Police and Psychics

[TLN]

First of all, Lucianarchy, you are not a skeptic. But you are a hypocrite for demanding evidence of others, when you yourself never give any.

But since you mention evidence...
"Questions for Lucianarchy"

Actually, he's probably a troll in the strictest sense of the word; he's probably an actual skeptic who doesn't believe any of this, but sits at home and makes stuff up to piss people off. He's sitting at home right now stroking his penis and laughing his head off that he's got all these skeptics jumping through his imaginary hoops.

It's the only rational explanation. No one person is so wantonly dishonest, stupid, and blind to the questions of others. He's playing a game with all of us... and winning.

 

[Dragon]

Nor do they make them false. In fact, Officer Stumpy offered to get a copy of the CPO guidlelines for working with psychics. But to date, he has been unable to detect where they are.

Luci, didn't you used to work for the Home Office? Do you have any contacts that might be able to find the ACPO guidelines?

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually, he's probably a troll in the strictest sense of the word; he's probably an actual skeptic who doesn't believe any of this, but sits at home and makes stuff up to piss people off. He's sitting at home right now stroking his penis and laughing his head off that he's got all these skeptics jumping through his imaginary hoops.

It's the only rational explanation. No one person is so wantonly dishonest, stupid, and blind to the questions of others. He's playing a game with all of us... and winning.

I disagree. There are actually people this kooky out there. I've met quite a few as a skeptic, and I am always amazed at how normal they can seem - most of the time.

It is, however, pure surface. It doesn't take long for them to shape-shift - pun intented - into what really drives them.

 

[Ed]

Luci, didn't you used to work for the Home Office? Do you have any contacts that might be able to find the ACPO guidelines?

Right. Home office = works from home = unemployed

 

[Ersby]

Hmm, it could be argued that Lucian did once have (and still has, to an extent) strong links to the Home Office, otherwise how else did he do his Ladybrook prediction?

But a serious question. This Christams I'm visiting a friend in Northolt. Since this is just down the road from Ruislip I was thinking of going to the local library and checking on the local paper reports for the time of J Poole's murder (since Holohan has stated she got her info AFTER the papers had been published). I was wondering, has anyone else (Keen, Youens, Stumpy) already done this?

 

[juninho]

First of all, Tony, we are skeptics here and you need to provide evidence for your above claim.

Cheers.

OK, how about the claim that you worked for the Home Office?

Answers to these please;

1) In what capacity did you work for the H.O.?

and

2) In which building did you work?

BTW, if it makes it any easier for you, I worked in Cleland House doing an IT Project to put health care systems into prisons.

There, you've seen mine, now show me yours.

 

[Stumpy]

Hi Ersby

Tony and I have indeed been to the local library to review the newspaper reports published after the murder. There were a number of reports regarding the case prior to Holohan's interview with PC Batters. A lot (but by no means all) of the information given by Holohan was reported in the local press prior to her interview.

regards

Stumpy

 

[TLN]

I disagree. There are actually people this kooky out there. I've met quite a few as a skeptic, and I am always amazed at how normal they can seem - most of the time.

One who swears they're a skeptic, then ignores or refuses any attempt to prove it?

Sorry, I'm not buying it anymore.

 

[CFLarsen]

One who swears they're a skeptic, then ignores or refuses any attempt to prove it?

Sorry, I'm not buying it anymore.

Yeah? How's this: I've even heard believers claim that they were real skeptics, and what they were doing was really skepticism.

The skeptics (us) were really just believers! Poor, deluded, narrowminded believers....

I'm not kidding. They completely turn the world upside down, in order for them to hang on to their beliefs. They don't even blink. They just do it, effortlessly.

It's really amazing to observe.

 

[Ersby]

Hi Ersby

Tony and I have indeed been to the local library to review the newspaper reports published after the murder. There were a number of reports regarding the case prior to Holohan's interview with PC Batters. A lot (but by no means all) of the information given by Holohan was reported in the local press prior to her interview.

regards

Stumpy

Okay, that's good to know. Normally I wouldn't think to ask such an obvious question but, well, this is parapsychology we're dealing with her. It's as well to be sure.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any evidence of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

 

[CFLarsen]

Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any evidence of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Now that you mention evidence:

Looking for psi.

• WHAT are you actually looking for?
  How do you define it, how do you discover it, measure it, discern it from other phenomena?
• HOW would you construct a set of coherent experiments that would show the existance/nonexistance of this?
• WHO would you accept to perform these tests? What lab, group or organization?
  It wouldn't be difficult at all to find a lab that could do these tests unbiased: That's how double-blind tests work. The ones who actually performs the experiment doesn't know what we are looking for.
• WHY would a negative result not convince you?
  Even PEAR and SRI come up with negative results sometimes, yet you don't weigh these as important as the positive ones.
• Are the few experiments you constantly point to as proof of psi done from a positive theory or a negative theory?
• Can you actually form a positive theory and construct an experiment that would prove the existence of psi, instead of relying on negative theories ("We found something, we don't know what it is, it can't be anything we know of today, so it must be psi!")?

Psi, general

• Why is it so important to you to prove to this board that psi has been found?
• Why can't you explain - in layman's terms - the abstract from Helmut Schmidt's "PK Tests in a Pre-Sleep State" you posted? Is that too complicated for you or do you simply refuse?
  Answer: Refused.
• What does the hypothesis for "psi" state?
• Which parapsychologists use this hypothesis in their work?
• Is it the accepted all-round hypothesis for "psi", or are there others?
• Could you, in your own words, describe what "psi" is? How to test for it, what protocols to use?
• Do you consider paranormal research a victim of the suppression of mainstream science?
  If yes, how do you reconcile this with the prominent exposure of paranormal issues in media, like spiritual shows, communicating-with-the-dead programs, paranormal stories, shows, etc.?
  
  If no, why don't we see more mainstream science take paranormal issues seriously?
• Why is it not a problem for you that we still don't see evidence of paranormal phenomena, if you claim the evidence exist, yet cannot show it?

Unlucky 13

• How can you determine that Brits are more fearful of 13 than Danes, if you cannot quantify this?
• Why does the Danish lotto numbers (with more data points) show 13 placed smack in the middle? Danes are "afraid" of 13 as well.
• Why is 38 more lucky than 13 is unlucky?
  Answer:"38, is the most frequently drawn ball in the UKNLMD. Its frequency goes way over what you can rationaly expect from chance after so many runs. Using my hypothesis, based on socio/cultural group consciousness, it would represent the projection of the most desired outcome based on the holistic S/C value."
• Is it not true that you came up with "pre-Christian/pagan" fear of 13 in the UK after I pointed out that similar Danish data showed other results than yours?
• Is it not true, that you have not been able to show this British pagan fear of 13, but that all your references point to a Christian one?
• Isn't it true that in many cases, 13 was considered a lucky number?
• Have you looked at other lotteries than the UK one? If yes, which? If no, why not?
• If 13 is so unlucky in UK lotteries, why is it played so much?
• Why do you rule out the most obvious reason for 13 coming in last: Faulty equipment? Isn't that the first we should check, if we get weird results?
• Do you believe that the lottery are never tested for just this?
• Will you accept that your theory is wrong, when 13 doesn't end up last at any point in the future?
• Why can you only predict 3 numbers in the UK lottery? Why not 4 or 5?
• Why don't you consider PGP a strong encryption method?
• What are your qualifications for arguing this?
• Why can't you make the numbers known (and encrypted!) beforehand? Will an encrypted posting be influenced? How so?
• What do you base your critique of PGP on in the Czech document? You said you couldn't read the language?
• Why did you refuse to use PGP after finding a Czech reference to PGP, when you were later shown a document in English about the same subject?
• Why isn't a FedEx delivery by monday good enough? Is the FedEx involved in the Great Conspiracy too?
• How does your predictions in the UK lottery go? Are you more successful or less successful?
  Answer:Four wins in a row. Refused to provide evidence.

SAIC, Hyman, Utts, Sheldrake

• What is more probable? Hyman being wrong or you?
• Does Hyman agree with Utts on her conclusions of the experiments?
• Do you agree that "blips" in scientific experiments happen all the time?
• If yes, why isn't the SAIC experiment a "blip"?
• Is an experiment more valid because it has been funded by a government agency, e.g. the CIA?
• Are you a spokesman for SAIC?
• Are the SAIC experiments proof of "psi"?
• Is any "blip" proof of psi? If yes, why? If no, when is it proof, and when is it not?
• Has all possible error-sources been eliminated in the SAIC experiments?
• Does Hyman claim this?
• Does Utts claim this?
• If the SAIC experiments show proof of psi, what other experiments repeat these?
• Is there a free, open access to the experiments made by SRI, SAIC and PEAR?
• Does Hyman speak exclusively about the SAIC experiments in his conclusion or does he include other experiments?
• Does Utts speak exclusively about the SAIC experiments in her conclusion or does she include other experiments?
• Does Hyman include earlier SRI experiments in his conclusion?
• Does Utts include earlier SRI experiments in her conclusion?
• If Hyman and Utts include different experiments in their conclusions, wouldn't you agree that they do not agree on the conclusions of the SAIC experiments?
• Do you find that Hyman is a well-respected scientist that should be taken seriously?
• Do you agree with Hyman that effect size in itself is in no way an indication of a paranormal phenomenon?
• Have you tried to replicated the SAIC experiments? If no, why do you insist we do it? If yes, can we see the results, methodology, full data set, etc.?
• Do you agree that in half the observations published by Sheldrake on his site, the dog goes to the window even though the owner isn't on her way home?

Targ and Geller

• Why didn't Targ ask Hebard, builder of the magnetometer Swann "manipulated", if there could be any explanation?
• Why would Randi mention that Geller is a magician, and not mention if Targ is?
• Can you find an independent reference to Targ being anything else but an amateur magician?
• Why is it incomprehensible that Geller can fool Targ?
• Did Targ believe in Geller's abilities before they met?
• If Geller has been caught cheating, why do you still consider him "real"?
• Why would Geller resort to cheating, if his powers are real?
• Why won't Geller perform in front of conjurers?
• Why can't Geller bend a spoon without touching it?
• Why is David Blaine's opinion much more important than Randi's, Copperfield etc.?
  

Natalia Lulova

• Are there any indications in the article that the girl doesn't speak English sufficiently to perform the test?
  Status: The girl "excelled" in English. She was given the choice of answering in either language. There was a Russian interpreter present.
• Who is actually referred to as speaking Russian?
  Status: Void.
• Why does the coach speak only occasionally to the girl in Russian?
  Status: Void.
• Doesn't this indicate that the girl indeed understands English?
  Status: Void.
• Is it possible to give the girl secret instructions in Russian?
  Status: Void.
• Is it possible at all that the girl produced openings in the first blindfold?
• Why did the girl fail, when she couldn't rub or pull on her face?
• Where in the Challenge does it say that the results would have to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, in order for the test to be passed?
  Status: Nowhere.
• Where in the Challenge does it say that the test must be based on scientific principles?
  Status: Nowhere.
• If it is shown that the girl understands English well enough to give her answers in English, will you admit defeat?
• How would you have designed and carried out the test?

Science

• Do you understand the basics of science?
• Do you consider it a scientifically sound method to have the presenter of a hypothesis perform the test and judge the results?
• Would you consider yourself unbiased towards the mainstream scientific establishment?
• Why do you need to have the basics of science explained to you, if you claim scientific proof of psi?
• Do you understand that witness testimony is utterly irrelevant in science?

Skepticism, etc.

• Why do you refer to yourself as a skeptic, when you don't follow the rules of skepticism (following the scientific method, etc.)?
• Don't you find that the replicated personal connections between the sources you present are problematic?
• Are character flaws an indication of the validity of a person's findings?
• Can we see any psi experiment replicated with similar results published in a peer-reviewed journal, not devoted to parapsychology?
• Can we even see the same experiment replicated with similar results performed at any of your own listed organizations?
• What is the difference between an amateur and a professional?
• Have you considered any other theory other than your own? If so, which did you consider, and why did you abandon them?
• Do you want to see a list of the references I use?
• Do you consider Occam's Razor a good tool to investigate paranormal claims?
  If yes, isn't the probability of Geller cheating and/or using simply trickey much more probable than Geller having paranormal powers?
  
  If no, why isn't it applicable in this case? What other cases do you find Occam's Razor a wrong tool to use?
• What scientists are we talking about, when you talk about "Considering the evidence from so many credible people, scientists..."?
• Have these scientists published their findings in peer-reviewed journals, not devoted to parapsychology?
• Why have you switched tactics? You don't argue or show that your data is evidence, now we are all a bunch of morons in denial.

Randi/Magic

• Why hasn't Dr. Gary Schwartz applied for the Randi Challenge?
• Why haven't SAIC applied for the Randi Challenge?
• Why hasn't Uri Geller applied for the Randi Challenge?
• Why haven't you (and your team) applied for the Randi Challenge?
• Have you read the terms for the Randi Challenge?
  Answer:"I have read the terms of the Challenge."
• Do you understand the terms for the Randi Challenge?
  If yes, why do you continue to refer to the test as a "grant" and not a "challenge/test"?
• Do you realize that the posters here are not JREF staff, except Randi, Andrew and Linda?
• Is this your statement, Lucianarchy?
  

  'I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.'

  Answer:"Of course not. But perhaps that illustrates the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor."
  Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs.
• Why do you want to oppress and silence those who criticise your beliefs, e.g. James Randi's website?
• Do you think it is possible that you could be fooled by a masterful magician?
• Do you think it is possible that someone who has been in a spaceship or who worked for a huge, bureaucratic government agency could be fooled by a masterful magician?
• Do you think it is possible that David Blaine could be fooled by a masterful magician?
• Do you think it is possible that parapsychologists could be fooled by a masterful magician?
• Do you think it is possible that Jane Katra was doing a trick, when the bowl in her hand rolled up 180 degrees? If not, why not?
• Do you think it would be in Jane Katra's interest (financially and emotionally) to act scared, in order to heighten the believability of a trick? If not, why not?
• How does the "sawed-through lady" trick work? What about the "disappearing dove in a cage" trick?

Misc

• Why do you consider a public plea for clarifying your point worthy of only a private email? Why can't the rest of us know what you think? Is there anything secret about that information?
• Would you consider "read the book!" a fair answer to a question put to you to clarify your own personal views on a subject?
• What are your thoughts on the random number generator using static sound?
• Why do you keep on posting the same links to the same reports made by the same small group of people, if you claim there are many, many reports that confirm the existence of psi?
• Why do you describe me as a "spoiled child", when I ask you for those reports, experiments and proof you speak of, instead of at least showing where I can find them?
• Why do you - after I have clarified that Hyman does not agree with Utts on the conclusions of the SAIC evaluations, and you have acknowledged this clarification - continue to claim that I said otherwise?
• Why do you claim that you "corrected" me on this, when I myself clarified it? When did you "correct" me on this?
• Who are you and your research team?
• Are you a professional journalist?
• What awards have you won and what pieces were they for and what publications were they in?
• Do you have data to back up your claim that you are one of the few men involved in Wicca?

And the final one:

What kind of evidence will you accept that show you are wrong?

Note: This post will be updated as Lucianarchy sloooooowly answers each question. We're in for the long haul here, it seems...

 

[Lucianarchy]

Claus, you are in violation of the forum rules by again posting those silly questions whilst there is an entire thread devoted to that very subject. Your reposting is wasting bandwidth, and as such you are 'spamming' the forum. Delete the entire post or provide a link.

 

[Suezoled]

LOL! Look who's pretending he's someone of authority. Or at least respectability.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, you are in violation of the forum rules by again posting those silly questions whilst there is an entire thread devoted to that very subject. Your reposting is wasting bandwidth, and as such you are 'spamming' the forum. Delete the entire post or provide a link.

No, I am not in violating of forum rules. Hal has specifically stated that if you ever brought up the issue of evidence again, I could post my questions asking you for evidence.

Go bother him, if you like. Or, you could start answering some of the questions.

Every time you ask others for evidence, I will ask you for evidence. Get used to it.

After all, that's what being a skeptic is all about: Providing evidence of your claims. Or had you forgotten...?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

 

[Lothian]

Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Luci,

After much searching I have found the relevant part of the guidelines.

…..

5.7. Dealing with information provided by Psychics.

See section 5.4 -Dealing with information provided by the certifiably insane.

 

[CFLarsen]

Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Ignoring the questions again, Lucianarchy?

Being a total hypocrite again, Lucianarchy?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Luci,

After much searching I have found the relevant part of the guidelines.

…..

5.7. Dealing with information provided by Psychics.

See section 5.4 -Dealing with information provided by the certifiably insane.

Are you claiming that the ACPO have published the above statement?

I accept you may be lying, but the the trouble is, credophile pseudo-skeptic types actualy believe such things without question and go on to repeat them elsewhere. Which eventualy, of course, ends up with them landing in hot water at some point or other and I am sure you wouldn't want that coming back to haunt you, right?

 

[alfaniner]

No psychics have succeeded in locating Dru Sjodin yet. Oh, wait, maybe they have. "Near water, shallow grave, forest-like area."