Psychic Detectives and "The Commentary"...same errors again and again and again and..

[Clancie]

Why? Why are the same inaccurate statements about psychic detectives made by some skeptics over and over and over? :confused:

Here it is, again, in this week's "Commentary":
From Curtis Cameron, quoted by Randi

ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true.
This is not true. "Ever" is easily disputed. Psychic Phil Jordan, for one, is undeniably acknowledged by the police themselves as having been largely responsible for finding a missing child.

Why is this so...difficult? ...impossible? for some to understand?

If you want to say, "No psychic has ever solved a murder without police assistance"....well, that could well be true (although you'd better have researched it to make certain before saying it. :eek: ).

The statement, "No psychic has ever solved a missing person's case (using psychic ability)" can be argued pro/con based on the Jordan example (and others).

But the statement above, which Randi quoted so supportively, is patently false. Like it or not, psychics have been acknowledged (by police and family members) as having "helped" solve missing persons cases.

You can argue that, in your own opinion, police and familiy members are wrong, and that these psychics have not really "helped solve cases" at all--that the impression they did help is just a phony one. And you may even be right--Joe Nickells' book, for one, tries to argue this point.

But that is NOT the same thing as saying as a factual statement that "No psychic has ever helped solve a missing person's case".

Accurate statements are good....yes???? Inaccurate statements are bad....right?

Someday, one day, people (Randi, Cameron, Stoessel, whoever)...will make more effort to be accurate and factual in this discussion....

Or is that too much to hope for? :confused:

[Marian]

Clancie, which case are you refering to? The only case with specifics mentioned on that person's website is a 1975 case where a child was missing for 17 hours lost in the woods during a thunderstorm. Is that the case you're referring to?

[Clancie]

Posted by Marian

Clancie, which case are you refering to? The only case with specifics mentioned on that person's website is a 1975 case where a child was missing for 17 hours lost in the woods during a thunderstorm. Is that the case you're referring to?
Yes.

[voidx]

Do we have any more in depth details of this occurance, or just the families the detective and Phil's own admission of what went on? To clarify Phil was actually studying at the police academy and later graduated. It was he himself that claimed it was his psychic powers that solved the case, however, he may simply have just had a different insight as to where the boy might be.

Here's a few other links regarding Phil:
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/psychicSleuths.htm

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11256914&BRD=1395&PAG=461&dept_id=216620&rfi=6

Now, here is a transcript from an interview by CNN with Phil. Its at this link:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/29/lkl.00.html


PHIL JORDAN, PSYCHIC: Well, the first I knew of the case, I had been on a trip down in Pennsylvania and I got back right about 7:00 that night, when we were having a very bad electric storm. And I ran from the garage to my apartment, and as I ran across the back yard, the landlady stood in the back door of the house and the fire siren was ringing and I was wondering what was going on. I thought maybe lightning had hit something. And so I asked what was going on, and she informed me that a little boy was missing up at Empire Lake.

GRACE: So detective, you had actually sounded a siren and called for volunteers to start looking for the boy until you finally had to call it off for the night, right?

RETSICKER: That's correct, yes.

GRACE: So, let me ask you this, Phil Jordan, what was your first initial feeling regarding the case and how did you help the family?

JORDAN: My first initial feeling was that the boy was alive, because I could see him lying down with his headresting on his arm, as if he were sleeping under a tree. And they had assumed he may have gotten in the lake and drowned, because he was wearing a swimsuit, last seen with a swim toy. He was barefoot so they thought maybe he had gone into the lake and drowned, but I felt he was very much alive. I felt he was sleeping under a tree. GRACE: Now, how did you lead them actually on the search through the forest?

JORDAN: Well, as night fell, I really -- and the father did contact me later on, and as night fell, I really felt that I couldn't go to the scene in the dark, because I might miss a clue. And so I took a piece of paper and drew a map of where I felt the little boy would be found. And I felt that I would arrive at the lake and there would be three overturns boats on the shore and across from that, there would be a building and I'd go in the lake or into the woods behind the building across the lake, and we would find an opening where there would be some stones gathered together, as if somebody was getting ready to build something. We continued on...

GRACE: Had you ever been to this lake before?

JORDAN: No, never, never. Even though it had been somewhat in my area, just not a place I had ever been.

Now. Notice several things. A siren had been sounded, and a call put out for volunteers to help look for the child. Phil Jordan apparently was not contacted specifically because of his psychic ability to assist in the investigation. A call for volunteers was put out, he showed up with this map he'd drawn and so they gave it a try. Also, he lived in the area, AND he talked to the father the night BEFORE he showed up with his "map". This leads to many potential mundane explanations. The father giving a potential description of the area around where his son disappeared...clues as to which ways the police had gone in search, etc. Who knows what went on during that conversation. So essentially volunteers are asked for, Phil lives in the area, Phil talks to the father the night before he shows up. Phil shows up the next day with a map basically telling the investigators to go look in a direction they had not previously looked in, and, they happen to find the boy.

More than enough reasons to believe this is entirely mundane, and a very clear indication that Phil Jordan was not actively hired, or sought by the investigators because of his "psychic" ability. Any other links or information on Phil that might clarify this? Or perhaps a better example?

[Marian]

Just some questions I have. First, do you know offhand if anyone has looked into this independantly (I wasn't able to find any information about this case online, other than what was posted on the psychic's own website). If so, could you point me in the right direction. :)

Second, and this is just a couple of personal examples. When I was in college I worked part of one summer as a cashier in a thirft shop. Without getting into too many extra details, a child went missing in the store (due to a parent not watching, and not caring, since she sent her very young children to report it, and didn't follow up for 45 minutes, when we told the oldest [who was around 7-8] that an adult has to make the report). Once it had been reported the entire store (which was quite large) went into a frenzy and police were called. One adult reported seeing a child dragged into a car (turns out that child was not related to this and was probably the child of the adult who dragged their kid in). Another adult said, "Check the car" meaning the car of the parent who's child was missing. That's where the child was. He had wandered out and found his car and crawled in. (And the mother took off before police arrived unfortunately, because she was really neglectful).

Now, the person who suggested we look in the car came up with that because when someone said they saw the child in the parking lot (and dragged into a car) they remembered as a mother that their child once had gotten lost and gone into her car. Had she claimed though that she recieved a 'psychic vision', would that be a case of a missing child resolved by 'psychic power'?

Obviously the possibilities were more limited with a store on a missing child, but 'in the car', wouldn't be something that would be first in my mind (nor was it at the time).

Another example. When I was about 5 years old, I lived in Georgia with my family and was lost in the woods one day, when the weather turned bad. I vividly remember this. Apparently my parents were on the verge of calling the police to search, but the neighbors assured them that their sons would find me. I'm not certain how long my parents had been 'yelling' for me beforehand. 4 boys made a beeline rather deep in these woods to exactly where I was. I had gotten completely turned around and was lost. They led me back, and I remember I was filthy (from falling into a REALLY small stream) and I think had some minor scrapes, and I was frightened and tired. One of the boys 'piggy-backed' me the rest of the way out because I was too tired to walk.

And of course my parents were relieved, and I was told THAT was why I didn't wander into the damned woods. ;) Now that's just off my memory, which given the length of time, may not be accurate. But the basics are (I was lost, a storm started, it sucked). Now had the adults been praying and had the boys claimed 'Jesus led us to her', would that have been a case of a child found because of a 'miracle'?

The reason I list those two examples specifically is because there are probably numerous instances just like that, many much more serious, where a case is resolved not by psychic power, but merely by someone looking. Claiming after the fact (once successful) that it's attributable to something paranormal is less impressive than someone claiming beforehand that they absolutely can/will do X, and it's because of something paranormal. See the difference? (I probably could have made a MUCH shorter analogy though). Plus, even if they do claim it, and do succeed in those cases...does it automatically make it 'paranormal', or can another alternative explanation apply? Obviously the two examples I gave were NOT paranormal, but what if beforehand they said it was, then performed as they did. Would that make it paranormal? Well that's a trick question, because we know for sure in those two cases that it wasn't.

I'm obviously interested in looking more into this specific case, because it is my understanding that no case has ever been resolved based solely on 'psychic' information (information that they did not or could not have gotten from another very real source). And quite a bit of harm gets done with paranormal claims.

But what I find interesting is that this psychic, who says on his website that he was 'deputized' specifically to work as a psychic with a New York police department (though I assume not NYPD since he doesn't say 'the' NYPD, but a New York police dept) why he doesn't have numerous more examples than one case of a child missing 17 hours during a thunderstorm in 1975? Which also leads me to wonder if he said he knew where the child was psychically, or claimed AFTER he located the child that he had found the child 'psychically'. There would be in my mind, a difference. Especially when many things happen which are merely coincidental. In other words, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so what are the specific circumstances surrounding the case that would make it extraordinary.

It certainly is presented as extraordinary. 200 searchers, a missing child lost in the woods during a thunder storm, he walks in points to a spot... from his website I quote:

Within one hour after beginning his search, Phil successfully led a search team to the frightened little boy who had been missing for 17 hours. Phil used a map he envisioned the night before, and his mental capabilities to locate Tommy Kennedy, safe and alive, after two hundred searchers were unsuccessful in their attempts. Phil totally credits the event of August 4, 1975 to his psychic ability.

You said the police state he is 'largely responsible', yet if his claim is absolutely 100% true, wouldn't it be "totally responsible"? Or did he have information from the police?

Anyway, if I look only at that one case, the only information I have is from the guy's website. Are there other sources of information than the psychic himself that make the same claims, and can support those claims (like other police officers stating that they hadn't told him anything about the case, etc.)?

If no one has looked into it, I have enough free time that I'd have enough interest in poking around to see what I can dig up. ;) But I'd be surprised if no one had looked into it already (though I can't find any information via google). So I'd be interested in seeing what other information is out there on this.

Just based on his claim, I'm still skeptical (of course ;)), but will grant that the claim that he was responsible for finding a missing child using 'psychic' powers certainly bears looking into.

[Nigel]

From Marian
If no one has looked into it, I have enough free time that I'd have enough interest in poking around to see what I can dig up.
Go for it Marian. Part of my problem is I don't have the time to devote to research like this (but I do have the desire). (I often post during my workday - my job is pretty routine.) So the upshot is I'm interested in what you can find out.

[voidx]

I did a google for Phil Jordan & police I think to find the links I did. There may have been more, but after reading the CNN interview I wasn't very motivated to do so. He lived in the area, he talked to the father, he perhaps had the benefit of basically knowing where the police had ALREADY looked. This just has mundane written all over it to me.

Now it mentions that he was deputized shortly after this incident(happened in 1975) and that he graduated from the police academy in 1976, so its a tad unclear if he was in the police academy, before/during, or after this incident. Why I think this is important is because he may have already been learning investigative techniques and this, rather than psychic ability is what "contributed" to the investigation.

[chrisberez]

Originally posted by Marian
Just some questions I have. First, do you know offhand if anyone has looked into this independantly (I wasn't able to find any information about this case online, other than what was posted on the psychic's own website). If so, could you point me in the right direction. :)

Marian's excellent post pretty much said it all, and there's really nothing I can add. Obviously, if there was really indisputable evidence of psychic's solving a case, it should be out there, easy to find. It should be unquestionable, and able to be replicated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wandering around the woods, with knowledge gained a posteriori or after all the facts of a case are known. Like the others in this thread, I am not impressed.

[CurtC]

Curtis Cameron checking in here. Just because "psychics have been acknowledged (by police and family members) as having 'helped' solve missing persons cases," this does not negate the statement that "no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability)."

Do you see the difference? A person who calls himself a psychic can always investigate like everyone else, using regular old shoe leather, and help solve a case. I said that no psychic has ever helped using psychic ability, and I stand by that statement.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Did you know that Phil Jordan was studying at the police academy and later graduated?

Did you know that he was the one vouching for his psychic abilities?

If either answer is a yes, didn't that ring a bell somewhere?

If either answer is a no, can we agree that you did not look into this case, but accepted what you read?

And...sorry, I really hate to ask, because it might put you in a bad light:

Why do your examples of psychic achievements always turn out mundane after the most cursory investigations?

[Ceinwyn]

Clancie:

Give me one example where a psychic actually found a missing person, in that the person was missing or dead and the psychic found that person.

No help from the police, no clues from the newspaper. Somebody just called up and said "there's a dead person right here, they told me so." and they found them.

[coalesce]

Perhaps by "helped," the psychics mean: "we helped the police by having them investigate every other possible scenario except for the one that really happened."

Michael

[Pantastic]

Originally posted by coalesce
Perhaps by "helped," the psychics mean: "we helped the police by having them investigate every other possible scenario except for the one that really happened."

Michael

Or, 20 psychics came out of the woodwork and offered their ideas, and when one of them hit lucky, they were remembered while the others were forgotten. After all, if 1000 monkeys working for long enough would type out the complete works of Shakespeare, then 1000 misguided, money grabbing, egotistical psychics are gonna hit lucky once in a while, right?

[Clancie]

Posted by Curtis Cameron

Curtis Cameron checking in here. Just because "psychics have been acknowledged (by police and family members) as having 'helped' solve missing persons cases," this does not negate the statement that "no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability)."

Do you see the difference? A person who calls himself a psychic can always investigate like everyone else, using regular old shoe leather, and help solve a case. I said that no psychic has ever helped using psychic ability, and I stand by that statement.
Hi Curtis. I wondered if the person Randi quoted participated at this board. :)

And, fyi, no...if you read the details of the Phil Jordan case, he did not "investigate like everyone else". Without going to the location, he drew a map which the police searchers used to find the missing child. Like it or not, every reliable source (including the police detective in charge of the case) indicates that this psychic did help the police find the missing five year old who was lost near Empire Lake. And he is credited by the police and the boy's family for doing so.
Posted by Chris Berez

Obviously, if there was really indisputable evidence of psychic's solving a case, it should be out there, easy to find. It should be unquestionable, and able to be replicated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wandering around the woods, with knowledge gained a posteriori or after all the facts of a case are known. Like the others in this thread, I am not impressed.
Posted by buki

Clancie, Give me one example where a psychic actually found a missing person, in that the person was missing or dead and the psychic found that person.

No help from the police, no clues from the newspaper. Somebody just called up and said "there's a dead person right here, they told me so." and they found them.
Posted by coelesce

Perhaps by "helped," the psychics mean: "we helped the police by having them investigate every other possible scenario except for the one that really happened."
Posted by Phantastic

Or, 20 psychics came out of the woodwork and offered their ideas, and when one of them hit lucky, they were remembered while the others were forgotten. After all, if 1000 monkeys working for long enough would type out the complete works of Shakespeare, then 1000 misguided, money grabbing, egotistical psychics are gonna hit lucky once in a while, right?
:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
And, fyi, no...if you read the details of the Phil Jordan case, he did not "investigate like everyone else". Without going to the location, he drew a map which the police searchers used to find the missing child. Like it or not, every reliable source (including the police detective in charge of the case) indicates that this psychic did help the police find the missing five year old who was lost near Empire Lake. And he is credited by the police and the boy's family for doing so.

But the point that you don't address is: Did he draw the map using his psychic abilities? If so, how do you know? Because he said so?

Originally posted by Clancie
:rolleyes:

Please don't be so arrogant, when people take the time to reply to you. You ask for mundane explanations, yet all you can do is roll your eyes.

[Clancie]

voidx,

Here's what the detective himself said, from the CNN link...

From Cnn

CNN Interview with Phil Jordan and Det. Dave Retsicker (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=39536)

PHIL JORDAN: Well, as night fell, I really -- and the father did contact me later on, and as night fell, I really felt that I couldn't go to the scene in the dark, because I might miss a clue. And so I took a piece of paper and drew a map of where I felt the little boy would be found.

And I felt that I would arrive at the lake and there would be three overturns boats on the shore and across from that, there would be a building and I'd go in the lake or into the woods behind the building across the lake, and we would find an opening where there would be some stones gathered together, as if somebody was getting ready to build something. We continued on...

GRACE: Had you ever been to this lake before?

JORDAN: No, never, never. Even though it had been somewhat in my area, just not a place I had ever been.

GRACE: Well detective, when he shows up then with this map he's drawn during the night, what did you make of it?

DAVE RETSICKER, RETIRED DETECTIVE:

RETSICKER: Well, I was surprised at the accuracy of it as far as around the lake and the three boats that were overturned on the shore, and the building that was actually a wall tent, but it was exactly where he had placed it on his map.

....within a very short period of time, actually, we had spent well over 12 hours with a couple hundred searchers without success, and it was actually less than an hour before Phil led us right to the boy.

[CFLarsen]

Because he said so.

You are incredibly gullible.

[Clancie]

Posted by marian
You said the police state he is 'largely responsible', yet if his claim is absolutely 100% true, wouldn't it be "totally responsible"? Or did he have information from the police?
The police with over 100 searchers had looked for many hours without success. Jordan drew his map at home and then gave it to the detective. The "largely responsible" is -my- characterization, simply because they used Jordan's map to find the little boy.
Posted by marian

Just some questions I have. First, do you know offhand if anyone has looked into this independantly (I wasn't able to find any information about this case online, other than what was posted on the psychic's own website). If so, could you point me in the right direction.

Well, there are numerous newspaper articles and, of course, the profile of the case, including interviews, on Court TV's "Psychic Detectives".

But I think the source that would interest you the most is the one I mentioned earlier, Joe Nickell's anthology, Psychic Sleuths (Nickell, of course, being a prominent paranormal debunker). You might also be interested in the more favorable account in The Blue Sense (Lyons and Truzzi), (which btw, I don't have either).

However, since I do have Nickell's book, I will summarize the main debunking points here:
Here is my brief summary of the critique in, "The Mythologized Psychic Detective: Phil Jordan", Ch. 8, by Kenneth Feder and Michael Alan Park


The story of Phil Jordan finding five year old Tommy Kennedy has become embellished through the years to mythic proportions

The actual chain of events should be regarded as "unrecoverable, untestable, and ultimately unknowable."

There are inconsistencies in the press accounts, especially those written many years after the fact, including Jordan's own

There were no scientific controls!

The police and searchers credited Jordan's map for leading them to the boy in the dense forest. But how accurate was the map really?

Jordan says he'd never been to the lake before, but is that really true? Had he ever seen an aerial photo? A map of the lake?

Did one of the people (who had already been unsuccessfully looking for Tommy for hours) tip off Jordan to information that let him draw the map of the -correct- location?
My comment?

Only one. I find it quite telling, that in a chapter where the authors have time to describe the Talking Moose on their Mac and mention the (debunked) idea that Neanderthals had ESP....they never, ever bothered to contact not only Jordan himself, but also Dave Retsicker, the police detective who was in charge of the search.

:rolleyes:

[Marian]

PHIL JORDAN: Well, as night fell, I really -- and the father did contact me later on, and as night fell, I really felt that I couldn't go to the scene in the dark, because I might miss a clue.

Was he there as a 'psychic' or as someone who wanted to be a police officer, or in some other capacity similar to that, or as a 'concerned citizen'.

From that statement it sounds like he had some offical capacity other than 'psychic'. And why would he need clues if he could go directly to the child? Yes, I know the 'map' happens later. However if he was already planning to go to the area, but it was too dark to look for clues...how did he know where the area was? Had he already seen a map of the area? Did he live near there? If so, wouldn't it be practically impossible NOT to have previously seen a map, and/or heard various descriptions of the area? Even if he was from out of town and was involved in the case before making his map, wouldn't it be likely that he had already heard specific details of the case, since he planned to go 'look for clues' BEFORE experiencing any psychic visions?

He's never been to the area and he can draw a map. Okay he was already involved in the case, and couldn't go there because it was dark. And he's still never seen a map of it? Or overheard other people describing the ongoing search and various areas being covered. Areas of interest? I just find that unbelievably unlikely. I was in San Diego during a time when Danielle Van Damm was missing, just based off news reports (which were on constantly) I could have told you MANY details of the case, even though I was unfamiliar with the area. This was at the point when the parents were being destroyed in the media because they smoked pot and were swingers. Listening to reports, I told my husband "What do you bet someone in the neighborhood did it?". He can verify that statement before any reports of neighbor suspects were out, and the media was focusing on family. Am I psychic? Noooo, I assure you I'm not. It was a guess based on limited information, and one that happened to be right. Who can gain entrance to a house, know the layout, know the children and get in and out without being 'noticed' most easily...assuming the parents didn't do it. And I could have just as easily been wrong, but because I was right, I remember it. I also believed at one point that the missing Ramsey child was most likely murdered by her parents, and now I no longer believe that just based on various evidence I've seen. But many people who've had a change of heart will 'forget' they ever believed the parents guilty. And in my 'prediction' I might have even said something like 'if the parents didn't do it, I'll bet it's X'. I may have offered various theories. My husband and I talked about it briefly several times as it was on the news heavily while we were down there. But all *I* honestly remember is thinking 'neighbor', because it was a neighbor. I also was shocked when they found Elizabeth Smart alive, as were most people. Yet I guarentee you there were people who never gave up hope. And they'll remember that they always said she was alive (even if at times they may have thought otherwise).

And that's from someone attempting to be 100% honest (though you have to take my word for it heh) and who has absolutely no psychic powers.

Also we come back to a very important issue. The claims of the lead detective in the case. I'll explain why IMO relying on that opinion is a fallacy.

First, this is a case of a missing child with no foul play suspected. That's extremely important. The entire focus on the case then is finding this missing child (and there are 3 areas of 'lets hurry' 1) weather problems - kid needs to be found quickly due to 'bad weather' 2) age of the minor - a 5 year old child is presumed to be only very minimally capable of caring for itself 3) the clock is ticking, every second that goes by is another second that this child is in very real danger, and people are watching.

The lead officer in the case would be coordinating a metric f*ckton of stuff. I saw over 200 searchers touted on his website. Later (I believe on CNN) it was stated to be 'over 100'. Which was it? It was obviously 'a lot'. With 17 hours missing, I'll bet the majority of searchers showed up the next day after media reports. Otherwise, who's searching? Everyone who knows the family and can go look in the area. The police departments own search team (if they even had one, which is unknown) and what police can be spared. It's not going to be that heavy of a search, until the following day. Not in 1975, unless that family happened to have NUMEROUS relatives all in the area.

And we know the child was missing for a total of 17 hours, and was missing overnight. Depending on the time of year, 8-ish-10+ hours of that time was total darkness, when searching did not/could not take place (except perhaps in a very limited fashion).

So figure whatever happens, the majority of searchers show up the next day. Which is when this 'psychic' has his 'map'. And he says he finds the child after an hour of searching. So we have the child missing the day before for hours in the evening before the search is called off due to darkness, and then found an hour after it resumes the next day.

Does this start to get less impressive to you?

Police officers are not the best judges of anything psychic. Period. Why? Because often they don't dig too deep into a case, despite what you see on television. ;) And what they do examine, they examine in very specific and predictible ways. If Jimmy knows where the body is, then odds are, Jimmy put that body there. If he didn't, he knows who did. In this case we don't have a dead child, or any suspicion of foul play. Therefore the evidence isn't being closely looked at. If the child had been found strangled, and this 'psychic' had information he couldn't have rationally had...he'd be prime suspect numero uno.

Again, I stress that foul play wasn't suspected. That's important. Why? Because as soon as the child is found, the case is resolved. No additional investigation is done, because the case is resovled and ended. And everyone is happy with the outcome.

Now, lets get back to responsibility. I have seen in many cases, where the party who was lucky enough to find the evidence (through mundane means) is touted for breaking the case. Or a party who comes forward with information (gained by mundane means) is touted as 'breaking the case'. However, this ignores the work of numerous other people. That's okay, most of those people don't expect (or often want) recognition. While that evidence may be the 'key piece', it wouldn't or couldn't have resolved the case without all the other work being done. I think we all know that though.

Now how many cases do you think are resolved through a break like that? I don't have hard statistical data unfortunately. I do know that every single police officer *I* know will say that most cases are resolved because of such breaks. You'll hear phrases like 'if criminals were smart, I'd be out of a job'. You can go through numerous case files and just see instances of 'dumb luck', though it's not quite dumb, and people make their own luck. I'll give two famous examples.

The Oklahoma City Bombing. How was Tim McVey captured?

He was pulled over by a police officer and detained for an unrelated offense. While in custody, (I'm going purely off memory, so some details may be inaccurate) but I believe the description came through, and so they continued to hold him on the unrelated charge. He was captured through 'dumb luck'.

The abduction and murder of Polly Klaus. Mark Chapman slips through their fingers.

Police were called on a suspicious vehicle or prowler call (I don't remember which). They found Mark Chapman. They also found his behavior and numerous other things REALLY suspicious. Unfortunately the abduction wasn't widely broadcasted, so they didn't have the information on the kidnapping. And they had to let him go. There will always be speculation as to whether or not Polly was alive at that time. :( There were failures at other levels, and some things changed as a result. However the police who briefly questioned and released him had followed all possible procedures.

That's just two cases where a suspect was quickly in police custody. One case they held the suspect, in the other...they didn't. Neither are extraordinary, other than with the Polly Klaus case there will always be the question of 'what if'. However you can find innumerable cases just like that.

So just 'armchairing' it, without getting any additional information than what is on this thread, so far it seems less and less impressive. The lead detective's opinions aren't valuable, because he didn't investigate the claim. Once the case was resolved, it was resolved. Had the child been murdered, and the psychic been investigated for how he could have possibly had that information, we'd have more valuable information obviously. However as far as I know, he didn't investigate it personally, and there would be absolutely no reason to investigate it professionally.

And police officers in their private persons hold many um interesting viewpoints. Some are racists, and that's a sad fact of life. Does it effect their work, is the big question. Some are religious. Some believe in psychics. Some believe in the power of prayer. I really don't care what they believe as a private person, as long as it doesn't interfere with their work. If you had a police officer who believed that prayer and prayer alone would resolve cases, even in this country which is predominately Christian, he or she would be out of a job. Even in Cobb County, Georgia. ;)

However if they do their damn job, and then credit Jesus or God as 'helping' with the case, most people will accept that claim. It's a claim made in the Elizabeth Smart abduction. The family strongly believes that God and prayer helped see their daughter safely home. However if you listen to the other side, the guy who kidnapped her claims it was God's will that she become his 'wife'. I think more people are inclined to believe God saved her, rather than God was behind her abduction. Still we can point to a lot of real police work that went into finding her, and sadly many false avenues. It was another case broken by someone calling in and saying 'I think I just saw her...'.

I don't know enough about this specific case (of the little boy lost in the woods in 1975) to be able to say, this is how it was really solved; whether it be psychic or mundane. Yet what little I do know raises many questions. I would think the most important questions would be:


What specifically was his involvement in the case?
What information did he have, or have access to prior to making his map?
At which point did he claim his information was due to 'psychic' power?
What investigation, if any, was done at the time to verify his claims? (Assuming they were even made then).
What are the actual facts surrounding the case? (As substantiated by evidence compiled at the time, as to number of searchers, what was being done, etc. Not 30 year old memory.
Is this his best proof? If he has worked numerous times as a 'psychic' with the police, where are all the other cases he resolved by 'psychic powers'.

[Clancie]

marian,

Have you read the CNN transcript? I think it will answer some of your questions--for starters, at least fill in some of the gaps in the details.

[Marian]

Originally posted by Clancie
marian,

Have you read the CNN transcript? I think it will answer some of your questions--for starters, at least fill in some of the gaps in the details.

No I hadn't, I had followed another link which went elsewhere. Found the right link.

So far it answers: father called in Phil Jordan (the 'psychic'). The lead detective states that he had known him for years, but hadn't thought to call him. I'll assume he was contacted because he was already stating he was a psychic. (Otherwise why contact him specifically, etc.)

Details of the case already known to the psychic (per his account on CNN): That the boy went missing near a lake. That the boy was wearing a bathing suit. That one theory was that the boy had drowned in the lake.

Now...again I have no idea, so this is just speculation, but if someone is offering an account to someone where they've gotten that information, it wouldn't be unusual for them to offer more details. Such as 'We were at the lake, there were no boats out that day, because of the weather, he was playing near some overturned boats, we told him to stay close by, we've checked the shack near shore, he's not there. I don't think he would have gone into the water because (insert whatever, not a good swimmer, wouldn't disobey, whatever). If you assume the child is alive...then you don't have the kid in the lake. Where else would the kid be, and you can reasonably assume that the area around where he was...was searched. I mean...that pretty clearly leaves the woods...if you're saying the kid is alive.

GRACE: Had you ever been to this lake before?

JORDAN: No, never, never. Even though it had been somewhat in my area, just not a place I had ever been.

Again, being as it's in his area...even if he's never been there he would have an idea of the area from other maps he has seen, people he's known that go there, as well as whatever accounts he heard prior to making the map. And he had talked to at least the father prior to making his map.

There are places I've never been to in California, but I have friends that go there, and I could probably draw up a pretty decent map. I can practically visualize this location, and I've never been there. I don't know how accurate his map was even.

And that's assuming he's being 100% honest. If we don't assume that, then he had ample opportunity to dishonestly make a map, because he wasn't under observation.

GRACE: Well detective, when he shows up then with this map he's drawn during the night, what did you make of it?

RETSICKER: Well, I was surprised at the accuracy of it as far as around the lake and the three boats that were overturned on the shore, and the building that was actually a wall tent, but it was exactly where he had placed it on his map.


Again, there's a couple possibilities:

1) He's dishonest and had inside information/had been there before/had his own maps of the area along with descriptions people offered then or previously. No proof of that, but possible. Let's ignore that for the moment, because we can't prove that. (And it would be difficult to prove 30 years later anyway).

2) How accurate is the map? Were there only 3 overturned boats and he drew 3 overturned boats? Okay if so, once again...was he told that information by the family in their descriptions? Or by someone on the police force? The building location isn't unusual, because again, I would assume that in giving details of the case, the person recounting it (especially a relative) would say, we've looked here, I know he wouldn't have gone into the water (because if he's in the water...he's dead) no boats are out...he's not under the boats (I'd look under an overturned boat for a 5 year old, that's common sense.) Etc.

Did he get information that way? Again I have no idea, but it's a possibility.

RETSICKER: Well, very short period of time, actually, we had spent well over 12 hours with a couple hundred searchers without success, and it was actually less than an hour before Phil led us right to the boy.

Now...this again is weird. According to Phil Jordan's website the totality of time the boy was lost was 17 hours. The boy was missing overnight (too dark to look). The boy was found the next day (I can reach this conclusion because it was too dark to look at one point, and now he can look, so it is daytime). And he finds the boy in an hour (or less...less than an hour, but obviously it's close to an hour, because they don't say in less than 30 minutes.)

Number of searchers? 100? 200? more? Unknown, other than 'lots'. 12 hours searching? Really? Were they searching at night? Sure, I'm sure they were doing limited searching at night...but night searches aren't that effective. You're still going to do them when you have a missing kid. But I'd be surprised if 200 people were out there with flashlights all actively searching all night. Possible, but I wouldn't think so.

So what's the actual time table of the daylight search? Again...this starts to sound unimpressive.

GRACE: Well in fact, it was going in a different direction that you all had initially presumed the boy went.

"It" being the map (just to clarify). Again what information Phil Jordan had prior to the map is uncertain (and would be IMO even if he disclosed all information he believes he had, because we'd be going by his account (which may or may not be honest) and assuming he IS honest, his memory, which may or may not be accurate. :\

Now, it seems to me that it's being presented as 'impressive' that his map was the opposite of where they had been searching. Like that was not common sense, and hence more of a 'Ooooo'.

But I don't think so, again...if you say 'lake' it's a dead kid. If you say 'woods' which is around the lake, you have a live kid. Not that impressive a guess, given the rapid time frame. If the search had gone on for a week, guessing live and being right would be a helluvalot more impressive for instance.

Now if you know that searchers have combed a specific area (which we do not know if he knew) then suggesting an opposite area that hasn't been discluded seems less 'Oooo' and more 'well, duh'. ;)

All of this hinges on what Phil Jordon knew, or didn't know at the time. And much of that could never be proven 30 years later. (Or even a year later). The family I guarentee you was distraught. I'd be shocked if they could really remember the details of what they specifically did or did not tell Mr. Jordan. People dispute what they said or didn't say in an argument 5 minutes after it happened, let alone in a more traumatic situation of a missing kid. Without recording, even if the father were to make claims he told him all the info...it's inaccurate. It's guarenteed inaccurate.

I can toss up a lot of 'potentials', but without knowing what information he had access to, it's really impossible to determine. And there's really no way of knowing what he did or didn't have access to, without relying on inaccurate information.

So we're back at the question: Was this a case solved solely by psychic means? And I would have to say 'no'.

Now I just have to defend why I say 'no', based on what little information I have (CNN interview, and Phil Jordan's site).

Okay first off, I have never seen the map he drew, and have never seen the area, and only know the information provided by this thread, CNN article and Phil Jordan's website. (Which you have to take on faith that I'm being honest. Which one may or may not do, being skeptical after all is good ;D) but I'm being completely honest. I'll draw a map knowing only that information. If someone has the Jordan map you can compare it for accuracy. And I'm mouse drawing it in MSpaint so mock me not! ;)





http://eqscreenshot.homestead.com/files/Mariansmap.JPG

Now that's a map that took me well under a minute to draw in paint, and I'm missing one vital piece of information. I don't know which way the searchers were looking. I know there are 3 boats (poorly drawn), I know there's a building (which turned out to be a tent), and I've only drawn one part of the lake, the part where the child was.

Let's say that from that perspective, the building isn't north, but rather south of the boats. No problem, flip it upside down.

Now if I knew which direction they had already been looking, putting an "X" in the area where they had not been looking is much easier. And the map is still extremely vague. How far can a 5 year old in bare feet and only swimming trunks go?

Not THAT far.

Anyway, I'm still less impressed, but it looks less likely that it was resolved purely on psychic imput. The searchers would have begun searching in all directions (and they would have had people looking into the lake I would presume) by the next day. Assuming the police detective is completely honest (and he is probably the person I'd lend most credence to as far as being honest) he only knows what he personally did or did not tell Phil Jordan. He doesn't know what information the family may or may not have told him. Or any others involved for that matter. And the length of time, and scope of the search has been extremely vague and at times contradictory.

Going back to a previous example I posted, of the child lost in the thrift store, frankly 'car' seems a better guess than 'the woods'...depending on the accuracy of the map. And the map could not have been that detailed as to the wooded area, because it took an hour to locate the child. (Or just under an hour). And we don't know where in the woods the child was found, or the scope of that search. (I would be more impressed if for example, it was a 50 minute beeline walk exactly to where the child was, and a 50 minute walk back to the lake).

Yet I suspect were that the case, that information would also be offered. So what we have is a search, comprised of an unknown number of people, looking in a general area the opposite direction of where the previous search had taken place.

That's pretty much police procedure. A barefoot child of 5 is presumed to only be able to go so far under his own power. You have a spot from which they started, and a timeline. And you know that a 5 year old child is unlikely to walk barefoot over the entire span of time, in a straight line away from the starting point. It's far more likely that the child eventually stops and stays in a very specific area, if they even continue walking at all after a certain point. That narrows down the search area considerably.

Anyway, while I'd be inclined to say no, because it hasn't been proven...I certainly can't disprove it either. I can offer what seems to me to be more rational possibilities...and come up with a slew of questions, but most of those questions cannot be answered reasonably.

We will never know for certain what information he had or did not have prior to the drawing of the map. That alone makes it suspect.

Sooooo, where from there? Well, he claims he resolved this case with 'psychic' powers. If this case had just happened, and somehow it was up to me to research it, I know that I would then question how those powers work? In other words, can they work on older cases? (Even in 1975 they had 'cold cases'). Can they work on cases that are already resolved? (That would be easy to test). Assume both are no.

Okay, then I'd start by heavily controlling conditions on subsequent cases, to test it. He claims that he worked with the police department after that case, yet he seems to tout that case as his most successful case. (I mean otherwise we'd hear of an even more astounding case as well, if he had hundreds of such).

Instead, even though he states he was deputized in order to work with a police department as a psychic (which I don't know if that's accurate, but as easy as that would be to verify, I'll assume it is...because if he's lying about that he's stupid) where are the other amazing cases? In those cases he wouldn't have to wait for a terrified family to call HIM in, the police are supposidly working directly with him. (And I will assume he has even greater access to evidence in those cases to boot).

I find it additionally suspect that he's not touting additional cases, but simply this one. And it's not a case where it can be proven (at least in my opinion because you cannot demonstrate what information he did or did not have access to) that his performance was based purely on 'psychic' information.

Just my opinion anyhoo.

[lofgoernost]

Nice post, Marian. Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39536&highlight=phil+jordan) and here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39476&highlight=phil+jordan) are a couple links to other threads about this episode of LKL, if you're interested.

Plus, cool drawing.

[Loki]

Clancie,

Seems to me this is simply a case of "reading out of context". THe quite you've given is :

ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true.

Seems clear from the context that what is meant here is

"ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually been proven to have helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true."

You seem to be arguing that the actual quote is trying to say :

"ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually been acknowledged to have helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true."

This came up a few weeks ago with the Phil Jordan story - it's simply an unsubstantiated anecdote. The fact that there many be one (or more) police officers involved in the telling of this anecdote doesn't make it a factual. There is NO corroborating evidence of any kind here - it's all simply memory and hearsay.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
voidx,

Here's what the detective himself said, from the CNN link...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Cnn

CNN Interview with Phil Jordan and Det. Dave Retsicker

PHIL JORDAN: Well, as night fell, I really -- and the father did contact me later on, and as night fell, I really felt that I couldn't go to the scene in the dark, because I might miss a clue. And so I took a piece of paper and drew a map of where I felt the little boy would be found.

And I felt that I would arrive at the lake and there would be three overturns boats on the shore and across from that, there would be a building and I'd go in the lake or into the woods behind the building across the lake, and we would find an opening where there would be some stones gathered together, as if somebody was getting ready to build something. We continued on...

GRACE: Had you ever been to this lake before?

JORDAN: No, never, never. Even though it had been somewhat in my area, just not a place I had ever been.

GRACE: Well detective, when he shows up then with this map he's drawn during the night, what did you make of it?

DAVE RETSICKER, RETIRED DETECTIVE:

RETSICKER: Well, I was surprised at the accuracy of it as far as around the lake and the three boats that were overturned on the shore, and the building that was actually a wall tent, but it was exactly where he had placed it on his map.

....within a very short period of time, actually, we had spent well over 12 hours with a couple hundred searchers without success, and it was actually less than an hour before Phil led us right to the boy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhhh, I gave the link for the CNN interview and read it in entirety, so yes I know it said that. Now...what is it I'm supposed to be looking for in this piece of text? Any chance of you answering any of my above quoted concerns? I had a whole post of text. Any of it cause you to pause and consider the authenticity of Mr. Jordan's claim? In fact my post included comments on the information re-quoted by you. What do you think of what I said?

[voidx]

Just to make it easier:

Jordan's account of what happened when goes like this:

- Comes home, hears a siren on, talks to neighbour, finds out a boy is missing in the woods.

- The police have put out an announcement asking for volunteers to merely help in search parties for the boy

- How and when we don't know, but the father gets in touch with Jordan, or possibly vice versa, they have a conversation of which we know nothing about. Jordan just brushes it aside and doesn't seem to comment on what was said

- Jordan draws a map of where he thinks the boy is due to "psychic" powers.

- Jordan shows up the next day. Not because he was sought by investigators, but because he'd talked to the father, who may have wanted him to help, and a general call for volunteers had been put out

- The investigator says he's impressed by the detail of the map (the map we've not seen and I'm sure is lost, funny as it would be very convincing proof of his powers if it was indeed so accurate)

- Within the hour they find the boy supposedly with help of Jordan's map

Now the first thing is obviously that they maybe retro-actively fitting just how accurate and great Jordan's map was after it was successful at finding the boy. Give it to someone not from the area and see if this map makes any sense to them. Not having the map to see who knows. No offense to the county sheriff or whatever, but his word alone that the map was detailed and great is not authoritative for me not having seen it myself.

So the map that was drawn after having talked to the father of the missing boy, and living in the area and potentially having some idea of what area's had already been searched...we can safely conclude that this map was acquired by "psychic" means? I have some doubts about this. How about you Clancie, does anything about Jordan's story, or the details of the case give you pause about the "psychic" source of the map? Or are you simply grasping it as an example to support your point?

[Ceinwyn]

Marian:

Excellent posts and critical assessment. Much better than some lame "rolleyes" icon.

Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by lofgoernost
Plus, cool drawing.

I disagree. The drawing is far, far too specific. There are simply not enough loopholes for this to be a real RV drawing! :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

, yet all you can do is roll your eyes.

You mean something like what you did here:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870362265#1870362265

?

[UnTrickaBLe]

Clancie, you come on here badmouthing skeptics because they say there is no evidence that any "psychic" ever solved a crime using "psychic powers." But the positive "evidence" you offered on this thread has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Clancie, do you consider yourself a critical thinker, or are you just here to piss off the critical thinkers?

Please read this....

CSICOP: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html)

Finished? Okay. Now, let's look at one of the basic principles of critical, scientific thinking: Replicability

The rule of replicability provides a safeguard against the possibility of error, fraud, or coincidence. A single experimental result is never adequate in and of itself, whether the experiment concerns the production of nuclear fusion or the existence of telepathic ability. Any experiment, no matter how carefully designed and executed, is always subject to the possibility of implicit bias or undetected error. The rule of replicability, which requires independent observers to follow the same procedures and to achieve the same results, is an effective way of correcting bias or error, even if the bias or error remains permanently unrecognized.


If "psychics" could actually solve crimes, they would do so under controlled scientific observation and humiliate all skeptics. But of course, that has never happened. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support the existence of "psychic" powers.

Do you admit, Clancie, that by the standards of critical and scientific thinking, you have no evidence of any "psychic powers" ever solving a crime?

Yes or No? If you say you do have the evidence, produce it now.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I disagree. The drawing is far, far too specific. There are simply not enough loopholes for this to be a real RV drawing! :D
Indeed, an authentic RV map is probably more like this:

http://www.pixcells.dk/pics/map.jpg

:)

[The Mighty Thor]

I vote Marian as Best Newbie in a long time -- thorough, incisive, perspicacious, and more than a match for the slippery and evasive Clancie.

Remember that, apart from talking to the father, the 'psychic' could have gotten all sorts of information about where had already been searched via phone calls to friends, CB radio, and Radio Scanner.

Also, he would surely have a map of 'his area'.

Why did he leave the kid out all night when he could have located him right away, dark or no dark?

What 'clues' did he need daylight for?

Where is the map he drew?

Why has he never found other missing kids with this amazing power?

The whole thing stinks, as does Clancie's support of these self-serving kooks.

Where has Clancie gone, anyway -- yet another dropped thread when faced with simple common sense and critical exposure?

[Clancie]

Posted by Untrickable

Clancie, you come on here badmouthing skeptics because they say there is no evidence that any "psychic" ever solved a crime using "psychic powers." But the positive "evidence" you offered on this thread has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Clancie, do you consider yourself a critical thinker, or are you just here to piss off the critical thinkers?

Please read this....

CSICOP: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking

Finished? Okay. Now, let's look at one of the basic principles of critical, scientific thinking: Replicability

...If "psychics" could actually solve crimes, they would do so under controlled scientific observation and humiliate all skeptics. But of course, that has never happened. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support the existence of "psychic" powers.

Do you admit, Clancie, that by the standards of critical and scientific thinking, you have no evidence of any "psychic powers" ever solving a crime?

Yes or No? If you say you do have the evidence, produce it now.
In answer to your first part, some "critical thinkers" elevate dogma and their ignorance of specific detail of an event to an art form.

In answer to the second part, when it comes specifically to the details of the Jordan case, Untrickable, what, to you, would constitute the "evidence" that Jordan, a psychic, did in fact help police find Tommy, apparently by psychic means?

What "evidence" is it, specifically, that you are looking for?

(Back later, re: voidx, loki, marian...)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
In answer to your first part, some "critical thinkers" elevate dogma and their ignorance of specific detail of an event to an art form.

In answer to the second part, when it comes specifically to the details of the Jordan case, Untrickable, what, to you, would constitute the "evidence" that Jordan, a psychic, did in fact help police find Tommy, apparently by psychic means?

What "evidence" is it, specifically, that you are looking for?

(Back later, re: voidx, loki, marian...)

A simple "yes" or "no" is all that was needed....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
I vote Marian as Best Newbie in a long time -- thorough, incisive, perspicacious, and more than a match for the slippery and evasive Clancie.



Yes I imagine that you would do so. "Best newbie" who fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc. Seems to me that it is as pointless discussing anything with Marian as it is discussing things with you.

[Beancounter]

Ouch!!! I take it from this Ian that you do believe that psychics have helped the police solve cases?

Sorry, I'm new around here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes I imagine that you would do so. "Best newbie" who fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc. Seems to me that it is as pointless discussing anything with Marian as it is discussing things with you.

I thought you left??

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I thought you left??

What was that, less than a week?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes I imagine that you would do so. "Best newbie" who fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc. Seems to me that it is as pointless discussing anything with Marian as it is discussing things with you.

Did Clancie PM you for some backup, Ian?
I thought you'd left for good???

What have you to say on the subject?

Go on. Impress us all!

And maybe you'd like to show exactly where Marian 'fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc.'? Sounds like projection to me, but I'm not a psychologist.

[TLN]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
What have you to say on the subject?

Go on. Impress us all!

And maybe you'd like to show exactly where Marian 'fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc.'? Sounds like projection to me, but I'm not a psychologist.

Ian has nothing to offer but insults, circular arguments, and evasion. My advice is to ignore him. He's desperate for attention and acceptance, hence his repeated "I'm leaving" nonsense.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Beancounter
Ouch!!! I take it from this Ian that you do believe that psychics have helped the police solve cases?

Sorry, I'm new around here.

I have absolutely no idea. Moreover, I haven't read any of this thread. Certainly I would not trust skeptics say so on this matter or any other matter regarding anomalous phenomena.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by TLN


Ian has nothing to offer but insults, circular arguments, and evasion. My advice is to ignore him. He's desperate for attention and acceptance, hence his repeated "I'm leaving" nonsense.

Too true. From Stockton on Tees to Coventry is how far?:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
Ian has nothing to offer but insults, circular arguments, and evasion. My advice is to ignore him. He's desperate for attention and acceptance, hence his repeated "I'm leaving" nonsense.

I agree. I'm much more interested in Clancie's answers to UnTrickaBLe's questions. I find it very telling, that despite direct questions, clear explanations and references, Clancie still finds it necessary to evade the questions.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have absolutely no idea. Moreover, I haven't read any of this thread. Certainly I would not trust skeptics say so on this matter or any other matter regarding anomalous phenomena.

So, your only reason to post is to insult yet another poster who has outclassed you.

Why don't you do what you said and leave?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I thought you left??

Amazing how all pervasive is this false memory syndrome! :eek:

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have absolutely no idea. Moreover, I haven't read any of this thread.

I am confused now. If the above is true, how can you say:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


"Best newbie" who fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I agree. I'm much more interested in Clancie's answers to UnTrickaBLe's questions. I find it very telling, that despite direct questions, clear explanations and references, Clancie still finds it necessary to evade the questions.



So, your only reason to post is to insult yet another poster who has outclassed you.

Why don't you do what you said and leave?

Hmmm, outclassed me by systematically musunderstanding all my arguments and claiming I hold on to a position that I emphatically do not hold . . .yeah :rolleyes:

But I do not wish to derail this thread. Nor am I staying. I'm having an interesting discussion about materialism over on mu.nu thank you very much.

This board will be that much the poorer without me. However, I may come back in a few weeks should I feel so disposed, or maybe even in a few days.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Beancounter


I am confused now. If the above is true, how can you say:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


"Best newbie" who fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need to look at this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39629&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) thread.

[Beancounter]

Ah, ok.

Well Ian, having trawled through that lot I can't say I agree with you.

:(

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...This board will be that much the poorer without me. However, I may come back in a few weeks should I feel so disposed, or maybe even in a few days.
That is analogous to saying that my garden would be much poorer without the great stinking heap of horse manure on it.

[Ipecac]

Clancie,

I've read through all of this and I don't find this case at all compelling. There's just not enough here to accept this as any solid indication of psychic ability. What is here that you find so compelling? What is here that couldn't be explained by natural means?

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I thought you left??

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Amazing how all pervasive is this false memory syndrome! :eek:

You miserable f*cking childish slime.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Good job I'm out of here. That's another thing I'm pig sick of, people making up that I've said things that I haven't :rolleyes:

Farewell.

You're either insane, a liar, or both. Pick one.

Then, take your hideous avatar and leave.

[TLN]

Miserable, useless, stupid liar. Go away.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummmm . . .sorry Marian, but I've left. I've had enough of these forums. I didn't realise you had responded to me.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=1870452363

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
In answer to your first part, some "critical thinkers" elevate dogma and their ignorance of specific detail of an event to an art form.

Then ignore them and converse with those that are more reasonable.


In answer to the second part, when it comes specifically to the details of the Jordan case, Untrickable, what, to you, would constitute the "evidence" that Jordan, a psychic, did in fact help police find Tommy, apparently by psychic means?

What "evidence" is it, specifically, that you are looking for?

Jordan was presented by you as an example of a psychic helping solve a case. The fact that there are any number of possible mundane ways in which his map was drawn, and its successfully finding the boy shows that it is not strong and conclusive evidence of "psychic" powers solving the case. Unless there is information we are not seeing that would convince us otherwise. As it stands, its not a very strong case of "psychic" powers.


(Back later, re: voidx, loki, marian...)

Last time I heard that was in this thread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38570&pagenumber=2

I hope you find the time to come back and give us your thoughts on Jordan's case, and our issues with it.

[UnTrickaBLe]

Clancie, why did you fail to answer my simple "Yes" or "No" question?

Just because a self-proclaimed "psychic" allegedly helped to find a missing boy, that does not mean he used "psychic powers" to do so.

This guy was a police academy cadet. Maybe he wanted to impress his superiors and future employers, so he did some regular old gumeshoe detective work. You know, there any many cases of firefighters and fire cadets starting fires just to put them out and become heroes. Do you completely fail to consider human nature and common sense in cases like this? :rolleyes:

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

The bottom line is, there was no scientific control for the Swiss-cheese "evidence" you have slapped down half-heartedly on this thread.

Question #1 for Clancie:


Clancie, did you understand, and do you accept Replicability as an essential factor of critical and scientific thinking? Yes or No?

Also, since you dodged my question earlier, I will repeat it.

Question #2 for Clancie:


If "psychics" could actually solve crimes, they would do so under controlled scientific observation and humiliate all skeptics. But of course, that has never happened. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support the existence of "psychic" powers.

Do you admit, Clancie, that by the standards of critical and scientific thinking, you have no evidence of any "psychic powers" ever solving a crime?

Yes or No? If you say you do have the evidence, produce it now.

Please answer both questions directly, Clancie.

[Clancie]

Untrickable,

I'm biting my tongue. Really.

Do you know anything about this case? No. Obviously.

Jordan wasn't "a police cadet".

Yes, I'm familiar with Occam's Razor.

I take it that no psychic would convince you that they "helped" the police (which, if you recall is the point of this thread), unless it was under scientifically controlled conditions.

When you find such conditions in real life situations with missing persons, let me know. :rolleyes:

Skeptics often say, "show me one psychic who can help police to find a missing child! Just one!" Then you show them one. They say, "It's just the psychic's word for it!"

You provide an interview with the police detective himself.

They discount the account of the police, too.

Then, as a last refuge, they say, "But did he find this child under scientifically controlled conditions? Was he able to REPLICATE his discovery of Tommy Kennedy? NO!!! Hah! Case is Debunked!!!!"

Untrickable's Question #1: The issue is "have psychics helped the police". Do I accept replicable, lab conditions as being key to answering this?

NO.

Untrickable's Question #2: There are many instances of psychics helping the police. I have explained above (which I doubt that you read) why this doesn't necessarily "prove" paranormal powers. Nevertheless, they have "helped", indisputably, in ways that the police and family members felt were consistent with paranormal abilities. That should, at least, give you cause to be curious.

Oops! Did I say "curious"? "Open minded"? "Interested" to look deeper into -why- the police have found psychics helpful?

SIlly me. Obviously none of those qualities is the least bit applicable to you.

[Beancounter]

Clancie

I have to agree with you on one point, it is not necessarily practical for the police to set up controlled conditions for a psychic to "prove" that they could help the police in the immediate case of a missing person. However, that is where the agreement ends. Surely if Jordan, or any other of these psychics, are able to use their abilities to solve crimes then it would be a simple matter for them to prove these abilities in a controlled environment using a dummy situation (or other appropriate test). This would also benefit them as, by proving their abilities they could be "licensed" by the police so as to be identified from the crank callers. Surely any self respecting would-be psychic policeman would jump at the opportunity?

Also I have read through this whole thread and if, as you suggest "There are many instances of psychics helping the police" then why have they not been introduced here? I, for one would be very interested in reading about them because if true, we could do with a few here in South Africa to improve the detection rate.

[TLN]

Clancie, let me bottom line this for you:

As usual, you are taking a number of people at their word with no other supporting evidence.

I would think after posting here as long as you have you'd understand that anecdotes are not evidence. Like your Miss Piper example, the best evidence you ever present for the paranormal is stories.

Please stop. No one here will ever be swayed by stories and that's all you've ever had... ever.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN




You miserable f*cking childish slime.



You're either insane, a liar, or both. Pick one.

Then, take your hideous avatar and leave.

Now now, calling me those names might hurt my feelings. :(

You need to get yourself a sense of humour.

Oh yes, and a word of advice. The more you express your desire for me to depart the more likely I shall stay.

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by Clancie
Untrickable,

I take it that no psychic would convince you that they "helped" the police (which, if you recall is the point of this thread), unless it was under scientifically controlled conditions.

Yes, that is right.


When you find such conditions in real life situations with missing persons, let me know. :rolleyes:

A "psychic" could easily decide to set up scientific conditions and controls under which they could prove their "powers" in advance, then simply tackle the next missing-persons case that comes up, under strict observation, working with the police and a team of scientists and skeptics. If these "powers" were real, this would have been done a long time ago.


Skeptics often say, "show me one psychic who can help police to find a missing child! Just one!" Then you show them one. They say, "It's just the psychic's word for it!"

Again, where is the scientific evidence?


Then, as a last refuge, they say, "But did he find this child under scientifically controlled conditions? Was he able to REPLICATE his discovery of Tommy Kennedy? NO!!! Hah! Case is Debunked!!!!"

Last refuge?? Scientific and critical thinkers always play by the same set of rules, from the very outset until the end. Scientists, for example are able to predict lunar eclipses very accurately. Not just once, Clancie, but every time, over and over again.

Untrickable's Question #1: The issue is "have psychics helped the police". Do I accept replicable, lab conditions as being key to answering this?

NO.

So you dispute one of the basic and essential requirements of establishing scientific proof??? :rolleyes:

You are just self-deluded and irrational.

Maybe you could provide us with "Clancie's Scientifc Method," since you apparently think you know more about science than the entire established scientific community.


Untrickable's Question #2: There are many instances of psychics helping the police. I have explained above (which I doubt that you read) why this doesn't necessarily "prove" paranormal powers. Nevertheless, they have "helped", indisputably, in ways that the police and family members felt were consistent with paranormal abilities.

Okay, great, so you admit that it "doesn't necessarily 'prove' paranormal powers."

CASE CLOSED.

At this point you can either show us actual, provable, scientifically controlled evidence for "psychics using psychic powers to solve crimes or missing persons cases", or admit that you have none.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Miserable, useless, stupid liar. Go away.



http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=1870452363

Don't make me angry TLN. The fact that people change their minds does not make them liars. I'm not going to contribute anywhere as near as much, but I might make the occasional post.

[Clancie]

Untrickable,

For all of your tremendous reasoning skills, you fail to understand one key point.

This thread was in response to the statement that "psychics do not ever help police solve cases".

It is not about "proving" or providing "evidence" that psychics solve cases. It is about the indisputable fact that, outside of skeptics/cynics like yourself for whom only replicable laboratory experiments count as "evidence"--even in the case of finding missing children....psychics have been found by police to be helpful.

I know it's outside your world view.
I hope you can deal with it anyway.
:p

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
This thread was in response to the statement that "psychics do not ever help police solve cases".

Amend this statement to include "using paranormal powers" and you're on.

Clanice, please provide evidence for any paranormal ability or phenomena that doesn't require taking someone at their word.

Since you can't do this, what's the point?

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by Clancie
Untrickable,

For all of your tremendous reasoning skills, you fail to understand one key point.

This thread was in response to the statement that "psychics do not ever help police solve cases".

Clancie, a self-proclaimed "alien" could do regular detective work and help police solve a crime. That does not in any way prove that he is an alien. ANYONE can do detective work and help police. The question is, has any person ever used "psychic powers" to solve a mystery. You are playing word games, brushing aside this point, which has been made and repeated here.


It is not about "proving" or providing "evidence" that psychics solve cases.
:p

Again, you now seem to agree and admit that there no "proof" or "evidence" of "psychic powers" ever solving any case.

On that we can agree.

[Clancie]

Right, TLN. For people who don't believe what police tell them about psychics helping, there IS no point.

When I read of a scientific test, under controlled laboratory conditions, where a psychic repeatedly can find a missing child (in a cabinet? behind a door?), you'll be the first to know.
:p

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by Clancie

When I read of a scientific test, under controlled laboratory conditions, where a psychic repeatedly can find a missing child (in a cabinet? behind a door?), you'll be the first to know.
:p

We won't hold our breaths.

Clancie, you have really been taken to school on this thread. :eek:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Right, TLN. For people who don't believe what police tell them about psychics helping, there IS no point.

Other explanations are above, but you ignore them, as usual.

Did the psychic use paranormal powers to solve the crime, yes or no? If yes, how do you know this? Why do you avoid direct questions so much?

Originally posted by Clancie
When I read of a scientific test, under controlled laboratory conditions, where a psychic repeatedly can find a missing child (in a cabinet? behind a door?), you'll be the first to know.
:p

That would be splendid. I'll be right here on the edge of my seat.

Clancie, another real simple, straightforward question you'll no doubt ignore: if psychics can solve crimes using paranormal abilities, why are there unsolved crimes?

Also, please state that after years of posting here you now finally understand that anecdotes are not evidence, at least not to skeptics, who are your audience.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie


I take it that no psychic would convince you that they "helped" the police (which, if you recall is the point of this thread), unless it was under scientifically controlled conditions.



Not even that. Nothing at all would convince them. This is what being a Skeptic entails (although not of course sceptics).

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not even that. Nothing at all would convince them. This is what being a Skeptic entails (although not of course sceptics).

Ahh, back so soon and not a note of difference... classic Ian. An unfounded claim supported by no evidence and a reinventing of the English language. I can't say I missed this.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Clancie, let me bottom line this for you:

As usual, you are taking a number of people at their word with no other supporting evidence.

I would think after posting here as long as you have you'd understand that anecdotes are not evidence. Like your Miss Piper example, the best evidence you ever present for the paranormal is stories.

Please stop. No one here will ever be swayed by stories and that's all you've ever had... ever.

Well TLN, you and the other Skeptics are flat out wrong. Anecdotes do indeed constitute evidence. Denying this shows that you and other Skeptics simply fail to understand what the word evidence means.

Of course in a lot of instances anecdotal evidence is practically worthless eg a single report of some phenomenon which has never been witnessed by anyone ever before. In other cases anecdotes can be highly suggestive that something is going on eg people from differing cultures and differing times describing the same essential phenomenon even though they may not be acquainted with any other reports of this phenomenon.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well TLN, you and the other Skeptics are flat out wrong. Anecdotes do indeed constitute evidence. Denying this shows that you and other Skeptics simply fail to understand what the word evidence means.

Ian, we deal in science here, not philosophy. Anecdotes are not evidence. I understand perfectly what evidence means in a scientific context.

I know you must turn things to any other system because you can't meet the burdens of science, but don't expect anyone here to follow you.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your PalTalk appointment (as opposed to a chance meeting).

[Nigel]

Ian, I have to ask: other than attention, why did you come back? Did you honestly think that people would be more accepting of your rude, boorish, brutish, bullying behaviour? It's one thing if you come back and actually add something to the discussion, but simply to insult Marian, and throw an opinion, admitting you haven't even read the thread, smacks of deliberate idiocy. I have no doubt you're intelligent to a degree, but by being little more than a troll, if that, you're certainly getting the attention you want. Not that you deserve it.

That's all I had to say. Sorry everyone for derailing the thread. I'll go back to lurking now.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Well TLN, you and the other Skeptics are flat out wrong. Anecdotes do indeed constitute evidence. Denying this shows that you and other Skeptics simply fail to understand what the word evidence means.
Yes, anecdotes are evidence, at least to Victor Zammit. But this isn't a court of law.

~~ Paul

[TLN]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Yes, anecdotes are evidence, at least to Victor Zammit. But this isn't a court of law.

“Well, your honor, we have lots of hearsay and conjecture; those are kinds of evidence.”

Lionel Hutz, Attorney at Law

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Not even that. Nothing at all would convince them. This is what being a Skeptic entails (although not of course sceptics).

Just look at this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39453) thread for a good example.

Here we have replicable laboratory experiments. Maybe these experiments are flawed, maybe they're not, but that's not important to the point I'm making.

The point here is we have good sensible intelligent sceptics, namely people like mark tidwell, dharlow, Mike D and materia3.

But then we have the Skeptics. They are hell bent on trying to find any flaw, whether real or imagined. And heh!, they are perfectly happy doing this without even bothering to read the paper! Such people will never ever concede that there may be something to mediumistic communication (or any other anomalous phenomena). That is the mark of the Skeptic.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But then we have the Skeptics. They are hell bent on trying to find any flaw, whether real or imagined. And heh!, they are perfectly happy doing this without even bothering to read the paper! Such people will never ever concede that there may be something to mediumistic communication (or any other anomalous phenomena). That is the mark of the Skeptic.

You just did the same without reading this thread. Also, feel free to point out the flaws in the skeptical arguments above.

You're just a troll. You don't offer specific criticisms, just your insults and a reinventing of words to suit your silly fancies. Why don't you just admit it?

[voidx]

Apparently I'm talking to myself, but oh well, here goes.

Originally posted by Clancie
Jordan wasn't "a police cadet".

But he did study at the police academy and graduated. What's unclear is whether he went to study at the academy during the time of the missing boy, or if it came about as a result of his being deputized by the local authorities after the investigation.


I take it that no psychic would convince you that they "helped" the police (which, if you recall is the point of this thread), unless it was under scientifically controlled conditions.

As TLN pointed out the main issue here is not that they've provided "help". Its that they've provided non-mundane, paranormally acquired information that was key to solving the case. I've put down several points that should make anyone doubt that the information Jordan got was paranormal at all. It could have come from mundane sources, or his own educated guessing.


When you find such conditions in real life situations with missing persons, let me know. :rolleyes:

Where's the map? Shouldn't Jordan, or the investigators have saved the map? This alone would go a long way into understanding just how good this supposedly paranormal map was. But we don't even have that do we.


Skeptics often say, "show me one psychic who can help police to find a missing child! Just one!" Then you show them one. They say, "It's just the psychic's word for it!"

Again, I've listed reasons why Jordan's map could easily have been achieved by mundane means. You are steadfastly refusing to be critical of Jordan's account.


You provide an interview with the police detective himself.

Actually I provided that thank you very much, and you still haven't responded to my points regarding the CNN interview.


They discount the account of the police, too.

Who discounts it? I've not heard anyone do that. I said I could not take the investigators account of how good the map was as authoritative. This is just being reasonable. Being an investigator does not automatically make your judgement of how detailed this map was conclusive. He could be biased like anyone else. So I said until we could see the map, or in fact see any details about how the child was found, then I remain skeptical. You on the other hand are taking everything at face value.


Then, as a last refuge, they say, "But did he find this child under scientifically controlled conditions? Was he able to REPLICATE his discovery of Tommy Kennedy? NO!!! Hah! Case is Debunked!!!!"

Firstly, the Tommy Kennedy case taken alone, with the information available to the public (not much) is not very convincing. He could have just made an educated guess, it was correct, and now its a paranormal map. Look there is just nothing here that is so amazing it MUST be paranormal, sorry. And the above point is valid in a fashion. Is this Jordan's only remarkable case? Does he have no other examples? If he did I can guarantee he would list them but he doesn't, so if this is the best he's got, he's not doing very well.

[Loki]

Ian,

Oh yes, and a word of advice. The more you express your desire for me to depart the more likely I shall stay.
Please stay Ian ... Don't go ... you are so wise ... We need more like you in this world ... please, please stay ... mu.nu doesn't love you like we do ... {is he gone yet????}

[Marian]

Originally posted by Clancie


It is not about "proving" or providing "evidence" that psychics solve cases. It is about the indisputable fact that, outside of skeptics/cynics like yourself for whom only replicable laboratory experiments count as "evidence"--even in the case of finding missing children....psychics have been found by police to be helpful..
:p

I snipped that out, because that's a totally seperate statement.

I can find individual police officers that will say MANY things are helpful. You wouldn't have to look hard to find many police officers who are religious and truly believe that God/Jesus 'helped' with their cases. Or that the results of their case was only possible because of God/Jesus. And they honestly, and sincerely believe that.

Does that make it so?

Obviously that's an area of faith. I'll refer again to the Elizabeth Smart abduction as a case that many (family, friends, police officers, etc) felt that prayer and God were 'responsible' for Elizabeth Smart's safe return. Yet they would not be quick to blame God (generally) in cases where the outcome is not so wonderful.

A police officer as a private person may hold many beliefs, it doesn't make them an expert in that area. Same is true with many professions. For example, in my personal life, I lost a substantial amount of vision due to my illness. Over 50% of my vision was gone. They did spinal taps to remove the fluid, but optic nerve damage is considered perm. My vision returned. This isn't a 'miracle'. It's not even THAT rare, though sadly it's not common. However the original opthamologist, head of his department, and an incredibly skilled doctor did believe that there was something of the divine involved. I said 'Thank God' (meaning it as an exclaimation, not a sign of personal belief) and he said 'that's right, that's who you thank because it's nothing short of a miracle, etc'.

I don't begrudge the man his personal beliefs. It doesn't effect his ability to be a good doctor (for example he didn't encourage prayer as a 'cure'). However where he also sees the divine at hand, I do not. After all, lets be blunt, if God were going to magically intervene, I can think of many more deserving persons. Does God hate cancer kids? Why isn't s/he/it helping them?

But those are arguments of faith...and as such can't be proven.

What you're talking about here though isn't. If someone claims to have specific powers or abilities...I'll grant you that if we look at an incident that happened in 1975, I cannot absolutely 100% prove it wasn't 'psychic powers'. But the converse is also true. More importantly, I can offer up possible alternatives that would be a helluvalot more plausable.

There's no way that he can 'prove' that it was psychic. However if specific evidence were to surface, it could be debunked, or at least close to it. I mean let's say there was newsfootage of a conversation that gave him information...such as what was going on, where they had been looking etc. It would throw even more doubt on it being 'paranormal'...but he could STILL claim it was. Just as he could claim Jesus appeared to him. Short of his saying on tape 'Haha I fooled all those suckers', people will still believe it on faith...if they want to.

However if you do really possess such powers, then there are ways to test them. Setting that up would depend on what he claims he can do. (Resolved case testing would be one way...but if he says he can't do something that's not happening in the same timeline, that wouldn't work). A controlled situation is one where a person is in an enviroment where they are observed, and there are absolute controls based on what information they do or do not have. That would eliminate the potential of fraud.

It's like people who have gone to a medium and claim that the medium told them X, Y and Z. And there's NO WAY the medium could have known that. One can offer up potential alternatives, but since there was no real testing, unless you can uncover proof of what was occuring at that reading, it's almost impossible to say. Even if you prove that in subsequent 'readings' this medium was engaging in using a 3rd party to listen in before sessions, or other 'hot reading' techniques, while you could draw a reasonable conclusion that they ALSO did so previously...you don't know. And many people will cling to that even when someone has been exposed as a fraud. Because they believe what they want or need to believe, based on their experiences.

And any police officer who has worked for any reasonable amount of time on cases involving witnesses knows how inaccurate eyewitness testimony is. Any police officer who has worked on cases knows that cases start to 'go cold' within 48 hours. Witnesses start to change their stories, people forget details. Not even to mention 30 years later, when your memory is based more on the retelling of a thing, rather than the actual thing.

Anyway, if you're stating that police officers claim that psychics provide help, then yes, that would be true. I have seen police officers claim that. Just as some claim God helps, or prayer has helped. However their personal belief that it was helpful doesn't really matter, in terms of proving anything.

If the statement is that no psychic has ever been proven to resolve or solve a case based on information obtained 'paranormally' then that would be an accurate statement. It has never been proven.

So we're back to 'what would be proof?'. And again controlled conditions would be a good start. A broken clock is right twice a day, and I haven't seen any of these 'psychics' with a record even that good. :(

And even more telling we do have ample evidence of the harm. If we're looking at accounts from people involved, then look at what Marc Klaus, father of Polly Klaus has to say about psychic involvement in the abduction of his daughter, and other missing children cases. He has said that not only was it not a help, but it was a hinderance.

For me the bottom line would be this: If any 'psychic' were to be able to offer very real assistance in cases, it damn well should be tested, just for court admission. If they can demonstrate such an ability, then damn skippy OF COURSE they'd be used. It's possible to come up with psychological profiles on cases, through very real and very demonstratable methods. If one didn't know how this was done, it might have a very large 'woo' factor. Even still these methods are constantly under scrunity and testing and modification because if they are not right...they may do harm by pushing the case in the wrong direction. And with psychological profiling, there's no shortage of cases in which the profiling aided immensely (though it is only one of many tools).

However, if they (psychics) cannot, and not one...not one has proven that they can...what about the massive amounts of harm that they do? What about the wasted resources that are spent looking into these bogus tips? ESPECIALLY in abduction cases where time is of the essense, when a family is out of their minds with fear, and when every possible resource must be focused on finding that child before they're killed, if they're not dead already. They can do harm even if they're not believed, because they have to look into potential leads...even the kooks (and there are many kooks too).

The harm aspect alone would be reason enough to test and verify such claims. And I would also suggest that if these psychics have actual belief in their abilities (IE: aren't intentionally frauds) then they also have a responsibility to have their abilities tested as well, before they do waste valuable time and resources. If they truly believe they have paranormal powers, and wish to use those powers to help, then 'helping' would certainly mean testing and investigation to demonstrate their abilities.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


Ian, we deal in science here, not philosophy. Anecdotes are not evidence. I understand perfectly what evidence means in a scientific context.

I know you must turn things to any other system because you can't meet the burdens of science, but don't expect anyone here to follow you.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your PalTalk appointment (as opposed to a chance meeting).

Hang on a sec. Hang on a sec. I do not care if you deal in science or not. I'm talking about what the evidence and reason should compel a rational person to believe. That is the issue.

Secondly, Skeptics here are making the claim that no psychic has ever helped find a missing person. They therefore have the burden of proof. Unless they can prove their assertion then they have no right to declare that "no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability)". Are you able to understand this?

[Marian]

Originally posted by voidx
Where's the map? Shouldn't Jordan, or the investigators have saved the map? This alone would go a long way into understanding just how good this supposedly paranormal map was. But we don't even have that do we.

The map is implied to still exist, because in the CNN interview, the interviewer (IIRC Gracie?) stated that she had seen the map. If I'm not misremembering that portion.

That would imply that it still exists. I would personally love to see it, and did look for it after I made my 'map', but have been unable to find it online. Perhaps if someone has a copy of Phil Jordon's book they can inform us if the map is included (I can only assume it would be). And if possible provide an image of it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
Ian,


Please stay Ian ... Don't go ... you are so wise ... We need more like you in this world ... please, please stay ... mu.nu doesn't love you like we do ... {is he gone yet????}

OK, I'll stay then. I love it when people want me.

BTW you are aware that your friend is currently contributing on there?

[Clancie]

Posted by marian

You wouldn't have to look hard to find many police officers who are religious and truly believe that God/Jesus 'helped' with their cases.
Good. I'm glad you won't have to look too hard! :p

Because, frankly, I'd like to see some of these "many" police officers who had something tangible (like a map) that Jesus gave them that helped them find a missing child.

I will even settle for a vision from Jesus (or God) that -actually- lead them to a missing child.


And P.S. Loki...voidx...marian, re: all of your earlier as-yet-unresponded-to posts....sorry, but there are HOW MANY people posting on behalf of "Phil Jordan helping the police"? Right. One.

So each time each of you posts a lot of questions...well, yes, it takes time (especially as some of it requires re-checking CNN, Nickell, etc.). So sorry, but, yes, it may not happen today. :p (And, frankly, marian, just carefully trying to read through each of your lengthy posts takes a lot of time...)

Unfortunately (and you can all three take this as a compliment) responding to the points of Untrickable and TLN (neither of whom seem very familiar with any specifics of this case and are just making the usual "Evidence!" "Laboratory Testing!" arguments)..is relatively much less time consuming to do than getting back to each of you....

Seriously. Try being on this end some time and see....

[Loki]

Clancie,

I was hoping to avoid this, but since you insist ...

Your direct claim is :
psychics have been found by police to be helpful.
And your offered support for this claim is the Phil Jordan case.

There are two ways to proceed here - look at your claim, and look at the Jordan case.

First, the claim. It all rests on what is REALLY meant - in this context - by the phrases "been found" and "be helpful". You and I might agree, or might not, on what is meant by these phrases, so perhaps we should be clear that we are reading them the same way?

To me, "be helpful" means that the psychic has provided information that either could not have been known 'normally', or was highly specific to the case. In addition, it's implied that this information made a significant difference in the outcome. That is, if the searchers were about to search near the lake anyway, and a psychic says "yes, search near the lake" then that information is, to me, not 'helpful' in any significant way. In other words, I read "be helpful" as meaning "provided clear information that made a significant difference." There is a difference here between such "helpful" information and "accurate" information. In the later case, a psychic might be correct in their information (chance says it will happen now and then).

So what do I think "been found" means? Well, it's NOT :

"A policeman has a personal opinion that a self-professed psychic has made a difference".

It IS :

"It has been documented that a self-professed psychic has provided information that, when acted upn, made a difference."

So, assuming we pretty much agree then on what you claiming, does the Jordan case support your claim? Looking at the report, there seems at least 3 possible explanations :

1. It's an accurate account of a psychic finding a missing person
2. It's an account containing inaccuracies of human recollection that create a false impression.
3. It's an account containing deliberate fabrications to create a false impression.

So how dow we determine which of these categories it falls into? I assume you dismiss "deliberate fraud" (at any level), but why? Even if I agree that fraud/lying is unlikely, how do we dismiss "incorrect memory"? It's 29 years ago that this happened - seems to me there's plenty of scope for "embellishment" of the details over that time? So if you want to TRULY offer the Jordan case as support, seems to me that you (or anyone wanting to take this approach - Ian perhaps?) need to start supplying some details that establish some verification. For starters - did a boy even disappear at that time, and was a search conducted? Can you even verify that?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Unfortunately (and you can all three take this as a compliment) responding to the points of Untrickable and TLN (neither of whom seem very familiar with any specifics of this case and are just making the usual "Evidence!" "Laboratory Testing!" arguments)..is relatively much less time consuming to do than getting back to each of you....

Errr... yes. Because that's what we seek here.

How can you not know this after years of posting here? Do you expect us to adopt another standard of evidence to make you happy?

Clancie, you can play the victim all you want, but that doesn't dismiss my unanswered questions.

[Loki]

Ian,

BTW you are aware that your friend is currently contributing on there?
What are you talking about - I have no friends.

Skeptics here are making the claim that no psychic has ever helped find a missing person. They therefore have the burden of proof. Unless they can prove their assertion then they have no right to declare that "no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability)". Are you able to understand this?
Yes, I understand Ian. Once again you choose to hide behind the "logically correct" but "useless in practise" statement.

I will happily claim that "No naked human has flown from England to France by just flapping their arms". You, of course, will defend the possibility that this has happened by stating "prove it never has!". I'll point to physics to support my claim that it is "impossible", and you'll reply that it might be "physically" impossible, but certainly not logically impossible.

You'll go home happy in the thought that once again your devestating intellect has shot down another stupid "skeptic" through superior use of impeccable logic.

I'll go home and wonder why anyone thinks there's any value in defending the possibility of humans flying.

[lofgoernost]

Originally posted by Ipecac

I've read through all of this and I don't find this case at all compelling. There's just not enough here to accept this as any solid indication of psychic ability. What is here that you find so compelling? What is here that couldn't be explained by natural means?

Clancie, I can see how the thought of responding to all these questions would be daunting (I get exhausted just reading through it all ;-) But, then, you did start the thread. I bumped it last night in the hope of seeing your response to Marian's map post, and much has happened since then. Maybe answering Ipecac's questions in light of points made by Marian, voidx, Loki, et cetera would provide a helpful focus. Just a suggestion, and not meant in any uncivil manner whatsoever.

eta Marian, Nancy Grace didn't say she had seen the map (at least, not in that LKL transcript). She said she had seen a photo or video of the woods at Empire Lake.

[Marian]

Originally posted by lofgoernost



eta Marian, Nancy Grace didn't say she had seen the map (at least, not in that LKL transcript). She said she had seen a photo or video of the woods at Empire Lake.

That seems much more likely. I went back and the part I was thinking of actually said:

So you followed the map through this very dense forest. I've seen photos of it, video of it, and what ultimately happened detective?

And it would be much more likely that 'it' refers to the area... and not the map. My mistake. :) Is there anything though regarding what actually became of this map (is it still around?). Again it would seem unusual to me that someone wouldn't have saved it, considering the import they're putting on it (regarding it being 'psychic' and instrumental in finding the child). (Unless it was lost in a fire or something bizarre).

[UnTrickaBLe]

Clancie has already raised the white flag by avoiding or conceding that she has no positive answer for the only important question being asked here: "Can you provide scientifically sound evidence that any person has ever used "psychic powers" to solve any crime or missing persons case?"

This means her "evidence" must stand up to scientific scrutiny, like all evidence.

She has utterly failed to provide such eveidence and has more or less admitted that she cannot.

CASE CLOSED.

[lofgoernost]

Posted by Marian

Is there anything though regarding what actually became of this map (is it still around?). Again it would seem unusual to me that someone wouldn't have saved it, considering the import they're putting on it (regarding it being 'psychic' and instrumental in finding the child). (Unless it was lost in a fire or something bizarre).

Alas, my online search for the map has been fruitless. I checked to see if my library network has a copy of Jordan's book: No go. And I can never remember what I'm looking for any time I enter a bookstore, I just end up wandering around thumbing thru books for hours at a time, so I don't know if I'll ever see it...

[Tricky]

You know, Phil Jordan could dismiss all the skeptics with ease by one simple step. Do it again. There are many missing persons cases. Let Phil apply his psychic ability to those as well. Even with a few misses, he ought to be able to perform better than a trained investigator, right. Police offices ought to be clamoring for his services, and he should be willingly providing them, that is if he cares about people more than fame.

Of course I expect that this would be met with the standard "you can't just call on the power at will." That's truly a shame, because that makes it impossible to distinguish between someone who was psychic once from someone who was lucky once. Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and again.

So go help humanity, Phil, instead of trying to capitalize on your incredible luck by hitting the talk show circuit.

[JPK]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well TLN, you and the other Skeptics are flat out wrong. Anecdotes do indeed constitute evidence. Denying this shows that you and other Skeptics simply fail to understand what the word evidence means.

Of course in a lot of instances anecdotal evidence is practically worthless eg a single report of some phenomenon which has never been witnessed by anyone ever before. In other cases anecdotes can be highly suggestive that something is going on eg people from differing cultures and differing times describing the same essential phenomenon even though they may not be acquainted with any other reports of this phenomenon.

First of all, welcome back Ian. The way I see it isn't so much that anecdotal evidence should be dissmissed as evidence, but what is it evidence of? In this case, is it evidence of psychic abilities or is it evidence that something "weird" has happened to the people telling the story? I think Marian made a great point when she points out this is not a case of foul play. Kid lost, kid found. No need to dig deep into the investigation. I would not at all be suprised if no map was kept in this case. I wonder how big of a deal this was when it happened? (of course excluding the parents and the kid involved.) I guess looking for newspaper reports of the story at the time would be the place to look. What did the local paper say at the time of the story? More important, what does the official police report say? Do you think it says a psychic led us to the child? Maybe it does. Maybe not. I'm wondering how much the psychic part of this story has grown over the years. The story on Phil's webpage seems to differ from the CNN transcript. Memories change with time.
Once again not saying this guy didn't solve this case using his self proclaimed psychic abilities, just saying from everything I read, on his site, the CNN transcript, and in this thread, there are plenty of less amazing explanations.

Another Google search produced this...

by Joe Nickell
Skeptical Inquirer Electronic Digest

Oakland, Michigan, 1977. Psychic Phil Jordan was called in by police on a multiple child-murder case. In what police dubbed "Operation ESP," Jordan was taken to the various abduction sites and provided with evidence and photos to "psychometrize" (obtain psychic feelings about). Later five senior investigators reviewed his pronouncements, finding them not only vague but even contradictory and fundamentally useless. An interoffice memorandum concluded that such psychic claims "simply cloud the facts and cause an investigator undue feelings of failure." (Lyons and Truzzi 1991, pp. 226-27.)

I am not saying that a psychic never helped in an investigation, for all I know they may have made coffee, that would help me :) I just don't see where they have helped using psychic abilities. Since this case is so long ago, it is impossible to investige it. Did Phil claim to be using psychic tallents to find the child upfront? Who would know now? Too long ago.
To me it smells of lot's of retrofitting. OK, Iv'e only known about this case since Grace filled in on LKL. The problem is, if there was really anything to this, wouldn't I have already known about this? Wouldn't all of us?

JPK

[Aussie Thinker]

JPK,

Excellent post.. (and other kudos to Miriam etc for some excellent critical thinking)

I just loved this.. the one point Clancie refuses to understand or address.

I am not saying that a psychic never helped in an investigation, for all I know they may have made coffee, that would help me

LOL…

Clancie unlike Ridiculous Ian you are at least “trying” to make a case. For that I give you credit. Sadly you just don’t address the singular most pressed point in this argument.

NOTHING points to the use of paranormal powers in this case.

The Police confirm that Jordan and his map helped.. they said NOTHING about his paranormal powers helped.

You have to divorce the words HELP from the word PARANORMAL.. for some reason you think they are linked ???

[JPK]

Thank you Aussie Thinker,

I am not tring to offend anyone here. I'm very new here. I learn something with every post I read. OK maybe not every post. I just think that the only differance between a "beleiver" and a "Skeptic" is where they draw the line as to exceptable evidence. I'm not sure it takes much to cross that line. Perhaps nothing more then to addmit "I might be wrong..."


JPK

[RC]

Originally posted by Loki

What are you talking about - I have no friends.


I'm your friend, Loki. ;)

P.S. Going to see the Mac again in June. They've added "Sara" to the setlist, first time Stevie has sung it live in about 20 years.

[RC]

And Clancie, I agree with your original point. People have either misunderstood your first post, or maybe they are just twisting your argument around.

It is clear to me that you are not arguing that psychics have definitely helped solve cases using psychic abilities. You are merely pointing out that the statement made in Randi's commentary is an opinion, yet Randi has posted it as fact.

I agree that accuracy is important and I know that it is normally very important on this board. A more accurate statement would be something like "there is no scientific proof that a psychic can help solve cases using psychic powers" or "I have never seen compelling evidence...., etc."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Clancie unlike Ridiculous Ian you are at least “trying” to make a case.

That's Interesting Ian.

I lack the knowledge to make a case.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Skeptics here are making the claim that no psychic has ever helped find a missing person. They therefore have the burden of proof. Unless they can prove their assertion then they have no right to declare that "no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability)". Are you able to understand this?

No-one seems to want to respond to my above point. I have another point.


Quoted by Clancie

From Curtis Cameron, quoted by Randi

ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now this statement seems fairly straightforward. It is a definitive statement. But the Skeptics on here are arguing that it means something completely different from what it appears to mean on the surface. They are saying that what makes such a statement true is that there is no scientific proof which dictates otherwise.

But since psychics helping to find missing people will inevitably not be subject to stringent scientific testing, this entails that John Stossels claim is wholly a vacuous one. Necessarily the statement is true given the Skeptics perverse spin on what this statement means.

So if the Skeptics on here are correct, this begs the question of why John Stossels said this in the first place and why Randi is repeating it.

[Aussie Thinker]

Interesting Ian,

That's Interesting Ian.

Dang.. I missed that .. I based the name on the content of the posts !

I did mean to pick you up on something…

You had a go at TLC for calling you a liar for saying you had left the board. Even though he PROVED you said that you were leaving... as an excuse you offered up that you had changed your mind.

BUT... This was AFTER you had accused him of having “selective memory loss”… I’d forgive you for changing your mind.. but the “memory loss” bit point to ingenuous LYING !

[Loki]

RC,

I'm your friend, Loki.
I've told you not to call me at the JREF.

Going to see the Mac again in June. They've added "Sara" to the setlist, first time Stevie has sung it live in about 20 years.
This is one of the strongest arguments I've ever seen in support of the "Life after death" case.

And Clancie, I agree with your original point. People have either misunderstood your first post, or maybe they are just twisting your argument around.
Personally, I think there's a third option - Clancie is being deliberately pedantic by insisting that the literal meaning of the statement is inaccurate. She's correct - but when viewed in context the actual meaning doesn't seem too hard to determine.

A more accurate statement would be something like "there is no scientific proof that a psychic can help solve cases using psychic powers"
See, there you go. We all agree that this would be a "more accurate" statement. How do we know this ? - because it's clear from the context that this is what was meant all along.

Let me be clear - Clancie is right, in that the meaning of exact literal words, when taken on their own, can be argued with. Or perhaps it would be better to say that the statement could be rephrased to remove any confusion. But I'd still say that since everyone here seems to understand what was meant, the "semantic ambiguity" has done little damage.

Clancie, you've been arguing with Claus for too long - this is a level of pedantry that I'd expect from him. Or perhaps you've paid too much attention to Ian and his relentless "anything might be true unless you can proven it logically impossible" rants.

[CFLarsen]

Not much to say, actually....it is merely another case of Clancie, providing yet another anecdote, completely shot down once again.

There is just one thing, though:
Originally posted by Clancie
I know it's outside your world view.
I hope you can deal with it anyway.
:p

The sheer arrogance of this statement is staggering. Here, Clancie brushes aside all arguments that she doesn't like, and simply say that this is beyond our comprehension. She has reached a state of mind that is infinitely more advanced than ours.

Originally posted by TLN (to Clancie)
Why do you avoid direct questions so much?

"Questions Clancie does NOT want to answer" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23764)

Perhaps it's time for an update?

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But since psychics helping to find missing people will inevitably not be subject to stringent scientific testing, this entails that John Stossels claim is wholly a vacuous one.

Ian, as I posted previously

"Clancie

I have to agree with you on one point, it is not necessarily practical for the police to set up controlled conditions for a psychic to "prove" that they could help the police in the immediate case of a missing person. However, that is where the agreement ends. Surely if Jordan, or any other of these psychics, are able to use their abilities to solve crimes then it would be a simple matter for them to prove these abilities in a controlled environment using a dummy situation (or other appropriate test). This would also benefit them as, by proving their abilities they could be "licensed" by the police so as to be identified from the crank callers. Surely any self respecting would-be psychic policeman would jump at the opportunity?"

Irrespective of who the onus of proof falls upon, it would be in the public interest to have these people verified. Do the police use unqualified, unregistered detectives, fingerprint experts, DNA analysis experts etc? No. Then why should the psychics be any different?

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hang on a sec. Hang on a sec. I do not care if you deal in science or not. I'm talking about what the evidence and reason should compel a rational person to believe. That is the issue.
...


This, ladies and gentlemen (and especially newbies), is why it is pointless to debate with this guy. He doesn't read the pertinent information and yet discourses at length on the subject, doesn't care about science, and refuses to use logic, or even words as they are meant to be used.

[Thomas]

Official Phil Jordan statement about his readings
Please remember that with any psychic consultation, it is for your own entertainment, amusement, and information and 100% accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Your own free will and the course of life's events can alter the course of a reading.

Phil Jordan's readings (http://www.philjordan.com/readings.html)

I just love when a cold reading starts before you have even talked to the medium.

Official Thomas marketing statement
If you give me a sack of money I can sell you the Eiffel tower or the hanging gardens of Babylon. If the french will agree with this, or if the hanging gardens of Babylon exist, cannot be guaranteed. Your own free will and the course of life's events can alter the course of a sale.


Got a sack of money Clancie? I have a discount on the hanging gardens this week! :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Interesting Ian,



Dang.. I missed that .. I based the name on the content of the posts !

I did mean to pick you up on something…

You had a go at TLC for calling you a liar for saying you had left the board. Even though he PROVED you said that you were leaving... as an excuse you offered up that you had changed your mind.

BUT... This was AFTER you had accused him of having “selective memory loss”… I’d forgive you for changing your mind.. but the “memory loss” bit point to ingenuous LYING !

Ummm it was my forlorn attempt at humour. You know, skeptics tend to scream out "false memory syndrome" whenever they hear an anecdote of some unusual phenomenon. This is despite the fact that many many people widely separated in space and time have related similar experiences. It seems that skeptics don't like a taste of their own medicine. How surprising :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more accurate statement would be something like "there is no scientific proof that a psychic can help solve cases using psychic powers"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See, there you go. We all agree that this would be a "more accurate" statement. How do we know this ? - because it's clear from the context that this is what was meant all along.



:rolleyes: It seems you missed by above post. Why don't you read it?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It seems that skeptics don't like a taste of their own medicine. How surprising :rolleyes:
Give it a rest Ian. What's the deal? I know you're not that doofus that you appear to be sometimes, I've seen you consider hot readings and be quite rational concerning paranormal phenomena.

You're a proud and stubborn man, most of us are, including me, but give it a rest man. All there's left here now is people calling you names and trying to piss you off, and you're indeed pissing them off. Saying this-and-that about skeptics.

You're almost at 9000 posts, so you know the drill better than I do. I just don't understand that you keep on defending the gates of paranormal phenomena, especially not in here - it's a battle you can never win in here. It's mount everest for a turtle and a blind man in a drawing competition. Give it a rest fella.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

All plausibility is lost in the presence of paranormal beliefs! And believers suck!


This article was published in the Troll City: Materialism is F*cking True You dumb F*cking Kooktards Journal of Skeptical Materialistic Science!

ABSTRACT
I’m presenting a new factual explanation for alleged ESP and paranormal experiences! Similar to false memories it is called false thought memories! Besides for our beloved use of “none of it going beyond coincidence” this new found delusion provides an exciting way of explaining away paranormal experiences! A false thought memory is a false impression of a thought that never actually occurred until falsely implanted! Say if a woo-woo were to claim that they had dreamed or thought of something that later took place! Well now according to science the original memory didn’t happen, it was falsely implanted later right at the moment when the alleged ESP event occurred! Malleable brain states, which allow this to happen, give stupid people the illusion of the original memory being real, rather than something that was made up at the moment of the falsely predicted events occurrence! Still think that you had a song in your head right before it came on the radio!? No, the memory of the song being in your head was falsely implanted because of your flawed deluded brain at the moment of the song coming on, not before, effectively ruling out ESP!
Conclusion
This is fact and the paranormal explanation is impossible! Dreams and NDES are also false memories which I have already proved! The false thought memory concept rules!

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It seems that skeptics don't like a taste of their own medicine. How surprising :rolleyes:

No, it was that you lied, plain and simple.

[Loki]

Ian,

It seems you missed by above post. Why don't you read it?
Missed it? No.

Found anything relevant in it? No.

Semantics, Ian. You'd argue with a fireman that he wasn't following correct procedure as he carried you from a burning building, won't you.

[thaiboxerken]

The "psychic" help that Clancie claims solved a police case is very weak.

I just had a psychic notion that 2+2=4. No, I didn't use previosly taught math skills to come to that answer, or memory, it just psychically came to me.

;)

[Aussie Thinker]

Ken..

That is absolute proof of psychic mathematics..

I wonder if you could set up a test with Randi.. stipulate that as long as the problems aren't too hard you can solve them using your mind power !

The $M could be YOURS !

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker


The $M could be YOURS !

I am getting a psychic impression that the $M really means one-million dollars.

See, I am really psychic!!

I'm getting my application notorized now.

[Clancie]

Here's a start. I'll let anyone -really- interested, wade through it.

*A Note

First, even after taking voidx’s excellent advice and ignoring any posts that were insulting or gratuitously dismissive....I cut and paste everything to more easily read in Word and it was 24 pages long (40 when put in a better font). As debates like this will undoubtedly continue to involve “everyone vs. Clancie” in the future, obviously, I won’t be doing this again, until at least there are a few more “believers” to take up some of the effort.

As it is now, threads like this are like “the homework assignment from Hell” (including the fact that many people posting about it aren’t even familiar with most of the details of the case). :(

Second....
Posted by RC

RC
And Clancie, I agree with your original point. People have either misunderstood your first post, or maybe they are just twisting your argument around.

It is clear to me that you are not arguing that psychics have definitely helped solve cases using psychic abilities. You are merely pointing out that the statement made in Randi's commentary is an opinion, yet Randi has posted it as fact.

I agree that accuracy is important and I know that it is normally very important on this board. A more accurate statement would be something like "there is no scientific proof that a psychic can help solve cases using psychic powers" or "I have never seen compelling evidence...., etc."
Exactly, RC. That was my point...Thank you. It is definitely NOT semantics to quibble with this inaccurate (and much repeated) statement quoted in the Commentary.

Randi (Curtis and Stoessel) are all, as you note, stating an opinion, but stating it as a fact. Critical thinkers should make every effort to distinguish fact from opinion for their readers.

My point was, none of them did.

But....since so few people seem interested in my real point—that Stoessel et al’s statement was simply his opinion and not an accurate statement of fact, (and I would like to know what evidence he would offer in support of it. The usual “absence of lab testing”? Sorry, but that doesn’t make it any less of an opinion.) Since so much of this, instead, is about Jordan, I'll try to address a few of those points below.

[Clancie]

Part II (By no means everyone who was discussing, imo, in good faith--like JPK and one or two others. But the best I could do with the time I'm willing to spend)
Posted by voidx

Do we have any more in depth details of this occurrence, or just the families the detective and Phil's own admission of what went on?
Well, I gave you two books about it, including one from two skeptics. There were also many newspaper articles, written at the time and later used by Feder and Park in Psychic Sleuths. And most good information is in libraries and bookstores, not online.
Posted by voidx

To clarify Phil was actually studying at the police academy and later graduated.
To clarify, no, he wasn’t. He started studying –after- the Tommy Kennedy case not before it.
Posted by voidx

....he may simply have just had a different insight as to where the boy might be.
Well, its difficult to distinguish between so called “insight” and so called “psychic ability”, isn’t it.

Posted by marian

So far it answers: father called in Phil Jordan (the 'psychic'). I'll assume he was contacted because he was already stating he was a psychic. (Otherwise why contact him specifically, etc.)
Actually, the neighbor told Jordan about it when he came home. He talked to the father afterwards (the father was a writer and had earlier written an article about Jordan’s psychic abilities).

You offer a lot of speculation as to what someone might have told Jordan (boy near lake, boats near lake...etc. etc.) But that doesn’t explain how 200 searchers had looked for 12 hours already (with the father and mother’s help) to absolutely no avail.

From marian

There are places I've never been to in California, but I have friends that go there, and I could probably draw up a pretty decent map. I can practically visualize this location, and I've never been there. I don't know how accurate his map was even.
Well, the searchers credited Jordan’s map with leading them to the boy after following it through the wood for an hour. If you can do the same, whether you’ve been to the area or only talked about it, I definitely hope you will! :)

From marian

Number of searchers? 100? 200? more? Unknown, other than 'lots'. 12 hours searching? Really? Were they searching at night? Sure, I'm sure they were doing limited searching at night...but night searches aren't that effective. You're still going to do them when you have a missing kid. But I'd be surprised if 200 people were out there with flashlights all actively searching all night. Possible, but I wouldn't think so.

So what's the actual time table of the daylight search? Again...this starts to sound unimpressive.
Sorry, this is all detailed in the Nickell book and elsewhere, over several pages. I can’t retype it all here. Maybe your library has the book , or some back newspaper articles.
Posted by marian

So we're back at the question: Was this a case solved solely by psychic means?
I don’t know either, marian. I’m simply saying that Stoessel et al is inaccurate in stating what he did about psychics and the police.

I mean, what evidence do you find in support of that statement he made and Curtis and Randi quoted here?

No offense to your map, but what do you think the chances are that an hour later searchers would find Tommy if they used it? Seriously. Your drawing is rather irrelevant to the issue at hand.


I find it additionally suspect that he's not touting additional cases, but simply this one.
Are you sure?

And...Loki....

I disagree totally that the quote should be reinterpreted to mean what you’d like it to, Loki, that they're "really" trying to say that “no person has been provento have helped the police solve cases by psychic means.” Frankly, that isn’t what Stoessel said. His statement, oft repeated by others, is a far more sweeping claim—and, imo, unsupportable as a fact, as opposed to simply another opinion.

Posted by Loki

There is NO corroborating evidence of any kind here - it's all simply memory and hearsay.
Well, even Feder and Park don’t go that far. While debunking the “psychic” aspect, they still accept the newspaper and police accounts at the time to a very large degree.

Posted by voidx

No offense to the county sheriff or whatever, but his word alone that the map was detailed and great is not authoritative for me not having seen it myself.
Fine. But it doesn’t change the inaccuracy of Stoessel’s comment.

Posted by Ipecac

I've read through all of this and I don't find this case at all compelling. There's just not enough here to accept this as any solid indication of psychic ability. What is here that you find so compelling? What is here that couldn't be explained by natural means?
I wasn’t there, but I apparently put more stock in the account of the police...searchers...and parents than anyone here does. All agree on the basic details—200 people had searched the woods for at least 12 hours, and quit due to bad weather. Jordan came to the police with his map and description of what he “saw” regarding Tommy, and—in the estimation of the police themselves—Jordan’s map, not any other factor, lead them to the missing boy.

If you all find that very unimpressive and not at all unusual or even of speculative interest....well, so be it. :)

Posted by Beancounter

Clancie

I have to agree with you on one point, it is not necessarily practical for the police to set up controlled conditions for a psychic to "prove" that they could help the police in the immediate case of a missing person. However, that is where the agreement ends. Surely if Jordan, or any other of these psychics, are able to use their abilities to solve crimes then it would be a simple matter for them to prove these abilities in a controlled environment using a dummy situation (or other appropriate test). This would also benefit them as, by proving their abilities they could be "licensed" by the police so as to be identified from the crank callers. Surely any self respecting would-be psychic policeman would jump at the opportunity?
I have no idea if this is feasible or if it has been proposed to Jordan by any scientist. Do you?

Posted by Beancounter

Also I have read through this whole thread and if, as you suggest "There are many instances of psychics helping the police" then why have they not been introduced here? I, for one would be very interested in reading about them because if true, we could do with a few here in South Africa to improve the detection rate.
I don’t argue that they do solve the cases. After all, I’m not there. I don’t know.
I argue that many police detectives (including self proclaimed skeptics) have been impressed by psychics who’ve “helped solve cases”. Catch the documentaries on tvs “Psychic Detectives” if you have a chance. Read the Nickell’s book or Truzzi’s “The Blue Sense”.

Posted by voidx

What's unclear is whether he went to study at the academy during the time of the missing boy
No, its not unclear. He didn’t
Posted by voidx

I've put down several points that should make anyone doubt that the information Jordan got was paranormal at all. It could have come from mundane sources, or his own educated guessing.
Do you really think the police didn't consider these themselves? It would, after all, make them look better to solve a case with -their- efforts, rather than a psychic's.

Again, I think this is confirmation bias. Neither you nor I know whether mundane explanations are more plausible in this case or not. The –fact- remains that some police investigators themselves testify to the helpfulness of psychics and feel convinced that it was through paranormal means.
Posted by voidx

]Where's the map? Shouldn't Jordan, or the investigators have savd the map? This alone would go a long way into understanding just how good this supposedly paranormal map was. But we don't even have that do we.
I don’t know, nor do you. If it exists, it probably is in the police report on the case.

I notice that no one has any interest in my criticism of Nickell’s authors for not even contacting the police involved with this case. Not once.
Posted by marian

I can find individual police officers that will say MANY things are helpful. You wouldn't have to look hard to find many police officers who are religious and truly believe that God/Jesus 'helped' with their cases.
I’m still waiting for some examples of police detectives who believe they had specific clues given them by God or Jesus that helped find a missing person. Really. I’m waiting.
Posted by marian

Anyway, if you're stating that police officers claim that psychics provide help, then yes, that would be true.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Thank you.
From marian

However their personal belief that it was helpful doesn't really matter, in terms of proving anything.
I never said it “proved” it. I said that Stoessel’s statement is an opinion, not a fact. His opinion is by no means clearly the only possibility, either.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I don’t know either, marian. I’m simply saying that Stoessel et al is inaccurate in stating what he did about psychics and the police.

Clancie, did Jordan crack this case using psychic powers or mundane abilities? Or is it indeterminate?

[JPK]

Originally posted by Clancie
Part II (By no means everyone who was discussing, imo, in good faith--like JPK and one or two others. But the best I could do with the time I'm willing to spend)



Well Clancie, I hope I havn't offended you with my posts. I am pretty sure I get your point about the rather absolute statement that they have "never helped". I "never " type in absolutes! :)

Originally posted by Clancie

I don’t argue that they do solve the cases. After all, I’m not there. I don’t know.
I argue that many police detectives (including self proclaimed skeptics) have been impressed by psychics who’ve “helped solve cases”.


These statements by police always interest me. For example, what about the other 200 + searchers that day? If one of them asked the police or family if they helped, what do you think the response would be? What about the people who no doubt where there with coffee and water for the searchers? If asked, do you think the police and family would say something like "thanks for your help, we couldn't have done this without you." or do you think they might get " Well you guys were no help at all!" I'm guessing the former is more likely. Now most of these other people really have no reason to promote statements like that but if you were in the buisness of making psychic claims, then this can appear to be a very powerfull endorsement. Say it enough and you might start to believe it yourself. Once again, I'm not saying this is how it happened but I certainly can't rule it out from what I read here. I have read that psychics have been know to ask for written confirmation from police whenver they feel they have helped, and in some cases even when they haven't.

I also admit that until recently I haven't looked into these cases very much. Now that I have spent a little time looking into them, I'm still not seeing anything making me say "Wow! Now I see. It has to be paranormal abilities that solved the case." However, taking just this Jordon case for example, I don't see how anyone could draw any conclusions from what has been stated in this thread and what was on the CNN transcripts.
I do however plan on reading the books you mentioned. I'm sure that should fill in plenty of the gaps for me.

JPK

[Marian]

Clancie posted I’m still waiting for some examples of police detectives who believe they had specific clues given them by God or Jesus that helped find a missing person. Really. I’m waiting.

Now now, I was never a smart-ass to you about waiting for you to reply. ;) I also never stated that I knew of a police detective who had believed that God or Jesus (as in Christ, son of God Jesus ;D) walked in and handed them a clue. However, you wouldn't be hard pressed to find numerous police officers who strongly believe that their faith and the power of prayer has helped tremendously in their work. Or that various results are nothing short of 'miraculous' in their respective opinions.

Note the word: "Opinion" because I'm positive I used it previously. Because they believe that doesn't make it necessary true.

Whether an individual police officer believes that prayer, or psychics help though is, once again, theirpersonal opinion. If they wanted to seriously make that claim, then they'd need to show evidence. You can't prove or disprove the 'power of God' anymore than you can prove or disprove the existance of God. As far as a psychic's help, in this specific case, I think numerous people have already pointed out how it's long on woo, short on details, and there are numerous more probable alternatives.

Let's imagine a pretend scenario. A psychic walks in and announces that a child is being held by Soandso, and they know this because they saw it in a vision. Do you believe in the United States, in any state that's enough probable cause for a warrant to be issued by a judge? Noooo it's not. It would be laughed out of court. And if you happened to find a judge goofy enough to sign it (because that's possible), it would be immediately tossed out, along with any evidence found as a result. Lie detector results aren't admissible either. And you'll find varying opinion on the benefits of the use of lie detectors too. Some police officers will insist they're next to useless. Others will swear by them. Either way, not admissible in court, because it doesn't qualify as evidence scientifically as far as the courts are concerned, and would be prejudicial. It's a tip that's given the same amount of weight as any other tip, less actually (legally) because there's no connection...like them physical seeing something (which WOULD be enough for a warrant).

You also don't have to look far to find police officers who will tell you that psychic 'help' harms cases. Self-proclaimed psychics come out of the woodwork on high profile cases and waste considerable time and money, because like any kook their 'tips' have to be recorded and looked into. And the reason it's important to do that is because it's possible that a witness or a person with real information gained by mundane means might call up and give that information in that fashion because they don't want to get involved. Just as anonymous tips are also recorded.

It's extremely easy to prove the harm, hundreds of tips that have absolutely no useful information to various cases. However, people can say 'well those are just the frauds, or 'bad mediums' what about real psychics?' and again we'd have to look to results. Let's say someone has impressive results in a case. And they're making the claim that they're psychic. It could be a lucky guess, that happens in life. It could be something more.

So where do you go from there? You'd test it of course. That's the determination. If (again hypothetically) they're wrong about 99 cases, and right about 1 case...would you argue that's still proof they're psychic, because they were right about one case? And whatever form of testing is agreed upon (depending on the claimed skills of the psychic) the important aspect of it is controlled information. The F.B.I. has done tremendous work in gathering a database of information regarding criminals and criminal behaviors. This allows people specially trained in those areas to compile psychological profiles of suspects which can be scarily accurate. But it's based on very real data. And that data is constantly evolving because it has been known to be flawed. When you're interviewing criminals, do you trust them to be 100% accurate and honest in their responses? No. Even someone attempting to be 100% accurate and honest won't be and cannot be in many respects. Which is why supplimental information gathered through investigation are an important part of the information database.

It's all information manipulation, but that's downplaying it, it's still amazing. And it can be an extremely useful tool, if enough information exists. Which again shows the need to control the information in a controlled setting if you're attempting to 'test' someone's 'psychic' abilities. Otherwise intentionally or unintentionally they may just be making educated guesses, based on what information they DO have, which can be extremely accurate.

And if you're aware of any psychic who's had decent results on even one case, who has gone on to demonstrate their abilities and prove them, why there's a million bucks waiting for them. Perhaps even more importantly (absolutely more importantly in my opinion) there's an extremely large database of missing children, with families who need to know what happened to them. :(

[Clancie]

Posted by marian

Now now, I was never a smart-ass to you about waiting for you to reply :) .
True. :) Sorry if after my view of the lengthy Word document I got a little unfairly "edgy" in my replies. :)


I also never stated that I knew of a police detective who had believed that God or Jesus (as in Christ, son of God Jesus ;D) walked in and handed them a clue.
No, but you did say....

Posted by marian

You wouldn't have to look hard to find many police officers who are religious and truly believe that God/Jesus 'helped' with their cases.
I'm only saying that its hardly analogous to saying that Phil Jordan "helped" when he handed them an actual map that, when followed, they felt led them to the boy. If a police officer had a similiarly tangible "vision" from God that led to a description of a place and a missing person...well, imo, that would be more comparable than simply saying "Jordan envisioned a map, drew it, we followed it and found him" is like, "We found the boy, thanks to our prayers and God's love." They're really no where similar (again, imo).
Posted by JPK

Well Clancie, I hope I havn't offended you with my posts.
No, not at all. That's why I mentioned you. :)


These statements by police always interest me. For example, what about the other 200 + searchers that day? If one of them asked the police or family if they helped, what do you think the response would be? What about the people who no doubt where there with coffee and donuts....
Yes, people "help" in many ways. But the difference is that the police give credit to Jordan and his map for the fact they were able to finally find Tommy. I don't know if they're right or not, but that's their conclusion, based on the experience of looking for him for 12 unsuccessful hours, before using Jordan's map.

The point is that people don't know the police are wrong to credit him, either. I mean, my point is simply that its inaccurate to state, as an indisputable fact that, "There is no evidence that psychics have ever helped police find missing children". You could qualify it, as RC said, but otherwise...it simply shouldn't be repeated as if its undeniably true.

Beyond that, there seems a consensus from searchers...detectives...family members that Jordan's map lead them to Tommy. They may be right or wrong, but no one involved has disputed this impression.

Beyond that, I think it is strange...and poor "reporting"....that Feder and Park never talked with either Jordan or the family or, particularly, the police when they wrote their "critique".

Skeptics could be right about there being "no paranormal phenomena" at all, but whether on books, tv, or in mags, I've been extremely surprised by what a very poor job they do of researching the cases they are trying to debunk.

[thaiboxerken]

Psychic evidence has NEVER been successfully used in a court of law. Has a psychic ever been used as an eye-witness to a crime that they psychically had a connection to?

Why is that, Clancie?

Is it because psychic phenomena is not proven to be real?

[thaiboxerken]

Skeptics could be right about there being "no paranormal phenomena" at all, but whether on books, tv, or in mags, I've been extremely surprised by what a very poor job they do of researching the cases they are trying to debunk.

I think what is really interesting is that people that believe in the paranormal never have been able to actually give verifiable evidence that it's real.

[Marian]

Clancie posted
Yes, people "help" in many ways. But the difference is that the police give credit to Jordan and his map for the fact they were able to finally find Tommy. I don't know if they're right or not, but that's their conclusion, based on the experience of looking for him for 12 unsuccessful hours, before using Jordan's map.

Going to nitpick there...

Is it "the police", "that specific police department", or "a police officer"? Near as I can tell (and I could be wrong), it was a police officer. Yes, he was the lead investigator on the case (according to him and Jordan...though again it would be stupid to lie if he wasn't since presumably that would be easily disproved). Still, that makes it the opinions of one person. I would be surprised if the department endorses him (because I have a sneaking suspicion if they did, he'd be mentioning that an awful lot ;)).

The map gets credit, but where's the map? Hard to give it a lot of credence one way or another without seeing it. Did it look like my craptacular map? (I hope not! :D) How specific was it? It would be wonderful to see it (or at least hear what happened to it, like if it was destroyed in a fire that's more understandable. If they just trashed it...that's kinda suspicious given the claims).

And finally going to nitpick on the hours lost. I could also mention numerous cases local to where I live, which is at the base of the San Angeles Forest. Every year people go missing hiking in the hills. It's not uncommon for them to be missing 24-72 hours. We also have a fantastic search and rescue team and people who know the area, and yet, it's not uncommon for searching to be suspended at night. You cannot search well in a wooded area at night. For someone not to be found at night, is not unusual at all. And a good bulk of that 'missing' time, was at night.

So you have a dubious time schedule, and an indeterminate number of searchers (because that number changed in different accounts). We also don't know WHEN they had what numbers. Again as I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a MUCH smaller number the evening of the kid going missing, and a much larger number the next day after media reports and people showing up to help from being called the night before. So how many were looking and more importantly when...undetermined.

Anyway the details that he touts, are details that under even minor scrutiny seem much less impressive. Even more so when this case is apparently his 'biggie', since based on his website he apparently goes to work directly for the police (though his capacity isn't 100% clear just from the website) and there are no additional cases that bolster his claims. Obviously he's selling a book, so I don't expect him to publish the entire contents on his website, but you'd think that it wouldn't be difficult to add 3 or 4 additional cases which were just as spectacular to further prop up his claims. Yet, they're not there.

And frankly I'm loathe to give any money to him by buying the book. Maybe someone who has read it or seen it can add if there are additional cases just as "amazing" listed in his book. I'd be surprised if they were, because again I'd think he'd be touting them too. Just my opinion there. (And it's almost neither here nor there, since I'd assume that working directly with the police in whatever capacity, deputy or whatever, he'd have access to information...so it would be just as difficult to truly substantiate those claims. However, I suspect they're not made (and this is total speculation) because they'd be refuted by other officers or the department, or much easier to disprove.

Anyway, not trying to nitpick you to death, but those few details just don't seem impressive (map that isnt around apparently, one police officer's opinion, a search time that is fuzzy, search numbers that are fuzzy, major details missing, etc.)

[TLN]

Originally posted by TLN
Clancie, did Jordan crack this case using psychic powers or mundane abilities? Or is it indeterminate?

Clancie, what's the problem with answering this simple question? There's even an option in there for "I don't know."

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by Clancie


The point is that people don't know the police are wrong to credit him, either. I mean, my point is simply that its inaccurate to state, as an indisputable fact that, "There is no evidence that psychics have ever helped police find missing children". You could qualify it, as RC said, but otherwise...it simply shouldn't be repeated as if its undeniably true.

This is simply a fraud on your part, Clancie. You are playing word games. The sentence "There is no evidence that psychics have ever helped police find missing children" implies that "psychic powers" were used and you damn well know it.

You're not just delusional, you're intellectually dishonest.

And since we can't prove a negative, the " indisputable facts" are the responsibility of the "psychics" to prove, which they have utterly failed to do.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I gave you two books about it, including one from two skeptics. There were also many newspaper articles, written at the time and later used by Feder and Park in Psychic Sleuths. And most good information is in libraries and bookstores, not online.

I came across different parts of the Psychic Sleuths on my own when I first did some googling about Jordan. Have you read them? My question was basically, yes I realized there is more material out there, does it give any significant details that would change the story? Most of the articles I found gave a pretty decent outline of what happened which is why I wondered, if any, if extra details changed the nature of the story. So, assuming you may have read these items, do you feel there are any significant details not mentioned in this thread so far that bear mentioning?


To clarify, no, he wasn’t. He started studying –after- the Tommy Kennedy case not before it.

To clarify the clarify, I made it quite clear that it was not clearly stated when he started at the police academy. It was sort of implied by the articles I read that it was after he was deputized, but I've learned to not take those types of implications at face value. Do you have a reference stating when he started at the police academy?


Well, its difficult to distinguish between so called “insight” and so called “psychic ability”, isn’t it.

That's a problem for psychic ability, not insight. If its so difficult to tell the difference one must ask, is there a difference?


Actually, the neighbor told Jordan about it when he came home. He talked to the father afterwards (the father was a writer and had earlier written an article about Jordan’s psychic abilities).

I (won't speak for others here) was aware of this.


You offer a lot of speculation as to what someone might have told Jordan (boy near lake, boats near lake...etc. etc.) But that doesn’t explain how 200 searchers had looked for 12 hours already (with the father and mother’s help) to absolutely no avail.

You discount the conversation and deflect with asking why 200 searchers hadn't found the boy yet. I think others have offerred pretty credible explanations for this. The fact that we're speculating is because we know nothing about what was said. For me, and I think for anyone that is critical about this, that causes doubt. At face value its given that Jordan just came up with this map out of nowhere, through "psychic" ability. Every little detail that shows he had more and more potential prior knowledge about the details of the search and the location at which point the boy become lost detracts from how impressive his "psychic" map is.


Well, the searchers credited Jordan’s map with leading them to the boy after following it through the wood for an hour. If you can do the same, whether you’ve been to the area or only talked about it, I definitely hope you will! :)

I think we keep speaking past each other here. No one doubts that the searchers think Jordan's map helped them find the boy. And this taken alone is what you are using in your arguement against the blanket statement made in the article about no "psychics" ever having helped solve a case, or help with a case. If we are taking everything in the absolute literary sense then yes, you have a point. But as has been mentioned its pretty likely that the statement as it was said was meant that "psychics" clearly using paranormal abilities have never "conclusively" been found to solve or help a case with "conclusively" proven psychic abilities. The Jordan case is a fine case in point. You yourself have said its difficult to distinguish between educated guessing and regular insight and psychic ability. So how can we say with any certainty that Jordan's psychic ability was the clincher here? We simply cannot, and I think what the article was trying to say is that so far, so far as anyone knows, there is no clear cut case of this. There are plenty of points to show that its quite likely Jordan did nothing beyond the mundane here in assisting the searchers. If he had a more proven track record, or several examples of successfully assisting investigators that might be different, but he doesn't specify any even on his own website. And for the record I do not buy the, "Oh well there's more in my book, I could tell you, but hey, you should just buy my book." If what he's about is proving his validity, rather than selling books I think he would gladly make these further cases available, at least in summary, on his website.


No offense to your map, but what do you think the chances are that an hour later searchers would find Tommy if they used it? Seriously. Your drawing is rather irrelevant to the issue at hand.

With all due respect its entirely relevant. Having no description or image of the map we've no idea how detailed it was. Perhaps in his book he goes into a more detailed description, but in my searching around I found only rudimentary descriptions of this amazing map. And now as usual the task is handed off to us. "Well he may have no idea where the map is, you should go research it for us." If this map was truly as critical to finding the boy as is made out, I'm sure the police would have had no problems in Jordan making a copy of it, which one would assume he'd be eager to do as an example of his "psychic" ability.


I disagree totally that the quote should be reinterpreted to mean what you’d like it to, Loki, that they're "really" trying to say that “no person has been provento have helped the police solve cases by psychic means.” Frankly, that isn’t what Stoessel said. His statement, oft repeated by others, is a far more sweeping claim—and, imo, unsupportable as a fact, as opposed to simply another opinion.

Being as the comment was made in relation to psychics, I'd say its not illogical to assume he meant it in relation to psychic means. Your free to disagree I suppose, but perhaps you could email Stoessel and ask him to clarify.


Fine. But it doesn’t change the inaccuracy of Stoessel’s comment.

And the inaccuracy of Stoessel's statement doesn't change that Jordan's case is not a strong example of "psychic" ability solving a case.


I wasn’t there, but I apparently put more stock in the account of the police...searchers...and parents than anyone here does. All agree on the basic details—200 people had searched the woods for at least 12 hours, and quit due to bad weather. Jordan came to the police with his map and description of what he “saw” regarding Tommy, and—in the estimation of the police themselves—Jordan’s map, not any other factor, lead them to the missing boy.

Have a source for the bolded part?


If you all find that very unimpressive and not at all unusual or even of speculative interest....well, so be it. :)

I think we've pretty clearly stated that we're missing to many details to make a valid decision one way or the other. You seem to be ok in the decision you've made, but with what I've read, and seen discussed so far in this thread, I'm quite thoroughly unconvinced as of yet about Jordan's psychic abilities.


I don’t argue that they do solve the cases. After all, I’m not there. I don’t know.
I argue that many police detectives (including self proclaimed skeptics) have been impressed by psychics who’ve “helped solve cases”. Catch the documentaries on tvs “Psychic Detectives” if you have a chance. Read the Nickell’s book or Truzzi’s “The Blue Sense”.

Self proclaimed skeptics don't count for much in my books, no offense. Its just the oldest trick in the book. "I was skeptical until I saw it myself." Seeing for me is not the be all and end all of validation for anything, sorry. There was a thread here awhile back discussing that show. Many seemed to be making the same comments as we are here.


No, its not unclear. He didn’t

Again, have a source? I don't doubt you persay, I'm just saying that in all the things I googled and read about this case it was not mentioned specifically when he started studying at the academy.


Do you really think the police didn't consider these themselves? It would, after all, make them look better to solve a case with -their- efforts, rather than a psychic's.

To be honest I quite disagree here. I'm sure so long as they think it helps the police accept any help. At the time of the search the last thing on their minds is likely what makes them look better. They are in a panic to find a missing boy and whatever suggestion, no matter where it comes from that can possibly help find that boy will be accepted readily. And we don't know initially how readily they accepted Jordan's map. Lets not forget that he was known to the father, that a call for volunteers for the next day had already been put out. So the next day, as time is getting to the crunch, and then Jordan comes forth with his map and the fathers recommendation (if that is how it happened) then I'm sure they would look into it. Did the whole group follow Jordan? Did they just spare a few searchers to go with Jordan? Who was with Jordan when they found the child? The lead investigator? Other searchers? All searchers? Did the search stop and completely refocus on where Jordan's map pointed too? Plenty of unknown details that could skew this story.


Again, I think this is confirmation bias. Neither you nor I know whether mundane explanations are more plausible in this case or not. The –fact- remains that some police investigators themselves testify to the helpfulness of psychics and feel convinced that it was through paranormal means.

By what means are police investigators able to quantify anything done by paranormal means? You yourself above state that its hard to distinguish between normal intuition and psychic ability. So how can we trust the investigators to have made a clear unbiased judgement here? We cannot.


I don’t know, nor do you. If it exists, it probably is in the police report on the case.

I would hope it exists :). As it stands, we've no idea that it does. I don't doubt it does, but what became of it gives me pause.


I notice that no one has any interest in my criticism of Nickell’s authors for not even contacting the police involved with this case. Not once.

I don't think most of us disagree that sources are not always checked throughly. Our main concern here is the validity of Jordan's case as a good example of psychic ability being key to an investigation. So far its not shaping up very well.


I never said it “proved” it. I said that Stoessel’s statement is an opinion, not a fact. His opinion is by no means clearly the only possibility, either.
Obviously not the only possibility. But if this is one of the better examples of alternate possibilities, then Stoessel's statement is at very least the more likely of the two in my opinion.

[Starrman]

Shouldn't Jordan be busy drawing maps for the thousands of missing children still out there? He has this amazing ability and has found one kid that was lost in a thunderstorm. What kind of bastard claims to have such an ability but only uses it once, leaving tortured parents around the globe to suffer.

Clancie - if someone you loved went missing, and you could only choose between this guy and the police, who would you call?

[Clancie]

Starrman,

I doubt I'd call a psychic, but...maybe, if the police seemed incompetent (some are, you know), or leads went cold. I'd probably also hire a private detective. I'd try everything.

But...let's not overlook my point in the thread. I'm making no claims for Jordan myself. I'm simply pointing to him as one of a variety of psychics whom various police departments have used to good effect. I think Randi et al's statement is fine as an opinion. Not as a fact.

Posted by voidx

Most of the articles I found gave a pretty decent outline of what happened which is why I wondered, if any, if extra details changed the nature of the story. So, assuming you may have read these items, do you feel there are any significant details not mentioned in this thread so far that bear mentioning?

I'll go through your whole post later, but this caught my eye for now.

I've shared some of these details already, as well as the "criticism" of Jordan made in the Psychic Sleuths. I can't recapitulate the whole chapter here. Sorry.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm simply pointing to him as one of a variety of psychics whom various police departments have used to good effect.

No evidence has ever been admitted to a court case as being psychic evidence.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

No evidence has ever been admitted to a court case as being psychic evidence.

Police use inadmissible evidence, not to mention hunches and other non-evidence, all the time in their investigations. If you've ever seen the various "anonymous tip" lines, those are almost entirely inadmissible. That something cannot be presented in court doesn't mean it's not useful.

Of course, it doesn't mean that it's useful, either. Most tips turn out to be duds.

[thaiboxerken]

Ahh, but it also means that it cannot be said that psychics have ever broken a case.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
I doubt I'd call a psychic, but...maybe, if the police seemed incompetent (some are, you know), or leads went cold. I'd probably also hire a private detective. I'd try everything.

And if one of those random everythings happened to find your child I bet you wouldn't waste a lot of time thinking to critically of it, you'd just be happy to have your child back and the police would be happy to have found the child, which is why I pause when considering their comments on the validity of the "psychic" powers at work here.


But...let's not overlook my point in the thread. I'm making no claims for Jordan myself.

Are you sure?

And where are those "skeptics" who say, "Show me one psychic who has ever found a missing child! Just one!" Wel, here one is, Phil Jordan. So...has anyone changed his or her mind about any of this in any way at all?:rolleyes:

From this thread: ]http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=39536
Now I admit, you don't say "psychic powers" in this statement. Just that a psychic found a missing child. By what means, well, thats what we're debating here. This on some level is semantic nitpicking to me.


I'm simply pointing to him as one of a variety of psychics whom various police departments have used to good effect. I think Randi et al's statement is fine as an opinion. Not as a fact.

I admit, it might be a little to sweeping of a statement to make. But as this example of Phil Jordan has proven, there really seems to be a lack of conclusive cases of psychics using psychic abilities to solve investigations. Its a very safe assumption to make so far. Should they tout it as fact? Well, thats debatable as well.


I've shared some of these details already, as well as the "criticism" of Jordan made in the Psychic Sleuths. I can't recapitulate the whole chapter here. Sorry.
I reread the thread as I thought I might have missed something. The only information you've provided to date was to a thread pertaining to the CNN interview with Jordan, which I had initially linked in this thread. And then put in a blurb about the Psychic sleuths critique. Neither of which provided us with any tidbits of information not already known/discussed in this thread and the CNN transcript I originally linked. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think so.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have absolutely no idea. Moreover, I haven't read any of this thread. Certainly I would not trust skeptics say so on this matter or any other matter regarding anomalous phenomena.

Because... they ask questions?

Moving on, because you're contributing as much as, oh, nothing.

I'm going to second the, "If he had a map, why did they wait until morning to find the kid?" Back east, there are at least two missing kids in the woods a year. Nightfall is dangerous not only because of animals, but because the temperature drops. If the weather permits and they have the halogen flashlights, they will look as long as possible. If you lost a kid, and there's a "map", you get some flashlights, some protection from the wildlife and you get to looking. There is no excuse for waiting until morning if you've got as good a map as is claimed.

Why was Jordan there? Did he just come upon the scene?

Lakes will often have boathouses or other buildings nearby for swimmers and such. Also, there are often boats. That are overturned. It happened in the Northeast. There are also a lot of stones that are either half-built objects or the remains of.

Now, out of all those times, we've got one anectode where the psychic was helpful. Statistics will allow that.

And now for some general points.

Facts are proven. If you can not prove that a psychic has helped in a case, then it is not a fact.

If one A is a B, it does not follow that all As are Bs, nor that many As are Bs or even that a few As are Bs. If one psychic, by luck or ability, has helped, it does not follow that all psychics have helped, many have, or even a few have helped a police case.

Ian, see my first statements. Skeptics ask questions. Questions are good. They lead to knowledge. There is no knowledge that is not power.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I think Randi et al's statement is fine as an opinion. Not as a fact.

Randi's statement is fine as a fact. I'd explain it to you if you weren't so intent on hiding from me and your own beliefs.

[Pixel42]

I can't prove that Father Christmas doesn't exist, but if there is an explanation of how childrens' presents come to be waiting for them on Christmas morning that doesn't involve flying reindeer, then I submit that it more likely to be true than an explanation that does involve flying reindeer.

A rational, emotionally mature adult looks for the most likely explanations, rather than the most fantastic. Clearly there are more likely explanations of the case of the missing child than that this guy Jordan has psychic powers.

Until and unless "X has psychic powers" is the most likely explanation of any incident, I will remain sceptical.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Pixel42
Until and unless "X has psychic powers" is the most likely explanation of any incident, I will remain sceptical.

And Randi and others will continue being correct when they state that no psyhic has ever solved a crime using supernatural powers.

[Thanz]

I think that TLN has it basically right here, but I do think that the wording of the satement "No psychic has ever helped find a missing child" is misleading. When I read that, I think that no self-proclaimed psychic has ever given police info that was helpful. That appears to be not the case, although I agree that to make the leap from the provision of helpful info to believing some dude has psychic powers is too much. Even a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut.

If I were a cop, and some guy came in claiming to be psychic and drew me a map of where I could find a missing kid - and it turned out to be accurate - the first thing I would do is investigate the "psychic" for potential involvement in the crime.

Anyway, "No psychic has ever helped find a missing child" is a statement of fact that is easily disproven using anecdotes. Saying that no one has ever been proven to have psychic ability that can solve crimes is a much more accurate statement.

[Wudang]

So much nitpicking. Let's try another (hypothetical) claim. In an article on the use of the armed forces as peacekeepers I read "There are limits and military force is not a good solution to marital problems". Well me and my wife were arguing and my brother who's in the army pulled me out the room until we both cooled off and then we were fine. So since my brother was in the army that was military force.
Or was it? He wasn't acting in a military capcacity. We understand what military force should mean in this context. Surely in the context of the claim in question the key point was whether he was acting as a psychic at the time or not?
I realise others have implicitly made the same point. The above example is hypothetical btw.

Editted to add: strictly speaking it should be "my brother who claims to be in the army" for a stricter analogy.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Originally posted by Pixel42
Until and unless "X has psychic powers" is the most likely explanation of any incident, I will remain sceptical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And Randi and others will continue being correct when they state that no psyhic has ever solved a crime using supernatural powers.

It's wholly irrelevant whether he is correct or not. This is not the issue of this thread. Randi is making a definitive statement. He saying no psychic has ever solved a crime. Now we have evidence which suggests otherwise. Therefore how does he know this is true??

Is anyone able to answer this question??

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's wholly irrelevant whether he is correct or not. This is not the issue of this thread. Randi is making a definitive statement. He saying no psychic has ever solved a crime. Now we have evidence which suggests otherwise. Therefore how does he know this is true??

Is anyone able to answer this question??
Oooo! Pick me! Pick me! (too bad you have me on ignore).

He knows this is true because there has never been any person certified as a genuine psychic under controlled testing conditions. Now if your asking if no one who calls themself a psychic has ever solved a crime, then that is a different question.

[The Mighty Thor]

Actually, the neighbor told Jordan about it when he came home. He talked to the father afterwards (the father was a writer and had earlier written an article about Jordan’s psychic abilities).

When I read this I immediately thought that this could have been a 'put-up job'. Jordan is interested in getting credo as a psychic. He also wants the police to notice him, since he wants to be a cop. The father is a writer who has already written about Jordan's 'abilities', and no doubt has an interest in further articles or a book on Jordan.

So, is it not also possible that the kid was intentionally 'hiding' somewhere (quite safe) that Jordan and the father already knew about? It sounds rather cynical, but worse things have happened when vested interests are at stake.

[The Mighty Thor]

:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's wholly irrelevant whether he is correct or not. This is not the issue of this thread. Randi is making a definitive statement. He saying no psychic has ever solved a crime. Now we have evidence which suggests otherwise. Therefore how does he know this is true??

Is anyone able to answer this question??

Evidence? What evidence? Even the important map does not seem to have been kept. What evidence 'suggests otherwise'?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Oooo! Pick me! Pick me! (too bad you have me on ignore).

He knows this is true because there has never been any person certified as a genuine psychic under controlled testing conditions. Now if your asking if no one who calls themself a psychic has ever solved a crime, then that is a different question.

Yeah I've still got you on ignore, although where I feel you might have responded to me I find myself clicking the button to see what you've said.

What you're saying here (and also Randi) is that because X has not been conclusively scientifically shown to exist, therefore X has been shown not to exist.

This is of course absurd.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor


Evidence? What evidence? Even the important map does not seem to have been kept. What evidence 'suggests otherwise'?

{sighs} Please pay attention. This is what Clancie stated in her opening post:


Psychic Phil Jordan, for one, is undeniably acknowledged by the police themselves as having been largely responsible for finding a missing child.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yeah I've still got you on ignore, although where I feel you might have responded to me I find myself clicking the button to see what you've said.

What you're saying here (and also Randi) is that because X has not been conclusively scientifically shown to exist, therefore X has been shown not to exist.

This is of course absurd.
There are no verifiable psychics. Therefore no verifiable psychic has solved a crime. I could call myself a psychic, and then when I find where my wife mislaid her card keys, claim I found them with my psychic abilities. Unless I can do it under controlled conditions, I would be misrepresenting myself as a psychic.

Your tremendous anecdotal database notwithstanding, there has never been a psychic able to perform on demand. You may say, "It only works intermittantly. You can't control it." Yeah, well the same is true of plain old luck.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
[B]
There are no verifiable psychics. Therefore no verifiable psychic has solved a crime.



This is because one can always come up with scenarios to explain something away regardless of how plausible those scenarios are.

None of this alters the fact that Randi's assertion simply cannot be sustained. It is either dishonesty or sheer stupidity which prevents people from realising this.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is because one can always come up with scenarios to explain something away regardless of how plausible those scenarios are.

None of this alters the fact that Randi's assertion simply cannot be sustained. It is either dishonesty or sheer stupidity which prevents people from realising this.
It is the assertion that real psychics exist that cannot be sustained. When you have demonstrated (not asserted) otherwise, I will change my mind.

[scratchy]

Im to tired to go trough the thread, so maybe this has already been said.


Isnt it a fact that just by chance the remote viewers has to be right at least sometimes. Anecdotal evidence -even if its true sometimes- cant convince me that r w in general is an effective tool for police investigations.

Also: a remote viewer pointing in a new direction is likely to enhance the chance of solving a case even if he actually doesnt have a clue. Thats because
1. the investigation is looked through one more time
2. a remote viewer might atract outside attention to the case wich can result in new information.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


{sighs} Please pay attention. This is what Clancie stated in her opening post:



'The police' are often misled, mistaken, or simply duped.

The 'put-up job' scenario cannot be ruled out.

The 'lucky guess' scenario cannot be ruled out.

There is no evidence here that Jordan 'helped solve' this case. There are only biased anecdotes and selective memories. The only reason for emphasising that Jordan is a supposed psychic is to imply that he solved the case by psychic means.

Psychic Phil Jordan, for one, is undeniably acknowledged by the police themselves as having been largely responsible for finding a missing child.

He 'saw' the map and drew it out. He 'saw' implies a psychic methodology. But what Clancie seems now to be saying is that 'Psychic Phil Jordan helped solve the case by mundane means'. Her semantic quibbles leave us with something like the headline:

'UFO absolutely, positively, uncategorically identified as an genuine Unidentified Flying Object.'

Or, 'Psychic solves case by not using his super powers.'

Clancie is playing her 'Peter Morris' desperation card here -- i.e. The Joker, when it is not 'wild'.

Hint: There is usually more than one Joker in the pack.

[edited to change Philip to Peter]

[lofgoernost]

For any interested, I noticed today that Joe Nickell has a brief article on Phil Jordan in the May/June issue of Skeptical Inquirer. I only scanned through it at the store - one thing I noticed was the contention by Nickell that Jordan wasn't even with the group that found the Kennedy boy - the discovery was made by a group of searchers who heard the boy calling for help. I believe that Nickell cites Jordan's own book for that piece of info (but I may be mistaken - my reading comp skills plummet when I'm standing at a magazine rack surrounded by issues of Maxim).

Anyone read it? (The Nickell article - not Maxim).

[Azrael 5]

This a slight deviation from subject,I dunno,but I have come across a "medium"(do I need the inverted commas really?)who claims he found a dead body purely using psychic powers.On a UK Ghost forum,he's user name is Gimlit and here's the link(its a bit awkward to navigate the topics on there but anyway...)
Psychic detective (http://www.ghosts-uk.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2429&post_id=27079&order=0&viewmode=flat&pid=27075&forum=30#forumpost27079) ;)

[bluess]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes I imagine that you would do so. "Best newbie" who fails to understand simple English, is completely utterly clueless as to what evidence means, what proof means etc. Seems to me that it is as pointless discussing anything with Marian as it is discussing things with you.

But you haven't read any of the thread (per your last comment). How could you evaluate Marian's capacities?

:confused: