Psychic able to view things from the history.

[Niels]

Yesterday I saw a documentary on Discovery Channel, called "Psychic witness".
It's a documentary about the police using psychic people to solve crimes and often cases about murderers.
You might want to skip the story and start withg the psychic stuff.
I quoted it, so it's easier to read.

The Story
One case was about a murdered mother, found in her home. She had 2 kids, one baby and a child of like 7 years old (very young at least). The husband told the police that he came home, and almost immediatly after he had opened the door, he was attacked by a friend he knew with a baseball bat. The husband managed to get hold of a knife and they fought for a moment. The "friend" eventually ran away but not before the husband stabbed him 3 times in the back.
The friend was soon found in the hospital, and he had exactly the same story, but he reversed the roles. He came to get his baseball bat back, and after the husband had opened the door and had let him in, he was stabbed in the back. The friend got his baseball bat and began a fight, and they both got exhausted and the friend managed to escape. No one had said anything about the dead wife and the young boy that was severly injured and lay in a coma in hospital. Plus no one had explained why the friend had stabs in his chest too.

The police asked for help to a psychic, in the hope of some sort of solution, and they found psychic "Rosemarie Kerr".
Not knowing anything of the crime, she found out that the 2 suspects had worked on a plan to kill both the husband's wife, and the friend's wife. Kerr was asked to the crime scene. She got there and while she didn't know anything about the case, she went to a place in the house and she thought that that place was where the mother had died, the police already knew that and it was correct. After that, she received vibrations from the mother or something like that, and then somehow she was able to view the whole event through the dead mother's eyes. She described how the friend had thrown the mother onto a bed and the friend tried to suffocate her with a pillow. The mother screamed for help and the husband came in, but he grabbed her legs and forced her to lay still. It failed and the mother ran away, she got a knife and stabbed the friend in the chest (wich hadn't been explained by anyone previously). The friend got the baseball bat and tried to hit the mother.
Then to everyone's horror, the 7 year old child suddenly appeared, and grabbed onto his mum's legs. The friend tried to kill his mum but he hit the child too. Now, the mother wasn't dead yet but badly injured and the child had been injured too. Then the husband and friend got into a fight, because it no one planned to hurt the child. The husband stabbed the friend 3 times in the back and THEN a fight broke loose.

With this story, the police had been able to arrest and convict both suspects.
The friend got 20 years, while the husband got sentenced for life without a chance to get out.

----------------

How the hell can someone completely know what happened? The psychic actually had to stop looking through the mother's view at some point, and had to continue with other methods I guess. She had to stop because she actually felt the pain of the mother when she was hit and stuff like that.
Apparently after this, Rosemarie Kerr kept helping the police in several cases with a high succes rate, I found that through googling her name.

You can't deny that Rosemarie Kerr can somehow bring events back, reverse time, witness it all by herself. You can't "guess" crimes like that.
But offcourse, she has to get it from somewhere. My initial thought is, that somehow everything we do gets recorded, or leaves unique traces. She can guide those things back, and in such detail.

It's enough proof for me to be absolutely sure that there's definatly more besides our little 3D world.
If you got 2 persons, and one only knows length and width, and the other knows height too.
If you drop a stone or an object, mr.3D can see it coming, he knows height. Mr.2D will see the object when it has landed but wont see it coming. Now imagine you are mr.2D, how would you experience that?

I'm almost sure that there are dimensions we just cant normally notice, except for these rare moments. Psychic people have "acces" to an area that makes it possible to retreive history. It must be, how would you explain it?

This is the longest post I ever made on GTPlanet.

 

[Famine]

If you target shoot with a shotgun, one of the pellets will hit dead centre.

Let's hear about Ms. Kerr's failures now. What do you mean they aren't reported?

 

[Touring Mars]

You can't deny that Rosemarie Kerr can somehow bring events back, reverse time, witness it all by herself. You can't "guess" crimes like that.
But offcourse, she has to get it from somewhere.

Precisely - she does get her information from somewhere, but you'll almost certainly find that the source of her information is far less supernatural than she would have you believe. The fact is, the people involved, between them, have a full and accurate record of what actually happened... it's nothing mystical, it's called memory... of course, in crime investigations, there will always be differing accounts - a mixture of facts and lies. It is the job of the investigators to establish fact from fiction. If anything, all the 'psychic' investigator is capable of doing is putting the liar(s) under enough pressure that they eventually make a mistake (i.e. they get their fabricated story mixed up or wrong). The belief that the psychic somehow 'knows' what actually happened is absolutely not true.

Regarding 'psychics', do you notice that they never actually tell you anything you didn't already know? Similarly, psychic crime investigators don't actually know what really happened, but they are able to exert pressure on those who do. You're right to say that 'you can't guess crimes like that'... but they are not guessing, they're just piecing together the facts like regular police.

 

[Kylehnat]

Regarding 'psychics', do you notice that they never actually tell you anything you didn't already know?

Nonsense!! I called Miss Cleo, and she said that I was at an important crossroads in life, and that I would face a challenge very soon, but would be rewarded in the end! She is soooo right! You can't just make that stuff up. She clearly could see into my life with a keen sight that only she has! All hail Miss Cleo!!

*unconsciously reaches for phone and credit card*

 

[Niels]

Precisely - she does get her information from somewhere, but you'll almost certainly find that the source of her information is far less supernatural than she would have you believe. The fact is, the people involved, between them, have a full and accurate record of what actually happened... it's nothing mystical, it's called memory... of course, in crime investigations, there will always be differing accounts - a mixture of facts and lies. It is the job of the investigators to establish fact from fiction. If anything, all the 'psychic' investigator is capable of doing is putting the liar(s) under enough pressure that they eventually make a mistake (i.e. they get their fabricated story mixed up or wrong). The belief that the psychic somehow 'knows' what actually happened is absolutely not true.

Regarding 'psychics', do you notice that they never actually tell you anything you didn't already know? Similarly, psychic crime investigators don't actually know what really happened, but they are able to exert pressure on those who do. You're right to say that 'you can't guess crimes like that'... but they are not guessing, they're just piecing together the facts like regular police.

You know, there's a weekly television programm here about some psychic wannabe that can bring you into touch with people's loved ones. They constantly whine on about their names "I'm feeling something with an A.." then the person says "n...*barely finishing the O*" "no i'm sensing something with a B", and continue like that. This is not about psychics in general, it's about this single story.
I don't think many would bother reading it all. But if there's no one that knows how the crime went, you cant ask anyone about it.
She's forcing the criminals to tell some lie and make them stress out and stuff? She never even met the criminals.

I'm not sticking to my belief about this, but untill now I've always been able to find some sort of reason how psychics could've been able to guess it all. But this woman has a high succes rate. She never knew the cause of death and she told the investigators that she couldn't continue because she had tremendous pain in her head. Who said the victim got beaten to the head?
"Problem" here is that she came with the initial ideas. They seemed to fit perfectly. If there's one kind of person that needs to be sure this psychic stuff works, then it's the police. Offcourse there are countless of people that will stay the same morons as before, claiming they can get in touch with the dead. But this is an exception I'm telling you, she get's it from somewhere.

 

[Famine]

You know, there's a weekly television programm here about some psychic wannabe that can bring you into touch with people's loved ones.

John Edward?

 

[Niels]

You know that's not my point mate. I don't expect you to change your opinion about psychic things like that. I know it's difficult to convince you from anything besides science. But who says there isn't a scientific, new explaination for this?
Seeing the huge amount of misterious things happening in the world, I wouldn't be suprised if we discover more about any of those misterious subjects very soon.

 

[Famine]

You know that's not my point mate. I don't expect you to change your opinion about psychic things like that. I know it's difficult to convince you from anything besides science. But who says there isn't a scientific, new explaination for this?

The James Randi Educational Foundation are.

 

[Niels]

The James Randi Educational Foundation are.

That's a step into the right direction in my opinion. It's not possible to achieve anything if you keep too sceptical (you in general, especially scientists though).
But again, so far most of the psychic seems to be made up. Some things like this though, really catches my attention and makes me think of what the future might hold.

 

[Famine]

That's a step into the right direction in my opinion. It's not possible to achieve anything if you keep too sceptical (you in general, especially scientists though).

There's no such thing as TOO sceptical. You either accept things without proof or you don't. Up until the point someone can prove in strict scientific conditions that they acquire knowledge through an as-yet-undocumented sensory organ then I will not accept any claims of psychic abilities.

 

[Niels]

That's difficult because it appears that scientists will only examine something if they think it's true. Thats when you are a bit too sceptical.

 

[Famine]

That's difficult because it appears that scientists will only examine something if they think it's true.

Which is a complete misrepresentation of the whole of science.

The purpose of science is to prove that something is UNTRUE. If you cannot do this then it is accepted as being true.

 

[Niels]

Which is a complete misrepresentation of the whole of science.

The purpose of science is to prove that something is UNTRUE. If you cannot do this then it is accepted as being true.

Why are you waiting for them to prove it's true then?

Up until the point someone can prove in strict scientific conditions that they acquire knowledge through an as-yet-undocumented sensory organ then I will not accept any claims of psychic abilities.

 

[Famine]

I'm waiting for them - the scientists - to disprove that it's not true, hence the qualifier "strict scientific conditions", which will in turn allow them - the "psychics" - prove that it is true...

 

[Niels]

I'm waiting for them - the scientists - to disprove that it's not true, hence the qualifier "strict scientific conditions", which will in turn allow them - the "psychics" - prove that it is true...

1st:

The purpose of science is to prove that something is UNTRUE. If you cannot do this then it is accepted as being true.

This is the point of science you said a few posts back. Disproving that something is untrue, is that same as proving something is true (in other words), you wont fool me with that.
So you are waiting for the scientists to do something that is not the point of science in the first place

Or didn't I misrepresent science after all?

That's difficult because it appears that scientists will only examine something if they think it's true.

Which is a complete misrepresentation of the whole of science.

2nd:
Well...aside from the "point of science", I think that your last post explains how reality really works. If you look at famine's post, it basically says the psychics need the scientists to prove psychic ability. But scientists are just humans, I'm sure no scientist wants to try to prove psychic abilities, because it's impossible in their eyes, though everyone is waiting on proof.

Lazy scientists...

 

[Duke]

1st:


This is the point of science you said a few posts back. Disproving that something is untrue, is that same as proving something is true (in other words), you wont fool me with that.
So you are waiting for the scientists to do something that is not the point of science in the first place

Or didn't I misrepresent science after all?


2nd:
Well...aside from the "point of science", I think that your last post explains how reality really works. If you look at famine's post, it basically says the psychics need the scientists to prove psychic ability. But scientists are just humans, I'm sure no scientist wants to try to prove psychic abilities, because it's impossible in their eyes, though everyone is waiting on proof.

Lazy scientists...

Wow, have you ever missed the point.

<~~~ Niels...........................................................the point ~~~>

Science isn't going to prove psychic abilities are true, because science doesn't go about looking for supernatural things to prove true. Science makes no claim that ESP is real and so they are not going to try to prove it true. Science also makes no claim that the Flower Fairies are real and so they don't try to prove them true either... or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or ghosts or what have you. The number of things that could be real is limited only by the imagination.

So what happens is this: someone makes a claim that something like ESP is true. That person is then asked to prove it, while scientists try to find a way to prove that it's false. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim! If the scientists fail to debunk the claim, then the claim is deemed possible, and it moves to another, more stringent level of tests. So far, every claim has been debunked scientifically.

 

[Zrow]

<~~~ Niels...........................................................the point ~~~>

Nice.

 

[Niels]

Wow, have you ever missed the point.

<~~~ Niels...........................................................the point ~~~>

Science isn't going to prove psychic abilities are true, because science doesn't go about looking for supernatural things to prove true. Science makes no claim that ESP is real and so they are not going to try to prove it true. Science also makes no claim that the Flower Fairies are real and so they don't try to prove them true either... or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or ghosts or what have you. The number of things that could be real is limited only by the imagination.

So what happens is this: someone makes a claim that something like ESP is true. That person is then asked to prove it, while scientists try to find a way to prove that it's false. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim! If the scientists fail to debunk the claim, then the claim is deemed possible, and it moves to another, more stringent level of tests. So far, every claim has been debunked scientifically.

<~~~Duke.........................................................................................................to the point >
OH man, people just scroll down the page and dont read the first post. Or you've just ignored the fact that now, the police is even using psychics to help them with crimes.
Sure it's no evidence in court yet, but it surely is foolish to compare this with Flower Fairies.
I thought after seeing it's used by the police it would be worth discussing?

Doesn't seem like you take my post serious at all, but in the end I think I'm the one that shouldn't take your post really serious, not the other way around.

 

[Famine]

Disproving that something is untrue, is that same as proving something is true (in other words), you wont fool me with that.

No, it isn't.

Science starts off with a null hypothesis. This is basically a supposition that the outcome is independant of the input. You then design a number of tests, with as few variables as possible (ideally just the one - the input) to determine the statistical likelihood of the outcome occurring without the input. If the likelihood is shown, after these tests, to be less than 5% then the null hypothesis is disproven - it is said to be statistically likely that the outcome is a direct result of the input.

You do NOT set out to prove that something is true - it's amazing how often you can get a positive result if you set out to prove that something is true - you set out to prove that something is untrue. It is radically different, and why "Intelligent Design" and "Creation Science" can never be science - they have a preset view and invent tests to prove this view.

So you are waiting for the scientists to do something that is not the point of science in the first place

Or didn't I misrepresent science after all?

No... I'm waiting for scientists to show that the null hypothesis - that any "psychic ability" has no better chance of predicting
something than a random baseline - is untrue.

You grossly misrepresented science when you asserted that:

scientists will only examine something if they think it's true

As I detailed above, this is inaccurate. Scientists will examine anything and everything and try to prove that it's purely down to chance.

Well...aside from the "point of science", I think that your last post explains how reality really works. If you look at famine's post, it basically says the psychics need the scientists to prove psychic ability.

If you look at my post it doesn't basically say anything, least of all what you just summarised it as.

Psychics need scientists to disprove that psychic ability is just chance.

But scientists are just humans, I'm sure no scientist wants to try to prove psychic abilities

No scientist wants to prove anything.

 

[Niels]

Maybe it's easier to rephraze 3 words in my "keep too sceptical" post then...*yawns*.

"That's a step into the right direction in my opinion. It's not possible to achieve anything if you barely investigate anything.
But again, so far most of the psychic seems to be made up. Some things like this though, really catches my attention and makes me think of what the future might hold."

(I think this thread won't get many replies after this one anymore...)

 

[Kylehnat]

After that, she received vibrations from the mother or something like that, and then somehow she was able to view the whole event through the dead mother's eyes. She described how the friend had thrown the mother onto a bed and the friend tried to suffocate her with a pillow. The mother screamed for help and the husband came in, but he grabbed her legs and forced her to lay still. It failed and the mother ran away, she got a knife and stabbed the friend in the chest (wich hadn't been explained by anyone previously). The friend got the baseball bat and tried to hit the mother.
Then to everyone's horror, the 7 year old child suddenly appeared, and grabbed onto his mum's legs. The friend tried to kill his mum but he hit the child too. Now, the mother wasn't dead yet but badly injured and the child had been injured too. Then the husband and friend got into a fight, because it no one planned to hurt the child. The husband stabbed the friend 3 times in the back and THEN a fight broke loose.

Was any of this "testimony" proven beyond a doubt? If they didn't know what actually happened, how do they know that she didn't just make this stuff up?

 

[Niels]

Was any of this "testimony" proven beyond a doubt? If they didn't know what actually happened, how do they know that she didn't just make this stuff up?

Well, I don't think they've used this as the main evidence, but I think that the police later on confirmed this story with evidence, otherwise there wouldn't have been a conviction nor an episode of it in that TV show.

 

[Flerbizky]

Science < THAT ...

It's not very hard to understand...

 

[Kylehnat]

Well, I don't think they've used this as the main evidence, but I think that the police later on confirmed this story with evidence, otherwise there wouldn't have been a conviction nor an episode of it in that TV show.

If the police could figure out what happened with the evidence they had, why did they need her?

 

[Keef]

Maybe they wanted to test her and see if she was correct. WHy not? Have a little fun.

 

[Niels]

If the police could figure out what happened with the evidence they had, why did they need her?

I don't know, the TV programm ended with Rosemarie's vision of the mother's last minutes of her life, then Rosemarie made a comment herself in the TV interview and then they said that the husband got sentenced for life, and the friend for 20 years. The end.

The police was stuck, they didn't have a possible motive, they didn't know if the husband had something to do with it or the "friend". They apparently were guided towards evidence.
If you know what happened, you know where to search for evidence to complete that story. If you don't know what might have happened then you don't really know where to search for evidence.