Diane Lazarus - Psychic Challenge 'winner' - Dishonest

[Skeptic Guy]

If it was only that subjective...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There are people who are "psychic entertainers" who give "psychic readings" that their recipients say are 100% accurate and ask "how could he possibly know that?" These entertainers, however, do it all by ways that have nothing to do with any WooWoo abilities but are perfectly explainable by rational science.

Ian Roland is one such entertainer. His site is at http://www.ianrowland.com/Start/Home.html

He will even sell you a book on how to so do it youself.

Or you can check out the movie "Leap of Faith" starring Steve Martin. He demonstrates some of the techniques used.

Until you have researched the topic, coming to a skeptics board and claiming "It's all true. I saw it.", is absolutely worthless.

[Rex Everything]

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


Is that the best you can do? Resort to silly insults? Now why would you want to do that?

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?

I only recognise UK law - I guess I'm a little over-patriotic but then again so are the Yanks. I don't trust their legal system anyway - I'd rather hear about British cases.

Interesting that you ask if I can look at things objectively - with the greatest of respect, you guys don't seem to be objective in the least. Now there's nothing wrong in that, many people are of the opinion that if science can't prove it then it doesn't exist - but that's certainly not objective.

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!

I once showed Diane a picture of my daughter. As soon as she saw it she said something about her which only I and my girl's mother know about her. Something so obscure, so random that you'd put odds of a million to one that someone would even suggest it. Diane went in to even more detail. Although I'm friends with Diane, I've told nobody about this.

No fishing questions, no cold questions, in fact no questions at all - she made a positive statement about my daughter which, unless she'd been watching me for 6 months, she could not have known.

I'm not saying she heard 'voices', spoke to 'spirits' or anything like that. She simply had access to knowledge shared only by 2 people.

[Rex Everything]

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?

Because I've personally witnessed Diane at work.

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

I can't say - I don't know any other psychics.

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

Don't know, I've not been tested.

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

I don't care what anyone believes, I'm not looking for convertees or trying to change anyone's mind in the same was many of the skeptics here hope to. I've said it before, I'm sticking up for a friend.

[Big Les]

Then you have to recognise that you're doing so without any supporting evidence. Still, let's refocus this; go back to the original claim made here - that Diane Lazarus had claimed to have helped UK police forces with their work, yet at least one force had denied this.

How are you able to stick up for her police-related claims, in any meaningful way, in light of this? Can you show that she did in fact help them?

[Rex Everything]

Then you have to recognise that you're doing so without any supporting evidence.

Yeah, and?

How are you able to stick up for her police-related claims, in any meaningful way, in light of this? Can you show that she did in fact help them?

I'd need to ask Diane about this first.

[Mojo]

Yeah, and? So why should we believe you?

You're making claims which are at odds with reality (at least as far as I have observed it), but providing no evidence to back them up. I'll stick with reality, thanks.

[Mojo]

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.

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.Are you any relation to Yrreg (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68618)?

[Rex Everything]

So why should we believe you? You're making claims which are at odds with reality (at least as far as I have observed it), but providing no evidence to back them up.

You've completely missed the point. I don't care if you believe me or not! I'm not here to rubbish your claims, debunk your beliefs or change your mind (in the way many skeptics here are trying to do).

If you choose to not believe me then all well and good.

Like I've said in this thread about 5 times now, I'm only here to stick up for a friend.

[Mojo]

You've completely missed the point. I don't care if you believe me or not! I'm not here to rubbish your claims, debunk your beliefs or change your mind (in the way many skeptics here are trying to do).

If you choose to not believe me then all well and good.

Like I've said in this thread about 5 times now, I'm only here to stick up for a friend.You're "sticking up for a friend" by making unsupported claims on their behalf? What exactly is your point? Nobody has suggested that there are no people who believe that her abilities are real.

[Garrette]

I can do what?My mistake. I thought you were making claims about yourself.

I'll rephrase the question: What, exactly, do you claim any one psychic of your choice can do? Under what circumstances? To what degree of accuracy? Measured how?

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.Someone who may or may not have known you, in circumstances which you have not elaborated, made a generically applicable statement regarding someone whom you may or may not have identified for the person, and about which there is not even agreement amongst your own family.

This is evidence?

[Garrette]

Rex: I won't be able to go in depth until at least this afternoon, so if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you the same question that I just asked Renato, but in reference to Diane?

What, exactly, do you think her abilities are?

What, exactly, can she do?

Under what circumstances?

How often?

To what degree of accuracy?

Measured how?

Is she ever wrong?

If so, what is her correct percentage and her incorrect percentage?

Sorry for hitting you with this without adding any substantive comments of my own yet, but life happens.

[Rex Everything]

You're "sticking up for a friend" by making unsupported claims on their behalf? What exactly is your point? Nobody has suggested that there are no people who believe that her abilities are real.

Read my posts in this thread from page 4 onwards, I really don't feel inclined to repeat myself. But I'm not doing anything on Diane's behalf. I choose to post here on my own initiative.

What, exactly, do you think her abilities are?

I don't know exactly what her abilities are. I can only give a general opinion based on my observations. From these I would suggest she has some kind of ability to know quite specific things about people without being offered any information about them.

What, exactly, can she do?

As above. You're asking for specifics - I cannot and will not give them.

Under what circumstances?

On the radio show, people would phone in with problems, situations etc. I would be my job to 'vet' them. We didn't want run-of-the-mill questions such as "will my boyfriend and I get married" - remember a radio show is there to entertain - instead we wanted situations either with a bit of 'meat' to them or were unconventional. When I took a call from someone who matched this criteria, I'd make a note of their situation and call them back later in the show. The only information Diane would have about them would be their name and location.

How often?

Every thursday.

To what degree of accuracy?

I would suggest something in the region of a 70 to 80% accuracy rate.

Measured how?

By my quick estimation.

Is she ever wrong?

Yes, I believe so. She'd sometimes suggest something to a caller but he or she would not know what Diane was referring to.

If so, what is her correct percentage and her incorrect percentage?

I was employed as a Tech Op on the radio station (similar to a producer role), it wasn't my job to take scientific readings of anything so there's no way I'm going to give you anything as specific as that, but I gave you a general percentage above.

[pchams]

Ah, so you have an economic interest in perpetuating her myths.
Makes sense now.

[Azrael 5]

I do recall asking the programme controller of said radio station to put Diane to a "test" or invite me on air to discuss with her.I do believe it was declined.
I refer to two incidents on the TV show.Each psychic was given a box to identify its contents unseen.All failed.Not much use as a psychic is she?
I think I may have emailed Diane Lazarus asking for a meet/reading which would have ben recorded and transcribed on here.That too was declined I believe.
There are enough muppets who watch TV and call into radio stations that believe any old tripe.Only believers are going to call in,so she is halfway there already to impressing them!

[Rex Everything]

Ah, so you have an economic interest in perpetuating her myths.
Makes sense now.

Read the first 2 words of the last paragraph in my above post.

"I was". As in, 'not any more'.

Any need to take that tone with me?

I do recall asking the programme controller of said radio station to put Diane to a "test" or invite me on air to discuss with her.I do believe it was declined.

Not heard from you in a while! No it would not have been declined by the PC as he would have nothing to do with any such test, and you're free to phone the show on a thursday just like anyone else.

I refer to two incidents on the TV show.Each psychic was given a box to identify its contents unseen.All failed.Not much use as a psychic is she?

I didn't see the show but of all the tests on it, what was her right/wrong ratio?

I think I may have emailed Diane Lazarus asking for a meet/reading which would have ben recorded and transcribed on here.That too was declined I believe.

That doesn't surprise me as I'd have difficulty in believing such a meet would be objective.

There are enough muppets who watch TV and call into radio stations that believe any old tripe.Only believers are going to call in,so she is halfway there already to impressing them!

I'd never refer to the very people who I was to entertain as 'muppets', but everyone has an opinion I suppose. You'd be right that I only ever took calls from believers - although I'd have to wonder why any non-believers would waste their time tuning in.

[Garrette]

All quotations are from Rex Everything unless otherwise noted.

Also, to avoid having to state it over and over again, I have written this post on the assumption that Rex Everything is sincere in his belief and is not being intentionally deceitful. I do not make the same reservation for Diane Lazarus, though I do not hold it as a necessity.

Finally, unless otherwise stated, the links are to Skepdic.com (though to different pages within it), mainly because it was quicker to go to one source and not because it is always the best source.

She's done readings for my friends without her knowing they know me - she would meet them for the first time.1. Without complete details surrounding the meeting(s), this is unverifiable. It is entirely possible that Diane had knowledge of which you were unaware.

2. It is possible that she had not met them but knew the names of your friends and had done some basic research. As has been pointed out in this very thread, a quick internet search of nearly anyone will provide some info that can be construed as a psychic hit (I’m thinking of the “wedding photographer” bit).

Judging by comments made by the subjects afterwards.
See Selective Thinking (http://skepdic.com/selectiv.html), Confirmation Bias (http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html) (same as Sitter Bias), and the Forer Effect (http://skepdic.com/forer.html).
Both. (Memory and an accurate record).Forgive me if I discount your Memory (http://skepdic.com/memory.html). Can you provide a transcript of the record?

I've not heard of either.See Cold Reading (http://skepdic.com/coldread.html), Warm Reading (http://skepdic.com/warmreading.html), and Hot Reading (http://www.skepdic.com/hotreading.html). You’ll note from the site that Warm Reading can be construed as a subset of either (or both) Cold and Hot Reading
Also note, that the Cold Reading entry here is very weak, I think, but it will get the gist across. You can visit Ian Rowland’s site and order “The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading” for a very detailed explanation. It takes a while to get and isn’t cheap, but it’s worth it.
Skepdic.com only gives long and generic readings as examples of Cold Reading. Ian Rowland explains (as others do, too) how it can be quickly and convincingly made specific.
For an example, read My Psychic Adventure (http://skepdic.com/selectiv.html).


Misdirection is the keyThen you know about Time Misdirection. Mediums do, too. But you’re forgetting that misdirection is only one key. There is also setting the tone, the atmosphere.
Doing that (and it’s pretty much already done in the new age community and most of the psychic believers community) goes a long way toward reinforcing Communal Reinforcement (http://skepdic.com/comreinf.html)

I've been using professional tricks since I was 4 (I'm now 32).Professional tricks at 4? Impressive.

Never heard of it.[Sitter/Confirmation Bias]See link above.

As above.[Regarding Retrofitting]See Retrospective Falsification. (http://skepdic.com/retfalse.html)

I don't see everything in black and white, or "either you are or you aren't".Neither do most here, though it may not appear that way.

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.
From Diane Lazarus’ site:
The role of a medium is to contact spirits of people who have died and passed on to the Spirit world.

She is the friend you are defending, yes?

Purely because no court case has ever backed up your claims that psychics are frauds?Addressed by other posters here. Also addressed in a not-too-distant-past Commentary on this very site.

I don't know exactly what her abilities are. I can only give a general opinion based on my observations. From these I would suggest she has some kind of ability to know quite specific things about people without being offered any information about them.Thank you, but without you defining “quite specific” the definition means little.
Her website seems to offer precious little help, too. Besides the mediumship bit already posted, she says these things:
It is a good chance for both to tie up loose ends and resolve any outstanding questions.

And

At the age of eight Diane Lazarus (known to many as Diane Lloyd-Hughes) first experienced the power of her amazing gift by seeing, hearing and speaking to spirits

And

Her ability to visualise past and future events

And

has led to her being called upon by policeWhich, when coupled with the letters and commentary on her site makes it clear she is claiming she can solve not just crimes, but murders they police have failed to solve.

Try This Site (http://theskepticexpress.com/diane_lazarus.php)for a rebuttal to her claims regarding the cases of Mark Green and Muriel Drinkwater.

For the letter from the Garda she has on her site, which is dated 10 February 2003 and which Lazarus offers as evidence she helps solve crimes, I’ll offer my own analysis:

The letter says this, in toto:

Reference as above [Lazarus’ name and address], this is to state that we employed the services of Dian Lloyd (Hughes) – Lazarus to assist us in the investigation of the murder of a young girl in Dun Laoghaire, which occurred in September 1999. We employed the assistance of Diane in March 2002. She was able to outline the details of the murderer, description etc. and her assistance greatly enhanced our investigation.

I look forward to working with her in the future.

It is signed Eamon O Reilly D/Inspector.

Assuming the letter is genuine (I’ve no immediate reason to believe it is not), it leaves much to be desired in the way of evidence that Lazarus helped with anything.

1. Lazarus was employed in March 2002. There is a web page put online in November of 99 with a description of a man the garda were seeking. No other description has been put forth since. Lazarus had 2 and ½ years to search the web for the description of the suspect.

2. How the D/I can claim that Lazarus gave them the “murderer’s” description, I have no idea, since the murder is unsolved even today.

3. The parents of poor Raonaid Murray still grieve knowing that their daughter’s killer has not been found. Despite the unerring help of Mrs. Lazarus.

As above. You're asking for specifics - I cannot and will not give them.Not a problem. Lazarus won’t give specifics, either, but she gives enough on her site to point us in the right direction.

On the radio show, people would phone in with problems, situations etc. I would be my job to 'vet' them. We didn't want run-of-the-mill questions such as "will my boyfriend and I get married" - remember a radio show is there to entertain - instead we wanted situations either with a bit of 'meat' to them or were unconventional. When I took a call from someone who matched this criteria, I'd make a note of their situation and call them back later in the show. The only information Diane would have about them would be their name and location.Great. You have access to transcripts, I take it?

Otherwise, see all the links above.

Every thursday. [In response to my question about how often Lazarus can do what she does]Au contraire. Again, from her website:

and since then Diane has learned to control her gift and can switch on and off at will.That makes her the perfect candidate for independent testing. (It doesn’t have to be the JREF Challenge, but that would surely suffice)

I would suggest something in the region of a 70 to 80% accuracy rate.Excellent. Do you distinguish between general hits and specific hits when creating this accuracy? I would rate someone much higher whose consistently and repeatedly gives details like my driver’s license number, my maternal grandmother’s social security number, and the secret ingredient to my mother’s incredible stuffing than I would the person who generally just describes personality and character and emotion and the dozens of actions and feelings common to grieving people.

Most importantly, do you have transcripts?

By my quick estimation. [regarding how her accuracy was measuredSee the links above, please.

Yes, I believe so.[that she is sometimes wrong]Does she admit this?

She'd sometimes suggest something to a caller but he or she would not know what Diane was referring to.Transcripts would help in making a proper count. Otherwise it is all unreliable and unconvincing Memory (http://skepdic.com/memory.html). (Scroll down to near the bottom for the unreliability of memory)
I was employed as a Tech Op on the radio station (similar to a producer role), it wasn't my job to take scientific readings of anythingNo, but you have said you’re open minded. Are you open minded to the possibility that what you see as very strong evidence of psychic ability is really not so strong after all?

See Self Deception (http://skepdic.com/selfdeception.html)

so there's no way I'm going to give you anything as specific as that, but I gave you a general percentage above.Okay. Thanks.

[Rex Everything]

1. Without complete details surrounding the meeting(s), this is unverifiable. It is entirely possible that Diane had knowledge of which you were unaware.

Possible but unlikely.

2. It is possible that she had not met them but knew the names of your friends and had done some basic research. As has been pointed out in this very thread, a quick internet search of nearly anyone will provide some info that can be construed as a psychic hit (I’m thinking of the “wedding photographer” bit).

As above.


Professional tricks at 4? Impressive.

Your point being what?

She is the friend you are defending, yes?

Yes, your point being?

Thank you, but without you defining “quite specific” the definition means little.

I'm not interested in defnining anything - can't you tell yet?

Her website seems to offer precious little help, too. Besides the mediumship bit already posted, she says these things:


And



And



And

Which, when coupled with the letters and commentary on her site makes it clear she is claiming she can solve not just crimes, but murders they police have failed to solve.

I don't know what Diane has to say about this.


Great. You have access to transcripts, I take it?

No, why would I? I don't work for them any more.

Au contraire. Again, from her website:

Excellent. Do you distinguish between general hits and specific hits when creating this accuracy? I would rate someone much higher whose consistently and repeatedly gives details like my driver’s license number, my maternal grandmother’s social security number, and the secret ingredient to my mother’s incredible stuffing than I would the person who generally just describes personality and character and emotion and the dozens of actions and feelings common to grieving people.

As I said, I only gave an estimate - I have no way of giving you an accurate idea.

Most importantly, do you have transcripts?

No.

Does she admit this?

I don't know, I've never asked her.

Transcripts would help in making a proper count. Otherwise it is all unreliable and unconvincing Memory (http://skepdic.com/memory.html). (Scroll down to near the bottom for the unreliability of memory)

For the nth time, I'm not interested in making anything sound convincing.

No, but you have said you’re open minded. Are you open minded to the possibility that what you see as very strong evidence of psychic ability is really not so strong after all?

If I decided to set out and prove to myself the existence of Diane's psychic powers then I might be able to answer your question. But I'm not. Diane is a friend, as is her husband. I'm friends with them because I like them. I'm not a ligger, or only interested because of her profile etc

I accept them as friend. If they claim to help other people out then fine, as long as it doesn't affect my life then I really couldn't give a monkey's.

Okay. Thanks.

No problem.

By the way I've missed out some of your responses as I detest long posts which require individual responses - if you really do want a response to specifics, can I suggest you break your posts down a little, thanks.

[Garrette]

Possible but unlikely.How unlikely?

As above.How unlikely?

Your point being what?That a 4 year old performing professional magic effects is impressive.

Yes, your point being?That I find a conflict between your stance on contacting the spirits of the dead and Lazarus'. Conflict to the point that I'm a bit surprised you consider her a friend.

I'm not interested in defnining anything - can't you tell yet?I can now.

I don't know what Diane has to say about this.She's already said it. It's on her website. And, your friendship with her notwithstanding, it doesn't speak well of her.

No, why would I? I don't work for them any more.You are their friend and you came to stand up for her. Convincing transcripts would go a long way in doing that.

As I said, I only gave an estimate - I have no way of giving you an accurate idea.Okay.

No.

I don't know, I've never asked her.

For the nth time, I'm not interested in making anything sound convincing.

If I decided to set out and prove to myself the existence of Diane's psychic powers then I might be able to answer your question. But I'm not.It's a shame, because despite what you may think is the case, most people here, or at least the author of this post, wouldn't mind in the slightest being proven wrong. Surprised to no end. Ego bruised as all humans can be. Quite flummoxed for a while. But we wouldn't mind.

Diane is a friend, as is her husband. I'm friends with them because I like them. I'm not a ligger,Do you mean "liar?" Or is that a British colloquialism of which I am unaware? If you mean "liar?" then refer to the opening of my last post.

or only interested because of her profile etcI have to admit that the background photo of her on her website is quite attractive.

I accept them as friend. If they claim to help other people out then fine, as long as it doesn't affect my life then I really couldn't give a monkey's.Interesting. What we're doing here (discussing her) doesn't affect your life, and yet you give a monkey's...

Just not enough of one to actually provide evidence, I suppose.

By the way I've missed out some of your responses as I detest long posts which require individual responses - if you really do want a response to specifics, can I suggest you break your posts down a little, thanks.I'll keep it in mind, thanks, and I appreciate the straightforwardness. I confess it's unlikely I'll change.

No one is obliged to respond to me, though.

[Garrette]

Rex Everything, you mentioned that you are a magician and have been for some 28 years.

No doubt you have experienced that which nearly all magicians have experienced: an observer or audience member declaring you to be in league with the devil or using supernatural powers. This despite you never making the claim. Sometimes they can’t be dissuaded regardless what you say or do (see Houdini and Conan Doyle).

I’ve had it happen to me.

I performed the simplest of tricks (actually, my own combination of two effects), impromptu, in someone else’s house, when I was seated cross-legged on the floor and my two friends were on the couch.

They are both adults, both intelligent and both honest. They will each honestly tell you that there is absolutely no way he could have gotten that quarter and that matchbook (both marked) over on the end table! He never got up!

They will swear this. They have sworn this.

One of them will also say: “I have no idea how he did it. It still creeps me out.”

The other one still says: “I won’t go anywhere alone with him. He’s in league with the devil.”

Those are not my words, they are theirs, and they are meant sincerely.

Are you willing to give the second one’s words credibility? Are you willing to consider the possibility that I performed my tricks via paranormal means?

If not, why not?

[chillzero]

I would suggest something in the region of a 70 to 80% accuracy rate.



Excellent. Do you distinguish between general hits and specific hits when creating this accuracy? I would rate someone much higher whose consistently and repeatedly gives details like my driver’s license number, my maternal grandmother’s social security number, and the secret ingredient to my mother’s incredible stuffing than I would the person who generally just describes personality and character and emotion and the dozens of actions and feelings common to grieving people.

Most importantly, do you have transcripts?


Oh dear! Someone might be upset you underestimated, especially if you worked on the program:

Local Radio
Diane has also done a lot of work on BBC and local radio stations to do readings over the air with thousands of listeners and its said by DJ's that she's 98-100% accurate and one amazing lady !!!


Leighton Jones - Swansea Sound
“ Diane has made several live appearances on my mid-morning program and created a fantastic response from listeners on the telephone who would call in to speak to her live on air, the results from her readings were between 98% and 100% accurate. ”

from:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/

;)

[Rex Everything]

How unlikely?

Very.

How unlikely?

Very

That a 4 year old performing professional magic effects is impressive.

I didn't say I could use them to a performing standard - but I had them.

That I find a conflict between your stance on contacting the spirits of the dead and Lazarus'. Conflict to the point that I'm a bit surprised you consider her a friend.

Whatever - I don't judge my friend that way. Diane and I have an understanding that we don't discuss such matters.

She's already said it. It's on her website. And, your friendship with her notwithstanding, it doesn't speak well of her.

As above.

You are their friend and you came to stand up for her. Convincing transcripts would go a long way in doing that.

Let me make this clear - transcripts are not kept of the radio station's shows. Legally they have to keep the previous 3 months' broadcasts but I don't have access to them.

It's a shame, because despite what you may think is the case, most people here, or at least the author of this post, wouldn't mind in the slightest being proven wrong. Surprised to no end. Ego bruised as all humans can be. Quite flummoxed for a while. But we wouldn't mind.

Me neither.

Do you mean "liar?" Or is that a British colloquialism of which I am unaware? If you mean "liar?" then refer to the opening of my last post.

A ligger is a showbiz term for someone who has no fame but rides on the coat-tails of others and hangs out with celebrities to try and be part of their circuit.

I have to admit that the background photo of her on her website is quite attractive.

She's an attractive woman.

Interesting. What we're doing here (discussing her) doesn't affect your life, and yet you give a monkey's...

Yes because a friend of mine is being verbally attacked by people who don't know her and have not met her. I'm fiercely protective towards any of my friends.

Just not enough of one to actually provide evidence, I suppose.

Especially when evidence isn't needed.

I'll keep it in mind, thanks, and I appreciate the straightforwardness. I confess it's unlikely I'll change.

Ditto.

No one is obliged to respond to me, though.

No but it would be rude not to.

Rex Everything, you mentioned that you are a magician and have been for some 28 years.

Let's not get the wrong idea - I have never performed for anyone other than one or two friends. I just love the gadget-ness of magic tricks.

I wouldn't believe you used paranormal means to do your tricks as it's highly likely I've either done the same tricks as you (as you may well have done at me) or I'm away of how they work.

[Rex Everything]

Oh dear! Someone might be upset you underestimated, especially if you worked on the program:

Those figures were on her website before she joined our show. I can't speak for people who knew her before I did.

[Garrette]

Very.Less likely than paranormal means? How have you determined that?

I didn't say I could use them to a performing standard - but I had them.Okay.

Whatever - I don't judge my friend that way. Diane and I have an understanding that we don't discuss such matters.Okay. I have friends like that.

Let me make this clear - transcripts are not kept of the radio station's shows. Legally they have to keep the previous 3 months' broadcasts but I don't have access to them.Again, it's a shame.

Me neither.Glad to hear it.

A ligger is a showbiz term for someone who has no fame but rides on the coat-tails of others and hangs out with celebrities to try and be part of their circuit.Ah. Got it.

Yes because a friend of mine is being verbally attacked by people who don't know her and have not met her.Actually, her claims are being attacked, with the occasional personal insult tossed in. The attacks on the claims are legit, and the best way to stand up for her in that regard is to provide evidence that her claims are legit.

The best way to stand up for her as regards the personal insults is to remind people that ad hominem attacks carry no weight in an honest argument.

I'm fiercely protective towards any of my friends.A quality much to be admired.

Especially when evidence isn't needed. If you want to defend her claims, it is. If you want to defend against insults, it isn't.

If you're here for the latter, I'll stop asking you questions about her claims.

No but it would be rude not to.Thanks for that, but it's only one explanation. Sometimes people post only as their schedule allows, and then they have to prioritize over which threads to post in.

I'm probably one of the worst. My schedule allows me to post liberally for a few days, then not at all for a few months (actually, it's more like I'm kept away for a couple of weeks, and then it's hard to get back in to posting mode...)

Let's not get the wrong idea - I have never performed for anyone other than one or two friends. I just love the gadget-ness of magic tricks.Then we're very similar. I've often said that if I were the equal of my magical inventory and library I'd be famous and wealthy.

I wouldn't believe you used paranormal means to do your tricks as it's highly likely I've either done the same tricks as you (as you may well have done at me) or I'm away of how they work.Which is my point.

The one woman who accuses me of devil worship has no legitimate reason beyond her own ignorance to do so. Yet she can't be convinced otherwise. To her, if she doesn't know something, it can't be known.

Is that not a possibility with Diane vis a vis your perceptions?

There are mentalists and entertainers who can perform similarly and who -- despite your lack of knowledge of their methods -- are not actually psychic.

[Rex Everything]

Less likely than paranormal means? How have you determined that?

Because in some cases, Diane mentioned things which only myself and the friend knew or exxperienced.

Actually, her claims are being attacked, with the occasional personal insult tossed in. The attacks on the claims are legit, and the best way to stand up for her in that regard is to provide evidence that her claims are legit.

I'm standing up against the unfair personal attacks on Diane. I'm not interested in backing up her claims, that's for her to do if she's inclined.

If you're here for the latter, I'll stop asking you questions about her claims.

Thanks.

Then we're very similar. I've often said that if I were the equal of my magical inventory and library I'd be famous and wealthy.

Which is my point.

Is that not a possibility with Diane vis a vis your perceptions?

I base my belief in her abilities on the things she has mentioned which no-one else could know about me.

[Garrette]

I base my belief in her abilities on the things she has mentioned which no-one else could know about me.Have you checked out my links from earlier?

(And, as promised, that's the last I'll ask about the claims)

[Rex Everything]

Have you checked out my links from earlier?

(And, as promised, that's the last I'll ask about the claims)

Yes.

Without giving away the (deeply personal specifics), this is an idea of what happened.

I showed Diane a picture of my daughter. When she saw it, she looked up and said "so you'll be taking her to ************* then".

The ************* is something I have always wanted to take my daughter to. We're talking a lifelong burning desire, almost like an ambition. Something which I'd almost feel like I'd failed as a father if I didn't take her to. OK that's an extreme but you can see how important it is to me.

No-one knows about my desire to go there - simply because I've told no-one. It's really personal, a true dad-and-daughter experience.

And it's not something conventional like Alton Towers, Disney or the circus - it's something quite unusual and people would be surprised why I want to do it if they knew what it was. But it's random. Something you'll never guess if I gave you 100 attempts.

[Garrette]

Yes.

Without giving away the (deeply personal specifics), this is an idea of what happened.

I showed Diane a picture of my daughter. When she saw it, she looked up and said "so you'll be taking her to ************* then".

The ************* is something I have always wanted to take my daughter to. We're talking a lifelong burning desire, almost like an ambition. Something which I'd almost feel like I'd failed as a father if I didn't take her to. OK that's an extreme but you can see how important it is to me.

No-one knows about my desire to go there - simply because I've told no-one. It's really personal, a true dad-and-daughter experience.

And it's not something conventional like Alton Towers, Disney or the circus - it's something quite unusual and people would be surprised why I want to do it if they knew what it was. But it's random. Something you'll never guess if I gave you 100 attempts.Thanks. I can see how that would be convincing. I'd ask questions but I promised to stop.

[Azrael 5]

Don't stop Garrette.
Yes because a friend of mine is being verbally attacked by people who don't know her and have not met her. I'm fiercely protective towards any of my friends.


Just ask her one simple question:Why won't she put herself forward to be tested.I have emailed her numerous times,Rex you have had (And I will if needed provide again)my phone number,maybe she could ring me and name my Grandma's occupation in the War and which war even! I could hide the answer online somewhere for verification.
What time is she on air[tonight?]

http://www.thewave.co.uk/presenters/blumer/ Click "Listen Live"

[Rex Everything]

Just ask her one simple question:Why won't she put herself forward to be tested.

No idea - one thing I don't do is answer for my friends, just as I don't appreciate others answering for me.

I have emailed her numerous times,Rex you have had (And I will if needed provide again)my phone number,maybe she could ring me and name my Grandma's occupation in the War and which war even! I could hide the answer online somewhere for verification.

Not sure if Diane is aware who you are but if she is, give your clearly-skeptic stance, would it really change your mind if she got those details right? I doubt it.

What time is she on air[tonight?]


Normal time.

[renato]

My mistake. I thought you were making claims about yourself.

I'll rephrase the question: What, exactly, do you claim any one psychic of your choice can do? Under what circumstances? To what degree of accuracy? Measured how?

Someone who may or may not have known you, in circumstances which you have not elaborated, made a generically applicable statement regarding someone whom you may or may not have identified for the person, and about which there is not even agreement amongst your own family.

This is evidence?
yes it is evidence.
clearly.
she saw other things too as I said.
but anyway.you seem to be the person like many here who will never 'believe'these things are reality.so why waste my energy? I have a feeling that this place is regularly in stead of a skeptic forum ,more of a cynical and sometimes a sarcastic forum.

[renato]

There are people who are "psychic entertainers" who give "psychic readings" that their recipients say are 100% accurate and ask "how could he possibly know that?" These entertainers, however, do it all by ways that have nothing to do with any WooWoo abilities but are perfectly explainable by rational science.

Ian Roland is one such entertainer. His site is at http://www.ianrowland.com/Start/Home.html

He will even sell you a book on how to so do it youself.

Or you can check out the movie "Leap of Faith" starring Steve Martin. He demonstrates some of the techniques used.

Until you have researched the topic, coming to a skeptics board and claiming "It's all true. I saw it.", is absolutely worthless.
that's YOUR truth.
doesn't say it IS the truth.
you don't take it very seriously when you come with such claims.
you really think people have to know about people like Ian or Steve?
as if one cannot judge without having checked out magicians.

[renato]

Are you any relation to Yrreg (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68618)?

you think you're funny?
bad joke.
try another one.
maybe I will laugh.

[renato]

Rex Everything, you mentioned that you are a magician and have been for some 28 years.

No doubt you have experienced that which nearly all magicians have experienced: an observer or audience member declaring you to be in league with the devil or using supernatural powers. This despite you never making the claim. Sometimes they can’t be dissuaded regardless what you say or do (see Houdini and Conan Doyle).

I’ve had it happen to me.

I performed the simplest of tricks (actually, my own combination of two effects), impromptu, in someone else’s house, when I was seated cross-legged on the floor and my two friends were on the couch.

They are both adults, both intelligent and both honest. They will each honestly tell you that there is absolutely no way he could have gotten that quarter and that matchbook (both marked) over on the end table! He never got up!

They will swear this. They have sworn this.

One of them will also say: “I have no idea how he did it. It still creeps me out.”

The other one still says: “I won’t go anywhere alone with him. He’s in league with the devil.”

Those are not my words, they are theirs, and they are meant sincerely.

Are you willing to give the second one’s words credibility? Are you willing to consider the possibility that I performed my tricks via paranormal means?

If not, why not?
you think it is camparable with psychics' abilities?
I don not thinks so at all.
those are just tricks everyone can learn.

[Azrael 5]

Juist because I am a skeptic doesn't mean I am closed minded Rex.If she got the details correct she would be require me to think her psychic.
She knows full well who I am.

[Rex Everything]

Juist because I am a skeptic doesn't mean I am closed minded Rex.If she got the details correct she would be require me to think her psychic.
She knows full well who I am.

I only have your word on that as she is not at hand for me to speak to her at the moment (not that I'm doubting she knows of you but as you can appreciate, she knows a lot of people).

[Azrael 5]

When is she on tonight,she hasn't been trailed?

*snip*,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!
#107

[Rex Everything]

When is she on tonight,she hasn't been trailed?
#107

Apparently she's in London tonight and won't be on the show.

[Azrael 5]

From her site:
In spite of her busy schedule Diane continues to be a healer and recently flew to London to help a young child, a patient of Guys hospital, who has cancer.

So she has healing powers? Do you not find this unsavoury Rex,giving cancer patients false hope?

Though it doesn't say what "help" entails.Could be making beds I suppose?

[Big Les]

Rex, you say that your intention is to stand up for this woman. Yet your approach is to simply deny everything you see posted here, and to restate that you're not interested in evidence. On a website devoted to critical thinking, this isn't going to get you anywhere. Quit while you're ahead, or start *actually* standing up for her and post some evidence that she liaised with UK police. Better yet, that she has any abilities that cannot be explained by the known techniques you've been made aware of.

Otherwise, this is going to consist of:

"Diane's dishonest for x and y reasons."
"No she isn't".
"Why isn't she?".
"She just isn't, cos I know her".
"Yes she is".
"No she isn't".
"Why?".
"Not saying".

And so on. Now, is there any chance of a reasoned argument from you on this topic? If you can't stand up for her by trying to refute the claims made on this thread, then you're not much use to her, are you?

[Rex Everything]

So she has healing powers? Do you not find this unsavoury Rex,giving cancer patients false hope?

I'm not going to be baited on any of this, I'm not her spokesperson.

Rex, you say that your intention is to stand up for this woman. Yet your approach is to simply deny everything you see posted here, and to restate that you're not interested in evidence. On a website devoted to critical thinking, this isn't going to get you anywhere. Quit while you're ahead, or start *actually* standing up for her and post some evidence that she liaised with UK police. Better yet, that she has any abilities that cannot be explained by the known techniques you've been made aware of.

Firstly I didn't see anything in this site's terms and conditions which says you or anyone else can tell me what to post, so back off, hoss. Secondly I've made it clear I'm here to stick up for her against the personal attacks on this site which are totally uneccessary and completely unfounded. I'm not interested in proving or disproving anything - I've made that clear enough too.

[John Jackson]

I've made it clear I'm here to stick up for her against the personal attacks on this site which are totally uneccessary and completely unfounded.

Personal attacks? That's fair enough.

What about our factual claims though?

We've demonstrated (i.e. showed evidence) that Diane Lazarus has posted information about her involvement in helping the police solve cases that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In fact, her claims have been rebutted by the very police forces that she claims to have helped.

Do you class that as a 'personal attack'?

We're dealing in facts here: not insults. If you think that our facts are wrong then feel free to provide counter-evidence.

If you can't, you're not going to convince anyone of anything about Diane Lazarus simply because you happen to like her personally: it's a complete irrelevance.

[Azrael 5]

I'm not going to be baited on any of this, I'm not her spokesperson.

But you are her friend.As such is your opinion that she is right to do this? Would you want a friend who pretended she could "help" sick cancer patients.I sure wouldn't.What if it was your daughter?

[wombatwal]

Rex, are you Diane Lazarus?

[Garrette]

Don't stop Garrette.I very much appreciate the implied vote of confidence, Azrael.

I may continue, but given what Rex's goal on this thread is, I won't address comments about Lazarus' claims to him.

Today will be rough, regarding availability of time, though, as will at least the next week.

[Garrette]

yes it is evidence.
clearly.It is clearly evidence that, when looked at with any amount of scrutiny or objectivity, withers and blows away.

I do not know you, renato, or the yrreg that someone else asked if you are, but from your use of this anecdote as strong evidence I can conclude only one of three things:

1. You're having us on

2. You are happy in your beliefs and will not scrutinize them in the slightest while pretending to yourself that you do

3. You are simply unaware of the many ways in which deception (both intentional and unintentional) can occur, has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur.

On the assumption you fall under #3, I highly recommend you check out all the links in the first long response of mine to Rex back on page 13. Then do some searches for more in depth discussion of each of those topics.

[Garrette]

she saw other things too as I said.Yet you chose this one rambling, generic, disputed, unconvincing thing to share.

but anyway.you seem to be the person like many here who will never 'believe'these things are reality.How quickly we judge, eh?

I grew up believing. Quite strongly. I "raised" ghosts. The things I did, saw, and experienced in the desert mountains south of Tucson would scare the living crap out of you.

Were I of a mind, I could become wealthy, without lying, writing books about my early adulthood and how I believed and what I did. I wouldn't be lying, but I would still be deceiving.

so why waste my energy?I'm going to be quick to judge, too.

I'll tell you why you won't "waste" your energy. You're lazy.

You believe the generic twaddle of your anecdote because you're too lazy to actually check it out. You're too lazy to find out what is really out there. You're too lazy to see if this earth-shattering belief of yours is actually true.

Then you compound it by posting a few quickly composed, poorly thought, badly written diatribes because you're too lazy to take time to think about what you're saying or to write in a manner that actually communicates a coherent thought.

Now that your drivel hasn't convinced anyone, you're threatening to take the lazy way of ending the conversation instead of addressing the questions and points of those who disagree with you.

Where do you see that laziness here? The only ones on this thread doing any research, the only ones who answer pointed questions, the only ones who examine both their own ideas and the ideas of those who disagree, are the skeptics.

Laziness is not a characteristic of everyone who believes as you do, but it is of many and it certainly is of you.

You may ultimately be proven right and we may be proven wrong, but it won't be by your efforts, it will be by ours. And we will never be proven lazy.


I have a feeling that this place is regularly in stead of a skeptic forum ,more of a cynical and sometimes a sarcastic forum.There are all types here, but cynics are the minority. And I defy you to find any non-skeptic forum that is more open to discussion and debate than here or that is more tolerant of dissenting views.

You will not find those characteristics on any psychic-supporting website.

[Mojo]

I've made it clear I'm here to stick up for her against the personal attacks on this site which are totally uneccessary and completely unfounded. I'm not interested in proving or disproving anything - I've made that clear enough too.Could you be a bit more specific about these "personal attacks"? I don't recall seeing any "personal attacks" that are not directly linked to the claims she makes, or that are made on her behalf, and the apparent discrepancies between the claims and the facts. These can only be properly addressed by evidence supporting her claims.

[Garrette]

that's YOUR truth.No, that's an explanation. An alternate, more likely explanation.

doesn't say it IS the truth.The only one claiming TRUTH here is you. And you do it while refusing to look at alternate possibilities.

New Age claims to the contrary, renato, there are not multiple truths. And science (and skeptics such as you find here) does not claim to know the TRUTH. What it claims is an ever improving approximation of the truth.

What people such as you do is latch on to an idea you fancy and claim it as TRUTH while brooking no argument. That would be okay if you were honest about it, but you're not. You continue by claiming that you have actually investigated the idea when all you have done is look for like-minded supporters. Then you accuse non-believers of closed-mindedness.

You wouldn't know an open mind if it fell out of my skull.

you really think people have to know about people like Ian or Steve?If people willfully ignore explanations as embodied in the work of Ian Rowland and Steve Shaw (Banachek) and others, then those people have no basis on which to claim open-mindedness or any knowledge of TRUTH.

as if one cannot judge without having checked out magicians.When investigating claims that are duplicated by magicians, you betcha one cannot legitimately judge without having checked out magicians.

[Rex Everything]

What about our factual claims though?

They don't interest me.

Do you class that as a 'personal attack'?

No.

If you can't, you're not going to convince anyone of anything about Diane Lazarus simply because you happen to like her personally: it's a complete irrelevance.

OK please forgive me for using bold lettering but hopefully this time it will be noticed:

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am here purely to stick up for a friend against what I percieve to be personal attacks.

But you are her friend.As such is your opinion that she is right to do this? Would you want a friend who pretended she could "help" sick cancer patients.I sure wouldn't.What if it was your daughter?

I won't be baited on this. Do you really think I believe myself to be so perfect that I'm able to judge my friends like that?

Rex, are you Diane Lazarus?

Do you trust Azrael 5? Because he is able to vouch that I am not Diane.

Could you be a bit more specific about these "personal attacks"?

They're elsewhere in this thread, I can't be bothered to find them again but they were partially the reason I signed up.

[John Jackson]

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Then may I be the first to congratulate you on a job well done.

[Rex Everything]

Thanks - but you could have been the first quite some time ago if you'd read my posts properly.

[sat556]

as long as it doesn't affect my life then I really couldn't give a monkey's.


Here's the thing Rex, most of the people you will encounter on this site DO give a monkey's about other people. They hate to see people being taken in, lied to, even injured by others who will knowingly abuse them.

Do you really think a visit to a cancer patient is going to 'heal' them? Of course you don't, and I'll bet your friend doesn't either, yet that still won't stop her using that in an attempt to get more recognition and all that it might lead to.

Not that you care about that, it's not your life.

[Garrette]

I have belatedly read the beginning pages of this thread and feel I owe ChillZero an apology. Much (possibly all?) of what I have said in the last couple of pages about Lazarus' alleged police work was already commented on quite effectively by CZ here and at the other forum he links to.

Sorry, Chill, and well done.

[Rex Everything]

Here's the thing Rex, most of the people you will encounter on this site DO give a monkey's about other people. They hate to see people being taken in, lied to, even injured by others who will knowingly abuse them.

Do you really think a visit to a cancer patient is going to 'heal' them? Of course you don't, and I'll bet your friend doesn't either, yet that still won't stop her using that in an attempt to get more recognition and all that it might lead to.

Not that you care about that, it's not your life.

One thing that I've noticed which seems to be almost uniform on this site is skeptics deciding they know what us more open minded people are thinking.

So, that out of the way, now time to debunk your post.

You don't know what I think about Diane going to visit this person, but you've decided I don't think it will heal them. Actually - it might. I'm willing to entertain the notion it may have a positiver effect on the person's recovery. There's no scientific evidence for it (yet?) but let's just see.

And as for me not caring, well yet again you've read my mind. Apart from the bit you missed where of course I care and if it gives someone hope where there has previously been no hope then I don't have a problem with it. The cancer sufferer may have no hope at all - this visit, whilst it may continue that 'no hope' situation, it may give genuine hope.

So anyway, why the hostilities towards me just because I'm sticking up for a mate?

[Garrette]

Rex, the hostitility isn't for you sticking up for a mate, it's for those times when you branch out into defending her claims, even if indirectly.

I personally take great issue with visiting the cancer patient.

There is hope and there is false hope. False hope is bad enough by itself; when it is offered by someone who knows (or should know) it's false, then it becomes reprehensible.

I'll admit that I can conceive of scenarios where I would give false hope, but those scenarios most definitely do not include someone peddling such false hope as part of a business.

By your description, you would not mind if I took sugar water to the children's cancer ward and told them that drinking it would increase their chances. Sure, there's no scientific evidence it does anything beyond placebo, but hope is hope, right?

[Garrette]

One thing that I've noticed which seems to be almost uniform on this site is skeptics deciding they know what us more open minded people are thinking.Could you please tell me what definition of "open minded" you are using?

[hcmom]

So did I but my repeated requests to be deleted have obviously been ignored. I knew this forum was an addiction!

[sat556]

Apart from the bit you missed where of course I care and if it gives someone hope where there has previously been no hope then I don't have a problem with it.


I accept them as friend. If they claim to help other people out then fine, as long as it doesn't affect my life then I really couldn't give a monkey's.

That is your full sentence.



So anyway, why the hostilities towards me just because I'm sticking up for a mate?

Although it doesn't affect my life, I'm sticking up for all the gullible people your mate tries to rip off.

[Rex Everything]

Rex, the hostitility isn't for you sticking up for a mate, it's for those times when you branch out into defending her claims, even if indirectly.

I'm just reporting on what I've experienced. You people obviously will make of it what you will.

By your description, you would not mind if I took sugar water to the children's cancer ward and told them that drinking it would increase their chances. Sure, there's no scientific evidence it does anything beyond placebo, but hope is hope, right?

Yes. If it could be proven that giving them sugar water would actively harm them or make the cancer worse, then I'd object.

That is your full sentence.

Yeah? So? I stand by both of them.

Although it doesn't affect my life, I'm sticking up for all the gullible people your mate tries to rip off.

The difference being I don't think she rips them off.

Could you please tell me what definition of "open minded" you are using?

I accept there might be human abilities out there which cannot be scientifically measured but still used by some people.

[Garrette]

Yes. If it could be proven that giving them sugar water would actively harm them or make the cancer worse, then I'd object.Then this is a major source of disagreement.

I've done a minor bit of mentalism, never pretending to be real except on a couple of occasions when I planned to (and did) immediately reveal afterwards that I have no powers.

Had a discussion with a friend who believes in mediums and the like. This friend knew of my magicianship (?). After some discussion, he said something along the lines of "Well, maybe it's not real, but if it brings the people a little happiness, who are you to object?"

I've heard similar objections a lot.

The subsequent conversation went like this (G = Garrette; F = Friend) (we were at a fast food restaurant at the time).

G: You know I can do the same thing as part of a magic show, right?

F: Yeah. So?

G: You know I have no powers, right?

F: Yeah. So?

G: You know I could walk over to those girls at that table and convince them I can speak to the dead, right?

F: Sure. So?

G: Would you mind if I did that?

F: No.

G: Would you mind if I showed them enough to convince them and then asked them for money to continue?

F: Probably not. Why should I? Doesn't affect me.

G: You're dad's dead, right?

F: So what?

G: Mind if I charge your mom $300 to talk to him for her?

F: That's not the same.

G: It's exactly the same.

[Garrette]

I'm just reporting on what I've experienced. You peopleWe people?

obviously will make of it what you will.No. We make of it what we can given the paucity of information and the dreadful history of the field when asked to demonstrate the veracity of its claims.

[sat556]

Yeah? So? I stand by both of them.

You accused me of missing something out, that post was simply to prove that I did not. Are you even following what you write? :boggled:

[Big Les]

I'm not going to be baited on any of this, I'm not her spokesperson.



Firstly I didn't see anything in this site's terms and conditions which says you or anyone else can tell me what to post, so back off, hoss. Secondly I've made it clear I'm here to stick up for her against the personal attacks on this site which are totally uneccessary and completely unfounded. I'm not interested in proving or disproving anything - I've made that clear enough too.

Oh, they're both necessary and well founded. Blind denial isn't going to make them go away.

Let's try this another way. How do you propose to "stick up" for Diane? I've seen nothing so far that defends her from the claims made in any meaningful way.

[Rex Everything]

How do you propose to "stick up" for Diane?

By putting right what people get wrong about her and any other friends of mine who you (people) get something wrong about.

[Big Les]

By putting right what people get wrong about her and any other friends of mine who you (people) get something wrong about.

But so far you've offered no evidence that we are in fact "wrong", and you've expressed disinterest in doing so. You can't both stick up for her AND refuse to engage with the issues at hand. This is why I advised (not insisted) that you "quit", as your stated aim is unachievable with the approach you're using.

You're "sticking up" for her only by repeating that she's your friend and that YOU believe in her supposed psychic abilities - that's great, but we deal in evidence. Where's yours? If you have none, this is going to continue in a circular fashion until either we or you get bored.

[Rex Everything]

But so far you've offered no evidence that we are in fact "wrong", and you've expressed disinterest in doing so. You can't both stick up for her AND refuse to engage with the issues at hand. This is why I advised (not insisted) that you "quit", as your stated aim is unachievable with the approach you're using.

You're "sticking up" for her only by repeating that she's your friend and that YOU believe in her supposed psychic abilities - that's great, but we deal in evidence. Where's yours? If you have none, this is going to continue in a circular fashion until either we or you get bored.

Aye probably. But you've already forgotten what I said earlier. I'm not interested in convincing anyone of her abilities. If you people make assumptions or claims about Diane which I know to be untrue, I'll put you straight.

On the subject of her abilities, I'm not interested. That's not why I'm here.

[sat556]

On the subject of her abilities, I'm not interested. That's not why I'm here.

But that is why we are. I personally couldn't give a stuff if outside her psychic persona she's the nicest girl one could ever meet. It's the psychic stuff that's brought her to our attention, and it's what we care about.

[Rex Everything]

But that is why we are. I personally couldn't give a stuff if outside her psychic persona she's the nicest girl one could ever meet. It's the psychic stuff that's brought her to our attention, and it's what we care about.

Wonderful - all the power to you. However this thread has not only targetted her abilities - comments have been aimed at her personally and that what I care about.

[renato]

Rex, you say that your intention is to stand up for this woman. Yet your approach is to simply deny everything you see posted here, and to restate that you're not interested in evidence. On a website devoted to critical thinking, this isn't going to get you anywhere. Quit while you're ahead, or start *actually* standing up for her and post some evidence that she liaised with UK police. Better yet, that she has any abilities that cannot be explained by the known techniques you've been made aware of.

Otherwise, this is going to consist of:

"Diane's dishonest for x and y reasons."
"No she isn't".
"Why isn't she?".
"She just isn't, cos I know her".
"Yes she is".
"No she isn't".
"Why?".
"Not saying".

And so on. Now, is there any chance of a reasoned argument from you on this topic? If you can't stand up for her by trying to refute the claims made on this thread, then you're not much use to her, are you?
you know what?
it will always be "that is no proof".
what's the point in trying to convince people like you.
you'll always be negative.
n matter what.
a person's own experience doesn't count.
that's why you are nasty.you don't respect nobodies own judgment.

[Azrael 5]

Just to add-can't remember who asked-that Rex is not Diane Lazarus,I can personally vouch for as much.

[sat556]

For my part, I do have feelings about her personally. I have decided not to share them at this time (can't recall if I did earlier, probably). I don't think it's any different to reading in the paper that some confidence trickster ripped off some poor old lady... Most people would read that and say "what a (rule 8)".

[sat556]

you know what?
it will always be "that is no proof".
what's the point in trying to convince people like you.
you'll always be negative.
n matter what.
a person's own experience doesn't count.
that's why you are nasty.you don't respect nobodies own judgment.

Nasty? How do you get through life being that precious?

[John Jackson]

If you people make assumptions or claims about Diane which I know to be untrue, I'll put you straight.

We've provided evidence that the claims on her website are false.

Why not 'put us straight' if you can?

Stop ignoring the real issue and prove us wrong. If you can do that, I'll certainly issue a public apology to Diane.

[Big Les]

you know what?
it will always be "that is no proof".
what's the point in trying to convince people like you.
you'll always be negative.
n matter what.
a person's own experience doesn't count.
that's why you are nasty.you don't respect nobodies own judgment.

That's because when trying to establish the truth of a situation, as near as we can, a person's "judgement" alone is worthless. There's a reason why court cases aren't held using a single witness, or even multiple witnesses. You need evidence. It's the same here.

If someone tells me that they saw something unusual but not extraordinary, like a street brawl, I will trust their account (or judgement if you will). If they tell me that the brawl consisted of 50 people all dressed as woodland creatures, I will be less convinced but may take them at their word, since this is at least possible. If they tell me that they saw a ghost, witnessed an alien spacecraft, channelled Elvis, or used psychic powers to assist the police, those are all extraordinary claims that require evidence for me to believe them. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

If I tell you I have a magic goose that lays golden eggs, you will expect me to prove it, will you not?

[Big Les]

Wonderful - all the power to you. However this thread has not only targetted her abilities - comments have been aimed at her personally and that what I care about.

Others have asked, I will do so again. What specifically personal comments have been made on this thread?

But that is why we are. I personally couldn't give a stuff if outside her psychic persona she's the nicest girl one could ever meet. It's the psychic stuff that's brought her to our attention, and it's what we care about.

Exactly - Rex, you're trying to defend against personal attacks that a) haven't been made as far as I'm aware, and b) aren't the focus of this thread (see point a)).

If you're saying that calling her "dishonest" is a personal attack, well then you've seen "our" evidence that shows she has been so. Where's yours?

[John Jackson]

One thing that I've noticed which seems to be almost uniform on this site is skeptics deciding they know what us more open minded people are thinking.

Do I spot an appeal to be open minded (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php)? :D

Sorry, you're not going to get us with that tired old gem. ;)

[Rex Everything]

We've provided evidence that the claims on her website are false.

What is 'evidence' to you might be debateable to others.

Why not 'put us straight' if you can?

To do that I'd need to speak to her first.

Stop ignoring the real issue and prove us wrong. If you can do that, I'll certainly issue a public apology to Diane.

You mean stop ignoring your issue. And I'm not after an apology to anyone.

Others have asked, I will do so again. What specifically personal comments have been made on this thread?

And as I have also said, I can't be bothered to read through this thread again to pull them out.

Exactly - Rex, you're trying to defend against personal attacks that a) haven't been made as far as I'm aware, and b) aren't the focus of this thread (see point a)).

a) Yes they have been made and b) I don't care about the focus of this thread.

If you're saying that calling her "dishonest" is a personal attack, well then you've seen "our" evidence that shows she has been so. Where's yours?

I'll give you credit for the way you're trying to bait me in to you 'focus' of this thread but I'm not biting.

[renato]

It is clearly evidence that, when looked at with any amount of scrutiny or objectivity, withers and blows away.

I do not know you, renato, or the yrreg that someone else asked if you are, but from your use of this anecdote as strong evidence I can conclude only one of three things:

1. You're having us on

2. You are happy in your beliefs and will not scrutinize them in the slightest while pretending to yourself that you do

3. You are simply unaware of the many ways in which deception (both intentional and unintentional) can occur, has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur.

On the assumption you fall under #3, I highly recommend you check out all the links in the first long response of mine to Rex back on page 13. Then do some searches for more in depth discussion of each of those topics.

1.I'd rather think that you are having me on.
it is almost impossible how you can be so negative and ignore all experiences of people with psychics.
you seem to think everybody is easy to fool around with and that's what is happening to all the people who do admit the fact that the sixht sense does exist.

2. do you scrutinize your believes?
for me clairvoyance is as real as gravitation or the sun.the things I have experienced with psychic people makes me think this way ,yes.
when I was in the army there came a new guy,(just before I went out of the army,end of my duty) who saw all kinds of real personal things with different kinds of soldiers whom he has no private knowledge of.he was new.but did see very personal things.anybody who would meet this guy and his abilities and still claims it's fake ,is denying it for a reason.and that reason is not because it is a fraud.go ask yourself why .and don't come up with your so called scientific way of thinking.cause you are not excepting some real experiences you cannot explain.

3.you think I'm easy to mislead?
you don't know me ,so dont make claims as if I can't see trough tricks.
some things you just can't trick my friend.how eager you want it though.

#3 I don't have to check all the links in the response between you and Rex to have part in a discussion.
I tell you what my experience is.what I saw ,an if you refuse to believe me then fine.don't read my responses. .
cause there is no way I can proof what I experienced with the guy in the army and other people .
can I?
do I have to look for these people and send them to you to say to you what they experienced with the guy ?it will still not be proof to you.
pity for you.the trut won't change.
as buddha said.'there is only one truth,not different ones ,but only one'.
and you can think and find what you want.but I have experienced things with people which make me convinced that there is more then what you can see with your eyes.
I think you're the one who should search or better research,by connecting to some well known psychics and let them tell you some things about your sceptic mind

[renato]

Rex, are you Diane Lazarus?
is that you John Wayne?
is this me?

how funny

[sat556]

3.you think I'm easy to mislead?
you don't know me ,so dont make claims as if I can't see trough tricks.
some things you just can't trick my friend.how eager you want it though.


Are you saying that you are impossible to trick?

People who think that are always the best ones to get :D

[renato]

Yet you chose this one rambling, generic, disputed, unconvincing thing to share.

How quickly we judge, eh?

I grew up believing. Quite strongly. I "raised" ghosts. The things I did, saw, and experienced in the desert mountains south of Tucson would scare the living crap out of you.

Were I of a mind, I could become wealthy, without lying, writing books about my early adulthood and how I believed and what I did. I wouldn't be lying, but I would still be deceiving.

I'm going to be quick to judge, too.

I'll tell you why you won't "waste" your energy. You're lazy.

You believe the generic twaddle of your anecdote because you're too lazy to actually check it out. You're too lazy to find out what is really out there. You're too lazy to see if this earth-shattering belief of yours is actually true.

Then you compound it by posting a few quickly composed, poorly thought, badly written diatribes because you're too lazy to take time to think about what you're saying or to write in a manner that actually communicates a coherent thought.

Now that your drivel hasn't convinced anyone, you're threatening to take the lazy way of ending the conversation instead of addressing the questions and points of those who disagree with you.

Where do you see that laziness here? The only ones on this thread doing any research, the only ones who answer pointed questions, the only ones who examine both their own ideas and the ideas of those who disagree, are the skeptics.

Laziness is not a characteristic of everyone who believes as you do, but it is of many and it certainly is of you.

You may ultimately be proven right and we may be proven wrong, but it won't be by your efforts, it will be by ours. And we will never be proven lazy.


There are all types here, but cynics are the minority. And I defy you to find any non-skeptic forum that is more open to discussion and debate than here or that is more tolerant of dissenting views.

You will not find those characteristics on any psychic-supporting website.

how quickly we judge?no if I would judge I would call you an ******* for calling me lazy. and"Yet you chose this one rambling, generic, disputed, unconvincing thing to share"
you are the one who is judging the whole time.
with you're "I raised ghosts". you think you are special doing that?
anybody can do that.
what do you want to say with it anway.you do not seem to believe in anything and now you claim to raise ghosts?
you got a complex or something?what you want to proof?

you call me lazy because I am not interested in your friends magic tricks.cause it just doens't proof psychics are deceiving.
come workout with me one ay and I'll have your tongue licking the floor.
you bad mouth...

and that I write badly, is because I'm from holland.english is not my first language.I just had a few years of english at school and that's it.
but if you weren't lazy you could have read that some posts earlier.bwah what a negative person you are.'
raising ghosts.very smart thing to do is it....

[John Jackson]

What is 'evidence' to you might be debateable to others.

Do you mean that the evidence provided by us, such as the rebuttal of Diane Lazarus's claims by the very police forces she's claimed to have helped, is 'debateable evidence'?

Stop being so stupid man.

Provide counter-evidence if you can; and if you can't: you're wrong.

[renato]

Yet you chose this one rambling, generic, disputed, unconvincing thing to share.

How quickly we judge, eh?

I grew up believing. Quite strongly. I "raised" ghosts. The things I did, saw, and experienced in the desert mountains south of Tucson would scare the living crap out of you.

Were I of a mind, I could become wealthy, without lying, writing books about my early adulthood and how I believed and what I did. I wouldn't be lying, but I would still be deceiving.

I'm going to be quick to judge, too.

I'll tell you why you won't "waste" your energy. You're lazy.

You believe the generic twaddle of your anecdote because you're too lazy to actually check it out. You're too lazy to find out what is really out there. You're too lazy to see if this earth-shattering belief of yours is actually true.

Then you compound it by posting a few quickly composed, poorly thought, badly written diatribes because you're too lazy to take time to think about what you're saying or to write in a manner that actually communicates a coherent thought.

Now that your drivel hasn't convinced anyone, you're threatening to take the lazy way of ending the conversation instead of addressing the questions and points of those who disagree with you.

Where do you see that laziness here? The only ones on this thread doing any research, the only ones who answer pointed questions, the only ones who examine both their own ideas and the ideas of those who disagree, are the skeptics.

Laziness is not a characteristic of everyone who believes as you do, but it is of many and it certainly is of you.

You may ultimately be proven right and we may be proven wrong, but it won't be by your efforts, it will be by ours. And we will never be proven lazy.


There are all types here, but cynics are the minority. And I defy you to find any non-skeptic forum that is more open to discussion and debate than here or that is more tolerant of dissenting views.

You will not find those characteristics on any psychic-supporting website.

how quickly we judge?no if I would judge I would call you a 'peeep' for calling me lazy. and"Yet you chose this one rambling, generic, disputed, unconvincing thing to share"
you are the one who is judging the whole time.
with your "I raised ghosts". you think you are special doing that?
anybody can do that.and too many ignorant people do that.THAT ,is not a game.
what do you want to say with it anway.you do not seem to believe in anything and now you claim to raise ghosts?
what do you want to say ?

you call me lazy because I am not interested in your friends magic tricks.and I'm not interested, because those tricks just doens't proof psychics are not for real.one lie is one lie.not two.

come workout with the weights doing some heavy squats or bench presses or anything , and I'll have your tongue licking the floor.
you with your bad mouth...

and that I write badly, is because I'm from holland.english is not my first language.I just had a few years of english at school and that's it.
but if you weren't lazy you could have read that some posts earlier.I already explained that.bwah what a negative person you are.
raising ghosts.keep on raising ghosts.it won't help you in your life.

[John Jackson]

it is almost impossible how you can be so negative and ignore all experiences of people with psychics.
you seem to think everybody is easy to fool around with and that's what is happening to all the people who do admit the fact that the sixht sense does exist.

We're well aware of how people can be fooled into believing that a sixth sense exists.

This requires knowledge of cold reading etc., and the many cognitive biases that humans possess as pointed out to you earlier in this thread.

You clearly have no such knowledge, nor do you show any signs of willingness to acquire it, and so you will go on believing in something that you don't understand.

That's your prerogative; but don't try to mock others based on your own self-imposed ignorance on such matters.

[renato]

[QUOTE=Garrette;2103852]
I grew up believing. Quite strongly. I "raised" ghosts. The things I did, saw, and experienced in the desert mountains south of Tucson would scare the living crap out of you.
QUOTE]
you seem to have experienced things yourself but still do not seem to be able to see the reality of it.

what's your problem?
why are you looking for trouble?
you were with those ghosts and now you are with me.

[Big Les]

I can't be bothered to read through this thread again to pull them out.

I don't care about the focus of this thread.

I'll give you credit for the way you're trying to bait me in to you 'focus' of this thread but I'm not biting.

I'm not trying to bait you into anything - you came here of your own volition. It's pretty much taken as read that when you reply to an internet forum thread, that you're interested in its contents and opening post.

You apparently aren't; so why are you still posting?

[renato]

Then this is a major source of disagreement.

I've done a minor bit of mentalism, never pretending to be real except on a couple of occasions when I planned to (and did) immediately reveal afterwards that I have no powers.

Had a discussion with a friend who believes in mediums and the like. This friend knew of my magicianship (?). After some discussion, he said something along the lines of "Well, maybe it's not real, but if it brings the people a little happiness, who are you to object?"

I've heard similar objections a lot.

The subsequent conversation went like this (G = Garrette; F = Friend) (we were at a fast food restaurant at the time).

G: You know I can do the same thing as part of a magic show, right?

F: Yeah. So?

G: You know I have no powers, right?

F: Yeah. So?

G: You know I could walk over to those girls at that table and convince them I can speak to the dead, right?

F: Sure. So?

G: Would you mind if I did that?

F: No.

G: Would you mind if I showed them enough to convince them and then asked them for money to continue?

F: Probably not. Why should I? Doesn't affect me.

G: You're dad's dead, right?

F: So what?

G: Mind if I charge your mom $300 to talk to him for her?

F: That's not the same.

G: It's exactly the same.
I can hardly believe this.

what do you want to say with these questions and answers?
that if you can do some tricks and make it look like if you are a psychic to some people(you seem to be impresse by the audience's reaction yourself) ,that doesn't mean that you are a psychic.or that the psychic is a con like you are with your tricks .
it doesn't say anything AT ALL.only, that you are able to fool the crowd.
the things I experienced with psychic people, YOU, my .....? friend, will not be able to do that.not the things they said.maybe other things, by guessing.
call it cold reading whatever.but you will never be as precise as a real psychic.some facts you are not able to give.and certainly not as fast as a psychic can.

the problem is that you seem to confuse one thing with the other.
you're comparing apples and oranges.
you will never be convinced because you don't seem to be able to.
the ability is not in your head to see facts.if it would be ,then you would have seen them a long time ago.when you were 'raising ghosts',for example.
don't play with these things.karma isn't something you can escape.you don't know what you play with and what the effecs are.you are no Diane.

[renato]

I'm not trying to bait you into anything - you came here of your own volition. It's pretty much taken as read that when you reply to an internet forum thread, that you're interested in its contents and opening post.

You apparently aren't; so why are you still posting?
I think REX has shown quite a lot of interest.
and has reacted to many of you skeptic people.more than anybody would, to such negative approach from many of you skeptics(except for a politician then,which is part of his job.).
so why asking him "why are you still posting"?
as if every skeptic on this forum has read every word on this post.
you see the splinter in someone elses eye, but the beam in your own eye you don't notice.

[renato]

Do you mean that the evidence provided by us, such as the rebuttal of Diane Lazarus's claims by the very police forces she's claimed to have helped, is 'debateable evidence'?

Stop being so stupid man.

Provide counter-evidence if you can; and if you can't: you're wrong.

if you want to know if she is for real.
contact her.
instead of saying from out of your chair that it is all a lie.
you have similarities with that archie bunker guy from 'it's all in the family'.

calling REX stupid.look in the mirror man.

[Big Les]

He's explaining why he believes taking money for claims you can't substantiate is wrong. He's also pointing out that he was/is able to achieve the same results (i.e. no better than chance) as any so-called psychic, using simple parlour tricks. If he and others can do this without using "psychic" powers, then how is anyone to know the "real" psychics from the mentalists? The answer is that they aren't to know, unless the performer owns up. In other words, if Diane and others have genuine powers, they are indistinguishable from simple tricks. That suggests to many that they either are not genuine, or must be proven by evidence. This evidence ought to be easy to provide if psychics are able to obtain any real information that a non-psychic could not. To date, no-one has been able to do this.

As for your definition of "facts", what you are actually referring to are anecdotes, opinions and beliefs, all un-informed and inconsequential. Simply calling something a fact does not make it so.

[Big Les]

I think REX has shown quite a lot of interest.
and has reacted to many of you skeptic people.more than anybody would, to such negative approach from many of you skeptics(except for a politician then,which is part of his job.).
so why asking him "why are you still posting"?
as if every skeptic on this forum has read every word on this post.
you see the splinter in someone elses eye, but the beam in your own eye you don't notice.

Confucious, he say "Man who talk gibberish, he should read the bloody thread".

[renato]

We're well aware of how people can be fooled into believing that a sixth sense exists.

This requires knowledge of cold reading etc., and the many cognitive biases that humans possess as pointed out to you earlier in this thread.

You clearly have no such knowledge, nor do you show any signs of willingness to acquire it, and so you will go on believing in something that you don't understand.

That's your prerogative; but don't try to mock others based on your own self-imposed ignorance on such matters.
I had my experiences.
with cold reading and things alike you cannot come up with what I've experienced.
and don't come up with that childish behaviour like "you show any signs of willing to acquire it,so you wil go on believing in something that you don't understand".
you don't understand and you are not willing to understand.

calling me ignorance? .look into the mirror.
your head is made out of concrete.nothing is in it and nothing is able to go in it.

[politas]

if you want to know if she is for real.
contact her.
instead of saying from out of your chair that it is all a lie.
you have similarities with that archie bunker guy from 'it's all in the family'.

calling REX stupid.look in the mirror man.
Sorry, are you saying the best way to tell if someone is lying is to ask them?

Wow, that's a level of gullibility that simply stuns me.

[renato]

He's explaining why he believes taking money for claims you can't substantiate is wrong. He's also pointing out that he was/is able to achieve the same results (i.e. no better than chance) as any so-called psychic, using simple parlour tricks. If he and others can do this without using "psychic" powers, then how is anyone to know the "real" psychics from the mentalists? The answer is that they aren't to know, unless the performer owns up. In other words, if Diane and others have genuine powers, they are indistinguishable from simple tricks. That suggests to many that they either are not genuine, or must be proven by evidence. This evidence ought to be easy to provide if psychics are able to obtain any real information that a non-psychic could not. To date, no-one has been able to do this.

As for your definition of "facts", what you are actually referring to are anecdotes, opinions and beliefs, all un-informed and inconsequential. Simply calling something a fact does not make it so.

this is simple.should I react to this?
some things a pychic comes up with a magcian will never be able to do with tricks.
REX already gave you an example.about somthing Dian said to him.something she couldn't have guessed.
but you here don't seem to be willing to know.that was the reason I got agitated when reading all of you and your reactions.dumb and agressive attacks to people who do acknowledge the powers of some people.
you people will not change in thinking and in unpolite manners.
I think I would have had more progress when talking to a chimpansee.
they are more open and willing to learn.

[renato]

Sorry, are you saying the best way to tell if someone is lying is to ask them?

Wow, that's a level of gullibility that simply stuns me.
another empty head on this forum.

did I say you have to ask if her abilities are true?
ask her about you and your empty life.
she will tell you what kind of person you are with your concrete brain.

and will cme with things your magician club isn't able to come up with.
with all that cold reading stuff.

but I think she shoudn't use her energies on people like you.
bwah!

[hcmom]

...but I think she shoudn't use her energies on people like you.
bwah!

What she for sure won't use is her very valuable time, unless you pay her for it. And then, if she's wrong, people who want to believe still will, preferring instead to doubt the credibility of the subject.

[sat556]

Renato. You are wrong.
Now that seems to be the sort of evidence you like, are you going to accept it?

You seem very sure of Diane's abilities, and resort to insults when people don't agree with you. What is your interest in her? Or is it that you think sticking up for one 'psychic' sticks up for them all?

[chillzero]

What is 'evidence' to you might be debateable to others.

So why not debate it then - that's all we hope for.


And as I have also said, I can't be bothered to read through this thread again to pull them out.



a) Yes they have been made and b) I don't care about the focus of this thread.

The focus of this thread is not how nice Dianne is as a person. It concerns the validity of claims she makes. If you don't want to discuss those claims, then open your own thread to discuss what a wonderful friend she is to have and stop derailing this one.



I'll give you credit for the way you're trying to bait me in to you 'focus' of this thread but I'm not biting.

Then take it to another thread. If you won't discuss the topic at hand on a thread, you are being incredibly rude by diverting the conversation in another direction. The focus of [b]this[/] thread is whether evidence matches what Dianne claims. If you have nothing to add to that conversation, then stop adding useless background noise to the disussion at hand.

[chillzero]

if you want to know if she is for real.
contact her.



I tried that. Unless she was going to get paid for it, she wasn't willing to give me just a few minutes to answer a few very simple questions. Something that would have earned her endless credibility - I was intending to publish the information - and could also have put her on course for picking up a million dollars, should she have desired it.

Only if, of course, she isn't hiding anything. Like knowledge that what she does takes only a little bit of knowledge of human reactions and body language, and a charismatic personality. And I am speaking about this from my own experience as a new-age tarot reader, healer and ex-'psychic'. I was willing to test myself to prove to myself, my customers and the world that these things were real. Guess what I learned?
I like to think I made a better decision to stay poor and sleep easy, than make a fortune charging gullible people for readings, healing, and so on.

[John Jackson]

REX already gave you an example.about somthing Dian said to him.something she couldn't have guessed.

Wasn't it a nickname - a name that "no-one could possibly have known"?

Well I'm sure there's no transcript of this reading but I bet it was Diane getting an 'elderly gentleman' (or whoever) and providing and initial or two and Rex who supplied the actual nickname.

If you think that's an unlikely explanation I suggest that you look at a few psychics in action or read a few transcripts of their readings.

Also...

I've asked a couple of times already whether Diane's sycophants can provide any counter-evidence to the evidence that shows the information on her website is false. So far, we've heard nothing.

I think that speaks for itself!

[politas]

Wasn't it a nickname - a name that "no-one could possibly have known"?

Well I'm sure there's no transcript of this reading but I bet it was Diane getting an 'elderly gentleman' (or whoever) and providing and initial or two and Rex who supplied the actual nickname.

If you think that's an unlikely explanation I suggest that you look at a few psychics in action or read a few transcripts of their readings.

Also...

I've asked a couple of times already whether Diane's sycophants can provide any counter-evidence to the evidence that shows the information on her website is false. So far, we've heard nothing.

I think that speaks for itself!
No, it was seeing a photo of his daughter and suggesting he was going to take her to <some unspecified place or event>. No information as to what the unspecified place or event is, other than a claim that it is an unusual sort of place or event, that people are not prone to taking their daughhters to.

No indication of how many general conversations including his daughter he had previously had with Diane, how long they had known each other when the "psychic" comment was made, or whether he had ever discussed said place or event with Diane.

Typical worthless and unconvincing anecdote, lacking in important detail.

[Beth]

No, it was seeing a photo of his daughter and suggesting he was going to take her to <some unspecified place or event>. No information as to what the unspecified place or event is, other than a claim that it is an unusual sort of place or event, that people are not prone to taking their daughhters to.

No indication of how many general conversations including his daughter he had previously had with Diane, how long they had known each other when the "psychic" comment was made, or whether he had ever discussed said place or event with Diane.

Typical worthless and unconvincing anecdote, lacking in important detail.

You know, given the incredibly hostile reception anyone gets to posting about a personal psychic experience here, I cannot blame Rex or anyone else for not doing so.

[Mojo]

You know, given the incredibly hostile reception anyone gets to posting about a personal psychic experience here, I cannot blame Rex or anyone else for not doing so.He's getting a hostile reception because he is making claims without presenting evidence.

[Azrael 5]

You do like sticking up for woos don't you Beth? I recall being chastised by you recently for being horrid to someone on here!!
I do think people know what to expect on this forum.

[LeFevre]

Ahem...

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

:D :D :D

Cheers for the laugh John!

[renato]

Renato. You are wrong.
Now that seems to be the sort of evidence you like, are you going to accept it?

You seem very sure of Diane's abilities, and resort to insults when people don't agree with you. What is your interest in her? Or is it that you think sticking up for one 'psychic' sticks up for them all?

I am wrong?
I insult people who don't agree with me?
I just give back what I recieve from those so warm and friendly people here.

my interest in Diane?
I LIKE DIANE :-) (she is a bit funny and cute I think,in a positive way ofcourse.)
now how can that be?
I only saw here on tv ?
her way of doing .when she walked through that field with her red hat on.
just gave me warm feelings about her.
yess
strange? not to me.I don't care for angola jolie kind of women.
I look a little deeper into a person .I'm no psychic though.no need to be to some things too :-O

what I said earlier.she is friendly and uuhm appealing.? .uhm don't know the right words in english but I saw here working with a family also(on tv).
who had two young boys.
the way she saw the things in that familiy gave her vision, and what positive vibes she made loose in that family did for me.
she made the father look into himself,and made him see who he really was.that made him love his son better(of whom he thought he was too "soft").that's always good ,whether you are a psychic or not.
;- ) think about it.

[renato]

You know, given the incredibly hostile reception anyone gets to posting about a personal psychic experience here, I cannot blame Rex or anyone else for not doing so.

I have to admit that REX has better control over his emotions/reactions than I do.
when I saw ,when I looked over here for the first time a couple of days ago,how the people here attacked those who were positive about their experiences with a psychic,it got me really agitated.I hate injustice.
that is what is hapening here .
I thought.what they do I can do better.but the way Rex reacted is much wiser.
the only thing I accomplish is a non-stop battle of words leading nowhere.
cause these people here are not gonna change their way of thinking.
not in a mile.
I think Rex took a lot of effort by reacting ,even though he was constantly under unreasonable and offensive attack.and still he reacted calmly.
THAT is something I have to learn :-)

[renato]

He's getting a hostile reception because he is making claims without presenting evidence.
you're so nice ..

that I wouldn't turn my back on you in a hundred yards.

[Mojo]

You, on the other hand, have been consistently hostile and rude, and occasionally abusive, since your first post on the forum, so your claim that you "just give back what [you] recieve from those so warm and friendly people here" looks a little wide of the mark. Mind you, your habit of not leaving a space after punctuation looks a little familiar. Have you had previous experience of this board?

[hcmom]

Mind you, your habit of not leaving a space after punctuation looks a little familiar. Have you had previous experience of this board?

I thought it was maybe an example of the performance art genre "Using Punctuation Marks as a Higher Art Form"...

[politas]

You know, given the incredibly hostile reception anyone gets to posting about a personal psychic experience here, I cannot blame Rex or anyone else for not doing so.

If you consider what I said a "hostile" response, then you have a strange idea of what hostile means. I simply stated why Rex's anecdote was unconvincing, and noted that most anecdotes presented in support of psychics are similarly lacking in background details. I in no way denigrated Rex as a person, nor did I threaten him or anyone he knows in any way. In what way was I hostile?

If you think the details I mentioned are an unreasonable demand, then you will probably never understand the skeptical mindset.

[politas]

what I said earlier.she is friendly and uuhm appealing.? .uhm don't know the right words in english but I saw here working with a family also(on tv).
who had two young boys.
the way she saw the things in that familiy gave her vision, and what positive vibes she made loose in that family did for me.
she made the father look into himself,and made him see who he really was.that made him love his son better(of whom he thought he was too "soft").that's always good ,whether you are a psychic or not.
;- ) think about it.
I suspect the word you are looking for is "charismatic", given the context. Popular psychics are usually fairly charismatic people; that's what makes them popular.

However, it is entirely possible to be a charismatic speaker and help people deal with their interpersonal issues without claiming the authority of dead people. If Diane does not have the powers she claims, then she is lying to people. Would you like to pay someone to lie to you?

[John Jackson]

Woos love to play the victim on forums - it's standard procedure.:D

"You're arrogant", "I find your remarks offensive", "I'm being abused and insulted".....

They do it as if by repeating the claim ad nauseum that anyone else reading it will actually believe it. I think if we did an 'insult count' on this thread that Renato would come out top. ;)

To paraphrase Bertrand Russell: If someone questioning your beliefs causes you to become angry or hurt, it's a sure sign that you have no good reason to think as you do.

All Renato is really saying is that he doesn't want Diane Lazarus's claims scrutinised because he has a crush on her.

Instead of trying to make out that skeptics are nasty bullies and woos are 'innocence abused', how about answering the question of whether the information on Diane Lazarus's website is true or false?

We've provided evidence that it is false, where's the counter evidence?

[Beth]

If you consider what I said a "hostile" response, then you have a strange idea of what hostile means. I simply stated why Rex's anecdote was unconvincing, and noted that most anecdotes presented in support of psychics are similarly lacking in background details. I in no way denigrated Rex as a person, nor did I threaten him or anyone he knows in any way. In what way was I hostile?

If you think the details I mentioned are an unreasonable demand, then you will probably never understand the skeptical mindset.

No, I didn't consider what you said to be a hostile response. I think the details you mentioned are quite reasonable. However, I can easily understand why Rex would not want to provide them. Personally, I think that's a shame because I'd like to discuss such experiences in more detail.

[Mojo]

No, I didn't consider what you said to be a hostile response. I think the details you mentioned are quite reasonable. However, I can easily understand why Rex would not want to provide them. Why would he not want to provide them?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I suspect the word you are looking for is "charismatic", given the context.

Any chance I can mention a very charismatic leader who once was responsible for a recent European war? ;)

Thereby invoking Godwin's Law on this thread?

Please. :covereyes

[John Jackson]

However, I can easily understand why Rex would not want to provide them. Personally, I think that's a shame because I'd like to discuss such experiences in more detail.

Like I said, repeat ad nauseum.....

[Beth]

Why would he not want to provide them?

Because of the way anyone who presents details of personal psychic experiences is treated in this forum. Its a very hostile place to discuss such experiences. In my opinion, it's a shame, but I can certainly understand why people would be reluctant to do so.

[Big Les]

They're invariably treated in such a way because they offer uncorroborated anecdotes, and most people here see little value in such pseudo-evidence. When they also refuse to discuss the topic at hand, a hostile response is assured and in my opinion deserved.

[Beth]

And what is a personal experience but an uncorroborated anecdote?

[hcmom]

Because of the way anyone who presents details of personal psychic experiences is treated in this forum. Its a very hostile place to discuss such experiences. In my opinion, it's a shame, but I can certainly understand why people would be reluctant to do so.
And what is a personal experience but an uncorroborated anecdote?

Beth, in theory, I almost agree with you. I've noticed several times a tendency to ridicule first, ask questions later, if ever.

However, I've seen, many more times, someone put their personal experience in such vague murky terms that it's tough to tell whether it's a true experience, or just something that's being made up as they go along. By someone who doesn't think well, or fast, on their feet.

I suppose it's turned into a vicious circle...

[renato]

I think if we did an 'insult count' on this thread that Renato would come out top. ;)

All Renato is really saying is that he doesn't want Diane Lazarus's claims scrutinised because he has a crush on her.



I insulting? just following the standard procedures here :-)


and your just jealous that I am not having 'a crush' on you.
hehe

but I do think you're a funny man though :-P

[renato]

Would you like to pay someone to lie to you?

because she doesn't lie?

[renato]

They're invariably treated in such a way because they offer uncorroborated anecdotes, and most people here see little value in such pseudo-evidence. When they also refuse to discuss the topic at hand, a hostile response is assured and in my opinion deserved.
hostality is not deserved.talking about ogical thinking and knowing what is justified and what not.
you make an excuse to be hostile.
it's you who want to be hostile.but you haven't got the right.
and then types like you complain when being treated the same way as you do others?
that's completely illogical.

[renato]

However, I've seen, many more times, someone put their personal experience in such vague murky terms that it's tough to tell whether it's a true experience, or just something that's being made up as they go along. By someone who doesn't think well, or fast, on their feet.

I suppose it's turned into a vicious circle...

this discussion wll not change anyones thoughts.
not the skeptics and not me and others who know psychichs are a reality.
when I talk about my experiences ,it will be seen by skeptics as vague and unproven.which they are inmy opinion not.
so why talk and discuss any further?
somebody here knows a good site on psyhics and their work?
like that of Diane?
I mean a forum like this ,but mostly with people who are positive about this subject with lots of info and not rejecting everything before they listened.

I'm for real.but how do you know.now I'm not looking to prove myself and what I have seen what psychic people are capable of .
if people don't believe what I say we're done.

[renato]

Because of the way anyone who presents details of personal psychic experiences is treated in this forum. Its a very hostile place to discuss such experiences. In my opinion, it's a shame, but I can certainly understand why people would be reluctant to do so.
I can understand that too.
there is nothing to 'win'in this place.
most if not all are prejudiced.

[hcmom]

this discussion wll not change anyones thoughts.
not the skeptics and not me and others who know psychichs are a reality.


Renato. If you really desire to change anyone's thoughts on psychics, find one who will agree to attempt the Million Dollar Challenge. Have them also post on this forum as things progress, so that their side of the story is discussed. I am, I swear, willing to be unbiased, and if I see anything that looks like the JREF is trying to weasel out of anything, I'll call attention to it. If they are successful in the Challenge, not only do they win the money, but at least a few skeptics here might be inclined to rethink their opinions.

[Big Les]

I can understand that too.
there is nothing to 'win'in this place.
most if not all are prejudiced.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but yes, I am prejudiced. Prejudiced against any claim that a human being has psychic abilities, because 100 years of investigation by "both sides" has failed to yield the slightest piece of evidence that such abilities exist.

You seem to think that people like us are dead-set against there being any such abilities or related phenomena, but speaking for myself, I would be over the moon if any of it were proved. Any of it - ghosts, clairvoyance, telekinesis, ANY of it. But there is not a shred of evidence. And in this case, another fraud claims to have worked with an organisation in authority, to boost her credibility amongst the credulous. And it's been shown to be false.

So you'll forgive me if the off-topic ramblings of one more psychic groupie wannabe fail to convince me of anything but their own delusion.

[politas]

Would you like to pay someone to lie to you?because she doesn't lie?
That sentence is not an answer to the question you quoted. Not in any way.

Diane's website has what has been shown to be false statements. Not accidentally false statements, but deliberately false statements. This indicates that Diane is willing to make false statements about what she does. It doesn't prove that she always lies, but shows that she might lie.

Someone with a demonstrated history of making false claims about what they do is not someone I am going to simply trust to "not lie".

It is possible to achieve results as a psychic by lieing. Diane has been shown to be a liar.

[politas]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but yes, I am prejudiced. Prejudiced against any claim that a human being has psychic abilities, because 100 years of investigation by "both sides" has failed to yield the slightest piece of evidence that such abilities exist.

And a simple understanding of genetics and biology makes it clear that if anybody had such highly developed and clear powers, then everybody should have at least some level of the same ability. The ability to gain knowledge in such a fashion is such an evolutionary advantage that it would be strongly selected for. It should be a common trait, not an extremely uncommon one.

[Mojo]

Because of the way anyone who presents details of personal psychic experiences is treated in this forum. I have rarely seen anyone present details. What I have tended to see is someone presenting a vague account of something they claim shows that a psychic is genuine, and then becoming evasive (and accusing others of hostility) when asked for details.

[politas]

I have rarely seen anyone present details. What I have tended to see is someone presenting a vague account of something they claim shows that a psychic is genuine, and then becoming evasive (and accusing others of hostility) when asked for details.

Asking for details is a waste of time. If a person doesn't present the kind of detail I mentioned earlier when they first present their anecdote, they are probably unable to accurately present such information. If they had been paying attention sufficiently at the time, they would have taken note of such detail, and, knowing the convincing power of those details, would have presented them initially.

If I had experienced a psychic telling me something out of the blue that they had no way of knowing, I would not be saying "I was a skeptic, but now I believe...", I'd be saying "I can't see how this can be explained, can anyone else? Here are the details..." If you aren't doing that, then I can't trust your anecdote, because you obviously aren't thinking critically about it. We skeptics are open to the possibility that we have been duped.

[Garrette]

And what is a personal experience but an uncorroborated anecdote?The whole of the evidence for the paranormal?

[Garrette]

No, it was seeing a photo of his daughter and suggesting he was going to take her to <some unspecified place or event>. No information as to what the unspecified place or event is, other than a claim that it is an unusual sort of place or event, that people are not prone to taking their daughhters to.

No indication of how many general conversations including his daughter he had previously had with Diane, how long they had known each other when the "psychic" comment was made, or whether he had ever discussed said place or event with Diane.

Typical worthless and unconvincing anecdote, lacking in important detail.For the lurkers out there, politas has it exactly right.

Rex knew/had known Lazarus for quite some time (length has been unspecified). He considers both her and her husband a friend.

Even if we knew for a fact that Rex had never mentioned this very private matter to Lazarus, it does not mean we must assume any of the following:

1. The daughter never gave the information to Lazarus

2. The mother never gave the information to Lazarus

3. The information could not be reasonably inferred from the observations provided over a lengthy friendship

None of which is addressing the statistical thing: How many things did Lazarus say that are not true? Given that there are no records, we will never know.

[Garrette]

1.I'd rather think that you are having me on.I’m not.



it is almost impossible how you can be so negativeNegative? Not in the slightest. Intolerant of your dismissive attitude and habit of not listening to the criticisms as stated, yes. But not negative.


and ignore all experiences of people with psychics.Please pay more attention. It is precisely because I have NOT ignored the experiences but have in fact looked into them that I now no longer believe.


you seem to think everybody is easy to fool around withYes. And if you paid attention here or did some research on your own you would realize this. We are especially adept at fooling ourselves.


and that's what is happening to all the people who do admit the fact that the sixht sense does exist. 1. Define “sixth sense.”

2. Pick five of your favorite psychics and have them define “sixth sense.” Do the definitions match?

3. Some of the people who “do admit the fact” are frauds and liars. Do you think there are none of these out there? If you agree that some exist, please tell me the criteria by which you judge who is legitimate and who is fraudulent.

4. Some of the people who “do admit the fact” are honest but deluded. Further, some of this group will change their minds when provided the information that allows them to more clearly analyze what they see. Some won’t, regardless.

5. Some of the people who “do admit the fact” may, in fact, possess or be witness to legitimately paranormal powers. Given that no one has demonstrated such powers in the century and a half that they have begun to be rigorously tested, I say the odds are slim they exist. If you disagree, please point me to the test or tests showing me wrong. And before you say they can’t be tested, please read Lazarus’ website which says (I already quoted it) that she can turn her powers off and on at will.



2. do you scrutinize your believes?Absolutely. It’s how I stopped believing in the paranormal. I continue to scrutinize the evidence and have found no reason to re-adopt those false beliefs.

for me clairvoyance is as real as gravitation or the sun.If they are that real, then they can be demonstrated in an irrefutable manner. Until then, you should more properly say that your belief in clairvoyance, though unfounded, is as strong as your trust in gravity and the sun.


the things I have experienced with psychic people makes me think this way I believe you. It is unlikely that such a belief would spring unbidden from anyone’s mind. But I would make one correction so that the sentence reads “the things I have experienced with people who claim psychic powers but have not demonstrated their claims under controlled conditions makes me think this way.


when I was in the army there came a new guy,(just before I went out of the army,end of my duty) who saw all kinds of real personal things with different kinds of soldiers whom he has no private knowledge of.he was new.but did see very personal things.anybody who would meet this guy and his abilities and still claims it's fake ,is denying it for a reason.and that reason is not because it is a fraud.go ask yourself why .and don't come up with your so called scientific way of thinking.cause you are not excepting some real experiences you cannot explain.What differentiates you from the girl who thinks I am in league with the devil simply because she doesn’t know how I did the tricks?

3.you think I'm easy to mislead?Oh, yes. But that’s not an insult. I’m easy to mislead, too.


you don't know me ,so dont make claims as if I can't see trough tricks.
some things you just can't trick my friend.how eager you want it though.I see. Unlike those silly scientists, you would have known exactly how Steve Shaw did his laboratory-condition parlor tricks?

Unlike Targ & Puthoff you would have seen right through the shenanigans of Uri Geller and Shipi Shtrang.


#3 I don't have to check all the links in the response between you and Rex to have part in a discussion.No. But if you want to be taken seriously you will make an effort to educate yourself. Especially when someone else goes to the trouble of finding the information for you.


I tell you what my experience is.what I saw ,an if you refuse to believe me then fine.don't read my responses. .I don’t believe you not because I refuse to but because you, and others, present no legitimate reason to do so.


cause there is no way I can proof what I experienced with the guy in the army and other people .
can I?There’s the rub. And it demonstrates the difference between ignorance parading as open-mindedness and real open-mindedness.

If you truly wanted to determine if there were reason to believe the army guy, you would not look for ways to prove it but for ways to disprove it instead. You would read links like those I posted, and follow those links to other topics to research until you finally closed the loop (or got it as close to closed as possible) before accepting unproven claims.

If you are able to say ”I believe because I have consulted experts, read the relevant research, sought mundane explanations, and tried in every way possible to prove my belief unfounded. I failed. Therefore I believe, but I will change if someone else presents me evidence that I missed,”

then your case is much stronger than it is currently when you are in effect saying ”I believe because I don’t know how that person could have done it and I’m not going to look for a mundane explanation because I’m too sharp to be fooled even though thousands or millions of people get fooled every day.”


pity for you.the trut won't change.No pity for me, thanks. I agree the truth won’t change. Since we can reach absolute proof but only approximations of it, then it is people who refuse to change their beliefs who deserve pity. I’m not among them.


as buddha said.'there is only one truth,not different ones ,but only one'.As I am the one who initially said there is only one truth (in response to a post of yours indicating otherwise) I find it curious that you are now attempting to preach to me about one truth.

Not only do you have the temerity to adopt my position as if it were yours all along, you have the arrogance to claim that you know The One Truth. All while protesting humility and open mindedness.


.but I have experienced things with people which make me convinced that there is more then what you can see with your eyes.Under tight conditions? With controls to prevent the magicians’ tricks not known to the layman? I doubt it.


I think you're the one who should search or better research,Give me a relevant subject which you think you have a better grasp of than me.


by connecting to some well known psychics and let them tell you some things about your sceptic mindI’ve done so. It’s amazing (and telling) that not a single one agreed to testing under controlled conditions or even with an accomplished magician present. When they find out (a) I won’t buy their book or (b) I offer them a chance to demonstrate that they can do as they claim, they invariably either cease communicating or launch immediately into diatribes about closed-minded skeptics and other silliness.


how quickly we judge?Let’s see. You judged based on one post of mine. I judged based on a string of yours, but I was honest enough to admit that I was not only judging but doing it quickly.

no if I would judge I would call you an *******Feel free. I’ve a rather thick skin and have been called much worse. More than once.


for calling me lazy.As evidenced in your reply when you declined to read any of the links I posted. Thanks for proving my point. It is now no longer simply a judgment but a reasoned judgment.


you are the one who is judging the whole time.No. Just the once.


with you're "I raised ghosts". you think you are special doing that?
anybody can do that.. Au contraire. Anyone can convince themselves that they are doing that when in fact they are doing nothing but stirring up their own emotions.

Special? Yes. It made me feel special. Funnily enough, it was only when I realized that I wasn’t actually raising ghosts (which should have been obvious from my post) that I stopped feeling special. You’ve touched on a major reason for beliefs in the paranormal, methinks.


what do you want to say with it anway.you do not seem to believe in anything and now you claim to raise ghosts?That I once was lost but now am found. I was blind but now I see. ‘twas reason that brought me here thus far, and reason my fears relieved.


you got a complex or something?what you want to proof?That there are alternate, mundane explanations for those things you believe are proof of the paranormal.



you call me lazy because I am not interested in your friends magic tricks.cause it just doens't proof psychics are deceiving.I never said it did.
What I have implied and what I am now saying explicitly is that the psychics have never proven that their abilities are legitimate and that, given the well-studied alternate mundane explanations, there is no logically defensible reason for maintaining belief in them.


come workout with me one ay and I'll have your tongue licking the floor.
you bad mouth...Oh, my. Physical threats? Careful now. Just as you wrongly assumed I had no experience in believing, you may be wrongly assuming that I’m not capable of physically taking care of myself…


and that I write badly, is because I'm from holland.english is not my first language.I just had a few years of english at school and that's it.Then I owe you an apology. I am sorry for my mistaken assumption.


but if you weren't lazy you could have read that some posts earlier.As I came into the thread late and admittedly did not read the entire thing (until recently), I missed it. Apology re-offered.


bwah what a negative person you are.'Nah.



raising ghosts.very smart thing to do is it....Quite understandable for a curious teenager. Not smart at all (to believe it is possible) when an educated adult. Not that intelligence can’t be demonstrated in other fields…


you seem to have experienced things yourself but still do not seem to be able to see the reality of it.I thought I did. My thoughts changed when I actually looked into my experiences with a questioning eye as opposed to a blindly accepting one.



what's your problem?I have problems, but this board, you, and Lazarus are not among them.


why are you looking for trouble?Disagreeing is “looking for trouble?”

Requiring evidence when none is apparent is “looking for trouble?”

Describing your characteristic (laziness) when amply demonstrated is “looking for trouble?”


you were with those ghosts and now you are with me.Hardly. You’re in Holland. I’m in the (roughly) central United States.


what do you want to say with these questions and answers?
that if you can do some tricks and make it look like if you are a psychic to some people(you seem to be impresse by the audience's reaction yourself) ,that doesn't mean that you are a psychic.or that the psychic is a con like you are with your tricks .
it doesn't say anything AT ALL.only, that you are able to fool the crowd.Big Les addressed this quite nicely. I suggest you re-read his response to this post of yours.


the things I experienced with psychic people, YOU, my .....? friend, will not be able to do that.not the things they said.maybe other things, by guessing.
call it cold reading whatever.but you will never be as precise as a real psychic.some facts you are not able to give.and certainly not as fast as a psychic can.I suppose we’ll never know, will we, given that you are not able to specifically tell us what happened, under what conditions, with all the relevant information?

We’ll never know, will we, given that none of your ‘psychics’ will submit to tests?


the problem is that you seem to confuse one thing with the other.
you're comparing apples and oranges.Tell me what the apples are in this discussion and what the oranges are, please.


you will never be convinced because you don't seem to be able to.I’m quite convincible. Simply show me the evidence. Have your psychics be tested.

You, on the other hand, have made it amply clear that your mind is both made up and unchangeable. I’ll take my truer version of open-mindedness over your faux version, thank you.


the ability is not in your head to see facts.if it would be ,then you would have seen them a long time ago.when you were 'raising ghosts',for example.It was only when I ignored facts that I believed. Upon learning the facts, my belief melted away.

Rather interesting, don’t you think?


don't play with these things.karma isn't something you can escape.1. Please define “karma.”

2. If I can’t escape it, it hardly matters if I “play with these things” or not, eh?

3. I was “playing” with them long ago. It was when I looked at them seriously that they ceased to hold power or amazement.


you don't know what you play with and what the effecs are.Yes, I do. That’s why I no longer believe.


you are no Diane.On that we can agree. And I am thankful for it.


another empty head on this forum.They abound, but you’re looking the wrong way to find them.


and will cme with things your magician club isn't able to come up with.
with all that cold reading stuff.Which, of course, explains why she had to change the wording on her website regarding the Muriel Drinkwater case.

Which, of course, explains why the murder of the Irish girl is still unsolved, despite Lazarus’ “help.”

Which explains, of course, why she can show no link between her efforts and the police activities in the Mark Green case.


but I think she shoudn't use her energies on people like you.She undoubtedly agrees. If she used her energies on people like me, she would disappoint people like you.


bwah!bwah ha!

[renato]

I’m not.



Negative? Not in the slightest. Intolerant of your dismissive attitude and habit of not listening to the criticisms as stated, yes. But not negative.


Please pay more attention. It is precisely because I have NOT ignored the experiences but have in fact looked into them that I now no longer believe.


Yes. And if you paid attention here or did some research on your own you would realize this. We are especially adept at fooling ourselves.


1. Define “sixth sense.”

2. Pick five of your favorite psychics and have them define “sixth sense.” Do the definitions match?

3. Some of the people who “do admit the fact” are frauds and liars. Do you think there are none of these out there? If you agree that some exist, please tell me the criteria by which you judge who is legitimate and who is fraudulent.

4. Some of the people who “do admit the fact” are honest but deluded. Further, some of this group will change their minds when provided the information that allows them to more clearly analyze what they see. Some won’t, regardless.

5. Some of the people who “do admit the fact” may, in fact, possess or be witness to legitimately paranormal powers. Given that no one has demonstrated such powers in the century and a half that they have begun to be rigorously tested, I say the odds are slim they exist. If you disagree, please point me to the test or tests showing me wrong. And before you say they can’t be tested, please read Lazarus’ website which says (I already quoted it) that she can turn her powers off and on at will.



Absolutely. It’s how I stopped believing in the paranormal. I continue to scrutinize the evidence and have found no reason to re-adopt those false beliefs.

If they are that real, then they can be demonstrated in an irrefutable manner. Until then, you should more properly say that your belief in clairvoyance, though unfounded, is as strong as your trust in gravity and the sun.


I believe you. It is unlikely that such a belief would spring unbidden from anyone’s mind. But I would make one correction so that the sentence reads “the things I have experienced with people who claim psychic powers but have not demonstrated their claims under controlled conditions makes me think this way.


What differentiates you from the girl who thinks I am in league with the devil simply because she doesn’t know how I did the tricks?

Oh, yes. But that’s not an insult. I’m easy to mislead, too.


I see. Unlike those silly scientists, you would have known exactly how Steve Shaw did his laboratory-condition parlor tricks?

Unlike Targ & Puthoff you would have seen right through the shenanigans of Uri Geller and Shipi Shtrang.


No. But if you want to be taken seriously you will make an effort to educate yourself. Especially when someone else goes to the trouble of finding the information for you.


I don’t believe you not because I refuse to but because you, and others, present no legitimate reason to do so.


There’s the rub. And it demonstrates the difference between ignorance parading as open-mindedness and real open-mindedness.

If you truly wanted to determine if there were reason to believe the army guy, you would not look for ways to prove it but for ways to disprove it instead. You would read links like those I posted, and follow those links to other topics to research until you finally closed the loop (or got it as close to closed as possible) before accepting unproven claims.

If you are able to say ”I believe because I have consulted experts, read the relevant research, sought mundane explanations, and tried in every way possible to prove my belief unfounded. I failed. Therefore I believe, but I will change if someone else presents me evidence that I missed,”

then your case is much stronger than it is currently when you are in effect saying ”I believe because I don’t know how that person could have done it and I’m not going to look for a mundane explanation because I’m too sharp to be fooled even though thousands or millions of people get fooled every day.”


No pity for me, thanks. I agree the truth won’t change. Since we can reach absolute proof but only approximations of it, then it is people who refuse to change their beliefs who deserve pity. I’m not among them.


As I am the one who initially said there is only one truth (in response to a post of yours indicating otherwise) I find it curious that you are now attempting to preach to me about one truth.

Not only do you have the temerity to adopt my position as if it were yours all along, you have the arrogance to claim that you know The One Truth. All while protesting humility and open mindedness.


Under tight conditions? With controls to prevent the magicians’ tricks not known to the layman? I doubt it.


Give me a relevant subject which you think you have a better grasp of than me.


I’ve done so. It’s amazing (and telling) that not a single one agreed to testing under controlled conditions or even with an accomplished magician present. When they find out (a) I won’t buy their book or (b) I offer them a chance to demonstrate that they can do as they claim, they invariably either cease communicating or launch immediately into diatribes about closed-minded skeptics and other silliness.


Let’s see. You judged based on one post of mine. I judged based on a string of yours, but I was honest enough to admit that I was not only judging but doing it quickly.

Feel free. I’ve a rather thick skin and have been called much worse. More than once.


As evidenced in your reply when you declined to read any of the links I posted. Thanks for proving my point. It is now no longer simply a judgment but a reasoned judgment.


No. Just the once.


. Au contraire. Anyone can convince themselves that they are doing that when in fact they are doing nothing but stirring up their own emotions.

Special? Yes. It made me feel special. Funnily enough, it was only when I realized that I wasn’t actually raising ghosts (which should have been obvious from my post) that I stopped feeling special. You’ve touched on a major reason for beliefs in the paranormal, methinks.


That I once was lost but now am found. I was blind but now I see. ‘twas reason that brought me here thus far, and reason my fears relieved.


That there are alternate, mundane explanations for those things you believe are proof of the paranormal.



I never said it did.
What I have implied and what I am now saying explicitly is that the psychics have never proven that their abilities are legitimate and that, given the well-studied alternate mundane explanations, there is no logically defensible reason for maintaining belief in them.


Oh, my. Physical threats? Careful now. Just as you wrongly assumed I had no experience in believing, you may be wrongly assuming that I’m not capable of physically taking care of myself…


Then I owe you an apology. I am sorry for my mistaken assumption.


As I came into the thread late and admittedly did not read the entire thing (until recently), I missed it. Apology re-offered.


Nah.



Quite understandable for a curious teenager. Not smart at all (to believe it is possible) when an educated adult. Not that intelligence can’t be demonstrated in other fields…


I thought I did. My thoughts changed when I actually looked into my experiences with a questioning eye as opposed to a blindly accepting one.



I have problems, but this board, you, and Lazarus are not among them.


Disagreeing is “looking for trouble?”

Requiring evidence when none is apparent is “looking for trouble?”

Describing your characteristic (laziness) when amply demonstrated is “looking for trouble?”


Hardly. You’re in Holland. I’m in the (roughly) central United States.


Big Les addressed this quite nicely. I suggest you re-read his response to this post of yours.


I suppose we’ll never know, will we, given that you are not able to specifically tell us what happened, under what conditions, with all the relevant information?

We’ll never know, will we, given that none of your ‘psychics’ will submit to tests?


Tell me what the apples are in this discussion and what the oranges are, please.


I’m quite convincible. Simply show me the evidence. Have your psychics be tested.

You, on the other hand, have made it amply clear that your mind is both made up and unchangeable. I’ll take my truer version of open-mindedness over your faux version, thank you.


It was only when I ignored facts that I believed. Upon learning the facts, my belief melted away.

Rather interesting, don’t you think?


1. Please define “karma.”

2. If I can’t escape it, it hardly matters if I “play with these things” or not, eh?

3. I was “playing” with them long ago. It was when I looked at them seriously that they ceased to hold power or amazement.


Yes, I do. That’s why I no longer believe.


On that we can agree. And I am thankful for it.


They abound, but you’re looking the wrong way to find them.


Which, of course, explains why she had to change the wording on her website regarding the Muriel Drinkwater case.

Which, of course, explains why the murder of the Irish girl is still unsolved, despite Lazarus’ “help.”

Which explains, of course, why she can show no link between her efforts and the police activities in the Mark Green case.


She undoubtedly agrees. If she used her energies on people like me, she would disappoint people like you.


bwah ha!
I don't take the effort to react to all of this.
itis simply useless,wasted effort.
you want to win a battle you can not win.
and I will not be able to convince you either.
my biggest mistake is that I argued with you people .
never should have done that.
but the way you talked to people who were thinking different than you were getting a bad treatment here.
and if you're physical capable or not to defend yourself I don'tcare.
you have to show respect to others.
that is what's missing here on this forum.

so the things you wanna know from me you have to find out yourself.
cause all this stuff/discussion is leading to nothing.
didn't you figured that out by now?
and don't blame me because of this and that.
I'm tired of that ...
aren't you?

[John Jackson]

but the way you talked to people who were thinking different than you were getting a bad treatment here.

Repeat ad nauseum...... :rolleyes:

[Big Les]

I don't take the effort to react to all of this.
itis simply useless,wasted effort.
you want to win a battle you can not win.
and I will not be able to convince you either.
my biggest mistake is that I argued with you people .
never should have done that.
but the way you talked to people who were thinking different than you were getting a bad treatment here.
and if you're physical capable or not to defend yourself I don'tcare.
you have to show respect to others.
that is what's missing here on this forum.

so the things you wanna know from me you have to find out yourself.
cause all this stuff/discussion is leading to nothing.
didn't you figured that out by now?
and don't blame me because of this and that.
I'm tired of that ...
aren't you?

= "I can't begin to formulate a worthwhile response deserving of this detailed and accurate deconstruction of my inane posts. I will therefore resort to my usual bizarre, haiku-formatted, "consider the lily of the field" cod-folk-wisdom type appeals for sympathy".

[Garrette]

I don't take the effort to react to all of this.
itis simply useless,wasted effort.
you want to win a battle you can not win.
and I will not be able to convince you either.
my biggest mistake is that I argued with you people .
never should have done that.
but the way you talked to people who were thinking different than you were getting a bad treatment here.
and if you're physical capable or not to defend yourself I don'tcare.
you have to show respect to others.
that is what's missing here on this forum.

so the things you wanna know from me you have to find out yourself.
cause all this stuff/discussion is leading to nothing.
didn't you figured that out by now?
and don't blame me because of this and that.Buh bye, then.


I'm tired of that ...
aren't you?I never tire of learning more. Nor of helping lurkers do the same.

[renato]

Buh bye, then.


I never tire of learning more. Nor of helping lurkers do the same.
lurkers?

now you want to learn?
learn this if you are able:

dus zo praat je over mensen als ik?
jij hebt niet eens het vermogen om te leren.
daar ben je te dom en arrogant voor.
het enige dat jij kan doen is mensen afzeiken.
met je ,ik kan me verdedigen.jij kan helemaal niks.

I don't think you're that smart wiseguy(or is it wise guy?).
but maybe with a little help from your skeptical 'friends'?

[Garrette]

lurkers?

now you want to learn?
learn this if you are able:

dus zo praat je over mensen als ik?
jij hebt niet eens het vermogen om te leren.
daar ben je te dom en arrogant voor.
het enige dat jij kan doen is mensen afzeiken.
met je ,ik kan me verdedigen.jij kan helemaal niks.

I don't think you're that smart wiseguy(or is it wise guy?).
but maybe with a little help from your skeptical 'friends'?

Let’s see: I don’t speak Dutch and the online translator is not reliable, but I’ll give it a go:

And that’s why you talk this way about people?
You don’t even have the capacity to learn.
You are too stupid and arrogant.
????
I can defend myself against you; you can do nothing.


Let's review. So far you:

1. Have made vague claims.

2. Have not provided specifics about the claims.

3. Have not provided evidence for the claims.

4. Have refused to answer responses to the substance of my posts.

5. Have made threats against me.

6. Have called me stupid and arrogant.

7. Have called me closed-minded.

8. Have made other insults toward me.


So far I:

1. Have answered your questions.

2. Have responded to your posts, in detail.

3. Have called you lazy (I repeat that claim here: You are lazy)

4. Have made no threats.

5. Have called you closed-minded.


I’m content to continue in this vein and let others decide which way the balance is tilting.

[sat556]

you have to show respect to others.


What is it you want? For us to tell you that you are right, and that there is such thing as 'real psychics'?
Would that be classed as respect? Do you tell everybody in life that disagrees with you that they have no respect? Do you get offensive at them? Threaten them? How exactly do you deal with real life?

[renato]

Let’s see: I don’t speak Dutch and the online translator is not reliable, but I’ll give it a go:

And that’s why you talk this way about people?
You don’t even have the capacity to learn.
You are too stupid and arrogant.
????
I can defend myself against you; you can do nothing.


Let's review. So far you:

1. Have made vague claims.

2. Have not provided specifics about the claims.

3. Have not provided evidence for the claims.

4. Have refused to answer responses to the substance of my posts.

5. Have made threats against me.

6. Have called me stupid and arrogant.

7. Have called me closed-minded.

8. Have made other insults toward me.


So far I:

1. Have answered your questions.

2. Have responded to your posts, in detail.

3. Have called you lazy (I repeat that claim here: You are lazy)

4. Have made no threats.

5. Have called you closed-minded.


I’m content to continue in this vein and let others decide which way the balance is tilting.
yes what you did to others I'll do to you.
it is very easy being an For Rule 8.
you see?
you were the one who was bitching to others.
now I did it to you.
eat it !!!
For Rule 8!!

Do not use alternative spelling to get around the auto-censor.

[renato]

What is it you want? For us to tell you that you are right, and that there is such thing as 'real psychics'?
Would that be classed as respect? Do you tell everybody in life that disagrees with you that they have no respect? Do you get offensive at them? Threaten them? How exactly do you deal with real life?
as I told you people here before.
I give back what you have given others .
that's all.
you were being For Rule 8 to others who were not agreeing in your narrow fundmentalistic vision.
now I am being that For Rule 8 to you.
you like it?

and don't play the nice and interested person now.
cause that makes you fall out of your roll.
keep being an For Rule 8

Again, do not use alternative spelling to get around the auto-censor.

[renato]

What is it you want? For us to tell you that you are right, and that there is such thing as 'real psychics'?
Would that be classed as respect? Do you tell everybody in life that disagrees with you that they have no respect? Do you get offensive at them? Threaten them? How exactly do you deal with real life?

do you feel treatened?
threatening is when I say that I'm gonna rip Garret's head from his body.
THAT is threatening.
or I willpunch his face in if he keeps on talking For Rule 8.

fagheddaboudit ok?
we don't need eachother.let's go our own way.

we're not friends and I will not want to be wih this kind of people .
yes I'm being an For Rule 8 here too.
what I said earlier.
I'm following the rest of you.
it is easy being an For Rule 8 .
and that litlle r a t garret is now pointing at me as being the bad guy.
but he is one of the major persons why I got this way here.
he started the For Rule 8.
and now he is For Rule 8 about how I am treating him.
tsss

[Garrette]

yes what you did to others I'll do to you.Point out logical fallacies? Please do.

it is very easy being an For Rule 8.For some, obviously.

you see?Quite clearly.

you were the one who was bitching to others.Not even once. I was pointing out your laziness and your posts' lack of substance.

now I did it to you.If you say so...

eat it !!!
For Rule 8!!Ah, yes. And now we have the sum and substance of your argument.

[renato]

Point out logical fallacies? Please do.

For some, obviously.

Quite clearly.

Not even once. I was pointing out your laziness and your posts' lack of substance.

If you say so...

Ah, yes. And now we have the sum and substance of your argument.

hey Garrette:

BOOOHHHH !!

hehe

[Garrette]

threatening is when I say that I'm gonna rip Garret's head from his body.
THAT is threatening.
or I willpunch his face in if he keeps on talking For Rule 8.Which parts of my posts are sh**? Please be specific.

fagheddaboudit ok?
we don't need eachother.let's go our own way.We are all free to do so, including you if that's what you choose.

yes I'm being an a s s here too.We all do it sometimes. When we do it all the time, as you have been, it becomes more than just a slip up. It becomes a reliable indicator of character.

I'm following the rest of you.I think you have won the a**h*** contest by a long shot.

it is easy being an For Rule 8 .Yes it is. Much more difficult to actually present a logical argument and reliable evidence, don't you think?

and that litlle r a t garret is now pointing at me as being the bad guy.Somewhat. Mostly I'm point at your arguments as not being valid arguments.

but he is one of the major persons why I got this way here.I'm touched.

he started theFor Rule 8.I responded to the substance of your posts. I asked for evidence.

I think it is telling that you consider that s***.

and now he is b i t c h n g about how I am treating him.
tsssI haven't b****** at all. I told you to feel free, and you have apparently taken me up on that.

[Garrette]

hey Garrette:

BOOOHHHH !!

heheGood one for the lurkers there, renato.

[Minarvia]

I've been lurking on this particular thread and it's become very, very creepy. The threats and such will stop, I hope. This is bordering on frightening, at least to me. Please, I hope this stops.
Or maybe I just need to develop a thicker skin.

[Garrette]

I've been lurking on this particular thread and it's become very, very creepy. The threats and such will stop, I hope. This is bordering on frightening, at least to me. Please, I hope this stops.I hope, Minarvia, that what I have said hasn't upset you. I've tried to avoid threats and think that I have. If not, I'll be more careful and stop them.

If it's renato who upsets you, I wouldn't worry much. It's bluster.

[renato]

I've been lurking on this particular thread and it's become very, very creepy. The threats and such will stop, I hope. This is bordering on frightening, at least to me. Please, I hope this stops.
Or maybe I just need to develop a thicker skin.

don't worry.it's just rough words nothing more.
the only reason I would use violence is when a person is going to use it on me.
not when somebody tells me things I don't like.

I'm not threatening anybody.
I said booh to Garette didn't I?
was that scary too? it wasn't meant to be..
I was a little cursing or something .
don't mean nothing.or anything whatever.
Garette and I just have different opinions.

[renato]

I hope, Minarvia, that what I have said hasn't upset you. I've tried to avoid threats and think that I have. If not, I'll be more careful and stop them.

If it's renato who upsets you, I wouldn't worry much. It's bluster.

you see?it is just bluster :-)
don't worry.

[renato]

Which parts of my posts are sh**? Please be specific.



I'm too lazy too look for that.
wasn't I?
why asking?

[Minarvia]

Thanks for reassuring me, both of you. It was basically me thinking renato meant harm to someone. But I'm glad I was wrong! I guess I'm too new here and didn't realize that some things are just words and nothing more. I do feel better now, thanks.

[Minarvia]

Thanks for reassuring me, both of you. It was basically me thinking renato meant harm to someone. But I'm glad I was wrong! I guess I'm too new here and didn't realize that some things are just words and nothing more. I do feel better now, thanks. And I do respect differing opinions. So go ahead and opinion away, as long as no harm is intended!

Oops, I meant to edit the post, not double it. Can a moderator delete the first one, please?

[renato]

Thanks for reassuring me, both of you. It was basically me thinking renato meant harm to someone. But I'm glad I was wrong! I guess I'm too new here and didn't realize that some things are just words and nothing more. I do feel better now, thanks.
no I don't mean harm to anyone.
my conscience wouldn't allow me to even if I would like to,but I don't.just a bit emotional reactions.
I 've got some italian blood ,but I don't think that will be seen as proof on this forum:-)
you gotta prove it you know.
I guess the only way to prove here that I am a man is t hang my dick out in font of them then again ,they may doubt what they see when they see it.
but I will not allow a man to touch it.
there are limits to prove something
:-)

[Minarvia]

no I don't mean harm to anyone.
my conscience wouldn't allow me to even if I would like to,but I don't.just a bit emotional reactions.
got some italian blood .:-)

That's good to hear! I feel sort of silly now for being a bit frightened. I don't have any Italian blood, but I can see what you mean! :)

[Beth]

Welcome Minarvia,

I found it a bit upsetting too. I was watching this thread earlier, but hadn't bothered to check in until you posted. I had stopped reading it because of the childish exchange.

[Minarvia]

Welcome Minarvia,

I found it a bit upsetting too. I was watching this thread earlier, but hadn't bothered to check in until you posted. I had stopped reading it because of the childish exchange.

Thanks for the welcome, Beth! I feel silly now, as I said, but I had read WAY too much into it. My overactive imagination at work...

Well, that said, I do have to admire the tenacity of the ones doing the arguing. Talk about sticking to one's guns! Sort of like those guys in the Patterson-Gimlin thread. Tho sometimes their remarks make me laugh out loud. So far I think that the debating is more good-natured than I had at first realized. I'll try to be less the "Nervous Nelly" next time I see a heated exchange.

[Garrette]

I'm too lazy too look for that.
wasn't I?
why asking?I don't mind being proven wrong.

Until then, it's not only your threats that are bluster, but the entirety of your argument.

[Garrette]

Well, that said, I do have to admire the tenacity of the ones doing the arguing. Talk about sticking to one's guns! Sort of like those guys in the Patterson-Gimlin thread. While I appreciate the admiration (I can never get enough of that, of course), I prefer to think of it as me sticking to my guns and Renato coming out to the duel saying My guns are at home! And they're big! You shouldn't even bother to fire yours because mine is REALLY REALLY big! But it's at home...

[renato]

I don't mind being proven wrong.

Until then, it's not only your threats that are bluster, but the entirety of your argument.

if you want to be ignorant.fine.
it's your choice.
the things won't change in the kosmos whether you believe it or not.
everybody has the right to believe what he wants.
that counts for you too :-P

[renato]

While I appreciate the admiration (I can never get enough of that, of course), I prefer to think of it as me sticking to my guns and Renato coming out to the duel saying My guns are at home! And they're big! You shouldn't even bother to fire yours because mine is REALLY REALLY big! But it's at home...

that's why I quit talking to you about this subject.
you will only listen to your own arguments and don't accept anything else.
the fact that you raised ghosts as you said and still don't see things how they are says enough about you.
you bore me with your brickbrain.

[Garrette]

if you want to be ignorant.fine.
it's your choice.
the things won't change in the kosmos whether you believe it or not.
everybody has the right to believe what he wants.
that counts for you too :-POf course it does, but there is a difference between what our rights are and what reason indicates.

You are exercising your right to believe by believing. You are demonstrating that it is only a belief and not a reasoned conclusion based on your refusal to review alternate explanations and your refusal to present evidence.

I am exercising my right to use evidence to reach conclusions. I am demonstrating the evidence by posting links and answering questions.

The two positions are both "allowable" but they are not equal.

[renato]

Welcome Minarvia,

I found it a bit upsetting too. I was watching this thread earlier, but hadn't bothered to check in until you posted. I had stopped reading it because of the childish exchange.

it is what you say ,childish.
and Garette doesn't seem to stop dishing **** to me.
so I kick a little back to him.
but it's no use.
it leads to nowhere

[Garrette]

that's why I quit talking to you about this subject.
you will only listen to your own arguments and don't accept anything else.
the fact that you raised ghosts as you said and still don't see things how they are says enough about you.
you bore me with your brickbrain.I would be happy to listen to your arguments, renato.

Please present some.

[Garrette]

it is what you say ,childish.Some of it is, yes.

and Garette doesn't seem to stop dishing **** to me.No. I've answered questions and asked them. I've also called you lazy and closed-minded but those are minor asides to my argument. In contrast, the insults are the entirety of your argument.

so I kick a little back to him.Yes, you kick. What you pointedly do NOT do is present an argument or evidence.

but it's no use.True. I won't be swayed by emotion and the continual refusal to present evidence.

it leads to nowhereUnfounded belief usually does.

[Mojo]

if you want to be ignorant.fine.
it's your choice.Certainly. But who is going to remain ignorant? someone who is prepared to examine their beliefs and look for evidence relating to them, or someone who isn't even prepared to follow a link that has been provided for them?

NB: Rhetorical questions.

[renato]

I would be happy to listen to your arguments, renato.

Please present some.
I'm done wth you brickbrain.
talking to you is a waste of energy.

[Garrette]

I'm done wth you brickbrain.
talking to you is a waste of energy.Buh-bye, then.

Funny. I could have sworn we just went through this...

[renato]

Certainly. But who is going to remain ignorant? someone who is prepared to examine their beliefs and look for evidence relating to them, or someone who isn't even prepared to follow a link that has been provided for them?

NB: Rhetorical questions.

you are a waste of time and energy too.
can you understand that?
I have had it with this forum and wih 'your kind 'of people.
you are not interested and very narrow mindend.
enough is enough.
I will leaveyou in your shallow mudholes

[Mojo]

It's like a James Brown gig.

[Azrael 5]

Has anyone ever been banned from here? Lucinarchy? I can see renato being the next.

[chillzero]

I'm done wth you brickbrain.
talking to you is a waste of energy.

Oh good!

Does that mean this thread might actually return to topic then?

Any useful information about Dianne Lazarus? Either side of the discussion will do, as long as it's constructive.

[Azrael 5]

I'm hoping Rex has put a few pertinent questions to his friend about her lies and healing claims.

[bonavada]

It's becoming very apparent to me that she is going to be able to use this last program as a major step up to a lucrative career. I would just prefer to see careers built on a foundation of honesty and integrity.

seems she's still on that ladder to "success" see HERE (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=twist-religious-motive-behind-deaths&method=full&objectid=18277322&siteid=50082-name_page.html)


A WELSH psychic who has cracked murder cases across Britain today tells Ipswich cops: "I will catch the Suffolk Strangler."
Clairvoyant Diane Lazarus - who helped find TV presenter Jill Dando's killer


"cracked murder cases"? i'd like to see a bit of evidence for that. other than a few vague letters of thanks from some gullible police oficers.
And isn't the man found guilty of the Jill Dando murder appealing against his conviction? i watched a tv programme that gave some very plausible reasons why Barry Bulsara should not have been convicted of that crime. what would be Dianes position if his conviction is quashed?

the "Suffolk Strangler" case is developing quickly today, with a man arrested in Felixstowe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6189409.stm) let's wait and see how she scores with her predictions huh?

BV

[chillzero]

seems she's still on that ladder to "success" see HERE (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=twist-religious-motive-behind-deaths&method=full&objectid=18277322&siteid=50082-name_page.html)



"cracked murder cases"? i'd like to see a bit of evidence for that. other than a few vague letters of thanks from some gullible police oficers.
And isn't the man found guilty of the Jill Dando murder appealing against his conviction? i watched a tv programme that gave some very plausible reasons why Barry Bulsara should not have been convicted of that crime. what would be Dianes position if his conviction is quashed?

the "Suffolk Strangler" case is developing quickly today, with a man arrested in Felixstowe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6189409.stm) let's wait and see how she scores with her predictions huh?

BV

from the article:

In a direct appeal, she has urged detectives to take her to the murder scenes so she can try to make contact with the dead working girls.
Hopefully the police will have the sense to ignore this request.
How sick is that?

It seems she may be too late anyway, now that the police have made an arrest, but I can't get over the amount of information being given out about the arrested man. His name and face are all over the news - surely this will prejudice any case? It now also allows people like Dianne to research, and then claim things they 'knew' all along, should he be convicted (not always a foregone conclusion - which is often forgotten).

I was going to look into the claims about Joanna Young, but that was a case presented on the 'Britain's Psychic Challenge' nonsense program, so means little.
I notice she has glossed over her failure to locate Martin Kelly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4803388.stm who I believe is still missing. And who knows how many other unsolved cases?

[bonavada]

It seems she may be too late anyway, now that the police have made an arrest, but I can't get over the amount of information being given out about the arrested man. His name and face are all over the news

I notice she has glossed over her failure to locate Martin Kelly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4803388.stm who I believe is still missing. And who knows how many other unsolved cases?

i'm new to diane lazarus, i became interested because her name was brought up on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70510) and found out she is very local to where i live (swansea UK) i will definitely look out for her name now though.

there are already hints that other cases may be linked to the "suffolk strangler" at the BBC HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6189409.stm) (there's also an interview with Tom Stephens, chillingly slightly reminicent of the Soham murders and Ian Huntley) :-



Trimley St Martin was last in the national news when 17-year-old Vicky Hall vanished on her way home from a nightclub in Felixstowe in 1999 and was found dead in a water-filled ditch at Creeting St Peter - 25 miles from Felixstowe.
It was believed she had been asphyxiated but a post-mortem examination proved inconclusive.
Police have not linked this case with the deaths of the five prostitutes. On Monday they were unable to confirm Mr Stephens would be questioned about Miss Hall's murder.



fertile ground for ms lazarus to awaken the dead as they say.......



BV

[chillzero]

i'm new to diane lazarus, i became interested because her name was brought up on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70510) and found out she is very local to where i live (swansea UK) i will definitely look out for her name now though.

there are already hints that other cases may be linked to the "suffolk strangler" at the BBC HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6189409.stm) (there's also an interview with Tom Stephens, chillingly slightly reminicent of the Soham murders and Ian Huntley) :-




fertile ground for ms lazarus to awaken the dead as they say.......



BV

I just listened to a bit of the interview with the suspect.
Firstly, I can't understand why the media aer being allowed to give out all this information.

Secondly, if this man is the murderer, then I hear something very disturbing as regards the girls he killed. He says that he encouraged one of them to talk to him, and he would talk to the police on her behalf - if she was reluctant to talk to the police - being a prostitute (as the press ensure we never forget).

Can you imagine how awful that must have been for her, if that is what she did, and if that is what led to her death?

Terrible story all round.

[Big Les]

The OP points out that Lloyd-Hughes (I refuse to call her "Lazarus" any more) does have a letter from a DC Daly and that the latter "seems impressed". This is the letter (http://www.dianelazarus.co.uk/img/invest_1.jpg) Though the individual officer was clearly knee-deep in woo when she got involved, I think it's actually pretty ambiguous in terms of what help she gave and what "results" it may have yielded. To me it reads as "well, thanks for nothing, I'll be more careful about who I listen to in future".

Has anyone looked into this; "Because of her achievement in the programme Diane has also received an offer to work with the Air and Coastguard Rescue Service which she has accepted."?

[bonavada]

a little update on the muriel drinkwater case.................
HTV tonight broadcast a programme about this terrible murder/rape, part of a series called crime secrets (http://www.itvregions.com/Wales/Programmes/CRIME+SECRETS.htm).
it seems South Wales Police made remarkable headway in the case through plain old doggedness and the far-sighted determination of the original investigating officers (60 years ago) to preserve as much physical evidence as was possible. it was reported that a DNA profile was obtained from the murdered girls clothing and amazingly it's possible now to track down the killer even after all these years.
strangely, although lazarus boasts of her own efforts in the case, there is no mention of her amazing endeavour throughout....work that out for yourself.

BV