CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

chran · 13th January 2009, 12:36 AM

Woo, I think this is the first applicant The Challenge has had from Denmark!

This seems like a pretty standard claim for a dowser, so I'm pretty sure all the bases regarding protecting the pieces of cardboard from manipulation.

And yes, Connie Sonne does have writings in news papers about her abillities, but they're mostly regarding her "predictions" about Madeleine McCann. She appeared on national TV in May of 2008 with a tape recording purportedly made outside a house in Portugal where Madeleine were being held at the time!

This is a translation of an article about Connie Sonne talking about a tape recording with Madeleine McCann's voice on it.

CFLarsen · 13th January 2009, 01:41 AM

For those with a Danish tongue, the discussion the Danish skeptics had with Connie Sonne and her claims about Madeleine McCann.

GzuzKryzt · 13th January 2009, 01:44 AM

Another dowsing claim. Edge, are you reading this?

I know this might sound overly pushy: Does the JREF follow up on those academic supports?

More precisely: Does the JREF ask for information on the test set-up, results and/or controls used?

And: After applicants have failed to demonstrate their ability in a controlled test for the MDC, does the JREF follow up on that by asking the academic for a statement?

RemieV · 13th January 2009, 02:45 AM

No, the JREF does not follow up on the academic supports.

No, though a description of the demonstration is usually given in the affidavit. The demonstration given to the academic is not supposed to be a test-run for the Challenge test. It is simply a quick demonstration to see if an individual with a background in critical thinking, science, or skepticism will also believe that the applicant has paranormal abilities.

No, we do not follow up with the academic by asking for a statement.

GzuzKryzt · 13th January 2009, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by RemieV

No, the JREF does not follow up on the academic supports.

No, though a description of the demonstration is usually given in the affidavit. The demonstration given to the academic is not supposed to be a test-run for the Challenge test. It is simply a quick demonstration to see if an individual with a background in critical thinking, science, or skepticism will also believe that the applicant has paranormal abilities.

No, we do not follow up with the academic by asking for a statement.

Thanks for the quick response, RemieV.

chran · 13th January 2009, 04:41 AM

Some more information regarding Connie Sonne's claims about Madeleine McCann's abduction:

She believes that the government (presumably the British), top police officials, the prosecutor, the police in Leicestershire, and other top people are "in on it".
Madeleine's parents are forced to play along, but it has nothing to do with pedophilia.
We're being manipulated by the mass media.
A police officer in Portugal agreed with her about all her claims. Not named, of course.
Madeleine McCann is in South America and Connie Sonne has proof of this, along with proof of everything else.
Connie Sonne visited Madeleine McCann's god parents in Dumbarton in Scotland; Patricia and Sandy Cameron. Patricia is Madeleine's dad's sister. While there, Connie photographed some evidence proving that the whole family is involved in the abduction. Also, Sandy accidentally told something to Connie, which has been given to the police.

All this is taken from the page that Claus gave the link to, and it's all written by Connie herself. I've taken the liberty of printing out the whole thing on PDF in case she goes ba-leeting. The post I've taken the above from, is posted on 28.10.08 (28th of October 2008).

steenkh · 13th January 2009, 08:43 AM

The dowsing claim is somewhat off from her other claimed abilities. I wonder what - or who - made her apply. After all, she must be pretty sure of her abilities, ... which is rather sad!

RemieV · 13th January 2009, 11:33 AM

She actually doesn't much want to perform the dowsing claim, and says she has much more to show. However, this is by far the easiest most streamlined way to test her claims.

GzuzKryzt · 13th January 2009, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by RemieV

She actually doesn't much want to perform the dowsing claim, and says she has much more to show. However, this is by far the easiest most streamlined way to test her claims.

Could you please ask her to join the JREF forum?

If you have much more to show, well, show it, Ms. Sonne.

RemieV · 13th January 2009, 02:15 PM

Connie Sonne has been presented with a preliminary protocol. Check out her thread in the Challenge Applicants subforum for more information.

jojonete · 13th January 2009, 03:28 PM

From the proposed protocol:

Originally Posted by RemieV

If there is a setup or technological problem, or if for any reason the test must be halted due to extenuating circumstances rather than trickery, the test may fourth set of suit cards may be used to replace one of the original three. If there are further setup problems, the test may be rescheduled once. These re-test guidelines do not apply in cases of simple failure.

(bolding mine)

It looks like the two bolded words are a result of copying and pasting from other protocols, and they should not be there.

Also, I'm assuming Ms. Sonne will be allowed to check the contents of all the unopened envelopes after the test is finished, so she can be sure the envelopes actually contain what they're supposed to. If that's the case, I'd mention it explicitly in the protocol. If it's not, I'd ask why.

Otherwise, it looks like a very nice, clear and simple protocol for a very nice, clear and simple claimed ability.

steenkh · 14th January 2009, 04:21 AM

The open test is made with unenveloped card, whereas the closed test is made with double-enveloped cards. Ms. Sonne might afterwards claim that she cannot dowse through the envelopes.

Would it not be better to have a set of extra envelopes ready, and put the open cards into the envelopes without shuffling. Ms. Sonne can decide which cards to dowse for, and can afterwards not claim that the cards influence her magic powers, unless of course she even fails at the open test.

yairhol · 14th January 2009, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by steenkh

The open test is made with unenveloped card, whereas the closed test is made with double-enveloped cards. Ms. Sonne might afterwards claim that she cannot dowse through the envelopes.

Would it not be better to have a set of extra envelopes ready, and put the open cards into the envelopes without shuffling. Ms. Sonne can decide which cards to dowse for, and can afterwards not claim that the cards influence her magic powers, unless of course she even fails at the open test.

Agreed.
Show her a card and place it in a double envelope. Ask her to dowse for it. If she is successful then all is fine and the closed test may begin. If not then she may have a problem with the double envelopes although this should be cleared at the protocol negotiation.

jojonete · 14th January 2009, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by steenkh

Would it not be better to have a set of extra envelopes ready, and put the open cards into the envelopes without shuffling. Ms. Sonne can decide which cards to dowse for, and can afterwards not claim that the cards influence her magic powers, unless of course she even fails at the open test.

(bolding mine)

You mean envelopes, don't you?

However, your point is an important one. I had overlooked it.

MRC_Hans · 14th January 2009, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

For those with a Danish tongue, the discussion the Danish skeptics had with Connie Sonne and her claims about Madeleine McCann.

Jesh! Barking mad, she is (well to be fair: Barking mad, she sounds).

Hans

connie sonne · 14th January 2009, 11:45 PM

This will be the only words from me here on this thread. About barking dear Hans....what about stop barking yourself until you see if I`m right?

! And the question about the envelopes....I can dowse through envelopes or whatever...it dosn`t matter at all. You can even build the cards in a cementwall...I find them anyway.

And finaly about the question about dowsing....what about leaving the question for "how to do it" for JREF and myself? I know what I can do..and surely JREF know what they are doing to. It`s only "a matter " between me and them..noone else...yet!

best regards Connie

yairhol · 15th January 2009, 12:26 AM

Hi Connie, welcome to the forum

.
I wish you good luck on your test. I must say I'll be pretty excited if science uncovers a new discovery while I'm taking part (as an observer). I'll be able to say I was part of this in real time.
When is the preliminary test happening?

Best Regards...

dann · 15th January 2009, 02:23 AM

Connie, since you obviously (obvious to others, that is) have the power of self-deception, I recommend that you read about dowsing, and also about the post-hoc fallacy and the ideomotor effect associated with dowsing. In this YouTube clip you can see an actual example of dowsing: James Randi and a dowser

Judging by your command of the English language, I think that your understanding of this field might also benefit from reading a couple of articles in Danish, in particular James Randi’s article Sådan virker ønskekvisten, but the following articles may also help you understand the delusion of dowsing: beviser for ekstraordinære påstande and alternative energier

Since you don’t seem to mind spending a lot of time and money travelling to other parts of the world, in this case Florida, to prove your alleged powers, I recommend that, at least to begin with, you save some money by restricting yourself to going to Fåborg next Tuesday, January 20, for this lecture by Ole J. Knudsen on moderne overtro og myter.

If you still decide to go ahead with your plans of having your dowsing powers tested, I think that you may receive help with your project from these guys, Dowsing Danmark, but you should be aware that they appear to share your delusion!

connie sonne · 15th January 2009, 03:19 AM

Thank you Yairhol, and maybe I see you there, it will be a pleasure to meet you. I don`t know yet when. I have just sent JREF a mail, telling them, that it`s ok with the protocol, and I asked for a time, so I can order my ticket for the flight.

Best regards Connie

Hi Dann, and thank you for your advices. But I don`t need anybody to help me, and I don`t have to read about this. I do know how to do, whom it is and why. But that will come later....after the test.

Best regards Connie

MRC_Hans · 15th January 2009, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by connie sonne

This will be the only words from me here on this thread. About barking dear Hans....what about stop barking yourself until you see if I`m right?

!*snip*
best regards Connie

Yes, of course, Connie, my apologies for being so frank. But yes, let's see if you are right.

Hans

CFLarsen · 15th January 2009, 03:49 AM

Connie,

When you say you don't have to read about what Dann linked to, is that because you already know about these things and don't think they apply to you, or is it because you simply don't bother?

connie sonne · 15th January 2009, 03:54 AM

Hans, thank`s

and the answer is yes to both

!

steenkh · 15th January 2009, 04:00 AM

Hi Connie, and welcome to the forum! It is good to see that you are very confident. I hope you win the challenge, though I do not think you will.

Have you tried a similar test before you applied? If not, I would seriously suggest that you practise by putting cards into double envelopes, and shuffling them yourself, or even better, have somebody else shuffling them for you, and then dowse for the cards. In that way you can hone your skills, and perhaps recognise problems before you are at the actual test.

Besides, we would very much like to hear your success rate at such a test!

GzuzKryzt · 15th January 2009, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by connie sonne

This will be the only words from me here on this thread.
...

Originally Posted by connie sonne

Another post

Originally Posted by connie sonne

And yet another post.

QED.

Connie, if people criticise you here - like I did above - it is mostly because they want to point to technical flaws. It is not personal.

I hope the JREF and you can agree to a test.

yairhol · 15th January 2009, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by connie sonne

You can even build the cards in a cementwall...I find them anyway.

If this is the case then there's a much simpler protocol for the test.
You stand in one room and a tester stands in the adjacent room and holds up a card. You do the dowsing and guess the card. Results are written down and repeat.
Much simpler than using 40 envelopes and all that.

CFLarsen · 15th January 2009, 05:14 AM

Connie,

The answer to my question cannot be a mere "yes".

When you say you don't have to read about what Dann linked to, is that because:

a) you already know about these things and don't think they apply to you

or

b) is it because you simply don't bother?

Is it a or b?

steenkh · 15th January 2009, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt

QED.

Well, we did try to entice a reply out of her, and I do not see any reason to criticise that she changed her decision. A reaction like yours could simply result in her sticking to the original decision, and what would be the advantage of this for any of us?

connie sonne · 15th January 2009, 06:14 AM

Hi Steenkh, and thank you. About winning the challenge, people can think what they want to think, I actually don`t care,

.We`ll see.
Thank`s for your advice, but as I wrote before, I do not have to practice, and I don`t have problems at all,

. And GzuzKryzt, I do know, that the criticising here on the forum it`s not about me personal, but people come further, if it`s "friendly" criticising,

!

chran · 15th January 2009, 06:17 AM

Hello Connie, and welcome to the forum

It's good that you're confident, but I think the reason that people are advising you to make some tests by yourself beforehand, is because very many people have found out that they couldn't perform in the preliminary test for whatever reason.

We just want to see you succeed!

connie sonne · 15th January 2009, 06:20 AM

Yairhol, thank you for your tip, but I think JREF and I already has the protocol finished. It`s simple and straight, and it won`t take me longer than 1/2 hour, so I guess it`s ok. And I already confirmed the protocol.

CFLarsen, yes, the answer to both questions a and b are yes. I already knows about these things and it dosnt apply to me and yes, I don`t bother,

best regards COnnie

Jackalgirl · 15th January 2009, 06:27 AM

I'm with yairhol, et al. I think it would be best to have the open test be exactly like the clsoed test, with the only difference being that the card is shown to Ms. Sonne before it is sealed in a double-envelope.

I like the idea of someone holding the card up to a wall, too, but this protocol is fine the way it is -- if Ms. Sonne likes it, and it seems that she does.

I have a question for you, Ms. Sonne -- what will happen if you are not able to identify a sufficient number of cards? Will it have any effect on your opinion about your abilities? Will you continue to test yourself objectively, or will you disregard the results?

I don't mean to seem catty -- I'm honestly interested. Most challengers state that the results will have no affect on their beliefs about their abilities, which makes me sad.

connie sonne · 15th January 2009, 06:28 AM

Hi Chran and thank you,

.It`s ok. But I am serious when I say, that I do know what I can. Really...there is no problem,

. But I also know, that many people around have tried the challenge, but it did`nt work out. It will this time...when I am so sure, it`s because I know who my connections are, what they can and what they allow me to do,

. And there is a meaning about this, because afterwards....much more will come..the truth about everything, I promise,

.

yairhol · 15th January 2009, 06:45 AM

But suppose you fail (like Jackagirl stated). What then?
Will you keep your confidence about your abilities or will you question them and seek more tests?

CFLarsen · 15th January 2009, 07:58 AM

Connie,

Why doesn't it apply to you? It's not enough for you to just state that This Is So. You need to explain why.

This is a forum for skepticism and critical thinking. You can't expect people to just uncritically accept what you say.

Have you performed any tests on your own? If so, how did you do it?

Will you go to Ole Knudsen's lecture next Tuesday?

dann · 15th January 2009, 08:30 AM

Well, no. Connie Sonne does not need to explain anything, since she has a direct line to God ... or something:

Originally Posted by connie sonne

much more will come..the truth about everything, I promise,

.

When you are on the brink of discovering the truth about everything, lectures are a waste of time, aren't they?
Connie Sonne appears to have one need above all others: the need to believe - beyond reason or common sense:
"Det er en beklagelig kendsgerning, at et ordentligt dobbeltblindt forsøg aldrig er i stand til at overbevise kvistgængere om, at de tager fejl. Deres behov for at tro er så stort, at de afviser et hvilket som helst bevis, der taler imod deres opfattelse, lige meget hvor godt det er. De har antaget en filosofi som beskytter dem imod virkeligheden." From the Danish translation of James Randi's article about dowsing and dowsers mentioned in post 18:
http://www.skeptica.dk/2005/randi01.htm

dann · 15th January 2009, 09:31 AM

”Jeg vil bede alle, der håber at vinde præmien på grundlag af deres evner som kvistgænger, om først at afprøve sig selv i et dobbeltblindt forsøg. Vi hos JREF kan give anvisninger på, hvordan man opstiller og gennemfører sådan et forsøg. Jeg kan forsikre Dem om, at den ovenstående beskrivelse af den ideomotoriske effekt vil vise sig at holde stik. Og jeg ved udmærket, at De som kvistgænger vil afvise dette råd og tro, at i Deres tilfælde er sådan en procedure unødvendig. Jeg bygger denne konklusion på de mange år, jeg har har testet kvistgængere.” http://www.skeptica.dk/2005/randi01.htm

And for the unfortunate readers who don't understand Danish:
”I ask all those who wish to claim the prize based upon their dowsing skills to first try a double-blind test of their abilities. We at the JREF can advise you how to design such a test protocol. You will find, I assure you, that the description above of the ideomotor effect will be proven valid. And I know full well that you, as a dowser, will refuse this advice and believe that, for you, such a procedure is not necessary. I base this conclusion on my many years of handling dowsing claimants.” http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

connie sonne · 15th January 2009, 09:36 AM

Jackalgirl and Yairhol, where it all comes from, there`s a lot of humor. If it will happen, that I fail the test..there`s a reason. Then I will make the new step afterwards, not by testing again, but something else..Yeah, no matter what is going to happen, I will never make a doubt about my abilities. In a year now, my life and the things I`m doing is like a puzzle, but ALWAYS I do the new step to go on...and I already have many evidences and more will come,

.

steenkh · 15th January 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Why doesn't it apply to you? It's not enough for you to just state that This Is So. You need to explain why.

Has she not already said that she is so sure of her abilities that mundane things that have confused every other dowser to be tested cannot possibly apply to her?

It is of course arrogant, but there you are.

Quote:

This is a forum for skepticism and critical thinking. You can't expect people to just uncritically accept what you say.

Well, we can accept that those are her reasons. We do not have to be persuaded to believe that she will actually be able to perform when tested.

Jackalgirl · 15th January 2009, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by connie sonne

Jackalgirl and Yairhol, where it all comes from, there`s a lot of humor. If it will happen, that I fail the test..there`s a reason. Then I will make the new step afterwards, not by testing again, but something else..Yeah, no matter what is going to happen, I will never make a doubt about my abilities. In a year now, my life and the things I`m doing is like a puzzle, but ALWAYS I do the new step to go on...and I already have many evidences and more will come,

.

How very sad. I am always saddened by people who don't understand that the world is wonderful without being magical, and that people can be extraordinary and special without being magical. What a waste.

GzuzKryzt · 15th January 2009, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by steenkh

Well, we did try to entice a reply out of her, and I do not see any reason to criticise that she changed her decision. A reaction like yours could simply result in her sticking to the original decision, and what would be the advantage of this for any of us?

If her original decision was that she would go and get tested after making her first and only post: Fine.

The advantage would obviously be saving bandwidth. And doing what one says one will do, thus creating credibility.

Alas, everything points to a Connie behaving like a True Believer (TM) with a knack for talking before she thinks. No offense intended.

13th January 2009, 12:36 AM	#1
chran Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Denmark, yo Posts: 581	CONNIE SONNE, Dowser Woo, I think this is the first applicant The Challenge has had from Denmark! This seems like a pretty standard claim for a dowser, so I'm pretty sure all the bases regarding protecting the pieces of cardboard from manipulation. And yes, Connie Sonne does have writings in news papers about her abillities, but they're mostly regarding her "predictions" about Madeleine McCann. She appeared on national TV in May of 2008 with a tape recording purportedly made outside a house in Portugal where Madeleine were being held at the time! This is a translation of an article about Connie Sonne talking about a tape recording with Madeleine McCann's voice on it.

13th January 2009, 01:41 AM	#2
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	For those with a Danish tongue, the discussion the Danish skeptics had with Connie Sonne and her claims about Madeleine McCann.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

13th January 2009, 01:44 AM	#3
GzuzKryzt A Division of N.T. Kryzt Inc. Tagger Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,961	Another dowsing claim. Edge, are you reading this? I know this might sound overly pushy: Does the JREF follow up on those academic supports? More precisely: Does the JREF ask for information on the test set-up, results and/or controls used? And: After applicants have failed to demonstrate their ability in a controlled test for the MDC, does the JREF follow up on that by asking the academic for a statement?
	__________________ "The rules allow for vastly different levels of honesty, knowledge, and intelligence."

13th January 2009, 02:45 AM	#4
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover JREF Research Assistant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,691	No, the JREF does not follow up on the academic supports. No, though a description of the demonstration is usually given in the affidavit. The demonstration given to the academic is not supposed to be a test-run for the Challenge test. It is simply a quick demonstration to see if an individual with a background in critical thinking, science, or skepticism will also believe that the applicant has paranormal abilities. No, we do not follow up with the academic by asking for a statement.
	__________________ Visit me at: http://www.skepticalanalysis.com You can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest... honestly, it's the honest ones you've got to watch out for...... Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

13th January 2009, 04:08 AM	#5
GzuzKryzt A Division of N.T. Kryzt Inc. Tagger Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,961	Originally Posted by RemieV No, the JREF does not follow up on the academic supports. No, though a description of the demonstration is usually given in the affidavit. The demonstration given to the academic is not supposed to be a test-run for the Challenge test. It is simply a quick demonstration to see if an individual with a background in critical thinking, science, or skepticism will also believe that the applicant has paranormal abilities. No, we do not follow up with the academic by asking for a statement. Thanks for the quick response, RemieV.
	__________________ "The rules allow for vastly different levels of honesty, knowledge, and intelligence."

13th January 2009, 08:43 AM	#7
steenkh Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 2,636	The dowsing claim is somewhat off from her other claimed abilities. I wonder what - or who - made her apply. After all, she must be pretty sure of her abilities, ... which is rather sad!
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

13th January 2009, 11:33 AM	#8
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover JREF Research Assistant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,691	She actually doesn't much want to perform the dowsing claim, and says she has much more to show. However, this is by far the easiest most streamlined way to test her claims.
	__________________ Visit me at: http://www.skepticalanalysis.com You can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest... honestly, it's the honest ones you've got to watch out for...... Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

13th January 2009, 01:02 PM	#9
GzuzKryzt A Division of N.T. Kryzt Inc. Tagger Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,961	Originally Posted by RemieV She actually doesn't much want to perform the dowsing claim, and says she has much more to show. However, this is by far the easiest most streamlined way to test her claims. Could you please ask her to join the JREF forum? If you have much more to show, well, show it, Ms. Sonne.
	__________________ "The rules allow for vastly different levels of honesty, knowledge, and intelligence."

13th January 2009, 02:15 PM	#10
RemieV Lostie, Pirate, Snape Lover JREF Research Assistant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,691	Connie Sonne has been presented with a preliminary protocol. Check out her thread in the Challenge Applicants subforum for more information.
	__________________ Visit me at: http://www.skepticalanalysis.com You can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest... honestly, it's the honest ones you've got to watch out for...... Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur.

13th January 2009, 03:28 PM	#11
jojonete my single space Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 63	From the proposed protocol: Originally Posted by RemieV If there is a setup or technological problem, or if for any reason the test must be halted due to extenuating circumstances rather than trickery, the test may fourth set of suit cards may be used to replace one of the original three. If there are further setup problems, the test may be rescheduled once. These re-test guidelines do not apply in cases of simple failure. (bolding mine) It looks like the two bolded words are a result of copying and pasting from other protocols, and they should not be there. Also, I'm assuming Ms. Sonne will be allowed to check the contents of all the unopened envelopes after the test is finished, so she can be sure the envelopes actually contain what they're supposed to. If that's the case, I'd mention it explicitly in the protocol. If it's not, I'd ask why. Otherwise, it looks like a very nice, clear and simple protocol for a very nice, clear and simple claimed ability.
jojonete my single space Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 63

14th January 2009, 04:21 AM	#12
steenkh Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 2,636	The open test is made with unenveloped card, whereas the closed test is made with double-enveloped cards. Ms. Sonne might afterwards claim that she cannot dowse through the envelopes. Would it not be better to have a set of extra envelopes ready, and put the open cards into the envelopes without shuffling. Ms. Sonne can decide which cards to dowse for, and can afterwards not claim that the cards influence her magic powers, unless of course she even fails at the open test.
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

14th January 2009, 06:46 AM	#13
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,220	Originally Posted by steenkh The open test is made with unenveloped card, whereas the closed test is made with double-enveloped cards. Ms. Sonne might afterwards claim that she cannot dowse through the envelopes. Would it not be better to have a set of extra envelopes ready, and put the open cards into the envelopes without shuffling. Ms. Sonne can decide which cards to dowse for, and can afterwards not claim that the cards influence her magic powers, unless of course she even fails at the open test. Agreed. Show her a card and place it in a double envelope. Ask her to dowse for it. If she is successful then all is fine and the closed test may begin. If not then she may have a problem with the double envelopes although this should be cleared at the protocol negotiation.
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,220

14th January 2009, 07:43 AM	#14
jojonete my single space Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 63	Originally Posted by steenkh Would it not be better to have a set of extra envelopes ready, and put the open cards into the envelopes without shuffling. Ms. Sonne can decide which cards to dowse for, and can afterwards not claim that the cards influence her magic powers, unless of course she even fails at the open test. (bolding mine) You mean envelopes, don't you? However, your point is an important one. I had overlooked it.
jojonete my single space Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 63

14th January 2009, 07:56 AM	#15
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: N55.47'36" E12.30'21" Posts: 10,119	Originally Posted by CFLarsen For those with a Danish tongue, the discussion the Danish skeptics had with Connie Sonne and her claims about Madeleine McCann. Jesh! Barking mad, she is (well to be fair: Barking mad, she sounds). Hans
	__________________ The time is always right to do what is right. (Martin Luther King JR.)

14th January 2009, 11:45 PM	#16
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56	This will be the only words from me here on this thread. About barking dear Hans....what about stop barking yourself until you see if I`m right?! And the question about the envelopes....I can dowse through envelopes or whatever...it dosn`t matter at all. You can even build the cards in a cementwall...I find them anyway. And finaly about the question about dowsing....what about leaving the question for "how to do it" for JREF and myself? I know what I can do..and surely JREF know what they are doing to. It`s only "a matter " between me and them..noone else...yet! best regards Connie
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56

15th January 2009, 12:26 AM	#17
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,220	Hi Connie, welcome to the forum . I wish you good luck on your test. I must say I'll be pretty excited if science uncovers a new discovery while I'm taking part (as an observer). I'll be able to say I was part of this in real time. When is the preliminary test happening? Best Regards...
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,220

15th January 2009, 02:23 AM	#18
dann Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Frederiksberg (Copenhagen) Posts: 2,895	Connie, since you obviously (obvious to others, that is) have the power of self-deception, I recommend that you read about dowsing, and also about the post-hoc fallacy and the ideomotor effect associated with dowsing. In this YouTube clip you can see an actual example of dowsing: James Randi and a dowser Judging by your command of the English language, I think that your understanding of this field might also benefit from reading a couple of articles in Danish, in particular James Randi’s article Sådan virker ønskekvisten, but the following articles may also help you understand the delusion of dowsing: beviser for ekstraordinære påstande and alternative energier Since you don’t seem to mind spending a lot of time and money travelling to other parts of the world, in this case Florida, to prove your alleged powers, I recommend that, at least to begin with, you save some money by restricting yourself to going to Fåborg next Tuesday, January 20, for this lecture by Ole J. Knudsen on moderne overtro og myter. If you still decide to go ahead with your plans of having your dowsing powers tested, I think that you may receive help with your project from these guys, Dowsing Danmark, but you should be aware that they appear to share your delusion!
	__________________ /dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx Last edited by dann; 15th January 2009 at 02:59 AM.

15th January 2009, 03:19 AM	#19
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56	Thank you Yairhol, and maybe I see you there, it will be a pleasure to meet you. I don`t know yet when. I have just sent JREF a mail, telling them, that it`s ok with the protocol, and I asked for a time, so I can order my ticket for the flight. Best regards Connie Hi Dann, and thank you for your advices. But I don`t need anybody to help me, and I don`t have to read about this. I do know how to do, whom it is and why. But that will come later....after the test. Best regards Connie
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56

15th January 2009, 03:38 AM	#20
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: N55.47'36" E12.30'21" Posts: 10,119	Originally Posted by connie sonne This will be the only words from me here on this thread. About barking dear Hans....what about stop barking yourself until you see if I`m right?!snip best regards Connie Yes, of course, Connie, my apologies for being so frank. But yes, let's see if you are right. Hans
	__________________ The time is always right to do what is right. (Martin Luther King JR.)

15th January 2009, 03:49 AM	#21
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	Connie, When you say you don't have to read about what Dann linked to, is that because you already know about these things and don't think they apply to you, or is it because you simply don't bother?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

15th January 2009, 03:54 AM	#22
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56	Hans, thank`s and the answer is yes to both !
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56

15th January 2009, 04:00 AM	#23
steenkh Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 2,636	Hi Connie, and welcome to the forum! It is good to see that you are very confident. I hope you win the challenge, though I do not think you will. Have you tried a similar test before you applied? If not, I would seriously suggest that you practise by putting cards into double envelopes, and shuffling them yourself, or even better, have somebody else shuffling them for you, and then dowse for the cards. In that way you can hone your skills, and perhaps recognise problems before you are at the actual test. Besides, we would very much like to hear your success rate at such a test!
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

15th January 2009, 04:06 AM	#24
GzuzKryzt A Division of N.T. Kryzt Inc. Tagger Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,961	Originally Posted by connie sonne This will be the only words from me here on this thread. ... Originally Posted by connie sonne Another post Originally Posted by connie sonne And yet another post. QED. Connie, if people criticise you here - like I did above - it is mostly because they want to point to technical flaws. It is not personal. I hope the JREF and you can agree to a test.
	__________________ "The rules allow for vastly different levels of honesty, knowledge, and intelligence."

15th January 2009, 05:14 AM	#25
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,220	Originally Posted by connie sonne You can even build the cards in a cementwall...I find them anyway. If this is the case then there's a much simpler protocol for the test. You stand in one room and a tester stands in the adjacent room and holds up a card. You do the dowsing and guess the card. Results are written down and repeat. Much simpler than using 40 envelopes and all that.
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,220

15th January 2009, 05:17 AM	#27
steenkh Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 2,636	Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt QED. Well, we did try to entice a reply out of her, and I do not see any reason to criticise that she changed her decision. A reaction like yours could simply result in her sticking to the original decision, and what would be the advantage of this for any of us?
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

15th January 2009, 06:14 AM	#28
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56	Hi Steenkh, and thank you. About winning the challenge, people can think what they want to think, I actually don`t care,.We`ll see. Thank`s for your advice, but as I wrote before, I do not have to practice, and I don`t have problems at all, . And GzuzKryzt, I do know, that the criticising here on the forum it`s not about me personal, but people come further, if it`s "friendly" criticising, !
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56

15th January 2009, 06:17 AM	#29
chran Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Denmark, yo Posts: 581	Hello Connie, and welcome to the forum It's good that you're confident, but I think the reason that people are advising you to make some tests by yourself beforehand, is because very many people have found out that they couldn't perform in the preliminary test for whatever reason. We just want to see you succeed!

15th January 2009, 06:20 AM	#30
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56	Yairhol, thank you for your tip, but I think JREF and I already has the protocol finished. It`s simple and straight, and it won`t take me longer than 1/2 hour, so I guess it`s ok. And I already confirmed the protocol. CFLarsen, yes, the answer to both questions a and b are yes. I already knows about these things and it dosnt apply to me and yes, I don`t bother, best regards COnnie
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56

15th January 2009, 06:27 AM	#31
Jackalgirl Ping Jockey Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Honshu, Japan Posts: 1,768	I'm with yairhol, et al. I think it would be best to have the open test be exactly like the clsoed test, with the only difference being that the card is shown to Ms. Sonne before it is sealed in a double-envelope. I like the idea of someone holding the card up to a wall, too, but this protocol is fine the way it is -- if Ms. Sonne likes it, and it seems that she does. I have a question for you, Ms. Sonne -- what will happen if you are not able to identify a sufficient number of cards? Will it have any effect on your opinion about your abilities? Will you continue to test yourself objectively, or will you disregard the results? I don't mean to seem catty -- I'm honestly interested. Most challengers state that the results will have no affect on their beliefs about their abilities, which makes me sad.
	__________________ >> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo I don't like Sylvia Browne

15th January 2009, 06:28 AM	#32
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56	Hi Chran and thank you,.It`s ok. But I am serious when I say, that I do know what I can. Really...there is no problem, . But I also know, that many people around have tried the challenge, but it did`nt work out. It will this time...when I am so sure, it`s because I know who my connections are, what they can and what they allow me to do, . And there is a meaning about this, because afterwards....much more will come..the truth about everything, I promise,.
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56

15th January 2009, 06:45 AM	#33
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,220	But suppose you fail (like Jackagirl stated). What then? Will you keep your confidence about your abilities or will you question them and seek more tests?
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,220

15th January 2009, 07:58 AM	#34
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	Connie, Why doesn't it apply to you? It's not enough for you to just state that This Is So. You need to explain why. This is a forum for skepticism and critical thinking. You can't expect people to just uncritically accept what you say. Have you performed any tests on your own? If so, how did you do it? Will you go to Ole Knudsen's lecture next Tuesday?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

15th January 2009, 08:30 AM	#35
dann Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Frederiksberg (Copenhagen) Posts: 2,895	Well, no. Connie Sonne does not need to explain anything, since she has a direct line to God ... or something: Originally Posted by connie sonne much more will come..the truth about everything, I promise,. When you are on the brink of discovering the truth about everything, lectures are a waste of time, aren't they? Connie Sonne appears to have one need above all others: the need to believe - beyond reason or common sense: "Det er en beklagelig kendsgerning, at et ordentligt dobbeltblindt forsøg aldrig er i stand til at overbevise kvistgængere om, at de tager fejl. Deres behov for at tro er så stort, at de afviser et hvilket som helst bevis, der taler imod deres opfattelse, lige meget hvor godt det er. De har antaget en filosofi som beskytter dem imod virkeligheden." From the Danish translation of James Randi's article about dowsing and dowsers mentioned in post 18: http://www.skeptica.dk/2005/randi01.htm
	__________________ /dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx Last edited by dann; 15th January 2009 at 08:38 AM.

15th January 2009, 09:31 AM	#36
dann Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Frederiksberg (Copenhagen) Posts: 2,895	”Jeg vil bede alle, der håber at vinde præmien på grundlag af deres evner som kvistgænger, om først at afprøve sig selv i et dobbeltblindt forsøg. Vi hos JREF kan give anvisninger på, hvordan man opstiller og gennemfører sådan et forsøg. Jeg kan forsikre Dem om, at den ovenstående beskrivelse af den ideomotoriske effekt vil vise sig at holde stik. Og jeg ved udmærket, at De som kvistgænger vil afvise dette råd og tro, at i Deres tilfælde er sådan en procedure unødvendig. Jeg bygger denne konklusion på de mange år, jeg har har testet kvistgængere.” http://www.skeptica.dk/2005/randi01.htm And for the unfortunate readers who don't understand Danish: ”I ask all those who wish to claim the prize based upon their dowsing skills to first try a double-blind test of their abilities. We at the JREF can advise you how to design such a test protocol. You will find, I assure you, that the description above of the ideomotor effect will be proven valid. And I know full well that you, as a dowser, will refuse this advice and believe that, for you, such a procedure is not necessary. I base this conclusion on my many years of handling dowsing claimants.” http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/
	__________________ /dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

15th January 2009, 09:36 AM	#37
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56	Jackalgirl and Yairhol, where it all comes from, there`s a lot of humor. If it will happen, that I fail the test..there`s a reason. Then I will make the new step afterwards, not by testing again, but something else..Yeah, no matter what is going to happen, I will never make a doubt about my abilities. In a year now, my life and the things I`m doing is like a puzzle, but ALWAYS I do the new step to go on...and I already have many evidences and more will come,.
connie sonne Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 56