• 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.
I don't understand this game. Why register on a Skeptic's board to advance a woo belief without even trying to make a credible defense of those beliefs.

I don't walk into Hell's Angles bars planning to talk smack, especially without some kind of backup and plan.
 
What I suspect, I may be wrong.
The belief in the individual to whatever idea is so strong nothing can even reach them. They find a place like this that disagrees or ridicules the idea or something similar, we must be set straight.

The belief is the proof, god said so, it's impossible to ever be wrong. It's the non believers that always will be wrong.

Even if they can provide evidence and repeatable proof of something contrary. Just brush it away if it causes discomfort.
 
Axxman300 said:
I don't understand this game. Why register on a Skeptic's board to advance a woo belief without even trying to make a credible defense of those beliefs.
Click to expand...

The banned poster is a Brazilian "Crystal Energy Healer" who is going through a family separation matter. He used earlier forum name variations elsewhere to threaten people using "dark crystal energy forces" on social media. Somehow, he confused normal legal evidence and the evidence used by skeptics and thus started posting against skeptics. (It doesn't have to follow logic to mad people) This coincided with the broadcast of a television movie, in Brazil, on the 19th Century spiritualist Kardec, who promoted spiritualism.

I came across this story randomly and have no vested interest.
 

Attachments

  • Kardec poster.jpg
    Kardec poster.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 5
Matthew Ellard said:
Somehow, he confused normal legal evidence and the evidence used by skeptics and thus started posting against skeptics.
Click to expand...


The contents of a book would hardly be legal evidence of whatever's asserted in the book. It's evidence that the book exists and has those words in it. It might be evidence that the book was consulted by some proposed expert on some matter. Otherwise, it's hearsay. You'd need the book's author to cross-examine.

Some older books might be considered ancient documents which gets them around some of the authentication and hearsay problems. You've still got the problem of relevance. How a copy of "Neuromancer" would be relevant to any suit capable of being heard today is beyond me.*

I guess if one side puts up a purported expert in Artificial Intelligence and that person's sole training in the field came from reading William Gibson novels, you could get it in to impeach the witness. Otherwise, I'm stumped.

*A suit regarding the rights to the book would get it into evidence. I'll call Bill Gibson tomorrow to find out if he has the copyright locked up.
 
Loss Leader said:
The contents of a book would hardly be legal evidence of whatever's asserted in the book.
Click to expand...
I don't think the banned forum member had, or has, any concept what evidence is. I think the banned forum member had legal evidence presented against him in court, lost his case and somehow decided that as skeptics don't like spirits and like evidence, that he would troll skeptic forums.

I think the banned forum member had......issues, and we were simply swept up in his wake. :)
 
Matthew Ellard said:
I don't think the banned forum member had, or has, any concept what evidence is. I think the banned forum member had legal evidence presented against him in court, lost his case and somehow decided that as skeptics don't like spirits and like evidence, that he would troll skeptic forums.

I think the banned forum member had......issues, and we were simply swept up in his wake. :)
Click to expand...


Very likely.
 
arthwollipot said:
A lithp ith when you can't pronounth the "eth" thound.

What you are wefewwing to is called a Wotacism.
Click to expand...


A man standing on the street is approached by a massive man, over 6 feet tall, 300 pounds, bulging with muscles.
"Excuse me, I'm afwaid I'm lost. Can you give me diwections to Wolling Wock Lane?"
The man just looks at him, refusing to say anything.
"I said, can you please tell me how to get to Wolling Wock Lane?"
The man continues to not answer, and the huge man gets frustrated, walks away, and asks a nearby police office for directions. The officer, curious, approaches the smaller man afterward.
"Hey buddy, why wouldn't you give that guy directions?"
"Are you cwazy officer? If I had told him how to get to Wolling Wock Lane, he would have wipped me limb fwom limb."


(The version I originally heard combines this with Lamdacism, so it was "Wolling Wock Wane" and "wipped me wimb fwom wimb".)
 
Last edited:
Matthew Ellard said:
He used earlier forum name variations elsewhere to threaten people using "dark crystal energy forces" on social media.
Click to expand...

Both his egos here did seem to have that lashing-out quality. Unlike our other resident spiritualists, he claimed spirits could cause people harm and did so regularly. The story he tripped up on during his previous visit argued that he was being vexed by an evil spirit at the same time every day.

And no, I don't think he has the slightest clue what evidence actually is -- in a legal, scientific, or any practical sense.

Loss Leader said:
The contents of a book would hardly be legal evidence of whatever's asserted in the book.
Click to expand...

Yay, here's the part where Loss Leader bludgeons me with the dark crystal magic of Rule 803. Too little caffeine in my system yet to have much to say, thankfully.

No, I highly doubt the kinds of books I'm sure he was prepared to cite would not be considered evidence of the fact of matters reported in them or the strength of the conclusions of their authors. Properly certified by rule, they would be, as you say, evidence only that the book contains words.

It might be evidence that the book was consulted by some proposed expert on some matter.
Click to expand...

Alluding to Rule 803(6)(d), I have a custodian of records that collects records kept for some of our daily activity on certain contracts. She requires us to keep the records in a certain form and to surrender them to her according to a curation and retention policy. That is still only evidence in a limited sense. It believe it would be material in such actions as for patent infringement. Not really the sort of book Cris was talking about.

But more to the point, there are references common in every field that might qualify under section 17 of the rule. Say, the Schaum's handbook, if you deal regularly with mathematics. But even then you might need an expert witness, depending on how you wanted to use the information as evidence. In any case, not the kind of book likely referred to.

Someone did ask for evidence of the daughter's existence and, if I recall correctly, of her death. Sections 9 and 11 would seem to apply, and the poster could have presented evidence from, say, a parish register and it would seem to me to qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule. But I don't think that was the kind of book he had in mind.

Section 13 refers to inscriptions on a ring. I assume that would just be Tolkien evidence.

I guess if one side puts up a purported expert in Artificial Intelligence and that person's sole training in the field came from reading William Gibson novels, you could get it in to impeach the witness. Otherwise, I'm stumped.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess you could delve into the contents of the book, but it would seem more straightforward to qualify a computer science expert as an adverse witness to testify that Gibson novels do not create a proper foundation of understanding. Am I on the right track? They certainly don't qualify as learned treatises, if that matters.
 
3 possibilities
1. Fraud, the medium new what the girl looked like.
2. Fraud, the medium drew a passable drawing of a girl based on the parents appearance.
3. Something I haven't though of.
Meh, nevermind.
 
Last edited:
I find it hard to believe the medium drew a recognizable portrait. It seems like that would be the more lucrative talent. I would definitely want to see the drawing and at least one photograph of the daughter, so that I can draw my own conclusion about the likeness. If the drawing is amateur fridge-fodder, then a number of hypotheses leap into focus. First, the "father" was a plant.

Second, the whole scenario relied on generality and indirection. Indirection would be the notion that the medium draws a picture rather than more directly recounts the deceased's features or characteristics. Mediumship often wants to put some sort of gimmick between the alleged spirit and the result. The ambiguity or limitations imposed by the gimmick then become leeway that favors the medium. Generality is sufficiently self-explanatory. "I'm picking up something ... a name ... starts with a vowel, or maybe a consonant." You see how easy that is, and the rubes rarely seem to see this at work.

Also, it's astonishing how differently the client remembers the experience compared to an objective record. One of the most common ways to achieve this is to throw out a general question, such as "Who is Ed? Or Eddie, or Edward?" Someone in the audience will say, 'I had an uncle named Ed." Later that audience member is apt to report that the medium "knew" the uncle's name without being told. So in this case I can see the medium drawing a picture of some random girl and asking, "Who's daughter or sister or mother is this?" And some eager father "confirms" that it's his recently-departed daughter. And everyone "remembers" that the medium guessed this without a prompt.
 
Pixel42 said:
It's Jupiter in the film, Saturn in the book.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the reason why they did Jupiter is because Kubrick wasn't satisfied with the model of Saturn they'd come up with. He thought it didn't look realistic. Flash forward a few years later, and actually Saturn looks exactly like the model did.
 
Belz... said:
The thing is, the reason why they did Jupiter is because Kubrick wasn't satisfied with the model of Saturn they'd come up with. He thought it didn't look realistic. Flash forward a few years later, and actually Saturn looks exactly like the model did.
Click to expand...

I could make such a conspiracy theory out of this.
 
JayUtah said:
I find it hard to believe the medium drew a recognizable portrait. It seems like that would be the more lucrative talent. I would definitely want to see the drawing and at least one photograph of the daughter, so that I can draw my own conclusion about the likeness. If the drawing is amateur fridge-fodder, then a number of hypotheses leap into focus. First, the "father" was a plant.

Second, the whole scenario relied on generality and indirection. Indirection would be the notion that the medium draws a picture rather than more directly recounts the deceased's features or characteristics. Mediumship often wants to put some sort of gimmick between the alleged spirit and the result. The ambiguity or limitations imposed by the gimmick then become leeway that favors the medium. Generality is sufficiently self-explanatory. "I'm picking up something ... a name ... starts with a vowel, or maybe a consonant." You see how easy that is, and the rubes rarely seem to see this at work.

Also, it's astonishing how differently the client remembers the experience compared to an objective record. One of the most common ways to achieve this is to throw out a general question, such as "Who is Ed? Or Eddie, or Edward?" Someone in the audience will say, 'I had an uncle named Ed." Later that audience member is apt to report that the medium "knew" the uncle's name without being told. So in this case I can see the medium drawing a picture of some random girl and asking, "Who's daughter or sister or mother is this?" And some eager father "confirms" that it's his recently-departed daughter. And everyone "remembers" that the medium guessed this without a prompt.
Click to expand...

If the artist used faces in his crowd to get features for his drawing he could easily make a family resemblance of several. A house party seance will be family and friends so the pool is smaller.

A better hit or a complete miss, that a plant could cover.

There are a lot of frustrated barstool artists out there trying to make rent. I knew several over time.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Ellard said:
The banned poster is a Brazilian "Crystal Energy Healer" who is going through a family separation matter. He used earlier forum name variations elsewhere to threaten people using "dark crystal energy forces" on social media. Somehow, he confused normal legal evidence and the evidence used by skeptics and thus started posting against skeptics. (It doesn't have to follow logic to mad people) This coincided with the broadcast of a television movie, in Brazil, on the 19th Century spiritualist Kardec, who promoted spiritualism.

I came across this story randomly and have no vested interest.
Click to expand...

That's just embarrassing.

Sounds like someone successfully proved he's a fraud and he has an ax to grind with the pesky science that brought him down.

We're talking about a guy who doesn't know the difference between a spirit and a ghost, and I don't buy the language barrier either. That knowledge is Woo-101. You'd think he'd take advantage of this forum to engage in an honest debate to, at the very least, understand the weakest parts of his argument and avoid them in later debates. We see this down in the conspiracy theory board where CTists focus on a narrow band of a conspiracy theory to attempt to prove their point while avoiding the whole picture which leads to the theory falling apart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom