(JREF) DEBUNKER CAUGHT CHEATING ON CAM
|-|ercules
This is the best any skeptic can do to duplicate my feats.
I thought the dozens of skeptics paranormal prizes for millions of dollars
was to prove paranormal with a test. It's slightly different, the skeptics use
sane rational argument to prove to you that paranormal is impossible and the
psychic loses the $1,000,000 by default!!! If I wanted to win a fcking debate
I would've applied for a debating competition.
RANDI SAYS "SCIENCE IS SIMPLE"
http://s721.photobucket.com/albums/ww214/ozdude7/JAMES-RANDI/
Herc
--
: -)-~
BruceS
I have to side with Herc on this. The "debunker" reads the page
first, to find something on it that he can use, whereas Herc blindly
points at part of the page *before* looking at it. There's a world of
difference in difficulty there.
On the other hand, the debunker is easy to understand. Herc, it would
help to have this level of clarity in your sound.
Dakota
Skeptics do not claim that the ability to duplicate a 'feat' by normal
means disproves the possibility of a paranormal explanation. Scientists
deal with the natural world which does not cheat. Scientists examining a
paranormal claim have often been fooled by charlatans who do cheat. By
demonstrating that claimed effects can be easily duplicated, skeptics
greatly assist in the design of tests of paranormal claims.
The burden of demonstrating a paranormal claim is true falls on the
claimant. Testing protocols must be agreed upon by both the claimant and
those performing the test. To date, no one has been able to demonstrate
a paranormal effect in a well designed test. No one.
raven1
<radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/JEFF-WAGG-JREF-DEBUNKER-CHEATS
>
>This is the best any skeptic can do to duplicate my feats.
>
>I thought the dozens of skeptics paranormal prizes for millions of dollars
>was to prove paranormal with a test. It's slightly different, the skeptics use
>sane rational argument to prove to you that paranormal is impossible and the
>psychic loses the $1,000,000 by default!!! If I wanted to win a fcking debate
>I would've applied for a debating competition.
If you wanted to win $100, you would have posted my VIN over a month
ago. Instead, you chickened out.
BruceS
> On Tue 8/24/10 10:49, BruceS wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 4:50 pm, "|-|ercules"<radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://tinyurl.com/JEFF-WAGG-JREF-DEBUNKER-CHEATS
>
> >> This is the best any skeptic can do to duplicate my feats.
>
> >> I thought the dozens of skeptics paranormal prizes for millions of dollars
> >> was to prove paranormal with a test. It's slightly different, the skeptics use
> >> sane rational argument to prove to you that paranormal is impossible and the
> >> psychic loses the $1,000,000 by default!!! If I wanted to win a fcking debate
> >> I would've applied for a debating competition.
>
> >> RANDI SAYS "SCIENCE IS SIMPLE"http://s721.photobucket.com/albums/ww214/ozdude7/JAMES-RANDI/
>
> > I have to side with Herc on this. The "debunker" reads the page
> > first, to find something on it that he can use, whereas Herc blindly
> > points at part of the page *before* looking at it. There's a world of
> > difference in difficulty there.
>
> > On the other hand, the debunker is easy to understand. Herc, it would
> > help to have this level of clarity in your sound.
>
> Skeptics do not claim that the ability to duplicate a 'feat' by normal
> means disproves the possibility of a paranormal explanation. Scientists
> deal with the natural world which does not cheat. Scientists examining a
> paranormal claim have often been fooled by charlatans who do cheat. By
> demonstrating that claimed effects can be easily duplicated, skeptics
> greatly assist in the design of tests of paranormal claims.
My point being that he did *not* duplicate the effect, but rather
produced a much easier effect.
> The burden of demonstrating a paranormal claim is true falls on the
> claimant. Testing protocols must be agreed upon by both the claimant and
> those performing the test. To date, no one has been able to demonstrate
> a paranormal effect in a well designed test. No one.
I have no argument with that. I don't claim paranormal abilities
either for myself or for others. I merely point out that this video
wasn't a valid debunking of Herc's videos.
dev....@example.com
<bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
{snip}
>I have no argument with that. I don't claim paranormal abilities
>either for myself or for others. I merely point out that this video
>wasn't a valid debunking of Herc's videos.
Herc is a the best debunker of Herc's abilities. Is he still holding a
'break" in the pages of the books when he 'channels'? Does his finger
still wander as he seeks a phrase that he can convolute into meaning?
Ask him about "tuning up" with his mail box. It's a 50-50 proposition,
is he beating the law of large numbers?
Dakota
While I agree that the duplication was different than what appears in
Herc's videos, we cannot be sure that Herc hasn't very carefully
practiced the moves that appear to be spontaneous. He makes a statement,
opens a book and points. It is easy enough to cause a book to open to
the desired page. With a bit of practice, one can learn to point to a
desired section of that page. If Herc screws it up, he can try again
until he gets it right and post the successful attempt. If Herc truly
believed in his paranormal powers, he would readily submit to a
controlled test. It would be worth a quick million bucks if he could
pass the test.
Mike Duffy
news:BpmdnVL4yZM...@giganews.com:
> ... He makes a statement, opens a book and points.
> .. With a bit of practice, one can learn to point
> to a desired section of that page.
> If Herc screws it up, he can try again until he gets it
He doesn't even *need* to try for a particular section. All he needs to
do is repeat the entire procedure enough times until he finally
randomly selects an answer that matches his question.
He offered to try "reading" me by answering 3 true / false questions
about myself, with the provision that 3 must be true, and 3 must be
false.
When I asked for examples of the type of questions I am allowed to ask,
he never replied.
If you're still reading this, Herc, I'll post a dozen or so, and you
can pick the ones you want to answer. Are you game?