Just One Case

[Rodney]

In addition to what Mojo posted about Rodney's new example, there is this from the linked article:

So Lewis spoke with both the mother and the barn owner prior to showing up. The barn owner admits to providing information. Lewis admits the mother was disoriented which is perfect for obtaining information.

Sorry, Rodney. I'm not chasing that goose, too.

I don't expect you to, but you and Mojo have managed to miss the salient point: "She contacted police to tell them that, although she couldn't provide an exact location of the barn, she knew that Lauren had been inside. Search parties combed the area until they found a red barn matching the description given by Morrison."

So, apparently, no one had a clue that Lauren had been taken to a red barn until psychic Morrison contacted the police and told them Lauren had been inside that barn.

 

[Garrette]

So, apparently, no one had a clue that Lauren had been taken to a red barn until psychic Morrison contacted the police and told them Lauren had been inside that barn.

Key word: "apparently"

Sequence of events:

1. Morrison talks to missing child's mother
2. Morrison talks to barn owner
3. Morrison talks to police about barn and car and "sequence of numbers"
4. Police find barn with car inside with plates matching "sequence of numbers"
5. Police/National Guard drive Morrison around town in vehicle with shaded windows (does this mean she couldn't see out or others couldn't see in? What's the purpose?) and end up at barn.
6. Dogs follow missing child's scent to barn

Frankly, I doubt 5 and 6 ever happened. While possible, I don't see the NG driving a self-proclaimed psychic around town. If true, what the heck is the purpose? The police had already found the barn.

And as far as the dogs following the child's scent to the barn: Hogwash. If they had a starting point for the scent trail already, it would have led them to the barn regardless if someone told them about it. If they didn't have a start point for the scent trail, where did they suddenly get one? The article doesn't say the dogs picked up the trail in the barn; it says the dogs followed it to the barn.

As far as the "sequence of numbers" matching the license plate: Easy peasey. Morrison already had the barn description and location from the owner. She might have gotten the car/plate info from him, too, or paid a visit on her own to the barn before calling the police.

And if the numbers are important, why is nothing else mentioned about them? Did the car belong to the barn owner or was it a mysterious car that happened to be there? The article doesn't follow up, hence it's non-information.

You're smart enough to do this kind of analysis yourself, Rodney. The fact you choose not to speaks volumes.

 

[Garrette]

For the New Lurkers out there: This thread has become a decent example of Rodney's tactics. He is intelligent and well-read; there is no denying that.

He is also deceptive. He ignores refutations of claims and brings old claims back up again later. When the argument begins to go poorly, he throws out another claim as a distraction.

Old Lurkers and Old Posters are aware of this.

With Rodney, it is especially sad, because--as I said--there is no denying he is intelligent.

 

[Rodney]

Key word: "apparently"

Sequence of events:

1. Morrison talks to missing child's mother
2. Morrison talks to barn owner
3. Morrison talks to police about barn and car and "sequence of numbers"
4. Police find barn with car inside with plates matching "sequence of numbers"
5. Police/National Guard drive Morrison around town in vehicle with shaded windows (does this mean she couldn't see out or others couldn't see in? What's the purpose?) and end up at barn.
6. Dogs follow missing child's scent to barn

Frankly, I doubt 5 and 6 ever happened. While possible, I don't see the NG driving a self-proclaimed psychic around town. If true, what the heck is the purpose? The police had already found the barn.

And as far as the dogs following the child's scent to the barn: Hogwash. If they had a starting point for the scent trail already, it would have led them to the barn regardless if someone told them about it. If they didn't have a start point for the scent trail, where did they suddenly get one? The article doesn't say the dogs picked up the trail in the barn; it says the dogs followed it to the barn.

As far as the "sequence of numbers" matching the license plate: Easy peasey. Morrison already had the barn description and location from the owner. She might have gotten the car/plate info from him, too, or paid a visit on her own to the barn before calling the police.

And if the numbers are important, why is nothing else mentioned about them? Did the car belong to the barn owner or was it a mysterious car that happened to be there? The article doesn't follow up, hence it's non-information.

You're smart enough to do this kind of analysis yourself, Rodney. The fact you choose not to speaks volumes.

Unless I totally misunderstood the article, your analysis is backward. My understanding is that no one knew anything about Lauren being in the red barn until Valerie Morrison contacted the police and told them she had a vision to that effect. However, I just e-mailed the article's author and invited her to clarify the facts.

 

[Rodney]

When the argument begins to go poorly, he throws out another claim as a distraction.

How can you be sure? So far, none of my arguments have gone poorly.

With Rodney, it is especially sad, because--as I said--there is no denying he is intelligent.

Oh, I think a few folks here would deny that.

 

[Mr. Stick]

..... On Friday, Oct. 7, 1988, Morrison was shepherded around the township in a van with shaded windows, then transported to the barn by the Army National Guard. When search dogs were brought to the area near French's property, they picked up Lauren's scent trail, which led them directly to the barn. The trail ended there."

If Lauren wasn't found, how do we know it was her scent the dogs picked up? Did someone ask the dogs?
Would it not be more correct to say that the dogs picked up a scent trail?

 

[Rodney]

If Lauren wasn't found, how do we know it was her scent the dogs picked up? Did someone ask the dogs?
Would it not be more correct to say that the dogs picked up a scent trail?

According to this article -- http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040901/ai_n14581096 -- "Picking the scent from a pair of Laci Peterson's eyeglasses, a police tracking dog [Trimble] followed her trail off the end of a boat-launch pier in the Berkeley Marina four days after the pregnant woman went missing, the dog's handler testified Tuesday in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial."

The article goes on to note: "Peterson's defense argued that there is no scientific basis for 'scent theory' and that a dog's behavior is only an interpretation by its owner, not fact.

"Judge Alfred Delucchi partly agreed, throwing out the lion's share of dog-tracking evidence -- except Trimble's in the Berkeley Marina. The judge allowed that, because the bodies were found nearby, and Peterson admitted to being at the marina the day his wife disappeared.

"[Dog handler supervisor Christopher] Boyer defended the practice as scientifically valid, adding: 'I believe that the science has always been there. Now it's a matter of understanding.'"

 

[Beady]

"[Dog handler supervisor Christopher] Boyer defended the practice as scientifically valid, adding: 'I believe that the science has always been there. Now it's a matter of understanding.'"

At the risk of derailing, is the science there? If it is, how long would the scent be valid?

 

[Garrette]

Rodney, I'm glad you emailed the author of that article, but I will requote what Mr. Stick quoted:

On Friday, Oct. 7, 1988, Morrison was shepherded around the township in a van with shaded windows, then transported to the barn by the Army National Guard. When search dogs were brought to the area near French's property, they picked up Lauren's scent trail, which led them directly to the barn. The trail ended there."

The order of the writing indicates that Morrison was at the barn first.

And even if you reverse 5 and 6, so that the scent trail was picked up before the NG took Morrison to the barn (but after the police knew about it) it means nothing in regard to psychic ability simply because steps 1 through 4 are there.

Morrison talked to the parent, in person. She had access to the child's belongings, either by asking for something outright or by taking something surreptitiously. Planting a scent trail would still be more likely than the claimed alternative. And if she didn't do it intentionally, if she asked the mother to let her spend time in the child's room (a likelihood, I think), then she could have picked the scent up on her own clothes and inadvertently left the scent trail when she went to the barn.

And that's in addition to the questions about the validity of the scent trail to begin with.

There's no there there.

 

[Garrette]

How can you be sure? So far, none of my arguments have gone poorly.

I'll grant you're good at prodding them long enough to make them appear alive.

This horse is no more. It has ceased to be. ... This is a DEAD HORSE!

Oh, I think a few folks here would deny that.

Granted. But their denials pale next to your denials of refutations.

Ah, well. Still fun.

 

[fls]

For the New Lurkers out there: This thread has become a decent example of Rodney's tactics. He is intelligent and well-read; there is no denying that.

Evidence?

Now that I think about it, I start with the assumption that all posters are intelligent and well-read, and only discard the idea when I can no longer deny the evidence against it.

He is also deceptive. He ignores refutations of claims and brings old claims back up again later. When the argument begins to go poorly, he throws out another claim as a distraction.

Old Lurkers and Old Posters are aware of this.

Hey! Who are you calling Old?!

With Rodney, it is especially sad, because--as I said--there is no denying he is intelligent.

I might disagree. I'm beginning to think that intelligence is independent of skepticism, so it's sad in all cases.

Linda

 

[Garrette]

Evidence?

I know (think?) you're at least half-joking, but I think Rodney's ability to discuss nuance as well as his substantive references to numerous texts, both skeptical and gullible, speaks to this.

Now that I think about it, I start with the assumption that all posters are intelligent and well-read, and only discard the idea when I can no longer deny the evidence against it.

I try to do the same.

Hey! Who are you calling Old?!

You, dear, but only because you took away your original avatar. Color me peevish.

I might disagree. I'm beginning to think that intelligence is independent of skepticism, so it's sad in all cases.

I'm not sure why you disagree given what you're saying. I absolutely agree that intelligence is independent of skepticism, and that skepticism is a fickle bride requiring constant attention lest she become shrill and hollow. But that's what I'm saying about Rodney. He's intelligent, but not skeptical. I waiver between thinking he knows that he is not skeptical but chooses to remain that way for an unspoken reason (much like my opinion of Art Bell) and thinking he does not know that he is not skeptical.

 

[fls]

I know (think?) you're at least half-joking, but I think Rodney's ability to discuss nuance as well as his substantive references to numerous texts, both skeptical and gullible, speaks to this.

Nah. It was pretty much all joking.

It seemed such an obvious set-up that I thought you might be disappointed if nobody took the bait.

Originally Posted by fls
Now that I think about it, I start with the assumption that all posters are intelligent and well-read, and only discard the idea when I can no longer deny the evidence against it.

I try to do the same.

Yeah. I think it shows.

With Rodney, it is especially sad, because--as I said--there is no denying he is intelligent.

I might disagree. I'm beginning to think that intelligence is independent of skepticism, so it's sad in all cases.

I'm not sure why you disagree given what you're saying. I absolutely agree that intelligence is independent of skepticism, and that skepticism is a fickle bride requiring constant attention lest she become shrill and hollow. But that's what I'm saying about Rodney. He's intelligent, but not skeptical. I waiver between thinking he knows that he is not skeptical but chooses to remain that way for an unspoken reason (much like my opinion of Art Bell) and thinking he does not know that he is not skeptical.

Then I didn't understand why it is especially sad that an intelligent person is not skeptical. Doesn't that imply some expectation of a relationship between the two?

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, I'm glad you emailed the author of that article, but I will requote what Mr. Stick quoted:

The order of the writing indicates that Morrison was at the barn first.

And even if you reverse 5 and 6, so that the scent trail was picked up before the NG took Morrison to the barn (but after the police knew about it) it means nothing in regard to psychic ability simply because steps 1 through 4 are there.

Morrison talked to the parent, in person. She had access to the child's belongings, either by asking for something outright or by taking something surreptitiously. Planting a scent trail would still be more likely than the claimed alternative. And if she didn't do it intentionally, if she asked the mother to let her spend time in the child's room (a likelihood, I think), then she could have picked the scent up on her own clothes and inadvertently left the scent trail when she went to the barn.

And that's in addition to the questions about the validity of the scent trail to begin with.

There's no there there.

I've now heard back from the article's author and she states: "You were right about the sequence of events, she gave the information, cops found the barn."

So, if she is correct, your entire scenario is wrong. But feel free to investigate this case further and see if you can find any support for your position that Valerie Morrison did not provide uncannily accurate information to the police.

 

[Garrette]

I've now heard back from the article's author and she states: "You were right about the sequence of events, she gave the information, cops found the barn."

So, if she is correct, your entire scenario is wrong.

No. It's exactly what I said in my scenario.

Here is the sequence as I originally posted it:

Sequence of events:

1. Morrison talks to missing child's mother
2. Morrison talks to barn owner
3. Morrison talks to police about barn and car and "sequence of numbers"
4. Police find barn with car inside with plates matching "sequence of numbers"
5. Police/National Guard drive Morrison around town in vehicle with shaded windows (does this mean she couldn't see out or others couldn't see in? What's the purpose?) and end up at barn.
6. Dogs follow missing child's scent to barn

I said right there that the police went to the barn after Morrison talked to them.

The part you intentionally leave out is that Morrison talked to the barn owner before talking to the police, and the barn owner volunteered information.

Morrison also talked to the mother before talking to the police.

It's in the article, Rodney.

Last August, French, who still owns the property, granted an interview to The Phoenix that included a tour of the barn, which looks much the same today as it did in 1988.
"I tried to be as helpful as possible while they were here," French said of the search teams. "Your first concern is the child and trying to locate her.
"I remember a lot of people showing up all at once. I think they were all pretty focused on the psychic at that point."
French said he had spoken with Morrison on the telephone before she arrived in the area, and she provided him with visual "clues" that helped identify the property she had seen in her vision, including seeing water in a ditch.
French told Morrison about a drainage ditch that had been dug around the barn by the previous owner.
At the time, Morrison requested that her involvement be secret, but when a month went by without anyone finding a trace of Lauren, Morrison went on the "People Are Talking" show on Philadelphia's KYW-TV to talk about the case.
A Nov. 1, 1988, article in the Evening Phoenix - presently The Phoenix - gives a detailed description of the vision Morrison spoke about on television.
"I saw a vision in my mind of where the child was, at least of where I had seen her," Morrison said in the article. "(Police) asked me if I would come to the area. They had found exactly what I had seen in my mind. It was the first time I had ever actually (physically) seen something that I had seen in my mind."

But feel free to investigate this case further and see if you can find any support for your position that Valerie Morrison did not provide uncannily accurate information to the police.

Oh, I always feel free. And the article speaks for itself when read with a critical eye that Morrison did nothing of the sort.

But feel free to actually demonstrate support for the claim instead of shifting the burden of proof.

It's another one of your tactics, Rodney.

 

[Garrette]

Nah. It was pretty much all joking.

It seemed such an obvious set-up that I thought you might be disappointed if nobody took the bait.

So I'm a good straight man even when not intending to be?

I like that.

Yeah. I think it shows.

Much obliged.

Then I didn't understand why it is especially sad that an intelligent person is not skeptical. Doesn't that imply some expectation of a relationship between the two?

Yes, I suppose it does, and I further suppose I didn't really think through my comment.

I think I was looking on intelligence as a necessary but not sufficient condition for skepticism.

Whether that view is correct is a matter for a lengthier discussion than I think I am willing to have on it right now.

 

[Rodney]

No. It's exactly what I said in my scenario.

Here is the sequence as I originally posted it:

I said right there that the police went to the barn after Morrison talked to them.

The part you intentionally leave out is that Morrison talked to the barn owner before talking to the police, and the barn owner volunteered information.

Morrison also talked to the mother before talking to the police.

It's in the article, Rodney.

Sorry, but the article's author has confirmed to me that the sequence of events was this:

1) Two days after Lauren went missing and searchers had fruitlessly searched for her, Valerie Morrison reported to police that she had a vision of Lauren being in a red barn and provided other significant details, including a sequence of numbers.

2) Searchers then located a red barn that seemed to fit Morrison's description.
The sequence of numbers Morrison had provided to police was on the license plate of a car in the barn.

3) Morrison then talked on the telephone with the barn's owner and determined that his barn was likely what she had seen in her vision.

4) Morrison then was escorted by the Army National Guard to the barn.

Valerie Morrison summarized this case as follows: "I saw a vision in my mind of where the child was, at least of where I had seen her. (Police) asked me if I would come to the area. They had found exactly what I had seen in my mind. It was the first time I had ever actually (physically) seen something that I had seen in my mind."

So, the burden of proof is on you to show either that there is a logical explanation for the above sequence of events or that the article's author is incorrect about the sequence.

 

[Garrette]

Sorry, but the article's author has confirmed to me that the sequence of events was this:

1) Two days after Lauren went missing and searchers had fruitlessly searched for her, Valerie Morrison reported to police that she had a vision of Lauren being in a red barn and provided other significant details, including a sequence of numbers.

2) Searchers then located a red barn that seemed to fit Morrison's description.
The sequence of numbers Morrison had provided to police was on the license plate of a car in the barn.

3) Morrison then talked on the telephone with the barn's owner and determined that his barn was likely what she had seen in her vision.

4) Morrison then was escorted by the Army National Guard to the barn.

Valerie Morrison summarized this case as follows: "I saw a vision in my mind of where the child was, at least of where I had seen her. (Police) asked me if I would come to the area. They had found exactly what I had seen in my mind. It was the first time I had ever actually (physically) seen something that I had seen in my mind."

So, the burden of proof is on you to show either that there is a logical explanation for the above sequence of events or that the article's author is incorrect about the sequence.

I see. So Morrison's description was not specific enough for an objective observer to determine "this is the barn." It took the barn owner to provide enough information for Morrison to respond to and say, "Yeah, that's what I meant."

Kind of like John Edward seeing a "father figure," the sitter mentioning a respected male cousin, and Edward saying "yeah, that's it."

 

[Garrette]

So, the burden of proof is on you to show either that there is a logical explanation for the above sequence of events or that the article's author is incorrect about the sequence.

No. The burden of proof was and remains on the side of those claiming something psychic.

So far you have provided a newspaper article.

The goose is still wild; I still won't chase it for you; and you're still up to your tricks.

 

[Rodney]

I see. So Morrison's description was not specific enough for an objective observer to determine "this is the barn." It took the barn owner to provide enough information for Morrison to respond to and say, "Yeah, that's what I meant."

Kind of like John Edward seeing a "father figure," the sitter mentioning a respected male cousin, and Edward saying "yeah, that's it."

A completely nonsensical analogy, if the article's author is correct. According to her, no one had the slightest clue that Lauren had been taken to the barn until Valerie Morrison called the police.