Want to know why many people who have psychic experiences keep quiet...watch this.
bigfl...@gmail.com
Giga
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60b5c0d8-2919-45d2...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsAmoqLkoDE&feature=related.
>
> BOfL
One of the problems with this kind of anecdotal evidence comes when you
compare the liklihood it happened through sheer chance. Even if we take this
lady at her word, IIRC, she wasn't normally phsychic, so she had a fairly
random intuition that this particular area was where the body/victim was.
Had she had these feelings other times and no body was found? How many other
people have had such intuitions and nothing was found? Could she have had
some information that reduced the seemingly massive chance of this being a
coincidence, like other bodies being found there, very few potential places
for bodies etc. So the final question is, to assess this as evidence, is how
likely it is to have happened by chance. I don't remember this programme
really dealing with this aspect of such an isolated anicdote.
I hope I speak as someone who is basically open minded to such things, and
UFOs.
Alan Ford
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Stop spamming the newsgroups with your crap. If we want to see idiots
behaving stupidly and believing in nonsense, we know where to find it.
Go the fuck away.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Zinnic
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sheer waste of time!!
Is there any corroberative evidence that she went to the area because
she had a "vision that there was a body there or did she go to the
area and then retro some vague feeling into the specifics she found.
This is the sort of vague stuff that wanna believers like Brian re-
enact in videos and then treat as definitive evidence. This is the
sort of stuff that encourages sceptics not to waste their time by
reviewing such silly reports!
Zinnic
dipsy
wrote:
Question? If you are psychic, one of the easiest things to "see" would
be 2 to 3 minutes into the future and pick a number between 1 to 10.
That should be easy for a psychic, so why don't they spend their days
at the races? They wouldn't need 1-800 phone numbers, now would they?
If anybody is psychic, e-mail me with who they like at Aqueduct, or
Santa Anita and I swear I'll go 50/50. Trust me....
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:46:38 -0800 (PST), Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you are an expert of psychics, and what they do, how and why?
Your reference to monetary evidence speaks volumes.
You may enjoy watching Derren Brown at the dog races. Im sure you will
become a fan of his.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Dec 31, 11:31 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
>
>
>
>
>
> ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> > <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:60b5c0d8-2919-45d2...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsAmoqLkoDE&feature=related.
>
> > > BOfL
>
> > One of the problems with this kind of anecdotal evidence comes when you
> > compare the liklihood it happened through sheer chance. Even if we take this
> > lady at her word, IIRC, she wasn't normally phsychic, so she had a fairly
> > random intuition that this particular area was where the body/victim was.
> > Had she had these feelings other times and no body was found? How many other
> > people have had such intuitions and nothing was found? Could she have had
> > some information that reduced the seemingly massive chance of this being a
> > coincidence, like other bodies being found there, very few potential places
> > for bodies etc. So the final question is, to assess this as evidence, is how
> > likely it is to have happened by chance. I don't remember this programme
> > really dealing with this aspect of such an isolated anicdote.
> > I hope I speak as someone who is basically open minded to such things, and
> > UFOs.
>
> Sheer waste of time!!
Of course it is a waste of "your" time, but you 'knew that' and still
looked.Nothing better to do with your time?
> Is there any corroberative evidence that she went to the area because
> she had a "vision that there was a body there or did she go to the
> area and then retro some vague feeling into the specifics she found.
If you dont mind wasting 'more time' you will find all the
corroberative evidence required, but you will still be a synic because
thats your conscious state.
> This is the sort of vague stuff that wanna believers like Brian re-
> enact in videos and then treat as definitive evidence.
You believe Im a believer.I constantly say Im not.How can I prove it
to you? Answer...it is impossible. I either know or dont know. You
dont believe such 'stuff' can be known, so you stick to your belief.
Did I say it was definitive evidence?No. What would 'definitive
evidence' look like? You should at least know that, otherwise how
would you recognise it?
> sort of stuff that encourages sceptics not to waste their time by
> reviewing such silly reports!
And yet you still did. Would you put someone like Michael Aspel in
that catagory? A man of great credibility? Would the Yanks believe
Walter Cronkite? The 'believing' consciousness is easily swayed.
I wonder if you looked at the corroborated reports from retired
military personel...air traffic controllers and hundreds of ordinary
observers on the UFO example posted later?
And further, do you think I care if you do or not? You seem to think
Im trying to persuade you or others. I know that is absolutely
impossinble, and unlike you, Im not one for wasting my time.So what is
my motive? You will have to look at your 'known list' of motives to
see if you can pick one.
BOfL
> Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
bigfl...@gmail.com
> bigflet...@gmail.com proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Stop spamming the newsgroups with your crap. If we want to see idiots
> behaving stupidly and believing in nonsense, we know where to find it.
>
> Go the fuck away.
>
> --
Ill take your word on that. Where do 'we' normally go?
I suggest if you feel confronted by such stuff, dont read my
contributions, then relatively I will have 'gone away'. There are
however many who take great interest in such subjects which is why
they lable themsleves phil, agn or ath.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
All evidence is anecdotal, until you find out 'first hand'. I find
such documentaries either are condemmned instantly (indicating the
closed mindedness of the observer, the two detectives being a perfect
example, who's rational was legitimate), or ,because the credibility
of the source (LWT and Michael Aspel have considerable status in the
UK) is enough to stimulate further investigation by the observer who
is open minded.
What if one investigated, and found every step to be accurate? That
may create a 'believer' but not a 'knower'.
In decades gone past of course, she would have been burned at the
stake, based on the universal principle 'lets destroy what we feel
threatened by'.Imagine what the two detectives would have felt about
their own status if they acknowleged proof. They would have felt
undermined at the very least.
I my experience, the few that 'know' allowed themselves to 'know'
because they were not attached to their past views/beliefs, even when
their community status was threatened. Hiw easy is it to be honest,
when the honesty may (apparently) cause you great damage
The difference between the first detective she approached and the two
that took over is a classic insight into different levels of
consciousness.Both legitimate, both valid and both leading to
different 'levels' of experience.
I only discovered this series last night, and watched all ten of them.
The one on UFO's will rock anybodies 'cradle'. Im very interested to
hear the responses.
BOfL
Monsieur Turtoni
> BOfL
I have a gut feeling that you're a phony fuck aka charlatan.
Does that help?
Giga
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a026943-cf66-4fc3...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 1, 1:31 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:60b5c0d8-2919-45d2...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsAmoqLkoDE&feature=related.
>
> > BOfL
>
> One of the problems with this kind of anecdotal evidence comes when you
> compare the liklihood it happened through sheer chance. Even if we take
> this
> lady at her word, IIRC, she wasn't normally phsychic, so she had a fairly
> random intuition that this particular area was where the body/victim was.
> Had she had these feelings other times and no body was found? How many
> other
> people have had such intuitions and nothing was found? Could she have had
> some information that reduced the seemingly massive chance of this being a
> coincidence, like other bodies being found there, very few potential
> places
> for bodies etc. So the final question is, to assess this as evidence, is
> how
> likely it is to have happened by chance. I don't remember this programme
> really dealing with this aspect of such an isolated anicdote.
> I hope I speak as someone who is basically open minded to such things, and
> UFOs.
All evidence is anecdotal,
=Actually I have heard that there has been some 'proper' scientific studies
that have *shown* statistically significant results for some kind of
telepathy-effect. I think this is widely accepted by many in the psychology
world, but the mechanism is still to be understood, and may not be
mind-reading as such.
Giga
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de85fbac-123c-40b0...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
BOfL
=Probably just a troll Brian.
Zinnic
claimed, using statistical analysis, that a small number of his
'telepathic' readers were correct more than could be explained by
mere chance (positive telepathy). One of his graduate students, using
the same analysis and data, demonstrated that an equal number were
more incorrect than could be explained by mere chance (negative
telepathy).
That is, the data revealed that equal numbers of readers showed
statistically significant positive, or equally significant, negative
deviations in card guessing. In summing up these results sceptics
like myself arrive at zero, wheras believers like Brian scuttle down
Alice's rabbit hole! ;-)
Zinnic
Alan Ford
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>> Stop spamming the newsgroups with your crap. If we want to see idiots
>> behaving stupidly and believing in nonsense, we know where to find it.
>>
>> Go the fuck away.
>>
>> --
>
> Ill take your word on that. Where do 'we' normally go?
With this type of crap? Either get a TV show or stand on the street corner.
>
> I suggest if you feel confronted by such stuff, dont read my
> contributions,
First of all, your posts are contributions in the same way that dogs
contribute to lawns and pavements.
Second, alt.atheism is a forum for issues concerning, oh I don't know...
*atheism*. What the hell do your ghost and UFO stories have to do with
that is beyond me. I am sure there are all kinds of paranormal forums
out there for peddling your junk.
then relatively I will have 'gone away'. There are
> however many who take great interest in such subjects which is why
> they lable themsleves phil, agn or ath.
No, there aren't. Here, let me demonstrate:
ATTENTION, EVERYONE!!! WOULD ANYONE ON ALT.ATHEISM WHO IS INTERESTED IN
READING THIS GUY'S POSTS PEDDLING PARANORMAL NONSENSE KINDLY REPLY HERE:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Kilmir
> On Jan 1, 3:48 am, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
>
> > bigflet...@gmail.com proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> > Stop spamming the newsgroups with your crap. If we want to see idiots
> > behaving stupidly and believing in nonsense, we know where to find it.
>
> > Go the fuck away.
>
> > --
>
> Ill take your word on that. Where do 'we' normally go?
Randi.org
Then after failing preliminairy testing, with a protocol the psychic
agreed upon, you go around accusing people of blocking psychic
energies, unfair protocol usage and other nonsense.
That's the path of people who are convinced their supernatural powers
exist of course. People who know they're shamming people don't try
Randi for obvious reasons.
Giga
"Zinnic" <zeen...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:f376834d-8ec4-4646...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
=Yes, that would seem to me also due to the calculation of 'chance' being
wrong. However I thought there was more than one study, but not really aware
of who did them.
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>
> Dr Rhine of the now defunct Dept of Parasychology, Duke University
> claimed, using statistical analysis, that a small number of his
> 'telepathic' readers were correct more than could be explained by
> mere chance (positive telepathy). One of his graduate students, using
> the same analysis and data, demonstrated that an equal number were
> more incorrect than could be explained by mere chance (negative
> telepathy).
> That is, the data revealed that equal numbers of readers showed
> statistically significant positive, or equally significant, negative
> deviations in card guessing. In summing up these results sceptics
> like myself arrive at zero, wheras believers like Brian scuttle down
> Alice's rabbit hole! ;-)
> Zinnic
>
> =Yes, that would seem to me also due to the calculation of 'chance'
> being wrong. However I thought there was more than one study, but not
> really aware of who did them.
No, the idea that all people who take part in what was a guessing game would
all score exactly the same would not be expected. Some people are going to
do better and some worse.
I know a guy who was so lucky that he got mad when he lost a game based on
chance.
He walked away from an accident that seriously injured the rest of his
family. One of them remained in a coma and another was a paraplegic.
He flew medivac helicopters during Vietnam and came out believing choppers
were far safer than fixed wing aircraft.
Even the little things went his way. He caught a large fish one day and
showed it to the first person he came to. It was a game warden who pointed
out all the no-fishing signs and let him go.
I once bought 20 tickets for a raffle. Another woman did the same. She won
four times.
I picked my name out before and after the raffle and even picked the little
girl who drew the tickets. *During* the raffle my name did not come up.
bigfl...@gmail.com
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "Zinnic" <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
So does Zinnic, but he doesnt want to disturb his status quo.
I have, for many years , studied Pythagorean numerology and associated
geometry (the golden ratio being an example).
I spoke quite a lot about the subject, and was challenged to come up
with and epistemological study by Z. I gave him one, but all as he
could do was to point to the guy who funded the study (at a German
university) as a "play boy".
He didnt look further, to quote him from memory, 'because he knew it
was bogus'.
Many years ago, such behaviour used to frustrate me until I recognised
that to be receptive to a paradigm shift in traditional teaching, a
shift in consciousness was needed. He and a couple of others here
ridicued the whole subject, quoting their traditional qualifications
as their argument.
I also used to think that an expansion of consciousness was somehow
linked to intellectual capacity, which is absolutely not the case.
BOfL
chazwin
wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsAmoqLkoDE&feature=related.
>
> BOfL
Because they are as stupid and gullible as you?