Police and Psychics

[darling]

Methinks the lady(?) dost protest too much.

Good. Then provide the evidence and we'll all have another good laugh.

Here's what I found out so far.
Post in question here:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=220
IP address (view source to see it) 216.112.142.177
Which resolves to concentric.net in California.

All you have to do is tie Lucianarchy to that IP address. I have been unable to do so. So far there is nothing tying Lucianarchy to this post.

If you got something let's hear it

 

[RichardR]

Methinks the lady(?) dost protest too much.

To be fair, i don't think anyone has shown proof that this really was our Luci making that post. It seems to me unlikely that Luci would post something in his/her own screen name and then deny it. Especially considering how strongly he/she normally defends his/her other (highly criticized), views with vigor.

Either way, it's a bit of a red herring.

 

[Guest]

Lucy, I think that last batch MetaVitaVegamin was recalled by the FDA. Didn't I tell you to stop drinking it? I think it's making you crazier, and you remember what happened last time?

Where's my dinner? Little Ricky is crying again and I think he needs you.

(Fred, just pour me another martini. I don't think she's coming home for a while).

Lucy, you need to go home to Little Ricky. I know his drums are annoying, but you must encourage his talent. He misses his mommy greatly!

 

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Reeght, yuoo despeeceble-a peeece-a ooff vurk. Get thees. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Vhet yuoo ere-a refferreeng tu is must certeeenly NOT me-a, prufeede-a yuoor ifeedence-a ebuoot IP eddresses oor shoot up. Du it. Um de hur de hur de hur. Uny ideeut cun vreete-a stooffff under yuoor neme-a oon zee 'net tu meke-a it luuk leeke-a yuoo, yuoo moost reeleese-a thet, oor ere-a yuoo reelly joost fery, fery stoopeed?? Thees is ixectly zee surt ooff theeng funeteecs du, und yuoo're-a dueeng it joost becoose-a yuoo dun't egree-a veet vhet I em seyeeng. Pezeeteec. I hupe-a thuse-a vhu hefe-a beee deescoossing censursheep ere-a reedeeng thees. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

I never claimed to have evidence that the poster on New Age Wackos board was you, nor did I or would I pull any IPs for comparison's sake. Rather, I merely touched on Claus' speculation to said possibility, and judging by the response, it struck a nerve. My sincere apologies. I now see after performing more thorough analysis of your compositional style that absolutely no parallel may be drawn between you and the user of the same name on the aforementioned board.

 

[Brickroad]

In my opinion, in respect of some 'psychics', yes. There is too much credible evidence which suggests that remote viewing / 'psychics' can obtain information by means not fully understood by science.

I was under the impression that something needs to be shown to exist before it can be understood. To date, I've never seen any "credible evidence" that psychics and remote viewing exist, let alone are useful in a police investigation (though I'm sure you have some non-anecdotal evidence laying around you could show me, aye?).

To ignore *out of hand* all information coming from 'psychics', simply because the *method* of information detection is not fully understood, would be irresponsible. In light of that evidence, If I were a police officer who knew details on on a case and had access to a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, I would asses whatever information they came forward with.

I would say that all psychics have a history of accuracy. I'm sure Montel would tell us that Sylvia Browne's got an incredible history of accuracy. It isn't the accuracies I'd be interested in; it's the inaccuracies that I'd be worried about. I'm sure for every hit a "credible" psychic gets, there are a dozen misses.

If they gave a location, for instance, for a missing person, in light of their previous accuracy it would be irresponsible and stupid to ignore such information - particularly if, like in the case in the Police Fed article, the psychic demonstrated a history of verifiable accuracy. I may not be able to use that evidence in *Court*, but that alone could and should not stop me *acting* on the information recieved.

So you do believe that evidence given by a psychic should be admissible in court. Given that, should such evidence be considered infallible in the absence of other evidence? Should a jury be able to convict based solely on such evidence?

Now, a question for you. If you had a missing relative, had tried all avenues to locate them, but still couldn't find them, would you act on the information given to you from a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, as in the case of the 'psychic' described in the Police Federation article? If not, why not?

If a psychic introduced himself to an investigation into the location of a loved one, and the law enforcement agency handling the case assured me that this psychic had helped them on many previous occasions to solve cases they otherwise would have never solved, then I suppose my answer would have to be yes. However, since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that psychics with any sort of track record are very helpful to law enforcement, I don't think I'll be holding my breath.

 

[Brickroad]

Luci has been repeatedly asked if she would be willing to be convicted of a crime on the basis of psychic testimony alone. To my knowledge, she has never answered that question. That pretty much deflates her position on the viability of psychic testimony.

That certainly seems to be the case. I won't waste too much energy in this thread, then.

 

[RichardR]

To Lucianarchy

I was under the impression that something needs to be shown to exist before it can be understood. To date, I've never seen any "credible evidence" that psychics and remote viewing exist, let alone are useful in a police investigation (though I'm sure you have some non-anecdotal evidence laying around you could show me, aye?).

Oh-Oh!! Watch out for more lists (again), of "conclusive" and "replicated" research including PEAR, Ganzfeld, and that thingy about the guy sleeping with the vibrating thing that Luci can't explain because
(s)he doesn't understand it.

Bwaaahahaha

 

[RichardR]

That certainly seems to be the case. I won't waste too much energy in this thread, then.

Wow only 14 posts and less than three weeks and you've figured that out already. I'm impressed.

(Welcome to the forum, btw. )

 

[Lucianarchy]

I never claimed to have evidence that the poster on New Age Wackos board was you, nor did I or would I pull any IPs for comparison's sake. Rather, I merely touched on Claus' speculation to said possibility, and judging by the response, it struck a nerve. My sincere apologies.

"Yes, of course, there must be an infinite number of users that post to message boards devoted to skepticism under the name "Lucianarchy" who in addition to being journalists and Uri Geller devotees also practice magic/Wicca, and have similar IP addresses. I must be beyond foolish to assume there's any possibility this Lucianarchy could have authored and directed disparaging remarks toward James Randi and this web site. " - Wolverine

You wrote that, so yes, you are beyond foolish. And as you claim "similar IP addresses" without providing any evidence whatsoever, I don't accept your apology. In fact it seems you relied on that other idiot, Claus Larsen, for the "similar IP" crap, which only goes to show what thick-headed credophiles you *both* are.

Larsen, you'll remember is the idiot who kept on, and on, and on posting stupid, completely irrelevant lists of questions I have never made any claim on, yet the oaf eventually posted this:

"Should I think you have an obligation to answer to each and every question ever put, even though you never made any claim at all?

Be fair, now." - CFLarsen

I asked for Larsen to present only questions on claims he could attribute quotes to me for. Guess what? He clammed.
You'll see in 'Q for Lucianarchy thread' that not only did I give a full text answers containing references, sources etc, I went on to answer *another*, then just one *more, then *another*... polite and cooperative throughout. As a result TLN *then* demands to know where I was when I read a document - 'one more little question' - not only is that sort of tripe transparent for its sophistry, it is irrelevant to whether he can or will examine the data for himself, from the *source*, as a skeptic must. To make matters worse, and confirm for me the lesson not to be drawn into these trollish games by the like of TLN, he invents a claim to put in my mouth, one of most dispicable of acts which earns instant dismissal from my attention. He has access to previous forum archives, he knows he can get them from Larsen, but he doesn't, he can't because these "claims" don't exist, he feels a fool, so he behaves like a dishonest twat. Pathetic.

These tactics, yours and TLN's, are the actions of fanatics.

Now, as I have given you the time and courtesy of a reply, you will see things in the full context.

As for you, well, maybe you'll come accross someone writing or claiming something under your own name, of course it won't bother you, I realise that, Karma and the notion of responsibility's something alien to you. Oh, BTW, I went to the site where you put rolling eyes next to "coincidence", guess who else posts there who is also is a regular from this Forum, who also displays pathological hysteria over nearly anything I write? Do I get to play the rolling eyes 'coincidence' now?

 

[Lucianarchy]

I was under the impression that something needs to be shown to exist before it can be understood. To date, I've never seen any "credible evidence" that psychics and remote viewing exist, let alone are useful in a police investigation (though I'm sure you have some non-anecdotal evidence laying around you could show me, aye?).

Sure, I'll do my best, what specifically do you want?

 

[Lucianarchy]

That certainly seems to be the case. I won't waste too much energy in this thread, then.

You were responding to a claim that "Luci has been repeatedly asked if she would be willing to be convicted of a crime on the basis of psychic testimony alone. To my knowledge, she has never answered that question. "

Maybe you have not read all of the thread, and please bear in mind that I don't and can't answer all post here mainly due to the amount of time it would take, I don't often respond to idiots either, but may I draw your attention to my reply to Headscratcher where I believe I answered this sort of question quite satisfactorily and reasonably ( the bold is Headscratcher):

Would you, if you were accused of a crime, want to know if the evidence against you were developed through use of a "psychic?"

Yes, if that's all the evidence there was, of course.


Shouldn't police who rely on a "positive" relationship with a psychic, and who, as a result of that relationship, develop leads that may lead to a criminal charge being filed, submit all of the psychic studies you site to the courts so that "psychic" evidence can be established as scientifically valid evidence? If not, why not?


It's not necessary to do that, a remote viewer can tell the police to 'look for x in the x', they can go there and if they find the x at x then that's that the evidence is with the police, how they made the decision to check on something is irrelevant. Can you imagine the burglar caught red handed by the policeman walking past the house, demanding in Court that he be told *why* the officer was there at that time?!

 

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


If you had a missing relative, had tried all avenues to locate them, but still couldn't find them, would you act on the information given to you from a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, as in the case of the 'psychic' described in the Police Federation article? If not, why not?

I would.

Right, so there's no reason why the police don't do the same thing, when all else fails, it would be irresponsible not to.

 

[Brickroad]

Sure, I'll do my best, what specifically do you want?

How about a double-blind experiment in which the psychic being tested had more successful hits than would be normal by sheer chance? Though I would expect a true psychic to get nothing less than 100% on such a test, I am aware that psychics are (presumably) only human and that humans are prone to mistakes.

After you have supplied such an experiment, I'm afraid I will also need an explanation as to why this psychic isn't $1,000,000 richer than s/he is.

I understand the concept of not having enough free time to spend on the internet. I certainly cannot endulge as much as I would like. However, I do think it is bad form to purposely avoid a question directed at you. Either answer the question or, if you do not wish to, at least acknowledge that the question was asked and give your reason for withholding your answer. The amount of posts by you in this thread alone is an indication that you certainly have enough free time to participate at this forum.

You also seemed to imply that I formed an opinion about you based on xouper's observation. I assure you that xouper's observation served only to reinforce an opinion I had already formed about you, based on this thread and others I have seen you participate in, and not the other way around.

But, just for kicks, here are the questions I asked which you have yet to answer. They are simple yes or no questions:

If psychic evidence (evidence offered by a psychic, gained by remote viewing or some other paranormal means) is to be admissible in a court of law, should such evidence be considered infallible in the absence of other (non-psychic) evidence?

If so, should a jury be able to convict based solely on such evidence?

 

[Brickroad]

RichardR-

Thanks, it's nice to be here.

 

[Lucianarchy]

How about a double-blind experiment in which the psychic being tested had more successful hits than would be normal by sheer chance? Though I would expect a true psychic to get nothing less than 100% on such a test, I am aware that psychics are (presumably) only human and that humans are prone to mistakes.



OK, this is why I asked for specifics. There isn't any claim in any of the scientific literature for 100% success. There is evidence that the psi effect is measurable, recordable and replicable, if you are interested. You had stated: "I've never seen any "credible evidence" that psychics and remote viewing exist, let alone are useful in a police investigation (though I'm sure you have some non-anecdotal evidence laying around you could show me, aye?)."
As you are now *specifically* asking for 100% success rates, then I can confirm for you that such rates do not exist.



After you have supplied such an experiment, I'm afraid I will also need an explanation as to why this psychic isn't $1,000,000 richer than s/he is.



Like I said, no one is making that claim in respect of the scientific evidence for the psi effect.



I understand the concept of not having enough free time to spend on the internet. I certainly cannot endulge as much as I would like. However, I do think it is bad form to purposely avoid a question directed at you. Either answer the question or, if you do not wish to, at least acknowledge that the question was asked and give your reason for withholding your answer. The amount of posts by you in this thread alone is an indication that you certainly have enough free time to participate at this forum.



Some times, yes, but I don't normally get anyhwere near enough time to even read many of the posts. It is irrational to expect anyone to respond to every post that's directed at them.



You also seemed to imply that I formed an opinion about you based on xouper's observation. I assure you that xouper's observation served only to reinforce an opinion I had already formed about you, based on this thread and others I have seen you participate in, and not the other way around.



OK, no problem. I hadn't even thought you had formed any opinion based on anything, but I understand why you might think that way.


But, just for kicks, here are the questions I asked which you have yet to answer. They are simple yes or no questions:

If psychic evidence (evidence offered by a psychic, gained by remote viewing or some other paranormal means) is to be admissible in a court of law, should such evidence be considered infallible in the absence of other (non-psychic) evidence?



No, of course not. It is legally impossible to admit 'psychic' evidence in a Court of Law, there is not a sufficient body of scientific evidence to uphold it. Remote viewing appears to have complimentary intelligence applications rather than definative answers. If a police officer acts on info from a RVer which leads him/her to secure legal avidence, then that's OK, they don't need to provide the Court with details about how they arrived at the evidence, just that the evidence is satisfactory.



If so, should a jury be able to convict based solely on such evidence?



No. Like I said, 'psychic evidence' is not a legal issue, the use of 'psychics' / remote viewers in the course of reaching the securance of legal evidence is not a matter for the courts either, so if a 'psychic' was used during intelligence gathering there be no legal need to mention it. It would make sense from a 'security/intelligence' point of view for law enforcement or security operatives *not* to mention any sources of intelligence either, so finding a 'known police psychic', just like naming a 'Supergrass, should actually be very difficult to do.

 

[glee]

How about a double-blind experiment in which the psychic being tested had more successful hits than would be normal by sheer chance? Though I would expect a true psychic to get nothing less than 100% on such a test, I am aware that psychics are (presumably) only human and that humans are prone to mistakes.

OK, this is why I asked for specifics. There isn't any claim in any of the scientific literature for 100% success. There is evidence that the psi effect is measurable, recordable and replicable, if you are interested. You had stated: "I've never seen any "credible evidence" that psychics and remote viewing exist, let alone are useful in a police investigation (though I'm sure you have some non-anecdotal evidence laying around you could show me, aye?)."
As you are now *specifically* asking for 100% success rates, then I can confirm for you that such rates do not exist.

Brickroad isn't *specifically* asking for 100% success!
Read his post carefully:
'in which the psychic being tested had more successful hits than would be normal by sheer chance'

Naturally he wants scientific conditions, e.g. a double-blind experiment.

You claim that (bolding mine):
'There is evidence that the psi effect is measurable, recordable and replicable, if you are interested.'

OK, I'm interested.

 

[Lucianarchy]

You claim that (bolding mine):
'There is evidence that the psi effect is measurable, recordable and replicable, if you are interested.'

OK, I'm interested.

"I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the
SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, filedrawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing, or other misuse of statistical inference."

"So, I accept Professor Utts assertion that the statistical results of
the SAIC and other parapsychologists experiments are "far
beyond what is expected by chance." "

"The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators
have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous
parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable
candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present." - Ray Hyman

Indeed. Of course, it is impossible to say that *any* scientific
experiment is completely free from possible flaws. Yet here Hyman
admits that not one single *potential* "candidate" for flaw has been identified. Hyman wanted these experiments replicated, and now they have been ( See the J of Sci Exp. vol.10 no.1 - Neslon, Dunne, Dobyns, Jahn.) Now these experiments have been replicated, even mainstream skepticism has run out of rational explanations.

 

[glee]

"I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the
SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, filedrawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing, or other misuse of statistical inference."

"So, I accept Professor Utts assertion that the statistical results of
the SAIC and other parapsychologists experiments are "far
beyond what is expected by chance." "

"The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators
have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous
parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable
candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present." - Ray Hyman

Indeed. Of course, it is impossible to say that *any* scientific
experiment is completely free from possible flaws. Yet here Hyman
admits that not one single *potential* "candidate" for flaw has been identified. Hyman wanted these experiments replicated, and now they have been ( See the J of Sci Exp. vol.10 no.1 - Neslon, Dunne, Dobyns, Jahn.)

Sorry, can you give references to these quotes?

Is J of Sci Exp (Journal of Scientific Experiment?) available online?

Now these experiments have been replicated, even mainstream skepticism has run out of rational explanations.

I haven't heard of any explanation (or adoption) of psychic powers by 'mainstream' science. Is that your personal opinion?

(I'm not trying to wind you up, but do we have a scientific theory on how these powers work?)

 

[Liamo]

"I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the
SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, filedrawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing, or other misuse of statistical inference."

[...]

"The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators
have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous
parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable
candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present." - Ray Hyman

Indeed. Of course, it is impossible to say that *any* scientific
experiment is completely free from possible flaws. Yet here Hyman
admits that not one single *potential* "candidate" for flaw has been identified. Hyman wanted these experiments replicated, and now they have been ( See the J of Sci Exp. vol.10 no.1 - Neslon, Dunne, Dobyns, Jahn.) Now these experiments have been replicated, even mainstream skepticism has run out of rational explanations.

Lucianarchy,

How old exactly is the paper you keep quoting? From your reference to later experiments in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.10, it has to be in or before 1996. Care to provide a date?

Here is a more recent quote, dated 1998 from the Skeptics archive (The Truth is Out There & Ray Hyman Wants to Find It: An Interview with a Co-Founder of Modern Skepticism:

When I was involved in investigating the remote viewing experiments by the CIA, I had a similar discussion with Jessica Utts and Ed May, who wanted to know what it would take to convince me. I told them a story about a guy in St. Louis who said he could do remote viewing, but when we set up the experimental protocol he demanded that if the test came out positive I would say “I now believe.” I explained to him that “belief” is subjective, and I talked about how at magic conferences I have fooled even the best magicians in the world, and they have fooled me, so someday a psychic is going to come along and do something that I cannot explain, but this does not mean there is a real psychic effect here. It may just mean that I’ve been fooled. When I investigated the Ganzfeld experiments, for example, it took me three years to figure out what was going on.

So if at the time he did not find any flaws, they became apparent three years later. However the J. Sci. Exp. has not published anything else by Hyman...

Liam

 

[Ersby]

Altogether too many links on remote viewing can be found on this very forum...

http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7340

To be exact on Luci's claim of replication (which has seemed to have shrunk from "dozens of labs around the world" to one reference to one paper), Dunne, Jahn et al (the PEAR labs) got a similar effect size when doing a remote viewing experiment (I say "a" - they did over 600!) . The fact that they used completely different class of targets (physical locations, not photographs) and different scoring system (binary scoring, not judging) means that you'd be hard pushed to call it a "replication".

Additionaly, the SRI labs I think we can discount since they left many experiments unpubloshed and had lax protocols. PEAR too has some interesting flaws. But it'll take a while for me to type them up and put them in a new thread. Maybe something for Sunday.

In the meantime, check out the link.