Looking for Skeptics

[Orphia Nay]

Yup. The human brain is a pattern seeking machine. Being so confers a survival advantage. If you think you see a tiger through foilege and it actually is there, this pattern recognition may save you. If it's not actually there, the price you pay for the error isn't too steep... some energy unnecessarily spent running away is no big deal.

Pareidolia is a good thing, errors and all.

Well said.

When you keep replaying the same error over and over, making the same mistake for so long your sister(s) want nothing to do with you, it's time to perhaps consider that it really might be a mistake.

 

[Biscuit]

Well said.

When you keep replaying the same error over and over, making the same mistake for so long your sister(s) want nothing to do with you, it's time to perhaps consider that it really might be a mistake.

When everyone hears their own name and you don't hear theirs until they do you might be experiencing pareidolia.

What exactly is the claim at this point?

 

[John Jones]

I do keep trying to reply to the Claim questions, but I keep losing the post as I press send (dodgy connection sorry) Hallucinations as in auditory or visual?

You have so many reasons why you can't make a claim. You ought to write a book.

 

[jsfisher]

flaccon,

If you are having trouble making a long post of your full claim, try a sequence of short ones, instead.

When stating your claim or claims, try to leave out as much interpretation as possible. For example, "the spirits alter the file'' is interpretative. The heart of the matter is that the file was altered. So, focus on that: In what observable way was it changed, and what effect did the change have?

Early on, you had the claim the voices you heard in the recordings were clear and distinct. You have since backed off that claim, but as statements of claims go, that one wasn't bad. You have also claimed the spirits can see what you see. Not so good a claim; it focuses on what you interpret is going on, not any sort of observable event.

I think the current claim is something like this: An audio file with no voices discernible by scrappy when first played on his computer when later played back after flaccon listens to a copy of the same file on her computer will match whatever flaccon heard.

Notice I dropped out all the spirits doing things to files and computers. That may well be what is happening, but we need to focus on the observable for now.

Is that what is being claimed? It seems to match what scrappy was saying. If it is, then the obvious follow-on question is does scrappy have to be told what you heard before he can hear it, too?

If the answer is no, then we have the basis for a protocol maybe. If yes, on the other hand, well, you should think about the implications that would have.

 

[trustbutverify]

Well said.

When you keep replaying the same error over and over, making the same mistake for so long your sister(s) want nothing to do with you, it's time to perhaps consider that it really might be a mistake.

Exactly. Being alerted to a possibly important pattern is healthy. Maintaining a particular pattern is real no matter what follow up confirmation indicates, because you wish it to be real, is decidedly unhealthy.

 

[Vortigern99]

I admire the measured, patient tone with which some members here are still treating the OP and her associate(s). I'm of the opinion that flaccon and scrappy surrendered the privilege of civility the moment they chose to ignore dozens of pertinent questions put to them in good faith, and after they repeatedly declined to clarify their vague and labyrinthine claims. To my mind these obvious hoaxers merit mockery and rejection, not coddling or forbearance.

However, I can't fault jfisher et al. for holding on to hope, or for being sufficiently open-minded to allow that Tracey and Mr Roberts might be on the level. It's true, I might be mistaken, and they might produce some scrap of evidence, if you can only convince them what evidence is.

Good luck!

 

[pakeha]

Flaccon can you please fill out this form so we know what your claim is. Press quote and fill in the spaces with the relevant information. If you can do this that'll be a great help to us all.

My claim is:



I can test my claim by doing this:



I can rule out paredolia by doing this:



I can rule out hallucinations by doing this:



I know I will have been successful because:

I'm looking forward to seeing that form, flaccon.

It seems flaccon still thinks that experiencing pareidolia is a sign of mental illness.

That is not the case. It's perfectly normal.

The factors that cause pareidolia also help tribesmen see a tiger through the leaves of the forest. They help us hear our friend whisper to us while a loud movie is playing in the cinema. Pareidolia is just these factors working when they're not needed.

http://www.weird-encyclopedia.com/pareidolia.php

"So, maybe you've glanced quickly at that old painting of your late great, great grandfather and you can swear the eyes follow you when you're walking by. Relax! It's a human quirk. It just means your brain is trying to make sense of the world around you, a world filled with lots of cool things to see and hear and smell and taste and touch. Your camera is rolling, your microphones are open and you're ready to receive input. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that these weird little items you occasionally see around you are evidence of some supernatural mumbo-jumbo. It just means you're weird. And that's okay."
...

Thanks for the link, ON!

 

[Orphia Nay]

My pleasure, dear pakeha.

 

[chillzero]

flaccon emailed me two JPG files. She had taken snapshots of the top and bottom parts of the letter. The originals were 1.3 MB a piece, so I rescaled them to a more storage-friendly resolution, and here they are....

Click to enlarge. The redacting was hers.

This may have been addressed ... I have a fair bit still to catch up on ... but BIG ref flag ...... no Headed paper??? Watermark?
Really?

 

[abaddon]

This may have been addressed ... I have a fair bit still to catch up on ... but BIG ref flag ...... no Headed paper??? Watermark?
Really?

Uh, I didn't make much of an issue of it at the time, but it did strike me as very iffy.

 

[pakeha]

flaccon emailed me two JPG files. She had taken snapshots of the top and bottom parts of the letter. The originals were 1.3 MB a piece, so I rescaled them to a more storage-friendly resolution, and here they are....

Click to enlarge. The redacting was hers.

This may have been addressed ... I have a fair bit still to catch up on ... but BIG ref flag ...... no Headed paper??? Watermark?
Really?

That.
Plus
"The redacting was hers."

Does this mean the reference to 'a massive improvement' is flaccon's wording, rather than the GP's?

 

[jsfisher]

This may have been addressed ... I have a fair bit still to catch up on ... but BIG ref flag ...... no Headed paper??? Watermark?
Really?

I can't detect any watermark in the original images flaccon sent me, but the shot of the top half of the page looks like letterhead. She used White-out to obscure the names of the individual doctors and the full address of the clinic, but it is still all pre-printed header for the practice.

 

[jsfisher]

That.
Plus
"The redacting was hers."

Those were my words. I was just trying to be clear that I was passing along the images as-is without any changes other than reducing the image resolution so it could be uploaded.

Does this mean the reference to 'a massive improvement' is flaccon's wording, rather than the GP's?

No, it means the the end of the sentence, after "well being", was obscured by flaccon and her little bottle of typewriter correction fluid.

 

[Daylightstar]

This may have been addressed ... I have a fair bit still to catch up on ... but BIG ref flag ...... no Headed paper??? Watermark?
Really?

I mentioned a similar thing here:

The Health Centre in Cheshire. Hmm, can't find it with google. Letter contains no styles, no logos.

 

[jsfisher]

This may have been addressed ... I have a fair bit still to catch up on ... but BIG ref flag ...... no Headed paper??? Watermark?
Really?

I mentioned a similar thing here:

The Health Centre in Cheshire. Hmm, can't find it with google. Letter contains no styles, no logos.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q="the+health+centre"+cheshire

First hit.

 

[pakeha]

Ah, so not NHS, then.

...No, it means the the end of the sentence, after "well being", was obscured by flaccon and her little bottle of typewriter correction fluid.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion.
Ah, well.
I was in hopes that wording had a logical explanation.

 

[Daylightstar]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q="the+health+centre"+cheshire

First hit.

Touché
Thank you.

 

[abaddon]

Those were my words. I was just trying to be clear that I was passing along the images as-is without any changes other than reducing the image resolution so it could be uploaded.



No, it means the the end of the sentence, after "well being", was obscured by flaccon and her little bottle of typewriter correction fluid.

Hmmm. The abscence of watermarks/logos and such could well be accounted for by the images we have seen being taken from a photocopy. I find it hard to imagine flaccon lashing buckets of Tippex over her original. And further, if as she claimed earlier she sent copies to one or two bishops, then it seems evident that copies have been made.

OTOH, that unfortunately leaves us in the position that all we have is a heavily redacted copy of an original letter which could be typed up in seconds in Word.

And that adds another question or two. Which version was sent to the bishop(s)? Redacted or not?

Why, exactly, were those portions redacted? Age <blank>? We already know her age at least roughly, if not better. We know the health centre location, phone number, doctors names etc.

I cannot see how the redacted whole sentences could possibly be any more revealing of personal data in any way. I can see how they might have content which disagrees with flaccon's interpretation of the letter.

 

[chillzero]

I can't detect any watermark in the original images flaccon sent me, but the shot of the top half of the page looks like letterhead. She used White-out to obscure the names of the individual doctors and the full address of the clinic, but it is still all pre-printed header for the practice.

I'd expect a watermark, and also a headed paper with a logo, a top line or bottom line with the address, partners, VAT no etc - not remotely in the layout here which looks nothing like a professional setup.

I'm also confused as to why tippex was used to cover information in a letter that seems to be considered as very important. I can think of one explanation (I won't outline it as I'd prefer flaccon confirm it herself) but that still does not explain the complete lack of professional administrative / commercial touches I'd expect to see on this.

 

[jsfisher]

I'd expect a watermark, and also a headed paper with a logo, a top line or bottom line with the address, partners, VAT no etc - not remotely in the layout here which looks nothing like a professional setup.

I just pulled a letter got from my GP. No watermark and no logo, but it did have a header giving the address and naming the principals in the practice. And those are the same things I see in the top half of flaccon's letter, plus or minus the correction fluid.

I'm also confused as to why tippex was used to cover information in a letter that seems to be considered as very important. I can think of one explanation (I won't outline it as I'd prefer flaccon confirm it herself) but that still does not explain the complete lack of professional administrative / commercial touches I'd expect to see on this.

Covering her home address and such I understand, but I, too, am curious about the obscured information in the body of the letter. I have my own theory, but like you, I also think it is best withheld.