Guest: Psychic detective Noreen Renier
Download MP3 (34:08min, 16MB)
Alex: Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers and their critics. I’m your host, Alex Tsakiris.
On today’s episode, we’re going to look at psychic detectives. The psychic detective story has been repeated so many times in newspapers and on TV that it’s almost become cliché. When the police are trying to solve a tough case, one of the detectives hears about how psychics have been used in cases but is reluctant to bring her on. Then, the case is solved through the help of the psychic and the cop winds up saying something like, “Well, I was skeptical at first. I do not know how she did it, but it was amazing.”
Now I have to admit, I’ve always found these cases rather compelling, primarily because of the quality of the law enforcement professionals. I just don’t think it’s easy to pull the wool over the eyes of a seasoned homicide detective. So when they say, “The psychic came up with stuff out of the blue, that there’s no way to explaining what she knew, we never would have solved the case without her,” I tend to believe that. But of course there’s another side, the skeptical side. Most skeptics regards these cases as examples of how even cops can fail to apply critical thinking when it comes to the area of psychics.
So, when Ben Radford, the Managing Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer appeared on the Skeptiko show a couple episodes back and talked about his investigation into psychic detectives, I saw it right away as a great opportunity for a Skeptiko-style, point counterpoint look at this topic, and that is what we’re going to do. So, let me start by playing a clip of the interview between Ben and I where he briefly introduces the case and tells you a little bit about what he found. Here it goes.
(Start of Interview with BEN RADFORD)
Ben: The case of Charles Capel, an old man who wandered off and there was a well-known psychic detective – I forget which one it was, probably Noreen Renier – who said that she had solved the case. When you go back and look at it, she didn’t solve the case at all.
Alex: Did the police say that she had solved the case?
Ben: But actually in that particular case, the detective did say that in fact, his name is Sergeant Squance. I interviewed Sergeant Squance and I said, “You are quoted in this article saying that this psychic helped in an investigation.” He said yes. So I said, “What exactly do you mean by that?” He said, “Well, when we found the body, some of the stuff she said was right.” I said, “Hold on here, there are red flags all over the place.” That is not helping an investigation. If that is the criterion for solving a case, then sure psychic detectives are always right. But if your criterion is does this psychic provide specific information that “leads people to the body,” not afterwards if some parts that are found “there was a white house somewhere nearby or there was a rock nearby,” wherever else. That’s not psychic information.
(End of Interview with BEN RADFORD)
Alex: Now here’s what I’d like to do next, I’m going to take you through a critical examination of Ben’s investigation. I’m going to share with you the news reports and other information I dug up, and I’m going to compare that with Ben’s report. Then we’re going to hear from Noreen Renier who’s a very well-known psychic detective and is the person who actually worked on this case with the police. Then, on the next episode of Skeptiko, we’re going to have Ben Radford back on and we’re going to get his take on things.
If you’re interested at all in psychics, wondering how they work, wondering particularly whether psychic detectives really assist police, I think you’re going to find this very interesting. So stay with us, more to Skeptiko to find.
Alex: Before I get to this interview with psychic detective, Noreen Renier, I want to share some of what I was able to find on this case and compare it to Ben Radford’s report in Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. The first thing I did after talking to Ben was to panic. [laughter] A little bit, I did. I mean, no matter how many times I’ve gone through this, when I hear someone like Ben Radford who’s obviously a smart guy, someone who prides himself on his knowledge of how to conduct investigations – in fact, I think he even teaches classes at these skeptical conferences and how to carry out a skeptical investigation. So when I hear someone like that state with such assuredness that they know they’ve debunked this case and that nothing psychic really happened, my first reaction is, “Wow, what if I’m wrong? What if I missed something obvious and all this stuff is just bunked?” Then I settle down usually and next I start to dig.
In this case, what I did was reread Ben’s article. Then the next thing I did is I was able to find a series of posts of the actual news accounts from the local Oxford Newspaper as they appeared several in the first few days, then a week later, and then several weeks later – all these reports in the newspaper. I did a couple other really basic things, I pulled up a Google Satellite Map by looking at the newspaper reports. I was able to find, pretty close, exactly where this guy lived. I was able to look at the train around there. I was also able to look at what I was able to see from that view. So, with that in hand, Ben Radford’s report on one hand, these newspaper accounts and the other information I dug up, what I’m going to do is take you through Ben’s report and interleaving some of the other information I found in my critical analysis of this skeptical investigation.
Ben Radford’s skeptical investigation in this case appears in an article in the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, March-April 2005 issue, and the title really kind of says it all, Psychic Detectives Fail in the Real World but Succeed on TV. Ben’s article starts out with some basic facts, Charles Capel was last seen alive on May 20th, 2004. So it turns out this guy’s a retired university professor from Miami of Ohio University, he suffers tragically from Alzheimer’s, he wanders out of the home and just turns up missing. Ben goes on to say that in October, frustrated about lack of leads, Oxford police enlisted self proclaimed psychic Noreen Renier in the search, which is true. Now, you may wonder what happened in that intervening time, this is from May 20th until October when they contact Noreen Renier. That’s where the news reports come in handy in terms of filling that in. I found this very interesting.
So the first report in the paper appears a couple of days after this guy goes missing, I think it was the 23rd or 24th, and says this guy is missing and police have been looking for him. A couple of days later, this is followed up by another report that says Oxford police are preparing for a second for this missing elderly man. It goes on to say that they’ve used dogs, searched by helicopter and have a lot of volunteers from the public who are looking for this guy, but they still can’t find him. Then another report goes on to say that a month later, they come together as a community again and searched for this guy and they said, “Hey, unfortunately the areas we’re searching are thick. Hopefully the falls comes and some things will dry up, the vegetation will go away, and maybe we can find him then.” That’s a quote from Sergeant Jim Squance of the Oxford Police Department, and he will come up later in this story.
Now, a week or so later, there’s another report in the paper and it says, “Police think that Capel may have hitched a ride to Cincinnati or another city or state.” They say that they’ve moved the search outside of the immediate area and are now looking in New York as well as in New Orleans and Coral Gables because they haven’t found him in Ohio and they think there could be anywhere that he’s gone. Here’s one more report from the Oxford Newspaper, it says that police have received dozens of tips including one that said an elderly man was spotted in the Oxford-Kroger parking lot and another one that said there was an elderly man walking down the street of this tiny town in Butler County.
So here’s what I think is significant about that, and the reason I want to bring it up in length here is because if you read Ben’s story you might get the impression that police searched for this guy, waited a couple of months and then hired a psychic. When you read the newspaper accounts, you have a bit of respect for just what they went through. They did everything you could possibly imagine. This is a small community, this guy is an important part of the community, they did everything they could possibly do. So, helicopters, dogs, horses – they mentioned they’re on horseback trying to find him. The community turns out at large and they’re spending a tremendous amount of money, too. It costs a lot of money to apply all those resources to finding this guy, and they’re not coming up with anything.
Also, what’s important – it will become more important as the story goes on – is they know he’s an Alzheimer’s patient, so they know that most likely he’s around the house. But they don’t find him around the house so they start looking in all the other places that he might have gone in his life. These memories might have come back to him from 20 or 30 years ago, he could be anywhere. They’re also following up specific tips about “we see him over here, we see him over there.” So it’s a real mystery at this point, it’s not at all a forgone conclusion that they’re ever going to find this guy or that they are going to find him close by his house.
So now let’s get back to Ben’s account of things. He says, “Acting on Renier’s information, police renewed their search but still found nothing. Weeks and months dragged down without a break in the case until December 1st when Capel’s body was discovered less than a mile from his house in an area the police had apparently missed. Well, all that is accurate. The body is found by a hunter, as the newspaper reports, which I have to say as an aside, this is all reported in the newspaper. So, anyone who reported that Noreen Renier solves this case…” Which never claimed and never claims in any of her cases, all she would ever claimed is that she assisted the police because that’s all she does. She makes that crystal clear, and you’ll hear that in the interview. But you’ll also see that on her website, she draws a clear distinction between what she does in terms of providing the police information and police detective work, which is in the business of solving crimes. So, that’s a very important distinction that seems to get lost in this debate a little bit.
Okay, back to Ben’s report. This is rather a long passage and most of it he’s quoting the newspaper, so try and follow me with me here and keep track of the quotes. So Ben says according to news reports in the Oxford Press, “The small patch of cornfield-surrounded woodland where Capel was found possessed uncanny similarities to the area psychic detective Noreen Renier described to police. Though in Virginia, hundreds of miles away from the scene, she was able to envision bits of his journey through contact with his shoes and toothbrush.” A local television station was similarly impressed, airing a report titled Psychic Clues Accurate in Case.
Okay, the next part of Ben’s report is a series of quotes from Jim Squance, a sergeant in the Oxford police. It is kind of difficult to read this, it is going to be a bit confusing. Let me just give you what Squance said. Squance said he was struck by the similarities between Renier’s description and where the bodies were found. He says the landmarks were all there, the tower with an antenna on top, stone, wood areas, barns and creeks. Now he actually says a lot more than that, but this is what Ben reports. Then he quotes, “We based our search on the information that she gave us, and it turns out, she was right. Professionally, you have to be a little skeptical, using a psychic detective. But personally, when you see the results, you’ve got to be in awe.” So, that is quite a lead up, right?
You know, since Ben is writing for the Skeptical Inquirer, there are hammers about the fall, and here it goes from Ben’s article, “Sergeant Squance’s awe is hard to fathom. An objective look at the facts suggests that Renier’s information was both unremarkable and unhelpful. The police received her assistance in early October, yet two months elapsed before Capel’s remains were found, not by police directed by Renier to a specific area, but by a local hunter.”
Okay, but before I go much further in Ben’s report, let me return to the newspaper accounts and fill in just a couple of minor, little details that I think add somewhat of a different flavor to Ben’s interpretation there. I’m going to take bits and pieces out of a rather long article that appears in the December 11th Oxford Ohio Newspaper. It’s titled Miami Professor Missing for Six Months Found, “Closure inched closer to the family of missing Alzheimer’s patient Charles Capel when a hunter stumbled upon what turned out to be his skull, bones and teeth around 4:26 on December 1st.” So it goes on and talks a little bit about Jason Long, the hunter who found him, about the community interest in the case and how this might bring closure to the family. Then they talk about some of the details similar to what Ben says, “The small patch of cornfield-surrounded woodland where Capel was found possessed uncanny similarities to the area psychic detective Noreen Renier described to police. They enlisted her aid after search and rescue teams, bloodhounds, helicopter patrols and riders on horseback failed to unearth any clues. The woodland in Virginia, hundreds of miles away from the scene, she was able to envision bits of his journey through contact with his shoes and his toothbrush. Squance was stuck by the similarities. She said she he went out of the driveway and turned left, and walked down the lane with a fence line.” Okay, now that’s new detail that we didn’t hear before. “She said there was a tower with an antenna on top of it. Renier had also mentioned a large stone, a creek, and a wooded area. From Capel’s location, a fence bordered the nearby water tower access road; a small creek meandered in the woods; and a nearby subdivision’s stone entrance marker bore the words Stone Creek.”
Now, I find all those facts quite remarkable, and added to the fact that the other thing I did is I googled a satellite map of the area because when I first read these accounts I had envisioned this area this guy lived as being heavily, heavily wooded with homes spread apart. That’s not really the case. I mean, there’s a golf course right across from this little subdivision he lives in, there’s a relatively busy road, and then there’s this wooded area. You would think that after you’ve searched that wooded area, even though it’s thick, you’d probably feel like you had searched it, which is really, really important in this case.
Okay, so the newspaper goes on to report that the statistics indicate that missing Alzheimer’s patients are typically found relatively close to home, then talks a little bit about the rollercoaster ride that this was for the family and how this might bring closure. But let’s go back to the Alzheimer’s point because that’s where we can pick up Ben’s articles. This is about Ben Radford’s skeptical investigation at the Skeptical Inquirer. Here is it goes, “Missing Alzheimer’s patients are almost always found close to home, a fact borne out by statistics and well-known to police (and “psychic detectives”). So just about everyone – the Capel family, police, searchers, and Renier – was pretty certain that the 81 year old Capel was somewhere nearby.”
Boy, I think from what you’ve already heard, that was not at all the case. They did not know he was nearby, they were searching all over the country because they hadn’t found him nearby. I mean, that’s the really important thing. So, yes, first they think this guy is nearby, but there’s just this one square mile area where he could be if he’s lost and hidden in the woods. So, they searched that. They searched it with dogs, they searched with helicopters, they searched with horses, they searched it with 300 volunteers. They’ve searched it already. We should add that that second search, that really extensive search that they did, was really driven by the fact that the psychic detective told them, “He’s close to home, and though you’ve already searched this area you better search it again.” Then Ben goes on, “All Renier needed to do to be right on was describe the immediate area, with such obvious and general features as a creek, trees, a tower with an antenna, and stones. (Sgt. Squance countered that other local places Capel might have ended up, such as a nearby university, presumably would not have matched Renier’s description.)”
Now, that parenthetic part is so telling. Here is a skeptical investigator arguing with a police detective who says, “Hey, look, there’s a lot of other places around Miami University in Ohio that don’t look at all like this.” So, it’s just kind of an interesting dynamic where the skeptic is kind of telling this guy how he’s screwed up on his job. More over, I really think this idea of obvious and general features – when he’s left out the details that I just gave you – that says he came out, he turned left, he walked along the fence, there was a tower with the radio antenna. Then the idea of the stone, and then they find the stone marker. All those things are, in my view, quite remarkable. More importantly, the most important point, my opinion, is the police found them remarkable, and they’re really the ones to judge this. They are the detectives, Noreen Renier is assisting the detectives. If the detectives feel assisted, we have to put a lot of credence in the fact that they do these cases all the time. If they get this information and then they feel like it was helpful, then I take their word for it, that they know it was helpful.
Okay, back to Ben’s report, “The fact that Renier was reportedly in Virginia…” Reportedly in Virginia, I guess we have to call that into question, too. “…was reportedly in Virginia when she got the visions doesn’t mean much; it’s likely that at some point police described the search area.” It’s likely that at some point police described the search area? Well, did they describe the search area to her or not? That is the kind of information I want to see in an investigation, not that “it’s likely” or that she could have easily guessed. Really, she could have easily guessed that there was a golf course across the street, that was by a road, all these other stuff? Now she didn’t provide there was a golf course by the street. But again, this is not good investigation. To say that she could’ve easily guessed the terrain of the area or that she could’ve determined the area’s general terrain from news reports or the local maps sent by police – again, give us some data here, give us some facts. You interviewed these people, tell us what they did know. Tell us what Noreen Renier knew.
Back to Ben’s article, “Noreen’s information simply suggested an area that common sense dictated where the Oxford police were already searching.” Just not true. “Renier is apparently playing the odds and a pretty obvious guessing game, managed to impress both the police and the general public (through credulous media reports).” So that’s essentially the end of Ben’s report on this case.
So I felt there was still some unanswered questions here, and the main unanswered question I had centered around a couple of the assumptions that I brought earlier that I think Ben had made, mainly around the process that Noreen Renier had drawn through in her investigation. I just know this from watching the TV show. I mean, this is really kind of basic stuff. But these psychic detectives always seem very determined to not get very much information, they seem insistent upon that. “Don’t tell me anything. Tell me as little as possible.” As they describe it, it’s part of their process of not wanting to get their logical, rational mind into the game, and that they want to kind of remove that. Now whether you believe that or not, we have to respect that that’s their process, whatever process they go through to come up with the data is their process.
I really felt that there was that point and some other questions that I really like to get from Noreen Renier. So, I contacted her. She was initially very reluctant, but eventually she agreed to do an interview, and I think a number of interesting points came up during it. Here is my interview with Noreen Renier about the Charles Capel Case.
(Start of Interview with NOREEN RENIER)
Alex: I’m going to keep this short, Noreen, I appreciate you taking the time because 1) I know your time is limited and 2) because this case is really so clearly documented. I went back and looked at the newspaper articles that are published and it really chronicles the whole thing so very well. So what I thought we could do that might be beneficial to get on the record is go through a couple of things. Actually, you mentioned a little bit in our previous conversation – and I think folks would it find interesting – and that’s about your process. So, in this case as well as all cases, what kind of information do the police generally give you when they first contact you?
Noreen: I ask for no information. I only need to know if it’s a homicide or a missing person case. I don’t even want to know the name. When they call, they send me the items – I know what state it is, it’s Ohio – which I believe they sent me shoes and toothbrushes. That’s all I got, toothbrushes and shoes. Then I ask the first name of the victim or the missing person. I don’t want information because the logical mind can work if you have information, where if I was just looking for the body with no information it has to be like 98-99% psychic ability that I’m using.
Alex: So in this case, the fact that he was a college professor, that he was an Alzheimer’s patient…
Noreen: I didn’t know anything, they didn’t tell me anything.
Noreen: But later they told me, I think maybe his first name, they didn’t even say he was a professor. You’ve got to realize, the police are very skeptical.
Noreen: They’re not going to give me any clues or information. Of course they don’t know where he is. But, no, they give me nothing, and I don’t need anything. I mean, I’m really am a psychic, and this is my job.
Alex: Right. So they made quite a bit about the fact in this skeptical investigation of your work, quite a bit was made about the fact that he was an Alzheimer’s patient. All that information was unknown to you as the fact that he was a professor and all the rest of that stuff.
Alex: Okay. So, number two, we chatted a little bit about this on the phone, and I found it very interesting because you immediately remarked that all the information that you provide the police is both recorded and then transcribed. So, there really isn’t an opportunity for this kind of misremembering or misinterpreting…
Noreen: …or exaggerating or anything of that sort. It’s all there, both on tape, we both tape record it. Then I, to make sure that they read it or listen to it again, I pay for it and I have it transcribed, so we have transcriptions of the sessions as well.
Alex: You also mentioned that a vast majority of your work is private work. Can you give folks a sense of just how many cases you work on in a given month or year?
Noreen: It depends, but I would say one or two a week, but it’s not every week. I wouldn’t do it anymore because it is so draining. Even if I had the opportunity to do more, it’s too draining. Some weeks, there’s none.
Noreen: So it’s not, “I’m going to two cases every week or one case.” It doesn’t work that way.
Alex: Okay. Noreen, how do folks avail themselves of your services? You said that it’s private, how do folks find out about you for the most part, and then what’s the process they go through? If someone is out there and does have a missing person case or something they want resolved, how do they find you generally?
Noreen: The Internet of course, that’s a very strong way they find me, and also television, then word-of-mouth. I make them go to my page that says “contact,” and they have to read what I can or can’t do, what their part is. It is all there on the Internet under “contact,” exactly how I work on either police cases, private case and the cases I don’t work on, things that I don’t do. I don’t think the average person realizes the psychic, we’re not magical. I mean, I’m sitting in Virginia holding toothbrushes and a shoe, and the first thing I did – I looked at the transcript – I described this man, what he looked like, and they gave me the yeses. Then once I know I’m tuned in, once I’ve got the feedback “yes, he looked like that…yes…yes,” then I start doing the search. If for any reason I couldn’t describe it or I’m off, we wouldn’t do the session. But I would like to go into research with you later if we have time, talk about research.
Alex: Sure. As a matter of fact, we can do that right now. Although I did want to make one point because I think it’s an important point when we look at skeptical investigations, and that’s that I think it’s very easy to make a lot of assumptions about the process that you are going through. Your process, I think from a scientific standpoint what we have to acknowledge is we don’t understand your process. So we can’t assume that we understand that you’re receiving visual information or auditory information. We don’t really understand the nature of the information. Maybe you want to elaborate on that.
Noreen: No, I think you’ve said it well. But I don’t understand really how the human mind, my logical, rational mind work. I’m not trying to find out how the psychic – I’m just going for the goal and helping people.
Noreen: The main thing is help, and that motivates me. I’ve been doing this for over 35 years. So I have my mindset, I have a time, I meditate. Again, every time I work on a case, I’m proving myself by describing the victim; how he was killed if it’s a homicide, where they live; I’m having to prove myself every time I work on a police case.
Noreen: So it’s not like once in awhile, it’s every time. I don’t blame the police, they have to be skeptical. There’s a lot of frauds and shaitans in our field because the average person doesn’t understand really what we can and can’t do.
Alex: I think a point that you also made that we might want to go into, and that’s the nature of your process as you just described is very pragmatic to help these investigators. But the product that you produce is clues, information that they can use to follow-up on and investigate. You’re not in the business of solving crimes. You’re in the business, as I understand it, of assisting investigations.
Noreen: I’m another tool for them to use, and I’m not a tool they use immediately. I’m always a last resort. So except for very few cases, very few cases are they new. Usually, my average cases are – a year is new for me. But the average one really is three years, five years, ten years. I just did 40 year old case, triple homicide. So, I’m not the first person they think of. It’s after they’ve exhausted every avenue they can think of, that’s when they call me.
Alex: Sure. I’m sorry, Noreen, you were about to make a comment about the research.
Noreen: To me research is so important, but I remember the last time that they were asking me to do any research it seemed like it was the same thing that they were doing 20 years ago. So I think that the parapsychologists and scientists – like I love trying new things with my mind, but I am not going to be healing a rat. I wouldn’t feel comfortable healing a rat. I wouldn’t be comfortable doing the same old thing. I want to do neat stuff. If I claim I can go into the future, then let’s see what I can do by going in. The stock market’s a great way, other areas is a great way that you can get immediate feedback on the accuracy. But I just think they’re into their own scientific mind so much they’re not listening to what the psychic is saying or the people that have this ability, what they claim they can do, and that’s where the program should be around. Does that make any sense?
Alex: It makes complete sense, and it touches on so many issues. I mean, I think number one, there is so little research that the research that does wind up getting done always brings to question why weren’t these 10 other things tested. The other thing that I suspect, and we’ve talked about this on our show, I don’t think parapsychologists have been bold enough. They’ve been too conservative, they wind up…
Noreen: Absolutely. I didn’t mean to interrupt. But, yes, they’re being too safe. That’s why they’re doing the same experiments that were successful 20 years ago.
Alex: Well, there’s this need to, as we can all feel when you get into a field and you barraged by all this criticism. There’s this need to kind of pull in, “Wait, just like me, I’ll kind of play by your rules.” It’s sometimes the sense, that I get that the parapsychologist are playing, and a need to just kind of seek legitimacy from the scientific community, they’re kind of pulling the guts out of this. But that’s just my opinion, and maybe it’s something that will change in the future and we can change it.
Noreen: I hope so. But to me, because I’m into practical application of these phenomena, let’s pretend it does exist.
Noreen: What we try to do with it, not “does it exist.”
Alex: Right, exactly.
Noreen: I believe of course it exists. Not all people are equally talented, it’s like artists or musicians, some are much better, some are not as good. But we’ve got to do serious research. I mean my goal – and I’m not going to die until this happens – is I’m going to train my cops. I know them, not every single one of them, I want to have like a little squat team.
Noreen: Just have a few of them and do what I do, they can do it, they’re better at it. The police that I have had like a weekend workshop, they know cars, they know guns. I mean, I have to keep drawing a gun or describe where the bullets go from behind or around. I mean, they know guns. They would be so much better at this than even than I am.
Alex: Wow, well said. I’ll tell you what, one final question, and I don’t know if you can really address this. But I’d like to get your feeling, really coming from your heart, what you think this is all about. What do you suppose is the agenda of the debunkers? Clearly, the TV shows, Psychic Detectives and your work in general, you’ve satisfied so many individuals, changed their lives. You’ve helped so many people in law enforcement. What do you think is really behind this deep, strong need not to believe?
Noreen: I think that is sort of like a question that everyone asks me, “Why are they doing this to you or why are they doing this to the psychics?” I don’t know. Any intelligent person wouldn’t attack and try to destroy someone that believes differently. That’s what we’re trying to do, we believe differently, we think differently. If they don’t believe in it, fine. But quit trying to destroy us. Yes, the frauds are out there. But again, as everybody’s so confused as who’s real and who isn’t, and they’ll attack me whose 35 years – I got a track record that I don’t think anyone can beat. But I don’t know, if you know that answer let me know.
Alex: Okay. Well, thank you so much for joining us today on this brief chat. Hopefully, maybe I’ll find a way to follow up on that for the research, if we can put something that really is meaningful together with some…
Noreen: I would love it. Everything can be done over the phone these days, too. We could do so much. Like I said, I’m willing to try anything, one or two times, maybe it will work and maybe it won’t. But I want my mind to expand even more than it is. Yes, absolutely.
Alex: Awesome, Noreen. Thanks again.
Noreen: Thank you. Bye.
(End of Interview with NOREEN RENIER)
Alex: Interesting. So, thanks again to Noreen Renier for joining me. Even though the audio quality, I have to apologize, was not very good, I think the content of what she had to say was just really revealing. You can see where I am on this skeptical investigation, I’m really pretty unimpressed. I think the burden of proof in this case is on the skeptic, the debunker, to prove that something really was amiss with what was reported. I don’t see where that happened in this case.
But next episode I’m going to have Ben back on, Ben Radford from the Skeptical Inquirer. We’re going to get his take on some of this information and his take on Noreen’s opinion. I think you’re going to really find that interesting. So, stay with us for that next time.
Between now and then, be sure to check out the Skeptiko website, that’s Skeptiko.com. You’ll find links to all out old shows there, also a link to our forum, and an e-mail link where you can drop us a note. That is going to do it for now, until next time, bye for now.