Critic’s “Top 15” claims by psychic detective Noreen Renier

[Rodney]

Speaking of refusing to answer things, why don't you answer the questions about the significance of the numbers?

The big thing about the numbers is that we know that in her July 17, 1995 reading, Renier repeated "45" several times:

"Maybe 4, maybe 5. If it's 45 miles, if it's 4.5 miles. I want to go to my left. I want to go to 9. . . . I feel 45, 45 degrees. You know how they have that little baby circle up there? [i.e., a degree symbol]. . . . Looking for H and 45."

While she did not associate that number with a route on the public tape, the last portion ("Looking for H and 45") seems to refer to an intersection. How about wHiteHurst and State Route 45? Okay, I admit that's a bit of a stretch, but I would guess that the police seized on the fact that Florida State Route 45 runs by both the eastern and Whitehurst pits, which caused them to initially focus on those two pits.

As far as the numbers 21 and 22 go, they did not mean anything to police at the time, but Chief Slaughter claims that Lewis' truck and remains were located precisely 2.1 miles from his home and that the day of the month on his watch read 22, even though he disappeared on the 24th (of March).

Now, I'm sure that your point is that these numbers could be interpreted in different ways and that other numbers mentioned by Renier seem to have no relevance. That, however, is not the issue upon which you should focus. Rather, you should focus on the issue of how the police narrowed down their search initially to just two pits (of about 30, according to Hewitt), and then further narrowed it down to the correct one after the discovery of the railroad tracks and truck scale near Whitehurst. Do you have a hypothesis as to how the police zeroed in on the correct pit after Renier's reading?

 

[GeeMack]

The big thing about the numbers is that we know that in her July 17, 1995 reading, Renier repeated "45" several times:

"Maybe 4, maybe 5. If it's 45 miles, if it's 4.5 miles. I want to go to my left. I want to go to 9. . . . I feel 45, 45 degrees. You know how they have that little baby circle up there? [i.e., a degree symbol]. . . . Looking for H and 45."

But not once did she say anything about a highway number. So it's another fail. 100%.

While she did not associate that number with a route on the public tape, the last portion ("Looking for H and 45") seems to refer to an intersection.

No. It's only after the fact that anyone tried to force fit those numbers to something. It only seems to refer to something if one is desperately trying to support a preconceived notion that Noreen Renier has magical powers. She doesn't.

How about wHiteHurst and State Route 45? Okay, I admit that's a bit of a stretch, but I would guess that the police seized on the fact that Florida State Route 45 runs by both the eastern and Whitehurst pits, which caused them to initially focus on those two pits.

How many times do we have to tell you that the number 45 was force fit to the situation after Lewis's truck was discovered? And any guessing you might do to cling to the preconceived notion that Noreen Renier has magical powers is just that, guessing.

As far as the numbers 21 and 22 go, they did not mean anything to police at the time, but Chief Slaughter claims that Lewis' truck and remains were located precisely 2.1 miles from his home and that the day of the month on his watch read 22, even though he disappeared on the 24th (of March).

As far as any numbers that were manipulated to fit the situation after the fact, they're all BS. It's all an act of desperation on the part of the credulous. None of them meant anything before the body was found. None of them were significant to the investigation. The police are the first to admit they worked on making the numbers match something after Lewis was found. Nothing about any of the numbers supports any cockamamie idea that Renier has magical powers.

Now, I'm sure that your point is that these numbers could be interpreted in different ways and that other numbers mentioned by Renier seem to have no relevance.

They don't have any relevance. So why do you continue to bring them into the discussion as if they do?

That, however, is not the issue upon which you should focus. Rather, you should focus on the issue of how the police narrowed down their search initially to just two pits (of about 30, according to Hewitt), and then further narrowed it down to the correct one after the discovery of the railroad tracks and truck scale near Whitehurst. Do you have a hypothesis as to how the police zeroed in on the correct pit after Renier's reading?

Your continued attempt to dishonestly deflect the burden of proof is noted. Expected? Absolutely. Dishonest? Certainly. And your question has been answered many times already. Your repetition of it in order to avoid supporting your own wacky notion is too obvious. Your ignorance of this question is also obvious...

And let's see if we can get this out of the way next: Yes or no, is there any objective evidence that Noreen Renier actually provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit? That's just a yes/no question.​

But by all means, give it a shot. It's easy. Yes or no? And your ignorance of Garrette's question is also obvious...

What made the Whitehurst pit an obvious first impression?​

Care to take a shot at answering that? Or do you intend to continue with the 911Truther strategy of just asking questions, often referred to as JAQing?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That, however, is not the issue upon which you should focus.

I will focus on whatever I deem worthy of focusing on, thanks.

Now, you wrote quite a lot of text but neglected to actually answer any of the questions you were asked. I'll repeat them, if you like:

Do the numbers other than 45, 22 and 21 have significance? Which ones? How are they significant? Why aren't the non-significant numbers significant? How can we tell the difference?

If you can't answer these questions then you are tacitly admitting that the numbers only have significance because they're being retrofitted, and that those which can't be retrofitted are being ignored. Because otherwise you're demonstrating that you can't even come up with a reason why some should be counted as significant and others shouldn't when you know which ones are significant and which ones aren't.

Just to make it easier, the numbers and letters in question are: "4.5 miles, 45, 221, 22, 21, 2I, H, EML, I, 22I, E, 11.2, 1.2, 9". Explain which of these are significant, which ones aren't, why, and what method can be used to determine the difference between them.

 

[fls]

Wrong. The police were not focussed on any quarry until Renier's reading. For all they knew, Norman Lewis would not be found within 100 miles of a quarry. However, as Gary Posner noted in his article:

"Following Renier's reading, did the police zero-in on one quarry to which Noreen's directions pointed? Hewitt says on Sightings that he 'walked around probably 30 quarries' before deciding that the Whitehurst pit most closely matched the totality of Renier's clues. Perhaps that was his reason for having the Navy divers scour that one pit, which did result in Lewis' body and truck being recovered. But his initial rationale for concentrating on the Whitehurst pit was described this way in his report filed six days after Renier's reading: '. . . the Whitehurst pits are an obvious first impression . . . being the closest and the most accessible from the Lewis residence.' (Although the 'eastern' pit was fenced off by this time, it had been easily accessible when Lewis disappeared, and it is half as far from Lewis' home as is Whitehurst.)

"As for this 'eastern' pit, a person with some inside knowledge of the police investigation (who allowed me to tape our conversation but requests anonymity) told me that this had been the 'prime target for the investigation' immediately following Renier's reading. 'They didn't think there was a [railroad] track [at Whitehurst].'"

So, Renier's reading narrowed the focus from "anywhere" to "a group of quarries". Apparently most of the police thought her reading was more consistent with the eastern pit, but Hewitt correctly discerned that it was more consistent with the Whitehurst Pit.

The police continued their search and selected new targets to search. Renier did not provide information which led them to those targets. Renier's information suggested dozens of targets which could fit some of the information given, but not all. And it did not fit almost all of the more specific information given. The railroad track clue was not specific. The numbers were not specific, since half of the digits from 0 to 9 were mentioned at one point, including 1 and 2 whose frequency of use is greatest, so it would have been very difficult not to match a number to any particular site. The most specific clues were the direction to travel from his home and the mention of a bridge called "the old bridge". The direction to travel was wrong for the Whitehurst pit, and there wasn't an old bridge at the Whitehurst site. Now Slaughter may have looked up to the weigh scale as he claimed and thought, "hey that looks like an old bridge". But once he realized it was a weigh scale, it made the clue wrong. No matter how dumb the police want to pretend to be by pretending that Renier's reading fit the Whitehurst pit, it was actually one of the poorest fitting sites they chose out of the dozen they could have chosen.

Like I said, there may be some information which indicates why the Whitehurst pit was chosen, but this is not it. And our ignorance of the specific reason does not make your obviously wrong guess any less obviously wrong. That is, regardless of whether anyone can uncover the information which actually led them to the Whitehurst pit, your information which does not lead them to the Whitehurst pit does not serve as a substitute.

Linda

 

[Wolrab]

IINM, Renier was familiar with the area, or at least had access to maps. Saying "45" or "21" is an easy hit. With State Routes 45 and 121 being major roads, a missing person in with a vehicle more than likely would have driven those roads. She had her cake and ate it too.

 

[Garrette]

...but Chief Slaughter claims that Lewis' truck and remains were located precisely 2.1 miles from his home

I'd rather you answer Squeegee than this, so if it's a choice between us, choose his questions, please.

That said, this claim is only remotely possibly true and is definitely relevant only as a retrofit. Given that "21" would have been called a hit for any number of things, including if Lewis had been found in the eastern pit near Route 121, all the fitting here is retrofitting.

More importantly, Renier did not say "2.1." She said "21." Big difference, especially when she did use the word "miles" in her reading but only in relation to other numbers, not to 21.

Finally, straight line distance from Lewis' home to the closest part of the is around 6200 feet. Straight line distance to the farthest corner of the pit is about 8100 feet. The most direct road route from his home to the nearest point next to road access shown on google maps is also about 8100 feet.

The most direct road route from his home to the farthest corner of the pit is right at 2.1 miles. I cannot find anything online that says where in the pit the truck was found, but unless it was found at the farthest corner, even this distance is wrong.

 

[Rodney]

I will focus on whatever I deem worthy of focusing on, thanks.

I shall follow your example by choosing to focus on Gary Posner's updated webpage about this case:

"4/23/11 Update: The James Randi Educational Foundation forum participants seem to be beating a dead horse. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that several of the many clues offered by Renier in the Williston case caused the police to zero-in on one particular pit, which turned out to be the correct one, does that constitute compelling evidence that 'psychic' power must have been in play? Considering the number of psychics, the number of cases they participate in, and the number of clues they offer per case, what would be truly unexpected would be for none of their efforts to ever be credited as having been useful!" See http://www.gpposner.com/Williston-forum-reply.html

So, Posner seems to have modified his position from "Renier did not help the police solve this case" to "Perhaps Renier helped police solve this case, but it wasn't attributable to psychic power."

 

[GeeMack]

I shall follow your example by choosing to focus on Gary Posner's updated webpage about this case:

"4/23/11 Update: The James Randi Educational Foundation forum participants seem to be beating a dead horse. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that several of the many clues offered by Renier in the Williston case caused the police to zero-in on one particular pit, which turned out to be the correct one, does that constitute compelling evidence that 'psychic' power must have been in play? Considering the number of psychics, the number of cases they participate in, and the number of clues they offer per case, what would be truly unexpected would be for none of their efforts to ever be credited as having been useful!" See http://www.gpposner.com/Williston-forum-reply.html

So, Posner seems to have modified his position from "Renier did not help the police solve this case" to "Perhaps Renier helped police solve this case, but it wasn't attributable to psychic power."

No. He is suggesting that it would be unexpected for none of their efforts to ever be credited as having been useful. He didn't say anything any purported psychic detective did or said actually was useful.

But why focus on something that clearly doesn't support your position that magical powers are real when there are some perfectly good questions hanging here that you've been steadfastly ignoring...

Yes or no, is there any objective evidence that Noreen Renier actually provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit? That's just a yes/no question.​

And Garrette's question...

What made the Whitehurst pit an obvious first impression?​

Or was I correct in suggesting the best strategy the psychic detective believers seem to have is the 911 Truther strategy of just asking questions and not backing anything they believe with a shred of objective evidence?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I shall follow your example by choosing to focus on Gary Posner's updated webpage about this case:

Which is a tacit admission that the numbers are, in fact, retrofitted and don't have any significance on their own.

I thought your aim in posting here was to support your case? If not, then what is your aim in posting in this thread?

 

[Rodney]

Yes or no, is there any objective evidence that Noreen Renier actually provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit? That's just a yes/no question.​

Yes.

And Garrette's question...

What made the Whitehurst pit an obvious first impression?​

I don't know for sure because I wasn't there for Renier's July 1995 reading. But it it wasn't Renier's reading that made it (to Detective Hewitt, at least) an obvious first impression, what did make it an obvious first impression? Can you answer that question?

 

[Rodney]

If not, then what is your aim in posting in this thread?

To show that the oft-repeated claim here that "no psychic detective has ever assisted a police investigation" is, at best, a huge stretch.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

To show that the oft-repeated claim here that "no psychic detective has ever assisted a police investigation" is, at best, a huge stretch.

Don't you think that a good way to do that would be to support your case, rather than repeatedly refusing to do so? Don't forget, all I'm asking you to do is to support an assertion about the case that you've already made. The fact that you're proving yourself unable to do so doesn't do a great deal to make your case look solid.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes or no, is there any objective evidence that Noreen Renier actually provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit? That's just a yes/no question.

Yes.

That would bring us to the next question: Since none has been brought forward in this thread, and none has been described in any way on Renier's web site, in any of Posner's writings, in any quote or comment from any of the police who were involved, or in any pages or articles linked here so far, what objective evidence exists supporting the claim that Noreen Renier actually provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit?

 

[GeeMack]

To show that the oft-repeated claim here that "no psychic detective has ever assisted a police investigation" is, at best, a huge stretch.

Do you mean "assisted", like when my little niece helps gramma bake cookies? She gets in the way, it takes longer, the preparation is more cumbersome and it requires far more cleanup, and the cookies aren't as good. But when it's not about actually getting the task accomplished, and instead it's all about screwing around and having some fun, you could very loosely say she "assisted".

Or are you trying to show that an alleged psychic detective has assisted a police investigation, as in providing help that got the job done quicker, more efficiently, more effectively, or in a way that is demonstrably different than if he/she would have just stayed home and done a few more palm readings for some rubes? Because if you're trying to show that a supposed psychic detective has ever assisted a police investigation in a positive way that was beneficial towards getting the task accomplished, your effort so far is a complete failure.

 

[Rodney]

what objective evidence exists supporting the claim that Noreen Renier actually provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit?

The fact that the Williston Police Chief ordered a search of the Whitehurst Pit, and only the Whitehurst Pit, following Renier's reading and the subsequent verification of the landmarks that she provided in that reading.

 

[GeeMack]

The fact that the Williston Police Chief ordered a search of the Whitehurst Pit, and only the Whitehurst Pit, following Renier's reading and the subsequent verification of the landmarks that she provided in that reading.

That's not objective evidence. That is just your guess, a sort of argument from incredulity and ignorance that seems to have been developed from confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is quite the opposite thing from objective evidence.

So that question still stands. What objective evidence exists supporting the claim that Noreen Renier actually provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit?

And of course if you don't have any such objective evidence, it is acceptable to just admit it.

 

[Rodney]

That's not objective evidence. That is just your guess, a sort of argument from incredulity and ignorance that seems to have been developed from confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is quite the opposite thing from objective evidence.

So that question still stands. What objective evidence exists supporting the claim that Noreen Renier actually provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit?

And of course if you don't have any such objective evidence, it is acceptable to just admit it.

Your idea of "objective evidence" and mine are two different things. No, Renier did not lead the Williston police by the hand to the Whitehurst Pit, but there is no realistic explanation that I've heard as to how the case was solved other than the guidance from Renier's July 1995 reading. As Williston Police Chief Slaughter stated: "We wouldn't have found Norman Lewis without the help of Noreen."

You're welcome to speculate that Chief Slaughter doesn't know what he's talking about, but unless you can come up with a credible alternative as to how the case was solved, there's no point in further discussion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, Renier did not lead the Williston police by the hand to the Whitehurst Pit, but there is no realistic explanation that I've heard as to how the case was solved other than the guidance from Renier's July 1995 reading.

Yes you have. You've also admitted that you believe the alternate explanation to be realistic.

And you've now tacitly admitted that at least some of the evidence which you've cited in support of your assertion was actually retrofitted.

 

[GeeMack]

Your idea of "objective evidence" and mine are two different things. No, Renier did not lead the Williston police by the hand to the Whitehurst Pit, but there is no realistic explanation that I've heard as to how the case was solved other than the guidance from Renier's July 1995 reading.

That is, by definition, an argument from incredulity. If your idea of "objective evidence" is what most of us commonly know to be an argument from incredulity, then your definition is simply wrong.

As Williston Police Chief Slaughter stated: "We wouldn't have found Norman Lewis without the help of Noreen."

If Chief Slaughter was such an incompetent police officer that he was unable to solve a missing person case without listening to some charlatan babble some ambiguous numbers, and/or if he's so stupid that he doesn't realize even he has simply fitted those ambiguous numbers to the location after the fact, he should be fired.

You're welcome to speculate that Chief Slaughter doesn't know what he's talking about, but unless you can come up with a credible alternative as to how the case was solved, there's no point in further discussion.

Whether an alternative explanation exists, or whether any of the many plausible explanations provided by the sane, critical thinking participants in this discussion meet with your approval is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is this: There has been no objective evidence offered that supports the claim that Noreen Renier provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit.

Given the complete lack of objective evidence (common usage here, not a definition bastardized to support a preexisting belief in magical powers), your effort to show that an alleged psychic detective has assisted a police investigation has failed. And without some objective evidence supporting your claimed existence of those magical powers, it will continue to fail.

 

[xjx388]

Psychic powers sure are strange. The guy was buried in water, yet the "psychic" missed that important detail entirely. Yet not surprisingly, she picked up on trees, bricks, local road numbers and other details that are probably all over that terrain. Consider this analogy:

You've lost your keys. You ask for my psychic help. I take a look at your house and say the following: "I'm getting a couch or some kind of object with 4 feet . . . it's very dark and there is a paper or a pile of papers nearby . . . the number 12 or 1.2." In other words, i've just given you a vague set of "clues" that probably applies to 100% of households. If you find your keys under the bed next to a piece of paper about 12 inches from the edge, you are going to think I'm some kind of amazing psychic. Hell, if you find the keys in the fridge, you'll probably give me some kind of credit (dark place, 4 feet, papers on the door).

That's all we have here. She gave a set of vague "clues" that perfectly fit the area along with numbers that match highways/roads. No matter where they found him in that whole region, they could have given her credit. Isn't that what they call a hot reading?