Psychicsarah's lotto prediction.

[psychicsarah]

Jockey...these tests on tv were predictive re future events of people...indeed considering the complexities that emerged re all the factors, the people and agendas involved...you should begin to see that there just MIGHT BE such a thing as precognitive ability...

What about my World Cup prediction re England V Brazil which was in the Daily Express....predicting a 2. 1 win for Brazil who would then go on to win the whole thing...(the last but one world cup) ....???

I had feed back from the paper that some people did win money on this prediction


Oh and recently in Ireland I said on the radio that 19 20 and 21 woud hit in the bookies in their 49's draw and if you had 10 euro on it you would win 3k...this happened within a week to 10 days

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!)

I regularly choose placed horses....

As I said the most impressive one I think is the DJ who was about to spin a record...

I was sitting at home. He was obviously a complete skeptic and tried to catch me out with the what record am I going to play next line?

(No I had never heard his show before and didn't know him or his play list...anyway it was an OLD record)...

what are the odds on that???


YOU tell me what you think counts as impressive...I don't know about maths and odds etc...all I know is what I pick up intuitively...

8);):cheesy:

[vbloke]

Everything you have just said is statistically possible and absolutely no proof of any psychic powers - bookies and betters do it on a regular basis.

I tell you what - I'll begin to consider you have any sort of power if you can tell me what I have sat on my desk in front of me at work - there are 3 objects - any one of them will do.

You still haven't answered the Uranus 84 day cycle question - are you avoiding it?

[psychicsarah]

Matt the kids were guys and gals....half and half...re the 10 minute readings...(also I had to help one lad with a sore leg who could not walk...I can lift pain often quite quickly....he had damaged it playing football the day before and got up pain free after i had helped him for 5 mins...Shane was his name if I remember correctly)

I am trying to illustrate that this was an organic situation which evolved and it seems had a life of it's own...I wonder is there a danger that strict testing stiffles the psychic flow...it is quite possible...

still pondering the question


Unless I just continue to make predictions on here for you???


Would that count???


There is no such thing as cold reading or the need for it when you have genuine psychic ability....


:cheesy:

[random thoughts]

Oh and recently in Ireland I said on the radio that 19 20 and 21 woud hit in the bookies in their 49's draw and if you had 10 euro on it you would win 3k...this happened within a week to 10 days

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!)


Would this be the same 9, 11 and 19 that you predicted on the Ulster Rugby site on the 11th July http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:2IkfFEVno40J:www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D67119%26sid%3Ddd574c76d6dd34ca 93e7a1a14b549c64+site:ulsterrugby.com/forum+psychicsarah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ie (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:2IkfFEVno40J:www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D67119%26sid%3Ddd574c76d6dd34ca 93e7a1a14b549c64+site:ulsterrugby.com/forum+psychicsarah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ie) (had to use the cache feature because for some "unexplained woo reason" some of psychicsarah's post have been mysteriously deleted. Great, so if I keep picking 9, 11 and 19 in the bookies chances are they're going to come up. I'm going to be rich beyond my wildest dreams. What are the odds of that?

[psychicsarah]

QUOTE 12.29 posted yesterday re 49 's bookies draw in Ireland (Paddy Power)


Oh and recently in Ireland I said on the radio that 19 20 and 21 woud hit in the bookies in their 49's draw and if you had 10 euro on it you would win 3k...this happened within a week to 10 days

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!)


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


Matt...hope you are vaguely impressed...those numbers 9 11 19 came up yesterday lunch time

I checked this morning what time the draw was done and it was done at 12. 50 and 49 seconds...

I wrote the post at 12. 30....

Those numbers came up...

wittering to you guys cost me 3k!!!!


:tongue::-*::)


My friend and I do this regularly....since I posted on the Ulster rugby site....the 19, 20 and 21 came up twice and it is due again...and who knows perhaps I will be able to tip you off re 9 11 and 19 in 2 weeks time again...


There is no cover up re the Rhandi thing...it is not a big mystery ...we were going to do a tv programme on this subject...RTE needed the idea developed...that is all...

[psychicsarah]

Quote Matt and Sarah

Unless I just continue to make predictions on here for you???


Would that count???
Well under certain circumstances it might. If we restricted ourselves to a specific type of prediction where foreknowledge of factors influenceing the result was simply not possible. If the probability of getting the prediction correct by chance alone was calculable then by comparing your success rate with the range permited by pure chance we would hope to be able to discount pure chance as an otion. having already discounted any mundane explantion we woudl be left with the psychic. If we were unable to quanify the probability of getting the answer through pure chance then the results would not be conclusive.

Lottery numbers looks like a good candidate.

Though we would have to prespecify certain things. Wouldn't want to be accused of making scattershot predictions.

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

Matt


Your mission is my command....see above...the numbers came up 20 minutes after I predicted them...all verifiable by YOU witnessing what I said and by the bookies draw 20 minutes later......


Is the million in the post???? he he :cheesy:


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

JOHN....Read S....l.....o....w....l....y and Carefullllly.....

we found the place ALREADY....

I was just seeing if the description rang any bells with Catkin as she knows the area.......(basic human interchange I think it is called...this is a chat forum after all)

O0

[Dr B]

Self-claimed-psychic-sarah.

It's easy - give us the UK lottery numbers for this saturday and next saturaday (for a replication).

I'm waiting.......:-\.....though my hunch is an excuse is on the way (and I'm not psychic!!!! ;D)


In addition - I recommend you work closely with Vbloke and Jocky who are sincere in their efforts to investigate your claims.

[psychicsarah]

The evidence is on the end of the phone line and on here...DR B

Phone Paddy Power on 0035314045900

ask them what time they did their draw yesterday lunch time (they told me 12.50 and 49 seconds) and ask them what numbers came up

Or I imagine the info might be on their web site too....

Then check what time I made the prediction on here...it was 12. 29 or there abouts... (on this thread yesterday)

Also note that I pre empted Matt's request re testing me on here re lotto numbers...

The numbers i predicted on here for you yesterday came up 20 minutes later...

You can verify ALL of it...

[Dr B]

No need.

You can do it here - replicate it....could you send those numbers for this week and next please....I have a pen waiting.....

[psychicsarah]

http://skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=896&page=20


page 20 at 12.29 the prediction was made...


The draw happened at 12. 50 and 49 seconds

ALL the numbers came up 9 11 and 19

49's draw in Ireland

[Dr B]

You dont understand, could you give us, right now, the numbers for this weeks lottery and next weeks lottery.........thank you

(waits....waits.....waits....)

[psychicsarah]

I already did it...

NO I am not going to make YOU money on the back of my gift...you wanted evidence you GOT it yesterday...

point made I think....

[Dr B]

No point made at all....I take it this is the excuse I predicted earlier....hey this psychic thing is easy!!!!!!!:cheesy:

[Dr B]

Here are my predictions based on your technique;

"Well, some numbers between 1 and 49 will occur, in a random order, the numbers are unlikely to be all sequential - but this can happen - and smaller cluster of sequential outcomes might occur as well.......I see the number 9 - or possibly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 as well.

There maybe some numbers between 20-30 and some between 30-49. The same number will not occur twice. Many people will win £10, less people will win the bigger money......"

[pulls away from crystal ball and stops talking balls.....]

[psychicsarah]

okay....this proves my point...that NOTHING will ever convince the septics...

brick wall is right.....catkins

Okay DR B...YOU give me 3 numbers that will come up in the 49's draw this afternoon in Ireland....

I bet you won't manage it....

[Dr B]

I just have....it will work for any eventuality....that's the point.....:smiley:

Why not dazzle us with your ability here on the UK lottery...I have been asking - should be easy for you based on your self-promotional claims.

To be honest even getting 4 of the numbers correct, and doing so consistently would still be highly improbable.....i still have that pen if you want to stop avoiding the issue.....lets be havin ya as they say up north O0

[Dr B]

Vbloke states you only got 1 out of 18 correct. Any comment? Or are you still meditating on that one?

Now - dont get your chakras in a twist - is it true or not?

[Cuddles]

Vbloke states you only got 1 out of 18 correct. Any comment? Or are you still meditating on that one?

Now - dont get your chakras in a twist - is it true or not?

Here's the link: http://www.lottery.ie/prizes_results/lastdraws.asp?draws=8

[Dr B]

Afternoon all........

Sarah..methinks all of these disbelievers...would rush round to their local newsagent to buy a lottery ticket based on your numbers....even though they dismiss you ha ha...mind you I probably would too....
Sao Miguel....checked with hubby..not a lot there not exactly what you'd call a village. He did remind me of something on the drive through it.....if you came up with that...it could not be guess. (I don't mean for these puppies...I mean to reassure you that it was the right area ).
Catkins


Of course I would - because I am always prepared to be wrong...are you?

PS. I am not a disbeliever - I remain unconvinced thus far......but ready to be convinced is the evidence dictates.....

[psychicsarah]

lazy intellectuals

9 11 19 came up (20 minutes after it was predicted) out of the usual 6 numbers (plus a booster number) drawn...the evidence is only a phone call away ...

You can't bear it can you...I proved you wrong!

(out of 49 numbers...it s the 49's draw)

;D;D;D


NO...I am NOT going to let you win money off the back off my gift...you asked for evidence...you GOT it


Catkins...thankyou....I think you are remembering the right place...cos actually in the detail I describe...I believe it CAN only be one place...there IS only ONE place fitting that description where all the clues fit...

[Dr B]

I want everyone to know that self-claimed-psychic-sarah is avoiding the issue.

Its not about us winning money - you could prove to the world your fantastic ability....but no.

You did not prove a thing in your 'prediction' above - but you have a chance now.

So please, get on with it or stop wasting everyone's time. You have done it before you claim - so do it again.

or is this a classic psychic cop-out :cheesy:

[Admin]

The Irish national lottery is a 6 from 45 draw. Psychic Sarah, however, only chose 3 numbers from the 45.

The good thing with lotteries is that it's possible to work out the odds of matching numbers exactly.

The chances of one number from a choice of 3 from a pool of 45 matching up is 1 in 5.49

I think we can all agree that those odds are not exactly staggering and not indicative of psychic ability. ;)

A further complication however, is that there are three draws per day and psychicsarah did not mention which draw the numbers would match in. So we now have three opportunities to match this 1 in 5.49 number so the odds are reduced by three.

So the chances of psychicsarah's lottery prediction coming true are a staggering: 1 in 1.83

Or in percentage terms, getting one number right from the three lotteries by choosing 3 numbers will result in a match 55% of the time.

About the same chance as guessing heads or tails with a coin.

Proof of psychic ability?

I think not. But it is further evidence that people who think they're psychic have a very poor understanding of chance and probability (!)

[psychicsarah]

wrong again

I predited re the 49's draw...the in house twice daily draw...where 6 numbers plus a bonus are randomly selected by the machine out of 49 numbers (funnily enough)

The numbers came up 20 minutes after I predicted them

use the phone...you can do that can't you?

No I'm NOT avoiding the issue Dr B....Matt set this test yesterday and I did it


you all asked for evidence on here yesterday and you GOT it...

I am only interested in what Matt has to say actually...Matt where are you?

NB .... If I did this kind of thing time and time again it still wouldn't convince you....

[Dr B]

Yes you are avoiding the issue.

The UK lottery is far more transparent to us in the mainland - so if you have done it before you can do it again.....

lets be havin ya

[Admin]

I predited re the 49's draw...the in house twice daily draw...where 6 numbers plus a bonus are randomly selected by the machine out of 49 numbers (funnily enough)

No you didn't.

You gave 3 numbers but you didn't say which lottery they would appear in or when (!)

Let's not resort to retrofitting. ;)

If you can do this then do it again. Stating which lottery the numbers will come up in and which draw it will be. i.e. make a specific prediction.

[Dr B]

John

You should know better than to ask for a specific prediction....other than this one..

"I predcit self-claimed-psychic-sarah will not do it"

Is that specific? :cheesy:;D

[Jocky]

Hello Sarah,

I prefer not to join in this frenetic lottery conversation. I think everyone involved knows that it will get us nowhere ... any more than all the frenetic Maddy conversations have.


I recommend you work closely with Vbloke and Jocky who are sincere in their efforts to investigate your claims.

Thanks Doc, and you're right of course.

Sarah, if you would like to explore the possibility of finding a way of examining your "gift" through experimentation under controlled circumstances, then I would be delighted to discuss it with you. I suggest that doing so by PM is a better bet that using this forum - the noise is almost deafening in here!

Jocky

[psychicsarah]

Quote from yesterday


Oh and recently in Ireland I said on the radio that 19 20 and 21 woud hit in the bookies in their 49's draw and if you had 10 euro on it you would win 3k...this happened within a week to 10 days

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!)

Page 20 JOHN


http://skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=896&page=20

YOu can't read!!!!


The above prediction clearly mentions 49 s draw....and I even invite you to place your bets....

What do you mean the results aren't accessible to you...don't you have phones in the UK????


;D

[Dr B]

Jocky

True

But - predicting the lottery is less work and reaches the same end point.

Nontheless, true.....O0

[psychicsarah]

Have had enough...

Matt set a test re lotto numbers yesterday as a suitable test for an on...line test

I delivered...

End Of


On holiday now...bye....xxx

:cheesy:

[Dr B]

Hmm...therefore....if I said someone in my family was going to pop their clogs n 2mths and they did. Would that be a lucky guess or something else ?

Cat

It is meaningless as it is not a formal test.

[Dr B]

Have had enough...

Matt set a test re lotto numbers yesterday as a suitable test for an on...line test

I delivered...

End Of


On holiday now...bye....xxx

:cheesy:


have you got those numbers before you go....;D;D

[psychicsarah]

Listen I was set a SPECIFIC test by Matt yesterday and I delivered on it..

It is not my fault you can't read...make phone calls and generally verify the evidence

It is clearly pointless wasting time doing tests if you can not even read and check the results properly...



This was formal on line test set yesterday by Matt...I DELIVERED (within 20 minutes as it happens)


chow O0

[Dr B]

No you did not.

Now - if you did it before (which you never did) you can do it again...

those numbers? ??????

[Jocky]

predicitng the lottery is less work and reaches the same end point.

True, too ;) It's all a matter of style, really.

However, since Sarah is not a multimillionaire we can probably presume that her gift is not best adapted for producing lottery numbers at the drop of a hat. I prefer to discuss a more formal description of what she is sure her "gift" can do, as a starting point for further exploration.

Besides, I'm sure she doesn't want to make a millionaire out of the likes of you. As catkins said, I can just see you dashing off down the local newsagent the moment she posts the numbers :cheesy::cheesy:

[Admin]

Quote from yesterday


Oh and recently in Ireland I said on the radio that 19 20 and 21 woud hit in the bookies in their 49's draw and if you had 10 euro on it you would win 3k...this happened within a week to 10 days

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!)

Exactly. Look at what you actually wrote. ;)

You don't mention which lottery those numbers were meant to come up in or when.

So it's not actually a specific prediction. It's just a generalised statement that could, and probably would, come true at some point.

[Dr B]

Jocky

sure thing O0

it will be the waste of a pound though...but in the name of science I am prepared to do it.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Have had enough...

Matt set a test re lotto numbers yesterday as a suitable test for an on...line test

I delivered...

End Of


On holiday now...bye....xxx

:cheesy:


I predict ..... she'll be back.

[psychicsarah]

they came up 20 minutes later john...you can't bear it can you....;)


Look I do have to go...and yes I may be back..it is a free world...

But there is something much more important to be getting on with....

best of LUCK!!!!

[Dr B]

You never gave a prediction - your claims that you did just make you look deluded :cheesy:

[Admin]

they came up 20 minutes later john...you can't bear it can you....;)

You didn't say they would though did you?

You didn't say which lottery or when.

And yes I can bear it. It's a great example of how psychics 'work'. ;)

A vague prediction with no context being retrofitted after the (unspecified) event.

What I would find hard to bear is if you could actually make specific predictions and repeat them as I'd be forced to re-examine my stance on psychics.

You know, there will be people reading this who support you as they will believe in psychics. I expect that they will be wondering why, if you have this ability, that you don't actually repeat what you did with a specific prediction and leave people like me looking gobsmacked and silly.

They'll be asking themselves why it is that you're backing out - again.

[Admin]

Well that was fun.

There's nothing like a forum Pie Fight to keep everyone amused. ;D ;D :cheesy:

[Dr B]

Forum Pie-fight...

I love it :cheesy::cheesy::cheesy:

[Allo Allo]

I can't keep up! I keep on picking up my pen and then putting it down again - I'm exhausted! Could have done with some numbers.......oh well....>:-)

[Admin]

Would this be the same 9, 11 and 19 that you predicted on the Ulster Rugby site on the 11th July http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:2IkfFEVno40J:www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D67119%26sid%3Ddd574c76d6dd34ca 93e7a1a14b549c64+site:ulsterrugby.com/forum+psychicsarah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ie (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:2IkfFEVno40J:www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D67119%26sid%3Ddd574c76d6dd34ca 93e7a1a14b549c64+site:ulsterrugby.com/forum+psychicsarah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ie) (had to use the cache feature because for some "unexplained woo reason" some of psychicsarah's post have been mysteriously deleted. Great, so if I keep picking 9, 11 and 19 in the bookies chances are they're going to come up. I'm going to be rich beyond my wildest dreams. What are the odds of that?

I've just come across this entry as I was sorting out the posts to split from the other thread.

It seems that psychicsarah has been making this prediction since at least July 11th 2007.


Those 49's numbers WILL come up ...(Not lotto...that's done in the bookies in the am and pm....19 and 21 came up yesterday)

9 19 and 11 and 19 20 and 21... If you predict the same numbers over and over in a lottery that is drawn daily then you're bound to get it right at some point.

Since that prediction and yesterday's draw there were 21 further draws made (assuming there's only one draw per day). So the odds of getting it right once in that time are around 1 in 40. About the same as throwing a double six with two dice. And if she's been making the prediction for an even longer timespan then the odds against will be even less.

Of course if there are two or three draws per day then the odds are also reduced accordingly.

So although yesterday's match looked quite impressive as a single event, when you take into account that the specific lottery was not mentioned and the date/time of the draw wasn't mentioned either then it's quite clear that even if we ignore such glaring omissions, this is down to pure chance and the fact a 'hit' was made yesterday was pure coincidence.

[Dr B]

Allo Allo

The problem is we are all certain to be disappointed when we ask for a specific prediction. Thats what the psychics dont like O0;D

[Dr B]

So although yesterday's match looked quite impressive as a single event, when you take into account that the specific lottery was not mentioned and the date/time of the draw wasn't mentioned either then it's quite clear that even if we ignore such glaring omissions, this is down to pure chance and the fact a 'hit' was made yesterday was pure coincidence.

That's the thing about hits - how to interpret them. In the fluffy magic world of the woowoo every hit (and indeed all the misses) are 'meaningful'. Back in the real world we need to rely on the laws of probability.

bloody closed-minded skeptics ;D;D

[Allo Allo]

Allo Allo

The problem is we are all certain to be disappointed when we ask for a specific prediction. Thats what the psychics dont like O0;D

O0

[Julia]

Oh Cthulhu, here we go again. If psychic abilities really exist, why doesn't the same small group of "gifted" individuals win the jackpot time after time? And please spare me the old psychics-aren't-interested-in-filthy-lucre excuse, they could simply give their winnings to charity.

Also, how could the gambling industry have got off the ground in the first place if psychics could predict the results of sports events, roulette wheels and card games? Why is the house take of the world's casinos just what one expect given the rules of chance?

[vbloke]

Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject: soon in 49's


9 11 19


http://www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_cool.gifThis is from June 26th on the Ulster Rugby forum (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:iBo2FGD7HtYJ:www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D66854%26sid%3Df31777ea4212a163 faa795084cca0c4d+9+11+19+psychicsarah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk&client=firefox-a) - you been saying these numbers for quite some time now - and you expect us to believe that you specifically predicted them for yesterdays draw?

Especially as you also predicted the same numbers 2 weeks later

Would this be the same 9, 11 and 19 that you predicted on the Ulster Rugby site on the 11th July http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:2IkfFEVno40J: www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D6711 9%26sid%3Ddd574c76d6dd34ca93e7a1a14b549c64+site:ul sterrugby.com/forum+psychicsarah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd= 5&gl=ie (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:2IkfFEVno40J:www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D67119%26sid%3Ddd574c76d6dd34ca 93e7a1a14b549c64+site:ulsterrugby.com/forum+psychicsarah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ie) (had to use the cache feature because for some "unexplained woo reason" some of psychicsarah's post have been mysteriously deleted. Great, so if I keep picking 9, 11 and 19 in the bookies chances are they're going to come up. I'm going to be rich beyond my wildest dreams. What are the odds of that?both posts seem to have been removed for some reason...


soonis not "the lunchtime draw on Wednesday 1st August".

If you want this to be seen as evidence of your predictive powers, then I'd suggest that you name a date, a time and all 6 lottery numbers and do it multiple times in order that a frank and true assessment can be made of your abilities. Otherwise, it's was just a lucky guess (a daily draw, the same 3 numbers for over a month, you're bound to at least hit once).

[Matt]

I am only interested in what Matt has to say actually...Matt where are you?

NB .... If I did this kind of thing time and time again it still wouldn't convince you....

HI Sarah,

You originally mentioned

"Oh and recently in Ireland I said on the radio that 19 20 and 21 woud hit in the bookies in their 49's draw and if you had 10 euro on it you would win 3k...this happened within a week to 10 days

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!) "

Now I understand that on the 49s draw you can choose to pick from 2 to 6 numbers. They draw 6 balls (1 to 49) and all your picks must be among those six your you to score a win.

Is that right?

So on a three ball pick the odds are about 0.1% of getting all three balls on any particular draw.

Perhaps someone can check my stats Odds of getting 3 if only 3 balls picked is (3 x 2 x 1)/(49 x 48 x 47) multiplied by the 20 permutations of 3 occupied positions in 6 slots.

I think there's no doubt from the initial statement that the 49s draw was specified however the particular date and time of the draw was only loosely specified.

You said a week to ten days first of all.

With two draws a day that's 20 attempts.

To get the at least one hit within 20 attempts would be about a 2.1% chance.

Beating those sort of odds is good. From chance alone we'd expect that result one time in fifty. You wouldn't ave to try very often to get a hit like that but thats the sort of result that could pass a preliminary test for the JREF million dollar challenge.

Obviously Randi doesn't expect to dish out a million to every fiftieth applicant. The feat would have to be repeated but it's a great demonstration and it as an aded bonus it doesn't require any travel expenses.

[Admin]

The odds of matching 3 balls from 3 choices where 6 balls were picked from a pool of 49 is 1 in 920 (against). That's for one single draw.

If there are 2 draws per day and this prediction went on for 21 days (which it did at least here) then the odds of the 3 numbers matching is around 1 in 22.

If the prediction was made before 11th July then the longer it went on the more likely a match would be.

If psychicsarah can predict 3 balls for one specific lottery with time and date then the odds of 920 to 1 against would be good enough to warrant further investigation if she could do that successfully.

On the other hand, if she just picks 3 numbers, does not state which draw they will come up in precisely, and leaves it open ended time wise for several weeks or more - then it's not a worthwhile prediction and not worthy of investigation. We can all do that - it's just playing a numbers game (literally).

[Cuddles]

Oh Cthulhu, here we go again. If psychic abilities really exist, why doesn't the same small group of "gifted" individuals win the jackpot time after time? And please spare me the old psychics-aren't-interested-in-filthy-lucre excuse, they could simply give their winnings to charity.

Of course, this excuse won't wash in Sarah's case because she has specifically said that she wants the money in order to build a Christian retreat.


I think there's no doubt from the initial statement that the 49s draw was specified however the particular date and time of the draw was only loosely specified.

I think "no doubt" might be putting it a little strongly. I agree that it does seem she meant the 49s (and since she has been predicting the same numbers for the 49s for several weeks it's pretty certain), but the statement is still vague enough that if the numbers were to come up in another lottery she would still be able to claim a hit.

[vbloke]

The 49s lottery was specified. However, without a date or time of the draw, the prediction is worthless, as it could refer to any draw on any date, thus increasing the chances of a hit.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

She obviously specialises in the lottery, I might buy her book to find out more:

http://www.sarahdelamerehurding.com/poolbeg.html



BOOK TWO

‘Dear Sarah’
by author Sarah Delamere Hurding

Brief for book

DEAR SARAH
In this unusual book experienced psychic researcher Sarah Delamere Hurding covers a wide range of interesting subjects. It is a self –help book with a difference. The whole range of human problems is treated in an unusual and refreshing way. Without compromising anyone’s privacy, Sarah explores a number of complex issues with unusual ease. Indeed A lot of the Book’s content is autobiographical, which adds a personal touch to the advice given. This book is designed to be accessible to all age groups of any ethnic background. Using an unusual mix of practical, spiritual and psychic advice Sarah brings a healing perspective to our suffering.

Because Sarah is a powerful healer and Clairvoyant, you will find the process of reading the book a therapy in itself.

Throughout the text Sarah makes reference to the properties of Aura Soma products and crystals. These offer another dimension to the questions raised. And suggest a means and alternative approach to tackling our problems. In a book that raises as many questions as it answers, Sarah is mindful of the responsibility of her work. This book may be read on many levels, so take from it what you will.

............





4) CHAPTER ONE: Psychic Ability – The Gift

Letters:

- Can I learn to be psychic? Pages 18 - 19.
- World Trade Centre. Pages 19 - 20.
- Clairvoyant ‘Gift’. Pages 20 - 21.
- Can I switch off my psychic ability? Pages 21- 22.
- Developing the ‘Gift’. Pages 22 – 23.
- Will I win the lottery? Pages 23 – 24.
- Whom to trust? Pages 24 - 25.
- Misleading Information. Pages 25 – 26.
- Mediumship. Pages 26 –27.
- Confused Readings. Pages 27 –28.
- Pop Star Fantasy? Pages 28 – 29.
- Destiny…Can we change it? Pages 29 – 30.
- Are Tarot cards evil? Pages 30 – 31.
- Is fortune telling unreliable? Pages 31 – 32.
- Draining work situation. Pages 32 – 33.





5) CHAPTER TWO: Good Luck/Bad Luck

Letters:

- Improving your luck. Pages 34 – 35.
- Winning Money. Pages 35 – 36.
- Bad Luck. Pages 36 – 37.




6) CHAPTER THREE: Psychic Finances

Letters:

- Lottery Numbers. Page 38.
- Cursed re money? Page 39.
- Debt and psychic phone readings. Pages 39 – 40.
- Making money from psychic ability. Pages 40 – 41.
- Debt and borrowing. Pages 41 – 42.
- Psychic Lotto Numbers. Pages 42 – 43.
- Silver Spoon Dilemma. Pages 43 – 44.
- Led astray financially? Pages 44 – 45.
- Legal separation. Pages 45 – 46.
- Legacy problem. Pages 47 – 48.



I think she is somewhat obsessed.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

She admits, she can do it again of course:

http://www.sarahdelamerehurding.com/six7.html



I TOLD YOU WHO THE POPSTARS WOULD BE… NOW HERE ARE MY LUCKY LOTTO NUMBERS
By Tom Prendeville

The psychic who shot to fame after picking all six Irish ‘Popstars’ had another premonition – and predicted all six winning numbers in the LOTTO

But Sarah Delamere Hurding could kick herself – for she didn’t get a ticket for herself.

She told us: “On October 27th last I correctly picked the winning lotto numbers – I had all of them – but I didn’t get to the shop to buy a ticket.

“Naturally I was disappointed, but having said that, I know I can do it again.”

[vbloke]

Interesting that
NO I am not going to make YOU money on the back of my gift...Yet she writes copiously about how to win money on the lottery using her gift.

[Matt]

Lets be fair here.

It seems that Sarah has been predicting this triplet for some time now. Her prediction was that it would come up soon. Statistics predicts that any specified triplet will be expected to come up every 921.2 draws on average. You'd expect half of such predictions to take over a year to come true. One in fifty to take ten days or under to come true. One in 22 come true in under 22 days.

The prediction would have to come true in under 250 day to be profitable (bookies pay out at 500:1 on the pick 3)

We have a measure of how soon is soon.

If Sarah's claim is not that she can specifiy a particular draw when these will come up but that they will be coming up "soon" then that is the claim that must be tested.

I suggest the following protocol.

1) We set a date.
2) On that date Sarah commits to three numbers.
3) We wait for them to come up on the 49s draw.
4) Once those numbers have come up Sarah is allowed to pick again.
5) The test continues for a year: 730 draws.

The chance of getting exactly the following number of sucesses.

0 0.578418187575122 ~ 4 in 7
1 0.316659758994084 ~ 1 in 3
2 0.0866789851357919 ~ 2 in 23
3 0.0158177060199413 ~ 1 in 63
4 0.0021648830740922 ~ 1 in 462
5 0.000237036582603439 ~ 1 in 4219
>5 0.000023442618364955 ~ 1 in 42,697

If five successes were reached in under a year we could conclude that Sarah's number picking technique could not be explained by mere chance and stop the test there.

It's a rough sketch for a protocol. Obviously we'll have to specify certain methods for picking and recording the numbers.

[psychicsarah]

Matt

you asked me to do lotto numbers I did them before I had even read your request if you check back

They came up 20 minutes later...

Far side of the moon

I think YOU are obsessed....with picking holes in things...tell me what is so wrong with a book of that ilk....? that book actually is not yet published

The book currently out is STAR SCOPE which is an astrology intro for 'joe public' not of interest to skeptics!

and tell me what is wrong with predicting lotto numbers?

It is usually the thing people say...

'if you are so psychic tell me what numbers are coming up then'

Matt asked this and I delivered...as I said I could do it a million times and it would not be enough


re Ulster web site...I deleted that because of my links with the team...and since I wrote it those numbers have come up 3 or 4 times...which is good odds ...if you put on 10 euro ...you win 3k ie it's an investment rather than a gamble if you know what numbers are coming up!

But winning money is by the way..the point is the prediction...

You asked...you GOT it...

[Matt]

Hi again Sarah,

What do you think about the protocol I suggested? If you feel you could do this it would hardly leave room for doubt.


Matt

you asked me to do lotto numbers I did them before I had even read your request if you check back


I hope you don't mind but for the benefit of other's I'd like to clarify the order of events as when you say...



Matt asked this and I delivered.


It might seem a little missleading.

1st August 2007, 12:29 PM in a response to Jocky you said.


Oh and recently in Ireland I said on the radio that 19 20 and 21 woud hit in the bookies in their 49's draw and if you had 10 euro on it you would win 3k...this happened within a week to 10 days

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!)


It now transpires that 9 11 and 19 were numbers you'd been suggesting for some weeks.

In a seperate response to me you said.

1st August 2007, 12:39 PM


Unless I just continue to make predictions on here for you
Would that count


After reading both these posts I replied a few hours later. Unbeknownst to me at the time 9 11 and 19 had already come up.

1st August 2007, 04:08 PM




Well under certain circumstances it might. If we restricted ourselves to a specific type of prediction where foreknowledge of factors influenceing the result was simply not possible. If the probability of getting the prediction correct by chance alone was calculable then by comparing your success rate with the range permited by pure chance we would hope to be able to discount pure chance as an otion. having already discounted any mundane explantion we woudl be left with the psychic. If we were unable to quanify the probability of getting the answer through pure chance then the results would not be conclusive.

Lottery numbers looks like a good candidate.

Though we would have to prespecify certain things. Wouldn't want to be accused of making scattershot predictions.


You'll note that I made a proviso regarding scattershot predictions. I have addressed these provisos in the rough draft of a protocol I outlined above.

You're quite right: that if you did what you've already done a million times in the way that you've done it, you wouldn't convince the majority of doubters here.

However if you could do it just five times in under a year obeying the prearranged controls I've outlined I'm sure they'd be convinced.

John has already mentioned the protocol in positive terms. As somebody who understands the statisitical objections the doubters have raised, I feel I can eliminate their concerns without unreasonably making demands that you alter your claim (i.e predict all six numbers for a particular draw) or do anything that you have not already claimed to be able to do.

Please acknowledge that what I asked had a proviso - prespecification of certain things to make the odds of success calculable.

I've now detailed roughly what those certain things might be. I've done so, as much as possible, to be in keeping of what I understand your reported abilities to be.

If you still want to deliver what I actually asked, with that proviso, then I'm more than happy to assist altering or filling in the final details to make this a bulletproof protocol for which could silence doubters.

What you have already delivered is not to be diminished but it happened before I asked and I'd rather you didn't describe it as fullfillment of my request.

[Matt]

Sarah,

You responded to Vbloke's comment:


This is from June 26th on the Ulster Rugby forum (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:iBo2FGD7HtYJ:www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D66854%26sid%3Df31777ea4212a163 faa795084cca0c4d+9+11+19+psychicsarah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk&client=firefox-a) - you been saying these numbers for quite some time now - and you expect us to believe that you specifically predicted them for yesterdays draw?

With this...


re Ulster web site...I deleted that because of my links with the team...and since I wrote it those numbers have come up 3 or 4 times...which is good odds ...if you put on 10 euro ...you win 3k ie it's an investment rather than a gamble if you know what numbers are coming up!


Now I couldn't care less abut bitrot on the internet. If the original posting dissappeared I could care less about whether you did it, they did it or why.

I've provided a way to counter accusations of making scattershot predictions. I'm interested in your response.

What does suprised me is the claim that these numbers came up 3 or 4 times since June 26th.

That would be an outstanding result.

However...

From www.49s.co.uk (http://www.49s.co.uk)

Results for Saturday 4 August 2007
LUNCHTIME
1 3 6 16 17 23
TEATIME
4 24 30 40 43 49

Results for Friday 3 August 2007
LUNCHTIME
4 8 16 20 39 43
TEATIME
10 15 18 21 23 27

Results for Thursday 2 August 2007
LUNCHTIME
1 17 32 36 37 49
TEATIME
1 4 10 17 38 47

Results for Wednesday 1 August 2007
LUNCHTIME
9 11 14 19 20 37
TEATIME
7 8 22 27 30 42

Results for Tuesday 31 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
4 10 26 29 45 47
TEATIME
14 21 26 28 39 46

Results for Monday 30 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
13 16 25 30 46 48
TEATIME
12 13 27 30 31 45

Results for Sunday 29 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
3 10 14 16 36 44 4
TEATIME
1 3 20 22 29 40 36

Results for Saturday 28 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
4 6 10 12 17 31 48
TEATIME
7 23 25 29 33 48 24

Results for Friday 27 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
2 9 18 20 22 45
TEATIME
25 28 36 40 42 49

Results for Thursday 26 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
2 4 19 21 39 46
TEATIME
16 20 23 28 33 48

Results for Wednesday 25 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
1 4 7 11 19 25
TEATIME
13 16 18 25 39 45

Results for Tuesday 24 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
10 18 23 26 30 34 5
TEATIME
2 13 28 34 35 45 3

Results for Monday 23 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
12 21 39 41 43 47
TEATIME
18 19 22 30 33 36

Results for Sunday 22 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
3 4 5 22 40 48
TEATIME
5 14 20 23 26 34

Results for Saturday 21 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
11 18 20 42 48 49
TEATIME
11 23 24 30 38 47

Results for Friday 20 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
7 13 21 23 31 47
TEATIME
10 13 15 18 41 48

Results for Thursday 19 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
10 11 15 17 24 27
TEATIME
12 15 16 38 39 44

Results for Wednesday 18 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
6 14 23 27 44 45
TEATIME
10 19 21 32 39 44

Results for Tuesday 17 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
13 28 33 40 41 46
TEATIME
7 20 29 34 47 49

Results for Monday 16 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
9 17 21 36 39 45
TEATIME
7 18 21 31 32 40

Results for Sunday 15 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
11 15 17 25 38 40
TEATIME
12 19 20 23 39 44

Results for Saturday 14 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
9 10 27 30 47 49 23
TEATIME
3 4 16 23 33 39 27

Results for Friday 13 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
7 9 19 20 35 41
TEATIME
3 5 16 26 28 35

Results for Thursday 12 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
8 30 34 38 40 41
TEATIME
1 17 22 30 32 41

Results for Wednesday 11 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
19 24 28 30 37 45
TEATIME
3 24 31 35 40 46

Results for Tuesday 10 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
2 12 14 16 21 38
TEATIME
12 14 15 34 42 45

Results for Monday 9 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
3 10 18 33 34 36
TEATIME
14 21 31 33 34 46

Results for Sunday 8 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
18 22 31 38 40 48
TEATIME
6 15 26 40 43 46

Results for Saturday 7 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
2 8 35 37 39 45
TEATIME
1 25 27 33 39 49

Results for Friday 6 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
20 23 31 32 44 46
TEATIME
14 18 25 38 41 46

Results for Thursday 5 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
2 16 19 38 39 44
TEATIME
17 21 32 33 42 44

Results for Wednesday 4 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
7 18 31 33 45 49 24
TEATIME
8 23 32 34 39 43 49

Results for Tuesday 3 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
8 9 13 18 28 43
TEATIME
6 13 18 24 39 45

Results for Monday 2 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
14 27 28 31 42 48
TEATIME
12 18 21 25 42 48

Results for Sunday 1 July 2007
LUNCHTIME
3 9 15 22 28 41
TEATIME
1 10 11 27 33 43

Results for Saturday 30 June 2007
LUNCHTIME
14 17 20 30 37 47
TEATIME
2 11 16 21 33 49

Results for Friday 29 June 2007
LUNCHTIME
1 20 28 33 44 49
TEATIME
13 18 25 34 38 41

Results for Thursday 28 June 2007
LUNCHTIME
3 26 28 31 42 47
TEATIME
2 8 15 17 39 49

Results for Wednesday 27 June 2007
LUNCHTIME
14 19 23 32 33 45
TEATIME
21 22 29 35 36 41

Results for Tuesday 26 June 2007
LUNCHTIME
7 11 12 15 23 39
TEATIME
11 14 26 34 35 46

I'm confused. we already know about the 1st August lunchtime draw. Other than that I can't see any matches. Are you talking about them coming up individually? If so, that's so within the bounds of probability that it's hardly worth mentioning.

[psychicsarah]

there should be two or three hits of the 19 20 and 21 combination in the last month or so and one of 9 11 and 19

money was won so they DID come up!!!

Don't really care about the odds...the point is 'knowing' certain combinations are becoming HOT...then backing them for a couple of weeks until they hit

this makes the whole thing an investment NOT a gamble

as I said for 10 euro you can win 3k....cos the odds are 3,000 to 1

also 4 numbers came up in the 10 20 and 21 draw...the last time they hit

there was 12, 19 20 and 21....on the last 19 20 and 21 draw...

[Matt]

Sarah you said on the Ulster site...



http://www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/templates/integrated/images/icon_minipost.gif (http://www.ulsterrugby.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=66911&sid=93b701e9d76b4ec20c16522715602d43#66911)Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject: soon in 49's


9 11 19




Then you said...



[I]re Ulster web site...I deleted that because of my links with the team...and since I wrote it those numbers have come up 3 or 4 times...which is good odds ...if you put on 10 euro ...you win 3k ie it's an investment rather than a gamble if you know what numbers are coming up!


Quite reasonably I thought you meant that the triplet 9 11 and 19 had come up together 3 or 4 times since June 26th.

Are you now saying that the numbers you were refering to as coming up 3 or 4 times were not the numbers 9 11 and 19 but instead 9 10 11 12 19 20 and 21 in various combinations?

The other question I must ask is whether 9 11 and 19 been particularly "Hot" since June 26th.

From that day until 4th August each ball has appeard the following number of times.

1 9
2 8
3 10
4 9
5 3
6 5
7 9
8 7
9 7
10 12
11 10
12 9
13 10
14 13
15 10
16 12
17 11
18 16
19 10
20 13
21 14
22 9
23 15
24 6
25 10
26 8
27 9
28 12
29 5
30 12
31 11
32 8
33 14
34 11
35 7
36 7
37 5
38 10
39 17
40 11
41 10
42 8
43 7
44 9
45 13
46 10
47 9
48 9
49 11

As you can see 9 11 and 19 have not been star performers. With 7, 10 and 10 appearances respectively they average 9 appearances each. That's actually a smidge below the 9.8 average.

Since you bring up the Radio Prediction of 19 20 and 21 when exactly was this prediction and when did those numbers come up? I've checked back and I can't see this triplet coming up this year.

What was the nature of the feedback that you got? What money was won? Perhaps punters placed bets on doubles 19, 20 or 19, 21 or 20, 21 and won money that way.

19, 20 and 21 have recently done better then 9, 11 and 19. These initial numbers have achieved 10, 13 and 14 appearances respectively which is above the 9.8 average but not by a a significant amount. The standard deviation of this population is 2.85 so 21's 14 appearances are 1.47 Standard Deviations above the mean. Compare this to 39's highly 2.53 standard deviations above the mean.

However I digress. Importantly do you feel that the protocol I mentioned is something you could work with. Would you expect to get results? If not why not?

[fruitfly]

[quote=Matt;14662]

If Sarah's claim is not that she can specify a particular draw when these will come up but that they will be coming up "soon" then that is the claim that must be tested.

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

Sarah's claim is far more specific than that. From Sarah's website, in response to the Irish Skeptics:

Re Lotto odds…

Would you like to explain how in every single lotto draw I get 3/ 4 numbers out of 7? What are the odds on that? And how would you explain the fact that I am going to win...and that I know this in advance?

See http://surl.se/cmsn .

[tolman]

...Don't really care about the odds...

as I said for 10 euro you can win 3k....cos the odds are 3,000 to 1

I guess you meant 300:1?
With those odds, it looks like the pick-3-from-7-ball game with 329:1 payout odds, rather than the pick-3-from-6 game with 600:1 payout odds.
http://49s.co.uk.dnn4hosting.com/49s/49sHowtoplay/tabid/63/Default.aspx

Allowing for some organiser's cut, maybe the real odds are about 400:1, which means with twice-daily draws, one would have an evens chance of getting a 3-way hit in 100 days (200 draws), maybe a little less.

If one mentioned some other numbers at the same time, one could drop one's expected waiting time proportionally. Even if those numbers had already come up, that's no bar to them coming straight back up again, and being counted as a special spooky hit.

[psychicsarah]

NO Matt

the two three numbered combinations which are (still) HOT

are 19 20 and 21

and 9 11 and 19

(Today 9 and 11 came up again)


you should find that 19 20 and 21 came up twice and that 9 11 and 19 came up once in the last few weeks

and 19 20 and 21 are on the way again...so it seems are 9 11 and 19!

It is hard to describe how one gets a sense of what is HOt and what is not....but it is an intuition (not logic obviously)

:cheesy:

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

(not logic obviously)

:cheesy:

Never a truer word said!

[psychicsarah]

Not logical ...but nonetheless effective!!!

;D:cheesy:;)

[fruitfly]

Sarah,

Do you stand by the claim you previously made on your website?

Re Lotto odds…

Would you like to explain how in every single lotto draw I get 3/ 4 numbers out of 7? What are the odds on that? And how would you explain the fact that I am going to win...and that I know this in advance?

Here's the link: http://surl.se/cmsn

[Matt]

NO Matt

the two three numbered combinations which are (still) HOT

are 19 20 and 21

and 9 11 and 19

(Today 9 and 11 came up again)


you should find that 19 20 and 21 came up twice and that 9 11 and 19 came up once in the last few weeks

and 19 20 and 21 are on the way again...so it seems are 9 11 and 19!

It is hard to describe how one gets a sense of what is HOt and what is not....but it is an intuition (not logic obviously)

:cheesy:

I confess I missed the 7 June Teatime win when I looked before.

9 16 19 20 21 26 booster 3

The 15th of July win I missed as I was only looking for three balls from 6 rather than the three balls from 7 game.

12 19 20 23 39 44 booster 21


That's a pretty good run... and you sugest that it's still going...

I could make whiny moany excuses for missing these pointing out that you could have helped by letting me know when your prediction was made and even when it came true but I'll just repeat the request.

Obviously if we're including match 3 from 7 then that affects the odds in the protocol I suggested.

I haven't had any feedback from you regarding the protocol so I don't know if that's worth doing.

Would you also want to count other results as hits. Match 2 from 6, Match 3 from 7. We could weight the hits according to probability and see if your could acheive a certain score in a specified timeframe. We could even adjust the protocol such that you could change your picked numbers at any time and even have two sets of numbers running at the same time. (In such a situation each draw would count as two draws)

Just let me know if you're happy to work with me on this.

Hot streaks do occur. For example in the first half of this year 3 30 and 34 would have hit three times on the pick 3 from 6 game and a further three times in the pick 3 from 7 game.

Saturday 12 May 2007 TEATIME
3 4 18 30 34 37 booster 13
Tuesday 17 April 2007 TEATIME
3 4 7 30 34 47 booster 45
Thursday 15 February 2007 TEATIME
4 9 13 14 30 34 booster 49
Wednesday 7 February 2007 LUNCHTIME
4 14 29 30 31 41 booster 34
Wednesday 31 January 2007 TEATIME
2 3 4 7 30 38 booster 34
Saturday 27 January 2007 TEATIME
12 17 30 34 42 44 booster 4

This was the only set of three to enjoy 6 wins but there were plenty that have scored five times.

It is to be expected that some sets of numbers will do better in a random draw than others. Over time this evens itself out and a set of numbers that has enjoyed a recent a hot streak is no more likley to win than any other set. The hot streak is in no way guarenteed to continue.

At least that's what statistics says.

What say you Sarah? Is it worth pursuing?

[psychicsarah]

I thought of something else Matt...

Can you see in the same time span....any other triplet combinations which repeat two or three times..?

I think not...

I hate maths...so you will have to do the probability!

But I just thought it was another way to assess if these are HOT numbers...

Well I know they ARE...but I know you are interested in the probability aspect...

and these number will hit again soon...

additional hot numbers are 1 and 7

also you might find interesting...in these draws there are definite patterns which repeat

30 and 31 are very good at coming up together...

also doubles are common...eg) if 12 comes up chances are 24 will too

and double numbers often get a run together....11 22 33 and 44...interestingly before the 19 20 and 21 and 9 11 and 19 numbers hit

Also...a few days before they hit...it all seems to go pear shaped and you think they're not going to hit...THAT is the time to keep going!!!!

[psychicsarah]

Oh re the Irish Septics thing...at that time I was doing the draw based on the weds and sats main Lotto draws in Ireland ...it doesn't relate to the 49's thing I am now discussing

[Cuddles]

I thought of something else Matt...

Can you see in the same time span....any other triplet combinations which repeat two or three times..?

I think not...


Hot streaks do occur. For example in the first half of this year 3 30 and 34 would have hit three times on the pick 3 from 6 game and a further three times in the pick 3 from 7 game.

Saturday 12 May 2007 TEATIME
3 4 18 30 34 37 booster 13
Tuesday 17 April 2007 TEATIME
3 4 7 30 34 47 booster 45
Thursday 15 February 2007 TEATIME
4 9 13 14 30 34 booster 49
Wednesday 7 February 2007 LUNCHTIME
4 14 29 30 31 41 booster 34
Wednesday 31 January 2007 TEATIME
2 3 4 7 30 38 booster 34
Saturday 27 January 2007 TEATIME
12 17 30 34 42 44 booster 4

This was the only set of three to enjoy 6 wins but there were plenty that have scored five times.

Does anyone else get the feeling Sarah isn't actually reading a single thing we post?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Yep, that and she has absolutely no sense of numeracy at all.

I'd imagine a 12 year old could grasp some of the points about probability that have been made.

[Matt]

I thought of something else Matt...
Can you see in the same time span....any other triplet combinations which repeat two or three times..?
I think not...

Well it'd help if you let me know the time span

When did you make your prediction on the radio?

You did say it came up within a week to tens days of your prediction and it came up on the 7th of Jun. Ten days before that was the 28th of May. Between then and the 6th August the following triplets have come up three times each:

(1 4 10) (1 20 49) (1 24 41) (1 28 49) (1 36 40) (2 16 38) (3 6 44) (3 16 23) (3 21 42) (3 28 35) (3 28 47) (4 10 17) (4 10 47) (4 13 35) (4 19 43) (5 10 34) (7 21 31) (7 28 30) (8 39 43) (9 19 20) (9 28 42) (9 47 49) (10 18 34) (12 16 38) (12 21 39) (13 18 39) (13 28 34) (13 28 40) (13 39 46) (14 19 33) (15 18 21) (15 19 21) (15 21 46) (16 19 20) (17 21 32) (18 25 38) (19 21 44) (19 39 44) (19 39 46) (20 28 48) (20 39 44) (21 28 46) (21 32 42) (21 32 44) (21 39 44) (21 39 46) (26 28 47) (27 43 45)

And the following have come up 4 times

(11 15 40) (14 21 46) (19 21 39) (19 21 46)

The triplets you've been suggesting were hot were (9 11 19) which has come up once, and (19 20 21) which has come up twice. The number of triplets that have equalled these records in the same time period are too many to list here.


I hate maths...so you will have to do the probability!
But I just thought it was another way to assess if these are HOT numbers...
Well I know they ARE...but I know you are interested in the probability aspect...
and these number will hit again soon...

Hopefully the details I've just listed will give you some insight for now.

There are studies which have shown that people who are less good at statistics are more likley to belive in the supernatural. I'll avoid the post hoc fallacy of simply assuming that this means they are more likely to read significance into everyday coincidence and thus form a supernatural belief system. The cause might even be the other way round. Perhaps the psychicly attuned mind is less suitable to the sort of systemic thinking that suits statistical ability. However your confession to hating maths provides some anecdotal support to the data if not for either conclusion.

However (and please don't be offended by this question) if you don't know how often such patterns are expected to come up then how can you tell if they are appearing more often than chance allows?


additional hot numbers are 1 and 7


You might not be doing yourself any favours here. By widening the net you increase your chances of being able to retrofit a "win" but hugely decrease the impact of actually scoring one. Already you've weakened your case by combining numbers from one triplet with numbers in another to claim a hit. I'll try to explain why this is so important.

If one were just betting on the two triplets £10 each twice a day that'd be £40 a day. Over the 142 days of this analysis that's £5,680 and you'd have had three wins of £3,300 each for a 74% profit.

However when you claim a hit off of any of the five numbers in your two overlapping triplets then there are now 10 possible combinations of three numbers. If your prediction is that any one of these ten combinations might come up then we must bet on all ten for that prediction to be useful. That's £200 a day or a total of £28,000
(9 11 19) 1 win at £3,300 = £3,300
(9 11 20) 1 win at £3,300 = £3,300
(9 11 21) 1 win at £3,300 = £3,300
(9 19 20) 3 wins at £3,300 = £9,900
(9 19 21) 1 win at £3,300 = £3,300
(9 20 21) 2 wins at £3,300 = £6,600
(11 19 20) 2 wins at £3,300 = £6,600
(11 19 21) 1 win at £3,300 = £3,300
(11 20 21) nothing
(19 20 21) 2 wins at £3,300 = £6,600

That gives total winnings of £46,200 or a 52% profit. Down from 74%

However that's the worst way of looking at it. There's actually 6 more permutations if we include the 4 and 5 ball bets. That would be a total outlay of £44,800 but thanks to either good luck or you your talents the extra money would have been well worth it.

(9 11 19 20) 1 win at £38,000 = £38,000
(9 11 19 21) nothing
(9 11 20 21) nothing
(9 19 20 21) 1 win at £38,000 = £38,000
(11 19 20 21) nothing
(9 11 19 20 21) nothing

An extra £76,000 puts us up to a whopping £122,200 for £44,800 or a 173% profit.

Adding extra numbers rapidly increases the number of permutations.

If 1 and 7 are now hot along with 9 11 19 20 and 21 then there's 98 possible bets of 3 to 6 balls to cover all eventualities. To cover 98 £10 bets twice a day over a similar 142 days is going to eat into those profits to the tune of £278,320

Of course there's extra opportunitites to win and 7 of those 98 opportunities are entered into the big jackpot but the more of the board you're covering the more likley the odds will iron themsleves out.

Incidently with the enormous benefit of hindsight, in the period we looked at, 39 and 44 frequently came up alongside 19 20 or 21. It's not an obvious pattern and I don't believe that betting on it happening again would be profitable however by mentioning 5 numbers in no particular order I can claim sucess on 16 different permutations.

Betting £10 on each of these permutations on the 7 ball game alone would cost £320 per day Over the 142 days of this last analysis that's an outlay of £45,440 same as for your 5 numbers

Just looking at the 7 ball game over that period here's what my winnings would be.

(19 20 21) 2 wins at = £6,600
(19 20 39) 2 wins at = £6,600
(19 20 44) 1 win at £3,300 = £3,300
(19 21 39) 4 wins at £3,300 = £13,200
(19 21 44) 3 wins at £3,300 = £9,900
(19 39 44) 3 wins at £3,300 = £9,900
(20 21 39) 2 wins at £3,300 = £6,600
(20 21 44) 2 wins at £3,300 = £6,600
(20 39 44) 3 wins at £3,300 = £9,900
(21 39 44) 3 wins at £3,300 = £9,900
(19 20 21 39) 1 win at £38,000 = £38,000
(19 20 21 44) 1 win at £38,000 = £38,000
(19 20 39 44) 1 win at £38,000 = £38,000
(19 21 39 44) 2 wins at £38,000 = £76,000
(20 21 39 44) 2 wins at £38,000 = £76,000
(19 20 21 39 44) 1 win at £400,000 = £400,000

Thats a £748,500 payout on £45,440 or 1,547% proffit



also you might find interesting...in these draws there are definite patterns which repeat
30 and 31 are very good at coming up together...
also doubles are common...eg) if 12 comes up chances are 24 will too
and double numbers often get a run together....11 22 33 and 44...interestingly before the 19 20 and 21 and 9 11 and 19 numbers hit
Also...a few days before they hit...it all seems to go pear shaped and you think they're not going to hit...THAT is the time to keep going!!!!
Well these claims are easily checked.
Of course it may just be that when these patterns do come up, as they inevitably will, they make a larger impression than patterns which are less obvious.
The pairs of numbers which have been most associated with each other this year have been

(16 39) with 21 appearances
(9 42) with 17 appearances
(13 18) with 16 appearances
(13 25) with 16 appearances
(16 19) with 16 appearances
(3 16) with 15 appearances
(6 39) with 15 appearances
(10 18) with 15 appearances
(19 21) with 15 appearances
(16 31) with 15 appearances
(1 10) with 14 appearances
(1 17) with 14 appearances
(4 10) with 14 appearances
(5 15) with 14 appearances
(9 20) with 14 appearances
(11 19) with 14 appearances
(11 40) with 14 appearances
(13 21) with 14 appearances
(13 28) with 14 appearances
(13 34) with 14 appearances
(14 27) with 14 appearances
(19 20) with 14 appearances
(31 44) with 14 appearances
(39 41) with 14 appearances
(39 44) with 14 appearances

Out of 1176 possible pairings 48 are in runs. (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) etc. That's just over one in 25. (4.1%) Out of the top 25 we have one pairing that's in a run. Pretty much as expected.

There are only 24 possible doubles (1,2) (2,4) (3,6) etc. Thats one in 49 (2.0%)

There are 6 sets of "double numbers" multiples of 11. (11,22) (11,33) (22,44) etc that's one in 196 (0.5%)

When we looked at each possible pairing and how often they appeared together in the draws since the begining of the year then the ones that appears together most often might be disspropotionately pairs, double or multiples of 11 If so then you're right.

1 pair had 21 appearances, 0 were runs, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
0 pairs had 20 appearances, 0 were runs, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
0 pairs had 19 appearances, 0 were runs, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
0 pairs had 18 appearances, 0 were runs, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
1 pairs had 17 appearances, 0 were runs, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
3 pairs had 16 appearances, 0 were runs, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
5 pairs had 15 appearances, 0 were runs, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
15 pairs had 14 appearances, 1 was a run, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
41 pairs had 13 appearances, 2 were runs, 1 was a double and 1 was multiples of 11.
40 pairs had 12 appearances, 4 were runs, 1 was a doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
95 pairs had 11 appearances, 3 were runs, 2 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
109 pairs had 10 appearances, 1 were runs, 0 were doubles and 1 was multiples of 11.
134 pairs had 9 appearances, 5 were runs, 2 were doubles and 1 was multiples of 11.
161 pairs had 8 appearances, 5 were runs, 5 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
157 pairs had 7 appearances, 5 were runs, 3 were doubles and 2 were multiples of 11.
149 pairs had 6 appearances, 6 were runs, 3 were doubles and 1 was multiples of 11.
131 pairs had 5 appearances, 10 were runs, 4 were doubles and 0 was multiples of 11.
81 pairs had 4 appearances, 5 were runs, 1 was a doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
28 pairs had 3 appearances, 1 was a run, 2 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
20 pairs had 2 appearances, 0 were runs, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.
5 pairs had 1 appearance, 0 were runs, 0 were doubles and 0 were multiples of 11.

There doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary here. The top 310 best performing pairs include 11 runs (3.5%), 4 doubles (1.3%) and 2 multiples of eleven (0.6%)

The worst 414 performing pairs include 22 runs (5.3%), 10 doubles, (2.4%) and 1 multiple of 11 (0.2%)

The middle 452 pairs include 15 (3.3%) runs, 10 doubles (2.2%) and 3 multiples of 11 (0.7%)

None of these percentages is too far away from the expected 4.1% for runs, 2.0% for doubles or 0.5% for multiples of 11. Cerainly not further than expected.

Multiples of 11 clustered together more than expected, doubles and runs less than expected.

Anyway, diverting though this discussion may have been, back to the protocol. Do you think you'd be able to work with me on such a basis?

[psychicsarah]

HI Matt

This is interesting...thanks for that.

It is very curious that there are so many triplets to have come up several times in the time span...and this would certainly indicate that the feel of a HOT triplet...(to the psychic) comes about in a very different way to pure logic and repeating patterns

I suspect that ultimately we will find that those who love maths et al and those who are psychic simply think in a different way...

Brain function can be measured as you know and I gather too the balance of left and right brain can be measured

I suspect that those who use both logic and intuition have 'balanced hemispheres' between left and right

Perhaps ultimately these are the only tests that need to be done to identify those with psychic ability!

Pretty painless for everyone that would be....

[psychicsarah]

Matt thankyou for all the work you have put in on this...I have had to print off the details ...

I'm sorry I missed previous post re the other combinations you have come up with...so will studythat now

I am not sure if a protocol would be possible? Will see what you are proposing

Cos if one comes up with numbers psychically which then hit.,..they are not as far as the data goes going to be any more impressive than the probability's you have worked out...is that right?

The method would be different but the results similar...

Interesting the sums and outlay re the possible bets!

Technically though and according to logic...I would have thought it should not be possible to identify repeating patterns right?

Really 1 2 3 should be just as likely to come up as one of the hot combinations....

I think it is well recognised that there do seem to be HOT numbers...I think the bookies even call them out before the draws...

But again that is by the way if one is psychically getting numbers that are going to come up

I guess if I describe the psychic way of predicting the numbers as an inner 'knowing and sensing' which will hit ... (let's say within a reasonable time frame) ...it just demonstrates a different method of coming up with numbers...

It certainly works but the reality seems to be that those of a logical bent would not relate to this...or be able to do it...

Just as I can't work out probability...(or can't be bothered to do so let's say)....you probably can't be bothered to see if you can 'sense' numbers

Both are equally valid ways to come up with numbers...but I suspect that the logical route would mean as you have worked out...quite a bit of money to out lay in order to make a profit

whereas the psychic route does not involve so much out lay...

[fruitfly]

Sarah says:

Oh re the Irish Septics thing...at that time I was doing the draw based on the weds and sats main Lotto draws in Ireland ...it doesn't relate to the 49's thing I am now discussingSarah,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Sarah

With respect, your reply does not answer my question. I ask again, do you stand by the claim previously made on your website?

Re Lotto odds…

Would you like to explain how in every single lotto draw I get 3/ 4 numbers out of 7? What are the odds on that? And how would you explain the fact that I am going to win...and that I know this in advance?

Here's the link: http://surl.se/cmsn

If it relates to the two main draws it is a remarkable claim.

By the way, there are some posts on here requesting civility towards you in these debates. I've noticed a few times now that you have referred to sceptics as “septics”. It may be a typo', but it has happened often enough to suggest otherwise. Personal abuse does nothing to further anyone's argument.

[Cuddles]

It is very curious that there are so many triplets to have come up several times in the time span...

And this just demonstrates that once again you have failed to understand a single thing that Matt has written. It is not at all curious, it is exactly what we expect due to chance.

[Dr B]

I fear we may be one post away from 'synchronicity' :cheesy::cheesy:

[tolman]

Technically though and according to logic...I would have thought it should not be possible to identify repeating patterns right?
I think the idea is that it isn't possible to consistently identify them in advance, over multiple trials, which start off by specifying their precise condtions in advance (*which* draws, whether it's 7s or 6s, whether numbers are generally hot (bet on pairs?, or specifically as a set of 3), etc.


I think it is well recognised that there do seem to be HOT numbers...I think the bookies even call them out before the draws...
Those two statements don't seem to add up, unless you're pointing out that bookies want people to follow the *feeling* that there are 'hot' numbers.


It certainly works but the reality seems to be that those of a logical bent would not relate to this...or be able to do it...
The reality is that those of a logical bent would consider it unlikely someone could profit consistently. It's not particularly unlikely that someone can manage do it once.
The thing about logic and maths is it enables people to work out just how unlikely something is, and often it's nowhere near as unlikely as it might at first seem, even to the mathematician.

Looking at your two predicted triplets, over the period Matt was talking about, one came up once, and one came up twice. Though it's understandably tempting to consider that as three proofs of your ability to predict numbers, in reality, it isn't.
It's not three times you beat the odds - one less win and you'd only have done a little better than breaking even. A lot of people could have got 2 hits
From one point of view you had a fairly average performance added to by a single piece of luck.

[filippo lippi]

I fear we may be one post away from 'synchronicity' :cheesy::cheesy:

It's the vibrations on a quantum level that cause it.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Where is Mystic meg when you need her!

[vbloke]

http://mysticmeg2007.blogspot.com/
http://www.5318008.co.uk/mysticmeg/

[Julia]

"I hate maths...so you will have to do the probability!"

Sarah, in those few words you have revealed the basis of your delusions.

Because you don't understand probability - and despite Matt's truly heroic efforts to enlighten you - you ascribe magical meanings to commonplace events such as the likelihood of certain numbers turning up in a lotto draw.

Because you seem unable to understand star charts you read significance into things like Uranus' 84-day cycle, which is utter rubbish even by astrological standards.

Because you don't understand human psychology you mistake coincidences, dreams and vague intuitions for valid information - which you then dump on multiple discussion boards (being careful to attach links to your own site).

In short, you live in a world governed by numerology, astrology and quite probably a host of other equally discredited -ologies. The police in the McCann case see you and your fellow-psychics for what you are and THEY AREN'T LISTENING TO YOU. So far you haven't provided a shred of hard evidence that you have predicted a single lotto result, let alone done so on a regular basis. What chance do you think you have of solving the McCann case?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

http://mysticmeg2007.blogspot.com/
http://www.5318008.co.uk/mysticmeg/

The internet makes me smile :smiley:

[psychicsarah]

JULIA I am NOT delusional ...I do not ascribe magical meanings to things....as usual YOU are making far too many assumptions

I am gratetul for all Matt's work...and will get back to the Lotto thing when the Maddy thing is over...

My energies are focused my other work at the moment ... But I am going to email Jockey with what I feel has happened in this case re Maddy ...it is definitely not for public consumption

but it makes sense of why I have done what I have done and it also makes sense of what has been said and what hasn't

[Dr B]

Self-claimed-psychic-sarah

Just work with Jocky on the test protocol of your ability to predict things. You seem to think just sending more nonsense to people is 'evidence' - afraid not.

Your time now will be better spent in working on a protocol that you find acceptable, that tests your claims of prediction, and where the results would be clear.

I suggest you give this your full and immediate attention.

[psychicsarah]

dr b...I am working on a protocol with Jockey

and there is no rush...

I have already said that I know this stuff re Maddy does not fit your protocol...that is not what this is about...

Pardon the expression but STUFF the need for evidence that fits protocol re this...we are trying to help find a missing child

I have said that I may email the details to Jockey though....the police now have them so perhaps I don't need to (I was going to do this because I can not put the full extent re what I think about the Maddy case onto the net)

Incidentally John invited me to send the details privately re this a while back...

[Dr B]

Self-claimed-psychic-sarah

You are not helping to find anyone and this has been discussed at length here - so please stop operating under that assumption - which is clearly now a delusion.

Please do not think that we are going to carry on here with your ramblings on this matter as it is becoming tiresome and boring.

Just do the test. O0

I would also suggest you ask Jocky to do the prediction test more than once - as a single failure does not mean you are not psychic - however, repeated failure is inconsistent with the notion of an 'ability'. make sure you fully understand the protocol and are happy with it

Just trying to help.

[Julia]

Dr B, psychicsarah's non-existent "help" in the McCann case is just one of her delusions - and it's nowhere near the most ludicrous. Brace yourself for her explanation of the WTC attack (my italics:)

"For those of us who consider the 'energetics' of events and the laws of Karma, it is impossible to ignore the thought that in some respects the West has invited this strife. Look at all the Hollywood disaster movies, and the poignant recent videos that feature the destruction of the Twin Towers. It is dangerous to project such energy into the world - it just might come back and bite you between the eyes. I am not saying that the USA deserved this attack upon its soul, but it might be important to now review policies, beliefs and movies."

:shocked: :cheesy: >:-)

Now I agree that the USA probably should review its policies and beliefs, particularly those relating to its former support for both the Taliban and Saddam Hussain, but is psychicsarah really implying that bad Karma released by DISASTER MOVIES was to blame for the WTC attack? If so - and after the initial shock wore off I read this little gem umpteen times to make sure I'd understood it properly - I think it speaks volumes about her fantasy world. Something tells me this woman won't be cooperating in a test of her "talents".

And Sarah, doesn't it bother an author of your distinction that the first thing a visitor to your site sees is a ludicrous spelling mistake? Look up the word "perfick" in your dictionary. Then look up "energetics". ;D

[psychicsarah]

That has really caught your attention PERFICK hasn't it!!!!

It is a deliberate spelling...I'm from the West Country and it is a nod to my 'last of the summer wine' roots...

Good writers often make use of devices such as deliberate mis--spellings or quaint words and colloquial language to make a point...or to catch attention

it worked with you anyhow!!!:cheesy:

[tolman]

It is a deliberate spelling...I'm from the West Country and it is a nod to my 'last of the summer wine' roots...
All your ancestors were tired and unamusing old Yorkshiremen?


Good writers often make use of devices such as deliberate mis--spellings or quaint words and colloquial language to make a point...or to catch attention.
And the owners of mystic tat-shops often use olde-worlde language as part of their marketing strategy, because it works on the kind of people who are their best customers, who believe it means something is special, rather than just for sale.

[Matt]

And Sarah, doesn't it bother an author of your distinction that the first thing a visitor to your site sees is a ludicrous spelling mistake? Look up the word "perfick" in your dictionary. Then look up "energetics". ;D

From Google



Definitions of energetics on the Web:

The study of energy conversion and transfer in a physical system.
amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/browse (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&ei=hITARoOVEZ3kwgHv_LmpCA&sig2=b6lC1HlgKQ4WVBNymOms1Q&q=http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/browse%3Fs%3De%26p%3D23&usg=AFQjCNFbBP4ueAh6N8cPyb44AqZjn608Xw)
a sense while remote viewing that a significant amount of energy is being expended at the target location. This energy can be of any type, such as kinetic or radiant.
www.farsight.org/SRV/vocab.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=1&oi=define&ei=hITARoOVEZ3kwgHv_LmpCA&sig2=he0FK71q4IGt9QqpaQ0vGg&q=http://www.farsight.org/SRV/vocab.html&usg=AFQjCNFweNFszB1biPqphCn4K43KzBKlSA)
Describes the effect a herb will have on the body (either warming or cooling) as well as how the energy will be distributed (building up, dispersing, or stabalizing) throughout the body.
www.bytheplanet.com/Brands/DragonEggs/ChineseTerminology.htm (http://www.bytheplanet.com/Brands/DragonEggs/ChineseTerminology.htm)

Accusations of the word being used as new age quasi scientific mumbo jumbo would be fair but are you trying to suggest it was a spelling mistake or that it was used incorrectly?

[Julia]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was suggesting that Sarah didn't know what the word meant, although I'd be the first to admit that it makes a pleasant change from "quantum".

Also, as a Yorkshirewoman I was shocked :shocked: to hear that "Last of the Summer Wine country" is in fact down where the zider apples grow. This will be one hell of a blow to the North Yorkshire tourist industry.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Surprise, surprise, it seems Sarah has proved her abilities to everyone here. She is posting willy nilly at Sky that she has passed the test and we are all in awe of her ability



(I did an online demonstration re the lotto numbers for the UK Skeptics...because they were raising the same issues as you are....the numbers I predicted came up 20 minutes later in the exact draw I predicted them for...ie the Irish bookies 49 s draw)...the evidence is there on their web site if you care to look..under Sarah's lotto numbers thread....(I did this about 2 weeks ago now for them)


and she is now an expert on Universal consciousness funnily enough, and came out with this classic which needs no further comment! >:D



for example such shows as X Factor...the voters have an uncanny knack of getting it right...


I think I'm getting PsychicSarah overload now though :sad:. I hope she sticks to her promise not to come back, but I doubt it.

[Admin]

I can't believe that she's making claims and pointing people here!!! ???

She has not provided one single piece of evidence regarding this case, she has not taken any test with us, she's made contradictions, and huge blunders with her astrology nonsense.

I'd have thought that if there's one place she would NOT want people to read, it's here.

This is another fascinating insight into how the 'psychic mind' works.

[tolman]

Surprise, surprise, it seems Sarah has proved her abilities to everyone here. She is posting willy nilly at Sky that she has passed the test and we are all in awe of her ability


the numbers I predicted came up 20 minutes later in the exact draw I predicted them for.
Basically, that claim seems deeply misleading at best, if not pretty close to being a lie, since it strongly implies she said which precise draw they would come up in, which she simply didn't do.


I think I'm getting PsychicSarah overload now though :sad:. I hope she sticks to her promise not to come back, but I doubt it.
I wouldn't count on it either. "I'm just off now" seems to be one of her most common themes.

[tolman]

I can't believe that she's making claims and pointing people here!!! ???

I'd have thought that if there's one place she would NOT want people to read, it's here.

This is another fascinating insight into how the 'psychic mind' works.

John,
I'd have a slightly different take on that.
It's maybe as much an insight into how the psychic believer's mind works.
The kind of people who would likely believe in psychic abilities would probably rather believe someone's misleading claims about their own abilities than actually going to look even if a link was provided.
Why *bother* to go and look when a psychic has told you what's there?

If, when this whole sorry business actually comes to a conclusion, it turns out that Sarah has actually got any hits with her predictions, the want-to-believers will focus on them and ignore the misses even if they are hugely greater in number, just as Sarah will.

[Cuddles]

This is another fascinating insight into how the 'psychic mind' works.

More to the point, it's a fascinating insight into how it doesn't work.

[Matt]

Surprise, surprise, it seems Sarah has proved her abilities to everyone here. She is posting willy nilly at Sky that she has passed the test and we are all in awe of her ability


Can you provide a link?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

page 89 of this thread

https://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView1.aspx?ThreadId=1243&Category=UK%20News&P=89&NumItems=10

[psychicsarah]

....et al

There is absolutely NO point naming and shaming me...I don't even work as a psychic any more...(I am a writer)

You will see when the truth comes out re the Madeline thing that I have actually been very brave in doing what I have been doing...

Keep your ridiculous judgements to yourself...

I have been trying to HELP...end of...but I will defend myself against the kind of slurs you are making...

I am working with detectives on this and they are taking me seriously...



V bloke

You have the evidence in front of you on your own web site that I did this....Matt set me an online test which was to predict Lotto numbers that were going to hit...

This I did at 12.29 mentioning the Draw concerned which was the 49's draw done by the bookies in Ireland

The draw was made at 12 50 and the numbers I had predicted HIT ....It doesn't matter if I reguarly predict those numbers and other ones too

The point is Matt set the test on that day and I delivered...the test was a completely separate issue from other predictions I have made...

Equally whether I win or not is a completely separate issue from the actual prediction.. (maybe I place bets...maybe I don't...that is no one's business).

The point is the prediction was made and it delivered 20 minutes later...the evidence is there on the Skeptics web site....

I have private confirmation from Jocky that I caused a bit of a stir in so doing....

re the planetary alignments at the moment.....any astologer will tell you that Saturn is leaving Leo and about to move into Virgo...I don't know what system of astrology you are using...I mentioned re the vibration of a particular planet the number 84 because this planet has an 84 year cycle...The number vibrates to the energy of this planet...it is NOT something that an astonomer would accept or understand.

I explained this quite clearly....intuitive asrtologers work in quite a different way...

I am not doing this for self promotion...I am a writer and I do not even work as a psychic now...I am trying to help in any way I can re Maddeline

I am not free to put up all the aspects of this case on here and I appologose for any apparent gaps in what I have said....but I am NOT Vague...I have been very specfic and honest from Day ONE on this matter...just because you might have tunnel vision and not understand it it doesn't mean it is wrong


NB....For example on Richard Dawkins last night (which is actually a very good programme and I am glad he is doing it in the way he is) ...there was a supposedly kosher test for DOWSING set up at Cambridge University

The flaw with the test was immediately obvious to me and bears out the point that if skeptics are going to test people they need to do so in coditions that make sense to BOTH parties...

The scientist had erected a whilte tent with about 30 PLASTIC bottles in it; which either had PLASTIC bottles of water or sand in each

HOW pray tell is a dowser who is linked to the land and mother nature going to get an effective result through 2 layers of PLASTIC...???

This test shows complete ignorance as to what dowsing actually is ...much better test conditions which reflect what dowsing actually IS would have been to use wooded containers and pottery...both natural materials

I am actually surprised the dowsers didn't spot this flaw before the off of this allegedly flawless experiment...it was never going to work...the conditions weren't right

To then conclude on the back of such an experiment that dowsing doesn't work at all is just ridiculous...indigenous cultures and tribes stll use it very effectively to find water...that is what it is for....a natural way to find water...

V bloke...you know fine well that I am liasing privately with Jockey on whether or not we can come up with a suitable protocol re being tested...but if the brilliant dowsing test is anything to go by and also your refusal to see that I actually did what Matt had asked for re Lotto numbers...well then we all our work cut out...

Perhaps it is not actually psychics who are not willing to be tested...but skeptics who just are not (as yet) capable of coming up with suitable conditions to test this phenomenon....

You will I am sure be aware that the college of Parapsychology in Edinburgh has done some very good work in this area...perhaps you should become more au fait with their work....before you get too dismissive of psychics

Psychics are not necessarily not willing to be tested ...perhaps they just can't be bothered to bang their heads against a wall with people who just don't understand what psychic ability is...

I understand the skeptic rational mind as I have said to you before....but I also by experience know that there is such a thing as psychic ability...a sixth sense....call it intuition if you will

I also though agree that there is ALOT of nonsense out there...and I think as a general rule psychics who are to be trusted are those who keep it real and keep it simple....


NB...


Ard...(Vark?!)

I have found when I worked as a psychic that I had a very high accuracy rate of at least 90%...there are degrees of knowing when you are doing readings and you learn how to phrase things and when you are not sure on a point you say so...but when you are sure on a point you ABSOLUTELY say so...and I know when I get THAT degree of knowing on a matter that I will absoultely be right...


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


John and co


I am also academic and have three degrees so do NOT patronize me John and co that I do not have a rational thought in my head

I do not work as a psychic now and have only been trying to help re Maddeline ....

I posted on here in an attempt to balance some of the injustice in what you are all saying about psychics

Many of you are NOT open minded.....at least I am open minded and I understand what you are saying on a lot of points....

But this has just degenerated into what you think is a witch hunt against me....it just won't wash

It is just another kind of bullying instead of the more measured reasonable behaviour I would expect from educated people

The only people from what I can see who have acted reasonably and fairly towards me are Matt and Jockey...the rest is just childish pettiness and bitchiness...and I am surprised that you are not more professional. There is no point picking holes in things...it gets no one anywhere

I do not insult you or make slurs about your work...where do you get off doing so about mine...there is just no mutual respect ...so how on earth do you expect to work to get a kosher protocol together ??

I don't lie....

as for Perfick.....I like the word okay?

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/misc/progress.gif


NOW...I really am going....

[Admin]

I am not claiming a victory..I am simply pointing out that I did what Matt asked me to do...ie give him lotto numbers on line which then came up 20 mins later (a COMPLETELY separate point to any previous predictions I might have made)

I wasn't aware that I needed to have a knowledge of Stats to do this...Matt simply asked for Lotto numbers...and I said place your bets on 9 11 and 19 at 12 29...and they came up at 12 50 (and you can't stand it!)

Sarah, it's been explained to you why that was not a formal test (you'd been predicting the same numbers for months etc.) but it did happen on that day as you say. Now, you've been invited to repeat this feat under proper test conditions.

Why will you not do that?

All you've got to do is give us another triplet (or as many as you like) and we'll see how often they come up and compare them to chance expectation.

Why will you not do that?

You are being given an opportunity to prove your psychic ability, with virtually no effort on your behalf, in public, with no possibility of cheating on either side, and a successful result could not be argued against (if it's done properly).

Why will you not do that?

Can you understand why everyone, both your supporters as well as your opponents will be asking themselves the same question:

Why will you not do that?

We all deserve an answer.

[Matt]

Since we seem to be copying and pasting in multiple threads I'll repeat my response here.


V bloke

You have the evidence in front of you on your own web site that I did this....Matt set me an online test which was to predict Lotto numbers that were going to hit...

This I did at 12.29 mentioning the Draw concerned which was the 49's draw done by the bookies in Ireland

The draw was made at 12 50 and the numbers I had predicted HIT ....It doesn't matter if I reguarly predict those numbers and other ones too

The point is Matt set the test on that day and I delivered...the test was a completely separate issue from other predictions I have made...

Equally whether I win or not is a completely separate issue from the actual prediction.. (maybe I place bets...maybe I don't...that is no one's business).

The point is the prediction was made and it delivered 20 minutes later...the evidence is there on the Skeptics web site....

I have private confirmation from Jocky that I caused a bit of a stir in so doing....


Sarah,

What you did was impressive but it was done and it happened BEFORE I made any such suggestion that you could use your ability to predict lotto numbers to demonstrate psychic powers beyond reasonable doubt.

Your prediction was the CAUSE of my suggestion that you use it as the basis of a suitable demonstration.

The problem is that in such an unstructured test a charlatan could effect the same result by making scattershot predictions and highlighting only the successes.

You did not take part in an online test on the UK skeptics forum. You suggested that three lottery numbers on the Irish 49s draw might come up soon amongst the 7 numbers that are drawn twice every day.

After these number did indeed hit, a protocol was suggested which eliminated all forms of doubt about how this could be achieved.

I remind you that we are still discussing this protocol with you and have received minimal feedback as to whether you feel you could succeed. You have not passed this test, you have not taken part in this test, you have not even agreed to take part in this test.

I have tried very hard to express an understanding of your abilities as you claim they are rather than representing you as a fraud, or delusional. I have defended you from occasionally unfair criticism. I have developed a rough draft of a test that if your are genuine in your claims will by prior agreement of your critics silence them.

I would be very grateful if your would utilise your empathy to afford me the same courtesy to understand the reservations held by skeptics.

Most of all there is surely no need to misrepresent your successes as passing a pre-arranged test. To do so throws my efforts to be fair to you back in my face. It's insulting and it makes defending you harder.

It seems I must remind you of this post....

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=14724&postcount=60

[psychicsarah]

Thankyou Matt

I ABSOLUTELY respect your reasonable approach to what I do...

I just don't like bitchiness, patronisers and Bullies...and people who judge something they do not even understand or make an attempt to understand

(you are NOT one of these people)

I will think about the protocol you have come up with re Numbers...and as you know I am thinking on this for Jockey too

I asked him about a healing demonstration re the ability to lift pain but he did not think it would be statistcally possible to demonstrate this...

Another thing I can do it pick out which team is going to win when they walk onto the pitch (in whatever sport) ...

..the colours of the winning team jump out to me...and I am thinking this might be a possible test which might work and respect both sides of the equation...

I will email Jockey about that in more detail

Thanks you for your work on this Matt I do appreciate it

On SKY I was just trying to give people a quick demonstration of something which had happened recently and which was verifiable on line...because I do NOT want to start going into 'I did this...this ...and this' on the sky forum which is about Maddy

I think Matt that you did actually suggest that Lotto numbers might be a suitable on line test before I put those numbers up...Will check back on the time you made that post...

[dllr]

I just don't like bitchiness, patronisers and Bullies

I'm exactly the same.

Although I'd add fakers, charlatans and ghouls who prey on the weak and bereaved to that list. ;)

[psychicsarah]

well that ain't me...I am not preying on anyone...I am trying to HELP get JUSTICE for this little girl who can't fend for herself...


ultimately you will see why I have done what I have done on the net re this case....

There was no other way ....



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

I have made it quite clear I am not really looking for people to believe in me as such...I am honestly just trying to do what I can to help re this little girl

it is taking alot of thought time and energy

I came on here onto the net for the reason I said...and then continued for the same reason....re sky news...the people there have read about the case from day one and sometimes I need to ask a question...also I am aware that certain people are reading it who need to see what I am saying


I am not doing it to brag because it is such an emotive situation that you can see I am going to get lots of flak..you might in fact call me brave...! (and when the truth comes out re what has happened I suspect you will)

I am doing this because I feel I am meant to....

As I said I had no intention of getting involved,,,,but when I got the message re her being north east from where she was taken I simply HAD to...


I am picking up what is ACTUALLY happening...we don't get the UK stories over here in Ireland so I do not have access to the same newspaper stories as you all over there

It might look like I am getting things from the papers but I am NOT....

I am trying to help people with this too...by saying when something is a red herring or not...this has happened with all the alleged sightings and with people who have been in the frame who are actually innocent

What I am saying rings true because it IS....

[dllr]

ultimately you will see why I have done what I have done on the net re this case....


Yes and what happens if you are not right? Are you going to issue a full apology? And what kind of timescale would be reasonable?

[Dr B]

Self-claimed psychic sarah

I fail to see how your delusions of self-importance are going to help anyone......please stop and just do the test then come back.

[psychicsarah]

I have no reason to apologise at all...I have passed the info to the police...and explained to them why I have done what I have done

I have given them more info than I have put on the net (and they also know what I have done on the net)

The police are bery interested to hear from the likes of me especially when a case is difficult to resolve re lack of evidence etc....

The truth is the truth....

We have already found the place which matches my original descriptions....as I have explained endlessly...so actually some of you need to apologise to me...my description of the place has already delivered something of alarming significance


I have deliberately been very careful in how I have phrased things so as not to hurt people ...but Maddeline can not speak or act for herself ..would you rather I kept quiet at the risk of the truth never being known????

Of course I am not saying it is down to me to sort this out...but I had to do what I could to help.....

ADIEU....

[psychicsarah]

dr b...I told you I WILL defend myself from slurs on here...

Stop laying into me and I will go away and will come up with a protocol with Jockey that suits both sides...

If you lay into me I will respond...end of...

I am not deluded...I am matter of fact and reasonable and perfectly capabale of rational thought thankyou very much (even as regards the psychic stuff and how it works)

nor am I self important....don't project that one onto me....

CHOW....

[vbloke]

I have given them more info than I have put on the net (and they also know what I have done on the net)

The police are bery interested to hear from the likes of me especially when a case is difficult to resolve re lack of evidence etc....

The truth is the truth....I've lost track of the amount of times people have linked to this now, but...
THE POLICE DO NOT USE PSYCHICS (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=police_and_psychics.php)


We have already found the place which matches my original descriptions....as I have explained endlessly...so actually some of you need to apologise to me...my description of the place has already delivered something of alarming significanceAnd, as I have previously linked to a satellite map of the area, 90% of the surrounding countryside looks like how you described it (although you got the valley and hills part wrong - it's almost totally flat farmland), can you explain how you managed to direct someone to a tiny area in Portugal based on a description that could apply to over 300 square miles? And, as I have said before, the fact that there has been no press release on your "significant find", says volumes about how "significant" it really must have been...

[dllr]

I wasn't asking you to apologise now. I was asking wether you'd apologise if all your 'feelings' are wrong. If the information you've 'passed' on to the police and posted on the net turns out to be inaccurate surely that would require an apology, especially considering the sensitivity of a case like this?

Would you apologise? Yes or no?

[Matt]

There's at least two threads to discuss the Madeline McCann case. This one was separated off to discuss Sarah's lottery prediction.

[dllr]

There's at least two threads to discuss the Madeline McCann case. This one was separated off to discuss Sarah's lottery prediction.

Apologies.

[tolman]

Sarah,
If you're going to cry 'bully' whenever people say things you don't like, you're not going to generate much respect.
Likewise, continual claims of being about to leave one discussion or another don't exactly look very grown-up.

If you keep trying to spin your repeated lottery predictions eventually coming up as some definitive proof of your abilities, and you're not even going to acknowledge that what you wrote could possibly be misleading, you're either going to come across as having convinced yourself that you'd really meant that the numbers would come up in the next draw even if you never said that, someone who doesn't understand how their words come across even when it's pointed out, or someone who, at best, doesn't care if they are being misleading.

If you really do want to distinguish yourself from the mass of internet psychics, it's not enough to just believe or claim you're different, you have to demonstrate it with both consistent ability and attitude.

What you believe, and how strongly you believe is entirely irrelevant if you want skeptics (or police) to take you seriously. All that matters is what you can show you are capable of doing what you keep claiming you can do.

[tolman]

We have already found the place which matches my original descriptions....as I have explained endlessly...so actually some of you need to apologise to me...my description of the place has already delivered something of alarming significance.
People need to apologise to you because you claim to have found something of significance, which as far as anyone knows, the police are ignoring?

[Ardbeg]

I dont agree with Sarah's 'predictions on this but I equally dont believe that whatever is appearing in the news is all the information available in the investigation. If we question Sarah's position on this, then let's question it on the basis of a reasonable argument or else, we're guilty of what we're accusing her of! Simply put, just because it hasnt appeared in the news does not mean that it does not exist. You can question this position on other grounds but this ground appears to be quite weak to me. (I cant see it so it doesnt exist)!

[psychicsarah]

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/david_hawkins.htm


found who David Hawkins is

;)

[Matt]

Thankyou Matt

I ABSOLUTELY respect your reasonable approach to what I do...


You're quite welcome.



I think Matt that you did actually suggest that Lotto numbers might be a suitable on line test before I put those numbers up...Will check back on the time you made that post...

Well maybe had seen that I would make such a request in what would become a self fullfilling prophesy :cheesy:

However the actual timeline was outlined quite clearly earlier

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=14724&postcount=60 (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/sho...4&postcount=60)

In summary...

At 12:29 PM on August 1st you mentioned to Jockey a previous lottery prediction and sugested some new numbers which were "cooking up"

At 12:39 PM
You asked me what predictions would count

At around 1 PM the numbers you had mentioned to vbloke were drawn, although none of us noticed until later.

At 4:08 PM
I sugegsted certain conditions that would make on line predictions a suitable test. I suggested that your lottery predictions would be a good basis for such a test.

You should note that I did not say that either of your prior predictions satisfied those conditions. In fact I did say that certain things would need to be pre-specified in order to make the probability of chance sucess calculable.

Your ealier predictions did not prespecify a timescale thus making the probability of success calculable.

As John points out I'm not a UKS staff member and do not have the authority to speak for them on such matters. However I feel I do understand their concerns and can address them in a manner compatible with your claimed predictions.

The search facility on this forum is quite good and I can categorically state that the only prior time the word lottery or lotto has appeared in one of my posts was here

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=14308&postcount=282

So whilst I acknowldge that you demonstration was quite impressive, it was spontaneous and not in response to a challenge set by me.

Your repretition of the claim that it was was irritating enough ealier for me to write post 60 in this thread and your persistance in doing so after I made that post was infuriating. I will charitably assume that you simply missed the earlier post. So I am glad that you have now acknowledged these concerns and have committed to going back and checking for yourself.

Having triple checked this matter myself I am confident you will reach the same conclusion: that you were mistaken in thinking that your prediction was in response to a challenge made by me.

No doubt your critics will argue for a deliberate or delusional twisting of the truth on your part. However unless they too lay claim to some form of supernatural power they cannot discount an honest mistake.

The thing to do would be a simple acknowledgement of the truth, an appology and to let the matter slide. Definitely don't restate or try to defend the claim. You would lose all credibility. With me too I'm afraid.

Furthermore, a weakness in recalling the order of events will be suggested as a possible explanation for a delusional belief in psychic ability. It suggests that a psychic might occasionaly mistake postdiction for genuine prediction.

At this stage the argument is a Red Herring. The purpose of this thread it to discuss your lottery predictions. There is no doubt (from the deleted ulster forum post) that you predicted these numbers before they came up.

I have suggested such a challenge which I would like to discuss with you further and am encouraged that you are thinking about it.

If you take the challenge we can agree prior to the event what results will constitute proof that you're not psychic, an inconclusive result or conclusive demonstration of psychic ability.

If you succeed, speculation on whether you might be lying or deluded will become redundant. If not then it can only be speculation.

You'll be glad to know that proving a negative is impossible and even if you got zero hits in the specified time period this should be regarded as an inconclusive result. It wouldn't stop certian faction from crowing but you'd gain a great deal of respect from others including myself agreeing to a controlled test.

[tolman]

I dont agree with Sarah's 'predictions on this but I equally dont believe that whatever is appearing in the news is all the information available in the investigation. If we question Sarah's position on this, then let's question it on the basis of a reasonable argument or else, we're guilty of what we're accusing her of! Simply put, just because it hasnt appeared in the news does not mean that it does not exist. You can question this position on other grounds but this ground appears to be quite weak to me. (I cant see it so it doesnt exist)!
There's not much point having a conversation if one person claims to know stuff that is important to the conversation, but which is secret.
There's certainly no point someone suggesting they deserve apologies on the basis of something that only they claim to be privy to.

The point at which someone starts being looked upon as different from the average self-described crime-solving-psychic is the point that their meaningful, specific and non-obvious predictions start coming true, (either as a few improbable/unguessable ones, or a greater number of more probable/guessable ones) by a significant margin compared to the failed predictions.
I trust someone will let me know if that point ever arrives.

[Admin]

I just don't like bitchiness, patronisers and Bullies...and people who judge something they do not even understand or make an attempt to understand

In other words - people who question your claims and don't give you a free ride promoting yourself on the back of a little girl's tragedy.

[Dr B]

I dont agree with Sarah's 'predictions on this but I equally dont believe that whatever is appearing in the news is all the information available in the investigation. If we question Sarah's position on this, then let's question it on the basis of a reasonable argument or else, we're guilty of what we're accusing her of! Simply put, just because it hasnt appeared in the news does not mean that it does not exist. You can question this position on other grounds but this ground appears to be quite weak to me. (I cant see it so it doesnt exist)!

There is no reason to assume it does exist either O0 - the point is its meaningless - but who do you think is making big claims on the back of it?

The lack of evidence is meaningless - it means, literally, nothing either way

[Matt]

Sarah,


Thankyou Matt

I ABSOLUTELY respect your reasonable approach to what I do...



Thanks you for your work on this Matt I do appreciate it

Thanks, respect and appreciation are not mere words. Don't tell me that you respect and appreaciate my efforts. Show me. Demonstrate it.

For example when at 1:52 you say...


I think Matt that you did actually suggest that Lotto numbers might be a suitable on line test before I put those numbers up...Will check back on the time you made that post...

If you really appreciated or respected my efforts you actually do what you said and check those timings.

I know what you'd see. I've triple checked.

So when instead I read that at 2:42 you went on to write:...


;)

I was giving an example on sky of doing something I was asked to do re a recent predtiction by Matt

are YOU all afraid of being made to look stupid?

I did what Matt asked....

He asked for lotto numbers which came up 20 minutes after they were predicted for a SPECIFIC draw...

Are you saying I did not do this???


Unsuprisingly I lose respect for you. You lose credibility and integrity

On another thread Dr B made this request.


I would like to ask all UKS staff members to consider pulling out of any formal testing of someone with questionnable integrity. It will do nothing for relations between more sincere people on both sides of the fence.

Irrespective of the result certain people will claim success or make excuses. I can see no useful reasons for continuing in our association with individuals who have a perverted notion of the truth and seek to promote themselves over the reality of the situation.

I'm not a UKS staff member. I'm a member of this forum the same as you. However the logic still applies. Only if I am confident that you will not missrepresent the results of our discussions can I continue. If necessary in another venue.

Can you demonstrate to me your integrity.

Please take time to consider your response.

[Admin]

We have already found the place which matches my original descriptions....as I have explained endlessly...so actually some of you need to apologise to me...my description of the place has already delivered something of alarming significance

You have not:
Given us the location of this place - why don't you name the location so that it can be verified later?
Told us what this 'alarming significance' actually is.Unless you give out this information you're only making an assertion that has not been backed up.

And, surely, you do realise that if/when this case is concluded and you start going on about how your information predicted it all, no-one will believe you.

And your ramblings will remain on here, including our constant requests for your psychic information to be revealed so it can later be verified, and your absolute refusal to provide such information.

People will be able to read back and see that your claims to have 'helped the police' are based on nothing but a fantasy as you've predicted precisely nothing.

[Dr B]

I'm not a UKS staff member. I'm a member of this forum the same as you.

Indeed. I am a member and a staff member and my comments were directed solely to the other staff members.


However the logic still applies. Only if I am confident that you will not missrepresent the results of our discussions can I continue. If necessary in another venue.

There is no logic here as you seem to have misunderstood the comment completely. I was addressing other staff members - therefore, not you.

Why would I misrepresent any result? Can you provide some evidence for this?

What you fail to understand is all this 'challenging' of a person is generating confusion over the role of UKS here. I fear things are descending into chaos. For clarity only one challenge should take place at a time. I think Jocky is / was working on this. However, based on the comments from the claimant on another fourm - concerning what has been discussed here - I am suggesting all termination of this. It is a suggestion of course, and open to discussion - but the involvement of UKS will be a matter for them to decide. If you want to run your own independent experiment - then obviously feel free to do so.

The 'integrity' comment was certainly not directed at you but at those whom, on this forum, have displayed none. She knows who she is O0

[Matt]

There is no logic here as you seem to have misunderstood the comment completely. I was addressing other staff members - therefore, not you.

Why would I misrepresent any result? Can you provide some evidence for this?

Woah woah woah! Wires getting crossed here

My post quoted you but was not directed at you. It was directed at Sarah. I was merely saying for the same reasons that you would be reluctant to associate with somone with questionable integrity, so would I.

If we dissagreed as to Sarah's integrity: you thinking there was no hope and I more willing to give the benefit of the doubt I'd be happy to continue on another forum to reduce your exposure should I turn out to be wrong about her.


What you fail to understand is all this 'challenging' of a person is generating confusion over the role of UKS here. I fear things are descending into chaos. For clarity only one challenge should take place at a time. I think Jocky is / was working on this. However, based on the comments from the claimant on another fourm - concerning what has been discussed here - I am suggesting all termination of this. It is a suggestion of course, and open to discussion - but the involvement of UKS will be a matter for them to decide. If you want to run your own independent experiment - then obviously feel free to do so.

I have the same reservations as you do, for the same reasons.


The 'integrity' comment was certainly not directed at you but at those whom, on this forum, have displayed none. She knows who she is O0

It remains to be seen if Sarah can salvage any integrity.

[Ardbeg]

Either way, well said Matt! A precise, clear and polite response as usual!

[Dr B]

Woah woah woah! Wires getting crossed here

My post quoted you but was not directed at you. It was directed at Sarah. I was merely saying for the same reasons that you would be reluctant to associate with somone with questionable integrity, so would I.

Fair enough (I did wonder) - but you quoted me and it was not clear to whom you were directing the comments - but thanks for clearing that one up O0


If we dissagreed as to Sarah's integrity: you thinking there was no hope and I more willing to give the benefit of the doubt I'd be happy to continue on another forum to reduce your exposure should I turn out to be wrong about her.

Fair points. I would point out that I have been giving her the benefit of the doubt for weeks - but I am not sure there really are that many other ways to interpret the claims she makes that she was specific in the precise draw - we both know that is not true - fact. It was one of many factual inaccuracies - how many 'benefits' do we have to give?

My only concern is that, in actual fact, it seems that everyone wants to test her. I am concerned that this is going to confuse her more, that it is simply not fair for multiple testing and I could see confusion on the horizon. So - I am actually protecting her from being bombarded by people saying (more or less) "do my test". I think a more co-ordinated approach is needed (just my opinion of course :smiley:).

This of ocurse, has been totally missed by her fans......

To help matters I think we need to be clear on which tests are UKS ones and which are other ones she decides to do (even if they are discussed here). However, I do want the other UKS members to consider pulling the plug on a formal test due to recent attempts to twist the truth (intentionally or otherwise). The UKS people will make their own mind up and may decide to go for it anyway - which is fair enough.

I have tested psychics for 20years and have some experience on this. I can tell you this is not the best way to start.

[Admin]

Well it does seem any attempt at a formal test of psychicsarah would be a rather futile exercise as she has little or no idea about what formal testing involves and shows no real intention of participating anyway.

Let's leave it in the capable hands of Jocky and see if he can get Sarah to make a claim that is testable and if so, we'll take it from there.

[Matt]

Fair enough (I did wonder) - but you quoted me and it was not clear to whom you were directing the comments - but thanks for clearing that one up O0

No problems. Clarity: a noble but elusive quarry.

Fair points. I would point out that I have been giving her the benefit of the doubt for weeks - but I am not sure there really are that many other ways to interpret the claims she makes that she was specific in the precise draw - we both know that is not true - fact. It was one of many factual inaccuracies - how many 'benefits' do we have to give?
If she can acknowledge the truth and make a public statement clarifying her mistakes and appologising for them, that would be enough for me.

My only concern is that, in actual fact, it seems that everyone wants to test her. I am concerned that this is going to confuse her more, that it is simply not fair for multiple testing and I could see confusion on the horizon. So - I am actually protecting her from being bombarded by people saying (more or less) "do my test". I think a more co-ordinated approach is needed (just my opinion of course :smiley:).
Fair enough, I've contacted Jocky by PM. If I he's still interested in testing her I'm willing to contribute to developing a protocol but will do so only with his agreemnt and under his direction.

I have tested psychics for 20years and have some experience on this. I can tell you this is not the best way to start.
I'm happy to defer to your greater experience and once again sorry for my contribution to any confusion.

[Matt]

Either way, well said Matt! A precise, clear and polite response as usual!

Why thank you. I do try.

[Matt]

I've duplicated Sarah's success. Look on the Sky message boards and you'll see that in response to their challenge I successfully predicted matching lottery numbers and scored a win on the UK national lottery Wednesday evening draw. What's more the time of the draw was exactly specified.

https://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView1.aspx?ThreadId=1243&Category=UK%20News (https://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView1.aspx?ThreadId=1243&Category=UK%20News)

Ahem... OK so that's not quite how it happened but if you'd didn't have the inclination to check into it then it'd be far more convincing than it deserved to be.

[brianp]

I've duplicated Sarah's success.

Congratulations! Can we now call you psychicmatt. ;D

[vbloke]

I've duplicated Sarah's success. Look on the Sky message boards and you'll see that in response to their challenge I successfully predicted matching lottery numbers and scored a win on the UK national lottery Wednesday evening draw. What's more the time of the draw was exactly specified.

https://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView1.aspx?ThreadId=1243&Category=UK%20News

Ahem... OK so that's not quite how it happened but if you'd didn't have the inclination to check into it then it'd be far more convincing than it deserved to be.You did better than she did by far.

She had been saying the same numbers since early June without specifying which date or draw they would turn up on - you were far more specific in your prediction.

[psychicsarah]

John...

you have deleted my other example of having predicted lotto numbers in the press which came up 3 out of 6 in the next Irish Draw...(Sunday People by J P)

Am I being censored now? this thread is about lotto predictions right...???

[vbloke]

John...

you have deleted my other example of having predicted lotto numbers in the press which came up 3 out of 6 in the next Irish Draw...(Sunday People by J P)

Am I being censored now? this thread is about lotto predictions right...???No, it's because you're posting the exact same thing in multiple threads when you could post it once and link to it instead.

It's called spamming and is considered rude.

[psychicsarah]

You keep asking re Lotto numbers here is another example of a public challenge I did re Lotto numbers ...article from a Sunday Newspapers...(re getting 3 numbers out of the draw to come NEXT after the prediction)


Quote re lotto numbers

I TOLD YOU WHO THE POPSTARS WOULD BE… NOW HERE ARE MY LUCKY LOTTO NUMBERS
By Tom Prendeville

The psychic who shot to fame after picking all six Irish ‘Popstars’ had another premonition – and predicted all six winning numbers in the LOTTO

But Sarah Delamere Hurding could kick herself – for she didn’t get a ticket for herself.

She told us: “On October 27th last I correctly picked the winning lotto numbers – I had all of them – but I didn’t get to the shop to buy a ticket.

“Naturally I was disappointed, but having said that, I know I can do it again.”

And Sarah’s spontaneous flashes of psychic insight are not limited to good luck – she’s also known to predict disaster.

Most recently she warned show-biz guru Louis Walsh not to get inot a lift. After sceptical Louis and his new hand-picked band didn’t heed her advice, they all spent the next half-hour stuck several floors up in the Guinness Brewery on their way up to the Gravity Bar.

Meanwhile Sarah walked up 10 flights of stairs before she heard about what she already knew would happen.

“I had a premonition,” she told Irish Sunday People.

“I wasn’t surprised when I learned afterwards that the band got stuck.”

Sarah walked up ten flights of stairs before she heard about what she already knew would happen.

The revelation comes after Ireland was amazed by Sarah’s 9,000-to-one shot of predicting the identities of the successful Popstars selected to create the band named Six.

She had picked the names for RTE, written them down and the list was sealed away in a bank vault.

Then, when the band was picked, Sarah’s list showed she had been right all along.

The psychic is currently writing a doctorate for a PhD in philosophy in UCD but came to live in Ireland form her native Essex eight years ago.

Psychic from an early age, she is the daughter of a top British medical doctor.

A devout Christian, she believes that her unique gift of prophecy comes directly from ‘the man above’.

Sarah works as a counsellor and healer.

Wary of fortune-tellers, she hopes that her recent appearances on television don’t lead to an upsurge in people visiting psychics.

“They tend to tap into people’s thoughts which I don’t agree with.”

We decided to pick Sarah’s brains this week about any future events she could predict – and she quickly told us that Bertie was a safe bet to win the election.

But the glamorous clairvoyant also warns that the country should brace itself for 12 months of ‘belt tightening’.

“There are some hard times ahead – it would seem that the Celtic Tiger is going into hibernation for a while.”

Although psychic predictions are generally taken with a pinch of salt, Sarah has confounded even the most hardened of cynics with her unnerving accuracy.

The Popstars judges, who were not aware of Sarah’s choices, were visibly shaken on the final episode of Popstars when the envelope was opened and its contents revealed.

In trying to explain her unique gift, Sarah says the phenomenon manifests itself in the form of ‘angel-like guides’ who pass on information to her telepathically.

Top RTE radio jock Tony Fenton, who recently invited Sarah onto his show, was ‘gobsmacked’ when a live stunt he tried to pull spectacularly backfired.

The dogged radio presenter who refused to believe Sarah had any clairvoyant abilities, challenged her –live on air – to name the next record he intended to play.

When Sarah thought about it for a few seconds she correctly answered with U2’s Beautiful Day. The stunned DJ’s phone lines were later jammed by hundreds of Irish callers convinced it was a fix.

“I haven’t listened to his radio show before. Tony Fenton is a bit of an old cynic – he tried to catch me out but he was totally floored when I told him the correct record,” laughed Sarah.

[vbloke]

Sarah, do you not even understand a polite request to stop spamming the boards with identical posts? Even after it's been explained to you?

[tolman]

"The psychic who shot to fame after picking all six Irish ‘Popstars’ had another premonition – and predicted all six winning numbers in the LOTTO

But Sarah Delamere Hurding could kick herself – for she didn’t get a ticket for herself.

She told us: “On October 27th last I correctly picked the winning lotto numbers – I had all of them – but I didn’t get to the shop to buy a ticket.

“Naturally I was disappointed, but having said that, I know I can do it again.”
I'll believe in any paper that takes "She told us..." as evidence.

[psychicsarah]

this post above is NOT anywhere else on this site....it relates to the lotto numbers thing which is why it is on this thread

(no spamming...but thanks for telling me what that is!...the threads were getting confused...not my fault)



The paper can verify that I did this and that the numbers came up...I was asked by Matt earlier to give other examples....

the evidence is in print (and again would be a phonecall away)

I still have the articles somewhere (one with the numbers and above article in it and the next week with the follow up)

Probably from Matt's point of view it doesn't still beat any odds of chance?

Does it Matt???

3 numbers out of six in the next draw??? (which is what the prediction was for)

[vbloke]

so you deny that your post is a word-for-word copy of this one?
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15465&postcount=485


I TOLD YOU WHO THE POPSTARS WOULD BE… NOW HERE ARE MY LUCKY LOTTO NUMBERS
By Tom Prendeville

...snip...

“I haven’t listened to his radio show before. Tony Fenton is a bit of an old cynic – he tried to catch me out but he was totally floored when I told him the correct record,” laughed Sarah.

[psychicsarah]

I edited the other thread I thought...sori will check....

it' is just the Maddeline bits on that post....and the lotto number bits are in here....(edited now)

[Matt]

The paper can verify that I did this and that the numbers came up...I was asked by Matt earlier to give other examples....

Ahem... Sarah,

I can't remember asking your this and as previously discussed I certainly didn't precipitate your earlier prediction on this forum. You seem to have ignored that request to clarify and appologise so I feel I'm about to be ignored again but could you please tell me where I asked you to give other examples.


The evidence is in print (and again would be a phonecall away)

I still have the articles somewhere (one with the numbers and above article in it and the next week with the follow up)

So just to clarify you have a dated article in which a specific claim was made regarding a specific lottery draw which was printed prior to when that claim came true. Is that correct?

As I had read the article on your website and repeated on both this and the sky message boards numerous times, it seems that you had told Tom Prendeville after the draw was made that you had known the numbers beforehand but had not bought a ticket.

Obvioulsy having the prediction recorded and verified before the draw was made, is vital to discounting certian forms of cheating. If there is a seperate article which records your prediction prior to the event than I'd very much like to see it.

Your help would be much appreciated in this. Do you have the Name of the Sunday newspaper in question: Sunday Mirror, Sunday People? The publication date? Even approximate dates would help.

You might want to add these details when you post the story in future and add them to your website. It's quite common to provide full citations like this and not doing so makes the sceptical mind wonder if you have something to hide.

I'm not accusing you of anything and as even if you hadn't been caught going back and altering your incorrect predictions on the Sky Message Board we would still need this.

https://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView1.aspx?ThreadId=1243&Category=UK%20News&P=104&NumItems=10 (https://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView1.aspx?ThreadId=1243&Category=UK%20News&P=104&NumItems=10)


Probably from Matt's point of view it doesn't still beat any odds of chance?

Does it Matt???

3 numbers out of six in the next draw??? (which is what the prediction was for)

I'd have to read the exact wording of the claim as it was when it was made and then I'd be able to calculate the probability of it coming true by chance alone.

If there was a recorded prediction that you predicted 6 numbers that you specified would be the winning six number selection in a specific draw of a specific lottery then that would be amazing.

[tolman]

Matt,

In one of the spamming posts, there was also mention of a 6-number lottery prediction in a newspaper, of which 3 numbers then came up, but no links to verify the circumstances. It seems pretty clear that Sarah isn't exactly the best person in the world to give concise and accurate descriptions of the totality of the circumstances around her predictions.

Of course, even if such a prediction did happen, I don't know how many predictions she's made that didn't happen, so the evidential value would be rather limited.

[Matt]

Matt,

In one of the spamming posts, there was also mention of a 6-number lottery prediction in a newspaper, of which 3 numbers then came up, but no links to verify the circumstances. It seems pretty clear that Sarah isn't exactly the best person in the world to give concise and accurate descriptions of the totality of the circumstances around her predictions.

It's a little incoherrant which is why I asked for clarification.


Of course, even if such a prediction did happen, I don't know how many predictions she's made that didn't happen, so the evidential value would be rather limited.

If it was a six for six on a 49 ball lottery the odds of sucess are 13.9 million to one. She increases her odds by making addiotn predictions. by making ten predictions she gets a 13.9 million to one.
Even if she'd have made 13.9 thousand predictions that still a thousand to one shot that one of them hits with such precission.

Of course it remains to be seen if the impression she seems to be giving can be verified as the truth.

[tolman]

Matt,
I think your second 13.9 should be 1.39?

From what I've read in the numerous posts, Sarah's claiming to have had a published prediction of 6 numbers, 3 of which came up, but no link as yet to verification of that.

She also quotes from an article in which she claimed to have hit 6 out of 6, but seemingly the only evidence for that prediction actually having happened is in her own memory.

[Matt]

Matt,
I think your second 13.9 should be 1.39?


Really doesn't 13.9 thousand multipled by 1 thousand make 13.9 million?

[tolman]

I was thinking, 10 predictions -> 1.39 million.

[Matt]

I was thinking, 10 predictions -> 1.39 million.
D'Oh.

Didn't even spot it once you'd pointed it out to me. I'll go back and correct it.

Edit - no I won't - edit button's expired.

[psychicsarah]

QUOTE from sky

For those who were asking about Lotto numbers...the dates which link to the article above were

Feb 3rd 2002...the Sunday Paper asked me for numbers for the following weds draw...

(The Sunday People)

These numbers were NOT predicted at any point in advance for any other purpose

they were 11 14 19 24 32 26

and three of them came up in the weds draw ie) 3 out of 6 ...which was written about on Feb 10th the following sunday (Not a Lotto with psychics forecast)

re the recent stunt of UK skeptics...

This was NOT a stunt ...again I was asked for numbers and I called 9 11 and 19

at 12 29 ...they hit in the specfied draw at 12 50 (20 mins later)

I repeat it did not fit the skeptics protocol...but it DID happen (evidence on their site)


Back to Maddeleine (and Joanna)....we are going to search the site again properly...(with or without police help)

[psychicsarah]

Tolmon..I knew you were going to ask this...(must be psychic)

I haven't made ANY prediction re numbers in the papers or publically that has NOT come up

They ALL have

re the 9 11 and 19...I haven't predicted them since June as such because I always knew that 19 20 and 21 had to hit first...so that narrows the time frame....besides these will keep repeating as an investment if you like (plus 2 other combinations of 4 that I do)


Sori Matt

I did not mean to annoy you re the prediction on here...I am only saying what happened and not meaning to discredit the skeptic need for protocol..I absolutely DO understand that (And I make that clear when/if I make reference to it)

I am working on the MAddeline thing now...

but will get back to you I always said I can't do anything yet...

[tolman]

re the 9 11 and 19...I haven't predicted them since June as such because I always knew that 19 20 and 21 had to hit first...so that narrows the time frame....besides these will keep repeating as an investment if you like (plus 2 other combinations of 4 that I do)
So you predicted numbers in public knowing that they *couldn't* come up until after some other combination?
Did you say that at the time?
Someone could get mightily cheesed off if they bet on numbers coming up 'soon' and later on found out you reckoned they were worthless until other numbers had come up.

[tolman]

This was NOT a stunt ...again I was asked for numbers and I called 9 11 and 19

at 12 29 ...they hit in the specfied draw at 12 50 (20 mins later)
Sarah,
Can't you just once give a less slanted description and admit you didn't make any prediction at all about when the numbers would come up?

Everyone knows you didn't predict the exact draw, but the way you keep writing about the events makes it sound like you've really managed to convince yourself that you did, which is more than a little disturbing.

[tolman]

Feb 3rd 2002...the Sunday Paper asked me for numbers for the following weds draw...

(The Sunday People)

These numbers were NOT predicted at any point in advance for any other purpose

they were 11 14 19 24 32 26

and three of them came up in the weds draw ie) 3 out of 6 ...which was written about on Feb 10th the following sunday (Not a Lotto with psychics forecast)

Did they ask you to do any repeat performances? I'd have thought it'd be quite a publicity coup if they could get a whole series of predictions which worked out.

[tolman]

For those who were asking about Lotto numbers...the dates which link to the article above were

Feb 3rd 2002...the Sunday Paper asked me for numbers for the following weds draw...

(The Sunday People)

These numbers were NOT predicted at any point in advance for any other purpose

they were 11 14 19 24 32 26

and three of them came up in the weds draw ie) 3 out of 6 ...which was written about on Feb 10th the following sunday (Not a Lotto with psychics forecast)


Sarah,
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you and the Irish Skeptics.
They say ( http://www.irishskeptics.net/?cat=1&paged=9 )

Paul drew attention to three activities which Ms. Hurding engaged in. The first involved a prediction she made in the Irish Sunday People of February 10th 2002. She predicted that six numbers provided by her would come up within the following two months. She (and the newspaper) were highly impressed when three of these numbers came up the following day.

Did you predict the numbers for a particular single draw, or for a two month period?

I'm also a bit confused as to the timing. Is it the case that your predictions were printed on Sunday the 3rd, came up on the the Wednesday, and the success was written about on the following Sunday?

Note that I'm definitely not saying it's not impressive and interesting that 3 came up straight away, just that if they were predictions for a longer term, you presumably wouldn't have counted it a failure if they hadn't come up immediately.

[psychicsarah]

I deliberately did not take up the Irish skeptics challenge for very specific reasons

Re the newspaper challlenge...

the numbers 11 24 and 36 came up in the weds draw on 6th Feb 2002

which was the next draw after publication and this is the draw the prediction was for

As I mentioned....I have done a few challenges like this in public and you can never do it enough times to convince skeptics....

JOckey agreed with me on that point


Also I realised even if I did do a numbers challenge and passed in your eyes...

You STILL wouldn't conclude there is such a thing as psychic ability cos I am just ONE person...

You would then require 10 people to do the same thing...

or perhaps 1000 people...

or 10 thousand people

or a million

You catch my drift???


:smiley:

[Admin]

Also I realised even if I did do a numbers challenge and passed in your eyes...

You STILL wouldn't conclude there is such a thing as psychic ability cos I am just ONE person

The beauty of a lottery prediction test is that it would be entirely statistical and no subjective interpretation would be required at all.

So if you managed to outperform chance expectation of predicting lottery numbers then solid, empirical data would be there.

Such evidence would be there for everyone to see - not just skeptics; and any skeptic who argued against your success would simply look like a fool.

A lottery prediction test would be an extremely robust test of psychic ability and as it's something you claim to be able to do, again, people (believers as well as non-believers) will be asking themselves why you don't do it.

[tolman]

the numbers 11 24 and 36 came up in the weds draw on 6th Feb 2002

which was the next draw after publication and this is the draw the prediction was for

Sarah,
To avoid any possible confusion, I take it you're saying that you predicted numbers for one specific instance of a draw, namely the following Wednesday's draw of a particular lottery, and not for a 2 month period?
In other words, the Irish Skeptics' description was not accurate?


Also I realised even if I did do a numbers challenge and passed in your eyes...

You STILL wouldn't conclude there is such a thing as psychic ability cos I am just ONE person...

You would then require 10 people to do the same thing...

or perhaps 1000 people...

or 10 thousand people

or a million

You catch my drift
A cynic might look at that and conclude you could be trying to say you're not prepared to take a proper test, not because you think you might fail, but because success wouldn't make everyone believe in other people being psychic.

Passing a real test of ability to predict lottery numbers over and over again would at the very least demonstrate you had some inexplicable skill to anyone who had confidence in the test procedure.

It wouldn't, for example, prove that that ability was at all widespread. Indeed, it would seem fairly likely that there aren't huge numbers of people out there good at predicting lottery numbers, unless they either choose not to bet, or are careful to cover their tracks. If some people kept winning even smaller prizes of a few hundred or a few thousand, it would likely get flagged up and investigations would start.

Being able to consistently predict lottery numbers wouldn't necessarily demonstrate you could consistently find missing people (the real test of that would be to consistently find them), since it's not obvious that there's some well-defined set of skills called 'psychic', and someone with one skill must posess all the rest.
Really, you could only contemplate making that kind of list after finding people with special skills and working out what they could and couldn't do.

Nevertheless, success in a real test (which would be easy if you regularly get 3 or 4 numbers right per single draw of a given lottery) would get you a lot of attention. If you were 80-90% successful in your predictions in general, such as missing persons, I'd have thought it very likely you'd quickly get a reputation for at least 'making good predictions' in those areas as well.

In any case, to you, it obviously wouldn't matter whether anyone actually thought you were psychic, or maybe just the world's jammiest guesser, since all you want to do is help.
If people listened to you, it wouldn't really matter why they listened.

[Julia]

I think we can safely say that Sarah will not take part in a properly-designed test. She has a history of approaching sceptical organisations, trumpeting her wondrous powers and then chickening out, as Irish Sceptics discovered in November 2003:

Psychic Sarah refuses to take Charity Challenge! (http://www.irishskeptics.net/?p=37)
Sarah Delamere Hurding has refused to take up our Charity Challenge. Sarah’s refusal is puzzling insofar as it was Sarah who came to us, challenging us to explain her ability to pick 3/4 lotto numbers out of seven “in every single lotto draw".
http://www.irishskeptics.net/?s=sarah+delamere+hurding&searchsubmit=Search

[Jocky]

I have done a few challenges like this in public and you can never do it enough times to convince skeptics....

JOckey agreed with me on that point

You what ???

If you wish to cite me in support of something you say, please provide a reference to the specific post I made which you are interpreting in this way. You can do this by locating the post, clicking the post number, and then copying the resulting URL into a new post.

You had better be able to provide a reference to support this claim ... and I seriously doubt that you can. The reason you do not convince skeptics is not because they are inherently unconvincable - it is because you have yet to provide evidence of a decent quality. I have gone out of my way to explain to you how you could address this issue.

Do not twist my words, or you will have one cross Scotsman on your case ... >:-)

[psychicsarah]

JOckey

I said earlier that if I did the lotto test a million times it would be not enough to convince skeptics of psychic abbility...it was just before you invited me to email you privately...it was the reason/moment you invited me to email about a proper protocol

I am not twisitng your words....(the other skeptics on here are the artists who lift things out of context and twist words.)

I am just remembering what was written....

So you are all saying that lotto numbers would be enough to convince you of psychic ability????

And the fact I am just one person does not matter?

[Jocky]

JOckey

I said earlier that if I did the lotto test a million times it would be not enough to convince skeptics of psychic abbility...it was just before you invited me to email you privately...it was the reason/moment you invited me to email about a proper protocol

[snip]

So you are all saying that lotto numbers would be enough to convince you of psychic ability????

And the fact I am just one person does not matter?

The lotto test could potentially provide a meaningful way of testing your ability - but only if conducted in accordance with a formal protocol which has been agreed in advance by all concerned.

Simply posting vague claims in threads and then retrofitting them to reality will not do.

If you wish to disuss the details of such a protocol, please do contact me.

[tolman]

I said earlier that if I did the lotto test a million times it would be not enough to convince skeptics of psychic abbility
Did you?
I thought you questioned whether if a million people could be shown to consistently predict lottery numbers, it would convince 'us' of the existence of psychic ability.

It's pretty clear that passing a sufficiently well-controlled test that you could repeatedly predict lottery numbers would be likely to convince many people that you could predict lottery numbers.
As you must already understand, people's consequent trust in other abilities you might claim could depend how similar those abilities would be to predicting lottery numbers - at a simplistic level, they'd be more likely to think you could predict winning racehorses than that you had the power to stop the earth rotating.

Nevertheless, even if people had different ideas on the likely bounds of your abilities, on the crime-solving issue, many people might reasonably think that if you had consistently demonstrated lottery skill way incomprehensibly beyond the bounds of even exceptional luck, maybe it would be worth investing some time and money in following up your suggestions.
If you made suggestions that couldn't be dismissed as educated guesses (like a missing child being highly likely to be dead), and which yielded useful results, you might well develop a reputation for being useful at solving crimes.
In that case, it wouldn't actually matter if everyone thought you had a psychic skill for doing that, or if some thought you were just a natural profiler, or they had some other explanation for what you could do - if it could be shown that you were useful, you'd be allowed or encouraged to help more and more in future cases, which is all you wish to do.

You'd have to acknowledge that demonstrating a consistent lottery skill would undoubtedly end up with more people believing you had either specific abilities, or some whole suite of psychic abilities.
It would also clearly make you more likely to be listened to in the areas where you claim to be able to help. Whether every sceptic was convinced wouldn't matter. The point would be that passing a meaningful test would almost certainly increase your credibility, and assist your desire to be able to help.

I am not twisitng your words....(the other skeptics on here are the artists who lift things out of context and twist words.)

I am just remembering what was written....
Maybe remembering isn't always as good as looking.

[tolman]

Sarah,
To avoid any possible confusion, could you answer a simple and clear yes/no question.

Are you saying that for the Sunday paper draw you mentioned above, you predicted numbers, saying in advance that they were for one specific instance of a draw, namely the following Wednesday's draw of a particular lottery, and not for a 2 month period of that lottery?

[Jocky]

Sarah,
To avoid any possible confusion, could you answer a simple and clear yes/no question.

Are you saying that for the Sunday paper draw you mentioned above, you predicted numbers, saying in advance that they were for one specific instance of a draw, namely the following Wednesday's draw of a particular lottery, and not for a 2 month period of that lottery?

FYI Sarah, the sort of question Tolman asks here is exactly the kind of thing we need to agree in order to establish a sound protocol.

[psychicsarah]

Tolmon YES

The paper asked me for 6 numbers for the next draw...in Sunday People edition Sun 3rd feb 2001

and 3 came up 11 24 and 36 on weds 6th Feb 2001...the date of the next draw

You could verfiy this with the paper if you can be bothered... ...or I have the articles still

That is the truth of it anyhow

[Matt]

Tolmon YES

The paper asked me for 6 numbers for the next draw...in Sunday People edition Sun 3rd feb 2001

and 3 came up 11 24 and 36 on weds 6th Feb 2001...the date of the next draw

You could verfiy this with the paper if you can be bothered... ...or I have the articles still

That is the truth of it anyhow

Actually Sarah I have had a chance to review the original articles on highbeam.com

You a prediction solely for a specific draw was not specified

I can confirm that the versions of your website are sufficiently accurate. We have two separate predictions. The first unverified prediction getting all six numbers on the Irish Lottery the second verfied prediction of six numbers which would be "good for two months" suceeded in getting a Match 3 win for the very next draw.

February 3rd 2002 Irish Sunday People
http://www.sarahdelamerehurding.com/six7.html
"I told you who the Popstars would be... Now here are my lucky Lotto numbers; IRISH PSYCHIC SARAH'S PREDICTIONS COULD BE TICKET TO RICHES." by Tom Prendeville



THE psychic who shot to fame after picking all six Irish 'Popstars' had another premonition - and predicted all six winning numbers in the LOTTO.
But Sarah Delamere Harding could kick herself - for she didn't get a ticket for herself.
She told us: "On October 22 last I correctly picked the winning lotto numbers - I had all of them - but I didn't get to the shop to buy a ticket.
"Naturally I was disappointed, but having said that, I know I can do it again."


It appears that the credulous Mr Prendeville has neither demanded nor received any further evidence than your memory of the event.

Since you seem to remember me asking for lottery predictions prior to your making them I must question your memory. Since you continued to assert this after the evidence to the contrary had been presented we should also question your devotion to the truth. It appear Jocky has similar reservations about mispreresentations you've made regarding PMs

Could you have been mistaken in thinking you'd got all six numbers. Did you wirite them down for your own benefit? And once again I'm sorry to have to suggest this but could you have just been embelishing a story or even out and out lying to the journalist.

If the prediction was not independantly recorded prior to the event then I'm sorry but the prediction whilst perhaps worthy of a feature in a tabloid publication is useless to us.

Missing from the end of the article you present on your website but included with in the original publication is your second prediction.



LUCKY NUMBERS
NOW it's your chance to see what Sarah can do for readers of the Irish Sunday People.
We asked her to pick six lotto numbers she feels are going to show up in one selection soon.
She told us of six she feels will appear together but thinks that these numbers are good for the next two months.
"Obviously I can't guarantee them," she told us. "But they are good numbers."
It's up to you now - you might win or you might lose. Here they are:
11, 14, 19, 24, 32, 36
Good luck - and don't forget your pals at the Irish Sunday People if you strike it lucky!


OK so lets make a few observations. Lotto is vaguely specified. One suspects that, at a push, sucess in the 49s draw or a draw in another nation might be heralded but we will go with the reasonable assumption that we're talking solely about the Wednesday and Saturday Irish Lotto. For the benefit of others here's the drill.

Draws take place on Wednesday and Saturday. Currently on each of these days three draws take place but during the period we're interesed in they were only doing two draws at a time.

For each draw 6 main numbers and a bonus are selected from a pool of 45.

Gamblers can make a variety of bets specifiy whether they are applied to the six number draw or the seven, whether they apply to just the main draw or both.

Anyway one week later
http://www.sarahdelamerehurding.com/lotto.html


Then in our exclusive story last week we asked Sarah to have a go at picking six Lotto numbers.
And amazingly in the very next Irish draw, three of those numbers came up!
Sarah had told us she felt that 11, 14, 19, 24, 32 and 36 would appear in a Lotto draw inside the next two months.
Of course no one can guarantee which numbers will come up and neither we nor she can make any promises - but Sarah was half way there.
In Wednesday's draw, the numbers 11, 24 and 36 were drawn.


NB. We have reverifiaction that the prediction was made to cover a period of two months. Reading the fulla rticle we see that the paper encourages to continue to bet on these numbers.

So in addition to the unverified and therefore useless claim of getting six for six we have a verified and potentially useful claim of matching 3 out of the six number predicted to come up.

We can verify that the prediction was made and examine the previous lottery results for the two months it was intended to cover to see how accurate it was by comparing it to the expected number of sucesses by chance alone

Here's the results



Results for Wednesday 3 April 2002
Main Draw 18 23 24 33 36 42 34
2nd Draw 7 27 29 32 35 36 28
Results for Saturday 30 March 2002
Main Draw 4 15 17 27 29 32 33
2nd Draw 3 10 23 24 28 35 37
Results for Wednesday 27 March 2002
Main Draw 4 10 26 27 32 38 8
2nd Draw 2 8 15 18 35 38 13
Results for Saturday 23 March 2002
Main Draw 5 10 26 27 32 35 28
2nd Draw 5 9 25 26 27 35 31
Results for Wednesday 20 March 2002
Main Draw 4 8 13 18 26 40 1
2nd Draw 2 7 12 32 39 42 38
Results for Saturday 16 March 2002
Main Draw 1 7 23 29 38 40 18
2nd Draw 9 12 15 19 20 33 23
Results for Wednesday 13 March 2002
Main Draw 13 14 22 24 34 38 6
2nd Draw 11 17 18 23 25 40 6
Results for Saturday 9 March 2002
Main Draw 4 10 14 22 24 42 2
2nd Draw 5 6 20 24 27 40 9
Results for Wednesday 6 March 2002
Main Draw 2 4 14 33 40 42 29
2nd Draw 1 3 9 12 23 25 39
Results for Saturday 2 March 2002
Main Draw 11 16 17 28 33 40 12
2nd Draw 7 9 12 21 28 34 6
Results for Wednesday 27 February 2002
Main Draw 2 8 9 15 32 39 13
2nd Draw 1 4 12 14 23 32 10
Results for Saturday 23 February 2002
Main Draw 1 7 13 24 32 34 17
2nd Draw 1 10 29 32 37 38 9
Results for Wednesday 20 February 2002
Main Draw 4 15 20 30 38 42 13
2nd Draw 3 10 25 26 36 37 39
Results for Saturday 16 February 2002
Main Draw 2 29 32 40 41 42 20
2nd Draw 2 5 18 19 29 37 34
Results for Wednesday 13 February 2002
Main Draw 8 10 20 21 30 42 7
2nd Draw 2 7 8 23 25 42 18
Results for Saturday 9 February 2002
Main Draw 13 21 29 32 35 36 20
2nd Draw 1 18 27 37 41 42 34
Results for Wednesday 6 February 2002
Main Draw 1 11 17 24 36 38 20
2nd Draw 7 10 13 18 31 40 23


All Draws all 7 balls
11 came up 3 times out of 34
14 came up 4 times out of 34
19 came up 2 times out of 34
24 came up 7 times out of 34
32 came up 11 times out of 34
36 came up 5 times out of 34
An average of five and a third appearances each
All these would be expected to come up an average of 5.29 times each

Match 3 1/34 vs 1.20 expected
Match 2 7/34 vs 6.32 expected
Match 1 15/34 vs 14.33 expected
Match 0 11/34 vs 11.26 expected

All Draws first six balls
11 came up 3 times out of 34
14 came up 4 times out of 34
19 came up 2 times out of 34
24 came up 7 times out of 34
32 came up 11 times out of 34
36 came up 5 times out of 34
An average of five and third appearances each
All these would be expected to come up an average of 4.53 times each

Match 3 1/34 vs 0.75 expected
Match 2 7/34 vs 5.03 expected
Match 1 15/34 vs 14.08 expected
Match 0 11/34 vs 13.3 expected

Main Draw only all 7 balls
11 came up 2 times out of 17
14 came up 3 times out of 17
19 came up 0 times out of 17
24 came up 5 times out of 17
32 came up 7 times out of 17
36 came up 3 times out of 17
An average of three and a third appearances each
All these would be expected to come up an avergage of 2.64 times each

Match 3 1/17 vs 0.60/17 expected
Match 2 5/17 vs 3.16/17 expected
Match 1 7/17 vs 7.16/17 expected
Match 0 4/17 vs 5.63/17 expected

Main Draw only first six balls
11 came up 2 times out of 17
14 came up 3 times out of 17
19 came up 0 times out of 17
24 came up 5 times out of 17
32 came up 7 times out of 17
36 came up 3 times out of 17
An average of three and a third appearances each
All these would be expected to come up an avergage of 2.27 times each

Match 3 1/17 vs 0.37/17 expected
Match 2 5/17 vs 2.52/17 expected
Match 1 7/17 vs 7.04/17 expected
Match 0 4/17 vs 6.65/17 expected

Taking into account all the draws that the prediction could reasonably be expected to cover you performed around average for a random selction of numbers. Focusing on your sucess and retrofitting the prediction to just the main 6 numebr draw your prediction had one sucess which was above the rate expected by chance alone but not by enough to set alrm bells ringing. however to do this we not that 19 performed particularly badly - far below the rate expect by chance alone getting exactly zero hits.

The most suprising thing about these numbers is that none of them appeared as a bonus ball. Bets on these numbers in the 6 number and 7 number draws would have had an equal number of wins in this period.

Pretending that the prediction was made specifically and soley for the next draw is silly when the evidence otherwise is in print and even duplicated on your own website!

[tolman]

Post deleted
Was basically just saying the same as Matt above.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I didn't think much of this at the time, I just thought I'd been a bit lucky, but now I'm starting to think I'm psychic.

About 5 months ago, I went onto the national lottery site and decided to play the lottery for a specified draw. I picked six numbers. Four of those numbers appeared in the specified draw and I won £96.

So, I am actually more psychic than Sarah. I made my prediction for a specific draw, and I got more numbers than her.

I've also heard that there are some people who have made predictions with six numbers for a specified draw and all six numbers have come up and they've won millions. I wish I had just a little more psychicness and was as psychic as them! O0

[psychicsarah]

we were not talking about jackpots here .... but triplets!

I was asked by the paper to pick numbers for the next draw...I will find the articles myself later...you could always check with the Journalist that wrote it

It is really unimportant.... in the scheme of things

[Matt]

I was asked by the paper to pick numbers for the next draw...I will find the articles myself later...you could always check with the Journalist that wrote it


I have checked the original articles. You're not telling the whole truth. Your prediction was given as being for two months. Not just specifically the next draw.

[filippo lippi]

You're not telling the whole truth

I think Matt might possibly be the politest man in the world

[Julia]

He's also the most patient! :smiley:

[Ardbeg]

Seconded on both counts!O0

[tolman]

we were not talking about jackpots here .... but triplets!

I was asked by the paper to pick numbers for the next draw...I will find the articles myself later...you could always check with the Journalist that wrote it

It is really unimportant.... in the scheme of things
It's not at all unimportant.
It's further good evidence of your seriously rose-tinted memory, if further evidence were needed.

[psychicsarah]

I have the articles at home.....I will re read them...

The journalist told me to predict for the next draw...do NOt accuse me of lying...

I do not lie

Good bye

[tolman]

I have the articles at home.....I will re read them...

The journalist told me to predict for the next draw...do NOt accuse me of lying...

I do not lie

Good bye
Your description of them on your own website includes what is presumably a quote from the paper:

Then in out exclusive story last week we asked Sarah to have a go at picking six lotto numbers.

And amazingly in the very next Irish draw, three of those numbers came up!

Sarah had told us she felt that 11,14,19,24,32 and 36 would appear in a lotto draw inside the next two months.

Of course no one can guarantee which numbers will come up and neither we nor she can make any promises – but Sarah was half way there.

In Wednesday’s draw, the numbers 11, 24, and 36 were drawn.
That seems like they really didn't think the numbers were for a single day's draw, even if you remember it differently.
I'd have thought if you'd said the numbers were for a single day's draw, and that's what had been printed before they came up, that's what would have been said in the follow-up article.
Even more surely, I'd have thought you wouldn't have put quotes up on your own website which were clearly not telling the correct story, and which made your achievement look much less impressive.

[tolman]

I do not lie

Good bye
I didn't say you lied.
From what you've written elsewhere, it's clear that your memory of what you said in the past isn't reliable. It also seems that when it is unreliable, it's unreliable in your favour, always making your remembered predictions more impressive.
That's what I meant by 'seriously rose tinted memory'. You may be unaware you're doing it, but that doesn't make it any less the case that you are doing it.

[filippo lippi]

I have the articles at home.....I will re read them...

The journalist told me to predict for the next draw...do NOt accuse me of lying...

I do not lie

Good bye


Those bottles of coloured water and oil really work?

[vbloke]

Those bottles of coloured water and oil really work?
There is an Aura Soma shop not too far from where I live - I may pop down there this week and look into what they actually claim it does. I just thought they were some sort of beauty product.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I remember reading about this on Wikipedia ages ago.

It is just complete nonsense with what seems an arbitrary process stuck on top.

It's like aromatherapy without the smells :cheesy:

[The Great Bymble]

Here's the link http://www.aura-soma.net/index.asp?Q=peace_to_all_beings_may_they_be_well_a nd_happy_and_free_from_fear_peace_to_all_beings_ma y_they_be_well_and_happy_and_free_from_fear&BT=0&PT=1&BG=1&PID=2&SID=1&ST=&LID=1
Can't say I find it any different to the usual marketing spiel of any of these 'ancient secrets'.

[Matt]

I have the articles at home.....I will re read them...

The journalist told me to predict for the next draw...do NOt accuse me of lying...

I do not lie

Good bye

You do that, please report back on what you find. You said a few days ago that you'd check the articles again. I'm suprised you hadn't already done so.

I've recently read the original articles on an online news archive site. They told me that the prediction was good for two months. They didn't say it was specifically for the next draw.

Are you accusing me of lying?

Are you accusing the newspaper archive of lying?

Are you accusing Tom Prendeville of lying?

Are you accusing the Irish Sunday Mirror of lying?

[Allo Allo]

It's like aromatherapy without the smells :cheesy:

Ooooh no! They smell wonderful! Don't think you massage with them though......Dunno really - but I was amused at "introducing" used on the website - they've been around for yonks!

[psychicsarah]

the quote re 2 months Matt...was from ME

I re read it...The journalist had asked for numbers for the next draw and I said these would come up in the next 2 months

I didn't know just how good I was at predicting numbers then obviously

[tolman]

the quote re 2 months Matt...was from ME

I re read it...The journalist had asked for numbers for the next draw and I said these would come up in the next 2 months
So, you weren't really predicting numbers for the next draw, as you have repeatedly tried to claim.
Had none of the numbers come up for several weeks, you wouldn't have considered that any kind of failure.

I didn't know just how good I was at predicting numbers then obviously
But you must have already paid a fair amount of attention to lottery predictions, and done quite a few, since at the time you said:

“It doesn’t surprise me at all because I often get three or four numbers,”Which you couldn't really say without some significant history of predictions which you'd paid attention to.

[dllr]

Is there no end to this woman's twisting of the facts?

[psychicsarah]

the three and four out of 7 numbers comment refers to 2003 (made on the Radio Show)

and the above article refers to 2001...if you read properly the FACTS....you will have realised this


:tongue:

[vbloke]

the three and four out of 7 numbers comment refers to 2003 (made on the Radio Show)

and the above article refers to 2001...if you read properly the FACTS....you will have realised this


:tongue:The FACTS, as you aptly put it, are that you made a claim that you could do something, and now, once again, you are attempting to weasel out of, as you have been asked to prove it with hard figures and facts, rather than blind belief.

[Matt]

February 3rd 2002 Irish Sunday People
http://www.sarahdelamerehurding.com/six7.html
<snip>
Anyway one week later
http://www.sarahdelamerehurding.com/lotto.html


These links no longer work as Sarah has revamped her Website. The articles are still to be found here.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070310090808/http://www.sarahdelamerehurding.com/six7.html

and here

http://web.archive.org/web/20051113093626/http://www.sarahdelamerehurding.com/lotto.html

Though for the complete and unexpurgated originals a news cuttings service will give you the full versions without truncation or minor edits.

[psychicsarah]

yawn....:-\

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

yawn....:-\

Yes, this is getting tiresome but as long as you keep posting lies, then people will keep posting the proof you have been telling porkies.

[psychicsarah]

That is nonsense...re the Lotto thing .... I KNOW the lotto test on line does NOT fit skeptical protocol...I don't care about that

What I was saying was that I was NOT retrofitting when I put that prediction on line

The evidence that this happened is on their (your) web site...

It is NOT a lie...I put those numbers up at 12 29 and they came up in the STATED draw at 12 50...

I said they would come up in the Irish 49's draw...it just so happened they came up in the very NEXT draw...20 minutes later.

That is NOT a lie...OKAY???

This event HAPPENED...and anyone who says it didn't is in serious denial....the evidence is there in black and white


Bye bye...:smiley:

[vbloke]

That is nonsense...re the Lotto thing .... I KNOW the lotto test on line does NOT fit skeptical protocol...I don't care about thatThe why did you claim it did and that you'd passed a test that never actually existed?


What I was saying was that I was NOT retrofitting when I put that prediction on line No, you were repeating a line that you had been posting since at least early June - over 2 months earlier.


The evidence that this happened is on their (your) web site...And as Matt explained to you several times, it was statistically possible that those numbers would come up at some point. it's a shame it took over 2 months for them to do so.


It is NOT a lie...I put those numbers up at 12 29 and they came up in the STATED draw at 12 50...You NEVER stated "the next draw". You said
Oh and recently in Ireland I said on the radio that 19 20 and 21 woud hit in the bookies in their 49's draw and if you had 10 euro on it you would win 3k...this happened within a week to 10 days

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!)Another lie, Sarah.


I said they would come up in the Irish 49's draw...it just so happened they came up in the very NEXT draw...20 minutes later. Yes they did, although you mentioned the Irish 49's in regard to another prediction. You statement of 9 11 and 19 were not lottery specific or draw specific.


That is NOT a lie...OKAY???No, but it is a massive bending of the truth, as anyone can easily find out by reading this thread from the beginning.


This event HAPPENED...and anyone who says it didn't is in serious denial....the evidence is there in black and white

Bye bye...:smiley:It did happen, the chances and statistics were explained to you, the fact that you never specified a lottery or draw was also pointed out to you and the fact that this was in no way a test of any sort was also pointed out to you.

You are the one in denial, as you claim that this was a prediction for one draw on a date you specified when that never actually happened and can be easily checked.

[tolman]

That is nonsense...re the Lotto thing .... I KNOW the lotto test on line does NOT fit skeptical protocol...I don't care about that

What I was saying was that I was NOT retrofitting when I put that prediction on line

The evidence that this happened is on their (your) web site...

It is NOT a lie...I put those numbers up at 12 29 and they came up in the STATED draw at 12 50...

I said they would come up in the Irish 49's draw...it just so happened they came up in the very NEXT draw...20 minutes later.

That is NOT a lie...OKAY???

This event HAPPENED...and anyone who says it didn't is in serious denial....the evidence is there in black and white


Bye bye...:smiley:
You repeatedly did your level best when reporting things elsewhere to make it sound as though you'd predicted the specific instance of a draw when the numbers would come up, which you simply didn't do.

It's clear that that's not even a one-off situation, since you also did your best to claim that your newspaper lottery prediction was for a specific instance of a draw, when it wasn't.

You really shot yourself in the foot there, since what you could honestly have presented as two relatively unlikely guesses happening to come up soon after prediction (albeit one of which was a guess you'd been predicting for several weeks) ended up looking like you trying your best to deceive people into thinking they'd been even better predictions.

You also made claims about passing tests, specific people challenging you, etc, which weren't actually necessary, and weren't really true.

Had you been more modest, you could have been scrupulously honest and come out of it looking very much better. Believers could have concluded you probably felt that the numbers were going to come up imminently even if you hadn't actually said that, and skeptics couldn't argue with you stating the facts in an even-handed manner.

[psychicsarah]

What has modesty got to do with it? I am a modest person actually but I am a stickler for justice and hate to see any kind of in justice

Quote

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!)

I regularly choose placed horses....

As I said the most impressive one I think is the DJ who was about to spin a record...

I was sitting at home. He was obviously a complete skeptic and tried to catch me out with the what record am I going to play next line?

(No I had never heard his show before and didn't know him or his play list...anyway it was an OLD record)...

what are the odds on that???


YOU tell me what you think counts as impressive...I don't know about maths and odds etc...all I know is what I pick up intuitively...

8);):cheesy:
Last edited by psychicsarah : 1st August 2007 at 12:32 PM. Reason: spelling
----------------------------------

That is where you are wrong V Bloke...

I DID specify the draw...the 49s Irish draw...you obviously haven't read the event through properly...

I said 9 11 and 19 re the 49's Irish Lotto draw at 12 29 and the numbers hit at 12 50

the record of what I said and did is on here

quote

Oh and recently in Ireland I said on the radio that 19 20 and 21 woud hit in the bookies in their 49's draw and if you had 10 euro on it you would win 3k...this happened within a week to 10 days

(similarly 9 11 and 19 are now cooking up...place your bets!)

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


I am just noticing that the moderator has removed the times and specific dates of posts...(at least the edit still has a time and date to it)

WHY?

That is very devious if you have censored some evidence there John...to save face perhaps?

Why have you removed the dates, times and original post re this matter?

You are guily of a massive deletion there...how hypocritical is that?

Not very scientific AT ALL

I apolgise if there is a simple explanation for this...but it looks like you are in fact guilty of everything you have been accusing me of...

[tolman]

That is where you are wrong V Bloke...

I DID specify the draw...the 49s Irish draw...you obviously haven't read the event through properly...

I said 9 11 and 19 re the 49's Irish Lotto draw at 12 29 and the numbers hit at 12 50

the record of what I said and did is on here
You continually used words like 'the exact draw', 'the specified draw', etc when all you really meant was 'the particular brand of lottery'
You used words seeming calculated to imply you'd said precisely when the numbers would come up, you were in no rush to acknowledge that you'd done that, and you carried on doing it.

You really can't blame people for concluding you were intending to deceive, since your actions were indistinguishable from those of someone intending to deceive.
Given your reporting of the newspaper lottery prediction, it would seem that's par for the course.

[vbloke]

What has modesty got to do with it? I am a modest person actually but I am a stickler for justice and hate to see any kind of in justiceThen you should be ashamed of your claims that you passed a test on here when you didn't.


That is where you are wrong V Bloke...

I DID specify the draw...the 49s Irish draw...you obviously haven't read the event through properly...

I said 9 11 and 19 re the 49's Irish Lotto draw at 12 29 and the numbers hit at 12 50

the record of what I said and did is on hereNo you didn't. you d an anecdote of a time you claim to have predicted numbers and then you repeated a claim that you've been making since at least June 21st. No mention was given for those numbers as to a lottery, a date or a time. To claim otherwise is a barefaced lie.


I am just noticing that the moderator has removed the times and specific dates of posts...(at least the edit still has a time and date to it)

WHY?

That is very devious if you have censored some evidence there John...to save face perhaps?

Why have you removed the dates, times and original post re this matter?

You are guily of a massive deletion there...how hypocritical is that?

Not very scientific AT ALL

I apolgise if there is a simple explanation for this...but it looks like you are in fact guilty of everything you have been accusing me of...The dates and times are still there, Sarah, is this another example of your inability to see things clearly?

[psychicsarah]

Thanks V Bloke...I can't see them though...

I thought it couldnt be possible that they were gone...but they are not there that I can see...on the left I just have number of posts and the month of posting

whereas before I had the date and the time of posting also....why is that?

I said I apologise if this hadn't happened...but the reality is I can no longer see the specfic dates and times

NB

V bloke I didn't say I passed a test on here

I repeatedly have said that I know it didn't pass protocol

I DO say that I wrote up the numbers for a specific draw and that they came up..because this happened

This is all too nit picky and petty...

but glad those numbers and dates still up...

bye bye

[tolman]

What has modesty got to do with it? I am a modest person actually but I am a stickler for justice and hate to see any kind of in justice
If all you'd said was
"I predicted some numbers that I'd been predicting as hot for a while, and they came up in the draw follwing my prediction"
no-one could have criticised you.

Instead, you followed a line which seemed likely to mislead, in order to make your predictions, and hence you, look better.
Given that that seems to be a common way for you deal with your past predictions, it's hard for anyone to conclude that your lottery behaviour is merely an unfortunate use of language on your part.


I am just noticing that the moderator has removed the times and specific dates of posts...(at least the edit still has a time and date to it)

WHY?

That is very devious if you have censored some evidence there John...to save face perhaps?

Why have you removed the dates, times and original post re this matter?

You are guily of a massive deletion there...how hypocritical is that?

Not very scientific AT ALL

I apolgise if there is a simple explanation for this...but it looks like you are in fact guilty of everything you have been accusing me of...
Examples, please.
I don't see any missing dates from looking at various posts.

[tolman]

No you didn't. you d an anecdote of a time you claim to have predicted numbers and then you repeated a claim that you've been making since at least June 21st. No mention was given for those numbers as to a lottery, a date or a time. To claim otherwise is a barefaced lie.
Vbloke,
I'd reckon there was at least a very strong impression of the brand of draw Sarah was referring to.
However, to infer that from previous posts would also to be infer a longish timescale for the predictions.

[vbloke]

Thanks V Bloke...I can't see them though...

I thought it couldnt be possible that they were gone...but they are not there that I can see...on the left I just have number of posts and the month of posting

whereas before I had the date and the time of posting also....why is that?

I said I apologise if this hadn't happened...but the reality is I can no longer see the specfic dates and timesThey are there. Apology accepted though.


NB

V bloke I didn't say I passed a test on here

I repeatedly have said that I know it didn't pass protocol

I DO say that I wrote up the numbers for a specific draw and that they came up..because this happened

This is all too nit picky and petty...

but glad those numbers and dates still up...

bye byeThen you deny saying this on the Sky forums then

Posted by sarahmystic 13 August 07 13:37

(I did an online demonstration re the lotto numbers for the UK Skeptics...because they were raising the same issues as you are....the numbers I predicted came up 20 minutes later in the exact draw I predicted them for...ie the Irish bookies 49 s draw)...the evidence is there on their web site if you care to look..under Sarah's lotto numbers thread....(I did this about 2 weeks ago now for them)
https://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView1.aspx?ThreadId=1243&Category=UK%20News&P=87&NumItems=10

[vbloke]

Vbloke,
I'd reckon there was at least a very strong impression of the brand of draw Sarah was referring to.
However, to infer that from previous posts would also to be infer a longish timescale for the predictions.The 49's was mentioned in the prior anecdote, but no mentionof a specific lottery was made for the numbers she then presented.

Being generous, you could say that they too were for the 49's as well, but even so, without a date and time, the prediction is still worthless.

[psychicsarah]

I said very clearly these were for the 49 s draw as well you know

I just did not say they were for the next draw...but I did invite you to place your bets and said they were HOT numbers...

The fact they came up 20 minutes later bears this out...

I am not disagreeing with you on the matter of protocol

I am leaving this matter now...it is way too nit picky

[Matt]

NB

V bloke I didn't say I passed a test on here


On the Sky Message Boards page 91

https://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView1.aspx?ThreadId=1243&Category=UK%20News&P=91&NumItems=10

You said


You have the evidence in front of you on your own web site that I did this....Matt set me an online test which was to predict Lotto numbers that were going to hit...

This I did at 12.29 mentioning the Draw concerned which was the 49's draw done by the bookies in Ireland

This was not true. I had not set you a test at the time you mentioned those numbers as "cooking up"

When I did subesquently suggest testing I explicitly stated that predictions should be precise.

You were (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=14724&postcount=60) corrected (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=15322&postcount=121) repeatedly (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=15331&postcount=125) on this point even to the point when you acknowldged the correction and promised to check for yourself.


I think Matt that you did actually suggest that Lotto numbers might be a suitable on line test before I put those numbers up...Will check back on the time you made that post...

However, later you were still making the claim that I set you a test that you'd passed. e.g. an nigh on hour later...



I did what Matt asked....

He asked for lotto numbers which came up 20 minutes after they were predicted for a SPECIFIC draw...

Are you saying I did not do this???

The evidence is right there in front of you....we did not agree a formal protocol...but I DID do what he had asked for


Now you're making the claim that you never claimed to that it was a test!

Do you think that repeating your lies so often will convince anybody other than yourself that they're true?

Do you think that we'll get tried of correcting your falsehoods and assessing whether you're being deliberately deceptive or delusional? It's a skeptics forum! It's what we do. Perhaps you'd like to vist a philately forum and see if they get tired of dicussing stamps...?

[vbloke]

Sarah, as per your suggestion, I searched for your "bad back" patient, but I found this thread instead.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54031313

Sarah, you're still claiming that you passed a test set by UK Skeptics. Incredible.

Quote from Uk skeptics

I haven't lied about ANYTHING....at all actually....

re LOTTO...

Dr B and Matt asked me to put up Lotto numebrs on line and they came up 20 mintues later


I DID do that demonstration on line re the lotto...the numbers 9 11 and 19 came up 20 minutes later in the draw I mentioned...(Irish 49 s draw)

I KNOW it doesn't fit skeptic protocol..but the reality is that DID happen...you have the evidence for that on here (UK web site)Even after it has been pointed out to you many, many times that this is not what happened, you still continue to post about it. This post happened TODAY - you cannot deny that you have been told and the situation has been patiently explained to you many times by various posters here. to continue to expound such misinformation is a barefaced lie.

You have, once again, wilfully and deliberately lied about the lottery prediction.

[Julia]

This thread could run for ever. We are dealing with a person who has constructed her own reality and simply rejects information that threatens to disperse the fluffy pink clouds of Fantasyland.

[psychicsarah]

(J) U....LI....A


;)

NOT true Julia...

Why don't you just wait and see and be scientific about it rather than jump on me...?

It ain't going to work...sorry...

best wishes

over and out

[random thoughts]

nice to see that not so psychic sarah is still multiple posting - the one above can be read on bad psychics as well as her other post here. And she's still posting on the sky news site which despite appearances to the contrary is still going http://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView.aspx?ThreadId=1243&page=149 only now her dog may have solved it ::)

[psychicsarah]

Just making a point (as others have done in several places too by following me around the internet to make their points) ..

just returning the favour in the best possible spirit...

My wording is slightly different anyhow...

Goodbye....

I will let you know when I hit the Jackpot!!!

[vbloke]

Sarah, even over on Sky, you've lost just about every one of your supporters and your claims are being questioned every time you post on there.

You have now made it abundantly clear that you're an opportunistic fraud with a selective memory of your own posts - the true record (undeletable by yourself) is on this forum for all to see and it has been linked to from Sky several times.

Why not just end this debacle before you really lose all respect from everyone?

You have cynically manipulated a tragic event for your own personal satisfaction, showing that you have no scruples and will stop at nothing to twist the disappearance of a child to further your own career. It is a despicable act borne from a narcissistic fantasy-prone personality.

[fruitfly]

Just making a point (as others have done in several places too by following me around the internet to make their points) ..

Reminds me of Peter Cook as Greta Garbo, going around shouting through a megaphone, “Leave me alone! Why can't you people leave me alone?”

[psychicsarah]

Whatever...8)

[Dr B]

This thread should be closed

[Dr B]

Hello all

You may have noticed some ‘admin muscle’ being flexed on the two threads surrounding the delusions of one “not-so-psychic-psychic claimant”. It is my current personal view that those threads have run their course and have nothing left to offer either those involved in them, or those following the debate. Unlike the magical world of the Woo-Forum – we do not edit or remove posts – but leave the debate, in its entirety for all to see. We do not like to stifle debate – but encourage it. However, successful debate between adults can only proceed if all parties, at the very least, remain honest in their reporting of demonstrable facts. It is interesting to see some posters only contributing to the threads that are about themselves!

If you think I have been harsh then send me a PM and I will consider ‘releasing’ this beast of a thread back on you all…..

Finally, I would like to thank all the rational people in this thread that have tried, with great patience and fairness, to represent the facts correctly. I think the readers and lurkers to this forum will benefit greatly from it. Special thanks, to all for services above and beyond the call of rational duty.