Looking for Skeptics

[trustbutverify]

she's not messing with spirits, they were "messing" with her. she didn't study the bible much but she knows of no other spirit that can raise the dead heal the sick, produce blood from scars, and attempt to provide for the poor.

Who cares?

What's your test protocol? How will it produce objective data? What clearly defined outcome will support the claim, and what clearly defined outcome will contradict the claim?

Why won't you answer any of these simple, basic questions?

 

[abaddon]

I record in total silence. I used to get a quiet hiss and now I don't. Flaccon wasn't taken aback at all, don't knw where you get that from. She was relieved my PC altered.

Sure. You record noise in total silence, then flaccon tells you what you are supposed to hear, and you hear it. Classic paredolia.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I record in total silence. I used to get a quiet hiss and now I don't.

Welcome back, scrappy. How do your computer's mic volume settings now compare to what they were when you used to get a quiet hiss?

Flaccon wasn't taken aback at all, don't knw where you get that from. She was relieved my PC altered.

You don't know where I got that from? Well, it was when she said this:

Mr Robert's computer cannot alter a file, I tested that with jfishers file through the phone. I doubt Mr Roberts would have said it altered but I could be wrong.

So anyway, the burning question is: can you make a recording on your laptop which doesn't have spirit voices on it at first? As you will doubtless have read, there is some confusion here as to whether all of your recordings always now have spirit voices on them from the beginning or whether it's only after flaccon listens to them that the voices appear.

Making an initial non-spirit-voiced recording for us all to hear would be step 1 toward proving whether or not spirits are getting onto your recordings.

 

[scrappy]

Who cares?

What's your test protocol? How will it produce objective data? What clearly defined outcome will support the claim, and what clearly defined outcome will contradict the claim?

Why won't you answer any of these simple, basic questions?

I'm not the one entering a contest. I know Flaccon forwarded a suggested test plan, but received a reply about broken showers, pay cuts and redundancies.

 

[abaddon]

I'm not the one entering a contest. I know Flaccon forwarded a suggested test plan, but received a reply about broken showers, pay cuts and redundancies.

Enough with the dodges.

Which contest was entered?

What was the proposed protocol?

What is the "calibration procedure"?

Why can you not answer questions?

 

[AdMan]

I'm not the one entering a contest. I know Flaccon forwarded a suggested test plan, but received a reply about broken showers, pay cuts and redundancies.

Please ask her to come here and post on her own.

Your second-hand posts with possibly flawed information (did you see the proposed protocol? Did you see see be response?) are getting tiring.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm not the one entering a contest.

The point is that until you have designed and executed a simple objective test you do not know whether the claims you and flaccon are making are true or are simply the product of your overactive imaginations.

You wouldn't be the first people who convinced yourselves of the existence of paranormal or supernatural phenomena only to be proved wrong by simple objective tests. There are plausible mundane explanations for everything you and flaccon have described, and until you have eliminated them you have no more reason to resort to supernatural explanations than we do.

The time to enter a contest will be after an objective test (agreed to be such by knowledgeable people such as those posting here) has been designed and executed and has produced results better than the pre-agreed success criteria.

 

[scrappy]

Welcome back, scrappy. How do your computer's mic volume settings now compare to what they were when you used to get a quiet hiss?



You don't know where I got that from? Well, it was when she said this:



So anyway, the burning question is: can you make a recording on your laptop which doesn't have spirit voices on it at first? As you will doubtless have read, there is some confusion here as to whether all of your recordings always now have spirit voices on them from the beginning or whether it's only after flaccon listens to them that the voices appear.

Making an initial non-spirit-voiced recording for us all to hear would be step 1 toward proving whether or not spirits are getting onto your recordings.

My settings are no different. Flaccon was hoping my PC would alter Js's file but it didn't. It would have made things easier for her had it done so.

I can't produce a silent recording no. Every recording I've made since June has voices on it, louder than flaccons PC. The background sounds are always different too, like its picking up the spirits background noises.

A lot of time it is difficult to make out whats being said, and sometimes it can be clear. Flaccon once described one of the voices on her PC as robotic-like, and they replied to that suggestion on my PC.

How about if a few members make a silent recording (internal mic - youcam or sound recorder app - volume on) Accurately describe the file (like js did) upload the files to Box.com for all to hear. Then I'll play them first, and describe each file as I hear it. Then flaccon can open them up (I'll ask her later) and describe them as she hears them. If they alter on her PC, the originals on Box.com will also alter.

 

[scrappy]

The point is that until you have designed and executed a simple objective test you do not know whether the claims you and flaccon are making are true or are simply the product of your overactive imaginations.

You wouldn't be the first people who convinced yourselves of the existence of paranormal or supernatural phenomena only to be proved wrong by simple objective tests. There are plausible mundane explanations for everything you and flaccon have described, and until you have eliminated them you have no more reason to resort to supernatural explanations than we do.

The time to enter a contest will be after an objective test (agreed to be such by knowledgeable people such as those posting here) has been designed and executed and has produced results better than the pre-agreed success criteria.

Yes I agree and is the reason why flaccon will be hiring a quiet hall for a small gathering. She's sorted a portfolio containing a lot of the art work (unlabelled + labelled) and will be requesting all to bring along their laptops (diamond rings at ones own peril) I'm looking forward to it. I haven't seen any of the latest evidence yet but I hope to travel over next week and check it over.

 

[abaddon]

My settings are no different. Flaccon was hoping my PC would alter Js's file but it didn't. It would have made things easier for her had it done so.

Yet you are unable to identify those settings. Let us be blunt. Those settings are the settings which allow you to create noise, which you can then interpret at will to be whatever you want.

I can't produce a silent recording no. Every recording I've made since June has voices on it, louder than flaccons PC. The background sounds are always different too, like its picking up the spirits background noises.

Lie. Of course you can. You can produce silent recordings at will. I know you can. Sadly, you also know you can, yet choose to deny that you can.

A lot of time it is difficult to make out whats being said, and sometimes it can be clear. Flaccon once described one of the voices on her PC as robotic-like, and they replied to that suggestion on my PC.

Oops. Pareidolia.

How about if a few members make a silent recording (internal mic - youcam or sound recorder app - volume on) Accurately describe the file (like js did) upload the files to Box.com for all to hear. Then I'll play them first, and describe each file as I hear it. Then flaccon can open them up (I'll ask her later) and describe them as she hears them. If they alter on her PC, the originals on Box.com will also alter.

No. How about you respond to the protocols proposed here? I know why. You realise that you will fail said protocols. Hence you propose an untestable protocol.

ETA: Any answers to the outstanding questions? No?

 

[AdMan]

My settings are no different. Flaccon was hoping my PC would alter Js's file but it didn't. It would have made things easier for her had it done so.

I can't produce a silent recording no. Every recording I've made since June has voices on it, louder than flaccons PC. The background sounds are always different too, like its picking up the spirits background noises.

A lot of time it is difficult to make out whats being said, and sometimes it can be clear. Flaccon once described one of the voices on her PC as robotic-like, and they replied to that suggestion on my PC.

How about if a few members make a silent recording (internal mic - youcam or sound recorder app - volume on) Accurately describe the file (like js did) upload the files to Box.com for all to hear. Then I'll play them first, and describe each file as I hear it. Then flaccon can open them up (I'll ask her later) and describe them as she hears them. If they alter on her PC, the originals on Box.com will also alter.

Why are you proposing tests on flaccon's behalf, scrappy?

Can't she come on here and speak for herself? These are her own claims, not yours.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes I agree and is the reason why flaccon will be hiring a quiet hall for a small gathering. She's sorted a portfolio containing a lot of the art work (unlabelled + labelled) and will be requesting all to bring along their laptops (diamond rings at ones own peril) I'm looking forward to it. I haven't seen any of the latest evidence yet but I hope to travel over next week and check it over.

I see nothing here that remotely resembles an objective test protocol with pre-agreed success criteria. Sounds like it should be billed as "a demonstration of pareidolia".

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Yes I agree and is the reason why flaccon will be hiring a quiet hall for a small gathering. She's sorted a portfolio containing a lot of the art work (unlabelled + labelled) and will be requesting all to bring along their laptops (diamond rings at ones own peril)

Scrappy, this is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. Is the meeting being advertised? Is it an invitation-only affair? Because, unless the attendees already believe in this sort of thing, they're likely to have two reactions to the spectacle of a woman showing them pictures in tiny bloodstains and hearing voices in random noise: hilarity or pity. Or perhaps a combination of the two. That's one of the reasons the JREF challenge and similar properly-organized tests insist on doing pre-testing first - to discourage people from humiliating themselves in public.

This could quite literally end in tears.

 

[scrappy]

Why are you proposing tests on flaccon's behalf, scrappy?

Can't she come on here and speak for herself? These are her own claims, not yours.

I proposed a test on my behalf because it would be interesting to see if my PC can now transfer the spirits into other PCs. I said I'll ask flacon if she'll open the files up, and that's up to her, but I 'm sure she will out of curiosity. I ask her to log on but she says there's little point. She hasn't given up, she moved on, gathered more evidence and approached ASKE. Her next step is a gathering, after that it has to be the news papers.

 

[Pixel42]

That's one of the reasons the JREF challenge and similar properly-organized tests insist on doing pre-testing first - to discourage people from humiliating themselves in public.

They strongly recommend that applicants do a dry run of the test protocol that's agreed before proceeding with the official test, but they can't insist.

That's why a typical application for the MDC goes:

1. Someone convinces themselves they have a paranormal ability on the basis of anecdotal evidence which is totally inadequate to support that conclusion

2. They apply for the MDC

3. JREF works with them to design an objective test protocol for their claim

4. The applicant agrees to the protocol because they can see that it is a fair test

5. The applicant doesn't bother to do a dry run of the test because they "know" that they have the ability they claim, and the test is just to convince the silly sceptics

6. The official test is run, usually with live streaming to the web.

7. The results are exactly the results that would be expected by chance; the applicant is publically humiliated

8. The applicant is bewildered and eventually decides that the test must not have been fair all along (though they can never point to anything wrong with it) and goes right on believing in their supposed paranormal ability.

See the Connie Sonne threads for a textbook example.

The only exception I'm aware of where an applicant actually did do a dry run before the official test was DowserDon, and he chose to invite two university professors to witness it so his humiliation still wasn't exactly private.

 

[pakeha]

Yes I agree and is the reason why flaccon will be hiring a quiet hall for a small gathering. She's sorted a portfolio containing a lot of the art work (unlabelled + labelled) and will be requesting all to bring along their laptops (diamond rings at ones own peril) I'm looking forward to it. I haven't seen any of the latest evidence yet but I hope to travel over next week and check it over.

Renting a quiet hall?
A small gathering?

Has a date been set, scrappy?
When you can, I'd like to know more about the calibration flaccon did to your computer, please.

 

[scrappy]

Scrappy, this is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. Is the meeting being advertised? Is it an invitation-only affair? Because, unless the attendees already believe in this sort of thing, they're likely to have two reactions to the spectacle of a woman showing them pictures in tiny bloodstains and hearing voices in random noise: hilarity or pity. Or perhaps a combination of the two. That's one of the reasons the JREF challenge and similar properly-organized tests insist on doing pre-testing first - to discourage people from humiliating themselves in public.

This could quite literally end in tears.

Are you serious? No this could end her tears, either way. It is by invitation only and she'll have a mixture of people attending including sceptics. She's not out to demonstrate magic or make a few bob. There will be organised tests done , I'm sure much will be up for discussion once their computers actually alter.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How about if a few members make a silent recording (internal mic - youcam or sound recorder app - volume on)

That won't produce a recording that's silent. I can easily create a silent recording if you like. Or, if you prefer, I can create a recording of nothing but quiet hiss. This is trivial to do. Using a mic is only inviting outside noise - and that's the opposite of a silent recording. Both you and flaccon have said that the spirits don't talk through a mic, but that instead it's the wires, so there should be no need for a mic.

Tell me if you want me to create a file of this kind.

 

[scrappy]

Renting a quiet hall?
A small gathering?

Has a date been set, scrappy?
When you can, I'd like to know more about the calibration flaccon did to your computer, please.

She's putting the idea together. Plans, tests, etc. Digging out some old teacher friends from Psychology + Parapsychology.

My PC altered via email in June, but last month she purchased a new PC and the spirits were present. She swapped it and still the same. She sent that back too. I didn't witness this but I will check the recordings she's saved from both PCs.

It seems her touch is enough to transfer the spirits into other PCs.

 

[scrappy]

That won't produce a recording that's silent. I can easily create a silent recording if you like. Or, if you prefer, I can create a recording of nothing but quiet hiss. This is trivial to do. Using a mic is only inviting outside noise - and that's the opposite of a silent recording. Both you and flaccon have said that the spirits don't talk through a mic, but that instead it's the wires, so there should be no need for a mic.

Tell me if you want me to create a file of this kind.

The internal mic works fine. No external mic required no. All I did was press record and kept still. I sent her a file that she knew was silent. The file I made in January, it was silent (gentle speaker hiss) and now its not.

I have to go work for now but yes it would be good to try this out tonight.