Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize?
Mirage
I was wondering if anyone else has seen Miroslaw Magola on tv and what you
thought of him. He claims to be able to stick foreign objects to his bare
skin. (a mug or plate sticking to his bare chest or forehead, etc. There
are pictures on his webpage at: http://users.aol.com/mmagola/MMagola.htm)
If Magola is real, and if there are other psychics like remote viewers out
there who can do what they claim, why haven't they gotten James Randi's 1.1
million dollar prize?
Winning the money would go a long way to getting some serious mainstream
scientific attention.
I would like to believe but am confused...
-Mirage.
Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB
Mirage <mira...@SPAMbayside.net> wrote in article
<MPG.f248b46b...@news.bc.rogers.wave.ca>...
> If Magola is real, and if there are other psychics like remote viewers
out
> there who can do what they claim, why haven't they gotten James Randi's
1.1
> million dollar prize?
The problem it seems is that skeptics want evidence without epistemology.
They are using a rather-outdated form of scientific rationalism as the one
and only method of investigation, all the while ignoring the complexities
of dealing with a conscious, adult human subject.
Let me give you an example: I accidently cross-posted to sci.skeptic
(something I won't do again!) and brought down the wrath of PZ Myers and
Blair Hutchinson.
Blair asked me why, if I had these purported psi abilities, why didn't I
just take the Randi challenge and win the money?
I tried to give him an answer, which I will repeat here with a full
explanation:
My main ability, clairvoyant perception of the human aura, wouldn't
interest Randi. No matter what information I read from my subject, he could
always claim that I was doing a cold reading. So that's out.
Randi seems particularly interested in *remote viewing*, most likely
because it can be tested for using strict traditional experimental methods.
However, I take it he hasn't accepted Darryl Bem's outstanding research on
the subject, since Randi hasn't awarded the money to Dr. Bem. Here's a
useful URL:
http://macnet007.psy.uva.nl/resedu/pn/res/ANOMALOUSCOGNITION/bhabstract.html
I can do remote viewing, as a matter of fact it happens daily--but, I am
*sure* that I could do reliably only under adverse, and even physically
dangerous conditions. Hostility makes it work better, but when I told Blair
that I wasn't interested in anything less than being chased by armed (live
rounds, 9mm preferred) felons through an unlit Gothic house in the bayou of
Louisiana in the middle of the night, Blair decided my claims were
specious.
I was trying to make a point about such an ability. If it exists, it is
most likely an evolutionary enhancement of the primitive sense of danger
that all mammals and birds have in their right parietal lobes. The thing
that makes animals flee an earthquake zone, just before the quake hits.
All placental mammals and birds exhibit REM sleep. However, not all REM
sleep manifests itself in the form of problem-solving dreams that the
dreamer remembers upon awakening. In fact 95% of dreams aren't remembered.
My contention is that remote veiwing is to the right-parietal lobe's
awareness of danger what dreams are to REM sleep: a case of evolutionary
fine tuning.
Hope that gives you something to go on...
br. kurt, CyberDragon.
Vood...@webtv.net
In article <01bd2036$67b85b60$3076a58e@research>,
"Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB" <stp...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Mirage <mira...@SPAMbayside.net> wrote in article
> <MPG.f248b46b...@news.bc.rogers.wave.ca>...
> > If Magola is real, and if there are other psychics like remote viewers
> out
> > there who can do what they claim, why haven't they gotten James Randi's
> 1.1
> > million dollar prize?
>
> The problem it seems is that skeptics want evidence without epistemology.
> They are using a rather-outdated form of scientific rationalism as the one
> and only method of investigation, all the while ignoring the complexities
> of dealing with a conscious, adult human subject.
It would be nice if our resident skeptics gave an outline of what exactly
it is that they would like to see demonstrated, and how one would go
about "passing" these tests. However, if I may refer to the "test" that
Randi gave to the faith healer Peter Popov....Peter claimed that he could
hear god telling himm the illnesses of people in his revival meetings,
all Randi did was hook up a few microphones and busted Popov on the spot
when members of his organization were caught feeding him information
about people in the audience. Randi put a stop to Popov's greed and
fraud, Br. Kurt, I ask you, who was the real servant of the Lord in this
scenerio? As far as I can tell, Randi was doing what Jesus would have
done, he overturned the table of the greedy in god's house.
> Let me give you an example: I accidently cross-posted to sci.skeptic
> (something I won't do again!) and brought down the wrath of PZ Myers and
> Blair Hutchinson.
>
> Blair asked me why, if I had these purported psi abilities, why didn't I
> just take the Randi challenge and win the money?
>
> I tried to give him an answer, which I will repeat here with a full
> explanation:
>
> My main ability, clairvoyant perception of the human aura, wouldn't
> interest Randi. No matter what information I read from my subject, he could
> always claim that I was doing a cold reading. So that's out.
Really, I don't think Randi is as interested in the spiritual techniques
that we practice in the privacy of our homes...I think what he's really
interested in is seeking out those who look to make profits from claims
that they cannot prove. On the other hand, I also think that more people
would be interested in taking his challenge if they would fee that they
could in a non- hostile environment, threats of making people into public
fools because they fail the test surely affects the delicate abilities
being tested. There are some people who just can't take tests without
becoming frightened. When I was in college we had a special support
program for those who had fear of tests. You know what I think? I think
after looking over Randi's website and speaking with our resident
skeptics, that Randi REALLY DOES want to see someone win that prize! I
think Randi wants to believe! My only critisism of Randy, is that he
would make the testing under more friendly conditions, ie if the person
being tested is not out for profits, such as peter popov, that there
should be no threat of "exposure". However, as far as i am concerned,
Randi does a great job of making people who profit from these things
answer for what they are dooing. This is his real function. As a
spiritual person who believes in the paranormal and spiritual miracles, I
think people like Randi are dooing some of the greatest spiritual work of
all, exposing fraud and greed.
> Randi seems particularly interested in *remote viewing*, most likely
> because it can be tested for using strict traditional experimental methods.
> However, I take it he hasn't accepted Darryl Bem's outstanding research on
> the subject, since Randi hasn't awarded the money to Dr. Bem. Here's a
> useful URL:
>
> http://macnet007.psy.uva.nl/resedu/pn/res/ANOMALOUSCOGNITION/bhabstract.html
>
> I can do remote viewing, as a matter of fact it happens daily--but, I am
> *sure* that I could do reliably only under adverse, and even physically
> dangerous conditions. Hostility makes it work better, but when I told Blair
> that I wasn't interested in anything less than being chased by armed (live
> rounds, 9mm preferred) felons through an unlit Gothic house in the bayou of
> Louisiana in the middle of the night, Blair decided my claims were
> specious.
Again, I don't think the skeptics are that interested in the spiritual
techniques we practice in the privacy of our homes. I think they have a
very real concern, as doo I, about the nature of things that are marketed
to the public.I have no problem explaining to anyone what I believe, or
what I have seen or experienced, if they choose not to believe it, so
what? It doesn't affect my spiritual talents if someone doesn't believe
in them! I am confident in what I have because it's not for sale!
> I was trying to make a point about such an ability. If it exists, it is
> most likely an evolutionary enhancement of the primitive sense of danger
> that all mammals and birds have in their right parietal lobes. The thing
> that makes animals flee an earthquake zone, just before the quake hits.
>
> All placental mammals and birds exhibit REM sleep. However, not all REM
> sleep manifests itself in the form of problem-solving dreams that the
> dreamer remembers upon awakening. In fact 95% of dreams aren't remembered.
> My contention is that remote veiwing is to the right-parietal lobe's
> awareness of danger what dreams are to REM sleep: a case of evolutionary
> fine tuning.
>
> Hope that gives you something to go on...
>
> br. kurt, CyberDragon.
Br. Kurt, I tend to feel the same way about these abilities, that they
are "leftovers" of such a time in human evolution when it was absolutely
necessary to have them for survival. We all have these abilities, its
just a matter of whether or not we choose to develop them. Randi and
other skeptics are not in the business of telling us what part of
ourselves to develop or not to develop, their business is to look into
for profit claims and the public has the right to know the truth.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bojangles
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:12:20 -0600, Vood...@webtv.net wrote:
>In article <01bd2036$67b85b60$3076a58e@research>,
> "Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB" <stp...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> The problem it seems is that skeptics want evidence without epistemology.
>> They are using a rather-outdated form of scientific rationalism as the one
>> and only method of investigation, all the while ignoring the complexities
>> of dealing with a conscious, adult human subject.
>
>It would be nice if our resident skeptics gave an outline of what exactly
>it is that they would like to see demonstrated, and how one would go
>about "passing" these tests.
Looosey, Randi AND the person being tested lay out the protocols
beforehand, and decide what would be considered a 'hit'.
>. You know what I think? I think
>after looking over Randi's website and speaking with our resident
>skeptics, that Randi REALLY DOES want to see someone win that prize! I
>think Randi wants to believe!
Absolutely, what the 'true believers' fail to mention is that
Randi started out fascinated with the 'paranormal', it's just that the
claims of 'abilities' he came across looked hoaxable, that's what
started his 'debunking'.
> My only critisism of Randy, is that he
>would make the testing under more friendly conditions, ie if the person
>being tested is not out for profits, such as peter popov, that there
>should be no threat of "exposure".
Well, first of all, as far as I remember Popov was before the Randi
challenge, I think he did that one for giggles. Secondly, by having
the ability to 'expose' fakes, he can call them on it if they keep up
the charade.
>Again, I don't think the skeptics are that interested in the spiritual
>techniques we practice in the privacy of our homes. I think they have a
>very real concern, as doo I, about the nature of things that are marketed
>to the public.I have no problem explaining to anyone what I believe, or
>what I have seen or experienced, if they choose not to believe it, so
>what? It doesn't affect my spiritual talents if someone doesn't believe
>in them! I am confident in what I have because it's not for sale!
I agree with this, (example) every time the Discovery channel or
some such airs a show on 'psychic' abilities, there could be children
watching(if they're not watching Beavis and Butthead). Pushing
unsubstantiated belief systems down the throats of the young 'un's is
pretty low.
> Randi and >other skeptics are not in the business of telling us what part of
>ourselves to develop or not to develop, their business is to look into
>for profit claims and the public has the right to know the truth.
I think widely held beliefs of a supernatural origin(example: The
Roswell incident) deserve just as much attention as commercial
services.
'Jangles
Bojangles
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 20:20:08 -0800, mira...@SPAMbayside.net (Mirage)
wrote:
>If Magola is real, and if there are other psychics like remote viewers out
>there who can do what they claim, why haven't they gotten James Randi's 1.1
>million dollar prize?
>
>Winning the money would go a long way to getting some serious mainstream
>scientific attention.
>
>I would like to believe but am confused...
>
>-Mirage.
That makes a few of us. Randi AND the person getting tested
decide on the testing procedures, so charges of 'unfairness' have to
be discarded. Fact is, for all the hot air they blow, not *one* has
been able to pass the 'scientific' gauntlet.
'Jangles
Matt Kriebel
In article <MPG.f248b46b...@news.bc.rogers.wave.ca>,
mira...@SPAMbayside.net (Mirage) wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone else has seen Miroslaw Magola on tv and what you
> thought of him. He claims to be able to stick foreign objects to his bare
> skin. (a mug or plate sticking to his bare chest or forehead, etc. There
> are pictures on his webpage at: http://users.aol.com/mmagola/MMagola.htm)
Human magnets are pretty lame. But they are eligible for the prize as well
as anyone. Fact is, when any analysis was doneof these folks there was
self-delusion or cheating involved. My favorite was when one claimed that
his 'magnetic powers' failed when reaching the 'devil's angle'. Which
happened to coincide with the critical angle for things falling off him.
This 'human magnet nonsense seems to be the paranormalist way of cashing
in on the old 'spoon hanging on your nose' trick most people did as a
child.
--
Matt Kriebel * The Hessian Web Page:
got...@netaxs.com* http://www.netaxs.com/~gothic/Hessian.html
*********************************************************************
The truth is out there, but the speculation is way, *way* out there.
Matt Kriebel
> On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:12:20 -0600, Vood...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > My only critisism of Randy, is that he
> >would make the testing under more friendly conditions, ie if the person
> >being tested is not out for profits, such as peter popov, that there
> >should be no threat of "exposure".
>
> Well, first of all, as far as I remember Popov was before the Randi
> challenge, I think he did that one for giggles.
Popov's exposure had nothig to do with the challenge except to the effect
that Randi offered the challenge to him,and any other faith healer, if
they could provide a documented case of *one* of their claimed healings.
The 'radio games' bit was part of his investigation into the method and
deciets of faith healers.
Phil Harrison
In article <01bd2036$67b85b60$3076a58e@research>, "Br. Kurt Van Kuren
>
>Blair asked me why, if I had these purported psi abilities, why didn't I
>just take the Randi challenge and win the money?
>
>I tried to give him an answer, which I will repeat here with a full
>explanation:
>
>My main ability, clairvoyant perception of the human aura, wouldn't
>interest Randi. No matter what information I read from my subject, he could
>always claim that I was doing a cold reading. So that's out.
I believe that Randi has tested one such claim already. I believe that
he used several partitions so that the subject could not see whether
there was someone behind the partition or not. The height of each
partition was such that it did not cover the extent of the claimed aura.
All the subject had to do was to say which partition had somebody behind
it. I would be interested if you see this as a fair test or not.
>
>Randi seems particularly interested in *remote viewing*, most likely
>because it can be tested for using strict traditional experimental methods.
> However, I take it he hasn't accepted Darryl Bem's outstanding research on
>the subject, since Randi hasn't awarded the money to Dr. Bem. Here's a
>useful URL:
Randi is interested in a lot of subjects from remote viewing to soap
free "laundry globes". With regard to Dr. Bem, has he applied to take
the challenge? A notarized form is required:
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
>
>I can do remote viewing, as a matter of fact it happens daily--but, I am
>*sure* that I could do reliably only under adverse, and even physically
>dangerous conditions. Hostility makes it work better, but when I told Blair
>that I wasn't interested in anything less than being chased by armed (live
>rounds, 9mm preferred) felons through an unlit Gothic house in the bayou of
>Louisiana in the middle of the night, Blair decided my claims were
>specious.
I'm sure that could be arranged :-)
--
Phil Harrison
Vood...@webtv.net
In article <34beb368...@news.wt.net>,
DknB...@juno.com (Bojangles) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:12:20 -0600, Vood...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > "Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB" <stp...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> The problem it seems is that skeptics want evidence without epistemology.
> >> They are using a rather-outdated form of scientific rationalism as the one
> >> and only method of investigation, all the while ignoring the complexities
> >> of dealing with a conscious, adult human subject.
> >
> >It would be nice if our resident skeptics gave an outline of what exactly
> >it is that they would like to see demonstrated, and how one would go
> >about "passing" these tests.
>
> beforehand, and decide what would be considered a 'hit'.
>
> >after looking over Randi's website and speaking with our resident
> >skeptics, that Randi REALLY DOES want to see someone win that prize! I
> >think Randi wants to believe!
>
> Randi started out fascinated with the 'paranormal', it's just that the
> claims of 'abilities' he came across looked hoaxable, that's what
> started his 'debunking'.
>
> >would make the testing under more friendly conditions, ie if the person
> >being tested is not out for profits, such as peter popov, that there
> >should be no threat of "exposure".
>
> the ability to 'expose' fakes, he can call them on it if they keep up
> the charade.
>
> >techniques we practice in the privacy of our homes. I think they have a
> >very real concern, as doo I, about the nature of things that are marketed
> >to the public.I have no problem explaining to anyone what I believe, or
> >what I have seen or experienced, if they choose not to believe it, so
> >what? It doesn't affect my spiritual talents if someone doesn't believe
> >in them! I am confident in what I have because it's not for sale!
>
> some such airs a show on 'psychic' abilities, there could be children
> watching(if they're not watching Beavis and Butthead). Pushing
> unsubstantiated belief systems down the throats of the young 'un's is
> pretty low.
Bo, what's really low is censorship. I agree that TV is a piss poor place
to find the truth, most of the time. It's up to the parents to decide to
turn off the TV if there is something they do not feel is appropriate for
their children.
> > Randi and >other skeptics are not in the business of telling us what part of
> >ourselves to develop or not to develop, their business is to look into
> >for profit claims and the public has the right to know the truth.
>
> I think widely held beliefs of a supernatural origin(example: The
> Roswell incident) deserve just as much attention as commercial
> services.
>
> 'Jangles
The Roswell incident is in fact a very HIGHLY commercialized belief of
supernatural origin, how much money doo you think tabloid tv has made
from the rosewell incident and area 51? There is an entire tourist
industry which is built on roswell and area 51! You will be hard pressed
to find ANY "widely held belief of a supernatural origin" NOT
commercialized. Lřřřsey
Bojangles
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:02:40 -0600, Vood...@webtv.net wrote:
>In article <34beb368...@news.wt.net>,
> DknB...@juno.com (Bojangles) wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:12:20 -0600, Vood...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> I agree with this, (example) every time the Discovery channel or
>> some such airs a show on 'psychic' abilities, there could be children
>> watching(if they're not watching Beavis and Butthead). Pushing
>> unsubstantiated belief systems down the throats of the young 'un's is
>> pretty low.
>
>Bo, what's really low is censorship.
Agreed. I'm not suggesting censorship here Loosey, just a bit of
healthy skepticism. Many of these shows are shown as 'fact', with no
response from the skeptical side(example: Fox's 'Alien Autopsy' which
is widely regarded amongst skeptics *and* UFO believers to be a hoax).
Lots of religious groups use their influence to affect the
media(examples: The Texas Schoolbook incident, Disney boycott).
That's legal and accepted, why can't we skeptics petition the media
from our viewpoint?
>> I think widely held beliefs of a supernatural origin(example: The
>> Roswell incident) deserve just as much attention as commercial
>> services.
>The Roswell incident is in fact a very HIGHLY commercialized belief of
>supernatural origin, how much money doo you think tabloid tv has made
>from the rosewell incident and area 51? There is an entire tourist
>industry which is built on roswell and area 51! You will be hard pressed
>to find ANY "widely held belief of a supernatural origin" NOT
>commercialized. Lřřřsey
True, but how much money would these beliefs glean if thorough
investigation showed them to be frauds? The place to start isn't with
the people selling the books and tapes, it's with their target
audience.
'jangles
Charles Gregory
I suppose it's been long enough I should go find the actual challenge text
and read it again, just in case it has been changed, but last time I
looked it included clauses that amounted to having any person who failed
the challenge issue a public statement that they NEVER had ANY psychic
powers. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that most people with ANY
psychic ability are only going to be right SOME of the time. It is quite
a deterrent to face the serious risk that you might have to claim that
you have been lying or deluded when all you did was fail a test.....
No one has walked into a lab and produced full-scale lightning on demand,
but this doesn't mean that full-scale lightning doesn't exist, or that it
never hits people. Randi does a good job of "nailing" the obvious quacks
and fakes, but the idea that "no one passed his test" somehow invalidates
the experiences of thousands (millions?) of people is not reasonable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
***WARNING*** POSTING ADDRESS IS SPAM FILTERED - Do not use the "freenet"
address to reply. Reply to "cha...@hwcn.org" to have your mail received.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charles Gregory - Hamilton-Wentworth Community Network NewsMaster
E-Mail: cha...@hwcn.org Personal Home Page: http://www.hwcn.org/~ab801
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Opinions expressed are my own, and do NOT represent the opinions or
policies of HWCN, except where those policies are explicitly quoted.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dan Pressnell
Matt Kriebel wrote:
> This 'human magnet nonsense seems to be the paranormalist way of cashing
> in on the old 'spoon hanging on your nose' trick most people did as a
> child.
I wonder if Uri Geller can bend a spoon in his nose.
I would ask him, but he never answers my email.
Dan,
Psychic Investigator
Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:47:34 +0000, Phil Harrison
<phar...@ramtop.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>All the subject had to do was to say which partition had somebody behind
>it. I would be interested if you see this as a fair test or not.
I would consider this a fair test. I was thinking more a situation
like this:
An office building at 5:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. There is a long
hall with twelve rooms on each side. There are three "senders"
randomly assigned to the twelve rooms.
The Alternative Hypothesis: The clairvoyant / remote viewer should be
able to walk down the hall and detect which rooms had a "sender" in
them. I would advise the viewer to run or inline-skate down the hall,
to raise the metabolism and turn off the "left-brain yakker" that will
only get in the way.
By detection I would mean a probability of greater than 1 in 100
likelihood of chance. That should be enough to declare the null
hypothesis invalid. (That is, let's set p=.01)
Either clairvoyance or remote viewing ought to work. What's more, it's
a game of hide and seek that any interested person could try.
And a lot less dangerous than armed felons!
The only caveat I would have is that Darryl Bem has already done more
sophisticated experiments, and received significant results. Why he
hasn't claimed the Randi prize, I haven't a clue.
Br. Kurt, CyberDragon.
Judiliochromis
-=[ ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) wr0Te: ]=-
>I suppose it's been long enough I should go find the actual challenge text
>and read it again, just in case it has been changed, but last time I
>looked it included clauses that amounted to having any person who failed
>the challenge issue a public statement that they NEVER had ANY psychic
>powers. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that most people with ANY
>psychic ability are only going to be right SOME of the time. It is quite
>a deterrent to face the serious risk that you might have to claim that
>you have been lying or deluded when all you did was fail a test.....
>No one has walked into a lab and produced full-scale lightning on demand,
>but this doesn't mean that full-scale lightning doesn't exist, or that it
>never hits people.
You are right.. people dealing with parapsychology know that it costs
enough concentration and rest to percieve something beyond 5 senses.
For example the ganzveld test: static sound, red pale light, relaxing
in a chair etc.. completely shut from reality, with only your mind as
a looker... People with spontanious psi occuring when their loved ones
or himself are under physical danger (I'm not sure, but i thought Br.
Kurt was such a person?) can't do the trick at a specific conscious
time, and especially not before a whole room filled with grining
skeptics with thoughts like "what a kook, just look at those pants!"
>Randi does a good job of "nailing" the obvious quacks
That true!
>and fakes, but the idea that "no one passed his test" somehow invalidates
>the experiences of thousands (millions?) of people is not reasonable.
It depends of the people's (or this this case the skeptics) view of
psychic phenomena. If we read what commercial psychics have to offer:
if you want to have a free reading by Sarah Freder, you can even check
what you want to become in your life like "i want a good job" "i want
to find the lover of my life" or other crap like that.
...And it's ofcourse a matter of believing in it: if you KNOW that
psychic phenomena aren't real, they can't be proved, it isn't possible
to prove them to you personal at all: you simply disbelieve the
evidence..
Moon...@webtv.net
Absolutely bo, both sides should be presented and nothing should be sold
as fact unless there is definitive proof.
Bojangles
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:33:24 GMT, jud...@xs4all.nl (Judiliochromis)
wrote:
>...And it's ofcourse a matter of believing in it: if you KNOW that
>psychic phenomena aren't real, they can't be proved, it isn't possible
>to prove them to you personal at all: you simply disbelieve the
>evidence..
True enough, however, that definition doesn't fit too many
skeptics. I *think* I can speak for most of the skeptics that post
here on A.P. when i say: if ever compelling evidence is presented,
we'll alter our views.
You seem to think our lack of 'faith' in the paranormal is fueled
by a desire to disbelieve. Sorry, that sounds like a red herring to
me. Make a convincing argument and you *will* make converts, till then
it's just so much smoke.
'Jangles
DanKettler
Charles Gregory <ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in article
<69hii8$fcu$3...@mohawk.hwcn.org>...
> [Randi Challenge] included clauses that amounted to having any person who failed
> the challenge issue a public statement that they NEVER had ANY psychic
> powers.
> No one has walked into a lab and produced full-scale lightning on demand,
> but this doesn't mean that full-scale lightning doesn't exist <snip>
>...but the idea that "no one passed his test" somehow invalidates
> the experiences of thousands (millions?) of people is not reasonable.
And, all this is valuable information for people who have just started reading these
newsgroups. However, for a _full_ story, I suggest that people read the
"challenge," at http://www.randi.org, read about the encounter with Ed Dames/James
Randi at:
http://www.psicounsel.com/artbellclub/bdkspage.html
and,
...look for "Randi" as subject in the "search filter" function at:
It may very well be another rash of "randi challenge" posts will appear for about 2
months straight. The thing about them is they are such a waste, since there is
never much new in them. For the newbies, go to DEJANEWS, will you? All the old
posts are there, and there are very, very many of them going back years.
For Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena links, and copies of debate with skeptics:
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
--
E-mail: dan(AT)psicounsel . com - alt.paranormal FAQ - /altparfaq.html
< < < < URL: www . psicounsel . com > > > >
/webmaster - after ".com" - - - - About Newsgroups - /news
Phil Harrison
In article <69hii8$fcu$3...@mohawk.hwcn.org>, Charles Gregory
<ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> writes
>I suppose it's been long enough I should go find the actual challenge text
>and read it again, just in case it has been changed, but last time I
>powers.
The text has changed (see http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html). It now
says the following (in capitals):
12. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION
THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE
THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER.
I think that this is a more reasonable statement than the previous one.
I personally cannot see cause for complaint with this statement.
--
Phil Harrison
Bojangles
On 14 Jan 1998 05:30:48 GMT, ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles
Gregory) wrote:
>I suppose it's been long enough I should go find the actual challenge text
>and read it again, just in case it has been changed, but last time I
>looked it included clauses that amounted to having any person who failed
>the challenge issue a public statement that they NEVER had ANY psychic
>powers.
Actually, I think this was what you are referring to:
EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION
THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT
DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER.
(the above from www.randi.org)
Basically, if the person being tested doesn't perform the agreed task,
he admits that he did not demonstrate it at that *particular* time.
'Jangles
Darwyn Fry
Mirage wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone else has seen Miroslaw Magola on tv and what you
> thought of him. He claims to be able to stick foreign objects to his bare
> skin. (a mug or plate sticking to his bare chest or forehead, etc. There
> are pictures on his webpage at: http://users.aol.com/mmagola/MMagola.htm)
>
> If Magola is real, and if there are other psychics like remote viewers out
> there who can do what they claim, why haven't they gotten James Randi's 1.1
> million dollar prize?
>
> Winning the money would go a long way to getting some serious mainstream
> scientific attention.
>
> I would like to believe but am confused...
>
> -Mirage.
Sticking objects to your skin... now there is a great contribution to the
world. If ever a paranormal power or phenomena is proven, I hope it is more
useful than that.
Darwyn
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch out I have a 'sig' and I know how to use it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of course ALL legitimate scientific discoveries are announced by actors on
TV."
-Penn Jillette
Karl E. Taylor
Vood...@webtv.net wrote:
> The Roswell incident is in fact a very HIGHLY commercialized belief of
> supernatural origin, how much money doo you think tabloid tv has made
> from the rosewell incident and area 51? There is an entire tourist
> industry which is built on roswell and area 51! You will be hard pressed
> to find ANY "widely held belief of a supernatural origin" NOT
> commercialized. Lřřřsey
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
<soap box mode on>
Now that's a square hit right on the head. You've nailed it but good. The whole
para-normal, UFO, Faith Healing, New Age, psudeo-scince trap, is just about money.
Who want's it, and how much people are willing to pay.
And the "true belivers" wonder and rant at why skeptics get so pissed about the
whole mess. It's not like we have any real problems in the world, you know,
pollution, famines, wars, but no, we need to spend our hard earned monies on crap.
Once people realize that we are all just people, not gods. Maybe we can start to
work together to make the world a better place to live.
<soap box mode off>
--
________________________________________________________________________
Karl E. Taylor CEO & UNIX Systems Analyst
Desert Dragon SOHO Solutions kta...@dragon.illusions.com
http://www.illusions.com/ddsoho
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Lao "You know what wisdom is?"
Little boy "No."
Dr. Lao "Wise answer."
If you are not on my list of clients do not attempt to reply. Your mail
will be returned to you UN delivered. Anti-SPAM and anti-mail bomb
measures in place.
Judiliochromis
-=[ DknB...@juno.com (Bojangles) wr0Te: ]=-
>>...And it's ofcourse a matter of believing in it: if you KNOW that
>>psychic phenomena aren't real, they can't be proved, it isn't possible
>>to prove them to you personal at all: you simply disbelieve the
>>evidence..
> True enough, however, that definition doesn't fit too many
>skeptics. I *think* I can speak for most of the skeptics that post
>here on A.P. when i say: if ever compelling evidence is presented,
>we'll alter our views.
My question is: what is compelling evidence? If I show you the results
of a double-blinded perfect succeeded autoganzveld study (=several
experiments, etc), is that compelling evidence. for some yes, other
say no... but if we check out the meta-analysis of 41 studies in a
graph, and we can conclude that the results of 4 of those studies are
lower than permitted, i think that's compelling evidence....
I Recently red a sort of interview with skeptic Susan Blackmore in a
Dutch magazine about wierd things (in each issue, an interesting
person is interviewed, the persons vary from RV'ers, ghost hunters,
scientists and skeptics), and she stated that the recent results of
autoganzveld in Koestler are promising....
> You seem to think our lack of 'faith' in the paranormal is fueled
>by a desire to disbelieve. Sorry, that sounds like a red herring to
>me. Make a convincing argument and you *will* make converts, till then
>it's just so much smoke.
I'm not pointing out to the lack of faith in the paranormal, more to
the strong faith in science, that paranormal phenomena can't be real
at all, so there _must_ be something wrong with the evidence presented
for psi phenomena.
John Mcgowan
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB replied ...
BKVK> From: stp...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca (Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB) Subject:
BKVK> Re: Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize?
BKVK> Organization: St. Peter's College Muenster SK S0K 2Y0 Canada
BKVK> On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:47:34 +0000, Phil Harrison
BKVK> <phar...@ramtop.demon.co.uk> wrote: All the subject had to do was
> to say which partition had somebody behind it. I would be interested
> if you see this as a fair test or not.
BKVK> I would consider this a fair test. I was thinking more a situation
BKVK> like this:
BKVK> An office building at 5:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. There is a long
BKVK> hall with twelve rooms on each side. There are three "senders"
BKVK> randomly assigned to the twelve rooms.
It would be, providing the viewer did see (or was told) where the senders
went. The Preliminaries to any test is just as important to the test.
We also must consider that it would not be fair if Randi paid off the Senders
to move to different rooms after they made contact.
BKVK> The Alternative Hypothesis: The clairvoyant / remote viewer should be
BKVK> able to walk down the hall and detect which rooms had a "sender" in
BKVK> them. I would advise the viewer to run or inline-skate down the hall,
BKVK> to raise the metabolism and turn off the "left-brain yakker" that will
BKVK> only get in the way.
Eh, not as good as the first option, but good never-the-less.
BKVK> By detection I would mean a probability of greater than 1 in 100
BKVK> likelihood of chance. That should be enough to declare the null
BKVK> hypothesis invalid. (That is, let's set p=.01)
BKVK> Either clairvoyance or remote viewing ought to work. What's more, it's
BKVK> a game of hide and seek that any interested person could try.
True, it is the type of fun many of us tried as kids. The trick where you
shuffle and lay a deck of cards face down on a table. Then you sit
concentrating and touching the top card with one or two fingers and try to
envision what the top card is. It passes the time and sometimes the outcome
is suprising.
I never did that well on that though. Sometimes I would see the rank of the
card, other times I would see a suit. Most times I saw nothing. :) I am no
psychic. :)
BKVK> And a lot less dangerous than armed felons!
But armed felons are so much fun, Bro. Kurt. :) And you are right, of
course. That kind of fun can be dangerous to one's health. ;)
BKVK> The only caveat I would have is that Darryl Bem has already done more
BKVK> sophisticated experiments, and received significant results. Why he
BKVK> hasn't claimed the Randi prize, I haven't a clue.
BKVK> Br. Kurt, CyberDragon.
You can not see why? That suprises me. James Randi is one of dubious intent
and Reputation. No true Paranormalist, and very few people not interested in
the subject of the paranormal at all trust him to offer a fair deal.
When I ask most people who do not discuss the paranormal as a rule about
James Randi, I usually get a blank stare. I was shocked once when someone
answered, `He's that Magician Dude who disappeared when I was a kid.' :)
He is not well known, or well liked.
I have taken a collection of data, both pro and con Randi, to show numerous
people. They all came up with the same comment that he sounded like a Fraud
himself. Their reason was why would a Magician throw away his career to pull
a stunt like this. And they have a point, why would a Man throw away a,
supposedly, promising career to create a name for himself in the Psychic
world? Makes no sense what-so-ever.
Asmodeus
--
|Fidonet: John Mcgowan 1:114/314
|Internet: John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
John Mcgowan
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
CG> From: ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) Subject:
CG> Re: Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize?
CG> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
CG> I suppose it's been long enough I should go find the actual challenge
CG> text and read it again, just in case it has been changed, but last time
CG> I looked it included clauses that amounted to having any person who
CG> failed the challenge issue a public statement that they NEVER had ANY
CG> psychic powers.
I answered this in another message, but I uploaded a copy of the Randi
Challenge that I picked up last June or July. A new one would be in order,
but it may suit your needs.
I added my replies for a message back in that time frame, so it is a repost
of that message, but it contained everything that was in the copy of the
challenge I found. Or it better. :)
But yes, you are correct. James Randi did insist on the condition you
stated.
CG> I think it is quite reasonable to assume that most
CG> people with ANY psychic ability are only going to be right SOME of the
CG> time. It is quite a deterrent to face the serious risk that you might
CG> have to claim that you have been lying or deluded when all you did was
CG> fail a test..... No one has walked into a lab and produced
CG> full-scale lightning on demand, but this doesn't mean that full-scale
CG> lightning doesn't exist, or that it never hits people. Randi does
CG> a good job of "nailing" the obvious quacks and fakes, but the idea
CG> that "no one passed his test" somehow invalidates the experiences
CG> of thousands (millions?) of people is not reasonable.
And that is one of my objections. How could anything be 100%, as Randi
claims, without some manipulating of conditions and such? That is a
statistical impossibility.
And I will say that Randi does get some frauds off the streets, but who is to
say they are frauds to begin with? Maybe they had a bad day, maybe their
abilities were not as they boasted, or maybe they were swindled.
There is enough data to show that Randi's tests were flawed through his
manipulation. For example, him telling the one girl that the camera was
not on while she did her test run. True, that specific camera in the room
was off, but he willfully deceived her into thinking she was not being
recorded.
That leads one to believe that he also lied about other things concerning his
tests. Randi's whole testing procedure is suspect, and all his `facts' are
voided as a result.
This summation is only fair, after all, he is the one who is supposed to be
above reproach.
Another reason I state he is suspect is because I have used Brass Dowsing
Rods for surveying for the best part of 16 Years now. I never failed once,
since my initial training. During training I only failed once, my first
time, because I held the rods too tight for them to move freely. But that
was only a trial run in the parking lot and not part of any survey. We were
just goofing off, awaiting for the pick up to come and get us.
In addition, I have shown hundreds, maybe as many as a couple thousand,
people about dowsing for underground utilities. Not one failed in picking up
the moving electrical energy in the ground. Everyone got some response from
the rods. I even showed one person in my apartment and they lighted on every
electric line in the place. Including one in the Ceiling that no one knew
about, not even the management for it was a drafto on the plans and was
omitted. :) They knew a line existed, but thought it came from the back of
the apartment, not the front. :)
So with all this background, plus a little medical/biological background, I
claim that my form of dowsing is scientific, and based on electro-magnetic
energy. I do not argue the dowsing for objects thing for I find that
incredible and see no way for it to be scientific in nature. But that does
not mean that even the finding of coins and artifacts can not be. My end of
it is easy to figure out, moving electrical currents in the ground react on
the muscles in the human body, when the rods are employed as a tool.
If you wish, Charles, be very careful, but make a set of brass rods and go
out when a lightning storm is approaching. Hold the rods as I describe in my
FAQ and then watch the rods damn near yank out of your hands when a lightning
bolt occurs. :) I had this phenomena happen when the storm was still a good
ten mile away. I was up by Nellis AFB and the lightning strike was down by
Blue Diamond Road, aka the Pahrump Highway. :) Any map can give you the
rough distance, of course the map has to be of Nevada. (LOL)
That was enough to tell me it was not wise to `Witch' when lightning was in
the air. :) But the point is the rods reacted very violently and almost
jumped out of my hands. And I am so used to lightning that I do not jump
when it flashes, I usually yell `Kewl!' and run outside to watch the light
show. :)
But yet, Randi had the audacity to blow off my comments with out thought, and
thanks to several people and their input, I found all the data needed to
prove that dowsing is quite possibly due to natural causes and not Paranormal
ones. That data was all uploaded here, about a year ago, as a response to
his mindless reply.
That told me right there he had something to hide, but what? That question
is still being researched and answered by me and numerous other people I ran
across in my searches.
So, at this point, James Randi's work is all for naught, simply because it
can not stand up to real proof. When I find the data to show his work merits
applause, I will give it as freely as I provide data to disprove him. I have
no vendetta towards the man, I just prefer the truth is all. :)
TC
In article <69mmh8$25p$2...@mohawk.hwcn.org>, Charles Gregory says...
> Actually, I just wonder that any advocate of rational thinking can blind
> themselves to the distinct "split" between the common "accidental"
> observer of "Strange phenomena" and the person trying to make money by
> pretending they have "control" over it. The "skeptics" get ME pissed
> because they arrogantly attack those who have a genuine mystery to solve.
>
Could it be that all rational explanations are discounted by the 'true
believers'? "Strange phenomena" are typically just ordinary moments of
perceptual difficulties filled in with imagination. Yet the 'true
believers' and scam artist alike continue to search out the most exotic
of explanations.
I understand this need to believe the extraordinary and have fallen for
it more times than I care to remember.
As a skeptical sort I was out in the back yard one time and saw an
unbelievable site. An amber colored cigar shaped object streaked across
the sky. I also noticed an eery wur wur wur sound. I stood there for at
least 5 minutes with my heart racing and tears welling up in my eyes. I
had finally seen a UFO. They were real.
But then I heard the wur wur wur sound again and noticed that it was the
neighbors TV antenna reflecting light off of a street lamp a block away
and he was just pointing it to another station.
I think that was one of the most valuable lesson of my life.
Charles Gregory
Bojangles (DknB...@juno.com) wrote:
: >...And it's ofcourse a matter of believing in it: if you KNOW that
: >psychic phenomena aren't real, they can't be proved, it isn't possible
: >to prove them to you personal at all: you simply disbelieve the
: >evidence..
: True enough, however, that definition doesn't fit too many
: skeptics. I *think* I can speak for most of the skeptics that post
: here on A.P. when i say: if ever compelling evidence is presented,
: we'll alter our views.
Actually, I think it's a bit stuck up for ANYONE, skeptic or "believer" to
think that they do not choose what evidence to believe. Even your use of
the word "compelling" shows that evidence has to be "good enough" for you.
There are very few absolutes in this world, but it is not an absolute to
deal with the world from your accumulated personal experience and
knowledge. Things which wildly contradict those will NOT be believed
unless the phenomena is personally experienced - possibly by a "trusted"
proxy, but essentially the first-person observation is needed. When we
talk about "evidence" presented by one person to another, for *most*
skeptics the statement at the beginning of this article holds true. Their
disbelief in the conclusion makes the evidence "untrustworthy" 9or, in
your owrds, "not compelling enough").
: You seem to think our lack of 'faith' in the paranormal is fueled
: by a desire to disbelieve. Sorry, that sounds like a red herring to
: me. Make a convincing argument and you *will* make converts, till then
: it's just so much smoke.
Actually, it is the skeptic's desire to believe in what they already know
that fuels their lack of 'faith' in things which contradict that
knowledge. It's a subtle distinction, but important. They aren't out to
try and NOT believe something. That's silly. They are trying to BELIEVE in
something ("science") that makes it necessary for them to deny/dismiss the
things some "believers" consider to be simple observations of "fact".
To make a convincing argument is in fact impossible. We could demonstrate
the phenomena (if we had such control), and actually convince someone
that way, but no amount of "arguing" can erase the doubts. Unless you can
define an argument that you would consider convincing. I would honestly
be interested to know if something I could SAY would "convince" you of the
extraordinary nature of some of the phenomena I've witnessed.
Charles Gregory
Karl E. Taylor (kta...@dragon.illusions.com) wrote:
> The whole para-normal, UFO, Faith Healing, New Age, psudeo-scince trap,
> is just about money. Who want's it, and how much people are willing to
> pay.
While I have no problem with the skeptics (go Randi, go!) taking apart the
many money-mongers who exploit people's superstitions and misgivings,
there is still something unjust about using the word "whole" in the above
statement. There is no financial motive in my wife seeing a bright moving
light off of our front porch with an "incredible" acceleration rate. There
is no profit in saying it couldn't have been a normal aircraft or a
natural phenomenon. The above statement is FALSE. But not "completely"
false. Rather, say "Most of" rather then "The whole".
> And the "true belivers" wonder and rant at why skeptics get so pissed
> about the whole mess.
Actually, I just wonder that any advocate of rational thinking can blind
themselves to the distinct "split" between the common "accidental"
observer of "Strange phenomena" and the person trying to make money by
pretending they have "control" over it. The "skeptics" get ME pissed
because they arrogantly attack those who have a genuine mystery to solve.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charles Gregory
Now lots of people think I'm deluded because I believe that I've
experienced "paranormal" phenomena. The assumption is that I just don't
TRY to consider ordinary explanations. Well, here is an example of how far
I will probe for a "weird" but *normal* explanation before ascribing an
event to the paranormal....
Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB (stp...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: An office building at 5:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. There is a long
: hall with twelve rooms on each side. There are three "senders"
: randomly assigned to the twelve rooms.
: The Alternative Hypothesis: The clairvoyant / remote viewer should be
: able to walk down the hall and detect which rooms had a "sender" in
: them.
Those rooms would have to be sound-proofed and insulated, in order to
eliminate the chance that the senders were being heard or their *heat*
was being detected subliminally.
: By detection I would mean a probability of greater than 1 in 100
: likelihood of chance. That should be enough to declare the null
: hypothesis invalid. (That is, let's set p=.01)
I would insist on a series of "control runs" with 3 people who are NOT
senders in three of those twelve rooms, so that a "difference" could be
determined between "senders" and non-senders. The "psychic" would not be
told the "difference" but would be expected to try their best every time.
This can also be mixed up with telling the psychic that you are doing a
test run with non-senders and actually use the senders to see if the
results are dependant on what the psychic is told.....
: The only caveat I would have is that Darryl Bem has already done more
: sophisticated experiments, and received significant results. Why he
: hasn't claimed the Randi prize, I haven't a clue.
What kind of results? Seems to me that Randi goes for obvious real-world
effects, not for the statistical stuff. He also seems to want a one-to-one
(perfect) performance. No "percentages" or "probabilities". But I can't
judge unless I know *what* Bem has done.....
CHILL RPG
The reason no one has or ever will claim the prize offered by Randi is that he
sets his own rules and is the judge of what those
rules mean. Under Randi's rules one would be hard pressed to offer anything
outside of well established laws of physics. In fact the quark could not be
sufficiently proven under Randi's term.
Also, proof is a subjective term. A more reasonable and intelligent reward
would be for evidence of paranormal activity that withstands scientific
scrunity.
Sincerely,
Michael
CHIL...@aol.com
Karl E. Taylor
Charles Gregory wrote:
> Karl E. Taylor (kta...@dragon.illusions.com) wrote:
> > The whole para-normal, UFO, Faith Healing, New Age, psudeo-scince trap,
> > is just about money. Who want's it, and how much people are willing to
> > pay.
>
> While I have no problem with the skeptics (go Randi, go!) taking apart the
> many money-mongers who exploit people's superstitions and misgivings,
> there is still something unjust about using the word "whole" in the above
> statement. There is no financial motive in my wife seeing a bright moving
> light off of our front porch with an "incredible" acceleration rate. There
> is no profit in saying it couldn't have been a normal aircraft or a
> natural phenomenon. The above statement is FALSE. But not "completely"
> false. Rather, say "Most of" rather then "The whole".
>
While you are correct that the world "whole" may not be acurate in your above
example, it is an unfortunate side-effect that it will end up that way. The
sad truth is, some money grubbing, grant seeking pseudo-science nut will take
what your wife may have seen, blow it so far put of context as to make a
simple observation into fantasy, and then charge money, (in the forms of
books, lectures, etc. etc.), from her statements. And sadly, people will pay
for it. The UFO element is by no means the worst, notice I did mention the
faith healers, but they all come to the same ending justification, money.
> > And the "true belivers" wonder and rant at why skeptics get so pissed
> > about the whole mess.
>
> Actually, I just wonder that any advocate of rational thinking can blind
> themselves to the distinct "split" between the common "accidental"
> observer of "Strange phenomena" and the person trying to make money by
> pretending they have "control" over it. The "skeptics" get ME pissed
> because they arrogantly attack those who have a genuine mystery to solve.
>
An genuine mystery is great. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, a
single skeptic that does not have a streak of Sherlock Holmes in them. I
myself find the hunt for data on an occurance much akin to the hunt for
something/someone lost. Clues, data, witnesses, information, all must be
examined and identified. Any skeptic that just assumes directly that
something is not what it is claimed to be with out looking at both sides of
what it might be, is doing a great injustice to the name "skeptic".
Unfortunatly, many "skeptics" are guilty of flying off the handle at both
people and claims, (myself included BTW). I feel that part of that is due to
the fact that the occurance, (UFO, healing, bigfoot, etc. etc.), has been
actually proven time and again to be explained that some times we just get
tired of saying the same old thing over and over again.
I do whole heartedly agree with your statement however about "pretending to
have control over it". We don't even really have control over our own bodies,
what make the nuts think that they could possibly control anything else.
Science has not been able to explain everything, and will admit to still
examining the evidence. To assume that something is "paranormal", simply
because you don't redily recognize it, does not make it so. Open mindedness
is the ability to look not only at the event, but at anything that could have
caused the event in the first place. Generally speaking of course, the
simplist answers are usually the correct answers.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> ***WARNING*** POSTING ADDRESS IS SPAM FILTERED - Do not use the "freenet"
> address to reply. Reply to "cha...@hwcn.org" to have your mail received.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Charles Gregory - Hamilton-Wentworth Community Network NewsMaster
> E-Mail: cha...@hwcn.org Personal Home Page: http://www.hwcn.org/~ab801
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Opinions expressed are my own, and do NOT represent the opinions or
> policies of HWCN, except where those policies are explicitly quoted.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
While I do admit that some, okay, a large number of, okay, okay, you win,
almost every skeptic has at one time or another gotten angry, or haughty about
an issue, this does not mean that sight has been lost of the issue. It is
apparent that it is human nature to be passionate about a belife or cause.
And unfortunatly that passion tends to cloud ones thinking from time to time.
It is at that point that both the skeptic and the beliver must step back for a
moment, collect their thoughts, and then examine that evidence again. This
time trying to keep personal feelings and belifes out of the investigation.
That is the mark of both a good investigator, and a good skeptic.
Charles Gregory
Darwyn Fry (serv...@foxsystems.com) wrote:
: Sticking objects to your skin... now there is a great contribution to the
: world. If ever a paranormal power or phenomena is proven, I hope it is more
: useful than that.
I don't suppose that anyone ever gets the idea that once we've finished
playing the "convince me" games, these bizarre little anomalies will be
examined and perhaps the underlying SCIENCE will be discovered? Maybe
sticking things to your skin isn't so useful, but if the *principle* is
something like "biomass adherence to metal" using some new force or
property of matter, then there could be a wide variety of uses, if
this force could be artificially created so as to be reliable in function.
Charles Gregory
TC (truth....@usa.net) wrote:
: Could it be that all rational explanations are discounted by the 'true
: believers'? "
Yes. But we must distinguish a rational and *reasonable* discounting from
the frequently implied and often accused "arbitrary and baseless"
discounting that critics automatically assume we have done.
Example - an anecdote (a brief version of a longer, more detailed story):
I open the freezer door, and keeping my right hand on the door handle I
place a container of ice cream in the back corner in one smooth motion -
open, reach, place, removehand, close - as fast as you read that.
I turn to grab the next grocery item to put away and see that it also goes
in the freezer. I open the freezer door, and before I can touch anything,
I observe a large object (a 2litre pop bottle placed in the freezer an
hour earlier) which is directly in front of the container of ice cream.
My first perception is that this placement makes the movements I remember
doing just moments before seem to be "physically impossible".
Rather than just bindly trust this perception, I go to the trouble of of
testing whether there is any way to quickly/smoothly get the ice cream
past the bottle. Not only do I find that I could not have done it quickly,
I find that I cannot even do it slowly without bumping the bottle.
I have a witness who will confirm the speed with which I was putting away
gorceries. She is quite sure that I did not suddenly stop mid-way through
a speedy process and slowly painstakingly squeeze the ice cream past the
bottle. Because of the short-term delay between the observation and having
to deal with it as "anomalous" she even had a clear memory of how I opened
the door and kept one hand on it while putting in the ice cream - this
eliminates the idea that I absent-mindedly used my other hand to move the
pop bottle out of the way then put it back in place.
Now consider the "psychology" of the event. That pop bottle had been in
there longer than it should have been. In actual fact, when I grabbed the
frozen orange juice (the next item after the ice cream) I associated one
frozen drink with the other and remembered that I should have already
removed that bottle. There was even a trace of worry that it might have
frozen. Even if we discredit the accuracy of my witness, we are left with
needing to explain why I could have a strong psychological impulse when
thinking about the bottle, but not have this impulse when observing it
directly (bumping or moving it).
: Strange phenomena" are typically just ordinary moments of
: perceptual difficulties filled in with imagination.
I think your assessment of "typical" is biased. Certainly there are a good
number of cases, particularly with things like "UFO" sightings, where the
observer WANTS to see something "special". But in cases like that box of
ice cream, its unexpected, and quite clear. What "perceptual difficulty"
could strike two people at the same time? To render a "normal" explanation
for the ice cream behind the pop bottle, we would need to
postulate: 1) A complete and non-typical failure to have the
conscious mind perceive the bottle while actually dealing with
its "inconvenient" placement on a subconscious level, then having the
witness observe a hand where there was noe (and reporting this without
being prompted by a leading question - there was no "you saw my hand on
the door?" kind of question).
: Yet the 'true believers' and scam artist alike continue to search out
: the most exotic of explanations.
Frankly, I don't think many of the scam artists even care about
explanations, exotic or otherwise. But those of us who have
observed these events, and more than once, are inclined to not try
to find bizarre mental perturbations that can occur in multiple witnesses
all at the same time, even though the phenomena may seem "unexplainable".
It's better to have no explanation than to chooose one which so obviously
does not fit all the facts.....
: I understand this need to believe the extraordinary and have fallen for
: it more times than I care to remember.
But did you still "fall for it" once you had analyzed? Did you consider
the likelihood of personal delusion and seek out witnesses? And when done
were you left with a shaky feeling that the most likely explanation was
NOT a contrived chain of poor observing and faulty memory?
: As a skeptical sort I was out in the back yard one time and saw an
: unbelievable site. An amber colored cigar shaped object streaked across
: the sky. I also noticed an eery wur wur wur sound. I stood there for at
: least 5 minutes with my heart racing and tears welling up in my eyes. I
: had finally seen a UFO. They were real.
: But then I heard the wur wur wur sound again and noticed that it was the
: neighbors TV antenna reflecting light off of a street lamp a block away
: and he was just pointing it to another station.
: I think that was one of the most valuable lesson of my life.
Here is the next most valuable. My wife saw a light from our front porch
which hovered, then accelerated at such a rate that it moved through more
than a 70 degree arc of sky and vanished over the horizon in less than
five seconds (rough time guess). The subjective perception of acceleration
rate was that it was way too high for any object we could think of. We did
the usual check for street light reflections and atmospheric distortions.
We don't know what it was. Given the rates of movement attributed to the
phenomenon known as "sprites" seen over thunderstorms, I still favor the
notion that there is a unique atmopsheric phenomenon that produces these
amazing lights in the sky. But no matter what theory we choose, there is a
distinct point at which your "flawed" perception that a stationary object
"streaked across the sky" cannot be compared with a tangible 70 degree arc
of motion.
Bojangles
On 16 Jan 1998 04:00:09 GMT, ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles
Gregory) wrote:
>Bojangles (DknB...@juno.com) wrote:
>: >...And it's ofcourse a matter of believing in it: if you KNOW that
>: >psychic phenomena aren't real, they can't be proved, it isn't possible
>: >to prove them to you personal at all: you simply disbelieve the
>: >evidence..
>
>: True enough, however, that definition doesn't fit too many
>: skeptics. I *think* I can speak for most of the skeptics that post
>: here on A.P. when i say: if ever compelling evidence is presented,
>: we'll alter our views.
>
>Actually, I think it's a bit stuck up for ANYONE, skeptic or "believer" to
>think that they do not choose what evidence to believe. Even your use of
>the word "compelling" shows that evidence has to be "good enough" for you.
My usage of the word compelling is meant to separate 'types' of
evidence. For example: If research from rigorous scientific testing
reveals this evidence, I would call that 'compelling', personal
accounts that *cannot* be verified I would not(please notice that
'cannot' is emphasized, a well documented case unexplainable by any
other means I *would* call compelling, however I think in such a case
all other normal means must be exhausted first).
'Jangles
sdasd
Somebody obviously didn't read the Challenge, I suggest you go to
http://www.randi.org
Bojangles
On 16 Jan 1998 13:57:43 GMT, chil...@aol.com (CHILL RPG) wrote:
>The reason no one has or ever will claim the prize offered by Randi is that he
>sets his own rules and is the judge of what those
>rules mean.
From www.randi.org :
1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and the applicant and Mr.
Randi will agree upon, just what powers or abilities will be
demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as
time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will
constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary,
basic, and most important of these rules.
4. Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is
required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance
with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of
any formal testing procedure taking place. No part of the testing
procedure may be changed in any way without the express agreement of
all parties concerned.
BOTH parties make the rules. BOTH parties decide on what a 'hit' will
be.
'Jangles
Mike Combs
TC wrote:
>
> As a skeptical sort I was out in the back yard one time and saw an
> unbelievable site. An amber colored cigar shaped object streaked across
> the sky. I also noticed an eery wur wur wur sound. I stood there for at
> least 5 minutes with my heart racing and tears welling up in my eyes. I
> had finally seen a UFO. They were real.
>
> But then I heard the wur wur wur sound again and noticed that it was the
> neighbors TV antenna reflecting light off of a street lamp a block away
> and he was just pointing it to another station.
>
> I think that was one of the most valuable lesson of my life.
This is a great story. The kind more people need to hear.
Skeptics also have extraordinary experiences. I think the only
difference between a skeptic and a true believer is that the skeptic
keeps investigating, until he finds the true solution. The believer
stops, because he KNOWS what he saw, and need look no farther.
As an example, James Randi himself once had a most vivid out-of-body
experience while sleeping. But being a skeptic, he began checking out
the facts (egs, which bedspread was really on the bed that night, was
the cat really on the bed or was he locked outside, etc.). It was then
that it all began to fall apart, and stood revealed as an odd kind of
hallucination brought on by fatigue, and nothing more. But someone who
believed in OBE's wouldn't have started checking up on the facts the way
he did. Why spoil a great story which you can tell and re-tell for
years?
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just remember, the Borg are people too... well, partly...
Andreas Koslowski
Charles Gregory wrote:
>
> TC (truth....@usa.net) wrote:
>y?
>
> : As a skeptical sort I was out in the back yard one time and saw an
> : unbelievable site. An amber colored cigar shaped object streaked across
> : the sky. I also noticed an eery wur wur wur sound. I stood there for at
> : least 5 minutes with my heart racing and tears welling up in my eyes. I
> : had finally seen a UFO. They were real.
>
> : But then I heard the wur wur wur sound again and noticed that it was the
> : neighbors TV antenna reflecting light off of a street lamp a block away
> : and he was just pointing it to another station.
>
> : I think that was one of the most valuable lesson of my life.
>
> Here is the next most valuable. My wife saw a light from our front porch
> which hovered, then accelerated at such a rate that it moved through more
> than a 70 degree arc of sky and vanished over the horizon in less than
> five seconds (rough time guess). The subjective perception of acceleration
> rate was that it was way too high for any object we could think of. We did
> the usual check for street light reflections and atmospheric distortions.
> We don't know what it was. Given the rates of movement attributed to the
> phenomenon known as "sprites" seen over thunderstorms, I still favor the
> notion that there is a unique atmopsheric phenomenon that produces these
> amazing lights in the sky. But no matter what theory we choose, there is a
> distinct point at which your "flawed" perception that a stationary object
> "streaked across the sky" cannot be compared with a tangible 70 degree arc
> of motion.
One morning when I stepped out of the door I saw a small light in the
sky. At first I hardly noticed it, because it wasn't brighter than the
other stars. But then It became brighter and brighter while accelerating
westward real fast. Then it split up into three green lights that flew
away in slightly different directions and vanished quickly. All this
happened in around 5 seconds.
At first I was breathless, thought I saw an UFO! UFOs are real!! Well
after calming down a little I realized it was only a meteorite that
entered the atmosphere and was accelerated until the heat split it up
into smaller parts from the core which caused the greenish glow from
some element contained therein.
Be skeptic, be cool.
Riftmann
> > : unbelievable site. An amber colored cigar shaped object streaked across
> > : the sky. I also noticed an eery wur wur wur sound. I stood there for at
> > : least 5 minutes with my heart racing and tears welling up in my eyes. I
> > : had finally seen a UFO. They were real.
> >
> > : But then I heard the wur wur wur sound again and noticed that it was the
> > : neighbors TV antenna reflecting light off of a street lamp a block away
> > : and he was just pointing it to another station.
> >
> > : I think that was one of the most valuable lesson of my life.
> >
> > Here is the next most valuable. My wife saw a light from our front porch
> > which hovered, then accelerated at such a rate that it moved through more
> > than a 70 degree arc of sky and vanished over the horizon in less than
> > five seconds (rough time guess). The subjective perception of acceleration
> > rate was that it was way too high for any object we could think of. We did
> > the usual check for street light reflections and atmospheric distortions.
> > We don't know what it was. Given the rates of movement attributed to the
> > phenomenon known as "sprites" seen over thunderstorms, I still favor the
> > notion that there is a unique atmopsheric phenomenon that produces these
> > amazing lights in the sky. But no matter what theory we choose, there is a
> > distinct point at which your "flawed" perception that a stationary object
> > "streaked across the sky" cannot be compared with a tangible 70 degree arc
> > of motion.
>
> sky. At first I hardly noticed it, because it wasn't brighter than the
> other stars. But then It became brighter and brighter while accelerating
> westward real fast. Then it split up into three green lights that flew
> away in slightly different directions and vanished quickly. All this
> happened in around 5 seconds.
>
> At first I was breathless, thought I saw an UFO! UFOs are real!! Well
> after calming down a little I realized it was only a meteorite that
> entered the atmosphere and was accelerated until the heat split it up
> into smaller parts from the core which caused the greenish glow from
> some element contained therein.
>
> Be skeptic, be cool.
I remember reading a 'pro' ufo book in junior high that was blowing
holes in Project Blue Book. They pointed out that some of the
explantions the air force had for these sightings were just plain
silly. One that sticks out in my mind was how they explained one
formation of ufos as the belly's of geese glowing in the streetlights.
I remember agreeing with the book at how silly an explanation this was.
Many years later, one fall about two years ago, I stepped out of a
Wallmart at twilight. I heard a honking, looked up, and could not
believe my eyes. I saw a flock of geese. It was light enough I could
clearly tell they were gesse, but dark enough I could see this eerie
glow on their bellies.
It was an amazing sight and reminded me we live in an weird enough world
without having to resort to 'aliens' as an explanation.
Dominion
Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchangenospam2ti> wrote:
>As an example, James Randi himself once had a most vivid out-of-body
>experience while sleeping. But being a skeptic, he began checking out
>the facts (egs, which bedspread was really on the bed that night, was
>the cat really on the bed or was he locked outside, etc.). It was then
>that it all began to fall apart, and stood revealed as an odd kind of
>hallucination brought on by fatigue, and nothing more. But someone who
>believed in OBE's wouldn't have started checking up on the facts the way
>he did. Why spoil a great story which you can tell and re-tell for
>years?
Here is one of my own.
When I was nineteen and just before I was leaving for college, I broke
up with a girlfriend. I was pretty depressed about the whole thing
(ahh to be young again) and stayed that way for about six months.
I had been in school about three of those months when I got this phone
call at three o'clock in the morning. It was my mom, she had had this
horrible dream in which I had picked up a gun and blown my brains out.
She said that the sound of the gun was so real it woke her up. She was
convinced that something horrible had happened to me. I assured her
that all was well and hung up the phone. But I could help thinking
about it. I WAS very depressed at the time. What if I HAD killed
myself? My mother would have been less one son, but she would have had
a really cool psychic story to tell. Even if I had been involved in a
car crash or fallen off a building it would have counted as a partial
success. It reminds me of the many people I have talked to over the
years that tell me of the dreams they had of their terminally ill
family members dying at the exact moment they were in fact dying. It
does not seem to help (nor win me any friends) when I explain that it
is the most natural thing in the world to have such dreams when you
are feeling stress about someone.
Dominion
I am not clever enough to have a sig file!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip>
>I have taken a collection of data<snip>
Ah, more of that wonderful Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm)?
It doesn't matter what the data show, John will alter it to
what ever he wants to.
Trouble is, he forgets he alters it and then changes it so
it disagrees with what he claimed earlier.
John tried claiming that the number of people who backed you
was important and that his cult leader was way ahead in the
votes:
>I have seen more people post that are pro Earl than against Earl.
Message-Id: <23a_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
He made this claim several times, and in good
Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm) fashion, he didn't provide any
evidence.
>That tells me in the Curley vs. Twitch popularity race, Earl is far out in
>front of Twitch on votes.
Message-Id: <10b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
So, I and several others made a count of the articles that
were pro and anti. Earl was so far behind it was pitiful!
Only John, Ron, and Earl's sock puppets were for Earl.
So, John, in true inconsistency, changed his argument!
>Numbers mean little, show me one case in history where the majority was right.
Message-Id: <1a9_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
John then brags about how consistent he is!
>I (John Mcgowan) remain consistant, I never swayed on a topic here,
>although some undocumented claims have stated so.
Message-Id: <693_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Show me where I changed my position once.
Message-Id: <030_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
Charles Gregory
John Mcgowan (John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com) wrote:
: We also must consider that it would not be fair if Randi paid off the Senders
: to move to different rooms after they made contact.
If the intent were to have the "final" rooms correctly identified, then
this would reduce the chance that some sort of "cheating" was done prior
to the test. Or were you suggesting that the senders might collaborate
with Randi to falsify a result? OR wre you just being sarcastic about the
usual thought process of the skeptic who denies a positive result?
: True, it is the type of fun many of us tried as kids. The trick where you
: shuffle and lay a deck of cards face down on a table.
In one of those "difficult to repeat" categories, I occasionally
demonstrate a talent for shuffling a deck and then cutting all four aces
out of the deck. I still recall the time in university I performed this
"trick" four times in a row, reshuffling the deck after each batch of
four....
After that I couldn't do the trick again for a long time. Before someone
argues about coincidences, I note for the record that in all my failed
attempts to perform this trick I never got four of any other kind of card.
If the level of repetition was due to coincidence, wouldn't I have seen at
least ONE instance of cutting four fives from the deck? I might be lucky
enough to get four of *something*, but why always aces? My only "mundane"
thought is that perhaps the manufacture of card decks makes the aces
physically distinctive in some way?
Charles Gregory
John Mcgowan (John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com) wrote:
: Another reason I state he is suspect is because I have used Brass Dowsing
: Rods for surveying for the best part of 16 Years now. I never failed once,
: since my initial training.
Frankly, John, while I can't claim THAT sort of success rate, I have
actually managed to "coax" my abilities into operating when I needed them,
more than a few times. But the failures outnumber the successes, so I
usually adopt the line of argument that people should not claim
control, etc, etc. But knowing what I do, it is NOT "incredible" to have
someone perform a simple function like dowsing for an electric field and
do so on a consistent and reliable basis.
It sounds like you *could* pass Randi's test. You make references to
conversations and exchanges. Why haven't you ever gotten to actually
challenging him, or having your challenge accepted, whatever the case
might be?
: So with all this background, plus a little medical/biological background, I
: claim that my form of dowsing is scientific, and based on electro-magnetic
: energy.
Well, I'm sure some skeptic will try to play with that sloppy wording,
but it really is clear that you mean that the process is physical and
"non-mystical" and therefore CAN be known when our science advances far
enough. Whether it is "based" in electromagnetic energy or not, it
clearly responds to it.
: If you wish, Charles, be very careful, but make a set of brass rods.....
Is brass a material of choice? Any idea why?
: So, at this point, James Randi's work is all for naught, simply because it
: can not stand up to real proof. When I find the data to show his work merits
: applause, I will give it as freely as I provide data to disprove him. I have
: no vendetta towards the man, I just prefer the truth is all. :)
Nicely put. I hope one day we can establish an unshakable "beachead" of
solid data that "orthodox" scientists will not be able to brush aside.
THEN we'll really make some progress in udnerstanding these wonders....
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
Charles Gregory wrote:
<Snip rest of story about cutting out four aces.>
> I might be lucky
> enough to get four of *something*, but why always aces? My only "mundane"
> thought is that perhaps the manufacture of card decks makes the aces
> physically distinctive in some way?
Actually, there is an explanation for this. Especially true with new
decks, but holds somewhat true with older decks as well. I'll quote this
from _The Amatuer Magicians Handbook_ by Henry Hay.
"...rough and smooth principle. If you put a new pack on the table, lean
on it hard, and twist it will often break at an ace, because the aces,
carrying less ink than the other cards, are not so sticky. With a deck
not so new, you can often break at the same card (not necessarily an
ace) several times running."
Hope that helps.
<snip sig.>
--
Sir Dr. Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh, Bsd
True/False Prophet and Fearless Leader
SKEP-TI-CULT® Worldwide Cabal
CULT® HQ -- http://www.skepticult.org/cult
Affiliates -- http://www.skepticult.org
pro...@skepticult.org
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
Riftmann wrote:
<snip>
> Many years later, one fall about two years ago, I stepped out of a
> Wallmart at twilight. I heard a honking, looked up, and could not
> believe my eyes. I saw a flock of geese. It was light enough I could
> clearly tell they were gesse, but dark enough I could see this eerie
> glow on their bellies.
Yes, if you've ever been goose hunting and seen a flock of 10,000 snow
geese circling for a landing you'd see how they could be mistaken for
something else. You can only see them against the sky when their bellies
are facing you, so they appear to be moving at high rates of speed in
outrageous directions, when in fact they are just slowly circling.
Luckily, my shotgun shells do in fact travel at high rates of speed, a
fact that is not lost on the geese.
<snip>
Raymot
In article <34BFAB...@nospam.comchangenospam2ti>,
mike...@nospam.comchangenospam2ti says...
>Skeptics also have extraordinary experiences. I think the only
>difference between a skeptic and a true believer is that the skeptic
>keeps investigating, until he finds the true solution. The believer
>stops, because he KNOWS what he saw, and need look no farther.
[...]
That's a good point, and it can also be applied to "skeptics"
The true skeptic keeps investigating until he finds the true
solution. The true non-believer stops looking because he
KNOWS that his understanding of physics doesn't allow
for the phenomenon. It becomes irrelevant for him whether
a reported phenomenon has occurred or not, because he
KNOWS that it can't.
Raymot
=======
Brisbane, Australia
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Ronald Bobo
Andreas Koslowski wrote in message <34BFE201...@kiel.netsurf.de>...
>One morning when I stepped out of the door I saw a small light in the
>sky. At first I hardly noticed it, because it wasn't brighter than the
>other stars. But then It became brighter and brighter while accelerating
>westward real fast. Then it split up into three green lights that flew
>away in slightly different directions and vanished quickly. All this
>happened in around 5 seconds.
>
>At first I was breathless, thought I saw an UFO! UFOs are real!! Well
>after calming down a little I realized it was only a meteorite that
>entered the atmosphere and was accelerated until the heat split it up
>into smaller parts from the core which caused the greenish glow from
>some element contained therein.
You "realized" this? Did you confirm your "realization?" If not, it
remains only anecdotal evidence, no better or worse than reports of UFOs.
Ron
John Mcgowan
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed
the prize? on Charles Gregory replied ...
CG> From: ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) Subject:
CG> Re: Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize?
CG> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
CG> Now lots of people think I'm deluded because I believe that I've
CG> experienced "paranormal" phenomena. The assumption is that I just
CG> don't TRY to consider ordinary explanations. Well, here is an example
CG> of how far I will probe for a "weird" but *normal* explanation before
CG> ascribing an event to the paranormal....
But not all, Charles. I see no cause to disbelieve you. You always seemed
truthful enough, and more than sensible enough to know.
CG> Br. Kurt Van Kuren OSB (stp...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca) wrote: : An
CG> office building at 5:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. There is a long
CG> : hall with twelve rooms on each side. There are three "senders" :
CG> randomly assigned to the twelve rooms.
CG> : The Alternative Hypothesis: The clairvoyant / remote viewer should
CG> be : able to walk down the hall and detect which rooms had a "sender"
CG> in : them.
CG> Those rooms would have to be sound-proofed and insulated, in order to
CG> eliminate the chance that the senders were being heard or their *heat*
CG> was being detected subliminally.
Good point. I knew some people who I swear could hear a pin drop on shag
carpet from 10 feet away. A pre-arranged drop of a pen on the desk could
id the proper room. It may be a long shot, but it still could happen.
But what is your suggestion for protection against some type of electronic
help?
CG> : By detection I would mean a probability of greater than 1 in 100 :
CG> likelihood of chance. That should be enough to declare the null :
CG> hypothesis invalid. (That is, let's set p=.01)
CG> I would insist on a series of "control runs" with 3 people who are NOT
CG> senders in three of those twelve rooms, so that a "difference" could
CG> be determined between "senders" and non-senders. The "psychic" would
CG> not be told the "difference" but would be expected to try their best
CG> every time. This can also be mixed up with telling the psychic that you
CG> are doing a test run with non-senders and actually use the senders to
CG> see if the results are dependant on what the psychic is told.....
But could it not be that the Non-senders you picked were not senders who did
not know their ability? How would you eliminate this possibility?
CG> : The only caveat I would have is that Darryl Bem has already done
CG> more : sophisticated experiments, and received significant results. Why
CG> he : hasn't claimed the Randi prize, I haven't a clue.
CG> What kind of results? Seems to me that Randi goes for obvious
CG> real-world effects, not for the statistical stuff. He also seems to
CG> want a one-to-one (perfect) performance. No "percentages" or
CG> "probabilities". But I can't judge unless I know *what* Bem has
CG> done.....
All Randi is doing is providing a possibility of how something may have
happened, he does not prove that the Paranormal and Psychic are frauds.
I gave an example several times, which I think is simple, but excellent.
If someone had their car stolen and asked how could it be stolen and I go out
to a like car, pop the ignition and drive off, that only shows one possible
reason as to why the event occurred. It does not prove that it was stolen in
that method, or that this was the only way to steal the car. But Randi puts
out his findings as if that is the only way the event could occur. I am
researching the fact as to whether that is fraud, or only mis-information.
John Mcgowan
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
Charles Gregory replied ...
CG> From: ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) Subject:
CG> Re: Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize?
CG> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
CG> Bojangles (DknB...@juno.com) wrote: ...And it's ofcourse a matter
: > of believing in it: if you KNOW that psychic phenomena aren't real,
: > they can't be proved, it isn't possible to prove them to you
: > personal at all: you simply disbelieve the evidence..
CG> : True enough, however, that definition doesn't fit too many :
CG> skeptics. I *think* I can speak for most of the skeptics that post :
CG> here on A.P. when i say: if ever compelling evidence is presented, :
CG> we'll alter our views.
CG> Actually, I think it's a bit stuck up for ANYONE, skeptic or
CG> "believer" to think that they do not choose what evidence to believe.
CG> Even your use of the word "compelling" shows that evidence has to be
CG> "good enough" for you. There are very few absolutes in this world,
CG> but it is not an absolute to deal with the world from your
CG> accumulated personal experience and knowledge.
This is true
CG> Things which wildly
CG> contradict those will NOT be believed unless the phenomena is
CG> personally experienced - possibly by a "trusted" proxy, but
CG> essentially the first-person observation is needed.
But this is not true, either. For example, in the arguement that Dowsing is
natural, and can be scientifically explained. Those facts which I offered to
validate my stance on this do not have to be proven for they already were
proven by scienc and are commonly taught in first year biology and
physiology courses at most Colleges in the USA. One does not need to observe
them to accept them. It is totally unnecessary, unless you choose to argue
with science too. :)
But many people fail to realize the error of believing an eyewitness account
as something totally accurate. Stage Magicians prove this every day, and
twice on Wednesdays. And don't forget, Randi is a magician, by training. He
is well versed in making people believe things.
CG> When we talk
CG> about "evidence" presented by one person to another, for *most*
CG> skeptics the statement at the beginning of this article holds true.
CG> Their disbelief in the conclusion makes the evidence "untrustworthy"
CG> or, in your owrds, "not compelling enough").
I see this as true. The mind of the Skeptic and Pseudo-Skeptic fascinates me
immensely.
It is true I can not stand reading SCI.SKEPTIC posts for too long because it
is the same, ignorant litany over and over again, but I am still fascinated
by the way their powers of reasoning work.
CG> : You seem to think our lack of 'faith' in the paranormal is
CG> fueled : by a desire to disbelieve. Sorry, that sounds like a red
CG> herring to : me. Make a convincing argument and you *will* make
CG> converts, till then : it's just so much smoke.
CG> Actually, it is the skeptic's desire to believe in what they already
CG> know that fuels their lack of 'faith' in things which contradict that
CG> knowledge. It's a subtle distinction, but important. They aren't out
CG> to try and NOT believe something. That's silly. They are trying to
CG> BELIEVE in something ("science") that makes it necessary for them to
CG> deny/dismiss the things some "believers" consider to be simple
CG> observations of "fact". To make a convincing argument is in fact
CG> impossible. We could demonstrate the phenomena (if we had such
CG> control), and actually convince someone that way, but no amount
CG> of "arguing" can erase the doubts. Unless you can define an argument
CG> that you would consider convincing. I would honestly be interested
CG> to know if something I could SAY would "convince" you of the
CG> extraordinary nature of some of the phenomena I've witnessed.
Well put and it was worth the repost via Quotes. :) I like your style, it is
a shame I have such a low tolerance for stupidity that I find it hard to be
as calm as you post after post. I just go into my odd humor mode and have at
em, after awhile.
John Mcgowan
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
Charles Gregory replied ...
CG> From: ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) Subject:
CG> Re: Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize?
CG> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
CG> John Mcgowan (John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com) wrote: : We also
CG> must consider that it would not be fair if Randi paid off the
CG> Senders : to move to different rooms after they made contact.
CG> If the intent were to have the "final" rooms correctly identified,
CG> then this would reduce the chance that some sort of "cheating" was done
CG> prior to the test.
But are you thinking of using cameras, people or both in the rooms to insure
the senders stayed put.
CG> Or were you suggesting that the senders might collaborate with Randi
CG> to falsify a result?
That is a possibility, money talks and it depends on how badly Randi wanted
to keep his reputation in tact as to whether he tried.
CG> OR wre you just being sarcastic about the usual thought process
CG> of the skeptic who denies a positive result?
I do not deny a man his facts if they make sense, Charles. :) And I would
not be against Randi if he showed he was more reasonable. And even if the
facts do not make sense to me at first, I give anyone the chance to clarify
their comments to make themselves understood. :) But I only do it one or two
times, and if they go on the attack, either by Flame or in a polite way, that
usually ends my interest in their facts, for they mustn't have merit if some
one can not re-explain it in other words one time.
I have talked to many Skeptics that make sense, and have agreed on some of
their points on numerous occassions. But the difference was that they were
not attacking a person, or those in the paranormal community. They were
questioning and giving well thought out, and valid input to something they
just did not believe in and wanted proof on before they considered changing
their beleifs. That is why I try to differentiate between the skeptic and
the ones only passing themselves off as skeptics who just want to cause
trouble and flame the person for his or her ideas and beliefs.
But I see why you asked for further explanation. I had several thoughts
which all centered around the `Senders' in the rooms. One was similar to
what I stated about the cameras above. Another was that the Senders are
only `hired hitmen' paid of to act as Senders.
Then you also have the angle of Conmen coming to Randi's aide for some
notoriety for themselves and putting themselves off as hitmen. And the word
Randi could actually mean any skeptic who wants to disprove the existance of
telepaths and remote viewers. :)
All three of my examples are reasonable to believe that they could occur.
CG> :True, it is the type of fun many of us tried
CG> as kids. The trick where you : shuffle and lay a deck of cards
CG> face down on a table.
CG> In one of those "difficult to repeat" categories, I occasionally
CG> demonstrate a talent for shuffling a deck and then cutting all four
CG> aces out of the deck. I still recall the time in university I performed
CG> this "trick" four times in a row, reshuffling the deck after each batch
CG> of four....
CG> After that I couldn't do the trick again for a long time. Before
CG> someone argues about coincidences, I note for the record that in all my
CG> failed attempts to perform this trick I never got four of any other
CG> kind of card. If the level of repetition was due to coincidence,
CG> wouldn't I have seen at least ONE instance of cutting four fives from
CG> the deck? I might be lucky enough to get four of *something*, but why
CG> always aces? My only "mundane" thought is that perhaps the manufacture
CG> of card decks makes the aces physically distinctive in some way?
I have seen similar card tricks, but those were magician tricks and most of
the time they could only pull 2 or three of the same Kind of card.
According to Bicycle, the card makers, all playing cards are a regulation
size, and are made all alike, for example, on kind of card is not smoother or
rougher in texture than another. Inaddition, it is supposedly against the
law for them to mark cards at the factory, unless they are packaged as marked
cards. They also can sell Trick Decks that can void any law or policy used
for playing cards, if they mark the packages as such.
But, most things are manufactured with in tolerances. This means, basically,
that the cards could be ever-so-slightly different and be acceptable.
I would say the difference in the cards would be so minimal that a better
reason would be that you just guessed lucky. And that is not a very good
reason either, it seems. :)
John Mcgowan
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
CR> From: chil...@aol.com (CHILL RPG) Subject: Re: Randi's
CR> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
CR> AOL http://www.aol.com
CR> The reason no one has or ever will claim the prize offered by Randi is
CR> that he sets his own rules and is the judge of what those rules
CR> mean. Under Randi's rules one would be hard pressed to offer
CR> anything outside of well established laws of physics. In fact the quark
CR> could not be sufficiently proven under Randi's term.
Eventually Randi may allow some insignificant victory to show his `Honesty'.
I have my doubts, but he just may be shrewd enough to do it.
CR> Also, proof is a subjective term. A more reasonable and intelligent
CR> reward would be for evidence of paranormal activity that withstands
CR> scientific scrunity.
This has been touched upon. I claimed man may not be at that level of
Intellectual evolution to be able to prove most of the paranormal events at
this time.
The two are related, but I will admit, yours is better said. :)
John Mcgowan
>>> Part 1 of 2...
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
"Karl E. Taylor" replied ...
"ET> From: "Karl E. Taylor" <kta...@dragon.illusions.com> Subject:
"ET> Re: Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize?
"ET> Organization: Desert Dragon SOHO Solutions
"ET> Charles Gregory wrote:
> Karl E. Taylor (kta...@dragon.illusions.com) wrote:
> > The whole para-normal, UFO, Faith Healing, New Age, psudeo-scince trap,
> > is just about money. Who want's it, and how much people are willing to
> > pay.
> While I have no problem with the skeptics (go Randi, go!) taking apart the
> many money-mongers who exploit people's superstitions and misgivings,
> there is still something unjust about using the word "whole" in the above
> statement. There is no financial motive in my wife seeing a bright moving
> light off of our front porch with an "incredible" acceleration rate. There
> is no profit in saying it couldn't have been a normal aircraft or a
> natural phenomenon. The above statement is FALSE. But not "completely"
> false. Rather, say "Most of" rather then "The whole".
"ET> While you are correct that the world "whole" may not be acurate in
"ET> your above example, it is an unfortunate side-effect that it will end
"ET> up that way. The sad truth is, some money grubbing, grant seeking
"ET> pseudo-science nut will take what your wife may have seen, blow it so
"ET> far put of context as to make a simple observation into fantasy, and
"ET> then charge money, (in the forms of books, lectures, etc. etc.), from
"ET> her statements. And sadly, people will pay for it. The UFO element is
"ET> by no means the worst, notice I did mention the faith healers, but they
"ET> all come to the same ending justification, money.
The Ballooning Theory that you allude two can work both ways. The Scientist
and paranormalist can distort the facts, and so could Randi and the skeptics.
Cheating is possible from all sides.
> > And the "true belivers" wonder and rant at why skeptics get so pissed
> > about the whole mess.
> Actually, I just wonder that any advocate of rational thinking can blind
> themselves to the distinct "split" between the common "accidental"
> observer of "Strange phenomena" and the person trying to make money by
> pretending they have "control" over it. The "skeptics" get ME pissed
> because they arrogantly attack those who have a genuine mystery to solve.
"ET> An genuine mystery is great. There is not, to the best of my
"ET> knowledge, a single skeptic that does not have a streak of Sherlock
"ET> Holmes in them.
That depends on whether you accept everyone who claims to be a skeptic, as a
skeptic. I do not, for some have proven their only intent is to justify
their beliefs and they have no intention on investigating a thing. However,
those I consider as true skeptics often are not afraid to look up facts to
support their theories, nor are they afraid of the truth. They only want
good, solid proof.
"ET> I myself find the hunt for data on an occurance much
"ET> akin to the hunt for something/someone lost. Clues, data, witnesses,
"ET> information, all must be examined and identified. Any skeptic that
"ET> just assumes directly that something is not what it is claimed to be
"ET> with out looking at both sides of what it might be, is doing a great
"ET> injustice to the name "skeptic".
Excellent point! :) I would be proud to be a skeptic if they all thought in
this manner. I am not a believer, but I allow the them their beliefs and
support their beliefs because they just might be right. I have seen enough
to know that Paranormal and Psychic Experiences could be a real possibility.
That never equates to anything close to me believing with out proof.
"ET> Unfortunatly, many "skeptics" are
"ET> guilty of flying off the handle at both people and claims, (myself
"ET> included BTW). I feel that part of that is due to the fact that the
"ET> occurance, (UFO, healing, bigfoot, etc. etc.), has been actually proven
"ET> time and again to be explained that some times we just get tired of
"ET> saying the same old thing over and over again.
Just face it, we all have bad days once in a while. :) There are many
reasons, and that feeling affects both sides of the issue. The believers
sometimes go off on a tangent as well. We are human and that flaw can be
overlooked.
What should be considered are not the words alone, but also the intent behind
the words. Some flames, and/or attacks, are obvious, while others are not so
obvious. :0
"ET> I do whole heartedly
"ET> agree with your statement however about "pretending to have control
"ET> over it". We don't even really have control over our own bodies,
"ET> what make the nuts think that they could possibly control anything
"ET> else.
But I can not agree that the whole paranormal is about money. Many Psychics
never charge a cent for their ability's use. But, I will say that if a buck
is to be made, honestly or dishonestly, somebody will exploit anything.
However, that is not proof in saying all paranormal events and psychic events
are fraudulant acts.
"ET> Science has not been able to explain everything, and will
"ET> admit to still examining the evidence. To assume that something
"ET> is "paranormal", simply because you don't redily recognize it, does
"ET> not make it so. Open mindedness is the ability to look not only
"ET> at the event, but at anything that could have caused the event in
"ET> the first place. Generally speaking of course, the simplist answers
"ET> are usually the correct answers.
Touche! A person who talks like a skeptic who acknowledges Science is not all
knowlegable. You are a rarity around these parts.
Not totally correct, but a valid argument. :) Usually there is more than one
answer, and sometimes more than one simple one. In all actuality, the
simplest answer is that an event can not happen. That is not always the
correct one.
>>> Continued to next message...
John Mcgowan
>>> Part 2 of 2...
To say that something is impossible is so simple, even kids can say it.
"ET> While I do admit that some, okay, a large number of, okay, okay, you
"ET> win, almost every skeptic has at one time or another gotten angry, or
"ET> haughty about an issue, this does not mean that sight has been lost of
"ET> the issue. It is apparent that it is human nature to be passionate
"ET> about a belife or cause. And unfortunatly that passion tends to cloud
"ET> ones thinking from time to time. It is at that point that both the
"ET> skeptic and the beliver must step back for a moment, collect their
"ET> thoughts, and then examine that evidence again. This time trying to
"ET> keep personal feelings and belifes out of the investigation. That is
"ET> the mark of both a good investigator, and a good skeptic. --
The greatest clouder of thinking is belief. Belief can cause you to accept
the normally unreasonable fact.
It matters not if that belief is pro or con some idea.
Asmodeus
TC
In article <34C01A...@AOL.com>, Riftmann says...
> It was an amazing sight and reminded me we live in an weird enough world
> without having to resort to 'aliens' as an explanation.
>
Excellent story. People miss so much of the true beauty of this world
when they resort to the explaining things in terms of other worlds
unknown and unknowable.
A stationary TV antenna can appear to streak accross the sky if the
light is right, it is turning, and you move your head just so.
A flock of geese can seem to glow and when the reflection is just so
will dart through the sky.
Sometimes the most absurd explanations are the honest truth.
TC
In article <69s2me$mcr$2...@grissom.powerup.com.au>, Raymot says...
I think they would in this instance both be 'True Believers'. What you
have labeled the 'True Non-Believer' is simply a 'True Believer' in the
orthodoxy of his profession. The skeptic and the scientist will always
be willing to entertain new data and theories that may explain things
better than current understanding.
However scientist do not suffer fools gladly who bring poorly gathered
data supporting theories that ignore a vast amount of well prepare data.
This is often perceived as being closed minded and insular. It is really
a conservation of limited time resource and an unwillingness to continue
wasting it.
In science truth counts and the truth is always changing. The absolutist
will see this as a contradiction of fact, the relativist will see this
as confirmation that we each make our own truth, while the skeptic and
scientist see this a statement of fact well founded and tested everyday
by experience.
Wally Anglesea
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:42:04 -0600, "Ronald Bobo" <ron...@stlnet.com>
wrote:
No Ron, you are right, it _had_ to be a UFO! didn't it?, I mean _all_
meteors are UFO's right? The simple fact of the matter is, that this
individual happened to be critical of what he saw, and he was
probably right about it
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
"needs sugar...." -Socrates
Steve Terrell
Ronald Bobo wrote:
...
> You "realized" this? Did you confirm your "realization?" If not, it
> remains only anecdotal evidence, no better or worse than reports of UFOs.
>
> Ron
I'm sure he did confirm this, but did not mention it due to your lack of
"needing to know".
Chow,
Steve
Mike Combs
Dominion wrote:
>
> When I was nineteen and just before I was leaving for college, I broke
> up with a girlfriend. I was pretty depressed about the whole thing
> (ahh to be young again) and stayed that way for about six months.
>
> I had been in school about three of those months when I got this phone
> call at three o'clock in the morning. It was my mom, she had had this
> horrible dream in which I had picked up a gun and blown my brains out.
> She said that the sound of the gun was so real it woke her up. She was
> convinced that something horrible had happened to me. I assured her
> that all was well and hung up the phone. But I could help thinking
> about it. I WAS very depressed at the time. What if I HAD killed
> myself? My mother would have been less one son, but she would have had
> a really cool psychic story to tell. Even if I had been involved in a
> car crash or fallen off a building it would have counted as a partial
> success. It reminds me of the many people I have talked to over the
> years that tell me of the dreams they had of their terminally ill
> family members dying at the exact moment they were in fact dying. It
> does not seem to help (nor win me any friends) when I explain that it
> is the most natural thing in the world to have such dreams when you
> are feeling stress about someone.
I think that there is an interesting clue in your story about
"intuition". I have always argued that intuition is just stuff that you
know that you don't know you know. I think we are all the time working
things out in our heads but are not always conscious of the process.
I'm willing to bet that your mother had noticed your depression, and
this caused her to dream of something she saw as a possible consequence
of your depression.
If you had killed yourself, true believers would have trumpeted it as
iron-clad proof of precognition. But it needn't be anything other than
a mother being concerned over her son, and running scenairios (sp?) in
her head.
NoSpam! Paul A. Delaney
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:42:04 -0600, "Ronald Bobo" <ron...@stlnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Andreas Koslowski wrote in message <34BFE201...@kiel.netsurf.de>...
>>>One morning when I stepped out of the door I saw a small light in the
>>>sky. At first I hardly noticed it, because it wasn't brighter than the
>>>other stars. But then It became brighter and brighter while accelerating
>>>westward real fast. Then it split up into three green lights that flew
>>>away in slightly different directions and vanished quickly. All this
>>>happened in around 5 seconds.
>>>
>>>At first I was breathless, thought I saw an UFO! UFOs are real!! Well
>>>after calming down a little I realized it was only a meteorite that
>>>entered the atmosphere and was accelerated until the heat split it up
>>>into smaller parts from the core which caused the greenish glow from
>>>some element contained therein.
>>
>> You "realized" this? Did you confirm your "realization?" If not, it
>>remains only anecdotal evidence, no better or worse than reports of UFOs.
>>
>>Ron
>>
>>
>
>
>
>No Ron, you are right, it _had_ to be a UFO! didn't it?, I mean _all_
>meteors are UFO's right? The simple fact of the matter is, that this
>individual happened to be critical of what he saw, and he was
>probably right about it
>
>
>Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
>http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
>
Meteors aren't UFOs if you know they are meteors! With the slightest
doubt, however, you can simply say you don't know what it is, hence it
is an "Uidentified Flying Object".
I always have fun telling people I see UFOs all the time, and they
invariable assume that means flying saucers.
Dominion
Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchangenospam2ti> wrote:
>
>I think that there is an interesting clue in your story about
>"intuition". I have always argued that intuition is just stuff that you
>know that you don't know you know. I think we are all the time working
>things out in our heads but are not always conscious of the process.
>
>I'm willing to bet that your mother had noticed your depression, and
>this caused her to dream of something she saw as a possible consequence
>of your depression.
There is no doubt in my mind that my mother was aware of my
depression, it is not something I hid very well. ;) I am sure that
worry about my state of mind coupled with the fact that I was not
living close combined to cause this nightmare. What I found to be
interesting about it is that people were always telling me about
dreaming the death of family members that were terminal. It makes more
sense to me that the mind is aware of the impending death, and will
send all sorts of messages in dreams to prepare you for the event. It
is those times that the dream matches the death that people remember,
the dreams that were just dreams are quickly forgotten
.
>If you had killed yourself, true believers would have trumpeted it as
>iron-clad proof of precognition. But it needn't be anything other than
>a mother being concerned over her son, and running scenairios (sp?) in
>her head.
Exactly. ;)
Throughout high school I was a believer in all sorts of silly things.
I mean that, I believed with a faith that bordered on the religious.
It was not till college that I started to experiment with the
skeptical side of the argument. Since trying to find an answer to a
mystery was a new concept to me, this struck me with more force than
it would have had I still been a believer or even if I had been a
skeptic all along.
Avital Pilpel
Charles Gregory wrote:
> Karl E. Taylor (kta...@dragon.illusions.com) wrote:
> > The whole para-normal, UFO, Faith Healing, New Age, psudeo-scince
> trap,
> > is just about money. Who want's it, and how much people are willing
> to
> > pay.
>
> There is no financial motive in my wife seeing a bright moving
> light off of our front porch with an "incredible" acceleration rate.
Certainly not. Nor is there a financial motive in the cancer patient who
wants to believe that "therapeutic touch" or "pyramid power" can cure
him.
But there _is_ one in those who sell them UFO books, pyramids, and so
on. I think this is what the original poster was talking about.
>
John Mcgowan
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed
TC> From: truth....@usa.net (TC) Subject: Re: Randi's challenge...why
TC> hasn't someone claimed the prize?
TC> In article <34C01A...@AOL.com>, Riftmann says...
> It was an amazing sight and reminded me we live in an weird enough world
> without having to resort to 'aliens' as an explanation.
TC> Excellent story. People miss so much of the true beauty of this world
TC> when they resort to the explaining things in terms of other worlds
TC> unknown and unknowable.
This is not always true, TC. Some of us here are rational, but still defend
certain things as true that are unexplainable.
For example, with out giving alot of detail for much of the detail has been
said far too many times already:
1. I explain the dowsing for Underground Utilities in a scientific
and rational manner, however it is Randi and a few of his followers
who blow my comments out of proportion because it endangers their
beleifs and/or their way of life.
2. I explained the Phoenix UFOs in a reasonable and rational manner, much
better than most skeptics and believers had. That was in another NG,
known as ALT.UFO. My explanation from the start was the object or
objects were connected to the Government/Military. I also provided
examples as proof.
3. I tried to explain to the culitists here about psychic predictions,
And Earl even joked good naturedly about it. :) When you try to
debunk the predictions of experienced psychics, you must watch every
word and not take one thing out of context. :) They will nail you
as wrong 75% of the time if you do. :) The only reason I gave Earl
his 100% Rating is because of his wording. Otherwise I rated his
prediction as about 60% (which is close enough with out looking it
up) to 90% (which is also close enough). That was for accuracy and
figured several ways which were all right, depending on one's view-
point. :)
4. Plus, it is closed minded to even presume man is at the intellectual
level to know it all. It is almost as bad as believing you know the
mind of God.
TC> A stationary TV antenna can appear to streak accross the sky if the
TC> light is right, it is turning, and you move your head just so.
This is right, but if you can not positively ID it, then it is a UFO.
Once something is identified, it is an IFO, or IO. :) More accurately
it is what ever it is.
TC> A flock of geese can seem to glow and when the reflection is just so
TC> will dart through the sky.
TC> Sometimes the most absurd explanations are the honest truth.
And this is also a possibility. UFO does not mean Extra-Terrestrial in
nature. It can include that explanation, but it is not limited to that
explanation and everyone from the believers, to the Skeptics to the
Government even are wrong for promoting it otherwise.
A UFO is nothing but an Unidentified Flying Object. That can mean anything
from Swamp Gas, to Geese, to Flares, to Frisbees, to Planes and other
aircraft (Both Terrestrial and Extra-Terrestrial in nature) to even items
like weather balloons and antenaes. It simply means we have not one idea
what it was. :)
I proof read this to make sure nothing is said that can be construed as an
insult by the average person. If you note anything, please let me know and
I will go over it again for future reference.
Since your comments seem well thought out, I thought I would return the
favor. :)
Charles Gregory
: >: >...And it's ofcourse a matter of believing in it: if you KNOW that
: >: >psychic phenomena aren't real, they can't be proved, it isn't possible
: >: >to prove them to you personal at all: you simply disbelieve the
: >: >evidence..
: >Bojangles (DknB...@juno.com) wrote:
: > : ..... I *think* I can speak for most of the skeptics that post
: > : here on A.P. when i say: if ever compelling evidence is presented,
: > : we'll alter our views.
: Charles Gregory wrote:
: >Actually, I think it's a bit stuck up for ANYONE, skeptic or "believer" to
: >think that they do not choose what evidence to believe. Even your use of
: >the word "compelling" shows that evidence has to be "good enough" for you.
Bojangles (DknB...@juno.com) wrote:
: My usage of the word compelling is meant to separate 'types' of
: evidence. For example: If research from rigorous scientific testing
: reveals this evidence, I would call that 'compelling'.....
Perhaps this is true for *you*, but your statement was about "most of the
skeptics" and THEY tend to pick and choose which "scientific testing"
they will ACCEPT as being "rigorous" (in their minds, "properly done").
And all too often the "first impression" a skeptic forms about the
credibility of an experiment is based on the circular reasoning of whether
they agree with the results. Their belief drives what they will consider
"rigorous" and therefore "compelling".
: .....a well documented case unexplainable by any
: other means I *would* call compelling, however I think in such a
: case all other normal means must be exhausted first).
Firstly, I note again that circular logic is often used to have the
results dictate our personal assessment of *how well* the case has been
documented. The more anomalous the case, the more the skeptic
automatically "questions" the accuracy of the documentation.....
But here is a more important issue: HOW FAR must we go to seek a "normal"
explanation for an occurence? A quick example, to illustrate this point:
After leaving his car in a security-patrolled parking lot for a week, a
man comes out and finds the surface of the trunk/boot bashed in, as if by
a giant sledgehammer. There is no evidence that the trunk has been opened,
only this massive, irregularly shaped impact mark in the metal. A quick
observation of the surrounding area shows no trace of any object that
might have made the damage. Security does not have any record of
unauthorized access to the lot (and security tapes of the lot perimeter
show NO break-ins), and heard no noises (though this is not unreasonable
given that the area is exceptionally noisy, even late at night). Rain has
erased any possible chance of detecting footprints or other traces.
Anyone figured this one out yet? It's one of the more common "UFO" reports
that turns out to be 100% normal in its explanation. But let's pretend for
a moment that we *don't* know what made the damage. HOW FAR would we go to
hypothesise that someone *somehow* snuck by the video (or tampered with
it?), and that the security guards all had a lapse of memory or judgement?
What are the normal explanations we will consider, apart from the real
"weird" one?
1) Someone drove in and bashed your trunk with a sledghammer (though an
oddly shaped one) and hid the sledgehammer in their trunk. All we have to
assume for that one is that security is lying when they say they watch
everyone in the lot to be sure they go directly to their own cars.
2) Someone threw a big rock from outside the lot, and then was careful
enough to walk up the lot and quickly retrieve it. It's quite likely that
security wouldn't think about or even remember someone who looked like
they had bent over to pick up their keys. And its easy enough to assume
that there are "weak spots" in the security surveillance video - not
enough so you could climb the fence, but maybe enough to throw something
over....
3) A meteor? Maybe the maintenance crew routinely removed this lump of
rock that wouldn't have to be very big to make that kind of damage, while
doing the regular cleaning of the lot.
4) Fraud on the part of the car owner? Maybe the lot has insurance and so
we have to consider that maybe he had the damage "covered" coming in, then
pulled off a magnetic decal or something and claimed the damage was done
in the lot so that he could sue the parking lot?
5) Delusion? Faulty memory? Maybe it was dented years ago and the man just
doesn't remember it?
How far do we go before we consider the notion that what actually happened
really DID happen? That the evidence does not need to be questioned, or
people's observational skills maligned in order to make another
explanation "work"? Why don't we just accept that somehow the car got
damaged with no human in the parking lot and with the object
causing the damage washed away by a rain storm?
Once you KNOW it was a frozen lump that leaked from a jet plane's chemical
toilet, it seems *ridiculous* to contrive the much more convoluted
explanations about mental instability and fraud. But do we really NEED to
be that convoluted to deal with "odd happenings"? A lot of progress could
be made if we balanced our knowledge of how easily human perception can be
fooled when faced with something unfamiliar with the awareness that human
perception CAN be trusted to categorically dismiss things with which the
observer is familiar, including normal perception faults and human
dishonesty.
Charles Gregory
Andreas Koslowski (Andreas....@kiel.netsurf.de) wrote:
: One morning when I stepped out of the door I saw a small light in the
: sky. At first I hardly noticed it, because it wasn't brighter than the
: other stars. But then It became brighter and brighter while accelerating
: westward real fast. Then it split up into three green lights that flew
: away in slightly different directions and vanished quickly. All this
: happened in around 5 seconds.
So it neither hovered, nor exhibited extreme acceleration? I see no reason
to believe this was anything other than a meteorite.
: At first I was breathless, thought I saw an UFO! UFOs are real!! Well
: after calming down a little I realized it was only a meteorite that
: entered the atmosphere and was accelerated until the heat split it up
: into smaller parts from the core which caused the greenish glow from
: some element contained therein.
Well, I'm glad to see you reach conclusions the same way I do. So what is
the problem with dealing with the fact that *I* reach conclusions the same
way *you* do, and when a light hovers absolutely still and then instantly
changes to a very high rate of movement, its NOT a meteor, nor any solid
object I can think of, nor would it appear to be a known atmospheric
anomaly. My first candidate is an unknown atmospheric anomaly, but after
that we are left with some wild specualtion to fill in the gaps....
Charles Gregory
Riftmann (Rift...@AOL.com) wrote:
: Many years later, one fall about two years ago, I stepped out of a
: Wallmart at twilight. I heard a honking, looked up, and could not
: believe my eyes. I saw a flock of geese. It was light enough I could
: clearly tell they were gesse, but dark enough I could see this eerie
: glow on their bellies.
Frankly, I love hearing stories like this. As I've often said, I expect
the "paranormal" ro be part of a bigger, wonderful, but very *scientific*
world. The glow on the geese's bellies only reinforces my faith in the
universe being more wonderful than we know. As for "aliens", well, I
haven't seen any..... <grin>
Charles Gregory
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh (pro...@skepticult.org) wrote:
: "...rough and smooth principle. If you put a new pack on the table, lean
: on it hard, and twist it will often break at an ace, because the aces,
: carrying less ink than the other cards, are not so sticky. With a deck
: not so new, you can often break at the same card (not necessarily an
: ace) several times running."
An excellent thought, as most of my "cuts" tended to be of the variety
that relied on a certain amount of stickiness in the deck. Still, this
would mean that anyone else could cut the deck and get "mostly" aces, or
that after cutting the twelve in a row I should have still cut a good
proportion of aces, wheras the odds dropped back to "normal" after the
"trick" (whatever it was) suddenly stopped working. I tried shuffling and
cutting a couple more times but didn't get another ace. Odd switch?
Charles Gregory
Mike Combs (mike...@nospam.comchangenospam2ti) wrote:
: Skeptics also have extraordinary experiences. I think the only
: difference between a skeptic and a true believer is that the skeptic
: keeps investigating, until he finds the true solution. The believer
: stops, because he KNOWS what he saw, and need look no farther.
Actually, what "stops" a believer is not that he knows WHAT he saw, but
rather, he has sufficient presence of mind to know what he did NOT see.
It is NOT unreasonable for a person who has never demonstrated a
psychological illness to expect that this is NOT a "leading theory" and
that the observed events are MORE likely to be "real", not less.....
: As an example, James Randi himself once had a most vivid out-of-body
: experience while sleeping.
Wanna hear a cute one? I've gotten to recognizing when I'm dreaming when
I FLY in my dreams. I know this is not possible, so I realize I'm
dreaming. The cute thing? The other night I thought, "Gee, what if I'm
not asleep? So I pinched myself on the arm. Guess what? That tired old
cliche isn't the least bit true. For just a second there I thought I
could fly..... <grin> Fortunately I woke up before I could tell anyone
else of this ridiculous belief....
: ....... But someone who believed in OBE's wouldn't have started
: checking up on the facts the way he did.
This statement is the heart and soul of the "skeptics" feeble hold on
making "believers" look non-critical and stupid. My mother, after nearly
dying on an operating table, woke up and asked the doctor who had
performed the surgery exactly what WAS that equipment she saw them roll
into the room. She described it in such clear detail that there was no
chance for it to be a generic "guess". Her descriptions held the exact
"real world" component that you so blandly make sound like it never
happens.
Maybe YOU don't have "proof", but in the sixties, when it was VERY
"dangerous" to a highly regarded medical professional to be admitting to
such "nonsense", it was deemed in the best interests of the patient for
her to NOT think she was "crazy", and so they confided that this sort of
thing happened from time to time, with equal clarity and no doubt in
their professional judgement that her experience was real.
I've had lots of dreams and hallucinations, and not one of them has even
come close to being an OBE, or even "clairvoyant". My lack of experience
does not mean that my mother and her doctors were somehow deluded.....
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip>
>Those facts which I offered to
>validate my stance
Ah, John, you have never yet posted any facts.
<snip>
>it is
>a shame I have such a low tolerance for stupidity that I find it hard to <snip>
Read John Mcgowan's articles?
Ronald Bobo
Steve Terrell wrote in message <34C3803C...@hfab1.sc.ti.com>...
>Ronald Bobo wrote:
>...
>> You "realized" this? Did you confirm your "realization?" If not,
it
>> remains only anecdotal evidence, no better or worse than reports of UFOs.
>>
>> Ron
>
>I'm sure he did confirm this, but did not mention it due to your lack of
>"needing to know".
Typical Skepti-Nazi reply - without a shred of evidence to back your
claim, you are "sure" he confirmed it.
Ron
>
>Chow hound,
> Steve
Ronald Bobo
John Mcgowan wrote in message <995_980...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>...
>* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the
prize? on
> CHILL RPG replied ...
>
> CR> From: chil...@aol.com (CHILL RPG) Subject: Re: Randi's
> CR> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
> CR> AOL http://www.aol.com
>
> CR> The reason no one has or ever will claim the prize offered by Randi is
> CR> that he sets his own rules and is the judge of what those rules
> CR> mean. Under Randi's rules one would be hard pressed to offer
> CR> anything outside of well established laws of physics. In fact the
quark
> CR> could not be sufficiently proven under Randi's term.
>
>Eventually Randi may allow some insignificant victory to show his
`Honesty'.
>I have my doubts, but he just may be shrewd enough to do it.
Not if it's going to cost his organization a million dollars plus!
Ron
Karl E. Taylor
Ronald Bobo wrote:
Boy are you screwed up. Take a look at the thread again ron, the person stated
that he knew what the event was and that he was happy with the out come. No
more investigation was needed. Now however, you want "evidence" to back up the
claim. Funny, that's the same thing the skeptics want in the case of claims of
the paranormal. But when ever we ask for it, we keep getting pushed off, called
names, threatened, and basicly treated like dirt.
So, will your buddie Earl provide any evidence to back up his claims?,, how
about Kettler, drturi, Riley G, and countless others that you sheep keep
following around? Let's see some evidence ron, let us see if your gods are
real, or only made of clay.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Karl E. Taylor CEO & UNIX Systems Analyst
Desert Dragon SOHO Solutions kta...@dragon.illusions.com
http://www.illusions.com/ddsoho
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Lao "You know what wisdom is?"
Little boy "No."
Dr. Lao "Wise answer."
If you are not on my list of clients do not attempt to reply. Your mail
will be returned to you UN delivered. Anti-SPAM and anti-mail bomb
measures in place.
nospamq
Ronald Bobo wrote:
>
> Steve Terrell wrote in message <34C3803C...@hfab1.sc.ti.com>...
> >Ronald Bobo wrote:
> >...
> >> You "realized" this? Did you confirm your "realization?" If not,
> it
> >> remains only anecdotal evidence, no better or worse than reports of UFOs.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> >I'm sure he did confirm this, but did not mention it due to your lack of
> >"needing to know".
>
> Typical Skepti-Nazi reply - without a shred of evidence to back your
> claim, you are "sure" he confirmed it.
Typical Bobo reply- full of shit.
Charles Gregory
John Mcgowan (John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com) wrote:
: CG> Those rooms would have to be sound-proofed and insulated, in order to
: CG> eliminate the chance that the senders were being heard or their *heat*
: CG> was being detected subliminally.
: Good point. I knew some people who I swear could hear a pin drop on shag
: carpet from 10 feet away. A pre-arranged drop of a pen on the desk could
: id the proper room. It may be a long shot, but it still could happen.
: But what is your suggestion for protection against some type of electronic
: help?
Have the subject go through a metal detector from the neck down, and
clearly have nothing on the head (fillings would set off the detector, so
checks above the neck would need to be visual).
: But could it not be that the Non-senders you picked were not senders who did
: not know their ability? How would you eliminate this possibility?
Careful records of experimental data would reveal if any one "non-sender"
kept being consistently identified. But with a good healthy group of
contorl subjects, it would take quite a few "Accidental" senders to
disturb the average result anticipated.
: All Randi is doing is providing a possibility of how something may have
: happened, he does not prove that the Paranormal and Psychic are frauds.
Actually, he proves that under close scrutiny the methods of the
"psychics" he has tested either suddenly fail or that only the most
general "cold reading" style of functioning can be verified. It is not
necessary for him to prove "frauds", only that the results claimed do not
actually occur under close observation.....
: If someone had their car stolen and asked how could it be stolen and I go out
: to a like car, pop the ignition and drive off, that only shows one possible
: reason as to why the event occurred. It does not prove that it was stolen in
: that method, or that this was the only way to steal the car. But Randi puts
: out his findings as if that is the only way the event could occur.
Yes he does, but it is based on the event being shown to NOT OCCUR if we
eliminate the ability to "pop the ignition". When he makes it impossible
for the "ordinary" mechanisms to function, the observed phenomena cease. A
simple association that leads to the conclusion that the phenomena is not
occurring without those mechanisms.
This is why I get so annoyed that his "challenge" includes those clauses
that keep any *good* psychic away from him. He keeps testing fools and
charlatans. His results are quite fine. Just not terribly representative
of the sector of the population to which I belong..... <grin>
Charles Gregory
John Mcgowan (John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com) wrote:
: CG> Things which wildly
: CG> contradict those will NOT be believed unless the phenomena is
: CG> personally experienced - possibly by a "trusted" proxy, but
: CG> essentially the first-person observation is needed.
: But this is not true, either. For example, in the arguement that Dowsing is
: natural, and can be scientifically explained. Those facts which I offered to
: validate my stance on this do not have to be proven for they already were
: proven by scienc and are commonly taught in first year biology and
: physiology courses at most Colleges in the USA. One does not need to observe
: them to accept them. It is totally unnecessary, unless you choose to argue
: with science too. :)
Because I accept "science" as part of my worldview, things based in
science are not contradictions, and so I can believe further arguments
about things scientific without always having first-hand experience.
Because I have personal experience with weird/unexplainable phenomena I am
willing to credit that others may have different phenomena to report. But
I do not *really* see a "science" that can explain dowsing. I don't doubt
that there is one, but I find it unlikely that we know it already.
(Please feel free to correct me on this one).
: ......I like your style,
: it is a shame I have such a low tolerance for stupidity that I find it
: hard to be as calm as you post after post. I just go into my odd
: humor mode and have at em, after awhile.
Oh, I enjoy a good laugh. Every now and then a post strikes my funny bone,
and I'll just HAVE to make a smart-ass remark.
Charles Gregory
John Mcgowan (John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com) wrote:
: But are you thinking of using cameras, people or both in the rooms to insure
: the senders stayed put.
Why not put a person who is NOT a "sender" in every room, so that
subliminals would be harder to discern? Or have 12 senders, but only
certain ones would be selected to "send" each time?
: I have talked to many Skeptics that make sense, and have agreed on some of
: their points on numerous occassions. But the difference was that they were
: not attacking a person, or those in the paranormal community.
That is a critical difference for me too. Skeptics like Phil Harrison
properly deserve that title, think clearly and stimulate good discussion.
Pity about the others.....
: I have seen similar card tricks, but those were magician tricks and most of
: the time they could only pull 2 or three of the same Kind of card.
Oh, my dad (who makes a hobby of "real" magic) can make the most
incredible things happen with ordinary card decks. He can make all the
aces surface then all the twos, etc, as long as he has "prepared" his
deck (not marked, just carefully arranged/stacked). He can then make it
look like he is shuffling the deck while not disturbing the overall
pattern of the deck. Very good with his hands.
My report is credible only as long as I am perceived as sincere and
honest. Take that away and it could easily be another magician's trick.
But then why bother mentioning it as "paranormal"? <grin>
: They also can sell Trick Decks that can void any law or policy used
: for playing cards, if they mark the packages as such.
I've got one of those decks. Great for party games, but the marking is
pretty obvious if anyone has the least suspicion.....
: I would say the difference in the cards would be so minimal that a better
: reason would be that you just guessed lucky. And that is not a very good
: reason either, it seems. :)
Actually, I liked the comment about the amount of INK making the cards
less sticky. I can't be sure, but I get a feeling that this "trick" has
been less successful (or not at all) with plastic-coated decks. Quite a
strong contender for an explanation, though it doesn't explain why the
phenomena suddenly STOPS.
Ronald Bobo
TC wrote in message ...
>In article <34C01A...@AOL.com>, Riftmann says...
>
>> It was an amazing sight and reminded me we live in an weird enough world
>> without having to resort to 'aliens' as an explanation.
>>
>
>Excellent story. People miss so much of the true beauty of this world
>when they resort to the explaining things in terms of other worlds
>unknown and unknowable.
>
>A stationary TV antenna can appear to streak accross the sky if the
>light is right, it is turning, and you move your head just so.
If the TV antenna is stationary, then it can't very well be turning,
can it?
Ron
Ronald Bobo
Karl E. Taylor wrote in message <34C4F4DB...@dragon.illusions.com>...
>> Ron
>>
>> >
>> >Chow hound,
>> > Steve
>
> Boy are you screwed up. Take a look at the thread again ron, the person
stated
>that he knew what the event was and that he was happy with the out come.
I think you are the one who needs to read it again. He didn't say that
he "knew" what the event was, he "realized" what it was. BAsed upon what?
My point is that, if you can't accept a witness' viewpoint for one
thing, why blindly accept a different witness' account of something else?
No
>more investigation was needed. Now however, you want "evidence" to back up
the
>claim. Funny, that's the same thing the skeptics want in the case of
claims of
>the paranormal. But when ever we ask for it, we keep getting pushed off,
called
>names, threatened, and basicly treated like dirt.
Exactly as you are doing now.
>
>So, will your buddie Earl provide any evidence to back up his claims?,, how
>about Kettler, drturi, Riley G, and countless others that you sheep keep
>following around? Let's see some evidence ron, let us see if your gods are
>real, or only made of clay.
Sorry, you'll have to take it up with the people you mention. I am not
a spokesman for them or anyone else.
My gods? In case you haven't noticed, I am not the one who worships at
the feet of James Randi - I leave that to you and the other Skepti-Nazis.
Ron
Phil Dennison
In article <6a5b02$93i$1...@news.stlnet.com>, ron...@stlnet.com says...
>
>
> >A stationary TV antenna can appear to streak accross the sky if the
> >light is right, it is turning, and you move your head just so.
>
> If the TV antenna is stationary, then it can't very well be turning,
> can it?
>
> Ron
"Stationary" and "rotary" don't mean the same thing when referring to broadcast
antennae, dork.
--
Phil Dennison phil...@ix.netcom.com
Visit the Palindromes at www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/5716
"Me flunk English? Unpossible!" -- Ralph Wiggum
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip>
> Some of us here are rational <snip>
But, alas, John Mcgowan isn't one of us.
>He (Earl) did not say the market would drop 800 to 1000 points in less than two weeks
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
> Reread the prediction. Once the fall began, it does not matter how long it
> took, as long as it was an uninterrupted drop, which this was.
> His prediction was that it would drop 800 to 1000 Points
Message-Id: <f4b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl did not predict an 800 to a 1000 point drop
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl said the market would drop 800 too 1000 points over a two week period.
Message-Id: <677_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>He (Earl) does not say `In less than two weeks the market will drop 800 to 1000
> points, or anything close. This is basic Grade school shit, people.
Message-Id: <7ee_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
John Mcgowan
PD> From: phil...@ix.netcom.com (Phil Dennison) Subject: Re: Randi's
PD> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization: .
PD> In article <6a5b02$93i$1...@news.stlnet.com>, ron...@stlnet.com says...
> > A stationary TV antenna can appear to streak accross the sky if the
> > light is right, it is turning, and you move your head just so.
> If the TV antenna is stationary, then it can't very well be turning,
> can it?
> Ron
PD> "Stationary" and "rotary" don't mean the same thing when referring to
PD> broadcast antennae, dork.
A rotating antenae is a moving one, ergo not stationary, especially in this
scenario. I have never seen a Television or Radio Station's Antenae Move,
have you?
They are stationary, and built on towers usually. However, house antenaes
can be stationary, like Groundplanes, or they can be moving, like directional
antenae, dillweed. :)
So Ron is right once again. Thank you for your support! :)
And what you refer to is the difference between Mobil and Stationary. A
Mobil antenae is one attached to a moving object, such as a vehicle. A
stationary antenae is one attached to an immovable object (or an ordinarily
immovable object, like a house or building. But all bets are off when it
comes to California. ;})
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> PD> From: phil...@ix.netcom.com (Phil Dennison) Subject: Re: Randi's
> PD> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization: .
>
> PD> In article <6a5b02$93i$1...@news.stlnet.com>, ron...@stlnet.com says...
>
>
> > > A stationary TV antenna can appear to streak accross the sky if the
> > > light is right, it is turning, and you move your head just so.
>
> > If the TV antenna is stationary, then it can't very well be turning,
> > can it?
>
> > Ron
>
> PD> "Stationary" and "rotary" don't mean the same thing when referring to
> PD> broadcast antennae, dork.
>
>A rotating antenae is a moving one, ergo not stationary, especially in this
>scenario. I have never seen a Television or Radio Station's Antenae Move,
>have you?
Well, you are as unaware of the autokinetic effect as you
are on whether or not there are hurricanes in the Pacific.
>
>They are stationary, and built on towers usually. However, house antenaes
>can be stationary, like Groundplanes, or they can be moving, like directional
>antenae, dillweed. :)
>
>So Ron is right once again. Thank you for your support! :)
>
>And what you refer to is the difference between Mobil and Stationary.
Sorry, John, but your reading comprehension problem is
showing up again. He said it appeared to streak.
Can you say "appear", John?
John wrote:
>He (Earl) did not say the market would drop 800 to 1000 points in less than two weeks
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
But, Earl wrote:
Subject: Re: Earl Curley 100% Correct - Predicts Stock
Market Crash Exactly To The Day
From: Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net>
Date: 1997/03/14
Message-ID: <332943...@globalserve.net>
Newsgroups:
sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.paranet.paranormal,alt.astrology
[More Headers]
<snip of article Earl is replying to to save bandwidth, all
of Earl's words are included, however>
Squirm all you like idiot. You mouthed off and now you look
as stupid as everyone always said you were. I know you
can't read because you've proved that so many times over the
past but don't make yourself look anymore stupid than you
have already. Look under that bed you always crawl under,
find that scrap of paper you jotted your previous stupid
remarks down on, read and discover that you are just too
ignorant to remember what you posted previously. You see
Barfwell, the prediction, as others have reported, is a
800-1000 point drop within a two week period beginning on
March 12th.
Now, before I forget, I thought you also mouthed off that
Houston doesn't get flooding? Why is CNN covering the
cleanup that is taking place in Houston today? I guess CNN
is just giving out false news reports to back up my great
prediction that floods would ravage Texas all year long?
Earl Curley
psy...@globalserve.net
http://www.webdesign.ca/
John wrote:
>He (Earl) does not say `In less than two weeks the market will drop 800 to 1000
> points, or anything close. This is basic Grade school shit, people.
Message-Id: <7ee_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
Oh dear, John, did you flunk shitting in grade school?
Perhaps that accounts for your inability to understand what
Earl wrote?
Subject: Re: Predictions Stock Market Crash - Countdown
to Failure
From: Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net>
Date: 1997/03/20
Message-ID: <33311B...@globalserve.net>
Newsgroups:
sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.flame,alt.out-of-body,alt.paranet.paranormal,alt.astrology
[More Headers]
<snip of article Earl replied to to save bandwidth, all of
Earl's words are included>
Steve, you are not the only one who is commenting on this
thread without reading what you are commenting on so I'll
fill you in.
First, however, since Atkinson forgot to post the loss on
the Dow yesterday was -18.88 points and as of 10:47AM it's
down another whopping -47.98 points.
Secondly, computer trading can be either halt trading on an
uptrend or downtrend. As well, there are many computer
buy/sell programs now activated by brokers/insitutional
buyers and even personal proframs that activate at certain
levels in the market itself or individual stocks. The
latter programs normally are activated in the last 15
minutes of the days trading and these buys/sells can move
the close to a figure which really is not factual on the
close. As an example on Monday the Dow traded between -100
and -58 point throughout the day and should have closed in
that mid range but due to late buying it pulled the close to
+20 points. The following day, however the Dow began it's
downward trend anyhow as it still is today.
The projection was for a an 800-1000 point drop within a two
week period and be as it may the projection itself was 100%
correct that a correction would begin as projected. On
March 11, 1997, the Dow closed at a record high level of
7085.16 points and all you need to do see the true plunge is
access: http://www.webdesign.ca/iris2.html where all the
data is located.
Earl Curley
psy...@globalserve.net
http://www.webdesign.ca/
Now go back to sleep, John, and dream of a world where there
are no hurricanes in the Pacific and Earl didn't forcast an
800 - 1000 point drop in the Dow starting on the 12th of
March and occuring in less than two weeks.
Ronald Bobo
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
<6ad3o6$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>
>> > > A stationary TV antenna can appear to streak accross the sky if the
>> > > light is right, it is turning, and you move your head just so.
>>
>> > If the TV antenna is stationary, then it can't very well be turning,
>> > can it?
>>
>> > Ron
>>
>> PD> "Stationary" and "rotary" don't mean the same thing when referring to
>> PD> broadcast antennae, dork.
>>
>>A rotating antenae is a moving one, ergo not stationary, especially in
this
>>scenario. I have never seen a Television or Radio Station's Antenae Move,
>>have you?
>
>Well, you are as unaware of the autokinetic effect as you
>are on whether or not there are hurricanes in the Pacific.
So, Twit, are you claiming that your "autokinetic" effect causes an
object (antenna) to turn and be stationary at the same time? Good God, boy,
get help!
>
>>And what you refer to is the difference between Mobil and Stationary.
>
>Sorry, John, but your reading comprehension problem is
>showing up again. He said it appeared to streak.
And, with your limited intellect, you probably thought "streak" meant
the antenna was running down the street with no clothes on! Get back on
your medication, boy, before it's too late!
Ron
Charles Gregory
: >> > If the TV antenna is stationary, then it can't very well be turning,
: >> > can it?
: >> PD> "Stationary" and "rotary" don't mean the same thing when referring to
: >> PD> broadcast antennae, dork.
: >>A rotating antenae is a moving one, ergo not stationary, especially in
: >>this scenario.
: >are on whether or not there are hurricanes in the Pacific.
: object (antenna) to turn and be stationary at the same time?
Children, children.....
While "stationary" is often equated with "not moving", it is from the word
"station", which refers to a set location or place. An object which is
stationary stays in the same place. If an object *rotates* on its vertical
axis, it does not change its location, even though it is moving......
Honestly, all this wasted bandwidth and not a smidgen of attention paid
to the POINT of the original post, which was that a simple mundane
object produced an unusual visual effect which momentarily fooled the
observer into thinking they had seen something different than what was
actually there.
*deep sigh*
John Mcgowan
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
Charles Gregory replied ...
CG> From: ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) Subject:
CG> Re: Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize?
CG> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
: >> > If the TV antenna is stationary, then it can't very well be turning,
: >> > can it? "Stationary" and "rotary" don't mean the same thing when
: >> PD> referring to broadcast antennae, dork.
: >> A rotating antenae is a moving one, ergo not stationary, especially in
: >> this scenario.
: > Well, you are as unaware of the autokinetic effect as you are on
: > whether or not there are hurricanes in the Pacific. : So, Twit, are
CG> you claiming that your "autokinetic" effect causes an : object
CG> (antenna) to turn and be stationary at the same time? Children,
CG> children.....
CG> While "stationary" is often equated with "not moving", it is from the
CG> word "station", which refers to a set location or place. An object
CG> which is stationary stays in the same place. If an object *rotates* on
CG> its vertical axis, it does not change its location, even though it is
CG> moving...... Honestly, all this wasted bandwidth and not a smidgen
CG> of attention paid to the POINT of the original post, which was that
CG> a simple mundane object produced an unusual visual effect which
CG> momentarily fooled the observer into thinking they had seen
CG> something different than what was actually there.
CG> *deep sigh*
Although I agree, what we see here is the classic bantering of words when the
idea can not be conceptualized. :)
If you ignore them, they claim victory. If you banter, then it is childish.
:) It is really a no win situation. :)
Asmodeus
John Mcgowan
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
"B> From: "Ronald Bobo" <ron...@stlnet.com> Subject: Re: Randi's
"B> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
"B> POSTnet
"B> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
"B> <6ad3o6$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>> > > A stationary TV antenna can appear to streak accross the sky if the
>> > > light is right, it is turning, and you move your head just so.
>> > If the TV antenna is stationary, then it can't very well be turning,
>> > can it?
>> > Ron
>> PD> "Stationary" and "rotary" don't mean the same thing when referring to
>> PD> broadcast antennae, dork.
>> A rotating antenae is a moving one, ergo not stationary, especially in
>> this scenario. I have never seen a Television or Radio Station's
>> Antenae Move, have you?
> Well, you are as unaware of the autokinetic effect as you are on
> whether or not there are hurricanes in the Pacific.
Tell me everything you know on this `Autokinetic Effect', Twitch. I have 5
seconds or so.
And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because some
brainless twits in the 70s and 80s could not remember the proper term. Call
them all Cyclones for all I care. :) They are the same things.
"B> So, Twit, are you claiming that your "autokinetic" effect causes an
"B> object (antenna) to turn and be stationary at the same time? Good
"B> God, boy, get help!
Stationary is normally a term applied to a set location, however rotarary
antenaes were never known as stationary antenaes to CBers. A stationary
antenae was one that did not move at all, ie a groundplane. Rotating
antenaes were called directional antenaes, because of the movement that
allowed for the beams to be sent in the direction of your choice.
In addition, you have mobile antenaes, that were fixed to cars usually.
these antenaes were never considered Stationary antenaes when the car sat
still and the radio still broadcasted. Neither were mobile antenaes set up on
or in a house considered a stationary antenae. A mobile antenae is always a
mobile antenae.
And no matter how you want to mince words, Stationary antenaes can never
appear to streak, unless movement is involved somewhere. And Stationary
antenaes can never do the `Streak'. :)
>> And what you refer to is the difference between Mobil and Stationary.
> Sorry, John, but your reading comprehension problem is showing
> up again. He said it appeared to streak.
"B> And, with your limited intellect, you probably thought "streak" meant
"B> the antenna was running down the street with no clothes on! Get
"B> back on your medication, boy, before it's too late!
"B> Ron
As usual, Twitch mouths off before finding out the story. :) This is a
option he uses whenever he thinks he is being intelligent.
Charles Gregory made an excellent comment on this issue, and I agree with him
from the normal stand point, but when you break it down to a more precise
field, that definition loses it's potency. :) Another typical example of
more than one answer being the right one. :)
As I told him, though, this is a never ending arguement. If you ignore these
inane comments, citing that common sense oughta prevail and one should ask
first before jumping, they claim your answers as lame thereby giving them the
victory. If you stand on the issue, you are juvenile and wasting bandwidth.
After checking out the INET for over a year, I find the bandwidth here is
unimportant, for the INET wastes alot of bandwidth everywhere. :) However, I
am more concerned with my own HD Space. Whereas the INET has tons of systems
with big areas for storage, I have 60 Megs on one computer, 130 Megs on
another, and 2.5 Gigs on the third. All told, I do not have the space to
devote to such inanities for long. :)
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip>
>Tell me everything you know on this `Autokinetic Effect', Twitch. I have 5
>seconds or so.
Well, considering that over a period of the better part of a
year you still haven't figured out what an 800- 1000 point
drop beginning on March 12th means, I doubt two years would
be sufficent.
>
>And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because <snip.
The scientists do?
Mcgowan-Quality Research (tm) is a wonderful tool for making
an ass out of yourself, isn't it?
<snip>
>As usual, Twitch mouths off before finding out the story.<snip>
You mean like when Twitch said that Earl predicted that the
dow would drop 800 - 1000 points starting on March 12th and
within a 2 week period following?
You claimed that:
>He (Earl) did not say the market would drop 800 to 1000 points in less than two weeks
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>His (Earl's) prediction was that it would drop 800 to 1000 Points
Message-Id: <f4b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl did not predict an 800 to a 1000 point drop
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl said the market would drop 800 too 1000 points over a two week period.
Message-Id: <677_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>He (Earl) does not say `In less than two weeks the market will drop 800 to 1000
> points, or anything close. This is basic Grade school shit, people.
Message-Id: <7ee_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
What a shame you flunked shitting in grade school, John.
Perhaps that is what warped your character enough so you
took up with Earl?
Earl has been far more consistent than you when telling
about his prediction.
That certainly looks like a 800-1000 point drop within a two
Lou Minatti
>
> The scientists do?
It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
otherwise.
--
Fight back against the interstellar bastards.
Join us. Join Texans United Against Grey Aliens:
http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/DEADGREY.HTM
"I guess when the shoe fits on the other foot,
they get hoof and mouth disease." - EGC
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Lou Minatti <lou-m...@usa.net> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
><snip>
>> >And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because <snip.
>>
>> The scientists do?
><snip>
>
>It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
>drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
>It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
>Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
>otherwise.
>
Hell, when John was wrong about the close of the Dow on the
27th, most of us would have simply stated we were wrong.
Not John!
He first claimed that he had checked with the Wall Street
Journal and they backed him up!
Then, after that became too stupid for even John to keep
pushing, he claimed that he had caught the error himself!
When that became too stupid for even John to keep pushing,
he changed it to one best one person caught his error.
And, he even lied when he claimed that!
Darwyn Fry
Lou Minatti wrote:
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> <snip>
> > >And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because <snip.
> >
> > The scientists do?
> <snip>
>
> It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
> drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
> It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
> Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
> otherwise.
>
> --
> Fight back against the interstellar bastards.
> Join us. Join Texans United Against Grey Aliens:
> http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/DEADGREY.HTM
> "I guess when the shoe fits on the other foot,
> they get hoof and mouth disease." - EGC
That would not be John's style, I would not expect him to eat crow. If John
didn't keep posting support for his views no matter what the opposition is I
would suspect it wasn't really John but rather a forgery. I'm not making any
judgments about the context or validity of John's evidence in this post merely
an assessment of his style. John would agree with this assessment I think.
I would like to know, however, how come John claimed his copy of the Wall
Street Journal showed the close of the Dow on March 27th, 1997 to be 6470.59
when no other copy of the WSJ anywhere in existence showed this.
One way or the other this has to have a lie in it.
Also I want to know how John would like to set up a test for the $1.1 million
dollars so he can prove that dowsing works and that it is not paranormal in
nature. I have some suggestions if he is game. Of course I want rigid
controls, and no room for any chicanery. This should not be a problem for John
if his Dowsing FAQ is for real. Dowsing, however unlikely it may be, seems to
me to be the most plausible of all theories we see on these news groups, so
lets get to it and prove it exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow I have to be in court to try and sort out a business dispute, I won't
go into any detail on it as it has no relevance here but, wish me luck!
--
Darwyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Excuse me child, but I'm afraid they haven't been teaching you grade four
kids much in school, have they? What a stupid child."
Earl Curley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Mcgowan
>>> Part 1 of 3...
* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
Darwyn Fry replied ...
DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: Randi's
DF> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
DF> FoxSystems
DF> Lou Minatti wrote:
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> > > And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because
<snip.
> > The scientists do?
> It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
> drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
> It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
> Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
> otherwise.
But I am not wrong. You just do not listen well. :)
As I was growing up, it was always taught that Hurricanes were strictly
a North Atlantic Phenomena. However, other places called the same types
of storms different things. The Weathermen and the Meteorologists all
said the same thing.
It was sometime in th late 70s, Early 80s that a bunch of lazy asses began
calling the Pacific Monsoons Hurricanes. At first those Hurricanes were the
Storms that crossed Mexico and Central America. Later, the crossing over did
not become important.
Rapidly it became standard practice to cater to the lazy and irresponsible,
but I do not. Some one has to stand up for quality education, it appears
neither the government or the school system in America does. :)
I refuse to adapt because a few Mush heads refuse to learn the proper
terminology and our educational system supports that laziness. (This is the
upbringing of the Catholic Schools, either you learn something properly,
or you did not learn it at all.) :)
In grade school, if you called a Monsoon a hurricane, you could expect a
to be corrected, if you kept it up, you were considered a smart ass and often
got the old rulers across the fingers for your rudeness and ignorance. :)
Ergo, I stand correct when I said what I said. :) Anymore morons around here
with comprehension problems? Go see Sister Agnes and her world famous
attitude adjuster, as for me... I crossed swords with nuns and priests enough
for a lifetime, I will let you idiots have the fun. :) I did my pennance. :)
In ddition, I just completed the polling of over 100 people. Most say they
just recently started calling the Pacific Typhoons Hurricanes. Several of
them were raised in Hawaii and over 91% were born in the states that border
the pacific.
So there you have it, kiddies.
> -- Fight back against the interstellar bastards. Join us. Join Texans
> United Against Grey Aliens:
> http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/DEADGREY.HTM "I guess when the
> shoe fits on the other foot, they get hoof and mouth disease."
> - EGC
DF> That would not be John's style, I would not expect him to eat crow.
DF> If John didn't keep posting support for his views no matter what the
DF> opposition is I would suspect it wasn't really John but rather a
DF> forgery.
You know better than that, Darwyn. I learned a lesson that even a Texan can
understand, you never admit you are wrong when you are right. So if it is
that simple, that means those from Illinois oughta catch on pretty quick.
So far, no one has proven me wrong yet, especially you, the Twit, or that
Minatti Joker.
DF> I'm not making any judgments about the context or validity of
DF> John's evidence in this post merely an assessment of his style. John
DF> would agree with this assessment I think. I would like to know,
DF> however, how come John claimed his copy of the Wall Street Journal
DF> showed the close of the Dow on March 27th, 1997 to be 6470.59
DF> when no other copy of the WSJ anywhere in existence showed this.
DF> One way or the other this has to have a lie in it.
Once again you are mistaken. I did say that the number from the wall street
journal, and other sources, all said teh same number. I also said I first
used the one from the AP, then mentioned that there is such a thing as a
transposition of numbers. :)
You all were caught in the trap. For you insisted on only using the one
source, your wall street journal, and even claimed then and a few weeks ago
that the article did not exist. :) In addition, you questioned the existance
of Bruce Meyerson (who is apparantly New York Based). Twitch rambled on
senselessly and the others did worse than that.
The Funny thing is only Earl Curley, and "Ron Bobo" (I think, he can correct
me on that) caught the `Supposed Mistake'. With in a week, I stated what I
did in a little more detail than the first time. :) Once again the need to
flame overruled the need to find out the facts. :) And I did not tell Earl
what I was doing, he told me after a couple days from my first post on that
subject (or would you prefer to call it a Sub-Topic). :)
The ridiculous part of the whole thing was, that I stated a long time before
that I was not using those figures as a part of my appraisal of Earl's
Talents, even though I provided the full figures as if I was. :) The only
thing you people found flawed was something I already discounted, two weeks
before. (LOL)
I love doing things like this to see how alert my opponents are. And I do it
after I already won my point so it doesn't cloud the original issue. :) But
this treatment is only reserved for the ignorant.
>>> Continued to next message...
John Mcgowan
>>> Part 2 of 3...
Darwyn, you are young, or so you claim now. We suspected that then, with
almost 100% accuracy. But you maintained you were an adult, over 20 years
old. Never-the-less you have an excuse because you came clean, in part.
The others do not even have that much excuse. If you wish to learn how to do
this trick, I assure you that it comes in handy in practical situations,
especially when the clown you do this to thinks they are taking advantage of
you. You see what happens, you can get them so wound up on their petty
points that they never see it coming. :) The outcome is they are the ones in
the spot they wish you to be. :) It is called `Turning the tables on your
opponent.'. I learned it from watching the debate teams vie for points. :)
DF> Also I want to know how John would like to set up a test for the $1.1
DF> million dollars so he can prove that dowsing works and that it is not
DF> paranormal in nature. I have some suggestions if he is game. Of
DF> course I want rigid controls, and no room for any chicanery. This
DF> should not be a problem for John if his Dowsing FAQ is for real.
DF> Dowsing, however unlikely it may be, seems to me to be the most
DF> plausible of all theories we see on these news groups, so lets get to
DF> it and prove it exists.
Good, let us bring this up once and for all, for all the newbies. Go to Deja
News and You will see I said similar things months ago.
1. I do not, ever, take a sucker Bet.
There is just cause to think the Randi Challenge is rigged at one or
more points in the challenge and the preliminary procedures. This has
been discussed many times. Until I find absolute proof he is beyond
redemption, as the Randi-Cultists wish to promote, the test is com-
pletely out of the question. However, I offered three versions of
the same offer to James Randi in Early February, prior to his con-
tacting me. All three versions said that I would meet with him and
show him what I can do, in private, and if he is convinced, he can
quietly say he found evidence to support that some forms of Dowsing
may be scientific. All it would cost him is a cup of coffee, and
he could arrange it for when he was out this way. In short, he could
take all the credit for the find himself, thereby attracting even more
siclers, I mean followers.
James Randi was apparantly sent a message, and his message answered
none of my comments, except one. He said Dowsing is paranormal. He
also said I was eligible to apply to take the challenge, but never
said I could take the challenge. :) And he said many other things
as well, to make him look like he knew what he was talking about.
I then sent him a couple replies in EMail, and copies of those replies
in alt.paranormal. He made no response until a couple months later,
but that response was not in response to my information and messages.
It also had an EMail Address for something in Illinois, instead of the
Florida address he used the first time.
In response to this message, I stated I would take his money, with my
parameters, which were totally fair and totally taken out of our hands
and placed into the hands of the city of Phoenix, so to speak. We would
go out and use existing live utilities already in the ground. The argue
ment was this was not the infamous Double blind method, but it was, for
no agency in this valley can accurately tell you where their utilities
are. They have to locate them everytime they want to do something to
them. ) And they do that by Modern Dowsing, I.e. call before you dig.
Just yesterday, I proved once again that these utility companies have no
clue in knowing where and how their utilities run. They claimed the
Phoneline they were following stopped. I proved it continued, but instead
of going straight as they insisted, it curved and then followed the
Existing, abandonned water line trench which originally fed the sub-
division. :)
Supposedly they are supposed to come back and find out for themselves.
2. If, perchance, a new thing occurred and I came up with nothing, Nor
could I proved Randi cheated, would I ever lie and say Dowsing is
Paranormal only and I lied when I said it works (or whatever the exact
wording Randi chooses. For it does, and Randi only proved I failed for
my first time since I started Dowsing in the very early 80's.
But I would not go quietly, I would demand the site be dug up immediately
and I would break open the pipes to prove whether the water is flowing
where he said it was. In addition, I would demand my own people at every
place the controls are and one at the outlet where the water flows out
of. I can think of, at least, two people that would just love the job
of keeping Randi Straight. :) I would also demand on-site inspectors
who are neutral, but who are also of my choosing. They would be present
during all aspects of the construction phase, and they would have control
over calling any fouls they see, forcing Randi to forfeit his money
immediately. In Addition, I would retain the right to make any reasonable
demand up until showtime, which I see fit.
And these are only two aspects that I would demand and Randi would not agree
with, for I would effectively take all control out of his hands and place
them into the hands of trustworthy people. But that all is moot, because the
I do not trust that magician as far as I can throw him. :)
Oh, BTW, he and CSICOP would be financially responsible for all aspects of
the test, and the demands I make, plus the $1.1 Mil. That means he would pay
the fees of the experts I bring in.
The First expert is an engineering company that I know, who is above
reproach. There is a lawyer I know who may accept the task of keeping the
engineers honest. Plus I would ask Earl Curley, Ron Bobo, Uri Gellar and a
few people unnamed at this time to monitor all aspects of the construction,
testing and seeing no one plays games with the value.
In addition I would require the water district to continually test the water
to insure it has not been tampered with. :) The Engineer I pick will show me
where all the controls are so I can place the monitors there to keep an eye
on the people who's job it is to control the water. :)
In addition, the soil's will be tested before and after the test, and maybe
during too. In short I would pull out no stops to severely limit Randi from
pulling any tricks. Plus, did I mention, all who are present will be searched
for any item that could interfere with the testing procedures. And I have a
few other things as well, but you never tell a magician all. Especially one
as wiley as James is. :)
John Mcgowan
>>> Part 3 of 3...
As you can see, All my demands would be perfectly reasonable to insure the
the tests could not be tampered with, at least as much as possible. No, Randi
does not want the likes of me even considering the taking of his challenge,
for the challenge prelims would be stalemated. But, Randi is more than
welcome to read my FAQ and past posts, and if he ever decides I make some
sense, he can plop his name on it and take the credit.
Then we get into why I won't take the challenge.
1. First and foremost, I am a disabled Vet, with Cardiomypathy. My
condition was caused by the US Government, through the Military,
for authorizing me to take drugs that were known to cause this
exact condition, and they did it with out telling me this poss-
ibility Existed. Therefore I hold them responsible for their
mistake and they will stick to their responsibility. My condi-
tion was in the line of duty. My philosophy is I did my duty,
so now they can fuckin' do theirs. This is not negotiable.
Therefore I will not jeopardize my losing the hospitalization,
medication and disability rating over a measley $1.1 Million.
My priority is to myself, and to insure my parent's will not
be stuck with High Medical bills when I die.
I also demand to be buried in a Veteran's Cemetary, which is
my right. I literally gave my life for this country, now all I
can do is await for the old heart to go. I also do not wish
for them to replace that original organ, I was born with it,
I will die with it.
`Nuf said on that, this issue is closed.
Asmodeus
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> Once again you are mistaken. I did say that the number from the wall street
> journal, and other sources, all said teh same number.
You said that the WSJ printed 6470.59 specifically. You said that in response to
my poof the actual numbers for the 27th. In message
<4a6_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com> You said:
"Define as you will, but on 3/27/97 the market closed at 6470.59, from
7085.16. Now get out your calculators, boys and girls, cause that is a
drop of 614.57 DROP!!!! not 344.57 as Darwyn lies about. (LOL) Nice Try
kid, but never mess with the master."
In the same message you also said:
"Only as long as you keep your mouth shut and cite the true facts as they
are printed in the sources. My copy of the Wall Street journal confirmed
the info I pulled out of the Phoenix paper and clearly shows closing on
the 27th was indeed as I stated above."
So you did say that the WSJ printed 6470.59 as the close for March 27 1997. This
was before you ever mentioned the name Bruce Myerson or his byline.
> I also said I first
> used the one from the AP, then mentioned that there is such a thing as a
> transposition of numbers. :)
Which is what I called it the day you posted it not several days later or weeks
later as you wish to try and say now. And funny that as soon as I saw this article
I said in message <337CFF...@nospam.netins.net>
"Master of lousy math I will buy, anything else is nonsense. John you
totally botched this one. The close on the 27th was not 6470.59 it was
6740.59 you messed up by transposing the 7 and the 4. You got yourself
the additional 270 points by doing so. What a joke your math is. Earl
is now back down to 61.457% according to you and 26.12375% if we stick
to the two weeks he actually predicted. Don't brag about you data
unless you can do the math properly." And about your claim that 6470.59 was in the
WSJ I said:
"Nonsense! Are we to believe John gets a Wall Street Journal with
information completely different that the one every one else gets?. I
have clippings from the March 28th Wall Street Journal online that prove
John's data is anything but beyond reproach. John you can not possibly
be this careless! You must be doing this as a joke!"
Funny how I asked if you where doing it as a joke and you didn't admit that was
what you where doing at the time. Instead you kept defending the claim until much
latter. When you finally did try and claim you did it on purpose no one was going
to buy it. Next time you get a perfect chance to say something was done in jest
take it! Don't go on and on defending silly claims until it is too late, then
expect any one to believe you weren't serious.
I used several sources to check my numbers but posted the ones form the WSJ as all
the sources agreed and there was no need to post 3 sets of the same numbers. The
Des Moines Register and Chicago Tribune both had the same numbers printed as the
closing for each day within the prediction.
I use the WSJ to post info on the Dow since Dow Jones owns the Journal.
> You all were caught in the trap. For you insisted on only using the one
> source, your wall street journal, and even claimed then and a few weeks ago
> that the article did not exist. :)
Well if we where caught in your trap produce some evidence of it. All the evidence
seems to support that it was mistake on your part and that no one was caught up in
anything.The Arizona Republic sent me the text of the article but not the graphic
I'm still trying to get someone there to send me a copy of that. Again I have said
this before, using a byline and general info article is probably not the best
source when trying to determine the actions of the Dow in a given period of time.
That is why I went into the library and dug up all the daily papers for the period
in question and took the numbers from them.
> In addition, you questioned the existance
> of Bruce Meyerson (who is apparantly New York Based). Twitch rambled on
> senselessly and the others did worse than that.
>
> The Funny thing is only Earl Curley, and "Ron Bobo" (I think, he can correct
> me on that) caught the `Supposed Mistake'. With in a week,
Gee took them that long? Where they sleeping? Again I caught it the next day.
> I stated what I
> did in a little more detail than the first time. :) Once again the need to
> flame overruled the need to find out the facts. :) And I did not tell Earl
> what I was doing, he told me after a couple days from my first post on that
> subject (or would you prefer to call it a Sub-Topic). :)
>
> The ridiculous part of the whole thing was, that I stated a long time before
> that I was not using those figures as a part of my appraisal of Earl's
> Talents, even though I provided the full figures as if I was. :) The only
> thing you people found flawed was something I already discounted, two weeks
> before. (LOL)
But John, you kept defending the number? If it was flawed why would you even post
it? How do you expect anyone to believe all this now when all the evidence shows
you where wrong.
> I love doing things like this to see how alert my opponents are. And I do it
> after I already won my point so it doesn't cloud the original issue. :) But
> this treatment is only reserved for the ignorant.
Well only the ignorant would belive that you did this on purpose, and when did you
win?
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> >>> Part 2 of 3...
>
> Darwyn, you are young, or so you claim now. We suspected that then, with
> almost 100% accuracy. But you maintained you were an adult, over 20 years
> old. Never-the-less you have an excuse because you came clean, in part.
I still am an adult, I didn't say I wasn't it matters not what you think John,
what a joker you are.
> DF> Also I want to know how John would like to set up a test for the $1.1
> DF> million dollars so he can prove that dowsing works and that it is not
> DF> paranormal in nature. I have some suggestions if he is game. Of
> DF> course I want rigid controls, and no room for any chicanery. This
> DF> should not be a problem for John if his Dowsing FAQ is for real.
> DF> Dowsing, however unlikely it may be, seems to me to be the most
> DF> plausible of all theories we see on these news groups, so lets get to
> DF> it and prove it exists.
>
> Good, let us bring this up once and for all, for all the newbies. Go to Deja
> News and You will see I said similar things months ago.
>
> 1. I do not, ever, take a sucker Bet.
No one is asking you to, but it's a good excuse you come up with to avoid being
shown to be wrong about dowsing I suppose.
> There is just cause to think the Randi Challenge is rigged at one or
> more points in the challenge and the preliminary procedures. This has
> been discussed many times.
Never intelligently however. Just a lot of unfounded claims.
> Until I find absolute proof he is beyond
> redemption, as the Randi-Cultists wish to promote, the test is com-
> pletely out of the question.
Nice, another excuse you can use to duck being tested and shown to be in error in
your belief about dowsing.
> However, I offered three versions of
> the same offer to James Randi in Early February, prior to his con-
> tacting me. All three versions said that I would meet with him and
> show him what I can do, in private, and if he is convinced, he can
> quietly say he found evidence to support that some forms of Dowsing
> may be scientific.
I may be out your way next year... maybe you could do the trick for me? If I
think it is real I will advise Randi on what I saw. What do you say? August or
maybe later in the fall or early winter would you like to do your act for me over
coffee? No pressure John, just a friendly meeting, you find out that you where
wrong about a few things about me, you do the dowsing trick and see if you can
convince me, and we then decide if it needs further investigation or not.
I would expect to have a demonstration in an area with utilities in it and have a
person there to locate them behind you. I expect 100% results as you have said
here it always works for you. If that was not an accurate statement then please
tell me what results can be expected. Any testing for the money should be done
in a site to be set up especially for the test in order to rule out the
possibility you where able to locate the utilities before hand as I have done
when doing the trick for people in the past, but in a demonstration for me I
would not object to using an existing site as no money is at stake, and I think I
know what to look for in your movements and posture.
> All it would cost him is a cup of coffee, and
> he could arrange it for when he was out this way. In short, he could
> take all the credit for the find himself, thereby attracting even more
> siclers, I mean followers.
Well I'm not into media coverage and taking credit, so there is another reason it
would be a low pressure situation if you did you trick for me.
> James Randi was apparantly sent a message, and his message answered
> none of my comments, except one. He said Dowsing is paranormal. He
> also said I was eligible to apply to take the challenge, but never
> said I could take the challenge. :) And he said many other things
> as well, to make him look like he knew what he was talking about.
I didn't send it that time. Honest!
> I then sent him a couple replies in EMail, and copies of those replies
> in alt.paranormal. He made no response until a couple months later,
> but that response was not in response to my information and messages.
> It also had an EMail Address for something in Illinois, instead of the
> Florida address he used the first time.
>
> In response to this message, I stated I would take his money, with my
> parameters, which were totally fair and totally taken out of our hands
> and placed into the hands of the city of Phoenix, so to speak. We would
> go out and use existing live utilities already in the ground. The argue
> ment was this was not the infamous Double blind method, but it was, for
> no agency in this valley can accurately tell you where their utilities
> are.
If they are there already there is a chance that you could know where they are
before the test. Or at least know where they are within a close enough degree to
get hits. Randi isn't a fool John.
> They have to locate them everytime they want to do something to
> them. ) And they do that by Modern Dowsing, I.e. call before you dig.
You locate in order to be absolutely certain. I know workers for our local phone
system that know where lines are here in town, yet they locate them before doing
any digging anyway just to be 100% certain they won't sever them accidentally.
Plot maps on file in Ames have shown city power lines with incredible accuracy on
properties I have worked on as well. There are ways to know ahead of time where
to expect the lines to be.
> Just yesterday, I proved once again that these utility companies have no
> clue in knowing where and how their utilities run. They claimed the
> Phoneline they were following stopped. I proved it continued, but instead
> of going straight as they insisted, it curved and then followed the
> Existing, abandonned water line trench which originally fed the sub-
> division. :)
>
> Supposedly they are supposed to come back and find out for themselves.
If they haven't checked yet how can you claim you have proven anything?
> 2. If, perchance, a new thing occurred and I came up with nothing, Nor
> could I proved Randi cheated, would I ever lie and say Dowsing is
> Paranormal only and I lied when I said it works (or whatever the exact
> wording Randi chooses. For it does, and Randi only proved I failed for
> my first time since I started Dowsing in the very early 80's.
This is incoherent. You will have to translate it.
> But I would not go quietly, I would demand the site be dug up immediately
> and I would break open the pipes to prove whether the water is flowing
> where he said it was. In addition, I would demand my own people at every
> place the controls are and one at the outlet where the water flows out
> of. I can think of, at least, two people that would just love the job
> of keeping Randi Straight. :) I would also demand on-site inspectors
> who are neutral, but who are also of my choosing. They would be present
> during all aspects of the construction phase, and they would have control
> over calling any fouls they see, forcing Randi to forfeit his money
> immediately. In Addition, I would retain the right to make any reasonable
> demand up until showtime, which I see fit.
I thought you said you didn't dowse for water?
> And these are only two aspects that I would demand and Randi would not agree
> with, for I would effectively take all control out of his hands and place
> them into the hands of trustworthy people. But that all is moot, because the
> I do not trust that magician as far as I can throw him. :)
We will see won't we...
> Oh, BTW, he and CSICOP would be financially responsible for all aspects of
> the test, and the demands I make, plus the $1.1 Mil. That means he would pay
> the fees of the experts I bring in.
>
> The First expert is an engineering company that I know, who is above
> reproach.
Your expert is an engineering company? Or does he work for one, or own the
company?
> There is a lawyer I know who may accept the task of keeping the
> engineers honest. Plus I would ask Earl Curley, Ron Bobo, Uri Gellar and a
> few people unnamed at this time to monitor all aspects of the construction,
> testing and seeing no one plays games with the value.
Value of what??Why use Gellar? or Curley? or Bobo? Are you saying you don't
know anyone in real life that would be able to offer unbiased opinions? Don't
you have any friends?
> In addition I would require the water district to continually test the water
> to insure it has not been tampered with. :)
Yes we would not want any water tampering! John you are thinking too much. How
could the water be tampered with? Maybe some negative vibes being sent into it?
> The Engineer I pick will show me
> where all the controls are so I can place the monitors there to keep an eye
> on the people who's job it is to control the water. :)
Those monitors and you better be searched for any wireless radio devices then.
Then that would be a reasonable request, also there will have to be a screen so
you can not see them in any way during the test. In fact, I would insist on no
visual contact between you and any experts or monitors you bring in. Any contact
at all, visual or vocal would void the test.
> In addition, the soil's will be tested before and after the test, and maybe
> during too. In short I would pull out no stops to severely limit Randi from
> pulling any tricks.
What could he do to the soil? Again I think your reaching but I guess I wouldn't
have a problem with that either. As long as you where not allowed on the test
site while your soil expert was doing his intermittent testing test.
> Plus, did I mention, all who are present will be searched
> for any item that could interfere with the testing procedures.
You bet they would. That includes you and all your "Experts."
> And I have a
> few other things as well, but you never tell a magician all. Especially one
> as wiley as James is. :)
All demands have to be made prior to the test. Neither you nor Randi are allowed
to make last minute demands, that would damage the credibility of the test.You
know what I think, all this is an attempt to keep him from agreeing to test you,
if he agrees to all this you will come up with more and more demands until you
get to ones he wont agree with because they would compromise the controls on you,
then you would claim Randi was afraid to test you, you would post that here and
defend it no matter what any one said.
How do I know? Simple, with all your demands you have not mentioned one that
will keep you honest, only ones that are supposedly to keep Randi honest. Also
you bring in people you KNOW Randi would not trust to monitor the test like
Gellar and Curley. You also do not mention any conditions on how the test would
be set up, only controls on Randi. When you take up this much time and do not
even bother to try and design a test that would test the ability you claim to
have, I have to wonder.
You claim to be able to dowse for utilities yet talk about a test with water...
Lets stop avoiding it and design the test that will work for examining the
abilities you claim to have. I know Randi sent you some outlines lets discuss
them. Tell me what is wrong with his test parameters and what you would need to
keep it honest?
--
Darwyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxsystems.com/wizard1.jpg
Darwyn Fry
John Mcgowan wrote:
> >>> Part 3 of 3...
>
> As you can see, All my demands would be perfectly reasonable to insure the
> the tests could not be tampered with, at least as much as possible. No, Randi
> does not want the likes of me even considering the taking of his challenge,
> for the challenge prelims would be stalemated.
The only reason I can see for this happening is if John stalemates them on
purpose to keep from being proven wrong.
> But, Randi is more than
> welcome to read my FAQ and past posts, and if he ever decides I make some
> sense, he can plop his name on it and take the credit.
In other words only John McGowan makes sense...
> Then we get into why I won't take the challenge.
>
> 1. First and foremost, I am a disabled Vet, with Cardiomypathy. My
> condition was caused by the US Government, through the Military,
> for authorizing me to take drugs that were known to cause this
> exact condition, and they did it with out telling me this poss-
> ibility Existed. Therefore I hold them responsible for their
> mistake and they will stick to their responsibility. My condi-
> tion was in the line of duty. My philosophy is I did my duty,
> so now they can fuckin' do theirs. This is not negotiable.
>
> Therefore I will not jeopardize my losing the hospitalization,
> medication and disability rating over a measley $1.1 Million.
> My priority is to myself, and to insure my parent's will not
> be stuck with High Medical bills when I die.
$1.1 million properly invested will do the same thing, also if you don't want the
money why not donate it to your parents or to the DAV, or to some other worthy
cause or something? Sorry John but that is a cop out clear and simple.
> I also demand to be buried in a Veteran's Cemetary, which is
> my right. I literally gave my life for this country, now all I
> can do is await for the old heart to go. I also do not wish
> for them to replace that original organ, I was born with it,
> I will die with it.
>
> `Nuf said on that, this issue is closed.
Hardly...
You are ducking the challenge. If you don't want the money you don't have to
keep it, and the prize does not include mandatory heart replacement, or that you
can't be buried in a Veteran's Cemetery. All of your arguments here are just
plain silly.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> >>> Part 1 of 3...
>
>* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
>
> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: Randi's
> DF> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
> DF> FoxSystems
>
> DF> Lou Minatti wrote:
>
> > twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > > John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>
> > > > And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because
>
> <snip.
>
> > > The scientists do?
>
> > It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
> > drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
> > It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
> > Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
> > otherwise.
>
>But I am not wrong.<snip>
Quite the contrary. You are wrong.
NOAA, the weather channel, etc all agree that Hurricanes
exist in the Pacific. Either the worlds scientists are
wrong or you, Ron, and Earl are. The scientists aren't
wrong in this case.
You have been wrong on virtually everything you post.
Remember when you claimed that Randi wouldn't accept you for
the challenge because you claimed dowsing wasn't paranormal.
Randi did accept you and all you did was make excuses for
why you didn't want to win a million bucks.
BTW, I just checked and there are still loads of web sites
discussing Hurricane Bertha from 1996, but, strangely
enough, not one for a hurricane Arthur which Earl claims was
the first hurricane of the season.
I wonder why?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> wrote:
>
>
>John Mcgowan wrote:
>
<snip>
>> I love doing things like this to see how alert my opponents are. And I do it
>> after I already won my point so it doesn't cloud the original issue. :) But
>> this treatment is only reserved for the ignorant.
>
>Well only the ignorant would belive that you did this on purpose, and when did you
>win?
>
Why, John won the master of math award. And master of logic
award. And master of consistency award.
But, alas, John still hasn't been able to figure out what
Earl predicted!
>He (Earl) did not say the market would drop 800 to 1000 points in less than two weeks
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
> Reread the prediction. Once the fall began, it does not matter how long it
> took, as long as it was an uninterrupted drop, which this was.
> His prediction was that it would drop 800 to 1000 Points
Message-Id: <f4b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl did not predict an 800 to a 1000 point drop
Message-Id: <7eb_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>Earl said the market would drop 800 too 1000 points over a two week period.
Message-Id: <677_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
>He (Earl) does not say `In less than two weeks the market will drop 800 to 1000
> points, or anything close. This is basic Grade school shit, people.
Message-Id: <7ee_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
What Earl claimed was:
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
this is being posted twice since I forgot to put back in
sci.skeptic which John removed and Lou reads sci.skeptic
> >>> Part 1 of 3...
>
>* While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
>
> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: Randi's
> DF> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
> DF> FoxSystems
>
> DF> Lou Minatti wrote:
>
> > twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > > John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>
> > > > And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because
>
> <snip.
>
> > > The scientists do?
>
> > It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
> > drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
> > It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
> > Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
> > otherwise.
>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> >>> Part 2 of 3...
>
<snip>
>
>
>Good, let us bring this up once and for all, for all the newbies. Go to Deja
>News and You will see I said similar things months ago.
Nope. You claimed that you could beat it but that Randi
wouldn't take you since you claimed it wasn't paranormal.
When Randi posted that he would accept you, you decided that
you didn't need the money!
You spend a great deal of time attempting to weasel out of
having to show you could do what you claimed.
>
>1. I do not, ever, take a sucker Bet.
>
> There is just cause to think the Randi Challenge is rigged<snip>
Funny how you didn't say this until after he said you could
take the challenge, isn't it?
> James Randi was apparantly sent a message, and his message answered
> none of my comments, except one. He said Dowsing is paranormal. He
> also said I was eligible to apply to take the challenge, but never
> said I could take the challenge.
That is the same thing.
<snip>
>
> I then sent him a couple replies in EMail, and copies of those replies
> in alt.paranormal.
Funny, then you claimed that his "cultists" could send him
the emails and that you didn't have to.
<snip>
> The argue
> ment was this was not the infamous Double blind method, but it was, for
> no agency in this valley can accurately tell you where their utilities
> are. They have to locate them everytime they want to do something to
> them. ) And they do that by Modern Dowsing, I.e. call before you dig.
I checked with our local utilities and they all said that
they don't use dowsing but use maps. They know within
inches where each line is, they want other people to call
them before they dig so that they don't disrupt their
service.
<snip of claim provided without evidence>
>2. If, perchance, a new thing occurred and I came up with nothing, Nor
> could I proved Randi cheated, would I ever lie and say Dowsing is
> Paranormal only and I lied when I said it works (or whatever the exact
> wording Randi chooses. For it does, and Randi only proved I failed for
> my first time since I started Dowsing in the very early 80's.
Shyness factor at work again!
It only works when no one is looking!
<snip>
>
>
>And these are only two aspects that I would demand and Randi would not agree
>with<snip>
And, would you please post the email where he stated that he
would not accept this aspects?
Or is this just more of your lies?
<snip of John Mcgowan claiming that Earl Curley and Ron Bobo
are "experts">
Lou Minatti
John Mcgowan wrote:
>
> >>> Part 1 of 3...
>
> * While talking of Randi's challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? on
> Darwyn Fry replied ...
>
> DF> From: Darwyn Fry <df...@foxsystems.com> Subject: Re: Randi's
> DF> challenge...why hasn't someone claimed the prize? Organization:
> DF> FoxSystems
>
> DF> Lou Minatti wrote:
>
> > twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > > John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
>
> > > > And I told you, I refuse to call Monsoons Hurricanes just because
>
> <snip.
>
> > > The scientists do?
>
> > It's amazing he won't simply eat crow and admit he was wrong, or just
> > drop it. This is not a grey area. It's not a skeptic vs believer issue.
> > It's very black and white. John says there are no hurricanes in the
> > Pacific. The evidence, available to each and every one of us, proves
> > otherwise.
>
> But I am not wrong. You just do not listen well. :)
The facts say otherwise.
> As I was growing up, it was always taught that Hurricanes were strictly
> a North Atlantic Phenomena. However, other places called the same types
> of storms different things. The Weathermen and the Meteorologists all
> said the same thing.
The Weathermen were a 1960's radical group.
> It was sometime in th late 70s, Early 80s that a bunch of lazy asses began
> calling the Pacific Monsoons Hurricanes. At first those Hurricanes were the
> Storms that crossed Mexico and Central America. Later, the crossing over did
> not become important.
>
> Rapidly it became standard practice to cater to the lazy and irresponsible,
> but I do not. Some one has to stand up for quality education, it appears
> neither the government or the school system in America does. :)
>
> I refuse to adapt because a few Mush heads refuse to learn the proper
> terminology and our educational system supports that laziness. (This is the
> upbringing of the Catholic Schools, either you learn something properly,
> or you did not learn it at all.) :)
>
> In grade school, if you called a Monsoon a hurricane, you could expect a
> to be corrected, if you kept it up, you were considered a smart ass and often
> got the old rulers across the fingers for your rudeness and ignorance. :)
You're just making this up as you go along.
> Ergo, I stand correct when I said what I said. :) Anymore morons around here
> with comprehension problems? Go see Sister Agnes and her world famous
> attitude adjuster, as for me... I crossed swords with nuns and priests enough
> for a lifetime, I will let you idiots have the fun. :) I did my pennance. :)
>
> In ddition, I just completed the polling of over 100 people. Most say they
> just recently started calling the Pacific Typhoons Hurricanes. Several of
> them were raised in Hawaii and over 91% were born in the states that border
> the pacific.
A selection of Pacific hurricanes, as listed on the NOAA web site:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/pr/hnl/cphc/pages/summaries.html
1959
August 1 - 8, Hurricane DOT
September 6 - 10, Typhoon/Hurricane PATSY
1957
July 14 - 26, Hurricane KANOA
August 6 - 15, Unnamed Hurricane
September 1 - 17, Hurricane/Typhoon DELLA
November 29 - December 7, Hurricane NINA
August 12 - 16, 1950, Hurricane HIKI
At least 30 years prior to your claim that "sometime in th late 70s,
Early 80s that a bunch of lazy asses began calling the Pacific Monsoons
Hurricanes (sic)", the national weather service was doing just that.
Frankly, we should be a little concerned about a school district that
teaches, "Hurricanes were strictly a North Atlantic Phenomena".
At this point I suspect even your small clique of admirers would admit
you are wrong about this. Even Dan is quiet. It's amazing that you even
try to argue about this issue when time and time again, you are proven
wrong. Why do you continue this pointless "debate"? It's not skeptic
versus believer, it's facts versus nonsense. And your posts are sorely
lacking anything in the way of facts.
Darwyn Fry
Lou Minatti wrote: .
> At this point I suspect even your small clique of admirers would admit
> you are wrong about this. Even Dan is quiet. It's amazing that you even
> try to argue about this issue when time and time again, you are proven
> wrong. Why do you continue this pointless "debate"? It's not skeptic
> versus believer, it's facts versus nonsense. And your posts are sorely
> lacking anything in the way of facts.
>
> --
But that is John! Just as he keeps arguing that it was he that pointed out his own
errors on the Curley Stock Market prediction thing, even though all the evidence
shows it was twitch and I that caught him first. Never fear John will argue until
the end of time no matter what the evidence shows. And by no means should you expect
John to ever post any evidence he is right, he never does. He makes references to
evidence he says he has, that is a close as you get. Never a single book title,
publication information, page numbers, message ID, nothing.
--
Darwyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
df...@netins.net