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.

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

Postby Nostradamus » 11 Aug 2009, 21:57

Thanks I guess I didn't read your post that well. I am too used to people making explicit reference lists.

According to: http://www.nypress.com/article-729-the-oracle-at-nutley.html

Son of Sam killer David Berkowitz, adding that his capture would be related to a traffic violation, a tidbit that also proved correct.


But you stated that:
* 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.


So how on target was this issue. A parking ticket is a form of a traffic violation. This is like saying in water vs in rain, in lake, in river, or in storm drain.

The NHTSA states at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/Beyond/percept.htm

Traffic stops regularly result in criminal arrests, drug interdiction, and criminal investigations. Some traffic stops are world renowned. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing suspect, Timothy McVeigh, was apprehended by an Oklahoma State Trooper while making a "routine" traffic stop. Serial murderer Ted Bundy, who killed over 22 women, and the Atlanta child killer, Wayne Williams, who killed 28, were also apprehended because of traffic stops. "Son of Sam," David Berkowitz, who killed 6 and wounded 7, was captured because of a parking ticket.


It's not unusual to have someone caught by a traffic violation. The NHTSA states:

While not necessarily making national news, police officers and sheriff's deputies make hundreds of traffic stops every day that result in criminal apprehensions, directly affecting the security and safety of communities across the country.
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, 22:02

Nostradamus wrote:Thanks I guess I didn't read your post that well. I am too used to people making explicit reference lists.

According to: http://www.nypress.com/article-729-the-oracle-at-nutley.html

Son of Sam killer David Berkowitz, adding that his capture would be related to a traffic violation, a tidbit that also proved correct.


But you stated that:
* 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.


So how on target was this issue. A parking ticket is a form of a traffic violation. This is like saying in water vs in rain, in lake, in river, or in storm drain.

Some sources I have read say parking ticket, others say traffic violation. I'm not sure which it is. I should research it a bit further. The Son of Sam case is not mentioned at all in Scott Jacobson's indepth book on Dorothy. I found that information from misc sources.

Nostradamus wrote:The NHTSA states at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/Beyond/percept.htm

Traffic stops regularly result in criminal arrests, drug interdiction, and criminal investigations. Some traffic stops are world renowned. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing suspect, Timothy McVeigh, was apprehended by an Oklahoma State Trooper while making a "routine" traffic stop. Serial murderer Ted Bundy, who killed over 22 women, and the Atlanta child killer, Wayne Williams, who killed 28, were also apprehended because of traffic stops. "Son of Sam," David Berkowitz, who killed 6 and wounded 7, was captured because of a parking ticket.


It's not unusual to have someone caught by a traffic violation. The NHTSA states:

While not necessarily making national news, police officers and sheriff's deputies make hundreds of traffic stops every day that result in criminal apprehensions, directly affecting the security and safety of communities across the country.

Conceeded that it is not that unusual for suspects to be caught for traffic violations. I was unaware of how many killers have been caught that way before.

However, if it was specifically a parking ticket, that narrows it down a bit. The sources I've found either say parking ticket or traffic violation. It's not mentioned in the indepth book on Dorothy at all. Only in MISC sources. However, in one book I have (Readers Digest's "Mysteries of the Unexplained") it has a brief two page article on her, that shows of picture of her in front of several policemen with the drawing she drew of the Son of Sam killer, but it's such a small photo it's hard to see the details from the book.
"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 ProfWag » 12 Aug 2009, 05:21

Okay, I'll ask again. What case did she solve? "Solve" being the key word here. Webster's Dictionary says of the word "solve:"
transitive verb
1 : to find a solution, explanation, or answer for <solve a problem> <solved the crime>

You provide a wealth of information on her cases, even admitting that she missed on a lot too, which is respectable of you. But I've asked before and I'll ask again until I either get a somewhat verifiable, affirmative answer or I'll get a negative answer. So, here it goes again. Please, take your time if need be. What case did she S-O-L-V-E? If that's a negative, then I'll ask this: What body did she F-I-N-D? Or, if that's a negative, I'll ask this: What criminal did she have C-A-P-T-U-R-E-D?
Thanks in advance. I'm anxious to find evidence that a psychic detective can actually solve crimes. What a lift to our justice system that will be.
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Eteponge » 12 Aug 2009, 07:01

ProfWag wrote:Okay, I'll ask again. What case did she solve? "Solve" being the key word here. Webster's Dictionary says of the word "solve:"
transitive verb
1 : to find a solution, explanation, or answer for <solve a problem> <solved the crime>

You provide a wealth of information on her cases, even admitting that she missed on a lot too, which is respectable of you. But I've asked before and I'll ask again until I either get a somewhat verifiable, affirmative answer or I'll get a negative answer. So, here it goes again. Please, take your time if need be. What case did she S-O-L-V-E? If that's a negative, then I'll ask this: What body did she F-I-N-D? Or, if that's a negative, I'll ask this: What criminal did she have C-A-P-T-U-R-E-D?
Thanks in advance. I'm anxious to find evidence that a psychic detective can actually solve crimes. What a lift to our justice system that will be.
Wag

I've *NEVER CLAIMED* she outright solved a case in the sense of locating the body herself or the police directly locating the body because of her clues. Nor would I claim such. Even in the Scott Jacobson book, it never claims she outright solved a case. What she has done however, is provided specific veridical clues, that could have been utilized if they had understood the meaning, but that when the case was finally solved was highly significant to the case and was shown to match (unknowable information), information that she provided that was not known until the body was found, then it all came together. Information that could have been used to solve the case IF the police detectives had understood the meaning of the clues she provided.

According to the testimony of the Police Detectives who worked with her, they stated in the video interview that if they had *understood* the clues sooner, and what they meant, that they could have utilized them to actually solve the case. But most of the time they didn't realize the significance of the clues until the case was solved.

With the case of the man who fell off of a train into the water below, she said "two men" and a "bow and arrow" would be significant, as well as 222. How the man was found, two men were shooting bow and arrows on a hill above a river, and a stray arrow landed next to the dead man's body, and that's how he was discovered, and it was on February 22, (222).

Those clues wouldn't have made sense until the case panned out. So some clues were like that.

However, cases where the information could have *easily* found the bodies if understood sooner are the following ...

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.

That could have easily been put together to find the bodies sooner.

With the missing child case from 1967, 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.) She was also correct with 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.

However, even in this case, some clues would only make sense when the child was found. Dorothy said specifically that all their questions would be answered on February 7th, and that 120 was significant to that date (the detectives said in interview that they wrote down these clues in December the previous year). The boy was found on February 7th at 1:20 in the afternoon, within plain visual sight of all the visual clues she gave, with his clothing matching her description, and even his undershoes being on the wrong feet.

However, one case, the one case I'm aware of where Dorothy's clues actually lead to the exact location where the body was later found, was the Susan Jacobson case in 1976, where her father followed all of Dorothy's clues over 30 miles away from his home to the *exact location* where her body was later found, which was found within 100 yards of all of Dorothy's visual clues, they could all be seen from where her body was later found. (He failed to find it when he searched himself, it was down in a hole in water. He tried to get the police to search the area, but they were still convinced she was a missing runaway.) It was later found by local teenagers in the same area some time later.

Dorothy got a vision of the place her body was to be found (a marsh area), the word MAR written in Big Red Letters (her exact words) which was found on a big rock within 100 yards of the body (in plain visual sight from where her body was dumped), 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). I also re-read the section from the case in the book, and it also mentions two bridges, one of which isn't used for travel. This was also within plain visual of where the body lay.

The MAR Rock is chilling. In the video interview with the father, you can see the expression of shock on his face as he recounts going to that area, seeing the MAR Rock, and all of the other visual clues Dorothy gave him, and then finding out later his daughter's body was in that same area within plain visual sight of the MAR Rock. This was over 30 miles from their home mind you, in an obscure location.
"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 Eteponge » 12 Aug 2009, 07:27

There are however, several cases of Psychic's clues actually leading to the finding of the body that I remember. (I need to find sources for them again.)

One I saw the actual video interview with a police detective, talking about how the psychic described a number of accurate things such as an old farm, the dead girl lying right next to a tree, with chickens clucking all around her body. And the police detective actually located the body *himself* with these clues. And yes, chickens were all around her body clucking, and she was lying right next to a tree on an old farm that matched the Psychic's description.

Damn I need to find that case again, it was profiled on a TV Show, where the Police Detective and the Psychic were both interviewed, along with another person.

One very good case I know about where the actual Psychic went right to the body and actually discovered the body, was that of Etta Smith...

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/crim ... ics/8.html

"In 1980, Etta Smith, a shipping clerk in Los Angeles, heard an announcement on the radio about a house-to-house search for Melanie Uribe, a missing woman from her neighborhood, as documented in A&E's film and Larsen's Psychic Sleuths. Smith had an impression that the woman was not inside a building but outside in a certain area, and though she'd never before had such an overwhelming sense of something, it seemed so vivid that she reported it to the police. "It was like someone was talking to me," she said. She felt that the nurse had been hit in the head and dumped in a canyon, which she showed to a detective on a map. She said there was a dirt path going to her. When he seemed not to take her seriously, she decided to go have a look on her own.

As Etta drove through the target area in Lopez Canyon, she had a feeling of "urgency." Spotting some tire tracks in the dirt, she felt them and sensed the trauma that had taken place there. "It was like a thermometer going up." She got back into her car and drove, but her daughter told her to stop because she'd seen something. What she had spotted were a pair of white nurse's shoes.

Smith knew who was there. She drove away and spotted a policeman. She waved him to a stop and told him about the body. He told her to go home. She did, but then two detectives came to bring her in for questioning. She agreed to take a lie detector test, and the police later said that she'd been judged "deceptive," so she was treated as a suspect, strip-searched, and put into a cell for three days. They planted an undercover cop in the cell with her to try to find out why she had come forward and whether her information had come from neighborhood gossip, as suspected. The cop reported that her motive was money.

Then three men confessed and Etta was released. She filed a wrongful arrest suit, asking $750,000 in damages. The jury awarded her $24,000.

She says she never had another such vision, or if she did, she was smart to not report it."
"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 » 12 Aug 2009, 08:23

So what I see here about Dorothy Allison is that her information was of no use. The operative word here is IF. What you wrote is that no person was able to make any use of the information in any case. Is that the meaning of the word useless?

To say something was a veridical clue does not seem to be the case. The statements made by D. Allison appear to be shoe horned to the cases involved. To say its a specific clue does not of course say anything about its utility.

Fr example, consider that the numerical matches could as well have been house numbers, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, school record numbers, social security numbers, days till Christmas numbers, distances, times, elevations, VINs, patent numbers, part numbers, sales receipt numbers, ... We are surrounded by numbers. It's a wonder that there there were not multiple matches. Making a match is simple. I have 3 bills in my wallet this evening. The sequence 222 was on one of them.
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 » 12 Aug 2009, 08:54

Okay, so you are putting out a TON of information. This is good and bad at the same time. Information overload is not always a good thing so please allow me to clarify what has been said concerning Dorothy Allison and psychic detectives in general and, as usual, please correct me where I'm wrong as you have in the other posts (and I appreciate the clarifications)

1. Police Detectives solve crimes.
2. Psychic Detectives have never solved a crime (other than what truTV says which is right up there in credibility with Unsolved Mysteries.) (Oh, and the FBI and the National Center for Missing Children have gone on record to say they have never recognized a successful psychic.)
3. Psychic Detectives waste the valuable time and resources of the police departments (In the Caylee Anthony murder alone, police have had to investigate somewhere along the lines of 5,000 tips, and "The majority come from psychics who claim to have visions about what happened to Caylee. However most are just too vague to help."
(http://www.wesh.com/news/17850702/detail.html)
4. Sylvia Browne told Shawn Hornbreck's parents their son was DEAD. (Let me know if you need the video link for that one.)
Does that pretty much sum up all that you've written? (Except #s 3 & 4, I just threw them in as a show of support real police work.)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Eteponge » 12 Aug 2009, 10:07

Nostradamus wrote:So what I see here about Dorothy Allison is that her information was of no use. The operative word here is IF. What you wrote is that no person was able to make any use of the information in any case. Is that the meaning of the word useless?

False. The father of Susan Jacobson followed Dorothy's Clues to the *exact* location her body was later found. Even to finding the MAR Rock (written in big red letters) that Dorothy mentioned, the abandoned car, the two smoke stacks, two bridges with one used for travel and the other not, the two church steeples, the marsh area, etc. (All within visible sight of the body, all within 100 yards of the body.) This area was over 30 miles away from their home.

He did not find her body in his personal search, but she was later found in the very area he searched, down in a water hole. Within visible sight of all of the clues given.

What that shows is that if the clues are understood by someone, they can be used. In this case, it lead them to the location of the body, even if it was not found there until later.

The little boy who drown, in December she gave the date *exact date* of February 7th and the number 120 in connection with it (He was found February 7th at 1:20 in the afternoon), and all of the buildings surrounding where the boy was found was mentioned by Dorothy (he will be found behind a school, next to a parking lot, near an old ITT factory, near a lumber yard, near gold lettering on a window). The significant thing is *ALL* of these buildings, every single one, were the very ones surrounding the area he was found in, in clear visible sight of the body.

She even got that he was wearing a religious metal on his third undershirt (and described each layer of clothing) and even got that while his shoes were on the right feet, his under shoes would be found on the wrong feet.

Nostradamus wrote:To say something was a veridical clue does not seem to be the case. The statements made by D. Allison appear to be shoe horned to the cases involved. To say its a specific clue does not of course say anything about its utility.

I fail to see how, for example in the man who fell from the train, that the "bow and arrow" significance connected with "two men", which later directly matched how the case was solved, (where a father and son were shooting bow and arrow and a stray arrow landed right next to the body in the water, which is how it was discovered), was "shoehorned" into the case. It was a total fit. And the police detectives even shouted at Dorothy, "Bow and arrow? Where the hell does a Bow and arrow fit into this?" Several months before these events happened with the body being found.

Nostradamus wrote:Fr example, consider that the numerical matches could as well have been house numbers, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, school record numbers, social security numbers, days till Christmas numbers, distances, times, elevations, VINs, patent numbers, part numbers, sales receipt numbers, ... We are surrounded by numbers. It's a wonder that there there were not multiple matches. Making a match is simple. I have 3 bills in my wallet this evening. The sequence 222 was on one of them.

Of course, with numbers, you can make that argument. But you gloss over and ignore the better clues that are more obscure, a common skeptic tactic. Such as the "bow and arrow" significance connected with "two men" in that one case in particular. The date February 7th in particular given in December in the child's case as to when "all questions will be answered" and when the 120 significance would be revealed, and him being found at exactly 1:20 in the afternoon on February 7th (Detectives went on record on this). With the murdered girl, the MAR written in big red letters found on a big rock within 100 yards of the body (over 30 miles away from their home). These are glossed over in favor of vague numbers. I knew you would zero in on the vague numbers. That's why I post *all* the clues together. Because they fit like a puzzle.

ProfWag wrote:Okay, so you are putting out a TON of information. This is good and bad at the same time. Information overload is not always a good thing so please allow me to clarify what has been said concerning Dorothy Allison and psychic detectives in general and, as usual, please correct me where I'm wrong as you have in the other posts (and I appreciate the clarifications)

Okay...

ProfWag wrote:1. Police Detectives solve crimes.

Generally only in the sense that the information they give on the case *BEFORE* it is solved turns out to be correct in a number of cases and wasn't possible to know beforehand. Many times the detectives have the clues they have been given, but can't make sense of them, until the pieces start falling into place. Then they hit themselves that they didn't zero in on it earlier.

There are several cases however (that I need to research further) where it is claimed the psychic's clues *directly* led to the discovery of a body, or in that one particular case, the psychic herself went straight to the body.

ProfWag wrote:2. Psychic Detectives have never solved a crime (other than what truTV says which is right up there in credibility with Unsolved Mysteries.) (Oh, and the FBI and the National Center for Missing Children have gone on record to say they have never recognized a successful psychic.)

The reason the Unsolved Mysteries Episode is significant is because it contains interviews with, get this, *the actual police detectives who worked with Dorothy* giving their personal accounts and stating that they wrote all of this information down in their notes months before it was solved, and get this *the actual family members of victims in the cases mentioned* such as the father going on record how he followed Dorothy's clues to the location his daughter's body was later found. That is why it is significant.

As for the TruTV article, it is actually a Skeptic Article on Psychic Detectives, but also lists a few anomalous cases (such as the Etta Smith one.) There was also an Etta Smith episode on UM where she was interviewed along with several others on that case.

ProfWag wrote:3. Psychic Detectives waste the valuable time and resources of the police departments (In the Caylee Anthony murder alone, police have had to investigate somewhere along the lines of 5,000 tips, and "The majority come from psychics who claim to have visions about what happened to Caylee. However most are just too vague to help."
(http://www.wesh.com/news/17850702/detail.html)

You see, this is the problem. ANYONE can claim to be Psychic. Let's say for the sake of argument that three or four of the thousands and thousands of people who contacted that case were actually gifted. The other thousands of people, giving junk data, either self deluded or honestly thinking they are helping, are gonna drown out any actual useful info that gets through, because so many damn people are claiming to be psychic and claiming to have valid information on the case, even if very few actually do.

ProfWag wrote:4. Sylvia Browne told Shawn Hornbreck's parents their son was DEAD. (Let me know if you need the video link for that one.)
Does that pretty much sum up all that you've written? (Except #s 3 & 4, I just threw them in as a show of support real police work.)

I don't personally believe Sylvia Browne to be authentic. Now you are being silly to assume that if I accept one alleged psychic, I must accept them all, and even one with as bad a reputation as Sylvia Browne. I don't.
"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 » 12 Aug 2009, 13:14

What that shows is that if the clues are understood by someone, they can be used. In this case, it lead them to the location of the body, even if it was not found there until later.


Again that operative word IF. This claim of the exact position is a bit odd. Did her body have an inexact location? Well no. Your description does not mention how many false efforts the father went through. There is the old joke, "Found what I was looking for in the last place I looked."

These descriptions remind me of a case I read about years ago in which the psychic correctly predicted that the body would be found near a billboard. In fact the body was found within 50 feet of a billboard. Sounds incredible until you learn that the body was located within the search area which included some 20 bill boards. The entire search area was within 50 feet of a billboard.

All of these Allison descriptions sound like cherry picking. From what I have read over the last day Dorothy Allison was known to give many clues, maybe hundreds of clues and here we see a handful of that enormous number of clues as being matched. The matching was done after the fact. The matching did not contribute to the cases.

It was a total fit.

Because they fit like a puzzle.


Sure there are a few fits. You'd think there would be a few fits if hundreds of vague clues are provided. The most celebrated cases of 'excellent fits' turned out wrong such as the 42 names in Atlanta and the drawing of the Jon Benet suspect.

Then they hit themselves that they didn't zero in on it earlier.


But that's not what is happening here. What happens in these descriptions is that the matches are seen afterward. Reminds me of predictions based on my namesake. No one has ever used the predictions of Nostradamus to see into the future. Yet, after an event occurs there is a scramble to match the event to his writings. Matches are found and a new glory is proclaimed.

The reason the Unsolved Mysteries Episode is significant is because it contains interviews with, get this, *the actual police detectives who worked with Dorothy* giving their personal accounts and stating that they wrote all of this information down in their notes months before it was solved, and get this *the actual family members of victims in the cases mentioned* such as the father going on record how he followed Dorothy's clues to the location his daughter's body was later found. That is why it is significant.


UM is a terrible show. It is made to be sensational. The editing on these shows along with the narration is made to point in whatever direction the producers want. Television shows such as this are are always to be taken lightly.
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 » 12 Aug 2009, 14:03

Nostradamus wrote:Did her body have an inexact location? Well no. Your description does not mention how many false efforts the father went through. There is the old joke, "Found what I was looking for in the last place I looked."

According to his interview in the Scott Jacobson book and his video interview on the TV Show, he went around driving for hours and hours looking for a place that matched the clues, and he went to many locations, and that was the first place (over 30 miles away) that he started noticing the actual clues standing out, one after the other, ending with him finding the MAR written in big red letters on a big rock. Her body was found within 100 yards of that MAR rock.

I don't quite get how all of that together is not significant.

Nostradamus wrote:These descriptions remind me of a case I read about years ago in which the psychic correctly predicted that the body would be found near a billboard. In fact the body was found within 50 feet of a billboard. Sounds incredible until you learn that the body was located within the search area which included some 20 bill boards. The entire search area was within 50 feet of a billboard.

Except it was far more specific than a simplistic "I see a billboard" comparison. Therefore a false comparison tactic.

She said, "the words MAR written in big red letters, near an old abandoned car, near two sets of church steeples, near two bridges (one which is used for travel, one who is not), dual smoke stacks, and a marsh area." In the Scott Jacobson book. She *mentions ALL of these clues TOGETHER*. Not separately. When asked where the daughter was, she said this was the place she saw, all of these clues together are of what she got specifically on the location alone. The girl's father repeats these exact clues on video in the UM Episode, and they are also written down in Scott Jacobson's book.

It was when the father saw one after the other, ending with him finding the MAR written in big red letters on a rock, that he knew he was onto something. And guess what? Her body was found within 100 yards of it, and all of the other clues were likewise within visual sight of it.

That is a straw man and skeptic omission tactic. Dumbing down all of those specific clues (especially the MAR written in big red letters) down into a simplistic "I see a billboard" analogy, when that doesn't cut it.

You also leave out the "bow and arrow" directly connected with "two men" that she got on the case of the man who fell off of the train and into water. Father and Son, shoots a bow and arrow, the stray arrow lands next to the body in the water, and that's how the body is found. And this isn't significant?

She gets the exact date in the little boy's case, February 7th (not merely numbers, the actual date) and 120 tied to that date, and that "all will be answered on that date", and he's found on February 7th at 1:20. What the hell? How is that not significant?

I'm amazed at how debunkers cannot manage to add up or even suggest simple 1+1=2. To the debunker it's "1+1 does not even remotely suggest nor imply 2, it only appears like it does, it's merely a trick or coincidence, there's always a trick or coincidence to it, 1+1 is unrelated to 2, it's merely a coincidence that it seems to add up to 2, but it's isn't, 1+1 in this case does not suggest nor even remotely imply 2."

If you just sit back and weave conspiracies and cry coincidence or lucky guess at everything, how the hell do you determine which clue is a hit and which is not, if you just sweep all of the dazzle shot hits under the rug as "coincidence" or "lucky guess", now matter how significant they are? MAR in big red letters, February 7th connected with 120, Bow and Arrow connected with Two Men, under shoes being on the wrong feet, etc. It's more than "I see a billboard!"

Nostradamus wrote:All of these Allison descriptions sound like cherry picking. From what I have read over the last day Dorothy Allison was known to give many clues, maybe hundreds of clues and here we see a handful of that enormous number of clues as being matched. The matching was done after the fact. The matching did not contribute to the cases.

The clues were written down months in advance, according to the police detectives, and with the general missing person cases she worked on (which were the main ones I brought up), it did not consist of "hundreds of clues". The father of Susan Jacobson was given maybe a dozen or so clues to work with (according to the book and his video interview). In the book it mentions a number of clues, verified and unverified, and inaccurate that she gave on this or that case, but they are usually a dozen or several dozen or so clues at the most in the *general* cases, not "hundreds".

Nostradamus wrote:Sure there are a few fits. You'd think there would be a few fits if hundreds of vague clues are provided. The most celebrated cases of 'excellent fits' turned out wrong such as the 42 names in Atlanta and the drawing of the Jon Benet suspect.

I don't ever recall reading that the Atlanta case was considered a hit, and while many of her fans considered the Jon Benet suspect case a hit, she was long dead by the time that happened. Yes, the drawing looks like the suspect, but he was cleared. However, Dorothy got quite a few misdirected hits where she got information that was accurate, but wasn't what she thought it was. (I.E. she could have seen the guy being arrested for the crime, which he was at one point, and assumed he was the killer. But of course, he wasn't. She only interpreted it that way. She was long dead before his later arrest as a suspect anyway.)

The problem seems to be that many of her fans in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, etc, have made erroneous claims that she has "solved" many cases outright, which is incorrect. Maybe even spreading word that she "solved" the Atlanta case. This is incorrect. You have to seperate what fans of the person might claim of them, and what actually occurred in the cases. Dorothy herself has said in interviews that there are certain cases where she either gets nothing at all on it, or nothing significant on it. I've seen her on video saying this. (On the UM Episode.) Despite what fans might claim.

Nostradamus wrote:But that's not what is happening here. What happens in these descriptions is that the matches are seen afterward. Reminds me of predictions based on my namesake. No one has ever used the predictions of Nostradamus to see into the future. Yet, after an event occurs there is a scramble to match the event to his writings. Matches are found and a new glory is proclaimed.

You keep forgetting the father of the murdered girl who used Dorothy's Clues to locate where her body was later found.

This stuff would impress just about anybody, debunkers however, are never convinced. They just sit back and weave endless conspiracy theories and cry coincidence, lucky guess, fraud, and trick, even when the hits are very significant and right.

Nostradamus wrote:UM is a terrible show. It is made to be sensational. The editing on these shows along with the narration is made to point in whatever direction the producers want. Television shows such as this are are always to be taken lightly.

Proof please that the Police Detectives and father of Susan Jacobson either lied, or were taken out of context, or were distorted in their very clear interviews in the show? These people were interviewed, stated what happened, their testimonies match other sources. I don't see the problem here. What they say in their interviews can be found in other sources.

And I'm not taking just the damn show alone, the information in the show matches exactly what the detectives and father of the girl say in the Scott Jacobson book, among other sources.
"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 Eteponge » 12 Aug 2009, 14:09

I think we've reached a standstill to this discussion. Neither side will budge, you suggest that it's all just coincidence, lucky guesses, information that seems significant on the surface but isn't, and I state over and over again why I see the data as indicating far more than you are dealing with. And now we are just going back and forth endlessly with this.

I have a stress headache from all of this, and I have more important things to do with my time than squabble back and forth endlessly over this topic, unless you can present anything new besides me going, "This is significant!", then you going, "No it isn't!", "Yes it is!", "No, it isn't.", "Yes it is!", "No, it isn't." Rinse Repeat, ad infinitum. Which is basically what this thread has deteriorated into.

*Bows Out*
"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

Previous

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest