View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby Scepcop » 31 Jul 2009, 15:29

A comment I saw on YouTube that's brilliant and hit the bull's eye. I'll be adding it to the new home page.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vks49Bfn544

"What skeptics fail to understand is that skepticism involves being skeptical of your own position, it does not mean just being skeptical of that which you do not believe in, otherwise we are all skeptics and that renders their use of the term "skeptic" meaningless. A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well. Since the Randi crowd do not employ skepticism in this respect then they are fairly termed pseudo skeptics and demean the term skepticism."
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby Scepcop » 02 Aug 2009, 05:25

Response from one of my spiritual advisors:

: ) So simple yes? And yet most miss that little detail. Why is that?

It's the E G O. That part of us which contracts and limits our own unlimited Consciousness.. our awareness. AND.. it does this constantly, thus robbing us of our FULL Potential. Humanity is trapped in egocentric behavior. Namaste, Faith
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby ProfWag » 07 Aug 2009, 02:14

Scepcop wrote:A comment I saw on YouTube that's brilliant and hit the bull's eye. I'll be adding it to the new home page.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vks49Bfn544

"What skeptics fail to understand is that skepticism involves being skeptical of your own position, it does not mean just being skeptical of that which you do not believe in, otherwise we are all skeptics and that renders their use of the term "skeptic" meaningless. A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well. Since the Randi crowd do not employ skepticism in this respect then they are fairly termed pseudo skeptics and demean the term skepticism."

No, it's not. This is an invalid assessment of what skeptics are all about. It's about critical thinking and logic. It's about taking a claim, investigating the information, then formulating an opinion based on the evidence presented. A true skeptic knows that very few things in this world are "impossible," but instead, we prefer to use skepticism as a method of reaching a conclusion rather than taking a position at face value. It has absolutely nothing to do with taking a position.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby Eteponge » 07 Aug 2009, 03:30

ProfWag wrote:No, it's not. This is an invalid assessment of what skeptics are all about. It's about critical thinking and logic. It's about taking a claim, investigating the information, then formulating an opinion based on the evidence presented. A true skeptic knows that very few things in this world are "impossible," but instead, we prefer to use skepticism as a method of reaching a conclusion rather than taking a position at face value. It has absolutely nothing to do with taking a position.

I see time and time again, Skeptics giving explanations for certain paranormal cases, but then when you actually examine the data further, you see that these explanations are outright contradicted by the data itself (and were already checked into by investigators), and that in many cases the skeptics will omit important veridical details of certain cases in order to downplay the significance of the case (especially psychic detective cases). I find that dishonest quite frankly.

It shows rather than tackling the data, they give convincing sounding explanations that don't fit the data, but are enough to convince like-minded skeptics (who seek out the skeptical explanation first, without examining the data) that there is "nothing there". And in omitting important veridical details gotten on a particular case, it's a dishonest tactic of downplaying the cases, trying to make it look less spectacular than it actually is.

For example, with Psychic Detective Dorothy Allison, there is a particularly famous case in 1967 of a little boy who fell into a riverbank and drown, which Dorothy assisted police detectives on.

If you read ANY skeptic sources on this case, they will say stuff like, "she contributed nothing useful to this case", "she failed to locate the body of the child", "she wasted countless man hours having them dig up a drainage pipe she thought the boy was inside in, he wasn't", "it was a man looking to bury his cat, not the psychic, who discovered the little boy". Etc. That's all they will say about the case.

First off, neither Dorothy, nor the Police Detectives, EVER claimed that she directly discovered the body, nor that her clues directly led to the discovery of the body. That is a complete strawman.

However, let's talk about the veridical clues she got on this particular case ...

* In this case the entire description of the drowned child was accurate in each and every detail and layer of clothing (not made available to the public), including the religious metal pin on the third undershirt and that his under shoes would be found on the wrong feet (this even the parents didn't know). She also saw that when he would be found his hands would be caked with mud, which they were, and that when he fell in the water, was distracted by a paint can, which his brother who was there confirmed, but his parents didn't know. All sorts of numerous visual location information being within visual sight of the body, (that he would be found behind a school, with a lumber mill nearby, gold painting on a door near by, a parking lot and an ITT factory nearby, etc, all were within plain visual sight of the body when and where it was found), and the biggest that he would specifically be found on February 7th, and a high significance that was put on the number 120 would be solved on that date as well (police detectives interviewed stated that they had written these clues down three months before it happened, the exact date and time), and he was indeed found on February 7th, at 1:20 in the afternoon.

The skeptics leave all of these important veridical details on the case out, every single time. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Also, the information they present regarding the drainage pipe search for the boy was a bit inaccurate. What actually occured, was Dorothy Allison had a vision of the boy's body inside of a drainage pipe that had unique cracks all inside of it, and had a vision of him being sucked out of the drainage pipe. She asked the police to search the drainage pipes in the park, because it might not be too late, that he could still be inside of it.

All of the pipes in the park did not looked cracked (at least from the outside) like the one she saw in the vision. But, she had a gut feeling that "that one!" (she pointed at one) was the one. They opened up the pipe, and it WAS the pipe in her vision, it had the same unique cracks all inside of it. (And, it was the *ONLY* drainage pipe in the entire park that was cracked inside, even the maintanace guy was unaware of it.) But the boy's body was no longer there. That's the full story of the pipe incident that debunkers don't mention.

This is why I have a hard time trusting Skeptics to be objective about a case, omitting important veridical details and twisting facts and all.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby brett » 08 Aug 2009, 23:48

the reason that pseudo skeptics - always come up with this stuff is that they are AFRAID !! - afraid to admit there are things in the world and universe that THEY cant get a handle on or control - because most sKeptics i have come across ARE control freaks - they like a nice ordered little world - where nothing is out of place all phenomena is neatly explainable - and absolutely nothing go's bump in the night !!

if a ghost /UFO /whatever appeared right in front of them - they will come up with ANY explanation other than a ghost/UFO/whatever appeared in front of them - simply because they can not trust their own eyes and senses to see what is plain to the rest of us - and if any one challenges their "world view" - they defend it with circular argument - the "scientific method " ( and WE all know that science and the pronouncements of science has been as fallible as the rest of us on many occasions in the past ) - and eventually they resort to personal attack - insults - or walk away claiming :you just don't understand / are unscientific or any other of the stock answers they have but why is this ??

simple its in a LOT of cases what they have been taught by others - we all know that academia is riddled with supposed experts in their field , true in MANY disciplines this expertise is valid -BUT in the field we are discussing there are NO repeat NO experts on either side of the divide - as we ARE dealing with an anomalous group of phenomena that cant be neatly pigeonholed - and HAS in my personal opinion been so corrupted over the last ten to fifteen years by in a LOT of cases the very people who claim to be investigating it AND the BS that is perpetuated on the Internet - that they feel justified in their stance , frankly having seen some of the CRAP perpetrated by some supposed researchers - i tend to agree with them !!

now before any of you start questioning my last comment , consider this - the average "ghost hunter " /UFO freak / whatever ?? - ohh lets drag in "demonologists " - i love them !! - learns most /all of what they know from the net - few if ANY read the classic investigation literature of the past and if you actually mention these cases they at best have a cursory knowledge of them - or have never heard of them - like wise they have NEVER researched literature anywhere further back than Derick accoras first book - and ONLY became interested when they watched an episode of ghost hunters ( et al ) - and in the recent phenomena of the supposed " demonologist ( now a must have accessory for all "leading" ghost hunting groups " - if you ask them what training and study they have had/done to qualify them to investigate such ................................. :roll:

the "paranormal " is a much wider and diverse subject than many realise or are prepared to research properly - it encompasses both some aspects of science - right through to arcane literature - and practice - and the SKEPTICS are as guilty as the rest in NOT researching and having the broad base of knowledge - preferring to cling to THEIR "faith " in what they have been TAUGHT by others , who where taught by others , who where taught by others etc etc etc

what it boils down to i suppose is that they are incapable of using their own brains to think outside the straightjacket of academic dogma !! - much like many religious people are incapable of considering anything other than that taught by religious dogma - and thus get very afraid and defensive when us in the main "supposedly " uneducated people challenge their possession of the "truth " ( the barbarian at the gate syndrome -as i call it ) -

has anyone ACTUALLY done a study of the social /educational standing of most pseudo skeptics ?? - i am willing to bet that most will fall neatly into a higher educated /academic and possibly even financially higher bracket ( i have a theory about this ** ) position - and also have a disdain for us who MAY not have an academic ( but probably a "degree" in common sense ) or "scientific " background - well we cant have the barbarians spreading false beliefs can we ?? it threatens OUR position in the scheme of things

and SO has it been throughout history IF you have the time and inclination to actually not just read it but look at its lessons :?

** educated idiot syndrome -( i don't think i NEED to explain that one ?? ) :lol:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby Scepcop » 09 Aug 2009, 02:07

You forget Brett, that studies show that higher education has been linked to belief in the paranormal. Didn't you see the home page?

http://www.rense.com/general70/smart.htm
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby brett » 09 Aug 2009, 14:18

Scepcop wrote:You forget Brett, that studies show that higher education has been linked to belief in the paranormal. Didn't you see the home page?

http://www.rense.com/general70/smart.htm


yes i read that - most interesting - but would still opine that the majority of sKeptics ALSO fall into the category i described - may be all things DO have to have an opposite and equal ?? - :?
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby NinjaPuppy » 09 Aug 2009, 22:01

ProfWag wrote:It's about critical thinking and logic. It's about taking a claim, investigating the information, then formulating an opinion based on the evidence presented. A true skeptic knows that very few things in this world are "impossible," but instead, we prefer to use skepticism as a method of reaching a conclusion rather than taking a position at face value. It has absolutely nothing to do with taking a position.


By ProfWag's definition, I am a skeptic, but I already knew that ;)

The problems start when a claim clashes with religious beliefs. The claim is now automatically discounted by that portion of the population as impossible. The next major problem is money. Research is expensive. The competition for that available research money is massive. The institutions that offer the funding are made up of people. People with different religious beliefs, diverse education and personal priorities. Their Boards decide where their money will be best spent. Even if the 'powers to be' on a particular Board believe that a paranormal study is worthy of their grant money to further the research, they know darned well that there will be back wash from the religious groups. The media will have a field day if more time and money is spent on ghost hunting than on medical research. Heck, most of the world would rather see millions spent on better ways to kill each other in the ultimate war, than to look for some transparent figure that has been seen by many.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby Nostradamus » 10 Aug 2009, 11:19

There is no skeptic's position. I believe the word you meant was prosaic, as in "My seemingly mysterious statement has a prosaic explanation." Here prosaic has the meaning of commonplace or ordinary.

A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well.

This is incorrect as you well know. Of course, you are free to define words as you wish. Taking an ebonics or should I say a cynical-bonics approach in no way promotes the healthy discussion of paranormal phenomena.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby brett » 10 Aug 2009, 15:59

Nostradamus wrote:There is no skeptic's position. I believe the word you meant was prosaic, as in "My seemingly mysterious statement has a prosaic explanation." Here prosaic has the meaning of commonplace or ordinary.

A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well.

This is incorrect as you well know. Of course, you are free to define words as you wish. Taking an ebonics or should I say a cynical-bonics approach in no way promotes the healthy discussion of paranormal phenomena.



UMmm , NO PERSONAL DISRESPECT HERE , but how is the statement " A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well." incorrect ,??

ANYONE ( believer or skeptic )
who does not Analise and rationalise their OWN standpoint on any particular matter is either foolish at best , or down right arrogant at worst , I personally question everything , even that i have witnessed with my own eyes !! - and THEN draw what ever conclusion ( which of course may be right or wrong ) and have spent many hours pondering if my personal viewpoint on all this IS correct or not ?? - i obviously choose to believe that it is - based on experience , research of BOTH sides of the argument , and what i have personally witnessed

a true believer casts scepticism on their position as well !! - IMO
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby Nostradamus » 10 Aug 2009, 20:18

UMmm , NO PERSONAL DISRESPECT HERE , but how is the statement " A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well." incorrect ,??


My concern is with the wording of the original post. I was not attempting to take a single line out of context, but rather to represent the line of thinking in that post with that sentence.

No, it's not. This is an invalid assessment of what skeptics are all about. It's about critical thinking and logic. It's about taking a claim, investigating the information, then formulating an opinion based on the evidence presented. A true skeptic knows that very few things in this world are "impossible," but instead, we prefer to use skepticism as a method of reaching a conclusion rather than taking a position at face value. It has absolutely nothing to do with taking a position.


This writer explains my position well.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby ProfWag » 10 Aug 2009, 21:43

Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:No, it's not. This is an invalid assessment of what skeptics are all about. It's about critical thinking and logic. It's about taking a claim, investigating the information, then formulating an opinion based on the evidence presented. A true skeptic knows that very few things in this world are "impossible," but instead, we prefer to use skepticism as a method of reaching a conclusion rather than taking a position at face value. It has absolutely nothing to do with taking a position.

I see time and time again, Skeptics giving explanations for certain paranormal cases, but then when you actually examine the data further, you see that these explanations are outright contradicted by the data itself (and were already checked into by investigators), and that in many cases the skeptics will omit important veridical details of certain cases in order to downplay the significance of the case (especially psychic detective cases). I find that dishonest quite frankly.

It shows rather than tackling the data, they give convincing sounding explanations that don't fit the data, but are enough to convince like-minded skeptics (who seek out the skeptical explanation first, without examining the data) that there is "nothing there". And in omitting important veridical details gotten on a particular case, it's a dishonest tactic of downplaying the cases, trying to make it look less spectacular than it actually is.

For example, with Psychic Detective Dorothy Allison, there is a particularly famous case in 1967 of a little boy who fell into a riverbank and drown, which Dorothy assisted police detectives on.

If you read ANY skeptic sources on this case, they will say stuff like, "she contributed nothing useful to this case", "she failed to locate the body of the child", "she wasted countless man hours having them dig up a drainage pipe she thought the boy was inside in, he wasn't", "it was a man looking to bury his cat, not the psychic, who discovered the little boy". Etc. That's all they will say about the case.

First off, neither Dorothy, nor the Police Detectives, EVER claimed that she directly discovered the body, nor that her clues directly led to the discovery of the body. That is a complete strawman.

However, let's talk about the veridical clues she got on this particular case ...

* In this case the entire description of the drowned child was accurate in each and every detail and layer of clothing (not made available to the public), including the religious metal pin on the third undershirt and that his under shoes would be found on the wrong feet (this even the parents didn't know). She also saw that when he would be found his hands would be caked with mud, which they were, and that when he fell in the water, was distracted by a paint can, which his brother who was there confirmed, but his parents didn't know. All sorts of numerous visual location information being within visual sight of the body, (that he would be found behind a school, with a lumber mill nearby, gold painting on a door near by, a parking lot and an ITT factory nearby, etc, all were within plain visual sight of the body when and where it was found), and the biggest that he would specifically be found on February 7th, and a high significance that was put on the number 120 would be solved on that date as well (police detectives interviewed stated that they had written these clues down three months before it happened, the exact date and time), and he was indeed found on February 7th, at 1:20 in the afternoon.

The skeptics leave all of these important veridical details on the case out, every single time. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Also, the information they present regarding the drainage pipe search for the boy was a bit inaccurate. What actually occured, was Dorothy Allison had a vision of the boy's body inside of a drainage pipe that had unique cracks all inside of it, and had a vision of him being sucked out of the drainage pipe. She asked the police to search the drainage pipes in the park, because it might not be too late, that he could still be inside of it.

All of the pipes in the park did not looked cracked (at least from the outside) like the one she saw in the vision. But, she had a gut feeling that "that one!" (she pointed at one) was the one. They opened up the pipe, and it WAS the pipe in her vision, it had the same unique cracks all inside of it. (And, it was the *ONLY* drainage pipe in the entire park that was cracked inside, even the maintanace guy was unaware of it.) But the boy's body was no longer there. That's the full story of the pipe incident that debunkers don't mention.

This is why I have a hard time trusting Skeptics to be objective about a case, omitting important veridical details and twisting facts and all.

Interesting story. If she didn't solve this case, what case did she solve? Unfortunately, I was 3 years old when this happened so the details of her work in this case would be hard to find. Do you have anything more recent that could actually be verified? By the way, is this the same woman who gave 42 names to the Atlanta PD during the child killings and none of them were right? Is this the same woman who claimed a victory in the Jon Benet case when her sketch of John Karr looked vaguely familiar, but it was later shown he didn't do it?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby Eteponge » 11 Aug 2009, 05:56

ProfWag wrote:Interesting story. If she didn't solve this case, what case did she solve? Unfortunately, I was 3 years old when this happened so the details of her work in this case would be hard to find. Do you have anything more recent that could actually be verified? By the way, is this the same woman who gave 42 names to the Atlanta PD during the child killings and none of them were right? Is this the same woman who claimed a victory in the Jon Benet case when her sketch of John Karr looked vaguely familiar, but it was later shown he didn't do it?

Yep, same woman. (Except she was DEAD when John Karr was arrested, so she didn't "claim victory", she drew that sketch years earlier.) That she got certain cases wrong, off, or inaccurate is known and not hidden (even Scott Jacobson's book on Dorothy Allison mentions her misses as well as her hits, in full context, and even Dorothy herself mentioned in an interview that there are cases where she's gotten nothing of value, this isn't some "big secret"), the bigger questioned that should be asked (but never is by Skeptics) is, "Does she have actual very good cases that stand up to scrutiny where the veridical data she presented is both unexplainable, specific, veridical, highly significant, and could have led them to the body if they interpreted it correctly in time?" And that answer is yes. And there are interviews with the Police Detectives and Family Members (and newspaper / magazine articles) which correspond to Dorothy's statements.

About this book I mentioned (long out of print and a good source on her) ...

"Material for this book was gathered from several sources. Dorothy's own retelling of the stories has been supported by newspaper and magazine articles and signed affidavits from many of the parties involved. In most cases, the families of the victims have cooperated fully, regardless of the fact that the interviews stirred unpleasent memories. Many of the law-enforcement officers involved have also given generously of their time in recounting their experiences with the psychic detective." - Scott Jacobson in Foreward to 'Dorothy Allison: A Psychic Story'

Let's examine these cases of hers. You've already read the Skeptic Sources, let's examine the data:

Case I:

I'll start with the most significant (to me) case of Dorothy Allison. Where the father of a murdered teenage girl followed Dorothy's clues to a marsh area location over 30 miles away from their home, found all of the specific clues that Dorothy gave her at this location (including a big rock with the letters MAR written on it in big red letters), and then brought Dorothy Allison there. She told him, "this is the place, your daughter is here, you have to get the police". The police wouldn't listen to them (still treating her case as a runaway). Several months later, a group of teenagers found her body in a water hole in the exact same area they were searching, in visible sight of ALL of the clues Dorothy had mentioned.

Detailed Information on this Case:

On May 15, 1976, a 14 year old teenage girl named Susan Jacobson disappeared shortly after leaving her home. Her parents went to the police, who simply wrote her off as a runaway, and told them that they had neither the time nor manpower to search for an obvious runaway. The parents heard of Psychic Dorothy Allison by reputation, and arranged her to meet them at their home, after the police refused to take their daughter's disappearance seriously. Here are the highlights of this particular case...

* In the case of this murdered girl: The numbers she got, 2562 being the daughter's birthday, 405 being the time the daughter was born. She named her boyfriend (got the right name) and stated that she had been strangled by her boyfriend (he was later convicted of it). She got a vision of the place her body was to be found (a marsh area), the word MAR written in Big Red Letters on a Rock (her exact words) found within 100 yards of the body (in plain visual sight from where her body was dumped), Smell of Oil (she was found in an oil drum), and 222 connected with the Smell of Oil (being Numbers on the Oil Drum that she was found in), she was in water but didn't drown (she was in a water hole in the oil drum), and a number of other visual clues all found within 100 yards of the body in plain visual sight (two sets of church steeples, dual smoke stacks, a broken down car, in a marsh area, etc).

As for the debunkers on this particular case ...

They are mostly silent. The Debunker Skeptic Articles will often only mention that Dorothy and her Clues did not directly locate the body (true), will leave out ALL Veridical Hits on this Case, (except sometimes they will mention one very weak one, where Dorothy supposeably mentioned a "bridal path of horses" [which I can't find mentioned in any source on her on this case], which connects to the cemetary where she was later buried, and TOTALLY OMIT the more interesting veridical hits.)

In OMITTING the veridical information Dorothy got on the case, they've left out the most interesting aspects of the case, the most intruiging being, that her own father followed Dorothy's clues to the *exact location* where his daughter's body was later found, over 30 miles away, as well as the information I previously mentioned.

Case II:

Now the second case of hers I'll present is her very first one, which is almost as good as the one I listed above ...

On December 3rd 1967, a little boy was playing with his brother along the riverbank, and disappeared. Dorothy Allison had a vision of the boy drowning and being caught in a pipe, a full two hours before the incident happened. She later contacted the police, who were very skeptical, but upon describing the little boy and the clothing he was wearing the morning of his disappearance exactly, information that had not been released to the public (no photo of the little boy had been released to the public either), they decided to take her insights seriously in an open-minded way. Here are the highlights of this particular case...

* In this case the entire description of the drowned child was accurate in each and every detail and layer of clothing (not made available to the public), including the religious metal pin on the third undershirt and that his under shoes would be found on the wrong feet (this even the parents didn't know). She also saw that when he would be found his hands would be caked with mud, which they were, and that when he fell in the water, was distracted by a paint can, which his brother who was there confirmed, but his parents didn't know. All sorts of numerous visual location information being within visual sight of the body, (that he would be found behind a school, with a lumber mill nearby, gold painting on a door near by, a parking lot and an ITT factory nearby, etc, all were within plain visual sight of the body when and where it was found), and the biggest that he would specifically be found on February 7th, and a high significance that was put on the number 120 would be solved on that date as well (police detectives interviewed stated that they had written these clues down three months before it happened, the exact date and time), and he was indeed found on February 7th, at 1:20 in the afternoon.

As for the debunkers on this particular case ...

In the missing child who drowned case from 1967, what the Debunkers usually state is that she did not locate the body herself (true), that her clues did not *directly* lead to the discovery of the body (again, true), point out that a man looking to bury his cat discovered the body (true), and then point out that Dorothy "wasted their time" digging up a drainage pipe "she said contained the boy" that didn't contain the boy (half-true, distorted information), and then count the entire case a total miss. (While OMITTING all of the dazzle shot hits she DID get right on the case.)

Examining the veridical hits I posted earlier, it's clear that by OMITTING this information out of the equation entirely, they've left out very significant, very interesting information she got on this case.

Also, the information they present regarding the drainage pipe search for the boy was a bit inaccurate. What actually occured, was Dorothy Allison had a vision of the boy's body inside of a drainage pipe that had unique cracks all inside of it, and had a vision of him being sucked out of the drainage pipe. She asked the police to search the drainage pipes in the park, because it might not be too late, that he could still be inside of it.

All of the pipes in the park did not looked cracked (at least from the outside) like the one she saw in the vision. But, she had a gut feeling that "that one!" (she pointed at one) was the one. They opened up the pipe, and it WAS the pipe in her vision, it had the same unique cracks all inside of it. (And, it was the *ONLY* drainage pipe in the entire park that was cracked inside, even the maintanace guy was unaware of it.) But the boy's body was no longer there. That's the full story of the pipe incident that debunkers don't mention.

Case III:

On December 20, 1974 a businessman got aboard a train to travel, but no one saw him get off of it at it's stop. He simply disappeared. Rumors circulated that he had embezzled and vanished, or run off with a mistress, they simply couldn't find the guy. So the police, knowing the reputation of Dorothy Allison, contacted her asking for her help. The police wrote down everything she said, a full three months before his body was discovered. Here are the highlights of this perticular case ...

* In this case of a man who went missing on a train, she saw that he had actually fallen from the train into the water (she said he thought he was at his stop, walked out, and fell into the water below), even though police suspected he had embezzled or ran off with a mistress. The Bow and Arrow significance she got which was how his body was discovered (a son and father were shooting arrows with a bow over the river, when a stray arrow from their shooting above the riverbank missed it's target and landed right next to his corpse below on the riverbank, they called the authorities.) That there was a row of tires up on a sleded hill next to the area where the body was found where children played (which was fully accurate), and the 222 clue given by Dorothy as significant in this case was February 22, the exact date the body was found.

* Other Clues She Gave On This Case: She said 166 was as significant in this case as 222 and was unrelated to 222 (the date he was found). There was an old tugboat permanently stationed below the very section of bridge (near Lyndhurst Station) he fell off from on the train, on it's side, was painted in very large numbers, 166. She also said she saw "two guys" were significant to the case. These would be the two people who discovered the body.

As for the debunkers and this case, I haven't seen a single mention of this case, it's totally omitted.

Case IV:

Famous Cases ...

* That the Son of Sam killer would be caught because of a Parking Ticket, such an obscure foreseen detail, not to mention the Accurate Portrait of the Killer that she drew.

* That Patty Hearst would bond with her kidnappers and rob a bank with them, not to mention her pinpointing locations where she was previously held. (When they checked these locations, she was no longer there, they had moved, but it was later revealed after she was found that they had actually been there previously.)

* She was also questioned about a missing body in the John Wayne Gacy case, which she said would be found floating in the river at a certain *specific* bridge, and even gave the exact time and day. (Like in the child's case.)

As for the Skeptics on these three cases, only the Patty Hearst and Gacy cases get mentioned criticized by debunkers ...

One skeptic article has the father of Patty Hearst talking about how she did not locate his daughter, and the Debunkers making a big deal out of his statements, and suggesting that the Patty Hearst case was a complete miss. They, however ignored Dorothy's prediction that she would bond with her kidnappers and rob a bank with them, and that she pinpointed locations that they had been, but were no longer there by the time they searched there.

One Skeptic Article I read states that on the Gacy Murders, she merely led the police on a "wild goose chase" with absolutely nothing of substance. This was inaccurate...

She predicted the exact time and day that one of the bodies of the young men murdered by Gacy would be found (one that was not in the house, that was still missing), and she stated that his body would specifically be found floating down a river NEXT TO A SPECIFIC BRIDGE when it was discovered. ALL of these details were correct, the exact time and date the body was found (like in the little boy's case) and he was discovered floating down a river NEXT TO A SPECIFIC BRIDGE. (She even named which bridge it was.)

That's significant.

Case V:

These are several MISC cases of hers I find interesting ...

* In March of 1991, accurately picking up that a girl in the area would be dismembered, encased in cement, dumped in a specific lake, with one body part sticking out of the cement, shortly before it happened. And another girl in the general area would be found nude, strangled, covered with brush, and placed near running water. (And was, in June 1991.) Both before they happened, one several months before it happened. (Interesting thing about that case, was that she was initially there trying to pick up a *different* murder victim in that area. She got nothing on that original victim, but instead picked up information on a *separate* killing that *had not happened yet*.)

* That she would die shortly before her 75th birthday of heart disease (made In 1990), and did just one month short of her 75th birthday (died In 1999).

* In the murders of two girls, she saw the word "Silvermead", and a row of mobile homes, and the name Goldstein. When the two girls' bodies were found, they were found less than half a mile from Silvermead Trailer Park, which is owned by a man named Mr. Goldstein.

* "Chief DeLitta of the Nutley police said she had been helpful on many occasions, citing a 1993 bludgeoning murder. Among Ms. Allison's correct predictions were double letters in the names of the suspect and a street that figured in the case, the occupation of the suspect's father, and the facts that the suspect lived in a garden apartment next to a yellow house and that one of his car's headlights was out.

She also said the murder weapon would be found in a river. The weapon was never found, but the man convicted of the crime later admitted throwing it in the river, the chief said." - New York Times Article on Dorothy Allison

* She saw the name Richard or Robert, with a middle name of Lee or Leroy, with something to do with shoes or shoemaking, an accomplice, and a dead nurse. These clues haunted her, and she repeated these to police over and over, as a case to look into. An unsolved case involving a dead nurse soon turned up, and eventually turned out to have been done by a Richard Lee Dodson, who was a shoemaker by trade, who had an accomplice.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby Nostradamus » 11 Aug 2009, 20:02

You did not post a source for this information. Much of what you posted seems to be what is done with predictions by Nostradamus - someone says, oh they must have meant this or that by this comment.

Saw almost nothing online about Dorothy Allison. Any places with more info?

Again, where did your info come from?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: What Skeptics fail to understand (spot on, bull's eye!)

Postby Eteponge » 11 Aug 2009, 20:14

Nostradamus wrote:You did not post a source for this information. Much of what you posted seems to be what is done with predictions by Nostradamus - someone says, oh they must have meant this or that by this comment.

Saw almost nothing online about Dorothy Allison. Any places with more info?

Again, where did your info come from?

I have mentioned my sources, quite a few times in fact, and they are good ones. The first major source is the indepth book by Scott Jacobson where he interviewed Dorothy herself, interviewed the actual Police Detectives who worked with her on these cases, interviewed the actual family members of the victims that she worked with on these cases, and compared this information with written sources he examined, in order to present a well researched well cross-referenced book detailing these events. The book is "Dorothy Allison: A Psychic Story", written in 1980, not long after these cases occurred.

The second major source is the Unsolved Mysteries Episode (which interviews Dorothy Allison, the two Police Detectives that she worked with, family members of the victims she worked with, Etc, going on record on video about these cases). Very significant because the Police Detectives recount the cases and flat out state that they actually wrote down all of Dorothy's Clues *months* in advance of the resolution of the cases, and then rechecked them to make sure they weren't misremembering what was said, and her clues still matched.

The third is information gathered from MISC Sources, such as Dorothy Allison's Obituary in The New York Times, and several Skeptic Sources which are critical of her, as well as a serious Court TV / TruTV Article on Psychic Detectives which mentions some hits and misses she has had.

The most significant two sources are (more detailed) :

The most indepth source which is Scott Jacobson's Book on Dorothy Allison. The foreword of which states, "Material for this book was gathered from several sources. Dorothy's own retelling of the stories has been supported by newspaper and magazine articles and signed affidavits from many of the parties involved. In most cases, the families of the victims have cooperated fully, regardless of the fact that the interviews stirred unpleasent memories. Many of the law-enforcement officers involved have also given generously of their time in recounting their experiences with the psychic detective." - Scott Jacobson in Foreward to 'Dorothy Allison: A Psychic Story'

I like this source because it presents her known misses as well as her known hits, in full context. Does not shy away from presenting everything. (Hits and Misses, and Misdirected Information she's gotten.)

And the Unsolved Mysteries Episode because ...

You have the police detectives who worked with Dorothy Allison on video being interviewed on the Unsolved Mysteries Episode explaining the cases, what happened, etc, and very clearly stating that they wrote Dorothy's clues down months in advanced, and rechecked them after the information panned out to make sure they matched with what was written down, and you have the video testimony of the father who located the place his daughter's body was later found (over 30 miles from their home) using Dorothy's clues.

The UM Episode is pretty significant, because you have these police detectives and victim's families on video on record confirming this stuff.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Next

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests