Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
PartSkeptic said:
Nearly all skeptics on this site say I meet their definition of a Woo. In this thread I will get into character despite this being serious business.

Last year I was challenged to put up or shut up. I replied I might give it a try when the timing was right. The omens now auger well for the time and the method.

[Note: These omens were not ravens or entrails, but content on TV while running on the treadmill at the gym. If I was out on safari, it would be something in nature]

I want to challenge flaccon (informally) – woo on woo. There are two aspects to this challenge. One is to agree on the protocol for me with the group, and the other is to debate with flaccon as to her motivation.

My proposal is a simple experiment using a modified set of Zener cards.

The experiment:
Six Zener symbols – circle, cross, wavy lines, square, star and asterisk. Twelve trials.

According to binomial distribution probability the odds of getting correct guesses are (rounded approximations):
0 = 9, 1 = 4, 2 = 3, 3 = 5, 4 = 11, 5 = 35, 6 = 151, 7 = 880, 8 = 7036,
9 = 79,000, 10 = 1,320,000, 11 = 36,000,000, 12 = 2,200,000,000

The higher the odds the better, but if this was a formal challenge, what odds would be required?

Comments are invited. Should I just watch this thread from the side-lines and not “muddy the waters”? Should my test application be a separate thread? I would add that I am not going to make a formal application, but I do have a procedure thought out.
Click to expand...

If you have no intention of applying for the MDC, why should anyone discuss your claims in this sub-forum? And on someone else's thread?

ETA: This (my) post should be dismissed as ill informed on the latest developments.
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
At the moment I'd be impressed if Flaccon just asked the spirits to say something (anything) and write down what they said and then got someone else to sit and listen to the same audio file and the second person managed to hear the same thing... But there's way too much room for collusion.
Click to expand...

I think it's reverting to this and I suspect by all of her admonitions that Alderbank just needs to get there and hear/see for himself and he'll confirm that spirits are real and are communicating, this is exactly the extent of what flaccon is manipulating us towards.

I believe she is either so convinced that this is real or so adept at manipulating her other "successful" converts (read: witnesses) that she truly believes she can swing this with just the EVP and her ability to be the "guide" or "interpreter" for her spirits.

If someone can find a way to simply cut it (the protocol) back to this one claim, I'm game. (This isn't the gun nuts sub-forum is it? If you say I'm game around some of that lot, they're liable to pull a Cheney on you.)

But, please note that the files she initially shared were mysteriously just not of the same quality as the ones she has in her possession, which is why no one could hear what she was claiming and as has been noted is pretty hard to do with a digital recording. And the later file (I believe it was later, some of the exchange here has been rather confusing), has one party who hears something fairly akin to a voice, but cannot agree on the words heard.

So how are you going to test for this short of a rigorous recording studio or laboratory set-up? I do not think Alderbank wants the responsibility to be the sole party to say yes or no.
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
If you have no intention of applying for the MDC, why should anyone discuss your claims in this sub-forum?
Click to expand...
I guess that you, like me, use your subscribed threads list to find this thread. It took me a while to notice it had been (rightly IMO) moved to the GS&P subforum.

PartSkeptic: I'm not finding your contributions to this thread at all helpful, so I for one would prefer you started a seperate thread.
 
Pixel42 said:
I guess that you, like me, use your subscribed threads list to find this thread. It took me a while to notice it had been (rightly IMO) moved to the GS&P subforum.

PartSkeptic: I'm not finding your contributions to this thread at all helpful, so I for one would prefer you started a separate thread.
Click to expand...

Quite right. I might have never noticed. Makes sense since she never replied to comments about flight not being required for formal testing.

Thanks. ☻☺☻
 
trustbutverify said:
Why not assemble 3 people who have recently had a relative die, and have flaccon supply the first and last name of the deceased, perfectly spelled? If she gets 2 of them right, the test is passed. Assuming, of course, the spirits are not offended at the thought of spelling their Earth-names.
Click to expand...

Good suggestion but I know of no psychic who would claim to be able to do this (without some trickery, or insider information).

I went to a reasonably good psychic after my late wife died in 2011. After 5 minutes I told her my wife had died. Only then did the psychic start "seeing" pictures. Not a good start. But at various times the psychic said that my late wife was not going to play games by using smells. I did not know what she meant. This happened 3 times during the session and the third time the psychic waved her arms about and made facial gestures. It struck me that the gestures where similar to those my daughter-in-law would use to dismiss a suggestion.

I then remembered that my daughter-in-law had asked my late wife shortly before she died to send a message from the other side. She wanted to smell red roses or some other flower.

Have any of you been to a spiritualist church? The mediums get up and make vague suggestions until some-one says "Oh yes". I would be very suspicious if a psychic could produce a name, but very impressed if it was done without trickery.

If they got even the first letter of the first name of each person correct I would be impressed. Not convinced, but impressed.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Good suggestion but I know of no psychic who would claim to be able to do this (without some trickery, or insider information).

I went to a reasonably good psychic after my late wife died in 2011. After 5 minutes I told her my wife had died. Only then did the psychic start "seeing" pictures. Not a good start. But at various times the psychic said that my late wife was not going to play games by using smells. I did not know what she meant. This happened 3 times during the session and the third time the psychic waved her arms about and made facial gestures. It struck me that the gestures where similar to those my daughter-in-law would use to dismiss a suggestion.

I then remembered that my daughter-in-law had asked my late wife shortly before she died to send a message from the other side. She wanted to smell red roses or some other flower.

Have any of you been to a spiritualist church? The mediums get up and make vague suggestions until some-one says "Oh yes". I would be very suspicious if a psychic could produce a name, but very impressed if it was done without trickery.

If they got even the first letter of the first name of each person correct I would be impressed. Not convinced, but impressed.
Click to expand...

A reasonably good psychic is a retired or reformed psychic. As far as we know, all psychics are frauds, or at best entirely deluded. Why is your reasonably good psychic not interested in the MDC?
 
Pixel42 said:
PartSkeptic: I'm not finding your contributions to this thread at all helpful, so I for one would prefer you started a seperate thread.
Click to expand...

Not a problem. Please assist me by sending me a PM as to how you suggest I do this, and I will stay out of this one. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
At the moment I'd be impressed if Flaccon just asked the spirits to say something (anything) and write down what they said and then got someone else to sit and listen to the same audio file and the second person managed to hear the same thing...
Click to expand...


I wouldn't, particularly, because that's how pareidolia works. If there's a sound that sounds a bit like certain words to one person, then other people are likely to hear the same words witout any collusion being involved.
 
Mojo said:
I wouldn't, particularly, because that's how pareidolia works. If there's a sound that sounds a bit like certain words to one person, then other people are likely to hear the same words witout any collusion being involved.
Click to expand...
I didn't say I'd be convinced of spirits, I said impressed. :)

Impressed that Flaccon could actually do anything she claims to do.
On the other hand, from the evidence we've received so far, an audio file in which I heard something sounding like a dog bark, one other poster heard a three word phrase (I forget exactly what it was) and Flaccon hears the word 'evidence' there is nothing to suggest that anyone would in fact hear the same thing.

Maybe later today I'll take the last frame of my exploding kitten avatar and see what faces I can find in the blood stains. :)
 
Pixel42 said:
Well quite. Not sure if there's anything PS is expecting me to add to this.
Click to expand...


No thanks. I have started the new thread. I just thought this one was fizzling out and I could contribute - but I see you are serious in giving any possibility a fair chance. Good for you guys.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I think it's reverting to this and I suspect by all of her admonitions that Alderbank just needs to get there and hear/see for himself and he'll confirm that spirits are real and are communicating, this is exactly the extent of what flaccon is manipulating us towards.

I believe she is either so convinced that this is real or so adept at manipulating her other "successful" converts (read: witnesses) that she truly believes she can swing this with just the EVP and her ability to be the "guide" or "interpreter" for her spirits.

If someone can find a way to simply cut it (the protocol) back to this one claim, I'm game. (This isn't the gun nuts sub-forum is it? If you say I'm game around some of that lot, they're liable to pull a Cheney on you.)

But, please note that the files she initially shared were mysteriously just not of the same quality as the ones she has in her possession, which is why no one could hear what she was claiming and as has been noted is pretty hard to do with a digital recording. And the later file (I believe it was later, some of the exchange here has been rather confusing), has one party who hears something fairly akin to a voice, but cannot agree on the words heard.

So how are you going to test for this short of a rigorous recording studio or laboratory set-up? I do not think Alderbank wants the responsibility to be the sole party to say yes or no.
Click to expand...

I can go round to flaccon's tonight (if she'll still have me) and listen to the recording she says the spirits have prepared for me. I will report back truthfully that I heard a loud, clear voice speak out of flaccon's speakers in sentences to say 'I am flaccon's father. What I have to say to you will change your life. I have a message for all the world'.

Another name has been added to the list of witnesses who have heard the spirits loud and clear.

Would that pass the test? Where does it get us? :boggled:
 
Alderbank said:
I can go round to flaccon's tonight (if she'll still have me) and listen to the recording she says the spirits have prepared for me. I will report back truthfully that I heard a loud, clear voice speak out of flaccon's speakers in sentences to say 'I am flaccon's father. What I have to say to you will change your life. I have a message for all the world'.

Another name has been added to the list of witnesses who have heard the spirits loud and clear.

Would that pass the test? Where does it get us? :boggled:
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll take this wrong because I believe it's what you're pointing out... but that would just make you another witness. Unless there's some way to actually TEST, then the traditional complaints would apply: You could be a person easily persuaded. Flaccon could be the world's most convincing inspirational speaker. She could slip you some balladonna cookies. There could be something funky with the recordings. etc...
 
Foolmewunz said:
If someone can find a way to simply cut it (the protocol) back to this one claim, I'm game.
Click to expand...
How about flaccon makes a list of her favourite recordings - the ones which have "clear and unmistakable" voices speaking in sentences" and writes down for each the words and sentences she thinks she hears. She puts it in an envelope and gives it to Alderbank as soon as he arrives.

She then plays Alderbank the recordings in the order listed. She indicates to Alderbank whether she is still hearing the same words by nodding or shaking her head. If she nods Alderbank writes down any words he thinks he can hear against the appropriate number on his own numbered list.

flaccon then creates some new recordings in her usual way. She again indicates to Alderbank by nodding or shaking her head if she can hear the voices of spirits. If she can they both write down the words they think they can hear on new numbered lists. (This is mostly so that Alderbank can compare the two sets of recordings and check that they are similar, ie that there is no reason to suspect shenanigans with the pre-recorded ones).

When one or both have had enough they compare the two numbered lists. Unless at least half of each list agree we conclude that we are dealing with straightforward pareidolia and don't waste any more time trying to come up with an objective test protocol which is acceptable to the spirits.
 
Alderbank said:
Would that pass the test? Where does it get us? :boggled:
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't pass a test because as I'm sure you're thinking a pre-prepared audio file could have been recording using someone saying those words.

However, if there was such an unmistakeable voice, then we could take that file and run it through similar processes as we did with the last one. If the voice doesn't get mysteriously faint or intelligible, we can ask Flaccon why it differs so much from the file she originally sent. And of course if one file can manage to be shared in that way with voices clear and unmistakeable, then we can work on a test protocol that involves people not connected to Flaccon in any way without worrying about third parties not being able to hear the voices... at this point I'm not convinced that even something so simple as hearing unmistakeable voices speaking in clear, full sentences could be done, certainly not from a new recording made while you (Alderbank) are with her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom