Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
flaccon

flaccon said:
Alderbank. Good to see we are online at the same time.
Alderbank, you politely came to my home, I thank you for that. I made you drinks and hopefully you felt comfortable enough? However since then you have had a bad attitude towards me without reason, and it has to stop.

I tested with a Mrs Sara R last week. I have 5 evaluations so far, 4 of which are the opposite to yours. Mrs Sara is a 35 year old navy officer.

Alderbank, I was asked to go away and see what the spirits were capable of, I did this and found that they could alter other computers. This is fact and can be proven. The fact that I am on an internet, I find proving anything impossible. (you didn't send me a WMV file btw) Anyway, I am not here to prove anything, I came here for help, and got back crap all because I don't agree to Paredolia or delusional. What did I learn here? I learned how to bite my lip and try again.
Click to expand...
Tracy good to see we are on line at the same time .
 
Alderbank said:
No we haven't flaccon. You have convinced us.

We look for and weigh the evidence. There is now a lot of evidence, including files which you believe contain voices but do not and files which you are sure have changed but have not, which all point to the same conclusion which is that all these phenomena are inside your head.

We have asked and asked you and scrappy for any evidence at all to support any other conclusion and you produce none.

Can't you see this?
Click to expand...

flaccon said:
Alderbank. Good to see we are online at the same time.
Alderbank, you politely came to my home, I thank you for that. I made you drinks and hopefully you felt comfortable enough? However since then you have had a bad attitude towards me without reason, and it has to stop.
Click to expand...

Can you say specifically what part of what Alderbank said above you consider indicative of a bad attitude towards you? I don't see anything there at all like that. All I see is that Alderbank disagrees with you about the explanation for what is being (or not being) heard.

Perhaps it's Alderbank's claim that you haven't produced any evidence? Your statement about Mrs. Sara R, I hope you understand, is not evidence, it's just another statement by you that now has to be supported with evidence.

Oh, and I suggest that you move to this thread and work out a protocol, instead of doing your own tests. Making good tests that produce solid evidence is not easy, for anyone.
 
Paul2 said:
Oh, and I suggest that you move to this thread and work out a protocol, instead of doing your own tests. Making good tests that produce solid evidence is not easy, for anyone.
Click to expand...
flaccon still doesn't seem to have grasped that people hearing words on her recordings is just as much evidence for pareidolia as it is evidence for her spirits, and that something more is required to distinguish between those two explanations.
 
TEST WITH Mrs S: Mrs S came to my home to go through a basic test. Mrs K and Mr Roberts were the observers. I explained to Mrs S that she will hear much gobbeldy gook.

I did not prompt Mrs S on the initial records. Mrs S heard the word "Evidence" and immediately identified the word as evidence. Mrs S heard other words, and noise suggestive of words. We generated a fresh recording which was filled with too many overlapped voices, so we used a few of the older records. I asked the spirit to repeat certain phrases. 1, Beauchamp. 2, Evidence. 3, We don't belong in a circus. I listened in with her and said to her "I doubt you will hear that sentence its too long" She replied "Yes I got that sentence too" She also heard her full name called out several times and the spirit reminded her of a business she was thinking about. I had no idea what that part meant, but Mrs S explained it to me.

Later that day I called Mrs K to ask if Mrs S was ok and that I hoped it didn't scare her. Mrs K told me that Mrs S had said that she cannot deny what she heard, and that she was not afraid.

I have asked Mr Roberts to write out his evaluation regarding his computer altered. I will collect all these evaluations and then compare. I cannot accept Paredolia or delusional (sorry about that) I am certain that my GP would know if it was Paredolia or a delusion. I update the GP every time the spirits express a new ability.

Alderbank did not update the members with the conversation I recently had with the GP, but I reported everything so far, when he rang me.
 
Pixel42 said:
flaccon still doesn't seem to have grasped that people hearing words on her recordings is just as much evidence for pareidolia as it is evidence for her spirits, and that something more is required to distinguish between those two explanations.
Click to expand...

So even if a spirit clearly but quietly says "It's evident we don't belong in a circus" this is still Paredolia? All the explanations they come out with, whilst others are present, is still Paredolia? in my Fathers tone? The spirits don't stand a chance do they. Anyway, Mount Snowdon is too big for me to climb, I might give this up as a bad job.
 
Evidence can only be gathered through an objective quantitative test. Hearsay is not evidence. To be frank, Mrs S and Mrs K (and whatever other letters of the alphabet and all 7 colours of the rainbow) are irrelevant. This is not evidence. Unless you go to the thread and design a protocol you are wasting your time and prevaricating. No protocol means we won't take you seriously because you give us nothing apart from hearsay, which is about as much use as a hole in the head.
 
flaccon said:
TEST WITH Mrs S: Mrs S came to my home to go through a basic test. Mrs K and Mr Roberts were the observers. I explained to Mrs S that she will hear much gobbeldy gook.

I did not prompt Mrs S on the initial records. Mrs S heard the word "Evidence" and immediately identified the word as evidence. Mrs S heard other words, and noise suggestive of words. We generated a fresh recording which was filled with too many overlapped voices, so we used a few of the older records. I asked the spirit to repeat certain phrases. 1, Beauchamp. 2, Evidence. 3, We don't belong in a circus. I listened in with her and said to her "I doubt you will hear that sentence its too long" She replied "Yes I got that sentence too" She also heard her full name called out several times and the spirit reminded her of a business she was thinking about. I had no idea what that part meant, but Mrs S explained it to me.
Click to expand...
All exactly what would be expected if it was pareidolia. That's why something more than just having people listen to recordings and say if they can interpret some of the noises as words is going to be required to rule it out.

I am certain that my GP would know if it was Paredolia or a delusion.
Click to expand...
Has your GP ever definitely stated that it isn't pareidolia? If it's having a placebo effect on your physical health any decent GP would be reluctant to endanger that improvement by disagreeing with you.
 
Now Scrappy's gone, but Flaccon's on. Fun times.


Flaccon, your witnesses mean nothing. If you want to rule out pareidolia, you will need a lot more than "I cannot accept it"!

Since it is by far the most likely explanation, you will need evidence. I don't mean the word evidence, as allegedly heard by your hands-on witnesses. I mean proper evidence. You know this by now.
 
flaccon said:
So even if a spirit clearly but quietly says "It's evident we don't belong in a circus" this is still Paredolia? All the explanations they come out with, whilst others are present, is still Paredolia? in my Fathers tone? The spirits don't stand a chance do they. Anyway, Mount Snowdon is too big for me to climb, I might give this up as a bad job.
Click to expand...

Yes. Either paredolia or a hallucination. Or a lie. Could be any of those, we'll never know.

As I've said before, we are not interested in hearsay. This isn't other bleevers you're talking to; we aren't interested in rhetoric or hearsay. We need hard evidence gathered by tests. If the "spirits" want to keep you running around after them and making yourself appear demented by conveniently refusing to be tested (note the special pleading), then they are sadists. Tell them to sling their hook as they don't respect you and only seem to want to make you into a laughing stock.
 
flaccon said:
So even if a spirit clearly but quietly says "It's evident we don't belong in a circus" this is still Paredolia?
Click to expand...
It might be, yes.

All the explanations they come out with, whilst others are present, is still Paredolia? in my Fathers tone?
Click to expand...
Yes, they could all be pareidolia.

The spirits don't stand a chance do they.
Click to expand...
If they really exist, they stand every chance. All that's required is an objective test protocol that rules out pareidolia.

Anyway, Mount Snowdon is too big for me to climb, I might give this up as a bad job.
Click to expand...
If you're not prepared to do the necessary objective testing that's the only alternative.
 
Flaccon and Scrappy actually both on at the same time. I don't know what it means, but congratulation. I knew you could do it.
 
I am wondering this, if I was to go for the cash prize, claiming that the spirits can transfer into James Randi's laptop and speak to him, would he consider this Paredolia?
 
And anyway, what has a Welsh mountain got to do with the protocol? I hope that's not going to be another moved goalpost or special pleading in the making.
 
flaccon said:
I am wondering this, if I was to go for the cash prize, claiming that the spirits can transfer into James Randi's laptop and speak to him, would he consider this Paredolia?
Click to expand...
You would need to come up with a test protocol for that claim which ruled out pareidolia. If you did, and the test produced a positive result, you would get the million.
 
flaccon said:
I am wondering this, if I was to go for the cash prize, claiming that the spirits can transfer into James Randi's laptop and speak to him, would he consider this Paredolia?
Click to expand...

Unless we rule it out by rigorous testing, yes. That's what you're not getting. We need a rigorous test to DISPROVE pareidolia or hallucinations. Your prevarication, red herrings, derailments and shifting of goalposts aren't exactly doing much to make me consider anything other than the fact that it is paredolia or more likely hallucinations. You need to do the legwork and come up with ways to test it. If you can't understand that then I suggest you give up as you're just wasting your (and our) time.
 
It seems the skeptics were willing to accept the existence of the spirits after a proper test. It also seems the three amigos are not willing to accept the non-existence of the spirits no matter what.

You should either accept reality or prove it wrong. There is no other option.
 
flaccon said:
Alderbank did not update the members with the conversation I recently had with the GP, but I reported everything so far, when he rang me.
Click to expand...

I don't remember you detailing a conversation with your GP but since we had quite a long phone chat (over an hour) I might have missed it. Apologies if I did.

I would not though have relayed it back on this forum. That would be for you to do, not me.

However, conversation with your doctor is not paranormal.

Have you seen my post suggesting that we all work together to move your claim forward? What do you say?
 
Pixel42 said:
You would need to come up with a test protocol for that claim which ruled out pareidolia. If you did, and the test produced a positive result, you would get the million.
Click to expand...

We've tried explaining this millions of times, but she still won't listen. She's right and as far as her closed mind says that's that. Trying to reason with someone as deaf as post and who has a mind as closed as her lugholes isn't going to progress very far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom