Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Rational Wiki editors sleazy tactics against this Skeptiko Forum

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rational Wiki editors sleazy tactics against this Skeptiko Forum

    Rational wiki claims that most people on this forum believes these photograph are real. They have chosen the below photographs to represent the beliefs of people on the skeptiko forum. So now is your opportunity to vote honestly.



    If you need information on the above photograph before voting. Here is what is known about these photographs.

    The above photographs are alleged by conjuror called Harry Price in a mid 1930s book to be a picture of the medium Helen Duncan (in blindfold). There is no record of Helen Duncan claiming the above photograph to be real. The most authoritative book on the Duncan case is Maurice Cassier's 'Medium On Trial' who comments on these photograph's history …

    ‘.. Price is silent about their origin in his published works, or about the circumstances under which they were taken—supposedly at Helen’s home — and Price’s correspondence with Esson Maule is missing from the files at Harry Price Library. Mr Wesencraft has no certain knowledge of these items, which may have been removed by his executors; with what purpose one cannot even guess. It is even possible that the photographs are reconstructions of what was supposed to have been seen, in line with others to be presently considered. ..'

    Manfred Cassier 1996 ‘Medium on Trial’
    (Other books imply the photograph was taken by a Harvey Metcalfe due to his claim emerging after Duncan's death, however this claim is doubtful as Metcalfe didn't have the original photographs, only the same 4 photographs as in Harry Price's collection and it is a different name on the back of these)

    So now you can vote.
    44
    Yes, I think these are real spirits
    0.00%
    0
    No, I think these are not real spirits
    93.18%
    41
    I don't know
    6.82%
    3
    Last edited by Open Mind; November 9th, 2013, 03:50 PM.

  • #2
    It's nice to know that they care enough to criticize us.

    Comment


    • #3
      OMG THOsE SPIRITs IS GEnUINE PROOF OF THE aFTERLIFE!!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        I'd be more interested to hear from our resident skeptics as to whether they agree with the stuff presented on that wiki. For example, the page they have on Alex. I guess that might be informative for the proponents here and for the RW people who don't seem to understand that we do have resident skeptics on this forum.

        Comment


        • #5
          Are the Rational Wiki editors just ignorant on the actual history or wilfully dishonest?

          Both it seems.

          I asked Rational Wiki editor called 'Forests' on the Michael Tymn forum to remove the above photograph as a representation of the Skeptiko Forum on the page he created … he replied ....

          As for deleting those photos off rationalwiki. Not a chance mate. I don’t know who added the photo to wikipedia
          Someone can check the rational wiki edit history to see who put it there. He claims 'Forests' didn't put it there.

          Forests continues …
          ' you are are wrong becuase the skeptiko forum 60% of the members on that site believe those Duncan photos were real....
          So far the poll shows 0%

          'You [Open Mind] are the only guy as David said who believes those photographs are frauds'

          Forests, 28 Feb 2013 on Michael Tymn forum
          Note: This is proof he knew my opinion... but ...

          'Open Mind claimed Helen Duncan's séance dolls were real spirits, if I can remember correctly ….'

          Forests 24 May 2013 on rational wiki
          He seems to have deliberately lied. I debated the guy for several days in February … he would be very uinlikely to forget my opinion, he even acknowledged it at the time … then he makes a false statement.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
            I'd be more interested to hear from our resident skeptics as to whether they agree with the stuff presented on that wiki.
            Tumble weeds roll by .....

            The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Final Duel - YouTube

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
              For example, the page they have on Alex.
              Yeah .... that would be one of many other possible places to start ....

              Maybe the 'Geurilla Skepticism' sock puppet wikipedia editing show will turn up to lead the attack ...

              Back to Bead Stringing - YouTube

              Comment


              • #8
                It's a pretty silly example, I'm not even voting in the poll.

                Perhaps a more realistic question would be something like this:
                http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...t-orb-gym.html

                In that case I was genuinely surprised that opinion seemed to be divided.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am sure that their 60% figure was based on solid evidence, as everything else ought to be on a rational, critical thinking site... rrright?

                  It's solid indeed ...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by typoz View Post
                    It's a pretty silly example, I'm not even voting in the poll.
                    I think you are missing the point .... the point being Rational Wiki wants to make the subject of mediumship sound and look silly.

                    It is a superb example of misrepresentation of this forum and people who study evidence for psi.

                    These pseudoskeptics are using a photograph of unproven origin, the clues of which are the photographs emerged via a Duncan lookalike who created other psuedo-reconstruction photographs too and the information on these went missing from the normally impeccable record keeping of Harry Price who dodged the 1940s court case against Duncan to avoid being questioned about photographs possibly because he had been caught lying (and suspected of faking to frame a psychic) a photograph in prior Schneider case.

                    I don't mind you posting other examples, please do, this is not about the Duncan case but the deliberate misrepresentation by rational wiki overall.
                    Last edited by Open Mind; June 3rd, 2013, 09:43 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
                      Yeah .... that would be one of many other possible places to start ....
                      Their page on Alex claims he is a "Christian theist" ...

                      Tsakiris claims to be a former research associate at the University of Arizona and a member of the Texas Instruments Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.[14] Tsakiris is a Christian theist[15] and his skeptiko forum is known for endorsing creationism.[16]
                      If you follow their link [15] it says "Starting Science From God by Alex Tsakiris". However, the first post in that thread is a copy and paste by Alex of some text by Ian J. Thompson, the actual author of the book. So their sole evidence for that claim is a wrong citation. As we all know, Alex has been pretty harsh on Christian theists and apologetics in several podcasts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
                        I think you are missing the point .... the point being Rational Wiki wants to make the subject of mediumship sound and look silly.

                        It is a superb example of misrepresentation of this forum and people who study evidence for psi.

                        They pseudoskeptics are using a photograph of unproven origin, the clues of which are they emerged via a Duncan lookalike who created other psuedo-reconstruction photographs and the information on these went missing from the normally impeccable record keeping of Harry Price who dodged the 1940s court case against Duncan to avoid being questioned about photographs possibly because he had been caught lying (and suspected of faking) a photograph in prior Schneider case.

                        I don't mind you posting other examples, please do, this is not about the Duncan case but the deliberate misrepresentation by rational wiki overall.
                        It's true that I may have missed the point.

                        My main thought was that it was an incompetent blundering suggestion by Rational wiki, but that if they were serious, they could have tried a little harder to find something worth discussing. As it is, they make themselves look irrational and idiotic.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by typoz View Post
                          It's true that I may have missed the point.
                          No problem my friend we all make mistakes at time. Easily done.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
                            Their page on Alex claims he is a "Christian theist" ...

                            If you follow their link [15] it says "Starting Science From God by Alex Tsakiris". However, the first post in that thread is a copy and paste by Alex of some text by Ian J. Thompson, the actual author of the book. So their sole evidence for that claim is a wrong citation. As we all know, Alex has been pretty harsh on Christian theists and apologetics in several podcasts.
                            Yes, more contrived nonsense. Alex has also said he has been influenced by eastern meditative practises such as Buddhism in podcasts ...perhaps Alex is a theist in widest sense of the term ...he seems respectful of all spiritual traditions if free from dogma, a critic of Christian dogma in numerous podcasts, at times too.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
                              Tumble weeds roll by .....
                              I was critical of that site the first time it was discussed.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X