Looking for Skeptics

[Alice Shortcake]

If you recall, Alderbank showed up here (I had an hours notice)

This sounds as if Alderbank turned up practically out of the blue and flaccon wasn't prepared for his arrival.

A quick reminder of what actually happened:

The proposed meeting between flaccon and Alderbank was discussed here on 8th June.

A meeting was scheduled for 5pm on 9th June, then rescheduled for the evening of 10th June.

At this point flaccon made it clear that the spirits would not be able to participate in the tests previously agreed upon.

Alderbank suggested a meeting for 7pm on the 10th, at which he would listen to flaccon's recordings. flaccon agreed, but this meeting also fell through.

On 11th June Alderbank phoned flaccon and set up a meeting for 7pm that evening, which actually took place.

If flaccon was inconvenienced in any way by Alderbank's early arrival I don't think she mentioned it - she had FOUR DAYS to prepare for his visit and actually stated that everything was in readiness.

 

[Cassidy]

Alternatively we could have another try at letting the spirits change a recording.

I can probably find the two sound files I sent you and scrappy in July. Scrappy listened to them a couple of times and believed one had changed but i was able to confirm that it hadn't. You, on the other hand, said in August that you thought you had deleted them.

Would you like to try again?

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.

I certainly deleted all but Aldebanks. I downloaded his and it wouldn't open up. I actually showed him that I couldn't open his file when he visited here. I can't attach anything to anywhere lately or I would send a file through from Mr Robert's computer. Or Jack, maybe I could forward you the email that contains a couple of files, and you could share one to Box.com?

 

[Pixel42]

I insist without doubt that I et'al, hear our Father's voice.

Are the people who insist without doubt that they can see Jesus in the picture I posted the link to above right or wrong?

 

[Cassidy]

This sounds as if Alderbank turned up practically out of the blue and flaccon wasn't prepared for his arrival.

A quick reminder of what actually happened:

The proposed meeting between flaccon and Alderbank was discussed here on 8th June.

A meeting was scheduled for 5pm on 9th June, then rescheduled for the evening of 10th June.

At this point flaccon made it clear that the spirits would not be able to participate in the tests previously agreed upon.

Alderbank suggested a meeting for 7pm on the 10th, at which he would listen to flaccon's recordings. flaccon agreed, but this meeting also fell through.

On 11th June Alderbank phoned flaccon and set up a meeting for 7pm that evening, which actually took place.

If flaccon was inconvenienced in any way by Alderbank's early arrival I don't think she mentioned it - she had FOUR DAYS to prepare for his visit and actually stated that everything was in readiness.

Actually Alice, wind back to the "rescheduled" part. I had a third-party here ready and waiting that night. Aldebank did not make it. I did not manage to get online the next day to accept a reschedule (I was busy) I received a phone call from Alderbank at 5.15pm suggesting a meet for 7pm. I had to ask my son to leave. Then I could not get the third party back in such short notice. Everything was prepared, but it didn't happen, and has to be rescheduled between three people, not just me and Alderbank. So yes it certainly was out of the blue.

 

[bluesjnr]

So, to get this into perspective.

Q) What would you accept as a "plausible" explanation other than the many suggestions here-in (we know you reject them)?

A) I hear Father's voice. There is no plausible explanation I can think of for this. (edited by me for brevity)

Q) Are you willing to concede that it might not be what you insist it is and may well be something mundane and less Earth shattering as dead people communicating via sound files? A simple yes or no will suffice here.

A) No (edited by me for brevity)

Conclusion: It's really rather pointless for anybody to continue this discussion.

 

[Pixel42]

Actually Alice, wind back to the "rescheduled" part. I had a third-party here ready and waiting that night. Aldebank did not make it. I did not manage to get online the next day to accept a reschedule (I was busy) I received a phone call from Alderbank at 5.15pm suggesting a meet for 7pm. I had to ask my son to leave. Then I could not get the third party back in such short notice. Everything was prepared, but it didn't happen, and has to be rescheduled between three people, not just me and Alderbank. So yes it certainly was out of the blue.

Why are you rehashing this? Attempts were made over several days to set up a meeting at a time that was agreeable to all. The final attempt succeeded despite the fact that you were away from your computer for most of the day and were consequently unaware of the most recently suggested time until only a couple of hours beforehand. End of story.

Please answer this question: Are the people who insist without doubt that they can see Jesus in the picture I posted the link to above right or wrong, in your opinion?

 

[Cassidy]

On that topic - and while you are here, flaccon... can you please clarify for us what you consider it appropriate for anyone to discuss here publicly if you are absent? Other than the permission you gave Abaddon to discuss your meetings and phone calls, have you given anyone permission to discuss private, off-forum conversations about your personal life and activities?

Thanks for asking this, I prefer no discussion in my absence, or Mr Roberts absence, simply because if I'm not here to correct "assumptions" it adds to the already confused situation. I don't recall giving Abaddon permission for anything.

I think what Mr Roberts was pointing out, was that I occupy my mind with other things rather than just "looking for voices" or sitting here listening to squeeks and convincing myself it's my Father.

 

[Cassidy]

Why are you rehashing this? Attempts were made over several days to set up a meeting at a time that was agreeable to all. The final attempt succeeded despite the fact that you were away from your computer for most of the day and were consequently unaware of the most recently suggested time until only a couple of hours beforehand. End of story.

Please answer this question: Are the people who insist without doubt that they can see Jesus in the picture I posted the link to above right or wrong, in your opinion?

It succeeded because I cancelled my plans for that evening. It did not take the night before (as planned by three people) because Alderbank could not make it, or got confused I don't know. But I was here and so was my third party as agreed.

I haven't gotten to this link yet, I'm awaiting reply from Jack, whilst replying. I will get there.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

I should count them, but 60+ is a safe guess. They are very accurate, and in millimetres. I don't produce these images, the spirit do it now within a tiny flick of paint.

No-one is accusing you of producing these images - you're merely interpreting them. A fleck of paint on fabric has enough ridges and hollows to allow the eye of faith to see what it wants.

 

[Pixel42]

It succeeded because I cancelled my plans for that evening. It did not take the night before (as planned by three people) because Alderbank could not make it, or got confused I don't know. But I was here and so was my third party as agreed.

As I recall the "confusion" was over the agenda for the meeting. Alderbank wanted assurance that proper testing would take place, which you wouldn't provide, which is why he didn't go. Eventually he agreed to attend without that assurance. It was unfortunate that you didn't get the next suggested time until several hours after it had been made, but you only needed to say "sorry I have plans" and another more mutually agreeable time could easily have been arranged.

I haven't gotten to this link yet, I'm awaiting reply from Jack, whilst replying. I will get there.

It's just a photo.

For the record my own answer would be yes, they are right to say they can see Jesus. I can see him myself. But that doesn't mean he's really there.

 

[Cassidy]

No, I wouldn't agree.

At first you did not get the type of recordings you wanted because you didn't manage to convey to people exactly what it was that you did want.

When it became clear that what you wanted was not truly silence but rather recordings with background noise, you were sent a recording of noise. Do you remember? It was far louder than you wanted, but people were only trying to help. When it finally became clear what you really wanted, a number of people sent you recordings of the type you wanted, but by then you had decided to give up.

No Jack, no background at all. Completely silent but not on mute. It was a simple request. I cooled off from here because I couldn't get my head round the false accusations that were happening, to the point where calling the police was mentioned.

 

[Cassidy]

No-one is accusing you of producing these images - you're merely interpreting them. A fleck of paint on fabric has enough ridges and hollows to allow the eye of faith to see what it wants.

I didn't feel accused, I was merely correcting. I actually don't want to see half of what's in these images. Nor do I want to hear half of these spiritual messages.

 

[Cassidy]

So, to get this into perspective.

Q) What would you accept as a "plausible" explanation other than the many suggestions here-in (we know you reject them)?

A) I hear Father's voice. There is no plausible explanation I can think of for this. (edited by me for brevity)

Q) Are you willing to concede that it might not be what you insist it is and may well be something mundane and less Earth shattering as dead people communicating via sound files? A simple yes or no will suffice here.

A) No (edited by me for brevity)

Conclusion: It's really rather pointless for anybody to continue this discussion.

Yes Blue I do agree. That's a sensible conclusion. When Mr Robert's uploads his file to Box.com, one will hear the kind of voice/voices that in Aldebank's opinion, isn't a voice at all. It's not exactly sensible to allow "anyone" to be your ears, but that is your choice and the choice of all here. I of course shall continue to allow the GP to be mine.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

I actually don't want to see half of what's in these images. Nor do I want to hear half of these spiritual messages.

What spiritual messages? Nothing you've shared with us so far begins to approach evidence that some sort of spiritual power is giving you messages that have meaning for anyone not personally known to you. At the beginning of this thread you were claiming that the spirits spoke to you in complete sentences. You were even prepared to tell members of the public that contact with spirits was guaranteed. Why can't the spirits impart clear, unambiguous information, preferably about things that couldn't be known by mundane means?

If it's true that you don't want to hear or see half of what you're hearing and seeing you need help. Not the sort of help churches and overworked GPs can give you - psychiatric help. Quite frankly I don't think you've showed your GP a lot of the stuff you've posted here and elsewhere on the internet.

 

[chillzero]

Thanks for asking this, I prefer no discussion in my absence, or Mr Roberts absence, simply because if I'm not here to correct "assumptions" it adds to the already confused situation.

Sorry, that's not quite what I asked. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
This is a discussion forum, so discussion of this topic can and will continue without you.
Let me be clearer:
Have you given anyone (and that includes scrappy) permission to discuss your personal life, GP visits and activities, at all?

I don't recall giving Abaddon permission for anything.

You agreed to meet with him for the purposes of reporting back what happened, as a witness for the forum.

I think what Mr Roberts was pointing out, was that I occupy my mind with other things rather than just "looking for voices" or sitting here listening to squeeks and convincing myself it's my Father.

If you are referring to scrappy, then he's sharing a fair amount of information about you that is irrelevant to this topic, and personal to you. In my opinion he's behaving inappropriately, and you should consider your privacy and his levels of indiscretion.

He has also told us that you have entered a contest, and several people have asked for clarificaiton on this. If indeed you have done so, can you please give the name of the contest, any online link, and an idea who is running it?

 

[pakeha]

Pixel I didn't say paredolia is a delusion. Since I discovered the word, of course its perfectly plausible, but doesn't account for accurate and recognisable images of my family members. Also doesn't account for the images that tell a story. It's too uncanny to be paredolia.

Not really, flaccon.
Paredolia can be most inspirational and highly moving.
And yes, uncanny, too.

 

[Pixel42]

You agreed to meet with him for the purposes of reporting back what happened, as a witness for the forum.

That was Alderbank, not abaddon.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

As I wrote on 21st July: "Scrappy emailed me to say he listened to both the files I sent and he initially thought both were silent. Listening again he thought one of them now had some interference on it, so he asked me to check the originals. I did so and both are unchanged and their MD5 hashes are unaltered."

I certainly deleted all but Aldebanks. I downloaded his and it wouldn't open up. I actually showed him that I couldn't open his file when he visited here. I can't attach anything to anywhere lately or I would send a file through from Mr Robert's computer. Or Jack, maybe I could forward you the email that contains a couple of files, and you could share one to Box.com?

Well, I have never posted anything to box.com before, but I suppose I ought to be able work it out. Then again, I would expect that either you or scrappy ought to be able to do it too.

But once again you have managed to reply to what I thought was a simple question (do you want me to re-send you the quiet sound files you asked for but deleted?) in a way which doesn't actually answer that question but instead introduces yet more confusion: I don't understand which files you are suggesting emailing to me. What are those files? Where did they come from? What's in them and why do you want someone to share them on box.com?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I haven't gotten to this link yet, I'm awaiting reply from Jack, whilst replying. I will get there.

Apologies for the delay in responding. I was temporarily inconvenienced by having to perform my paid employment.


You may now look at Pixel42's picture.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes Blue I do agree. That's a sensible conclusion. When Mr Robert's uploads his file to Box.com, one will hear the kind of voice/voices that in Aldebank's opinion, isn't a voice at all. It's not exactly sensible to allow "anyone" to be your ears, but that is your choice and the choice of all here.

It's the opinion of everyone here who has listened to the recordings and clips that you have shared with us that the voices you think you hear are either not there at all or are not saying what you think they're saying. We can all make up our own minds on that. Likewise we can all look at the pictures you shared earlier in the thread and decide for ourselves whether the images you think you see are really there. If you want to know how to post new images that are stored on your computer to this thread so we can form our own opinions of those there are plenty here who can advise you.

I of course shall continue to allow the GP to be mine.

Your GP is not posting here, and your opinion of what he really thinks of the recordings and images you have shown him may not be accurate.