Police and Psychics [Archive]

Lucianarchy

6th September 2002, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Ersby
I think we should give credit where it is due. Luci's given a decent link from that Police Federation thingy, and it's worth looking into.

The second one is not so good, since it gives no details as to whether the psychic was successful or not.

Thanks. The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2001/12_2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/04_april/08/taro9.shtml

Both these examples come from highly credible sources, and as such prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Hanniball and the Fool are evidently *wrong* in any claim they may have that the police don't use psychics in the UK. Ed has already confirmed that the police use psychics to "help" solve cases in the US, this evidence confirms that the same is true in the UK.

Pahansiri

6th September 2002, 06:41 AM

Greetings Lucianarchy I hope you are well and happy..

I do not simply believe or discount anything. There is much unknown. But we must live by facts and logic not emotion of what we wish to be true. The simple fact is no psychic has ever solved any case, ever.

Marc

6th September 2002, 06:58 AM

I would say accurate statements of the subject of this debate would be this:

1. Police and law enforcement agencies do not make use of psychics.

2. Claimed psychics are sometimes brought in by victem's families, or simply volunteer their information to the police, leading to claims of 'helping' the police on a case. They are not actually part of the investigation.

3. Individual police / law enforcement officers may believe in psychics, and either seek out or accept such help on their own. This does not reflect the agencies policies or practices, it is the actions of an individual.

4. The opinion of an individual officer who believed in psychics is in no way evidence that the psychic was of any actual help. As was demonstrated before despite the officer's belief the psychic was of great help, her information was in fact useless. Just like Nostrodumbass quatrains, they only seem to be predictive after the fact.

6th September 2002, 07:11 AM

Why a new thread? (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6776&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

headscratcher4

6th September 2002, 07:14 AM

IT seems to me that there are a couple of bigger questions...

1. Has anyone ever been convicted of a crime based on evidence generated by a psychic?

The answer, I suspect, is an emphatic, deafening "no". Indeed, it is impossible (at least in the US), because the evidence is no good. It wouldn't pass a court test, there is not only no scientific consensus on it as probative evidence, the mass of "evidence" and expertise, is that it is worthless. If psychics were real, or only just believed they were real, they'd be pusning for acceptance of phychic evidence as real evidence. That can't, don't and aren't.

2. If the evidence has no value, it is irrlevant to the solving of a crime. In other words, regardless of any individual investigators personal belief in the power, they can't rely on it. A individual investigator knows that even if he/she thinks a "psychic" provides interesting or unusual information on a case that is valuable to solving the case (an assertion that I would argue has NEVER been shown to be true), they know the "evidence" is useless. So, therefore, they have to get real evidence, the old fashioned way to solve a case and convict a criminal.

Bottom line, psychics can line up from here to the moon, but unless they are willing to be tested under controlled conditions to prove the probative and actual value of the evidence they supposedly generate -- and have that "proof" accepted not only by fringe scientist but by the vast majority of scientists and investigative experts...it is all useless and a joke. In short, evne IF the power were real, it is useless because the things it tells us in an investigation have to be proven or shown by other methods. So, it is essentially a parlor trick. Like with Uri -- even if he bends spoons with a "power" (yeah, right), every cheap magician on the backwater circuit can do the same trick without the power...so what good, use, value of the power?

Hannibal

6th September 2002, 08:02 AM

Marc,

Pretty spot on really.

Luci,

Why the new thread? We are having sufficiently good debate on the other. If anyone wishes to catch up read "are we looking at all the evidence". I am the one who is/was a Police Officer - for some reason Luci thinks this means I do not know what I am talking about. Interesting logic...

I am currently chasing up contacts to prove once and for all that Luci is incorrect in his/her assertions.

Looking at it pragmatically who is more likely to know - a Police Officer with first hand experience or a forum member with NO experience only third hand accounts that are not even in agreement on what they say (see my QED reference in the oter forum).

Andalyn

6th September 2002, 09:59 AM

I'm a Deputy Sheriff.

We do not use psychics here, or that I know of in the area.

The Tulsa Police Dept (http://www.tulsapolice.org/)

Tulsa County Sheriff (http://www.tcso.org/)

Andalyn

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 02:14 AM

"Without Noreen Renier we would not have
located Norman Lewis. I'm extremely
impressed with her abilities. She told
us things that she would have to have
been an eyewitness to have known."
- Williston Cheif of Police, Olin Slaughter.

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 02:15 AM

"After we had been with Christine for about an hour and a half, we were trying to get her to admit being given some of the information by the victim’s family or even a member of the Murder Team. But she was insistent that her only source was the voice in her head. As a final gesture, she offered to give information about one of us. Andy volunteered. He was asked to hand over something of his own. I think he gave her his car keys. Christine then described three different aspects of his personal life, none of which I had known about. We had not worked together before.

The first was extremely personal indeed and quite detailed. He confirmed those details to me after we had left. She also stated that he had received a letter concerning ‘essential electrical work’. He told me that he had received a mortgage offer from a Building Society the previous day, with the condition that the house he wanted to buy was rewired. Andy was quite dismissive about the third, which predicted his imminent transfer to another police area. Unexpected by him, maybe, but an order transferring him to another Division came within a few days. He was quite shaken by the whole experience. The Squad included more than twenty detectives, and we ourselves had picked up the assignment only that morning, and by chance. "

Extract from Police Federation Magazine.

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 02:16 AM

"Scotland Yard confirmed they had consulted Mrs Evans in the past to help them with an investigation and the National Crime Faculty confirmed she was registered on their database as a psychic."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/04_april/08/taro9.shtml

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal

Looking at it pragmatically who is more likely to know - a Police Officer with first hand experience or a forum member with NO experience only third hand accounts that are not even in agreement on what they say (see my QED reference in the oter forum).

You are an un-named board poster, who enhaces his credibility with of claiming to be a police officer with a picture and screen alluding to a serial-killer. Your statements alone mean nothing here, you need to back them up with e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e., like I have done, coming from a credible and verifiable source.

It has been proved to you now that the police work *with* psychics. As I have demonstated that I can admit to mistakes re my aplogy to you, likewise, please have some honour and apologise for your mistake. It is the only way you will be able to move on in this life.

You have provided nothing short of opinion. You say you were a police officer, well in light of the evidence from the BBC, the Police Federation magazine and Scotland Yard, you were either an ignorant officer or a misinformed one, but the verifiable fact is, you are wrong and anyone who has even bothered to look into these leads now knows that you are wrong.

http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2001/12_2001_ghost.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/04_april/08/taro9.shtml

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 04:59 AM

Luci..

I see you quoted Olin Slaughter again...

What you missed out is that when pressed, he recanted everything...and then claimed that the mediums help was total garbage...

Other officers also claimed, off the record, that Slaughter was a complete f*ckwit and had made the Dept. look ridiculous...

I dunno...

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Luci..

I see you quoted Olin Slaughter again...

What you missed out is that when pressed, he recanted everything...and then claimed that the mediums help was total garbage...

Other officers also claimed, off the record, that Slaughter was a complete f*ckwit and had made the Dept. look ridiculous...

I dunno...

URL where this can verified past your claim above, please.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 05:06 AM

Luci..

Remember last time you brought up Olin Slaughter...

ages ago....

I posted a link then...but i cant be assed looking for it again...it took me hours last time..

It could be still here somewhere...

But thats about the gist of it....

(PS...I went on a mad, drunken thread deleting spree a while back..it could have gone then....)

I might see if i can find it again...later...

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Luci..

Remember last time you brought up Olin Slaughter...

ages ago....

I posted a link then...but i cant be assed looking for it again...it took me hours last time..

It could be still here somewhere...

But thats about the gist of it....

(PS...I went on a mad, drunken thread deleting spree a while back..it could have gone then....)

I might see if i can find it again...later...

Yes, you do that. Until then, your claim is non-sense.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 05:43 AM

Luci...

Yeah...'cos everything you post is absolutely proveable and sesnsible isnt it...

Im not the woowoo making ridiculous statements about all these mediums and psychics solving masses of crimes...am i...

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Luci...

Yeah...'cos everything you post is absolutely proveable and sesnsible isnt it...

Im not the woowoo making ridiculous statements about all these mediums and psychics solving masses of crimes...am i...

No. I provide evidence, you provide alcohol.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 06:05 AM

Heres some links that actually tell the truth about Renier and Willaston PD....plus how she acutally has done no better than chance....

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n12/psychic.html

http://members.aol.com/tbskep/v9n2rpt.html

http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/notSoPsychic.htm

http://members.aol.com/garypos/Pos_AandE.html

http://members.aol.com/garypos/Renier_list.html

Now i looked for the article about Slaughter being a idiot..but i couldnt find it...maybe its been removed....

But im gonna offer as much proof as you do...and say i read it...posted the link here a few months ago...

Anyway the links above show how delusional Renier is...

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk

Now i looked for the article about Slaughter being a idiot..but i couldnt...

No, because it only exists in your imagination.

Anyway the links above show how delusional Renier is...

No, they show the opinion of one Gary Posner, so what? He ain't the cheif of Williston Police or a detective involved in the case. Those guys are trained in spotting deception and fraud, that's why they are called professional detectives.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 06:34 AM

Luci woowoo

I offer as much proof as you do...except im not insane and as gullible as you...

Heres a good link about Scotland yard and other Police Depts and their official stance on mediums...

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/psychic.htm

ktesibios

7th September 2002, 09:15 AM

First off, claiming that "the police use psychics" or "the police do not use psychics" on the basis of individual cases or statements from individual police agencies is stretching things way too far.

There ain't any monolithic creature known as "the police". There are hundreds, at least, of agencies involved in police work, made up of many thousands of individuals. The only way one could make a gneneralization about police use of psychics would be to poll all of the relevant agencies in a given area about their experiences and policies, and you would still only be able to generalize to the extent of your sample.

Also, there's a difference between "solving" a case, in the sense of figuring out what happened to the satisfaction of an individual investigator, and assembling a body of evidence that can prove the solution to the satisfaction of the courts.

The logic involved in "solving" a crime is closely related to that used in troubleshooting a problem in a technical system, or in diagnosing a disease. When you're at the stage of spinning working hypotheses which you can test and eliminate, very few holds are barred. A possibility could be suggested by the evidence gathered so far based on rigorous deduction, it could be a leap based on previous experience ("I've seen that before. Last time the answer was-----. I'll test that first."). It could be a guess, educated or otherwise- it could even be brought to mind by a suggestion from someone with no particular knowledge on which to base their suggestion. The important thing is that the hypothesis, once formed, has to be tested against reality- does it account for the evidence in hand, does it predict other findings and are the predictions found to be true?

The fact that a self-proclaimed psychic makes a suggestion that leads to a hypothesis which is subsequently found to be valid doesn't demonstrate per se that the psychic actually used paranormal powers in making that suggestion.

If you're curious about how a charlatan can make an accurate prediction and dress it up as paranormal, the tale of Thrasyllus' first meeting with Tiberius, in Tacitus' "Annals of Imperial Rome" is very instructive.

Latimer

7th September 2002, 10:02 AM

Hello,

http://www.randi.org/jr/07-02-2000.html
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/psychicSleuths.htm
http://www.parascope.com/en/renier02.htm
http://skepdic.com/psychdet.html
http://www.she-dc.com/pages/educ/Articles/psychics.htm
http://pac-c.org/police_use_of_psychics.htm
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~rwynar/PsychicDetectives.html
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/020197/psychic.htm
http://rivendell.fortunecity.com/perilith/919/bio/Psychic5.htm
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/notSoPsychic.htm
http://www.mbdojo.com/~rssl/howtobeapsychic.html

That's enough.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 10:34 AM

Luci...

Your links...

What actual authority is the Police Federation...thats making these claims...Is it the official voice of Scotland Yard and they approve everything that written in it...

Is it a governmental dept....

A Police Union....

Is the the official voice of HM Government Police forces....

Just like to know....

JSFolk

7th September 2002, 10:52 AM

SLC Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/09072002/utah/769194.htm)

Police, Archaeologists Wary of Psychics' Theory of Smart Mystery
Saturday, September 7, 2002

(c) 2001, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

The months-old search for Elizabeth Smart took a strange twist last week when two Salt Lake City detectives -- at the behest of a group of psychics -- ventured into a crypt that holds the skeletal remains of ancient American Indians.
Officials from PSI Tech, a Seattle-based company, claimed that more than a dozen of its members had determined the location of Elizabeth's body by using a special psychic process they call "Technical Remote Viewing."
Independently, the company claims, 14 visionaries all pointed to a concrete burial vault built by the state of Utah about 10 years ago. The vault, located in Salt Lake City's This Is the Place State Heritage Park in the mouth of Emigration Canyon, contains the remains of 75 American Indians, many unearthed by construction projects around Utah.
But the crypt was searched and no trace of the 14-year-old girl, snatched June 5 from her bedroom, could be found, said state archaeologist Kevin Jones.
"We searched it very thoroughly. The whole thing was very secure," Jones said. "I certainly didn't want to start opening coffins."
The investigators' fruitless Aug. 28 search through cobwebs and stale air was one example of how thousands of tips from self-proclaimed psychics have occupied overworked detectives desperately trying to crack the baffling case.
"Many of these [psychic tipsters] are well-meaning, but these tips certainly take manpower away from the investigation," said Salt Lake City Police Chief Rick Dinse.
Still, he said that investigators will check out every "psychic vision" if the tip is specific.
"I don't encourage it or discourage it," Dinse said, speaking of psychics sharing their beliefs. In fact, Dinse said officers still may recruit a psychic to assist with the case.
"To this point, we haven't brought in any psychics -- but I don't rule anything out," Dinse said.
While recently staffing the police department's Elizabeth Smart tip line personally, Dinse took several calls from psychics, some of whom he said seemed "apologetic," but nevertheless felt they had "to help however they could."
Contacted by Elizabeth's uncle, Dave Smart, PSI Tech gathered the company's "special operations team" of 14 professional "remote viewers," who attempted to discern from afar the location of Elizabeth's body.
The same group had decided Elizabeth was killed within hours of her abduction, PSI Tech CEO Dane Spotts wrote on the company's Web site.
"All people are born with natural psychic or sixth-sense abilities," writes Spotts, explaining his technique, which "result[s] in an accurate transfer of information from the viewer's unconscious mind into conscious awareness . . . During this process, the viewer becomes linked directly to the collective unconscious."
Using the process, Spotts said, his team created sketches which it believed matched the burial vault in the foothills of Salt Lake City.
The vault -- which is a simple concrete shaft protected by a steel grate -- "is a special and consecrated place," Jones said. He said he balked at allowing the group of visionaries into the crypt. "I said, 'I'm not going to open the vault unless there is a police presence.' I have the key. I guard that with the trust of the Native American people of Utah."
Dave Smart called the police for assistance, and two lead case investigators shortly arrived. "They showed up and we went in," Jones recalled.
But Spotts was not satisfied with the search, calling it a "cursory peek." He questions why a trained cadaver dog was not allowed inside the crypt.
"I don't know how that dog is trained, but I do know there are 75 remains in there," retorts Jones.
Dave Smart added that he was satisfied with how the police handled the situation. He said the detectives responded promptly and assured him that his niece was not down there.
Spotts remains unsatisfied, and believers have peppered Jones' office with more than two dozen angry e-mail messages. "Is Elizabeth's body inside this Native American burial tomb?" Spotts asks. "We still can't rule it out. As far as I am concerned, the site has not been officially cleared."
kcantera@sltrib.com
mvigh@sltrib.com

:rolleyes:

Smalso

7th September 2002, 02:41 PM

The one thing that I can never figure out, and the one question that is never answered is: Why don't these psychics remove all doubt once and for all by accepting the JREF challange? No excuses, no hemming and hawing; just go take the f**king test, claim the million bucks, and get headlines worldwide. While they're at it, someone ask one of these people to solve one of the biggest mysteries of modern times: Why won't Sylvia Browne accept the challange?

The Fool

7th September 2002, 08:45 PM

luci has gone crazy posting these latest 2 links. They were posted bu luci multiple times in the previous thread and now luci has gone mad multiple posting them on this new thread....I suppose the principle is repetition adds credibility? Luci is very proud of these latest links....Having read them I have no idea why......

Lucianarchy

8th September 2002, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
luci has gone crazy posting these latest 2 links. They were posted bu luci multiple times in the previous thread and now luci has gone mad multiple posting them on this new thread....I suppose the principle is repetition adds credibility? Luci is very proud of these latest links....Having read them I have no idea why......

What's wrong with them? Are the Police Federation and the BBC lying or involved in some big konspiracy together?

The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtml

Be honest, be skeptical.

Why don't you answer the question about whether people should be treated innocent until proven guilty, Fool? Are you completely devoid of honour?

The Fool

8th September 2002, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Why don't you answer the question about whether people should be treated innocent until proven guilty, Fool? Are you completely devoid of honour?

ok luci, but please understand, I've answered you twice in the previous thread and now once more here. I have my limits, If you are going to post the same thing over and over its a pointless waste of time.

Firstly...your evidence. you claim the police in this case "used" a psychic, implying they went looking for a psychic to use....Wrong, she turned up unasked and offered information.

second....you claim the information she provided "proved" she is psychic.... well, I will agree with you that one police officer on the case believed she was psychic. His superior officer didn't. His superior believed she had recieved information from a witness or someone involved in the crime. You dismiss this by saying it is my "grand conspiracy theory" well, its not my theory at all, its the theory of the officer in charge of the case and you provided this evidence yourself...I had nothing to do with the origins of this alternate explanation...you provided it luci, you provided it luci, you provided it luci. I repeated that as you don't seem to get that point.

I fail to see what the innocent until proven guilty statement has to do with this? Its not illegal to provide information to the police, even if the police believe you recieved the information from a witness or someone involved. What you are really saying is that if there are two possible explanations, inside info (hot reading) and psychic powers, then we must decide it is psychic powers because this is the most plausible explanation. I have no doubt it is the most plausible to you... But its not the most plausible to me.

Now, I'm not going to explain this again, ok..... If you repost the same theory and that same old link again. I'll just repost this reply......

Now a question for you...If, as you say, police use Psychics...why have they not got psychic squads? Departments of Paranormal investigation.... they use dogs and have dog squads? Why is there not police psychic officers....uniformed psychics from the psychic department??........ "Good morning sir my name is Detective Blogs from the psychic branch"....what a joke. Get a grip luci.....

headscratcher4

8th September 2002, 10:09 AM

Here's a thought...why not scrap the jury system and allow psychics and people like John Edwards to act as juries? In other words, in a murder case, the dead person could tell if the accused is the perp.

Luci: you willing to stand before a psychic, any psychic, and let them determine your guilt or innocent? If not, you are a coward and unwilling to stand by your "convictions" (which, BTW, is a play on the theme of the post -- get it? :) )

xouper

8th September 2002, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Luci: you willing to stand before a psychic, any psychic, and let them determine your guilt or innocent?That cuts right to the heart of the matter, money where your mouth is, along the lines of dowsers who are not afraid to put their beliefs on the line and dowse a minefield.

KelvinG

8th September 2002, 03:58 PM

So, if psychics can solve crimes, why are there so many unsolved murders still on the books?
Shouldn't these amazing psychics have solved them all by now? Why are they holding out on us?

And so what if police do use psychics? Just like every other sector of society, there are all kinds of police officers, including ones naive and simple enough to assume psychics can help. In fact, I'll go as far as saying they aren't totally naive and simple, but just want to make it seem to family members of victims that they are doing everything they can to help an investigation.

And what of the amazing antedoctal evidence that Luci provides links to. ****, that means little. I'm sure some police are just as easily duped as the average audience member of a John Edward taping. And prone to embellishment and exageration when telling a story.

And what about the links provided by Latimer and De_Bunk, Luci? Any comments? Did you review them? C'mon, be honest, be skeptical.

Hannibal

9th September 2002, 01:00 AM

These boards are like cheese sandwiches...you leave them for two days and they get a life all of their own!

Luci, Luci, Luci....You will not get me into a flame war again. I have given my force number and constabulary previously as well as the area I worked in. That is more than enough proof for anyone to be able to verify if they doubt me. Need more? It can be arranged by scanning in and posting to a third party - Diezel/Ed maybe.

Now, listen carefully to this next bit because it is important... Police Officers in the United Kingdom DO NOT USE PSYCHICS IN THEIR INVESTIGATIONS. They MAY act on information provided by somebody who claims to be a psychic, but that is volunteered by the "psychic" themselves and is not actively sought by the OIC's. If they were used do you not think they would be employed on high profile cases? Where are the Psychics in use for tracking the serial rapist on the loose at the moment?

Now you may argue I am being pedantic, but there is a great difference between using a psychic and using information provided by someone. One is an investigative tool, one is a line of enquiry provided BY AN OUTSIDE SOURCE. It is like a witchdoctor coming into the front counter and giving info. That does not then become "Police use Voodoo to solve a case" does it? Even if the Witchdoctor says the info came from Ybo.

I am also interested as to why you choose to ignore the bit in the BBC link where the Police say "We do not use psychics". Care to comment or are you merely being selective in what you believe? If a piece of evidence is cotradictory it cannot be used for either "side" as proof positive of anything (not that I take sides - I just try to get to the bottom of things).

I am not saying psychics do not exist, I am not saying that they do not VOLUNTARILY go into a Police station and give information. I am not even saying you are an idiot if you do. What I am saying is that POLICE DO NOT CONSULT OR USE PSYCHICS AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.

I KNOW this is true because I was a Police Officer. Come on all you JREF'ers who were/are in the job! Join the chorus! (thanks Andalyn by the way)

Oh and Luci, my screen-name is my business - just as your hideous avatar is yours. Just for your info it was a nickname I was given by some very good friends I used to train with in the US because of my preference for/aptitude in the art of Kino Mutai. Look it up if you want to know what it is. In any case it has no bearing on the discussion and makes you look as if you are trying to divert attention away from the matter in hand.

Bahala Na!

Edited for pour spellyn and punkchewatian

De_Bunk

9th September 2002, 01:54 AM

London......Juliet Whisky....'88-'92

Jade

9th September 2002, 07:08 AM

As for police and psychics, I find this very hard to swallow. It defies all logic, if this is so, we would not require a police force whatsoever. He who lacks logic, is a threat to himself and other's. Absolutely bogus.... :D :D

LucienVanImpe

9th September 2002, 07:19 AM

Choose 10 distinct locations. Grocery store. Church. Corn field. Highway. Woods. School cafeteria. Etc.

Pick out one of the locations randomly and place a person there at a specific time.

Grant a psychic access to personal details, personal belongings of that individual. Clothing, pictures, birth certificate. Whatever the psychic needs.

Then let the alleged psychic show his or her ability by disclosing where the test subject is placed. Run this procedure ten times or more. Each time, the psychic must choose one of the 10 locations.

Count the correct hits. If they score 0, 1, or 2, we should tell them to stop bothering the police - if they are that kind of a psychic. If they score 3, 4, or 5, it might be worthwhile to repeat the test.

Any score above that would be sound indication that they do have some ability. Again, further testing would be called for to explore what exactly they are capable of.

If they only work with dead people, I'm sure that can be arranged too.

Marc

9th September 2002, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Jade
As for police and psychics, I find this very hard to swallow. It defies all logic, if this is so, we would not require a police force whatsoever. He who lacks logic, is a threat to himself and other's. Absolutely bogus.... :D :D

Monty Python remembered:

"Are you the Church Police?"

"Oh Yes!"
...

"Alright men, the chase is on! Now we shall all kneel. Oh Lord, tell us who croaked Lester"

**The one in the braces. He dunnit.**

Or you get Minority Report where they catch the guy before they even do the crime.

Wolverine

9th September 2002, 03:19 PM

Out of sheer curiosity, I e-mailed Scotland Yard the following:

Dear Sir:

Amongst certain circles there has been debate as to whether or not law enforcement agencies employ the services of psychics to aid in ongoing or unsolved criminal investigations.

Has Scotland Yard ever secured the services of, or worked with psychics to solve crimes?

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Regards,

xxxxxxxxxxx

To which I received this reply:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone.

Email Office
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
London SW1H 0BG
www.met.police.uk

Which corroborates Hannibal's statements:

Now you may argue I am being pedantic, but there is a great difference between using a psychic and using information provided by someone. One is an investigative tool, one is a line of enquiry provided BY AN OUTSIDE SOURCE. It is like a witchdoctor coming into the front counter and giving info. That does not then become "Police use Voodoo to solve a case" does it? Even if the Witchdoctor says the info came from Ybo.
...
I am not saying psychics do not exist, I am not saying that they do not VOLUNTARILY go into a Police station and give information. I am not even saying you are an idiot if you do. What I am saying is that POLICE DO NOT CONSULT OR USE PSYCHICS AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.

How long must this topic endure? :rolleyes:

RandFan

9th September 2002, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine
Out of sheer curiosity, I e-mailed Scotland... What a novel idea...ask the source. Of course the links provided were pretty clear.

I suppose that there is sufficent anecdotal evidence that if one wnated to, one could believe that psychics solve crimes. Emperical evidence however is just not there.

Wolverine

9th September 2002, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
What a novel idea...ask the source. Of course the links provided were pretty clear.

Oh of course, I didn't think there was any doubt about the matter, but was just curious to see specifically what sort of reply I'd receive. :)

RandFan

9th September 2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine
Oh of course, I didn't think there was any doubt about the matter, but was just curious to see specifically what sort of reply I'd receive. :) Well I was impressed. To bad more people don't use such "critical thinking" skills instead of relying on anecdotal information.

"Officer so and so said it happened. Hey it must be true."

The Fool

9th September 2002, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine

Oh of course, I didn't think there was any doubt about the matter, but was just curious to see specifically what sort of reply I'd receive. :)

Good one Wolverine. You do understand that this is not going to worry Lucianarchy one little bit. Luci will either say you made the whole thing up or do the usual trick......The usual trick is to vanish for a couple of weeks then return and start again with an identical proposition and some stupid "cops use psychics" link.

Hannibal

10th September 2002, 02:04 AM

Thank you for the corroboration.

Luci, can we say now that I was right all along? I won't think less of you for it.

Lucianarchy

10th September 2002, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Wolverine
Out of sheer curiosity, I e-mailed Scotland Yard the following:

To which I received this reply:

" My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone."

Indeed, that quote completely debunks Hannibal's claim about psychics, to wit:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. "

...is now proven to evidently, completely and uttery wrong.

In fact the Police Federation magazine and the BBC both report how psychics work in a*positive* and helpfull way with the police, in fact, no one has provided *any* credible evidence that the police *don't* take them seriously.

In light of thiis, I think Hannibal and Fool should behave like grown men and now offer their apology.

Hannibal

10th September 2002, 05:57 AM

If information is handed over at the front counter of a station by a member of the public it will be analysed and evaluated through the proper channels. If that info is from someone who claims to be psychic then it will instantly be rated as unproven and unreliable. That is a rating of x5 on the intel report. Do you now see why I wanted you to answer my questions Luci?

If however there is information submitted by a "psychic " DURING AN INVESTIGATION it will be looked at and treated as any other lead. Although a lot lower down the hierachy.

I will apologise for not posting a more detailed summary the first time around. If the info is given on an enquiry it will be looked at - if it is someone coming in saying "the spirits have told me who stole a packet of crisps from tescos" it will be dismissed. Luci, what is "light hearted"? I was using humour to make a point - I was NOT expecting that to be taken as a 100% official guide to dealing with "psychics". For believing you were inteliigent enough to differentiate I apologise.

Now - how about YOU apologising for being a)wrong and b)calling me a liar. I also find it curious you focus on an off the cuff remark rather than the core of my postings. There are numerous questions that have been asked of you and numerous points raised which you have FAILED to address.

Here's one to get you started - Do you now accept that Police do not use Psychics but will respond to ANY information given by ANY member of the public? In other words THE PSYCHICS GIVE THE INFO FREELY IT IS NEVER REQUESTED!

Look at the witchdoctor analogy.

Bahala Na!

Psiload

10th September 2002, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

In fact the Police Federation magazine and the BBC both report how psychics work in a*positive* and helpfull way with the police, in fact, no one has provided *any* credible evidence that the police *don't* take them seriously.
(snipped for brevity)

Quote:

Inspector Edward Ellidon of the U.K's Scotland Yard stated that:
1. Scotland Yard never approach psychics for information.
2. There is no official police psychics in England.
3. The yard does not endorse psychics in any way.
4. There is no recorded instance in England of any psychic solving a criminal case or providing evidence or information that led directly to its solution.

and:

And now to the Los Angeles police dept. where according to Dan Cooke, head of the public relations for the department. "The LAPD has not, does not and will not use psychics in the investigation of crimes, period, if a psychic offers free information to us over the phone, we will listen to them politely, but we do not take them seriously. It is a waste of time." (my emphasis)

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/psychic.htm

Lucianarchy

10th September 2002, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Psiload

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/psychic.htm

I put the credibility of the BBC, The Police Federation and Scotland Yard *way* above some obscure, clearly biased web source. Way above.

There is *no* evidence that the police act in the manner claimed by Hannibal. To claim such in the face of such strong evidence, is not only reprehensible, but downright misleading and may stop some psychics from offering information at all. Given the fact that psychics *do* help the police, which has been evidenced by the Cheif of Williston PD, USA , Ed's confirmation from the Williston detective involved in the case and the UK's own Police Federation, such continuance of misinformation is plain stupid.

Even wolverine confirmed that Scotland Yard don't treat psychics in the disrespectful and dismissive manner claimed by Hannibal!

Case solved.

RonSceptic

10th September 2002, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I put the credibility of the BBC, The Police Federation and Scotland Yard *way* above some obscure, clearly biased web source. Way above.

The BBC Press office? That out ranks an experienced Police officer and all of his contacts in the force?

Scotland Yard? Remember this........

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone.

Email Office
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
London SW1H 0BG

:confused:

Hannibal,

This troll is yanking your chain. It's plain you won this argument hands down days ago.

Now, about those lottery numbers...............

Psiload

10th September 2002, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I put the credibility of the BBC, The Police Federation and Scotland Yard *way* above some obscure, clearly biased web source. Way above.

There is *no* evidence that the police act in the manner claimed by Hannibal. To claim such in the face of such strong evidence, is not only reprehensible, but downright misleading and may stop some psychics from offering information at all. Given the fact that psychics *do* help the police, which has been evidenced by the Cheif of Williston PD, USA , Ed's confirmation from the Williston detective involved in the case and the UK's own Police Federation, such continuance of misinformation is plain stupid.

Even wolverine confirmed that Scotland Yard don't treat psychics in the disrespectful and dismissive manner claimed by Hannibal!

Case solved.

I'm extremely uninterested in debating whether police agencies treat psychic detectives with gentility or hostility... pointless discussion. Whether they serve them tea and buttered sconces, and sit them in the comfy chair as they listen in rapt attention to their "impressions", or whether they kick them in the ding ding, and tell them to make like a drum, is of no consequence.

I'd like to stick to the crux of the issue: do psychic detectives help or hinder police? I'm sure that a vast majority of law enforcement officers and officials would agree that the majority of psychic "assistance" is anthing but. For every one "psychic tidbit" that neatly retrofits the specifics of a crime ex post facto, there are piles of useless psychic crap that send police on fruitless wild goose chases. Considering a few positive outcomes, to the exclusion of the majority of negatives, is a classic example of that old parapsychological hobgoblin, 'trumpeting the hits, while forgetting the misses.'

Here's an interesting point to ponder... consider some of the utter nonsense that taxpayer dollars have paid for, and are paying for, in the name of law enforcement:

-The DKL Lifeguard
-The Quaddro Tracker
-lie detectors
-graphology(not to be mistaken with forensic document examination)
-remote viewing

Proof positive of the willingness of certain law enforcement agencies to devote a portion of their fiscal budgets to the employment of unorthodox, unproven, and controversial methods. Yet not a single psychic detective on any agencies payroll? Go figger? Why do you suppose that is?

headscratcher4

10th September 2002, 11:43 AM

How do you know that police do not use or rely on Psychics? Simple, because the whole criminal judicial system (at least in the U.S. and I would imagine the UK) would fall apart if police relied on “psychic” evidence.

Why, you might ask? Well just imagine. A psychic calls up, tells the police “I am a psychic and I have had a vision of …” a crime scene, a murder, what have you.

First, the police designed to enforce the law (we are not yet living in the age of Minority Report), would only be interested if they had knowledge that a crime has been committed – for example a missing person. Otherwise, their first response would be complete dismissal. However, it is critical to keep in mind that the police don’t just investigate crimes; their goal is to gather evidence of crimes for presentation to proper judicial and legal authority. In short, they are very concerned with not just the fact of a possible crime, but in the evidence that proves the crime exist.

So, second, let us next say that there is indeed a crime being investigated. In the US, at least, calling up and telling the police that you know where a body is buried while potentially interesting information, is in and of it self insufficient to trigger many of the things that the police need to act on a possible crime. For example, they need to have some idea how the informant knows? I.e. is there a reasonable basis for that knowledge?

Why, because in many cases, for example, the police must get a warrant to search a premises or site. To get a warrant, they have to convince a judge or magistrate that they have reliable information that a crime has been committed, that a search is necessary, and that the police have a good faith, reasonable belief that the warrant will turn up information necessary to the investigation.

In any case involving a psychic, this basic requirement does not even pass the first level of credibility. I.E. “your honor, we need a warrant?”

“Why?”

“A psychic called and told us that there was a body buried at that location.”

“A psychic you say? How do you know they are psychic? What is the proof?”

You can see where it degenerates from there BECAUSE there is no scientific proof, little less consensus that psychic powers exist (one of the problems of Luci’s assertions and the psychics doing everything they can to avoid proving their powers to a scientific certainty).

However, in that instance where the police do not need a warrant – for example requesting permission of a property owner to search a site that is granted. They still are faced with two critical questions?

How did the psychic know – evidence of psychic power can not be presented to a judge or jury specifically because it is not recognized as scientific evidence. In short, the police must, ultimately dismiss the “psychic evidence” as being usable because it has the same quality as the police arguing to a judge when asked how they found the body: “well, your honor, a little birdie told us.” Indeed, at least in the US, any criminal defense lawyer would get that evidence tossed so quickly as to make one’s head spin.

So, second, they almost have to assume that the supposed psychic who calls up and) states that they have had a vision of where a body lies (which, btw, I contend has never occurred) that the alleged psychic is in on the crime, for how else would the psychic know where the body was buried? I note that psychics are not generally being prosecuted as murder suspects, or abettors of these kinds of crimes. Indeed, it would provide them with a perfect and very public opportunity to make their case to a jury – “I didn’t do the crime, but I have visions. Let me show you how this works…” (it has never happened).

In the end, and where I am getting with this, is that the police cannot legally make a case with “psychic” evidence. Their job is to make a legal case. Even in that circumstance where they have heard “psychic” information and consider it (as they state they consider all offers of help in solving a case), they have to have usable evidence from credible sources to make a case. To this end, psychic evidence is not only unusable it is irrelevant. Again, why? Because you couldn’t get a search warrant for someone’s house based on the assertion of a psychic…it makes for a bad case, and for bad law.

Which gets back to a point I made earlier. Luci: if you are serious about this, are your supposed beliefs in this mumbo jumbo so strong as to state that you would you stand before a judge in a criminal case and let that judge (or jury) determine your guilt or innocence based on the police use of psychic evidence?

Would you tell your lawyer not to challenge the validity of the psychic and psychic evidence?

Do you believe that any of the citations that you’ve posted here to prove your case about Uri or any psychic should or world stand in a court of law to make the case that “psychics” are real?

If so, why hasn't it been done so...for instance, 10 years ago, DNA testing was at lest "questionable" evidence (Remember the challenge in the OJ case?). Today, because the scientific community accepts the premise, it is generally accepted, indeed dispositive in many criminal cases. IF the science proving psyi is so good, why hasn't it been accepted in courts as evidence?

Latimer

10th September 2002, 12:53 PM

Hello,

This is a reply I posted on the 'Are We Looking at all the Evidence' thread, which does bear directly on what Lucianarchy is saying here. I noticed the similarity in his dismissal of evidence that contradicts his own; to wit:

Lucianarchy wrote:
I'm a skeptic, and I put the credibility of the BBC and The Police Federation before some obscure site.

Ummmm...does that mean you are not even going to look at the site (http://pac-c.org/police_use_of_psychics.htm)at all?

Lucianarchy wrote:
Skeptical, logical and critical.

No, it's not skeptical, logical, nor critical. If you are taking, at face value, the information the BBC and Police Federation are putting forth and accepting it without further verification; you are standing precariously upon an 'argument from authority.' You are picking facts to suit your theory, rather than constructing your theories and beliefs to fit the available facts. That is a common failing, of both believer and skeptic alike.

If you truly wish to be 'logical and critical' you need to see what your opponents are saying; and if their argument has enough weight behind it, either incorporate those ideas into your theory; or discard the theory in light of the new evidence. The links I provided you in the 'Police Psychics' thread are quite full of sourcing material; are you looking at those ideas or evidence? Or are you avoiding it, afraid you'll have to modify your own?

You are also making a huge assumption, in your simple reply to me, above. I wonder if you know what that assumption is?

Keep smiling,

xouper

10th September 2002, 12:54 PM

For those who are using a score card to follow along:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
There is *no* evidence that the police act in the manner claimed by Hannibal.Another lie by Luci. There is plenty of evidence, but Luci dismisses it all because it contradicts her claim.

To claim such in the face of such strong evidence, is not only reprehensible, but downright misleading and may stop some psychics from offering information at all.This might actually be a good thing if so-called "psychics" stopped pestering the police with their nonsense. As many police have said, psychics are a waste of their time. This is another fact that Luci dismisses since it contradicts her claim.

Given the fact that psychics *do* help the police, which has been evidenced by the Cheif of Williston PD, USA , Ed's confirmation from the Williston detective involved in the case ...Here we go yet again with this same stupid lie from Luci. No matter how many times this lie has been refuted, Luci continues to repeat it, perhaps hoping some uninformed person will fall for it.

It has been repeatedly shown on this forum that the information given by Noreen Renier was wrong. The body was not found where she said it would be. This irritating fact never seems to stop Luci from claiming that the psychic "helped" in this case, when clearly she did not, regardless of anything the police told Ed. Ed did not confirm that psychics helped the Williston police solve the case.

Edited to fix spellnig error.

10th September 2002, 02:45 PM

What is the name of your "laboratory" that you have referred to?

What about those lottery predictions?

Just curious.

Wolverine

10th September 2002, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Even wolverine confirmed that Scotland Yard don't treat psychics in the disrespectful and dismissive manner claimed by Hannibal!

Case solved.

Uh, no.

Imagine you are a desk sergeant at a police station:

A citizen walks in off the street, approaches you, and states: "Hello. I have some information I'd like to report that may be pertinent to case X."

-or-

A citizen walks in off the street, approaches you, and states: "Hello. Last night while I was communicating with my spirit guide Chauncey, he brought to my attention this poor spirit who says he was murdered, and I have reason to believe it was the deceased in case X. I'd like to channel his spirit for you now so he can tell you who murdered him."

I would be most curious to see the sergeant that would actually file a report to his superiors based on the latter other than for the purpose of having a laugh.

This statement... :

from Scotland Yard
My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone.

... does not offer verification that psychics are not treated in a disrespectful or dismissive manner. It merely asserts that Scotland Yard:

1) does not employ psychics to participate in police investigations

2) takes evidence provided by any individual into consideration

Again...

Originally posted by Hannibal
Do you now accept that Police do not use Psychics but will respond to ANY information given by ANY member of the public?

This just isn't so difficult to grasp. Is it?

KelvinG

10th September 2002, 05:38 PM

Luci
Have you looked at any of the links yet offered up by others on this board? Seems to me a true skeptic, as you often proclaim yourself to be, would have researched everything and would be willing and able to discuss alternate viewpoints.
Can we expect that to happen anytime soon, or are you simply going to continue on like a broken record pointing to the same story over and over.
What do you say Luci? Unleash that powerful skeptic mind on us.

The Fool

10th September 2002, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In fact the Police Federation magazine and the BBC both report how psychics work in a*positive* and helpfull way with the police, in fact, no one has provided *any* credible evidence that the police *don't* take them seriously.

In light of thiis, I think Hannibal and Fool should behave like grown men and now offer their apology.

Luci, That is now 8 times in 2 threads you have sited that "Police Federation and BBC" rubbish, I told you last time that I would refuse to continue to point out the flaws in it.

You are not interested in debate, you just restate the same flawed argument over and over and over and over. This is the style of the propagandist not the debater.... Ever thought of taking up the "conciousness creates matter" cause? Your style would really suit it.

Ok, Here is your apology....

I apologise for providing evidence that is not consistant with your conclusions.

I note you have not posted to this thread for a while, your usual
behaviour is when the weight of contrary evidence starts to make you look more and more stupid you vanish for a while.....wait till the thread drifts off the page, then post another, using the same tired "evidence" and hope some people will think it is something new....

Hannibal

11th September 2002, 12:42 AM

Hannibal,

This troll is yanking your chain. It's plain you won this argument hands down days ago.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you. I think everyone can see that. I have no agenda here, I am simply stating things that I KNOW (as opposed to read).

Luci, I am no longer debating the issue with you. I am sure that you will post more demnads for apologies but you will not get them. You are obstinate and I for one do not relish debate with that kind of mentatlity. At least Bethke was good for a laugh...at times.

RonSceptic

11th September 2002, 01:08 AM

Luci,

As our crackpot in residence, please pass on to all your crackpot friends the sincere thanks of a grateful nation for the great assistance they had rendered to police investigations over the years..............by staying out of the way.

As for the meddling dimwits who waste valuable police time by peddling their unwanted, useless, and inane mumbo jumbo I would say this. Tell them they can take their crystals, their pendulums, their crystal balls and their dousing rods and shove them right up their.................but wait. I don’t need to say it. They already know.

And so do you.

Jeff

12th September 2002, 01:47 PM

Bump lower...

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Marc
I heard somewhere that one definition for insanity was if a person repeatedly takes the same actions, under the same conditions, and expects different results.

By that definition just about everyone on this thread might be considered insane.

Indeed, given the fact that Hannibal and Fool have been given the evidence from the BBC and The Police Federation and Scotland Yard that the police work in a positive relationship with psychics, it is quit irrational in the face of such evidence for Hannibal and Fool to be so reticent to apoligise for their repeated and evidently erroneous claims.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 01:53 AM

Given the fact that Hannibal and Fool have been given the evidence from the BBC and The Police Federation and Scotland Yard that the police work in a positive relationship with psychics, it is quit irrational in the face of such evidence for Hannibal and Fool to be so reticent to apoligise for their repeated and evidently erroneous claims.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:36 AM

I put the credibility of the BBC, The Police Federation and Scotland Yard *way* above some obscure, clearly biased web source. Way above.

There is *no* evidence that the police act in the manner claimed by Hannibal. To claim such in the face of such strong evidence, is not only reprehensible, but downright misleading and may stop some psychics from offering information at all. Given the fact that psychics *do* help the police, which has been evidenced by the Cheif of Williston PD, USA , Ed's confirmation from the Williston detective involved in the case and the UK's own Police Federation, such continuance of misinformation is plain stupid.

Even wolverine confirmed that Scotland Yard don't treat psychics in the disrespectful and dismissive manner claimed by Hannibal!

Case solved.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:37 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:38 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:38 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:39 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:39 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:41 AM

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal

Hannibal is not man enough to admit his mistake in the face of the evidence, for shame.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:41 AM

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal

He is not man enough to admit his mistake in the face of the evidence, for shame.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:42 AM

The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtml

Both these examples come from highly credible sources, and as such prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Hanniball and the Fool are evidently *wrong* in any claim they may have that the police don't use psychics in the UK. Ed has already confirmed that the police use psychics to "help" solve cases in the US, this evidence confirms that the same is true in the UK.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:42 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:43 AM

bump lower

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:45 AM

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal

He is not man enough to admit his mistake in the face of the evidence, for shame.

Hannibal

13th September 2002, 04:06 AM

test

Hannibal

13th September 2002, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
See my previous answer and stop clutching at straws

For shame on you too for being so petty.

Oh, and define "being a man" for me. I would like to know how I fit into your definition...that is actually a lie I don't give a poop I just like to know what I am being accused of being (or not).

Luci, do you seriously think you are convincing anyone here? Honestly?

Still stands

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 04:35 AM

" My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone."

Indeed, that quote completely debunks Hannibal's claim about psychics, to wit:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. "

...is now proven to evidently, completely and uttery wrong.

In fact the Police Federation magazine and the BBC both report how psychics work in a*positive* and helpfull way with the police, in fact, no one has provided *any* credible evidence that the police *don't* take them seriously.

In light of thiis, I think Hannibal and Fool should behave like grown men and now offer their apology.

Hannibal

13th September 2002, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Psiload

And now to the Los Angeles police dept. where according to Dan Cooke, head of the public relations for the department. "The LAPD has not, does not and will not use psychics in the investigation of crimes, period, if a psychic offers free information to us over the phone, we will listen to them politely, [B]but we do not take them seriously. It is a waste of time." [QUOTE]

Gee, what does it mean Luci? It is so ambiguous isn't it?

"Do you now accept that Police do not use Psychics but will respond to ANY information given by ANY member of the public?"

Gosh, that too! I wonder what it means?

Oh yeah, Luci, I am being sarcastic. You have already proven your inability to differentiate between offhand comments and genuine points so I will try and keep it simple for you from now on.

Have a nice day though! :D

As does this...Luci you are making yourself look a tit...just look at the others comments to see...you stand alone and have convinced NOBODY..I have. Therefore I would suggest you back off, back down and go watch JE or whatever takes your fancy. I reufse to debate logic with someone who is not holding a logical view.

Latimer

13th September 2002, 11:26 AM

Hello,

Luci wrote:
No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation.

http://www.randi.org/jr/07-02-2000.html
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/psychicSleuths.htm
http://www.parascope.com/en/renier02.htm
http://skepdic.com/psychdet.html
http://www.she-dc.com/pages/educ/Articles/psychics.htm
http://pac-c.org/police_use_of_psychics.htm
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~rwynar/PsychicDetectives.html
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/020197/psychic.htm
http://rivendell.fortunecity.com/perilith/919/bio/Psychic5.htm
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/notSoPsychic.htm
http://www.mbdojo.com/~rssl/howtobeapsychic.html

That's enough. Again.

Latimer

13th September 2002, 11:32 AM

Hello again,

Luci wrote:
The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtm

I hate to tell you this; but I tried both links and got nothing but 404 errors. They, therefore, do not support your case.

Can you check them, please? Or perhaps cite other evidence?

Keep smiling,

Latimer

13th September 2002, 09:57 PM

Hello,

Strange; how time changes seem to affect where the posting appears... I thought I posted after those last three.

Anyhow, sorta bump for posts above the last ones; regrading links and the fact that Lucianarchy's appear not to work...

Keep smiling,

xouper

13th September 2002, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Hannibal to Lucianarchy
...Luci you are making yourself look a tit...just look at the others comments to see...you stand alone and have convinced NOBODY..I have.Agreed.

Lucianarchy

14th September 2002, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Luci, That is now 8 times in 2 threads you have sited that "Police Federation and BBC" rubbish, I told you last time that I would refuse to continue to point out the flaws in it.

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal

He is not man enough to admit his mistake in the face of the evidence, for shame.

Hannibal

14th September 2002, 02:21 AM

See my previous answer and stop clutching at straws

For shame on you too for being so petty.

Oh, and define "being a man" for me. I would like to know how I fit into your definition...that is actually a lie I don't give a poop I just like to know what I am being accused of being (or not).

Luci, do you seriously think you are convincing anyone here? Honestly?

Hannibal

14th September 2002, 02:26 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Psiload

And now to the Los Angeles police dept. where according to Dan Cooke, head of the public relations for the department. "The LAPD has not, does not and will not use psychics in the investigation of crimes, period, if a psychic offers free information to us over the phone, we will listen to them politely, [B]but we do not take them seriously. It is a waste of time." [QUOTE]

Gee, what does it mean Luci? It is so ambiguous isn't it?

"Do you now accept that Police do not use Psychics but will respond to ANY information given by ANY member of the public?"

Gosh, that too! I wonder what it means?

Oh yeah, Luci, I am being sarcastic. You have already proven your inability to differentiate between offhand comments and genuine points so I will try and keep it simple for you from now on.

Have a nice day though! :D

headscratcher4

14th September 2002, 04:04 AM

Luci:

I know my last post was long, and as my wife has told me, I am often worth ignoring. However, given the bogus material you cite for your assertions, please respond to my factual point. That is:

Police do not use Psychics because it creates bad evidence. No chain of evidence created by reliance on a psychic would be admitted into a court of law. Finally, can you point to one case, anywhere in the western world in the last 50 years where evidence created by a psychic has been critical to the determination of a case -- i.e. the conviction of a criminal.

I do not know, but I would bet all I have, that in England and the US, at least, the answer to that question is NO.

Because that answer is no, no credible police force will ever use or rely on psychics. Now, if you believers want to put it to a test, submit those "studies" you claim establish proof of Psi to a court in order to have psychic testimony declared scientifically valid, e.g. DNA, fingerprints (I know, there's been some recent questions about fingerprints), etc. That would be real first steps toward actually proving that you believe those “studies” have any real merit. It would prove the scientific acceptance of the alleged phenomenon. It would prove the utility and value of psychic "insight", and it would prove that police use psychics.

However, as they don't, you and those who assert the reality of "psychics" wont.

You can always find some odd police officer somewhere to blather about this. However, the fact remains that there is no recorded police case or crime that has been solved as a result of evidence discovered through use of a psychic. Not one.
______

The Fool

14th September 2002, 04:06 AM

Luci..
Turning up to the track every day with the same beaten Greyhound on a lead is not going to do your long term reputation any good. Get a new link eh???
Can't stay and chat, my house got burgled and the detectives are here. So far there has been no usefull leads from the Crystal ball But they said not to worry because they have a ouija board in the van if we get stuck....

Marc

14th September 2002, 04:47 AM

I heard somewhere that one definition for insanity was if a person repeatedly takes the same actions, under the same conditions, and expects different results.

By that definition just about everyone on this thread might be considered insane. You keep repeating the same actions: using logic and demanding evidence from lucian. Do any of you expect to get any other reaction than denial, deflection, obfuscation, and lies?

Just wanted to point that out. :)

Marc the Troll Starver

chrisjt

16th September 2002, 05:25 AM

Since the BBC press release is ambiguous and gives no direct quote from any source at Scotland Yard you have to read between the lines:

"Scotland Yard confirmed they had consulted(been contacted by) Mrs Evans in the past to help them with an investigation(which she didn't) and the National Crime Faculty confirmed she was registered on their database as a psychic(timewaster)."

RandFan

16th September 2002, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I know my last post was long, and as my wife has told me, I am often worth ignoring. However, given the bogus material you cite for your assertions, please respond to my factual point. That is:

Police do not use Psychics Because it creates bad evidence. No chain of evidence created by relience on a psychic would be admitted into a court of law. Finally, can you point to one case, anywhere in the western world in the last 50 years where evidence created by a psychic has been critical to the determination of a case -- i.e. the conviction of a criminal. ...waiting...

Charlie in Dayton

16th September 2002, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

The BBC is a news organization. Take what they say with whatever quantity of salt you think appropriate.

What is the 'Police Federation', who or what is its membership, and where is its jurisdiction (if any)? Is this any sort of official law enforcement group (a la Interpol), or is it more of a fraternal organization? Do they speak officially for anyone, or just unofficially for themselves? Or are they some sort of PR group?

I haven't seen these questions yet, and I believe the answers will reflect greatly on the credibility of the entire issue.

Hannibal

17th September 2002, 12:56 AM

The Police Federation is teh job equivalent of a union. The Police are not actually allowed a union or to go on strike so the Federation provides negotiation with the government and support for its employees. They also provide legal representation if necessary for any officer "in a spot of bother".

They are NOT a body that is allowed to dictate policy - and ultimately there is little they can do anyway (for reasons stated above). They are not an enforcement group and are there solely for the welfare of members. Any report they make on the ins/outs of a case will be in a similar vein to any news report and subject to the same criteria for credibility.

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 01:38 AM

These two references have still not been debunked. the Police Federation represent the rank and file police officers, those that actually *do* the work. The second comes from the BBC well known for accuracy and credibility throughout the world.

The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtml

Both these examples come from highly credible sources, and as such prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Hanniball and the Fool are evidently *wrong* in any claim they may have that the police don't use psychics in the UK. Ed has already confirmed that the police use psychics to "help" solve cases in the US, this evidence confirms that the same is true in the UK.

Ove

17th September 2002, 01:41 AM

I heard somewhere that one definition for insanity was if a person repeatedly takes the same actions, under the same conditions, and expects different results.

To be correct i believe that is the signs of a "Manic Depression"
http://216.40.241.68/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gif

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Ove

To be correct i believe that is the signs of a "Manic Depression"
http://216.40.241.68/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gif

Indeed, so in the face of such highlt credible evidence it does seem very irrational for the Fool and Hannibal to keep making personal opinion over verifiable facts. It perhaps has more to do with their unwillignness to behave in an honourable manner and apologise for their misinformation and act like grown men.

xouper

17th September 2002, 04:13 AM

Hannibal

17th September 2002, 04:16 AM

Hear, hear!

chrisjt

17th September 2002, 04:19 AM

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.

The following statement by Mrs Evans clearly implies that the police don't use "psychics" to help with their enquiries:

"They don’t want to look as if they’re not doing their job properly. In 20 or 30 years I think the police will be using psychics to help them solve crimes."

This press release is both ambiguous and self-contradictory and is typical shoddy, sensationalised press reporting of the alleged supernatural.

Hannibal

17th September 2002, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Indeed, so in the face of such highlt credible evidence it does seem very irrational for the Fool and Hannibal to keep making personal opinion over verifiable facts. It perhaps has more to do with their unwillignness to behave in an honourable manner and apologise for their misinformation and act like grown men.

Luci, are you being obtuse or stupid?

I am NOT stating personal opinion - I am stating FACTS derived from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. There is a wealth of difference.

The links you posted are self-contradictory and have been de-constructed on several posts. to whit, there is NO EVIDENCE for the Police approaching the psychic; NO EVIDENCE for the information actually being fundemental in solving the case (intelligence analysis) and NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Police use psychics IN A LINE OF ENQUIRY unless the "psychic" has first approached them and VOLUNTEERED the info.

Please re-read my post referring to Ybo - the logic is IDENTICAL to that which you are using.

Also Luci, why do the stale, tired and often reposted TWO links that you provide have more weight than the ELEVEN provided by Latimer? I would say your "evidence" has been countered more than adequately.

Furthermore why ignore DIRECT TESTIMONY from myself (UK based Police experience), Scotland Yard (about as "official" as you can get) and from Andalyn (US based Police experience)? All have stated that POLICE DO NOT EMPLOY PSYCHICS!! Follow the links - they all say the same. Even yours for goodness sake!

As a final note, this is how stupid your logic and your statemnets are;

If psychics are USED by the Police (note the emphasis) to solve crimes, then th eevidence they present must be testable and credible. To put it another way, it must be admissable in a court of law. Why is it Luci that they only offer info that relates to matters that DO NOT REQUIRE A COURT APPEARANCE? I think that you'll find it is because the case would be thrown out. Try this for size

"How did you find the knife in the house Officer"
"Information from a psychic"
"I see...and was the warrant signed by a Senior Officer on those grounds alone"
"Err..yes.."
"Your Honour I move that this case be dismissed on the grounds that the evidence presented was as the result of an illegal search and therefore inadmissable"

This is only a potted example and greatly over-simplified but NO OFFICER IN THE WORLD WILL STAKE THEIR REPUTATION LIKE THIS on info that is provided bya psychic. The fact you claim they would shows your ignorance of the legal system and the Police force in general.

Luci, I will not engage in a flame war with you. You seem to think that by attacking my masculinity you will goad me - you will not.

How many lives have you saved Luci? How many crimes have you solved? How many assaults have you prevented? How many domestic incidnets haveyou cleaned up? How much of a difference have YOU made in the world by your DIRECT actions? I am DAMN PROUD of my work in the Police - and I am going to resume my career in a few weeks. I have proven to anyone with a sense of impartiality that you are spouting forth nonsense. Look at the responses I get compared to yours? Does that not tell you something?

Think on this too Luci - "When more than three people tell you you that your pipes are leaking, see a plumber"

Bahala Na!

chessmanskeptic

17th September 2002, 05:27 AM

I think the police should stop trying to rely on psychics for finding people. The idea is just nonsense. Why this is even debatable is out of the question. Face it, psychics are not god with finding people, and most of them are quacks in the first place. No psychic has won Randi's challenge yet!

Hannibal

17th September 2002, 05:31 AM

Chessman,

READ THE THREADS!

Police DON'T! Only Luci seems to think that!

Bahala Na!;)

chessmanskeptic

17th September 2002, 05:31 AM

We need to rely more and more on physical evidence, instead of quack psychics! John Edwards, if you read this, go and hang yourself already. You do not stand a chance when it comes to Randi's challenge. I myself think that you are a deceiver of people. Face it, you can not give a true clear reading, because you started alot of this new age psychic stuff in the first place. So understand, you need to just quit it, orface the Wrath of the skeptic community. I would lol if he actually went to the police to be a psychic on the case.

The Fool

17th September 2002, 05:36 AM

Hey luci.....
I Think you've worn those 2 links out by posting them that often...Have you checked them lately? They don't seem to exist any more.....Hey, why don't you get a police Psychic to find out what happened to them? Its obviously a conspiracy to supress the truth.

On a side issue, are your posts to usenet still getting rejected by the spam filters??

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
Hear, hear!

Thank you, I accept your apology.

Wolverine

17th September 2002, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
These two references have still not been debunked. the Police Federation represent the rank and file police officers, those that actually *do* the work. The second comes from the BBC well known for accuracy and credibility throughout the world.

The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtml

Both these examples come from highly credible sources, and as such prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Hanniball and the Fool are evidently *wrong* in any claim they may have that the police don't use psychics in the UK. Ed has already confirmed that the police use psychics to "help" solve cases in the US, this evidence confirms that the same is true in the UK.

LOL :D For a second, I thought further posting problems with the forum had arisen... now I can see that Luci's record is stuck.

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
We need to rely more and more on physical evidence...

So true. Speaking of which, where's the physical evidence that Cybershaman had anything to do with your gardening success or any of the other nitwit claims of which you spoke? Regardless of the fact you deleted your posts on that ludicrous thread in an effort to cover your tracks, and seem to now be making an attempt to jump on skepticism's bandwagon, your credibility meter still reads a fat zero.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...many who call themselves 'skeptics' here, are, in fact, pseudo-skeptics, relgious zealots, control freaks and sufferers of clinical denial

Wow Luci, I have to agree with you on this one, simply because...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...like myself and other fellow skeptics here...

... you made an oustandingly accurate self-diagnosis.

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Wolverine

LOL :D For a second, I thought further posting problems with the forum had arisen... now I can see that Luci's record is stuck.

Those references have yet to be debunked. This is why you like to throw insults around, in the hope that the attention can be drawn away from the FACT no one has provided any more credible references than those from the BBC and The Police Federation. No flaws have been demonstrated. Repeat, *no one* has provided more credible sources other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, and *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal
[/B][/QUOTE]

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I think the police should stop trying to rely on psychics for finding people. The idea is just nonsense. Why this is even debatable is out of the question. Face it, psychics are not god with finding people, and most of them are quacks in the first place. No psychic has won Randi's challenge yet!

I am a fellow skeptic, like your self. I agree, there are a lot of fraudsters and scam artists out there looking to roll a few rubes before lunch, but if you remain skeptical and look at *all* the evidence, and be honest enough and open minded enough to be skeptical of claims from wherever they come, including those who call themselves 'skeptic', then you are sometimes left with data which just won't simply be 'debunked' away by making loud shouting noises. The claim of some here is that the police

"may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " "

Which given the references from the BBC and the Police Federation - see the links at the first post in the thread - is demonstrably and quite evidently, wrong. BTW (a) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that some remote viewing works - look at the SAIC experiments and the replications by PEAR. (b) Why would anyone who understands the importance of the scientific method and independant peer review take a mere challenge? These people go to proper labs where magicians and scientists can look at these effect in an unbiased and independantly peer reviewed manner. Maybe Randi does a good job of weeding out the scammers and self deluded, but when we get to the real interesting stuff, you have to have a conjourers input *together* with independant and unbiased sound scientific methodology.

De_Bunk

17th September 2002, 09:44 AM

Luci...

You a skeptic......dont make me laugh....

You believe anything anyone tells you....as long as it prefers the paranormal....

Skeptic my ass....you already think the paranormal exists...

RichardR

17th September 2002, 09:48 AM

Another public service announcement again:

There is no point in engaging in debate with Lucianarchy because he/she/it simply repeats him/her/itself and ignores valid criticisms/questions he/she/it cannot answer.

darling

17th September 2002, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by RichardR
There is no point in engaging in debate with Lucianarchy because he/she/it simply repeats him/her/itself and ignores valid criticisms/questions he/she/it cannot answer.

... example - asking for 'credible' souces. The definition of 'credible' in this case is 'agrees with me'.

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Thank you, I accept your apology.

What apology?

I was using humour to make a point - I was NOT expecting that to be taken as a 100% official guide to dealing with "psychics". For believing you were inteliigent enough to differentiate I apologise.

Oh....THAT one. Your welcome...good to see you recognise your own stupidity. That is the first step to curing yourself.

There is no point in engaging in debate with Lucianarchy because he/she/it simply repeats him/her/itself and ignores valid criticisms/questions he/she/it cannot answer.

Never a truer word spoken. I am now going to stop feeding this Troll. I have already proven it to be full of poop and the entire board agrees with me. The truly sad thing is this troll fails to realise what a complete joke it is seen as.

Oh to be that blissfully stupid.....

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 12:50 AM

There are a lot of fraudsters and scam artists out there looking to roll a few rubes before lunch, but if you remain skeptical and look at *all* the evidence, and be honest enough and open minded enough to be skeptical of claims from wherever they come, including those who call themselves 'skeptic', then you are sometimes left with data which just won't simply be 'debunked' away by making loud shouting noises. The claim of Hannibal is that the police

"may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " "

Which given the references from the BBC and the Police Federation, (no one has provided a more credible source - see the links at the first post in the thread) Hannibal's claim is demonstrably, factualy and quite evidently, completely wrong.

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 12:52 AM

Answered this one, won't again, shut the feck up...

Have a nice day!

RonSceptic

18th September 2002, 12:56 AM

Luci wants an apology. Ok I am happy to provide one as follows....

A few post back I described Luci as a 'crackpot'. I realise now that the comment was totaly unfair and must have caused great distress to crackpots the world over.

So to all you crackpots out there I am truly sorry for associating you with Luci.

Luci is in a class of it's own when it comes to dimwitted naivety.

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
Answered this one, won't again, shut the feck up...

Have a nice day!

You haven't answered with verifiable facts at all, you've just provided your personal opinion, based on obviously limited or ill infomed data, this much is proven through the BBC and The Police Fed, and I tend to put these sources way above the perosnal opinion of someone who claims to be a copper and posts with an avatar which alludes to a serial killer!

chrisjt

18th September 2002, 01:10 AM

"I was a member of the Jackie Poole Murder Squad throughout the original 15-month investigation. Within a few days of the incident, a colleague and I were assigned to visit 22-year old Christine Holohan at her council house in South Ruislip, after she had telephoned to offer information.Her call omitted to mention her belief that her source of information was the dead victim."

And this is the best evidence that the police do use psychics?

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You haven't answered with verifiable facts at all, you've just provided your personal opinion, based on obviously limited or ill infomed data, this much is proven through the BBC and The Police Fed, and I tend to put these sources way above the perosnal opinion of someone who claims to be a copper and posts with an avatar which alludes to a serial killer!

Again. already answered all these points, won't again...learn to read..shut the feck up...have a nice day!

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by chrisjt
"I was a member of the Jackie Poole Murder Squad throughout the original 15-month investigation. Within a few days of the incident, a colleague and I were assigned to visit 22-year old Christine Holohan at her council house in South Ruislip, after she had telephoned to offer information.Her call omitted to mention her belief that her source of information was the dead victim."

And this is the best evidence that the police do use psychics?

No, just some of the available evidence from credible sources. Aside form accusing the woman of being involved in a joint police conspiracy or accusing her of being involved in the crime, what is your mundane explanation for her providing the correct nickname and her accuracy in reading the police officer's change of job?

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 01:46 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................................

Brickroad

18th September 2002, 01:58 AM

The thought of me or one of my loved ones being falsely accused and convicted on evidence presented by a psychic scares the bejesus out of me, but not as much as the fact that folks like Lucianarchy would be cheering at my trial.

I'm glad that my country's judicial system is designed to protect me from such nonsense.

Hmm... I wonder if I spelled "bejesus" correctly. :)

Ceinwyn

18th September 2002, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You haven't answered with verifiable facts at all, you've just provided your personal opinion, based on obviously limited or ill infomed data, this much is proven through the BBC and The Police Fed, and I tend to put these sources way above the perosnal opinion of someone who claims to be a copper and posts with an avatar which alludes to a serial killer!

Wow.

I'm a newbie here, and even I realize when the bell rings and the party's over.

Lucianarchy is a troll, pure and simple. Keep replying, he'll give you more.

Why waste your time?

Lothian

18th September 2002, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

No, just some of the available evidence from credible sources. Aside form accusing the woman of being involved in a joint police conspiracy or accusing her of being involved in the crime, what is your mundane explanation for her providing the correct nickname and her accuracy in reading the police officer's change of job?

I know nothing about the case but would guess luck. What is your mundane explanation for the fact that psychics could not provide useful information in respect of the two girls from Soham and numerous other cases of missing children. What is your mundane explanation for the reasons that the information that psychics produce is so vague. If the messages come from the deceased why do they not give names and addresses when the victims clearly know them. What is your mundane explanation for the fact that we insist on using Juries when according to you Psychics clearly know the answer. What is your mundane explanation for conflicting information provided by psychics. What is your mundane explanation for repeatedly posting the same trite.

Ove

18th September 2002, 04:00 AM

What is your mundane explanation for repeatedly posting the same trite.

Like i said: Manic Depression. Only problem is that Luci (like most other ga-ga's) believes that it is everybody else that are crazy and he/she/it is normal. ;)

RonSceptic

18th September 2002, 05:07 AM

Luci,

I saw this and thought of you.....

The Woo Woo Credo (http://watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 05:11 AM

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!:D :D :D

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!:D :D :D

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

I know nothing about the case but would guess luck.

You know nothing about the case, but would rather make wild guesess? Well to have had a 'lucky' guess in getting that particular nickname would be pushing 'luck' to a ridiculous degree, it was "Pokie", a very, very, uncommon nickname, but she gave this name to the police.

But there's more to this 'luck'...

"During the course of the investigation, we received several calls from people offering their services as psychics, but they talked nonsense. Christine was exceptional. We were never to find the remotest connection between her and anyone who could have told her all that she seemed to know. In theory, and given nough time and resources, she could have collected much of her information through contact with the actual killer or someone in whom he confided, and with the victim’s relatives and friends, and also with Murder Squad officers. I collated every statement and document throughout the 1983-4 investigation. However bizarre the conclusion, the only single source of all her knowledge had to be the victim. If any lesson is to be learnt, it is that one should not dismiss the possibilities out of hand. [...]

[...]Christine then described three different aspects of his (a police officer's ) personal life, none of which I had known about. We had not worked together before.

The first was extremely personal indeed and quite detailed. He confirmed those details to me after we had left. She also stated that he had received a letter concerning ‘essential electrical work’. He told me that he had received a mortgage offer from a Building Society the previous day, with the condition that the house he wanted to buy was rewired. Andy was quite dismissive about the third, which predicted his imminent transfer to another police area. Unexpected by him, maybe, but an order transferring him to another Division came within a few days. He was quite shaken by the whole experience. The Squad included more than twenty detectives, and we ourselves had picked up the assignment only that morning, and by chance. "

RonSceptic

18th September 2002, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!:D :D :D

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!:D :D :D

I thought you'd like it. It's pretty accurate.

Meanwhile, undeterred, Luci proceeds to post more repetitive drivel.

xouper

18th September 2002, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by buki
Wow. I'm a newbie here, and even I realize when the bell rings and the party's over. Lucianarchy is a troll, pure and simple. Keep replying, he'll give you more. Why waste your time? Welcome to the forum. You passed the second test, identifying our resident kook, Luci. :D

Lothian

18th September 2002, 05:47 AM

Care to comment on the rest Luci ?

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 05:54 AM

Lothian,

I have been dying to do this for ages.....

Do you know your avatar has a duck on his head?

(waits for response of......)

Wolverine

18th September 2002, 08:55 AM

Okay, we can do the selective quotation thing from the Police Magazine magazine article.

"Within a few days of the incident, a colleague and I were assigned to visit 22-year old Christine Holohan at her council house in South Ruislip, after she had telephoned to offer information. Her call omitted to mention her belief that her source of information was the dead victim. She told us that she had been “bothered by psychic experiences” since her childhood in Ireland."

Note the person they went to interview is not on the police department's payroll as a psychic employed by the police. As stated by Hannibal as well as Scotland Yard, is routine police procedure for them to interview someone bringing forth information.

"During the first week, two more sessions were held with Christine, and although the officers reported being impressed by her grasp of related issues, we gained little of consequence."

Imagine my surprise.

"Almost all that Christine said would have and indeed did come to light during the investigation, but we lacked the vital evidence of witnesses and forensics."

If that's so, then what useful function did Christine serve? Did she specifically introduce anything the investigating officers would have not found otherwise, or is this just a fringe feel-good article written for an obscure British police union magazine?

See, the problem here is that the context of the article written by Tony Batters, although he was at the time a police officer, stems from his personal beliefs about Christine Holohan, her alleged psychic abilities, and any usefulness the interaction with this person provided during the investigative process. Simply because he deemed her "exceptional" does not imply that it is police policy for any department in the United Kingdom to seek out and work with psychics during the investigative process, nor does it verify Holohan's alleged psychic powers. Additionally, his position and/or personal beliefs should not be applied to the Police Federation of England and Wales as a whole, unless they acknowledge an endorsement of psychics by their union.

Perhaps things work a tad differently in the UK, but here in the US, there is significant likelihood that an outside party with such detailed knowledge of a crime, the victim(s), the perpetrator(s), the crime scene.... would find themself under investigation by the police for any connection to the slaying.

Having already established Scotland Yard's position, that they do not employ psychics to participate or aid in ongoing or unsolved criminal investigations, perhaps it's now time to contact the Police Federation of England and Wales to see if they're willing to clarify their position on the issue as well.

[*edited to correct a typo*]

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Care to comment on the rest Luci ?

Straw man. I'm not making claims about the official status of 'psychics', I'm providing credible evidence that whether or not they officialy employ them, they still work *with* some of them in a positive relationship.

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine

Having already established Scotland Yard's position, that they do not employ psychics to participate or aid in ongoing or unsolved criminal investigations, perhaps it's now time to contact the Police Federation of England and Wales to see if they're willing to clarify their position on the issue as well.

[*edited to correct a typo*]

Irrelevant.

As 'psychics' or remote viewers aren't yet fully accepted by the majority of mainstream science, then the Police could hardly 'officialy' put them 'through the books', so of course it can't be used as evidence. But the Police Federation article shows an example of the sort of officers who do the face work who can still gather intelligence and record information from a 'psychic', information which she could not have known about. My point has always been not whether or not the police officially employ psychics, officialy they *can't*, but evidently they sometimes do work *with* some 'psychics' in a positive relationship, and they are to be admired for that.

You can't fault the evidence form the Police Federation magazine, this infomation was detected and recorded by Police officers. Apart from accusing her of being involved in the crime ( in which case you better report your evidence to the police ), or of her being involved in some inside conspiracy with the police ( in which case you had better report your evidence to the Home Office ), there is no mundane explanation for her correctly supplying the nickname or of her providing the 'self evident' details about the police officer.

headscratcher4

18th September 2002, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Straw man. I'm not making claims about the official status of 'psychics', I'm providing credible evidence that whether or not they officialy employ them, they still work *with* some of them in a positive relationship.

No matter how you dress it up, it can't be a "positive" relationship, because NO EVIDENCE GENERATED IN A INVESTIGATION AND PROFFERED BY A "PSYCHIC" AS PSYCHICALLY DERIVED would be admissable in a court of law.

The job of the police is to solve crimes and prosecute criminals. If the crime is solved because they positively engaged with a psychic, the evidence of the crime would likely be thrown out of court. A criminal would walk.

You can site this blather all you want, but police don't work with "psychics" because their leads, information is unusable. If they believed the information to be usable, they would move to have the court recognize "psychics" as experts and credable witnesses...they haven't, and won't --- CAUSE' JUDGES, REAL SCIENTISTS AND THE PUBLIC WOULD LAUGH IT OUT OF COURT.

More importantly, any police department that relies on psychic evidence in making its case against an alleged criminal is not only violating that person's civil rights, any conviction obtained based upon that evidence would be thrown out of court.

So, you are left with the proposition that the police lie about how evidence is obtained, rather than stand-up in mass and based upon their use and experience of the "value" of psychics to demand that the evidence be recognized.

They haven't and won't. In the end, either your evidence is as shallow as it seems or there are no honorable men and women in law enforcement.

18th September 2002, 12:08 PM

I've been lurking here for a little while and feel compelled to chime in here (hating myself for it all the while).

The predominant argument appears to be between Lucianarchy and Hannibal. Luci is trying to establish two claims:

(1l) Police use psychics and
(2l) Psychics provide useful information to police.

Hannibal has countered these claims, citing his personal experience in the UK police force, with the assertion that (1h) police in the UK *never* contact psychics, but will respond to the information they volunteer as they do with any information received by the public.

Luci offers two references to support these assertions:

(a) a report in the press (the BBC article);
(b) the other a article written by a British police about how a psychic was helpful in a particular case.

(a) is somewhat self-contradictory, noting that Scotland Yard has and does use psychics (and even keeps a database of 'registered' psychics); but also that South Wales Police do not contact psychics---presumably two separate agencies with two separate policies. This seems to support (1l) and refute (1h), though it isn't clear whether SY actually contacts psychics without them offering information. Other research, such as Wiseman, West and Stemman's (1996) article in the
Skeptical Inquirer, "Psychic Crime Detectives: a new test for measuring their successes and failures", actually seems to support Luci's assertion that Police Departments worldwide will use psychics to provide tips in
cases:

<blockquote>
Many psychics claim to be able to help the police solve serious crime. Recent surveys suggest that approximately 35 percent of urban United States police departments and 19 percent of rural departments (Sweat and Durm 1993) admit to having used a psychic at least once in their investigations. In addition, Lyons and Truzzi (1991) report the widespread use of psychic detectives in several other countries including Britain, Holland, Germany, and France.
</blockquote>

(surely Lucianarcy won't object to the use of the SI when it is supportive?)

(b) is anecdotal evidence supplied by a single individual regarding the efficacy of psychic help. By itself, this contributes little to the debate.

Hannibal's assertion about the UK police not contacting psychics (contradicting (a)) is also anecdotal. Sorry Hannibal, but "FACTS derived from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" are anecdotal to an independent observer without external corroboration.

In summary: very little can be confidently concluded from this debate. Not so confident conclusions I've come to are:

(1) Police worldwide have passively used psychics to provide tips in active investigations. Some have most likely actively used them (sought their help).

(2) As with the civilian population, some individual police officers/detectives/etc. believe psychics are helpful or have been helpful, while others think they are charletans.

(3) No reliable data exists that confirms the utility of psychic tips in criminal investigations.

(4) No legal system, anywhere (in the West), will accept psychic tips as evidence, or even as legally actionable information (e.g., to obtain a search warrant).

I'll spare the board from personal opinions of the principal participants in this debate (either good or bad).

Cheers.

[Edited to correct formatting]

Charlie in Dayton

18th September 2002, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Hannibal
Lothian,

I have been dying to do this for ages.....

Do you know your avatar has a duck on his head?

(waits for response of......)

..."No, but if you hum a few bars, I'll try and fake it..." :D

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by crindt
I've been lurking here for a little while and feel compelled to chime in here (hating myself for it all the while).

The predominant argument appears to be between Lucianarchy and Hannibal. Luci is trying to establish two claims:

(1l) Police use psychics and
(2l) Psychics provide useful information to police.

Hannibal has countered these claims, citing his personal experience in the UK police force, with the assertion that (1h) police in the UK *never* contact psychics, but will respond to the information they volunteer as they do with any information received by the public.

Luci offers two references to support these assertions:

(a) a report in the press (the BBC article);
(b) the other a article written by a British police about how a psychic was helpful in a particular case.

(a) is somewhat self-contradictory, noting that Scotland Yard has and does use psychics (and even keeps a database of 'registered' psychics); but also that South Wales Police do not contact psychics---presumably two separate agencies with two separate policies. This seems to support (1l) and refute (1h), though it isn't clear whether SY actually contacts psychics without them offering information. Other research, such as Wiseman, West and Stemman's (1996) article in the
Skeptical Inquirer, "Psychic Crime Detectives: a new test for measuring their successes and failures", actually seems to support Luci's assertion that Police Departments worldwide will use psychics to provide tips in
cases:

<blockquote>
Many psychics claim to be able to help the police solve serious crime. Recent surveys suggest that approximately 35 percent of urban United States police departments and 19 percent of rural departments (Sweat and Durm 1993) admit to having used a psychic at least once in their investigations. In addition, Lyons and Truzzi (1991) report the widespread use of psychic detectives in several other countries including Britain, Holland, Germany, and France.
</blockquote>

(surely Lucianarcy won't object to the use of the SI when it is supportive?)

(b) is anecdotal evidence supplied by a single individual regarding the efficacy of psychic help. By itself, this contributes little to the debate.

Hannibal's assertion about the UK police not contacting psychics (contradicting (a)) is also anecdotal. Sorry Hannibal, but "FACTS derived from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" are anecdotal to an independent observer without external corroboration.

In summary: very little can be confidently concluded from this debate. Not so confident conclusions I've come to are:

(1) Police worldwide have passively used psychics to provide tips in active investigations. Some have most likely actively used them (sought their help).

(2) As with the civilian population, some individual police officers/detectives/etc. believe psychics are helpful or have been helpful, while others think they are charletans.

(3) No reliable data exists that confirms the utility of psychic tips in criminal investigations.

(4) No legal system, anywhere (in the West), will accept psychic tips as evidence, or even as legally actionable information (e.g., to obtain a search warrant).

I'll spare the board from personal opinions of the principal participants in this debate (either good or bad).

Cheers.

[Edited to correct formatting]

I don't disagree with much of what you say here. All I have pointed out is that the police evidently do work with psychics in a positive relationship, there is highly credible evidence to back this up, the example on this thread is the article in The Police federation magazine and the confirmation from the BBC / Scotlnad Yard. Hannibal's claim that the police:

"may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " "

Has been shown to false. We have evidence from the Police Fed that police officers do not treat 'psychics' in the manner he claims.

The evidence from the Police Federation magazine also provides credible evidence of a psychic obtaining significant hits in respect of a police case, in particular the nickname and the details of the police officer the other officers asked of her ( no one has provided a rational mundane explanation complete with supporting evidence ) .

Brickroad

19th September 2002, 12:48 AM

Lucianarchy: Just curious, but in your opinion should law enforcement agencies seek out and accept the help of psychics in their investigations? Should such evidence be admissible in a court of law?

If so, is such evidence to be considered infallible if no other evidence can be presented? Should juries be able to convict based solely on such evidence?

My apologies to the forum regulars if Luci has already answered these questions before, but I'm still new here. :)

Lothian

19th September 2002, 01:04 AM

Nothing has been proved. All we have here is one case where a psychic gave information (source unknown).

To review the history of British crime and cite a single case where a psychic approached the police, rather than the other way round and then quote that the police therefore use psychics is incredibly naïve.

Look at the bigger picture. Luci is (in my opinion) trying to convince people that psychic powers are real, because the police use psychics. For starters that conclusion is wrong. Secondly even if use of a psychic by the police was proof , how many uses constitute proof. Luci has found one, millions of crimes and one use by the police in the UK. Surely if there was evidence, evidence being something the police should be familiar with, that psychics were useful there would not be these arguments about whether police use psychics. There would be a couple assigned to each force and Luci would not have to resort to third party references. The police would freely admit and publish it.

This thread is, as in all Luci threads back where it started. Luci will not listen to reasoned debate. She merely posts the same stuff time and time again. She desperately tries to convince everyone in the existence of the paranormal posting various references. She resorts to this in desperation. If the paranormal does exist then it will be proved in the future not the past. Someone will one day say I can do this or that and then demonstrate it, or as has happened so far they won’t. The lack of successful challengers for the million dollar prize is all we need to know about the existence of paranormal powers.

Lothian

19th September 2002, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
Lothian,

I have been dying to do this for ages.....

Do you know your avatar has a duck on his head?

(waits for response of......)

No it doesn't.

(Sorry, can't help falling for the obvious).

susheel

19th September 2002, 01:21 AM

Lothian,

Shouldn't the reply be "What Duck?"

or maybe "What Avatar?"

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Brickroad
Lucianarchy: Just curious, but in your opinion should law enforcement agencies seek out and accept the help of psychics in their investigations?

In my opinion, in respect of some 'psychics', yes. There is too much credible evidence which suggests that remote viewing / 'psychics' can obtain information by means not fully understood by science. To ignore *out of hand* all information coming from 'psychics', simply because the *method* of information detection is not fully understood, would be irresponsible. In light of that evidence, If I were a police officer who knew details on on a case and had access to a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, I would asses whatever information they came forward with. If they gave a location, for instance, for a missing person, in light of their previous accuracy it would be irresponsible and stupid to ignore such information - particularly if, like in the case in the Police Fed article, the psychic demonstrated a history of verifiable accuracy. I may not be able to use that evidence in *Court*, but that alone could and should not stop me *acting* on the information recieved.

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

Lothian

19th September 2002, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by susheel
Lothian,

Shouldn't the reply be "What Duck?"

or maybe "What Avatar?"

Why does everyone keep going on about ducks ?

-=Vagrant=-

19th September 2002, 01:37 AM

Lucy is very clever, since he/she/it uses phases as "straw man" and other quotes that are usually connected with critical thinking and using logic. It creates the illusion that he/she/it does think with his/her/its brain.

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Nothing has been proved. All we have here is one case where a psychic gave information (source unknown).

The source is The Police Federation magazine, and the detective involved is named, and no one has given a rational, mundane explanation for why the 'psychic' was able to get the extremely rare nickname spot on, or how she knew about the details of the police officer which the other officers asked details of!

The only explanation so far is that she must have been involved in the crime, or that she was invlolved in a joint police conspiracy! With nothing to support either of those beliefs, then it is irrational to cling to them.

Ergo, the evidence remains undebunked.

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 02:00 AM

Setting aside the issue of 'who calls who' for a moment, it's pretty significant that no one can point to a list of cases 'solved' by psychic means. If psychic powers existed there should be hundreds of cases a year in the UK where a psychic is instrumental in directly identifying murderers or locating missing persons.

But there aren't any. One officers' anecdotal account involving the usual parlor tricks is all that has been produced. Where are the list of crimes solved? Where is the list of murderers apprehended thanks to psychic information? Where is the list of missing persons located by the psychics?

Don't you think that, with detection rates for crime as low as they are, the police would publicly embrace any source that was genuinely helpful to them. It would be part of official policy and standard procedure. We wouldn't have to wade through BBC press releases and union literature to find reference to it.

It strikes me that this is akin to the dousing nonsense. Sure, there ,may be many well meaning folks out there who genuinely believe that they can detect water with a twitching stick. Sadly for them, whenever a double blind test is undertaken they fail. They are often shocked by their failure.

Same with the psychics. I'm sure that when they call the police station they think they can help. The fact is though that they don't. Solving a crime requires evidence.

And so do we.

Lothian

19th September 2002, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The source is The Police Federation magazine,

I was referring to the source of the psychic information.

Ergo, the evidence remains undebunked. [/B]

So what. Even if it was true. What does the provision of one nickname proove. If a book listing the psychic conrtibution to the solving of UK Crimes 1900 to 2002 consists of the provision of a single nickname, is it any wonder that the police do not admit to using psychics.

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The source is The Police Federation magazine, and the detective involved is named, and no one has given a rational, mundane explanation for why the 'psychic' was able to get the extremely rare nickname spot on, or how she knew about the details of the police officer which the other officers asked details of!

The only explanation so far is that she must have been involved in the crime, or that she was invlolved in a joint police conspiracy! With nothing to support either of those beliefs, then it is irrational to cling to them.

Ergo, the evidence remains undebunked.

Well here is the explanation you crave.

The 'psychic' gave a cold reading. Many gueses were made. The failures were forgotten, and the hits remembered. Any 'rare' data was probably unwittingly voluntered by the officers themselves. That's how cold reading works. The account of the incident has also probably 'gained' much in the telling.

Ergo, the 'evidence' is anecdotal and unreliable.

If you want to see cold reading in action there is plenty of it on daytime TV. No doubt you beleive that too.

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
The lack of successful challengers for the million dollar prize is all we need to know about the existence of paranormal powers.

Why would anyone who understands the scientific method and the importance of independant peer review enter a 'challenge' in the first place? Without independant arbitration, how can any skeptic be sure that process and protocols form part of even a fair challenge? If you allow the JREF to do your thinking and make proclamations for you, then you are simply being biased and dependant, not skeptical. I think the JREF may do a good job in 'gatekeeping' the scammers and deluded, but serious investigation and evaluation must come from an unbiased source, one which uses independant peer review.

xouper

19th September 2002, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Brickroad
Lucianarchy: Just curious, but in your opinion should law enforcement agencies seek out and accept the help of psychics in their investigations? Should such evidence be admissible in a court of law?

If so, is such evidence to be considered infallible if no other evidence can be presented? Should juries be able to convict based solely on such evidence?That cuts right to the core of it. Luci has been repeatedly asked if she would be willing to be convicted of a crime on the basis of psychic testimony alone. To my knowledge, she has never answered that question. That pretty much deflates her position on the viability of psychic testimony.

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Why would anyone who understands the scientific method and the importance of independant peer review enter a 'challenge' in the first place? Without independant arbitration, how can any skeptic be sure that process and protocols form part of even a fair challenge? If you allow the JREF to do your thinking and make proclamations for you, then you are simply being biased and dependant, not skeptical. I think the JREF may do a good job in 'gatekeeping' the scammers and deluded, but serious investigation and evaluation must come from an unbiased source, one which uses independant peer review.

But the protocols are agreed in advance by both parties. The testing is not performed by JREF but by independant parties.

This is a pretty lame excuse for the failure of a single psychic to demonstrate any paranormal ability under controlled conditions.

Accoding to you psychicpowers have been demonstrated hundreds of times. These experiments can be replicated. So why no takers?:confused:

xouper

19th September 2002, 02:21 AM

The Fool

19th September 2002, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Why would anyone who understands the scientific method and the importance of independant peer review enter a 'challenge' in the first place? Without independant arbitration, how can any skeptic be sure that process and protocols form part of even a fair challenge? If you allow the JREF to do your thinking and make proclamations for you, then you are simply being biased and dependant, not skeptical. I think the JREF may do a good job in 'gatekeeping' the scammers and deluded, but serious investigation and evaluation must come from an unbiased source, one which uses independant peer review.

get real luci....you don't mean "independant peer review" you mean "subjective judgment of results" I know double blind tests and self evident results are two things you refuse to accept.....to parapsychologists they are like kryptonite, they kill all thier super powers. Don't expect anyone who understands anything about the scientific method to accept subjective judgement of test results. If you understood anything about "Scientific method" you would understand how silly you look calling for it.

Once again I ask you...Just do it once, just once...anything paranormal...Just once.

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Well here is the explanation you crave.

The 'psychic' gave a cold reading. Many gueses were made. The failures were forgotten, and the hits remembered. Any 'rare' data was probably unwittingly voluntered by the officers themselves. That's how cold reading works. The account of the incident has also probably 'gained' much in the telling.

Ergo, the 'evidence' is anecdotal and unreliable.

If you want to see cold reading in action there is plenty of it on daytime TV. No doubt you beleive that too.

It is as reliable as any other evidence that the police may detect from anyone else! A police officer recording whatever information any member of the public provides, is *not* anecdotal evidence, if you claimed that in a Court, you'd be laughed right out again!

You do not explain *how* the 'psychic' gained the information about the nickname or the information about the police officer. Simply saying 'probably' without any evidence is simply not good enough in light of the evidence. Too many 'skeptics' fall back on 'cold reading' without providing actual evidence of cold reading. I am looking for a rational explanation, not a guess. You make too many leaps of faith for a skeptic. How many 'guesses' do you think would have to made in order to get the name 'Pookie'? How could 'cold reading' give details of a police officer's imminent change in career or details of the same officer's current issues with property? They were only assigned to that case, that very *day*. Cold reading simply can't replicate that sort of thing, not under those circumstances.

"[...]Christine then described three different aspects of his (a police officer's ) personal life, none of which I had known about. We had not worked together before.

The first was extremely personal indeed and quite detailed. He confirmed those details to me after we had left. She also stated that he had received a letter concerning ‘essential electrical work’. He told me that he had received a mortgage offer from a Building Society the previous day, with the condition that the house he wanted to buy was rewired. Andy was quite dismissive about the third, which predicted his imminent transfer to another police area. Unexpected by him, maybe, but an order transferring him to another Division came within a few days. He was quite shaken by the whole experience. The Squad included more than twenty detectives, and we ourselves had picked up the assignment only that morning, and by chance. ""

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

But the protocols are agreed in advance by both parties. The testing is not performed by JREF but by independant parties.

This is a pretty lame excuse for the failure of a single psychic to demonstrate any paranormal ability under controlled conditions.

Accoding to you psychicpowers have been demonstrated hundreds of times. These experiments can be replicated. So why no takers?:confused:

Which part of, ' Without independant arbitration, what's to stop the JREF having the final say as to whether the applicant even gets to be tested, let alone what in *their* terms even constitutes 'self evident' , do you not understand? Without independant arbitration, how can any skeptic be sure that the whole thing isn't a publicity stunt weighted in favour of a biased organisation, the JREF *always* have the final say in these matters, right? How can on earth can that situation ever be seen as a fair challenge? Answer these points, they are very important.

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by xouper
Troll Alert! :eek:

Most people here have already seen this same line of crap from Luci numerous times and recognize the irrationality of her comments. No need to feed the troll yet again, unless that is your chosen hobby.

Yes, call me a troll, irrational, kooky, whatever... as long as it means that you don't have to face up to answering exremely pertinent questions. You are transparent.

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 02:47 AM

Luci,

Have you never seen a good cold reader in action? They can convince the gullible that they are talking to dead close family relatives. So guessing a nickname is far from out of the question.

Career move? How difficult is that? Any relocation, promotion, change of duties, whether in the recent past, or in the immediate future would have counted as a hit. Even if it was the other officer. ( Hey, crossed wires, It was me that had the career move!) It's like the old 'I can see water, a ship, travel...' trick. Just make the guess vaugue enough untill you hit something, anything, and let selective memory do the rest.

Cold reading is an established technique, widely precatised by magicians, mentalist, and tricksters. Given the choice between a simple case of cold reading, and the existence of some hitherto unproven paranormal powers I'll be guided by William of Occam on this one.

If this woman has powers, lets see a demonstation. She lives in a council flat. I'm sure she could do with $1,000,000.

If you believe she is genuine here's what to so. Pay for her to travel to Florida, take the test. and prove all the doubters wrong. No doubt you could take a 10% cut for your trouble.

Deal?

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Yes, call me a troll, irrational, kooky, whatever... as long as it means that you don't have to face up to answering exremely pertinent questions. You are transparent.

Not that Luci would ever avoid answering questions.............

Lothian

19th September 2002, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

you'd be laughed right out again!

The first was extremely personal indeed and quite detailed. He confirmed those details to me after we had left. She also stated that he had received a letter concerning ‘essential electrical work’. He told me that he had received a mortgage offer from a Building Society the previous day, with the condition that the house he wanted to buy was rewired. Andy was quite dismissive about the third, which predicted his imminent transfer to another police area. Unexpected by him, maybe, but an order transferring him to another Division came within a few days. He was quite shaken by the whole experience. The Squad included more than twenty detectives, and we ourselves had picked up the assignment only that morning, and by chance. ""

What is impressive about this.

Luci, you have recieved a letter about essential electrical work. and will change jobs. I would have scored on both and I dare say a lot of forum members will.

There is a very high chance that my prediction are true. The Psychic gave no time limits. Neither have I . If you have ever bought a house the survey will comment on essential electrical works, even to say there are none. Not many people stay in the same job for ever. There is nothing supernatual about those predictions. You are aware of cold reading I take it.

Lothian

19th September 2002, 02:52 AM

Why does Ron keep posting the same thing as me but just before hand. Is he psychic. :)

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Why does Ron keep posting the same thing as me but just before hand. Is he psychic. :)

I knew you were going to ask that.

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

What is impressive about this.

Luci, you have recieved a letter about essential electrical work. and will change jobs. I would have scored on both and I dare say a lot of forum members will.

There is a very high chance that my prediction are true. The Psychic gave no time limits. Neither have I . If you have ever bought a house the survey will comment on essential electrical works, even to say there are none. Not many people stay in the same job for ever. There is nothing supernatual about those predictions. You are aware of cold reading I take it.

Yes I am aware of cold reading. Cold reading does *not* give the sort of specifics which the woman gave. The first, we can't really comment on much as it was personal info that the officer confirmed, the second a specific letter about electrical work, that's not cold reading, that's specific detail. No cold reader does that, the third and imminent transfer to another police dept and within a few days it happened, that's not cold reading either, that's specific information. If it were *one*'lucky' guess, then maybe, but three *specific* hits and the correct hit about "pokie", that is not 'luck' and given the specifics, definately not 'cold reading' either!

Lothian

19th September 2002, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Yes I am aware of cold reading. Cold reading does *not* give the sort of specifics which the woman gave. The first, we can't really comment on much as it was personal info that the officer confirmed, the second a specific letter about electrical work, that's not cold reading, that's specific detail. No cold reader does that, the third and imminent transfer to another police dept and within a few days it happened, that's not cold reading either, that's specific information. If it were *one*'lucky' guess, then maybe, but three *specific* hits and the correct hit about "pokie", that is not 'luck' and given the specifics, definately not 'cold reading' either!

"Yesterday you recieved a letter from the Nationwide building society saying the House you are buying, 17 The Green, Islington needs major electrical work, further in three days you willl recieve a letter informing you that you will be transfered to Wiltshire" Is specific.

What you have posted could lead to numerous hits. You patently do not understand cold reading.

Answer my question. Would it apply to you ?

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic
Luci,

Have you never seen a good cold reader in action? They can convince the gullible that they are talking to dead close family relatives. So guessing a nickname is far from out of the question.

"Pokie" How common is that nickname? 'Shorty', or 'Lefty', maybe, but not "Pokie"!

If you want to claim cold reading, you will have to provide evidence that such *detail* as given in the Police Fed article can be replicated by a 'cold reader', don't give me vague matches, provide evidence which has specific details. Not, 'you will meet a tall dark stranger' stuff, specific detail and where the cold reader has no prior knowledge of the subject. Apart form accusing the reader of being involved in the crime or joint conspiracy, how can a cold reader obtain information that only the police or victim knows about? "Pokie"

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Yes I am aware of cold reading. Cold reading does *not* give the sort of specifics which the woman gave. The first, we can't really comment on much as it was personal info that the officer confirmed, the second a specific letter about electrical work, that's not cold reading, that's specific detail. No cold reader does that, the third and imminent transfer to another police dept and within a few days it happened, that's not cold reading either, that's specific information. If it were *one*'lucky' guess, then maybe, but three *specific* hits and the correct hit about "pokie", that is not 'luck' and given the specifics, definately not 'cold reading' either!

Ok, so you don't understand cold reading.

So you think that this woman has some kind of paranormal ability.

So why not help here win the $1,000,000?

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

"Yesterday you recieved a letter from the Nationwide building society saying the House you are buying, 17 The Green, Islington needs major electrical work, further in three days you willl recieve a letter informing you that you will be transfered to Wiltshire" Is specific.

I understand it very well thankyou! There is *no* evidence that a 'cold reader' can get the sort of specific detail under similar circumstances referred to in the Police Federation article. None at all and you know it! "Pokie" - one or two lucky hits, maybe, but such specific detail as "pokie" is so uncommon, to suggest it's just 'luck' is completely stupid and to suggest collusion with the crime or conspiracy with the police is just ridiculous!

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Ok, so you don't understand cold reading.

Yes, I do, more than you think! Where's your evidence that 'cold reading' can replicate the sort of specific detail given in the Police Federation article, come on, where is it? How did she get "pokie" correct, how common is that nickname?

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 04:26 AM

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

Lothian

19th September 2002, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I understand it very well thankyou! There is *no* evidence that a 'cold reader' can get the sort of specific detail under similar circumstances referred to in the Police Federation article. None at all and you know it! "Pokie" - one or two lucky hits, maybe, but such specific detail as "pokie" is so uncommon, to suggest it's just 'luck' is completely stupid and to suggest collusion with the crime or conspiracy with the police is just ridiculous!

You claimed that the letter and transfer were specific. You no now longer appear to be claiming this so all we have left is Pokie.
The woman therefore no longer has a sucessful history. She got Pokie. If she could replicate this then it would be useful. The problem is these people replicate with the same accuracy as random guessers. You would not advocate the police utilising a random guesser. (Whoops sorry you are!) I mean a random guesser who admits it.

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Yes, I do, more than you think! Where's your evidence that 'cold reading' can replicate the sort of specific detail given in the Police Federation article, come on, where is it? How did she get "pokie" correct, how common is that nickname?

It's no harder than persuading someoine that you have their dead mother on the line.

You too can be a cold reader....

Cold Reading Guide (http://www.magicweek.co.uk/review_book_tradecraft_cold_reading.htm)

Mmm, I'm getting a name. Starts with a 'B', or is it a 'V;, no wait a 'P'?

Or maybe she was a Waynes World fan and was just teasing....

'I sense a pork product of some kind........'

Or was it 'bacon' product? :confused:

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

You claimed that the letter and transfer were specific. You no now longer appear to be claiming this so all we have left is Pokie.
The woman therefore no longer has a sucessful history. She got Pokie. If she could replicate this then it would be useful. The problem is these people replicate with the same accuracy as random guessers. You would not advocate the police utilising a random guesser. (Whoops sorry you are!) I mean a random guesser who admits it.

The detail about the police officer *is* specific, I haven't changed my opinion about that, it is the sort of specific detail which CR's do *not* replicate. I've asked for evidence of replication under similar circs from a 'cold reader', you won't provide it because it doesn't exist. And If you think "pokie" is just a lucky guess, then that's up to you! Any rational or critical thinker realises that the chances of 'guessing' that particular nickname are so remote that it's just plain stupid to call it 'lucky'.

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

It's no harder than persuading someoine that you have their dead mother on the line.

You too can be a cold reader....

Cold Reading Guide (http://www.magicweek.co.uk/review_book_tradecraft_cold_reading.htm)

Mmm, I'm getting a name. Starts with a 'B', or is it a 'V;, no wait a 'P'?

Or maybe she was a Waynes World fan and was just teasing....

'I sense a pork product of some kind........'

Or was it 'bacon' product? :confused:

No, it was "pokie", not the sort of vague nonsense which CR's produce. It is quite clear "pokie". CR's can't produce the sort of detail given to the officer either, not even close, as your URL shows.

Lothian

19th September 2002, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The detail about the police officer *is* specific, I haven't changed my opinion about that, it is the sort of specific detail which CR's do *not* replicate. I've asked for evidence of replication under similar circs from a 'cold reader', you won't provide it because it doesn't exist. And If you think "pokie" is just a lucky guess, then that's up to you! Any rational or critical thinker realises that the chances of 'guessing' that particular nickname are so remote that it's just plain stupid to call it 'lucky'.

For the third time I am cold reading you. Have you ever in your life recieved a letter that made a reference to electrical work. Have you ever changed jobs.

If it is not luck why can it not be repeated better than some one who guesses.

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

For the third time I am cold reading you. Have you ever in your life recieved a letter that made a reference to electrical work. Have you ever changed jobs.

If it is not luck why can it not be repeated better than some one who guesses.

Show me someone who can guess the same accuracy as "pokie" under similar conditions. Go on, I am skeptical of your claims of 'cold reading' in respect of this particular case.

Regarding your example above, none of those things are relevant to my life at the moment, not even close. They were spot on with the police officer who had only been assigned to the case that day, which only goes to reinforce the accuracy with "pokie" too.

Lothian

19th September 2002, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Show me someone who can guess the same accuracy as "pokie" under similar conditions. Go on, I am skeptical of your claims of 'cold reading' in respect of this particular case.

Regarding your example above, none of those things are relevant to my life at the moment, not even close. They were spot on with the police officer who had only been assigned to the case that day, which only goes to reinforce the accuracy with "pokie" too.

The psychic gave no timeframe so all must apply. Your at the moment is not relevant. Answer the question have you ever had a letter about electrical work. Have you ever changed jobs.

Who cares about ‘Pokie’. You are missing the point. Lets assume that psychic abilities exist but they only occur a certain number of times and the psychic can not say whether a particular prediction is an accurate one or a false one. This would be a useless ‘gift’ if the number of times the ability works is no more than a guesser without the gift. This appears the case. I don’t give a damn if she is psychic or not.

The Fool

19th September 2002, 05:00 AM

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

If Ever I loose a relative I'm going to the nearest "wooded area near water" as that is where every single psychic directs the police.....

old joke........why did you hide in the woods??, ever tried to hide in the desert?

Luci......please give me the name of this psychic with "a history of accuracy" I want to be thier agent.....Hmmmm, 15% of $1,000,000 is?

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 05:10 AM

CR: Ok I'm getting a name, begins with R. Reginald, Rupert?....

Victim: Hey, do you mean Rumplestiltskin! That was my daddy's middle name!

CR: Yes.

Victim:Amazing!

Or in this case.......

CR: Ok I'm getting a name, Patsy? Patty?

Officer: You mean Pokie?

CR: Yes Pokie.

Officer: Amazing!

We have all seen some impressive cold reading performances. If I posted a transcript you would immediatly come back with, 'Ah...but that doesn't prove that Pokie was a cold read.' Or 'How can you prove that the transcript was genuine?' I've watched you games too often to fall into such futility.

You are claiminmg that this woman has paranormal powers.

Prove it. Get her to take the test.

Hannibal

19th September 2002, 05:22 AM

It is not difficult to pick up on a nickname. Any good listener, especially if they are trying to "prove" something to someone, can easily get this info form overhearing other officers talking, a call going through on a line or even having rung in in advance and asked to speak to the officer concerned. All all just as plausible as the psychic explaination. As an exercise in logical thought -

'Psychic' -."Hello is D.C. XYZ there?"

PC - "Hang on - (in distance) Sarge is "Wibblestick" around...
No sorry, he is out on an enquiry, can I take a message?"

'Psychic' - No it's OK I'll try later"

See? Now I am not saying this is correct, but it seems perfectly feasible to me. We are left with a personal judgement call. You asked could it be faked? Yes - see above! Also where is the WHOLE context of the conversation. We are left with a third person account in an EDITED magazine from a story that SOMEONE ELSE wrote. In court, evidence of this kind would fall down flat.

As to the "evidence" these people provide...It is not admissable. You could NOT get a warrant signed from their info off a senior officer, and certainly not from a magistrate. Why? Because IT IS NOT RELIABLE.

Ah, but could you identify and offender with it? No. Why? look up R vs Turnbull and see what was stated as the requirements for a piece of identifying evidence. the acronymn is ADVOKATE by the way...

What are we left with then? Ah yes, missing bodies. Great! There is no evidence requirement to be met and the info can be given with relative impunity. Why are they not used more often then? Why were they not used in Soham? Why not Lord Lucan? Why not Suzie Lamplaugh? Hell, there were even Psychic hits on the missing intern in the U.S. - AND NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS RIGHT.

Luci, you have changed your stance to psychics now having a "positive relationship" rather than "being used by Police". Howevr, the relationship is STILL the same as the Ybo one I pointed out to you. An officer is DUTY BOUND to look into info. It has NOTHING to do with where it comes from. If a paedophile gives witness testimony to a burglary the Police do not employ paedophiles to solve crime. This has been stated countless times but seems to pass you by each time. Also why no comment on all the other links that are posted? Have you read them?

It is as reliable as any other evidence that the police may detect from anyone else! A police officer recording whatever information any member of the public provides, is *not* anecdotal evidence, if you claimed that in a Court, you'd be laughed right out again!

Interesting - do you have evidence to back this up? Or does that only apply to people who disagree with you? Are you even slightly aware of the requirments for intelligence? And Information is FREQUENTLY anecdotal - it is called heresay.

Yes, I know that my accounts are anecdotal - but I can prove I was in the position I say with my certificates, officer safety log and photos of me in Police uniform. Or should I show you the note I received for my personal file concerning my work on a covert operation? How about the letter about my career break? Whilst these are not direct evidence vis a vis psychics they do show I am what I say I am. That means that I am in a position to speak on how Police handle these matters.- far more than your good self Luci. In a courtroom I would be technically classed as an "expert" witness due to experience.

I anticipate another whining response about apologies and positive relationships ad nauseam ...and to be honest I just cannot be bothered anymore. I leave the evidence I have presented to you all for you to make up your own minds. Luci, answer, dodge, change the subject, flame or whatever...it won't change my opinion or the opinion of anyone else on these boards.

Have a nice day...Bahala Na!

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

We have all seen some impressive cold reading performances. If I posted a transcript you would immediatly come back with, 'Ah...but that doesn't prove that Pokie was a cold read.' Or 'How can you prove that the transcript was genuine?' I've watched you games too often to fall into such futility.

The burden of proof is on *you* to back up your claim that this was 'cold reading'. If you want to make excuses for not providng evidence, feel free, that's what a lot here do, or say 'it's out there somewhere, you find it' , either that or call me a troll, all good 'outs' for the lazy and dull.

I have provide evidence form the Police Fed of a psychic giving *specific* detail, particularly the very *very* uncommon name of "pokie". It is evidently *not* cold reading. If you just want to say 'cold reading', then you're on your own, I'm not interested without evidence. And if you can't provide verifiable evidence for any transcript you may want to quote from, then *yes*, you must show proof of verification, you are not exempt from the burden of proof for some reason. That's not 'games', that's proper skepticism.

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The burden of proof is on *you* to back up your claim that this was 'cold reading'. If you want to make excuses for not providng evidence, feel free, that's what a lot here do, or say 'it's out there somewhere, you find it' , either that or call me a troll, all good 'outs' for the lazy and dull.

I have provide evidence form the Police Fed of a psychic giving *specific* detail, particularly the very *very* uncommon name of "pokie". It is evidently *not* cold reading. If you just want to say 'cold reading', then you're on your own, I'm not interested without evidence. And if you can't provide verifiable evidence for any transcript you may want to quote from, then *yes*, you must show proof of verification, you are not exempt from the burden of proof for some reason. That's not 'games', that's proper skepticism.

I have simply furnished an alternative explanation for the events mentioned in the anecdote. You were the one that repeatedly asked for an alternate explanation! Given that my explanation requires no paranormal phenonemon, I'd say that it is more likely to be correct.

By the way, as you are so hot on 'evidence' how do you know that the incident happened as reported? Do you have a tape recording of the interview? A video? How do you know that 'Pokie' was even uttered at all, let alone first by the psychic? Or are you happy to simply accept it as given?

I repeat. If this woman has powers then why not help her to prove it by winning the $1,000,000.

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 05:45 AM

Luci,

BTW, do you think that Doris Stokes was a true psychic, or just a good cold reader?

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal

Yes, I know that my accounts are anecdotal - but I can prove I was in the position I say with my certificates, officer safety log and photos of me in Police uniform. Or should I show you the note I received for my personal file concerning my work on a covert operation? How about the letter about my career break? Whilst these are not direct evidence vis a vis psychics they do show I am what I say I am. That means that I am in a position to speak on how Police handle these matters.- far more than your good self Luci. In a courtroom I would be technically classed as an "expert" witness due to experience.

[I]

I usually ignore your posts these days, full, as they are, with anecdotal nonsense and flim-flam. So what if you were a police officer, you have been shown that your claim about how 'psychics' are treated is wrong. You were ill informed or ignorant, I don't particularly care which, but wrong, you are. But let me tell you this, sonny, not only have I spent over 12 years working for the Home Office assessing criminal cases, interviewing suspects, offenders and victims, in custody suites and on the streets and homes where these people live, actually *being* an expert witness, with thousands of hours of Crown Court work. Not only that, I have worked *alongside* hundreds of police officers, worked in over thirty different police stations, from all over the country, on all sorts of criminal cases, from all areas of specialism. I *know* I have a far, *far* reaching depth of experience than you. But in the case of these discussions here on this board, it is completely irrelevant, which is why I ahven't brought it up, personal anecdotal stuff is worthless in a forum debate using a skeptical analysis, as has been shown by your ill infomed nonsense about how the police alledgedly treat 'psychics'. I realise it is very important for you to have people around you who will 'believe' what you say, and agree with you, but this is a forum on skepticism, not the school playground. So I suggest you grow up a little bit and stick to the facts actually being discussed, not what you claim is your 'personal experience'. That's what UFO abductees do.

"pokie" How common is that?

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 05:53 AM

Luci,

An 'expert' in what exactly?
The tooth fairy?

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

But let me tell you this, sonny,

Luke, I am thy father.......

Gullability? How common is that?

Hannibal

19th September 2002, 06:02 AM

Couldn't let this one slide....

Luci, calling me "sonny"? What happened to your rationality? And whilst we are on that subject my ARSE do you know more than me!...anecdotal but there you go! Grow up? Luci I have seen far more than you could imagine - you are showing your class luvvie.

If you have the experience, why not respond to my points in kind? I welcome debate - seriously I do! What I do not take kindly to is you pretending you know how I do my job. Luci YOU are the one who is wrong...and I can rattle of a list of police officers with over 30 years experience to back up my claims...but again we are down to anecdotes.

What then wre we left with? Questions without answers and responses based on emotion not logic. If you are the skeptic you claim to be then youwould use the "razor" in thought processes. Why do you never respond to DIRECT questions? Why do you hide behind evasion and innuendo? Luci, there is no debate with you because you do not debate!

And by the way you haven't shown me **** about being wrong - save anecdotal evidence (and someone elses at that). Call me a skeptic (even though I have consistently stated I am not ) but haven't you just argued yourself out of the equation? (think of God and the babel fish dearie...)

Also, are you still using velvet curtains?

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I *know* I have a far, *far* reaching depth of experience than you. But in the case of these discussions here on this board, it is completely irrelevant, which is why I ahven't brought it up

Oh, 12 years as an 'expert' witness isn't relevant. Yeah, sure.:D

Actually, I forgot to mention the fact that I have been Chief of Police for the Entire Universe for the last fifty years. Didn't think it was relevant.

Come on Luci, Doris Stokes. You beleive in her or what?

headscratcher4

19th September 2002, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

In my opinion, in respect of some 'psychics', yes. There is too much credible evidence which suggests that remote viewing / 'psychics' can obtain information by means not fully understood by science. To ignore *out of hand* all information coming from 'psychics', simply because the *method* of information detection is not fully understood, would be irresponsible. In light of that evidence, If I were a police officer who knew details on on a case and had access to a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, I would asses whatever information they came forward with. If they gave a location, for instance, for a missing person, in light of their previous accuracy it would be irresponsible and stupid to ignore such information - particularly if, like in the case in the Police Fed article, the psychic demonstrated a history of verifiable accuracy. I may not be able to use that evidence in *Court*, but that alone could and should not stop me *acting* on the information recieved.

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

You continue to ignore my questions:

Has any court in any country (at least in the last 100 years) ever accepted evidence revealed by a "psychic" for any proposition?

If police, as you say, do rely on psychics and have a "positive" relationship with them, shouldn't police be forced to disclose that relationship to a court? A defendent?

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

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

Is psychic evidence, proven as you would have it by years of study, as good as finger prints? DNA? If not why not?

You have suggested that police have a positive relationship with psychics and has, as a result, developed leads that have helped to solve cases...in any of these instances, has anyone ever been accused of a crime? IF so, was the relience on "psychic" evidence by police in developing the case revealed to the court and/or jury? If not why not? Wouldn't that be important information for a Jury to know?

Do you think someone should be convicted on evidence developed from a proven psychic? How would you convince a court that a psychic is "proven?" If a psychic could be "proven" to a court, don't you think that psychic could win the $1,000,000 Randi Challenge?

Just a few of the issues that are raised by your assertions.....

P.S. you seem to rely on two pieces of "information" for this proposition -- your police federation magazine and the BBC -- can you state, catagorically, that neither has ever been wrong about a story or "fluffed" a story up to make it more interesting?

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal

What then wre we left with? Questions without answers and responses based on emotion not logic. If you are the skeptic you claim to be then youwould use the "razor" in thought processes.

Indeed. Let's do just that. Given the evidence for 'remote viewing', in total, disregarding the rubbish, what you are left with is some hard core evidence that defies an explanation. Now you can disagree with that if you like, I don't have a problem with that, but don't expect me to take any notice unless you can provide credible and verifiable *evidence* that there is either error or fraud. People are left accusing people of crimes and conspiracies, but those claims are coming from the pseudo-skeptic side. The hard core evidence, ranging from the SAIC through to PEAR, Koestler, Rhine etc., and credible records like the Police Federation article, only go to show that most likely explanation is that they are reporting exactly what they say they are reporting. There is currently no other rational mundane explanation. The simplest explanation is that science doesn't yet fully understand the full potential or action of the human 'mind'.

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 06:26 AM

Luci,

Your view on Doris Stokes?

Dragon

19th September 2002, 06:29 AM

Luci, let's change the subject, this horse is well and truly expired.
Are you going to watch "Reputations" tonight? (BBC 2, 9 pm)

The subject might be of interest to you.

Desianarchy

19th September 2002, 06:44 AM

Lucy, please stop annoying all these nice people for a while.

Ethyl and Fred are sitting around waiting for the martinis, and the chocolate factory wants to know when you're coming back.

And where's my dinner?

Wolverine

19th September 2002, 06:59 AM

Well hell. If I'd known, I never would have bothered with this thread...

Robbin Roberts
I hate James Randi
Tue Nov 20 12:48:20 2001

As one of the few men involved in Wicca, I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.

- Robbin aka Lucianarchy

Source. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2931)

Ack!!! I've engaged in gratuitous troll-feeding, and deserve to be punished accordingly. :(
Bad me. *Hits self with rolled up newspaper*

Dragon: I look forward to news concerning the episode you mention.

Speaking of which:

Robbin Roberts
Re: an anoying,self-rightious little geek..
Sat Dec 1 17:54:25 2001

James "The Amusing" Randi is a closed-minded twit who remains bitter regarding the whole Geller affair. As an award-winning journalist I have dedicated my life to the amazing accomplishments of Mr. Geller and I am appalled at what I have uncovered about The Amusing One. Randi gets his y-fronts twisted over Geller because he remains jealous of his success.

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

You continue to ignore my questions:

Has any court in any country (at least in the last 100 years) ever accepted evidence revealed by a "psychic" for any proposition?
[/i]

Your questions are irrelevant to what I am talking about. I know 'psychics' aren't used in a legal sense, they can't
because there isn't the body of scientific evidence *yet* to uphold the claim in a Court of Law. Regarding their relationship with psychics, if a psychic leads them to a body the police don't need to reveal their sources of intelligence to anyone. If it were to be used as legal evidence, then it would depend.

If police, as you say, do rely on psychics and have a "positive" relationship with them, shouldn't police be forced to disclose that relationship to a court? A defendent?

Yes, if it was necessary.

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

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

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

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

Is psychic evidence, proven as you would have it by years of study, as good as finger prints? DNA? If not why not?

No, not as good a DNA, bloody hell! Not yet anyway. But
it does seem that it has applications for some detective work.

You have suggested that police have a positive relationship with psychics and has, as a result, developed leads that have helped to solve cases...in any of these instances, has anyone ever been accused of a crime? IF so, was the relience on "psychic" evidence by police in developing the case revealed to the court and/or jury? If not why not? Wouldn't that be important information for a Jury to know?

This is what I meant by irrelevant. I'm not claiming psychics are used in any legal sense, I am saying they may have a complimentary intelligence application.

Do you think someone should be convicted on evidence developed from a proven psychic? How would you convince a court that a psychic is "proven?" If a psychic could be "proven" to a court, don't you think that psychic could win the $1,000,000 Randi Challenge?

Yes, they could, but it is not necessary for that to happen, as I said the police can act on intelligence gathered to gain their evidence it is the evidence which is in question in Court, not how the decision was arrived at in order to get the evidence!

[i]

Just a few of the issues that are raised by your assertions.....

P.S. you seem to rely on two pieces of "information" for this proposition -- your police federation magazine and the BBC -- can you state, catagorically, that neither has ever been wrong about a story or "fluffed" a story up to make it more interesting?

No more than you could say about any other source of information, that applies to anything *you* want to cite as evidence too though, so be careful! Seriously, there is no rational reason to doubt the credibility of the BBC News or The Police Federation.

Now, as I've answered your questions, perhaps you'd be good enough to answer just one of mine.

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

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Wolverine
Well hell. If I'd known, I never would have bothered with this thread...

Source. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2931)

Ack!!! I've engaged in gratuitous troll-feeding, and deserve to be punished accordingly. :(
Bad me. *Hits self with rolled up newspaper*

Dragon: I look forward to news concerning the episode you mention.

Speaking of which:

Oh for ****s sake, your posting ***** written in my name somewhere else on the 'net and reposted by some idiot here in this Forum. Do you want me to go and find something written by Wolverine in the 'Net. Perhaps now you see the depths some will sink to in order to try and discredit me.

Desianarchy

19th September 2002, 07:21 AM

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

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

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

Lothian

19th September 2002, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

If you had a missing relative, had tried all avenues to locate them, but still couldn't find them, would you act on the information given to you from a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy,

I would.

as in the case of the 'psychic' described in the Police Federation article? If not, why not? [/B]

You have not demonstrated any history other than the nickname. The other two insights apply to you (I presume by your refusal to answer) , me and many other people. With no HISTORY of accuracy I would not use this avenue. However this is in the position of not having a missing relative. In such a position who knows if I will abandon judgement and consult tea leaf readers, astrologers or whoever.

xouper

19th September 2002, 07:36 AM

Hannibal, if it matters any, you have my permission to cease responding to the crap posted by Luci. We can all see she's just trolling you. Your credibility and reputation are intact on this board, regardless of anything Luci posts.

Hannibal

19th September 2002, 07:36 AM

Luci, we have arrived at commonground. You are now stating pretty much what I have said all along (ignoring the "jesus" reference which I have already explained). It can be said now that Police do not employ psychics.

I don't want to continue on this subject any further as it is starting go off topic. I have never said psi/psychics/Ybo do not exist, merely that Police do not use them in any manner other than they would if it was any member of the public. I do not have velvet curtains and my beliefs are held close to my heart. Never assume I am stating anything beyond what I say. I challenged an assertion you made and now we have reached an agreement. Isn't that the purpose of debate? Don't you feel better?:)

Hannibal

19th September 2002, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by xouper
Hannibal, if it matters any, you have my permission to cease responding to the crap posted by Luci. We can all see she's just trolling you. Your credibility and reputation are intact on this board, regardless of anything Luci posts.

Thank you.

Be well to all (yes you too Luci!;) )

And BAHALA NA!

headscratcher4

19th September 2002, 07:37 AM

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

First, and I can't believe I am doing this, thank you for your response. You tried to answer my questions and I appreciate the effort, and I am even willing to accept, in this instance, some of your criticism of my questions and their relevance to this thread.

The anser to your above question, I think, is two-fold. First, clearly you and I would completely disagree on the whole concept of a "psychic with a history of accuracy". No such creature exists. Much of what you've written and asserted provides no foundation for the claim that there are such people -- and, further not only the million dollar challenge but the lack of general scientific agreement with any of the "proofs" you often site would suggest that there is no such bird. This is both opinion and fact -- fact being that no psychic has submitted to clearly objective verification of powers, other than in poorly designed or otherwise flawed tests.

Second, I don't know what I would do if a relative went missing. I would like to think that I would not go completely irrational, but that, I think, is too much to be hoped for. And I note, that it would be irrationality that would drive such a decision. In any event the question reminds me -- and I don't know if you are in the U.S. or G.B. -- of the question asked of Micheal Dukakis in the U.S. Presidential Debate many years ago: How would you feel about capital punishment if your wife were raped and murdered?

He, politically, blew the question because he ansewered it correctly .. he was rational, consistent with his beliefs, and with the law as he understood it and enforced it as a governor. He also appeared to have no soul and to be indifferent to his own emotion.

In the end, emotion that promotes certain irrationality are sometimes good things in relationships. It is not a good way to conduct an investigation of a potential crime or to find a missing person.

Wolverine

19th September 2002, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Oh for ****s sake, your posting ***** written in my name somewhere else on the 'net and reposted by some idiot here in this Forum. Do you want me to go and find something written by Wolverine in the 'Net. Perhaps now you see the depths some will sink to in order to try and discredit me.

Uh-huh. It's just a coincidence. (http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/uri.html) :rolleyes:

glee

19th September 2002, 08:06 AM

Hi, I'm new.

I think this thread has struggled over the use of the word 'use' as in 'Do the police use psychics?'

The problem is that like many other words in English, there are multiple shades of meaning.

The police have a number of established investigative procedures that they actively use. Interviewing witnesses, collecting forensic evidence and checking computer databases are examples.

'The police certainly use DNA testing' means the police will actively search for any DNA traces at the scene, and then analyse them.

However I don't believe any police force considers psychics in this sense (as per Scotland Yard's response earlier in this thread).

Now every police force gets anonymous tips. This is not something they actively pursue (though in say a kidnapping case, there may be an public appeal for any sightings etc).

So my opinion is that psychics are at best rated as an anonymous tips. Police forces don't use psychics, but they will look at the information, in case there's anything to it.

Also the psychic may be a witness, or even the criminal...

RonSceptic

19th September 2002, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I know 'psychics' aren't used in a legal sense

Which is what we have been debating for days. This represents some progress.;)

Maybe they are used in the biblical sense?

Desianarchy

19th September 2002, 08:28 AM

Are "psychics" the same as psychics? Them there little air-quotey kind of things make a big difference.

headscratcher4

19th September 2002, 08:33 AM

Desi: I think people -- like me -- use them thar little " s around the word psychic because we don't believe there is such a thing. Sort of like talking about a patient in a mental hospital who thinks he is "Jesus" -- the likelyhood is that he aint. :)

Desianarchy

19th September 2002, 08:49 AM

Excellency - It's my lovely Lucy who's using the quote things isn't she?

I was hoping she would splain them for my friends here at the Copa.

(Do you know The Three Christs of Ypsilanti by Milton Rokeach - no quotes around those three sons of God)

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Wolverine

Uh-huh. It's just a coincidence. (http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/uri.html) :rolleyes:

What coincidence?

headscratcher4

19th September 2002, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Desianarchy
Excellency - It's my lovely Lucy who's using the quote things isn't she?

I was hoping she would splain them for my friends here at the Copa.

(Do you know The Three Christs of Ypsilanti by Milton Rokeach - no quotes around those three sons of God)

My "bad"..."Ypsilanti" as in Michigan and or the Greek patrioit? But no, don't "know" it, as such. Have been to Ypsilanti, MI -- my folks used to threaten me with sending me to the Ypsilanti state home (which I think no longer exists). Oh well, I digress....:) :o

headscratcher4

19th September 2002, 08:58 AM

http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7806

I suggest the above thread for some possible insight into the authoritative nature of the BBC and its reporting. :rolleyes:

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
Luci, we have arrived at commonground. You are now stating pretty much what I have said all along (ignoring the "jesus" reference which I have already explained). It can be said now that Police do not employ psychics.

I don't want to continue on this subject any further as it is starting go off topic. I have never said psi/psychics/Ybo do not exist, merely that Police do not use them in any manner other than they would if it was any member of the public. I do not have velvet curtains and my beliefs are held close to my heart. Never assume I am stating anything beyond what I say. I challenged an assertion you made and now we have reached an agreement. Isn't that the purpose of debate? Don't you feel better?:)

I have only ever claimed that the police will work with 'psychics' in a positive relationship and that they are not all dismissed in the manner you described. I also apologised about calling you a liar some time back, but you seemed to have missed that.

Anyway, best wishes and good luck in your new job.

RichardR

19th September 2002, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The burden of proof is on *you* to back up your claim that this was 'cold reading'.
True. But your claim: “this was a genuine psychic reading” is the extraordinary claim (in that it goes against all that is currently known about the laws of nature). So the burden of proof is on you to prove it was a psychic reading.

Obviously you can’t prove this. And since it has been demonstrated that it could have been cold reading, we have no need to believe it was a psychic reading to explain what happened.

Desianarchy

19th September 2002, 09:04 AM

What's a coincidence? Don't you remember the time I made you jealous with that fake Carlota Romero? And then, a singer by the same name is actually appearing in New York?

You gotta remember that one.

Now, that's a coincidence, honey.

Please come home now. Ethyl's finished the gin and she's getting into my rum and cigars.

(Ypsilanti Michigan asylum had three inmates claiming to be Jesus at one time - The Three Christs describes their meeting - unusual, but not to anyone who has spent time on this forum)

KelvinG

19th September 2002, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

What coincidence?

I think what Wolverine is getting at is that your adoration of Uri Geller destroys any credibility you may have had.
If your hero is a confirmed fraud and liar, why should your behaviour be any different.

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by RichardR

True. But your claim: “this was a genuine psychic reading” is the extraordinary claim (in that it goes against all that is currently known about the laws of nature). So the burden of proof is on you to prove it was a psychic reading.

Obviously you can’t prove this. And since it has been demonstrated that it could have been cold reading, we have no need to believe it was a psychic reading to explain what happened.

First off, I have not made that claim , why on earth did you put that in quotes? I am providing evidence for the accuracy of 'psychics' when giving information to the Police. I have demonstrated the accuracy and there is no mundane rational explanation for the accuracy, particularly for 'pokie' . Cold Readers do *not* provide that sort of accuracy under those sort of conditions. If this woman were a 'cold reader' of that sort of accuracy, she'd be world famous, not having to live in a Council house !( not that there's anything wrong with that, but most would chose to move on if it were within their means). Second, it bloody well has *not* been demonstrated that it was Cold Reading, just claimed, no evidence what so ever! CR's aren't that accurate under those conditions, you know that, and you also know that if any were they would most likely to be gaining a damn good living from it. Whereas, most of those that *do* seem to have genuine 'psychic' ability appear to be more interested in helping others than making money.

Desianarchy

19th September 2002, 09:27 AM

I'm sorry fellas, but I can't control her any more.

Lucy, come home some time. I'll let you hold the baton and lead the band.

darling

19th September 2002, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
If this woman were a 'cold reader' of that sort of accuracy, she'd be world famous, not having to live in a Council house

And the reasons psychics of such accuracy can't go 'round picking up reward money for doing what she is supposed to have done is...?

Whereas, most of those that *do* seem to have genuine 'psychic' ability appear to be more interested in helping others than making money.

And the evidence of this person helping out on more than one case would be...?

KelvinG

19th September 2002, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by budddyh

And the reasons psychics of such accuracy can't go 'round picking up reward money for doing what she is supposed to have done is...?

[B]

And the evidence of this person helping out on more than one case would be...?

Good point buddyh. It makes one wonder why there is any crime at all. Shouldn't all these amazing psychics be solving them all?

It seems to me that psychics are doing quite a disservice to victim's families by allowing unsolved crimes to remain so.

RandFan

19th September 2002, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The burden of proof is on *you* to back up your claim that this was 'cold reading'.

Originally posted by RichardR

True. But your claim: “this was a genuine psychic reading” is the extraordinary claim (in that it goes against all that is currently known about the laws of nature). So the burden of proof is on you to prove it was a psychic reading.

Obviously you can’t prove this. And since it has been demonstrated that it could have been cold reading, we have no need to believe it was a psychic reading to explain what happened. Parismony Lucy, Occams Razor. If I claim that Santa Claus (Father Christmas) visited my house on Christmas eve and you didn't believe me it would be my responsibilty to prove it happened. Not your's to prove that it didn't.

Your evidence is less than wanting.

RichardR

19th September 2002, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
First off, I have not made that claim , why on earth did you put that in quotes? I am providing evidence for the accuracy of 'psychics' when giving information to the Police. I have demonstrated the accuracy and there is no mundane rational explanation for the accuracy, particularly for 'pokie' . Cold Readers do *not* provide that sort of accuracy under those sort of conditions.
Calm down. I put it in quotes for clarity. However, you are making the claim that this was a psychic reading, are you not?

For this to be proof of psychic powers, we have to eliminate all other possibilities. Your whole case for this appears to be the word “pokie”. However, there are non-psychic ways she could have got that name. Hannibal gave you one example of how that could have been done (technically a warm reading, but still a possible natural explanation). So there is no proof here of psychic powers at work. End of story.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
If this woman were a 'cold reader' of that sort of accuracy, she'd be world famous, not having to live in a Council house !( not that there's anything wrong with that, but most would chose to move on if it were within their means). Second, it bloody well has *not* been demonstrated that it was Cold Reading, just claimed, no evidence what so ever! CR's aren't that accurate under those conditions, you know that, and you also know that if any were they would most likely to be gaining a damn good living from it. Whereas, most of those that *do* seem to have genuine 'psychic' ability appear to be more interested in helping others than making money.
I don’t get your logic here. If she were a cold reader with this degree of accuracy she would be world famous and have more money. But a psychic with this degree of accuracy would not be world famous and would not have money. Don’t be daft, a psychic (a real one) could make a million dollars off Randi in no time. And she would be famous, trust me.

But to follow your point to its logical conclusion, you must therefore agree that Uri Geller does not have real paranormal powers. After all, he certainly is famous and I’ll bet he does not live in a council house. So by your logic he cannot have “genuine 'psychic' ability”. Thanks for the insight.

Wolverine

19th September 2002, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
I think what Wolverine is getting at is that your adoration of Uri Geller destroys any credibility you may have had. If your hero is a confirmed fraud and liar, why should your behaviour be any different.

Actually that's not where I was headed, but I certainly like your point, KelvinG. :)

My sarcastic mention of "coincidence" points to the comments made (originally pointed out by Claus here (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2931)) which Lucianarchy denies being his, from the New Age Wackos discussion forum.

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

Lucianarchy

19th September 2002, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Wolverine

Actually that's not where I was headed, but I certainly like your point, KelvinG. :)

My sarcastic mention of "coincidence" points to the comments made (originally pointed out by Claus here (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2931)) which Lucianarchy denies being his, from the New Age Wackos discussion forum.

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

Right, you despicable piece of work. Get this. What you are referring to is most certainly NOT me, provide your evidence about IP addresses or shut up. Do it. Any idiot can write stuff under your name on the 'net to make it look like you, you must realise that, or are you really just very, very stupid??

This is exactly the sort of thing fanatics do, and you're doing it just because you don't agree with what I am saying. Pathetic.

I hope those who have been discussing censorship are reading this.

19th September 2002, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Right, you despicable piece of work. Get this. What you are referring to is most certainly NOT me, provide your evidence about IP addresses or shut up. Do it. Any idiot can write stuff under your name on the 'net to make it look like you, you must realise that, or are you really just very, very stupid??

This is exactly the sort of thing fanatics do, and you're doing it just because you don't agree with what I am saying. Pathetic.

I hope those who have been discussing censorship are reading this.

Methinks the lady(?) dost protest too much.

darling

19th September 2002, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Calabite
Methinks the lady(?) dost protest too much.

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

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

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

If you got something let's hear it :)

RichardR

19th September 2002, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Calabite

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

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

19th September 2002, 02:55 PM

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

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

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

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

Wolverine

19th September 2002, 08:59 PM

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

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

Brickroad

19th September 2002, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brickroad

19th September 2002, 09:47 PM

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

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

RichardR

19th September 2002, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Brickroad
To Lucianarchy

I was under the impression that something needs to be shown to exist before it can be understood. To date, I've never seen any "credible evidence" that psychics and remote viewing exist, let alone are useful in a police investigation (though I'm sure you have some non-anecdotal evidence laying around you could show me, aye?). Oh-Oh!! Watch out for more lists (again), of "conclusive" and "replicated" research including PEAR, Ganzfeld, and that thingy about the guy sleeping with the vibrating thing that Luci can't explain because
(s)he doesn't understand it.

Bwaaahahaha

RichardR

19th September 2002, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Brickroad

That certainly seems to be the case. I won't waste too much energy in this thread, then.
Wow only 14 posts and less than three weeks and you've figured that out already. I'm impressed. :D

(Welcome to the forum, btw. :) )

Lucianarchy

20th September 2002, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Wolverine

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

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

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

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

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

Be fair, now." - CFLarsen

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

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

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

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

Lucianarchy

20th September 2002, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Brickroad

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

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

Lucianarchy

20th September 2002, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Brickroad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lucianarchy

20th September 2002, 09:47 AM

Brickroad

20th September 2002, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brickroad

20th September 2002, 12:40 PM

RichardR-

Thanks, it's nice to be here. :)

Lucianarchy

21st September 2002, 03:17 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brickroad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

glee

21st September 2002, 04:45 AM

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I'm interested. :)

Lucianarchy

21st September 2002, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by glee

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

OK, I'm interested. :)

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

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

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

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

glee

21st September 2002, 09:07 AM

Liamo

21st September 2002, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

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

[...]

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

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

Lucianarchy,

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

Here is a more recent quote, dated 1998 from the Skeptics archive (The Truth is Out There & Ray Hyman Wants to Find It: An Interview with a Co-Founder of Modern Skepticism (http://www.skeptic.com/archives03.html):
When I was involved in investigating the remote viewing experiments by the CIA, I had a similar discussion with Jessica Utts and Ed May, who wanted to know what it would take to convince me. I told them a story about a guy in St. Louis who said he could do remote viewing, but when we set up the experimental protocol he demanded that if the test came out positive I would say “I now believe.” I explained to him that “belief” is subjective, and I talked about how at magic conferences I have fooled even the best magicians in the world, and they have fooled me, so someday a psychic is going to come along and do something that I cannot explain, but this does not mean there is a real psychic effect here. It may just mean that I’ve been fooled. When I investigated the Ganzfeld experiments, for example, it took me three years to figure out what was going on.

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

Liam

Ersby

21st September 2002, 10:23 AM

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, check out the link.

KelvinG

21st September 2002, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

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

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

Be fair, now." - CFLarsen

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

Man you are a piece of work, Luci, and a revisionist to boot.
The only reason you never answered those "irrelevant" questions was because they were difficult and challenging.

Anyone who knows anything about Luci's history is aware that she cowers from real debate, and ignores anything that is even remotely difficult for her to understand.

Nobody really takes her seriously on this board anymore (except herself), although I still find it amusing to see her repeat her pattern where she makes claims, provides flimsy evidence, is challenged with questions and then disappears.

By the way Luci, I'm still waiting to discuss my research on your beloved Jutts study. Will that be happening anytime soon?

glee

21st September 2002, 05:32 PM

Lucianarchy,

you quoted Ray Hyman discussing psi powers.

Is this link relevant?

http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html

Some extracts from it (written by Hyman):

'Conclusions
When we examine the basis of Utts's strong claim for the existence of psi, we find that it relies on a handful of experiments that have been shown to have serious weaknesses after undergoing careful scrutiny, and another handful of experiments that have yet to undergo scrutiny or be successfully replicated.'

'even if Utts and her colleagues are correct and we were to find that we could reproduce the findings under specified conditions, this would still be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome -- the sole basis for arguing for ESP is that extra-chance results can be obtained that apparently cannot be explained by normal means. But an infinite variety of normal possibilities exist and it is not clear than one can control for all of them in a single experiment. You need a positive theory to guide you as to what needs to be controlled, and what can be ignored. Parapsychologists have not come close to this as yet. '

RichardR

21st September 2002, 06:51 PM

glee:

An interesting interview with Hyman. Thanks for that link - I hadn't read that interview before. :cool:

RichardR

21st September 2002, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Ersby
Altogether too many links on remote viewing can be found on this very forum...

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

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

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

In the meantime, check out the link.
That's some homework you've given us Ersby. ;)

I just read the first article - the report on Stargate. It talked about "a man" (unnamed), who was taken on a surprise visit to a magnetometer at Stanford. It goes on to describe how this man altered the output of this device, apparently with his mind.

I knew I had read about this before, but I haven’t been able to find it on the web. I’m sure it’s in one of Randi’s commentaries, but I can’t find it. Anyway, it’s in “Flim Flam”, page 131 onward. Briefly, the “man” referred to was Ingo Swann. What actually happened was that he was asked to alter the magnetic field of the device. He concentrated on it for 15 minutes, and during that time the output altered.

Randi contacted the builder of the device, Arthur Hebard, who was there during this alleged psychic event. Hebard recollects that during the 15 minutes, the output curve on occasion, leveled out. These were the points when Targ and Puthoff (T&P) decided that Swann was influencing the machine. Hebarb:

”when the curve “burped”, Swann asked T&P “Is that what I’m supposed to do?” and they happily agreed that it was…”

In other words, T&P selected the data to fit what they were expecting. Anyway, the effect was never replicated. And Hebard said that there were many other natural ways that the output could alter.

A further indication of T&P’s experimental rigor can be found where they asked Swann to describe the inside of the magnetometer. T&P reported that he did so with “great accuracy”, but Hebard reports that this was not true. Firstly, the description was not that close. But secondly, he recalls that the description was obtained with much prompting of the “That’s right”, and “Tell us more about that” kind of feedback.

No wonder Randi calls T&P “The Laurel and Hardy of Psi”.