December 20, 2015 — Nancy du Tertre

[Ian]

Well I found her unconvincing. And when she used The Book or Mormon to illustrate a point (as if it were a factual document!) I stopped listening.

Did I miss the bit where she mentioned how to talk to an ET, or must I buy the book?

Sorry, not one of your better episodes in my opinion...

 

[Standanista]

"This" is what exactly? ET communication? In seance? Hundreds of recordings, here is one.

Who Doesn't Like Aliens? - Page 85

I had an experience in a seance almost twenty years ago where I took my finger off the glass and the others round the table, supposedly channelling a spirit, were able to spell out some information about me that none of them could have known. It was my old 5-digit ham radio call-sign and the glass spelt it out in 4 letters, in correct order, missing out only the number which formed the second digit. This is one of several unconnected incidents in my past which have led me to believe very strongly in at least some parts of "the paranormal", whatever that is. However, I think it would be a leap of great faith to say that that particular incident had anything to do with ghosts or spirits. It may have, but it could also have been invisible mind-reading Bigfoot pushing the glass about, or agents from a breakaway civilisation who have all our data on file, manipulating the glass by Nazi tractor beam from Aristarchus crater. My money is actually on telepathy in that particular case, as one person round the table was a blood-relative family member who I was very close to, but even that though is just my guess.

We have solid evidence that some phenomena take place, but I proffer that we have (maybe with the exception of stuff like the Hessdalen Lights) absolutely no idea what the mechanisms are behind these things.

At the end of the day, I don't buy the dead ET hypothesis. I do buy that a lot of paranormal practitioners are charlatans, however; caveat emptor on that.

Suppose I claim that one of the dead ETs from Roswell contacted me last night through the power of spirit social media and told me that everything on that link was made up (it will be in my book). How do you know which dead ET is right?

 

[Waller]

I had an experience in a seance almost twenty years ago where I took my finger off the glass and the others round the table, supposedly channelling a spirit, were able to spell out some information about me that none of them could have known.

Classic definition of proof of survival of consciousness if spirit is in play.

However, I think it would be a leap of great faith to say that that particular incident had anything to do with ghosts or spirits.

It takes no faith at all, it takes effort to thoroughly study ET and discarnate communications from which you gain the discernment necessary to come to decisions.

It may have, but it could also have been invisible mind-reading Bigfoot pushing the glass about, or agents from a breakaway civilisation who have all our data on file, manipulating the glass by Nazi tractor beam from Aristarchus crater. My money is actually on telepathy in that particular case, as one person round the table was a blood-relative family member who I was very close to, but even that though is just my guess.

Super-psi is the weakest of all pseudoskeptical arguments.

We have solid evidence that some phenomena take place, but I proffer that we have (maybe with the exception of stuff like the Hessdalen Lights) absolutely no idea what the mechanisms are behind these things.

Yes, unless you put forth the effort to study the various channelings, the seance environment, etc. you will never understand the very understandable mechanisms you have little idea about.

At the end of the day, I don't buy the dead ET hypothesis. I do buy that a lot of paranormal practitioners are charlatans, however; caveat emptor on that.

Suppose I claim that one of the dead ETs from Roswell contacted me last night through the power of spirit social media and told me that everything on that link was made up (it will be in my book). How do you know which dead ET is right?

Who claimed that only dead ETs come through in seance? Again, that which you know little about will bear you little to no fruit.

 

[Standanista]

Who claimed that only dead ETs come through in seance?

This was definitely a dead ET in my case, I could tell, it had the scent of dead ET on it.

But to take your question, if there are more than dead ETs coming through in seance, how do you know you're not dealing with a prank caller just claiming to be one? How do you know that you're not reaching an understanding of the mechanisms in place from the equivalent of this bloke?:

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

Classic definition of proof of survival of consciousness if spirit is in play.



It takes no faith at all, it takes effort to thoroughly study ET and discarnate communications from which you gain the discernment necessary to come to decisions.



Super-psi is the weakest of all pseudoskeptical arguments.



Yes, unless you put forth the effort to study the various channelings, the seance environment, etc. you will never understand the very understandable mechanisms you have little idea about.



Who claimed that only dead ETs come through in seance? Again, that which you know little about will bear you little to no fruit.

 

[Waller]

But to take your question, if there are more than dead ETs coming through in seance...how do you know you're not dealing with a prank caller just claiming to be one?

How many miles have you walked in your life? 1,000s? Would you say that you know how to walk? How to eat? Brush your teeth? You know these things without having to even think to perform them.

When you have put forward the effort to study the seance room environ, you will know by the prima facie evidence what to look for, listen for, test for, discern and retain. After you have sat in dozens upon dozens of seances, you get the information that is necessary to come to evidence-based conclusions about who the participants are, what their messages are. It may be complex but it is certainly not complicated.

Find out for yourself, don' take my word for it. Go do the work.

Or not. It's your choice.

 

[Standanista]

What if you (or I) are deluded right from the start? If your model is wrong in the first place, any results you "look for, listen for, test for, discern and retain" using that model as a benchmark will be wrong as well. So how do you validate your model/theory? That has to be something beyond looking/listening/testing/retaining. All you're giving me so far is circular reasoning, which is fallacious logic. Ergo, where's your proof?

At the end of the day, I guess we're never going to agree on this.

 

[Waller]

What if you (or I) are deluded right from the start? If your model is wrong in the first place, any results you "look for, listen for, test for, discern and retain" using that model as a benchmark will be wrong as well. So how do you validate your model/theory? That has to be something beyond looking/listening/testing/retaining. All you're giving me so far is circular reasoning, which is fallacious logic. Ergo, where's your proof?

best of luck 2 u.

 

[AlienEsq]

I was initially skeptical about the subject matter but ended up impressed by Ms. du Tertre's open-mindedness and the objectivity in which she conducts her work. She is clearly a tough nut to crack and I appreciate Gene and Chris' efforts to explore the soft points of the subject matter.