different thread for that. It looks to me like you're trying to distract from your failure in this thread by changing the subject.
Click to expand...

The first evidence was not accepted.
only I have other
but I want to present them in Portuguese, because the book is in Portuguese.
I want to know if this is allowed on this forum?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom