'Shadow people'- anyone ever seen one?

Stoner

johnsix wrote: »

"evidence" .

there's that word again. It really annoys me they way different groups claim to have Evidence, when all they have is information ranging from bogus to very interesting.

johnsix, I see where you are coming from, but you are never going to get the answer you are looking for here. All looking for evidence is going to to is invite confrontation, because people don't really have any, they have something but nothing concrete, but they have enough that in their own opinion should not be classed as nothing.

So between the two schools of thought no compromise will grow. that's why IMO every now and then someone comes in and demands evidence and the thread gets all sloppy, and nobody gets a result.

johnsix

Stoner wrote: »

johnsix, I see where you are coming from, but you are never going to get the answer you are looking for here. All looking for evidence is going to to is invite confrontation, because people don't really have any, they have something but nothing concrete, but they have enough that in their own opinion should not be classed as nothing.

Ah there's the rub. Questioning that little something that has you convinced is the very heart of skepticism. You question and challenge your convictions. And if it stands up to every conceivable criticism and challenge then you can be happy it's true till new evidence says otherwise.
What I want to do is get people to challenge themselves and introduce said new evidence.

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

Ah there's the rub. Questioning that little something that has you convinced is the very heart of skepticism. You question and challenge your convictions. And if it stands up to every conceivable criticism and challenge then you can be happy it's true till new evidence says otherwise.
What I want to do is get people to challenge themselves and introduce said new evidence.

If we arranged real life meetups, I think that would go better than asking for information to be posted here.

Do you think that could work?

johnsix

Oryx wrote: »

If we arranged real life meetups, I think that would go better than asking for information to be posted here.

Do you think that could work?

Perhaps, though I am less confrontational in person so you might have the upper hand.
But I see that as no reason to stop debate here.

???

Deleted User wrote: »

You probably have paperwork to say that it didnt happen . I know somebody who has had first hand experience. I can back it but im not going to.

This is never documented basically for the safety of the psychic also if that psychic was wrong , it could mean somebodys job.

Sorry I have provided 'first hand evidence' which trumps your first hand evidence!!! Everything involved in an investigation is recorded. There is no 'off the record stuff'. If psychics are involved it would be recorded. By law the Gardi have to keep records of the entire investigation. So to be blunt, no you're wrong.

Another fact to point out is you cant measure how good a psychic is.

Ehm yes you can. Percentage sucess rate? Amount of cases they contribute to where their information leads to an arrest and conviction? It is very measureable.

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously you know nothing about it. So i am not going to go any further with this conversation.

I'm sorry but that is just being petty and infantile. You blather on about how it's true and you have proof. John links to a load of information including statements from police officers denying they have ever used a psychic. You accuse him of knowing nothing about it? Surely that just demonstrates your ignorance.

This discussion on shadow people is going nowere .

Your first real point! Could the mods maybe split this thread? This is a good discussion even if it is a tad off topic!



EDIT: I'm not less confrontational in person so we'd be grand!

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

Perhaps, though I am less confrontational in person so you might have the upper hand.
But I see that as no reason to stop debate here.

Ha, Im not confrontational at all, and its an excuse to have a beer. I dont want any upper hand anyway, thats not what this is about, its about finding common ground at all and meeting the real person, not the perception given here.

The debate here will probably never end, but a real life meeting would remove that problem of people not wishing to post stuff that will remain to be read and picked over for the next decade.

Anyhoo. On with the rough and tumble.

???

??? wrote: »

Sorry I have provided 'first hand evidence' which trumps your first hand evidence!!! Everything involved in an investigation is recorded. There is no 'off the record stuff'. If psychics are involved it would be recorded. By law the Gardi have to keep records of the entire investigation. So to be blunt, no you're wrong.
!

Well you see, im not trying, when it comes to yourself and John6 . Maybe if somebody who actually contributes to this forum wanted the info. I would be happy to share.

Anyways you can read more Wiki to get your evidence .

Whoot !

Stoner

well there might be a meet up soon, so we could go to that ???,

I can hold peoples glasses for them if a row breaks out

Oryx

Stoner wrote: »

well there might be a meet up soon, so we could go to that ???,

I can hold peoples glasses for them if a row breaks out

Spectacles or beer?

Stoner

well i meant spectacles, but anyone who uses the word Spectacles might not need such help

I can hold the beer glasses too, or maybe we should go somewhere that use cans.

Oryx

Stoner wrote: »

well i meant spectacles, but anyone who uses the word Spectacles might not need such help

I can hold the beer glasses too, or maybe we should go somewhere that use cans.

Cans or plastic and a cage for the band sounds like it might be fun.

And the only time I used the word spectacles apart from here was blessing myself:

Spectacles
Testicles
Wallet
and Watch
(even though Im minus the testicles you get the idea)

I daresay a meetup wont come to fisticuffs. Were all mouth and no trousers here, really.

Stoner

lol we are all due a meet up soon anyway, something may brew here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054958245&page=202

we can keep an eye on it, could end up in the oval pub again.

You dont have to hold my glass , i only need 1 arm

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

Well you see, im not trying, when it comes to yourself and John6 . Maybe if somebody who actually contributes to this forum wanted the info. I would be happy to share.

Anyways you can read more Wiki to get your evidence .

Whoot !

Then it's safe to assume that you have nothing to support your claims that (1. the there is something that science couldn't explain and promptly brushed aside and (2. that police use psychics regularly and to great success.

Instead of providing the proof you claim to have, you decide to not tell us because we're not good enough.
Sir, that type of argument doesn't have a fancy Latin name because few rational, intelligent adults would use it. In fact most children know how silly and immature an argument like that is.

What would happen exactly if you did share this information? Would our heads explode? would we become so distraught that we've wasted our life being skeptics that we kill ourselves in despair?
And how exactly are we skeptics not contributing anything? Does rational debate not count? Is it a bad thing?

But no, you're right I can't force you to provide it. Please withhold all this fantastic evidence, it shows exactly how mature and rational you are.

johnsix

johnsix wrote: »

Then it's safe to assume that you have nothing to support your claims that (1. the there is something that science couldn't explain and promptly brushed aside and (2. that police use psychics regularly and to great success.

Instead of providing the proof you claim to have, you decide to not tell us because we're not good enough.
Sir, that type of argument doesn't have a fancy Latin name because few rational, intelligent adults would use it. In fact most children know how silly and immature an argument like that is.

What would happen exactly if you did share this information? Would our heads explode? would we become so distraught that we've wasted our life being skeptics that we kill ourselves in despair?

But no, you're right I can't force you to provide it. Please withhold all this fantastic evidence, it shows exactly how mature and rational you are.

Well you show me yours and i will show you mine .

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

Well you show me yours and i will show you mine .

Wow real mature. Seriously.

Would you like to back this up at all?
Cause I have some evidence to the contrary.

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.ph...d_psychics.php

I did show you mine as a matter of fact. Should I call no take-backsies?

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

Then it's safe to assume that you have nothing to support your claims that (1. the there is something that science couldn't explain and promptly brushed aside and (2. that police use psychics regularly and to great success.

Instead of providing the proof you claim to have, you decide to not tell us because we're not good enough.
Sir, that type of argument doesn't have a fancy Latin name because few rational, intelligent adults would use it. In fact most children know how silly and immature an argument like that is.

What would happen exactly if you did share this information? Would our heads explode? would we become so distraught that we've wasted our life being skeptics that we kill ourselves in despair?
And how exactly are we skeptics not contributing anything? Does rational debate not count? Is it a bad thing?

But no, you're right I can't force you to provide it. Please withhold all this fantastic evidence, it shows exactly how mature and rational you are.

I cant speak for Dre. But its not fair to cry foul when 'amazing evidence' is not produced specifically here. If I was to give you first hand information, firstly I doubt youd take my word for it, and youd want names dates and places which I cannot give. Not for me, but for others involved. Weak yes, immature no.

I do not claim that the police regularly use psychics, but they DO use them. Not often, but it has been known to work, quietly and without fanfare, obviously so that the police are not held up to sceptical ridicule for using woo woo techniques.

johnsix

Oryx wrote: »

I cant speak for Dre. But its not fair to cry foul when 'amazing evidence' is not produced specifically here. If I was to give you first hand information, firstly I doubt youd take my word for it, and youd want names dates and places which I cannot give. Not for me, but for others involved. Weak yes, immature no.

I do not claim that the police regularly use psychics, but they DO use them. Not often, but it has been known to work, quietly and without fanfare, obviously so that the police are not held up to sceptical ridicule for using woo woo techniques.

Actually what I'm looking for is only what Dre said he has. He claimed he knew of stuff that science had brushed as there was no explanation for, I am only asking for examples of this not necessarily proof of them.
He also claimed quite cleary that he could prove cops used psychics, but wasn't going to.

Ghost Girl

John six your very naive, if you think people are going to bother going around trying to prove some thing to you, and if you think every thing the gardai / police do is some how documented, and can be proven your even more naive. Go and talk to Barry Cummins in RTE, he'll tell you plenty, he's written books on the missing women in Ireland which operation trace was set up to solve, and off the record stuff would astound you, but i suppose you'd want some documented proof to support what people say and do off the record. Well you're not going to get it. The work the gardai do, the psychics etc. I'm done with this now. The person who set up this thread, must be bored senseless at this stage.

johnsix

johnsix wrote: »

He also claimed quite cleary that he could prove cops used psychics, but wasn't going to.

yeah i can , but why dont you give me one good reason why i should show it to you ?

edelgkgeraghty

johnsix wrote: »

Wow real mature. Seriously.

I did show you mine as a matter of fact. Should I call no take-backsies?

Boston: Patrick J. Brady, Detective, said: "Peter Hurkos, a psychic from Holland, was used in the Boston
Strangler case."

A Weekly World News article, "Cops Amazed by Crime-Busting Psychic" (Alexander 1988),
focused on diviner Carol Pate. This article contends that she has helped solve at least
65 murders and a hundred other crimes around the country.

http://www.dianelazarus.co.uk/
A little clip from the above link....

Her ability to visualise past and future events has led to her being called upon by police in England,
Ireland and Wales, her accuracy in several murder investigations promoting senior officers to call for her
psychic assistance in a number of high profile crimes. Diane recently re-investigated the murder of
twelve-year-old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe
the child’s final walk home from school, her rape and shooting by a ‘friend’. She identified the murderer
as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file.

edelgkgeraghty

edelgkgeraghty wrote: »

Boston: Patrick J. Brady, Detective, said: "Peter Hurkos, a psychic from Holland, was used in the Boston
Strangler case."

A Weekly World News article, "Cops Amazed by Crime-Busting Psychic" (Alexander 1988),
focused on diviner Carol Pate. This article contends that she has helped solve at least
65 murders and a hundred other crimes around the country.

http://www.dianelazarus.co.uk/
A little clip from the above link....

Her ability to visualise past and future events has led to her being called upon by police in England,
Ireland and Wales, her accuracy in several murder investigations promoting senior officers to call for her
psychic assistance in a number of high profile crimes. Diane recently re-investigated the murder of
twelve-year-old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe
the child’s final walk home from school, her rape and shooting by a ‘friend’. She identified the murderer
as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file.

Were is your evidence ?

edelgkgeraghty

Deleted User wrote: »

Were is your evidence ?

Psychics are used in investigations.

Evidence.... im not on trial here.... im sharing some info.

???

edelgkgeraghty wrote: »

Boston: Patrick J. Brady, Detective, said: "Peter Hurkos, a psychic from Holland, was used in the Boston
Strangler case."

"Hurkos also claimed to have identified the Boston Strangler, and he did in fact travel to Boston and spend time with the police there. However, he was not of help to them. Several days after he concluded his consultation, he was arrested (and eventually convicted) for impersonating a police officer. Hurkos allegedly posed as a police officer in order to gather information that he could later claim to be psychic revelations."

Hahahahahaha. Great psychic detective!!!

A Weekly World News article, "Cops Amazed by Crime-Busting Psychic" (Alexander 1988),
focused on diviner Carol Pate. This article contends that she has helped solve at least
65 murders and a hundred other crimes around the country.

"Carol Pate

We hear a lot about psychics’ alleged successes, but less about their much more frequent and notable failures. Take two “cases” of Little Rock, Arkansas, psychic Carol Pate, for example. The first is claimed a success. Pate appeared on Court TV’s Psychic Detectives and Larry King Live regarding her alleged assistance in the case of a missing Arkansas teenager. Although it was claimed that Pate “helped find” the boy (“Psychics” 2004), she did nothing of the sort. He was released after being repeatedly raped by his kidnapper. So when the announcer for Larry King Live asked, before a commercial break, “Can detectives use a psychic’s vision to catch a kidnapper?” (“Psychics” 2004), the answer is, no. Pate could only try to match up her stated “clues” by using the police psychic’s stock-in-trade, retrofitting. For instance the word ridge, says Pate, “came into my head,” and Ridge Road was the name of the main route leading away from the kidnap site (“Psychics” 2004). Pate could easily have learned this fact when she visited the location or consulted a map.



Another case involving Carol Pate concerned Dr. Xu “Sue” Wang of Darien, Illinois, who disappeared in 1999 after she left for work at a medical center. Just over a year later, Carol Pate claimed that, from photos mailed to her by the Darien police, she had a psychic vision. She said she visualized the scene where Wang had been buried in a previously dug grave (Zorn 2000a). Subsequently, the police, acting on Pate’s advice, announced plans to conduct an aerial search as well as use dogs to look for the missing physician’s burial site (“Police” 2000).



Reporting on Pate’s claims, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn was skeptical. He quoted me as stating, “They count their lucky guesses and ignore all their misses,” and “I have just one question for all of them: Where’s Jimmy Hoffa?” Zorn (2000a) gave odds that the police would not “find anything,” and concluded that Pate was merely “guessing.”

Subsequently Zorn sent an e-mail to SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, quoting Darien’s deputy police chief Ron Campo. Campo said of Pate’s psychic input, “It didn’t pan out.” Concluded Zorn (2000b): “Turns out the woman was just guessing, like every other phony who claims to have such powers—exactly, eerily as I predicted. Hey, d’ya suppose. . . ?”"

http://www.dianelazarus.co.uk/
A little clip from the above link....

Her ability to visualise past and future events has led to her being called upon by police in England,
Ireland and Wales, her accuracy in several murder investigations promoting senior officers to call for her
psychic assistance in a number of high profile crimes. Diane recently re-investigated the murder of
twelve-year-old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe
the child’s final walk home from school, her rape and shooting by a ‘friend’. She identified the murderer
as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file.

That's from her personal website, I'm not going near that!

edelgkgeraghty

That's from her personal website, I'm not going near that![/quote]

I have tasted my own medicine and it is bitter!

'Proof' and 'Evidence' is indeed important. However i genuinely believe that nobody will believe in the paranormal, psychics etc, unless they have an experience for themselves. So for the fortunate ( and sometimes unfortunate depending on the case!) who get the experience feel privildged. Your obviously regarded as been important enough to be used as the medium. And for the others, well, wait and see.

???

Hahaha. Restecp!

Havermeyer

caoibhin wrote: »

You asked the question. Maybe you should have qualified it by requesting only people who would believe you should respond.

Ye see, that's the problem. Most of the time, when you give an opposing view to the ones favoured here you get frowned upon. But what can you do, you are in the paranormal forum after all.

Ostrom

edelgkgeraghty wrote: »

That's from her personal website, I'm not going near that!

If you're after evidence (assuming you consider psychiatary a sound basis for exploratory research) there is a wealth of scientific data on experimental ESP, encephelography, stat studies of medium abilities.

Sorry if I'm missing the point but....its out there

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah i can , but why dont you give me one good reason why i should show it to you ?

It would validate your piont?
It would prove me wrong?
It would show other people curious about it where the evidence comes from?
It would add credibility to a lot of other arguements on the fourm?
It would add to the overall knowledge of everyone?
Please, take your pick.

But the thing I'm really curious about is the reason you won't tell.

johnsix

efla wrote: »

If you're after evidence (assuming you consider psychiatary a sound basis for exploratory research) there is a wealth of scientific data on experimental ESP, encephelography, stat studies of medium abilities.

Sorry if I'm missing the point but....its out there

There has been tests of various esp powers, but they vary on how scientific they actually are. The tendency is that the more stringent and controlled the test the worse the esp powers do, mainly due to eliminating the chance of cheating and accounting for statistical anomalies.