New critical Noreen Renier website offers her responses

[Sherlock]

Just hours after ‘psychic’ Noreen Renier completed her interview on Coast to Coast AM on March 1, 2015, my phone rang. The two unidentified callers politely informed me that while they understood why I’d encouraged the curtailing of critical websites covering Noreen Renier, my decision was unwise. Well. . . actually they used something a lot stronger than unwise.

They noted Noreen Renier’s 158-minute Coast to Coast AM interview had been aired before an audience estimated at 2.4 million listeners. And such listeners clearly needed to have access to the real facts behind her distortions. Well. . . “distortions” wasn’t exactly how they phrased it.

After some back-and-forth they told me that more than two dozen unnamed personnel both inside and outside of the U.S. had in 2014 reached an agreement. If Noreen Renier wasn’t going to answer questions posed by critics and independent researchers, then they would provide the best answers they could find. And those answers would come from recorded and written public responses Noreen Renier had made, or would make.

A rather clever answer to her years of ignoring many questions posed.

To my surprise they then directed me to a website to ‘watch along with others’ which while clearly under construction had already months of consolidation work behind it. Within hours I received calls from others who were likewise informed and we’ve watched from afar as the framework has evolved into what is now a ‘completed’ site.

A call earlier today offered for consideration whether I would consider notifying International Skeptics Forum participants of the site, as many were aware of it throughout Europe.

http://www.globalnetresearch.com/index.html


I’ve been told indirectly that others will be making comments and suggestions on how the site should further evolve. As the site encourages Ms. Renier to respond publicly to its “findings” on the International Skeptics Forum, her responses will be here for all to see. And it’s my understanding funding has been arranged to extend the site under multiple languages via independent global sub sites.

I appreciate the privilege in announcing any new site as a reader. The management and expansion of this project have obviously been in very capable hands. And an enormous amount of work has been completed by many and it shows. Now let’s see whether those “findings” on the website are challenged for updating by Noreen Renier.

One thought is how many links might such a site collect? Please note some of its own operate to others already.

Comments?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sorta matches my wish in my post to the "other thread".

 

[Sherlock]

New Noreen Renier website challenges her claims with her own words

I'm hoping her supporters will take a long look at the work done by those who erected and manage the site. I'm also willing to bet we won't hear a peep from Noreen Renier herself as it’s likely to take her days before she can go through the materials.

Having watched it evolve over the past several weeks I've been surprised at the amount of material showcased. While a great deal was filtered off numerous sites (including some outside the U.S. that never went down), there's roughly 30% that I believe has never been posted before on any of the major websites. It shows a good deal of work has been done globally, with considerable cross-checking and findings of sources tied to researchers in Europe and Canada.

It's possible Noreen Renier has been aware of the website for one to three months if she gets updated to 'new' Noreen Renier sites through various search engines. But I'm doubtful as she probably wouldn’t have said what she did on ‘Coast to Coast AM’ if she'd realized her own words would further incriminate her credibility. Indeed, her ‘Coast to Coast AM’ interview may finally twist the faucet down on her endless delusionary tales.

 

[marplots]

A conspiracy was born?

 

[Sherlock]

25 Findings on site challenge 'psychic' Noreen Renier's claims

Conspiracy? Hhhhmmmmm. More in the nature of "Resistance is futile" based on a list of 25 "Findings" about Renier the site has on one page:

http://www.globalnetresearch.com/findings.html

As each of these "Findings" already has a verification quote from Noreen Renier ---many straight from her own books or during court testimony--- they are rather awkward to deny. Of course she may update them via a specific response for each here on the International Skeptics Forum. We'll see.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, I'm glad to see the "campaign" revived. As long as she has (potential) million listener platforms, she needs to be called out.

As RS Lancaster can tell you, even in death, Sylvia has followers. So, while I salute your honorable approach to the situation and several of you calling things off, apparently Ms. Renier has no intention of stopping. Every appearance represents an opportunity to sell some books or get booked for some speeches... somewhere... and she's going to continue.

In light of that, reviving the efforts is important. I'm not sure about directing people to look for her responses here. All they'll get is the same old, same old. "You're a bunch of meanies and you make things up!" And when she is asked to support that argument, she does not respond but drops back in to plug her next "performance". (I paraphrase, but I presume the mods will accept that as a fair representation of her specific responses to Sherlock.)

@General Membershp of ISF: Noreen Renier is a member in good standing at the ISF. Personal attacks and insults should be curtailed, in your own self-interest. Stick to the facts, to the evidence. Follow the lead of Sherlock, and that of RS Lancaster. Keep it objective. (I am not a mod, but a really swell person looking out for you.)

 

[wardenclyffe]

I don't understand what's happening here unless it's necessary for Sherlock to conceal his involvement.

Ward

 

[Sherlock]

Potential Noreen Renier response

She won't be responding to me anymore, but rather those managing the 'Global Net Research' website, with her responses publicly available via this forum. I doubt they will do anything other than ignore her should she not respond to a particular specific finding(s) with credible facts rather than slander. Those involved are likely to comment or offer what they might do, but I doubt any website is going to allow her to simply make generalized remarks and expect them to be republished. But again we'll see. I notice the website has added another page tonight and another critical website is also under construction. Her 'Coast to Coast AM' interview must have stimulated the pot of critics.

 

[zooterkin]

It all seems a bit odd to me. I don't have a problem with a website dedicated to analysing the claims, but the cloak and dagger aspect seems strange, as does the oddly generic site name. Does it really take two dozen people to do this? Are any of them members here?

 

[Akhenaten]

It all seems a bit odd to me. I don't have a problem with a website dedicated to analysing the claims, but the cloak and dagger aspect seems strange, as does the oddly generic site name. Does it really take two dozen people to do this? Are any of them members here?

Quite frankly I find that entire website to be not much more than one long, self-serving rant.

It's so poorly written and so repetitively chock-full of uncited assertions, editorial comments and rhetoric that I find it, on the whole, to have only slightly more credibility than the claims made by the so-called psychic detective.

 

[Sherlock]

Having spent over a quarter of a million U.S. dollars defending myself against Renier's 30 years of legal filings a bit of "cloak and dagger" may be exactly what those behind the site require. As recently as late 2014 and early 2015 Renier was having a Florida legal firm file subpoena's across dozen's of website pages based in the U.S. --- she even testified in federal court original postings from the James Randi Educational Forum and rolled over here as among those pushing "slander and lies."

As far as the tone and bias --- where specifically is there something that should be removed and is without support? I've counted some 80 back-up documents and various audio attachments. Give some examples and I suspect you will see changes as my own previous "overly biased" wording was mostly stripped in one segment used, and those are quoted to me. I have no doubt there are at least a handful of members on this forum responsible for what you see. I suspect a few of those do not have the financial resources to tackle this woman as I and others have done in the past.

I was told from one party who seems informed that 'Global Net Research' was selected as its easily translated across multi-language sites. But I agree I would have selected something with her name in it after creating one previous website using the title of her book.

 

[rjh01]

Just did a Google search for her name. http://globalnetresearch.com/ came in way down the list (about number 60). Hope it goes up the list. This forum comes up about number 10.