Police and Psychics

[Ed]

Clanie, I said this:

Is it that dirt smeared natives of the Orinoco less physically and emotionally attractive and therefore are less credable than ?

And you gave me that quizzical cartoon.

The point is that Hurst and the others are not mud dripping savages and play better in homes of a better sort. I wonder how much the medium is the message?

(God, I crack myself up, sorry McLuhan, you big lug:D )

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
The evidence is in the Anthropological literature. Frazier is a good place to start. My offer stands.

The Golden Bough, by Sir James George Frazer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/)

[Clancie]

Ed,

I argue mediumship from the "pro" point of view for a reason (which I've repeated before, probably too much). In reality, I -don't- "know" and have realized that I can't "believe". I'm okay with that gray area.

Claus's quotes are from 2002. It is now 2004. I continue to argue the pro side (and I think it's the stronger, more interesting side), but, regardless of the pov I take in discussion here and elsewhere, I -always- have doubts. I wouldn't mind being a believer, and I can argue that point of view, but in reality, I don't "believe". I want to "know", one way or the other...and I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

Robert Brown...Brian Hurst....Kathleen Tucci....have all given me informative and interesting readings that made me feel "there might be something to this." Yet none of these readings has been so definitive that it has resolved each and every question about the process and been completely convincing that ADC is real.

I know this position is difficult for some here to grasp or accept...as is the "willing suspension of disbelief" in responding to other people's experiences with ADC. Oh well. So be it.

[thaiboxerken]

I still believe that you are a believer woo-woo, Clancie, simply because you only argue from the believer POV.

[Clancie]

Posted by TBK

I still believe that you are a believer woo-woo, Clancie, simply because you only argue from the believer POV.
Yes, that's fine. I don't make any distinction here for that reason.

But...just curious. You think there is the believer pov. And a skeptical pov that, to you, I think says all mediumship is fraudulent and all mediums are fake.

How would you define the position between these two extremes? And do you feel that "middle ground" position is as valid as the "skeptical" one?

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Try to stay on topic. We are discussing your conflicting statements on your stance on mediumship.

How can you say that you have received information from spirits (through mediums) and at the same time say you do not believe that such information has been received?

Don't you see the contradiction here?

[thaiboxerken]

But...just curious. You think there is the believer pov. And a skeptical pov that, to you, I think says all mediumship is fraudulent and all mediums are fake.

I think there is a believer POV and a skeptic's POV.


How would you define the position between these two extremes?

One position makes no conclusion without evidence to support it.

And do you feel that "middle ground" position is as valid as the "skeptical" one?

There is no middle ground, you either believe or you don't. When it comes to mediumship, you are a believer. When it comes to other subjects, you might be a skeptic. You don't believe all that claim to be mediums are really mediums, but you definitely believe that some are. Your conclusions are not based on any evidence.

[Clancie]

Posted by Thaiboxerken

Your conclusions are not based on any evidence.
They are based on so called anecdotal evidence and "evidence" from personal observation/experience.

They are not based on scientific testing--i.e. results of laboratory testing that is replicable, double-blind, peer reviewed.

You think the latter is the only thing that counts as "evidence". I don't. That's the difference between your conclusion ("no evidence for it therefore, so far, it doesn't exist") and mine ("There might be something to it.")

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


The Golden Bough, by Sir James George Frazer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/)

Damn. Claus, you just saved me $14.95!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Clancie

They are based on so called anecdotal evidence and "evidence" from personal observation/experience.


Anecdotes are not reliable evidence at all. So basically, you are a believer because the stories sound good to you.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

They are based on so called anecdotal evidence and "evidence" from personal observation/experience.

They are not based on scientific testing--i.e. results of laboratory testing that is replicable, double-blind, peer reviewed.

You think the latter is the only thing that counts as "evidence". I don't. That's the difference between your conclusion ("no evidence for it therefore, so far, it doesn't exist") and mine ("There might be something to it.")

Ergo....toads is good?

What precisely is the difference between your beliefs and those of my noble savages? They have personal evidence, and they have, as a people doing their silly thing a lot longer than too well off westerners.

What is the difference?

[Clancie]

Ed,

I'm still waiting for all those references and links re: toads (also the testimonials from meteorologists). You say it's analogous to the mountain of anecdotal evidence from credible people re: psychics (including professionals using them in their work--like police and psychics).

So...where is all this "evidence"?

(P.S. Just because someone believes one thing that you feel is preposterous doesn't mean they believe any of the other things you feel are preposterous. To you, it may be "all the same". Most other people would view it on a "case by case basis", as I do. We probably agree about most other things, maybe even all.)

[CFLarsen]

How many anecdotes do we need, before we can call it a mountain?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie
Ed,

I'm still waiting for all those references and links re: toads (also the testimonials from meteorologists). You say it's analogous to the mountain of anecdotal evidence from credible people re: psychics (including professionals using them in their work--like police and psychics).

So...where is all this "evidence"?

(P.S. Just because someone believes one thing that you feel is preposterous doesn't mean they believe any of the other things you feel are preposterous. To you, it may be "all the same". Most other people would view it on a "case by case basis", as I do. We probably agree about most other things, maybe even all.)

Claus posted a link to Frazier's work. It is heavily referenced.

Just because western scientists might not support the use of toads for meteorological purposes, you cannot gainsay the years of anecdotes and personal experience behind these beliefs. In fact, I think that you will find as much hard science behind most of the things Frazier reports and mediumship or any other trendy western belief. In fact, the very lack of proof might demonstrate the "negative influence" of those scientists which in itself, in the world of woo at least, consititutes affirmation.

Why do you look for good science when it comes to toads but somehow get credulous when it comes to your own belief system? Are the beliefs of savages beneath you? How very un-PC of you.

[Clancie]

What pages re: anecdotal evidence re: toads and weather in the Golden Bough? Give me a few days and I'll get my copy back from my ex.

But, if the toad evidence is comparable to the evidence for mediumship/psychcs, as you say, then it can't possibly be limited to one book only. What are the other books devoted to this? Where are your links?

Still no answer re: "police using psychics to help solve crimes" and "meteorologists using toads to help with weather predictions"?

C'mon, Ed. You said the evidence is comparable so...pony it up! Otherwise, I'll start to think your claim for toads is a bit...disingenuous. :(

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How many anecdotes do we need, before we can call it a mountain?

What he said. This stuff goes way back. Certainly further back than TV mediums.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie
Ed,

(P.S. Just because someone believes one thing that you feel is preposterous doesn't mean they believe any of the other things you feel are preposterous. To you, it may be "all the same". Most other people would view it on a "case by case basis", as I do. We probably agree about most other things, maybe even all.)

But, aside from the rather rank nature of their proponents, not believe these native thingies? Does the nature of evidence change? Why? Why not toads? Or is it that your beliefs are rather like the toad believers who scoff at their neighbors who believe that swallowing worms influences the weather?

What is the difference?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
What pages re: anecdotal evidence re: toads and weather in the Golden Bough? Give me a few days and I'll get my copy back from my ex.

But, if the toad evidence is comparable to the evidence for mediumship/psychcs, as you say, then it can't possibly be limited to one book only. What are the other books devoted to this? Where are your links?

Still no answer re: "police using psychics to help solve crimes" and "meteorologists using toads to help with weather predictions"?

C'mon, Ed. You said the evidence is comparable so...pony it up! Otherwise, I'll start to think your claim for toads is a bit...disingenuous. :(

No need to wait. Nothing disingenuous about the claim:

Chapter 5. The Magical Control of the Weather.
Section 2. The Magical Control of Rain.

The intimate association of frogs and toads with water has earned for these creatures a widespread reputation as custodians of rain; and hence they often play a part in charms designed to draw needed showers from the sky. Some of the Indians of the Orinoco held the toad to be the god or lord of the waters, and for that reason feared to kill the creature. They have been known to keep frogs under a pot and to beat them with rods when there was a drought. It is said that the Aymara Indians often make little images of frogs and other aquatic animals and place them on the tops of the hills as a means of bringing down rain. The Thompson Indians of British Columbia and some people in Europe think that to kill a frog will cause rain to fall. In order to procure rain people of low caste in the Central Provinces of India will tie a frog to a rod covered with green leaves and branches of the nîm tree (Azadirachta Indica) and carry it from door to door singing:

“Send soon, O frog, the jewel of water!

And ripen the wheat and millet in the field.” 18

The Kapus or Reddis are a large caste of cultivators and landowners in the Madras Presidency. When rain fails, women of the caste will catch a frog and tie it alive to a new winnowing fan made of bamboo. On this fan they spread a few margosa leaves and go from door to door singing, “Lady frog must have her bath. Oh! rain-god, give a little water for her at least.” While the Kapu women sing this song, the woman of the house pours water over the frog and gives an alms, convinced that by so doing she will soon bring rain down in torrents. 19

Source: Frazer: The Golden Bough. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/gb00502.htm)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie
What pages re: anecdotal evidence re: toads and weather in the Golden Bough? Give me a few days and I'll get my copy back from my ex.

But, if the toad evidence is comparable to the evidence for mediumship/psychcs, as you say, then it can't possibly be limited to one book only. What are the other books devoted to this? Where are your links?

Still no answer re: "police using psychics to help solve crimes" and "meteorologists using toads to help with weather predictions"?

C'mon, Ed. You said the evidence is comparable so...pony it up! Otherwise, I'll start to think your claim for toads is a bit...disingenuous. :(

Toads is but one example. As I said Frazier or any basic text on folklore will provide hundreds if not thousands of examples. All believed, all supported by anecdotes.

C'mon. You know damn right well that the anthropological literature is concerned largly with this loony stuff.

[thaiboxerken]

Looks like Clancie has appeal to populararity when it comes to anecdotes. She's never heard of the toad thing, it's not that popular, so anecdotes about them cannot be evidence. Mediumship, however, has lots of believers and appeals to her emotionally, so anecdotes about mediumship must contain some truth.

[Clancie]

Posted by Thaiboxerken

Looks like Clancie has appeal to populararity when it comes to anecdotes. She's never heard of the toad thing, it's not that popular, so anecdotes about them cannot be evidence. Mediumship, however, has lots of believers and appeals to her emotionally, so anecdotes about mediumship must contain some truth.
Ah...a False Analogy, TBK.

(1) I have heard of "the toad thing".

(2) I never said, "it's not popular so anecdotes can't be evidence." Straw Man #1.

(3) I've never said because there are many mediumship believers and it appeals to me emotionally that therefore it must contain truth. Straw Man #2.
Posted by Ed

Toads have the same level of support (anecdotal) as communication with the dead.
Ed,

Sadly, you have not supported this claim. You've mentioned part of a 1922 book with some anecdotes about toads. You have -not- shown they have the same level of (anecdotal) support as mediumship. (Also, no apparent evidence--not even anecdotal--of professionals currently using toads to forecast the weather as professional police detectives -do- use mediumship).

If you ever -do- find a comparable level of anecdotal evidence/support for the toad claim, please reference it here and I'll look into it further and give you my opinion.

So far, there seems no point of comparison between the quantity and quality of information about "toads forecasting weather" and that for mediumship...at all.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
(1) I have heard of "the toad thing".

So, why is the "toad thing" not comparable to the belief in mediumship?

Originally posted by Clancie
(2) I never said, "it's not popular so anecdotes can't be evidence." Straw Man #1.

So, why is the "toad thing" not comparable to the belief in mediumship?

Originally posted by Clancie
(3) I've never said because there are many mediumship believers and it appeals to me emotionally that therefore it must contain truth. Straw Man #2.

But you draw a distinction between them, yet fail to tell us why they are different.

Originally posted by Clancie
Sadly, you have not supported this claim.

You have not even bothered to look up Frazer! Somebody, please repost the quote from Frazer for Clancie. Please!

Originally posted by Clancie
You've mentioned part of a 1925 book with some anecdotes about toads. You have -not- shown they have the same level of (anecdotal) support as mediumship.

OK, you want to play hardball: Please quantify the level of (anecdotal) support for mediumship.

Originally posted by Clancie
(Also, no apparent evidence--not even anecdotal--of professionals currently using toads to forecast the weather as professional police detectives -do- use mediumship).

Moving the goalposts: Now, it has to be "currently". Why 2004 and not 1925? Where do we set the limit, Clancie?

Originally posted by Clancie
If you ever -do- find a comparable level of anecdotal evidence/support for the toad claim, please reference it here and I'll look into it further and give you my opinion.

Then, pray, tell, what is a "comparable" level of anecdotal evidence/support of whatever claim available?

Originally posted by Clancie
So far, there seems no point of comparison between the quantity and quality of information about "toads forecasting weather" and that for mediumship...at all.

Where is the "quantity" and "quality" of information about mediumship???

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

Ah...a False Analogy, TBK.

(1) I have heard of "the toad thing".

(2) I never said, "it's not popular so anecdotes can't be evidence." Straw Man #1.

(3) I've never said because there are many mediumship believers and it appeals to me emotionally that therefore it must contain truth. Straw Man #2.
[/b]
Ed,

Sadly, you have not supported this claim. You've mentioned part of a 1922 book with some anecdotes about toads. You have -not- shown they have the same level of (anecdotal) support as mediumship. (Also, no apparent evidence--not even anecdotal--of professionals currently using toads to forecast the weather as professional police detectives -do- use mediumship).

If you ever -do- find a comparable level of anecdotal evidence/support for the toad claim, please reference it here and I'll look into it further and give you my opinion.

So far, there seems no point of comparison between the quantity and quality of information about "toads forecasting weather" and that for mediumship...at all. [/B]

Nonsense. Reported by a scientist in a seminal work...far better than any woo stuff that I have come accross.

What about all of the other claims in Frazier?

ince you question the date, from what point is anecdotal eviidence acceptable?

[Virgil]

our local PD is using a psychic to help find a missing college student. I sent them a nasty letter explaining everything and listing Randi as a contact. then last month the lead detechive gave a long interview praising his own incompetence, I mean the results of the psychic.

I was going to send them a magic 8 ball but ...I don't need anymore parking tickets



Virgil

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

Reported by a scientist in a seminal work...far better than any woo stuff that I have come accross.
Ed,

What are you talking about? Fraser's an anthropologist, documenting folklore and religion. He conducts no experiments and makes no claims for toads in this "seminal work" of cultural anthropology.

I'll ask again (last time). Where are the books about toads predicting the weather? Where are the documented accounts and studies of anecdotal evidence, past and present, from educated and non-educated sources, from industrialized and pre-industrialized countries around the world? (aka, mountains of anecdotal evidence like there is re: psychics/mediumship).

Where are professionals (meteorologists, eg.) using toads to successfully help predict weather the way that police professionals say psychics help them in their work?

You have said that the anecdotal evidence for this toad claim and for mediumship is comparable. I can give you tons of anecdotal evidence (as I've requested from you above) on the subject of mediumship and psychics.

Where is your "comparable" quantity and quality of evidence re: toads and the weather?

Oh, let's just admit. It's a tactic to try to lump two things together than have nothing in common other than you think they're both equally ridiculous. But one has considerable evidence for it (though not "lab evidence")...the other has...minimal to none.

[thaiboxerken]

Where is your "comparable" quantity

Since we're talking anecdotes here, this IS an appeal to popularity.


and quality of evidence re: toads and the weather?

The quality of anecdotes are the same if there is no physical evidence to support it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
What are you talking about? Fraser's an anthropologist, documenting folklore and religion. He conducts no experiments and makes no claims for toads in this "seminal work" of cultural anthropology.

The author does not have to make a personal claim: He is merely reporting it. Does that invalidate that people believe it? Of course not.

Anthropology is also about superstitious beliefs.

Originally posted by Clancie
I'll ask again (last time). Where are the books about toads predicting the weather? Where are the documented accounts and studies of anecdotal evidence, past and present, from educated and non-educated sources, from industrialized and pre-industrialized countries around the world? (aka, mountains of anecdotal evidence like there is re: psychics/mediumship).

Here's one:

"It is lucky to meet a toad. To kill one brings down rain or may cause a storm".
"The Encyclopedia of Superstitions". (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586636170/qid=1081662149/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7746271-1599937?v=glance&s=books)

It's from 1948. Still too old?

Toad Brings Down the Rain - A Yoeme Legend (http://www.heard.org/rain/languag5/toad.html)

This legend is still believed, Clancie. But then, it is believed by Indians...so it doesn't count.

Originally posted by Clancie
Where are professionals (meteorologists, eg.) using toads to successfully help predict weather the way that police professionals say psychics help them in their work?

Try zoologists: Toads do actually appear when it rains - otherwise they might drown. This was not known before, but thanks to scientific methods, we have learned otherwise.

Originally posted by Clancie
You have said that the anecdotal evidence for this toad claim and for mediumship is comparable. I can give you tons of anecdotal evidence (as I've requested from you above) on the subject of mediumship and psychics.

Where is your "comparable" quantity and quality of evidence re: toads and the weather?

How much is enough? How well supported must this anecdotal evidence be?

Originally posted by Clancie
Oh, let's just admit. It's a tactic to try to lump two things together than have nothing in common other than you think they're both equally ridiculous. But one has considerable evidence for it (though not "lab evidence")...the other has...minimal to none.

Bullsh1t. You are the one trying to evade the dirty fact: There is absolutely no difference between a belief in mediumship and a belief that toads will bring rain.

That's hard to admit, though.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
(S)ince you question the date, from what point is anecdotal eviidence acceptable?

Aparently, Clancie has mixed feelings about this. She rejects Frazer, because it is from 1925, but accepts Mrs. Piper, whose abilities were investigated by SPR in 1889.

36 years earlier. Just another case of how....versatile....the mind of a believer is.

[Suezoled]

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/index.html

seems like a good place to post this if it hasn't been already. Just some cases of psychics and skeptics, and their arguments.

[CFLarsen]

Oops, one more reference about frogs and rain:

Chac

The Mayan god of fertility and agriculture, the one who sends thunder and rain. Later he appears as one of the Bacabs, a group of four protective deities, where Chac is the personification of the east. The center of his cult was in Chichen Itzan (Yucatan). He is the Tlaloc of the Aztec and the rain god Cocijo of the Zapotec. Chac is portrayed with two curling fangs, a long turned-up nose and tears streaming from his wide eyes. His hair was made up of a tangle of knots.

Chac was beneficent and a friend of man. He taught them how to grow vegetables and was the protector of their cornfields. The Maya appealed to him for rain by means of particular ceremonies by which the men would settle outside the village and adhere to strict observance of fasting and sexual abstinence. The animal associated with Chac is the frog, because it signals the coming of rain by its croaking.

He is also known as Ah Hoya ("he who urinates"), Ah Tzenul ("he who gives food to others"), and Hopop Caan ("he who lights up the sky").
Source: Encyclopedia Mythica (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/c/chac.html)

I really think it would be nice to know why a whole civilization can be wrong about this.

[thaiboxerken]

The sad thing is that she probably contradicts herself without knowing it. Believers tend to ignore flaws in their beliefs and the reasoning for those beliefs.

[Ed]

We must also bear in mind that these beliefs are rooted in the experience of the practitioners. That is to say, if one wished to wade thru the literature, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence. To deny that implies that these cultures exert energy for something with no perceivable value, a racist perspective.

We might also discuss the evidence from antiquity of the value of the Delphic and Sybiline oracles. Clear evidence of communication, except here with currently discounted Gods.

After that, we might discuss the evidence for witches. There I have at hand testamony of their activities. The interested parties might consult Nevins, Starkey, Hayward in preparation.

When you accept anecdotes, the world is truely demon haunted.

And there is not one jot of difference between the Mallius Malefacarum and the work of Schwartz or the blatherings of JE, SB, or any of the other current crop of frauds or their accolytes. If there is I would like to hear about it.

[CFLarsen]

The Malleus Maleficarum (http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/)

[Clancie]

Actually, Ed, re toads...how sure are you that they -don't- respond to changes in barometric pressure and humidity (i.e. notice conditions for rain) before we ourselves actually can see the rain fall?

You think that primitive people using toads to forecast rain is preposterous, but why are you so sure of that?

I'm sure you've heard about the Spadefoot toad, the one that digs into the ground during the dry season and surrounds itself in a kind of moist coccoon to keep from drying out. This toad is sensitive to changes in humidity and reappears when the rain comes.

There are also frogs here in the US called the Spring Peeper which starts chorusing at lower temperatues than other frogs (mid 50s to 60s) and is therefore associated with the warming of the weather and the coming of spring. Amphibians are ectotherms, and are highly sensitive to the weather.

So, not that I really want to argue this with you (especially on a thread purportedly about Psychics and the Police), but does the idea that we might notice how toads respond to weather changes before we ourselves can see a storm coming really seem so preposterous to you? "Bringing" rain would just be an easy misconception for primitive people based on their noticing changed behavior in toads prior to the arrival of a storm. The explanation is wrong, but the phenomena itself is true.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, Ed, re toads...how sure are you that they -don't- respond to changes in barometric pressure and humidity (i.e. notice conditions for rain) before we ourselves actually can see the rain fall?

You think that primitive people using toads to forecast rain is preposterous, but why are you so sure of that?

I'm sure you've heard about the Spadefoot toad, the one that digs into the ground during the dry season and surrounds itself in a kind of moist coccoon to keep from drying out. This toad is sensitive to changes in humidity and reappears when the rain comes.

The Spadefoot toad does not appear until after it rains:
URL=http://ccwild.cbi.tamucc.edu/naturalhistory/couch's_spadefoot_toad/csfacc.htm

They have been found as deep as one metre below the surface. Spadefoots are nocturnal, and are especially active after a rainfall.
Source (http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/amphib/ps.html)

Can be found above ground after rain (http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa/frogcensus/nicholls.html), in flooded shrubland.

Originally posted by Clancie
There are also frogs here in the US called the Spring Peeper which starts chorusing at lower temperatues than other frogs (mid 50s to 60s) and is therefore associated with the warming of the weather and the coming of spring. Amphibians are ectotherms, and are highly sensitive to the weather.

So, not that I really want to argue this with you (especially on a thread purportedly about Psychics and the Police), but does the idea that we might notice how toads respond to weather changes before we ourselves can see a storm coming really seem so preposterous to you? "Bringing" rain would just be an easy misconception for primitive people based on their noticing changed behavior in toads prior to the arrival of a storm. The explanation is wrong, but the phenomena itself is true.

Not "prior to the arrival of a storm".

[Virgil]

I have seem strong rain storms make it appear as if toad/frog were raining down on the road. I suspect that they were jumping out of the high grass along the roads to escape drowning. the strong wind might have blown them around too.


virgil

[CFLarsen]

Same thing with earth worms (Lumbricus terrestris): We call them "rainworms" in Danish, because they seek the ground when it rains, to avoid drowning.

Before the rain, they stay out of sight. Jeeest like Toadie....

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Same thing with earth worms (Lumbricus terrestris): We call them "rainworms" in Danish, because they seek the ground when it rains, to avoid drowning.

Before the rain, they stay out of sight. Jeeest like Toadie....

So we might persue the mundane explination for a connection between toads and weather or we might invoke the paranormal.

Clancie, do you see anything familiar here?

We'll move on to witches next.:D

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

So we might persue the mundane explination for a connection between toads and weather or we might invoke the paranormal.

Clancie, do you see anything familiar here?
Yes. And I'm glad that I could point out that mundane explanation to you. :p

Ed,

There are numerous occurrences that have been given erroneous explanations in folklore. Many of these, like the toads and frogs, were natural phenomena, accurately observed but wrongly interpreted.

This fact does not, however, extrapolate as you hope it does. You can't argue that because some phenomena have erroneously been attributed to "paranormal" causes that therefore we know nothing "paranormal" can be real. It simply doesn't -necessarily- follow from unrelated examples.

Sorry, but no matter how many "folk beliefs" you trot out, from toads to witches, they don't -necessarily- have any bearing at all on psychic phenomena or mediumship.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes. And I'm glad that I could point out that mundane explanation to you. :p

Ed,

There are numerous occurrences that have been given erroneous explanations in folklore. Many of these, like the toads and frogs, were natural phenomena, accurately observed but wrongly interpreted.

This fact does not, however, extrapolate as you hope it does. You can't argue that because some phenomena have erroneously been attributed to "paranormal" causes that therefore we know nothing "paranormal" can be real. It simply doesn't -necessarily- follow from unrelated examples.

Sorry, but no matter how many "folk beliefs" you trot out, from toads to witches, they don't -necessarily- have any bearing at all on psychic phenomena or mediumship.

I never said that. I contend that the toad beliefs of the natives of the Orinoco are valid, as is the belief in witches amply bourne out by contemporary witnesses who testified under oath. Witches can fly, they do have familiars, they do the bidding of Satan who assumes a corporeal form.

Evidence is evidence and my personal experience cannot be denied.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

You think that primitive people using toads to forecast rain is preposterous, but why are you so sure of that?

.

Not forecast, cause.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes. And I'm glad that I could point out that mundane explanation to you. :p

Ed,

There are numerous occurrences that have been given erroneous explanations in folklore. Many of these, like the toads and frogs, were natural phenomena, accurately observed but wrongly interpreted.

This fact does not, however, extrapolate as you hope it does. You can't argue that because some phenomena have erroneously been attributed to "paranormal" causes that therefore we know nothing "paranormal" can be real. It simply doesn't -necessarily- follow from unrelated examples.

Sorry, but no matter how many "folk beliefs" you trot out, from toads to witches, they don't -necessarily- have any bearing at all on psychic phenomena or mediumship.

Then why don't you believe that witches can fly and cast spells that directly affect others when there is so much anecdotal evidence available? There must be millions of people who believe, even today, that witches can do these things. Why don't you assent to the appeal to popularity for witchcraft, voodoo, shamanism, and the like?

What leads you to disbelieve in witchy phenomena?

What is so different about psychics and mediums, apart from the TV vogue?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
What leads you to disbelieve in witchy phenomena?

What is so different about psychics and mediums, apart from the TV vogue?
I confronted a friend of mine, a believer in many matters woo, with this approach. She brought her dogs to acupuncturists, and chiropractors, fed them on a barf diet, and poured homeopathetic water down their throats. I listed as many alt med things as I could recall off-hand. She acknowledged she only believed in about 5%. Why? Why these and not the others?

After beating on this theme for some time, she finally confessed: "Because they sound right."

That was her total "thinking kit": does it sound right?

With this thinking kit, she screamed at her husband when she found out he was treating one of the dogs with an antibiotic for a urinary tract infection. She had heard it caused animals to become dizzy. He stopped. Not long afterward, the infection came back. This time, she decided to try the antibiotic. It didn't work. The microbes were now resistant to the antibiotic. She ended up having to go with a stronger antibiotic, with even more side effects because of her "thinking kit's" decision with regard to the first treatment.

[thaiboxerken]

There are numerous occurrences that have been given erroneous explanations in folklore.

Like.. mediumship?

Many of these, like the toads and frogs, were natural phenomena, accurately observed but wrongly interpreted.

And there are many acts of deception that have been wrongly interpreted, like mediumship.


This fact does not, however, extrapolate as you hope it does. You can't argue that because some phenomena have erroneously been attributed to "paranormal" causes that therefore we know nothing "paranormal" can be real. It simply doesn't -necessarily- follow from unrelated examples.

That's not the argument, the argument is that you are using anecdotes as evidence only when it suits your beliefs.

Sorry, but no matter how many "folk beliefs" you trot out, from toads to witches, they don't -necessarily- have any bearing at all on psychic phenomena or mediumship.

They sure do, because mediumship and psychic phenomena ARE folk beliefs. They are based purely on anecdotes and experience, not reliable evidence.

If you base your conclusion on anecdotal evidence, what is the difference between what you have concluded and what mud dripping savages have concluded?

[Lucianarchy]

Development.

The Police Federation article has now been taken 'off-line'.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

I thought you had left for good??

[CFLarsen]

(cough)
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
....As he claims to have that information, and as he claims that he will follow me and my family around, I am not going to post here or probably anywhere else again.

Yes, Claus. terrorism often does 'work'.

I have done nothing to deserve this treatment.

But I do keep records.

Best witches to everyone else.

Source (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40738&perpage=40&pagenumber=6)

(Emphasis mine)

[Cleopatra]

Claus he changed his mind and this makes me happy because it means that he will answer the pending questions.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Claus he changed his mind and this makes me happy because it means that he will answer the pending questions.

LOL. Only when pigs fly.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Claus he changed his mind and this makes me happy because it means that he will answer the pending questions.

Let's see what he says.

[andy2001]

Cliff Madison from Portland police department seemed happy with the results of the remote viewing to find his natural mother.

http://www.ummo.cc/Media/Asahi.rm

[Tricky]

Originally posted by andy2001
Cliff Madison from Portland police department seemed happy with the results of the remote viewing to find his natural mother.

http://www.ummo.cc/Media/Asahi.rm
This link seems to download RealPlayer, but then won't open the file.
***
edited to add:

However his website (http://www.ummo.cc/Aaron_Bio_Page.html) seems to clear up the issue. This is a self-proclaimed psychic who seems to follow the usual pattern. His website is a treasure trove of woo.
My life is a miracle surrounded by miracles and until
recently, I have done my best to keep this a secret. I
am a complex synesthete born into a family of
psychics. I also have the gift of psychic functioning
along with a spiritual understanding of the occult
that few shall ever hope to have. I know exactly what
the future is and what we can collectively do to
create the best possible outcome.

Yeah, that's exactly the type of objective source we're looking for.:rolleyes:

[andy2001]

I've just tested it the link. I used right click and then save target as. This will downlaod it to your harddisc. It worked for me when downloaded in this way if it still does'nt work maybe you need to also download realplayer one free at

http://www.real.com/freeplayer/?rppr=rnwk

[Tricky]

Originally posted by andy2001
I've just tested it the link. I used right click and then save target as. This will downlaod it to your harddisc. It worked for me when downloaded in this way if it still does'nt work maybe you need to also download realplayer one free at

http://www.real.com/freeplayer/?rppr=rnwk
Okay, that worked.

But I am still less than impressed. It was an infomercial touting the Japanese equivalent of the "Psychic Hotline".

[andy2001]

Originally posted by Tricky

Okay, that worked.

But I am still less than impressed. It was an infomercial touting the Japanese equivalent of the "Psychic Hotline".



So you think this was all staged and did not show Cliff Madison from protland police?

If you think it did not show Cliff Madison from the portland police do you not see a resemblance with the person on the video and this link to the portland police website?

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=dafga

Or maybe you think it did show this 21 year veteran of the Bureau but think he was part of a a devious scam to make Aaron Donahue look like a real remote veiwer?

If so have you come up with a motive? and do you plan on complaining to the portland police about this?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by andy2001

So you think this was all staged and did not show Cliff Madison from protland police?
I don't know. It certainly was scripted to support the infomercial (Note the phone number always present in the screen. ) If this happend in the US, then where is the US account of it? Why did Cliff Madison have to go to Japan to get his "true story" told? It all sounds very suspicious.
Originally posted by andy2001
Or maybe you think it did show this 21 year veteran of the Bureau but think he was part of a a devious scam to make Aaron Donahue look like a real remote veiwer?
Yep. They were trying to advertise their "psychic service". I don't believe that Cliff Madison is above trying to make a buck, and he might even go to Japan to do it. Do you believe everything that advertisers say?

But if Aaron wanted to make some good money, he should do his stuff for the Randi Million. Heck, he knows "exactly what the future is", so making a few predictions for JREF shold be a piece of cake, right?

Originally posted by andy2001
If so have you come up with a motive? and do you plan on complaining to the portland police about this?
Motive? Just dirty old money, Andy. People do strange things for cash. As far as complaining to the Portland Police, well, I cannot see that the PP have any sort of affiliation with this whatsoever. This looks like a completely private matter from a person who happens to be a police officer. Heck, there's not even a crime here. Why is this even a police matter?

Maybe if you could show me the documents where the Portland Police department has certified Aaron as a "genuine psychic" I might place a little more credence in these claims.

[andy2001]

"Why did Cliff Madison have to go to Japan to get his "true story" told? It all sounds very suspicious."

Well since his mother was in Japan I think it's very obvious he would need to goto Japan if he wanted to meet her so I can't see what your case is there.


"Motive? Just dirty old money, Andy. People do strange things for cash. As far as complaining to the Portland Police, well, I cannot see that the PP have any sort of affiliation with this whatsoever. This looks like a completely private matter from a person who happens to be a police officer. Heck, there's not even a crime here. Why is this even a police matter?"

I've never said this was an offical police matter I was just saying if you think a public figure such as Cliff Madison is involved in this sort of deception as you seem to think he is you may feel morally obliged to point this out to his employers as your such an anti woo woo.


"But if Aaron wanted to make some good money, he should do his stuff for the Randi Million. Heck, he knows "exactly what the future is", so making a few predictions for JREF shold be a piece of cake, right?"


I'm sure Aaron can make enough money to meet his needs without the help of Randi and Aaron like me would allready know the Randi Million is a fraud anyway.

In a new twist Rupert Murdoch is also involved in the supposed conspiracy to make Aaron Donahue look like a real remote viewer.
Take a look at the video from Fox.

http://www.ummo.cc/Media/insearch.mov

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by andy2001
"Why did Cliff Madison have to go to Japan to get his "true story" told? It all sounds very suspicious."

Well since his mother was in Japan I think it's very obvious he would need to goto Japan if he wanted to meet her so I can't see what your case is there.


"Motive? Just dirty old money, Andy. People do strange things for cash. As far as complaining to the Portland Police, well, I cannot see that the PP have any sort of affiliation with this whatsoever. This looks like a completely private matter from a person who happens to be a police officer. Heck, there's not even a crime here. Why is this even a police matter?"

I've never said this was an offical police matter I was just saying if you think a public figure such as Cliff Madison is involved in this sort of deception as you seem to think he is you may feel morally obliged to point this out to his employers as your such an anti woo woo.


"But if Aaron wanted to make some good money, he should do his stuff for the Randi Million. Heck, he knows "exactly what the future is", so making a few predictions for JREF shold be a piece of cake, right?"


I'm sure Aaron can make enough money to meet his needs without the help of Randi and Aaron like me would allready know the Randi Million is a fraud anyway.http://www.ummo.cc/Media/insearch.mov

You are joking, right?

edit to say: I watched the video. Same old bullsh!t.

[andy2001]

"You are joking, right?"

No


"edit to say: I watched the video. Same old bullsh!t."

What an outstandingly well thought out response.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by andy2001
I've never said this was an offical police matter .
Yes you did, Andy. Right here:
Originally posted by andy2001 ... and do you plan on complaining to the portland police about this?
Perhaps you don't realize what you said, but you are implicating the Portland Police by suggesting they could answer any complaints about it. If you're going to use their name in your claims, then you are indicating that they are involved. If they are uninvolved, then your mention that Cliff is a "Portland Policeman" is completely beside the point. This has nothing to do with a crime and Cliff might just as well be a "Portland Accountant". This type of fallacious argument is called "appeal to authority", suggesting that because Cliff is a policeman, he is somehow more credible than someone of a different profession.


Originally posted by andy2001
I'm sure Aaron can make enough money to meet his needs without the help of Randi and Aaron like me would allready know the Randi Million is a fraud anyway.
Would you like to support that claim with some evidence? Considering that you believe infomercials to be indicative of truth, I'm dubious that you have any idea what fraud actually is.

So please explain how you know that the Randi Million is a fraud. I'm sure all of us are eager to know where you get this marvellous information. From psychics, perhaps?

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by andy2001
"You are joking, right?"

No


"edit to say: I watched the video. Same old bullsh!t."

What an outstandingly well thought out response.

Give me some well thought out evidence, and I'll reconsider.

[andy2001]

"Yes you did, Andy. Right here"

Just becouse I suggest you complain to the portland police does not mean I'm saying the film made for the for tv of the remote viewers finding Cliffs real mum was done for the portland police,
all I'm saying is as such public servants are expected to have unquestionable integrity the portland police may need to know if somone on there staff is engaging in such deception. They did film part of the program in his office as well.


"If they are uninvolved, then your mention that Cliff is a "Portland Policeman" is completely beside the point. This has nothing to do with a crime and Cliff might just as well be a "Portland Accountant". This type of fallacious argument is called "appeal to authority", suggesting that because Cliff is a policeman, he is somehow more credible than someone of a different profession."


So lets say a jury are considering the evidence in a trial.


Example 1
Eyewitness says they saw the crime. The witness in qustion is a convicted conman mass murder and rapist.

Example 2
Eyewitness says they saw the crime. The witness in qustion is a policeman with more than 20 years of service and no criminal record.

Do you not think it would be reasonable for a jury to give more weight to example 2 than example 1?
According to your comments you would not but I think most people would so I don't think I was making a fallacious argument.


As for the Randi Million I will write more about this in my next post.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Andy said:
Do you not think it would be reasonable for a jury to give more weight to example 2 than example 1?
According to your comments you would not but I think most people would so I don't think I was making a fallacious argument.

Based on their gut instincts about the two people, yes. Based on the quality of the two fellows' memories, not necessarily.

~~ Paul

[Lucianarchy]

Stumpy, is it time to admit that you were wrong about those ACPO guidelines regarding dealing with psychics?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Stumpy, is it time to admit that you were wrong about those ACPO guidelines regarding dealing with psychics? Troll, I have told you what they say and they prove you wrong. I have even verified my evidence. Unless you can prove me wrong I suggest that you get back under your bridge.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
Troll, I have told you what they say and they prove you wrong. I have even verified my evidence. Unless you can prove me wrong I suggest that you get back under your bridge.

?? You're Stumpy's sockpuppet?! And you have the nerve to call me a troll. :rolleyes: are you 'Hannibal' too? :con2:

You claimed there were ACPO guidelines for interviewing psychics. You said you would get the guidlines, but kept on saying something is hindering you. It's been about a year hasn't it? Of course, if you can find them, it will prove my hypothesis that the police do indeed work with psychics, and act positively on the information some of them pass on, rather than show the sort of disdain and derision which has been claimed here.

BTW, it's a shame that the Police Federation have stopped access to the very article under discussion in this thread, isn't it.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lunatic
?? You're Stumpy's sockpuppet?!
No, I am Lothian. If you wanted only Stumpy to answer you should have sent a PM.
Originally posted by Imbecile
And you have the nerve to call me a troll. :rolleyes:

And you have the nerve to question the title. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Feckwit
are you 'Hannibal' too? :con2:
Too ? No. It is quite easy to tell who has written something just look at the name. You will see that I am Lothian. Obviously you won’t see what I write as you claim to have me on ignore, although I am beginning to suspect you have been lying again you cheeky little monkey.
Originally posted by Liar
You claimed there were ACPO guidelines for interviewing psychics. You said you would get the guidlines, but kept on saying something is hindering you. It's been about a year hasn't it? You are getting me mixed up again. Which part of ‘I am not Stumpy’ is giving you problems?
Originally posted by Innumerate
Of course, if you can find them, it will prove my hypothesis that the police do indeed work with psychics, and act positively on the information some of them pass on, rather than show the sort of disdain and derision which has been claimed here.
I actually posted the relevant extract which I obtained from the guidelines. That you continue to ignore that without providing any evidence that my source was incorrect proves you are troll.
Originally posted by Robbin
BTW, it's a shame that the Police Federation have stopped access to the very article under discussion in this thread, isn't it. Why do you think they would want to distance themselves from a discredited report. ?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian


You are getting me mixed up again. Which part of ‘I am not Stumpy’ is giving you problems?

You answering for him. lol!


I actually posted the relevant extract which I obtained from the guidelines.

You did?! Where? Could you post it again, below, complete with any archive identification or any other record which will help us get it confirmed with the ACPO?

BTW, don't you 'cheeky monkey' me, son. I was told about your answering for Stumps, so I had to get you out.

[Lucianarchy]

OK, will the real Officer Stumps answer this time?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
[B]You did?! Where? Could you post it again, below, complete with any archive identification or any other record which will help us get it confirmed with the ACPO?

I posted it earlier in this thread, nearly a year ago. I dare say a highly paid researcher like yourself would have no problem finding it. I posted the paragraph and sub paragraph number allowing easy verification.

I know (because you mentioned it) that you work regularly for the home office being a highly paid consultant for them. You are on first name terms with David Blunkett, he provides your references when obtaining new work. It is therefore inconceivable that you have been unable to get a copy of the guidelines from him or your other contacts.

You quote Occam as saying the simplest answer is the preferred one. In this case I have provided the reference to and quote from the guidance. You must have that guidance and can check the quote. You have not disproved my quote. The simplest solution is that you can’t because it is correct.
BTW, don't you 'cheeky monkey' me, son. I was told about your answering for Stumps, so I had to get you out. Yeah right, Liar.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian

I posted it earlier in this thread, nearly a year ago. I dare say a highly paid researcher like yourself would have no problem finding it. I posted the paragraph and sub paragraph number allowing easy verification.



Here's your posts in the thread, Loath. Which one is it that includes the ACPO guidelines for interviewing psychics? :

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=262387&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Here's your posts in the thread, Loath. Which one is it that includes the ACPO guidelines for interviewing psychics? :

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=262387&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending That search is selective and only lists 7 posts by me. If you click on the replies button on the index page it shows I have 36 posts in this thread. (Might be 37 now)!. The only rational explanation for the lower number of posts returned can be that Claus has altered the result by using his POWER of NEGATIVE THINKING!! :(
Perhaps you will have to try to find it the long way

[Lucianarchy]

bump to save from pruning

http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2001/12_2001_ghost.htm

now taken off-line

[Ashles]

Erm, that whole site is now defunct - the contact number is 0181 which anyone in England will tell you hasn't been used for several years.

So not really a tremendously useful link.

[derekcbart]

Hello.

I just noticed this thread. A few weeks ago I posted an article (in a different thread) about the Independent Investigations Group report on the claims of "psychic detective" Carla Baron.

The report can be read at http://www.iigwest.com/carla_report.html

I thought you might want to check it out.

[Garrette]

She's attractive. Therefore, she's legit.

[Azrael 5]

I couldnt do a search for this as I dont know the womans name.But I briefly saw on Satellite channel Bravo(?) a programme about psychics etc,a report of a American psychic who sued and won someone(sorry no more deatils)in relation to solving a muder case.It showed press cuttings confirming this.Anyone have a clue what the hell Im on about,it may be interesting!:D

[thaiboxerken]

She is pretty hot. I would let her read me. Afterwards, I'd crush her ego because I'd like to see an attractive fraud cry.

[Dragon]

A quick check of the Police Federation website shows that they don't have any issues online dated before January 2002.
For anyone else who's interested in the Jacqueline Poole case an excellent report can be found
here (http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm#Background).

[Ashles]

Bump. This thread is too interesting to get pruned.

And if we ever miss Lucianarchy then we can just enjoy this thread for the nostalgia value

[Ashles]

Anothr bump to prevent the thread being lost to the distant lands of archiving.

[Ersby]

If it makes you feel any better, I've got it saved on my hard drive.

(As well as the infamous Ladybrook thread, in case you fell the need to bump that too)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Ersby
If it makes you feel any better, I've got it saved on my hard drive.

(As well as the infamous Ladybrook thread, in case you fell the need to bump that too)
Actually it would be funnier if that thread did get archived.

What would Lucianarchy link to then? :)

[CFLarsen]

People,

Please read from post #442 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=183901#post183901) and onwards.

Classic stuff!

[T'ai Chi]

*bump* to update everyone on important news from 2002

[CFLarsen]

*bump* to update everyone on important news from 2002
Unsolved issues.

You have a problem with that?