Diane Lazarus - Psychic Challenge 'winner' - Dishonest

[Interesting Ian]

Most of my comments have been answered most capably in my absence by vbloke however a couple of things stand out:



He's said nothing of any worth and I wasn't even going to bother to respond to it. The only thing of any remote interest is the following.


Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
I don't know what you mean by flawed. They could have been much better if that's what you mean. But it is absurd to suppose they are therefore meaningless. I do not discount the possibility of collusion or cheating in some form or other. But it is wrong to presume there must be. In the absence of any evidence to suggest cheating then we should take the results at face value. Since it is highly unreasonable to suppose the results were all due to chance, then we should provisionally accept some anomalous abilities were used.

vbloke
So by this reasoning, if a medicine is tested for effectiveness and the test is faked/flawed/not up to standards, then it's OK to release the medicine as it's probably OK and has some benefit, even though it could potentially be unsafe or useless.



I just get weary of repeating myself over and over again. It would be absolutely not ok to release the medicine. Extraordinary measures have to be taken to ensure the medicine is safe.

You're just confusing scientific proof with what a rational person ought to believe. Clearly any rational person would not disbelieve in something simply because there is no scientific proof. Otherwise we would be compelled to believe that even oneself is not conscious (never mind other people) and all sorts of other absurdities.

Consciousness is the one extreme example. Any other thing we cannot be certain exists in the absence of scientific proof (and even "scientific proof" is strictly speaking an oxymoron). But we can nevertheless judge that they very likely exist. It's simply a question of weighing in the balance all the relevant evidence and using ones reason.


II
Why do they need to convince skeptics? Why not just ignore them and move on?

phaedra
Because skeptics are the proverbial thorn in the side. Why? Because skeptics are not prepared to take mystical and magical notions at face value - it's as simple as that. Skeptics like to deal in as real a version of the world as is possible. Real = evidence based.



The only way skeptics will believe is if an alleged phenomenon is reproduced on demand which anyone can reproduce. But that ain't gonna happen with paranormal phenomena. So we have the farcical situation where something obviously exists, yet because it cannot be reproduced on demand without fail, that skeptics will never believe in it.

So the only sensible thing to do is to ignore them as far as possible.

[phaedra]

You'll get used to Ian deraling threads phaedra it's all he is capable of. ;)

So I've noticed Az. So much to say yet, disappointingly, so little content of value. ;)

[sat556]

The only way skeptics will believe is if an alleged phenomenon is reproduced on demand which anyone can reproduce.

Hi Ian.
You give a lot of credance to the fact that there is a lot of... anecdotes/evidence/stories/whatever you like to call it, for psychic ability.
You speak of endless tales of this ability throughout history to back up your thoughts that this might be a real phenomenon.
Do you not think that the endless tales of psychics outright cheating, failing to give accurate information, and on some occasions being totally wrong, give weight to the theory that these things might not exist?

How have you gone about weighing up the two sides?

[Azrael 5]

Hi Ian.
*snip*
How have you gone about weighing up the two sides?

He doesn't/hasn't/won't.
Ever.
;)

[Interesting Ian]

Do you not think that the endless tales of psychics outright cheating, failing to give accurate information, and on some occasions being totally wrong, give weight to the theory that these things might not exist?


No none at all. You can expect such people whether or not we live in a Universe wholly absent of paranormal phenomena, or in a Universe where the phenomena exists but which cannot be easily reproduced. If anything you would expect more in the latter Universe due to the fact that they are trying to emulate the real thing. If there were no real paranormal phenomena it would be less likely that people would think of it in the first place. Thus the fact that there's so many charlatans offers weak support for the hypothesis that genuine psychics exist.

But the bulk of the evidence consists in normal people who occasionally experience particular specific phenomena. The persuasiveness comes in the fact that the phenomena is not confined to a particular time and place and that it is clearly the same phenomena which is involved.

[John Jackson]

If there were no real paranormal phenomena it would be less likely that people would think of it in the first place. Thus the fact that there's so many charlatans offers weak support for the hypothesis that genuine psychics exist.

:D

Dare I mention cognitive illusion and bias?

No, I suspect they only occur in another universe: the one that is closed to us, but where Ian resides ;)

[sat556]

Thus the fact that there's so many charlatans offers weak support for the hypothesis that genuine psychics exist.


How do you tell them apart?

You seem to feel that the fact that there are so many reports etc of the same thing, that this gives weight to the opinion that psychics are real. Do you feel the same way about a god? Water colouring (my personal fave: put coloured paper round a bottle, leave it in the sun, thus 'colouring' the water and giving it magical healing properties)? Alien abductions?

Again, how are you managing to seperate these things out?

Also, what do you think should be done about these charlatans? Lazarus has been shown as highly dodgy, as has Acorah. Surely if there is a real phenomenon happening here then these people are only serving to make sceptics even more sceptical of the whole bunch, thus putting any serious research that may be done into this in doubt.

If there were no real paranormal phenomena it would be less likely that people would think of it in the first place.

But as you imply, not impossible. People can think up some wild things, and they can catch on big time.

[Big Les]

"reproduced on demand"? Reproduced AT ALL would be a start Ian Meanwhile, you only ever speak in terms of anecdotal evidence, which is virtually no evidence at all. Why can't (won't) you understand the basics here?

[Hellbound]

sat556:

You're also missing his nice little recurring dodge-n-weave.

Skeptics: Psychic powers have never shown up on tests.
Innane Ian: That's because they're weak and unpredictable!
Skeptics: Well, what about all the stories? The powers are strong and accurate, and called up more or less at will when you ask about them.
II: Well, people exagerate!

So, to II, the stories are evidence of his theory, not of what they calim to be evidence of.

The scientific tests are also evidence of his theory, regardless of correct interpretations.

And of course, if you don't agree with his ignorance, you're just a stupid moron who can't understand anything.

[vbloke]

To get this thread back on track after the extensive and pointless derail by Meandering Ian, can anyone chase this up?
http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/images/garda.gif
It appears to be a letter from the Irish Garda saying she "assisted" in the investigation of a murder of an unnamed young girl in 2002.

[Azrael 5]

Have emailed the Garda press office.

[rjh01]

I note the letter was written 11 months or so after her services were used. It also does not say how she got the information. Diane could have been an eye-witness to the murder. There is nothing in the letter to say she was not.

[Azrael 5]

Curious she doesnt blur out or remove her home address.Unless she has moved since then.
Hate mail ahoy! :)

[UGBRCE]

I think you have a problem,:yikes: thinking of sending hate mail !

just do your homework!!,saying that you will have to get out of that chair of your's your !

[UGBRCE]

I have looked at the letter on her website,yet another headed paper;look's as if Lazarus :confused: has helped them!!

[Azrael 5]

I think you have a problem,:yikes: thinking of sending hate mail !

just do your homework!!,saying that you will have to get out of that chair of your's your !

I think you have a problem believing fakes like her.:cool:
Where's your homework?

[Kelly]

I did not say any kind of hope is ok. What I said was some people who call the show are in situations where they have exhausted ALL other avenues and are left with no other options. In this case giving them a glimmer of hope can IMO be a good thing.


Coming from a person who knows and truly understands, I don't want false hope! I want the truth only, no matter how hard it is to hear.

To give false hope is dead wrong and immoral IMHO.

[UGBRCE]

Hate mail ahoy!
__________________
I dont understand anyone who could be so stupid as to think or even considering doing a criminal act like sending hate mail and stating the same for everyone to see, grow up and get a life, freak:shocked:

[UGBRCE]

Has anyone 'investigated' through the programme how Lazarus was able to find the boy on the beach in the final episode, when i did my homework on this, i was told that it was impossible for there to be any cheating at all, Chris French specifically wanted to over see this task to try and explain away every possibility of 'contamination', he was unable to give an explanation, only pure amazement.

[The Pig]

What steps were taken to prevent the child from making any noise?

I don't remember them mentioning this on the programme.

[Azrael 5]

There was a TV crew present,editing was involved,and the experiemnt controls weren't tight at all.
Let her step forward for the Randi challenge and they will-I'm sure-happily replicate the test for her.She should have no problems.
HAve you emailed her yet UGBRCE as to why she won't undertake the JREF challenge? Why she lied about solving certain police cases mentioned on here?
Why she couldnt identify a pair of shoes hidden in a box etc.?

I suggest you come back with some evidence of your own instead of claiming a TV show or her website as gospel.:rolleyes:

[UGBRCE]

There was a TV crew present,editing was involved,and the experiemnt controls weren't tight at all.

Are you saying Chris French didnt do his job or is part of a deception.............Surely not! Have you contacted her yourself yet?

Did you watch the episode or are you relying on third hand information as usual.:footinmou

[UGBRCE]

What steps were taken to prevent the child from making any noise?

I don't remember them mentioning this on the programme.

You saw the programme did you? I'm sure that Chris French would have been delighted to show the nation/world/universe that she had cheated, can't you come up with something better than that???

[UGBRCE]

[QUOTE=Azrael 5;1666779]There was a TV crew present,editing was involved,and the experiemnt controls weren't tight at all.

Why dont you try to concerntrate your efforts in getting the information from Prof Chris French himself rather that your pathetic guess work, or is he a fraud too?

[The Pig]

You saw the programme did you? I'm sure that Chris French would have been delighted to show the nation/world/universe that she had cheated, can't you come up with something better than that???

So you didn't see any such precautions? Neither did I, and I don't think there were any.

The child was hiding on a beach right? Do you know if they removed or covered up all the footprints? I don't remember them mentioning this on the programme.

I don't know why Chris French had anything to do with this programme, he was clearly unhappy with the protocols.

[UGBRCE]

Azrael 5, What proof have you got that the "experiment controls weren't tight at all" have you been told this, or yet another assumption, perhaps you have a letter from Channel 5 that you could post to confirm your statement.:dig:

[UGBRCE]

So you didn't see any such precautions? Neither did I, and I don't think there were any.

The child was hiding on a beach right? Do you know if they removed or covered up all the footprints? I don't remember them mentioning this on the programme.

I don't know why Chris French had anything to do with this programme, he was clearly unhappy with the protocols.


Get real, you obviously didnt see it, when has Chris French said he wasnt happy with the protocols.:confused:

[Azrael 5]

Go to TonyYouens website http://www.tonyyouens.com/BritainsPsychicChallenge.htm

Read about all the times in the show she failed.Why is that,if she's psychic?
She can find a boy on the beach but not discover what is in a sealed box? Why couldn't she say which man had used which hammer?
Why couldn't she establish what illness two people she chose at random had?
Why in the dead or alive celebrities test did she only get one out of five correct?
Why couldn't psychic Diane Lazarus identify John Mcririck whilst blindfold when he was sat opposite her?
Why couldn't she tell us about a jockey who died despite having his phot and whip?
Why did she fail at remote viewing in Oliver Cromwell's home,if she's psychic?
Lastly,why couldn't Diane Lazarus psychic medium tell us how and why Theo Van Gogh died when in Amsterdam?

So UGBRCE when you next bleat on about her finding a boy on the beach,kindly provide us all with your wisdom on why she was so useless at everything else,when she is allegedly psychic?

Or better still email her(as you claim you know her)and get her pitiful excuse for a fraud on here so we can all question her.

[The Pig]

A man hid in a car boot, the 'psychics' had to find him. The car wasn't selected at random, the man was allowed to pick himself. Chris French pointed out this flaw in the protocol.

Do you have an answer to my footprint question?

[John Jackson]

Why dont you try to concerntrate your efforts in getting the information from Prof Chris French himself rather that your pathetic guess work, or is he a fraud too?
Have you not read this thread properly?

I emailed Professor Chris French about this issue. He said that he did not spot any cheating, neither did Philip Escoffey, but that doesn't mean that cheating (say collusion with a cast member) didn't occur - just that it wasn't spotted.

Chris French has NEVER confirmed Diane Lazarus's ability.

He did, however, say that her (one single) result was interesting and warranted further investigation. That's all.

I know that Chris invited Diane for such testing but nothing has occurred so far.

I'll ask Chris for an update to see whether Diane has responded and/or accepted further testing.

BTW - there's a full and detailed commentary/transcript of Britain's Psychic Challenge here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=britains_psychic_challeng e

All of Diane's results are logged there - they don't add up to 'psychic ability' ;)

[UGBRCE]

A man hid in a car boot, the 'psychics' had to find him. The car wasn't selected at random, the man was allowed to pick himself. Chris French pointed out this flaw in the protocol.

Do you have an answer to my footprint question?


What about putting that to Chris French, i'm sure he will be delighted to be able to now come up with that as the answer, i'm sure the little boy left massive footprints, possibly like the ones found in the latest King Kong film?

[John Jackson]

What about putting that to Chris French
See above.

Stop trying to misrepresent Chris French as somehow supporting Diane Lazarus - he didn't. OK?

[UGBRCE]

Go to TonyYouens website http://www.tonyyouens.com/BritainsPsychicChallenge.htm

Read about all the times in the show she failed.Why is that,if she's psychic?
She can find a boy on the beach but not discover what is in a sealed box? Why couldn't she say which man had used which hammer?
Why couldn't she establish what illness two people she chose at random had?
Why in the dead or alive celebrities test did she only get one out of five correct?
Why couldn't psychic Diane Lazarus identify John Mcririck whilst blindfold when he was sat opposite her?
Why couldn't she tell us about a jockey who died despite having his phot and whip?
Why did she fail at remote viewing in Oliver Cromwell's home,if she's psychic?
Lastly,why couldn't Diane Lazarus psychic medium tell us how and why Theo Van Gogh died when in Amsterdam?

So UGBRCE when you next bleat on about her finding a boy on the beach,kindly provide us all with your wisdom on why she was so useless at everything else,when she is allegedly psychic?

Or better still email her(as you claim you know her)and get her pitiful excuse for a fraud on here so we can all question her.

Have you ever thought that some of the tests were completely ridiculous and without any meaning, yet some had a useful purpose....... get the answers From Chris French and Phillip Escoffey and ask them why they allowed this continuing fraud to carry on, they are skeptics arent they????????

[John Jackson]

Have you ever thought that some of the tests were completely ridiculous and without any meaning, yet some had a useful purpose....... get the answers From Chris French and Phillip Escoffey and ask them why they allowed this continuing fraud to carry on, they are skeptics arent they????????

See above and free yourself from your ignorance ;)

[UGBRCE]

See above.

Stop trying to misrepresent Chris French as somehow supporting Diane Lazarus - he didn't. OK?


Who is misrepresenting Chris French, he was there, he can surely give a full opinion rather than the edited one on the TV, as you have his email address ask him why he allowed himself to be part of this fraud...... big word fraud isnt it.

[UGBRCE]

See above and free yourself from your ignorance ;)


Ignorance? isnt that when someone is so blinkered in their thoughts that they cant see any other reason :covereyes

[John Jackson]

Who is misrepresenting Chris French, he was there, he can surely give a full opinion rather than the edited one on the TV, as you have his email address ask him why he allowed himself to be part of this fraud...... big word fraud isnt it.
Read the links you have been given and you just might understand why the tests and indeed the entire series were out of the hands of the skeptics involved.

Then you might be able to put forward a coherent argument rather than making yourself look like a complete ignoramus.

If you have a point to argue then at least do us the courtesy of presenting it properly.

[John Jackson]

Ignorance? isnt that when someone is so blinkered in their thoughts that they cant see any other reason :covereyes

Ignorance: The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

;)

[The Pig]

What about putting that to Chris French, i'm sure he will be delighted to be able to now come up with that as the answer, i'm sure the little boy left massive footprints, possibly like the ones found in the latest King Kong film?

Probably boy-sized footprints.

Were you happy with the test controls over the course of the series?

[UGBRCE]

Read the links you have been given and you just might understand why the tests and indeed the entire series were out of the hands of the skeptics involved.

Then you might be able to put forward a coherent argument rather than making yourself look like a complete ignoramus.

If you have a point to argue then at least do us the courtesy of presenting it properly.


I was going to reply and say there is only one ignoramus on this thread but i would be sadly wrong, and a bit childish, the point of argument is that the very people who were overseeing the episodes, the skeptics should have refused to take part if they didnt have control?

[UGBRCE]

Ignorance: The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

;)

Im glad that you know the meaning, well done

[UGBRCE]

Probably boy-sized footprints.

Were you happy with the test controls over the course of the series?


From the homework i have done, there were very tight controls, i'm sure the skeptics concerned would not have allowed themselves to be associated with such a show if it wasnt.

[Azrael 5]

From the homework i have done, there were very tight controls, i'm sure the skeptics concerned would not have allowed themselves to be associated with such a show if it wasnt.

Now I know you are lying.
One example: in the pub with a wartime history where psychics were given a medal(sealed in tissue paper :D)and asked to identify a person.The relative of the person was present and giving visual and audible clues!

Ive asked you once no brain,what hoemwork have you done,show us the results of this;rather than point the finger at Chris French(who I have also emailed for his update on DL).
Townhouse TV Prodcution company ran the show,produced it organised it set the weak tests.It wasn't the skeptics call,sadly.:rolleyes:

[John Jackson]

I was going to reply and say there is only one ignoramus on this thread but i would be sadly wrong, and a bit childish, the point of argument is that the very people who were overseeing the episodes, the skeptics should have refused to take part if they didnt have control?

Yes I agree, one ignoramus accusing all others of being ignorant wouldn't really work (still here Ian ;) ).

They could have refused but I suspect that the programme would have been even worse than it was without them. I think that Chris and Philip did an excellent job of giving a skeptical input.

Skeptics have a choice with these programmes - they can take part or refuse, the question of control is a non-starter, it's not going to happen.

It's really a question of whether skeptics are lending a false air of credibility to these programmes (which can be exploited by the ignorant) or whether their input is beneficial and educational. I don't think there's a good answer yet, although, like I have said, I think Chris and Philip did a great job on this series.

[Interesting Ian]

Go to TonyYouens website http://www.tonyyouens.com/BritainsPsychicChallenge.htm

Read about all the times in the show she failed.Why is that,if she's psychic?


To draw an analogy that would be like saying that because someone can't fart on demand, they must never be able to do so and indeed farts therefore cannot exist.

And skeptics all seem to reason in the same way.

Do none of you truly not understand how utterly ridiculous your arguments are?

[rjh01]

Ian your analogy does not apply. People do not claim to be able to fart on demand. Psychics claim to be able to do something on demand and fail when they say they can succeed.

[Interesting Ian]

Ian your analogy does not apply. People do not claim to be able to fart on demand. Psychics claim to be able to do something on demand and fail when they say they can succeed.

Yes but people on here are claiming that anomalous abilities do not exist at all. Not that these psychics are not as impressive as they claim to be.

Consider another analogy. A person may claim they can lift a 70kg barbell above their head just using their arms. But when put to the test they can only manage to lift 55kg.

Now what people on here are saying is because they fail to achieve as much as they claim, they must not be able to lift up anything whatsoever!

It's just complete nonsense.

[Hellbound]

Ian, you are an idiot.

You cannot without sacrificing intellectual honesty, claim that anecdotes are evidence of psychic powers, whiel at the same time discounting those powers as described by the anecdotes.

You're primary line of argument for psychics has always been "because there are so many stories of these events/phenomena". When we try to point out that many are either fabricated or, more often, the result of misinterpretation or misunderstanding, you aregue that it's silly to think such.

Yet, here you are doing the same thing you rail against skeptics for...ignoring the hundreds upon thousands of anecdotes and stories that show a very strong psychic effect, that while perhaps not 100% under control is still very clearly produceable on demand...enough so that these people can schedule shows, readings, and other situations with little fear that they can't perform.

You shoot down your own "theories", Ian, by applying your standards of evidence inconsistently. You show your bias, and you show your ignorance.

Go back under your bridge.

[vbloke]

Yes but people on here are claiming that anomalous abilities do not exist at all. Not that these psychics are not as impressive as they claim to be.

Consider another analogy. A person may claim they can lift a 70kg barbell above their head just using their arms. But when put to the test they can only manage to lift 55kg.

Now what people on here are saying is because they fail to achieve as much as they claim, they must not be able to lift up anything whatsoever!

It's just complete nonsense.
Nothing of the sort - if someone claims to be able to lift 70Kg and when tested, can only manage 55Kg, then the 70Kg claim is wrong, it does not mean that they can't do anything at all.

If (and you can watch the video - it's under "James Randi in Australia (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57167)") a dowser claims a 100% success rate, and then only scores what chance would dictate in a test, then THEY CANNOT DOWSE! If they claimed a 70% success rate and scored 55%, IT MEANS THEY CAN, JUST NOT AS WELL AS THEY CLAIM.

You argue in circles, Ian, you cannot complain about an argument used and then use it yourself - that is both dishonest, hypocritical and ignorant. If you have nothing of worth to add here, don't bother.

[Azrael 5]

Ian have you met Amy Wilson? :)

[chillzero]

To get this thread back on track after the extensive and pointless derail by Meandering Ian, can anyone chase this up?
http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/images/garda.gif
It appears to be a letter from the Irish Garda saying she "assisted" in the investigation of a murder of an unnamed young girl in 2002.

Yes. I did, and I am sure I posted it here somewhere. I will have to hunt about and dig it up, but basically, the garda say that it is up to individuals in the force as to whether they will utilise psychics or not. They would not go into any further details, despite several follow up emails.

[sat556]

Azrael 5, What proof have you got that the "experiment controls weren't tight at all" have you been told this, or yet another assumption, perhaps you have a letter from Channel 5 that you could post to confirm your statement.:dig:

Actually, I have proof that the show was more in line with an attempt to make the sceptics wonder if the 'powers' were real, rather than testing said powers.
Of course I will not be posting it here, due to the fact that I may be slammed for it (posting e-mails without permission etc). However, some have seen it, I think John Jackson saw a bit of it and Tony Youens did too.

[Azrael 5]

Actually, I have proof that the show was more in line with an attempt to make the sceptics wonder if the 'powers' were real, rather than testing said powers.
Of course I will not be posting it here, due to the fact that I may be slammed for it (posting e-mails without permission etc). However, some have seen it, I think John Jackson saw a bit of it and Tony Youens did too.

Ive seen it also elsewhere.Post and be damned I say.;)

[hodgy]

Ian your analogy does not apply. People do not claim to be able to fart on demand. Psychics claim to be able to do something on demand and fail when they say they can succeed.

My brother claims (and has) that ability - do you think he would be eligible to apply for the $1M? :)

[gruk]

Well, I have e-mailed the West Midlands Police contact address and asked if they could verify basic things like "is it the right stationery". It does have dates, names, signatures and the like, so should be verifiable.

I expect to have an answer in a few days, they're probably over-worked.

Edited to correct some spelling errors

OK, I have an answer. I realized a bit too late I hadn't asked for an OK to publish the reply, so I am enquiring about that right now.

[Azrael 5]

Do you need permission to quote police? As public servants and employed at taxpayers expense shouldnt we be free to publish it?

[gruk]

Do you need permission to quote police? As public servants and employed at taxpayers expense shouldnt we be free to publish it?

I dunno. I think it's OK, but since the e-mail finished off with a Big Scary Disclaimer, saying that I wasn't under any circumstances allowed to quote and/or publish the contents, I thought it best to confirm.

I'm quite sure there are no problems and as soon as I know for sure, I will quote things here.

[chillzero]

Ahem - gruk, Azreal,
Did you happen to see my opening post on this thread?

Quote from the police:

"Indeed I am unable to verify the validity or provenance of that letter."

Also, I asked specifically for permission to reprint before starting this thread, and was told that this was all under the Freedom of Information Act, so was ok. That included the statement regarding not using psychics from the Head of the Major Investigations Unit.

[tanto]

There is a cache of Diane Lazarus site from Nov 22, 2005.

Use the gigablast search engine, im not allowed to post links yet.

[gruk]

Ahem - gruk, Azreal,
Did you happen to see my opening post on this thread?

Quote from the police:

"Indeed I am unable to verify the validity or provenance of that letter."

Also, I asked specifically for permission to reprint before starting this thread, and was told that this was all under the Freedom of Information Act, so was ok. That included the statement regarding not using psychics from the Head of the Major Investigations Unit.

But was that with a reference to the scanned image of the letter or just to the letter in general? My impression is that we only had access to a scanned image of the letter sometime late May? All I asked was for them to verify the letter-head on that paper, though the wording I had back is identical to the one you were given.

[tanto]

But was that with a reference to the scanned image of the letter or just to the letter in general? My impression is that we only had access to a scanned image of the letter sometime late May? All I asked was for them to verify the letter-head on that paper, though the wording I had back is identical to the one you were given.

Cant someone contact the retired officer and ask him? I belive all of us would like to hear what he has to say.

[Azrael 5]

This may have been posted before(apologies to anyone) but as I emailed and recoieved a reply I shall post it here.From Irish Garda.


Dear Mr. ******

Sorry for the delay in replying. An Garda Síochána does not have a policy in place in relation to the use of Psychics in criminal investigations. When Psychics are employed, the decision is one for the investigating officer having regard to all the circumstances of the individual case.



Sergeant Ken Hill,


Sergeant-in-charge,
Press Office,
Garda Síochána,

www.garda.ie (http://www.garda.ie)

[UGBRCE]

CHILLZERO,AZREAL,JOHN JACKSON,:confused:
YOU ARE THE ONLY FAKE HERE AS YOU ARE ONE PERSON HAVEN'T YOU ANYTHING BETTER TO DO WITH YOUR LIFE,THE FORUM IS YOU CHATTING TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:ro lleyes:
Dear Mr. ******


Sorry for the delay in replying. An Garda Síochána does not have a policy in place in relation to the use of Psychics in criminal investigations. When Psychics are employed, the decision is one for the investigating officer having regard to all the circumstances of the individual case.

O.K YOU HAVE HAD A REPLY WHERE IS THE HEADED PAPER?
MAKING THIS UP TOO
,AND YOU HAVE NOT ASKED THE QUESTION WAS SHE EMPLOYED BY THE GARDA?
AS I SAID I HAVE LOOKED IT TO ALL THE LETTER'S THAT LAZARUS HAS ON HER SITE THEY ARE GENUINE,AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE HEADED PAPER.
THIS FORUM IS FOR YOU TO CHAT TO YOURSELF.......SAD

[Mojo]

I think your Caps Lock key is stuck.

[Mojo]

O.K YOU HAVE HAD A REPLY WHERE IS THE HEADED PAPER?
MAKING THIS UP TOO
,AND YOU HAVE NOT ASKED THE QUESTION WAS SHE EMPLOYED BY THE GARDA?
AS I SAID I HAVE LOOKED IT TO ALL THE LETTER'S THAT LAZARUS HAS ON HER SITE THEY ARE GENUINE,AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE HEADED PAPER.So your sole criterion for deciding whether something is genuine is whether it is on headed paper?

Have you asked the police forces in question about Lazarus's claimed involvement in their investigations, or are you just relying on her ability to post images of headed paper?

[chillzero]

CHILLZERO,AZREAL,JOHN JACKSON,:confused:
YOU ARE THE ONLY FAKE HERE AS YOU ARE ONE PERSON HAVEN'T YOU ANYTHING BETTER TO DO WITH YOUR LIFE,THE FORUM IS YOU CHATTING TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:ro lleyes:
Dear Mr. ******


Sorry for the delay in replying. An Garda Síochána does not have a policy in place in relation to the use of Psychics in criminal investigations. When Psychics are employed, the decision is one for the investigating officer having regard to all the circumstances of the individual case.

O.K YOU HAVE HAD A REPLY WHERE IS THE HEADED PAPER?
MAKING THIS UP TOO
,AND YOU HAVE NOT ASKED THE QUESTION WAS SHE EMPLOYED BY THE GARDA?
AS I SAID I HAVE LOOKED IT TO ALL THE LETTER'S THAT LAZARUS HAS ON HER SITE THEY ARE GENUINE,AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE HEADED PAPER.
THIS FORUM IS FOR YOU TO CHAT TO YOURSELF.......SAD


I am neither Azreal nor John Jackson.
I am not a fake, but years back I came very close to travelling down that road. Fortunately, I know now that I have no psychic powers, and I feel it is a very good use of my time to investigate claims of psychic ability.

Yes - as you say, I did indeed get a reply from the garda. I consider it a very unsatisfactory reply. I did actually ask them if they employed psychics. They responded that it is up to individual garda staff to make that decision. What is your problem with that? My problem with it is that it isn't very helpful, and when asked for further information the garda have not responded. So I'll be limiting my research to the UK/NI now, probably.

The letters on Diane's page may be genuine, in that they were probably sent to her, through the mail, from a person (i.e. I am not claiming she has made them up herself). However, the police forces in the UK deny that any of those purported to come from police officers have been issued from official channels, and they also deny the information reported within them.

Perhaps each of these supporters of Diane could attempt reading what I have already posted before accusing me of not looking into it, and perhaps when shown to be wrong they could acknowledge that this was the case?
hmmm?
Thought not.

[chillzero]

CHILLZERO,AZREAL,JOHN JACKSON,:confused:
YOU ARE THE ONLY FAKE HERE AS YOU ARE ONE PERSON

By the way, you had better have good evidence to back up any such accusations of behaviour which is not tolerated by the forum administrators, and is a suspendable, even bannable offense.

[Azrael 5]

A reply from Chris French

Dear John,

Sorry for the delay in replying - life is v hectic at the moment! For the record, neither Philip Escoffey nor I (nor Jackie Malton, for that matter) were involved in any way in designing the tests. In terms of the actual set-ups on the testing days, my impression was that the programme-makers generally did their best to control the conditions but inevitably they did not meet the standards of strict scientific control. The most obvious breach was the presence of the film crew (plus others) on all tests, allowing for multiple opportunities for leakage. In my opinion, everyone involved (with one exception) was doing their utmost to carry out fair tests, but that simply isn’t good enough, is it? I’m afraid I would not feel comfortable going into details regarding the one person who I felt was biased (in favour of the psychics, of course!) in his approach, but this person was not involved in all tests. Of course, if someone was actually engaged in deliberate cheating, it is unlikely that they would not have made it obvious (unlike the bias on the part of the person I was just referring to). Neither Philip nor I were in a position where we could guarantee that no deliberate cheating was taking place, but equally we have no evidence that anyone did cheat.

Bearing all of the above in mind, none of the tests were sufficiently well-controlled to carry much weight in strictly scientific terms. However, I was genuinely impressed by Diane Lazarus’s performance on a few of the tests, especially the “hide and seek” tests, one of which I was present at. As far as I can see, there are only four possible explanations for her finding the hidden targets so quickly:

(a) lucky guesswork (but she did it twice, making her double success harder to explain in such terms);
(b) deliberate cheating (there are hundreds of ways that the effect could have been achieved by cheating especially if one or more collaborators were involved – but I have no evidence whatsoever that any cheating did take place);
(c) unintended sensory leakage (a real possibility – but if this is the explanation, Diane’s ability to pick up on such subtle cuing is itself remarkable. I watched her closely during the test that I was involved in and she did not appear to looking at the film crew or anyone else for cues but she may have been);
(d) an unexplained power as yet not recognized by science.

I think it is reasonable to be impressed by success on a test which was not strictly controlled if by “impressed” we mean sufficiently intrigued to believe that the claim merits serious further scrutiny under properly controlled conditions. I would certainly be interested in doing so but I confess that I have been to busy since the series to find time to do contact Diane. I suspect that her reaction may be a certain reluctance to take part in any such further tests. Although this might seem strange to a sceptic, who would see the opportunity to prove the existence of a strange new “paranormal” power as being of paramount importance, it is not unreasonable when considered from Diane’s own perspective. Assuming she is not a deliberate fraud (and I don’t think she is), she already knows she is psychic and, as far as she is concerned, she has even proved it in televised tests. She would never claim to be 100% successful – indeed, her performance on most of the tests in the series was abysmal. So, from her point of view, why should she risk her currently successful reputation by running further tests that she might fail?

Feel free to post these comments on the JREF Forum if you feel it appropriate. I also intend to send them to Mike Heap, Chair of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry, for possible inclusion in a future issue of Skeptical Adversaria.

Best wishes,
Chris


UGBRCE any part of that do you not understand or disagree with? How do you explain the highlighted(my favourite line of the quote)text.

[Interesting Ian]

Chris French

Dear John,

Sorry for the delay in replying - life is v hectic at the moment! For the record, neither Philip Escoffey nor I (nor Jackie Malton, for that matter) were involved in any way in designing the tests. In terms of the actual set-ups on the testing days, my impression was that the programme-makers generally did their best to control the conditions but inevitably they did not meet the standards of strict scientific control. The most obvious breach was the presence of the film crew (plus others) on all tests, allowing for multiple opportunities for leakage. In my opinion, everyone involved (with one exception) was doing their utmost to carry out fair tests, but that simply isn’t good enough, is it? I’m afraid I would not feel comfortable going into details regarding the one person who I felt was biased (in favour of the psychics, of course!) in his approach, but this person was not involved in all tests. Of course, if someone was actually engaged in deliberate cheating, it is unlikely that they would not have made it obvious (unlike the bias on the part of the person I was just referring to). Neither Philip nor I were in a position where we could guarantee that no deliberate cheating was taking place, but equally we have no evidence that anyone did cheat.

Bearing all of the above in mind, none of the tests were sufficiently well-controlled to carry much weight in strictly scientific terms. However, I was genuinely impressed by Diane Lazarus’s performance on a few of the tests, especially the “hide and seek” tests, one of which I was present at. As far as I can see, there are only four possible explanations for her finding the hidden targets so quickly:

(a) lucky guesswork (but she did it twice, making her double success harder to explain in such terms);
(b) deliberate cheating (there are hundreds of ways that the effect could have been achieved by cheating especially if one or more collaborators were involved – but I have no evidence whatsoever that any cheating did take place);
(c) unintended sensory leakage (a real possibility – but if this is the explanation, Diane’s ability to pick up on such subtle cuing is itself remarkable. I watched her closely during the test that I was involved in and she did not appear to looking at the film crew or anyone else for cues but she may have been);
(d) an unexplained power as yet not recognized by science.

I think it is reasonable to be impressed by success on a test which was not strictly controlled if by “impressed” we mean sufficiently intrigued to believe that the claim merits serious further scrutiny under properly controlled conditions. I would certainly be interested in doing so but I confess that I have been to busy since the series to find time to do contact Diane. I suspect that her reaction may be a certain reluctance to take part in any such further tests. Although this might seem strange to a sceptic, who would see the opportunity to prove the existence of a strange new “paranormal” power as being of paramount importance, it is not unreasonable when considered from Diane’s own perspective. Assuming she is not a deliberate fraud (and I don’t think she is), she already knows she is psychic and, as far as she is concerned, she has even proved it in televised tests. She would never claim to be 100% successful – indeed, her performance on most of the tests in the series was abysmal. So, from her point of view, why should she risk her currently successful reputation by running further tests that she might fail?

Feel free to post these comments on the JREF Forum if you feel it appropriate. I also intend to send them to Mike Heap, Chair of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry, for possible inclusion in a future issue of Skeptical Adversaria.



An excellent response from Chris French. It is clear from what I've seen of him on the TV and this response here that he's a reasonable skeptic. Makes such a refreshing change to read this intelligent response compared to what skeptics say on here.

[John Jackson]

An excellent response from Chris French. It is clear from what I've seen of him on the TV and this response here that he's a reasonable skeptic. Makes such a refreshing change to read this intelligent response compared to what skeptics say on here.

I don't think that any skeptic on here disagrees with Prof. French's assessment of Diane Lazarus with regard to the Britain's Psychic Challenge programme. I certainly don't.

However, her claims on her website are a different matter. It has been shown that her claims are not just misleading, they are downright false.

It does not make sense to suspend judgement or give a benefit of doubt to claims that are clearly false.

[Interesting Ian]

I don't think that any skeptic on here disagrees with Prof. French's assessment of Diane Lazarus with regard to the Britain's Psychic Challenge programme. I certainly don't.

However, her claims on her website are a different matter. It has been shown that her claims are not just misleading, they are downright false.

It does not make sense to suspend judgement or give a benefit of doubt to claims that are clearly false.

I have no interest in what she claims on her website. I have not read it nor do I intend to. If you have an issue with it then contact her about it.

[John Jackson]

I have no interest in what she claims on her website. I have not read it nor do I intend to.

Then kindly stop criticising those who do have an interest and who have read it.

[Azrael 5]

. If you have an issue with it then contact her about it.

Tried that.No use.She would only tell more lies anyway.She's a medium after all,not renowned for telling the truth are they?

[Interesting Ian]

Then kindly stop criticising those who do have an interest and who have read it.

Eh? Where did I do that? People were and are claiming she's a scammer i.e she has no anomalous abilities whatsoever. This question has nothing to do with what she puts on her website.

[Interesting Ian]

Tried that.No use.She would only tell more lies anyway.She's a medium after all,not renowned for telling the truth are they?

Genuine mediums rather than those who only pretend they are in contact with the departed? I really have no idea.

[Azrael 5]

Genuine mediums rather than those who only pretend they are in contact with the departed? I really have no idea.

Is there a difference...?
Do enlighten me as to a genuine medium.I don't know of any.

[Mojo]

People were and are claiming she's a scammer i.e she has no anomalous abilities whatsoever. This question has nothing to do with what she puts on her website.You think the fact that someone lies about the uses to which their alleged abilities have been put has no bearing on their credibility with regard to other claims about their abilities?

[Interesting Ian]

Is there a difference...?
Do enlighten me as to a genuine medium.I don't know of any.

I don't know if genuine mediums exist, although I am fairly convinced they are getting their information by anomalous means. But this could just be what has been termed "super ESP". I think they are convinced though i.e they are almost certainly genuine psychics even if not genuine mediums.

[Mojo]

Is there a difference...?
Do enlighten me as to a genuine medium.I don't know of any.Will we get the usual "I know of some but I can't tell you who they are" excuse, do you think?

ETA: Apparently not.

[Mojo]

I don't know if genuine mediums exist, although I am fairly convinced they are getting their information by anomalous means. Even if they don't exist?

[Interesting Ian]

You think the fact that someone lies about the uses to which their alleged abilities have been put has no bearing on their credibility with regard to other claims about their abilities?

Not really. Everyone "lies" all the time about their abilities. People always exaggerate. Except me.

[Hellbound]

Not really. Everyone "lies" all the time about their abilities. People always exaggerate. Except me.

You owe me a new keyboard. I was drinking when I read this.

[UGBRCE]

Diane Lazarus is on t,v again on a programme called The Psychic Investigators Tonight at 10.30 then on Saturday at 4.30 on the Biography Channel.
The only person on this forum that is genuine is Ian.
there are people with Psychic Ability we only use 10%of our brain,why not fine out more about it,rather than wasting you time on this forum.............

[sat556]

Not really. Everyone "lies" all the time about their abilities. People always exaggerate. Except me.

You seem to imply that because 'everyone' does it that makes it acceptable. I'm sure you don't mean that.
Surely somebody who is dealing with people in a vunerable position should be as honest as possible? As in a medium and grieving people.

Also, you didn't answer my question before, and I am interested in your opinion.
The questions was, what should we do about those mediums that are clearly frauds?

Surely these people are damaging any hope of real mediums (should there be any) coming forward to be tested or help in research?
The more lies that are told the more suspicious people will get thus all people with this ability will be seen in the same way, as frauds.

[sat556]

we only use 10%of our brain,

I think you need to do some research yourself...........

[UGBRCE]

So John Is Azreal And 'you'chillzero!
Do Not Keep Lying You Have Been Found Out !
You Are A Very Sad Person That Have Had A Problem With People
Go And Read The Bible'don't Tell Me You Wrote It!!!!!

[sat556]

:boggled:

[The_Fire]

So John Is Azreal And 'you'chillzero!
Do Not Keep Lying You Have Been Found Out !
You Are A Very Sad Person That Have Had A Problem With People
Go And Read The Bible'don't Tell Me You Wrote It!!!!!

Do you have any evidence backing any of your claims?

[Azrael 5]

So John Is Azreal And 'you'chillzero!
Do Not Keep Lying You Have Been Found Out !
You Are A Very Sad Person That Have Had A Problem With People
Go And Read The Bible'don't Tell Me You Wrote It!!!!!

Its obvious reading posts like that one,that you only use 10% of your brain! I am not chillzero-if indeed that is what you are inferring.I think we may be in different countries actually.

I shall watch tonight and laugh.She can go on TV until she is 90,until she takes a proper test on TV I don't rightly care.She's only famous in Wales and that is it! :rolleyes:

[The_Fire]

[snip]
She's only famous in Wales and that is it! :rolleyes:

Gotta admit here that this thread were the first time I heard of her so that possibilty is more than likely.

[sat556]

So John and Azrael are both called John... The evidence stacks up. Now where does chillzero fit in to this?

[The Pig]

there are people with Psychic Ability we only use 10%of our brain,why not fine out more about it,rather than wasting you time on this forum.............

The next time you hear somebody make a point you may use yourself in future, you should write it down.

[Azrael 5]

Cannot find a listing for the programme tonight UGBRCE,care to post the correct channel?

[John Jackson]

Go And Read The Bible'don't Tell Me You Wrote It!!!!!

Ahem...

Have you not read the Gospel according to John? :eek:

[Azrael 5]

UGBRCE,jambo,Janice,that WIlson person whose first name I forget(its true)one troll after another!

ETA Ive remembered.Amy Wilson
:)

[Mojo]

...we only use 10%of our brain...Speak for yourself. The "10% of the brain" thing is a rather elderly fallacy. Brain tissue is expensive to run; if we didn't use it we wouldn't have it.

[Meffy]

Have you not read the Gospel according to John? :eek:
I've heard that term used to refer to Sears Catalogues. Nothing personal! I'm certain they didn't mean you.

[Interesting Ian]

You seem to imply that because 'everyone' does it that makes it acceptable.



It's simply the way that human beings are. People like to be admired, to be looked up to.



I'm sure you don't mean that.
Surely somebody who is dealing with people in a vunerable position should be as honest as possible? As in a medium and grieving people.



Yes absolutely.



Also, you didn't answer my question before, and I am interested in your opinion.
The questions was, what should we do about those mediums that are clearly frauds?



This boils down to what should we do about all the dishonest people in the world. A difficult and complex question. I'm sure that people will accuse me of going off-topic if I were to address it here though.



Surely these people are damaging any hope of real mediums (should there be any) coming forward to be tested or help in research?
The more lies that are told the more suspicious people will get thus all people with this ability will be seen in the same way, as frauds.

Indeed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
I don't know if genuine mediums exist, although I am fairly convinced they are getting their information by anomalous means.

Mojo
Even if they don't exist?

There's a slight misunderstanding here. I'm fairly convinced that (genuine) psychics exist. But a medium claims much much more than a psychic. They are claiming they are getting at least some of their information from people who have died. So it's very possible that no genuine mediums exist, but that genuine psychics might well exist.

Personally I think the best evidence for "life after death" is young children allegedly remembering previous lives. And I would consider NDEs and even apparitions as constituting better evidence for the survival hypothesis (life after death) than mediumship.

[rjh01]

The only person on this forum that is genuine is Ian.


Does this mean that you are not genuine?:D

[Mojo]

There's a slight misunderstanding here. I'm fairly convinced that (genuine) psychics exist. But not entirely convinced? You don't have any conclusive evidence for their existence? But a medium claims much much more than a psychic. They are claiming they are getting at least some of their information from people who have died. So it's very possible that no genuine mediums exist, but that genuine psychics might well exist.

Personally I think the best evidence for "life after death" is young children allegedly remembering previous lives. And I would consider NDEs and even apparitions as constituting better evidence for the survival hypothesis (life after death) than mediumship.But if you don't even know whether there are any genuine mediums, the question of how they get their information is kind of moot, isn't it? Certainly, if there were genuine mediums, then they would be getting information from the dead by "anomalous means", but in the absence of actual genuine mediums the statement is essentially meaningless. It's like saying "I don't know whether men can fly without technological help, but I'm fairly convinced that they do it by flapping their arms".

[Dr B]

UGBRCE

snip......we only use 10%of our brain.....snip

Not true - what is the evidence for this? This is one of the biggest misconceptions about brain function. Find a neuroscientist that believes it and has published a paper claiming it...

Sorry, I know its a small point in this debate and a sea of nonsense from some (hiya Ian :D ) - but it is completely wrong. Does that mean we can remove 90% of your brain and you will still function just fine???? Of course not...:eek:

[Dr B]

snip....I would consider NDEs and even apparitions as constituting better evidence for the survival hypothesis (life after death) than mediumship......

Excellent neuroscientific and psychological theories exist to acount for NDEs and apparitions. Of course much more research is needed, but I cant see why / what / where this evidence is that you speak of. How about starting a new thread on it (as it may be off topic for here). Bring the evidence there and lets discuss it. :cool:

[Deetee]

UGBRCE
Not true - what is the evidence for this? This is one of the biggest misconceptions about brain function. Find a neuroscientist that believes it and has published a paper claiming it...

Sorry, I know its a small point in this debate and a sea of nonsense from some (hiya Ian :D ) - but it is completely wrong. Does that mean we can remove 90% of your brain and you will still function just fine???? Of course not...:eek:

Quite.
My memory on details is sketchy, but the original "10%" concept came from a few different sources around 30 years ago or so. One was the discovery in a child with hydrocephalus that the brain scan revealed mainly fluid filled space within the cranium, with the brain being compressed into a smaller rim around the circumference. Firstly, this did not mean there was only 10% of the brain - it was all there, just compressed and stretched, and secondly it was not functioning normally although the child seemed to be able to carry out usual activites. There were the usual media stories of "Child uses only 10% of brain!!" which started of the fallacy.
The second thing was an experiment in rats showing that when bits of their brains were chopped out they could still find their way around a simple maze. Again, these were not normally functioning rats in other neurological aspects.

Oh, and I think there have been a couple of threads in the past specifically to demolish Ian's NDE theories. But they still keep coming back.

[The_Fire]

As usual snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com) is a repository of urban legends and their origins.....
Here (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm)

[Dr B]

Barry Beyerstein has an excellent article on "where cometh the myth that we only use 10% of our brains".....I just cant remember the source.....I will dig it out

Ooohhh just remembered it...its a book called "Mind myths" (1999) edited by Sergio della salla. Check it out ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Excellent neuroscientific and psychological theories exist to acount for NDEs and apparitions.



If neuroscience and psychology cannot account for the existence of consciousness, then a fortiori it cannot account for any particular conscious experiences.

The most it could achieve is that certain processes in the brain happen when one has these experiences. But of course certain physical processes happen in my brain when I look at an apple. Clearly in and of itself this constitutes no evidence against the external reality of the apple. Likewise certain characteristic processes occurring in the brain when experiencing an apparition do not constitute any evidence that the apparition is wholly internally produced by the brain (I say wholly because obviously the brain always has a great deal of influence in shaping what we perceive external to us).

What you would need to show is that the brain processes correlated with seeing an apparition or NDE are entirely brought about without an external input. Also bear in mind that I would consider such external input to be a form of ESP i.e not information and therefore non-physical.

It is of course possible that these experiences are entirely conjured up by the mind (or brain as people on here would like to say). But I highly doubt you have any such theory, never mind excellent ones. Nay, I even highly doubt that you have any hypotheses. At most you have empty speculation.



How about starting a new thread on it (as it may be off topic for here). Bring the evidence there and lets discuss it. :cool:

I'm going to be really really busy over the next month what with watching all the football and gambling all the time. By all means start a new thread, but I cannot guarantee I'll contribute to it frequently.

[Dr B]

Ian :D :D :D

You are funny.....:wide-eyed

When are you going to back your sweeping statements up? You have no idea what theories are out there, or which I support, have developed. Why not simply ask in a nice intelligent manner?

Your knowledge of neuroscience and psychology is clearly out of a 1950s textbook....and a bad one at that ;)

[Dr B]

Here is an idea for you Ian,

The mind is what the brain does. The mind is the product of the brain in action. Any problems at this basic level???

[Dr B]

If neuroscience and psychology cannot account for the existence of consciousness, then a fortiori it cannot account for any particular conscious experiences.

It depends what you mean by 'account'. We know that damage of organic brain matter impacts on mind, stimulation of the brain, produces altered-states, and mental experience is limited to the scope of neural machnery that gives rise to it (i.e., you cannot see colour the eye / brain cannot produce or hear sounds the ear cannot be vibrated by). We are starting to understand certain neural states that correspond to consciousness / awareness - and the evidence looks bleek for the paranormalist.

Penfield in the 1950s / 1960s showed quite specific effects in the absence of external stimulation of those events.....this evidence has been with us for quite a while.

What you would need to show is that the brain processes correlated with seeing an apparition or NDE are entirely brought about without an external input.

Been done - see above.


It is of course possible that these experiences are entirely conjured up by the mind (or brain as people on here would like to say). But I highly doubt you have any such theory, never mind excellent ones. Nay, I even highly doubt that you have any hypotheses. At most you have empty speculation.

based on your performance here - I doubt you could tell the difference.:cool:
However, if you want to engage in an adult intelligent conversation on the matter - I would be happy to in another thread where |I will point out all the evidence which you will no doubt refuse to read. ;)

[fuelair]

It looks as if we are
getting into the old territory described by Martin Gardner as: just because some of the time he or she (the medium) fakes stuff doesn't mean every time he/she is faking (i.e.: supporters require each case show proof of faking
-and not just an explanation of ways it could have been faked - so no matter how many times the person is caught faking, even if proven beyond any possible doubt, they still are psychic for real the next time they perform with no sceptics present so they aren't caught cheating.

[Mojo]

Here is an idea for you Ian,

The mind is what the brain does. The mind is the product of the brain in action. Any problems at this basic level???http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42032

[Dr B]

Mojo

Greatly indebted to you for the informative link ;) ...oh dear.....:D :cool:

[Interesting Ian]

Here is an idea for you Ian,

The mind is what the brain does. The mind is the product of the brain in action. Any problems at this basic level???

I have many many problems with this. But the world cup is starting in 50 mins. Sorry, no time.

[Dcdrac]

The trouble with skeptics is that they expect far far to much. Psychic abilities generally tend to be weak. I think it's about time skeptics made some attempt to get their heads around this fact. Given that they are weak, then the anomalous abilities demonstrated by these individuals were incredibly impressive (assuming no cheating was going on). I for one was extremely surprised and impressed.

What I expect are results that are clearly better than chance under controlled conditions.I have yet to see any controlled experiment that has demonstrated this. If this ever happens then I will change my mind but to date it has not.

[Interesting Ian]

Ian :D :D :D

You are funny.....:wide-eyed

When are you going to back your sweeping statements up?



What sweeping statements?





You have no idea what theories are out there, or which I support, have developed. Why not simply ask in a nice intelligent manner?



Well, for a kick off because I'm not really interested. I'm not really interested because in my experience all such theories inevitably beg the question. They assume that consciousness is the same as brain processes. Since I actually define conscious processes as not being the same as their correlated physical processes in the brain, this doesn't really get us anywhere.



Your knowledge of neuroscience and psychology is clearly out of a 1950s textbook....and a bad one at that ;)

I don't have any knowledge of neuroscience and psychology.

[sat556]

What sweeping statements?
Since I actually define conscious processes as not being the same as their correlated physical processes in the brain, this doesn't really get us anywhere.


Hey Ian.

Are you saying that you personally define this differently to other people?

[chillzero]

I have no interest in what she claims on her website. I have not read it nor do I intend to. If you have an issue with it then contact her about it.

So why are you bothering to participate in a thread that arises from claims written on her website?

... or did you not bother with the opening post either?

[chillzero]

So John Is Azreal And 'you'chillzero!
Do Not Keep Lying You Have Been Found Out !
You Are A Very Sad Person That Have Had A Problem With People
Go And Read The Bible'don't Tell Me You Wrote It!!!!!

Idiot.

[chillzero]

So John and Azrael are both called John... The evidence stacks up. Now where does chillzero fit in to this?


Where did this stupid piece of nonsense come from anyway? Anyone know? Has the moron only ever had 1 person disagree with them, and so anyone dissenting must obviously be the same person - couldn't possibly be more people disagreeing with such finely put arguements.

I'll ask again. Having socks - more than one account - is a suspendable matter on this forum, so is a serious charge. Any evidence before you start chucking about such crap?

[sat556]

Where did this stupid piece of nonsense come from anyway? Anyone know?

The land of woo, where they only use ten percent of their brains ;)

[Mojo]

What sweeping statements? Any of them. Take your pick.

[Mojo]

Where did this stupid piece of nonsense come from anyway? Anyone know? Has the moron only ever had 1 person disagree with them, and so anyone dissenting must obviously be the same person - couldn't possibly be more people disagreeing with such finely put arguements.You were never involved in any of the MAS collective's threads, were you?

[Interesting Ian]

Hey Ian.

Are you saying that you personally define this differently to other people?

Apparently so. The point is that it has led to many thousands of words of pointless debate. For me the totality of brain processes (and all other physical things and processes) are exhausted by what we can in principle measure. We cannot in principle measure consciousness, therefore it cannot be a brain process or part of a brain process. Therefore, for me consciousness is by definition not physical. It is not what I understand by the word physical.

[Interesting Ian]

So why are you bothering to participate in a thread that arises from claims written on her website?

... or did you not bother with the opening post either?

I was taking issue with the assertion that she is a "scammer". If people are merely saying she's exaggerating her abilities then fine. Not that I agree, or indeed disagree. I'm in absolutely no position to say since I have never seen her website and have no intention of ever doing so. I'm only interested in the serious stuff.

[Interesting Ian]

What I expect are results that are clearly better than chance under controlled conditions.I have yet to see any controlled experiment that has demonstrated this. If this ever happens then I will change my mind but to date it has not.

Well we have over a 100 years of parapsychological research. Many of these experiments show positive results under highly controlled conditions. I don't think this should necessarily change your mind though. Ideally we want something that can be demonstrated without fail time after time. Then it becomes obvious that the phenomenon does actually exist.

If it can only be elicited sometimes and we have a particular psychological disposition with certain entrenched ideas about how reality must work which the apparent phenomenon contradicts, then there will exist a conviction that all this evidence must be flawed in some manner.

This is just a psychological quirk of skeptics. They outright deny anything which doesn't fit into their picture of reality, or anything which is radically unusual.

This is not to say that they are not right though, and even justified. Maybe they really do have some really compelling reasons to think reality operates in a certain way which I'm simply unable to grasp. One also wonders though about what happened about their dogmatic assertions that powered flight is impossible, stones falling out of the sky is absolutely impossible, telephones are impossible, and a whole host of other things which skeptics have vehemently denied can possible exist, yet somehow magically appear to exist anyway.

But the main reason why I reject skeptics beliefs as to what is impossible is because they never ever are able to give any justification for their assertions. Or at least the only argument they give is that a materialist based metaphysic must necessarily be right because a painkiller alleviates pain.

[Meffy]

[edit] Deleted. Not worth the bother.

[Interesting Ian]

[edit] Deleted. Not worth the bother.

I got your message as an email anyway eg:


"So much text, so completely off target. Ian, I think you operate not on qualia but quantia. *shakes head*

. . . .

That you happen to refuse to believe demonstrable truths and must retreat into fantasy and wish fulfillment doesn't affect the validity of real-world evidence.

. . .

I'll leave the rest of your falsehoods and distortions for others wiser than I to dismantle and exhibit their meaninglessness"


blah blah blah


Not surprised you just decided to delete it all! Anyway it's certainly not meaningless. Wrong headed I might be, but I'm merely expressing how I feel. Many many other non-skeptics share exactly my sentiments. Perhaps we're all wrong headed, but general disparaging remarks and saying that skeptics don't have beliefs and are wholly impartial and logical isn't going to cut it.

PS Just one further thing. You said:


But get this: Science learns. Science grows. Science self-corrects.


It's a pity people don't likewise. And BTW I certainly wouldn't suggest that science should hold that certain paranormal phenomena have been proved. There again I don't think it should hold that the existence of consciousness has been proved either.

The point I'm getting at is that science is natural conservative and necessarily so. But certain things obviously exist even though it isn't part of the corpus of scientific knowledge as of yet.

[John Jackson]

One also wonders though about what happened about their dogmatic assertions that powered flight is impossible, stones falling out of the sky is absolutely impossible, telephones are impossible, and a whole host of other things which skeptics have vehemently denied can possible exist, yet somehow magically appear to exist anyway.

You missed out Skeptics thought the earth was flat :eek: :D

And we know how robust that argument is, don't we? ;)

[chillzero]

I was taking issue with the assertion that she is a "scammer". If people are merely saying she's exaggerating her abilities then fine. Not that I agree, or indeed disagree. I'm in absolutely no position to say since I have never seen her website and have no intention of ever doing so. I'm only interested in the serious stuff.

Well, the comments that she is a scammer arose from the fact that she has portrayed false information on her website - as identified in the opening post.

Again - what is the point in joining a conversation if you can't be bothered to check out what is being discussed?

[Interesting Ian]

Well, the comments that she is a scammer arose from the fact that she has portrayed false information on her website - as identified in the opening post.

Again - what is the point in joining a conversation if you can't be bothered to check out what is being discussed?


I'm only interested in the claim that she doesn't have any anomalous abilities. If you and Kelly are not claiming this, then fine. I'll leave you guys to it.

[Interesting Ian]

You missed out Skeptics thought the earth was flat :eek: :D

And we know how robust that argument is, don't we? ;)

Yes it's a good example. What do you mean by robust though? The arguments for the world being flat and stationary were powerful ones. What were the arguments that telephones couldn't possibly work, or heavier than air flight was absolutely impossible? Were they as good?

[Dr B]

The arguments for the world being flat and stationary were powerful ones.

Really? In what way? Why and how were they powerful?

[Curnir]

Yes it's a good example. What do you mean by robust though? The arguments for the world being flat and stationary were powerful ones. What were the arguments that telephones couldn't possibly work, or heavier than air flight was absolutely impossible? Were they as good?

Just as solid as:
Turning lead into gold.
The horn of a unicorn has healing powers.
Arsenic and Lead makes a great base for cosmetics.
Graphite is actually a sort of lead-ore.
Since kings are apointed by higher powers their touch has healing powers.
Bathing and washing regularly, is bad for your health.
It is impossible to determine longitude.
"why are you talking cover, they couldn't hit an Elephant from that dista..."
If I flap my arms really really fast, I can fly.

[kieran]

Yes it's a good example. What do you mean by robust though? The arguments for the world being flat and stationary were powerful ones. What were the arguments that telephones couldn't possibly work, or heavier than air flight was absolutely impossible? Were they as good?
I don't think anyone with half an ounce of common sense ever thought that "heavier than air flight" was impossible - unless they were blind to the existence of the birds and the bees - or did they think that these creatures were, in fact, lighter than air? :boggled:

Also telephones ... was this argument that telephones couldn't possibly exist made before, or after, they were invented? Who was the psychic that predicted their invention and also mistakenly predicted that they could not work? I think what you mean is that people did not think that long distance communication could be achieved given the technology of the time.

Thankfully people did not rely on abstract waffle on conciousness, or burying their heads in the sands of religious dogma, in order to progress - they actually had the temerity to observe tangible things around them (such as "lightning" and "soaring birds"), tried to work out how those operated, and then got their hands dirty trying them for themselves, made mistakes, made corrections, and moved towards where we are today. Undoubtedly such people still exist and we will continue to progress ...

Care to enlighten me as to how psychic phenomena have contributed to this progress? Is that how blind bats can see? Is that how sharks detect the presence of prey? Are they psychic or have their "superpowers" been understood and used to further our own technologies? :covereyes

Still waiting for evidence and not excuses ..... :rolleyes:

[Meffy]

Not surprised you just decided to delete it all!
And I'm not surprised you just decided to delete the parts you didn't like. But as I said, I deleted it because it's not worth the bother. You're welcome to your beliefs, but I don't buy your arguments.

[Genesius]

. . . We cannot in principle measure consciousness, therefore it cannot be a brain process or part of a brain process. Therefore, for me consciousness is by definition not physical. It is not what I understand by the word physical.

What principle prevents us from measuring consciousness? Certainly any neurologist could look at an EEG and determine if the subject is conscious or unconscious.

You make an unfounded assertion that we cannot measure consciousness and use that to make another unfounded assertion that consciousness cannot have a physical basis. And, as usual, you will utterly refuse to provide one bit of proof for either of these assertions.

[Hellbound]

You make an unfounded assertion that we cannot measure consciousness and use that to make another unfounded assertion that consciousness cannot have a physical basis. And, as usual, you will utterly refuse to provide one bit of proof for either of these assertions.

That's because Ian is suffering from a strange and twisted form of Narcisism (spelling butchered by yours truly).

Honestly, I believe this to be the case, which is why I no longer respond seriously to his posts. Ian is not here to learn. He is not here to debate. He is not even here to convert others to his own, pretzel-like form of logic or knowledge.

Ian is here because, with one to two sentences, he can convert any thread touching on the paranormal into a thread about Interesting Ian and his pet theories. He simply continually asserts "You're wrong" and "No one can understand my obvios genius", and adds more comments along the insulting or controversial line when discussion starts to turn to other matters that don't involve him.

hammegk has the same obsession when it comes to evolution. He knows with some single vague, poorly expressed comment he can turn any evolution discussion into a discussion centered on himself. If the discussion starts to go back to serious topics, he just pops in with some of his ever-popular straw men (materialists don't understand the implications of their worldview!) and gets it turned back to himself.

Thus, both have been added to my 'no serious response merited' file, as neither is interested in learning, testing, logic, or reason...only in self-gratification.

Of course, I could be wrong, but so far I haven't seen evidence of that :)

[Interesting Ian]

What principle prevents us from measuring consciousness?



Eh?? Because only that which can be expressed in terms of information can be measured. It makes no sense to talk about the length of a thought, or its mass, or electric charge, or any other quantifiable attribute.



Certainly any neurologist could look at an EEG and determine if the subject is conscious or unconscious.



We suppose they can ascertain it.



You make an unfounded assertion that we cannot measure consciousness and use that to make another unfounded assertion that consciousness cannot have a physical basis.



I never said that. I said it wasn't physical, not that it could not have a physical basis (I don't believe it does though).


And, as usual, you will utterly refuse to provide one bit of proof for either of these assertions.

I don't have any proof of anything. That doesn't have any implications for concluding that it is rational or irrational to believe in certain things.

[Interesting Ian]

And I'm not surprised you just decided to delete the parts you didn't like. But as I said, I deleted it because it's not worth the bother. You're welcome to your beliefs, but I don't buy your arguments.

You don't buy my arguments? How distressing for me.

[Interesting Ian]

I don't think anyone with half an ounce of common sense ever thought that "heavier than air flight" was impossible - unless they were blind to the existence of the birds and the bees - or did they think that these creatures were, in fact, lighter than air? :boggled:



I was referring to powered flight capable of carrying humans.



Also telephones ... was this argument that telephones couldn't possibly exist made before, or after, they were invented?


Both.



Who was the psychic that predicted their invention and also mistakenly predicted that they could not work? I think what you mean is that people did not think that long distance communication could be achieved given the technology of the time.



Er . .no . .nothing to do with technological limitations. They thought that reality did not allow such a thing. It's a simple conclusion derived from the mechanical philosophy believed to govern our world.



Thankfully people did not rely on abstract waffle on conciousness, or burying their heads in the sands of religious dogma, in order to progress - they actually had the temerity to observe tangible things around them (such as "lightning" and "soaring birds"), tried to work out how those operated, and then got their hands dirty trying them for themselves, made mistakes, made corrections, and moved towards where we are today. Undoubtedly such people still exist and we will continue to progress ...



Yes indeed. But if we had allowed skeptics to have too much influence in what we deem to be possible, none of this would ever have been achieved. If skeptics largely dictated the agenda on what is possible, the modern scientific revolution would never have occurred . . nay we'd still be living in caves if skeptics had their way.



Care to enlighten me as to how psychic phenomena have contributed to this progress?

Psychic phenomena has contributed nothing to scientific progress. Indeed, on the contrary, the paranormal/magic just confused people and made people think that reality was opaque to human reason.

[John Jackson]

But if we had allowed skeptics to have too much influence in what we deem to be possible, none of this would ever have been achieved. If skeptics largely dictated the agenda on what is possible, the modern scientific revolution would never have occurred . . nay we'd still be living in caves if skeptics had their way.

:D :D :D :D :D

Are you trying to say that skeptics actually thought that living in caves was a smart move at the time? :eek:

You're mellowing in your cynicism Ian. ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It makes no sense to talk about the length of a thought, or its mass, or electric charge, or any other quantifiable attribute.
Yawnmuffins. It makes no sense to talk about the length, mass, or electric charge of the weather, either. Yet, strangely, there is information there. How can that be, you ask? Because "weather" can be reduced to things that have those properties.

~~ Paul

[Mojo]

I don't think anyone with half an ounce of common sense ever thought that "heavier than air flight" was impossible - unless they were blind to the existence of the birds and the bees - or did they think that these creatures were, in fact, lighter than air?I was referring to powered flight capable of carrying humans.People laughed at the Marx brothers too.


Also telephones ... was this argument that telephones couldn't possibly exist made before, or after, they were invented?
Both.Can you provide any references or links supporting these assertions?

By the way, evidence that people you describe as "skeptics" have been wrong in the past is not evidence that psychic powers exist.

[kieran]

Er . .no . .nothing to do with technological limitations. They thought that reality did not allow such a thing. It's a simple conclusion derived from the mechanical philosophy believed to govern our world.
How can the term "technological limitations" have "nothing to do with" the "mechanical philosophy believed to govern our world"? I assume that this mechanical philosophy was based on the current technology and the current understanding of it ... of course, from previous form, you will probably now befuddle the argument with quibbles over semantics ...:covereyes

[chillzero]

I'm only interested in the claim that she doesn't have any anomalous abilities. If you and Kelly are not claiming this, then fine. I'll leave you guys to it.

I don't see any evidence that this is what you are discussing here these past few days. Can you stick to the topic, or take the rest of it elsewhere?

I think it's really rude to join a thread, not check the information the opening post was created about, and then go off on some other tangent.

[chillzero]

Back on the topic of Diane's website.

I had tried to contact the Mary Rose Trust to get some more information about her claim:
"Diane challenged sceptics of the Mary Rose Trust when she used her psychic 'eye' to recall the events leading to the capsizing of a medieval vessel rescued from the muddy depths of the river Usk at Newport; her findings were proven accurate. "
So far I have had no joy. Does anyone else have contacts with this group at all? I've sent a reminder, so hopefully we can get some more information about what Diane could have uncovered.

Also, I noticed that she has made a small change:
"After being approached by a number of publishers interested in her memoirs, Diane is currently working on her auto-biography."
Didn't she have some big name on board to write this for her originally? I wonder what happened to change that?

[politas]

I was referring to powered flight capable of carrying humans.

Yes indeed. But if we had allowed skeptics to have too much influence in what we deem to be possible, none of this would ever have been achieved. If skeptics largely dictated the agenda on what is possible, the modern scientific revolution would never have occurred . . nay we'd still be living in caves if skeptics had their way.
Those mean skeptics, claiming that powered flight was impossible! Well, the Wright Brothers sure showed them, didn't they?

Coincidentally, that's exactly what the skeptics wanted. Proof that such a thing was possible.

We scoff at unfounded claims, because we want evidence.

Without skeptics, we'd still have people researching phlogiston and aetheric compounds. Skeptics are the ones that stop wasteful research. Yes, if everone was completely skeptical of every new idea, human civilisation might not advance. That doesn't mean that skepticism is completely useless.

[UGBRCE]

Mark Green disappears one night without a trace. Diane Lazarus, a psychic in a nearby town, is holding a reading but the session is interrupted by a vision of a young man. One of the participants quickly realizes it's her missing nephew Mark. Diane shares what Mark tells her: he was attacked, hit on the back of the head, dismembered, and buried under water. Diane also says a television show will lead to the crime's resolution. Detective Marcella Daly meanwhile is searching for clues but finds nothing. When she hears about Diane's visions, the two women meet and attempt to uncover evidence that could lead to the killer. When Mark's parents are approached to appear on a television program, they accept--recalling Diane's prediction. Following the broadcast, the case blows open and a man confesses to helping his brother dispose of Mark's dismembered body. The brothers are arrested and put away for Mark's murder
'O yes 'I have seen this Programme,you are so wronge about Diane Lazarus'
She is a person that has worked with the police, I know so because the lady in question Marcella Daly is also on the programme there is no way you could question what she has done! to Help!
I rest my Case.......................

[Azrael 5]

Mark Green disappears one night without a trace. Diane Lazarus, a psychic in a nearby town,Evidence?
One of the participants quickly realizes it's her missing nephew Mark. Diane shares what Mark tells her: he was attacked, hit on the back of the head, dismembered, and buried under water.
Wrong!!! This quote from link beneath it.

"In dismembering the body, Robert McMahon cut the head off, and both legs and then wrapped the now four pieces... in carpet and other material from the flat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/3629827.stm

Buried under water eh? How could Mark's spirit get that wrong? He was found in the suspects back garden!!

Diane also says a television show will lead to the crime's resolution.
Not a huge leap of faith is it really,considering most high profile murders are featured on TV.
Detective Marcella Daly meanwhile is searching for clues but finds nothing. When she hears about Diane's visions, the two women meet and attempt to uncover evidence that could lead to the killer. When Mark's parents are approached to appear on a television program, they accept--recalling Diane's prediction. Following the broadcast, the case blows open and a man confesses to helping his brother dispose of Mark's dismembered body. The brothers are arrested and put away for Mark's murder
'O yes 'I have seen this Programme,you are so wronge about Diane Lazarus'
She is a person that has worked with the police, I know so because the lady in question Marcella Daly is also on the programme there is no way you could question what she has done! to Help!
I rest my Case.......................

So Mark Green came back from the dead,got the details of his own body's disposal completely wrong and didn't mention the killer's names.A big help.

From Lazarus's site:But Diane was convinced Mark had been murdered because she says he’d told her himself from beyond the grave… in fact, she says it was Mark’s spirit who’d helped her retrace his steps the night he was killed and had shown her how he died.

But yet got the details of his body's disposal wrong? Couldn't name the killers,where they lived or naff all else.Some spirit help that is.
UGBRCE you are a broken record,who keeps being pointed to facts and evidence about this case.You claim you are incontact with Diane Lazarus ,yet she is yet to apply for any test of her abilities or come on line and explain the inconsistincies in her website.
One word:Troll.:rolleyes:

[sat556]

Mark Green disappears one night without a trace. Diane Lazarus, a psychic in a nearby town, is holding a reading but the session is interrupted by a vision of a young man. One of the participants quickly realizes it's her missing nephew Mark. Diane shares what Mark tells her: he was attacked, hit on the back of the head, dismembered, and buried under water. Diane also says a television show will lead to the crime's resolution. Detective Marcella Daly meanwhile is searching for clues but finds nothing. When she hears about Diane's visions, the two women meet and attempt to uncover evidence that could lead to the killer. When Mark's parents are approached to appear on a television program, they accept--recalling Diane's prediction. Following the broadcast, the case blows open and a man confesses to helping his brother dispose of Mark's dismembered body. The brothers are arrested and put away for Mark's murder
'O yes 'I have seen this Programme,you are so wronge about Diane Lazarus'
She is a person that has worked with the police, I know so because the lady in question Marcella Daly is also on the programme there is no way you could question what she has done! to Help!
I rest my Case.......................

It's true :)


Edited for correction.

[chillzero]

Mark Green disappears one night without a trace. Diane Lazarus, a psychic in a nearby town, is holding a reading but the session is interrupted by a vision of a young man. One of the participants quickly realizes it's her missing nephew Mark. Diane shares what Mark tells her: he was attacked, hit on the back of the head, dismembered, and buried under water. Diane also says a television show will lead to the crime's resolution. Detective Marcella Daly meanwhile is searching for clues but finds nothing. When she hears about Diane's visions, the two women meet and attempt to uncover evidence that could lead to the killer. When Mark's parents are approached to appear on a television program, they accept--recalling Diane's prediction. Following the broadcast, the case blows open and a man confesses to helping his brother dispose of Mark's dismembered body. The brothers are arrested and put away for Mark's murder
'O yes 'I have seen this Programme,you are so wronge about Diane Lazarus'
She is a person that has worked with the police, I know so because the lady in question Marcella Daly is also on the programme there is no way you could question what she has done! to Help!
I rest my Case.......................

Earlier you accused me of not doing my research properly, and getting information wrong. However, you state above that Diane became aware of this case in the middle of an unconnected reading (and you neatly imply this reading happened the same night he vansihed). Yet Diane's own version of events:
http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/intro_6.php
states that:

Then in April that year Megan’s sister Myron, who lived in Swansea went to visit Diane for a reading.

You are wrong. I don't know your source for the rest of what you wrote, but it also differs from Diane's account. Whether they agreed to do the tv show because of what Diane said, or because it is what most families in that terrible situation would do anyway, is irrelevant. If they agreed only because of what Diane said it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is useless.

And the case came to a close because a man confessed to helping his brother commit the offense. We don't know how close he had been to going to the police anyway. It does not appear that much pressure was placed on them by the program, because there were no leads even vaguely hinted at to make him believe the police were on to them. Had the program not aired I feel justified in believing he would have cracked anyway.

Now, your final 'point' - the police. Once again I must point you to my opening post, and the following quote, from the same police department that Marcella Daly worked for:
I am afraid that Marcella Daly no longer works for West Midlands Police and so I cannot provide any further information regarding the page on Diane Lazarus' website. Indeed I am unable to verify the validity or provenance of that letter.
The same letter in the same opening post shows clearly how the police department places the case results squarely on the confession of the brother, and attribute nothing to Diane.

One final correction of your 'facts' - only one brother was put away for the murder of Mark Green - Robert McMahon was sentenced to life. His brother James McMahon was imprisoned for 2 years for aiding in the disposal of the body.

[Azrael 5]

Save your breath chill,it's like talking to the bleedin' wall!
UGBRCE has proven he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about;and no wit has been shown he can't even get his fantastical story straight I hope we hear no more of him! ;)

[Deetee]

Buried under water eh? How could Mark's spirit get that wrong? He was found in the suspects back garden!!
There is a valid explanation. This was before the time of hosepipe bans. The murderer had left the garden sprinkler on one night. All very confusing for Mark's spirit, I'm sure you will agree...

[chillzero]

Save your breath chill,it's like talking to the bleedin' wall!
UGBRCE has proven he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about;and no wit has been shown he can't even get his fantastical story straight I hope we hear no more of him! ;)

I know, but when posting on a public thread in a public forum, it is not necessarily only the one poster you are responding to. I want to ensure that anyone arriving late to this thread understands the facts.

[Azrael 5]

Cool. :)

[UGBRCE]

[As I said I have done my homework ;On Diane Lazarus,and all the work she has done such as working with the Police!
/Client's
I have interviewed them all,as this is my job..
!She was invited to work along side them !
I will not lower myself again on this forum!!!!!
As I have asked Diane about this forum and Diane's word's were She is happy that you have your say As there is such thing as freedom of speech! Yet you are wronge Diane was invited to work with the police,I did say 2 name's from this site Azreal 5/ chillzero.Diane said that she feels very sorry for the one person and they should keep taking wedding photo's!!!(I do not understand this!)psychic ability she said!!!!
I know one thing Diane is a true Psychic with a true Gift!

[Dr B]

Actually - with no evidence you do not 'know' - you merely believe she has ability.

It is fine to believe such things if you want to, just dont claim its a truth if you cannot provide some evidence - thats all...;)

[sat556]

I will not lower myself again on this forum!!!!!


Promise?

[Mojo]

[As I said I have done my homework ;On Diane Lazarus,and all the work she has done such as working with the Police!Great. Now you've finished that, perhaps you'll find time to brush up your spelling, punctuation and typing skills.

[Azrael 5]

Perhaps you can ask Diane to stop searching the web to come up with blatantly obvious hits such as "wedding photographer".Jeez it says photographer in my profile!! How psychic do you need to be to see that?!
UGBRCE go ask Diane-if she is so psychic-the name of my Grandmother.
Then ask her why she is scared of the Randi challenge,or indeed any challenge.
It's not my place to say this but,perhaps you could go away and only post again when you have some proof of her abilities!
Troll.

[chillzero]

Yet you are wronge Diane was invited to work with the police,
No, she wasn't. The police firmly deny this. Show me any proof that any police force asked for her help in the 2 cases I was discussing. I have given evidence that they did not, nor did they find her volunteered input to be of any help.

I did say 2 name's from this site Azreal 5/ chillzero.Diane said that she feels very sorry for the one person and they should keep taking wedding photo's!!!(I do not understand this!)psychic ability she said!!!!

Get over yourself. Once again I shall state - we are not the same person. The only name I post under is chillzero, and I resent your accusations that I would flaunt the forum rules this way.

So, Diane is wrong again.

However, you imply that you are leaving the forum. I think that's a shame. I began here in a position much like your own, but with a questioning mind, and a determination to weigh up the answers. I've learnt a lot and am no longer abused or minisformed by the circle of psychics, healers, and so on that I was involved with. I am happier, armed with critical thinking and the ability to question people here. Most are happy to respond appropriately, not resort to petty accusations and name calling.

If you can temper your arguements with some evidence, and some willingness to take in new information, then you should stay. If you have nothing more to offer than false accusations, insults and unsubstantiated nonsense, then I won't miss you.

[Azrael 5]

If the best Diane Lazarus can do is read my forum profile and then take a educated guess,then she re-affirms my statement that she isn't psychic.
Have her tell me something she cant find from the internet then we may have somethig interesting to discuss.

[kieran]

Perhaps you can ask Diane to stop searching the web to come up with blatantly obvious hits such as "wedding photographer".Jeez it says photographer in my profile!! How psychic do you need to be to see that?!
UGBRCE go ask Diane-if she is so psychic-the name of my Grandmother.
Then ask her why she is scared of the Randi challenge,or indeed any challenge.
It's not my place to say this but,perhaps you could go away and only post again when you have some proof of her abilities!
Troll.
Oops - how embarassing was that! :D

Of course, to a true believer, it is something she got right (that just happened to be easily available information) ... and conveniently she can't provide information "on demand" so the grandmother's test will prove nothing when she scuttles away from it. :rolleyes:

I wonder what UGBRCE feels about that "hit"? Should be embarassed to see everything they are arguing for shot down by one of their own posts illustrating what a fraud Diane really is ... :blush:

[Azrael 5]

UGBRCE doesn't have any thoughts of his own Kieran,he is Diane's puppet.;)

[renato]

UGBRCE doesn't have any thoughts of his own Kieran,he is Diane's puppet.;)
no he is not.and I am not either(Azrael ,what is it in your name that you are so offensive?I've seen another Azrael on another board with the same attitude like yours.this is not a compliment...)


some things are so obvious.
you'll have to ask yourselves ,why do you keep on being not convinced even though it is so obvious that clairvoyance exists.
did any of you went to a clairvoyance?

I did.and those people did not know me.in any way.
I got the adress via via.so...
how can it be that those people can see typical behaviour or character treads of my father ,grandfather,me, while not ever have seen them?(except me at that very moment sitting in front of that person).
do you really believe that you'll are just a living piece of meat and nothing more?
prove ,prove .you all talk about prove.but when people who can 'see' come with things they didn't know but just 'see' you still do not believe.
ask yourself what the reason is you do not want to see it.
you people make me remind of those people of the inquisition.
the only things you don't use(yet),are the thumb screws.
are you scared for something?maybe if it is all true, then Diane can send some spirit to you which will hunt you .
is that your fear?it wouldn't surprise me ,given your way of thinking.
those who have ears ,hear,those who have eyes, see.
but what about those have ears and eyes but keep them all closed no matter what?
how is that bird called who sticks its head into the ground?

you can run but you can't hide.the truth will hunt you.
in the end.

[Jeff Corey]

...did any of you went to a clairvoyance?...

Can't say I have.
Congraduations on a stellar first post.

[John Jackson]

those who have ears ,hear,those who have eyes, see.

Those who have brains, think.

[sat556]

...then Diane can send some spirit to you which will hunt you .


Yup, get her to do that. I want it here asap. Go tell her now, or get your UGBRCE mate to do it. Do it now... Now... I am the voice inside your head...

[Minarvia]

Can't say I have.
Congraduations on a stellar first post.

I felt compelled to agree here -
Yes, congradulations on a stellar first post. My head is hurting just trying to make sense of it. No offense, but when people write gibberish they aren't going to find anyone who will take them seriously. It just makes the person look quite unintelligent, especially when there are threats.

[Zep]

ask yourself what the reason is you do not want to see it.I did. And I answered myself as follows: "IT ISN'T TRUE! THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS SPIRITS! PSYCHICS LIE!"

Wow, I didn't know that I was so clever about this! So is there anything you would like me to pass back to myself when I talk to me again?

regards

[Azrael 5]

no he is not.and I am not either(Azrael ,what is it in your name that you are so offensive?I've seen another Azrael on another board with the same attitude like yours.this is not a compliment...)
.

I'll take it as one though.;)

[chillzero]

you people make me remind of those people of the inquisition.
the only things you don't use(yet),are the thumb screws.


ummmm.... drama queen much?

Listen, I don't know how you can come here and defend another (long gone) poster in your very first post in such a manner. Is this UGBRCE known to you personally?

Have you read any of the rest of the thread? Have you read, for example, the clear points I have made about false information Dianne has placed on her website? How do you defend that sort of behaviour? Do you feel that is something that will endear people to her, and encourage us to believe anythign else she says?

[Azrael 5]

Chilli going from memory here,but didn't she change her site to omit a statement and someone was waiting for enough time to pass to do that website history thing to see what she had changed.

If anyone knows what the hell Im going on about...? :)

[EHocking]

Chilli going from memory here,but didn't she change her site to omit a statement and someone was waiting for enough time to pass to do that website history thing to see what she had changed.

If anyone knows what the hell Im going on about...? :)'Twas, indeed, chillzero. I'd used the Internet WayBack machine and Chill then read the fine print on its archive method.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1643472&postcount=112

[renato]

this is a forum full of fools.
that's for sure.now keep talking to eachother how you do not believe in things you all cannot see.
you are just plain stupid.just as I thought.

[renato]

Those who have brains, think.
yes .
but you don't seem to do that.
you are pretty stubborn.that I noticed.
but brains?no,nothing in any of your posts seem to point out you have any.
hey ,and for the other Courtesyhere.(rudeness you do deserve,cause you are too)
I come from holland.
english is not my main language.so Courtesyabout you don't understand what I say.

talking about intelligence.
I am a nice guy ain't I?
and you seem to seek for this kind of reactions too.
am I right or am I right.

renato, you do not seem to have read your mewmbership agreement. Abuse of other members and profanity are not permitted. Please refrain from doing so.

[renato]

I'll take it as one though.;)
I know where you take it.
I can 'see 'that.

[Psiload]

yes .
but you don't seem to do that.
you are pretty stubborn.that I noticed.
but brains?no,nothing in any of your posts seem to point out you have any.
hey ,and for the other wankers here.(rudeness you do deserve,cause you are too)
I come from holland.
english is not my main language.so **** off with your ******** about you don't understand what I say.

talking about intelligence.
I am a nice guy ain't I?
and you seem to seek for this kind of reactions too.
am I right or am I right.

http://www.universalexports.net/Graphics/Henchmen/nicknack.jpg

Shhhhh. You're embarrassing yourself.

[renato]

ummmm.... drama queen much?

Listen, I don't know how you can come here and defend another (long gone) poster in your very first post in such a manner. Is this UGBRCE known to you personally?

Have you read any of the rest of the thread? Have you read, for example, the clear points I have made about false information Dianne has placed on her website? How do you defend that sort of behaviour? Do you feel that is something that will endear people to her, and encourage us to believe anythign else she says?
it is not an issue for me whether or not she has false info on her website.
it's about whether or not she does have this ability to 'see'things or not that you all do not see(jealousy?).
endless discussons in trivial things are not my interest.
ok, false info is bad.but for me it is not proven by you if she has that on her site.
but as said it is not the issue.
and yes I read all your reactions here.
that's why I am so 'nice' to all of you.
you'll seem to have a problem to be polite to people who try to be friendly.
I can act like that too.
same low level as you all do.
ain't that nice ?

[renato]

[qimg]

Shhhhh. You're embarrassing yourself.

this way I am like the rest of the people here.
it s easy to be like them.
not that I am proud of it.

[John Jackson]

yes .
but you don't seem to do that.
you are pretty stubborn.that I noticed.
but brains?no,nothing in any of your posts seem to point out you have any.

Well I must agree that my intellect doesn't match yours.

hey ,and for the other wankers here.(rudeness you do deserve,cause you are too)
I come from holland.
english is not my main language.so **** off with your ******** about you don't understand what I say.

Beautifully put.

Do you think that if you issue enough insults that people are going to believe that Diane Lazarus is really a psychic?

:D:D:D

[renato]

Well I must agree that my intellect doesn't match yours.



Beautifully put.

Do you think that if you issue enough insults that people are going to believe that Diane Lazarus is really a psychic?

:D:D:D

listen up .
I have no connection with Diane in any way.
so don't blame her for my reactions .

I think Diane is a special woman,
Yes.she is a very nice and warm person.
you can learn something from her.

and it doesn't matter if my intellect is better or worse.
some things are so obvious.
I am getting tired of your moron-behaviour.
is that a problem for you?
you get what you give

[John Jackson]

I think Diane is a special woman,
Yes.she is a very nice and warm person.

Oo-er, does one have a crush on her then? ;) :D

you can learn something from her.

You certainly can.

She's a prime example of someone who has no special ability whatsoever convincing themselves that they do. ;)

You will come to realise that once you grow out of your wet-dream phase.

[Jeff Corey]

[QUOTE=renato;2093823]I come from holland.
english is not my main language.so **** off with your ******** about you don't understand what I say.[QUOTE]

But we do. Idioot.

[rjh01]

this is a forum full of fools.
that's for sure.now keep talking to eachother how you do not believe in things you all cannot see.
you are just plain stupid.just as I thought.


Talking about yourself here?

[chillzero]

it is not an issue for me whether or not she has false info on her website.
it's about whether or not she does have this ability to 'see'things or not that you all do not see(jealousy?).
endless discussons in trivial things are not my interest.
ok, false info is bad.but for me it is not proven by you if she has that on her site.
but as said it is not the issue.
and yes I read all your reactions here.
that's why I am so 'nice' to all of you.
you'll seem to have a problem to be polite to people who try to be friendly.
I can act like that too.
same low level as you all do.
ain't that nice ?

If you catch someone in a falsehood once, what else should you believe from them? You think she has this ability because she claims to have this ability - it doesn't seem to me that you have met her? So, she said one thing that has been proved false, she says another thing - why would you belive that without some stronger evidence?

listen up .
I have no connection with Diane in any way.
so don't blame her for my reactions .

I think Diane is a special woman,
Yes.she is a very nice and warm person.
you can learn something from her.

and it doesn't matter if my intellect is better or worse.
some things are so obvious.
I am getting tired of your moron-behaviour.
is that a problem for you?
you get what you give

I don't blame anyone for your actions but you, but you aren't really doing yourself any favours by becoming so abusive so quickly. And, you aren't painting us a different picture of the average 'Dianne Lazarus fan' than how UGBRCE did. Perhaps she has a fan out there somewhere who could come here and politely and intelligently debate our concerns - I'll not hold my breath.

I have had some communications with Dianne, and she is only interested in money, like most in her profession.

[chillzero]

'Twas, indeed, chillzero. I'd used the Internet WayBack machine and Chill then read the fine print on its archive method.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1643472&postcount=112


Thanks for the reminder - time to check back on this further, I think.

[Azrael 5]

*snip*
I have had some communications with Dianne, and she is only interested in money, like most in her profession.

Not a million dolalrs worth of money though!! ;)

[chillzero]

Not a million dolalrs worth of money though!! ;)

Indeed.

:i:

[Rex Everything]

I have had some communications with Dianne, and she is only interested in money, like most in her profession.

I'm sorry, am I missing something here? Diane is a professional psychic (for the purposes of illustrating my point, I'm aware that the majority of you don't believe she has any 'psychic powers') which means she charges for her time. You know, like a plumber. Regardless of your position on what she claims to be, she is charging for her time. Which means yes, she wants to make money.

[Mojo]

I'm sorry, am I missing something here? Diane is a professional psychic (for the purposes of illustrating my point, I'm aware that the majority of you don't believe she has any 'psychic powers') which means she charges for her time. You know, like a plumber. Regardless of your position on what she claims to be, she is charging for her time. Which means yes, she wants to make money.So you disagree with UGBRCE's claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1656497#post1656497) that there is no evidence that she takes money?

[Rex Everything]

I know Diane personally and yes she makes money from her abilities. Obviously I'm not her accountant or bank manager so I have no documented proof...

[Mojo]

By the way, I thought you'd left (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1656544#post1656544).

[Rex Everything]

So did I but my repeated requests to be deleted have obviously been ignored.

[alfaniner]

I know Diane personally and yes she makes money from her abilities. Obviously I'm not her accountant or bank manager so I have no documented proof...

No. She makes money by lying to gullible people.

[Rex Everything]

No. She makes money by lying to gullible people.

So do polititions....

[Big Les]

Right. So because serial killers kill people, that makes it OK for me to try it too, does it?

See, I can use specious reasoning too!

[Rex Everything]

Right. So because serial killers kill people, that makes it OK for me to try it too, does it?

See, I can use specious reasoning too!

Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to be psychic or a politition :shrug:

[chillzero]

I'm sorry, am I missing something here? Diane is a professional psychic (for the purposes of illustrating my point, I'm aware that the majority of you don't believe she has any 'psychic powers') which means she charges for her time. You know, like a plumber. Regardless of your position on what she claims to be, she is charging for her time. Which means yes, she wants to make money.

I contacted her to ask politely about help gathering some information about psychics.

She was interested while she thought I might be some big shot writer with a contract ready, but once she decided I was a nobody she suggested I wait to read her biography instead. This would have been fair enough if it wasn't completely irrelevant to what I was asking her.

At first she was very quick to respond to my query, but after a few further contacts without me verifying any book deal or contract she did not want to know. She was more concerned about finding out what was in it for her, than simply answering a few easy questions.

[Rex Everything]

OK I don't know anything about that and seeing as it's none of my business I won't ask Diane about it either.

However I'm sure you're completely unaware of how much correspondance she recieves, via mail, email, telephone etc. I'm sure she gets her fair share of timewasters intent on ridiculing her, so it doesn't surprise me that she would not spend too much time with anyone who came across in any way evasive.

[chillzero]

Oh ***!
I realised I had omitted the link and text from my email to the police and went back to check it (http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php) (http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php%29).

She has updated her wording. It now says:
"Diane recently re-investigated the murder of twelve year old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe the child's final walk home from school, her rape and the shooting by a "friend". She identified the murderer as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file. DNA testing is currently being carried out."

It originally said the DNA testing was based on her information.

Okay, I have to hold my hands up to being mistaken on this one point. The previous version has no mention of the Muriel Drinkwater case, and when it is added, it has the same text as indicated above.

The sentence "she identified the murderer as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file" certainly implies a causal relationship.

I guess that this is probably how I interpreted it, but I am angry with myself for this slight slip.

However, my opening post still stands, as the police deny any of her claims about working with them to solve cases.
The site has had a revamp, but there doesn't appear to be any new information on it, so I think I'll leave it at that for now.

[chillzero]

I'm sorry, am I missing something here? Diane is a professional psychic (for the purposes of illustrating my point, I'm aware that the majority of you don't believe she has any 'psychic powers') which means she charges for her time. You know, like a plumber. Regardless of your position on what she claims to be, she is charging for her time. Which means yes, she wants to make money.

But when I employ a plumber, I expect to see results, otherwise, (s)he doesn't get paid. Most other professions are happy to provide proof that they are able to do what they claim they will do for you. Mediums tend not to, otherwise the Million Dollar Challenge would be in the history books by now.

And - just so as you know - I used to be in the new-age industry. I never once charged a client for any of the things I couldn't provide proper recognised qualifications for, or that I could repeat and prove my ability for. I charged for massage, reflexology, etc, but I never charged for tarot readings, meditations, or any of the other new-age things that I couldn't find a recognised regulatory organisation for. It was something that always made me uncomfortable abotu the psychic trade even though I firmly believed I had psychic abilities myself. I could never find more than 2 psychics who agreed about anything: how they got their powers, how they should use their powers, where they stood in the world as opposed to 'normal' people, etc.

For a way of life that you are supposed to just feel, and know to be right, there was no real common ground between practitioners.

[Rex Everything]

But when I employ a plumber, I expect to see results, otherwise, (s)he doesn't get paid.

And if you're not happy at the results, you find someone else yes?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And if you're not happy at the results, you find someone else yes?

But first I sue them in small claims court and complain to the licencing authorities.

If I was to sue a "psychic" in Germany, there is some recent precident I would get my money back and the fraud would get a tongue lashing.

[Rex Everything]

But first I sue them in small claims court and complain to the licencing authorities.

If I was to sue a "psychic" in Germany, there is some recent precident I would get my money back and the fraud would get a tongue lashing.

So sue Diane then.... :confused:

[Skeptic Guy]

And if you're not happy at the results, you find someone else yes?

The problem with that analogy is that 99.9% of plumbers actually do the job they are set to do, while 100% of the psychics...do not. Big, big difference.

[Big Les]

The problem with that analogy is that 99.9% of plumbers actually do the job they are set to do, while 100% of the psychics...do not. Big, big difference.

Quite. And they aren't subject to any kind of regulation or professional standard. If your plumber arses up your waterworks, a) you know about it, and b) you can go to Trading Standards and a regulating body to complain. You can also prosecute in the right circumstances.

None of those recourses apply to psychics.

As for my deliberately rubbish analogy Rex, it was intended to point out to you that your equating of fraudulent psychics with politicians (note the spelling by the way) was flawed. You were implying that it's OK (as a "psychic") to commit wrongs (i.e. to lie) because other people (i.e. politicians) in other circumstances (i.e. to be "economic with the truth") commit wrong. In fact, the one does not excuse the other; just as the murders others carry out would not excuse a murder committed by you or I. In both cases, it's still wrong, and should still be prevented.

Get it?

[renato]

Oo-er, does one have a crush on her then? ;) :D



You certainly can.

She's a prime example of someone who has no special ability whatsoever convincing themselves that they do. ;)

You will come to realise that once you grow out of your wet-dream phase.

wet dream phase?haha.
you are a funny guy.

but yes,I think she has something special indeed.not like a typical model,but that is not what makes a woman really beautiful.it takes character,warmth of character.
I saw here only on tv, never in real life.but she is nice and warm.what is wrong with having sympathy for a person who is very nice ,warm,friendly. and she has a certain strength.
I only saw her a couple of times.but I don't need much to see whether someone is 'good' or not.
it is obvious to me.but that doesn't seem to be the case for everyone as I noticed here.
no one is a pure good or pure evil.Diane isn't perfect either.neither am I .
haha as you all noticed in my not so friendly reactions here and there.

[renato]

I did. And I answered myself as follows: "IT ISN'T TRUE! THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS SPIRITS! PSYCHICS LIE!"

Wow, I didn't know that I was so clever about this! So is there anything you would like me to pass back to myself when I talk to me again?

regards
what about moving objects?
ever heard of that?
I will not make contact with ghosts.
it is not quite where my abilities lie.I think one should not involve into things where you don't have control over.look for a ghost and meet a devil.that's why.and maybe they want to be left alone in peace.I don't know that.but there are people who do see the difference and see past that 'curtain'..
man,there is so much more then you know now.
it's there ,whether you believe it or not.
just like the fact that you exist.
it's that simple.another dimension.
some of the people have made contat with those spirits.their stories didn't make me smile.it ain't no game.

[renato]

yes .
but you don't seem to do that.
you are pretty stubborn.that I noticed.
but brains?no,nothing in any of your posts seem to point out you have any.
hey ,and for the other Courtesyhere.(rudeness you do deserve,cause you are too)
I come from holland.
english is not my main language.so Courtesyabout you don't understand what I say.

talking about intelligence.
I am a nice guy ain't I?
and you seem to seek for this kind of reactions too.
am I right or am I right.

renato, you do not seem to have read your mewmbership agreement. Abuse of other members and profanity are not permitted. Please refrain from doing so.

ok,sorry ,I will not do that anymore.
but I got a little agittated/irritated by some of these people.
they are not so nice either here and there.and why ?rex and that other person weren't that harsh that they deserved their way of reacting.

[renato]

[QUOTE=renato;2093823]I come from holland.
english is not my main language.so **** off with your ******** about you don't understand what I say.[QUOTE]

But we do. Idioot.

nou, dat ken je toch nog 1 woord nederlands nietwaar?
gefeliciteerd !
means:well,you do know one word of dutch don't you?
congratulations !

[renato]

The problem with that analogy is that 99.9% of plumbers actually do the job they are set to do, while 100% of the psychics...do not. Big, big difference.

yes how strange.
by golly.
can you compare a plumber with a psychic?
you can and do.but is that reasonable?
I don't think so.these are totally different jobs.
being a psychic doesn't mean you can see everything as if you see it with your eyes.
it's not 100% no.
if you really need that guarantee ,don't go to a psychic. (and you don't)
but they DO see things ,about people ,situations,the future.
definitely !

is every movie robert de niro plays in fantastic?no.I like 'the fan','raging bull' for instance,but not 'analyze this' ;-)
does a forward score in every match?does a boxer win every match?
you are the type of people who knock a person right to the ground when someone makes a fault.and you ignore the good and right things that person has done.
plumbers are a totally different subject.
ask a plumber and he will admit it.(and he will smile too)

[renato]

Right. So because serial killers kill people, that makes it OK for me to try it too, does it?

See, I can use specious reasoning too!
if you don't wanna know then stop the talking.
you are not open for reasoning.
you don't wanna go to a psychic.
so what are you still talking?
you don't investigate and don't do any research yourself.
then you will never know.
well ,never...
I wouldn't say that.
even for you evolution is a possbility.

[sat556]

...she is nice and warm.what is wrong with having sympathy for a person who is very nice ,warm,friendly. and she has a certain strength.
I only saw her a couple of times.but I don't need much to see whether someone is 'good' or not.
...

Of course you are right, con men and women are all nasty to you when you speak to them and have shifty eyes :rolleyes:

If you ever met me, you might think I'm 'nice,warm,friendly' too.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So sue Diane then.... :confused:

No wonder you are "confused". I am replying to a hypothetical question. I would never employ the "services" of a "psychic". I ceased to believe in that sort of cr*p a long time ago. :boggled:

[Skeptic Guy]

yes how strange.
by golly.
can you compare a plumber with a psychic?
you can and do.but is that reasonable?
I don't think so.these are totally different jobs.
being a psychic doesn't mean you can see everything as if you see it with your eyes.
it's not 100% no.
if you really need that guarantee ,don't go to a psychic. (and you don't)
but they DO see things ,about people ,situations,the future.
definitely !

is every movie robert de niro plays in fantastic?no.I like 'the fan','raging bull' for instance,but not 'analyze this' ;-)
does a forward score in every match?does a boxer win every match?
you are the type of people who knock a person right to the ground when someone makes a fault.and you ignore the good and right things that person has done.
plumbers are a totally different subject.
ask a plumber and he will admit it.(and he will smile too)

Rober De Niro? Boxers? *sigh*

You say plumbers are a totally different subject yet you are pulling in Mr. De Niro? Ooookaaaay.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that there is any such thing as "psychic ability", in whatever form you wish to consider it. If you think they can get it right better than mere chance then show us the evidence.

No "psychics" aren't 100%, they aren't even 10%...

[Jeff Corey]

What about painters? They can cover the whole room, right? But if it's the wrong color, you say, "Uh, it's the wrong color" And then they say, "Sorry, but we got another job."
And you go, "But it's the wrong color."
And they say, "We can't help it, the spirits told us this was the color."
And you say."What farkin sprits? The color was supposed to be bone white and this is puke yellow. Are your spirits colorblind?"
"Whatever, It's $900."
"Go get it from the spirits."

[Mojo]

You say plumbers are a totally different subject yet you are pulling in Mr. De Niro? Ooookaaaay.Maybe he hasn't seen Brazil.

[Skeptic Guy]

Maybe he hasn't seen Brazil.

Ah, that's very true...that may be.

[Garrette]

Renato,

What is it that you claim you can do?

[Rex Everything]

Quite. And they aren't subject to any kind of regulation or professional standard. If your plumber arses up your waterworks, a) you know about it, and b) you can go to Trading Standards and a regulating body to complain. You can also prosecute in the right circumstances.

None of those recourses apply to psychics.

As for my deliberately rubbish analogy Rex, it was intended to point out to you that your equating of fraudulent psychics with politicians (note the spelling by the way) was flawed. You were implying that it's OK (as a "psychic") to commit wrongs (i.e. to lie) because other people (i.e. politicians) in other circumstances (i.e. to be "economic with the truth") commit wrong. In fact, the one does not excuse the other; just as the murders others carry out would not excuse a murder committed by you or I. In both cases, it's still wrong, and should still be prevented.

Get it?

Yeah I get it - you don't believe in it therefore it should be banned.

Apologies for my spelling by the way - we can't all be as perfect as you.

[Garrette]

Yeah I get it - you don't believe in it therefore it should be banned.Quite a misrepresentation there, Rex.

It's more like: All the objective evidence demonstrates it is either delusional or deliberate fraud, therefore do not allow selling it as a legitimate service.

And I agree.

[Rex Everything]

Quite a misrepresentation there, Rex.

It's more like: All the objective evidence demonstrates it is either delusional or deliberate fraud, therefore do not allow selling it as a legitimate service.

And I agree.

Seems like the law doesn't - Diane has never been sued or had anyone try to. Perhaps she just saw it coming?

[Garrette]

Seems like the law doesn'tYes. Another demonstration of its imperfection.

Diane has never been sued or had anyone try to. Perhaps she just saw it coming?It would be the only thing she did. Or perhaps she's savvy enough to know the legal lay of the land before she hangs out her shingle.

[Big Les]

Yeah I get it - you don't believe in it therefore it should be banned.

Apologies for my spelling by the way - we can't all be as perfect as you.

I don't claim to be perfect, but I am able to think somewhat critically and operate a spellchecker.

And Garrette has already clarified my meaning very well. If you can't understand that, that's a shame. But I doubt anything you read here is going to change your preconceptions.

[Rex Everything]

Yes. Another demonstration of its imperfection.

It would be the only thing she did. Or perhaps she's savvy enough to know the legal lay of the land before she hangs out her shingle.

In as much as I know the law, it would be impossible to prosecute her, seeing as I've personally witnessed her be frighteningly accurate on numerous occasions where she had no prior knowledge of the person's situation.

As I've said in the past, I don't know if she's psychic (I don't even know for sure what psychic really means) but she has been extremely accurate about some very minute details - I suppose if a court could prove psychic powers don't exist then the plaintiff might be on to a winner then.

[Garrette]

In as much as I know the law, it would be impossible to prosecute her,Even without the rest of your statement, this does not surprise me. The law pretty much ignores this area.

seeing as I've personally witnessed her be frighteningly accurate on numerous occasions where she had no prior knowledge of the person's situation.If you've been around for any length of time on this forum you will be able to anticipate my questions:

1. How do you know she had no personal knowledge?
2. How did you verify the accuracy of the readings?
3. Are you going from memory or is there a reliable and detailed record?
4. What do you know about cold reading? Hot reading?
5. What do you know about magician's tricks in general?
6. What do you know about sitter bias/confirmation bias and the Forer effect?
7. What do you know about retrofitting?

As I've said in the past, I don't know if she's psychic (I don't even know for sure what psychic really means) but she has been extremely accurate about some very minute detailsI'm confused. If you've seen readings that cannot be explained without psychic powers, then why do you not believe, unequivocally, that she is?

I suppose if a court could prove psychic powers don't exist then the plaintiff might be on to a winner then.The courts are a lousy place for proving anything besides whether something meets a legal standard.

[Rex Everything]

I don't claim to be perfect, but I am able to think somewhat critically and operate a spellchecker.

And Garrette has already clarified my meaning very well. If you can't understand that, that's a shame. But I doubt anything you read here is going to change your preconceptions.

I understand it perfectly, doesn't mean I agree with it. And to make it quite clear - I don't. Also I don't have any preconceptions, I'm quite open-minded. I think the main difference between myself and any of you anti-psychics (for lack of a better word) is that I've been part of the 'behind-the-scenes' of a psychic show and I know there's never been any 'prepping' in them.

[Garrette]

Also I don't have any preconceptions,I admit I have preconceptions. But they change a lot.

I'm quite open-minded.As am I.

Does our saying it make it so?

I think the main difference between myself and any of you anti-psychics (for lack of a better word)Here's a better word: skeptic. Alternately, you could try: demander of evidence that is habitually not presented

is that I've been part of the 'behind-the-scenes' of a psychic show and I know there's never been any 'prepping' in them.If you've been behind the scenes of one, you can hardly say there's never been any prepping of any of them.

Randi has shown the fraud in at least one.

I've never been behind the scenes of them, but I used to be a believer in them, and I have witnessed them both then and since. Not once has there been something unexplainable without resort to the supernatural.

Still, it sounds as if you've some interesting experience. Please expound.

[Skeptic Guy]

In as much as I know the law, it would be impossible to prosecute her, seeing as I've personally witnessed her be frighteningly accurate on numerous occasions where she had no prior knowledge of the person's situation.

As I've said in the past, I don't know if she's psychic (I don't even know for sure what psychic really means) but she has been extremely accurate about some very minute details - I suppose if a court could prove psychic powers don't exist then the plaintiff might be on to a winner then.

If what you say is true, I know where she can get a $1,000,000, just click on the $1 Million Challenge link above. Until then it is just hearsay.

[Rex Everything]

1. How do you know she had no personal knowledge?

She's done readings for my friends without her knowing they know me - she would meet them for the first time.

2. How did you verify the accuracy of the readings?

Judging by comments made by the subjects afterwards.

3. Are you going from memory or is there a reliable and detailed record?

Both.

4. What do you know about cold reading? Hot reading?

I've not heard of either.


5. What do you know about magician's tricks in general?

Misdirection is the key - I've been using professional tricks since I was 4 (I'm now 32).

6. What do you know about sitter bias/confirmation bias and the Forer effect?

Never heard of it.

7. What do you know about retrofitting?

As above.

I'm confused. If you've seen readings that cannot be explained without psychic powers, then why do you not believe, unequivocally, that she is?

Probably because I'm not the mindless sheep you might be trying to make me out to be. I don't see everything in black and white, or "either you are or you aren't". Most people seem to think psychic powers involved speaking to spirits connected to the subject. I disagree - I believe the spirits that psychics claim to communicate with are inherantly evil and are not the people they claim to be.

The courts are a lousy place for proving anything besides whether something meets a legal standard.

Purely because no court case has ever backed up your claims that psychics are frauds?

[Rex Everything]

If you've been behind the scenes of one, you can hardly say there's never been any prepping of any of them.

By 'prepping' I mean by having a stooge in the audience, or researching someone who is going to be there in order to use that information.

I can 100% guarantee that has not happened at her shows - the ones I've been part of anyway.

Still, it sounds as if you've some interesting experience. Please expound.

See my post on page 4 of this thread - I'm purely here to stick up for a friend.

[Garrette]

By 'prepping' I mean by having a stooge in the audience, or researching someone who is going to be there in order to use that information.

I can 100% guarantee that has not happened at her shows - the ones I've been part of anyway.



See my post on page 4 of this thread - I'm purely here to stick up for a friend.Fair enough. I'm about out of time for today, so it will be a bit before I get back to this. If no one else has addressed this by the time I return, I'll pop in some answers.

[Garrette]

Probably because I'm not the mindless sheep you might be trying to make me out to be. I don't see everything in black and white, or "either you are or you aren't". Most people seem to think psychic powers involved speaking to spirits connected to the subject. I disagree - I believe the spirits that psychics claim to communicate with are inherantly evil and are not the people they claim to be.Just to respond to this bit:

I've yet to give my impression of you in any sense, so if someone is jumping to conclusions here about the other, it isn't me.

[Rex Everything]

Just to respond to this bit:

I've yet to give my impression of you in any sense, so if someone is jumping to conclusions here about the other, it isn't me.


My apologies - it wasn't aimed at you personally, it was intended for the skeptics on here who seem to think anyone with an open mind to the paranormal must be a weak-willed spineless lemming - and I've noticed there are many with that attitude just from reading this thread.

[John Jackson]

Rex,

So you admit that you don't know anything about/have never heard of: cold/hot reading; confirmation bias; the forer effect; subjective validation; recall bias; etc.

May I suggest that this is the reason that you're impressed by 'psychics' and skeptics aren't?

There are answers to how 'psychics' tell people 'things they couldn't possibly have known' you know. It's all a cognitive illusion.

At least, I'll stick with the hypothesis that it's all a cognitive illusion until some good reason is presented that will make me think otherwise.

[Skeptic Guy]

<snip>
Purely because no court case has ever backed up your claims that psychics are frauds?

Actually, I believe that there have been some that have prosecuted purported "psychics" for fraud or similar charges. I'll have to go home and pull out my old Skeptical Inquirers to check, but Florida comes to mind as a recent jurisdiction. I think that is why a lot of the psychics indicate that their services are "for entertainment purposes only" or similar language.

I know that Susan Polk, "a self-proclaimed psychic", was convicted of murder in California (Skeptical Inquirer, Sept/Oct 2006), but that doesn't really pertain to this discussion, though it does beg the question as to why she didn't see it coming.

[Rex Everything]

May I suggest that this is the reason that you're impressed by 'psychics' and skeptics aren't?


You may - but I'm not 'impressed by psychics' at all. Just Diane, because I've witnessed her in action first hand.

[Rex Everything]

Actually, I believe that there have been some that have prosecuted purported "psychics" for fraud or similar charges. I'll have to go home and pull out my old Skeptical Inquirers to check, but Florida comes to mind as a recent jurisdiction. I think that is why a lot of the psychics indicate that their services are "for entertainment purposes only" or similar language.

I know that Susan Polk, "a self-proclaimed psychic", was convicted of murder in California (Skeptical Inquirer, Sept/Oct 2006), but that doesn't really pertain to this discussion, though it does beg the question as to why she didn't see it coming.

Thanks, but I neither recognise or respect US law.

[Skeptic Guy]

Thanks, but I neither recognise or respect US law.

Well, ok then, that explains a lot, rational thought is not number one in with you.

EDIT: Changed "this thread" to "with you"...rational thought is present, not just in the current post....

[Big Les]

Thanks, but I neither recognise or respect US law.

For what it's worth, I apologise for being confrontational here. But you seem to want to argue from a position of wilful ignorance, and that frustrates me. Earlier you were arguing from the POV that no psychic has been convicted of fraud, now you've moved the goalposts by disregarding any specific countries' legal system? Is there anything we could say that might make you look at the situation objectively? Or is your only intention to defend your friend blindly?


It would be well worth a bit of your time Googling "cold reading", "confirmation bias", and the other explanations for apparent psychic phenomenon. Why not read up on what the "enemy" understand to be the case? After all, most of us here are familiar with what you believe Diane to be capable of, and with the skeptical arguments. You can't hope to refute our insistence that Diane uses well-known techniques to achieve her results, if you have no idea what those techniques are, or how they're used in a "psychic" context. Why not equip yourself with an awareness of how "our sort" see the same thing?

For example, "cold reading" consists of throwing out a series of educated guesses, and then modifying the results in light of what the client tells you. A typical (and not very clever) example would be "Your father's with me now, he's giving me the impression of some back pain before he passed" - well, any number of aging folk suffer some kind of back pain, so this is likely to be a "hit". A grieving relative who already believes in psychic phenomenon is more likely to be willing to search their memory for something that might fit what the medium is telling them. From here the medium can try to appear more specific, e.g. "he's saying he would always refuse your help to get up the stairs, is this making sense?". Again, the client thinks of an instance when this might have happened to them or another relative, and makes a vague statement personally accurate. More risky, the medium might then refer to a specific object that seems specific but actually stands a good chance of being a "hit", like an old photo that's never put on display, or a walking stick that's in the attic. If the client can't make this fit, that's OK, the medium either modifies the statement, claims a hit anyway and moves on, or admits to "crossed wires" and tries another approach.

The more you read about the technique and watch it in use, the easier it is to spot. The main thing to watch for is the client searching for meaning in vague statements, and actually providing information to the psychic so that she/he can repackage it and come out looking as though they plucked specifics from out of nowhere. Another thing to try is to count the amount of statements vs the amount of positive results. The "misses" are usually forgiven and forgotten by the client and by the audience. They often blame their own memories or understanding when they can't make the psychics' statements fit!

Sceptics are often asked to "open their minds" - well, if you truly care about the truth of the matter, you will read up on the possibilities and make an informed decision.

[John Jackson]

You may - but I'm not 'impressed by psychics' at all. Just Diane, because I've witnessed her in action first hand.

Exactly the same cognitive illusions are at play though. How is Diane Lazarus any different to any other 'psychic'; and why is your personal experience any more persuasive than anyone else's?

Is Diane Lazarus any more psychic than other 'psychic'?

Are you any less susceptible to cognitive biases than anyone else?

Why should anyone believe that Diane Lazarus is psychic because you believe she is?

[renato]

Thanks, but I neither recognise or respect US law.
me neither.
human rights don't seem to exist there.
prison life in the USA is a sentence above your sentence.
just an example.
and then the justice system.well it's better than the one they have in Iran.

and those gunlaws in the USA
they are the cause of many casualties .yes I know,I know, it is the person who uses the gun and not the gun itself which kills.
tell that to a teenager who hasn't got his emotions and logical thinking under control.

[Skeptic Guy]

me neither.
human rights don't seem to exist there.
prison life in the USA is a sentence above your sentence.
just an example.
and then the justice system.well it's better than the one they have in Iran.


Keep it on topic folks...

"Psychics" don't equal plumbers, boxers, actors, or US lawyers...

[renato]

Renato,

What is it that you claim you can do?
I can do what?
I'm no psyhic.
I've been to a few, yes.
and one for example, says my grandfather had a typical kind of humour.
the people around him family ,thought he was strange but he was a good man.
and that was exactly true.
I think he wasn't understand by most.
my father even made jokes about him.
I didn t like that at all.my grandfather was a good man.but some people don't take the effort to see that.they want people to be like they are.
she(psychic) was totally right on that.and on other things too.

[renato]

By the way, I thought you'd left (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1656544#post1656544).

everybody can change his/her mind.
even you skeptics :-P

[renato]

Of course you are right, con men and women are all nasty to you when you speak to them and have shifty eyes :rolleyes:

If you ever met me, you might think I'm 'nice,warm,friendly' too.

THAT I do not know.
I haven't seen you.so maybe I would.maybe not.I don't know.
but when you suggest that I'm easy to mislead I disagree.
I do have a strong intuition.
the only problem is that I do not always listen to it and ignore it.

[renato]

Right. So because serial killers kill people, that makes it OK for me to try it too, does it?

See, I can use specious reasoning too!
the army has the most serial killers.
and they are legitimate.
I don't think that's the same as being ok to do that.
but 'befehl ist befehl' isn't it? an order is an order.
the rules of a justice system don't have to mean that it is the same as justice.

[renato]

Keep it on topic folks...

"Psychics" don't equal plumbers, boxers, actors, or US lawyers...

ok that's true.then they must not be judged as if they are a painter who uses the wrong colour or other odd comparisations.
it is a quality in itself.

but I do think that they have much more in comon with an actor or artist then with a plumber or house painter which is routine work.