Why We Need Skeptics in the Skeptiko Forum

Thanks, Typoz.

I used them simply because I felt that Kai had gone beyond the spirit of fair play. He asked me for the evidence and the statements to back it up and then he moved the goalposts.
I did no such thing. I asked you genuinely if Spetzler had made a public statement of a particular kind (it appears that he hasn't). I also haven't moved any goalposts...it has been my view all along that without formal closure, obtaining information from other members of the surgical team (by ordinary or non-ordinary means) is a distinct possibility. Whether we like this possibility or not really doesn't have much to do with it. It's there.
 
'm
I did no such thing. I asked you genuinely if Spetzler had made a public statement of a particular kind (it appears that he hasn't). I also haven't moved any goalposts...it has been my view all along that without formal closure, obtaining information from other members of the surgical team (by ordinary or non-ordinary means) is a distinct possibility. Whether we like this possibility or not really doesn't have much to do with it. It's there.
This was your first statement about Spetzler, I think

"I haven't really been following the Spetzler discussion. But my basic comment on it is that he would really need to make a *public statement* of his own clearing up these issues"

I posted two videos one from the very public British broadcasting corporation and one from Discovery Channel in which Spetzler publicly states that he doesn't have an explanation for it and she didn't have any brainwaves when she heard the conversation. And then you said you wanted Spetzlers
assurance that the events occurred during hypothermic arrest or standstill. Which is moving the goalposts in my book because that is not what we were talking about. Why is Spetzlers assurance that she was under burst suppression when she heard the conversation...not enough to convince you that something at least is going on other than brain function ?

Wait, you mentioned some kind of super Psi

I'm perplexed at your tactics, kai, I don't get it but I'm not going to waste anymore energy on it. No hard feelings from me by the way, regards for the new year.
 
Last edited:
This was your first statement about Spetzler, I think

"I haven't really been following the Spetzler discussion. But my basic comment on it is that he would really need to make a *public statement* of his own clearing up these issues"

I posted two videos one from the very public British broadcasting association and one from Discovery Channel in which Spetzler publicly states that he doesn't have an explanation for it and she didn't have any brainwaves when she heard the conversation. And then you said you wanted Spetzlers
assurance that the events occurred during hypothermic arrest or standstill. Which is moving the goalposts in my book because that is not what we were talking about. Why is Spetzlers assurance that she was under burst suppression when she heard the conversation...not enough to convince you that something at least is going on other than brain function ?

Wait, you mentioned some kind of super Psi

I perplexed at your tactics, kai, I don't get it but I'm not going to waste anymore energy on it. No hard feelings from me by the way, regards for the new year.
I don't have "tactics" Tim. It's fascinating to me that you construct the conversation in that way, but no matter. I said I would accept any public statement S made about the operation he performed. You pointed me to videos in which he made comments. I watched these videos right through, but his comments were general in nature. I may be wrong, but wasn't the vein conversation intended to identify an appropriate conduit for exsanguination / resanguination?...if so, clearly she couldn't have been "without all brain function" at that time. I remain happy to accept anything I hear S say about his own operation in the public arena.

Issue remains (no goalpost moving, this was just always my view): even S cannot know that Pam didn't get the information from his own mind or the minds of other attendant surgical team...hence (I repeat) the need for a formal closure by means of a target that is not contained in the mind of any individual (present or not).
 
I don't have "tactics" Tim. It's fascinating to me that you construct the conversation in that way, but no matter. I said I would accept any public statement S made about the operation he performed. You pointed me to videos in which he made comments. I watched these videos right through, but his comments were general in nature. I may be wrong, but wasn't the vein conversation intended to identify an appropriate conduit for exsanguination / resanguination?...if so, clearly she couldn't have been "without all brain function" at that time. I remain happy to accept anything I hear S say about his own operation in the public arena.

Issue remains (no goalpost moving, this was just always my view): even S cannot know that Pam didn't get the information from his own mind or the minds of other attendant surgical team...hence (I repeat) the need for a formal closure by means of a target that is not contained in the mind of any individual (present or not).
"I watched these videos right through, but his comments were general in nature. I may be wrong......

From memory "Without any brainwaves I don't know how it's possible to receive, internalise and maintain a memory .........

That's general, is it, Kai ? You know...nothing going on here out of the ordinary that might upset materialism..... just a brain that's not working at all FACT accurately hearing, processing and remembering a conversation when she also had 100 decibel clicking nodules pressed into her ear holes.

Move on Folks, c'mon, all explainable etc etc

Kai, that's it. Good luck with your stone wall scepticism.
 
Last edited:
"I watched these videos right through, but his comments were general in nature. I may be wrong......

From memory "Without any brainwaves I don't know how it's possible to receive, internalise and maintain a memory .........

That's general, is it, Kai ? You know...nothing going on here out of the ordinary that might upset materialism..... just a brain that's not working at all FACT accurately hearing, processing and remembering a conversation when she also had 100 decibel clicking nodules pressed into her ear holes.

Move on Folks, c'mon, all explainable etc etc

Kai, that's it. Good luck with your stone wall scepticism.
I have made no comments about her being able to hear via clicking modules in this conversation. And yes, that is a general comment by Spetzler. He doesn't relate it directly to a particular moment or a particular observation. I am going by what he actually said, not by "readings" of what he said. I too would find it hard to understand how she could gain these perceptions if she had no brain function at the time she obtained them, but the fact remains that we don't know when she obtained them. You didn't answer my question about the vein. Do you know the answer or not?

I can't see how even Spetzler could know when Pam acquired this information, or indeed where she got it from.
 
Top